China’s conduct in the Red Sea and surrounding maritime corridors reveals a deliberate pattern of gray zone warfare, increasingly characterized by the use of military-grade lasers against Western reconnaissance aircraft. In early July 2025, a German surveillance plane operating under the EU’s Aspides mission was forced to abort its flight after a Chinese warship targeted it with a laser, prompting Berlin to summon the Chinese ambassador and condemn the incident as a direct threat to personnel and equipment. This was not an isolated case. Back in 2018, multiple U.S. military aircraft, including C-130s operating out of Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, were struck by laser beams, resulting in injuries to American pilots and formal diplomatic protests. Similar reports have emerged from the East and South China Seas, where U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidons and Australian military aircraft were harassed by laser targeting while conducting routine surveillance. The frequency and consistency of these incidents — typically executed without prior warning, deniability intact — point to a calculated Chinese strategy aimed at degrading the effectiveness of Western ISR operations without provoking open conflict. While not overt acts of war, these encounters escalate tensions and test the resolve of NATO and U.S. forces operating in contested theaters from the Horn of Africa to the Western Pacific.
Gray zone warfare refers to actions by state or non-state actors that fall between traditional war and peace — coercive tactics that remain deliberately ambiguous, designed to avoid triggering direct military retaliation while still achieving strategic objectives. These operations operate below the threshold of armed conflict, exploiting legal, political, and psychological ambiguity to gain advantage in contested environments.
Rather than using overt force, gray zone strategies rely on hybrid tools, including cyberattacks, economic pressure, disinformation campaigns, proxy forces, territorial encroachments, and non-lethal military provocations, such as laser dazzling of surveillance aircraft, maritime harassment, or satellite jamming. These tactics are often deniable, plausibly legal, or framed as defensive actions, which makes it difficult for targeted nations to respond through conventional military means or international law.
The rise of gray zone warfare reflects the evolution of modern conflict in a multipolar world where nuclear deterrence, global interdependence, and media scrutiny discourage outright war. Instead, powerful states such as China, Russia, and Iran have adopted the gray zone approach to reshape regional power balances, undermine adversaries, and contest spheres of influence without triggering a full-scale military confrontation. It’s warfare by increments, conducted in slow motion, with the ultimate goal of achieving strategic change before the target even realizes it has occurred.
In the maritime domain, gray zone warfare can involve civilian fishing fleets doubling as militia, unmarked coast guard vessels, or the use of non-lethal laser and radar interference, as seen in incidents in the South China Sea or the Red Sea. In the information space, it manifests as deepfake videos, election interference, and narrative manipulation. Gray zone warfare requires target states to rethink deterrence, legal frameworks, and alliance coordination, because the enemy never quite declares war, but it’s always advancing.
On July 8, 2025, Germany summoned China’s ambassador following an incident in the Red Sea where a Chinese warship allegedly targeted a German surveillance aircraft with a laser. The plane was part of the EU’s Operation Aspides, aimed at safeguarding international shipping from attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The German Defense Ministry reported that the laser targeting occurred without prior communication, leading to the mission’s abortion and the aircraft’s safe landing in Djibouti. The German Foreign Office condemned the act as “entirely unacceptable,” citing risks to personnel and equipment. China has not yet commented on the incident.
Summoning an ambassador is one of the most serious forms of diplomatic protest short of severing relations — a calibrated but forceful signal that a nation considers the other party’s actions not only unacceptable but dangerously close to an act of aggression. It is not a routine expression of discontent; it is a formal and deliberate act that invokes the full weight of state-to-state relations. In this case, Germany’s decision to summon the Chinese ambassador following the laser targeting of its military aircraft is deeply significant. It indicates that Berlin views the event not as an unfortunate mishap, but as a hostile action—one that risked the lives of its personnel and violated the norms of military engagement.
Such a summons functions as a prelude to escalation, the last diplomatic threshold before more direct responses are considered. In traditional diplomacy, this act is reserved for moments of grave consequence — when a state wishes to warn another that the trajectory of events is spiraling toward confrontation. It establishes a public record, demands accountability, and provides an opportunity for the offending state to de-escalate. But if the pattern persists — as it has with China’s repeated laser incidents involving not only Germany but the U.S., Australia, and others — then each successive summoning erodes the space for peaceful resolution and moves the situation incrementally closer to the realm of retaliatory measures, whether economic, cyber, or kinetic. In this way, summoning an ambassador is not merely symbolic; it is a red flare fired into the darkening sky of international diplomacy — a final invitation to step back from the edge.
