Op Sindoor mix: Surprise, optics, audacity & some patience - Opinion

Shekhar Gupta

Source Link

Many analytical takeaways and lessons will emerge from Operation Sindoor in the course of time. Who knows, if there are more episodes left in this story, and what the next might be.

For now, let’s follow our familiar three-example rule and examine some standout points from the operation.

The first, of course is, how does one secure surprise when the other side has been in a most heightened state of alert for 14 days, fully mobilised, assets airborne, missiles locked and loaded.

The second, the optics, packaging and headline-management for India’s riskiest moment in a generation. Learning from Balakot, where questions were raised last time over evidence, care was taken this time to ensure that there were pictures and videos so that nothing was left to doubt.

And third, the audacity it needed to take risks of this magnitude, to game the escalation ladder and tolerance/acceptance levels.

The most remarkable is the surprise. With Uri and Pulwama, the Modi government had set a template. Everybody in Pakistan—and indeed in India—knew the strikes were not a matter of whether, but when. There were many who said these retaliations must take place within 24 hours, if not immediately after the killings. Or the Overton Window keeps shrinking. Why wait out for a full 14 days then?

Understanding the India-Pakistan Conflict: Domestic Influence, Geography, and Restraint

Andrew Haanpaa

Source Link

Tensions between India and Pakistan are long-standing, complex, and deeply rooted in regional dynamics. Since their independence from British colonial rule in 1947, the two nations have fought several short wars, the most recent being the Kargil War in 1999. Despite decades of uneasy peace, high tensions persist, punctuated by frequent cross-border skirmishes and military escalations, such as the 2019 Balakot airstrikes and the events unfolding today. As the United States strengthens its strategic partnership with India, it is vital for U.S. policymakers and strategists to understand the nature of this conflict and its implications for regional stability. India-Pakistan relations are shaped primarily by domestic political pressures, amplified by geographical proximity, and defined by a mutual yet fragile restraint. This article explores these three key dynamics in detail.

Historical Background

The roots of the India-Pakistan conflict lie in the partition of British India in 1947. The creation of India and Pakistan as separate nations resulted in the displacement of approximately 12 million people and widespread communal violence. One of the most contentious issues arising from partition was the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite its Muslim-majority population, the ruler of Kashmir acceded to India, igniting the first India-Pakistan war and establishing Kashmir as the central issue in bilateral disputes.

A psychological barrier breached with Indian attacks on Muridke and Bahawalpur

Bharat Karnad

Source Link

Attacks launched at 1:44 AM this morning on nine terrorist targets within Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including headquarters of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba in Muridke outside Lahore and of the Jaish-e-Mohammad in Bahawalpur, both located in the Punjab heartland of Pakistan, are significant.

Significant, chiefly because a huge psychological barrier has been breached by the Indian government with precision guided munition strikes, to minimise collateral damage. This strike is something of a climacteric in that the Indian military will henceforth consider militarily engaging with Pakistan in a more frontal manner.

Per a statement by the Indian Ministry of Defense, the actions were “focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature”; “No Pakistani military facilities” were targeted and “demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.”

The Pakistani government was, perhaps, distracted by the announcement of a major air drill scheduled for today that accounted for the massed presence of air assets strung along the border leading to the Pakistanis letting their guard down somewhat. It helped mask the execution of the first phase of Sindoor.

India’s Warning to Pakistan

BRAHMA CHELLANEY

Source Link

Last month, Islamist gunmen – two of whom have been identified as Pakistani nationals – slaughtered 26 civilians in the Indian-administered part of divided Kashmir. It was a brutal attack, in which Hindu tourists, including one from Nepal, were singled out for slaughter. And yet, it was not surprising: terrorist groups have long operated freely from Pakistani soil, with the tacit or explicit support of Pakistan’s powerful military.

Amid India-Pakistan Clashes, China Faces a Difficult Balancing Act

Muhammad Murad

Source Link

India and Pakistan are on the brink of another war. The recent deadly terrorist shooting attack targeting tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 resulted in at least 27 deaths and many injuries, escalating tensions between the long-time rivals, India and Pakistan. That culminated in cross-border strikes by both sides on May 7.

