news

UN reports warn that resettling thousands of hardened fighters in Syria could transform it into a hub for exporting terror. With Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s rise to power in Damascus after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, developments in Syria are raising fears of attempts to normalize extremist groups with a long history of terrorism and jihadi ideology.

Accepting these groups as legitimate rulers—without holding them accountable for their terrorist past—could open the door for other terrorist organizations to pursue control of the region, posing a serious threat to Middle East stability.

From Saydnaya to the Legitimization of Extremists

The Saydnaya prison, near the Syrian capital, has been transformed into a media symbol justifying Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s ascent. Led by figures like Ahmad al-Shar’ (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), a former senior Al-Qaeda commander, the group portrays Saydnaya as a site of Sunni suffering to lend moral legitimacy to organizations with documented terrorist histories. Syrian journalist Sarkis Qassarjian argues that “depicting Saydnaya as Sunni persecution aims to provide an ethical veneer for groups whose extremist ideology and violent actions are well-documented.”

The Impossibility of a Civilian Turnaround

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which evolved from Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria), casts doubt on its ability to transform into a moderate, civilian governing body. Political analyst Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi observes, “Groups raised on jihad and violence cannot easily become civilian political forces, as their ideology is deeply rooted in extremism.” A report by the “Mustaqbal” (Future) Center supports this view, noting that “superficial changes in HTS’s rhetoric—such as toning down religious discourse—are tactical adaptations, not fundamental transformations.”

Having carried out terrorist operations and attracted thousands of foreign fighters, these groups cannot shed their jihadi principles without incurring tremendous risk. A United Nations report reveals that over 16,000 foreign fighters joined extremist organizations in Syria and Iraq, making their reintegration into a civilian governance system virtually impossible.

Appetites for Terror

Accepting Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham as a legitimate authority without prosecuting its leaders for past crimes sends a dangerous message to other terrorist groups in the region. Ahmad al-Shar’, once linked to the 9/11 attacks, is now head of a de facto government in Syria. If the world accepts his leadership despite his record, why wouldn’t other extremist organizations attempt regime overthrow and power seizure by similar means?

Writer Hassan Tahiri warns that “normalizing extremist groups encourages a new generation of terrorists who see violence as a pathway to power.” A report by the Washington Institute adds, “Failure to hold leaders like al-Shar’ accountable erodes justice and reinforces impunity, opening the door to regional chaos.”

The Role of Sponsor States

Regional powers such as Qatar—which has financed Islamist factions—and Turkey—the official backer of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—play significant roles in bolstering the new extremist governance. They seek to rebrand these groups and figures like al-Shar’ through moderated rhetoric and a more palatable image. Yet recent atrocities—in March 2025, thousands of Alawites were reportedly killed in their own areas by extremist factions now ruling Syria—underscore the impossibility of producing genuine reform despite HTS’s attempts at rhetorical change. A BBC report suggests this support is driven by geopolitical interests, like filling Syria’s political vacuum, rather than genuine belief in HTS’s transformation.

Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges

Under Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Syria confronts immense challenges, including managing sectarian and factional diversity. The Future Center warns that “fundamentalist groups, which fragmented into over 1,000 factions in Iraq, could become ticking time bombs in Syria.” Al-Shar’’s plans to form a national army or convene a national dialogue also face criticism for lacking popular legitimacy, according to the Washington Institute.

Regional Threat Scenario

Continued normalization of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham could lead to catastrophic outcomes by emboldening and expanding extremist ambitions. HTS’s success might inspire other groups to pursue power through violence, threatening an already unstable region. Moreover, the group’s failure to rein in hardened militant factions risks triggering new civil wars within Syria. The UN and BBC reports warn that resettling thousands of hardened fighters in Syria could transform it into a hub for exporting terror.

In sum, normalizing extremist groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—without accountability for their terrorist history—poses a grave danger to the Middle East’s future. Ahmad al-Shar’s shift from Al-Qaeda commander to political leader sends a perilous signal that violence can be a path to power, undermining justice and encouraging regional disorder.

LONDON/PARIS, April 23 (Reuters) - Talks between the U.S., Ukraine and European officials to discuss ending Russia's war in Ukraine faltered on Wednesday as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio abruptly cancelled his trip to London and negotiations were downgraded. Rubio's no show prompted a broader meeting of foreign ministers from Ukraine, Britain, France and Germany to be cancelled, although talks continued at a lower level. The U.S. would now be represented by Ukraine envoy General Keith Kellogg.

The downgrading of the talks comes at a critical time, just days after U.S. President Donald Trump warned that Washington could walk away if there was no progress on a deal soon. Trump raised the pressure on Sunday when he said he hoped Moscow and Kyiv would make a deal this week to end the three-year war.

A source close to the discussions said the downgrading of the trip came after Ukraine drafted a paper for the Europeans on Tuesday, in which it said there would be no discussions on territorial issues until "a full and unconditional ceasefire". The source said the apparent U.S. nervousness could indicate that the Ukrainian position did not align with what Washington's representatives had agreed so far with the Russians.

Rubio spoke to British Foreign Secretary David Lammy late on Tuesday and said he looked forward to rescheduling his trip in the coming months after Wednesday's "technical meetings". Speaking on his arrival in London with the foreign and defence ministers, Ukrainian presidential adviser Andriy Yermak said the talks would focus on ways to achieve a full and unconditional ceasefire as a first step to peace.

"Despite everything, we will work for peace," he said on social media. But underlining the distance between the sides in the negotiation, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Kyiv would not recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula Russia annexed in 2014. That recognition was part of the proposals outlined by the United States to the Europeans last week, sources close to the talks have said.

"Ukraine is ready to negotiate - but not to surrender," Svyrydenko wrote on X. The meeting is a follow-up to a similar session in Paris last week where U.S., Ukrainian and European officials discussed ways to move forward and narrow positions.

During those talks, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff presented a paper to the participants outlining proposals in which Ukraine in particular, but also Russia, would need to make concessions, according to three diplomats aware of the talks. The diplomats differed on whether the position paper was a firm U.S. stance or a starting point to work with Ukraine and its British, French and German allies to formulate a joint position before taking it to Russia.

DIFFICULT PROPOSALS

Some of Washington's proposals were unacceptable to European countries and Kyiv, multiple sources said. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Tuesday that the Europeans had detailed to the United States what they view as the non-negotiable aspects of a potential peace accord. Rubio last week said the U.S. framework that he and Witkoff proposed in Paris received an encouraging reception.

But the sources said that among the U.S. proposals was recognising Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea - a move that was a non-starter for Europe and Ukraine - as well as accepting the reality of Russia's control of the remaining 20% of Ukraine's territory. In addition, NATO membership for Ukraine would be ruled out and the U.S. would begin to lift sanctions on Russia.

The London talks were aimed at working to bridge differences and find areas that could satisfy Moscow and open a serious negotiation, diplomats said. Beyond Crimea, other major sticking points remain, including Russia's push for lifting of European Union sanctions against it before negotiations are finished, which Europe staunchly opposes, diplomats said. Washington proposed last week to establish a neutral zone at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Russian-occupied Ukraine, according to European diplomats. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday he would be ready to partner with the United States to restart the plant.

Some of Washington's ideas are also likely to displease Moscow. Two diplomats said the U.S. was not pushing a Russian demand to demilitarize Ukraine and was not opposed to a European force as part of future security guarantees for Ukraine. Witkoff had not been part of the London talks. But, on Washington's parallel track of diplomacy with Moscow, he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in Russia, the White House said. Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine by May, arguing the U.S. must end a conflict that has killed tens of thousands and risks a direct confrontation between the U.S. and nuclear-armed Russia.

India has announced a raft of measures to downgrade its ties to Pakistan, a day after armed men killed 26 people in the tourist town of Pahalgam in the disputed region Kashmir.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a media briefing on Wednesday that the cross-border linkages of the attack in Indian-administered Kashmir had been “brought out” at a special meeting of the security cabinet, after which it was decided to act against Pakistan.

He said the main land border crossing between the two countries would be shut with immediate effect and New Delhi would suspend a water treaty that allows for sharing the waters of the Indus river system between the two countries.

He said Pakistani nationals would be barred from travelling to India under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) visa exemption programme, and that Pakistanis using the visas have 48 hours to leave the country.

The defence advisers in the Pakistani high commission in New Delhi were declared persona non grata and asked to leave, Misri said, adding that the overall strength of the Indian high commission in Islamabad will be reduced to 30 from 55.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has called a meeting of the National Security Committee on Thursday morning to respond to the Indian government’s statement, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar posted on X.

A little-known group, the Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the attack in a social media message, in which it expressed discontent that more than 85,000 “outsiders” had been settled in the region, spurring what it called a “demographic change”.

The dead included 25 Indians and one Nepalese national, police said, and at least 17 other people were wounded.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said it was “concerned at the loss of tourists’ lives” in Indian-administered Kashmir. “We extend our condolences to the near ones of the deceased and wish the injured a speedy recovery”, the ministry’s spokesperson said in a statement.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea deepens the diplomatic stalemate and highlights growing international pressure for a negotiated solution, as sectors of the Latin American left question the dominant narrative about the war.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to accept Russia’s claim over Crimea has deepened tensions, making peace negotiations harder. The standoff highlights growing pressure on Ukraine to compromise, even as critics warn against ignoring the rights of ordinary people caught in the conflict.

Ukraine’s president insists Crimea is Ukrainian and won’t legally recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation, despite calls from Moscow and even former U.S. President Donald Trump to soften his stance.Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Zelensky of sabotaging peace efforts, calling his position “irresponsible” and “schizophrenic.”The ex-president claimed Zelensky’s stubbornness could lead Ukraine to “lose everything” if peace isn’t reached soon.

Sectors of the Latin American left have pointed out the contradiction of Western governments—who have historically intervened militarily in other regions,now presenting themselves as defenders of Ukrainian sovereignty. This critical view recalls that NATO and the United States have violated peace and sovereign rights in countries such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and warns against uncritically accepting the official Western narrative about the war in Ukraine.

Russia says Crimea joined it legally after a 2014 referendum where 97% of voters backed the move. But Ukraine and most nations call the vote a sham, held under military occupation.With neither side backing down, the war drags on. Ukraine’s left-wing critics say Zelensky’s government risks fueling nationalism instead of pushing for a fair deal.