Indian Strategic Studies: 05/01/25

1 May 2025

Three Reasons Indian Belligerence Should Not Be Discounted As Empty Threats

Umer Farooq

There are three reasons Indian belligerence should not be discounted as empty threats. Indians have been amassing modern weaponry from at least three main sources, First, it bought $20 billion worth of weapons from the United States in the past five years. Its other sources of weapons are France and Israel. The weapon-buying spree is so massive that it might have fed the notion of decisive conventional military superiority over Pakistan into the heads of Indian military planners. This is what had happened with Pakistani military planners before the 1965 war: They were convinced of the notion that American military weapons that Pakistan started getting after entering the military alliance with Washington in the early 1950s gave them a slight edge over the Indian military. And they considered it a small window of opportunity that would close after Indians would also started getting weapons from multiple sources including Washington and Moscow. We can safely assume that Indians would be suffering from the same syndrome of military superiority after procuring American and Israeli weapons that we had suffered before 1965.

The second reason we should not discount Indian theatrics as empty threats is the fact that the international taboo against the use of force by militarily powerful states against relatively militarily weaker states has evaporated into thin air after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. In these terms, Pakistan is not militarily a weak state. But when international military experts compare India in conventional military terms they always give India a decisive edge. In the post-Cold War era, this taboo was repeatedly broken by powerful countries like the United States, Russia, and Israel. It’s only that Pakistan assisted the United States in the invasion of one military non-entity, Afghanistan, and came close to sending its troops to Iraq—another militarily weak country that Washington invaded recently. Now that invading militarily weak countries has almost become a norm in international politics, Pakistan should not take the developing political and military situation lightly. It is not difficult for us to see that India has been in a deep embrace of Washington, Tele Viv, and Paris—its three main arms suppliers. These are not simply arms suppliers for India, they are providing political support to New Delhi when it sees itself as the bulwark against Islamic terrorism, which it sees emanating from across its western borders.

The Kashmir attack will renew hostilities between India and Pakistan

Dr Chietigj Bajpaee

On 22 April, a terror attack in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly Indian tourists. This is the deadliest attack in the disputed territory since 2019 when a car bomb targeting a convoy of buses carrying Indian paramilitary soldiers killed 40 people in Pulwama. More alarmingly, it is the biggest attack targeting civilians in over two decades. The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba – a Pakistan-based terrorist organization – has claimed responsibility for the attack, while the civilian government in Pakistan has denied any involvement.

Benign neglect or strategic restraint?

When the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed power in 2014, it extended an olive branch to Pakistan, inviting then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other South Asian leaders to Modi’s inauguration. Modi even visited Sharif on his birthday in 2015.

But relations between India and Pakistan have since deteriorated. In 2016, India carried out so-called ‘surgical strikes’ inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to an attack on an Indian army facility in Uri. In 2019, India launched airstrikes inside Pakistani territory following the Pulwama terror attack. The Modi government’s decision to end the special autonomous status of Indian-administered Kashmir in August 2019 further soured relations between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Why China-Taiwan Relations Are Getting So Tense

Ian Bremmer

Since the inaugurations of William Lai as Taiwan’s President in May 2024 and Donald Trump as U.S. President in January, Beijing has been on edge. Will Lai take provocative actions that demand a response? And what is Trump’s attitude toward Taiwan and its fight to remain outside China’s orbit?

The answers have proved complicated. In the early days of his presidency, Lai carefully avoided riling Beijing unnecessarily. The strength of Taiwan’s economy last year appeared to relieve him of any political need to rally his nationalist base with fist-shaking actions or rhetoric toward the mainland. But his Democratic Progressive Party lacks a parliamentary majority, and he can’t be sure the Trump Administration has his back. Whatever his political intent, Lai has become more strident on cross-Taiwan Strait questions in recent weeks.

On March 13, Lai delivered a speech in which he proposed 17 steps Taiwan should take to counter threats posed by China and its bid to infiltrate his government and Taiwanese society. Predictably, Beijing one-upped him, with 18 pieces of official commentary via state media that attacked Lai and his plans. Two weeks later, he was denounced as a “danger maker” and China’s People’s Liberation Army released propaganda videos simulating a blockade of the self-ruled island. If that was too subtle, China’s navy conducted joint exercises around Taiwan on April 1 to simulate an “assault on maritime and ground targets, and a blockade on key areas and sea lanes,” according to a PLA official. The Chinese coast guard deployed vessels in a circumnavigation patrol around Taiwan.

China deploys NGOs to quash criticism at U.N. organizations in Geneva

Greg Miller, Jelena Ćosić and Tamsin Lee-Smith

Hundreds of human rights organizations make their way to the United Nations’ offices in Geneva each year to call attention to the plight of the world’s most vulnerable populations, including victims of war, famine, false imprisonment or torture.

But dozens of self-described nongovernmental organizations active in Geneva have hidden ties to the Chinese government and have taken part in an expansive campaign to subvert the work of the U.N. Human Rights Council, according to the findings of an investigation by The Washington Post and other news organizations working in partnership with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

Beijing-backed groups crowd into U.N. sessions on human rights to present glowing accounts from China, which are at odds with credible reports of repression, according to interviews and an examination of public records. Their delegates seek to disrupt or drown out the testimony of legitimate NGOs on their findings about the detention of Muslim Uyghurs in internment camps in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, children separated from Tibetan families or the targeting of democracy activists in Hong Kong.

Increasingly, the Beijing-controlled organizations are being used to monitor and intimidate those planning to testify about alleged abuses, according to interviews with U.S. officials, Western diplomats and members of NGOs being targeted. Several activists described being photographed or harassed while on U.N. premises.

Chinese factories are stopping production and looking for new markets as U.S. tariffs bite

Evelyn Cheng

Chinese manufacturers are pausing production and turning to new markets as the impact of U.S. tariffs sets in, according to companies and analysts.

The lost orders are also hitting jobs.

“I know several factories that have told half of their employees to go home for a few weeks and stopped most of their production,” said Cameron Johnson, Shanghai-based senior partner at consulting firm Tidalwave Solutions. He said factories making toys, sporting goods and low-cost dollar store-type goods are the most affected right now.

“While not large-scale yet, it is happening in the key [export] hubs of Yiwu and Dongguan and there is concern that it will grow,” Johnson said. “There is a hope that tariffs will be lowered so orders can resume, but in the meantime companies are furloughing employees and idling some production.”

Around 10 million to 20 million workers in China are involved with U.S.-bound export businesses, according to Goldman Sachs estimates. The official number of workers in China’s cities last year was 473.45 million.

Trump China Tariffs Set to Unleash Supply Jolt on US Economy

Matt Townsend, James Mayger and Augusta Saraiva

President Donald Trump’s tariff onslaught has roiled Washington and Wall Street for nearly a month. If the trade war persists, the next upheaval will hit much closer to home.

Since the US raised levies on China to 145% in early April, cargo shipments have plummeted, perhaps by as much as 60%, according to one estimate. That drastic reduction in goods from one of the largest US trading partners hasn’t been felt by many Americans yet, but that’s about to change.

By the middle of May, thousands of companies — big and small — will be needing to replenish inventories. Giant retailers such as Walmart Inc. and Target Corp. told Trump in a meeting last week that shoppers are likely to see empty shelves and higher prices. Torsten Slok, Apollo Management’s chief economist, recently warned of looming “Covid-like” shortages and significant layoffs in industries spanning trucking, logistics and retail.

While Trump has shown signs in recent days that he’s willing to be flexible on the import taxes imposed on China and others, it may be too late to stop a supply shock from reverberating across the US economy that could stretch all the way to Christmas.

“The clock is absolutely ticking,” said Jim Gerson, president of The Gersons Companies, an 84-year-old supplier of holiday decorations and candles to major US retailers. The company, based in Olathe, Kansas, sources more than half its products from China and currently has about 250 containers waiting to be shipped.

Chinese Security Companies Expand Without Oversight

China’s expansion of its network of private security companies in Africa is unfolding in a legal gray area, analysts say.

These companies, known as PSCs, are widening their reach without a strong regulatory framework, which poses risks such as lack of transparency, weak national controls and undue influence on governments, according to Habib al-Badawi, a professor at Lebanese University.

“Domestic laws in China lack jurisdiction over PSCs operating abroad, and the enforceability of international laws remains a formidable challenge,” al-Badawi wrote in the Journal of Afro-Asian Studies. “The absence of a robust regulatory framework raises concerns about the need for greater accountability in the operations of Chinese PSCs on the African continent.”

