Governments around the world are preparing citizens for global crisis

The entire EU, along with nine other countries, have advised their citizens to have enough food, water and emergency supplies to last several days, while others, including Canada, have long-standing emergency preparedness advisories that remain in effect.

The appeals for citizens to be prepared for crisis and war come after NATO reportedly deemed Russia’s military capacity to be “growing” and has assessed Russia’s military threat to “serious” levels, despite efforts to wear Russia’s military down in Ukraine for over four years.

The calls for citizens to be prepared for the worst have caused a wave of speculation and concern online after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia is ready for war.

Since August, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, the United States, Japan, Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands, and France have all started or renewed emergency preparedness campaigns.

The European Union has also issued repeated calls to its citizens and member states to have emergency supplies and enough food and water to last at least 72 hours in the event of a crisis.

Keep reading

Tom Engelhardt on the Empire of Defeat

Honestly, it’s hard to believe that, once upon a distant time, I was born into an America still fighting a world war. No, it wasn’t World War I! I’m not quite that old! My actual birthdate was July 20, 1944, while World War II was still ongoing. And though it ended in August 1945, in some strange sense, American-style war has never truly ended. Stranger yet, despite my country’s endless warmaking since then, the global war that concluded more than 80 years ago was the last truly victorious one this country has fought.

In the decades since 1945, the U.S. did indeed emerge as the world’s greatest power (along with the Soviet Union, which, of course, collapsed in 1991). And like all great powers, it did indeed fight endless wars. Remember, there was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (to mention only the most obvious of the conflicts my country hasn’t been able to keep out of since 1945). And even now, the U.S. is still fighting (typically ineffectively) in Somalia (of all places!) and — with more to come after the U.S. midterm elections — Iran. (And I’m not even mentioning past, more minor conflicts in places like Panama or Libya.)

But here’s the strange thing and something I believe to be unique for a great power over the course of its rise and — as the very existence of Donald Trump as president of the United States (twice!) suggests — decline (not to say fall): in not a single one of those wars did my country even come close to winning. They were all functionally defeats (though the Korean War has always been seen, in sports terms, as a kind of a tie, since that peninsula ended up divided between North and South Korea).

And consider that ongoing reality (think: Iran today) all too historically strange, if not simply inexplicable, for a great imperial power. In short, the single most powerful country on the planet couldn’t win a single war — not one! — against distinctly lesser powers!

And then, of course, a near-majority of the American people elected Donald Trump who promised, at least the first time around, to keep us out of such wars (which he did then, except for some unsuccessful combat in Syria), only to launch a significant war against Iran the second time around that — shock! shock! — has turned out just as well as all the other wars I’ve mentioned. In short, you explain it (I can’t), but the greatest power on this planet, which for endless decades has poured literally trillions of dollars into its military and, in just the next fiscal year, is planning to add at least another $1.5 trillion to the Pentagon’s wildly out-of-control budget (and that figure may, in the end, prove a gross underestimate), unbelievably — or do I mean all too believably? — simply hasn’t won a war since the one I was born into in 1944 (and that’s not even to mention some of its other unsuccessful skirmishes in those years). Phew! No sentence can truly hold the full militarized mess this country has created over and over again in those decades.

Worse yet, as Trump’s Iran War suggests, its leadership seems to learn absolutely nothing from that reality — or do I mean surreality?

Keep reading

CIA Still Runs 12 Secret Border Bases In Ukraine, Even As Trump Breaks With Zelensky

Journalist Aaron Maté told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Tuesday that the CIA is still “running, if the New York Times is to be believed, 12 secret bases inside of Ukraine,” and still controlling Ukrainian intelligence agencies it “effectively rebuilt from scratch after Yanukovych was overthrown in 2014.” He made the claim in an interview for Napolitano’s Judging Freedom podcast, recorded on Election Day, Nov. 3, in an episode titled “CIA and MI6 vs Trump in Ukraine.”

Maté’s source for the bases is a February 2024 New York Times investigation, which as Ukrainska Pravda summarized it, described a CIA-supported network of spy bases built over about eight years, including 12 secret locations along the Russian border, with a partnership dating to 2014.

“How pervasive is the CIA in Ukraine today?” Napolitano asked. To which Maté replied:

“Well, it’s so pervasive that it was the one that orchestrated this drone campaign against Russian energy facilities that Trump recently started opposing. It was Trump’s CIA that came up with that and was helping Ukraine do that. And Trump was on board with it until he needed something to sell voters on ahead of the midterms, whereas war on Iran was causing such a spike in energy prices.”

