Indian Strategic Studies

16 June 2025

There are risks and rewards to moving manufacturing from China to India

Thomas Heger

Americans stand to benefit in the long term from diversifying where U.S. companies build their products, moving manufacturing away from China and into India. But this move would not be without short-term costs.

China stands as a manufacturing colossus, producing nearly 30 percent of the world’s goods, from iPhones to steel. India, despite its growing economy and young workforce, trails far behind, contributing just 3 percent to global manufacturing output. Nonetheless, India has emerged as a key alternative, with a population of 1.4 billion and a relatively untapped trade market for the U.S. given the current tariff regime.

American companies have for decades turned a blind eye to China’s authoritarianism, lured by cheaper goods while ignoring the nation’s hegemonic aims of a different world order. Yet it is China’s authoritarianism and its resulting cultural and political landscape that America has profited from — giving China the edge over India for decades to come in manufacturing.

Understanding this tradeoff — increasing trade with India, a country that has more in common with the U.S. politically, but is decades behind in manufacturing infrastructure — offers lessons for policymakers navigating a changing global economy. It should raise American’s awareness about quality, costs and trade challenges to come from more reliance on India.

Educational discrepancies underscore China’s advantage. China produces 3.6 million science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates annually — many trained in vocational skills for robotics, automation and engineering. India’s 2.6 million annual STEM graduates prioritize theoretical knowledge, with only 5 percent of the workforce formally skilled compared to China’s 30 percent.

US Snubs India’s War On Terror – OpEd

M.K. Bhadrakumar

The Indian media reports make out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reception for the seven parliamentary delegations waging the war on terror turned into a social occasion to celebrate the flashes of ‘national unity’ before the hurly-burly of politics returns as the election cycle picks up.

The PMO did not issue any press release on PM’s remarks. We wouldn’t know whether this event on Tuesday is a substitute for a special session of the parliament to discuss Pahalgam incident, which opposition parties demanded.

Regrettably, we won’t even know the international reaction to our war on terror against Pakistan. There have been no public statements. How can a war be waged when there is no clarity about the enemy?

Terrorism is a dicey subject with a complicated history. It is not only China which maintains “ambiguity or double standards”on terrorism — per EAM S. Jaishankar’s allegation — but even within India there are misconceptions. The contesting legacies of Bhagat Singh and Savarkarbear testimony to it.

We need to tread softly. Proposals are being mooted lately that India should rally the Global South in the war on terror. There is great risk that we may lethally erode our article of faith that Kashmir is an internal matter. The world-wide perception is already that the periodic eruption of India-Pakistan violence stems from the unresolved Kashmir problem. (See my article Operation Sindoor Outreach: What Did Panda & Co Achieve In West Asia? Rediff, June 5, 2025)

Our solution lies in diligently picking up the thread of negotiations during the time of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf. But no serious attempt has been made in this direction in the past decade or more — nor is it ever likely by the ideology-driven present government.

No War, No Peace: India’s Limited War Strategy of Controlled Escalation

Nishank Motwani

India is fundamentally rewriting the rules of engagement with Pakistan. In response to high-casualty terrorist attacks – most recently the 2025 Pahalgam massacre that triggered Operation Sindoor – New Delhi has adopted a doctrine of calibrated military retaliation designed to operate below the nuclear threshold. By asserting that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal no longer provides blanket immunity for cross-border terrorism, India is discarding old constraints and demonstrating it has the political will and military capability to respond to terrorist attacks traced back to the Pakistani state.

This evolution is no longer implied – it has now been formalized. In a landmark speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined India’s updated national security doctrine, emphasizing that future terrorist attacks will be met with swift and forceful retaliation, executed on India’s terms. The policy eliminates the distinction between terrorist actors and the states that provide them safe haven, signaling a shift toward holding state sponsors directly accountable. This affirms what New Delhi has long argued: that Pakistan’s deep state is not merely permissive of proxy groups – it is complicit.

Modi also rejected any strategic utility in Pakistan’s nuclear signaling, making clear that such threats will not deter India from targeting terrorist infrastructure. This codifies India’s willingness to act across the Line of Control and beyond it regardless of nuclear posturing from Islamabad.

This is not recklessness disguised as resolve. It is a deliberate and now officially articulated doctrine to impose costs without triggering full-scale war. India’s limited strikes – air and ground – are designed to signal that acts of terror will have consequences, even if those consequences stop short of a general war. In doing so, India is challenging a long-held assumption in Western policy circles: that any clash between nuclear-armed rivals in South Asia will inevitably spiral into catastrophe.

Why are these Afghan refugees still stuck in limbo?

Zoe Desch

As U.S. forces completed their chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021, the DC commentariat turned its focus to Washington’s failure to extract those Afghans who had worked with us, as well as professional women – including members of Parliament – who were believed to be in danger from the new government.

However, a year and a half later, Washington seems to have largely forgotten about those same people.

Some remain trapped in Afghanistan, while others were able to flee to neighboring countries or Europe, but even those who have made it to the United States have been unable to find stability because of a lack of follow-through by Congress and the Biden administration. Despite the promises of safe haven made to Afghans who, often at great risk, worked alongside U.S. forces and civilian advisers, their fate has been rendered uncertain by the polarizing politics of U.S. immigration policy.

Even those Afghans lucky enough to gain refugee status in the U.S. face ongoing barriers to fully settling into their new home. Indeed, their humanitarian parole status on which they were permitted to enter the country will expire as early as September 30, although, according to a recent leak, the Department of Homeland Security intends to renew their parole. While that is welcome news to the many refugees facing the upcoming deadline, such an action will simply push back the deadline without providing long-term solutions, like streamlining the bureaucratic process or increasing funding for those under-resourced agencies tasked with handling several refugee waves.

Legislative fixes are needed, but Congress has been unable to muster the will to enact a bill to settle the Afghans’ status – despite lawmakers’ bipartisan declarations of support for the new refugees in the wake of Washington’s hurried withdrawal back in August 2021. Still pending are the Afghan Adjustment Act and the Afghan Allies Act, both of which attempt to streamline the process for permanent legal status on the pathway to citizenship. If neither is passed, Afghan refugees' futures will be left to the whims of current U.S. immigration politics.

New heights for China’s arms diplomacy in South Asia

Gabriel Honrada

China's J-10 fighter jets perform during an air show in a file photo. Image: Xinhua

China is arming Pakistan and Azerbaijan with high-tech fighter jets, missile shields and surveillance aircraft — a bold play to redraw the balance of power in South Asia and the Caucasus.

This month, Breaking Defense reported that Pakistan confirmed China’s offer of 40 fifth-generation Shenyang J-35 stealth fighters, KJ-500 AEW&C aircraft and HQ-19 air defense systems.

The deal was first leaked in December 2024 and now publicly credited by Islamabad to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s diplomacy.

Also known as the FC-31, the J-35 is developed for both China’s air force and navy and made its debut at Airshow China 2024. It features stealth shaping similar to that of the US F-35 Lightning II. Deliveries to Pakistan are expected within the next few months.

The announcement follows a separate US$4.6 billion agreement between Pakistan and Azerbaijan, in which Baku will procure 40 JF-17 fighter jets co-manufactured by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

China’s defense exports to Islamabad signal deeper strategic alignment amid growing regional competition. As Pakistan pursues advanced capabilities, the deal highlights China’s growing presence in global arms sales, particularly among states seeking alternatives to Western defense suppliers.

Defense Security Asia notes in an article this month that the J-35, HQ-19 and KJ-500 represent a considerable leap in Pakistan’s air defense capabilities.

According to the report, the J-35 fifth-generation fighter armed with PL-17 missiles boasting a range of over 400 kilometers enables Pakistan to target high-value Indian aerial assets from beyond visual range.

China Can’t Invade Taiwan So Easily

Brent M. Eastwood

Key Points – China’s potential military conquest of Taiwan, a core objective for President Xi Jinping, would involve immense challenges despite Beijing’s growing military might.

An invasion would likely start with a blockade and quarantine, followed by a complex amphibious assault.

However, Taiwan benefits from early warning (satellite detection of Chinese troop/ship movements), limited suitable landing beaches, difficult mountainous terrain favoring defenders, and its own missile/artillery capabilities.

While China could attempt a “shock and awe” bombardment of Taipei, the success of an invasion hinges on unpredictable factors: Taiwan’s will to resist, the effectiveness of its defenses, and crucially, whether the United States intervenes militarily.

Could China Conquer Taiwan?

The reunification of Taiwan is the most pressing geopolitical issue facing China. The Chinese government and its people are obsessed with Taiwan. President Xi Jinping thinks he will be judged by history on how he handles the future of the island nation.

His presidency is in the balance, and failure on the Taiwan issue is not an option. China believes that Taiwan is a renegade province that must be annexed and brought back into the fold. Xi prefers that unification be accomplished by political and diplomatic means, but he has not ruled out annexation by military force.

Three reasons why China can't afford to invade Taiwan

Zoe Desch

Taiwan has become a focal point for the U.S.-China conflict, with the Pentagon turning its attention towards a hypothetical conflict with China — referring to it as the “sole pacing threat” — and China continuing combat and blockade drills around the island.

However, despite China’s demonstrations of military power, Taiwan’s unique economic niche and geographic position make it a particularly thorny target for Beijing. The Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy rests largely on the robust economy it has built, and the direct economic repercussions of an invasion or blockade of Taiwan stand to shatter the foundations of Beijing’s domestic power.

There are three non-military conditions that make a full military assault or blockade of Taiwan a nonviable option for the CCP. First is the global importance of Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturing base, second is the impact on trade and the shipping industry running through the Taiwan Strait and Luzon Strait, and third is China’s own less-than-favorable economic conditions.

The semiconductor issue

Taiwan is the largest manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. In the fourth quarter of 2024, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) —Taiwan’s largest producer of semiconductors — took a 67.1% market share of all chips globally, and produced nearly all of the most advanced chips. There is no viable replacement for Taiwan’s manufacturing in the semiconductor market; not only does the nation represent a massive share of the chip industry, its infrastructure uniquely supports the scale and quality of production.

Semiconductors represent an irreplaceable enabler of global economic activities. If Taiwan were to stop producing chips, both the American and Chinese economies — not to mention the world economy — would contract and ignite a global depression. Chips enable electrical grids, manufacturing, home utilities, automobiles, and more; they have permeated every facet of the global economy.

Four steps to creating a National Defense Strategy built on strength

John Ferrari, Elaine McCusker and Todd Harrison

The new Pentagon leadership has set itself up to potentially oversee fundamental changes that could dramatically improve military warfighting capabilities for decades to come. In addition to realigning the defense budget, organizational structures, and acquisition policies to support warfighters, key decisions are still pending on how and where America will defend its security and prosperity.

As detailed in a recent American Enterprise Institute working paper, there are steps that the Pentagon should take to position and posture its forces in order to best accomplish the president’s objective of Peace through Strength.

This working paper, loosely based upon the board game of Risk, outlines four areas the secretary of defense should prioritize as he develops the National Defense Strategy: the need for alliances; the importance of strategic terrain; the role of strategic enablers; and the need for sufficient and well-positioned forces to project power, deter aggression, and respond in a crisis.

Simply put, the defense strategy should be based upon strength and not an assumption of poverty. Here’s how these categories break down in real terms.

The need for alliances: Alliances need to be pursued for pragmatic reasons while always ensuring that the United States can act independently. America should support nations that are fighting against adversaries who clearly intend to diminish the position and strength of the United States.

No clearer example of such a situation exists than Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The military forces Russia has lost (and continues to lose) directly reduce their future threat. A strong, victorious Ukraine, allied with the United States, would mean that key terrain, rich in minerals and agriculture, remains out of Russian hands. At the same time, Russia’s allies in China, North Korea, and Iran would have an important warning about America’s resolve.

China and Taiwan Trade Cybersecurity Accusations

Neil Thompson

On May 20, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te gave a speech to mark the completion of his first year in office, a period that has seen cross-strait tensions increase. Lai has toughened Taiwan’s stance toward Beijing, which has responded with greater military and gray zone pressure against the self-ruled island. The growing China-Taiwan tensions include both sides trading public accusations of cyberwarfare against each other’s critical infrastructure and private sectors.

Beijing recently accused Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of sponsoring an unnamed foreign hacking organization to target a Chinese technology company. Chinese police said up to 1,000 military, energy, and government networks were also targeted by Taiwan. Earlier in March, the Chinese government alleged that Taiwanese intelligence officers had targeted Beijing’s infrastructure. Taipei has denied all of China’s cyberwarfare accusations and accused the mainland government of spreading disinformation about Taiwan.

China too faces many allegations from foreign governments and cybersecurity researchers that it has conducted multiple cyberattacks against Taiwan. A Chinese cyberthreat actor called Earth Ammit targeted supply chains in Taiwan’s drone and satellite sectors last year; a report in May also uncovered that Earth Ammit had infiltrated the island’s heavy industry, software, media and health care sectors. In January, Taiwan’s government estimated that the daily average number of Chinese attacks had doubled to 2.4 million in 2024, with a particular focus on government and telecommunication companies’ systems.

Shadowboxing: Gathering Intelligence for an Invasion

In part, China’s stepped up cyberattacks against Taiwan and its willingness to publicly blame the island for alleged cyberattacks against Chinese targets are straight from Beijing’s traditional playbook of pressuring Taipei below the threshold of military action. Beijing has made significant progress in isolating Taiwan diplomatically, with 70 countries endorsing China’s position that it is entitled to take “all” the efforts it needs to unify the island with the mainland.

Middle East on edge: Israel-Iran escalation threatens regional stability - analysis

SETH J. FRANTZMAN

It turns out that instead of great expectations, the region may have gotten the sum of all fears. Just after three in the morning, sirens sounded across Israel, and Israel’s Defense Minister announced a preemptive strike against Iran. His office said that a missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population was expected.

Israel and Iran traded blows in 2024. In two instances, Iran sent hundreds of missiles and drones to attack Israel. Israel also retaliated in limited precision strikes against air defenses. This was a curtain raiser on the capabilities of both countries. Israel has shown it can launch air raids across thousands of miles to strike the Houthis.

Iran has proxies in Iraq, a group of militias called the Popular Mobilization Forces. It also has the Houthis in Yemen. Its other proxies, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, are much weaker than in the past due to the war in Gaza and Israel’s defeat of Hezbollah in 2024. Nevertheless, Iran has many capabilities. It also has friends such as Russia and China who will not want to see Iran weakened or humiliated.

Iran was expected to go into Sunday’s meeting with its head held high. It was angry about a resolution at the e International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and had threatened to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. It also said it would establish a new facility for its nuclear program.

June 12: Israel, Trump Stare Down Iran

Park MacDougald

Late Wednesday, in advance of the expiration of President Donald Trump’s 90-day deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, there was a flurry of activity suggesting something big brewing in the Middle East. The first sign was a notice from the U.S. State Department authorizing the evacuation of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. embassy in Iraq. That was quickly followed by State Department announcements ordering all embassies within striking distance of Iranian missiles to prepare risk-mitigation strategies and restricting the travel of U.S. government employees in Israel to the major cities, as well as a notice from the Pentagon approving the voluntary evacuation of military family members from U.S. bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Asked by reporters to explain the activity, Trump, speaking before a showing of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., said simply, “You’ll have to see, thank you.”

