Donald Tusk previously echoed 2016 allegations and accused the US president of having ties with Moscow
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he doesn’t regret his past claim that US President Donald Trump is a Russian asset, flip-flopping on an earlier denial.
In a preelection meeting in 2023, Tusk claimed that “Trump’s links with Russian secret services are irrefutable.” He U-turned on the statement last November, just days after Trump secured his second term in the 2024 election.
“I do not regret any words I have spoken in my life,” Tusk told journalists at a press conference in Lomza, Poland on Friday, when asked to comment on his earlier allegations.
“President Trump is a very demanding and difficult partner. Not just from my point of view, we all know it,” he added.
In November 2024, when pressed about his accusations, Tusk first evaded the question, then claimed he “had never made such suggestions.”
Claims of Russian ties first surfaced in 2016 after Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Moscow has consistently denied them, attributing the allegations to partisan infighting.
A probe launched this year by the US president has allegedly discovered a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials, along with groups linked to billionaire George Soros, to undermine his 2016 election victory.
Trump hosted Polish President Karol Nawrocki at the White House on Wednesday. Since his election a little over a month ago, right-wing Nawrocki has clashed with pro-EU Tusk on a number of issues, vetoing a number of government bills.
Amid the conflict, the Polish president broke protocol and did not invite the country’s ambassador or anyone from the Foreign Ministry to attend the meeting with Trump, according to the publication Responsible Statecraft.
Donald Tusk previously echoed 2016 allegations and accused the US president of having ties with Moscow
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he doesn’t regret his past claim that US President Donald Trump is a Russian asset, flip-flopping on an earlier denial.
In a preelection meeting in 2023, Tusk claimed that “Trump’s links with Russian secret services are irrefutable.” He U-turned on the statement last November, just days after Trump secured his second term in the 2024 election.
“I do not regret any words I have spoken in my life,” Tusk told journalists at a press conference in Lomza, Poland on Friday, when asked to comment on his earlier allegations.
“President Trump is a very demanding and difficult partner. Not just from my point of view, we all know it,” he added.
In November 2024, when pressed about his accusations, Tusk first evaded the question, then claimed he “had never made such suggestions.”
Claims of Russian ties first surfaced in 2016 after Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Moscow has consistently denied them, attributing the allegations to partisan infighting.
A probe launched this year by the US president has allegedly discovered a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials, along with groups linked to billionaire George Soros, to undermine his 2016 election victory.
Trump hosted Polish President Karol Nawrocki at the White House on Wednesday. Since his election a little over a month ago, right-wing Nawrocki has clashed with pro-EU Tusk on a number of issues, vetoing a number of government bills.
Amid the conflict, the Polish president broke protocol and did not invite the country’s ambassador or anyone from the Foreign Ministry to attend the meeting with Trump, according to the publication Responsible Statecraft.
Progress has been made, but no timeframe has been set to reach a peace deal, Dmitry Peskov has said
There has been progress in efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict, but it is too early to talk about when it might end, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Peskov made the remarks in an interview with TASS on Friday on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, stressing that Moscow is “not ready to predict” specific timelines.
”[President Vladimir Putin] said there is light at the end of the tunnel” in efforts to end the conflict, Peskov stated, referring to a comments the Russian leader made earlier this week in Beijing.
Putin told reporters that a settlement could be drawing closer, citing the position of US President Donald Trump and his administration, who in his view have shown a “genuine desire to find the solution.”
“We’ll see how the situation develops,” Putin said.
The Russian president also reiterated his readiness to meet with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, but cautioned that holding a summit “just for the sake of it” would be a “path to nowhere,” and added that if Zelensky genuinely wanted to talk, he could simply come to Moscow to negotiate peace terms.
Kiev has ruled out the possibility of such a meeting. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga has accused Putin of making “knowingly unacceptable” proposals, claiming that Zelensky is ready to meet at any time but not under Moscow’s conditions.
Zelensky’s presidential term expired last May, but he has refused to hold elections, citing martial law. Moscow has repeatedly questioned his legitimacy, arguing that any agreement signed by him could later be contested by a future Ukrainian government.
Putin has said settling the conflict also depends on Western countries, as Washington remains bound by commitments to its allies, including NATO. Moscow maintains that lasting peace would require Kiev to recognize its new borders and abandon plans to join NATO.
The SCO summit shows how the world is shifting away from the West
Historical anniversaries often provide the backdrop for diplomacy to become spectacle. This week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged ahead of China’s grand parade marking 80 years since the end of World War II. Beijing, the host, made sure the symbolism landed. The timing also underscored the contrast with Washington: Donald Trump, who has long admired military parades, is already planning a lavish one next July for America’s 250th anniversary, after his low-key attempt last summer fell flat.
For the SCO itself, the Tianjin meeting carried weight comparable to last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan. Documents were signed, but as always the road from declarations to implementation will be long. What mattered most was setting a benchmark. In international politics, the very act of gathering matters as much as the outcomes.
Beyond the West’s stage
By inertia, many still measure importance by whether Western powers are in the room. For decades, world affairs were shaped by East-West confrontation in the Cold War, and then by the unilateral primacy of the US and its allies. Membership of the G7 (at one time G8) was once the crown jewel of global respectability. Even the G20, designed to reflect a more diverse world, remained dominated by Western influence over its agenda. Meetings without the West were seen as parochial or symbolic.
That perception is now outdated. The real turning point came last year – first at BRICS, now at the SCO. Both groupings, very different in composition, are drawing growing interest. Countries are applying to join or at least to participate. Simply appearing at these forums has become prestigious, and the corridor diplomacy surrounding them allows for meetings that are otherwise difficult to arrange.
The shift is not just about Russia. The attempt by Western governments to isolate Moscow after the escalation in Ukraine has backfired. Instead of leaving Russia in the cold, it accelerated the formation of what is now described as the “global majority.” Many states do not want to submit to anyone else’s political logic. They follow their own calculations of interest and expediency.
From rejection to attraction
Structures once mocked in the West as artificial, jealous imitations of Western clubs – BRICS and the SCO foremost among them – are now becoming indispensable. They are no longer simply ideological counters to hegemony, but practical platforms. This explains efforts to expand the BRICS New Development Bank and to set up an SCO Development Bank. These institutions will not rival the IMF or World Bank immediately, but the trajectory is clear: to build alternatives that bypass Western gatekeepers.
The West finds this almost impossible to digest. For Washington and Brussels, any institution outside their control looks like a threat, a conspiracy “against democracy.” In fact, the opposite is taking place. The West is retreating inward, shifting to a defensive crouch – sometimes aggressively so – and in the process cutting itself off from much of the world.
The formula that has gained currency in Moscow – “not against the West, but without it” – is finally becoming reality.
Another factor hastening this change is the blunt style of the Trump administration. Its message is simple: pay up, or pressure will follow. Allies have largely complied, reinforcing Washington’s belief that this approach works. But countries with no security obligations to the US have reacted differently. They reject being treated as clients, especially when it all comes down to money flowing to America.
Hence the surprise in Washington when so many states line up for BRICS+ or SCO+. They are not necessarily embracing Russia or China unconditionally; they are signaling their refusal to live by rules drawn elsewhere.
Russia’s place
Against this backdrop, Russia finds itself not marginalized but central. Western isolation efforts only underscored Moscow’s role as a key pole around which non-Western states can organize. For many, Russia is proof that there are alternatives to Western tutelage.
President Vladimir Putin, addressing the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok just after the SCO summit, emphasized Russia’s two-headed eagle: the country looks both ways. He insisted Russia has not closed the door to the US or the rest of Europe. American businesses, he said, could benefit enormously from joint projects if their government allowed it.
At the same time, Moscow is strengthening ties with China, India, and the wider Global South. The new agreements with Beijing – from energy deals to visa-free travel – are practical steps along this path.
The symbolism matters too. At the SCO summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched “global governance initiative” with Putin’s backing. Far from being an anti-Western conspiracy, it reflects the search for a more balanced order.
A world in transition
What is emerging is not a neat bloc or a new Cold War divide, but something looser and more diverse. International politics is shifting away from Western-centric hierarchies towards a multipolar landscape. The SCO summit should be read in this context, as part of a larger realignment.
The world is messy and the processes chaotic, but the direction is clear. Non-Western states are asserting their right to set agendas, to create institutions, and to act together without waiting for permission. The attempt to quarantine Russia has only sped this up.
The West may still believe nothing serious happens without it. But at Tianjin, as at Kazan before it, the message was unmistakable: much of the world is now prepared to move on.
