No checkpoint is the same, some want paperwork, others wave you through after a brief look inside – but from Damascus to Latakia, there are a lot of checkpoints, and in one way or another, you are checked every time.
It wasn’t like this just a month or two ago, but it is now after the most violent few days the country has seen since Bashar al Assad was forced from power in December last year.
We drove through cities like Jableh, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, almost unrecognisable now.
The bustling streets, markets and shops are silent, apart from the sirens of passing General Security convoys – their armed soldiers packed on the back of pick-up trucks.
The debris of battle is everywhere, buildings are burnt out and peppered with bullet holes, glass from smashed shopfront windows spills across the pavement and spent machine gun casings litter the streets.
Image: Cities like Jableh, on Syria’s Mediterranean Coast, are almost unrecognisable now
Image: The debris of battle is everywhere after pro-Assad militia attacked the city
After three months of relatively peaceful times, things have dramatically changed here, all because of the events of 6, 7 and 8 March.
A Thursday, Friday, and Saturday that could determine Syria’s future.
Driving out of Jableh and over a bridge, we pass through another checkpoint, then through a deserted village, home to a community of Syrian Alawites. Shops and homes are destroyed, soldiers guard the roads in and out.
We are on our way to the Hmeimim air base, home to the Russian military in Syria.
It’s also now home to as many as 10,000 Alawites who are now camping in and around the base.
Image: The Hmeimim air base is home to the Russian military in Syria
Image: The site is also now home to as many as 10,000 Alawites camping in and around the area
They are seeking shelter and protection, watched on by Russian soldiers who remain inside.
Some of the thousands are in tents or under makeshift cover, others are sleeping rough or in their cars.
Image: Thousands of people are in tents or under makeshift cover
Image: One of many children displaced after her family were attacked by pro-Assad militia
Image: Some are sleeping rough or in their cars
I first visited the airbase last December – then it consisted of a small cluster of shops and restaurants, established over years to service the Russian personnel.
Now the shops are shuttered and the restaurants cleared of tables to allow the families to sleep.
As I approached the gates of the base, I was surrounded by people pushing against each other, trying to get to me to tell me stories of being burnt out of their houses, or of family members killed in front of their eyes.
Image: Crowds gather around Sky’s Stuart Ramsay to describe how their relatives were killed by pro-Assad forces
A young woman pulled me aside. “We need help, international help,” she whispered.
“We need international peacekeepers; my house was on fire.”
Explainer: Who are the Alawites?
The Alawites are a religious minority in Syria, originating from Shia Islam. The overthrown president Bashar al Assad belonged to the sect.
They make up around 10% of Syria’s population, which is majority Sunni, and mainly live in the country’s coastal regions.
During Assad’s reign, the Alawites made up a large part of his support base and held top posts in the army and security agencies.
Since his fall from power, many Alawites were fired from their jobs and some former soldiers who reconciled with the new authorities were killed.
Civilians have now been targeted in revenge killings by Sunni Muslim militants loyal to the new government, who have blamed Assad’s loyalists for attacks against the country’s new security forces in recent weeks.
The Alawites, along with Syria’s other minority communities, including Kurds, Christians and Druze, have said they are concerned about revenge attacks and are not convinced by the new government’s promise of an inclusive country.
In the crowd, I met Adiba Shehaidi. She’s sleeping rough outside the base after escaping her village, Ain al Arous.
“They attacked us, just like that, slaughtered us, our friends, our neighbours, our children, our relatives – our in-laws, all of them, were slaughtered. They stormed the houses, shooting…” she recounted her story of escape.
“What can we say? To the world, what can we say? What was our crime?” she cried.
Image: People in mourning after killings
Image: Grieving relatives have described how their families were slaughtered
We were told that whole families had been killed with some buried in mass graves.
Not far away from the base, in the village of Al Sanobar – we found one. A mass grave consisting of two trenches, dug under the cover of darkness by villagers. They buried 80 people here.
Sticks had been placed in the earth to signal a body buried beneath. We are told a family of 17 are in one of the graves.
Image: A mass grave in the village of Al-Sanobar
Image: Sticks have been placed in the earth to show where a body is buried
Further into the village, we came across a group of men digging more graves. They told us they had found the bodies of their families, friends, and neighbours littered on the streets and in houses.
