In recent weeks, the Pentagon has urged several NATO allies, among them Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, to tone down their public warnings about the threat from Russia, four people familiar with the matter told Reuters. Pentagon officials argued that some European statements undermined Europe's security, the sources said. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby recently advised a Baltic official against any "poking" of the Russians, one of the people said.

Russia's full-scale war on Ukraine is in its fifth year, and Moscow has spread a deniable arson and sabotage campaign across Europe. As Washington offers Moscow sanctions relief and presses Kyiv to stop hitting Russian energy, the restraint it seeks appears to fall on those Russia threatens, first Ukraine and now NATO's eastern flank.

An Estonian delegation was told to be "measured"

As an example of unhelpful rhetoric, Colby cited Europeans' public suggestions that Russia was "cornered like a rat," the person said. Reuters could not determine whose words he meant. In late September, Estonia said Russia had ordered the arson at Milrem Robotics, a Tallinn company supplying ground robots to Ukraine, and Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal likened Putin to a "rat in the corner." Michal said Putin was stepping up activity in Europe to erode the West's backing for Kyiv, and that the surest deterrent was to "back Ukraine."

At another meeting, Pentagon officials asked an Estonian delegation to keep its communications "measured," a person briefed on the encounter said. Another European official described the Pentagon's private messaging this way:

"We are helping you. The Americans are there… Just don't be loud. Don't make noise."

One European official called the advice cordial but baffling, since the Baltic states' own intelligence services have repeatedly judged it unlikely in recent months that Russia would test NATO's mutual defense provisions.

The Pentagon refused to discuss "private conversations among allies," and the Baltic defense ministries did not reply.

One messenger is a key figure in the review of US troops in Europe

Colby is a key figure in the Pentagon's ongoing review of US force posture in Europe, which could lead to a sharp troop drawdown. In September, the Pentagon was weighing pulling up to 40,000 troops from Europe.

Russia has lately stepped up its deniable attacks on NATO members, Western intelligence officials say. Its suspected arson campaign against Starlink sites serving Ukraine has reached Lithuania, and on 28 October German prosecutors announced the arrest of two Belarusians suspected of plotting arson near Nuremberg. Russia denies running a sabotage campaign. Meanwhile, US officials have discussed business deals with Russia, which many European officials oppose.

O ateliê de vestidos de noiva My Vintage Dress, localizado na capital paulista, decretou o fim de suas atividades em nota alegando agravamento da situação financeira da empresa, alvo de protestos de clientes que denunciaram estelionato após não receberem suas encomendas, no início de setembro.

A loja diz que os impactos da decisão e suas pendências estão sendo avaliadas por profissionais, e orienta as clientes lesadas a entrarem em contato diretamente com o advogado de defesa.

Como motivo do fechamento definitivo, a My Vintage Dress aponta limitações concretas de estrutura e capacidade financeira. Anteriormente a empresa tinha declarado apenas a interrupção da produção.

Relembre o caso

No dia primeiro de setembro deste ano, um grupo de noivas protestaram em frente ao ateliê, localizado na rua Fradique Coutinho, em Pinheiros, zona Oeste da capital paulista. As clientes relataram que não receberam encomendas de vestidos de noiva e não tinham resposta sobre a situação.

Segundo testemunhas ouvidas pela CNN Brasil, a empresa desmarcava pedidos das clientes para verem os seus vestidos, não dava atualizações sobre o processo de produção e não entregavam a encomenda na data marcada sem qualquer esclarecimento.

A SSP (Secretaria de Segurança Pública) informou na época que ocorrências relativas ao caso estavam sendo registradas como estelionato e as autoridades policiais avaliavam cada situação para adotar as medidas cabíveis. A reportagem solicitou uma atualização sobre o caso para a polícia, mas ainda não houve retorno.

No dia 3 de setembro, foi protocolada uma ação de despejo contra a loja na 2ª Vara Cível do Foro Regional de Pinheiros por falta de pagamento de IPTU por parte do ateliê.