China’s Repetitive Use of Lasers In the Region
China has previously been accused of targeting U.S. military aircraft with lasers in the same region, particularly near Djibouti, where both China and the United States maintain military bases just miles apart. The most serious series of incidents occurred between April and May 2018, when the U.S. Department of Defense formally accused Chinese personnel at China’s newly established military base in Djibouti of using military-grade lasers against American aircraft. Specifically, the Pentagon reported that at least two U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules transport planes had been targeted during operations near Camp Lemonnier, the central U.S. military installation in the Horn of Africa. The laser exposures allegedly caused eye injuries to two U.S. airmen, though the injuries were not permanently disabling.
In response to these incidents, the Pentagon lodged a formal diplomatic protest with the Chinese government, signaling the gravity of the situation. A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was issued to warn military and civilian pilots of ongoing “unauthorized laser activity” in the area. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also took the unusual step of issuing an alert, instructing civilian aircraft to take precautionary measures when flying in the region. These were not minor or speculative claims — the actions reflected a coordinated and credible assessment by the U.S. military and civil aviation authorities that hostile laser interference was occurring in a critical airspace.
China, however, vehemently denied the allegations, dismissing them as “groundless” and “fabricated.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry publicly maintained that its personnel acted strictly within the bounds of international law and that no such laser activity had been authorized or undertaken by Chinese forces. Despite this denial, the incident marked a significant escalation in the competition between the two powers in the Red Sea region, revealing how non-kinetic weapons like lasers are being employed in contested theaters to challenge rivals while skirting the traditional thresholds of war. In reality, their actions are a deliberate effort to protect their strategic foothold, measured, not overtly aggressive, yet unmistakably rooted in an adversarial posture toward other nations. It’s not pure hostility, but it signals clear boundaries. The United States would be wise to adopt a similar stance, especially when dealing with so-called allies.
China’s Interests in the Red Sea Region
China’s interests in the Red Sea region, particularly around Djibouti, are strategic, economic, and military, tightly tied to its global power projection, trade security, and influence expansion.
The Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints — a narrow passage linking the Mediterranean Sea (via the Suez Canal) to the Indian Ocean, and thereby serving as a vital artery for global commerce. Every day, approximately 6 million barrels of oil and around 10% of all global seaborne trade pass through this corridor. For China, whose economy is heavily reliant on uninterrupted access to foreign markets and energy imports, influence over this strait is not optional — it is a strategic necessity. Positioned at the gateway to East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, the Bab el-Mandeb enables China to secure the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, protect shipping routes central to its Belt and Road Initiative, and exert leverage over a maritime bottleneck that, if disrupted, could send shockwaves through global supply chains. Beijing’s military presence and growing assertiveness in the region — including laser harassment incidents — must be understood through this lens: a calculated effort to defend and dominate a lifeline of commerce, energy, and geopolitical advantage.
China’s military base in Doraleh, Djibouti, established in 2017, represents a historic milestone: it is the first overseas military installation ever built by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Though officially described by Beijing as a “logistics support base” for humanitarian aid, peacekeeping operations, and anti-piracy missions, its capabilities reveal a far more ambitious agenda. The facility is outfitted with a deep-water port, helicopter pads, and a 10,000-foot runway capable of accommodating heavy aircraft, making it a fully functional military hub. Strategically situated near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and just a few miles from the U.S. base at Camp Lemonnier, the Djibouti base allows China to sustain continuous naval operations in the Gulf of Aden and the more expansive Indian Ocean. More importantly, it marks China’s entry into permanent force projection beyond the “First Island Chain,” extending Beijing’s military reach into Africa, the Middle East, and key maritime trade routes. The base is a linchpin in China’s global strategy—both a platform for influence and a shield for its growing overseas interests.
What does “First Island Chain” mean?
The phrase “permanent force projection beyond the First Island Chain” refers to China’s strategic military ambition to extend its operational reach far beyond its immediate coastal waters — into the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and beyond — on a continuous and sustained basis.
The First Island Chain is a geostrategic concept that outlines a string of islands stretching from the Japanese archipelago, through Taiwan, the Philippines, and down to Borneo, forming a natural maritime barrier off China’s eastern coast. Historically, China’s military activities — particularly those of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) — were confined mainly within this boundary. The region within the First Island Chain encompasses the East and South China Seas, areas of intense territorial disputes, and a dense U.S. military presence. Control within this chain is seen by China as vital for homeland defense, protecting its core economic zones, and ensuring access to key sea lanes.
However, “force projection beyond the First Island Chain” means that China is now aiming to break out of this geographic limitation — to operate naval vessels, aircraft, and surveillance platforms regularly in waters such as the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and even parts of the eastern Mediterranean. By establishing overseas bases, such as the one in Djibouti, and through strategic port investments and naval missions abroad, China is transitioning from a regional power to a blue-water navy capable of global reach. The term “permanent” here emphasizes that this isn’t a temporary deployment or show of strength but rather a long-term posture: the infrastructure, logistics, and political presence necessary to sustain military operations thousands of miles from Chinese shores — indefinitely.
China’s sprawling Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) threads through some of the most geopolitically volatile regions on Earth, including East Africa, the Middle East, and up through the Suez Canal, making the Red Sea a vital artery in Beijing’s global economic and strategic blueprint. The BRI is not merely an infrastructure project; it is a vast network of ports, railways, pipelines, and digital corridors designed to bind dozens of countries to China’s trade orbit and political influence. In Djibouti, a key anchor point in this network, China Merchants Group holds significant stakes in the Doraleh Port Terminal, integrating it into Beijing’s broader “string of pearls” strategy — a chain of commercial and military outposts stretching from the South China Sea to East Africa. These hubs serve dual purposes: enabling trade and offering platforms for power projection and contingency operations. The Red Sea, situated at the crossroads of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and Europe, has become more than a transit zone — it is a critical node in China’s strategy to protect its overseas infrastructure, enforce contracts, and manage debt-leveraged partnerships. The presence of PLA forces and strategic interference, such as laser incidents, should be viewed in the context of defending long-term investments with global ramifications.
String of Pearls and India
The “String of Pearls” strategy is a term most commonly used by Indian defense analysts and strategic thinkers to describe China’s growing network of commercial and military facilities along the Indian Ocean littoral, which are seen as part of Beijing’s long-term plan to encircle India and secure its maritime dominance. Though China itself rarely uses the term, the strategy is evident in the pattern of its actions: establishing port infrastructure, forging political ties, and stationing naval assets in countries stretching from the South China Sea to East Africa.
India, while publicly framing its actions as a counterbalance to China’s expanding maritime footprint, has been executing a calculated double game — one that masks cooperation with Beijing beneath the guise of strategic alignment with the West. Its naval base on Assumption Island in Seychelles, expanded ties with Oman, and infrastructure investments in Madagascar and Mauritius are not independent efforts to check Chinese influence but instead seem to have strategically placed assets reinforcing China’s logistical and surveillance web across the Indian Ocean. India’s listening post and airstrip in Madagascar, often presented as an intelligence-gathering asset for Western partners, maybe quietly serving as a relay point for Chinese maritime awareness, offering Beijing indirect access to data streams that U.S. and EU forces assume are secure.
Such a maneuver would require a level of strategic patience, internal compartmentalization, and information warfare far beyond the scope of conventional diplomacy. It suggests that India, while publicly leveraging Western partnerships for economic and defense benefits, is aligned with China on deeper civilizational or multipolar terms — possibly united in a shared vision to dismantle Western hegemony from within. This would also imply that India’s investments in Africa and the Indian Ocean are not about resisting Chinese encroachment but about creating overlapping zones of influence that appear adversarial to the West while quietly securing Beijing’s global logistics chain.
Western defense alliances and intelligence communities could be being profoundly misled, and the entire balance of power in the Indo-Pacific — built around the assumption that India would serve as a bulwark against China — This raises more profound questions about the true nature of strategic autonomy in Indian foreign policy: is it neutrality, or is it a mask for silent allegiance? In an era of gray zone warfare and multi-vector diplomacy, even seemingly competing nations may be acting in tandem beneath the surface, not as rivals, but as coordinated architects of a new global order.
WHY DJIBOUTI?
China’s presence in Djibouti is far more than military — it is the linchpin of a sweeping strategy to entrench itself economically across East Africa and extend its influence deep into the continent’s interior. Positioned at the crossroads of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, Djibouti serves as China’s gateway to East African markets and the vast, resource-rich landlocked regions beyond, including Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the Great Lakes. Through a combination of infrastructure investment, state-backed finance, and strategic construction projects, Beijing has solidified its position at the very foundation of East Africa’s development trajectory.
One of the most emblematic achievements of this strategy is the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway. This Chinese-funded and constructed corridor connects the port of Djibouti to Ethiopia’s capital, offering landlocked Ethiopia its only direct access to the sea. This railway has not only become a vital commercial artery but also a symbol of China’s role as the continent’s infrastructure patron. Beyond transport, China has financed military training academies and built out critical telecommunications systems, integrating itself into both the civilian and defense sectors of Djibouti and its neighbors. This fusion of economic and security interests has enabled China to leverage debt, control construction, and access to technology to cement its long-term influence in the region.
Chinese state-owned and private enterprises now dominate sectors such as mining, construction, logistics, and port operations across East Africa. These companies are not simply economic actors; they are extensions of Chinese statecraft, operating with diplomatic backing and often under the protective umbrella of PLA deployments. From the extraction of rare earth elements to the control of shipping terminals, China has positioned itself as the indispensable infrastructure provider and economic gatekeeper of East Africa. Its strategy is not just to gain access to resources but to reshape the economic geography of the region in its image, tying local economies to Beijing through a web of financial obligations, physical infrastructure, and embedded strategic dependencies.
India is indirectly benefiting from China’s expansive infrastructure and economic endeavors in East Africa, though in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. While India publicly positions itself as a competitor to China in the region, promoting its development partnerships and countering the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the economic reality on the ground suggests that India’s private sector, logistics networks, and geopolitical calculations are also leveraging the systems China has built.
Take the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway and the broader Chinese-funded port infrastructure across East Africa. These facilities have not only streamlined trade for China but have also lowered barriers for all external actors doing business in the region, including Indian companies. Indian firms in pharmaceuticals, textiles, agriculture, and IT services have expanded operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania — in part because Chinese infrastructure has improved port access, power supply, and inland transportation. In effect, India benefits from the modernization of African logistics without bearing the financial burden or political risk associated with large-scale capital projects.
At a strategic level, India’s intelligence and military apparatus is deeply aware of China’s dual-use infrastructure, especially in Djibouti, where military and commercial activities intertwine. However, India has not actively undermined these projects in most cases. On the contrary, there is evidence of pragmatic coexistence. In some African countries, Indian and Chinese firms work in parallel, if not in open cooperation, to develop industrial parks, extract resources, and establish digital infrastructure. Indian diplomats have even leveraged China’s presence to negotiate better bilateral deals, portraying India as the less coercive alternative to Chinese financing while still using the roads and ports China built to move goods and capital.
It is almost as if India is not merely competing but quietly aligning with China; India is not just benefiting passively from China’s endeavors but actively ensuring those systems function efficiently by avoiding confrontation and maintaining the illusion of strategic independence. India extracts economic value and geopolitical leverage from a system whose architecture is Chinese while continuing to enjoy the trust and cooperation of Western powers. In this dual-track posture, India becomes both a consumer of the Chinese-built order and a participant in its global normalization, all while pretending to counterbalance it.
WHY LASERS?
China’s military presence in Djibouti serves not only as a logistical hub, but as a strategic surveillance and counterintelligence platform aimed at monitoring the activities of the United States, France, and Japan—nations that also maintain military installations in the region. From this vantage point near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, China can track a broad array of regional activities, including satellite orbits, naval movements, and signal traffic across the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. What appears to be a support base on paper is in practice a sensor-rich intelligence node, plugged into China’s broader architecture of electronic warfare and information dominance.
The growing number of laser interference incidents—such as those reported by German and U.S. aircraft patrolling near Djibouti—reflects this deeper, more technologically driven confrontation. Contrary to dramatic headlines, these lasers are not aimed at pilots’ eyes to cause blindness. Instead, they are precision-targeted to blind or degrade the performance of electro-optical equipment aboard surveillance aircraft. This includes infrared cameras, targeting systems, and visual sensors that feed intelligence back to military commands. When these lasers strike, they saturate or overwhelm optical sensors, rendering reconnaissance missions ineffective or forcing aircraft to abort their routes.
These lasers typically emanate from Chinese naval vessels or fixed installations at the PLA base in Djibouti; however, their exact origin is difficult to confirm in real time due to the speed and invisibility of their deployment. Using tightly focused beams—often in the near-infrared spectrum—these systems can operate over significant distances with high precision. The result is not simply a temporary “blinding” of equipment but potentially lasting damage to sensitive surveillance optics or even an electronic signature capture that allows Chinese systems to understand the vulnerabilities of Western platforms.
Beijing, when confronted about these incidents, routinely denies wrongdoing. Chinese officials claim that their personnel operate within the bounds of international law, insisting that any use of directed energy is defensive and non-lethal. By framing these actions as legal and restrained, China avoids diplomatic fallout while continuing to test—and shape—the operational limits of Western presence in the region. These denials, however, must be understood within the broader context of gray zone conflict, where plausible deniability and ambiguity are themselves potent weapons. The laser incidents are not just optical harassment—they are a message, one etched in light, telling the West that their dominance of the skies is no longer uncontested.
President Trump Inherited A Dumpster Fire
What we are witnessing is a war, not one declared by missiles or official speeches, but a global power struggle waged through ports, lasers, trade corridors, and silence. It is a war of positions, not proclamations, a campaign of strategic encirclement unfolding in full view while the language of diplomacy continues to pretend all is well. Nations that appear allied, such as India, are operating in the shadows with a dual allegiance, publicly aligned with the West while quietly facilitating the rise of a rival order rooted in Chinese logistical dominance and information control. The illusion of alliance is maintained because the alternative — admitting betrayal — would fracture what little remains of Western geopolitical coherence.
Speculating, of course, the United States found itself in a pickle, unable to act decisively against supposed partners like India without unraveling its Indo-Pacific strategy, but also unable to ignore the mounting evidence of collaboration between these “allies” and Beijing’s long game. This is not incompetence; it is structural entrapment. Calling out India would mean admitting that the West’s entire containment architecture is compromised and that the anti-China coalition is fractured from within. So Washington treads water, bound by the very alliances it once forged to dominate.
On the metaphorical board of Risk, the West misplayed Africa. The post-colonial vacuum, exacerbated by Western exploitation, economic manipulation, and military neglect, created the conditions for China to present itself not as a conqueror but as a rescuer, providing infrastructure, funding, and political support to nations in need of alternatives. The result is a silent but sweeping reorientation of loyalties and logistics across the continent. What began as Chinese port acquisitions and railway contracts has evolved into a strategic latticework of hard power disguised as commerce, supported and at times shielded by the complicity or passivity of countries like India.
By 2016, the United States was already compromised. The Obama administration’s emphasis on restraint, multilateralism, and defense cuts had eroded both military readiness and global leverage. R&D stagnation, the hollowing out of industrial capacity, and an unacknowledged cyber and information war left critical systems vulnerable. When Trump took office, the house was already on fire. His America First doctrine may have sounded the alarm, but it lacked the domestic institutional continuity to reverse a decade of attrition and international coordination. The U.S. entered this asymmetric conflict, weakened economically, socially fractured, and diplomatically cornered.
President Donald Trump’s significant increase in defense spending during his first administration was a direct response to perceived vulnerabilities in U.S. military readiness and global standing. He argued that the military had been depleted and required substantial investment to restore its strength. In 2017, Trump proposed a $639 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2018, marking a 10% increase from the previous year. This budget aimed to expand the size of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and to invest in modernizing military equipment and capabilities.
President Trump often emphasized the existential stakes of his presidency. He warned that without his leadership, the United States would face severe consequences. For instance, during a 2024 campaign rally, he stated, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” referring to potential economic downturns and job losses in industries such as auto manufacturing. Such statements underscored his belief that his administration was crucial to preserving the nation’s security and prosperity, and he is not wrong.
President Trump’s actions and statements reassert American strength on the global stage, particularly in the face of rising powers like China. By increasing defense spending and emphasizing the importance of military readiness, Trump sought to counterbalance global threats and reinforce the United States’ position as a dominant world power. Would those countering his actions, who serve in federal agencies, Congress, and the Senate, be aiding the interests of a hostile foreign nation? That’s treason.
The Final Hour: What Must Be Done
This latest laser incident involving a Chinese warship targeting a German reconnaissance aircraft over the Red Sea is not merely an isolated provocation — it is a symptom of a war already underway, just not formally declared. While the public is distracted by culture wars and digital tribalism, the real battlefield is global, economic, and deeply embedded in our infrastructure. Our enemies do not need to fire a single missile if they can blind our eyes in the sky, buy our ports, influence our politicians, and quietly undermine our sovereignty.
The laser that flashed across the cockpit of a European aircraft is part of the same war that has seen our ports leased to foreign state-backed enterprises, our industrial base hollowed out, and our national security compromised from within. We were not invaded by force — we were bought, piece by piece, by those who were entrusted to protect us. Governors, congressional committees, federal regulators, and even presidents sat at the table, shook hands, and took the deals, binding the United States to international interests that never intended to be allies.
Now, the CCP flexes its strength not just in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait, but from Djibouti to Seattle, from the Gulf of Aden to the Gulf of Mexico. The West did not lose the war in a single battle. It lost it through greed, negligence, and betrayal. The laser was a message: We see you, and we’re not afraid. The only question is: do we see them back? Or are we too busy watching ourselves burn from the inside?
What we are witnessing is not a culture war — it is the cover for a far more dangerous, quiet war that is dismantling the United States from within while foreign adversaries position themselves to dominate the globe without ever launching a traditional invasion.
President Trump, from the moment he entered office, saw this infiltration for what it was: economic warfare, infrastructure capture, and strategic encirclement. His emphasis on rebuilding the military, reshoring manufacturing, confronting China on trade, and exposing globalist entanglements wasn’t just nationalist rhetoric — it was battlefield strategy.
This is not just an erosion of sovereignty — it’s the weaponization of perception, confusion, and control. China’s infiltration of U.S. critical infrastructure through AI-backed technologies and systems is already compromising our electric grids, transportation networks, port logistics, and even civilian communications. However, with the development of Mimic — an AI reportedly engineered by North Korea to replicate phones, emails, and communication protocols — the battlefield is shifting into something even more insidious: synthetic confusion on a massive scale.
Mimic doesn’t need to hack you — it becomes you. It can send false emails from your account, spoof calls from your number, or simulate private conversations between officials or military personnel. At a state level, that means diplomatic chaos. At a personal level, it means fractured families and manipulated behavior, without any visible intruder.
THE INVISIBLE ENEMY.
Now imagine that layered with Chinese AI embedded in smart cities, cloud providers, and telecom networks. This isn’t science fiction — it’s asymmetric cyberwarfare. Confusion becomes a weapon. Mistrust becomes a virus. And in the fog of synthetic communication, even truth becomes suspect.
We Fight Now — Or We Vanish Without Knowing It
This war doesn’t care about your pronouns or your protests. It doesn’t care about your hashtags, headlines, or outrage of the day. While Americans are locked in digital skirmishes over identity and ideology, the real war is unfolding in silence — across our ports, our skies, our energy grids, our food supplies, and deep within the arteries of our national infrastructure.
China and its proxies are no longer merely testing the limits of military power — they are assaulting the very fabric of our reality through machine intelligence, infiltration, and synthetic deception. With AI systems embedded in our systems and foreign technologies mimicking our voices, thoughts, and commands, the battlefield is no longer out there. It is inside our homes, our governments, our minds.
They sold our nation piece by piece, thinking we wouldn’t notice. But we are not asleep—we are awakening. And when the people rise with truth in their hands and clarity in their eyes, no foreign power, no silent war, and no traitor in a suit will stand in our way. The Republic is not dead—it’s remembering who it is. ~ Tore Maras
Suppose we don’t name this war, expose the traitors who enabled it, and move decisively to root out foreign AI, fortify our cyber defenses, detect low-altitude drones, deploy REMOTEID, and restore integrity to every link in our national command chain. In that case, we will wake up in a country we no longer recognize.
Not with bombs. But with silence.
Not with invasion. But with confusion.
President Trump knows this. And now so do you. The time for games is over. We fight now — or we vanish without knowing it.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume IV is now on sale.
