Rising Hostility Threshold
Since June 2026, a storm has been battering banking and IT infrastructure worldwide. Attacks have affected a vast number of public and private information systems, while critical vulnerabilities in software libraries (PHP, NodeJS, Java) have left a large number of networked services exposed.
The impact of these breaches is already considerable. About thirty countries have reported attacks in the banking and industrial sectors. In late October, Polymarket and Binance announced that they had lost $2.7 million and $6,000 million, respectively, as a result of intrusions. In Iran, part of the banking transaction network was taken offline. In India, Tata Electronics saw entire swaths of data compromised, as did the National Insurance Commissioners’ Council (NAIC) in the United States. Additionally, the Hugging Face platform was hit by a new type of attack officially attributed to an artificial intelligence agent (in this case, at OpenAI). Many other entities in various countries have been affected.
While cybersecurity vulnerabilities are nothing new, the intensity of the attacks, their timing, and the methods used to carry them out are now pointing toward a more aggressive pattern and a new strategic landscape.
A “Bogdanov” moment?
It is clear that this series of incidents in the financial and IT sectors is part of a climate of conflict that has been escalating since 2020. Over the past five months, the surge in cyberattacks has coincided with the bursting of the financial bubble in the industrial AI sector, the instability of certain financial markets (bonds, stock exchanges), warnings and preparations for anticipated logistical and energy disruptions, as well as drills simulating communication network outages. The current riots in Europe have further heightened this cacophonous atmosphere. The simultaneous occurrence of these dynamics—against a backdrop of new military maneuvers in Africa and the Middle East as part of the ongoing conflicts in Iran and Ukraine—has led some circles to propose a scenario of open war in Europe around the year 2030.
One thing leading to another, the proliferation of these factors has shaped the perception of a hostile and threatening environment. Here and there, media ecosystems and opinion-shapers have amplified cases of economic, banking, or IT disruptions, echoing the effusive remarks of global risk observers. AI is portrayed as an uncontrollable “superintelligence” capable of increasing infosystemic conflict. Along the way, events have been blown out of proportion in the information sphere, as if the goal were to create a climate of global “Armageddon.”
Outside this perceptual framework, current destabilizations resemble what the Russian philosopher Alexander Bogdanov posited in his approach to societal transformation. For this author, whose intellectual influence was as underappreciated as it was considerable, any “transformation is a result achieved less through a decisive act of will or the seizure of power than through changes carried out at various levels.”
The current series of incidents is indeed generating simultaneous instability in two key areas of the international system (banking and information technology). At first glance, there is nothing to establish obvious cause-and-effect links between these multifaceted crises, other than their temporal synchrony and a focus on the banking sector and digital infrastructure. A closer examination, however, indicates that these incidents—or at least some of them—are the result of planned and coordinated maneuvers within the upper echelons of the international system.
Evidence of a Coordinated Agenda
- In Paraguay, the collapse of UENO Bank (which served 60% of the country’s banked population) followed a series of covert maneuvers involving the Paraguayan government (which held 25% of the bank’s assets), the political sphere (notably former Paraguayan President Santiago Peña), and the president of UENO (Juan Manuel Gustale Cardoni), who was educated at the London School of Economics and Harvard. The response to the solvency crisis was devised under the leadership of the Central Bank within the discretional framework of the Chatham House Rules.
- In the case of the Binance platform hack, the stolen assets followed the same modus operandi as an attack launched a month earlier on the Bitget platform (attributed to North Korea’s TraderTraitor group). Prior to the hack, asset investments had been made on Binance, notably through the USD1 stablecoin promoted by Donald Trump. The Binance platform was founded by Changpeng Zhao, a McGill University graduate, whose lobbying efforts were supported by the Center for Public Policies, which operates within the Chatham House network. Finally, the financial giant Vanguard, a close ally of the same London-based organization, is a key but indirect investor in Binance (through other financial entities), further reinforcing the platform’s integration into the same strategic framework.
- Regarding the vulnerability in the PHP programming language, it was apparently known about ten years before it was documented in October 2026. The vulnerability was exploited to gain access to bank accounts, which were then used to deploy AI agents within the banks’ information systems. The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) took the lead on this security issue, on the one hand highlighting the cyber threat and, on the other, justifying expanded surveillance of financial systems.
Other scenarios illustrate this type of conflictual architecture.
Perspectives
The strategic pattern that emerges coincides with that of a premeditated creation of instability and its exploitation for the purposes of financial predation, tightening of controls, and domination. Echoing dialectical culture, the threat is amplified or fomented by offensive actors with the aim of forcing a security response and altering the system’s rules. The perception of risk is likely to be reified and “reversed,” with the true risk actually lying in the conflictual plan to exploit it for malicious purposes.
On the one hand, it is evident that various governments, as well as opinion leaders, have instigated a climate of fear and destabilization, while simultaneously feigning the implementation of preventive measures in anticipation of future outbreaks. On the other hand, various banking and cyberattacks continue to be orchestrated and attributed to hostile entities (Russia, North Korea, autonomous AI agents, irregular groups, etc.), with the aim of raising the threshold of instability. The supranational coordination required to set such an agenda in motion implicitly underscores the centrality and duality that structure the geopolitical landscape.
The targeting of the banking and IT sectors suggests that a strategic outcome is anticipated in these areas. Based on previous incidents, it is likely that these coercive measures aim to strengthen monetary centralization through central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), control over the banking sector, and regulation of AI.
Dunia
As part of its strategic and informational services, Dunia has prioritized updating its infrastructure (a cluster of virtual servers) and digital services, focusing on upgrading software layers. Two low-severity incidents (intrusions) are also currently being mitigated.
A second priority remains the effort to revitalize strategic intelligence, as this type of initiative remains largely understudied and is currently expanding on an international scale.
