Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel–Syria security pact stumbles as Tel Aviv rejects withdrawal: Report

The Cradle | January 14, 2026

Israel has refused any withdrawal from Mount Hermon and the other areas of Syria it occupied after the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government, while rejecting Russian patrols in the country’s south and demanding that Damascus be prohibited from ever possessing air defenses, Hebrew media revealed.

“The Israeli position is clear and non-negotiable: there will be no withdrawal from Mount Hermon,” an Israeli official was cited as saying by Hebrew newspaper Maariv on 14 January.

According to the report, talks are stalling due to Damascus’s demand that a security agreement with Tel Aviv be linked to a withdrawal of Israeli army forces from Syria.

The Israeli report added that Tel Aviv is concerned with a Syrian attempt to re-establish a Russian military presence in southern Syria. Israel considers this move a direct threat to its “freedom of action,” Maariv claimed.

The source told the newspaper that Israel is obstructing plans to deploy Russian forces in southern Syria, and that Tel Aviv has conveyed to Damascus, Moscow, and Washington that it will not allow a Russian presence.

Russian media had reported last year that the Syrian government was requesting a resumption of Russian military patrols in the south in order to help limit continuous Israeli raids and incursions.

The sources add that Tel Aviv is following with concern reports that Damascus is hoping to purchase weapons from Russia and Turkiye.

“The Israeli message conveyed to all relevant parties [is that] Israel will not agree that in any future security arrangement, Syria will have strategic weapons, primarily advanced air defense systems and weapons that could change the regional balance of power,” according to Maariv.

“The Israeli goal is clear: freezing the existing situation – without an IDF withdrawal from Mount Hermon, without Syrian reinforcements, and without a foreign military presence that limits the IDF.”

In particular, Israel is demanding a complete demilitarization of southern Syria. “Israel’s security-strategic interest comes first. For now, Trump accepts this position.”

The report also says that the two rounds of Syrian–Israeli talks in Paris last week made “no breakthrough was achieved,” only a “limited understanding” for “the establishment of a coordination mechanism aimed at preventing clashes on the ground, with active US involvement.”

A joint statement by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Damascus on 6 January said that Syria and Israel have agreed to establish a US-supervised “joint fusion mechanism” to “share intelligence” and pursue de-escalation.

Damascus and Tel Aviv “reaffirm their commitment to strive toward achieving lasting security and stability arrangements for both countries,” the statement said, adding that they agreed to “establish a joint fusion mechanism – a dedicated communication cell.”

This mechanism aims “to facilitate immediate and ongoing coordination on their intelligence sharing, military de-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and commercial opportunities under the supervision of the US.”

“This mechanism will serve as a platform to address any disputes promptly and work to prevent misunderstandings,” according to the statement, published by the US State Department after the two rounds of Paris talks.

The Israeli army occupied large swathes of southern Syria as soon as Assad’s government fell, declaring the 1974 Disengagement Agreement null. It has since established permanent outposts and has seized control over vital water sources – practically encircling the Syrian capital.

The occupation continues to expand as Israeli forces carry out almost daily raids. In a span of one year, the Israeli army attacked Syria over 600 times.

Tel Aviv and the new Syrian government have been engaged in direct talks for nearly a year to reach a security arrangement. Damascus has vowed that it has no interest in confronting Israel and has reportedly made commitments to coordinate with Tel Aviv against Iran, Hezbollah, and the Axis of Resistance.

Despite this, Israel has shown no willingness to pull out of Syria.

Negotiations stalled for several weeks before Hebrew media reported in late December that “significant progress” had been made and that a deal could be announced “soon.”

A Syrian source told Israeli outlet i24 on 27 December that there was the possibility of a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Syria’s self-appointed President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda chief.

US President Donald Trump is reportedly pressuring both sides to reach a deal quickly.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | January 14, 2026

Despite the widespread expectation that President Donald Trump would end Washington’s entanglement in NATO’s proxy war using Ukraine against Russia, it is increasingly evident that the fundamental features of U.S. policy remain unaltered. Trump personally has sent an array of mixed signals about his intentions. Although he has pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept the reality that Kiev must be willing to make territorial concessions to Moscow in any peace accord, he also has been receptive to Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be given reliable “security guarantees” in such a settlement. Indeed, during the recent summit meeting between the two leaders, the main point of disagreement appeared to be that Zelensky wanted a commitment lasting fifty years, whereas Trump was prepared to offer only fifteen years.

Not only is Kiev insisting on a firm, detailed guarantee of protection, but also Ukraine’s European supporters in NATO are doing so. Worse, Trump seemed to sign onto a new 20-point “peace plan” being pushed by Zelensky and his European backers. Only Russia’s curt rejection of the scheme has so far prevented it from further consideration.

A potentially deadly snare lies in wait for the United States which our leaders must avoid at all costs. Throughout the years of the Ukraine crisis, most attention has focused on Kiev’s desire for formal membership in NATO and Russia’s repeated refusal to tolerate that option. Indeed, the principal cause of the current war was the clash between Russia and NATO regarding that issue.

However, the substantive issue has never been merely the prospect of Ukraine’s formal membership in NATO. Instead, the real threat to Russia’s security, from Moscow’s viewpoint, has been NATO’s attempt to turn Ukraine into a significant military asset for the alliance. It matters little whether that development occurs because of Kiev’s official membership in NATO or because of new, separate Western security guarantees.

Indeed, the ties would not have to be all that formal to constitute a dangerous provocation toward Moscow. Several NATO governments have repeatedly engaged in loose talk about sending their troops as “peacekeeping personnel” to Ukraine to enforce a settlement. Indeed, some of those countries appear willing to incur such a risky commitment to implement a mere “truce” between the feuding parties. Both Great Britain and France have stated that they intend to establish “military hubs” across Ukraine with their forces. In one of his more reckless, irresponsible moments, President Trump expressed his willingness to consider having the United States “backstop” such European efforts.

Washington must emphatically reject any attempted ploys of that nature. Even a paper security guarantee to Kiev would put any and all guarantor powers at risk. A decision to deploy so-called peacekeeping forces would be even worse. The Kremlin has made it emphatically clear that the presence of any troops by a NATO member in Ukraine is intolerable. Moscow likely would view a troop presence by NATO’s European contingent, much less the United States, as an existential threat to Russia’s security.

It would be folly for U.S. policymakers to rely excessively on the language contained in the North Atlantic Treaty to limit the danger of an undesirable military entanglement. Article 5 obliges NATO signatories to regard an act of aggression against any NATO member state as an attack against them all. The actual language regarding the obligation under Article 5, though, is so vague as to be meaningless, if a member seeks to evade taking serious action. The provision merely requires allies to render (undefined) assistance to the victim of aggression. Crucially, there is no commitment to launch military strikes against the alleged aggressor or to send troops into combat to aid the beleaguered ally. Merely providing logistical aid could fulfill a member’s obligation. The NATO countries that have sent weaponry or provided targeting and other intelligence data to Ukraine have easily met or exceeded any implied Article 5 obligation, even if Kiev had been a member of the alliance.

But in the real world, multiple NATO governments would seek to inflate the U.S. commitment under Article 5 to deepen Washington’s entanglement in the Alliance’s proxy war against Moscow. A pervasive myth persists in America and the rest of the world that the United States has an official treaty obligation to go to war if another NATO country comes under attack. Giving Ukraine a security guarantee would consolidate and strengthen that myth. In other words, U.S. leaders would find themselves under enormous pressure to launch a direct military intervention to support NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine regardless of the actual language contained in Article 5.

That is why any NATO troop presence in Ukraine, or any official security guarantee to Kiev, would be so dangerous. Given the enormous political and military pressures that would be coming from Kiev’s fan club throughout the West, it is highly improbable that U.S. leaders could avoid an armed clash with Russian forces merely by citing the limited, conditional language in Article 5. Legalistic quibbling is not the way events proceed when raw, wartime emotions are in play.

Trump administration officials need to spurn proposals for any alliance security guarantee to Ukraine, much less a deployment of NATO peacekeepers. Washington must emphatically reject schemes that would include a U.S. military presence of any size or nature in Ukraine. President Trump’s casual musings about supporting a NATO peacekeeping contingent not only are irresponsible, but also constitute a betrayal of his political supporters in the last election. They believed that their candidate was committed to extricating the United States from an unnecessary and debilitating geopolitical venture. Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears to be on course to disappoint advocates of a more prudent U.S. foreign policy yet again.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Italy and the drone that isn’t there

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 14, 2026

Damn: it was all so well orchestrated that it seemed authentic. But no. The story of Russian drones flying over Italy – and in particular the Joint Research Center (JRC) in Ispra – has been revealed for what it was: a grotesque fabrication, devoid of any real basis. Sergio Barlocchetti had already written about the absurdity of it all, well in advance, in Dronezine Magazine (issue 66). Now comes the official confirmation: the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office has asked the investigating magistrate to close the investigation into serious allegations ranging from political and military espionage to terrorism and subversion.

To tell the truth, we Italians were never particularly impressed by this narrative of Russian ‘hybrid attacks’, with Moscow invading Europe inch by inch with drones that were never identified or shot down. But then the so-called Drone Zero entered the scene, the progenitor of all drones, naturally sent by Putin directly to Italy. In the spring, according to reconstructions, the powerful security system of the JRC in Ispra – apparently more vigilant than Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas – intercepted it repeatedly: nine times between March 20 and April 14 and thirteen times between April 16 and May 27. What was the purpose of its presence? According to the media and television news, the aircraft was spying with ill-concealed eagerness on both the European Union laboratories and Leonardo’s helicopter unit, the pride of the national military industry, located nearby.

Some newspapers even went so far as to describe its technical characteristics: Russian production, night-time filming capability, high-precision three-dimensional mapping. Others evoked the specter of “hybrid warfare,” Moscow intelligence activities, and even suspicious pro-Russian presence in the Varese area. The situation was so serious that the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a file for espionage, terrorism, and attacks on transport security. Some people even alerted their tattoo artists.

Then, however, reality knocked on the door. Technical checks revealed that the sophisticated anti-drone system suffered from structural limitations: software that could not withstand continuous use, decoding errors, and incorrect classifications. The ‘Russian drone’ turned out to be a simple phantom signal, generated by a GSM amplifier purchased on Amazon by a local family to improve cell phone reception. There was nothing in the sky above Ispra and Vergagliate, no drone, no Russia, no conspiracy.

The narratives about alleged Russian drones flying over Italian skies can be interpreted as part of a broader hybrid communication strategy, fitting into a media and political ecosystem in which the Atlantic Alliance and various European governments use the frame of the Russian threat – including the drone dimension – to strengthen internal consensus and legitimize rearmament and a posture of deterrence towards the East.

The Ispra case is truly emblematic and shows how mainstream media and institutional actors have constructed an emergency narrative of Russian “hybrid warfare” in the absence of solid technical evidence; a narrative that has been amplified by alarmist headlines, talk shows, and social networks, contributing to the consolidation of a negative image of Russia in public opinion, shifting the emotional center of gravity from rational debate to fear.

On a strategic-communicative level, this climate of perception serves three objectives: to promote acceptance of NATO programs to strengthen anti-drone defense and increase military spending; to reduce the legitimacy of positions critical of Atlantic policies, which are easily labeled as “pro-Russian”; consolidating a dichotomous friend/enemy frame in which Moscow is the threatening Other, and NATO-integrated Europe is the defensive and ‘rational’ subject.

These are fairy tales that are no longer even good enough for children. These Russians who fight wars with washing machines and horses, as Italian newspapers report, but who are capable of sending drones to disturb the naps of the average Italian in upper Lombardy, are not to blame this time. Maybe next time for the next fake news story!

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment