Tag: perpetual war

US Moves To Further Restrict China’s Access To Advanced AI Chips

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued new guidance to prevent Chinese companies from obtaining advanced U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) chips, such as Nvidia’s most sophisticated Blackwell processors, through overseas subsidiaries.

The May 31 guidance clarifies that export licenses are required for entities headquartered in China or Macau, regardless of where their affiliates are located.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) said that licensing requirements for advanced computing items destined for China- or Macau-headquartered entities were first established in November 2023 and remain in effect.

The agency said the requirement applies even when those entities are located outside China or Macau.

The clarification follows confusion over a May 2025 announcement by the BIS that it would not enforce certain parts of the Biden-era AI diffusion rule.

The rule was designed to restrict sales of advanced AI chips to strategic rivals while allowing broader access for U.S. allies.

The BIS said the policy change did not remove existing licensing requirements for exports involving Chinese or Macau-based customers, meaning companies must still obtain licenses unless an exemption applies.

The guidance also states that legitimate data center operators can continue to use, maintain, store, or replace advanced AI chips and equipment they already own.

The clarification does not require companies to shut down or remove existing systems.

Nvidia’s sales of advanced AI chips to China remain subject to U.S. export controls.

The Trump administration created a framework in 2025 allowing certain chips, including the H200, to be sold to approved Chinese customers under Commerce Department oversight.

Trump said in a Dec. 8, 2025, post on Truth Social that sales would be permitted subject to a 25 percent fee benefiting the U.S. government and limited to approved Chinese customers.

Keep reading

Zelensky Insists on Demanding Air Defense Missiles From the US, Even After His Previous Pleas Were Ignored

His repeated pleas are not having the desired effect.

Kiev regime leader Volodymyr Zelensky must miss the ‘good old days’ when he got money and military equipment out of feeble Joe Biden’s administration in phenomenal quantities.

‘Vova’ refuses to acknowledge the new reality and still attempts to publicly embarrass Donald J. Trump and his team into resuming help for his war effort.

He pretends not to understand how little regard Trump has for him, as we have reported more than once before.

A quick look back shows that Trump has called Zelensky ‘a Dictator without elections’ since his presidential mandate ended back in 2024.

Trump also called him a ‘modestly successful comedian’ who was ‘the greatest salesman on Earth’ and ‘P.T. Barnum’, for conning feeble Joe Biden into giving him hundreds of billions.

He called him ‘disrespectful’ for his antics in the Oval Office.

The US president said ‘Vova’ has ‘done a terrible job’, with a country that is ‘shattered’, where ‘millions have unnecessarily died’.

Trump has panned him for ‘refusing to hold elections’, and ‘not being ready for peace’, despite the fact that he ‘has no cards’ (in the negotiations with Russia).

So, despite Ukraine having a good number of advocates in the US government and a large number among the Dems in opposition, Trump has basically shut the door on him.

But Zelensky is still trying, and publicly pleading and demanding, even though his latest effort was met with silence from the Trump administration.

He came out on US television to say that Kiev is ‘in urgent need of anti-ballistic missiles’ from the US to defend itself from an increasing number of attacks from Russia.

Keep reading

Massive Evening Russian Strike On Kyiv

Russia is striking Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities tonight with a massive missile and drone barrage. The development comes as Russia vowed to up the tempo of the war, in an attempt to bring the conflict to a close, and respond to Ukrainian long-range attacks on Russian cities and infrastructure, and specifically the targeting of a school dorm in Luhansk where scores of students were killed.

Below, citizens of the Ukrainian capital can be seen crowded into underground subway stations to avoid the explosive attacks above the surface.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Opposition to a Military Draft

A new poll by Overton Insights shows the breadth and depth of opposition to a military draft – and how far members of Congress lag behind popular anti-draft (and anti-war) sentiment.

All categories of Americans who were polled would oppose a draft: Republicans, Democrats, and independents; women and men; people of draft age and people too old to be drafted; and people of all races.

The wording of the poll reflected the confused nature of most recent reporting about U.S. planning and preparation for a draft. There was no mention of the impending shift from self-registration to automatic registration of young men for a future draft.

Respondents to the poll were asked, “If President Trump implemented a military draft, would you support or oppose it?”, which implies (incorrectly) that the President could activate a draft without authorization from Congress.

But the focus of the question on whether respondents would approve of an action by President Trump makes it even more noteworthy that a preponderance of Republicans – presumably supporters of the President – would oppose an attempt by Trump to activate a draft. 41% of Republicans would oppose a Trump draft, compared to 33% who would support it. Among Republicans as among all other groups, most opponents of a draft hold their views “strongly”, while most supporters would only “somewhat” support a draft.

Members of Congress have long been afraid that speaking out against trying to maintain “readiness” for a draft, even if draft registration has been a failure and trying to activate a draft would be a fiasco, would hurt them at the polls.

The takeaway from this latest opinion poll is that members and candidates for Congress regardless of party have much more to gain than to lose by taking a clear, strong stand against any draft.

Keep reading

Turkish Expansionism: The Central Threat To Stability In The Eastern Mediterranean And The Balkans

The Turkish government is methodically advancing a revisionist maritime agenda that threatens to upend decades of relative stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Through its newly prepared draft “Law on Turkish Maritime Jurisdiction Areas,” Ankara aims to enshrine expansive EEZ and continental shelf claims into domestic legislation. This move represents the institutionalization of the controversial “Blue Homeland” (Mavi Vatan) doctrine, aggressively promoted by Prof. Cihat Yaycı. In public appearances and analyses, Yaycı insists that international law favors Turkey, sharply distinguishing between continental shelf rights linked to the mainland and the allegedly limited role of Greek islands, while accusing Greece of unjustified expansionism. What is presented as a technical legal clarification is, in reality, a calculated political act intended to legitimize unilateral Turkish claims over vast maritime areas long considered Greek under international norms.

Greece is bearing the brunt of this sustained pressure. With thousands of islands scattered across the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, many of them close to the Turkish coast, Athens faces systematic attempts to diminish or eliminate the maritime zones these islands are entitled to generate. Turkish research vessels repeatedly enter disputed waters, fighter jets violate Greek airspace on a near-daily basis, and official Turkish maps increasingly portray large parts of the Aegean as Turkish. This is not abstract posturing. It directly threatens Greece’s sovereignty, its exclusive economic rights over potential hydrocarbon resources, and the security of its island populations. In this environment of constant tension, Greece quite naturally turns to its traditional allies in Europe and the United States, hoping they will uphold the rules-based international order and defend the principle that islands fully generate territorial waters and EEZs under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Unfortunately, the Western response has been fragmented and often self-defeating. While the European Union issues occasional statements supporting Greece and Cyprus, several member states continue to expand military, technological, and economic cooperation with Turkey. Defense industry partnerships, drone acquisitions, migration control agreements, and energy transit projects proceed apace. This pragmatic engagement bolsters Turkey’s economic and military capabilities at a time when Ankara is using that strength to challenge the territorial integrity and maritime rights of an EU member state. Such policies send a dangerous signal: revisionist behavior carries few meaningful costs. Instead of deterring Turkish assertiveness, Europe risks rewarding it, thereby weakening the collective security architecture it claims to uphold.

Turkish expansionism stands today as the single greatest source of instability across the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. It extends far beyond the Aegean dispute. The 2019 Turkey-Libya maritime memorandum attempted to erase Greek rights in the Mediterranean; continued provocations around Cyprus perpetuate the island’s division; and assertive naval exercises regularly demonstrate Ankara’s willingness to project power. In the Balkans, Turkey pursues growing political and religious influence, often leveraging historical ties in ways that unsettle regional balances. This pattern reflects a broader neo-Ottoman strategic vision that seeks to reshape the post-World War II order according to Turkish preferences rather than accepted international law and mutual respect for sovereignty.

