🍔 Zomato Clone App – Launch Your Own Food Delivery Business in 2025! 🚀
Start your own food delivery platform like Zomato with our ready-made Zomato Clone App.
Easily connect restaurants, delivery partners, and customers in one smart app.
✅ User-friendly design
✅ Fast and secure orders
✅ 100% customizable for your brand
Make your food delivery dream a reality today! 🌟
Get a Free Demo
Mail id : sales @abservetech .com
Phone number: + 91 9222479222
#ZomatoClone #fooddeliveryapp #OnDemandApp #AppDevelopment #startup #Abservetech #usa #uk #india #australia #inland #india #greenland #Delivery #business #zomoto #southamerica #Canada #spain #russia #madurai #AppDevelopment #cloneapp #clone script #dubai #egypt #mexico #japan

The waves are calling! Australia’s water taxi sector is making a splash with booking apps changing how people move on water. Find out how it's pulling ahead in the mobility game.

Discover more: https://www.spotnrides.com...

Whatsapp: https://wa.me/919600695595

#watertaxiapp #AustralianWaterTaxiapp #taxibookingapp #WaterTaxibookingApp #WaterTaxibookingAppinAustralia #Watertaxibusiness #WaterTaxiinAustralia #TaxiAppDevelopment #eatertaxiscript #taxibookingsoftware #TaxiBusiness #taximanagementsoftware #taxicloneapp #uberclone #ubercloneapp

https://www.siecindia.com/...

#StudyInAustralia #StudyAbroadInAustralia #AustralianUniversities #TopUniversitiesInAustralia #StudyInAustraliaForInternationalStudents #AustraliaStudyGuide #EducationInAustralia #StudyVisaAustralia #AustralianStudentVisa #CostOfStudyingInAustralia #ScholarshipsInAustralia #BestCoursesInAustralia #WhyStudyInAustralia #LivingInAustraliaForStudents #StudyInAustraliaRequirements #StudyInAustraliaForIndianStudents #HigherEducationInAustralia #AustralianEducationSystem #AffordableUniversitiesInAustralia #StudyingAbroadInAustralia

https://www.siecmigration....

#AustraliaMigrationProgram2025 #AustraliaMigrationIntake2026 #AustraliaPermanentResidency2025 #AustraliaPR2026 #SkilledMigrationAustralia2025 #AustraliaImmigrationNews2025 #AustraliaVisaProgram2026 #AustraliaPRQuota2025 #MigrationCapAustralia2026 #AustraliaImmigrationUpdates

https://www.siecindia.com/...

#UniversitiesInAdelaide #AdelaideUniversities #TopUniversitiesInAdelaide #BestUniversitiesInAdelaide #UniversitiesInSouthAustralia #StudyInAdelaide #HigherEducationInAdelaide #AdelaideUniversityRanking #SouthAustraliaUniversities #AdelaideCollegesAndUniversities #TopCollegesInAdelaide #UniversityOfAdelaide #FlindersUniversityAdelaide #UniversityOfSouthAustralia #BestCollegesInSouthAustralia #InternationalStudentsInAdelaide #StudyAbroadInAdelaide #AdelaideCampusUniversities #AdelaideHigherEducation #UniversitiesForInternationalStudents

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.

Should countries name and shame China for cyberattacks, or work diplomatically behind the scenes?
The decision of whether to "name and shame" China for cyberattacks or work diplomatically behind the scenes is a complex one, with both approaches having potential benefits and drawbacks.
Many countries, including the U.S., its Five Eyes allies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), and increasingly the EU and Japan, often employ a combination of both, adapting their strategy based on the severity of the attack, the geopolitical context, and their specific objectives.

Arguments for Naming and Shaming (Public Attribution):
Imposing Reputational Costs: China, like any major power, is sensitive to its international image. Publicly calling out its malicious cyber activities, especially when done in a coordinated manner by a coalition of states (as seen with the Microsoft Exchange hack attribution), can impose reputational damage and diplomatic costs.

Deterrence (Long-Term): While direct deterrence of nation-state cyberattacks is difficult, public attribution can contribute to a long-term deterrence strategy. It signals that:

The victim state has the capability to identify the attacker, challenging the notion of anonymity in cyberspace.

There will be consequences, even if not immediate kinetic retaliation.

Such behavior is unacceptable and violates international norms.

Norm-Setting: Public attribution, especially when accompanied by legal condemnations and statements about international law (even if not universally agreed upon), helps build and reinforce norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. It draws a line in the sand and clarifies what actions are considered unacceptable.

Rallying Allies and Partners: Coordinated public attribution strengthens alliances and fosters collective security. It encourages intelligence sharing and collaboration on cybersecurity defense among like-minded nations, presenting a united front.

Raising Awareness and Improving Defenses: Public disclosures of nation-state TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) force organizations and governments to update their defenses against specific threats. The Hafnium attribution, for example, spurred widespread patching and improved vigilance.

Domestic Accountability/Public Opinion: In democratic countries, public attribution can inform citizens about threats to national security and critical infrastructure, potentially generating public support for stronger cybersecurity measures or policy responses.

Arguments for Diplomatic, Behind-the-Scenes Engagement:
De-escalation: Public accusations can sometimes lead to an escalatory cycle. Diplomatic channels allow for discreet communication, negotiation, and de-escalation, especially in sensitive situations where a public spat could worsen tensions.

Preserving Channels for Cooperation: Despite competition, there are areas where cooperation with China is necessary (e.g., climate change, pandemic response, nuclear non-proliferation). Public "shaming" could jeopardize these essential diplomatic avenues.

Intelligence Protection: Revealing attribution publicly often requires disclosing intelligence sources and methods, which can compromise future intelligence gathering capabilities. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy allows intelligence to be leveraged without exposure.

Lack of Immediate Impact: China routinely denies all accusations of state-sponsored hacking. Critics argue that "naming and shaming" has little immediate impact on China's behavior, as it simply issues boilerplate denials and continues operations.

Risk of Misattribution/Retaliation: Despite advances, definitive attribution can be challenging. A mistaken public accusation could severely damage diplomatic relations and potentially trigger retaliatory actions against the falsely accused state.

Specific Objectives: Sometimes the goal is to recover stolen data, gain access to compromised systems, or secure specific commitments. These objectives might be better achieved through quiet negotiations than public confrontation.

Maintaining Strategic Ambiguity: Some states prefer to keep their red lines and response capabilities ambiguous in cyberspace, believing this ambiguity can enhance deterrence. Public attribution might reduce this ambiguity.

A Hybrid Approach is Often Preferred:
In practice, many countries (like the US, UK, EU, and now increasingly Taiwan, as seen with recent public statements about UNC3886) adopt a hybrid approach:

Public Attribution for Major Incidents: When attacks are widespread, highly impactful (like the Microsoft Exchange hack or critical infrastructure targeting), or involve significant intellectual property theft, public attribution (especially when multilateral) is used to impose costs and set norms.

Behind-the-Scenes for Ongoing Issues or Sensitive Intelligence: For continuous espionage, specific intelligence exchanges, or when sensitive sources might be compromised, quiet diplomatic engagement or private warnings are often preferred.

Layered Response: Public attribution can be followed by diplomatic démarches, sanctions, or other policy responses, combining different tools of statecraft.

Given Taiwan's unique geopolitical position and direct exposure to Chinese cyber threats, a carefully calibrated approach is crucial.
Publicly exposing certain attacks can rally international support and highlight Beijing's aggressive cyber posture, which aligns with Taiwan's strategy of garnering international sympathy and support.
However, it must also balance this with pragmatic considerations for maintaining stability across the Strait and managing potential escalations.
The recent public statements from Singapore regarding UNC3886, despite initial Chinese denials, indicate a growing willingness among affected nations to be more transparent about the origins of serious cyberattacks.

China’s Darwin Port Control: Trump’s ‘New Appointee’ Fuels Australia’s Plan To End Landbridge‘s 99-Year Lease?

Is the appointment of Stephen Andrew Feinberg, an American businessman and investor, as the 36th United States deputy secretary of defense by President Donald Trump, the prime reason for Australia considering terminating the Chinese-owned company Landbridge‘s 99-year lease for the strategically important Darwin port?

“Not exactly” could be the answer, though Feinberg’s private equity group Cerberus (he is the founder and co-CEO, but had to resign from the post for joining the Pentagon) is reported to be one of the bidders, along with the Japanese logistics company Toll Group, to buy back the lease from Landbridge.

If done, it will be on the pattern of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s proposed sale of Panama Canal ports to Swiss-Italian Mediterranean Shipping Co and BlackRock, following pressure from the Trump Administration over alleged Chinese influence at the vital waterway.

There is also the possibility of Australia not leasing the port to any other country after taking it back from the Landbridge, based on recent statements by Australian politicians. The country will manage the port itself.

Landbridge’s lease has been a controversial issue in Australian politics ever since it was signed on November 15, 2015.

In fact, the debate surrounding the port predates the Trump Presidency. The lease was opposed by even President Barack Obama. But the then Liberal government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull gave the go-ahead for the lease. The Labor Party, then in opposition, had opposed the move.

Now in power, Labor has not changed its position, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanes, who got reelected in May this year, asserting during his election-campaign, “ “Obviously we live in an uncertain world at the moment, the idea that you would have the major port in northern Australia owned by any foreign interest is not in Australia’s national interest”.

The Liberals, now in opposition, have also changed their position. They are now against the lease. Thus, there is now a more or less political consensus in Australia against the Darwin port remaining in Chinese hands.

It may be noted that Darwin Port, located in Australia’s Northern Territories (NT), was leased for $506 million by the Landbridge, which is controlled by Chinese billionaire Ye Cheng, who was a member of the national committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body, from 2013 to 2018.

The Labor Party, then, had alleged that Landbridge had “extensive connections” to the Chinese Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army, warning that the lease “compromised Australia’s long-term strategic security”.

However, it is also noteworthy that Australia’s Defence Department had in 2015 reviewed the strategic and operational risks of the deal, including cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, infrastructure degradation, and port shutdowns, and okayed it. Likewise, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was equally satisfied with the level of due diligence conducted before the lease was approved.

Reconsideration Of The Lease
So, why is security a factor now in the demands behind the reconsideration of the lease?

It is because the geopolitical considerations in 2015 of the Australian security elites have changed. The optimistic perception of China in Australia in 2014 seems to be no longer there today, thanks to Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region in recent years.

After all, so runs the argument, every civilian Chinese farm, state-owned or not, and the Landbridge being no exception, has to comply with the ruling Communist Party’s mandates on matters relating to national security. Businesses do constitute a geopolitical cudgel for Beijing.

