Tag: perpetual war

Ukraine Claims Drone Strike On 5 Russian Fighter Jets At Crimean Base

Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) announced it conducted a successful drone assault on a Russian airbase in Saky, a city in Crimea, in the overnight hours. This comes after weekend attacks deep inside Russia which hit oil refineries and a military-linked electronics factory.

The SBU claimed direct hits on five Russian military aircraft at the base, which reportedly destroyed one Su-30SM fighter jet and damaged another. Ukraine also said its drones hit three additional Su-24 bombers, along with an attack on a depot storing aviation munitions.

The Saky airfield has long been a key hub for Russian military activity in the Black Sea region. The SBU hailed the strike as “significant” – given that a single Su-30SM jet is worth up to around $50 million.

“The successful special operation carried out by the SBU in Saky marks another step toward weakening the enemy’s capacity to wage its war of aggression against Ukraine,” the SBU said.

However, Russia has yet to confirm or deny the Crimea airbase strike, or the jet losses – and is not likely to. If accurate, the aircraft destruction would mark the biggest such assault since Operation Spiderweb on June 1st, which targeted four airbases deep inside Russian territory.

Ukraine claimed it took out 41 Russian military aircraft in that operation, but Moscow consistently said this figure was exaggerated – but never disclosed a precise damage assessment.

The Su-30SM is a two-seat, twin-engine multirole fighter aircraft introduced by Russia early last decade, while the Su-24 is a twin-engine, supersonic strike aircraft developed by the Soviet Union – both of which are frequently used for combat missions in Ukraine.

Soon after Operation Spider’s Web, Ukraine’s military vowed there would be more such attacks to come. Russia has of late been pummeling Ukrainian cities with drone and missile strikes, so it appears Kiev is mounting more and more cross-border revenge attacks over the last several days.

Keep reading

UK Warns Of War With China Over Taiwan

The United Kingdom is warning that it could start a war with China over Taiwan. British Defense Secretary John Healey has said that force is possible, but he emphasized that London continues to prefer a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

The UK seems to be anything but diplomatic and peaceful lately, though.

Healey said Britain would “secure peace through strength” if necessary, while speaking with The Telegraph in Australia.  This speech marks one of the clearest signals yet from a senior UK official regarding the possibility of a direct military confrontation with China.

”If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together,” Healey said when asked what London would do in case of an escalation around Taiwan.

The secretary then said he was speaking in “general terms.” According to Healey, London’s approach to Taiwan has not changed.

Keep reading

Netanyahu Has Reportedly Opted For Permanent Military Occupation Of Gaza

Israel’s Channel 12 broadcaster is reporting that the Israeli government has made the decision to occupy the Gaza Strip on a permanent basis.

Correspondent Amit Segal reports Monday, “Senior official in Netanyahu’s office: The decision has been made — we’re going to occupy Gaza.”

The top official has been further quoted as saying: “If we do not act now, hostages will die of starvation and Gaza will remain under Hamas control.”

But the last days have seen conflicting reports over the status and future of the ground operation, dubbed ‘Gideon’s Chariots’. What has become clear in the last week is that negotiations are off, as Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered an expanded ground incursion in central Gaza.

With much of the Strip already decimated, and inhabitants on the verge of mass starvation, a big question has remained for Netanyahu: what’s next?

Hardline politicians in his own cabinet have called for the total removal of the Palestinian population, after President Trump months ago talked about turning the enclave into the ‘Rivera of the Mediterranean’. 

Indeed a key question remains, will Trump back a plan of permanent Israeli military occupation? This would certainly open up the likelihood of eventual annexation of the territory.

Keep reading

Creating a Cover for Genocide

In July 2025, the Massachusetts legislature’s Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill to make it the 38th state to follow the federal government, 45 other countries (almost all of them in the global North), and more than 50 U.S. local governments in adopting a strange definition of antisemitism.

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), a group of 35 mostly European countries, drafted what it called a working definition of antisemitism. The Alliance had been founded in 1998 to promote Holocaust education and, in its own words, to “strengthen governmental cooperation to work towards a world without genocide.” All too sadly, right now, its definition is being used to do the opposite: it’s helping to criminalize opposition to genocide.

Is It Really About Antisemitism?

Most anti-racist organizations, like the NAACP, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and Stop Anti-Asian and Pacific Islander Hate, do not, in fact, offer a specific definition of racism. Instead, they simply work to combat discrimination and fight for equal opportunity and basic human and civil rights.

Jews in the United States don’t, in fact, face the same kinds of systemic racism the people that formed the above organizations face. Unlike them, Jews tend to be disproportionately high income, highly educated professionals.

