Tag: military industrial complex

State Department Confirms: Beijing Exploits U.S. Tech Platforms for Military Intelligence

A senior State Department official confirmed this week that Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has supported, and continues to support, China’s military and intelligence operations. The case highlights Beijing’s broader strategy of using American technology platforms to advance its defense goals.

DeepSeek used Southeast Asian shell companies to bypass U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors, allowing it to operate within the U.S. tech ecosystem while maintaining ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The incident illustrates how China exploits U.S. openness to access critical technology and gather intelligence, an approach likely mirrored across other Chinese firms.

DeepSeek’s operations reflect a broader Chinese strategy of using commercial technology platforms for intelligence gathering. U.S. officials report that DeepSeek appears in procurement records for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) over 150 times and has provided services to PLA research institutions. With a global user base, the company gained access to vast amounts of user data, which it transmitted to China via infrastructure linked to China Mobile, a state-owned telecom provider.

Congressional analysis of DeepSeek’s privacy policies confirms this data flow. The platform collected user queries, data inputs, and usage patterns from millions worldwide, allowing China to profile U.S. research priorities, problem-solving methods, and technological capabilities. This is intelligence gathering at scale, made possible by users unknowingly feeding data into a system tied to a foreign military.

The episode exposes broader flaws in U.S. efforts to restrict China’s access to sensitive technology. Despite bans on sales of advanced AI chips to Chinese firms, DeepSeek reportedly acquired large volumes of Nvidia’s H100 processors by exploiting third-party shell companies and remote data center access. These methods highlight how Chinese firms bypass restrictions through indirect channels, suggesting systemic gaps in enforcement.

DeepSeek’s presence on major U.S. cloud platforms, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, further expanded China’s access to American infrastructure. This integration allowed Beijing to collect intelligence while posing as a commercial partner, gaining insight into cloud operations and user behavior.

Keep reading

Europe ‘wary’ of US arms dependence after unprecedented NATO spending boost

As European nations commit to their most significant military buildup in decades, growing unease is emerging over their reliance on US weapons manufacturers.

Despite depleted stockpiles due to aid to Ukraine, many European leaders are questioning the wisdom – and political cost – of deepening their dependence on US arms under the leadership of US President Donald Trump.

Trump’s recent trip to Europe underscored his push for allies to buy more US-made weapons. Yet his open admiration for Russia and controversial comments – such as threats to annex Greenland – have fueled wariness. “Buying American weapons is a security risk that we cannot run,” Danish parliamentarian Rasmus Jarlov declared earlier this year.

Canada is now considering exiting the US-led F-35 program in favor of Sweden’s Gripen fighters, Bloomberg noted on 27 June. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said, “We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America.”

Meanwhile, in France, President Emmanuel Macron has spearheaded EU efforts to boost local weapons production, with the bloc fast-tracking a €150 billion ($162 billion) defense funding initiative.

Despite these efforts, the US maintains a commanding lead in key defense technologies – from missile systems to satellites – and European firms lack the capacity to meet the continent’s defense needs. 

Carlyle estimates Europe’s planned defense buildup could reach €14 trillion ($16 trillion) over the next decade when infrastructure is included, far outstripping current European capabilities.

“We have far too many systems in Europe, we have far too few units, and what we produce is often far too complicated, and therefore too expensive,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Keep reading

US Space Force Requests $277M for MILNET, Halts Tranche 3 of Transport Layer

The U.S. Space Force’s fiscal 2026 budget request provides $277 million for the MILNET proliferated Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) constellation and halts funding for the Space Development Agency’s Tranche 3, Transport Layer effort for advanced LEO communications satellites.

The Space Force $277 million request combines two program elements and derives from a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) classified MILNET effort, based on SpaceX‘s Starshield. The Department of the Air Force, which is conducting an Analysis of Alternatives on future satellite communications, intends MILNET to be a “plug and play” architecture that is not SpaceX-reliant.

“In the FY 26 budget we learned DoD is halting the Space Development Agency’s Tranche 3, Transport Layer and that work which has been going on for several years and had robust competition and open standards has been replaced by something called MILNET, which is being sole sourced to SpaceX,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel, said at a Thursday hearing on the Department of the Air Force’s fiscal 2026 funding request.

“No competition, no open architecture, no leveraging of dynamic space ecosystem,” Coons said of MILNET.

Coons then asked Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, “Doesn’t handing this to SpaceX make us dependent on their proprietary technology and avoid the very positive benefits of competition and open architecture?

“Tranche 2 is still funded in the budget submission, including the Transport Layer, so we’re looking forward to delivery of that system over the next handful of years,” Meink responded. “As we go forward, MILNET, the term, should not be taken as just a system. How we field that going forward is something that’s still under consideration, and we will look at the acquisition of that.”

Coons then said that he would “deeply appreciate a classified briefing” from Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman “on exactly where this [MILNET] is going and why this particular decision was made.”

SDA has extensively publicized the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA), including the communications and missile warning satellite constellations.

Keep reading

‘War Industry’ Silenced Democrat Opposition On Iran Strikes: Sen. Murphy

A leading Democratic senator has offered a frank and rare explanation for why many in his party are disconnected from everyday Democratic voters when it comes to foreign policy, which for a brief spell during the Bush years was dubbed ‘anti-war’—a platform which pretty much disappeared during the Obama years and later Biden admin.

Senator Chris Murphy was on MSNBC this week to talk about President Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, which was not so much as debated much less formally approved by Congress. Murphy pointed out to Chris Hayes that an overwhelming 87% of Democrats expressed disapproval, according to a recent poll, and that 56% of Americans overall opposed the military action.

“I gotta say, if you just looked at elected Democratic members of Congress I don’t think you would think the voting members of the party were as overwhelmingly against this strike as they are compared to the people they send to go represent them in Congress,” Hayes told Murphy in the Tuesday interview, asking, “Do you feel like there’s a pretty big distance on these kinds of issues, between Democratic voters and democratic electeds?”

“I mean yes,” Murphy responded without hesitation. “That’s because, listen, there is a war industry in this town. There just is. There’s a lot of people who make money off of war.

“The military, I love them, they’re capable. But they are always way overly optimistic about what they can do,” the senator added.

“So the American people get it,” Murphy then said. “This town, you know, has, like I said, a degree of optimism and hubris about military action that is derivative of the fact that the war industry spends a lot of money here in Washington telling us that the guns and the tanks and the planes can solve all of our problems.”

Keep reading

How much have US wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan cost?

The decades-long military involvement of the United States in the Middle East expanded once again this week after its warplanes bombed at least three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

According to a briefing by US General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, seven B-2 stealth bombers, each valued at approximately $2.1bn, dropped at least 14 bunker-buster bombs worth millions on Fordow and Natanz.

In total, more than 125 US aircraft participated in the mission, including bombers, fighters, tankers, surveillance aircraft, and support crews, all costing hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy and operate.

The US spends more on its military than any other country in the world, more than the next nine countries combined, spending about three times more than China and nearly seven times more than Russia.

In 2024, the US spent $997bn on its military, accounting for 37 percent of all global military spending, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Keep reading

Dystopia UK: Genocidal RAF Squadron Targeted by Palestine Action is Owned by a Hedge Fund

If you thought RAF jets were owned by the RAF, think again.

The RAF squadron targeted for a repaint by Palestine Action due to its involvement in supplying Israel’s genocide, does not in fact belong to the RAF at all. It belongs ultimately to Polygon Global Partners LLP, a Hedge Fund.

Through a chain of seven cutout companies, which I will take you through, the direct ownership is with Airtanker Ltd, which gives its address as RAF Brize Norton. It owns, maintains and operates the RAF’s Voyager refuelling aircraft, which have been providing mid-air refuelling to the Israeli Defence Forces as well as carrying, in their cargo role, munitions to the IDF.

Note that Airtanker Ltd states that five of the Voyager aircraft while available to the RAF:  “can also be made available to other parties. This can include providing military capability to other nations…”.

Whether the aircraft have been operated by the RAF on behalf of the Israelis, or whether they have been “provided to” the IDF direct, is an interesting question. Is this designed to build in plausible deniability for the UK government?

Eight of the Voyager Aircraft though fully painted in RAF livery, actually are the property of Airtanker Ltd.

Keep reading

Germany’s dangerous submission

At the Nato summit currently underway in The Hague, Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is expected to present his plan to transform the Bundeswehr into “the most powerful conventional army in Europe”. This dramatic announcement represents more than a shift in policy — it signals a rupture with the fundamental strategic identity Germany has maintained since 1945.

The idea of rearming the German military dates back to Olaf Scholz’s 2022 Zeitenwende speech — the so-called “turning point” announced in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Scholz promised a €100 billion fund for the military and pledged to meet Nato’s then 2% spending target. Yet that “turning point” largely failed to materialise. Two years later, the German Council on Foreign Relations bluntly concluded that little had changed.

Now, Merz is determined to deliver what Scholz only gestured towards. He has made defence and security the cornerstone of his chancellorship, launching the most ambitious rearmament campaign since the Second World War. The scale is staggering: a proposed €400 billion in defence and security investments, including a plan to raise annual defence spending to 5% of GDP — as demanded by Nato. That would represent nearly half of the federal budget — around €225 billion — a transformation with sweeping political and social consequences. On Monday, Berlin confirmed that its military spending will reach 3.5% of GDP by 2029, with the 5% target to be reached in the years to come.

To achieve this, Merz rammed through a constitutional amendment to reform the “debt brake”, a fiscal mechanism that has been enshrined in Germany’s Basic Law since 2009 and has since capped the federal structural deficit. Despite pledging during the campaign that the debt brake would remain untouched — and failing to mention his rearmament plans — Merz reversed course immediately after his election. His government exploited the final session of the outgoing parliament — even though a new Bundestag had already been elected — to approve the change. The aim was explicitly stated: to unlock vast new funding for military expansion.

Keep reading

NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline

Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.

“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”

Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”

The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.

With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.

The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed… there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.

Keep reading

The Real National Emergency

Seventy years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the cost of a military-industrial complex, America is still stealing from its own people to fund a global empire.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. has launched airstrikes in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), bombed Houthi-controlled ports and radar installations (killing scores of civilians), deployed greater numbers of troops and multiple aircraft carriers to the Middle East, and edged closer to direct war with Iran in support of Israel’s escalating conflict.

Each of these “new” fronts has been sold to the public as national defense. In truth, they are the latest outposts in a decades-long campaign of empire maintenance—one that lines the pockets of defense contractors while schools crumble, bridges collapse, and veterans sleep on the streets at home.

This isn’t about national defense. This is empire maintenance.

It’s about preserving a military-industrial complex that profits from endless war, global policing, and foreign occupations—while the nation’s infrastructure rots and its people are neglected.

The United States has spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military-industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

America’s role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has already cost taxpayers more than $112 billion.

And now, the price of empire is rising again.

Clearly, it’s time for the U.S. government to stop policing the globe.

Keep reading

The F-35 Ages Worse Than the Planes It’s Meant To Replace

As the U.S. grapples with ballooning federal budgets and increasingly necessary spending cuts, the military remains ripe for austerity. In February, the Pentagon suggested cutting $50 billion per year from its budget over the next five years—a good start but nowhere near enough, considering the Trump administration is floating a defense budget of nearly $1 trillion.

A recent government report detailed even further evidence that the F-35 stealth fighter jet is a program that deserves to be scrapped.

“The F-35 Lightning II aircraft (F-35) is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) most ambitious and costly weapon system and its most advanced fighter aircraft,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in April 2024. “However, DOD’s projected costs for sustaining the F-35 continue to increase while planned use of the aircraft declines.” (There are three primary variants: the F-35A, the F-35B, and the F-35C, which are primarily for use by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, respectively.)

“DOD plans to use the F-35 aircraft through 2088 and plans to spend over $2 trillion on acquisition and sustainment,” the GAO noted, even though the department also “plans to fly the F-35 less than originally estimated, partly because of reliability issues with the aircraft.”

Nonetheless, the report expressed some optimism over the F-35’s future: “As of August 2023, the program was meeting or close to meeting 17 of its 24 reliability and maintainability goals, which are aimed at ensuring that the aircraft will be available for operations as opposed to out-of-service for maintenance,” it noted. At the same time, even though the DOD planned to fly the crafts less than anticipated, that reduction in flight hours meant the various military branches “are now projecting they will meet most of their affordability targets (i.e., the amount of money they project they can afford to spend per aircraft per year for operating the aircraft).”

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tossed even more cold water on the F-35’s viability. It turns out that not only do the F-35s not age particularly well, they don’t particularly offer a competitive advantage over the planes they’re supposed to replace.

“As F-35s have aged, their availability and use have decreased,” the CBO detailed in a report—”availability” being a measure of “the number of hours that aircraft are both mission capable and in the possession of operational squadrons,” as a percentage of that fleet’s total flight time.

“The availability and use of F-35s have been lower, in some cases much lower, than those of other fighter aircraft of the same age,” the CBO continued. “For example, the average availability rate of a 7-year-old F-35A has been about the same as that of a 36-year-old F-16C/D and a 17-year-old F-22.” The fleet’s target availability rate is 65 percent, but all three F-35 variants range between 50 and 60 percent.

The F-35 means to replace previous-generation aircraft like the F-16, but instead, the obsolete models are running circles around their intended replacement. (The F-22, like the F-35, is a stealth aircraft, which the F-16 is not; the report notes that stealth crafts “have different maintenance requirements” and lower availability than non-stealth fighters of similar ages.)

Keep reading