The April 22 attack in Pahalgam, 90 km away from the city of Srinagar, was unusual for targeting civilian tourists on such a scale. Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of India-held Kashmir, said that “the attack was much larger than anything we have seen directed at civilians in recent years.”

The attack was condemned by leaders from the United States, the European Union, China, Pakistan and others. Responding to media queries, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said, “We are concerned at the loss of tourists’ lives in an attack in Anantnag district of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. We extend our condolences to the near ones of the deceased and wish the injured a speedy recovery.”

=

‘Publish or Perish’ Culture Fueling Research Misconduct in India

Kiran Sharma

Source Link

In July 2021, the Bengaluru-based National Center for Biological Sciences withdrew a paper published in Nature Chemical Biology, a premier journal, after discovering instances of data manipulation. The study, which announced a breakthrough in chemical biology, was withdrawn after being found to have manipulated images.

In September 2024, the journal Drug Safety retracted a study conducted by researchers from Banaras Hindu University on the long-term safety of Covaxin, India’s indigenous COVID-19 vaccine. The withdrawal was due to concerns that the reported adverse events could lead to ambiguous or incorrect interpretations regarding the vaccine’s safety.

In close to two decades now, faculty members from the premier Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have retracted a staggering 58 papers, primarily due to plagiarism and duplication.

As India strives towards Viksit Bharat 2047 — the goal of becoming a developed nation — strengthening research integrity, research funding and innovation ecosystems will be crucial. However, rising cases of research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fraud, and fake peer review, pose a serious threat to this vision. Research misconduct refers to unethical practices in conducting, reporting or reviewing research.

In Retaliation for Pahalgam Attack, India Strikes Pakistan-based Terror Camps

Elizabeth Roche

Source Link

In a widely anticipated military response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, India struck nine locations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan in the early hours of May 7.

Among the sites India targeted, four were in Pakistan and five in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to the Indian government, the targets were training camps and launchpads used by U.N.-proscribed groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, besides the Hizbul Mujahideen.

India’s Ministry of Defense said in a statement immediately after the conclusion of the operation that India’s actions were “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature.”

“No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution,” the ministry said, adding that it aimed to ensure that those responsible for the Pahalgam attack were held accountable.

The attack in Pahalgam left 26 people, most of them Indian tourists, dead. It was claimed by a little-known group known as The Resistance Front (TRF), which India believes is an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba with links to Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

China’s Expanding View of “Taiwan Independence” and Implications for U.S. Policy

Cheng Deng Feng

Source Link

China’s shifting interpretation of “Taiwan independence” is reshaping red lines and threatening peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. Alongside increasingly aggressive military operations, Beijing is advancing a narrative that frames any expression of political autonomy by Taiwan as a move toward independence. Those who decline to endorse Taiwan’s subordination to China, or simply affirm Taiwan’s democratic system irrespective of formal statehood, are now labeled “pro-independence.” This approach implies that the status quo— Taiwan’s operation as a self-governing democracy under the Republic of China constitution — is itself a form of separatism.

China’s rhetorical evolution on “Taiwan independence” has shifted significantly over the past two decades. In the past, Beijing defined “Taiwan independence” as formal legal moves toward statehood, such as constitutional amendments or declarations of independence. Today, however, the PRC increasingly frames a much broader range of activities—including support for Taiwan’s democracy, international participation, and rejection of Communist Party rule—as evidence of “separatism.” This shift has expanded the scope of political persecution against Taiwanese individuals and groups. Individuals residing in or interacting with the mainland are being targeted for political expression that Beijing deems separatist. Behind this shifting of red lines, Beijing has increasing latitude to construct legal and narrative justifications for aggression under the guise of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity against fabricated provocations.

Taiwan’s de facto Independence

China's AI Models Are Closing the Gap—but America's Real Advantage Lies Elsewhere

Lennart Heim

Source Link

China will likely match U.S. AI model capabilities this year, triggering inevitable concerns about America's technological edge. However, this snapshot comparison misses the bigger picture. While Chinese models close the gap on benchmarks, the United States maintains an advantage in total compute capacity—owning far more, and more advanced, AI chips. This compute advantage, if leveraged strategically, will play an extraordinary role in driving economic transformation, securing technological leadership, and shaping the global AI ecosystem. U.S. policymakers risk squandering this edge by focusing on the wrong metrics and overreacting to predictable Chinese advancements.

TSMC's Secret Pipeline to China

Central to the U.S.-China AI competition are U.S. export controls that restrict China from importing advanced AI chips, acquiring semiconductor manufacturing equipment to build indigenous advanced AI chips, and using leading chip manufacturers such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). Despite these measures, a massive failure occurred in September 2024: TSMC, lacking basic due diligence, breached export restrictions by producing advanced AI chips for Huawei through a Chinese proxy company. This violation allowed Huawei to secure approximately 3 million chip dies using TSMC's 7nm process, enabling the production of China's best AI chips, the Huawei Ascend 910B and the upcoming 910C. This dwarfs even the highest estimates of smuggled chips, which typically involved tens of thousands of units, not millions. Although these chips trail the U.S. state of the art by about four years, they collectively provide China with computing power equivalent to approximately 1 million export-controlled Nvidia H100s (Nvidia's previous-generation chip from 2023)—substantial AI compute capacity that compensates for China's lack of indigenous production capabilities.

The Potential Impact of Seabed Mining on Critical Mineral Supply Chains and Global Geopolitics

Tom LaTourrette, Fabian Villalobos, Elisa Yoshiara & Zohan Hasan Tariq

Source Link

The Potential Impact of Seabed Mining on Critical Mineral Supply Chains and Global Geopolitics

The emergence of a seabed mining industry has important ramifications for the diversification of critical mineral supply chains, revenues for developing nations with substantial terrestrial mining sectors, and global geopolitics. While the industry is still nascent and its future is uncertain, it is worthwhile to consider the likelihood and magnitude of these impacts to better inform planning and policymaking around seabed mining in particular and critical mineral supply chains more broadly.

Critical Mineral Supply Chain Risks and Opportunities

Risks Posed by China’s Dominance of Critical Mineral Supply Chains

China’s overwhelming dominance over the global supply of critical minerals has fueled substantial concern in the United States and among its allies about the reliability of this supply for Western interests. A single source of supply for a global commodity leaves that supply vulnerable to disruption. When that single source is a state with a history of aggressive and retaliatory manipulation and restrictions on exports, market access, and pricing, there is even more cause for concern that deliberate disruptions could be imposed for political purposes. Furthermore, when the commodities at stake are critical minerals and components that are essential for energy, transportation, defense, and other sectors, these concerns take on even more urgency. As one example, China’s dominance over critical mineral supply chains associated with electric vehicle (EV) batteries, from mining to finished components, is illustrated in Figure 1.

China Unveils World’s First Barrage-Style Anti-Drone “Bullet Curtain”; Will It Be A Game-Changer?

Shubhangi Palve

Source Link

China has unveiled a new development in naval air defense technology: a prototype system designed to counter not only low-flying drones and cruise missiles but also hypersonic anti-ship weapons.

Revealed in the April issue of ‘Modern Weaponry’ – a Chinese defense magazine, the system is described as a novel approach to terminal defense, one that Chinese sources suggest may be the first of its kind globally.

The system also signals China’s growing focus on saturating firepower to counter the rising role of unmanned and high-speed precision weapons.

Speed Of “Metal Storm”

At the heart of this new system is a multi-barrel barrage weapon, informally referred to as “Metal Storm.”

The prototype features 16 tightly grouped 35mm barrels capable of firing “unique munitions” at an extraordinary combined rate of up to 400,000 rounds per minute. This level of firepower enables the system to produce an exceptionally dense “Bullet Curtain” of projectiles.

Are America's Indo-Pacific Friends Flirting with China?

Derek Grossman

Source Link

This could be the most volatile geopolitical moment in the Indo-Pacific since World War II. Extreme uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration's policies is prompting U.S. allies and partners alike to explore the possibility of relying less on the United States and pivoting more toward China. U.S. President Donald Trump's 90-day pause of the steep tariffs he placed on friend and foe alike is unlikely to have quelled regional concerns. But U.S. policy alone is not enough to produce a shift; Beijing will also have to capitalize on the emerging geopolitical inflection point if it wants to ensure a long-lasting shift toward a China-centric region.

Take Vietnam, the ultimate strategic hedger in the Indo-Pacific. It has been careful to balance relations with China and the United States, both of which it treats as a “comprehensive strategic partner”—the highest level of partnership Hanoi can offer. This month, Vietnam welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping in Hanoi, where both sides pledged to elevate their partnership even higher. This was a deliberate message to the United States from Vietnam, which had just been hit with a 46 percent tariff rate, that the country has other options.

And Xi played the role of spoiler to a tee: Taking a clear swipe at Trump's tariffs, he urged Vietnam to resist “unilateral bullying.” Xi also warned that “there are no winners in trade wars and tariff wars, and protectionism has no way out.” Rather than point out the irony of a Chinese leader lecturing about protectionism, Trump merely responded that China was probably trying to “screw” the United States. Xi went on to Malaysia and Cambodia—facing U.S. tariffs of 24 and 49 percent, respectively—to make a similar argument.

The Night Before Russia's Victory Day Parade

Mick Ryan

Source Link

OK, so I ripped off an old Christmas story a little bit. But, the day before Putin’s big parade in Red Square, I thought I would explore the potential for a Ukrainian attack.

Many have speculated that Putin’s rationale for his recent three-day truce offer was to ensure that he had an uninterrupted 9 May Victory Day parade. It would be embarrassing in the extreme, particularly with his good mate President Xi attending, to have some kind of Ukrainian attack or drone fly past during his big day.

This is possibly the reason for Putin’s unilateral truce offer. But I think that the more likely driver was to keep stringing Donald Trump along, and ensure America remains engaged in peace negotiations after Trump’s comments about Putin in the wake of his recent meeting with Zelenskyy in Rome.

Regardless, the Ukrainian president rejected the 3-day peace offer.

More intriguingly, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence General Budanov intimated in his own way that the Russians should watch the skies on 9 May. His actual quote was “bring ear plugs”.

We Are Still Fighting World War II

Antony Beevor

Source Link

History is seldom tidy. Eras overlap and unfinished business from one period lingers into the next. World War II was a war like no other in the magnitude of its effects on the lives of people and the fates of nations. It was a combination of many conflicts, including ethnic and national hatreds that followed the collapse of four empires and the redrawing of borders at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I. A number of historians have argued that World War II was a phase of one long war lasting from 1914 to 1945 or even until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991—a global civil war, first between capitalism and communism, then between democracy and dictatorship.

World War II certainly brought the strands of world history together, with its global reach and its acceleration of the end of colonialism across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Yet despite sharing this international experience, and entering the same order built in its wake, every country involved created and clung to its own narrative of the great conflict.

Even the matter of when the war began is still debated. In the American telling, it started in earnest when the United States entered the conflict after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the German dictator Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States a few days later. Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, insists that the war began in June 1941, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union—ignoring the joint Soviet and Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939, which marks the start of the war for most Europeans. Yet some trace its origin back further still. For China, it began in 1937, with the Sino-Japanese War, or even earlier with the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1931. Many on the left in Spain are convinced that it began in 1936 with General Francisco Franco’s overthrow of the republic, launching the Spanish Civil War.

Order by Hegseth to cancel Ukraine weapons caught White House off guard

Erin Banco, Phil Stewart, Gram Slattery and Mike Stone

Source Link

Roughly a week after Donald Trump started his second term as president, the U.S. military issued an order to three freight airlines operating out of Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and a U.S. base in Qatar: Stop 11 flights loaded with artillery shells and other weaponry and bound for Ukraine.

