​Quotes of the Day:

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.

– John F. Kennedy

“We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheel of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”

– Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.”

– Socrates

1. The Birth of the U.S. Army: Celebrate the 250th anniversary of America’s first national institution (Graphic Novel)

2. Ukraine’s Drone Attack Points to a U.S. Vulnerability

3. Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is wrong

4. If America Abandons Europe, Will the Continent Fragment or Unify?

5. Denmark approves US military bases on Danish soil as Trump eyes Greenland

6. US reduces the presence of staffers not deemed essential in the Middle East as tensions rise

7. Iran Says It Will Scale Up Nuclear Work After U.N. Atomic Agency Vote

8. Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests

9. WATCH: Dem, media outlets insist LA anti-ICE riots are 'peaceful' despite violence, injured cops

10. Misinformation about LA Ice protests swirls online: ‘Catnip for rightwing agitators’

11.  Fake videos and conspiracies fuel falsehoods about Los Angeles protests

12. Chinese Spyware, Only $6.99

13. Chinese Jets Tail Japanese Air Patrol in Close Encounter

14. Anduril plans footprint in Poland’s red-hot combat drone market

15. Four steps to creating a National Defense Strategy built on strength

16. Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain

17. Hegseth spars with senators over defense budget, LA in tense hearing

18. U.S. Moves to Withdraw Some Middle East Personnel as Iran Tensions Rise

19. Ukraine’s Battlefield Drone Innovations are Influencing Europe’s Militaries

20. Trump Has No China Trade Strategy

21. Hybrid Logistics: Lessons from Brazil’s VIKING Experience for the War in Ukraine

22. Opinion: White House Indecisiveness Threatens Europe and Ukraine’s Security

23. Latvian armed forces to establish a 'Ranger' sub-unit

24. Three reasons why China can't afford to invade Taiwan

25. The Fiery Fall of the Wagner Group: An Excerpt from "Putin's Sledgehammer"

26. The logic of neutrality in the Indo-Pacific

27. American Intifada

28. Trump’s Joint Chiefs chair says Putin won’t stop at Ukraine

29. The military must remain nonpartisan. America depends on it

30. Strategic Affairs no. 54 Letter from the Chairman, JCS; Subject: Your Speech at Fort Bragg (Hypothetical)

1. The Birth of the U.S. Army: Celebrate the 250th anniversary of America’s first national institution (Graphic Novel)

​Read online or download the PDF HERE.

The Association of the United States Army is proud to announce the release of a new graphic novel in honor of the Army’s 250th birthday celebration: The Birth of the U.S. Army.

The Birth of the U.S. Army

Celebrate the 250th anniversary of America’s first national institution

The U.S. Army was established on June 14, 1775—more than a year before the Declaration of Independence. Under civil authority, militia from separate colonies unified under a new commander to form a national force to fight for independence. The history of the Army is intertwined with the history of America itself.

Script: Chuck Dixon (Batman, The Punisher, The ’Nam) 

Artwork and Cover: Wayne Vansant (The ’Nam, Savage Tales, All Quiet on the Western Front)

Lettering: Troy Peteri (Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men)

The Association of the United States Army celebrates this milestone of American history with its latest graphic novel. This full-color digital book was created by a talented team of professionals drawn from the comic book industry, and the details were vetted by professional historians.

Information on the AUSA Book Program can be found at www.ausa.org/books.

To read The Birth of the U.S. Army or to download a free copy, please visit www.ausa.org/the-birth-of-the-us-army

2. Ukraine’s Drone Attack Points to a U.S. Vulnerability

​Lessons from the "red team." - We should be red teaming our vulnerabilities.

Excerpts:

That’s why I support bipartisan legislation in Congress that would allow trained state and local officials to deploy approved counterdrone systems at high-risk venues. It’s a common-sense step that brings our legal framework in line with today’s reality.

My company, Fortem Technologies, builds such systems—ones that have been validated during operational deployments in Ukraine, in the Middle East and along the southern U.S. border. I’ve spent my career in the defense and aerospace sectors, including in multiple live-fire combat deployments as a Navy SEAL. I understand that the ability to act in real time can’t be limited to a handful of federal agents. Our adversaries won’t wait for a response that needs to be routed through Washington.

Even if we solve the authority problem, we face a second vulnerability: the lack of industrial capacity to make these drones. Ukraine’s Defense Ministry plans to purchase 4.5 million first-person-view drones this year. That’s more than the entire U.S. drone industry could produce in a year—and 96% of those drones are made in Ukraine. A second executive order issued last week aims to promote American-made drones. Building true resilience will require expanding domestic production capacity and securing supply chains that are fully independent of adversarial influence.

We’re unprepared for the next war, and the next war won’t wait until we’re ready. Drones have changed the game; we need to change our strategy, preparations and laws to match.

Ukraine’s Drone Attack Points to a U.S. Vulnerability

If Chinese sleeper agents target facilities inside America, officials had better be prepared.

By Jon Gruen

June 10, 2025 5:05 pm ET

A B-1B Lancer at Ellsworth Air Force Base near Rapid City, S.D., July 16, 2020. Photo: Airman Quentin Marx/Associated Press

Imagine this: Beijing launches a surprise invasion of Taiwan. As U.S. forces mobilize to respond, something far worse unfolds here at home.

Sleeper agents—Chinese operatives who entered the U.S. months or years earlier—activate. In basements and garages across the country, they’ve been quietly assembling first-person-view drones from commercially available parts for a few hundred dollars each.

Loaded with homemade explosives, they launch in a coordinated wave across the U.S. targeting Air Force bases, civilian airports, power stations and other critical infrastructure. In less than an hour, a sizable portion of our strategic air fleet is reduced to scrap metal. Tens of billions of dollars in damage. Domestic air travel grounded. Major cities in the dark. America paralyzed.

This may feel like an outlandish plot to a Hollywood thriller. But it’s all too plausible. Crowded public events like the 2026 World Cup or the 2028 Olympics are potential targets, and law enforcement could lack the technology, training and legal authority to respond.

The House Homeland Security Committee released a warning last year that few noticed. More than 24,000 Chinese nationals were apprehended at the U.S. southern border in the first half of fiscal 2024, surpassing the total number of such encounters during the entire previous year. Committee leaders have suggested some of these aliens could be covert operatives or saboteurs seeking to cross the border in preparation for conflict. Rep. Dan Bishop last year called the surge of Chinese migrants a “major national-security vulnerability.”

If the sabotage scenario still feels far-fetched, consider what happened last week in Russia. Ukraine sneaked cheap explosive-laden drones deep inside Russia to destroy high-value aircraft parked at air bases thousands of miles from the front lines. Some of the destroyed bombers were nuclear-capable. The total value of the damaged and destroyed assets likely exceeds billions of dollars. The cost to Ukraine? A few tens of thousands of dollars in parts and payloads. Russian air defenses never saw it coming.

It was a bold triumph for Ukraine—and it should set off alarms here. The U.S. Air Force regularly parks B-52s, B-1s and next-generation aircraft in the open air. We’ve spent hundreds of billions on stealth platforms but left them exposed to low-tech threats flying a few hundred feet off the ground.

Drones have completely upended the economics of air warfare. Precision strikes that once required satellite targeting, guided munitions and multimillion-dollar aircraft can now be carried out by individuals with no state affiliation and minimal resources. As of this year, Ukrainian FPV drones have caused three times as many Russian casualties as all other weapons combined.

Yet here at home, most of our defenses remain focused on traditional threats like ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and hostile aircraft—platforms designed for speed, altitude and range. Today’s most immediate threats fly much lower. The skies above our stadiums, airports and substations are essentially undefended at ground level.

Federal law would slow our response. Local law enforcement is largely powerless to act against a known drone threat unless a federally authorized agent happens to be on-site. It’s an invitation to disaster.

President Trump last week issued an executive order taking important first steps—expanding flight-restricted zones, improving agency coordination, establishing a national training center, and creating an event security task force. But it didn’t close the biggest gap: the lack of legal authority to act in real time.

That’s why I support bipartisan legislation in Congress that would allow trained state and local officials to deploy approved counterdrone systems at high-risk venues. It’s a common-sense step that brings our legal framework in line with today’s reality.

My company, Fortem Technologies, builds such systems—ones that have been validated during operational deployments in Ukraine, in the Middle East and along the southern U.S. border. I’ve spent my career in the defense and aerospace sectors, including in multiple live-fire combat deployments as a Navy SEAL. I understand that the ability to act in real time can’t be limited to a handful of federal agents. Our adversaries won’t wait for a response that needs to be routed through Washington.

Even if we solve the authority problem, we face a second vulnerability: the lack of industrial capacity to make these drones. Ukraine’s Defense Ministry plans to purchase 4.5 million first-person-view drones this year. That’s more than the entire U.S. drone industry could produce in a year—and 96% of those drones are made in Ukraine. A second executive order issued last week aims to promote American-made drones. Building true resilience will require expanding domestic production capacity and securing supply chains that are fully independent of adversarial influence.

We’re unprepared for the next war, and the next war won’t wait until we’re ready. Drones have changed the game; we need to change our strategy, preparations and laws to match.

Mr. Gruen is chairman and CEO of Fortem Technologies and a reserve Navy SEAL captain.

By now, Americans are already well aware

0 of 7 minutes, 19 secondsVolume 0%

00:0007:19

The U.S. is exposed to many threats besides ballistic missiles—ranging from drones and spy blimps to cruise missiles launched by submarines—and President Trump deserves credit for prioritizing a layered missile shield that exploits new technology and existing systems.

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the June 11, 2025, print edition as 'Ukraine’s Drone Attack Points to a U.S. Vulnerability'.

3. Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is wrong

​What can we learn?

What will we learn?

Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is wrong

• A Ukrainian industry rep has said the West is approaching weaponry for major conflicts the wrong way.
• Countries need a lot of pretty good weapons instead of only a handful of excellent ones, he said.
• It's a warning that industry officials, experts, and some European defense ministers have echoed.

Business Insider · by Sinéad Baker

Ukraine's defense industry is urging the West to abandon its longtime fixation on high-end, expensive weaponry in favor of cheaper, mass-produced arms, the kind needed to survive and win a grinding war of attrition against an adversary like Russia.

Serhiy Goncharov, the CEO of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries — which represents about 100 Ukrainian companies — told Business Insider the West's long-standing focus on fielding limited numbers of cutting-edge systems could be a serious disadvantage in a protracted conflict. Those systems are good to have, but mass is key.

An argument for mass

The war in Ukraine shows that instead of a handful of ultraprecise, expensive weapons, countries need a massive supply of good enough firepower, Goncharov said.

He said the expensive weapons such as the US military's M982 Excalibur guided munition (each shell costs $100,000) "don't work" when the other side has electronic warfare systems and the kind of traditional artillery rounds that are 30 times cheaper in tremendous supply.

US Marine Corps/Cpl. Jeff Drew

Goncharov pointed to the M107, a self-propelled gun that was first fielded by the US in the 1960s, as an example of inexpensive firepower that can be effective in large numbers.

"You don't need 10 Archers from the Swedish that are probably one of the best artillery systems in the world," he said, referring to the artillery system made by BAE Systems that was given to Ukraine by Sweden. Instead, you need 200 cheap howitzers, such as the Bohdana one that Ukraine makes.

The significant rate of ammo and equipment attrition in a fight such as this means a constant supply of weaponry is needed to keep fighting, especially when there isn't any guarantee the high-end weapons will be the game changers promised.

Russia's grinding attritional warfare

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been marked by extensive use of artillery and tremendous ammunition expenditure. The war in some ways resembles the huge, destructive battles of World War I and World War II, with high numbers of injuries and deaths and substantial equipment losses.

Russia has one of the world's largest militaries, backed by a large population. The country has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to pursue an attritional style of warfare, committing a lot of troops and weaponry to a fight to slowly wear down its foe.

Russia's invasion has chewed through equipment. The UK Ministry of Defense said in December that Russia had lost more than 3,600 main battle tanks and almost 8,000 armored vehicles since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

Yan Dobronosov/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images

The Russians have the mass to absorb those losses. Ukraine has struggled with weapon and ammo shortages, as well as deficiencies in manpower. Ukraine turned to small, cheap drones as an asymmetric warfare alternative; Russia has employed uncrewed systems in battle as well.

China, another concern in the West, has built a similar kind of force, one with the mass to take losses.

The West, on the other hand, has spent the past two decades and change fighting lower-level adversaries where its forces can win the day with superior capabilities.

European and NATO are waking up

Goncharov's warning is one that has been echoed by other Western defense officials and companies.

Countries have been keen to learn lessons about fighting Russia from the conflict in Ukraine, particularly in Europe, where many countries warn Russia could pursue further aggression in the future, and defense spending is growing rapidly.

Gabrielius Landsbergis, the former defense minister of Lithuania, a NATO ally bordering Russia, previously described the war to BI as one of "high quantities."

He said that while the West had largely focused on new and expensive weaponry that takes a long time to manufacture, Russia had been "building something that's cheap, that's expendable, that's fast."

He said the West had "been preparing for a different kind of war" than what it would face in one against Russia, focusing on impressive equipment that is "very expensive."

AP Photo/Alex Babenko

Troels Lund Poulsen, the Danish defense minister, previously told BI that "one of the lessons" from Ukraine was that the West needed far greater quantities of inexpensive weaponry to meet the threats posed by Russia and China.

The head of NATO, Mark Rutte, urged countries to take similar learnings earlier this year, saying the alliance was too slow at developing weapons. He said the alliance was working toward perfect, "but it doesn't have to be perfect."

He said Ukraine would go ahead with equipment that was a "6 to 7" out of 10, while NATO militaries insisted on reaching "9 or 10."

He said it wasn't about getting rid of the expensive weaponry completely but about finding a balance: It's about "getting speed and enough quality done in the right conjunction."

That's something warfare experts have also told BI.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and the director of research in the foreign-policy program at the Brookings Institution, said the West's approach needed to change. The American military, for instance, is far more used to wars where "the whole point is you're not going to be slogging it out for months and years on end," he said.

But he also said that didn't mean the West needed to completely abandon the development of advanced systems. "Those things have not become unimportant just because we realized that other things are also important," he said.

The UK's armed forces minister also warned last month that the war showed the West needs to change how it procures weaponry. Luke Pollard said Ukraine's fight showed NATO "the way we have run our militaries, the way we have run our defense, is outdated."

REUTERS/Viacheslav Ratynskyi

He said NATO militaries "build and procure really expensive high-end bits of kit," adding: "It will take you five, 10 years: five years to run a procurement challenge, another 10 years to build it."

Industry has taken note, too.

Kuldar Väärsi, the CEO of Milrem Robotics, an autonomous uncrewed ground vehicle company in the NATO ally Estonia, told BI in May that "we need to learn from Ukraine, and we need to get more pragmatic about what kind of equipment we buy."

He said Europe needed to learn that "having a hundred more simple pieces of equipment is better than having 10 very sophisticated pieces of equipment."

He said countries needed to start buying less sophisticated pieces of weaponry en masse so industry could adjust. "Industry has to manufacture what the customer is buying. And if the customer is still buying only a few very sophisticated items, then the industry just aligns with that," he said. And the reality is that may not work.

Business Insider · by Sinéad Baker

4. If America Abandons Europe, Will the Continent Fragment or Unify?

​Excerpts:

Whether Europe moves toward strategic unity or drifts into fragmentation will depend not only on the trajectory of U.S. disengagement, but also on Europe’s ability to confront internal divisions and respond pragmatically to a more fluid global order. While the United States has not fully withdrawn from Europe, its long-term commitment appears increasingly uncertain. The challenge for Europe is not to replace U.S. leadership outright, but to build the resilience and internal coordination needed to manage growing security responsibilities amid shifting global alignments.

Strategic autonomy, even in a limited form, will likely face considerable headwinds. Europe is internally divided by geography, threat perception, and political will — and also constrained by structural factors. Defense spending remains uneven, energy dependence is unresolved, and aging populations place pressure on budgets and manpower alike. The capacity to project power independently — especially in nuclear terms — remains far below that of the United States or Russia.

In light of these realities, near-term efforts may center more on practical coordination. Joint procurement in key areas such as missile defense, cyber capabilities, and logistics may offer more immediate gains. Enhanced interoperability among command structures, particularly across eastern and western members, could reduce duplication and build trust incrementally. A loose leadership framework — anchored in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — may serve as a useful starting point, especially if it includes participation from Poland, Italy, and the Nordics.

Externally, Europe will likely continue to hedge. Deeper partnerships with Japan, Australia, ASEAN, and others could help reduce exposure to overdependence on any one actor, particularly China. The relationship with Turkey will remain complicated, yet strategically indispensable, especially given its position as a NATO ally and its independent regional posture.

The path toward autonomy will not be quick or comprehensive. It will be shaped less by quick solutions than by incremental adaptation, flexible coalitions, and shared burdens where feasible. Europe’s ability to coordinate within these constraints may determine not only the future of its unity — but its relevance in a world of dispersed power and conditional alignments.

If America Abandons Europe, Will the Continent Fragment or Unify? – War on the Rocks

Ali Mammadov

warontherocks.com · June 12, 2025

For over seventy years, U.S. military power has formed the backbone of Europe’s security architecture. American leadership enabled the continent to prioritize political integration and economic development while relying on a trans-Atlantic alliance to deter external threats. That arrangement is now under increasing strain. In his second term, President Donald Trump has pushed European allies to commit up to five percent of their gross domestic product to defense and has signaled that the United States may no longer provide a conventional military backstop on the continent.

Some suggest that this is a calculated effort to compel Europe to assume greater responsibility and that the United States will remain committed to the alliance. Yet even if that is the intent rather than absolute abandonment, the effect is the same: Europe would be prudent to plan for a future without an American security guarantee.

What follows from such a shift is far from predetermined. One possibility is that the shock of American disengagement catalyzes greater European unity and strategic coherence. Another is that the loss of U.S. leadership accelerates internal divisions and geopolitical vulnerability. Which path Europe takes will depend on choices made now — by policymakers who should prepare for contingency, not continuity.

BECOME A MEMBER

Europe Left Alone Yet More United

In the first scenario, European NATO member states respond to a sustained American withdrawal by expanding their security capacities through a range of measures, including the formation of new partnerships, the enlargement of their armed forces, and the strengthening of domestic defense industries. Unlike more ambiguous past episodes, Washington is now making its intentions clear through concrete actions — systematically withdrawing from Europe and signaling that it no longer considers the continent a strategic priority by either de jure or de facto dismissal of security agreements. In an effort to concentrate on countering China and driving a wedge between Beijing and Moscow, Washington either intensifies cooperation with Moscow or begins clearly recognizing a Russian sphere of influence in its immediate neighborhood. These moves send a message that the U.S.-European alliance is no longer a U.S. priority, and the United States is not likely to be positioned to come to Europe’s defense in the event of Russian aggression — or be willing to do so.

European leaders come to recognize that their only viable path forward lies in developing a more unified and strategically coherent security architecture. In the absence of U.S. leadership, previously peripheral actors become more central. The United Kingdom, despite no longer being part of the European Union, takes an important role by mobilizing support from Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia to contribute to European security initiatives. At the same time, the United Kingdom maintains close ties with the United States and increasingly acts as a bridge between the two sides of the Atlantic.

