[Linked] 2 July 2026: Tymofiy Mylovanov, the President of the Kyiv School of Economics, distills very nicely the key points I sought to make in a recent assessment of the state of the war in Ukraine.
#ukraine #linkedintopvoices
Trim profile for Tymofiy Mylovanov
Tymofiy Mylovanov
4w
Petraeus: The death zone in Ukraine extends 35 kilometers on either side of the front lines — defined by drone battery life. Tanks can't survive. Armored vehicles can't survive. Nothing can.
Neither side even drives vehicles anymore. Russians keep trying and keep proving it.
Petraeus: No trenches — drones fly through. Soldiers in survivability positions hundreds of meters apart, not mutually supporting. Resupplied by ground robots.
Commanders can't visit the front line. Soldiers stay 60+ days. In urban areas, some couldn't be extracted for months.
Petraeus: Russian advances mean individual soldiers running forward trying to dig in. Drone units pick them up immediately, cycle surveillance drones, then FPV attack drones arrive.
You see them hitting around the soldier in the woods until one connects. It doesn't end well.
Petraeus: Ukraine is about to isolate Crimea. Gasoline so short they won't sell it to civilians. Tourists who came for beaches are trying to get home any way they can.
Kerch Bridge rail no longer works. Ferries knocked out. Land bridges destroyed. Pontoon bridges now targeted.
Petraeus: Ukraine took down Russia's air defenses steadily. Russia pulls them to Moscow — vulnerabilities open everywhere else. Moscow refinery hit three nights running, out at least six months.
They're going after fuel storage, refineries, gas lines from Siberia to the west.
Petraeus: Real prospect now that Putin might need a cessation of hostilities himself. Oil sanctions reimposed, national welfare fund running out of money.
Crimea isolated, front lines cut off, economy crushed — all of this could force Putin to recognize he should end this war.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Dmitry Gubin
[REGNUM] 330 years ago, on July 29, 1696, the Russian army, supported by a newly created navy, stormed the Turkish fortress of Azov at the mouth of the Don River. The Azov "victory" was Peter the Great's first major victory. It became a landmark event in the history of Russia's advance south and its emergence as a great maritime power.
The “beginning of Peter’s glorious deeds” was also the beginning of Russia’s return to the Azov and Black Sea regions.
Ancient Rus' was a Black Sea power. Princes Askold and Dir, Oleg, and Igor led campaigns against Constantinople. Arab geographers and travelers of the 10th and 11th centuries called the Black Sea "Bahr al-Rus"—the Russian Sea. The same term appears in our Tale of Bygone Years: "The Dnieper flows into the Pontic Sea; this sea is known as the Russian Sea."
In the 10th–11th centuries, the Russian city of Tmutarakan stood on the site of today's Taman; its princes controlled the shores of the Azov and Black Seas and the mouth of the Kuban.
But the invasions of the steppe dwellers - the Pechenegs and Polovtsians, and then the Tatar-Mongol conquest cut Rus' off from the Azov and Black Sea regions, which became the Wild Field for centuries.
A remnant of the Golden Horde—the ulus of the Crimean Khans—became the main threat to the Russian lands from the south. Since 1478, the Crimean Khanate had been "protected" by a powerful overlord, the Ottoman Empire. Even earlier, in 1471, the Turks built the fortress of Azak (or Azau in Tatar) near the destroyed Genoese colony of Tana.
In the following centuries, the fortress was not only an Ottoman stronghold at the mouth of the Don, but also a major center of the slave trade. Captive Russians, victims of Crimean Tatar raids on the Muscovite state, were brought here.
Adding to the humiliation was the fact that the grand dukes, and then the tsars of all Rus', until the end of the 17th century paid "pominki" (commemorations) to Bakhchisarai—tribute in money and furs, as if the Tatar yoke had never disappeared. The presence of the Sultan's troops on the Don was the key to this order. The Rurik dynasty, and then the first Romanovs, understood this problem but delayed its resolution for decades.
The first campaign against Azov was a grassroots initiative. In 1637, Don Cossacks serving Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich gathered in a military circle and decided to march against Azov. They requested assistance from the Zaporozhian Cossacks (this was 16 years before the Pereyaslav Council, which formalized the transfer of the Zaporozhian Host to Moscow).