So far, they have buried 223 people, all from this one village.
Image: Latakia, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, is where pro-Assad fighters are accused of killing Alawite civilians
On trucks, the bodies wrapped in blankets and plastic were brought to their final resting place near their homes. Under a blistering sun a simple ceremony is held, then side by side they are buried.
These families have been devastated – their anguish obvious.
Convoys of government security forces are now constantly patrolling all the areas where the killings took place, and they are trying to encourage the Alawites to return to their villages, saying it is now safe.
Image: Convoys of government security forces are patrolling all the areas where the killings took place
The head of General Security, Mustafa Kunefate, told me what happened here was unacceptable and must not happen again.
He explained how Assad loyalists had attacked and killed soldiers, police officers, and civilians – filming it and posting it on social media. This, he said, led to “undisciplined groups” arriving to this part of Syria, acting “outside of the Ministry of Defence’s command”.
Image: The head of General Security, Mustafa Kunefate, tells Sky’s Stuart Ramsay that Assad loyalists were to blame for the killings
Image: Kunefate: What happened was unacceptable and must not happen again
“Among these groups were some with a questionable intent, many arrived with no clear instructions, simply coming to break the siege on the Ministry of Defence personnel and police,” Mr Kunefate told me.
“This resulted in chaos and a breakdown of discipline among the fighting groups that entered the coastal region.”
The scene of some of the worst fighting happened in the city of Jableh when the pro-Assad militia attacked. Much of the centre of town has been badly damaged in the fighting, and it is tense.
Image: Security convoys patrol cities like Jableh, badly damaged during fighting with pro-Assad forces.
General Security convoys constantly patrol the city, home to Sunni civilians who were murdered like their Alawite neighbours.
Imad Bitar’s father Talal died after his car was fired upon by Assad fighters.
I met him in their family home where he told me he wants peace but believes it will only happen when Assad’s fighters are captured.
Image: Sunni civilians in the city of Jableh were also murdered by pro-Assad fighters, including Imad Bitar’s father Talal
“We must find a way to live together, our only demand now is for the remaining factions to leave Syria and for those responsible for the regime’s crimes to face a formal trial. It’s not about sectarian divisions, it’s about justice.”
This has been a difficult time for the new government trying to unite Syria.
The massacres of Alawites at the hands of militia puts President Ahmed al Sharaa’s unity project in jeopardy.
But if there is a positive from that dreadful weekend, it is that the government acknowledges the mistakes and is promising to bring those responsible to justice.
The World with Yalda Hakim at 9pm on Sky News will feature a series of special reports on Syria from our chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay and special correspondent Alex Crawford.
Watch their latest report inside Al-Hol camp, where thousands of families affiliated to the former Islamic State group are being held by Kurdish forces in northeast Syria.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas seemingly came to an end overnight after Israel launched dozens of air strikes on targets across Gaza.
Palestinian authorities have said more than 400 people are either dead or missing.
The ceasefire agreed back in mid-January had paused fighting after 15 months of war. It also saw both sides agree to the release of Israeli hostages taken during the 7 October attacks back in 2023, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
So what is left of the ceasefire now, and why did Israel choose to strike Hamas?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:47
Explosive end to Gaza ceasefire
What did the agreed ceasefire look like?
The three-stage deal, brokered by mediators the US, Qatar and Egypt, came into effect on 19 January.
During the first phase, Hamas returned 25 living hostages and the remains of eight others in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Israeli forces also withdrew to buffer zones inside Gaza, and hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians returned to northern Gaza. No further hostage releases were called for under the agreement until the second phase.
Negotiations over this second phase of the deal were meant to begin on the 16th day of phase one – 4 February – and were supposed to lead to a permanent ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and the release of all remaining hostages.
According to the deal, a third phase would include the return of the bodies of dead hostages and the beginning of Gaza’s reconstruction, a mammoth task that will be supervised by Egypt, Qatar and the UN.
It had little detail about the future of Gaza – from how it will be governed, to any guarantees that the ceasefire agreement will bring a permanent end to the war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:32
Gaza: ‘It’s a critical situation’
What has actually happened?
The first phase of the ceasefire deal officially ended two weeks ago. Israel has since cut off all food, medicine, fuel, electricity and other supplies to Gaza’s population of around two million people, to pressure Hamas to accept a new proposal ahead of a second phase of ceasefire.
The move was widely criticised, with Hamas accusing Israel of trying to cause famine in Gaza, and the head of the UN Palestinian relief agency (UNRWA) warning the territory will experience another hunger crisis if Israel continues to withhold aid.
Israel’s new proposal would require Hamas to release half its remaining hostages – the militant group’s main bargaining chip – in exchange for a ceasefire extension and a promise to negotiate a lasting truce.
It is named the “Witkoff plan”, after US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff proposed it last week.
The proposal made no mention of releasing more Palestinian prisoners.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was Hamas’s refusal of this proposal that led to him ordering the strikes on Tuesday.
Unless mediators now step in, Israel’s attack on Gaza could mean a full return to fighting.
Image: Palestinians flee their homes after evacuation orders from Israel’s army. Pics: Reuters
Could a new ceasefire be agreed?
Last week, Israel sent a delegation to the Qatari capital, Doha, for more ceasefire talks, and Hamas leaders attended a round of talks in Cairo, but there has been no sign of a breakthrough.
Reacting to the latest strikes, Egypt’s foreign ministry called for all parties to “exercise restraint” and to give mediators space to “complete their efforts to reach a permanent ceasefire”.
Hamas claimed it is “working with mediators to curb the aggression”, adding that it is keen to implement a ceasefire deal.
Image: IDF evacuation plans tell residents to leave Beit Hanoun, Khuza’a, Abasan al-Kabira and al-Jadida
Meanwhile, a statement from the office of Mr Netanyahu said Israel would act against Hamas with “increasing military strength”. It accused Hamas of repeatedly refusing to release hostages.
The White House said it had been consulted and voiced support for Israel’s actions.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has also issued evacuation orders for a number of areas in Gaza – after the ceasefire agreement allowed hundreds of thousands of people to return to their homes across the region.
The order tells people to leave the neighbourhoods of Beit Hanoun, Khuza’a, Abasan al-Kabira and al-Jadida and head to shelters in Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Sky News Middle East correspondent Alistair Bunkallsaid the order may indicate that an Israeli land force is preparing to enter the area.
“If you’re going to have a major ground offensive, and if it could from all angles, I think they would look to force Gazan civilians into humanitarian zones,” he said.
“That would give the IDF some freedom of operation, freedom of movement, in open areas.”
Thousands are demanding justice for 59 people killed in a nightclub fire in North Macedonia, as authorities prepare graves for its victims.
More than 150 were also injured after pyrotechnics sparked a fire at Club Pulse in Kocani, with government officials and the nightclub’s manager among 20 people arrested.
But some protests turned violent in the eastern town and in the capital Skopje, where thousands have called for more action amid a litany of alleged safety failures.
As excavators dug a fresh line of graves in the town of 25,000 people, 16-year-old Jovan, who lost a friend in the fire, described his country as “corrupt”.
“I want everyone who helped this place carry on with its business to be jailed,” he said, speaking from a quiet protest in Kocani’s central square.
Image: Pic: AP
Some held placards reading “we are not dying from accidents; we are dying from corruption” and “everything is legal here if you have connections”.
A van was overturned there, while others threw rocks at a local government building.
Image: Protesters overturned a van in Kocani. Pic: AP
Investigations have so far revealed that the club was operating at double its 250-person capacity, without proper licensing.
Many were trampled as they rushed toward a single exit.
There were numerous safety violations, according to officials, including:
• no emergency exits; • insufficient fire equipment; • the use of flammable cladding and no sprinkler system.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s have both said any ceasefire between their two countries must lead to a lasting peace.
Ukraine has not long marked three years of war, in which hundreds of thousands have died or been injured on both sides, according to the respective authorities.
The Kremlin’s annexation of more Ukrainian territory during its invasion – which it still calls a “special military operation” -and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s determination to uphold its sovereignty has left many analysts doubtful the war will ever end.
But since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has demanded the two sides “make a deal”, withdrawing vital US support to Kyiv until it agreed to come to the negotiating table.
Mr Zelenskyy has now agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, with Mr Trump due to iron out Russia’s demands in a phone call with Mr Putin on Tuesday.
But beyond that – what would a Ukraine without fighting look like? Here we go through some of the options.
Ongoing ceasefire
Beyond the initial 30-day agreement, providing neither side violates it, the ceasefire could continue indefinitely.
“A ceasefire can go on to be an enduring thing,” Dr David Blagden, associate professor in international security and strategy at the University of Exeter, tells Sky News.
He gives the example of North and South Korea, whereby a demilitarised zone (DMZ) has effectively served as a border between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.
“Even if it doesn’t ever lead to a more satisfactory settlement, it might still be better for both parties than endless conflict,” he says.
But any kind of DMZ would require both Ukraine and Russia to pull their troops away from the frontline, which is unlikely, adds Dr Huseyn Aliyev, senior lecturer in East European studies at the University of Glasgow.
Image: A map shows how much of Ukraine Russia controls
Parts of Ukraine become ‘New Russia’
The alternative would be for both Ukraine and Russia to offer concessions to formally end the war.
Top of Vladimir Putin’s “list of demands” for “long-term peace”, and his justification for invading Ukraine in the first place, is Crimea – and four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia – becoming part of a ‘New Russia’, as they were before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Image: A Russian flag flies in the occupied town of Avdiivka, Donetsk. Pic: Reuters
While Luhansk is almost completely under Russian control, Ukraine still holds significant parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, making them more difficult for Kyiv to let go of.
“We know neither Crimea nor the Donbas regions [Donetsk and Luhansk] would be returned [to Ukraine] as part of a truce,” Dr Aliyev says. “So it would involve ceding control over those parts.
“But Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are more complicated – especially Kherson – as Kherson city was so painfully liberated by Ukraine in 2022.”
Although many doubt Russia would stop there in terms of territory, Dr Blagden adds: “There would be Russian rationale for being content with what they already have. It’s been hugely costly for them – and destroyed a lot of their expensively modernised military. It’s also filtered through into Russian civilian life, to an extent, via the sanctions and casualties, despite the Kremlin’s efforts to insulate Russia’s upper and middle classes from the worst of the war.
“Likewise, for Ukraine – galling and unfair though it may be – there’s likely now more recognition that retaking lost ground will be desperately hard, especially without assured supplies of US weaponry and intelligence. So, they could have reason to live with some sort of ceasefire too.”
Power plants and infrastructure split
Mr Trump has said his team has already proposed “dividing up certain assets” between the two countries – namely “land and power plants” – and will discuss the details with Mr Putin in a phone call on Tuesday.
He did not give any specifics, but these are likely to include the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which has been occupied by Russia since March 2022, and is one of the largest in the world.
Other key infrastructure that could come under Moscow’s control includes the Nova Kakhovka dam, blown up in 2023 and not yet rebuilt, and other river crossings.
Image: A Russian soldier guards the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in 2022. File pic: AP
Zelenskyy replaced
A truce would also likely include a new leader for Ukraine. Mr Zelenskyy has already told Sky News he is open to stepping down if it means Ukraine can join NATO.
One of Mr Putin’s demands is that Ukraine is never allowed NATO membership – but replacing Mr Zelenskyy could still serve to appease him – and Donald Trump, who has called him a “dictator” and accused him of “gambling with World War Three”.
Image: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a tense exchange with Donald Trump at the White House. Pic: Reuters
“It would be easier for Zelenskyy to call an election and have somebody replace him,” Dr Aliyev says. “But there’s a problem of who that would be – as there’s not much left of the Ukrainian opposition.”
Contenders include Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi – or one of the generals currently in charge of the military, he adds.
But the Kremlin would prefer a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, according to Dr Blagden.
“Short of being able to conquer the whole country, a government that’s more favourable towards Russian interests would obviously be their preference,” he says.
“Similar to the one they’ve worked hard to install in Georgia, they might hope for the return of Ukraine’s more pro-Russian politicians and sentiment from before 2014. But of course, Ukrainian opinion is now galvanised against anyone seen as a puppet of Moscow.”
‘Minor concessions’ for Ukraine
Although Russia’s demands would mean a series of heavy blows for Ukraine, there could be some “minor concessions”, security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke says.
US national security adviser Mike Waltz has said Ukraine would get “security guarantees” if it agrees to cede territory – but has not specified what they would be.
Other possible concessions include the return of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children who were abducted and forcibly resettled in Russia – and prisoners of war on both sides.
In principle, if a truce was agreed, the International Criminal Court could also begin an investigation into whether war crimes were committed on either side.
“In these situations where there’s a fundamental disagreement and you can’t see the way forward, you often concentrate on some of the minor details,” Professor Clarke says.
Starmer’s ‘coalition of the willing’
Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have spearheaded the idea of a so-called “coalition of the willing” to uphold a potential truce or ceasefire.
Sir Keir’s team says “more than 30” countries are interested in contributing to the peacekeeping force – but the US has been notably absent from leaders’ meetings so far. Vladimir Putin has also said he would not accept NATO forces in Ukraine, posing a major obstacle to the plans.
The prime minister has not specified how the coalition would work but said that military chiefs would meet to discuss the “operational phase” on Thursday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:29
What could a peacekeeping force actually do?
Lower risk option
According to the experts, the coalition could take two potential forms.
Neither would involve guarding the entire frontline. That’s because, at 640 miles long, it would require more than 100,000 troops at a time – and 300,000 with rotations.
Image: A map shows the frontline of fighting in Ukraine
By contrast, the first option would be stationing troops away from the line of control, largely in western Ukraine – or at key infrastructural sites or transport hubs to ensure they continue running smoothly.
This would be a similar operation to the British one in Estonia – where 900 troops are stationed to deter Russian aggression. The Ukrainian one would involve up to 30,000 personnel and be focused primarily on monitoring, logistics, and training, the experts say.
Image: A British paratrooper and helicopter in Estonia in May 2024. Pic: Reuters
“The challenge for any peacekeeping force is balancing effectiveness and escalatory risk,” Dr Blagden adds.
“Calling it a ‘peacekeeping’ force might create the impression of neutrality. But of course, it wouldn’t be neutral – they’re there to defend one of two sides. It would be better understood as a garrison whose job would be to ensure that Russia can’t attack Ukraine without attacking NATO troops, and therefore risking a wider war with nuclear-armed powers,” he says.
“A larger combat force closer to the frontline would create more deterrence but with more escalatory risk – whereas a smaller force further from the frontline – perhaps merely fulfilling training and support tasks – would carry much less escalatory risk but therefore also be much less of a deterrent”.
Ordinarily, that deterrent would be hugely bolstered by the US, which under NATO’s Article 5 could send in powerful air forces to attack ones on the ground – as it has in places like Iraq.
But Donald Trump’s tense relations with Ukraine and suggestions the US could leave NATO have thrown its Article 5 obligations into major doubt.
‘Rapid reaction force’ closer to frontline
Alternatively, coalition troops could be sent closer to the frontline, Professor Clarke says.
They would be split into brigades manning four or five strategic bases like the cities of Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv or Kyiv.
Describing them as a “rapid reaction force at high readiness”, Professor Clarke adds: “To be able to go to any trouble spot and snuff it out they’d need a lot of transport – particularly air cover to get there quickly enough.”
They too would likely need to be backed up by a US security guarantee, he says, but under the Trump administration, this is by no means certain.
Image: A UN peacekeeping vehicle in southern Lebanon in November 2024. Pic: Reuters
Neutral peacekeeping force
Alternatively, a peacekeeping force could be led by the United Nations, which would recruit personnel from neutral countries in exchange for incentives, as it does elsewhere.
With the second-largest military in NATO, Turkey could be involved, Dr Aliyev says.
But with Vladimir Putin’s rejection of potential NATO forces, he may be more likely to accept ones from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, Professor Clarke adds.
“Putin has hinted at troops from the Global South as monitors – because he thinks they are on his side,” he says. India in particular could be a viable option, he says.
“India has got big forces and wants to play a bigger strategic role in the world. Russia wouldn’t want to fire on Indian forces because of the political implications for their relationship – so they might be most acceptable to both Russia and the West.”
Image: UN peacekeepers training in Mongolia. Pic: Reuters
While a neutral option might be the most practical – it may not be hugely successful, Dr Aliyev cautions.
“Similar missions in Lebanon and sub-Saharan Africa have been relatively low in effectiveness,” he says.”A UN force might be the most feasible for Russia – but a coalition of the willing would last longer.”