In this video, I discuss the American peace plan and ultimatum to Ukraine. Watch the video on the website or read the transcript below. Best, Anders * * * ### _Transcript:_ Donald Trump has issued a strong ultimatum to Ukraine, which must agree to a framework for a peace deal before Thanksgiving, which is on Thursday. This is dramatic, so let's talk about it. The Trump administration, together with the Russians, has developed a 28-point peace plan, which they have presented to Ukraine. They have stated that Ukraine must agree to this before Thursday, or there will be severe consequences. So this is a strong ultimatum. I think this is perhaps a good place to start by discussing the leverage that the United States actually has to force Ukraine into signing this agreement. There are two things that are typically mentioned. One is intelligence sharing and the other is weapons deliveries. The intelligence sharing means that the United States has information from various sources, most importantly spy satellites, but also other means such as spy planes and other methods that provide intelligence which Ukraine benefits from. However, I think the significance of this intelligence sharing is often overrated. The reason for this is that the Ukrainians have, in the last six months, been eager to emphasize the importance of the intelligence sharing that is happening because they want to present the United States as a stronger partner than it really is for political reasons. So they have exaggerated the significance of this. What the Ukrainians actually get from the intelligence sharing includes things like early warnings about Russian air raids. They receive a heads up when Russian long-range bombers take off from airfields inside of Russia. This way, Ukraine can prepare for a large airstrike that will be happening in a few hours. And this allows them to have the air defenses ready and to issue air raid warnings to the population. Another benefit is that they will receive more precise information about the location of Russian air defense units. This allows Ukraine to plan offensive airstrikes more effectively. Most importantly, this is significant when they aim to take out the air defense battery itself. It might be, I think, less significant for the long range strikes that Ukraine is conducting on oil refineries and other things deep inside of Russia. But it's crucial when they want to target a specific Russian air defense system. Having updated information on the location and condition of that system is very important. So those are significant benefits that Ukraine gets from this intelligence sharing. However, it's not crucial to the extent that it would jeopardize Ukraine's war efforts if they don't receive the support. Ukraine can continue fighting without U.S. intelligence sharing. The weapons deliveries are a bigger problem. I'm always careful not to refer to the United States as a supporter of Ukraine because since Trump came to office, the United States is no longer donating weapons or cash to Ukraine's war effort. They're selling weapons at a profit. And I think it's misleading to talk about supporters as someone who sells things at a profit. But leaving that terminology aside, the United States is still an important partner for Ukraine in the sense that it's an arms dealer that provides assets that Ukraine needs. And the way this works today is through what's called the PURL initiative, which stands for Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List. This is essentially a wish list of weapons produced in the United States that Ukraine can prioritize and request. And then European countries can contribute by donating those weapons in which Ukraine has expressed interest. This mechanism was created back in the summer. And from a European perspective, it's been seen as a win-win-win arrangement. Ukraine still has access to American weapons. The United States will receive a substantial sum of money, and the European NATO countries believed that this was a way to keep the transatlantic alliance together because it creates incentives for the Americans to stay engaged in European security. So when there is talk about stopping weapons deliveries to Ukraine, what we're really talking about is the United States withdrawing from the PURL Initiative. And this is something that Donald Trump could obviously do. But I think it's important to be aware that there are also significant downsides for the United States in doing so. It essentially means leaving money on the table in order to help Russia win the war and undermine NATO coherence. And this is something that Donald Trump might be willing to do. But I think it's also fair to assume that it's probably not a priority that most Americans would share. So, it might create some domestic political backlash in the United States. And importantly, today, Ukraine is also producing most of the weapons themselves in their own domestic defense industry. So, we are at a level now where American weapons are still significant, but they are a smaller part of the overall arsenal that Ukraine has. This obviously also means that you don't have as much leverage as you would have if you delivered most of the weapons that Ukraine was using. So overall, the leverage that the United States has in Ukraine is smaller than many people think. The intelligence sharing is not as important as it is sometimes made out to be. And the question of weapons deliveries is going to be domestically difficult for Donald Trump. It's just going to be hard to explain to the American people why it's necessary to leave money on the table to help Putin win the war. And in either case, losing American support might have consequences for Ukraine's ability to fight the war in the long term, but it's not going to lead to a short-term collapse. I want to turn to the question of how Russia would view this 28-point plan. Many people have pointed out that this plan is not actually that great for Russia either. If you look into it, even though overall the plan requires significantly more concessions from Ukraine than from Russia, there are still some aspects that are quite unfavorable for Russia too. In reality, this plan would mean that Putin would not achieve all