Four and a half thousand Cossacks, merchants, and shipwrights, gathered. A little later, a thousand Zaporozhian Cossacks arrived. Mikhail Tatarinov was elected as the campaign's ataman. Tsar Mikhail was informed of this, as well as of the decision to march "against the infidels," after the fact. A letter was sent to Moscow, beginning: "We, your serfs, having conferred among ourselves, have gone to Azov, because… they, the people of Azov,… were plotting against us."
On April 21, the siege of the Turkish citadel began. But the tsar did not appreciate this "independent action," and not out of cowardice—the country had only just recovered from the severe Time of Troubles, and the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for Smolensk had ended unsuccessfully (Russia recaptured the ancient city permanently under the second tsar of the Romanov dynasty, Alexei Mikhailovich ). In the 1630s, the Russian Tsardom would not have been able to sustain a large-scale clash with Sultan Murad IV.
But the Cossacks acted decisively, and the Ottomans delayed their military expedition. Tsar Mikhail sent aid—gunpowder, cannons, and the royal banner—as a sign that the Cossack campaign was sanctioned by Moscow. On July 16, the Tsar was informed of the capture of the fortress and the liberation of two thousand Orthodox slaves.
The Cossacks held out in the fortress until 1642, but were forced to surrender Azov to the Turks and Crimean Tatars—at that time, Russia was still unable to resist Ottoman hegemony.
The next attempt to break through to the Black Sea was undertaken under Mikhail Fedorovich's grandsons, Ivan and Peter Alekseevich, whose elder sister, Sophia, governed in their stead. Her government, having completed the annexation of Little Russia and Kiev, became deeply involved in international politics.
Even before Peter became the sole Tsar, Russia began to enter the "concert of European powers." Moscow joined the anti-Turkish coalition, becoming an ally of the Habsburgs and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
In Europe, that war is remembered for the defense of Vienna and the capture of Belgrade. The Russian portion of the campaign is less well-known, although Sophia's favorite, Prince Vasily Golitsyn, defeated the Turks and Tatars in the Black Sea region. His campaigns led to the realization that the Wilderness is not the most convenient place for troop movements; natural conditions are far more dangerous for an army than Tatar cavalry and Turkish infantry.
When Tsar Peter was freed from his sister's care, he decided to lead his troops not along the Dnieper and the bare steppe, like Golitsyn, but along the Don, toward Azov. In 1695, the first assault was attempted. Soldiers from the Preobrazhensky and Semyonovsky regiments and about a thousand Don Cossacks took part of the fortifications and even broke into the city—but due to the lack of coordination among the Russian troops, the garrison commander, Hasan Arslan Bey, was unable to repel them.
Preparing for the next attempt, the tsar decided that the problem could not be solved without a navy. To this end, construction of galleys, following the Dutch model, began in Voronezh.
Tambov, Valuyki, and Voronezh were designated assembly points for the Russian troops. Thanks to the detailed diary of General Patrick Gordon, we can trace the entire route from Voronezh and the village of Cherkasskaya to Azov. The Tsar himself traveled most rapidly on the galley "Principium," entrusting command to experienced commanders Gordon and the boyar Alexei Shein.
At the mouth of the Don, the Cossacks burned Turkish ships carrying weapons, cloth, and provisions for Azov. The lower ranks then asked their superiors to begin fortification work. On June 6, Russian warships, one of which carried the monarch, sailed through the channels for the first time to the Sea of Azov.
The Russian army was lucky: the Turks left the fortifications they had built the previous year untouched. This significantly eased preparations for the siege.
All attempts by the Turks and Tatars to attack the besiegers' camp from the sea and the steppe were unsuccessful.
Russian galleys blocked the coast, and the Ottoman fleet was unable to assist Azov. The fortress's fate was sealed. "Victoria" was the fruit of the coordinated efforts of several forces: Franz Lefort's naval detachment, the land regiments of the great boyar Shein (under whose command were Generals Gordon and Avtonom Golovin ), Zaporozhian Cossacks loyal to the tsar, and the Kalmyk cavalry.
On July 29, the remnants of the Turkish garrison—approximately 3,700 cavalrymen—surrendered. The following day, the Lyutik fortress, located on the northern fortifications and forming a single fortification system with Azov, also surrendered.
Peter ordered Azov to be made a Russian city and the mosques to be converted into churches. The tsar chose a nearby location for the navy's base—on Cape Tagany, where Taganrog was founded two years later.
On July 14, 1700, the Russian Tsardom and the Ottoman Empire concluded the Treaty of Constantinople, ceding the Don River estuary, along with Azov and Taganrog, to Russia and freeing it from tribute to the Crimean Khan. There could no longer be any talk of a "commemoration" for Bakhchisarai. The "living goods" captured by the Crimean Tatars and Turks were returned to their homeland.
After Russia's unsuccessful Prut campaign of 1711, Turkey gained revenge in the Black Sea region, but only briefly. During the Fifth Russo-Turkish War of 1735–1739, the outstanding Russian commanders Burkhard Munnich of Germany and Peter Lassi of Ireland defeated the Ottomans and permanently established Russia on the shores of the Sea of Azov, in Azov and Taganrog.
During the reign of Catherine II, the campaigns of Prince Pyotr Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky expanded the empire's holdings in the Azov region, bringing Russia's return to the shores of the Russian Sea closer.
Historical justice was finally restored thanks to Alexander Suvorov and Grigory Potemkin-Tavrichesky. The Russian military victories, consolidated by the Treaty of Jassy in 1792, which was unfavorable for Turkey, set in motion an irreversible process.
Crimea, from a threat from the south, was transformed into a blessed land, and the former Wild Steppe became a breadbasket—Novorossiya—with its port cities of Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, and Mariupol. But the beginning was laid by Peter's campaign against Azov.
#1
Russians, Cossacks, Mongols and Turks have been going at it for centuries. It's a tough neighborhood. Petraeus should be advised though, Putin won't let Crimea go without a fight. My greatest fear is that he'll resort to nukes.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/30/2026 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
Anthony Fauci’s private diary presents a starkly different account of the COVID pandemic from the one given to the American public. The records reveal his awareness that the lab-leak theory was credible, his private agreement with arguments against school closures, and his fixation on media attention, awards, money, and personal influence.
Fauci publicly portrayed himself as the embodiment of science while dismissing opposing experts and exercising enormous power over federal research funding. His private admissions, public contradictions, involvement with gain-of-function research, and support from the media turned his pursuit of authority and fame into a modern Greek tragedy—one that severely damaged his legacy and public trust in American institutions.
Dr. Anthony Fauci's invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic during a Senate hearing that he described as a years-long partisan crusade intended to smear him.
The infectious disease expert invoked his right against providing testimony to the panel 111 times while under oath.
#8
The states can go after him, foreign governments can go after him. Globally he is responsible for more deaths, remember it was his virus that got out, that Mengola, or even Hitler.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/30/2026 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Andrey Bulkin
[REGNUM]
On July 28, Washington bid farewell to Senator Lindsey Graham *, a well-known Russophobe and open supporter of all manner of wars. A ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda, followed by a memorial service at the National Cathedral—all according to protocol, given his more than three decades in American politics.
The ceremony was attended by US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Vice President J.D. Vance, almost the entire cabinet of ministers and a good half of the Senate, as well as the head of the Kyiv regime, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Everything was decorous and solemn. However, there was one "but" that didn't escape the attentive spectators watching the ceremony: the senator's coffin remained closed throughout the entire ceremony.
Perfectly normal, here in America. Lots of us have open casket traditions, many more think open caskets are goulish. Be a little less parochial, O Regnum writer.
It is worth noting that there is no protocol that requires American senators to be buried in closed caskets.
Or anyone else, actually.
On the contrary, various flag placement options are available, and some allow the coffin to remain half-open during the funeral. To achieve this, the flag is folded in thirds and placed over the remaining half.
However, for conspiracy theorists, all this is not so important.
The distrust surrounding Graham's death from the very first day quickly spiraled out of control. As a reminder, the senator died on July 11, the day after returning from Kyiv, where he announced new "hellish" sanctions against Russia.
The official cause—aortic dissection due to atherosclerotic heart disease—was announced less than a day later, which in itself raised suspicions among die-hard conspiracy theorists. The FBI quickly joined the investigation, and Bureau Chief Cash Patel declared its readiness to "provide all necessary resources"—which further added fuel to the fire.
Conspiracy theories multiplied at an alarming rate: several versions of a “Russian connection,” “Iranian revenge,” “a deep state conspiracy,” and even “Mossad assassins.”
