Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲. 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭. 🌍 From EVs and AI to semiconductors, satellites and clean energy, critical minerals have become the strategic resources of the 21st century. Under PM Modi's leadership, India is building resilient global... partnerships to secure them. 🔹 30 critical minerals identified under the National Critical Mineral Mission 🔹 ₹34,300+ crore mission to strengthen India's supply chain resilience 🔹 Strategic partnerships with Australia, Argentina, France, the US, the UK and Indonesia 🔹 Diversifying sourcing to reduce dependence on any single country 🔹 Strengthening India's technological and manufacturing future The future will belong to nations that secure the resources powering tomorrow's technologies, and India is preparing for that future today. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐨... 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮'𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐨𝐧? 𝐃𝐫𝐨𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰! ⬇️🎥show more

BJP

23,041,806 subscribers

35,496 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞. 🇮🇳💻 For decades, India led the world in software. Now, under PM Modi's leadership, the nation is laying the foundation to become a global semiconductor manufacturing hub. 🔹 India's semiconductor market is projected to grow from $45–50 billion today to $120 billion by 2030 🔹 ₹76,000 crore allocated under the India Semiconductor Mission 🔹 Target to meet over 60% of India's chip demand through domestic production by 2035 🔹 Massive investments in fabs, packaging and testing facilities across multiple states 🔹 Around 2 million new jobs expected by 2035 across manufacturing, design and allied sectors 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲'𝐬 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧. ⬇️

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞. 🇮🇳💻 For decades, India led the world in software. Now, under PM Modi's leadership, the nation is laying the foundation to become a global semiconductor manufacturing hub. 🔹 India's semiconductor market is projected to grow from $45–50 billion today to $120 billion by 2030 🔹 ₹76,000 crore allocated under the India Semiconductor Mission 🔹 Target to meet over 60% of India's chip demand through domestic production by 2035 🔹 Massive investments in fabs, packaging and testing facilities across multiple states 🔹 Around 2 million new jobs expected by 2035 across manufacturing, design and allied sectors 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲'𝐬 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧. ⬇️

BJP

24,052 views • 1 month ago

𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟖, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝. You may not remember the years of terror, corruption and policy paralysis, but your parents do. Since 2014, India has witnessed a decade of transformation under PM Modi. 🔹 Jan Dhan brought banking to millions 🔹 Ayushman Bharat expanded healthcare access 🔹 Article 370 was abrogated 🔹 Balakot changed India's response to terrorism 🔹 UPI went global and Digital India accelerated 🔹 Defence exports, infrastructure and global standing reached new heights From a nation battling scams and uncertainty to one driving growth, security and innovation, this is the story of a changing India. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟖 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐁𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭. 🎥

𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟖, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝. You may not remember the years of terror, corruption and policy paralysis, but your parents do. Since 2014, India has witnessed a decade of transformation under PM Modi. 🔹 Jan Dhan brought banking to millions 🔹 Ayushman Bharat expanded healthcare access 🔹 Article 370 was abrogated 🔹 Balakot changed India's response to terrorism 🔹 UPI went global and Digital India accelerated 🔹 Defence exports, infrastructure and global standing reached new heights From a nation battling scams and uncertainty to one driving growth, security and innovation, this is the story of a changing India. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟖 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐁𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭. 🎥

BJP

35,783 views • 2 months ago

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐚. 🚢🇮🇳 For decades, India watched others dominate global shipbuilding despite its strategic coastline. Today, under PM Modi's leadership, that story is beginning to change. 🔹 Over 7,500 km of coastline at the heart of global maritime trade 🔹 Government backing with a ₹69,725 crore shipping ecosystem package, including a ₹25,000 crore Maritime Development Fund 🔹 Global firms exploring partnerships with Indian shipyards 🔹 New shipbuilding and repair clusters approved in Gujarat 🔹 Vision to make India a top 10 shipbuilding nation by 2030 and top 5 by 2047 India isn't just aiming to manufacture for the world. It wants to build the very ships that carry global trade. 🎥 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐝𝐲𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐚. 🚢🇮🇳 For decades, India watched others dominate global shipbuilding despite its strategic coastline. Today, under PM Modi's leadership, that story is beginning to change. 🔹 Over 7,500 km of coastline at the heart of global maritime trade 🔹 Government backing with a ₹69,725 crore shipping ecosystem package, including a ₹25,000 crore Maritime Development Fund 🔹 Global firms exploring partnerships with Indian shipyards 🔹 New shipbuilding and repair clusters approved in Gujarat 🔹 Vision to make India a top 10 shipbuilding nation by 2030 and top 5 by 2047 India isn't just aiming to manufacture for the world. It wants to build the very ships that carry global trade. 🎥 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐝𝐲𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.

BJP

62,163 views • 1 month ago

"𝐎𝐢𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐠𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞." And PM Modi knew it long before many others. Not very long ago, India was almost entirely dependent on imported semiconductor technology. Today, under PM Modi's leadership, India is rapidly emerging as a global semiconductor hub. In 2021, PM Modi launched the Semicon India programme with a clear vision to make India a trusted destination for semiconductor manufacturing. ➡️ India's first semiconductor plant was approved in 2023. ➡️ More projects followed in 2024. ➡️ By 2025, five additional semiconductor projects had been cleared. In 2026, commercial chip packaging has begun at Sanand. It is proof that India's semiconductor mission is no longer just a vision. It is becoming a reality. With 10 semiconductor projects attracting over investment worth $18 billion (more than ₹1.5 lakh crore), India's progress reflects one thing above all: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚. 🇮🇳

"𝐎𝐢𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐠𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞." And PM Modi knew it long before many others. Not very long ago, India was almost entirely dependent on imported semiconductor technology. Today, under PM Modi's leadership, India is rapidly emerging as a global semiconductor hub. In 2021, PM Modi launched the Semicon India programme with a clear vision to make India a trusted destination for semiconductor manufacturing. ➡️ India's first semiconductor plant was approved in 2023. ➡️ More projects followed in 2024. ➡️ By 2025, five additional semiconductor projects had been cleared. In 2026, commercial chip packaging has begun at Sanand. It is proof that India's semiconductor mission is no longer just a vision. It is becoming a reality. With 10 semiconductor projects attracting over investment worth $18 billion (more than ₹1.5 lakh crore), India's progress reflects one thing above all: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚. 🇮🇳

BJP

31,260 views • 2 months ago

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. 🇮🇳🌍 The 2026 #BRICSSummit in New Delhi was more than a two-day gathering. It reflected India’s ability to navigate competing interests and build common ground. • 11 nations came together, representing nearly half of humanity, around 40% of global GDP, and a quarter of global trade. • India used its BRICS chairmanship to put market access, supply-chain resilience, and critical minerals firmly on the agenda. • PM Modi and Xi Jinping's meeting reopened dialogue on the boundary question while keeping India’s interests at the centre. • India–Russia ties expanded beyond traditional areas towards trade, nuclear energy, fertilisers, minerals, railways, and defence, with a $100 billion trade target by 2030. • The 140-paragraph New Delhi Declaration secured consensus from all 11 members. • India pushed for a Global South that moves from being a rule-taker to a rule-shaper. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐏𝐌 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢’𝐬 #𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐒 𝐝𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜’𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 🎥

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. 🇮🇳🌍 The 2026 #BRICSSummit in New Delhi was more than a two-day gathering. It reflected India’s ability to navigate competing interests and build common ground. • 11 nations came together, representing nearly half of humanity, around 40% of global GDP, and a quarter of global trade. • India used its BRICS chairmanship to put market access, supply-chain resilience, and critical minerals firmly on the agenda. • PM Modi and Xi Jinping's meeting reopened dialogue on the boundary question while keeping India’s interests at the centre. • India–Russia ties expanded beyond traditional areas towards trade, nuclear energy, fertilisers, minerals, railways, and defence, with a $100 billion trade target by 2030. • The 140-paragraph New Delhi Declaration secured consensus from all 11 members. • India pushed for a Global South that moves from being a rule-taker to a rule-shaper. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐏𝐌 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢’𝐬 #𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐒 𝐝𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜’𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 🎥

BJP

27,246 views • 5 days ago

The success of India’s energy diplomacy under the leadership of PM Sh Narendra Modi Ji bears positive results even as the world is faced with serious geopolitical crises. Our energy imports continue uninterrupted even as supply chains choke. We are able to ensure easy availability of fuel for our citizens even as countries worldwide struggle to make energy ends meet. We are able to do this because India has diversified its import basket to 41 sources from the basket of 27 that existed in 2014. India not only secured its energy needs, but emerged stronger, more resilient, and better prepared for the future. While many countries struggled with shortages and soaring prices, India protected its citizens because we planned ahead, diversified supply chains, strengthened strategic reserves, expanded sourcing options, and took difficult decisions when required. PM Modi Ji’s vision has never been limited to managing crises. His vision is to use every crisis as an opportunity to build the future. India’s ethanol blending programme has grown from approximately 1.5% to the threshold of a 20% blending economy. Flex-fuel technology is creating new opportunities for consumers and farmers. E85-compatible vehicles will provide more fuel choices, lower operating costs, and reduce dependence on imported crude. At the same time, India is positioning itself at the forefront of the global clean-energy transition. Through the National Green Hydrogen Mission, the country is laying the foundation for a new energy ecosystem that can power industries, create jobs, attract investment, and strengthen energy independence.

The success of India’s energy diplomacy under the leadership of PM Sh Narendra Modi Ji bears positive results even as the world is faced with serious geopolitical crises. Our energy imports continue uninterrupted even as supply chains choke. We are able to ensure easy availability of fuel for our citizens even as countries worldwide struggle to make energy ends meet. We are able to do this because India has diversified its import basket to 41 sources from the basket of 27 that existed in 2014. India not only secured its energy needs, but emerged stronger, more resilient, and better prepared for the future. While many countries struggled with shortages and soaring prices, India protected its citizens because we planned ahead, diversified supply chains, strengthened strategic reserves, expanded sourcing options, and took difficult decisions when required. PM Modi Ji’s vision has never been limited to managing crises. His vision is to use every crisis as an opportunity to build the future. India’s ethanol blending programme has grown from approximately 1.5% to the threshold of a 20% blending economy. Flex-fuel technology is creating new opportunities for consumers and farmers. E85-compatible vehicles will provide more fuel choices, lower operating costs, and reduce dependence on imported crude. At the same time, India is positioning itself at the forefront of the global clean-energy transition. Through the National Green Hydrogen Mission, the country is laying the foundation for a new energy ecosystem that can power industries, create jobs, attract investment, and strengthen energy independence.

Hardeep Singh Puri

17,275 views • 3 months ago

𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄!! 𝐈 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏 𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄!! 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐃𝐎 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐃𝐎!! 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝐭𝐡? 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝... #Swachhagrahis On November 8, 2014, a sight on the #Assighat in #Kashi left a lasting impact on our nation’s conscience. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji, spade in hand, began clearing a mound of hardened silt alongside sanitation workers, not from a podium or raised stage, but in the trenches, shoulder to shoulder. The scene was clear: this wasn’t symbolic. It was a real act, and it spoke volumes. He didn’t just talk about change; he exemplified it. He showed us, through action, that '𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.' In his own words from the Red Fort, he asked each of us to “𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞?’ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐈 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?" His question resonates as strongly today:“Has your action safeguarded the interests of the country or not? Has it worked for the welfare of others?” PM Modi’s actions inspired a wave of change, setting off a transformation from dirt-ridden banks to bustling, clean spaces that today attract countless visitors to #Assighat. November 8th reminds us to honor the legacy of Swachhagrahis - those frontline warriors of cleanliness, who stood between us and the COVID pandemic, and continue to work tirelessly each day. Let’s make this a day where our respect for them isn’t only expressed but truly felt. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭:: 1. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 - the ones who keep your streets, public spaces, and homes clean. Learn their names, get to know them as individuals, and remember that our PM himself has shown respect by washing their feet, honoring their invaluable work. 2. 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨. This act will spread a message of respect, inspiring communities to see their contributions with fresh, appreciative eyes. 3. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 - whether in a restaurant or their home, and treat it as you would a family gathering. This simple gesture of kindness reinforces that they are part of the larger family of our nation. 4. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 in your community, with a heartfelt *thank you* message. Allow your neighbors to write their appreciation and recognize their efforts visibly and proudly. These are only a few ideas — but whatever you choose, 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝. These unsung heroes don’t ask for acknowledgment; they don’t demand praise. But it is "our duty" to extend it. Let’s honor their work and recognize the sacrifices they make every day. November 8th is a day to give back the dignity and pride our #Swachhagrahis deserve. Let’s make this a collective movement.

𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄!! 𝐈 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏 𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄!! 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐃𝐎 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐃𝐎!! 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝐭𝐡? 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝... #Swachhagrahis On November 8, 2014, a sight on the #Assighat in #Kashi left a lasting impact on our nation’s conscience. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji, spade in hand, began clearing a mound of hardened silt alongside sanitation workers, not from a podium or raised stage, but in the trenches, shoulder to shoulder. The scene was clear: this wasn’t symbolic. It was a real act, and it spoke volumes. He didn’t just talk about change; he exemplified it. He showed us, through action, that '𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.' In his own words from the Red Fort, he asked each of us to “𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞?’ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐈 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?" His question resonates as strongly today:“Has your action safeguarded the interests of the country or not? Has it worked for the welfare of others?” PM Modi’s actions inspired a wave of change, setting off a transformation from dirt-ridden banks to bustling, clean spaces that today attract countless visitors to #Assighat. November 8th reminds us to honor the legacy of Swachhagrahis - those frontline warriors of cleanliness, who stood between us and the COVID pandemic, and continue to work tirelessly each day. Let’s make this a day where our respect for them isn’t only expressed but truly felt. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭:: 1. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 - the ones who keep your streets, public spaces, and homes clean. Learn their names, get to know them as individuals, and remember that our PM himself has shown respect by washing their feet, honoring their invaluable work. 2. 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨. This act will spread a message of respect, inspiring communities to see their contributions with fresh, appreciative eyes. 3. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 - whether in a restaurant or their home, and treat it as you would a family gathering. This simple gesture of kindness reinforces that they are part of the larger family of our nation. 4. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 in your community, with a heartfelt thank you message. Allow your neighbors to write their appreciation and recognize their efforts visibly and proudly. These are only a few ideas — but whatever you choose, 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝. These unsung heroes don’t ask for acknowledgment; they don’t demand praise. But it is "our duty" to extend it. Let’s honor their work and recognize the sacrifices they make every day. November 8th is a day to give back the dignity and pride our #Swachhagrahis deserve. Let’s make this a collective movement.

