Syrian prisoners: A ticking bomb between Beirut and Damascus?
By Mohamad Shamse Eddine | The Cradle | July 23, 2025
A political storm is gathering over a long-festering crisis in Lebanon’s prisons: more than 2,000 Syrians, many detained without charge or trial, remain locked away in overcrowded and crumbling facilities.
The worsening humanitarian conditions are no longer just a domestic issue. It has morphed into a potent diplomatic flashpoint between Beirut and the new interim government in Damascus, with the latter signaling it will not tolerate further delay in resolving the status of its citizens.
The spark came from a Syria TV report quoting an official from the administration of interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), who stated that Damascus is “mulling gradual escalation choices against Lebanon,” starting with the freezing of some security and economic channels if the detainee issue remains unresolved.
Official denials followed, but the message had already landed in Beirut. The prisoner file, dormant for years, is now wide open—and loaded with political implications that stretch far beyond the bars of Lebanon’s Roumieh Prison.
This comes as the Lebanese judiciary teeters on the verge of collapse and its prisons edge into crisis. At the same time, a transformed Syrian state under Sharaa’s Al-Qaeda-rooted administration is recalibrating its regional footing following years of civil war, western isolation, and struggles to assert sovereignty.
Damascus frames the detainee issue as a humanitarian one. However, political observers in Beirut view it as a strategic lever, part of a broader power play unfolding at a time when Lebanon faces internal divisions and competition between Turkiye and Saudi Arabia over influence within its Sunni community.
The detainees also represent more than individual cases—they are a legacy of the previous Syrian order, and a test for Lebanon’s ability to deal with the political costs of its judicial dysfunction.
Who are the detainees?
The Syrian prisoners in Lebanon fall into three categories. First, the political detainees: Syrians imprisoned over the past decade for joining militant factions like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) or the UN-designated terrorist Nusra Front – or for speaking out against the former Syrian government.
Most were never formally charged. Now, with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gone and a new government in Damascus, these individuals are being recast not as enemies but as participants in a national cause. Their return is being framed by Damascus as part of Syria’s internal reconciliation process.
Second are the jihadist-linked detainees. These prisoners are accused of ties to terror groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Some have faced trial, but many continue to be held without verdicts. Legal definitions of terrorism vary significantly between Beirut and Damascus, complicating any coordinated legal handling.
The lack of evidence in many cases has raised questions about the fairness of prolonged detentions, especially in the absence of transparent legal standards or international oversight.
Third are the criminal offenders: Syrians charged with routine crimes like theft or smuggling. In theory, they fall under Lebanon’s legal system like any foreign national. In practice, a broken judiciary and Kafkaesque bureaucracy have left many in legal limbo, detained for years without resolution.
What unites all three groups is Lebanon’s failure to classify or process their cases adequately. Without access to lawyers, interpreters, or diplomatic support, most Syrian detainees are effectively voiceless and invisible. According to legal advocates, some have waited up to seven years for a single court appearance.
Damascus’ extrajudicial demands
The names requested by Damascus include figures deeply linked to past violence on Lebanese soil. Salafi preacher Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, sentenced in connection with the 2013 Abra clashes that left several Lebanese army soldiers dead, is among them. His case is closed under Lebanese law, so his inclusion signals political calculation, not legal necessity.
Also on the list are Sheikh Omar al-Atrash and Naeem Abbas, both tied to Al-Qaeda’s operations in Lebanon and implicated in the 2013 bombings in Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh. Their convictions are firm. Their extradition, if attempted, would ignite a political firestorm.
Damascus is not seeking the return of petty criminals. It aims to influence what it considers political actors tied to the Syrian conflict—individuals it now views as part of its national narrative. Beirut, however, sees potential manipulation.
Syrian sources inform The Cradle that any returnees would undergo formal security and judicial oversight. But victims’ families fear the deals may serve regional interests, not justice. The Lebanese judiciary, lacking independence and burdened by years of foreign and sectarian interference, offers little public confidence.
Roumieh: A prison on the brink
Roumieh Prison was built to house 1,500 inmates. It currently holds over 4,000, including hundreds of Syrians. Many have been held without charges. Conditions in the Islamist wing, “Block B,” are dire—overcrowded, unsanitary, and deprived of basic medical and psychological care.
In February, more than 100 Syrian detainees began a two-week hunger strike. The protest followed months of inaction on promised reforms, including improved legal access and prison conditions. Security officials acknowledge the risk that unrest could escalate into a full-blown revolt, especially as external actors view the prison crisis as an opportunity to stir instability. Lebanese security sources warn that militant groups could exploit grievances inside Roumieh, turning a detention center into a flashpoint for wider conflict.
