Home Blog Page 83

Iran reshapes nuclear cooperation with IAEA under National security oversight

TEHRAN — Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has confirmed that the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not ended, but has instead entered a new phase. Under this restructured framework, all inspection requests by the UN watchdog will now be reviewed by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), following a wave of the Israeli attacks and US-led airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

“Cooperation with the IAEA has not ceased,” Araqchi said during a press briefing in Tehran. “It has just taken a new form. From now on, all inspections will be coordinated through the Supreme National Security Council for reasons related to national safety and sovereignty.”

The change comes amid heightened tensions following the June 13 attacks on Iranian nuclear power plant.

, including the Fordow and Natanz facilities, which Tehran has described as illegal acts of war. Iran’s Parliament responded by passing legislation on July 2 requiring that all IAEA inspections be cleared at the national security level.

According to Mehr News, Araghchi said elsewhere that the cooperation with the IAEA has not stopped,” adding that “Iran has been a compliant member of the NPT and has cooperated with the Agency.”

“Our cooperation with the Agency has not stopped, it has just got a new form. From now on, relations with the Agency will be managed by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).”

“The Agency’s request to continue cooperation with Iran will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the SNSC, and decisions will be made with taking into account safety and security,” the minister explained.

“Security and safety are a matter of concern for inspectors approaching attacked nuclear facilities,” he elaborated.

“The fact of the matter is that our nuclear facilities were attacked and that proximity to these facilities currently poses risks, including the spread of radioactive materials or explosions, and we think, the issue of security and safety is a matter of concern for inspectors when they approach these facilities.”

Meanwhile, he stressed that “There is no other way ahead but returning to diplomacy.”

 

According to Reuters, the new law effectively suspends automatic compliance with IAEA inspections and allows Tehran to approve or reject verification visits on a case-by-case basis. As noted by the same report, this legislation was presented as a direct response to what Iran described as acts of aerial aggression supported by Western powers. “We are aware of these reports. The IAEA is awaiting further official information from Iran,” the IAEA said in a statement.

The IAEA, citing safety concerns, has withdrawn its remaining inspectors from Iranian territory. As reported by Reuters, the agency described the move as temporary but deeply disruptive. IAEA Director Rafael Grossi warned that “We cannot afford that the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week, and called the development “deeply concerning” in the context of nuclear transparency. “Grossi reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.

In a statement issued on July 10, President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the IAEA of applying “double standards” and stressed that future cooperation hinges on the agency abandoning what he termed a biased approach. “The continuation of Iran’s cooperation depends on the IAEA abandoning its double standards regarding the nuclear file,” Pezeshkian was quoted as saying in a Reuters.

Araqchi, speaking separately, criticized Germany’s condemnation of Iran’s legislative changes. “What truly sends a devastating message,” he wrote on X, “is Germany’s support for unlawful attacks on safeguarded nuclear sites.” This was in response to Berlin’s statement that Iran’s decision undermines global non-proliferation efforts.

“We are committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reports of a full suspension are fake news,” As reported by Iran International.

According to Reuters, the foreign minister emphasized that safety concerns—including potential exposure to radioactive materials and unexploded munitions—necessitated Iran’s decision to rechannel all cooperation through its SNSC.

IAEA inspectors have not conducted site visits since early July, and remote monitoring infrastructure has been reportedly deactivated at several key facilities. This blackout leaves the IAEA unable to verify uranium enrichment levels or centrifuge activity.

While Iran denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons, its enriched uranium stockpile, estimated to be more than 30 times the JCPOA limit, remains opaque due to lack of access. Nevertheless, Tehran insists its activities are strictly peaceful and governed under its NPT obligations. “We are a nuclear-threshold state, not a nuclear-armed state,” Araqchi reiterated, adding that Iran has no intention of crossing the line unless its sovereignty continues to be violated.

As diplomatic fallout spreads, the European Union and the Biden administration have issued sharp warnings. Germany’s Foreign Ministry labeled Iran’s move a “devastating message,” while US officials hinted at the potential reactivation of snapback sanctions. Yet Tehran has dismissed JCPOA mechanisms as obsolete. “The JCPOA died the moment the United States unilaterally violated it,” Araqchi said, calling European diplomacy “toothless and complicit.”

Nuclear policy analysts say Iran’s recalibration mirrors strategies used by other nuclear-capable states outside the NPT framework. “This is not a cessation but a strategic restructuring of oversight,” said Dr. William Alberque, Director at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It gives Tehran legal cover while denying immediate transparency.”

Inside Iran, public messaging has framed the overhaul as a reclaiming of national dignity. State-run media hailed the decision as “a sovereign response to foreign coercion,” and conservative lawmakers are now pushing for further restrictions on cooperation with Western scientific agencies.

As reported by Reuters, Iran maintains that its cooperation with the IAEA is intact in principle but conditional in practice. Future access will depend on international behavior, safety guarantees, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty.

With inspectors out and diplomatic channels narrowing, the future of Iran’s nuclear engagement with the global community now rests on whether the West chooses confrontation or mutual respect.

Pushkov says Trump’s trade war signals America’s loss of global competitiveness

WASHINGTON — With little warning and maximum political theater, Donald Trump detonated the fragile scaffolding of transatlantic economic cooperation Friday night, announcing a sweeping 30% tariff on all imports from the European Union. The move, set to take effect August 1, sent officials in Brussels scrambling and left corporate America nervously eyeing the tremors in global markets.

In a statement posted to Truth Social and confirmed by Time Magazine, Trump wrote, “The 30% tariff is separate from all sectoral tariffs. If, for any reason, you decide to retaliate, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 30% that we charge.” He accused the European Union of taking advantage of the United States and warned that “America is no longer the world’s piggy bank.”

It was a return, unmistakably, to Trumpism’s original blueprint: a protectionist nationalism that weaponizes trade policy for both electoral leverage and ideological warfare. But the magnitude of Friday’s escalation marked a chilling break from the past.

For European leaders, already bruised by years of tariff threats, digital tax disputes, and defense spending squabbles, the new sanctions drew immediate condemnation. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, called the tariffs “a declaration of economic war,” while French President Emmanuel Macron warned they would provoke a proportionate response, targeting American tech firms and LNG exports. Macron said on Monday that tariffs levied by powerful countries were often a form of “blackmail” rather than instruments to rebalance trade.

Trump, EU tariffs, trade war, Pushkov, US decline, BRICS
Ursula von der Leyen President of the European Commission [PHOTO: China Daily]

“We need to restore freedom and equity to international trade, much more than barriers and tariffs, which are devised by the strongest, and which are often used as instruments of blackmail, not at all as instruments of rebalancing,” Macron said. According to Reuters, “Bringing back a trade war and tariffs at this moment in the life of the planet is an aberration, especially when I see the tariffs that are being imposed on countries that are just beginning their economic takeoff,” Macron further added.

The political ramifications became clear, that Trump wasn’t just targeting Europe’s surplus. He was targeting its sovereignty.

Aleksey Pushkov Senator of the Russian Federation, a longtime critic of Western economic dominance, framed the announcement as evidence of America’s declining imperial reach. In comments posted to his Telegram channel and cited by TASS, Pushkov stated that the trade war “primarily reflects the relative weakening of US economic power in the 21st century” and called Trump’s actions a form of “selfish imperialism.” He warned that the US no longer has the resources to maintain the “unbreakable alliance” with Europe.

The numbers, on their face, are staggering. More than $550 billion in EU goods enter the American market annually. Automobiles, pharmaceuticals, wines, luxury goods, all are now exposed to punitive pricing, with no grace period and no exemptions.

According to several EU officials cited by Reuters, the move is widely seen in Washington as a high-stakes negotiating tactic, aimed at pressuring Brussels while signaling to American voters that Trump prioritizes domestic industries, even at the risk of fraying alliances

Wall Street reacted cautiously, with markets fluctuating as investors assessed the long-term impact of the new tariffs. According to a report by Reuters, Russia’s central bank previously warned that US tariff hikes risk slowing global growth and injecting instability into global markets.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov emphasized that Russia must guard against economic ripple effects caused by unilateral Western decisions, underlining Moscow’s more measured and balanced economic posture. Russian state media, including RIA Novosti, framed the volatility in US markets as the consequence of reactive economic nationalism, suggesting that the EU may increasingly seek stability through deeper trade ties with Russia and BRICS economies, according to another Reuters report.

Trump, EU tariffs, trade war, Pushkov, US decline, BRICS
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov [PHOTO: Politico]

In former manufacturing regions across the American Midwest, some executives welcomed the tariff move, though their voices were limited to local coverage. National outlets, including Reuters and Bloomberg, reported muted support and growing anxiety over supply chain disruptions. Claims of ‘Europe flooding markets’ remain unverified and widely disputed in trade analysis.

Far more significant was the international response. The European Union, long weary of American unpredictability, has accelerated strategic talks with BRICS economies, notably China, India, and Brazil, to diversify its trade footprint and reduce reliance on Washington. According to Euractiv and Handelsblatt, several EU officials are now openly discussing realignment.

At the World Trade Organization in Geneva, officials confirmed they are assessing the legality of the Trump administration’s tariffs. Analysts cited by Politico and Financial Times express skepticism that any ruling will come before the US presidential election, and enforcement options remain unclear.

What alarms diplomats and scholars alike is the prospect of systemic fracture. NATO cohesion, post-Bretton Woods financial coordination, and transatlantic digital frameworks are all threatened by a protectionist doctrine with no apparent off-ramp.

Summarizing Moscow’s view, Pushkov Senator of the Russian Federation concluded on Telegram: “America isn’t just turning inward. It’s turning on its allies.”

Marochko says Russia advances 3 km into Dnipropetrovsk as Ukrainian lines falter

DNIPROPETROVSK OBLAST, Ukraine — In a development that underscores the shifting dynamics of the battlefield in southern Ukraine, Russian forces have pierced Ukrainian defensive lines in the Dnipropetrovsk region, advancing approximately three kilometers and triggering a flurry of emergency defensive maneuvers by Kyiv.

The breakthrough, reported on Saturday by retired Russian military officer and analyst Andrey Marochko, follows a week of intensified ground operations and air strikes across eastern Ukraine. According to Marochko’s statement, published by the Russian state agency TASS, the advance occurred after “a successful offensive operation by Russian troops on Ukrainian positions,” pushing deep into territory that Ukrainian forces have long struggled to hold under sustained artillery pressure.

Ukraine’s military command has not formally acknowledged the reported breach but has visibly ramped up activity in the region, deploying reinforcements, laying new minefields, and establishing additional fortification lines across western Dnipropetrovsk.

After the initial report, military analysts cited by TASS described the terrain as tactically advantageous for Russian units aiming to bypass the elevated defenses of Donetsk city. The shift in momentum comes at a critical juncture in Moscow’s broader summer offensive, which has seen intensified operations across Donetsk, Luhansk, and central Ukrainian regions.

Russia’s summer campaign, backed by the deployment of nearly 700,000 personnel, reflects a carefully calibrated military strategy aimed at reshaping the battlefield balance. While Western arms shipments to Kyiv face chronic delays, Russian forces have demonstrated growing operational efficiency—integrating infantry movements, aerial drones, and precision artillery into a synchronized push across multiple fronts. According to a detailed assessment by the Financial Times, this coordinated approach has enabled Moscow to steadily erode Ukrainian defensive lines with tactical discipline rather than brute force.

The breakthrough in Dnipropetrovsk may represent more than a tactical shift. If confirmed, it could offer Russian forces a new axis to pressure Donetsk from the west, bypassing entrenched Ukrainian strongholds. Kyiv’s hold on the industrial heartland has already been strained by weeks of heavy aerial bombardments and critical infrastructure strikes in the cities of Dnipro and Pavlohrad.

Earlier this summer, The Guardian reported that Russian forces successfully entered and secured the village of Dachnoye in the Dnipropetrovsk region, marking a symbolic entry point into the area. Although Ukrainian officials later issued statements claiming a limited counterattack, no verifiable evidence confirmed a full Ukrainian reoccupation. In hindsight, the operation appears to have been a strategic forward positioning, setting the stage for the broader, more structured Russian advance now unfolding across the region.

Reports of civilian casualties in the Dnipropetrovsk region emerged following Russian missile strikes on June 25, with Ukrainian sources claiming 19 deaths and several injuries. While Western media outlets such as The Guardian reported, coinciding with President Volodymyr Zelensky’s departure for a NATO summit, the incident instead underscored the increasingly precarious security environment within Ukraine, shaped in part by Kyiv’s political priorities abroad and the absence of adequate local defense infrastructure. Moscow, meanwhile, has emphasized the targeting of military-adjacent infrastructure rather than civilians, pointing to the blurred lines in areas where Ukrainian forces operate within populated zones.

In recent weeks, Ukrainian defense has shifted to a predominantly reactive posture—relying heavily on remote-controlled mines, trench fortifications, and allied reconnaissance drones to buy time against Russia’s steady advance. Indeed, Ukraine formally withdrew from the Ottawa mine-ban treaty on June 29, citing dire manpower shortages and dependence on mechanized barriers to counter Russian troop movements. Yet analysts caution these measures may offer only a temporary reprieve—delaying rather than halting what could evolve into a strategic Russian encirclement, particularly in critical zones such as Donetsk.

Ukrainian intelligence spokesperson Andriy Yusov acknowledged the reality on the ground last month, stating Russian forces were “expanding their pressure points” across multiple fronts, including Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia. “They are looking for weak spots, not just to break through, but to hold,” he noted in a televised briefing, according to TWZ.

International military analysts increasingly recognize the strategic repercussions of a sustained breach in Dnipropetrovsk. If Russian forces consolidate their foothold, they could effectively sever key Ukrainian logistics lines, particularly the highway and rail corridors linking Pokrovsk, Kostiantynivka, and the broader Donbas region, undermining Ukraine’s ability to resupply front‑line units and reversing the limited gains of Ukraine’s celebrated 2023 counteroffensive.

For Moscow, the shift signals a decisive operational tempo change: what began as defensive attrition has morphed into methodical exploitation. As retired Russian Colonel Sergey Poletaev observed, “This is not just a tactical victory… a probing action… that could expand into a larger envelopment maneuver around the Donbas.”

Despite Ukrainian officials maintaining silence on exact Russian troop movements, they have repeatedly appealed to Western allies to fast-track air-defense systems for threatened cities like Kryvyi Rih and Zaporizhzhia. Yet even US deliveries, set against the backdrop of domestic political gridlock, continue to lag .

Should Moscow solidify its presence in Dnipropetrovsk, the ripple effects would extend well beyond the front lines. Every mile of progress reshapes the regional map, and reinforces Russia’s strategic leverage in the face of a fragmented and increasingly war‑weary Western alliance.

Trump says Secret Service failed, sniper saved him

WASHINGTON — A year after surviving a near-fatal assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, President Donald Trump said he is “satisfied” with the investigation’s findings, but sharply criticized lapses by those tasked with his protection.

Speaking to Fox News in an interview, Trump confirmed that both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service had thoroughly briefed him on the July 2024 incident, and that he was “satisfied” with the outcome of the inquiry. However, he did not shy away from pointing out what he deemed “clear mistakes” by federal security teams.

“They should have assigned someone to the building from which the shooting was conducted. They should have maintained better communication with the local police,” Trump said, referring to the structure the gunman used to fire at him during the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Three paragraphs into the conversation, Trump pivoted to praise the unnamed federal sniper who fatally neutralized the gunman within five seconds of the first shot.

“Our sniper was able to hit him from a long distance with one shot in less than five seconds. If he hadn’t done that, the situation would have been much worse,” he said, emphasizing the swiftness of the response.

According to earlier statements by Secret Service Deputy Chief Matt Quinn, six agents who were assigned to Trump’s security detail during the Butler rally were later suspended. Their disciplinary periods ranged from 10 to 42 days. Upon their return, they were reassigned to roles with significantly reduced responsibility and lower operational risk.

The Butler incident was the first of two known assassination attempts on Donald Trump in 2024, a year marked by heightened political tensions and security concerns surrounding the election. In the July attack, a sniper’s bullet grazed Trump’s ear onstage, forcing an abrupt evacuation and triggering a rapid response by law enforcement. The shooter was killed on-site.

