Day: September 18, 2026

And here is Trump’s excuse for avoiding the need to sign the “hellish sanctions.”

According to journalist Pavlyuchenko, Trump plans to speak personally with Putin in the coming days and attempt to persuade him to end the war before the New Year.

The US President intends to warn the Russian dictator that if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire and enter into negotiations, he will grant Ukraine the necessary security guarantees and sign Senator Graham’s bill, which mandates harsh sanctions against Russia.

Trump hopes that economic cooperation between the US and Russia will help convince Putin to end the war.

— @jurgen_nauditt Sep 18, 2026

#CIA  #FBI  #Mossad
THE ROOTS AND THE FRUITS
9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM: the same “kontseptsiya” – concept, the same actors, and the same agencies. 
Search: “Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare” 
Gemini:
share.gemini.google/D1oJvQk0…
The convergence of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the ongoing reverberations of October 7, and the escalating hybrid warfare tactics of the Russian Federation illustrates a profound shift in the global security environment.

We are witnessing a transition from an era dominated by non-state transnational terrorist networks to an era defined by great power competition, where state actors are increasingly co-opting the asymmetric tactics traditionally associated with terrorism.

Here is a breakdown of how these three dynamics intersect and shape the current geopolitical landscape.

1. The Post-9/11 Reality and the Strategic Vacuum

For two decades after 9/11, the primary focus of the Western security apparatus was transnational Islamist terrorism. Today, while groups like ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) remain highly lethal and capable of external operations—evidenced by recent mass-casualty attacks in Iran, Europe, and Russia—the strategic priorities of the United States and NATO have shifted toward homeland defense and countering peer adversaries.

This pivot has created geopolitical vacuums, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. As Western counterterrorism footprints shrink, Russia has aggressively stepped in to fill the void. By deploying state-controlled paramilitary forces (formerly the Wagner Group, now the Africa Corps) to countries like Mali, Libya, and Niger, Moscow is displacing Western influence, even as its scorched-earth counterinsurgency tactics often exacerbate local radicalization.

2. October 7 as a Geopolitical Catalyst

Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, served as a massive strategic distractor for the West, forcing the U.S. to divert naval and military resources back to the Middle East and make difficult trade-offs regarding weapon supplies for Ukraine.

Russia has actively capitalized on this instability. Despite long-standing ties with Israel and a history of being targeted by Islamist extremism itself, Moscow effectively shielded Hamas diplomatically after the attacks. The Kremlin refused to condemn the massacre, hosted Hamas leadership, and utilized the crisis to position itself as a champion of the “Global South” against Western “neocolonialism”. Russia’s alignment with Hamas is highly transactional; it is designed to overextend American resources and degrade Western diplomatic leverage rather than to genuinely stabilize the Middle East.

3. The Current State of Russian State Terrorism and Hybrid War

In late 2026, the concept of “Russian state terrorism” is most visibly manifesting as a coordinated campaign of hybrid warfare designed to terrorize civilian populations in Ukraine and test the thresholds of NATO’s Article 5.

Civilian Attrition in Ukraine: Russia’s conventional military strategy heavily relies on terrorizing the Ukrainian populace. This includes the systematic targeting of civilian power grids ahead of winter to freeze and demoralize the population, as well as seemingly random strikes on civilian rail infrastructure, such as the recent drone attack on a passenger locomotive near the Polish border.
Hybrid Attacks on NATO Soil: Russia is gradually shifting the boundary of acceptable behavior by conducting sabotage and psychological operations across Europe. In recent weeks, NATO airspace has seen multiple incursions. For instance, a Russian drone carrying an explosive device was shot down over Lithuania, and another explosive-laden drone disrupted air travel at Germany’s Leipzig/Halle Airport. Russian naval vessels have also fired emergency flares dangerously close to NATO aircraft over the Baltic Sea.
The Goal of Sub-Threshold Warfare: Military commanders assess that these limited incursions are calculated probes. They are not the precursors to a massed conventional invasion of NATO territory; rather, they are designed to weaken Western resolve, play on public fears of a wider war, and force European governments into a state of perpetual, exhausting vigilance.

The Ultimate Paradox

The current geopolitical environment is defined by a deep irony. Russia frequently warns the United Nations about the enduring threat of global terrorism (specifically ISIS-K) and suffered one of its deadliest domestic terror attacks at Crocus City Hall in 2024. Yet, to achieve its revisionist foreign policy goals, the Russian state has seamlessly integrated the funding of proxy militant groups, the sabotage of foreign infrastructure, and the deliberate targeting of civilians into its own operational playbook.
–

Google Search  google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…
–
See also:  The same old Russian State Terrorism
x.com/mikenov/status/2100231…
–
Pic.: Global Security and Russian Hybrid WarfareMichael Novakhov (@mikenov) #Russia  #StateTerrorism  #Putin
9/11, October 7, and the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM
Gemini:
Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare  share.gemini.google/01C8vwgm…
AI Mode
The same strategic framework, identical agencies, and interlocking networks of non-state actors to achieve the foreign policy objectives.
The perspective that connects 9/11, October 7, and the contemporary actions of the Russian state revolves around a shared operational doctrine—or “kontseptsiya” (концепция)—built on asymmetrical warfare, state-sponsored proxies, and psychological terror. [1, 2]
While Western analysts historical treated 9/11 (executed by Al-Qaeda) and October 7 (executed by Hamas) as distinct acts of non-state global jihadism, geopolitical experts increasingly argue that Russia uses the same strategic framework, identical agencies, and interlocking networks of non-state actors to achieve its foreign policy objectives. [3, 4, 5, 6]
1. The “Kontseptsiya”: Asymmetrical Terror as a State Tool
The structural backbone linking these events is the Soviet-inherited doctrine of “Active Measures” (Aktivnye Meropriyatiya) and asymmetrical warfare. The concept dictates that when conventional military power cannot directly match adversaries (like NATO or the West), the state must utilize asymmetric tools—subversion, disinformation, sabotage, and proxy terror—to fracture enemy cohesion. [1, 6]

The Strategic Goal: The ultimate objective across these iterations is not a military victory on paper, but the strategic exhaustion and internal destabilization of Western democracies. [3, 7]
Blairing the Lines: Russia’s modern execution of this doctrine blurs the boundary between domestic policing, foreign intelligence, and state-backed terror. Whether utilizing continuous drone terror against civilian populations in Kyiv or maintaining strategic diplomatic backchannels with Hamas and its chief sponsor, Iran, the overarching concept remains constant: weaponized instability. [2, 3, 6, 7, 8]

2. The Same Actors: Interlocking Proxies

A core tenet of this perspective is that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Russian state are not isolated actors, but nodes in a continuous web of anti-Western revisionism. [6, 7]

The Soviet/Russian Lineage: Historically, the KGB trained and funded early generations of Middle Eastern militant factions. Today, Moscow hosts Hamas delegations for official diplomatic visits, maintains a military alliance with Iran, and protects networks that directly facilitate asymmetric strikes against Western-aligned democratic nations. [1, 6, 7, 9]
Proxy Deployment: By outsourcing the kinetic violence of terrorism to regional actors like Hamas, Hezbollah, or mercenary syndicates, Russia achieves plausible deniability while exploiting the geopolitical fallout (such as the diversion of Western military aid away from Ukraine). [1, 6, 7]

3. The Same Agencies: The Architecture of Subversion

The institutional apparatus driving these operations relies on the same direct successors of the Soviet security state:

The FSB (Federal Security Service): Primarily focused internally but increasingly active in regional subversion, the FSB specializes in orchestrating domestic “false flags” and terror management to solidify state control.
The GRU (Russian Military Intelligence): The GRU serves as the kinetic arm, orchestrating sabotage, weapon transfers to proxy states, and direct asymmetrical interventions abroad.
The SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service): This agency executes the psychological and informational operations (maskirovka) that frame acts of brutal terrorism as “resistance” or “regional blowback,” systematically muddying the international legal waters. [3, 5, 9, 10, 11]

In essence, whether through the horrific events of 9/11, the mass terror of October 7, or the relentless daily targeting of European civilians, the underlying architecture of subversion employs the same fundamental agencies, networks, and conceptual playbooks. [2, 3, 4, 5, 8]

If you want to explore this continuity deeper, let me know if you would like to look into:

The specific KGB historical archives regarding Middle Eastern proxy networks.
How the Gerasimov Doctrine formalizes these concepts in modern Russian military strategy.
A direct comparison of Russian state tactics in Chechnya and Syria to contemporary attacks.

[1]  en.wikipedia.org

[2]  washingtoninstitute.org
[3]  icct.nl
[4]  iwm.org.uk
[5]  academic.oup.com
[6]  academicworks.cuny.edu
[7]  foi.se
[8]  facebook.com
[9]  ctc.westpoint.edu
[10]  brookings.edu
[11]  rferl.org

– Google Search  google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…

Pic.: 9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM
cfr.org/articles/twenty-five…—  https://x.com/mikenov/status/2100231870701060131

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

#CIA  #FBI  #Mossad
THE ROOTS AND THE FRUITS
9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM: the same “kontseptsiya” – concept, the same actors, and the same agencies. 
Search: “Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare” 
Gemini:
share.gemini.google/D1oJvQk0…
The convergence of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the ongoing reverberations of October 7, and the escalating hybrid warfare tactics of the Russian Federation illustrates a profound shift in the global security environment.

We are witnessing a transition from an era dominated by non-state transnational terrorist networks to an era defined by great power competition, where state actors are increasingly co-opting the asymmetric tactics traditionally associated with terrorism.

Here is a breakdown of how these three dynamics intersect and shape the current geopolitical landscape.

1. The Post-9/11 Reality and the Strategic Vacuum

For two decades after 9/11, the primary focus of the Western security apparatus was transnational Islamist terrorism. Today, while groups like ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) remain highly lethal and capable of external operations—evidenced by recent mass-casualty attacks in Iran, Europe, and Russia—the strategic priorities of the United States and NATO have shifted toward homeland defense and countering peer adversaries.

This pivot has created geopolitical vacuums, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. As Western counterterrorism footprints shrink, Russia has aggressively stepped in to fill the void. By deploying state-controlled paramilitary forces (formerly the Wagner Group, now the Africa Corps) to countries like Mali, Libya, and Niger, Moscow is displacing Western influence, even as its scorched-earth counterinsurgency tactics often exacerbate local radicalization.

2. October 7 as a Geopolitical Catalyst

Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, served as a massive strategic distractor for the West, forcing the U.S. to divert naval and military resources back to the Middle East and make difficult trade-offs regarding weapon supplies for Ukraine.

Russia has actively capitalized on this instability. Despite long-standing ties with Israel and a history of being targeted by Islamist extremism itself, Moscow effectively shielded Hamas diplomatically after the attacks. The Kremlin refused to condemn the massacre, hosted Hamas leadership, and utilized the crisis to position itself as a champion of the “Global South” against Western “neocolonialism”. Russia’s alignment with Hamas is highly transactional; it is designed to overextend American resources and degrade Western diplomatic leverage rather than to genuinely stabilize the Middle East.

3. The Current State of Russian State Terrorism and Hybrid War

In late 2026, the concept of “Russian state terrorism” is most visibly manifesting as a coordinated campaign of hybrid warfare designed to terrorize civilian populations in Ukraine and test the thresholds of NATO’s Article 5.

Civilian Attrition in Ukraine: Russia’s conventional military strategy heavily relies on terrorizing the Ukrainian populace. This includes the systematic targeting of civilian power grids ahead of winter to freeze and demoralize the population, as well as seemingly random strikes on civilian rail infrastructure, such as the recent drone attack on a passenger locomotive near the Polish border.
Hybrid Attacks on NATO Soil: Russia is gradually shifting the boundary of acceptable behavior by conducting sabotage and psychological operations across Europe. In recent weeks, NATO airspace has seen multiple incursions. For instance, a Russian drone carrying an explosive device was shot down over Lithuania, and another explosive-laden drone disrupted air travel at Germany’s Leipzig/Halle Airport. Russian naval vessels have also fired emergency flares dangerously close to NATO aircraft over the Baltic Sea.
The Goal of Sub-Threshold Warfare: Military commanders assess that these limited incursions are calculated probes. They are not the precursors to a massed conventional invasion of NATO territory; rather, they are designed to weaken Western resolve, play on public fears of a wider war, and force European governments into a state of perpetual, exhausting vigilance.

The Ultimate Paradox

The current geopolitical environment is defined by a deep irony. Russia frequently warns the United Nations about the enduring threat of global terrorism (specifically ISIS-K) and suffered one of its deadliest domestic terror attacks at Crocus City Hall in 2024. Yet, to achieve its revisionist foreign policy goals, the Russian state has seamlessly integrated the funding of proxy militant groups, the sabotage of foreign infrastructure, and the deliberate targeting of civilians into its own operational playbook.
–

Google Search  google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…

Pic.: Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare – Google Search  google.com/search?q=Global+S…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare – Google Search  google.com/search?q=Global+S…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

9/11, October 7, and the current state of the RUSSIAN STATE TERRORISM: same: “contseptsiya”, same actors same agencies
Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare  share.gemini.google/D1oJvQk0…
The convergence of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the ongoing reverberations of October 7, and the escalating hybrid warfare tactics of the Russian Federation illustrates a profound shift in the global security environment.

We are witnessing a transition from an era dominated by non-state transnational terrorist networks to an era defined by great power competition, where state actors are increasingly co-opting the asymmetric tactics traditionally associated with terrorism.

Here is a breakdown of how these three dynamics intersect and shape the current geopolitical landscape.

1. The Post-9/11 Reality and the Strategic Vacuum

For two decades after 9/11, the primary focus of the Western security apparatus was transnational Islamist terrorism. Today, while groups like ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) remain highly lethal and capable of external operations—evidenced by recent mass-casualty attacks in Iran, Europe, and Russia—the strategic priorities of the United States and NATO have shifted toward homeland defense and countering peer adversaries.

This pivot has created geopolitical vacuums, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. As Western counterterrorism footprints shrink, Russia has aggressively stepped in to fill the void. By deploying state-controlled paramilitary forces (formerly the Wagner Group, now the Africa Corps) to countries like Mali, Libya, and Niger, Moscow is displacing Western influence, even as its scorched-earth counterinsurgency tactics often exacerbate local radicalization.

2. October 7 as a Geopolitical Catalyst

Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, served as a massive strategic distractor for the West, forcing the U.S. to divert naval and military resources back to the Middle East and make difficult trade-offs regarding weapon supplies for Ukraine.

Russia has actively capitalized on this instability. Despite long-standing ties with Israel and a history of being targeted by Islamist extremism itself, Moscow effectively shielded Hamas diplomatically after the attacks. The Kremlin refused to condemn the massacre, hosted Hamas leadership, and utilized the crisis to position itself as a champion of the “Global South” against Western “neocolonialism”. Russia’s alignment with Hamas is highly transactional; it is designed to overextend American resources and degrade Western diplomatic leverage rather than to genuinely stabilize the Middle East.

3. The Current State of Russian State Terrorism and Hybrid War

In late 2026, the concept of “Russian state terrorism” is most visibly manifesting as a coordinated campaign of hybrid warfare designed to terrorize civilian populations in Ukraine and test the thresholds of NATO’s Article 5.

Civilian Attrition in Ukraine: Russia’s conventional military strategy heavily relies on terrorizing the Ukrainian populace. This includes the systematic targeting of civilian power grids ahead of winter to freeze and demoralize the population, as well as seemingly random strikes on civilian rail infrastructure, such as the recent drone attack on a passenger locomotive near the Polish border.
Hybrid Attacks on NATO Soil: Russia is gradually shifting the boundary of acceptable behavior by conducting sabotage and psychological operations across Europe. In recent weeks, NATO airspace has seen multiple incursions. For instance, a Russian drone carrying an explosive device was shot down over Lithuania, and another explosive-laden drone disrupted air travel at Germany’s Leipzig/Halle Airport. Russian naval vessels have also fired emergency flares dangerously close to NATO aircraft over the Baltic Sea.
The Goal of Sub-Threshold Warfare: Military commanders assess that these limited incursions are calculated probes. They are not the precursors to a massed conventional invasion of NATO territory; rather, they are designed to weaken Western resolve, play on public fears of a wider war, and force European governments into a state of perpetual, exhausting vigilance.

The Ultimate Paradox

The current geopolitical environment is defined by a deep irony. Russia frequently warns the United Nations about the enduring threat of global terrorism (specifically ISIS-K) and suffered one of its deadliest domestic terror attacks at Crocus City Hall in 2024. Yet, to achieve its revisionist foreign policy goals, the Russian state has seamlessly integrated the funding of proxy militant groups, the sabotage of foreign infrastructure, and the deliberate targeting of civilians into its own operational playbook.
–

Google Search  google.com/search?q=9%2F11%2…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

Global Security and Russian Hybrid Warfare  share.gemini.google/D1oJvQk0…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

news – Google Search  google.com/search?q=news&num…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 18, 2026

🫨 Putin told Trump’s envoys that Russia would seize all of Donetsk region within months and continue its attacks on Ukraine’s energy sector, — NYT.

❗️Kushner tried to counter:
“You told us exactly that a year ago. What are the chances that we’ll come back here in a year and you’ll say the same thing again? Maybe we won’t waste a year?”

— @Maks_NAFO_FELLA Sep 18, 2026

🇷🇺 Putin has just seized control of Nestlé and Auchan’s Russian businesses.

Their local assets have been handed to L.E.V. Menedzhment, a little-known company registered in Moscow in 2024.

Russia has used the same “temporary administration” mechanism since 2023 to take control of assets belonging to companies from countries it considers unfriendly, including Danone and Carlsberg.

Nestlé had already scaled back its Russian business after 2022, while Auchan stayed and built up a network of around 230 stores.

For Western companies that stayed in Russia, the line between operating there and losing control of the operation keeps getting thinner.

Source: Bloomberg / Writer: Julie

— @MarioNawfal Sep 18, 2026