What the Gabbard report reveals about the Chinese and Russian threat

An exercise in reading I don't take lightly

I am not an intelligence analyst, I'll say that upfront. But when the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, releases her 2026 Annual Threat Assessment, I consider it my duty as a columnist to read it carefully and give you my take, imperfect as it may be.

This document, presented before the Senate Intelligence Committee, identifies China and Russia as the most persistent cyber threats against the United States, while flagging Iran and North Korea as growing concerns. That's no surprise to anyone who has followed these files for years, but the way the report frames these findings deserves a closer look.

Over 16,000 missiles by 2035

The figure that struck me most in this report is the projection that missile threats against American territory could rise from 3,000 today to more than 16,000 by 2035. This staggering increase involves China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, all of which are reportedly developing missile systems capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional payloads.

I must admit some uncertainty here: I cannot independently verify these numerical projections, which come from the American intelligence services themselves. But the mere fact that this estimate is made public, in a report intended for Congress, gives it a weight I cannot ignore.

China and Russia, the most dangerous cyber duo

The report explicitly identifies China and Russia as posing the most persistent and active cyber threats against American government and private networks, as well as critical infrastructure. Both countries, according to the document, continue to invest heavily in research and development of offensive capabilities.

Two billion dollars siphoned off in a year

One of the most striking passages in the report concerns North Korea: according to the assessment, North Korean cyber actors likely stole $2 billion in cryptocurrency in 2025 alone, a sum that directly funds the regime and the development of its strategic weapons programs.

This is the kind of detail that, to me, perfectly illustrates the overlap between digital crime and national security. An economically isolated regime like Pyongyang's finds in cryptocurrency theft a way to bypass international sanctions while funding its arsenal.

A sophisticated, agile cyber program

The report describes North Korea's cyber program as sophisticated and agile, a description that clashes with the sometimes caricatured image of a technologically backward country. The reality is that North Korea has turned cyberspace into a major strategic battleground, precisely because conventional means are largely closed off to it.

A degraded but not defeated regime

The report assesses that the Iranian regime remains intact but severely degraded following the strikes carried out under the 2026 American military operation. This cautious wording reflects, I believe, the real difficulty of assessing the residual capabilities of a regime that has suffered heavy losses without collapsing.

Gabbard also told the Senate that if the regime survives, it will likely pursue a multi-year effort to rebuild its military capabilities, its missiles, and its drones. That's a warning worth taking seriously.

A persistent cyber threat despite military weakening

Even militarily weakened, Iran continues to pose a threat in cyberespionage and cyberattacks, according to the report. Its operators have previously demonstrated their ability to strike poorly defended targets, though they struggled to respond effectively to Israeli cyberattacks during the 2025 conflict.

An omission noticed by senators

What struck several observers is what this report does not say. For the first time since 2017, the document makes no mention of foreign interference efforts targeting American elections, an omission publicly flagged by Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I view this absence as a troubling signal, independent of my otherwise pro-Western convictions. A threat report that omits an interference vector as well documented as the one affecting American electoral processes raises, in my view, legitimate questions about the integrity of the exercise.

Criticism from within the security apparatus itself

Independent analysts have also pointed out that the report does not mention the dismantling of certain units tasked with countering foreign influence, nor the significant staff reductions within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These are contextual elements that, without invalidating the report as a whole, deserve to be known by the public.

The strategic advantage retained over Ukraine

The report states that Russia retains the advantage in the war against Ukraine, an assessment that, I admit, hits me hard as a committed pro-Ukrainian columnist. But I must separate my moral outrage from the need to faithfully report what the document says, even when it runs counter to my hopes for Kyiv.

The document specifies that until a deal is reached, Moscow is expected to continue waging a slow war. This wording reflects a tactical reality on the ground that I cannot ignore, even as my heart remains firmly on the side of Ukraine's defenders.

The risk of nuclear escalation still present

The report identifies the risk of an escalation spiral in Ukraine, or in another conflict, as the most dangerous threat posed by Russia, a scenario that could potentially lead to the use of nuclear weapons. It's a chilling reminder that, despite all Ukrainian courage, the world remains at the mercy of the Kremlin's strategic calculations.

A stated goal of dominance by 2030

The report identifies China as the most capable competitor in the field of artificial intelligence, with the openly stated goal of becoming the global leader in this technology by 2030. This ambition isn't new, but its explicit formulation in an official American document confirms the scale of the technological race now underway between the two powers.

I believe this technological rivalry may, in the long run, prove even more decisive than classic military competition. Whoever dominates artificial intelligence will likely dominate the coming decades of global economic and strategic power.

Across-the-board military modernization

The document also states that China is pursuing rapid modernization of its armed forces across all domains, with the goal of developing the capability to deter and disrupt American and allied forces in its region, including the ability to seize Taiwan by force if necessary.

This assessment confirms what many Western analysts have been repeating for years: the question is no longer whether China is developing an invasion capability against Taiwan, but when that capability will be deemed mature enough by Beijing to justify decisive action.

A ballistic capability expanding quietly

One aspect of the report that deserves more media attention concerns Pakistan, whose development of long-range ballistic missiles could, according to the document, include intercontinental capabilities able to strike American territory. This is a development that paradoxically receives less attention than the Chinese, Russian, or Iranian files.

I find this relative media indifference troubling, because a Pakistan equipped with expanded ballistic capabilities, in a region already tense with India, adds an additional layer of nuclear instability that the West cannot afford to ignore.

Selective cooperation among adversaries of the West

The report notes that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are likely to pursue selective cooperation with one another, which could strengthen their respective capabilities and the threats they collectively pose to American interests. These relationships remain, however, mainly bilateral and dependent on particular circumstances, according to the document.

This partial convergence among authoritarian regimes, even if limited and opportunistic, outlines the contours of an informal axis that the West must watch with the utmost attention, without succumbing to a simplistic reading of a monolithic alliance among these four actors.

What this report really teaches us

Closing this report, I take away two things. First, that China and Russia remain, unsurprisingly, the two most sophisticated and dangerous adversaries to Western security, with Iran and North Korea in a secondary but far from negligible supporting role. Second, that even the most serious official documents contain blind spots worth questioning.

This reading testimony makes no claim to being exhaustive, but it honestly reflects my attempt to understand a dense, technical, and politically charged document, while keeping my own convictions in mind without letting them distort the facts it contains.

A vigilance that must remain constant

What I take away above all is that Western vigilance can never let up against adversaries as determined as they are patient. Whether on the military, cyber, or electoral front, the battle for Western security and democratic credibility is being fought on multiple simultaneous fronts, none of which can be neglected without consequences.

I will keep following these reports year after year, with the same rigor and the same commitment to naming both the real threats and the shortcomings of our own institutions meant to protect us from them.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.