Keep reading

Rubio braces for Hill grilling as Republicans join bid to curb Trump’s Iran war powers

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to face tough questions on Capitol Hill this week as Congress threatens to curb President Donald Trump’s war powers, while the administration pushes for an end to the conflict with Iran.

Rubio will testify in four congressional hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday on the State Department’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year. But the Trump official is likely to be grilled on the ongoing negotiations to end the war and whether the U.S. military campaign should continue against Iranian forces and the country’s nuclear capabilities. 

The U.S. and Iran have yet to agree on terms to end sporadic fighting. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and potential sanctions relief have emerged as key sticking points in negotiations. 

President Donald Trump said Monday that he “couldn’t care less” if the stalled talks were over, in an interview with CNBC.

“I don’t care if they’re over, honestly,” Trump told the outlet. “If they’re over, they’re over. If they’re not, you know, I think they took too much time. Frankly, I thought they started to get very boring.”

The president’s comments followed fresh rounds of fighting over the weekend that tested the fragile ceasefires in place since early April. The U.S. military has shown no signs of ending its blockade of Iranian ports while Tehran has continued to flex its hold over the Strait of Hormuz.

Keep reading

Why NATO’s defense spending imbalance lasted for decades

For more than three decades, the U.S. carried the largest share of NATO’s military burden while many European allies spent far less on defense than Washington wanted.

The imbalance survived the Cold War, multiple U.S. administrations and repeated debates over burden sharing. Only in recent years — following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and renewed pressure from President Donald Trump — have many NATO members begun significantly increasing defense spending.

So why did the gap persist for so long?

Defense analysts say the answer lies in a combination of post-Cold War optimism, domestic political priorities and an American defense umbrella that convinced much of Europe it could safely spend less on defense without sacrificing its security.

“For much of the post–Cold War period, it is fair to say that Europeans underinvested in defense, partly because threats were low, and partly because a series of U.S. presidents did everything they could to convince Europeans that we would stay there forever,” Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Fox News Digital.

The collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced that mindset. 

With the primary threat NATO had been created to deter suddenly gone, governments across Europe moved to collect a so-called “peace dividend,” redirecting resources toward domestic priorities and away from their militaries.

Between 1992 and 1999, defense spending among European NATO members fell 22%, helping establish a pattern of underinvestment that would persist for decades even as the United States maintained troops in Europe and continued serving as NATO’s ultimate security backstop.

Keep reading

Trump shows renderings of drone port planned for WH ballroom, blasts lawsuit against construction

President Donald Trump railed against the lawsuit directed at the planned White House ballroom, saying its security features “will safeguard our Nation’s Capital.”

In a Sunday Truth Social post, Trump published renderings of the proposed drone port that would be included with the ballroom construction, noting the need for enhanced security in light of modern weapons capabilities.

“The DronePort at the White House Ballroom will be, perhaps, the most sophisticated anywhere in the World! It will safeguard our Nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C., long into the future,” Trump said.

He went on to criticize the federal judge, Richard Leon, who issued an April amended preliminary injunction halting above-ground construction of the White House. According to the court document, an appellate court stayed the injunction a day later, allowing construction to resume as the case continues through the legal system. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 5th.

“Judge Richard Leon should stop playing games with America’s Security! If anything happens, he will be held responsible for the Death and Destruction caused to our Country,” the president said.

“He has already created enough problems by allowing ‘Top Secret’ information to be released and exposed based on a ridiculous lawsuit started by a highly litigious woman (serial plaintiff!) whose ‘strolling,’ in her opinion, will be disturbed by the new desperately needed structure — In any event, a woman who has absolutely no STANDING!” he continued.

He emphasized the weapons technology available in the modern-day environment, stating that more advanced tools are needed.

“With the advent of highly sophisticated, and powerful, modern day weaponry, we can no longer defend Washington, D.C., with rifles and pistols, alone. This ridiculous lawsuit must be dismissed, IMMEDIATELY!” he added.