So, in the IHRA’s list of examples of antisemitism, not one refers to inequality or structural discrimination. Instead, they focus mostly on ideas and speech — and in particular things said about Israel. And what those examples, in fact, tend to do is turn the definition of antisemitism into a thinly veiled tool for use in prohibiting criticism of any sort of Israel.

The IHRA’s definition itself appears relatively straightforward, even if it focuses on thought and speech rather than structures of racism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

What follows, however, is a confusing and contradictory amalgam of 11 “examples of antisemitism in public life,” six of which focus on political debate that raises questions about Zionism, Israel as an ethnostate, or Israel’s actions.

Creating legal avenues to suppress what would otherwise be protected political speech about Israel is a major reason that the IHRA and its allies have felt the need to turn their definition into law. And advocates for the legal adoption of that definition claim that it’s necessary because antisemitism is on the rise in this country. But the expansive and confusing examples of antisemitism that the definition relies on actually make it impossible to know whether such a statement is, in fact, accurate. The organizations that use the IHRA definition to track antisemitism won’t tell us whether what is on the rise is actually antisemitism or simply opposition to Israel and its increasingly unnerving actions in the Middle East.

Keep reading

Cold War 2.0 Heats Up

Last week the nuclear rhetoric between the US and Russia made some of us feel like we were transported back to 1962. Back then, Soviet moves to place nuclear-capable missiles 90 miles off our coast in Cuba led to the greatest crisis of the Cold War. The United States and its president, John F. Kennedy, could not tolerate such weapons placed by a hostile power on its doorstep and the world only knew years later how close we were to nuclear war.

Thankfully both Khrushchev and Kennedy backed down – with the Soviet leader removing the missiles from Cuba and the US president agreeing to remove some missiles from Turkey. Both men realized the folly of playing with “mutually assured destruction,” and this compromise likely paved the way to further US/Soviet dialogue from Nixon to President Reagan and finally to the end of the Cold War.

Fast forward more than 60 years later and we have a US president, Donald Trump, who last week stated that he had “ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions,” meaning nearer to Russia.

Had Russia attacked the US or an ally? Threatened to do so? No. The supposed re-positioning of US strategic military assets was in response to a sharp series of posts made by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev on social media that irritated President Trump.

The war of words started earlier, when neocon US Senator Lindsey Graham’s endless threats against Russia received a response – and a warning – from Medvedev. Graham, who seems to love war more than anything else, posted “To those in Russia who believe that President Trump is not serious about ending the bloodbath between Russia and Ukraine… You will also soon see that Joe Biden is no longer president. Get to the peace table.”

Medvedev responded, “It’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table’. Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved. Work on America first, gramps!”

That was enough for Trump to join in to defend his ill-chosen ally Graham and ended with Medvedev alluding to Soviet nuclear doctrine which provided for an automatic nuclear response to any first strike on the USSR by US or NATO weapons.

The message from the Russian politician was clear: back off. It was hardly Khruschev banging his shoe at the UN screaming “we will bury you,” but it was enough for Trump to make a rare public pronouncement about the movement of US nuclear submarines.

Keep reading

Here’s What Gabbard’s Russiagate Report Missed

“An easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia — from a position of strength — is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end.” Candidate Donald Trump said that on April 27, 2016. At first glance that might sound rather irrelevant to Gabbard’s Russiagate revelations. But let me connect the dots for you.

The first point is that Russiagate has inflamed US-Russia tensions. That action actually had a number of beneficiaries. Their interests would be harmed by Trump’s aspiration.

Who are they? Primarily I’m talking about the US defense industry and those connected in some way. Certainly a strong defensive capability is of vital importance. But the demand for defense production becomes inflated by provocations like Russiagate. However, such demand is not essential for a strong defense posture.

It is natural behavior for an industry to try to protect itself and to grow. That means the defense industry would be receptive to provoked demand. And there is evidence that many American politicians would be motivated to support that unnecessary production. Here’s why. First, if there were no politically provoked demand there would be a lesser need for defense production. Congressional district and state economies could be negatively impacted by fewer defense contracts, there would be fewer jobs, out of work people would spend less money thus impacting local economies, there might be fewer revolving-door opportunities for politicians leaving government service, and there could be fewer campaign contributions, free trips including foreign visits, and a reduction in other favors provided to politicians (such as supporting pet charities or projects of a politician).

In short, a peace dividend from better US-Russia relations would be felt quite negatively by the foregoing. And that’s where my cited Trump quote favoring better relations with Russia connects. His aspiration runs counter to certain political interests by compromising them.

Perhaps that’s why just 36 days after Trump’s cited aspirational statement, Hillary Clinton said, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.”

Now, I don’t think she meant literally celebrating like a birthday party. Being very happy might fit the metaphor.

But why wouldn’t both countries be happy over the advent of better relations? Certainly that was the case back when President Ronald Reagan made friends with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. For comparison, wouldn’t the US administration be happy if it convinced the leadership of Iran to honestly seek better relations with us?

Countries enjoying solidly good relations generally don’t fight each other directly or by surrogacy.

So this is what Gabbard’s reports missed: They omitted the greater context concerning the benefits for some from undertaking the Russiagate hoax. Gabbard makes it sound simply like a big untoward political squabble. She missed the point that it is within some commercial interests to vilify Russia as did Russiagate.

Her reports expose the political culprits responsible for the hoax. But they ignore that greater context in which they did it. And that context is far more consequential than the political angle that has dominated the Gabbard news story. Even putting Obama in jail, as some have mused about, wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem.

There are real problems created by those who benefit from conflict in the world. Those problems are inextricably related to the onset of the Russiagate hoax. All the perpetrators of the hoax may not have been astute enough to realize that. Yet it remains at the heart of the matter.

Keep reading

How the West Bank Is Being Annexed to Israel, with Tacit US Support

Just days ago, the Israeli parliament Knesset passed a motion for the agenda to “apply sovereignty” to the West Bank. Though largely declarative, the motion is paving the way to a wider debate on West Bank annexation in the Knesset plenum or in committees.

The motion was initiated by MKs Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism), one of the architects of Israel’s move from secular and democratic state to Jewish autocracy; Oded Forer (Yisrael Beitenu), a revisionist Zionist and hardliner; Limor Son Har-Melech (Otzma Yehudit), a Kahanite far-right extremist famous for her vow “Kill the Arabs”; and Dan Illouz (Likud), the Canadian-born harsh-right supporter of a Jewish neoliberal autocracy. 

The vote passed 71-13 in the Knesset. Afterwards, Illouz declared, “The message is unequivocal: Judea and Samaria are not a bargaining chip. The time has come for sovereignty.” 

Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967. It is the longest military occupation in modern history. Following the destruction of the Gaza Strip and efforts at its ethnic cleansing, the status quo is changing in the West Bank, which is being incorporated into Israel.

As I show in The Fall of Israel, this process of expansionism is historical. In early 20th century, before the British Mandate, more than nine of ten residents of Palestine were Arabs. Even today, 85% of the West Bank’s population are Arabs and only 15% are Jewish. Consequently, the “sovereign” Israel that the Netanyahu cabinet supports is predicated on ethnic cleansing. Hence, the explosion of violence against Palestinian Arabs in the area.

Keep reading

Climbing Aboard the Titanic: Trump’s New Ukraine Policy

When Donald Trump entered the White House for his second term as president, he had an excellent opportunity to extricate the United States from the quagmire war between Russia and Ukraine.  His instincts–that continued involvement in that conflict was not in America’s best interests—were sound.  Indeed, he signaled throughout the 2024 presidential campaign that he intended to terminate military and financial aid to Kyiv as soon as possible.  Most of his MAGA supporters seemed to agree that the Biden administration’s willingness to send billions of dollars to Ukraine when the United States had pressing needs at home was disgraceful.

Just months into his term, however, the president seems to have abandoned the goal of jettisoning the Ukraine commitment.  Instead, he has continued weapons shipments to Kyiv and authorized new ones.  He also expresses growing hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and is making ever more unrealistic demands on Moscow.  In mid-July, that shift in policy included his insistence that the Kremlin accept a comprehensive ceasefire as the first stage of a peace accord with Ukraine—and do so within 50 days.  In late July, Trump moved up the deadline for Moscow’s acquiescence to such terms to no more than 10 to 12 days.  Otherwise, he warned, the United States would impose new economic sanctions on Russia far more onerous than those already in effect.  

The threat to impose stronger economic sanctions, though, has lost much of its clout.    Despite suffering some economic pain, Russia has been surprisingly resilient in handling existing sanctions.  Moscow has done an especially impressive job of finding alternative markets for its principal exports, most notably oil and natural gas.  There is no reason to believe that the situation would be different this time.  Increasing Washington’s military support for NATO’s Ukrainian proxy might have more impact, but it also would be utterly reckless, bringing the specter of World War III into play. 

Trump has picked an especially inauspicious time to join Ukraine’s Western fan club.  It is ironic that he is continuing– and even escalating–Washington’s commitment to Ukraine at precisely the moment that Kyiv’s status as viable U.S. and NATO client has become increasingly doubtful.  Russia continues to make gains on the battlefield, slowly conquering additional Ukrainian territory.  The bloodied Ukrainian forces appear increasingly beleaguered, and Russia (because of its much larger population and military reserves) is better positioned for a continuing war of attrition. 

Keep reading

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship.

The status quo in Jerusalem has long maintained that Jewish prayer is forbidden on the raised plateau in occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, where Al-Aqsa Mosque stands.

However, over the past century, Zionist groups have repeatedly violated the fragile arrangement, launching unprecedented attacks on what’s considered one of Islam’s holiest sites. 

Residents in Jerusalem’s Old City told MEE that before and after Ben Gvir’s raid, the area had come to resemble a “military base” due to the “many checkpoints” that had been set up and the “heavy Israeli security presence”.

They said that Israeli forces severely restricted Palestinians from accessing the mosque, with only a few local residents allowed to pass. Speaking to reporters after the raid, Ben Gvir said: “The Temple Mount is for the Jews, and we will remain here forever.”

Since becoming a minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, Ben Gvir has led at least 11 assaults on the mosque. Meanwhile, several other far-right politicians have advocated for the destruction of Al-Aqsa and the construction of a  temple where they claim Jewish temples once stood.

Among the hundreds of people to take part in Sunday’s raid was right-wing Likud lawmaker Amit Halevi, who has repeatedly advocated for Israel to destroy all water, food and energy sources in Gaza.

In June 2023, he tabled a bill that would divide Al-Aqsa Mosque between Muslims and Jews, a plan that would see shared access from the courtyard of the Dome of the Rock to the end of the northern border of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Palestinians fear that the incursions at Al-Aqsa, which have intensified since Israel went to war on Gaza in October 2023, are laying the groundwork for the mosque to be divided similar to how the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron was in the 1990s.

Muslims currently have limited access to that site, and just last month, Israel transferred the authority of the mosque from the Palestinian-run Hebron municipality to a settler council.

Aouni Bazbaz, the director of international affairs at the Islamic Waqf, the organisation that administers Al-Aqsa Mosque, described Sunday’s raid as “painful and regrettable”, telling MEE that it was a threat to the “historical status quo and an incitement to violence”.

“There were terrifying numbers of people [Israeli settlers] present and some were important figures,” he said. “This was part of a project. The extreme religious right seeks to undermine the status quo and to clearly follow the example of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

Keep reading

Israel Preparing To Escalate Military Offensive in Gaza

The Israeli military is drawing up plans to escalate its genocidal war in the Gaza Strip that will soon be presented to Israeli political leadership, Haaretz reported on Sunday.

An Israeli official said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is pushing for the release of hostages as part of a military resolution,” and he is set to discuss the matter with his cabinet on Tuesday. According to the Haaretz report, the idea is to extend ground operations into sensitive areas, including Gaza’s central refugee camps, where Israeli captives are believed to be held.

Israeli officials are now claiming that Hamas doesn’t want a deal, even though the group has long said it is willing to release all remaining Israeli captives in exchange for a permanent ceasefire. Officials are pointing to Hamas’s denial of a claim by US envoy Steve Witkoff, who said the group was willing to disarm. Hamas responded that it would only give up its weapons if an independent Palestinian state were established.

Witkoff was in Israel on Friday and Saturday and met with family members of Israelis being held in Gaza. He told them that President Trump no longer seeks a temporary ceasefire deal but wants a comprehensive one that will free the remaining 20 living Israeli captives. However, Netanyahu hasn’t shown interest in a deal, and there’s no sign that Trump is willing to put pressure on him.

The family members of Israeli captives in Gaza want a diplomatic solution and are against military escalation. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum has criticized the reported plans for the expansion of military operations, warning that “expanding the war endangers the lives of the hostages, who are already in immediate danger of death.”

Netanyahu claimed on Sunday that the videos of two emaciated Israeli captives released by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) show that Hamas “doesn’t want a deal” and vowed that he would work to “eliminate” the Palestinian group. For its part, Hamas insisted that the Israeli prisoners eat “what our fighters and our people eat” and said that the Red Cross could deliver aid to them if Israel permanently opened humanitarian corridors and halted airstrikes during aid deliveries.

Israel has been under significant international pressure to allow more aid into Gaza as Palestinians are starving to death due to its blockade. The Haaretz report said that the US and Israel appear to be moving toward expanding Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) distribution points in north Gaza, which would require Israel to occupy more territory.

Keep reading