Temsutula Imsong #SwachhagrahiSammanDiwas #08th

51,622 views • 1 year ago

GEOPOLITICAL SHIFT ALERT: America finally bends the knee. Enter "Pax Silica." The US just announced India will be invited as a full member to the Pax Silica alliance next month. If you're unfamiliar with this, you should pay attention. The 21st century isn't running on oil, it’s running on Silicon. And the Americans just realized they can't win this war without New Delhi. Here is the breakdown of the deal, why India is the kingmaker, and why the US H1B hypocrisy is laughable. What is "Pax Silica"? Think "Pax Americana" but for chips. It is a new US-led strategic blockade designed to secure the AI, Semiconductor, and Critical Mineral supply chains. The goal is to break China’s chokehold on rare earths and tech infrastructure. Members are the US, Japan, UK, South Korea, etc. The Blunder is that when they launched it in Dec 2025, they excluded India. Why the U-Turn? (Why India is Crucial) The US woke up to a brutal reality: You cannot replace China’s manufacturing scale with tiny island nations. -->First is Scale. You need a massive workforce and industrial base. Only India has it. -->Minerals- You need an alternative for rare earth processing. India is the only viable option. Talent- The entire global silicon architecture runs on Indian brains. They tried to build an "Anti-China Tech Wall" without the world's largest democracy. It crumbled before it started. The Irony: The H1B "Overreaction" 🤡 Let’s take a moment to laugh at the American "strategy." -->US Dept of State in Dec 2025: -->Cancel H1B stamping appointments. -->Strand thousands of Indian techies during the holidays. -->Treat the very people powering your tech sector like potential threats with "social media vetting." US Dept of State in Jan 2026: "Please join Pax Silica! We need your help! You are essential partners!" The Message to the US: You cannot harass our engineers at the border on Monday and beg for our geopolitical alliance on Tuesday. If you want "Pax Silica," you'd better fix the "Visa Trauma." You need us more than we need you. How India Dominates from Here 🇮🇳 This invitation is our leverage. We are no longer just a market; we are the factory and the lab. -->Tech Transfer: Demand deep-tech IP sharing, not just assembly jobs. -->The Value Chain: Move from "testing" chips to "fabricating" them. -->Leverage: Use our position in Pax Silica to negotiate better mobility for our workforce. The era of ignoring India is over. The US tried to play hardball and realized they were playing with a wiffle bat against a cricket team. India isn't just "invited" to the table. We are setting the table. Col AJ🇮🇳 Colonel Mayank Chaubey Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran) TheGlobalDecoder Aadi Achint 🇮🇳 #PaxSilica #India #Semiconductors #H1B #USIndiaRelations #Modi #Trump #SiliconValley #sergiogor #USA

GEOPOLITICAL SHIFT ALERT: America finally bends the knee. Enter "Pax Silica." The US just announced India will be invited as a full member to the Pax Silica alliance next month. If you're unfamiliar with this, you should pay attention. The 21st century isn't running on oil, it’s running on Silicon. And the Americans just realized they can't win this war without New Delhi. Here is the breakdown of the deal, why India is the kingmaker, and why the US H1B hypocrisy is laughable. What is "Pax Silica"? Think "Pax Americana" but for chips. It is a new US-led strategic blockade designed to secure the AI, Semiconductor, and Critical Mineral supply chains. The goal is to break China’s chokehold on rare earths and tech infrastructure. Members are the US, Japan, UK, South Korea, etc. The Blunder is that when they launched it in Dec 2025, they excluded India. Why the U-Turn? (Why India is Crucial) The US woke up to a brutal reality: You cannot replace China’s manufacturing scale with tiny island nations. -->First is Scale. You need a massive workforce and industrial base. Only India has it. -->Minerals- You need an alternative for rare earth processing. India is the only viable option. Talent- The entire global silicon architecture runs on Indian brains. They tried to build an "Anti-China Tech Wall" without the world's largest democracy. It crumbled before it started. The Irony: The H1B "Overreaction" 🤡 Let’s take a moment to laugh at the American "strategy." -->US Dept of State in Dec 2025: -->Cancel H1B stamping appointments. -->Strand thousands of Indian techies during the holidays. -->Treat the very people powering your tech sector like potential threats with "social media vetting." US Dept of State in Jan 2026: "Please join Pax Silica! We need your help! You are essential partners!" The Message to the US: You cannot harass our engineers at the border on Monday and beg for our geopolitical alliance on Tuesday. If you want "Pax Silica," you'd better fix the "Visa Trauma." You need us more than we need you. How India Dominates from Here 🇮🇳 This invitation is our leverage. We are no longer just a market; we are the factory and the lab. -->Tech Transfer: Demand deep-tech IP sharing, not just assembly jobs. -->The Value Chain: Move from "testing" chips to "fabricating" them. -->Leverage: Use our position in Pax Silica to negotiate better mobility for our workforce. The era of ignoring India is over. The US tried to play hardball and realized they were playing with a wiffle bat against a cricket team. India isn't just "invited" to the table. We are setting the table. Col AJ🇮🇳 Colonel Mayank Chaubey Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran) TheGlobalDecoder Aadi Achint 🇮🇳 #PaxSilica #India #Semiconductors #H1B #USIndiaRelations #Modi #Trump #SiliconValley #sergiogor #USA

The Sacred Scroll

30,816 views • 8 months ago

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 views • 5 months ago

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) 📷 Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when you’re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether it’s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. I’ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. It’s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UK’s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. It’s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, I’m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, I’ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners – and indeed occasionally those we’d label as adversaries – across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. You’ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as ‘Q’, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Let’s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges – military, technological, social, ethical even – each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But there’s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they ‘converge’ to create science-fiction-like tools. There’s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth – one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the government’s understanding of China’s rise and the implications for UK national security. I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britain’s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into – if you like – our historical SOE instincts. We’re at our best when we’re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britain’s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest – how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to what’s really going on. I’ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in what’s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, I’ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence won’t help. To proliferators and smugglers who’ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their children’s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away – and that telling us what’s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6’s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face won’t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children don’t get duped by information manipulation. Let’s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in – a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation – are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, ‘Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without them’. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters – and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdom’s global voice has never rested solely on strength – it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element – the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice – the exercise of human agency – has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) 📷 Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when you’re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether it’s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. I’ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. It’s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UK’s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. It’s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, I’m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, I’ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners – and indeed occasionally those we’d label as adversaries – across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. You’ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as ‘Q’, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Let’s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges – military, technological, social, ethical even – each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But there’s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they ‘converge’ to create science-fiction-like tools. There’s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth – one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the government’s understanding of China’s rise and the implications for UK national security. I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britain’s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into – if you like – our historical SOE instincts. We’re at our best when we’re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britain’s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest – how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to what’s really going on. I’ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in what’s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, I’ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence won’t help. To proliferators and smugglers who’ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their children’s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away – and that telling us what’s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6’s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face won’t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children don’t get duped by information manipulation. Let’s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in – a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation – are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, ‘Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without them’. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters – and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdom’s global voice has never rested solely on strength – it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element – the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice – the exercise of human agency – has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025

John Sweeney

42,257 views • 9 months ago

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."

Farrukh

10,909 views • 3 months ago

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

548,652 views • 6 months ago

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilema’s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception – April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambia’s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last year’s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of America’s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian government’s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayers’ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of “partnership,” “collaboration,” “strategic,” or “mutual.” Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambia’s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambia’s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. America’s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambia’s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian government’s responses, “Noted. With thanks.” But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last year’s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the country’s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambia’s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, “If they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?” They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVIC’s Chairman to death for corruption. AVIC’s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambia’s trade with the region. AVIC’s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of “no sacred cows” is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of “rule of law” only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambia’s sovereignty and catalyse Zambia’s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyone’s expense, anyone’s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washington’s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambia’s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilema’s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception – April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambia’s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last year’s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of America’s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian government’s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayers’ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of “partnership,” “collaboration,” “strategic,” or “mutual.” Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambia’s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambia’s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. America’s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambia’s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian government’s responses, “Noted. With thanks.” But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last year’s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the country’s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambia’s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, “If they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?” They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVIC’s Chairman to death for corruption. AVIC’s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambia’s trade with the region. AVIC’s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of “no sacred cows” is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of “rule of law” only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambia’s sovereignty and catalyse Zambia’s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyone’s expense, anyone’s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washington’s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambia’s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.

Hopewell Chin’ono

99,042 views • 4 months ago

When Elon Musk beams in virtually for a high-stakes fireside chat with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, the conversation goes completely out of this world. The discussion was packed with massive milestones—from the bombshell that SpaceX is going public to plans for lunar AI data centers and the urgent need for the Terafab chip revolution. Here is the ultimate breakdown of their discussion: 💵 SpaceX has been self-funding and cash-flow positive for a decade Before the decision to go public, SpaceX didn't actually need to raise money to survive. The company has been cash-flow positive since around 2014–2015, meaning its private equity rounds were exclusively held to provide liquidity for employees and early investors. "We've been positive cash flow for quite a long time, I think, since around 2014-2015. And we've been self-funding. In fact, in our sort of private equity rounds, they actually have not been fundraising rounds. They've been liquidity rounds for investors and employees because we give everyone at the company stock." 🚀 The upcoming capital growth phase requires massive funding The primary trigger for going public now is an unprecedented capital expenditure phase. SpaceX is preparing to deploy an immense constellation of over 100,000 Next-Gen communication satellites and construct massive AI data centers in orbit. "we are embarking on a significant capital growth phase where we're going to put in over probably 100,000 satellites, probably over 100,000 satellites, just for communications... And then we're also doing the AI data centers in space, which is another massive capital endeavor." 📡 Starlink V3 introduces a massive bandwidth breakthrough The custom chips designed by SpaceX for the V3 satellites will completely alter global communications, offering 100 times the bandwidth of the current system and slashing latency in half by operating at a lower altitude. They are so large—the size of a small bus—that Starship is the only rocket on Earth capable of launching them, carrying 50 at a time. "The version three is, depending on how you count it, 10 to 20 times more capable than the version two satellite. And there were three chips that the SpaceX chip design team taped out that are specific to this... Which means it's 100 times more bandwidth than the SpaceX's Starlink system currently on the surface. And also half the latency because the altitude will be about half altitude." 🤖 AI and robots possess an insatiable appetite for data Musk points out that expanding infrastructure into space is vital because future AI and robotic systems will demand an astronomical amount of bandwidth compared to the relatively low data transmission rates of human beings. "And the future with AI and robots is actually going to require a lot more bandwidth than we currently use. Because you can imagine like what's the bandwidth of a human? Peak bandwidth of the human is a few hundred bits per second. But bandwidth of a computer can be a trillion bits a second. So the appetite for bandwidth of AI and robots is going to be enormous." ☀️ Space solves the looming terrestrial power plant crisis Building traditional power plants on Earth faces heavy community resistance. Moving data centers into space unlocks unlimited energy generation via solar power ("star power") without disrupting Earth's environment, tapping into an energy source that accounts for 99.8% of the solar system's mass. "It's increasingly difficult to build power plants on the ground. There are very few people who want a power plant in their backyard... But actually if we go to space, we can go far beyond the electricity generation of both. In fact, this is going to sound kind of crazy. But you could actually increase human energy by a factor of a million and still be using much less than a millionth of the sun's energy." 🌕 The Moon is a 1,000-Terawatt compute launchpad While Mars remains the long-term goal, the Moon is the immediate fast-track location for massive scaling. Because it lacks an atmosphere and has low gravity, SpaceX can use electromagnetic rail guns to shoot AI data centers into deep space from the lunar surface, scaling power to an incredible 1,000 terawatts per year. "I just think that we can build a self-sustaining city on the moon faster than we could do so on Mars. And there's also the potential... you can use an electromagnetic accelerator, a rail gun or mass driver. Basically, you don't need to use rockets to do AI data centers into deep space from the moon... We can do a thousand terawatts or more from the moon." 🪐 Mars is the ultimate "fixer-upper" planet Mars is being targeted as a full-scale terraforming project. Due to its atmosphere and gravity levels, warming up the planet could eventually unlock liquid oceans and allow humans to walk around without spacesuits. "And if you warm up Mars, you could one day make Mars like Earth. And with like liquid oceans and life. And where you could walk outside without a spacesuit type of thing. So Mars is, I call Mars a fixer upper of a planet. But it's got a lot of potential." 🚂 SpaceX is the modern-day Union Pacific Railroad Musk rejects the idea that SpaceX is moving into the hospitality or hotel business for space tourism. Instead, he views the company as a foundational infrastructure provider, comparable to the historic railroads that opened up the American West. "We're kind of like Union Pacific, you know. You know, when they built Union Pacific back in the day, people thought they were crazy. Because like, why are you trying to carry all this cargo and people to California? No one's there. But now California is the biggest state in the country." ♻️ Starship's core disruption is 100% reusability The true holy grail of Starship is full reusability, which drops orbit access costs down to the mere price of fuel. Because it utilizes ultra-cheap liquid oxygen and methane, shipping cargo to space will become more economical than flying cargo across Earth's oceans on an airplane. "The fundamental breakthrough of Starship is that it will be the first orbital rocket that is fully reusable... And the propellant we use for Starship is liquid oxygen and liquid methane, which is the cheapest propellant you could possibly get... which means that you should be able to actually send cargo to space for less than the cost of cargo on an airplane going on a trans-oceanic trip." 🔄 Starship V4 targets hourly launch cadences SpaceX's engineering pipeline is aiming for staggering operational frequencies and massive payloads. While Starship V3 targets 100 tons to orbit, the upcoming V4 variant is designed to carry over 200 tons and launch on an hourly schedule. "Because Starship V3 is aiming to do 100 tons to orbit with full reusability. And then Starship V4 we're aiming for over 200 tons per mission. And then being able to launch every hour." ☁️ Orbital data centers are entirely weather-proof Space-based AI data centers are highly practical because they are simpler to construct than communication satellites. Data is beamed via lasers between satellites, and then beamed to the ground using cloud-penetrating radio frequencies that completely bypass bad weather. "The AI data center would be much simpler by comparison. Because it's really just solar power plus radiator... The connection would happen no matter what the weather is. Because once you connect via the lasers to the Starlink communication constellation, the Starlink communication to the ground uses frequencies that are cloud penetrating." 🇺🇸 The U.S. faces a catastrophic "Zero Memory Fab" crisis A major vulnerability in domestic tech infrastructure is that the U.S. currently manufactures zero high-volume computer memory chips. Even with new facilities arriving online between 2028 and 2030, domestic supply will not match the exponential requirements of AI, which is why Musk is aggressively building the Terafab. "there's not a single high volume computer memory fab in America right now. Zero. There's one being built in Idaho by Micron. But that will not reach volume production until I believe 2028. And there's something being built in New York, but they are in, I think, 29 and 30. And this is a tiny fraction of the memory that's needed... That's why we need to do the Terafab." 🧠 SpaceX will offer proprietary AI chips and software While the orbital data center network will remain an open marketplace capable of running third-party hardware like NVIDIA GPUs, Google TPUs, or Amazon Trainium, SpaceX plans to deploy its own in-house AI chips and software stack in the near future. "So if NVIDIA GPUs can be put on it, Google TPUs can be put on it, Amazon Trainium or any other chips that you want to put on, can be put on. We'll also offer our chips in the future and I think we also want to offer our software, our AI software as well in the future." 🛡️ Starshield handles critical national intelligence Musk emphasizes his deeply pro-American stance, highlighting SpaceX's specialized Starshield division as a crucial backbone for the U.S. military and national intelligence agencies. "We have a division called Starshield which provides military communications. And you know, there's some other stuff that's kind of classified, I guess. We can't be talking about that. But we are helping the Department of War and intelligence part of the government. We're a vital element of that." 👥 Executive retention fuels the mission The core leadership bench at SpaceX is defined by extreme longevity, driven by a deep collective belief in turning science fiction into reality. Top executives like Gwynne Shotwell have remained with Musk for over two decades. "I guess Gwynne was, I think, around the seventh person to join the company. And that was 2002. It's just went to like 24 years. And generally the senior executives at the company, you have a very long tenure. I think Brent Johnson's been, you see, over 15 years... because people really believe in the mission, I think they want to stay and they want to keep building it." ❤️ Character overrides IQ in leadership Reflecting on how he has evolved over 20 years, Musk notes that he has become significantly more laid back. He has also learned that a candidate's moral character and heart are just as vital to a company's success as raw intellectual horsepower. "Well, I think I'm probably more chill than I used to be... And one of the things I've found over time... is that like in terms of like recruiting people to the company and having people work with the company, like their individual abilities and their intellectual capabilities matter a lot, but it also matters if they have a good heart. It's not just about whether somebody has a certain IQ or whatever, but just are they like a good person, that matters a lot."

When Elon Musk beams in virtually for a high-stakes fireside chat with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, the conversation goes completely out of this world. The discussion was packed with massive milestones—from the bombshell that SpaceX is going public to plans for lunar AI data centers and the urgent need for the Terafab chip revolution. Here is the ultimate breakdown of their discussion: 💵 SpaceX has been self-funding and cash-flow positive for a decade Before the decision to go public, SpaceX didn't actually need to raise money to survive. The company has been cash-flow positive since around 2014–2015, meaning its private equity rounds were exclusively held to provide liquidity for employees and early investors. "We've been positive cash flow for quite a long time, I think, since around 2014-2015. And we've been self-funding. In fact, in our sort of private equity rounds, they actually have not been fundraising rounds. They've been liquidity rounds for investors and employees because we give everyone at the company stock." 🚀 The upcoming capital growth phase requires massive funding The primary trigger for going public now is an unprecedented capital expenditure phase. SpaceX is preparing to deploy an immense constellation of over 100,000 Next-Gen communication satellites and construct massive AI data centers in orbit. "we are embarking on a significant capital growth phase where we're going to put in over probably 100,000 satellites, probably over 100,000 satellites, just for communications... And then we're also doing the AI data centers in space, which is another massive capital endeavor." 📡 Starlink V3 introduces a massive bandwidth breakthrough The custom chips designed by SpaceX for the V3 satellites will completely alter global communications, offering 100 times the bandwidth of the current system and slashing latency in half by operating at a lower altitude. They are so large—the size of a small bus—that Starship is the only rocket on Earth capable of launching them, carrying 50 at a time. "The version three is, depending on how you count it, 10 to 20 times more capable than the version two satellite. And there were three chips that the SpaceX chip design team taped out that are specific to this... Which means it's 100 times more bandwidth than the SpaceX's Starlink system currently on the surface. And also half the latency because the altitude will be about half altitude." 🤖 AI and robots possess an insatiable appetite for data Musk points out that expanding infrastructure into space is vital because future AI and robotic systems will demand an astronomical amount of bandwidth compared to the relatively low data transmission rates of human beings. "And the future with AI and robots is actually going to require a lot more bandwidth than we currently use. Because you can imagine like what's the bandwidth of a human? Peak bandwidth of the human is a few hundred bits per second. But bandwidth of a computer can be a trillion bits a second. So the appetite for bandwidth of AI and robots is going to be enormous." ☀️ Space solves the looming terrestrial power plant crisis Building traditional power plants on Earth faces heavy community resistance. Moving data centers into space unlocks unlimited energy generation via solar power ("star power") without disrupting Earth's environment, tapping into an energy source that accounts for 99.8% of the solar system's mass. "It's increasingly difficult to build power plants on the ground. There are very few people who want a power plant in their backyard... But actually if we go to space, we can go far beyond the electricity generation of both. In fact, this is going to sound kind of crazy. But you could actually increase human energy by a factor of a million and still be using much less than a millionth of the sun's energy." 🌕 The Moon is a 1,000-Terawatt compute launchpad While Mars remains the long-term goal, the Moon is the immediate fast-track location for massive scaling. Because it lacks an atmosphere and has low gravity, SpaceX can use electromagnetic rail guns to shoot AI data centers into deep space from the lunar surface, scaling power to an incredible 1,000 terawatts per year. "I just think that we can build a self-sustaining city on the moon faster than we could do so on Mars. And there's also the potential... you can use an electromagnetic accelerator, a rail gun or mass driver. Basically, you don't need to use rockets to do AI data centers into deep space from the moon... We can do a thousand terawatts or more from the moon." 🪐 Mars is the ultimate "fixer-upper" planet Mars is being targeted as a full-scale terraforming project. Due to its atmosphere and gravity levels, warming up the planet could eventually unlock liquid oceans and allow humans to walk around without spacesuits. "And if you warm up Mars, you could one day make Mars like Earth. And with like liquid oceans and life. And where you could walk outside without a spacesuit type of thing. So Mars is, I call Mars a fixer upper of a planet. But it's got a lot of potential." 🚂 SpaceX is the modern-day Union Pacific Railroad Musk rejects the idea that SpaceX is moving into the hospitality or hotel business for space tourism. Instead, he views the company as a foundational infrastructure provider, comparable to the historic railroads that opened up the American West. "We're kind of like Union Pacific, you know. You know, when they built Union Pacific back in the day, people thought they were crazy. Because like, why are you trying to carry all this cargo and people to California? No one's there. But now California is the biggest state in the country." ♻️ Starship's core disruption is 100% reusability The true holy grail of Starship is full reusability, which drops orbit access costs down to the mere price of fuel. Because it utilizes ultra-cheap liquid oxygen and methane, shipping cargo to space will become more economical than flying cargo across Earth's oceans on an airplane. "The fundamental breakthrough of Starship is that it will be the first orbital rocket that is fully reusable... And the propellant we use for Starship is liquid oxygen and liquid methane, which is the cheapest propellant you could possibly get... which means that you should be able to actually send cargo to space for less than the cost of cargo on an airplane going on a trans-oceanic trip." 🔄 Starship V4 targets hourly launch cadences SpaceX's engineering pipeline is aiming for staggering operational frequencies and massive payloads. While Starship V3 targets 100 tons to orbit, the upcoming V4 variant is designed to carry over 200 tons and launch on an hourly schedule. "Because Starship V3 is aiming to do 100 tons to orbit with full reusability. And then Starship V4 we're aiming for over 200 tons per mission. And then being able to launch every hour." ☁️ Orbital data centers are entirely weather-proof Space-based AI data centers are highly practical because they are simpler to construct than communication satellites. Data is beamed via lasers between satellites, and then beamed to the ground using cloud-penetrating radio frequencies that completely bypass bad weather. "The AI data center would be much simpler by comparison. Because it's really just solar power plus radiator... The connection would happen no matter what the weather is. Because once you connect via the lasers to the Starlink communication constellation, the Starlink communication to the ground uses frequencies that are cloud penetrating." 🇺🇸 The U.S. faces a catastrophic "Zero Memory Fab" crisis A major vulnerability in domestic tech infrastructure is that the U.S. currently manufactures zero high-volume computer memory chips. Even with new facilities arriving online between 2028 and 2030, domestic supply will not match the exponential requirements of AI, which is why Musk is aggressively building the Terafab. "there's not a single high volume computer memory fab in America right now. Zero. There's one being built in Idaho by Micron. But that will not reach volume production until I believe 2028. And there's something being built in New York, but they are in, I think, 29 and 30. And this is a tiny fraction of the memory that's needed... That's why we need to do the Terafab." 🧠 SpaceX will offer proprietary AI chips and software While the orbital data center network will remain an open marketplace capable of running third-party hardware like NVIDIA GPUs, Google TPUs, or Amazon Trainium, SpaceX plans to deploy its own in-house AI chips and software stack in the near future. "So if NVIDIA GPUs can be put on it, Google TPUs can be put on it, Amazon Trainium or any other chips that you want to put on, can be put on. We'll also offer our chips in the future and I think we also want to offer our software, our AI software as well in the future." 🛡️ Starshield handles critical national intelligence Musk emphasizes his deeply pro-American stance, highlighting SpaceX's specialized Starshield division as a crucial backbone for the U.S. military and national intelligence agencies. "We have a division called Starshield which provides military communications. And you know, there's some other stuff that's kind of classified, I guess. We can't be talking about that. But we are helping the Department of War and intelligence part of the government. We're a vital element of that." 👥 Executive retention fuels the mission The core leadership bench at SpaceX is defined by extreme longevity, driven by a deep collective belief in turning science fiction into reality. Top executives like Gwynne Shotwell have remained with Musk for over two decades. "I guess Gwynne was, I think, around the seventh person to join the company. And that was 2002. It's just went to like 24 years. And generally the senior executives at the company, you have a very long tenure. I think Brent Johnson's been, you see, over 15 years... because people really believe in the mission, I think they want to stay and they want to keep building it." ❤️ Character overrides IQ in leadership Reflecting on how he has evolved over 20 years, Musk notes that he has become significantly more laid back. He has also learned that a candidate's moral character and heart are just as vital to a company's success as raw intellectual horsepower. "Well, I think I'm probably more chill than I used to be... And one of the things I've found over time... is that like in terms of like recruiting people to the company and having people work with the company, like their individual abilities and their intellectual capabilities matter a lot, but it also matters if they have a good heart. It's not just about whether somebody has a certain IQ or whatever, but just are they like a good person, that matters a lot."

Ming

60,910 views • 3 months ago

🌍 Official Announcement 3rd Global GCV Conference – October 19, 2025 The Global GCV Core Team proudly announces the 3rd Global GCV Conference, taking place on October 19, 2025 at 7:00 PM Philippine Time (PST). 🎯 Theme “Mainnet Readiness: Harnessing the Power of GCV Ambassadors & GCV Industry Alliances” 🔹 GCV Ambassadors provide local leadership, outreach, and education. 🔹 The Industry Alliance fosters real-world commerce and strategic partnerships. United, these forces represent true readiness for Mainnet. 🔗 Join Live on X Space 🎤 Host 🇵🇭 Lumari – Chair, GCV International Industry Alliance & Chairperson and Executive Director, GCV Core Team Ms. Lumari is the Chairperson and Executive Director of the Global GCV Core Team and Chair of the GCV International Industry Alliance. A graduate of two degrees, she manages the GCV Global Movement, driving connections between real businesses worldwide and appointing GCV envoys across the globe, while mentoring Ecosystem Development Ambassadors to build a strong and sustainable GCV ecosystem. She has spearheaded five major global conferences, addressed 25 international events, and trains and guides Education Ambassadors to ensure high-quality, consistent training throughout the ecosystem. 🎤 Co-Hosts 🇻🇳 Mr. Jojo – Vice Chair, International Alliance & Assistant Executive Director Mr. JoJo helps manage the GCV Global Movement alongside Ms. Lumari, connecting pioneers, ambassadors, and businesses worldwide. A seasoned entrepreneur with degrees in Electronics, Automation, and English, and advanced studies in Engineering in the US and Europe, he combines technical knowledge with practical business acumen to drive international growth. He has transformed the GCV movement by translating Ms. Doris Yin’s articles into 40 languages, authoring thousands of community pieces, and writing over 30 GCV songs that inspire and guide leaders globally. 🇨🇮 Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola – Head Africa, Publicity Director Mr. Cherif Abiola Iyanda is the Head of Africa for GCV, overseeing 40 countries, and the Head GCV Ambassador for Ivory Coast, while also serving as Publicity Director for the Global GCV Core Team. As CEO of Tactic Groupe SARL and MiraZat, he brings expertise in cryptocurrencies, web entrepreneurship, and international trade, driving innovation and economic growth across the region. Passionate about education and community development, he has led initiatives such as the English Marathon at AIESEC, organized barter events, and represented GCV in television interviews to advance decentralized technologies. 📢 Keynote Speakers & Introductions 🇨🇦 Ms. Doris Yin – Founder GCV Movement Ms. Doris Yin is the Founder of the Global GCV Movement and the author of the Pioneer’s Handbook. She is a Canadian who holds a Bachelor's degree in Economics from Anhui University of Finance and Economics in China, and a Bachelor's degree in Accounting from Concordia University in Canada. She is a former Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in the USA and is currently a USA IRS Certified Enrolled Agent tax professional. 🇨🇳 Mr. Jian Ping Zhen – Chair Envoy, China Mr. Jian Ping Zhen is an accomplished leader in beauty and hairdressing education with extensive expertise in market training and brand development, and since 2019 has spearheaded Pi Network’s ecosystem expansion in Guangdong. As Chairman of the Oriental Purple Lotus Industry Alliance Management Committee, he excels in market strategy, project management, and forging partnerships that strengthen emerging digital ecosystems. He now serves as Industry Alliance GCV China Special Envoy and Chair, guiding the integration of Global Consensus Value within China and fostering cross-border collaboration to accelerate Pi’s global growth. 🇻🇳 Dao Duc Viet – Chair Envoy, Vietnam Dao Duc Viet is the Head GCV Ambassador for Vietnam and General Director of FDAO Technology & Logistics. A pioneer in promoting the Pi Network and the GCV 314159$ movement, he has built a strong foundation in business, technology, logistics, and digital finance. Passionate about financial education, community development, and digital economic innovation, he is committed to building a sustainable and humane GCV ecosystem based on unity, trust, and long-term growth. 🇹🇭 Mr. Apiwit Noknakorn – Vice Chair Envoy, Thailand Mr. Apiwit Noknakorn is a Thai entrepreneur and innovator with a career spanning engineering, large-scale business leadership, and digital finance. With a Diploma in Electrical Power Engineering, he became Manager at one of Thailand’s largest textile companies before leading a network of over ten companies across diverse industries. Today he heads Thailand’s recycling sector as founder of PA Group 1998 Co., Ltd. and owner of Mai Lamon Café, combining online marketing expertise and cryptocurrency trading success to drive strategic growth. 🇵🇭 Mr. Jerwin Mansilla Figueroa – Chair Envoy, Philippines Mr. Jerwin Mansilla Figueroa is a visionary business leader and hospitality innovator with over 15 years of international experience transforming operations into high-performing enterprises across the Philippines and UAE. As Chairman and Founder of Alpha Tours Car Rental and Transport Cooperative, he drives strategic growth, operational excellence, and market expansion while setting new benchmarks for customer service and efficiency. 🇵🇸 Mr. Samer Sioury – Chair Envoy, Arab Region Mr. Sioury is a dynamic real estate entrepreneur with a Bachelor's degree in Financial and Banking Sciences. As owner of Samer Sioury Real Estate Services and partner in a tourist car rental company, he brings hands-on experience in property management, business development, and international client relations. His expertise in managing assets, building partnerships, and navigating cross-border ventures drives industry collaboration and expands the GCV ecosystem throughout the Arab Region. 🇧🇯 Mr. Letenou Fongang Gidrin – Chair Envoy, Benin Mr. Letenou Fongang Gidrin, Head GCV Ambassador from Cameroon, is a multifaceted professional with a background in civil infography, IT, management, culinary arts, and hospitality services. He has served as director of several small enterprises and currently holds the position of Managing Director at MJ Works, a civil engineering firm. Additionally, he serves as Secretary General of Syndaprocac, actively contributing to industry development and regulatory leadership. 🇮🇩 Ms. Nonny Padja – Vice Executive Director, Indonesia Nonny Padja is the Training Director of Global GCV CT, Vice Chair of the Global GCV Core Team Committee, GCV Global Ambassador, and Head of the Indonesia GCV Ambassador. With over 18 years of experience as a midwife in Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, she now leads the International Love Hope Branch and manages 20 Telegram and 10 WhatsApp groups to support pioneers. 🇻🇳 Ms. Nguyễn Minh Nguyệt – Education Ambassador, Vietnam Ms. Nguyễn Minh Nguyệt is a dynamic educator with over a decade of experience in Eastern medicine, healthcare training, and digital transformation. As GCV Education Ambassador for Vietnam, she leads mentorship, innovative training, and community-building initiatives that empower members to maximize their potential within the Pi Network and GCV ecosystems. 🇹🇭 Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot – Head GCV Ambassador, Thailand Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot leads a movement of over 40,000 GCV supporters. A graduate of Phetkasem Bangkok School of Management with a Bachelor’s degree in Marketing Business Administration, she is CEO of Makro Flower Business, overseeing operations nationwide while mobilizing pioneers and educating merchants. 🇨🇳 Mr. Shi Long Yu – Head GCV Ambassador, China Mr. Shi Long Yu is a seasoned leader with 24 years in the Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, retired as a regimental-level cadre, and now serves as Head GCV Ambassador in China, GCV Ambassador for Greater China, Executive Director of the GCV Core Team for Greater China, Vice Chairman of the GCV Industry Alliance for Greater China, and Chief GCV Ambassador of Hunan Province. 🇹🇷 Mr. Ali Yanık – Head GCV Ambassador, Turkey Mr. Ali Yanık is a retired Senior Sergeant from the Turkish Armed Forces and holds a degree in Public Administration. Since 2019, he has been an active Pi miner, volunteer instructor, and Head GCV Ambassador for Turkey, mentoring the GCV community nationwide and promoting the vision of a decentralized economy. 🇮🇳 Mr. Raaj Sharma – Head GCV Ambassador, India Mr. Raaj Sharma is a dedicated Pi Pioneer and currently serves as Head GCV Ambassador of India. He is also the National Speaker for the Pi Academy of India and has led numerous barter events across the country. He continues to promote GCV education, mentorship, and community engagement to strengthen adoption and unity in India. 🕓 Local Time Conversion 🇧🇯 Benin – 12:00 PM (noon) 🇨🇦 Canada (Toronto) – 7:00 AM 🇨🇮 Ivory Coast – 11:00 AM 🇨🇳 China – 7:00 PM 🇮🇳 India – 4:30 PM 🇮🇩 Indonesia (Jakarta) – 6:00 PM 🇯🇴 Jordan – 2:00 PM 🇯🇵 Japan – 8:00 PM 🇰🇷 Korea – 8:00 PM 🇵🇭 Philippines – 7:00 PM 🇵🇸 Palestine – 2:00 PM 🇹🇭 Thailand – 6:00 PM 🇹🇷 Turkey – 2:00 PM 🇺🇸 USA (Los Angeles) – 4:00 AM 🇺🇸 USA (New York) – 7:00 AM 🇻🇳 Vietnam – 6:00 PM 🌍 East Africa – 2:00 PM Rise Lyrics 🎵🎤🎶 [Verse 1: Mako] Welcome to the wild, no heroes and villains Welcome to the war we've only begun, so Pick up your weapon and face it There's blood on the crown; go and take it You get one shot to make it out alive, so [Pre-Chorus: Telle Smith & Mako] Higher and higher you chase it It's deep in your bones; go and take it This is your moment, now is your time, so [Chorus: Telle Smith] Prove yourself and Rise, rise Make 'em remember you Rise Push through hell and Rise, rise They will remember you Rise [Verse 2: Mako] Welcome to the climb up, reach for the summit Visions pray that one false step lead the end, so [Pre-Chorus: Telle Smith & Mako] Higher and higher you chase it It's deep in your blood; go and take it This is your moment, take to the skies, go [Chorus: Telle Smith] Prove yourself and Rise, rise Make 'em remember you Rise Push through hell and Rise, rise They will remember you Rise [Bridge: Telle Smith] So get along, so get along, go Get along-long get a move on up So get along, so get along, go Get along-long get a move on up And as you fight among the death beneath the dirt (So get along, so get along, go Get along-long get a move on up) Well, do you know yet? (So get along, so get along, go) Well, do you want it? (Get along-long get a move on up) And when the giants call to ask you what you're worth (So get along, so get along, go Get along-long get a move on up) Do you know if? (So get along, so get along, go) Win or die, you'll (Get along-long—) [Chorus: Telle Smith] Prove yourself and Rise, rise Make 'em remember you Rise Push through hell and Rise, rise They will remember you Rise Prove yourself and Rise, rise (Pick up your weapon and face it) Rise (It's deep in your blood, go and take it) Rise, rise (Higher and higher you chase it) Rise (So get along, so get along, go) Rise, rise Special Acknowledgment A heartfelt thank you to Ms. Diana for creating such an inspiring video! 🌟 Lumari✍️ Chair – GCV International Industry Alliance Chairperson & Exec. Dir. – Global GCV Core Team 🤝 Connecting the World | ⚡ Driving Utility | 🔗 Strengthening Supply Chains Pi Network Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷 JoJo-π NONNY PADJA NTT ❤ Eagle woman 🦅 M.Rad Jason Wong_Pi ONE WORLD DIGITAL CURRENCY Việt Pi & GCV Nguyễn Minh Nguyệt Ruengaroon ภูพานทอง ชัยชมภู Apiwit789 LIEN MARLINA 连玛琳娜 Olivier Ndatimana Cherif A.I Samer Sioury solival Art💜" Global GCV Ambassador 🇫🇷 "💜 RAMESH SHETTY Ali Yanık GCV General seçkin dikici Khader Saleh Osamah Salem Samah Mousa

