WORLD ROUNDUPThree Risks Looming Over the Trump-Putin Meeting | Only Trump Can Save Israel from Its Own Government | Escalating Cyber Threats in the Indo-Pacific, and more

Trump Has a New Definition of Human Rights  (Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic)
State Department reports portray Germany as more oppressive than El Salvador.

Three Risks Looming Over the Trump-Putin Meeting  (Mallory Stewart, Lawfare)
There are three important risks to international law and security that Trump and his team should be tracking.
First, and perhaps most difficult to address when negotiating with Putin, Trump must work to diminish the perception that the meeting is somehow a reward to Russia after its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
A second significant risk that Trump should avoid is negotiating away necessary defensive capabilities either in Ukraine or in Europe as a whole.
The final risk that Trump must avoid is the misperception that he will be able to solve in one meeting the massive security challenges that Russia poses.

More of the Same, But Worse: Netanyahu’s “New” Plan in Gaza  (Eliav Lieblich, Just Security)
On August 8, the Israeli cabinet authorized a plan to expand the war in Gaza. The plan, reportedly, involves establishing “operational control” of Gaza City while “evacuating” its population. According to Israeli media, the idea is to place Gaza City under siege by October 7, 2025; to evacuate a million people to new “humanitarian zones,” and to establish 12 additional points for the distribution of humanitarian aid.
Apparently, these are initial steps in a plan that would end in Israeli control over Gaza at large. As some senior analysts have pointed out, it is unclear to what extent this plan is serious or militarily practicable. Nevertheless, on August 10, Netanyahu doubled down on the plan, and even presented an expanded version of it, in a way that would make it difficult for him to back down without significant pressure. And as the experience of this horrendous war has taught us, the worst-case scenario ends up happening, again and again.
Regardless of its military feasibility, the plan follows a consistent logic: it seeks to deepen territorial control while denying the legal consequences that international law attaches to occupation. In this sense, the plan may appear improvised tactically but remains coherent strategically. Under all of these circumstances, calls to comply with IHL ring hollow; the only sensible call is to immediately backtrack from this plan and to bring an immediate end to the calamity in Gaza. Ending the war, the return of the hostages, and working with the Palestinian Authority and other international actors is the