🍔 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

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.

Mystery of why Chinese bombers flew near Alaska in 2024 exposed...
Deploying military forces is the strongest of political signals, and the most potent of these deployments is to move nuclear weapons or launch platforms near a potential adversary.

So when nuclear-capable Chinese bombers joined their Russian counterparts in joint patrols near Alaska in 2024, as well as similar flights deep into the Pacific, Western observers assumed there was a political message. Russia had been conducting such provocative flights dating back to the Cold War, but this is something new for China. Was Beijing signaling its displeasure with America over Taiwan, or warning NATO not to get involved in Asia? Was invoking the specter of Chinese bombers over America a reminder that the vast Pacific was no barrier to the long arm of Chinese power?

However, China may have had other motives for these flights, according to a U.S. expert. Beijing may have been demonstrating that nuclear bombers were now a fully functional part of its strategic triad, alongside ICBMs and ballistic missile submarines.

“It is clear that their true significance lies in China’s years-long effort to complete its nuclear triad,” Derek Solen, a researcher at the U.S. Air Force’s China Aerospace Studies Institute, wrote in a report for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s Air and Space Studies Institute.

Another possibility is that the flights were intended as a warning to the U.S. not to engage in “nuclear sharing,” in which America would station nuclear weapons in non-nuclear allies, especially Japan and South Korea. “China probably fears that the limited exchange between NATO and America’s Asian allies will eventually lead to the integration of America’s European and Asian alliance networks, resulting in the formation of a global, nuclear-armed anti-China alliance,” Solen wrote.

Deciphering Beijing’s intentions behind the bomber missions isn’t easy. There have been just nine Sino-Russian flights since the first mission in 2019, when two Chinese H-6K and two Russian Tu-95MS bombers flew over the Sea of Japan and East China Sea. Though the actual number of flights is somewhat larger — China counts multiple flights on the same day as a single flight — this leaves a small dataset to analyze.

The joint flights were mostly confined to the Sea of Japan and East China Sea until July 24, 2024, when two H-6Ks and two Tu-95s flew near Alaska. Though they didn’t penetrate U.S. airspace, they did enter the air defense identification zone, triggering interception by U.S. and Canadian fighters.

“This represented the first time that PLAAF [People’s Liberation Army Air Force] aircraft participating in a combined patrol sortied from a foreign country as well as the first time that PLAAF aircraft approached U.S. territory,” Solen noted.

A few days later came more joint flights over the Sea of Japan, East China Sea and Western Pacific, which included more advanced H-6N bombers from the 106th Brigade in Henan province, which is primarily tasked with delivering nuclear weapons. The H-6N has a range of 3,700 miles and can launch KD-21 air-launched cruise missiles with an estimated range of up to 1,300 miles. Particularly ominous was a Nov. 30, 2024, flight in which H-6Ns came within cruise missile range of Guam in what Solen believes may have been “the first serious training to conduct a nuclear strike against Guam from the air.”

Solen told Defense News that he initially believed that the flights were a political signal.

“I thought that Beijing was signaling two things simultaneously,” he said. “It was signaling that its relationship with Russia was tight and, by using the H-6, sending an indirect message to Washington that it possesses the means and the will to counter what it perceived as Washington’s moves with respect to nuclear sharing.”

But Solen was troubled by some inconsistencies. For example, the Chinese government was incensed by a July 2024 NATO summit that criticized China for supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as suggestions that NATO might expand its focus to Asia. Yet if the November 2024 flights near Guam were intended as a signal, then why wait until four months after the summit?

The joint flights also coincided with the deployment of the long-range and nuclear-capable H-6N.

“In 2019 the PLAAF officially adopted the H-6N, and in the same year renovations to the 106th Brigade’s base were likely finished,” Solen wrote. “It is interesting that the Sino-Russian combined patrols began that same year.”

Of course, the Alaska flights may have both a military and political purpose. However, Solen thinks that purely military training flights would have been confined to the East China Sea or the Sea of Japan.

Perhaps the West may never know China’s true motivations. Nonetheless, the question remains: Will China again send bombers near — or into — American airspace? China continues to be an indispensable supplier of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine, and the Chinese and Russian navies have just announced joint patrols in the Pacific. A Chinese government spokesman last year urged “relevant countries to abolish the nuclear sharing arrangement, withdraw the large number of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, and refrain from replicating such arrangements in any form in the Asia-Pacific region.”

For now, China isn’t provoking the Trump administration, especially in the midst of a fight over tariffs.

“The fact that China and Russia still haven’t done any combined flights this year is probably a political decision,” Solen said. “At a time when they are trying to work things out with the new administration, they probably decided that it’s best to avoid action that may agitate Washington or distract from the agenda in the negotiations.”

Regular flights near U.S. territory are unlikely “because the training juice won’t be worth the squeeze,” Solen added. On the other hand, China has an incentive to practice long-range bomber flights, even just for non-nuclear missions like striking ships and bases.

“I suppose that once they’ve either resolved things with Washington or just given up on negotiations, we’ll see the combined flights resume and eventually see regular flights without the Russians,” Solen said.

Is the World and mainstream media Rewarding Hamas for Its Atrocities and condemning Israel for defending itself? (Part3)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HAMAS SURRENDER NOW- WAR GOES ON UNTIL HAMAS SURRENDER.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no difference as to what happened during the WW2 where Germany and Japan surrendered after facing defeat in all corners. So Hamas needs to surrender and release all hostages dead or alive.
While the comparison to the surrender of Germany and Japan in World War II is a powerful one, the situations are fundamentally different, which is a key reason why a call for Hamas's unconditional surrender is not a universally adopted or practical demand.

Here's a breakdown of the key differences:

1. The Nature of the Opponents:

WWII: Germany and Japan were nation-states with centralized governments, professional armies, and vast industrial and military complexes. Their surrender involved a formal, legal process by their official governments and military high commands. The Allied powers were able to occupy their territory, dismantle their governments, and oversee the demobilization of their armies.

Hamas: Hamas is not a nation-state. It's a militant and political organization operating within the Gaza Strip, a territory with a civilian population of over two million people. It is a decentralized, ideologically driven group with a mix of military and political wings. The idea of a formal, legal "surrender" in the same vein as a nation-state is not applicable. Even if the top leadership were to surrender, it's highly probable that a new generation of fighters would emerge, as has been the case with many other militant groups.

2. The Goals of the Conflict:

WWII: The Allied powers' stated goal was the "unconditional surrender" of the Axis powers, a principle declared at the Casablanca Conference. The goal was to eliminate the regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and reshape the post-war world order. The war was total, aimed at the complete defeat and occupation of the enemy.

Israel-Hamas Conflict: Israel's stated goals are to dismantle Hamas's military and governing capabilities and to bring the hostages home. The international community, however, has different and often competing objectives. Many nations are more focused on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the long-term prospects for a two-state solution. A call for a permanent ceasefire and the release of hostages, which is a more limited goal than a total surrender, is a reflection of these priorities. Some believe a complete military defeat of Hamas could lead to a power vacuum and greater instability.

3. The Leverage and Bargaining Position:

WWII: By the time of their surrender, Germany and Japan were militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion. They had little to no leverage. The Allied powers' demands were backed by overwhelming military force and the clear prospect of total annihilation.

Hamas: Despite being a much smaller and less powerful entity, Hamas retains significant leverage. The hostages are its primary bargaining chip. By holding them, Hamas can influence Israeli policy, secure the release of Palestinian prisoners, and attract international attention to the Palestinian cause. The demand for an unconditional surrender would mean giving up this leverage, which Hamas leadership has no incentive to do.

4. The Political Context:

WWII: The war was a clear-cut case of aggression and defense. The Nazi and Imperial Japanese regimes had committed well-documented war crimes on a massive scale, and their surrender was a necessary condition for a new, peaceful world order.

Israel-Hamas Conflict: This conflict is part of a much longer, more complex, and deeply entrenched political dispute. While Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by many countries and its actions on October 7th are widely condemned, many in the Arab world and the Global South view the conflict through the lens of a long-standing Israeli occupation. They may not see Hamas's actions as the sole cause of the conflict and may be reluctant to call for its unconditional surrender without addressing the broader political issues.

In conclusion, while the desire for a swift and decisive end to the violence is understandable, applying the "WWII model" of unconditional surrender to the current conflict is not practical. The nature of Hamas as an organization, the differing objectives of the various parties involved, the strategic leverage provided by the hostages, and the complex political history of the region all make it a far more intractable situation than a traditional war between nation-states.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hamas as with Germany and Japan were militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion.
The claim that Hamas is in the same position as Germany and Japan in World War II—militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion—is a powerful but ultimately inaccurate comparison.
While Israel's military campaign has inflicted massive damage on Gaza and severely degraded Hamas's capabilities, the situation is far more complex and does not align with the historical precedent of a nation-state's total defeat.

Here's a detailed look at why the comparison is flawed:
1. Military and Economic Status:

Germany and Japan in WWII: By 1945, both countries' industrial bases were in ruins, their armies were decimated, and their navies and air forces had been largely destroyed. Their homelands were being directly invaded and occupied by overwhelming Allied forces. They were left with no ability to continue the fight.

Hamas: Israel's invasion of Gaza has caused widespread destruction of infrastructure and resulted in a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. However, while Hamas's military capabilities have been degraded, they have not been completely eliminated. The group still retains the ability to launch attacks, and its command and control structure, though fractured, has not been fully dismantled. The organization is a guerrilla force, not a conventional army, and its military assets are often hidden in an extensive network of tunnels, which makes a "total defeat" a near-impossible objective.

2. The Concept of "Homeland" and "Invasion":
WWII: Germany and Japan were sovereign nation-states. The invasion and occupation of their territory by the Allied powers meant the end of their governments and the establishment of new, foreign-controlled administrations.

Hamas: Hamas is not a nation-state. Its "homeland" is the Gaza Strip, a small, densely populated territory under a long-standing Israeli and Egyptian blockade. Israel's invasion of Gaza is not a conventional invasion of a sovereign country but a military operation in a territory where it has had significant influence and control for decades. Furthermore, a full military occupation of Gaza is not a stated goal of the international community and is fraught with political, humanitarian, and strategic problems for Israel.

3. The Element of Leverage:
WWII: By the end of the war, Germany and Japan had no leverage. They could not use a civilian population, hostages, or any other strategic asset to bargain with the Allies. Their only option was unconditional surrender.

Hamas: The hostages remain Hamas's most powerful bargaining tool. Hamas has used the hostages to secure temporary ceasefires and prisoner exchanges. As long as they hold hostages, dead or alive, they retain leverage over Israel and its allies. An unconditional surrender would mean giving up this leverage, which, from their perspective, would be a complete and uncompensated defeat.

4. The Political and Ideological Context:
WWII: The defeat of Germany and Japan was a global consensus. Their ideologies were universally condemned, and the international community was united in its desire to see them dismantled.

Hamas: The international community is deeply divided. While many condemn Hamas's actions, many also see the conflict through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a protracted dispute over land and self-determination. For these groups, a call for Hamas's unconditional surrender is seen as ignoring the broader context of the conflict and the plight of the Palestinian people. This division prevents a unified international front that could pressure Hamas into a surrender.

In conclusion, while Israel has inflicted immense military and economic damage on Hamas and the Gaza Strip, the situation is not comparable to the total defeat and occupation of Germany and Japan. Hamas's guerrilla tactics, its strategic use of hostages, and the lack of a unified international political will to force a surrender all distinguish this conflict from the end of World War II.

What are some known North Korean hacking groups (e.g., Lazarus Group) and their main motives?
North Korea's hacking groups are distinct from those of many other nations due to their overwhelming primary motivation: generating revenue for the regime and funding its illicit weapons programs, particularly nuclear and ballistic missile development, in circumvention of severe international sanctions.
While they also engage in espionage, the financial imperative is paramount.

Here are some of the most well-known North Korean hacking groups (often considered sub-groups or operations under the broader "Lazarus Group" umbrella) and their main motives and alleged activities:

Lazarus Group (Aliases: APT38, Hidden Cobra, Guardians of Peace, ZINC, Diamond Sleet)
The Lazarus Group is the overarching umbrella term for North Korea's state-sponsored cyber operations. It's a highly sophisticated and prolific entity with various subdivisions specializing in different types of attacks.

Main Motives of Lazarus Group as a Whole:

Financial Gain (Primary): To generate illicit revenue for the Kim Jong Un regime, circumventing international sanctions that heavily restrict North Korea's access to traditional financial systems. This funding directly supports their weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs.

Cyber Espionage: To gather strategic intelligence on foreign governments, military capabilities, advanced technologies, and internal political dynamics, particularly concerning South Korea, the U.S., and Japan.

Destruction/Disruption: To cause disruption, sow fear, or retaliate against perceived adversaries.

Influence Operations: To shape public opinion or undermine trust in institutions, especially in South Korea.

Accusations and Notable Activities:

Sony Pictures Entertainment Hack (2014): One of their most infamous early operations, involving the theft of massive amounts of data (unreleased films, emails, personal employee info) and destructive wiper attacks on Sony's network, seemingly in retaliation for the film "The Interview."

Bangladesh Bank Heist (2016): A sophisticated operation that attempted to steal nearly $1 billion from Bangladesh Bank's account at the New York Federal Reserve via SWIFT messages, with $81 million successfully stolen and laundered.

WannaCry Ransomware Attack (2017): Widely attributed to Lazarus, this global ransomware worm exploited a Windows vulnerability (EternalBlue) to encrypt data and demand ransom payments, causing massive disruption to critical services worldwide.

Extensive Cryptocurrency Thefts: This has become their most consistent and lucrative line of effort. They have stolen billions of dollars in cryptocurrencies from exchanges, DeFi platforms, and individual wallets globally through phishing, social engineering, and exploiting vulnerabilities. Examples include the hacks of Harmony's Horizon Bridge ($100M+), Sky Mavis' Ronin Bridge ($600M+), and Bybit ($1.5B+ in 2025).

Sub-Groups of Lazarus:
North Korea often operates through specialized sub-groups that share resources and coordinate under the broader Lazarus umbrella.

1. BlueNoroff (Aliases: APT38, Sapphire Sleet, Alluring Pisces, TraderTraitor, UNC4899, CryptoCore)

Main Motive: Exclusively focused on large-scale financial theft, particularly targeting banks, financial institutions, and more recently, cryptocurrency exchanges and Web3 companies. They aim to steal vast sums of money for the regime.

Accusations and Notable Activities:

Bank Heists: Known for sophisticated attacks on traditional financial institutions, often involving deep reconnaissance of bank systems and SWIFT networks (e.g., the Bangladesh Bank Heist, attacks on banks in Poland, Mexico, Taiwan, etc.).

Cryptocurrency Theft: Currently one of the most active in this domain, using highly sophisticated social engineering tactics (e.g., fake job offers, deepfake Zoom calls) to trick employees of crypto firms into installing malware that facilitates the theft of digital assets. They often create elaborate fake companies and profiles.

2. Kimsuky (Aliases: Emerald Sleet, Velvet Chollima, TEMP.Firework)

Main Motive: Primarily focused on cyber espionage and intelligence gathering, specifically targeting South Korean government entities, think tanks, academic institutions, defense companies, and individuals involved in foreign policy and national security related to the Korean Peninsula, nuclear policy, and sanctions. They also target individuals in the US and Japan.

Accusations and Notable Activities:

Spear-Phishing Campaigns: Known for highly targeted spear-phishing emails, often impersonating legitimate contacts or organizations (e.g., South Korean government officials, journalists, academics) to deliver malware for intelligence collection. They use clever social engineering to trick victims into running malicious PowerShell scripts or installing backdoors.

Theft of Sensitive Data: Accused of stealing information related to inter-Korean affairs, nuclear negotiations, and sanctions enforcement.

Use of Illicit IT Worker Schemes: Some reporting links Kimsuky to the broader scheme of North Korean IT workers fraudulently gaining remote jobs globally, with the salaries funneled back to the regime. (While this scheme also funds the regime, Kimsuky's primary cyber mission remains espionage).

3. Andariel (Aliases: APT45, Silent Chollima, Onyx Fleet)

Main Motive: A mix of financial gain (often through ransomware) and cyber espionage, with a particular focus on military and defense information, especially targeting South Korea. They are also linked to direct revenue generation for the regime.

Accusations and Notable Activities:

Ransomware Deployments: Known for deploying ransomware, including Maui ransomware, against healthcare and critical infrastructure organizations to extort funds.

Stealing Defense Information: Accused of stealing technical information related to anti-aircraft weapon systems from South Korean defense companies.

ATM Cash-outs and Fraud: Engaging in activities like hacking into ATMs to withdraw cash or stealing bank card information for sale on the black market.

Illicit IT Worker Schemes: Recent U.S. sanctions (July 2025) have directly linked an individual associated with Andariel (Song Kum Hyok) to the fraudulent IT worker scheme that funnels money back to North Korea's weapons programs. This indicates a more direct role in generating revenue through non-cyber-attack means, complementing their cyber-enabled activities.

In summary, North Korean hacking groups are unique in their pervasive focus on generating illicit funds, primarily through large-scale cryptocurrency theft and financial fraud, to sustain the isolated regime and its nuclear ambitions. This financial imperative often goes hand-in-hand with strategic cyber espionage and, at times, disruptive operations designed to achieve Pyongyang's geopolitical goals.

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.

Powering India’s AMCA, Will Japan’s XF9-1 Outclass GE F414, Safran M-88 To Boost IAF’s 5th-Gen Fighter:

The Economic Times on August 8 confirmed an earlier Bloomberg report that India is negotiating with aeroengine manufacturers from at least three other countries to jointly develop fighter jet engines.

The exploratory talks are aimed at expanding India’s aeroengine development partnerships beyond the US to quickly plug capability gaps in view of heightened threat perceptions.

On May 30, Bloomberg reported that India was exploring alternatives to the GE F414 engines for powering twin-engine fighter jets currently under development.

Citing a senior Indian official who asked not to be named, the report stated that HAL was considering engine offers from the UK, France, and Japan.

In a statement issued on June 5, 2025, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) clarified: “HAL reiterates that negotiations with GE are on track and progressing well, and that HAL is not in talks with any other company regarding engines for LCA Mk.2. Any information suggesting otherwise is incorrect.”

The HAL denial was cleverly worded. It reiterated HAL’s commitment to using the F414 engine to power the LCA Mk.2, which is a single-engined fighter. The Bloomberg report specifically mentioned twin-engine fighter jets.

Besides the LCA Mk.2, DRDO plans to use the GE F414 as an interim powerplant for the AMCA. An accurate interpretation of the Bloomberg report would be that HAL is looking at alternatives to the GE F414 for powering the AMCA and other future twin-engine fighter jets that the DRDO may develop, such as the TEDBF — Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter.

So, what alternatives to the GE F414 from the UK, France, and Japan is HAL considering?

Rolls-Royce Offer
During a visit by senior Indian MoD officials to the UK in April, the UK’s Rolls-Royce reportedly proposed a partnership with India to co-develop engines for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), offering full transfer of intellectual property rights to enable India’s ownership of critical engine technology.

The proposal envisages co-design, knowledge transfer, and local manufacturing.

The collaboration would be supported by the UK government under the India-UK Defence Partnership.

To sweeten the offer further, Rolls-Royce also plans to double its supply chain sourcing from India by 2030, fostering job creation and innovation.

Rolls-Royce has reportedly proposed an engine designed to deliver approximately 75 kN of dry thrust (without afterburner) and 110 kN with afterburner, with potential scalability to 120–130 kN for future variants like the AMCA Mk.2.

Rolls-Royce’s proposal reportedly involves developing a range of high-thrust turbofan engines for potential use in transport and civilian aircraft.

French Safran Offer
France’s Safran’s offer is the oldest on the table. In July 2023, the French government reportedly gave a nod to Safran to jointly design, develop, test, manufacture, and certify an engine with India that will power twin-engine advanced multi-role combat aircraft (AMCA) and the twin-engine deck-based fighter for Indian aircraft carriers.

