#India-China border conflict | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

code-of-conflict · 7 months ago

Text

AI as a Tool of Military Modernization: India and China’s Defense Strategies

Introduction: AI in Modern Warfare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a pivotal force in shaping the future of warfare. Both India and China have recognized the strategic importance of AI in modernizing their military capabilities. However, their approaches to AI integration diverge in terms of scale, investment, and focus. While China is leveraging AI for global dominance with heavy emphasis on military-civilian fusion, India is cautiously advancing, focusing on strategic defense and autonomy.

Comparative Analysis of India and China’s Military AI Integration

1. Border Surveillance

AI-driven surveillance has transformed how nations monitor and secure their borders. For India, securing its northern borders, particularly in the volatile regions of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, requires sophisticated surveillance systems. AI can help automate border monitoring using drones and ground-based sensors. India's development of AI-enabled UAVs, such as the Rustom-II and Ghatak UCAVs, demonstrates its focus on real-time surveillance, intelligence gathering, and precision strikes.

China, on the other hand, has rapidly advanced its border surveillance through AI. Its use of drones like the Caihong series and the WZ-8 hypersonic reconnaissance drone has given China a significant advantage. These unmanned systems, capable of high-altitude and long-range surveillance, provide Beijing with a strategic edge in monitoring the India-China border along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Furthermore, China's integration of AI into border security reinforces its aim to dominate information warfare by creating an "informationized" battlefield.

2. Cyber Warfare Capabilities

In the realm of cyber warfare, China has developed a highly sophisticated network, which blends civilian and military cyber capabilities under its Strategic Support Force (SSF). China's cyber strategy includes offensive operations such as espionage, disrupting enemy networks, and stealing classified information. The integration of AI allows China to automate these cyber-espionage activities and increase the speed and efficiency of cyberattacks.

India, while lagging in this area, has made significant progress by establishing the Defence Cyber Agency in 2018. India's focus has primarily been on defensive operations, aiming to protect critical infrastructure and secure its networks. However, with growing cyber threats from adversaries like China, India must further develop AI-based cyber defense mechanisms and enhance its offensive cyber capabilities to deter potential attacks .

3. Autonomous Weaponry

Autonomous weaponry is one of the most significant areas where AI is transforming military arsenals. China has been a global leader in developing autonomous systems, such as drones and missile guidance systems. China's Academy of Military Science has been tasked with integrating AI into all aspects of warfare, focusing on autonomous drones, AI-driven missile systems, and robotic soldiers. The deployment of AI-guided cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is expected to reshape future combat scenarios, allowing for precision strikes and reduced human involvement in the battlefield.

India is still in the early stages of developing autonomous weaponry. Although India has started working on AI-driven drones and systems, it lacks the scale and speed of China’s developments. However, India’s commitment to creating an indigenous AI ecosystem, as seen in projects like the HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), reflects its focus on autonomous systems for future air combat. The reliance on AI-enabled UAVs like the Harop drone shows India’s intent to integrate AI into its military strategies, but significant investments are needed to match China’s rapid advancements.

Conclusion: A Diverging Path to AI-Driven Military Power

India and China are both integrating AI into their military strategies, but their approaches reflect broader geopolitical goals. While China’s strategy is rooted in achieving technological supremacy and global military dominance, India’s efforts are more defensive, focused on autonomy and securing its borders. However, with China’s rapid advancements in AI-driven warfare, India must accelerate its investments in AI technology to ensure strategic parity. The future of conflict between these two nations may very well be determined by their success in harnessing AI for military modernization.

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 10 days ago

Text

March 18 (UPI) -- Poland and three Baltic states Tuesday announced their intention to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mines to give their forces a critical defensive edge amid a "fundamental" deterioration of the security of NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus.

In a joint statement, the defense ministers of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania said that with a significant increase in military threats and the unstable security situation marked by Russia's aggression and the ongoing threat it posed to the Euro-Atlantic community, the decision was aimed at sending an unequivocal message they were ready and able to take "every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom."

"We believe that in the current security environment, it is paramount to provide our defense forces flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster the defense of the Alliance's vulnerable Eastern Flank," they said. "In light of these considerations, we unanimously recommend withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention."

The ministers vowed the move would not weaken their respective countries' commitment to international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians during armed conflict, saying they would continue to uphold IHL principles "while addressing our security needs."

They insisted the move was warranted by the "dire security challenges" confronting them, asking Allies and partners who recognized that reality to "respect our decision in this matter."

The announcement came two weeks after Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his country, which saw parts of its territory annexed by Russia after World War II and the rest of the country forcibly subsumed into the Soviet-controlled communist-Eastern Bloc, would begin the process of quitting the landmines convention.

