NewzIntel.com

Category: Ukraine

  • MIL-OSI Global: The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.

    And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.

    Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.

    After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.

    In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.

    Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?

    Musk in politics

    Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.

    In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.

    This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.

    In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.

    Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.

    After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.

    Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.

    From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.

    There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    DOGE: success and failure

    Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.

    However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).

    In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.

    Trump clips Musk’s wings

    Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.

    Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.

    On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.

    Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.

    For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative rap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.

    The falling out

    Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.

    However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.

    Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.

    For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.

    Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.

    What now?

    Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.

    Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.

    Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.

    More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.

    Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.

    Henry Maher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast? – https://theconversation.com/the-blow-up-between-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-been-entertaining-but-how-did-things-go-so-bad-so-fast-258394

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

    That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

    Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.

    This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]

    At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.

    However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.

    Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?

    Self-defence in the law

    Self-defence has a long history in international law.

    The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.

    The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.

    Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.

    Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

    The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.

    The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.

    The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.

    This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.

    These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.

    A test of proportionality

    The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.

    Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.

    While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.

    The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.

    While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.

    Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.

    The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.

    Is rescuing hostages in self-defence?

    Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.

    In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.

    In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.

    Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.

    An act of aggression?

    If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?

    Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.

    While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.

    Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.

    However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.

    Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.

    These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.

    The international community has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel’s conduct in Gaza?

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-still-claim-self-defence-to-justify-its-gaza-war-heres-what-the-law-says-257822

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

    That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

    Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.

    This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]

    At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.

    However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.

    Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?

    Self-defence in the law

    Self-defence has a long history in international law.

    The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.

    The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.

    Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.

    Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

    The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.

    The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.

    The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.

    This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.

    These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.

    A test of proportionality

    The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.

    Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.

    While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.

    The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.

    While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.

    Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.

    The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.

    Is rescuing hostages in self-defence?

    Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.

    In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.

    In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.

    Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.

    An act of aggression?

    If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?

    Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.

    While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.

    Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.

    However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.

    Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.

    These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.

    The international community has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel’s conduct in Gaza?

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-still-claim-self-defence-to-justify-its-gaza-war-heres-what-the-law-says-257822

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New Zealand’s foreign policy stance on Palestine lacks transparency

    COMMENTARY: By John Hobbs

    It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people.

    The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza.

    It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel’s assault on Gaza war as pitting “the sons of light” against “the sons of darkness”. And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism.

    A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza.

    Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails?

    Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister?

    Cloak of ‘diplomatic language’
    Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of “diplomatic language” it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices.

    The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for — namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States.

    The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made.

    I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.

    The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request.

    It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released.

    They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

    Public interest vital
    It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest.

    It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand’s foreign policy choices.

    New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish”.

    Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5).

    Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chlöe Swarbrick’s private member’s Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this.

    In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza.

    However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel’s response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand.

    Carefully worded statement
    In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages.

    Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position.

    Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel’s actions of withholding food as “intolerable” but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a “long, long way off”, without explaining why.

    New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

    As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late.

    John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Ask @ State: Answering your questions — June 6, 2025

    Source: United States of America – Department of State (video statements)

    Under President Trump and Secretary Rubio, the U.S. Department of State is committed to answering your questions transparently and unfiltered. We want to make sure we’re getting information directly to you about how an America First foreign policy is making America great again.

    U.S. Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott answers this week’s questions about student visas, Israel and Iran, the economic impact of our foreign agreements, investments in Africa, Syria, how we’re combatting human trafficking, and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

    We’ll be answering more of your questions soon!

    ———-
    Under the leadership of the President and Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity. On behalf of the American people we promote and demonstrate democratic values and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world.

    The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service and U.S. Agency for International Development.

    Get updates from the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov and on social media!
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/statedept
    X: https://x.com/StateDept
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/statedept
    Flickr: https://flickr.com/photos/statephotos/
    Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/StateDept
    Substack: https://statedept.substack.com

    Watch on-demand State Department videos: https://video.state.gov/
    Subscribe to The Week at State e-newsletter: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USSTATEBPA/signup/32562

    State Department website: https://www.state.gov/
    Careers website: https://careers.state.gov/
    White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    Terms of Use: https://state.gov/tou

    #StateDepartment #DepartmentofState #Diplomacy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw1_ZOAx7N8

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.

    And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.

    Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.

    After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.

    In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.

    Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?

    Musk in politics

    Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.

    In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.

    This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.

    In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.

    Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.

    After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.

    Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.

    From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.

    There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    DOGE: success and failure

    Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.

    However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).

    In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.

    Trump clips Musk’s wings

    Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.

    Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.

    On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.

    Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.

    For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative wrap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.

    The falling out

    Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.

    However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.

    Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.

    For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.

    Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.

    What now?

    Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.

    Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.

    Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.

    More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.

    Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.

    Henry Maher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast? – https://theconversation.com/the-blow-up-between-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-been-entertaining-but-how-did-things-go-so-bad-so-fast-258394

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Ukraine denies Russia’s claim about delays in prisoner exchange

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    KYIV, June 7 (Xinhua) — Ukraine’s Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War on Saturday denied Russia’s claims that the prisoner exchange agreed upon by the parties during peace talks on June 2 is being delayed.

    “Today’s statements by the Russian side do not correspond to reality and previously reached agreements,” the department said in a statement.

    According to the agency, Ukraine handed over to Russia a list of prisoners of war subject to exchange, including seriously wounded and sick. However, Russia sent back other lists that “do not correspond” to the agreed exchange parameters.

    The headquarters noted that Ukraine has provided the necessary comments and is now awaiting the next step from the Russian side. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Russia has dealt the largest blow to Kharkiv since the conflict began, city mayor says

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Kyiv, June 7 (Xinhua) — On Saturday night, Russia dealt the most powerful blow since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict to Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv. As a result, at least three people were killed and 21 others, including two children, were injured. Kharkiv Mayor Igor Terekhov reported this on Telegram.

    During the first hour and a half of the attack, at least 40 explosions thundered in the city, he noted, adding that the Russian army simultaneously used missiles, guided aerial bombs and attack drones.

    According to him, as a result of the shelling in Kharkov, 18 apartment buildings and 13 private houses were damaged.

    According to the Ukrainian Air Force, on Saturday night the Russian Federation launched a total of 206 drones and nine missiles at Ukrainian territory. The air defense forces managed to neutralize 167 drones and seven missiles. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Ukraine postponed the acceptance of bodies of the dead and the exchange of prisoners – V. Medinsky

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, June 7 (Xinhua) — Russia on June 6 began the process of transferring more than 6,000 bodies of fallen Ukrainian servicemen to Ukraine and exchanging prisoners of war, but Kyiv unexpectedly postponed both the acceptance of the bodies and the prisoner exchange indefinitely, Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian negotiating team, said on Saturday.

    “On June 6, in strict accordance with the Istanbul agreements, the Russian side began implementing a humanitarian action to transfer more than 6,000 bodies of dead Ukrainian Armed Forces servicemen to Ukraine, as well as to exchange wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war and prisoners of war under 25 years of age. The first batch of frozen bodies of Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers, 1,212 in number, has already arrived in refrigerated trucks to the exchange area. The rest are on the way,” V. Medinsky wrote on his Telegram page.

    According to the head of the Russian negotiating group, the Russian Defense Ministry’s contact group is on the border with Ukraine. The negotiating group from the Ukrainian side “for some reason did not even arrive at the exchange site,” he says, adding that “the reasons given are various, and rather strange.”

    “We call on Kyiv to strictly adhere to the schedule and all agreements reached, and to immediately begin the exchange,” V. Medinsky emphasizes.

    So far, the Ukrainian side has not responded to Russia’s accusations. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney announces Canada’s G7 priorities ahead of the Leaders’ Summit

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Fifty years ago, in the face of upheaval and geopolitical tensions, a small group of advanced economies formed what is now the G7 – a forum for co-operation, stability, and shared prosperity. In 2025, as global challenges intensify, the G7 must meet this moment with purpose and with force.

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced the priorities that will guide Canada’s 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit, to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta, from June 15 to 17, 2025.

    Anchored in building stronger economies, Canada will seek agreements and co-ordinated action on three core missions:

    • Protecting our communities and the world – strengthening peace and security, countering foreign interference and transnational crime, and improving joint responses to wildfires.
    • Building energy security and accelerating the digital transition – fortifying critical mineral supply chains and using artificial intelligence and quantum to unleash economic growth.
    • Securing the partnerships of the future – catalyzing enormous private investment to build stronger infrastructure, create higher-paying jobs, and open dynamic markets where businesses can compete and succeed.

    Other discussions will include a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and other areas of conflict around the world, and a forward-looking agenda that engages partners beyond the G7, recognizing that our long-term security and prosperity will depend on building coalitions with reliable partners and common values.

    Quote

    “Canada has what the world wants and the values to which others aspire. The G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis is a moment for Canada to work with reliable partners to meet challenges with unity, purpose, and force. Canada is ready to lead.”

    Quick Facts

    • This is the seventh time that Canada has held the Presidency of the G7.
    • This year’s Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, will take place on the traditional territory of the Blackfoot Confederacy Nations of the Kainai, Piikani, and Siksika, and the Stoney Nakoda Nations comprised of the Bearspaw, Chiniki, and Goodstoney First Nations, and the Tsuut’ina First Nation. We also acknowledge the Otipemisiwak Métis People and Government who reside on this territory and all people who make their homes in the Treaty 7 region of Southern Alberta.

    Associated Link

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Russia has begun transferring bodies of the dead to Ukraine and exchanging prisoners of war

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, June 7 /Xinhua/ – Russia on June 6 began to transfer more than 6,000 bodies of the dead to Ukraine, and exchange the wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war. This was reported on the Telegram channel by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to the Russian president and head of the Russian delegation at the talks with the Ukrainian side.

    As RIA Novosti reports with reference to V. Medinsky, “the Russian side, in strict accordance with the Istanbul agreements, on June 6 began implementing a humanitarian action to transfer to Ukraine more than 6,000 bodies of dead Ukrainian Armed Forces servicemen, as well as to exchange wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war and prisoners of war under 25 years of age.”

    “However, the Ukrainian side unexpectedly postponed both the acceptance of bodies and the exchange of prisoners of war for an indefinite period,” he wrote. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Minister of National Defence Remarks at the Seoul Defence Dialogue

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    September 11, 2024

    Minister Kim,
    Admiral Bauer,
    Excellencies,
    Colleagues and friends.

    Good morning to all.

    It’s a very great privilege for me to be here today for the Seoul Defence Dialogue as part of my first official visit to Korea.

    First of all, to Minister Kim, thank you for your very kind and warm hospitality, and your leadership both today at this very important Seoul Defence Dialogue, but also during yesterday’s United Nations Command Ministerial Meeting.

    And to Admiral Bauer, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your exemplary leadership of the NATO Military Committee and your invaluable contributions to our alliance.

    As you have heard and understand, my co-panellists and I come from three very different parts of the world.

    But notwithstanding our separation by distance and culture, we share a common goal of maintaining the rules-based international order which has delivered peace, stability and prosperity to all of our peoples.

    And I believe that Canada has a unique role to play in achieving that goal because we are an Arctic nation, an Atlantic nation, and a Pacific nation.

    For example, our Pacific coastline is roughly 25,000 kilometres long and our trade and security links with this region are vital, and strong, and growing.

    In particular, Canada’s ties with the Republic of Korea run deep. Roughly 26,000 Canadians served here in Korea during the Korean War which was Canada’s third bloodiest conflict.

    And since the very beginning, we’ve been part of the United Nations Command, upholding and helping to uphold the Korean Armistice Agreement, and working towards a lasting peace.

    Canadian Armed Forces members also regularly deploy alongside members of Korea’s Armed Forces during regional exercises, including Exercise Rim of the Pacific which wrapped up only last month.

    And Korea has become one of Canada’s largest trading partners in the Indo-Pacific, as well as our third-largest regional partner when it comes to defence materiel.

    I believe very sincerely that there is much more that we can do together and that’s why we continue to make progress on our Action Plan to implement the Canada-Korea Strategic Partnership, which includes exploring more opportunities for our defence industries to work together.

    I am very pleased that in 2022, our countries re-signed a Defence Materiel Cooperation MOU and that we are seeing daily evidence of growing ties between our defence industrial bases.

    Relationships such as these, and those relationships fostered through this dialogue, are critical during increasingly difficult times.

    As we are all aware, our world has become a far more dangerous place over the past few years.

    A number of crises including Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-Hamas conflict in the Middle East are all evidence of the challenges that the rules-based order is facing in today’s world.

    Here in the Indo-Pacific, we are seeing China undertaking the most rapid military build-up of any nation since the Second World War and it appears to intend to reshape the international system to suit its own goals.

    And as we’ve seen in the last few months, China is challenging the freedom of navigation of the South China Sea, a waterway that is critical to regional and global prosperity.

    And on occasion, it has repeatedly and dangerously obstructed the movement of Philippine vessels.

    They clearly openly aspire to unite with Taiwan, and we believe very strongly that any instability in the Taiwan Strait would have a devastating effect to the global economy.

    And closer to my country, China has deployed an increasing number of dual-purpose research vessels and surveillance platforms, collecting data about our Arctic and North.

    And in the Arctic, we are seeing China working hard to increase its economic and military presence in cooperation with Russia.

    It is clear that on matters of security, China’s interests may increasingly diverge from our own.

    But I think it’s also essential to prevent misunderstanding. Clear communication with China is vital and I took the opportunity just this past June to hold our first meeting between a Chinese and Canadian defence minister in over 11 years.

    And during that dialogue, I had the opportunity to make clear that foreign interference cannot be tolerated and expressed some concern about China’s military activity around Taiwan.

    But we were able to agree together that there is a need for dialogue and cooperation in order to avoid conflict.

    Likewise, we recognize the continued threat posed by North Korea. This includes the DPRK’s buildup in testing of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Canada unequivocally condemns these actions in no uncertain terms.

    And we’ve taken action by imposing sanctions on North Korea, along with the UN Security Council sanctions, which the Canadian Armed Forces uphold through Operation NEON.

    Despite Russia’s attempts to undermine our work by vetoing the renewal of the UN Panel of Experts who track and report on evasion efforts, Canada will continue to monitor violations by the DPRK in cooperation with all of our international partners.

    We call on North Korea to stop these programs and other aggressive activities, to resume its adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to pursue dialogue with the international community.

    We are also concerned with China and North Korea’s deepening ties to Russia in support of its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    We will continue to call them out for their work to spread disinformation and conduct malicious cyber activities which threaten our critical infrastructure and can sow distrust and a lack of trust in our most important institutions.

    In the face of these threats, the ties between Canada and our Indo-Pacific partners matter more now than ever, and that’s why in 2022, Canada released its Indo-Pacific Strategy.

    This strategy serves as a critical roadmap for how we will engage in the region. It makes very clear that our partners and allies can expect to see more of us present in this region of the world.

    We need to be a reliable and dependable partner and thanks to this strategy, our military presence in the Indo-Pacific is growing.

    Last year, as well as this year, we have deployed and are deploying, three Canadian naval warships into the region for the first time in decades.

    This increased presence is going to allow us to work more closely with partners including right here in the North Pacific.

    Most recently, HMCS Vancouver has been sailing on Exercise PACIFIC VANGUARD.

    As part of this mission, they’ve been training with members of the Korean, Japanese and American navies, strengthening their skills in maritime operations, anti-submarine warfare, air warfare operations and advanced maneuvering.

    And through Operation NEON, we have been deploying our ships and aircraft to monitor UN sanction operations against North Korea and working with the military members of all like-minded Pacific countries.

    As our people work and train together, they are learning valuable new skills and forging deeper bonds.

    Likewise, as one of the 18 countries that participates in the United Nations Command, Canada will continue to do our part to maintain stability and security on the Korean Peninsula.

    We have supported this mission from the very beginning, since 1953, and in the 71 years since this command was established, Canadian Armed Forces members have helped to enforce the Armistice Agreement and to reinforce deterrence.

    We have taken on a variety of critical roles including serving right on the front lines of the De-Militarized Zone as part of the Military Assistance Commission.

    And for the second time, a Canadian officer – currently Lieutenant General Macaulay, is currently serving as the Deputy Commander of the UNC.

    Our increased presence here in the Indo-Pacific must be sustained and that is going to require significant new investments in our capabilities.

    Earlier this year, I released an updated defence policy for my country.

    It’s called Our North, Strong and Free, and through this policy we have identified the Indo-Pacific, Europe and the Arctic as key strategic regions of focus for our military.

    We are investing almost $10 billion dollars to extend the life of our Halifax-class warships so that we can continue to deploy them right here and we’ve begun construction on a new fleet of River-Class Destroyers, launching the process to acquire up to 12 new conventionally-powered submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy.

    These are new and improved capabilities that are necessary, allowing Canada to continue to bolster its presence here in the Indo-Pacific, to do our part, and to live up to our obligations to our international partners.

    They will make us more interoperable with our closest partners and they will continue to contribute to deterrence.

    Our intent is to ensure that Canada remains a reliable and valuable partner in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

    We recognize that the world has changed and continues to change rapidly. We also acknowledge we’ve got to do more, and we will do more.

    That’s why Canada has committed to investing 2% of its GDP in defence as rapidly as possible, and by 2032. As the security threats facing the Indo-Pacific and the world grow, we are stronger with like-minded partners who share our values.

    And as a proud Pacific nation and a dedicated NATO ally, Canada truly values our close relationships with nations that share our aspirations.

    Nations like the Republic of Korea, with whom we share a long and treasured friendship.

    These are indeed uncertain times, but I believe that they are also times of opportunity and possibility.

    Because we are stronger when we work together.

    When partners stand united.

    And for Canada’s part, I want to assure you all that we are committed to this region, we are here to stay, and we will do our part.

    And I believe that together we can maintain a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific, and defend the international rules that have kept us safe for nearly 80 years.

    Thank you. Merci.

    And again, thank you for the kind invitation to be here. 

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: House Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) appearance on mandate and priorities  

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    September 26, 2024 – Ottawa, Ontario

    Merci, Mr. Chair. Good morning everyone. 

    This is my first appearance here as Chief of the Defence Staff, so I want to begin by saying how much I value the work this committee does.

    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my mandate and priorities for the Canadian Armed Forces.

    I’m joined today by Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Stephen Kelsey.

    We face a volatile and unpredictable global security environment.

    From ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

    From climate change to disruptive technology to disinformation.

    These threats require us to be vigilant and forward-thinking in the way we approach defence.

    I’ve had the privilege of serving alongside the members of the Canadian Armed Forces for 34 years. Now I have the privilege of leading them.

    They are skilled, courageous, and dedicated beyond measure.

    Supporting and caring for our people must continue to be our top priority.

    I’m committed to building on the work of my predecessors.

    That means focusing on three R’s: recruitment, retention, and readiness.

    These are issues many of our Allies face as well.

    We need to get our Forces back to full strength within 5 years. This is vital.

    To do it, we need to continue modernizing how we recruit and who we recruit. 

    That means improving our processes without lowering our standards.

    And it means making a big push to recruit Canadians from all backgrounds, including opening the door to more permanent residents.

    Diversity makes us more operationally effective.

    What worked in the last 20 years will not work in the next 20 years. We can’t continue relying on the same thinking, the same mindset, and the same people around the table.

    We need to bring in new and broader perspectives, approaches, and ideas if we’re going to solve the complex challenges of today and tomorrow.

    On retention: we have stopped the downward trend and stabilized our numbers.

    We’re making progress, but there’s more to do.

    When we uphold the highest standards of conduct and performance…

    When our people can grow and thrive both professionally and personally…

    Not only will we attract the best and brightest—we will keep them.

    We also need to be ready. Always. And for anything.

    Readiness is a constant and it is a must.

    The world is in a state of transition.

    Outcomes are not guaranteed. We must be comfortable being uncomfortable.

    But that doesn’t mean we can’t be more organized and prepared.

    Readiness means having a stronger and more diverse foundation of personnel.

    With advanced capabilities that meet the future of warfare.

    With a willingness to innovate, adapt, and take risks.

    And it means collaborating with our Allies and partners around the world.

    This is particularly true when it comes to defending North America alongside the US—both through NORAD and more generally through the collaboration of our Canadian Joint Operations Command and the United States Northern Command.

    As you know, global interest in the Arctic is growing, including from our competitors and adversaries, and so we must be diligent in protecting and asserting Canadian sovereignty in the North.

    I visited NORAD Headquarters this week and saw firsthand how Canadian military members work seamlessly with their US colleagues 24/7 to defend our shared continent.

    We need to continue working closely through NORAD to detect, deter, and defend against aerospace threats.

    And beyond NORAD, through CJOC and US NORTHCOM to monitor our combined maritime approaches.

    This past July, for example, NORAD fighter jets from Canada and the United States intercepted Russian and Chinese aircraft in international airspace near Alaska.

    That same month, HMCS Regina shadowed a Chinese polar research vessel in the Bering Strait.

    As always, we must ensure our intercepts are carried out safely and professionally.

    Mr. Chair, I know none of this is easy.

    We’re transforming the Canadian Armed Forces while also fulfilling our growing duties.

    That’s like building and flying an airplane at the same time.

    But we know what our internal challenges are, and we know what we need to do.

    I believe deeply in this institution and what it stands for.

    We will continue tackling this work with determination and resolve.

    And we will get it done.

    Thank you. Merci. I’m happy to take your questions.

    General Jennie Carignan
    Chief of the Defence Staff 

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese, French FMs hold phone talks on bilateral, int’l affairs

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, June 6 — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a phone call on Friday with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot.

    Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said Chinese President Xi Jinping and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, held a phone call recently, reaching important consensus on strengthening strategic coordination between the two countries.

    Both sides should make preparations for the exchanges at all levels in the next stage, and China welcomes senior French representatives to the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai in 2025.

    Noting that the two sides have reached consensus on resolving economic and trade issues through dialogue and consultation, Wang stressed the need to enhance people-to-people, cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries, so as to promote the sound development of the China-France comprehensive strategic partnership and China-EU relations.

    Wang said that China and France, both upholding a tradition of independence and autonomy, should enhance strategic mutual trust and respect each other’s core interests.

    He stressed the Taiwan question is an internal affair of China concerning the country’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is fundamentally different from the Ukraine issue. China attaches great importance to France’s commitment to the one-China policy, he said, adding that China believes France will turn this commitment into practice.

    Wang expressed China’s hope that France will uphold the right position and oppose NATO’s interference in Asia-Pacific affairs, emphasizing that the two countries should jointly uphold multilateralism and safeguard free trade, while opposing unilateral bullying practices.

    For his part, Barrot said Chinese Vice President Han Zheng is welcome to attend the UN Ocean Conference in France, noting that France-China relations are growing more important for today’s world in increasing uncertainty.

    France always regards China as a friend and partner, firmly adheres to the one-China policy, and looks forward to maintaining high-level exchanges and close strategic communication with China, he said.

    Strengthening people-to-people and cultural exchanges between the two sides will send a strong signal of opening up, which is of great significance at present, Barrot said, adding that France opposes trade wars and tariff wars, and is willing to continue to properly resolve economic and trade frictions through consultation.

    The two sides also exchanged views on issues concerning Ukraine, Palestine and Israel, as well as Iran’s nuclear program.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Minister McGuinty concludes productive first visit to Europe for Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting and NATO Defence Ministers’ Meeting

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    June 6, 2025 – Brussels, Belgium – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

    The Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, concluded a productive visit to Brussels, Belgium, where he participated in the 28th Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) meeting and a meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Defence Ministers. This visit marks Minister McGuinty’s first trip to Europe since he was appointed Minister of National Defence.

    During the UDCG meeting, the Minister announced that Canada is providing over $35 million in military assistance to Ukraine, including:

    • $30 million for Coyote and Bison armoured vehicles, accompanied by new equipment and ammunition supplied by Canadian companies.  This donation complements Canada’s previous donation of 64 Coyote armoured vehicles that arrived in Ukraine in December 2024.
    • $5 million for electronic warfare anti-jammer kits from Canada’s defence industry.

    This military assistance is from existing funds identified in Budget 2024 funding in support of the Canada-Ukraine Strategic Security Partnership

    Minister McGuinty also shared with partners updates on advanced pilot training for Ukrainian pilots underway in Canada. Canada has taken over leadership of the fighter-lead-in-training (FLIT) element of the UDCG Air Force Capability Coalition (AFCC). This $389 million investment over five years includes F-16 pilot training for Ukrainian personnel, critical airfield equipment, and other support to Ukrainian air bases and fleets—all provided by Canadian industry.

    On June 5, Minister McGuinty participated in a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers ahead of the NATO Leaders’ Summit in the Netherlands. This meeting reaffirmed Allies’ commitment to NATO and discussed common defence priorities, including strengthening the Alliance’s deterrence and defence efforts and supporting Ukraine. During the meeting, the Minister reinforced Canada’s commitment to accelerating defence spending and working with NATO Allies and international partners to meet shared security commitments.

    While in Brussels, Minister McGuinty met with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte. He also held a number of productive bilateral engagements with Ministers from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Latvia, and Ukraine, as well as representatives from the European Union. Minister McGuinty participated in a 3+3 dialogue with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, and Finland. The Minister discussed with his counterparts how Canada can deepen its defence relations and work more closely on the Alliance’s deterrence and defence posture, and support Ukraine.

    During the NATO meeting, Canada signed an agreement to join the NATO Flight Training Europe initiative (NFTE) which is a network of campuses that offer pilot and aircrew training. Participation will allow the RCAF to leverage allied training capacity, providing opportunity to augment RCAF aircrew training when needed. Participation will also offer the opportunity for the RCAF to provide any excess training to allies. Canada’s participation will enhance allied training efforts increasing NATO’s deterrence.

    During this important moment for Euro-Atlantic security, Canada continues to work closely with NATO Allies and international partners. The coordination between Allies ensures the Alliance remains innovative, flexible, and adaptable in the face of current and future security threats.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: SA, Finland launch youth mediators programme

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    An initiative aimed at empowering a new generation of peacebuilders has been launched by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola.

    The Minister launched the South African segment of the South Africa–Finland Youth Peace Mediators Mentoring Programme on Friday. 

    This innovative initiative, jointly implemented by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, aims to empower a new generation of peacebuilders in their efforts to promote global conflict resolution and achieve sustainable peace.  

    The one-year capacity-building initiative will establish a dynamic network of young peace mediators, providing them with practical tools to contribute effectively to peace negotiations, mediation, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction.

    The programme directly supports the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250, the African Union Agenda 2063, particularly its youth-focused governance, peace, and security pillars, and the inclusion of youth in formal peace processes worldwide.  

    Lamola stressed the importance of launching the programme during South Africa’s Youth Month, which honours the legacy of young activists in the fight against apartheid, particularly the heroes of the 1976 Soweto Uprising.

    “We know too well that ethnic hatred poisons communities, that religious intolerance fractures societies, and that ideological fanaticism suffocates debate. 

    “When violence rises, freedoms crumble and the very light of democracy flickers under the storm of conflict. This is not some distant tragedy; it is the lived reality of women and children in Eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], Sudan, Gaza, and other places across our wounded world,” the Minister said.  

    By building bridges across continents, Lamola believes the world reaffirms that young people are not merely beneficiaries of peace, “but are essential agents of its creation.”

    The department announced that 15 “exceptional” young peacebuilders were selected through a joint initiative by DIRCO’s Diplomatic Academy and Finland’s Centre for Peace Mediation. 

    These individuals will participate in various programmes, which include in-person workshops held in South Africa and Finland, study visits to the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) headquarters, and online sessions led by experts on specific themes related to peace mediation.

    The participants come from conflict-affected and post-conflict societies, as well as nations that are leaders in global peacebuilding efforts. 

    This diverse group includes representatives from South Africa, Finland, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Qatar, South Sudan, Turkey, and Ukraine.

    Strengthening international partnerships 

    Aligned with the South Africa-Finland Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the programme will advance a strategic peace mediation partnership between the two countries. 

    The department said it will also foster networking and knowledge-sharing among young peace mediators and provide mentorship by seasoned international peace practitioners.  

    The Minister underscored South Africa’s role in shaping inclusive, youth-driven solutions to global challenges, ensuring that the voices of the next generation define the future of peace. – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Canada extends support to Ukraine by waiving tariffs on goods

    Source: Government of Canada News (2)

    June 6, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance Canada

    Last month in Banff, Alberta, G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors unanimously reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine.

    Building upon this consensus, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, today announced that Canada will extend the Ukraine Goods Remission Order until June 9, 2026.

    Canada is continuing to support Ukraine’s economy with a one-year extension on tariff-free importation of Ukrainian goods into Canada.

    Canada remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine as it fights to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democracy. The conflict initiated by Russia, with support from Belarus, continues to severely impact Ukraine’s economy, including its ability to export goods globally.

    Since the Ukraine Goods Remission Order was issued on June 9, 2022, Canada has imported over $35 million in goods from Ukraine with $8.5 million in customs duties remitted. The extension is expected to generate approximately $1.2 million in duties remitted from June 10, 2025 to June 9, 2026.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Chinese Foreign Minister Holds Phone Talk with French Foreign Minister

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, June 6 (Xinhua) — Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a telephone conversation with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on Friday.

    Wang Yi, also a member of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee, recalled that Chinese President Xi Jinping and French President Emmanuel Macron recently held a telephone conversation during which an important consensus was reached on strengthening strategic coordination between the two countries.

    The two sides should make proper preparations for further exchanges at all levels, and China invites senior French officials to attend the World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Shanghai in 2025, the Chinese Foreign Minister said.

    Noting that the two sides have reached consensus on resolving trade and economic issues through dialogue and consultation, Wang Yi stressed the need to expand cultural, humanitarian and educational exchanges to promote the healthy development of the China-France comprehensive strategic partnership and China-EU ties.

    Wang Yi noted that China and France, adhering to the traditions of independence and self-reliance, should strengthen strategic mutual trust and respect each other’s core interests.

    He stressed that the Taiwan issue is an internal matter of China, which affects the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and is fundamentally different from the Ukrainian problem. China attaches great importance to France’s commitment to the one-China policy, the diplomat noted, adding that China believes that France will implement this commitment.

    Wang expressed hope that France will take a correct stance and oppose NATO’s interference in the Asia-Pacific region, stressing that the two countries should jointly adhere to multilateralism and safeguard free trade, and oppose the practice of unilateral bullying.

    J.-N. Barrot, for his part, said that Vice President of the People’s Republic of China Han Zheng has been invited to attend the upcoming UN Ocean Conference in France, noting that in the context of growing global uncertainty, French-Chinese relations are taking on particular importance.

    France always regards China as a friend and partner, firmly adheres to the one-China policy, and hopes to maintain high-level exchanges and enhance strategic communication with China, the French diplomat assured.

    Strengthening bilateral cultural and humanitarian exchanges will send a strong signal of openness, which is particularly relevant in the current circumstances, continued Jean-Nicolas Barrot, adding that France is against trade and tariff wars and is ready to continue to properly resolve trade and economic frictions through consultations.

    The parties also exchanged views on issues related to Ukraine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the Iranian nuclear program. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Rogoyski, Innovation Director, Surrey Institute of People-Centred AI, University of Surrey

    ‘Pleased to beat you.’ Aileenchik

    Half of entry-level white collar jobs might cease to exist in the near future, according to Dario Amodei, the CEO of leading AI company Anthropic. Amodei, whose company is behind the Claude platform, has since called for transparency standards requiring companies making AI models to demonstrate how they are handling risks such as the AI enabling cyberattacks or helping to make bioweapons.

    Time and again, such claims suggest the pace of development in artificial intelligence is vastly outstripping our ability to adapt and adopt, creating a series of short-term crises.

    Yet the debate between AI doomers, accelerationists, utopians and other factions is largely trapped in arguments about whether current AIs are truly demonstrating creativity, problem solving, planning and other intelligent characteristics. It’s as if we’re collectively in denial.

    AI is arguably the most important technology humankind will ever invent. We owe it to ourselves, and future generations, to make conscious decisions about introducing AI into everything we do, ensuring that humanity benefits.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    We know that AI is threatening the creative industries, for example. We can argue about whether AI is truly creative or we can set about preserving human creativity, originality and income security.

    For instance, the new CREAATIF report from Queen Mary University of London lays out a series of recommendations, such as treating creatives as co-designers along with AIs, not victims. It calls for clear disclosures about AI-generated creative works, and ensuring creatives can opt out of having their work in AI training datasets.

    We know that AI is being used in warfare. We can argue about what it means for a human to still take crucial battlefield decisions – the idea of “human in the loop”. Or we can set down explicit rules of war, as hinted at by the UN meeting in May on possible restrictions in the use of lethal autonomous systems.

    We know that AI is being used in medicine, from screening blood tests to virtual hospitals – as created by Tsinghua University in China. We can argue about whether AI can ever replace doctors, or we can actively explore where it is most appropriate and desirable to supplement human healthcare expertise with AI.

    Jobs and knowledge

    We also strongly suspect that AI will displace human jobs more broadly. Besides Amodei’s warnings, certain companies are already adopting “AI first” strategies. These treat AIs as the core driver of company operations, not just support tools.

    The canary in the coalmine may be graduate jobs, since companies will likely initially use AI for jobs requiring the least experience. Graduate hiring in the UK is falling. We can argue about whether there is a link with AI, or we can start putting serious thought into the future of education, skills and the meaning of a career in the 21st century.

    Finally, we know that AI is being used to mediate human access to knowledge, whether it’s the recommendation engines in platforms like TikTok and X, or search engines like Google and Bing providing AI summaries in preference to linked websites.

    Misinformation, disinformation and fakery is rife, often enabled by AI tools. And a more insidious side-effect of AI-mediated access to knowledge is the potential decline in how we know what’s true or reliable.

    We can argue about whether this is happening or we can focus on protecting reliable sources of information, and making sure everyone can access them. For example, the US-based Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) develops standards to verify where digital media comes from and whether it has been tampered with.

    What you can do

    AI is not going away, and there will be positives as well as negatives. For instance, AI will undoubtedly help to solve the hard problems of global health, energy generation and climate change.

    We need to recognise the power of existing AI technologies, and acknowledge that AI is likely to get even more advanced very quickly and that we need to act personally and collectively. And there are several things we can do now.

    First, take a personal interest. AI literacy is fast becoming a life skill. Leading AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can create, summarise or rewrite text for you, compile research reports, jazz up presentations, create music, do data analysis, come up with new cooking recipes – the options are endless.

    The future is here.
    Aileenchik

    I’ve seen schoolteachers create AI mentors for students, pensioners create songs and presentations, children transform their artwork into historical contexts, all with no technical skills. Similarly, anyone can now use AI to code. So-called “vibe-coding” allows anyone to describe, in words, what they want a piece of software to do, and the AI will create a version of it – to an increasingly good level of completeness.

    The ability to adapt and adopt is key. Knowing and practising how to use AI will not only position you for future opportunities and changes, but may allow you to steer your workplace to a better outcome too.

    Second, become an advocate for how AI should be used. AI developments in the US and China will continue to drive AI innovation, but we have some choices when it comes to adoption and use.

    So become an “informed buyer”, actively selecting AI technology from companies which have strong ethical, security and privacy standpoints. For instance, I prefer Anthropic’s Claude to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, largely because of the former’s constitutional approach, which means its AIs are trained on a set of principles rather than on what it thinks the user will prefer.

    I like Meta’s track record on publishing detailed papers of how it trained and tested its LLMs (a type of AI model), and the fact that it open-sources them. This makes the best models available to a wider and more diverse range of people or organisations, not just to the wealthiest companies. I’m uncomfortable with the way that OpenAI sought to change its non-profit status recently. These are personal opinions and we should each form our own views.

    Third, voice your advocacy, to your boss, your local MP, and other decision makers you may come across. It’s only by making AI an everyday topic that we can influence the world we live in. As Tim Cook, CEO of Apple once said, “Artificial intelligence is the future, but we must ensure it is a future that we want.”

    Andrew Rogoyski’s department receives research funding from UKRI. He acts as an advisor to TechUK, one of the UK’s leading tech industry trade associations, as is a member of the NatWest Technology Advisory Board.

    – ref. It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society – https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-stop-debating-whether-ai-is-genuinely-intelligent-and-focus-on-making-it-work-for-society-258430

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaptur Statement On Ukrainian Drone Strikes On Russian Aircraft And Military Targets

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

    Toledo, OH – Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Co-Chair and Co-Founder of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus released the following statement on reporting of successful Ukrainian drone strikes operations deep into Russian territory, which hit airfields including the Belaya air base in Russia’s Irkutsk region, destroying more than 40 Russian planes deep in Russian territory.

    “For the continuing horror Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has exacted on the people and free nation of Ukraine, this multiple strike by Ukrainian drones on key Russian military air field assets is long overdue,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09). “Russia is the 3rd largest military in world. It encompasses 11 time zones and is rich in oil and minerals. Its population is more than 3 times the size of Ukraine. Nonetheless Putin covets the territory of Ukraine, the lowest income nation in Europe. Despite the odds, Ukraine’s soldiers and citizenry have nobly resisted Russia’s invasion since 2014 to regain their Liberty.”

    “This comes while Russia also is enlisting thousands of North Korean troops who are being forced to fight by their Dictator Kim Jong Un. Today as June begins, may President Trump use all his persuasive power and impose further sanctions on Russia, or work with Congress to do so. I hope that we can soon bring the warring parties to negotiate an end to this unnecessary and costly war defiling Europe and our planet,” concluded Congresswoman Kaptur.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Ukraine Attacks Two Russian Military Airfields

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Kyiv, June 6 /Xinhua/ – Ukraine attacked two airfields and other important military facilities in Russia on Friday night, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) reported on Telegram.

    The Engels airfield in the Saratov region in the southwest of the Russian Federation, which is a concentration site for Russian combat aircraft following an operation carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on June 1, came under attack.

    At least three fuel and lubricant tanks caught fire at the airfield and dozens of explosions were heard.

    The Dyagilevo airfield in the Ryazan region in western Russia, where air tankers and escort fighters are based, was also attacked. They are used to support missile strikes on Ukrainian territory. In addition, Russian strategic bombers fly out of Dyagilevo.

    According to preliminary data, a fire broke out in the target area; the information is being verified.

    In addition, a number of other Russian military facilities came under fire. In particular, a logistics point in the Kursk region of Russia was hit. The results of the attack are being clarified.

    All strikes were carried out by units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in cooperation with other components of the Defense Forces.

    On June 1, the SBU carried out a special operation called “Web”, during which it attacked airfields in several regions of the Russian Federation. According to the service’s estimates, 34 percent of Russian strategic aviation aircraft were damaged as a result of the strikes. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony King, Professor of War Studies, University of Exeter

    The UK is facing a security crisis. Great power competition has returned, and the threat of hostility from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is increasing. The west can no longer assume military superiority, and the UK can no longer depend unconditionally on the US. The character of war itself is changing as new technology is introduced.

    This is the situation laid out in the latest strategic defence review. The implications for the UK are clear: the country must prepare for high-intensity, protracted war, not counter-insurgency operations like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    In order to address these challenges, the review says, “the UK must pivot to a new way of war.” Nuclear weapons are important here, and will be renewed and expanded. But the recommendations in the review focus on conventional weaponry and, above all, new remote and autonomous technology.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    The ongoing Ukraine war underpins much of the thinking about the military changes the UK needs to make. That conflict has demonstrated a significant change in the character of 21st-century warfare. Most obviously, it has involved a proliferation of cheap, expendable remote systems, some of which have autonomous capabilities.

    Remote first-person-view drones, and drones controlled by unjammable fibre-optic cables, have become ubiquitous on the frontline – reconnoitring, targeting and striking troops on both sides. They have made conventional strategic manoeuvres at the front almost impossible, while also striking civilian and military targets deep in Russia and Ukraine.

    At sea, uncrewed naval drones have struck Russian shipping and infrastructure in Crimea. The Ukrainian armed forces have also developed a digital battle management system and live-data, AI-enabled targeting system, drawing together information from satellite, open-source, ground-sensor and signal intelligence. This has allowed Ukrainian commanders to see deeply across the battlespace, and target Russian forces with an unprecedented depth and precision.

    As a result of remote systems enabled by digitised targeting, military forces have become exponentially more lethal in close battle – and also in the deep.

    The strategic defence review aims for the UK to incorporate these two elements into its war-fighting capabilities, recommending massive investment in remotely controlled and autonomous systems.

    It calls for the UK to create a “leading, tech-enabled defence power”. Part of this involves integrating UK forces and the construction of a unified “digital targeting web”. This would be fed by sensors from every domain (land, air and sea) so that all forces have access to the same intelligence and a common operating picture. The idea is that a target identified in one domain might be prosecuted by forces in another, to “enhance the Armed Forces’ precision and lethality at scale and reach”.

    In order to achieve this, the review also calls for improved and more innovative relationships between British defence, tech and industry. Once again, a lot has been learnt from Ukraine, whose industrial and tech sectors have been integrated into the war from the start.

    The missing link

    The review’s authors – three external experts led by former defence secretary and Nato chief, Lord Robertson – are correct to highlight the increasing importance of remote (and sometimes autonomous) systems in warfare. They are clear that military forces should increasingly draw on live data, processed by artificial intelligence, to help them understand the battlespace, plan and target. The UK must remain competitive with peer enemies who are developing these capabilities.

    However, even assuming that all of this is affordable at 2.5% of the UK’s GDP from 2027 (a 0.2% rise from where defence spending is now), there is a serious gap in the review’s proposals.

    As a scholar who has studied war in the 21st century, and has just completed a book on AI and war, I believe the document vastly overexaggerates the capability of AI and autonomy. For example, it states:

    In modern warfare, simple metrics such as the number of people and platforms deployed are outdated and inadequate. It is through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous assets and data flows that lethality and military effect are now created.

    This analysis presumes that autonomy will be vital in the future, and implies it will displace the need for large numbers of human combatants. In fact, true autonomy is still rare in combat – and will remain so, according to my research.

    Even if autonomous drone swarms appear, they will not eliminate the need for human programmers or operators behind the frontline. AI has limited military functions which require a huge amount of human input.

    Defence secretary John Healey being shown unmanned and autonomous units on a demonstration.
    UK MOD Crown Copyright 2025

    The review prioritises preparedness for protracted inter-state war. But it ignores the blindingly obvious from Ukraine: the imperative of mass.

    The Ukrainian frontline combat forces have expanded to about 300,000 – Ukraine claims its whole force, including allied fighters, is around 1 million. There are about 400,000 Russian combat troops in Ukraine. Casualties have been eye-watering: the Russians have suffered about 800,000 casualties, the Ukrainians nearly 500,000.

    In my view, the strategic defence review has been mesmerised by the prospect of new technology – and, perhaps, by some wishful thinking.

    In 21st-century war, troop mass matters. Fleets of drones and the most sophisticated digital targeting will be irrelevant without human forces willing to fight and to operate them.

    What is the review’s answer to this? While acknowledging that in the cold war, the British fielded forces of 311,000, UK regular armed forces are to remain the same size: 136,000, of which the army will consist of only 73,000 troops and staff.

    The review proposes that active reserves (volunteer, part-time forces) will be increased by 20%, and that the strategic reserve (ex-regulars) “is central to military mobilisation and must be reinvigorated”.

    It is not surprising that the review’s authors have offered such thin solutions to the question of mass. There has been profound resistance from successive governments, Whitehall and civil society to any expansion in the size of British military forces in the UK. But it is doubtful that an expanded reserve and a reinvigorated strategic reserve will be remotely enough for the UK to fight and win a war of any kind in the coming decade.

    Anthony King does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-gearing-up-for-autonomous-warfare-but-missing-the-reality-of-war-today-258240

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Security: NATO Military Committee Visits Luxembourg

    Source: NATO

    On June 5th and 6th, the NATO Military Committee conducted an official visit to Luxembourg at the invitation of the Chief of Defence, General Steve Thull. During the visit, the Committee toured the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) and Société Européenne des Satellites (SES). The Chair of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, also met with the Minister of Defence of Luxembourg, Yuriko Backes.

    The Military Committee was welcomed by the Chief of Defence General Steve Thull, and received briefings on Luxembourg’s contributions to NATO operations, missions, and activities, most notably Luxembourg’s significant contributions in cyber and space capabilities.

    Following this, the Military Committee visited SES, a global leader in satellite-based content connectivity, which included a briefing on GovSat, a public-private partnership between the Government of Luxembourg and SES. GovSat provides secure and reliable governmental satellite communication services to Allied nations and NATO. The visit highlighted the importance of strengthening strategic partnerships in satellite communications, cyber security, and resilient connectivity.

    On the second day, Admiral Cavo Dragone met with Minister of Defence of Luxembourg, Yuriko Backes, to discuss the global security environment, focusing in particular on Luxembourg’s contributions to NATO. Their meeting also addressed the outcomes of the recent Meeting of NATO Ministers of Defence and Luxembourg’s approach to implementing its capability targets.

    The visit concluded at the NSPA, where the Military Committee was briefed on how the NSPA links industry and nations’ requirements to find the most efficient, effective and responsive solutions for the Alliance, its nations and partners. This included a briefing on the NSPA’s strategic initiatives in supporting Ukraine. Admiral Cavo Dragone emphasised that NATO’s strength lies in its unity, and that “more defence investment should always lead to more security’. He underscored the importance of a collective approach to planning and praised the NSPA for its close involvement in these efforts.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • NATO’s dilemma: how Zelenskiy can attend summit without provoking Trump

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Officials organising a NATO summit in The Hague this month are expected to keep it short, restrict discussion of Ukraine, and choreograph meetings so that Volodymyr Zelenskiy can somehow be in town without provoking Donald Trump.

    Though the Ukrainian president is widely expected to attend the summit in some form, NATO has yet to confirm whether he is actually invited. Diplomats say he may attend a pre-summit dinner but be kept away from the main summit meeting.

    Whether the brief summit statement will even identify Russia as a threat or express support for Ukraine is still up in the air.

    The careful steps are all being taken to avoid angering Washington, much less provoking any repeat of February’s White House blow-up between Trump and Zelenskiy that almost torpedoed the international coalition supporting Kyiv.

    NATO’s European members, who see Russia as an existential threat and NATO as the principal means of countering it, want to signal their continued strong support for Ukraine. But they are also desperate to avoid upsetting a volatile Trump, who stunned them at a summit seven years ago by threatening to quit the alliance altogether.

    If Zelenskiy does not attend in some form, it would be “at least a PR disaster”, acknowledged a senior NATO diplomat.

    Since Russia’s invasion three years ago, Zelenskiy has regularly attended NATO summits as the guest of honour, where alliance members pledged billions in weapons and condemned Russia for an illegal war of conquest. Leaders repeatedly promised that Ukraine would one day join NATO.

    But since Washington’s shift under Trump towards partly accepting Russia’s justifications for the war and disparaging Zelenskiy, the 32-member alliance no longer speaks with a single voice about Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War Two. Trump has taken Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table, unilaterally granting Moscow one of its main demands.

    After dressing down Zelenskiy in the Oval Office in February, Trump cut vital U.S. military and intelligence support for Ukraine for days.

    Since then, the two men publicly mended fences in a meeting in St Peter’s Basilica for the funeral of Pope Francis. But mostly they have spoken remotely, with Zelenskiy twice phoning the White House on speakerphone while surrounded by four friendly Europeans — Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and Poland’s Donald Tusk.

    SPENDING BOOST

    Trump is expected to come away from The Hague with a big diplomatic victory as NATO members heed his longstanding complaints that they do not spend enough on defence and agree a much higher target.

    They are expected to boost their goal for traditional military spending to 3.5% of economic output from 2%. A further pledge to spend 1.5% on related expenses such as infrastructure and cyber defence would raise the total to 5% demanded by Trump.

    But the summit itself and its accompanying written statement are expected to be unusually short, minimising the chances of flare-ups or disagreements. A pledge to develop recommendations for a new Russia strategy has been kicked into the long grass.

    Meanwhile, Zelenskiy may have to be content with an invitation to a pre-summit dinner, hosted by Dutch King Willem-Alexander, diplomats say.

    Unlike at NATO’s previous two annual summits, the leaders do not plan to hold a formal meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, the official venue for talks between the alliance and Kyiv. The senior NATO diplomat said a working dinner with either foreign ministers or defence ministers could instead serve as an NUC.

    ‘PROPERLY REPRESENTED’

    On Wednesday, NATO boss Mark Rutte said he had invited Ukraine to the summit, but sidestepped a question on whether the invitation included Zelenskiy himself.

    After meeting Rutte on Monday, Zelenskiy said on X that it was “important that Ukraine is properly represented” at the summit. “That would send the right signal to Russia,” he said.

    U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not reply to questions about the nature of any invitation to Ukraine.

    Some European countries are still willing to say in public that they hope to see Zelenskiy invited as the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

    Estonian Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur said he would like to see a “delegation led by President Zelenskiy”. Asked about an invitation for Zelenskiy, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said “I, for my part, strongly welcome the invitation” without giving further details.

    But diplomats have tried to play down the importance of the formal status of Zelenskiy’s role: “Many allies want to have Zelenskiy at the summit, but there is flexibility on the precise format that would allow his presence,” said a second senior NATO diplomat.

    A senior European diplomat said: “We should not get stuck on ‘NUC or no NUC’. If he comes to the leaders’ dinner, that would be the minimum.”

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UEFA must ban Belarus from competitions

    Source: Scottish Greens

    06 Jun 2025 External Affairs Sport

    UEFA must use their platform to condemn human rights violators.

    More in External Affairs

    Belarus should not be allowed to compete in UEFA competitions while enabling war and violating human rights, say the Scottish Greens.

    Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie MSP has written to UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin urging the football body to ban Belarus from all competitions. His call comes ahead of upcoming World Cup qualifiers, including two fixtures between Scotland’s Men’s National Team and Belarus.

    In his letter, Mr Harvie highlights serious concerns over Belarus’ support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. He describes Belarus as a key enabler of the war, pointing to its role in allowing Russian forces to use Belarusian territory to launch attacks on Ukraine.

    The Green MSP also draws attention to the human rights crisis within Belarus itself. Since leader Alexander Lukashenko claimed to win 80% of the vote in the widely disputed 2020 presidential elections, the country has seen a steep decline in civil liberties, with reports of political prisoners, torture, and violent crackdowns on peaceful protests.

    Mr Harvie said:

    “Belarus is not just failing to uphold basic human rights at home – it is actively participating in a senseless war abroad. Lukashenko is a brutal authoritarian leader, he must be held to account, not given the platform to sports-wash his horrific humanitarian crimes.

    “UEFA rightly banned Russia for their criminal domestic and international record. As a close ally helping to wage the same wars at home and abroad, why should Belarus be treated any differently?

    “The continued participation of Belarusian sports teams in UEFA competitions flies in the face of the organisation’s own supposed values, particularly its RESPECT campaign, which promotes fairness, dignity and human rights in football.

    “Football doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It sends a message to the world. Now is the time for UEFA to show leadership and ensure that the message is one of peace, an end to complicity and an adherence to human rights.

    “Now is the time to take a stand, Belarus must follow Russia, as well as other nations committing unspeakable crimes, and be made a sporting pariah state until international law is restored.”

    Text of Letter from Patrick Harvie to UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin

    Dear Mr. Čeferin,
     
    I hope this letter finds you well.
     
    I write today as a concerned citizen and Member of the Scottish Parliament with significant concerns relating to continued Belarusian involvement in UEFA football competitions and the subsequent threat that their inclusion poses to UEFA’s values of unity, fair play and respect within football.
     
    In light of Scotland’s Men’s team drawing Belarus in the upcoming World Cup Qualifiers, I believe it is imperative for Scotland’s political representatives to speak out about the hugely problematic inclusion of Belarus given its complicity in Russian aggression and its troubling human rights record.
     
    I urge UEFA to reconsider Belarus’s participation in its competitions, in light of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Belarus’s complicity in Russia’s unlawful war of aggression.
     
    As I am sure you are aware, Belarus has become a key enabler of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. The Belarusian regime, under President Alexander Lukashenko, has allowed its territory to be used as a launchpad for Russian forces, contributing directly to the suffering and destruction in Ukraine. This ongoing support for Russia’s aggression is a clear and unacceptable violation of international law and the fundamental principles of peace and human rights.
     