Despite their description as private, all Chinese PSCs are state controlled and populated by former members of the People’s Liberation Army and People’s Armed Police — an extension of the Chinese Communist Party’s principle that “the party controls the gun.”

The PSCs are in Africa to protect tens of thousands of Chinese working on Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative projects, which produce more than $50 billion in revenue each year for state-owned Chinese companies, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies.

The Consequences of China’s New Rare Earths Export Restrictions

Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz

On April 4, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed export restrictions on seven rare earth elements (REEs) and magnets used in the defense, energy, and automotive sectors in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff increases on Chinese products. The new restrictions apply to 7 of 17 REEs—samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium—and requires companies to secure special export licenses to export the minerals and magnets.

Q1: To what extent will the most recent export restrictions on rare earths impact U.S. sourcing of these critical minerals for defense technologies?

A1: There are various types of export restrictions: non-automatic licensing, tariffs, quotas, and an outright ban. The new restrictions are not a ban; rather, they require firms to apply for a license to export rare earths. This development has three implications: first, there will likely be a pause in exports as the Chinese government establishes this licensing system. Second, there is also likely to be disruptions in supply to some U.S. firms given that the announcement also placed 16 U.S. entities on its export control list, limiting them from receiving dual-use goods. All but one of the firms on the list are in the defense and aerospace industries. It is unclear how China will implement the new licensing system. And third, the licensing system may be dynamic and could incentivize countries across the world to cooperate with China to prevent disruptions in their rare earths supply.

China’s rare-earth mineral squeeze will hit the Pentagon hard

PATRICK TUCKER

China is beginning to restrict exports of rare-earth minerals crucial to U.S. military might—a long-warned-of vulnerability that is becoming an urgent reality.

From tungsten in armor-piercing rounds to gallium in radars, the U.S. Defense Department has built a warfighting enterprise with a supply chain that runs straight through China. But recent developments threaten the Pentagon’s ability to maintain that enterprise.

In early April, Beijing imposed sweeping export controls on seven rare earth elements used in everything from laser-guided weapons to MRI machines. The newly restricted elements—samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium—require a government-issued license for export, with Chinese officials citing “national security” justifications for the change.

Dan Darling of Forecast International observed earlier this month that “while the latest step taken by China is not an outright ban, this licensing requirement will undoubtedly introduce uncertainty and limit the consistent flow of critical components to manufacturers. This action in an already volatile global marketplace echoes Beijing’s 2010 retaliation against Japan, highlighting the potential for the weaponization of crucial supply chain resources.”

Going for Gold on the Tibetan Frontier

Gabriel Lafitte

By weight, the gold in Tibetan mining sites is small. What drives investment and extraction is the copper, essential to every “clean, green” technology you can think of. Yet, given the price of gold, the weight of the extractable gold, delivered in the same smelting process that pours off molten copper, is not the point. The quantum of gold may be small, but not its value. In 2025 China is hungrier than ever for gold, as an abiding holder of accumulated wealth, in a time when even the biggest Chinese real estate builders, tech entrepreneurs, exam coaching, and other industries, can go broke in a blink.

The focus is on the copper, and on the hydro dams that power its extraction from remote Tibetan mountain sides, and the copper cables that transmit electricity from Tibetan rivers to far distant Chinese industrial hubs.

Yet, in Tibet, these deposits are consistently polymetallic, usually bearing not only copper but extractable and profitable molybdenum, silver and gold. It’s a package, while the other elements buried in the earth are all classified as waste, to be dumped in a tailings dam.

How Wars End

George Friedman

Wars – which I will define broadly as matters of military conflict sustained partly by the nature of the soldiers fighting and partly by a participating nation’s ability to economically support the effort – end in one of three ways: victory, compromise or mutual exhaustion.

In the Ukraine war, the military reality is that neither the invader, Russia, nor the defender, Ukraine, has achieved its stated goals. Russia’s goal was to conquer Ukraine. That it has succeeded only in taking a small portion of the east has led to absurd claims that the east was all Russia wanted. If that were true, then Russia could have (and probably would have) claimed victory after a year of fighting and ended the war. The truth, of course, is that Russia tried and failed to conquer the whole country.

Ukraine’s goal is to keep all of its territory. The problem is that the Ukrainian military isn’t strong enough to compel the Russians out of Ukraine. This implicitly means the European nations that support Ukraine likewise lack the power or the will to expel Russia.

Why Is Trump Unilaterally Dismantling US Defenses?

JILL KASTNER and WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH

In 1933, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to normalize relations with the Soviet Union, he told Joseph Stalin that the Kremlin would first have to knock off its subversive activities inside the United States. Likewise, when President Ronald Reagan wanted to ease Cold War tensions, his Secretary of State, George P. Shultz, made it clear to Mikhail Gorbachev that Soviet spooks must stop spreading lies about AIDS being caused by US bioweapons research.

Why U.S. Presidents Really Go to War

Julian E. Zelizer

If there is one constant in U.S. political history, it is that presidents frequently make oversights, miscalculations, and even egregious mistakes in handling national security. Vietnam remains the ultimate case in point: a striking example of a talented and successful politician—in this case, President Lyndon B. Johnson—recklessly sending hundreds of thousands of service members into combat.

Historians and social scientists have spilled a great deal of ink trying to explain what has led U.S. presidents to misuse their power as commander in chief. For many generations of academics, the answer to the question of what went wrong in Vietnam and other failed wars lay in the ideological orthodoxies that blinded elected officials to the facts on the ground. In both Vietnam and Korea, historians argued, the “domino theory” was to blame, as it predicted that if one small country fell to communism, others would follow.

After US Snubs London Meeting, What’s Europe’s Game Plan For Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks? – Analysis

Rikard Jozwiak

Over the past week, European nations largely represented by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have tried their best to engage in talks between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia.

There were a number of rather successful high-level meetings in Paris on April 17and one in London six days later that ended up being politically downgradedafter Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff pulled out.

The snub reportedly came over Kyiv’s unwillingness to agree to a peace plan involving the recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

On April 26, US President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the funeral for Pope Francis at the Vatican, but no breakthroughs were reported.

After speaking with several European diplomats familiar with the matter, it’s clear that something of a game plan has emerged in response.

What Is Europe Doing Toward Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks?

The first priority is keeping the Americans onboard and keeping them talking to the Ukrainians. Exactly how successful this aim can be is up in the air, as Washington has threatened to walk away if no progress is made soon.

A ‘Trump Deal’? Juggling War, ‘Easy War’ And Negotiation – OpEd

Alastair Crooke

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an “industrial concern” infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat’s little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

Europe Has Come to a Fork in the Road on Trade

Michael Lucci

President Trump’s strong tariffs on Chinese goods effectively suspends most Sino-American trade. China now faces an enormous glut of telecommunications and network-connected equipment, such as 5G equipment, fiber optic cables, telecom parts and various smart devices. It’s largest trading partner, the U.S., is not buying.

This isn’t just a bilateral dustup. China will almost certainly seek to dump its telecom and network-connected equipment on the European Union at fire sale prices. Having lost access to the U.S.’ $23 trillion consumer market, China will see the EU’s $14 trillion consumer market as the only one that can absorb a meaningful share of the glut.

Europe has come to a fork in the road on trade. It’s time to choose a side. The EU should reject China’s bait and build deeper trade alliances with democracies over autocracies.

European corporations have enjoyed a large measure of success in China, with EU exports to China – including motor vehicles and medicine – totaling €223.6 billion in 2023. But the balance of trade has always favored China. The “dual circulation” policy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has been to move toward self-sufficiency and away from purchasing foreign goods, and in recent years, the value of EU exports to China has been on a downward trend.

Global ECCOCombating Terrorism Exchange (CTX), April 2025, Special Issue

Uncrewed and Autonomous Systems: Seeking Legal Clarity

Rogues with Robots: Malign Actors and Drones in an Age of Hybrid Conflict

Preventing an Inevitable Threat: Dealing with Drones

Lessons from Ukraine and the Red Sea on Autonomous Systems and the Future of the US Navy

Strengthening Ally and Partner Collaboration in the Unmanned Systems Realm

The CTX Interview: Colonel Omar Rabling Valdez

DeepSeek: A Tool Tuned For Social Governance – Analysis

Alex Colville

In the run-up to the annual gathering of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) legislature in March, reporters from a top state-run media platform engaged citizens on the street about how the political meetings, known as the “Two Sessions” (两会), were relevant to their lives. Instead of asking questions directly, the People’s Daily Online journalists invited sources to direct their questions to DeepSeek R1, the country’s latest large language model (LLM) (China Brief, February 11, March 19).

