Hamas leaders’ 2021 request to Iran for $500 million to destroy Israel within two years reveals a stunning level of miscalculation. The audacity of the plan itself, aiming to obliterate a technologically advanced nation in such a short timeframe, speaks volumes about a severe underestimation of Israel’s military capabilities and resilience. The sheer ambition, coupled with the tight deadline, immediately raises questions about the feasibility and practicality of such an undertaking.
The proposed budget of $20 million per month for two years, totaling $500 million, also invites scrutiny. While a substantial sum, it pales in comparison to Israel’s annual defense budget, highlighting the vast disparity in resources and military might.… Continue reading
On March 27, the Ukrainian Air Force targeted the Pogar border checkpoint in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast, resulting in the destruction of military infrastructure and the deaths of 15 to 40 Russian soldiers. This strike, a reprisal for ongoing Russian drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians, neutralized a key launch point for drones targeting Sumy and Kursk oblasts. The destroyed infrastructure included communication, electronic warfare, and surveillance systems. The action underscores the ongoing conflict and escalating tensions despite a recent partial truce agreement.
Read More
Amidst escalating tensions with the U.S., Iranian military commanders are considering a preemptive strike on the Diego Garcia military base, spurred by the deployment of American B-2 bombers there. This action is intended as deterrence against a potential U.S. attack on Iran. The Iranian response includes preparing missile launchers and bolstering the protection of nuclear sites, reflecting a heightened state of readiness for conflict. Threats from both sides, including Iranian vows of retaliation and President Trump’s warnings of unprecedented bombing, have intensified the crisis.
Read More
In summary, German intelligence agencies and the Bundeswehr assess Russia as preparing for a major conflict with NATO, viewing the West as a systemic adversary. This assessment suggests Russia aims for a large-scale conventional war capability by the end of the decade, exceeding its Ukrainian campaign ambitions. Despite significant losses, Russia continues to bolster its military strength, increasing troop numbers and military spending dramatically. While a full-scale NATO conflict isn’t considered imminent by all, the potential for limited attacks against NATO members remains a concern.
Read More
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the US is prepared for war with China, citing the need for strength to ensure peace amidst escalating trade tensions. This statement follows China’s threat of retaliation for new US tariffs imposed in response to the fentanyl crisis. Hegseth emphasized the importance of military rebuilding and a strong defense posture in the Indo-Pacific region. Despite a purportedly positive relationship between Presidents Trump and Xi, both nations continue to engage in aggressive trade practices and military actions.
Read More
Following increased trade tensions and China’s declaration of readiness for any type of war in response to new US tariffs, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted the US is prepared for conflict. He emphasized the need for military strength and deterrence to counter China’s growing military capabilities and differing ideology. This preparedness includes rebuilding the military and bolstering the Indo-Pacific posture. Despite this, Hegseth also maintained that the US seeks peace and continues to foster a relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Read More
Amidst escalating trade tensions with the U.S., China declared its readiness for “any type” of war, following the imposition of new tariffs by President Trump. This declaration, accompanied by a 7.2% increase in defense spending, signals China’s unwavering stance despite the economic challenges posed by a potential trade war. While emphasizing its commitment to economic openness and attracting foreign investment, China’s rhetoric reflects a hardening position against perceived U.S. aggression. This follows previous pronouncements of military preparedness, though the current statement represents a more overt declaration of readiness for conflict.
Read More
China’s foreign office’s recent pronouncements, suggesting a willingness to engage in any type of conflict with the U.S., from trade wars to military confrontation, should be interpreted as a stark reflection of escalating geopolitical tensions. This isn’t merely posturing; it signals a significant shift in China’s approach to its relationship with the United States.
The statement reflects a growing perception within China that the U.S. is actively pursuing conflict, whether through economic pressure or other means. This perception, fueled by various actions and policies, leads China to believe that a proactive stance is necessary. The threat of a prolonged struggle is being presented not as a bluff, but as a calculated strategy to defend its interests and possibly shape the new world order.… Continue reading
On February 20, 2025, Ukrainian Security Service units, in coordination with other defense forces, successfully struck the Novovelichkovskaya oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar territory, a key facility supporting the Russian occupation forces. The station services the Tikhoretsk – Novorossiysk-2 pipeline. Russian forces responded with ground-based air defenses and helicopters. Further assessment of the strike’s effectiveness is underway, but future operations targeting similar strategic facilities are planned.
Read More
A Blue Star Families survey reveals that 83 percent of military families believe a major U.S. conflict is likely within the next three to five years, compared to 67 percent of civilians. This disparity may stem from President Trump’s recent aggressive rhetoric and actions regarding Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and the Panama Canal, coupled with the U.S. Naval Institute’s prediction of a 2026 war with China. Military families may also be reacting to the administration’s weakening of civilian protection within the Pentagon and changes to rules of engagement. Experts and military family members cite these factors as potential catalysts for increased global tensions.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker