I have been reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on and off for a bit, and I found this benediction for one of the kings who passed away interesting, because of how it speaks to some of the issues of our own day.
We read:
“A.D. 959. This year died King Edwy, on the calends of October; and Edgar his brother took to the government of the West-Saxons, Mercians, and Northumbrians. He was then sixteen years old. It was in this year he sent after St. Dunstan, and gave him the bishopric of Worcester; and afterwards the bishopric of London.
In his days it prosper’d well; and God him gave, that he dwelt in peace the while that he lived.
Whate’er he did, whate’er he plan’d, he earn’d his thrift.
He also rear’d God’s glory wide, and God’s law lov’d, with peace to man, above the kings that went before in man’s remembrance.
God so him sped, that kings and earls to all his claims submissive bow’d; and to his will without a blow he wielded all as pleased himself.
Esteem’d he was both far and wide in distant lands; because he prized the name of God, and God’s law traced, God’s glory rear’d, both far and wide, on every side.
Wisely he sought in council oft his people’s good, before his God, before the world.
One misdeed he did, too much however, that foreign tastes he loved too much; and heathen modes into this land he brought too fast; outlandish men hither enticed; and to this earth attracted crowds of vicious men.
But God him grant, that his good deeds be weightier far than his misdeeds, to his soul’s redemption on the judgment-day.1
Well, isn’t that interesting?
Firstly, observe how important honouring God was to the ancient English people. Many Australians and Englishmen have forgotten how bound up in Christianity our culture has been for well over a thousand years. They commend this king for loving God, loving justice, and seeking to honour God’s ways in his kingdom. Give us a king who would do this. Give us leaders who would do this.
But they have a serious issue with one of his tendencies.
“One misdeed he did, too much however, that foreign tastes he loved too much; and heathen modes into this land he brought too fast;…”
Now isn’t this familiar?
This is like so many of our leaders today in our nation. I have had this conversation with many people, and I think a big part of our country’s problem, and the problem with our nation’s leadership, is that they scorn the Australian way, the Australian lifestyle, and the Australian population. Many of our leaders wish we were more like Europe, more like Asia, or more like America, just as long as we were less like our heritage. It is like they are embarrassed to be Australians.
They submit our laws to foreign agreements. They submit our car standards to European standards that have nothing to do with the Australian climate and needs. They, in every way, appear to favour the ways of foreign nations, foreign identities and foreign ways of doing things.
I suspect King Edwy did this to a much smaller degree than our modern leaders. But it is interesting to see this problem brought up in the book about the heritage of our kings and to see how ancient people chafed under this same sort of behaviour.
If only we had leaders who were proud to be Australian, and did not think that Australia needed to be changed beyond all recognition. After all, if we are such a terrible people, why do so many others want to live here?
A Tungaloy Corporation publicou seu Relatório Ambiental e de Sustentabilidade 2026, apresentando o desempenho ambiental da empresa em 2025, suas principais iniciativas de sustentabilidade e o progresso alcançado em direção às suas metas de sustentabilidade de longo prazo.
Guiada pela filosofia "Think Green", a Tungaloy integra a responsabilidade ambiental ao desenvolvimento de produtos, às operações de manufatura e às soluções de usinagem que oferece a clientes em todo o mundo. O relatório demonstra como a inovação tecnológica contribui para reduzir as emissões, melhorar a eficiência no uso dos recursos e promover uma manufatura mais sustentável em toda a cadeia de valor.
O relatório está estruturado em torno de três pilares estratégicos:
Clima e Energia – redução das emissões por meio do uso de energias renováveis, da otimização energética e da melhoria contínua das operações.
Eficiência de Materiais e Produtos – desenvolvimento de soluções de usinagem que aumentam a produtividade ao mesmo tempo em que reduzem o consumo de energia, o uso de metal duro e o desperdício de materiais.
Operações Seguras e Responsáveis – promoção de uma manufatura responsável por meio da gestão ambiental, do engajamento dos colaboradores e de iniciativas voltadas para as comunidades.
Com a publicação de seu Relatório Ambiental e de Sustentabilidade 2026, a Tungaloy reafirma seu compromisso com "Machining × Responsibility", promovendo a sustentabilidade por meio da inovação, da manufatura responsável e de soluções de engenharia voltadas às necessidades de seus clientes.
Acesse aqui o Relatório Ambiental e de Sustentabilidade 2026 na íntegra:
[Link para o relatório]
Cover image: picture alliance / NTB | Fredrik Varfjell
Recycling is no longer just an environmental obligation. It has become a geoeconomic imperative directly linked to Europe’s energy security and industrial competitiveness. The European Commission’s Critical Raw Materials Act reflects this change—it has set an ambitious target to source at least 25% of the EU’s annual consumption of strategic raw materials from recycling by 2030.
Europe, however, is making little progress. A recent European Court of Auditors’ report suggests that seven of 26 energy-transition-related minerals have recycling rates between 1% and 5% in the EU. This means, for example, that Europe is recovering just three tonnes from every 100 tonnes of natural graphite contained in batteries. According to the report, there are another ten minerals that Europe does not recycle at all, including lithium, gallium and silicon metal.
As such, recycling battery materials warrants far more attention. This valuable source of critical minerals could lower the continent’s dependence on Chinese mineral value chains; recycling battery materials is also much quicker than relying on the development of mines elsewhere that produce the same materials. However, fragmentation, red tape and unfavourable economics are hampering Europe’s recycling efforts, in part due to a regulatory framework that still treats battery materials as hazardous waste rather than a source of strategically important minerals.
Europeans need to focus on battery materials regulation with an industrial policy lens and pursue strategic partnerships with African countries to make gains in material recovery.
Using black mass and EVs
Recovered minerals from Europe’s waste—including end-of-life electric vehicle (EV) batteries, wind turbines, industrial parts and electrical wiring—are insufficient to meet all of Europe’s mineral needs. However, they can substitute for a share of primary minerals from mining, which would help Europeans derisk from Chinese mineral supply chains far quicker than new mines can come into production.
Europe will have relatively significant EV battery feedstock for recycling in coming years. Europeans were early adopters of EVs and European countries are global leaders in terms of EV sales as a share of total car sales: in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, for example, EVs account for 58%, 56% and 48% of passenger-vehicle sales respectively, while fully electric vehicles comprise 22.6% of cars registered in the EU. High EV adoption means Europe should have a solid supply of EV battery feedstock for recycling facilities, provided it keeps this within the EU for recycling.
In March 2025, the EU re-classified “black mass” (the shredded EV battery waste processed to recover critical minerals) and end-of-life lithium-based, nickel-based and zinc-based batteries as “hazardous waste”. Black mass is important because it contains valuable critical minerals; if Europeans can process this within its borders, it can feed recovered minerals into European industry. This new classification prohibits export of black mass to non-OECD countries, while requiring that shipments within the EU and the OECD have prior notification and consent from the import, export and transit countries involved.
Europe currently exports around 80% of its black mass for refining elsewhere, mostly in Asia; South Korea’s OECD status and cheap recycling capacities make it a key destination, for example. The reclassification of black mass raises bureaucratic barriers to exporting out of the EU, contributing to efforts to prevent recycling feedstock leaking out. However, black mass is now more difficult to move within Europe, too, which makes aggregating feedstock for recycling within the EU a challenge. While Europe has some battery shredding (or pre-treatment) capacity to produce black mass, its refining capacity to recover minerals from black mass has lagged significantly.
Although forecasts suggest that Europe will slightly raise its material-recovery capacity in the coming years, it remains a minor player. China’s dominant share in global battery recycling capacity for the shredding and material recovery stages, which exceeded 80% in 2025, is set to continue.
Recent analysis estimates that the costs of hydrometallurgical recycling for nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries are respectively 70% and 67% higher in France than in China due to higher labour, energy, environmental compliance, dismantling and transport costs in Europe. China’s scale of feedstock—domestic supply of end-of-life batteries, scrap metal from the local automobile industry, and imported batteries and black mass—has further lowered their recycling costs.
Making battery recycling happen in Europe
The EU can take three clear steps to increase recycling black mass in Europe.
First, Europeans should implement stricter export restrictions on black mass and batteries to fully close off exports and retain the products for material recovery domestically.[1] The US took this position in July 2026, with President Donald Trump empowering federal officials to block exports of end-of-life batteries and electronic waste to contain these products for recycling within the US.
Second, Europeans need to urgently build more recycling capacity to refine black mass: Europe’s hydrometallurgical recycling capacity is less than 3,000 tonnes, which is around one-sixtieth of China’s. Estimates suggest that Europe needs the capacity to recycle 120,000–135,000 tonnes of black mass per year by 2030.
Third—and perhaps most challenging—Europeans need to ensure recycling in Europe becomes more economically viable. Failing this, tough export restrictions will lead to battery waste being stockpiled rather than recycled.
To achieve the above, Europeans need to develop new financing mechanisms—such as building recycling costs into the purchase price of products and using public finance to help offset recyclers’ higher costs in Europe—to make recycling more economically viable. This would be particularly timely as battery technology shifts from NMC to LFP batteries: since the latter are comprised of less valuable minerals, recyclers earn less from the sale of recovered minerals, necessitating support for project viability.
