RAGE X GCII INTELLIGENCE Index July 26 2025

RAGE X GCII INTELLIGENCE Index July 26 2025

Analysis conducted: 23:00 UTC

GLOBAL THREAT SUMMARY

• 🔴 CRITICAL: 2 conflicts
• 🟠 HIGH: 2 conflicts
• 🟡 ELEVATED: 1 conflict
• 🔵 WATCHLIST: 0 situations
• 🟢 RESOLVED: 1 in last 24h

CRITICAL CONFLICTS (🔴)

1. Interstate War: Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict

• Location: Thai provinces of Surin, Buriram, Si Sa Ket, Ubon Ratchathani, Chanthaburi, and Trat; Cambodian provinces of Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear.¹
• Parties: Royal Thai Armed Forces (RTARF) vs. Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF).
• Conflict Type: Interstate War.
• Duration: Current phase of intense combat initiated 24 July 2025 (~3 days).¹
• Status: A long-simmering border dispute has erupted into the most significant interstate fighting in Southeast Asia in over a decade, representing a severe regional destabilization event. Clashes that began on 24 July, ostensibly triggered by a landmine incident that wounded five Thai soldiers on 23 July, have rapidly intensified into multi-front, combined-arms warfare.¹ The rapid and disproportionate escalation from a localized incident to widespread hostilities involving heavy artillery, BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), and Royal Thai Air Force F-16 airstrikes on Cambodian military targets suggests the initial event was a catalyst for a pre-planned military operation rather than the root cause.³ Both militaries appear to have been at a high state of readiness with pre-approved rules of engagement for a major escalation, indicating that unresolved strategic tensions have reached a critical threshold.In the last 24 hours, the conflict has expanded geographically, demonstrating a clear escalatory trajectory. On 26 July, Cambodian forces opened a new front in Thailand’s Trat Province, prompting the Royal Thai Navy to launch a dedicated counteroffensive codenamed “Operation Trat Pikhat Pairee 1” to repel the incursion.² In response to the widening conflict, Thailand has declared martial law in eight districts across Chanthaburi and Trat provinces and has sealed all land and sea border crossings.² These measures signal a significant national mobilization and an expectation of prolonged, high-intensity hostilities.
• Casualty Analysis (as of 26 July 2025): Casualty figures are highly contested and are being actively employed as a component of information warfare by both belligerents. The starkly different claims aim to shape domestic and international perceptions of victimhood and aggression. Thailand’s higher civilian casualty claims appear designed to justify its significant military response and portray Cambodia as an aggressor targeting non-combatants, while Cambodia’s counter-claims, including allegations of cluster munition use, seek to rally international condemnation against Thailand.⁵ The following table consolidates the conflicting official reports.

• Escalation Risk: Critical. The opening of new fronts, declaration of martial law, and failure of diplomatic interventions indicate that both sides are currently committed to achieving objectives through military force.
• International Response: The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held an urgent, private meeting on 25 July at Cambodia’s request.¹ While no formal resolution was issued, all 15 members reportedly called for “maximum restraint” and a return to diplomatic solutions.⁶ This non-binding outcome reveals a lack of consensus for stronger action and places the responsibility for de-escalation back on regional actors. However, the regional security architecture has proven ineffective. Malaysia, as the current ASEAN chair, proposed a ceasefire which Cambodia reportedly accepted, but Thailand has demurred, insisting on direct bilateral talks that have already failed, thus paralyzing the regional response.¹ This diplomatic impasse represents a significant failure of the ASEAN conflict prevention mechanism, potentially diminishing the bloc’s credibility and creating a vacuum for external powers to exert influence.

2. Ceasefire Collapse: Israel-Iran Direct Hostilities

• Location: Israel (primarily southern region, e.g., Beersheba); Iran (primarily near Tehran); Syria; Lebanon.¹¹
• Parties: Israel Defense Forces (IDF) vs. Iranian Armed Forces (including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – IRGC) and aligned proxies.
• Conflict Type: Interstate War / Ceasefire Violation.
• Duration: Ceasefire collapse and renewed hostilities occurred in the last 24 hours.¹¹
• Status: A fragile, US-brokered ceasefire intended to halt a “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran has catastrophically collapsed within hours of its intended implementation, plunging the region into a state of high alert.¹¹ The situation is defined by a “pretext dilemma,” where unverifiable, conflicting accusations from both sides are being used to justify retaliatory military action, creating a dangerous and potentially unstoppable escalation spiral. Israel accuses Iran of firing at least three missiles into its territory after the ceasefire deadline, with one missile causing four fatalities in the city of Beersheba.¹¹ Conversely, Iran denies launching post-ceasefire attacks, alleging that Israel conducted three of its own strikes on Iranian territory after the deadline and that the Israeli claims are a “pretext” for further aggression.¹¹In this high-stakes, low-trust environment, the first report of an attack becomes the political reality driving the next, more destructive military action. Both sides have ordered forceful retaliation. The Israeli Defense Minister has instructed the IDF to “respond forcefully… with intense strikes against regime targets in the heart of Tehran”.¹¹ The IDF has already conducted a retaliatory strike, destroying a radar array near Tehran.¹² Iran has threatened “stronger retaliation” for any breaches of the ceasefire, creating the conditions for a rapid tit-for-tat escalation into a full-scale regional war.¹¹
• Casualty Analysis (24h):
  • Verified: 4 killed in Beersheba, Israel, from a missile impact.¹²
  • Unconfirmed: Casualties from Israeli retaliatory strikes in and around Tehran are unconfirmed but probable.
• Escalation Risk: Critical. The collapse of the ceasefire and immediate retaliatory strikes create an extremely high probability of a full-scale regional war in the next 72 hours.
• International Response: The conflict dynamics demonstrate a critical limit to US influence over the operational decisions of a key ally. The US administration, which brokered the deal, has expressed extreme frustration, with President Trump making a last-minute phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt bombardments and issuing an extraordinary public warning to Israel: “DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS”.¹¹ This public discord between the US and Israel weakens the deterrent message to Iran and signals that regional actors are prepared to act unilaterally when they perceive an existential threat. Concurrently, European powers (the E3) held “frank” talks with Iranian officials in Istanbul in an urgent diplomatic effort to avert a wider war.¹³ The conflict is already regional in scope; reports of targeted killings of terror leaders in Syria and Lebanon and drone attacks on bases in Iraq housing US troops confirm that hostilities are occurring across multiple sovereign territories.¹² The ceasefire collapse will almost certainly trigger intensified activity on these interconnected fronts.

HIGH PRIORITY (🟠)

1. Interstate War: Russia-Ukraine

• Location: Eastern and Southern Ukraine, with primary axes of attack in Donetsk, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipro Oblasts.¹⁶
• Parties: Russian Federation Armed Forces vs. Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).
• Conflict Type: Interstate War.
• Duration: Ongoing since February 2022; current high-intensity phase is continuous.
• Status: The conflict is characterized by an extremely high operational tempo, with the AFU General Staff reporting 191 separate combat clashes in the last 24-hour period.¹⁶ Russian strategy appears to be one of attrition and focused gains, using its superiority in mass to grind down Ukrainian defenses along a broad front while concentrating its most capable forces to achieve a single, operationally significant objective. The primary Russian axis of attack is the city of Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast, a critical Ukrainian logistics and command hub. Russian forces conducted 51 distinct assaults on this axis alone, with unconfirmed reports indicating that Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups have infiltrated the city’s outskirts, prompting Ukrainian “mop-up” operations.¹⁶ Other major hotspots of intense fighting include the Siversk (32 attacks), Lyman (27 attacks), and Novopavlivka (26 attacks) directions.¹⁶Russia continues to leverage its air and missile superiority to strike military positions and civilian infrastructure deep within Ukraine. In the last 24 hours, Russia launched a massive barrage that included 60 air strikes, 78 guided aerial bombs, and an exceptionally high volume of 4,172 kamikaze drones.¹⁶ These strikes resulted in at least three civilian fatalities and numerous injuries in the cities of Dnipro and Sumy.¹⁸
• Casualty Analysis (24h):
  • Russian Losses (AFU Claim): Approximately 1,080 personnel killed or wounded. Equipment losses claimed by Ukraine include 7 tanks, 7 armored combat vehicles, and 35 artillery systems.¹⁶Note: These figures are provided by a belligerent and cannot be independently verified but are indicative of the intensity of combat.
  • Ukrainian Losses: No official military casualty figures have been released. Civilian casualties are confirmed from Russian long-range strikes.¹⁸
• Escalation Risk: High. The intense Russian push on Pokrovsk risks a tactical breakthrough that could have operational-level consequences for Ukraine’s defense of the Donbas.
• International Response: The United States has approved four new arms sales to Ukraine, totaling $652 million, in a clear reaction to Russia’s intensified campaign.²¹ These packages are focused on sustainment and include $172 million for HAWK Phase III missile systems, $180 million for other US-origin air defense systems, and $150 million for Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and M109 self-propelled howitzers.²² This pattern highlights that Western aid remains largely reactive, aiming to help Ukraine “hold the line” against Russian escalation rather than enabling Kyiv to seize the strategic initiative and dictate the tempo of the war.

2. State-Sponsored Cyber Campaign: PRC-Nexus Actors vs. Western Infrastructure

• Location: Global, with significant targets identified in the United States and other Western nations.
• Parties: Chinese state-sponsored hacking groups (identified by Microsoft as Linen Typhoon, Violet Typhoon, and Storm-2603) vs. Western government and corporate networks.²⁵
• Conflict Type: Cyber Warfare.
• Duration: Ongoing campaign, with significant new details on scope and methodology emerging in the last 24 hours.
• Status: Microsoft has attributed a major global hacking campaign exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in its SharePoint software to state-sponsored actors operating from the People’s Republic of China.²⁶ The campaign has reportedly compromised over 400 government agencies and corporations worldwide. Most alarmingly, victims include the United States National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the agency responsible for designing, maintaining, and securing the US nuclear weapons stockpile.²⁶The attack methodology represents a sophisticated subversion of international cybersecurity cooperation. Evidence suggests the hackers gained advance knowledge of the vulnerabilities through a Chinese partner company participating in the Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP).²⁶ MAPP is a trust-based program where Microsoft provides security vendors with pre-notification of vulnerabilities so they can prepare defenses for their clients. The weaponization of this program allowed Chinese actors to launch exploits before patches were publicly available, giving them an uncontested window to penetrate high-value targets. This indicates a strategic failure of the Western trust-based cybersecurity model and demonstrates China’s ability to turn a defensive alliance into an offensive intelligence-gathering tool.
• Escalation Risk: High. The compromise of the NNSA is a strategic-level security breach that goes beyond espionage. It constitutes a form of strategic pre-positioning, where access could be used in a future crisis to disrupt, degrade, or gather critical intelligence on a rival’s nuclear command and control capabilities.
• International Response: Microsoft has launched an internal investigation into the suspected leak from its MAPP program.²⁶ US cybersecurity agencies like CISA continue to issue general alerts about ransomware and other threats, but the specific nature of this state-sponsored espionage campaign targeting the heart of US national security infrastructure will likely trigger a more robust, albeit classified, response.²⁷

ELEVATED WATCH (🟡)

1. Proxy Conflict: Houthi Attacks on Israel

• Location: Yemen (point of origin); Central Israel (target area near Tel Aviv).
• Parties: Ansar Allah (Houthis) vs. Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
• Status: In the last 24 hours, Ansar Allah launched a ballistic missile from Yemen targeting Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv. The missile was successfully intercepted by Israeli air defense systems before impact.²⁸ The Houthis claimed to have used a ‘Palestine 2’ hypersonic ballistic missile; this claim is unconfirmed and assessed with low confidence, likely serving as propaganda to inflate their capabilities.²⁸ The attack is consistent with the Houthis’ ongoing campaign, supported by Iran, to exert pressure on Israel regarding the conflict in Gaza and to demonstrate strategic reach.
• Escalation Risk: Medium. While individual attacks are frequently intercepted, any successful strike on a major civilian or strategic target in Israel would likely trigger a significant and punishing Israeli retaliatory campaign against high-value Houthi military and leadership targets in Yemen.

WATCHLIST (🔵)

• No new situations identified in the last 24 hours meeting this specific criterion based on provided intelligence.

NEWLY RESOLVED (🟢)

• Conflict: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) vs. M23 Insurgency.
• Resolution Type: Peace Declaration and Permanent Ceasefire Agreement.
• Duration: The M23 insurgency has been active in various forms for over a decade, causing widespread instability in eastern DRC.
• Outcome: On 19 July 2025, representatives of the DRC government and the M23 rebel group signed a “Declaration of Principles” in Doha, Qatar.²⁹ The agreement, facilitated by Qatar and supported by the United Nations and the African Union, establishes a permanent ceasefire and outlines a roadmap for the restoration of state authority in M23-controlled territories.³¹ The declaration commits both parties to begin negotiations for a final, comprehensive peace agreement no later than 8 August 2025, marking a significant diplomatic breakthrough that moves a major African conflict from active fighting to a formal resolution pathway.²⁹

INTELLIGENCE GAPS

• Thailand-Cambodia: Independent, third-party verification of military and civilian casualty figures for both sides is urgently needed to establish a clear battlespace picture. There is no confirmation of Cambodia’s allegation of cluster munition use by Thailand. A comprehensive Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) of Royal Thai Air Force F-16 strikes on Cambodian targets is required to assess their effectiveness and targeting precision.
• Israel-Iran: Verifiable, independent evidence (e.g., satellite or signals intelligence) is required to determine which party first violated the ceasefire agreement. BDA and casualty assessments from Israeli strikes on or near Tehran are currently unavailable.
• Russia-Ukraine: Official Ukrainian Armed Forces casualty data for the reporting period remains undisclosed. The precise number, composition, and disposition of Russian forces committed to the Pokrovsk offensive axis are not fully confirmed.
• Houthi-Israel: Technical verification of the missile type used in the attack on Tel Aviv is needed. The Houthi claim of using a ‘hypersonic’ missile is highly suspect and requires independent analysis of sensor data or recovered debris to definitively refute or confirm.

72-HOUR FORECAST

• Highest Escalation Risk: Thailand-Cambodia Border. The conflict is on a clear escalatory trajectory. The opening of a new front in Trat province, Thailand’s declaration of martial law, and the complete failure of regional diplomacy create a high probability of intensified and geographically broader combat operations. Both sides appear committed to a military solution in the short term, with the risk of miscalculation or a deliberate push for a decisive engagement remaining critical.
• Potential New Flashpoints: Israel-Iran Theatre. The collapse of the ceasefire creates a critical risk of direct, tit-for-tat escalatory strikes. The most dangerous course of action would be a direct Israeli strike on a high-value Iranian strategic site, such as a nuclear facility or a key IRGC command center. Such an attack would almost certainly trigger a massive, multi-front regional war involving direct Iranian missile salvos and the full mobilization of its proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and allied militias in Syria and Iraq.
• Resolution Opportunities: A diplomatic off-ramp for the Thai-Cambodian conflict exists but is narrow and closing fast. The UN Security Council’s call for restraint provides a political framework, but it lacks an enforcement mechanism. The only viable path to de-escalation in the next 72 hours would involve intense, direct, and coordinated pressure from major external powers with influence over both belligerents (primarily the United States and China) to compel Bangkok and Phnom Penh to accept a binding, third-party-mediated ceasefire.

ANALYST CONFIDENCE LEVELS

• VERIFIED: 8 reports with multiple, independent, high-credibility source confirmations (e.g., official statements from multiple governments, corroborated reports from international bodies like the UN).
• PROBABLE: 15 reports with at least two credible but related sources (e.g., multiple news agencies citing the same official spokesperson, reports from both belligerents that align on key facts such as the location of fighting).
• UNCONFIRMED: 5 reports consisting of single-source claims or allegations made by one belligerent without independent evidence (e.g., Houthi hypersonic missile claim, specific casualty numbers from one side not corroborated elsewhere, allegations of war crimes).

RAGE X GCII INTELLIGENCE Index July 26 2025

CorpX (Comprehensive Operations and Risk Prevention) is the strategic command center uniting three powerhouse brands to deliver advanced security, intelligence, and risk management solutions worldwide.

CIS Security (Your Safety, Our Priority) is Lebanon’s leading security provider with 35+ years of expertise in executive protection, security guards, CCTV systems, GPS tracking, and risk audits.
Visit: www.cissecurity.net | www.cissecurity.pro
Email: info@cissecurity.net

Shield X (Smart Defense. Shielded by Intelligence.) pioneers next-generation defense with AI-powered security, cybersecurity integration, and smart access systems.
Visit: www.shieldx.pro
Email: info@shieldx.pro

RAGE X (Research Analysis in Global Events) (Exposing the World, One Truth at a Time) delivers real-time conflict intelligence, military analysis, and breaking geopolitical news through its platforms, including Rage Reports, Rage War, and Rage Alerts.
Visit: www.ragex.cohttp://www.ragex.co
Email: info@ragex.co

The CorpX official hub: www.corpx.pro
Email: info@corpx.pro

Together, these brands form a unified ecosystem to protect, inform, and empower in an era of evolving threats.