If you are an SEO specialist, you already know the importance of tracking rankings, keywords, and backlinks. You already know SEO is not just about ranking higher; it’s about understanding what happens after people land on your website.
That’s how Google Analytics (GA4) comes into play. It’s not just a reporting tool it’s your window into user behavior, conversions, and the real impact of your SEO efforts.
In this article we get into the 10 reasons why seo specialists should master google analytics and also let’s quickly understand what Google Analytics is and why it matters for SEO. #seo #marketing #digitalmarketing #googleanalytics #analytics #article
https://pratsdigital.in/re...

Focus on Cyber Warfare and Fraud-
What roles do global alliances (e.g., NATO, QUAD, ASEAN) play in cyber defense?
Global alliances play increasingly vital and multifaceted roles in cyber defense, recognizing that cyber threats transcend national borders and require collective action.
They provide frameworks for cooperation, information sharing, capacity building, and, in some cases, collective response.

Here's a breakdown of how different alliances contribute:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization):
NATO is arguably the most advanced military alliance in terms of its cyber defense integration, primarily because its core mission is collective defense.

Collective Defense (Article 5): A cornerstone of NATO's cyber defense strategy is the understanding that a cyberattack could potentially trigger Article 5 (an attack against one Ally is an attack against all). While the threshold for this is intentionally ambiguous and assessed on a case-by-case basis (based on the effects of the attack), it signifies a strong commitment to mutual defense in cyberspace.

Cyberspace as a Domain of Operations: NATO officially recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations (alongside land, sea, and air) in 2016. This allows NATO military commanders to better integrate cyber capabilities into missions and operations.

Information Sharing and Threat Intelligence: NATO facilitates the real-time sharing of information about cyber threats, malware, and best practices among Allies through dedicated platforms and expert networks.

Rapid Reaction Teams (RRTs): NATO maintains cyber rapid reaction teams that can be deployed to help Allies address cyber challenges, providing technical assistance and coordinating responses to incidents.

Capacity Building and Training: NATO works to enhance the individual cyber defenses of its member states through training programs, exercises (like Cyber Coalition), and setting common targets for national cyber defense capabilities.

Norms and International Law: NATO consistently reaffirms that international law, including the UN Charter, applies in cyberspace, contributing to the development of responsible state behavior norms.

Public-Private Partnerships: NATO strengthens its relationship with industry and academia through initiatives like the NATO Industry Cyber Partnership to leverage external expertise and resources.

QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue - Australia, India, Japan, United States):
The QUAD, while not a military alliance in the traditional sense, has significantly increased its focus on cybersecurity cooperation, particularly given the shared concerns about threats in the Indo-Pacific.

Critical Infrastructure Protection: A key priority for the QUAD is to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure across member states and the broader Indo-Pacific region against cyber disruptions. This involves sharing approaches to policy development and threat information.

Supply Chain Risk Management: Collaboration on securing digital supply chains, recognizing that vulnerabilities in one component can impact all users.

Software Security Standards: Efforts to align and ensure the implementation of baseline software security standards, potentially leveraging the collective purchasing power of their governments to drive secure-by-design principles in the software ecosystem.

Information Sharing: Promoting rapid and timely sharing of threat information between governments and with industry partners.

Capacity Building: Collaborating on capacity-building programs in the Indo-Pacific region to help partner nations enhance their cybersecurity capabilities.

Workforce Development: Working together to enhance the collective cybersecurity workforce and pool of talented cyber professionals among member states.

Responsible Cyber Habits: Launching public campaigns like the "Quad Cyber Challenge" to improve cybersecurity awareness and habits among Internet users.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations):
ASEAN's approach to cyber defense is focused on regional cooperation, capacity building, and harmonizing policies among its diverse member states.

Regional Cybersecurity Cooperation Strategy: ASEAN has a strategy (e.g., 2021-2025) focused on advancing cyber readiness, strengthening regional cyber policies, enhancing trust in cyberspace, and capacity building.

ASEAN CERT Network: Facilitating coordination and information sharing between national-level Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) of member states. An ASEAN CERT is being established to enable timely exchange of threat information.

Cybercrime Operations Desk: Collaborating with INTERPOL to promote information sharing on cybercrime threats and better integrated operations for the region.

Capacity Building and Training: Numerous initiatives (often supported by dialogue partners like Singapore, Japan, and the U.S.) to build technical, policy, and strategic cyber capacity among member states through training programs, workshops, and joint exercises. Examples include the ASEAN Cyber Capacity Programme (ACCP) and the ASEAN–Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Centre (AJCCBC).

Cyber Defense Network (ACDN): A defense-focused network aiming to link the cyber defense centers of all member states, assist in developing new centers, and identify information-sharing gaps.

Norms and Responsible Behavior: Encouraging member states to subscribe to voluntary, non-binding norms of responsible State behavior in cyberspace.

Malware Information Sharing Platform (MISP): Launched to allow member states to share timely cybersecurity threat information.

Common Roles Across Alliances:
Despite their differences in scope and structure, these alliances share several common roles in cyber defense:

Information and Threat Intelligence Sharing: This is foundational. By sharing insights into TTPs, vulnerabilities, and ongoing campaigns, members can collectively improve their defenses and develop more effective countermeasures.

Capacity Building: Many alliances invest in programs to uplift the cybersecurity capabilities of their members, especially those with fewer resources. This includes training, exercises, and sharing best practices.

Norm Development: Alliances contribute to the ongoing global dialogue about responsible state behavior in cyberspace, advocating for the application of international law and promoting peaceful conduct.

Policy Coordination: They provide platforms for members to discuss, coordinate, and harmonize national cybersecurity policies and regulatory frameworks, leading to more cohesive responses to transboundary threats.

Collective Response and Deterrence: For military alliances like NATO, this involves explicit commitments to collective defense. For others, it involves coordinated public attribution or diplomatic pressure, aiming to deter malicious actors.

Joint Exercises and Drills: Simulating cyberattacks and responses helps members test their readiness, identify weaknesses, and improve coordination in real-world scenarios.

In summary, global alliances are indispensable in the cyber domain. They recognize that no single nation can effectively combat sophisticated, borderless cyber threats alone, fostering a collaborative environment to enhance collective resilience, deter aggression, and shape the future of cybersecurity governance.

What’s At Stake In U.S.-India Military Ties As ‘Defining Partnership’ Of 21st Century Under Tremendous Strain?
While former U.S. President Joe Biden hailed the Indo-U.S. relationship as the “defining partnership of the 21st century,” many perceive President Donald Trump’s tenure as having strained this bond, which had enjoyed consistent bipartisan support and steady growth over the past 25 years.

Strategic elites both in India and the United States wonder whether Trump’s sudden animosity towards India is due to his weaponization of trade tariffs or it goes beyond to include other reasons, including personal diatribe against his “friend” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “betraying him” by denying his contribution towards ending the recent India-Pakistan skirmishes, thus weakening his endeavour to attain the cherished goal of a Nobel Peace Prize.

On the other hand, for the first time in recent history, President Trump’s actions, statements, and coercive tone have made relations with the United States an explosive domestic political issue in India.

The opposition, the media, and the Indian public are pressurizing the Modi government to avoid showing any weakness whatsoever before the American threat. Increasingly, the U.S. is seen now in India as an unreliable partner.

Trump’s sudden “hostility” towards India seemingly has fallouts on many dimensions of the bilateral relationship, including the one on the hitherto growing military ties, which the following paragraphs will be confined to.

After all, “security” has been one of the most important pillars in the Indo-US relationship, as evidenced by the numerous defense projects, initiatives, and agreements in recent years. Will there be a pause in all this, as has been the case in trade, now that India is a friend-turned foe for President Trump?

It is a very difficult question to answer, though unconfirmed reports suggest that India is re-examining some of the military deals agreed upon earlier, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh may not undertake his scheduled visit this month to Washington to conclude some major arms deals.

