Pakistan Comes Out Emboldened After Clashes With India

Umair Jamal

Source Link

A tense quiet has settled along the Pakistan-India border as a fragile ceasefire holds after days of fierce air battles, missile strikes, and drone attacks. And the world watches in relief as one of the most dangerous standoffs between the two nuclear-armed rivals has concluded. Many in the international community believe that both countries have narrowly avoided a “nuclear war.”

While it is too early to tell whether the newly agreed ceasefire will hold in the coming days and weeks, the latest clashes have clearly emboldened Pakistan in many ways that India’s political leadership may not comprehend.

There are many reasons to believe that the Indian government’s decision to attack Pakistan has backfired on New Delhi and in ways that are not yet apparent.

First, the three-day military exchange seems to have created a visible shift in public confidence in Pakistan. The episode has demonstrated Pakistan’s willingness to absorb blows and retaliate with even greater determination.

This whole incident has brought together the Pakistani nation, people, and political parties across the board. After having been through a very rough patch politically over the last few years, Pakistan has showed remarkable unity in the face of India’s attack. This unity and newfound drive to persist in the face of a greater external threat is perhaps something that will push the Pakistani leadership towards making better decisions in governance, and strengthen the country’s defensive resolve further.

Crisis Without Closure: India-Pakistan Confrontation in an Era of Fragile Deterrence

Mohmad Waseem Malla

Source Link

Before the announcement of a “ceasefire” by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 10, the likelihood of India and Pakistan entering extended kinetic military activity, and potentially a conventional full-scale war, appeared more real than it has been at any time in recent years. The prelude to the ceasefire saw a marked military escalation that triggered a troubling erosion in the deterrence architecture that has governed India-Pakistan military behavior for decades, especially since their 1998 nuclear tests. However, with fighting now suspended, at least for the time being, the dust has settled on a notable moment of calibrated brinkmanship by both nations.

Following India’s “precision” strikes on the night of May 6-7 under Operation Sindoor – which targeted at least nine sites that India claimed to be militant logistical hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir – Pakistan’s military establishment, widely regarded as the de facto authority on national security and regional policy, came under institutional and public pressure to respond. The retaliation came on May 10 under Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, with Islamabad claiming targeted strikes on several Indian military installations, some of which were later acknowledged by New Delhi.

In the ensuing tit-for-tat escalation, India launched a second wave of strikes, initially claiming to have hit three Pakistani Air Force (PAF) bases: Nur Khan (Chaklala) near Rawalpindi, Murid (Chakwal), and Rafiqui (Shorkot, in Jhang district). Subsequently, the Indian government raised its claims of targeted PAF sites to eight, in addition to other military assets.

Now that the hostilities have stopped and the mutual “understanding” to halt the violence appears to be holding, it has raised some pertinent questions. One such question concerns the evolving military doctrines of both India and Pakistan and what this recent conflagration means for the two sides. While a broader conflict was averted, the May 6-10 engagements suggest an intensifying contest not just on the battlefield, but in the realm of military signaling and strategic posturing between these nuclear-armed countries. While New Delhi’s actions reflect an apparent shift toward establishing and enforcing an “escalation dominance” framework as a normative to dictate the tempo and terms of engagement, Islamabad’s response appeared seemingly calibrated to reassert the pre-crisis status quo.

China in the Indian Ocean: A stronger Indo-Pacific presence

Source Link

Since first actively deploying vessels to the Indian Ocean in 2008, China has significantly increased its regional activities. Along with securing its interests, Beijing has established itself and its capabilities in the area, anticipating any potential future conflict in the Western Pacific.

China’s presence in the Indian Ocean region (IOR) is often discussed in terms of its sporadic engagements in Africa, the Middle East or South Asia. Examining China’s engagement across the ocean more broadly, from the Red Sea to the western coast of Australia, provides greater insight into China’s interest in the region. Furthermore, it illuminates the role of the Indian Ocean in a potential conflict scenario in the Western Pacific.

