The Russian state news agency "RIA Novosti" published, and then deleted, an article with the headline: "Russia is facing another special military operation. It will be very short."

In the article, its author, Alexander Nosovich, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy under the President of the Russian Federation, wrote that in the event of the deployment of nuclear weapons in Lithuania, Russia could immediately launch a nuclear strike against that country – without conventional strikes or a ground invasion.

The reason for this was the start of the procedure to amend Lithuanian legislation to allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory.

The published material stated that Europeans "have reached the stage of choosing a country that is willing to become a nuclear storage facility." And if that happens, "Russia has a choice: how to fight."

At the same time, the war, according to Nosovich, would be quick.

"A military conflict in the Baltic states simply cannot be the same as in Ukraine, due to geographical factors. The question is what means can be used. And since our opponents are the first to shift the conversation to the plane of nuclear threats, Russia can afford to even refuse to deploy a ground contingent. Only missiles with the appropriate payload," wrote the Russian expert.

"RIA Novosti" removed the article a few hours after publication, stating that it did not reflect the editorial policy and political course of Russia.

@americanmajority

Germany’s Nord Stream Suspect: What the Case Actually Says

German federal prosecutors indicted Ukrainian national Serhii Kuznietsov on June 30, 2026, accusing him of participating in the Nord Stream sabotage.

According to the prosecution’s account, Kuznietsov allegedly coordinated a team that operated from the Andromeda. The alleged group included a skipper, an explosives specialist, four divers and Kuznietsov as coordinator.

Prosecutors say he entered Germany using a forged Ukrainian passport, joined the alleged team on the island of Rügen, and traveled toward Bornholm with diving equipment and explosives.

The prosecution alleges that four timed charges were placed on three pipeline strings in the Danish and Swedish exclusive economic zones.

Kuznietsov was arrested in Italy in August 2025 under a European Arrest Warrant and extradited to Germany several months later. Germany’s Federal Court subsequently rejected a challenge to his detention, finding strong suspicion at that stage of the proceedings.

But an important legal distinction remains.

The allegations in an indictment are not the same thing as a conviction. Kuznietsov denies involvement and remains presumed innocent unless and until a court reaches a verdict.

The article also emphasizes that the publicly available German case has not demonstrated every step connecting the Andromeda to the actual explosions.

Investigators reconstructed portions of the yacht’s voyage using harbor records, witness accounts, coastal surveillance and navigation data despite the absence of a continuous AIS track.

Those records may establish movements and associations. The central question for the trial is whether they can establish participation in the sabotage itself.

@americanmajority

What We Still Don’t Know About the Nord Stream Sabotage

Four years after the Nord Stream explosions, the investigation has produced a growing body of evidence — but important questions remain unresolved.

Germany has charged Serhii Kuznietsov and alleges that a Ukrainian team used the Andromeda to transport divers and explosives to the pipeline sites. Investigators found traces of RDX and HMX aboard the yacht, and authorities reconstructed portions of its journey through the Baltic.

But the publicly available evidence does not yet provide every link in the chain.

There are unresolved questions about the exact number of explosive charges, their configuration, the precise dive operations, the equipment required, the initiation system and how the alleged team could have carried out the operation across multiple sites.

There are also questions about the physical evidence. While explosive residues were reportedly found both aboard the Andromeda and on metal recovered from the blast areas, the published material does not provide a detailed forensic comparison demonstrating that the samples came from the same explosive formulation or devices.

Then there is the post-explosion activity around the crime scene, including the movements of the Normand Frontier.

The London insurance proceedings added a substantial technical record, but the court did not determine who carried out the attack. Instead, it ruled that the insurance war exclusion applied regardless of which principal scenario was considered.

The German prosecution will therefore have to establish its case through evidence tested in court.

For now, the public record contains a suspect, a yacht, explosive traces, reconstructed movements and competing technical assessments — but also significant gaps between those pieces of evidence.

@americanmajority

Iran has threatened to shut down air traffic across the entire Middle East in response to U.S. sanctions.

@americanmajority

You can (not) escape

Modern society continually breaks us of our ability to resist its designs on us. At the end of the day, we all depend on the rest of society to get what we want, and in return it asks of us what it can get from us. Our existence within society is a continuous negotiation.

What am I on about, exactly? Lately, I've been thinking about how people have continually desired to withdraw from society in order to find some ability to become masters of their own fate. Since the industrial revolution, there have been many such movements, and none of them were particularly successful in actually escaping the world they were forced to live within.

This is even harder now, when the population has become accustomed to a level of comfort and stimulation that modernity has afforded them. Large segments of the population are not about to give up the internet, video games, junk food, etc just to stand on principle. But the problem is even deeper than that.

The system around us has made us gradually softer with each generation. Few people around today can actually survive by growing their own food, manufacturing their own clothing, or building their own shelter. I'm sure some of the more industrious among you will argue , "I've hunted, I've fished, I've sewn things, I've farmed," and so on and so forth. However, you were probably using modern tools, purchased commodities, or relied on some sort of other input from the greater society around you, and even people with these basic skills are becoming quite uncommon. I'd even challenge those reading this that have fished, hunted, or farmed before if they could actually catch enough fish, hunt and prepare enough game, or grow enough food to supply their daily caloric needs without relying on a supply chain, investment, or the greater market. I'm talking about surviving with just yourself, your family, or even a small community of like minded individuals.

To make matters worse, most people alive today can't even remember living in a high-trust society where people truly rely on and trust their neighbors with their very lives. We've become more distant from one another, and less tolerant of working with other people. We are more likely to put ourselves first and ignore the needs of others unless we personally have something to immediately gain from the interaction.

Even if we go back to times and places where people were used to being more self reliant, didn't have internet, and experienced a high-trust society throughout their lives, movements based around leaving society haven't fared well. I got the idea to write about this topic when I was thinking about all of the old "hippie" communes that popped up and then fizzled out in the 60s and 70s. There was a whole era of hippie-christian fusionist communes, "the Jesus people" as they were known. Joaquin Phoenix's parents were part of one of these organizations called "The Children of God," which explains his siblings' names: River, Liberty, Summer... And oh boy, did that not turn out well (search online, if you're curious). But I digress.

You can go back even further. The 19th century was a golden era of utopianist communes, and once again, we see a graveyard of attempts to leave society, even with people who were no strangers to rough living, hard work, and strong communities without internet brainrot. The typical commune in this era had a lifespan of 6 to 8 years. I can recommend that our readers examine the cases of Brook Farm, New Australia, and New Harmony. Secular communities usually died within a year or two, while religious communities lasted for a couple of decades when they usually lost their charismatic founder leading to collapse.

Suffice to say, you will not be escaping by getting your friends together and moving to the middle of nowhere. I think our only choice is to make a change within our nation. You cannot escape the system. You must control the system, or at the very least, change the system if you are unhappy with it.

-Zin

@americanmajority

Trump has rejected a seven-day ceasefire with Iran, as he intends to resume hostilities against it after the midterm elections in November.

This was reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing sources.

According to the publication, the US President received a proposal from representatives of Tehran for mutual de-escalation, in exchange for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

"The Tehran proposal involved unblocking the Strait of Hormuz and resuming nuclear negotiations in exchange for the US lifting its blockade of Iranian ports. Trump has openly stated that after the midterm elections, Tehran will be begging for a deal that involves dismantling its nuclear program. The current position of President Trump suggests that the conflict is likely to return to a phase of hostilities," the WSJ stated.

@americanmajority

Israel’s Intelligence System Was Built Through Rivalry

Israel’s intelligence establishment did not begin as the unified system it later became. In the early years of the state, different political and military figures competed for control over the emerging intelligence services.

Under Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, authority was divided between the prime minister’s office, the foreign minister, the army chief of staff and influential ambassadors. Each had competing ideas about what Israel’s intelligence organizations should prioritize.

Some wanted to concentrate on economic and political intelligence. Others focused on the military capabilities of Israel’s enemies, while another faction pushed for operations against former Nazis and fascists.

On March 2, 1951, Ben Gurion brought the intelligence chiefs together and announced that foreign intelligence collection would be assigned to a new organization: Mossad LeTeum, or the Institute for Coordination.

Israel’s official history dates Mossad’s original establishment to December 13, 1949, under Reuven Shiloah. The 1951 meeting instead represented a major reorganization, placing the service under the prime minister’s office.

From that period emerged the basic three-part structure that still defines Israel’s intelligence establishment: Mossad for foreign intelligence and covert operations, Shin Bet for internal security, and Aman for military intelligence.

They remained institutionally separate, but all ultimately answered to the prime minister.

@americanmajority

Three Agencies, Three Different Missions

By the early 1950s, Israel’s intelligence system had settled around three principal services: Mossad, Shin Bet and Aman.

Aman became the military intelligence arm. Its job was to collect information for the Israeli military, produce national-level assessments and analyze the capabilities and intentions of foreign militaries and armed organizations.

Shin Bet, also known as Shabak, took responsibility for internal security, counterespionage and what Israel defines as counterterrorism. Its activities eventually became deeply connected to Israel’s system of military rule and intelligence gathering in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Mossad was given responsibility for intelligence collection and covert activity outside Israel’s borders.

The three organizations were separate, but the boundaries between them were never absolute. They shared information and sometimes became involved in the same operations.

The article describes this as a deliberate feature of Israel’s security architecture. Unlike systems in which intelligence collection and covert action are kept institutionally separate, Israel placed operational capabilities directly inside its intelligence organizations.

The objective was to turn intelligence into action without waiting for a conventional military chain of command.

That model also reflected a particular strategic assumption: that continuous operations behind enemy lines could disrupt threats and potentially prevent larger wars.

The result was an intelligence system designed not simply to observe events, but to operate continuously — collecting information, recruiting sources, conducting covert operations and supporting military action.

@americanmajority

Mossad’s Role Goes Far Beyond Espionage

Mossad is Israel’s primary foreign intelligence service, responsible for intelligence collection and covert activity outside territories under direct Israeli control.

Its responsibilities can include recruiting sources, gathering information, infiltrating organizations and disrupting operations directed against Israel or Israeli interests.

The article notes that Mossad’s special missions abroad can involve sabotage, abduction and assassination.

Its relationship with Shin Bet illustrates how the agencies overlap. If Shin Bet wants to meet a source in Europe or Asia, that meeting ordinarily falls under Mossad’s jurisdiction. If Shin Bet wants to recruit someone abroad for later deployment in the occupied Palestinian territories, Mossad can handle the overseas recruitment before transferring the source to Shin Bet.

Mossad also works with Aman when intelligence is required on foreign governments or armed organizations outside Israel.

But the boundaries can become blurred when operations involve both foreign targets and Palestinian organizations.

The article points to Israel’s September 2025 attack on a Hamas leadership meeting in Doha as an example. The operation was announced as a joint military and Shin Bet operation despite taking place on foreign soil.

Some Israeli observers explained Shin Bet’s involvement through its responsibility for Palestinian organizations. Others viewed the arrangement as potentially connected to Mossad’s involvement in negotiations through Qatar.

The episode illustrates a broader feature of Israel’s intelligence system: the agencies have distinct formal responsibilities, but major operations can cross those boundaries.

@americanmajority

The Mossad Myth Took a Hit in Dubai

Mossad’s reputation for conducting operations abroad while leaving little evidence behind suffered a major setback in January 2010.

That month, Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai.

The killing itself succeeded, but Dubai’s extensive surveillance network exposed significant details about the suspected operation. Investigators identified members of the suspected team, tracked their disguises and travel routes, and found evidence involving fraudulently obtained foreign passports.

The exposure created diplomatic consequences for Israel and damaged Mossad’s relations with several Western countries.

It also challenged the image of an intelligence service capable of conducting complex operations without leaving a visible trail.

Operations attributed to Mossad continued afterward in places including Tunisia, Malaysia and Iran. But during the same period, another part of Israel’s intelligence system was becoming increasingly important: Aman’s technological branches.

Unit 8200 became central to signals intelligence and analysis. Unit 9900 specialized in visual and geospatial intelligence. Unit 504 handled human intelligence for the military.

This reflected a broader transformation in intelligence gathering. Rather than relying primarily on traditional espionage and clandestine agents, Israel increasingly built its intelligence picture through communications interception, surveillance technology, imagery and large-scale data collection.

Mossad retained its reputation for complex foreign operations, but the center of gravity inside Israel’s security establishment was becoming increasingly technological.

That shift would later become important when Israeli intelligence failed to interpret warning signs ahead of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.

@americanmajority

The Intelligence Failure Before October 7

Israel’s technological intelligence capabilities did not prevent the failure that preceded Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

The article notes that Unit 8200 had gathered indications that Hamas was preparing for an operation, but those indications failed to overturn the assumptions held by political and military leaders.

A previous decision had also left the unit without an operational presence near Gaza on October 7, 2023.

The result exposed a fundamental problem with a highly technological intelligence model: collecting enormous quantities of information is not the same as correctly understanding what that information means.

Signals intelligence can intercept communications. Surveillance systems can observe movements. Algorithms can process enormous volumes of data.

But someone still has to interpret those signals and determine what they mean.

The article argues that Israel’s two-decade emphasis on technological collection had generated vast amounts of information while weakening the human and analytical judgment needed to connect individual pieces of information into a coherent picture.

This problem was not entirely new.

After the 1973 war, the Agranat Commission had criticized Israel’s dependence on Aman’s assessments and recommended greater analytical pluralism. Mossad was among the organizations expected to develop an independent research capability so that a single military interpretation would not dominate the entire intelligence system.

Israel struggled to build a fully independent civilian analytical alternative because of its limited pool of experienced researchers.