The provision of public finance, preferably at both the EU and member-state level, would help in the development of new technologies and processes that lower recycling costs by reducing energy requirements and improving recovery rates. Patent filings in battery recycling are growing significantly, with 2026 figures showing a 103% growth in filings (adjusted for lag). China leads in patent applications, although US and European companies—notably Belgium’s Umicore—are also active. To make Europe more globally competitive in recycling, Europe must increase its investments in innovation using public finance support.
Europeans also need to establish a strong domestic value chain. European battery recyclers, such as Germany’s Cylib and Tozero and Norway’s Hydrovolt, should identify and establish commercial agreements with EU-based offtakers for the minerals they recover—after all, if Europe has to export recovered minerals outside its borders for want of domestic offtakers, gains in recycling will be for nothing. Specifically, this requires European industry that uses recovered minerals (alongside primary source minerals from mining) to refine precursor cathode active material (pCAM) and cathode active material (CAM) stages for EV batteries.
Pursuing EU-Africa partnerships
Europeans should also look internationally to ensure recycling can feasibly reduce existing mineral supply chain dependencies. The EU needs to tap into other recycling feedstock markets and diversify its mineral supply chains by establishing recycling partnerships with OECD and non-OECD countries.
Indeed, the EU has explicitly included recycling within the remit of some strategic partnerships on critical minerals that it has signed with partner countries, including several African countries such as Namibia. By locating recycling and mineral-processing facilities in African countries, they can tackle the cost disadvantages Europeans face with regard to energy, land and labour costs on home soil. Namibia and Kenya are ideal partners: both have transport corridors and port infrastructure that make them well positioned to aggregate regional battery and electronic waste (e-waste); they can harness their abundant renewable energy resources can power material recovery facilities.
EU-Africa cooperation on recycling would also be advantageous to African countries. Joint operations create jobs, expand African mineral processing capabilities and link African mineral supply chains with European industry. Africa-based recycling facilities could also manage the growing quantity of end-of-life batteries and e-waste generated by African countries, notably from solar panels, energy-storage batteries and EV batteries from smaller two- and three-wheeler vehicles.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s projected growth in stationary storage capacity alone is significant: following current market trends, it will expand dramatically by 2030, with a storage capacity increase from 11 GWh to 83 GWh. If the region achieves universal access to electricity (SDG7), demand could more than double that, reaching a storage capacity of 190 GWh.
Europe’s road ahead
More recycling facilities are required to handle Africa’s growing volume of end-of-life battery feedstock. This presents an opportunity for growth both in Africa-based recycling, and in Africa-Europe recycling cooperation. However, this is not straightforward. Africa-Europe recycling partnerships need to invest in formalising supply chains for collection and storage; they need to build facilities for shredding batteries and e-waste; and they need to ensure that they can refine black mass to recover valuable materials. They would also need to develop the workforce skills and local-firm capabilities needed for efficient, environmentally-sound operations throughout the supply chain.
For African countries like Namibia and Kenya, such cooperation creates jobs and builds recycling capacity and expertise while integrating African mineral industrialisation into EU mineral supply chains. Recycling operations could also serve as anchor customers for increasing electricity generation and transmission investments in African countries, while local populations also benefit from improved electricity availability. Additionally, recycling in African countries helps address the continent’s growing e-waste management challenges.
For Europe, the increased recovery of critical minerals both domestically and through recycling partnerships with African countries offers greater supply chain diversification, access to minerals from non-OECD black mass and de-risking from Chinese mineral supply chains. All of this will happen faster than if Europeans continue to rely on global mine development. Europeans need to extend their strategic thinking beyond their borders, advancing recycling cooperation through critical minerals partnerships.
[1] Interview with a representative of a mineral analytics company, February 19th, 2026.
OXHY ha chiuso la campagna di equity crowdfunding raggiungendo una raccolta record di oltre 1.7 milioni di euro, a cui hanno contribuito più di 500 nuovi investitori. Il target minimo iniziale era di 200.000 euro. Il risultato finale supera quindi di oltre otto volte l’obiettivo di partenza, confermando il forte interesse intorno a OXHY e alla sua traiettoria tecnologica. “È una missione scientifica, tecnologica e industriale; ma, soprattutto, è una visione del mondo che abbiamo in comune. Ogni vero cambiamento inizia da chi decide di crederci con il suo primo piccolo passo”, si legge dal sito web di Oxhy. Ne parliamo con Roberto Germano, fisico sperimentale, cofondatore di Pandora TV, cofondatore di Casa de Sole TV, cofondatore di Oxhy, fondatore di PROMETE, spinoff del CNR attivo dal 1997, saggista. Intervista a cura di Jeff Hoffman La campagna di equity crowdfunding di OXHY su CrowdFundMe si è chiusa il 28 luglio 2026 con oltre 1,7 milioni di euro e più di cinquecento nuovi investitori, superando di otto volte l’obiettivo minimo di 200.000 euro. A giugno la firma del Memorandum of Understanding con Tresol S.r.l., per valutare l’integrazione tra la tecnologia ORC di Oxhy e il campo solare termico TVP Solar dello stabilimento di Avellino: trasformare in elettricità il calore che oggi viene dissipato. Con Germano parliamo anche del “Centro di Gravità”, il laboratorio di pensiero nato dall’idea di Giulietto Chiesa nel febbraio 2020, di cui è cofondatore e coordinatore. Affrontiamo insieme: Cosa significa finanziare la scienza dal basso invece che dai fondi Il calore di scarto come risorsa: la traiettoria ORC e la nuova sede di Ceccano Energia distribuita contro energia centralizzata: la posta geopolitica L’eredità di Giulietto Chiesa e l’etica del fare I LIBRI DELL’OSPITE AQUA. L’acqua elettromagnetica e le sue mirabolanti avventure, Bibliopolis, 2007 Fusione fredda. Moderna storia d’inquisizione e d’alchimia, Bibliopolis, 2000 Il trasferimento tecnologico (coautore), Franco Angeli, 2010 SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: La Casa del Sole #RobertoGermano#Oxhy#CasadelSoleTV#JeffHoffman#AltraEconomia#Crowdfunding#EnergiaPulita#CentroDiGravita#GiuliettoChiesa#RicercaItaliana#SovranitàTecnologica#FisicaQuantistica
Syrian court sentences Bashar al-Assad to death in absentia
A court in Damascus has handed down a death sentence to former President Bashar al-Assad in absentia, Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera reported.
According to it, former head of the political security directorate in the Syrian province of Daraa Atef Najib was also given a capital punishment sentence. The court found them both guilty of “crimes committed during the civil war.”
Although the sentence was pronounced by a court of judges, it should be remembered that the regime-change led by former jihadist terrorist Al Jolani assumed the interim presidency without elections but only with the approval of the NATO countries that have financed the Syrian Civil War since 2011 (and by CIA since 1983).
Since then, an Islamic dictatorship has been imposed that has changed all institutional hierarchies, eliminating from every center of power any official loyal to Assad or even those not aligned with the former jihadist regime.
Read below to better understand the political situation in the country.
POSTED ON AUGUST, 10, 2026
MI6 in Damascus and Russia Agrees to train Al Qaeda Militia on the Coast
by British journalist Vanessa Beeley – originally published on her Substack
All links to previous Gospa News posts or videos have been added in the aftermath
UK National Security Advisor Jonathan Powell visited the ‘reformed’ Al Qaeda chief, rebranded as Ahmad Al Sharaa but better known as the head of some of the most savage terrorist factions in Syria since 2011 – Abu Mohammed Al Jolani.
Officially talks centred around ‘enhancing bilateral relations” and coordination ‘in a manner that serves shared interests and contributes to regional stability’. Stability however is not something that can be historically attributed to the British in West Asia.
In the cover image UK National Security Advisor Jonathan Powell during the meeting with Abu Mohammed Al Jolani
Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff under former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and strongly linked to the MI6 was very much a part of the history of grooming Jolani to become the brutal ruler of Syria. I covered Powell’s long-term involvement in a previous article here. The role that Powell played in supporting Blair and the Weapons of Mass Destruction narratives that took Britain to war against Iraq is a well-documented one.
Also attending was so-called Foreign and Expatriates Minister Asaad Al Shaibani, another former Al Qaeda Levant founder now coached by MI6 in international relations.
What was not on the meeting agenda? The ongoing security vacuum in Syria, the daily abductions now expanding to include Sunni Muslim Syrians not only the routinely persecuted religious minorities including Christians, Alawites, Druze, Shia and Ismaili. The nation’s bankruptcy and crony capitalist regime bleeding the country dry and further impoverishing the Syrian people. The lack of water, electricity, fuel and hope.
The rising inflation and crippling food prices. The repression and extra-judicial executions, torture, sectarian violence and lawlessness. The descent of Syria into a rubbish tip with roads covered in detritus and filth and no functioning systems of authority other than Saudi-backed religious Sheikhs now determining regional laws based on their oppressive version of Islam.
Nope none of this was discussed. What was clearly discussed however was the role of the Russian personnel in Syria. Two days after Powell’s visit the following happened:
Syria and Russia reached a memorandum of understanding to “reorganise” Moscow’s presence on the Syrian coast. Civilians facilities are to be transferred to HTS state management which removes any slender hope of protection for the Alawite minorities should Jolani’s thugs escalate the attacks as they did in 2025.