As a result, Donald Trump, who himself owes much of his political rise to playing on distrust of state institutions and criticism of the "deep state," was forced to publicly rebuke conspiracy theorists, declaring that there was no malicious intent in Graham's death: "I think the FBI is wasting its time if they're doing this."
And now—a closed casket. For those already convinced that Graham's death was not natural, this was further proof they were right.
About a week and a half before the funeral, when news first surfaced that the senator would be buried in a closed casket, American media outlets reported nothing on the matter. Now, however, they insist there's nothing unusual about it.
American comments immediately appeared on social media: "Closed casket. And people still believe the heart attack story"; "Closed casket means he probably really did die in a Russian bombing"; "Lindsey Graham died at home of a heart attack. He definitely didn't die in a drone factory as a result of a Russian missile strike. That's why the funeral was closed casket" ; "Closed casket. I'm starting to believe the rumors about the Ukrainian factory."
Meanwhile, a coffin completely draped in the national flag is traditionally not opened for public viewing. American statesmen are often buried in this manner.
Furthermore, the deceased's relatives have the right to insist on a private ceremony—and the coffin is often left closed at the family's express request. Therefore, formally, this all falls within the ceremonial protocol and does not constitute a violation or deviation from the norm.
Of course, there could also be purely pragmatic reasons. Apparently, Graham's death from aortic dissection was sudden and took him by surprise. If he suddenly became ill, he could have fallen and hit his face—the condition of his body could have made an open farewell inappropriate or even impossible from an aesthetic standpoint.
Or perhaps Senator Darlene Nordon, his sister, who was appointed his temporary successor in the Senate after his death, simply decided it was too personal to put the deceased on public display. No official explanation has been forthcoming—and it's unlikely they would have made any difference.
The point isn't that the coffin was closed, but that Graham's death was yet another demonstration of Americans' distrust of their government. And, as experience shows, no explanation, even the most reasonable, can restore that trust.
A recent Pew Research Center study found that only about 17% of US residents currently trust the government. Just over half a century ago, in 1964, that figure was 77%.
Trust in the government takes years to build, but it can vanish very quickly. And it's unlikely to be restored with empty statements and promises.
Restoring that trust is likely to be one of the biggest challenges facing the American government, as the death and funeral of the 71-year-old senator, who had a history of heart problems, has sparked such a parade of conspiracy theories.
#1
Closed in this case, after brief family/elite initial viewing might have served a better purpose.
But less we forget the 100's of wacko's out there with a gallon of paint or something, planning to make name for themselves or save the ________ as a political agenda.
Less we forget
Sen. Graham was labeled a RINO by a collection of pro-USA agenda groups, based on some of his senate votes.
Plus Sen. Graham is on record having said Trump challenging the (now proven fraudulent) 2020 election voting process was wrong and Trump was mentally deranged for thinking it.
Quoting Graham “if you told him (Trump) Martians came and stole votes, he’d (Trump) be inclined to believe it."
#6
I’m under the impression that open caskets is a Catholic thing while closed caskets are for Jews and Protestants, because that has been my experience thus far. But I haven’t been to a great many funerals, and I can only speak authoritatively about Jewish practice, and even then only about observant Jews — the most liberal types do precisely as they please, and even I insisted on the non-traditional choice of having flowers for my brother’s and parents’ funerals because Mama loved flowers so, and she deserved that small pleasure in both life and death.
#7
I for one would like to think that your sense of it predates all our J-hnny-come-lately religions'. Of course, I'd also like to believe in gentle flower-bearing rodents and Confucian bees, so what the hell do I know?
[YouTube] Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell examines the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800, one of the worst air disasters in U.S. history, on the 30th anniversary of the July 17, 1996, tragedy. He reviews the official investigation, the evidence, and the controversy that has surrounded the case for three decades.
[Promethean] Barbara Boyd argues that Anthony Fauci's Senate grilling and expected Fifth Amendment stance won't address the central issue: how he remained protected for so long. Citing Fauci's recently released diary and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s role in uncovering it, she claims it shows public deception on COVID origins and policy while the media and institutions helped enforce a manufactured consensus that crushed dissent. Boyd traces this "manufacture of consent" to Walter Lippmann and points to The Lancet's 2020 anti—lab leak letter organized by Peter Daszak as an example of consensus enforcement tied to funding. She contrasts real science's adversarial testing with grant-driven conformity, references earlier crises like AIDS and opioids, and highlights a July 21 proposal by Trump science advisor Michael Kratsios to redirect federal science funding toward mavericks, verification, merit, and advanced manufacturing, mandating agencies to reflect the shift in 2027—2028 budgets.
#2
There is the issue. Rand has focused on Fauci who has a dubious pardon. There are thousands of other people involved. Those people have no pardons. When will we see some justice for the millions killed?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/30/2026 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
^ and creating one or more of the following developmentally challenged generations.
#5
Vaccine Death Reports
Covid19 (pfizer-biontech) Vaccine Study showed related deaths were 26,537 out of the 1,121,388 as tracked.
Note: There were and estimated 675.53 million Covid-19 USA doses issued by April 2023, with about 105 million taking it only once.
So using the study of an estimated 2.4% death rate for the tracked cases.
2.4% of just the 105+ million one time users/takers, would mean something like 2,520,000 would have died from the Vax-ccident. But that number is higher than the reported death rate from the actual pandemic infection itself which data ended around April 2024. Maybe a knew study should be done to verify or disprove the findings?
THEN
There are still the questions:
Why the USA death rate per 1 million, was almost 10x's higher than India.
Overall The USA was 2+ times higher than India, a nation 3+ x's the population of the USA.
A nation known to have a lower medical personnel to patient ratio, and lower number of treatment
centers than the USA. Plus massive over crowding and poor hygiene enviroments
Could it be India relied on Ivermectin, instead of the USA's force use of the mRNA vax-ccident?
Pardons should not be allowed for Mass Murder and those in leadership positions
that knew better, and still forced it on others.
#8
We have to ask the second question. He blocked treatment for AIDS back in the 80's and thousands died. without any treatment. The bigger question is that this is a pattern of this monster, what else, or who else, has he killed this way for other diseases???
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/30/2026 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
@5 Maybe because the average American is overweight and eats lots of unhealthy food.
How much were the stats thrown off by sending patients carrying Covid to skilled nursing facilities and other facilities with people especially susceptible dying from Covid.
Maybe the conditions in India has left the average Indian with a stronger immune
[TheRealNews] Except this time it’s in support of genocide, rather than trying to stop one.
About that genocide: Israel dropped possibly 100,000 tons of explosives on Gaza since 10/7/2023, reportedly destroying 60-70% of the territory, and Hamas claims about 79,000 Gazans were killed out of a pre-10/7 population of about 2.2 million. That’s 3.5% of the population killed. During this period, according to Hamas reports, about 140,000 babies were born in Gaza, meaning the population grew. During the Nazi Holocaust, the Nazis and their fellow European Jew haters killed 63% of Europe’s 9.5 million Jews. The Jewish birthrate was functionally zero, because in the concentration camps the men and women were separated, and when babies wre found, they were immediately killed. The situation in Gaza can’t even be called an ethnic cleansing, because both Hamas and Egypt are working to keep them from leaving. But do go on, O Real News writer.
Suddenly, for centrists, refusing to support Democrats and withdrawing their support isn’t much of an offense, and indeed could be something worthy of “serious conversations.”
Over the past few weeks, progressive and self-identified democratic socialist candidates are racking up major victories in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, and leading in polls in Wisconsin and Michigan.
That’s all primary stuff, which attracts the most radical and committed of the Democrats. The centrists tend to ignore all the political stuff until a few weeks before the main election in November.
In response, centrist pundits, politicians, and funders are increasingly threatening to boycott, leave, or otherwise announce their uncommitment to the Democratic Party. But unlike the Uncommitted Movement of 2024—which sought to use their leverage as voters to pressure the Biden, and ultimately Harris, campaign into adopting the both morally and politically correct position of ending support for genocide
…the polomicist means Israel, in case you wondered, dear Reader…
—the emerging Centrist Uncommitted movement is animated, in large part, by their support for genocide and lockstep support for Israel.
It’s a comfort to know the entire Democratic Party, except for Senator John Fetterman, has not actually gone mad. Only the noisy and pusillanimous parts of it.
First up is perennial centrist sage James Carville, whose claim to fame is winning an election 34 years ago and spending the next several decades occupying cable news panels or calling in from gaudy pink mansions to scold Democrats for never being sufficiently centrist. He has one note, and he was going to elevate it after the recent wave of Left electoral wins, telling his podcast listeners after Mamdani-backed candidates in New York won 8 for 8 last month, “I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S-word: schism.” He added that some DSA-aligned candidates “have no place in the Democratic party” and, of the broader coalition: “I’m not in that fucking political party.”
On the Republican side of the line President Trump led the Republicans in cutting off the Jew-hating Tucker Carlson/Candace Owens/Nick Fuentes end of the spectrum, and now many of those cut off have decided to vote Democrat going forward. We’ve reached the time of setting boundaries — it would be truly lovely if the Democrats joined in.
Did this brazen act of disloyalty to the party result in any condemnations or scandals, like the meltdown over streamer Hasan Piker’s insistence he would not support Gavin Newsom if he won the nomination? No, because the loyalty demands only go left, never right, as we will learn.
We have evidence elsewhere of a pending Centrist Uncommitted movement backed by (far more consequentially than media whining) a donor strike—especially if anti-zionist Abdul El-Sayed wins his Democratic primary on August 4 in Michigan. “Some Jewish Democratic leaders in the state,” reports the Times of Israel, “are prepared to go even further.”:
“Several prominent Metro Detroit Jews who have traditionally fundraised for Democrats are also planning fundraisers for the presumptive GOP nominee, former US Rep. Mike Rogers, as a ‘hedge.’… Others affirmed the idea that the Jewish Democratic donor class, feeling abandoned by the party, would back Rogers.”
Facebook Reel: The former “Green Prince of Hamas” on what it would look like if Israel really was set on genocide in Gaza. Link
#1
DSA are Bernie Sanders. They are not Democrats any more than Tea Party were Republicans. A different political party. DNC rigged their primary for Hillary when Bernie tried to invade. Trump, a lifelong Democrat pulled the same on the RNC but successfully, outraging the Liz Cheney and nevertrump wing, who are still sore today that Trump chased the moneylenders out of their temple with a whip.
Don't be fooled by people who can't see any difference between a socialist party and Democrats. It's the same impulse that calls Republicans Nazis.
The UN convention on genocide says"destruction of a people in whole or in part" which is where this is coming from. Birthrate doesn't matter. Another article mentions "preventing births within the group" which is likely where the confusion is. There are a bunch of articles, written post-WW2 when "never again" was at its strongest.
#8
Did this brazen act of disloyalty to the party result in any condemnations or scandals, like the meltdown over streamer Hasan Piker’s insistence he would not support Gavin Newsom if he won the nomination?
What? You mean I have something in common with Hasan Piker?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/30/2026 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Honestly, I never saw the difference between Democrats and Communists. Most of them are not quite as obvious about it as Mamdani and Sanders but the impulse for government control and confiscation of private property is undeniable in all of them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/30/2026 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"The UN convention on genocide says"destruction of a people in whole or in part" which is where this is coming from"
So Allies made a genocide in WW2, more than 7% Germans were killed.
And USA itself made a genocide of the Japanese. And Koreans in 1950...
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming persona non grata in the United States. The Israeli Prime Minister's visit to America took place in a very chaotic atmosphere.
This is the Israeli leader's second visit to the United States in the past six months. He visited Washington in February, just before the outbreak of the war with Iran, which Netanyahu lobbied for. Since then, Donald Trump has avoided personal meetings with Bibi (the Israeli prime minister's nickname) for many months.
White House officials blame Netanyahu personally for dragging them into the Middle East quagmire from which they are now unable to escape.
So some claim — mostly anonymously, one notes.
In February, he promised a quick and painless regime change in Iran, and even presented a list of potential new leaders of the country who would be willing to negotiate.
What was initially planned as a two-week campaign has now turned into a five-month war with no end in sight, and it's increasingly devouring the Pentagon's resources.
It is significant that at the very moment of Netanyahu's visit to the United States, Iran launched further strikes on American military bases.
But there were no retaliatory attacks: it is clear that the United States is already forced to conserve its scarce missile stockpiles, just to avoid being left without them completely.
Pentagon and IDF officials are currently discussing the prospects of strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. This topic was likely raised during Trump's talks with Netanyahu. However, the risks of such an operation are high, and the White House is hesitant.
A curious domestic political controversy erupted ahead of the Israeli Prime Minister's arrival in the United States. Socialist New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani called for Netanyahu's arrest upon his arrival in the United States, following a lawsuit filed by the International Criminal Court.
Trump promised to ensure the Israeli prime minister's safety. However, polls immediately came out showing that nearly half of Americans support Netanyahu's arrest. Even among Republicans, about a third accuse him of war crimes in the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu in the United States had to constantly hide from crowds of pro-Palestinian protesters who shouted that he would not escape justice for genocide.
Attitudes toward Israel and Netanyahu in the United States have deteriorated significantly in recent years. For the first time in modern history, the majority of Americans have developed a negative perception of the country's actions. Democrats are actively pursuing an anti-Israel agenda, actively using it in their election campaigns.
The left wing of the Democratic Party, represented by Mamdani, is particularly zealous. They demand a military embargo against Israel and sanctions against members of Netanyahu's cabinet.
In the next Congress, the left will form a caucus of 25-30 lawmakers. This is enough to force the rest of the Democrats to take notice. The socialists hope to exploit anti-Israel sentiment in American society to influence the next electoral cycle and try to gain power.
The MAGA faction in American politics has also become increasingly negative about Israel. It's no wonder that Steve Bannon, one of the ideologists of Trumpism, has openly stated that every visit by Netanyahu to the United States leads to disaster.
MAGA supporters cannot forgive Bibi for getting involved in the war with Iran, which burned up too much of their political capital.
Israeli lobbyists are looking forward to the upcoming congressional elections with growing concern. Netanyahu is already proposing that the US reduce direct military aid to Israel to a minimum, amounting to three to four billion dollars annually.
These aren't critical for the IDF; it would be much worse if there were disruptions in the supply of fighter jet components or aerial bombs. A US military embargo would quickly plunge the Israeli army into crisis.
US Vice President J.D. Vance advised Netanyahu to remain calm in Washington so as not to lose the support of his only remaining ally.
However, the Israeli prime minister is in a dire situation. Recently, Trump has bypassed him on two Middle East deals that affect the interests of the Jewish state.
The first concerns the provision of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, and the second concerns Saudi Arabia's access to nuclear technology. Israeli lobbyists fear this will undermine the IDF's military advantage in the Middle East. Furthermore, the previous plan was to force Riyadh to recognize the Jewish state, which failed to materialize.
Netanyahu's attempts to derail both deals did not go unnoticed in the White House. They further worsened the attitude toward the Israeli prime minister within Trump's administration.
Many in Washington already view Bibi as a lame duck who may be sitting out her final months as prime minister.
Israel will hold snap parliamentary elections in October, in which the positions of the ruling Likud party and its coalition partners are quite precarious.
The opposition forces, led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, are also largely fragmented. However, they hope to collectively win more seats than Netanyahu's supporters and then form a kind of coalition "national salvation government."
Representatives of Trump's team have already held informal talks with the Israeli opposition. However, they are reluctant to support it, fearing that Netanyahu would then commit another gamble, such as bombing Iran's nuclear facilities alone, without US approval.
Trump's previous attempts to influence the outcome of elections in other countries have mostly ended in failure. It's enough to recall Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who even suffered a backlash.
The old pro-Israel consensus that once held American society together is gradually fading. This will have long-term and extremely negative consequences for Israel, no matter who becomes its new leader.
After all, Israel's dependence on the US is colossal, manifesting itself in military-technical matters, finance, and the economy as a whole. Only its unique access to American markets allowed Israel to avoid a serious crisis after the events of October 7 and the outbreak of the war with Hamas.
The transformation of sentiment in the US will become increasingly evident with the generational shift in American politics. Baby boomers, now aged 60–80, continue to dominate Washington and, by default, view Israel quite positively.
But the younger generation of Americans—Zoomers and Millennials—are already extremely skeptical about the prospects of his continued support. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans.
The war in Iran has deeply traumatized American society,
It has? I somehow missed it. Some unbalanced college activists and artistic types, and white Karens of both s3xes and multiple genders with nothing better to do than posture, sure...
and it will take a long time to recover from it. Any future president will try to de-emphasize the Middle East to avoid falling into the same trap.
The Persian Gulf monarchies have already figured out which way the wind is blowing and are trying to reduce their dependence on America. Israel, however, has no choice but to continue to force Washington to engage in the Middle East agenda.
After all, if the US focus finally shifts to other areas like Asia and Latin America, Israel will find itself de facto in true isolation. … which will free Israel of the need to work for outside approval, instead fighting for the rapid win, whatever it takes. Her attackers will not enjoy the result.
Facebook Reel: The Times of Israel’s senior analyst, Haviv Rettig Gur briefly discusses what will happen when the Democrats as a party turn their backs on Israel Link
#2
"Netanyahu is already proposing that the US reduce direct military aid to Israel"
I thought that was the job of Congress to spend money. How is he proposing legislation?
After running on a platform of no war, the Iran war has destroyed MAGA. Who wanted this war? None of us did.
But we got it anyway.
Posted by: chris ||
07/30/2026 4:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He isn’t proposing American legislation, silly. His is informing us that he is about to proactively change the relationship because the weapons whip that President Obama set up is becoming intolerably counterproductive, and so they will no longer accept outsourcing weapon and reload production to untrustworthy suppliers, including an America where the anti-Israel fanatics of the left — and also the right — are allowed to impact decisions.
[TW] The US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyers are currently 24 months behind schedule in obtaining hypersonic missiles, which should become the main armament of ships of this class. This delays the possibilities fleet on the use of hypersonic weapons sea-based. A Government Accountability Office report released on July 17, 2026, stated that the first practical test on the ship has been postponed to the third quarter of fiscal year 2027, delaying certification, crew training, and commissioning.
By January 2026, the Zumwalt destroyer's modernization was 94% complete, but the cost of refitting the three ships had risen from $1,8 billion to at least $2 billion. On the one hand, what's a measly $200 million worth compared to the United States' goals? But since there are only three destroyers in the class, any delay deprives the Navy of a third of its potential force and complicates the deployment, training, and maintenance cycle.
The US Navy is upgrading all three ships of this class to carry up to 12 Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles, although the program is currently roughly two years behind schedule. On the other hand, something needs to be done with these, so to speak, ships. Either scrap them and forget them like a bad dream, or re-arm them with something other than the ancient Tomahawks.
No, the Axe is a good weapon, but to launch it effectively you don't need to build ships that cost 4 billion dollars each; the Arleigh Burkes are simply brilliant at that.
[NationalContext] The Turkey-PKK peace process contains a strategic layer that most analysis leaves out. Between late 2024 and mid-2026, the external power competing with Turkey over the future of the Kurdish armed groups changed. Since the 1980s, Iran had been the main outside state shaping the environment in which the PKK operated, and Iranian policy kept the conflict contained while making a final settlement difficult to reach.
After October 7, and above all after the fall of the Assad government in December 2024 and the US-Israeli war on Iran in 2026, Israel took over that position. Israel is working to recruit Kurdish armed groups as long-term partners against Iran and, in Ankara’s assessment, eventually against Turkey itself. This change explains the timing of the peace process, the speed with which Turkey has pursued it since the war, Ankara’s exclusive reliance on the Ocalan channel, and Ocalan’s own cooperation, which rests on his long-standing opposition to Israel’s regional role. The sections below set out the evidence for each of these claims.
WHY THE PROCESS RESTARTED WHEN IT DID
The regional change that made the settlement possible was October 7 and the Israeli push to reshape the region that followed it. At the strategic level, Ankara and Ocalan reached the same reading of Israeli planning: the objective was regional hegemony, to be achieved by first dismantling Iran and its regional extensions and then moving against Turkey. This is the layer that explains a restart which appeared to come from nowhere and surprised most observers, and it also explains why Turkey, which held the stronger position on the ground, accepted negotiations with Ocalan as the political representative of the movement.
Turkey was fortunate in its adversary. Ankara had been deeply sceptical of Ocalan for decades, but its own strategic thinking was changing, and as it changed it moved closer to his reading of how the region was being reshaped. The two sides converged on opposition to Israeli hegemony, and that convergence opened the gate to a settlement. Much of the surprise that greeted Bahceli’s handshake with DEM deputies, and the steps that followed it, comes from analysis that missed this. The evidence set out below supports the reading, the consequences reach across the region, and the convergence is likely to deepen for as long as the shared adversary remains.
The second factor determined the speed. Elements of the PKK leadership in Qandil, and figures within the SDF, were building ties with Israel, and Ankara concluded that the situation was moving beyond its control. The purpose of the process was therefore wider than ending an insurgency. Turkey moved to internalise the Kurdish question within a Turkey-centred regional system before Kurdish and Arab political forces could be incorporated into the Israeli-led project to reshape the region, first for use against Iran and eventually against Turkey itself.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