This article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
The SCO summit shows how the world is shifting away from the West
Historical anniversaries often provide the backdrop for diplomacy to become spectacle. This week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged ahead of China’s grand parade marking 80 years since the end of World War II. Beijing, the host, made sure the symbolism landed. The timing also underscored the contrast with Washington: Donald Trump, who has long admired military parades, is already planning a lavish one next July for America’s 250th anniversary, after his low-key attempt last summer fell flat.
For the SCO itself, the Tianjin meeting carried weight comparable to last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan. Documents were signed, but as always the road from declarations to implementation will be long. What mattered most was setting a benchmark. In international politics, the very act of gathering matters as much as the outcomes.
Beyond the West’s stage
By inertia, many still measure importance by whether Western powers are in the room. For decades, world affairs were shaped by East-West confrontation in the Cold War, and then by the unilateral primacy of the US and its allies. Membership of the G7 (at one time G8) was once the crown jewel of global respectability. Even the G20, designed to reflect a more diverse world, remained dominated by Western influence over its agenda. Meetings without the West were seen as parochial or symbolic.
That perception is now outdated. The real turning point came last year – first at BRICS, now at the SCO. Both groupings, very different in composition, are drawing growing interest. Countries are applying to join or at least to participate. Simply appearing at these forums has become prestigious, and the corridor diplomacy surrounding them allows for meetings that are otherwise difficult to arrange.
The shift is not just about Russia. The attempt by Western governments to isolate Moscow after the escalation in Ukraine has backfired. Instead of leaving Russia in the cold, it accelerated the formation of what is now described as the “global majority.” Many states do not want to submit to anyone else’s political logic. They follow their own calculations of interest and expediency.
From rejection to attraction
Structures once mocked in the West as artificial, jealous imitations of Western clubs – BRICS and the SCO foremost among them – are now becoming indispensable. They are no longer simply ideological counters to hegemony, but practical platforms. This explains efforts to expand the BRICS New Development Bank and to set up an SCO Development Bank. These institutions will not rival the IMF or World Bank immediately, but the trajectory is clear: to build alternatives that bypass Western gatekeepers.
The West finds this almost impossible to digest. For Washington and Brussels, any institution outside their control looks like a threat, a conspiracy “against democracy.” In fact, the opposite is taking place. The West is retreating inward, shifting to a defensive crouch – sometimes aggressively so – and in the process cutting itself off from much of the world.
The formula that has gained currency in Moscow – “not against the West, but without it” – is finally becoming reality.
Another factor hastening this change is the blunt style of the Trump administration. Its message is simple: pay up, or pressure will follow. Allies have largely complied, reinforcing Washington’s belief that this approach works. But countries with no security obligations to the US have reacted differently. They reject being treated as clients, especially when it all comes down to money flowing to America.
Hence the surprise in Washington when so many states line up for BRICS+ or SCO+. They are not necessarily embracing Russia or China unconditionally; they are signaling their refusal to live by rules drawn elsewhere.
Russia’s place
Against this backdrop, Russia finds itself not marginalized but central. Western isolation efforts only underscored Moscow’s role as a key pole around which non-Western states can organize. For many, Russia is proof that there are alternatives to Western tutelage.
President Vladimir Putin, addressing the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok just after the SCO summit, emphasized Russia’s two-headed eagle: the country looks both ways. He insisted Russia has not closed the door to the US or the rest of Europe. American businesses, he said, could benefit enormously from joint projects if their government allowed it.
At the same time, Moscow is strengthening ties with China, India, and the wider Global South. The new agreements with Beijing – from energy deals to visa-free travel – are practical steps along this path.
The symbolism matters too. At the SCO summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched “global governance initiative” with Putin’s backing. Far from being an anti-Western conspiracy, it reflects the search for a more balanced order.
A world in transition
What is emerging is not a neat bloc or a new Cold War divide, but something looser and more diverse. International politics is shifting away from Western-centric hierarchies towards a multipolar landscape. The SCO summit should be read in this context, as part of a larger realignment.
The world is messy and the processes chaotic, but the direction is clear. Non-Western states are asserting their right to set agendas, to create institutions, and to act together without waiting for permission. The attempt to quarantine Russia has only sped this up.
The West may still believe nothing serious happens without it. But at Tianjin, as at Kazan before it, the message was unmistakable: much of the world is now prepared to move on.
This article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
The secret mission, reportedly approved by Trump in 2019, resulted in civilian deaths
The US Navy’s elite special operations unit, SEAL Team Six, carried out a covert mission inside North Korea that violated international law and left civilians dead, the New York Times has reported.
The 2019 operation, reportedly authorized by President Donald Trump during his first term, sent commandos to plant a surveillance device designed to intercept the communications of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The intelligence was intended to strengthen US leverage during nuclear negotiations between Kim and Trump.
Officials briefed on the mission told the outlet that SEAL Team Six – the unit best known for killing Osama bin Laden in 2011 – launched from submarines and used mini-submersibles to approach the North Korean coast. But in the dark of night, the team failed to notice several men in a nearby boat. Believing them to be hostile forces, the SEALs opened fire, killing two or three unarmed fishermen. They then reportedly retrieved the bodies, punctured the lungs so they would sink, and abandoned the mission before reaching the target site.
Breakdowns in communication and surveillance reportedly compounded the problems, the article continued. Commanders aboard supporting submarines could not maintain radio contact, drones were unavailable, and satellite imagery was outdated, leaving the team without reliable intelligence. A subsequent military review concluded the killings resulted from “an unfortunate sequence” of unforeseeable events rather than misconduct, but the findings were kept classified.
The mission was never disclosed to Congress, raising concerns about the lack of oversight, and may have violated US law, according to the NYT.
North Korea has never acknowledged the incident, and it remains unclear whether Pyongyang ever learned of it until now.
In 2019, Trump sought a breakthrough with Kim on North Korea’s nuclear program, but talks failed and Pyongyang pressed ahead. Washington now estimates North Korea has about 50 nuclear warheads and missiles capable of hitting the US.
The secret mission, reportedly approved by Trump in 2019, resulted in civilian deaths
The US Navy’s elite special operations unit, SEAL Team Six, carried out a covert mission inside North Korea that violated international law and left civilians dead, the New York Times has reported.
The 2019 operation, reportedly authorized by President Donald Trump during his first term, sent commandos to plant a surveillance device designed to intercept the communications of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The intelligence was intended to strengthen US leverage during nuclear negotiations between Kim and Trump.
Officials briefed on the mission told the outlet that SEAL Team Six – the unit best known for killing Osama bin Laden in 2011 – launched from submarines and used mini-submersibles to approach the North Korean coast. But in the dark of night, the team failed to notice several men in a nearby boat. Believing them to be hostile forces, the SEALs opened fire, killing two or three unarmed fishermen. They then reportedly retrieved the bodies, punctured the lungs so they would sink, and abandoned the mission before reaching the target site.
Breakdowns in communication and surveillance reportedly compounded the problems, the article continued. Commanders aboard supporting submarines could not maintain radio contact, drones were unavailable, and satellite imagery was outdated, leaving the team without reliable intelligence. A subsequent military review concluded the killings resulted from “an unfortunate sequence” of unforeseeable events rather than misconduct, but the findings were kept classified.
The mission was never disclosed to Congress, raising concerns about the lack of oversight, and may have violated US law, according to the NYT.
North Korea has never acknowledged the incident, and it remains unclear whether Pyongyang ever learned of it until now.
In 2019, Trump sought a breakthrough with Kim on North Korea’s nuclear program, but talks failed and Pyongyang pressed ahead. Washington now estimates North Korea has about 50 nuclear warheads and missiles capable of hitting the US.
Facebook, YouTube, X, WhatsApp, and dozens more are no longer accessible in Nepal due to non-compliance with government registration
Nepal has blocked dozens of major social media platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, and Reddit, after they failed to comply with national registration rules. The move echoes a global trend of governments tightening oversight of Big Tech.
The ban follows directives issued in 2023 by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, which require all networks to register before operating in the South Asian country. The Supreme Court recently backed the measure, telling the government to ensure both foreign and domestic platforms are officially listed so their content can be monitored.
The government says the rules are meant to curb fake accounts, hate speech, and cybercrime in a country where nine in ten people use the internet. Platforms were given a week from August 28 to apply, but the deadline passed on Wednesday night without any of the major global players – including Meta, Alphabet, X, Reddit, and LinkedIn – submitting applications.
A total of 26 platforms that ignored the directives have now been blocked. According to local media reports, TikTok, Viber, and several smaller apps did register, while Telegram and Global Diary are still waiting for approval.
“Except for the five listed platforms and two in the process, all others will be deactivated inside Nepal,” ministry spokesperson Gajendra Kumar Thakur said, adding that any platform completing registration would be reopened the same day.
The decision has stirred anger online, with social media users calling it regressive in the digital era and warning it risks cutting millions off from services they rely on daily.
Around the world, governments from the US and EU to Brazil and Australia are moving to tighten control of social media, citing fears of fake news, data misuse, and security risks. Last month, Russia’s media watchdog restricted voice calls on WhatsApp and Telegram, citing their use in scams, extortion, and recruitment for sabotage and terrorist activity.
Facebook, YouTube, X, WhatsApp, and dozens more are no longer accessible in Nepal due to non-compliance with government registration
Nepal has blocked dozens of major social media platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, and Reddit, after they failed to comply with national registration rules. The move echoes a global trend of governments tightening oversight of Big Tech.
The ban follows directives issued in 2023 by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, which require all networks to register before operating in the South Asian country. The Supreme Court recently backed the measure, telling the government to ensure both foreign and domestic platforms are officially listed so their content can be monitored.
The government says the rules are meant to curb fake accounts, hate speech, and cybercrime in a country where nine in ten people use the internet. Platforms were given a week from August 28 to apply, but the deadline passed on Wednesday night without any of the major global players – including Meta, Alphabet, X, Reddit, and LinkedIn – submitting applications.
A total of 26 platforms that ignored the directives have now been blocked. According to local media reports, TikTok, Viber, and several smaller apps did register, while Telegram and Global Diary are still waiting for approval.
“Except for the five listed platforms and two in the process, all others will be deactivated inside Nepal,” ministry spokesperson Gajendra Kumar Thakur said, adding that any platform completing registration would be reopened the same day.
The decision has stirred anger online, with social media users calling it regressive in the digital era and warning it risks cutting millions off from services they rely on daily.
Around the world, governments from the US and EU to Brazil and Australia are moving to tighten control of social media, citing fears of fake news, data misuse, and security risks. Last month, Russia’s media watchdog restricted voice calls on WhatsApp and Telegram, citing their use in scams, extortion, and recruitment for sabotage and terrorist activity.
Despite objections from across the world, Netanyahu’s government is redrawing the map with tank tracks
In early August, Benjamin Netanyahu dispelled any lingering ambiguity. In a direct interview with Fox News, he made explicit what had long been implied through diplomatic euphemisms: Israel intends to take full military control of the Gaza, dismantle Hamas as a political and military entity, and eventually transfer authority to a “non-Hamas civilian administration,” ideally with Arab participation.
“We’re not going to govern Gaza,” the prime minister added. But even then, the formula of “seize but not rule” read more like a diplomatic veil for a much harsher course of action.
The very next day, Israel’s security cabinet gave formal approval to this trajectory, initiating preparations for an assault on Gaza City. The UN secretary-general responded swiftly, warning that such an operation risked a dangerous escalation and threatened to normalize what had once been an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe.
August exposed the war in its most unforgiving clarity. Strikes on Zeitoun, Shuja’iyya, Sabra, and operations in the Jabalia area became a part of the daily rhythm. The encirclement of Gaza City tightened slowly but relentlessly. Brigadier General Effi Defrin confirmed the launch of a new phase, with troops reaching the city’s outskirts. At the same time, the government called up tens of thousands of reservists in a clear signal that Israel was prepared to take the city by force, even if the window for a negotiated pause technically remained open.
In this context, talk of “stabilization” rings hollow. Infrastructure lies in ruins, the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse, aid lines often end under fire, and international monitoring groups are recording signs of impending famine. The conflict is no longer a conventional war between armies. It is taking on the contours of a managed disintegration of civilian life.
But Gaza is not the whole picture. On the West Bank, the logic of military control is being formalized both legally and spatially. On July 23, the Knesset voted by majority to adopt a declaration advocating the extension of Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. While framed as a recommendation, the move effectively normalizes institutionalizing the erosion of previously drawn red lines.
It is within this framework that the E1 plan of Israeli settlements in the West Bank must be understood as a critical link in the eastern belt surrounding Jerusalem. On August 20, the Higher Planning Committee of the Civil Administration gave the green light for the construction of over 3,400 housing units between East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. For urban planners, it’s about “filling in the gaps” between existing developments. For policymakers and military officials, it represents a strategic pivot.
First, E1 aims to create a continuous Jewish presence encircling Jerusalem and to merge Ma’ale Adumim into the city’s urban fabric. This reinforces the eastern flank of the capital, provides strategic depth, and secures Highway 1 – the vital corridor to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.
Second, it severs East Jerusalem from its natural Palestinian hinterland. E1 physically blocks the West Bank’s access to the eastern part of the city, cutting East Jerusalem off from Ramallah in the north and Bethlehem in the south.
Third, it dismantles the territorial continuity of any future Palestinian state. Instead of a unified space, a network of isolated enclaves emerges – linked by bypass roads and tunnels that fail to compensate for the loss of direct access to Jerusalem, both symbolic and administrative.
Fourth, it seeks to shift the debate over Jerusalem’s status from the realm of diplomacy into the realm of irrevocable facts. Once the eastern belt is built up, the vision of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state becomes almost impossible to realize.
Finally, E1 embodies two opposing principles: for Israelis, a “managed continuity” of control; for Palestinians, a “managed vacuum” of governance. One side gains an uninterrupted corridor of dominance, the other is left with a fragmented territory and diminished prospects for self-determination.
It is no surprise, then, that international reaction was swift and unambiguous from the UN and EU to London and Canberra. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, commenting on the launch of E1, said out loud what the maps had already suggested: the project would “bury” the idea of a Palestinian state.
In an August broadcast on i24News, Netanyahu said he feels a “strong connection” to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” For Arab capitals this was a confirmation of his strategic maximalism. The military campaign in Gaza and the planning-led expansion in the West Bank aren’t two parallel tracks, but parts of a single, integrated agenda. The regional response was swift and uncompromising from Jordanian warnings to collective condemnation from international institutions.
The broader picture reveals deliberate design: In Gaza, forced subjugation without any credible or legitimate “handover of keys”; in the West Bank, a reconfiguration of political geography via E1 and its related projects, translating a diplomatic dispute into the language of roads, zoning, and demography. The language of “temporariness” and “no intention to govern” functions as cover, in practice, the temporary hardens into permanence, and control becomes institutionalized as the new normal.
As the lines converge in Gaza’s shattered neighborhoods, in the planning documents for East Jerusalem, and in statements from Israeli leadership, the space for any negotiated outcome narrows further. What began as a pledge to dismantle Hamas is increasingly functioning as a mechanism to erase the word ‘Palestine’ from the future map. In this framework, there is no “day after.” What exists instead is a carefully prearranged aftermath designed to leave no room for alternatives. The map is drawn before peace is reached, and in the end, it is the map that becomes the decisive argument, not a treaty.
The current military operation, referred to as Gideon’s Chariot 2, has not been officially declared an occupation. However, its character on the ground strongly resembles one. IDF armored units have reached Sabra and are engaged in ongoing combat at the Zeitoun junction, a strategic point where fighting has continued for over a week. Military descriptions of these actions as operations on the periphery increasingly resemble the opening phase of a full assault on Gaza City. In the last 24 hours, the pattern has only intensified. Artillery and airstrikes have been systematically clearing eastern and northern districts, including Zeitoun, Shuja’iyya, Sabra, and Jabalia, in preparation for armored and infantry advances.
The military effort is now reinforced by a large-scale mobilization of personnel. A phased conscription has been approved. The main wave, composed of 60,000 reservists, is expected to report by September 2, with additional groups to follow through the fall and winter. This is not a tactical raid but a prolonged urban combat campaign that will be measured not by military markers on a map but by the ability to sustain logistical flow and personnel rotations under intense conditions.
Diplomatic efforts are unfolding alongside the military campaign. On August 18, Hamas, through Egyptian and Qatari intermediaries, agreed to the outline of a ceasefire known as the Witkoff Plan. It proposes a 60-day pause, the release of ten living hostages, and the return of the remains of eighteen others in exchange for Israeli actions concerning Palestinian detainees and humanitarian access. The Israeli government has not officially agreed to the plan and insists that all hostages must be included. Nonetheless, Hamas’s offer is already being used by Israel as leverage. It serves more as a tactical pressure point than a genuine breakthrough.
This context gives meaning to Netanyahu’s latest directive calling for a shortened timeline to capture Hamas’s remaining strongholds. The accelerated ground campaign aims to pressure Hamas into making broader concessions under the framework of the proposed deal. If Hamas refuses, Israel will present a forceful seizure of Gaza City as a justified action to its domestic audience.
Observers close to the government interpret the strategy in exactly these terms. The objective is not only to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure but also to escalate the stakes and force a binary choice between a truce on Israeli terms and a full military entry into the city. Even the most carefully designed military strategy eventually confronts the same dilemma: the challenge of the day after. Without a legitimate mandate and without a coherent administrative framework, even a tactical victory risks resulting in a managed vacuum. In such a scenario, control shifts hands on the map, but the underlying threat remains unresolved.
Ideology also plays a central role in shaping this campaign. In August, Netanyahu publicly affirmed his strong personal identification with the vision of the Promised Land and Greater Israel. This statement provoked strong reactions in Arab capitals and further discredited Israel’s narrative that it seeks to control Gaza without governing it. The on-the-ground reality is more complex and sobering. After nearly two years of conflict, the IDF has not eliminated the threat. It has suffered significant losses, and there is no clear consensus within the officer corps on launching another ground offensive in Gaza.
According to reports by Israeli media, Israel’s top military leadership had warned that a complete takeover of Gaza would come with heavy casualties and heightened risks to hostages. For this reason, earlier operations deliberately avoided areas where hostages were likely being held. Leaked assessments suggest that the General Staff had proposed a strategy centered on encircling Gaza City and applying incremental pressure over time. However, the political leadership opted instead for speed and direct assault. The casualties already number in the hundreds, and major urban combat has yet to begin.
The domestic opposition has made its stance clear. After a security briefing, opposition leader Yair Lapid stated that a new occupation of Gaza would be a grave mistake and one for which Israel would pay a high price. Pressure on the government is mounting both internally, through weekly demonstrations demanding a hostage deal, and externally. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Malta are preparing to take steps toward recognizing Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly in September. In the language of international diplomacy, this move signals a counterbalance to both Hamas’s hardline stance and Israel’s rightward territorial ambitions. The more forcefully Israel insists on capturing Gaza at all costs, the stronger the global response becomes in favor of formalizing Palestine’s status.
However, the situation now transcends local dynamics. Against the backdrop of worldwide instability, including regional conflicts, disrupted global trade routes and rising geopolitical risk, the Gaza campaign increasingly appears to be part of a broader, long-term war of attrition. Within Israel’s strategic thinking, the ultimate objective seems to be the closure of the Palestinian question altogether. This entails dismantling all political structures and actors that might, in any combination, threaten Israeli security. Under this logic, humanitarian consequences are not considered constraints.
A recent UN report illustrates the magnitude of the crisis. For the first time, the Food and Agriculture Organization officially declared catastrophic hunger in Gaza, reaching the fifth and highest level of the Integrated Food Security Classification, or IPC. By the end of September, more than 640,000 people are expected to face total food deprivation. Yet even this alarming assessment has not shifted the current trajectory. Western European declarations of intent to recognize Palestinian statehood have also failed to become decisive turning points.
Israel now faces a rare and difficult crossroads. One path leads through diplomacy. It includes a 60-day pause, an initial exchange of captives, and a broader acknowledgment that lasting security is achieved not only through military force, but also through institutions, legal rights, and legitimacy. The other path leads into a renewed spiral of urban warfare. It involves the deployment of more reservists, increasingly severe military orders, and objectives that grow less clearly defined with each passing day. In Sabra, the physical tracks of tanks are already visible before any clear political statement has been made. Ultimately, though, the outcome will be determined not by battlefield reports, but by legal, diplomatic, and institutional formulas. These will decide whether the fall of Gaza marks the end of the war or simply the beginning of a new chapter.
As assault plans are finalized, mobilization lists expand, and ideological rhetoric intensifies, the sense of inevitability grows stronger. This operation resembles less an isolated campaign and more a component of a much longer-term project to reconfigure geography and status. If that logic continues to dominate, the day after will already be written, and it will allow no room for alternatives. In that scenario, the map will carry more weight than any agreement. Facts on the ground will become the ultimate authority, overshadowing diplomatic recognitions, international reports, and humanitarian data alike.
