Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Russia adopts new nuclear doctrine allowing “nuclear retaliation” to NATO attacks

The new cold war

Published 20 November 2024
– By Editorial Staff
Ultimately, it is Mr Putin who decides how and when to use the country's nuclear arsenal.
2 minute read

President Vladimir Putin has approved a revised version of Russia’s nuclear doctrine.

Under the new doctrine, Moscow will reserve the right to respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks deemed to threaten its sovereignty, and any attack by a non-nuclear country supported by a nuclear power will henceforth be considered a joint attack by them.

Russia will also consider “nuclear retaliation” if a large-scale launch of hostile aircraft, missiles or drones occurs, targeting either Russian territory or its ally Belarus.

The doctrine was announced back in September but was approved by Mr Putin on Tuesday morning. According to the new version, Russia can use nuclear deterrence not only against powers and military blocs that themselves possess weapons of mass destruction or large quantities of conventional weapons – but also against “countries that provide their sovereign space for other parties to prepare and launch an attack against Russia”, Russian state broadcaster RT reports.

“An attack by a single member of a bloc, including one that does not have nuclear weapons, will be considered an attack by the entire collective. The same would apply where a nation that does not formally belong to a military organization is backed by a nuclear power”, it stresses.

The doctrine further states that the aim is to ensure that “a potential aggressor realizes that retaliation will be inevitable” and that its military allies will enjoy the same protection.

Response to US escalation

The document lists ten threats that require countermeasures through nuclear deterrence, ranging from nuclear arsenals in the possession of hostile parties to the potential uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. Other threats include military build-up near Russia’s borders, the development of anti-ballistic missile systems, the deployment of conventional weapons systems capable of striking Russian territory, and potential sabotage plans to cause large-scale environmental disasters.

The list of triggers for nuclear retaliation now also includes confirmed intelligence of a massive incoming attack by hostile aircraft, missiles and drones as soon as such weapons pass into Russian airspace.

Currently, Vladimir Putin ultimately decides how and when to use the country’s nuclear arsenal. The new doctrine was approved just days after outgoing US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to use US long-range weapons to attack targets deep inside Russia.

Moscow has previously warned that such an attack would put Russia and NATO at direct war with each other.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Hegseth to Europe: Buy more American weapons for Ukraine

The war in Ukraine

Published today 14:44
– By Editorial Staff
Pete Hegseth together with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
2 minute read

Western military support to Ukraine has nearly halved over the summer. Now the US Secretary of Defense is demanding that NATO countries once again open their wallets for more American weapons deliveries – but several major European nations are hesitating.

Pete Hegseth had a clear message when he met with his NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday: Europe must invest even more money in American weapons for Ukraine.

The US Secretary of Defense pointed to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy showing that military support to Kiev fell dramatically during the summer months – a 43 percent decrease compared to the first half of the year.

Hegseth was explicit about his view on how peace is achieved.

— You get peace when you are strong. Not when you use strong words or wag your fingers, you get it when you have strong and real capabilities that adversaries respect, he declared to assembled journalists.

Zelensky wants more

At the center of discussions is the PURL program – Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List – which has fundamentally changed how the U.S. supports Ukraine militarily. Previously, Washington donated weapons directly, but now NATO countries must pay for the deliveries themselves.

According to Hegseth, the logic is simple: The more Europe buys, the faster the war can be concluded.

— Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine, to bring that conflict to a peaceful conclusion, he said.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that $2 billion has been pledged so far through the PURL system, and that he expects additional contributions. But the figure falls far short of the $3.5 billion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had hoped to secure by October.

Three countries made new pledges on Wednesday: Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Corresponding commitments from European heavyweights such as Spain, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom are still lacking.

USA – the big winner?

The Russian government has accused Kiev’s European financiers of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, and Moscow claims that European countries are unwilling to acknowledge the failure of their strategy.

Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic consequences of their sanctions policy against Russia. After rejecting Russian energy, many EU economies have been hit by rising production costs and widespread bankruptcies in industry.

The United States, however, has benefited from developments through increased investment flows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.

“A celebration of peace – not a show of force”

The new cold war

Published yesterday 16:40
An air echelon attends the victory day parade in Beijing , capital of China, September 3, 2025.
3 minute read
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

China’s Victory Day parade in early September drew wide attention both at home and abroad. While Chinese audiences saw it as a solemn moment of remembrance and confidence, some foreign media outlets rushed to label it a “show of force,” a “signal to the West,” or even evidence of new global division.

These interpretations ignore the deeper significance of the event and the consistent principles guiding China’s approach to global affairs.

At its heart, the parade was an act of remembrance—marking China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the global triumph over fascism. It was a tribute to the sacrifices of millions and a powerful reminder that peace is never easily won.

The presence of numerous foreign leaders in Beijing during the parade was a statement in itself. They were there not to take sides or escalate tensions, but to stand together in honoring the past and fostering a future built on peace. Their participation underscored a shared commitment to dialogue, not division.

Building capabilities to uphold principles

The weapons and equipment displayed at the parade should be understood within the framework of China’s long-standing defense policy, one based on peace and restraint.

Consider China’s nuclear posture: China remains the only nuclear-weapon state to publicly commit to a No-First-Use policy under any circumstances. This reflects a profound belief that nuclear weapons must never be used, and that a nuclear war can have no winners. China’s nuclear arsenal is kept strictly at the minimum level required for national security.

In terms of conventional forces, the unveiling of new-generation tanks, aircraft, and missile systems such as hypersonic weapons does showcase progress in China’s military modernization. Yet this progress is guided by a doctrine of active self-defense. These systems are designed to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to project power globally. They serve as an anchor for national security and a stabilizer for regional security, deterring interference rather than provoking conflict.

The parade also featured unmanned and AI-enabled systems, highlighting China’s progress in technology and innovation. Importantly, this display went hand-in-hand with China’s call for international dialogue on regulating military uses of artificial intelligence. China has consistently advocated for a balanced approach—one that prevents misuse and humanitarian risks without stifling beneficial technological progress.

A message for the future

Yes, the parade was grand in scale. Yes, it displayed advanced weaponry systems. But above all, it conveyed a message of responsibility, transparency, and an enduring commitment to peace.

In times of rising mistrust and uncertainty, that message carries weight. The real choice before the international community is not between holding parades or staying silent, but between pursuing dialogue or confrontation, cooperation or suspicion. By honoring history and demonstrating its defensive posture, China has extended a hand of reassurance, not a fist of provocation.

The lesson of history is clear: peace is built through openness, cooperation, and mutual respect. This parade was, in that spirit, a step forward—a visible pledge of China’s dedication to a peaceful and stable world.

 

Hua Gesheng

About the author

Hua Gesheng is a commentator on international and multilateral affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, China Daily, CGTN, etc.

From trade war to industrial warfare – the battle for rare earth metals

The new cold war

Published 13 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
China controls 90% of the world's rare earth metals, minerals found in everything from smartphones to fighter jets.
8 minute read

On October 10, China detonated a bomb – not with missiles, but with minerals. New export controls on rare earth metals now threaten to suffocate the entire global high-tech supply chain.

Two superpowers stand face to face in what has become an industrial war. The Nordic Times summarizes the dramatic escalation that has changed the playing field between the USA and China.

The development has been described by analysts as an “economic Pearl Harbor”. This is no longer just about trade policy countermeasures, but about mutual economic mass destruction where both sides are prepared to take major damage to win.

What began as a trade war about tariffs has transformed into a battle for control over the elements that drive the modern world.

What happened on October 10?

On October 10, 2025, China imposed new tightened export controls on rare earth metals and related technology. The regulations require special licenses for export of products containing more than 0.1% rare earth metals from China – or manufactured with Chinese production technology.

It sounds technical, but the implications are explosive. As journalist Mario Nawfal states: “That’s laptops, batteries, EVs – basically the modern world”.

With a stroke of the pen, Beijing gained veto power over large parts of the world’s high-tech production.

President Donald Trump responded within hours. He threatened an additional 100% tariffs on Chinese goods “on top of all tariffs they are currently paying,” with start on November 1. Trump called China’s move “absolutely unheard of in International Trade, and a moral disgrace”.

The market reaction was brutal – in a single day, $2 trillion in market value disappeared from American stock markets. The Dow Jones fell by 879 points (1.9%), the S&P 500 dropped 2.71%, and the Nasdaq plunged 3.56% – the worst days since April.

Why are rare earth metals so important?

To understand why the world now stands on the brink of an economic crisis, one must understand what rare earth metals are – and why China controls them.

China accounts for 70% of global rare earth metal mining and 90% of the world’s processing and refining. The country produces as much as 95% of the world’s rare earth magnets.

These minerals are used in everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military equipment and renewable energy technology. Rare earth metals are critical components in advanced military technology – from fighter jets to submarines, these critical minerals power essential systems.

The figures are striking: A single F-35 fighter jet contains over 400 kg of rare earth metals, while a Virginia-class submarine requires a full 4,600 kg. Rare earth metals are also critical for medical technology in laser surgery and MRI scanning.

Already in 1992, the then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping stated that “the Middle East has oil and China has rare earths”. It wasn’t just an observation – it was a long-term strategy that is now reaching its culmination.

From trade war to industrial war

The trade conflict between the USA and China began in 2018 during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the USA imposed tariffs on Chinese goods to limit the growing American trade deficit with China.

During the Joe Biden administration (2021-2025), the tensions continued, with Trump’s tariffs remaining and Biden imposing restrictions on American exports of technological knowledge and advanced chips to China.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the conflict quickly escalated. On April 2, 2025, during what Trump called “liberation day,” the USA imposed an additional 34 percent tariff, which increased the total tariff against China up to 54 percent.

China responded on April 4 with export restrictions on seven rare earth metals, and tariffs quickly escalated to a minimum of 145 percent during the spring, and stock markets nearly entered a bear market in April.

In May, the parties agreed to a ceasefire to negotiate a new trade agreement, and both China and the USA significantly reduced tariffs. In June, a framework agreement was concluded in which China committed to continue giving the green light for export of rare earth metals to the USA.

But the peace was fragile. In October 2025, China announced the strictest export controls on rare earth metals and permanent magnets to date – and the ongoing trade war transformed into something entirely different.

China’s new weapon

For the first time, China applied the so-called “foreign direct product rule” (FDPR) – a mechanism that the USA has long used to restrict semiconductor exports to China. Now China is turning the tables.

“Under the new regime, any product containing ≥0.1% Chinese rare earths or magnet material now requires a Chinese export license, even if it’s made abroad. In other words: if your phone, drone, or fighter jet includes Chinese-origin materials anywhere in its supply chain, Beijing gets a veto,” comments Mario Nawfal.

“This isn’t about dirt or ore – it’s about control of the midstream, where minerals become tech. The move turns rare earths into a geopolitical weapon”, he continues.

China doesn’t just control the mines, but the entire value chain from raw materials to finished products. And now that power is being used as a weapon.

AI and the defense industry in the crosshairs

The two biggest losers are expected to be the AI industry and the military-industrial complex. China’s new export controls stipulate that materials used for chip production below the 14 nanometer node must seek approval from China.

The nanometer node is a measure of how small the transistors in a chip are – the lower the number, the more advanced and powerful the technology, and modern AI and advanced military technology require chips below 14nm.

Even products with dual-use applications – that is, technology that can be used both civilly and militarily – must be approved. Beijing will decide each case individually.

This creates a potential bottleneck for the entire advanced chip supply chain. TSMC, the world’s largest contract manufacturer of semiconductors, is already prohibited from manufacturing chips below the 14nm node for China at the USA’s request.

Now China is reversing the logic: if we can’t get your most advanced chips anyway, maybe the world doesn’t need them either. China’s own chip manufacturer SMIC can produce equivalent 7nm to 5nm chips.

The stock market reaction showed which sectors are hit hardest. The technology and green energy sectors, both of which are heavily dependent on rare earth metals such as neodymium and dysprosium, bore the heaviest burden.

Nvidia fell by nearly 5 percent, AMD by 7.7 percent, and Tesla dropped over 5 percent. Chinese tech giants were hit even harder – Alibaba fell by 10 percent, Baidu over 8 percent, and JD.com by more than 6 percent.

USA’s desperate countermoves

Trump administration’s top officials have convened executives from technology and rare earth companies in an intensive effort to accelerate the development of the entire supply chain for domestic production.

“The Pentagon launched a $1 billion buying spree to stockpile cobalt, antimony, scandium, and other critical minerals – a modern version of Cold War hoarding”, states Nawfal.

In July 2025, the Department of Defense (recently renamed the Department of War) invested $400 million in equity in MP Materials, making the US government the company’s largest shareholder. The deal also includes a 10-year price floor of $110 per kilogram for the company’s NdPr products.

But reality is brutal: even when these facilities are fully operational, MP Materials will only produce 1,000 tons of neodymium-boron-iron magnets by the end of 2025 – less than 1 percent of the 138,000 tons that China produces.

American officials have acknowledged that the overall effort will still take time and therefore leave the country and its allies vulnerable to Xi’s strategic whims in the short term.

“But time is China’s ally. The U.S. can’t build refining and magnet plants overnight, and global alternatives (Australia, Brazil, India) remain in early stages”, argues Mario Nawfal further.

A new geopolitical reality

A former White House advisor warned that China’s strict controls on rare earth metals represent “the power to forbid any country on Earth from participating in the modern economy”.

The market reaction reveals something fundamentally new: the divergence between the dollar and gold shows that markets are now trading tariffs as if they’re striking back against the USA, not against the rest of the world.

During previous crises, the dollar has strengthened as a safe haven – now it’s falling instead.

The trade wars are an expression of a deeper power struggle between the USA and China that has the potential to shake the world economy and create a new international order.

Mario Nawfal summarizes: “Beijing’s goal isn’t total collapse – it’s pressure through precision. By tightening supply just enough to make the West sweat, China gains leverage”.

What happens now?

Trump threatened to cancel his planned meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in South Korea on October 31-November 1, although he later clarified that he had not completely cancelled the meeting but was uncertain whether it would take place.

Both Trump and Xi Jinping under no circumstances want to appear weak, which especially applies to Xi Jinping and the Communist Party, which bases its power position on having made China strong and standing up to Western nations.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement: “China’s stance is consistent – we do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one”.

The 100% tariffs are set to take effect on November 1 – or earlier. The Pentagon is buying critical minerals in panic, allied countries are rushing to build alternative supply chains, and stock markets around the world are holding their breath.

Nawfal concludes his analysis with a grim prognosis: “This isn’t a tariff skirmish anymore – it’s a war over the atoms that make the modern world spin. Forget trade war. This is industrial warfare… and both sides are ready to bleed to win”.

The question is who can endure the pain the longest.

Finland faces multimillion lawsuit over illegal boarding of Eagle S

The new cold war

Published 3 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
The Eagle S was dramatically boarded on Christmas night 2024 – an action that the court has now determined lacked legal basis.
4 minute read

Helsinki District Court rules that Finland lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the crew of oil tanker Eagle S.

Harsh criticism is now directed at authorities’ boarding of the vessel in international waters – an action that risks becoming very costly for Finnish taxpayers.

The ruling from Helsinki District Court is a heavy setback for Finnish authorities who dramatically boarded the oil tanker Eagle S in international waters last year. The district court establishes that Finland simply lacked the right to prosecute the crew for the alleged cable breaks.

Captain Davit Vadatchkoria and officers Robert Egizaryan and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia were charged with aggravated sabotage and aggravated disruption of postal and telecommunications traffic. The charges also included alternative, lesser criminal classifications: sabotage, aggravated vandalism and causing public danger.

But since the cable breaks – which involved five underwater cables – occurred outside Finland’s territorial waters, Finnish criminal law cannot be applied, the court states.

“International waters – period”

Lawyer Herman Ljungberg, who represents shipping company Caravella FZ LLC, has consistently argued that the action was illegal.

— The damage occurred in international waters, period. Therefore Finland has nothing to do with the matter. Only the flag state, in this case the Cook Islands, has jurisdiction, he tells Svenska Yle.

Ljungberg goes further and calls the incident an illegal hijacking.

— The boarding should absolutely be investigated. We already filed a police report about the boarding at an earlier stage, but it was left without investigation, he says.

District court refers to maritime law convention

In its ruling, the district court states that the incident was an accident and refers to articles in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The court does note that the act according to the charges had caused “exceptionally large” economic damage, but still establishes that a Finnish court cannot try the case.

The court’s conclusion underscores the inappropriateness of the authorities’ actions: They boarded a vessel in international waters, held it for over two months and brought charges – despite lacking jurisdiction.

Taxpayers will pay the bill

The direct cost of the failed legal process already amounts to €193,000 in legal costs that the Finnish state must reimburse the three acquitted defendants.

But that could be the beginning of a significantly more expensive bill. The shipping company is preparing extensive damage claims.

— It could involve damages of tens of millions of euros. The shipping company believes the Finnish state owes them money due to the illegal hijacking of the vessel, says Ljungberg.

He points to the cargo – primarily unleaded gasoline – allegedly being damaged during the months the vessel was held, as well as lost rental income while the ship stood idle outside Sköldvik, Finland.

“Shadow fleet” – a loaded term without clear definition

The case has been characterized by strong words and dramatic headlines. When the EU introduced new sanctions in May 2025 against what is called “the Russian shadow fleet,” Eagle S was placed on a list of so-called shadow vessels.

The term “shadow vessel” or “shadow fleet” is used by politicians and in media, but there is no unified, official definition of what is meant. The concept generally seems to refer to older vessels with complicated ownership structures that transport Russian oil, possibly to circumvent international sanctions.

That a vessel appears on the EU’s sanctions list does not, however, affect the question of jurisdiction. In the Eagle S case, the court establishes that Finland lacked the right to prosecute the crew, regardless of the vessel’s status as a listed shadow ship.

What happens now?

The prosecutors, represented by Deputy Prosecutor General Jukka Rappe, have not yet commented on the ruling. Rappe has previously unsuccessfully tried to justify why Finland should have jurisdiction:

— In this case, the cable capacity has been so large that in my opinion it is clear that data communication and the electrical system have been affected in Finland. Therefore the act is considered to have been performed in Finland even though the location where the cables were cut lies outside Finnish borders, Rappe told Svenska Yle in August.

Now prosecutors face the choice of appealing to the Court of Appeal or accepting defeat.

It is also possible that the Cook Islands, as flag state for Eagle S, chooses to take over the investigation – if they would even consider there is a case to investigate.

For the three crew members, who spent months in Finland with travel bans and obligations to report to police weekly, the matter is now over. But for the Finnish state and taxpayers, the consequences of the hasty boarding could prove far more costly than those responsible originally imagined.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.