the goals he has set out for what he calls the special military operation. For example, Putin has justified the war with a need to demilitarize Ukraine. Now, according to this plan, Ukraine's military will be capped at a size that is two and a half times bigger than before the demilitarization began. So it's not much demilitarization going on there. Ukraine will also receive something that, at least on paper, sounds like Article 5 level security guarantees from the United States. And Russia will not actually gain control of all the regions that they have annexed because there are some areas of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that Russia will not be getting. So, some people will say that because of these things, it's quite possible that for Putin to actually agree to this plan, it's not only going to be Ukraine that will be demanding changes. But I think he looks at it differently. I don't think he expects this plan to realistically materialize, but he assumes that it will be more damaging for Ukraine to agree to this text than for him, and therefore, relatively speaking, it will benefit him. Because sure, inside of Russia, there would be dissatisfaction if this is actually the outcome they get after four years of war, but it's nothing compared to the resistance that Zelensky would face. And this means that for Putin, it's actually a win-win situation. Either Zelensky goes along with this, and that will throw Ukraine into a deep domestic political crisis. Or Zelensky does not agree to this, and that can fracture the relationship between Ukraine and the United States, and Ukraine can lose its most important external source of weapons. So even though there are some things in this 28-point plan that are pretty bad for Russia, I actually think Putin is okay with it. And that is also supported by the fact that many people have pointed out how the text in these 28 points in many instances sound like a translation from an original Russian text into English because it sounds quirky in English, but it's much more natural in Russian. And as someone who speaks Russian, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. I will not go through all the 28 points in this video and explain exactly why this is bad for Ukraine. Lawrence Friedman has made a really nice annotated version of the plan on Substack, and I will leave a link to it in the video description if you want to read it. But what I want to say is that it's really bad. It will mean that Ukraine loses a lot of territory, it loses sovereignty, it loses security. It also throws Ukraine into a deep political crisis because it demands concessions that a majority of Ukrainians don't support, and it requires Ukraine to give up any ideas of things like justice for war crimes, for example. And most importantly, it does not provide Ukraine with any sense of security from future Russian attacks. So, frankly, in Ukraine, this plan will be interpreted as Russia just getting a break for a year or two, and then they can rearm and restart the war. Everything that Russia would essentially have to do is to stage some kind of false flag attack on themselves and then claim that Ukraine did it. And this action would effectively nullify any security guarantees that Ukraine might receive from this 28-point plan, at least if Donald Trump agrees to this interpretation of this false flag attack. So, it's a really bad plan for Ukraine. There isn't public support for these things in Ukraine. And it's also beyond Zelensky's powers to make decisions of this caliber on his own. I also think it's really important to remember that militarily, there is no justification for demanding such sweeping concessions from Ukraine compared to Russia. Russia is not currently winning the war. Ukraine is not exactly winning either. But when you have a situation where militarily it's very equal, then it does not make sense to demand so many more concessions from one side than the other. Zelensky made a powerful speech in which he said that Ukraine faces difficult choices and might have to choose between losing their dignity or losing a valuable partner. I think it's important to understand that this doesn't actually imply that Zelensky is saying that there is an actual choice, because there isn't. It's not really an option for him to go along with Trump's plan and save the relationship with the United States at the expense of dignity. So, what this powerful statement was about is mobilizing public support, both domestically in Ukraine and abroad, especially in Europe and the United States. He's laying the groundwork to explain why he's going to reject this plan, even if it means Ukraine will suffer more and there will be higher casualties in the months to come. Because Ukraine will be even shorter on things like air defense systems, for example, if they don't get American weapons. It might also be necessary to make other difficult choices, such as increasing mobilization in Ukraine. But this 28-point plan is essentially a demand for Ukraine's capitulation. And they're not going to do that because, as I explained before, the United States does not actually have the leverage to make them do so. And in reality, Zelensky's only option is to try to soften the blow and persuade the Americans to change their mind. It's not an option for him to go along with the plan as it stands now. The last thing I want to say is that I think this whole situation shows that the European strategy for working with Donald Trump has failed. Essentially, the game that's been going on since Trump came into office has been that both the Ukrainian and European side and the Russian side have tried to convince him that the obstacle to peace is the other side. And therefore, the solution would be to put pressure on the others. This has been happening in many iterations, but all the while, there's been this assumption in Europe that it would be possible to convince Donald Trump in the end that the way forward is to put pressure on Russia. And so, there was this feeling in Europe that with the PURL Initiative and the latest American sanctions on Russia that they kind of made it. That all seems lost now. Just last week, I made a Q&A video where I mentioned that Ukraine's