One week ago, three widely respected European news outlets published the results of an investigation into what they described as a "joint plan" by China and Russia to "defeat Elon Musk's Starlink."

The story was the product of a long-running inquiry by The Insider, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde. Reporters at those publications said they reviewed a cache of documents detailing growing military cooperation between China and Russia. The documents covered discussions between the nuclear powers on integrated air and missile defense systems, autonomous "swarm" loitering munitions, next-generation armored vehicles, and military aviation, the report said.

According to the papers, the investigation found evidence of a partnership between China and Russia in the field of space weapons far deeper than either country has acknowledged. One particular focus for China and Russia has been developing strategies to counter SpaceX's Starlink satellite broadband network.

Read full article

Comments

© SpaceX

By any historical measure, the human cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has entered unprecedented territory. Now, a new analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimates that Russia has suffered roughly 1.4 million battlefield casualties, including as many as 450,000 deaths, since launching its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

If accurate, those losses not only dwarf those sustained by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Russia’s wars in Chechnya—they exceed the combined military fatalities Russia and the Soviet Union suffered in every conflict since the end of the Second World War.

​More striking, researchers estimate that Russia’s battlefield losses have become increasingly lopsided relative to Ukraine’s, with the casualty ratio climbing from roughly two or three Russian casualties for every Ukrainian casualty during much of the war to nearly eight-to-one during the first half of 2026.

​CSIS estimates Ukraine has suffered between 525,000 and 625,000 battlefield casualties, including between 125,000 and 150,000 fatalities, since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Combined, the report finds, Russian and Ukrainian battlefield casualties have now exceeded 2 million.

​The evidence shows that while Moscow continues to push offensive operations, it is doing so at an increasingly staggering human cost.

The report, Russian Blood and Treasure: The Ballooning Costs of Putin’s War, examines battlefield casualties, fatalities, territorial gains, rates of advance, and more than 20,000 documented Ukrainian strikes against Russian targets.

Rather than relying on anecdotal assessments, the researchers compiled numerous datasets to evaluate how Russia’s military campaign has evolved over more than four years of fighting. Their conclusion: although Russia continues to wage war, its battlefield performance has deteriorated while the costs in manpower have reached historic levels.

“Russian battlefield costs continue to mount, with as many as 450,000 battlefield deaths and 1.4 million casualties between February 2022 and June 2026,” researchers write. “These rates are astounding.”

Those numbers place the war in a category unlike virtually any other conflict fought by a major military power since 1945.

According to the report, Russia’s estimated fatalities in Ukraine are more than four times greater than all U.S. military deaths in every war combined since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf War.

The report estimates that the United States has suffered approximately 102,000 combat fatalities across every major conflict fought over the past 80 years since World War II. Russia, by comparison, is estimated to have suffered as many as 450,000 battlefield deaths in Ukraine alone in just over four years.

The comparison is even more extraordinary when viewed through Russia’s own military history. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 14,000 to 16,000 troops during its decade-long war in Afghanistan. Russia’s First and Second Chechen Wars claimed between 12,000 and 25,000 military fatalities.

​Even when combined with every other Soviet and Russian military intervention since 1950—including Georgia, Syria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and earlier fighting in Ukraine before 2022—the total remains dramatically below the losses estimated in the current war.

​According to the CSIS analysis, Russian battlefield deaths in Ukraine are now more than nine times greater than all Soviet and Russian military fatalities in other conflicts since World War II combined.

Significantly, the casualty imbalance between Russia and Ukraine continues to widen.

For much of the conflict, researchers estimate Russia suffered between two and three casualties for every Ukrainian casualty. However, by early 2026, that ratio had nearly quadrupled to approximately 8:1, reflecting mounting Russian losses while Ukraine increasingly leveraged defensive positions and new technologies to inflict disproportionate damage.

​Combined, both sides have now endured more than two million casualties, underscoring the extraordinary scale of Europe’s largest land war since World War II.

The report identifies several reasons for Russia’s escalating losses. Russian commanders have increasingly relied on attritional tactics that send small, often poorly trained infantry squads forward to probe Ukrainian positions, supported by artillery, glide bombs, first-person-view drones, and armored vehicles.

If Ukrainian defenders reveal their positions by opening fire, those locations are identified, mapped, and then targeted with artillery, FPV drones, and glide bombs before additional Russian forces press the attack.

According to the report, the strategy has inflicted staggering casualties while producing only incremental territorial gains.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has spent years constructing dense defensive belts consisting of trenches, minefields, anti-tank obstacles known as “dragon’s teeth,” artillery positions, and increasingly sophisticated drone networks.

​According to the report, the battlefield has effectively become a vast “kill zone” stretching roughly 12 to 25 miles from the front, where soldiers and vehicles are under near-constant surveillance from drones capable of detecting and directing attacks against almost any movement.

​Estimates cited in the report suggest that more than 90 percent of Russian casualties may now result from drone attacks rather than traditional infantry engagements, showing how unmanned systems have radically changed the battlefield.

​AI-enabled drones capable of autonomous target identification and terminal guidance provide further increased Ukraine’s defensive advantages while reducing the effectiveness of Russian electronic warfare.

Critically, this tremendous human cost has not translated into rapid military gains.

CSIS found that Russian offensives around key cities such as Kostiantynivka, Pokrovsk, and Sloviansk have advanced at average rates of only about 55 to 100 yards per day—roughly half the length of a football field on a good day and among the slowest offensive rates recorded in modern warfare.

​The researchers compare these advances to the infamous Battle of the Somme during World War I, one of history’s most attritional campaigns, while noting that Russia’s early invasion advances in 2022 moved between 30 and 100 times faster than current operations.

Perhaps even more telling, the report notes that Russia’s territorial gains have begun moving in the opposite direction. After years of incremental advances, Russian-controlled territory actually shrank during April and May 2026, marking the first monthly net territorial losses since 2024. Ukrainian counteroffensives reclaimed roughly 155 square miles during the spring, suggesting Russia’s immense expenditure of manpower is producing diminishing strategic returns.

The staggering casualty figures raise questions about Russia’s ability to sustain its current strategy indefinitely.

Researchers estimate Russia is currently suffering between 30,000 and 34,000 battlefield casualties each month, while recruiting roughly 27,000 new soldiers monthly. If those estimates are accurate, Moscow may now be losing personnel faster than it can replace them, continuing to strain an already strained wartime economy.

Despite these staggering losses, the report concludes that neither side appears close to military collapse. Russia retains considerable manpower reserves and continues operating a wartime economy capable of sustaining prolonged combat.

In a June 28 speech to the ruling United Russia Party Congress, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to project strength, insisting that Russia had the resources, political will, and national unity needed to pursue the war. He also rejected the idea that Western pressure could force a strategic defeat, claiming Ukrainian forces were retreating across the front, and framing Russian victory as equally inevitable and essential to the country’s core interests.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has demonstrated an ability to impose disproportionate costs through defensive tactics, long-range strikes, and rapidly evolving drone technologies that continue to reshape modern warfare.

Ultimately, this suggests the war remains locked in a brutal contest of attrition with no clear military end in sight. Although both sides continue adapting their tactics and technologies, neither has demonstrated the ability to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

As long as the conflict continues under these conditions, the report suggests the human toll—already unprecedented in post-World War II Europe—is likely to continue climbing, with both Russia and Ukraine facing the prospect of hundreds of thousands more casualties before the fighting ultimately ends.

“The war in Ukraine heavily favors the defender, a dynamic that has frustrated Russian offensives but also constrained Ukrainian counterattacks,” researchers write. “As the data in this analysis shows, Russia’s progress on the battlefield has been historically poor, with Russian casualties, fatalities, and average rates of advance among the worst of any major power in any war since World War II.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

The agency is seeking novel concepts to restore critical satellite services within hours or weeks

The post DARPA to explore ways to rapidly rebuild satellite networks if attacked appeared first on SpaceNews.

Against its own will, Ukraine is involved in the largest war in Europe since World War Two. And

The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.

The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.

Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.

Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.

Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.

“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”

A Space Treaty Born From the Cold War

The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.

Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.

For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.

Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firms launch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.

Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.

Space Has Always Been a Military Domain

A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.

The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.

They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weapons experiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”

In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.

The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.

The Commercial Space Revolution Creates New Questions

The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.

Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.

This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.

As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.

The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.

A Forthcoming Lunar Land Rush?

One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.

Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.

That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.

The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.

Rethinking Humanity’s Relationship With Space

Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.

The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.

Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.

“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

Numerous UFO sightings, particularly near nuclear sites, raise questions about their purpose. Some suggest these crafts harvest energy from power stations, connecting spiritual dimensions with our physical realm. Historical data supports a correlation between UFOs and nuclear facilities, leading to speculation about their energy needs and where they come from.

Congresswoman Anna Luna chaired a US Congress committee hearing, where witnesses testified on secret UAP encounters and advanced technologies. The discourse highlighted that UFOs are real and potentially may be covert military technology. Definitely some are spiritual phenomena, suggesting a great deception underlying these experiences.

Tucker Carlson correctly stated that modern so-called aliens are just demons, which are described in the Old Testament of the Bible. These same demons are still around. They haven't gone anywhere. And there are many who worship them seeking after power and wealth, believing their deceptive promises.

WEF advisor Yuval Harari exposes the globalist elite’s fatal hypocrisy. The existential risk is an AI that perfectly mirrors the values of its creators—a system built on centralized control, unaccountable power, and justified deception. And without Christ all humans are subject to evil satanic forces.

The world was created with perfect laws, but it does not mean that God had not planned a future that would be "messy". It has to be messy because idealized automatons do not grow and flourish in a perfect environment. Only through the pain and suffering do people come to know their Creator.

In the current war over truth, governments are enacting laws to control speech and push their agendas. This spiritual war, centuries old, involves fighting deception and lies with the truth of God's word, not violence. The battle rages on against the rise of a one world government.