Lumari 🦋

45,181 views • 11 months ago

TOPIC #118: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO GCV AMBASSADORS AND SPECIAL ENVOYS Conclusion of the Pioneer’s Handbook ( updater version) 2025 marks an extraordinary and historic moment in our shared journey for Pi Network and Global GCV Movement. They finally "married " together. From this moment forward, we officially enter a new chapter that I proudly name: The GCV Economy Era With this milestone, the Pioneer’s Handbook reaches its conclusion. This is my 118th article. In Chinese culture, 118 symbolizes prosperity and good fortune—a perfect symbol for closing one historic chapter and opening another. These final words are dedicated to all pioneers, merchants, ambassadors, envoys, and warriors whose unity, discipline, and perseverance made the GCV dream a reality. --- 1. The Origin of GCV — A Seed Planted in China The GCV Movement began in China, nurtured by pioneers with vision, courage, and deep study. In February 2022, Mr. Rong Zhang Bao launched the Pi Network International Seminar, calling pioneers to study Pi deeply, understand its mission, and define its economic value. After months of collective research and surveys, Chinese pioneers established the foundational consensus value: $314,159. In May 2022, Mr. Bao Rong Zhang and I, together with Nigerian pioneer Mr. Woody, launched three international Twitter Space conferences. Mr. Woody's influence helped introduce GCV to tens of thousands of pioneers worldwide, marking the true beginning of GCV's international journey. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Rong Zhang Bao, former community leader in China, as the founder of GCV, Mr. Woody Lightyear, former community leader in Nigeria, as a key supporter of GCV at early stage Their contributions during the early stages of GCV in 2022 were essential. The early path, however, was not easy. GCV faced misunderstandings, attacks, misinformation, and division. My speeches were removed from groups. Leaders became confused or misled. Some pioneers, lacking education, turned toward black markets. At that point, I made a deliberate decision: I stepped back from global expansion and devoted one full year exclusively to the China community. During that year, Chinese merchants contributed nearly USD 10 million worth of products through GCV barter. However, because pioneers had no Pi available in their wallets, many transactions relied on contracts without Pi or fiat settlement. This created no usable GCV data, and eventually many merchants—unable to sustain operations—left the movement. From this experience, one truth became clear: > Sustainability is essential. Passion alone is not enough. We must be rational, prepared, and educated. To succeed, we must: Use partial Pi + partial fiat Build education before expansion Protect merchants as carefully as pioneers If pioneers only demand from merchants, the economy cannot survive. If merchants collapse, GCV collapses. This realization is why I began writing the Pioneer’s Handbook—to align pioneers and merchants under one sustainable economic vision. --- 2. Expanding Beyond Borders — The Global Rise of GCV By 2023, it became clear that China alone could not generate sufficient global GCV data. GCV had to rise worldwide. One by one, visionary leaders emerged: Ms. Lumari Ms. Nonny Mr. JoJo Mr. M. Rad Mr. Olivier Mr. Iyanda Mr. Patrick Mr. Jason …and many others. Strong movements followed across the Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, the Arab Region, Malaysia, Taiwan (China), Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, South Korea, and throughout Africa and the Middle East. Many pioneers who doubted GCV did so not out of malice—but from lack of study or misunderstanding of economic authority. Let it be clear: PCT manages technology Pioneers manage the economy GCV is our responsibility and our consensus authority Those who studied deeply developed 100% trust and confidence. --- 3. Deep Gratitude to the International GCV Leadership Although it is impossible to name everyone, the following leaders played defining roles in shaping global GCV success. International GCV Leadership • Ms. Lumari Industry Alliance Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director, Committee Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, Head of Philippines GCV Ambassadors The heart and engine of global operations. Her discipline, compassion, and execution transformed vision into daily action and became a pillar of global success. • Mr. JoJo Industry Alliance Vice Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director Assistant, Committee Chair Assistant, Global GCV Ambassador He completed the translation and editing of all 106 Pioneer’s Handbook articles across 41 languages, making global education possible. His strategic insights strengthened both the GCV system and the Industry Alliance framework. • Mr. Rad Vice Executive Director, GCV Symbol Designer, Global GCV Ambassador Working under extremely difficult conditions in Iran, he never stopped designing certificates, logos, and charter contributions that define GCV’s global identity. • Ms. Nonny Padja Eagle Woman Vice Chair of Global GCV CT Committee, Training Director, Head of Indonesia GCV Ambassadors My steadfast partner for over two years, leading education, data creation, and ecosystem growth across Indonesia. • Mr. Jason Wong Global GCV CT Education Director, Global GCV Ambassador A voice of wisdom whose articles on morality, mindset, and stability helped pioneers deeply understand GCV education. Additional Global GCV CT Contributors Inspector Mr. Soni Vaji (France) Mr. Samer Sioury (Arab Region Industry Alliance Chair) Mr. Yohanes Helebak (Group Administrator Director) Mr. Ramesh Shetty (Vice Education Director) Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola (Publicity Director) --- 4. Recognition of National and Regional GCV Leadership These individuals sacrifice time, energy, finances, and travel to educate pioneers and build local ecosystems. Their roles are essential. Highlighted GCV Heads, Ambassadors & Envoys AFRICA REGION ( I have another acknowledgement for Africa community based on more than 40 countries) Mr. Olivier Ndatimana — Chief Africa GCV Consultant, Africa Industry Alliance Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, former head of Africa GCV Ambassador, Africa GCV movement founder. Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola — Head of Africa GCV Ambassadors, Global GCV Ambassador, West Africa Head of GCV Ambassador East Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Ms. Herine Makosewe Central Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Tresor Kasereka former South Africa GCV Ambassador, Mr. Alexander Chigodo for their valuable efforts in advancing the Africa GCV movement. Mr. Letenou Gidrin — Cameroon Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Danniel NKALA- Botswana Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Toro Motiki- Botswana GCV Executive Director Mrs. Baikoketsi — Botswana Education Ambassador Mr. KOSSA INNOCENT OWOLABI - Ivory Coast Head of GCV Ambassador ( All other GCV Ambassadors name is on Appendix #2) ARAB RGION MOHAMMED ALADEMI, Head of Arab GCV Ambassadors ,Global GCV Ambassador, GCV Core Team Member, Industry Alliance GCV Yemen Special Envoy - Chair Arab Region GCV Ambassadors Active Team – Jordan & Yemen & Egypt 🔹 Name: Samah Mousa Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Head of Ambassadors And Deputy of the Arab GCV Ambassadors Team, Mr. Al-Ademi 🔹 Name: Laith Ayash Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nazek Al-Zubaidi Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nada Hussein Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Jihad Suleiman Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Fayz Al-Wabr Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Unannounced Ambassador (She prefers not to disclose her name to the public) Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Abdul moneim Hegazy Country: Egypt 🇪🇬 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador & Head of Ambassadors IRAN Mr. Kiavash Kamranian — Head of Iran GCV Ambassador, Global GCV Ambassador PHILIPPINES Anthony Balabat Nierra — Ecosystem Development Ambassador Marlon P. Domantay — Education Ambassador VIETNAM Mr. Dao Duc Viet — Head of Vietnam GCV Ambassador, Industry Alliance Envoy Chair, Global GCV Ambassador Ms. Nguyen Minh Nguyet — Vietnam Education GCV Ambassador Ms. Vo Thi Dien — Vietnam Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador CHINA Mr. Shi Long Yu — Head of China GCV Ambassadors Chong Kai Sun — China former Education GCV Ambassador Huo Long — China Ecosystem GCV Ambassador TAIWAN CHINA Mr. Mammon Huang- Head of GCV Ambassador THAILAND Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot — Head of Thailand GCV Ambassador Mr. Trinarich Thepprasit — Global GCV Ambassador (Thailand) Mr. Phupanthong Chaikhumphu — Thailand Ecosystem Development Ambassador Banjong Wrongnarong — Thailand Education Ambassador Wantana Intrachaeng — Thailand Chair Apiwit Noknakorn — Thailand Vice Chair MALAYSIA Mr. Patrick Chua — Head of Malaysia GCV Ambassador INDIA Mr. Raaj Sharma — Head of India GCV Ambassador Mr. Brijesh Maloo — India Education GCV Ambassador TURKEY Mr. Ali Yanık — Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador Mr. Cuneyt Eser — Turkey GCV CT Executive Director Mr. Seckin Dikici — Turkey Education GCV Ambassador Mr. Bulent Dikici — Turkey Ecosystem GCV Ambassador SOUTH KOREA JinTaek Jun — GCV Head Ambassador David Jeong-- GCV Industry Alliance Special Envoy Chair These are only a small portion of the hundreds of official Global GCV CT members, and the thousands of national, provincial, city, and county-level GCV Ambassadors and Envoys worldwide. (All other GCV Ambassadors and Special Envoys name on Appendix #3) Your certificates reflect your achievements, and your names remain permanently in our records. --- 5. Appreciation to GCV Warriors, Supporters & Even Critics Two outstanding warriors deserve recognition: Mr. Mario Roberto Bustamante ( Argentina) -Independent researcher/auditor Mr. Kim Chong (Malaysia) - Independent GCV Analyst Your unwavering effort strengthened the foundations of our movement. We also acknowledge that some GCV Ambassadors have resigned or had their certificates revoked due to violations of the GCV Ambassador Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct. And also we acknowledge GCV supporters previous contribution. Despite this, we sincerely appreciate their previous contributions to the GCV Movement during the time they served. Thank you very much for your contribution and participation. 👉 Mr . Mayass Ali -Former Head of Arab GCV Ambassador 👉 Eng Hossam El-Din, Former GCV ambassador EGYPT 👉 MR Adel El Kayaal - EGYPT, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Ahmed El Mayah-EGYPT Eagle company , Former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Sasaki manabu- Former Japan GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Mike STA Ana -Founder and CEO TPG Ecosystem Philippines, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Dao Anh Tuan -Financial Expertise ,Director of a Tourism business ,Vietnam 👉 Lois Bonafide -GCV Specialist USA , former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Danny toeh - Former Singapore GCV supporter 👉 Mr Yogesh Kumar - Former India GCV supporter 👉 Mr Pascual Dura - Former Spain GCV supporter 👉 David Gibson - Former USA GCV supporter 👉 Mr Quang Chung - Former Vietnam GCV supporter 👉 Ms Xie San Jie- former GCV Mall Representative China 👉 Lucrecia Monahan - Former Latin GCV Ambassador from Guatemala 👉 Ms Houda Badri -University profesor quantum Economy, former GCV Supporter France 👉 Mr Edier Alonso Ricon - Former Latin GCV Ambassador, Colombia 👉 Alex Nissen - Former Austria GCV supporter 👉 Mr Daniel Chan - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Liangshi - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms Hongxuaner- Former Education GCV Ambassador, China 👉 Mr ISSACK BESTER - Former Head of India GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms ebru Soylemez- Former Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr. Hasan Olgun- former Education GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉 Mr. Naim Ugur Kadifeci- former Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉Solo George - Former Head of Tanzania GCV Ambassador and Africa Head of GCV Ambassador assistant 👉Marcel Dango- Former Head of West Africa GCV Ambassador, Burkina Faso 👉Ado -Former Head of Niger GCV Ambassador Throughout the GCV journey, there have also been GCV influencers and supporters who contributed in the past or continue to contribute today. 👉 Mr Ahmed Garbi - Tunisia GCV supporter 👉 Winnie Law - Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 Christ Tang- Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 George Jiao- China GCV merchant 👉 Yohei Uchida- Japan GCV supporter I have a lot of names which I cannot list each of them, but I am grateful to all of them. Even when some have criticized or challenged us, we remain grateful—because every effort, dialogue, and action has played a role in strengthening and refining the movement such as Pi Man and other influencers. We hold deep gratitude for all pioneers who have supported GCV and contributed to its development— regardless of whether they later stepped away or chose a different path. Their contributions remain part of GCV’s history and growth. We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to: Our two GCV song producers, whose music inspired unity and spirit Producer Manifique, Pioneer and singer from Burundi AMB Kamel -Cameroon GCV Ambassador Our Video Team Director Diana Qian from Canada, whose visual work powerfully documented and amplified the GCV Movement Every contribution—large or small—has helped shape the foundation of the GCV Economy Era, and for that, we remain thankful. 6. Chairs & Vice Chairs — Global Recognition List CHAIRS Lumari (GLOBAL) JoJo (GLOBAL) Dao Duc Viet (VIETNAM) Hong Zhi Wu (CHINA) Samer Sioury (ARAB REGION) Osama Salem (JORDAN) Letenou Fongang Gidrin (CAMEROON) Jerwin Figueroa (PHILIPPINES) Wantana Intrachaeng (THAILAND) Simon Hayyarimana (BURUNDI) Asad Salim (PALESTINE) Olivier Ndatimana (AFRICA) Ganhoumeto Dossou Ange (BENIN) Syed Mehdi Agha (INDIA) Mohammed Najib Alademi (YEMEN) Senzo Dennis Mbetse (ESWATINI) Chegn Mohamed Elamine (ALGERIA) Bernard L Moalusi (BOTSWANA) Agnam Komlan P (TOGO) VICE CHAIRS Jian Ping Zhen(CHINA) Khader Ahmed Saleh (JORDAN) Zavier Fokou (CAMEROON) Apiwit Noknakorn (THAILAND) Abed Maher (ARAB REGION) Nguyen Minh Nguyet (VIETNAM) 7. Final Words — The Dawn of a New Era The GCV Movement did not succeed because of one person. It succeeded because thousands of pioneers united with discipline, humility, and vision. Today: 📷 GCV is coded 📷 GCV is recognized 📷 GCV data is global 📷 A new economic era has begun This is not the end— This is the beginning. Thank you, Global GCV Ambassadors. Thank you, Special Envoys. Thank you, merchants. Thank you, pioneers. Thank you, warriors. Thank you, critics who helped us grow. Today, we stand together at the opening of the GCV Economy Era. With immense gratitude and love, Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Author of 118 Articles – Pioneer’s Handbook Dec. 17th, 2025