Russian military bases will be transformed into joint training centres which means that Russia will be training alongside Al Qaeda, the terrorist entity that they had fought against since their entry into the war in 2015.
The agreement follows 18 months intensive negotiations between the Jolani quisling regime and Moscow which included visits by Jolani and Shaibani to the Kremlin where they were welcomed with the pomp and ceremony reserved for ‘heads of state’.
Their genocidal campaigns were not mentioned during these meetings to my knowledge. The Syrian people were secondary to Russian interests in maintaining a foothold on the Syrian coast as a launchpad to Africa.
Civilian facilities like Hmeimim Airport will be under the control of HTS and the fourth commercial shipping berth at Tartous Port.
Hmeimim Airport which holds a Russian military base
The memorandum sets a deadline of no more than three months to complete the transition, after which the new arrangements will take effect, according to the ministry.
This serious capitulation by Moscow may be attributed to the build up of Ukrainian special forces in Syria or to the ongoing threats from factions within Jolani’s militia who want revenge for the Russian bombs that fell when they were slaughtering Syrians in the US/UK-led regime change war to topple the former Syrian government.
Russia miscalculated the longevity of their sphere of influence in Syria
The Shaibani Foreign Ministry has stated that this is the most significant development since negotiations began 18 months ago. “It opens the way for a new phase in Syrian-Russian relations”. One where Russia is increasingly isolated in the ‘Middle East’ and dependent upon forces allied with Ukraine to ensure the security of their bases and personnel inside Syria.
Jolani enjoying discussions with Jonathan Powell
Russian News Agency TASS reported the following:
Russia has two military facilities in Syria – a Russian navy logistics center in the port city of Tartus and the Kmeimim airbase located near the city of Jableh in the Latakia governorate. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a meeting with journalists from Arab countries on October 13, 2025 that Damascus was interested in preserving Russian military bases in Syria, which, however, could be reorganized to serve other purposes.
In February 2025 Jolani spoke with Russian President Putin. According to the TASS press release:
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s new leader Ahmed al-Sharaa have exchanged views on the situation in the country, the Kremlin press service reported, citing the content of the telephone conversation between the heads of state.
“The sides held a substantive exchange of views on the current situation in Syria,” the statement said. “The Russian side stressed its principled position in support of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian state,” the press service said.
Under the former President Assad, Russia could negotiate from a position of strength. Since the fall of Damascus and the rise to power of foreign mercenaries (including Chechen terrorists) under the banner of a MI6-remodelled Al Qaeda, Russia negotiates from a position of vulnerability and will continue to do so until perhaps they no longer have a presence in the region.
by British journalist Vanessa Beeley – originally published on her Substack
The Jihadist Terrorists’ Support to Trump and NATO Wars
by Carlo Domenico Cristofori – originally posted inside the previous Gospa News analysis Weapons Lobby – 22
«As I had predicted in my first article related to Trump’s apparent decision to use the quisling, unelected Syrian “President” Abu Mohammed Al Jolani (Ahmed Al Sharaa rebrand) as a battering ram against the resistance in Lebanon»
«The irony is almost beyond satire: Julani and Shibani proudly pose with a signed decree from Donald Trump declaring Syria removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, despite Julani having led Jabhat al-Nusra, an organization long designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. itself and many other governments. If there were ever a definition of geopolitical hypocrisy, this would be it: yesterday’s “terrorist” becomes today’s photo opportunity, not because history changed, but because political interests did» she added confirming our previous investigation about.
«Removing the designation is expected to unlock international trade, allow Syria to reconnect with the global financial system, and attract significant foreign investment, particularly from Gulf states» Beeley added.
Syria to help address Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon
Donald Trump, when asked whether he still wants Syria to help address Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon: They could help. We’ll find out. I think we’re making a lot of progress. They could help. They would do a very good job.
When Trump was later asked whether Jolani had made any commitments regarding the Lebanese Resistance during their meeting. Trump responded:
“He did. I am not going to say what he said, but yeah, he was great today”.
In light of all this, the meeting between the American president and the Lebanese president Joseph Aoun becomes very suspicious.
Meanwhile, on the battleground, the Lebanese army said Israeli soldiers fired in the vicinity of its troops, who were beginning their deployment to a southern village under an agreement with Israel, whose army said it had fired “warning shots.”
The framework agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon at the end of June provides for the deployment of the Lebanese army in “pilot zones” evacuated by Israel—which occupies a portion of the south of the country it calls a “safe zone”—on the condition that Hezbollah disarms.
The pro-Iranian group opposes the agreement with Israel and refuses to be disarmed due to the hundreds Israeli violations of the numerous truces…
This is why Trump has even asked for help from the Syrian army of the former Al Qaeda terrorist… This prediction by the British journalist was confirmed by a recent article on the Al jazeera TV(link among the sources)….
«Sitting alongside his Lebanese counterpart, Joseph Aoun, at the White House on Tuesday, United States President Donald Trump repeated a suggestion that Syria could intervene in Lebanon to “do something with Hezbollah”» the media has reported.
«Despite widespread opposition, Trump has multiple times floated the idea that Syria, under new President Ahmed al-Sharaa, could militarily interfere in the neighbouring country, whose government has come under US and Israeli pressure to disarm the Iran-backed group» Al Jazeera added in a detailed geopolitical analysis.
C’è una larga fetta di finto dissenso che vede la partecipazione di servizi più o meno deviati e devianti, funzionari “freelance” e giovanotti ignari che non sanno quello che fanno, per lo più in buona fede, con l’attento accompagnamento dell’algoritmo informatico, ossia l’intelligenza artificiale. In questo nuovo mondo sempre meno attaccato alla realtà, si muove un sistema che, anno dopo anno ha lavorato contro i nostri agricoltori, contro la volontà dei cittadini, modificando tutto ciò che nel fu Bel Paese era possibile modificare. Cosa c’entra il controllo delle menti con il cibo e la salute? Ne parliamo con Mario Apicella, agronomo, cantautore. Intervista a cura di Jeff Hoffman CI HANNO ADDOMESTICATO ANCHE LA RIBELLIONE Per la prima volta il traffico generato da bot e agenti artificiali ha superato quello umano: secondo Cloudflare siamo al 57,4% contro il 42,6%. Su questa infrastruttura si forma oggi ciò che chiamiamo opinione pubblica. Chi controlla l’algoritmo non deve più vietare le idee: gli basta decidere quali parole si possono usare per formularle. Il dissenso addomesticato non è una novità storica: l’inchiesta pubblica britannica sulla polizia sotto copertura ha accertato l’infiltrazione di centinaia di campagne politiche, con i rapporti degli agenti girati ai servizi di sicurezza. Cambia solo la scala: ieri servivano uomini, oggi bastano poche righe di codice. La domanda nasce spontanea: quali approcci alla modernità restano praticabili senza consegnarsi a un’automazione senza etica? Torniamo al terreno più concreto che esista, quello che nessun modello linguistico può simulare: il cibo vero, o come lo chiamano in molti, il cibo vivo. Mangiare sano non è una spesa: è un investimento a rendita composta. Per il cittadino significa anni di vita in buona salute; per lo Stato significa spesa sanitaria evitata. È il classico gioco a somma positiva, e resta uno dei pochi terreni dove sovranità e salute coincidono. SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV Membership YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CasadelSoleT… — Analista Multipolare €5/mese — Inviato della Verità €15/mese — Architetto del Futuro €25/mese #CasadelSoleTV#MarioApicella#JeffHoffman#CiboVivo#SovranitàAlimentare#GuerraCognitiva#IntelligenzaArtificiale#Algoritmi#DissensoControllato#CiboSano#Agricoltura#Salute
Automakers and aircraft manufacturers share a history that stretches back more than a century.
Many automakers have entered the production of aircraft, aircraft engines, components, and drones/UAVs, often spurred by wartime demands and by leveraging their shared expertise in engine engineering.
Big car brands such as Rolls-Royce, Renault, Ford, General Motors (GM), Chrysler, BMW, Alfa Romeo, Honda, and Fiat have been involved in aircraft engine and components production for years.
Brands such as Renault and Ford had delivered thousands of aircraft during World War II.
Swedish aviation major Saab had a flourishing car business for decades. Japanese Mitsubishi and Subaru started as aviation companies and remain active in both aviation and the automobile business.
Given this shared history, it is no wonder that automobile companies have often taken inspiration from fighter jet cockpits to revolutionize their car design philosophy.
For instance, Lamborghini’s ‘red flip-cover start button,’ copied directly from aircraft and resembling a fighter jet’s missile launch button, has become the identity of the iconic supercar maker.
You have to flip up the red safety cover, exactly like aircraft weapon switches, before pressing the start button.
This feature is found in the Lamborghini Aventador, Huracán, Revuelto, Urus, and some special editions.
Even though the ‘red flip-cover start button’ offers little practical benefit, the feature has now become synonymous with Lamborghini cars, and the automaker believes that its dedicated users are unlikely to ever get tired of this feature even in the age of digital touchscreens.
The Italian supercar maker believes that this red flip start button evokes a certain emotion whenever drivers start their vehicles.
Lamborghini start button copied from aircraft. Credits Carbuzz.
Combined with Lamborghini’s roaring and heavy engine throttle sound, this gives its riders a unique experience, akin to launching a missile from a fighter jet.
