From India to Russia and Back: Escaping the Russian Army

James Beardsworth

Source Link

On December 13, 2023, a group of seven Indian men gathered at a restaurant in the southeastern city of Chennai. Strangers to one another, the men drank chai and shared biryani, bonding over stories of their home provinces, from the Himalayan valleys of Kashmir to the coastal plains of Kerala.

Just days earlier, the men had flown to Chennai from across the country. Instructed to pack lightly, some carried little more than a few changes of clothes along with shiny new passports, freshly stamped with Russian tourist visas. They were told to wait in Chennai for further information.

Over the coming days, the men became inseparable. “We ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner together,” explained Mohammed Sarfaraz, who was part of the group. The 28-year-old restaurant worker had traveled from his native Kolkata. “We were all very nervous,” he said.

Joining Sarfaraz was Azad Yusuf Kumar, a 31-year-old engineering graduate from Kashmir, and Syed Ilyas Hussaini and Mohammed Samir Ahmed, two 24-year-olds from Karnataka who both left catering jobs at Dubai airport to move to Russia. Also among the men was 27-year-old Surinder Paul from Jammu, Parveen Lamar from Darjeeling, and Mohammed Tahir, a 24-year-old from Gujarat.

Pakistan’s Strategic Dilemmas Amid India-US Alignment

Umair Jamal

Source Link

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Washington to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows in Islamabad.

In the joint statement issued during Modi’s trip, the two leaders “called on Pakistan to expeditiously bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, and Pathankot attacks and ensure that its territory is not used to carry out cross-border terrorist attacks.”

Responding to the “Pakistan-specific reference” in the joint statement, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said that Pakistan considered this “as one-sided, misleading and contrary to diplomatic norms.” Khan said that it was surprising that this issue was even mentioned, given Pakistan’s extensive counterterrorism cooperation with the United States

Additionally, Pakistan raised concerns over the proposed U.S. military sales to India. It would worsen the military imbalance in South Asia, undermining regional stability, Khan said, adding that “such steps are unhelpful in achieving durable peace in South Asia.”

The joint statement refers to plans for advanced U.S. military sales to India, including F-35 fighter jets, and enhanced defense-industrial collaboration, underscoring a growing strategic alignment.

U.S.-India Summit: A Productive Trip and a Busy Year Ahead

Richard M. Rossow

Source Link

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Washington, D.C., this week and met President Donald Trump on February 13. The two leaders reaffirmed the importance of this blossoming strategic relationship and hinted at important new ways they plan to operationalize the partnership. Most significantly, the two leaders stated their shared intention to negotiate a bilateral trade initiative (BTI) with a plan to conclude a first phase later this year. In the area of defense cooperation, there was a reaffirmation of equipment sales, exercises, and promises of relaxing U.S. export controls—including for fifth-generation fighter planes and undersea systems. The leaders also hinted that we may see significant new steps in military interoperability.

With losses by many incumbents democratically elected leaders in recent years, Prime Minister Modi is a relatively rare “known figure” to President Donald Trump. This familiarity and senior-level connectivity in recent months were on display as the visit yielded a far more aspirational agenda than would have otherwise been possible just weeks into a new administration.

The drivers for this partnership are well-known. During President Trump’s current term, India should leap over both Japan and Germany to become the world’s third-largest economy. The two nations have shared concerns about the dangerous elements of China’s rise. India is the largest source of both foreign students and skilled immigrants coming to the United States. The United States is India’s most significant economic partner—India has double the level of goods exports to the United States as it exports to any other nation. Over 54 percent of India’s exports of software and services come to the United States.

The Sort of Alliance: India and America Keep Getting Closer

Andrew Latham

Source Link

The recent visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Washington, D.C., marks a pivotal moment in U.S.-India relations, signaling a trajectory toward deeper geopolitical alignment and enhanced economic collaboration. While India maintains its policy of strategic autonomy, often termed “multi-alignment,” the convergence of interests between the world’s oldest and largest democracies is becoming increasingly pronounced. This evolving relationship reflects both the structural changes in the international order and the political calculations of a second Trump presidency.

India and America: A Sort of Alliance?

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from unipolarity – or U.S. hegemony – toward a multipolar system where regional powers such as India play increasingly independent roles. In this evolving landscape, New Delhi’s strategic importance to Washington has grown exponentially. The Biden administration sought to deepen ties with India as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, and under President Donald Trump’s second term, this trend appears poised to accelerate. Trump’s “sovereigntist” vision of foreign policy, as outlined in his recent New York Times article, prioritizes transactional partnerships that enhance U.S. strategic flexibility rather than rigid alliances based on ideological commitments. India’s pragmatic approach to international relations aligns well with this philosophy.

Militants thrive amid political instability in Pakistan

Source Link

In 2024, Pakistan experienced one of the most violent years in over a decade as it grappled with fractious politics and rising militancy from Baloch separatists and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The national and provincial elections in February failed to restore order and were marred by widespread allegations of military manipulation to keep former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party out of power.1 While independent candidates aligned with the PTI secured the highest number of parliamentary seats, Khan remained imprisoned. In March, Shehbaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz — widely seen as the military’s preferred party — was appointed prime minister and formed the new government. This led to an unprecedented breakdown in civil-military relations, marking the lowest point in the country’s history and sparking a political crisis.

Pakistan’s violent landscape stretches beyond the country’s political instability. According to the ACLED Conflict Index, Pakistan ranks 12th among the world’s most extreme conflicts in 2024, and over a fifth of its population is exposed to violence. Nearly 85% of this violence was concentrated in the border provinces of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the respective strongholds of Baloch separatists and the TTP.

Iatrogenic Influence In Information Operations: Lessons From The Global War On Terror – Analysis

Daniel Eerhart

Source Link

Introduction

In medicine, iatrogenesis is when a physician’s medical treatment or procedures unintentionally induce disease, harmful complications, or any other ill effect. This paper introduces the concept of iatrogenic influence. It parallels the medical term and refers to situations where information operations inadvertently produce adverse outcomes and unintentionally exacerbate the issue they aim to improve. While this phenomenon has existed as long as information warfare has, the nearly twenty years of conflict following September 11th, 2001, known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT), has produced numerous missteps and infringements from which we can learn lessons to improve future efforts.

During the GWOT, U.S. military psychological operations units deliberately integrated various information-related capabilities and aimed to wage a mutually supportive war in the tactical and cognitive domains. However, inherent to the nature of terrorist organizations is the ability to weaponize fear and win information battles. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State, the Haqqani network, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba all weaponized the information environment to bolster recruiting efforts and spread propaganda. While U.S. forces aiming to compete in the information environment had to wrestle with bureaucratic processes and protect domestic trust and perceived legitimacy in the combat zones, GWOT adversaries pressed their advantage in the information space through decentralized execution and rapid dissemination. U.S. military commands do not have the luxury of cutting corners; when they do, they increase the risk of iatrogenic influence.

China’s Political Warfare: The Fight for Taiwan on the Information Battlefield

Peter Tozzi

Source Link

China is at war. While annexing Taiwan is China’s immediate objective, defeating America is its ultimate goal. General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated his intent to “reunify” Taiwan with China. A successful takeover of Taiwan would grant China a power projection platform into the Pacific, threatening America’s allies and partners. It would also challenge the United States in the long-term, threatening to displace the U.S.-led rules-based international order.

To achieve these ambitions, China wages political warfare against Taiwan and the United States. Political warfare is “the employment of all the means at a nation’s command, short of [a major kinetic] war, to achieve its national objectives” (i.e., from using economic coercion to employing propaganda campaigns), and it is inextricably linked with information warfare. On the information battlefield, China spreads propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation; sows discord within democratic societies; and exerts transnational repression.

China’s political warfare poses an existential threat. It is designed to defeat both countries without fighting a major kinetic war—specifically, without Taiwan and America fighting back. China’s victory ultimately means destruction of democratic governance, freedoms, and sovereignty of both Taiwan and the United States.

Decisive year ahead for resistance groups in Myanmar as they threaten new territories

Source Link

Despite the military’s ongoing counteroffensive campaigns, resistance groups opposing military rule in Myanmar made substantial strategic and territorial gains in 2024. This notably included the capture of the Northeastern Regional Military Command (RMC) in Lashio — one of 14 top-level military headquarters in the country — for the first time in the country’s history. The Brotherhood Alliance, comprised of the Myanmar National Truth and Justice Party/Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNTJP/MNDAA), Palaung State Liberation Front/Ta’ang National Liberation Army (PSLF/TNLA), and United League of Arakan/Arakan Army (ULA/AA), revived last year’s Operation 1027 in late June, following a short-lived ceasefire under the Haigen Agreement brokered by China in January. The MNTJP/MNDAA’s capture of Lashio town in northern Shan state and the PSLF/TNLA’s capture of Mogoke, a major ruby mining hub in Mandalay region, dealt both symbolic and tactical blows to the military. Residents in Mogoke celebrated as resistance groups entered the town, while pro-military supporters called for the resignation of the military leadership after the fall of the Northeastern RMC in Lashio.1 These gains by the Brotherhood Alliance began a debate about its ability to directly threaten Mandalay city, which is 277 kilometers away from the military’s capital, Nay Pyi Taw, and home to a large civilian population.2

Myanmar’s fluid war edging toward an endgame

Anthony Davis

Source Link

In the wake of the fourth anniversary of Myanmar’s military coup, prognostications on the civil war in the year ahead have been notably broader than usual: the State Administration Council (SAC) junta lurches toward inevitable collapse; decisive China intervention rescues the regime and its off-ramp strategy for elections; resistance factions, ethnic and Bamar, sour on each other; and dizzying combinations of all the above.

If then one word encapsulates the war in 2025, it’s “fluidity” – the unpredictability of a precarious balance of mutual weaknesses and antagonisms that offers no room for confident prediction. Save, that is, for the certainty of the country’s accelerating economic decline and humanitarian disaster.

But against this shifting backdrop, two starkly contrasting ground realities stand out. How they interact in the coming months will almost certainly shape the future of the war, potentially decisively and in a manner likely to circumvent Beijing’s efforts to impose a Pax Sinica across Myanmar.

The first and most loudly acclaimed has been the success of ethnic armies – so-called ethnic revolutionary organizations or EROs – in using regular forces and maneuver warfare to largely secure their own homelands.

Myanmar: Arakan Army Closing In On Capital Of Rakhine State

Source Link

The rebel Arakan Army is closing in on Sittwe, the capital of Myanmar’s western Rakhine state, firing artillery on military junta outposts outside the city and preparing for an assault, residents told Radio Free Asia.

Residents have been fleeing from Sittwe’s outskirts since January, but now aren’t able to escape because junta forces have blocked all exit routes, said Wai Hin Aung, an aid worker in the city. “The blockade has led to this fighting, with the use of heavy weapons,” he said.

The rebel ethnic Arakan Army, or AA, has made significant gains over the past year in its bid to root the military out of Rakhine state in its bid for self-determination.

Of the 17 townships in Rakhine state, 14 are under the control of the AA, leaving only three still in the hands of the military junta – Kyaukphyu, Munaung and Sittwe, where the junta’s regional headquarters is based.

Sittwe is crucial for the junta – which seized control of Myanmar in a 2021 coup d’état – not only as a source of much-needed revenue and foreign currency, but also for its role in Myanmar’s oil and gas trade via the Indian Ocean.

If Sittwe falls, it would be the latest and one of the most significant defeats for the junta, which has been pushed back across the country by various ethnic armies and armed citizens who have formed militias called Peoples Defense Forces, or PDF.

How China Is Weaponizing Its Dominance In Critical Minerals Trade – Analysis

Keith Rockwell

Source Link

Export curbs applied to technology or critical raw materials are often justified by the need to promote downstream industries, the raising of revenue and environmental protection. But there are other motivations, including the desire to gain an upper hand on a geopolitical rival.

Governments justify export restrictions as necessary for national security, an ill-defined concept often used to defend trade-distorting actions. During the 2007 food crisis, countries hoarded rice and maize. During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments applied export bans on vaccines and medical diagnostic products. The war in Ukraine saw Russia restricting agricultural, mineral and energy exports. An average of more than 110 export restrictions were introduced each yearbetween 2021–23.

China’s December 2024 ban on exports to the United States of critical raw materials was predictable, given their strategic value in the production of semiconductors, electric batteries and armaments. The number of restrictions on the export of critical raw materials applied by governments grew more than five-fold between 2009–20 to 13,102. But this move represents a dangerous step which will further damage US–China relations.

The Islamic State Is Making a Comeback

Colin P. Clarke

Source Link

The Defense Department is in the process of drafting plans to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria after some of President Donald Trump’s recent comments. When asked in late January about withdrawing the remaining U.S. forces from the country, Trump replied, “Syria is its own mess. They got enough messes over there. They don’t need us involved in every one.”

But if the Trump administration does decide to move forward with drawing down the U.S. military footprint in Syria, it will be doing so at a dangerous time. Last year, Islamic State attacks in Syria tripled from the previous year. This increased operational tempo was not just about quantity but sophistication, lethality, and geographic spread of attacks.

What We Learned From High-Stakes US-Russia Talks In Saudi Arabia – Analysis

Reid Standish

Source Link

Top U.S. and Russian officials have finished their first talks on ending the war in Ukraine, with the Kremlin voicing new demands as Washington and Moscow agreed to move quickly to normalize their ties and begin negotiations around the nearly three-year conflict.

The more than four-hour meeting in Riyadh — which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — is part of a major diplomatic push by the United States to bring the war to an end. The discussions were framed by U.S. officials as exploratory talks that could pave the way for a potential in-person meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Rubio told reporters after the February 18 meeting in the Saudi capital that the talks were “the first step of a long and difficult journey” over ending the war in Ukraine and that the U.S. and Russian delegations agreed on four principles during their discussions.

These comprise fully restoring their diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow after years of sanctions and expulsions, appointing a high-level team to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, exploring further “geopolitical and economic cooperation that could result from an end to the conflict in Ukraine,” and ensuring that the U.S. and Russian delegations present in Riyadh will remain engaged in discussions moving forward.

Wisdom in DoD

N. Peter Whitehead

Source Link

In a community college building in Austin, Texas, the Army is doing something nothing short of amazing. Army Futures Command's Army Software Factory (ASF) is at once providing useful software products and taking the first steps toward addressing DoD's most pressing nongeopolitical issue, absorptive capacity.

Leveraging commercial software development practices such as minimal viable product, Army enlisted service members and officers work together in teams to produce products—but that just scratches the surface. Unlike the Air Force's Kessel Run, the work of ASF is all done by uniformed soldiers, assisted by contractors as mentors and instructors. When they rotate out, those soldiers take their knowledge, understanding, and wisdom with them, bringing indispensable absorptive capacity to the modern battlefield. These are not soldiers who will need contractors to tell them what can and cannot be done, they will lead from wisdom.

Those two concepts, absorptive capacity and wisdom carry a lot of weight in innovation. Unlike six sigma, agile software development, model-based systems engineering, and a laundry list of DoD management approaches over the decades, absorptive capacity has withstood the test of time on the commercial side and remains a benchmark in leadership development. Since first published in 1990, the need for subject matter wisdom in leadership has grown to universal recognition as a key factor in innovative development at the speed of need. While this has become the standard in commercial industry, DoD has taken the opposite tack of outsourcing to contractors more and more of the top end of Russel Ackoff's cognitive hierarchy.

Donald Trump’s Mission: Make America’s Allies Spend More on Defense

Robert Kelly

Source Link

US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been hugely controversial. In the first month, he has chided and even threatened US friends and allies. He seems particularly determined to upset US partners in North America – a bizarre development no one anticipated.

Trump has talked up annexing Canada and Greenland. He has hinted at attacking Mexico over the drug trade. He suggested the US might snatch the Panama Canal from Panama.

The response has been predictable. At a recent US-Canada hockey game, Canadians booed the singing of the US national anthem and fights between the players broke out immediately.

Trump seems to thrive on disruption – even for its own sake.

It is not clear why else Trump has staked out these rather extreme position. Canada, for example, will obviously not join the US unless it is coerced. The US has not had war plans against Canada in almost a century, and it would be shocking if the US public supported an invasion of Canada.

It would create an insurgency right on America’s border and destroy allied trust in the US overnight. The whole idea is so fantastical that one wonders why Trump keeps mentioning it.

Clarifying Language for Victory

Joshua Edwards

Source Link

Effective communication is vital for any team to achieve its goals, which is amplified as a team extends from team to country. The challenge becomes daunting when considering the cultural diversity between organizations and individuals in the melting pot of our country. One problem with communication is the inability to define fundamental terminology that can be used to frame common ground to facilitate understanding across diverse organizations and people. Another problem with communication is that terminology, once established, can take monumental efforts to effectively update in the face of common practice. On other occasions, terminology is established with the constraints of cultural bias, which can fail to communicate the threat. The point of this paper is to explore the need to update concepts of Irregular Warfare, gray zone activities, and introduce regular warfare to ensure effective communication for a combined national defense effort.

The armed forces have been the focal point of national defense for centuries. The United States (US) has consistently demonstrated the ability to field exquisite game-changing capability that would deter any rational actor from engaging in conventional warfare. Nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered submarines, stealth technology, and precision weapons are but a handful of capabilities that prevented a major adversary from irresponsible escalation. Adversaries must therefore adapt outside of military pursuits to realize their ambitions. These adaptations come in the form of statecraft, economic power, subversion, coercion, disinformation, and deception aimed at military and civilian targets.

African Migration Trends to Watch in 2025

Wendy Williams

Source Link

Africa Sees Decreased Off-Continent Irregular Migration

• Heightened restrictions on intercontinental border crossings to Europe and the Arabian Peninsula over the past year have resulted in dramatic drops in African irregular migration off-continent. The 146,000 interceptions of irregularly migrating Africans who reached Europe and Gulf countries in 2024 are roughly half of the 282,000 recorded in 2023.
• The sharp decline in African irregular migration to Europe reflects stepped up European Union-funded interdiction efforts in North Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt) and West Africa (Senegal and Mauritania). Morocco, illustratively, reports having prevented more than 45,000 crossings to Europe, while arresting 177 migrant trafficking gangs and rescuing more than 10,800 people at sea.
• The 54-percent decline in irregular migration (to 44,000 people) to Yemen (the primary entry point to the Gulf countries) is a result of a combination of factors including ongoing armed conflict in Yemen and intensified operations by Djiboutian and Yemeni Coast Guards to prevent migrant crossings over the Bab al-Mandeb.
• While recorded migrant deaths and disappearances declined by 15 percent in 2024, there were still an estimated 4,465 migrant fatalities. Three-quarters of these are from attempted maritime crossings to Europe via the Mediterranean and Atlantic.
• Interdictions in North Africa and West Africa have contributed to a 70-percent downturn in European interceptions of African migrants (to 33,500 people) along the Central Mediterranean route, mainly via Libya and Tunisia. The Central Mediterranean route has historically been the most frequented irregular migration pathway for African nationals to Europe.
• With 36,000 African migrants intercepted in 2024, the Atlantic route became the most active irregular passage from Africa to Europe.

Conflict Watchlist 2025

Source Link

In ACLED’s Conflict Watchlist, we identify 10 crisis areas that are likely to evolve in the coming year, both for better and for worse. The Watchlist goes beyond showcasing violent hotspots and instead offers a view into some of the world’s most complex crises. As we enter 2025, there is no shortage of intractable conflicts to choose from. But in our selection, we highlight those that represent the more general trends we are seeing from ACLED’s Conflict Index.

International and state violence represent a growing share of overall conflict rates. Conflict event rates grew by over 25% in 2024 compared to 2023, and much of this was due to the conflict emerging between states, and close affiliates of states, across the Middle East.

In the Watchlist, we cover Iran and its allies, and Israel and its neighbors. Iran’s regime is in a precarious and weak state domestically and internationally — its non-state allies are being humiliated and dismantled at pace. However, as demonstrated by the activity in Syria in late 2024, this is the beginning of the problems that may lead to a drastically changed region and the end of an era heavily influenced by Iranian politics. As noted by ACLED’s specialist Luca Nevola: “The strategic balance now favors Tel Aviv, as two of Iran’s key security pillars — regional influence through Axis of Resistance non-state actors, and missile and drone capabilities — appear under strain.”

Jamestown Foundation China Brief, February 14, 2025, v. 25, no. 3

Military Content Restrictions Could Indicate Trouble Ahead

Europe Could Be Supporting Russia’s War via ‘Seven Sons’ Partnerships

Five Key Factors Behind Irregular Leadership Changes in the People’s Liberation Army

Strangers on a Seabed: Sino-Russian Collaboration on Undersea Cable Sabotage Operations

DeepSeek’s Background Raises Multiple Concerns

Donald Trump’s Two-Pronged Strategy To Gut The ‘Deep State’ – OpEd

Alfredo Toro Hardy

Source Link

US President Donald Trump is convinced that the “deep state” thwarted his first term, robbing him of the 2020 election. Expunging it seems to have become his main priority of this second term. But, is there such a thing as a deep state? There certainly is. It would be enough to read the memoirs of former US presidents or secretaries to discover their frustration in face of the bureaucratic resistance confronted while in office. In this regard, those of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, written a few decades ago, were particularly enlightening.

The following excerpts from his Memoirs speak volumes. They referred to the interaction between the White House and the Pentagon: “Orders were given in that respect, but our military bureaucracy resists intromissions in strategic doctrine even if they come from the White House (…) When I assumed my functions, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told me that he too had tried to give more options to the President in strategic matters, but he finally desisted given the bureaucratic resistance (…) A 1969 presidential request demanding a reasoned explanation on the naval programs was never satisfactorily answered during the eight years that I served in Washington. The responses given were always close to insubordination and far from being useful.”

Peace In Europe Is Only Possible Under Trump – OpEd

Collins Chong Yew Keat

Source Link

After depending on America as its ally for decades, the European leaders at the Munich Security Conference this week now see first hand the continent’s decades old norms and dogma of the American security umbrella now crumbling in front of them.

The U.S. and Russia have begun talks in Saudi Arabia aimed at improving diplomatic ties and negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, without the involvement of Europe and Ukraine. This is only made possible under Trump, and will signal a new path towards peace. If Biden defeated Trump in the elections, this conflict will only prolong with greater amounts of lives lost and money pumped in unnecessarily.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, signaling a potential thaw in U.S.-Russia relations after years of tension following the Ukraine conflict, and after years of limited engagement thanks to Biden’s old school approach.

Trump criticised Zelensky for his disapproval of this direct meeting without Ukraine, and Trump is right when he argued that Zelensky has for three years been here but practically the war has seen no signs of abating. Only Trump has the capacity in the world now to halt this previous stalemate of the West’s stubborn old school approach, and to end the war now.

This first formal talk will set up nicely the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin, which will mark a new chapter of ties between Moscow and Washington, where it will no longer be constrained by past status quo and conventional approaches of the Biden administration.

Ukraine Must Guarantee Its Own Security

Emma Ashford

Source Link

At last week’s Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels, newly minted U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that the position of the U.S. government was that Ukraine will not join NATO. Although greeted with horror by some in Washington and in European capitals, Hegseth’s remarks were in fact more a public statement of reality than a genuine change in policy. This position had been telegraphed throughout the Trump campaign and transition, and even the Biden administration had been skeptical of Ukrainian membership any time soon. The risks of admitting Ukraine to the alliance—reflected in widespread opposition to it in the United States, Germany, and elsewhere—have long made this reality perfectly clear to all.

Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has recently acknowledged that NATO membership is probably not on the table. He has focused instead on making a different case to Ukraine’s Western backers: if NATO membership is not available, then his country needs equivalent security guarantees from Europe or the United States to prevent Russia from starting a new war in coming years. With the Trump administration insisting that no U.S. troops be sent to Ukraine, the conversation in European capitals is increasingly focused on whether and how European states can provide “security guarantees” through their own deployments.

Nuclear EMP attack: How US, Americans can prepare for ‘very real threat,’ expert says

Sarah Rumpf-Whitten

Source Link

A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike could cripple the U.S. electrical grid, communications, transportation, and other critical infrastructure for months, an expert warned.

Historian William Forstchen, a New York Times bestselling author and an expert on EMPs, discussed with Fox News Digital how the U.S. – and everyday Americans – can prepare for the "existential threat" that the attack poses.

This is a very real threat," he said. "EMP is generated when a small nuclear weapon, 40 to 60 kilotons or about three times the size of a Hiroshima bomb, is detonated 200 miles out in space above the United States. It sets up an electrostatic discharge which cascades to the Earth's surface, feeds into the millions of miles of wires which become antennas, feeds this into the power grid, overloads the grid and blows it out."

Forstchen, citing Congressional reports from 2002 and 2008, said that 80%-90% of Americans would be dead a year later if an EMP strike happened.

While an EMP strike, at first glance, appears to be more science fiction than fact, Forstchen said that the potential for such an attack was recognized decades ago.

President Trump’s Masterclass: Blundering A Ukraine Peace Deal

Steven Pifer

Source Link

Over the past week, the Trump administration has begun outlining its approach to brokering an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. These ideas have raised consternation in Kyiv and among U.S. allies in Europe, however, Moscow seemed elated. Administration officials have made basic negotiating errors when rolling out their approach that, left uncorrected, will doom their bid to end the war.

First, No Premature Concessions

A settlement of the war, and the prospects for its durability, will be judged on two factors: how much Ukrainian territory remains in Russian hands, and what security guarantees Kyiv receives. On February 12, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called it unrealistic for Ukraine to regain all its territory or to join NATO. If Washington seeks to play an honest broker, senior American officials should not concede points to the Kremlin at the outset.

Second, Be In On The Landing and Takeoff

Europe has a direct interest in the outcome of the war, and the administration envisages Europe playing a major role in implementing a settlement by providing peacekeeping or security forces, with no U.S. force contribution. Washington reportedly has asked European officials to draft plans for those forces. Yet, administration officials say Europe will not take part in negotiating a settlement in which they could end up putting their troops at risk.

Will We Squander the AI Opportunity?

DARON ACEMOGLU

Source Link

PARIS – I was fortunate to participate in the recent AI Action Summit in Paris, where many discussions emphasized the need to steer AI in a more socially beneficial direction. At a time of increasingly loud calls for AI acceleration from Silicon Valley – and now from the US government – the opportunity to focus on what we want from the technology was like a breath.

As I noted in one of my speeches, we should start by asking what is valuable and worth amplifying in human societies. What makes us so special, or at least successful in evolutionary terms, is our ability to devise solutions to problems large and small, to try new things, and to find meaning in such efforts. We have a capacity not only to create knowledge, but also to share it. Though the human journey has not always been smooth – our capabilities, machines, and knowledge sometimes cause profound harms – constant inquiry and prolific sharing of information is essential to what we are.

For more than 200,000 years, technology has been central to this story. From the days of stone tools to the present, we have built the solutions to our challenges; and from oral storytelling and the invention of writing to the printing press and the internet, we have developed new and better ways of sharing knowledge. Within the past 200 years, we have also figured out how to experiment better and more freely, and we have communicated this knowledge, too. The scientific process gave us established facts, allowing each generation to build on its predecessors’ advances.