1. Executive Summary

The global threat landscape during the reporting period of July 6 to July 12, 2026, is characterized by a rapid and highly volatile destabilization of the Middle Eastern security architecture, the definitive culminating phase of protracted conventional land warfare in Eastern Europe, and the sophisticated expansion of state-sponsored grey-zone coercion across the Indo-Pacific theater. The most strategically significant development of the reporting week is the total collapse of the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This collapse has triggered an immediate resumption of high-intensity kinetic strikes across the Persian Gulf, centering specifically on the strategic maritime chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz.¹ This escalation threatens to unravel regional maritime security frameworks entirely, disrupting global hydrocarbon logistics and drawing direct, kinetic military participation from allied Gulf States.³

Simultaneously, in the European theater, the Russia-Ukraine War has transitioned into a phase of extreme tactical attrition, heavily favoring defensive depth and asymmetric maritime operations. Russian offensive ground operations have demonstrably culminated, yielding mathematically negligible territorial gains compared to the preceding year. In response, Ukrainian forces have successfully shifted their operational center of gravity toward maritime area denial and deep-strike logistics interdiction, specifically isolating the Sea of Azov and neutralizing energy infrastructure within occupied Crimea.⁵ Parallel to these kinetic operations, Russian state-sponsored cyber actors, including elements affiliated with the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), have intensified hybrid operations targeting European critical infrastructure, commercial communications, and operational technology (OT) systems, indicating a sustained and asymmetric campaign designed to systematically test the resilience of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).⁷

The Indo-Pacific theater continues to exhibit a highly calibrated, incremental increase in grey-zone provocations initiated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Beijing’s strategic deployment of dual-use research vessels, maritime militias, and permanent China Coast Guard (CCG) patrols around both the island of Taiwan and the contested shoals of the South China Sea demonstrates a calculated strategy of normalization through persistence.⁹ This approach effectively lowers the threshold for escalation and establishes de facto jurisdictional control while remaining deliberately below the threshold of direct conventional military conflict. Concurrent interoperability exercises and diplomatic signaling between the PRC, the Russian Federation, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) highlight the consolidation of an authoritarian strategic axis, aimed explicitly at dividing allied defense postures and complicating extended deterrence in Northeast Asia.¹³

Sub-Saharan Africa continues to face severe, compounding security, political, and epidemiological crises. The civil war in Sudan is experiencing a dangerous phase of complex internationalization, evidenced by the direct kinetic involvement of foreign proxy contingents and the systemic deployment of advanced drone warfare by multiple belligerents.¹⁴ Concurrently, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is forced to navigate the dual pressures of an expanding, foreign-backed M23 insurgency and an unprecedented, rapidly spreading outbreak of the Bundibugyo Ebola variant.¹⁶ Across all monitored theaters, both state and non-state actors are increasingly and seamlessly blending conventional kinetic operations with asymmetric, cyber, and economic warfare, rendering the traditional doctrinal distinction between peace and conflict functionally obsolete.

2. Regional Conflict Breakdowns

Europe/Eurasia

Conflict/Threat Name: Russia-Ukraine War

Weekly Key Events: The tactical realities on the ground in Ukraine demonstrate a severe and structural degradation of Russian offensive momentum. Comprehensive analysis of the spring-summer 2026 offensive indicates a systemic failure by Russian forces to achieve operationally significant breakthroughs or exploit tactical successes. Open-source intelligence and geolocated battle damage assessments reveal that during June 2026, Russian forces seized or infiltrated a mere 30.42 square kilometers, advancing at a highly diminished average pace of 1.01 square kilometers per day.¹⁸ This represents a fractional output of their operational capacity from the previous year. For comparative context, Russian forces seized 481.25 square kilometers in June 2025 at a rate of 16.04 square kilometers per day.¹⁸

The aggregate territorial acquisition for the first half of 2026 stands at 622.60 square kilometers, which constitutes only 28.43 percent of the 2189.87 square kilometers captured during the corresponding six-month period in 2025.¹⁸ Current Russian territorial gains are largely restricted to slow, high-cost, and attritional tactical advances in the urban environs near Kostyantynivka in the Donetsk Oblast.¹⁸ Additionally, Russian forces have made minor advances north of Kharkiv City in a continued, yet stalled, attempt to push Ukrainian forces back from the international border to create a defensible buffer zone shielding the Belgorod Oblast from tube artillery range.¹⁹

The severe deceleration of Russian ground operations is directly correlated with highly targeted Ukrainian counter-logistics and counter-artillery campaigns. According to public statements from Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi on July 10, Ukrainian forces have actively reduced the Russian advance rate by more than half over the past six months, inflicting an estimated 32,000 casualties.⁸ Syrskyi also noted that the ratio of Ukrainian to Russian infantry assaults has stabilized at roughly 40 to 60.⁸ Furthermore, Ukrainian forces completed a highly successful second phase of “Operation Auchan” in June 2026, a specialized operational maneuver specifically designed to dismantle Russian offensive artillery capabilities and disrupt forward ammunition depots.¹⁹ The commander of the Ukrainian 1st Separate Assault Regiment, Dmitry “Perun” Filatov, reported a threefold increase in intermediate-range strikes against occupied territories over the past two months.⁸ This intermediate-range strike campaign continues to successfully strangle Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) in the southern Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, forcing Russian infantry to increasingly rely on unprotected light vehicles for maneuverability due to mounting armored vehicle shortages.⁸

In the maritime domain, Ukraine has initiated a highly effective, asymmetric isolation campaign targeting Russian seaborne logistics and energy transport. Intensified Ukrainian strikes against Russian gasoline tankers in the Sea of Azov have reportedly forced the Russian Federation to officially close multiple maritime routes during the reporting week.⁵ Commercial maritime tracking provided by Starboard Maritime Intelligence detected a massive 55 percent decline in vessels transmitting active automatic identification system (AIS) signals in the Sea of Azov between June 30 and July 11.⁵ This data strongly indicates significant behavioral alterations by Russian maritime operators, who are likely operating dark to mitigate the severe strike threat posed by Ukrainian unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and coastal defense cruise missiles.⁵

Parallel to the maritime interdiction, Ukrainian forces conducted deep strikes targeting critical energy and military infrastructure on the occupied Crimean Peninsula and within the Russian Federation proper. On the night of July 8 to 9, the Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) commanded by Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi reportedly struck 45 distinct military targets in Crimea.⁶ These targets included the Saky Thermal Power Plant, three separate oil depots, two vehicle maintenance enterprises, a “Zhitel” electronic warfare jamming station, and multiple communications towers.⁶ These persistent infrastructure strikes are generating cascading domestic impacts within Russia; intelligence suggests that the domestic Russian oil refining industry is currently failing to meet rising internal gasoline demands as the Ukrainian long-range strike campaign continuously degrades operational refining capacity.⁸ In response to these domestic pressures, Russian state-owned polling institutions have indicated a continued fall in President Vladimir Putin’s approval ratings in early July 2026, following a sharp decline measured at the end of June.⁸

Russian kinetic responses to these operational setbacks have relied heavily on sustained, long-range missile and drone barrages against Ukrainian rear areas, although interception rates by Western-supplied Ukrainian air defenses remain notably high. Overnight strikes throughout the week utilized a mixed-munitions package designed to overwhelm radar operators. These packages included Iskander-M and S-400 ballistic missiles, Kh-59/69 guided cruise missiles, Kh-31 and Kh-31P anti-radar missiles, and hundreds of loitering munitions.¹⁹ The targeting matrix primarily focused on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and energy distribution nodes, specifically attempting to degrade gas station networks.⁶ In addition to kinetic strikes, Russia has engaged in sophisticated cognitive warfare operations. The Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation reported on July 8 that Russian intelligence is conducting an information operation targeting residents of Sumy Oblast.¹⁹ This operation utilizes AI-generated deepfake videos of local officials to propagate false narratives asserting that Ukrainian forces are preparing to surrender Sumy City, an effort strategically designed to undermine societal resilience and induce panic among the civilian populace.¹⁹

Conflict/Threat Name: Russian Cyber and Hybrid Operations

Weekly Key Events: Russian state-sponsored cyber operations continue to function as a highly active, parallel front to conventional military activities, posing sustained and escalating risks to NATO allies and European critical infrastructure. The reporting period saw Russian intelligence services conduct a widespread and successful hacking operation targeting civilian camera networks across multiple NATO member states and within Ukraine.⁵ Furthermore, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued updated intelligence advisories regarding the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).⁷ The GRU is currently conducting widespread phishing campaigns targeting commercial messaging applications, focusing explicitly on individuals of high intelligence value, including current and former government officials, military personnel, and journalists.⁷

Simultaneously, pro-Russian hacktivist syndicates have launched opportunistic cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure globally. These threat actors systemically exploit minimally secured, internet-facing virtual network computing (VNC) connections to infiltrate operational technology (OT) control devices within critical infrastructure systems.⁷ This pattern highlights a clear strategy to hold physical infrastructure systems at risk in nations politically or militarily supporting Ukraine. The overarching strategic intent behind these hybrid threats was underscored during the reporting week by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who publicly confirmed recent intelligence warnings from the United States indicating that the Russian Federation is actively planning physical sabotage and cyber provocations against unspecified NATO states in the near term.⁸

Middle East/North Africa

Conflict/Threat Name: The 2026 Iran-US War and Regional Escalation

Weekly Key Events: The fragile diplomatic framework established to halt the 2026 Iran War collapsed entirely during the reporting week, plunging the Persian Gulf back into a state of high-intensity conflict. The conflict, which was originally initiated on February 28, 2026, following decapitation strikes by the US and Israel that resulted in the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had seen a temporary cessation of hostilities following an April ceasefire and a subsequent June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU).¹ However, this diplomatic architecture unraveled when Iranian naval elements attacked three commercial cargo vessels transiting the southern Omani route of the Strait of Hormuz on July 6 and 7.³ Iranian authorities asserted that these maritime interdictions were a lawful enforcement of their sovereign right to manage and secure traffic through the strait, a position they claim is strictly permitted under Clause 5 of the June MoU, which mandates Iran to facilitate safe passage while negotiating future administration.³

In direct response to the maritime attacks, US President Donald Trump publicly declared the interim ceasefire deal to be “over” via social media and authorized a significant wave of retaliatory airstrikes.² Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, President Trump warned that the US would hit Iran hard in retribution for the bombing of ships, characterizing the Iranian actions as acts of terrorism.²⁰ On July 8, US Central Command (CENTCOM) executed operations targeting Iranian strategic assets and coastal infrastructure. Explosions were reported in the major port city of Bandar Abbas, the southern coastal city of Sirik, and locations within the Bushehr province.² Notably, while the Bushehr nuclear power plant reportedly sustained no damage, explosions were also reported on Abu Musa Island, a highly contested territory claimed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that is central to Iran’s geographic dominance over the Strait of Hormuz.² Concurrently, the US Treasury formally revoked a temporary sanctions waiver that had previously allowed Tehran to export oil.²

The Iranian regime responded swiftly and kinetically to the US operations. On July 8 and 9, Iranian military forces launched waves of retaliatory drone and ballistic missile strikes targeting US military installations hosted by neighboring Gulf states. Air-defense sirens were activated multiple times in Bahrain, which hosts the headquarters of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, while the Kuwaiti military reported active and ongoing intercepts of incoming Iranian loitering munitions.² The conflict further broadened and internationalized on July 9, when regional Gulf states—assessed by Iranian intelligence to be the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—conducted their own independent strikes against unspecified targets in the Iranian cities of Chabahar, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, and Ahvaz.⁴ In response to this perceived regional betrayal, Iranian Parliamentarian Esmail Kowsari publicly accused the UAE of conducting the strikes and threatened to systematically target the UAE’s maritime, rail, and air transport infrastructure, suggesting the UAE should be added to Iran’s military “target bank”.⁴

Strategically, the regime in Tehran remains internally fractured regarding tactical execution, though uniformly unified in its overarching geostrategic objectives. Pragmatic Iranian negotiators are actively attempting to preserve backchannel diplomatic communications to prevent a broader, sustained US strike campaign that could definitively cripple the domestic economy and infrastructure.³ Conversely, the senior leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has explicitly endorsed the use of force to maintain absolute control over the Strait of Hormuz, viewing it as the ultimate guarantor of regime survival.³ The negotiating gap between Washington and Tehran remains vast and seemingly irreconcilable. The US demands the unconditional, public opening of the strait to all commercial traffic and a complete return to the pre-war maritime status quo.³ Iranian officials, however, insist that relinquishing management of the strait equates to national surrender and demand international recognition of Iranian administration over a newly designated traffic separation scheme.³ To further this diplomatic maneuvering and exploit regional anxieties, Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Abbas Araghchi deployed to Oman on July 11 to negotiate strait administration parameters with Omani officials.³

Conflict/Threat Name: Iraqi Proxy Environment

Weekly Key Events: In a major strategic realignment designed to aggressively curb Iranian proxy influence and secure the withdrawal of international forces, the United States and the Iraqi federal government are finalizing a comprehensive bilateral security and economic agreement. Negotiated between Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi and US Ambassador to Lebanon and Iraq Tom Barrack during a June 15 meeting in Baghdad, the agreement guarantees extensive US financial investment in Iraq’s energy and infrastructure sectors in exchange for the systemic disarmament of Iranian-backed Iraqi militias by the end of September 2026. This highly ambitious timeline aligns precisely with the scheduled departure of US-led international coalition forces.

Furthermore, the pact legally requires Baghdad to execute a political purge, removing militia-affiliated figures from senior government positions and actively dismantling their illicit financial networks.⁴ The Iraqi government has formed a disarmament committee to restrict weapons exclusively to state security forces. The US has maintained firm, uncompromising opposition to the appointment of any militia-aligned figures to critical governance roles, which has severely complicated ongoing Iraqi negotiations to fill the remaining vacant ministries, including Defense and Interior.⁴ Specifically, Washington opposes granting ministerial portfolios to parties such as Sadiqoun—the political wing of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al Haq militia—even if such groups publicly announce their disarmament, viewing such declarations as tactically deceptive.⁴

Conflict/Threat Name: Syrian Transitional Instability

Weekly Key Events: The Syrian interim government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa following the December 2024 ouster of Bashar al-Assad, continues to face significant internal security challenges. On July 7, 2026, two explosive devices detonated near the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus, wounding at least 18 people, including four police officers. The bombings coincided with a landmark visit by French President Emmanuel Macron, who met with al-Sharaa to sign memorandums of understanding aimed at post-war reconstruction. Concurrently, on July 8, the US administration announced its intention to rescind Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, a major step toward reintegrating the nation into global financial systems following the regime change. Meanwhile, border tensions remain elevated as Israeli forces maintain positions within Syrian territory beyond the 1974 ceasefire line.

Conflict/Threat Name: Israel-Hezbollah War

Weekly Key Events: Hostilities between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah persist, rendering the nominal frameworks of the November 2024 and April 2026 ceasefires effectively void.²¹ The operational environment in southern Lebanon remains highly volatile, characterized by localized skirmishes, artillery duels, and targeted assassinations. On July 8, an Israeli drone strike specifically targeted a civilian vehicle in Nabatieh al-Fawqa, resulting in four fatalities, including a local school principal, her mother, and two foreign domestic workers.²³ While heavy, sustained rocket barrages have decreased along the Blue Line compared to the peak of the conflict, precision strikes continue unabated.²⁴

The protracted nature of the conflict, which has resulted in over 4,000 fatalities from Israeli strikes and the displacement of over one million Lebanese civilians, has created a severe humanitarian crisis.¹ UNIFIL peacekeepers report significant logistical obstacles and restrictions to operational movement, citing uncleared unexploded ordnance, debris, and temporary detentions by Israeli military checkpoints.²⁴ Despite these challenges, UNIFIL continues to execute its monitoring mandate. The persistent threat of violence and the widespread destruction of civilian property are severely impeding the return of displaced Lebanese communities, who find their homes and infrastructure completely decimated upon attempting repatriation.²⁴

Conflict/Threat Name: Gaza Strip Security and Governance

Weekly Key Events: The governance architecture of the Gaza Strip underwent a significant procedural, though potentially superficial, shift on July 6, when the Hamas militant group publicly announced the dissolution of its governing apparatus.²⁶ According to Ismail al-Thawabta, the general director of the Hamas-run Government Media Office, administrative power is ostensibly being transferred to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a UN-backed body comprised of Palestinian technocrats.²⁶ This transition is intended to rhetorically align with the US-brokered comprehensive peace plan endorsed by UN Resolution 2803 in November 2025, which mandated a transitional governance administration overseen by the Board of Peace (BoP), chaired by US President Donald Trump.²⁶

However, the strategic impact and authenticity of this declaration remain highly ambiguous. The BoP has stipulated that the technocratic committee must exercise total and exclusive control over all weapons and security forces in the enclave.²⁶ Hamas has resolutely refused to decommission its militant infrastructure, demobilize its fighters, or relinquish physical security control, citing ongoing Israeli military operations, targeted strikes, and severe restrictions on humanitarian aid as continuous breaches of the ceasefire obligations.²⁷ Consequently, Israeli officials dismissed the Hamas announcement as an irrelevant political spin, noting that Hamas operatives remain deeply embedded within the administrative structures.²⁶ On the ground, the humanitarian environment remains catastrophic. The reporting period saw new waves of civilian displacement along the designated “Yellow Line” amidst persistent, localized military activity.²⁸ Furthermore, external criminal actors and local gangs continue to exploit the chaotic security vacuum to hijack and smuggle high-value items within humanitarian shipments, leading to violent confiscations by de facto authorities and severe delays in the distribution of life-saving aid.²⁸

Conflict/Threat Name: Yemen Civil War and Red Sea Interdiction

Weekly Key Events: The fragile, de facto ceasefire that had largely paused the domestic Yemeni civil war was violently shattered during the reporting week, indicating a resumption of internal hostilities. On the weekend of July 4 and 5, Houthi rebel forces launched a massive, coordinated ground assault against established positions held by the internationally recognized government in the Hays district, located south of the strategic Red Sea port city of Hodeidah.²⁹ Utilizing a combined-arms approach of snipers, heavy mortar salvos, and weaponized drone strikes, the Houthis temporarily overran pro-government defensive lines before a dawn counterattack successfully repelled the advance.²⁹ The intense engagement resulted in 16 pro-government fatalities and 22 wounded, marking the deadliest domestic Houthi assault in several years and threatening a return to full-scale civil war.²⁹

Simultaneously in the maritime domain, the Houthi campaign against international shipping in the Red Sea remains an active, potent threat. On July 5, the bulk carrier Lady Naeima issued a distress call approximately 13 nautical miles off the coast of Al-Durayhimi, a Houthi-controlled area near Hodeidah.³¹ The vessel was approached by multiple skiffs whose occupants closed within 20 meters and opened fire.³¹ Embarked private security contractors successfully returned fire, forcing the assailants to abort the boarding attempt and retreat to a larger command vessel operating with its AIS switched off.³² Diplomatic and political tensions also spiked regarding airspace sovereignty; the internationally recognized government formally blocked an Iranian Mahan Air flight from landing at the Houthi-controlled Sanaa airport to retrieve a Houthi delegation that had attended the funeral of Ali Khamenei.³³ The government demanded the delegation return via Yemenia Airways, further straining the stalled peace process and demonstrating the deep polarization over sovereign control of Yemeni infrastructure.³³

Conflict/Threat Name: West Bank Instability

Weekly Key Events: Security conditions across the West Bank continued to rapidly deteriorate due to expanding military movement restrictions, aggressive Israeli forces’ operations, and recurrent settler violence. During the reporting week, successive Israeli military closures and the installation of new checkpoints effectively isolated approximately 12,000 Palestinians residing in communities west of Ramallah.²⁸ This severe isolation resulted in a critical medical emergency when the transfer of a four-month-old Palestinian infant to a local hospital was fatally delayed at an Israeli-staffed road gate.²⁸ Concurrently, in Hebron’s highly volatile H2 area, Israeli forces installed new security gates, restricting one of the last remaining access routes to the Old City and further entrenching an institutionalized system of movement restrictions affecting roughly 7,000 Palestinian residents.²⁸ These developments are systematically restricting access to essential services and livelihoods, driving localized displacement and increasing reliance on humanitarian interventions that are simultaneously constrained by the security environment.²⁸

Indo-Pacific

Conflict/Threat Name: South China Sea Maritime Disputes

Weekly Key Events: The maritime standoff between the Philippines and the PRC in the South China Sea has metastasized significantly, with a new and highly volatile operational flashpoint emerging at Sabina Shoal.¹¹ Following the severe June 17, 2024, confrontation at Second Thomas Shoal—during which China Coast Guard (CCG) personnel violently interdicted a Philippine Navy resupply mission using axes, machetes, and spears, resulting in a severed thumb for a Filipino sailor—Manila deployed the coast guard vessel BRP Teresa Magbuana to monitor Sabina Shoal against suspected Chinese land reclamation efforts.¹¹ In response to this deployment, the PRC has dramatically escalated its localized force posture, deploying a continuous presence of 24 to 40 maritime militia and CCG vessels to the atoll.¹¹ These Chinese assets have effectively encircled the Philippine vessel, frequently utilizing high-pressure water cannons, firing flares, and executing dangerous ramming maneuvers to assert dominance and force a Philippine withdrawal.¹¹

This tactical escalation at Sabina Shoal coincides directly with the highly symbolic July 12 tenth anniversary of the landmark 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling. This ruling comprehensively invalidated Beijing’s expansive “nine-dash line” territorial claims and historical rights under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To mark the anniversary and signal collective deterrence, a coalition of 14 nations, prominently including the United States and the United Kingdom, issued a joint diplomatic communique reaffirming the legally binding and definitive nature of the ruling, while explicitly condemning the PRC’s destabilizing actions in the region. Despite the unified international consensus and the legal clarity provided by UNCLOS, Beijing continues to wholly reject the tribunal’s authority, utilizing its vast asymmetrical maritime superiority and grey-zone tactics to enforce de facto jurisdictional control over the disputed exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of Southeast Asian nations.

Conflict/Threat Name: Taiwan Strait Grey-Zone Operations

Weekly Key Events: The PRC has significantly accelerated and formalized its grey-zone coercion campaign against the island of Taiwan, transitioning from episodic, large-scale military exercises to a continuous, normalized presence designed to incrementally erode Taipei’s sovereignty and exhaust its defense forces.³⁵ Intelligence assessments indicate that the PRC is actively implementing permanent CCG patrols in the waters east of Taiwan, a strategic shift that projects power beyond the immediate strait.¹² During June 2026, the PRC conducted an unprecedented “special maritime law enforcement operation” in these eastern waters, wherein Chinese vessels actively hailed passing international cargo ships, attempting to assert jurisdictional authority and conduct quasi-inspections.¹² This maneuver fundamentally alters the maritime status quo and theoretically establishes the logistical framework and legal pretext for a rapid-notice quarantine or total blockade of the island on short notice.¹²

Simultaneously, the PRC is testing calibrated coercion against Taiwan’s remote peripheral territories. The Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands), located approximately 444 kilometers southwest of Kaohsiung in the northern South China Sea, have become a primary testing ground for this strategy. Throughout June and early July 2026, Chinese coast guard vessel No. 3501 and the hydrographic survey ship Hai Si Lu No. 6 repeatedly penetrated the restricted waters around the atoll.³⁶ This pattern of deployment—comprising 39 distinct incursions by 12 different vessels over the past year—represents a strategic shift toward limited-objective pressure designed to probe the defense parameters of the contiguous zone without triggering a conventional military response.³⁶ In the diplomatic and economic domains, Beijing has systematically obstructed Taiwan’s participation in global forums, successfully pressuring host nations to alter Taiwan’s status at a World Trade Organization ministerial in Cameroon, revoking overflight permissions for the Taiwanese President’s trip to Eswatini, and forcing the cancellation of the RightsCon summit in Zambia.³⁷ Furthermore, Taiwanese authorities are prosecuting individuals for smuggling advanced Nvidia chips into the PRC, highlighting the ongoing technological espionage efforts circumventing US export controls.¹²

Conflict/Threat Name: Korean Peninsula Tensions

Weekly Key Events: Military posturing and brinkmanship on the Korean Peninsula remain highly elevated, characterized by a rapid expansion of North Korean conventional and asymmetric capabilities alongside increased military interoperability with the PRC and Russia. On July 12, the South Korean Unification Ministry publicly requested humanitarian assistance from Pyongyang to locate a South Korean navy seaman holding the rank of seaman apprentice.³⁸ The sailor went missing while on a security patrol in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and is believed to have drifted north of the highly sensitive Northern Limit Line (NLL).³⁸ The DPRK has yet to issue a response to the request, a silence consistent with its 2024 constitutional declaration designating South Korea as a “hostile nation” and its persistent rebuffing of dialogue overtures from South Korean President Lee Jae Myung.³⁹

Internally, North Korea continues to aggressively modernize its military infrastructure. State media reported decisions by the ruling party’s central military commission, overseen by Kim Jong Un, to quantitatively and qualitatively expand the national nuclear arsenal.⁴⁰ Concurrently, Pyongyang is significantly expanding the operational mandate and capabilities of the General Reconnaissance and Intelligence Bureau, clearly indicating an anticipated increase in sophisticated espionage, cyber, and cognitive warfare operations directed against Seoul.⁴⁰ In the naval domain, North Korea is preparing to commission its second guided-missile destroyer, the Kang Kon, which will expand its green-water surface fleet capabilities on both coasts despite struggling to develop necessary support facilities.¹³ Recent weapons tests involving the Kang Kon on July 3 utilized complex, multi-vector strike packages specifically designed to confuse US and South Korean launch detection and early warning systems.¹³ Furthermore, the strategic alignment between Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow was demonstrated by combined aerial and naval incursions into South Korea’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and near the NLL on June 27, an explicit signal of joint territorial encroachment and a willingness by authoritarian states to test South Korean resolve.¹³

Conflict/Threat Name: Myanmar Civil War

Weekly Key Events: The military junta, operating as the State Administration Council (SAC), is suffering unprecedented territorial and operational losses against the Three Brotherhood Alliance and cooperating People’s Defense Forces (PDFs). The civil war has escalated significantly, with the military losing control of two-thirds of the country’s territory, including strategic regional command headquarters, and facing an increasing number of desertions. In response to these structural collapses, the SAC activated a mandatory conscription law, prompting a mass exodus of young civilians and heightening the humanitarian catastrophe. The conflict has internally displaced over 400,000 people in Rakhine and southern Chin States and forced at least 150,000 Rohingya to flee into Bangladesh since late 2023, driving tens of thousands to attempt dangerous maritime crossings to seek refuge.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Conflict/Threat Name: Sudan Civil War

Weekly Key Events: The civil war in Sudan has evolved into a heavily internationalized, multi-front conflict characterized by the deployment of foreign proxy forces, the total breakdown of humanitarian law, and a systemic reliance on advanced drone warfare by all belligerents.¹⁴ In the southeastern Blue Nile State, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) successfully recaptured the highly strategic border town of al-Kurmuk on July 8 following a fierce six-hour engagement against a coalition consisting of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Abdelaziz al-Hilu faction of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N).¹⁵ The town commands the primary highway corridor linking western Ethiopia to Khartoum and guards the approaches to the critical Roseires Dam, which supplies much of Sudan’s electricity.¹⁵ The SAF’s operational success, however, was swiftly and lethally countered; on the evening of July 10, a precision drone strike in al-Kurmuk specifically targeted a command gathering of “Army 70″—a contingent of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front fighting as a proxy on behalf of the SAF.¹⁵ The strike killed several senior officers and wounded Eritrean soldiers embedded within the unit, exposing the deep regional convergence of forces operating within Sudanese territory.¹⁵

In the western theater of Darfur, the RSF is actively massing forces for a major, potentially decisive ground offensive. Following the liberation of the town of Kulbus (West Darfur) by SAF-aligned Joint Forces on June 29, the RSF spent the reporting week deploying massive mechanized reinforcements from El Geneina, Saraf Omra, and Kabkabiya to the outskirts of Kulbus and Tine.⁴² This military buildup included a scorched-earth campaign that deliberately burned markets and water sources, forcing residents of eight villages to flee across the border into Chadian territory.⁴² Across all fronts, an independent investigation published by The Reckoning Project documented the systemic use of advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (supplied by foreign sponsors like the UAE) and aerial bombardment by both the SAF and RSF.¹⁴ These strikes frequently employ “double tap” tactics aimed intentionally at first responders and have repeatedly struck civilian infrastructure, including a devastating February strike on Cinema Street in Nyala and a September drone attack on a mosque in El Fasher that killed 70 worshippers during dawn prayers.¹⁴

Conflict/Threat Name: Eastern DRC Instability and Humanitarian Crisis

Weekly Key Events: The security environment in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is rapidly deteriorating due to the converging vectors of a robust M23 insurgency and an escalating, highly lethal epidemiological crisis. Clashes between the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) and the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group remained intense across the North and South Kivu provinces.¹⁶ Both belligerents are reportedly utilizing armed drones and heavy explosive weapons in densely populated civilian areas, leading to summary executions and massive displacement.¹⁶ Despite diplomatic commitments made in June to de-escalate tensions during the Doha process in Switzerland, the conflict persists unabated, prompting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, to issue an urgent appeal for a cessation of hostilities on July 9.¹⁶ In an effort to disrupt the financial networks sustaining the M23, the United States Department of the Treasury imposed targeted sanctions on July 6 against Rwandan businessmen Jean Malic Kalima and Bosco Kayobotsi, as well as several Rwandan entities including the Gasabo Gold Refinery and Bugambira Mines, for facilitating the illicit extraction and trade of conflict minerals.⁴⁵

The lethality of the kinetic conflict is being catastrophically compounded by an unprecedented outbreak of the Bundibugyo variant of the Ebola virus. Government data released on July 8 confirmed 1,759 cases and 600 fatalities, making it the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak on record for any variant.¹⁷ The virus has breached provincial boundaries, spreading from the epicenter in Ituri into the Tshopo and Haut-Uélé provinces, and has already crossed international borders into neighboring Uganda.¹⁷ The kinetic environment directly facilitates the spread of the pathogen; active combat, targeted attacks on healthcare workers and treatment centers, and rampant misinformation have paralyzed contact tracing, aid delivery, and quarantine efforts, raising the high probability of a regional pandemic.¹⁷

Conflict/Threat Name: Sahel Insurgency

Weekly Key Events: The security apparatus across the Central Sahel is demonstrating severe and systemic vulnerabilities in the face of an highly adaptive, consolidating jihadist insurgency. The strategic landscape in Mali was fundamentally altered following coordinated, multi-front attacks on April 25 by Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM)—an al-Qaeda affiliate—operating in an unprecedented, pragmatic alliance with Tuareg separatists of the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA).⁴⁶ This convergence of jihadist and separatist forces allowed them to successfully target critical military installations in Bamako, Kati, Gao, and Kidal, ultimately leading to a full-scale blockade of the capital and the assassination of the Malian Defence Minister, General Sadio Camara, via a suicide vehicle-borne IED.⁴⁷

The capability of these non-state actors to project sustained combat power into major urban centers has overwhelmed the Malian military junta. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the Russian Africa Corps (the successor to the Wagner Group) from several northern territories underscores the severe limitations of Mali’s external security partnerships.⁴⁷ Diplomatic postures, however, remain defiantly anti-Western; during a recent panel at the Stimson Center, the ambassadors of the Alliance of Sahel States (Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger) falsely claimed that regional terrorism was entirely fabricated by Western mercenaries, signaling an entrenched political opposition to any renewed Western military cooperation or UN intervention.⁴⁹ The expansion of JNIM into neighboring states, including a deadly campaign against Dozo militias and attacks into Nigeria’s Kwara State, confirms the regional spillover of the conflict.⁴⁸

Conflict/Threat Name: Somalia Al-Shabaab Insurgency

Weekly Key Events: Counterinsurgency operations in Somalia face significant, potentially crippling disruption following a major shift in international support and funding. On July 2, the United States formally notified the African Union that it will unilaterally prevent the United Nations from funding the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) for the upcoming year.⁵¹ The US cited persistent political infighting between the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) and regional states (such as Jubaland and Puntland), and a fundamental failure to collaborate on basic governance as the primary rationale for the suspension.⁵¹ This funding freeze poses a critical threat to the operational viability of AUSSOM, which provides indispensable logistical, air, and combat support to the Somali National Army (SNA) in its ongoing campaign against the Al-Shabaab insurgency.⁵¹

Despite the looming logistical constraints and political fragmentation, kinetic operations against the insurgency continued during the reporting week. On June 29, the SNA, operating in close coordination with the Turkish Armed Forces, executed a series of precision airstrikes in southern Somalia. The Ministry of Defense reported that the strikes successfully killed 35 Al-Shabaab militants, injured 20 others, and destroyed multiple caches of explosives and weapons.⁵¹ However, Al-Shabaab retains significant offensive capabilities, continues to exact high casualties against Ugandan UPDF troops, and exploits the political fragmentation within Somalia.⁵³ On July 11, insurgent forces launched a direct attack against Ethiopian troops stationed in Wajid.⁵⁴ The insurgency continues to weaponize the overlapping crises of political violence, climate vulnerability, and environmental fragility, severely impeding agricultural output and humanitarian access across the territories it contests, driving localized famine conditions.⁵⁴

Western Hemisphere

Conflict/Threat Name: Colombian Internal Conflict

Weekly Key Events: Despite the government’s “total peace” strategy, violence in Colombia has surged due to escalating clashes among armed groups fighting for control over illicit economies. The National Liberation Army (ELN), the “Gulf Clan” (EGC), and FARC dissident factions are systematically employing violent coercion, leading to the severe confinement of over 137,000 civilians between January and August 2025. The political environment was further destabilized by the assassination of congressman and presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay ahead of the 2026 elections. The UN verified hundreds of grave violations against children, noting alarmingly high rates of forced recruitment via social media platforms, which disproportionately impacts Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities.

Conflict/Threat Name: Venezuela-Guyana Territorial Dispute

Weekly Key Events: The long-standing territorial dispute between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana over the oil-rich Essequibo region remains structurally dormant but legally active. The immediate threat of conventional military annexation by Caracas was neutralized following the January 3, 2026, capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces.⁵⁵ With Maduro transferred to New York to face narco-terrorism charges, the interim government led by Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has adopted a less kinetic posture regarding the border, focusing internally on the aftermath of severe earthquakes.⁵⁵ However, the fundamental geopolitical dispute remains unresolved, as the claim to the Essequibo territory is a point of rare consensus across both the Maduro-aligned government and the Venezuelan political opposition.⁵⁵ The International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded its merits hearings on the boundary case on May 11, 2026, and is expected to deliver a ruling around August 2026.⁵⁵ Materiality Rule: No material updates this period.

3. Appendix: Methodology

The intelligence synthesized within this Weekly Situation Report is derived from a rigorously structured Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) collection methodology. The analytical framework is specifically designed to filter the high-volume, highly polluted information environment characteristic of modern conflict zones, isolating verifiable strategic and tactical data from state-sponsored disinformation, psychological operations, and media hyperbole.

The primary collection apparatus continuously monitors a predefined matrix of authoritative sources. These include reputable defense research institutes (e.g., the Institute for the Study of War, Center for Strategic and International Studies), official government and military briefings, verified regional reporting, and non-governmental organization situation reports (e.g., OCHA, WHO, ACLED).

To determine the veracity, credibility, and materiality of an event, the framework employs a multi-tiered verification process:

1. Cross-Verification: Claims of territorial changes, kinetic strikes, or significant military maneuvers must be corroborated by at least two independent, high-confidence sources. Where possible, claims must be supported by verifiable visual intelligence (e.g., geolocated combat footage, commercial satellite imagery, or standardized reporting frameworks).
2. Data Anomaly Tracking: The framework actively monitors secondary, quantitative indicators of conflict to verify qualitative claims. For example, the assessment of the maritime blockade in the Sea of Azov relied heavily on Starboard Maritime Intelligence data tracking anomalies and total drop-offs in Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder signals, providing indisputable mathematical proof of maritime behavioral shifts in response to strike threats.⁵
3. Materiality Threshold: An event is deemed material—and thus included in the report—only if it demonstrably alters the operational capabilities of a belligerent, changes territorial control, impacts strategic supply chains, or signals a measurable shift in regional geopolitical posture. Routine border skirmishes, standard patrols, or political rhetoric that do not result in tangible strategic effects are rigorously excluded to maintain analytical density and focus.

A critical component of this report is the tracking and analysis of “grey-zone” activities. For the purposes of this intelligence assessment, grey-zone operations are defined as coercive statecraft actions that deliberately blur the line between war and peace. These operations remain below the threshold that would conventionally trigger a declared military response or invoke mutual defense treaties, yet they achieve strategic objectives traditionally pursued through armed conflict.

The analytical framework distinguishes grey-zone operations from routine diplomatic or military maneuvers through three specific, observable indicators:

• Asymmetry and Plausible Deniability: The systemic use of non-traditional assets, such as maritime militias, state-sponsored hacktivists, or dual-use research vessels (as explicitly observed in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait) to project power while avoiding direct attribution to uniformed military forces.⁷
• Incremental Coercion: Operations designed to slowly alter the status quo through persistent, low-level physical presence. Examples include permanent coast guard patrols in contested contiguous zones or continuous hydrographic surveys that individually do not warrant a kinetic response but cumulatively result in de facto annexation or jurisdictional control.¹²
• Multi-Domain Synchronization: The highly coordinated, simultaneous application of economic coercion, cyber disruption, and cognitive/information warfare designed to degrade an adversary’s societal resilience, operating in tandem with physical pressure campaigns to overwhelm defensive decision-making cycles.³⁷

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. 2026 Iran war | Deal, Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, Map, & Conflict, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
2. US launches strikes on Iran for a second day after Trump says …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/08/us-carries-out-another-wave-of-strikes-on-iran
3. Iran Update Special Report, July 11, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-11-2026/
4. Iran Update Special Report, July 10, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-10-2026/
5. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 11, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-11-2026/
6. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 9, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-9-2026/
7. Russia State-Sponsored Cyber Threat: Advisories – CISA, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/russia/publications
8. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 10, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-10-2026/
9. Navigating the Maritime Gray Zone – Indo-Pacific Defense FORUM, accessed July 12, 2026, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2026/06/navigating-the-maritime-gray-zone/
10. Manila’s push for a new rulebook in the South China Sea peters out, accessed July 12, 2026, https://verafiles.org/articles/manilas-push-for-a-new-rulebook-in-the-south-china-sea-peters-out
11. A new flashpoint has emerged at Sabina Shoal in the South China Sea – and a new danger, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/05/south-china-sea-sabina-shoal-latest-updates-philippines
12. China & Taiwan Update, July 10, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-july-10-2026/
13. Korean Peninsula Update, July 7, 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/korean-peninsula-update-july-7-2026/
14. Sudan’s warring parties deliberately target civilians in Darfur airstrikes, report says, accessed July 12, 2026, https://sudantribune.com/article/316141
15. Army 70, Tsimdo, and the Fight for Kurmuk, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hornreview.org/2026/07/12/army-70-tsimdo-and-the-fight-for-kurmuk/
16. UN rights chief calls for urgent end to fighting in eastern DR Congo – Anadolu Ajansı, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/un-rights-chief-calls-for-urgent-end-to-fighting-in-eastern-dr-congo/3993316
17. Visualised: how conflict, aid cuts and health-worker attacks are helping Ebola spread in DRC, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/10/visualised-how-conflict-aid-cuts-and-health-worker-attacks-are-helping-ebola-spread-in-drc
18. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 1, 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-1-2026/
19. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 8, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-8-2026/
20. Iran and U.S. ramp up tit-for-tat strikes as Khamenei laid to rest, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-us-war-trump-ceasefire-over-strait-of-hormuz-attacks/
21. 2026 Lebanon war – Wikipedia, accessed July 12, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war
22. Lebanon: Israeli attacks killing children, wiping out families must be investigated as war crimes, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/07/lebanon-israeli-attacks-killing-children-wiping-out-families-must-be-investigated-as-war-crimes/
23. Middle East crisis: Funeral procession for supreme leader Ali Khamenei begins in Iran – as it happened, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/06/iran-middle-east-crisis-funeral-supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-tehran-latest-news-updates
24. Grim homecoming: Devastation greets Lebanon’s war-weary returnees, accessed July 12, 2026, https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1167893
25. Middle East Overview: July 2026 – Lebanon – ReliefWeb, accessed July 12, 2026, https://reliefweb.int/report/lebanon/middle-east-overview-july-2026
26. Hamas dissolves its government in Gaza to transfer power to a UN-backed committee, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/06/hamas-dissolves-its-government-in-gaza-to-transfer-power-to-a-un-backed-committee/
27. The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question, July 2026 Monthly Forecast, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-07/the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-25.php
28. Humanitarian Situation Report | 10 July 2026 | United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – Occupied Palestinian Territory – OCHA oPt, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-report-10-july-2026
29. Yemen’s Houthis kill 16 government troops; British agency reports attack on cargo ship in Red Sea, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-houthi-rebels-red-sea-attack-cargo-ship/
30. Yemen’s Houthi Rebels Kill 16 Soldiers of Internationally Recognised Government in a Latest Attack – YouTube, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeBYRxAO7Gs
31. Red Sea security worsens as Hormuz transits rise, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/security/red-sea-security-worsens-as-hormuz-transits-rise
32. Cargo ship comes under fire off coast of Houthi-controlled Yemen – The Times of Israel, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/cargo-ship-comes-under-fire-off-coast-of-houthi-controlled-yemen/
33. What is going on in Yemen? | Houthis – Al Jazeera, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/7/11/what-is-going-on-in-yemen
34. PH arbitral win’s legacy: World’s eyes on China, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.inquirer.net/480297/ph-arbitral-wins-legacy-worlds-eyes-on-china/
35. The Status Quo Cannot Hold?, accessed July 12, 2026, https://dominotheory.com/the-status-quo-cannot-hold/
36. China’s Grey-Zone Coercion at Taiwan’s Pratas Islands – Observer Research Foundation, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/china-s-grey-zone-coercion-at-taiwan-s-pratas-islands
37. Beijing is testing who will stand by Taiwan, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/beijing-is-testing-who-will-stand-by-taiwan/
38. South Korea asks North to help search for missing navy sailor, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/south-korea-asks-north-to-help-search-for-missing-navy-sailor
39. South Korea asks North Korea for help finding missing seaman near border, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/994624/south-korea-asks-north-korea-for-help-finding-missing-seaman-near-border/story/
40. North Korea to expand nuclear arsenal, boost military intelligence operations targeting South Korea, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2026/Jul/10/north-korea-to-expand-nuclear-arsenal-boost-military-intelligence-operations-targeting-south-korea
41. Sudanese army recaptures strategic border town of Kurmuk – Sudan Tribune, accessed July 12, 2026, https://sudantribune.com/article/315994
42. Sudanese paramilitary sends huge reinforcements to West Darfur town, sources say, accessed July 12, 2026, https://sudantribune.com/article/316030
43. Use of explosive weapons ‘must stop’ in eastern DR Congo: Türk | UN News, accessed July 12, 2026, https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1167906
44. Democratic Republic of the Congo, June 2026 Monthly Forecast – Security Council Report, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-06/democratic-republic-of-the-congo-34.php
45. How conflict minerals fuel war in eastern DR Congo amid US sanctions | News | Al Jazeera, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/6/us-sanctions-target-rwandan-firms-linked-to-conflict-minerals-funding-m23
46. Mali Attacks: Aggravating the Sahel Security Crisis – Stimson Center, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/2026/mali-attacks-aggravating-the-sahel-security-crisis/
47. West Africa and the Sahel, July 2026 Monthly Forecast, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-07/west-africa-and-the-sahel-17.php
48. Deadly Jihadist Groups Gain Momentum Across Continent, accessed July 12, 2026, https://adf-magazine.com/2026/07/deadly-jihadist-groups-gain-momentum-across-continent/
49. Sahel collapse, Mali conflict, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/sahel-collapse-mali-conflict/
50. Conflict in the Sahel – ACLED, accessed July 12, 2026, https://acleddata.com/region/conflict-sahel
51. Conflict With Al-Shabaab in Somalia | Global Conflict Tracker – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/al-shabab-somalia
52. Somalia Country Report 2026 – BTI, accessed July 12, 2026, https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/SOM
53. New Chapter, Same Stalemate: Somalia’s War with Al-Shabaab, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.crisisgroup.org/brf/africa/somalia/b212-new-chapter-same-stalemate-somalias-war-al-shabaab
54. Somalia’s Conflicts Are Fueling Hunger More Than Drought, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hornobserver.com/articles/3688/Somalias-Conflicts-Are-Fueling-Hunger-More-Than-Drought
55. The Caracas Intervention and the Future – Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, accessed July 12, 2026, https://bisi.org.uk/reports/the-caracas-intervention-and-the-future-gabriel-perkins
56. Under guise of relief, Pentagon deploys 2,000 troops to Venezuela, securing semicolonial foothold – World Socialist Web Site, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/07/09/weno-j09.html
57. ICJ 2026 Update Brief: Guyana v. Venezuela | IMUNA | NHSMUN | Model UN, accessed July 12, 2026, https://imuna.org/blog/icj-2026-update-brief-guyana-v-venezuela/
58. ISACA Now Blog 2026 The Grey Zone Threat to AI Sovereignty Subsea Sabotage Connectivity and National Security, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2026/the-grey-zone-threat-to-ai-sovereignty-subsea-sabotage-connectivity-and-national-security

1.0 Executive Summary

The military exercises, technology evaluations, and defense industry expos conducted globally during the week ending July 11, 2026, indicate continued integration of multi-domain operations, contested logistics procedures, and alliance-based defense procurement. Open-source intelligence derived from these concurrent global events demonstrates the operationalization of lessons learned from recent conflicts, particularly regarding unmanned systems, integrated air defense, and supply chain resilience. The global defense landscape is characterized by a division: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its Indo-Pacific partners are prioritizing distributed, networked operations supported by agile logistics, while the Sino-Russian alignment is consolidating its tactical integration.

Strategically, the(https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/event-programmes/2026/07/2026-ankara-nsdif) in Ankara formalized a shift from nationalized procurement to integrated, multinational capability development. ¹ The forum facilitated over fifty billion euros in new defense commitments targeting airborne early warning, missile defense, and counter-drone architectures. ¹ This industrial pivot indicates recognition that standardizing platforms and centralizing maintenance logistics across the European continent is required for maintaining combat operations.

Technologically, there is a focus on neutralizing symmetric and asymmetric aerial threats across all echelons of command. The United States Army’s(https://www.army.mil/article/293826/rangers_assess_bumblebee_v2_at_fort_benning_for_homeland_defense) at Fort Benning highlights a pivot toward low-collateral, physical-collision counter-unmanned aerial systems for the defense of domestic infrastructure. ³ In the maritime domain,(https://www.cpf.navy.mil/rimpac/) is evaluating the parameters of distributed logistics through shipboard additive manufacturing, demonstrating that naval forces can fabricate metal components while underway to bypass compromised supply chains. ⁴ Simultaneously, the integration of unmanned undersea vehicles with manned submarine strike forces at Rim of the Pacific extends allied intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance networks into denied environments, altering the targeting cycles for long-range fires. ⁵

Operationally, allied forces are prioritizing Agile Combat Employment and cross-servicing capabilities to mitigate the vulnerability of static military bases. Exercises such as the Agile Combat Employment training in Estonia, the trilateral(https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/284477/malaysia-us-and-australia-begin-joint-military-exercise-in-sabah-tomorrow/) in Malaysia, and(https://seapowermagazine.org/u-s-forces-strengthen-pacific-security-partnerships-at-carat-thailand-2026/) underline a military imperative: forces must be capable of integrating, servicing allied equipment, and sustaining operations across distributed geographies. Conversely, the Sino-Russian Maritime Partnership-2026exercise in the Yellow Sea demonstrates an increasing tactical alignment between the two nations, utilizing mixed naval units and joint command structures that move beyond strategic messaging into combined warfighting readiness. ⁶

1.1 Summary Table of Key Events and Lessons Learned

2.0 Details: Military Tradeshows and Defense Expos

2.1 NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum (NSDIF 2026)

Held on July 7, 2026, at the ATO Congresium in Ankara, Türkiye, the(https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/event-programmes/2026/07/2026-ankara-nsdif) served as a platform for aligning defense industrial production with the tactical requirements of the NATO posture. ⁸ The forum brought together heads of state, defense ministers, and executives from over one hundred defense companies to translate defense investment commitments into interoperable capability output. ²

Participating Nations and Major Defense Contractors The event featured delegations from all thirty-two member states, partner nations such as South Korea, and representatives from the European Union. ⁹ Major defense contractors involved in the announced procurement deals included Saab of Sweden, Northrop Grumman of the United States, and Airbus. ² The participation of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol underscores the linkage between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific defense industrial bases. ⁹

Key Technological Debuts, Systems Emphasized, and Capabilities Demonstrated The forum functioned as the platform for multinational procurement announcements, totaling over fifty billion euros in new defense commitments. ¹ Key technological systems emphasized during the forum included the following initiatives:

The Alliance Future Surveillance and Control program announced the joint acquisition of up to ten Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control aircraft to replace the aging Boeing E-3A Sentry fleet. ² The GlobalEye platform was selected for its multi-domain surveillance capabilities, enabling operators to track air, maritime, and land targets, including low-signature drone swarms. ¹⁰ The Romanian Ministry of National Defence joined this acquisition coalition alongside Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. ¹⁰

Addressing unmanned systems, Secretary General Mark Rutte unveiled the NATO Drone Edge initiative. ¹ This program allocates forty billion dollars over a five-year period for the procurement of counter-unmanned aerial systems. ¹ The initiative establishes a centralized contracting marketplace for member states and mandates a fivefold increase in the number of trained allied drone operators by the end of the year 2027. ¹⁰

In the realm of Integrated Air and Missile Defense, Memoranda of Understanding were signed focusing on passive air surveillance capabilities and defenses against low-altitude threats operating below one hundred fifty meters. ¹⁰ To sustain these systems, Poland, the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden signed a Statement of Intent to establish a centralized European maintenance facility for Patriot PAC-3 missiles. ¹¹ The alliance also announced the procurement of Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton uncrewed aircraft to enhance maritime surveillance. ²

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The primary intelligence takeaway from the forum is NATO’s transition toward integrated, multinational acquisition coalitions. ¹⁰ Programs like the European PAC-3 maintenance facility and the GlobalEye acquisition indicate a drive to standardize equipment across member states, thereby reducing logistical friction and lowering per-unit costs. ¹⁰ Furthermore, the capital allocation into the Drone Edge initiative reflects that the alliance recognizes the proliferation of commercial drones requires an alliance-wide counter-measure architecture that outpaces the traditional acquisition cycle. ²

2.2 Ametek Defense Expo

Held on July 9, 2026, at the Hilton Warsaw City in Poland, the(https://virtekvision.com/blogs/events/ametek-defense-expo-poland) functioned as a technology showcase focusing on the intersection of aerospace manufacturing and defense production.

Participating Nations and Major Defense Contractors The event was spearheaded by AMETEK and its subsidiary, Virtek Vision, drawing in regional defense contractors, aerospace engineers, and military supply chain specialists operating within Europe.

Key Technological Debuts, Systems Emphasized, and Capabilities Demonstrated The exposition emphasized artificial intelligence-supported manufacturing techniques designed to scale the production of complex aerospace structures. The showcase highlighted the IRIS for Composites technology, which utilizes laser projection to align and place composite plies, eliminating the need for physical templates. Additionally, the event demonstrated how artificial intelligence cameras can be integrated into the manufacturing floor to detect foreign object debris, utilizing laser projectors to highlight anomalies for immediate removal.

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The expo underscored the integration of artificial intelligence into the industrial base. Enhancing the speed and precision of composite manufacturing through automated laser projection is utilized for scaling the production of fighter aircraft and unmanned aerial systems to meet military modernization demands.

2.3 International Defense Exhibition (IQDEX) 2026

Commencing on July 11 and scheduled to run through July 14, 2026, the(https://expomap.ru/en/expo/international-defense-exhibition-iqdex-iraq/) opened at the Baghdad International Fairground in Iraq.

Participating Nations and Major Defense Contractors The exhibition serves as a regional hub for Middle Eastern security forces, Iraqi government officials, and international defense contractors to network and showcase platforms suited for regional security challenges.

Key Technological Debuts, Systems Emphasized, and Capabilities Demonstrated The exhibition spans multiple thematic areas, emphasizing national security, military technology, and defense electronics. Specific capabilities showcased include night vision systems, land-based tactical gear, and security alert systems designed for asymmetric environments and border control.

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways IQDEX 2026 highlights the ongoing modernization efforts of Iraqi security forces, as well as the Middle Eastern market’s demand for surveillance, infantry technologies, and integrated defense electronics necessary to maintain internal security and border integrity against non-state actors.

3.0 Details: Military Exercises

3.1 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2026

Commencing on June 24 and scheduled to run through July 31, 2026,(https://www.cpf.navy.mil/rimpac/) represents the thirtieth iteration of the international maritime exercise, taking place across training areas in and around the Hawaiian Islands. ¹²

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives Hosted by the Commander, United States Third Fleet, the exercise involves a multinational force comprising thirty-one nations. ¹³ The asset footprint includes over forty surface ships, five submarines, fifteen national land forces, more than two hundred aircraft, and twenty-five thousand military personnel. ¹³ Participants include the United States Navy, the Royal Australian Navy, and naval contingents from Japan, Spain, South Korea, and various Latin American nations. ¹⁴ The stated objective is to provide a training opportunity while fostering cooperative relationships among participants to ensure the safety of sea lanes. ¹²

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested RIMPAC 2026 integrates emerging technologies into fleet operations, serving as a testing ground for distributed lethality, autonomous systems, and contested logistics. ⁵

The Commander, Submarine Force, United States Pacific Fleet is executing scenarios that reshape how allied units train to fight in contested maritime environments. ⁵ Manned submarines are integrating with unmanned undersea vehicles to simulate autonomous operations within anti-access and area denial zones. ⁵ These unmanned platforms act as forward sensors, gathering and transmitting targeting data back to the manned fleet, enabling submarines to execute precision strikes using UGM-84 Harpoon missiles without exposing their positions. ⁵

In the realm of logistics, the Naval Postgraduate School’s Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Education is conducting an advanced manufacturing demonstration. ⁴ This includes operating printers aboard active Canadian vessels to produce metal components at sea, and utilizing a digital manufacturing network to identify production capacity and print counter-drone platforms across distributed locations in Hawaii. ⁴

The exercise includes live-fire sinking exercises targeting the former USS Peleliu and USS Mobile Bay, testing the terminal lethality of integrated weapons systems. ¹⁵

Open-source intelligence reports indicate the unveiling of a Chinese DF-17 hypersonic missile launch coinciding with the exercise, demonstrating a challenge to United States and allied missile defense doctrines in the Indo-Pacific theater. ¹⁶

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The primary intelligence takeaway from RIMPAC 2026 is the operationalization of contested logistics concepts. The advanced manufacturing demonstration proves that relying on trans-oceanic supply chains is considered vulnerable in a Pacific conflict. ⁴ By producing metal parts and drones aboard active warships, allied forces can maintain fleet readiness and operational tempo when sea lines of communication are compromised. ⁴

The integration of unmanned undersea vehicles reveals a doctrinal shift toward treating unmanned submersibles as sensory organs of the fleet. ⁵ This human-machine teaming allows manned attack submarines to remain undetected while launching long-range strikes based on third-party targeting data. ⁵ Finally, the concurrent Chinese DF-17 hypersonic launch serves as an indication that adversaries are developing capabilities designed to bypass naval defense screens. ¹⁶

3.2 Exercise Keris Strike Series 31/2026

Running continuously from July 10 through July 27, 2026,(https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/284477/malaysia-us-and-australia-begin-joint-military-exercise-in-sabah-tomorrow/) is taking place in the terrain around Kota Belud, Sabah, located in East Malaysia. ¹⁷

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives Historically operating as a bilateral training event between the United States and Malaysia since the year 1994, Keris Strike 2026 marks an evolution by integrating the Australian Army, transforming the event into a trilateral operation. ¹⁸ The exercise involves a deployment of troops from the Malaysian Army, the United States Army, and the Australian Army. ¹⁸ The geographic focus on Sabah is strategic; located in East Malaysia near the contested waters of the South China Sea, it provides local military units the opportunity to test their combat readiness in their home terrain. ¹⁸ The stated objective is to enhance ground-level interoperability, joint operational capabilities, and trilateral military diplomacy. ¹⁷

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested The exercise focuses on ground-level tactical interoperability, emphasizing the sharing of combat expertise across challenging environments. ¹⁸ Forces are executing maneuvers designed to streamline multinational logistics, command and control, and crisis response capabilities. ¹⁸ During the exercise, military convoys utilize civilian routes between Kota Kinabalu, Tuaran, and Kota Belud, requiring civil-military coordination to manage public perception and safety. ¹⁷

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The expansion of Keris Strike to include Australian forces is an intelligence indicator of deepening security alignments in the Indo-Pacific region. ¹⁸ It demonstrates a recognition among regional powers that maintaining stability requires multilateral cooperation and interoperability, rather than relying solely on fragmented bilateral agreements. ¹⁸ For the Malaysian government, hosting this trilateral exercise in the region of Sabah reflects a balancing strategy: strengthening operational ties and interoperability with major military powers like the United States and Australia while attempting to preserve its strategic autonomy. ¹⁸

3.3 Maritime Partnership-2026 (China-Russia)

Commencing on July 6 and scheduled to run through July 13, 2026, the Maritime Partnership-2026 joint naval exercise is taking place in the waters and airspace off the coast of Qingdao, China, within the Yellow Sea. ⁶

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives The exercise represents an integration of the naval forces of the People’s Liberation Army Navy and the Russian Pacific Fleet. ⁷ The stated objective, as articulated by Chinese defense officials, is to respond to emerging security challenges and assist in maintaining regional peace and stability. ⁶ Following the conclusion of the main tactical phases in the Yellow Sea, the combined Sino-Russian fleet is slated to conduct a joint patrol into the Pacific Ocean. ⁶

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested The exercise is divided into three operational stages: force gathering, port planning, and sea exercises. ⁷ The participating forces established an integrated joint headquarters to manage the operation and formed mixed naval units, integrating ships from both nations into shared tactical formations. ⁷ The active sea phase involves joint reconnaissance operations, integrated air and missile defense drills, and live-fire exercises utilizing real combat ammunition against simulated targets. ⁷

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The Maritime Partnership-2026 exercise functions as a strategic counterweight to Western-led multilateral exercises. The establishment of a unified joint headquarters and the deployment of mixed naval units indicates that Sino-Russian military cooperation has evolved past strategic messaging into functional tactical interoperability. ⁷ Furthermore, the subsequent joint patrol planned for the wider Pacific Ocean serves as a projection of combined maritime power, intended to stretch United States and allied intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance resources. ⁶

3.4 Exercise Breeze 2026 and MCM Black Sea Expansion

From July 10 through July 19, 2026, the Bulgarian Navy is hosting the thirtieth anniversary edition of the(https://sofiaglobe.com/2026/07/10/bulgarias-breeze-2026-large-scale-naval-exercise-on-until-july-19/) naval exercise in the waters of the Black Sea. ²¹

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives Conducted under the leadership of Bulgarian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Kiril Mihaylov, the exercise includes naval forces and assets from Bulgaria, the United States, Türkiye, Greece, Italy, and France. ²¹ The exercise incorporates personnel from twenty-six different government and non-governmental organizations, including the European Maritime Safety Agency, highlighting a whole-of-government approach to maritime security. ²¹ A central component of the exercise is the active participation of the trilateral Mine Countermeasures Black Sea Task Group. ²¹

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested Participating forces are executing multi-domain scenarios involving sea, air, and underwater operations focused on crisis response, disaster liquidation, and maritime security in a contested environment. ²¹ The integration of the Mine Countermeasures Black Sea Task Group—comprising vessels such as the Romanian minehunter Captain Constantin Dumitrescu—is emphasized throughout the tactical drills. ²³

Prior to the commencement of the exercise, on July 8, 2026, at the NATO Summit in Ankara, the national defense ministers of Türkiye, Romania, and Bulgaria signed an amendment to expand the operational scope of the task group. ²³ Originally established with a mandate focused on clearing drifting naval mines resulting from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the task force’s mandate has been broadened to proactively safeguard strategic underwater infrastructure across the Black Sea. ²³ Concurrently, the rotating leadership of the task group transitioned from Türkiye to Bulgaria for the next six-month operational period. ²³

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways Exercise Breeze 2026 and the expansion of the Mine Countermeasures Black Sea Task Group mandate reveal a regional adaptation to the vulnerabilities of maritime infrastructure exposed in recent conflicts. ²³ By broadening the task group’s mission from reactive mine clearance to the proactive defense of critical infrastructure, these three NATO Black Sea littoral states are establishing a localized deterrence posture. ²³ Furthermore, the Bulgarian Navy’s report noting a decline in the number of drifting mines suggests that the task group’s clearance operations have been effective, allowing forces to transition toward infrastructure protection missions. ²⁴

3.5 Agile Combat Employment (ACE) Training

Concluding on July 9, 2026, a cross-training exercise focused on Agile Combat Employment training doctrines was conducted at Ämari Air Base in Estonia. ²⁵

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives The four-day exercise involved personnel from the Portuguese Air Force—deployed to Estonia with a contingent of F-16M fighter aircraft to execute the NATO Air Policing mission—working in collaboration with Estonian and Latvian military and civilian aviation specialists. ²⁵ The objective was to enhance allied interoperability and validate the logistical procedures that enable the dispersal and recovery of combat aircraft, a tenet of NATO’s Agile Combat Employment priority. ²⁵

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested The training focused on executing two technical logistical procedures designed to maximize aircraft survivability:

• Aircraft Cross-Servicing: Latvian military personnel and Estonian civilian staff practiced the procedures required to receive, service, and launch the Portuguese F-16M fighters. This program ensures that ground crews from participating NATO nations can turn around the advanced aircraft of another member state without requiring organic national support elements. ²⁵
• Hot-Pit Refueling: On the final day of the exercise, multinational teams executed hot-pit refueling procedures. This maneuver involves refueling the F-16M fighter while its jet engines remain running and all critical onboard systems stay active, reducing the total amount of time the aircraft remains static and vulnerable on the tarmac. ²⁵

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The execution of cross-servicing and hot-pit refueling is central to the operational viability of NATO’s Agile Combat Employment doctrine. ²⁵ Intelligence analysis dictates that in a conflict against a near-peer adversary, centralized air bases will become primary targets for saturation strikes. To survive, allied air forces must possess the capability to maneuver and operate from dispersed or improvised airfields. The intelligence takeaway is that NATO is pushing the technical capability to support fighter aircraft down to partner-nation ground crews across the Baltic region, ensuring high-tempo sortie generation within contested air domains. ²⁵

3.6 Exercise Lions Leap 2026

Taking place over the weekend of July 11 to July 12, 2026, the bilateral military training exercise Lions Leap 2026 was held in the vicinity of Ozolaine, Vecsaule parish, within the Bauska district of Latvia. ²⁶

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives The exercise featured integrated units from the Latvian National Guard (specifically the 53rd Infantry Battalion of the 1st Riga Brigade), the Lithuanian National Guard (the 503rd Infantry Company), and inducted soldiers from the 2025 draft of the Latvian State Defense Service. ²⁶ Taking place in close proximity to the Latvian-Lithuanian border, the stated objective was to enhance tactical interoperability and communication between the neighboring Baltic territorial defense forces. ²⁶

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested Operating under the command of Latvian Lieutenant Colonel Elmārs Popakuls, the combined allied units conducted defensive and offensive infantry operations. ²⁶ A component of the tactical maneuvers was the integrated use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the National Guard units, simulating the localized drone reconnaissance and strike capabilities that have become decisive in modern trench and mechanized infantry warfare. ²⁶ The exercise utilized training ammunition to simulate battlefield conditions while ensuring the safety of the local civilian populace. ²⁶

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways Lions Leap 2026 represents a granular layer of NATO’s eastern flank deterrence strategy. ²⁶ The integration of Latvian and Lithuanian national guard units demonstrates that cross-border interoperability is being pushed down to tactical echelons. The specific focus on infantry operations supported by organic, tactical unmanned aerial vehicle assets confirms that Baltic territorial defense doctrines have internalized the realities of modern mechanized conflicts. ²⁶

3.7 Bumblebee V2 Counter-Drone System Operational Evaluation

From July 6 to July 10, 2026, the(https://www.army.mil/article/293826/rangers_assess_bumblebee_v2_at_fort_benning_for_homeland_defense) and the United States Army’s 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment conducted an operational training and evaluation exercise at Fort Benning, Georgia. ³

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives The evaluation exercise was a collaborative effort between United States special operations forces (the 75th Ranger Regiment), the Joint Interagency Task Force 401, and domestic defense technology developers. ³ The objective was to evaluate and refine the tactical employment of the Bumblebee V2 counter-drone system, focusing on its viability for the defense of military installations and domestic infrastructure against asymmetric aerial threats. ³

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested The focal point of the evaluation was the Bumblebee V2, a first-person-view multi-rotor interceptor drone designed to track and neutralize hostile small unmanned aircraft systems. ³

The system relies on a physical-collision kinetic intercept mechanism, distinct from traditional counter-drone systems that rely on electronic warfare jamming or explosive payloads. ³ The Bumblebee V2 utilizes high-speed kinetic energy to physically destroy itself and the target upon direct impact. ³ Furthermore, the platform features a three-camera array coupled with artificial intelligence-driven automated target recognition software. This allows the interceptor drone to track and execute hard-kill intercepts in mid-air, reducing the cognitive load and reaction time required from the human operator. ³ To facilitate realistic training engagements during the evaluation, the forces utilized the DRACOE flight software management system, which automates swarms of representative target drones, lowering the cost and time associated with counter-drone training. ³

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The evaluation of the Bumblebee V2 signals a strategic shift in homeland defense and the protection of critical infrastructure. The utilization of a kinetic, non-explosive interceptor provides a low-collateral solution that allows military commanders to defend domestic installations under Title 10, Section 130i provisions without incurring the legal and physical risks associated with utilizing explosive munitions or high-powered microwave weapons in populated areas. ³

Furthermore, the integration of artificial intelligence for terminal guidance represents an evolution in air defense; human operators lack the physiological reaction speed to manually pilot interceptors against maneuvering drone targets in the terminal phase of an engagement. ³

3.8 Exercise Sea Breeze 2026

Scheduled from July 6 through July 27, 2026,(https://shape.nato.int/exercises/allied-national-exercises) is a multinational maritime exercise taking place in the United Kingdom. ²⁷

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives Hosted within the United Kingdom, this iteration of the established Sea Breeze exercise framework brings together maritime forces and naval units from allied NATO nations and international partners. ²⁷ The stated overarching objective of the exercise is to provide a valuable operational opportunity for participating allies to conduct joint training in mine countermeasures, test and validate maritime procedures, and strengthen practical cooperation between allied units and nations. ²⁷

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested While historically focused heavily on the Black Sea region and hosted frequently by Ukraine or nearby littoral states, the 2026 iteration in the United Kingdom maintains the core operational focus on critical maritime defense protocols. ²⁸ Participating units execute complex scenarios centered around mine countermeasures, practicing the detection, identification, and neutralization of simulated naval mines in varied maritime environments. ²⁷ The exercise also rigorously tests integrated command and control procedures among the multinational task forces. ²⁹

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The execution of Exercise Sea Breeze 2026 underscores NATO’s continued prioritization of mine countermeasures as a critical component of maritime security and freedom of navigation. ²⁷ By assembling diverse allied units in the United Kingdom, the exercise ensures that participating navies maintain the necessary technical interoperability and doctrinal alignment required to jointly mitigate asymmetric undersea threats and explosive hazards in contested waters. ²⁷

3.9 CARAT Thailand 2026

Commencing on July 6, 2026, the thirty-second iteration of the(https://seapowermagazine.org/u-s-forces-strengthen-pacific-security-partnerships-at-carat-thailand-2026/) opened in Sattahip, Thailand.

Participating Forces, Geographic Focus, and Stated Objectives The multinational exercise involves maritime forces from the United States (including the United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, and United States Marine Corps) operating alongside maritime partners from Thailand and Canada. The exercise is designed to advance United States national security interests by sharpening combined combat readiness and reinforcing the established alliance with Thailand.

Tactical Maneuvers, Multi-Domain Integration, and Doctrinal Concepts Tested Coordinated by the United States 7th Fleet and Destroyer Squadron 7, the exercise features interoperable training scenarios designed to enhance the combined capacity of the participating navies. Maneuvers encompass cross-border joint operations, close-quarters combat tactics, and at-sea operational drills designed to streamline communication and tactical responses among the allied units.

Lessons Learned and Intelligence Takeaways The execution of CARAT Thailand 2026 directly supports strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific by building an interoperable maritime security architecture. By integrating naval combatants with Coast Guard and Marine Corps elements, the participating nations are demonstrating a holistic approach to maritime security capable of responding to a spectrum of shared security challenges in Southeast Asia.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. Secretary General on the Ankara Summit: NATO delivers, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2026/07/08/secretary-general-on-the-ankara-summit-nato-delivers
2. Tens of billions in new procurements revealed at the NATO Summit …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2026/07/07/tens-of-billions-in-new-procurements-revealed-at-the-nato-summit-defence-industry-forum-in-ankara
3. Rangers assess Bumblebee V2 at Fort Benning for homeland …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/293826/rangers_assess_bumblebee_v2_at_fort_benning_for_homeland_defense
4. NPS to Conduct Advanced Manufacturing Demo at RIMPAC 2026, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.executivegov.com/articles/nps-advanced-manufacturing-demo-rimpac-2026
5. RIMPAC 26: Pacific Submarine Force efforts to preserve undersea …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.c3f.navy.mil/News/Article/4533240/rimpac-26-pacific-submarine-force-efforts-to-preserve-undersea-domain-advantage/
6. China and Russia to hold joint naval drills – RBC-Ukraine, accessed July 11, 2026, https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/china-and-russia-to-hold-joint-naval-drills-1783242810.html
7. China and Russia started joint military exercises – Modern.az, accessed July 11, 2026, https://modern.az/en/dunya/675196/china-and-russia-started-joint-military-exercises/
8. NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum, 07-Jul-2026, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/event-programmes/2026/07/2026-ankara-nsdif
9. NATO Summit in Ankara. A report. – Erkan’s Field Diary, accessed July 11, 2026, https://erkansaka.net/2026/07/10/nato-ankara-summit-2026-turkey-diplomatic-showcase/
10. The Ministry of National Defence delegation, at the NATO Summit …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/6810_the-ministry-of-national-defence-delegation,-at-the-nato-summit-defence-industry-forum-(nsdif)
11. NATO Summit in Ankara – Poland in NATO – Gov.pl website, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.gov.pl/web/nato-en/nato-summit-in-ankara
12. RIMPAC 2026 Kicks Off in Hawaii > U.S. Pacific Command > News Articles – PACOM, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Articles/Article/4527435/rimpac-2026-kicks-off-in-hawaii/
13. Rim of the Pacific | Defence Activities, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/exercises/rim-pacific
14. RIMPAC 2026 Kicks Off! Global Warships Gather at Pearl Harbor for World’s Largest Maritime Exercise – YouTube, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34T9jsCYlug
15. Two retired warships to be sunk during Rim of the Pacific exercise, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/07/06/two-retired-warships-to-be-sunk-during-rim-of-the-pacific-exercise/
16. [VIDEO] China Unveils First Real DF-17 Hypersonic Missile Launch as RIMPAC 2026 Begins, Signaling a New Indo-Pacific Strike Doctrine That Challenges U.S. Missile Defenses, accessed July 11, 2026, https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/china-first-real-df-17-hypersonic-missile-launch-rimpac-2026-indo-pacific-strike-doctrine-us-missile-defense/
17. Malaysia, US and Australia begin joint military exercise in Sabah tomorrow, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/284477/malaysia-us-and-australia-begin-joint-military-exercise-in-sabah-tomorrow/
18. Exercise Keris Strike begins together with Australia for first time, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.dsaexhibition.com/exercise-keris-strike-begins-together-with-australia-for-first-time
19. Keris Strike 2026 – DVIDS, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/kerisstrike26
20. YouTube, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxnhaKZTj5UjyWJ2w2dqJGPPDIqWOdnl3L
21. Start of “Breeze 2026”: Large-scale naval exercise in the Black Sea | BurgasMedia, accessed July 11, 2026, https://burgasmedia.com/amp/news/nachalo-na-briz-2026-mashtabno-voennomorsko-uchenie-v-cherno-more?lang=en
22. Multinational Maritime Exercise Breeze 2026 Begins in Black Sea – BTA, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/1164876-multinational-maritime-exercise-breeze-2026-begins-in-black-sea
23. Türkiye expands Black Sea mine pact with Romania, Bulgaria …, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.turkiyetoday.com/nation/turkiye-expands-black-sea-mine-pact-with-romania-bulgaria-3223517
24. BTA :: Bulgarian Navy Reports Fewer Drifting Mines in Black Sea, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1164920-bulgarian-navy-reports-fewer-drifting-mines-in-black-sea
25. Advanced training for enhancing Agile … – Allied Air Command, accessed July 11, 2026, https://ac.nato.int/archive/2026/-advanced-training-for-enhancing-agile-combat-employment-capabilities-at-amari-airbase-
26. ‘Lion’s Leap’ military exercises taking place this weekend / Article, accessed July 11, 2026, https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/defence/10.07.2026-lions-leap-military-exercises-taking-place-this-weekend.a654614/
27. National Exercises and Activities – Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) – NATO, accessed July 11, 2026, https://shape.nato.int/exercises/allied-national-exercises
28. Exercise Sea Breeze 2026 – DVIDS, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/SeaBreeze26
29. Video – The mind at Sea Breeze 26 – DVIDS, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1009786/mind-sea-breeze-26

Executive Summary

As the strategic landscape of 2026 unfolds, the character of global conflict is undergoing profound and rapid alterations, driven by asymmetric technological adoption, the weaponization of economic exhaustion, shifting alliance burdens, and the normalization of irregular warfare across critical domains. This mid-year assessment synthesizes the most consequential developments, technologies, and strategic lessons that have emerged globally to date. The prevailing theme of 2026 is the rapid operationalization of autonomy combined with systemic cost-imposition strategies. State and non-state actors alike are deliberately bypassing conventional military strengths through gray-zone tactics, electronic warfare evasion, and the mass deployment of expendable, autonomous platforms.

Simultaneously, the geopolitical architecture governing global defense is fracturing and realigning at an unprecedented pace. The United States has codified a radical, structural shift in its 2026 National Defense Strategy, prioritizing hemispheric security and explicit burden-shifting over traditional European and Indo-Pacific expeditionary deterrence frameworks. In direct response to this pivot, NATO allies are driving a historic domestic industrial mobilization, aiming for a highly ambitious 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) defense spending target by 2035. Across the Pacific, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is actively operationalizing constabulary blockades around Taiwan, utilizing gray-zone lawfare while simultaneously fortifying its nuclear second-strike capabilities deep within protected internal maritime bastions.

This report provides a granular, exhaustive examination of these macroscopic shifts, identifying the ten most critical insights for military leadership, defense policymakers, and scholars of military affairs. By comprehensively analyzing the complex interplay between tactical technological innovation—ranging from fiber-optic tethered drones and agentic artificial intelligence to autonomous subterranean breaching platforms—and macro-level doctrinal evolution, this assessment offers a definitive view of the 2026 operational environment. The insights contained herein demonstrate that legacy platforms and rigid, multi-year acquisition cycles are fundamentally vulnerable to adversaries capable of deploying rapid, asymmetric, and economically sustainable mass.

Analytical Framework for Insight Identification

To distill the vast, chaotic array of global military developments into the ten most critical and actionable insights, a structured, rigorous analytical framework was employed. This framework leverages open-source intelligence (OSINT), authoritative defense publications, institutional policy documents, and think-tank assessments—including primary data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). The identification process evaluated global defense developments against three primary criteria:

1. Strategic Disruption and Cost-Exchange: Does the technology, event, or doctrinal shift fundamentally alter the cost-exchange calculus or the operational parity between adversaries? Priority was given to developments that allow a smaller or less technologically advanced force to impose disproportionate strategic costs on a superior force.
2. Cross-Domain Applicability and Structural Shifts: Is the development isolated to a single geographic theater, or does it represent a structural shift that dictates adaptation across multiple geographic and physical domains? Phenomena that force a re-evaluation of land, sea, air, space, cyberspace, and subterranean doctrines were weighted heavily.
3. Doctrinal Maturation and Operational Deployment: Has the phenomenon moved beyond theoretical capability, wargaming, or isolated prototyping into sustained, scaled operational deployment? Insights were selected based on their proven ability to force immediate, systemic countermeasures by opposing forces on the modern battlefield.

By rigorously cross-referencing tactical battlefield data from the Russo-Ukrainian War, complex naval interdiction operations in the Red Sea, sustained Indo-Pacific signaling, and defense industrial base realignments in North America and Europe, the resulting insights capture the actionable, ground-truth realities defining modern statecraft and armed conflict in 2026.

1. Doctrinal Reconfiguration of Alliances and Burden-Sharing

The strategic calculus of global military alliances is undergoing a generational reconfiguration, catalyzed primarily by sweeping changes in United States defense policy. The release of the 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) marks a radical departure from previous doctrines, explicitly rejecting the national security approaches of previous administrations.¹ The 2026 NDS adopts a populist tone—referencing the president directly 47 times—and distinctly prioritizes homeland and hemispheric security over expeditionary deployments.¹ Crucially, the strategy explicitly delegates the primary responsibility for European defense to European allies, relegating the United States to a supporting role, and removes conventional conflict with Russia or North Korea as major U.S. force drivers.¹

This stark doctrinal pivot has catalyzed an unprecedented defense industrial surge among NATO allies, fundamentally restructuring the transatlantic defense industrial base. During the July 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, under the guidance of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, member states codified credible, actionable plans to reach a highly ambitious 5% of GDP defense spending target by 2035.² This target is divided into 3.5% dedicated to core defense budgets and 1.5% allocated to critical infrastructure—roads, bridges, and ports—to ensure the rapid mobilization of troops and equipment in conflict scenarios.⁵

Impressively, the realization of this goal is already well underway. European allies and Canada are currently investing approximately 4% of their GDPs in defense and security, representing an injection of an extra $258 billion across the 2025 and 2026 fiscal years combined.⁴

This capital influx resulted in $3 billion in major defense industrial deals and joint ventures announced at the Ankara summit alone to expand the defense industrial base.² These agreements signal a shift toward localized European production of critical munitions and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Notable agreements include Lockheed Martin establishing Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) sustainment facilities in Europe, a partnership between Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall for localized Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) production, and a 10-nation Letter of Interest with Northrop Grumman to purchase MQ-4C Triton drones to expand maritime ground surveillance.² The strategic takeaway is that regional deterrence architectures are rapidly decentralizing; allies are building indigenous industrial capacity to offset a less expeditionary U.S. force posture, fundamentally redefining the concept of burden-sharing for the next decade.

2. Multinational Interoperability and Homeland Defense Evolution

As geographic sanctuary fades and threats become increasingly transnational, military forces are prioritizing complex multinational interoperability to project power and maintain free access to global commons. This dynamic was most visibly demonstrated during the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2026 naval exercise held in and around Hawaii.⁶ As the largest international maritime exercise globally, RIMPAC 2026 convened 30 nations, 32 surface ships, five submarines, 206 aircraft, and over 30,000 personnel.⁷

The 2026 iteration marked significant milestones in alliance integration, primarily signaling to adversaries in the Indo-Pacific. For the first time, a South Korean admiral commanded the combined naval component of the drills, supported by South Korea’s newest Aegis destroyer (the ROKS Jeongjo the Great), a submarine, and an amphibious landing ship.⁶ The exercise emphasized extreme interoperability, integrating units ranging from the Republic of Korea’s 1st Assault Amphibian Vehicle Battalion to U.S. Navy Seabee Divers from Underwater Construction Team 2, and specialized Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel from the United Kingdom.⁶

Table: Strategic force posture and command roles during the RIMPAC 2026 multinational exercise.⁶

Beyond standard live-fire operations, RIMPAC 2026 placed a heavy emphasis on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) academics and multinational medical symposiums, recognizing that logistical cohesion during environmental crises is indistinguishable from logistical cohesion during armed conflict.¹⁰

Concurrently, the evolution of homeland defense has become a paramount concern. Discussions at the CSIS Global Security Forum, specifically the “America at 250” panel, highlighted the fading reality of geographic sanctuary.¹¹ With adversaries possessing a wider spectrum of threats across land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace capable of reaching continental shores, military planners are fundamentally adapting resilience models.¹² Homeland defense is no longer viewed solely as border security; it requires deep integration of expanded missile defense concepts and robust public-private cyber resilience to protect critical civilian infrastructure from asymmetric strikes.¹

3. Strategic and Structural Lessons from the Russo-Ukrainian War

Four years into the conflict, the Russo-Ukrainian War continues to serve as the premier laboratory for modern strategic thought and tactical adaptation. Defense analysts and military institutions, including the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS), have distilled critical structural lessons that must inform all future force generation.¹³

The paramount strategic lesson identified by RUSI is the reaffirmation of war as a fundamental test of will.¹³ The conflict has demonstrated that hubris remains a fatal strategic weakness, and the ties that bind Western alliances are not as immutable as previously imagined.¹³ Furthermore, Ukraine’s continued, grinding resistance has provided an unexpected boost to global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, proving that conventional defense can hold against a nuclear-armed aggressor.¹³ Notably, the perception of Russian nuclear threats contrasts sharply with the actual policy conducted by the Kremlin, highlighting the difference between rhetorical deterrence and operational capability.¹⁵

Tactically, military planners are warned against the danger of drawing static conclusions. The HCSS emphasizes that any future conflict with Russia will be against the heavily adapted Russian armed forces of 2026 or 2030, not the deeply flawed force that invaded in 2022.¹⁴ Russia has demonstrated a formidable capacity to adapt its force structures, modus operandi, and electronic warfare capabilities in parallel to fighting.¹⁴ Similarly, the geopolitical and economic resilience of both nations has defied initial modeling; neither the Ukrainian nor the Russian economy has collapsed entirely, forcing a re-evaluation of how sanctions and economic attrition impact industrialized warfare.¹³

Geographically, the conflict has highlighted the strategic primacy of urban “fortress belts.” In the Donbas region, cities like Lyman operate as the northern outposts of a strategic defensive line.¹⁶ The physical environment—a vast cobweb of spent fiber-optic cables draped over shattered buildings, anti-drone nets covering roads, and soldiers operating entirely without electricity or running water—epitomizes the brutal reality of modern attritional warfare.¹⁶ The strategic objective is no longer sweeping maneuver warfare, but rather tying down and exhausting adversary forces in densely built-up, highly fortified urban and industrial landscapes.¹⁶

4. Reversing the Asymmetric Cost Calculus in Drone Warfare

The tactical and economic asymmetry of drone warfare reached a critical breaking point in late 2024 and 2025, culminating in a severe cost-exchange crisis for superior Western navies.¹⁷ During protracted naval defense operations in the Red Sea, U.S. Aegis destroyers were routinely forced to fire multi-million-dollar interceptor missiles—such as the SM-2, SM-6, and Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM)—to shoot down locally assembled, Iranian-supplied one-way attack drones costing roughly $2,000.¹⁷ While these defensive intercepts were technically successful, the operational model was strategically unsustainable.¹⁷ It rapidly depleted finite U.S. munitions stockpiles, strained constrained manufacturing lines that require years to replenish, and resulted in nearly a billion dollars in pure missile defense expenditures.¹⁷

This crisis was catalyzed into action following a tragic escalation. Iranian-backed forces launched an attack on a U.S. military facility at Port Shuaiba, resulting in the deaths of six U.S. troops despite the activation of base warning systems (Big Voice) and the availability of bunkers.¹⁹ In response, the United States executed a radical doctrinal and technological pivot, abandoning purely defensive postures for offensive cost-imposition.¹⁷

On February 28, 2026, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) launched “Operation Epic Fury,” a campaign designed to aggressively strike and degrade Iranian missile, air-defense, and nuclear-related infrastructure.¹⁷ The tactical revolution of this operation was the deployment of massed, low-cost drones at scale, utilizing a “distributed kill web” rather than a linear kill chain.¹⁷ To reverse the cost calculus, the U.S. military reverse-engineered a captured Iranian Shahed drone to create the LUCAS system—an American-made, low-cost, one-way attack drone costing only $30,000 to $40,000 per airframe.¹⁷

Built using commercial-grade engines and open-architecture electronics, the LUCAS system bypassed traditional 5-to-10-year acquisition cycles, transitioning from concept to combat in mere months.¹⁷ Integrated alongside the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), CENTCOM’s Task Force 59 demonstrated that these drones could be launched from modular deck-edge systems on varied surface combatants.¹⁷ By flooding adversary airspace with cheap mass, the U.S. successfully forced adversaries to deplete their own expensive surface-to-air missiles, entirely flipping the economic asymmetry of the conflict.¹⁷ To turn this urgent adaptation into a long-term strategy, the U.S. is building an industrial ecosystem to surge cheap unmanned mass under the “Drone Dominance” initiative, aiming to manufacture 300,000 to 340,000 small drones over two years.¹⁷

5. The Transition to Agentic Warfare and Autonomous Decision Systems

While generative artificial intelligence dominated public and defense discourse in previous years, 2026 marks the definitive operationalization of “Agentic AI” within highly sensitive military systems.²¹ Unlike generative models that merely assist human operators by rapidly drafting technical solutions or summarizing intelligence, Agentic AI functions with profound autonomy.²¹ These systems autonomously plan, make complex decisions, and take continuous actions across workflows, such as coordinating live experiments, optimizing battlefield test plans, and managing iterative targeting cycles.²¹

This paradigm shift initiates the era of “agentic warfare,” wherein autonomous AI agents serve as primary executors—force multipliers and analytical disruptors—in intelligence gathering, logistical optimization, and offensive decision-making.²² Recognizing the strategic imperative, the U.S. Department of Defense has invested heavily, committing over $800 million to frontier AI technologies and integrating specialized defense systems such as the Virtualitics GenAI toolkit and the C3 AI Enterprise Suite.²²

However, the transition from human-in-the-loop to human-on-the-loop introduces severe, novel vulnerabilities in high-stakes operational environments. The Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) warns that Agentic AI amplifies the autonomy versus security dilemma.²³ The inherent dual-use potential of the technology is driving a rapid, somewhat reckless military adoption race.²³ Real-world applications in contested environments face massive challenges regarding technical reliability under cyber-attack, ethical oversight in lethal autonomous targeting, and susceptibility to data poisoning.²²

Consequently, military leadership is being forced to establish rigorous verification frameworks before scaling these systems into active combat roles. This includes the mandatory implementation of Independent Verification and Validation (IVV) protocols, integration with intelligence verification tools like Maltego, and adherence to emerging cybersecurity standards such as the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) frameworks.²² Furthermore, administrative compliance is tightening; to maintain active partnerships with entities like the National Security Technology Accelerator (NSTXL), defense contractors must now meet stringent Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 requirements by November 10, 2026.²⁴

6. Fiber-Optic Systems and the Evasion of Electromagnetic Countermeasures

As AI advances, the physical realities of the tactical battlefield are regressing to counter-electronic warfare (EW) innovations. The most critical tactical development of 2026 is the mass deployment of fiber-optic communication for uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), effectively rendering massive investments in radio-frequency jamming obsolete.²⁵

Historically, dense EW jamming and GNSS spoofing domes provided a reliable defensive umbrella against First-Person View (FPV) drones. In response, Russian forces introduced a heavily modified variant of the Molniya fixed-wing strike drone.²⁵ Unlike standard RF-controlled drones, these new variants unspool a physical, micro-thin fiber-optic cable during flight, maintaining a hardwired command link back to the operator.¹⁶ With ranges extending between 50 to 100 kilometers, these systems do not rely on standard radio frequencies or Starlink satellite connections, rendering them completely immune to electronic reconnaissance and traditional EW jamming equipment.²⁵

The operational impact on the battlefield has been devastating. During the Kursk campaign, the deployment of Russian fiber-optic drones caused Ukrainian logistics networks to collapse. The drones relentlessly monitored supply routes, resulting in an unprecedented vehicle loss ratio where Ukraine lost 25% more vehicles than Russia, heavily degrading high-value, hard-to-replace assets like Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.²⁸

The resulting lesson for military affairs is the absolute necessity of rapid, kinetic countermeasures. Because non-kinetic jamming is ineffective against a physical wire, Ukraine has accelerated the deployment of autonomous AI-guided kinetic interceptor drones to physically collide with and destroy incoming Molniya drones.²⁷ Utilizing domestically produced systems like the General Cherry AIR and Bullet interceptors—which accounted for 43% of all Molniya intercepts in March 2026—Ukraine achieved the first confirmed intercept of an AI-equipped Molniya over Zaporizhzhia.²⁷ Furthermore, Ukraine has rapidly copied the innovation; specialized units like the “Birds of Magyar” are now fielding their own fiber-optic drone models capable of reaching approximately 40 kilometers into the Russian operational rear.²⁶ The tactical environment has thus transitioned from an invisible electromagnetic struggle back to a requirement for physical, kinetic interception at scale.

7. State-Enabled Irregular Warfare and the Red Sea Deterrence Architecture

The protracted crisis in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden has crystallized a highly effective new model of strategic engagement: State-Enabled Irregular Warfare.¹⁸ The sustained campaign by the Houthi rebel group against global shipping demonstrates exactly how an insurgent actor, operating below the threshold of conventional conflict but empowered by state-level external support, can generate strategic effects wildly disproportionate to its conventional military strength.¹⁸

The Houthis do not operate as a traditional proxy under direct command and control; they maintain high operational autonomy while leveraging years of Iranian technology transfers, including advanced precision-guided ballistic missiles, long-range drone strike systems, and sophisticated maritime intelligence support.¹⁸ Their objective is not to secure conventional battlefield victories against Western navies. Instead, their irregular warfare campaign is designed to shape regional decision-making, alter opponent behavior, and force superior adversaries to divert massive attention and resources to secondary theaters.¹⁸

Table: The doctrinal components and operational implementation of State-Enabled Irregular Warfare.¹⁸

The threat is further amplified by reported Houthi coordination with the Al-Shabab group in Somalia, creating a wider web of disruption.¹⁸ The persistence of this campaign has triggered continuous international diplomatic and military responses. In July 2026, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) considered renewing resolutions demanding the cessation of Houthi attacks on merchant vessels, building upon Resolution 2722 (co-authored by Japan and the U.S.) and Resolution 2812 (co-authored by Greece and the U.S.).²⁹

However, the military reality remains bleak. The current deterrence architecture in the Red Sea relies on layered missile defense at sea, preemptive ISR monitoring, and rapid retaliatory strikes.³⁰ This posture is described by analysts as “deterrence under tension, not deterrence under resolution”.³⁰ The fundamental lesson for future military engagement is that purely defensive naval patrols address only the operational symptoms of the crisis, not the strategic root causes.¹⁸ Attempting to counter inexpensive, networked, and highly adaptable irregular threats using rigid, expensive conventional naval assets leads directly to strategic and economic depletion.¹⁸

8. Constabulary Blockades and Undersea Nuclear Bastion Fortification

In the Indo-Pacific, the character of military coercion is shifting away from the immediate threat of massive amphibious invasion toward sophisticated gray-zone jurisdictional control and nuclear fortification. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the China Coast Guard (CCG) have significantly refined a strategy of “doghouse diplomacy”—isolating and punishing regional neighbors through intense maritime pressure.³¹

This strategy is highly visible around Taiwan. Following a series of large-scale military drills, such as the “Justice Mission 2025” exercises that saw PLA assets cross the Taiwan Strait median line 44 times in a single day, China is now establishing the operational architecture for a de facto maritime blockade using constabulary forces rather than warships.³² In mid-2026, the CCG established a normalized, continuous presence within the eastern portion of Taiwan’s claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).³³ By rotating vessels (such as CCG ships 2305 and 1401 relieving 2304 and 2502) and frequently disabling their Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) to complicate international tracking, China is asserting persistent physical control over vital maritime arteries.³³

Crucially, these CCG law enforcement ships have begun hailing passing international commercial cargo vessels, demanding compliance under the guise of PRC “law enforcement” and “marine environmental surveys”.³³ This represents a highly sophisticated application of legal warfare (lawfare). If global shipping companies, terrified of surging insurance premiums, tacitly recognize and comply with CCG hailing, Beijing successfully establishes de facto jurisdiction over international waters without firing a shot.³³ This allows the PRC to transition seamlessly from civilian patrols to a military quarantine, effectively choking Taiwan’s economy, which relies heavily on these trade chokepoints.³³ Taiwan has responded by holding national tabletop exercises to simulate rapid responses to such maritime quarantines, highlighting the imminence of the threat.³⁴

Concurrently, China is cementing its strategic deterrence to prevent U.S. intervention in any such blockade scenario. On July 6, 2026, the PLA Navy conducted a rare test of a Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM)—noting that the PRC has not publicly announced a test of an SLBM since 1982.³³ Launched from a Type 09IV ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) likely positioned in the internal waters of the Bohai Sea or South China Sea, the missile traversed the Pacific to impact between Tuvalu and Kiribati.³³ Whether the missile was the 8,000-km range JL-2 or the newer 10,000-km JL-3, the test proved a critical strategic reality: the PLA can now hold the continental United States at risk directly from highly protected, heavily mined internal maritime “bastions”.³³ This ensures the absolute survivability of China’s nuclear second-strike capability without requiring vulnerable submarines to transit through monitored maritime chokepoints into the open ocean, placing a heavy nuclear shadow over any conventional Indo-Pacific conflict.³³

9. The Emergence of the Autonomous Subterranean Battlespace

Global military modernization has historically suffered from a severe “vertical bias,” wherein defense ministries pour hundreds of billions of dollars into aerospace, surface, and maritime technologies while largely ignoring the deep-earth domain.³⁸ In 2026, the subterranean battlespace has emerged as a critical, technologically contested frontier. Adversaries worldwide have spent decades digging downward to shield senior leadership, command infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and weapons manufacturing nodes from conventional overhead surveillance and precision airstrikes.³⁸ The U.S. Army doctrinally estimates that there are currently over 10,000 known, deeply buried military facilities globally, from the tunnel networks of Gaza to massive underground bunkers in Iran and subterranean logistics hubs in Ukraine.³⁸

To counter this asymmetry, 2026 has seen the introduction of specialized autonomous defense technologies designed to project power downward. Companies such as Traysar, which recently emerged from stealth at the 2026 Reindustrialize Summit with a $25 million seed funding round led by Silent Ventures and backing from SpaceX and Boring Company engineers, are pioneering autonomous platforms engineered to penetrate, map, and secure the subterranean domain.³⁸

These novel systems include excavator-class autonomous tunnel breaching robots designed to navigate and clear contested underground networks dynamically without risking human operators.³⁸ Furthermore, high-speed burrowing platforms are being developed to drill new, precision access points to deliver critical payloads—ranging from sensor suites to high-yield explosives—directly beneath hardened adversary infrastructure.³⁹

The strategic insight for military affairs is that the earth’s crust is rapidly being transformed into an active, three-dimensional warfighting space.³⁸ Militaries must aggressively integrate subterra advantage doctrines—using the underground to maneuver forces and sustain logistics beyond enemy observation—and subterra denial operations to neutralize deeply buried threats.⁴²

10. The Proliferation of Subsurface Autonomy and Persistent GNSS Denial

The final critical insight of 2026 centers on the maturation of the naval subsurface domain and the absolute necessity of spectrum resilience. Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) interference—specifically aggressive GPS jamming and signal spoofing—has permanently transitioned from an episodic nuisance to a constant, structural feature of modern conflict zones worldwide.⁴³

Throughout early 2026, synchronized, multi-node interference networks operated primarily by Russia severely degraded maritime and civilian aviation safety across the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Finland, the Black Sea, and the Arctic.⁴⁴ Data from intensive field campaigns off the coast of Gdansk revealed that GNSS positioning was completely unavailable up to 17% of the time.⁴⁴ The Secure World Foundation’s 2026 report indicates this is a global phenomenon, with rampant jamming observed across the Middle East, the South China Sea, and the Korean peninsula.⁴⁵ GNSS jamming is now utilized not merely to disrupt adversary UAVs and precision munitions, but as a proactive tool to shape operator behavior, allowing state actors to observe how adversaries execute backup procedures and resilience protocols.⁴⁵ The absolute military imperative is that systems deployed in 2026 and beyond must be inherently capable of operating through spectrum degradation, integrating non-space-based quantum inertial navigation and resilient local decision-making.⁴⁴ To combat this, programs like DARPA’s Robust Quantum Sensors (RoQS) have begun funding non-space-based, jam-immune quantum inertial navigation prototypes.⁴⁴

Simultaneously, the naval subsurface domain is experiencing a massive proliferation of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), which naturally operate in GNSS-denied underwater environments. Driven by advancements in AI navigation, the broader AUV market is projected to skyrocket to $14.51 billion by 2033.⁴⁹ While initially focused on removing human divers from perilous naval mine detection missions, the scale and lethality of UUVs have expanded dramatically.⁴⁹

At the Eurosatory 2026 defense exhibition, Ukraine unveiled the Sea Trident ST-1000, an Extra-Large Uncrewed Underwater Vehicle (XLUUV).⁵⁰ Weighing 10 tonnes, operating at depths of 60 meters, and capable of carrying a massive 1,000 kg warhead over a 2,000 nautical mile range, the Sea Trident represents the maturation of asymmetric maritime strike.⁵⁰ Furthermore, these autonomous platforms are evolving into multi-domain motherships. Ukraine has upgraded its surface “Sea Baby” naval drones to serve as launch platforms for fiber-optic FPV aerial drones and thermobaric Shmel rockets, extending their strike reach up to 930 miles beyond the coast.⁵¹ The threat of autonomous underwater and hybrid surface-aerial strikes has become so acute that the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been forced to retrofit its elite, cruise-missile-capable Kilo-class submarines with physical anti-drone cages to protect them while surfaced.⁵³ Subsurface autonomy is no longer relegated to slow ISR missions; it is now a primary vector for heavy kinetic strikes and cross-domain payload delivery, fundamentally altering naval base defense requirements.

Conclusion

The military developments spanning the first half of 2026 provide a definitive preview of the future operating environment—an environment characterized by extreme technological agility, the weaponization of economic exhaustion, and the fading of geographic sanctuaries. The overarching lesson for military leaders, defense scholars, and policymakers is that legacy platforms, exquisite munitions, and rigid acquisition cycles are highly vulnerable to rapid, asymmetric cost-imposition strategies.

The success of offensive maneuvers like Operation Epic Fury demonstrates that strategic innovation must focus on generating expendable, autonomous mass rather than relying solely on exquisite, low-volume defensive interceptors. Furthermore, the operational environment is demanding a paradoxical synthesis of hyper-advanced and rudimentary technologies. As demonstrated by the mass deployment of physical fiber-optic drones to bypass electronic warfare and the normalization of persistent GNSS jamming, the electromagnetic spectrum is so highly contested that military forces are frequently forced to revert to physical, kinetic solutions and hardwired communications.

Geopolitically, the era of absolute reliance on a centralized U.S. expeditionary security umbrella is visibly concluding. The 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy and the subsequent, massive industrial mobilization of NATO allies signify a structural, generational shift toward regionalized defense burdens and localized industrial bases. Concurrently, adversaries are exploiting the gray zone with increasing sophistication, utilizing state-enabled insurgents in the Red Sea and constabulary blockades in the Taiwan Strait to achieve profound strategic objectives without crossing the technical threshold of conventional war. To maintain strategic advantage in this fractured era, military forces must rapidly integrate autonomous systems across all domains—including the newly critical subterranean battlespace and the deep ocean—while aggressively cultivating the domestic industrial agility required to replenish mass in protracted, attritional conflicts.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. The 2026 National Defense Strategy by the Numbers: Radical …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/2026-national-defense-strategy-numbers-radical-changes-moderate-changes-and-some
2. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Historic Defense Investment from NATO Allies, Powering American Industry – The White House, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-historic-defense-investment-from-nato-allies-powering-american-industry/
3. NATO Secretary General previews the Ankara Summit, highlights progress on defence spending, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2026/07/06/nato-secretary-general-previews-the-ankara-summit-highlights-progress-on-defence-spending
4. NATO 3.0 is rising — and buying American, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/06/mark-rutte-nato-summit-shows-europe-defense-spending-rising/
5. NATO chief demands allies present credible plans to reach defense spending targets, accessed July 12, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/nato-summit-spending-rutte-afeb65422318e1dd91c5a433f9d35980
6. Military exercises kick off across the islands with RIMPAC 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/the-conversation/2026-06-29/military-exercises-kick-off-across-the-islands-with-rimpac-2026
7. US conducts massive RIMPAC joint naval drills, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/07/07/sxtj-j07.html
8. RAF Joins Allies at RIMPAC 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-joins-allies-at-rimpac-2026/
9. U.S. Navy Seabee Divers Hold Training Exercise During RIMPAC 2026 [Image 1 of 5], accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9798299/us-navy-seabee-divers-hold-training-exercise-during-rimpac-2026
10. B-Roll: Partner nations participate in maritime security training tabletop exercise during RIMPAC 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.cpf.navy.mil/rimpac/news/videoid/1014219/dvpmoduleid/114769/
11. Global Security Forum | Defense and Security – CSIS, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.csis.org/programs/global-security-forum
12. Strengthening U.S. Homeland Defense Against Global Threats | 2026 Global Security Forum, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y8TaAPih-4
13. Four Years On – Ten Lessons from Russia’s War in Ukraine – RUSI, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/four-years-ten-lessons-russias-war-ukraine
14. Lessons That Transfer Observations from the Russo-Ukraine War for European Land Forces – The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Lessons-That-Transfer-HCSS-2026.pdf
15. Twenty-one strategic lessons of the Ukraine war | Note de la FRS, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.frstrategie.org/en/publications/notes/twenty-one-strategic-lessons-ukraine-war-2026
16. Kill zones and drone nets: a journey through Ukraine’s fortress belt, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/jul/03/kill-zones-drone-nets-journey-ukraine-fortress-belt
17. From Red Sea Defense to Epic Fury: How the U.S. Flipped the …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://defense.info/re-shaping-defense-security/2026/03/from-red-sea-defense-to-epic-fury-how-the-u-s-flipped-the-drone-cost-equation/
18. The Houthis and the Evolution of State-Enabled Irregular Warfare …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/perspectives/the-houthis-and-the-evolution-of-state-enabled-irregular-warfare-lessons-from-the-red-sea-for-future-strategic-military-engagement/
19. Survivors of Iranian attack that killed 6 U.S. troops say generals ignored warnings, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/12/survivors-iranian-attack-that-killed-6-us-troops-say-generals-ignored-warnings/
20. Operation Epic Fury and International Law – United States Department of State, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-legal-adviser/2026/04/operation-epic-fury-and-international-law
21. Defense Tech Trends for 2026: Innovation in Action – NSTXL, accessed July 12, 2026, https://nstxl.org/defense-tech-trends/
22. Agentic Generative AI in U.S. National Security and Defense: Tools, Frameworks, and Policy Recommendations – TechRxiv, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/pdf/10.36227/techrxiv.175976328.82579064
23. GCSP Publication | The International Security and Military …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.gcsp.ch/publications/international-security-and-military-implications-agentic-ai
24. NSTXL: OTA Government Contracting | Access Innovation, accessed July 12, 2026, https://nstxl.org/
25. Russians test fibre-optic equivalent of Molniya drone with range of up to 50 km, expert says – video, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/07/08/8043111/
26. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 7, 2026, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-7-2026/
27. Russia’s AI drone can’t be jammed or detected—so Ukraine shot it down, accessed July 12, 2026, https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/07/09/russias-ai-drone-cant-be-jammed-or-detected-so-ukraine-shot-it-down/
28. Fiber-optic drones have emerged as critical kit for both Russia and Ukraine – Atlantic Council, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/fiber-optics-drones-have-emerged-as-critical-kit-for-both-russia-and-ukraine/
29. The Red Sea, July 2026 Monthly Forecast – Security Council Report, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-07/the-red-sea.php
30. Red Sea Uncertainty: A 2026 Forecast for the Houthis Actions – Global Security Review, accessed July 12, 2026, https://globalsecurityreview.com/red-sea-uncertainty-a-2026-forecast-for-the-houthis-actions/
31. Chinese maritime coercion of Japan and Philippines seeks to deter Taiwan, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/6399608
32. Chinese drill near Taiwan seen as test run for blockade, message to US – Defense News, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2026/01/08/chinese-drill-near-taiwan-seen-as-test-run-for-blockade-message-to-us/
33. China & Taiwan Update, July 10, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-july-10-2026/
34. Taiwan Simulates Response to Chinese Maritime Blockade in Security Drills｜TaiwanPlus News – YouTube, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4j4a3tiZk
35. How China can bring Taiwan to its knees without firing a shot, accessed July 12, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/how-china-can-bring-taiwan-to-its-knees-without-firing-a-shot/articleshow/132312918.cms
36. Troubled Straits: Analyzing Trade Chokepoints in the South China Sea, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-china-sea-trade-chokepoints
37. China & Taiwan Update, July 2, 2026 – ISW, accessed July 12, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-july-2-2026/
38. Underground Maneuver: Traysar Emerges From Stealth With $25M Seed Round to Modernize Subterranean Warfare, accessed July 12, 2026, https://satnews.com/2026/06/23/underground-maneuver-traysar-emerges-from-stealth-with-25m-seed-round-to-modernize-subterranean-warfare/
39. 5 Interesting Startup Deals You May Have Missed: AI That Dispatches The Plumber, Underground Warfare And Cutting Down Private-Market Paperwork, accessed July 12, 2026, https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/interesting-startup-deals-ai-defense-tech-healthcare/
40. Traysar Raises $25 Million To Build Subterranean Defense Technology, accessed July 12, 2026, https://pulse2.com/traysar-raises-25-million-to-build-subterranean-defense-technology/
41. ‘World’s First’ Subterranean Defense Firm to Build Tunnel-breaching Tech, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.designdevelopmenttoday.com/industries/military/news/22969038/worlds-first-subterranean-defense-firm-to-build-tunnelbreaching-tech
42. Traysar: Securing U.S. Military Dominance with Subterra Technology, accessed July 12, 2026, https://traysar.com/
43. GNSS Interference Now a Constant of Modern Conflict, SWF Annual Report Finds, accessed July 12, 2026, https://insidegnss.com/gnss-interference-now-a-constant-of-modern-conflict-swf-annual-report-finds/
44. 2026 GNSS Jamming Crisis: Baltic & Middle East GPS Interference …, accessed July 12, 2026, https://fireblazeaischool.in/blogs/the-2026-gnss-jamming-crisis-whats-actually-happening-over-the-baltic-and-middle-east
45. NATO Shipping Centre Reports on GNSS Disturbances, accessed July 12, 2026, https://shipping.nato.int/nsc/media-centre/news-archive/2026/nato-shipping-centre-reports-on-gnss-disturbances
46. As more nations seek counterspace chops, GPS jamming also rises: Report, accessed July 12, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/04/as-more-nations-seek-counterspace-chops-gps-jamming-also-rises-report/
47. Russian Jamming and Spoofing Threatens the Baltics – Grey Dynamics, accessed July 12, 2026, https://greydynamics.com/russian-jamming-spoof/
48. Autonomous Defense in 2026: How Europe Must Prepare for a New Digital Battlefield, accessed July 12, 2026, https://orbotix.tech/autonomous-defense-2026/
49. Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) Emerging as Fastest-Growing Segment in Naval Defense Tech, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.morningstar.com/news/pr-newswire/20260709ln01336/autonomous-underwater-vehicles-auv-emerging-as-fastest-growing-segment-in-naval-defense-tech
50. Video: Ukraine’s Massive New Underwater Drone – Sea Trident ST-1000, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/06/video-ukraines-massive-new-underwater-drone-sea-trident-st-1000/
51. Ukraine is launching strike-drones from everything – including Black Sea robo-boats, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/07/01/ukraine-is-launching-strike-drones-from-everything-including-black-sea-robo-boats/
52. This is Battleship – United24, accessed July 12, 2026, https://u24.gov.ua/seababy
53. Ukraine Military Situation Report | July 8, accessed July 12, 2026, https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/ukraine-military-situation-report-july-8-can-kasapoglu