TOPIC #118: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO GCV AMBASSADORS AND SPECIAL ENVOYS Conclusion of the Pioneer’s Handbook ( updater version) 2025 marks an extraordinary and historic moment in our shared journey for Pi Network and Global GCV Movement. They finally "married " together. From this moment forward, we officially enter a new chapter that I proudly name: The GCV Economy Era With this milestone, the Pioneer’s Handbook reaches its conclusion. This is my 118th article. In Chinese culture, 118 symbolizes prosperity and good fortune—a perfect symbol for closing one historic chapter and opening another. These final words are dedicated to all pioneers, merchants, ambassadors, envoys, and warriors whose unity, discipline, and perseverance made the GCV dream a reality. --- 1. The Origin of GCV — A Seed Planted in China The GCV Movement began in China, nurtured by pioneers with vision, courage, and deep study. In February 2022, Mr. Rong Zhang Bao launched the Pi Network International Seminar, calling pioneers to study Pi deeply, understand its mission, and define its economic value. After months of collective research and surveys, Chinese pioneers established the foundational consensus value: $314,159. In May 2022, Mr. Bao Rong Zhang and I, together with Nigerian pioneer Mr. Woody, launched three international Twitter Space conferences. Mr. Woody's influence helped introduce GCV to tens of thousands of pioneers worldwide, marking the true beginning of GCV's international journey. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Rong Zhang Bao, former community leader in China, as the founder of GCV, Mr. Woody Lightyear, former community leader in Nigeria, as a key supporter of GCV at early stage Their contributions during the early stages of GCV in 2022 were essential. The early path, however, was not easy. GCV faced misunderstandings, attacks, misinformation, and division. My speeches were removed from groups. Leaders became confused or misled. Some pioneers, lacking education, turned toward black markets. At that point, I made a deliberate decision: I stepped back from global expansion and devoted one full year exclusively to the China community. During that year, Chinese merchants contributed nearly USD 10 million worth of products through GCV barter. However, because pioneers had no Pi available in their wallets, many transactions relied on contracts without Pi or fiat settlement. This created no usable GCV data, and eventually many merchants—unable to sustain operations—left the movement. From this experience, one truth became clear: > Sustainability is essential. Passion alone is not enough. We must be rational, prepared, and educated. To succeed, we must: Use partial Pi + partial fiat Build education before expansion Protect merchants as carefully as pioneers If pioneers only demand from merchants, the economy cannot survive. If merchants collapse, GCV collapses. This realization is why I began writing the Pioneer’s Handbook—to align pioneers and merchants under one sustainable economic vision. --- 2. Expanding Beyond Borders — The Global Rise of GCV By 2023, it became clear that China alone could not generate sufficient global GCV data. GCV had to rise worldwide. One by one, visionary leaders emerged: Ms. Lumari Ms. Nonny Mr. JoJo Mr. M. Rad Mr. Olivier Mr. Iyanda Mr. Patrick Mr. Jason …and many others. Strong movements followed across the Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, the Arab Region, Malaysia, Taiwan (China), Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, South Korea, and throughout Africa and the Middle East. Many pioneers who doubted GCV did so not out of malice—but from lack of study or misunderstanding of economic authority. Let it be clear: PCT manages technology Pioneers manage the economy GCV is our responsibility and our consensus authority Those who studied deeply developed 100% trust and confidence. --- 3. Deep Gratitude to the International GCV Leadership Although it is impossible to name everyone, the following leaders played defining roles in shaping global GCV success. International GCV Leadership • Ms. Lumari Industry Alliance Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director, Committee Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, Head of Philippines GCV Ambassadors The heart and engine of global operations. Her discipline, compassion, and execution transformed vision into daily action and became a pillar of global success. • Mr. JoJo Industry Alliance Vice Chair (Global), Global GCV CT Executive Director Assistant, Committee Chair Assistant, Global GCV Ambassador He completed the translation and editing of all 106 Pioneer’s Handbook articles across 41 languages, making global education possible. His strategic insights strengthened both the GCV system and the Industry Alliance framework. • Mr. Rad Vice Executive Director, GCV Symbol Designer, Global GCV Ambassador Working under extremely difficult conditions in Iran, he never stopped designing certificates, logos, and charter contributions that define GCV’s global identity. • Ms. Nonny Padja Eagle Woman Vice Chair of Global GCV CT Committee, Training Director, Head of Indonesia GCV Ambassadors My steadfast partner for over two years, leading education, data creation, and ecosystem growth across Indonesia. • Mr. Jason Wong Global GCV CT Education Director, Global GCV Ambassador A voice of wisdom whose articles on morality, mindset, and stability helped pioneers deeply understand GCV education. Additional Global GCV CT Contributors Inspector Mr. Soni Vaji (France) Mr. Samer Sioury (Arab Region Industry Alliance Chair) Mr. Yohanes Helebak (Group Administrator Director) Mr. Ramesh Shetty (Vice Education Director) Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola (Publicity Director) --- 4. Recognition of National and Regional GCV Leadership These individuals sacrifice time, energy, finances, and travel to educate pioneers and build local ecosystems. Their roles are essential. Highlighted GCV Heads, Ambassadors & Envoys AFRICA REGION ( I have another acknowledgement for Africa community based on more than 40 countries) Mr. Olivier Ndatimana — Chief Africa GCV Consultant, Africa Industry Alliance Chair, Global GCV Ambassador, former head of Africa GCV Ambassador, Africa GCV movement founder. Mr. Iyanda Cherif Abiola — Head of Africa GCV Ambassadors, Global GCV Ambassador, West Africa Head of GCV Ambassador East Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Ms. Herine Makosewe Central Africa Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Tresor Kasereka former South Africa GCV Ambassador, Mr. Alexander Chigodo for their valuable efforts in advancing the Africa GCV movement. Mr. Letenou Gidrin — Cameroon Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Danniel NKALA- Botswana Head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Toro Motiki- Botswana GCV Executive Director Mrs. Baikoketsi — Botswana Education Ambassador Mr. KOSSA INNOCENT OWOLABI - Ivory Coast Head of GCV Ambassador ( All other GCV Ambassadors name is on Appendix #2) ARAB RGION MOHAMMED ALADEMI, Head of Arab GCV Ambassadors ,Global GCV Ambassador, GCV Core Team Member, Industry Alliance GCV Yemen Special Envoy - Chair Arab Region GCV Ambassadors Active Team – Jordan & Yemen & Egypt 🔹 Name: Samah Mousa Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Head of Ambassadors And Deputy of the Arab GCV Ambassadors Team, Mr. Al-Ademi 🔹 Name: Laith Ayash Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nazek Al-Zubaidi Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Nada Hussein Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Education Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Jihad Suleiman Country: Jordan 🇯🇴 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador – Second Level 🔹 Name: Fayz Al-Wabr Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador 🔹 Name: Unannounced Ambassador (She prefers not to disclose her name to the public) Country: Yemen 🇾🇪 Team Title: Education Ambassador 🔹 Name: Abdul moneim Hegazy Country: Egypt 🇪🇬 Team Title: Ecosystem Development Ambassador & Head of Ambassadors IRAN Mr. Kiavash Kamranian — Head of Iran GCV Ambassador, Global GCV Ambassador PHILIPPINES Anthony Balabat Nierra — Ecosystem Development Ambassador Marlon P. Domantay — Education Ambassador VIETNAM Mr. Dao Duc Viet — Head of Vietnam GCV Ambassador, Industry Alliance Envoy Chair, Global GCV Ambassador Ms. Nguyen Minh Nguyet — Vietnam Education GCV Ambassador Ms. Vo Thi Dien — Vietnam Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador CHINA Mr. Shi Long Yu — Head of China GCV Ambassadors Chong Kai Sun — China former Education GCV Ambassador Huo Long — China Ecosystem GCV Ambassador TAIWAN CHINA Mr. Mammon Huang- Head of GCV Ambassador THAILAND Ms. Rung Arun Maneechot — Head of Thailand GCV Ambassador Mr. Trinarich Thepprasit — Global GCV Ambassador (Thailand) Mr. Phupanthong Chaikhumphu — Thailand Ecosystem Development Ambassador Banjong Wrongnarong — Thailand Education Ambassador Wantana Intrachaeng — Thailand Chair Apiwit Noknakorn — Thailand Vice Chair MALAYSIA Mr. Patrick Chua — Head of Malaysia GCV Ambassador INDIA Mr. Raaj Sharma — Head of India GCV Ambassador Mr. Brijesh Maloo — India Education GCV Ambassador TURKEY Mr. Ali Yanık — Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador Mr. Cuneyt Eser — Turkey GCV CT Executive Director Mr. Seckin Dikici — Turkey Education GCV Ambassador Mr. Bulent Dikici — Turkey Ecosystem GCV Ambassador SOUTH KOREA JinTaek Jun — GCV Head Ambassador David Jeong-- GCV Industry Alliance Special Envoy Chair These are only a small portion of the hundreds of official Global GCV CT members, and the thousands of national, provincial, city, and county-level GCV Ambassadors and Envoys worldwide. (All other GCV Ambassadors and Special Envoys name on Appendix #3) Your certificates reflect your achievements, and your names remain permanently in our records. --- 5. Appreciation to GCV Warriors, Supporters & Even Critics Two outstanding warriors deserve recognition: Mr. Mario Roberto Bustamante ( Argentina) -Independent researcher/auditor Mr. Kim Chong (Malaysia) - Independent GCV Analyst Your unwavering effort strengthened the foundations of our movement. We also acknowledge that some GCV Ambassadors have resigned or had their certificates revoked due to violations of the GCV Ambassador Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct. And also we acknowledge GCV supporters previous contribution. Despite this, we sincerely appreciate their previous contributions to the GCV Movement during the time they served. Thank you very much for your contribution and participation. 👉 Mr . Mayass Ali -Former Head of Arab GCV Ambassador 👉 Eng Hossam El-Din, Former GCV ambassador EGYPT 👉 MR Adel El Kayaal - EGYPT, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Ahmed El Mayah-EGYPT Eagle company , Former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Sasaki manabu- Former Japan GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Mike STA Ana -Founder and CEO TPG Ecosystem Philippines, former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Dao Anh Tuan -Financial Expertise ,Director of a Tourism business ,Vietnam 👉 Lois Bonafide -GCV Specialist USA , former GCV supporter 👉 Mr Danny toeh - Former Singapore GCV supporter 👉 Mr Yogesh Kumar - Former India GCV supporter 👉 Mr Pascual Dura - Former Spain GCV supporter 👉 David Gibson - Former USA GCV supporter 👉 Mr Quang Chung - Former Vietnam GCV supporter 👉 Ms Xie San Jie- former GCV Mall Representative China 👉 Lucrecia Monahan - Former Latin GCV Ambassador from Guatemala 👉 Ms Houda Badri -University profesor quantum Economy, former GCV Supporter France 👉 Mr Edier Alonso Ricon - Former Latin GCV Ambassador, Colombia 👉 Alex Nissen - Former Austria GCV supporter 👉 Mr Daniel Chan - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr Liangshi - Former Head of China GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms Hongxuaner- Former Education GCV Ambassador, China 👉 Mr ISSACK BESTER - Former Head of India GCV Ambassador 👉 Ms ebru Soylemez- Former Head of Turkey GCV Ambassador 👉 Mr. Hasan Olgun- former Education GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉 Mr. Naim Ugur Kadifeci- former Ecosystem Development GCV Ambassador, Turkey 👉Solo George - Former Head of Tanzania GCV Ambassador and Africa Head of GCV Ambassador assistant 👉Marcel Dango- Former Head of West Africa GCV Ambassador, Burkina Faso 👉Ado -Former Head of Niger GCV Ambassador Throughout the GCV journey, there have also been GCV influencers and supporters who contributed in the past or continue to contribute today. 👉 Mr Ahmed Garbi - Tunisia GCV supporter 👉 Winnie Law - Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 Christ Tang- Malaysia GCV supporter 👉 George Jiao- China GCV merchant 👉 Yohei Uchida- Japan GCV supporter I have a lot of names which I cannot list each of them, but I am grateful to all of them. Even when some have criticized or challenged us, we remain grateful—because every effort, dialogue, and action has played a role in strengthening and refining the movement such as Pi Man and other influencers. We hold deep gratitude for all pioneers who have supported GCV and contributed to its development— regardless of whether they later stepped away or chose a different path. Their contributions remain part of GCV’s history and growth. We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to: Our two GCV song producers, whose music inspired unity and spirit Producer Manifique, Pioneer and singer from Burundi AMB Kamel -Cameroon GCV Ambassador Our Video Team Director Diana Qian from Canada, whose visual work powerfully documented and amplified the GCV Movement Every contribution—large or small—has helped shape the foundation of the GCV Economy Era, and for that, we remain thankful. 6. Chairs & Vice Chairs — Global Recognition List CHAIRS Lumari (GLOBAL) JoJo (GLOBAL) Dao Duc Viet (VIETNAM) Hong Zhi Wu (CHINA) Samer Sioury (ARAB REGION) Osama Salem (JORDAN) Letenou Fongang Gidrin (CAMEROON) Jerwin Figueroa (PHILIPPINES) Wantana Intrachaeng (THAILAND) Simon Hayyarimana (BURUNDI) Asad Salim (PALESTINE) Olivier Ndatimana (AFRICA) Ganhoumeto Dossou Ange (BENIN) Syed Mehdi Agha (INDIA) Mohammed Najib Alademi (YEMEN) Senzo Dennis Mbetse (ESWATINI) Chegn Mohamed Elamine (ALGERIA) Bernard L Moalusi (BOTSWANA) Agnam Komlan P (TOGO) VICE CHAIRS Jian Ping Zhen(CHINA) Khader Ahmed Saleh (JORDAN) Zavier Fokou (CAMEROON) Apiwit Noknakorn (THAILAND) Abed Maher (ARAB REGION) Nguyen Minh Nguyet (VIETNAM) 7. Final Words — The Dawn of a New Era The GCV Movement did not succeed because of one person. It succeeded because thousands of pioneers united with discipline, humility, and vision. Today: 📷 GCV is coded 📷 GCV is recognized 📷 GCV data is global 📷 A new economic era has begun This is not the end— This is the beginning. Thank you, Global GCV Ambassadors. Thank you, Special Envoys. Thank you, merchants. Thank you, pioneers. Thank you, warriors. Thank you, critics who helped us grow. Today, we stand together at the opening of the GCV Economy Era. With immense gratitude and love, Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Author of 118 Articles – Pioneer’s Handbook Dec. 17th, 2025

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

17,587 views • 9 months ago

🚨🚨🚨 Who do you think drops the next $XRP Ledger BOMBSHELL? Bank for International Settlements and Brazil went public with XRPL. Here’s who I think could be next, and France is at the top of my list. BIS researchers disclosed an XRP Ledger proof of concept. Brazil’s securities regulator disclosed XRPL-related market experimentation. After those two became public, I went back through the institutional connections and stopped asking whether major institutions are looking at XRP Ledger. The better question is: Who is already close enough to XRPL that another public test would actually make sense? When I went country by country, one place stood out immediately. France. 🇫🇷 France is my #1 prediction. Not because Banque de France has announced an XRPL test. It hasn’t. I’m putting France first because several separate pieces are already sitting extremely close to each other. Start with Société Générale-FORGE. SG-FORGE launched its regulated EUR CoinVertible, EURCV, directly on XRP Ledger. That means regulated euro-denominated money from a major French financial institution already exists on XRPL. Then France starts building out its wider tokenization strategy. Banque de France, the AMF and the French Treasury formed a strategic tokenization group. Look at who is involved: Société Générale BNP Paribas Crédit Agricole Euroclear Euronext LCH Amundi BPCE Caisse des Dépôts Ardian And look at what they are studying: tokenized deposits, stablecoins, wholesale central-bank money, tokenized securities, DLT market infrastructure, tokenized investment funds. That is a serious list. These are basically the pieces you need if you want to move traditional capital markets into a tokenized environment. And one of the institutions inside that ecosystem already has regulated euro money on XRP Ledger. That is what keeps France at the top of my list. Then Bpifrance enters. France’s state-backed investment bank said it will use SG-FORGE’s EUR CoinVertible for: capital-market settlement, payments, crypto/fiat activity, treasury operations, liquidity management, and securities activity. Bpifrance did not specify which EURCV blockchain deployment it will use. But the XRPL deployment already exists. So now you have a state-backed institution wanting to use regulated digital euros across capital-market and treasury activity, while that same euro asset already sits on XRP Ledger. That is a connection I’m watching hard. Then Swift shows up in the same chain. Swift and SG-FORGE have already tested tokenized-bond settlement using EURCV. Swift’s job in that experiment was interoperability. It connected tokenized systems with existing financial infrastructure. The public information does not say XRPL handled that specific transaction. I’m not claiming it did. What matters is simpler: Swift already works with SG-FORGE. SG-FORGE already has EURCV. EURCV now exists on XRP Ledger. As tokenized markets grow, somebody has to connect those networks. That is exactly what Swift wants to do. Then there is Pythagore. Banque de France and Euroclear are preparing work around tokenizing France’s roughly €310 billion NEU-CP short-term debt market, with settlement connected to the Eurosystem’s Pontes wholesale-CBDC infrastructure. Now look at what France has in one place: regulated digital euros, tokenized securities, a central bank, a state-backed investment bank, Euroclear, wholesale central-bank money, Swift interoperability, and XRP Ledger already hosting one of the regulated assets involved in that ecosystem. That is why I keep watching the combination of: EURCV + XRPL + Euroclear + Bpifrance + Banque de France + Pontes. I don’t need to say Banque de France secretly picked XRPL. There is no public announcement saying that. My prediction comes from how close the pieces already are. If France eventually reveals some form of XRPL interoperability work, it would make complete sense to me. That puts France at #1. Japan is #2. 🇯🇵 Japan is different because we already have much more direct language. SBI Ripple Asia completed a proof of concept involving tokenized bank deposits and deposit-based digital money. And SBI explicitly said the blockchain contemplated for the system is: XRP Ledger. That line matters a lot. Because a tokenized bank deposit is not just another crypto token. It is bank money becoming digitally transferable. That gets much closer to the money people actually use every day. Then SBI Ripple Asia announced additional work around blockchain financial services and again identified XRPL as contemplated infrastructure. Then SBI Ripple Asia and DSRV began studying blockchain-based remittances and payments between Japan and South Korea. XRPL was again being considered. Then RLUSD launched in Japan under the Japanese regulatory framework. So Japan already has several pieces moving together: Ripple-linked remittances. XRPL contemplated for tokenized deposits. XRPL contemplated for Japan-Korea payment infrastructure. RLUSD operating inside Japan’s regulated market. The next announcement I’m waiting for is not another exchange adding XRP. I’m waiting for a Japanese bank name. A bank publicly participating in XRPL-based tokenized JPY deposits. Or wholesale settlement. Or FX. That would take this story from SBI exploring infrastructure into actual bank-level participation. And that is why Japan sits right behind France for me. Then comes Singapore. 🇸🇬 Singapore almost does not belong on a prediction list anymore because the XRPL connection is already public. Ripple joined the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s BLOOM initiative. Ripple and Unloq are piloting programmable trade-finance settlement using: XRP Ledger + RLUSD + Ripple institutional infrastructure. Unloq’s SC+ system is built on XRPL. RLUSD can be released when trade conditions such as shipment verification are satisfied. That is a real business problem. Goods move. Conditions are verified. Payment settles. And XRPL is part of the infrastructure being tested under an MAS initiative. Then add: DBS + Franklin Templeton + Ripple. Franklin Templeton is tokenizing sgBENJI on XRP Ledger. DBS is exploring using those tokenized assets for collateralized lending and repo activity. So Singapore already has XRPL touching two very different areas: trade-finance settlement, and institutional fund collateral. That is important to me because it shows the ledger is not being pushed into one narrow use case. Different institutions are finding different reasons to use it. For Singapore, I’m not asking who tests XRPL first. I’m watching how far the existing work expands. Then the UAE. 🇦🇪 Dubai Land Department is already issuing tokenized real-estate title deeds on XRP Ledger. The wider Real Estate Tokenization Project includes: Dubai Land Department VARA Dubai Future Foundation Central Bank of the UAE And the program is moving toward secondary-market resale. That progression matters. Issuing a token is one thing. Building a functioning market around it is another. Once you move toward secondary trading, you need: buyers, sellers, identity, custody, settlement, liquidity, transfer rules. That is where tokenization becomes actual market infrastructure. The Central Bank of the UAE is a collaborator in the broader project. That does not mean CBUAE is running an XRPL settlement system. But it does put the central bank beside a government project that already has an XRP Ledger component. So I’m watching the UAE for what comes after tokenization. If the next phase moves deeper into settlement or secondary markets, that is where the $XRP connection becomes much more interesting. Then Hong Kong. 🇭🇰 The HKMA e-HKD Phase 1 pilot included Ripple and Fubon Bank. The work covered tokenized real estate, lending and a hypothetical e-HKD. Ripple later said the property collateral was brought onto XRPL. Its CBDC infrastructure handled the hypothetical digital-HKD side. Ripple also described the private secure ledger behind that solution as being built using the same technology as XRP Ledger. So Hong Kong is already part of this institutional history. It is not some future theory. A regulator-led pilot already involved Ripple, Fubon Bank and XRPL-related infrastructure. Then there is Swift. This is the one I think people can easily take too far. I am not predicting: “Swift replaces everything with XRP Ledger.” That is not the thesis. Swift has its own blockchain-related work, including infrastructure developed with Consensys. What interests me is interoperability. Swift wants to connect tokenized networks with traditional finance. That becomes more important every time another bank, fund, stablecoin or central-bank system chooses a different technical stack. And Swift has already worked with SG-FORGE’s EURCV. EURCV now lives natively on XRPL. So the question I’m watching is simple: What happens when Swift needs to orchestrate a transaction involving an asset that happens to live on XRP Ledger? Swift’s wider blockchain initiative involves more than 30 major financial institutions. The names include: BNY Bank of America JPMorgan Citi HSBC Deutsche Bank BNP Paribas Société Générale-FORGE MUFG Mizuho DBS Standard Chartered Santander BBVA Wells Fargo RBC UOB ANZ And 17 banks are preparing tokenized-deposit pilots through Swift infrastructure. Think about how messy that world can become. One bank issues tokenized deposits on one network. Another bank uses another system. A fund sits on a public blockchain. A stablecoin exists across multiple networks. A central bank settles through wholesale CBDC infrastructure. Someone has to connect all of that. Swift wants to be that orchestration layer. XRPL does not need to replace Swift for this to matter. It only needs to become one of the networks carrying regulated assets Swift’s members need to reach. SG-FORGE and EURCV already give that possibility a very obvious entry point. That is why Swift-linked institutions are #3 on my list. Then I look at the United States. 🇺🇸 The U.S. story is less about a central-bank pilot and more about what is already gathering around XRP Ledger. BNY is the primary custodian for RLUSD reserves. Guggenheim Treasury Services has digital commercial paper issued natively on XRPL through Zeconomy. Ondo OUSG gives institutions tokenized U.S. Treasury exposure on XRPL. Securitize is integrating with XRP Ledger. Ripple and Securitize also created RLUSD functionality around holders of BlackRock BUIDL and VanEck VBILL. I’m not turning that into: “BlackRock secretly runs on XRPL.” That is not what the public information says. The more useful point is that several pieces institutions actually care about are getting closer to the same ecosystem: -cash -Treasuries -commercial paper -funds -custody -tokenization -settlement That looks much more like capital-market infrastructure than the crypto market most people still picture when they hear XRP. And XRPL itself has been changing at the same time. Credentials help institutions verify who is allowed to participate. Permissioned Domains allow controlled environments. Permissioned DEX allows regulated trading logic inside credential-gated markets. Then you have: RLUSD tokenized Treasuries money-market funds commercial paper lending infrastructure collateral infrastructure That matters because tokenizing an asset is only the beginning. Institutions need to know who can own it. Who can trade it. Where it settles. What collateral value it has. How cash moves against it. How liquidity works after issuance. XRPL is adding the pieces for those questions at the same time institutions are trying to answer them. That timing is one reason I’m paying so much attention. South Korea stays on my radar too. SBI Ripple Asia and DSRV are already studying Japan-Korea blockchain payments and remittances with XRPL contemplated as the blockchain foundation. That does not give us a major South Korean XRPL announcement yet. But it puts South Korea inside the regional infrastructure conversation before a bigger public reveal has happened. If a Korean institution later appears in an XRPL-related pilot, I would not treat it like it came from nowhere. And there is another reason I think more announcements are possible. Ripple already has a history of working with governments and central banks through XRPL-derived technology. Bhutan’s Royal Monetary Authority used Ripple’s private ledger based on XRPL technology for CBDC work. Colombia’s Banco de la República worked on a high-value payments pilot using Ripple’s CBDC Platform based on XRPL core technology. The National Bank of Georgia selected Ripple for the Digital Lari pilot. Palau ran a government-backed stablecoin pilot directly on public XRP Ledger. Ripple has also referenced CBDC work involving Montenegro and Hong Kong. Different countries. Different use cases. Different implementations. But the history tells us something useful. Institutional work can begin inside a controlled environment. Sometimes it uses private infrastructure derived from XRPL. Sometimes public XRP Ledger appears directly. And sometimes the wider market only hears about the work after it has already been underway. That is why I do not look at BIS and Brazil as two random XRP headlines. BIS researchers disclosed a public-XRPL proof of concept. Brazil’s securities regulator tested an XRPL-native DEX architecture. Those are completely different problems. BIS used XRPL around official-data verification. Brazil used XRPL around securities-market structure. Then Singapore uses it for trade finance. Dubai uses it for tokenized property. Japan contemplates it for bank deposits and payments. France has regulated euro money issued on it. The U.S. has commercial paper and Treasuries touching it. The UK has Aviva Investors preparing traditional fund tokenization on XRP Ledger. That spread is what changes the thesis for me. I don’t want one giant use case carrying the whole XRP Ledger story. I want different institutions in different countries solving different problems with the same underlying technology. That is what infrastructure is supposed to look like. Official information. -Bank money. -Trade finance. -Property. -Securities. -Stablecoins. -Funds. -Treasuries. -Commercial paper. -Payments. -Settlement. -Interoperability. Those are not one market. Yet XRPL keeps showing up around them. There is also a reason I separate France and Japan from Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong. Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong have already given us public evidence of XRPL-linked work. They are not pure guesses anymore. France and Japan are different kinds of bets. France has the densest cluster of institutions, regulated money and interoperability projects sitting beside XRP Ledger without a public Banque de France XRPL announcement. Japan already has SBI Ripple Asia openly naming XRPL as contemplated infrastructure, but the next bank-level participant has not been publicly named in the information we have. That is why those two stand out. And Swift sits between them because its job becomes more important as every country builds its own tokenized money and asset networks. The more fragmented the new system becomes, the more valuable interoperability becomes. That is why I keep watching the connections instead of waiting for a perfect headline. One announcement rarely tells the whole story. A stablecoin launch can look small by itself. A tokenized-deposit proof of concept can look separate. A central-bank project can look unrelated. A securities pilot can look like another isolated experiment. But when those pieces start sharing the same institutions, assets and infrastructure, the picture changes. For me, that is exactly what is happening around XRPL in 2026. The strongest signal is not that every project uses XRP Ledger in the same way. It is that very different parts of finance keep finding a reason to touch the same technology. That is the kind of pattern I would rather watch early than explain after the next institution finally makes its work public. So if I had to rank the next places today: #1 France Regulated EURCV is already on XRPL. Banque de France, AMF and French Treasury are coordinating tokenization work. Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Euroclear, Euronext, LCH, Amundi, BPCE, Caisse des Dépôts and Ardian are inside that conversation. Bpifrance wants EURCV for capital markets, treasury and liquidity activity. Swift already works with SG-FORGE and EURCV. Banque de France and Euroclear are preparing Pythagore around the €310B NEU-CP market and Pontes. That is a lot of regulated infrastructure converging around tokenized finance in one jurisdiction. #2 Japan SBI Ripple Asia has already publicly named XRP Ledger in tokenized-deposit work. It has also contemplated XRPL for other financial services and Japan-Korea payments with DSRV. RLUSD is live in Japan. The missing piece I’m waiting for is the Japanese bank name. #3 Swift-linked institutions Not because Swift needs to become XRPL. Because Swift needs to connect assets wherever they live. And regulated assets now live on XRP Ledger. After those three, I’m watching: Singapore for expansion. The UAE for deeper settlement activity. Hong Kong for another regulator-linked phase. The United States for institutional capital-market integration. South Korea for the next Japan-Korea development. And this is why I stay so bullish on $XRP. Not because every institution named here is secretly buying XRP. That is not the argument. The bullish part is that the network around XRP is becoming more useful to the exact institutions that move serious money. -Every regulated stablecoin. -Every tokenized deposit. -Every Treasury product. -Every fund. -Every piece of commercial paper. -Every secondary market. Every cross-network settlement connection creates another place where liquidity has to move. And XRP is the native asset sitting inside that ledger. The bigger XRPL becomes as financial infrastructure, the more important that liquidity role can become. That is the part I care about. BIS went public. Brazil went public. Singapore already has an XRPL pilot. Japan has already named XRPL in tokenized-deposit work. Dubai already has government property on XRPL. France already has regulated euro money on XRPL. Hong Kong already has regulator-linked XRPL history. The United States already has institutional assets on the network. So I don’t think the next bullish XRP Ledger story begins when somebody announces it. The work may already have started. The announcement is simply when the rest of us get to see it. If France, Japan or a Swift-linked institution goes public next with deeper XRP Ledger work, Who says “we tested XRPL” next?