Keep reading

US Treasury Sanctions GAESA: The Cuban Military Conglomerate That Controls the Economy and Thrives on Donations

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA) as a “Cuban military-controlled financial conglomerate that steals millions in aid for the Cuban people at the behest of the regime.” The United States sanctioned GAESA on May 7, 2026, under Executive Order 14404, signed by President Trump on May 1. The State Department issued the designations while the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administered them.

Founded by Raúl Castro, GAESA is the economic arm of Cuba’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) and one of the country’s most powerful institutions. Despite existing within a nominally socialist state, it operates under an opaque structure resembling a capitalist corporation, with subsidiaries incorporated in Panama, Cyprus, and Liberia to bypass U.S. sanctions restrictions.

It controls an estimated 40 percent or more of the island’s economy, with gross profits representing close to 37 percent of Cuba’s GDP, total revenues 3.2 times greater than the annual Cuban state budget, and exports accounting for roughly 34 percent of the island’s total. The Food Monitor Program, in a formal complaint to the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, described GAESA as “a state within a state,” accusing it of worsening hunger and malnutrition through monopolistic control and financial opacity.

GAESA dominates Cuba’s most strategic and profitable sectors through a web of subsidiaries: tourism through Gaviota, retail and wholesale trade through CIMEX and TRD Caribe, and finance through RAFIN S.A. and Banco Financiero Internacional. It also controls remittances, logistics, port operations, including the Port of Mariel, construction, transportation, and foreign trade.

Its former chief, Gen. Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Calleja, the former son-in-law of Raúl Castro, was separately sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury, which froze his U.S.-jurisdiction assets and prohibited American persons from dealing with him.

Leaked internal accounting documents reported by the Miami Herald showed GAESA held approximately $18 billion in current assets as of March 2024, of which $14.5 billion sat in undisclosed overseas bank accounts, even as Cuba’s broader economy collapsed. The U.S. State Department stated in its May 2026 sanctions announcement that GAESA controls up to $20 billion in illicit assets funneled into hidden overseas accounts, and that GAESA’s executive president Ania Guillermina Lastres Morera is personally responsible for managing those assets internationally.

Those funds exist entirely outside the Cuban government’s budget. In 2024, Cuba’s State Comptroller was dismissed after 14 years in office. The dismissal came after she publicly admitted that she lacked access to GAESA’s financial accounts. The conglomerate is entirely exempt from government audit. “There’s the Cuban government and they have a budget,” Rubio told reporters, “and then there’s this private company that has more money than the government does.

Keep reading

Yemen’s Prisoner Swap and the UAE–Israel Project Saudi Arabia Couldn’t Bury

Behind a UN-backed prisoner exchange between Yemen’s internationally recognised government and the Houthis lies a deeper story of islands, radar, black sites, and a southern Yemen security order Riyadh chose to dismantle after years of coalition decay. This proxy network stretching from Yemen’s Socotra Island to Bosaso on Somalia’s coast, across the maritime corridor between the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, was built on torture, constant sea surveillance and coalition infighting, only to be sold to the world by Western navies as “freedom of navigation.”

After January 2026, we were told that this decade-long tripartite between the UAE, Israel, and the Yemeni separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) had been dismantled. But how much of that machinery still stands, under new flags and quieter names, waiting for the next round? Since January 2026, the noise has been about “dissolving” the STC and managing Saudi–UAE friction, but what almost no one has asked is whether the UAE–Israel island pact, its radars, runways and black‑site prisons strung along Yemen’s southern waters, ever stopped operating, or just slipped under friendlier flags.

Riyadh’s strike on the STC shattered a larger Red Sea order

On 14 May 2026, negotiators for Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council and Ansarallah signed the country’s largest prisoner exchange since the war began, agreeing in Amman to swap more than 1,600 detainees under UN auspices. Saudi Arabia helped facilitate the deal behind the scenes, while the Emirati-backed Southern Transitional Council stayed out of sight and the UAE had no formal role at the table, even though some of the war’s most notorious detention networks grew out of the southern security order they built together. For families searching prisons, camps, and unofficial detention sites, the agreement offered a rare opening in a war that turned disappearance into routine.

Keep reading