Driven by escalating Houthi threats and allied military restraint, Saudi Arabia and Israel might be inching towards a pragmatic “marriage of convenience” to safeguard their mutual survival. However, deep-seated public hostility and the unresolved Palestine issue will likely keep this strategic convergence tightly under wraps as an implicit, tactical arrangement rather than formal normalisation. The […]

from Alex Christoforou: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

The opening moves of the next major war could unfold hundreds of miles above Earth.

U.S. adversaries are looking at ways to blind American forces in future conflict by jamming communications, disabling GPS, using lasers to attack satellites or destroying them completely.

A sweeping new Defense Intelligence Agency assessment details how China and Russia are developing sophisticated ways to disrupt or destroy U.S. satellites. This includes a Russian satellite designed to carry a nuclear weapon into Earth's orbit.

American forces rely on satellites to communicate across battlefields, navigate ships and aircraft, track enemy forces, detect missile launches and guide precision weapons to their targets. Knocking those systems offline could leave forces below struggling to see, communicate and strike.

AMERICA'S NEXT WAR COULD REACH US SOIL, TOP ARMY GENERAL WARNS

"We can't do military operations the way that we do them today without satellites, without systems in space," Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, previously told Fox News Digital.

"Whoever has space and can deny that to their adversary has a huge asymmetric advantage in a conflict," Swope said.

CHINA IS TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE STARS. AMERICA MUST RECLAIM SPACE SUPREMACY

Beyond the battlefield, satellites underpin everything from GPS navigation and communications to banking, transportation and the electric grid, meaning a large-scale attack in space could disrupt services millions of people rely on every day.

Chinese military thinkers have identified reconnaissance, communications, navigation and early-warning satellites as potential targets for attacks designed to "blind and deafen the enemy," according to the report. DIA assesses Beijing could begin threatening or gradually degrading an adversary’s space architecture during a crisis as a "prelude to war."

Russia, meanwhile, views U.S. reliance on satellites for precision strikes and projecting military power as a "critical vulnerability" to exploit during a conflict. Its doctrine envisions attacks ranging from temporary jamming and blinding satellite sensors to the outright destruction of spacecraft and the infrastructure supporting them.

DIA describes the threat as a continuum, beginning with attacks that can temporarily disrupt a satellite without destroying it and escalating through cyber and orbital attacks to kinetic weapons and, ultimately, a nuclear detonation in space.

Some of those tactics have already made their way into active conflict. During Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. and Iran "took offensive actions against each other's space capabilities to degrade and disrupt military actions on both sides," according to DIA. The report does not detail those operations, but says jamming near the Strait of Hormuz in June disrupted U.S. aircraft and shipping vessels.

The Chinese military already practices jamming satellite communications and GPS during military exercises. Beijing also has ground-based lasers capable of disrupting or damaging satellites in low-Earth orbit, and DIA assesses it could field space-based directed-energy systems by the late 2020s.

Other Chinese systems can get much closer. The Shijian-17 satellite has a robotic arm capable of grappling another satellite, while Shijian-21 used similar technology in 2022 to move a defunct Chinese navigation satellite into a higher orbit. DIA noted that the same technology used to service or remove satellites can also have military applications.

Russia has repeatedly put its own spacecraft near U.S. satellites. Cosmos 2543 began following a U.S. national security satellite after it was released into orbit in 2019, approaching it several times before later firing a projectile in what DIA described as an anti-satellite weapons test.

PENTAGON REVEALS SECRET SPACE WEAPONS ARE ALREADY IN ORBIT — BUT WON'T SAY WHAT THEY DO

Russia sent Cosmos 2558 near another U.S. government satellite in 2022, and two years later launched Cosmos 2576 into the same orbit as a U.S. national security satellite before it began moving toward the American spacecraft. By 2025, Cosmos 2588 was maneuvering within roughly 93 kilometers of another U.S. government satellite.

Russia is also developing Burevestnik, an air-launched weapon intended to "kill" satellites in low-Earth orbit, according to DIA. The weapon would be launched from a modified MiG-31 aircraft and could be placed into orbit with little or no warning.

The threat escalates dramatically with Russia’s nuclear ambitions.

"Russia is developing a satellite designed to carry a nuclear weapon," the assessment states. Such a weapon could cause the "rapid and sudden loss or degradation of thousands of satellites" operated by governments and companies around the world, disrupting communications, navigation, weather forecasting and national security systems.

The damage could continue long after the initial blast. DIA warns that a nuclear detonation in space would leave behind radiation belts that "could persist for years" and damage satellites that initially survived or were only temporarily disrupted.

The threat has been on Washington’s radar for years. Then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner set off alarm bells in February 2024 when he called on the Biden administration to declassify intelligence about a "serious national security threat," later revealed to involve a Russian nuclear anti-satellite capability.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. officials have generally been more guarded about the underlying intelligence. As recently as April, U.S. Space Command chief Gen. Stephen Whiting said officials were "very concerned" by reports that Russia was potentially considering placing a nuclear anti-satellite weapon in orbit, but declined to confirm whether Moscow was actually developing one.

In an extensive conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Ukrainian-American lawyer and political commentator Askold Lozynskyj delivers a sharply critical assessment of Donald Trump, examines the possibility of a geopolitical bargain with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, and explains why November’s American midterm elections could determine far more than the composition of Congress.

There is something peculiarly unsettling about a world in which the leaders of three nuclear powers might gather to discuss the future of smaller nations without troubling to invite the nations concerned. It is a diplomatic arrangement with considerable historical precedent, although not necessarily the sort that ought to inspire confidence.

For Askold S. Lozynskyj, a New York lawyer, former president of the Ukrainian World Congress and regular contributor to EU Today, the prospect of Donald Trump sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping raises precisely this concern.

His latest opinion piece, The Thug Summit, published on 23 October, presents an uncompromising interpretation of the proposed trilateral meeting in China. In a wide-ranging conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Lozynskyj expands upon that argument, moving from the peculiarities of Trump’s political personality to the constitutional foundations of American democracy, the future of Europe and the increasingly precarious standing of international law.

The resulting discussion is occasionally caustic, frequently humorous and consistently concerned with a question that extends well beyond the current occupant of the White House: how resilient are democratic institutions when confronted by leaders who regard constitutional constraints as inconveniences?

Watch the full interview with Askold S. Lozynskyj and Gary Cartwright below.

From the Oval Office to the Beverly Hillbillies

The conversation begins with Trump’s political ascent, which Lozynskyj regards as one of the more extraordinary developments in modern American history.

He recalls the incredulity surrounding Trump’s original presidential ambitions and questions how a politician whose personal conduct had attracted considerable controversy managed to secure such enthusiastic support among conservative Christian voters.

Cartwright introduces a lighter comparison, recalling a photograph of Trump surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office.

The only person missing, he suggests, was Jed Clampett, the fictional patriarch of the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies.

Lozynskyj is not inclined to defend the administration’s sophistication. Yet behind the humour lies a more serious argument about the disappearance of independent-minded advisers and the consequences of political loyalty becoming the principal qualification for high office.

“Donald Trump is not a conservative. Donald Trump is a thug,” he declares.

It is an unequivocal assessment, characteristic of Lozynskyj’s commentary, although his criticism extends beyond Trump himself to the Republican Party’s willingness to accommodate his leadership.

The elections that could change Washington

Much of the interview centres on the American midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.

Lozynskyj predicts that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives and potentially transform the remainder of Trump’s presidency through congressional investigations, subpoenas and impeachment proceedings.

His prediction is emphatic, although the eventual balance of power remains uncertain.

Control of the House would give Democrats substantial investigative authority, although the president would retain his executive powers. Removing him from office following impeachment would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Nevertheless, Lozynskyj believes the elections could fundamentally alter Washington’s political atmosphere.

“They will tie up Trump like never before,” he argues.