Maté said Trump has since pulled back and criticized Volodymyr Zelensky, “the CIA, as far as I know, is continuing its operations as normal,” and that it is “still helping out with targeting” and “still providing intelligence.”

Keep reading

Space Force Guardians Will Now Officially Serve Alongside Elite Units Like SEALs And Green Berets

The Space Force is looking for a new crop of guardians who can keep up physically with troops in highly specialized units like Navy SEALS and Army Green Berets, while bringing technical space expertise to those missions, the head of its new specialized command told Task & Purpose.

Col. Peter “Charlie” Norsky, commander of the new Space Force Special Operations Command or SPACEFOR-SOC, discussed the vision for the new formation on a call Friday with Task & Purpose and one other media outlet. On Monday, the new command formally activated in a ceremony at its new headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida – which is also the home of U.S. Special Operations Command.

“As we look to assign guardians to this component, especially as we look to assign them to the space special warfare teams for employment attached to other [special operations force] units around the world, we’re looking for those guardians who are expert at their craft – whether that’s operations, intel, cyber – and that they are able to maneuver with their SOF counterparts,” Norsky said. “As the guardians stand shoulder to shoulder with their SOF counterparts, physical fitness is absolutely very important.”

Officials told Congress in 2025 that SOCOM had established a space-focused component but then clarified to Task & Purpose that it had not been fully stood up or manned.

Norsky said a goal of the new command is “normalizing” the Space Force, adding that the new unit will integrate “guardian power at scale” into existing special operations units.

“Space Force-SOC is about ensuring that special operations forces have space expertise integrated early during planning, preparation and execution, rather than integrating space after the fact,” he said. “The Space Force has supported special operations for years, but this activation gives us a permanent, dedicated structure to organize, train, equip and present guardians and tailored space capabilities to the special operations enterprise, along with SOCOM’s other service components.”

Keep reading

Vance points to cause of Republican midterm disaster

Many Americans who voted Republican in the 2024 presidential election switched to the Democrats in the midterms over the war on Iran and related grievances, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said.

Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress on Tuesday, with Democrats winning House and Senate races even in traditional GOP strongholds such as Texas. In a post on X, Vance warned that some would attempt to “gaslight” the public about the outcome, even though “the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.”

The vice president pointed to a survey of voters who had backed Donald Trump and himself in 2024 but supported Democrats in the midterms. Asked what Republicans could do to regain their support, respondents gave four main answers: end the war with Iran, address the cost of living, put America first and “change our relationship with Israel.”

The US and Israel jointly attacked Iran in late February, claiming Tehran was weeks away from acquiring nuclear weapons. The decision contradicted Trump’s campaign promise not to start new wars and was widely criticized as prioritizing Israeli interests over American ones. The unresolved conflict has cost Washington tens of billions of dollars in direct military spending and disrupted global energy markets, driving up prices in the US.

Vance also praised Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy, endorsing her advice to end the war with Iran and defending her against critics who had accused her of anti-Semitism.

Keep reading

If You Lie to Voters About Not Starting a New War, the Voters Make You Pay

American voters have a long memory for one particular kind of broken promise. Tell them you will keep their sons out of a foreign war, then march them into one, and they will eventually send you a bill. In 1920 the Democrats paid it. On Tuesday, the Republicans did.

On election night 2024, Donald Trump told a cheering crowd, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” Fifteen months later came Operation Epic Fury. Eight months after that, CBS News projects that Democrats will take both the House and the Senate. JD Vance, never one to bury the lede, summed it up on X: “The reason we lost is the war.”

Woodrow Wilson would have understood. He ran in 1916 on a slogan that a century of history teachers have never let anyone forget.

He kept us out of war, briefly

“He kept us out of war” carried Wilson to a narrow second term in November 1916. The voters took it as a pledge. It lasted about a month into his second term. On April 2, 1917, Wilson went before Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Germany. Congress obliged four days later.

What followed was not what the brochure promised. The draft came. So did the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which made criticizing the war a good way to land in prison. More than 100,000 Americans died in uniform. At home, prices soared.

The voters started sending invoices early. In October 1918, Wilson publicly asked them to return a Democratic Congress as a vote of confidence. They returned a Republican one instead, in both chambers. Then came the hangover: the Senate’s rejection of Wilson’s League of Nations, his stroke in the fall of 1919, a wave of strikes, the Red Scare and a sharp postwar slump.

In 1920 the Democrats nominated James Cox, with a young Franklin Roosevelt as his running mate. The Republicans nominated Warren Harding, a man of no particular distinction who promised a “return to normalcy.” Harding took about 60 percent of the popular vote and 404 electoral votes to Cox’s 127. It was the most lopsided popular-vote margin of its era. Voters were not endorsing Harding so much as firing Wilson’s war.

No more wars, he said

Trump did not have a slogan as tidy as Wilson’s. He had something better: a promise repeated so often that it became the soundtrack of the 2024 campaign. At the Republican convention he boasted, “I don’t have wars.” At a Pennsylvania rally that August he said, “we will have no more wars.” On election night it was “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” At his inauguration he said success would be measured partly by the wars America never gets into.

Then, on February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel went to war with Iran. Hormuz closed. Brent crude was still around $110 this week, about 50 percent above where it sat before the war. Every voter who filled a tank this year got a reminder.

By June, Trump had found a new position on his old promise. “I didn’t guarantee no war,” he told NBC. CNN’s fact-checkers helpfully listed the times he had done precisely that. Voters were not persuaded either. In a Fox News poll in September, more than 60 percent called the war the wrong decision and 71 percent said the administration lacked a clear strategy for ending it. Trump’s approval going into Election Day averaged about 38 percent.

Tuesday was the bill. CBS projects Democrats will hold somewhere between 251 and 268 House seats and at least 54 in the Senate. James Talarico beat Ken Paxton in Texas. Sherrod Brown is back in Ohio. Troy Jackson took Susan Collins’s seat in Maine. Vance blamed the war. Trump, asked about it, said it was “largely true” that the war cost Republicans seats. Then he blamed the gas prices instead, as though they had arrived from another planet. As for the war itself, Trump’s explanation was “You have no choice.”

Keep reading

The Future Of The Pentagon’s New Autonomous Warfare Command

At last month’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, joined on a panel by the interim leadership tasked to stand it up, reaffirmed plans for something the Pentagon has been inching toward for a decade: a four-star United States Autonomous Warfare Command (AUTOWARCOM), built to pull artificial intelligence (AI), drones, and robotic systems out of a dozen scattered service programs and into one joint structure. Hegseth called it “the fastest peacetime shift in modern military history” and said drone warfare “supercharged by AI-enabled targeting is the biggest battlefield revolution in generations.”

The announcement left the central question implied rather than answered: how will AUTOWARCOM change the way the United States fights? The answer is already taking shape in four missions that have always depended on putting people in harm’s way: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); strike; casualty evacuation; and personnel recovery. In each, autonomy is rewriting the operational math. In each, the progress is scattered across separate program offices. AUTOWARCOM is the Pentagon’s bet that one command can pull it together.

The Announcement

Hegseth first unveiled the command, known inside the building as AWC, on September 30, 2026, describing a four-star combatant command with “service-like authorities, built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.” Lasting change, he said, “must be anchored in military command structures” rather than left to individual program offices. No commander has been named; Hegseth said the department will fill that seat “soon.”

According to Pentagon talking points, autonomy development will be “architected around mission threads and open interoperability standards,” so that systems “integrate organically into joint, all-domain” operations from the moment they are built, instead of being bolted onto single-service programs and retrofitted for everyone else. Put more bluntly: organize autonomy around the missions that matter, and build it to work across the joint force from day one.

Keep reading

Trump’s Legacy Will Ultimately Be Determined By The Outcome Of The Third Gulf War

The Democrats retook control of Congress in an electoral bloodbath that decimated the Republicans during the midterms. Many had predicted that this would happen, and it’s not because of the Canadian meddling that the White House recently drew attention to or any other countries’ related efforts, but due to the cost of living surging as a result of the Third Gulf War that Trump initiated with Bibi. Higher oil prices naturally translated into higher prices across the board that hit average Americans very hard.

Trump earlier threatened to become “Mr. Veto” if the Republicans lost control of Congress, elaborating that the Supreme Court recently strengthened his executive authority, and his sharing on social media of a pic of a red hat with the word “VETO” on it after the results poured in suggests that he’s serious. That’s sensible since it would be illogical for him to pass up the opportunity to veto legislation against his agenda when the Democrats don’t have the two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to overrule him.

The Democrats will therefore have to either compromise over the next two years or the US will remain legislatively paralyzed with both sides blaming the other ahead of the next elections. The Democrats might also try to once again impeach Trump, but they lack the two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to oust him from office, so it would only be symbolic. In any case, Trump might pivot towards foreign policy if domestic policy is deadlocked, which could have important implications for many countries.

Chief among them is Iran since Trump’s legacy will ultimately be determined by the outcome of the Third Gulf War. Each side blames the other for perpetuating the conflict across the entire year, but just like the Democrats will have to compromise if they want any of their legislation to pass, so too must Trump compromise with Iran if he wants to save his legacy. The reason is simple and it’s that perpetuating the high cost of living sparked by higher oil prices will doom the Republicans in 2028.