The feature was first introduced in Lamborghini’s Aventador back in 2011.
Speaking with CarBuzz earlier this week, Lamborghini’s design director Mitja Borkert said the start/stop switch found in the Temerario, Revuelto, and Urus creates “the right amount of emotions,” even though it makes the starting sequence a little slower.
Supercar performance has become easy to replicate with the rise of hybrid motors and cheaper performance parts, but Lamborghini knows that speed isn’t all that customers look for.
“For sure, there is a faster way to start the car, but is it fun?” Borkert asked.
“I think we are creating the right amount of emotions, and I think that belongs on such a car.”
However, some critics believe that this process could become a little tiresome when you have to do it over and over again.
Borkert, however, doesn’t think so.
“I don’t think so,” Borkert said, adding, “In the kitchen, you want to do something with quality. If you’re going fast, it’s not as enjoyable as when it takes a little bit of time. You need to feel a little bit involved.”
Sitting next to the latest Lamborghini Urus SE Performante at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, Borkert was keen to share that the theme is consistent across all three Lamborghini models, which brings synergy and familiarity for those with multiple Lamborghinis.
“We have the same philosophy in our supercars so that when you take your precious car out on the weekends, you’re not confused. You have an architecture that integrates you like a pilot.”
Borkert believes that features like these also make Lamborghini stand apart from its competitors.
These small physical elements remind the driver they are in a Lamborghini, even when they’re driving on electric range in the Revuelto.
Moreover, as more and more automakers replace physical switches with digital screens, Lamborghini sticking with its same old design philosophy will make its customers rejoice, he said.
“We are not the champions of screen sizes, but we have the right sizes to provide the modern visualization the driver or the pilot needs. We always keep our iconic keys, like the start/stop button,” Borkert said. When you step into a Lamborghini, you know you’re stepping into a Lamborghini – nothing else.
However, Lamborghini is not the only automobile maker that has taken inspiration from cockpit designs.
Automobile Interiors That Were Inspired by Cockpit Designs
Tesla’s Aircraft-Style Yoke Steering Wheel: Tesla borrowed this idea from airplane yokes and Formula 1 cars. Instead of a round wheel, it’s a rectangular “yoke” for a more pilot-like feel.
In a Joe Rogan interview, Elon Musk noted that “they use a yoke in Formula One.” He has also described future versions of Tesla as working “like the way aircraft and modern jets are controlled.”
Credits Tesla.
However, Tesla says that the rectangular yoke also offers some practical advantages, such as an unobstructed view of the instrument cluster and the road ahead and a more futuristic, immersive feel.
Musk has famously called conventional round wheels “boring” and said they block the screen.
With Tesla’s success, many iconic brands such as the Lexus RZ, Mercedes-Benz, and MG Cyberster have adopted similar Yoke-style steering wheels.
Chevrolet C8 Corvette’s Fighter-Jet-Inspired Cockpit Layout: Chevrolet designers openly said the C8 Corvette’s interior was inspired by fighter jet cockpits, low dashboard, controls wrapped around the driver, and a very pilot-centric feel.
Chevrolet design team studied jet cockpits, where controls “wrap around” the pilot. This led to the long, sloping vertical strip of physical buttons running down the high center console, creating a driver-enveloping “cockpit” that partially separates the driver and passenger, much like an aircraft.
Chevrolet C8 Corvette’s Fighter-Jet-Inspired Cockpit Layout.
In fact, its exterior design also drew heavily from modern fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, with a canopy-forward stance and aggressive proportions. Corvette has a long history of aircraft inspiration. Many astronauts owned earlier generations.
Airplane Ceiling Panels-Like Overhead Toggle Switches: The Ineos Grenadier placed many switches on the roof, just like in aircraft cockpits and military vehicles.
Credits Rover Parts.
Tata Harrier Handbrake: Sometimes, cockpit-inspired design features look great, but aren’t received well due to large size or ergonomics.
India’s Tata Harrier’s handbrake was intentionally designed to look like an aircraft thrust lever. Tata officially described it as an “Aero-throttle styled” parking brake lever. Reviewers noted that the handbrake was deliberately designed to look like an aircraft thrust/throttle lever to give the cabin a more “cockpit-like” feel.
Though it looked distinctive, unique, and aesthetic, many users complained that the handbrake took too much space in the central console, interfered with the cup holders, felt awkward to operate, and criticized it for its poor ergonomics.
Tata Harrier handbrake. Team Bhp.
Therefore, from 2023 onwards, Tata replaced it in many of the new variants with a conventional electronic parking brake button + Auto Hold. The aircraft-style lever was discontinued.
Given the long association between automobile makers and aviation companies, it is only natural that car designers will adopt certain aircraft features to give the car a fighter jet cockpit feel.
However, such features must be adopted carefully, as they should not interfere with the overall design philosophy of the car’s interiors and must be easy to operate.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
Il paradosso della sovranità delegata Il 5 agosto Camera e Senato hanno votato. Non una spesa: l’autorizzazione a chiedere a Bruxelles il permesso di spendere per energia e difesa. Il ...
by Scott Ritter – originally published on his Substack
Scott ritter is a former US Navy Intelligence official, now writer, historian, geopolitical analyst, arms control specialist, military expert.
All links to previous Gospa News article or video have been added in the aftermath
When I was travelling to Israel on a regular basis back in the mid- to late-1990’s as part of my duties with the United Nations, I was always struck by how closely many Israelis identified with the United States. On national holidays, many Israeli motorists would fly two little plastic flags from the windows of their cars—one the blue and white Star of David, and the other the Stars and Stripes. “We see ourselves as little America”, my Israeli host would explain when I pointed this out.
I know—I was caught up in the middle of this power dynamic, and ended up being accused by the US government of spying on behalf of Israel. The charges were eventually dropped as unfounded and politically motivated, but the sentiment behind the accusations was real—a significant part of the US defense, intelligence and security establishment of the United States viewed Israel as a threat.
Collaboration and cooperation ongoing between the US and Israel
Because Israel was a threat. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t collaboration and cooperation ongoing between the US and Israel—while I was in Israel, the hotels were full of CIA officers, US military officers, and State Department diplomats who were on official business.
But there was a Chinese Wall separating the US and Israel, and interactions were governed by strict protocols that kept this wall up at all times. After I left the United Nations, I worked for a while as an on-air analyst for NBC News.
I also signed with a New York City speakers bureau, Greater Talent Network (GTN). And it was these two experiences which exposed me to the level to which pro-Israeli interests had infiltrated every aspect of American media and information management.
I was approached repeatedly by NBC producers who would hand me their business cards—not the NBC ones, but rather their AIPAC cards (the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a literal front for the Israeli government.)
AIPAC called the shots for influential Senators and Congressional Representatives, and Senate and House staffers
GTN networked me directly with AIPAC, as well as its affiliate entities that had taken root in American academia and the think tank industry.
Through these networks, I was brought into a secretive world of backroom connectivity with the US Congress, where AIPAC called the shots for influential Senators and Congressional Representatives, and Senate and House staffers openly collaborated with employees of various US government agencies to set policy.
I was offered a great deal of money by Paul Wolfowitz, who at the time of the pitch was the Dean of the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), if I would join the team.
All I had to do was get onboard with the notion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I declined Wolfowitz’s offer, and walked away from the AIPAC cabal.
Unfortunately America’s elected representatives have not shown such moral clarity or loyalty to the Republic they ostensibly serve.
We live in an age where the Israeli Prime Minister openly brags about having bought the US Congress.
Pro-Israeli operatives spent $30 million to evict Thomas Massie from the US Congress
Where AIPAC brags about spending $100 million to accomplish just that. Where pro-Israeli operatives spent $30 million to evict Thomas Massie from the US Congress because he dared challenge the surrender of American sovereignty to Israel.
Where the US Secretary of State has openly declared that criticism of Israel is grounds for being denied a visa into the United States. Where Israeli politicians openly advocate for the suppression of free speech in America.
And where the Chinese Wall that separated US and Israeli interests is being torn down by a compliant Congress, all the while the mainstream media, which long ago surrendered its independence and integrity to Israeli interests, remains silent.
The surrender document that signals the capitulation of the Constitutional Republic formerly known as the United States of America to a new entity which could more accurately be called the United States of Israel is the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in particular Section 219 of the House version, and Section 1217 of the Senate’s version.
Secretary of Defense to designate an Executive Agent (EA) to expand and accelerate deeper integration of Israel into US institutions.
Section 219/1217 directs the Secretary of Defense to designate an Executive Agent (EA) to expand and accelerate deeper integration of Israel into US institutions. The EA authority would take precedence over the authority of the other DoD Component heads per DOD Instruction 5101.01, meaning that the EA would be able to overrule determinations by other DOD agencies such as the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) on Israeli access to US technology.
This new EA would end direct Congressional oversight with supervision by the Secretary of Defense. There would be no Congressional confirmation or ability for removal of an executive agent by Congress.
In short, it is the surrendering of the constitutional duties of Congress to a politically appointment agent of the Executive branch of government.This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Section 2191217 integrates American and Israeli research and development programs in a way which makes the United States dependent on Israel’s provision of specific technologies, thereby granting Israel a significant amount of leverage over future American policy and infrastructure, entangling defense supply chains of Israel and the United States across government, private and academic sectors, blurring the lines of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
Section 219/1217 targets defense related procurement and acquisition processes so that it will be impossible for future Administrations to separate Israeli technologies or agreements from major defense procurement programs, holding DOD Program Executive Offices and Program Managers hostage to the inclusion of Israeli-origin technologies in US systems. These procedures make moot current “Buy-America” provisions, and give Israeli companies access to intellectual property for weapons systems they are directly competing against.
Section 2191217 grants the EA the authority to re-allocate the funding and focus of the Defense Department by prioritizing the integration of Israel into the US’ national defense structures. It is literally subordinating the totality of the most sensitive aspects of US defense to Israel, outside the purview of Congressional oversight.
At a time when the majority of the American people are waking up to the horrific crimes committed by Israel against the people of Palestine, and the role played by Israel in getting America involved in permanent wars in the Middle East, Section 219/1217 will permanently tie the United States to Israel, making the US Department of Defense and, by extension, all of the American people, complicit in these crimes.
The Greater Israeli Project in the Middle East is floundering.
The Greater Israeli Project, which seeks the territorial expansion of the Israeli State in the Middle East at the expense of Israel’s neighbors, is floundering. Israel itself is going through an existential crisis because of its permanent state of war.
I have previously written that the relationship between Israel and the United States is like that of a parasite to its host. Section 219/1217 would codify this status as law.And in doing so, destroy the Constitutional Republic.
Congress has specific duties and responsibilities demanded of it by the Constitution.Surrendering these responsibilities to a foreign nation is not one of these duties.
If Section 219/1217 becomes law, Israel will have permanently attached itself to the American enterprise.
Right now, we have a Congress which has considered criminalizing and criticism of Israel.This, or course, is an affront to the very notion of free speech.By making Israeli security and US security indistinguishable, as would happen if Section 219/1217 becomes law, the inevitability of the criminalization of speech critical of Israel is assured.
The 2027 NDAA is America’s last stand.Remove Section 2191217, and we have a chance at survival.Turn Section 219/1217 into law, and we have lost the Republic.
I swore to defend the United States of America, a Constitutional Republic.
I will never serve the United States of Israel. And neither should anyone who calls themselves an American.
by Scott Ritter – originally published on his Substack
William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is an American former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector, author, and commentator.
As the Trump administration weighs its next moves amid a fragile halt in hostilities, Iran has put on public display a selection of war trophies: wreckage from a downed F-15E Strike Eagle and what it claims are two nearly intact drones.
The US (in collaboration with Israel) launched “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran on February 28, hoping to decapitate the Iranian regime and destroy its military capabilities.
However, about six months later, the Iranian state media published images showing the wreckage of multiple US and Israeli aircraft that it managed to take down during the 40-day war.
This includes the debris of an F-15E Strike Eagle, Call Sign DUDE 44, a US Air Force (USAF) fighter jet now identified as airframe 00-3000.
On April 3, an F-15E Strike Eagle was downed by ground-based fire from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) while conducting a combat mission over southwestern Iran.
This marked the first confirmed loss of a manned US combat aircraft to Iranian fire over Iranian territory in the conflict, and triggered a 36-hour intense search and rescue operation for the Weapon Stations Officer (WSO) who went missing.
The USAF incurred additional losses during that operation, including the self-destruction of aircraft that became defunct, to deny sensitive material to the IRGC, as previously reported by the EurAsian Times.
From IRGC images.
Remains of Lakenheath-based USAF F-15E 00-3000 #AE178B, callsign DUDE44, which was shot down April 3rd over Iran.
However, the F-15E shoot-down, which belonged to the 48th Fighter Wing from RAF Lakenheath, quickly became the centerpiece of Iranian narratives of successful air defense.
In fact, the Iranian media had released crash-site photos and video almost immediately, showing a vertical stabilizer section with USAFE markings, a red tail flash, and other features consistent with the aircraft.
The current exhibit includes the canopy and an ACES II ejection seat, the latter of which is among the more intact components recovered.
Additionally, some remains attributed to the C-130s abandoned and destroyed during the rescue are on display, though they are less visually prominent.
NEW:
Iran has recovered largely intact US MQ-9 Reaper and Israeli Hermes 900 drones.
IRGC engineers are expected to examine the captured systems, study their technologies and reverse-engineer key components to help develop advanced indigenous drone models. pic.twitter.com/3cOBvPVzNx
The more striking trophies, however, are the two drones Iran claims to have recovered in largely intact condition during Operation Epic Fury: a US MQ-9 Reaper and an Israeli Elbit Systems Hermes 900 serial 923.
Iranian authorities assert the Reapers were intercepted by air defenses, and the Hermes 900 was brought down by electronic warfare.
It is worth mentioning that Iran managed to down at least 24 MQ-9 Reapers until the ceasefire, accounting for 57% of all USAF losses in the war. However, several more of this class of drones were downed in intermittent exchange of hostilities after the ceasefire, bringing the total to about 30, according to claims made by US officials in early July.
Despite the attrition, the Chief of Staff, Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, endorsed the Reaper as the MVP of the Iran war, stating, “We’ve made many, many strikes” with Reapers.“It’s an unmanned platform, so we get a lot of utility out of them, and don’t put our folks at risk,” Wilsbach said, as reported by the EurAsian Times at the time.
Separately, the open-source trackers documented at least four to five Israeli Hermes 900s lost during the main phase of the war with Iran, with some assessments running as high as eight. However, the EurAsian Times could not independently verify total losses.
A nearly intact Israeli Hermes 900 UAV displayed by Iran (Via Iranian State Media)
Notably, while collecting and parading war trophies is fairly common—as done by Russia and Ukraine in their ongoing war—it has its own risks.
For example, Iran could exploit recovered drones primarily through technical intelligence (TECHINT), reverse engineering, and adaptation for its own programs.
These platforms are medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UAVs used for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and strike missions.
Iran could disassemble the drones and obtain key technologies, such as optics, detectors, stabilization, laser systems, and processing units, to improve its electro-optical or infrared (IR) packages, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) capabilities, and multi-sensor fusion for integration with its vast inventory of existing platforms.
Additionally, it could get access to satellite communications (SATCOM) for encrypted command and control, line-of-sight datalinks, beyond-line-of-sight control, and possible tactical links.
To improve the long-endurance capabilities of Iranian aircraft and payload integration, the IRGC might also investigate structural design, sensor vibration isolation, and modular bays.
In a hypothetical situation, even partial insights could enhance the day-and-night, all-weather ISR capabilities of current Iranian drones or provide guidance for electronic warfare, jamming, and air defense strategies against comparable Western weapons.
Furthermore, Iran could also choose to share its exploits with key partners like Russia, which has assisted Tehran in its military operations.
Iran, on its part, has demonstrated it could reverse-engineer Western drones.
When Iran Took Down & Reengineered A US Drone
Iran hit the jackpot on December 5, 2011, when its cyber warfare unit commandeered the US’ Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel UAV and forced it to land near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran, about 225–250 kilometers from the Afghanistan border.
The US officials later confirmed it was a CIA-operated unmanned aircraft involved in a reconnaissance mission, with reports indicating it was part of efforts monitoring Iranian nuclear and other military facilities.
At the time, Iran’s government announced that its cyberwarfare unit had detected the aircraft in Iranian airspace, commandeered it, and landed it with minimal damage rather than shooting it down. Iranian officials, including commanders from the IRGC Aerospace Force, claimed they jammed the drone’s satellite and control communications links, forcing it into an autopilot or lost-link mode, then used GPS spoofing to make the aircraft land.
US RQ-170 Sentinel
Some American analysts and officials expressed skepticism about Iran’s electronic-warfare claims, noting that the RQ-170 relies primarily on an inertial navigation system, which is harder to jam or spoof than pure GPS.
Interestingly, though, the relatively intact airframe fueled competing theories of a controlled recovery versus a soft crash after loss of control.
The former US President Barack Obama publicly acknowledged the incident and, on 12 December 2011, stated that the United States had formally requested the drone’s return.
However, Iran denied the US’s demands to return the UAV, and Iranian state television on December 8 broadcast footage of Iranian military officials inspecting what they identified as an RQ-170 Sentinel drone. Additionally, Tehran went so far as to claim that countries like China and Russia had approached it to get information on the drone.
The event exposed details of a previously highly classified surveillance operation over Iran and raised fears about possible technology transfer, constituting a major intelligence and technological defeat for the United States.
By 2012, the IRGC had claimed to have succeeded in gleaning data from the US drone and was building a process to create a replica of the aircraft. The Sentinel was then reverse-engineered to create what is now the Saeghe/Simorgh drone.
Iranian-built RQ-170 Sentinel copy- Wikipedia
Similarly, in 2012, Iranian state television showed images of what it said was a US ScanEagle drone in its airspace.
Iran has never denied. Instead, it has chosen to flaunt the fact that its UAVs have been reverse-engineered from US drones as a major victory.
It is safe to say that an adversary will almost always be able to obtain some degree of intelligence from an aircraft’s wreckage, regardless of the measures taken to prevent it. While this does put US and Israeli military technology at risk, it is an inevitable prospect that both countries were likely aware of when they embarked on this war with Tehran.
Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
India appears poised to overlook Russia’s Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter and opt for a sixth-gen aircraft instead.
Defense Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh recently clarified that New Delhi has “not thought about” new Sukhoi variants, prioritizing the upgrade of the Su-30MKI fleet under the ‘Super Sukhoi’ program and the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) instead.
Moscow’s aggressive pitch—including local production, full source codes, and a two-seat variant—has failed to sway planners wary of diverting resources from self-reliance goals.
With AMCA still a far away and China fielding growing J-20 numbers, India is actively exploring partnerships in sixth-generation programs.
India’s Ministry of Defense has reportedly initiated efforts to join the French-led sixth-generation fighter program. This was stated in a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense, presented in Parliament, according to news agency PTI.
The ministry has sought a roadmap from the French side for acquiring such aircraft. The panel noted that two major consortia are developing sixth-generation fighters: one involving the UK, Italy, and Japan; another involving (now-defunct) France and Germany.
The Indian Air Force plans to partner with one of these groups so that India does not fall behind in advanced combat aircraft technology.
End of Su-57?
In 1962, the USSR agreed to transfer technology to produce nearly 800 MiG-21 jet fighters for India, which it had earlier denied to China. They helped India set up factories for the aircraft, aero-engines, and avionics.
India’s relationship with the Soviet Union grew strategically, culminating in the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation.
Through the 1971 India-Pakistan War for the liberation of Bangladesh, the Soviet Union stood by India against US and Chinese intimidations.
During the Cold War, India and the USSR maintained a “special and privileged strategic partnership” that was built on five major components: politics, defense, civil nuclear energy, anti-terrorism cooperation, and space.
Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, India maintained warm relations with Russia’s successor state. The first major political initiative after the dissolution was the Strategic Partnership signed by the two countries in 2000.
The IRIGC (India-Russia Intergovernmental Commission) is the main body responsible for conducting official affairs between the two countries at the governmental level. Both countries are members of international bodies, including the UN, BRICS, G20, SCO, and Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping. Russia supports India’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
India is one of the largest markets for the Russian defense industry. Approximately 60 percent of the Indian military’s hardware today is of Russian origin. Military hardware supplies and, more recently, joint-venture production have been key pillars.
The Soviet Union was the first to support Make in India defense production.
The MiG-21 factories set up in the early 1960s later produced the MiG-27 (170) and the Su-30 MKI (230). Su-30 MKI was a joint D&D project. Russia also learned a lot from the Su-30 MKI project and imbibed some of these ideas for its Su-30SM aircraft.
222 Su-30 MKI were produced under license at HAL’s Nashik plant since 2004. An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans were manufactured at HAL’s Koraput Division. The Su-30MKI is the backbone of the IAF’s fighter fleet.
In 1965, Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) was set up at Avadi, Chennai, with Soviet assistance. HVF products included Russian-designed T-72 Ajeya and T-90 Bhishma tanks.
In September 1965, the Soviet Union and India signed the first contract for the delivery of naval equipment, including four Project I641 diesel-electric submarines, five Project 159E corvettes, and five Project 368P motor boats. The Agreement also envisaged rendering Soviet technical assistance for the construction of a submarine naval base in Vishakhapatnam.
Recently, two frigates, the INS Tushil and INS Tamala, were built by Russia at the Yantar Shipyard, while the remaining two are under construction at Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) in India through technology transfer.
Russia is reportedly expanding its shipbuilding cooperation with India, with two Indian shipyards being considered for the construction of four non-nuclear icebreakers. Russian shipbuilding officials have reportedly offered New Delhi their nuclear-powered design for an Indian Navy aircraft carrier.
GSL is also constructing 24 river-sea class cargo ships for Russian clients in the Caspian Sea by 2027. Cooperation with India in shipbuilding has its benefits for Russia, as the unit cost per vessel is projected to be half of what it would cost Russian shipbuilders.
Between 2012 and 2016, Russia accounted for 68% of India’s defense imports. Russia and India’s cooperation is not limited to a buyer-seller relationship but includes joint research and development, training, service-to-service contacts, and joint exercises.
India and Russia have a strong success story with Joint Ventures (JVs). The BrahMos is a medium-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, and fighter aircraft. BrahMos Aerospace is a joint venture between the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya. The missiles are already being exported.
Under an over ₹5000 crore contract signed in July 2021, over 610,000 AK-203 assault rifles are to be manufactured in India with technology transfer from Russia, by the JV Indo-Russian Rifles Private Limited (IRRPL).
Indian companies hold a controlling 50.5 percent share, and Russian companies hold 49.5 percent. The level of indigenous content has already reached 50% and is rising rapidly, with a target of 100% in the near future.
India and Russia have also agreed to expedite the delivery of spare parts of Russian-origin military platforms by setting up a JV in India.
Notwithstanding the above, some JVs did not take off. India had withdrawn from the joint Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program due to technical issues. Finally, Russia continued the project and today has a successful Sukhoi Su-57 ‘Felon’ 5th generation fighter.
Following the selection of the Ka-226T to meet an Indian requirement for 197 helicopters, an agreement was signed in December 2015 to create a JV between Rostec, Russian Helicopters, and HAL to build the helicopters at a new factory in Tumakuru, India.
Later, India decided to make its own Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) based on the indigenous ‘Dhruv.’ India’s LUH is delayed, and Russia has been pushing the case for Ka-226T again.
Similarly, India canceled the Indo-Russian program to develop a new Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) for both countries through a JV between Russia’s UAC and India’s HAL.
In February 2023, on the sidelines of the Aero India 2023 air show, the Russians offered to jointly develop the Il-276. However, India would prefer the aircraft to be powered by a European engine rather than a Russian one.
India has operated a wide range of Soviet and Russian combat jets that formed the backbone of the Indian Air Force for decades. Key types include the prolific MiG-21 (in multiple variants including Bison), MiG-23 (BN and MF), high-altitude MiG-25, ground-attack MiG-27, and air-superiority MiG-29 (including upgraded versions).
From the Sukhoi stable came the Su-7 fighter-bomber and the highly successful Su-30MKI, which remains the IAF’s primary multi-role platform that India is looking to upgrade.
India’s decision to effectively rule out the Su-57 marks a noticeable shift. After decades of reliance on Russian fighters—from the MiG-21 to the Su-30MKI—New Delhi is prioritizing the AMCA program and partnerships in sixth-generation projects.
While the historic Indo-Russian defense ties remain strong in other domains, the rejection of Moscow’s most advanced stealth jet signals a clear preference for next-generation technology.
With China rapidly expanding its stealth fleet and AMCA still years away, India appears to be choosing long-term capability over Russian platforms.
With Inputs from EurAsian Times story by Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retired)
The Department of War has published the fifth release of data regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Chief Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, said: “Today, the Department of War is publishing the fifth release of declassified and historical Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) files as part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE). The […]
Diese Woche war Tacheles mit Röper und Stein mal wieder sehr „Ukraine-lastig“, aber es gab auch noch einige andere spannende Themen. Sollte YouTube die Sendung löschen, finden Sie sie auch hier bei NuoViso.
Se un’alleanza si indebolisce, le sue difese arretrano; se le difese arretrano, il nemico avanza; se il nemico avanza, la logistica diventa un lusso. Osservando i fatti di oggi, l’inferenza ...
This story originally appeared in Prism on Aug. 03, 2026.
Following the largest nurses strike in New York City history, Marilyn Shuler and 11 of her co-workers returned to their jobs at Montefiore Hospitals in the Bronx in February, only to find that their work environment had changed in a major way.
At the time, Shuler worked in utilization review, a department that ascertains the need for medical care and whether care is covered by insurance. The veteran nurse, who worked at Montefiore for almost 40 years, had to begin using Datavant, a tool used to abridge the process by which the hospital sends patient and care information to insurance companies. Datavant’s website refers to itself as an AI platform.
Shuler said she and other nurses thought the tool would just help process the backlog of cases created by the nurses strike. But when case volume returned to normal, the 12 nurses working in utilization review were told to continue using Datavant.
In early July, after a few months of using the tool, Shuler was laid off from the position she held for six years. Her colleagues were all laid off too. They felt they had been replaced by artificial intelligence.
Shuler’s case and that of her colleagues, she said, is far from an outlier. Hospitals will continue to automate and eliminate the jobs of nurses and other workers through AI, Shuler added.
Job automation keeps nurses up at night. It was a concern raised by nurses represented by the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) earlier in the year, when 15,000 walked off the job demanding a new contract.
“Artificial intelligence should never replace real human caring from a nurse,” NYSNA President Nancy Hagans said in a press release issued when the 12 nurses at Montefiore lost their job.
Montefiore representatives deny having replaced workers with Datavant.
“As is often the case, the claims by NYSNA are inaccurate and misleading,” Joe Solmonese, Montefiore’s senior vice president for government relations and strategic communications, said in an email. “What is true is that we are always investing in new technology to ensure the best care and outcomes for our patients and will continue to do so for the betterment of the people we serve.”
A spokesperson for the hospital said that Datavant’s tools are a nonclinical program that helps facilitate the paperwork process, but did not address whether the program uses AI.
Shuler said the laid-off nurses did not receive proper notice from the hospital. A union representative told the nurses on May 6, National Nurses Day, that the hospital planned to eliminate the 12 utilization review positions.
“We just can’t believe that a machine can replace all the decades of … clinical judgment and knowledge that we have,” Shuler told Prism.
