Reflectii

Introduction

The Kremlin is conducting a coordinated series of kinetic campaigns targeting Europe, and NATO states must understand and forthrightly discuss both these ongoing Russian campaigns against Europe and the evolving character of the near-term Russian conventional threat in order to design and execute holistic responses. European governments increased their willingness to publicly attribute and discuss ongoing Russian kinetic attacks against Europe after the German government officially attributed the August 5 Leipzig airport drone attack to Russia.[1] European states and leaders still too often refer to Russian actions with language that impedes effective responses, however, and have not taken sufficient action of their own to deter the escalating Russian campaign against them. European governments must develop a shared conceptual framework to understand ongoing Russian campaigns, an essential step toward creating a coordinated policy plan to respond to and deter Russian actions. NATO has recognized the changing near-term Russian conventional threat and has identified the need for rapid European rearmament and adaptation drawing on lessons from Ukraine to meet this threat, although action is lagging behind words. European states must accelerate and improve these rearmament and adaptation efforts and must prepare for the risk of a limited Russian conventional attack on a shorter timeline than the 2028-2030 window that many NATO states currently discuss. NATO and European states can defeat the ongoing Russian kinetic campaigns and deter the growing Russian conventional threat, but only on the basis of a shared understanding of the problem that will enable them to design and execute coordinated policy plans with the necessary sense of urgency and without panic. This paper presents an initial assessment of the current and near-term Russian threats, priority lines of effort for NATO states, and necessary future analytical work by ISW and other organizations.

L’intégration des forces armées ukrainiennes (FAU) dans les structures militaires de l’OTAN : mécanismes, portée, limites.

Le problème soulevé dans le titre n’est pas purement théorique ou secondaire. Nous constatons comment l’Ukraine s’intègre progressivement avec l’OTAN sur de nombreux points, allant de la création d’une industrie de défense unifiée à la formation des armées occidentales aux compétences et aux techniques de combat conventionnel modernes, y compris lors d’exercices. L’objectif de cette analyse est de déterminer comment le refus de l’Ukraine de rejoindre formellement l’OTAN affecte la sécurité nationale de la Russie à long terme.

Key Takeaways:

• The author describes two post-Maduro oil moves: a White House–NABEP partnership (Pentagon 35% stake, State right to buy 20% of output at cost, 100 years, 17 Orinoco fields) and Chevron’s expanded Orinoco joint ventures (~$7 billion over five years). Analysts cited say first oil from the new venture could take 10–15 years; cheaper U.S. pump prices are not immediate.
• Interim President Delcy Rodríguez has welcomed the deals and U.S. military anti-trafficking access. The piece says little open Chavista or opposition protest, which sources attribute to authoritarian control, self-interest, or keeping Washington’s favor. U.S. Democrats call the arrangement a grab for oil after Maduro’s removal.
• China and Russia may hold stakes or debt in some of the same fields (~$15 billion Venezuelan debt to Beijing is cited). Legal fights or a long wait-and-see strategy are possible. U.S. telecom opening that excludes Huawei/ZTE is another loss for Beijing. The author’s view: headlines outrun what is settled.

In 2025, the US National Security Strategy paper would be broadly misinterpreted as a US plan to break with its historical pursuit of global primacy and instead retreat to the Western Hemisphere while somehow reconciling or coexisting with traditional targets of US aggression.

«La chose la plus difficile au monde est de suivre à la trace n’importe quelle idée jusqu’à sa source». ~ Edward Mandell House

La remontée à la source est donc l’objet de ce texte. Il m’a semblé capital de donner au squelette d’une description linéaire des faits leur densité psychologique et leur incarnation dans les hommes qui ont fait l’histoire de cette époque-là.

Les États-Unis et la Russie veulent conclure la paix le plus vite possible en Ukraine. Le problème n’est pas où l’on croit : il semble que les straussiens (les disciples de Léo Strauss), qui s’étaient infiltrés dans les administrations Obama et Biden, soient aujourd’hui soutenus par les Européens. Or, ce sont eux qui ont déclenché ce conflit inutile.

Key Takeaways:
PAS is no longer just a northern opposition party: largest federal bloc since GE2022, runs Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, and with a BN–PN pact just took Negeri Sembilan (August 2026). The article asks what foreign policy would look like if PAS led Putrajaya—not only hudud at home.
Outlook still starts with 1980s ulama politics (Brotherhood + Iran as models; Darul Islam / Ahdi / Harbi; no Israel; Palestine first). In office (PN 2020–22) that mixed with statecraft: Hadi as Middle East envoy (Qatar, Taliban talks; critics called it ceremonial and Brotherhood-tinged); the Lajnah still slams Abraham Accords but Hadi still met the UAE ambassador. Faith frames the world; practice can split from doctrine.
State governments show “development diplomacy.” Terengganu’s Ahmad Samsuri courts Korea (hydrogen, rare earths), Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong (ECRL, Kemaman Port); Kedah’s Sanusi pitches China on Kulim airport. The author’s bet: a PAS federal government would sound more Islamist than Anwar’s Malaysia but keep China, ASEAN, Gulf and even non-Muslim neighbours for investment—rhetoric shifts more than the trade map. Risk is delivery and competitiveness, not only ideology.
In Malaysia, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia’s (PAS) electoral performance has gained momentum since the 1990s. Since the 2022 General Election, it has held the largest number of seats in the federal parliament. It now also controls three states: Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu. Rather than viewing PAS as a regional party,[1] policymakers both within and outside Malaysia are beginning to prepare for the possibility of a PAS-led, or at least PAS-dominated, federal government. PAS was part of the federal government in two instances in the past: in Barisan Nasional (BN, 1974-1977) and Perikatan Nasional (PN, 2020-2022), but as a minor party in the coalitions. Currently, there is an electoral pact between BN and PN, which successfully defeated Pakatan Harapan (PH) in the August 2026 Negeri Sembilan state election, thereby forming the new state government. Consequently, it is no longer merely an academic exercise to ask what policy direction Malaysia might take in the eventuality of PAS forming the federal government.[2]

The Russian authorities announced the “wonderful acquisition” of the relics of Dmitry Donskoy and sent them to the front. Modern propaganda paints Dmitry as a holy fighter against the coalition of the “West” and the defender of Orthodoxy. This is already a new iteration of an alternative story around this historical figure, which began to become myths two hundred years after the death of the prince. During his life and in the next few centuries after his death, Dmitry was neither Donskoy nor holy (he was with the church in deep conflict), but the fighter against the West called him and completely ridiculous: no single West then simply did not exist, and everyone fought with everyone.