The war in Ukraine has seen Russia turn its neighbor into virtually the most mined country on Earth, according to the United Nations.

Ukraine, a signatory to the convention that has been provided with anti-personnel mines by the United States, has previously warned it cannot guarantee full compliance amid a battle for its very survival.

However, with no pressing military imperative to bring the banned mini-weapons, which are specifically designed to maim and kill troops as opposed to mines targeting tanks or ships, the ministers of the four countries said they would consult with allies and neighbors.

"Decisions regarding the Ottawa Convention should be made in solidarity and coordination within the region. At the same time, we currently have no plans to develop, stockpile, or use previously banned anti-personnel landmines," said Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur.

Latvian defense staff chief Major General Kaspars Pudans told Politico recently that currently anti-tank mines and artillery were a higher priority for Latvia's defense.

Notably, Finland, which has a remote 830-mile-long eastern border with Russia, did not sign onto Tuesday's declaration but Defense Minister Antii Hakkanen said it was also thinking about quitting.

The United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and South Korea are among more than 30 countries that have never signed the treaty.

#nunyas news #given their history and neighbors #I don't really blame them #even if I don't like it

19 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months ago

Text

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

32 notes · View notes

ranjith23uw · 7 days ago

Text

Do fixed borders guarantee peace?

While Russia and Ukraine war over their shared border, two Central Asian nations prove that borders can be changed by mutual agreement.

This article was produced exclusively for News Decoder’s global news service. It is through articles like this that News Decoder strives to provide context to complex global events and issues and teach global awareness through the lens of journalism. Learn how you can incorporate our resources and services into your classroom or educational program. See More...

In the modern world, the “inviolability of borders” has been the sacred principle preventing conflict.

States may not like existing borders but they do not try to change them by force. Vladimir Putin violated this rule when he seized Crimea in 2014 and it is the reason why the war in Ukraine now has such worrying implications for global order.

But what if two states, who have suffered decades of cross-border violence, voluntarily redraw their frontiers in the interests of peace?

In February, the Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan did just that, announcing that they will freely exchange territories disputed since the fall of the Soviet Union decades ago.

The land in question is in the beautiful, fertile Fergana Valley, but more of that later. First, let’s think about borders and how they come about.

Mountains and rivers are the world’s natural borders but much of the map as we know it today is an artificial construct. Colonial rulers literally took rulers and drew unnaturally straight lines through tribal lands in Africa, the Middle East, India, Australia and other places, cutting related peoples off from each other and mixing rival groups. They didn’t care about people, only imperial gains. See More...

Shifting borders

In the former Soviet Union, another empire, dictator Josef Stalin played with borders and internally deported whole peoples, creating pockets of future ethnic tension and even war.

When Yugoslavia fell apart in Eastern Europe in the 1990s it split into six different countries to represent the six different peoples who had made up its population.

But they weren’t neatly located in the sections that split off and many people found themselves stranded in new independent countries, where they were now part of a minority.

That’s a recipe for trouble. See More...

But wise politicians have known that when it comes to borders, you can’t try to unravel all the complications of history — better to accept today’s borders as they are and ensure the rights of minorities living in the countries we have now.

Leaders in Africa knew that, thoughtless though the imperial borders were, any attempt to redraw them could lead to forced relocations, chaos and violence, as happened at the Partition of India in 1947. That was why the African Union, founded in 1963, declared in its charter that existing boundaries were “unalterable”.

And as a result, for example, the Gishu tribe lives today in both Uganda and Kenya.

Likewise in Europe, the Helsinki Accords, signed at the end of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975, obliged all 35 signatories to recognise the inviolability of the continent’s post-World War Two borders.

Many people might like to redraw borders. For example, ethnic Serbs in their enclave of Bosnia and Herzegovina may lean towards Serbia-proper but the Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 sets the borders as they are today, and that’s the way it has to be.

That’s the way it should have been with Crimea too. Nobody disputes that Russia has historical and cultural links with the peninsula but Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Peaceful arrangements could easily have been made for ordinary Russians and Ukrainians to enjoy the Black Sea resorts of Crimea together.

Instead Moscow chose war, opening a Pandora’s box for countries from China to the United States that might like to fiddle with the world’s geography. See More...

Which makes the peaceful agreement between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan over land in the Fergana Valley all the more remarkable.

In Moscow, in Communist times, I knew about the Fergana Valley because of the peaches and apricots I bought from Central Asian traders on the market. Little did I know that this patchwork quilt of ethnicities was about to be torn apart.

The valley, which owes its fertility to the Naryn and Kara Darya rivers, lies mostly in eastern Uzbekistan but extends into southern Kyrgyzstan and northern Tajikistan.

Stalin divided it between these three Soviet republics but fatally, the nationalities were not living exactly within the borders drawn for them. See More...

The crumbling of the Soviet Union brought bloodshed. I remember covering clashes in Kyrgyzstan’s Osh province in 1990 between ethnic Kyrgyz, who were mainly animal herders, and ethnic Uzbek, who were mainly farmers, with very different needs and interests.

Since then, disputes over grazing and water rights have also boiled over along the borders of Kyrgyzstan’s Batken region and Tajikistan’s Sughd region. In autumn 2022, in the worst fighting over the border since the fall of the Soviet Union, dozens were killed and thousands forced from their homes.

It was after this that the leaders of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan started working on new demarcation lines. Now, after successful diplomacy to deal with the root cause of the problem, the two nations have agreed to shift their borders.

“Negotiations have reached the final point and can be discussed openly,” Kamchybek Tashiev, head of Kyrgyzstan’s secret service, told the Kyrgyz parliament in March. “After parliamentary consideration, our presidents will sign the ratification.”

Under the deal, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will swap small areas of land and make better arrangements to share water resources. A number of disputed roads will be declared “neutral” and made available to both nations, according to the Defense Post.

Which all goes to show that to secure friendship and good neighbourly relations, you sometimes have to define your boundaries.

Recommended reading: “Prisoners of Geography” by Tim Marshall, an excellent account of how geography affects history and politics. See More...

#tumblr milestone #50 likes #911 abc #agatha all along #agatha harkness #anya mouthwashing #artists on tumblr #bucktommy #nanda56 #photography

2 notes · View notes

thahxa · 7 months ago

Text

honestly one of the taiwan things is like. if not for taiwan, what's the whole chinese military for? they put an entire 1-2% (or so) of GDP into there! which is like. a totally normal amount of GDP to spend except of course china is so damn big that they get to have lots of cool things like aircraft carriers and stealth fighters and... wait, has anyone figured out what this military is for yet?

like the US spends quite a bit on the military but it has an excuse at least - maintaining military bases in a double-digit number of countries and being europe's army is hard work! occasionally they even decide to go off and fight terrorism or do a coup or whatever

but... the chinese military? their last war was in 1979 (with border conflicts until '91) but since then it's been nothing except occasional border conflicts with india (where, remember, they are not allowed to use guns). china has a state policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs, for any reason (including humanitarian) and wasn't a participant in the war on terror (nor really, had any of their own). in the civil war with burma, a country that it directly borders and whose civil war would have major consequences for china, chinese policy has been to... let some guns fall off the back of PLA trucks to the wa state. it's aiming to have a blue water navy and rival the united states for... what exactly again?

but of course taiwan fixes this! china isn't going to be crossing the yalu to invade south korea or crossing into the jungles and invading vietnam - it has no reason, and honestly no desire to, even though it could probably win if it needed, but at least with taiwan you can justify this force buildup to the beancounters

#i think argumate mentioned something like this #its just very funny how absurd this is. china is trying to get a blue-water navy and yet steadfastly refuses to do any blue-water work #the one intervention they did was against pirates in somalia iirc #armchair geopolitics

4 notes · View notes

mightyflamethrower · 4 months ago

Text

Trump was elected in part on promises to avoid “endless wars” of the sort that cost American blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq but without resulting in strategic advantage or civilized calm.

Yet as a Jacksonian, Trump also restored American deterrence through punitive strikes against ISIS and terrorist thugs like Baghdadi and Soleimani—without being bogged down in costly follow-ups. During the last four administrations, Putin stayed within his borders only during the Trump four years.

But upon entering office, Trump will likely still be faced with something far more challenging as he confronts what has become the greatest European killing field since World War II—the cauldron on the Ukrainian border that has likely already cost 1-1.5 million combined dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians.

There is no end in sight after three years of escalating violence. But there are increasing worries that strategically logical and morally defensible—but geopolitically dangerous—Ukrainian strikes on the Russian interior will nonetheless escalate and lead to a wider war among the world’s nuclear powers.

Many on the right wish for Trump to immediately cut off all aid to Ukraine for what they feel is an unwinnable war, even if that abrupt cessation would end any leverage with which to force Putin to negotiate.

They claim the war was instigated by a globalist left, serving as a proxy conflict waged to ruin Russia at the cost of Ukrainian soldiers. They see it orchestrated by a now non-democratic Ukrainian government, lacking elections, a free press, or opposition parties, led by an ungracious and corrupt Zelensky cadre that has allied with the American left in an election year.

In contrast, many on the left see Putin’s invasion and the right’s weariness with the costs of the conflict as the long-awaited global proof of the Trump-Russian “collusion” unicorn. Thus, after the 2016 collusion hoax and 2020 laptop disinformation ruse, they see in some of the right’s opposition to the war at last proof of the Russophiliac Trump perfidy. They judge Putin, not China’s imperialist juggernaut, as the real enemy and discount the dangers of a new Russia-China-Iran-North Korean axis. And to see Ukraine utterly defeat Russia, recover all of the Donbass and Crimea, and destroy the Putin dictatorship, they are willing again to feed the war to the last Ukrainian while discounting escalating Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent defeat.

Trump has vowed to end the catastrophe on day one by doing what is now taboo: calling Vladimir Putin and making a deal that would do the now impossible: entice Russia back to its February 24, 2022, borders before it invaded and thus preserve a reduced but still autonomous and secure Ukraine.

How could Trump pull that unlikely deal off?

Ostensibly, he would follow the advice of a growing number of Western diplomats, generals, scholars, and pundits who have reluctantly outlined a general plan to stop the slaughter.

But how could Putin reassure the Russian people of anything short of an absolute annexation of Ukraine after the cost of one million Russian casualties?

Perhaps in the deal, Putin could brag that he institutionalized forever his 2014 annexations of once Russian-speaking majority Donbass and Crimea; that he prevented Ukraine from joining NATO on the doorstep of Mother Russia; and that he achieved a strategic coup in aligning Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea in a new grand alliance against the West and particularly the United States, with the acquiescence if not support of NATO member Turkey and an ever more sympathetic India.

And what would Ukraine and the West gain from such a Trump art of the deal?

Kyiv might boast that, as the bulwark of Europe, Ukraine heroically saved the country from Russian annexation as envisioned in the 2022 attempt to decapitate Kyiv and absorb the entire country. Ukraine subsequently was armed by the West and fought effectively enough to stymie the Russian juggernaut, wound and humiliate the Russian military, and sow dissension within the vastly weakened Russian dictatorship, as evidenced by the assassinated would-be insurgent Prigozhin.

Trump then might pull off the agreement if he could further establish a DMZ between the Russian and Ukrainian borders and ensure European Union economic aid for a fully armed Ukraine that might deter an endlessly restless Russian neighbor.

It would admittedly be a shaky and questionable deal, given Putin’s propensity to break his word and insidiously and endlessly seek to reestablish the borders of the old Soviet Union.

How then would Trump pull such a grand bargain off, given the hatred shown him by the American left for “selling out Zelensky,” the likely furor from the MAGA base of giving even one cent more than the current $200 billion to Ukraine, and its “endless war,” and the ankle biting from the Europeans who would be relieved by the end of hostilities on its borders but loathe to give any credit to Trump, whom they detest?

What would be the incentives for any such deal, and would they be contrary to both the interests of the American people and the new Republican populist-nationalist coalition?

Yet consider that if Trump were to cut all support for Ukraine, the right would see Ukraine become shortly absorbed—and it would be blamed for a humiliation comparable to the Kabul catastrophe, only worse, since Ukraine, unlike the Afghanistan mess, required only American arms, not our lives.

In contrast, if the endless war grinds on and on, at some point, the pro-war and so-called humanitarian left will be permanently stamped as the callous party of unending conflict and utterly indifferent to the consumption of Ukrainian youth, spent to further its endless vendetta against a Russian people who also are worn out by the war.

Both Russia and Ukraine are running out of soldiers, with escalating casualties that will haunt them for decades. Russia yearns to be free of sanctions and to sell oil and gas to Europe. The West, and the U.S. in particular, would like to triangulate Russia against China and vice versa, in Kissingerian style, and thus avoid any two-power nuclear standoff.

America wants to increase and stockpile its munitions with an emboldened China on the horizon. It is dangerously exhausted by defense cuts and massive aid to Ukraine and Israel while preferring allies like Israel that can win with a few billion rather than perhaps lose after receiving $200 billion. The Republican Party is now becoming the party of peace, and Trump, the Jacksonian, nonetheless the most reluctant president to spend American blood and treasure abroad in memory.

Europe is mentally worn out by the war and increasingly reneging on its once boastful unqualified support for Ukraine. So, it hopes the demonized Trump can both end the hated war and then be blamed for ending it without an unconditional Ukrainian victory.

In short, there are lots of parties who want, and lots of incentives for, an end to our 21st-century Verdun.

2 notes · View notes

zogdon · 6 months ago

Text

Despite Zelensky and Nato claims about their ability to still resist the Russian forces advances, in the East and in Kursk, the local reports from ordinary Ukrainians paint a different picture... The locals claim, almost in unison, that Zelensky's Nato forces are running away from key battle zones, and the Russian advances continue, of course at different paces, as the different battle situations demand.

In Kursk, the whole western flank of the earlies Zelensky incursion is now under Russian control, even as Nato is trying to spread the fight even further on, in western border regions.

