Good morning,

Thank you for subscribing to the premium edition of The Intel Brief. This is your Monday morning update. Let’s begin.

Reporting Period: 3-7 July 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

U.S. Proposal For Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Advances Despite Military Operations In Gaza

Summary
President Trump has put forward a “final” 60-day ceasefire framework in Gaza, which Israel has reportedly agreed to and Hamas has responded to in a “positive spirit.” Negotiations, brokered with Qatar and Egypt, depend on hostage releases, a partial Israeli troop withdrawal to buffer zones, and a surge in humanitarian aid. While negotiations move forward ahead of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s trip to the White House today, stark differences persist, particularly around Israel’s demand for Hamas’ disarmament and Hamas’ insistence on a permanent cessation of hostilities.

Findings

• Proposal Highlights: A 60-day truce is proposed during which Hamas would release 10 living and 18 deceased hostages in stages. Israel would pull back troops to buffer zones and allow major aid deliveries through UN-affiliated channels. Talks for a permanent ceasefire would continue alongside those conditions being met.

• Israeli Position: President Trump announced on 1 July that Israel has accepted the ceasefire terms, warning Hamas that rejection would worsen conditions for Gaza's civilian population.

  On 6 July, it was reported that Israel had dispatched diplomats to Gaza for talks despite “unacceptable” demands by Hamas.

  Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with President Trump today, 7 July 2025, at the White House.

• Hamas Position: Hamas reviewed the proposal and returned a response in a “positive spirit,” expressing readiness to enter detailed negotiations, though emphasizing demands for a full end to military operations and total Israeli withdrawal.

• Ongoing Conflict: Despite diplomatic efforts, hostilities have continued in Gaza. It is also uncertain whether or not Iran will encourage Hamas and other proxies, such as Hezbollah, to carry out further strikes.

Why This Matters
The proposed ceasefire is a pivotal opportunity in the region. It is a chance to stabilize a conflict that has raged for nearly 21 months. As the conflict that also spurred regime change in Syria and strikes on Iran, a diplomatic agreement may be enough to simmer tensions and avoid further military confrontation.

However, continued disagreements suggest a diplomatic deal, even if reached, may be ineffective or short-lived. Israel is now seeking Hamas’ demilitarization, but Netanyahu vowed on more than one occasion that the organization would be destroyed. Additionally, Iran’s sponsorship of Hamas means the organization could go dormant and pursue a revival in the future. It is also likely that Hamas’ demands of Israel in Gaza, such as the departure or IDF forces and the return of seized territory, will be unacceptable to Israel.

These disagreements are likely to be central to any negotiations in Qatar, Egypt, or Turkey.

Sources: AP News, The New York Times, The Times of Israel

Despite Pause In Aid, U.S. Wants To Help Ukraine With Air Defense

Summary
On 4 July, President Trump reaffirmed to Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in a phone call that the U.S. will continue to support Kyiv, especially regarding air defense operations and systems procurement. Earlier in the week, the Pentagon announced it was pausing military aid to Ukraine due to low stockpiles, likely from previous aid and recent operations involving Israel and Iran. The leaders agreed to convene technical teams to explore solutions, signaling a potential reversal of the aid pause and a renewed U.S. strategic commitment to Ukraine’s air defense needs.

Findings

• Pause in Aid: The U.S. Department of Defense recently paused shipments of Patriot interceptors, air-to-air munitions, Hellfire missiles, Stinger MANPADs, and 155mm artillery rounds, citing a need to refill stockpiles. The decision surprised Ukrainian officials and drew concern amid intensifying Russian drone and missile attacks on Ukraine.

• Trump–Zelenskyy Call: On 4 July, Trump spoke with Zelenskyy for approximately 40 minutes. According to Zelenskyy and Axios, Trump said he "wants to help" Ukraine with air defense and will review the paused shipments. Both leaders agreed their teams would meet to discuss air defense capabilities and explore joint weapons production.
  It is possible that the pause of aid to Ukraine is being used to accelerate a rare earth minerals trade deal between Washington and Kyiv.

  • Trump Follow-up Statements: On 5 July, Trump spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One. When questioned about a potential peace deal, he said that Putin appears to want the war to continue. He said the U.S. may supply Ukraine with Patriot air defense systems.

• Russian Air Offensive: The call followed a significant uptick in Russian air attacks. Hundreds of drones and missiles hit Ukraine, including strikes on Kyiv, in recent weeks. Zelenskyy emphasized the urgent need to "increase the protection of our skies.”

Why This Matters
The pause on U.S. weapons shipments theoretically undermines Ukraine’s ability to defend against sustained Russian aerial assaults. It also pressures Ukraine’s allies in Europe to increase aid and the speed at which it is delivered.

Trump’s direct engagement with Zelenskyy and his renewed commitment to air-defense cooperation signals Washington’s ongoing, albeit recalibrated, role in supporting Kyiv's defense. By agreeing to technical consultations and exploring joint production, the U.S. and Ukraine are taking practical steps to replenish critical air defense capabilities. However, Trump’s emphasis on U.S. military readiness demonstrates that aid hinges on recovering American stockpiles.

Again, it is also possible that the Trump admin is using military and financial aid as a coercive device; one that can accelerate Washington and Kyiv’s agreement on a rare earth minerals deal.