And that being the case, Darwin’s strategic location is significant as it is Australia’s northernmost maritime facility, situated on the edge of Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.

Maritime forces stationed there can always enjoy a central position just outside the southerly arc of Asia’s first island chain, which runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Indonesian archipelago before terminating at the Strait of Malacca.

The Sunda and Lombok straits, key alternatives to the Malacca Strait, are within Darwin’s reach. Amid China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, U.S. Marine forces, allies of Australia, have direct access from Darwin, with approximately 2,500 Marines from the I Marine Expeditionary Force rotating through the port annually.

Among other functions, these Marines are also said to be honing tactics for “access denial” while helping beleaguered allies and partners like the Philippines and Taiwan.

In other words, with Darwin occupying such a strategic position, it is argued that Australia and its allies cannot afford to leave the port in Chinese hands.

As James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College fears, Chinese observers at the port could gather intelligence on the Australian Defense Force and allied comings and goings while abetting net assessment of allied capabilities, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

“In so doing, they help acquaint the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with potential foes, the first step toward defeating them. Nor is it far-fetched to imagine Chinese port operators slow-rolling—or, more likely, actively hampering—allied military movements and resupply in wartime”.

All these apprehensions, when fitted in the overall framework of China outpacing the developed Western countries in general and the United States in particular in investing in “the port infrastructure around the world”, have further sharpened the geopolitical focus on Darwin.

Incidentally, as per the latest available data, China operates or has ownership in at least one port on every continent except Antarctica. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active, whereas the remaining 14 port projects have become inactive due to cancellation or suspension over environmental concerns, souring of political relations, financial problems, and security issues raised domestically and internationally.

It is said that China has ownership of 91 active port projects across the globe, where military use is a possibility, providing it with a foothold on every continent except Antarctica.

These projects are part of its Maritime Silk Road (MSR). If the American military analysts are to be believed, China’s position of control and influence over the majority of port infrastructure globally poses a significant economic and military security threat to the United States and its allies.

It is feared that China could always use its power to interfere with operations that rely on port access—including military and economic operations that are vital to American interests and those of its allies and partners.

In fact, according to a study, out of the 70 commercial port projects that China has in the “Global South,” which includes Australia, an estimated 55 projects have the potential for naval use as well.

In addition to commercial and military use, China is believed to be using port infrastructure for spying and intelligence gathering. Apparently, a U.S. Congressional probe in 2024 showed communications equipment in Chinese-made cranes at U.S. ports, suggesting vulnerabilities to supply chains, trade data, and other sensitive information.

It is also said that China has secured a commanding position through Logink (also known as the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform), a Chinese state-owned digital logistics platform.

At least 24 ports worldwide reportedly have adopted the Logink system, which could allow China to access significant amounts of confidential information related to transportation, pricing, and management of goods (including military equipment), threatening its rivals’ security.

Given all this, the United States would obviously like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to keep up his election promise of taking back Darwin from the Chinese hands. But then, it is easier said than done.

Albanese had avoided giving a definite answer when questioned on this during his six-day trip to China, one of Australia’s “strategic partners”, last month.

In any case, China is speaking out vehemently opposing the termination of the lease, terming the move as “ethically questionable.”

Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called for his country’s companies to be treated properly, saying, “We hope that the Australian side can provide a fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises in Australia”.

But the point is that gone are the days when China was seen in Australia as a benign trade partner. China’s lease of the port is no longer an issue limited to trade; it has become the battleground over Beijing’s overall geopolitical ambitions, something Australia’s ally, the United States, is trying to keep limited.

From BrahMos To Maritime Drills: India-Philippines Military Partnership Redefines Indo-Pacific Security.

The strategic partnership announced between India and the Philippines during the successful visit of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to India this month is significant and unique in several ways, with far-reaching implications.

The Philippines is geographically the farthest ASEAN member from India and has traditionally had limited engagement with New Delhi.

Its severe challenge from China over the Scarborough Shoal and nearby islets in the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea) has reshaped its strategic outlook. Despite winning the 2016 arbitral award that rejected China’s so-called traditional rights over the “nine-dash line,” the then-Philippine administration chose not to press its advantage and instead sought to accommodate Beijing.

This approach brought few tangible benefits.

Upon assuming office, President Marcos reversed this policy of accommodation at all costs, taking a firm stand against Chinese assertiveness, a lonely position within ASEAN.

The Philippines has borne the brunt of aggressive actions by Chinese coast guard vessels, including ramming incidents and injuries to its seamen.

This shift aligns closely with India’s evolving stance: over the last three years, Indian statements have moved beyond general support for freedom of navigation and UNCLOS implementation to openly endorsing the arbitral award.

This convergence forms the foundation of the new strategic partnership, rooted in shared security concerns rather than primarily economic ties. Bilateral trade remains modest, and unlike with other ASEAN members, the partnership with the Philippines is driven by genuine strategic considerations.

Notably, the Philippines has emerged as a major buyer of Indian defence equipment, particularly the BrahMos missile system.

In a determined manner, it overtook earlier interest shown by Vietnam and Indonesia, both existing strategic partners of India, and has begun deploying BrahMos batteries.

Although no new weapons deals were announced during the visit, it is clear that Manila seeks to strengthen its coast guard, coastal defence, and related capabilities, and sees India’s competitive defence pricing as an advantage.

The Philippines has acknowledged the BrahMos system’s operational effectiveness during Op Sindoor. The Philippines has relatively few strategic partnerships: this is only its fifth, after those with Japan, Australia, Vietnam, and South Korea.

Traditionally, its strategic lens has been regional, but it now recognizes the Indo-Pacific framework, in which India plays a central role.

Since China’s assertive posture in the South China Sea became evident two decades ago, ASEAN unity in challenging Beijing has steadily weakened.

In 2012, at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, all but Cambodia criticized China. By 2017, when the Philippines last hosted the ASEAN Summit, only Manila and Hanoi remained openly critical.

Today, even Vietnam has shifted towards compromise, leaving the Philippines as perhaps the only ASEAN state willing to confront China directly. This isolation has led it to adopt an “ASEAN Plus” approach, engaging robustly with Japan, the U.S., and Australia to strengthen its defence and strategic posture.

The reopening of U.S. bases in the Philippines, including one in the northern islands, underscores its role in any potential Taiwan crisis. Japan is also supplying substantial defence equipment under its new Official Security Assistance policy.

With the Philippines already aligned closely with the Quad countries, a strategic partnership with India is a natural progression.

The Philippines will chair ASEAN in 2026. During its chairmanship, India is expected to hold the second ASEAN–India Maritime Exercise (AIME). The first, in May 2023, included a harbour phase at Changi Naval Base in Singapore and a sea phase in the South China Sea.

These exercises enhance interoperability between Indian and ASEAN navies and demonstrate their ability to operate jointly to promote regional security. It remains to be seen whether the next exercise will be held closer to Philippine waters.

Indian naval and coast guard presence in the Philippines has grown steadily, with visits averaging twice a year. During President Marcos’s visit, Indian ships had just completed a joint exercise with the Philippine Navy, including three warships and a hydrography vessel.

The newly signed strategic partnership document, detailed and resembling a joint statement, marks the 75th anniversary of India–Philippines diplomatic relations and sets out the Plan of Action 2025–2029 to guide cooperation.

On the strategic front, India and the Philippines have had a Defence Cooperation Agreement since 2006, supported by mechanisms such as the Joint Defence Cooperation Committee and the Joint Defence Industry and Logistics Committee.

These bodies are working to deepen defence industrial collaboration, technology research, and training. Efforts are underway to institutionalize military training across the tri-services. The two sides will also hold the India–Philippines Maritime Dialogue annually, following its inaugural session in December 2024.

The partnership includes enhanced maritime domain awareness, shipbuilding cooperation, maritime connectivity, coastal surveillance, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, co-development and production of defence equipment to achieve self-reliance, and joint investments in defence R&D and supply chains.

The AIME, Philippine maritime cooperation activities, and the MILAN naval exercise are all identified as platforms for collaboration.

Both countries are committed to counter-terrorism through more frequent dialogues, information-sharing, and best-practice exchanges, with zero tolerance for terrorism.

The Philippines values India’s naval capacities, a fact underscored by President Marcos’s public thanks for India’s 2024 rescue of Philippine seafarers after a Houthi rebel attack in the Red Sea. For Manila, which sees itself as the “Sentinel of the Pacific,” and for India, positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, this partnership broadens their shared strategic horizons.

Key outcomes of the visit include:
Terms of Reference for tri-service staff talks between the two armed forces.
A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in criminal matters.
A Statement of Intent for cooperation between the Indian and Philippine space agencies.
Terms of Reference for enhanced coast guard cooperation.
An invitation for the Philippines to participate in the Information Fusion Centre for the Indian Ocean Region in Gurugram.
Philippine interest in collaborating under one of the pillars of India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), complementing the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) provides further opportunities ahead.

With converging strategic perceptions, a record of successful defence cooperation, and a shared commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, the India–Philippines partnership has entered a new and more ambitious phase.

Al Jazeera: Terrorists Or Journalists? All You Want To Know About Qatar’s Global Media Organization.
Al Jazeera said on Sunday that five of its journalists were killed in an Israeli strike, including a renowned reporter.

The Israeli military acknowledged in a statement targeting correspondent Anas al-Sharif, accusing him of being a “terrorist” affiliated with Hamas.

Al Jazeera said four others had been killed: correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, along with camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa.

Here are five things to know about the Arab media giant, which has been at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration since well before Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza started on October 7.

Founded By Decree
Al Jazeera was launched in Doha in 1996 by a decree issued by the former emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.

While stipulating that the channel should be “totally independent of all influences”, the decree also provided a $150-million government loan for “setting it up and covering its operating costs for five years”.

Though Al Jazeera Media Network is a private business, the broadcaster has retained some Qatari government funding, which its critics often cite when questioning its editorial independence from Doha.

The broadcaster immediately emerged as a rival to international media giants but its no-holds-barred coverage as the self-described “first independent news channel in the Arab world” also sparked a series of legal disputes in the region in its early years.

Global Reach
The channel says it operates in 95 countries with 70 bureaus and a staff of 3,000 employees, with a global audience of more than 430 million homes.

Al Jazeera, the network’s initial Arabic-language news channel, was joined in 2006 by an English service.

Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English, the network’s flagship channels, have distinct editorial lines, with the Arabic-language channel more frequently facing criticism from within the region.

The network also includes a live public affairs channel, Al Jazeera Mubasher, and its digital-only AJ+ channel, which targets young audiences.

Airtime For Dissidents
When a wave of popular uprisings swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, Al Jazeera was seen as a key shaper of public opinion because it gave unprecedented airtime to opposition groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.

The network has repeatedly rejected any accusation of bias in its coverage.

Al Jazeera faced pressure from governments across the region and became the focus of a feud between Cairo and Doha after the 2013 military ouster of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi.

Cairo considered it a mouthpiece for Morsi’s Islamist movement and Egyptian authorities arrested three Al Jazeera journalists, including Australian Peter Greste, provoking international condemnation.
Regional Blockade
In 2017, Qatar’s neighbours, led by Saudi Arabia, imposed a three-year diplomatic and economic blockade on the Gulf monarchy.

As well as demanding Qatar cut ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and its sister organisation Hamas, and downgrade relations with Iran, the boycotting states also called for the closure of Al Jazeera and all its affiliates.

The channel called the pressure an attempt to “silence freedom of expression”.

On The Ground In Gaza
Since war broke out in the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel, Al Jazeera has aired continuous on-the-ground reporting of Israel’s military campaign and its consequences.

Its broadcasts have been among the most watched in the Middle East amid widespread disenchantment with Western media coverage regarded as skewed in Israel’s favour.

In April 2024, Netanyahu called Al Jazeera a “terrorist channel”, saying he would “act immediately” to halt its activities after parliament passed a law allowing the banning of media broadcasts deemed harmful to national security.

The law was used to ban Al Jazeera from broadcasting from Israel as of May 5, 2024, and to close its offices in the country in a temporary but renewable measure. Israel later moved to revoke the press credentials of some Al Jazeera journalists.

The network has decried a “criminal” violation of “the human right to access information”.

Since the start of the Gaza war, Al Jazeera’s office in the besieged Palestinian territory has been bombed, and a number of its staff have been killed.

Israel has repeatedly accused Al Jazeera journalists, including those killed or injured in strikes, of “terrorism” links or collaborating with Hamas.

Al Jazeera has fiercely denied the allegations and accused Israel of systematically targeting its employees in the Gaza Strip.

Marcos says the Philippines will be pulled into any war over Taiwan, despite China's protest
Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said Monday his country would inevitably be drawn “kicking and screaming” into any war over Taiwan due to its proximity to the self-ruled island and the presence of large numbers of Filipino workers there, despite China’s strong protest over such remarks.

Marcos also told a news conference that the Philippines' coast guard, navy and other vessels defending its territorial interests in the South China Sea would never back down and would stand their ground in the contested waters after the Chinese coast guard on Monday staged dangerous blocking maneuvers and used a powerful water cannon to try to drive away Philippine vessels from the hotly disputed Scarborough Shoal.

It’s the latest flare-up of long-simmering territorial disputes in the busy waterway, a key global trade route, where overlapping claims between China and the Philippines have escalated in recent years. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also lay claims to parts of the contested waters.

Relations between China and the Philippines have been severely strained after Marcos, who took office in mid-2022, and his administration emerged as some of the most vocal critics in Asia of China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. The Marcos administration deepened its treaty alliance engagements with the United States and started broadening security alliances with other Western and Asian countries like Japan, Australia, India and some EU member states to strengthen deterrence against Beijing’s assertiveness.

China protested last week and accused Marcos of interfering in its domestic affairs and violating its “One China” policy when he told reporters on the sidelines of a visit to India that there was no way the Philippines could stay out of a possible war in Taiwan because of his country’s proximity to it and the presence of about 200,000 Filipino workers on the self-ruled island. China claims Taiwan as its own territory and has repeatedly threatened to annex it, by force if necessary.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry then said through a spokesperson that “'geographic location' and a ‘large volume of Filipinos’ in Taiwan should not be used as pretexts to interfere in the internal and sovereign affairs of other countries” and urged the Philippines “to earnestly abide by the One China principle” and “refrain from playing fire on issues bearing on China’s core interests.”

Asked to comment on China’s protest, Marcos said he was perplexed and could not understand Beijing’s concern.

“I don’t know what they’re talking about, playing with fire? I was just stating facts. We do not want to go to war, but I think if there is a war over Taiwan, we will be drawn, we will be pulled in whether we like it or not, kicking and screaming,” Marcos said. “We will be drawn and dragged into that mess. I hope it doesn’t happen, but, if it does, we have to plan for it already.”

Separately, Philippine Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela said Chinese coast guard ships chased and staged dangerous blocking maneuvers on Monday against Philippine coast guard and fishing vessels in the Scarborough Shoal, a rich fishing atoll in the South China Sea off the northwestern Philippines. A Philippine coast guard ship managed to evade being hit by a Chinese coast guard water cannon during the melee, he said.

While chasing a Philippine coast guard vessel, a Chinese coast guard ship accidentally collided with a Chinese navy ship, Tarriela said. The Chinese coast guard ship sustained “substantial damage” and the Philippine coast guard offered to provide help, including medical assistance, to the Chinese side, he said.

There was no immediate comment from Chinese officials on Tarriela’s statements.

Asked if the Philippine vessels would be instructed to withdraw from the disputed shoal, Marcos said his government would never back away from any fight.

“There is no silver bullet that if you fire it, all our problems would be solved,” Marcos said. “What will happen is, we will continue to be present, we will continue to defend our territory, we will continue to exercise our sovereign rights and despite any opposition from anyone, we will continue to do that as we have done in the past three years.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the sanctions imposed Tuesday by Britain and other nations against two Israeli cabinet members accused of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians.

"These sanctions do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war" in Gaza, Rubio said in a statement.

Britain's foreign ministry earlier announced that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir will be banned from entering the UK and will have any assets in the country frozen.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway also imposed fresh measures against the ministers, as the Israeli government faces growing international criticism over the conduct of its conflict with Hamas.

The sanctions mark a break between the five countries and Israel's closest ally, the United States, with Rubio urging partners "not to forget who the real enemy is" and to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel" against Hamas.

Ben Gvir and Smotrich "have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights," the foreign ministers of the five countries said in a joint statement.

"These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now –- to hold those responsible to account," they added.

A UK government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Canada and Australia had also imposed sanctions, while Norway and New Zealand had implemented travel bans only.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar slammed the sanctions as "outrageous."

- 'Horrendous language' -

Smotrich and Ben Gvir are part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fragile ruling coalition.

Both have drawn criticism for their hard-line stance on the Gaza war and comments about settlements in the occupied West Bank, the other Palestinian territory.

Smotrich, who lives in a West Bank settlement, has supported the expansion of settlements and has called for the territory's annexation.

Last month, he said Gaza would be "entirely destroyed" and that civilians would "start to leave in great numbers to third countries."

Ben Gvir has also called for Gazans to be resettled from the besieged territory.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the pair had used "horrendous extremist language" and that he would "encourage the Israeli government to disavow and condemn that language."

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters insisted the measures were not directed against the Israeli people or government.

"Rather, the travel bans are targeted at two individuals who are using their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution," he said in a statement.

- 'Violence must stop' -

The UK foreign ministry said in its statement that "extremist settlers have carried out over 1,900 attacks against Palestinian civilians since January last year."

It said the five countries were "clear that the rising violence and intimidation by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities in the West Bank must stop."

"Measures today cannot be seen in isolation from events in Gaza where Israel must uphold international humanitarian law," the ministry said.

It added that the five nations "support Israel's security and will continue to work with the Israeli government to strive to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Gaza."

Britain had already suspended free-trade negotiations with Israel last month and summoned Israel's ambassador over the conduct of the war.

It also announced financial restrictions and travel bans on several prominent settlers, as well as two illegal outposts and two organizations accused of backing violence against Palestinian communities.

Is time running out for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu?

Wherever Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks, trouble seems to be looming.

Criticism of his government’s war on Gaza is mounting, with charges of genocide and war crimes coming from both foreign leaders and former Israeli prime ministers.

Internationally, Israel is looking increasingly isolated, as images of the starvation it is inflicting on Gaza flood global media.

Domestically, Netanyahu faces deep criticism of a war many believe he is only prolonging to stay in power.

Legally, the prosecution in his corruption trial has begun its cross-examination of him, while politically, he is facing a possible collapse of his governing coalition.

Netanyahu has never seemed so embattled in his career, but is this really the end for Israel’s longest-serving prime minister?

Here’s what we know....
Just how unpopular is Netanyahu with the Israeli public?
Very, and it’s growing.

Netanyahu has long been accused of manipulating the war in Gaza for his political ends, an accusation that gained new momentum since March, when Israel broke the ceasefire with the Palestinian group Hamas, further endangering the captives held in Gaza.

In late May, a poll for Channel 12 television showed a majority of Israelis thought Netanyahu cared more about retaining his grip on power than returning the captives.

Most of the protests held in Israel have focused on the captives taken during the Hamas-led assault of October 7, 2023, and how extending the war for political motivations endangers them.

But recently, a small but significant number of Israelis have also protested against the intense suffering their government is inflicting upon the people of Gaza. In addition to an open letter from the country’s academics denouncing Israel’s devastation of Gaza, a growing number of photographs of Palestinian children are being held by demonstrators as part of wider Saturday night protests against the war in Tel Aviv.

Even members of the military are growing unhappy with the war in Gaza.

As reports of reservists refusing to fight increased, open letters by current and former officers in various divisions appeared, calling for an end to the war.

What political criticism of Netanyahu has there been?
Two of Israel’s former prime ministers have recently publicly criticised Netanyahu.

Ehud Barak, a former general and prime minister from 1999 to 2001, said in Time magazine that Netanyahu must choose between a deal brokered by United States President Donald Trump to free the captives and end the war, or continuing with his politically motivated “war of deception”.

Ehud Olmert, prime minister from 2006 to 2009, wrote in Haaretz that Israel was guilty of having committed war crimes in Gaza and that: “This is now a private political war.”

“A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a pastime, and does not engage in mass population displacement,” former general and leader of the Democrats party, Yair Golan, told local radio station Reshet Bet.

He was referring to the stated plans of far-right ministers like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to expel Palestinians from Gaza in order for Israelis to settle it.

Olmert added on Tuesday that Trump should tell Netanyahu that “enough is enough”.

What is the threat to Netanyahu’s coalition?
For years, Israel has been divided over the conscription of its ultra-Orthodox youth, who were exempt from military service if they were full-time students in religious schools or yeshivas.

In June 2024, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the exception could no longer apply, fulfilling a longstanding demand by secular Israelis who protested against the double standard.

But the leaders of the two ultra-Orthodox parties in the ruling coalition, Shas and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), are threatening to collapse the government unless it passes legislation that would override the Supreme Court decision.

