Latest news with #militaryconfrontation
Russia Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Indian foreign minister refutes Trump's repeated claims on Pakistan ceasefire
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has dismissed claims by US President Donald Trump that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during their military confrontation in May, using trade as an incentive. He made the remarks on Monday while addressing the lower house of parliament on India's military confrontation with Pakistan – Operation Sindoor – which followed a terrorist attack on April 22 in Indian-administered Kashmir that claimed 26 lives. 'I want to make two things clear – one, at no stage in any conversation with the United States, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on,' Jaishankar said. 'Secondly, there was no call between the prime minister and President Trump from the 22nd of April – when President Trump called up to convey his sympathy – and 17th of June when he called up the prime minister in Canada to explain why he could not meet him.' The South Asian neighbors were involved in a military conflict from May 7 to 10. Before they formally announced a ceasefire, Trump claimed on Truth Social that a deal was reached following a 'long night of talks' mediated by Washington. Trump, along with other US government officials, have made the claim several times and even stated in an official court submission that the ceasefire was agreed after Trump intervened and offered both countries 'access to the American market.' EAM Jaishankar AGAIN Refutes Trump's Claim Of India-Pakistan Mediation: Trade Talks Amid Conflict 'At No Stage' Earlier this month, Trump said five aircraft were shot down during the conflict, without specifying whose planes they were. He described the situation as tense, with both sides exchanging blows, and claimed that he 'called them and said, listen, no more trade. If you do this, you're not going to be good... They're both powerful nuclear nations and that would have happened.' In a series of interviews with European media outlets following the ceasefire, Jaishankar dismissed Trump's statements. 'The cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact,' he told Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in May.
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Cambodian PM Hun Manet hails ceasefire with Thailand as ‘brilliant result', thanks Anwar for peace talks
PHNOM PENH, July 29 — Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet hailed the ceasefire as a 'brilliant result' and thanked Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for his efforts to initiate the peace talks in Putrajaya yesterday. The Malaysia-initiated special meeting between Thailand and Cambodia to resolve the ongoing military confrontation along the border areas of the two countries ended on a positive note. Both nations agreed to end fighting at midnight on Monday – a major step towards reducing tensions and restoring peace and security. 'A brilliant result of the meeting, and I thank Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for taking the initiative to coordinate and host the meeting. 'I believe that this ceasefire agreement between the Cambodian army and the Thai army is a key basis for building mutual trust and improvement of the situation towards normalcy in the future,' Manet said on his Facebook posting upon his return from Malaysia this evening. Manet and Thai acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai met for the first time since tension broke out between the two neighbours on July 24. Cambodia and Thailand were dragged into a diplomatic crisis following the armed conflict in the northern part of the Kingdom. In his posting, Manet also thanked the United States President Donald Trump and the Chinese government for their support of the ceasefire efforts. Over 80,000 people have been displaced, while 13 people, including soldiers and civilians, have lost their lives since the conflict erupted last Thursday. — Bernama
The National
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Sweida ceasefire is welcome but shouldn't be mistaken for a return to normality
A US-brokered ceasefire last Thursday was thought to have brought an end to the most intense violence the southern Syrian province of Sweida has experienced in decades. What began on July 13 as a localised dispute between Druze and Bedouin groups quickly escalated into a full-scale military confrontation between Druze fighters and transitional government-aligned forces. In just four days, the clashes claimed at least 516 lives and displaced many more, shaking the foundations of Syria's already fragile transition. With the fighting having subsided briefly, only for it to resume over the weekend before ending on Sunday, the cessation of hostilities is, at best, tenuous. It should certainly not be mistaken for a return to normality. Early signs indicate that the ceasefire largely restores the pre-conflict status quo, with local Druze factions resuming de facto control over Sweida. Halting the violence is a welcome step, but it does not amount to a resolution. Unless the deeper drivers of the conflict – including political exclusion and contested authority – are meaningfully addressed, the truce risks becoming little more than a brief pause before the next eruption. Sweida's violence began with the abduction of a Druze trader by individuals reportedly linked to Bedouin tribes in the region. In retaliation, a wave of reciprocal abductions broke out, eventually devolving into broader intercommunal violence. Such incidents are not unprecedented in southern Syria, where mistrust and unresolved grievances run deep. What set this episode apart was the decision of the country's transitional authorities to intervene militarily. Damascus presented the deployment of security forces as a step to restore order. But people in Sweida, at least those who actively resisted, viewed it as a power grab. This reaction stems from long-standing disputes between local leaders and the transitional government – particularly over governance, security arrangements and the identity of the future Syrian state. Sweida's notables have consistently advocated for decentralised governance and locally managed security structures tailored to the community's needs. In contrast, Damascus remains committed to a rigid, top-down model. On broader questions of identity and political inclusion, Sweida's calls for a secular and