No legal architecture
Despite the gravity of the issue, there is no formal prisoner exchange treaty between Lebanon and Syria. An older extradition agreement remains on paper, but it does not cover sentenced prisoners. Lebanese law bars deportation unless a detainee has received a final verdict—and even then, not for crimes committed on Lebanese soil with Lebanese victims.
This legal grey zone explains why detainees like Abbas and Atrash remain in Lebanon, at least for now. However, a new judicial agreement is reportedly being negotiated between the justice ministries in Beirut and Damascus that may allow the repatriation of 370 convicted Syrians.
Lebanese judicial sources tell The Cradle that the draft agreement includes provisions for sentence continuation and post-transfer monitoring, but faces political opposition from factions aligned with western interests.
While Damascus demands its citizens back, Lebanon is silent on its nationals imprisoned in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-run detention camps in northeast Syria. Hundreds of Lebanese citizens—many detained alongside their families—languish there without trial, without consular access, and without official advocacy. Some have been held since 2019, captured during the final battles against ISIS.
This silence exposes Lebanon’s deeper dysfunction. Its institutions are too eroded to defend their own citizens, let alone negotiate a reciprocal deal with a fragile state like Syria, which now speaks from a position of renewed regional assertiveness. The contradiction is glaring: Beirut is expected to process Syrian cases with care, while ignoring its nationals trapped in US-backed detention zones under the SDF.
Is a deal possible?
Senior political sources tell The Cradle that Beirut may begin by releasing detainees with no political baggage, setting the stage for a broader settlement. This would allow both states to test the waters while avoiding immediate controversy. Some Lebanese officials argue this phased approach could also reduce overcrowding in prisons like Roumieh, while fulfilling Syria’s minimal expectations.
But any lasting resolution requires more than tactical moves. It demands a sweeping overhaul of Lebanon’s judicial architecture, the depoliticization of its detention policies, and a binding bilateral framework. Damascus, for its part, will have to offer clear guarantees that repatriated detainees are not used to settle old scores but reintegrated into a legal system that reflects its new political reality.
Until then, Lebanon’s prisons will remain overstuffed, its judiciary paralyzed, and the Syrian detainee file unresolved—exposing the unfinished reckoning between two states still mired in the legacies of occupation, war, and political dependency.
‘Peacemaker’ Trump beats Biden’s bombing record since return to office: Report
The Cradle | July 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump has ordered hundreds of airstrikes across West Asia and Africa since his return to office, carrying out more attacks in the first five months of his second term than former president Joe Biden did during his entire presidency, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).
“In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US airstrikes (529) as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration (555),” said ACLED President Clionadh Raleigh.
Among the countries bombed by Trump are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The majority of strikes were carried out against Yemen.
“The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn’t about geography – it’s about frequency,” Raleigh added.
The surge in attacks contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, which framed him as “anti-war.”
In March this year, Trump renewed the Biden government’s campaign against Yemen with much greater intensity.
Months of brutal and deadly attacks struck the country in response to the Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) naval operations against Israeli interests and its missile and drone strikes in support of Palestine.
Yemeni forces consistently responded to US attacks by targeting US warships in the Red Sea, during both Biden and Trump’s terms.
A ceasefire between Sanaa and Washington was reached in May, after the US campaign burned through munitions and failed to impact Yemeni military capabilities significantly.
However, the campaign took a heavy toll on civilians and compounded the humanitarian crisis the country has faced due to over a decade of war.
An investigation released by Airwars last month revealed that Trump’s war on Yemen killed almost as many civilians in less than two months as in the last 23 years of Washington’s military action in the country combined.
“In the period between the first recorded US strike in Yemen to the beginning of Trump’s campaign in March, at least 258 civilians were allegedly killed by US actions. In less than two months of Operation Rough Rider … at least 224 civilians in Yemen [were] killed by US airstrikes – nearly doubling the civilian casualty toll in Yemen by US actions since 2002,” it said.
In Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, Trump has also continued to strike what Washington says are ISIS and Al-Shabab targets.
Despite vowing to end “forever wars,” Trump has recently threatened to expand them.
On 22 July, the US president threatened to launch new attacks on Iran, after late June bunker-buster strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities which were carried out on behalf of Israel.