Em depoimento sobre o caso de estelionato no dia 4 de setembro, a proprietária Camila Rossi alegou que teria sofrido um golpe no valor de R$ 1 milhão e por isso teria interrompido a produção e enfrentava dificuldades.

O que diz a defesa

O advogado de defesa da My Vintage Dress esclareceu a CNN Brasil que teve que deixar o imóvel por dívidas e tentou retomar a produção na casa dos funcionários. Porém, alegou que clientes seguiam ameaçando os trabalhadores no local, que temiam agressões.

Além disso, ele disse que a empresa tentou formas de retomar a produção, como venda da marca e atração de investidores para injetar recursos financeiros, mas que todas as controvérsias e problemas afastaram as negociações.

O ateliê se encontra em estado de insolvência e declarou que a qualquer momento a falência deve ser decretada.

Cerca de 300 clientes tem pedido de vestidos de noiva em aberto, sendo 112 com pedido de cancelamento em aberto até essa terça-feira (27), e pouco menos de 200 casos com entrega programada até 2028 e que não chegaram a ser produzidos segundo a defesa.

A CNN Brasil pediu atualização para a SSP (Secretaria de Segurança Pública) sobre os casos investigados, mas até a última atualização desta matéria não teve retorno.

Brasil registra 1 estelionato a cada 16 segundos, diz levantamento

*Sob supervisão de Carolina Figueiredo

Written by Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions

Security tensions between Japan and China are escalating while the former strengthens its long-range strike capabilities with American support.

Washington and Tokyo’s latest moves to reinforce their military presence along the so-called first island chain also mark another step in the broader US-China strategic rivalry across the Indo-Pacific region.

Originally conceived as a Cold War US defensive perimeter (stretching from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines), the first island chain is increasingly becoming the centerpiece of an elaborate American-led military architecture designed to constrain Beijing’s growing maritime power.

The recent agreement between Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to implement an “effective denial defense” along that chain illustrates the shift. They also pledged continued cooperation on ammunition production for a potentially prolonged conflict.

During the Keen Sword 2027 exercises now underway, US and Japanese forces plan to deploy mobile missile systems, including American system NMESIS, on Yonaguni Island near Taiwan. Tokyo has already deployed domestically developed long-range (anti-ship) missiles capable of reaching China’s coastal areas.

The wider context is hard to miss. In November 2025 Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi  made a statement linking a Taiwan contingency to Japan’s own survival, which triggered sharp Chinese protests and a cascade of diplomatic, economic, and maritime frictions.

Beijing then restricted dual-use exports to Japan, while coast guard vessels and radar incidents added to the pressure.

As commentator Oliver Griffin puts it, Beijing views Japan’s buildup as a drift toward neo-militarism.

From Tokyo’s perspective, China’s expanding naval reach makes these steps necessary. This is therefore a classic security dilemma. Measures one side takes to feel “safer” make the other feel less secure, prompting further responses.

The first island chain is both a barrier and a gateway. As expert Simone Chiusa  notes, Chinese vessels seeking access to the open Western Pacific must navigate strategic chokepoints through its straits.

The strategic importance of these chokepoints illustrates Alfred Thayer Mahan’s classic sea-power theory: control over key maritime routes and positions remains central to great-power rivalry.

American and Japanese planners see distributed missiles and interdiction systems as deterrence by denial. Beijing sees preparations to restrict its access.

The paradox is clear enough: the more Washington and Tokyo seek to reinforce deterrence, the more Beijing may perceive “encirclement” and accelerate its own capabilities.

Japan’s southwestern islands are thereby becoming an operational frontier of sorts rather than a mere defensive perimeter. An alliance designed primarily to protect Japanese territory then gradually becomes an instrument for projecting power into a Taiwan-related contingency.

As I wrote in May 2026, regarding US missile deployments in the Philippines, Washington’s actions near Taiwan fuel Chinese fears of a containment architecture involving Japan, the Philippines, and Australia. The pattern continues.

China’s maritime-industrial growth has become central to allied planning. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Chinese shipbuilding capacity (measured by gross tonnage) exceeds that of the United States – by a factor of over 200, according to a 2023 US naval intelligence estimate.

Joint Sino-Russian submarine patrols further signal a new maritime era of coordination that certainly complicates American assumptions of uncontested sea control.

Yet the contest is no longer confined to the first island chain. A Japanese Self-Defense Force colonel has proposed a second-island-chain air bridge linking Japan and Australia (with US participation) for logistics and reinforcement – the reasoning being that China’s lengthening maritime strike reach now threatens operations farther into the Pacific.

Some American analysts warn that “pulling back to the second chain” would be strategic folly, while advocates of strategic restraint see a forward approach as intensifying insecurity.

For Japan, the predicament is particularly delicate. Tokyo is becoming more indispensable to Washington’s regional planning at the very moment when Japanese strategists worry about possible US-China accommodation under President Trump’s “transactional” approach.

The alliance security dilemma is real enough: fear of “abandonment” coexists with fear of entrapment in a Taiwan conflict. Japanese policymakers are of course not passive instruments. They act on their own threat perceptions while navigating uncertainty about long-term American commitments.

Gray-zone pressures add another layer. Coast guard patrols and incremental assertions of jurisdiction challenge the utility of high-end missile deployments – designed mainly for conventional scenarios.

Ultimately, efforts to preserve the existing “balance” in the Indo-Pacific may contribute to the very competition that makes that balance harder to sustain.

The American response to China’s rise has largely been to reinforce military alliances and expand forward deployments, risking an increasingly self-perpetuating cycle of militarization rather than fostering regional stability.

Washington is transforming Japan into a more central component of its forward maritime architecture – even as Beijing’s growing capabilities render that very architecture more contested. The risk here is that the cycle of reinforcement and reaction leaves all parties less secure than before.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Japan Faces Massive Energy Issues Due To US Wars, But Still Sends Troops Near Taiwan
• Cracks In The Coalition: Europe Picks Up The Phone To Moscow
• Iran Unveils Underground Arash Drone Arsenal (Videos)

The post Japan’s Militarization: Washington Fueling Chinese-Japanese Crisis appeared first on South Front.

The Pentagon’s reported attempts to restrain Baltic criticism of Moscow reveal a more consequential disagreement within NATO: whether Europe’s assessment of the Russian threat is becoming inconvenient for Washington’s diplomatic ambitions.

The Trump administration wants European allies to assume greater responsibility for their defence. It also appears to want some of those allies to be rather less outspoken about the country against which much of that defence is being organised.

American defence officials have privately urged Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to moderate their public warnings about Russia, according to accounts of recent Pentagon discussions.

The requests reportedly came from senior officials, including Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, who is involved in reviewing America’s military commitments in Europe.

The conversations were described as cordial. There is no evidence that Washington demanded changes to Baltic defence policies. Nevertheless, their timing is revealing.

The United States is pursuing renewed negotiations with Moscow, examining potential economic incentives and pressing Ukraine to restrict attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. Simultaneously, American defence planners are considering reducing their military presence in Europe.

The Baltic governments are therefore being asked to assume greater responsibility for their security while exercising greater restraint in describing the threat they believe makes that responsibility necessary.

The Pentagon’s Strategic Calculation

Colby’s involvement gives the episode significance beyond an argument over diplomatic etiquette.

He has long advocated concentrating American military resources on the Indo-Pacific, where China represents the principal long-term challenge to US strategic predominance.

His argument is not inherently unreasonable. American military resources are finite, European NATO members possess substantial economic capacity, and Washington cannot indefinitely remain the principal provider of conventional security across several continents.

Indeed, Europe’s excessive dependence on American military capabilities has been recognised in European capitals for years.

The difficulty lies in reconciling this strategic redistribution with Washington’s approach towards Russia.

If the United States intends to reduce its European military commitments, European governments will require more accurate threat assessments, greater investment in intelligence and defence, and clearer public explanations of the expenditure involved.

Discouraging those governments from discussing Russian threats could make that transition politically harder.

One justification reportedly offered by American officials is that confrontational language risks provoking Moscow or reinforcing the Kremlin’s attempts to spread fear.

There is a legitimate argument for avoiding theatrical warnings unsupported by intelligence. Governments can undermine their credibility by repeatedly presenting hypothetical threats as imminent.

But Baltic intelligence assessments have often been more measured than the public debate suggests.

Estonian and Latvian security officials have distinguished between Russia’s current military limitations, caused partly by its war in Ukraine, and the longer-term danger of Moscow rebuilding its forces.

Such assessments are not evidence of an intention to provoke Russia. They are part of the ordinary work of national security institutions.

The Problem with Reassuring Moscow

The reported exchanges also expose an uncomfortable contradiction in Washington’s negotiating strategy.

The administration is considering incentives intended to encourage Moscow towards a settlement while asking European allies to avoid language that might complicate those negotiations.

Yet Russia’s conduct towards NATO members has not been confined to diplomatic disagreements.

European governments have reported suspected sabotage, cyber operations, intelligence activity and interference involving critical infrastructure.

German authorities recently announced arrests connected with a suspected arson plot in the Nuremberg area. Berlin has also accused Moscow of involvement in a drone incident at Leipzig/Halle Airport, an allegation Russia denies.

These activities form part of the wider security environment that European governments must address, irrespective of Washington’s diplomatic timetable.

The question is whether restraint by NATO members would encourage reciprocal restraint from Moscow.

There is little publicly available evidence that Russia has made such a commitment.

Nor has Moscow demonstrated that its objectives concerning Ukraine have fundamentally changed.

A diplomatic strategy based on reducing tensions can be sensible. A strategy that asks one side to moderate its conduct without establishing corresponding obligations for the other risks creating an imbalance.

For the Baltic states, that imbalance is especially difficult to accept.

Their geographical position, historical experience and exposure to Russian intelligence operations give them reasons to approach Moscow differently from governments separated from Russia by several countries.

That does not make every Baltic political statement wise. It does mean that their security concerns cannot reasonably be dismissed as a communications problem.

Europe’s Security Cannot Depend on Diplomatic Convenience

The larger issue is not whether an Estonian prime minister should describe Vladimir Putin as a cornered rat.

It is whether European governments can continue to define their security requirements independently when those assessments complicate American foreign policy.

NATO’s collective defence arrangements depend on credible military capabilities, political cohesion and the willingness of member states to act.

They also depend on governments being able to explain why those capabilities are necessary.

Europe’s defence spending increases will require difficult budgetary choices, industrial investment and sustained public support. Governments cannot make those decisions convincingly while treating the underlying security threat as something best discussed discreetly.

Washington is entitled to pursue negotiations with Moscow. European governments are equally entitled to assess the consequences for their own security.

The United States may ultimately conclude that a reduced military presence in Europe serves its wider strategic interests. European allies will then have to adjust, whether or not they welcome that decision.

What they cannot afford is to confuse American diplomatic preferences with an objective assessment of Russian capabilities and intentions.

The Pentagon’s reported advice may have been intended to reduce unnecessary friction. But if Washington expects Europe to carry more of the burden of deterrence, it will also have to accept that Europeans will increasingly make their own judgements about the threats they face.

A família cumpriu o seu desejo doando o dinheiro que deixou para investigação em cancro. E convida todos a juntarem-se – contribuindo – a esta acção de filantropia científica, lançada no Porto.

Pentagon officials have in recent weeks asked several NATO countries to tone down their rhetoric regarding the threat posed by Russia, arguing that some statements by European leaders and officials have undermined continental security, four people familiar with the matter said.

Among the nations that have received messages urging them to keep public statements in check are Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity. It was not clear if the messages, which were delivered in bilateral meetings, were conveyed to other European governments.