In a matter of hours, frantic questions reached Washington from Ukrainians in Kyiv and from officials in Poland, where the shipments were coordinated. Who had ordered the U.S. Transportation Command, known as TRANSCOM, to halt the flights? Was it a permanent pause on all aid? Or just some?

Top national security officials — in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department — couldn’t provide answers. Within one week, flights were back in the air.

The verbal order originated from the office of Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, according to TRANSCOM records reviewed by Reuters. A TRANSCOM spokesperson said the command received the order via the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

The cancelations came after Trump wrapped up a January 30 Oval Office meeting about Ukraine that included Hegseth and other top national security officials, according to three sources familiar with the situation. During the meeting, the idea of stopping Ukraine aid came up, said two people with knowledge of the meeting, but the president issued no instruction to stop aid to Ukraine.

Electronic Warfare Lessons From Ukraine Informing Air Force Special Operations Future

Howard Altman

Source Link

As it looks to remain relevant in a future that could see conflict with a great power like China, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is seeking to apply key lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, a high-ranking U.S. Air Force official told The War Zone. The ability to operate in a dense electronic warfare environment and to adapt very quickly to new tactical challenges, in particular, are great areas of interest, spurring a review of how the command views training and new acquisitions, the official said.

For the past two decades, AFSOC’s arsenal of aircraft operated in largely benign electromagnetic combat environments, often guided by special tactics airmen on radios, in virtually uncontested airspace against insurgent groups possessing no electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.

In Ukraine, both sides possess such robust EW abilities that each has resorted to fiber optic cables, impervious to jamming, for a significant portion of their FPV drone operations. Communications there are often highly degraded, and offensive and defensive measures are constantly being updated by the combatants in an endless game of whack-a-mole. Jammers exist on many individual vehicles, and GPS is also under constant electronic attack. Even U.S.-donated munitions like the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) have seen their effectiveness thwarted, at least in part, by EW.

Facing ‘fusion of foes,’ special ops leaders envision ‘SOF renaissance’

Andrew White

Source Link

The US military is facing an evolved threat in the form of a “fusion” of different adversaries, but with that danger comes a potential “renaissance” for special operations forces (SOF), two senior-most special ops leaders told the SOF Week conference today.

“A SOF renaissance is now upon us. In an era where technological advancement is rapidly changing, the character of war and threats are covering globally, our eight decades of experience has tailor-made SOF for strategic competition’s return,” US Special Operations Command chief Gen. Bryan Fenton declared.

Sharing the podium with Fenton was USSOCOM’s Command Sergeant Major, Shane Shorter, who said “complexities” associated with great power competition mean the United States is now facing a “fusion of foes,” including overlapping threats from China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and terrorist groups.

“Individually, each is dangerous. Together they are fusing. Adversaries coming together through convergence to collaborate. It’s a fusion of foes,” he warned.

Fenton went onto echo US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s comments made earlier in the day in which he said crisis response missions conducted by US SOF were up by 200 percent over the last three years. “That’s unprecedented,” Fenton added.

Ballistics after Bashar

Fabian Hinz

Source Link

While the future of Syria remains unclear, the fall of the Assad regime is almost certain to alter missile-proliferation dynamics across the Levant. As yet unknown is whether Syria’s new government will continue the country’s decades-long investment in ballistic missiles.

The origins of Syria’s missile programme

Damascus’s interest in ballistic missiles began in the 1970s, driven by the poor performance of its air force during prior conflicts with Israel and a requirement for the capability to strike targets deep within Israel. Around 1975, the Soviet Union began supplying Syria with 300 kilometre-range R-300 Elbrus (RS-SS-1C Scud B) missiles and in the 1980s, it reinforced this capability with the more accurate, though shorter-range, OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab).

Syria’s conversion of its Scud missile fleet into a strategic deterrent involved both the establishment of fortified underground bases, such as the 155th Brigade garrison in Qutayfah, and the modification of the missiles to serve as delivery systems for the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons. By 1985, United States intelligence concluded that Syria had successfully developed nerve-agent warheads for these missiles. This assessment was later confirmed when Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 2013, although its declaration was partial and widely perceived as deceptive. Among the stockpiles disclosed were the nerve agents Sarin and VX, more than 100 chemical warheads, and mobile mixing units designed to deploy with and fill the Scuds in times of conflict.