Iranian Navy helicopter intercepts US destroyer in Sea of Oman
Press TV – July 23, 2025
An Iranian Navy helicopter has intercepted the US destroyer USS Fitzgerald in the Sea of Oman, issuing warning signals and ultimately forcing the American vessel to alter its course southward.
According to a statement from Iran’s military, the US warship approached waters monitored by Iran, prompting a rapid-reaction helicopter from the Third Naval Region of the Iranian Army’s Navy (NEDAJA) to deploy.
The helicopter hovered over the destroyer and delivered a clear radio warning to steer clear of Iranian-monitored waters.
In the ensuing standoff, the crew of the USS Fitzgerald threatened to engage the helicopter if it remained in proximity.
Iran’s Army Air Defense Command then intervened, declaring the helicopter under full air defense protection and ordering the American destroyer to change its course.
According to the statement, the USS Fitzgerald complied, heading south away from the disputed area.
The US military has not issued a public statement on the incident, which unfolded amid elevated tensions in the Persian Gulf following the recent US-Israeli war on Iran.
Iranian and US naval forces have had a long history of encounters in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz since the 1980s.
In 2019, Iran shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk drone near the Strait of Hormuz due to airspace violation.
The Iranian Navy frequently conducts large-scale drills in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, showcasing its capabilities and signaling deterrence against foreign powers.
US congresswoman labels Zelensky ‘dictator’
RT | July 23, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts.
Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general.
Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava.
“Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”
Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House.
“He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”
Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.
Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.”
Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.
US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February.
Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.
Western media admits humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | July 23, 2025
Western media is finally admitting that Ukraine is lying about its official casualty figures. A recent article published by Le Monde revealed that there is ample evidence that military casualties in Ukraine are much higher than official figures indicate, given the growing demand for cemetery space for new burials.
According to Le Monde, all cemetery areas in Ukraine reserved for soldiers are already fully occupied. The overload is forcing authorities to use common cemetery space, which is normally reserved for civilians, as well as to establish various projects to expand current cemeteries and create new ones. The demand for burial space is enormous as more and more dead bodies arrive from the front lines.
“Sections reserved for soldiers are at capacity. Across the country, teams of architects have been working on memorials that reflect not only the scale of the ongoing carnage but also the evolving ideas about national identity,” the article reads.
The journalists interviewed several local Ukrainian architects involved in cemetery construction. Currently, this is one of the country’s main demands, with projects in several regions to build cemeteries exclusively for the burial of soldiers killed on the battlefield. The new cemeteries being built are truly large, with space for approximately ten thousand dead or more. This is consistent with a growing number of casualties, revealing a contradiction between this and the official data published by the Ukrainian government.
The article describes one of the projects, commenting on a cemetery being built along the highway connecting Kiev to Odessa. The project is said to be particularly sensitive, considering that the cemetery will destroy rural communities in the region, causing environmental problems such as deforestation.
“It’s a sandy track, well-hidden among the pines, off the highway connecting Kiev to Odesa in the Hatne region. (…) This is the highway exit that will serve as Ukraine’s future national military memorial cemetery. The project is enormous, highly sensitive and not just because environmental activists and residents of the small village of Markhalivka – 40 kilometers from the capital, but right at the base of the future cemetery – worry about deforestation and the loss of their rural quiet. In the village, only a new brown sign, the color used to mark national sites, marks the road that leads trucks to the site. It reads in English: ‘National Military Memorial Cemetery.’ The first section, designed to hold 10,000 graves and already laid out with broad granite paths, benches and lime trees, is due to receive its first burial this summer. But in the long term, ‘130,000 or even 160,000’ people will be laid to rest at this future burial ground, explained architect Serhi Derbin,” the text adds.
The scale of these cemeteries contrasts sharply with Kiev’s repeated claims of minimal losses, exposing a growing gap between official discourse and the physical reality of war. While government spokespeople continue to insist on controlled casualty rates, the magnitude of the planned cemeteries suggests a conflict with a much greater human cost. The death toll clearly highlights the Kiev regime’s absolute military bankruptcy. There is no way a country can maintain this level of casualties and continue to have “control” over the military situation. If casualties continue at this level, there will soon simply no longer be enough people to fight in the ranks of the neo-Nazi regime.
As is the case in every conflict situation around the world, both sides avoid publishing their real figures. However, there is abundant evidence of the humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine. For example, there have recently been several rounds of body swaps. The difference in numbers was alarming, with a few hundred Russians bodies compared to thousands of Ukrainians. This, combined with information about cemeteries, shows that there are undoubtedly many more Ukrainians dead than Russians—a vital information for assessing which side will win this war.
Until recently, Western media was complicit in hiding the Ukrainian reality. However, the situation has reached an unsustainable point. No one believes narratives like “military stalemate” or “Russian failure” anymore. It’s clear to everyone that the Ukrainian military crisis is irreversible and that Kiev has no future in this conflict. So, to maintain credibility, Western outlets are gradually beginning to admit that the situation in Ukraine is catastrophic.
What these newspapers fail to admit, however, is that the cause of this tragedy is the Kiev regime’s irrational insistence on continuing to fight an unwinnable war. To stop hostilities, Ukraine simply needs to accept Russian peace terms. The quicker the capitulation, the fewer Kiev’s human and territorial losses will be.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
West Doubles Down on Failed Wars in Ukraine & Middle East
Glenn Diesen | July 22, 2025
Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the West is doubling down on the failed wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
AOC Tries to Defend Vote Against Amendment to Cut $500 Million in Israeli Military Aid

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is trying to explain away her “no” vote on an amendment to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment, introduced by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), would have cut $500 million in U.S. funding for nuclear-armed Israel’s missile defense programs.
“People exploding this false messaging that I voted for a bill [and] funding that I quite literally voted NO on. The threat environment this morning is scary,” the progressive lawmaker wrote on Bluesky Monday afternoon. “Doesn’t help anyone. Drag me for the position if you disagree but don’t lie. It’s out of control. Saying I voted for this funding is false.”
“If you believe neo-nazis [sic] are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!” she added on X.
Earlier in the day, NBC 4 New York reported that Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx congressional office was doused with red paint overnight. A sign was posted outside that read “AOC FUNDS GENOCIDE IN GAZA.”
Ocasio-Cortez joined 421 of her colleagues in the House of Representatives in voting against the Greene Amendment, which only received six votes. The amendment would have prevented the Department of Defense from strengthening Israel’s air and missile defense systems, including the Iron Dome. It would also have prevented Congress from effectively abrogating the Symington Amendment to the International Security Assistance and Arms Exports Control Act of 1976, which bans the provision of U.S. military aid to any country that develops nuclear weapons technology in contravention of safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Ocasio-Cortez’s latest comments come days after she initially tried to head off concerns about her vote. “Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it,” she wrote on X Saturday morning. “What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end.”
“I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza,” she added.
Ocasio-Cortez’s “no” vote earned her a rebuke from the Democratic Socialists of America. “An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ [sic] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military’s Iron Dome program,” the DSA wrote on Saturday.
Israel Attacks UN Agency’s Buildings in Gaza
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
Israeli forces attacked two facilities used by a UN aid agency in Gaza.
A safe house used by the World Health Organization was struck by Israeli forces three times on Monday. According to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the WHO, said after the strikes, “Israeli military entered the premises, forcing women and children to evacuate on foot toward Al-Mawasi amid active conflict.”
“Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated on the spot and screened at gunpoint.” He continued, “Two WHO staff and two family members were detained. Three were later released, while one staff remains in detention.”
It is frequently reported that when Israel raids an area, they split the men from the women and children. Those released are instructed to go to the Mawasi tent city. Men are stripped and humiliated by Israeli soldiers before being released or detained.
Additionally, an Israeli strike hit the main WHO warehouse. The attack caused a fire. The WHO described the attack as “part of a pattern of systematic destruction of health facilities.” Following the attack, the warehouse was looted.
The WHO safe house and warehouse were located in Deir al Balah. Last week, Israel ordered Palestinians out of the city. The WHO said before the attack, the locations of the buildings were shared with the IDF.
The agency says the attack and Israeli blockade have significantly limited its operations in Gaza. “With the main warehouse nonfunctional and the majority of medical supplies in Gaza depleted, WHO is severely constrained in adequately supporting hospitals, emergency medical teams and health partners, already critically short on medicines, fuel, and equipment,” a WHO statement explained.
Anti-genocide protesters block hundreds of Israeli tourists from disembarking in Greek port
The Cradle | July 22, 2025
Israeli passengers on a cruise ship arriving in Greece on 22 July were unable to disembark the vessel due to a large crowd of pro-Palestine protesters demonstrating against the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The MS Crown Iris, owned by Israeli cruise line Mano Maritime, arrived on Tuesday at the Greek island of Syros in the Aegean Sea. The passengers were supposed to disembark for six hours.
However, they were forced to remain on board due to the protests in support of Palestine.
“The demonstrators posed no danger to us,” an Israeli on board the ship told Hebrew news site Walla.
Between 120 and 300 protesters waved Palestinian flags and held banners reading “stop the genocide” as the ship arrived.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar spoke with his Greek counterpart, Giorgos Gerapetritis, to request intervention to resolve the issue.
Yet the cruise ship ended up being redirected to Limassol, Cyprus. Around 1,600 Israelis were traveling on the MS Crown Iris, according to Israel’s Channel 12.
A group of the Greek island’s residents organized the protest and posted on social media that they “raise their fists in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza,” adding that “it is unacceptable that tourists from Israel continue to be welcomed here while the Palestinians are suffering in the Strip.”
Israel’s genocidal war has resulted in a significant decline in Tel Aviv’s popularity worldwide.
Israeli soldiers responsible for war crimes, including the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, are regularly pursued and targeted with criminal complaints issued by pro-Palestine organizations in courts around the world.
Two Israeli soldiers were detained at the Tomorrowland festival in Belgium last week. Belgian police released them after conducting an interview.
The legal complaint was filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), which has been leading a global campaign against Israeli soldiers involved in war crimes.
In January, the Israeli army issued restrictions against media coverage of active-duty soldiers due to legal risks they face over war crimes in Gaza while traveling abroad.
This came after an Israeli army reservist’s vacation in Brazil ended abruptly after HRF convinced a federal judge in Brazil to open a war crimes investigation into his participation in the demolition of civilian homes in Gaza.
More Reckless Than Ever: NATO’s Proxy War with Russia
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
The strategy that the United States and its European allies have adopted to use Ukraine as their military proxy in a war to weaken Russia has always involved a sizable element of risk. At some point, Russian leaders might no longer be content with just attacking the puppet that NATO members were using to torment their country. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues could decide to attack one or more of the puppeteers. The chances of such an escalation are increasing. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s principal deputy, issued a warning on July 17 that his country might launch “preemptive strikes” if the Western powers continued to boost their support for Ukraine’s military efforts.
Medvedev’s statement occurred just after President Donald Trump executed a major U.S. policy reversal regarding Ukraine. Instead of phasing out military aid to Kiev, the administration announced a resumption of weapons shipments, including Patriot air defense missiles that other NATO members would purchase from the United States. Such a stance was reminiscent of President Joe Biden’s enthusiastic support for Ukraine’s war effort, and it stood in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign and the initial weeks of his second term that indicated a determination to end Washington’s entanglement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Unfortunately, the new sale of Patriots is just the latest in a long series of provocations that the United States and NATO have conducted against Russia since full-scale fighting between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022. Both Medvedev and Putin have contended previously that NATO is already at war with their country, given the extent of military assistance that alliance members have extended to Kiev—especially the provision of long-range missiles. Medvedev specifically raised the prospect of Russian retaliatory strikes on NATO bases.
Their charge has merit. Not only have NATO members collectively provided a tsunami of weapons to their military proxy, but also several of them have assisted Ukraine’s war effort in other crucial ways. There is credible evidence that both British and American intelligence agencies (and possibly those of other NATO countries) have provided crucial data to Ukrainian forces attacking Russian military transport planes and other targets. A similar form of assistance apparently was given to Ukrainian forces that attacked Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea.
Providing such assistance to one party in an ongoing war could quite reasonably be interpreted as an act of war against the opposing party. Yet several alliance members are incurring such risks. A German general justified his country’s decision to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. But as one critic noted, what the general conveniently left out “is that these weapons will be operated by German personnel from Wiesbaden. In other words, Germany is turning one of its own cities into a legitimate target for Russian retaliation.”
Although the evidence of committing an act of war is less definitive in other cases, there were strong indications that one or more NATO member states were involved in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The accounts that American and European media propaganda campaigns circulated certainly lacked even minimal credibility. The original cover story that Russia (for reasons that remained both vague and implausible) destroyed its own multi-billion-dollar pipeline did not even pass the proverbial laugh test. Even U.S. and other NATO officials quickly backed away from that attempted explanation. However, the substitute version was even more preposterous. That iteration asserted that a band of Ukrainian activists (but activists who had absolutely no connection to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government) conducted the sabotage raid using a civilian yacht manned by divers not in the country’s military.
Since those attempts at a plausible cover story flopped, NATO officials and their pet media outlets have gone strangely silent. Hopes by the transatlantic foreign policy “blob” that the pipeline story will just go away are understandable, since Moscow would have grounds for regarding the attack on its pipeline as a brazen act of war.
More recently, murkiness surrounds Ukraine’s bold move deploying swarms of drones to attack Russia’s strategic bomber fleet stationed at four air bases deep inside Russia. Kiev understandably bragged about such a military and propaganda victory. However, Washington’s possible role in this episode remains a matter of conjecture. Media outlets friendly to Ukraine asserted that the United States knew about the operation and expressed no objection. The White House initially contended that Ukraine had given no advance notice, but the U.S. account has become less clear with the passage of time.
It is an important detail. It seems unlikely that Ukrainian forces could have carried out such a complex operation so deep inside Russian territory without intelligence information similar to that given to Kiev in its earlier assaults against Russian troop transports and warships. The probable conclusion is that Kiev likely was aided by either U.S. intelligence operatives or operatives from another NATO. In either case, it would be yet another act of war committed against the Russian Federation. One can readily imagine the reaction from the United States if Russia (or any other adversary) waged an attack on the U.S. strategic bomber fleet and destroyed a significant portion of the fleet.
Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine acted totally alone, that scenario would mean that NATO’s proxy had gone rogue and is now acting on its own. In mid-July, President Trump raised tensions with the Kremlin even more. With typical Trumpian verbal incontinence, he asked Zelensky if (apparently in light of the successful raid on the bomber bases), Ukraine could strike a target such as Moscow deep inside Russia. It appeared to be an unsubtle hint that the United States would not be displeased by such a move. Trump did say many hours later that he was not calling on Ukraine to attack Moscow, but that poisonous idea was now firmly planted. On July 20, Ukraine launched a drone assault on Moscow.
The United States and its NATO allies are engaging in irresponsible behavior that could turn the already dangerous Ukraine proxy war against Russia into a direct armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia. Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Soviet and American leaders had the good sense to implicitly keep their respective homelands off limits. The current crop of “leaders” on the Western side are not exercising such wisdom or basic prudence. They are playing the international equivalent of Russian roulette.
Hungary and Serbia to build new oil pipeline in defiance of EU energy policy
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | July 22, 2025
Hungary announced plans to build a new crude oil pipeline linking it with Serbia, bypassing European Union restrictions on Russian energy and challenging Brussels’ energy strategy.
The project, unveiled on Monday by Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó, is being carried out in cooperation with Serbian and Russian partners and is expected to be operational by 2027.
“A series of wrong decisions made in Brussels has put Europe in a very difficult position on the international energy market,” Szijjártó said.
“Today, energy prices in Europe have increased several times more than in the rest of the world. This is not a miracle, as Brussels forcibly disconnects energy connections, bans the use of Russian energy carriers, and shuts down transport routes.”
The new pipeline is planned to carry 5 million tons of crude oil annually and will span 180 kilometers on the Hungarian side. According to the minister, the aim is to secure stable, affordable energy supplies and to resist what he described as harmful EU policies that have led to higher costs for households.
“This situation can be solved by attracting more energy sources and developing more transport routes,” Szijjártó said, calling the project a way to protect Hungary’s energy sovereignty.
Zoltán Kovács, the Secretary of State for International Communication and spokesman for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, reinforced the government’s position on social media, declaring: “Brussels wants to cut us off from Russian oil and gas, forcing Hungarian families to pay 2–4 times more. We won’t allow it.”
He added that Hungary is committed to “building new sources, not shutting them down,” and that the pipeline would safeguard the country’s decade-long policy of utility cost reductions.
The move sets up another confrontation between Budapest and Brussels, as Hungary continues to resist the EU’s sanctions on Russian energy and pursues bilateral infrastructure deals with countries outside the bloc’s common strategy.
Energy security in Central and Eastern Europe has been jeopardized by its reliance on pipelines running through Ukraine. On Jan 1., Kyiv halted the transit of gas from a major Russian pipeline, sparking criticism from both Hungary and Slovakia.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiations over the matter. However, Kyiv’s refusal to play ball led to Fico accusing Zelensky of “begging and blackmailing” European nations for financial aid while simultaneously cutting off gas supplies.
Slovakia has also sought alternative energy supplies this month, meeting with the Croatian government over the potential use of its LNG terminal on the island of Krk to offset the loss of Russian gas.
Slovak President Peter Pellegrini met with his Croatian counterpart, Zoran Milanovic, at the beginning of the month, and confirmed discussions with Croatian officials are underway.
“We are trying to find solutions to buy gas as cheaply as possible,” Slovak Economy Minister Denisa Saková stated, noting that Slovakia is now relying on a mix of Russian supplies and imports from other European partners, prioritizing price above all.