pluralistic system have largely been ignored. These unresolved differences, compounded by repeated failures in negotiation, help explain why Damascus's intervention was viewed not as a stabilising measure, but as an attempt to reassert central authority by force. In the wake of this intervention, hostilities broke out between government forces and fighters loyal to Sheikh Hikmat Al Hijri, the most prominent Druze religious authority. Both sides traded blame: Damascus accused Mr Al Hijri's men of attacking its personnel, while Mr Al Hijri accused the state of breaching prior commitments and committing serious abuses. There is no sign that the ceasefire agreement addresses the structural causes of the conflict, nor the far-reaching ripple effects it has triggered Reports soon surfaced about widespread abuses by government-aligned forces, including degrading treatment of detainees and extrajudicial killings. These images triggered widespread public outrage and galvanised local resistance. Mediation attempts broke down, largely due to Mr Al Hijri's refusal to concede or compromise. The situation took a sharp turn when Israel launched air strikes on government forces and key facilities, including the Ministry of Defence, in response to the clashes in Sweida. Fearing broader regional escalation, the US stepped in to contain the crisis. A ceasefire was eventually announced by interim President Ahmad Al Shara, who described it as a necessary measure to prevent a deeper catastrophe. While the details of the agreement remain sparse, early indications suggest it largely reinstates the pre-conflict arrangement: local forces retain de facto control over key areas of Sweida, and Damascus withdraws its military units from the city. Though the ceasefire is a welcome step towards halting the violence, the fact that it was violated almost immediately means it merely freezes a crisis that continues to smoulder beneath the surface. There is no sign that the agreement addresses the structural causes of the conflict, nor the far-reaching ripple effects it has triggered. A return to the previous status quo is not just insufficient – it is dangerous. The events of the past week have profoundly altered Syria's political and social landscape, leaving deep wounds and a toxic environment. Anti-Druze inflammatory rhetoric seized on Israel's strikes to depict the Druze community as collaborators or separatists, reinforcing sectarian narratives and fuelling calls for collective punishment. The result has been a disturbing surge in incitement against the Druze minority, including calls to boycott Druze-owned businesses and expel Druze students from university dormitories. Meanwhile, many Druze – particularly those aligned with Mr Al Hijri – have grown increasingly distrustful of the state and its institutions, further eroding the transitional government's legitimacy. What was once latent sectarian tension has now become overt and volatile, fuelled by a surge in hate speech from all sides. This is precisely what makes the current ceasefire so fragile. A return to the previous arrangement is not a return to calm – it is a reversion to a simmering crisis that could explode at any moment. The ceasefire may have paused the shooting, but only a genuinely inclusive and pluralistic political transition can stop the bleeding and set Syria on a path towards national healing. Unless the country's leadership moves quickly to address the root causes of the violence in Sweida, the current silence will be short-lived. Preventing a return to widespread conflict remains possible, but the window for doing so in a sustainable and inclusive manner is closing fast.
Russia Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Western European leaders dragging continent toward war with Russia
Western European leaders have forgotten the lessons of history and are once again steering the continent toward direct military confrontation with Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. During a press conference following ASEAN events on Friday, he pointed to recent actions and rhetoric coming from Berlin, Paris, and London as evidence that European leaders are taking an increasingly aggressive stance toward Moscow. Lavrov pointed to a public exchange in which French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was asked why Paris continues to support the Nazi regime in Kiev. The Russian diplomat questioned the sincerity of Barrot's 'hysterical' response, in which he insisted France was defending 'the territorial integrity of Ukraine.' 'They have forgotten the conclusions that all of humanity once drew from those lessons. And, essentially, they are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,' Lavrov stated. Kiev's push for territorial control serves only to 'suppress the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population and to physically eliminate those who oppose' the post-coup regime, according to Russia's top that territorial integrity is the sole motive amount to 'self-incrimination,' he added. Moscow has sounded the alarm over the resurgence of Nazi ideology and suppression of Russian culture in Ukraine for years, listing 'denazification' as one of the key goals in the conflict. Lavrov also addressed remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Germany must once again become Europe's leading military power. 'He didn't even choke on the word 'again,'' Lavrov noted. If Merz now believes peaceful solutions are exhausted, he has effectively dedicated himself to the militarization of Germany at the expense of its own people, Lavrov argued, calling such a stance 'complete nonsense.' Moscow has warned that Berlin's stance could lead to a new armed conflict with Moscow decades after the end of World War II. The Kremlin maintains that Russia prefers a peaceful solution to the conflict but warned that conditions on the ground are rapidly evolving while Kiev balks at a third round of direct negotiations. Moscow has condemned the EU's growing militarization, which has stirred divisions within the bloc, while describing its weapons deliveries to Kiev as part of a NATO-led proxy war. Lavrov said Moscow will take Europe's militarization 'into account in all areas of our strategic planning.'
NHK
30-06-2025
- Politics
- NHK
Expert warns more military action possible against Tehran
An expert on Middle East affairs says prospects for negotiations between the US and Iran are not good, and there could be further military confrontation ahead.