Russia Will Hit One Million Casualties By June, UK Intelligence Says

Stavros Atlamazoglou

Source Link

The Russian forces are nearing the 1 million casualty mark with alarming speed. If the current pace continues, the Russian military and its supporting forces will exceed 1 million casualties by the first days of June.

Russia Is Approaching One Million Casualties in Ukraine

Over the weekend, the British Ministry of Defence assessed in an intelligence report that the Russian forces have “likely incurred approximately 950,000 casualties (killed and wounded) since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.”

The term “Russian forces” includes the Russian military, paramilitary units such as the Wagner Group, North Korean troops, and pro-Russian separatist rebels that are fighting alongside the Russian regular army. These rebels are mainly found in the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces and have been an integral part of the Kremlin’s claim over Ukrainian territory since the beginning of their rebellion in 2014. For the first eight years of the conflict, the Russian military directly and indirectly supported the insurrection against Kyiv; when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, these pro-Russian separatists joined the Russian forces.

What Europe Can Learn From Israel’s Defense Industry

PIROSKA NAGY MOHÁCSI

Source Link

Europe is finally responding to the twin threats posed by its weak defense and lagging growth. Now, the continent must link its security and economic objectives and approach them in a manner that prioritizes speed over perfection.

As Europe begins its rearmament, it should follow the example set by Israel, where the military has fueled high-tech innovation and human-capital development. And if the threat of conflict with Russia intensifies, the European Central Bank may need to provide additional finance – with some important guardrails in place.

Precipitating this monumental policy shift was Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The new administration’s apparent willingness to withdraw the United States’ security umbrella from Europe has heightened the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperial Russia, with its numerous frozen conflicts in former Soviet republics and its ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine.

Moreover, the “America First” agenda has provided an impetus for the European Union to address its competitiveness problem, which Mario Draghi identified in his 2024 report on the topic. When presenting his findings, Draghi warned that if the bloc did not close its growing productivity and innovation gaps with the US and China, it would face “slow agony.”

World Bank-IMF Spring Meetings Send Signal to South Asia: Fix the Fundamentals

Meera Gopal

Source Link

The 2025 Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank concluded recently in Washington, D.C., against a backdrop of rising protectionism and declining development finance. Although in the recent past, these meetings had become an arena for advancing the reform agenda on global development policy, this year’s official theme, “Jobs: The Path to Prosperity,” reflected the absence of any direct mention of “climate” from the official agenda. This omission appeared intentional, and came in the context of the first World Bank-IMF meeting since the new U.S. administration took office under President Donald Trump.

Unsurprisingly, global trade tensions dominated the discourse at the meetings. At the IMF’s curtain-raiser, Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva offered a grim forecast, warning of economic headwinds driven by uncertainty over U.S. tariff policy. Many finance ministers used the meetings as an opportunity to seek bilateral arrangements to cushion the blow of recently announced, and then paused, “reciprocal” tariffs. Among them were also the delegations from South Asian economies, which could be hit with steep tariffs – Sri Lanka (44 percent), Bangladesh (37 percent), and Pakistan (29 percent).

The US President’s daily dose of intelligence

David Priess

Source Link

For more than six decades, elements of the US intelligence community have delivered the top-secret President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, to the commander in chief every working day – helping each occupant of the White House remain well informed on a wide range of international challenges. It is the most highly classified regular vehicle for passing analytic judgments about world affairs to the president, a direct and uninterrupted channel which most other US government departments and agencies lack. Access to this book of secrets has always been limited to a circle of senior officials.

CNN reported last month that the administration of Donald Trump is tightly restricting access to the PDB. Its exclusive club of readers is, it seems, getting even smaller.

Tracing the evolution of a dozen presidents’ choices about the PDB’s dissemination provides a unique window into intelligence-policy relations at the highest level – and shows how the delivery of this most sensitive intelligence product reflects the incumbent president’s style more than any other factor.

The President’s Daily Brief has been provided, by that name, since December 1964. Every prime recipient has changed its format or its distribution, often both. And yet, for all the differences in its readership over the past 60 years, the PDB’s daily delivery to the White House has remained a rare constant in a city seemingly defined by change.

How Much is a Hubcap Removal Tool Worth? Measuring The Value of Tactical Innovation

Chris Aliperti, Eden Elizabeth Lawson and Chris Flournoy

Source Link

AI-enabled spectrum reconnaissance, 3D printed drones, and autonomous combat vehicles. These are no longer the dream ventures of Silicon Valley startups; these are products being created by soldiers at Army bases across the country thanks to the explosion of tactical innovation throughout the service. What started as a few soldiers with simple prototypes in ad hoc makerspaces has transformed into formal innovation cells operating out of research and development labs embedded within operational units. A handful of creative inventions has grown to multimillion-dollar portfolios of products scaling across the Army. As the grassroots efforts grow, kudos and accolades from senior leaders have shifted to calls for accountability and apprehension about these disruptive teams’ breaks from bureaucracy. With every success of tactical innovation, the demand signal for increased resourcing grows louder, but matching its crescendo is the question from the bill payers: What is the ROI—the specific return on this investment?

Impactful tactical innovation requires investing money, people, and space—and most importantly underwriting of risk—into an inherently entrepreneurial venture that is uncommon in the Department of Defense. The return on these investments has been disproportionately high, but difficult to quantify. Understandably, this gives leaders at every echelon hesitation about further investing in these efforts. Much of this concern comes from a discrepancy in expectations. We have had the opportunity to explain tactical innovation, and the expected return on an investment in it, to countless leaders by framing it in terms of three outcomes.

Embracing the Inevitable: Integrating AI into Professional Military Education (PME)

Kelly Ihme & Matt Rasmussen

Source Link

Introduction

In the fall of 2022, ChatGPT blinked in existence and with it came the hopes and fears of an artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. Immediate reactions across government, industry, and academia spanned the gamut of multiple Sci-Fi screenplays. Some institutions tried to vehemently shut the proverbial barn door on the AI horse already out in the field of public access. Some investors flocked to this promise of new wealth while numerous geniuses warned of humanity’s imminent collapse from sentient computers. Between the extremes of techno-optimism and dystopian fear, there was much prevaricating over whether AI would replace human workers, promote cheating and laziness, or erode human creativity and critical thinking. Over the last three years, global reactions to AI matured and cooled; becoming even dismissive to its potential. Media trends as many articles dismissing the “AI boom” as those touting it will “bust” shortly.

Beneath that din, some institutions took a measured approach to receiving, assessing, and implementing AI. Our experience at the US Army War College demonstrates a positive evolution in the measured adoption of AI tools. We felt that our personal journey of self-discovery and implementation, bounded by sensible and forward-leaning policy, would be a useful tutorial for others in professional military education struggling to integrate AI while maintaining academic rigor.

Operational Fires in the Age of Punishment

Benjamin Jensen and Jose M. Macias III

Source Link

For over a century, military professionals have treated operational fires as the backbone of modern campaigns—shaping the battlefield, degrading enemy formations, and setting the conditions for maneuver. But what happens when that logic breaks down? What if long-range strikes become less about shaping operations and more about shaping narratives—used not to support a ground advance but to terrorize civilians and coerce political outcomes?

That is the story emerging from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Despite inheriting a military doctrine steeped in deep battle, reconnaissance-strike complexes, and precision noncontact warfare, Russia has consistently failed to employ operational fires in a way that reflects this legacy. Instead, firepower has become unmoored from maneuver. Russian missile salvos and loitering drone attacks increasingly appear to serve a punitive, strategic coercion logic rather than a campaign to dislocate Ukrainian defenses or synchronize effects across domains. Chaos reigns along an extended front line defined by human wave attacks, thousands of small first-person view (FPV) drones, and artillery fire vectored by strike and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).