One young woman asked, “I’m about to graduate, what kind of job opportunities can AI help to provide?” (我即将毕业，AI能帮助提供什么工作机会)—a timely question as legislators touted artificial intelligence (AI) as a solution for future development (People’s Daily Online, March 2).

DeepSeek replied that there were “abundant employment opportunities” (广阔的职业发展空间) thanks to AI, listing multiple roles, such as data annotators, and noting the high salaries these roles get paid. When this author asked DeepSeek the same question, it also responded by providing the same assurances and advised fresh graduates to combine their pre-existing skills with AI to “grasp the career opportunities in the AI era” (把握AI时代的职业机遇). Such an answer makes no mention of the social turbulence AI is creating in a job market in which youth unemployment remains high. For example, over the past three years, machines moved to fill 60 percent of all data annotation in the PRC, pushing the role of data annotator closer to obsolescence (CCTV, January 13). Omitting such concerns, the People’s Daily Online story focused instead on the idea of DeepSeek as a “happiness code” (幸福密码)—a technology displaying what the Party-state is doing to address the national concerns of the day and reassuring the people that they are in safe hands. In other words, this new technology is being harnessed to serve the needs of a much older system: The “public opinion guidance” (舆论导向) system that aligns the public with state policy through propaganda.

The AI data center race is slowing down as Amazon and Microsoft catch their breath

Jackie Snow

For the past two years, tech giants have been racing to build the digital backbone of the artificial intelligence boom, spending tens of billions of dollars on chips and new data centers. Now, as construction cranes swing and server racks pile up, early signs of restraint are emerging.

Amazon Web Services (AMZN) has paused negotiations on some new leases for data centers, particularly overseas, according to a Wells Fargo report published last week. Microsoft (MSFT) made a similar move in February, canceling plans for approximately two facilities’ worth of computing power, according to TD Cowen.

Both companies have emphasized that signed deals remain in place and described the moves as normal capacity management. Microsoft said it was still set to spend $80 billion in its fiscal year that ends in June. AWS’ vice president of global data centers wrote on LinkedIn that “there haven’t been any recent fundamental changes in our expansion plans.”

The AI buildout is real, but the pace may be shifting. While cloud providers publicly maintain that expansion plans are unchanged, the recent lease pauses suggest a more cautious recalibration behind the scenes — a signal that the AI boom may not be advancing at the unrelenting speed companies like Amazon and Microsoft have projected.

How will a global trade war shape the future of cyber leadership?

William Dixon

It is now a little over 100 days since Donald Trump entered the White House. The president’s impact on the world’s security landscape has been immediate and “seismic”. Not only on major flash points of global instability – War in Ukraine, the Middle East and the future of the NATO alliance – but across a whole swathe of often long-established foreign and domestic policy domains. For cyber leaders globally, the period since the January inauguration has been a wake-up call.

Cybersecurity was largely considered politically neutral for the past 20 years – a technical discipline, globally integrated and relatively vendor-agnostic. Not only in the US, but in the majority of technologically advanced countries. Arguably no longer. An “American First” agenda has led to major changes at the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), stalled emergency funding needed for the global database of cyber vulnerabilities and curtailed international cyber capacity-building efforts.

Today, the most far-reaching challenge for cyber leadership is the escalating global trade and tariff war. As the era of open markets fades, many in the cyber community are asking a fundamental question: Is the industry now destined to be restricted and repatriated like other strategic national assets?

Here are three ways the new global trade agenda is set to shape the strategies of the cyber C-suite around the world.

M&S customers in limbo as cyber attack chaos continues

Liv McMahon & Joe Tidy

Marks and Spencer (M&S) customers have been telling the BBC of their frustration as disruption caused by the cyber attack which has hit the retailer continues into another trading week.

The incident - which it disclosed last Monday - has caused delayed parcels, paused online orders and suspended gift card payments, and has seen the retailer take down several parts of its operations over the last few days.

It has yet to disclose the nature of the cyber attack or when it expects operations to return to normal. Some customers told the BBC that M&S' communication over affected orders has been "disappointing".

Analysts warn the incident may affect the retailer's reputation.

Customers have been telling the BBC of the impact the situation is having on them.

Linda Sonntag, who lives in Norwich, told the BBC she was left "disappointed" after a flower delivery arranged for a friend never arrived.

She told the BBC she was still awaiting a refund and email with information about her order.

"In the meantime I've had to order flowers from somewhere else," she said.

ITI’s Quantum Technologies Policy Principles and Essentials for Global Policymakers

Section I: Quantum Technologies 101

Unlike classical bits that are strictly 0s and 1s, quantum bits (qubits) harness quantum properties like superposition and entanglement, enabling exponential leaps in computational power, ultra-secure communications, and unprecedented precision in sensing. There are a number of quantum mechanical systems that potentially could serve as qubits, so called qubit modalities. The term “quantum” itself refers to the discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

The field of QIS encompasses a wide array of technologies with varying degrees of maturity. The National Quantum Initiative Act (NQI Act) in the U.S. defines the term quantum information science as the “use of the laws of quantum physics for the storage, transmission, manipulations, computing, or measurement of information.”

Quantum technologies encompass practical applications of QIS manifested in a variety of technologies, products, and services. Quantum Technologies can be broadly classified into three classes: quantum computing, quantum sensing and quantum communications.

Challenges Faced by TSMC and Its Suppliers in Expanding to Europe

Yi-Chieh Chen and Chung-min Tsai

Introduction

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has led the expansion of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry into Europe through its investment in Germany. In August 2023, TSMC announced its investment in European Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (ESMC), a joint venture with Robert Bosch GmbH, Infineon Technologies AG, and NXP Semiconductors N.V. In August 2024, the European Commission (EC) approved €5 billion in German state subsidies to support the construction and operation of the €10 billion manufacturing plant in Dresden.1 Former German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, attended the groundbreaking ceremony for ESMC’s fab.2 Dresden, the capital of a region known as Silicon Saxony, was chosen for its role as Europe’s semiconductor manufacturing hub. The region is home to major semiconductor companies, including Infineon, Bosch, and GlobalFoundries, and comprises a cluster of over 2,500 companies.

The EU views the establishment of a fab in Germany with a potential supply chain connected to neighboring countries like the Czech Republic as a promising project, though concerns remain about its feasibility and long-term impact. This issue brief examines the challenges ESMC faces in achieving profitability and sustainability by analyzing the political factors driving Taiwan’s semiconductor firms’ international expansion, TSMC’s struggles to navigate the business environment in Germany, and the hesitation of TSMC’s suppliers to expand in the EU.

Apple and Meta attack 'unfair' €700m EU fines

Imran Rahman-Jones

The European Union has ordered Apple and Meta to pay a combined €700m (£599m) in the first fines it has issued under legislation intended to curb the power of big tech.

It has issued a €500m (£428m) fine to Apple over its App Store, while Meta has been fined €200m (£171m) over how much choice users had to consent to data collection.

"We have a duty to protect the rights of citizens and innovative businesses in Europe," Commissioner Henna Virkkunen said in a statement.

The two tech firms have reacted angrily, with Meta accusing the EU of "attempting to handicap successful American businesses" and Apple saying it was being "unfairly targeted" and forced to "give away our technology for free."

The fines are lower than some of those issued by the EU in the past but - given the heightened economic tensions with America - still risk angering US President Donald Trump.

The US has levied a 10% tariff on imports from the EU, which Trump has accused of "taking advantage" of America.

Countries shore up their digital defenses as global tensions raise the threat of cyberwarfare

DAVID KLEPPER

Hackers linked to Russia’s government launched a cyberattack last spring against municipal water plants in rural Texas. At one plant in Muleshoe, population 5,000, water began to overflow. Officials had to unplug the system and run the plant manually.

The hackers weren’t trying to taint the water supply. They didn’t ask for a ransom. Authorities determined the intrusion was designed to test the vulnerabilities of America’s public infrastructure. It was also a warning: In the 21st century, it takes more than oceans and an army to keep the United States safe.

A year later, countries around the world are preparing for greater digital conflict as increasing global tensions and a looming trade war have raised the stakes — and the chances that a cyberattack could cause significant economic damage, disrupt vital public systems, reveal sensitive business or government secrets, or even escalate into military confrontation.

The confluence of events has national security and cyber experts warning of heightened cyberthreats and a growing digital arms race as countries look to defend themselves.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)