It's important for people to know, that the Zelensky incursion was far closer to the border, than claimed by western media. For example, Sudja, the only town...but still only with original population of just 5,127...is only 9.6 km from the border. And at best, anywhere, in that incursion, Zelensky Nato troops didn't even make it further than 40 km, into Kursk. Even these measurements are rather fanciful, and only happened in 3 locations.

However, as the major Russian counter started only one week ago, already we see, and get local reports that the Nato forces in Kursk are collapsing...with many troops disobeying orders to stay and fight.. rather, run back into Sumi oblast, Ukraine.

Putin ordered the Russian military to clean up Kursk by October... didn't specify dates, though. So, the most generous interpretation would be: By last day in October 2024. Which, it already appears to be spot on... happening.

In the whole of the East, the Donbas area, the Russian forces are continuing the advance, without any visual impact by the Kursk battle. Zelensky Nato troops are in deep trouble... without any hope to stop the Russian aims, on all battlefronts. And that includes strikes deep in western Ukraine.

In conclusion, the Russians are delivering what they promised originally... even at slower rate, than some people would like.

But it's important to understand, that before the battle, war, not much is clear...in way of timing. As we don't know how deep, and well the waring parties have dug in, and prepared themselves, out of public sights.

For Russia, it was always clear though: No matter what; Russian Federation Forces will be again Victorious, but in this conflict, the mighty Russian Firepower, is very serious in spearing the lives of all civilians and minimising soldiers casualties... even of the enemy. And this is why, the Russian military has been going very systematically and very carefully...of course, that is why it's a slow war in progress...Of course, Russian Federation Progress. No carpet bombing, no clusters used...by the Russian side. However, Zelensky, Nato forces have no such restraints...they want to murder any Russian, anywhere in the world. We see the evidence of that attitude, everyday on our western news and media discussion services.

For World Peace to occur... Truly occur... Russia Hate Has to Go.

And Russian allies, like China and India.. plus other BRICS members...Myst come out Publicly and support the Russian Federation position. Stop thinking about their own pockets, so much....as these countries will lise it all, as the west has them as 'Next Targets', of Western aggression and re-occupation.

Only the Russian Federation is defending BRICS and all other countries under western attack.

And only the Russian Federation Nuclear Specialised Army, can protect any country asking for help against western aggression. China and India, both don't have the Nuclear military requirements, necessary to defend themselves. And that is why both keep Russia close, within pleading reach...if a major war was launched against them by the west.

The Chinese know it...the Indians pretend it isn't happening...ie. western aggression towards India....But both are blind to the truth...no matter how many western led organisations they join, the western main aim is:

Re-Colonisation of China and India.

But hey...the west is getting belted by the Russian Federation, every day now. So, China and India, are safe now, under Russian Federation Protection. As Russia wins, so do China and India.

And these 2 countries, better not forget it.

#ukraine #russian federation #world

2 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 1 year ago

Text

This might be the real multipolar moment.

The American Empire has suffered two staggering defeats this administration, first in Afghanistan, then in the Ukraine.

China has (ostensibly) brought peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, ending one of the central conflicts in the Middle East. The Belt and Road Initiative has brought American ally Pakistan more closely into China's orbit, and the war in Ukraine has aligned India's (which the US has tried to cultivate into a counterweight to China) interests more towards Russia. Turkey also pursues its own agenda in spite of its Nato membership.

American soft power has basically evaporated. Its influence in the region remains only where it retains boots on the ground. Israel is the linchpin of maintaining control in the region, and Israel's position will never be secure as long as there's one living Palestinian within its borders still drawing breath. If Israel goes, Centcom is basically finished.

If the Belt and Road initiative is supposed to define the major trade and economic engine of the 21st century and beyond, I think that kind of highlights Israel's predicament. I haven't seen a single piece of news or map or anything that makes Tel Aviv a central part of this trade network. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran though all are.

Israel has to secure itself and its position as a regional power sooner rather than later, because otherwise its ship is going down with the same wave taking down the US.

So we're looking down the barrel of the current global hegemon (and its nuclear armed cohort) staring down what is essentially a catastrophic or even existential defeat, with what looks like China, Russia, and possibly Turkey trying to talk them down from setting off what will probably be a nuclear World War 3.

If there's no war, then the Savage Autocracies™ might just have pulled us all from the brink.

If there is war, then heaven help us all.

#world war 3 #brics #israel palestine conflict #israel #palestine

7 notes · View notes

libbylayla1984 · 1 year ago

Text

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

youtube

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

2 notes · View notes

printscore25 · 2 years ago

Text

LAC : Sino India Relationship

Over the past 3 years, the two asian giants are locked in a standoff. The standoff which started with provocative action by PLA led to casualties on both sides. Even after 3 years and 17 rounds of commander level meeting the issue remains unsolved in Debsang Bulge and Demchok.And both sides seem adamant for their part in the negotiations.One point worth discussing is that it's disengagement and moving behind a few kilometres not de-induction.

What is even more interesting is the reason for the entire fiasco by the chinese side. Experts have claimed multiple reasons for the action by the Chinese side.While we keep reading about headlines like it was purely a propaganda coup due to internal problems in china due to covid, some say due to abrogation of Article 370, etc. However, these could have played a part if we look at other aspects for standoff could be India's improved Infrastructure all along the LAC, a growing chinese assertiveness all along the areas of dispute whether be SCS or ECS or spartly islands dispute.Another reason could be to test India's preparedness in case of all out war for Taiwan & India's ability to change status quo of LAC during the taiwan conflict.

Also, at times the newspaper headline flashes with articles "India lost 1000's of sq. km of area."However, if we were to look at the actual ground situation then we could make much more pragmatic analysis of the entire standoff. The standoff resulted in areas of no patrolling which lead to very small pockets of grey areas where the border remains undefined.It is important to note that due to different line of perception, before the standoff both sides had patrolling rights to the current buffer zones created.

However, the bigger points of friction like that of Demchok and Debsang could not be looked through the same prism where line of perception varies vastly.

The chinese side seems to have not gained much strategic advantage with the entire standoff. For them it's a slap on the face as India is neither intimidated nor seems to give in to the pressure tactics. Rather it has led to unprecedented response from the Indian side to deter the PLA.

On the other hand, another interesting aspect is how western countries still have not gotten out of their western centric view assuming India needs their help to tackle the standoff.

Instead the army launched an operation called "Snow Leopard" in response to the unilateral action by china and took chinese by surprise and forced the chinese side for negotiations.

In the last 3 years the Army has inducted state of the art military equipment, has upgraded the existing airfields and the Advanced Landing Ground (ALGs) and built new Helipads, airstrips and improved connectivity with modern infrastructure even in the remotest areas of the Eastern sector.

What lays ahead for both sides is to resolve the remaining disputes and demarcate the boundary as neither has gained much and the entire standoff has resulted in stalemate.

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years ago

Text

The loose nexus of Chinese-origin cyberspies collectively called APT41 is known for carrying out some of the most brazen hacking schemes linked to China over the past decade. Its methods range from a spree of software supply chain attacks that planted malware in popular applications to a sideline in profit-focused cybercrime that went so far as to steal pandemic relief funds from the US government. Now, an apparent offshoot of the group appears to have turned its focus to another worrying category of target: power grids.

Today, researchers on the Threat Hunter Team at Broadcom-owned security firm Symantec revealed that a Chinese hacker group with connections to APT41, which Symantec is calling RedFly, breached the computer network of a national power grid in an Asian country—though Symantec has declined to name which country was targeted. The breach began in February of this year and persisted for at least six months as the hackers expanded their foothold throughout the IT network of the country's national electric utility, though it's not clear how close the hackers came to gaining the ability to disrupt power generation or transmission.

The unnamed country whose grid was targeted in the breach was one that China would “have an interest in from a strategic perspective,” hints Dick O'Brien, a principal intelligence analyst on Symantec's research team. O'Brien notes that Symantec doesn't have direct evidence that the hackers were focused on sabotaging the country's grid, and says it's possible they were merely carrying out espionage. But other researchers at security firm Mandiant point to clues that these hackers may be the same ones that had been previously discovered targeting electrical utilities in India. And given recent warnings about China's hackers breaching power grid networks in US states and in Guam—and specifically laying the groundwork to cause blackouts there—O'Brien warns there's reason to believe China may be doing the same in this case.

“There are all sorts of reasons for attacking critical national infrastructure targets,” says O'Brien. “But you always have to wonder if one [reason] is to be able to retain a disruptive capability. I'm not saying they would use it. But if there are tensions between the two countries, you can push the button.”

Symantec's discovery comes on the heels of warnings from Microsoft and US agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) that a different Chinese state-sponsored hacking group known as Volt Typhoon had penetrated US electric utilities, including in the US territory of Guam—perhaps laying the groundwork for cyberattacks in the event of a conflict, such as a military confrontation over Taiwan. The New York Times later reported that government officials were particularly concerned that the malware had been placed in those networks to create the ability to cut power to US military bases.

In fact, fears of a renewed Chinese interest in hacking power grids stretch back to two years ago, when cybersecurity firm Recorded Future warned in February 2021 that Chinese state-sponsored hackers had placed malware in power grid networks in neighboring India—as well as railways and seaport networks—in the midst of a border dispute between the two countries. Recorded Future wrote at the time that the breach appeared to be aimed at gaining the ability to cause blackouts in India, though the firm said it wasn't clear whether the tactic was designed to send a message to India or to gain a practical capability in advance of military conflict, or both.

Some evidence suggests the 2021 India-focused hacking campaign and the new power grid breach identified by Symantec were both carried out by the same team of hackers with links to the broad umbrella group of Chinese state-sponsored spies known as APT41, which is sometimes called Wicked Panda or Barium. Symantec notes that the hackers whose grid-hacking intrusion it tracked used a piece of malware known as ShadowPad, which was deployed by an APT41 subgroup in 2017 to infect machines in a supply chain attack that corrupted code distributed by networking software firm NetSarang and in several incidents since then. In 2020, five alleged members of APT41 were indicted and identified as working for a contractor for China's Ministry of State Security known as Chengdu 404. But even just last year, the US Secret Service warned that hackers within APT41 had stolen millions in US Covid-19 relief funds, a rare instance of state-sponsored cybercrime targeting another government.

Although Symantec didn't link the grid-hacking group it's calling RedFly to any specific subgroup of APT41, researchers at cybersecurity firm Mandiant point out that both the RedFly breach and the years-earlier Indian grid-hacking campaign used the same domain as a command-and-control server for their malware: Websencl.com. That suggests the RedFly group may in fact be tied to both cases of grid hacking, says John Hultquist, who leads threat intelligence at Mandiant. (Given that Symantec wouldn't name the Asian country whose grid RedFly targeted, Hultquist adds that it may in fact be India again.)

More broadly, Hultquist sees the RedFly breach as a troubling sign that China is shifting its focus toward more aggressive targeting of critical infrastructure like power grids. For years, China largely focused its state-sponsored hacking on espionage, even as other nations like Russia and Iran have attempted to breach electrical utilities in apparent attempts to plant malware capable of triggering tactical blackouts. The Russian military intelligence group Sandworm, for example, has attempted to cause three blackouts in Ukraine—two of which succeeded. Another Russian group tied to its FSB intelligence agency known as Berserk Bear has repeatedly breached the US power grid to gain a similar capability, but without ever attempting to cause a disruption.

Given this most recent Chinese grid breach, Hultquist argues it's now beginning to appear that some Chinese hacker teams may have a similar mission to that Berserk Bear group: to maintain access, plant the malware necessary for sabotage, and wait for the order to deliver the payload of that cyberattack at a strategic moment. And that mission means the hackers Symantec caught inside the unnamed Asian country's grid will almost certainly return, he says.

“They have to maintain access, which means they're probably going to go right back in there. They get caught, they retool, and they show up again,” says Hultquist. “The major factor here is their ability to just stay on target—until it's time to pull the trigger.”

2 notes · View notes

biblenewsprophecy · 1 day ago

Text

DW: Germany faces ‘big foreign policy challenges — almost all of which are linked to Donald Trump’

COGwriter

Deutsche Welle published the following:

Friedrich Merz is ready for foreign policy challenges

22 March 2025

The likely next government should have substantial financial leeway, thanks to credit-financed special funds. However, it will also face big foreign policy challenges — almost all of which are linked to Donald Trump.

“The whole world is watching Germany these days. We have a task — in the European Union, and in the world — that goes far beyond the borders of our own country and the well-being of our own people.”

Those were the words of conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader Friedrich Merz …

For ten years, Friedrich Merz was Chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke

— a non-partisan organization for the cultivation of American-German relations.

However, his belief in a close German-American partnership has been badly shaken ever since Donald Trump entered his second term of office. “I am shocked by Donald Trump,” Merz said …

Defense cooperation

Merz does not know whether Trump’s America will feel bound by NATO‘s obligation to provide assistance. That is why, on the eve of Germany’s federal election, Merz said it was his “absolute priority” for Europeans to “truly achieve independence from the US” — as quickly as possible.

Indeed, he is aiming for close cooperation on defense policy between European countries. He wants to talk with nuclear powers France and the UK about nuclear protection for Germany and Europe. …

Trade policy

Trump’s threats of import tariffs on European goods are seen as imminent. … The EU is responsible for transatlantic trade: Germany cannot act alone. However, it should press Brussels to ensure that the trade dispute does not escalate into a trade war …

As a way response to the trade conflict with the US, some politicians in Berlin and Brussels are pushing for strengthening business ties with China again. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-friedrich-merz-is-ready-for-foreign-policy-challenges/a-71983373

With the above report in mind, and other recent news events (e.g. European Union reveals Readiness 2030 program–its way for Europe to be a military superpower–‘EU slams the door on US in colossal defense plan’ and European Union seeks to improve trade ties with India as it faces Donald Trump’s tariff threats), consider the following which were in my December 2024 article regarding 25 items to prophetically watch in 2025:

8. Trade

Not all warfare is militaristic. There is also economic warfare.

This often involves trade. …

Donald Trump feels that the USA and UK have a special relationship and he will look to make a more favorable trade deal with the UK than with the rest of Europe.

And Europe?

Well, Donald Trump’s reelection is a major concern for Europe and its trade.

In 2018, I wrote:

The Europeans have been working with Latin America, China, Russia’s Eurasian Union, and other areas of the world to try to set up its dominance of world trade as well as standards for world trade. (19 items to prophetically watch in 2019)

Such deals have been happening. But expect more concrete action, at least partially because of the reelection of Donald Trump, along with J.D. Vance.

Europe will reach out to various ones in Asia and Africa, as well as Latin America. In the next several years, deals and more trade will occur with Africa, Asia, and Latin America. …

The reelection of Donald Trump will motivate many to trade with each other because of his threats of tariffs, etc. …

17. Europe Will Have a Great Army and Many Ships

The Bible prophecsies that Europe will have a great army:

25 “He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. (Daniel 11:25)

At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships. (Daniel 11:40)

A Trump-Vance Administration will not stop that from happening–yet instead has upset, encouraged, and pushed Europe in that direction. …

22. Reelection of Donald Trump and His Adminstration

In the Bible News Prophecy magazine, October-December 2024 edition, number 22 was listed as “The Incoming US Presidential Administration”

So, it was renamed.

The reelection of Donald Trump has sent shockwaves throughout the world as well as through the legacy media of the United States.

It has brought both hope to some and worry to others.

Donald Trump will be apocalyptic. At least 20 warnings/predictions I made before his last Administration assumed office came to pass (for details see Donald Trump in Prophecy).

Look for Donald Trump and His Administration to offend the Europeans, cause international trade concerns, push many nations further away from the United States, …

While Donald Trump seems to believe that his policies are best for the United States, notice some unintended consequences of them: …

Pushing tariffs and sanctions on other countries is contributing to the rise of the final time of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Ezekiel 7:24).Pushing tariffs and other policies that foreign nations do not like is contributing to other nations looking to bypass the USA dollar, as well as trade more with each other and less with the USA. This will further push various globalist’s moves forward without the USA. This is also helping set the stage for the coming European Babylonian Beast to dominate international trade. …Pushing against Europe’s unity is encouraging the Europeans, which are prophesied to have unity difficulties (cf. Daniel 2:41-43), to try harder to unify, which will happen after at least two reorganizations (Revelation 17:12-13).By breaking political norms and acting like a ‘strong man’ this will help Europeans being more accepting of their beast ‘strong man’ (Revelation 13:1-10; 17:13).Although, overall, the European nations have not paid for their defense to the amount they have suggested they would, pressuring them to spend more will 1) encourage them to be independent of the USA and 2) put Europe in a position where it has a great army (Daniel 11:25), many ships (Daniel 11:40), and access to nuclear weapons (cf. Deuteronomy 29:23-25; Isaiah 9:19-21;Ezekiel 6:6), which will help it conquer the USA, which is the military power with the strongest fortresses (cf. Daniel 11:39).

Christians are to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). By faith we trust the prophecies in the word of God over plans of humans (cf. Psalm 118:9).

That is one way for Christians to avoid negative “unintended consequences.”

Donald Trump’s previous Administration took steps leading to the Apocalypse and his next Administration will further push many of those as well as add other support to others.

Yes, as I wrote in 2024, consequences of Donald Trump’s re-election, statements, and policies have pushed Europe further away from the USA, pushed European nations to be more united, resulted in public calls for Europe to be independent of the United States, has resulted in Europe taking major steps to become a military power, and has pushed Europe to look to trade with China and nations other than the USA.

The Continuing Church of God also put together the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel discussing various views and scriptures about Donald Trump’s impact on Europe:

youtube

14:43

Donald Trump and Unintended Consequences

Under President Trump the U.S.A. may impose tariffs on other countries. Are there any unintended consequences? Under certain circumstances, President Trump may not militarily defend other members of the NATO alliance. Are there any unintended consequences? Under President Trump, migrants’ asylum appointments have been canceled. Are there any unintended consequences? Might the unintended consequences of a Donald Trump Presidency actually lead to the rise of the Beast that enforces all buying and selling through the mark of the Beast – 666? If so, who might that beast be? Dr. Thiel shines the light of Biblical prophecy on the unintended consequences of a Donald Trump Presidency.

Here is a link to our video: Donald Trump and Unintended Consequences.

While the end is coming soon, the end is not yet (Matthew 24:6).

Because we do rely on the Bible, in the Continuing Church of God, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (2 Peter 1:19, KJV).

Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled–and we in the Continuing Church of God have warned how various ones would come to pass and are coming to pass.