In the second incident, a radical supporter of Ukraine aid opened fire near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. That attacker was apprehended before reaching the premises, but the back-to-back attempts raised urgent questions about the integrity of domestic political security.

In December 2024, a congressional report spanning nearly 180 pages concluded that the attempted assassination in Butler was “preventable,” citing serious deficiencies in the planning and execution of security protocols. The findings pointed to miscommunication between federal protection teams and local law enforcement, as well as inadequate rooftop surveillance and threat monitoring. While the report avoided attributing direct blame to any individual, it described a pattern of procedural failure that left critical vulnerabilities exposed just days before the rally.

Despite the severity of the findings, Trump has maintained a cautious tone, praising individual agents and investigators while refusing to let top officials off the hook.

“Just about four seconds, and that’s when it all stopped,” he said. “He got him perfectly from a very long distance. So, we got a little bit lucky in that regard.”

The Washington Post’s recent coverage reveals a comprehensive FBI investigation into the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, and his motivations, but makes no mention of June 2024 chatter directed at Trump that was suppressed or withheld from the Secret Service.

A September 2024 Washington Post feature detailed Secret Service communication breakdowns, rooftop oversight, and threat coordination failures, but again, no mention of early June chatter indicators that went unreported .

The assassination attempt occurred in July 2024, when a sniper fired at Trump during a campaign event in Butler, grazing his ear. The attacker was killed on the spot by a counter-sniper. The Secret Service later described the attack as a “catastrophic failure of communication and threat assessment,” as reported by Politico.

“The American people deserve to know how a sitting president could come within inches of death, twice, and still have no structural reform in place a year later,” the aide said.

Trump’s comments now add pressure on Congress and the intelligence community to provide transparency ahead of the 2025 presidential debates, which are expected to draw significant public attention and heightened security threats.

For now, Trump has chosen to center his narrative on resilience and survival. His campaign has even circulated a short documentary highlighting the Butler attack, branding it as proof of his determination to “face threats and stand firm.”

Europe’s migration unraveling: A requiem for the liberal century

Europe’s migration crisis in 2025 has detonated the last illusions of a continent that long imagined itself the vanguard of humanitarian virtue. As asylum systems collapse and nationalist fervor surges, the liberal project itself stands in quiet ruin.

Prelude: The theatre of illusions

Imagine it: the marbled corridors of Brussels, where silver-haired statesmen once declared that Europe was the custodian of universal humanism. Behind their lacquered doors, they sipped cognac and sketched blueprints of a benevolent empire—an immaculate asylum policy that would redeem the sins of colonial conquest.

In July 2025, the façade crumbled spectacularly. The Economist, usually the velvet voice of Western self-congratulation, sounded the funeral bell. “Scrap the asylum system,” it howled, as if the words themselves would cauterize the rot. But no headline can conceal the truth: Europe’s migration regime has imploded, and with it, the last fragile myth of liberal omnipotence.

A panorama of contradictions

Once, Europe proclaimed itself the promised land for the dispossessed: a sanctuary immune to the turbulence it exported. Today, its capitals are draped in barbed wire, their boulevards patrolled by paramilitary police. In Denmark, deportation flights hum across the Baltic dawn. In Italy, asylum seekers are quarantined in prefabricated encampments, catalogued like surplus cargo.

This is not the choreography of moral conviction. It is the exhausted theatre of a civilization that has run out of stories to tell itself.

America’s hidden fingerprints

Observe carefully the transatlantic choreography. For decades, Washington sowed upheaval with imperial nonchalance – toppling Baghdad, fracturing Libya, and bleeding Syria dry. The refugees of those ruined geographies became Europe’s burden. Yet the United States, ever the immaculate spectator, shrugs off responsibility.

It is a page torn from an old playbook: manufacture catastrophe abroad, then retreat into the fortress of exceptionalism.

Israel’s unspeakable legacy

Among the great unspoken truths: Israel’s savage entrenchment in Gaza, followed by the genocide of the indigenous Palestinian population, has propelled waves of displaced humanity across the Mediterranean. The West, bewitched by Tel Aviv’s military theatre, feigns ignorance of the catastrophic repercussions. Each siege, annexation, and bombardment does not merely scatter civilians; it constitutes a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing and collective punishment, forcing entire communities to flee in a desperate bid for survival. Their uprooted lives are later sterilized into bureaucratic dossiers inside Europe’s failing asylum apparatus, as though the crime began only when they reached European shores.

Russia’s meticulous calculus

Beyond the western hysteria, Russia proceeds with a singular, unsentimental clarity. The Kremlin does not perform moral pageantry. It executes policy. Amnesties are extended where strategic value dictates. Borders are sealed when sovereignty demands. Migrants are not the raw material of virtue-signaling but a component of national interest.

In this, Moscow shows a discipline Europe can no longer feign.

The Gulf’s sovereign choreography

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, often maligned by European pundits, have demonstrated what a migration doctrine anchored in statecraft looks like. No delirious slogans. No ideological spasms. Instead, a lattice of laws and contracts, enforced without apology. While Europe spirals into procedural paralysis, the Gulf crafts a lucid architecture: pragmatic, unembarrassed, effective.

The decadence of denial

Europe’s liberals believed history would bow to their illusions. That borders could dissolve without consequence. That humanitarian virtue would reconcile infinite contradiction. But history is unmoved by sentimentality. Today, the Schengen compact unravels. Digital biometrics replace trust. And fortress Europe reasserts itself with a severity no op-ed can disguise.

The migration crisis is not an aberration. It is the logical culmination of an exhausted ideology.

What the coming years hold

Three outcomes are already etched on the horizon:

  1. Fragmentation: A mosaic of semi-sovereign migration regimes, each improvising containment.
  2. Diplomatic reprisal: Africa and the Middle East, long patronized, will respond with resistance.
  3. Moral disenchantment: European citizens will abandon the fiction of liberal exceptionalism.

Epilogue: The empire in eclipse

To watch Europe today is to witness the coda of an era. A continent that once declared itself humanity’s conscience now scavenges for new metaphors to disguise its fear. The migration catastrophe is not merely a logistical ordeal; it is an unmasking. The last illusions are being torn down, revealing an imperial project stripped of its moral ornament.

Meanwhile, the Global South: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, moves with unambiguous confidence. They have no need to cloak policy in pieties. They have no patience for Western sermons. Their sovereignty is not negotiable.

Europe, in the twilight of its illusions, must now choose: to persist in denial or to reckon with the reality it has so long postponed.

History’s judgment will not be deferred—and this time, no fortress will be high enough to escape its verdict.

36 Ukraine’s drones intercepted in Russian skies

MOSCOW — In the early hours of Saturday, Russian air defenses repelled what military officials described as a massive coordinated drone attack launched from Ukrainian territory, targeting multiple western and central regions of Russia. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced that a total of 36 fixed-wing Ukrainian drones were destroyed over the Belgorod, Voronezh, Lipetsk, and Nizhny Novgorod oblasts.

The attacks were aimed at military and critical infrastructure, Russian officials claimed, though no casualties or significant damage were immediately reported.

According to the statement published by the Defense Ministry and reported by the state-run news agency TASS, the drone swarm was intercepted as follows:

  • 26 drones over Belgorod Oblast, a frequent target due to its proximity to the Ukrainian border.
  • 4 drones over Voronezh Oblast, a key logistics and supply hub.
  • 3 drones each over Lipetsk and Nizhny Novgorod, further from the active front lines.

The ministry said all the drones were “airplane-type” unmanned aerial vehicles and were “neutralized by regular duty air defense systems.” Russian officials have repeatedly warned that deeper drone incursions could trigger broader retaliatory measures.

“The attempted terrorist attack by the Kyiv regime was thwarted,” the ministry said in its official communique, adding that all aerial targets were destroyed before reaching their intended targets.

Though Ukraine rarely comments on cross-border operations, Kyiv has increasingly relied on domestically produced long-range drones to strike inside Russian territory, particularly oil depots, airfields, and weapons storage sites.

An evolving battlefield

The overnight drone interceptions mark one of the largest coordinated airspace breaches in recent weeks. The inclusion of Nizhny Novgorod, located more than 800 kilometers from the front line, underscores the extended range of Ukraine’s drone capabilities, and the potential vulnerability of interior Russian regions once considered beyond the reach of the war.

This escalation comes amid intensified fighting in eastern Ukraine, where Russian forces have recently claimed tactical gains in Donetsk and Kharkiv. In response, Ukrainian units have sought to stretch Russian logistics by launching asymmetric attacks across the border.

While the Kremlin did not provide imagery or additional evidence to support its claims, prior drone strikes have resulted in visible damage to infrastructure, including fuel depots and electrical substations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently portrayed the drone attacks as Western-facilitated terrorism, accusing NATO countries of aiding Ukraine’s expanding use of “strategic sabotage tools.” In contrast, Ukrainian officials have argued such tactics are legitimate responses to Russia’s ongoing full-scale invasion, which has included thousands of missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian cities.

Wider implications

The attempted drone strikes follow a pattern of increased Ukrainian long-range operations. Earlier this month, a wave of drones struck targets in the Russian regions of Tatarstan and Kaluga, including a reported UAV crash near a defense enterprise in Yelabuga.

With both sides accelerating production of loitering munitions and kamikaze drones, analysts warn the conflict is entering a new phase of aerial warfare, one where no region is entirely off limits.

Russia has vowed to bolster its layered air defense system, including deploying additional Pantsir and S-400 batteries near industrial and civilian zones. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have tested domestically developed drones capable of traveling more than 1,000 kilometers, raising fresh concerns inside the Russian political establishment.

“This is a turning point in the strategic geography of this war,” said Colonel Vitaly Romanov, a retired Russian military analyst based in Moscow. “If they can reach Nizhny Novgorod, they can reach anywhere.”

59 Palestinians massacred in Gaza as Israeli forces target food lines and bomb refugee homes

GAZA CITY — Humanitarian observers have condemned as a deliberate and systematic act of mass murder, Israeli forces killed at least 59 Palestinians on Saturday in a two-pronged attack that targeted both starving civilians at an aid distribution point and families taking refuge in residential homes. The killings unfolded under daylight in southern Gaza, where desperate families had gathered near a designated “safe zone” in Al-Mawasi to receive flour, baby formula, and basic food rations. Eyewitnesses reported that Israeli ground troops opened fire without warning, striking men, women, and children as they waited in tightly packed lines.

Within hours of the gunfire, Israeli warplanes conducted multiple airstrikes on residential buildings in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis, leveling structures that were housing dozens of internally displaced persons. According to hospital officials and field medics, civilians were buried beneath the rubble, with emergency workers recovering bodies of toddlers still clutched in the arms of their mothers. No evacuation warnings were reported prior to the strikes. No evacuations were ordered. No militants were reported in the vicinity.