The scenario of a Democrat president presiding over a Democrat-controlled Congress would spell the end of everything that Trump achieved at home and abroad during his second term, and it’s a credible scenario too since voters care more about the economy than foreign policy or so-called “culture wars”. About that, the Democrats’ landslide wouldn’t have happened without some Republicans either staying home or voting for the Democrats in protest, which they did due to their surging cost of living.

This doesn’t mean that they “betrayed” Trump or the causes that they supported just two years ago, however, since most of them likely believed that Trump would indeed become “Mr. Veto” to preserve his achievements for at least the next two years. What they wanted to do was simply show him that the higher cost of living that the Third Gulf War is responsible for, which many of them consider to be a voluntary war since they don’t believe that Iran was on the verge of building a nuke, is unacceptable.

Therefore, nothing would rejuvenate his base more than to swiftly compromise with Iran as a means of showing them that he heard their message loud and clear, which would then facilitate a gradual decrease in the cost of living that could restore the economy by 2028 and help the Republicans win.

If he remains bogged down in the Gulf or provokes Iran into obliterating the region’s energy infrastructure in retaliation for being nuked, for example, then MAGA will likely be swept into the dustbin of history.

Keep reading

European Militaries to Rehearse Rapid ‘Stabilisation Force’ Deployment to Ukraine Next Week

Leaders of the ‘Multinational Force’ preparing to rapidly deploy to Ukraine have emphasised that while the troops involved will be permitted to fire back at Russian soldiers if attacked, the purpose is “defensive in nature” and not meant to provoke.

The joint Anglo-French-led coalition force of Western militaries preparing to move to Ukraine in the case of a Trump White House-brokered ceasefire are to run a simulated rapid deployment with thousands of troops backed by military aviation. Starting next week, Exercise Koalicja will be a fraction of the size of the full-size force that would theoretically roll out to post-ceasefire Ukraine, but will test plans and logistical capabilities to move large amounts of men and equipment rapidly in Eastern Europe.

Among the approximately 2,800 soldiers to be deployed to Poland — which is standing in for Ukraine in the exercise — are troops from Britain, France, Poland, Germany, Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. While troops practice rapid deployment on the ground, military aircraft including a contribution from Britain of Eurofighter Typhoon interceptors and Voyager air transport-tanker jets will simulate the return of civil aviation to Ukraine’s skies for the first time in years.

Per a UK Ministry of Defence statement, the Multinational Force-Ukraine (MNF-U) is “not a peacekeeping or a ceasefire-monitoring force, nor is it connected to NATO”. Its purpose is “reassurance” and helping Ukraine to regenerate its armed forces and economy. The Guardian states an unnamed government source emphasised that the eventual MNF-U deployment would be “defensive in nature” but the rules of engagement wouldn’t leave European troops defenceless.

If fired upon they could shoot back, it is stated.

Explaining the MNF-U, the British government said it was not trying to confront Russia. They said in their statement:

Ukraine’s security is central to the UK’s own security. The Russian state chose to invade Ukraine, undermining European security and the principle that international borders cannot be changed by force.

A stable, secure Ukraine helps protect the UK, Europe and the wider rules-based international order… The UK has never sought confrontation with Russia and has no quarrel with the Russian people. But not seeking confrontation does not mean failing to defend ourselves and our Allies.

The UK will continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend itself, protect UK and European security and work with Allies to deter future threats.

Another key emphasis of the deployment is the lack of U.S. involvement, even down to avoiding American technologies for the “reassurance” force. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Voyager strategic aircraft are both European-made, and it is stated troops will not use Starlink satellites for communication.

Beyond this month’s exercise, should the MNF-U ever deploy, this may be easier for some partner nations than others. American military technology is widespread through the armed forces of European NATO allies, and several members would struggle to field a contribution to the air policing aspect of the mission without the use of American-made fighter jets.

Keep reading

Trump to cut off $4 billion in foreign aid to Israel by year’s end, convert to weapons sales

resident Donald Trump on Tuesday said that the U.S. would stop sending military aid to Israel by the end of the year.

Trump told “Fox & Friends” that Israel is in a position to purchase its own weapons and doesn’t need the U.S. to fund them.

The U.S. provides $4 billion per year in military aid, Trump said, and he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had discussed terminating the funding for years. He said that the idea originated with Netanyahu.

“They don’t need it. Israel is a very thriving country,” Trump said.

The U.S. provides approximately $3.8 billion annually through 2028 under the current U.S.-Israel security assistance agreement.

Keep reading