jili super ace demo

Bishop’s three knocks signify reopening of Notre Dame five years after blaze

SINGAPORE: Two undersea fibre-optic communications cables in the Baltic Sea were severed within 48 hours of each other in November. Europe is on alert, with suspicions surrounding Russia’s involvement. For many, this was a clarion call over the threat of hybrid warfare and a reminder of the vulnerability of undersea cable networks – something the Asia Pacific knows all too well, as home to one of the world’s greatest concentrations of undersea cables. But determining whether the Baltic Sea incidents are part of a wider Russian hybrid warfare campaign linked to the Ukraine war is less straightforward. This is not helped by the fact that there is much ambiguity about what hybrid warfare means. Hybrid strategies seek to combine individual tools that can be potent on their own but achieve exponentially greater effects when employed together. Ultimately, hybrid warfare is an amorphous term, and like cuisine, each actor’s version has its own unique flavour – and recipe. Western analysts often label Russia’s actions as hybrid warfare. However, it is not a term used by the Russians. Rather, it operates under the framework of New Generation Warfare, which blends various instruments, specifically of a non-military nature, to achieve objectives. GUILTY BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT? Regardless of what it is called, Russia has placed greater reliance on its unconventional toolkit to gain inroads in the Ukraine war. Despite recent territorial gains in east Ukraine, its military is far from achieving a decisive breakthrough, tying down a significant portion of its conventional fighting force. Indeed, when one considers the wider spate of sabotage and disinformation activities against NATO countries, and Russian efforts to gain influence in the Global South through information operations, the shades of a broader hybrid strategy begin to emerge, designed to erode Western cohesion and support for Ukraine. The result is a two-pronged assault in both the political and military spheres that could potentially cripple Ukraine’s war effort. Nonetheless, while it is clear that Russia is waging some form of hybrid warfare against Ukraine, and by extension its Western allies, it does not necessarily mean that the cable incidents were part of it. Russia is not even the only possible culprit, given the likelihood that the damage was caused by a Chinese vessel, the Yi Peng 3 , which tracking sites said had sailed over the cables around the time they were cut. A similar incident occurred in October 2023, when two undersea cables and a gas pipeline were damaged by the trailing anchor of a Chinese vessel. Despite initial denials of responsibility, Chinese authorities acknowledged 10 months later that Hong Kong-flagged ship NewNew Polar Bear caused the damage by accident. Unfortunately, without perpetual surveillance, it is difficult to establish intentionality, or even attribution, in such incidents. And given the stakes involved, states are unlikely to risk escalation unless guilt can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. AN EMERGING VECTOR OF THREAT Given the vastness of the Earth’s oceans, and the sheer number of undersea cables, securing the global network in its entirety is impossible. Furthermore, many cables run through international waters, where there is no effective regime to hold potential culprits accountable. Undersea cables are vital to the functioning of the internet, and while it cannot be conclusively proven that the cable incidents in the Baltic Sea were malicious, they provide a glimpse of how similar acts of sabotage could be employed as part of a hybrid strategy. For example, in 2023, two undersea cables connecting Taiwan with its Matsu islands were cut by Chinese non-naval vessels, disconnecting 14,000 people from the internet for 50 days. While there was no evidence that this was a deliberate act on China’s part, it is not hard to see how such an incident might support military operations in the event of war. The Asia Pacific and its many cables is a fertile hunting ground for would-be hybrid actors. For example, the Straits of Malacca is a critical chokepoint for the region’s undersea cables, responsible for providing data connection between Asia, India, the Middle East and Europe, and with its relatively shallow waters, run a high risk of incidents. Should an incident occur there, the impact on regional connectivity would be significant. HOW TO FIGHT HYBRID WARFARE? While there are no easy solutions, several measures can be adopted to mitigate the threat. The first is for the international community to establish a working regime that governs responses to undersea cable sabotage, and to strengthen multilateral monitoring and repair capabilities. The undersea cable ecosystem is after all a shared global resource. The second is for states to build communications resilience, acquiring backup sources for internet services and essential communications networks, such as satellite-based and microwave systems, and local fibre-optic networks. While such options provide only a fraction of the connectivity afforded by undersea cables, they will help partially alleviate the impact of a communications blackout. Finally, borrowing from the hybrid warfare playbook, countermeasures can be adopted in other areas to deter potential sabotage – by addressing key vulnerabilities to strengthen overall resilience, a potential target becomes less attractive for hybrid actors to act against. For example, building social cohesion would allow a country to weather the effects of an incident, while a strong military