However, an attempt has been made below to compile the range of security cooperation and agreements between the two countries over the last few years that now face an uncertain future. This is based on the official data and statements of both India and the United States.

To begin with, it should be noted that defense cooperation between India and the United States is multifaceted. It includes regular institutionalized bilateral dialogue, military exercises, and defense procurements.

At the apex of dialogue mechanisms is the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue co-chaired by the Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Defence and the U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. This dialogue guides on political, military, and strategic issues.

In the U.S., the Defense Policy Group (DPG), headed by the Defense Secretary and Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), provides a platform for a comprehensive review of defense dialogues/mechanisms.

India-US defense cooperation is said to be based on “New Framework for India-US Defense Cooperation”, which was renewed for ten years in 2015.

In 2016, the defense relationship was designated as a Major Defence Partnership (MDP). On 30 July 2018, India was moved into Tier 1 of the U.S. Department of Commerceʼs Strategic Trade Authorization license exception. It allows India to receive license-free access to a wide range of military and dual-use technologies.

The two countries have concluded important defense agreements that provide the framework for interaction and cooperation.

These are: Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (2016); Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (2018); Industrial Security Agreement (2019); and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (2020) and Memorandum of Intent for Defense Innovation Cooperation (2018); and Security of Supplies Arrangement (SOSA) and Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Assignment of Liaison Officers (2024).

It may be noted that before 2008, U.S.-India defense trade was relatively limited, involving modest U.S. sales of naval helicopters and counter-battery radars in the mid-2000s.

In 2007, the United States provided India with an amphibious transport dock ship under the U.S. Excess Defense Articles program. The combined cost of these three deals was roughly $233 million.

However, since 2008, India has contracted for at least $24 billion worth of U.S.-origin defense articles, purchasing items through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) processes.

Major U.S. sales since 2008 include transport and maritime aircraft; transport, maritime, and attack helicopters; anti-ship missiles; and howitzers, among others. India is now the largest operator of C-17 Globemaster heavy transport and P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft outside of the United States.

In late 2024, the U.S. Congress was notified of a possible FMS to India of 30 advanced radio systems and other support equipment worth an estimated $1.17 billion for India’s Seahawk naval helicopters, with a goal of upgrading India’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities.

Other proposed sales include ASW sonobuoys, turbofans for indigenously produced Indian combat aircraft, and additional MK 54 torpedoes, Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and Excalibur guided artillery rounds. The United States also offers India advanced combat aircraft such as the F-21 Fighting Falcon and potentially the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II.

The two countries launched a bilateral Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) in 2023 to expand strategic technology and defense industrial cooperation (this was redubbed as INDUS Innovation in early 2025).

At the time, Ohio-based General Electric issued an unprecedented proposal to produce its advanced F414 jet engine in India jointly.

India has also approved the procurement of 31 armed MQ-9B SeaGuardian and SkyGuardian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) built by California-based General Atomics for as much as $4 billion.
Major U.S. Arms Purchases, 2000-2024
(Deliveries completed unless otherwise noted.)

Air
28 AH-64 Apache combat helicopters (25 delivered)

1,774 AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles (1,454 delivered)

600 WGU-59 air-to-surface rockets (25 delivered)

245 Stinger portable surface-to-air missiles

12 APG-78 Longbow combat helicopter radars

15 CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters

13 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft

11 C-17 Globemaster III heavy transport aircraft

2 MQ-9A Reaper UAVs (two-year lease in 2020)

512 CBU-97 guided bombs

640 JDAM and GBU-39 guided glide bombs (0 delivered)

249 turbofan aircraft engines (48 delivered)

Sea
1 Austin-class amphibious transport dock

24 MH-60R Seahawk naval helicopters (12 delivered)

12 P-8I Poseidon patrol and ASW aircraft

78 MK 54 ASW torpedoes (62 delivered)

6 S-61 Sea King ASW helicopters

63 Harpoon anti-ship missiles

18 naval gas turbines (4 delivered)

Land
12 Firefinder counter- battery radars

145 M-777 towed 155 mm howitzers

1,400 M-982 Excalibur guided artillery shells

145,400 SIG Sauer SIG716 assault rifles

Besides, one of the significant features of the Indo-US defense cooperation is “military to military exchanges” that are taking place through high-level visits, exercises, training courses, and regular service-specific bilateral mechanisms.

It is to be noted that India conducts one of the largest numbers of military exercises with the United States, which are growing in scale and complexity. Important bilateral exercises include Yudh Abhyas (Army), Vajra Prahar (Special Forces), Malabar (Navy), Cope India (Air Force), and Tiger Triumph (tri-services).

Other bilateral exercises include Tarkash joint ground force counterterrorism exercises involving U.S. Special Forces and India’s National Security Guard troops, and Sangam naval special forces exercises, which bring together companies of U.S. Navy SEALs and the Indian Navy’s Marine Commando Force.

Defense forces of the two countries also participate in the multilateral exercises. These include :

Red Flag (The U.S. Air Force conducts aerial combat exercises with units from allied and partner countries several times each year in the United States), RIMPAC (reportedly the world’s largest maritime exercise), and CUTLASS Express (sponsored by the Pentagon’s Africa Command.

The February 2025 edition of “East Africa’s premier maritime exercise” took place near Seychelles and included units from more than 20 countries, including India, Sea Dragon (annual ASW theater exercise.

The last one was held near Guam in March 2025 and included forces from the Quad partners and South Korea, and Milan (India has hosted this biennial Bay of Bengal exercise since 1994.

The U.S. Navy first participated in 2022. The 12th edition in February 2024 was the largest ever, with 50 nations and the inclusion of a U.S. Navy destroyer.

Significantly, India joined the U.S.-commanded multilateral Combined Maritime Force (CMF) based in Bahrain as an Associate Partner in April 2022. It became a full member in 2023. This multinational naval partnership has 46 members and five Joint Task Forces focused on counter-narcotics, counter-smuggling, and counter-piracy.

Incidentally, the two countries have formed the U.S.-India Counter Narcotics Working Group (CNWG) that meets annually to deal with the drug menace together through cooperative measures and mechanisms.

To sum up, given the above range of the security relationship, it is understandable when optimists say that it will weather the storm caused by Trump’s diatribe, if not now but after the U.S. midterm elections in 2027 and certainly in 2029 when his term ends.

Because any pause does not benefit either the U.S. or India, they argue. Be that as

Opinion - Despite military purges, China’s next war ‘could be imminent’ and spread fast.

“There’s no reason to sugarcoat it,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 31 at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier security conference. “The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.”

Hegseth is right: America needs to urgently prepare for war.

War is coming to East Asia, and Taiwan — to which Hegseth was referring — is a target of Chinese aggression. Chinese President Xi Jinping, after all, has staked his personal legitimacy on annexing it as China’s 34th province.

Yet the U.S. and its partners have to be ready for anything at any place and at any time.

Why?

The Chinese regime, which is mobilizing all of society for war, is now unstable. It is not clear who, if anyone, is in charge. Therefore, the regime could take us by surprise.

One thing we know: Xi’s most senior loyalist in uniform has disappeared from public view. Gen. He Weidong, a vice chairman of the Communist Party’s Central Military Commission and the second highest-ranked uniformed officer, was last seen in public on March 11, at the end of the Communist Party’s major political event of the year, the so-called Two Sessions.

Many report that Xi sacked He. It’s true that Xi, since being named general secretary of the party in November 2012, has purged many military officers, ostensibly for “corruption,” and restructured the People’s Liberation Army. Both moves resulted in his taking firm control of the military.

Some have therefore assumed that Xi, for some reason, turned on his most important supporter in the military in March. However, it is not likely that Xi took down He.

On the contrary, it is much more probable that Xi’s adversaries removed that general.

While Xi loyalists were being removed from public view, PLA Daily, the Chinese military’s main propaganda organ, ran a series of articles praising “collective leadership,” a direct rejection of Xi’s continual calls for unity, centralization of control and complete obedience to his rule.

These articles, which began appearing last July, were written by people aligned with the top-ranked uniformed officer, Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Gen. Zhang Youxia. The propaganda pieces could not have appeared if Xi were in complete control of the military.

Moreover, He’s disappearance was followed by the disappearance of another Xi loyalist, Gen. He Hongjun. Rumors started that both generals had died by suicide in May at the military’s 301 Hospital in Beijing. Whether they are alive or not, they are out of the way, so their disappearance spells trouble for Xi.

“Gen. He Weidong was instrumental in Xi’s earlier purges in the military, so his disappearance could indicate a great threat to Xi’s authority,” Charles Burton of the Sinopsis think tank noted in comments to me this month.

The recent disappearances follow the sackings of, among others, Gen. Li Shangfu, a defense minister, Gen. Wei Fenghe, one of Li’s predecessors and perhaps as many as 70 in the Rocket Force, the branch responsible for the country’s nuclear weapons.

Given all the turmoil in the Chinese military, America and its partners need to focus on more than just Taiwan. In fact, the main island of Taiwan might be the least likely target.

To start hostilities by attacking Taiwan’s main island, China would need to launch a combined air-land-sea operation. To do that, Xi would have to give a general or admiral almost complete control over the military. The appointed flag officer would thereby become the most powerful figure in China.

Even in the calmest of times, Xi would be reluctant to create such a rival for power, but this is by no means a calm moment in Beijing. China’s leader seems to have lost substantial influence recently — so much so that there is speculation he could be pushed out of power in the coming months.

Whoever is controlling the purges — Xi or his political enemies — the Chinese military does not look ready to launch a complex operation such as a Taiwan invasion. Either Xi does not have the power to order an invasion because the military no longer answers to him, or Xi does not trust the most senior officers, a precondition for such a complex undertaking.

Despite all the turmoil in the leadership ranks, Hegseth was right to talk about an imminent war. The disruptive leadership moves in China have not prevented the Chinese military from engaging in low-level but especially provocative actions in the last couple of months against countries to China’s south and east.

We do not know whether China’s regime has made the decision to go to war, but its series of dangerous actions clearly reveals it has made the decision to risk war.

And war, if it begins somewhere, will likely spread. For one thing, the Chinese leadership will not be able to deal with incidents responsibly. In senior Communist Party circles these days, only the most hostile answers are considered acceptable.

Another factor is the existence of alliance and semi-alliance networks in the region. Four of China’s targets, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia, are U.S. treaty allies, and one, Taiwan, is protected by the United States. China, for its part, could bring in its friends.

Moreover, the U.S. should be prepared for conflict with the world’s most destructive weapons.

“China has spent the last five decades investing in building nuclear proxy forces in Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to create nuclear crises to divert Washington’s attention away from the Taiwan Strait,” Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told me this month. “China’s investment in Russia’s war in Ukraine is in the same vein.”

As Blaine Holt, a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general, said after Hegseth’s comments, “Millions of lives now hang in the balance.”

Gordon G. Chang is the author of “Plan Red: China’s Project to Destroy America” and “The Coming Collapse of China.”

Western nations are planning to table a resolution at a meeting of the U.N.’s nuclear agency that will find Iran in non-compliance with its so-called safeguards obligations for the first time in 20 years, a senior western diplomat said Thursday.

The move comes at a sensitive time as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration seeks to reach a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. The two sides have held several rounds of talks, so far without agreement.

The draft resolution will be jointly tabled by France, the U.K. and Germany, known as the E3, together with the United States, the senior Western diplomat said.

Consulting European allies-
In Washington, the State Department said the Trump administration was consulting with European allies about the next step.

“We are coordinating with our partners on our posture for the June 9-13 IAEA Board of Governors meeting and are considering all of our options,” the department said. “We continue to have serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and its longstanding failure to uphold its safeguards obligations.”

In an April 2024 report, the U.S. State Department assessed that Iran's “unwillingness to provide adequate responses to the IAEA’s questions regarding potential undeclared nuclear material and activities" constitutes "a violation of its obligation to accept safeguards under Article III of the NPT Treaty."

The draft resolution, which was seen by The Associated Press, says: “Iran’s many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.”

The draft resolution furthermore finds that the IAEA's “inability ... to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the United Nations Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

Ominous Signs For Taiwan & Japan! Why South Korea’s New President Is Good News For China & Russia.

Inaugurated as President soon after being declared the winner of South Korea’s Presidential election at 6:21 a.m. on June 3, (South Korea- time), Lee Jae-myung of the country’s progressive Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) has pledged to “expand the Republic of Korea’s economic territory by broadening the horizons of diplomacy and enhancing international standing”.

In all likelihood, his diplomatic vision will be closely watched by all those who believe in the United States-led security structure in the Indo-Pacific, particularly by the ruling elites in Taiwan and Japan, who seem to be discomforted by Lee’s slogan of “pragmatism.”

In his inaugural speech as President, Lee highlighted the salience of “pragmatic diplomacy centered on national interests” to “turn the crisis of a major transformation in the global economic and security environment into an opportunity to maximize national interests.”

He has reaffirmed his approach to relations with neighboring countries, including China and Russia, “from the perspective of national interest and pragmatism,” while emphasizing the Korea-US alliance as the cornerstone of foreign policy.

Perceived to be “pro-China” during the electioneering, Lee’s inaugural speech does not seem to have cleared doubts in Washington and Tokyo, despite promising that he would bolster a trilateral partnership with the US and Japan.

After all, he warned that rapid changes in the global order, including rising protectionism, pose a threat to his country’s survival.

“The rapid changes in the global order, such as rising protectionism and supply chain restructuring, pose a threat to our very survival,” Lee said in his inaugural address, in an apparent reference to the global trade chaos followed by US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

If one goes by the more ideologically driven progressives within Lee’s ruling DPK, which also controls South Korea’s parliament, the new President may create a distance between Seoul and Washington, particularly if the Trump administration reduces its security commitment on the Korean Peninsula or pushes South Korea beyond its comfort zone to deter China.

Incidentally, Lee had made waves on the campaign trail by saying that Seoul should stay out of any China-Taiwan conflict. This needs to be seen along with the fact that earlier this year, the speaker of South Korea’s National Assembly – an ally of Lee’s – received an unusually warm welcome in Beijing, including an hour-long meeting with Xi Jinping.

Of course, to be fair to Lee, he has been advocating for “foreign policy pragmatism” ever since he was a presidential candidate in 2022. He had lost this election very narrowly to the conservative People Power Party’s Yoon Suk Yeol.

But in April, President Yoon Suk Yeol was impeached, after he declared a short-lived state of martial law in December 2024 because Lee’s DPK was making governance impossible by rejecting all his policies because of its parliamentary majority.

As the Presidential candidate in 2022, Lee had explained his “Practical Vision” in an article in the Foreign Affairs journal. In this, he had called for “pragmatic diplomacy” toward neighboring countries, including China.

Although Lee acknowledged Beijing’s increasing assertiveness, he argued that Seoul should cooperate with Beijing. Furthermore, Lee stated that “overt antagonism serves neither South Korea’s national interests nor its alliance with Washington.”

In the above article, Lee admitted his problems with Japan.

“It is regrettable that Tokyo’s unwillingness to let go of its imperial past continues to hamper trilateral cooperation between Japan, South Korea, and the United States”, he pointed out, arguing how in 2018, after South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that Japanese corporations must pay reparations for their use of Korean forced labor during World War II. Tokyo imposed retaliatory export controls on three key chemicals—photoresists, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorinated polyimide—critical for making South Korea’s semiconductors and high-end displays used for televisions and smartphones. This was a shocking act of economic coercion to settle a historical grudge”.

It may be noted that relations between Japan and South Korea had seen an upswing during Yoon’s Presidency. And that was noteworthy because years under Yoon’s immediate predecessor, President Moon Jae-in (from Lee’s party) had nurtured anti-Japanese feelings.

Moon had scrapped the foundation that Tokyo and Seoul had set up with Japanese funding to provide restitution to the victims and their families. And the situation was further aggravated when, in 2018, South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered several Japanese companies to compensate unpaid South Korean World War II laborers.

Against this background, President Yoon had sincerely and actively tried to rise above these historical animosities and join hands together with Japan and the U.S. in the face of mounting North Korean aggressiveness and the Chinese hegemony, something all three consider to be their common threats.

Yoon had said that he believed in what he called “values-based diplomacy.”

Yoon often pointed out that “South Korea and Japan are now new partners who share universal values and pursue common interests.” He had emphasized the importance of Japan in South Korea’s security, particularly the seven rear bases provided to the United Nations Command by Japan, which could “serve as the greatest deterrent” to North Korea invading the South.

Under Yoon, South Korea has restored and expanded joint military drills (suspended under Moon to what was said “appease” China policy; he was believed to be the most pro-China President in South Korean history) and joined exercises with the US and Japan to track and intercept missiles from North Korea.

Yoon had proposed an initiative to resolve disputes stemming from compensation for wartime Korean forced laborers. He had announced that South Korea would use its own funds to compensate Koreans enslaved by Japanese companies before the end of World War II. This was reciprocated by Japan, which rolled back the sanctions on South Korea.

Yoon also traveled to Tokyo in March 2023 for talks with the then-Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. It was the first visit by a South Korean President to Japan in over 12 years. Kishida reciprocated with a visit to Seoul in May and expressed sympathy for the suffering of Korean forced laborers during Japan’s colonial rule.

Will Lee’s election as South Korea’s new President arrest the further momentum in the ties between Seoul and Tokyo, given his and his DPK’s traditional antipathy towards Japan?

It is a difficult question to answer. While Lee talks of “pragmatism,” during the electioneering, he said something that was considered by many analysts to be quite “ambiguous.”

On April 25, he clearly stated during a televised debate that South Korea must not be unconditionally tethered to the alliance or rigidly confined by the Korea–US–Japan trilateral bloc.

“Of course, the Korea–US alliance is indeed the foundation of the Republic of Korea’s foreign policy …but bloc alignments also carry weight. Trilateral cooperation among Korea, the US, and Japan is also important. But we cannot be unilaterally bound to those alone.”

In an interview released on the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation’s YouTube channel in mid-April, Lee argued that Seoul cannot afford to turn its back on either Beijing or Moscow in pursuit of its national interest, given their geographical proximity and deep economic entanglement.

“Even if we wanted to abandon ties with China and Russia, we couldn’t. We’re intertwined with them — what choice do we have?” Lee added, “Our economies are deeply intertwined with them, and geography makes separation impossible. It’s fate — our destiny.”

Lee emphasized the significance of navigating relations with China and Russia, especially at a time when a deteriorating global trade environment, hit by tariff wars, is weighing heavily on export-reliant South Korea.

During another television debate on May 18, Lee said, “We must prioritize the national interest and avoid becoming too deeply involved in the China-Taiwan conflict. The idea is to respect the status quo and maintain an appropriate distance.”

Pressed on whether he would support intervention in a potential China-Taiwan contingency, Lee declined to give a definitive answer, instead emphasizing a flexible, situational approach.

“If a specific situation arises, we must assess it flexibly, based on the national interest,” he said. “Diplomatic relations are fluid, and responses should vary accordingly.”

While reaffirming the importance of the South Korea–U.S. alliance, Lee said diplomacy with other major powers, such as China and Russia, should be handled in a prudent manner, saying it should be guided by “pragmatism” and the “national interest.”

In this interview, Lee acknowledged the importance of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and why it should remain “the foundation of our diplomacy and security, and be further strengthened,” but he added, and that is important to note, “however, we should not go all in and put all our eggs in one basket.”

If anything, these suggest that there could be a shift away from former President Yoon’s “values-based diplomacy” toward Lee’s foreign policy of pragmatism. However, it remains to be seen whether that pragmatism will be a turning point for the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met Russia's Secretary of the Security Council Sergei Shoigu on Wednesday, state media KCNA reported.

Kim pledged unconditional support for Russia's position on Ukraine and other international issues, the report said on Thursday.

"Kim Jong Un affirmed that the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will, in the future, too, unconditionally support the stand of Russia and its foreign policies," it said, using the North's official name.

North Korea will responsibly observe the articles of the treaty between the two countries, Kim was quoted as saying.

The two men also discussed strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership and mutual cooperation in different fields.

The treaty was signed during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Pyongyang last year and a summit with North Korea's Kim, and includes a mutual defence pact for immediate military assistance if either faces armed aggression.

“Sitting Ducks” For Ukraine! How 2010 U.S.-Russia Treaty Helped Kyiv’s UAVs Destroy Russian Nuclear Bombers?

On June 1, the world witnessed the Kalashnikov moment of Drone Warfare. While military watchers had been warning for some time that drone warfare had arrived, if anyone had any doubts, they were cleared in the spectacular Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airbases that might have knocked out 34% of its long-range strategic bomber fleet.

By smuggling 117 low-cost FPV drones into Russia, Ukraine claims that it has destroyed 41 Russian strategic bombers, including the Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22, and AEW&C A-50.

Kyiv claims that Russian losses amount to over USD 7 billion.

However, ever since the spectacular videos of the flimsy, low-cost drones rising vertically from trucks and destroying strategic bombers parked in open in Russian air bases appeared on social media, many people are questioning why long-range bombers, worth millions of dollars and part of the Russian nuclear triad, were parked in the open like sitting ducks with little to no protection?

Moreover, long-range bombers like the Tu-22 and Tu-95 are Soviet-era legacy aircraft that are no longer in production, which enhances their strategic value and makes replacement nearly impossible.

Despite this strategic significance, why these high-value targets were not parked in shelters is a question that is bewildering many.

In fact, rather than being parked in shelters or under well-protected concrete structures, these aircraft were parked in plain sight of satellites, on open tarmac in clearly marked bays, making them easily detectable by US/NATO spy satellites.

As strange as it may sound, Russian bombers could have been parked in the open for exactly this reason: so that they can be spotted or detected by US satellites.

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian strikes, many people, including military veterans, pointed out on social media that nuclear-capable bombers are to be parked in the open under the obligations of a bilateral treaty with the US.

New START Treaty & Implications For Heavy Bombers
Former US Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who also served as the 24th national security advisor under the first Trump administration, noted that the Russian bombers could have been parked in the open due to nuclear treaty obligations.

“FYI, those bombers that were hit HAVE to be out in full view due to nuclear treaty obligations. Zelenskyy took advantage of that,” General Flynn noted on X.

His post generated heated discussions on social media about whether Russian obligations under a bilateral treaty with the US might have helped Ukraine in targeting the Russian strategic bombers.

The nuclear treaty General Flynn was referring to was the New START Treaty signed between the US and Russia in 2010.

The bilateral treaty was signed to reduce and limit strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, enhancing global security and stability. Signed on April 8, 2010, in Prague by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, it replaced the expired START I treaty and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).

The treaty aimed to reduce nuclear arsenals and enhance verification and transparency.

It set verifiable limits, capping deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550, deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers at 700, and total deployed and non-deployed launchers at 800.

The treaty also established a robust inspection and verification regime, including on-site inspections, data exchanges, and telemetry sharing, to ensure compliance and build trust between the two nations, which hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The treaty covers ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers. The Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95 are both covered under the category of heavy bombers and are mentioned explicitly in the treaty.

Article 8, clause C of the treaty states that existing types of heavy bombers are:

For the United States of America, the B-52G, B-52H, B-IB, and B-2A.
For the Russian Federation, the Tu-95MS and Tu-160.
Further, Article IV of the treaty states that

Each Party shall:

(a) Deploy launchers of ICBMs only at ICBM bases;

(b) Deploy heavy bombers only at air bases.

There are many other restrictions on Heavy bombers in the treaty. For instance:

“Each Party shall base test heavy bombers only at heavy bomber flight test centers. Non-deployed heavy bombers other than test heavy bombers shall be located only at repair facilities or production facilities for heavy bombers.”

“Each Party shall not carry out at an air base joint basing of heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments and heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.”

Also, “Strategic offensive arms shall not be located at eliminated facilities except during their movement through such facilities and during visits of heavy bombers at such facilities.”

Under the treaty, both parties also need to release data on deployed nuclear warheads on strategic bombers, as well as on non-deployed strategic bombers.

For the sake of verification and transparency, both parties were given the right to inspect each other’s nuclear-capable assets. The inspection involves both on-site and off-site inspections.

It is clear that under this treaty, both sides have to release data on the number of nuclear-capable heavy bombers, as well as on their locations. Furthermore, there are restrictions on where these heavy bombers can or cannot be placed. Both parties have the right to inspect and verify the authenticity of the provided data.

The protocols for inspection further state that “heavy bombers shall be photographed without tarpaulins or covers.”

Another important clause in the treaty puts the obligation for “Non‑Interference with National Technical Means (NTM).”

“The treaty permits the use of national technical means of verification (e.g., satellites) in a manner consistent with international law, and contains explicit provisions that prohibit interference with NTM and the use of concealment measures that may impede monitoring by NTM.”

The verification by means of satellites meant that the heavy bombers were often parked in the open, in full glare of spy satellites.

So, while the treaty does not explicitly demand that the heavy bombers be parked outside, this became a usual practice.

“Russia, like the US, often leaves long-range bombers parked outside and easily visible, both for operational reasons and as part of nuclear-treaty obligations,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

The treaty also means that the data on the number of heavy bombers and their location is often publicly available.

However, it is worth noting that Russia suspended its participation in the New START treaty in February 2023. Still, the old treaty will remain in force, at least legally, until February 5, 2026.

So, it is clear that Russia was not obligated to park its heavy bombers in the open. However, the terms of the treaty and its complex inspection protocols meant that it became the usual practice.

In fact, not just Russia, even the US often parks its strategic bombers in the open.

The spectacular Ukrainian attack and the devastating blow it has delivered to the Russian heavy bomber fleet are a wake-up call not just to Moscow but to the US as well.

“Very costly U.S. Strategic Bombers can be taken out in the same way by anyone with access to inexpensive drones, delivery trucks, explosives, and a bit of technical knowledge (not good and new tactics will now have to be developed).”

“People, and especially world leaders, need to realize the global implications to such an operation as Ukraine just pulled off,” former US General Flynn warned in his post.

Harvard has become a top Chinese Communist ‘Party school’

The Trump administration’s effort to revoke visas for Chinese college students has intersected with its legal battles with Harvard University.

As the State Department moves to limit Chinese student visas, the Wall Street Journal has released a report detailing the university’s alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party, citing the university as a favored institution for China’s political elite.

Chinese Communist elites attended Harvard: WSJ
According to the Journal, a 2014 article from the Shanghai Observer referred to Harvard as the party’s top “overseas party school.”

“If we were to rank the Chinese Communist Party’s ‘overseas party schools,’ the one deserving top spot has to be Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government,” the online platform run by the city’s main party newspaper said.

The report cites a training program from the 2000s called “China’s Leaders in Development.”

What to know as Trump ramps up his student visa crackdown

Harvard’s website describes the program as designed to help senior local and central Chinese government staff better address China’s “national reforms.”

The report names several high-ranking party figures who have studied at Harvard, including a former vice president of China who attended a training program at the university’s public policy school in 2002, a retired vice premier who received a master’s from Harvard in public administration in 1995, and a current party member who took part in a short-term Harvard program in 1999.

It also claims that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s daughter attended Harvard under an alias in the early 2010s, which was allegedly known to some staff members.

Harvard has not responded to the Wall Street Journal’s report.

A wide range of global leaders — including Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and multiple Taiwanese presidents — have also studied at Harvard.

Judge extends block on international student ban
In federal court, a judge recently extended a block on the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students.

Harvard, Trump court battle — and polarizing debate — continue

The administration has given Harvard 30 days to submit evidence challenging the proposed plan, which would limit international enrollment to 15%.

Harvard has criticized the plan as a threat to academic freedom after school leaders pushed back against ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and addressing pro-Palestinian rallies.

In the most recent school year, Harvard hosted more than 6,700 international students, including approximately 1,200 from China.

“India Lost 120 Aircraft, Pakistan Winning”! How Islamabad Lied During The 1971 War Before “Bitter Facts” Shocked Pak- TRUE or FALSE? (Part 1)

“The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history,” is a famous quote by German philosopher Georg Hegel.

In somewhat similar vein, another German philosopher who was contemporary with Hegel – Karl Marx – warned us that “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second time as a farce.”

Though written almost two centuries ago, both these quotes ring equally true in today’s world as well, more so in the case of Pakistan. This country seems almost hell bent on repeating its past mistakes to the detriment of its future.

While ‘Narrative Warfare’ has its place in modern hybrid warfare, and can act as a morale booster despite battlefield losses, it can also create a ‘fog of war,’ so blinding that one literally becomes the victim of its own propaganda, and fails to learn critical lessons, until it’s too late and ‘all is lost.’

It’s tragic enough to repeat this mistake once, but it becomes a farce when one insists on repeating this mistake again and again.

As Karl Marx warned us: “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second time as a farce.” But as Marx’s fellow countryman and a contemporary of his, Hegel warned us that despite the costs of not learning the correct lessons from history, “the only thing we learn from history,” is that “we learn nothing from history.”

German Invincibility And Two Back-To-Back World War Defeats
Ironically enough, the warnings of Marx and Hegel were not heeded even in their own country, Germany.

Germany was convincingly routed in the First World War. However, instead of soul-searching and learning the right lessons, Germany sought to come to terms with its defeat through myth-making.

Now, this myth-making is remembered as the “Stab-in-the-back” myth. In the aftermath of the humiliating 1918 defeat, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory was promulgated and widely believed by the German masses.

It sought to make sense of the German defeat by propounding that Germany could never be defeated.

According to this theory (and belief system), Germany was defeated not on the battlefield, but was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the home front – especially Jews, Communists, and revolutionary socialists.

Further, it claimed that the German race is invincible and can never be defeated on the battlefield. The defeat in the First World War has hurt German pride, and this myth of German invincibility and the “Stab-in-the-back” theory helped a defeated people come to terms with their loss.

The “Stab-in-the-back” theory was an integral part of Nazi propaganda. This myth-making, or constructing alternative facts/history, not only led Germany into another defeat, this time even more devastating and humiliating than the first time, but also created conditions for the worst genocide of our times – the mass killings of Jews, Romanians, Poles and Communists at the hands of Nazis.

However, what is surprising is the sway this myth of German invincibility held over the German masses even until the last days of the Second World War, when both the Eastern and Western fronts had collapsed and the Soviet Red Army was knocking on the doors of Berlin.

Germans failed to see the reality until it was too late, and all was lost. The German homeland was now divided into two halves, East Germany and West Germany.

Myth-Making In Pakistani National Psyche And The 1965 War
The myth of German invincibility had striking parallels in the Pakistani national psyche in the 1960s. Over 800 years of history were narrated in a selective manner to suit a particular agenda.

Missing from this selective history in Pakistan was the reality of India at the eve of British invasion in 18th century when most of the Indian hinterland was under Maratha sway and most of the Pakistani Punjab, Multan, Sindh, and Kashmir, right up till the borders of Tibet in the East and Afghanistan in the West was under the Sikh kingdom.

In the first week of June 1965, a high-ranking Pakistan Army officer wrote an article in the Dawn newspaper recommending that the Pakistani strategy should “obviously be to go for a knock-out in the Mohamed Ali Clay style,” a reference to the American boxer, often regarded as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time.

British Army historian Brian Cloughley writes in his book – A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections – that an official military directive from that time stated, “as a general rule, Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows delivered at the right time and place.”

Wars fought 1000 years ago in West Asia were cited as evidence of an impending Pakistan victory. “Hus ke liya hai Pakistan, ladh ke lenge Hindustan” (We achieved Pakistan, laughing, we will take India fighting) was the war cry in Pakistan.

Believing in their absolute invincibility, Pakistan, like Nazi Germany, became a victim of its own propaganda and launched ‘Operation Gibraltar,’ named for a famous Moorish military victory in Medieval Spain. Pakistani war-fighting units were named after legendary warriors of the Islamic past – Suleiman, Salahuddin, and so on.

As it happened, Pakistani plans came to naught. During the 1965 war, even though Pakistan had the element of surprise, India was able to occupy nearly four times more land than Pakistan.

India was able to occupy 1920 sq miles of Pakistani territory, most of it in the fertile plains of Punjab and the strategic Haji Pir Pass in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). In comparison, Pakistan was able to occupy roughly 540 sq miles of Indian territory, most of it in the barren no-man’s lands of Rajasthan, though Pakistan had the advantage in the Chumb sector.

However, as India agreed to establish the status quo ante after the ceasefire, in Pakistan, the 1965 war was always taught and remembered as a victory. This myth-making was considered essential by the Pakistani defense establishment to maintain the morale of the society.

Though, as Marx had warned, this failure to learn from history led to Pakistan’s catastrophic defeat in the 1971 war, the humiliating surrender of 93,000 soldiers, and the loss of the country’s eastern half, which became a separate country in Bangladesh.

1971 War Amid Plethora Of Pakistani Lies
The importance Pakistan has always placed on winning the narrative war, even at the expense of battlefield victories, is best exemplified by a critical analysis of The Dawn’s front pages during the 13-day 1971 war.

The Dawn is widely regarded as Pakistan’s most respected newspaper internationally.

A critical analysis of these front pages from the newspaper’s war days reveals how the Pakistani people were kept in the dark about the actual battlefield situation until it was too late, and everything was lost.

In fact, reading these articles, any person would have believed that Pakistan was headed for a grand victory over India. These newspaper clippings also reveal Pakistan’s mastery of a hybrid ‘Narrative Warfare’ from an early era.

On December 4, 1971, the Dawn reported that “West Pakistan attacked at 7 points”. Then it says, “It’s Now all-out war.” Further, the newspaper reports that in response to the Indian attack, “PAF bombed 7 Indian airfields including Agra.” It created an impression that India was the aggressor.

Golden Dome: China Develops New Stealth Material That Could Puncture Trump’s Ambitious Defense Shield.

Even before Donald Trump’s ambitious $175 billion missile defense system – the Golden Dome – could materialise, China’s new technology is gearing up to punch holes in it.

China has developed a new material to enhance the stealth of its aircraft and missiles, enabling them to evade microwave and infrared detection technologies used for surveillance.

The much-hyped Golden Dome system is touted to be a multi-domain shield that will be built to keep the US safe against aerial threats from adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

President Trump has described the system as a “transformative leap” in national defence, combining land, sea, and space-based technology to intercept missiles, drones, and potentially even space-launched weapons.

“Golden Dome will protect our homeland,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “Once fully constructed, Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.”

According to the 2025 Threat Assessment by the US Intelligence Community, “The PLA has the capability to conduct long-range precision strikes with conventional weapons against the Homeland’s periphery in the Western Pacific, including Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska. China has developed a range of ballistic and cruise missiles with conventional payloads that can be delivered from its mainland as well as by air and sea, including by nuclear-powered submarines. China may be exploring development of conventionally-armed intercontinental range missile systems, which, if developed and fielded, would allow China to threaten conventional strikes against targets in the continental United States.”

The ‘Golden Dome’ is expected to be America’s satellite-based shield against the growing intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal of China and Russia. Both countries with adversarial ties to the US have also been working on hypersonic missiles. Beijing had earlier expressed grave concern about the project.

Now, the development of new materials that can help China’s long-range missiles evade detection could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the American missile defense shield.

Stealth coating works by reducing the radar cross-section of a particular aircraft or missile, making it harder to detect. Aircraft and missiles emit strong thermal radiation, specially created by superheated components such as exhaust nozzles, which raises the risk of detection.

Over time, high temperatures degrade or destroy the structure of standard materials. However, the new material is claimed to be engineered to withstand extreme temperatures, making it highly suitable for high-speed military platforms, such as missiles and hypersonic aircraft.

According to a report by the South China Morning Post, a Chinese research team led by Professor Li Qiang of Zhejiang University has found a solution to the problem.

A study published in March reveals that the team has developed a material capable of evading both microwave and infrared detection technologies, even when exposed to extremely high temperatures. The microwave and infrared detection are commonly used in military surveillance.

This new ‘meta surface’ claims to resolve the longstanding issue vis-à-vis stealth coatings – instability at high temperatures. When subjected to high temperatures produced by engine exhaust or aerodynamic friction, many stealth materials lose their structural integrity or become less effective. This new material, on the other hand, continues to function at temperatures as high as 700°C.

The material exhibits multispectral properties under laboratory conditions. It lowers radiation fingerprints in a wide range of wavelengths, including microwave frequencies and the short-wave (SWIR), mid-wave (MWIR), and long-wave infrared bands.

In comparison to established blackbody radiation standards, lab testing showed a significant decrease in thermal emissions: radiation intensity decreased by 37.2% in the SWIR band and by 63.6% in the MWIR range at peak heat.

The material has a layered structure, including a specialised “meta-surface” – which is a precisely engineered layer patterned to control how radar and infrared waves interact with it.

The top layer is designed to be moisture resistant, whereas the bottom layer ensures its adherence to the surface. Laser etching throughout the structure allows radar signals to pass through without compromising its heat-hiding abilities.

Blinding The Radars
Since the advent of radar, military aircraft designers have worked towards masking their planes to avoid detection.

Over time, a combination of technologies has been employed, including radar-reflecting shapes and radar-absorbing materials. The leading military powers are continually working to improve their stealth aircraft technology.

Presently, the American B-2 stealth bomber, F-22 Raptors, and F-35 Lightning II are covered in various radar-absorbing polymers and designed to reflect radar energy away from detectors.

They absorb 70 percent to 80 percent of the energy from tracking radar. This makes it difficult to differentiate the aircraft from birds and other smaller airborne objects.

These Radar Absorbing Materials (RAMs) have two major shortcomings – they can be easily damaged due to exposure to salt and moisture. And, secondly, most advanced, stealthy polymers degrade at temperatures above 250 Celsius, a heat level very common around aircraft engines.

China has also been investing in stealth technologies and experimenting with new ideas. Earlier this year, it was reported that Chinese researchers have adapted the 3,000-year-old Jacquard weaving technique to resolve the issue of stealth coating degradation.

The Chinese researchers found that integrating conductive yarns into a warp-knitted “double-sided jacquard” structure enabled the new material to absorb 90.6% of radar waves in the 8-26GHz spectrum, outperforming conventional coatings.

According to the team led by Professor Jiang Qian, the material is a “marriage of ancient patterning and modern electromagnetism.”

Even the F-22’s RAM is not immune to extreme weather conditions. According to USAF’s data, it spends over $60,000 per flight hour and requires RAM reapplication every three weeks, resulting in high costs and frequent maintenance downtime.

In comparison, the article claims, China’s jacquard-woven stealth material extends service life to 18 months, reducing costs by 75 percent.

U.S. Treaty Ally, China’s Key Partner In S.E Asia Exchange Fire; Another Frozen Conflict Heating-Up In Asia?

After the Azerbaijan and Armenia conflict, and a brief but intense India-Pakistan clash, another frozen conflict is heating up in Asia between Cambodia (a key Chinese ally) and Thailand (a US treaty partner), exchanging fire near the contested borders, resulting in the death of one Cambodian soldier.

This is the most serious exchange of fire on the contested border since the 2008 armed clashes that resulted in the deaths of 28 people. Now, Cambodia has decided to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over border disputes with Thailand, Prime Minister Hun Manet said.

“Cambodia hopes that the Thai side will agree with Cambodia to jointly bring these issues to the International Court of Justice… to prevent armed confrontation again over border uncertainty,” Hun Manet said during a meeting between MPs and senators.

The Thailand-Cambodia border dispute, primarily centered on the Preah Vihear Temple and maritime claims in the Gulf of Thailand, stems from historical treaties and colonial-era ambiguities. The 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, situated in the Dangrek Mountains, was awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice in 1962; however, disputes over adjacent land persist, fueled by nationalist sentiments in both countries.

Military clashes between the Southeast Asian neighbours erupted in 2008 and have led to several years of sporadic violence.

The most recent occurred last week, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a location known as the Emerald Triangle — a joint border area between Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos.

The day after, Cambodia’s foreign ministry sent a letter to the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh demanding “an immediate and thorough investigation” into the “unprovoked attack”.

Describing the incident as “a violation of Cambodian sovereignty”, Phnom Penh said it remained committed to resolving the issue through “peaceful and diplomatic avenues”.

Prime Minister Hun Manet stated that even if the Thai side did not agree to bring the issue to the ICJ, Cambodia would still file the complaint.

He added that the border dispute was being “incited by small extremist groups in both countries”, which could lead to further clashes.

Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP. Cambodia’s military had said they were attacked first in last week’s incident, while the Thai side said their soldiers were responding to gunshots.

The Thai and Cambodian militaries met the following day and agreed to ease tensions. Thailand states that a Joint Boundary Committee will convene within the next two weeks to resolve the issue.

The Emerald Triangle is among the areas that will be named in the ICJ complaint, Hun Manet said.

Another is Ta Moan Thom Temple, the backdrop for a video posted on social media earlier this year showing a woman singing a patriotic Khmer song, which led to Bangkok lodging a formal protest to Phnom Penh.

Cambodia and Thailand have long been at odds over their more than 800-kilometre-long (500-mile) border, which was largely drawn during the French occupation of Indochina.

The 2008 military clashes erupted over a patch of land next to Preah Vihear Temple, a 900-year-old structure near their shared border. This led to several years of sporadic violence before the International Court of Justice ruled the disputed area belonged to Cambodia.

Interestingly, China’s robust backing of Cambodia and the U.S.’s longstanding support for Thailand could make the region another hotspot for US-China rivalry.

China’s support for Cambodia is marked by large-scale aid, prioritizing infrastructure and regime security, but raising concerns about debt dependency and Chinese military influence.

In contrast, U.S. support for Thailand is anchored in a formal alliance, with aid often tied to democratic principles, though tempered by pragmatic engagement with Thailand’s military-led government.

Cambodia leans heavily on China to counterbalance Vietnam and Thailand, while Thailand navigates a delicate balance, engaging both superpowers to maintain autonomy.

This dynamic fuels a broader U.S.-China competition in Southeast Asia. Cambodia’s alignment with China reinforces Beijing’s regional foothold, especially in the South China Sea, while the U.S.-Thailand partnership bolsters Washington’s endeavors to counter Chinese influence.

Thailand is the United States’ only treaty partner in mainland Southeast Asia, a treaty ally since 1954, and a major non-NATO ally since 2003.

The U.S.-Thai security relationship extends far beyond the transfer of defense articles and services. It is particularly supported by people-to-people ties through professional military education, military exercises, and regular troop engagements.

Arresting judges. Threatening their impeachment. Routinely slamming them on social media and trying to go around them completely.

President Donald Trump and his allies have led an intense pressure campaign on the judiciary four months into his administration. Both sides of the political spectrum are using the term constitutional crisis.

“It’s an all-out war on the lower courts” said former federal Judge John Jones III, who was appointed by President George W. Bush

As the clash becomes a defining moment in the president's second term, conservative activists are pushing Congress to rein in federal judges. The Article III Project, a Trump-aligned group, arranged 164,000 phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress in recent weeks urging lawmakers to back Trump in this judiciary fight. They called for impeaching Judge James Boasberg - one of the federal judges who has drawn MAGA's ire - after he ordered a temporary halt to Trump's effort to deport some immi

President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa engaged in a tense back-and-forth at the White House on Wednesday over Trump's false claims of "genocide" against white South African farmers.
ABC News Selina Wang it was a "poor compilation of old videos" and a "complete lie."
"I don't know, all of these are articles over the last few days, death of people, death, death, death, horrible death," Trump said.

Trump White South Africans were "fleeing because of the violence and the racist laws."

Ramaphosa pushed back, saying the clips of speeches Trump played "is not government policy." He and other members of the South African delegation said the speakers and their views were part of extremist fringe political groups.

"There is criminality in our country. People who do get killed, unfortunately, through criminal activity are not only white people, majority of them are Black people," Ramaphosa said.

France will from next year impose a handling tax for every small parcel sent from China sent by platforms such as Shein and Temu, a minister said Tuesday.

The charge was announced by public accounts minister Amelie de Montchalin amidst international concerns that tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump could force more Chinese goods into other markets.

Montchalin said the tax would be a "a few euros" for each parcel, or a few cents for each article. The aim, she added, was for platforms to pay rather than the consumer.

The European Union is aiming to reform its customs union by 2028 and the minister's office said France wanted "the rapid establishment at the European level of a handling fee mechanism for each small package entering Europe."

Proposals on how to end Russia's war in Ukraine that were given to the U.S. side on Wednesday by Ukrainian and European officials at talks in London.
Ceasefire:
* Commit to a full and unconditional ceasefire in the sky,on land and at sea. * Both sides immediately enter into negotiations ontechnical implementation with the participation of the US andEuropean countries. This is in parallel to preparation of theagenda and modalities for a full peace deal.
Security guarantees for Ukraine:
* Ukraine receives robust security guarantees includingfrom the US (Article 5-like agreement), while there is noconsensus among Allies on NATO membership. * No restrictions on the Ukrainian Defense Forces. * The guarantor states will be an ad hoc group of Europeancountries and willing non-European countries.
Territory:
* Territorial issues will be discussed and resolved aftera full and unconditional ceasefire. * Territorial negotiations start from the basis of theline of control. *

whether you are relocating to a new home or office. The logistics of packing, transporting, and unloading your belongings require careful planning and execution. That’s where Veteran Movers comes in. As a company built on the values of military precision, discipline, and reliability, we offer efficient and affordable local moving services designed to make your move as smooth and stress-free as possible. Whether you’re moving within the city or to a neighboring town, our experienced and professional movers will handle your belongings with the utmost care. In this article, we’ll explore the key features of our services, why Veteran Movers is the best choice for your local move, and how we can help you achieve a hassle-free moving experience.

Government's case against Mahmoud Khalil shoows Americans are really enabling outside agents to destroy their own country. Around the world no country ever have more stupidity within their own citizens empowering crisis in higher institutions with protests.
The former Columbia University student arrested on campus and scheduled for deportation has filed evidence that shows claims underlying the government's case are dubious.
100 pages of documents submitted by the federal government in its effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil, as well as evidence filed by Khalil’s legal team, including his permanent residency application, several articles about his activism, and contracts and letters detailing internship and work experience.

In some instances, the government appears to be relying on unverified tabloid articles about Khalil. In others, the government’s claims about him are clearly erroneous because timelines don’t match.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Tuesday drew attention to Congress’s power over the federal judiciary as Republicans plot how to legislatively channel their outrage over district judges who have blocked Trump administration actions.

“We do have authority over the federal courts,” Johnson said in a press conference Tuesday. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”

Johnson clarified that he was not calling to eliminate courts, but rather meant to illustrate Congress’s broad scope of authority, Punchbowl News reported.

Article III of the Constitution specifically vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and in “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The structure of the district court system, and how they are funded, are determined by Congress.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday downplayed the texting of sensitive plans for a military strike against Yemen's Houthis this month to a group chat that included a journalist, saying it was “the only glitch in two months” of his administration as Democratic lawmakers heaped criticism on the administration for handling highly sensitive information carelessly.

Trump said “turned out not to be a serious one," and expressed his continued support for national security adviser Mike Waltz.

Waltz, according to an article posted online Monday by The Atlantic, appeared to have mistakenly added the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a chat that included 18 senior administration officials discussing planning for the strike.

“Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man," Trump said. He also appeared to point blame on an unnamed Waltz aide for Goldberg being added to the chain. “It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there."

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting has asked for the protection of Britain’s nuclear deterrent if Donald Trump withdraws US security guarantees for Europe.

Friedrich Merz said Germany needed to prepare in case the president ditched Nato promises to defend his allies.
The centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader said he wanted Europe to have its own nuclear umbrella or at the very least be able to shelter behind Britain and France’s weapons.

Mr Merz is expected to win election and when there are fears the transatlantic relationship is breaking down.
Emmanuel Macron has already suggested the French deterrent could be extended to the rest of Europe, but has been rebuffed by Germany until now.

Since then, Mr Trump has begun negotiations with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine over Volodymyr Zelensky’s head, and without involving European leaders.
The US president has undermined Nato’s Article 5, which states an attack on one alliance member is an attack on all

North Korea's state media on Wednesday reported U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration but without any commentary on his presidency, but did accuse the United States of committing atrocities during the 1950-53 Korean War.
The Rodong Sinmun, the ruling Workers' Party mouthpiece, published a brief article saying Trump was elected as the 47th president in a November election and an inauguration ceremony.

It did not elaborate and include any commentary on Trump or U.S. affairs, though the newspaper carried a photo of young students receiving propaganda education about the Korean War and "soaring in rage at the atrocities committed by the enemy, the U.S."

South Korea's National Intelligence Service told lawmakers last week that Pyongyang's recent missile tests were partly aimed at "showing off its U.S. deterrent assets and drawing Trump's attention" after vowing "the toughest anti-U.S. counteraction"

Panama has complained to the United Nations over US President Donald Trump's "worrying" threat to seize the Panama Canal, even as it launched an audit of the Hong Kong-linked operator of two ports on the interoceanic waterway.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the government in Panama City referred to an article of the UN Charter precluding any member from "the threat or use of force" against the territorial integrity or political independence of another.

The missive, distributed to reporters Tuesday, urges Guterres to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, without asking for a meeting to be convened.
Trump, in his inaugural address Monday, repeated his complaint that China was effectively "operating" the Panama Canal through its growing presence around the waterway, which the United States handed over at the end of 1999.
"We didn't give it to China, we gave it to Panama. And we're taking it back," Trump said.

A New York resident who prosecutors say operated a "secret police station" in the Chinatown district of Manhattan to aid Beijing's targeting of dissidents pleaded guilty on Wednesday to conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent.

Chen Jinping, 61, entered the plea at a hearing in Brooklyn Federal Court before U.S. District Judge Nina Morrison. He faces up to five years in prison when he is sentenced on May 30.

In court, Chen admitted to removing an online article about the alleged police station on behalf of China's government in September 2022. He said he was not registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent at the time, as U.S. law requires of people acting for other countries.
Chen and a New York-based co-defendant, Lu Jianwang, were initially arrested on April 17, 2023. Lu has pleaded not guilty to the same charge, as well as to obstruction of justice.

North Korea has called South Korea a 'fascistic dictatorship' after its short-lived martial law.
South Korea has democratic elections, while Kim Jong Un exerts near-total control over North Korea.
An article in North Korean state media also referred to South Korea's president as a "puppet."

North Korea has called South Korea a dictatorship after the latter's short-lived attempt at martial law.
Last week, South Korea's president, Yoon Suk-yeol, declared martial law in the country in a surprise announcement, citing the need to eliminate "anti-state" forces.
The unexpected decision was met with widespread protests, and hours later South Korea's parliament voted down the measure. Yoon's government quickly rescinded it.
In reality, North Korea is widely regarded as a global pariah due to Kim's authoritarian governance, whereas South Korea is recognized as a democratic nation.

President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that it was Russia's business whether or not it decided to use North Korean troops and said that if Ukraine wanted to join NATO then Moscow could do what it wanted to ensure its own security.

The United States said seen evidence that North Korea has sent 3,000 troops to Russia for possible deployment in Ukraine.

Ukraine's military intelligence service said that the first North Korean units trained in Russia had been deployed in the Kursk region.

"When we have to decide something, we will decide... but it is our sovereign decision whether we will apply it, whether we will not, whether we need it," Putin "This is our business."

Article 4 of the agreement says: "If one of the Parties is subjected to an armed attack by any state or several states and thus finds itself in a state of war, the other party will immediately provide military and other assistance with all means at its disposal."

Biden approved Taiwan's biggest security package yet. China says the military aid won't deter it.
President Joe Biden on Sunday approved $567 million in defense aid for Taiwan.

It is the largest aid package that US has ever sent to Taiwan.

China responded, stating the move violates the one-China principle.

President Joe Biden on Sunday said the US will send Taiwan its largest-ever security package amid rising tensions with China.

The $567 million in aid will be used for "defense articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to Taiwan,"

The figure is nearly double the amount the US sent in a previous $345 million package last year.

China struck a defiant tone in response to the aid.

"No matter how many weapons the United States supplies to Taiwan, it will never weaken our firm will in opposing Taiwanese independence, and safeguarding China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity," Chinese fo

In global game of influence, China turns to a cheap and effective tool: fake news
When veteran U.S. diplomat Kurt Campbell traveled to the Solomon Islands to counter Beijing's influence in the South Pacific country, he quickly saw just how far China would go to spread its message.

The Biden administration’s Asia czar woke up one morning in 2022 to a long article in the local press about the U.S. running chemical and biological labs in Ukraine, a claim that Washington calls an outright lie. Started by Russia, the false and incendiary claim was vigorously amplified by China's vast overseas propaganda.

It was another example of “clearly effective Russian and Chinese disinformation," Campbell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July.

Two years later, the claim still reverberates online, demonstrating China's sprawling effort to reshape global perceptions. The campaign, costing many billions per year, is becoming ever more sophisticated thanks to artificial intelligence

Elon Musk calls Australian government 'fascists' over misinformation law.
“Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,”
Tech billionaire Elon Musk on Thursday called the Australian government “fascists” over plans to crack down on misinformation online.

Social media companies could face fines up to 5% of their global revenue if they enable the spread of misinformation, under a law proposed Thursday by Australia’s Labor government.

Tech platforms would be required to establish codes of conduct for how to stop dangerous misinformation from spreading, which would have to be approved by a regulator. Platforms that failed to do so would be fined and required to follow a standard set by the regulator instead.

Musk, who considers himself a free speech advocate, made the one-word comment in a repost on his social media platform X of an article about the proposed legislation.

Australian officials accused Musk of hypocrisy.

US warns of growing risks of business in Hong Kong
The United States on Friday warned of growing risks for businesses operating in Hong Kong, saying that routine activities could run afoul of the financial hub's new national security regulations.

China had agreed to a "One Country, Two Systems"

But Beijing has clamped down since mass protests in 2019, with Hong Kong's opposition-free legislature in March passing an ordinance that carries life imprisonment for crimes including treason and insurrection.

Updating a business advisory first issued in 2021, the State Department and other US agencies warned of "new and heightened risks" for firms operating in Hong Kong.

"The vaguely defined nature of the law and previous government statements and actions raise questions about risks associated with routine activities," it said of the new Article 23 law.
The advisory also said differences were narrowing between Hong Kong and mainland China.