Cartwright raises a more disturbing possibility: could Trump manufacture an emergency to postpone an election or otherwise attempt to prolong his presidency?

“I think he could try, but I don’t believe that he will prevail,” Lozynskyj responds, expressing confidence that America’s constitutional institutions would ultimately resist such an attempt.

The exchange moves naturally towards the events of 6 January 2021, presidential immunity and the effectiveness of the checks and balances upon which the American constitutional system depends.

Ukraine, Europe and the price of great-power diplomacy

For Lozynskyj, whose public career has been closely associated with Ukrainian interests, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy are particularly troubling.

His central concern is that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could revive the notion that major powers possess an informal entitlement to determine the political and territorial futures of their neighbours.

In his opinion piece, he raises the possibility that Ukraine and Taiwan could become bargaining instruments in a wider geopolitical settlement. These are his warnings about potential outcomes, not established agreements between the three governments.

Yet his criticism of Washington is accompanied by considerable appreciation for Europe’s role in sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.

“Without Europe, Ukraine could never have survived as long as it has survived,” he tells Cartwright.

He also ventures into the British debate over European integration, arguing that the United Kingdom should return to the European Union.

It is an intervention likely to provoke disagreement, but it reflects his broader conviction that collective institutions provide an essential counterweight to unilateral political power.

Democracy, disorder and the limits of authority

The discussion also examines political unrest in Europe, changing national identities and the relationship between elected governments and the populations they represent.

Cartwright points to social tensions in European cities and the growing importance of regional identity, including the independence debate in Flanders.

Lozynskyj approaches these developments through the history of democratic protest, citing Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity and more recent demonstrations over the independence of anti-corruption institutions.

For him, public opposition to governments is not necessarily evidence of democracy’s failure. It can also demonstrate that political authority remains subject to popular consent.

The conversation concludes with international law, the International Criminal Court and the difficulty of enforcing common rules when powerful states refuse to accept external constraints.

Lozynskyj’s observations are deliberately provocative, and his forecasts will be tested by events. But the interview offers something more substantial than another exchange of opinions about Donald Trump.

It is a discussion about the relationship between power and restraint, the responsibilities of democratic institutions and the uncomfortable possibility that the international order may be entering another period in which military and economic strength increasingly determine political outcomes.

As the United States approaches its midterm elections and speculation continues over a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi, those questions are unlikely to disappear.

The full conversation with Askold S. Lozynskyj is available in the video above.

Washington did not remove Venezuela’s president merely to change its government; it is now constructing a system of economic control designed to outlast the politicians who created it. From Regime Change to Resource Control When American forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, Donald Trump presented the operation as a decisive demonstration of […]

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry published a report saying serious violations against civilians in Gaza continued even after October's US-brokered truce. Israel rejected the findings, calling them part of a "misinformation campaign".

Egyptian journalist Lina Attalah was detained after a court ordered the closure of independent news site Mada Masr. Amnesty International called the ruling "a crushing blow to press freedom" in the country.

Taiwan's defence ministry said it will not lower its guard after Beijing released high-resolution satellite images of the island, citing growing concern over mainland intelligence-gathering.

A wave of coordinated cattle raids across South Sudan has killed at least 72 people, officials said, as cycles of revenge violence continue ahead of the country's first election since independence. Community leaders fear the bloodshed could further destabilise an already fragile transition.

Bandits attacked Binnari village in Nigeria's northeastern Taraba state, setting fire to homes, shops and food stores as the confirmed death toll climbed to 62. The assault is the latest in a wave of armed violence straining the region's security forces.

British police charged two men over a security incident at the US-linked RAF Fairford air base, one accused of assisting Iran's intelligence service.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says an undisclosed $3.4 billion EIB loan to Airbus risks reigniting the transatlantic tariff dispute.

Pope Leo XIV has confirmed his planned trip to Argentina will go ahead as scheduled following recent lung surgery. The pontiff, who will also visit Uruguay and Peru, said he looks forward to returning to the South American continent.

Brazil cancelled defeated presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro's passports after he missed a deadline to hand them to police in a money-laundering probe. His whereabouts are unknown days after his runoff loss to Lula, with investigators checking whether he crossed into Argentina.

A ceasefire that first lady Melania Trump helped negotiate in a front-line Ukrainian city that she described as being on the "brink of disaster" went into effect Tuesday.

The pause in fighting in Oleshky started around 3 a.m. local time as "part of a humanitarian mission being carried out with the mediation and coordination of U.S. first lady Melania Trump, in cooperation with Yana Lantratova, Russia’s commissioner for human rights," according to Dmytro Lubinets, the Ukrainian Parliament commissioner for human rights.

"The situation in Oleshky is dire. Oleshky is a front-line war city on the brink of disaster," Trump said in a statement last week. "Oleshky’s remaining population is comprised primarily of elderly residents who urgently need medical attention, medicine, food, and clean water.

"The people of Oleshky have limited electricity, live amid mined roads, and endure regular military attacks. It was abundantly clear that without my intervention, the possibility to bring humanitarian aid into the city and to evacuate the elderly would be impossible," she added.

MELANIA TRUMP'S ADVISOR REVEALS HOW SHE BRIDGED PUTIN, ZELENSKYY TO BROKER FRONTLINE UKRAINE TRUCE

The White House said both Ukraine and Russia "agreed to temporarily stop all military action in Oleshky to allow for humanitarian aid to enter and to prepare a civilian evacuation through a designated safe passageway."

"Non-military, civilian leaders from both countries will work together to visit Oleshky residents in their homes and determine the level of assistance they require. Residents who wish to evacuate will receive coordinated support and transportation to their preferred destination. I anticipate some will want to go to Russia, and some to Ukraine," Trump added.

Speaking on "Fox & Friends Weekend," senior advisor Marc Beckman said the agreement followed weeks of mediation involving Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

RECOVERING FROM LUNG SURGERY, POPE LEO URGES PUTIN TO AGREE TO CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIAN-HELD UKRAINE CITY

On Tuesday, Russia's Defense Ministry wrote on Telegram, "In relation to the conduct of the humanitarian operation in the area of the settlement of Oleshky, Kherson region, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have ceased fire in the Kherson direction."

Russian troops have held control of Oleshky since the early days of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, according to Reuters.

The news agency added that the city had a population of around 24,000 prior to the war, but that has since dwindled to only a few thousand.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fresh strikes also hit a bridge and subway infrastructure in Ukraine's capital of Kyiv on Tuesday, Reuters reported.

Fox News Digital's Madison Colombo contributed to this report.

A dispute over maritime jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean has entered a new phase after the European Union joined Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in formally rejecting an agreement between Turkey and Libya.

The six parties issued a joint declaration at the United Nations on 26 October, following the decision by Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives to approve a maritime delimitation memorandum originally signed with Ankara in 2019.

The declaration, delivered by Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis, argued that the agreement disregards the maritime rights of other coastal states and cannot establish boundaries affecting countries that are not parties to it.

Turkey has rejected the criticism, maintaining that its agreement with Libya complies with international law and protects the legitimate interests of both countries.

The competing positions concern more than the interpretation of a maritime boundary. They affect offshore energy exploration, relations between Turkey and its neighbours, and the political balance within Libya itself.

Why Libya’s decision changes the dispute

The original memorandum was signed in November 2019 between Turkey and Libya’s then internationally recognised Government of National Accord, based in Tripoli.

It established a claimed maritime boundary extending across part of the Eastern Mediterranean, where Greece maintains that the maritime entitlements of its islands, including Crete, must be taken into account.

The agreement was opposed by Greece, Cyprus and Egypt, while Libya’s rival eastern authorities initially rejected it.

That division appeared to weaken the political foundations of the arrangement, even though Ankara continued to defend its validity.

However, on 20 October 2026, Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives reversed its previous opposition and approved the memorandum.

The decision reflects changes in relations between Turkey and eastern Libya, where military commander Khalifa Haftar has exercised considerable influence.

Turkey has expanded contacts with authorities in Benghazi despite having previously been associated primarily with the rival administration in Tripoli.

Approval by the eastern parliament consequently gives the agreement broader political acceptance within Libya than it enjoyed in 2019, although it does not resolve the country’s institutional divisions or the objections raised by neighbouring states.

A dispute over geography and maritime rights

The central disagreement concerns the legal principles used to determine maritime boundaries.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states possess rights within exclusive economic zones, while the delimitation of overlapping claims is intended to produce an equitable solution.

Greece argues that Turkey and Libya cannot establish the maritime boundary claimed in their memorandum without disregarding the legal entitlements of Greek islands situated between their coastlines.

The Greek Foreign Ministry’s response maintains that geography and the law of the sea cannot be changed through parliamentary approval of a bilateral agreement.

Turkey takes a different position on the weight that islands should carry when continental shelves and maritime jurisdictions are delimited, and is not itself a party to UNCLOS.

The dispute therefore involves competing interpretations of international maritime law as well as disagreements over the boundaries shown on maps.

The European Union has aligned itself with Greece and Cyprus.

In a statement issued on 21 October, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described the memorandum as incompatible with the law of the sea and incapable of producing legal consequences for third states.

The latest declaration extends that position into a broader diplomatic coalition involving governments from the Gulf and North Africa.

Ankara rejects the criticism

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responded on 26 October by arguing that objections from the EU and other parties had no legitimate basis.

According to his remarks on the agreement, Turkey was not seeking an advantage at the expense of other Mediterranean countries.

Ankara’s position is that its maritime arrangements with Libya reflect the interests of two sovereign states and should not be invalidated by objections from outside parties.

This creates a diplomatic complication for the EU.

Turkey remains a NATO member and an important partner on migration, regional security and Black Sea affairs, while Greece and Cyprus are EU member states whose maritime claims Brussels supports.

The Union must therefore manage a disagreement involving a strategically important partner without retreating from its established legal position.

Energy resources and Libya’s political future

The Eastern Mediterranean contains established and potential offshore gas resources, giving maritime boundaries commercial significance.

Delimitation determines which governments may authorise exploration and exploitation in particular areas, while overlapping claims can discourage investment or provoke disputes over survey vessels and drilling operations.

Greece has already concluded maritime delimitation agreements with Italy and Egypt, including a partial agreement with Cairo in 2020 that overlaps with areas claimed under the Turkish-Libyan arrangement.

The competing agreements illustrate why the issue cannot be settled exclusively through bilateral negotiations that exclude other interested coastal states.

Libya’s internal political structure introduces another uncertainty. The country remains divided between competing institutions, and the European declaration explicitly connects maritime stability with the reunification of Libyan state authorities.

As EU Today previously examined in its coverage of Eastern Mediterranean tensions, disputes over maritime jurisdiction intersect with regional military positioning and the broader relationship between Turkey and European governments.

For the moment, the confrontation remains diplomatic.

The principal question is whether the parties can prevent overlapping legal claims from developing into renewed confrontations over exploration rights while maintaining channels for negotiations with Libya and Turkey.

Jordan carried out a strike in Syria that it described as retaliation for a deadly attack on a church. Syrian health officials said the strike on a village killed five people, including women and children.

Israelis went to the polls on Tuesday in a pivotal election shaped by security concerns and questions over democratic institutions. Observers say neither leading political bloc looks likely to win a clear majority, raising the prospect of weeks of coalition negotiations.

Australian energy company Woodside is exiting its stake in the long-delayed Greater Sunrise gas project in the Timor Sea. An analyst says China is well placed to step in and help Timor-Leste develop the field.

About 3.6 million people in Uganda are facing acute food insecurity, according to the 2026 Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report. The report projects the number could rise to 4.4 million between February and June 2027 as the crisis threatens to worsen.