#Defense and Security

[datastring]

Geospatial Solutions Market Set to Hit $2401.1 Billion by 2035

The global market for Geospatial Solutions is expected to experience significant growth, with industry revenue projected to rise from $488.0 billion in 2023 to $2401.1 billion by 2035. This reflects a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.2% from 2023 to 2035.

Detailed Analysis - https://datastringconsulting.com/industry-analysis/geospatial-solutions-market-research-report

Geospatial solutions are essential across a wide range of applications, including precision agriculture, urban planning, logistics and transportation, as well as defense and security. The market's growth is primarily driven by the increasing adoption of geospatial technologies in key sectors such as agriculture, urban development, and defense.

Competitive Landscape and Market Leadership

The Geospatial Solutions market is highly competitive, with several key players driving innovation and market penetration. Leading companies in the market include:

Esri

Hexagon Geospatial

Trimble

Topcon

HERE Technologies

Fugro

TomTom

Geo-Insights

Blue Marble Geographics

SuperMap

Mapbox

Cyient

These companies are at the forefront of advancing geospatial technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and real-time data analytics, which are helping to meet the growing demand for smarter and more efficient solutions across industries.

Key Growth Drivers and Market Opportunities

The growth of the Geospatial Solutions market is fueled by several factors:

Precision Agriculture: The growing need for efficient land use and sustainable farming practices is driving the demand for geospatial solutions in agriculture, enabling better crop management and resource allocation.

Urbanization and Smart City Initiatives: The increasing push for smart city development and urban planning requires geospatial technologies to manage infrastructure, transportation, and urban environments more efficiently.

Defense and Security: Geospatial solutions are playing a crucial role in defense and security applications, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and situational awareness.

Integration of AI and Machine Learning: The application of AI and machine learning in geospatial data analysis is enhancing the capabilities of these solutions, enabling real-time insights and decision-making.

Demand for Real-time Location Data: The growing reliance on real-time data in various sectors, including logistics, transportation, and emergency management, is driving the adoption of geospatial technologies.

Regional Dynamics and Supply Chain Evolution

North America and Asia-Pacific are the dominant regions in the Geospatial Solutions market. Both regions benefit from strong technological infrastructure, high levels of investment, and significant demand from key industries. However, emerging markets in India, Brazil, and South Africa are becoming increasingly important for market growth, driven by rapid urbanization, industrialization, and the adoption of new technologies.

Despite challenges such as high initial investments, data privacy concerns, and integration complexities, the geospatial solutions market’s supply chain—from data providers and software developers to system integrators and service providers—is expected to evolve to meet these challenges. Companies are also focusing on strategic advancements in developing regions to diversify revenue streams and expand their total addressable market (TAM).

About DataString Consulting

DataString Consulting is a leading provider of market research and business intelligence solutions, offering a comprehensive range of services for both B2C and B2B markets. With over 30 years of combined industry experience, DataString specializes in delivering actionable insights that support strategic decision-making.

The company’s expertise spans multiple industries, providing tailored research services in strategy consulting, opportunity assessment, competitive intelligence, and market forecasting. DataString Consulting helps businesses navigate complex markets and capitalize on emerging trends to achieve long-term success.

[mohitbisresearch]

The Europe large caliber ammunition market is projected to reach $1,686.1 million by 2033 from $782.1 million in 2023, growing at a CAGR of 7.98% during the forecast period 2023-2033.

[cacaocheri]

pumpkin carving :^)

[dynamicity-keysmash]

The way I truly have nothing to say about the fact that a journalist from The Atlantic was accidentally added to a top-secret war-planning group chat on an unsecured texting app run by the same people who brought you "but her emails." I'm so fucking tired.

[glaciergore]

so I've been considering two things: crozier's contempt for hickey as a reflection of his own shame, and a privilege of rank being your distance from the violence you enact.

hickey is an unrepentant shamelessness to crozier's guilt. he's the overt brutality of british imperialism to crozier's acceptable, 'civilised' face.

crozier looks upon him with disgust for that, yet is complicit in the same system, enacting similar violence but with the luxury of having people to do it for him.

silna's kidnapping exemplifies this. bringing her aboard was also crozier's (and fitzy's) idea, and it still would've been kidnapping in all but name. sending a party of armed military officers to bring in a lone, local woman (or anyone, for that matter) is itself a dynamic of violence and coercion, regardless of actual inflicted physical violence.

hickey organising his small, unauthorised party, of which he is a member, reflects an inequality in power manifesting as proximity to violence (i.e., boots-on-the-ground vs. command from high). in other words, hickey's comparative lack of power means he must bloody his own hands, unlike crozier.

thus, the difference between the violence crozier and hickey each enact (or plan to) is in presentation, not effect.

crozier neither flogs hickey himself nor ties the noose around his neck. there's a whole system at his command, as captain, to enact hierarchically-sanctioned violence on his behalf, often in very public ways.

meanwhile, hickey accompanies the kidnapping party in-person and kills irving with his own hands, out of sight (not by gunshot, but stabbing and suffocation — especially brutal and hands-on).

although this precipitates the murder of the netsilik family, even that is proxied through hodgson, so I'd argue the only real crozier-like power hickey ever gets is post-mutiny. in particular, when the mutineers kidnap crozier on his authority, without his presence. then, he reverts back to hands-on violence when attacking sol, whom he knows is planning on turning back (a symbol of his newfound authority slipping).

this reinforces a relationship between power/authority and the distance (by extension, comfort) you receive from your violence.

that's reflected in other scenes, such as crozier massaging fitzy's throat to euthanise him while hickey must take a knife to gibson: one of these acts is more overtly violent than the other, but they serve the same fundamental purpose.

the way crozier and hickey are framed, largely as foils, repeatedly draws attention to a disparity between their acts of violence. but, ultimately, both men are using tools at their disposal for survival and personal gain — except their rank and class differential provides them access to different tools.

hickey is the natural end result of the system crozier's complicit in (more than complicit; he commands it, on a small-scale system like an expedition).

therefore, when crozier looks at hickey, he is confronted with the overt and undeniable colonial violence underlying his own orders or mere presence in the arctic. 'you hold yourself to a standard of man you are not nor should ever have tried to be...' it's important that they're both on the floor in that scene — that hickey invites crozier to sit. you're as good as your 'worst' man, and they're talking on the same level.

and that's just it: 'I forgive all of them but you,' crozier says, placing total blame on hickey as again a 'devious seducer' of his men. that neglects how any power hickey scrapes derives from his ability to organise existing sentiments amongst them. they hardly murder the netsilik family on his whim; he ignites their existing hostility, prejudice, and need to project blame for their circumstances.

crozier is still deluded that his men are somehow fundamentally good ('you're clean, goodsir, even as your hand is forced by swine'). accepting otherwise would require him to recognise that any colonialist presence is itself an inherent act of violence against the native populations of a given place.

only towards the end of the narrative (and his personal arc) does crozier finally commit hands-on colonial violence: he kills tuunbaq. even if tuunbaq was already choking, the reason why was a colonial presence. he at last takes accountability for that, renounces his life, rank, identity almost as punishment, or guilty self-exile.

crozier is dead and gone.

summarised: crozier and hickey both engage in colonialist violence, but crozier's rank affords him distance from it. hickey's existence forces him to confront the violence he embodies by just being present as part of a colonising force, and that contributes to his severe punishment of and contempt for hickey.

aka... self-recognition through the other (derogatory)?

[defensive-tactics]

This happens to me, too. Waiting rooms, lobbies, etc., everyone is on their phone. I'm the only one watching what's going on around us. Having your face in your phone is a lot like having your head up your butt. You're clueless to your surroundings.

[pinkydee10]

Moon: Hey I’m back.

Sun: Hey, welcome back you three.

Moon: Three?

Sun: Yeah. You, Jack, and Dazzle.

Moon:…

Sun: They wanted to come with you to pick out snacks?

Moon: *puts down bags*

Sun:…Where are the kids?

Moon: *rushes back out*

Sun: DID YOU LEAVE THEM AT THE STORE?!

Moon: I’LL BE RIGHT BACK!

later;

Dazzle and Jack: *didn’t even realize*

Dazzle: Hi uncle Moon!

Jack: We have picked which snacks we wanted!

Moon: *out of breath* That’s great guys.

[moonsglare]

im feixiao dad brainrotting and methinks modern feixiao would work in the military, maybe she adopts a kid too who like her also grew up in an active warzone and lost their parents. maybe she rescues this kid and the kid is now attached to her and vice versa.

she's definitely making that kid get into boxing when they are old enough

omg this could be an expansion to modern!au feixiao lore… feixiao who goes into the military after college maybe for family reasons to honor yueyu or to become like her. she climbs up the ranks with remarkable speed, known in the barracks for her strength, resilience and courage. she makes a point to always call you when she can, even when she’s on deployment. knowing you’re back home waiting for her is always motivation for her to push through.

borisin territory is always a model of hell, though. she slogs through it, gunblades at the ready, her finger always on the trigger. jets shriek over her head, and in the distance she can hear the xianzhou LUX cannons powering up. it hums in the back of her mind, a low vibration in her ears, and she thinks it’s the worst part about the whole job. but she presses ever onward, like a bullet, cutting down borisin slavers and breaking the chains of any slaves under her heel. each one both breaks her heart and drives her forward, but one particular one has her stilling.

a child, with a shock of pure white hair, kneeling in the bloodstained mud, looking up at her with a look feixiao recognises—a look she remembers.

she swallows, then casts her gaze again back to the battlefield. the borisin are retreating, fleeing with their tails between their legs. the lux arrow sings overhead, then detonates the routing borisin with a dull, distant final note. she moves without thinking, crouching down and shielding the child with her body from the harsh winds produced in the fallout.

she feels tiny hands fist in the front of her uniform, wetness in the crook of her neck, and something in feixiao’s heart breaks.

she takes the child back to the xianzhou base, and they refuse to part from her. even when it came to getting the child a medical check-up, they nearly wept themselves unconscious at having to be separated from feixiao. feixiao had to be the one to bathe them; or at least, pass a wet rag over their skin and face for now since she physically couldn’t get them to let her go to properly bathe them. as the child dozes off in her arms that first night, still clinging tight to her, she leans her head back and sighs softly.

what is she even going to tell you?

she prepares for the worst, but you take it… remarkably in stride. you’re surprised, certainly, but she thinks you can see the bond that’s formed between the two, from the way the child holds onto feixiao when she walks through the airport terminal to you. she told you about it in advance over the phone, of course, she wouldn’t spring something so huge as a child on you out of nowhere. but still, it makes her knees nearly give out in relief when she sees you offer the child a small smile and a gentle greeting. you make a point to not get too close to the child when you give her a quick welcome back kiss, ensuring they get to have their personal space, and it warms her heart.

it takes some time for the kid to open up to you, but it happens faster than feixiao expects. or maybe she does expect it somewhat; you’ve always been good with her. in any case, progress is steady—for the first few months the child only ever speaks to feixiao since she knows firsthand how to handle such a child, but soon they start asking you for little things with one word questions, then full sentences, and then they start really talking to you, pointing out things they notice or asking how things work. her heart feels like it might burst the first time she sees the child take your hand in a crowded mall, and she quickly leans over the tiny tears of joy that gather in your lashes.

sometimes she’s so full of love for the both of you she feels dizzy with it. the first time she comes home to see you snuggled on the couch with the child in your arms, both sleeping soundly, she nearly weeps. instead she grabs a blanket from the wardrobe then cuddles right up next to you both, wrapping you in her arms. this is her family now—hers. and there’s nothing in the world she wouldn’t do for you both.

[local-lamppost]

Maddie and Caitlyn and Piltover

Probably the most jarring twist of the Act was Maddie and Caitlyn's relationship. It seemed very sudden, until you take a look into the few lines from her in Act 1 and realize they all centered around Caitlyn. That Maddie was the first Piltie to 'dedicate her heart' to Caitlyn with Noxus. Maddie likes Vi because Caitlyn vouched for her and deems her 'one of the good ones' because of Caitlyn.

Let's talk about Maddie: she's an average young Piltie. She's Cait's age, give or take, and feels hurt both by the recent Zaun attacks and Marcus' betrayl. Caitlyn is the first person after all this that is trying to do something to fix the mess. Cait's a Kiramman, an inspiration, a fighter, and kinda sorta pretty. Maddie was starry eyed by Cait and couldn't see any problems with her actions or flaws because of this. When given the option to have Cait lead, she jumps at the chance.

Maddie is something of a trick with her introduction. She doesn't have a personal stake like Vi or Cait, isn't there to look after her new buddy like Loris (until told otherwise he is there just cause he is Vi's old man friend); she believes in combating Jinx. Peacekeeping in Zaun with gas and hextech weapons to go after one person, but oh isn't she so cute? Introduced in a halo of sunlight and being so sweet to Vi?

Maddie is a proud Piltie, who feels betrayed by Marcus and the Undercity, who wants to punish them and rebuild her home in topside. And yes, she feels betrayed by the Undercity, she consider's it a part of Piltover one way or another, and most topsider's are ignorant of why Zaunites are so upset with them. To Maddie, these attacks came out of left field.

What's interesting is that Maddie is anti-Ambessa, or at least pro-Caitlyn. You could see this as her being a moderate. She tells Cait that she can withdraw from Zaun and reestablish the council, but ends that statement by reaffirming Caitlyn as their leader, "The Enforcers, Piltover... I follow you". Cait and her military rule makes Maddie feel safe and proud in her city.

Onto Cait. Yeah, Cait's not necessarily using Maddie, but she is utilizing her. She's learned from her percieved mistakes/weaknesses and is keeping her work and personal life seperate. They have sex and talk about the state of the city, but Cait never talks about her feelings with Maddie as she did with Vi. Cait's an emotional person too. She was always quick to express herself to Vi, to Ekko, to her mother and father, to Jayce; but she is hurt and alone and can contribute both of those facts to her emotions (sans Jayce).

Begs the question of why Cait is sleeping with Maddie? But even that is simply her coping. It's her version of Vi drinking and fighting. It's stress relief and a quick way to at least make someone else happy. Cait also likes touch, so it stands to reason she'd find someone in her isolated state (Vi pushed away, father a living ghost, Jayce and Mel magiced away). Also, if Word of God is anything to go by, it's not out of character for Cait to find a pretty girl to fool around with.

Cait's main focus is still Jinx. Her mind is literally shown overlapping with her's. Maddie a tryst for the off hours, and even that's kept to the minimum as Cait would rather work than get any rest.

I do wish we could've gotten a scene of Cait replaying her interactions with Vi (think season 1 shower scene), but instead we have Maddie to contrast their relationship. Maddie is kind of the 'Piltover Approved' Vi; she's a red headed enforcer who loves her city, her council, the noble houses, and Caitlyn. She's safe and she's someone that Caitlyn doesn't have to put any excess energy into. Which must be gratifying for the surface levels of Cait's issues. Vi forces Cait to act better, to look inward and reflect, to consider other people and not just her own hurt (something season one Cait wouldn't have even needed another's help with).

The little detail of Vi not calling Cait a cupcake until episode 6 is also telling. At first it's likely Vi realizing the seriousness of everything, but it could also be that she disapproves of Cait's actions. Cait doesn't have that sweetness in her, or at least isn't allowing herself to act on it. When Vi does call her cupcake again it's not an endearment as it was by the end of season one, but a call out to what Cait has become.

Going forward, what's next? Vi and Cait aren't back together, but are together. They have to fight the Noxians (which was hinted at by Maddie herself) and help with the Arcane.

I kinda want Jinx to be the one to spell everything out to Cait; to tear her a new one. Jinx kept an eye on Vi during her pit fighter era, saw the drunk, broken mess that her sister became; a sister she is now on tentatively good terms with and will likely be a bit protective of after Isha. Something like, "I saw what happened to Vi after you guys split, she destroyed herself like you destroyed the city. I always thought I would be the one to break her, but you did a bang up job! Two of us have that in common, hurting Vi, but I'm trying now. So what does that say about you? None of this was Vi's fault, all she was trying to do was keep you from acting like me, ya know, deranged and violent? Huh, Vi-olent."

So in Act 3, Cait needs to be the one to get a kick in the ass and have that conversation with Vi. She needs to own up to her mistakes. How she was guilting Vi into the enforcers, how Vi was right about her loosing control and almost shooting a kid, maybe even for using Vi's affection for her against her. Vi will forgive her, she's Vi and has the self worth of a pebble, so long as Cait takes accountability and starts acting on any promises to change-again, why a shovel talk from Jinx could help set their relationship in the right direction.

[beepborpdoodledorp]

fnaf fans will look at security breach in the most black and white sense imaginable it’s almost incomprehensible ‘the Glamrocks are soulless AI and Gregory is a poor defenseless child’ ‘Gregory is an irredeemable monster who kills the poor Glamrocks without remorse’ have you considered it’s possible for both sides to be victims. that they can also be a little fucked up too. have you

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Shuham at HuffPost:

EL PASO, Texas — The armored military vehicles President Donald Trump has sent to the U.S.-Mexico border weigh 50,000 pounds apiece and have thermal and infrared cameras said to be able to spot “a little mouse up to a mile out.” That feature might appeal to Trump, who has referred to people who cross the border without authorization as “rats” who “infest” the nation.

Last week, when a soldier emerged from one of the hulking eight-wheelers, armed with a pair of binoculars and a grimace, he briefly turned his attention away from the U.S.-Mexico border. He turned over his left shoulder, looking inward at the United States — and at me. He was one of the approximately 10,000 members of the U.S. military who are now stationed at the border, many of whom now patrol areas where, according to the president, they have the authority to detain civilians. Over the last few weeks, Trump has directed the military to take control of thousands of acres of land along the border in Texas and New Mexico, treating nearly 250 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border as de facto military installations known as “National Defense Areas.” As a result, people who cross the border in these areas are now not only susceptible to charges of illegal entry but also of trespassing on a military installation. This escalation also purportedly gives soldiers the legal authority to detain civilians for trespassing. In short: Trump has issued a hugely significant order for troops to detain people for civilian criminal violations on American soil. At the U.S.-Mexico border last week, I saw what a national military police force might look like.

Arriving At The Border

On top of increased air surveillance and logistical support, there are now at least three massive, armored Stryker vehicles each in Texas and southeastern New Mexico. The Strykers themselves aren’t armed, but the soldiers within them carry rifles, as do others along the border. (About 50 such vehicles arrived at the border in April; it’s unclear how many are in use.)

Four other journalists and I participated in a U.S. Army tour last week, being shepherded around the borderlands in a sprinter van. Beginning at Fort Bliss, we first drove through downtown El Paso, Texas, to the bollard fence that marks many urban borders with Mexico. We passed through the gate, going south, and our van lurched between sandy potholes until we stopped underneath the Bridge of the Americas. For the first time in American history, soldiers have purportedly been given the authority to detain people in the New Mexico and west Texas borderlands on the grounds that they are trespassing on a military base. Though the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, a loophole known as the military purpose doctrine allows exceptions where soldiers are working to further a primarily military function, like guarding a military base. Trump’s recent orders take advantage of this loophole. You might be able to spot the circular logic. The hundreds of miles of new “military installations” along the border have provided the grounds for hundreds of trespassing charges, and potentially thousands more in the future. The purpose of those charges is to protect the military bases. Those bases, according to the military, are part of an overall effort to “seal the southern border and repel illegal activity,” as well as “denying illegal activity along the southern border.” But the trespassing charges now central to that effort would not be legal if the bases didn’t exist. According to the military, these new National Defense Areas range from 60 feet to over 3 miles deep, though the Army has not released maps to make their exact dimensions clear. Analyzing land transfer data earlier this month, a spokesperson for Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) told SourceNM the border militarization scheme has serious implications for anyone driving along New Mexico State Road 9 “who might pull over to stretch their legs and unwittingly trespass on a military base.” [...]

At least so far, the arrests have been carried out by Border Patrol agents, not soldiers. But that could change, especially if the number of unauthorized border crossings ticks up as temperatures cool in the fall. Also, so far, it appears no U.S. citizens have been charged with trespassing on the border installations — but there’s nothing in the legal authorities cited by the Trump administration that would preclude that. These developments are just the latest in decades of border militarization. The United States, under presidents of both parties, has built hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent decades. The Border Patrol recently celebrated its 100th birthday, and especially since Sept. 11, 2001, border enforcement has grown more and more aggressive, featuring high-tech surveillance equipment and thousands of armed agents, the presence of whom — especially as recent presidents have attacked asylum rights along the border — tends to push people into isolated, barren parts of the desert. In recent years, members of the military have served in a support capacity along the border, helping with logistical tasks and surveillance. Still, Trump has accelerated this trend in his second term. Now, there are 10,000 soldiers along the border as part of the federal mission, up from 2,500 in January. And the threat of trespassing charges is palpable. Veteran border journalist Todd Miller wrote this month that on a recent trip to attempt to take photos of the new Defense Department signage, he noticed a camera system on an unmarked truck that appeared to be tracking his movements. [...] Similar boasts about the military’s ability to one-up Border Patrol officers are common in Operation Lone Star, the governor of Texas’ parallel (but unrelated) mission to militarize that state’s border using Texas National Guard soldiers, state troopers and state trespassing charges. That mission has also been marred by alleged human rights abuses and gratuitous political theater. Still, even before the declaration of National Defense Areas, crossings were already at historic lows, as they began dropping during the Biden administration due to much larger forces. Mexico, under pressure from the U.S., has for years moved aggressively to use its military and law enforcement to keep migrants away from the U.S. border. And both Trump and former President Joe Biden dramatically cracked down on asylum rights on the border, in Biden’s case with a numerical cap, and in Trump’s by simply declaring border crossings to be an emergency, and eliminating asylum rights almost altogether. As of last Thursday, the Army claimed it had made 190 “detections” since the New Mexico National Defense Area was first established in April — a minuscule number compared with Border Patrol’s day-to-day work.

HuffPost’s Matt Shuham went on tour to the US/Mexico Border to preview what a potential national military police force would look like under the Trump Regime.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[mohitbisresearch]

The global large caliber ammunition market is projected to reach $6,184.5 million by 2033 from $2,738.7 million in 2023, growing at a CAGR of 8.49% during the forecast period 2023-2033.

[ohnoitsz1m]

Uhh post canon Barney

Man who has not had a break since the rescas and refuses to start now. Alyx and Gordon are hiding his gear as we speak while Kleiner distracts him.

I was sposed to do Alyx too but I blinked and it was 3 am so. Next time

Oh also I forgot to make a note but he does carry a sidearm

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Matt Davies

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 24, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 25, 2025

Today the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, dropped the story that senior members of the Trump administration planned the March 15 U.S. attack on the Houthis in Yemen over Signal, a widely available encrypted app that is most decidedly not part of the United States national security system. The decision to steer around government systems was possibly an attempt to hide conversations, since the app was set to erase some messages after a week and others after four weeks. By law, government communications must be archived.

According to Goldberg, the use of Signal may also have violated the Espionage Act, which establishes how officials must handle information about the national defense. The app is not approved for national security use, and officials are supposed either to discuss military activity in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, or to use approved government equipment.

The use of Signal to plan a military attack on Yemen was itself an astonishingly dangerous breach, but what comes next is simply mind-boggling: the reason Goldberg could report on the conversation is that the person setting it up included Goldberg—a reporter without security clearance—in it.

Goldberg reports that on March 11 he received a connection request from someone named Michael Waltz, although he did not believe the actual Michael Waltz, who is Trump’s national security advisor, would be writing to him. He thought it was likely someone trying to entrap him, although he thought perhaps it could be the real Waltz with some information. Two days later, he was included in the “Houthi PC small group,” along with a message that the chat would be for “a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis.”

As Goldberg reports, a “principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.”

The other names on the app were those of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Brian McCormack from the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe, Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator Steve Witkoff, White House chief of staff Suzy Wiles, perhaps White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Trump’s nominee for head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent.

Goldberg assumed the chat was fake, some sort of disinformation campaign, although he was concerned when Ratcliffe provided the full name of a CIA operative in this unsecure channel. But on March 14, as Vance, for example, took a strong stand against Europe—“I just hate bailing Europe out again”—and as Hegseth emphasized that their messaging must be that “Biden failed,” Goldberg started to think the chat might be real. Those in the chat talked of finding a way to make Europe pay the costs for the U.S. attack, and of “minimiz[ing] risk to Saudi oil facilities.”

And then, on March 15, the messages told of the forthcoming attack. “I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts,” Goldberg writes. “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

On the chat, reactions to the military strikes were emojis of a fist, an American flag, fire, praying hands, a flexed bicep, and “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” “Kudos to all…. Really great. God Bless,” and “Great work and effects!”

In the messages, with a reporter on the line, Hegseth promised his colleagues he would “do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” or operations security. In a message to the team outlining the forthcoming attack, Hegseth wrote: “We are currently clean on OPSEC.”

Two hours after Goldberg wrote to the officials on the chat and alerted them to his presence on it by asking questions about it, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes responded: “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.”

When asked about the breach, Trump responded: “I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?” There is nothing that the administration could say to make the situation better, but this made it worse. As national security specialist Tom Nichols noted: “If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, [the chief of staff] would have been in the Oval [Office] within nanoseconds of learning about something like this.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is evidently going to try to bully his way out of this disaster. When asked about it, he began to yell at a reporter that Goldberg is a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” Hegseth looked directly at the camera and said: “Nobody was texting war plans.” But Goldberg has receipts. The chat had “the specific time of a future attack. Specific targets, including human targets…weapons systems…precise detail…a long section on sequencing…. He can say that it wasn’t a war plan, but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen.”

Zachary B. Wolf of CNN noted that “Trump intentionally hired amateurs for top jobs. This is their most dramatic blunder.” Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) told Brian Tyler Cohen: “My first reaction... was 'what absolute clowns.' Total amateur hour, reckless, dangerous…. [T]his is what happens when you have basically Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials.” Foreign policy scholar Timothy Snyder posted: “These guys inherited one of the most functional state apparatus in the history of the world and they are inhabiting it like a crack house.”

Many observers have noted that all of these national security officials knew that using Signal in this way was against the law, and their comfort with jumping onto the commercial app to plan a military strike suggests they are using Signal more generally. “How many Signal chats with sensitive information about military operations are ongoing within the Pentagon right now?” Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) posted. “Where else are war plans being shared with such abject disregard for our national security? We need answers. Right now.”

National security journalists and officials are aghast. Former commanding general of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army Mark Hertling called the story “staggering.” Former CIA officer Matt Castelli posted: “This is more than ‘loose lips sink ships’, this is a criminally negligent breach of classified information and war planning involving VP, SecDef, D[irector of the] CIA, National Security Advisor—all putting troops at risk. America is not safe.” Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who spent seven years as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve, posted: “From an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of f**kup imaginable. These people cannot keep America safe.”

Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said: "If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen. The carelessness shown by President Trump's cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the Administration immediately." Armed Services Committee member Don Bacon (R-NE), a former Air Force brigadier general, told Axios that “sending this info over non-secure networks” was “unconscionable.” “Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone.”