It is unclear whether elections would result in a parliament more sympathetic to the ultra-Orthodox, but recent developments, like plans to increase the number of conscription notices to ultra-Orthodox students, have pushed the issue to the fore.

How internationally isolated has Israel become?
Arab and European leaders have become increasingly vocal in their criticisms of Netanyahu and the war.

However, for now at least, he still has the vital support of the US and President Donald Trump.

In early May, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League slammed Netanyahu after he suggested that expelled Palestinians would be able to settle in Saudi territory.

Later the same month, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom, who had all previously supported Israel’s war on Gaza, issued a statement describing the level of human suffering in the enclave as “intolerable”.

Spain and Ireland, which, along with Norway, recognised a Palestinian state in May 2024, have also called for action to be taken against Israel and the Netanyahu government.

The UK, along with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, also announced on Tuesday that they would impose sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir.

How long Netanyahu will keep Trump’s support, however, is not clear, as speculation that the mercurial US president may be tiring of Netanyahu is widespread and growing.

And his legal problems?
Netanyahu has been embroiled in multiple corruption investigations since 2019. If he is found guilty, he faces jail, possibly up to 10 years.

His trial, which began in 2020, has faced numerous delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, the war on Gaza, which he is accused of extending and at times exacerbating precisely to avoid his trial.

Critics also say he is extending the war to avoid being held accountable for his government’s failings during the October 7 attack.

So, is time up for Benjamin Netanyahu?
Controversy and scandal have followed Netanyahu throughout his political career, and opposition to his rule is growing within Israel and parts of the West, yet he may still survive, observers say.

However, to do so, Netanyahu must retain US support for his government while sustaining a war that Trump appears to want ended.

“I don’t know if Netanyahu can come back from this,” one of his former aides, Mitchell Barak, told Al Jazeera in May.

“There’s a lot of talk about Netanyahu being at the end of his line … They’ve been saying that for years, and he’s still here … but I can’t see any more magic tricks that are available to him.”

International pressure has increased again on Israel. Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway say they have imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers for allegedly “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich face asset freezes and travel bans. They are champions of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Settler violence there has spiked since the start of the war in Gaza, where the ministers have been the most vocal in support of hardline policies.

Meanwhile, Israel's navy attacked docks in Yemen’s rebel-held port city of Hodeida, likely damaging facilities that are key to aid shipments to the hungry, war-wracked nation. This is the first time Israeli forces have been involved in attacks against the Iranian-backed Houthis, who have launched missiles and drones targeting Israel during its war on Hamas in Gaza.

Inside Gaza, Palestinian health officials and witnesses said Israeli forces fired toward crowds making their way to a food distribution point run by an Israeli and U.S.-supported group, killing three people and wounding scores.

And Israel deported activists including Greta Thunberg, the Foreign Ministry said, a day after the military seized their Gaza-bound ship protesting Israel's restrictions on aid to the territory.

Here's the latest:

UK and others sanction Israeli ministers for ‘inciting violence against Palestinians’

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway have imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers for allegedly “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich face asset freezes and travel bans from the five countries. They are champions of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The five countries’ foreign ministers said Tuesday that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich “have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights."

Thunberg speaks after Israel deports her.

Activist Greta Thunberg has arrived in France after being deported from Israel. She says the conditions she and other activists faced as they tried to sail to Gaza “are absolutely nothing compared to what people are going through in Palestine and especially Gaza right now.”

Israel seized their boat on Monday. Thunberg says they were well aware of the risks. “The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid," she said in Paris.

She said the activists would continue trying to get aid to Gaza, where experts have warned of famine under Israeli restrictions on supplies into the territory of over 2 million people.

Israel says the U.K. is sanctioning 2 Cabinet ministers

Israel says it has been informed that the United Kingdom will sanction two of its Cabinet ministers. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar did not provide their names in public remarks.

It appears the sanctions will target Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two far-right champions of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich both acknowledged the sanctions on social media, and Smotrich confirmed he was a target.

Israeli police arrest 13-year-old, accuse him of carrying out tasks for Iran

Israeli police arrested a 13-year-old, accusing him of taking money to carry out tasks for Iran.

A statement from the police and the domestic security agency Shin Bet Tuesday said the teen had been contacted on the messaging app Telegram by “Iranian elements,” without elaborating.

Police say the teen, a resident of Tel Aviv, was asked to take pictures of Israel’s missile defense system Iron Dome, a task he did not carry out. They also accuse him of spraying graffiti at the behest of his Telegram contact.

The teen was released on house arrest after being questioned, police said.

Over recent months, Israel has arrested several people in connection with what it says are attempts by Iran and others to pay Israelis to spy on facilities and officials.

Gaza aid ship’s organizers call activist detentions arbitrary

The group behind the Gaza-bound ship that Israel seized says that four of its passengers, including Greta Thunberg, have been deported.

The remaining eight are being detained while waiting to appear before a judge. They are expected to be deported within days.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition called on the Israeli authorities to release the passengers without deportation. It said their legal team will argue that the ship’s interception was unlawful and the detentions arbitrary. Lawyers will also demand that they be allowed to complete their mission to Gaza, the group said in a statement.

Remains of Thai hostage who was held in Gaza to be flown to Thailand

The Foreign Ministry of Thailand says that the remains of a Thai laborer who was taken hostage by Hamas will be sent back to Thailand on Tuesday.

Nattapong Pinta came to Israel to work in agriculture. Israel’s government said he was seized during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack from a kibbutz in southern Israel and killed early in the war.

Israel said Saturday it had retrieved his remains in an operation in southern Gaza.

Spanish activist slams Gaza-bound boat’s interception after being deported by Israel

Sergio Toribio, a Spanish activist who was on the Gaza-bound ship seized by Israel, arrived in Barcelona Tuesday after being deported.

Speaking to reporters upon his arrival, he slammed Israel’s interception of the boat.

“It is unforgivable, it is a violation of our rights. It is a pirate attack in international waters.” he said.

He continued: “We weren’t doing anything wrong, we were just carrying provisions as a symbolic gesture.”

Spanish media described Toribio as a 49-year-old ship mechanic.

Israeli military says it intercepted a projectile fired from Gaza Strip

The Israeli military says it intercepted a projectile fired from the northern Gaza Strip that set off air raid sirens in nearby Israeli communities.

There were no reports of casualties or damage.

Rocket fire from Gaza has grown rare as Israel’s 20-month military campaign has depleted the military capabilities of Hamas, which fired thousands of rockets during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that ignited the war.

Palestinians say Israeli forces fired toward crowd near Gaza aid site, killing 3

Palestinian health officials and witnesses say Israeli forces fired toward crowds making their way to a food distribution point in the Gaza Strip early Tuesday, killing three people.

The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Awda Hospital in central Gaza, which received the casualties, said two men and a child were killed and at least 130 were wounded. The Associated Press spoke to two witnesses who said Israeli forces fired toward the crowds at around 2 a.m. hundreds of meters (yards) from the aid site.

Experts and humanitarian aid workers say Israel’s blockade and military campaign have pushed Gaza to the brink of famine.

Around 130 people have been killed in a number of shootings near aid sites run by a new Israeli and U.S.-backed organization. The Israeli military has acknowledged firing warning shots on previous occasions at people who it says approached its forces in a suspicious manner.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which runs the sites, says there has been no violence in or around the distribution points themselves. But it has warned people to stay on designated access routes and paused delivery last week while it held talks with the military on improving safety.

French foreign minister says 1 detained French activist signed expulsion order and will leave Israel

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Tuesday that one of the detained French activists who was on a Gaza-bound ship intercepted by Israel signed an expulsion order and will leave Israel on Tuesday for France.

The other five refused and will await court decisions in the coming days. In a separate post on X, Barrot said the five will face a “forced expulsion.”

All six received consular visits overnight around 3 a.m., he said, as did the other activists aboard the ship.

The French detainees were transferred overnight to a detention center in the Israeli city of Ramle, he said, and may receive another consular visit there.

Israel deports Greta Thunberg after seizing the ship she was on

Activist Greta Thunberg is being deported from Israel, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, after the Gaza-bound ship she was on was seized by the Israeli military.

In a post on X, the Foreign Ministry shared a photo of Thunberg on a plane, saying that she was headed for France.

Thunberg was one of 12 passengers on board the Madleen, a boat carrying aid destined for people in war-torn Gaza.

The activists said they were protesting the ongoing war and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel says such ships violate its naval blockade of Gaza.

The Australian government is confronting a fresh diplomatic dilemma with Beijing: how to fulfill a pledge to regain control of the strategic Port of Darwin from a Chinese company. The Australia-China Relations Institute thinks the issue has been driven by domestic politics and will not trigger a downwards spiral in bilateral relations. ACRI Director James Laurenceson talks about Canberra's plan and the global trade turmoil

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.”

China is taking further steps towards high seas boarding of fishing boats in the Pacific for the first time, risking tensions with Taiwanese fleets and U.S. Coast Guard vessels that ply the region, Pacific Islands officials told Reuters.

The Chinese Coast Guard demonstrated the capabilities of one of its largest ships, used to enforce maritime law in the Taiwan Strait, to Pacific Island ministers last week. It is also actively involved in debates on the rules of high seas boarding, according to documents and interviews with Pacific fisheries officials.

The fisheries officials said it was anticipated China will soon begin patrols in a "crowded" fisheries surveillance space.

"Hosting the leaders, demonstrating their capabilities in terms of maritime operations, those kind of things are indications they want to step into that space," said Allan Rahari, director of fisheries operations for the Forum Fisheries Agency, in an interview with Reuters.

The agency runs enforcement against illegal fishing for a group of 18 Pacific Island countries, with assistance from navy and air force patrols by Australia, the United States, France and New Zealand.

The biggest fishing fleets in the Pacific, attracting the most infringement notices by inspectors, are Chinese and Taiwanese.

But China is also the largest fisheries partner to some Pacific Island countries, and Rahari said agreements for Chinese coast guard patrols in coastal waters could be struck under security deals with these countries.

China registered 26 coast guard vessels with the Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in 2024 for high seas boarding and inspections in a vast region where the U.S. and Australia have the biggest inspection fleets.

Made In India! Rafale Fighter Jet’s Fuselages To Be Produced Outside France For The 1st Time; Big Boost For India

Dassault Aviation and Tata Advanced Systems Limited have signed four Production Transfer Agreements to manufacture the Rafale fighter aircraft fuselage in India, marking a significant step forward in strengthening the country’s aerospace manufacturing capabilities and supporting global supply chains.

This facility represents a significant investment in India’s aerospace infrastructure and will serve as a critical hub for high-precision manufacturing.

Under the scope of the partnership, Tata Advanced Systems will set up a cutting-edge production facility in Hyderabad for the manufacture of key structural sections of the Rafale, including the lateral shells of the rear fuselage, the complete rear section, the central fuselage, and the front section.

The first fuselage sections are expected to roll off the assembly line in FY2028, with the facility expected to deliver up to two complete fuselages per month.

“For the first time, Rafale fuselages will be produced outside France. This is a decisive step in strengthening our supply chain in India. Thanks to the expansion of our local partners, including TASL, one of the major players in the Indian aerospace industry, this supply chain will contribute to the successful ramp-up of the Rafale, and, with our support, will meet our quality and competitiveness requirements“, said Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation.

Sukaran Singh, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Tata Advanced Systems Limited, said, “This partnership marks a significant step in India’s aerospace journey. The production of the complete Rafale fuselage in India underscores the deepening trust in Tata Advanced Systems’ capabilities and the strength of our collaboration with Dassault Aviation. It also reflects the remarkable progress India has made in establishing a modern, robust aerospace manufacturing ecosystem that can support global platforms.”

The signing of these contracts reflects Dassault Aviation’s strong commitment to India’s ‘Make in India’ and AtmaNirbhar initiatives. This partnership aims to strengthen India’s position as a key player in the global aerospace supply chain while supporting its goal of greater economic self-reliance.

Earlier, India signed a contract to purchase 26 Rafale fighter jets from France, with the multi-billion-dollar deal to include both single and twin-seat planes.

When delivered, the jets would join 36 French-made Rafale fighters already acquired by New Delhi as part of its efforts to rapidly modernise its military hardware.

“The governments of India and France have signed an inter-governmental agreement for the procurement of 26 Rafale Aircraft,” the defence ministry said in a statement.

The jets made by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation are expected to operate from Indian-made aircraft carriers, replacing the Russian MiG-29K jets.

“It includes training, simulator, associated equipment, weapons, and performance-based logistics,” as well as 22 single-seater and four twin-seater jets, said India’s defence ministry.

“It also includes additional equipment for the existing Rafale fleet of the Indian Air Force (IAF).”

The Indian government announced its intention to procure 26 Rafales in 2023, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited France for the Bastille Day celebrations.

Despite its historical ties with Russia as a key supplier of military equipment, India has diversified in recent years, making key purchases from France, the United States, and Israel.

Dassault stated that the jets will provide India with “state-of-the-art capabilities” and an “active role in guaranteeing national sovereignty and consolidating India’s role as a major international player.”

India’s navy is the first user outside France of the Rafale Marine jet, the company said.

The earlier contract for 36 Rafale aircraft, agreed in 2016, was worth about $9.4 billion.

Many global arms suppliers view the world’s most populous nation and fifth-largest economy as a key market.

India has become the world’s largest arms importer with purchases steadily rising to account for nearly 10 percent of all imports globally in 2019-23, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said last year.

India has also eyed with worry its northern neighbour, China, especially since a deadly 2020 clash between their troops.

That sparked a wave of defense reforms in the country, with both a push for new contracts from foreign suppliers and simplified laws to promote domestic manufacturing and the co-production of critical military hardware.

This decade, India has opened an expansive new helicopter factory, launched its first domestically built aircraft carrier, and conducted a successful test of its long-range hypersonic missile.

That, in turn, has fostered a growing arms export market, which saw sales last year worth $2.63 billion — still a tiny amount compared to established players, but a 30-fold increase in just a decade.

India has deepened defence cooperation with Western countries in recent years, including the Quad alliance with the United States, Japan, and Australia.

Challenges posed by Trump and Putin push UK to adopt new NATO first defense policy

The U.K. on Monday announced new plans to overhaul its defensive posture in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and potential challenges posed by President Donald Trump's threat to withdraw U.S. troops from the continent.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would bring his country to "war-fighting readiness" by investing dozens of billions of dollars in the building of 12 submarines, weapons and munitions manufacturing, AI and other tech, and most notably, a significant investment in nuclear deterrence.

The announcement came after a Strategic Defense Review by an external board found several areas in the U.K. that need to improve in order to effectively deter aggressors like Russia, as well as North Korea, Iran and China.

While the review heavily focused on changes that need to be made to the U.K.’s defense readiness, it also identified a need to bolster societal resilience and support.

"Our response cannot be confined to increasing defense spending," Starmer said in a statement from the report. "We also need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defense front and center—to make it the fundamental organizing principle of government."

The 144-page plan released by the British government on Monday laid out a new defense strategy to tackle threats "more serious and less predictable than at any time since the Cold War."

However, the biggest investment the U.K. revealed in its defense overhaul is a near $20.3 billion commitment to its nuclear warhead program in a move to expand its deterrence level, which, the report said, "sends the ultimate warning to anyone who seeks to do us harm."

The push has been described as a "NATO first" policy that will heavily focus on the immediate threats posed by Russia to the European continent. However, the plan is not a "NATO only" policy.

The U.K. plans to produce a new submarine every 18 months until it secures a fleet of up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS program, which is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. – which focuses on security and stability in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the face of increased Chinese aggression in the region.

Defense Secretary John Healey said, "We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for U.K. defense."

Starmer ordered the review last summer, shortly after he secured the top job.

Security experts have warned that the threat Russia poses as it advances its war machine is assessed to be a generational threat, and one that will likely out-live the war in Ukraine or even a Putin presidency, and European nations have been scrambling to react to the new reality.

The re-election of Trump became another challenge European leaders have grappled with.

Though Trump pushed Nato leaders to increase their defense spending during his first term, most nations did not meet their GDP defense spending commitments under NATO until after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Now, just eight of the 32 NATO nations do not meet the 2% GDP spending commitments, while five nations, including the U.S. spend more than 3%.

NATO nations have increasingly called for an increase in defense spending and a push to be less dependent on the U.S.’s military industrial base.

While the U.K. has pledged to spend 2.5% of its GDP on defense by 2027, with an increase to 3% by 2030, Trump has called for NATO nations to spend 5% -- though the alliance has not yet agreed to such a plan, which the U.S. also falls short on, spending 3.38% according to figures released in 2024.

The U.K. is also looking to take more of a leadership role in NATO, particularly as the reliability of the U.S. has been called into question amid the war in Russia, and amid threats by Trump that he may drawdown troop numbers in Europe.

Europeans map out Pacific aims as some in US want them to stay home.

At the end of Pete Hegseth’s speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s largest defense summit, America’s defense secretary argued some members of the crowd should focus elsewhere.

“We would much prefer that the overwhelming balance of European investment be on that continent,” he said during a question and answer session.

Hegseth’s response addressed one of the core themes at a conference typically focused on Asian security alone. Since the war in Ukraine began in 2022, more Europeans have traveled to Singapore each year as a symbol of their commitment to the region, seen as increasingly important to their own.

Until this January, the United States welcomed that attention — but no longer. In the second Trump administration, parts of America’s government have grown more skeptical of a European military presence around Asia. Some policy officials in the Pentagon have actively discouraged it.

Instead, the conference last week featured a record number of Europeans in attendance and was headlined by French President Emmanuel Macron. While there, a wide share of officials from both regions defended Europe’s role in Asia, something even Hegseth acknowledged in his remarks.

The challenge, officials said, will be defining that role at a time when Europeans see the two regions as increasingly linked and when the United States wants its allies focused on their own backyards.

“This is a convergence zone right now,” said Gilberto Teodoro, the Philippines secretary of national defense, in an interview. “This is the first Shangri-La Dialogue where we see a lot of European advocacy and a lot of American advocacy.”

‘Clearly concerned’
Last year at the conference, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a surprise visit and met with America’s then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. For many in attendance, the appearance emphasized a new sense that the two regions shared a common sense of security.

North Korea was sending troops to fight alongside Russia, China was supplying much of the Kremlin’s war machine and the West’s response to Russia’s invasion was thought to be a show of force against similar action around Taiwan.

“If we consider that Russia could be allowed to take a part of the territory of Ukraine without any restriction, without any concern, without any reaction of the global order, how would you phrase what would happen in Taiwan,” Macron said in his keynote speech last Friday.

Until January, this had also become the dominant view in Washington, pushing its allies in Europe to take the threat of China more seriously while also helping defend Ukraine. In the last year, countries from Britain to Italy have sent naval vessels to the Indo-Pacific, including the Taiwan Strait, as a show of their own military commitment to the region.

That demand signal collapsed with the election of Donald Trump, whose Pentagon has since called for Europe to take a far larger burden in defending the continent to allow America’s military to focus more on the Pacific.

That said, Hegseth himself left open a role for European militaries around Asia as part of a larger effort to deter China — something American military leaders have said is a key advantage.

“There is something to be said for the fact that China calculates the possibility and does not appreciate the presence of other countries on occasion,” Hegseth said. “If that is reflected in their calculus, then that’s useful.”

A U.S. defense official, speaking with traveling press on the condition of anonymity, said that the answer is obvious.

“They’re clearly concerned about European presence,” the official said of Beijing.

Different roles
Some allies at the conference agreed with Hegseth’s message that Europe should primarily focus on the defense of the continent.

Finland’s Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen, for example, listed the main concerns it country has with its own security: an 800-mile border with Russia and competition around the Arctic and Baltic Sea.

“That’s why our role in the Indo-Pacific Area cannot be so big,” he said in an interview.

Still, Häkkänen came to Singapore to meet with partners such as Singapore and South Korea about Finland’s defense industry and intelligence sharing. Both are natural areas to cooperate, he argued, even if his country wouldn’t commit major military forces to the region.

Sweden’s defense Minister Pål Jonson attended the conference with a similar message on partnering with intelligence and weapons sales, he said. But he also came to stress why countries in the region should care about what happens in Ukraine.

“We are here also to make the case: Why it is important to stand up for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and freedom,” Jonson said.

Some Indo-Pacific countries, such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, have been supporting Ukraine with military aid and training for the last three years, seeing Russia’s invasion as a test of resolve for free countries.

Judith Collins, New Zealand’s defense minister, said her country is continuing its mission to train Ukrainian troops on the continent and could also assist in a peacekeeping mission if a peace deal is reached.

That said, New Zealand recently announced a major defense spending increase and is now aiming to spend 2% of GDP on the military by the early 2030s. Part of that plan is motivated by Wellington’s sense that it needs to take greater control over its own security, regardless of partnerships with other countries.

“The comment that’s been made to me by one of the NATO ministers is: ‘We have a NATO-first policy.’ My answer to that was: ‘So where does that leave us?’” Collins said in an interview.

“The answer is: doing more for ourselves with our friends in our region — as well as being good contributors to peace in Europe,” she said.

British F-35s To Get Nuclear Missiles; UK Looking To Acquire F-35A Stealth Jets Amid Russian “Threats”

As the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to present the much-awaited Strategic Defense Review on June 2, there are speculations that the Labor government is exploring the reintroduction of air-launched nuclear weapons back into the Royal Air Force (RAF).

A report in The Times claimed that the United Kingdom is in talks with the United States to purchase F-35A Lightning II aircraft capable of delivering tactical gravity nuclear bombs.

Citing some unidentified officials, the report claimed that the move is a response to a “new era of threat” posed by Russia.

The report noted that the Chief of the Defense Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, and Defence Secretary John Healey support the plan, which is reportedly the biggest change in the UK’s nuclear posture since the end of the Cold War.

The decision, which is likely to be a component of the larger Strategic Defense Review, is also reportedly supported by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The EurAsian Times could not independently corroborate these claims. However, reports in the past have suggested that the UK could place an additional order for the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter to replace the 49 Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoons that are being retired.

The F-35A is reportedly being selected over the latest, upgraded variants of the Eurofighter Typhoon operated by the RAF, despite opposition from British rights groups.

The UK earlier placed an order for 48 F-35B Lightning II aircraft, of which 37 have already been delivered. It is pertinent to note that the British military has exclusively acquired the F-35B aircraft, a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the fighter jet specifically engineered for operations from short-field bases and aircraft carriers.

Thus, the anticipated purchase of the F-35A is intriguing and has likely contributed to speculations that the RAF wants to equip it with nukes.

In March 2024, the F-35A was operationally certified to carry the B61-12, a low-yield, thermonuclear gravity bomb, making it a “dual-capable” aircraft that can carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The UK currently does not have B61-12 bombs, but Pentagon documents obtained from the US Department of Defense’s procurement database last year revealed that RAF Lakenheath is being prepared to host the B61-12 gravity bombs.

The RAF Lakenheath is operated by the US Air Force (USAF) under British regulations and laws and hosts US-operated F-35A aircraft. Earlier, it was thought that these US F-35As deployed at Lakenheath would be armed with B61-12 bombs.

However, if The Times report holds some weight, the British F-35A will also soon roar over the UK with air-launched nuclear bombs.

The B61-12 is part of NATO’s nuclear sharing program, which essentially allows US-owned nuclear weapons to be hosted in non-nuclear NATO countries such as Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, for deterrence.

In January, the US appeared to confirm that the B61-12 had been deployed in Europe, without naming the host countries.

The 12-foot B61-12 bomb carries a 50 kiloton warhead. It is known for its precision, owing to a controlled tail rudder that also allows for the removal of its parachute, enabling the pilot to airdrop the bomb miles away from the target.

Earlier, the UK also hosted the B61 family of nuclear weapons. However, they were withdrawn in 2008 due to a diminished perception of the nuclear threat.

Britain also had its air-launched nuclear bombs. Ironically, it was a Labor government that decided to pull the plug on air-launched nuclear capability about 27 years ago, and it is a Labor government that may have allegedly decided to revive it.

Following the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) conducted by the Labour government under Tony Blair, the UK stopped using air-launched nuclear weapons in 1998. At the time, the decision was formalized with the withdrawal of the WE.177 free-fall nuclear bombs, the last air-delivered nuclear weapons in the British arsenal.

The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 reduced the perceived need for a large and diverse nuclear arsenal.

Since 1998, the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) have been the only source of the UK’s nuclear deterrence. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the return of conventional war to Europe, and Moscow’s repeated nuclear brinksmanship appear to have forced a strategic rethink in London.

Nonetheless, the reports that have published details of the review do not mention that the air-launched nuclear capability is returning to Britain. The British Defense Secretary John Healey also refrained from commenting on the prospect of reintroducing air-launched nuclear weapons, instead reaffirming the Trident’s importance.

“For over 70 years, our UK nuclear deterrent has been the ultimate guarantee of security in this country. It’s what Putin fears most,” he told the BBC.

British Strategic Review For A New Era Of Threat
The Strategic Defense Review, which will assess the risks facing the UK and provide recommendations, is scheduled for release by the Labour government on June 2.

Led by Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary General and Defense Secretary, alongside Dr. Fiona Hill and General Sir Richard Barrons, it is the first externally led defense review in UK history. It has reportedly made 62 suggestions to respond to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, emphasizing “war-fighting readiness” and modernization to counter threats from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, referred to as the “deadly quartet.”

The review is expected to classify the threat posed by Russia as “immediate and pressing” and describe China as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge,” according to the Guardian. North Korea and Iran will be characterized as “regional disruptors” and possibly antagonistic to the UK, despite all four countries beginning to show signs of cooperation.

The review warns that the country is entering “a new era of threat” amid threats of modern warfare such as drones and artificial intelligence.

Drawing on Ukraine’s success in using AI to identify and strike targets, the review recommends a £1 billion (USD 1.35 billion) investment to develop a “Digital Targeting Web,” a system integrating AI, software, and sensors on ships, satellites, or fighter jets, to enable faster battlefield targeting. Additionally, the review emphasizes rapid adoption of digital technologies to modernize the Armed Forces and improve multi-domain integration.

According to reports, it warns about daily cyberattacks on UK military networks, citing over 90,000 “sub-threshold” attacks during the previous two years, many of which were ascribed to Russia.

As recommended by the review, the UK is reportedly set to expand its nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet, committing to build 12 new submarines under the AUKUS program alongside the US and Australia. These new submarines will replace the seven Astute-class submarines, with the first launches expected in the late 2030s.

The review also reportedly urges an increase in armaments and support equipment inventories, some of which might only last a few days in a contingency, and recommends a shift to “war-fighting readiness” to counter Russian aggression in Europe.

It calls for six new munitions factories with a £1.5 billion (USD 2.03 billion) investment to create an “always on” production capacity, aiming to produce up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons.

The review emphasizes addressing critical deficiencies in the UK’s industrial base, as highlighted by the war in Ukraine, where Western munitions production has struggled to meet demand.

The review also reportedly reaffirms the UK’s commitment to its independent nuclear deterrent centered on the Trident missile system carried by Vanguard-class submarines, which will soon be replaced by the Dreadnought submarines. It calls for an investment of £15 billion (USD 20.32 billion) in modernizing the nuclear weapons manufacturing facility at Aldermaston in Berkshire to supply bombs for the Dreadnought submarines.

“We’re in a world that is changing now… and it is a world of growing threats,” Defense Secretary John Healey told the BBC in an interview. ”It’s growing Russian aggression. It’s those daily cyberattacks, it’s new nuclear risks, and it’s increasing tension in other parts of the world as well,” he said.

The review does not include an increase in defense spending. Beyond a pledge to raise spending by roughly £5 billion (USD 6.77 billion) to 2.5% of GDP in 2027 and to 3%, the defense review is not anticipated to reveal any rapid increases in defense budgets.

However, in a conference later this month in The Hague, Starmer and other NATO leaders are expected to debate and agree on new spending targets of roughly 5% of GDP, of which 3.5% will be allocated to military spending and the remainder to cyber-defense and other infrastructure.

John Healey admitted on June 1 that any plans to expand the strength of the British army, which has been at its lowest level for 300 years, will have to wait until after the election.

Australia's defence minister Richard Marles has called on China to explain why it needs to have "such an extraordinary military build-up".

He said Beijing needs to provide greater transparency and reassurance as it is the "fundamental issue" for the region.

Meanwhile, the Philippines defence minister Gilberto Teodoro Jr has called China "absolutely irresponsible and reckless" in its actions in the South China Sea.

The ministers had separately addressed reporters on the sidelines of an Asian defence summit held in Singapore.

China has yet to respond to either Marles or Teodoro.

Organised by the think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Shangri-la Dialogue has traditionally been anchored by the US and China, which have been jostling for power in the region.

This year China has sent a lower-level delegation and scrapped its speech. In the absence of a strong Chinese presence, the dialogue has been dominated by criticism and questions of Beijing posed by the US and its allies.

On Sunday morning, Marles asserted that "what we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build up in conventional sense, by any country since the end of the Second World War".

It is not just the size of the military build-up that concerns other countries, he told reporters.

"It's the fact that it is happening without strategic reassurance. It's happening without a clear strategic intent on the part of China… what we want to see is strategic transparency and strategic reassurance be provided by China, and an understanding of why it is needed to have such an extraordinary military build-up."

He cited Australia as an example of such transparency, noting that Canberra makes public its national defence strategy and defence reviews, and makes it "utterly clear" that when they build up their defences it is for Australia and Asia's security.

"So there is total strategic clarity and assurance that is being provided by Australia to our neighbours, to the region, to the world. That's what we would like to see," he said.

Answering a question on a highly-scrutinised Chinese military exercise conducted near Australia and New Zealand's waters in February, Marles said that while it was "disruptive, and we believe that it could have been done in a better way", ultimately "China was acting in accordance with international law".

"The guiding light, the bedrock here, needs to be compliance with international law. That's what we keep talking about, is the rules-based order."

Marles was also asked about Hegseth's call for Indo-Pacific partners to increase defence spending as a bulwark against the threat of China.

Marles said "we actually are taking steps down this path… we understand it, we're up for it." US President Donald Trump has called on Australia to increase its spending to 3%, but Canberra has yet to publicly commit to that number.

Marles added that part of that spending would come under Aukus, a pact among Australia, the UK and the US to build up a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

He said projects under the pact were "on track" and he was "very optimistic" about the progress, including more visits of American submarines to Australia and rotations through a Perth-based navy base.

In a separate interview with the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner, the Philippines defence minister Teodoro said China has been "absolutely irresponsible and reckless in appropriating most, if not all, of the South China Sea and the world cannot tolerate this."

The two countries have repeatedly clashed over competing claims in the South China Sea, and the Philippines has complained of aggressive and violent tactics by the Chinese coast guard.

He echoed the call for a preservation of the international order, saying that "the takeaway of a lot of defence ministers is that Europe and the US must continue to lead" on this.

"That was the call of the Philippines. That is the call of Lithuania, Latvia, the smaller countries who have a way of life that values freedom and dignity of the human being."

"And with a way of life that we don't want the deep state looking over our shoulders or being scared of what we say," he said, referring to China.

On Saturday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had warned of China's "imminent" threat towards Taiwan and accused Beijing of becoming a "hegemonic power" in the region.

China has vigorously attacked Hegseth in two separate statements, with the latest posted on its Foreign Ministry website early on Sunday.

It said that Hegseth had "vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely called China a 'threat'.