The US requests come as the Trump administration restarts an effort to press for a negotiated end to the full-scale war in Ukraine, now well into its fifth year. The latest push has blended incentives for Russia – including sanctions relief – with pressure on Ukraine to halt its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.

Asked for comment, a Pentagon official said: “Private conversations among allies are just that, so we will not comment on these allegations.”

Among the comments that have drawn US officials’ attention are suggestions by European leaders that Russia is cornered and resorting to increasingly desperate measures as its invasion of Ukraine slows to a crawl, one of the people said.

Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, a key figure in an ongoing review of US troop levels in Europe, was one of the US officials delivering the message, the people said. Reuters could not determine what other officials were involved.

None of the people, who include three European officials and a US official, suggested the advice was communicated in a confrontational manner.

US urges allies not to provoke Moscow

The US messages reflect a debate within NATO regarding how to publicly address the threat of an increasingly assertive Russia.

Some Western officials have argued that emphasizing the threat posed by Moscow could play into the hands of the Kremlin, which they say seeks to sow fear and undermine support for Ukraine.

Others argue European governments must be transparent to show their electorates that sacrifice and resources are needed to keep Moscow at bay. That is especially true as Russia appears to accelerate a covert campaign of sabotage throughout the continent.

Russia has denied that it is pursuing such a campaign.

Baltic states face pressure over public warnings

One of the people familiar told Reuters that Colby told a Baltic official recently that there should be no “poking” directed at the Russians.

The person said Colby pointed to Europeans publicly suggesting that Russia was “cornered like a rat” as an example of unhelpful rhetoric.

It was not clear what specific statement Colby was referring to. However, Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal referred to Putin as a “rat in a corner” in late September, suggesting the Russian leader was resorting to sabotage efforts in Europe as Russia had become increasingly bogged down in Ukraine.

“We are helping you. The Americans are there,” said a separate European official, describing the Pentagon’s recent private messaging. “Just don’t be loud. Don’t make noise.”

In a separate recent meeting, the Pentagon urged an Estonian delegation to be “measured” in its communications, according to a person briefed on the encounter, though the person did not say Pentagon officials complained about any specific statement.

The defense ministries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia did not respond to requests for comment, while NATO declined to comment.

Russian sabotage fears divide NATO allies

One of the European officials said that the Pentagon’s advice, while cordial, was baffling, given that intelligence services in the Baltic states have in recent months consistently played down the probability of Russia testing NATO’s mutual defense provisions.

Other NATO intelligence services, by contrast, have publicly warned that Russia could dramatically ramp up its sabotage campaign in the near future.

The Pentagon messages to NATO officials come at a fraught time for European security.

Moscow has recently intensified its campaign of deniable attacks on NATO countries, Western intelligence officials have said.

On Wednesday, German prosecutors said two Belarusians were arrested for allegedly planning to set ​fire to a building or critical infrastructure facility ⁠in the Nuremberg area. In September, the German government blamed Russia for an attempted drone attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport, allegations Moscow has denied.

At the same time, US officials have been discussing potential business deals with Russia as part of the Trump administration’s push for peace in Ukraine. Those efforts have drawn mixed reactions from European officials, many of whom are pushing for the Kremlin’s continued economic isolation.

US reviews military presence in Europe

Pentagon planners, meanwhile, are reviewing Washington’s force posture in Europe, a process that could see a sharp drawdown in America’s troop presence on the continent.

US officials have said European NATO members need to assume more responsibility for their own defense, particularly as the US focuses on threats in the Middle East, Latin America and East Asia.

Santiago de Chile, 30 oct (Prensa Latina) El Campeonato Nacional de Fútbol de primera división de Chile arranca hoy su etapa decisiva, cuando faltan cinco jornadas para el cierre y el líder Colo Colo carece aún de la ventaja necesaria que le otorgaría la corona.

The post Torneo de fútbol de Chile entra a su fase decisiva first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.