Half way through the fifth year of the war in Ukraine it is reasonable to ask why it has lasted so long. Why has Russia not crushed Ukraine quickly as expected, it is after all a much bigger country with a far greater population and industry to call on?

By Robert Harneis

It is standard for the Western Media to talk of deadlock and to say that the Russians are not advancing because their armies are incompetent, when they are not drunk or poorly equipped. At regular intervals Western media announces that the Russian side is running out of ammunition, missiles, drones, tanks or even men. In short they are not advancing in overwhelming force to capture Kiev because they are incapable of doing so. The latest fantasy in the US, UK and European media, is that the Russian economy is crumbling in the face of the problems created by the war and sanctions.

Russia’s self-imposed restrictions

President Putin imposed severe constraints on his generals from the start. They are, to an extent, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. Contrary to the endless claims by the Western media, the Russian forces do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. This in borne out by their low level throughout the war. In a recent massive attack involving 1500 missiles and drones right across Ukraine, only six civilians were reported killed. It is only natural that this should be so. Russia regards Ukrainians as brother Slavs. Approximately one fifth of Russian families have close relatives in Ukraine. The brother of the Ukrainian Commander in Chief is a colonel in the Russian army. They have no interest in killing them, if it can be avoided, especially as they will have to live with them after the war.
The second restriction is the requirement to avoid heavy casualties amongst their own forces. Wars are lost on the home front when the body bags start coming home in big numbers. The constant allegations in the Western media that Russians launch human wave attacks and suffer heavy casualties doing so, are false. This desire to restrict losses is reinforced by Russia’s demographic problems. Lives are precious.
The third restriction that Putin has imposed on his generals and ministers is that the war will not stop Russian economic progress, vital for political stability. Of course it goes without saying that it is not possible to fight a major war without financial and budgetary stress. An example is the necessity of delaying the naval building program as a result of which only sixteen corvettes have been built out of the forty planned. This has made it more difficult for Russia to protect its merchant fleet and stop the current harassment of oil tankers. On the other hand the management of the economy has been a classic case of successful military Keynesianism as with the United States in World War II. Throughout the war real wages have risen and economic growth has been maintained. Unemployment is at record low levels.

Tactical considerations

There are other less obvious reasons for hastening slowly. If Moscow’s war aims are denazification and demilitarization then the longer the fighting goes on the more of the Ukrainian military is eliminated, especially the elite ultra-nationalists who are Ukraine’s most committed soldiers. The effect of the manpower attrition is obvious from the many videos appearing on social media showing Ukrainian press gangs snatching citizens from the street, often with violent resistance.
Further by keeping the fighting in the Donbass, the invading Russians have short lines of communications, whilst Kiev’s main bases are over a thousand kilometers away in Poland, with supplies at risk of constant air attack on their way to the front. Paradoxically then, the invading force has better lines of communications than the defenders in their own country.
The wish to avoid destruction is another explanation for Russian circumspection. It is obvious that the retreating Ukrainian army is indifferent to the damage it causes to the cities it loses. The greater the area of the fighting the greater the destruction that Russia will likely have to rebuild after the war. Better to ground away the Ukrainian ability to resist and if an advance into the rest of the country is needed, to wait until effective military resistance has collapsed.
However an undoubted factor in the slow Russian progress is the nature of the great Donbas urban area, which was massively fortified with NATO assistance over eight years after the 2014 coup d’état when Ukraine moved definitively into the Western camp. Whatever plans the Russian government may have for the rest of Ukraine, especially the Black Sea Coast, the source of many missile attacks on Russia, they will not wish to make any major moves until the Donbass is firmly in their hands. Two important fortified towns remain to be captured Kramatorsk and Slavyansk. Russian forces are already approaching them. It remains to be seen how long it will take to break their resistance.
We cannot know what President Putin and the Russian High Command are thinking but it is also obvious that by not committing to a major offensive Russia not only avoids casualties but retains the strategic initiative. Hundreds of thousands of Russian troops are held in reserve. Uncommitted forces are a potential threat as well as being available for defense elsewhere if needed.
The Russians will also have learnt the bitter lessons of the US army that quickly smashed its way into Afghanistan and Iraq but was unable hold the territory conquered in the face of tough local resistance. Already, at the beginning of the war in March 2022, the Washington Post published an article that assumed a quick Russian advance and talked about the planned guerilla resistance. There is every reason for Russia to move gradually and consolidate as it goes.

The diplomatic front

There is also the diplomatic aspect, which is of vital importance to Russia. Moscow views the struggle in Ukraine as part of a world confrontation. It has been clear from the start of the war that whilst the West and Kiev worry about public opinion to get support for the war, Russia is concerned about what he world’s diplomats think. Good relations with India and BRICS countries and especially China dictate moderation at all times. A shock and awe approach, whilst it might get quicker results, would have offended much international opinion and unfavorably reminded the world’s diplomats of the Soviet Union, something Putin wishes to avoid at all costs. Similarly Russia is very patient with small countries on its borders that indulge in vexatious provocations, notably the Baltic States… so far. The contrast with the brazen bullying of Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland and Iran by the United States is striking and has had an effect on world public opinion. The recent humiliation of Merz’s new militaristic Germany in the recent United Nations General Assembly vote is a striking example of the success of this softly softly approach, as is Russia’ success in expanding its influence in Africa from Mali to Madagascar.
Also on the diplomatic front, with a long war, the Black Sea remains closed to the warships of outside countries under the Montreux Convention of 1936, which governs traffic through the Dardanelles strait. The convention allows Turkey to close the straits to all warships in times of war and to permit merchant ships free passage. This suits the Russians as NATO likes to flex its muscles by bringing warships into the Black Sea in times of international tension. For four and a half years they have not been able to do this. Once the war ends, Turkey will have to let them through again. Another reason why the Russian forces have taken their time.

The change in the nature of war

Every war is different and brings its surprises. The drone revolution has transformed this one. The omnipresence of drones is all the more deadly, given the absolute impossibility for both sides, of hiding concentrations of troops, thanks to satellites that see pretty much everything happening on the ground. So now advances are made by small groups of infantry that infiltrate defenses that are then taken out by artillery, drones and missiles. Slow work if casualties are to be kept to a minimum.

NATO intervention

NATO intervention, with a huge supply of arms, finance and electronic intelligence, after sabotaging the peace talks, has increased Russian difficulties in defeating the Ukrainian army,. It is this that definitively imposed the choice of a long slow war of attrition on the Russians – a war that Russia is clearly winning. Not only have Ukraine’s forces been degraded in this process but NATO’s as well. One reason the United States has reduced arms supplies to Kiev is that they are running short. This became very obvious when Washington’s priority turned to the defense of Israel. The Pentagon has had to search the globe, asking allies as far apart as South Korea and Germany to hand over any Patriot air defense missiles they might have. The US air force is seriously short of vital stand-off munitions to attack Iran. The result for Kiev is that it has little defense industry of its own left and NATO has completely failed to match Russian weapons production levels.

Russian rearmament

It is also obviously the case Russia needed time to build its army to its present strength, as well as arm and equip it. Russia has greatly increased its military production across the board. This has been possible because of the continued existence of much of the old Soviet military industrial infrastructure on Russian territory. Whilst the combined Western nominal GDP greatly exceeds Russia’s, when it comes to purely military industrial capacity Russia is well capable of holding its own. Tank production and reconditioning has increased from a few hundred to more than a thousand a year. The United States can barely produce one hundred new Abrams tanks each year. Russia alone now produces over five million drones each year. Importantly Russia is fourth in the world in the number of STEM students graduating annually after China, India and the United States.

Irreconcilable differences block peace talks

Putin’s latest statements indicate that the Russian government is not interested in a ceasefire that fails to solve its Europe wide security problems. The United States does not want to lose face in Ukraine, particularly after its recent military failures in Afghanistan and now Iran. It also wants to continually weaken Russia. Europe is determined to persevere in its support for Ukraine despite the major economic and energy problems they have created for themselves. The statement from the latest meeting of the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, on June 7, refers to the need for a peace treaty that leaves Ukrainian frontiers unchanged. Clearly something Russia will never accept. Brussels sees failure in Ukraine as a threat to its plans for ever greater union, even the institution itself. Against this background it is not surprising that there have been no meaningful peace talks. As Josep Borrell former EU High Representative for foreign affairs commented at the beginning of the war, it will have to be settled on the battle field and that takes time.
Finally in Ukraine, whilst the people would agree to negotiations with Russia, the regime and its ultra nationalist supporters know that if there is peace and Russia wins there is no future for them. Putin’s final phrase in his recent speech at St Petersburg Economic Conference “Keep on fighting my comrades” is ominous for Zelensky and his neo Nazi colleagues. It is a reference to a famous quotation, the last words of a Russian policeman knowing he was about to die at the hands of terrorists. It reflects the Russian leader’s determination to focus Russian society in a patriotic way and finally settle the Ukrainian problem for good. He has used the long war to encourage a new generation of Russian leaders based around distinguished war veterans. This has been accompanied by a determined anti-corruption drive. None of this would have been possible without a long war.

However that may be, the Russian President is coming under increasing pressure to move faster. Like the US, Russia has parliamentary elections approaching in the autumn, September of this year, and there are signs that the tempo is quickening all along the front line. The long war has had advantages for Russia but it may be time to bring it to a close, whatever the cost.

L’article Ukraine: Why the long war? est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

Reports that U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about Israeli intelligence activity inside the United States should not be dismissed as a minor diplomatic embarrassment. If accurate, they point to a deeper strategic problem: Israel’s security doctrine is now pressing so aggressively outward that it is beginning to step on the toes of nearly everyone around […]

Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

ASEAN at a crossroads

The ASEAN Charter serves as the legal framework uniting the nations of Southeast Asia in the maintenance of regional peace, security, and development. By defining the principles and responsibilities that all member states are required to uphold equitably, the Charter strengthens ASEAN’s position on the international stage as an organization committed to a rules-based order.

In particular, the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of member states” plays a crucial role in fostering trust among ASEAN countries. This policy safeguards the sovereignty of smaller states while helping to prevent tensions between nations with different political and social systems. Preserving this balance remains essential for regional stability.

Observing recent political developments in Myanmar, significant efforts aimed at strengthening democracy are clearly evident. Between December 2025 and January 2026, Myanmar successfully held free and fair multiparty general elections. Of approximately 24.22 million eligible voters, more than 13.14 million citizens—equivalent to 54.22% of the electorate—participated freely and responsibly. Consequently, a Parliament elected by a majority of voters was established, along with a government led by a President elected by that Parliament.

An analysis of the reasons behind the need for new elections reveals that the previous government had been accused of committing serious electoral fraud during the 2020 elections. Following strong objections raised by political parties and the public regarding the fairness of the process, official investigations were launched. Reportedly, these investigations uncovered over 11.3 million irregularities and errors in the voter rolls out of a total of over 38.2 million eligible voters. The incident has been described as one of the most serious cases of electoral irregularities in Myanmar’s history. Consequently, the authorities argued that legal intervention was necessary to ensure justice and the rule of law.

Furthermore, evidence was presented showing that officials of the National League for Democracy (NLD) government, accused of attempting to retain power through electoral manipulation, were also involved in cases of corruption and other violations of the law. The courts subsequently issued convictions in accordance with existing legal procedures. Consequently, the Tatmadaw assumed state responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 Constitution and implemented a roadmap aimed at preserving the multiparty democratic system desired by the public. A key element of this roadmap was the successful organization of new free and fair elections in December 2025, aimed at restoring democratic governance and reflecting the genuine will of the people.

Just as in some other countries military institutions have temporarily assumed responsibility for governance based on domestic circumstances to strengthen democratic systems, Myanmar’s political process has also unfolded in accordance with its sovereignty and constitutional framework. In light of the current situation, the current government was established by the People’s Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), elected by a majority of voters through a free and open democratic process.

Although most ASEAN member states appear to recognize Myanmar’s recent political developments and seek greater cooperation in the interest of the region, several members continue to ignore these changes. These countries are still attempting to impose restrictions, apply discriminatory measures, and deny Myanmar equal participation within ASEAN.

Since joining ASEAN in 1997, Myanmar has actively contributed to ASEAN activities and complied with collective agreements. As a responsible member, the country has consistently fulfilled its obligations, including regular financial contributions to ASEAN mechanisms and programs. Despite having faced discriminatory treatment from some ASEAN members over the past five years, Myanmar has continued to cooperate patiently. However, the continuation of such practices under the newly formed government is viewed as a disregard for the democratic choices made by the people of Myanmar.

Myanmar seeks to reposition itself

Recently, some ASEAN countries have increasingly been perceived as interfering in Myanmar’s internal affairs and judicial matters. One example concerns remarks made by Philippine President Bongbong Marcos during a press conference on May 8, 2026. During the conference, President Marcos called for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and respect for her rights, arguing that, if recognized as a leader, she should be granted authority consistent with that status. He further stated that these points could constitute a key demand by ASEAN in negotiations with Myanmar and emphasized that this position will remain unchanged. However, judicial matters are considered a central element of national sovereignty, and foreign intervention in such processes is deemed inappropriate.

Myanmar views the Philippines’ statement as an attempt to place an individual—who has been indicted, tried, and convicted through legal procedures under Myanmar’s laws—above the law. Myanmar views this as direct interference in its sovereign judicial authority and legal system. Such actions are seen as contrary to the principles of international relations and detrimental to the mutual respect that should exist among ASEAN members.

Furthermore, Myanmar maintains that such behavior violates ASEAN’s principle of “non-interference,” as outlined in Chapter 1, Article 2, Sections 2(a) and 2(e) of the ASEAN Charter, which emphasizes respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states.

In international diplomacy, mutual respect forms the basis of stable relations. Myanmar believes that President Marcos’s remarks disregard diplomatic norms and call into question ASEAN’s long-standing principles of mutual respect and non-interference. At the same time, Myanmar notes that on March 11, 2025, the Marcos administration allowed the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at Ninoy Aquino International Airport based on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), an action that drew criticism both domestically and internationally.

Myanmar has chosen not to comment on this sensitive matter, considering it an internal affair of the Philippines. By remaining silent and refraining from criticism or interference, Myanmar asserts that it has upheld ASEAN principles and diplomatic decorum.

Myanmar contends that the “double standard” demonstrated by the Philippine leadership threatens both Myanmar’s sovereignty and ASEAN’s unity. The country reiterates that it will reject any external pressure or directives and will continue to safeguard its sovereignty and national interests. Myanmar also calls on the Philippines to respect the fundamental principles of ASEAN and to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability.

Inevitable choices

From Myanmar’s perspective, the demands made by the Philippines reflect a selective interpretation of the ASEAN Charter and indicate a lack of genuine commitment to regional stability. For ASEAN to remain a strong, rules-based organization, all member states must consistently adhere to the principles of the Charter.

Ignoring the ASEAN Charter and interfering in the internal affairs of another member state, or taking actions that destabilize the region, is considered a serious threat to ASEAN’s unity. Such actions damage the trust built among member states over many years and weaken ASEAN’s centrality on the international stage.

Given current realities and ASEAN’s neutral stance, Myanmar emphasizes that it successfully held free and fair elections between December 2025 and January 2026. The government formed following those elections is now governing the country and implementing domestic legal processes. Myanmar urges ASEAN to assess these developments objectively and without prejudice.

Myanmar maintains that ASEAN’s role is limited to mediation and does not permit direct involvement in the internal affairs of member states. Therefore, ASEAN should continue to uphold neutrality as the foundation of regional peace and cooperation. Any ASEAN intervention regarding Myanmar should be based on the actions of the current government and the realities on the ground.

Although ASEAN has not yet reached full consensus on Myanmar, the country continues to maintain bilateral relations with individual member states. Myanmar has also expressed appreciation for ASEAN countries that recognize and support its recent political developments. Above all, Myanmar affirms that it will continue to pursue peace, stability, prosperity, and the protection of citizens’ rights through a “Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led process” tailored to the country’s specific conditions.

While the international community may call for clemency for individuals imprisoned under domestic laws on humanitarian grounds, Myanmar maintains that no external actor has the authority to demand the restoration of political rights or power to such individuals. ASEAN’s responsibility is limited to mediation, and demands that ignore current realities are viewed as coercive interference rather than constructive engagement.

Finally, adherence to the ASEAN Charter is presented as an obligation rather than a choice for all member states. Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity. Only by upholding these principles, Myanmar argues, can ASEAN fully realize its vision of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.”

The US support and Israel’s military and strategic capabilities, coupled with occupational aspirations, made the country a threat to the region. The country’s hostilities and strategic reorientation suggest that it now seeks to confront Turkey. Israel’s escalating aggression with Turkey has sparked new threats in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The Zionist leaders have a decades-old dream […]

Donald Trump’s attempt to tie an Iran peace settlement to a mandatory expansion of the Abraham Accords reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how dramatically the Middle East has changed since the Gaza war and why old diplomatic formulas no longer work. Donald Trump has a habit of mistaking the décor of diplomacy for its substance. […]

from Mario Nawfal: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

India is expanding ties with Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, and Israel to counter Turkey’s growing regional influence and its partnership with Pakistan. By strengthening defense cooperation and strategic partnerships, New Delhi is increasing its footprint in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, the India–Turkey rivalry has the potential to develop into a new […]

from The Jimmy Dore Show : TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Netanyahu and Trump are conditioning the end of the war in Iran on the condition that all countries in the region sign the Abraham Accords, a tacit submission to Israel. Drawing on Daniel Levy, Omer Bartov, and the Pew Survey, I address the reasons, the urgency, and the limits of Netanyahu’s simultaneous battles on several […]

from Liberty Sentinel by Alex Newman : TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: The latest polling continues to show that Marine Le Pen remains one of the strongest political forces in France. Depending on the matchup, candidates from the National Rally remain highly competitive and, in some surveys, lead potential rivals heading into the 2027 presidential election. Even many of Le Pen’s political opponents openly […]

On his way back from India to the United States, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio paid a brief but significant visit to Armenia. This unexpected gesture from Washington raises a legitimate question: what is behind such keen interest in Yerevan? Zvartnots – A Platform for Signing New Agreements Information about the upcoming visit of […]

by Alastair Crooke, Strategic Culture: Seemingly, every day brings breathless new claims that an U.S.-Iran ‘deal’ awaits only a signature. As so often happens, the mediators (Pakistanis and Qataris) hope to manage both sides by telling one side that the other party is at the brink of agreement when it is not so, especially in […]

from TheFreedomArticles: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from ZeroHedge: The Kremlin spent much of the last week warning foreign diplomats and bystanders to evacuate Ukraine’s capital, warning that an escalation in airstrikes is imminent, in response to Ukraine’s own drone swarms sent against Moscow and other Russian sites last month – especially the Starobelsk dormitory attack. “In response to terrorist attacks by the […]

from Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Alex Christoforou: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Eighty-nine days of total digital blackout. Six hours of reconnection. A naval facility destroyed near Jask. The metadata trap has just snapped shut on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

For 88 days, Iran’s southern provinces were cut off from the digital world. Tehran openly framed the move as a shield against foreign psychological warfare operations and against potential new connected military technologies that could give the United States a decisive advantage. It was a survival strategy for the fully networked age.

On the 89th day, the fiber-optic cables linking Bandar Abbas to Chabahar were switched back on. Six hours later, a strike bearing the unmistakable signature of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) destroyed a naval facility suspected of housing IRGC fast-attack boats roughly 15 miles east of Jask.

“If you connect to the internet, you die.” Brutal as it sounds, the phrase now sums up the operational doctrine taking shape in this part of the world.

88 Days in Digital Darkness

To understand what happened, one first has to grasp what those three months of electronic silence meant for American intelligence capabilities. The NSA’s SIGINT collection systems — capable of absorbing terabytes of communications and geolocation signals — were effectively running blind.

The IRGC Navy, meanwhile, had reverted to Cold War-era methods: couriers, field telephones, and short encrypted burst transmissions.

For an AI-driven command-and-control system like the American JADC2 architecture, this total disconnection created an intolerable fog of war. It became impossible to target the source of a swarm of kamikaze drones when the source itself was invisible.

The Crack: A Fatal Economic Decision

The reconnection was not the result of a coordinated strategy. It stemmed from a unilateral concession by President Pezeshkian under pressure from two fronts: petrochemical magnates in southern Iran and a hyperconnected population suffering digital withdrawal.

Eighty-eight days without SWIFT transactions or market access had drained the economies of the southern provinces.

According to reports, the decision was made against the explicit advice of IRGC intelligence services, which wanted the blackout maintained indefinitely in the name of operational security for naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman.

2:14 a.m. local time. The first data packets begin moving across the Iranian network. American passive collection systems activate immediately.

Resynchronization phase. Personal phones belonging to IRGC logistics officials — believing their devices undetectable thanks to new IMEI numbers — begin checking WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.

Less than six hours later, targeting algorithms detect a constellation of geolocated signals converging on a previously inactive site near Jask. The strike is authorized.

The Metadata Trap

Washington did not need to decrypt a single encrypted message. It only had to map the sudden aggregation of signals: the phone of a logistics coordinator heading to a depot, the tablet of a commander checking weather forecasts in the Gulf of Oman, the computer of a port official accessing a cargo manifest server. For JADC2, the veil had lifted. The target had become visible.

“The United States didn’t need to crack encrypted content. It simply mapped the sudden constellation of geolocated signals clustered around a known but previously inactive site. That’s the metadata trap. It’s always deadly,” according to a local source.

A Fracture at the Top of the Iranian State

The strike — reportedly carried out using a combination of carrier-based F-35Cs and a sea-launched Tomahawk missile variant — triggered an internal political crisis.

IRGC generals reportedly turned directly against the presidency, accusing it of having “opened a breach.” Pezeshkian’s advisers deny any direct causal link.

Iran announced retaliatory measures and condemned the attack as a violation of the ongoing ceasefire. An MQ-9 Reaper drone was reportedly shot down during the operation, and an F-35C is said to have come under fire.

This episode goes beyond the Iranian case alone. It sheds light on Russia’s sporadic internet shutdowns and on the ongoing overhaul of China’s Great Firewall.

In 2026, access to the electromagnetic spectrum has become both the first casualty — and the primary vector — of modern warfare. Restoring connectivity can itself become the trigger.

The United States has now established a precedent: reconnecting a hostile state to the internet is treated as a moment of exposure, one potentially warranting an immediate kinetic response.

Further reading: Strategika

The Internet: America’s Invisible Weapon of Strategic Dominance

Artificial intelligence, cyberspace, and satellite networks are redefining the art of war. In this new global battlefield, the United States maintains a strategic edge thanks to its control over the world’s digital infrastructure.

In the age of hybrid warfare and the digital battlefield, military superiority is no longer measured solely by armored divisions or nuclear arsenals. It now depends on the ability to effectively integrate artificial intelligence, space-based networks, and cyber operations into a global command architecture. In this decisive domain, the United States retains a major strategic advantage: its de facto sovereignty over the global Internet.

A Structuring Technological Dominance

The core architecture of the Internet — from undersea cables to root servers, including major digital platforms and technological standards — remains largely controlled by American actors or subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This reality gives Washington an unparalleled strategic lever, enabling it to exert decisive influence over information flows, global surveillance, and power projection capabilities in cyberspace.

At a time when warfare is becoming increasingly algorithmic, this structural dominance translates into a critical operational advantage. The power capable of merging massive datasets, space capabilities, and military AI gains an immediate upper hand over its adversaries. The United States, a pioneer in these fields, continues to hold a dominant position.

China and Russia Confront Digital Hegemony

For years, Beijing and Moscow have sought to free themselves from this strategic dependence. Alternative networks, sovereign Internet systems, independent navigation systems, national cloud infrastructures, and state control over digital infrastructure are multiplying. Yet these efforts face considerable technological, economic, regulatory, and geopolitical obstacles.

The global interoperability of the Internet, originally designed under American leadership, makes any attempt at decoupling extremely costly and inherently imperfect. Despite significant advances — particularly by China — no power has succeeded in creating a fully functional and universal alternative to the U.S.-dominated digital ecosystem.

Hybrid Warfare and “Decapitation” Operations

As long as this American sovereignty over the Internet endures, the world is likely to continue witnessing hybrid operations combining digital sanctions, information pressure campaigns, cyberattacks, and targeted actions against states considered strategically vulnerable. Some recent interventions, particularly in Latin America, have been interpreted by many observers as forms of political and economic “decapitation” operations aimed at indirectly controlling critical natural resources, especially energy resources.

This strategy fits within a broader logic of imperial survival. According to its critics, Washington is compensating for the erosion of its domestic economic model — marked by growing social polarization and structural fragilities — through an aggressive foreign policy based on technological and military projection.

A Silent Military Revolution

This American resurgence would not have been possible without a genuine revolution in military affairs. The integration of AI, autonomous drones, algorithmic intelligence gathering, and satellite networks has enabled the United States to transform past strategic setbacks into a new comparative advantage. Some analysts describe this as a “Type-T revolution,” in which technology compensates for industrial and social decline.

Toward a Fragmented Cyberspace?

The central question remains: how long can this hegemony endure? The growing number of digital conflicts, the gradual fragmentation of the Internet, and the rise of national technological sovereignties could eventually challenge the existing order. For now, however, American dominance over the world’s invisible infrastructure remains one of the fundamental pillars of its global power.

L’article Iran: How the return of internet access triggered a U.S. strike est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

One week after Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is traveling to China for a 48-hour official visit aimed at strengthening the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China.

A Diplomatic Trip Rich in Geopolitical Symbolism

Putin’s visit to China, expected on Tuesday, May 19, is part of a carefully planned diplomatic strategy. The timing is no coincidence: it coincides with the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a landmark agreement signed by the two countries in 2001.

This treaty holds major significance in Sino-Russian relations, as it marked the end of decades of mutual mistrust, border disputes, and geopolitical rivalries that characterized the Soviet era.

The timing of the visit is particularly revealing of current international dynamics. By arriving in China one week after Trump’s departure from Beijing, Putin creates a symbolic succession that deserves close analysis. This diplomatic “passing of the baton” among the world’s three major powers offers a valuable lens through which to observe today’s balance of power and each country’s positioning strategy.

Strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Amid Global Turbulence

The official purpose of the visit is clear: to reinforce the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China.

Beyond formal statements, however, the trip carries deeper significance for both governments. Moscow is seeking to consolidate its ties with Beijing at a time when the international environment has become highly volatile.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Russian presidency, said on Friday that the trip would be “a good opportunity to exchange views on the contacts the Chinese have had with the Americans.”

This statement clearly shows that trilateral diplomacy lies at the heart of the visit. Russia wants to understand how China is negotiating with the United States and ensure that Russian interests are not sidelined in Sino-American discussions.

An “Eternal Friendship” Tested by Geopolitical Realities

The concept of an “eternal friendship” between Russia and China, frequently reaffirmed by both powers, is a central element of their diplomatic rhetoric.

However, this visit demonstrates that both countries are actively seeking to prove the strength of their ties in the face of current global upheavals. The phrase itself is revealing: it implicitly acknowledges that the international order is going through a period of major instability.

For Xi Jinping, the meeting with Putin offers a valuable opportunity to present himself as a world leader committed to geopolitical balance and harmony.

By hosting Trump and Putin in succession, the Chinese leader positions himself as a potential mediator in global conflicts and as a guardian of international stability. This posture significantly enhances China’s prestige and influence on the world stage.

The Dynamics of a Three-Way Geopolitical Rivalry

The triangular relationship among the United States, Russia, and China now shapes global geopolitics as a whole.

Every bilateral meeting between two of these powers is closely watched by the third as an indicator of emerging alliances and growing fractures. Putin’s trip to China must therefore be understood within this three-dimensional strategic framework.

Russia, while a major regional power, remains economically secondary compared with China. As a result, Moscow must continually reaffirm the importance of its partnership with Beijing.

This relative asymmetry helps explain why Russia places such importance on diplomatic rituals and public displays of strategic friendship. Maintaining strong ties despite structural imbalances is essential to preserving international equilibrium.

Toward a New Global Geopolitical Architecture

This visit takes place during a period of profound transformation in the international order.

China’s rise, Russia’s return as a disruptive power, and shifts in American foreign policy have created an environment in which old certainties no longer apply.

Diplomatic exchanges between Beijing and Moscow are therefore strategically crucial to maintaining stability in international relations.

The strengthening of the Sino-Russian partnership is not necessarily intended to form an alliance against the United States. Rather, it aims to establish a balance of power capable of withstanding external pressures and attempts at hegemony.

In this context, strategic cooperation between Russia and China has become an essential stabilizing factor in contemporary global geopolitics.

Putin has arrived in Beijing and received the same “warm welcome” package as Trump: a red carpet, the PLA Tri-Service Honor Guard, and the jumping children…

Xi Jinping can be heard saying “hello” (“你好,” nǐ hǎo) to Putin.

Will Putin be able to achieve his 4 goals mentioned… https://t.co/OxMXG3l3Uq pic.twitter.com/TUENKMajcy

— Inconvenient Truths — Jennifer Zeng Reports (@jenniferzeng97) May 19, 2026

 

L’article Putin in China : Diplomatic Choreography in Response to Trump est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

The Director of National Intelligence is reigniting the debate over risky research conducted outside U.S. territory, accusing the Biden administration of having concealed the true extent of American involvement.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has announced the launch of a large-scale investigation covering more than 120 biological laboratories operating in approximately thirty countries and receiving U.S. government funding. More than forty of these sites are located in Ukraine. The initiative, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to overhaul research practices related to gain-of-function studies involving dangerous pathogens.

Serious Accusations Against the Previous Administration

In her official statement, Gabbard sharply criticized officials from the Biden administration as well as former senior health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci. She accuses them of having deliberately downplayed — or even concealed — the true scope of U.S. involvement in overseas research on high-risk pathogens.
“The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact that research on dangerous pathogens conducted in biological laboratories can have,” said Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence.
Under the new directive, intelligence agencies are tasked with reviewing all laboratories in question: what pathogens are being studied, what experiments are being conducted, and whether this work poses a threat to public or national security.

Ukraine at the Center of Tensions

The investigation also reignites the controversy surrounding Ukrainian biological laboratories. During the Russian invasion in 2022, the Biden administration had denied the existence of any American installations in Ukraine — until Victoria Nuland, a senior State Department official, acknowledged in congressional testimony the existence of biological research sites, whose contents U.S. authorities feared could fall into Russian hands.
According to U.S. authorities, some of these laboratories were originally funded under the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, established after the Cold War to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

A Murky Financial Record

The Pentagon’s oversight body had previously determined that more than $1.4 billion had been committed abroad for gain-of-function-type research between 2014 and 2023. It also acknowledged its inability to fully account for all experiments conducted on potentially enhanced pandemic pathogens.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) had separately concluded that research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology between 2014 and 2021 had violated the terms of its grants, having increased the infectivity of bat coronaviruses by up to 10,000 times — while formally denying any direct link to the origin of the pandemic.

The Pentagon’s Response

“The previous administration funded dangerous gain-of-function research and foreign biological laboratories with American taxpayer money, then deliberately hid it from the American people. The era of lies and betrayal is over,” added Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth expressed his full support for the initiative, aligning himself with the rhetoric of rupture championed by the Trump administration since the beginning of its term. President Trump had also previously signed an executive order banning federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries deemed insufficiently regulated, such as China and Iran.

Sources: ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence), Pentagon, congressional hearing transcripts.Sonnet 4.6Adaptatif

Ukraine : The Pentagon’s biological laboratories exist

L’article Biological Laboratories: Investigation into 120 Sites Funded by Washington est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.