🚨🚨🚨 Who do you think drops the next $XRP Ledger BOMBSHELL? Bank for International Settlements and Brazil went public with XRPL. Here’s who I think could be next, and France is at the top of my list. BIS researchers disclosed an XRP Ledger proof of concept. Brazil’s securities regulator disclosed XRPL-related market experimentation. After those two became public, I went back through the institutional connections and stopped asking whether major institutions are looking at XRP Ledger. The better question is: Who is already close enough to XRPL that another public test would actually make sense? When I went country by country, one place stood out immediately. France. 🇫🇷 France is my #1 prediction. Not because Banque de France has announced an XRPL test. It hasn’t. I’m putting France first because several separate pieces are already sitting extremely close to each other. Start with Société Générale-FORGE. SG-FORGE launched its regulated EUR CoinVertible, EURCV, directly on XRP Ledger. That means regulated euro-denominated money from a major French financial institution already exists on XRPL. Then France starts building out its wider tokenization strategy. Banque de France, the AMF and the French Treasury formed a strategic tokenization group. Look at who is involved: Société Générale BNP Paribas Crédit Agricole Euroclear Euronext LCH Amundi BPCE Caisse des Dépôts Ardian And look at what they are studying: tokenized deposits, stablecoins, wholesale central-bank money, tokenized securities, DLT market infrastructure, tokenized investment funds. That is a serious list. These are basically the pieces you need if you want to move traditional capital markets into a tokenized environment. And one of the institutions inside that ecosystem already has regulated euro money on XRP Ledger. That is what keeps France at the top of my list. Then Bpifrance enters. France’s state-backed investment bank said it will use SG-FORGE’s EUR CoinVertible for: capital-market settlement, payments, crypto/fiat activity, treasury operations, liquidity management, and securities activity. Bpifrance did not specify which EURCV blockchain deployment it will use. But the XRPL deployment already exists. So now you have a state-backed institution wanting to use regulated digital euros across capital-market and treasury activity, while that same euro asset already sits on XRP Ledger. That is a connection I’m watching hard. Then Swift shows up in the same chain. Swift and SG-FORGE have already tested tokenized-bond settlement using EURCV. Swift’s job in that experiment was interoperability. It connected tokenized systems with existing financial infrastructure. The public information does not say XRPL handled that specific transaction. I’m not claiming it did. What matters is simpler: Swift already works with SG-FORGE. SG-FORGE already has EURCV. EURCV now exists on XRP Ledger. As tokenized markets grow, somebody has to connect those networks. That is exactly what Swift wants to do. Then there is Pythagore. Banque de France and Euroclear are preparing work around tokenizing France’s roughly €310 billion NEU-CP short-term debt market, with settlement connected to the Eurosystem’s Pontes wholesale-CBDC infrastructure. Now look at what France has in one place: regulated digital euros, tokenized securities, a central bank, a state-backed investment bank, Euroclear, wholesale central-bank money, Swift interoperability, and XRP Ledger already hosting one of the regulated assets involved in that ecosystem. That is why I keep watching the combination of: EURCV + XRPL + Euroclear + Bpifrance + Banque de France + Pontes. I don’t need to say Banque de France secretly picked XRPL. There is no public announcement saying that. My prediction comes from how close the pieces already are. If France eventually reveals some form of XRPL interoperability work, it would make complete sense to me. That puts France at #1. Japan is #2. 🇯🇵 Japan is different because we already have much more direct language. SBI Ripple Asia completed a proof of concept involving tokenized bank deposits and deposit-based digital money. And SBI explicitly said the blockchain contemplated for the system is: XRP Ledger. That line matters a lot. Because a tokenized bank deposit is not just another crypto token. It is bank money becoming digitally transferable. That gets much closer to the money people actually use every day. Then SBI Ripple Asia announced additional work around blockchain financial services and again identified XRPL as contemplated infrastructure. Then SBI Ripple Asia and DSRV began studying blockchain-based remittances and payments between Japan and South Korea. XRPL was again being considered. Then RLUSD launched in Japan under the Japanese regulatory framework. So Japan already has several pieces moving together: Ripple-linked remittances. XRPL contemplated for tokenized deposits. XRPL contemplated for Japan-Korea payment infrastructure. RLUSD operating inside Japan’s regulated market. The next announcement I’m waiting for is not another exchange adding XRP. I’m waiting for a Japanese bank name. A bank publicly participating in XRPL-based tokenized JPY deposits. Or wholesale settlement. Or FX. That would take this story from SBI exploring infrastructure into actual bank-level participation. And that is why Japan sits right behind France for me. Then comes Singapore. 🇸🇬 Singapore almost does not belong on a prediction list anymore because the XRPL connection is already public. Ripple joined the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s BLOOM initiative. Ripple and Unloq are piloting programmable trade-finance settlement using: XRP Ledger + RLUSD + Ripple institutional infrastructure. Unloq’s SC+ system is built on XRPL. RLUSD can be released when trade conditions such as shipment verification are satisfied. That is a real business problem. Goods move. Conditions are verified. Payment settles. And XRPL is part of the infrastructure being tested under an MAS initiative. Then add: DBS + Franklin Templeton + Ripple. Franklin Templeton is tokenizing sgBENJI on XRP Ledger. DBS is exploring using those tokenized assets for collateralized lending and repo activity. So Singapore already has XRPL touching two very different areas: trade-finance settlement, and institutional fund collateral. That is important to me because it shows the ledger is not being pushed into one narrow use case. Different institutions are finding different reasons to use it. For Singapore, I’m not asking who tests XRPL first. I’m watching how far the existing work expands. Then the UAE. 🇦🇪 Dubai Land Department is already issuing tokenized real-estate title deeds on XRP Ledger. The wider Real Estate Tokenization Project includes: Dubai Land Department VARA Dubai Future Foundation Central Bank of the UAE And the program is moving toward secondary-market resale. That progression matters. Issuing a token is one thing. Building a functioning market around it is another. Once you move toward secondary trading, you need: buyers, sellers, identity, custody, settlement, liquidity, transfer rules. That is where tokenization becomes actual market infrastructure. The Central Bank of the UAE is a collaborator in the broader project. That does not mean CBUAE is running an XRPL settlement system. But it does put the central bank beside a government project that already has an XRP Ledger component. So I’m watching the UAE for what comes after tokenization. If the next phase moves deeper into settlement or secondary markets, that is where the $XRP connection becomes much more interesting. Then Hong Kong. 🇭🇰 The HKMA e-HKD Phase 1 pilot included Ripple and Fubon Bank. The work covered tokenized real estate, lending and a hypothetical e-HKD. Ripple later said the property collateral was brought onto XRPL. Its CBDC infrastructure handled the hypothetical digital-HKD side. Ripple also described the private secure ledger behind that solution as being built using the same technology as XRP Ledger. So Hong Kong is already part of this institutional history. It is not some future theory. A regulator-led pilot already involved Ripple, Fubon Bank and XRPL-related infrastructure. Then there is Swift. This is the one I think people can easily take too far. I am not predicting: “Swift replaces everything with XRP Ledger.” That is not the thesis. Swift has its own blockchain-related work, including infrastructure developed with Consensys. What interests me is interoperability. Swift wants to connect tokenized networks with traditional finance. That becomes more important every time another bank, fund, stablecoin or central-bank system chooses a different technical stack. And Swift has already worked with SG-FORGE’s EURCV. EURCV now lives natively on XRPL. So the question I’m watching is simple: What happens when Swift needs to orchestrate a transaction involving an asset that happens to live on XRP Ledger? Swift’s wider blockchain initiative involves more than 30 major financial institutions. The names include: BNY Bank of America JPMorgan Citi HSBC Deutsche Bank BNP Paribas Société Générale-FORGE MUFG Mizuho DBS Standard Chartered Santander BBVA Wells Fargo RBC UOB ANZ And 17 banks are preparing tokenized-deposit pilots through Swift infrastructure. Think about how messy that world can become. One bank issues tokenized deposits on one network. Another bank uses another system. A fund sits on a public blockchain. A stablecoin exists across multiple networks. A central bank settles through wholesale CBDC infrastructure. Someone has to connect all of that. Swift wants to be that orchestration layer. XRPL does not need to replace Swift for this to matter. It only needs to become one of the networks carrying regulated assets Swift’s members need to reach. SG-FORGE and EURCV already give that possibility a very obvious entry point. That is why Swift-linked institutions are #3 on my list. Then I look at the United States. 🇺🇸 The U.S. story is less about a central-bank pilot and more about what is already gathering around XRP Ledger. BNY is the primary custodian for RLUSD reserves. Guggenheim Treasury Services has digital commercial paper issued natively on XRPL through Zeconomy. Ondo OUSG gives institutions tokenized U.S. Treasury exposure on XRPL. Securitize is integrating with XRP Ledger. Ripple and Securitize also created RLUSD functionality around holders of BlackRock BUIDL and VanEck VBILL. I’m not turning that into: “BlackRock secretly runs on XRPL.” That is not what the public information says. The more useful point is that several pieces institutions actually care about are getting closer to the same ecosystem: -cash -Treasuries -commercial paper -funds -custody -tokenization -settlement That looks much more like capital-market infrastructure than the crypto market most people still picture when they hear XRP. And XRPL itself has been changing at the same time. Credentials help institutions verify who is allowed to participate. Permissioned Domains allow controlled environments. Permissioned DEX allows regulated trading logic inside credential-gated markets. Then you have: RLUSD tokenized Treasuries money-market funds commercial paper lending infrastructure collateral infrastructure That matters because tokenizing an asset is only the beginning. Institutions need to know who can own it. Who can trade it. Where it settles. What collateral value it has. How cash moves against it. How liquidity works after issuance. XRPL is adding the pieces for those questions at the same time institutions are trying to answer them. That timing is one reason I’m paying so much attention. South Korea stays on my radar too. SBI Ripple Asia and DSRV are already studying Japan-Korea blockchain payments and remittances with XRPL contemplated as the blockchain foundation. That does not give us a major South Korean XRPL announcement yet. But it puts South Korea inside the regional infrastructure conversation before a bigger public reveal has happened. If a Korean institution later appears in an XRPL-related pilot, I would not treat it like it came from nowhere. And there is another reason I think more announcements are possible. Ripple already has a history of working with governments and central banks through XRPL-derived technology. Bhutan’s Royal Monetary Authority used Ripple’s private ledger based on XRPL technology for CBDC work. Colombia’s Banco de la República worked on a high-value payments pilot using Ripple’s CBDC Platform based on XRPL core technology. The National Bank of Georgia selected Ripple for the Digital Lari pilot. Palau ran a government-backed stablecoin pilot directly on public XRP Ledger. Ripple has also referenced CBDC work involving Montenegro and Hong Kong. Different countries. Different use cases. Different implementations. But the history tells us something useful. Institutional work can begin inside a controlled environment. Sometimes it uses private infrastructure derived from XRPL. Sometimes public XRP Ledger appears directly. And sometimes the wider market only hears about the work after it has already been underway. That is why I do not look at BIS and Brazil as two random XRP headlines. BIS researchers disclosed a public-XRPL proof of concept. Brazil’s securities regulator tested an XRPL-native DEX architecture. Those are completely different problems. BIS used XRPL around official-data verification. Brazil used XRPL around securities-market structure. Then Singapore uses it for trade finance. Dubai uses it for tokenized property. Japan contemplates it for bank deposits and payments. France has regulated euro money issued on it. The U.S. has commercial paper and Treasuries touching it. The UK has Aviva Investors preparing traditional fund tokenization on XRP Ledger. That spread is what changes the thesis for me. I don’t want one giant use case carrying the whole XRP Ledger story. I want different institutions in different countries solving different problems with the same underlying technology. That is what infrastructure is supposed to look like. Official information. -Bank money. -Trade finance. -Property. -Securities. -Stablecoins. -Funds. -Treasuries. -Commercial paper. -Payments. -Settlement. -Interoperability. Those are not one market. Yet XRPL keeps showing up around them. There is also a reason I separate France and Japan from Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong. Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong have already given us public evidence of XRPL-linked work. They are not pure guesses anymore. France and Japan are different kinds of bets. France has the densest cluster of institutions, regulated money and interoperability projects sitting beside XRP Ledger without a public Banque de France XRPL announcement. Japan already has SBI Ripple Asia openly naming XRPL as contemplated infrastructure, but the next bank-level participant has not been publicly named in the information we have. That is why those two stand out. And Swift sits between them because its job becomes more important as every country builds its own tokenized money and asset networks. The more fragmented the new system becomes, the more valuable interoperability becomes. That is why I keep watching the connections instead of waiting for a perfect headline. One announcement rarely tells the whole story. A stablecoin launch can look small by itself. A tokenized-deposit proof of concept can look separate. A central-bank project can look unrelated. A securities pilot can look like another isolated experiment. But when those pieces start sharing the same institutions, assets and infrastructure, the picture changes. For me, that is exactly what is happening around XRPL in 2026. The strongest signal is not that every project uses XRP Ledger in the same way. It is that very different parts of finance keep finding a reason to touch the same technology. That is the kind of pattern I would rather watch early than explain after the next institution finally makes its work public. So if I had to rank the next places today: #1 France Regulated EURCV is already on XRPL. Banque de France, AMF and French Treasury are coordinating tokenization work. Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Euroclear, Euronext, LCH, Amundi, BPCE, Caisse des Dépôts and Ardian are inside that conversation. Bpifrance wants EURCV for capital markets, treasury and liquidity activity. Swift already works with SG-FORGE and EURCV. Banque de France and Euroclear are preparing Pythagore around the €310B NEU-CP market and Pontes. That is a lot of regulated infrastructure converging around tokenized finance in one jurisdiction. #2 Japan SBI Ripple Asia has already publicly named XRP Ledger in tokenized-deposit work. It has also contemplated XRPL for other financial services and Japan-Korea payments with DSRV. RLUSD is live in Japan. The missing piece I’m waiting for is the Japanese bank name. #3 Swift-linked institutions Not because Swift needs to become XRPL. Because Swift needs to connect assets wherever they live. And regulated assets now live on XRP Ledger. After those three, I’m watching: Singapore for expansion. The UAE for deeper settlement activity. Hong Kong for another regulator-linked phase. The United States for institutional capital-market integration. South Korea for the next Japan-Korea development. And this is why I stay so bullish on $XRP. Not because every institution named here is secretly buying XRP. That is not the argument. The bullish part is that the network around XRP is becoming more useful to the exact institutions that move serious money. -Every regulated stablecoin. -Every tokenized deposit. -Every Treasury product. -Every fund. -Every piece of commercial paper. -Every secondary market. Every cross-network settlement connection creates another place where liquidity has to move. And XRP is the native asset sitting inside that ledger. The bigger XRPL becomes as financial infrastructure, the more important that liquidity role can become. That is the part I care about. BIS went public. Brazil went public. Singapore already has an XRPL pilot. Japan has already named XRPL in tokenized-deposit work. Dubai already has government property on XRPL. France already has regulated euro money on XRPL. Hong Kong already has regulator-linked XRPL history. The United States already has institutional assets on the network. So I don’t think the next bullish XRP Ledger story begins when somebody announces it. The work may already have started. The announcement is simply when the rest of us get to see it. If France, Japan or a Swift-linked institution goes public next with deeper XRP Ledger work, Who says “we tested XRPL” next?

X Finance Bull

23,207 views • 15 days ago