A strategic presence China’s involvement in the IOR is long standing and wide ranging, with military, economic and diplomatic engagement across the full expanse of the region. This is important to note as Beijing’s interests and engagements in the Indian Ocean are often treated as an afterthought in discussions of the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. The importance of the Indian Ocean for China’s energy transit is well established and understood. Beyond energy security, however, the Indian Ocean is also vital for China’s engagement with Africa, Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and the region’s island states. In addition, an Indian Ocean presence is crucial for Beijing to establish itself as a credible naval power with grand ambitions.

Defending sea lines of communication (SLOCs) China’s presence in the IOR is not new, nor is it a response to any particular regional actor. Rather, it reflects the importance of the ocean to Beijing’s maritime ambitions. Beijing’s investments and activities in the region have gradually but consistently grown since its first anti-piracy deployment to the Indian Ocean in 2008. In 2014, China sent submarines to the Indian Ocean in support of its anti-piracy task force, and in 2017 it opened its first overseas military facility in Djibouti. Today, Beijing is a key trading partner for most states bordering the ocean, with diplomatic missions in every state in the region.

The Case for a Pacific Defense Pact

Ely Ratner

Source Link

The time has come for the United States to build a collective defense pact in Asia. For decades, such a pact was neither possible nor necessary. Today, in the face of a growing threat from China, it is both viable and essential. American allies in the region are already investing in their own defenses and forging deeper military bonds. But without a robust commitment to collective defense, the Indo-Pacific is on a path to instability and conflict.

Tactical shifts aside, Beijing’s geopolitical aspirations for “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” remain unchanged. China seeks to seize Taiwan, control the South China Sea, weaken U.S. alliances, and ultimately dominate the region. If it succeeds, the result would be a China-led order that relegates the United States to the rank of a diminished continental power: less prosperous, less secure, and unable to fully access or lead the world’s most important markets and technologies.

After decades of pouring resources into its armed forces, China could soon have the military strength to make that vision a reality. As CIA Director William Burns revealed in 2023, Chinese President Xi Jinping has instructed his military “to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan.” But as Burns went on to note, China’s leaders “have doubts about whether they could accomplish that invasion.” To sustain those doubts—concerning Taiwan but also other potential targets in the region—should be a top priority of U.S. foreign policy. That requires convincing Beijing that any attack would ultimately come at an unacceptable cost.

With that objective in mind, the United States has invested in advanced military capabilities and developed new operational concepts. It has moved more mobile and lethal military forces to strategic locations across Asia. Crucially, it has overhauled its security partnerships in the region. In past decades, Washington’s principal focus was to forge close bilateral ties. In recent years, by contrast, the United States has pursued a more networked approach that gives U.S. allies greater responsibilities and encourages closer ties not just with Washington but among the allies themselves. These changes are creating novel military and geopolitical challenges for Beijing, thereby reinforcing China’s doubts about the potential success of aggression.

China’s strategy for conquering Taiwan without firing a shot

Gabriel Honrada

Source Link

China is refining a strategy to conquer Taiwan by weaponizing its critical infrastructure and transforming power plants, ports and data hubs into pressure points for systemic collapse, according to a Chinese military journal.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that China could paralyze Taiwan without firing a shot by targeting key infrastructure—an approach likened to the “butterfly effect” in the Naval and Merchant Ships journal.

The article identifies 30 to 40 “super critical” nodes—power, water, communications, and liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities – that, if taken offline, could crash Taiwan’s systems from within.

It cites the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) recent Strait Thunder 2025A drill, which simulated an attack on Taiwan’s largest LNG depot, highlighting China’s growing tactical fixation on energy vulnerabilities.

It claims that a well-timed strike, especially during peak conditions such as typhoons or electoral events, could rapidly destabilize Taiwan, eroding resistance and forcing capitulation under minimal military cost.

