I just want to read the news

Get the news and only the news!

Guardian Yle Kaupunki CNN Hesari Al Jazeera New York Times Reuters NPR The Cipher Brief

Guardian

Back to top

Trump administration to destroy nearly $10m of contraceptives for women overseas

As part of president’s end to foreign aid, destruction of the long-acting contraceptives will cost US taxpayers $167,000

The Trump administration has decided to destroy $9.7m worth of contraceptives rather than send them abroad to women in need.

A state department spokesperson confirmed that the decision had been made – a move that will cost US taxpayers $167,000. The contraceptives are primarily long-acting, such as IUDs and birth control implants, and were almost certainly intended for women in Africa, according to two senior congressional aides, one of whom visited a warehouse in Belgium that housed the contraceptives. It is not clear to the aides whether the destruction has already been carried out, but said they had been told that it was set to occur by the end of July.

Continue reading...



Sudan’s children face growing threat of deadly infectious diseases as vaccination rates halve

The country, beset by war, has the world’s lowest rates of vaccination, says the World Health Organization, as global immunisation drive also stalls

Children in Sudan, caught up in what aid organisations have called the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and threatened by rising levels of violence, are increasingly vulnerable to deadly infectious diseases as vaccinations in the country plummet.

In 2022, more than 90% of young children in Sudan received their routine vaccinations. But that figure has nearly halved to 48%, the lowest in the world, according to the World Health Organization.

Continue reading...



Sudanese paramilitary RSF accused of killing almost 300 people in village raids

Rights group says targets of Rapid Support Forces in North Kordofan were ‘empty of military objectives’

Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have killed nearly 300 people in attacks in North Kordofan state that began on Saturday, according to Sudanese activists.

The RSF has been fighting the Sudanese army in the area, one of the key frontlines of a civil war in Sudan that has raged since April 2023.

Continue reading...



France signals willingness to discuss reparations for colonial massacres in Niger

Exclusive: French government says it is open to dialogue but does not acknowledge responsibility in letter seen by the Guardian

More than a century after its troops burned villages and looted cultural artefacts in the quest to include Niger in its west African colonial portfolio, France has signalled willingness over possible restitution, but is yet to acknowledge responsibility.

France remains open to bilateral dialogue with the Nigerien authorities, as well as to any collaboration concerning provenance research or patrimonial cooperation,” the office of France’s permanent representative to the UN wrote in a document seen by the Guardian.

Continue reading...



Former Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari dies aged 82 in London

Leader who ousted Goodluck Jonathan in 2015 three decades after brief stint as military ruler dies after ‘prolonged illness’

Nigeria’s former president Muhammadu Buhari, who led Africa’s most populous country from 2015 to 2023 and was the first Nigerian president to oust an incumbent through the ballot box, died in London on Sunday, a presidential spokesperson has said.

President Bola Tinubu’s spokesperson said in a post on X: “President Buhari died today in London at about 4.30pm [1530 GMT], following a prolonged illness.”

Continue reading...



Caracas releases 10 Americans as Venezuelans freed from El Salvador jail

Scores of Venezuelans deported by US to El Salvador repatriated as Marco Rubio hails return of Americans

Venezuela released 10 jailed Americans on Friday in exchange for getting home scores of migrants deported by the United States to El Salvador months ago under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The resolution represents a diplomatic achievement for the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, helps Donald Trump in his goal of bringing home Americans jailed abroad and lands El Salvador a swap that it had proposed months ago.

Continue reading...



Trinidad and Tobago declares second state of emergency, citing gang threat

Police commissioner says there has been intelligence of formation of organised crime syndicate intent on havoc

Trinidad and Tobago has declared its second state of emergency this year amid “grave concerns” about a coordinated threat from organised crime gangs inside and outside the country’s prisons.

Announcing the decision on Friday, the commissioner of police, Allister Guevarro, said his force had received intelligence the day before that the gangs had “formed themselves into … an organised crime syndicate” and were intent on wreaking havoc and planning assassinations, robberies and kidnappings.

Continue reading...



Bolsonaro ordered to wear ankle tag over fears he may abscond as coup trial nears end

Guilty verdict widely expected for Brazil’s ex-president accused of plot to seize power after losing 2022 election

Federal police have raided Jair Bolsonaro’s Brasília mansion, banned him from communicating with foreign diplomats and ordered him to wear an electronic ankle tag amid fears Brazil’s ex-president may abscond to avoid punishment over an alleged coup attempt.

A supreme court trial examining claims that Bolsonaro masterminded a murderous plot to seize power after losing the 2022 election is expected to reach its conclusion in the coming weeks.

Continue reading...



Shooting of bear that swam to Canadian island frustrates First Nations

Indigenous groups had offered to rehome grizzly nicknamed Tex who was killed without authorization

The journey of Tex, a young grizzly bear that gripped public attention in Canada after swimming to a populated island near Vancouver, came to a violent end this week after he was shot and killed without authorization, despite plans by Indigenous groups to relocate him.

The four-year-old bear’s landfall on 25 May on the 300 sq km (115 sq mile) Texada island, in the Strait of Georgia, set off a controversy between differing interpretations of how to treat wild predators. Its shooting on Tuesday has advocates calling for the British Columbia government to act faster when it comes to working with First Nations on environmental stewardship.

Continue reading...



Brazil passes ‘devastation bill’ that drastically weakens environmental law

President has 15 days to approve or veto legislation that critics say will lead to vast deforestation and destruction of Indigenous communities

Brazilian lawmakers have passed a bill that drastically weakens the country’s environmental safeguards and is seen by many activists as the most significant setback for the country’s environmental legislation in the past 40 years.

The new law – widely referred to as the “devastation bill” and already approved by the senate in May – passed in congress in the early hours of Thursday by 267 votes to 116, despite opposition from more than 350 organisations and social movements.

Continue reading...



Risk of undersea cable attacks backed by Russia and China likely to rise, report warns

Spate of incidents in Baltic Sea and around Taiwan are harbinger for further disruptive activity, cybersecurity firm says

The risk of Russia- and China-backed attacks on undersea cables carrying international internet traffic is likely to rise amid a spate of incidents in the Baltic Sea and around Taiwan, according to a report.

Submarine cables account for 99% of the world’s intercontinental data traffic and have been affected by incidents with suspected state support over the past 18 months.

Continue reading...



Restaurant in China criticised for putting baby lion cuddles on menu

Diners jump at chance to snuggle with cubs but wildlife experts accuse firm of ‘exploiting wild animals for selfies’

A restaurant in northern China has been criticised by animal welfare groups for offering an unusual item on the menu: lion cub cuddles.

According to a screenshot of a menu circulating on social media, Wanhui – a restaurant in Taiyuan, the capital of Shanxi province – has a four-course set afternoon menu costing 1,192 yuan ($166/£124) that includes playtime with the in-house animals.

Continue reading...



Albanese’s warm welcome in Beijing shows icy tensions are a thing of the past – at least for now | Tom McIlroy

Local state-controlled media buzzed about the visit, praising the ‘turnaround’ and suggesting relations between the two countries were back on track

Anthony Albanese may be humming Paul Kelly and Powderfinger when his plane lands back in Australia from China on Friday.

After more than two hours of talks with the country’s president, Xi Jinping, a series of successful business events and a retracing of Gough Whitlam’s steps at the Great Wall, the prime minister is likely to view his six-day visit as a diplomatic home run.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...



Oxford University Press to stop publishing China-sponsored science journal

Move follows concerns several papers in Forensic Sciences Research did not meet ethical standards on DNA collection

Oxford University Press (OUP) will no longer publish a controversial academic journal sponsored by China’s Ministry of Justice after years of concerns that several papers in the publication did not meet ethical standards about DNA collection.

A statement published on the website of Forensic Sciences Research (FSR) states that OUP will stop publishing the quarterly journal after this year.

Continue reading...



Hunter missing in Japan as spate of bear attacks triggers emergency to be declared in northern town

Search for missing man comes after series of attacks across Japan this month in which at least two people have died

Authorities in Japan are searching for a hunter who went missing on a mountain in Hokkaido near where a brown bear was recently spotted, amid a spate of deadly attacks by the animals that has triggered the declaration of a bear emergency in one town.

The hunter was reported missing by a friend on Mt Esan on Tuesday afternoon in the northern island of Hokkaido after he failed to return home. A rifle believed to belong to the missing man was found on the side of a mountain road, and bloodstains were discovered nearby. A large brown bear was seen near the road on Saturday.

Continue reading...



Is this Queensland beach really the best in the world? Tell us your favourite

Whitehaven Beach on Whitsunday Island is home to marine stingers, including jellyfish, from October to May, but that didn’t stop voters in Big 7 Travel list. Have your say in the comments section

A Queensland beach where swimmers need to wear stinger suits for eight months of the year has been voted the best in the world for 2025.

Whitehaven Beach, on Whitsunday Island, is home to marine stingers, including jellyfish, from October to May when the water temperatures are warmer, making the use of stinger suits highly advisable.

Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning

Continue reading...



First Australian tanks handed over to Ukrainian army

Defence minister Richard Marles says Australia is ‘steadfast’ in support of Kyiv as Abrams tanks go into action

The first tranche of Australian tanks has been handed over to the Ukrainian army to help its defence against Russia’s invasion.

Australia had previously pledged to give Ukraine 49 Abrams tanks worth $245m last October. The defence minister, Richard Marles, said the tanks would aid Ukrainian firepower and complement other military equipment donated by allies to repel Russia’s invasion.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...



Green groups fear business sector will dominate debate at Chalmers’ roundtable at environment’s expense

Current list of 24 invitees to next month’s economic reform summit includes only one environmental representative

Environmentalists fear they are being shut out of the economic debate after peak nature groups were overlooked for invites to Jim Chalmers’ reform roundtable.

The current list of 24 invitees to next month’s summit features only one representative from the environment movement: former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, in his capacity as chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...



Native title win for Millewa-Mallee First Nations peoples in Victoria after decades-long fight

Historic decision in Australia’s federal court gives traditional owners in state’s north-west the right to control access to their country

After a difficult journey spanning more than two decades, traditional owners say they’ve “weathered the storm” to finally have their native title rights recognised.

The federal court on Friday awarded the historic native title determination to the Indigenous peoples of the Millewa-Mallee from north-west Victoria, for the first time granting exclusive native title rights in the state.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Continue reading...



Monique Ryan to bring private member’s bill to lower voting age – as it happened

This blog is now closed

Tasmania’s Labor leader, Dean Winter, confirmed his party supported the controversial Macquarie Point AFL stadium for the Tasmania Devils, describing it as deeply important for the state.

Winter spoke with the ABC this morning, a day before Tasmanians head to the polls for a snap election:

We support the Devils and we support building a stadium to get it done. We support that because we understand how important it is to the state.

We got to be honest and upfront … There is a budget crisis here, but we have an imperative to get an AFL team for our young people. …

Continue reading...



Felix Baumgartner, who jumped from edge of space, dies in paragliding crash

Austrian extreme skydiver, 56, lost control of his motorised paraglider while flying over central Italy

The extreme sports pioneer Felix Baumgartner, famed for a record-breaking 2012 skydive from the edge of space, has died in a paragliding accident in central Italy.

The Austrian, 56, lost control of his motorised paraglider while flying over Porto Sant’Elpidio in the Marche region on Thursday and fell to the ground into the swimming pool of a hotel.

Continue reading...



Lammy announces exposure of 18 Russian spies after UK cyber-attacks

Foreign secretary says two agents were involved in planting spyware on a device used by poisoning victim Yulia Skripal

The UK has exposed 18 Russian spies and their units responsible for cyber-attacks in Britain and hacking one of the victims of the Salisbury poisonings, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, has said.

Announcing individual sanctions, Lammy said Russia had targeted media, telecoms providers, political and democratic institutions and energy infrastructure in the UK in recent years.

Continue reading...



Spain’s People’s party hit by alleged multimillion cash-for-favours scandal

Claims involve former finance minister Cristóbal Montoro and dealings with gas and other energy companies

Just when Spain’s opposition People’s party thought it had the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez on the ropes over a series of corruption scandals, it has been hit by a controversy of its own over alleged trafficking of influences by Cristóbal Montoro, the former finance minister.

It is alleged that Montoro established the “economic team”, a lawyer’s office linked to the finance ministry, which took kickbacks from gas and other energy companies in return for favourable government policy. It is claimed that between 2008 and 2015 Montoro and 27 other accused, among them senior treasury officials, were paid at least €11m (£9.5m) by big energy companies.

Continue reading...



Festivalgoers help drive Burberry to best sales performance in 18 months

Music fans snap up wellies, scarves and light jackets, with shares rising more than 4% on back of better-than-expected performance

Shoppers snapping up Burberry wellies, scarves and light jackets to wear at music festivals have helped the fashion brand to its best sales performance in 18 months despite lacklustre spending by tourists around the world.

Sales of the luxury British brand fell by 2% to £433m in the three months to the end of June, with a 1% decline at established stores, an improvement from the 6% fall in the previous quarter and the best performance since Christmas 2023.

Continue reading...



Friday briefing: A ‘cruel and unlawful betrayal’ – why is the EU not doing more to sanction Israel?

In today’s newsletter: In failing to leverage its economic influence, the bloc is showing its threats are empty – and is breaking its own rules

Good morning. Before we get into the news of the day, a bit of housekeeping.

I’ve been away from the newsletter for a few months, but this isn’t the grand return I’m sure you’ve all been eagerly awaiting. Instead, this will be my last First Edition (cue sad music). After three and a half years, I’m moving teams to join the Guardian’s international desk. So, farewell readers! It’s been real and a proper privilege to be the first port of call for many of you each morning. Apologies for the countless times I’m sure you’ve opened your inbox, bleary eyed, to be greeted by some alarming event. You’ll be in excellent hands with my brilliant colleagues Aamna Mohdin and Phoebe Weston over the summer.

UK news | The voting age will be lowered to 16 across the UK by the next general election in a major change of the democratic system. The government said the reform would bring in more fairness as 16- and 17-year-olds already work and are able to serve in the military.

US news | Donald Trump said on Thursday he had directed his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking case as he sought to tamp down controversy over a story published by the Wall Street Journal alleging he contributed a sketch of a naked woman to Epstein’s 50th birthday album.

Israel-Gaza | An Israeli strike has hit the only Catholic church in Gaza, killing two people and injuring several others, including the parish priest, who used to receive daily calls from the late Pope Francis.

Labour | Diane Abbott has been suspended from the Labour party for a second time after saying she did not regret her past remarks on racism. In a statement to Newsnight on Thursday evening, Abbott said: “It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out. My comments in the interview … were factually correct, as any fair-minded person would accept.”

Sudan | Children in Sudan, caught up in what aid organisations have called the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and threatened by rising levels of violence, are increasingly vulnerable to deadly infectious diseases as vaccinations in the country plummet.

Continue reading...



More violence erupts in Syria’s Druze heartland as tribal groups reinforce local Bedouin

UN calls for end to ‘bloodshed’ that has claimed at least 638 lives, according to Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

Armed tribes supported by Syria’s Islamist-led government clashed with Druze fighters in the community’s Sweida heartland on Friday, a day after the army withdrew under Israeli bombardment and diplomatic pressure.

The UN called for an end to the “bloodshed” and demanded an “independent” investigation of the violence, which has claimed at least 638 lives since Sunday, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

Continue reading...



Middle East crisis: Netanyahu speaks to Pope after three killed in Israeli strike on Gaza church – as it happened

Leo urges Israeli PM to reach a ceasefire deal and expresses concern over ‘heartbreaking toll’ in region

Two of Jerusalem’s most senior Christian clerics travelled to Gaza on Friday after a deadly Israeli strike on the Palestinian territory’s only Catholic church, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reports.

The Catholic Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, and his Greek Orthodox counterpart, Theophilos III, headed an “ecclesiastical delegation” to meet local Christians after Thursday’s strike on the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, a statement read.

Those responsible must be held to account.

It is crucial that immediate steps are taken to prevent recurrence of such violence.

Continue reading...



Christian leaders make rare visit to shelled church in Gaza

Israel grants access after ‘stray’ tank round kills three people and wounds Catholic priest

Israel has granted two senior Christian leaders rare access to Gaza after an Israeli strike on the Palestinian territory’s only Roman Catholic church killed three people.

Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Catholic Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, and his Greek Orthodox counterpart, Theophilos III, led a delegation on Friday to the Holy Family Church, whose shelling the day before triggered international condemnation.

Continue reading...



Two UK charities donate millions to Israeli settlement in occupied West Bank

Charity Commission criticised for endorsing transfer of about £5.7m to high school in illegal village of Susya

Two UK charities have transferred millions of pounds to an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank with the endorsement of the charities regulator, the Guardian can reveal.

Documents show that the Kasner Charitable Trust (KCT), via a conduit charity, UK Toremet, has donated approximately £5.7m to the Bnei Akiva Yeshiva high school in Susya, in the Israeli-occupied territory.

Continue reading...



‘Shot in the head, as if executed’: four days of violence end with hundreds dead in southern Syria

Sectarian divisions prompted the worst unrest in Syria since March as the Druze population of Sweida province suffered massacres and executions

Bahaa* had no choice but to keep on working as patient after patient came through the doors of the Sweida National hospital in southern Syria. Almost all bore similar injuries: gunshot wounds and bodies shredded by shrapnel from nearby exploding artillery.

“There were hundreds of wounded, no less than 200 bodies in the hospital. Many of them shot in the head, as if executed,” said Bahaa, a surgeon speaking of the events of this week in Sweida under a pseudonym for fear of retribution.

Continue reading...



Why thousands of Afghans were secretly relocated to the UK – podcast

Dan Sabbagh on the data leak that may have cost hundreds of millions of pounds – and put Afghan lives at risk

This week an email was sent to people in Afghanistan. It told the recipients, who had all worked for British forces in Afghanistan, that some of their personal data “may have been compromised”. All had applied for asylum in the UK, fearful because their work for Britain made them a target for the Taliban. Now they were told their asylum applications had been leaked into the public domain.

They were advised not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts, to limit access to their social media, to consider closing their accounts, and to only go online via a private connection. Understandably, they were terrified.

Continue reading...



Air India finds ‘no issues’ with fuel switches on other Boeings after crash

US report says investigators looking at actions of plane’s captain before plane crash that killed 260 people

Air India has said it found “no issues” with the fuel switches on its other Boeing planes after the fatal crash that killed 260 people last month, as a US report suggested investigators have turned their attention to the actions of the plane’s captain.

A preliminary report into the incident, released last week, found that the switches that controlled fuel going into the engines had been turned off “one after another” just after the plane took off from Ahmedabad airport.

Continue reading...



Thousands of Afghans relocated to UK under secret scheme after data leak

Conservative government used superinjuction to hide error that put Afghans at risk and led to £2bn mitigation scheme

Conservative ministers used an unprecedented superinjunction to suppress a data breach that led the UK government to offer relocation to 15,000 Afghans in a secret scheme with a potential cost of more than £2bn.

The Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) was created in haste after it emerged that personal information about 18,700 Afghans who had applied to come to the UK had been leaked in error by a British defence official in early 2022.

Continue reading...



‘The worst day of all time’: Afghans speak of safety fears after UK data leak

Law firm representing thousands says some already killed and others in hiding as a result of government ‘blunder’

When Abdullah received an email from the British government saying his details had been included in the military data leak, it became “the worst day in all time”.

Speaking from Afghanistan, where he is in hiding, Abdullah fears he will be tortured and killed.

Continue reading...



UK’s cavalier attitude leaves Afghans facing yet more fear and uncertainty

Leaked details are just another example of how the UK let down Afghans who believed in what Britain promised their country

This week’s revelations about the UK’s dangerously cavalier treatment of Afghans who worked with British forces are shocking but not surprising.

The carelessness with which Britain went to war in Afghanistan was matched by the carelessness with which it left the country and its people to Taliban rule two decades later.

Continue reading...



‘Gangster granny’ jailed for leading family gang dealing drugs worth £80m

Deborah Mason, 65, who had moniker ‘Queen Bee’, and seven members of her network sentenced to total of 106.5 years

A family-run organised crime group, orchestrated by a 65-year-old described by police as a “gangster granny”, has been sentenced for dealing drugs with a street value of £80m across the UK.

Deborah Mason, who had the moniker “Queen Bee”, and seven other members of the gang, were sentenced at Woolwich crown court in London on Friday for their involvement in supplying nearly a tonne of cocaine over seven months.

Continue reading...



Angela Rayner tells Labour to ‘step up’ and make case for being in power

Exclusive: Deputy PM defends action against party rebels and says Send system is priority, in Guardian interview

Angela Rayner has urged Labour colleagues to “step up” and make the case for why the party should be in power as the government attempts to draw a line under a tumultuous first year in office and shift towards a more upbeat approach.

The deputy prime minister urged Labour MPs to focus on the party’s achievements over the last 12 months rather than always thinking about failures, saying they should all be “message carriers” for what had been done well.

Continue reading...



Catalogue of failures led to woman’s murder in Bristol care home, coroner finds

Managers described as ‘reckless’ over supervision of Melissa Mathieson’s killer, who had history of sexual violence

A “catalogue of failures” resulted in the murder of a vulnerable young woman who was strangled to death in a care home by a fellow resident with a history of sexual violence, a coroner has concluded.

Senior managers at the care home in Bristol where Melissa Mathieson, 18, died were described as “reckless” by the coroner for not effectively supervising her killer, Jason Conroy.

Continue reading...



Women who conceived in abusive relationships lose legal challenge over benefits ‘rape clause’

Justice Collins Rice says it is for politicians and not courts to change rules around two-child benefit cap

Two women who conceived their eldest children while they were in violent and controlling relationships have lost a legal challenge to the rules around the two-child benefit cap.

A high court judge said the accounts of the abuse the women faced when they were “vulnerable girls barely out of childhood” were “chilling”.

Continue reading...



Child killed in Minehead school coach crash was 10-year-old boy, police say

Twenty-one passengers were taken to hospital after coach overturned on way back from trip to zoo

Flowers have been left outside a school attended by a 10-year-old boy who died in a coach crash in Somerset on the way home from a trip to the zoo.

Twenty-one passengers were taken to hospital, some with serious injuries, when the coach flipped on to its roof and plunged 20ft down an embankment in Exmoor on Thursday afternoon on its way back to Minehead middle school.

Continue reading...



Epstein case ‘a matter of public concern’, Pam Bondi says in motion to unseal grand jury transcripts – US politics live

Officials ask judge to release documents shortly after president files libel suit against Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch and two Wall Street journal reporters

It was a friendship that spanned three different decades. To Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein was a “terrific guy”. Epstein believed himself to be Trump’s “closest friend”, and praised the future president as “charming”.

The relationship would eventually break down, the men falling out over a bidding war on a property in Florida. And after Epstein was convicted of child sex offences in 2008, Trump distanced himself from the financier, claiming he was “not a fan” and wondering, in recent days, why his supporters would “waste time and energy” on demanding that FBI and Department of Justice files on Epstein be released.

Continue reading...



US justice department asks to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein case

Move seeks to contain controversy that has engulfed Trump administration since it announced it would not release more files from sex trafficking case

The US Department of Justice asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein’s case at the direction of Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration’s handling of records related to the wealthy financier.

The move – coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump’s relationship with Epstein – seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein’s sex trafficking case.

Continue reading...



Lawyer argues Call of Duty maker can’t be held responsible for actions of Texas school shooter

Families of victims sued Activision and Meta, saying the companies bear responsibility for products used by gunman

A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb elementary school attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the first amendment.

The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for products used by the teenage gunman.

Continue reading...



Trump sues Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over Epstein report

President follows through on libel threat over report that said he sent Epstein ‘bawdy’ birthday note and sketch

Donald Trump has sued Rupert Murdoch and two Wall Street Journal newspaper reporters for libel and slander over claims that he sent the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a lewd letter and sketch of a naked woman.

Trump’s lawsuit on Friday, which also targets Dow Jones and News Corp, was filed in the southern district of Florida federal court in Miami.

Continue reading...



Pete Hegseth replaces first woman to lead US naval academy with Marine Corps general

Yvette Davids, who took the role in January 2004, will be succeeded by Michael Borgschulte

The first woman to lead the US naval academy is being reassigned, with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, moving to replace her with a Marine Corps general, defense officials confirmed on Friday.

The decision marks the first time in the nearly 180-year history of the academy that a Marine Corps officer has been nominated to take charge.

Continue reading...





Back to top



Kaupunki

Back to top

This site is down!

Back to top



Yle

Back to top

Trump nosti kunnianloukkauskanteen WSJ:n toimittajia vastaan

Kanne liittyy Wall Street Journalin julkaisemaan Jeffrey Epsteinia käsittelevään artikkeliin.



Yhdysvaltain oikeusministeriö pyytää tuomioistuinta julkistamaan valamiehistön Epstein-asiakirjat

Trumpin hallinto on kohdannut voimakasta arvostelua sen jälkeen, kun oikeusministeriö ilmoitti viime viikolla, ettei se julkaise enempää todistusaineistoa Epsteinin tutkinnasta.



Suomenlahdelle ilmaantunut intialaisfregatti on Venäjän ja Intian laivastoyhteistyön uusin esimerkki

Venäjä on toimittanut Intiaan 65 vuoden aikana 51 sota-alusta.



Mirellan keikkamäärä erottuu selvästi muista Ylen vertailussa: keikkoja samana päivänä eri puolilla Suomea

Mirella ja KAJ repeävät jopa kahdelle keikalle eri kaupungeissa samana päivänä. Suvi Teräsniskan vauhti on hieman rauhallisempi.



The Legend of Zelda -elokuvan pääroolit julki – tässä ovat Linkin ja Zeldan ihmisversiot

Elokuva ensi-ilta on suunniteltu toukokuulle 2027. Kyseessä on ensimmäinen pitkä elokuvasovitus rakastetusta pelisarjasta.



Polkujuoksijat sinnittelevät Lapin hirmuhelteissä – voittaja maaliin keskiviikkona, viimeiset ovat yhä matkalla

Järjestäjän mukaan hellettäkin suurempi uhka juoksijoille ovat jalkoihin tulevat rakot.



EU iski uusilla pakotteilla Venäjän öljyteollisuuteen: venäläisen öljyn hintakatto laskee selvästi

Suomalaisasiantuntija pitää EU:ssa syntynyttä sopua uusien pakotteiden vaikutuksiakin merkittävämpänä asiana.



Käännytystoimia ja kovempia puheita – EU:n maahanmuuttopolitiikka on nyt isossa muutoksessa

Euroopan unioni vastaanotti toukokuulta peräisin olevien viimeisimpien tilastojen mukaan 64  000 tuvapaikkahakemusta. Se on lähes neljänneksen vähemmän kuin vuotta aiemmin.



Arvokasta muinais­jäännöstä vahingoitettu Kokemäellä – pronssikautisen hautaröykkiön kiviä kerätty kekoihin

Satakunnan arkeologinen seura kertoo, että röykkiön kivistä oli koottu useita kekoja. Lisäksi alueen muinaisjäännös­kyltti oli rikottu.



Yritykset kaatuvat ympäriltä, mutta Osmo's Cosmos -bändi vain laajentaa bisneksiään Imatralla: ”Emme ole pyrkineet kasvuun”

Liiketiloista tyhjentyneellä Imatrankoskella Osmo's Cosmos ravintoloineen kulkee vastavirtaan. Neljäs laajennus avattiin nyt entisen urheiluliikkeen tiloihin.



YK: Etelä-Syyrian levottomuudet ajoivat kodeistaan lähes 80 000 ihmistä viikossa



Irtisanotut ulkomaiset hoitajat kokevat epätoivoa: Pohjois-Savon hyvinvointialue lupasi, että kaikki järjestyy

Pohjois-Savon hyvinvointialue purki 12 ulkomaisen työntekijänsä sopimukset koeaikana. Työntekijöiden mukaan työnantaja petti heidän odotuksensa ja syyllistyi syrjintään.



Näin puutiaisaivokuumetta on todettu tänä vuonna – infektiolääkäri: ”Tauti on selkeästi lisääntymässä”

Punkki­havaintojen määrä on kasvanut räjähdys­mäisesti tänä vuonna. THL:n asiantuntija muistuttaa, ettei havaintojen määrä ole suoraan kytköksissä puutiaisaivokuumetapausten määrään.



Kreml ja Ukraina: Rauhanneuvotteluja on tehostettava

Kokoamme tähän artikkeliin sodan tärkeimmät tapahtumat.





Back to top



CNN

Back to top

Markets digest bank earnings after recent turmoil



Still haven't filed your taxes? Here's what you need to know

So far this tax season, the IRS has received more than 90 million income tax returns for 2022.



Retail spending fell in March as consumers pull back

Spending at US retailers fell in March as consumers pulled back amid recessionary fears fueled by the banking crisis.



Analysis: Fox News is about to enter the true No Spin Zone

This is it.



Silicon Valley Bank collapse renews calls to address disparities impacting entrepreneurs of color

When customers at Silicon Valley Bank rushed to withdraw billions of dollars last month, venture capitalist Arlan Hamilton stepped in to help some of the founders of color who panicked about losing access to payroll funds.



Not only is Lake Powell's water level plummeting because of drought, its total capacity is shrinking, too

Lake Powell, the second-largest human-made reservoir in the US, has lost nearly 7% of its potential storage capacity since 1963, when Glen Canyon Dam was built, a new report shows.



These were the best and worst places for air quality in 2021, new report shows

Air pollution spiked to unhealthy levels around the world in 2021, according to a new report.



Big-box stores could help slash emissions and save millions by putting solar panels on roofs. Why aren't more of them doing it?

As the US attempts to wean itself off its heavy reliance on fossil fuels and shift to cleaner energy sources, many experts are eyeing a promising solution: your neighborhood big-box stores and shopping malls.



Look of the Week: Blackpink headline Coachella in Korean hanboks

Bringing the second day of this year's Coachella to a close, K-Pop girl group Blackpink made history Saturday night when they became the first Asian act to ever headline the festival. To a crowd of, reportedly, over 125,000 people, Jennie, Jisoo, Lisa and Rosé used the ground-breaking moment to pay homage to Korean heritage by arriving onstage in hanboks: a traditional type of dress.



Scientists identify secret ingredient in Leonardo da Vinci paintings

"Old Masters" such as Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli and Rembrandt may have used proteins, especially egg yolk, in their oil paintings, according to a new study.



How Playboy cut ties with Hugh Hefner to create a post-MeToo brand

Hugh Hefner launched Playboy Magazine 70 years ago this year. The first issue included a nude photograph of Marilyn Monroe, which he had purchased and published without her knowledge or consent.



'A definitive backslide.' Inside fashion's worrying runway trend

Now that the Fall-Winter 2023 catwalks have been disassembled, it's clear one trend was more pervasive than any collective penchant for ruffles, pleated skirts or tailored coats.



Michael Jordan's 1998 NBA Finals sneakers sell for a record $2.2 million

In 1998, Michael Jordan laced up a pair of his iconic black and red Air Jordan 13s to bring home a Bulls victory during Game 2 of his final NBA championship — and now they are the most expensive sneakers ever to sell at auction. The game-winning sneakers sold for $2.2 million at Sotheby's in New York on Tuesday, smashing the sneaker auction record of $1.47 million, set in 2021 by a pair of Nike Air Ships that Jordan wore earlier in his career.



The surreal facades of America's strip clubs

Some people travel the world in search of adventure, while others seek out natural wonders, cultural landmarks or culinary experiences. But French photographer François Prost was looking for something altogether different during his recent road trip across America: strip clubs.



Here's the real reason to turn on airplane mode when you fly

We all know the routine by heart: "Please ensure your seats are in the upright position, tray tables stowed, window shades are up, laptops are stored in the overhead bins and electronic devices are set to flight mode."



'I was up to my waist down a hippo's throat.' He survived, and here's his advice

Paul Templer was living his best life.



They bought an abandoned 'ghost house' in the Japanese countryside

He'd spent years backpacking around the world, and Japanese traveler Daisuke Kajiyama was finally ready to return home to pursue his long-held dream of opening up a guesthouse.



Relaxed entry rules make it easier than ever to visit this stunning Asian nation

Due to its remoteness and short summer season, Mongolia has long been a destination overlooked by travelers.



The most beautiful sections of China's Great Wall

Having lived in Beijing for almost 12 years, I've had plenty of time to travel widely in China.



Sign up to our newsletter for a weekly roundup of travel news



Nelly Cheboi, who creates computer labs for Kenyan schoolchildren, is CNN's Hero of the Year

Celebrities and musicians are coming together tonight to honor everyday people making the world a better place.



CNN Heroes: Sharing the Spotlight



Donate now to a Top 10 CNN Hero

Anderson Cooper explains how you can easily donate to any of the 2021 Top 10 CNN Heroes.



0% intro APR until 2024 is 100% insane



It's official: now avoid credit card interest into 2024



Experts: this is the best cash back card of 2022



Turn Your Rising Home Equity Into Cash You Can Use



Dream Big with a Home Equity Loan



Want Cash Out of Your Home? Here Are Your Best Options





Back to top



Hesari

Back to top

Venezuela | El Salvador kotiutti kaikki maahan Yhdysvalloista karkotetut venezuelalaiset

Venezuelalaisten kotiuttaminen on osa sopimusta, jossa Venezuela vapautti kymmenen yhdysvaltalaista ja useita poliittisia vankeja.



Amerikkalainen jalkapallo | Vaahteraliigassa pelaava Ty'Ran Dixon vietti vankilassa 67 päivää syyttömänä

Vaahteraliigassa Helsinki Wolverinesissa pelaava Ty’ran Dixon pidätettiin Bostonissa väärin perustein. Se tuhosi hänen mielenterveytensä.



Työriidat | Paltan toimitus­johtaja tyrmää IAU:n Haapasaaren väitteet: Ylimääräisistä korotuksista ei koskaan sovittu

Paltan toimitusjohtaja Tuomas Aarto katsoo, että koronapandemian vuoksi solmittu säästösopimus laadittiin yhteisymmärryksessä. Säästöt tarkoitettiin pysyviksi.



Pääkirjoitus | Sote kannustaa lääkäreitä kirjoittamaan diagnooseja

Sotesta paljastuu uusia yllätyksiä. Nyt on huomattu rahoitusmallin kannustavan hyvinvointialueita kirjaamaan lisää sairausdiagnooseja.



HS 50 vuotta sitten 19.7.1975 | Konsertit

Kaivopuistossa musisoivat Rock'n' Roll Band, Wigwam ja Dr. Feelgood



Muut lehdet | Ilmoja pitelee

Palstalle kootaan kiinnostavia näkemyksiä muusta mediasta.



Lukijan mielipide | Kiitos kaupungille upeista kukkaistutuksista

Kukkaistutukset tuovat iloa arjen keskelle.



Muistokirjoitus | Aktiiviselle lääkärille ikä oli vain numero

Antti Tapaninaho 1941–2025



HS-haastattelu | Saksan tunnetuin kirjailija varoittaa naisia myrkyllisistä suhteista, joista on vaikea lähteä

Palkittu kirjailija Jenny Erpenbeck kirjoitti Itä-Saksan lopun ajasta. Nyt Euroopassa eletään taas hetkeä, jolloin uusi aika on syrjäyttämässä vanhan todellisuuden. Yksi asia tuntuu säilyvän läpi kumousten: tunkkainen mieskatse.



HS Guizhoussa | Eliitillä on oma lomapaikka, jonne paahtava helle ei yllä

Hyväosaiset kaupunkilaiset pakenevat Kiinassa kesähelteitä vuoriston viileyteen. Ilmastokriisin synnyttämä muuttoliike voi samalla nostaa syrjäseutuja köyhyydestä.



Espoon areena | Syytöksiä rumasta pelistä Jussi Salonojan hallikaupassa: Kiekko-Espoon taustavoimilta kovaa kritiikkiä

Kilpaileva ostajaryhmä ihmettelee, miksi heidän kanssaan ei haluttu kunnolla edes neuvotella. Uudet omistajat nostivat miljoonaosingon pian kaupanteon jälkeen.



Asuminen | Hirvoset ostivat kodin Ahvenanmaalta – ihmiset ihmettelevät, miten se onnistui

Harri ja Merja Hirvonen ostivat kodin Ahvenanmaalta, vaikka mannersuomalaiset kuvittelevat usein, että se on mahdotonta. Touhussa oli tulla itku.



Syyria | Israel ja Syyria sopivat tulitauosta

Israel teki ilmaiskuja Damaskokseen ja Etelä-Syyriaan perustellen niitä Syyrian druusien suojelemisella.



Yhdysvallat | Trump nosti kanteen Epstein-jutusta ja vaatii 10 miljardin dollarin korvauksia

Lehti kertoi Trumpin kytköksistä seksuaalirikoksista tuomittuun liikemieheen Jeffrey Epsteiniin.



Jalkapallon EM-kisat | Espanja iski kaksi upeaa maalia ja eteni välieriin

Espanja teki kaksi maalia, mutta myös tuhlasi kaksi rangaistuspotkua.



Jalkapallo | Arsenal ja ManU hankkivat uudet pelaajat – yhteishinta yli 130 miljoonaa

Noni Madueke siirtyy Arsenaliin ja Bryan Mbeumo ManUun.



Yleisurheilu | Oskari Mörö menetti SE:n Antti Sainiolle ja ylistää nuorukaista: ”Huomenna tulee kultaa”

Oskari Mörön SE meni uusiksi, kun Antti Sainio kisasi Norjassa.



Yhdysvallat | Coldplayn konsertti näytti paljastavan salasuhteen, ja sosiaalinen media villiintyi

Pian videon julkaisun jälkeen internet täyttyi meemeistä ja spekuloinnista.



HS Leppävaarassa | Kävimme katsomassa, onko maa­uimalassa niin rauhatonta kuin some­väitteistä ja uutis­otsikoista voisi luulla

Viime päivien uutiset Leppävaaran maauimalasta tuntuvat kesäisen iloisessa tunnelmassa kaukaisilta.



Los Angeles | Ainakin kolme kuoli räjähdyksessä poliisien koulutus­keskuksessa

Median mukaan onnettomuudessa kuolleet olivat apulaissheriffejä.



Syyria | YK: Lähes 80 000 siiviiliä joutunut jättämään kotinsa väki­valtaisuuksien vuoksi

Alueelle saatiin tällä viikolla aikaan aselepo, mutta Syyria on sen jälkeen syyttänyt druuseja aselevon rikkomisesta.



Yleisurheilu | Kasperi Vehmaalle pituushypyn EM-pronssia

Kasperi Vehmaa ylsi mitaleille alle 23-vuotiaiden EM-kisoissa.



Liikenne | Junaliikenne kulkee jälleen normaalisti Pasilassa ja Tampereella

Erilliset onnettomuudet vaikuttivat lähijuniin pääkaupunkiseudulla ja junaliikenteeseen Tampereella perjantai-iltana.



Syyria | Syyrian presidentinkanslia kritisoi iskujaan jatkanutta Israelia

Etelä-Syyriassa viikonloppuna alkunsa saaneissa väkivaltaisuuksissa on kuollut liki 600 ihmistä.



Lukijan mielipide | Fossiilikapitalismi on kestämätön talousjärjestelmä

Olivatpa kapitalismin historialliset saavutukset millaiset tahansa, talousjärjestelmänä se on kestämätön.



Hyönteiset | Mikään ei auttanut paarmoihin, joten Hanna Marno työskentelee öisin

Siikaisissa kyläläiset ovat huomanneet, että paarmoja on enemmän kuin viime kesänä.



Parisuhde | Ruuhkavuodet tai eriävät tulevaisuuden haaveet voivat olla syynä nopealle erolle

Kriisit ovat normaali osa parisuhdetta, ja niistä voi selvitä. Ero ei kuitenkaan aina ole huono vaihtoehto.



Penkkipunnerrus | Jani-Markus Mannerkorpi joutui rajuun onnettomuuteen

Penkkipunnerruksen Euroopan mestari Jani-Markus Mannerkorpi ottaa syyt pyöräilyonnettomuudesta omille niskoilleen.



Kirja-arvio | Nobelisti Abdulrazak Gurnah paljastaa kolonialismin jäljet

Nobel-palkitun Abdulrazak Gurnahin Hylkääminen sukeltaa syvälle Itä-Afrikan monikulttuuriseen historiaan.



Kirjakaupat | Kaisa-talossa lopettavalle Rosebudin kirja­kaupalle on tarjottu uutta tilaa, kertoo toimitus­johtaja

Rosebud Sivullisen vuokrasopimus on irtisanottu, kerrotaan kirjakaupan Facebook-sivuilla.



HS Turussa | Aurajoki­ranta muuttui pussi­kalja­paratiisiksi, jossa vallitsee eurooppalainen vapaus

Aurinko muuttaa Aurajoen rannat yhdeksi Suomen halvimmista ”terasseista”. Pussikaljoittelu keskellä Turkua on sosiaalisesti hyväksyttyä, kunhan ei roskaa eikä häiriköi muita.



HS testaa | Testasimme: Yhdeksän Helsingin terassia erottuu massasta

Testasimme yhdeksän kesäterassia Helsingin kantakaupungissa. Seassa on piilotettuja helmiä ja paikka, joka on noussut jo ilmiöksi.



Pörssi | Lindexin tulosjulkistus oli markkinoille pettymys, Nokian renkaat yllätti positiivisesti

Suurista yhtiöistä Orionin ja Wärtsilän osakekurssit vahvistuivat tulosjulkistusten jälkeen selvästi.



Yleisurheilu | Antti Sainio juoksi EM-finaaliin SE-ajalla

Antti Sainio on uusi SE-mies.



Lukijan mielipide | Euroopan kolmanneksi lihavin kansa tarvitsee terveysveron

Terveysperusteinen verotus olisi yksi väline edistää kansanterveyttä ja ehkäistä elintapasairauksia ohjaamalla kulutusta terveellisempään suuntaan.



Ukraina-seuranta | Putin ja Erdoğan keskustelivat Ukrainasta

HS seuraa Venäjän hyökkäyssotaa ja sen seurauksia hetki hetkeltä.



Kolumni | En anna Googlen muistaa katujen nimiä puolestani

Karttasovellusten käyttö ulkoistaa muistin ja suuntavaiston Googlelle. Samalla yhteys paikannimiin hälvenee.



70-vuotias | Toimittaja Juha Roiha kääntyi ortodoksiksi

Juha Roihan tie ortodoksiseen kirkkoon oli pitkä.



Brasilia | Entiselle presidentille Bolsonarolle määrättiin nilkkapanta

Määräyksen antoi Brasilian korkeimman oikeuden tuomari.



Sanajuuri | Kokeile, pärjäätkö Sanajuuri-pelissä ilman vihjeitä

Sanajuuri on Helsingin Sanomien peli, jossa kasvatetaan sanoja lisäämällä edelliseen aina yksi uusi kirjain. Uusi peli joka päivä.



HS Visio | Mökkeily tekee suomalaisista köyhiä

Suomalaisten rahoista iso siivu on sidottuna kesämökkeihin, jotka ovat suuren osan vuoden tyhjillään. Eivätkä kulut lopu koskaan.



Belgia | 1,5-vuotias lapsi kuoli, kun isä unohti hänet autoon työpäiväksi

Torstaina sattunutta tapausta tutkitaan tappona.



Jalkapallo | Aki Riihilahti: Elämäni absurdein kaksiosainen ottelu

HJK kohtaa Konferenssiliigan toisella karsintakierroksella bulgarialaisen Arda Kardzhalin.



Miniristikko | Mennään katsomaan bändejä livenä ja ratkotaan niihin liittyviä pulmia!

HS:n 5x5-miniristikko ilmestyy päivittäin vaihtuvalla aiheella. Kokeile saatko kaikki sanat omille paikoilleen.



EU-budjetti | Uudet EU-verot saavat tyrmäyksen jäsenmailta

Jäsenmaiden vastustus uhkaa viedä pohjan Euroopan komission esittämältä 2 000 miljardin euron budjetilta.



Pääkirjoitus | Trump suututti Epsteinillä ydin­kannattaja­kuntansa

Yhdysvaltain presidentti Donald Trump ja hänen aseenkantajansa villitsivät pitkään liikemies Jeffrey Epsteiniin liittyvää salaliittoteoriaa. Nyt he yrittävät esittää, ettei Epsteinistä kannata enää puhua. Kannattajat ovat toista mieltä.



Turismi | Pohjois-Korea sulkee uuden rantakohteensa ulkomaisilta turisteilta

Viime viikolla rantakohteessa vieraili Venäjän ulkoministeri Sergei Lavrov.



Parhaita timanttijuttuja | Mitä ihmiselle tapahtuu, kun hän jättää somen? Kolme kirkastuksen kokenutta kertoo

Alle kolmekymppiset kasvoivat puhelin kädessä, ja siksi he tietävät, mikä valta somella on. He myös tietävät, mitä saa, kun sieltä uskaltaa lähteä.



Ahvenanmaa | 44-vuotias mies vangittiin epäiltynä taposta ja kahdesta tapon yrityksestä

Mediatietojen mukaan epäilty ja uhrit ovat Ruotsin kansalaisia.



Oulu | Miehen epäillään puukottaneen ravintolan työntekijää Oulun keskustassa

Poliisin käsityksen mukaan epäilty oli tekoaikana päihtynyt. Uhri ei ole hengenvaarassa.



Lukijan mielipide | Vammaispalvelujen maksukorotukset ovat epäinhimillisiä ja eriarvoistavia

Kaupunki, joka vie vammaisilta ihmisiltä mahdollisuuden osallistua yhteiskuntaan ja elää ihmisarvoista elämää, ei ole hyvinvoinnin mallikaupunki vaan sen irvikuva.



Marjat | Mustikka­satoa uhkaava sieni leviää nyt vauhdilla

Tänä kesänä sienestä on tehty jo yli 70 havaintoa, kun aiemmilta kymmeneltä vuodelta ei ole tehty yhtäkään.



Jalkapallo | Ruotsissa rajua kritiikkiä vastuuta pakoilleille EM-tähdille: ”Häpeällistä”

Ruotsin Smilla Holmerg, 18, epäonnistui EM-kisojen puolivälieräottelun rangaistuspotkukisassa valtavien paineiden alla.



Venäjän hyökkäys | Venäjä on menettänyt Ukrainassa yli miljoona miestä, mutta se ei todennäköisesti hidasta sotaa

HS selvitti, millainen merkitys Venäjän suurilla rintamatappioilla on sodalle.



Yöelämä | HS etsii bileseuraa Espoon yöhön – Ilmoittaudu!

Etsinnässä on noin 20–27-vuotiaita juhlijoita.



Yhdysvallat | Kongressi hyväksyi Trumpin rahoitusleikkauksen: uhkaa synnyttää lisää media-autiomaita

Trumpin rahoitusleikkauksissa ulkomaanapu ja julkisrahoitteinen media saavat kovia osumia. Yhdysvalloissa on jo nyt satoja piirikuntia ilman yhtäkään uutisorganisaatiota.



Juomat | Lonkeron myynti putosi, koska alkukesä oli pelkkää sadetta

Viileä alkukesä näkyi suomalaisten juomatottumuksissa. Erityisesti lonkerot ja siiderit jäivät kauppojen hyllyille.



Viikon eläin | Pienet vihreät vihulaiset tekevät jo tuhoa Ukrainassa – Suomessa ei vielä havaintoja

Saarnenjalosoukko voi nakertaa puut pahaan kuntoon.



Elokuvat | Nintendo valitsi näyttelijät Zelda-elokuvaan

Ohjaajaksi on valittu Wes Ball, joka tunnetaan Apinoiden planeetta -elokuvasarjan viimeisimmästä osasta.



Tuomiot | 35-vuotias mies esitteli penistään toimistossa ja kosketteli 16-vuotiasta bussissa

Käräjäoikeus tuomitsi miehen kahdesta seksuaalisesta kajoamisesta kahdeksan kuukauden ehdolliseen vankeuteen.



Lukijan mielipide | Yrittäjien riskinotto näyttää esimerkkiä muille

Jokainen, joka yrittää, epäonnistuu joskus. Mutta se joka ei yritä, ei voi koskaan onnistua.



Kuolleet | Felix Baumgartner on kuollut: tämä kokeneen extreme­urheilijan turmasta tiedetään

Felix Baumgartner kuoli torstaina varjoliito-onnettomuudessa Italiassa



Huijaukset | Poliisi varoittaa Counter Strike -peliin liittyvistä huijauksista

Huijauksissa ostaja ei ole saanut toiselta pelaajalta itselleen lisätuotetta, josta hän on maksanut.



Kauppa | Tokmannin tulosvaroitus iski heti osakkeen arvoon

Yhtiö arvioi liikevaihdon ja liikevoiton olevan ennakoitua heikompia tänä vuonna.



Konserttiarvio | Poriin oli tultu kuulemaan uudistuneen Roxetten olennaisia sytkäri­balladeja

Täydellinen kesäkeli ei aiheuttanut ryntäystä, kun Kirjurinluodon nurmikenttä vihersi avauksessa jopa puolityhjänä. Roxetten uusi laulaja Lena Philipsson hoiti osuutensa kunnialla.



Ralli | Suuryllättäjä Oliver Solberg johtaa Viron MM-rallia

Kalle Rovanperä käy sekuntitaistelua Ott Tänakia vastaan.



Netflix | Huipputuloksen tehneen Netflixin sarjassa käytettiin tekoälyä, mikä nopeutti tuotantoa ja laski kustannuksia

Tekoäly vauhditti Netflixin tuotantoa. Ensimmäinen AI-kohtaus nähtiin argentiinalaisessa The Eternauts -sarjassa.



Kolumni | Teflontalous ei kestä kriisejä ikuisesti

Kriisejä nousee esiin liukuhihnalta, mutta pörssit vain porskuttavat.



Terveys | Trumpin sairastama veri­suoni­tauti on yleinen ja yleensä vaaraton, sanoo lääkäri

Valkoinen talo kertoi presidentti Donald Trumpin kärsivän laskimoiden vajaatoiminnasta. Erikoislääkäri Maarit Venermon mukaan vajaatoiminta voi oireilla turvotuksena, kipuna ja kramppeina.



Lemmikit | Rosa Salo teetti koirastaan taljan

Tammikuussa kuollut Lumo-koira oli Rosa Salolle rakas perheenjäsen.



Osavuosikatsaukset | Nokian Renkaiden tulos kasvoi yllättävän paljon ja osake kallistuu tuntuvasti

Suurimman liiketoimintaryhmän liikevoitto kasvoi 124 prosenttia.



Lukijan mielipide | Lobbareiden ohella virkamiestenkin on sitouduttava avoimuuteen

Demokratiassa päättäjien ja viranomaisten on siedettävä julkista keskustelua myös keskeneräisistä asioista.



Rikokset | Rajan yli tulee yhä enemmän elin­tarvikkeita, joita voi olla vaarallista syödä

Elintarvikerikokset ovat iso bisnes, ja epäilyjen määrät ovat moninkertaistuneet viime vuosina. Kesällä marjoihin liittyvät epäselvyydet korostuvat.



Yleisurheilu | Anni-Linnea Alasen kausi on ohi: ”Päätin puhaltaa pelin poikki”

Keihäänheiton nuorten EM-mitalistilla on terveyshuolia.



Konserttiarvio | Mustakallio-kilpailussa menestyneet laulaja­kyvyt osoittivat moni­puolisuutensa

Elsa Angervolla on linjakas mezzosopraano, Martin Iivarisella järeä basso.



Seksi | Kondomeja kotiin ostava vanhempi saattaa tehdä teinille karhun­palveluksen

Vaikka korvat kuinka punoittaisivat, puhu seksistä silti teinille, seksuaaliterapeutti painottaa.



Kierrätys | Umpinainen biojäteastia voi lisätä pahaa hajua – Näin biojätteet pysyvät hajuttomina kuumallakin säällä

Biojätteet voi kerätä esimerkiksi kartonkiseen muropakettiin, vinkkaa HSY:n asiantuntija.



Televisio | Suomi-viittauksistakin tunnetun Stephen Colbertin keskustelu­ohjelma lopetetaan

Päätös herättää epäilyksiä televisiokanavan emoyhtiön ja Donald Trumpin sovinnon jälkeen.



Astrofysiikka | Massiivisin mitattu mustien aukkojen törmäys synnytti jättimäisen mustan aukon

Syntynyt musta aukko on 225 Auringon massan kokoinen. Törmänneet aukot olivat nekin merkillisen massiivisia.



Yleisurheilu | Maratonin ME-nainen Ruth Chepngetich antoi positiivisen dopingnäytteen

Kenian maratontähti asetettiin väliaikaiseen kilpailukieltoon.



Merenkulku | Intialainen sotalaiva kävi Suomen aluevesillä – alus luovutettiin Intian merivoimille Kaliningradissa kuun alussa

Alus on poistunut Suomen aluevesiltä. Tapauksessa ei epäillä alueloukkausta.



Asuminen | Helsingin jokaisessa opiskelija­kämpässä on syksyllä asukas, mutta talvea odotetaan kauhulla

Elokuussa opiskelijat siirtyvät asumistuen piiristä opintotuen asumislisän piiriin. Muutoksen arvioidaan pienentävän yli sadan tuhannen opiskelijan tukea.



HS-analyysi | Abortti ja plagiaatti­syytökset ajoivat Saksan politiikan kaaokseen

Saksan hallitus ajautui kriisiin abortista, eikä se lupaa Euroopalle hyvää.



Pyöräily | Tadej Pogačar kahmaisi vankan otteen Ranskan ympäriajon voitosta

Slovenialaistähti on matkalla kohti uransa neljättä Tourin voittoa.



Viinikriitikon valinta | Nyt löytyi erityisen hyvä valkoviini kesä­kasvisten kylkeen

Viiniasiantuntija Jouko Mykkänen suosittelee tällä kertaa italialaista valkoviiniä, Soavea, jolla on ollut halvan perusviinin maine.



Lukijan mielipide | Olisiko Helene Schjerfbeckistä Helsingin vetonaulaksi?

Olisiko Helsinkiin mahdollista saada Helene Schjerfbeckin nimeä kantava museo?



Osavuosikatsaukset | Wärtsilän tilaukset kasvoivat kaikkien aikojen ennätykseen

Energiamarkkinoiden uudistuminen hyödyttää Wärtsilää. Vuoden toinen neljännes oli yhtiölle vahva, sanoo toimitusjohtaja.



Jalkapallo | MTV: Alexander Ring hyvästeli isänsä ennen HJK:n europeliä

Alexander Ringin isä menehtyi viikonloppuna syöpään.



Terveys | Kesäloman hiilihappojuomat ja rasvainen grilliruoka närästävät helposti

Närästys on yleinen ja yleensä vaaraton vaiva. Erikoislääkäri neuvoo, milloin tulisi hakeutua hoitoon.



Syyria | Israel kiistää jatkaneensa ilmaiskuja Syyriaan

Syyrian valtiollinen uutistoimisto Sana uutisoi eilen, että Israel olisi iskenyt myöhään illalla as-Suwaydan kaupungin laitamille.



Levyarvio | Wet Leg murisee niin, että kuulija pelästyy efektin tulevan omasta vatsasta

Wet Leg nosti kitarapohjaisen indierockin takaisin listojen kärkeen. Britti-indien uusi ykkösyhtye kuulostaa toisella albumillaan paikoin yllättävän amerikkalaiselta.



Kadonnut perhe | Poliisi antoi eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen kadonneesta perheestä

Määräys mahdollistaa viranomaisten yhteistyön ja etsinnän tehostamisen myös Suomen ulkopuolella.



Kysely | Vastaa kyselyyn ja kerro, miten suhtaudut lapsesi kiroiluun

Suhtaudutaanko perheessäsi kiroiluun lepsusti vai tiukasti? HS tekee juttua kasvatuksesta ja lasten kiroilusta.



Turvapaikanhakijat | Säilössä viruneet pikkulapset aiotaan käännyttää äitinsä kanssa Italiaan

Suomen viranomaiset katsovat, että nainen lapsineen voidaan palauttaa Italiaan, jossa perhe on jo saanut kansainvälistä suojelua.



Rikosepäilyt | Poliisi etsii Siilitiellä lapseen käsiksi käynyttä miestä

Helsingin poliisi pyytää vihjeitä maanantaina tapahtuneesta väkivallanteosta.



HS-analyysi | Maailman ykkös­yhtye Beatles ei kiinnosta enää nuoria, ja siihen on monta syytä

Beatles on jo muisteltu puhki, eivätkä yhtyeet juuri nyt kiinnosta. Maailman kuuluisimman yhtyeen Beatlesin asema horjuu, kirjoittaa Janne Mäkelä.



Venäjä | Jopa oman puolueen sisällä vastustettiin, kun Suna Kymäläinen halusi kieltää venäläisten maa­kaupat

Kun kansanedustaja Suna Kymäläinen ajoi ensi kertaa kiinteistökieltoa, pidettiin asiaa hänen mukaansa ”kylähöperön juttuina”.



Ukrainan sota | Slovakia taipui, EU hyväksyi uudet kovat Venäjä-pakotteet

Uudet talouspakotteet iskevät Venäjän tärkeisiin sektoreihin eli öljyvientiin ja pankkeihin. Öljyn hintakattoa lasketaan ensimmäistä kertaa.



Uutisvisa | Mikä oli suosituin kuukausi avioliiton solmimiseen Suomessa vuonna 2024? Hei, me mennään naimisiin!

HS:n Uutisvisa testaa, oletko ajan tasalla. Kymmenen kysymyksen avulla saat selville, kuinka hyvin olet lukenut Hesarisi viime aikoina.





Back to top



Al Jazeera

Back to top

US attorney general paves way for more convicted criminals to own guns

Bondi says the proposed change gives her discretion over who can own firearms, in a move opposed by gun control groups.



Palestinian child shot dead in West Bank by Israeli forces amid land grabs

The 13-year-old was hit with live ammunition near Jenin and reportedly denied medical treatment by Israeli soldiers.



Hezbollah says it will not give up weapons despite US proposal

Knockback deals potential blow to US diplomat Thomas Barrack’s efforts to help broker Israel-Lebanon peace.



Trump says newly signed crypto law will establish ‘American dominance’

White House features crypto industry leaders investigated by the government, as critics highlight Trump's crypto ties.



Venezuela frees 10 Americans in swap for deported migrants in El Salvador

President Donald Trump had deported nearly 200 Venezuelan men to an El Salvador prison, raising fears for their safety.



Who is Handala, the inspiration behind latest Gaza flotilla ship

Handala is the new Freedom Flotilla vessel carrying activists and humanitarian aid to challenge the Israeli blockade.



Slovenia’s parliament votes to legalise assisted dying

Slovenia will join several other countries that have legalised the practice, including Australia and Belgium.



Three killed in explosion at Los Angeles Sheriff’s training facility

Three members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department were killed in an explosion at a training facility.



Is the voting system in the UK fair?

Government wants to lower the voting age, saying it aims to modernise UK democracy.



Explosion at Los Angeles police training centre kills three officers

Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna said there is 'no threat to the community' after the deadly blast closed local roads.



Is the international community finally speaking up about Israel?

Many across the world are rounding on Israel's war on Gaza, with states in the 'Global South' leading the way.



UN refugee agency warns funding cuts may leave 11 million without aid

Crisis compounded after United States, which provided 40 percent of UNHCR funding last year, slashed its contribution.



CBS cancels Colbert’s Late Show amid pending Paramount-Skydance merger

Despite financial pressures on the late night TV model, experts say the timing suggests political motives.



Hamas says Israel rejected ceasefire deal releasing all captives in Gaza

Abu Obeida says there will be no guarantee of a return to partial deals if Israel leaves the negotiating table again.



Dubois-Usyk 2: Londoner ‘on a different level’ before title fight

'Young lion' Daniel Dubois faces unbeaten Oleksandr Usyk in heavyweight title showdown at Wembley on Saturday.



Felix Baumgartner death: Witnesses heard loud boom before crash

Felix Baumgartner's fatal paragliding crash was preceded by large boom as it spun to the ground, according to witnesses.



Why is Taiwan training for war with China?

The increase in Taiwan’s annual drills against invasion from mainland China is crossing paths with civilian life.



Analysis: PKK recalibrates from armed struggle to politics in Turkiye

Support from the PKK and Turkiye's politicians signals a change after decades of conflict, but pitfalls remain.



US withdraws from WHO pandemic response reforms

Washington says amendments to global health regulations risk interfering in US 'sovereign right to make health policy'.



Germany and EU allies push for ‘tougher, stricter’ asylum rules

Berlin calls itself ‘locomotive’ of European crackdown on immigration, expelling 81 Afghans before meeting.



Arsenal seal Madueke signing from Chelsea in divisive move

Arsenal has signed England international Noni Madueke from Chelsea despite widespread criticism from club's fans.



Protesters demand Malaysia reject US ambassadorial nominee Nick Adams

Protesters in Kuala Lumpur demanded Malaysia reject US ambassadorial nominee Nick Adams.



G20 finance ministers reach consensus on key economic issues

US set to shift its approach towards G20 when it takes over group's rotating presidency from South Africa in December.



New reports cast doubt on impact of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites

Citing intelligence assessments, NBC News and Washington Post report that only Fordow site was destroyed in US attack.



Why do US prosecutors want a one-day sentence for Breonna Taylor shooting?

Taylor, an emergency medical technician, was killed in her home during a botched police raid in March 2020.





Back to top



New York Times

Back to top

UK, France and Germany Plan for a Post-U.S. Future

The leaders of France, Germany and Britain are building parallel diplomatic institutions to defend Europe as President Trump retreats from the continent.



Who Are the Druse? The Religious Minority at the Center of Israel and Syria’s Tensions

Spread across Syria, Lebanon and Israel, the secretive religious minority has long balanced integration and independence. Now, members are at the heart of the region’s shifting power struggles.



Floods and Heavy Rain Kill Dozens in Pakistan

Relentless rain began on Wednesday, causing flooding in several cities and across vast rural stretches in the province of Punjab.



Bolsonaro, Brazil’s Former President, Ordered to Wear Ankle Monitor Before Trial

Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered Jair Bolsonaro, the former president, to stay home most hours, defying President Trump’s demands that charges against him be dropped.



Blood in the Streets and Death in the Air: Residents Survey Damage in Syrian City

In the southern city of Sweida, residents describe the aftermath of a wave of sectarian violence.



Extra! Extra! Read All About Last Newspaper Hawker in Paris

Ali Akbar started selling papers on the streets in 1974. He is still at it, winning over Parisians and presidents with persistence, humor and his signature catchphrase: “Ça y est!”



Cuban Minister Resigns After Accusing Beggars of Faking Poverty

The labor and social security minister drew public outrage when she said “there are no beggars” in Cuba, where many people struggle to afford food.



The UK Plans to Lower the Voting Age to 16. Here’s What to Know.

The plan has been described as the largest expansion of voting rights in Britain in decades.



Prominent Human Rights Group Flees El Salvador

The group, Cristosal, has investigated prison deaths and torture under President Nayib Bukele. Its employees were threatened and surveilled, its director said.



Iraq Shopping Mall Fire Kills at Least 61

Local officials blamed shoddy construction and a lack of preparedness for the scale of the tragedy at the newly opened building.



Trump’s Brazil Tariff Threats Rekindle Support for President Lula

Once called the planet’s most popular politician, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil faced long odds in next year’s election. President Trump’s tariffs are changing that.



China’s Aircraft Carriers Push Into Waters Long Dominated by U.S.

Recent drills near Japan reflect China’s ambitions to extend its navy’s reach and exert greater influence, in the Pacific and beyond.



Why Israel Attacked Syria

For weeks, Israel has engaged in back-channel talks over a diplomatic agreement with the Syrian government. Its strikes on Damascus this week highlight a lack of strategic clarity.



Israeli Strike on a Gaza Church Kills Three

As cease-fire talks stalled, a deadly strike on a Catholic church in Gaza City prompted Pope Leo XIV to call for an immediate end to the fighting.



Rubio Restricts U.S. Criticism of Tainted Foreign Elections

A State Department cable telling officials to avoid comments on the “fairness or integrity” of most elections continues a U.S. turn away from promoting democratic values abroad.



Prisoner Swap Frees Americans in Venezuela for Migrants in El Salvador

A deal freed 10 Americans and permanent U.S. residents detained in Venezuela, for more than 250 Venezuelans imprisoned in El Salvador after being expelled from the U.S.



Heavy Monsoon Rains Kill Dozens in Pakistan

The relentless rain caused flooding across the country’s most populous province. Many of those killed have been children, officials said.



Felix Baumgartner, Skydiver Who Jumped From the Edge of Space, Dies Paragliding at 56

Nicknamed “Fearless Felix,” he jumped from the edge of space in 2012.



Friday Briefing: Trump’s Order on Epstein Records

Plus, panic-buying Korean beauty products



Musk Clears Final Hurdles for Tesla and Starlink in India

In the first tangible inroads Elon Musk has sought for years in India, Starlink passed a final regulatory hurdle and Tesla opened its first India store.



Iran’s Fordo Nuclear Site Was Badly Damaged by U.S. Strikes, New Assessment Finds

A clearer picture begins to emerge of what the Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites achieved.



5 Charged in U.C. Berkeley Professor’s Killing in Greece, Including His Ex-Wife

Przemyslaw Jeziorski, who taught quantitative marketing at the Haas School of Business, was shot several times on July 4 outside Athens, the authorities said.



Friday Briefing: Bloodshed in a Syrian City

Plus, panic-buying Korean beauty products



Interior Dept. to Put Wind and Solar Projects Through Stricter Political Review

Industry groups said the directive could create new delays and bottlenecks for renewable energy projects across the country.





Back to top



Reuters

Back to top

This site is down!

Back to top



NPR

Back to top

The on-and-off romance between the U.S. and China's film industries

No country can come close to the amount of money Americans spend at the box office… until China came along. The U.S. and Chinese film industries have a long history, with shifting power dynamics.



Brazil's Bolsonaro ordered to wear ankle monitor ahead of trial

Authorities in Brazil, worried that the former far right president is a flight risk, are imposing new restrictions on his movements. The tough surveillance moves come as President Trump continues to voice strong support for the ex-leader who is facing charges of plotting a coup to stay in power.



10 Americans are freed by Venezuela in a prisoner swap for migrants in El Salvador

Venezuela has freed 10 Americans in exchange for Venezuelans whom the United States had sent to a prison in El Salvador.



The Downstream Effects of China's Rare Earth Mining

China has nearly cornered the market in rare earth minerals, which are a necessary component to much of our technology today. But China sources some of those rare earths and other heavy metals from neighboring Myanmar. And the ramped up in production there is causing downstream environmental concerns in Thailand. We go to Thailand to understand the issue.



Here are some of the newest UNESCO World Heritage sites

Bavarian palaces, imperial tombs in China and memorials to Khmer Rouge victims are among the sites being recognized by the United Nations agency.



Syrian forces who fought Druze militias leave Sweida province under a ceasefire

The conflict had drawn airstrikes against Syrian forces by neighboring Israel in defense of the Druze before a truce halted most of the fighting.



Facing threats, leading human rights group exits El Salvador

El Salvador's most prominent human rights group says it's been forced into exile, citing threats and harassment from the government of President Nayib Bukele.



China's Stranglehold on Coveted Rare Earth Minerals

The U.S. once controlled the market on rare earth minerals, sought after for the production of cell phones, computers, electric and hybrid vehicles, and more. But in the last few decades, China has cornered that market and surpassed the US. We explore how.



How China created a chokehold on the rare earths industry

China has been able to entirely cut off Europe and the U.S. from several critical rare earth metals. How did it develop such a stranglehold on an industry the U.S. once controlled?



The U.K. will lower its voting age to 16. Could the U.S. follow suit?

The British government aims to make all 16- and 17-year-olds eligible to vote starting in the next U.K. general election. Some voting age limits are changing in the U.S., but only at the local level.





Back to top



The Cipher Brief

Back to top

Expert Q&A: Putin Overplayed His Hand with Trump on Ukraine

EXPERT Q&A — President Donald Trump has offered a strong hand of support to Ukraine in recent days, pledging new weapons and threatening Russia with tariffs and sanctions if it does not end the war. It’s a reversal from previous engagement with Moscow, which has failed to result in any substantial progress to peace.

The Cipher Brief spoke with former senior CIA officer and 6-time station chief Ralph Goff - who has traveled to Ukraine and the region multiple times since the Russian war in Ukraine began - about why he believes Putin has pushed too far this time and about how Europe sees the Russian threat beyond Ukraine. This interview - which you'll only find in The Cipher Brief - has been edited for length and clarity.

The Cipher Brief: You were in Lithuania during the NATO summit. What was your sense there about the threat that Russia really poses to Europe today?

Goff: Unlike the United States, where most people probably followed the NATO summit tangentially, the summit was pretty much front and center in the news in Lithuania. The Baltic States, being frontline states, the NATO border with the Russian Federation, the people there, not just the politicians, but the people, the public, tend to follow these security issues such as NATO quite closely because they see the threat literally every day across the border.

It was interesting because the summit was pretty much a victory lap by President Trump. In his first administration, he pressured Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and the others to increase their military spending. And he had some success there. But then of course, there was some backsliding in the intervening years. And now, once again, he's been pressuring our European allies to step up their defense spending, seeking this 5% commitment from the member states, which he by and large got. The summit was interesting because he got what he wanted.

The Cipher Brief: Trump may be getting what he wants from NATO, but he's certainly not getting what he wants from Russian President Vladimir Putin — which is to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine. His frustration seems to be growing over the last few weeks as he's realized that Putin is not really making any significant progress toward a ceasefire deal.

Goff: I think Putin has drastically overplayed his hand with President Trump. I think Putin, the old KGB case officer, was rather condescending to the president. I think he overestimated his skills as a case officer, where he thought he could manipulate and flatter the president into performing the way he wanted — and that didn't happen.

President Trump likes President Putin; they're both very transactional people. From President Vladimir Putin’s side, all he had to do was behave himself. And he didn't. He had President Trump bludgeoning Kyiv into a position to accept some sort of peace negotiations. And the Ukrainians were in line. Meanwhile in Russia, they did nothing. Vladimir Putin, in fact, doubled down. In the last week, the air attacks on Ukraine have been unprecedented. Before, the norm was 30 to 40, maybe 80 drones at night attacking various Ukrainian cities. Now they're firing hundreds of them at night, along with scores of cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, air-to-air missiles, the S-300s used in ground attack mode.

Putin has doubled down looking to break the Ukrainian will with his attacks, and it hasn't worked. The exact opposite has happened. Now he's got President Trump upset with him. President Trump feels that he’s done everything he could to mollify Putin and kind of see things his way, and it hasn't worked. So now it's time to try something else. That had a lot to do with how he changed his mind on NATO as well.

When Putin invaded Ukraine, he gave them one one bloody gift: he gave them their national identity. After the attack, it was clear to Ukrainians they were Ukrainians. Their national identity was firm. And Donald Trump kind of did the same thing where he kind of turned his back on NATO. He expressed his skepticism, he kind of made them think that perhaps at some point the United States wouldn't not take a leading role in NATO and force the Europeans to grow up to suddenly not just talk about playing a more active role in NATO but actually do it as well. So now instead of just meetings where they issue polite statements, you have NATO where they're spending more money and they're rebuilding their defense industrial complex. So it's a big change, and I would say Vladimir Putin has no one to blame but himself.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

The Cipher Brief: As of Monday, July 14, President Trump was giving Vladimir Putin another 50 days to come to an agreement to cease fire. From a non-expert perspective, I would think that the Russian President would use that 50 days to pound Ukraine even harder to try to create as much devastation as he can. How likely do you think that President Putin is going to change any part of his behavior in this 50-day window that President Trump has offered?

Goff: One thing Vladimir Putin is very consistent about is that he does not respond to pressure. It takes a lot to get Putin to move and it's going to take a lot more than a 50 day deadline, right? President Trump has become very fond of deadlines such as the deadline imposed on Iran before striking them. I guess that's a tool that he sees some usefulness for.

But with Vladimir Putin, I don't really think deadlines are gonna have any impact. What will matter is the actions that come through. You've got a very robust set of sanctions that the Senate has prepared under the leadership of Senator Lindsey Graham. He says something like 84 senators are in support of what is supposedly a more robust package of sanctions than the White House had developed. So we'll see where that goes.

And then there’s also getting the Europeans to crack down. Getting the Europeans not just to commit to spending more money, but to also commit to providing that aid immediately to the Ukrainians. Then there's things like getting Europe fully off of Russian oil. They're still buying oil and gas from Russia. Although they say by the end of 2027, I think they're supposed to be off of it. And in the meantime, things like cracking down on the so-called shadow fleet that the Russians have. There's a lot that can be done there to stem the flow of oil out of Russia and the money that goes back in for that oil.

And then things like when you see provocations in the Baltic Sea — sabotage of underwater internet cables or other type of infrastructure between the Nordic states and the Baltics — that there’s a response. Maybe we're seeing a hint of that with what triggered some remarks from Russia, where the Estonians did a test firing of their HIMARS batteries out to sea. It shows that they can cover a good chunk of the Baltic Sea from the shores of Estonia. So, there's a lot that the NATO countries and the United States can do to put pressure on Putin within that 50-day window. The trick is not to wait until the end of it, but to start ratcheting out now.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The Cipher Brief: What would you be looking for next that might signal that things are getting worse when it comes to Russian's actions in Ukraine and vis-a-vis Europe?

Goff: The Baltics in particular come to mind. You've got sizable Russian minorities in the Baltic regions. For instance, Estonia is a country of about 1.4 million people and they have about 300,000 Russians, the bulk of whom live in one area kind of in the northeast, the town of Narva. One could see a situation where little green men show up in Narva to protect the Russian population from some sort of perceived Estonian nationalists. Then you know what we're looking at is not just the Crimea where russia successfully annexed a part of the Ukraine, but an incursion into a NATO country which is protected under Article Five. I would say any kind of information operations against Estonia and the other Baltic countries, Latvia and Lithuania, any kind of increased sabotage activity, gray zone activity in the Baltics, that would be signs that maybe there's worse to come. So we really have to be vigilant there.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.




Ukraine’s Defense may Hinge on Offensive Operations



CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING – Russia has been bombarding Ukrainian cities with massive aerial assaults, two days after U.S. President Donald Trump pledged to send more anti-missile weapons systems to Kyiv. Trump also issued an ultimatum of additional U.S. sanctions if Russian President Vladimir Putin fails to end his attacks and agree to a ceasefire within 50 days – as of Monday.

Amid the barrage of Russian attacks, experts note that the commitment of additional Patriot systems will allow Ukraine to defend itself but won’t do much to move the needle toward ending the war, unless Putin flinches at the threat of sanctions, which he has not done. “Ukraine was given just enough support not to lose against Russia under President Joe Biden, but never enough support to actually win and end this war,” writes former Chief of CIA’s Central Eurasia Division Rob Dannenberg in a piece exclusive to The Cipher Brief this week. Meanwhile, there are signs that President Trump’s patience is wearing thin.

The White House responded yesterday to the readout of a July 4 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that signaled the president’s interest in Ukraine’s ability to launch deep strikes on Russian territory. Sources familiar with the call said Trump asked Zelensky, “Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St. Petersburg, too?” Zelensky reportedly replied, “Absolutely. We can, if you give us the weapons.”

While the administration downplayed the report, saying President Trump “was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing,” a White House spokesperson said Trump also said Zelensky “shouldn’t target Moscow”. In the meantime, Kyiv has been incredibly innovative in working with what it has available, to strike at the heart of Russian aggression.

On June 1, in a military strike that stunned analysts worldwide, Ukraine launched a bold drone operation—dubbed Spider’s Web—that struck four Russian air bases up to 3,000 miles from Kyiv, reportedly destroying or damaging a dozen nuclear-capable bombers. Satellite imagery suggests that among the damaged aircraft were Tu-95s and Tu-22s, long-range bombers used to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine.

The drones—simple quadcopters costing less than $1,000—were reportedly guided through Russia’s own 4G networks and possibly using AI to avoid detection and strike with precision. While Moscow denied any significant damage and threatened retaliation, Western analysts saw something more significant: a clear sign that modern warfare is entering a new era. Small, inexpensive drones can now slip past advanced air defenses, giving countries like Ukraine a way to challenge far larger militaries.

However, the implications go far beyond Ukraine and Russia. The operation sent a clear message to militaries worldwide: Ukraine can strike deep into enemy territory with precision and surprise—and others could, too.

“It suggests a new angle of surprise attack that our defenses need to adjust to,” Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, tells The Cipher Brief. “It’ll be very difficult to calibrate warning against small drone attacks. You can bet militaries are scrambling to figure it out.”

Moment of Reckoning

While Russia’s immediate damage was a significant setback, the true shockwave from Ukraine’s Spider’s Web operation spread far beyond the battlefield.

Military experts worldwide recognized this attack as a clear warning—exposing new vulnerabilities and signaling a shift in how modern warfare will be fought.

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin referred to it as a “wake-up moment,” noting the sheer magnitude of destruction and the ease with which it was executed. As U.S. aircraft continue to sit exposed on runways across the Pacific and homeland, the risk of similar strikes has become more than theoretical.

Nolan Peterson, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former Air Force Special Operations pilot, concurs that the operation was a “wake-up call” for the Pentagon and “showed how drones are now a bridge between conventional and unconventional combat, having democratized long-range, precision strike capabilities that were once exclusive to conventional state militaries.”

“In the hands of conventional and unconventional operators, drones can have tactical, operational, and strategic effects — from precision strikes on the battlefield to disabling power stations and oil refineries, shutting down airports, or destroying nuclear-capable bombers sitting on the tarmac at an air base,” he continued. “And, even if they are armed with relatively weak munitions, small drones now offer America’s adversaries a low-cost, plausibly deniable way to spread panic and paralyze our economy.”

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

America’s Exposed Underside

While the Pentagon has invested billions in overseas counter-drone systems—from radar-equipped trucks to high-tech interceptors like the Coyote—defenses at home remain underdeveloped. Coordination between federal agencies is sluggish, legal authorities are fragmented, and training at the base level hasn't kept pace with the growing threat, something U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth promises to change with a new plan to modernize DoD’s use of drones.

But beyond the technical vulnerabilities, the strategic implications of the June 1 strike are far-reaching. A new reality is emerging—one in which commercial drones launched from anywhere near a military site, concealed in barns, trucks, or civilian buildings, can carry out devastating attacks once reserved for high-end missiles. As military drone technology becomes more autonomous and lethal, the urgency to adapt grows by the day.

“Militaries can’t just rely on missiles and stealth jets anymore,” said Nolan Peterson, former Air Force Special Operations pilot. “Drones now serve as the bridge between conventional and unconventional warfare, granting near-peer capabilities to smaller actors.”

Peterson warned that even relatively weak munitions, when paired with drone agility and scale, can paralyze economies, take down power grids, or disable key strategic aircraft—often without attribution.

“This is the democratization of strategic strike,” he said.

The United States, he added, must recognize that air superiority now hinges not only on dominance in the skies—but in the so-called air littoral, the low-altitude zone where small drones thrive.

“We need a layered defense that combines traditional systems with new tech specifically designed to track and eliminate small UAVs, including both kinetic interceptors and directed energy weapons,” Peterson said.

In the future

The June 1 drone strikes marked a turning point in global stability, exposing how small, low-cost drones can now threaten even the nuclear assets of major powers—something once only possible for other nuclear states.

Traditional doctrines designed to prevent nuclear escalation were never built to handle strikes from smaller, non-nuclear actors like Ukraine or to anticipate the risk posed by non-state groups potentially launching false-flag operations to provoke conflict. As drones become cheaper and more accessible, their disruptive power demands urgent attention—in ethical debates around AI autonomy and regulatory efforts to prevent misuse.

So, what can be done?

Justin Bronk, Senior Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology in the Military Sciences team at the Royal United Services Institute, tells The Cipher Brief that the United States and most other NATO air forces should “urgently invest in reconditioning old Hardened Aircraft Shelters and building new ones since aircraft stored in such shelters when not in use are essentially invulnerable to small UAV attacks and are also much safer against a host of other potential threats than when out in the open.”

“Hardened Aircraft Shelters are not difficult or high-risk technologies; their utility is clear against the threat, and Russia has already started building new ones at multiple fighter bases to defend against Ukrainian strikes,” he cautioned. “Secondarily, air forces need to both invest in soft-kill anti-UAV defenses such as jammers but recognize that the main defense against such attacks by infiltration teams with large numbers of explosive-equipped UAVs has to be the intelligence and security services.”

Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the Russian Nuclear Forces Project, points out that now that the mode of the “surprise” attack is known, “it is conceivable that people will start taking appropriate defensive measures.”

“Light nets over aircraft, for example, jamming mobile networks, these kinds of things,” he said. “Of course, it will add complexity and cost to operations, and no defense is perfect, but a reasonable defense is not impossible.”

Some analysts also warn that governments may need to treat small drones more like firearms, implementing tighter export controls and purchase restrictions, even if doing so would impede the booming commercial drone market. The attack also raises questions about artificial intelligence and its role on a drone-dominated battlefield in the future.

“AI in weapons systems is nothing new, but the off-the-shelf and cheap implementation of AI is revolutionary,” Retired Special Forces Colonel Jason Amerine tells The Cipher Brief. “Billion-dollar weapons programs look silly in the face of Ukraine’s ingenuity. The lesson I take away is the constant reminder that we can do things much more cheaply and elegantly with significant cost savings.”

He also observed that while the U.S. military has developed a “robust short-range air defense capability,” it still lacks “an extensive and inexpensive counter-drone system” that can be deployed at scale.

“Legacy platforms like the aging Avenger can be upgraded to help plug some of the gaps,” Amerine continued. “But the long-term solution lies in funding experimental laser weapons and spectrum dominance systems. With enough investment, lasers and jamming tech could provide a cost-effective way to neutralize small drones before they strike.”

Peterson, however, contends that it was the “skills of Ukraine’s drone operators that made the operation a success — along with tradecraft, covert logistics, and a host of other operational achievements that had nothing to do with technology.”

In any case, Operation Spider’s Web marked a critical moment in modern warfare, revealing how low-cost, commercially available drones can deliver devastating blows to even the most fortified military assets.

The assault exposed how vulnerable even the most advanced militaries are to cheap, small, and easily concealed weapons. Dozens of AI-enabled drones were launched from within Russian territory, damaging or destroying a significant number of nuclear-capable bombers. These aircraft had been central to Russia’s ability to fire long-range, hard-to-intercept cruise missiles—now, that capability is diminished.

Rather than high-end equipment, the attack relied on ingenuity, autonomy, and scale-transforming commercial-grade drones into strategic weapons.

“Above all, America’s military leaders need to understand that you cannot have air superiority, supremacy, or dominance without also controlling the so-called air littoral — the low altitude airspace at which small drones operate,” Peterson explained. “We need a layered approach, pairing traditional air defense systems with new technologies purpose-built to detect and destroy small drones. And this included both kinetic and directed energy systems.”

Yet Schake is “not convinced yet that it revolutionizes warfare.”

“It signals that small, cheap, disposable drones are a genuine threat to expensive, exquisite platforms,” she added. “It makes restoring mobility on the battlefield a real challenge, and it imposes cost-exchange ratios unfavorable to expensive platforms, but it’s not a substitute for taking and holding territory.”

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



CIA's Latest Existential Challenge

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION -- Today, the Central Intelligence Agency faces a crisis of trust. While CIA officers have long confronted adversaries abroad, the Agency now finds itself navigating an increasingly politicized relationship with the American public it serves.

A dangerous perception has taken root in recent years, namely that the CIA, intended to be apolitical by design, has become a partisan actor in our polarized national politics. If left unaddressed, this perception threatens not only the Agency’s effectiveness but, by extension, the country’s broader national security. Reflecting on my 34-year career in intelligence and nearly a decade beyond it, I recognize that such existential challenges, though rare, are not unprecedented. And there are ways to recover.

In the more than four decades since I first took the oath of office as a new CIA operations officer, I cannot recall a time when CIA was not confronted with daunting challenges. From the Cold War through the 1990’s when we dealt with what then-Director James Woolsey called “a jungle full of a number of poisonous snakes,” to the post-9/11 war against jihadi terror and the reappearance of peer competitors, there was never a time when the Agency was not called upon to provide crucial intelligence on, and sometimes to directly confront, our nation’s adversaries. I imagine those serving today face similarly formidable tasks: from countering China’s rise, dealing with Russian irredentism and Iranian-inspired terrorism, to integrating cutting-edge AI across the breadth of Agency operations, and rebuilding the service’s human intelligence arm after the severe damage wrought by the ‘reorganization’ of 2015.

I can, however, recall only a few times when the Agency’s existence was existentially challenged. The Church Committee and ‘Time of Troubles’ of the mid-1970’s, were before my time. But I served during the interregnum of the 1990’s, when some misguided souls thought we had reached the end of history and that, with the demise of the ‘Evil Empire,’ the nation no longer needed an intelligence service. I was also there in the post-9/11 era when the Agency was assigned disproportionate blame for that murderous assault on our nation. The professionalism and effectiveness of CIA officers in carrying out the Agency’s mission were ultimately proof against those efforts to dismantle the organization.

Today, as I look at CIA from afar, it seems to me yet again to be under existential threat because many of the citizens the Agency serves have come to see it as an adversary. In truth, there has always been a particular tension in the juxtaposition between the secret world in which Agency officers live and the values of the democracy they serve. Even Presidents have sometimes voiced discomfort with the nature of the CIA’s mission. President Harry S. Truman judged that “secrecy and a free, democratic government don’t mix.” John F. Kennedy thought that “the very word secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society.” Those views are reflective of the uneasiness of the American people with the secret world and with actions seen or portrayed as less than honorable that are undertaken in their name. Former CIA Director Richard Helms addressed this inherent friction between secrecy and democracy when he wrote that “the nation must take it to a degree on faith that we, too, are honorable men dedicated to their service.”

What national security news are you missing today? Get full access to your own national security daily brief by upgrading to Subscriber+Member status.

There were rare moments when the Agency enjoyed popularity. I will never forget watching the cheering crowd in front of the White House hailing CIA and the U.S. military in the wake of our delivery of justice to Osama Bin Laden. But, for the most part, the American people seemed in accord with the reluctant toleration of the Agency’s activities expressed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he pronounced intelligence “a distasteful but vital necessity.” They seemingly understood that CIA has an incredibly difficult job, and that, consequently, its officers must – as John le Carre wrote in The Spy Who Came in from the Cold – sometimes “do disagreeable things so that ordinary people here and elsewhere can sleep safely in their beds at night.”

Public opinion surveys show confidence in the CIA has experienced fluctuations over time, marked by periods of erosion and recovery. Such shifting views of CIA are understandable given its role. An assertion by the Agency’s first Director, Allen Dulles, that an issue under discussion in his time was “a policy matter and not my job’ notwithstanding, CIA has often found itself at the center of policy debates.

I can recall seemingly innumerable instances over the course of my career when the Agency, invariably hindered by its secret nature in defending itself, was used as a political football in all too often internecine arguments.

Of late, however, public confidence in the CIA has eroded significantly compared to previous decades. While most Americans still view the Agency as vital to national security, there are persistent and growing concerns about civil liberties, partisanship, and transparency.

Partisan polarization is a particular concern as trust in the CIA is increasingly shaped by political affiliation. Support among Democrats grew during the Biden administration, while Republican support declined. Moreover, Americans are more likely to judge the CIA’s performance based on their alignment with the sitting president. Given the dictates of our democratic system, that perception of political bias portends serious problems not only for CIA’s mission-effectiveness, but potentially for its very existence, if not addressed.

In order to do so, it is necessary to ask how that perception took hold. How did CIA which, by definition, must be an apolitical organization, come to be tarred with a partisan brush? Some will see it is a natural outgrowth of the deep divisions that characterize our nation’s politics today. There is, sadly, a lot of truth in this. However, it must also be admitted that the actions of some who have an abiding love for the organization they serve, or served in, helped widen those rifts. They include, in the first instance, any CIA officers who, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, violated the law and their oaths to the Constitution by joining in what could only be described as a tsunami of leaks of classified or politically sensitive information as part of an attempt to ‘resist’ a President elected to office by a majority of American voters.

Further, one need only listen to half the country to understand that those serving and former officers who explicitly or implicitly cited their CIA affiliation – thereby implicitly indicating access to information unknown to the average citizen - in support of political causes contributed greatly to that perception of partisanship.

Subscriber+Members have exclusive access to the Open Source Collection Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security. It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.

Specific instances of this include lending support to the legitimacy of the since conclusively discredited “Steele Dossier” and, particularly, signing the open letter characterizing the ‘Hunter Biden laptop’ as having the hallmarks of a Russian information operation. Whatever personal views individual officers might hold on these and other politically contentious issues, there can be no doubt that many of our countrymen – not to mention many senior government officials - view the public statements of former CIA officers as the Agency putting its thumb on the political scale.

The organization has made clear this is not the case. But, as Henry Kissinger said, “it is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” The question now is what CIA and Agency officers, past and present, can do to change that perception. A few steps come to mind.

First, CIA needs to reinforce its efforts to identify leakers and bring them to justice. As the Snowden case demonstrated, given the nature of modern technology and the speed with which information can be propagated, there is no difference in terms of the negative impact of their actions on U.S. national security between those who leak information and those spying for a foreign power.

Second, the time when former Director William J. Casey’s expressed desire for a “no-profile agency” having long passed, CIA should re-double its public outreach efforts. Such programs will not, of course, quash the many conspiracy theories out there ranging from the serious (i.e., that CIA somehow had a hand in the JFK assassination) to the ridiculous (e.g., disproving the presence of the remains of space aliens being stored in the basement of the Original Headquarters Building). But the judicious release of historical information and the like does help educate the American people on what the Agency does in their name.

Finally, the Agency should remind former officers that they have life-long secrecy obligations but also reinforce the message that they remain representatives of CIA even after leaving the service in the eyes of their countrymen who, for the most part, do not distinguish between past and present Agency officers. Consequently, invoking their Agency experience in support of any endeavor that is clearly politically partisan can only damage the organization they served and make the already difficult jobs of those still serving harder still. And those are consequences to which no one who had the privilege and honor of serving at CIA wants to contribute.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief.



China Can Do More to Improve Relations with the U.S.

OPINION — Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, at the ASEAN Summit. Rubio described the exchange as “constructive” and hinted at a possible upcoming meeting between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. China described the exchange as “constructive and pragmatic.”

This exchange followed the comments of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, at the Shangri-La Dialogues in Singapore on May 31, 2025: “Any attempt by China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world.” Despite these words of caution, in mid-June 2025 and in preceding months, China deployed fighter jets, naval vessels and drones around Taiwan in air-sea joint training exercises meant to intimidate Taipei.

China’s recent actions in the Yellow Sea, to include incursions into South Korean territorial waters and airspace, are also of concern. This comes at a time when China continues to claim all of the South China Sea as their own, despite a United Nations Tribunal’s 2016 ruling that China’s claims to the South China Sea, based on its “nine dash line” map, were not legally valid.

There is considerable concern that China will use its military to invade or blockade Taiwan by 2027, when China supposedly would have the military might to attempt unification by force. That would be a grave mistake.

The U.S. – China relationship is tense, with some predicting an eventual war, despite $582.4 billion in total trade with China in 2024, $126.9 billion of U.S. foreign direct investment in China and over 277,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S. China’s actions in the South China, East China and Yellow Seas and their attempted military intimidation of Taiwan all contribute to this tense relationship.

The U.S. was there for China

The U.S. was there for China when Deng Xiaoping reached out to the U.S. in 1979, after normalization of relations, and established a strategic relationship with the U.S. that contributed to the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the end of the Cold War in 1991 and joint U.S. – China cooperation on counter terrorism, counter nuclear proliferation, counter narcotics and joint efforts to counter international organized crime. And there were over 300,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S. with significant U.S. investment in China, which contributed to providing China with Most Favored Nation status in 2000, a move that exponentially expanded bilateral trade.

And it was the U.S. that got China into the World Trade Organization in December 2001. Indeed, China’s membership in WTO favorably impacted China’s economic development; it was a catalyst for China’s economic growth and modernization.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

China can do more to change its tense relationship with the U.S.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Mr. Xi reached out to Mr. Trump and asked to meet to discuss some of the positive things we could be doing together to address some of the ills affecting the global community, like food scarcity, pandemics, health care, nuclear proliferation, narcotics trafficking, international organized crime – the list goes on and on. The willingness of these two superpowers to work jointly on these global problems, as we did in the 1980s and 1990s, would be welcomed by all countries, except for the Russian Federation and Iran.

The recent meeting of Marco Rubio and Wang Yi and hopefully the eventual meeting of Presidents Xi and Trump could be the beginning of a relationship that not only deals with the tension in the bilateral relationship but also deals with the common good both nations could do if we worked together on a myriad of socio-economic and geopolitical challenges confronting the global community. Moving in this would require bold and sustained leadership, reminiscent of the 1980s and 1990s.

This column by Cipher Brief Expert Ambassador Joseph DeTrani was first published in The Washington Times

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



How the Danes See NATO, Trump and Ukraine

OPINION — “The most important part right now is that Europe would be able to buy military equipment here in the U.S. so we can donate these military systems directly to Ukraine. That is also discussion going on right now. I think [President] Trump is on the right path here. I think he has promised that would be a possibility. We are talking in these hours about 10 Patriot [missile defense] systems and I think the outcome of that discussion will be that European countries will be able to buy the Patriot systems and then donate them directly to Ukraine and that's important because the discussions two months ago were, in fact, that there were no more to buy here in the U.S. So the outcome of the discussion right now is moving in a better direction.”

That was Denmark’s Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, speaking one week ago at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), where he appeared along with Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. They discussed not just Ukraine and NATO, but also their relations with the U.S., Greenland, the critical minerals issue and Denmark’s goals in taking over the Presidency of the European Union (EU) for the next six months.

The two had been in Washington for several days of meeting with senior Trump officials, and Members of Congress, in part because Denmark has assumed the Presidency of the European Union and plans to make military preparedness a hallmark of the country’s six month leadership term.

Last Tuesday, Poulsen explained the reasoning for European nations to buy weapons from the U.S. for Ukraine, which Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced at the White House yesterday. He and Rasmussen also explained the background of the European nations’ decision-making as well as their views of activities here in Washington and the rest of the world.

Foreign Minister Rasmussen gave his own assessment of the situation in Moscow, saying, “You shouldn't overestimate the power of Russia. I mean we have weakened the [Russian] economy. They are now on a war footing so to speak. They spend more on military than in health and education and everything civilized combined. They have huge casualties, high inflation. I mean if it was a more open transparent society with some kind of internal discussions, things would have been very, very, different. If you compare the casualties with what they lost in Afghanistan and decided to withdraw, it's much worse.”

A former two-time Danish Prime Minister, Rasmussen continued, “But of course it's a closed society and it is a one-man-takes-all-decisions-kind-of-society. It's not a democracy, but it is within our hands, so to speak, to actually crash Putin and his war machine.”

Rasmussen then added, “The big question is whether we [Denmark and the other NATO and EU countries] have, you know, the readiness, the willingness to do so, and here of course we need the U.S. I mean it goes without saying that Europe has to pay a bigger part of the bill. We do. We [Europe] now account for like 70% of the total support to Ukraine. That number will go up, but we need the U.S. on board as well, not least when we are talking sanctions and pressure on Putin.”

As Rasmussen pointed out, tiny Denmark supplies quite a bit by itself. “We are the fourth biggest contributor to Ukraine,” he said, “so it's like U.S., U.K. [United Kingdom], Germany, and then Denmark. Per capita, we are so far the biggest. We spend like plus 1,500 Euros [$1,754] per capita in Denmark. It's more than the double compared to the second biggest spender in Europe.”

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

As for U.S. arms, “We need more speed in our procurements from the U.S.,” Poulsen said. “It is too long to get the needed capabilities and right now we are indeed in need for these capabilities. So that's my main objective to be here [in Washington].”

Poulsen added, “Trump is quite much aware of that. And also [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth and [Secretary of State] Mario Rubio [both of whom they had met with]. They are aware that they have to speed up all these processes — too much red tape in delivering to Europe. And when we are coming to U.S. saying we would like to buy even more military equipment, then I don't think the answer should be you have to wait seven or eight years to get it.”

Poulsen also said, “Europe will do more and I think the outcome of the situation in Ukraine is also the demanding question for Europe to be able to invest more and also build up more [military] capacity,” which he described as among the “lessons learned from Ukraine.”

At one point Rasmussen said he had met briefly with Trump during the June NATO meeting at The Hague. “I told him when we met last time when I was prime minister, we only spent like 1.5 percent [of the nation’s GDP] in Denmark [for our defense spending]…Then the whole thing happened in Ukraine. Now there's totally new sense of urgency. This year Denmark spends 3.2 percent, exactly the same as U.S. It is a clear commitment from our government that we will meet the 3.5 percent [NATO goal by 2035].”

Ukraine has shown itself to be very strong in creating new and innovative defense companies, they both said, but investment in arms manufacturing outside Ukraine is what they talked about. Rasmussen said, “Basically it's about buying from Ukraine to Ukraine.”

He described that when the war started Ukraine had a weapons industry of some $3 billion, but it is now up to $40 billion, although Ukrainians “only have finance for half of it.”

Rasmussen said an answer has been that “we [the Danes] have spent our own money and we also have the honor to be the facilitator of some of these [Russian] frozen assets or the interest linked to the frozen asset. So that is the basis of the Danish model and now we are working on making, you know, real investments…with our Ukrainian friends to set up Ukrainian investments in Denmark to give them some kind of safe haven.”

Other European countries have followed, and together with the Ukrainians they are producing arms not just for Ukraine, but for their own militaries. “We should be inspired of what the Ukrainians lesson learned from their battlefield,” Rasmussen said, “and that's why it makes sense also to invest not only to assist them [Ukrainians], but also to make some kind of technology transferring from Ukraine to our own military.”

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

Poulsen said the first pilot project was last July, when Denmark paid for 18 Bohdana self-propelled 155 mm howitzers that Ukraine had created on its own. “They were produced in two months,” Poulsen said. “Should we have been able to buy them in Europe, it will have taken two years. So in two months they were able to produce the Bohdana systems. It was very cheap and the spare parts, the maintenance, all that kind of thing are, of course, being done directly near the front line. So it has been a huge success and right now we're looking into also developing new capabilities or finance new capabilities for the defense companies in Ukraine. That would be missiles, that would be drones. It's under Ukrainian defense demands that they ask for this and we reimburse [pay for] the contracts.”

With some $20 billion from Europeans and others available, Poulsen explained, “the best way we can do for our friends in Ukraine to keep up fighting is in fact to give money directly into the [Ukraine] defense companies.”

Poulsen called it Danish model 2.0. and said, “That's to invite some of the [Ukraine] defense companies to have a safe haven in Denmark to produce what they will need in Ukraine, hopefully all also in Germany and other European countries.”

Poulsen also described a new approach involving Denmark, Germany and Nordic countries — jointly buying weapons systems.

As an example, Poulsen said that Denmark, Norway and Sweden are looking into buying the P-8A Poseidon U.S. Navy multi-mission maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. He said it was a capability they already have in Norway and Germany, but “not buying it ourselves [individually]…we'll also have some capabilities that we could use together with Sweden and Norway…So that will be the way forward.”

As for Greenland, Rasmussen said he did not really discuss the matter in any depth when he met with Rubio because “we [the Danes] have the slogan ‘nothing about Greenland without Greenland [being present].’ Even though the foreign security policy [of Greenland] is, you know, the Danish government's responsibility, we have developed a good tradition or custom that if we are, you know, really negotiating with the third countries about these issues we will have our Greenlandic colleague [with us].”

Greenland, he said, was discussed “in a more generally way.”

Rasmussen said the Danes were “taken by surprise” by Trump’s announcement that for both U.S. national security and international security it was necessary that Washington annex Greenland.

Rasmussen, who was Danish Prime Minister from 2016-to-2019 during Trump’s first term, said, “I have experienced with Trump so many times that whatever he says…and whatever he proposes there's always some kind of rational substance behind it. I mean, and we share the view, that we have to be present in the Arctic in a different way. But it shouldn't be in a fight between the kingdom of Denmark and U.S. It should be by combining forces and we have the framework for that.”

He explained that the Danes “have been pushing for including [the] Arctic in the capability targets in NATO. And, to some extent, we were successful. There's now a kind of principal agreement among the NATO Arctic countries, including U.S., that this is something we should do under the framework of the NATO.”

Rasmussen added, “So it's not that the Greenlandic issue is solved. I think because apart from these rational arguments, I can't get rid of the idea that there's also just this [Trump] vision of creating a bigger U.S. and we can, of course, not accommodate that.”

Rasmussen added, “I must say I leave Washington a bit more optimistic compared to when I arrived. I think the statement made by the president [Trump] after his [most recent] telephone conversations with [Russian President] Putin and [Ukraine President] Zelensky prove that he now to a larger extent share our analysis of the situation. I mean it was a bit confusing earlier this year when he had Zelensky in the Oval Office who is the bad guy, who is the good guy. That has shifted. I think the [Hague] NATO summit was also important. I mean I really feel and think he [Trump] has perhaps the most positive view on Europe he has had for a while, at least.”

All that has turned out to have been realistic. Let’s hope Trump stays on his current trajectory.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



The Neoprime Club: Silicon Valley and The Rise of Defense Disruptors

OPINION — Today, after a post-9/11 era defined by global counterterrorism and asymmetric warfare, the U.S. is preparing for potential near-peer conflicts amid an era of great power competition that is complicated by disruptive technologies. In response, a new wave of defense contractors is emerging from the epicenter of American technological innovation: Silicon Valley. These companies are addressing critical technology gaps in areas such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, space services, cyber operations, and small drones. They're deploying cutting-edge solutions to fill capability shortfalls that the U.S. government has acknowledged exist—and they’re scaling fast. Winning high-profile contracts, these companies are reshaping how the Pentagon engages with the private sector.

Among those in the defense tech industry, there’s been growing chatter about the rise of these defense disruptors—what you might call the neoprimes. We—one of us a technology investor, the other a former portfolio manager at the Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit—are often asked: Is the rise of neoprimes real? What exactly is a neoprime? What defines one? We set out to answer those questions, using data to support our observations. We believe neoprimes are changing the culture of defense acquisitions and developing technologies that will reshape how wars are fought. Shifts in defense spending and policy are empowering neoprimes to grow and move faster.

To understand how we got here, we can revisit a pivotal 1993 meeting now known as the “Last Supper.” Following the end of the Cold War, U.S. defense spending plummeted, prompting a major drawdown. The Department of Defense faced intense pressure to cut costs, with budgets falling by about 30%—from, adjusted for inflation, $772 billion in 1989 to roughly $531 billion by 1998. Against this backdrop, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense William Perry convened a critical meeting, the “Last Supper,” with executives from the top defense contractors. His message was clear: the Pentagon could no longer sustain a sprawling ecosystem of dozens of major firms, and consolidation was inevitable. The industry responded accordingly—over 50 companies merged into the five dominant primes we know today. These survivors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics—became massive, vertically integrated organizations that controlled roughly 60% of Department of Defense contracts by 2000. For decades, these primes dominated government contract spending to build and sustain the nation's security apparatus, supported by a vast web of partners and subcontractors. But with predictable, annual funding streams and limited competitive pressure, innovation within these primes arguably stagnated.

While many of these traditional primes trace their roots back over a century, a new tribe of Silicon Valley players has entered the arena. They are accelerating deployment timelines and pioneering a different model—defined by rapid iteration, software-first architectures, and a greater appetite for risk. They're deploying operational systems in months rather than years or decades. They’re not just building prototypes for demos and exercises—they’re scaling production and securing billion-dollar contracts. While they may not yet match the traditional primes in total contract volume, they are closing the gap year over year. A handful of key firms are leading the charge, with an expanding set of startups gaining traction. Backed by venture capital and supported by a growing network of influential advocates shaping policy and public opinion, neoprimes are starting to redefine how the government approaches the acquisition, fielding, and sustainment of new technologies. They are becoming mission-critical to the defense industrial base of America.

As this new generation of defense contractors gains momentum, what exactly is a neoprime? To answer that, we analyzed data from USAspending.gov (the federal government’s official platform for tracking public expenditures), reviewed SEC filings from public defense companies, and compiled press releases from private firms. We also interviewed founders and venture capitalists focused on national security innovation.

Through this research, we identified several defining characteristics of neoprimes and emerging market trends. Our analysis focuses on a set of current neoprimes—SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril Industries—alongside a cohort of rising companies like Shield AI, Skydio, Saildrone, Saronic, Hidden Level, Epirus, Relativity Space, Axiom Space, HawkEye 360, Vannevar Labs, and others. These companies are beginning to lead major defense programs with advanced technologies and a fundamentally different approach to speed, software integration, and delivery.

Below, we outline our findings and define the characteristics that distinguish neoprimes. We believe these companies represent the future of national security—and to preserve America’s strategic edge, we must rapidly adopt and scale their solutions across the defense industrial base.

Join us in Sea Island, Georgia for The Cipher Brief's 2025 Threat Conference from October 19-22. See how you can save your seat at tcbconference.com

Neoprimes are Racing Ahead in Department of Defense's Critical Technology Areas

At their core, neoprimes are built around emerging, frontier technologies—fields like AI and autonomy, integrated networks, biotechnology, and quantum science. In recent years, the Department of Defense has formally emphasized the importance of these technologies, identifying fourteen Critical Technology Areas that reflect a growing urgency to catch up with and surpass global competitors.

To better understand this trend, we evaluated the top five most commonly used Product Service Codes (PSCs) for a set of government contractors from 2018 to 2023. PSCs are used by the U.S. federal government to describe the products, services, and research being purchased through contracts, and we gathered this data from USAspending.gov’s contract award summaries by vendor. For Palantir, SpaceX, and Anduril, we then identified the most popular PSCs across all three. We performed the same analysis to determine the top PSCs among the traditional defense primes—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.

Palantir's top PSCs were predominantly in the information technology category, consistent with their core strength in data platforms and software integration. Most of the PSCs associated with Anduril were concentrated in engineering services.

In contrast, for traditional primes such as General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, the most common PSCs were heavily concentrated in hardware categories—covering items like airframe structural components, helicopter rotor blades, and shock absorbers. Compared to newer entrants, their portfolios featured far fewer PSCs related to software or IT services.

Neoprimes are also focused on interoperability. Traditional contractors are notorious for proprietary systems that require their own unique control systems and limited third-party integrations—like drones that can only be operated with specific controllers, computers, or field kits. But proprietary everything doesn't scale on a battlefield increasingly filled with robots, sensors, and drones, especially as soldiers are limited by the number of control systems they can carry into the field. In contrast, neoprimes are designing software with interoperability in mind from the start—built to integrate seamlessly with legacy systems and ingest any data the government allows.

Overall, the solutions neoprimes are developing are especially relevant today, as many Cold War-era tools are failing to scale to the demands of the modern battlefield. For example, Ukrainian soldiers are now using low-cost drones to disable expensive Russian platforms—in the recent Spider's Web operation, 117 drones struck four Russian military airbases and targeted at least 40 warplanes. The operation dealt a significant asymmetric blow to the Russian military and broader economy, with estimated losses reaching up to $7 billion. The inevitable shift toward more affordable, more attritable platforms is forcing governments to rethink how they develop and fund major defense systems. Neoprimes and the Department of Defense are racing to develop low cost-to-kill technologies—while also developing defenses against them—as these small lethal platforms become increasingly common on modern battlefields around the world.

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

Prototyping and Collaborating Directly with Servicemembers

Neoprimes build working prototypes quickly and make a habit to iterate with end users in real time—making changes on the fly, in the field. We have observed that these companies don't necessarily wait for the Department of Defense to fund their R&D instead, they develop solutions they believe are obvious answers to current pressing problems and find ways to get them into the hands of warfighters—often well before any large procurement orders have even been placed.

These companies will send prototypes "downrange" with willing servicemembers, sometimes years before more formal procurement contracts materialize. Shield AI, for example, deployed working prototypes of their AI-enabled drones to Special Operations Forces in combat in the Middle East, gaining critical feedback while also delivering real-world results for those early adopters. Other companies have taken similar approaches: deliver cutting-edge technology to warfighters first—even before any formal requirement exists—refine it in the field, and let the bureaucracy catch up later.

While we are encouraged by these bold efforts, we also recognize that rapidly deploying cutting-edge technology is not enough. What matters most is enabling and rewarding companies that deliver measurable impact on mission outcomes and operational effectiveness. We urge the Department of Defense to prioritize this focus across both traditional primes and neoprimes.

Delivering On Time and Within Budget

Neoprimes often prioritize outcomes over processes. For instance, Palantir was recently awarded a $178 million contract by the U.S. Army to develop the TITAN system, beating RTX Corporation in a competitive selection process. Remarkably, Palantir delivered the project on time and within budget—traditionally a rare feat in defense contracting.

As one example of neoprimes' outcome-first approach, we have observed a growing preference for fixed-price contracts over the traditional cost-plus model. Under a fixed-price structure, companies are incentivized to innovate efficiently, as they are paid a set amount regardless of overruns. This stands in stark contrast to cost-plus contracts, where incumbents are reimbursed for all expenses and earn a profit margin on top—removing much of the pressure to operate leanly.

When analyzing government spending data, we observed that nearly 100% of Palantir and SpaceX's contracts are fixed-price, while 65-80% of Anduril's contracts follow the same model. Among the traditional primes, General Dynamics has steadily secured an increasing number of fixed-price contracts, and the trend is less clear for others.

That said, both neoprimes and traditional contractors continue to rely on cost-plus contracts, as they remain the prevailing norm across much of the defense industry. We also recognize that ongoing debate surrounds the use of firm fixed-price versus cost-plus models in defense procurement. While advocates of fixed-price contracts view them as the most effective way for the government to ensure value and accountability, critics argue that fixed-price models can be too risky for complex scopes of work. A common argument in favor of cost-plus is that it provides the necessary flexibility when project requirements are uncertain or evolving.


Maximizing Revenue and Contract Value per Employee

Neoprimes operate with small, agile teams—often with just a fraction of the headcount of traditional defense contractors. But what they lack in size, they make up for in velocity and output. Many of these companies are producing higher revenue or contract value per employee.

SpaceX and Anduril have outperformed several major traditional defense contractors in terms of obligations per employee, exceeding the ratios of Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics. And while Lockheed Martin has outperformed all in absolute terms, that may be attributed to its significantly larger revenue—approximately $51 billion compared to SpaceX's $3.8 billion.

Note that because Anduril and SpaceX are still private companies, we based their employee counts on estimates from public reports. Palantir and all traditional primes report employee numbers in their SEC filings.

Rising Use of OTAs in Defense Contracting

While Palantir, SpaceX, and Anduril are leading neoprimes, several other companies are rapidly emerging in this category. Shield AI, which began with AI-powered quadcopters for U.S. Navy SEALs and other special operations forces, is now fielding its V-BAT unmanned aerial vehicle in Ukraine, Japan, and Brazil. Companies like Saildrone and Saronic are deploying a range of autonomous drones above and below the water. Cybersecurity leaders such as Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, and Crowdstrike are becoming key players in areas like trusted networks and digital defense. Commercial space companies like Varda, HawkEye 360, and Astranis are building capabilities for on-demand space access, persistent satellite coverage, and high-speed space-based data transfer.

With the rise of neoprimes, the Department of Defense has significantly increased its use of Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) in recent years, reflecting a strategic shift toward more agile and flexible procurement methods. OTAs, which are not bound by the traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), allow the Department of Defense to collaborate more easily with nontraditional contractors, including startups and research institutions. When properly executed, we believe that OTAs can lead to better, faster, cheaper outcomes for everyone involved—saving time, money, and effort.

Further analysis shows that OTA usage is clearly trending upward within the Department of Defense. Even though OTA awards have increased significantly since 2017, however, they still account for only about 0.116% of the total contracts awarded by the Department of Defense—it's still far from mainstream in the broad acquisition community. Given what OTAs have already delivered, we can only imagine the impact if more contracts were accelerated this way.

The Road Ahead: Partnering with Neoprimes to Meet Emerging National Security Needs

Today, we believe the U.S. government is beginning to recognize the strategic value of neoprimes in addressing critical capability gaps. The Department of Defense has acknowledged its lag in several key technology areas and has taken deliberate steps to close the gap. In addition to encouraging the services to expand their use of OTAs, the Department of Defense introduced the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) framework to attract non-traditional vendors. It also launched the Office of Strategic Capital to provide more flexible financing options and created the National Security Innovation Capital initiative to support dual-use hardware development. Over the past two decades, the Department of Defense has invested more than $20 billion in small business initiatives—all promising signs of progress, but more work remains.

Across the country, dozens of emerging technology companies are winning contracts that would have defaulted to traditional primes just a few years ago. These startups are not simply disrupting the defense industrial base; they are actively shaping the future of warfare. Their technologies are beginning to influence military doctrine, operational planning, and frontline tactics.

This shift reflects a broader transformation in national security priorities—one we strongly support and believe must be accelerated. As these threats become increasingly software- and technology-driven, we’re encouraged to see Silicon Valley and its neoprimes emerge as natural leaders in enabling the next generation of military readiness. Now is the time to double down.

Editor's Note: The authors of this article are affiliated with Brave Capital and MVA (MilVet Angels), which have invested in national security companies like Anduril Industries, Shield AI, Aetherflux, Hermeus, Ursa Major, and others.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



Battered but Not Broken: Why NATO Still Fears a Weakened Russia



CIPHER BRIEF REPORTINGPresident Donald Trump announced new arms shipments for Ukraine on Monday and threatened Russia with “very severe tariffs” if Moscow fails to reach a peace deal with Ukraine within the next 50 days. Making the announcement from the Oval Office alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the president made his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin clear.

“I’m disappointed in President Putin,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, “because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn’t seem to be getting there.”

The continued threat that Russia poses to Europe is also clear: The nation that launched a war against Ukraine has also moved against Georgia, issued thinly-veiled threats against Poland and the three Baltic nations, and warned NATO repeatedly that its involvement in Ukraine may spark a Russian response.

The threats carry weight; Russia is a nuclear power with a large army and vast natural resources, and President Putin has spoken publicly about restoring the territory – and what he refers to as the “greatness” – of Stalin’s Soviet Union as well as the Russian empire of Peter the Great.

The Russian threat is also the reason why so many European nations are beefing up military spending, and it’s why NATO issued a collective warning at its June summit that “Russia is a long-term threat to the alliance.”

“Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said last month, speaking of the Russian threat. “We cannot dream away the danger.”

But Russia is also a badly battered nation. Its military has suffered staggering losses – more than one million soldiers killed or wounded since its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Analysts say its economy is in its weakest state in three decades. And more than three years after Putin launched his “special military operation” against Ukraine, Russia appears no closer to achieving its initial war aims than it was when the first troops paratroopers dropped into Kyiv.

All of this begs the question: Whatever Putin’s ambitions, can Russia pose a credible threat to the rest of Europe?

“To launch a large-scale conventional armed incursion into a NATO country is not something Russia would want to do today,” Kurt Volker, a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, told The Cipher Brief. “They are bogged down in Ukraine. Their forces are not trained and equipped and capable where they want them to be.”

General Philip Breedlove (Ret.), a Cipher Brief expert who served as Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, describes “two realities” about the Russian threat.

“The first reality is that Russia's army is really badly mauled and beaten up right now,” said Breedlove. “It certainly is not ten feet tall, like we used to think. I jokingly say it's about five-foot five these days. So, over the next several years, in a land warfare context, Europe could do just fine.”

But Gen. Breedlove says the second “reality” is that Russia will work hard to rebuild its military might, that it has allies who will help, and that it has less conventional ways to threaten Europe in the meantime.

“In many ways, Mr. Putin's running amok out there,” he said, “in the hybrid war, the below-the-line fight, whatever you want to call that war.”

One view: A battered, beaten-down Russia

By almost any military or economic metric, Russia is in no position today to threaten other nations in Europe. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) estimates that Russia has suffered between 900,000 and 1.3 million casualties since the 2022 invasion – including 350,000 troops killed in action. (By comparison, in the decade-long war in Afghanistan, the Soviets suffered roughly 50,000 dead and wounded.) The Economist estimates that in Russia’s current offensive, launched on May 1,31,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, for only snail-like advances.

As for the Russian economy, the strains are evident in a growing budget deficit, falling oil revenues, and soaring interest rates. Last week, the main lending rate stood at a record 21%.

Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (Ret.), who served from 2014 to 2017 as the top U.S. Army Commander in Europe, said that given these realities, he has been surprised by Russia’s staying power in Ukraine.

“Russia, I was certain, would not have made it this long,” Hodges told The Cipher Brief, “given the casualties that they have suffered, and the effects of some of the sanctions on them.”

Volker believes Russia’s weaknesses – economic and military – are as profound as they have been at any other time during Putin’s quarter century in charge.

“They have lost a third of their strategic bombers,” Volker said. “They’ve lost a million people off the battlefield. They’re having to replenish with recently conscripted untrained forces. And they're digging into storage to get World War II era equipment.”

Ambassador Doug Lute, who – like Volker – served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO, said that “Putin's army, which invaded Ukraine in 2022, largely does not exist today.”

Lute notes that while Russia’s 2022 invasion force was the product of a decade-long modernization ordered by Putin, Ukraine has succeeded – with on-and-off help from the West – in severely degrading those forces. Lute is among those experts who believe Russia will need a long time and fresh resources to truly threaten the rest of Europe.

“We should remember that the last time Putin undertook such a modernization, it resulted in the force that failed in 2022,” he said.

Others aren’t so sure.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The Russia that worries much of Europe

Last month, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz scolded U.S. Senators who he said “clearly have no idea” of the scope of Russia’s efforts to rearm its military.

NATO Secretary General Rutte made the Russian threat the centerpiece of a successful push in June to win pledges from member states to raise their individual defense spending to 5% of GDP. And beyond the spending hikes, Poland and the Baltic states have effectively put their nations on a war footing, fortifying their borders and running military drills that imagine a Russian assault.

"We have developed a strategy to counter any kind of mass land grab or mass land invasion or incursion that would occur," U.S. Army Lt. Col. William Branch, who commands 1,000 U.S. soldiers based in northeastern Poland, told NPR. Lt. Col. Branch's troops have also worked with militaries in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. "These countries are actively fighting to retain their sovereignty,” he said. “They're actively fighting to continue to exist because there is a real threat that exists."

Isn’t just Putin’s rhetoric that’s alarming. Russia has shifted its defense industry to a 24/7 posture, signed arms deals with North Korea and Iran, and increased its 2025 defense budget to Cold War-era levels, with an aim to expand its army to 1.5 million troops and establish new units near NATO borders.

In his most recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. General Christopher Cavoli, commander of U.S. European Command, was asked whether he believes Putin’s aggression would end after the war in Ukraine was over. His answer was an unequivocal ‘No’ – based on “a broader pattern in Russian history and certainly on current Russian activity.” He also said he believes Russia will move rapidly to reverse its huge losses in manpower.

“They’ll be able to build as quickly as they want to,” Gen. Cavoli said. “They continue to maintain a conscription…160,000 this year. With those numbers, they will be able to constitute the force size that they choose fairly quickly.”

“I think General Cavoli put this very well,” Liana Fix, a Senior Fellow for Europe, told The Cipher Brief. “He said Russia was in a very bad position, but it can reconstitute its military much faster than we might expect.” That, Fix said, means that while Russia may not threaten NATO nations now, it won’t be long before it does.

“If [Russia] continues on this path of very quick reconstitution of its military with China's help, it will pose a serious threat to NATO allies,” she said. “And that's what they are all concerned about.”

The gray-zone threat

While it may take time for Russia’s conventional military to rebuild, Moscow has been extremely effective launching operations in the gray zone, that area of operations that falls just under the threshold of war. Such operations can include cyberattacks, cognitive warfare campaigns and attacks on sea vessels, for example, with deniability built-in.

“There are other Russian threats aside from a ground invasion that NATO allies, especially those on the Eastern flank, ought to be alert to,” Lute said. “These hybrid attacks or gray-zone attacks also are very much in NATO's window.”

The Cipher Brief has reported extensively on these “gray-zone” tactics, and officials have warned recently that the Kremlin is only expanding these efforts.

Last week, details of a plot to kidnap the Russian dissident Yevgeny Chichvarkin in London and burn down his Michelin-starred restaurant were disclosed in court proceedings. According to officials, the plotters were identified after setting fire to a Ukrainian-owned warehouse in England, and their investigation found that the group had been directed via Telegram accounts linked to the Russian mercenary Wagner Group.

“Russia is conducting hybrid attacks against NATO countries every day,” Volker said. “Cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, arson, political interference, disinformation, bribery, corruption, you name it. They do this all over the place. So, they are very active in attacks, just not the type of conventional attack that we often think about.”

Being a Subscriber+Member has its perks. Join us on Wednesday, July 23 for an exclusive virtual session on Gray Zone Operations, led by former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Michael Vickers and former senior CIA Officer Dave Pitts. Subscriber+Members receive details and links to register via email. Just another reason why it pays to be Subscriber+Member.

What comes next

Assessments on just when Russia’s military – and economy – could bounce back range from next year to the mid-2030s. The Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) issued an analysis of the Russian threat earlier this year, offering three scenarios – all of them starting with an end to the Ukraine war, and the assumption that Russia cannot currently wage war against multiple nations.

Within six months of the guns going silent in Ukraine, the DDIS said, Russia would be able to wage a local war with a bordering country. In two years, it would have the capacity to launch a regional war in the Baltic Sea region. And within five years, it could launch a large-scale attack on Europe.

"Russia is likely to be more willing to use military force in a regional war against one or more European NATO countries if it perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided," the report said. "This is particularly true if Russia assesses that the U.S. cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a war with Russia."

Germany’s defense chief told the BBC last month that Russia would be militarily ready to attack within four years – and perhaps sooner than that.

“If you ask me now, is this a guarantee that's not earlier than 2029?” General Carsten Breuer commented, “I would say no, it's not. We must be able to fight tonight."

In all these assessments, there are variables that would alter the calendar: the global price of oil – upon which Russia depends for revenue; the long-term loyalties of Russian allies, China in particular; and the mood of U.S. President Donald Trump, who is expressing frustration with Putin while offering more military aid to Ukraine.

All those interviewed for this story made the point that robust and continued Western support for Ukraine – and sanctions against Russia – would prove critical in determining when Russia is truly able to menace other European nations.

“All of this really turns on our credibility,” Gen. Breedlove told us. “I think Mr. Putin senses weakness and he knows what to do in the presence of weakness.”

Lt. Gen. Hodges said that the most important determinant of Russia’s ability to threaten other nations in Europe will be how it ultimately fares in Ukraine.

“What I am sure of is that if Ukraine capitulates or fails, or if we turn our back on Ukraine and Russia is able then to take a couple of years to rebuild and fix what is broken, they will be knocking on the door of Moldova and on the door of Latvia or any other Baltic nation,” Hodges said.

“That’s because their objective is to break the alliance, to show that NATO and its member nations are not really willing to fight against Russia over a piece of Estonia, for example, or a piece of Latvia. To make sure that the Russians never make that terrible miscalculation, we have to get back to where we were in the Cold War days, of spending what's necessary, of being prepared so that you can have another 40, 50 years of no war with Russia.”

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



Russia’s Outreach to the Taliban: Strategic Calculations or Regional Security Fears?

OPINION — In recent weeks, reports of Russia considering formal engagement and recognition of the Taliban have reignited debate around international approaches to the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.

But contrary to assumptions of ideological or strategic alignment, Moscow’s overtures appear rooted more in fear than affinity.

A Security-Driven Outreach

Russia’s posture toward the Taliban must be viewed through a regional security lens. In intelligence and counterterrorism circles, there is increasing alarm in Moscow over the surge in foreign extremist fighters now operating with impunity inside Afghanistan. Russia has long claimed that ISIS-K and affiliated groups enjoy covert support from Western intelligence services, a claim that is exaggerated but nonetheless fuels deep strategic paranoia within the Kremlin.

Recent intelligence reports indicate a notable uptick in foreign terrorist presence, particularly in northern and eastern provinces bordering Central Asia. Russia is concerned not just about Afghanistan’s instability, but about its spillover potential into Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, all countries with fragile internal balances and historical ties to Moscow.

In this context, engagement with the Taliban is less about diplomatic recognition and more about gaining operational access, establishing surveillance footholds, and ensuring a minimal level of information-sharing. For Russia, the Taliban may be a tactical irritant, but foreign jihadist groups are a strategic threat.

Taliban’s Quest for Legitimacy

From the Taliban’s side, any engagement by major powers is quickly repackaged as de facto recognition—a form of validation they desperately seek. Lacking internal legitimacy and having seized power through force, the Taliban views external recognition as a shortcut to international acceptance, regardless of the terms or the motives of the recognizing party.

Whether Russia’s engagement is rooted in security fears or strategic containment is irrelevant to the Taliban; what matters is the optics. This dynamic creates a dangerous asymmetry, where tactical coordination by foreign states can be misrepresented as endorsement of Taliban governance.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The China Factor: Quiet Watchfulness

Speculation has mounted that China may follow suit. However, Beijing’s interests in Afghanistan remain fundamentally different from Moscow’s. For China, the overriding concern is the presence of Uyghur militants “East Turkistan Islamic Movement”, many of whom have historically sought refuge in Afghanistan’s east.

At the same time, China’s strategic posture is fixated on its global rivalry with the United States, particularly in the domains of economic dominance and technological superiority—most notably in artificial intelligence. Afghanistan, in this framework, is a peripheral concern. As long as Beijing can secure its western flank through covert financial leverage, trade access, and intelligence coordination, it has little incentive to formally recognize the Taliban. Such a move would carry diplomatic costs without any meaningful strategic return.

A Word of Caution for the International Community

While Russia and China may justify Taliban engagement based on narrow national security imperatives, these moves carry broader strategic and ethical risks. First, they undermine the international consensus that recognition must be contingent on inclusive governance, human rights, and counterterrorism compliance. Second, such recognition risks legitimizing radicalization and authoritarian consolidation through force, potentially emboldening similar movements elsewhere.

Finally, tactical engagement by states like Russia must be carefully managed to avoid the legitimization of Taliban rule, particularly in media narratives. Intelligence-sharing or backchannel coordination is a longstanding reality in conflict zones, but it must be explicitly framed as counterterrorism containment, not state-to-state diplomacy.

Join us in Sea Island, Georgia for The Cipher Brief's 2025 Threat Conference from October 19-22. See how you can save your seat at tcbconference.com

Conclusion

Russia’s recognition of the Taliban is less a sign of ideological convergence and more a reflection of strategic anxiety. Afghanistan, under Taliban control, is rapidly becoming an ungoverned space—one that external powers increasingly fear more than favor.

For the United States, these developments represent a critical inflection point. As global powers move from isolation to tactical engagement with the Taliban, Washington must lead in upholding the principle that recognition should never precede reform. Any diplomatic engagement—whether multilateral or bilateral—must be explicitly tied to measurable outcomes: meaningful counterterrorism cooperation, the protection of civil liberties, and inclusive political participation that reflects Afghanistan’s ethnic and social diversity.

In the absence of such standards, the international community risks legitimizing a regime that has shown little intent to evolve—and considerable capacity to destabilize.

At the same time, the United States should take a parallel step to support the formation of a legitimate political opposition to the Taliban—one that represents the hopes of Afghans for a sovereign, democratic, and inclusive future. Working in coordination with international partners, Washington can help this coalition articulate a long-term political vision for the country. Though limited in scope, such a move would send a powerful message to Afghans inside and outside the country, to regional allies and adversaries alike, and even to the Taliban: that Afghanistan’s future will not be defined by force alone. Most importantly, it would empower Afghans themselves particularly the new generation to lead the struggle for their nation's destiny.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



How Trump Can Be the Winning President in Ukraine

“To each there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing…”

— Winston S. Churchill

OPINION -- Winston Churchill would have recognized the current situation in the U.S. relationship with Russia as a unique opportunity to make a mark on history.

Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed Moscow’s war intentions in Ukraine, saying he considered Russians and Ukrainians to be one people and, “in that sense the whole of Ukraine is ours.” In the past two weeks, Putin has intensified Russia’s drone and missile attacks across Ukraine putting heavy strain on Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian president is evidently of the view that Ukraine’s defenses may be on the verge of collapse and that he can achieve his war ambitions through force.

Putin has cleverly played his relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump, whispering intentions of ending the war through negotiation and counting on Trump’s desire for peace to push Ukraine into a deal that would essentially amount to surrender. But Putin has never once deviated from his maximalist goals in the war, in fact, he has only reaffirmed them at every opportunity. Russian participation in negotiations with Ukraine were quickly proven to be a form of ‘maskirovka’ (successful operations that mislead the enemy).

Now, Putin has intensified a bombing campaign clearly designed to target civilian infrastructure with the intent of both killing and demoralizing the Ukrainian people, and undermining support for the war and for the government in Kyiv.

Trump and his team seem to have finally arrived at the realization that they have been taken for a ride by Putin. The U.S. president recently characterized discussions with the Russian leader as “meaningless,” saying, “We get a lot of bullsh*t thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth.” (President Trump is not known for understatement. This may be the exception.)

Following his most recent call with Putin and a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump decided to resume sending some air defense interceptors and precision-guided bombs and missiles to Ukraine after last month’s halt. This is a positive development but it is not enough.

Now is the critical moment to show strength, unity, and resolve to support the people of Ukraine. The U.S. President should not let himself be distracted by any suggestion relayed by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to Secretary of State Rubio after the two exchanged views on new ideas for Ukraine peace talks. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.)

The people of Ukraine understand better than anyone, the existential nature of Putin’s aggression. They see what Russia is doing by kidnapping Ukrainian children and sending them to the territory of the Russian Federation. They see the elimination of Ukrainian language instruction in schools in areas Russia occupies. They see the dreadful, starved and tortured condition of Ukrainian soldiers who are returned in prisoner exchanges. For Ukraine, surrender or conquest means extermination. To end this, more military, economic and political assistance is required.

The decision by the U.S. to participate in the recent “Coalition of the Willing” meeting is another step in the right direction. U.S. participation sends an important message to our allies and to Putin. Trump should immediately take other actions to send Putin and the world a clear message of support for the victim in this conflict, Ukraine.

A good first step would be to support legislation sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal that targets Russia and countries that purchase Russian hydrocarbon products with stiff sanctions. The full range of available weapons systems should also be fast-tracked for delivery to Ukraine. Restrictions on their use in targeting military installations in the territory of the Russian Federation should be immediately removed. And high priority in that target set should be the factories that produce the Shahed drones that are now being used as weapons of terror against Ukrainian civilians.

President Trump should take a big picture view of the world Putin has created and the actual state of play of the “Axis of Resistance” that Putin has built.

In December of 2024, one of the key players in the Axis, former Syrian President Basher al Assad, saw his government collapse and he fled to exile in Moscow. Since October 2023, Israel has ruthlessly dismantled favored surrogates of the Axis, including Hamas and Hezbollah. The U.S. used military force to attack another favorite surrogate of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen. And in June, Israel conducted a number of stunningly effective attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, military leadership, scientists, air defenses and other important targets.

Significantly, the U.S. joined Israel in conducting attacks against nuclear targets in Iran thereby demonstrating a commitment to use powerful elements of the U.S. military against a critical member of Putin’s alliance. Note that all of these actions against Putin’s axis received barely a peep from the great dictator in the Kremlin, much less a military response. Putin’s axis is in serious trouble.

Russia’s military is fully engaged in the fight against Ukraine, leaving Moscow with very little response. Estimates suggest that Russia has suffered a million casualties (killed, wounded, captured, missing) in the conflict thus far. All for the gain of a few hundred kilometers of Ukrainian territory.

The cost to Russia’s economy has been similarly catastrophic. Inside his government, the mysterious deaths and suicides of regime officials and oligarchs—even some considered to be Putin supporters - has got to be sending a message to those remaining - that no one is safe. The key piece in the puzzle that could bring Putin the fate he deserves is resolve from the U.S. President.

Ukraine was given just enough support not to lose against Russia under President Joe Biden, but never enough support to actually win and end this war. President Trump, you have the opportunity to show the world that you are the winning president.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



Getting Inside the Mind of Xi Jinping



CIPHER BRIEF EXPERT INTERVIEW -- Taiwan launched its largest annual military exercise to date this week, amid growing concern that China is on the cusp of launching a military operation to to take control of the island by force. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned recently that an invasion "could be imminent", saying at a summit in Singapore at the end of May, that "There's no reason to sugarcoat it: the threat China poses is real." The Defense Secretary also said that Beijing is "credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific," adding, "to be clear: any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world." Hegseth is not alone in believing that a Chinese invasion is inevitable as part of President Xi Jinping’s plan to “re-unify” the island with mainland China. But it is also just part of a much broader strategy that long-term, poses significantly higher stakes.

As a result of the threat posed to U.S. national security, the CIA established the China Mission Center in 2021, with the aim of better coordinating the collection and analysis components of intelligence to better inform U.S. policymakers – and most importantly, the Agency’s number one customer – the president of the United States – with the most accurate information possible about Xi Jingping’s intent and timeline. Cipher Brief Expert Susan Miller, who retired from the CIA just a few months ago - where she served as the Assistant Director at the Center - told The Cipher Brief that Xi’s intent is not only to forcefully reunify Taiwan. In fact, that’s just the beginning.

THE INTERVIEW

Cipher Brief CEO & Publisher Suzanne Kelly talked with Miller about how U.S. intelligence is working to better understand what Xi is thinking. Our Subscriber+ interview has been edited for length and clarity.


Susan Miller, Former Assistant Director of China Mission Center, CIA

Miller spent 39 years at CIA as an operations officer, serving nine tours abroad, two as a Case Officer, one as Deputy Chief of Station and six tours as Chief of Station. She also served as assistant director of several mission centers at the Agency.

The Cipher Brief: What do you think it is that the American people need to understand about why China is posing a threat to U.S. national security and how they’re doing it?

Miller: He wants to absolutely replace the U.S. as the world leader, but he doesn't want to replace us as the world leader of democracy. He wants to replace us as the world influencer. He knows that we're going to go to war someday because he absolutely plans in the coming decade, if not in the shorter term, to invade Taiwan. And he absolutely knows that we would come to the defense of democracies around the world. So, in order to give him the edge, he has - not only in America but all around the globe - been able to get into national power grids. Just think, what could you do with that capability in a time of war? You turn off the power. We know he's in power grids in America and Europe and Africa and Asia.

Why? Because companies from the People’s Republic of China underbid other companies. Now that ability is gone. That's something that the previous administration and the current administration both said, ‘we're not going to let anybody get at our current infrastructure’. But can you imagine if we decide to go to war to support Taiwan or we have to do it because something else has happened, can you imagine having no power in California or along the Eastern seaboard? And that's why we need to really care. And Xi Jinping’s plan is to take us over bit by bit. There are some things that we have kind of let go, although we shouldn't have. One of them is that he has taken over U.S. influence in Africa and other developing countries.

The Cipher Brief: China has certainly used its Belt and Road Initiative to moving into these areas and they're bringing money and they're bringing infrastructure and they're making day-to-day life better for the locals – at least in the short-term.

Miller: Yes. They're doing what we used to do with USAID and with getting U.S. companies to kind of sign up and go do this, so that we could make sure we still get important minerals and so that we can make the widgets that we need to make from all of these countries. And then we also provide a platform where a democracy can at least start and maybe not ever be as robust as ours, but at least be better than what they have now. So, that's a real concern. China is stepping into a lot of these roles all over the world. And that bothers me because that should be us doing that.

The Cipher Brief: You’ve also spent a lot of your professional career focused on the threat posed by Russia. Today, when you're comparing the China threat to the Russia threat, how are these threats different?

Miller: Can you name one thing you have ever bought that says Made in China? We all can, right? Have you ever even thought about buying a toaster oven made in Russia? The answer is no. And so I'm oversimplifying this a little bit because the bottom line is that with China, we have an integrated economic goal that might help them not want to go to war with us in a way that with Russia, we have nothing.

I lived in Moscow back in the Soviet days, and my American toaster broke so I went down to a department store and bought a Russian made toaster. I plugged it in and it caught fire the first time. And it is still like that. That's why they don't manufacture stuff. There are other things that they have there. They do have some minerals and some other things. They have a pretty good agriculture system that works not only for their own people, but for that area as well. But the bottom line is that Putin does not have the same kind of leverage over us as Xi Jinping has.

The Cipher Brief: He has nuclear deterrence, but he doesn't have economic deterrence. Everyone is watching to see what happens in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, the war that Russia clearly did start, clearly unprovoked. And as everyone follows the slow-moving headlines on this, I'm wondering if you think Vladimir Putin, who was a former spy himself, sees the world differently than a former businessman, which Donald Trump certainly has skills in the business world. But where do you see these two things potentially colliding in terms of how the U.S. needs to be approaching negotiating with someone like Putin?

Miller: Putin is not only a former intelligence guy from Russia. He also served as second chief directorate. And just to explain, first chief directorate spies, like CIA does, like MI6 does. You go overseas, you spot, assess, develop operations and things like that. The second chief directorate, they were the ones that put anybody who dared to say that the Soviet Union wasn't the best thing in the world into gulags. They also tortured people, dissidents, et cetera. And so he came from the nasty side of the KGB. And he's always been a believer in Russia having lost something under Yeltsin. And a guy like him - and there are a lot of them like him, just think of our version of white supremacists or white Nazi or American Nazis, things like that - that's their version. These are the people that support and work in the second chief directorate. So, that's the concern.

He doesn't care about human life. He doesn't care if his own people die in a war with Ukraine. He knows they're dying. And he knows that they're not making much progress and he's mad at his generals, but I can guarantee, in typical Russian – and I don't have absolute evidence of this because I don't have any exquisite intelligence on this - but he's probably underfunding them. They're probably not dressed well. There is still conscription going on there. And they're not that happy either. Whereas in Ukraine, they are fighting for their lives. And that, to me, is what is astounding Putin.

The Cipher Brief: The Cipher Brief has been briefed on reports from Ukrainians that captured Russian soldiers have relayed some of what they have been dealing with as are deployed to the front. A lot of them are reportedly untrained and in some cases, they reportedly didn't know who their commander was. So we know there's chaos within the ranks for sure. But we've seen something since the invasion of Ukraine that we hadn't seen on the world stage quite like this before, and that is this new friendship without any limits between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Does that concern you in a different way than these threats do on an individual basis?

Miller: It does concern me, yes. It is concerning and it is different now that they claim they have this friendship without limits. But does any dictator really have a friend? Somebody they totally trust that they'll tell everything and vice versa? And if Xi Jinping says, ‘yes, of course I'll give you some some terrific bombs,’ and things like that, Xi also has to think about what kind of economic downturn is going to happen inside China if every country that sides with Ukraine - which is a lot of democracies around the world - says, ‘you know, we're going to start boycotting China’. That's one of the things he has to be extremely careful about.

The Cipher Brief: You stood up the China mission center for the CIA, which is something that didn’t exist in this form prior. What do you think that should tell the American people about the importance of China and the importance of getting good intelligence on China?

Miller: I was on my second tour in Israel when then-director [William] Burns came for a visit and during the long windy roads from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, he mentioned that he had been talking with a China specialist at the agency and some others and said, ‘You know, I'm thinking we're not paying enough attention to China as the real strategic threat and even maybe a tactical one’, if you look at tactical being 10 years or less. And he said, ‘What do you think about that?’ I had been chief of East Asia division and chief in counter intelligence, and we had put Chinese spies behind bars. And I told him that we've been saying inside the agency for years, we are not paying enough attention to China. We were still dealing with remnants from 9/11 and Iraq and things like that, so I said, ‘I'm in’.

It took a while for us to figure it out and what we decided is that the China Mission Center owns property, that's going to be its own department. And so that's the China department basically, and Taiwan department at the agency. So that was one. Number two was we needed to look at the worldwide program. That's where we did the basically the external ops. And the goal was not only to work with stations - everything that we always do when we send out requirements - but we also needed to think about how we were going to do it a little bit differently so we had more success.

And so we started what we call STED, which is the Strategic Training and Education Department, which is kind of like TED talks, and they actually do a STED talk. And they're the ones that went out to every single mission center chief and built modules that really helped. So, that was the other thing that we did that was very different.

The Cipher Brief: A fascinating breakdown of how the intelligence community is prioritizing China as an intelligence target.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



As Nukes Spread, Robust Missile Defenses Must Rise

OPINION — More countries aspire to be nuclear-weapons states, and we should prepare for this eventuality. That’s why the Golden Dome missile defense initiative is timely and needed.

The war in Ukraine is a stark reminder that Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, pursuant to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in exchange for so-called security assurances, was a grave mistake. Indeed, If Ukraine retained any portion of its 1,900 nuclear warheads, would Russia have invaded Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 and risked a nuclear confrontation? Even a revanchist Vladimir Putin would have thought twice about the consequences of a nuclear war with Ukraine.

The 1968 Treaty on the non-proliferations of nuclear weapons (NPT) has been relatively effective in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology as the then-five nuclear-weapons states – the U.S. Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom – pursued nuclear disarmament. Over the years, however, Pakistan, India and North Korea have conducted nuclear tests and are now nuclear-weapons states, with Israel not acknowledging that they have nuclear weapons. North Korea was the only country to pull out of the NPT; the others never joined.

China refuses to enter any nuclear disarmament negotiations with the U.S. and Russia, while exponentially enhancing its nuclear-weapons arsenal. Since the failed Hanoi Summit in 2019, North Korea has raced to build more nuclear weapons and ballistic missile to deliver these weapons, to include a solid fuel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of targeting the whole of the U.S.

The U.S. and Israel just bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow, given that Iran was enriching uranium at 60% purity, weeks away from the 90% purity for nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 31 report that stated Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations and was denying monitors access to suspect nuclear sites reportedly contributed to the decision to bomb these sites.

Iran just announced that they were suspending cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities could be guaranteed.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Over 70% of South Koreans believe they need their own nuclear weapons, despite U.S. extended deterrent commitments. There’s also a sense in Japan that eventually they also will need their own nuclear weapons, as a deterrent to North Korea and possibly China. The tension in the South and East China Seas and China’s attempted intimidation of Taiwan are issues that will affect both Japan and South Korea. And indeed, an emboldened North Korea, now aligned with a revanchist Russian Federation, with a mutual defense treaty and North Korean troops in Russia participating in the war of aggression in Ukraine and receiving missile, satellite and nuclear support from Russia, may strike out at South Korea, in a conflict that could escalate quickly, to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Other countries in East Asia may feel compelled to also seek nuclear weapons, as a deterrent to any aggressor.

The same applies to the Middle East. Iran has been clear: They will continue to enrich uranium, despite the recent bombing of their nuclear facilities. But as a threshold nuclear weapons state, weeks away from fabricating nuclear weapons, calling for the annihilation of Israel, will there be a repeat of the U.S. and Israeli bombings? Will Iran now race to acquire nuclear weapons, especially now, given the removal of IAEA monitors?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are very concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Indeed, they may also feel a need to have their own nuclear weapons arsenal, for deterrent purposes. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly spoke about the unfairness of Turkey not having nuclear weapons as a deterrent given the precarious geopolitical situation in the region.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

Our missile defense capabilities have lagged behind the advances in nuclear-weapons technology, especially the lethality of today’s nuclear weapons that are eighty times more powerful than the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are currently over 13,000 nuclear weapons in the global stockpile of nuclear weapons, down from over 60,000 nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The New START arms control treaty between the U.S. and the Russian Federation, responsible for this reduction in nuclear weapons, expires on February 5, 2026, and Russia has refused to engage substantively on a successor to New START. So, what follows is uncertainty.

What is certain is that China will continue to build more nuclear weapons, with Beijing estimated to have over 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030; and North Korea, currently estimated to have over 50 nuclear warheads, is determined to build more nuclear weapons; and Iran is determined to remain a threshold nuclear-weapons state, weeks away from having nuclear weapons.

If South Korea and Japan and others in East Asia and if Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others in the Middle East decide to go nuclear, the global stockpile of nuclear weapons will increase exponentially. We also know that terrorist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, previously attempted to buy a nuclear weapon or radiological materials for a dirty bomb. And there may be countries willing to sell these weapons and radiological materials, or unable to securely store these weapons and materials that, then, are acquired by a rogue state or terrorist organization.

These are just some of the reasons why a Golden Dome missile defense system is needed. Deploying space-based sensors and interceptors is no longer the Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) that President Reagan pursued in 1983. We now have the technology and a budget of $175 billion to establish a viable missile defense capability hopefully within three years. We owe the American people security from the threat of a bad actor using nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.

This column by Cipher Brief Expert Ambassador Joseph DeTrani was first published in The Washington Times

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



The Real Impact of a Nuclear Bomb

FINE PRINT / OPINION — “This report explores the environmental effects and societal and economic consequences that would be expected to follow in the weeks-to-decades after a nuclear war. The exploration begins…with the consideration of four plausible scenarios for the employment of nuclear weapons, along with description of the immediate effects of the energy release and blast from a nuclear detonation.”

That’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of a new congressionally-mandated study from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) entitled, Potential Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, that was released online June 25.

Because I have written extensively about nuclear weapons, including in my 2021 book, Blown To Hell, which is about radioactive fallout on the Marshall Islanders from the Bikini thermonuclear Bravo test in 1954, I was surprised to read that “evaluation of radioactive fallout was not included in the scope of the work.” That apparently was because so much had already been published about the impact of radiation and radioactivity from nuclear weapons.

This new NAS study focuses primarily on the release of thermal energy (heat) from a nuclear explosion in the lower atmosphere, as well as kinetic energy (blast) and the air shockwave caused by the latter. A nuclear detonation in the atmosphere, where the fireball does not hit the ground, releases some 35 percent of its energy in heat; another 50 percent in blast and shock wave, and the remaining 15 percent of energy in radiation.

Nonetheless, I believe the study is worth exploring, if only, for example, to see the “four plausible scenarios” the expert writers see that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. In addition, studies such as these often disclose facts not normally available.

There were a series of scientific studies in the 1980s that raised concern about large-scale nuclear exchanges leading to “nuclear winter” scenarios. They showed that nearly every country in the world would be affected, beyond those in conflict. In those studies, nuclear use by superpowers caused immense firestorms whose light-blocking soot and particulates reduced sunlight to disrupt worldwide agriculture and ecosystems for years.

I believe reminders such as that make all such studies valuable, because they can reduce the likelihood of any nuclear weapon use. The authors of this new study apparently feel that way since they wrote, “With growing risks of nuclear proliferation and evolving warfare doctrines, this renewed scientific examination aims to quantify the grave global stakes should such hostilities occur in the current and future security environments.”

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

The four scenarios

Beyond the U.S. and Russia, each of whom has more than 4,000 nuclear weapons, the NAS study lists six other nuclear weapons nations. They are the United Kingdom with an estimated 225 weapons; France with 290; India with 160; Pakistan with 170; China with 500 and growing; and North Korea with 50.

I must point out here that the NAS has omitted Israel, which has some 90 or more nuclear weapons, according to experts such as Hans Kristensen and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The U.S. Government and apparently the NAS follow Israeli policy of ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying their nuclear weapons exist, although they have had them since the late-1960s. Israel even has sub-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles as well as nuclear bombs and land-based missiles.

In its study, the NAS presents what it describes as four plausible scenarios for nuclear weapon use:

Large-scale strategic usage of 2,000 warheads, where the scenario is that the Russia/U.S. nuclear exchanges begin at the tactical level, but escalate to the strategic level;

Moderate-scale strategic exchange of 400 warheads, where the scenario is a China/U.S. conflict;

Small-scale regional conflict of 150 warheads, such as one between Pakistan and India;

Very small-scale use of a single warhead, to “demonstrate resolve” and “a willingness to employ nuclear weapons.” This scenario seems to follow the Russian strategy of “escalate to de-escalate,” that initially appeared in the past decade.

The NAS study says it has proposed these scenarios in order “to study potential environmental inputs,” though the study also “recommends further development of a more comprehensive set of scenarios.”

I should point out that I have been told that in U.S. military wargaming, when the scenario leads to one side using a nuclear weapon and escalation begins, the game usually ends because no one is prepared to say where nuclear exchanges are going or how to stop them.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The impact

The NAS study, under so-called counterforce or military targeting doctrine, assumes the highest priority for a majority of nuclear strikes would be at military-related targets. But the study notes that “while some military targets are likely in or near urban areas, present-day [nuclear] weapons are generally more accurate and are of lower yields, which would likely reduce the impact on civilian structures.”

Hiroshima, the Japanese target for the first U.S. atomic bomb, was described in a 1945 pre-attack U.S. government document put together by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer’s Target Committee as “an important depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged.”

The point was then, and I believe it remains now, that any decision to use a nuclear weapon is in recognition that its use would destroy property and kill many people, both military and civilian. Remember, some 70,000 people were killed at Hiroshima with thousands more dying later from effects of that one atomic bomb.

The NAS study points out, “Following a nuclear blast [totaling one megaton], there are two surface-temperature pulses and two pulses of thermal radiation from the fireball.” The first thermal pulse lasts just one-tenth of a second but is “capable of permanent or temporary effects on the eyes.”

The second thermal pulse may last up to ten seconds and “carries about 99 percent of total thermal radiation energy… This radiation is the main cause of skin burns up to 12 miles or more away, and of eye effects at even greater distance. The radiation from the second pulse can also cause fires to start under suitable conditions.” There was a firestorm at Hiroshima.

When it comes to the blast effect from nuclear weapons, the NAS study says, “Most thermal radiation reaches material in advance of the blast wave,” something that is not generally understood. The study adds, “The blast can extinguish flames, but can also leave smoldering material and rubble which can grow into larger fires. Blast waves can cause damage that results in secondary ignitions, thus being an additional source of fire starts.”

Within the city limits of Hiroshima, 92 percent of all buildings were destroyed or damaged. Of that number, 63 percent were completely destroyed by fire, with only 5 percent completely destroyed only by blast.

The NAS study describes agriculture and food production as among the economic consequences of nuclear weapon usage, saying there “can be extensive direct and indirect impacts…with far-reaching consequences for immediate and long-term food security.”

In one of several radiation mentions, the NAS study says, “Radioactive fallout, pollution, and habitat destruction could contribute to the decline of various plant and animal species, disrupting ecosystem services crucial for maintaining soil fertility, pest control and ecosystem health. This could further challenge agricultural systems to recover and adapt to the new post-war conditions.”

I saw first-hand in the Marshall Islands in the 1970s that decades after being subjected to radioactive fallout from a powerful thermonuclear weapon ground-burst more than 100 miles away, plants grown on land and shellfish from the sea still showed radioactivity that made them dangerous to eat.

There is a footnote in the NAS study scenarios section that mentions so-called countervalue nuclear targets, which it describes as “civilian and cultural targets, population centers and infrastructure.” In other words, they are urban or suburban civilian-populated areas.

That footnote adds: “In some sense, countervalue targets can be understood to be punitive or for revenge; however, these terms are currently considered out-dated and inappropriate with current U.S. nuclear strategy.”

As I noted earlier, Oppenheimer and his Target Committee saw their massively powerful atomic bombs as devices to end a war, not fight one. In my terms, in 1945 they understood that their new nuclear bombs were terror weapons, designed to show how many buildings could be destroyed and people killed with a single bomb.

And I believe now, however one talks about nuclear weapons and no matter the number they have, they remain today terror weapons — and that is what deters their use today – at least against a nation that has its own nuclear weapons or is allied with such a nation.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



As Taiwan Launches Military Drills, a Pressing Question for Washington



TAIPEI, TAIWAN —Taiwan’s annual military exercise launching this week, will be its largest ever, mobilizing more than 22,000 reservists in response to what officials describe as escalating military pressure from Beijing.

The Han Kuang drills are expected to last 10 days in concurrence with civil defense drills. It’s another indicator that beneath the surface calm of Taiwan’s vibrant cities, a more profound change is taking shape and in government halls, military installations, and civil society groups. A growing sense of urgency is quietly emerging.

China’s preparation for a potential invasion is no longer a distant possibility but a reality rapidly coming into focus —and defense planners are grappling with a pressing question: how and when will Washington act?

“Taiwan is incredibly reliant upon U.S. support for both deterrence against China, as well as a war-fighting invasion scenario,” Kitsch Liao, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, tells The Cipher Brief. “The U.S. is the sole arms supplier for Taiwan because China has coerced every other country into not selling Taiwan any weapons.”

Taiwan, a democratic and technologically vital island of 24 million people, faces increasing military, economic, and political pressure from Beijing. As China accelerates its gray zone and overt military activities around the island, from AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation targeting political candidates to drones breaching airspace and the use of fishing vessels operating under PLA guidance, Taiwan’s defenses—and America’s credibility as a regional power—are being tested.

Xi’s Calculus: When Will He Move?

While Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly speaks of “peaceful reunification,” some analysts see his strategy shifting dramatically toward preparation for a potential war. In December, the People’s Liberation Army launched its largest naval operation in the Taiwan Strait since 1996, simulating a blockade and attacks on foreign ships. Amphibious landing drills, maritime pressure campaigns, and cyber operations have intensified.

“Relations are pretty bad, especially as China’s economy struggles,” Taiwanese legislator and Kuma Academy founder Puma Shen tells The Cipher Brief. “If the economy falters, ideology becomes more important. Xi Jinping has chosen nationalism and the goal of ‘Great China’ as the main ideology, with taking back Taiwan as a key step.”

In 2021, Admiral Phil Davidson, then Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, warned that China might seek to take Taiwan by 2027. Others predict a longer timeline, possibly into the 2030s. Yet most experts agree on one thing: an invasion is no longer a question of “if” but “when.”

“If I had to give a range, I’d say possibly between 2032 and 2040,” Alexander Huang, Special Advisor to the Chairman and Director of International Affairs for the opposition KMT, tells The Cipher Brief. “There’s this unscientific estimate floating around that Xi might want to accomplish something ‘big’ before turning 80. That makes the next decade a period to observe.”

Even if a full-scale invasion is delayed, Taiwan still faces near-term risks, including cyberattacks, blockades, disinformation, and surprise strikes.

“A war with Taiwan would not be localized. Missiles would likely hit Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines,” Scott Huang, a researcher at Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council, tells The Cipher Brief. “These countries would get involved. That’s why China has been hesitant to initiate real war.”

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

China’s Pressure Campaign: War Without Invasion

Beijing’s strategic ambiguity mirrors its doctrine of political warfare. As Liao points out, “China observes no rules and offers no restrictions in conducting influence and espionage operations against the Taiwanese public.”

“We are talking about everything from ostensibly religious organization exchanges, charity support, to funneling illegal campaign contributions, and utilizing local Mafia for blackmail and potential assassinations,” he continued. “The CCP United Front and espionage effort has been able to increase existing societal contradictions, such as Taiwan’s ever-difficult identity issues, driving wedges into political issues, and convincing the Taiwanese population that they cannot possibly fight the Chinese.”

Beijing has been using cyberwarfare and information operations against Taiwan’s population ahead of any potential military action. With Taiwan’s strategic location and its centrality in the global supply chain—especially in semiconductors—China understands that victory does not need to come solely through kinetic means.

Semiconductors and Strategic Leverage

For Washington, the stakes are immense. Taiwan’s TSMC manufactures approximately 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductors, powering AI, military systems, and the global economy. Washington has been trying to change that.

TSMC’s decision, made more than five years ago, to build fabrication plants in the United States—most notably a $40 billion investment in Arizona—has been hailed as a move to bolster supply chain security and reduce dependence on East Asia. The project includes two advanced chip facilities in Phoenix, one of which is expected to manufacture cutting-edge 3-nanometer chips by 2026.

But Chen’s comments reflect a deeper strategic reality: the most advanced nodes of chip manufacturing, engineering talent, and supply chain infrastructure remain deeply entrenched in Taiwan. The Arizona expansion may provide redundancy, but some experts believe it cannot fully replace the island’s dominant role in global chip production. For Beijing, that leverage adds to the strategic calculus. For Washington, it highlights why Taiwan’s security is inextricably linked to America’s economic and national security interests.

“Semiconductors are Taiwan’s major strategic asset. But whether the recent investment in Arizona was TSMC’s idea or happened under U.S. pressure is unclear,” Liang-Chih Evans Chen, an associate research fellow at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, tells The Cipher Brief. “It could be seen as Taiwan trying to spread its risk by diversifying manufacturing. That’s a reasonable strategy, but it’s not realistic to completely move TSMC out of Taiwan.”

Beyond economics, the Taiwan Strait is also a maritime artery.

“About 80 percent of ships in Asia pass through the Taiwan Strait,” Shen notes. “Taiwan also produces key technology components, like chips, that power global industries. A conflict would impact housing prices and economies worldwide.”

America’s Unfinished Playbook

Despite lacking formal diplomatic ties or a defense treaty with Taiwan, the U.S. remains the island’s primary arms supplier and strategic partner. While President Trump’s current remarks favor ambiguity—he’s declined to specify if he’d defend Taiwan. His administration approved major arms sales to Taiwan and oversaw the highest-level U.S. visit in decades. The mixed signals complicate planning, but signal continuity in support.

Five months ago, the State Department quietly removed language that distanced the U.S. from supporting an independent Taiwan. In March, the G7 issued a firm rebuke of China’s coercive tactics toward Taiwan, omitting the “One China” language for the first time.

Vice President J.D. Vance has called China the “biggest threat” to Washington. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently warned that “the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.”

Still, ambiguity persists at the highest levels. Trump has declined to specify whether he would defend Taiwan, stating, “I don’t want to ever put myself in that position.” He has also said, “Taiwan should pay us for defense.”

Internal divisions and a slow-moving bureaucracy continue to be critical challenges.

“We still don’t have a confirmed Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia. Same with the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Security Affairs post. That leaves a massive vacuum in communication,” stressed Alexander Huang. “There’s no alliance treaty, no joint exercises, no shared doctrine, no direct communication network. How can they help? We don’t even have interoperability — no Identification Friend or Foe system.”

Leading security experts from the public and private sectors are gathering at The Cipher Brief Threat Conference October 19-22. Will you be there? Seats are limited. Apply for your seat at the table today.

Taiwan’s Military and Civil Preparedness

Taiwan has approximately 200,000 active-duty personnel. China’s military dwarfs it, with an estimated two to three million personnel and theater commands focused on Taiwan.

“Although they wouldn’t mobilize their entire force, they have specific theater commands focused on Taiwan… and China could easily redirect forces from other regions if needed,” observed Chen.

Taiwan is rapidly investing in submarines, drones, and advanced U.S.-made fighter jets. Yet delivery delays and domestic political gridlock complicate readiness.

“Despite being eager to purchase more American arms, Taipei has struggled to receive its purchases in a timely fashion—harming long-term readiness,” Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tells The Cipher Brief.

A $6 billion defense budget cut by the KMT-majority legislature earlier this year further strained capabilities, experts lamented, prompting pressure from President Lai for the frozen funds to be “unfrozen” in June. Still, the waiting game has many on edge.

“The first indigenous submarine was supposed to undergo trials this October, but it’s already behind schedule,” Chen said. “With budget cuts, we don’t know what will happen with submarines two and three.”

Experts also warn that most civilians remain unprepared for large-scale conflict.

“We’re prepared in the same way we turn on Netflix every night and say, ‘Oh, poor people in Ukraine or Gaza—but not us!’” Alexander Huang points out. “We think we’re the chosen ones, living on a beautiful island.”

Should China act, Taiwan will require resupply from the U.S.—missiles, fuel, medical kits, and more. Escorting convoys, running blockades, and challenging Chinese air superiority will almost certainly demand U.S. military intervention. Analysts underscore that the time for preparation is narrowing.

“During an invasion scenario, Taiwan will eventually require resupply for everything from missiles to critical medical supplies,” Liao surmises. “Escorting such supply convoys and running a Chinese blockade would require U.S. intervention. There are very few scenarios where Taiwan can win alone.”

But experts agree that if Taiwan falls, the global consequences will be felt far beyond the Taiwan Strait.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



U.S. Cyber Defense Starts with Defining Standards and Driving Collaboration

OPINION — President Donald J. Trump has returned to office with the renewed revelations that Chinese government-affiliated hackers continue to outmatch America’s critical infrastructure cyber defenders through sabotage and espionage campaigns such as Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon.

The new Trump Administration must rebalance the cyber battlefield in America’s favor by raising and incentivizing cybersecurity standards for the electric, oil and gas, nuclear power, water, telecommunications, financial services, public health, transportation, and other critical infrastructure sectors.

The mechanism would be the U.S. government, insurance providers, critical infrastructure operators, and technology providers collaboratively defining and maintaining data-based “good” standards for each sector, building on the greatest strengths of the public and private domains for a “common defense” of the homeland, with cyberspace being recognized and prioritized as the first line of defense.

A new national security prioritization schema is essential because, unlike our traditional, kinetic focused military components, every moment of every day, America’s public and private sector cyber warriors are battling nation-states in cyberspace. We must respond accordingly.

Raising Standards through Transparency and Accountability

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) currently mandates high cyber defense standards for corporate members of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). The new Trump team should extend this standard-setting practice, partnering with the insurance industry to establish high standards for America’s private critical infrastructure operators.

The insurance industry would leverage its experience with cyber incident data from hundreds of thousands of cyber incidents to help government set these minimum standards across sectors and functions within sectors.

The government would require operators to establish Cybersecurity Information Centers (CICs) to audit organizational standards compliance, report their results to the government, and inform the management of their internal cyber security posture.

In much the same way that U.S. public companies are required to report financial results following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the CIC reporting standard would provide the government and insurers important visibility into operator risk and provide operators a standardized framework for cyber risk management.

Join us in Sea Island, Georgia for The Cipher Brief's 2025 Threat Conference from October 19-22. See how you can save your seat at tcbconference.com

Leveraging Bi-Partisan Consensus and Policy Precedents

A bi-partisan policy consensus over two administrations has laid the groundwork for this public-private CIC collaboration. The 2020 bi-partisan Congressional Cyber Solarium Commission (CSC) made recommendations for “operationalizing cybersecurity collaboration” in relevant information sharing between the government and private sector.

President Joe Biden’s 2024 National Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience (NSM-22) built on the CSC’s Congressional consensus by establishing “the appropriate sharing of timely, actionable information” through a “robust information sharing environment” that enables actions and outcomes that reduce cyber risk.

The Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC) established by Congress under the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) through the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act provides the ideal structure for gathering and processing CIC data.

How CICs Would Work in Action

The government and insurance providers would leverage CIC data to monitor each operator’s progress (or lack thereof) in meeting their standards and determine action based on the risks posed to the American people.

For instance, the government and insurers would set a ground truth of “good” cybersecurity standards for a local water utility. The water utility’s CIC would continuously monitor its cyber risks against the sector’s ground truth. The water operator, the government, and insurance companies would be informed of whether the utility complies and how well it performs compared to other operators.

Through the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), industry regulators, and potential reinsurance vehicles, the government would work with the insurance industry to mandate compliance or the water utility would be denied cyber insurance coverage.

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

Driving Investment and Innovation in Private Sector Cybersecurity

The CIC data collection would enable the government to drive smarter investments in private sector cyber defenses and spark a boom in private sector cybersecurity and risk management innovation.

Infrastructure owners and operators would have quality data to inform investments in their own defenses. The federal government would use CIC insights to invest intelligently in cyber grants for cash-poor state and local entities such as water utilities. Through these smart grants, the government would assume the role of “cyber insurer of last resort”, shifting the risk of catastrophic cyber-attacks from the weakest and most vulnerable operators to the federal government.

The CIC insights would also inform and bolster CISA’s JCDC efforts to protect vulnerable operators and, where necessary, engage the unique capabilities of the National Security Agency’s Cybersecurity Collaboration Center (CCC).

Finally, the administration could unleash a private sector boom in cybersecurity and risk management innovation by enabling technology solution providers to conduct the CIC standards audits. Beyond creating a market for audits, the government could share anonymized versions of the overall pool of CIC data to enable private sector partners to develop and train better cyber solutions.

America’s Common Defense, Built on Public-Private Collaboration

Vulnerable populations in medieval times responded to existential threats by collaborating for a “common defense” through the construction of walls around their villages. From our nation’s very beginning it was the federal government that maintained a “common defense” for our citizens, consistently relying upon, amongst other things, two great oceans, and mostly friendly neighbors to the north and south to serve as 20th century defensive walls to protect us.

In 2025, the new Trump Administration has a unique opportunity to build a new public-private collaboration framework that builds cyber “walls” to fill remaining digital gaps and effectively provides for our national “common cyber defense”.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



Expert Q&A: What to Watch for at the Trump-Netanyahu Meeting

EXPERT Q&A — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington D.C. on Monday to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House — their third meeting this year. Netanyahu’s visit follows the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran last month. Two items are at the top of Trump’s agenda for the meeting: a ceasefire deal on Gaza, and a nuclear deal with Iran.

Before Netanyahu touched down in the U.S., The Cipher Brief spoke with Ambassador Gary Grappo, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Oman and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, to discuss the dynamics and outcomes he is on the lookout for at the Trump-Netanyahu meeting. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You can watch the full discussion on The Cipher Brief YouTube Channel.

The Cipher Brief: What are you going to be looking for as this meeting unfolds?

Ambassador Grappo: The last time the president and Mr. Netanyahu met, it was very much a Trump-dominated visit. They had a public event in which Mr. Netanyahu shockingly spoke very, very little and even seemed a bit submissive. I'll be interested to see how that dynamic plays out in this visit. I expect it to be very, very different. And secondly, looking at the actual specifics, what comes out of this, what they discuss, what are the issues that they focus on and address, the circumstances of this visit, of course, are very, different from Mr. Netanyahu's previous visits to the White House since Trump took office.

The Cipher Brief: We know President Trump is very much interested in a deal on the war in Gaza, and also vis-a-vis Iran. It does seem that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be a little less eager. Let's talk about Gaza first. The U.S. hasn't had much success in this administration or the Biden administration before it in pressuring or using its leverage against Israel to get any changes in terms of the prosecution of that war. Do you think it's a different circumstance now?

Ambassador Grappo: It is a different circumstance. Certainly the dynamic in Gaza has changed very, very little since the last time they met. The Israelis unquestionably hold the upper hand. They literally control between 60-70 percent of the territory of Gaza. They're continuing their efforts to root out Hamas throughout the territory, as challenging as that is now since they're more dispersed, deeply hidden and it's requiring that the IDF to employ different tactics than they may have earlier on in the war.

But what has really changed is Iran and what has taken place in Iran over the course of the last month to six weeks, with Iran now greatly weakened. Its threat in terms of its nuclear weapons is much diminished thanks primarily to the efforts of the Israelis, but also to the United States and specifically the decision of Donald Trump to enter the war as he did with the dropping of those bunker buster bombs. So there'll be a bit of a good feeling coming out of that, and deservedly so for both sides. And that is going to factor in, I think, into the conversation they have about Gaza.

The Cipher Brief: Is it essentially that Trump may feel the U.S. did what Israel had been asking us to do for some time with those bunker busters against Iran, and now we'd like Israel to come to the table and push the Gaza deal over the line, assuming, of course, that Hamas is OK with some of those final provisions? Is that the game here?

Ambassador Grappo: That’s certainly one factor here. Donald Trump did jump into a fray that he initially was very reluctant to join — he had said so publicly before Israel started its first series of attacks on Iran earlier in June. There’ll be something of that in Donald Trump's conversation with Bibi, but also the fact that now with the great danger tamed in Iran, Bibi has much more room for maneuver, including from right-wing members who have threatened to leave his coalition unless he followed a pretty hard-line approach to Gaza, but also Iran. They may be less of a threat now, given the fact that the threat from Iran has diminished.

And there's a third factor here, and Donald Trump has hinted to this in the last week to 10 days, and that is the charges hanging over Bibi Netanyahu's head. Donald Trump has intimated making a statement that these charges should be dismissed. Mr. Trump is very, very popular in Israel, and if he's making statements like this, which is inserting himself into the judicial process in Israel in a very direct way, it can have a very telling effect on Netanyahu's right wing — even if they threaten to leave, Mr. Netanyahu may stand a better chance in any elections which might result from the collapse of his coalition.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The Cipher Brief: Let's go to Iran. Donald Trump would love what he would consider a good deal with Iran. Netanyahu and that right flank, not so much.

Ambassador Grappo: No, not at all. Trump very, very much fears getting drawn into another Middle East war and to allow the Israelis to press the advantage, which they may very well do even without the United States. There’s the fear that once again, the Americans may be drawn into the conflict, particularly given the likelihood that the Iranians are going to move to expedite the development of their weapons program, whatever its current state may be. And there seems to still be some question about how much of the more highly enriched uranium they have, how many centrifuges they may still have and where they are located, which could require another American intervention. And I think Trump is fearful of that.

The Cipher Brief: The question of the Trump administration's leverage is interesting. I was struck by the fact that during that period when a ceasefire was first agreed to, to end this recent 12-day campaign in Iran, there was a moment when President Trump took to social media to say to the Israelis, stop those bombers. It does seem like at least for the short term, he'd like the Israelis to lay low, right?

Ambassador Grappo: Absolutely. Don't forget Mr. Trump has his right wing to answer to as well. It was known from the outset that some of his more hardline supporters were very much opposed to the American intervention in Iran and still are despite the obvious success of the American involvement. They really would like to see us close the book on our intervention there because they also see a real danger of the Americans being further entrapped, they would say, in another Middle East war if the Israelis decide, as you say, to press the advantage.

The Cipher Brief: We spoke soon after President Trump had announced his arrangement under which the U.S. would take control in Gaza. Whatever happened to that?

Ambassador Grappo: It has been forgotten, but I think it's been put on the shelf, which in fact has become a library of plans for settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that never get implemented. I just don't see it as a possibility. What we're currently discussing is a ceasefire, and there are some signs that Hamas may be taking it a little more seriously than they have previously. The Israelis have indicated their willingness to accept it, although I'm sure there are some caveats. But what the administration would like to see is the ceasefire go into effect with assurances provided by the United States that negotiations for a permanent end to the conflict would continue during this 60-day period. And I'm not sure the Israelis are prepared to agree to that. I'll have to see. I'm sure that'll be a discussion point when they meet.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The Cipher Brief: What's the Saudi factor here?

Ambassador Grappo: The Saudis will be following this very, very closely, most especially because of the Iran factor. They do not want to see a continuation of an active conflict in Iran. So they will be hoping that the president can keep the lid on that.

And then secondly, for Mr. Trump, [the normalization of Israeli-Saudi ties] still remains his ace in the hole. This is something that Bibi Netanyahu very, very much wants to have — it would be a signature achievement, but that's going to require an acceptable solution to the war in Gaza. And so that's an ace in the hole for Trump if he decides to play it, if he has spoken at all with the Saudis about this possibility. They have previously indicated their hesitancy to enter into any normalization talks without a clear path toward a Palestinian state. They might be willing to accept some general verbiage around that point without necessarily committing to a Palestinian state in terms of a time frame. But they very much want to see an end to this war and a change in the predicament of the Palestinian people of Gaza who still remain suffering, huddled up in a very, very small area with food shortages, even famine and starvation in some areas. A massive humanitarian effort is going to be necessary.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



Can President Trump Get a "Big, Beautiful" Deal in the Middle East?



CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING – When Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump meet at the White House Monday, they will bring different ideas for resolving two of the most important and difficult conflicts in the Middle East. Netanyahu continues to push a no-holds-barred war in Gaza and an uncompromising position on Iran and its nuclear program; Donald Trump is looking to make deals on both fronts.

Publicly, Trump and Netanyahu will no doubt cheer the success of recent strikes against Iran and the coordination that was evident between the two nations during that 12-day war. In the wake of those attacks, Trump offered to negotiate with Iran, and he has repeatedly urged Israel and Hamas to accept what he calls a “final proposal” for a Gaza truce.

These are the latest in a series of efforts the President has made to make peace on the global stage. As a candidate, Trump promised quick solutions to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, and since his second inaugural, he has expended significant diplomatic efforts on Iran and global trade disputes as well. And other than a few trade agreements, he has made no major deals as yet. Might the Netanyahu visit change that?

Experts say the hurdles involve domestic pressures on the Israeli Prime Minister, who has shown little interest in deals that don’t suit the right-wing nationalists in his government.

“For Netanyahu, there are domestic political concerns that are influencing his enthusiasm about proceeding with a ceasefire [in Gaza] or formal negotiations with Iran,” Jason Campbell, Senior Fellow at The Middle East Institute, told The Cipher Brief. “I think that will continue to be a flashpoint in his discussions with President Trump.”

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

Ambassador Gary Grappo, whose diplomatic career included high-level postings in Oman, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, said that Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear program – something Netanyahu clearly wanted the U.S. to do – may help him press the Israeli leader to halt his campaign in Gaza.

“Donald Trump jumped into a fray that initially he was very reluctant to join, and had said so publicly before Israel started its first series of attacks on Iran,” Amb. Grappo said. He expects Trump to use that “big favor to Israel,” as he called it, in his discussions with Netanyahu.

A rare rift

Although President Trump has boasted frequently of his close relationship to Israel – the country “has never had a better friend in the White House,” he said during his first term. But he has stymied Netanyahu several times since his return to office.

The last time the Israeli Prime Minister came to the White House, Trump refused to give him a green light for attacking Iran, and just days before Israel’s strikes last month, he said publicly that such attacks would be “inappropriate.”

Earlier this year, Netanyahu was reportedly furious to learn that the Trump administration had negotiated directly with Hamas to free U.S. hostages, and that the White House had ended its campaign against Houthi militants without informing Israel. It didn’t help matters that when Trump took his four-day visit to the Middle East in May, he chose to leave Israel off the itinerary.

After that trip, former White House Middle East adviser Dennis Ross told The Cipher Brief that “the Israelis are learning that President Trump is going to do what he decides is in our interests – we've seen a pattern recently of, ‘We'll do what we want, and it doesn't necessarily mean we feel their interests have to be taken into account.’”

It wasn’t a rupture of the relationship, Ross said, but it was highly unusual for a self-proclaimed “best friend” of Israel.

The June 22 U.S. bunker-buster strikes – which some referred to as a “favor” to Israel – appear to have swung the U.S.-Israel pendulum back in a more favorable direction. Netanyahu said as much last week, thanking Trump for his “steadfast stance” on Iran and his overall support of Israel. “I thank him for his consistent support of our country,” he said.

Deal or no deal, part one: The Gaza war

Since the strikes against Iran, Trump has been pressing Netanyahu hard – demanding almost, that he finalize a proposed 60-day ceasefire deal with Hamas.

This week, Trump wrote on social media that Israel had “agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize” the ceasefire, “during which time we will work with all parties to end the War.” The outlines of the deal include the release of the hostages – there are about 50 remaining in Gaza, and authorities believe fewer than half of them are still be alive. A return would happen in five phases during the 60-day truce, in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Israel would pull back troops from Gaza, and negotiations would continue over those 60 days to bring about the end of the war.

Hamas says it is weighing the proposal. Its prime demand is for assurances that the process produces an end to the war – but Israel hasn’t agreed to the plan either. Netanyahu has yet to commit to a final resolution to the war, only a temporary ceasefire, and he and his government are insisting on a complete dismantling of Hamas – both its military wing and government.

“There will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said recently. “We will free our hostages, and we will defeat Hamas.”

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

Meanwhile, two powerful members of Netanyahu’s coalition, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Ministry Itamar Ben-Gvir, are reportedly working to sabotage the deal, holding out for their demands that most of Gaza’s population be forced from the territory, and that an Israeli military government be established there.

Amos Harel, the military and defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote recently that Netanyahu was being forced to choose between repaying a debt to Trump and bowing to his coalition partners.

“Netanyahu, who owes Trump a considerable debt after the president mobilized on his behalf in the Iran campaign after defying the majority of his base in the Republican Party,” Harel wrote, “is still looking for a way to preserve his fragile coalition.”

Grappo believes the U.S. strikes against Iran may have changed the political dynamic in Israel, by allowing Netanyahu to show his right-wing cabinet that it pays to follow a U.S. lead.

“What has really changed is Iran,” Amb. Grappo said, “and specifically the decision of Donald Trump to enter the war as he did with the dropping of those bunker-buster bombs. And that is going to factor into the conversation they have about Gaza.”

The families of the Israeli hostages appear to understand the Iran connection. Several family members set up tables on Friday outside the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, calling for "One Big Beautiful Hostage Deal."

Former hostage Keith Siegel, an Israeli-American who was freed earlier this year, told the gathering, "The leader who achieved a cease-fire with Iran can also deliver the deal of all deals in Gaza," adding, "This is our moment, the families are waiting. The 50 hostages are waiting."

Deal or no deal, part two: What's next for Iran?

Trump and Netanyahu will no doubt compare notes on the damage done by their strikes on the three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump’s insistence that the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated” is not a view shared by the intelligence services of either country – and the Israelis in particular see the Iran issue as unfinished business.

“Item one on the agenda will be collaborating on the current status of the Iranian regime and its nuclear capabilities, and from that to assess how best to approach this in the near to medium term,” Campbell said. “What are the near and medium-term objectives? Can we come to some sort of an understanding or agreement there on how to pursue them?”

Campbell believes Trump will seek “some path to negotiation” on Iran, but he added that “it will remain to be seen the degree to which Netanyahu and Israel agree on the steps to be taken.”

While Trump sees the attacks on Iran as a potential opening for a deal – with the big “if” involving how Iran responds – Netanyahu and his right-wing cabinet members see a chance to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions and missile programs once and for all. In this view, it’s a time to deliver knockout blows, not a moment for diplomacy.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

For this reason, Cohen says, Netanyahu wants U.S. backing for possible additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“We've bought time [with the damage done to Iran’s nuclear program], and from the Israeli perspective, they want to make sure that that time actually extends out as long as possible,” Cohen said. “My guess is Netanyahu is also going to be pushing to maintain the sanctions on Iran, and Trump has sort of shown a little bit of softness or openness to relaxing some of those. I don't think that's what Netanyahu would want.”

“There is some distance between the positions of Mr. Trump and the Israeli government, including Mr. Netanyahu, on Iran,” Amb. Grappo said. “And don't forget Mr. Trump has his right wing to answer to as well. It was known from the outset that some of his more hardline supporters were very much opposed to the American intervention in Iran and still are…They also see a real danger of the Americans being further entrapped in another Middle East war if the Israelis decide to press the advantage.”

The Saudi factor – and the Gaza “Riviera”

Beyond Gaza and Iran, President Trump’s “big, beautiful” Middle East deal involves another major power in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia. Trump’s singular foreign policy achievement during his first term was the so-called Abraham Accords, which produced peace agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. And he has made clear his wish to bring Saudi Arabia into those agreements.

The Biden administration was pursuing a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement as well, but all progress on that front ended abruptly with the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the war on Gaza that followed. Saudi Arabia has insisted on a peace deal in Gaza and a plan for a Palestinian state as prerequisites for entering into any deal with the Israelis. Trump would love to be seen as the architect of this new and potentially critical piece of the Abraham Accords, and certainly the Israelis would love to see it happen.

“For Mr. Trump, this still remains his ace in the hole,” Amb. Grappo said. “It's something that Bibi Netanyahu very, very much wants to have. It would be a signature achievement to have normalization of Israeli-Saudi ties, but that's going to require an acceptable solution to the war in Gaza. And so that's an ace in the hole for Trump if he decides to play it.”

One thing is clear, as Netanyahu heads for Washington: Trump’s last big plan for Gaza – the idea that the U.S. would take over the territory and create a real-estate bonanza on the “Riviera” – is no longer in the conversation.

“I think it's been forgotten,” Amb. Grappo said. “Or at least it's been put on the shelf, and that shelf has over the years, become a library of plans for settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.”

It pays to be a Subscriber+Member. This is exclusive Subscriber+Member content.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube for clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts?

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



To Counter China, Reform U.S. Intelligence for the Digital Age

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION -- The United States is facing a quiet and rapidly growing threat across the digital landscape, an unseen mathematical space of binary code and shadowy actors. This landscape demands more, not less, attention, and urgently, if the U.S. is to win the strategic competition of this generation.

The most sophisticated and ambitious of our adversaries is the government of the People's Republic of China in Beijing, which is pursuing an aggressive national strategy to undermine America's digital future.

More than 20 years have passed since the last major reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. In that time, the adversarial threat landscape has changed dramatically, and technology has become central to the intelligence mission. With ever-increasing demands being placed on the Intelligence Community (IC) in a time of fiscal constraint, it is right to ask whether it is optimized for the emerging threats of tomorrow. It is not.

Given these stakes, lawmakers and national security leaders debating the most significant reforms since 2004 face a critical choice: focus on the real challenges posed by China's digital strategy or become mired in bureaucratic reshuffling.

The current debate in Washington, focused on the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act of 2025, exemplifies this risk. It proposes substantial cuts and a restructuring of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which has indeed grown beyond its envisioned size and narrow mission. While ODNI's future size and structure merit discussion, that topic should not distract policymakers with arguments over bureaucratic power, resources, and prestige while missing the bigger, more urgent picture.

The true measure of reform should not be judged by organizational charts, which rarely impact mission success. The core issues are aligning skills and resources with our most pressing challenges, eliminating bureaucracy that fails to contribute meaningfully to the mission, and unleashing American innovation. Importantly, it is also the candid acknowledgment that espionage demands audacity, agility and risk in the field and in the technical ops center, the so-called pointy end of the spear. Yet institutional incentives often discourage the calculated risks essential to effective intelligence work, creating structural barriers to the bold action required in today's digital intelligence mission.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

A central challenge faced by the IC is the PRC's aggressive national digital strategy, which explicitly aims for global dominance in artificial intelligence by 2030. Beijing views AI as critical infrastructure for national security and geopolitical influence, backing it with extensive state investment and a military-civil fusion program to weaponize civilian technology. To effectively counter this, the U.S. IC must achieve and maintain dominance in all digital domains where China's advancements are most pronounced.

Cyber Collection and Defense: China increasingly leverages AI-driven automation to conduct sophisticated cyber espionage, systematically compromising critical U.S. infrastructure, intellectual property, and defense-related information. Yet our current cyber capabilities are hampered by antiquated acquisition processes that treat software like hardware, sometimes taking years to field capabilities that adversaries deploy on rapid timelines.

Artificial Intelligence: Beijing uses powerful AI algorithms to analyze vast datasets, including the personal and biometric data of Americans, to significantly enhance the precision and scale of its espionage. Meanwhile, IC agencies struggle with bureaucratic barriers that prevent rapid adoption of commercial AI tools and make it difficult to partner with smaller tech companies who are leading innovation in this space.

Strategic Data Acquisition: China's comprehensive data strategy treats information as a strategic asset, harvesting it from commercial, governmental, and individual sources to fuel its AI systems. Naturally, the IC’s ability to leverage open-source data is limited by its available budget, but this is an area worthy of modest additional investment to benefit the mission of all IC members.

Information Operations: Chinese state actors utilize generative AI tools, including advanced deepfakes and social media manipulation, to propagate disinformation, deepen societal divisions, and reshape the global digital landscape to align with China's objectives. The IC must quickly improve its ability to identify and counter such efforts at scale and at machine speed, which will require investment in sophisticated technical capabilities now, not someday.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Real reform demands breaking and rebuilding an outdated acquisitions process designed for analog-era weapon systems. Consider this reality: while China can deploy new cyber capabilities on rapid timelines, the IC can take up to two years to procure and field comparable digital tools due to processes designed for a bygone analog era. Creating fast-track authorities means establishing dedicated pathways where software and digital services can be evaluated, tested, and deployed within weeks rather than following traditional procurement timelines. This also requires a concerted effort to drive genuine partnerships between government and private industry, the true engines of innovation, by creating new pathways for tech talent to serve short tours in government and streamlining how the IC adopts commercial technology.

Critics rightfully worry that rapid acquisition could compromise security or oversight. The solution is not slower processes, but smarter ones that leverage new AI capabilities by creating streamlined security reviews specifically designed for software, implementing continuous monitoring instead of front-loaded approvals (the one-and-done approach), and building accountability mechanisms that match the speed of digital threats.

The goal of intelligence reform should be clear: promote a culture of bold risk-taking, eliminate bureaucracy where it merely perpetuates itself, ruthlessly drive efficiency to free up precious resources, and reallocate those resources to the challenges of the future rather than the structures of the past. This requires immediate action from Congress to establish new acquisition authorities, from IC leadership to restructure internal processes, and from the private sector to engage more deeply with national security missions.

It would be a mistake to squander precious time in debates over bureaucratic power while our adversaries move forward aggressively. The United States must match and surpass their speed, innovation, and audacity, focusing exclusively on the real challenges ahead to secure America's digital future. This is a moment for bold action.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



Expert Q&A: Former CENTCOM Commander on U.S. Troops in the Middle East

EXPERT Q&A — The American force posture in the Middle East — some 40,000 troops spread across the region — came into focus following the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. U.S. forces are deemed potential targets of retaliation and one U.S. airbase in Qatar did come under attack, albeit a largely symbolic one.

The Cipher Brief spoke with General Frank McKenzie (Ret.), who oversaw U.S. forces in the Middle East as the head of U.S. Central Command from 2019 to 2022, about the mission and vulnerability of U.S. troops in the region, and what might happen if they were to leave. Our interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

The Cipher Brief: The Iraq War is long over. The United States - in a coalition - defeated ISIS some time ago. The Afghan War is over. What is the mission or are the missions of all those troops that remain in the Middle East?

General McKenzie: I would argue that the fight against ISIS still goes on. We don't actually fight that fight ourselves, but we do support our partners both in Iraq and in Syria who continue to conduct operations against ISIS, which is now newly flourishing based on the turmoil in Syria. That may correct itself over the next few months with the new government, which I think is a good thing. So we're still in that fight a little bit. But to your basic question, our forces are there to train our partners in the region, to work with them, to provide assurance of American presence, and that's largely focused on Iran. Iran remains a singular threat in the region, and we've seen over the last few months, why we need to be very aware and alert to the threat from Iran.

The other thing is that while we do have a lot of forces in the region, they are distributed. We defended ourselves very effectively against an Iranian attack a few days ago. And forces also provide assurance to our neighbors while they deter action by our potential opponents. Our friends in the region can't leave. They're stuck there, so the fact that U.S. forces are there actually adds to their level of assurance that we'll be a reliable partner should Iran attack them.

The Cipher Brief: A good many of those American troops are there at the invitation, if not the request, of some of the Gulf states. That's of course not the case for different reasons in Iraq and Syria. To what extent is the U.S. presence, in your view, an answer to those kinds of requests? And to what extent is it strategically smart for the United States?

General McKenzie: It’s a combination of both. It certainly serves our interest to maintain a presence in the region. It certainly serves the interests of the Gulf States and other states that we be there in order to give them additional stability as they confront the threat from Iran. So I think it serves both our interests. We’re actually in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government now. I think we have an ongoing negotiation process with the Iraqis about what our force posture is going to be. So we're in Iraq because the Iraqis want us to be there, not because we're forcing ourselves on the Iraqis.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The Cipher Brief: Explain the distinction in terms of what the troops do between those Iraq and Syria deployments on the one hand and the Gulf State presence?

General McKenzie: First, we assure our friends that we're a reliable partner, that we're willing to help them if they're attacked by Iran. We could leave the region, and that's talked about fairly frequently. If we left the region and drew down dramatically, then that assurance component would go away and they would also be, as an effective operational matter, far more vulnerable to attacks from Iran. We've seen how willing Iran is to actually use their military to attack their neighbors over the last few months. That's the thing to cover when we look at why our forces are there: what effects do we derive? Assurance and deterrence against Iranian attacks.

I think those are all useful things because that keeps the flow of commerce through the region, moving through the Strait of Hormuz. We've reopened the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait recently. I believe commerce is eventually going to flow again, though that's going to take a little time as insurance companies test the waters about what the Houthis are going to be willing to do. But all of those things are very much in our national interest.

The Cipher Brief: Let's talk about the vulnerability of some of those forces. You've had all those forces under your command. How difficult a task is it to go from whatever the baseline force protection is to us now attacking the nation of Iran? What's the ramp up like in terms of security?

General McKenzie: We have exquisitely rehearsed and prepared plans to protect our forces. As the CENTCOM commander, you begin every day worrying about the force protection level of U.S. forces in the region, our embassies in the region, our American citizens in the region, as well as our friends and partners. So you look at that every day and you balance it against what the Iranians are doing. We have very good ways of knowing what the Iranians are thinking about and what they plan to do. So as we saw recently, we are typically able to adjust and prepare for that. The risk is always that you'll get it wrong or they'll get lucky, and we know and understand that. But we work very closely with forces in the region to ensure they're prepared for these types of things. It's a battle drill. It is an onerous thing to do. You're leaving the comfortable places you live. You're going to places that are certainly less comfortable, albeit for a short period of time, but it's one of the best ways we can effectively save the Iranians from themselves. If they were to attack us and cause significant U.S. casualties, then the potential for upward escalation is very high. We always say the Iranians own the lower steps on the escalation ladder. We own all the higher steps on the escalation ladder. Every CENTCOM commander spends a lot of time looking at that.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

The Cipher Brief: What would go away for the United States if those troops were to come home or go elsewhere?

General McKenzie: It's a careful calibration. You may not need as much as you've got right now. You need the ability to flow them back in very quickly if you elect to pull forces out. But what we have right now is an Iran that is effectively deterred. They chose not to launch a massive attack on us. Instead, they launched a very choreographed attack, and if we're to believe reporting, that was telegraphed well in advance because they did not want to get into significant combat with the United States — because they know and understand our capabilities. That's what these forces bring. To draw down precipitously would possibly undo that deterrent effect.

On the other hand, and this is something that really only the president of the United States can balance, he's a president who has struck Iran twice — [Quds Force Commander, General] Qassem Soleimani back in 2020, and now this most recent attack. President Trump possesses extraordinary credibility with the Iranians because he's taken bold action two times, which puts him in a unique position that no other American president has had going back several administrations.

The Cipher Brief: Do you think that President Trump might have some success in bringing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a place that looks more like a ceasefire in Gaza and a deal in Iran?

General McKenzie: Short answer is, I don't know. I do know that we and Israel both share the same objective with Iran. We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, and I'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion on that, a lot of assessment. How effective were the strikes? Where are we? What needs to be done? I would assume they're going to spend a fair amount of time talking about that. But I would also say the same thing I said about President Trump and Iran. That same credibility probably extends to his relationship with Israel and the way going forward. So I'll watch with great interest to see what comes out of those meetings next week.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.




The U.S. Has 40,000 Troops in the Middle East



CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING -- Recent U.S. strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities propelled the 40,000 American forces in the region into the spotlight over fears of retaliation and sparked fresh debate about the scope and nature of their deployments.

Writing in The Washington Post, Dan Caldwell, a former Senior Adviser at the Department of Defense and an Iraq war veteran, and Jennifer Kavanagh, the Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, a defense-focused think tank, argue that the recent strikes “should be a wake-up call” for the White House about the role and vulnerability of U.S. troops in the region. “U.S. military forces in the Middle East bring more risks than benefits, and it’s time to get most of them out for good.”

Other experts think that’s a shortsighted approach, given the range of missions those forces carry out in the region.

“There's an assumption underlying that general argument of, ‘Well, if only the United States was to pull out of the region, suddenly the world will be a better place’ – I don't buy it,” Raphael Cohen, Director of the National Security Program at the RAND School of Public Policy, told The Cipher Brief. Cohen and others see particular value in the rapid-response capability the U.S. bases provide in a volatile region.

General Frank McKenzie, who oversaw U.S. forces in the Middle East as the head of U.S. Central Command from 2019 to 2022, told The Cipher Brief that while a reevaluation of the force posture was needed, a rapid drawdown would harm U.S. interests.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

“It certainly serves our interest to maintain a presence in the region,” Gen. McKenzie said. “And it certainly serves the interests of the Gulf states and other states as well that we be there in order to give them additional stability as they confront the threat from Iran.”

The focus on the U.S. presence in the Middle East comes early on in an administration that has indicated it may want to pivot from a focus on the region and shift attention toward Asia. But testifying just prior to the U.S. attack in Iran, Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, who was confirmed just this week as the new CENTCOM commander, said he sees no reason to draw down now.

“Our approach today is to assess and move forward on a conditions-based assessment,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I think, given the dynamic nature of what's happening today, that assessment in the future could look different than it does today, perhaps, and if confirmed, I'm committed into my tenure to continue to assess what our posture needs to look like and make recommendations.”

What are U.S. Troops Doing There

For decades, the United States has kept tens of thousands of military personnel in the Middle East, spread across bases from Syria to the Persian Gulf.

Among the largest are the Al -Udeid Air Base in Qatar, home to the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing and the forward headquarters of CENTCOM – with some 10,000 troops – and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain, where 9,000 Americans are deployed. 13,500 U.S. service members are stationed at bases in Kuwait and another 5,000 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Maritime deployments that followed the Hamas massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023, added a few thousand troops to the overall number. Finally, roughly 3,000 Americans are stationed at bases in Iraq and Syria, vestiges of the anti-ISIS operations that were carried out a decade ago.

Proponents of the current force posture see a smart distribution of troops that matches U.S. interests and furthers several key missions: the ability to respond quickly to crises; countering the Iranian threat; bolstering the defense of Israel; helping secure maritime commerce in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz; maintaining U.S. relations with key Gulf allies; and ensuring that ISIS and other groups do not reconstitute themselves and threaten U.S. interests.

“There are multiple missions at play,” Cohen said, beyond the current operations against Iran. “Some of this is a legacy of the global war on terrorism. We have soldiers in Syria and Iraq, doing primarily counter-ISIS missions, some stabilization missions as well. But we also have the major air bases in Bahrain for the Air Force and the Navy, managing air operations and the naval forces in the region. And what that means in practice, is we are concerned about the free flow of commerce through places like the Strait of Hormuz, and making sure that the Houthis don’t interfere with global maritime traffic there as well.”

Those arguing for a drawdown say that a force of 40,000 is far too costly, and that the stated missions are either outdated or could be accomplished with a much smaller number of troops.

“My longer-term view – even before the Iran strike – of the forces in the Middle East has been that when you have 40,000 forces in a region, anything that happens in that region implicates the United States, even things that actually aren't in U.S. interests,” Kavanagh, the Defense Priorities director, told The Cipher Brief.

“To the extent that we can get those forces out and limit unnecessary entanglements, I think that would be a smart move,” she said. “And that doesn't necessarily mean that you could never operate in the Middle East if there were actually a threat. Air power and naval power is something that's very mobile, and if you had the support of the Gulf countries, you could operate from those bases again.”

The war against ISIS

Officially, U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria serve as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, which began as a U.S.-led coalition in 2014 to dismantle the Islamic State (ISIS). Although that campaign was declared a success in Iraq (in 2017) and in Syria (2019), the U.S. maintains nearly 3,500 troops in the two countries.

Those bases are also considered the most vulnerable to outside attack, and well before the recent U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, analysts and policymakers were questioning the wisdom of keeping them there.

After Israel launched its war on Hamas in October 2023, these bases – along with a smaller outpost in Jordan – were attacked hundreds of times by rocket strikes that reportedly caused dozens of traumatic brain injuries among U.S. troops. In January 2024, three Americans were killed and dozens were injured at the small “Tower 22” base in Jordan. As The Cipher Brief reported then, the deadly strike prompted calls for ending the Iraq and Syria deployments.

Bernard Hudson, a former director of counterterrorism at the CIA, told us then that U.S. troops in those countries were “folks in harm’s way who can’t be protected and are surrounded by Iranian elements in both countries.”

Today, the case for staying in Syria and Iraq imagines a different nightmare: the Americans leave, and conditions are restored for a resurgent ISIS that could do more damage in the region and beyond.

“I would argue that the fight against ISIS still goes on,” Gen. McKenzie said. “We don't actually do that fight ourselves, but we do support our partners both in Iraq and in Syria who continue to conduct operations against ISIS, which is now newly flourishing based on the turmoil in Syria.”

Cohen concurred. “ISIS is beaten down,” he said. “It is not gone, though. And the concern is if you begin to take forces away, ISIS will sprout back up. There are also concerns that if we pull out, particularly out of Syria, we will risk abandoning the Kurds, who've been a long-time partner. So, there's an argument for keeping troops there for a host of both counterterrorism reasons, but also for regional stability issues.”

Kavanagh countered that the threat to the U.S. was minimal, and not worth the investment in U.S. military force.

“ISIS is not a threat to the United States – at least not the ISIS that's operating in the Middle East,” she said. “Some people argue that ISIS-K is becoming a more global threat, but they're not in Iraq and Syria. And our intelligence community has been very effective at uncovering plots before they happen. So, I'm not convinced that you need a military presence to protect the United States from that threat.”

The Defense Department has been conducting a “posture review” of the Iraq and Syria deployments for more than a year. The Iraq Higher Military Commission, which was tasked with preparing a U.S. withdrawal plan from that country, hasn’t met since September, according to Defense One. Recently, Maine Senator Angus King returned from a visit to Iraq and said that officials there had asked for the American troops to remain.

“They have an election coming up this fall, and that's been one of the significant dangers,” Sen. King said, referring to potential threats from Iran-backed militias in Iraq. “It seems to me, given the renewed volatility…it’s not a good time to be drawing down our forces, because they are viewed as stabilizing forces in all of those countries in the Middle East.“

A rapid-reaction force – and the costs

Many experts say that the brief war with Iran – and the tensions that linger in its aftermath – are only the latest examples of a longstanding reality: crises in the Middle East come with regularity. And that, they say, is reason enough for maintaining the American air and naval bases in the Gulf states.

Proponents of the U.S. posture also note that those Gulf allies want the Americans there. The U.S. has mutual defense agreements and commitments with Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. An abrupt exit, they argue, could undermine relationships with those countries.

“There's a geopolitical bent here in that the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, they all value having a U.S. presence in the region,” Jason Campbell, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, told The Cipher Brief. “It provides them both a certain level of added security from Iran, as well as additional access for their respective militaries to training and certain types of equipment that are of use to them. So, there are both security and geopolitical reasons for the presence in this part of the world.”

Detractors point to the costs – particularly of the larger bases in the Gulf. Sustaining U.S. forces in the Middle East is expensive, north of $20 billion per year. Kavanagh and Caldwell argue that U.S. personnel in the region require more extensive defenses than those based at home, including hardened facilities and advanced air defenses, to protect them from Iranian-backed drone and missile attacks.

Meanwhile, each uptick in tensions has meant shifts to a high-alert status that carry their own costs. When the U.S. made the decision to strike Iran, most of the aircraft at the al-Udeid base in Qatar were moved out, and ships stationed at the U.S. naval base in Bahrain were sent out to sea as a security precaution.

“There is a heightened level of threat there,” Campbell said. “They'll move some of their naval ships out of Bahrain and out to sea to keep them safer…These are typical things we see, leading up to and enduring periods of tension in the region.”

Ultimately, none of those measures mattered much in the recent war; the Iranians were clearly not interested in escalation, and their public retaliation – for now at least – has been limited to a single well-telegraphed strike against the Al-Udeid base, which President Trump said had come with advance warning.

But Caldwell and Kavanagh argue that the costs and the vulnerability of these bases alone make the case for a drawdown, or at least a consolidation of U.S. forces in the region to one or two locations.

“The ‘12-Day War’ fortunately did not cost any American lives,” Caldwell and Kavanagh wrote in the Post, “but it highlighted our vulnerabilities in the region and underlined how our existing force posture was superfluous to achieving our aims. The war’s end provides an opportunity for the United States to do what it has tried and failed to do for the better part of a decade: rationalize and downscale its presence in the Middle East.”

What comes next

All the past calls for a drawdown of American military power in the region ultimately ran into the same roadblock: It’s hard to disengage from the Middle East.

President Donald Trump ran for a second term on a foreign policy platform that would decrease American involvement in the Middle East and pivot towards growing challenges in the Indo-Pacific. He referred to himself as the “candidate of peace,” with promises to extricate the U.S. from entanglements in the region. He may still do so; but like many of his predecessors, he has found it difficult to stay out of the region’s turbulence.

“I'm optimistic that once things stabilize, at least some of the air and naval power will move out of the region, because I do think there are strong voices in the Pentagon and elsewhere who really would like to concentrate more on Asia,” Kavanagh said. “And you can't do that when all your air and naval assets are tied up in the Middle East.”

Even those experts who support the deployments say they welcome the discussions about their future.

“There's certainly debate to be had for the number of installations required,” Campbell said. “How many forces should indeed be there and what specific purpose should they serve? I think those are all fair questions, but again, the geopolitical costs of removing forces completely from the region could be higher than many realize.”

Campbell added that a complete damage assessment of the strikes against Iran – which is not yet complete – will likely dictate the way forward, and that until then, there is a “near-to middle-term utility of having forces and resources in the region just from a more operational standpoint.”

Cohen agrees, noting that despite Trump’s claim that the nuclear sites in Iran had been “obliterated,” questions remain about the damage done and what may come next.

“There's an open question about how much destruction we actually did to the nuclear program with that strike,” Cohen said. “And if you were to have a more sustained [U.S.] offensive, and if you actually wanted to do something somewhat larger that would actually have potentially a more permanent effect, you would need a bigger operation.” And that, he said, would surely involve the American bases in the Gulf.

Gen. McKenzie, the former CENTCOM commander, said he welcomes the coming “posture review,” and the overall debate about U.S. forces in the Middle East.

“That's a national policy decision that we're going to have to make,” he said. “How much do we want to leave in there? It's a careful calibration. You may not need as much as you've got right now, but you need the ability to flow them back in very quickly if you elect to pull forces out.”

Ultimately, he said, “We could leave the region, we could certainly do that, and that's talked about fairly frequently.” But he added that in the short term, that would hurt the U.S. deterrent effect against Iran, the ability to secure safe maritime commerce, and the relationship with those Gulf allies.

“I think that's the thing to cover when we look at why are our forces there, what effects do they give, what effects do we derive from the fact that they're there – I think those are all useful things. All of those things are very much in our national interest.”

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



The Peacewalkers: How the West Went to War in 2022

“The protagonists of 1914 were sleepwalkers, watchful but unseeing, haunted by dreams, yet blind to the reality of the horror they were about to bring into the world.”

C.Clark, ‘’The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914”

OPINION — This article is a homage to the aforecited Christopher Clark’s seminal work, where he meticulously details how Europe’s leaders, blinded by their own complex, interlocking alliances, and convoluted diplomatic manoeuvres, stumbled into the catastrophic Great War of 1914.

This article is also a mirror for present-day leaders and decision makers, offering a disturbing reflection of morbidly similar, if not at all the same, pre-war developments, attitudes, and sentiments, that have once again led the West to a precipice, this time – with Russia.

Finally, this article is both a wake-up call and a final announcement for those, who still hesitate and doubt that “our Europe is mortal, it can die”, as Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, put it in his speech last year on April 24 at the Sorbonne University.

Don’t look around!

In 2006, when a former FSB officer and critic of Putin, Alexander Litvinenko, was poisoned with Polonium-210 on British soil, there were very few doubts as to who was behind the attack. Litvinenko’s resulting death from acute radiation syndrome significantly strained relations between the UK and Russia, leading to diplomatic expulsions and increased scrutiny of Russian activities in the UK.

As much as this event became pivotal in the relationships between London and Moscow and called for a major reassessment of the Kremlin’s intentions and capabilities on European soil, it was still regarded by the rest of Europe mostly as a matter of Russia’s internal issues — Litvinenko was Russian, he ardently criticised the Russian leadership and he was a high-ranking defector. Therefore, he was targeted by the Russian special services. The consensus in the West was that Russia targeted its own renegade citizens, and not citizens from European countries.

This proved to be a rather comfortable position for the political leadership of the EU at that time (primarily German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy), which was in the middle of exploring deeper economic ties and a more intertwined commerce with Russia.

This position allowed the economic and political powerhouses of Europe to safely qualify Moscow’s explicitly hostile actions around the same time towards countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Georgia as mere quarrels between the former Soviet republics. The Kremlin’s distribution of Russian passports in Latvia in 2004; the Kremlin’s blockade of rail and ports and manipulation of theDruzhba pipeline oil supply in retaliation for losing the bid for Lithuania’s only oil refinery Mažeikių Nafta; or Russia’s complete ban of imports of Georgian wines as a punishment for Tbilisi’s pro-Western stance in 2006 – all these events were disregarded as merely regional tensions between the former USSR cohabitants.

The Swedish airspace incursion that happened the same year, when a Russian military aircraft without active transponders flew simulated attack runs near Gotland, didn’t match this story, but was mainly ignored as an unfortunate mistake in the then non-NATO sky.

In 2007, when the websites of Estonia’s government, parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers, and broadcasters websites faced the most massive cyber-attack in history, which coincided with a dispute with Russia over the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet-era monument paramount for the Kremlin’s WW2 mythology, the same whispering was heard in EU high cabinets – “it’s a matter of Russia’s backyard”. Nobody would dare to openly call an independent EU state “Russia’s backyard”, but the reaction towards this incident, widely considered the first major state-on-state cyberattack, was telltale.

The same year, Putin gave his notorious ‘Munich speech’ —‘’The speech in which Putin has told us who he was”, as Politico has put it. Among his disturbing and grim messages, one was particularly ominous: ‘Whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside [other] countries? Of course not.’

This message didn’t take long to materialize. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia under the pretext of protecting Russian citizens and peacekeepers in the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This was the climax of the “Russia’s backyard” attitude. Numerous former members of Mikheil Saakashvili’s team, the then-president of Georgia, said that in private conversations with Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Condoleezza Rice and their teams, these foreign leaders and their advisors articulated the futility of resistance and the need to accept the reality imposed by the Kremlin. “Accepting this reality” would mean recognizing that Russia does indeed hold a claim on Georgia, which naturally derives from the common soviet history. (Later in 2014 some representatives of the EU behind closed doors were promoting the same thought regarding Crimea).

Unfortunately, these and many other hostile actions failed to seriously alarm both the American and European political elites of that period, who were seriously engaged in a “Russian reset”. In 2009 Russian military aircraft again violated Swedish airspace, Moscow cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in the dead of winter (affecting also European countries dependent on gas transiting through Ukraine), and Kremlin-backed hackers attacked the German government.

In the 2010s Russia, either directly or through its proxies, effectuated cyber attacks on the German and Finnish governments, as well as on energy distribution networks in Sweden; sabotaged arms depots in Czechia; stirred up ethnic tensions in Germany with the ‘Lisa Case’; hacked TV5Monde and manipulated social media to encourage chaos during Yellow Vests protests in France; infiltrated the Aviation Sector and the Spiez laboratory in Switzerland; attempted to assassinate an arms dealer in Bulgaria; and targeted US and Canada diplomats in Cuba and later in other countries (the ‘Cuba syndrome’).

Moscow supported anti-fracking movements in Romania to prevent it from developing its own natural gas resources; attempted a coup in Montenegro; jammed Finland’s and Norway’s GPS signals; backed the hacking of the World Anti-Doping Agency; and attempted to sabotage the global internet infrastructure by exploring vulnerabilities in undersea Internet cables connecting Europe and North America.

Closer to the 2020s Russian operatives attempted to intercept secure military communications from a French military satellite; the Kremlin imposed trade restrictions on Moldovan agricultural products and manipulated energy prices in response to Kishinev’s increased engagement with the EU; and Moscow manipulated the energy market in Bulgaria by restricting gas supplies.

Russia systematically meddled in top tier popular voting across the globe, with the following being subjects of major investigations for alleged Russian interference: the 2016 UK Brexit referendum, 2016 US presidential elections, 2017 French presidential elections, 2017 German federal elections, 2018 Finnish presidential elections and the 2019 European parliament elections.

The amount of money and effort spent by the Kremlin to fund and cultivate separatist, xenophobic, anti-Western, Eurosceptic, anti-Americanist, radical, extreme and divisive parties, movements, groups and organizations across the Transatlantic community since Putin came to power is overwhelming.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The impenetrable depth of peace

It looked like all these events were mainly ignored in the West, disregarded as something accidental, if not marginal, which hardly meant anything within the context of the long and deep peace that Europe had seen since the end of WWII.

Appearing initially as a bitter reminder of the brutality of war, the 8th of May slogan “Never again” has evolved over decades from a yearly admonishment of human tragedies to a concept that was to be enforced literally. For any war to be “never again” meant that peace must be “forever”. Hence, attaining peace morphed from a righteous and pragmatic complex objective into a quasi-religious ideology that rejects the mere plausibility of conflict – “a deep peace”.

A "Deep peace" is not merely a state of prolonged absence of war. The doctrine posits that the very discussion of potential martial threats or military readiness could, paradoxically, invoke the specter of war itself. This ideology has been perpetuated by a sustained period of peace which, rather than being seen as a delicate, demanding and maintained state, is viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This means that for ‘peacewalkers’, the modern-day political apostles of this new security cult, peace is self-reinforcing. The longer they can keep the peace, the stronger on their opinion it gets, and the less probable war is. Hence the obsession with preserving peace at all costs, even if such costs are clearly whetting the appetite of the predator, who never really bothered to camouflage his hostile intentions. This almost irrational refusal to accept any possibility of another conflict on the continent, as if it were a fantasy, a fairytale, a myth, has been ruling out the very discussion of the flaws of current peace and its disproportions, as these very discussions were believed to invite war.

It seems that only at the Munich Security Conference of 2025 western leaders finally realized that war is now not just at their doorstep – it has already rung the bell.

This state of “deep peace” is precisely the reason why all the signals of hostility from Russia have been ignored by the peacewalkers. This was seen in the reaction of the major western governments’ defence budgets to the overt military interventions conducted by Russia in Georgia, in the Middle East and in Ukraine before 2022—the increase of defense spending was literally marginal.

Both European and American defense spending remained disproportionately low. The European Union's defense budget gradually declined from 4% of GDP in 1960 to a historic low of 1.3% of GDP in 2014. It wasn't until 2020 that European defense spending saw a “noticeable” increase of 0.3% - up to 1.6% of GDP.

A similar trend was observed in the United States, where defense spending as a share of GDP stagnated and mostly declined throughout the 2010s, following the peak of the War on Terror. U.S. military expenditure steadily fell from around 4.5% of GDP in 2010 to 3.2% by 2017, even as Russia ramped up its global assertiveness under Putin’s second presidency. It wasn’t until 2020 that U.S. defense spending rebounded to 3.7%, reflecting a shift in priorities as geopolitical tensions escalated.

The fact that both European and American defense spending remained stagnant for most of the 2010s, suggests that the West did not perceive even Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine as a serious enough threat to warrant an immediate military buildup. This delayed response underscores the extent to which policymakers in both Europe and the U.S. underestimated the long-term implications of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas, as much as Russia being a direct threat.

Once again, the pervasive—almost sacrosanct—belief in the enduring power of 'deep peace' has led to the deliberate overlooking of clear signals of impending conflict. This illusion of unassailable peace, fostered by decades of relative stability and economic interdependence, has engendered a dangerous complacency among western, but mainly European, nations.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

False Idols

In order to start thinking about how to fix this situation, we first need to understand how we got here. What beliefs guided decision makers? Within what ideological framework did they operate?

The first reference point is the perception of national security through the lens of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The evolution of the role and, more importantly, the capabilities of NATO in the minds of its members happened under the influence of a prolonged peace on the European continent, with some successful military interventions of its members in the 1990s and 2010s, as well as of a certain image of a hi-tech undefeatable army produced by American pop-culture.

As a result, NATO has become more of a religious icon, rather than a real military force. The belief in NATO’s capacity has become unconditional and it has fastened the religion of “deep peace” (which is indeed very similar to a religion because of its irrationality), by providing an image of an almighty protector, which will always intervene in case of trouble.

The truth is, however, a bit different. While NATO might have proven itself successful in regional conflicts like Yugoslavia or the Middle East, it was never ready to face a full-scale war with a proper adversary like Russia or China. It was even less prepared to face hybrid warfare, with war being waged not only with bombs and bullets, but with information and narratives.

The reliance on nuclear power was paramount in NATO’s deterrence strategy. The war Russia has launched against Ukraine, however, has shown that nuclear weapons deter only the use of other nuclear weapons – not conventional ones.

One might argue that the aggression against Ukraine is very different from a hypothetical aggression against NATO, and if Russia were to invade a member of the Treaty the retaliation would be dramatically different. Perhaps. How can, however, the nuclear arsenal defend even member countries against ‘the green men’, the scam referendums, the total blackouts due to cyber-attacks, the skirmishes with emigrants along the borders, arson of ammunition stores and further hybrid tactics? This begs a clear answer.

Therefore, a NATO membership can hardly serve as a justification for not having a powerful military able to defend one’s country against an invasion. This, however, was precisely the belief of the ‘peacewalkers’ for decades: ‘NATO will take care of us, and it has nukes. We’re safe’.

Russia has proved them wrong. And now the new White House administration is considering a major NATO policy shift, where the U.S. might not defend a fellow NATO member that is attacked, if the country doesn’t meet the defense spending threshold. Given the alternative view on global security the new U.S. leadership has taken, the moment Washington refuses to invoke Article 5 following a hypothetical encroachment on a member-state – the world as we know it is finished.

Another belief where Russia has proved everyone wrong is the naïve idea that it can be deterred by trade. And yet, even the current U.S. administration seems to be falling into this trap once again.

This illusion has deep roots. Since the early 2000s, the dominant Western orthodoxy held that deeper trade and economic interdependence with Russia would tame its aggressive instincts and gradually bind it to the liberal international order. From Germany’s embrace of Wandel durch Handel to the U.S. push for Russia’s WTO accession in 2012, the assumption was always the same: prosperity would soften Moscow, and mutual gain would deter aggression.

It did the opposite.

The trick is that the fruits and benefits of trade relations are used very differently in democracies and autocracies. While democracies invest the spoils of trade into raising the quality of life of their citizens—because that is the social contract at the heart of their legitimacy—autocratic regimes like Russia spend those same profits on the quality of oppression: strengthening their propaganda machines and expanding the coercive reach of their security services. These are the twin pillars of modern authoritarian rule.

In the 2000s, as Russia reaped massive windfalls from energy exports, it poured resources into rebuilding and modernizing its military. Military spending jumped from just $9 billion in 2000 to over $60 billion by 2014. At the same time, Putin’s regime systematically increased funding for the security services and domestic repression apparatus. By 2025, Russia will allocate a staggering 6.3% of its GDP—over $145 billion—to defense, surpassing even Cold War-era levels. In parallel, the budget for internal security, which includes the FSB and National Guard, accounts for over 10% of the federal budget, while state propaganda organs like RT and VGTRK are receiving $1.4 billion annually, an increase of 13% over the previous year.

Meanwhile, spending on social programs in Russia is projected to fall by 16% in 2025. The regime is not interested in improving the lives of its citizens—it is interested in controlling them.

Hence, while Russia has been methodically preparing for war, both externally and internally, the West spent the same decades investing in the illusion of a deepening peace. Defense budgets shrank, armies were downsized, and strategic industries were allowed to atrophy. Europe, in particular, funneled billions into Russian energy infrastructure like Nord Stream, while simultaneously allowing itself to become strategically dependent on the very regime it hoped to pacify.

In the end, the West was trading with Russia under the illusion that it was exporting stability. In reality, it was importing vulnerability.

Epilogue: the trench of the Saints

In the end, however, it is not doctrines, nukes, trade or alliances that hold the gates. It is the trench of the saints—where exhausted, ordinary Ukrainians still stand between us and the abyss.

And yet, instead of standing behind them as one would behind the gates of a besieged city, much of the West regards their resistance with fatigue, irritation, even suspicion—treating Ukraine not as a rampart, but as a liability. The war, they whisper, drags on. The costs are too high. Perhaps it’s time to talk peace, meaning: surrender something, accept something, pretend that nothing essential is lost.

But what is being lost is everything.

The trench of the Ukrainian soldier is not only a physical line against Russian advance. It is the symbolic front line of a deeper war—between freedom and tyranny, law and brute force, future and regression. Just as in the 20th century, when the free world had to rally to crush the Nazi regime not with half-measures but with full moral clarity, so too must the West now realize: Ukraine is not the cause of this war’s duration. Ukraine is the reason we still have time.

If we abandon that trench—or fail to fully support it—we are not avoiding war. We are inviting a greater one.

“On both sides they imagined that ‘bluffing’ would suffice to achieve success. None of the players thought that it would be necessary to go all the way. The tragic poker game had begun.”

C.Clark, ‘’The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914”

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



Iran is a Terrorist State

OPINION — Since 1984, Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation is justified, given Iran’s continued support of proxies and criminal organizations that kill and terrorize innocent people. That behavior continues today, with the government of Ali Hosseini Khamenei surveilling, harassing, and detaining thousands of Iranians for allegedly aiding Israel -- and offending the morality police, who enforce Iran’s dress code for women.

The U.S. – Israel bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow was more than justified. Iran was enriching uranium at 60% purity, a few weeks away from 90% purity for nuclear weapons. And given Iran’s stated intent to destroy Israel, the bombing of these nuclear sites made imminent sense, especially given the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) recent report that Iran was concealing information on its nuclear program, to include weaponization.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Terror Abroad

Iran has a long history of using terrorism as a tool of asymmetric warfare against the U.S. and its allies.

In April 1983, Iran was found guilty of supporting their proxy, Hezbollah’s Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist organization, for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut that killed 63 and wounded 34, to include eight CIA officers. One of those officers was the visiting Director of the Office of Near East and South Asia Analysis, Robert C. Ames.

In October 1983, the Iranian government was found responsible for the Beirut barracks bombing by the Islamic Jihad Organization, which killed 241 U.S. service members, 58 French soldiers and 6 civilians, injuring 60.

These two terrorist bombings apparently emboldened Iran into thinking that terrorism can be effective in eroding U.S. resolve. Thus, Iran continued to support their proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite groups in Iraq and Syria – in its war with the U.S. and Israel.

In June 1996, Iran was behind the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 airmen and 498 U.S. and international military and civilian members injured. A U.S. court ruled that Iran – and its proxy Hezbollah Al-Hejaz -- was responsible for the attack, providing the funding, support and direction.

This was the very overt Iran, confident in perpetrating these bold acts of terrorism.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

Terror at Home

What was less visible, however, was the government’s harsh treatment of its own people. The international community saw some of this in 2009, when the government ensured that incumbent Mahmood Ahmadinejad was reelected president, despite opposition leader, Mir -Hossein Mousavi, having widespread support from the public, promising hope and change. This “Green Movement” galvanized the Iranian people, resulting in protests, demonstrations and civil disobedience. The regime’s response was predictable: using brutal force to suppress the demonstrations and arrest the protesters.

This has always been the regime’s response to peaceful protests: suppressing and arresting the protesters. We saw this in September 2022 when Jina Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian -- died in police custody; arrested by the so-called morality policy for improperly wearing her Hijab headscarf. Eyewitnesses reported that Amini was severely beaten and died because of police brutality.

The Iranian people were irate with the brutal death of Amini. Protests erupted throughout Iran. Iran Human Rights reported that at least 476 people were killed by security forces. Amnesty International reported that Iranian security forces fired into groups with live ammunition and killed protesters by beating them with batons.

Amini’s death gave rise to the global movement of: Woman, Life, Liberty.

The regime is now conducting a war against its own people, with widespread arrests of anyone protesting human rights abuses and corruption of the regime in power.

We would be remiss if we think the Ayatollah has given up on the use of terrorism to intimidate and deal with critics in opposition to his leadership. We would also be remiss if we think the theocracy will cease pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. The regime wants sanctions relief, and they’re prepared to eschew nuclear weapons to get this relief. Eventually, however, they will pursue their nuclear weapons program. We should be prepared.

This column by Cipher Brief Expert Ambassador Joseph DeTrani was first published in The Washington Times

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



The Cipher Brief's Hottest Summer Reading



CIPHER BRIEF FEATURE REPORTING -- With the 4th of July holiday fast approaching, now is a good time for our annual summer list of recommended beach reads. Since we are The Cipher Brief, our favorites include not only thrillers and realistic, fast-paced novels – but some notable works of non-fiction on matters of national security, intelligence and foreign policy. And there’s a cookbook thrown in for good measure.

We’ve carefully combed through the books that we’ve recently had reviewed by experts who have lived the spy or spy-related life - and we’ve singled out some titles we think you might enjoy at the beach or wherever you’re taking refuge from the summer heat. (And just a note: if you do click and buy using links, we might make a small commission. At least enough to pay for the paper this was printed on.)

Let’s get cooking, shall we?

Cookbook / Whiskey Category

Yep, you read that right. Leading our list of summer reads is one that has taken over the #1 spot in Amazon’s whiskey and alcoholic spirits categories, A Spy Walked Into A Bar: A Practitioner's Guide to Cocktail Tradecraft by former senior CIA Officers Rob Dannenberg and Joseph P. Mullin Jr. Think of it as a real-life guide to spies and their favorite cocktails. Based on experiences from their clandestine operations backgrounds, Rob and Joe have collected, curated and perfected the cocktails that were enjoyed while celebrating milestone events during their CIA careers. From the drinks they ordered after successfully recruiting assets, to marking the end of a major operation, this book features real life stories and homegrown photos by the authors themselves.

Novels

Appropriate for summer, is a new spy novel from Tess Gerritsen, The Summer Guests: A Thriller. This is Tess’ second spy book, after her very successful TV series a few years ago called Rizzoli and Isles. Gerritsen talked with Cipher Brief CEO & Publisher Suzanne Kelly about her journey from the popular TV series to spy author in the Cover Stories podcast – that was just after her first book, The Spy Coast was released. Veteran CIA officers Jay and Anne Gruner reviewed her latest book about four retired CIA officers living in Maine. The Gruners tell us it is a “gripping account of a complex set of murders, a possible recent kidnapping, and a secretary who was missing for 50 years.” talking about her previous spy-themed book.

Former U.S. counterterrorism officer and cybersecurity executive Neal Pollard broke the code on Ken Dekleva’s novel, The Russian Diplomat’s Wife. In his review, Neal says while the book ostensibly is a spy novel set in Vienna, it’s really a love story between two spies. Author (and frequent Cipher Brief contributor) Dekleva draws on his experience as a psychiatrist working for the State Department in many of the locales central to the book and his understanding of human motivation seems to bring his stories to life. We know because we also interviewed the author for the Cover Stories Podcast.

Speaking of Dekleva, we tapped his expertise to review several books by other authors this year. One worthy of special mention is The Poet’s Game: A Spy in Moscow by Paul Vidich. Dekleva calls the novel is a terrific read about a former CIA station chief in Moscow, now working as an investor in a private equity market in Moscow. The chief was called back to duty though to exfiltrate a former agent who claims to have explosive kompromat regarding America’s president. Navigating between two perilous worlds, those of Moscow and Washington, the storyline seems to offer proof that the cold war never really ended.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Going back even further in time, Dekleva also reviewed Assignment in Saigon: A Cold War Thriller by former senior CIA officer Bill Rapp. In his review, Dekleva says that to truly understand the intelligence war in Vietnam, fiction may offer more to the reader and Rapp’s novel is a most worthy read.

Spy mastery is the theme of retired senior CIA officer Jim Lawler’s latest novel, The Traitors Tale: A Novel of Treachery within the CIA. We turned to another seasoned Agency officer, and Cipher Brief expert, Joe Augustyn, to review it. Augustyn told us: “Jim Lawler has written an intriguing and captivating novel that should satisfy the appetite of any spy novel enthusiast. His character descriptions are impressive, his knowledge of the Agency, its bureaucracy and its inner workings is deep, and his operational savvy is on display throughout. Impressive too is his understanding of the dynamics of personal relationships, both professional and personal, which he calls the “metaphysics” of spying.” You can learn more about Lawler and his book from this Cover Stories Podcast interview.

Non- Fiction

While we have reported on a ton of fine fiction over the past six months, real life stories, history and analysis have played an even larger role in our coverage. Among the books we’d like to invite (or re-invite) to your attention here are: Secret Servants of the Crown: The Forgotten Women of British Intelligence by Claire Hubbard-Hall and reviewed for us by Cipher Brief expert Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a real-life former member of the British Foreign Office. Willasey-Wilsey called it a “marvelous book and a valuable addition to what is known about the early days of the British secret services.” We were lucky to have the author join us on a Cipher Brief Cover Stories podcast as well, describing the untold tales of women who silently served – including Katleen Pettigrew who was the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s “Miss Moneypenny” in the James Bond novels.

For an American take on unsung women in intelligence, there is Propaganda Girls: The Secret War of the Women of the OSS by Lisa Rogak. The former director of the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs, Tammy Kupperman Thorp reviewed the book that focuses on four women who played significant roles in the Office of Strategic Service (OSS) influence campaigns during World War II. She writes that women members of the OSS were in charge of “black propaganda” primarily a “series of believable lies designed to cause the enemy soldiers to lose heart and ultimately surrender.”

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

There is also a good read out there about the spouses and families of intelligence operatives who serve as well. For a fascinating look at that life, check out Story of a CIA Wife: Married to the Craft by Rosie Mowatt-Larssen. Veteran journalist and contributing Cipher Brief editor Elaine Shannon reviewed that one for us and lauds the author’s “razor wit” and tales of life in numerous overseas posts including time in Moscow where she helped slip KGB tails, serviced dead drops and lived a life that at times was the stuff of spy thrillers. For more on Rosie – check out her interview with us for the Cover Stories podcast.

We also have several books about action in World War II that we’d recommend. Let’s start with Nothing But Courage: The 82nd Airborne’s Daring D-Day Mission and Their Heroic Charge Across the La Fière Bridge by James Donovan. We went to a subject matter expert to review that one – retired Army Major General Jack Leide. The book tells of one of the most operationally important but lesser-known stories of World War II. Leide praised the author for providing “incredibly insightful and intricate descriptions and actions of, not only the allied and German military forces arrayed against each other, but how the operation affected many of the local French residents and resistance forces as well.”

For a far less heroic view of some of the events in that war, there is The Traitor of Arnhem: The Untold Story of WWII’s Greatest Betrayal and the Moment that Changed History Forever by Robert Verkaik. Recently declassified British MI-5 documents help animate this story of a strategic failure that delayed Allied victory in the war and came at a steep human cost. CIA veteran (and Cipher Brief expert) Martin Peterson reviewed the book for us and writes that the author makes a strong circumstantial case that Anthony Blunt, one of Russia’s British agents, played a vital role in passing intelligence to the Germans that damaged the Allies chances of success.

For a story about operational and intelligence success, there’s Taking Midway: Naval Warfare, Secret Codes and the Battle that Turned the Tide of World War II by Martin Dugard. Had the Battle of Midway turned out differently, Hawaii and the west coast of the United States stood vulnerable to Japanese attack. The battle was won by the U.S. though through a combination of steely leadership by Admiral Chester Nimitz, and brilliant cryptological work led by a quirky Lieutenant Commander named Joe Rochefort. Normally, our go-to source for book reviewers are gray-haired subject matter experts. For this one, we tried something different and gave the mission to Jack Montgomery, a U.S. Navy ensign currently serving on a Japan-based ship. Montgomery, whose master’s degree thesis was on the Solomon Islands Campaign, notes that the author’s writing style with short punchy sentences makes the book a quick, enjoyable and informative read. Dugard joined us for a Cover Stories podcast recently in which he explained how he developed his story-telling style and researched the book.

Another book sure to fascinate many Cipher Brief readers is The Determined Spy: The Turbulent Life and Times of CIA Pioneer Frank Wisner by veteran journalist Doug Waller. Wisner’s story sounds like fiction. Standout track star in college, lawyer, innovative leader in the OSS during World War II, one of the founders of the CIA, author of successful and unsuccessful covert actions, prominent player in the Georgetown social set – but victim of what would now be called bipolar disorder – an illness that eventually led to his taking of his own life. Former senior CIA officer (and Cipher Brief expert) Mike Sulick reviewed the book for us noting that the bio was long overdue and “an invaluable contribution to understanding the rewards and pitfalls of covert action as a tool of American foreign policy.” Waller joined us in a Cover Stories podcast to share some of the secrets of writing about this trailblazing figure of U.S. intelligence.

A trailblazer of a different kind was Major General Jack Leide whose book, Professional Courage: My Journey in Military Intelligence Through Peace, Crisis and War, was featured in a January review. Leide has been inducted into four different military halls of fame. The stories he tells – and the lessons learned in Vietnam, in China during Tiananmen Square, and as Central Command Director of Intelligence during Desert Shield and Desert Storm make it a valuable read. He also kindly joined us for a Cipher Brief Cover Stories podcast where he told us about the challenges of telling a demanding boss what they need to know rather than what they want to hear.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

For a completely different kind of book, there is Zero Sum: The Arc of International Business in Russia by Charles Hecker. It is a look at the wild world of global commerce launched from Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union. Cipher Brief expert Nick Fishwick, a veteran of nearly thirty years with the British Foreign Office, reviewed it for us – calling it a “grizzly odyssey” and one “full of crisp soundbites.” Hecker addresses the question of why the west was so wrong in its analysis of the post hammer and sickle Russia.

Our tech savvy followers might particularly be interested in Chasing Shadows: Cyber Espionage, Subversion, and the Global Fight for Democracy, by Ronald Deibert. Jean-Thomas Nicole, a policy advisor with Public Safety Canada and a frequent reviewer for us, says the book “offers an enlightening and terrifying glimpse into the ubiquitous and murky world of mercenary spyware and digital transnational repression.”

To wrap up our summer books newsletter, what would be more appropriate than a book about books? We are referring to The Admiral’s Bookshelf, by retired Navy Admiral (and Cipher Brief expert) James Stavridis. This spring, the admiral published his 15th book, and this one is about 25 books (a mixture of fiction and non-fiction) that he credits with having helped guide his career and life. Former CIA officer (and author himself) Jim Lawler reviewed it for us and praised the way Stavridis candidly discusses not only his successes – but also his stumbles during his long career and how the books on his bookshelf can help all of us avoid some heartache and frustration. Suzanne hosted the Admiral on a Cover Stories podcast where he explained how leaders can learn not only from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War but also Mario Puzo’s The Godfather.

We’ve only touched on some of the books reviewed in 2025 in The Cipher Brief. You can find all of our reviews here.

One of the things that makes Cipher Brief reviews of books so valuable is that our reviewers are experts in their own right. If you think you may have the chops to be a Cipher Brief book reviewer, check out our guidelines – and if you still think you’d be a good fit – drop us a note at undercover@thecipherbrief.com to toss your hat in the ring. Let us know your particular interests and areas of expertise. Whenever possible, we try to marry up expert reviewers with forthcoming books. We try to get the reviewers advance copies – and aim to publish reviews right around the time a book is goes on sale.

We’re wishing you happy summer reading!

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



The Golden Dome is Missing a Key Focus

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION – On January 27, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at defending the U.S. against an attack by ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles as well as other advanced aerial attacks; the Golden Dome initiative. The Pentagon moved out smartly to fulfill this order. Industry lined up with ideas on how to defend the U.S. and Department of Defense bureaucrats convened and developed a strategy. All the work that has happened is needed. But we need more.

We need to build the technology to support defensive systems to secure the homeland from adversary advanced aerial attacks. But we are missing a crucial part of the equation which could be happening now with only limited additional resources.

The U.S. needs to be moving out diligently to put in place the best collection capability to provide early warning regarding U.S. adversaries. Too often, the U.S. jumps to a solution and forgets that we must start with intelligence to put the building blocks in place to address the solution.

In this case, the Executive Order asks for a study of adversary threat but that is all. There is nothing about developing intelligence for early warning on adversary intent. This is an important oversight. The U.S. must focus on developing warning that lets decisionmakers know when our adversaries are planning a launch. The important satellite tracking mechanisms that will follow the launches should only be used if the intelligence community misses the early warning.

To ensure the U.S. is using its resources to its best ability in building the Golden Dome, the entire intelligence infrastructure of collection, technology to support the collection, and ability to exploit the collection - to include analytical experts - must be synergized to provide early warning that an adversary is considering an aerial attack.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

The literature regarding golden dome focuses on interception and tracking missiles once they are launched. There is a lot of discussion about the need for a defensive system. All of this is warranted, and it is the area where the most money needs to be spent. However, the literature is much less focused on what the U.S. needs to put in place prior to launch to buy time for developing options to counter an attack and limit the risk regarding that decision making process.

Without the platforms that can collect on adversary intent, capability, movement, and other anomalies, decisionmakers could be left with rushed choices on the use of defensive systems that could result in catastrophic consequences if the technology detects missiles too late or misreads that aerial attacks are coming our way when they may not be.

Time is the important variable for decision makers. The earlier the intelligence community can present them with analysis and reporting of adversary intent, the better and likely less risky the consequences are for the US.

For example, if the Intelligence Community (IC) can provide the President with information that an adversary has given an order to prepare an aerial attack against the U.S. - while the attack is being planned but prior to launch - then there are more options to stop that attack.

The IC is then alerted to track adversary movements so that decisionmakers know how much time they have to decide on an option and which option will work best under the circumstances. In this scenario, U.S. decision makers have days instead of hours, to plan. This allows for a wide range of options to stop a launch - from diplomacy, to sanctions, to military action.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

The current Golden Dome literature talks a lot about tracking these aerial devices and calls for a new look at radars, both space and ground based. As I stated, a reliance on this architecture risks being too late in the decision cycle. Kudos to the Army for recognizing the need for smart warning by integrating artificial intelligence into their Integrated Battle Command system, but even this initiative does not hit the early warning collection issue head on.

LTG Gainey, commanding general of the United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC) hinted at the issue during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing in April when he said the Golden Dome also includes left-of-launch operations, providing deny, delay, disrupt and degrade missile defeat effects in coordination with global combatant commands, the Intelligence Community, Joint Staff, interagency, and Office of the Secretary of Defense. This still does not highlight the need for early warning.

The U.S. can detect missile launches with its existing Space-Based Infrared System satellites in geosynchronous orbit. These satellites can tell where a ballistic missile is going and where its warheads are likely to fall, but the United States wants to develop better warning and tracking by creating a Custody Layer — satellites that will watch where all the other guy’s stuff is — and a Tracking Layer that could also determine where more sophisticated weapons, like hypersonic missiles, are headed.

Fred Kennedy, the inaugural director of the U.S. Space Development Agency and a former director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, shares in Aerospace America, his vision of a Custody Layer: "a constellation that would be equipped with moving target indicator radar, imaging radar and other sensors, to keep tabs on an adversary’s offensive 'internet of things.' …..These satellites would be the equivalent of Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System and U-2 aircraft, but in space. To strike a missile, you have to know where it could be launched from, after all. Complementing the Custody Layer was the Tracking Layer, the satellites that would detect and track hypersonic or ballistic weapons after launch."

This is all important work and needed but note, it is all focused on launch.

If decisionmakers are being told by the space-based interceptors that attacks are on the way—there is only one option, to intercept. But what if those interceptors misread the information or what if they did not read the tracking in time? In either scenario it could be the beginning of a catastrophic event that is based on a mistake.

For that reason, we need to start with the intelligence and put as much effort into that as we are on the interceptors. Collaboration with the Pentagon and other agencies that track satellite imagery is key. I would also add that the Defense Intelligence Agency needs to play a primary role in this initiative which must include increased human intelligence and all forms of open source to include commercial data.

With the intelligence community and department of defense getting smaller, we need to work together more than ever. Defending our nation is a team sport that requires strong intelligence to set up decision makers and operators to make the best decisions possible, helping to mitigate risk. This cannot happen without the defense and intelligence communities working together to provide the first warning—way before launch. Now is the time to push the intelligence community to upgrade technologies that track missiles by providing warning of aberrations in patterns before launch.

By using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to synthesize critical technical collection with anomalies in open source (OSINT), commercial (CAI), and personal (PAI) data, we could have the cultural breakthrough we need to change how the intelligence community uses technical collection fused with OSINT, CAI, PAI and AI. Against this national security backdrop, we could have our first big win in changing how we process intelligence and safeguard the US. NGA’s Maven program is a big step in the right direction of fusing intelligence to support DoD and the rest of the national security establishment. This practice needs to be more widespread.

Now is the time to use proven technology with expert analysis to provide decision makers increased time and space to counter aerial attacks on the homeland. The resources involved, compared to the amount needed for satellites and lasers to shoot down the missiles, is minimal. This action can be started now, the technology exists. Putting in place early warning buys time for the US to develop the rest of the Golden Dome security.

Who’s Reading this? More than 500K of the most influential national security experts in the world. Need full access to what the Experts are reading?

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



Getting NATO to Be Able to 'Fight Tonight'

EXPERT Q&A — Last week’s NATO summit in The Hague was largely seen as a success, with all members (except Spain) agreeing to raise the alliance’s defense spending target to 5% GDP up from 2%. NATO also put on a show of unity and recommitted to collective defense.

The Cipher Brief spoke with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges (Ret.), who served as commanding general, U.S. Army Europe, about what the alliance has to do post-summit to ready defenses for a “fight tonight” posture.

Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity. You can also watch the full conversation on The Cipher Brief's YouTube channel.

The Cipher Brief: We know that President Trump and some of his top national security aides have been deeply, openly skeptical of the NATO alliance, and there have been real questions as a result about American support. I was struck by how effusive, really, President Trump was in his praise of what happened at The Hague and very clear in his commitments. What's your take on how that all played out?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: I think I’m more relieved than surprised. I'm biased because I’ve been a NATO officer my whole Army life, as all Army officers are part of the Alliance. I recognize its importance for America's strategic interests. I'm glad that the president did what he did. There was a huge sigh of relief in the Hague that he even showed up. There was some anxiety about that, or that he might blow it up somehow. So the best outcome did happen. He was there. He stayed for the entire thing. He met with President Zelensky. We got an agreement on 5% across the alliance, with one exception, and then a public affirmation of American commitment to the alliance by the president. That's pretty good.

The Cipher Brief: You’re referring to Article 5 of the NATO charter, which says an attack on any member must be met by all other members. There’s been a kind of rallying cry among some Trump supporters that the idea that American soldiers would fight for Estonia, for example, that’s never gonna happen — that's not America first. Talk a bit about the significance of that specific commitment, because it seems to put to rest what's been said before on that front.

Lt. Gen. Hodges: Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which created NATO, says an armed attack on one shall be considered an armed attack on all. That commitment to collective security has been the glue that held the alliance together. The Soviet Union for decades, now Russia and other adversaries, see this commitment of now 32 nations that if one is attacked, all the other nations would consider it an armed attack on themselves. That was such a powerful part of the deterrence when it's backed up by real credible capabilities.

For the first time in my life, in his last administration, the president called that into question. I was horrified. That sort of opens a door to a terrible miscalculation by Moscow that maybe the U.S. would not be so committed. Then the Russians could achieve what has always been their dream, which is to break the alliance, to see that members would not respond, and also to continue driving a wedge between Europe and North America. So it was important that the president affirmed it very strongly, clearly and publicly.

Now, some people ask why would we have American soldiers dying for Estonia? It's an absolutely ridiculous assertion because that is people not understanding why the alliance is so important for us. By the way, this Article 5 has only been invoked once in the almost 80 years of history of NATO, and that was after 9/11, when you had Estonians who came and died because of the United States.

Our economic interests are tied to a very prosperous Europe, so we need Europe to be stable and secure and prosperous because it affects our economy. Secondly, the access that we have in Europe from the UK all the way to Turkey and everywhere in between enables us to project power, not only in Europe, but also into the Middle East and down into Africa.

And of course, even the United States does not have enough capability to do everything that needs to be done to protect all of our interests around the world. We need allies, and all of our best and most reliable allies come from Europe, as well as Canada and Australia.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

The Cipher Brief: Do you think this whole NATO-U.S. rift, whatever one calls it, is that all over behind us?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: NATO, the most successful and longest alliance in the history of the world, has 32 nations now. There are going to be huge disputes between nations all the time. France kicked NATO out back during the time of de Gaulle. They left the military structure of NATO for several decades, but came back. The U.S. had huge debates with the UK and France after the Suez crisis. Turkey and Greece have been almost at war throughout. So, there are always challenges inside any sort of a coalition or alliance for all kinds of obvious reasons.

The thing that kept us together was always American leadership and the commitment of several nations to say, look, this is too important for us to lose this collective security because of some argument over an economic thing or past grievance. And there's a reason that there are nations still in a queue wanting to join NATO, because they know that their security is so much better if they're part of this alliance.

The Cipher Brief: The core takeaway seems to be this pledge that all the members except for Spain have made to spend 5% of their GDP on military or military-related stuff. How big a deal is this?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: It's an expectation. It's a commitment that everybody achieves this 5% threshold for investment in defense: 3.5% for traditional, what we would consider defense investments, equipment, training, ammunition, personnel; and then 1.5% for infrastructure, rail, ports, cyber protection, all the things necessary to be able to move alliance capabilities around.

Obviously these things will be exploited in some countries. That would not shock me. But the key was that nations are going to invest in infrastructure, which is badly needed, and the cyber protection of this transportation infrastructure. But also, 3.5 % of GDP, that's almost double for every country from what it was 10 years ago. The United States is not even at 3.5 right now, by the way. So this is going to be a real increase.

Having said all that—and I do believe in the importance of a metric like that—the most important thing, of course, is capability. Do we have the actual capability to do what we're supposed to do? That’s what will deter the Russians, not a sign on the board that says, hey, we're 3.5. It’s real capability: units that are properly trained, fully manned and have lots of ammunition, aircraft that fly, ships that sail. That's got to be the focus. So I'm glad we got this done, but now we've got to make sure that we turn that money into real capability.

The Cipher Brief: Do you mean how they spend it?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: That is a part of it. Where does it go? Germany has a lot of money out there, but the processes are still several years behind. So they've got to fix things internally to take all these euros and turn them into combat formations and capability. They've got the right leadership now to do that in Chancellor Merz.

But also, I think it's important that we emphasize the importance of readiness to be able to fight tonight. This is a mindset thing. It's not just about buying new planes and equipment and hundreds of thousands of drones. Are you ready to actually deploy on very short notice and fight tonight? Can you get there and do you have what you need? To me, that has got to be job one for every secretary of defense, ministers of defense— readiness.

The Cipher Brief: On that “fight tonight” point, it is worth noting that these pledges are to be met by 2035. That's 10 years from now. And obviously, some of the stuff we're talking about takes a long time to manufacture and get out to the battlefield. How concerned are you about that time frame?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: It took us 10 years to get where we are now from Wales. A lot of nations are now spending more than they have since the end of the Cold War. So, of course, I don't like it. We should already be there, including the United States. But I think what we'll see is different leaders, including the American president, continue to track every year. You can't do what they call a hockey stick, where you stay where you are for eight years and then expect that you'll get credit for jacking it up at the end. So there's going to be continued pressure.

But honestly I don't think too many nations are going to need that pressure. What we're seeing in Germany and in the UK, Finland all the way down to Romania. They're not confused about who the enemy is — it's Russia. These countries were already moving well beyond 3.5% before this summit. So, I think we're on the right arc and right direction in most places, just not all.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

The Cipher Brief: For the last several years, for obvious reasons, the war against Ukraine has been front and center at these summits. It suddenly seemed a little bit on the back burner. What are your thoughts on how Ukraine comes out of this summit?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: This is my biggest disappointment from this summit. Ukraine was exactly, what you said, put on a back burner. I'm glad that President Zelensky showed up, that he was invited and that he attended. I'm glad that President Trump met with President Zelensky for about 45 minutes or so. While the president did not reveal a lot of the details, he was more positive about Ukraine than I'd heard from him in quite some time.

Now, to be candid, the president changes his mind all the time but I hope that this signals that he is more willing and open to helping Ukraine as most of our European allies are. I had hoped that this summit would be another affirmation by the Alliance that we're going to do everything we can to help Ukraine. The organizers shortened it in hopes of making sure that President Trump would stay for the whole thing. And so Ukraine was kind of taken out of the agenda.

Nonetheless, what's most important is that there seems to have been a positive meeting there. And most of our European allies are even more committed to helping Ukraine defeat Russia.

The Cipher Brief: You've made the point that Russia is incredibly weakened militarily right now with casualties, the economy, and so forth. And it doesn't seem, in that sense, to be much of a threat. Of course, everything we're talking about and what they were talking about at the summit is all about the Russia threat. So how should we understand the nature of that threat given how weak the country is today?

Lt. Gen. Hodges: This is a great question. Russia, I was certain, would not have made it this long. Given the casualties that they have suffered, the effects of some sanctions on them, and now it looks like they've probably lost Iran as an ally or a source of drones. But China has picked up some of the slack. North Korea continues to provide ammunition. And Russia right now has transitioned to a wartime economy because of course they don't have to worry too much about whether or not the peasants are unhappy that they can't get a new refrigerator. Putin does not have to respond to this sort of thing the way any other democratic leader would have to respond. So he's putting a lot of resources into this.

That would be over if we could figure out how to stop Russia from exporting oil to China and India. But as long as they can keep doing that, and as long as oil prices stay up, then Russia can keep doing what they're doing for quite some time. At the recent economic forum that Russia hosts each year, President Putin sort of downplayed the economic situation challenges they have. But his own people publicly were saying that they're almost in recession, that they are in fact in trouble.

What I am sure of is that if Ukraine capitulates or fails, or if we turn our back on Ukraine and Russia is able to take a couple of years to rebuild and fix what is broken, they will be knocking on the door of Moldova and probably of Latvia. Their objective is to break the alliance, to show NATO that nations are not really willing to fight against Russia over a piece of Estonia or Latvia. That would be their terrible miscalculation. So to make sure that the Russians never make that terrible miscalculation, we have to get back to where we were in the Cold War days of spending what's necessary, being prepared so that you can have another 40-50 years of no war with Russia.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



The Math Behind Trump's $1 Trillion Defense Budget

OPINION — “The President's FY ‘26 [Fiscal Year 2026] National Defense Budget requests $1.01 trillion, which is a 13 percent increase from FY '25 enacted [as authorized but not yet funded by Congress] levels. This [FY ‘26] includes $848.3 billion for DoD's [Defense Department’s] discretionary budget and $113.3 billion in mandatory funding for DoD via [the FY ’25] reconciliation [bill now before the Senate] totaling $961.6 billion total for the Department of Defense.”

That was a Senior DoD Official briefing reporters last Thursday, on newly-released details of the Trump administration’s defense budget request for the fiscal year 2026, which begins October 1, 2025 and ends September 30, 2026.

In the best of times, the DoD budget process is difficult to understand, but this year it is even more complicated than most. The final defense budget figure depends not only on passage of the FY 2026 Appropriations Bill, but also on the FY 2025 reconciliations bill.

In addition, there are some interesting differences among the Pentagon, House and Senate on how the money is to be spent.

Ideally, a President sends his annual budget proposal to Congress early in the year—late January for example. Congress holds authorization hearings followed by appropriation hearings, and the bills get marked up and passed before the next federal government fiscal year begins on October 1.

But when it comes to defense, for 11 of the past 12 fiscal years, DoD has had to operate under continuing resolutions (CRs) for some months because Congress in those years was unable to pass the necessary defense appropriations bills until after the new fiscal year began.

From DoD’s point of view, that has caused problems because under CRs spending levels normally remain the same as the previous year. CRs also prohibit new starts, disrupt production schedules and generally interfere with defense planning. The situation becomes even more complicated in years of presidential transition.

The fiscal 2025 defense budget was originally put together under the Biden administration. Congress, after President Trump was elected, delayed passage of the Biden fiscal 2025 defense spending plan, approving two short-term CRs. Finally, after Trump became president, Congress approved a full year CR in mid-March 2025. That put DoD funding for this current fiscal year at $852 billion, just one percent above what it was in FY 2024.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration was working with DoD officials on the FY 2026 defense budget, which the Biden administration back in 2024, had projected would be $876.8 billion.

Then, on April 7, 2025, during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump, after mentioning that he had built up the U.S. military during his first term in office, suddenly said, “We have great things happening with our military.”

Trump went on to say something that he had not said publicly before: “We also essentially approved a budget…you'll like to hear this, of a trillion dollars, $1 trillion and nobody's seen anything like it. We have to build our military and we're very cost conscious, but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you got a lot of bad forces out there now. So, we're going to be approving a budget and I'm proud to say, actually the biggest one we've ever done for the military.”

Trump’s statement about $1 trillion for defense in FY 2026 then became the marching order, but how to do it was the question. A month later, the answer appeared publicly in the form of the FY 2025 reconciliation bill.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

Since the January presidential inauguration, the Trump administration and Republican leadership had been working on this reconciliation bill in order to change much of the Biden FY 2025 budgeting by aligning all spending, taxes, revenue, and the debt limit with a new, agreed-upon FY 2025 Trump budget.

Among many features of this FY 2025 Trump reconciliation bill was the insertion of a $150 billion lump sum for defense programs, to be paid out of U.S. Treasury funds available through 2029. There had been no congressional hearings—the number just appeared.

In early May, when Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its full government fiscal 2026 ‘skinny’ budget, public mention was first made of the $150 billion defense package in the reconciliation bill -- and that some $113 billion of it was to be earmarked for the Pentagon’s fiscal 2026 budget.

That meant DoD’s FY 2026 base budget remained near FY 2025’s $852 billion, but you reached Trump’s announced $1 trillion for overall defense spending by adding the $113 billion in the reconciliation bill along with funds for nuclear weapons paid for by the Energy Department.

Back in May, at the time of that OMB announcement, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said, “For the defense budget, OMB has requested a fifth year straight of Biden administration funding, leaving military spending flat, which is a cut in real terms…I have said for months that reconciliation Defense spending does not replace the need for real growth in the military's base budget.”

He was joined at that time by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, who said, “Make no mistake: a one-time influx reconciliation spending is not a substitute for full-year appropriations.”

On May 22, in a 215-to-214, largely party-line vote, the House passed its version of the FY 2025 reconciliation bill, containing the $150 billion defense package. The reconciliation bill is now up for debate in the Senate. An advantage for the Trump administration in the reconciliation process is that Senate rules allow for a simple majority vote (51 votes) for reconciliation bills, bypassing the usual 60-vote threshold on controversial measures needed to overcome a filibuster.

Meanwhile, House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees have held hearings on the Trump fiscal 2026 DoD budget request with mixed results.

On June 12, the House Appropriations Committee passed its version of the FY 2026 DoD funding bill that followed the OMB May proposal, keeping the numbers close to the FY 2025 level and reaching the $1 billion Trump goal by adding the earmarked $113 billion in the pending FY 2025 reconciliation bill.

However, questions were raised at the June 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was one of the witnesses.

Chairman Wicker said, “What we have in front of us is an inadequate budget request with precious little detail and no follow on data about fiscal years 2027, 2028, or 2029. We must assume, and in fact we have heard, that OMB intends to maintain defense spending at $893 billion across the four years of this administration. So even with a one-time $150 billion [fiscal 2025] reconciliation [bill] infusion, this would leave us at 2.65% of GDP by 2029, below 3 percent of GDP and well below the 5 percent of GDP that we really need.”

Wicker went on, “I understand that if you put reconciliation and the budget request together for this year [FY2026] it exceeds 3 percent, but if we go back to that same baseline for the next three years, after that we'll be under 3 percent. Do you intend to fix that?”

Hegseth agreed that going below 3 percent would be very dangerous, adding, “So does the President of the United States which is why this budget increases from FY25 1.3 percent [if you include reconciliation bill’s $113 billion] and puts us at 3.5 percent of GDP on defense.”

President Trump recently returned from the NATO summit at The Hague where he took credit for the allies adopting a 2035 goal of 3.5 percent for member countries’ core defense spending. It could be embarrassing for the President to find himself below that amount back home.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

Another question raised at Wednesday’s Armed Services hearing was exactly how the reconciliation bill defense money would be spent. At issue was the tradition known as “congressional intent,” for Congress to designate spending amounts for specific defense items in legislation.

At the June 18 Armed Services hearing, Wicker asked, “We will put funds in the reconciliation bill, working with the House and working with the Administration, to get the [President’s] signature on the bill. And we will make clear alongside that the specific congressional intent [on defense items]…Mr. Secretary [Hegseth] do you commit to following congressional intent unequivocally on reconciliation.”

After Hegseth gave a qualifying answer, Wicker demanded, “Do you commit to following congressional intent unequivocally in reconciliation?” This time, Hegseth answered, “Yes.”

I mention this because last Wednesday, Chairman Wicker released what he called an “updated legislative text of the defense reconciliation bill.” It showed his committee had cut down to $1 billion the $3.3 billion it had previously allocated to deployment of military personnel in support of border operations.

However, the next day, Thursday, at a Pentagon press conference called to discuss the FY 2026 defense budget, details of which had just been made available, a Senior Defense Official made clear the figure DoD had for the reconciliation bill was different. He said, “The $5 billion we're requesting [from the reconciliation bill] is for border security for our troops to actually be there as well as for detention support.”

The Defense Official added of the reconciliation funding, “It's the first time the Department of Defense has received mandatory money like this. It's ten-year money with a lot more flexibility than the average discretionary dollar provides.” Remember, under traditional circumstances, congressional intent language in statutes determines how defense money is to be spent.

Under the original reconciliation bill, DoD had 90 days after the legislation became law to send the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees their plans for spending the $150 billion. What was to happen thereafter is not spelled out, but it’s clear the “flexibility” that the Defense Official has seen is not recognized by Sen. Wicker and, I expect, others on Capitol Hill.

Will today’s complex circumstances be repeated?

I saw a hint in something the Senior Defense Official said to reporters last Thursday. Asked about the top defense budget figure for FY 2027, he said, “We have not yet discussed what that will look like for [FY] '27. But unless the president's tone changes, I imagine we'll stick with $1 trillion for national defense spending.”

After the June 18, Armed Services hearing, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said, “As I understand it, OMB is saying we are going to have a flat defense budget for the next four or five years. Are we playing reconciliation every year from now on?”

The answer is maybe.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



The Downward Spiral of Western Counterintelligence

OPINION — Counterintelligence is one of the most vital functions of the intelligence community, helping protect against foreign threats. Counterintelligence was heavily emphasized during the Cold War, as spying and unregistered foreign agents were at an all-time high across various regions. Over the past several years, numerous investigations, scandals, and reports have surfaced across North America and Europe revealing how foreign governments have influenced politicians and placed agents in key areas of intelligence and daily life, subverting Western counterintelligence efforts.

The signs are clear that counterintelligence is in a downward spiral, leading to major security failures and breaches. How and why is this happening?

A New Axis and Effective Hybrid Warfare

Over the past decade, numerous figures in Europe and America were investigated or found to have major ties to foreign intelligence agencies. Unregistered foreign agents became even more evident in 2022 as the Russian invasion of Ukraine became a full-scale war.

Russia is at the forefront of a new axis that is leading hybrid and information warfare efforts—pushing disinformation and placing agents across various Western institutions to dissuade a united front against the Kremlin’s goals.

Russian influence and sabotage operations have gained steam since 2016, as numerous populist movements—such as Brexit, the American isolationist movement, and far-right parties in Europe— have surged, many of which have allegedly received funding from the Kremlin itself.

Through hybrid warfare, the Kremlin seeks to control the narrative. One method Russia uses is trafficking migrants from Africa and the Middle East and sending them to Europe via the Mediterranean or Eastern borders of the continent. The Kremlin aims to overwhelm the European social system by trafficking migrants towards hot spots such as Finland and Lithuania and propping up juntas in Africa that force migrants to flee to Italy, Spain, and Greece. From there, anti-immigration parties and populist movements gain momentum and come to power. Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Austria, and France all face a wave of populist movements with governments with alleged ties to the Kremlin. China and Iran also have growing influence, particularly in Hungary, which is quickly becoming a potential “Trojan horse” within the EU and NATO.

A Breakdown of Infiltration by Foreign Governments

Numerous scandals, saboteur acts, and links to Russian foreign intelligence have been recorded in the UK, Spain, Germany, Czechia, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania, and Montenegro. Recent FBI and DOJ documents show how Russian information warfare can spread misinformation and disinformation in the US via alternative media channels.

German politicians in the pro-Russian AfD, SPD, and CDU have come under fire for potential influence related to Russian energy, and the ruling Fidesz party of Hungary has all but isolated the Central European nation due to its close ties with the Kremlin.

The Chinese government has ramped up foreign intelligence operations by placing unregistered foreign agents and intelligence operatives who target dissidents in the United States. They also seek to influence day-to-day policies, as seen with the arrest of Linda Sun, a major former aide to NY Governor Hochul.

Pro-Mullah Iranian agents have also been active in Europe, America, and Western-aligned countries in the Middle East—targeting dissidents and potentially using information warfare to further inflame tensions amid Israel’s ongoing wars against Hamas and Hezbollah. A recent kidnapping and murder of a prominent Chabad Israeli rabbi in the UAE has only heightened the sense of urgency for the need for more counterintelligence operations.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

What Went Wrong With Counterintelligence?

The beginning of the U.S. government's negligence toward counterintelligence efforts started when the Soviet Union fell, after which there was no true rival to the United States until China's sharp economic and military boom in the early 2000s.

Another major turning point was the U.S. invasion of Iraq. When the world saw WMD lies by various Western heads of state to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, citizens started to lose faith in their governments, allowing foreign rivals to use information and hybrid warfare to subvert democracies. Against the backdrop of governments' and media organizations' lack of faith, rival countries such as Russia, China, and Iran have invested in media misinformation and disinformation. Today, media organizations such as RT have been flagged by the West for being an arm of the Kremlin, and TikTok is currently being discussed in a potential ban for Beijing-linked spyware and disinformation.

Likewise, allied countries are also allegedly subverting Western counterintelligence capabilities, such as Turkey, which is accused of targeting dissidents in Europe and the United States. NYC Mayor Eric Adams faces charges related to working with the Turkish government and acting on influence, such as digressing away from Armenian Genocide recognition in the city. Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are also allegedly subvert counterintelligence to target dissidents, seen, for example, in Riyadh’s brutal murder of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi and Qatar's alleged influence in university protests in the U.S.

Potential Solutions

Now more than ever, Western governments should renew their emphasis on funding and growing counterintelligence capabilities to thwart foreign interference, alongside enhancing ongoing joint intelligence efforts through allies such as Five Eyes,

A main factor of infiltration of foreign governments includes using our own freedom of rights against us. With investigations taking years to conclude due to legislative pushbacks or measures, rival agencies look to subvert this.

A comprehensive counterintelligence focus is needed as the world enters a period of potential global conflict. Perhaps the West should again utilize counterspy doctrines of the Cold War era to mitigate looming threats and enhance counterintelligence efforts.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



Beijing’s Rare Disclosure on DF-5B Missile Signals Shift in Nuclear Messaging



CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING -- China’s state television put a rare public focus on Beijing’s DF-5B intercontinental ballistic missile earlier this month, revealing key details that mark a significant shift in Beijing’s nuclear messaging amid rising global tensions and in the midst of unraveling key arms control agreements.

According to state broadcaster CCTV, the upgraded DF-5B missile is reportedly capable of carrying up to 10 independently targetable warheads, each with a destructive yield estimated to be 200 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Exact figures remain difficult to verify, as independent assessments vary. But CCTV claims that the missile’s range is approximately 12,000 kilometers (7,460 miles), putting most of the continental United States and Europe within reach. So, why does this matter?

While the details of the DF-5B match some already disclosed details, the notion that state television is putting such a public focus on this is “unusual and perhaps speaks to a willingness on China’s part to begin signaling its nuclear growth in a more public manner,” according to Matt Korda, Associate Director at the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.

“China has not traditionally commented on the details of its weapon systems and instead almost always sticks to high-level talking points. Perhaps this portends a shift in the country’s communications strategy,” Korda, who also serves as Associate Senior Researcher for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, tells The Cipher Brief.

While the original DF-5 missile, developed during the Cold War, was outfitted with a single warhead, the DF-5B’s multi-warhead capacity—alongside its purported accuracy within 500 meters— represents a significant leap in China’s second-strike capability and nuclear survivability.

Andrew Erickson, a professor of strategy at the Naval War College and visiting China-focused scholar at Harvard University, believes that the renewed focus on this issue “is part of a comprehensive effort to attempt to coerce and intimidate its adversaries regarding the military scenarios about which Beijing prioritizes most.”

“Beijing’s goal is to show that it can match or exceed its adversaries on each rung of the escalation ladder; and also has the capability to utilize rungs, or combination of rungs, that its adversaries either do not possess or are more hesitant to use,” he explained.

Andrew Scobell, Distinguished Fellow for China at the United States Institute of Peace, said, “China’s communist rulers are feeling more insecure than usual, and this disclosure is their way of signaling ‘don’t mess with Beijing’ to Washington and other capitals.”

“The message is: China’s nuclear weaponry and delivery systems are more capable today than ever before with a longer reach and greater accuracy,” he tells The Cipher Brief.

A Rapidly Expanding Arsenal

China’s nuclear arsenal remains smaller than those of Russia or the United States, but it is growing at an unprecedented rate. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that China has increased its warhead count by about 100 in the past year, rising from 500 in 2024, to over 600 by January 2025.

The SIPRI report notes that China is “expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than any other nuclear-armed state.” Experts estimate that by 2035, if current trends continue, China could possess as many as 1,500 nuclear warheads—a threefold increase that would still place it behind the United States and Russia, which together hold nearly 90 percent of the global stockpile.

But Multiple Independently target-able Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) —allow a single missile to carry several nuclear warheads, each aimed at a different target. This dramatically complicates interception, as the warheads can overwhelm defenses by arriving on separate trajectories, making coordinated response far more difficult and costly.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

“Current U.S. missile defenses are unable to meaningfully defend against Chinese ICBMs, whether they carry multiple warheads or not,” Korda said. “Having MIRVs certainly complicates that challenge and demonstrates the age-old problem for missile defenses: that offense will always be easier and cheaper than defense.”

Erickson believes that China’s criticism of U.S. missile-defense efforts like the Golden Dome, “and collaboration with Moscow on hypocritical arms control grandstanding rings hollow when Beijing remains silent on, or tacitly condones, Russia’s development of dramatic space control measures,” the most worrisome and threatening of which, is what would be the world’s first satellite-based nuclear weapon according to Erickson.

Projections derived from open-source satellite information and imagery, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, note that China has nearly completed close to 350 new ICBM silos that are spread across multiple deserts and mountainous regions, including in Gansu and Inner Mongolia. Depending on deployment strategies, this could enable China to deploy several ICBMs comparable to those of Russia or the United States by the decade’s end.

Implications for Deterrence and Stability

China’s shift comes as the framework for nuclear arms control faces significant strain. With New START, the last remaining treaty limiting Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals, set to expire in early 2026, and no successor agreement in place, the global arms control architecture appears increasingly obsolete.

Some experts warn that the world is effectively entering an era of unchecked nuclear competition and worry that the growing deployment of artificial intelligence, space-based sensors, and cyber capabilities could erode crisis stability and introduce new pathways to escalation.

Advanced systems can compress decision-making time and increase the risk of miscalculation or technical error, particularly in multi-theater conflict scenarios involving China and Russia. According to SIPRI, “the signs are that a new arms race is gearing up that carries much more risk and uncertainty than the last one.”

Strategic Consequences for the West

The implications of China’s buildup extend far beyond Asia. Despite Russia and the United States’ decades-long atomic dominance, China’s rapidly expanding nuclear missile arsenal indicates a profound shift in global strategic dynamics.

For the West, experts emphasize that China’s nuclear buildup is raising the stakes of deterrence and complicates arms control efforts. It also demands an urgent reassessment of defense postures—particularly as Beijing builds a more flexible, survivable, and modernized nuclear triad – the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic bombers. This capability enables Beijing to more credibly challenge Western military presumptions.

“Advanced nuclear weapons and delivery systems are the ultimate backstop supporting Beijing’s efforts to impose a Sisyphean sense of futility on its enemies while supporting the ultimate warfighting options should that preferred approach ultimately fail to deliver,” Erickson said.

Analysts with the Federation of American Scientists have observed that China’s expanded ICBM infrastructure enables more flexible deployment, blending fixed silos with mobile launchers and dual-use capabilities, which complicate both detection and preemption. And as the U.S. continues to serve as the primary security guarantor for Europe and the Indo-Pacific, it faces the potential challenge of confronting multiple nuclear-capable adversaries simultaneously. For example, if drawn into parallel conflicts—such as a war in Ukraine and a Taiwan Strait crisis—experts worry that its conventional forces could become overstretched, increasing a reliance on nuclear deterrence.

The Next Phase of the Nuclear Race

DF-5B represents more than just a technical advancement for Beijing; it is a calculated message to the world. China’s modernization efforts are now a tangible reflection of the leadership’s ambition to move closer to nuclear parity—particularly in capability and survivability—with the United States and Russia.

With arms control faltering and nuclear parity drawing near, the world is poised for a new era of strategic competition, marked by high stakes, blurred red lines, and faster-moving threats. So, what can Washington do?

Sign up now for The Cipher Brief Nightcap. The best M-F national security newsletter keeping you up to speed on the most pressing issues of the day. Sign up today.

Scobell notes that, “America and its allies should reevaluate their deterrence strategies,” pointing out that integrated deterrence sounds good in theory but putting it into action is tougher—especially because it must work across different areas like nuclear and conventional weapons. Deterring China is already a complex endeavor that is made even more challenging in today’s tense U.S.-China environment.

Korda believe that engaging China in arms control talks will be challenging, as Beijing would “have to accept some degree of transparency to join a verifiable arms control regime, and it has traditionally preferred to rely on opacity to safeguard its smaller nuclear arsenal.”

“In addition, China is likely concerned that the United States––particularly through its ever-expanding missile defense architecture, is seeking to erode its state of mutual vulnerability with its nuclear adversaries,” he said.

According to Korda, China likely perceives time to be on its side as it continues to expand its nuclear arsenal and “will likely wait to engage in significant talks until it gains the leverage it thinks it needs to become a more equal negotiating partner.”

Erickson contends that Beijing’s strategic ambiguity remains central to its doctrine: a tactic and a message.

“China doesn’t want us to understand their deterrence strategy; that lack of clarity is baked into the ambiguity,” he notes. “For twenty years of dialogue on these issues, the Chinese government and Chinese experts outside of government did not engage meaningfully. I don’t believe the PLA wants us to understand them.” Still, others see it differently.

“Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that nuclear arms control is dead, but I do not agree. Russia is eager to get into a new agreement, especially if that was coupled with a new overall concept for security in Europe,” Lyle Goldstein, Director for Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities, tells The Cipher Brief. “I believe that Beijing could be persuaded too if afforded the right set of enticing ‘carrots,’ such as a U.S. agreement to a no-first-use accord.”

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



An Urgent Call to Close the Loopholes on Chips and China

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE / OPINION -- The core lessons from the Cold War should guide us as we face the new “Axis of Aggressors” today. First among these, is that we need to win the technology race.

Advanced technology made in United States did more than just put an American on the moon, it also solidified our economic foundation, empowered long-term entrepreneurial American leadership, and protected our national interests.

Maintaining this technology leadership should continue to be our priority today. Despite the Biden and Trump Administrations trying to limit the sale of U.S. software used to design semiconductors to Chinese groups, the U.S. government simply has not taken enough meaningful action to actually protect America’s leadership position.

China is embracing loopholes and openly flaunting strategic workarounds in our export policy that allows for the continued development of high-quality semiconductor chips with U.S. technology in China, despite our efforts to restrict Chinese access to such tools.

Along these same lines, Beijing plans to expand the use of open-source chip technology such as RISC V, in order to ween off its reliance on the West and spur the development of advanced chips in China. By leveraging RISC-V, Chinese companies are using open source software derived in the West to design their own processors for AI, cloud computing, and even military applications without violating current U.S. export restrictions.

And this shift is happening now.

Chinese tech giants like Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei have invested heavily in RISC-V research and development, looking to exploit this back-door access to western open source technology. Additionally, Chinese government-backed initiatives are pouring billions into this effort, positioning it as a national priority.

This should not have been a surprise: after all, experts have been warning for years that this day would come, and China reportedly plans to issue policy guidance to boost the use of RISC-V chips.

This has not gone completely unnoticed, though. Congress has been looking at this technology and China’s ability to exploit it, and has rightfully raised a red flag, while the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has been ramping up export controls on advanced chip products.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

But despite the alarm bells, Congressional scrutiny, and increasing export actions, the RISC-V loophole remains unclosed – and China has pressed forward and is making progress.

For example, the development of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI-powered chatbot, demonstrated that the United States may not be as far ahead as we once thought in emerging technology, and there are many more reports beginning to surface about advancements of home grown Chinese tech.

According to a recent report from the Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), China’s use of open source technology will bolster its ability to produce AI chips domestically, which is key to China’s long-term AI ambitions.

Another concern about this extensive use of open-source technology by Chinese companies is that it is leading to significant cybersecurity concerns with products built on it. DeepSeek is just one recent example, with the platform coming under cybersecurity scrutiny immediately after its release, with many countries and companies restricting its use. DeepSeek is considered 11 times more likely to be exploited by cybercriminals than other AI models.

A separate CSIS report notes that chip design is intended to be at the forefront of the ongoing struggle to ensure cybersecurity and to thwart hacking and tampering efforts, not be the source of new cybersecurity challenges.

Bottomline—the more Chinese chips there are in the American market, the more vulnerable our critical systems become to potential attacks – both from criminal actors and nation states like China.

CrowdStrike recently reported that Chinese state-sponsored cyber-attacks have increased by 150%, with attacks in financial services, media, manufacturing and the industrial sectors increasing by 300%.

All of this tells us that we need to act now.

One way is to prioritize domestic investment in semi-conductor production and establish a unified approach to semiconductors and advanced technology with our allies and trusted partners. The Trump administration has already made significant strides in this realm – as evidenced by the recent $100 billion investment by TSMC in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

But this type of domestic investment should be just one leg of a much broader strategy. The complicated world of semiconductors and advanced tech goes much deeper.

We also need to take regulatory action that prevents U.S. companies from working with Chinese companies in open source technology forums (e.g. RISC-V International); tightens export controls to apply equally to commercial and open source semiconductor technology; and properly screens technology and semiconductors that contain Chinese IP.

Any approach should be integrated – bringing together both incentivization and regulation to protect America’s economic productivity and national security.

Chips are at the heart of all technology products and the advancement of AI platforms that they power. They are a key part of everyday life – they’re in our phones, cars, smartwatches, etc. and their applications go much further into our defense and military systems - impacting battlefield performance, information acquisition, and evaluation. Ensuring a strategic advantage in this space is crucial to protecting our national security now and in the event of a future global crisis.

In a world of such uncertainty and potential, the United States needs to maintain its lead in chips and advanced technology. In order to do so, though, we need a comprehensive strategy that looks at both our opportunities and potential vulnerabilities – and pays close attention to the threats from our adversaries.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief



A Good NATO Summit, Though Russia Won a Round

EXPERT Q&A — NATO leaders convened in The Hague this week for a summit aiming to strengthen the alliance's defenses, with the ever encroaching threat of Russia in mind. The meeting was largely a success, with all members (barring Spain) pledging to meet a new 5% GDP defense spending target. It was also a moment for NATO to project unity and recommit to collective defense, following skepticism from the administration of President Donald Trump, who was receptive and praised the alliance — saying it is not a "rip-off" as he has previously said. Ukraine, while a key topic at previous summits in recent years, was notably on the backburner this time around.

The Cipher Brief caught up with General Philip Breedlove (Ret.), a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, for a post-summit debrief to see what positives came out of the gathering and where he is looking next, from how NATO members go about expanding defense capabilities to whether the alliance offers more support to Ukraine and pressures Russia. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity. You can watch the full discussion at The Cipher Brief's YouTube channel.

The Cipher Brief: Did things end the way you thought they needed to end this week at the Hague?

General Breedlove: We had a great summit. Let's give some credit to Secretary General [Mark] Rutte and the members of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) because we needed unity. When the U.S. president arrived, they had come to unity on the 5% spending commitment. And I think that set the stage. Our president was the first president in the history of NATO to get the organization to seriously invest when he pushed hard on the 2%. So, it went very well.

The Cipher Brief: This felt like a summit that was almost tailor-made for the president. It was an easy pop-in, not a lot of debate, not a lot of back and forth. They knew what to expect going into it. Do you think that that helped fuel the outcome?

General Breedlove: Yes. Very few people understand how NATO works. The secretary general is actually very important, but he's not the decider. He works for the NAC, just like the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe (SACEUR) works for the NAC. Secretary General Rutte has managed the process extremely well to get everybody to where he needed them to be. We need to give him some credit for organizing all of the nations to get them to the right place.

I think their vision was to keep this short, to the point, get to the things that the U.S. president wants to accomplish, get those accomplished, and come out of this with a big unifying statement. And who is that unifying statement for? Of course, it's for all of our nations and our alliance. But the most important recipient of that message is Mr. Putin.

The Cipher Brief Threat Conference is happening October 19-22 in Sea Island, GA. The world's leading minds on national security from both the public and private sectors will be there. Will you? Apply for a seat at the table today.

Mr. Putin works hard to tear NATO down. He tries to peel off individual countries and leaders. Secretary General Rutte pulled the team together, got them on the same playbook, moved out and didn't waste any time. And I think that's exactly how this U.S. president likes to work.

The Cipher Brief: It was clear going into this that Russia is the real threat to NATO. It's still a little bit unclear as to where President Trump is going to come down on Russia when it comes to how much pressure he's going to be willing to apply. We saw a little bit of movement toward the possibility of more support for Ukraine. What do you think the options are there? And if you’re the Russian president, how are you looking at the outcome of this summit in particular?

General Breedlove: I'm both encouraged and discouraged on this front. I think there are a lot of people who believe we're ready now and we should be going in with the next round of heavy sanctions on Russia, to go after fuels and the shadow fleet. Our U.S. secretary of state, in his statement, said we're not going there now because it might preclude some sort of a ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine. So, he's going to hold off. Russia won that round. That's what they want. Keep stalling, keep the Americans thinking there's going to be a deal, and keep attacking Ukraine. So, we've got to move past that. And I think eventually this is going to happen.

Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that keeps you up to speed on national security. Sign up today.

If we learned anything from the 12-day war, it is that our president has a line. And when these parties go over that line, he will act. We hammered Ukraine. We took away their intelligence, we took away their support. We gave it back pretty quick, but the bottom line is that we did damage to Ukraine to get them where we needed to get them. Now it's time to give Mr. Putin a straightforward message “Get on the program, sir, or you're gonna regret it.” It’s time to pull that stick out and use it in the same way we did on several other countries in the last three or four months. That has not happened. We look forward to that happening.

But on your other point, yes, there seems to be some understanding that possibly we're going to keep the flow, maybe even increase the flow, of supply to Ukraine.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



NATO Wins Will Have an Impact

CIPHER BRIEF EXPERT Q&A NATO leaders convened at The Hague this week and agreed to raise the alliance’s defense spending target to 5% GDP, marking a significant pledge to expand defense capabilities. A key component is the 1.5% dedicated to defense- and security-related spending, a broad category that covers everything from critical infrastructure cybersecurity to upgrading transportation infrastructure for military logistics. Experts say this is a needed area to bolster defense posture, in addition to the traditional purchase of jets, tanks and arms.

Earlier this week, Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery urged NATO to adopt the 1.5% commitment in a piece in The Cipher Brief. He spoke with The Cipher Brief after the summit to assess the progress made and what must come next to translate those pledges into action.

Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity. You can watch the full discussion at The Cipher Brief YouTube Channel.

The Cipher Brief: What do you think of the results of the summit? Success or still a lot of work?

RADM Montgomery: I think with an alliance like NATO, there is always a lot of work. You've got 32 countries, you have 32 ideas, you have 32 threat assessments. But I actually think it went exceptionally well. It went exceptionally well because Secretary General Rutte did a great job corralling the players, with the exception of Spain. But he did a great job with 31, and then he did a terrific job managing President Trump — and that's no easy feat.

This was a landmark summit. The Hague 2025 will be remembered for a true commitment to deterring Russia, and if necessary defeating them if they were to invade a NATO state. And the five percent is certainly part of it, but the language, the direction, the focus, the corralling back in of the United States, all that happened at this summit.

Craving more expert insights into national security? Subscribe to The Cipher Brief’s YouTube channel to watch our interview with RADM Mark Montgomery.

The Cipher Brief: One thing that wasn't really discussed in any kind of depth was Ukraine. Obviously with Russia being sort of the looming cloud over NATO, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that.

RADM Montgomery: I fully support Ukraine and I think we should do as much as we can to help them. I recognize, though, that this 5 percent and the discussion of whether Article 5 applies really was about signatory states. There's a deep, deep issue there that we have to be agreed that we're going to defend Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, particularly. I think they're the four most vulnerable states if they're attacked.

Separate from that is the issue that right now the European country in combat with Russia that was illegally invaded by Russia, Ukraine, has relied heavily on NATO support because most of NATO recognizes that if you don't deter Russia here, their next ambition could be Moldova, but it could be Estonia. It could be Romania or Georgia, or it could be the Suwalki Gap and a land bridge to Kaliningrad.

So with all that in play, it was critical that Zelensky got a good reception. I think he did. And the fact that the Ukrainian section was shortened from 42 paragraphs to 10 paragraphs, I don't care. In the end it said we support Ukraine. The NATO contact group is working hard to support Ukraine. European countries are giving Ukraine a lot of money.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

And here's the most important part: for the first time since his election, President Trump indicated he would keep the defense industrial base open for Ukraine or Europeans to purchase the critical air defense systems they need, and even referred to the U.S. potentially being involved in that. There is no European alternative to the Patriot line at Raytheon or to the AMRAAM line in the United States, which is the weapon that goes in their NASAMs air defense system. There's no European alternative to a million rounds a year of 155mm. You're going to need the U.S. to be involved in that. And therefore, it was critical for the president to say that these lines are available to Ukraine. And he did that on two or three different occasions. It wasn't as clean as I'd like it, but he clearly indicated that was his intention.

The Cipher Brief: Next steps for NATO. What do you think?

RADM Montgomery: First, glad to see the 5%. I was really glad that they broke it down to 3.5-1.5, mostly because they'd have never gotten a 5% on planes, tanks, and ships. You'd have had more than Spain break away then — you might've had the UK, France, and Germany. Or they'd put a due date like 2050, something that doesn't really matter. I'm disappointed it slipped to 2035. It should have been 2032 like the Eastern Europeans wanted. Most of the Eastern Europeans, by the way—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland—are passing through 4% already and heading to 5% within the next 12 months. And that's just on aircraft, ships, and tanks kind of stuff.

What I really loved about this was the 1.5%. This is about getting cyber right and critical infrastructure protection right. It's about building your defense industrial base. But talking about cyber and critical infrastructure, when you say what's next for NATO, at the last summit, they approved a NATO critical infrastructure center. They put it at SACEUR, and that's critical because what we have to do now is take that center as it comes online in the next year, SACEUR’s war plans, and this money and build the infrastructure that's necessary for the United States to flow our forces from the United States, the UK forces from across the channel, the French forces from deep in Europe—those brigades, divisions, and even corps—to be able to flow across Northern Europe from the ports and the airfields in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg, France, and get to the fight. That is not protected right now. That critical infrastructure is not prioritized and protected in a meaningful way.

So, in my mind, the big NATO takeaway is 1.5 percent, the cyber center, and a SACEUR with a war plan. If we can now build ourselves the ligature to deter Russia and if Russia is foolish enough to attack, defeat Russia in an invasion of an Article Five-defended country.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.






Back to top