China to launch regular shipping to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route – Rosatom
RT | August 8, 2026
China will launch regular container shipping to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) this month, with eight voyages planned through October, Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev has said.
The Arctic shipping route runs mostly through Russia’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone and relies on Russian port infrastructure and icebreaker fleet. Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, is principally responsible for the route’s development.
Chinese firm Sealegend Shipping sent its first freight shipment through the waterway to Felixstowe Port in England late last year, making the voyage in 20 days. A voyage via the Suez Canal would have taken around 37 days, Likhachev told reporters on Friday.
“Today, we are taking the next step. The Chinese shipping company Sealegend Shipping is indeed planning to launch the first regular route to Europe, and Rosatom has already issued permits for seven vessels to transit the NSR,” the Rosatom CEO said.
While prior container shipments were largely experimental or one-off in nature, this year’s program envisions weekly voyages from August to October, ice conditions permitting, he said.
The growing demand for shipping through the NSR comes amid a “permanently difficult situation” in the Persian Gulf, he said. The Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries around a quarter of seaborne oil and LNG trade, has remained largely closed since the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.
According to Likhachev, Chinese container traffic via the NSR has grown markedly in recent years, more than tripling from 2023 to 2025. Today, bilateral shipping between Chinese and Russian ports makes up 15% of all traffic through the passage. Total cargo traffic between Russia and China is expected to reach 20 million tons by 2030, he added.
India and Russia are also working to finalize a pact on maritime cargo cooperation along the NSR.
The Arctic shipping route remains the shortest maritime passage between the Asia-Pacific region and northern Europe. Russia, which operates the world’s largest icebreaker fleet of more than 40 conventional and nuclear vessels, is investing in the NSR with the aim of making it a pivotal global trade artery.
The route’s significance as “the safest, most reliable, and most efficient” path is growing more evident amid disruptions caused by conflicts around the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier this year, adding that Moscow is working to strengthen Arctic logistics on a “massive scale.”
When the coloniser calls resistance terrorism
By Sayid Marcos Tenorio | MEMO | August 8, 2026
Throughout history, almost every national liberation struggle has been labelled “terrorism” by the powers exercising colonial rule or foreign occupation. This strategy is nothing new.
The British Empire branded IRA fighters in Ireland and EOKA guerrillas in Cyprus as terrorists. France portrayed Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) as a criminal organisation. The same happened to the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) in Namibia, and even Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC).
History, however, vindicated these movements and condemned the colonial regimes that sought to perpetuate their domination.
This pattern reveals a constant: those who occupy a territory seek to strip the occupied people of any legitimacy to resist.
The dehumanisation of resistance is a colonial strategy. By labelling every resistance fighter a “terrorist”, attention is shifted away from illegal occupation, apartheid and the denial of self-determination, and redirected towards the reaction of the occupied people.
This narrative, however, encounters clear limits within international law itself.
From the United Nations Charter to Resolution 1514 (XV) on decolonisation and Resolution 2625 (XXV), which reaffirms the principle of peoples’ self-determination, the understanding has been consolidated that peoples subjected to colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes have the right to struggle for their liberation.
Several subsequent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly recognised the legitimacy of national liberation movements and acknowledged that such resistance may take the form of armed struggle, provided that it remains subject to the rules of international humanitarian law.
This is precisely why the international community has never automatically equated national liberation movements with terrorist organisations.
International humanitarian law regulates the manner in which armed conflicts must be conducted and imposes obligations on all belligerents, including resistance movements.
However, it does not eliminate the political and legal right of a people to resist occupation. Confusing these two dimensions serves only the interests of occupying powers, because it transforms a conflict of a political and legal nature into a mere policing matter.
The history of the so-called “State of Israel” itself exposes this contradiction.
Before 1948, Irgun and Lehi were regarded as terrorist organisations by the British government because of attacks such as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the assassination of UN mediator Folke Bernadotte.
Years later, their leaders reached the highest levels of government, and Menachem Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize. This demonstrates that the label “terrorist” often reflects political circumstances more than any permanent legal definition.
In the contemporary context, this debate remains highly relevant. Palestine continues to be recognised by the United Nations as a territory under occupation, while Western Sahara remains on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, awaiting the fulfilment of its people’s right to self-determination.
In this context, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which emerged during the First Intifada, and the Polisario Front, recognised by the United Nations as the representative of the Sahrawi people in the Western Sahara peace process, belong to the historical tradition of national liberation movements.
As with South Africa’s ANC, Algeria’s FLN, Namibia’s SWAPO, Mozambique’s FRELIMO and many other movements, both base their struggle on their peoples’ claim to the right of self-determination in the face of occupation or foreign domination.
This does not mean that every military action carried out by resistance organisations is automatically legitimate under international law.
The rules of international humanitarian law apply to all parties to a conflict and prohibit deliberate attacks against civilians, regardless of the cause being defended.
However, possible violations of these rules do not, in themselves, invalidate the legal legitimacy of the struggle for self-determination, nor do they automatically transform a national liberation movement into a terrorist organisation under international law. These are distinct questions, frequently conflated for political convenience.
There is no colonialism without resistance. There never has been.
The French Resistance against Nazi occupation, Vietnamese guerrillas, Algerian fighters, South Africans who confronted apartheid, African liberation movements, the Polisario Front and the Palestinian resistance all demonstrate that no people will indefinitely accept the loss of their land, sovereignty and dignity.
The real question, therefore, is not why resistance exists.
The question the world should be asking is why military occupations, colonial processes and regimes that deny entire peoples the right to determine their own destiny continue to exist.
As long as there is colonisation, apartheid, illegal annexation and denial of self-determination, there will be armed resistance movements.
And international law, despite political pressure and attempts to criminalise liberation movements, continues to uphold the fundamental principle that the freedom of peoples is not an act of terrorism, but a fundamental right of humanity.
Bipartisan Senate bill ties LAF funding to Hezbollah disarmament
Al Mayadeen | August 8, 2026
US Senators Jeanne Shaheen and James Lankford introduced legislation late on Thursday authorizing $1.2 billion in security assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces over five years, with the funding structured around a condition that the Lebanese state actively disarms Hezbollah and enforces a state monopoly on weapons.
The bill sets an annual allocation of $240 million, including $200 million through Foreign Military Financing. Up to half of that amount would be withheld until the US Secretary of State certifies that Lebanon has met the disarmament and weapons monopoly conditions, though LAF special operations units and associated enabling forces are exempted from the freeze.
The legislation also authorizes sanctions, including asset blocks, financial restrictions and visa bans, against foreign persons who support Iran’s financing of Hezbollah or who obstruct the Lebanese state’s disarmament efforts.
A separate reconstruction fund under the bill, administered by the State Department, would rebuild government services, municipal institutions and civilian infrastructure. It explicitly bars funds from reaching the Council for South Lebanon, the state body with the most experience in building and rebuilding infrastructure in the South.
Sovereignty conditioned on US certification
Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that Lebanon has “a real chance to reclaim its sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah and break free from Iran’s malign influence” with US support. Lankford said a “sovereign Lebanon protects Lebanese, Israeli, and American citizens living in the region.”
Despite its alleged aim of restoring Lebanese sovereignty, the bill gives the US Secretary of State, rather than the Lebanese government or LAF command, the authority to assess the Lebanese Armed Forces’ performance. It also leaves the definition of who qualifies as “obstructing” disarmament, and therefore subject to sanctions, to the same US determination.
Both sponsors have received financial support from pro-“Israel” PACs over their careers. OpenSecrets records $574,295 in career contributions to Shaheen and $365,560 to Lankford from PACs and individuals in its broad pro-“Israel” donor category, which spans AIPAC alongside J Street, NORPAC, Pro-Israel America and other groups; a separate tracker counts $284,002 in pro-“Israel” PAC contributions to Shaheen since 2016, more than three-quarters of it from J Street PAC.
Not a marginal movement
The bill, like the broader US disarmament push it builds on, treats Hezbollah as a foreign-directed militia to be dismantled rather than as an outgrowth of Lebanon’s own political and social fabric.
Hezbollah holds seats in parliament and remains one of Lebanon’s largest political and social organizations, with a base that extends well beyond an armed wing.
Its financial institution, Al-Qard Al-Hassan, continued paying out depositors through Lebanon’s 2019 banking collapse, when commercial banks froze accounts and locked account holders out of their own savings. The group also runs hospitals, clinics and schools concentrated in the South and Bekaa, areas that have received limited investment from the Lebanese state for decades.
Hezbollah is a symptom of both an expansionist settler-colonial project on Lebanon’s southern border and a Lebanese state that has never built a national defense strategy capable of securing the South on its own. It emerged directly from “Israel’s” 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the nearly two-decade occupation of the South that followed, and the group has framed its arsenal since as a deterrent against a state that has invaded Lebanon repeatedly and continues to occupy Lebanese territory and attack areas of the South under the current ceasefire.
A fraction of what ‘Israel’ receives
US funding to the LAF has fluctuated between roughly $200 million and $285 million annually in recent years, following a $230 million package approved in late 2025.
The pending FY2027 defense authorization draft in the Senate would cut that to $36 million, tied to a stricter recertification process every 90 days. A separate House bill, the PAGER Act, would cut off all LAF funding entirely pending eight conditions, including the delegitimization of Hezbollah, Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc and Amal as political parties; it remains stalled without a floor vote.
By comparison, the Israeli regime receives $3.8 billion annually in US military financing under its current ten-year agreement, plus $21.7 billion in supplemental funding since October 2023, with none of the equipment restrictions applied to Lebanon.
Egypt and Jordan each receive over $1 billion a year under multi-year agreements that provide budget predictability the LAF has never had.
The gap traces to the Qualitative Military Edge doctrine, codified into US law in 2008, which requires that any US arms sale to a regional state other than “Israel” include a formal determination that the sale will not erode “Israel’s” military superiority over its neighbors.
In practice, the LAF has never received air defense systems, advanced anti-tank weapons, or offensive strike platforms, regardless of the threat Lebanon faces on its southern border. The new bill does not alter that restriction.
Turkiye restricts Black Sea traffic as drone attacks on commercial vessels spike
The Cradle | August 8, 2026
Turkiye has begun restricting commercial ship traffic into the Black Sea amid a surge in Russian and Ukrainian attacks on civilian vessels, Bloomberg reported on 8 August.
Turkiye’s Directorate General of Coastal Safety has informed several ships heading to Novorossiysk, an important Russian oil and grain export port, that it is not issuing transit permits at this time and requires more time to review passage applications through the Dardanelles.
The sources told Bloomberg that Turkish authorities had provided no explanation for the move. Some vessels have also reportedly been told that the restriction applies to ships heading to Ukraine.
The report comes after a series of drone attacks targeting Turkish commercial vessels operating in the Black Sea and near Russian ports in recent months.
On Friday, a Turkish-flagged vessel, the MV Gulluk, was struck by a drone off the Russian port of Novorossiysk. Although the drone hit the ship’s living quarters, no crew members were reported injured or killed.
On 3 August, the Ro-Ro cargo vessel Nadezhda was struck by a drone about 20 nautical miles off Novorossiysk while en route from the Russian port to Samsun. Three members of the ship’s crew were injured and in serious condition after the attack.
The same day, two civilian vessels, the Yasar and the Nadezhda, were attacked after leaving Novorossiysk.
In response, Turkiye’s Foreign Minister issued a statement saying it was “deeply concerned about the escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea, which is affecting civilian shipping despite our numerous warnings.”
“Unless preventive measures are taken, the escalation in the Black Sea will have multifaceted negative repercussions, including for food security,” the statement added.
Ukraine’s targeting of ships in the Black Sea, as well as Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian port infrastructure and vessels, have threatened grain exports from both countries, pushing wheat prices to a two-year high in July.
“Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, and Ukraine is known as Europe’s breadbasket, while mutual attacks between the two countries are putting pressure on maritime transport in the region during the harvest season,” Anadolu Agency reported.
Global food prices already spiked as a result of soaring energy prices following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf earlier this year.
Iran closed the strait in response to the US-Israel war of aggression, disrupting oil and natural gas exports from the Gulf countries partnering with the US and Israel in the war.
Global fuel prices have also risen in response to Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries.
On Saturday, a Ukrainian drone targeted the Ilsky oil refinery in Russia’s southern Krasnodar region, causing it to catch fire.
Ukraine’s general staff said the Ukrainian military also hit the Syzran oil refinery in the Samara region of Russia overnight, causing a fire there as well.
The Ilsky refinery can process over 6 million metric tons of oil per year, while the Syzran refinery has a processing capacity of 8.5 million tons annually.
In May, Reuters estimated that disruptions associated with the wars between the US and Iran and between Russia and Ukraine together had knocked out nearly 9 percent of global refining capacity.
Let them eat burritos: Out of touch influencers risk all for Trump war
Republicans on pro-war autopilot are mocking Americans who are concerned about rising prices. Not a good look ahead of the midterms.
By Jack Hunter | Responsible Statecraft | August 8, 2026
As the 2026 midterm elections near, polls show American voters’ top priority is the economy, including concerns that the unpopular U.S. war in Iran appears to be driving up prices at home.
Might these voter concerns give Republican hawks pause?
Apparently not.
“If we can’t handle four dollar oil for a period of months in order to disarm Iran of a nuclear weapon then we are not a superpower anymore,” former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen told Fox News last week.
One of the biggest pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress had a similar message. “As much as it stinks to pay an extra dollar for a gallon of gas… think about the damage of a nuclear bomb going off in Washington, or New York, or Miami,” Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Monday on News Nation.
Surely some of these Republicans would recognize that fear of inflation combined with growing opposition to the war could hurt their party come November — that maybe an adjustment in language and tone is in order?
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) gets it. Sort of. He wants to keep prices down for Americans but thinks the only way to do that is to bomb the hell out of Iran for “two to three weeks” to get the Hormuz Strait open. He says the Iranians cannot be trusted to broker a deal without military force, so why not keep doing what hasn’t worked yet over the last five months?
Others are leaning hard into the notion that higher prices are just “fake news” — no doubt in hopes that repeating that enough will just make the problem go away.
The Iran war “has had basically no impact on food prices in the US,” declared The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro on Wednesday, seemingly responding to what writer Sohrab Ahmari is calling the “great American burrito debate” on social media over the current cost of food and how that might relate to the current cost of war.
Ahmari’s essay notes that, to Cotton’s point about Hormuz and prices, “even though the United States is the world’s chief net energy exporter, the supply squeeze in the Strait of Hormuz puts inflationary pressure on gas prices in America. And it’s not just gas prices which are affected, but those in many other sectors, too — from transportation to agriculture to restaurants and hospitality.”
In addition to rising prices, new data released Friday showed that 23,000 jobs were lost in July, an unexpected number for economists. All eyes are on the new inflation figures to be released this upcoming week. In May, it rose to 4.2%, the highest since 2023 and relaxed in June to 3.5%.
Never to be left out, regime change maven and Fox News host Mark Levin on Sunday urged Donald Trump to attack Kharg Island to bring Iranians “to their knees” and not to worry about sparking “a worldwide depression and so on. It won’t happen!”
Trump seemed to share the same reality-detached hopefulness, proclaiming on Monday that, “Now, US is the King of OIL!” The president shared a chart showing U.S. “oil exports [surging] to historic high!” He is likely hoping that his audience won’t read up on the subject and find that it doesn’t matter how much the U.S. produces; it won’t affect current gas prices at the pump today.
One time MAGA-darling turned Trump critic, former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, wasn’t having it. She called out the president on what Americans are actually experiencing.
“The national price of gas is $4.10 and diesel is $5.36. Your illegal senseless war on Iran is crushing the very people that voted to end foreign wars, lower inflation, and lower the price of gas,” Greene said on X.
Trump even went so far as to suggest that greedy energy companies might be to blame, saying at the Oval Office this week that Chevron and Exxon Mobil are making “too much money,” amid the war. “I don’t like it… They ought to give some of that back to the public,” he said, according to C-SPAN
The Independent’s Eric Garcia couldn’t help but notice that Trump sounded like Democrats complaining about “greedflation” under President Joe Biden.
None of this appears to be fooling voters, including Republicans.