"No country in the world deserves to be called a hegemonic power other than the US itself, who is also the primary factor undermining the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific."

Earlier in the defence summit, French President Emmanuel Macron had made a pitch for Europe to be a new ally to Asia.

China also responded to Macron, who had compared the defence of Taiwan to the defence of Ukraine, and said the comparison was "unacceptable" as the "Taiwan question is entirely China's affair".

China claims Taiwan, a self-governing island, as its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to eventually "reunify" with it.

While speaking at a conference in Singapore, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth swore that the U.S. would defend Taiwan should China attempt to “conquer” the island.

Appearing at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a security conference where world leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and Ministers for Defense from Japan, Australia and several other countries were also in attendance, Hegseth issued his most assertive statement on Taiwan to date, warning that threats from China could be “imminent.”

Hegseth told conference attendees, “To be clear: Any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. We are not going to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.”

Hegseth: President Trump has also said communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch. Our goal is to prevent war, to make the cost too high and peace the only option…

But if deterrence fails, and if called upon by my commander-in-chief, we are prepared to do what the…

He added that, “Communist China will not invade Taiwan on [President Trump’s] watch‚” and asserted that the U.S.’ goal is to “prevent war, to make the cost too high, and make peace the only option,” although he did not provide specifics as to how this would be achieved. He also told conference attendees that together, their countries could demonstrate “what it means to execute peace through strength,” but if that failed, the U.S. Department of Defense was prepared to do “what it does best” and “fight and win, decisively.”

Hegseth also called upon U.S. allies in the region to “upgrade their own defenses, telling those gathered, “It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.”

China claims Taiwan as its territory and has declined to rule out using force to reclaim the island. Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, asserts its independence from China, which has offered the country a “one country, two systems” model similar to that of Hong Kong, a move not supported by any major political party in Taiwan.

While the U.S. severed official ties with Taiwan in 1979 and has no official position on Taiwanese sovereignty, it is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 to provide the country with the means to defend itself.

In February, the U.S. State Department removed a statement from its website asserting that the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. In its place, a line was added that stated the U.S. would seek to support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations “where applicable.”

Only 12 countries, such as Belize and Tuvalu, currently maintain formal ties with Taiwan, although many more maintain informal ties. Taiwan was expelled from the United Nations in 1971, and organizations to which China belongs have historically declined to grant Taiwan membership.

China has warned the United States against “playing with fire” over Taiwan in response to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling the Asian power a “threat to the region” at a high-profile summit in Singapore.

Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday, Hegseth said China was “credibly preparing” for military action to shift Asia’s power balance, accusing Beijing of rehearsing a potential invasion of Taiwan.

China considers Taiwan, a separately governed island, to be a part of its territory and has vowed reunification by force if necessary. Taiwan’s government rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

Hegseth’s remarks provoked a swift rebuke from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which stressed that Taiwan remains a domestic matter, warning foreign powers against using the issue as leverage. It described US actions in Asia Pacific as turning the region into a “powder keg”.

“The US should not entertain illusions about using the Taiwan question as a bargaining chip to contain China, nor should it play with fire,” it said.

Hegseth had called on allies in the Asia Pacific region, including key security ally Australia, to spend more on defence after warning of the “real and potentially imminent” threat from China.

Calling the US a “true destabilising” force in the Asia Pacific, Beijing accused Washington of deploying offensive weapons in the South China Sea and aggravating regional tensions.

Beijing accused Hegseth of “vilifying China with defamatory allegations” and promoting a “Cold War mentality”.

“Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the Cold War mentality for bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely called China a threat,” the ministry said, adding that it had lodged a formal protest with the US over what it described as “inflammatory rhetoric”.

China and the Philippines contest sovereignty over some islands and atolls in the South China Sea, with growing maritime run-ins between their coastguards as both vie to patrol the waters.

Beijing also rejected US claims about threats to maritime navigation, insisting it has consistently promoted dialogue to resolve regional disputes and safeguarded its territorial rights within the bounds of international law.

“The US is the biggest factor undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea,” the statement read.

China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun skipped the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier security forum, with Beijing sending a delegation of lower-ranking representatives instead.

It was the first time since 2019 that China has not dispatched its defence minister to the high-level dialogue on regional defence, except when the event was cancelled in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tensions are already high between China and the US – the world’s two biggest economic powers – over Trump’s ongoing trade war and tariff threats.
----------------------------------------------------------------
China’s government has accused Pete Hegseth of trying to “sow division” in the Asia Pacific region over his speech at a Singapore defence conference where he warned China was a potentially “imminent” threat.

On Saturday Hegseth said China was “credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific”, and was rehearsing for “the real deal” of invading Taiwan.

“There’s no reason to sugar coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,” the US defence secretary said in a keynote address at the Shangri-la Dialogue defence forum, calling for Asian countries to increase defence spending.

On Sunday, China’s ministry of foreign affairs condemned his words, which it said were “filled with provocations and intended to sow division”.

“Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the cold war mentality for bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely called China a ‘threat’,” it said.

“The remarks were filled with provocations and intended to sow division. China deplores and firmly opposes them and has protested strongly to the US.”

The statement also pushed back at Hegseth’s claim that China was trying to become a “hegemonic power” in the region.

“No country in the world deserves to be called a hegemonic power other than the US itself, who is also the primary factor undermining the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific,” it said.

The ministry accused Hegseth of “playing with fire” with what it calls “the Taiwan question”. China’s ruling Communist party (CCP) claims Taiwan is a province of China, illegally run by separatists, and has vowed to annex it. Taiwan’s democratically elected government and the majority of its people reject the prospect of CCP rule.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday morning, Australia’s defence minister, Richard Marles, rejected the premise of China’s criticism of Hegseth.

“What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and buildup in a conventional sense by any country since the end of the second world war,” he said.

“That is one of the key features of the complexity of the strategic landscape which all of us face within the region and which is faced around the world.”

Marles said Australia had worked with regional partners including the US and the Philippines “over a long period of time to uphold the global rules-based order”, including freedom of navigation operations to assert the UN convention on the law of the sea.

The US is not a signatory to that convention.

The Shangri-la Dialogue is an annual conference that hosts dozens of leaders, defence ministers and military chiefs from around the world, for three days of panel discussions and speeches. But much of the significant interactions occur on the sidelines, with private meetings between representatives. Past years have often seen the US and China trade barbs, but also occasionally hold significant meetings, including last year with China’s defence minister, Dong Jun, and Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin.

This year, however, China sent only a small delegation led by a vice-president of the People’s Liberation Army’s national defence university, Rear Adm Hu Gangfeng.

On Saturday afternoon Hu told a panel, which included the head of the British armed forces, that speakers had attempted to “provoke, split and instigate confrontations in the region” with criticisms of China.

He said the maritime situation in the region was “generally stable” but faced “severe challenges”, and accused unnamed countries of increasing military presences and infringing on territorial sovereignty of others “in the name of so-called freedom of navigation” and supporting “Taiwan independence separatist forces”.

China claims much of the South China Sea, where there are overlapping claims of sovereignty among several countries. It has rejected a ruling by The Hague that its claims are unlawful.

Later on Sunday, Singapore’s defence minister, Chan Chun Sing, told a panel that it was crucial China and the world properly understand each other. Referencing China’s absence, Chan said Beijing should use “every opportunity” available to get its position across.

“But regardless of whether China attends the [dialogue], it is incumbent on all of us to reach out to China in different forums … to not end up in a situation where either side misinterprets, miscalculates, or misrepresents each other’s position. That is dangerous.”

Keir Starmer turns to submarines and nuclear warheads to fight new cold war with Russia.

Britain is set to build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines in response to rapidly increasing global threats, Sir Keir Starmer will announce as he unveils his long-awaited defence review.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will also spend £15bn on new warheads for the UK’s nuclear deterrent, the prime minister will reveal for the first time, as part of plans to make the country ready for war.

Ministers must act “decisively to face down Russian aggression” and ensure Britain is “secure at home and strong abroad”, the defence secretary John Healey warned.

Sir Keir has called the 130-page review, which is set to be published on Monday, a “radical blueprint”, and pledged it will lead to a “wave of investments” in shipbuilding, drone technology and cyber defence.

Announcing the plans – which he will claim will create a “defence dividend” that supports tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs – Sir Keir is expected to say they will “ensure the UK rises to the challenge and our armed forces have the equipment they need that keeps us safe ... while driving greater opportunity”.

Among the report’s 62 recommendations, which are all expected to be accepted by the government, are:

A “landmark” shift to war readiness to deter growing threats

Up to six new munitions factories that can be scaled up in response to a crisis

A new stockpile of 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons

A new cyber command to counter a “continual and intensifying” level of cyber warfare

£1.5bn for military housing amid claims that years of neglect have led to troops quitting

The nuclear investments announcement comes just weeks after the Labour leader pledged to destroy Vladimir Putin’s “shadow fleet” of ships, which evade international sanctions. The Royal Navy is also increasingly concerned about hostile state activity by Russia in the Arctic, a key flank of Europe and Britain’s security, amid fears about the threat to critical infrastructure such as undersea cables that provide power to the UK.

The plans will significantly increase the UK’s conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet, with the new vessels built under a joint deal with the US and Australia, known as the Aukus partnership.

At the moment, the MoD has five Astute-class attack submarines, a figure that is due to rise to seven by the end of next year. A separate fleet of nuclear-armed submarines will also receive a boost from a previously announced warhead programme, which ministers have put a £15bn price tag on for the first time.

The MoD predicts that the nuclear investments will support 30,000 highly skilled jobs across the UK, while the plans will require significant modernisation of infrastructure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston.

Mr Healey said: “Our outstanding submariners patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe, but we know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression.

“With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead programme on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.”

On Sunday, Mr Healey described the review as a “message to Moscow” and said Britain was facing “daily” cyber attacks from Russia, as part of 90,000 assaults on Britain’s defence systems linked to different states.

Asked if he expected a real-world attack from Russia in the coming years, he said: “We have to be prepared. Nato has to be prepared. We see Putin in Ukraine trying to redraw international boundaries by force... It’s part of the growing Russian aggression.”

This is why the UK and Nato are “stepping up our ability to deter as well as to defend in the future”, he added. “We prepare for war in order to secure the peace.”

But plans to increase the size of the army will not come into effect until after 2029 at the earliest, he conceded.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said: “All of Labour’s Strategic Defence Review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them. Whereas, far from guaranteeing the funding, John Healey has been hung out to dry by Rachel Reeves.