    Furthermore, Belarus’s domestic human rights record continues to be appalling. Since the contested presidential elections of 2020, the Belarusian government has consistently violated the rights of its citizens, including the suppression of peaceful protest, arbitrary detention, and the torture of political opponents and dissidents. Numerous international organisations, including the United Nations and the European Union, have condemned the actions of the Belarusian government in the strongest terms.
     
    The ongoing abuse of human rights in Belarus must force a re-evaluation of the country’s eligibility to participate in international sporting events, where respect for human dignity should be paramount. 

    Indeed, a month after Russia resumed its invasion of Ukraine, in March 2022, UEFA announced it was imposing specific restrictions on Belarus with immediate effect. UEFA banned the nation from hosting any international matches, either at club or national team level, as well as barring any spectators from attending games. It does not seem logical that UEFA are willing to take decisive action to remove Russia entirely from its competitions yet invite a key Russian ally which is complicit in the ongoing murder of innocent Ukrainians to continue as a UEFA member nation. It is morally incomprehensible that UEFA continues to promote its very laudable RESPECT campaign whilst allowing a nation that is stationing Putin’s ballistic missiles to compete.
     
    In this context, I urge UEFA to take a strong and decisive stance by excluding Belarus from its competitions until such time as the country ceases its support for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and takes substantial steps to address its widespread human rights violations. Belarus’s continued participation not only tarnishes the credibility of UEFA but also undermines the organisation’s commitment to promoting peace and respect in the footballing community.
     
    We have already seen the importance of sports sending a message about human rights and justice. UEFA’s previous decision to suspend Russian teams and clubs from its competitions in response to the war in Ukraine was a positive and necessary step in aligning sports with ethical values. It is crucial that Belarus, which shares complicity in these actions, is held to the same standards.
     
    UEFA must, as an organisation committed to the values of peace, respect and fairness, take this opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the face of global crises and ensure that its competitions strive to be a platform for moral integrity.
     
    Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. I look forward to your response and hope that UEFA will take meaningful action in this regard.
     
    Yours sincerely,
    Patrick Harvie
    Member of the Scottish Parliament
    Co-Leader of the Scottish Green Party

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Ukraine: landmines crisis – Press Conference | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Press conference by Paul Heslop, the Senior UN Mine Action Adviser to the Resident Coordinator and UN Country Team in Ukraine (UNMAS), on Ukraine.

    The widespread presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance in Ukraine is not just a national crisis, but a global one, warned a senior UN official today (05 June) linking the contamination to rising global food and energy costs.

    “Every person in this room, every person in this city, every person in this country, and every person on this planet is paying more for their food and more for their energy because of the conflict in Ukraine,” said Paul Heslop, the UN’s Senior Mine Action Adviser in Ukraine.

    Speaking to reporters in New York, Heslop stressed that restoring contaminated land to productive use could ease the burden on global markets. “The ability to get land back into use, that will bring down those prices, is dependent on the actual presence of mines and other unexploded devices,” he said, emphasizing the need to challenge both the physical and perceived risks of contamination.
    About 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory is suspected to be contaminated, Heslop said, affecting more than six million people who now live near hazardous areas.

    The scale of the issue is unprecedented. Heslop noted that 30,000 square kilometers of land once believed contaminated were found to be safe and could now return to agricultural production -“the equivalent of 20 times the current problem in Afghanistan,” he said. These assessments were achieved at low cost by “adopting new technology and thinking in a new way.”

    Demining, he added, is “an inherently inefficient process,” with 95 percent of clearance efforts often spent on land that turns out to be safe. “You don’t know exactly where the mines are,” Heslop said, underscoring the urgency of adopting more accurate and cost-effective strategies.
    With the cost of cleanup likely to reach billions of dollars, he warned of long-term economic consequences. “Is it going to be single-digit billions of dollars or is it going to be tens or hundreds of billions?” he asked.

    Ukraine’s digital infrastructure could be a vital asset in this effort. Heslop praised the country’s tech-savvy approach, including using mobile data to assess road usage and track returning populations. “Integrating different levels of technology, different levels of data, and non-traditional sources of data” can help target mine action efforts more effectively, he said.

    He also underscored the sheer volume of unexploded ordnance. Based on conservative estimates, Heslop said that up to 10 million unexploded bombs may remain across Ukraine. “That is going to be a lot of work, and it’s going to need to be resourced, and we’re going to need to address it.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36W4Fbn9RYA

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: At a Glance – Ukraine’s future in the EU – 06-06-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Ukraine was granted EU candidate status in June 2022. Accession negotiations were opened in June 2024. While bilateral screening meetings of three thematic clusters have been completed, negotiations proper have not yet started, pending unanimous agreement of EU Member States. The European Parliament is calling for the timely organisation of subsequent intergovernmental conferences.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road of 29 June 2022 – A10-0102/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road of 29 June 2022

    (16072/2024 – C10‑0226/2024 – 2024/0290(NLE))

    (Consent)

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the draft Council decision (16072/2024),

    – having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road of 29 June 2022 (10783/24),

    – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C10‑0226/2024),

    – having regard to Rule 107(1) and (4), and Rule 117(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A10-0102/2025),

    1. Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

    2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Ukraine.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Title

    Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road of 29 June 2022

    References

    16072/2024 – C10-0226/2024 – 2024/0290(NLE)

    Date of consultation or request for consent

    18.12.2024

     

     

     

    Committee(s) responsible

    TRAN

     

     

     

    Rapporteurs

     Date appointed

    Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi

    3.6.2025

     

     

     

    Previous rapporteurs

    Siegbert Frank Droese

    Discussed in committee

    9.4.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    3.6.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    32

    6

    2

    Members present for the final vote

    Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Daniel Attard, Adrian-George Axinia, Rachel Blom, Nikolina Brnjac, Nina Carberry, Carlo Ciccioli, Vivien Costanzo, Johan Danielsson, Siegbert Frank Droese, Gheorghe Falcă, Jens Gieseke, Borja Giménez Larraz, Sérgio Gonçalves, Roman Haider, François Kalfon, Julien Leonardelli, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Milan Mazurek, Alexandra Mehnert, Ştefan Muşoiu, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Philippe Olivier, Matteo Ricci, Marjan Šarec, Andreas Schieder, Volker Schnurrbusch, Rosa Serrano Sierra, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Kai Tegethoff, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Maciej Wąsik, Roberts Zīle

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Alexander Bernhuber, Gilles Boyer, Moritz Körner, Ana Miguel Pedro, Oliver Schenk, Marion Walsmann, Isabel Wiseler-Lima

    Date tabled

    5.6.2025

     

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: EU Fact Sheets – The internal market: general principles – 05-06-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    The internal market is an area that fosters prosperity and enables the free movement of goods, services, people and capital. As the world’s largest single market, it leverages its scale to create jobs, drive business opportunities and promote European standards globally. It also tackles ongoing global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which have led to restrictions of free movement and shortages of goods and services.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Holy See Press Office Communiqué: Audience with the President of the Italian Republic

    Source: The Holy See

    Holy See Press Office Communiqué: Audience with the President of the Italian Republic, 06.06.2025

    This morning, in the Vatican Apostolic Palace, the Holy Father Leo XIV received in audience the President of the Italian Republic, His Excellency Mr. Sergio Mattarella, who subsequently met with His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness, accompanied by Msgr. Mirosław Wachowski, Under-Secretary for Relations with States.
    During the cordial talks held at the Secretariat of State, appreciation was expressed for the good existing bilateral relations. International topics were discussed, with particular attention to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.
    The conversation then turned to various topics of a social nature, with special reference to the Church’s contribution to the life of the country.
    From the Vatican, 6 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –