US-China tariff cuts, US-Russia signal Ukraine talks & more

Negotiators from the United States and China are accelerating efforts to finalize a reciprocal tariff-reduction package covering $30 billion worth of goods from each country^[1]. Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson Huang Ling confirmed during a briefing that both sides are striving to implement the mutual duty rollbacks "at an early date," aiming to establish a constructive economic foundation ahead of the scheduled September 24 face-to-face summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington^[1]. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun reiterated the importance of the exchange, emphasizing that "leaders' diplomacy plays an irreplaceable strategic guiding role in China-U.S. relations"^[1].

The tariff negotiations build directly on momentum established during President Trump’s visit to Beijing in May 2026, where the two leaders agreed to establish a formal U.S.-China Board of Trade to manage bilateral commerce and ease volatile trade tensions.^[1] Bilateral trade channels have sought pragmatism, focusing on selective tariff waivers and de-escalation mechanisms designed to protect critical supply chains while avoiding open economic decoupling.^[2][3] The prospective tariff package represents one of the most concrete bilateral economic agreements between Washington and Beijing in years. ^[1][2] In tandem with the trade policy discussions, Beijing is finalizing plans to send a high-profile delegation of Chinese business executives to accompany President Xi to Washington.^[4] The planned corporate contingent includes industry leaders from China's technology, electric vehicle (EV), and aerospace sectors.^[4] The move is strategically designed to mirror the private-sector-heavy advisory cadre surrounding the Trump administration and create direct business-to-business negotiating tracks in advanced industrial sectors. ^[4] The impending summit and the reciprocal tariff reductions signal a period of strategic stabilization between the world's two largest economies.^[1] For manufacturing, automotive, and technology markets, easing tariff barriers on $60 billion in combined two-way trade could provide immediate relief against inflation and supply chain bottlenecks.^[1][3] However, analysts note that these tactical economic concessions are carefully calibrated alongside intensifying competition over critical minerals, high-technology export restrictions, and regional maritime security. ^[5][3]

Momentum for renewed diplomatic negotiations over the conflict in Ukraine increased following a high-level direct exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.^[1] Trump publicly stated that he had a "great" discussion with the Russian leader, indicating that Moscow is seeking a negotiated pathway to conclude the war.^[1] In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov affirmed Russia's readiness to re-engage, confirming that the Russian government hopes U.S.-mediated peace talks will resume in short order. ^[1]

The diplomatic channel has expanded to involve senior intelligence and security officials.^[1] U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe is preparing to assume an expanded operational role in managing direct and mediated consultations between Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv.^[1] Concurrently, senior Russian officials noted that President Putin used bilateral communications to convey assurances that Moscow does not harbor aggressive intentions toward broader European territory, an attempt to address heightened European security concerns surrounding regional hybrid operations and border posturing. ^[1] The diplomatic overtures come amid significant pressure on all sides of the conflict.^[1] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has continued to lobby international allies for decisive enforcement measures against Russian infrastructure bombardments, while European Union courts have upheld targeted financial sanctions on prominent Russian figures.^[1] Meanwhile, domestic political considerations in Washington continue to prioritize brokering a cessation of hostilities to redirect strategic focus and resources toward Indo-Pacific and Middle Eastern security theaters. ^[2][1][3] The potential resumption of structured peace negotiations marks a pivotal turn in European security architecture.^[1] A mediator role led by senior U.S. intelligence and diplomatic personnel could reshape multilateral engagement with NATO allies and Ukraine.^[1] Observers emphasize, however, that significant obstacles remain, particularly regarding territorial control, security guarantees, and the long-term sanctions regime imposed on the Russian economy. ^[1]

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin are coordinating strategic policy priorities ahead of the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi.^[1][2][3] The summit convenes the expanded 11-member bloc representing roughly half the world's population, testing the group's capacity to maintain collective cohesion amid simultaneous geopolitical pressures, including the war in Ukraine and the U.S.-Israeli conflict with BRICS member Iran.^[1][4] Russian presidential aides confirmed that Putin will hold extensive bilateral consultations with host Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi during the proceedings. ^[2][5] The bilateral engagements between Moscow and Beijing in New Delhi serve as a crucial consolidation mechanism following their previous summits in Beijing and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) forum in Bishkek.^[6][4][7] Russia and China have deepened their selective strategic integration, transitioning almost all of their bilateral trade - valued near $240 billion - into local currencies (rubles and yuan) to insulate their economies from Western financial restrictions and U.S. dollar dominance.^[8][7] The summit allows both powers to project unified resistance against Western economic sanctions and assert leadership across the Global South.^[1][9][7]

Host nation India faces a delicate diplomatic balancing act throughout the proceedings, seeking to manage long-standing border and trade frictions with Beijing and historic defense ties with Moscow, while simultaneously maintaining its expanding strategic partnerships with the United States and Western allies.^[1][4][3] For President Xi, the BRICS gathering functions as the anchor of a month-long diplomatic offensive across Eurasia before traveling to Washington for bilateral talks with President Trump.

The^[10] convergence in New Delhi underscores the resilience of the Sino-Russian partnership in reshaping multilateral governance structures.^[9][7] The discussions on local-currency settlement systems and expanded alternative trade routes - such as the Northern Sea Route and Eurasian transit corridors - present direct challenges to traditional Western-dominated trade mechanisms. However,^[7] expanding membership has also introduced internal friction within the bloc, requiring Beijing and Moscow to actively mediate differing strategic priorities among members.

The United States and China have finalized the parameters for an official bilateral dialogue on Artificial Intelligence (AI) safety and national security risks, scheduled for mid-September.^[1][2] Led on the U.S. side by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the consultations mark the first specialized government-to-government discussions dedicated entirely to frontier AI governance between the two superpowers during the current administration.^[2] The agenda centers on establishing operational guardrails to prevent rogue autonomous actions, mitigate systemic cyber risks, and maintain strict human command over critical systems.^[1][3][2]

The official talks follow extensive Track II diplomatic groundwork coordinated between leading policy institutions, including the Brookings Institution and Tsinghua University's Center for International Security and Strategy.^[3] These consultative sessions produced consensus frameworks aimed at reinforcing the principle that human operators must retain exclusive control over nuclear command systems and offensive AI-driven cyber operations.^[3] The upcoming bilateral dialogue aims to translate these academic and technical redlines into formal intergovernmental agreements ahead of the Trump-Xi summit.^[2][4]

A primary objective for U.S. negotiators is establishing bilateral crisis communication protocols to manage cross-border AI incidents and monitor autonomous cyber vulnerabilities.^[2] Washington has also floated proposals encouraging frontier AI developers and research labs in both countries to implement shared self-policing standards and risk-mitigation measures.^[2] Chinese negotiators, in turn, have emphasized the necessity of regulatory consistency regarding the deployment of high-capability frontier models to prevent destabilizing asymmetric military applications.^[3][2]

The institutionalization of U.S.-China AI safety dialogues reflects a mutual recognition that the risks posed by unmonitored frontier AI transcend conventional geopolitical rivalry.^[2] While significant technical and competitive divisions persist - especially regarding semiconductor export restrictions and military research - establishing early-warning channels and basic safety standards is seen by defense analysts as vital for preventing unintended technological escalation between the two superpowers.^[2][4]

The United States and Poland finalized a landmark $4 billion Foreign Military Financing (FMF) loan agreement in Warsaw, significantly bolstering military procurement and collective defense infrastructure along NATO’s eastern frontier. Inked at^[1] the Polish Army Museum by Polish Minister of National Defence Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz and senior U.S. officials, the financing transaction represents the sixth major bilateral credit line granted to Warsaw, bringing Poland’s cumulative FMF loan total to approximately $20 billion.^[1][2] Polish defense leadership confirmed the capital will directly fund the technical modernization of the Polish Armed Forces - principally targeting acquisitions of advanced U.S.-manufactured assets such as additional F-35A Lightning II multirole fighter aircraft, AH-64E Apache attack helicopters, and integrated air and missile defense systems.^[1][2]

The massive financing agreement coincides with rapid structural shifts across NATO’s Eastern Flank. Facing ongoing security challenges following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and persistent hybrid threats along the Belarusian border, frontline states have sharply ramped up defense investments.^[3][4] Poland has emerged as the alliance's foremost domestic spender by economic share, allocating over 4.5% of its GDP to defense.^[3][5] Parallel to the U.S. credit agreement, Polish defense diplomacy has intensified across neighboring sectors: Warsaw signed a defense cooperation memorandum with Canada to procure unmanned aerial systems (including FlyEye mini-drones and Warmate loitering munitions) and expand Arctic training drills, while Polish ^[6] Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže met at the Ādaži military base to align integrated regional air defenses and coordinate European Union funding for eastern border fortifications.^[4]

The agreement underscores a bifurcated yet complementary approach to transatlantic burden-sharing. Addressing these shifts, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized that European allies have undergone a "fundamental mindset shift," realizing that taking direct responsibility for continental security and revitalizing the defense industrial base is no longer optional. Magdalena Sobkowiak,^[7] Poland's State Secretary for Defense, highlighted that Warsaw is positioning itself as a central industrial and operational hub for allied defense manufacturers in Europe, integrating U.S. Foreign Military Sales with European programs like the €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, under which Poland secured nearly €44 billion.^[5]

Geopolitically, the injection of capital and rapid bilateral defense alignments further institutionalize NATO’s transition from a symbolic tripwire posture to a permanently fortified, combat-ready deterrence architecture extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. With Poland serving as the^[8][9] central logistical and military anchor for NATO’s forward land forces, the expanded defense agreements establish long-term technological interoperability between American aerospace platforms and European frontline forces, consolidating allied deterrence against potential cross-border aggression.

World leaders and top diplomats have converged on New Delhi as India formally commences proceedings for the 18th BRICS Summit at Bharat Mandapam^[1]. The gathering brings together 11 full member nations and 10 partner countries, collectively representing approximately 49 percent of the world’s population and 40 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).^[1] Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar opened the BRICS Business Forum by characterizing the contemporary international landscape as defined by structural volatility, uncertainty, and disruption, fueled by overlapping geopolitical tensions, supply chain fragmentation, and climate shocks. ^[2]

The summit marks a major diplomatic milestone, featuring the first visit to India by Chinese President Xi Jinping in nearly seven years, alongside the arrival of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.^[3][1] The agenda is anchored by high-level sessions on reforming inclusive global governance, advancing artificial intelligence frameworks, expanding local-currency and alternative trade settlement mechanisms, and enhancing critical supply chain resilience across the Global South. ^[3][4][1] Expert commentary published across leading foreign policy institutes underscores that New Delhi’s presidency epitomizes an accelerating shift toward "networked multilateralism" and strategic hedging.^[3][5] Analysis from international affairs scholars, including Jean Monnet Chair Professor Ummu Salma Bava at Jawaharlal Nehru University, highlights how middle powers are navigating a crowded architecture of minilateral and multilateral alignments.^[3] Having engaged the European Union leadership earlier in the year, India’s hosting of Russian, Chinese, and Middle Eastern counterparts demonstrates an adeptness at multi-alignment, even as policy experts at Chatham House note persistent underlying frictions between members over the ultimate institutional identity and purpose of the expanded BRICS bloc.

For^[3][6][5] major powers, the summit serves as a litmus test for whether alternative governance mechanisms can deliver tangible geoeconomic outcomes or remain constrained by internal rivalries. With^[4][7] trade tensions between Western capitals and developing economies continuing to mount, the diplomatic deliberations in New Delhi reflect an intensifying push among emerging markets to build institutional redundancies outside traditional Western-dominated financial and political frameworks.

At the annual German Heads of Mission Conference in Berlin, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and German Minister of Foreign Affairs Johann Wadephul outlined a coordinated allied response to escalating Russian grey-zone warfare, centered on a recent reckless hybrid attack targeting logistics infrastructure in Leipzig.^[1] Rutte emphasized the alliance’s collective deterrence posture, affirming that NATO allies are maintaining an integrated front against Moscow's efforts to disrupt Western supply networks and deter continued defense assistance to Ukraine.^[1]

The discussions follow significant tactical and structural realignments along NATO’s eastern flank.^[1] Germany has taken on expanded conventional defense responsibilities, highlighted by the permanent forward deployment of a heavy armored brigade in Lithuania and the assumption of command responsibilities by the First German-Netherlands Corps.^[1] Concurrently, allied maritime forces in the Baltic Sea have intensified operations aimed at monitoring and neutralizing the risks posed by Russia's maritime "shadow fleet," which is increasingly utilized to circumvent energy sanctions and covertly probe underwater communications cables and energy pipelines.^[1]

Security analysts emphasize that hybrid warfare and infrastructure vulnerability have emerged as primary operational flashpoints between Moscow and Western powers.^[1] Expert essays published in strategic journals, including analysis by Russian foreign policy specialist Andrey Kortunov, note that as conventional avenues stall, asymmetric disruption has become an increasingly central tool in state competition.^[2] However, these measures also elevate the danger of miscalculation or unintended escalation under Article 5 collective defense provisions.^[1]

The Berlin summit made clear that European allies are preparing for a protracted security burden.^[1][3] The permanent institutionalization of forward-stationed combat units and hardened infrastructure defense represents a definitive pivot toward enduring containment strategies designed to insulate critical European logistics from covert state-sponsored disruption.

The Philippine Senate Committee on Foreign Relations formally advanced deliberations on the proposed Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOFA/VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the French Republic^[1]. Chaired by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri alongside Vice Chair Senator Erwin Tulfo, the legislative hearing marked a defining procedural milestone toward establishing a legally binding framework for rotational military deployments, joint bilateral exercises, and deepened maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific^[1]. High-level defense and diplomatic officials - including Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr., leadership from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) - convened to articulate the national and regional necessity of expanding structured defense pacts beyond Manila’s traditional alliance with Washington.

The^[1] legislative push reflects Manila’s evolving "Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept," designed to counter persistent maritime friction and coercive maneuvers across the South China Sea and the broader West Philippine Sea. Historically reliant on its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and subsequent VFA with the United States, the Philippines has systematically pursued a web of bilateral and minilateral security ties with like-minded democracies, including reciprocal access treaties with regional partners such as Australia and Japan.^[2][2] Formalizing an agreement with Paris brings a European permanent United Nations Security Council member and resident Indo-Pacific power directly into operational alignment with Manila, signaling an unprecedented internationalization of regional maritime defense.

Discussions during the hearings focused heavily on operational interoperability, capability development, and clear legal protections ensuring sovereign criminal jurisdiction.^[1] Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro emphasized the strategic context of the Philippine-French pact, presenting it as an essential pillar for modernizing the AFP's territorial defense posture, facilitating advanced naval and air integration, and fostering European defense technology transfers.^[1] Concurrently, the DFA and DOJ outlined provisions safeguarding Philippine sovereignty, noting that the agreement establishes balanced coordination protocols for visiting French troops while facilitating broader security and economic cooperation, including progressive dialogues surrounding a potential European Union free trade pact.^[1]

The strategic implications of the Philippine-French SOFA are profound for Indo-Pacific power dynamics. By providing a structured legal mechanism for French naval vessels and aviation units to regularly operate out of Philippine military installations, the agreement effectively bridges European security interests with Southeast Asian territorial defense. Analysts observe that this bilateral pact reinforces a multilateral deterrence network alongside the Quad, AUKUS Pillar II, and the burgeoning "Squad" grouping (comprising the U.S., the Philippines, Japan, and Australia).^[3][4] The move complicates unilateral maritime assertions in the region by raising the geopolitical costs of confrontation against an increasingly networked, internationalized regional presence.

The United States Studies Centre and strategic policy bodies released the bilateral framework detailing the "Australia–United Kingdom Agenda for Economic Security," establishing a formal operational roadmap to fuse economic policy, critical mineral resilience, and defense technology collaboration between Canberra and London.^[1] The comprehensive agenda outlines structured mechanisms for both nations to coordinate strategic capital, pool joint investments in high-technology manufacturing, secure clean energy supply chains, and mitigate state-sponsored economic coercion throughout the Indo-Pacific theater.

This strategic framework arrives at a time of^[1] significant evolution for minilateral architectures in the Indo-Pacific, notably the AUKUS security partnership and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).^[2][3] While AUKUS Pillar I remains centered on the delivery of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, Pillar II requires intense bilateral and trilateral integration across advanced technological domains - including quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonic strike capabilities, and autonomous undersea warfare. Policymakers identified critical vulnerabilities^[4][2][5] in raw material processing and industrial manufacturing capacity as primary bottlenecks threatening the timeline and credibility of these defense commitments, necessitating a formal economic security pact to protect vital supply networks.^[1]

The initiative outlines several core pillars: establishing joint mechanisms to attract trusted allied capital into strategic manufacturing, harmonizing foreign investment screening frameworks, and developing shared stockpiles and processing facilities for rare earth elements essential for advanced defense systems.^[1] The pact also emphasizes coordinated responses to trade weaponization and market distortions, allowing Australia and the UK to align export controls and technology licensing standards in lockstep with broader allied standards across the Pacific.^[1]

By formally intertwining economic resilience with hard-power defense modernization, the Australia-UK initiative represents a fundamental shift in how Indo-Pacific allies approach deterrence. Security analysts emphasize that contemporary deterrence extends beyond naval and air presence to encompass economic durability and supply chain sovereign control. This bilateral economic-security integration offers a resilient foundation for the wider network of democratic alliances across the Indo-Pacific, ensuring that critical defense industrial bases remain protected against external disruption and geopolitical leverage.

A severe resurgence of armed conflict along Yemen’s western seaboard has reignited strategic vulnerabilities in the Red Sea corridor.^[1][1] An offensive launched by Houthi forces aimed at seizing key coastal territories from Yemen's internationally recognized, Saudi-backed government has threatened critical maritime chokepoints along the Bab el-Mandeb strait.^[1][1] The developments coincide with expanding maritime friction across the Persian Gulf, where Iranian forces have laid claim to operations against commercial and naval vessels in proximity to the Strait of Hormuz following recent U.S. strikes.^[1][1]

The renewed fighting along the Yemeni coast directly intersects with broader regional hostilities between Washington and Tehran.^[1][1] Policy commentary in international outlets highlights how localized territorial maneuvers are functioning as proxy theaters for the wider conflict, with the Houthis leveraging coastal artillery, drones, and anti-ship missile emplacements to contest commercial sea lanes and exert asymmetric leverage against Western and regional coalitions.^[1][1]

Strategic analysts warn that the vulnerability of these maritime corridors carries severe geoeconomic implications.^[1][1] Rerouting international commercial shipping around the Cape of Good Hope continues to inflate global supply chain costs, energy transit insurance rates, and maritime delivery timelines.^[1][1] Furthermore, the normalization of direct rhetoric and kinetic exchanges between the United States and Iranian-backed entities risks turning low-level containment patrols into an uncontrolled regional confrontation.^[1][1]

With diplomatic de-escalation channels constrained, regional powers and international maritime task forces are being forced to recalibrate their naval posture.^[1][1] The situation underscores that the Red Sea and Persian Gulf remain among the most volatile flashpoints in modern international relations, where tactical shifts on the ground can rapidly disrupt global energy markets and international maritime trade.^[1][1]

Intelligence assessments and geopolitical analyses detailed the systemic constraints, strategic ambiguities, and escalating ripple effects of the tripartite "Mecca Joint Defense Agreement" signed among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. While public declarations by^[1][2] Pakistani and Turkish diplomatic leadership have invoked mutual defense commitments asserting that an attack on one signatory constitutes an attack on all three, comprehensive security reviews highlight significant operational hurdles.^[1][2] The framework operates primarily as an ambitious defense-industrial and financial network - coupling Saudi sovereign capital with Turkish aerospace manufacturing and Pakistani technical defense manpower - rather than an integrated multilateral command structure with automated mutual assistance provisions comparable to NATO's Article 5.^[1][2]

The pact’s strategic friction points are drawing scrutiny across both Eastern European and Indo-Pacific security communities.^[1][3] Turkish participation introduces acute legal and institutional paradoxes due to Ankara’s existing NATO treaty obligations, which constrain autonomous external defense pacts. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s strategic^[1] exposure along its shared border with Iran limits Islamabad’s willingness to become entangled in potential Gulf containment scenarios.^[1] Despite these structural constraints, the pact's outreach has generated trans-regional interest, with prospective expansion dialogues extending to South Asian actors such as Bangladesh, which has officially expressed interest in accession mechanisms being developed in Istanbul.^[4][3]

The emergence of the trilateral triad has provoked direct countermeasures across southeastern Europe and the maritime Indo-Pacific corridor. In southeastern Europe, Greece and Israel finalized the landmark "Achilles Shield" air-defense pact, creating an integrated defensive umbrella across the Aegean Sea and Eastern Mediterranean to counterbalance regional defense recalibrations.^[4] Concurrently, New Delhi has elevated diplomatic vigilance regarding the pact's South Asian and West Asian implications, responding by reinforcing joint operational exercises - such as the 22nd edition of the U.S.-India Yudh Abhyas military drills - and exploring deeper economic-security alignment through the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor alongside the UAE, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus.^[3]

Experts caution that sweeping collective deterrence declarations lacking formalized escalation controls, shared command doctrines, and unified standard operating procedures risk creating a "credibility gap" that could destabilize overlapping regional balances.^[2] Rather than replacing established Western security umbrellas, the Mecca accord exemplifies the growing trend of multipolar minilateralism, where middle powers construct issue-specific, transactional coalitions to bypass traditional Western arms-export restrictions and establish independent spheres of strategic leverage across Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific.

Diplomatic reporting has revealed an intensifying transatlantic rift following an aggressive United States campaign urging NATO allies to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and facilitate the dismantling of its operational authority.^[1] During high-level multilateral interactions in Brussels, U.S. envoy Matthew Whitaker formally pressed representatives from all 32 NATO member states to renounce the court's founding Rome Statute.^[1] Diplomatic sources confirmed that Whitaker concluded his intervention by signaling that Washington would closely track which allied governments aligned with the U.S. position.

The^[1] initiative stems from Washington’s longstanding objections to international judicial oversight, driven by concerns that U.S. officials and military personnel could face war crimes inquiries or legal exposure abroad.^[1] The anti-ICC push represents the latest in a series of unilateral policy adjustments by the Trump administration aimed at curtailing international legal frameworks perceived as constraining American sovereign freedom of action, paralleling recent U.S. withdrawals and boycotts across multilateral bodies.^[1]

European and transatlantic foreign policy analysts point out that this diplomatic pressure places traditional European allies in an exceptionally delicate predicament.^[1] Many core NATO members - including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany - are among the staunchest institutional and financial defenders of the ICC, viewing international criminal accountability as a bedrock of the rules-based order.^[2][1] While diplomats noted that Washington has stopped short of formal sanctions to compel compliance, the implicit conditionality introduces significant friction into NATO’s political consensus.^[1]

The long-term impact of this diplomatic friction threatens to complicate broader alliance coordination.^[1] Analysts warn that should Washington escalate its pressure on allied capitals to repudiate the Rome Statute, it could undermine judicial harmonization across democratic coalitions and weaken joint commitments to upholding international law in other contested operational theaters.