“As recently as Thursday, Healey promised that defence spending would definitely hit 3 per cent, but today he’s completely backtracked. These submarines are not due to enter service till the late 2030s, so how can we have any confidence Labour will actually deliver them when they can’t even sustain a policy on defence spending for more than 48 hours?”

Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said: “This signals absolutely the right intent about the need to bolster the UK’s defences in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unreliability. But this must come with a concrete commitment and detail on full funding. Labour’s mere ‘ambition’ rather than commitment to reach 3 per cent of GDP on defence leaves serious questions about whether the money for these projects will actually be forthcoming.

“The 2034 timeline suggests a worrying lack of urgency from the government. Unless Labour commits to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3 per cent much more rapidly than the mid-2030s, this announcement risks becoming a damp squib.”

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick welcomed Mr Healey’s comment that he had “no doubt” that defence spending would rise to 3 per cent of GDP by 2034, but said he was “sceptical” it would happen.

“We think that 2034 is a long time to wait given the gravity of the situation,” he said.

Israeli ambassador: The two-state solution is over. We are no longer willing to jeopardise our security. (Part 2)

So why are the families of hostages – and even a former hostage – protesting against Netanyahu? At a demonstration this week, Keith Siegel, who was once held prisoner by Hamas, declared: “Our families have become the victims of cheap politics at the hands of the prime minister. Instead of ending the war and bringing everyone home, his allies prefer to occupy the Gaza Strip than to save the hostages.”

Hotovely says: “I have sympathy to every hostage family for being so worried about their loved ones, I cannot put myself in their shoes. At the same time, I must say, they need to remember Israel said yes to any framework offered by the Americans” for a ceasefire: “This is the leverage on Hamas, the military pressure together with the American diplomatic pressure, and if Hamas is saying ‘no’ and saying ‘no’ again and again” to hostage release “what else can we do? We can just carry on with the pressure.”

Following interview, it was reported on Friday that Hamas appears to have rejected a ceasefire deal orchestrated by the Americans and accepted by the Israelis.

Recognition of Palestinian state ‘a reward for terrorism’
Lammy’s condemnation of the embargo was, says Hotovely, “the wrong timing” because it was issued “the same day the [Netanyahu’s] cabinet made the decision to let aid in”; plus the “wrong message because, I’m sure you heard the head of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, saying: ‘when Hamas is praising you’” – as Hamas praised the UK – “‘then you need to check whether your politics is the right policy’.”

“We are expecting the international community, including the UK Government, to be very vocal about the fact that Hamas is holding our hostages and it must release them.”

Britain and Israel are “fighting mutual threats. I know how much the UK is concerned about Iran’s influence in the region, and you need to remember that this war Israel has been fighting is a proxy war with Iran […] We’ve seen how most of the weapons being found are produced in Iran, how Iran was training the terrorists.”

As for a French-Saudi initiative, scheduled for mid-June, to discuss the recognition of Palestine as an independent state: “This is probably the worst timing ever to go this path [...] this is a pure word for terrorism and sends the wrong message to the region [...] What did October 7th prove? First of all, unfortunately what we’ve seen is big support among Palestinians towards the massacre.”

One poll, she claims, found 86 per cent of West Bank residents sympathised with the pogrom. Gaza previously voted for Hamas, “so recognition basically means Hamas” and would be a “reward for terrorism”.

I ask if this means the concept of a two-state solution is off the table and she replies in the affirmative. “It was rejected by the Palestinians again and again. Israelis had hope [in it] in the 1990s and were willing to compromise, but […] every time there was some type of negotiation, there was more terrorism […] So Israelis are no longer willing to jeopardise their security any longer.”

This is a critical point – one that many Britons don’t grasp. Governments like Labour talk about the two-state solution as if it were genuinely on the table, but the two sides gave up on it years ago. In that case, what does the Israeli government see as the future of the Palestinian community?

They must be re-educated. “It’s a good lesson to learn from the Second World War,” when Germany and Japan were beaten: fascism “didn’t end in one day, there was a whole process of denazification, a whole process of rebuilding the institutions to a democratic country. The Palestinians, when they were offered to have democratic elections” – in January 2006 – “they ended up with having an even worse dictatorship that doesn’t believe in any human rights.”

She implies that if fresh elections were held again in Gaza, we’d see Hamas victorious again, so she says “we need to build the path not just for peace as a formal peace but a real peace, people to people, like the one we have with the Gulf countries via the Abrahamic Accords”, as negotiated by Donald Trump.

‘We never deny the rights of us to live next to our neighbours – they deny our rights’
Surely there must be some give and take between communities, I suggest? In that case, the Israelis must cease building settlements in the West Bank – 22 of which have just been recognised by Netanyahu.

“There is a myth about settlements I never understood,” says Hotovely, “because when Israel [dismantled its] settlements in Gaza” – when it physically withdrew the strip in 2005 – “we didn’t see anything that has improved in the Palestinian attitude.”

When Palestinians are asked “what is the main problem,” she tells me, they never say the settlements but instead demand “the right of return,” which means “bringing people from all around the Arab world to move into small Israel.” I suggest that, on the contrary, they are protesting against Israelis settling on land that even Israel officially recognises as Palestinian – and Hotovely disagrees.

“Definitely not. I think that it’s clear for Israelis when we’re speaking about Judea and Samaria [better known as the West Bank], and we’re speaking about Jerusalem, we’re speaking about the Golan Heights, we’re speaking about the Jewish historic land.”

In conservative Israeli rhetoric, the term “Judea and Samaria” implies that the West Bank is Israeli as bequeathed by the Bible. “We’re talking about some places that Jewish people have been connected to for thousands of years,” says Hotovely. Yes, I reply, and Palestinians have been connected to them for a very long time, too. “We’re not denying that. That’s what’s nice about our attitude,” she says, “we never deny the rights of us to live next to our neighbours – they deny our rights.”

We turn to the subject of anti-Semitism – on May 21, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, staffers at the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, were shot and murdered outside a Jewish museum. The killer cried “free Palestine.” Can Hotovely see a line between anti-Israeli protest and a rising level of threat against Jews across the world?

People attend a vigil in Lafayette Square near the White House in Washington in honour of the couple
People attend a vigil in Lafayette Square near the White House in Washington in honour of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, who were shot and murdered outside a Jewish museum.

“We had very difficult days right in the embassy here. I gave a talk to our embassy staff and we wanted them to feel very open with us about their concerns.” She is grateful for the protection of the British authorities but doesn’t feel “anti-Semitism is under control [… ] Let’s speak about how the propaganda in the streets of London, New York and Berlin can influence a terrorist that is taking a weapon and killing two young, beautiful people […] This is the kind of madness we’re dealing with, something totally irrational, and I think it’s been fuelled by anti-Semitism and the fact that some of those marches that are calling for horrific things against Jews are allowed in Western main cities.”

I bring up Gary Lineker, who infamously shared an anti-Semitic image of a rat – a genuine error, he insisted, for which he subsequently apologised – and wonder, to quote a friend, if we’re seeing the revival of an “oblivious anti-Semitism”: old tropes being used in ignorance of the offence they cause. The winner of Eurovision, for example, has suggested that Israel be banned from next year’s show in Vienna – without a shadow of irony or historical awareness.

“I agree, but I think that it’s not the majority of the people in this country. I think the minority is vocal. And I think when the majority keeps silent about bad things, this is when we get to hear the radicals, raising their voice.”

‘Many Western countries that used to feel safe don’t feel safe anymore’
Anti-Jewish hate “is dangerous to this country, just like it’s dangerous to America and Australia and many other Western countries that used to feel very safe and they don’t feel safe anymore.”

Hotovely cites the success of Israel at Eurovision – top in popular vote, pushed into second by the juries – as a possible expression of “sympathy” for October 7. “I don’t feel like we’re isolated, but I do feel like people forget your own country’s history” – Britain’s fight against Hitler, what we endured and what we had to do to win.

“I was invited to a very beautiful event in Westminster Abbey, celebrating your VE Day, and I was moved by all the historic moments that you remember and cherish from your heroism. But then I’m asking myself why, when Israel stands in fighting a very different version of a very radical ideology, why [the British elite] don’t understand it’s exactly the time to have patience and resilience – to wait for Israel to really conclude the job, until this terror organisation will be defeated and not to urge Israel all the time to end the war, even if the consequences are to let Hamas control the Gaza Strip.”

U.S. ramps up its military footprint in Australia as tensions with China rise-
The U.S. is expanding its military presence in northern Australia as it looks to project power and provide a deterrence against the increasing threat of China in the Asia-Pacific. China's President Xi Jinping is thought to have ordered his armed forces to be ready to invade the island of Taiwan by 2027, if necessary, raising fears of a conflict that could draw in American forces.

In response to Beijing's expanding footprint in the region, the U.S. has seen Australia, a country located around two-and-a-half-thousand miles south of China, as a key strategic partner.
In 2012, the first deployment of roughly 200 U.S. Marines rotated through the country's Northern Territory. Now it's close to 2,500 each year. The U.S. military presence is now at its biggest since 1945 at the end of the Second World War.

https://www.siecindia.com/...

Mining magnate Gina Rinehart is calling for Australia to follow the U.S. lead by embarking on Donald Trump-style leadership to cut government largesse while boosting defence spending and energy security, as the country heads to the polls this weekend.

A vocal Trump supporter who attended the president’s inauguration party in Mar-a-Lago in January, Rinehart told Reuters that rather than "whine and whinge" about Trump and his policies, Australia could benefit from a similar approach.

"Australia must reduce its costs, cut government wastage and the expense of government tape, regulations, compliance, licences...," Rinehart said
Rinehart is Australia's richest person with a net worth Forbes puts at $30 billion. Her flagship mining company, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd, is among the biggest donors to opposition leader Peter Dutton's Liberal Party, more than tripling donations in the 2024 financial year to A$500,000 ($320,000), according to Australian Electoral Commission data.

The U.S. military has deployed an anti-ship missile launcher for the first time on Batan Island in the Philippines, as Marines unloaded the high-precision weapon on the northern tip of the archipelago just a sea border away from Taiwan

U.S. and Philippine forces separately unleashed a barrage of missile and artillery fire that shot down several drones acting as hostile aircraft in live-fire drills on Sunday in Zambales province facing the disputed South China Sea

The mock battle scenarios over the weekend in the annual Balikatan exercises between the U.S. and its oldest treaty ally in Asia, the Philippines, not only simulated real-life war. They were also staged near major geopolitical hotspots, which have become delicate frontlines in the regional rivalry between China and the U.S

About 9000 American and 5,000 Filipino military personnel took part in the combat maneuvers. At least 260 Australian personnel also joined, with smaller observer delegations from Japan and other cou