Job automation through AI is bound to impact nurses in other parts of the country too. Joe-Ann Fergus, the executive director of the Massachusetts Nurses Association, said her union, which is engaged in a fierce contract battle with the largest hospital network in the state, is pushing back against an AI future in which hospitals deprioritize workforce development. A future in which hospitals deskill their workers, she said, could be disastrous for patients and hospitals alike.
“We have already begun to see that in places where AI has been introduced around triaging,” Fergus said. “The younger, newer clinicians, the more exposure they have to AI, and the earlier exposure they have to AI, the higher the risk of them deskilling.”
Fergus said healthcare workers should have a background education, but that they should also supplement that with real experience in the field and trial and error. Reading X-ray scans, Fergus said, is an example of a practice that is enhanced by AI tools. But workers should still be able to know what they are looking at.
“We will lose the skill of doctors being able to read those tools as well, and when the inevitable happens that the system goes down, then nobody’s going to know how to read the images,” Fergus said.
Using an AI system that does not account for the historical inequities of the healthcare industry, Fergus said, is also a deep concern. Fergus worries that hospitals might look to save money on the AI products they contract with and end up with a service that is not attuned to serving a diverse population.
“If there’s any issues of racism, or the system is not properly programmed for the population that it’s in, then that additional programming of the AI can amplify the disparities that already exist and can actually result in injuries,” Fergus said.
Despite hospitals onboarding AI systems as an addition to workers’ current workflows, Fergus said it is only a matter of time before hospitals look to automate jobs. She said most hospitals will likely see this as short-term savings.
But if they don’t create more staffing to maintain and continuously train the products, “then the systems become obsolete, and they become harmful to the patients,” Fergus said.
Editorial Team: Sahar Fatima, Lead Editor Lara Witt, Top Editor Stephanie Harris, Copy Editor
Amid reports that the US has virtually exhausted all its long-range precision munitions, as well as missile interceptors, it is becoming increasingly clear that Washington is in no position to fight a protracted war with Iran and has no real leverage over Tehran.
On August 5, CNN reported that the US military has exhausted nearly 80% of its interceptors for a key missile defense system.
“The US military has burned through nearly four-fifths of its THAAD missile inventory compared to pre-war numbers and roughly half of its Patriot interceptors since the start of the war, according to two sources familiar with the latest inventory report,” it said.
Similarly, the US has exhausted virtually the entire stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles, such as ATACMS and PrSMs.
Consequently, any possible US-Iran ceasefire agreement is likely to be on terms favorable to Tehran.
During previous rounds of negotiations, Iran has indicated that while it is agreeable to some compromise on the nuclear issue, it will not compromise on the issue of managing the shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and charging a fee from all ships transiting the narrow maritime corridor.
For instance, according to the June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed between Tehran and Washington, Iran will make arrangements for the safe passage of commercial vessels “with no charge for 60 days only,” followed by dialogue with Oman and other Persian Gulf littoral states, “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz… in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states.”
Iranian officials interpreted the limited 60-day free period plus the “maritime services” reference as implicitly allowing “service fees” for navigation, security, and environmental protection, once the 60-day window has lapsed.
While the US administration rejected this interpretation, the US media itself, including The New York Times, acknowledged that the language of the MoU was vague and that it formalized Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Again, multiple media outlets reported earlier this week that Iran and Oman are close to finalizing a deal between them for joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.
Details included Iranian management of vessel entry, joint oversight of exits near the Oman coast, and a “central corridor.”
According to a Reuters report published on August 6, Iran is seeking fees of between 5% and 7% of the price of cargoes from ships using the strait, according to the senior Iranian official. Oman is discussing fees of around 3%, while Washington wants no fees at all.
In normal (pre-war) times, the narrow waterway handled roughly 20–21 million barrels per day of crude and petroleum products, amounting to nearly one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption and roughly 25% of seaborne oil trade.
According to a Gulf News estimate, this would generate a net profit of US$385 million per day for Iran, or up to US$140 billion per year gross.
A typical Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) can carry up to about 2 million barrels.
At an oil price of US$80/barrel, the cargo is worth US$160 million; a 7% fee would equal roughly US$11–11.2 million for that one voyage.
Strait of Hormuz.
Given that Iran would have to spend a minimal amount of money to oversee the entry of cargo vessels into the Strait of Hormuz, most of this annual revenue of USD140 billion would be ‘net profit’ for Tehran.
Even if Iran spends USD5 billion annually on these expenses, Tehran would still pocket a net profit of USD135 billion.
That is a staggering amount.
For perspective, Egypt’s Suez Canal Authority reported US$4.67 billion in revenue for the 2025/2026 fiscal year.
The income of Egypt’s Suez Canal Authority looks meager when compared to Iran’s prospective income from the Strait of Hormuz if indeed it is able to charge a 7% fee on all cargo vessels passing the maritime corridor.
Indeed, Iran will get control of the world’s most lucrative and profitable tollway.
The disruption in the Hormuz traffic during the last four months has shown that many countries would not mind paying a fee to Tehran as long as it can ensure a steady supply of oil and LNG from the maritime corridor, even if there is no provision under the International Law (International Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS) allowing a coastal state like Iran to charge for passage through a natural waterway, impose a “toll” or a “service fee”.
In fact, according to Bloomberg, Iran has already started charging a transit fee from commercial vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz.
The report said that Iran charged as much as USD 2 million per vessel as a transit fee, and many countries paid the fee to Tehran to let their cargo vessels pass from the narrow maritime corridor.
Reports also said that these payments were made in Chinese Yuan.
In March, Lloyd’s List reported that Iran’s IRGC ran a de facto “toll booth” system requiring vetting, clearance codes, and escorts via a controlled corridor.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that transits were mostly linked to Chinese, Indian, or Gulf-linked owners, including some “dark fleet” vessels.
What’s even more is that at USD 135 billion, Iran’s profit from the Strait of Hormuz would beat some of the world’s biggest and most profitable technology companies.
For instance, in 2025, Google’s Alphabet made a profit of USD 132 billion.
Similarly, in fiscal year 2026, Nvidia made a profit of USD 120 billion. Apple made a profit of USD 112 billion. Microsoft made a profit of USD 101 billion. And Saudi Arabia’s oil major Aramco made a profit of USD 105 billion.
These are some of the world’s biggest technology and oil companies, which have reached here after years of hard work and innovation.
However, if Iran’s plans to collect a 5-7% toll fee from all commercial cargo vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz materialize, Iran will start making more profit than these companies from the first year.
Furthermore, this would be a vicious cycle, as a toll fee of 5-7% would mean that oil prices would go up. This would also mean that insurance prices for these cargo vessels would shoot up, further increasing the oil prices.
As oil prices rise, the absolute value of Iran’s proposed 5–7% toll – calculated on cargo value – would increase in tandem. Consequently, Tehran would benefit twice over: its toll revenues would grow both from higher shipping volumes and from escalating oil prices.
Notably, Iran holds the world’s third-largest oil reserve.
In addition to this windfall gain, another condition of the June Iran-US MoU was that Washington would “undertake with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Another condition was: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations.”
Estimates of the frozen assets involved ranged from roughly US$12–37 billion; however, some Iranian sources claimed that the frozen assets amounted to over USD 100 billion.
Motorists drive past a large billboard pledging revenge against US President Donald Trump along Jomhouri Street in central Tehran on July 27, 2026. Iran’s foreign ministry said on July 27 that the US was not involved in recent talks with Oman over the administration of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Traffic through the vital global shipping route has been under Iranian control since the outbreak of war with Israel and the United States on February 28. (Photo by AFP) /
If all these conditions are met, Iran would get a windfall of over USD 500 billion within the first two years. A substantial part of this money is set to be invested in the further development of Iran’s ballistic missile program.
In effect, it could mean that a few years down the line, Iran could be a much stronger adversary, militarily as well as economically.
The repercussions of that for the US and Israel could be devastating.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
The Rural Health Transformation Program could offer significant healthcare access improvements to the NC mountains.
Transforming healthcare in Western NC is a story from Carolina Public Press, an award-winning independent newsroom. Our breakthrough journalism shines a light on the critical overlooked and under-reported issues facing North Carolina’s more than 11 million residents. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
«HANNO MILITARIZZATO L’INFANZIA» L’Italia ha smesso all’improvviso di difendere i principi della pace. Non parliamo di leggi ma di pratica quotidiana: protocolli fra Istruzione e Difesa, visite di classe alle basi militari, aziende belliche accolte nell’orientamento scolastico, generali in cattedra. Se la guerra si insegna, la pace si può insegnare. Da questa convinzione nasce Handalino, la fiaba cheAntonio Mazzeo ha portato ai bambini delle elementari insieme al pupazzo omonimo, maturata durante il suo viaggio verso Gaza con la Freedom Flotilla a bordo della nave Handala. Una storia sui diritti dell’infanzia negati, raccontata con le parole dei più piccoli. E la domanda nasce spontanea: il massacro di Gaza ha risvegliato le coscienze? Nelle scuole qualcosa si è mosso davvero, o resta un moto d’indignazione senza traduzione politica? Ne parliamo con Antonio Mazzeo, giornalista d’inchiesta e insegnante. Intervista a cura di Jeff Hoffman IL LIBRO DELL’OSPITE Antonio Mazzeo, La scuola va alla guerra. Inchiesta sulla militarizzazione dell’istruzione in Italia, Manifestolibri, Roma 2024. SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV Membership YouTube: / @casadelsoletvchannel — Analista Multipolare €5/mese — Inviato della Verità €15/mese — Architetto del Futuro €25/mese #CasadelSoleTV#AntonioMazzeo#JeffHoffman#LaScuolaVaAllaGuerra#Handalino#EducazioneAllaPace#Militarizzazione#Scuola#Gaza#Palestina#Nonviolenza#Costituzione
China has confirmed the deaths of two sailors in a collision in the South China Sea, according to government statements nearly a year after the incident.