Tehran Awakens a Jacksonian Giant

Mike Watson

Summer is just around the corner, and it’s already heating up in the Middle East. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Iran had hidden evidence of some tests related to building nuclear weapons and had enriched enough uranium to make nine nuclear bombs on short notice. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei then rejected the most recent American proposal in the nuclear negotiations and denounced "the rude, insolent U.S. leaders." Donald Trump fired back: "Time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!"

The back-and-forth has perplexed and disoriented much of Washington. Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan recently said that Trump is "negotiating something that, in its broad elements, is going to look and feel pretty similar" to the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. "I seem to be on the same page as Donald Trump," he continued. The strain has been too much for many of the Israel haters who claim to speak for Trump’s political base and favor an Obama-esque approach to the Islamic Republic. They have run into a major force in American politics, one that Khamenei should fear: America’s Jacksonians.

Before they crossed the Atlantic, the original Jacksonians were some of Europe’s most formidable warriors. British statesmen sprinkled these people, who originally hailed from the lawless borderland between Scotland and England, around imperial trouble spots. Their settlements in Northern Ireland gave them the name "Scots-Irish," and at the time of the American Revolution, they blocked Spanish expansion up from Florida and American-Indian raids across the Appalachians.

Other types of Americans, such as the Midwest’s heavily Catholic "Reagan Democrats," grafted onto the Jacksonian tree. Walter Russell Mead, who first identified this group in Special Providence, describes their values as "a deeply embedded, widely spread populist and popular culture of honor, independence, courage, and military pride." A "Jacksonian hero dares to say what the people feel and defies the entrenched elites." Andrew Jackson was one such hero; another is Donald J. Trump.

What Happened to Command Accountability and Responsibility?

John C. Harvey, Jr, Admiral, USN (Ret)

Where have we as an organization drifted in the last quarter century when it comes to addressing command accountability and responsibility in our newly structured “Enterprise” components and the focus on a static understanding of “efficiency” in an organization that exists, ultimately, for combat “effectiveness.”

Today we have the pleasure of a guest post on just this topic from John C. Harvey, Jr., Admiral, USN (Ret).

Admiral, over to you.

In his recent post discussing SecNav’s actions in Guam after seeing first-hand the unacceptable conditions in the Palau Hall barracks for the Sailors and Marines billeted there, CDR Salamander touched on a number of issues that collectively point to two closely related areas of supreme importance to the Navy - first, the dilution of command accountability and responsibility and second, chains of command lacking clear lines of authority, accountability and well-defined reporting relationships.

Indeed, as reported in the Task & Purpose Newsletter, in a 5 May email followup to SecNav’s actions in Guam, VADM Scott Gray, Commander Navy Installations Command, “... called the conditions of the Guam barracks a “failure of leadership” across multiple commands, stating that the barracks are “clearly way outside any reasonable standard” and “clearly lack any sense of ownership.”

When the investigation is completed regarding the decision to place our Sailors and Marines in grossly substandard barracks, I suspect it may be difficult to either clearly identify the “decision-owner” or find evidence of a strong, sustained response by the unit commanders involved standing up for the welfare of their people.

These same issues of lack of clear leadership and accountability and blurred lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability within the relevant command structures figured prominently in the 2021 Red Hill fuel leak disaster, the July 2020 BONHOMME RICHARD fire and the 2017 FITZGERALD/MCCAIN collisions.

Writing Is Warfighting—Cultivating Intellectual Readiness in the U.S. Army

Chad Williamson

Before a warrior learns to lead, they must learn to think. Before they learn to command, they must learn to reflect. Writing, then, is not a secondary skill—it is a foundational act of warfighting. In an era of irregular conflict and cognitive competition, writing is how warriors refine judgment, process complexity, and preserve the clarity of their own purpose. It is the discipline of thinking out loud, in public, with purpose.

Warfighters are trained in the physical disciplines of combat, but too often the intellectual disciplines are left to chance. Among those, writing is perhaps the most underutilized—and most powerful—tool available for strengthening cohesion, credibility, and resilience.

Writing is warfighting. It is decision-making in motion. It is a form of intellectual readiness, personal reflection, and strategic adaptation.

The Harding Project, a grassroots initiative to renew professional military writing, reminds us that the profession of arms is also the profession of thought. Its namesake, Major General Edwin "Forrest" Harding, understood this in the interwar years of the 1930s. He doubled the circulation of the Infantry Journal not because writing was trendy, but because the Army needed to think harder before it fought again. Today, we are again in an interwar period. And once again, we must write our way through it.

A recent conversation at the Pentagon with Lieutenant Colonel Zach Griffiths, the outgoing Director of The Harding Project, reinforced this view. Griffiths, who came to writing through a deep love of reading, noted that curiosity and agency are two qualities The Harding Project cultivates. Writing, he explained, often begins with a question—a moment of inquiry that leads to reflection and then a commitment to share insight with others. It is an act of intellectual courage and professional ownership.

"Most of the writing I do is because I have a question in my mind that I’m trying to answer," Griffiths shared. "Once I think I know the answer, I write it down and send it out to the world."

Vladimir Putin has incurred one million casualties in his pointless

Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth

In October 2022, we warned that Russian President Vladmir Putin was willing to exchange more than 300,000 Russian coffins for a modern-day empire in Ukraine. Tragically, we were not wrong.

If anything, we underestimated Putin’s preparedness to kill and maim as many Russian, Chechen, North Korean, Cuban and Chinese soldiers and conscripts as needed to achieve his Peter the Great-like realm. Today, Russian casualties in Ukraine surpassed one million, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

No matter how willing Putin is, his meat grinder tactics are not militarily sustainable. In April, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, dual hatted as Commander, United States European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that the Russian military can likely only sustain its current operations for about 12 to 24 more months.

At the current rate of daily casualties for the Russian and their allies — about 1,200 a day — that translates to another 438,000 to 876,000 Russian casualties. The Kremlin continues to feed the Ukrainian meat-grinder with little regard for its soldiers. As Cavoli would go on and say, “Russian commanders still emphasize quantity and mass over skill and operational acumen.”

Ukrainian defenders have become quite efficient in killing and wounding Russian soldiers — or those dressed for the part — but they come back the next day, along the same avenues of approach, with the same result, gaining just a few meters of territory in exchange for appalling numbers of dead and wounded.

Despite President President Trump saying, “It’s time to stop this madness, it’s time to halt the killing, it’s time to end this senseless war,” Putin continues to attack along the frontlines and with daily bombardments of Ukrainian cities with drones, ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues its valiant defense.

Is Israel preparing to strike Iran?

While much of the Western debate remains trapped in tired slogans and false moral narratives, events on the ground in the Middle East have taken a decisive turn. In the past 24 hours, U.S. embassies have begun evacuating non-essential staff. Military dependents are being authorised to leave key bases. Multiple reports say U.S. officials have been told Israel is fully ready to launch an operation against Iran if required, and Washington expects possible Iranian retaliation on American sites in Iraq.

The trigger is Iran’s growing stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, its preparations for potential retaliation against any Israeli strike, and the breakdown of progress in nuclear talks. Meanwhile, in Gaza, as Western commentators obsess over supposed Israeli crimes, Hamas deliberately attacked a convoy of humanitarian aid workers, killing and injuring those delivering life-

The military must remain nonpartisan. America depends on it

HEIDI A. URBEN

Scholars of civil-military relations endlessly debate the durability of professional norms and the degree to which they reinforce the principle of civilian control of the armed forces. The most important norm that ensures the military upholds its oath to the Constitution and is subordinate to civilian authority is its norm of nonpartisanship—the commitment to keeping the military out of partisan politics. On June 10, that norm was dealt a setback at Fort Bragg.

Mounting a stage at the North Carolina base, the president and secretary of defense delivered partisan speeches before a large audience of uniformed soldiers. Others can judge the propriety of their remarks in such a setting, but it was the troops’ response that made the moment so troubling.

On cue, they roared their approval to partisan language about ridding the military of “woke garbage” and “political correctness.” They booed allusions to the previous president, the governor of California, and the mayor of Los Angeles. They applauded the president’s plan to revert yet more military bases to Confederate-derived names. In these and other ways, they behaved not as professional American service members, but as partisans at any other political rally.

Some observers are outraged because they believe the moment revealed an active-duty military that is fully aligned with the MAGA movement, perhaps a worrying thought as the president expands the use of the military on American soil. This is misguided for several reasons. First, the U.S. military is a diverse force that reflects the American public—for good or for worse—which means it also reflects America’s political divisions. The crowd at Fort Bragg may or may not be representative of the entire military, but that is beside the point. The personal politics of individual service members, no matter in which direction they lean, are unimportant as long as they are kept private.

Here is where the soldiers at Fort Bragg erred in a spectacular way. They provided de facto institutional endorsement to unambiguously partisan talking points, and in doing so, risked cementing in the minds of the American public that the military is a partisan actor, just like all the rest. Those on the right who fear that the military had become “woke,” undisciplined, and distracted from core missions will be reassured by the scene at Fort Bragg, while those on the left will take it as evidence that the military is part of a personalist regime that cannot be trusted to uphold its oath.

US reduces the presence of staffers not deemed essential in the Middle East as tensions rise

MATTHEW LEE, TARA COPP AND JON GAMBRELL

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.

The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.

The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”

Speaking at the Kennedy Center in Washington on Wednesday evening, President Donald Trump said, “They are being moved out, because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. We’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens.”

Tensions in the region have been rising in recent days as talks between the U.S. and Iran over its rapidly advancing nuclear program appear to have hit an impasse. The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions that the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

The next round of talks — the sixth — had been tentatively scheduled for this weekend in Oman, according to two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. However, those officials said Wednesday that it looked increasingly unlikely that the talks would happen.

Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is wrong

Sinéad Baker

A Ukrainian industry rep has said the West is approaching weaponry for major conflicts the wrong way.

Countries need a lot of pretty good weapons instead of only a handful of excellent ones, he said.

It's a warning that industry officials, experts, and some European defense ministers have echoed.

Ukraine's defense industry is urging the West to abandon its longtime fixation on high-end, expensive weaponry in favor of cheaper, mass-produced arms, the kind needed to survive and win a grinding war of attrition against an adversary like Russia.

Serhiy Goncharov, the CEO of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries — which represents about 100 Ukrainian companies — told Business Insider the West's long-standing focus on fielding limited numbers of cutting-edge systems could be a serious disadvantage in a protracted conflict. Those systems are good to have, but mass is key.

An argument for mass

The war in Ukraine shows that instead of a handful of ultraprecise, expensive weapons, countries need a massive supply of good enough firepower, Goncharov said.

He said the expensive weapons such as the US military's M982 Excalibur guided munition (each shell costs $100,000) "don't work" when the other side has electronic warfare systems and the kind of traditional artillery rounds that are 30 times cheaper in tremendous supply.

US Marines firing an M982 Excalibur round from an M777 howitzer. US Marine Corps/Cpl. Jeff Drew

Goncharov pointed to the M107, a self-propelled gun that was first fielded by the US in the 1960s, as an example of inexpensive firepower that can be effective in large numbers.

Ukraine’s Drone Attack Points to a U.S. Vulnerability

Jon Gruen

A B-1B Lancer at Ellsworth Air Force Base near Rapid City, S.D., July 16, 2020. Photo: Airman Quentin Marx/Associated Press

Imagine this: Beijing launches a surprise invasion of Taiwan. As U.S. forces mobilize to respond, something far worse unfolds here at home.

Sleeper agents—Chinese operatives who entered the U.S. months or years earlier—activate. In basements and garages across the country, they’ve been quietly assembling first-person-view drones from commercially available parts for a few hundred dollars each.

Loaded with homemade explosives, they launch in a coordinated wave across the U.S. targeting Air Force bases, civilian airports, power stations and other critical infrastructure. In less than an hour, a sizable portion of our strategic air fleet is reduced to scrap metal. Tens of billions of dollars in damage. Domestic air travel grounded. Major cities in the dark. America paralyzed.

This may feel like an outlandish plot to a Hollywood thriller. But it’s all too plausible. Crowded public events like the 2026 World Cup or the 2028 Olympics are potential targets, and law enforcement could lack the technology, training and legal authority to respond.

The House Homeland Security Committee released a warning last year that few noticed. More than 24,000 Chinese nationals were apprehended at the U.S. southern border in the first half of fiscal 2024, surpassing the total number of such encounters during the entire previous year. Committee leaders have suggested some of these aliens could be covert operatives or saboteurs seeking to cross the border in preparation for conflict. Rep. Dan Bishop last year called the surge of Chinese migrants a “major national-security vulnerability.”

If the sabotage scenario still feels far-fetched, consider what happened last week in Russia. Ukraine sneaked cheap explosive-laden drones deep inside Russia to destroy high-value aircraft parked at air bases thousands of miles from the front lines. Some of the destroyed bombers were nuclear-capable. The total value of the damaged and destroyed assets likely exceeds billions of dollars. The cost to Ukraine? A few tens of thousands of dollars in parts and payloads. Russian air defenses never saw it coming.

Europe’s Latest Sanctions Show That It Is Heading For Disaster – OpEd

Ian Proud

Europe will either continue the war at huge cost to avoid a reckoning with its disastrous policy towards Russia, or end the war, and face the prospect of Ukrainian membership which will tear the EU apart. No wonder the Eurocrats are bang out of ideas and throwing out more pointless sanctions.

Few things characterise the emptiness of European energy policy that Ursula von Der Leyen’s announcement that the Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines would be hitherto banned. In what has been described as a significant escalation, she announced on Xthat ‘Europe is putting Nordstream 1 & 2 behind for good.’ Both pipelines lay empty, and some were destroyed by a terrorist attack in September 2022. Nothing says escalationless than a sanction with zero economic cost.

And this latest move also signals increasing desperation in Europe about what to do about Russia, in circumstances where no one wants to fight Russia. The arrival of Friedrich Merz as German Chancellor has undoubtedly shifted the centre of gravity of EU policy towards Berlin, as he tries to position himself as the tough kid on the block.

But I want to be the first to predict that Merz won’t survive a full term in office.

The weight of domestic concern in Germany about self-defeating foreign policy is turbo-charging the growth of AfD which has become Germany’s most popular party since the February elections, according to polls.

As I, and many others, have said before, European industry has been crippled by high energy prices, and we are told, this is Russia’s fault. But it is manifestly driven by self-defeating energy policies in Brussels and Berlin. Rather cutting energy connections, the only answer is to boost global supply which would inevitably bring uncomfortable choices about Russian pipelines back to the table. Should this happen, von der Leyen’s credibility and Merz’s honeymoon in office, would suffer a cold shower.

Taking every step possible to delay or prevent a ceasefire in Ukraine simply kicks the sloshing bucket of iced water further down the slippery bathroom floor.

Why Russia Should Fear Ukraine’s Advanced Intelligence Network

David Kirichenko

Ukraine’s intelligence services, especially HUR and the SBU, have become globally formidable, conducting daring sabotage, assassinations, and cyber operations that reshape modern warfare and expose vulnerabilities deep inside Russia.

When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in February 2022, most Western leaders and intelligence agencies expected Kyiv to collapse within days.

Four years later, Ukrainian operatives are waging war across all of Russia in Kyiv’s special military operation.

How Does Ukraine Stand Up to Russia?

Much of the world now recognizes Ukraine’s military as one of the most battle-hardened and innovative forces of the 21st century. Former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken quipped in 2023 that Russia possessed “the second-strongest army in Ukraine,” a nod to how Ukraine’s defenders have repeatedly outmaneuvered what was once considered a top-tier military power.

Yet while Ukraine’s conventional forces have earned headlines, it is the country’s intelligence services, particularly the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), that are quietly waging a war in the shadows against Russia around the world.

Among Ukraine’s most daring missions worldwide, many bear the fingerprints of HUR. From assassinations deep inside Russia to sabotage campaigns across Africa and Syria, Ukraine’s military intelligence agency has emerged as one of the world’s most active and feared covert services.

But now, Ukraine’s domestic security service (SBU) has made it clear that every military war planner will be studying their tactics as well. On June 1st, Ukraine’s SBU, after 18 months of planning, neutralized 34 percent of Russia’s nuclear-capable long-range bombers. Quoting US officials and military analysts, the New York Times wrote, “Ukraine is continuing to change the way wars will be conducted in the 21st century.”

Can Anything Stop A Donald Trump Dictatorship?

Paul R. Pillar

The courts, Congress, and the military are unlikely to resist the Trump administration’s tidal wave of illegality.

President Donald Trump, in his second term, is rapidly moving the United States away from liberal democracy and toward authoritarianism capped by unrestricted one-man rule.

He has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded the law. The disregard has included the gutting and disestablishment of agencies whose existence and budgets are based on acts of Congress. It has included mass firings and targeted dismissals of officials while ignoring legal requirements to show cause and ensure due process.

The law enforcement powers of the government have been blatantly weaponized, politicized, and deployed against anyone Trump considers a political or personal adversary, even in the absence of a prosecutable crime. Despite the president’s duty under Article II of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” Trump has refused to enforce regulatory laws that he does not happen to like.

He has abridged basic freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. Legal non-citizen residents have been seized on the street and jailed for weeks merely for expressing an opinion. The administration is actively considering a broader policy of revoking visas and deporting foreign students who express their opinions in campus protests.

With some undocumented immigrants being thrown into a notorious prison in El Salvador, Trump has talked openly about extending similar treatment to US citizens. US citizens have already been swept up, whether inadvertently or otherwise, in the administration’s mass deportations.

Ukraine’s Battlefield Drone Innovations are Influencing Europe’s Militaries

David Kirichenko

As the world order continues to take a new shape, Europe has realized it no longer has the luxury of relying solely on the United States for protection. As a result, European countries are moving quickly to help build out Ukraine’s defense industry to also strengthen Europe’s own security for the future. At the center of this shift is Ukraine’s battlefield drone innovations—including its ability to produce them cheaply at scale, which is now reshaping how Europe prepares for a future confrontation with Russia.

Facing uncertainty over U.S. support, Ukraine has focused on expanding its domestically produced drone program, aiming to compensate for potential gaps in Western arms shipments by building a network of drone regiments along the front. Across Ukraine, volunteers and small workshops are fueling a grassroots drone-building movement that supplies frontline troops with cheap, highly effective First-Person View (FPV) attack drones.

Strategic Agility or Abundance?

The strategy of employing cheap drone mass, already credited with stalling Russia’s winter offensive, focuses on saturating Russian lines with low-cost, high-impact drones to limit Russian advances while preserving Ukraine’s soldiers. General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief, speaking at the Ukraine–United Kingdom Defense Technology Forum organized by RUSI, stated that a 10–15 kilometer-wide “zone of continuous death” has formed ahead of the front line – and that this deadly zone is steadily expanding, along with the likelihood of destruction within it.

As Ukraine’s battlefield innovations outpace traditional U.S. defense contractors, American companies and Silicon Valley are increasingly turning to Ukrainian drone makers for their frontline expertise, recognizing that “no U.S. company is keeping up with Ukraine.” Zaluzhnyi added that “Victory on the battlefield now depends entirely on the ability to outpace the enemy in technological development.”

A Hidden Force in the Middle East

Michael Robbins and Amaney A. Jamal

When Israel began to normalize relations with some of its neighbors in 2020, as part of the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords, many analysts began to wonder whether the Palestinian cause still mattered to the Arab world. Doubts about the salience of the issue for Arabs grew in late 2023, when it appeared that Saudi Arabia might also join the accords, normalizing relations with Israel without demanding, in exchange, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The Israeli military campaign in Gaza that followed Hamas’s attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, provoked international outrage at the scale of violence used against Palestinian civilians and Israel’s blockade of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel have long endured violence and deprivation, but Arab opposition to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has rarely been a decisive factor in the conflict. Considering the unprecedented level of devastation this round of fighting has wreaked, many observers anticipated that anger among ordinary citizens in Arab states might lead to significant shifts in their governments’ rhetoric and policy.

Instead, some scholars have argued that the October 7 attacks and the events that followed have in fact weakened the Palestinian cause, noting that the issue has largely fallen off the international agenda. Some cite, for example, the fact that none of the Arab countries that signed peace treaties with Israel have broken those relations. Similarly, during U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent trip to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, the issue took a back seat, at least publicly, overshadowed by the parties’ economic interests. To some observers, popular outrage in the Arab world over the war seemed like a proverbial “dog that did not bark.”

15 June 2025

Justice, Jets, and Geopolitics: India Acts, America Trades

Shashank Shukla

On 7th May 2025, the Indian Air Force launched “Operation Sindoor”, a calibrated and resolute military offensive targeting terror infrastructure entrenched within Pakistani territory. This decisive act came in response to the heart-wrenching Pahalgam massacre on 22nd April, in which 26 Hindu men were brutally killed in front of their families, singled out by their religion. This was not merely an act of terror; it was a deliberate and barbaric display of religious persecution. In what Indian officials described as a "surgical missile campaign," the operation dismantled prominent terror outfits such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Among those neutralized was Abdul Rauf Azhar, a senior commander of JeM and the brother of Masood Azhar, a UN-designated terrorist. Abdul Rauf's involvement in the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 and his alleged link to the horrific beheading of Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was a grim reminder of the price humanity continues to pay for unchecked extremism. In the aftermath of this strike, Daniel Pearl’s father, along with members of the global Jewish lobby, publicly thanked India, stating that justice for Daniel had finally been served. For India, this was not just retribution rather it was a reaffirmation of its commitment to counterterrorism, rooted in sovereignty and justice.

However, rather than acknowledging India's legitimate and necessary response, Pakistan retaliated with its own operation, dubbed “Bunyan-un-Marsoos” which is an escalation that included cyber warfare and strikes on Indian military bases. In return, India broadened the scope of Operation Sindoor to encompass Pakistani military establishments, systematically targeting 11 airbases, including Nur Khan and Sargodha. While India’s indigenously developed air defense systems successfully intercepted thousands of drones, Pakistan’s Chinese-origin defenses like HQ-16 and FM-90 were unable to withstand India’s aerial superiority. As per Austrian air warfare historian Tom Cooper, India emerged as a “clear-cut victor,” possessing undeniable aerial dominance. John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, lauded India for showcasing offensive and defensive prowess without external support. A testimony to India’s matured strategic doctrine and technological capabilities.

‘We Have Changed as a Country’

Rishi Iyengar

Delegations from India and Pakistan spent last week in Washington, D.C., meeting lawmakers, officials, and members of their respective diasporas to communicate dueling messages that seem as intractable and incompatible as their decades-long conflict over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The Indian delegation, led by opposition lawmaker Shashi Tharoor, has said dialogue between India and Pakistan cannot take place unless the Pakistani government dismantles the terror groups emanating from its soil. The Pakistani delegation, led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, said Pakistan cannot effectively combat terrorism without dialogue and cooperation with India.

Signs of a Shift in Canada-India Relations

Sudha Ramachandran

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s invitation to his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, to participate in the G-7 Summit and outreach sessions being held in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17, and the Indian prime minister’s confirmation of his participation in the event, are seen as marking a shift in their bilateral relationship.

The question of India’s exclusion from the summit had been causing embarrassment to the Modi government, even as it put the Canadian government in a spot. Although it is not a member of the G-7, India has been a regular attendee at its summits. India has participated in 11 G-7 summits so far, with Modi attending five of them.

The upcoming G-7 meeting will be Modi’s sixth. It almost didn’t happen, given the troubled ties between India and Canada.

Invites to other G-7 members and non-members had already gone out, and as late as June 5, there was no official word about Canada inviting India.

This caused major embarrassment to Modi at home. While analysts drew attention to the Canadian “snub,” political rivals mocked him for not being invited and interpreted the non-invitation as evidence of his foreign policy blunders. For Modi, who takes great pride in his global image, this was a major blow.

Meanwhile, in Canada, Canadian-Sikh groups and Liberal Party politicians opposed Carney’s invitation of Modi to the country. Yet Carney was under pressure to invite India to the summit; all the other G-7 members were reportedly keen on India’s participation. Canada itself, especially amid deteriorating relations with the U.S., is looking to deepen economic cooperation with countries like India. Carney said it didn’t make “sense” to exclude India, the world’s fifth-largest economy, which is “at the heart” of global supply chains, from the G-7 summit.

Pakistan’s Military Won’t Loosen Its Gri

Husain Haqqani

Last Saturday, former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan joined a long list of elected leaders in the country to be jailed on corruption charges after removal from office. Khan’s conviction for failing to declare income from selling gifts he received as prime minister disqualifies him from leading his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and from contesting national elections expected by November. Khan’s cult-like supporters regard him as a figure who can save Pakistan from corrupt, dynastic politics. With their leader in prison, they will step up their protest campaign against the former prime minister’s opponents, as well as the powerful military.

The military establishment now seems likely to prevail. Pakistan has never been a full democracy; the military ruled directly for decades and has retained a say in policymaking with a civilian government in power. Intelligence officials have influenced political parties and judges and manipulated elections. But a recent crackdown, which began after some of Khan’s supporters attacked military facilities after his initial arrest on May 9, has muzzled critics and left even less room for civil liberties. Dozens of opposition activists have been detained; PTI claims that the arrests number in the thousands.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)