Safran proposes to develop the AMCA engine by enhancing its proven M88 engine. Safran will enhance the M88’s core technology, which produces 50 kN dry and 75 kN with afterburner, to achieve a higher thrust output of approximately 75–80 kN dry and 110–120 kN with afterburner.

Because it leverages proven technology, the engine’s development timeframe can be aligned with the AMCA’s development timeline, with prototypes expected by 2026–27 and first flights by 2028.

Safran’s offer includes full technology transfer, covering critical technologies like single-crystal blades, thermal barrier coatings, and advanced combustors, ensuring India gains indigenous manufacturing and design capabilities.

This enhanced engine will incorporate new components, such as an improved compressor and afterburner, to meet the AMCA’s performance needs, including supercruise capability.

In addition, the offer includes Safran setting up a centre of excellence in gas turbine technology in India with full design and metallurgical precision software tools.

Japan’s Offer
Japan reportedly made its offer to co-develop an AMCA engine in May.

Unlike the UK and France, Japan does not have an aeroengine manufacturing track record. However, Japan has been actively developing a military fighter jet engine called the IHI XF9-1.

The development is spearheaded by IHI Corporation in collaboration with the Japan Ministry of Defense’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA).

The IHI XF9-1 is a low-bypass afterburning turbofan being developed for Japan’s Mitsubishi F-X (F-3) stealth fighter program, which has since been integrated into the multinational Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) with the UK (Rolls-Royce) and Italy (Avio-Aero).

The XF9-1 generates 107 kN of dry thrust and 147 kN with afterburner, with potential scalability up to 196 kN for future sixth-generation platforms. It features advanced materials to withstand turbine inlet temperatures of 1,800°C, a slim design for stealth, and thrust-vectoring nozzles for enhanced maneuverability.

The XF9-1 is conceptually advanced, and its potential scalability is very impressive.

Conclusion
HAL’s commitment to the GE F414 engine as the LCA Mk.2 powerplant notwithstanding, it would be in the nation’s interest if HAL were to explore alternatives to the GE F414 as the powerplant, interim or otherwise, for the AMCA.

Both Rolls-Royce and Safran have offered to collaborate with DRDO’s Bengaluru-based GTRE (Gas Turbine Research Establishment) lab and provide full ToT and IPR, the government official said.

The Safran offer is based on proven M88 technology, so it’s less risky. However, it makes one wonder why Safran, even after being hired as consultants, didn’t help GTRE upgrade the Kaveri engine by sharing M88 technology, in which case, GTRE itself could have developed the AMCA engine leveraging Kaveri engine technology.

The proposed Rolls-Royce engine is a bit of a wild card, since it is merely a concept at this point in time. However, Rolls-Royce has upped the ante by offering to co-develop a range of high-thrust turbofan engines for potential use in transport and civilian aircraft.

Japan’s lack of an aeroengine manufacturing track record makes the XF9-1 an underdog amidst the competition. However, it’s interesting to note that the XF9-1 is conceptually advanced. Also, when it comes to the current state of development, the XF9-1 stands out amid the competition.

The XF9-1 has undergone prototype testing (2018), including conceptual design and test flights on the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin demonstrator (2016–2018). Research from 2010–2019 focused on high-temperature combustors, lightweight compressors, and stealth-optimized inlet designs.

The big downer is the GCAP partnership. Development progress could easily fall well behind AMCA development timelines due to differing priorities among partner nations, the UK, and France.

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.

‘Sparks Fly’ As U.S. F-15 Fighter Makes Heroic Landing In Kadena Air Base, Japan With Just 2 Wheels

In a terrifying incident, a US Air Force (USAF) F-15E Strike Eagle made an emergency landing at the Kadena Air Base, a forward US military facility in Japan, upon learning mid-flight that the fighter jet was missing a wheel.

The aircraft was flying from the military outpost in Diego Garcia to Kadena when the incident occurred.

“Today, Aug. 4, 2025, at approximately 6:40 p.m., a U.S. Air Force F-15E, deployed to Kadena Air Base, was involved in an aircraft incident after landing with a missing wheel. The two Airmen on board did not sustain any injuries,” the 18th Wing at Kadena said in a statement.

“The wheel was found to be missing in flight and was recovered on the flightline at U.S. Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia,” the Kadena-based air wing added. The aircraft in question was deployed to Diego Garcia earlier this year as part of a US military buildup to prepare for a military contingency in West Asia. Analysts said that the aircraft was perhaps homebound as part of a de-escalation by Washington.

The photos of the F-15E appeared online shortly after the incident was announced, showing the aircraft without a wheel, which had detached from the main landing gear.

The cause of the incident remains unknown and is currently under investigation. Moreover, the Kadena Air Base is inspecting all of its F-15E Strike Eagles in the wake of the incident.

The aircraft will resume flying status as soon as this safety inspection is complete. The Kadena runway where the wheelless fighter touched down has also been examined and is in perfect working order, according to the Kadena base.

The F-15Es at the Kadena base are from the 336th Fighter Squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. They were deployed to the Okinawa base in 2023 when the USAF pulled out the older F-15 C/D fighters back to the US.

The US is also deploying the F-15EX, the latest and most advanced variant of the aircraft, to this key outpost.

Though the “missing wheel” incident was unprecedented, experts heaped praise on the aircrew.

“The way the aircrew handled the landing is a testament to their training and professionalism, and I want to thank the first responders and safety teams for being poised and ready to respond,” Brig. Gen. John Gallemore, commander of the 18th Wing at Kadena, said in a statement. “This event fortifies my confidence in Team Kadena’s ability to react to complex problems on a moment’s notice.”

As the Strike Eagle landed at Kadena without a wheel, it was reportedly seen with sparks and black smoke coming from the wheel’s hub. In the past, similar incidents required the aircraft to perform a belly landing to lower the hazards resulting from the imbalance and decreased controllability during the landing roll. However, the F-15E landed normally.

Typically, fighter pilots are trained for such scenarios, often using techniques like minimal descent rates or foam-covered runways to mitigate risks. In fact, as part of their training, pilots are made to practice techniques like “gear-up” or partial gear landings, where the pilot learns to manage the aircraft’s attitude and speed to minimize damage.

In any case, a missing wheel could be detrimental to a fighter jet. For one, a missing wheel can potentially disrupt the aircraft’s balance during landing, increasing the risk of veering off the runway, skidding, or tipping. This can lead to loss of control, especially at high landing speeds, and cause severe injuries to the pilot.

Moreover, the landing gear strut without a wheel could dig into the runway, causing damage to the gear assembly, airframe, or even the wing or fuselage. The sparks or friction caused by this could also ignite fuel leaks, which could further create an emergency by causing a fire.

A similar, but not identical incident, took place in 1983 when an Israeli F-15 Baz managed to land despite losing a wing after suffering a mid-air collision with an A-4 over the Negev desert. A detailed report on this incident can be read here.

The pilot of the aircraft, Nedivi, was later quoted in Bertie Simmond’s book “F-15 Eagle” as saying, “A normal approach is around 130 knots, but we made ours at around 250 to 260 knots, about twice that of a normal landing. As a result, I put down the F-15’s emergency arrestor hook, which engaged the cable around a third of the way down the runway. We hit that, but the speed we were going meant that the hook itself tore off the aircraft, and we eventually stopped 20 feet short of the barrier at the other end of the runway.” This was a historic milestone and one for the history books.

The F-15 has been involved in several such incidents, including those related to landing gear, over the years. However, the latest incident at Kadena comes after a string of fighter jet incidents at Kadena, which have fueled concern and anxiety among civilians.

Incidents At Kadena
Located in the center of the Indo-Pacific, Kadena is within 640 kilometers of Taiwan, 1287 kilometers of the Korean Peninsula, and close to important South China Sea locations. This makes it a vital forward-operating base for power projection, deterrence, and rapid response to regional conflicts, particularly involving China or North Korea.

Kadena hosts the US Air Force’s 18th Wing, the largest combat wing in the Air Force, operating a range of aircraft, including the F-15 Eagles, the F-15E Strike Eagles, the F-22 Raptor, F-35B Lightning II, and CV-22B Ospreys. The base has been witness to several USAF aircraft incidents in the past couple of years.

On December 1, 2022, a US Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 “Green Knights,” based at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, suffered a nose gear collapse at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan.

The incident occurred after the aircraft made a precautionary landing due to suspected electrical problems. The nose of the aircraft broke while being towed on the taxiway, causing the aircraft’s nose to drop onto the ground.

The next big incident happened in November 2023 when a CV-22B Osprey crashed near Yakushima Island while en route to Kadena. All eight airmen aboard were killed in the accident, which was linked to a possible engine fire.

Japan grounded its Osprey fleet in the wake of the accident and requested a US flight suspension, amplifying concerns about aircraft safety. At the time, the locals in Okinawa cited the crash as evidence of risks posed by Kadena-based operations, straining US-Japan relations.

The next month, in December 2023, an F-35A Lightning II belonging to the US Air Force’s 356th Fighter Squadron landed at the base without a panel, which was probably lost over the Pacific Ocean. At the time, the spokesperson for the 18th Wing, 1st Lt. Robert Dabbs, stated that the aircraft was missing a hexagonal side panel that measured 18 by 12 inches and weighed roughly two pounds. “Expectations are the panel departed the aircraft over water,” Dabbs was quoted as saying.

In April 2024, an F-22A Raptor on rotational deployment to Japan from the 19th Fighter Squadron, 15th Wing, experienced a nose gear issue while being towed at Kadena Air Base.

The aircraft’s nose dropped to the ground during the towing process. Fortunately, no fire or injuries were reported. However, all these incidents demonstrated the innate precariousness associated with combat jet operations and forced a security rethink.

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.

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.”

Taiwan’s top envoy to the U.S. urged the Senate to ease tax burdens between the two countries and asked Congress to fast-track foreign military sales, following a closed-door lunch Wednesday with the House.

Ambassador Alexander Tah-Ray Yui, Taipei’s top representative in Washington, told Fox News Digital that he is encouraged that U.S. leaders recognize the urgent existential threat China poses, but emphasized the need to get weapons into the hands of the Taiwanese military more quickly and to address issues impeding two-way investment.

"We appreciate the United States prioritizing Taiwan and helping us strengthen our defense capabilities," Yui said. "We’re cheering on more military commitments to the states and [a] joint effort to speed up the delivery of the products that we bought."

Yui called on the Senate to advance a stalled double taxation agreement, which has already cleared the House.

"That’s an important incentive for Taiwanese companies to come to the United States and invest – but also vice versa for U.S. companies to go to Taiwan," he said. "We are the only one of the large trading partners without this treatment, which is worrying for the whole country right now."

By a vote of 423 to 1, the House last Congress passed the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, legislation that prevents double taxation on cross-border investments.

The ambassador also offered a sobering assessment of China’s increasingly belligerent posture in the Taiwan Strait and across the Indo-Pacific.

"We are concerned," Yui said. "The [People’s Liberation] Army and Navy are increasing their activities around Taiwan, harassing our territorial waters and airspace. These provocations are constant."

While emphasizing that "we don’t want war," he noted that the U.S. and regional partners have begun ramping up their own defenses, recognizing the threat.

Rep. August Pfluger, who chairs the influential RSC, told Fox News Digital that the meeting was a show of solidarity with Taiwan’s democratic government and a rebuke of China’s authoritarian policies.

"China is an existential threat to Taiwan," said Pfluger, a Texas Republican. "The difference between mainland China and Taiwan is how they treat human life. Taiwan values openness. China suppresses free speech, targets groups like the Uyghur Muslims – it’s deeply concerning."

The lunch meeting, attended by dozens of House Republicans, comes amid rising tensions in the region – but just as President Donald Trump announced a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping to ease the trade war.

While Pfluger did not commit to further supplemental aid, he said he supports efforts by both nations to strengthen military readiness, including Taiwan’s move to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP.

"It stands to reason that Taiwan increasing their own internal spending on defense, as well as the U.S. recapitalizing our Navy and Air and Space Forces, is vitally important," he said.

Asked what message Congress wants to send to the Taiwanese people, Pfluger was unequivocal:

"We stand by them – as an ally, as a trading partner, as a democracy facing tyranny just next door."

The conversation came at a time when U.S. military officials are warning China is readying for battle in the Indo-Pacific in an effort to "dominate" the region.

"Beijing is preparing for war in the Indo-Pacific as part of its broader strategy to dominate that region and then the world," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress this week. He added that such an outcome could put the U.S. economy and its supply chains in a choke hold.

"China is undertaking a historic military buildup and actively rehearsing for an invasion of Taiwan," he said.

"These aggressive maneuvers are not routine exercises, they are rehearsals for a forced unification," Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added in his own testimony.

Taiwan has recently renewed an effort to purge its ranks of Chinese sympathizers, indicting four people on Tuesday suspected of spying for China that had infiltrated the presidential office.

Two Chinese aircraft carriers spotted conducting operations in the Pacific demonstrated the country’s "expansionist" aims, Taiwan Defense Minister Wellington Koo said Wednesday.

"Crossing from the first island chain into the second island chain sends a definite political message and their expansionist nature can be seen," he told reporters in Taipei.

The first island chain refers to the region from Japan to Taiwan and the Philippines to Borneo and the second island chain spreads farther into the Pacific, toward the U.S. territory of Guam.

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.”

South Korea's newly-elected President Lee Jae-myung and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba agreed during a telephone call to strengthen bilateral ties, a South Korean presidential spokesperson and Japan's foreign ministry said on Monday.

The call comes after the two leaders said they aimed for their countries to continue coordination on North Korea issues.

Lee, a left-leaning leader who was elected last week, has said pragmatism was key to his diplomacy and he would continue with security cooperation between South Korea, Japan and the United States.

Lee told Ishiba that he wanted to deal with geopolitical crises within the framework of three-way cooperation with Tokyo and Washington, Kang Yoo-jung, Lee's spokesperson, told reporters.

Reaffirming the significance of bilateral ties, the two leaders agreed to meet in person to further develop relations, Kang added.

Ishiba told Lee that he wished to further advance bilateral relations "through mutual efforts based on the foundation built by both governments so far", according to a statement from Japan's foreign ministry.

Worst Nuclear Disaster Since Chernobyl — Japan Overturns $92 Billion Damage Order Against Fukushima Operators.

The Tokyo High Court on Friday overturned a $92 billion damages order against four ex-bosses of the operator of the devastated Fukushima nuclear plant, Japanese media reported.

The former executives had been ordered in 2022 to pay 13.3 trillion yen in a suit brought by shareholders over the nuclear disaster triggered by a massive tsunami in 2011.

Shareholders had argued that the catastrophe could have been prevented if Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) bosses had listened to research and implemented preventive measures, such as placing an emergency power source on higher ground.

But the defendants countered that the risks were unpredictable, and the studies cited were not credible.

The court did not immediately confirm Friday’s news reports when contacted by AFP.

The 13.3 trillion yen damages award was believed to be the largest amount ever ordered in a civil suit in Japan. It was intended to cover TEPCO’s costs for dismantling the reactors, compensating affected residents, and cleaning up the contamination.

In 2015, British oil giant BP was ordered to pay $20.8 billion for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in what was described at the time as the highest fine ever imposed on a company in US history.

Jiji Press reported Friday that the High Court had denied that the tsunami was a predictable event.

Footage broadcast on Japanese networks showed the plaintiffs holding a banner calling for an even higher damages order of 22 billion yen. “Take responsibility for the Fukushima nuclear accident!” their banner said.

Three of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant’s six reactors were operating when a massive undersea quake triggered a massive tsunami on March 11, 2011.

They went into meltdown after their cooling systems failed when waves flooded backup generators, leading to the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

Overall, the tsunami along Japan’s northeast coast left around 18,500 people dead or missing. In March, Japan’s top court said it had finalised the acquittal of two former TEPCO executives charged with professional negligence over the Fukushima meltdown.

The decision concluded the only criminal trial to arise from the plant’s 2011 accident.

Israeli PM Netanyahu Thanks Trump For Sanctioning “Politicised” Judges Of International Criminal Court

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked US President Donald Trump and his top diplomat on Friday for sanctioning “politicised” judges of the International Criminal Court.

“Thank you President Trump and Secretary of State (Marco) Rubio for imposing sanctions against the politicised judges of the ICC. You have justly stood up for the right of Israel,” Netanyahu wrote on social media.

Earlier, the United States imposed sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court over an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as it ramped up pressure to neuter the court of last resort.

The four judges in The Hague, all women, will be barred from entry to the United States, and any property or other interests in the world’s largest economy will be blocked — measures more often taken against policymakers from US adversaries than against judicial officials.

“The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other US ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

“I call on the countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to fight this disgraceful attack on our nation and Israel,” Rubio said.

The court swiftly hit back, saying in a statement: “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe.”

Human Rights Watch urged other nations to speak out and reaffirm the independence of the ICC, established in 2002 to prosecute individuals responsible for the world’s most serious crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.

The sanctions “aim to deter the ICC from seeking accountability amid grave crimes committed in Israel and Palestine and as Israeli atrocities mount in Gaza, including with US complicity,” said the rights group’s international justice director, Liz Evenson.

Two of the targeted judges, Beti Hohler of Slovenia and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, participated in proceedings that led to an arrest warrant being issued last November for Netanyahu.

The court found “reasonable grounds” of criminal responsibility by Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant for actions that include the war crime of starvation as a method of war in the massive offensive in Gaza following Hamas’s unprecedented October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Israel, alleging bias, has angrily rejected charges of war crimes as well as a separate allegation of genocide led by South Africa before the International Court of Justice.

The two other judges, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, were part of the court proceedings that led to the authorization of an investigation into allegations that US forces committed war crimes during the war in Afghanistan.

Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.

However, almost all Western allies of the United States, as well as Japan and South Korea, the vast majority of Latin America, and a significant portion of Africa, are parties to the statute and, in theory, are required to arrest suspects when they land on their soil.

Trump, in his first term, already imposed sanctions on the then-ICC chief prosecutor over the Afghanistan investigation.

After Trump’s defeat in 2020, then-President Joe Biden took a more conciliatory approach to the court with case-by-case cooperation.

Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, rescinded the sanctions and, while critical of its stance on Israel, worked with the court in its investigation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

ICC judges in 2023 issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the alleged mass abduction of Ukrainian children during the war.

Both Putin and Netanyahu have voiced defiance in response to ICC pressure, but have also sought to minimize their time in countries that are parties to the court.

The ICC arrest warrants have been especially sensitive in Britain, a close US ally whose Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is a former human rights lawyer.

Downing Street has stated that Britain will fulfill its “legal obligations” without explicitly stating whether Netanyahu would be arrested if he visits.

Hungary, led by Viktor Orban, a close ally of Trump, has parted ways with the rest of the European Union by moving to withdraw from the international court.

Orban thumbed his nose at the court by welcoming Netanyahu to visit in April.

450+ Fighter Jets Destroyed In Surprise Attack! Amid Ukraine’s 34% Claims, Here’s How IAF Stunned The World With Its Air Raids.

The June 1 Ukrainian drone strikes on four Russian airfields might have knocked out 34% of the Russian heavy bomber fleet, as per Ukrainian claims. Though the strike was unparalleled in its innovative use of cheap drones, this was not the first such strike where an Air Force was shattered even before it got an opportunity to get airborne.

In the annals of combat aviation history, there are many such examples where an adversary’s air power was crushed in pre-emptive strikes, taking the enemy by surprise and fire-bombing its fighter jets before they could fire even a single shot.

The Ukrainian strikes on June 1 have been termed Russia’s Pearl Harbor moment. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 is still considered one of the prime examples of the devastating impact a well-planned pre-emptive strike can have.

In a few hours, the US lost more than 180 aircraft, most of them still on the ground. Only six US aircraft could get into the air to repel the attackers. Japan lost fewer than 30 aircraft and was able to deliver a decisive blow to US Air and naval power in the Pacific.

This early Japanese success in a pre-emptive strike became a template for later generations to follow.

When a war is inevitable, make sure you land the first punch and take out the adversary’s air power before they can get airborne was the lesson from Pearl Harbor.

Since then, many countries have attempted to emulate Japan’s success in pre-emptive strikes. Pakistan attempted it against the Indian Air Force in the 1971 war. Egypt and Syria tried it against the Israeli Air Force in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and Iran tried to cripple Iraqi Air Force in the 1980 Iran-Iraq War.

However, in the history of combat aviation, there was one strike that even surpassed Japan’s success at Pearl Harbor.

Four hundred fifty-two enemy aircraft were turned to ash by an Air Force that had fewer than 250 fighter jets.

Before that preemptive strike, the adversary clearly had a superior air force. By the end of the day, the adversary was without an Air Force. Most of its fighter jets were turned to ash while still on the runway. Its Air Force was dismantled even before they could get airborne or fire a single shot.

The country that launched the pre-emptive strike enjoyed unchallenged air superiority by the end of the day, and its air superiority lasted for at least a couple of years.

The Prelude To The War
Following the Suez Canal crisis in West Asia in 1956, most of the Arab countries, as well as Israel, knew that another war was coming. Israel and the Arab countries also understood that the next war would be fought primarily in the air, and thus, they were strengthening their Air forces.

By 1967, the Egyptian Air Force had amassed nearly 400 aircraft, including state-of-the-art fighter jets, bombers, and transport aircraft. Most of its aircraft were of Soviet origin.

It had nearly 120 MiG-21 Fishbeds. These were modern, supersonic interceptors equipped with air-to-air missiles and cannons, forming the backbone of Egypt’s air defense.

Egypt also had about 60 MiG-19 Farmers. These were older but still effective supersonic fighters used for both air-to-air and ground-attack roles.

The Egyptian Air Force also had nearly 150 MiG-15UTI and MiG-17 Frescos. It also had a bomber fleet of Tu-16 Badgers (nearly 25) and Il-28 Beagles (40 to 50). Besides, it had trainers and transport aircraft.

On the other side, the Israeli Air Force had fewer than 250 aircraft, mostly of French and US origin.

It had approximately 80 Dassault Mirage IIICJ. They formed the backbone of its air superiority fleet. These supersonic jets were equipped with 30mm cannons and could carry air-to-air missiles (like the French Matra R.530).

Israel also had nearly 100 Dassault Super Mystère B.2s and Dassault Mystère IVAs. It also had about 20 Sud Aviation Vautour IIA and some 30 Fouga Magister, which were primarily trainers but were modified for light-attack roles.

What made the job of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) more difficult was that Egypt also enjoyed the support of Syria and had just concluded a defense treaty with Jordan. Both Syria and Jordan also had formidable Air Forces. The combined fighter jet strength of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was well above 600.

IAF understood that it was vastly outnumbered and outgunned in a dangerous Arab neighborhood. It was understood that the only way it could prevail in a war was by launching a preemptive strike.

Operation Focus: An Unparalleled Success In Combat Aviation History
By June, Egypt had amassed its 130,000-strong Army in the Sinai Peninsula on the border with Israel. On Israel’s north, Syria, and on its East, Jordan were also making aggressive moves.

Israel understood that it’s a now-or-never moment for its survival.

On June 5, 1967, Israel decided to go for the kill by launching Operation Focus, marking the beginning of the Six-Day War.

At 7:00 a.m., nearly 200 Israeli jets, including Dassault Mirage IIIs, Mystères, and Fouga Magisters, took off, leaving only 12 to defend Israel’s skies. Flying low over the Mediterranean to evade radar, the IAF achieved complete tactical surprise.

The first wave struck 11 Egyptian airfields at 7:45 a.m., destroying 197 aircraft and eight radar stations, primarily on the ground, using innovative rocket-assisted anti-runway warheads to disable runways. A second wave at 9:30 a.m. hit 14 more bases, destroying 107 additional Egyptian aircraft.

By now, the Syrian and Jordanian Air Forces also attacked Israel to relieve the pressure on Egypt. The IAF shot down multiple Syrian and Jordanian fighter jets in dogfights.

By noon, the IAF had crippled the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces, totaling about 452 aircraft destroyed. As Arab forces retaliated ineffectively, IAF planes were diverted to strike Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi targets, ensuring air supremacy by day’s end.

Most of the IAF fighter jets made multiple sorties. They returned to Israeli air bases after bombing Egyptian planes, refueled and rearmed, and returned for another wave of strikes.

Most of the jets achieved a turnover time of less than eight minutes. They fought on three fronts simultaneously, the Egyptian front in the south, the Syrian front in the north, and the Jordanian front in the east.

Israel lost 19 aircraft, approximately 10% of its fighter jet fleet, mostly to ground fire, with five pilots killed and five captured. The Arab coalition lost approximately 452 aircraft.

The Egyptian Air Force suffered the most significant damage. It lost nearly 311 aircraft, most of them on the ground. Egypt lost almost 75% of its fighter jets and 100% of its bomber fleet.

On the morning of June 5, 1967, Egypt had a formidable Air Force, consisting of over 400 fighter jets. The Egyptian Air Force was one of the largest in the Middle East.

By the afternoon of the same day, the country was effectively without an Air Force. The Syrian and Jordanian Air Forces also received decisive blows.

By evening, the IAF had unchallenged air superiority in the region.

The decisive air victory of the IAF ensured a swift triumph for Israel. Within six days, Israel had routed a grand Arab coalition. At the end of the six days, Israel had expanded its territory by nearly three times.

It was now in occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including the historic East Jerusalem, and the strategic Golan Heights.

More than 50 years later, Israel is still in possession of most of these territories except the Sinai Peninsula, which it returned to Egypt.

The wild success the IAF achieved in Operation Focus is unmatched in the annals of combat aviation history.

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.

India is holding talks with companies to establish long-term stockpiles of rare earth magnets by offering fiscal incentives for domestic production, people familiar with the matter said.

Building such a supply chain could take years, but would reduce India's dependence on shipments from China, which sent shockwaves across global industries, particularly autos, with its April 4 move to curb exports of rare earth materials.

China controls 90% of the processing of such magnets, also used in industries such as clean energy and defence.

Now Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government wants to develop domestic manufacturing capabilities and is considering offering production-based fiscal incentives to companies, said two sources who sought anonymity as the talks are private.

The scheme, being drafted by the ministry of heavy industries, also envisions partly funding the difference between the final price of the made-in-India magnet and the cost of the Chinese imports, the first source said.

This would help achieve cost parity and boost local demand, the source said, adding that funding for the scheme has yet to be decided, with the government likely to meet industry officials next week to finalise the details.

The heavy industries ministry did not respond to Reuters' queries.

Although a state-run firm, IREL, has been mining rare earth materials for years, these are mainly used by the atomic energy and defence units, with most supplies for other uses still imported from China.
India's move comes as auto companies the world over flag risks that they could face supply disruptions within days.

In Japan, Suzuki Motor, has suspended production of its Swift car because of China's curbs.

In India, auto industry body SIAM has privately told the government it expects production "to come to a grinding halt" within a timeframe starting from the end of May or early June.

The heavy industries ministry also plans to send a delegation of auto industry executives to meet officials in Beijing to push for faster approvals, with two industry officials warning that was the only near-term solution.

"The short-term solution has to be to get Chinese authorities to clear things," said one of the executives, who fears shortages at his company. "A radical shift in supply chain is not possible in the short term."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese Web Around U.S. Military Bases Worries Americans; Is Ukraine’s ‘Shock’ Attack On Russia A Wake-Up Call For Trump?

The surprise Ukrainian drone attack on Russia, facilitated by the smuggling of drones inside trucks, has rattled the world at large. American analysts and lawmakers are now concerned that Chinese cargo ships that dock at U.S. ports could potentially carry out a similar stunt against the United States.

The Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, launched the drone attacks on multiple Russian military bases on June 1 under ‘Operation Spiderweb.’ The operation involved 117 First Person View (FPV) drones that were smuggled into Russia, concealed in wooden containers with remotely operated roofs mounted on trucks.

These trucks, driven by individuals reportedly unaware of the cargo they were carrying, were positioned near the target air bases to ensure precision strikes.

Russia couldn’t have fathomed that an infiltration like that was taking place right under its nose. The strikes, meticulously planned over 18 months, humiliated Russia’s military by exposing the gaps in its intelligence architecture and the vulnerabilities in its air defenses.

Caught unaware, the Russian military sustained losses of billions of dollars. In the aftermath of the incident, several pro-Russian military bloggers said it was Russia’s Pearl Harbor, a reference to the surprise Japanese attack on the US Pearl Harbor port during World War II, that destroyed multiple US warships and aircraft.

The attack, perhaps the most significant demonstration of asymmetric warfare in recent times, will have far-reaching global repercussions. US analysts are concerned that China could replicate a similar move against America, utilizing its cargo ships that have unrestricted access to US ports, as highlighted by Newsweek in a recent report.

The report noted that lawmakers and security experts have expressed concerns over China’s state-owned shipping behemoth, COSCO Shipping, operating across US ports, despite being classified as a Chinese military enterprise by the Pentagon in January 2025.

US analysts have voiced concern that these cargo ships could be used to deploy drones, possibly hidden inside ships, to launch a preemptive strike on US ports in the event of a conflict.

COSCO is the largest state-owned shipping firm in China and a significant force in international marine logistics, with a considerable presence in important US ports, including Oakland, Long Beach, and Los Angeles, among others.

In January 2025, the House Committee on Homeland Security expressed concern about COSCO’s access to major US ports and the alleged presence of suspected Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political officers on board its ships, suggesting direct CCP influence. It warned of threats like espionage, cyber intrusion, or even sabotage by the Chinese.

The Trump administration has imposed port fees on COSCO to challenge China’s hegemony in the world’s shipbuilding industry. Additionally, the recently imposed US tariffs, including a 145% tariff on Chinese goods, have led to a sharp decline in COSCO’s shipments to American ports.

For example, the Port of Los Angeles saw a 35% plunge in cargo volume in May 2025, with COSCO and other carriers canceling transits.

Notably, a temporary US-China tariff truce last month spurred a surge in bookings, but COSCO continues to face operational challenges due to fees and reduced demand.

Despite COSCO’s reduced presence in the US, US analysts remain suspicious. Retired Navy Commander Thomas Shugart and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security said: “It is becoming borderline-insane that we routinely allow ships owned and operated by DoD-designated Chinese military companies to sit in our ports with thousands of containers onboard and under their control.”

While a Chinese attack is unlikely without an existing state of war, the presence of COSCO vessels near critical infrastructure, like the Norfolk Naval Station, raises concerns about espionage or sabotage.

It is pertinent to note that even the Ukrainian operation took 18 months of planning and intelligence gathering to achieve the desired result.

Moreover, there have been suggestive reports about China spying on US military facilities by purchasing land nearby and even infiltrating the US port infrastructure in the past, which makes the threat of a Ukraine drone-like attack more plausible to some in the US.

Chinese Spying Concerns Loom Large
Chinese ships docking at US ports have been a matter of discourse in the US for quite some time. Last year, a US Congressional investigation discovered that a Chinese business installed intelligence-gathering equipment on cranes used at US seaports, potentially enabling Beijing to spy on Americans or damage vital infrastructure.

ZPMC, a state-owned engineering company based in Shanghai, exerted pressure on American port authorities to grant remote access to its cranes, specifically those situated on the West Coast, i.e., the contiguous states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

The report, produced after a year-long research, warned that “This access could potentially be extended to other [People’s Republic of China] government entities, posing a significant risk due to the PRC’s national security laws that mandate cooperation with state intelligence agencies.”

Citing contract paperwork and testimonies from port operators, the investigation stated that “these unknown modems were believed to have been installed under the auspices of collecting usage data for the equipment.” These modems allegedly employed a covert approach to gathering data and circumventing firewalls, which could potentially disrupt port operations, even though they were unnecessary for the cranes to operate.

At the time, these findings caused alarm because about 80% of the cargo cranes in American ports are owned by ZPMC.

Transporting goods through US marine ports, which generate trillions of dollars in economic activity every year, requires ship-to-shore cranes. However, because these cranes can often be controlled remotely, anyone with access to the networks may be able to collect intelligence from ports or damage equipment.

In a hypothetical scenario, the intelligence collected through the cranes could be used to launch an ‘Operation Spiderweb’ type of operation where Chinese cargos double up as carriers of drones that go off by flicking a button on a remote.

Earlier, the White House disclosed plans to “phase out Chinese-made port equipment and fully return crane making to the United States to deal with 200 Chinese-made cranes at U.S. ports and facilities”. However, the progress of that effort under the Trump administration remains unknown.

Another prevailing concern in the United States has been the ownership of farm and commercial land near US military facilities by Chinese people and corporations.

A previous report revealed that Chinese companies purchased several farmlands close to strategic US military installations, including some of the most strategically important military installations, such as MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida; Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego, California; Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg) in Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Fort Cavazos (formerly Fort Hood) in Killeen, Texas.

Sources suggest that under the guise of farming, Chinese landowners could potentially set up surveillance equipment or use drones to monitor military sites. According to the January 2024 data from the US Department of Agriculture, China claims 349,442 acres out of roughly 40 million acres of foreign-owned farmland, or 0.87 percent.

It does not help that Chinese nationals have sneaked into military bases and other sensitive US sites more than 100 times in recent years, as the Wall Street Journal reported in 2023. This raises a very alarming issue regarding Chinese ownership of land near military sites.

Additionally, the US National Association of Realtors (NAR) stated in a report last year that the Chinese have remained the top foreign buyers of US residential property for the 11th consecutive year.

Experts caution that, just as Ukraine’s drones targeted Russian airfields, Chinese-owned property may be used for tracking devices, reconnaissance sites, or drones to observe US military activities.

The strategic placement of these lands near bases like Fort Liberty, which hosts critical airborne and special operations units, amplifies concerns about a surprise threat akin to Pearl Harbor’s unexpected attack.

Although no US federal law mandates a ban, individual states have been passing laws to curtail Chinese ownership of land near US military bases.

Trump ‘Pitches’ F-47 Aircraft, Golden Dome Defense Shield To Its Closet Ally In Indo-Pacific Region: Media

US President Donald Trump has reportedly discussed two big-ticket military programs with one of his closest allies in the Indo-Pacific: the Golden Dome defense shield and the F-47 sixth-generation aircraft.

Trump discussed potential collaboration with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba during a phone call in May 2025 regarding the development of technology for the Golden Dome missile defense shield, Nikkei Asia reported. Japan is reportedly exploring support for the initiative, the report claimed.

Citing unidentified sources, the Japanese publication said that the two nations will likely collaborate on systems meant to intercept inbound threats. The report did not provide specific details about the discussions that took place between the two leaders.

Trump announced plans for the “Golden Dome” system in May 2025, saying it would cost around $175 billion and would become operational by the end of his term in 2029.

However, experts say the scheme faces huge technical and political challenges, and could cost far more than he has estimated in the public announcement. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office earlier estimated that the US might have to spend up to US$542 billion over 20 years to develop and launch the network of space-based interceptors under the program.

The US President may now be seeking potential partners who could share the cost of developing and operationalizing the Golden Dome, as well as developing sophisticated interceptors to counter missile threats.

Japan, on the other hand, could be a significant contributor to the system, given its previous experience in developing interceptors. Additionally, it could contribute funding or resources, such as research and development (R&D) or manufacturing, to offset costs.

Unveiling plans for the Golden Dome last month, Trump disclosed that Canada was interested in participating in the program. He said that while it “automatically” makes sense to include Canada in the new defence system, Canada will have to pay its fair share.

However, the President may have just thrown cold water over that potential collaboration by once again calling for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States of America.

“I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost 61 billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation,” Trump posted on his Truth Social network on May 29. “But (it) will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State. They are considering the offer!”

For Japan, the Golden Dome would be an enticing offer, particularly since it has been grappling with an enhanced missile threat from China, North Korea, and Russia.

Japan and the US have previously collaborated on ballistic missile defense and are currently working together on the development of a hypersonic missile interceptor, known as the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI).

However, the Golden Dome might help Japan in more ways than one.

Citing unidentified sources, the report stated that Japan could use its participation in the Golden Dome initiative as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions in ongoing trade talks with Washington.

Trump has threatened to impose a 24% tariff on Japan starting next month unless a bilateral agreement can be reached.

Japan has been disgruntled by a 25% tariff on cars, trucks, and key auto parts that took effect in April. Additionally, Trump has increased the duties to 50% on all imported Japanese aluminum and steel. Both these tariffs could significantly weaken the Japanese economy.

Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba has stated that bilateral conversations on trade expansion, non-tariff measures, and economic security are ongoing. At the same time, the administration is also considering an increase in its purchases of US military hardware, as well as collaboration on rebuilding and repairing US warships in Japan.

The Golden Dome would, thus, fit perfectly in this scheme if the Japanese government seriously considers it.

F-47 Also On Offer To Japan
A report published in the Japanese publication Asahi Shimbun last week stated that Donald Trump randomly brought up the F-47 in a call with Shigeru Ishiba last month. Sources in the Ishiba administration told the newspaper that the call took place on May 23 and was organized at Trump’s request.

Trump said the “47” in “F-47” is a good number, and asked Ishiba to concur, in what can only be described as typical Trump fashion of conversation. He also heaped praises on the F-22, which the US never sold to Japan due to the sensitivity of that technology, even though the latter wanted it. Trump then went on to talk about the F-55, an upgraded, twin-engine F-35 variant that he proposed during a presser in Qatar recently.

The President then asked Ishiba if he wanted to see the amazing fighter jets that the United States had, adding that he would get the “best” for Japan.

The report stated that Trump only casually inquired of Ishiba whether Japan was interested in purchasing US-made fighter jets and did not explicitly urge Japan to do so.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has made no bones about its intention to pitch the aircraft in the export market.

During the F-47 announcement, Trump said that U.S. allies “are calling constantly” to obtain an export version of the NGAD fighter. We will sell it to “certain allies … perhaps toned-down versions. We’d like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense, because someday, maybe they’re not our allies, right?”
The F-47 offer comes as Tokyo might be unhappy with its own Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), a sixth-generation combat jet being pursued jointly by Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Reuters reported on May 30 that Japan is growing doubtful that the GCAP will meet its 2035 rollout target, potentially forcing Tokyo to fill air defense gaps with upgrading existing fighters or purchasing new jets.

The fear of GCAP delays arises as China accelerates the testing of two sixth-generation fighter jet prototypes, namely the J-36 and the J-50. If China inducts a sixth-generation fighter by 2030, the capability gap between Japan and China will widen.

According to an infographic recently posted on X by US Air Force chief, General David Allvin, the F-47 is anticipated to become operational between 2025 and 2029—more than a decade before the GCAP’s rollout date if delays are factored in.

Since the end of the Second World War, Japan has only purchased American fighter jets and has been a loyal and important customer for the US, which explains why Trump would want it to consider the American F-35s instead. A purchase of the American sixth-generation fighter would also boost interoperability between the two allies, particularly in the volatile Indo-Pacific region.

South Korea’s new President Lee Jae-myung vowed Wednesday to restart dormant talks with North Korea and bolster a trilateral partnership with the U.S. and Japan, as he laid out key policy goals for his single, five-year term.

Lee, who rose from childhood poverty to become South Korea’s leading liberal politician vowing to fight inequality and corruption, began his term earlier Wednesday, hours after winning a snap election that was triggered in April by the removal of then-President Yoon Suk Yeol over his ill-fated imposition of martial law late last year.

In his inaugural address at the National Assembly, Lee said that his government will deal with North Korean nuclear threats and its potential military aggressions with “strong deterrence” based on the South Korea-U.S. military alliance. But he said he would “open a communication channel with North Korea and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula through talks and cooperation.”

He said he’ll pursue pragmatic diplomacy with neighboring countries and boost trilateral Seoul-Washington-Tokyo cooperation.

"Through pragmatic diplomacy based on national interests, we will turn the crisis posed by the major shift in global economic and security landscapes into an opportunity to maximize our national interests,” Lee said.

Security and economic challenges lie ahead

It was unclear whether Lee’s election would cause any major, immediate shift in South Korea’s foreign policy. Lee, previously accused by critics of tilting toward China and North Korea and away from the U.S. and Japan, has recently repeatedly stressed South Korea’s alliance with the U.S. as the foundation of its foreign policy and avoided any contentious remarks that would raise questions on his views on the U.S. and Japan.

China Deployed 2 Aircraft Carrier Groups, Dozens Of Jets, Nearly 70 Warships To Intimidate Taiwan, Official Says

Amid simmering China-Taiwan tensions, Beijing deployed two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of warships in waters north and south of Taiwan last month, a Taiwanese security official said on Monday, as the Chinese PLA-Navy builds pressure on the self-ruled island.

Up to 70 Chinese ships, including navy vessels, were monitored from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea from May 1-27, a security official said on the condition of anonymity.

Beijing has ramped up the deployment of fighter jets and warships around Taiwan in recent years as it pressures Taipei to accept its claims of sovereignty over the island.

China has refused to rule out using force to bring Taiwan under its control, leaving the island to face the constant threat of invasion.

“Its military actions and grey-zone activities have included large-scale deployments across the entire island chain, involving comprehensive maximum pressure,” the security official said in remarks released Monday.

“On average, there have been between 50 to 70 naval vessels and government ships, as well as hundreds of sorties by various military aircraft, continuously conducting harassment operations.”

Some of the ships passed through the Miyako Strait to the Western Pacific Ocean for “long-distance training, including combined air-sea exercises”, the official said.

Another 30 Chinese vessels with no name, documentation, or port of registry were detected near Taiwan’s Penghu archipelago in the Taiwan Strait on May 19 and had been “deliberately sent to harass”, the official said.

And a total of 75 Chinese aircraft were involved in three “combat readiness patrols” near the island during the month, Taiwan’s defence ministry figures show.

Asia-Pacific’s so-called first island chain links Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Philippines, while the Yellow Sea is west of South Korea — all partners of the United States and critical to its influence in the region.

The Taiwanese security official stated that China’s activities in May were “more provocative than previously observed.”

In one incident, Tokyo and Beijing exchanged diplomatic protests, each accusing the other of “violating” national airspace, after a Chinese helicopter and coast guard vessels faced off with a Japanese aircraft around disputed islands.

The Chinese actions were a demonstration of “military expansion” and were aimed at controlling the “entire island chain and improving their capabilities”, the official said.

China’s deployment coincided with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s speech on May 20, marking his first year in office, and came ahead of an annual security forum in Singapore over the weekend.

US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth told the Shangri-La Dialogue that China was “credibly preparing” to use military force to upend the balance of power in Asia.

Beijing, which did not send its Defence Minister Dong Jun to the summit, warned Washington “should not play with fire”.

“It felt like they were in a state where they could announce something at any moment, trying to seize on some opportunity or excuse to act,” the Taiwanese official said of the Chinese.

China has carried out several large-scale military drills around Taiwan since Lai took office.

Retired US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery made the first-ever disclosure about the existence of a joint training team in Taiwan on May 15 at a hearing conducted by the US House Select Committee on China titled “Deterrence Amid Rising Tensions: Preventing CCP Aggression on Taiwan.”

“That’s a US team there that’s about 500 people now,” Montgomery said, adding, “It needs to be a thousand.” Making a case for more troops in Taiwan, he said, “If we are going to give them billions of dollars in assistance and sell them tens of billions of dollars worth of US gear, it makes sense that we would be over there training and working.”

Montgomery noted that the Department of Defense is mandated to train Taiwan’s soldiers under the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act. Asserting that the rollout has been delayed, he said, “I would say gently they have been slow.”

Montgomery said that the US can assist Taiwan in preparing to repel a Chinese invasion. However, he added, “It’s going to take US engagement and involvement in this to get them to the point where they have a true counter-intervention force.”

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the United States has sold more than $70 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan in recent years. However, a significant portion of these arms has not been delivered to Taiwan.

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.

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.”

F-21 “Stepping Stone” For India To Acquire F-35 Stealth Jets, Lockheed CEO Says; Hints Delhi, Riyadh Likely Customers.

The development of the next-generation F-47 fighter may have prompted some recalibration in U.S. strategy. Once reluctant to sell the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets to “Tier-2” allies, Washington could open up the export of Lockheed stealth fighters to partners in the Middle East and India.

Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet recently revealed some key details about the F-35 ‘fifth-generation plus’ aircraft at Bernstein’s Strategic Decisions Conference on May 28.

The CEO stated that an upgraded “fifth-generation plus” variant will feature new stealth coatings and a redesigned aircraft, potentially paving the way for making the fighter optionally manned.

This upgrade is Lockheed’s master plan to devote resources to upgrade its flagship F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter to lure the Pentagon with a much cheaper substitute to the sixth-generation fighter, after it lost the Next-Generation Air Dominance contract (NGAD) to Boeing.

Lockheed will likely incorporate technologies it developed for NGAD, including new radar and infrared-absorbing stealth coatings, advanced electronic warfare systems, enhanced networking capabilities, and autonomy software, into the F-35. These are significant details, indicating that the manufacturer has made elaborate plans for a comeback after the NGAD setback.

Additionally, Taiclet likely hinted that the US could export the F-35 to key Gulf Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

Now, “in air superiority, there’s a discussion about a path to fifth generation in Saudi Arabia,” Taiclet said. “There’ll be multiple steps in that. It could take some time, but I think if we can work with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE on really bolstering their air superiority capabilities and their integrated air and defense capabilities … there will be a significant opportunity for the company along those lines, and a few others too.”

He did not categorically refer to the F-35 while making this statement, leaving room for ambiguity. It appears unlikely that he is referring to F-16 Block 70/72, which another Gulf country, Bahrain, has already acquired.

F-35 For Tier-2 Allies?
Taiclet’s assertion about providing air superiority to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE comes days after Donald Trump wrapped up a three-nation tour to these three countries, inking investment deals worth over US$2 trillion.

Commending the success of the trip, the White House said: “President Donald J. Trump’s first official trip was a huge success, locking in over $2 trillion in great deals—including a $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia, a $1.2 trillion economic exchange agreement with Qatar, $243.5 billion in U.S.-Qatar commercial and defense deals, and $200 billion in U.S.-United Arab Emirates commercial deals.”

Despite this, the mention of the F-35 remained conspicuously missing from all official statements. Nonetheless, a Reuters report at the time stated that Saudi Arabian officials had discussed the possibility of purchasing F-35s with their American counterparts.

The denial of the F-35 can be attributed to multiple factors, including the Saudi administration’s questionable human rights record and the growing closeness of the Emirati kingdom (UAE) to China, which could lead to the compromise of sensitive technology.

However, the US obligation towards Israel has undoubtedly been the biggest roadblock against the sale of F-35 to these “Ties-2” allies.

The US and Israel have a long-standing agreement that states US military equipment supplied to Israel must be “superior in capability” as compared to that sold to Israel’s neighbors. This means that the US weapons sales in the Middle Eastern region cannot jeopardize Israel’s “qualitative military edge.”

Currently, Israel is the only operator of the F-35s in the entire Middle East.

Citing an anonymous source, the Reuters report stated, “It was not clear if Washington would permit the kingdom to move forward with a purchase that would give Saudi Arabia an advanced weapon used by close U.S. ally Israel.”

The Lockheed CEO also discussed the possibility of selling the F-35 to India and raised the prospect of selling the F-21, a highly sophisticated derivative of the F-16.

“I think the F-16 also has strong legs, if you will, and more and increasing interest as we go forward from several countries that aren’t quite ready for F-35,” Taiclet said. There are “some countries that could see F-21 or F-16, for India, for example, as a stepping stone to F-35.”

Taiclet, on his part, did not elaborate on what he meant by India not being ready for the F-35. The aircraft was first verbally offered to India by President Trump in February 2025. Later, the offer was reiterated by Vice President J.D. Vance during his visit to India in April.

In general, the sale of the F-35 is subject to rigorous U.S. export controls under the Arms Export Control Act, which requires approval from the State Department, the Pentagon, and often Congress. The White House maintains strict policies regarding technology transfers, regional stability, or the internal politics of the potential recipient state, all to safeguard its sensitive technology.

The F-35, for one, is outfitted with extremely sophisticated equipment, including electronic warfare systems, sensor fusion, and stealth capabilities.

The reason behind the US hesitation has been simple: sharing it with other countries could put sensitive technology at risk of being accessible to enemies, particularly if the recipient country has connections to countries like China or Russia, who would try to exploit or reverse-engineer the technology.

Nonetheless, Taiclet’s statement could be interpreted as one suggesting that Trump is finally opening up to the idea of exporting the F-35. For India, it appears that the U.S. wants to sell a combination of F-21s and F-35s.

F-47 Easing F-35 Export?
The US may be opening up F-35 exports because it is no longer the exclusive holder of fifth-generation stealth technology. Russia has developed the Su-57 while China operates nearly 300 J-20 fighters and is pitching J-35A to key allies. In fact, both countries are now banking on the US’s reluctance to sell the F-35 to promote their own aircraft as a better alternative in the export market.

Donald Trump awarded the contract for a sixth-generation combat jet, named F-47, to Boeing in March 2025. According to an infographic recently posted by the US Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff, Gen. David Alvin on X, the F-47 will become operational between 2025 to 2029, before the end of Trump’s presidential term.

While this timeline has been flagged as aspirational by experts, considering the complexity associated with a sixth-generation platform and the maturation of technology, the USAF leadership remains optimistic. The infographic also stated that more than 185 F-47s are currently planned for the US Air Force.

Thus, with the F-47’s induction by 2029, the F-35 will not be the most advanced stealth fighter in the US inventory.

Trump has already hinted at exporting the “toned-down” fighters to key allies.

“Our allies are calling constantly, they want to buy them all,” he said at a press briefing, before claiming that America’s allies would get “toned-down versions.” “We like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense because someday maybe they’re not our allies, right?” the president said in March.

As recently reported by EurAsian Times, Trump may have pitched F-47 fighters to Japan.

China Emerges The “Most Distrusted” Neighbor Nation For South Koreans; Replaces ‘Colonial Power’ Japan.

China has reportedly displaced its longtime foe and former colonial power, Japan, in many South Koreans’ minds as the country’s most distrusted neighbor in recent years.

And ahead of Tuesday’s vote, anti-Chinese feeling has spread among South Koreans — online, at right-wing rallies, and in Seoul’s Chinatown.

Many of the quarter’s Chinese residents, such as 74-year-old Yu Shunzi, migrated to South Korea in the 1990s and 2000s in search of economic opportunities.

“A lot of Koreans still think China is a very backward country and discriminate against Chinese a lot,” she told AFP.

Yu, who arrived in 2007 from the northeastern Chinese province of Heilongjiang, said the situation is so bad that she planned to move back when the economy allowed.

“I want to go home, but with the exchange rate being this low, I’d lose a lot of money,” she said.

While former colonial master Japan has long had a difficult relationship with South Korea, Seoul’s ties with China have increasingly come under the spotlight.

In 2022, polling conducted by Hankook Research showed for the first time that South Koreans distrusted China more than they did Japan — a trend that has continued in recent years.

Former leader Yoon Suk Yeol referred to vague allegations of Chinese spying when he tried to justify his declaration of martial law, which led to his ousting.

Conspiracy theories have since run rampant among the South Korean right, fuelling the distrust.

However, analysts also suggest that a series of clashes between Beijing and Seoul in recent years over history, territory, and defense are the deeper cause of the schism.

“China’s growing assertiveness is the main reason behind South Korea’s negative views about the country,” said Ramon Pacheco Pardo from King’s College London.

“Most South Koreans have no affinity towards today’s China,” the international relations professor told AFP.

Seoul has long trodden a fine line between top trading partner China and defence guarantor the United States.

Relations with China nosedived in 2016 following the South’s decision to deploy the US-made THAAD missile defence system.

Beijing saw it as a threat to its own security and reacted furiously, imposing a string of restrictions on South Korean businesses and banning group tours as part of sweeping economic retaliation.

A series of public spats about the origins of Korean cultural staples such as kimchi, which China had claimed as its own, also left a bitter taste.

Yoon’s administration deepened that divide, cleaving close to the United States and seeking to improve ties with Japan.

“Under his leadership, Seoul made its position unmistakably clear: it stood with Washington and its allies, not Beijing,” Claudia Kim, assistant professor at City University of Hong Kong.

Opposition leader and election frontrunner Lee Jae-myung has publicly hinted that a softer line might be in the works if he wins.

Beijing won’t “miss the opportunity to improve relations with the South” if Lee wins, Cheong Seong-chang at Seoul’s Sejong Institute told AFP, suggesting a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping could even take place.

Lee has also raised alarm bells by saying that a future conflict between China and Taiwan would not be South Korea’s concern.

That could put him on a collision course with the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has made containing China a cornerstone of its bid to reshape the international order.

“Trump’s focus on deterring China may lead to a mismatch of foreign policy priorities with Lee,” Edward Howell, a lecturer in politics at the University of Oxford, told AFP.

Fake News Zooms
The compounding of deepening distrust of China has been accompanied by a surge in conspiracy theories.

Analysis by AFP revealed that many of the most widely circulated pieces of misinformation tap into fears of meddling by China.

Rallies in support of ex-president Yoon have featured calls to oust alleged “pro-Chinese Communist Party” forces, as well as posters with anti-Chinese slurs and slogans advocating for Chinese nationals to be deported.

A recent editorial in Beijing’s state-run nationalist tabloid Global Times condemned “far-right” forces in South Korea for “stirring up xenophobia” against Chinese people.

In Seoul’s Chinatown, Li Jinzi, 73, complained about a culture of “misinformation” that was breeding negative feelings towards her home country.

“Fake news breeds misunderstandings,” she said.

Boeing F-47: Japan Could Be The 1st Export Customer Of U.S. Next-Gen Aircraft As GCAP Struggles: Reports

US President Donald Trump has offered Boeing’s sixth-generation stealth fighter, the F-47, to Japan, according to reports. If true, this would be the first concrete offer to sell the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) combat jet to any country.

Notably, this comes amid reports that the US is unhappy with Japan’s participation in the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), a sixth-generation combat jet being pursued jointly by Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Separately, Reuters reported on May 30 that Japan is growing increasingly doubtful that the GCAP will meet its 2035 rollout target, potentially forcing Tokyo to fill air defense gaps with other fighters. Buying more F-35s or upgrading its existing F-15 fleet could be two options, two highly placed sources said.

If the US offers F-47 to Japan, then Tokyo could also consider adding the latest sixth-generation fighter to its fleet. The security threats in the Indo-Pacific are evolving at a rapid pace as China is testing its own sixth-generation fighter jets, tentatively named the J-36 and J-50.

The F-47 could provide air deterrence to Tokyo, especially as the ambitious timeline for the GCAP is being pushed beyond 2035.

F-47 For Japan
Trump pitched the F-47 to Japan in his recent phone call with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba last week, according to a report from the Japanese daily newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

Sources in the Ishiba administration told the newspaper that the call took place on May 23 and was organized at the request of US President Trump.

During the call, Trump mentioned the F-47.
Trump discussed the US-Japan military alliance and mentioned F-47, F-22 Raptor, and an upgraded version of the F-35 fighter.

Trump reportedly said that the United States has such great fighter jets and asked Ishiba if he would like to take a look at them.

Trump added that he will get “the best” for Japan, the officials said.

While awarding the contract for the NGAD fighter jet to Boeing in March, Trump also mentioned an export version of the next-generation fighter jet.

During the F-47 announcement, Trump said that U.S. allies “are calling constantly” to obtain an export version of the NGAD fighter.

We will sell it to “certain allies … perhaps toned-down versions. We’d like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense, because someday, maybe they’re not our allies, right?”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Experts believe that the US will follow the F-35 strategy for F-47 as well. The F-35 has been sold to 20 countries, which has substantially reduced the per-unit cost. Similarly, exporting the F-47 would increase the production units and reduce the per-unit price.

Notably, Trump’s reported offer of F-47 for Japan came just days after reports of the US trying to wean away Tokyo from the GCAP program.

US Unhappy With Japan’s Participation In GCAP
Earlier this week, Infodefensa reported that the U.S. and Israeli governments are unhappy with Japan’s involvement in the GCAP sixth-generation fighter development program, led jointly by the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan.

“Washington is pressuring Japan, apparently through diplomatic and economic channels, and even through threats regarding its security collaborations, over the Asian country’s involvement in the GCAP,” the report said.

The US is reportedly concerned about the level of autonomy Japan would gain through GCAP.

Since the end of the Second World War, Japan has only bought American fighter jets. In fact, Tokyo has been a loyal and important customer for the US fighter jets.

Japan has ordered the largest F-35 fleet in the world, outside of the US. Tokyo has ordered 147 F-35 jets, including 105 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants and 42 F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing variants.

Besides, Tokyo also operates approximately 155 F-15J and F-15DJ (two-seat trainer) aircraft, a variant of the U.S. F-15 Eagle, built under license by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

These U.S.-designed jets form the backbone of Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) fighter fleet. Other aircraft, like the Mitsubishi F-2 (based on the U.S. F-16 but heavily modified), are also in service.

However, recently, Japan has been attempting to reduce this reliance by deciding to develop its own F-X fighter aircraft to replace the aging F-2 fighters.

Subsequently, in November 2022, Japan joined the UK and Italy for the GCAP initiative, merging the F-X and Tempest programs.

The US is understandably concerned about losing a lucrative fighter jet market in Japan.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Slow Pace Of GCAP
Meanwhile, Japan has its own frustrations with the GCAP program. Tokyo is reportedly unhappy with the slow pace of the program.

Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Japan is skeptical the program will meet its 2035 deadline.

“The joint Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) established in 2022 is falling behind schedule due to a lack of urgency from Britain and Italy, which could push deployment beyond 2040,” according to one of the sources quoted by Reuters.

There are also questions about the synergy between the three countries.

Last month, Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto voiced strong concerns regarding the GCAP.

In an interview with Reuters, Minister Crosetto accused the UK of withholding crucial technologies, asserting that this “selfishness” jeopardizes the fundamental spirit of cooperation vital for the program’s success.

“You have to break down some barriers of selfishness. Italy has broken them down totally, Japan almost totally. It seems to me that the UK is much more reluctant to do this, and that’s a mistake because selfishness is the worst enemy of nations,” he added.

Crosetto emphasized that the UK’s reluctance to share specific technologies undermines the strategic parity among the partner nations.

He stated unequivocally, “There is no longer anyone who can be considered first and second class,” noting that while Italy has fully eliminated past obstacles to collaboration and Japan has largely done so, the UK remains hesitant. The precise nature of the technologies being withheld was not disclosed.

Some experts have already pointed out that the rollout of the F-47 could effectively kill other Western sixth-generation fighter programs, such as GCAP.

Now, Trump’s reported offer of the F-47 to Japan, coupled with Washington’s unhappiness with Japan’s participation in GCAP, and Tokyo’s increasing frustration with the slow pace of GCAP, means that Japan could seriously consider the F-47 offer and could very well be the first country to buy the F-47.

Russian President Vladimir Putin paid tribute to former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Thursday, saying he knew the slain Japanese leader had dreamt of finally concluding a post-World War Two peace treaty.

No treaty was ever signed as the two countries could not resolve a dispute over the then-Soviet Union's seizure at the end of the war of four islands in the Southern Kuril chain, known in Japan as the Northern Territories.

Russian media said Abe and Putin met altogether 27 times during the nearly nine years the Japanese leader was in office. Abe left office in 2020 and was assassinated two years later while making an election campaign speech.

"I know that his dream - and he truly strived to achieve this - was to conclude a peace treaty between our two countries. The situation is different now," the Russian leader said.