provides an essential backstop against opportunistic attacks. After all, if hybrid warfare represents a holistic form of attack, the defence must be just as expansive. Ian Li is an Associate Research Fellow with the Military Studies Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).A group of veterans who played key roles in the private evacuation of thousands of Americans from Afghanistan in 2021 spoke out in defense of Pete Hegseth , President-elect Donald Trump 's defense secretary pick. Hegseth's nomination has come under heavy scrutiny, putting into question the viability of him passing the Senate. Several leading veterans have come to his defense, including former Force Recon Marine Chad Robichaux. WHAT MAGA AND THE GOP WILL LOOK LIKE IN A POST-TRUMP ERA Robichaux's and his team evacuated over 17,000 people in the wake of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, an act recognized by Congress. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, he threw his full support behind Hegseth. He took particular aim at senators hesitant on voting for his confirmation, hitting them for not being hesitant when confirming current Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. HOW TRUMP COULD IMPACT THE PENTAGON "That's the same Senate that's saying that [Hegseth] maybe had a few too many drinks, or whatever he did, is the same one that was silent when [Austin] left Americans behind, and when I say left Americans behind — thousands of Americans behind, in Afghanistan, when he left thousands of Americans stranded in Africa when he left thousands of Americans stranded in Ukraine," he said. Robichaux said that he had seen a groundswell of support for Hegseth, among groups previously apolitical. "There is a huge push from the military . Well, I've never seen this before," he said. "I've been around the military for 30 years. I've never seen [people] in the Marine Corps for four years, putting on social media who they want to be their secretary of defense. Most of the time, they don't even know who their secretary of defense is." "Everyone wants him in, mainly because he doesn't have a star," Robichaux said, referring to generals' stars. BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS, AND UNIONS TRY TO ‘TRUMP-PROOF SCIENCE’ He argued that generals were too separated from the regular troops to carry out their mission effectively, and that soldiers preferred one of their own. "Pete doesn't have to doesn't have to have lead at a strategic level. He doesn't have to have a star. He's a leader. He's he's got the right vision," Robichaux said. "And when he sits in this situation room and the nation needs him to make a decision, he's not going to do it in a silo." "He's going to be surrounded by the right people to make the right decision, to do their jobs, and that's very important for the American people to understand. He's not a Fox News host. He's a guy that served his country and in combat twice, Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) echoed this sentiment, praising Hegseth's qualifications while bashing Austin. “Pete Hegseth is exactly the kind of leader we need as Secretary of Defense. He’s a combat veteran who’s led men in battle, holds degrees from Princeton and Harvard, and has the courage to take on the root causes of our military recruitment crisis, like the destructive and divisive focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion," he told the Washington Examiner. TRUMP’S ‘NO TAXES ON OVERTIME’ PROPOSAL: WHAT TO KNOW Mills put the full blame of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on Austin, over which he filed articles of impeachment against him. "I filed articles of impeachment against Austin for his dereliction of duty because leadership matters. When Austin failed to do his job, veterans like myself who stepped in to rescue American families left behind. Pete Hegseth’s leadership, integrity, and experience are exactly what this nation needs to restore accountability and strength to the Department of Defense," he concluded. Benghazi contractor Mark "Oz" Geist also lent his support to Hegseth. "As a warfighter, Pete Hegseth stands out because he gets what it takes to win on the battlefield—he’s lived it. His firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan means he understands the realities of combat, the importance of morale, and the need for a lethal, well-trained force ready to fight and win," he told the Washington Examiner in a statement. Geist contrasted Hegseth to Austin, arguing that Austin's focus had been on "bureaucracy and social agendas" to the detriment of combat effectiveness. "He knows that strength, clarity of purpose, and a no-nonsense approach are what it takes to dominate any adversary, making him a leader who would ensure the military is always ready for the next fight," he said. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER After former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz dropped out as Trump’s attorney general nomination, the primary target of scrutiny landed on Hegseth. Reports emerged of past sexual assault allegations, financial mismanagement, and a drinking on the job. On Sunday the New Yorker published an article based on a whistleblower’s seven-page report detailing numerous allegations against Hegseth while he served as the president of Concerned Veterans for America from 2013 to 2016. He's pushed against the allegations, but promised Senators that he wouldn't drink if confirmed for the post. Trump’s team has publicly stood by him, decrying the accusations as false and politically motivated.

AB gov’t attacks the rights of citizens on several fronts during fall legislative session