Decades later, the October 7 failure demonstrated the continuing importance of competing interpretations, human sources and analytical judgment — even in an intelligence system equipped with highly advanced technology.

@americanmajority

Shin Bet and the Machinery of Occupation

Shin Bet is Israel’s designated internal security service. It gathers intelligence, conducts interrogations, pursues counterespionage cases and monitors people who fall outside the conventional military chain of command.

Its mandate includes preventing attacks originating in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, countering foreign intelligence activity inside Israel and protecting senior officials and state institutions.

But its role in the occupied Palestinian territories became one of its defining functions.

As Palestinian resistance activity intensified between 1968 and 1970, Shin Bet underwent a major expansion. Its budget and personnel increased, while Arabic speakers were transferred from Aman’s Unit 504, which specialized in handling Arab informants.

From that point, suppressing Palestinian resistance became the agency’s primary mission.

Gaza proved particularly difficult.

Its extremely dense population and complex social networks made intelligence penetration difficult despite decades of occupation, surveillance, detention and recruitment efforts.

Shin Bet therefore depended heavily on cooperation with the Israeli military.

When Ariel Sharon commanded the army’s Southern Command beginning in 1969, he deployed additional forces to Gaza to support Shin Bet operations.

The division of labor established during that period remains central to the system described in the article.

Shin Bet recruits informants and conducts interrogations. The military provides the surveillance systems, personnel and firepower needed to act on intelligence.

That relationship means Shin Bet’s intelligence networks cannot easily be separated from the broader system of military rule under which Palestinians in the occupied territories live.

@americanmajority

How Shin Bet Uses Human Intelligence

Shin Bet’s work in the occupied Palestinian territories relies heavily on human intelligence.

The agency is responsible for what Israel defines as counterterrorism intelligence in the West Bank and Gaza. It works with Aman to assess Palestinian organizations, political developments and the possible consequences of Israeli policies.

But intelligence gathering does not rely solely on surveillance technology.

Arrests, movement permits, medical access, family pressure and the threat of exposure can all become tools for recruitment, according to the article.

This makes Shin Bet’s informant networks closely connected to the wider system of Israeli control over Palestinians.

The agency’s responsibilities also extend beyond Palestinians living under occupation. Shin Bet conducts internal security assessments involving Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as Jewish Israelis.

Its position is therefore different from Mossad’s foreign operations or Aman’s military intelligence role.

Shin Bet operates primarily within Israel and the territories under Israeli security control, where intelligence collection is directly connected to policing, interrogation and internal security.

The agency’s legal foundation was formally established by Israel’s 2002 General Security Service Law.

But its operational role in the occupied territories predates that legislation by decades.

The article traces the expansion of Shin Bet’s Palestinian-focused mission back to the late 1960s, when the organization began receiving additional resources and personnel as Palestinian resistance intensified.

The result is a service whose intelligence work is closely integrated with the structures used to monitor and control the population.

@americanmajority

Aman: The Intelligence Arm Inside the Military

Aman is the Israeli army’s Military Intelligence Directorate.

Its responsibilities extend across intelligence collection, national assessments, warning, targeting and military planning.

Aman collects information on foreign military forces and armed organizations, assesses their capabilities and intentions, prepares threat warnings and provides recommendations to Israel’s political and military leadership.

It also coordinates intelligence among the army’s land, air and naval branches.

One of its most important functions is maintaining target banks and supporting military operations. Its assessments can therefore influence both how a threat is understood and what military force is used against it.

Other intelligence organizations operate within the Israeli military but are not formally part of Aman. The air force, ground forces and navy each have their own intelligence structures.

Israel’s four regional commands — Northern, Central, Southern and Home Front — also maintain intelligence departments.

These regional departments receive resources and guidance from Aman but produce assessments for their own commanders. In theory, this arrangement allows regional commanders to present interpretations that differ from Aman’s national assessment.

In practice, the article notes that Aman’s authority has often overshadowed competing interpretations.

That became a major issue after the 1973 war, when the Agranat Commission criticized the dominance of Aman’s assessment.

The same basic concern resurfaced before October 7, 2023: whether Israel’s intelligence establishment was sufficiently willing and able to challenge its own assumptions.

Aman therefore occupies a unique position. It is both an intelligence organization and an integral part of the military command structure.

@americanmajority

Elon found some previously undisclosed footage from the Trump-Xi summit at the Whitehouse.

@americanmajority

Unit 504 and the Return of the Human Source

Unit 504 is Aman’s principal human-intelligence arm.

Its role is to recruit and manage agents inside areas controlled by Israel’s adversaries, providing information that satellites, intercepted communications and surveillance systems cannot necessarily obtain.

A human source close to a decision-making circle can potentially reveal intentions, internal disagreements, morale and patterns of thinking that technological surveillance may miss.

The article describes a renewed emphasis on Unit 504 following the intelligence failure surrounding Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

According to a Channel 12 report cited in the article, the unit underwent major structural and operational changes after October 7. Its personnel reportedly doubled to include hundreds of agent handlers, combat personnel and prisoner interrogators.

Its field missions also expanded.

The changes illustrate a broader reassessment of Israel’s intelligence model.

For years, technological collection had become increasingly important. Units 8200 and 9900, artificial intelligence systems and other surveillance capabilities generate enormous quantities of information.

But the October 7 failure demonstrated that information still needs to be interpreted.

Human intelligence can provide something different: access to people, intentions and internal conversations.

The article also notes that Unit 504 has historically operated alongside technological intelligence rather than replacing it.

Aman is expected to continue relying heavily on signals intelligence, visual intelligence, automated surveillance and AI.

The growing role of Unit 504 instead reflects an attempt to strengthen the human element of a system that had become heavily dependent on technology.

The underlying lesson is that intelligence requires both collection and interpretation — and neither technology nor human sources can eliminate the need for the other.

@americanmajority

A new high-speed "Geranium" drone was spotted in the Odessa area, which sharply accelerated to approximately 800 km/h during its flight before slowing down to 500 km/h, according to Ukrainian military expert Oleksandr Kovalenko.

According to his assumption, Russia could be testing a new jet engine."I could be wrong, but it appears the Russians are testing a new jet engine on the 238s ('Geran-4')," Kovalenko wrote.

He also noted that current Russian jet drones fly at speeds of 500–600 km/h, and Ukraine has not yet found an effective countermeasure against them. At the same time, models with speeds of up to 800 km/h already exist.

Zelensky stated yesterday that Ukraine was unable to shoot down 45% of the jet-powered drones.

@americanmajority

One Security Architecture, Three Agencies

Israel’s intelligence system is divided into three principal organizations, but the boundaries between them are increasingly difficult to draw.

Mossad handles foreign intelligence and covert operations abroad. Shin Bet is responsible for internal security and plays a central role in intelligence operations across the occupied Palestinian territories. Aman provides military intelligence, national assessments, targeting information and operational support to the Israeli armed forces.

Each has its own institutional culture and areas of responsibility.

But major operations often cross those boundaries.

Foreign operations can involve Palestinian organizations. Shin Bet can work with Mossad outside Israel. Aman can provide intelligence that supports covert activity. Military operations can depend on information collected by several different services.

The article points to the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut in September 2024 as an example of this convergence. The operation depended on years of intelligence penetration combined with military surveillance.

The September 2024 detonation of pagers and two-way radios across Lebanon likewise demonstrated the difficulty of separating intelligence collection from operational violence. The operation was widely associated with Mossad and involved long-term infiltration of the communications supply chain.

At the same time, the October 7 failure showed the weaknesses that can emerge when the agencies share assumptions rather than challenge one another.

Israel’s intelligence establishment was built around the idea of turning information into action quickly. More than seven decades later, Mossad, Shin Bet and Aman remain separate institutions operating within a deeply interconnected security system.

The three names describe different agencies. Together, they form a single architecture linking foreign espionage, military intelligence, covert operations and the intelligence machinery of occupation.

@americanmajority

Why Were the Nord Stream Pipelines Attacked in the EEZ?

The Nord Stream explosions took place on September 26, 2022, in the Danish and Swedish Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the Baltic Sea.

That geographic detail is central to the investigation presented by 21st Century Wire.

The pipelines could also have been attacked in German waters, where the Baltic Sea is considerably shallower. Instead, the sabotage occurred farther east, in deeper waters around Bornholm.

Why?

The article argues that the choice may have been connected to the fact that the Danish and Swedish EEZs were also designated NATO submarine exercise areas.

The Exclusive Economic Zone is different from territorial waters. Under the Law of the Sea framework, coastal states have specific rights over resources and certain activities in their EEZ, while other states retain freedoms including navigation and other lawful uses of the sea.

That creates a more complicated jurisdictional environment than an attack taking place directly inside territorial waters.

The article argues that this distinction matters because the Nord Stream blast sites were located in an area where NATO submarine operations were already taking place.

It therefore asks whether the location of the explosions was simply a tactical choice — or whether the saboteurs selected the area because they could exploit an existing underwater military environment.

The article does not present this as a proven conclusion. Instead, it argues that NATO submarine movements and command structures during the months surrounding the attack deserve much closer examination.

@americanmajority