Sources: Axios, The Guardian, CNN, Yahoo!, The Kyiv Independent

Brazil Hosts 17th BRICS Summit

Summary
From 6-7 July, the 17th BRICS Summit convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, but marked the first summit in which Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin were absent in person. Xi cited scheduling conflicts, while Putin refrained from travel due to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant. Both countries were represented by senior officials—Premier Li Qiang for China and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for Russia. In their absence, BRICS leaders used the platform to reinforce multipolar diplomacy, condemn foreign tariffs, and denounce military actions in Gaza and Iran.

Findings

• Notable Absences: Xi Jinping missed the summit—a first since 2012—officially due to scheduling issues. Analysts interpret it as a diplomatic snub or a sign of domestic prioritization. Recently, reports have suggested Xi’s health may be waning, or that he may step down as China’s paramount leader in the upcoming CCP Plenary Session.
  Russian President Putin did not attend due to security risks and the International Criminal Court’s 2023 warrant for his arrest. He participated virtually via video link.

  • Official Representation: China was represented by Premier Li Qiang, while Russia sent Foreign Minister Lavrov, showing continuity in engagement despite leadership absences.

• Strategic Declarations: Under Brazil’s leadership, the summit concluded with a declaration strongly defending multilateralism, criticizing rising trade tariffs, and condemning attacks on Gaza and Iran — though avoiding direct references to NATO, the U.S., or Israel.

• Emerging Dynamics: Lula framed BRICS as the “heir” to the Non-Aligned Movement and positioned the organization as a bulwark against global polarization. The gathering proceeded amid concerns that its rapid expansion—now including countries like Egypt, Iran, and Indonesia—may dilute coherence and challenge internal cohesion.

Why This Matters
The absence of Xi and Putin at the BRICS Summit reflects evolving constraints and shifting priorities for China and Russia. Xi’s decision to delegate participation suggests greater domestic focus or sensitivity to developing issues. Putin’s virtual participation again highlights the real-world limitations of BRICS’ expansion when confronting legal and political repercussions from the international community. Their non-attendance has enabled host Brazil and other members to steer the agenda toward broader global governance themes—emphasizing trade fairness and diplomatic multilateralism—while minimizing confrontation with Western powers.

This is unlikely to create ire within BRICS, but may be a sore subject when BRICS members meet bilaterally (i.e. China and Russia may be quietly discontent due to their leadership being perceivably undermined).

Additionally, with new members now part of the bloc, unified policy action becomes more difficult and risks strategic incoherence.

Where the summit succeeded is in accruing soft power, a symbolic win. The 17th summit suggests the group is becoming an official organization or pact, a far cry from the economic grouping concept it originated as.

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Tribune, CNBC

Poland Deploys Troops To Borders With Germany, Lithuania

Summary
On 7 July, Poland began deploying military personnel to its borders with Germany and Lithuania. Up to 5,000 troops are being deployed to assist with border checks and migration enforcement. The move comes amid escalating tensions over Germany’s stricter asylum policies and the formation of right-wing civilian patrols. Warsaw claims the actions are necessary to protect the Schengen Zone system from abuse and to respond to alleged migrant pushbacks from Germany.

Findings

• Border Controls and Deployments: Polish Prime Minister Tusk confirmed that random border checks will begin on 7 July at both borders. Around 4,000 soldiers will support the Polish-German border, with an additional 1,000 on the Polish–Lithuanian border.

• Domestic Pressures: The deployment follows criticism from far-right activists and opposition leaders, who have staged citizen patrols to prevent migrants from re-entering Poland, prompting government condemnation of such uncoordinated efforts.
  Similar circumstances are under scrutiny in Germany, where the anti-immigration AfD party (despite being Germany’s second most popular party) could be made illegal.

• Germany–Poland Coordination: Chancellor Merz and PM Tusk agreed on the need to protect Schengen’s integrity. Germany acknowledged pressure from asylum-seekers who were redirected to Poland but denies returning already-accepted migrants.

• Eastern Migration Routes: The Lithuanian border controls respond to redirected flows from the closed Belarus border. Poland maintains that Russia and Belarus are orchestrating migrant movements to destabilize EU borders.

Why This Matters
Poland’s reintroduction of border controls and military deployment reflects a broader crisis of cohesion within the European Union, where national governments are increasingly asserting sovereignty over migration policy, often in direct tension with EU norms and supranational governance. While framed as a security response, Warsaw’s move underscores a strategic backlash against Brussels’ failure to manage irregular migration across the bloc.

In Germany, political pressure over migration has fueled the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), now polling as the second most popular party nationwide. In response, even centrist leaders have acknowledged the need to reform asylum policy and curtail perceived abuse of free movement within the Schengen Zone. This growing consensus—cutting across the political spectrum—reflects a hardening of domestic attitudes on migration that challenges the EU’s false consensus on immigration law.

Poland has long positioned itself as a bulwark against irregular migration and the EU’s redistribution of asylum seekers. Its assertive stance, now reinforced by troop deployments and legal barriers, directly contests the EU and raises questions about member compliance with supranational law versus domestic law.

The risk is that such moves, if mirrored by other EU states, could erode the Schengen system and deepen political fragmentation within the Union. The friction between EU supranationalism and domestic national issues is no longer theoretical; it is shaping elections and threatening to realign the European political order.

Sources: The Washington Post, The Telegraph, DW

End Brief

That concludes this brief.

Thank you for subscribing to the premium version of The Intel Brief. Your support is greatly appreciated.

— Nick