That the most senior members of Trump’s administration were sharing national security secrets on unsecure channels is especially galling since the people on the call have used alleged breaches of national security to hammer Democrats. Sarah Longwell and J.V. Last of The Bulwark compiled a series of video clips of Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, and especially Pete Hegseth talking about the seriousness of handling secret information and the need for accountability for those who mishandle it. When they were accusing then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton of such a breach, they called for firings, accountability, and perhaps criminal charges. Indeed, Trump rose to power in 2016 with the charge that Clinton should be sent to prison for using a private email server. “Lock her up!” became the chant at his rallies.

Today, for her part, Clinton posted a link to the story along with an eyes emoji and wrote: “You have got to be kidding me.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[sgiandubh]

Americans' approval of Trump rose from 7% to 45% after his meeting with the Ukrainian president.

Let's see what the Europeans will do to Ukraine after the support tweets

NATO is nothing without America, This is the reality.

Dear Approval Anon,

I have no idea of your sources - you should be so kind and come back with substantial evidence, since I was not able to find anything remotely related to what you are so gleefully writing.

[Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/]

I know the troubles (the 2024 bitter Silver vs. Morris pollster feud comes to mind) Project 538 has been through lately. I am merely using this as a very recent poll aggregator, and it is nowhere near the illogical, tragically idiotic 'Americans' approval of Trump rose from 7% to 45% after his meeting with the Ukrainian president' you so confidently seem to tout.

On which planet would a recently elected POTUS start his mandate with 7% approval rate? You do the math, you answer this - to yourself, because you'd understand I am not really interested by your flimsy justifications.

But let's break it down a bit, shall we, and follow the latest 10 day-trend, for the sake of fine tuning - same source as above:

I see extreme polarization. I see self-cannibalization of polls, depending on their Red/Blue funding. I see a slightly unfocused domestic context, in which emotions are not settled yet - and how could they be, since lack of predictability seems to be in fashion?

I could go on and delve into it. I am not going to. I am just leaving these figures here, as a testimony of your tremendous liberty with facts. By the way, your champion is not doing so badly overall (pretty stable even, at the moment), so you did not need to lie like a 5 year-old. You're not helping him and make a fool of yourself, in the process.

However, allow this European to answer your insinuating assertions. Thank you for the concern, I think we'll be just fine. You are perhaps informed that, along with a long standing Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU has a fully operative Common Security and Defense Policy. Both are solidly enshrined in our Treaties and both had very tangible results, already.

I doubt you closely followed the results of last Sunday's London summit. On that particular occasion, the EU has been joined by other non-EU, NATO members, such as the UK, Norway and Turkey, along NATO and the EU Commission's Chairpersons. What we will collectively do in order to help Ukraine is exactly what we collectively did during the COVID-19 health crisis: pooling our resources in order to achieve a common goal. Some will perhaps send troops. Others will probably help with their infrastructure. All will pitch in and fund the defensive support mechanisms. It is in the making. It is going forward, like it or not. I will not further speculate.

I also think you are exceedingly naive to think NATO would not survive without America. It might morph, it might limit its geographical scope or redraw its security goals and means of action, or it might very well be replaced by some other alliance of like-minded countries. It happened before. It will happen again. While it would be regrettable, it would not be unheard of, nor fatal. But ask yourself if isolation is the right path for your country, many of us know and deeply love, when faced with a complex counterpart (I hesitate using a stronger vocabulary, given the recent evolutions), such as Russia. How is this going to agree with USA's Manifest Destiny foreign policy doctrine and its long self-perceived exceptionalism is yet another complex issue I do not have the will to further discuss.

I will simply say this: your view is biased by your own, news' consumer focused perception of Time. You think everything will happen right now, as we speak, because your habitual media outlet told you so. I will probably disappoint you, but diplomatic time is running much, much slower than your perception shaped by endless breaking news moments would ever comprehend.

And remember, Anon: your reality might not be my, or hers, or his, or their reality. The world did not start with Columbus. It will not end now, because of a tantrum on a couch.

[your-fav-is-a-snake]

Sun and Moon from FNAF?

Irony with this one I think you may like. :)

Moon from FNAF is a Sun Snake!

Sun from FNAF is a Moon Snake!