France leads the initiative to reshape Europe’s defense posture, with Germany — initially cautious — joining as the urgency of the situation becomes clear. Over time, countries like Norway, already closely aligned with the European Union, move toward full membership, further consolidating the European defense framework. The European Security Council evolves into a more robust and active institution, increasingly taking on strategic coordination responsibilities.

To compensate for the loss of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, France and the United Kingdom jointly develop a European nuclear deterrent framework, offering protection to E.U. and partner states in the new security environment.

Although Europe’s overall military capacity remains limited, a significant degree of deterrence is achieved through intensified cooperation and an unprecedented level of political unity. Major defense capabilities are developed and strategically positioned, with a particular focus on bolstering troop presence and military infrastructure in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe to deter potential Russian aggression.

As confidence in NATO declines, several European countries reduce their contributions to the alliance and begin to question its relevance altogether. Some even consider formally withdrawing or adopting a more passive role, viewing continued alignment with the United States as a constraint on foreign policy — particularly in relation to China. Over time, Western European states begin reassessing their broader strategic priorities, seeking to balance multiple global challenges, while Eastern European countries continue to view Russia as the principal and immediate threat.

Despite occasional disagreements from states such as Hungary and Slovakia, Europe manages to maintain a degree of cohesion. This growing unity fosters the emergence of a distinct European identity in international affairs, defined by the capacity to pursue independent strategic objectives. As a result, Europe increasingly positions itself as a global power, balancing between the United States and China, while also independently cultivating partnerships with emerging actors such as India and various Central Asian states.

The End of European Multilateralism

This scenario builds on the core premise that Europe’s transformation from a continent of conflict to a liberal success story was made possible in large part by long-standing U.S. security guarantees.

As in the previous scenarios, the initial response to a U.S. withdrawal is a concerted European effort to increase defense capacity. The United Kingdom becomes more deeply engaged in continental security and shares a leadership role with France, while Germany accelerates its rearmament and begins to close the capability gap. In the early phase, this cooperative momentum holds. Faced with the shared urgency of deterring immediate threats, particularly from Russia, European states coordinate military investments, intelligence sharing, and regional force deployments with relatively little friction.

Over time, however, as national capacities grow and the immediate sense of unity fades, underlying tensions begin to resurface. France — long invested in shaping Europe’s strategic direction — grows uneasy about the prominent role of the United Kingdom, a non-E.U. member, in continental security affairs. The United Kingdom, for its part, remains committed to a strong presence in Europe and shows little interest in deferring to E.U. leadership. Rising militarization, combined with the ascent of right-wing political forces across the continent, brings renewed focus to questions of national status, strategic autonomy, and geopolitical influence.

Germany, having rapidly expanded its defense capabilities, begins to assert that its growing role warrants greater strategic influence — particularly in decisions traditionally shaped by Franco-British leadership. The inclusive and consensus-driven model of European multilateralism begins to erode, giving way to new patterns of fragmentation, rivalry, and regional alignment.

In this increasingly competitive environment, European states begin prioritizing bilateral, interest-driven partnerships — both among themselves and with external actors. With multilateral institutions losing coherence, states pursue transactional arrangements tailored to their own security and strategic needs. Confronted with prolonged uncertainty and lacking a credible collective deterrent, some Eastern European countries — particularly those geographically vulnerable or politically divided — may even adopt a bandwagoning approach by seeking limited accommodation with Russia. Meanwhile, other states on the periphery, such as Poland, the Baltic countries, or Finland, strengthen bilateral defense ties with like-minded partners in an effort to resist Russian influence as much as possible.

Rising uncertainty and deepening divisions bring long-suppressed historical tensions back to the surface, particularly territorial disputes and ethnic grievances. In the Balkans, the unresolved Kosovar–Serbian issue reignites, with Russia openly supporting Serbian claims and emboldening nationalist elements. Across Central and Eastern Europe, the resurgence of nationalism prompts Hungary to pursue a more assertive policy aimed at “protecting Hungarian-speaking populations” in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia, fueling regional friction. Russia intensifies its hybrid operations across the Baltics, the Balkans, and Moldova, justifying its actions by invoking the need to defend “Russian-speaking minorities” in these areas. Meanwhile, in the Eastern Mediterranean, the absence of a robust deterrent framework encourages Turkey to escalate its involvement in Cyprus, raising the risk of a direct confrontation with Greece.

What Europe Needs to Do to Achieve Unity and Avoid Fragmentation

Whether Europe moves toward strategic unity or drifts into fragmentation will depend not only on the trajectory of U.S. disengagement, but also on Europe’s ability to confront internal divisions and respond pragmatically to a more fluid global order. While the United States has not fully withdrawn from Europe, its long-term commitment appears increasingly uncertain. The challenge for Europe is not to replace U.S. leadership outright, but to build the resilience and internal coordination needed to manage growing security responsibilities amid shifting global alignments.

Strategic autonomy, even in a limited form, will likely face considerable headwinds. Europe is internally divided by geography, threat perception, and political will — and also constrained by structural factors. Defense spending remains uneven, energy dependence is unresolved, and aging populations place pressure on budgets and manpower alike. The capacity to project power independently — especially in nuclear terms — remains far below that of the United States or Russia.

In light of these realities, near-term efforts may center more on practical coordination. Joint procurement in key areas such as missile defense, cyber capabilities, and logistics may offer more immediate gains. Enhanced interoperability among command structures, particularly across eastern and western members, could reduce duplication and build trust incrementally. A loose leadership framework — anchored in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — may serve as a useful starting point, especially if it includes participation from Poland, Italy, and the Nordics.

Externally, Europe will likely continue to hedge. Deeper partnerships with Japan, Australia, ASEAN, and others could help reduce exposure to overdependence on any one actor, particularly China. The relationship with Turkey will remain complicated, yet strategically indispensable, especially given its position as a NATO ally and its independent regional posture.

The path toward autonomy will not be quick or comprehensive. It will be shaped less by quick solutions than by incremental adaptation, flexible coalitions, and shared burdens where feasible. Europe’s ability to coordinate within these constraints may determine not only the future of its unity — but its relevance in a world of dispersed power and conditional alignments.

BECOME A MEMBER

Ali Mammadov is a Ph.D. researcher at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government and the managing editor of the Center for Security Policy Studies. His work focuses on military alliances, great power competition, and the role of rising powers in global security.

Image: Number 10 via Wikimedia Commons

warontherocks.com · June 12, 2025

5. Denmark approves US military bases on Danish soil as Trump eyes Greenland

​Did this happen because of or in spite of our desire to annex Greenland?

Denmark approves US military bases on Danish soil as Trump eyes Greenland

AP · by Updated [hour]:[minute] [AMPM] [timezone], [monthFull] [day], [year] · June 11, 2025

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Denmark’s Parliament on Wednesday approved a bill to allow U.S. military bases on Danish soil, a move that comes as President Donald Trump seeks to take control of the kingdom’s semi-autonomous territory of Greenland.

Critics say the vote ceded Danish sovereignty to the U.S. The legislation widens a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where U.S. troops had broad access to Danish airbases in the Scandinavian country.

The new parameters follow Trump’s coveting of the strategic, mineral-rich Arctic island even as the U.S. and Denmark are NATO allies.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers’ questions, wrote that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the U.S. tries to annex all or part of Greenland.

Ninety-four lawmakers voted for the bill, with 11 against. The legislation now goes to Danish King Frederik X for his signature.

Greenland’s prime minister previously said U.S. statements about the island have been disrespectful and it “will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.”

AP · by Updated [hour]:[minute] [AMPM] [timezone], [monthFull] [day], [year] · June 11, 2025

6. US reduces the presence of staffers not deemed essential in the Middle East as tensions rise

​Is this a signal that something is on the near horizon?

Excerpts:

The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.

The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”

US reduces the presence of staffers not deemed essential in the Middle East as tensions rise

AP · by MATTHEW LEE · June 11, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.

The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.

The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”

Speaking at the Kennedy Center in Washington on Wednesday evening, President Donald Trump said, “They are being moved out, because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. We’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens.”

Tensions in the region have been rising in recent days as talks between the U.S. and Iran over its rapidly advancing nuclear program appear to have hit an impasse. The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions that the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

The next round of talks — the sixth — had been tentatively scheduled for this weekend in Oman, according to two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. However, those officials said Wednesday that it looked increasingly unlikely that the talks would happen.

Trump, who has previously said Israel or the U.S. could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed, gave a less-than-optimistic view about reaching a deal with Iran, telling the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast that he was “getting more and more less confident about” a deal.

“They seem to be delaying, and I think that’s a shame. I’m less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them,” he said in the interview recorded Monday and released Wednesday.

Iran’s mission to the U.N. posted on social media that “threats of overwhelming force won’t change the facts.”

“Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, and U.S. militarism only fuels instability,” the Iranian mission wrote.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh separately told journalists Wednesday that he hoped talks with the U.S. would yield results, though Tehran stood ready to respond.

“If conflict is imposed on us, the opponent’s casualties will certainly be more than ours, and in that case, America must leave the region, because all its bases are within our reach,” he said. “We have access to them, and we will target all of them in the host countries without hesitation.”

Meanwhile, the Board of Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency was potentially set to vote on a measure to censure Iran. That could set in motion an effort to snap back United Nations sanctions on Iran via a measure in Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that’s still active until October. Trump withdrew from that agreement in his first term.

Earlier Wednesday, a statement from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, a Mideast-based effort overseen by the British navy, issued a warning to ships in the region that it “has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners.”

It urged caution in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. It did not name Iran, though those waterways have seen Iranian ship seizures and attacks in the past.

The top U.S. military officer for the Middle East, Gen. Erik Kurilla, was scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, but that testimony has now been postponed, according to the committee’s website. The Pentagon has not commented on the postponement.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s state-run Iraqi News Agency said in a statement attributed to an unnamed government official that the evacuation of some nonessential employees from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was part of “procedures related to the U.S. diplomatic presence in a number of Middle Eastern countries, not just Iraq” and that Iraqi officials “have not recorded any security indicators that warrant an evacuation.”

“We reiterate that all security indicators and briefings support the escalating assessments of stability and the restoration of internal security,” the statement said.

___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AP writers Farnoush Amiri at the United Nations, Aamer Madhani in Washington and Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad contributed to this report.

AP · by MATTHEW LEE · June 11, 2025

7. Iran Says It Will Scale Up Nuclear Work After U.N. Atomic Agency Vote

Iran Says It Will Scale Up Nuclear Work After U.N. Atomic Agency Vote

Iran’s new nuclear steps will cast a fresh shadow over struggling U.S.-Iran nuclear talks

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-it-will-scale-up-nuclear-work-after-u-n-atomic-agency-vote-66dc9bcb?mod=hp_lead_pos2

By Laurence Norman

Follow

June 12, 2025 5:41 am ET

The announcement from Tehran came ahead of a sixth round of nuclear negotiations with the U.S. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/Reuters

Iran said it would open a new uranium enrichment facility and increase its production of highly enriched fissile material after the U.N. atomic agency member states declared Tehran had failed to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, casting a fresh shadow over struggling U.S.-Iran nuclear talks.

Iran’s announcement comes ahead of a sixth round of nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran expected on Sunday. President Trump said on Monday he had grown less confident about striking a deal with Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency board resolution, which passed by 19-3, is the first time Iran has been found in noncompliance with its nuclear duties in 20 years. The vote was called over Iran’s repeated refusal over the last six years to explain the presence of undeclared nuclear material in Iran.

Updates to follow as news develops.

Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com

8. Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests

​Are we witnessing an information war? Or information warfare in real time?

Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests

Disinformation spreading on social media platforms has stoked an already tense situation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/technology/la-protests-conspiracy-theories-disinformation.html

Listen to this article · 6:54 min Learn more

• Share full article
• 
  
• 1.9k

In downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, protesters faced off with law enforcement officers. Disinformation about the events has circulated online.Credit...Mark Abramson for The New York Times

By Steven Lee Myers

June 10, 2025

Leer en español

Misleading photographs, videos and text have spread widely on social media as protests against immigrant raids have unfolded in Los Angeles, rehashing old conspiracy theories and expressing support for President Trump’s actions.

The flood of falsehoods online appeared intended to stoke outrage toward immigrants and political leaders, principally Democrats.

They also added to the confusion over what exactly was happening on the streets, which was portrayed in digital and social media through starkly divergent ideological lenses. Many posts created the false impression that the entire city was engulfed in violence, when the clashes were limited to only a small part.

There were numerous scenes of protesters throwing rocks or other objects at law enforcement officers and setting cars ablaze, including a number of self-driving Waymo taxis. At the same time, false images spread to revive old conspiracies that the protests were a planned provocation, not a spontaneous response to the immigration raids.

The confrontation escalated on Monday as new protests occurred and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced — on X — that he was mobilizing 700 Marines from a base near Los Angeles to guard federal buildings. They are expected to join 2,000 members of the California National Guard whom Mr. Trump ordered deployed without the authorization of the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, who normally has command of the troops.

The latest deployments prompted a new wave of misleading images to spread — some purporting to show Marines and the military service’s weapons in action. One was a still from “Blue Thunder,” a 1983 action-thriller about a conspiracy to deprive residents of Los Angeles of their civil rights. It features a climactic dogfight over the city’s downtown.

Darren L. Linvill, a researcher at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, said conservatives online were “building up the riots in a performative way” to help bolster Mr. Trump’s claims that Los Angeles had been taken over by “violent, insurrectionist mobs.”

Dr. Linvill said the posts were also “a bit self-fulfilling.” “As they direct attention to it,” he said, “more protesters will show up.”

James Woods, the actor who has become known for spreading conspiracy theories, used his account on X to rail against the state’s elected officials, especially Mr. Newsom, a Democrat. He also reposted a fabricated quote, attributed to former President Barack Obama, discussing a secret plot to impose socialism on the country, as well as a video of burning police cars that was from 2020.

An innocuous photograph of a pallet of bricks, actually posted on the website of a building materials wholesaler in Malaysia, was cited as proof that the protests were organized by nonprofit organizations supported by George Soros, the financier who, to the feverishly conspiratorial right, has become a mastermind of global disorder.

Image

These bricks are actually from an image on the website of a building materials wholesaler in Malaysia.

Credit...The New York Times

“It’s Civil War!!” an account on X wrote on Saturday, claiming that the bricks had been placed near the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for “Democrat militants.”

X posted a Community Note pointing out that the photograph had nothing to do with the protests, but it still was seen more than 800,000 times. It was also widely reposted, including by several seemingly inauthentic accounts in Chinese.

The online trope dates at least to the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. It reappeared in 2022 after a conspiratorial post by Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican who suggested that bricks for a paving project near Capitol Hill were intended for violent protests after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

“These days, it feels like every time there’s a protest, the old clickbaity ‘pallets of bricks’ hoax shows up right on cue,” the Social Media Lab, a research center at the Toronto Metropolitan University, wrote on Bluesky. “You know the one, photos or videos of bricks supposedly left out to encourage rioting. It’s catnip for right-wing agitators and grifters.”

It also fits into the narrative that protests against government policies are somehow inauthentic. On his own platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump also suggested that the protesters were “Paid Insurrectionists!”

Numerous posts echoed unsubstantiated claims that the protests were the work of Mr. Soros as well as local nongovernment organizations or Democratic elected officials, including the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass. Some posts disparaging the protests were shared by accounts with deceptive handles that closely resembled those of official government sources or news organizations.

Mike Benz, a conspiracy-minded influencer on X who last year claimed that the Pentagon used the pop star Taylor Swift as part of a psychological operation to undercut Mr. Trump, advanced an outlandish theory that the mayor had links to the Central Intelligence Agency and had helped start riots in the city where she lives.

He based that simply on Ms. Bass’s role as a board member for the National Endowment for Democracy, the congressionally mandated organization formed during the Reagan administration to promote democratic governance around the world.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the theme was echoed by accounts across social media linked to Russia, which often amplifies content that discredits the United States. The Kremlin and its supporters have long accused Mr. Soros or the United States government of covertly sponsoring “color revolutions” to overthrow governments — from the Arab Spring countries swept up by mass street protests in 2011 to Ukraine.

“It is nationwide conspiracy of liberals against not only Trump but against American people in general,” Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent nationalist in Russia, wrote on X on Sunday.

Disinformation in situations like these spreads so quickly and widely that efforts to verify facts cannot keep up, said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, an advocacy organization that studies the intersection of media, technology and the law. She described it as part of “a much longer effort to delegitimize peaceful resistance movements.”

“Information warfare is always a symptom of conflict, stoked often by those in power to fuel their own illiberal goals,” she said. “It confuses audiences, scares people who might otherwise have empathy for the cause and divides us when we need solidarity most.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation and disinformation from San Francisco. Since joining The Times in 1989, he has reported from around the world, including Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing and Seoul.

A version of this article appears in print on June 11, 2025, Section A, Page 14 of the New York edition with the headline: Misleading Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

9. WATCH: Dem, media outlets insist LA anti-ICE riots are 'peaceful' despite violence, injured cops

​Where you stand depends on where you sit.

As an aside, what does victory in information warfare look like?

WATCH: Dem, media outlets insist LA anti-ICE riots are 'peaceful' despite violence, injured cops

Conservatives have taken to social media to criticize the spin on anti-ICE violence

foxnews.com · by Andrew Mark Miller Fox News

Video

Media, Democrats circle the wagons to downplay anti-ICE violence in Los Angeles

A Fox News Digital review found several examples of Democrats and members of the media referring to the L.A. unrest as peaceful despite the fiery riots

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Media outlets and elected Democrats have made the rounds in recent days, often using the word "peaceful" to describe the anti-ICE unrest in Los Angeles over the weekend despite rioting and violence that has resulted in destruction and injured police officers, a video review by Fox News Digital finds.

"The vast majority of protesters and demonstrators are peaceful," Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said recently on MSNBC. "They're passionate."

"A lot of these peaceful protests are being generated because the president of the United States is sowing chaos," Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC.

On CNN, a California Democrat House member said she doesn’t know what the "so-called" violence is "all about."

'LUNATIC' DEMOCRAT RIPPED FOR 'DEMONIC' VIDEO MESSAGE DEMANDING ICE AGENTS 'GET THE F--- OUT' AMID CA CHAOS

A rioter flies the Mexican national flag in the Compton neighborhood of Los Angeles during a protest over federal immigration operations on June 7, 2025. (Getty Images)

"Well, first of all, it's not even all of downtown," Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said while downplaying the extent of the violence. "This is isolated to a few streets, five or 10 streets. This is not city-wide civil unrest like has happened in our city before. But if you watch the pictures, especially on national TV, you would think that the entire city has blown up into unrest, and this is just not true."

ABC7 Los Angeles anchor Jory Rand cautioned law enforcement from escalating tensions by interfering and said on Sunday that they risked turning "what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators."

Rep. Nanette Barragán, a Democrat who represents California’s 44th Congressional District, said on CNN's "State of the Union" program Sunday, "We are having an administration that's targeting peaceful protests."

ANTI-ICE PROTESTERS IN LOS ANGELES SPIT ON AND BURN AMERICAN FLAG

A rioter holds a Mexican flag as cars burn along a street in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. (Getty Images)

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who is widely believed to be eyeing a run for California governor, sparked controversy online when she referred to the unrest as "overwhelmingly peaceful."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posted on X, "California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway. It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice.

"Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A protester waves the Mexican flag in front of a burning Waymo autonomous car during an anti-ICE protest in downtown Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. (Getty Images)

While there were examples of some peaceful protests at the outset, by the end of the day Friday property destruction and violence broke out in a situation that became increasingly violent over the next few days and led to injured officers.

"Last night, over 1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property," the Department of Homeland Security said in a press release Saturday referring to the previous night.

Several officers have been injured in the rioting, which included rocks and other projectiles being thrown at them, and dozens of people have been arrested related to the protests and rioting.

Conservatives on social media have blasted the various media outlets and Democrats who have used peaceful phrasing to describe the protests despite the various examples of violence, property destruction and burning cars.

President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard over the weekend, sparking outrage from local Democrats, and announced on Monday the mobilization of Marines to help quell the rioting.

Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

foxnews.com · by Andrew Mark Miller Fox News

10. Misinformation about LA Ice protests swirls online: ‘Catnip for rightwing agitators’

​Everyone on all sides gets to see what they want to believe.

Misinformation about LA Ice protests swirls online: ‘Catnip for rightwing agitators’

Many posts spread the idea that mayhem overtook LA while police confrontations were limited to a small part of the city

•  People in LA: share your reaction to the protests and military mobilization

The Guardian · by Blake Montgomery · June 10, 2025

Since protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles began, false and misleading claims about the ongoing demonstrations have spread on text-based social networks. Outright lies posted directly to social media mixed with misinformation spread through established channels by the White House as Donald Trump dramatically escalated federal intervention. The stream of undifferentiated real and fake information has painted a picture of the city that forks from reality.

Parts of Los Angeles have seen major protests over the past four days against intensified immigration raids by the US president’s administration. On Saturday, dramatic photos from downtown Los Angeles showed cars set aflame amid confrontations with law enforcement. Many posts promoted the perception that mayhem and violence had overtaken the entirety of Los Angeles, even though confrontations with law enforcement and vandalism remained confined to a small part of the sprawling city. Trump has deployed 2,000 members of the national guard to the city without requesting consent from California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, which provoked the state to sue for an alleged violation of sovereignty. The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has also ordered the US military to deploy approximately 700 marines to the city.

Los Angeles braces for arrival of more troops in ‘crisis of Trump’s own making’

Read more

Amid the street-level and legal conflicts, misinformation is proliferating. Though lies have long played a part in civil and military conflicts, social media often acts as an accelerant, with facts failing to spread as quickly as their counterparts, a dynamic that has played out with the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, a devastating hurricane in North Carolina and the coronavirus pandemic.

Among the most egregious examples were conservative and pro-Russian accounts circulating a video of Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, from before the protests with the claim that she incited and supported the protests, which have featured Mexican flags, according to the misinformation watchdog Newsguard. The misleading posts – made on Twitter/X by the conservative commentator Benny Johnson on pro-Trump sites such as WLTReport.com or Russian state-owned sites such as Rg.ru – have received millions of views, according to the organization. Sheinbaum in fact told reporters on 9 June: “We do not agree with violent actions as a form of protest … We call on the Mexican community to act pacifically.”

A post about bricks stirs a mixture of real and fake news

Conspiratorial conservatives are grasping at familiar bogeymen. A post to X on Saturday claiming that “Soros-funded organizations” had dropped off pallets of bricks near Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) facilities received more than 9,500 retweets and was viewed more than 800,000 times. The Democratic mega-donor George Soros appears as a consistent specter in rightwing conspiracy theories, and the post likewise attributed the supply drop to LA’s mayor, Karen Bass, and California governor, Gavin Newsom.

“It’s Civil War!!” the post read.

The photo of stacked bricks originates from a Malaysian construction supply company, and the hoax about bricks being supplied to protesters has spread repeatedly since the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the US. X users appended a “community note” fact-checking the tweet. X’s native AI chatbot, Grok, also provided fact-checks when prompted to evaluate the veracity of the post.

‘The language of authoritarianism’: how Trump and allies cast LA as a lawless city needing military intervention

Read more

In response to the hoax photo, some X users replied with links to real footage from the protests that showed protesters hammering at concrete bollards, mixing false and true and reducing clarity around what was happening in reality. The independent journalist who posted the footage claimed the protesters were using the material as projectiles against police, though the footage did not show such actions.

The Social Media Lab, a research unit out of Toronto Metropolitan University, posted on Bluesky: “These days, it feels like every time there’s a protest, the old clickbaity ‘pallets of bricks’ hoax shows up right on cue. You know the one, photos or videos of bricks supposedly left out to encourage rioting. It’s catnip for right-wing agitators and grifters.”

Trump and the White House muddy the waters

Trump himself has fed the narrative that the protests are inauthentic and larger than they really are, fueled by outside agitators without legitimate interest in local matters.

Sign up to TechScape

Free weekly newsletter

A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

“These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists,” Trump posted to Truth Social, which was screenshotted and reposted to X by Elon Musk. Others in the administration have made similar points on social media.

A reporter for the Los Angeles Times pointed out that the White House put out a statement about a particular Mexican national being arrested for allegedly assaulting an officer “during the riots”. In fact, Customs and Border Protection agents stopped him before the protests began.

Sowing misleading information, reaping distrust

Trump has increased the number of Ice raids across the country, which has stoked fears of deportations across Los Angeles, heavily populated with immigrants to the US. Per the Social Media Lab, anti-Ice posts also spread misinformation. One post on Bluesky, marked “Breaking”, claimed that federal agents had just arrived at an LA elementary school and tried to question first-graders. In fact, the event occurred two months ago. Researchers called the post “rage-farming to push merch”.

LA protests: Trump sends thousands more troops in ‘authoritarian’ move

Read more

The conspiratorial website InfoWars put out a broadcast on X titled: Watch Live: LA ICE Riots Spread To Major Cities Nationwide As Democrat Summer Of Rage Arrives, which attracted more than 40,000 simultaneous listeners when viewed by the Guardian on Tuesday morning. Though protests against deportations have occurred in other cities, the same level of chaos as seen in Los Angeles has not. A broadcast on X by the news outlet Reuters, Los Angeles after fourth night of immigration protests, had drawn just 13,000 viewers at the same time.

The proliferation of misinformation degrades X’s utility as a news source, though Musk continually tweets that it is the top news app in this country or that, most recently Qatar, a minor distinction. Old photos and videos mix with new and sow doubt in legitimate reporting. Since purchasing Twitter and renaming it X in late 2022, Musk has dismantled many of the company’s own initiatives for combatting the proliferation of lies, though he has promoted the user-generated fact-checking feature, “community notes”. During the 2024 US presidential election in particular, the X CEO himself became a hub for the spread of false information, say researchers. In his dozens of posts per day, he posted and reposted incorrect or misleading claims that reached about 2bn views, according to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

The Guardian · by Blake Montgomery · June 10, 2025

11. Fake videos and conspiracies fuel falsehoods about Los Angeles protests

Fake videos and conspiracies fuel falsehoods about Los Angeles protests

By Laura Doan, Emma Li

June 11, 2025 / 3:41 PM EDT / CBS News

CBS News · by Laura Doan Fact Checker, CBS News Confirmed

As demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids continue in Los Angeles, misleading videos, conspiracies and false claims have spread on social media.

Many of the posts recycle longstanding conspiracy theories, which have often been revived during past episodes of civil unrest. Some posts have made claims that wealthy individuals engineered or financed the protests, and they have racked up millions of views online.

Some posts exaggerate the unrest, using videos of past demonstrations to depict a city overwhelmed by violence. In fact, clashes since the current protests began Friday have remained largely confined to parts of Los Angeles County.

Here are some of the most widely shared falsehoods and misleading visuals.

Recycled imagery and video game footage

Some politicians, conspiracy theorists and social media users have posted old footage during the protests, falsely describing the clips as current. While Los Angeles has seen some vandalism and property damage in the current protests, the mix of outdated and recent videos has created confusion.

One widely shared video of vandalized police cars set ablaze, which was posted by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas on Sunday, was originally from news coverage of May 2020 protests in response to the death of George Floyd.

On the same day, a video showing people setting a Jeep on fire was described as undocumented immigrants pouring gasoline over the vehicle in Los Angeles on Saturday. However, the footage dates back to a street takeover in the city's Hyde Park neighborhood in March 2024.

The old clips were shared on the same day five driverless Waymo vehicles were set ablaze during the current protests. But the recycled footage gave the misleading impression that such incidents were more frequent and widespread.

On Sunday, two days before Marines were ordered to deploy to Los Angeles, old and unrelated footage falsely claimed to show them arriving. One video, which showed Marines driving to their base hundreds of miles away in San Diego County, was misrepresented as showing them entering Los Angeles.

Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University and social media disinformation researcher, told CBS News said even the smartest social media users have difficulty telling old content from authentic images in fast-moving situations.

"Sometimes that sort of content is spread by people who are doing it purposefully with some kind of agenda, but most often it's spread by people who just didn't understand the context that they saw it in," Linvill said.

Some social media users also posted footage from a video game during the protests, making it appear that there had been a significant military escalation. A video posted on Sunday was falsely described as showing protesters firing at National Guard jets. In fact, the footage is from the tactical military simulation video game Arma 3, which has previously been used to spread misinformation.

Inaccurate debunks

Amid the recycled imagery, authentic pictures of National Guard members sleeping on the floor of a federal building in Los Angeles this week were falsely described as old or unauthentic.

The images were initially published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday and republished by California Gov. Gavin Newsom on X, who said they served as proof that the deployment was poorly planned, and claimed the soldiers were "without fuel, food, water or a place to sleep."

Some social media users said the images were old and depicted soldiers at previous deployments. Grok, X's AI chatbot, determined the images were likely from Afghanistan in 2021.

However, the images are authentic. Using images published by the U.S. Northern Command and other videos posted to social media, CBS News independently confirmed the images were taken from the loading dock area of the Robert Young Federal Building.

CBS News compared images posted by the military with those published by the San Francisco Chronicle and found matching details, including signs and pillars, confirming they were taken in Los Angeles.

Later, a spokesperson for the U.S. Northern Command confirmed to CBS News that the image was authentic: "The soldiers you saw in the photo were resting as they were not currently on mission and due to the fluid security situation, it was deemed too dangerous for them to travel to better accommodations. The soldiers have ready access to food and water as needed."

People on X have been tagging Grok more often to help verify visuals during these protests with mixed results, according to Isabelle Frances-Wright, the director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an independent think tank that examines disinformation online.

"While AI is muddying the landscape, people are also now turning to AI as their primary source of fact checking," said Wright.

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories alleging rich donors orchestrated the protests have also resurfaced, echoing patterns from past demonstrations.

One widely shared claim involved images of stacked bricks, which social media users falsely presented as supplies planted by billionaire George Soros to incite violence. These posts reached millions across multiple platforms.

One poster shared a photo of bricks that they claimed were left near "ICE facilities." However, CBS News found the image was actually taken from the website of a Malaysian building materials company.

A social media user falsely claimed in a post on X that the pallet of bricks shown above was planted near an ICE facility. However, CBS found the same image of bricks was taken from a Malaysian building materials website.

Rumors about pallets of bricks were also debunked after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and reemerged in 2021 during Kyle Rittenhouse's trial and 2022 during Roe v. Wade protests.

Linvill said although the types of misinformation around the Los Angeles protests have followed a familiar pattern, people on both the right and the left are more willing to believe something is fake or staged than they used to be. Many people also assumed the photos Newsom posted of National Guard troops were fake, said Linvill, warning of the risks this poses.

"While fake things are very dangerous, it's also dangerous to assume that everything is fake. And I feel like that is becoming more pervasive for people to just dismiss the evidence in front of their eyes," he said.

Layla Ferris, Erielle Delzer and Rhona Tarrant contributed to this report.

• Los Angeles
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• Protest

Laura Doan

Laura Doan is a fact checker for CBS News Confirmed. She covers misinformation, AI and social media.

CBS News · by Laura Doan Fact Checker, CBS News Confirmed

12. Chinese Spyware, Only $6.99

​It is not just TikTok and Huawei.

Chinese Spyware, Only $6.99

Nebraska sues Temu for siphoning sensitive data from Americans.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nebraska-lawsuit-china-temu-pinduoduo-mike-hilgers-5767054b?mod=hp_opin_pos_4

By The Editorial Board

Follow

June 11, 2025 5:38 pm ET

Photo: florence lo/Reuters

A dilemma of dealing with Chinese companies in a free society like America is their mandated allegiance to the Chinese Community Party. That’s the subject of a state lawsuit filed Wednesday that says the e-shopping platform Temu and related app Pinduoduo are putting the data of American citizens at risk.

In the complaint filed in state court in Nebraska, Attorney General Mike Hilgers says Temu installs malware that gives the app access to “sensitive information.” This includes the microphone, messages, photos and “information sufficient to track their movements.” The malware is also designed to operate secretly and “avoid detection,” the lawsuit alleges.

Temu and Pinduoduo present themselves as e-commerce apps that offer inexpensive merchandise, but they are also in the business of data collection. The lawsuit notes that, according to an IT security firm report, “Pinduoduo requested as many as 83 permissions, including access to biometrics, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi network information.”

Google suspended Pinduoduo from its app store in 2023 after malware was discovered. The lawsuit alleges much of Temu’s code was “copied directly” from Pinduoduo.

The data collection isn’t solely for the benefit of shopping optimization. A Center for Strategic and International Studies brief notes that the app “requests and gains access to users’ devices well above and beyond anything necessary for its function and, by design, is extremely difficult to delete or remove.”

An investigation by Montana found that the Temu app is designed to hide its collection of sensitive information from users and “any researcher who might be investigating the app’s functionality.” Temu also has code that “allows it to reconfigure itself” after being downloaded. Nebraska says the effect is that Temu can “circumvent the protections” of the app stores by “directly patching the app on the device rather than through releasing updates” on the stores.

The fear is that consumer products marketed on Temu are the bait to get Americans to download an app that gives the company—and thereby the Party—access to personal data, location tracking and other sensitive information.

Article 7 of the National Intelligence Law of China says “any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep the secrets of the national intelligence work from becoming known to the public.” Nebraska’s complaint says Temu was the most downloaded app in the U.S. in 2023

The lawsuit says Temu’s platform sells goods that infringe on copyrights, including Nebraska brands like Cabela’s, Union Pacific and the University of Nebraska. The lawsuit also says Temu products are often difficult to return and falsely marketed as “local” when the goods are made in China and shipped from U.S. warehouses.

National security concerns are typically addressed by the federal government, but state AGs can also hold Chinese companies accountable for actions that steal data, infringe copyrights and mislead consumers. Nebraska’s lawsuit could bring out more information during legal discovery.

As long as Chinese companies are putting backdoors and malware on American devices, state AGs can help protect consumers.

Support for freedom fighters is self-defense

0 of 5 minutes, 51 secondsVolume 0%

00:0105:51

Free Expression: President Trump's Riyadh speech lays out a foreign policy stressing U.S. economic interests shorn of idealism.

Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the June 12, 2025, print edition as 'Chinese Spyware, Only $6.99'.

13. Chinese Jets Tail Japanese Air Patrol in Close Encounter

​Excerpts:

China’s military has been steadily broadening its maritime reach. Japanese officials said this weekend was the first time both of Beijing’s in-service aircraft carriers were operating in the Western Pacific close to Japan. In late February and early March, three Chinese navy ships traveled through the Tasman Sea and around Australia.

The waters south of Japan where the weekend incidents occurred would be an important theater in a Chinese military effort to take over Taiwan, a self-ruled democracy that Beijing considers its own territory to be seized by force if necessary. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has set military modernization goals including fielding a force that could seize Taiwan by 2027, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. has increasingly sought to improve security cooperation with regional partners such as Japan to confront the threat from China.

Chinese Jets Tail Japanese Air Patrol in Close Encounter

Fighters from China aircraft carrier followed aircraft at close range, risking accident, Japan says

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinese-jets-tail-japanese-air-patrol-in-close-encounter-42449f42

By Jason Douglas

Follow

June 12, 2025 4:28 am ET

A photo of the close encounter released by Japan. Photo: Japan’s Ministry of Defense/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Key Points

What's This?

• Chinese jet fighters tailed Japanese patrol aircraft, closing to 150 feet in one incident, Japan said.
• China’s naval activity near Japan signals Beijing’s ambition to expand its maritime reach.
• Japan expressed serious concern, while China accused Japan of dangerous behavior.

Chinese jet fighters tailed Japanese patrol aircraft in separate incidents, with the gap narrowing to just 150 feet at one point, officials from Japan said Thursday, disclosing new details about China’s unprecedented naval activity over the weekend.

China’s show of force was a sign of Beijing’s ambitions to broaden its maritime reach, and a willingness to test the boundaries with even the U.S.’s most powerful allies in Asia.

The fighters took off from the Shandong, one of two Chinese aircraft carriers spotted in Western Pacific waters close to Japan over the weekend, Japan’s Defense Ministry said. A second aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and seven other Chinese warships ventured east of the Japanese island of Iwo Jima, some 725 miles from Tokyo, for the first time Saturday. 

On Saturday morning, a Chinese J-15 jet fighter chased a Japanese military patrol plane for approximately 40 minutes, the ministry said, at one point flying as close as 45 meters, or about 150 feet. 

In a second incident on Sunday, a Chinese J-15 again followed a Japanese patrol for more than an hour, crossing in front of the aircraft’s flight path at a distance of around 900 meters, a little over half a mile.

“Such abnormal approaches by Chinese military aircraft have the potential to induce accidental collisions. We expressed serious concern and demanded the prevention of recurrence,” the Japanese Ministry of Defense said Thursday in a statement describing the two incidents. No damage was reported.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian said the risk was the result of Japan’s “close reconnaissance of China’s normal military activities,” urging Japan to stop and calling it dangerous behavior. The ministry said China’s activities were consistent with international law and practice.

Incidents involving Chinese fighters flying close to other aircraft have occurred before. In 2022, Canadian officials said Chinese pilots flew dangerously close to Canadian aircrews operating in international airspace near North Korea.

In 2023, U.S. officials said an Air Force reconnaissance plane narrowly avoided a collision when a Chinese fighter performed an “unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” close by over the South China Sea. Pentagon officials at the time said they were alarmed by what appeared to be an increase in the number of risky intercepts and similar maneuvers by Chinese planes.

China’s military has been steadily broadening its maritime reach. Japanese officials said this weekend was the first time both of Beijing’s in-service aircraft carriers were operating in the Western Pacific close to Japan. In late February and early March, three Chinese navy ships traveled through the Tasman Sea and around Australia.

The waters south of Japan where the weekend incidents occurred would be an important theater in a Chinese military effort to take over Taiwan, a self-ruled democracy that Beijing considers its own territory to be seized by force if necessary. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has set military modernization goals including fielding a force that could seize Taiwan by 2027, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. has increasingly sought to improve security cooperation with regional partners such as Japan to confront the threat from China.

Write to Jason Douglas at jason.douglas@wsj.com

14. Anduril plans footprint in Poland’s red-hot combat drone market

Anduril plans footprint in Poland’s red-hot combat drone market

Defense News · by Jaroslaw Adamowski · June 11, 2025

WARSAW, Poland — As the Polish military ramps up its Drone Force, U.S. defense-technology company Anduril Industries is working to expand its foothold in Poland.

“We’re still at an early stage of looking at things and different options,” Brian Schimpf, the co-founder and CEO of Anduril Industries, said at a June 9 press briefing in Warsaw. “There’s amazing software and manufacturing here, and lots of great people. We could potentially launch production in Poland with a partner.”

Anduril Industries’ portfolio includes the Altius multi-mission loitering munition, the Barracuda range of autonomous air vehicles, and the Copperhead family of autonomous underwater vehicles. The company says its solutions are run by Lattice, an AI-powered, open operating system designed to provide the drones with autonomy.

Schimpf said one of the reasons Anduril Industries is evaluating a potential expansion in Poland is related to the country’s intense efforts to upgrade its military and gain new capabilities, and the government’s decisiveness in advancing new programs.

Poland has accelerated its military modernization efforts in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of its neighbor Ukraine in February 2022.

Launched in 2025, the Polish Drone Force will consist of unmanned aerial vehicles, and potentially other unmanned systems, of various sizes.

The Polish ministry inked a framework agreement with local private defense company WB Group in May to acquire some 10,000 units of the Warmate loitering munition, with deliveries foreseen until 2035.

In December 2024, Warsaw signed a deal worth some $310 million to acquire a number of MQ-9B Sky Guardian drones from General Atomics that are to be delivered by the first quarter of 2027.

About Jaroslaw Adamowski

Jaroslaw Adamowski is the Poland correspondent for Defense News.

​15. Four steps to creating a National Defense Strategy built on strength

​The referenced working paper can be accessed at this link:  https://www.aei.org/research-products/working-paper/defense-strategy-and-the-decision-drivers-of-force-structure-and-posture/

I strongly concur with these four areas.

Excerpts:

This working paper, loosely based upon the board game of Risk, outlines four areas the secretary of defense should prioritize as he develops the National Defense Strategy: the need for alliances; the importance of strategic terrain; the role of strategic enablers; and the need for sufficient and well-positioned forces to project power, deter aggression, and respond in a crisis.

The need for alliances: 

...

The importance of strategic terrain:

...

The role of strategic enablers:

...

Sufficient and well-positioned forces:

America needs a new National Defense Strategy that is guided by a long-term vision, an awareness of the threat environment, and actionable program and resourcing guidance. The National Defense Strategy should not be “poverty informed.” The strategy should make clear that America is a strong, prosperous, global leader that understands and pursues its interests and prioritizes the effective and accountable use of public funds for its security.

Only in this manner will we achieve peace through strength.

Four steps to creating a National Defense Strategy built on strength - Breaking Defense

In this op-ed, analysts from the American Enterprise Institute lay out four priorities Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth should focus on in the next National Defense Strategy.

By  John Ferrari, Elaine McCusker and Todd Harrison

on June 11, 2025 at 12:24 PM

breakingdefense.com · by John Ferrari, Elaine McCusker, Todd Harrison · June 11, 2025

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth holds a town hall meeting for Department of Defense personnel at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Feb. 7, 2025. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Madelyn Keech)

The new Pentagon leadership has set itself up to potentially oversee fundamental changes that could dramatically improve military warfighting capabilities for decades to come. In addition to realigning the defense budget, organizational structures, and acquisition policies to support warfighters, key decisions are still pending on how and where America will defend its security and prosperity.

As detailed in a recent American Enterprise Institute working paper, there are steps that the Pentagon should take to position and posture its forces in order to best accomplish the president’s objective of Peace through Strength.

This working paper, loosely based upon the board game of Risk, outlines four areas the secretary of defense should prioritize as he develops the National Defense Strategy: the need for alliances; the importance of strategic terrain; the role of strategic enablers; and the need for sufficient and well-positioned forces to project power, deter aggression, and respond in a crisis.

Simply put, the defense strategy should be based upon strength and not an assumption of poverty. Here’s how these categories break down in real terms.

The need for alliances: Alliances need to be pursued for pragmatic reasons while always ensuring that the United States can act independently. America should support nations that are fighting against adversaries who clearly intend to diminish the position and strength of the United States.

No clearer example of such a situation exists than Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The military forces Russia has lost (and continues to lose) directly reduce their future threat. A strong, victorious Ukraine, allied with the United States, would mean that key terrain, rich in minerals and agriculture, remains out of Russian hands. At the same time, Russia’s allies in China, North Korea, and Iran would have an important warning about America’s resolve.

As the United States evaluates the nature and condition of burden sharing with its allies and partners, it must remember that one-size-fits-all doesn’t apply.

In the Pacific, for instance, Washington must remain acutely aware of the dilemma middle powers in Asia face, especially among those countries who would prefer to be Western leaning but are still economically reliant upon China.

In contrast, when it comes to Europe, where NATO allies have under-spent on defense for decades, America should use the right combination of pressure and incentives to encourage a rearmament that also builds American industrial strength.

The importance of strategic terrain: The possession of critical geographical locations during times of peace is a force multiplier in wartime. These terrains, whether they are chokepoints, high ground, or resource-rich areas, provide a nation with significant warfighting advantages. They enable the pre-positioning of forces, the establishment of robust supply lines, and the fortification of defenses long before any conflict arises.

To reap the benefits of strategic terrain, a nation does not necessarily need to control it or physically occupy it. Instead, a nation just needs the ability to use it and deny its benefits to adversaries.

The administration’s approach to Greenland and Panama should reflect this, by affirming and strengthening existing agreements and fully utilizing assets such as the space force base already in Greenland. To that end, the discussions about annexation, 51st State, and ownership should cease and instead, things like treaties, bases, and the recent Unified Command Plan changes should increase. If other sovereign nations fear ulterior motives, then the easy changes will not be so easy, and our defense will be compromised.

The role of strategic enablers: Shipbuilding, space, cyber, ground forces, and undersea infrastructure all combine to enable a global military force posture and presence that is in the right place, with the right equipment, at the right time to deter war — and, if necessary, to fight and win.

The Trump administration should provide strategic direction and funding for maritime stealth, uncrewed systems, attritable weapons, and new power projection capabilities.

At the same time, it will need to increase funding for shipbuilding and maintenance. The United States must develop capabilities that can respond to “cable-cutters” and to ships with stray anchors while also recognizing that much of the undersea infrastructure is provided by commercial companies.

United States space policy, strategy, and funding should prioritize accelerating innovation by leveraging the private sector. This means reducing unnecessary commercial space regulations and licensing requirements and leveraging commercial space for military missions. Additionally, the Pentagon should pursue more aggressive defensive and offensive cyber capabilities and make clear that artificial intelligence and unmanned systems are strategic assets.

Sufficient and well-positioned forces: Previous administrations have tried to replace current capacity with future capability advancements, convincing themselves that prioritizing modernization at the expense of force structure to save money was okay, because that smaller force would eventually be more capable once next-generation weapons entered service.

But the idea of “procurement holidays” or “divest-to-invest” was, and is, a false choice, and one that should be discarded. The new defense strategy should emphasize robust forward stationed forces, and more routine and unpredictable exercises.

In addition, the military should emphasize prepositioning equipment and supplies, including munitions and air defenses, around the globe. The Army should not be downsizing its footprint in Europe — instead it should be increasing its ability to project power into the region by building up its prepositioned stocks in Poland and other locations.

In encouraging partner nations to devote more resources to their own security, the United States must lead by example. The Cold War average of defense spending as a share of GDP (6.6 percent) was more than double what it is today. Funding America’s defense at 5 percent of GDP, aligned with Senator Roger Wicker’s plan, will enable this strategy.

America needs a new National Defense Strategy that is guided by a long-term vision, an awareness of the threat environment, and actionable program and resourcing guidance. The National Defense Strategy should not be “poverty informed.” The strategy should make clear that America is a strong, prosperous, global leader that understands and pursues its interests and prioritizes the effective and accountable use of public funds for its security.

Only in this manner will we achieve peace through strength.

Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She previously served as the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller). Todd Harrison is a senior fellow at AEI. He previously worked as a senior executive in the defense industry and as an officer in the Air Force Reserves. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari is a senior nonresident fellow at AEI. He previously served as a director of program analysis and evaluation for the service.

16. Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain

Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain

Defense News · by Noah Robertson · June 11, 2025

The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS agreement on sharing nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia and the United Kingdom — a decision immediately condemned by congressional Democrats and one that may cause angst among U.S. allies.

“The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement Wednesday.

The spokesperson did not say who was involved in the effort, when it would conclude or why it was initiated — except to say that the Pentagon was concerned about the readiness of its forces and the U.S. defense industry.

“This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,” the statement continued.

RELATED

AUKUS countries update rules on sharing defense kit

The new rules will make it easier for the U.S., U.K. and Australia to share vast amounts of defense equipment.

The Financial Times first reported news of the review.

As part of the trilateral defense pact, Britain and Australia will build a nuclear-powered submarine, with the United States selling Virginia-class boats to Canberra in the interim. The agreement also includes a separate goal for the three countries to develop advanced technology together, such as quantum computing and hypersonic missiles.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth traveled to Singapore just over a week ago, where he met with his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles, multiple times. In a major speech on the Trump administration’s Asia policy, Hegseth didn’t mention AUKUS, something Marles dismissed in an interview with Defense News later.

“We’ve spoken extensively about AUKUS — both of our countries, including Secretary Hegseth himself. We don’t feel a need to keep reiterating it on every single occasion,” Marles said, arguing the program was “on track.”

In his March confirmation hearing, Pentagon head of policy Elbridge Colby expressed some hesitancy about AUKUS — in particular, America’s difficulty increasing its own production of nuclear-powered submarines, which would conceivably make it harder to sell extra boats to Australia.

“If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, that becomes a very difficult problem because we don’t want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position,” Colby said.

“It should be the policy of the United States government to do everything we can to make this work,” Colby continued.

Colby has also argued that Australia, which is increasing defense spending to around 2.4% of GDP by the mid-2030s, should raise its defense budget far faster. In a Pentagon readout after Hegseth and Marles met, the U.S. said it wanted that number to be 3.5% of GDP.

In April, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Samuel Paparo, defended the initiative’s value in testimony before the House and said the effort on nuclear submarines was “meeting every milestone” operationally.

“AUKUS delivers something to INDOPACOM that is critical and could be a key advantage, and that is a Indian Ocean submarine base. This gives us faster response time to the South China Sea than in Hawaii, in Washington, in San Diego,” Paparo said.

To help America build more submarines, Congress has spent billions of dollars in recent defense bills targeted at the effort. Australia, too, has pledged $3 billion in its own funding to help the U.S. build more of the boats, which Marles referenced in his interview with Defense News.

“It is a challenge, but I think it’s a challenge we can meet,” he said.

The Australian embassy didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A spokesperson for the British embassy, meanwhile, responded to the news with reassurance.

“It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the U.K. did last year.”

Senate Democrats criticized the White House for casting doubt on the future of the AUKUS agreement.

“If this administration is serious about countering the threat from China — like it has said as recently as this morning — then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement.

“Anything less would play directly into China’s hand.”

Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said the news that Trump may abandon AUKUS “will be met with cheers in Beijing” and further weaken America’s standing in the world.

“At a moment when we face mounting threats from [China] and Russia, we should be encouraging our partners to raise their defense spending and partnering with them on the latest technologies — not doing the opposite,” she said.

Military Times reporter Leo Shane III contributed to this story.

About Noah Robertson

Noah Robertson is the Pentagon reporter at Defense News. He previously covered national security for the Christian Science Monitor. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English and government from the College of William & Mary in his hometown of Williamsburg, Virginia.

17. Hegseth spars with senators over defense budget, LA in tense hearing

​I cannot recall any more contentious Congressional hearings than I have seen over the last couple days.

My recommendation to the SECDEF is what he heard from a number of Representatives and Senators: focus on the plan going forward and stop blamingeverything on the past administration(s).

I recall we used to say that when you take command you can blame your predecessor anything wrong in the first 30 days of command and after that you own everything about your command. We are now more than 130 days into the new "command." Stop blaming the last guy. What are we going to do going forward?

Hegseth spars with senators over defense budget, LA in tense hearing

Defense News · by Noah Robertson · June 11, 2025

Senators from both parties sharply questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about support for Ukraine, the defense budget and the Pentagon’s recent deployment of active-duty troops to Los Angeles in a tense hearing Wednesday.

Several times, the secretary talked over or disputed the questions from senators, who also grew visibly frustrated at his answers.

“This is the appropriations committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a feisty exchange over the Trump administration’s choice to accept a Qatar-gifted Boeing 747-8 for use as Air Force One.

Hegseth appeared before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which has been stalled by the Pentagon’s late budget request this year. Incoming administrations often take longer to submit their first spending plan, but three months after the usual deadline, Congress still has no detailed request.

“This is officially the latest budget submission of the modern era,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who held up a spreadsheet showing the few details his committee has so far received.

Multiple Republicans on that committee also took issue with what they already knew about that request: specifically, the Pentagon’s total earmarked for defense spending.

The administration has said it wants a 13% increase in that budget, but it is including a separate party-line bill, which includes $150 billion for the Pentagon, in its calculations.

“We have two bills and one budget,” Hegseth said.

Many Republicans in Congress have said this other bill is an unpredictable, one-time surge in spending and shouldn’t steal from items usually funded in the core defense budget.

“Let’s not overstate the [fiscal 2026] request,” said subcommittee chair Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Republican and Democratic Senators also pressed Hegseth on U.S. support for Ukraine, which has slowed during the second Trump administration.

“Russia is the aggressor,” Hegseth said in response to questioning from McConnell on who began the conflict.

Still, the secretary said that the administration’s top priority is ending the war.

“Ultimately, peace serves our national interests and, we think, the interest of both parties — even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country,” Hegseth said, while also suggesting that long-term U.S. aid to Ukraine may fall in the incoming budget request.

Some of the sharpest questions came in response to the Pentagon’s approved deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after a weekend of protests against the administration’s immigration policies.

At a hearing before the House on Tuesday, the Pentagon’s comptroller said those deployments would last 60 days and cost around $134 million.

It’s been 60 years since the federal government last sent troops to a state without the consent of local officials — the last time occurring in Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. The Democratic governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has sued for their removal.

“This is not only, I think, illegal but also a diminution of the readiness and the focus of the military,” Reed said.

When Reed asked whether Hegseth would approve the use of military forces or equipment to arrest American citizens — barred unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act — the secretary argued every authority issued so far is “lawful and constitutional.”

“So the answer is yes,” Reed responded.

Meanwhile, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine demurred when asked whether the U.S. was currently being invaded — something officials across the Trump administration have repeatedly said in reference to migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“At this point in time, I don’t see any foreign, state-sponsored folks invading, but I’ll be mindful of the fact that there have been some border issues throughout time,” Caine said.

Unlike the House subcommittee on defense, which passed its spending bill Tuesday, the Senate is waiting for the Pentagon’s full budget request before finishing its own bill, and several members of the committee signaled there will be difficult negotiations ahead.

Like McConnell, Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, argued the incoming request could hamper many of the Pentagon’s major weapons purchases, such as shipbuilding.

“I would point out that the budget overall actually provides less buying power than the FY25 enacted budget because it does not adjust for inflation,” Collins said. “I hope that’s something that we can work together on to correct.”

About Noah Robertson

Noah Robertson is the Pentagon reporter at Defense News. He previously covered national security for the Christian Science Monitor. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English and government from the College of William & Mary in his hometown of Williamsburg, Virginia.

18. U.S. Moves to Withdraw Some Middle East Personnel as Iran Tensions Rise

​Are we telegraphing our punch? (or Israel's?)

U.S. Moves to Withdraw Some Middle East Personnel as Iran Tensions Rise

Oil prices rise while prospects for a nuclear deal with Tehran fade

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-moves-to-withdraw-some-middle-east-personnel-as-tensions-rise-99f9f93a

By Nancy A. Youssef

Follow

 and Ryan Dezember

Follow

Updated June 11, 2025 9:13 pm ET

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Photo: ahmad al-rubaye/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Key Points

What's This?

• U.S. reducing Middle East presence to essential personnel amid rising tensions.
• Nonessential staff will depart Baghdad embassy; Bahrain, Kuwait departures authorized.
• Oil prices rise 4.9% due to conflict worries and lower crude inventories.

The U.S. is moving to draw down its presence in parts of the Middle East to essential personnel, the State Department and Pentagon said Wednesday, as tensions in the region rise, sending oil prices higher.

The State Department said that it ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and authorized the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from across the Middle East, a defense official said. U.S. troops based in the region aren’t affected, officials said. 

The heightened tensions come ahead of the latest round of nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S. President Trump told the “Pod Force One” podcast on Monday that he is “less confident” of reaching a deal and shutting down Iran’s nuclear program, raising concerns that diplomatic efforts could fail. 

“I don’t know. I did think so, and I’m getting more and more—less confident about it,” Trump said Monday. 

The sixth round of talks is scheduled to take place this weekend in Oman. A U.S. official said Wednesday that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was still planning to travel there to meet with his Iranian counterpart on Sunday.

Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, was supposed to testify on Capitol Hill Thursday but canceled his appearance to return to Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla., a U.S. official said. 

Iranian Defense Minister Amir Aziz Nasirzadeh said earlier on Wednesday that “some say that if negotiations fail, the situation may escalate into conflict.” 

“If a conflict is imposed on us…all U.S. bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries,” Nasirzadeh warned.

Late Wednesday, Trump was asked about the personnel moves. “Well, they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens,” he told reporters. Asked what could reduce tensions in the region, he replied, “They can’t have a nuclear weapon,” in an apparent reference to Iran. 

The area of Baghdad where the U.S. Embassy is located has been targeted by rockets and mortars in past confrontations between Washington and Tehran. One of the largest State Department facilities in the world, the embassy has operated at less than full staffing levels for years, partly because of security concerns.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from across the Middle East. Photo: Luis M. Alvarez/Associated Press

Experts and former officials say that Israel could try to defuse what it sees as the threat to its security of a nuclear-armed Iran if the deal talks are stymied. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has in particular expressed concerns about the talks, warning that a bad nuclear deal is worse than no deal at all.

Trump said recently that he warned Netanyahu against taking action—such as a military strike—that could threaten the talks with Iran. 

Benchmark U.S. oil prices rose 4.9% Wednesday, fueled in part by rising worries of conflict in the region, as well as a government report that showed domestic crude inventories were lower than expected.

Oil prices have risen six of the past eight trading sessions and are now up 19% from the low in May. Prices tumbled following Trump’s tariff barrage in April, which fed expectations of slower economic growth and lower fuel demand.

The prospect of lighter sanctions on Iran, which would allow the country to sell more of its oil abroad, had also weighed on oil prices. Now, with talks sputtering, traders are reworking their estimates for global supply and betting on rising oil prices. 

Write to Nancy A. Youssef at nancy.youssef@wsj.com and Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@wsj.com

Appeared in the June 12, 2025, print edition as 'U.S. Moves To Pull Out Mideast Personnel'.

19. Ukraine’s Battlefield Drone Innovations are Influencing Europe’s Militaries

​Excerpt:

Ukraine’s frontline experience has made it clear: in future high-tech wars, the winner will be the one who adapts to the technological conditions of the battlefield faster than the enemy. Ukraine’s leadership is pursuing a “robots first” military strategy, showing the world what the future of warfare looks like. Now, after years of resisting what was once seen as the world’s second-strongest military, it is Ukraine that is now imparting battlefield lessons, and Europe is finally listening.

Ukraine’s Battlefield Drone Innovations are Influencing Europe’s Militaries

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/06/11/ukraines-battlefield-drone-innovations/

by David Kirichenko

|

06.11.2025 at 06:00am

Yevhenii (callsign: “Bird”) flying a First-Person-View (FPV) drone attacking Russian positions in Chasiv Yar. Photo: David Kirichenko

As the world order continues to take a new shape, Europe has realized it no longer has the luxury of relying solely on the United States for protection. As a result, European countries are moving quickly to help build out Ukraine’s defense industry to also strengthen Europe’s own security for the future. At the center of this shift is Ukraine’s battlefield drone innovations—including its ability to produce them cheaply at scale, which is now reshaping how Europe prepares for a future confrontation with Russia.

Facing uncertainty over U.S. support, Ukraine has focused on expanding its domestically produced drone program, aiming to compensate for potential gaps in Western arms shipments by building a network of drone regiments along the front. Across Ukraine, volunteers and small workshops are fueling a grassroots drone-building movement that supplies frontline troops with cheap, highly effective First-Person View (FPV) attack drones.

Strategic Agility or Abundance?

The strategy of employing cheap drone mass, already credited with stalling Russia’s winter offensive, focuses on saturating Russian lines with low-cost, high-impact drones to limit Russian advances while preserving Ukraine’s soldiers. General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief, speaking at the Ukraine–United Kingdom Defense Technology Forum organized by RUSI, stated that a 10–15 kilometer-wide “zone of continuous death” has formed ahead of the front line – and that this deadly zone is steadily expanding, along with the likelihood of destruction within it.

As Ukraine’s battlefield innovations outpace traditional U.S. defense contractors, American companies and Silicon Valley are increasingly turning to Ukrainian drone makers for their frontline expertise, recognizing that “no U.S. company is keeping up with Ukraine.” Zaluzhnyi added that “Victory on the battlefield now depends entirely on the ability to outpace the enemy in technological development.”

Ukraine in turn, is building a massive drone arsenal on a budget. Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi noted that Ukrainian drones struck and destroyed more than 83,000 Russian targets in April, which was almost a 10% increase from March. Likewise, in November 2024, U.S. Army Chief Gen. Randy George, said, “Ukraine has demonstrated the value of small, attritable drones on the battlefield.”

According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Ukrainian drone operations continue to play a critical role in holding off Russian advances, driving a shift toward long-range, remote warfare, with the gray zone now stretching five to seven kilometers deep in parts of the front. Even Russian state media was forced to admit their forces in Donetsk are facing “massive attacks by Ukrainian drones.”

The ISW also noted that Russian advances between January and April 2025 were 45% slower than in late 2024, while casualty rates dropped by only 10%. Russian leadership continues to accept heavy losses for very limited returns on the battlefield as they struggle against Ukraine’s drone wall.

As Andrii, a drone pilot in Ukraine’s 109th Territorial Defense Brigade, told me, modern warfare now demands rapid tactical shifts and the near-immediate deployment of new technologies, often moving straight from blueprint to battlefield to seize the advantage.

Domains Matter—Ukraine’s Drone Innovations on Land and at Sea

The tactical shift is clear on the battlefield across both the land and maritime domains. “Every day we face 5 to 8 assaults, specifically by motorcycle troops. We haven’t seen any vehicles in a long time, because drones make it easier to hit them, and there’s less chance of triggering a mine,” said Ihor, a drone pilot from the 23rd Separate Mechanized Brigade.

Yaroslav, a drone pilot from the 110th Mechanized Brigade, told me that “drones play a very big role on the battlefield, more than anything else.” Both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war are rushing to build millions of drones per year. Drones worth several hundred dollars are knocking out tanks worth millions. These cheap drones can halt entire offensives. The battlefield, as a result, has become the era of the cautious tank.

Zaluzhnyi echoed this, warning that “Armored vehicles, which have been the basis of offensive operations since 1915, have become defenseless against cheap drones, and therefore, their use in other types of combat is impossible today.”

At sea, despite lacking a formal navy, Ukraine created a “tech navy” using sea drones that forced Russia’s Black Sea fleet to retreat from occupied Crimea. “Prior to the war, Russia was seen as the controlling maritime power in the Black Sea,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, a researcher with the Center for Naval Analyses think tank. “This is no longer the case, and sea control is now contested and will remain so for the foreseeable future. This obviously shows that Russia is not as strong in the region as previously perceived.”

These drones have since been used to shoot down Russian helicopters and, most recently, destroyed two Russian fighter jets. Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general officer wrote, “This is a significant achievement. Following on from the downing of helicopters from similar uncrewed naval vessels late last year, this steps up the capability offered by such platforms.”

Ukrainian drone innovations like the Sea Baby and Magura V5 have significantly expanded Kyiv’s naval capabilities. These sea drones have destroyed warships, helicopters, and, most recently, destroyed two Russian fighter jets. The sea drones have also served as drone carriers, launching aerial kamikaze drones. Ryan noted, “We should expect that the employment of drone carriers will become more common in the ground, sea and air domains.”

“Ukraine has clearly assigned talented and visionary people to the development of its remarkable sea drone fleet that drove the Russian navy to the eastern Black Sea and opened the grain shipments from Odesa,” said Roy Gardiner, an open-source weapons researcher and former Canadian Armed Forces officer.

“There is every expectation that Ukraine will lead the world in building autonomous sea drones, especially as access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system for navigation and control can no longer be trusted,” said Gardiner.

Priming Ukraine’s Drone Innovation-Production Cycle

This constant need for rapid adaptation also drives Ukraine’s own defense innovation. Kateryna Bezsudna, CEO of a Ukrainian defense tech startup accelerator, said their products must be operational within six months, the average window before Russia introduces a new weapon in order to maintain an asymmetric advantage.

“I always tell our American and other international partners: if your drone hasn’t been tested in Ukraine, it’s still just a toy,” said Oleksandra Ustinova, a Ukrainian member of parliament from the Holos party.

“Sure, it might have worked in Afghanistan against fighters in flip-flops who had no idea what electronic warfare was. But testing a drone or EW system against a regular, well-equipped army like Russia’s? That’s a different level entirely.”

Ustinova further added that Western partners shouldn’t wait, as Ukraine is developing the battlefield technologies of the future under the most demanding conditions. “So why wait? Partner with us now. Be part of developing the next generation of military technology, which is already proving itself in the most demanding combat environment on Earth.”Justin Zeefe, co-founder of Green Flag Ventures (GFV), a venture capital fund for local startups, said, “Ukrainian engineers and entrepreneurs, tested by wartime necessity, are demonstrating exceptional capability and resilience.”

With expanded European investment, Ukraine now produces about 40% of its military equipment domestically. “The Ukrainian army is the most credible security guarantee for Europe’s security,” said Esra Serim, an Associate Researcher at the University of Bordeaux. She also emphasized that Ukraine’s military could serve as the backbone of a future European Union army.

Despite dwindling American aid and ongoing Russian attacks, Ukraine’s confidence has grown thanks to its booming domestic defense industry, which has scaled from $1 billion with the potential of reaching an overall capacity of $35 billion in 2025, driven largely by drones and missiles.

The Economist argued that Europe should directly purchase arms from Ukrainian companies and invest in joint ventures to bolster Ukraine’s production capacity, strengthen European security, and offset the potential decline of U.S. support. “By aiding Ukraine they are helping themselves. Ukraine’s security is unalienable from that of Europe,” said Volodymyr Dubovyk, Director of the Center for International Studies at Odesa Mechnykov National University.

Private investors across the West have also taken note. In 2024, investment in Ukrainian defense technologies surged by 900% compared to the previous year, but more capital is urgently needed. Ukraine has the capacity to now produce 5 million drones per year. Zeefe added, “The landscape is abundant with opportunity, far exceeding GFV’s capacity to invest. But there is not currently enough capital from international sources specifically focused on Ukrainian innovation.”

Branislav Slantchev, a professor of political science at UC San Diego, pointed out Ukraine’s unmatched battlefield experience: “Ukraine offers experience – it’s the only European army that has it, especially for the kind of war that involves Russia.” He highlighted that Ukraine also has tremendous innovation in new tactics and strategies such as with drones and using existing ones like with the Patriot system.

Is Europe Capitalizing Enough on Ukraine’s Drone Innovation?

Ukraine’s experience with drones demonstrates that adaptation remains essential – so how is Europe taking advantage of Ukraine’s pioneering efforts? Denmark plans to send soldiers to Ukraine this summer to study Ukraine’s rapid innovations in drone warfare – advances that now account for around 70-80% of Russian casualties. Inspired by Ukraine’s success, several European countries, including Estonia, Denmark, Finland, and Britain, are building drone training and testing centers to prepare their militaries for modern warfare.

Ukraine has also sent instructors to the UK to share frontline expertise, as European forces race to adapt to challenges like enemy jamming and the integration of unmanned systems into their operations. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also recently announced a large boost in defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, citing lessons from Ukraine’s evolving war. “Drones and autonomous systems are reshaping the front lines. It’s why we must strengthen our defenses,” he said.

The UK recently unveiled its new StormShroud autonomous drone, designed to support Typhoon and F-35 fighter jets by jamming enemy radars, which was shaped by lessons from Ukraine. In Germany, the startup Stark has developed the Virtus loitering munition, an AI-powered, electric VTOL drone capable of high-speed strikes up to 155 mph, autonomous targeting, and operation in communication-denied environments. Both of these developments reflect how Ukraine is influencing next-generation drone warfare across Europe.

“Whether you want to believe it or not, whether you have or are about to sign contracts for tanks and helicopters for the next 10 years, the nature of military power has already changed,” said Zaluzhnyi. Germany appears to be acting on that reality, pushing forward with an ambitious initiative to transform European defenses.

Germany is currently working on plans to build a “drone wall” along NATO’s eastern border to deter future Russian aggression, using hundreds or even thousands of drones as a surveillance and early warning system. It’s a strategy that reflects how drone warfare increasingly favors defense over offense.

Ukraine’s frontline experience has made it clear: in future high-tech wars, the winner will be the one who adapts to the technological conditions of the battlefield faster than the enemy. Ukraine’s leadership is pursuing a “robots first” military strategy, showing the world what the future of warfare looks like. Now, after years of resisting what was once seen as the world’s second-strongest military, it is Ukraine that is now imparting battlefield lessons, and Europe is finally listening.

Tags: AI, Army Futures Command (AFC), Artificial Intelligence, Black Sea, defense industrial base, Defense Industry, drones, Europe, FPV drones, innovation, Lessons from Ukraine, military innovation, NATO, robots, Russia, U.S. Army, Ukraine

About The Author

• 
  
• David Kirichenko
• David Kirichenko is an Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. His work on warfare has been featured in the Atlantic Council, Center for European Policy Analysis, and the Modern Warfare Institute, among many others. He can be found on X/Twitter @DVKirichenko.

20. Trump Has No China Trade Strategy

​Ouch. If you have lost the Wall Street Journal editorial board...

There is a pattern in the news these recents weeks. People from across the spectrum are talking about the importance of allies to America.

​Excerpts:

This gets to the larger problem with Mr. Trump’s tariff strategy—that is, he doesn’t have one. His latest walk-back shows he can’t bully China as he tried to do in his first term. China has leverage of its own.

A smarter trade strategy would be to work with allies as a united front to counter China’s predatory trade practices. Instead, Mr. Trump has used tariffs as an economic scatter-gun against friends as well as foes. This increases China’s leverage, and, like this week’s trade truce, that’s nothing to cheer about.

Trump Has No China Trade Strategy

Washington and Beijing stage a tactical retreat that shows China’s leverage.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/china-trade-talks-donald-trump-tariffs-f730f437

By The Editorial Board

Follow

June 11, 2025 5:42 pm ET

Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in a composite image. Photo: evgenia novozhenina/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

President Trump on Wednesday hailed the result of the latest trade talks with China as a great victory, but the best we can say is that it’s a truce that tilts in China’s direction.

Details are few, but the countries appear to be resetting their trade relationship to where it was a few months ago before a tit-for-tat escalation. Mr. Trump had agreed to reduce tariffs on China to 30% (55% including those he imposed during his first term) from 145% while China dropped its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%.

But Beijing continued to leverage its stranglehold on rare-earth minerals and magnets, which are used in fighter jets, medical lasers, drones, electric-vehicle engines and more. China’s export controls forced some auto makers to idle plants, slowed production of drones needed in Ukraine, and threatened U.S. manufacturing.

Beijing will ease its restrictions on rare-earth minerals and magnets for six months while the U.S. will relax its restrictions on the sale of jet engines and ethane to China. The U.S. will keep its export controls on advanced chips, which are a hindrance to Mr. Xi’s AI ambitions though some developers like DeepSeek are using work-arounds.

The Administration also agreed to rescind restrictions on Chinese student visas so the children of Communist Party officials can study at U.S. universities. Trump officials claimed the purpose of the visa restrictions was to protect national security, but they may have been a bargaining chip to get Beijing to back down on rare-earth minerals.

Trade wars are mutually destructive, though Mr. Trump’s export controls harmed American businesses as well as the Chinese. China relies on U.S. ethane, a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, for its petrochemical manufacturing. Because the U.S. has few other export markets, Mr. Trump’s embargo could have throttled domestic oil and gas production.

U.S. manufacturers will no doubt welcome the rare-earth mineral reprieve, but China is keeping the gun on the bargaining table by putting a six-month limit on export licenses. That means if trade tensions flare again, Mr. Xi can resort to the same threat.

China first weaponized its dominance in rare-earth minerals in a conflict with Japan in 2010 involving the Senkaku Islands, but the U.S. and its allies were slow to develop alternatives. Will they now get the message?

Developing an alternative supply will take years and require cooperation with allies because the U.S. can’t produce and process all the rare earths it needs. Japan has pitched a rare-earths alliance as part of tariff negotiations, and the Administration would be wise to expand such a partnership with other allies.

This gets to the larger problem with Mr. Trump’s tariff strategy—that is, he doesn’t have one. His latest walk-back shows he can’t bully China as he tried to do in his first term. China has leverage of its own.

A smarter trade strategy would be to work with allies as a united front to counter China’s predatory trade practices. Instead, Mr. Trump has used tariffs as an economic scatter-gun against friends as well as foes. This increases China’s leverage, and, like this week’s trade truce, that’s nothing to cheer about.

(resolute music)

0 of 6 minutes, 28 secondsVolume 0%

05:07

00:0006:28

Journal Editorial Report: Will President Trump's trade agenda survive U.S. Courts?

Appeared in the June 12, 2025, print edition as 'Trump Has No China Trade Strategy'.

21. Hybrid Logistics: Lessons from Brazil’s VIKING Experience for the War in Ukraine

​Brazil, Vikings, Ukraine, Logistics. (well maybe not actual Vikings).

Excerpts:

Conclusion: Practical Steps Forward

VIKING offers practical lessons for logistics in hybrid conflicts like the War in Ukraine. Operational resilience can be significantly enhanced by decentralizing supply chains with mobile depots, equipping drones with countermeasures against interference and integrating AI for optimization, and adopting shared tracking protocols. These lessons are not only applicable to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine but also will be to future hybrid conflicts in other regions, such as the Indo-Pacific. Tensions between China and regional actors like Taiwan and the Philippines will have similar logistical challenges. For instance, in a potential Indo-Pacific conflict, contested maritime routes and cyber threats would demand the same kind of decentralized and tech-enabled logistics strategies tested in VIKING, ensuring that forces can sustain operations in disputed areas like the South China Sea.

Brazil’s experience is particularly valuable for international readers due to its ability to operate in extreme environments, such as the Amazon, and its skill in integrating civilian and military efforts, as demonstrated in VIKING. These capabilities provide an adaptable model for other nations facing logistical challenges in hybrid scenarios, from the Sahel to the Middle East and beyond. For military forces worldwide, these lessons are a call to action. The War in Ukraine shows that logistics can determine the success or failure of a campaign in hybrid environments. Future VIKING editions should intensify testing of emerging technologies—such as AI for logistical forecasting and swarm drone systems. They also must deepen partnerships with nations like Brazil, whose experience can enrich global military strategies. By applying VIKING’s lessons, forces can better prepare for the complex battlefields of today and the potential conflicts of tomorrow.

Hybrid Logistics: Lessons from Brazil’s VIKING Experience for the War in Ukraine

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/06/12/hybrid-logistics-lessons/

by Danilo Camargo

|

06.12.2025 at 06:00am

Abstract

This article examines logistical lessons from the VIKING exercise, focusing on Brazil’s unique contributions then applies them to the War in Ukraine, a quintessential hybrid conflict. It highlights three key areas: mobility through decentralized supply chains, technological integration with drones and artificial intelligence (AI), and multinational interoperability. Drawing on Brazil’s expertise in challenging environments, like the Amazon, the article concludes by offering practical recommendations to enhance operational resilience in Ukraine and in potential future conflicts. The integration of civil and military capabilities, alongside the strategic use of technologies, is argued to be crucial for success in hybrid warfare scenarios.

Introduction

Logistics are a critical element for military success in the 21st Century. Today, hybrid conflict challenges traditional logistics models as they blend conventional warfare, cyber operations, drone usage, and asymmetric threats. The disruption of supply chains, attacks on infrastructure, and the need for multinational coordination challenges even the most prepared forces. Examples such as the conflict in Syria, where armed groups used hybrid tactics to block supply routes, and operations in the Sahel, marked by hostile terrain and precarious logistics, illustrate the complexity of these scenarios. In such situations, the ability to maintain the flow of resources can determine the outcome of a campaign.

Moreover, the War in Ukraine, which began in 2022, further underscores the centrality of logistics in hybrid conflicts. Russian attacks on railways and depots have forced Ukrainian forces to adopt innovative solutions. These global challenges demand practical lessons that can be applied across different contexts. The VIKING Exercise, a multinational simulation held every four years since 1999, provides a unique testing ground for logistics under complex conditions. Described as “the world’s largest peacekeeping mission simulation,” VIKING brings together dozens of nations to tackle scenarios ranging from peace operations to hybrid threats.

VIKING 18, held in 2018, was a milestone for Brazil. It became the first non-European country to host one of five regional headquarters, in Brasília. This exercise yielded valuable lessons on logistics under pressure, from disrupted supply chains to multinational coordination challenges. Brazil’s experience is particularly relevant for international readers. It offers practical insights for global hybrid conflicts due to its unique expertise in operating in challenging environments like the Amazon and its ability to coordinate civilian and military efforts in complex scenarios. This article examines the logistical lessons from VIKING, focusing on Brazil’s experience, and applies them to the War in Ukraine, a classic case of hybrid conflict. The text explores three main areas: mobility and flexibility, technological integration, and multinational interoperability. It concludes with practical recommendations for military forces facing hybrid warfare today.

Logistical Challenges in VIKING

VIKING 18, conducted from April 16 to 26, 2018, involved over 2,500 participants from 50 countries, simulating a crisis that included peace operations, disaster response, and hybrid threats. Brazil hosted one of the five regional headquarters in Brasília, coordinated by the Land Operations Command (COTER). The exercise tested civil-military coordination and logistics in a simulated environment with blocked roads, attacked convoys, and partial infrastructure colapse.

Mobility Under Pressure

A major logistical challenge in VIKING 18 was ensuring the mobility of supplies in a simulated environment with limited infrastructure. Brazilian forces faced scenarios where roads were blocked by “enemy forces,” mirroring real-world conditions of hybrid conflicts (COTER/EB, n.d.). To address this, supplies were decentralized, with small forward depots established near operational units. This approach reduced delivery times by 25%, according to exercise reports, allowing units to maintain flexibility despite disruptions.

This tactic aligns with lessons from other exercises, such as Norway’s Cold Response 2016, where supplies were distributed in small batches to avoid reliance on vulnerable logistical hubs. However, the hybrid scenarios of VIKING 18 added layers of complexity with simulated cyber threats and asymmetric attacks, demanding solutions beyond traditional logistics. These solutions included the integration of real-time cyber defense mechanisms to protect logistical networks, such as deploying secure communication protocols and redundant data systems to counter simulated cyberattacks. Additionally, VIKING emphasized decentralized command structures, enabling rapid decision-making at the tactical level to respond to asymmetric threats, such as ambushes or sabotage by non-state actors. For instance, small, agile logistical units were pre-positioned to maintain supply chains under disrupted conditions, drawing on predictive analytics to anticipate potential points of failure. These adaptive measures ensured operational continuity in the face of hybrid threats, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary approaches that combine logistics, cybersecurity, and tactical flexibility.

Initial Reflections on Technology

In 2018 the use of drones for logistics was still nascent but VIKING included discussions on their potential. How drones could deliver lightweight supplies—such as medical kits or spare parts—to hard-to-reach areas was explored. Although drones were not used during the exercise, the scenarios highlighted their future value, particularly in locations where roads were unusable. Vulnerabilities were also identified, such as the risk of cyber interference, which would become a central concern in later conflicts. Participants discussed the potential for cyberattacks to disable drones, emphasizing the need for encrypted communication systems to ensure operational reliability.

Moreover, VIKING touched on the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in logistics, a topic that has since gained significant traction. The exercise included theoretical discussions on how AI could be used for predictive logistics, such as forecasting supply needs based on real-time data from the battlefield. While these ideas were not implemented during VIKING, they foreshadowed the growing importance of AI in modern warfare, as seen in later exercises like the U.S. Army’s Project Convergence 2022, which tested AI-driven logistics to optimize supply chain management. These early reflections from VIKING 18 laid a foundation for understanding how technology can transform logistics in hybrid warfare.

Challenges in Multinational Coordination

Interoperability posed a significant obstacle in VIKING 18. Working alongside NATO countries and other partners, Brazil faced initial difficulties due to differences in logistical protocols, from packaging standards to tracking systems. Early in the exercise, 35% of simulated deliveries were delayed due to these incompatibilities. The solution was the adoption of shared tracking protocols, which improved coordination by 20% by the end of the exercise.

This challenge mirrors findings from NATO’s Trident Juncture 2018, which identified logistical interoperability as a weakness in joint operations. VIKING provided a practical environment to test solutions, offering a model for real-world applications in hybrid conflicts.

Applying VIKING Lessons to the War in Ukraine

The War in Ukraine exemplifies hybrid conflict, with conventional battles, cyberattacks, and extensive drone use creating a logistical nightmare. Russian attacks on critical infrastructure—bridges, railways, and depots—combined with cyber disruptions, have overwhelmed Ukrainian supply lines. By early 2025, Russian forces escalated their targeting of energy infrastructure, such as power plants in Kyiv, which disrupted logistics by causing blackouts that affected transportation and storage of perishable supplies. At the same time, Ukraine has made strides in its logistical resilience, leveraging decentralized networks and international support to sustain operations. VIKING’s lessons offer practical solutions to these evolving challenges.

Decentralized Supply Chains

VIKING’s decentralization strategy is directly applicable to Ukraine. By 2024, Ukrainian forces had adopted a similar approach, establishing small depots near the front lines to reduce reliance on large logistical hubs vulnerable to missile strikes. In Kharkiv for instance, mobile depots ensured the supply of ammunition and food to isolated units, even after Russian attacks destroyed main routes. Ukraine further refined this approach by integrating local civilian networks to support these depots, ensuring a steady flow of supplies despite ongoing Russian drone strikes on key highways. VIKING’s experience suggests that Ukraine could enhance this tactic by using camouflaged and mobile depots, relocated regularly to avoid detection. In VIKING, Brazilian forces simulated the use of small, camouflaged supply units that were repositioned frequently to evade simulated enemy reconnaissance, ensuring logistical resilience in disrupted environments. This approach aligns with lessons from NATO’s Trident Juncture 2018, where mobile logistics units employed decoys and irregular relocation schedules to counter electronic warfare threats. For Ukraine, implementing such tactics could involve equipping mobile depots with low-signature materials to evade Russian drone surveillance and integrating AI-driven predictive models to optimize relocation schedules, thereby mitigating the impact of drone strikes and electronic jamming reported in 2025. These interdisciplinary measures, combining camouflage, mobility, and technology, underscore the adaptability of VIKING’s logistical innovations to real-world hybrid conflicts..

Drones in Logistics

Ukraine has extensively used drones for logistics, delivering supplies to isolated units in areas like Donetsk. However, these drones face challenges such as cyber interference and limited payload capacity, issues already anticipated in discussions on hybrid conflicts. On 2025, Russian forces have increasingly deployed electronic warfare systems to jam Ukrainian drone communications, with reports indicating failure in drone delivery missions in the Donbas region. VIKING’s reflections on drone vulnerabilities highlight the need for better countermeasures. Ukraine could improve drone operations by equipping them with encrypted and redundant communication systems to resist interference, a lesson reinforced by later exercises like the U.S. Army’s National Training Center simulations. Using small drone swarms for redundancy could also ensure supplies reach their destination, even if some are intercepted.

Additionally, the integration of AI into drone logistics, as discussed in VIKING, offers further potential. AI can optimize flight paths, predict enemy interference patterns, and manage swarm coordination, increasing the efficiency of drone deliveries. In 2025, Ukraine has demonstrated interest in and initiated efforts to explore the potential of Artificial Intelligence-driven logistics, possibly in collaboration with international partners. While specific details regarding joint pilot programs with NATO and quantified improvements in delivery success rates in contested areas are not widely publicized, the focus on logistical innovation and partner support suggests a movement in this direction. VIKING’s early discussions on AI’s role in logistics provide a framework for these advancements, underscoring the exercise’s foresight.

Improving Interoperability

Ukraine’s reliance on NATO logistical support has exposed interoperability gaps, with delays in Western supply deliveries due to incompatible standards—a common issue in multinational operations. In early 2025, delays in delivering artillery shells to Ukraine were reported due to differences in NATO and Ukrainian inventory tracking systems, slowing down operations in the Zaporizhzhia region. VIKING’s solution—adopting shared tracking protocols—can help. During the exercise, these protocols reduced delivery errors by 20%, a model Ukraine could replicate to streamline NATO aid. More joint training with NATO allies, similar to VIKING’s multinational format, would also build the trust and coordination needed for more efficient logistics in high-intensity operations.

Brazil’s Contribution

Brazil’s participation in VIKING brought a fresh perspective, shaped by its experience in challenging environments like the Amazon. Logistics in the Amazon requires navigating difficult terrain and dealing with limited infrastructure. These conditions echo the challenges of hybrid conflict. During VIKING, Brazil excelled in civil-military coordination (CIMIC), a core aspect of the exercise. The ability to integrate civilian and military actors in logistical management was tested in simulated humanitarian aid scenarios, enabling the efficient delivery of supplies to affected populations, even under adverse conditions. This expertise can be applied in Ukraine, where coordination with humanitarian organizations is essential for logistical success. Establishing clear communication channels between military forces and NGOs, as practiced in VIKING, could expedite supply distribution in conflict zones, particularly in cities like Mariupol, where delivering aid amidst fighting has been a persistent challenge.

Brazil’s experience in domestic security operations also offers lessons. During the 2014 FIFA World Cup, logistics were coordinated in complex urban scenarios under security constraints, using alternative routes to avoid disruptions. In Ukraine, where main roads are frequent targets of Russian attacks, adopting secondary and less visible routes, as tested in Brazilian operations, could ensure the continuous flow of supplies to troops and civilians.

Table 1: Logistical Challenges in VIKING 18 and Ukraine

AspectVIKING 18War in UkraineRecommendationMobilityBlocked roads, hostile terrainInfrastructure destroyed by Russian attacksUse mobile and camouflaged depotsTechnologyInitial discussions on drones, cyber risksDrones used, but vulnerable to interferenceEquip drones with encrypted communication and AI optimizationInteroperabilityDifferences in protocols with alliesDelays in NATO supply deliveriesAdopt shared tracking protocols

Gender Considerations in Logistics

VIKING also highlighted the importance of a gender perspective in logistics. Exercise modules emphasized the need to address women’s specific needs in peace operations, such as providing hygiene kits and ensuring safe routes for distributing aid to refugees. In Ukraine, where displaced women and children form the majority, this approach could improve humanitarian support. Ensuring supply chains include essentials for women and that delivery routes are safe for aid distribution would enhance operational effectiveness and strengthen local support for Ukrainian forces.

Conclusion: Practical Steps Forward

VIKING offers practical lessons for logistics in hybrid conflicts like the War in Ukraine. Operational resilience can be significantly enhanced by decentralizing supply chains with mobile depots, equipping drones with countermeasures against interference and integrating AI for optimization, and adopting shared tracking protocols. These lessons are not only applicable to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine but also will be to future hybrid conflicts in other regions, such as the Indo-Pacific. Tensions between China and regional actors like Taiwan and the Philippines will have similar logistical challenges. For instance, in a potential Indo-Pacific conflict, contested maritime routes and cyber threats would demand the same kind of decentralized and tech-enabled logistics strategies tested in VIKING, ensuring that forces can sustain operations in disputed areas like the South China Sea.

Brazil’s experience is particularly valuable for international readers due to its ability to operate in extreme environments, such as the Amazon, and its skill in integrating civilian and military efforts, as demonstrated in VIKING. These capabilities provide an adaptable model for other nations facing logistical challenges in hybrid scenarios, from the Sahel to the Middle East and beyond. For military forces worldwide, these lessons are a call to action. The War in Ukraine shows that logistics can determine the success or failure of a campaign in hybrid environments. Future VIKING editions should intensify testing of emerging technologies—such as AI for logistical forecasting and swarm drone systems. They also must deepen partnerships with nations like Brazil, whose experience can enrich global military strategies. By applying VIKING’s lessons, forces can better prepare for the complex battlefields of today and the potential conflicts of tomorrow.

Notes

1. Data on VIKING 18 were obtained from COTER/EB reports and secondary sources such as Caiafa (2018) and Hamann (2018).

2. Information on the War in Ukraine is based on public reports from 2024 and early 2025.

Tags: Hybrid Warfare, Lessons Learned, logistics, VIKING 18

About The Author

• 
  
• Danilo Camargo
• The author is a Sergeant in the Brazilian Army, with expertise in military logistics and joint training operations. Having participated in the VIKING 18 exercise in Brasília, he provided direct insights into logistical challenges that shaped this article. His work focuses on operational strategies and civil-military coordination in complex scenarios. He also currently works on the inspection of controlled products in Brazilian territory.

22. Opinion: White House Indecisiveness Threatens Europe and Ukraine’s Security

​Excerpts:

As Zelensky told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz Sunday evening, “We don’t really know if they will stop this war.”

But we do. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made that clear in April when he said that “Russia will accept nothing less than total victory over Ukraine.”

Deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev later boasted: “The Russian army is pushing forward and will continue to advance… Everything that needs to be blown up will be blown up, and those who must be eliminated will be.”

President Trump needs to be part of the solution – he cannot take a neutral position and watch how this all plays out. It is time to get back on board with our European allies and stand-up to the Russian threat or the killing he despises will continue.

Simple fact – the killing stops when Russia stops attacking.

But they will not. Last night the Kremlin launched another 500 drones and 20 missiles of various types into central and western Ukraine – again targeting civilians.

And Ukraine keeps on keeping on. As of June 9, Russian casualties are rapidly approaching the one million mark – 997,120.

Opinion: White House Indecisiveness Threatens Europe and Ukraine’s Security

kyivpost.com · by Jonathan Sweet, Mark Toth · June 11, 2025

President Trump seems reluctant to get tough with Russia. Putin knows that and is playing him to the detriment of Europe’s security and Ukraine’s survival.

By Jonathan Sweet

By Mark Toth

June 11, 2025, 4:53 pm

(COMBO) This combination of pictures created on June 04, 2025 shows, L/R, US President Donald Trump in Morristown, New Jersey, May 23, 2025, and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 28, 2025.(Photo by SAUL LOEB and Pavel Bednyakov / various sources / AFP)

After 141 days of failed ceasefire negotiations between Ukraine and Russia led by the United States – namely Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Special Envoy Steven Witkoff, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – President Donald Trump is acting more like a disinterested third party than the leader of the free world.

Shortly after Ukrainian attack drones, concealed in Russian cargo trucks, destroyed 34 percent of the Russian strategic bomber fleet used to launch cruise missile attacks against Ukrainian cities, the President reached out to Putin.

The call, as noted by Lev Parnas, took more of a conciliatory tone: “Instead of calling [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to offer congratulations or solidarity, Trump called Russia to console them. He expressed frustration with Ukraine – not Russia – for what he described as failing to inform him about the airfield attacks… Trump didn’t call the victim, he called the aggressor. And he came back from the call echoing the Kremlin’s position – not America’s.”

President Trump needs to be part of the solution – he cannot take a neutral position and watch how this all plays out.

In the call, the president said that Putin told him “very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields,” adding “it’s probably not going to be pretty.” The president acknowledged the comment, but made no mention of trying to sway Putin from the decision.

The US intel chief’s ominous warning makes her seem more unhinged by conspiratorial thinking than she usually is. Gabbard is doubling down on her penchant for spouting Kremlin narratives.

For the Kremlin, that omission provided tacit permission to retaliate against Ukraine. On June 6 – a day best known for the heroic actions of allied troops on the beaches of Normandy – Putin’s military cowardly launched another massive bombardment of cities throughout Ukraine with 407 strike drones and 45 missiles, killing nine civilians and wounding 80.

The Russian Defense Ministry announced the assault was launched “in response to the terrorist acts” of Ukraine.

Shortly after the strike, President Trump commented, “They [Ukraine] gave them [Russia] reason to go and bomb the hell out of them last night.”

But what the President fails to comprehend is that this was not a Russian retaliatory strike; rather, an extension of Russian tactics targeting Ukrainian civilians in their homes to instill fear – the very definition of terrorism.

Russia deliberately strikes civilian targets while Ukraine strikes Russian weapon systems and the platforms from where they are delivered. They also target the Kremlin’s ability to wage and fund the war.

The President’s disdain for Zelensky is alarming for European leaders, while his inability to recognize that Putin is the “root cause” of Moscow’s “special military operation” adds to their concerns.

Trump’s so-called bromance with Putin, coupled with his misguided pursuit of economic deals with Russia to “create massive amounts of jobs and wealth” is clouding his judgement.

Just last March the president told Laura Ingraham, “Putin actually said to me, ‘If you don’t mind, friend, I hate to see you as my enemy.’ He said it very strongly.”

The Russian President had Trump at “friend” – a lesson learned from the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. In his book The Art of War, Sun Tzu teaches, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”

Putin knows Trump; every phone call leaves the President convinced Zelensky is the problem and further support to Ukraine is not the best interest of the US. The White House’s post phone call actions give credence to that line of reasoning.

Pentagon and President gone AWOL

On June 3, the Pentagon abruptly announced that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth would neither attend nor remotely participate in the 57-member Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels. The group has collectively provided Ukraine with over $126 billion in weapons and military assistance, including $66.5 billion from the US.

On June 4, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, said that the President asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune not to bring a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill – introduced on April 1 by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), that seeks to impose a 500% tariff on imports from countries that continue purchasing Russian oil and raw materials – to a vote this week.

According to the Wall Street Journal, on Friday the White House and other administration officials contacted Graham’s office “urging him to water down his bill, namely by inserting waivers that would allow Trump to choose who or what gets sanctioned,” and changing the word “shall” to “may” wherever it appears in the bill’s text, removing mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands, congressional aides said.

And while Ukraine has held their own in the close fight, they are insufficiently armed to defend against the daily drone, ballistic and cruise missile attacks on their cities. Making matters worse, the Trump administration recently redirected key anti-drone technology earmarked away from Ukraine to US Air Force units in the Middle East.

Nothing has really changed, except for the amount of military assistance coming from the US.

In an address to the Ukrainian people on June 7, Zelensky said, “We are working to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense. We urgently need positive signals from the United States – concrete signals regarding air defense systems. We are still waiting for a response to our request to purchase systems that can help – concrete signals, not words.”

For Russia, peace is obtained when Ukraine stops resisting and Zelensky is no longer the president. For that to happen, Putin needs for the West to stop supplying military assistance to Zelensky. He has been successful in slow-rolling the White House effort; however, Europe has become the stumbling block, led by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who just concluded his visit to the US and left feeling “optimistic.”

Furthermore, on June 6 the Baltic States issued a joint statement reaffirming their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – “supporting Ukraine until its full victory including the liberation of all temporarily occupied territories, accountability for war crimes, and full implementation of international justice” – and their pursuit of European Union and NATO membership.

So nothing has really changed, except for the amount of military assistance coming from the US. As Russia reoccupies and fortifies military bases along their border with Finland, and contemplates deploying 10,000 troops to Transnistria, Old NATO and New NATO realize their fate likely rests on the outcome of the Ukraine war.

As Zelensky told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz Sunday evening, “We don’t really know if they will stop this war.”

But we do. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made that clear in April when he said that “Russia will accept nothing less than total victory over Ukraine.”

Deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev later boasted: “The Russian army is pushing forward and will continue to advance… Everything that needs to be blown up will be blown up, and those who must be eliminated will be.”

President Trump needs to be part of the solution – he cannot take a neutral position and watch how this all plays out. It is time to get back on board with our European allies and stand-up to the Russian threat or the killing he despises will continue.

Simple fact – the killing stops when Russia stops attacking.

But they will not. Last night the Kremlin launched another 500 drones and 20 missiles of various types into central and western Ukraine – again targeting civilians.

And Ukraine keeps on keeping on. As of June 9, Russian casualties are rapidly approaching the one million mark – 997,120.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.

Jonathan Sweet

Army Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet (@JESweet2022) served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14.

Mark Toth

Mark Toth (@MCTothSTL) writes on national security and foreign policy. Previously an economist and entrepreneur, he has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. A former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, he has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world.

23. Latvian armed forces to establish a 'Ranger' sub-unit

​Every country needs a Ranger unit (or sub-unit - though I do not think they're talking about submarines - though Submarine Rangers might be a new joint concept - forgive my attempt at humor).

Latvian armed forces to establish a 'Ranger' sub-unit

Yesterday, 10:05Defence

Authors: LSM+ English (Latvian Public Media)

The Special Operations Command of the National Armed Forces (NBS) has launched a new capability – a 'Ranger' (Reindžers in Latvian) sub-unit, according to the NBS statement on 11 June.

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/defence/11.06.2025-latvian-armed-forces-to-establish-a-ranger-sub-unit.a602801/

Rangers are specially selected and trained soldiers who are skilled in small-unit tactics, special reconnaissance, and direct action.

The ranger sub-unit will be able to perform all the basic tasks assigned to NATO Special Operations Forces: military assistance, special reconnaissance and direct action.

In addition, the rangers will be able to conduct unconventional warfare, supporting national resistance movements and using non-linear, asymmetric tactics.

The rangers will also be able to support counter-terrorism operations, thereby strengthening the country's internal security and ability to respond quickly to hybrid threats. This capability will significantly enhance the special operations capacity of the National Armed Forces, NBS said.

Soldiers who express an interest in becoming rangers will undergo an assessment and entrance examination, after which they will begin six months of initial training, following which they will receive the qualification of ‘ranger’. The qualification obtained allows them to take up a position in a ranger subunit and begin special tactics and speciality training, which, upon successful completion, entitles them to participate in special operations.

The next first-level training is scheduled to begin in March 2026.

Those interested are invited to apply by writing to dienests.suv@mil.lv.

24. Three reasons why China can't afford to invade Taiwan

​Logical but wishful thinking? I want to believe this is true.

But the most important lesson I have learned from China (Sun Tzu) is "Never assume your enemy will not attack. Make yourself invincible."

Weren't the stakes too high before World War One?

Is this a rehashed modern version of  Norman Angell and The Great Illusion?

https://archive.org/details/cu31924007365467/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell

Three reasons why China can't afford to invade Taiwan

From microchips to maritime trade, the stakes make military action an economic gamble Beijing can’t take

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

1. regions asia pacific taiwan

Zoe Desch

Jun 11, 2025

Taiwan has become a focal point for the U.S.-China conflict, with the Pentagon turning its attention towards a hypothetical conflict with China — referring to it as the “sole pacing threat” — and China continuing combat and blockade drills around the island.

However, despite China’s demonstrations of military power, Taiwan’s unique economic niche and geographic position make it a particularly thorny target for Beijing. The Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy rests largely on the robust economy it has built, and the direct economic repercussions of an invasion or blockade of Taiwan stand to shatter the foundations of Beijing’s domestic power.

There are three non-military conditions that make a full military assault or blockade of Taiwan a nonviable option for the CCP. First is the global importance of Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturing base, second is the impact on trade and the shipping industry running through the Taiwan Strait and Luzon Strait, and third is China’s own less-than-favorable economic conditions.

The semiconductor issue

Taiwan is the largest manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. In the fourth quarter of 2024, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) —Taiwan’s largest producer of semiconductors — took a 67.1% market share of all chips globally, and produced nearly all of the most advanced chips. There is no viable replacement for Taiwan’s manufacturing in the semiconductor market; not only does the nation represent a massive share of the chip industry, its infrastructure uniquely supports the scale and quality of production.

Semiconductors represent an irreplaceable enabler of global economic activities. If Taiwan were to stop producing chips, both the American and Chinese economies — not to mention the world economy — would contract and ignite a global depression. Chips enable electrical grids, manufacturing, home utilities, automobiles, and more; they have permeated every facet of the global economy.

Semiconductors are not an end in themselves, they are a means to an end, enabling innovation and emerging technologies like AI and robotics. Taiwan’s dominance in this critical market is referred to as its “silicon shield,” which means that the U.S. and China are invested in protecting its output.

An offensive or blockade against the island nation would have a profound global economic impact. The most important global economies rely on the chips manufactured in Taiwan. With demand for chips only growing, losing Taiwan's manufacturing base could throttle global supply chains for years to come.

Inefficacy of military action

Chinese military action would disrupt the global commerce running through the Taiwan and Luzon Straits. The straits on either side of Taiwan are thoroughfares for international trade, with Taiwan’s own ports handling $586 billion in trade in 2022, and an estimated $2.45 trillion transiting the strait in the same time period. Besides Taiwan, China’s ports are most likely to be impacted, with ships diverting from the ports along China’s eastern coast.

While global shipping lanes can likely divert around a conflict zone without significantly raising prices, China’s role in maritime shipping infrastructure means that conflict would have a direct negative impact on some of China’s most lucrative ports and port cities, with ships no longer making stops along a broad swath of the coast.

Ships will not be able to access the extensive network of maintenance and repair sites along the Chinese coast, as well as cargo processing sites. The loss of access to some of these ports would have knock-on effects for the global shipping industry if there is a protracted conflict or blockade, leaving remaining ports to deal with the spillover.

Geopolitically, China would have to reckon with the Global South and BRICS nations, whose trade relies on the straits even more than the G7. Given that China is courting these nations diplomatically, impeding their trade could set off a diplomatic fiasco that Beijing would likely want to avoid.

Already poor economic conditions

China is not in a strong economic position as it has been reined in by the lingering aftereffects of its real estate crisis, subdued domestic consumption, and the impacts and uncertainty created by the trade war’s tariffs. Kicking off a global crisis would likely exacerbate the economic issues it currently faces. Furthermore, Taiwan represents up to 60% of China’s own chip imports. If China attacks Taiwan it stands to cripple its own industries by starving them of chips. Besides chips imports, the PRC is heavily dependent on trade — comprising 37% of its GDP — making it even more vulnerable to disruptions in global trade.

According to a study done by Bloomberg Economics, in the event of a blockade, global GDP would be down 5%, with China and the U.S. seeing shrinkage of 8.9% and 3.3%, respectively. And in the event of an invasion, global GDP would be down 10.2%, with South Korea, Japan, and other East Asian nations seeing the worst of the impact. The resulting $10 trillion price tag on merely the first year of the crisis incentivizes the stakeholders to avoid confrontation. If any or all of Taiwan’s foundries are destroyed, the impact would be even greater and the economic depression would last for a decade or more as nations attempt to build out their own profitable foundries. Not to mention that this would likely create a permanent rift between China and trade with the U.S. and the EU.

While both China and the U.S. attempt to relieve their respective reliance on Taiwanese chips through domestic production, Taiwan retains its most advanced nodes on its territory in order to maintain global dependence on its chips industry. Cajoling from both the U.S. and China has brought TSMC investment and factories to both nations, but these nodes do not represent a viable replacement for Taiwan’s output.

Given these three factors, China would have to be certain that it would be able to take Taiwan quickly, and with minimal damage to the delicate foundries and their personnel. With an ongoing purge of the PLA due to corruption concerns, it seems there is either widespread corruption or a political purge, both of which put a damper on readiness. If Xi’s generals are corrupt that means readiness isn’t where it should be, if it’s a political purge then it impacts morale and cohesion.

If Taiwan shapes itself into a high-stakes/low value target it can remain largely untouchable because of the economic structures surrounding it. These economic shields could compound if Taiwan engages in military strategies such as becoming a “porcupine,” to make itself a hard military target as well — engaging in anti-access/area denial strategies with high volumes of antiship missiles, sea mines, and air defense systems.

Taiwan's main value to China is through its nationalistic claims to the island. China’s issue with Taiwanese independence also hinges on U.S. assurances that it will not deny China access to the lagging edge chips Taiwan’s foundries export to China and that it will not separate the island from the mainland.

As long as the island does not move towards independence and continues to “porcupine,” the structural economic factors play to the island's advantage, making it easier for the Chinese to ignore the situation, for now, to maintain the favorable economic conditions of the region.

Zoe Desch

Zoe Desch is the Executive Assistant to the CEO of the Quincy Institute and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and the Notre Dame International Security Center’s fellow program. She has also worked at the National Defense Industrial Association, the Emerging Technologies Institute, and the National Defense University with the Global Supply Chains lead.

The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates​.

25. The Fiery Fall of the Wagner Group: An Excerpt from "Putin's Sledgehammer"

The Fiery Fall of the Wagner Group: An Excerpt from "Putin's Sledgehammer"

https://www.newamerica.org/the-thread/putins-sledgehammer-and-the-fall-of-the-wagner-group/

Article In The Thread

Aleksey Dushutin via Shutterstock

By  Candace Rondeaux

June 10, 2025

In Putin’s Sledgehammer, New America Senior Director Candace Rondeaux traces the rise of the Wagner Group and its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin. The below excerpt adapted from the new book previews how a criminal-turned-warlord helped Russia defy the international order to ramp up competition with the West—leading to his death, and leaving behind a legacy of chaos.

On June 30, 2017, a retired American Marine, blogging as “Josh,” posted a two-minute video on Funker530.com, a site popular with military veterans. The video, titled “Breaking: Terrifying Footage of Russians Torturing Prisoner with Sledgehammer,” began with a warning: “THIS VIDEO CONTAINS SCENES OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE THAT MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR SOME AUDIENCES. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.”

The footage, shot on a mobile phone in what appeared to be a desert, showed a bloodied man in a striped shirt and track pants writhing on the ground. A masked man in military fatigues repeatedly struck his arm with a sledgehammer. Nearby, another man’s severed head lay on the ground. The scene was brutal. Two men with assault rifles slung casually over their shoulders filmed the ordeal with their phones, capturing the screams of the victim as the hammer struck again and again.

Off-camera, several men laughed and joked in Russian. One who stepped briefly into the frame wore a patch featuring the evil clown face of Joker, the villain from Batman, with the words “I’m just going to hurt you very, very badly.” Then a short man in a green uniform with a closely shaved head who was wearing a black-and-white-checked Middle Eastern keffiyeh scarf stepped in closer while two others cursed and laughed maniacally. The screen went black.

The video had no obvious identifiers, making it unclear when and where it was shot or how Funker530.com had obtained it. Despite the mystery, the gory clip quickly went viral, sparking horror and a rush to identify the perpetrators. Most who tried failed. But a Russian blogger in Kyiv, Kirill Mikhailov, suspected that the assailants were members of the Wagner Group, a Kremlin-backed mercenary outfit formed with the tacit support of Vladimir Putin amid Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Known for their cruelty, Wagner’s commandos had vaulted from obscurity to global attention under the energetic leadership of Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ex-convict turned hotdog salesman and serial entrepreneur. Tied to the Kremlin on a long tether, Prigozhin was a central player in Russia’s unconventional warfare strategy. Reviled by many elites in the West, he was larger than life and beloved by the Russian man in the street. Many who followed his lead into battle had criminal backgrounds. They saw in Prigozhin and the Wagner Group a chance at redemption, a path to become heroes and make Russia great again.

“Many who followed Prigozhin’s lead into battle had criminal backgrounds. They saw in him and Wagner a path to become heroes and make Russia great again.”

By 2017, when the video cropped up, Prigozhin was also rapidly on his way to becoming one of the most sanctioned men in the world. He had earned that dubious distinction after reinventing himself as a caterer and restaurateur and serving for more than two decades as chief maître d’ to the Kremlin and to Russia’s rich and powerful. His connections to Putin and his inner circle, dating back to their days in St. Petersburg in the 1990s, gave Prigozhin ready access to the titans of Russian industry who rebuilt the country after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Prigozhin’s career encompassed grocery retail, casinos, hotels, luxury dining, catering services (earning him the sobriquet “Putin’s Chef”), real estate development, construction, and eventually defense contracting. He became the Kremlin’s top pitchman for deploying irregular paramilitary forces worldwide.

With covert support from Russian intelligence agencies, Prigozhin provided arms and mercenaries to dictators in exchange for profits from oil, gold, diamonds, timber, and other resources. Wagner’s military operations spanned three continents, stretching from Europe to the Middle East and Africa, making Prigozhin’s mercenary army a force to be reckoned with in conflicts around the world.

His propaganda exploits and experiments in media manipulation targeted dozens of countries, including the United States. Prigozhin’s Internet Research Agency, operating on the fringes of Russia’s hybrid warfare, ignited a firestorm in Silicon Valley. His operatives masqueraded as journalists, curious tourists, and social media activists, worming their way into the psyche of millions of Americans and Europeans who were already suspicious of their own governments but would—click after click on Twitter and Facebook—become even more suspicious of one another. All the while, Putin denied knowing what Prigozhin was up to, saying that the Kremlin was not involved in the Wagner Group’s operations.

From its inception, the Wagner Group was designed to insulate the Kremlin from direct responsibility for its actions. Plausible deniability was the sine qua non of the Wagner’s operations, allowing Russia to project power covertly while officially maintaining a distance from the paramilitary’s nefarious activities. For the better part of a decade, Prigozhin would—with the Kremlin’s express consent—deploy the Wagner Group to great effect, smashing through limits imposed on Russia and its allies by international sanctions. Wagner operations would succeed in expanding the market for Russian arms exports and military know-how in more than a half dozen countries.

The Wagner Group’s covert operations, whether fragmentary tall tales or outright missions, were legendary. They did not just hit targets; they also scrambled the pieces on the chessboard of geopolitical competition between Russia and the West. From providing equipment and intelligence to boot camp–style training, they turned motley militias and hollowed-out armies into formidable forces that were loyal to the autocrats whom Putin sought to cultivate in the Middle East and Africa. They were essential to Putin’s strategy of conducting war on the cheap while countering the influence of the United States and its NATO allies.

In early 2022, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine, the Wagner Group would emerge as the safety net which ensured that the Kremlin could pursue its aims, no matter the odds. These maneuvers were key to Russia’s strategy for managing escalation, keeping adversaries guessing, and keeping allies on edge. Prigozhin’s mercenaries were critical players in a game of brinkmanship, where Wagner’s actions—or the fear of them—played a crucial role in shaping Russia’s global standing.

“The Wagner Group would emerge as the safety net which ensured that the Kremlin could pursue its aims, no matter the odds.”

Over the eight years leading up to Russia’s massive incursion into Ukraine, Prigozhin had built the paramilitary into an advertisement for a more muscular Russia, one determined to rewrite the rules of the international order to its advantage. The men who worked for him embraced with gusto the Wagner Group’s informal marketing motto: “Death is our business and business is good.”

A few months before Wagner’s first sledgehammer video made its splash in 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Prigozhin for his role in constructing military bases near Russia’s western border with Ukraine. Prigozhin had by then already rocketed to the top of the FBI’s list of suspects behind a wide-ranging online influence campaign aimed at disrupting the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, damaging the candidacy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and propelling Donald Trump to the White House.

That was about the time when Kirill Mikhailov, the Russian blogger, first picked up the Wagner Group’s digital trail. In a message posted on Facebook a few hours after plunging headlong into an investigation into the origins of the video, Mikhailov had worked out roughly where the footage was shot. The revelation came after he had analyzed another video that had surfaced on the Telegram social media app two weeks earlier showing a Wagner Group fighter carrying a 1970s-era AK-74 rifle as he inspected the bodies of several dead Syrians in a rocky landscape.

“Hi everyone, from Wagner ,” the cheeky caption on the Telegram video read.

Mikhailov noticed that one of the Russian-speaking men in the sledgehammer video was also carrying an old AK-74 rifle. Another had an RPK-74 machine gun: a Soviet-era weapon that suggested that it came from the kind of old surplus stock typically provided to Wagner forces in Syria.

Analysis of satellite imagery and press accounts of ISIS battles to control Syria’s energy resources later revealed the execution spot as a natural-gas facility located a short distance from Palmyra, where Wagner Group forces had dug in. These were the first clues that a hidden profit motive was likely at work, one that extended far beyond Prigozhin’s sprawling network of enterprises.

The sledgehammer video marked a watershed moment for the Wagner Group, transforming it from a battlefield rumor to an internationally recognized brand and symbol of Russian power. The clip’s viral spread on VKontakte, Russia’s version of Facebook, led to the creation of memes, T-shirts, and other merchandise featuring an image of a hammer-wielding soldier taking a swing at a horned black demon laying prone on the ground. The sledgehammer, once an icon of Soviet industry, was reborn as a badge of Russia’s resurgence.

The Kremlin’s strategy of deploying irregular paramilitary forces under the guise of private-military companies (PMCs) exploited a vulnerability in international law. The international community has struggled to address the legal implications of the blurred line between state and private actors in conflict.

The law is even less clear about the arm’s-length arrangements between state-run companies and ostensibly private entities that profit from the plunder and pillage of proxy wars. Prigozhin’s paramilitary force thrived in this legal gray zone, enabling Russia’s smooth transition from a member in good standing in the international community to a rogue-state champion of autocracy.

Even as he helped Russia try to win back its Great Power status, Prigozhin left a trail of destruction in his wake that invited ever-greater scrutiny. The higher he flew toward the sun, the more visible were the contrails of his ruinous band of mercenaries. Eventually, the scale of the atrocities attributed to the Wagner Group drew not only sanctions from the United States and Europe but also strong admonitions from the United Nations.

Yet Prigozhin and Putin were not deterred from their quixotic crusade to reshape the global balance of power. Prigozhin skillfully marketed Wagner, turning it into a brand as recognizable as Stolichnaya is to vodka drinkers. Just as Stolichnaya conjures images of Russia and its hard-drinking culture, Wagner’s emblem—a skull in crosshairs—became infamous, with the sledgehammer as its unmistakable symbol.

Prigozhin envisioned the Wagner forces as modern-day Valkyries, guiding Russia’s fate through their militaristic ambitions. This vision crystallized with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, a campaign they believed would secure their place in history.

The massive Russian incursion brought the Wagner Group spectacularly out of the shadows, thrusting Prigozhin and his mercenary commandos into the klieg-light glare of a world stunned by the audacity of Putin’s war of aggression. The Wagner Group became notorious the world over for being the shock troops of Russia’s invading forces in Ukraine, for recruiting hardened convicts from penal colonies to plunder cities and villages already scarred by years of conflict, and for the devastating human toll that the paramilitary left in its wake. And it was over Ukraine that the marriage of convenience between the former KGB officer and the ex-convict would eventually end in betrayal on both sides with an abortive mutiny and fiery plane crash near Moscow.

In the end, the glittering notoriety he had achieved was also the force behind Prigozhin’s downfall. Just as the sledgehammer struck without mercy, so too did fate—delivering a violent and uncompromising end that mirrored the disorderly legacy he had built.

Buy Putin's Sledgehammer

26. The logic of neutrality in the Indo-Pacific

​Excerpts:

The real test is whether the United States and its allies, including Australia, can work with neutral states without demanding uniformity. That means building defence and intelligence ties even where there is no shared China policy. It means investing in connectivity and supply chains without political preconditions. And it means listening, not just messaging.

Partnerships must be modular, not monolithic. Hedging must be accommodated as reality, not viewed as defection. Neutrality complicates alliance management and weakens deterrence clarity. But effective strategy requires empathy, the ability to understand how others perceive cost, risk, and power.

Rather than lament the return of neutrality, the West should study its logic. It is not a failure of commitment. It is a mechanism for survival. And in a region this complex, survival on one’s own terms is itself an achievement.

The Indo-Pacific will not be won by forcing countries to choose. It will be shaped by how well the major powers navigate those who refuse to.

The logic of neutrality in the Indo-Pacific | Lowy Institute

Regional governments use deliberate ambiguity to extract benefits from​ both United States and China while avoiding costly commitments to either.

lowyinstitute.org · by Vincent So

The dominant strategic narrative presents the Indo-Pacific in binaries: democracies versus autocracies, the US-led order versus China’s challenge, AUKUS versus the PLA Navy. But this framing is not shared by many of the countries at the heart of the region. A quieter, older tradition is re-emerging, neither anti-Western nor pro-China, but determinedly neutral.

Neutrality is returning not as a moral evasion, but as a strategic operating system: adaptive, transactional, and attuned to the realities of geography, power asymmetry, and domestic constraint. From Indonesia and India to Vietnam and the Pacific Islands, neutrality is increasingly the rule, not the exception.

The question for Australia and its allies is whether they can work with this world, or only in opposition to it.

Not new, but reborn

Non-alignment is not new in Asia. It shaped Cold War politics through the Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. What is new is the form it is taking: less ideological, more technocratic.

Governments are resisting alignment not out of romantic idealism, but from an instinct to hedge. They want investment from China, security ties with the United States, and policy space from both.

In much of Asia, the priority is not a global contest of systems, but the local management of vulnerabilities.

The Philippines is a case in point. After pivoting towards Beijing under Rodrigo Duterte, Manila is now swinging back to Washington, cautiously, and not without insurance. Indonesia has avoided US-led statements on the South China Sea while quietly deepening defence ties with Australia and Japan. Vietnam signs strategic partnerships with both Washington and Moscow while keeping Beijing close enough to manage.

This is not indecision. It is insurance.

The limits of binary expectations

For all the talk of a values-based Indo-Pacific order, many regional states view their interests as fundamentally non-binary. They live in China’s neighbourhood. Their economies depend on Chinese trade, tourism, or capital. At the same time, their defence establishments see the United States and its allies as essential to regional stability. But even that alignment is risky. The unpredictability of successive US administrations has made many governments wary of tying their fate too tightly to Washington’s swings.

Neither camp offers a complete solution. The West demands alignment on principle. China demands alignment on silence. Neither satisfies. The result is a preference for ambiguity: saying little, doing enough, and buying time.

This is not an abdication of responsibility, it is an expression of it. In much of Asia, the priority is not a global contest of systems, but the local management of vulnerabilities.

Neutrality, updated

Neutral states are not passive. They are entrepreneurial. Singapore positions itself as a “useful” partner to all. India champions the Global South while deepening “Quad” ties. Indonesia expands its submarine fleet while hosting the China-ASEAN Expo. Fiji engages both Beijing and Canberra, then plays them off each other.

This is not fence-sitting. It is leverage-building.

The ability to say “no” to both Washington and Beijing is, paradoxically, what gives these countries relevance. The more they are courted, the more they can extract. This is the new art of neutrality: using ambiguity to gain agency.

The rise of the deterrence float

In financial markets, a “float” is the period between a transaction and its settlement, a window where value exists without commitment. Many Indo-Pacific states are operating on a “deterrence float”: signalling readiness to align with the United States or its allies, while deferring irreversible choices.

This lets them benefit from deterrence postures without being drawn into their execution.

The wrong kind of pressure

Western frustration with neutrality is understandable but counterproductive. It pressures states to speak in binary terms they cannot afford. Small and medium powers in Asia have no desire to be theatres of someone else’s contest. Nor are they naïve about China. But they understand that antagonising Beijing carries real, immediate costs. Public support for deterrence can evaporate quickly when exports or tourism are hit.

If the West treats neutrality as betrayal, it will corner governments into uncomfortable decisions, and many may not choose the alliance system.

Can the alliance model adapt?

The real test is whether the United States and its allies, including Australia, can work with neutral states without demanding uniformity. That means building defence and intelligence ties even where there is no shared China policy. It means investing in connectivity and supply chains without political preconditions. And it means listening, not just messaging.

Partnerships must be modular, not monolithic. Hedging must be accommodated as reality, not viewed as defection. Neutrality complicates alliance management and weakens deterrence clarity. But effective strategy requires empathy, the ability to understand how others perceive cost, risk, and power.

Rather than lament the return of neutrality, the West should study its logic. It is not a failure of commitment. It is a mechanism for survival. And in a region this complex, survival on one’s own terms is itself an achievement.

The Indo-Pacific will not be won by forcing countries to choose. It will be shaped by how well the major powers navigate those who refuse to.

Vincent So is CEO of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand. He writes on health, geostrategy, and economics. He has held leadership roles in global pharmaceuticals and began his career in investment banking. He also served as an adviser to Australian and New South Wales ministers in national security and treasury portfolios. He holds a Master’s degree with Distinction from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Views are his own and not of his employer. Connect on LinkedIn. 

lowyinstitute.org · by Vincent So

27. American Intifada

​Is the anti-colonialism narrative a driving force?

Excerpts:

Anti-colonialism is not about history or consistent philosophical principles; it’s about power and acquiring it for those who are willing to take to the streets. That’s one reason the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol four years ago was so shocking, when right-wing supporters of Donald Trump were willing to use a little of the force that left-wing protest movements routinely employ. The Jan. 6 rioters saw themselves as decolonizing the Capitol, viewing their enemies as a privileged elite who had somehow stolen the election and therefore the country.

That riot didn’t involve arson to the degree seen in Los Angeles these past few days, but it was frightening to the left, the political middle, and most conservatives because it showed radicalism could expand into the right.

Too many Americans who would never dream of rioting themselves have for too long simply accepted that left-wing protests are allowed, even expected, to be violent. They were unprepared for the activist right—not Nazi extremists, but a small subset of otherwise unremarkable Republican voters—to learn from what the anti-colonialist left was allowed to get away with.

The lesson all Americans have to learn now, before it’s too late, is this kind of violence will keep expanding as long as it’s tolerated in the name of anti-colonialism and other progressive causes.

There will be more riots, and then there will be more than riots: the premises of anti-colonialism call for intifada, not just in Palestine but right here in America. Law, and law enforcement, has to prevail in Los Angeles, but this is a battle that has to be won in the classroom, and the conscience, as well as in the streets.

There will always be some violent extremists, but what sets fire to our cities again and again is the complacency of ordinary Americans who fail to recognize a radical premise when its consequences are broadcast on the nightly news—and world news, too.

American Intifada

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/american-intifada/?mc_cid=afffcd9461

June 9, 2025

By Daniel McCarthy

A vehicle is set ablaze in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025, amid continued protests against federal immigration sweeps. (Kyodo via AP Images) ==Kyodo

Share this post?

Facebook

X

Truth Social

The riots that kicked off in Los Angeles last weekend aren’t just about illegal immigration—they’re part of a revolutionary movement. “Anti-colonialism” is a term often heard in America’s college classrooms, but off campus virtually no one takes it seriously. It’s just another harebrained radical academic theory, right?

Yes, the theory is mostly silly—but the practice is deadly serious.

Most Americans and Europeans today feel ashamed of imperialism and racism, and they’re glad to be rid of colonies and slavery. All that injustice is a thing of the past, however much its legacy haunts our present.

But the ideology of anti-colonialism says otherwise: imperialism and thoroughgoing racial exploitation never ended and never can end, not until “settler” and “colonizer” power is overthrown everywhere. Israel’s the focus of the most vitriolic and violent anti-colonial rage, but the United States is just as guilty of being a “settler-colonial state.”

Mexico, and indeed all of Latin America, is America’s Palestine, and when illegal immigrants cross the border, when they resist deportation, when they and their allies riot, this is justified resistance to colonialism. In Palestinian terms, it’s an intifada, or at least the beginnings of one.

Palestinians launched two intifadas against Israel, from 1989 to 1993 and from 2000 to 2005. These “uprisings” involved rioting, throwing stones at police and soldiers, hurling Molotov cocktails, and violence up to and including suicide bombings, as well as boycotts, strikes and other forms of economic coercion and nonviolent protest.

An American might recognize many of these tactics—though not suicide bombing, thank God—not only as scenes from Los Angeles in recent days but as familiar features from other left-wing protest movements, including those inspired by Black Lives Matter and the killing of George Floyd five years ago. There isn’t some grand anti-colonialist conspiracy directing all of this, although there are links between one outburst and another: usually the thugs who call themselves “antifa,” for example, are in the vanguard of the provocations.

But a conspiracy isn’t necessary—the ideology is a franchise, teaching anyone who believes in it to immediately identify enemy groups and what slogans to chant when harassing or hurting them. No radical has to wait for orders to know what to say and do to police or Jews.

On social media, conservatives have joked about the Mexican flags some LA rioters have been waving: after all, if you’re proud of Mexico and its flag, why would you object to being sent back there?

But those flags aren’t being waved to make a point about Mexican territory—they’re making a point about American territory, Los Angeles itself, which in anti-colonialist eyes belongs to illegal aliens at least as much as to any American. Never mind that Mexico was a product of settler colonization (by Spain) and practiced settler colonization itself in places occupied by indigenous peoples.

Anti-colonialism is not about history or consistent philosophical principles; it’s about power and acquiring it for those who are willing to take to the streets. That’s one reason the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol four years ago was so shocking, when right-wing supporters of Donald Trump were willing to use a little of the force that left-wing protest movements routinely employ. The Jan. 6 rioters saw themselves as decolonizing the Capitol, viewing their enemies as a privileged elite who had somehow stolen the election and therefore the country.

That riot didn’t involve arson to the degree seen in Los Angeles these past few days, but it was frightening to the left, the political middle, and most conservatives because it showed radicalism could expand into the right.

Too many Americans who would never dream of rioting themselves have for too long simply accepted that left-wing protests are allowed, even expected, to be violent. They were unprepared for the activist right—not Nazi extremists, but a small subset of otherwise unremarkable Republican voters—to learn from what the anti-colonialist left was allowed to get away with.

The lesson all Americans have to learn now, before it’s too late, is this kind of violence will keep expanding as long as it’s tolerated in the name of anti-colonialism and other progressive causes.

There will be more riots, and then there will be more than riots: the premises of anti-colonialism call for intifada, not just in Palestine but right here in America. Law, and law enforcement, has to prevail in Los Angeles, but this is a battle that has to be won in the classroom, and the conscience, as well as in the streets.

There will always be some violent extremists, but what sets fire to our cities again and again is the complacency of ordinary Americans who fail to recognize a radical premise when its consequences are broadcast on the nightly news—and world news, too.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

28. Trump’s Joint Chiefs chair says Putin won’t stop at Ukraine

​Providing his best military advice.

Trump’s Joint Chiefs chair says Putin won’t stop at Ukraine

by Colin Meyn - 06/11/25 11:56 AM ET

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5344422-dan-caine-joint-chiefs-russia-ukraine-future/?utm

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine told senators Wednesday that he did not believe Russian President Vladimir Putin would stop at Ukraine if he succeeds in overtaking the country, a marked contrast to President Trump’s typical ambiguity on the question. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth whether Putin would “stop at Ukraine” in a series of rapid-fire questions on foreign conflicts. 

“I don’t believe he is,” Caine told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on armed services.

Graham turned to Hegseth with the same question.

“Remains to be seen,” Hegseth said.

The senator then said the answer was obvious.

“It doesn’t remain to be seen. [Putin] tells everybody around what he wants to do,” the South Carolina Republican said, noting Russia’s buildup of ordnance is well beyond what it might need to take Ukraine.

“I like what you’re doing,” Graham added to Hegseth. “I just think we gotta get this stuff right.”

Graham had earlier asked Hegseth if he agreed the world miscalculated in its approach to Adolf Hitler in the years leading up to WWII.

“The danger that is like 50 million people get killed,” he said. “So, let’s don’t do that.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the subcommittee chair, came out of the gates asking Hegseth about Ukraine, asking which side he wanted to win the war. The Defense chief said the Trump administration wanted the killing to end but would not choose a side.

Hegseth criticized former President Biden’s handling of Russia and Ukraine before McConnell cut in to say he agreed the previous administration was “completely inadequate” and had encouraged Putin with its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“But we are where we are, and beating up the past is not a plan for going forward to the future,” the former Republican leader said.

He noted that other NATO members and Europe seemed to be spending more on defense generally and committed to increasing support for Ukraine.

“Everybody seems to be moving in the right direction, and they look at us and wonder whether we’re in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory,” McConnell said. 

Biden often spoke about Putin’s threat beyond Ukraine’s borders, both in terms of taking more territory in former Soviet states and emboldening autocrats around the world. 

Trump promised to end the war within 24 hours of taking office but has made little apparent headway about five months into his second term. Russia has so far refused U.S. proposals for a 30-day ceasefire.

Trump has expressed increasing frustration with Putin, but often says he is unsatisfied with Ukraine as well. 

After Ukraine carried out a stunning drone attack on Russian military bases June 1, Trump complained it would set back his push for peace, comparing Russia and Ukraine to children fighting in a schoolyard.

Russia has ramped up drone strikes on Ukraine since “Operation Spider Web,” on Wednesday launching what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the biggest strikes on Kyiv since the war began more than three years ago.

29. The military must remain nonpartisan. America depends on it

​Excerpts:

Blaming the soldiers themselves, most of whom are junior in rank, is warranted insofar as they should know better. But the real blame lies with their leaders, who demonstrated a stunning lack of situational awareness and careless disregard for one of their institution’s guiding professional norms. They failed to prepare their soldiers to act like professionals in the presence of their commander-in-chief. and their actions raise questions about whether they are equipped to steer their organization through the divisive political moment the military finds itself in.

The U.S. military is not designed to be, nor should it ever be, a check on elected officials and politicians. It must, however, follow the basic rules and regulations that civilian and military leaders alike have prescribed when it comes to political activity in the ranks, regardless of who is in office. In addition to undermining the norm of nonpartisanship, the crowd of uniformed soldiers at Fort Bragg violated Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which prohibits open, public partisan endorsement by active-duty service members. The commander-in-chief has the right to address the troops. The troops have a responsibility to carry themselves as the nonpartisan professionals they purport to be.

Military officials have the tools they need to educate their troops on what it means to be nonpartisan in their behavior and even in their actions online. Countless scholars and practitioners have offered recommendations on how military leaders should guide the profession amid such turbulence, complete with practical guides aimed at stimulating reflection and discussion for all ranks and grades. They no longer have the luxury of waiting to do so.

The military must remain nonpartisan. America depends on it

defenseone.com · by Heidi A. Urben

A screenshot from the White House video feed shows President Trump addressing soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 10, 2025. White House via NBC News

The soldiers who cheered partisan applause lines at Fort Bragg, and their leaders, erred in a spectacular way.

By Heidi A. Urben

Professor, Georgetown University

June 11, 2025 08:36 PM ET

Scholars of civil-military relations endlessly debate the durability of professional norms and the degree to which they reinforce the principle of civilian control of the armed forces. The most important norm that ensures the military upholds its oath to the Constitution and is subordinate to civilian authority is its norm of nonpartisanship—the commitment to keeping the military out of partisan politics. On June 10, that norm was dealt a setback at Fort Bragg.

Mounting a stage at the North Carolina base, the president and secretary of defense delivered partisan speeches before a large audience of uniformed soldiers. Others can judge the propriety of their remarks in such a setting, but it was the troops’ response that made the moment so troubling.

On cue, they roared their approval to partisan language about ridding the military of “woke garbage” and “political correctness.” They booed allusions to the previous president, the governor of California, and the mayor of Los Angeles. They applauded the president’s plan to revert yet more military bases to Confederate-derived names. In these and other ways, they behaved not as professional American service members, but as partisans at any other political rally.

Some observers are outraged because they believe the moment revealed an active-duty military that is fully aligned with the MAGA movement, perhaps a worrying thought as the president expands the use of the military on American soil. This is misguided for several reasons. First, the U.S. military is a diverse force that reflects the American public—for good or for worse—which means it also reflects America’s political divisions. The crowd at Fort Bragg may or may not be representative of the entire military, but that is beside the point. The personal politics of individual service members, no matter in which direction they lean, are unimportant as long as they are kept private.

Here is where the soldiers at Fort Bragg erred in a spectacular way. They provided de facto institutional endorsement to unambiguously partisan talking points, and in doing so, risked cementing in the minds of the American public that the military is a partisan actor, just like all the rest. Those on the right who fear that the military had become “woke,” undisciplined, and distracted from core missions will be reassured by the scene at Fort Bragg, while those on the left will take it as evidence that the military is part of a personalist regime that cannot be trusted to uphold its oath.

Military leaders have fretted in recent years about declining public confidence in the armed forces. Now they will have to contend with the increasing share of Americans whose sentiment toward the military turns on partisanship, not on how well it does its job or its commitment to professional ethics.

Blaming the soldiers themselves, most of whom are junior in rank, is warranted insofar as they should know better. But the real blame lies with their leaders, who demonstrated a stunning lack of situational awareness and careless disregard for one of their institution’s guiding professional norms. They failed to prepare their soldiers to act like professionals in the presence of their commander-in-chief. and their actions raise questions about whether they are equipped to steer their organization through the divisive political moment the military finds itself in.

The U.S. military is not designed to be, nor should it ever be, a check on elected officials and politicians. It must, however, follow the basic rules and regulations that civilian and military leaders alike have prescribed when it comes to political activity in the ranks, regardless of who is in office. In addition to undermining the norm of nonpartisanship, the crowd of uniformed soldiers at Fort Bragg violated Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which prohibits open, public partisan endorsement by active-duty service members. The commander-in-chief has the right to address the troops. The troops have a responsibility to carry themselves as the nonpartisan professionals they purport to be.

Military officials have the tools they need to educate their troops on what it means to be nonpartisan in their behavior and even in their actions online. Countless scholars and practitioners have offered recommendations on how military leaders should guide the profession amid such turbulence, complete with practical guides aimed at stimulating reflection and discussion for all ranks and grades. They no longer have the luxury of waiting to do so.

This weekend, the Army will mark its 250th birthday, a milestone that is particularly remarkable in light of the extraordinary concerns the Constitution’s framers had about a standing army and the threat it might pose to liberty. May the occasion inspire its leaders, at all ranks, to reflect on what has sustained the institution for all those years, and what will be needed in the years to come.

Heidi A. Urben is professor of the practice in Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies and a retired U.S. Army colonel.

30. Strategic Affairs no. 54 Letter from the Chairman, JCS; Subject: Your Speech at Fort Bragg (Hypothetical)

​From the consummate soldier, scholar, public servant, professor, Dr. Joe Collins.

Joseph’s Newsletter

33Pledge your support

Strategic Affairs no. 54

Letter from the Chairman, JCS; Subject: Your Speech at Fort Bragg

https://josephcollins77.substack.com/p/strategic-affairs-no-54?utm

Joseph Collins

Jun 11, 2025

9

6

2

Share

Here’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should tell the President about the ethic of an apolitical military and what happened at Fort Bragg:

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for travelling to Fort Bragg to see the troops. They appreciated the visit and your concern for their welfare.

As your principal military advisor, however, it is my duty to tell you that your speech ran afoul of a sacred military tradition: to keep the military apolitical, focused on the national interest, and insulated from day-to-day partisan politics. Going back to George Washington, we have strived to keep the Armed Forces out of domestic politics. There have been a few notable failures in the past, but we work to keep the tradition as an active goal in all of our activities.

Your speech was clear and well-practiced. It was a lot like your rally speeches that were an important part of how you won the popular vote and the Presidency. Unfortunately, this was not the audience for a political speech. It was not a domestic political rally, and the soldiers present were there representing the Armed Forces in their official capacity.

Many people were shocked to hear the soldiers booing former President Biden, the press, and various other domestic political actors or issues. Responding to your speech in that manner was a violation of good order and discipline. Somewhere in their training, they should have been counselled to avoid overt political statements and to remain above partisan disputes while in uniform.

I will direct the Chiefs to review how our service members are learning about non-partisan behavior, in particular, and civil-military relations, in general. We want our uniformed personnel to be the servants of the state, not of any one political party.

In the tradition of General Washington and the founding fathers, we solicit your help in keeping uniformed personnel out of domestic politics. I have shared a copy of this memorandum with the Secretary of Defense.

Gen Cain, CJCS

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com