On Tuesday, CNN pollster Harry Enten rattled off some of Donald Trump’s approval numbers among moderate Republicans. “On Iran, he’s six points underwater within his own party. Within his own party! You think that’s low? (He’s) about 17 points underwater on inflation.”
“Inflation was the name of the game with the economy back in 2024,” Enten noted. “If I am a Republican running for Congress in those swing districts, I need those moderate Republicans, and they are leaving Donald Trump, and they may be leaving those Republican candidates as well.”
The New York Times suggested on Tuesday that the war was undermining Trump’s presidency. “The war in Iran, along with a cycle of threats and walk-backs, has upended President Trump’s domestic agenda at a dire political moment. Americans are facing rising gas prices.”
It went on to cite the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, which found that 60% of voters opposed military action against Iran, “a slight uptick since May.” Furthermore, a recent CNN/SSRS poll found that 74% of Americans — including about 43% of Republicans — said the war was not “worth the cost in terms of the financial burden or American casualties,” the paper noted.
While some hawks are doing mental gymnastics to say war costs and domestic affordability are unrelated, other conservatives have told them to knock it off and course correct.
The Daily’s Wire’s Matt Walsh shared an X post on Monday that at the time of this writing had 4.4 million views and climbing.
“Grocery prices are insane. They’re still rising. Addressing this problem should be the number one priority of every elected leader,” Walsh wrote. “End the stupid foreign wars and focus on this issue.”
In response, Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet tried to downplay current inflation as “hangover from Covid and Biden-era inflation,” but also quoted one of his TPUSA college students bemoaning that, “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”
The forever-hawkish Marc Thiessen was back again, completely dismissive. “Cry me a river. The burritos in the college cafeteria are included in your meal plan.”
Add to that Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) who recently lost his primary by double digits. “Stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen like the rest of us did in college, on a budget with 4 roommates. The market does not care what you think something should cost,” he posted. To which conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky responded: “Can’t understand why you lost your re-election.”
Hence the foreign policy-inflation-driven-burrito-cost debate that is probably still raging on X and that Ahmari insists “the neocons are losing.” He might be right.
No matter how much hawks doth protest, there are costs to any war, often including affordability.
Iran war defenders pretending otherwise is just something reality won’t afford them.
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us. Jack has written regularly for Modern Age, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The American Conservative, Spectator USA and has appeared in Politico Magazine and The Daily Beast. Hunter is the co-author of the The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Sen. Rand Paul.
Musk blocks Ukraine from using Starlink for deep strikes in Russia – Atlantic
RT | August 8, 2026
Elon Musk has refused to allow Ukraine to use his Starlink satellite internet service to guide drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, The Atlantic reported on Friday, citing two close allies of former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov.
According to the publication, Fedorov, a tech-savvy promoter of drone warfare who was sacked from his position last month, has since been working through back channels to appeal to Musk, but the billionaire has so far refused to relent.
“As of this moment, there is no positive decision,” a Fedorov ally was quoted as saying. “Elon keeps saying it’s time to make a deal,” the source added.
The Atlantic previously reported that during his visit to the US last month, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky asked President Donald Trump to help influence his close ally Musk on the matter, but Trump remained noncommittal.
Musk began donating tens of thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine shortly after its conflict with Russia broke out in February 2022. However, he soon began clashing with Ukrainian officials as he urged them to focus on reaching a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev and repeatedly warned that the conflict could lead to “World War III.”
In 2023, the entrepreneur confirmed reports that he had rejected Ukraine’s request to use Starlink for attacks on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and naval bases in Crimea. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,” he said at the time.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month that Musk should shut down Starlink in Ukraine altogether if he truly wanted “people to stop dying.”
Musk’s reported position represents a second major blow to Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts after Trump walked back an earlier promise to grant Kiev a license to produce Patriot air defense missiles and rebuffed a plea to deliver more interceptors. Zelensky and the Ukrainian military said this week that the country was struggling to fend off Russian strikes on Kiev and other cities.
Zelensky’s abrupt decision to sack Fedorov sparked street protests across Ukraine, with crowds and several prominent activists demanding his reinstatement. Zelensky responded to the public outrage by firing the country’s top commander, General Aleksandr Syrsky, with whom Fedorov had reportedly clashed over priorities and tactics.
