Russia Striking Hard at Ukrainian-Bound Cargo Ships, Halting Odessa Region Ports’ Operations

POWDER KEG BLACK SEA: Russia Is Striking Hard at Ukrainian-Bound Cargo Ships, Halting Odessa Region Ports’ Operations

Paul Serran

There’s no denying that Ukraine’s deep strikes into Russian infrastructure and the campaign against shadow fleet tankers are causing real problems for Russia.

But the effects of these strikes are always much exaggerated in the media, since Reuters itself has just reported that Russian budget revenues from the oil and gas sector in July increased by approximately 60% compared to the previous year.

It’s also been reported that Chinese refineries have been buying Russian oil.

In the meantime, the renewed strike campaign by Russian forces against cargo ships bound for Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea are throttling Kiev’s exports.

Worse – reports say no vessels are entering any Ukrainian ports in the Odesa region for the first time since the start of the war.

Shipping to Ukrainian ports stopped completely — Ukraine's Minister of Agrarian Policy All vessels have decided to stop calling at Ukrainian ports amid Russian strikes The losses are estimated at $2 billion a month, since 80% of all Ukrainian exports go through those ports

Of course, in the MSM, when Kiev strikes Russian ships it’s a triumph, but when Moscow strikes Ukrainian-bound ships it’s treated as a despicable, criminal behavior.

Politico reported:

“’Russia is holding global food security hostage. Today zero vessels passed through Ukraine’s Black Sea maritime corridor — right at peak harvest. This is deliberate economic and humanitarian terror’, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in an evening statement on Wednesday.

‘Just as Iran targeted energy routes in the Strait of Hormuz, Russia is now targeting global food markets in the Black Sea. Millions of families across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America may face rising prices and hunger if this terror continues’, Sybiha added.”

Global shipping firm Maersk stopped operations at the Odesa region ports this week, redirecting cargo to Romania’s Constanta Port.

“During the night of July 23, the Russian Armed Forces carried out another series of coordinated strikes using air-launched precision weapons and attack drones. In the port of Odessa, the attacks hit infrastructure used to unload and store military cargo. Elsewhere in the city, a plant producing drone components and a warehouse holding completed unmanned aircraft intended for the Ukrainian military were also struck.

[…] Russian forces have regularly targeted facilities in Chernomorsk, Yuzhny, Izmail, Odessa and the Dnepro-Bug port since July 11. The targets have included berths, military cargo storage sites, fuel tanks, drone assembly facilities and vessels both at anchor and in transit.”

More...

JUST IN: US Forces Strike Iran for 13th Consecutive Night

JUST IN: US Forces Strike Iran for 13th Consecutive Night

Cristina Laila

CENTCOM launched strikes against Iran for the 13th consecutive night on Thursday.

President Trump recently said the ceasefire with Iran is over after Tehran struck vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

“U.S. forces started another night of strikes against Iranian military targets at 6:45 p.m. ET today,” CENTCOM said.

“This is the 13th consecutive night of strikes aimed to hold Iran accountable and diminish threats from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to commercial shipping,” CENTCOM said.

Earlier Thursday, President Trump said Iran will pay for all damages done to ships, cargo or anything related.

Please let this statement serve to represent, until further notice, that from this point forth, any and all damages done to Ships, Cargo, or anything related thereto, will be paid for by Iranian Money that the United States has in its possession, and controls. 

These damages may be very substantial but, nevertheless, this is the fair and equitable thing to do. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

On Tuesday morning, President Trump said any time Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the US will respond by bombing one bridge or power plant:

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

On Tuesday night, CENTCOM struck aircraft hangars, drone storage facilities and maritime capabilities.

18 US service members have been killed in action since the beginning of the US-Iran war.

President Trump on Wednesday attended the dignified transfer of the four American patriots killed in action in the Middle East by Iranian drones.

Israel is preparing for the possibility of a significant escalation

Britain evacuates diplomats from Iran: unusual series of threats and preparations for escalation

Itamar Eichner

An unusual barrage of threats from Iran, a British announcement about the evacuation of diplomatic staff and Israeli preparations for the possibility of a significant escalation as early as this weekend: After the stepped-up American threats, including U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement that “for every ship attacked in Hormuz, we will destroy a power plant or bridge, including in Tehran,” the Iranians responded with nonstop threats. But an equally important development is Britain’s announcement that it is evacuating its personnel from Iran because of the security situation.

Against the backdrop of Israel’s preparations for the possibility of escalation with Iran, the IDF is on alert, refining defensive and

offensive procedures and maintaining continuous contact with the Americans in case Trump does choose escalation. A senior Israeli 

official said the key to developments in the coming days lies with Trump.

According to the official, Jerusalem is closely monitoring the White House’s decisions and preparing for 

every scenario. “If Trump decides to intensify the campaign, Israel will also be prepared for the possibility

of an Iranian response against its territory. On the other hand, if the American pressure leads to a 

temporary ceasefire or a renewal of contacts, it may be possible to prevent a broader escalation.”

The defense establishment assesses that the coming days will be decisive, and that Trump’s decisions will 

determine whether the region moves toward a wider confrontation or another attempt to curb the fighting 

through a diplomatic move.

Israel is preparing for the possibility of a significant escalation as early as this weekend, after the United 

States informed Jerusalem that it intends to expand strikes in Iran and use heavy bombers, for the first 

time in the current wave of escalation, against targets inside Iran. According to the information relayed to

Israel, this would constitute a step up in the American campaign. In Operation Roaring Lion, the United

States used strategic bombers that took off from Britain and carried out strikes in Iran, and similar use is 

now being considered as part of the continued fighting.

More....

The applause for Burnham scrapping Starmer’s digital ID arrived before anyone checked what survived it

The applause for Burnham scrapping Starmer’s digital ID arrived before anyone checked what survived it

Rhoda Wilson

Before he walked into Number 10, Andy Burnham announced plans to scrap Keir Starmer’s controversial digital ID scheme as one of his first acts as Prime Minister.  Many have applauded him – but their applause was misguided.

This isn’t a time to celebrate a perceived end to digital ID. There’s still a big fight ahead. Under this new agenda, the machinery keeps growing no matter who holds the keys. Burnham, Britain’s new keyholder, has spent two decades asking for exactly this machinery, and he now has it, Cam Wakefield explains.

Andy Burnham Scrapped Digital ID. His Internet Plans Say Otherwise

By Cam Wakefield, as published by Reclaim the Net on 20 July 2026

The new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is in Downing Street, and he has spent twenty years telling you exactly what he wants to do to the internet. He won the Makerfield by-election on 18 June 2026. He then collected the backing of roughly 349 Labour MPs, more than 85 per cent of the parliamentary party. By the time he walked through the black door, the job had been settled for weeks.

His first big announcement was the one privacy campaigners had been hoping for. Starmer’s digital ID scheme for all adults is dead, scrapped before Burnham had finished unpacking, the money moved to the cost of living. The applause came quickly. Perhaps it should not have.

This is a read on a government barely a day old. On speech and privacy, the early signals point one way, and it is not the way that loosens the state’s grip. He is not about to tear up the settlement he inherits from Keir Starmer. The open question is how much further he carries it.

Burnham arrives with a long record on all this. He is one of the few senior British politicians with a documented, two-decade appetite for putting the government closer to what you can see, say and read online.

His first ministerial job, at the Home Office in 2005 and 2006, was pushing Tony Blair’s Identity Cards Bill through Parliament. He told the BBC that compulsory national ID cards would be a major breakthrough. Twenty years later, asked about it again, he was unembarrassed about the principle: “I’m not kind of arguing against the principle. I was very pro, actually, I thought there was a real clear case for it.”

Two decades of hindsight, and the case is still clear to him. What that case rests on is a claim about the relationship between a person and the state, and it is the same claim underneath every age check and identity gate now being built. The Identity Cards Act reached the statute book on 30 March 2006 and was repealed on 21 January 2011.

Then came 2008, and Culture Secretary Burnham produced a plan that looks like a blueprint for everything running today. The organising idea was that online content should meet the same regulatory standards as television. He wanted taste and decency rules applied to the web, cinema-style age certificates and warning signs on anything featuring sex, violence or strong language, alerts bolted onto viral content, and ISP-level “child-safe” packages.

Then 2016, and the episode that should be read before anyone celebrates this week. As Shadow Home Secretary, Burnham went after the Investigatory Powers Bill. He said Britain needed a new law in this area, then listed what was wrong with the one in front of him: thin privacy safeguards, surveillance powers that went too far, thresholds set too low, weak oversight, definitions loose enough to justify almost any intrusion. Labour abstained in March 2016. The government made amendments. In June, Burnham and Labour voted for it, and the Snoopers’ Charter received Royal Assent that November.

The Act remains one of the most expansive surveillance laws in any democracy, and it exists because the opposition of the day decided its objections had been satisfied. That is the pattern worth holding onto. Burnham objects to how a power is packaged, wins changes to the packaging, and votes the power into the statute book. Ten years later, the objections are a footnote and the Act is still there.

The recent statements finish the picture. During an April 2025 Times interview, he talked warmly about regulating social media for teenagers, saying that if it is not a ban it needs to be something.

By January 2026, he agreed with much of what Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch was saying about children and social media and welcomed a cross-party mood for bolder action. Earlier this month, days after winning Makerfield and while the leadership was already effectively his, he confirmed the current government’s online age verification scheme keeps running and imposes election purdah rules online.

That is twenty years pointing the same way.

Expect the Online Safety Act to survive Burnham intact, because the pressure on him runs toward strengthening it. A coalition of charities, campaign groups and academics wrote to him before he reached No 10, asking him to toughen the law.

Their specific wish is to drag it past illegal content and into “legal but harmful” territory, the exact area the Act was careful to leave alone. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee wants the same, arguing the Act is too weak on “misinformation” and that platforms should answer for how they amplify lawful content people dislike. 2024’s Southport unrest is the case they keep reaching for.

That “legal but harmful” line is where the state stops chasing crime and starts refereeing opinion. The government gets to write the definition of harmful, and then the government gets to enforce it.

A change of direction was always likelier on digital ID than on the Online Safety Act, and today proved the point.

The enforcement machine that has already pushed platforms into restricting British users has been inherited whole and will probably be widened, while ministers keep insisting that none of this touches free speech.

More...

That Day Shall Not Come Except

That Day Shall Not Come Except

Wayne Gaylord

After graduating from Wheaton College, I entered the financial world in Dallas. During my drive back and forth to work, I was intrigued by a radio program called “Christ in Prophecy” hosted by Dr. David Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries. I called Dr. Reagan afterwards and he invited me to have breakfast with him at IHOP. It was a life-changing experience for me as eventually he invited me to join the Board of Trustees of Lamb & Lion Ministry where I served for more than 25 years.

I wondered why so many pastors did not preach about prophecy since so much of the Bible is prophetic in nature. One pastor told me he doesn’t preach on prophecy because there are so many theories and viewpoints that it is best to just ignore it. Bad advice! Especially since that it is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing to those who read and absorb it.

With Dr. Reagan as my mentor, I immersed myself in the study of prophecy. In 2017, I wrote the commentary entitled “Finally Home” covering every verse in the book of Revelation with the express purpose of making it clearly understandable for the average lay person. By using Dr. Reagan’s literal approach and oft quoted guideline, “When the plain sense makes sense, don’t look for any other sense or you will wind up with nonsense,” it clears up most of the conflicts and confusion in the book of Revelation.

When I began my study of prophecy, one of the first controversies that I encountered was the question, “Does the Rapture precede the Tribulation or do Christians have to go through this terrible seven-year period in which the Antichrist holds sway over the world?” This controversy seems to never go away and is hotly debated in all theological circles today.

There are many scholarly books which clearly prove that the Church (composed of true believers) will be raptured prior to the Tribulation period. One of the best of such books is “The Rapture” written by Dr. Tim LaHaye. The timing of the Rapture was on the minds of the early believers in Thessalonica. No doubt, they dwelt on this because of the terrorism, abuses, and executions they were enduring by the Romans.

Some of their believing brethren were proclaiming that the Tribulation was already upon them, and they had been left behind at the Rapture.

Paul wanted to assure them that the awful Tribulation had not occurred since the Rapture had not yet happened. Consequently, he wrote the letter, 2 Thessalonians, to set their minds at ease.

In chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians, beginning with verse 1, Paul says, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus, and by our gathering together unto Him [a clear picture of the Rapture], that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ [a reference to the Tribulation period] is at hand.”

Scripture continues, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT [capitalization provided by author] there is a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition [i.e., the Antichrist] who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he [the Antichrist] as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

So, the Tribulation period cannot begin before two major events occur. Some might say this is a sign for these believers. The Bible indicates that some signs are good such as was given to the shepherds in Luke 2:12 “And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” That is a good sign. But here is a sign that is not so good. Matthew 12:39: “He answered, ‘a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign.’ “

Here is the difference. When God tells us to look for a sign, we can trust what He says, but when someone doubts what He says, and asks for a sign to verify His assertions, that is when we are on thin ice. Here in 2 Thessalonians, I prefer to call them two events that must take place rather than a sign. The second event is quite clear. We will know who the Antichrist is when he stands in the temple and declares that he, himself, is God.

So, I want to ask you about this first event. Can this be a definite event for which we should look for? I think not. There has been a falling away or apostasy in every generation. But here, God is trying to give them a definite event that will come about so that they can clearly be assured that the Tribulation has not come and that they have not been left behind at the Rapture.

So, this first event requires more digging. It uses the Greek word “apostasia” in which the original scriptures were written, and most translators translate this term as “a falling away” meaning a falling away from the Christian faith.

In English and in almost every other language, there is a first and a secondary meaning of a particular word. For instance, in English, the primary word for “hide” is that you might hide from someone. The secondary meaning for the word “hide” could be referring to the skin or hide of an animal.

Also, consider the word “pen.” It might be referring to a writing instrument, or it could be referring to an enclosure in which to keep an animal. It all depends on the context.

The secondary meaning of “apostasia” is “departure.” Now consider this. In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he explained fully to them about the Rapture of the believers. He even detailed the fact the dead in Christ would be resurrected first and then the believers living at that time would be resurrected after that.

So, when Paul mentioned the departure, in their minds they knew exactly what he was talking about—the departure would mean leaving this earth to meet the Lord in the air. In other words, The Rapture that he had previously written to them about!

Clearly, Paul is telling them that they are not in the seven-year Tribulation period because two things must happen first: the departure of Christians at the Rapture and the Antichrist must be identified.

So, Paul makes it very clear that the Rapture must precede the Tribulation period. And as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 4:18: “Comfort one another with these words.”