biggest achievement in 2025 perhaps might have been how they managed on the political stage to establish some new ground rules for working with the Americans. This allowed them to once again rely on weapons deliveries thanks to the PURL Initiative, which provides some certainty about future deliveries, some predictability. And then perhaps in 2026, they could focus more on how to handle the enemy instead of how to deal with Donald Trump. But now it looks like we might be back to step zero. And it turns out that once again, Donald Trump does not understand it. That you can't make a deal with Donald Trump because he's just going to change his mind the next day. So I think overall, this strategy of always pretending to be very willing to negotiate when really you don't think that negotiations are possible, but you just want the other side to appear as the obstacles to negotiations, I think this strategy has failed. And they, meaning Ukraine and the Europeans, will need to take a different approach and adopt a more assertive posture if they want to be taken seriously. Because right now, Europe and Ukraine are losing the diplomatic game. Okay, I will end it here. If you found the video helpful or informative, then please give it a like. Also remember to subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon to get notifications when I upload new videos. And if you want more videos and you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my website at www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching and I will see you again next time.

In this video, I discuss the Ukrainian attacks on Russian shadow fleet tankers in the Black Sea. Watch the video on the website or read the transcript below. Best, Anders * * * ### _Transcript:_ It has been a while since there have been dramatic developments in the maritime war in Ukraine, but over the last few days, something spectacular has indeed happened. Ukraine has started targeting Russian oil tankers with maritime drones, and this is something that could potentially have very big consequences. So let's talk about it. What happened was that Ukraine initially struck two oil tankers belonging to the Russian Shadow Fleet that were heading towards Russian ports in the Black Sea. They carried out this attack with maritime drones, they documented it well, they took responsibility for it, and they published impressive videos that showed how this was done. So it's pretty clear what happened in these cases. It occurred in what's called the Turkish exclusive economic zone. And it's very important not to confuse that with the idea of Turkish territorial waters. A country's exclusive economic zone means that this is international waters. It's just part of the international waters where this country has the rights to extract resources like fishing or oil drilling or those sorts of things. So, this happened in international waters. These ships were heading towards Russia, so they were empty of cargo, and then they were going to be filled up in Russian ports to export that oil to countries that still buy Russian oil. And the ships were heavily damaged. It seems quite clear that they will not be transporting oil again anytime soon, at least not until they have undergone some very extensive repairs. Then a couple of days later, another incident happened off the coast of Senegal, where another tanker was hit. It came straight from a Russian port, and then somewhat mysteriously, it exploded off the coast of Senegal. I've seen some speculation that it was also a drone attack, but I've not seen evidence of it. To me, it seems more likely that this was something else, like maybe limpet mines. In either case, it looks like Ukraine has struck three oil tankers linked to the export of oil from Russia within the last few days. All this follows a period during which Ukraine has also increasingly targeted port facilities related to oil exports from Russia. There have been several strikes on important Russian oil terminals, and they have also struck oil tankers that were moored in those hobbos. So there's been a shift where, until recently, Ukraine mainly targeted Russian oil production facilities like refineries. This hampered Russian ability to refine oil products into diesel and gasoline and jet fuel and those kinds of things. But now they're also increasingly targeting Russia's ability to export crude oil to other countries. All this targets Russia's revenues from selling oil. When Russia is unable to refine oil products themselves, they have more surplus crude oil that they need to sell off on the world market. And this means that they will have to offer a bigger discount to get rid of this surplus oil. And now Ukraine is introducing more uncertainty into that flow of oil by targeting the ships that are supposed to bring this oil to the buyers in India and China and other countries. So this all means that buyers now have greater uncertainty about Russia's ability to actually deliver what they promise. So all in all, this means that Russia has to sell Urals oil with a bigger and bigger discount. It might even at some point get to the point where they have to sell it at a loss because they can't just stop producing oil. It's complicated to stop drills that are already working. So it's something that potentially could hurt Russia's budget quite a lot. But there are some other effects here that I think it's also important to talk about. It's not only hurting Russia's economy. It's also a huge embarrassment for Russia. We are already now seeing Russian military bloggers that start asking perfectly relevant questions like, where is the Black Sea Fleet in all this? Why are they not protecting these vessels heading for Russian ports? Why are they not protecting the maritime sea routes? The answer is obviously that they are not doing that because they can't. It's too dangerous for them. If they attempted to do it, then they would just be targeted by the Ukrainian drones instead of the tankers. But that is, of course, hugely a very embarrassing answer for Russia, let's put it that way. This really exposes that Russia does not have the maritime power to actually control what's going on in the Black Sea. Another important point is that