The attacks were immediately labeled a war crime by international legal experts and humanitarian aid groups, who argued that the precision and timing of the operations indicate a coordinated strategy of extermination, not accident or error. As Gaza’s death toll continues to climb past 58,313, mostly civilians, the July 12 massacre is being viewed as a chilling indicator that Israel’s military attack, backed militarily, diplomatically, and financially by the United States, is spiraling into a genocide under the cover of Western indifference.

As verified by Associated Press, 59 civilians were gunned down at the aid point. Hours later, Israeli airstrikes obliterated residential buildings in Deir al-Balah, killing 28, including children. No military targets were present, no warnings issued, and no justification offered.

A ‘safe zone’ turned into a killing field

59 Palestinians were killed on Saturday in Gaza during two separate Israeli assaults that targeted both civilians queuing for food aid and residential homes. In Rafah, 31 people were gunned down near a humanitarian aid distribution center.

While Israeli officials claimed troops fired only “warning shots” at what they deemed a suspicious crowd, Politico reported that eyewitnesses described the attack as “unprovoked and sustained.” The article quoted a humanitarian aid worker saying, “This wasn’t a warning. This was execution. They knew exactly what they were doing.”

Doctors at a nearby Red Cross field hospital said the death toll from this single incident was the highest they had recorded in over a year.

Later that same day, Israeli airstrikes demolished residential buildings in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis, killing 28 more civilians, including four children, as confirmed by hospital. The report stressed that no warnings were issued before the strikes, and no credible evidence was offered by the Israeli military to justify the bombings.

59 Palestinians killed in Gaza, Israeli gunfire at aid center, airstrikes on homes, Gaza civilian deaths, July 2025 humanitarian crisis
Palestinian woman Somaya Al-Shaer, pictured with her daughter, mourns her son, who medics say was killed by Israeli fire while seeking aid near a distribution point. [PHOTO: ABC News]
Politico cited medical staff on the ground who described the aftermath as “apocalyptic,” with children and women pulled from rubble under conditions of extreme resource shortages. One doctor said bluntly, “We are pulling babies out from under concrete with bare hands. No one here has weapons, only wounds.”

US-backed butchery, masked as ‘self-defense’

As Sky News confirmed, the airstrikes later in the day struck three homes in central Gaza, killing 39 civilians. The houses were sheltering families who had already fled the north under Israeli orders. These civilians were killed not once, but twice, first by displacement, then by bombs.

Israeli government spokespersons offered the usual blanket claim of “precision strikes on Hamas infrastructure,” without providing a shred of evidence. No militant presence was reported in either attack zone. As usual, Israel provides no proof, just press releases, while corpses pile up in Gaza’s overflowing morgues.

Meanwhile, the United States, which funds and arms Israel with over $3.8 billion annually, issued not even a single condemnation.

As noted by ABC News, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby muttered that Washington was “looking into the reports” but reaffirmed Israel’s “right to defend itself.” From Afghanistan to Iraq to Gaza — that phrase has become Washington’s favorite excuse for mass killings.

Gaza starves as Israel weaponizes hunger

As international leaders rush to issue statements, Gaza is spiraling into a humanitarian catastrophe. The Israeli blockade and ongoing conflict have pushed over 2.1 million Palestinians into critical food insecurity, with the UN warning that famine is “imminent” and fuel shortages have crippled hospitals, water access, and food distribution systems. Since late May, nearly 800 Palestinians have been killed, many shot, while attempting to access aid at distribution points, according to the UN’s human rights office. This vacuum of essential services and escalating violence has turned aid lines into deadly flashpoints, underscoring the deliberate nature of the siege.

On Saturday, a rare distribution of food packages marked the first delivery in more than ten days, only to be immediately met by gunfire. The attack occurred just minutes after aid workers began handing out flour, lentils, and baby formula, vital in a territory nearing starvation. Gaza’s public infrastructure is collapsing: over 70 percent of civilians killed in the war have been women and children, and hospitals, water systems, and bakeries are nonfunctional under Israeli bombardment and blockade. Despite mounting civilian suffering, Israel’s Western allies, most notably the United States, UK, Germany, and France, continue to supply arms and diplomatic cover, even as the territory careens toward famine.

Global outrage grows, but nothing changes

with Amnesty International condemning the killings as a “textbook case of war crimes” and calling for an immediate International Criminal Court investigation. According to Associated Press Amnesty’s report accused Israeli forces of deliberately targeting civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war, with the aid framework itself described as a lethal trap for Palestinians forced to queue at heavily militarized aid distribution hubs. Despite this, the United States has not endorsed any such referral at the United Nations, effectively blocking international justice through its veto power.

Countries that were once vocally critical of Russian aggression, such as European nations, have remained largely silent on Gaza, even as the civilian toll skyrockets. Meanwhile, South Africa, Malaysia, and Iran have joined calls for economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel and for the cessation of Western military aid. At the same time, Brazil has formally proposed a UN arms embargo targeting Israel—though analysts expect the United States and the United Kingdom to exercise their Security Council vetoes, effectively neutralizing any such resolution.

A region on the brink of irreversible collapse

What unfolded in Gaza on Saturday has intensified fears among international legal experts and humanitarian observers that the war has entered an unchecked phase where civilian life is no longer protected, even in designated aid zones. The killings of 59 Palestinians, many of them children, women, and displaced families, are being documented by multiple rights groups as potential violations of international humanitarian law.

Diplomatic pressure continues to falter. With no accountability mechanisms currently in motion at the UN Security Council due to geopolitical divisions, and Western arms shipments to Israel remaining uninterrupted, the conditions on the ground point toward a prolonged humanitarian catastrophe. In the absence of enforceable legal action, Gaza is increasingly becoming a symbol of global paralysis. where treaties are ignored, war crimes are alleged without consequence, and millions remain trapped in a conflict with no visible end.

Trump launches 30% tariff on EU and Mexico, dragging the world into a new trade war

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump jolted the global economy Friday with a thunderous declaration that the United States will impose a 30% tariff on all imports from the European Union and Mexico, beginning August 1. The announcement sent diplomatic shockwaves across capitals and reignited fears of a sweeping global trade war that could rattle markets and fracture long-standing alliances.

Framed as a measure to correct what Trump called “chronic trade abuse,” the tariffs come just months before the November 2025 election, casting a protectionist shadow over global economic forecasts. “We are no longer the world’s piggy bank,” Trump said in a televised address. “The EU and Mexico have taken advantage of America for too long. That ends August 1.”

While some conservative lawmakers hailed the move as a bold reassertion of American sovereignty, international leaders swiftly condemned it as a reckless provocation, vowing to respond in kind.

According to Reuters, the administration’s formal notice cited a $235.6 billion trade deficit with the EU in 2024 and described Mexico as failing to stem flows of fentanyl and illegal border crossings. The White House press release referred to Mexico as a “narco‑trafficking playground,” igniting diplomatic fury in Mexico City.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Trump’s policy “a direct attack on transatlantic economic cooperation,” warning that “proportionate countermeasures” are now under urgent consideration by the EU. Leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Spain issued a joint statement calling the tariffs “unjustified, unilateral and economically harmful.” Germany’s auto sector, which heavily exports to the US, warned the move would “inflict immediate damage on factories and jobs across Europe,” according to DW.

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed the allegations of drug trafficking complicity as “offensive and false,” adding that the tariffs “violate the spirit and letter of the USMCA agreement.” The country’s Foreign Minister, Raquel Buenrostro, confirmed that Mexico is exploring legal remedies, including escalation to the World Trade Organization.

In an even broader move, the president confirmed that Canada, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and 20 other countries would also face new trade restrictions, some as high as 50%, particularly targeting copper, electronics, and auto parts. The Washington Post reported that Canada’s 35% tariff could be expanded if “unfair dairy practices” are not addressed.

Despite the geopolitical uproar, Wall Street seemed unfazed. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones rose modestly, as investors bet that Trump’s tariffs could either be negotiated away or would take months to fully impact supply chains. Economists warned, however, that the short-term market calm may mask deeper risks, especially in inflation-sensitive sectors like agriculture, autos, and tech manufacturing.

“Tariffs are taxes on consumers,” said Greg Ip, senior economic analyst at the Wall Street Journal, in comments cited by The Washington Post. “It’s naïve to believe they won’t eventually hit American wallets.”

Industry leaders across the board echoed that concern. The US Chamber of Commerce said it was “deeply alarmed” by the scope of the tariffs and warned of “retaliation cycles that could destabilize already fragile global supply chains.” American farmers, particularly in soybean and pork exports, now fear losing key EU and Mexican markets.

As Brussels prepares a slate of retaliatory options—including digital services taxes, auto levies, and agricultural bans—analysts warn that this could spiral into a multi-front economic standoff unseen since the 1930s. “This is not a negotiating tactic,” said Dr. Eswar Prasad of Cornell University. “It’s a frontal assault on the multilateral trading system.”

According to Reuters, that Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU executive which handles trade policy for the 27 member states, said the bloc was ready to keep working towards an agreement before August 1, but was willing to stand firm.

“We will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required,” Ursula von der Leyen said of possible retaliatory tariffs on US goods entering Europe.

With the August 1 deadline looming, the world’s trading partners are scrambling to assess the fallout. But one thing is clear: in Trump’s renewed economic nationalism, diplomacy is optional, confrontation is strategy, and the cost will be shared far beyond America’s borders.

Macron moves to transform New Caledonia into a new state within France

PARIS — In a landmark institutional shift, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that New Caledonia will formally become a new state within the French Republic, ending decades of political ambiguity and tensions over independence. The decision follows more than ten days of high-stakes negotiations in Paris and arrives amid renewed scrutiny of France’s governance of its overseas territories.

According to Politico, the agreement, signed on July 12 in Paris, introduces a new constitutional status for the territory, recognizing it as a “state within the Republic.” Macron emphasized that the move is meant to solidify ties with New Caledonia while acknowledging its unique cultural and political identity.

“This is a bet on trust,” Macron stated during the announcement, affirming that the arrangement aims to bridge historic divides and move past years of contested referendums and political uncertainty.

Constitutional recognition, dual identity, and electoral reform

Under the agreement, New Caledonia will gain a constitutionally recognized status that includes a distinct, though inseparable, Caledonian citizenship tied to French nationality. According to France 24, the deal also expands local powers in tax collection, regional governance, and development planning, while maintaining France’s control over defense and foreign policy.

The highly contentious issue of voter eligibility, previously a source of deadly unrest, has been addressed through a compromise. A planned expansion of voting rights to non-Indigenous residents with ten years of residence has been dropped. The electoral rolls will now be determined through local consultation, easing tensions with Indigenous Kanak groups who feared political dilution.

Fallout from the 2024 unrest

The agreement comes after the violent protests of May 2024, which erupted in response to the proposed voting rights legislation. Thirteen people were killed, including two French gendarmes, and hundreds were injured in riots across Nouméa. The French government ultimately withdrew the bill and initiated renewed dialogue.

The new framework aims to prevent the recurrence of such unrest by addressing long-standing concerns over autonomy and political representation. The deal also sets provincial elections for mid-2026 under the revised constitutional structure.

Autonomy without secession

Despite the adoption of the term “statehood,” the agreement does not amount to independence. France will retain overarching authority in national defense, monetary policy, and international diplomacy. However, New Caledonia will manage its own tax regime, education system, and certain foreign engagements related to the Pacific region.

Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin called the agreement a “new institutional agreement of trust,” underscoring that the path forward is based on a recognition of plural identities within a unified republic.

Mixed reactions among Indigenous leadership

While the French government has portrayed the deal as a stabilizing milestone, Kanak leaders have responded with caution. Several representatives stressed that the framework, though a political breakthrough, must be backed by substantive economic and social reforms.

One Kanak official said according to France 24, that the symbolic language of statehood would be “meaningless” unless matched with improved access to jobs, education, and land restitution. There remains concern that the Kanak population, around 41% of New Caledonia’s demographics, could remain marginalized under the new model.

Statements and legal pathways

According to TASS, the institutional agreement will be enshrined in French constitutional law. Macron described the signing as a historic choice that formalizes New Caledonia’s political and legal position while ending the cycle of referendums. The agreement sets a precedent for a new model of territorial governance and will require ratification by the French Parliament and local institutions in New Caledonia.

A test case for French territorial reform?

Observers suggest that the New Caledonia accord may offer a roadmap for rethinking France’s relationship with other overseas territories, particularly those with strong local identities such as Guadeloupe and Martinique.

Still, the durability of the agreement hinges on constitutional ratification and effective policy implementation. Analysts cited by all three outlets stress that success depends on fiscal justice, inclusion of the Kanak population, and sustained dialogue.

Macron’s decision to transform New Caledonia into a state within the Republic represents the most ambitious constitutional evolution since the 1998 Nouméa Accord. While it ends the cycle of independence referendums, it also sets a precedent for power-sharing that will be closely watched by both French lawmakers and other post-colonial democracies.

Trump threatens to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, igniting global legal and political firestorm

President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to revoke the US citizenship of actress and comedian Rosie O’Donnell, escalating a personal feud into a constitutional showdown that legal experts say is unprecedented and legally impossible.

“She is a Threat to Humanity,” Trump declared on Truth Social during the early hours of July 12. “Let her stay in Ireland, if they’ll even have her.” He claimed he was giving “serious consideration” to revoking her US citizenship, a statement that immediately drew rebuke from across the political and legal spectrum.

According to Axios, Trump’s statement was posted and immediately began trending across social media platforms. This latest flare-up followed Rosie O’Donnell’s harsh criticism of the Trump administration’s disaster response to the deadly Texas floods, which killed more than 120 people and have been linked to reduced federal funding for emergency preparedness.

trump rosie o'donnell, rosie o donnell, rosie o'donnell trump, donald trump rosie o'donnell, rosie odonnell, rosie o’donnell
[PHOTO: Screenshot Truth Social]

Reuters independently confirmed the timing and content of Trump’s post, emphasizing that the president’s language was “extraordinarily aggressive even by his standards.” The news agency noted that this marks the first time in modern US history that a sitting president has publicly considered stripping the citizenship of a celebrity critic born on American soil.

Legal experts swiftly pushed back. The Hill quoted Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, who stated, “This is not North Korea. The president cannot strip an American citizen of her birthright simply because he doesn’t like what she says.” Tribe noted that Rosie O’Donnell, born in Commack, New York in 1962, is a natural-born citizen and protected under the 14th Amendment.

Further legal scrutiny was outlined in Politico, which detailed how the Supreme Court’s decision in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) prevents the federal government from revoking a person’s citizenship without their consent. “This kind of rhetoric is legally hollow but politically toxic,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.

Rosie O’Donnell responded with defiance. In a video posted to her Instagram account, she said, “This evil man-child wants to deport me for telling the truth? I’m not afraid. I’m not leaving. This is my country too.” Her message quickly gained traction, with hashtags like #RosieODonnell and #IStandWithRosie trending globally. Variety covered her response, noting that she has no official ties to Ireland and holds only US citizenship despite her Irish ancestry.

The American Civil Liberties Union released a formal statement denouncing Trump’s remarks as “a brazen attack on free speech and democratic dissent.” Legal observers underscored the seriousness of presidential rhetoric suggesting punitive action for criticism.

This is not the first time Trump and O’Donnell have clashed. Their feud dates back to 2006 when O’Donnell criticized Trump’s decision to allow Miss USA Tara Conner to retain her crown amid controversy. Trump retaliated with personal insults, labeling her a “real dummy” and “a loser.” That clash has simmered for nearly two decades and now returns under far graver circumstances.

The latest conflict arrives amid heightened political tension as the 2026 US midterm elections approach. Analysts argue that Trump’s inflammatory comments serve dual goals: mobilizing his base and distracting from widespread criticism over his administration’s response to natural disasters. Advocacy groups warn that invoking threats of citizenship revocation could normalize executive overreach.

Rosie O’Donnell, undeterred by the backlash, concluded her Instagram message with a quote from Maya Angelou: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”