In August 2025, a Chinese navy vessel collided with one from its own coast guard while chasing a Philippine patrol boat near a disputed shoal.
A Chinese Coast Guard spokesperson confirmed at the time that there had been a confrontation, but did not mention the collision, nor injuries or deaths.
The People’s Armed Police Force said on social media Wednesday it had awarded four “martyrs” — including Coast Guard sailors Yi Xinyu and Cheng Long — a special title for “steadfast political convictions, exemplary deeds and outstanding achievements”.
Yi and Cheng both died on August 11, 2025 — the date of last year’s collision — in a “rights defense operation”, according to their profiles on the government’s “China Martyrs Network”.
“Yi sacrificed his life… while participating in a frontline rights defense operation in the South China Sea,” according to the website.
Cheng “heroically sacrificed his life during a maritime rights defense operation”, the website reads.
It is not clear when the sailors were given the designation of “martyr”, which awards their families special housing and medical support among other aid.
Yi was 21 years old at the time of his death, and Cheng was 25, according to their profiles on the website.
The incident had occurred near the contested Scarborough Shoal as the Philippine coast guard escorted boats distributing aid to fishermen in the area, spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela had said in a statement.
The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) accused China of shadowing and harassing two ships
Video released by Manila showed a China Coast Guard ship and a much larger vessel bearing the number 164 on its hull colliding with a loud crash.
“The (China Coast Guard vessel) CCG 3104, which was chasing the (Filipino coast guard vessel) BRP Suluan at high speed, performed a risky maneuver from the (Philippine) vessel’s starboard quarter, leading to the impact with the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) Navy warship,” Tarriela said.
“This resulted in substantial damage to the CCG vessel’s forecastle, rendering it unseaworthy,” he said.
The collision was another series of confrontations between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, which Beijing claims almost entirely despite an international ruling that the assertion has no legal basis.
The Scarborough Shoal — a triangular chain of reefs and rocks — has been a flashpoint between the countries since China seized it from the Philippines in 2012.
Tarriela told AFP the Chinese crew “never responded” to the Filipino ship’s offer of assistance.
The United Kingdom lost its global empire by the mid-twentieth century – and with it, its status as the world’s pre-eminent military power.
Today, according to the Global Firepower Index, Britain ranks as the world’s eighth-strongest military, while the IMF places it as the fifth-largest economy, just marginally ahead of India.
Yet in one domain it still stands at the very top: the shadowy world of intelligence and spycraft.
MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service, has been ranked as the most powerful foreign intelligence service in Europe ahead of France and the Netherlands, according to a peer review.
The British service topped a field of 25 countries, finishing well ahead of France’s DGSE in second place.
The British intelligence agency scored 251 points in the research and was commended for its expertise in recruiting high-level informants and penetrating the ruling elites in Russia, China, Iran and Turkey, according to the review by 60 professionals from 25 countries.
The review was conducted by French magazine L’Express, which contacted people in state services de renseignements (intelligence services) to rate their counterparts in the Western-allied countries.
After MI6, France’s General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) finished in second place with 169 points for its global reach and operational capability, the Times reported.
Notably, there was a gap of 82 points between first and second place, underscoring MI6’s huge lead over its continental rivals.
The MI6 headquarters at Vauxhall Cross in London.
The Netherlands came third with 97 points. Ukraine was fourth with 77 points, and Germany was fifth with 62 points, followed by Sweden, Norway, Estonia, Poland and Denmark. Slovakia was rated the weakest.
The UK spy agency was praised for its global reach and for its long-term human intelligence (HUMINT) work, recruiting high-level sources and penetrating elites in top adversary countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran.
MI6 was also praised for its patience, often investing in developing sources for decades. The agency was also praised for its willingness to use bold tactics.
A former head of the DGSE said: “The British have the ability to play the long game, investing in sources over a 10-year horizon, somewhat like the Russians. And they have a taste for dirty tricks.”
Olivier Mas, a senior DGSE officer until 2017, pointed to recruitment as a factor.
He said “all European intelligence services draw inspiration from British methods” and noted that “the best from Cambridge and Oxford join MI6.”
As many as eight out of the last 10 MI6 chiefs attended Oxford or Cambridge.
These strengths of MI6 have practical advantages.
For instance, Britain was the first to warn Ukraine about the likelihood of the Russian invasion that began in February 2022.
London has also been one of the staunchest allies of Kyiv during the war. Less than six weeks after the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also visited Kyiv and promised Ukraine full support.
The exploits of MI6 are also recognized by the CIA, the US foreign spy agency.
Ralph Goff, a former chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia at the CIA, told the magazine: “The British are in the lead on the Ukrainian file. We are right behind them.”
Robert Gorelick, a former CIA station chief, added: “The United Kingdom has by far the strongest secret services in Europe. MI6 is extraordinary.”
Notably, last year, Blaise Metreweli became the first woman ever to lead MI6, taking over from Sir Richard Moore.
Earlier in 2022, Israel’s spy agency Mossad announced that a female officer, known only as Agent “A,” has assumed the post of Director of the Intelligence Authority (parallel to the Head of the IDF Intelligence Branch), the first woman in the history of the Mossad to hold the office.
While MI6 was praised for its human intelligence, the French spy agency DGSE was rated as one of the world’s best in counter-terrorism.
The service is renowned for its clandestine operations to “eliminate” people deemed a threat to French security. François Hollande, the former French president, spoke publicly about ordering at least 40 operations to assassinate “high value” targets in the Middle East and Africa, according to a 2017 book.
A Polish intelligence executive told L’Express: “It is the only service in continental Europe with near-global reach. They combine technical collection, human intelligence and operational action capabilities.”
A Brief History of MI6
MI6, formally the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), was established in 1909. At that time, due to the growing fears of German espionage, Britain established its own spy service, known as the Secret Service Bureau.
It had two divisions: the Home Section, which later became MI5, was responsible for domestic security, and the Foreign Section, the forerunner of MI6.
The Foreign Section was led by Captain Sir Mansfield Cumming, a Royal Navy officer. He became the first Chief of the service and signed documents with a green-ink “C” – a tradition that continues to this day. The service is still headed by a Chief known simply as “C.”
The service got its initiation by fire just five years later during the First World War when it ran several agent networks behind German lines in occupied Europe.
After the war and German defeat, the newly-established Soviet Union became its primary theatre of operation.
Again, during the Second World War, it worked in close collaboration with American and Free French allies, and had important links to the codebreakers at Bletchley Park.
Bletchley Park was where Alan Turing and other agents of the Ultra intelligence project decoded the enemy’s secret messages, most notably those that had been encrypted with the German Enigma and Tunny cipher machines. Experts have suggested that the Bletchley Park code breakers may have shortened the war by as much as two years.
After the war, it helped establish a lasting partnership with the newly created CIA.
During the Cold War, once again, the service’s primary target became the Soviet Union and its allies.
However, its reputation suffered severe damage from the discovery of the Cambridge Five spy ring, a group of five British elite intelligence officers – Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross – who spied for the Soviet Union from the 1930s through the early 1950s. Recruited while students at Cambridge University, they leaked thousands of secret documents to the Soviets.
However, MI6 was also able to recruit some high-profile Soviet spy agency KGB agents as its informers.
For instance, a senior KGB officer, Oleg Gordievsky, became an informer for the British spy agency. Gordievsky was one of the highest-ranking Soviet moles ever handled by the West.
Over more than a decade (1974-1985), he provided MI6 with extraordinary intelligence on Soviet intentions, agent networks, and the Kremlin’s thinking. His reporting is widely credited with helping avert a potential nuclear confrontation during the 1983 Able Archer crisis when the Soviets misread a NATO exercise as preparation for a first strike.
In 1985 MI6 successfully exfiltrated him from Moscow in a daring operation, code-named Pimlico, after his cover was blown.
Recently declassified documents suggest that MI6 also provided valuable inputs to India on Sikh separatist activities and Khalistani terrorists during the early 1980s.
Since the end of the Cold War, priorities have shifted toward counter-terrorism, cyber threats, nuclear proliferation, and state actors such as Russia, China, and Iran.
MI6’s work is also credited with uncovering the global nuclear black market network developed by Pakistan’s disgraced nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who was clandestinely supplying nuclear secrets, blueprints, and components to many countries, including Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
However, it must be noted that due to the very nature of spycraft, often operating in shadows, many of MI6’s most daring operations remain classified and will be known only much later.
Nevertheless, the recognition of MI6’s clear lead over other European intelligence agencies – by former and serving spies themselves – stands as a rare testament to the UK’s enduring soft power, which has survived the end of its empire and the loss of its former military and economic pre-eminence.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
Login