this is something that could affect the world market. It can have real consequences in other countries beyond just Russia and Ukraine. It can, of course, mean higher oil prices if Russia is unable to export oil to the world. But it can also have consequences for shipping. Shipping is a very international business, so many countries can't be affected by that. But perhaps most importantly, this can have huge consequences if Russia decides to retaliate against ships coming from Ukrainian ports, because these ships will mostly be transporting grain to the world market. This could potentially lead to a shortage of food in some areas of the world and higher food prices globally if Russia retaliates against ships to and from Ukrainian ports. And they might do that, because what else are they going to do? As I said, the Russians are not really able to protect their own shipping routes. So what they can do instead is they can retaliate in kind against the Ukrainians. This is something that would, of course, hurt the Ukrainian economy if they are unable to export grain. But frankly, I'm not sure Ukraine would necessarily mind all that much because it would propel this conflict back onto the top of the global agenda at a time when it seems that many countries are beginning to act as if the war in Ukraine is a contained issue. There's growing pressure on Ukraine, and increasingly, Ukraine is struggling to find countries that are willing to support the war because people are beginning to say that, "well, maybe it's too expensive. We can't afford to do this in the long run." So it might not be all that bad for Ukraine if some of these countries get a reminder that Ukraine is actually quite important for their domestic economy and for the prices that consumers all over the world pay in the grocery stores. It's something that could regenerate some of that global attention on making negotiations that maybe would be more beneficial than what's currently happening in Washington. The Americans keep coming out with one big peace plan after another, and they all seem very unfavorable to Ukraine. But if Russia starts going after the grain transports, then maybe some of that attention could be transformed into discussions about smaller deals, like a new grain deal. That could be beneficial for Ukraine, because obviously, it would also mean that Ukraine would need to get something out of stopping those attacks on Russian shipping. They're not just going to do it without getting something in return. So overall, I think there are some quite significant perspectives in what just happened in the Black Sea, and that this outcome could potentially be quite big now that Ukraine has started to target Russian shadow fleet vessels with naval drones. In the short term, it can obviously put a lot of pressure on the Russian economy. But if Russia retaliates by targeting Ukrainian shipping, then it could reinvigorate the international attention on the war in a way that favors Ukraine as the world community would mostly be angry at Russia for jeopardizing food security. OK, I will end it here. If you found the video helpful or informative, then please give it a like. And also remember to subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon, then you will get notifications when I upload new videos. And if you want to support the channel and you can also get access to some bonus videos, you can subscribe to my newsletter on www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching, and I will see you again next time.

In this video, I discuss the new U.S. national security strategy, which, to put it mildly, is concerning for Europe. It's largely a document about how the Trump administration sees it as a requirement for continued transatlantic cooperation that MAGA movements come to power in European countries. Watch the video on the website or read the transcript below. Best, Anders * * * ### _Transcript:_ Last week, the Trump administration released the new U.S. National Security Strategy. This is a document that typically every new American administration will issue to outline how they see the world and the challenges for the United States. However, the message in this one was different and very dramatic. It outlines a new U.S. foreign policy that shakes the foundations of NATO. So let's talk about it. This national security strategy is special for several reasons. First, there is the form. It's quite short, and it's also very straightforward. It's written in a clear and easy to understand way, but it's also partisan in a way that is unusual for such documents in the United States. It's full of MAGA talking points and statements about how Donald Trump is awesome. It also includes a lot of criticism of the Biden administration. This is unusual because typically a national security strategy is crafted in a way that gives the impression of having the nation at the center and not the current president. But secondly, there is the message. Quite frankly, it represents a revolution in the way the US government views the role of the United States in the world and its strategic priorities. It breaks with basic principles that have guided American foreign policy since at least the Second World War. In many ways, it's a very honest document. It outlines how MAGA sees national security and the role of the United States in the world. And it does so without sugarcoating anything. If you've followed American politics over the last year, many of these things might not be totally surprising. When you've seen how Donald Trump has acted on the world stage, you could infer some of these things. But now it's clearly documented. And that's interesting. In a sense, it's liberating because, for example, in Europe, there are many people who have been eager to cling to the idea of the United States as it used to be, as the ally that we could always trust. That even though there might be disagreements among us, we can still trust the United States. But now, with this clearly outlined national security strategy, it's really hard for European countries to keep making excuses on behalf of Donald Trump. It's written clearly that he does not see Europe as allies or trusted partners, but rather as perhaps the biggest enemy of the United States on the world stage, and that it is official U.S. policy to work toward regime change in European countries and to weaken or even destroy the European Union. That is the kind of level we are on in this document. So what does MAGA security politics actually look like? They outline several priorities. The first is that, according to them, the era of mass migration is over. So there is something about migration there. And therefore, we need to close the borders and to limit the flows of people. Another priority is the issue of free speech, which they regard as very important. The way to understand this, I think, is that it's mostly a question about moderation on social media and that they don't like that. They see that as something that limits free speech. Another priority is the issue of burden sharing with allies. They are frustrated with allies that they feel are free-riding and taking advantage of the United States by not paying enough for defense. It's also a priority to gain control of supply chains and manufacturing for all the things that are necessary for the United States so that they're not depending on foreign powers. And they see tariffs as a way to ensure that they can rebuild an industrial base at home by incentivizing companies to establish production lines in the United States. So those are some of the principles that they outline. And then they go through different regions, and they explain how they view those regions and the interests of the United States in those regions. The biggest geographical priority is given to what they call the Western Hemisphere. I think we should, in broad terms, understand that as meaning North and South America, including Greenland. Here they want to return to what's called the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially states that North and South America are what we can call a sphere of influence of the United States, where they have a privileged position. All overseas powers, so that's powers not from North or South America, need to be kept away. They have nothing to do there. And they want to use a variety of tools, including both cooperation and coercion, towards other countries in the Western Hemisphere to ensure that they can achieve their goals. There will also be a significant change in the force posture of the United States, so the military will focus more on North and South America instead of other regions in the world. Asia and China are described mostly as economic challenges, with the biggest problem being how to achieve a more balanced trade relationship and limit the deficit. It's about developing economic ties with countries in East Asia. There's actually very little discussion about hardcore security politics and the military when it comes to Asia. They do mention Taiwan and the South China Sea. But the most significant development in terms of East Asia and security politics is actually that there seems to be a greater focus on burden sharing and the fact that they are dissatisfied with Japan and South Korea. There are also some passages about the Middle East and Africa. The most interesting point about that is perhaps what it says about what America will not do, which is to promote democracy and liberal values. This is seen as an internal issue for those countries, and it's not something that the United States should engage in. On the contrary, the United States is happy to do business and develop trade relations with these countries as they are. You might be wondering what the strategy says about Russia as a threat or a strategic competitor to the United States. It doesn't say anything. Russia is not mentioned in that context at all. It is mentioned a bit in the discussion about Europe and the U.S. role in brokering a peace deal in Ukraine, but nothing is said about Russia as a challenge or a potential enemy of the United States. So if we look at this document in terms of great power competition, then Russia is not described as a challenge at all. And China is primarily discussed as an challenge and in terms of trade politics. And that leads us to Europe, which is where we find America's true foreign policy challenge and potential enemy. The part about Europe is titled _Promoting European Greatness_. It describes how the Trump administration sees it as its task to correct the course in Europe and bring the continent back onto a path that can restore past greatness. The strategy describes how the real problem with Europe is not just insufficient military spending or economic stagnation, but also the prospect of civilizational erasure. The issues Europe faces are largely caused by activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine the liberty and the sovereignty of countries. They also point to things such as migration policies, democratic problems in Europe, censorship of free speech, and the suppression of political opposition. All these are issues that are really troublesome for Europe. And it leads to the loss of national identities in European countries and the lack of self-confidence. If Europe does not change course, then according to the U.S. government, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or maybe even less. This means that many European countries may not have the economy and the military that they need to remain reliable allies of the United States. The strategy expresses the view that Europe is important to the United States, but also a deep concern of the direction of Europe. So there is this kind of burning platform message in this that makes it necessary for the United States to do something to avoid the civilizational and democratic disaster that is unfolding in Europe. Interestingly, it's not actually a document that says what I think most people had expected, that if Europe does not contribute more to collective defense, then the United States is just going to leave and not be engaged in Europe anymore. Quite on the contrary, it's a document that expresses deep concern and a feeling of responsibility for Europe that requires the United States to engage actively in correcting the course in these European countries. The document then continues to talk about the war in Ukraine. And this is actually the only context in the whole document where Russia is really mentioned. The message is that many European countries today have a kind of hysterical relationship with Russia. There is this unfounded fear of Russian aggression, because overall, Europe has the military power to stand up to Russia if they only want to. So there's really nothing to be concerned about. But because of the lack of self-confidence in many European countries, there is this irrational fear of Russia. It is also described how many European officials have unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved in the war in Ukraine. This leads them to pursue a strategy of war rather than a strategy of peace. Basically, the viewpoint expressed here is that the obstacle to peace in Ukraine is actually the European countries that continue to support Ukraine, because if only the Europeans would stop doing that, then Ukraine would have to agree to a peace plan that the Americans have crafted together with the Russians. The national security strategy then describes how a large majority of the European populations actually want peace. But the politicians in power prevent this from being translated into policy because these governments suppress basic democratic processes. This is actually wrong. There is very strong popular support in Europe for continuing to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion. But the Trump administration seems keen on conveying the message that there is a small elite of European politicians in power who suppress the true will of the majority of the people. The strategy outlines how the Trump administration views its role in standing up for genuine democracy and freedom of expression so they can correct these wrongs. I think this should be understood to mean that basically there can be no rules or laws about moderation on social media. And essentially that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg should just have free reign to do whatever they want. Then the strategy goes on to say that they see that their role is to cultivate resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations. This means, in essence, that the Trump administration is going to use the levers they have to support far-right movements in Europe. In other words, the United States sees it as a strategic priority in order to save the transatlantic relationship that MAGA movements come to power in Europe. And they intend to use the means they have to support such movements in the fight against the current centrist governments. So these are some very dramatic statements that have raised deep questions about whether there is any foundation for NATO to function going forward. If the United States sees it as a strategic priority to undermine the governments of other NATO countries and European institutions, such as the EU, then it's really hard to see how there can be an alliance anymore. The reality is that the views expressed in this US national security strategy are in many ways identical to the Russian viewpoints on Europe and the Russian goals of regime change in European countries. So to sum up, I think this national security strategy is interesting for several reasons. It moves away from the idea of a pivot to Asia that has been guiding American security politics for more than a decade. The idea was that Europe needed to take greater responsibility for European defense so that could free up resources that the United States could use in strategic competition with China. This does not seem to be the case anymore. If anything, there is now a pivot to America with a greater focus on North and South America. But the second biggest concern seems to be Europe rather than China. And secondly, I think it's hard not to see parallels to how Putin has ideas about great powers having spheres of influence over smaller states that they consider to be within their orbit. In Russia's case, that is a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. But it appears that the Trump administration has sort of similar ideas about an American sphere of influence in Western Europe, where they believe it's their role to oversee European politics and to correct the course if the Europeans get out of line. So there is no decline in interest from the United States in Europe. Quite the contrary. It's an issue that they clearly are passionate about. Europe means a lot to them. This is very different from the idea that most Europeans had, which was that the United States was becoming uninterested and would leave Europe alone. Quite the contrary. The national security strategy outlines how the United States is going to become more engaged in European politics to the extent that we're discussing regime change in Western European capitals so that they will become ideologically aligned with the MAGA government in Washington. And it seems clear that this ideological alignment from the Trump administration's point of view is seen as a requirement for saving and continuing the transatlantic corporation and for being an ally of the United States in the future. I will end it here. If you want to follow me on social media, I recommend Bluesky. That is my social media of choice. It's not perfect, but I think if you're European, then it is a national security priority to stop using X. If you want to support this channel, you can also get access to some bonus videos if you subscribe to my newsletter at www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching, and I will see you again next time.

An Estonian firm has launched the “Mark 1,” a compact missile aimed at enhancing NATO's defense against rising drone threats from Russia.

YouTube video by Glenn Kirschner

Khalaf said he was detained in Russia for lacking a work permit and offered a brutal choice.

Read more here.

As Ukraine’s drone warfare reshapes modern combat, Europe faces a new defense dilemma: How to counter cheap drones with costly air defenses?

Israel's military said the ceasefire in Gaza resumed after it carried out heavy airstrikes overnight that killed 104 people, including 46 children, according to local health officials.

During the second Trump administration, corruption scandals that would typically define a presidency receive a day or tw