Proposed methods include precision strikes, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulses and engineered “pseudo-natural disasters.” While the article may not reflect official doctrine, its scenarios mirror PLA drills and echo rising rhetoric around “forced reunification.”

Taiwan’s dependence on imported energy leaves it strategically exposed. The US, its chief security partner, opposes unilateral moves to change the status quo and continues arms sales to shore up Taiwan’s defenses.

As cross-strait tensions rise, China’s evolving doctrine signals a broader shift toward asymmetric warfare, victory through pressure, not open battle.

China’s space ambitions ‘forcing’ Washington’s Golden Dome strategy: commander

Igor Patrick

Source Link

The head of US Space Command has warned that China’s expanding arsenal of anti-satellite weapons is forcing Washington to accelerate defences in orbit, calling the threat “real” and immediate, amid growing scrutiny of President Donald Trump’s proposed missile shield.

General Stephen Whiting told a public forum in Chicago on Thursday that the ambitious defence system known as the Golden Dome was a response to how China had spent the past three decades preparing to target American space infrastructure.

“They have built capabilities to hold at risk our space systems,” he said. “Golden Dome is part of making sure we’re ready.”

Whiting said Beijing’s strategy included deploying weapons in orbit, developing jamming systems and fielding kinetic anti-satellite missiles – all with the explicit aim of blinding and disrupting US military operations during a crisis.

“China has ambitions to be the world’s greatest space power,” he said. “And they are backing that up with action.”

Unveiled this week with an initial US$25 billion investment, the Golden Dome is a sweeping plan to build a layered missile defence architecture to protect the US from long-range and hypersonic threats.

Modelled in part on Israel’s Iron Dome but with a vastly larger scope, the system is set to integrate both ground and space-based technologies, including a planned network of orbiting interceptors and sensors.

Announced via executive order in January and formally introduced by Trump on Tuesday, the project is expected to cost at least US$175 billion. But costs could spiral beyond US$800 billion over the next two decades, according to the US Congressional Budget Office.

Trump has said the goal is for the initiative to be operational by the end of his term in January 2029.

US’ 500 military personnel in Taiwan an ‘open test’ of Beijing’s red lines

Enoch Wong

Source Link

Washington’s disclosure that around 500 US military personnel are stationed in Taiwan signals more open and substantial defence support for the island – a pivot from a previously discreet partnership that is openly testing Beijing’s red lines, according to analysts.

The disclosure, made on May 15 by retired US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery during congressional testimony, was the first official acknowledgement of such a substantial American military presence on the self-governed island.

Taiwanese experts say the number refers to training personnel. It also vastly exceeds the previously known 41 personnel that were confirmed in a US congressional report a year earlier.

Montgomery told lawmakers that the US military involvement was essential to training Taiwan to become a credible “counter-intervention force” capable of real combat or complicating Beijing’s military options.

“If we’re going to give them billions of dollars in assistance, sell them tens of billions of dollars’ worth of US gear, it makes sense that we’d be over there training and working,” he said.

Days after the hearing, mainland Chinese state broadcaster CCTV took the rare step of airing commentary on Montgomery’s remarks about the American military presence on the island.

The broadcast did not outline specific plans for a response by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), but it featured residents of the island criticising US actions as “pushing Taiwan towards the danger of war”.

Su Tzu-yun, a research fellow at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defence and Security Research, a Taipei-backed think tank, said Montgomery was likely to have been referring “to training personnel rather than combat troops” – distinct from the reported active-duty US military personnel stationed on the island who are serving in administrative roles.

Chen Wen-chia, an international affairs scholar at Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, also downplayed the significance of the number, emphasising that “joint training missions are short-term and technical in focus, not equivalent to a permanent US military presence”.

The Coming Water Wars: Technology’s Unseen Role in a Growing Crisis

Casey Christie 

Source Link

As a lifelong security professional and defense analyst, I have spent and continue to spend my life scanning the horizon for threats – whether to my clients, my country or humanity. Most dangers come and go, some can be mitigated. Others must simply be avoided altogether. Yet one potential risk has stayed with me since my early teens. A holy man I was introduced to as a teenager in India warned that one day wars would be fought over water. I was skeptical at the time, to say the least, but the seed was planted. And for the past 25 years, I have been searching for the catalyst that might turn this prediction into reality. I am now convinced I have found it: artificial intelligence and its unquenchable thirst for clean water.

And for decades the United Nations has warned that water shortage could become one of the greatest drivers of conflict in the twenty-first century. As former World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin starkly predicted: “Many of the wars of this century were about oil, but wars of the next century will be about water.” Until recently these warnings focused on familiar pressures – climate change, population growth and mismanagement. But a new and less visible force is now accelerating the crisis: the vast, unquenchable thirst of modern technology. Data centers supporting artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies and the broader digital economy are consuming water on an unprecedented scale. As the technological infrastructure of the future expands, it risks tipping already fragile water systems past the point of recovery with serious consequences for global peace and security.

Technology’s Growing Demand for Water

Water is indispensable to modern technological infrastructure. High-performance data centers require massive amounts of water to cool the servers that sustain digital processes. In the US alone data centers consumed an estimated 626 billion liters of water in 2021, with projections indicating a sharp rise as AI models grow larger and demand ever more computational power. Training a single large AI model can require the same amount of water as manufacturing hundreds of automobiles.

Yet this immense demand remains largely hidden from public view.

The Houthis held, Trump folded: Is the US retreating from Yemen?

Imran Khali

Source Link

There’s something rather jarring — though not entirely unfamiliar — about a U.S. president lauding the bravery of a force his military has just spent weeks trying to pulverize. But such is the diplomatic theatre of Donald Trump, who earlier this month praised Yemen’s Houthi fighters for their “great capacity to withstand punishment” even as he announced an unexpected ceasefire agreement with the group.

A pact brokered through Omani mediation, the deal appears on its face to pause the dramatic escalation of U.S. military strikes and Houthi maritime assaults in the Red Sea. The big question, however, is whether this ceasefire is anything more than a tactical timeout in a war that now radiates well beyond Yemen’s borders.

For nearly a decade, the Houthis have not just survived but entrenched themselves in Yemen’s northern highlands, fending off a combined Saudi-Emirati blitzkrieg backed — militarily and politically — by Washington. In this latest chapter, it was Operation Rough Rider, a costly American campaign initiated in mid-March, that aimed to dislodge or at least deter the Iran-backed movement from targeting international shipping and American naval assets. The result? Seven downed U.S. drones, two lost fighter jets, over $1 billion sunk into the sand — and no discernible strategic gain.

So, Trump pulled the plug. Not with the grace of strategic recalibration, but with a bluntness that makes his transactional worldview painfully clear. The Houthis, he declared, had earned a chance. Translation: They withstood the barrage; we’ve run out of options. But this so-called ceasefire is already a study in contradiction. For starters, it notably excludes Israel — a fact that has not only rattled Tel Aviv but exposed a fissure in the traditional U.S.-Israel axis.

The Houthis, emboldened by what they frame as a David-versus-Goliath triumph, have vowed to continue their missile and drone campaigns against Israeli targets in “solidarity with Palestine.” Days before the ceasefire, Houthi rockets reached the outskirts of Ben Gurion Airport. Israel’s response — striking Sanaa International Airport — did little to dull the group’s resolve.

Germany Acts

George Friedman

Source Link

Germany’s decision to deploy a permanent force of 5,000 soldiers to Lithuania is extremely significant because it signals the next phase of a new geopolitical era. One of the most fundamental questions of this era is the extent to which the U.S. will limit its military and financial exposure to the global system. Toward that end, Washington has demanded that Europe assume primary responsibility for its own security and has made initial attempts to reshape the international economic order that had been in place since World War II to facilitate the change. We have been waiting to see how Europe reacts.

The German deployment is the first response. The size of the deployment is not designed to resist a full Russian attack, of course, but it is meant to trigger a massive response in Europe and instill a sense of caution in Russia. With Germany having thus created a concrete military commitment in Europe, the question now is whether the deployment is the first of many European actions or simply a solitary act. As I have argued, Europe is merely the name of the Continent, a landmass slightly larger than the continental U.S. comprising 44 sovereign states. A coordinated European response means one thing; 44 individual responses would mean quite another. Similarly, it will be important to see not how the entirety of NATO responds but how the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Poland – the alliance’s strongest and most geographically relevant members – respond. Though it remains unlikely that they would permanently place military forces in positions to block a westward Russian attack, the Ukraine war has made the prospect possible.

But even if Germany’s was a solitary act, it is a critical shift in Europe. The country has been a pariah state, albeit to a decreasing extent, since World War II – arguably, since World War I. It initiated combat in both wars, against countries that are now members of NATO, against countries now outside the alliance and, crucially, against the Soviet Union. It emerged from World War II not as a sovereign nation but as a divided territory, occupied by both the West and the Soviet Union until the 1990s. After it was reunited, it quickly became the Continent’s economic center of gravity. And though its economic weight makes it the first among equals in the EU, it has been careful to avoid asserting military power. Europe has a long memory, and for centuries, its history was the history of all-against-all warfare.

Donald Trump’s New Middle East Doctrine

Alexander Langlois

Source Link

President Trump appears to be embracing the view that the region is best left to manage its own problems.

President Donald Trump is drastically reshaping Washington’s approach to foreign policy in the Middle East. While bellicosity and unpredictability have come to define his personalized approach to foreign affairs, Trump is unafraid to break the traditional norms of diplomacy and statecraft that many argue have long held back both the United States and the Middle East. Should Trump stick to this unusual approach, centralizing a restrained foreign policy recognizing the limits of US power and interests, he could support the region’s leaders as they work to promote a new age of pragmatism and development.

This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists…giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves…developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies…In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built—and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.

This rhetoric is unheard of from a modern US president. While previous attempts to realign US foreign policy priorities and approaches in the region are nothing new, they were never so robustly expressed or acted upon.

There are positive and negative possibilities inherent to Trump’s new foreign policy doctrine. Washington has long overextended itself across the globe, fighting every fight on every continent to influence everything, everywhere, all the time. This overreach has failed to consider real US interests and the capabilities needed to achieve them, resulting in the “Forever Wars” of the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, domestic problems continued to fester and security-first priorities increasingly harmed civil liberties at home.

Buried Lessons: Leading Through Innovation

Benjamin Van Horrick

Source Link

In 1947, the Marine Corps declined to fund the transport of Evans Carlson’s remains from the West Coast to Arlington National Cemetery. Carlson’s exploits won the loyalty of his men, but his maverick tendencies generated resentment among his superior officers. In The Raider, author Stephen R. Platt chronicles the tumultuous life and career of the famed Marine who formed and led the Marine Raiders. Carlson’s career challenged the Corps’ resistance to its mavericks, emphasized the value of working with regional allies, and fostered unit cohesion. More than a combat biography, Platt’s book serves as a case study on partner force development and the challenges of overcoming institutional inertia in order to innovate. As the Marine Corps again prepares for distributed operations across the Pacific, Carlson’s example offers lessons on innovating, partnering, and fighting in the Pacific.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writings animated Evans Carlson’s life, inspiring the preacher’s son to run away from his New England home at 14, which served as his moral compass. Guided by self-reliance, an insatiable intellectual curiosity, and a fervent belief in justice, Carlson excelled when partnering with military forces in China and Nicaragua in the 1920s. From writing intelligence reports in Shanghai to quelling unrest in Nicaragua, he proved himself a thoughtful and effective combat leader. These tours gave Carlson an appreciation for the political dynamics and social networks that animate political and military action at the local level. His time on independent duty instilled in him the confidence needed to operate in complex environments, where he trusted his judgment and won the trust of his partners.

A chance posting to the presidential retreat in Warm Springs gave Carlson access to and the ear of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Carlson’s keen intellect and affable manner helped him build a relationship with the President and his eldest son, James. Before Carlson departed for China in 1937, President Roosevelt requested that Carlson write dispatches on his travel in China to be read only by the commander-in-chief. His dispatches influenced US–China policy; later, Carlson’s advocacy influenced the President to advocate for forming the Raiders. Buoyed by Roosevelt’s confidence, Carlson began his most formative tour to date.

Ukraine’s New Way of War

Nataliya Gumenyuk

Source Link

Since entering office in January, President Donald Trump has pressed for a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine, largely on Russian terms. “You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their infamous February Oval Office meeting—suggesting that Ukraine could resist a Russian takeover only with continued American military backing or Russia’s voluntary restraint.

And yet, despite flagging U.S. support, Ukrainian forces continue to hold the Russians off, and their resilience points to Kyiv’s growing autonomy from the United States. In fact, the conflict’s front line, which extends for about 1,900 miles and features intense combat along 700 of them, has not moved much since Trump took office in January. What’s keeping Ukraine in the fight is not Russian mercy, or even solely American arms: It’s innovation.

In just three years, Ukraine’s military has evolved from defending itself with leftover Soviet weapons to pioneering a new kind of warfare. In 2022, observers described combat in Ukraine as 20th-century-style trench warfare, dependent on tanks. Ukrainian soldiers had little choice but to fire whatever old shells they could find. The nature of the battlefield had changed by 2023 once the United States and other Western allies began supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons systems, including HIMARS rocket launchers and ATACMS long-range missiles. Recently, however, the U.S. president has thrown the future of American military aid to Ukraine into question. Last month, he even suggested that the U.S. might hesitate to sell Ukraine Patriot missile systems.

Fortunately for Ukraine, American weapons are not the only factor that has rebalanced the battlefield in the past three years. Starting in 2024, Ukrainian-made drones definitively changed the way both sides waged war. For Ukraine, the adjustment was not just tactical, but a broader, doctrinal evolution in how its military fights.

The Privacy-Friendly Tech to Replace Your US-Based Email, Browser, and Searc

Source Link

Thanks to drastic policy changes in the US and Big Tech’s embrace of the second Trump administration, many people are moving their digital lives abroad. Here are a few options to get you started.

From your email to your web browsing, it’s highly likely that your daily online life is dominated by a small number of tech giants—namely Google, Microsoft, and Apple. But since Big Tech has been cozying up to the second Trump administration, which has taken an aggressive stance on foreign policy, and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has ravaged through the government, some attitudes towards using US-based digital services have been changing.

The Irresistible Plan Europeans Can Offer Trump to Save NATO

Rym Momtaz

Source Link

The NATO alliance is at that moment every relationship eventually struggles with. One side knows the other wants to make changes, but keeps pretending like they can avoid having the tough conversation and hence facing the necessary changes.

Many European allies are trying hard to avoid discussing with the United States the capabilities drawdown that could result from the ongoing American Strategic Posture review. The good news is that it is certainly not all Europeans, and fewer of them are in denial than in 2016, when U.S. President Donald Trump was first elected.

But with a month to go before the next NATO Summit, Europeans would collectively improve their stature and value in Trump’s mind if they engage with the U.S. administration on how to coordinate a reduction in American military presence in Europe. Framing burden-shifting in these terms would be evocative for Trump. The idea would be for Europeans to commit to a timetable over the next six to ten years to ramp up capabilities and readiness, to fill the gaps that would remain if the United States chose to withdraw most of its nonstrategic capabilities.

This time around, success won’t be just about maintaining unity on Russia’s threat and avoiding a blow up with Trump: It will be about whether the allies manage to lay stronger and fairer foundations to carry the NATO alliance forward for decades to come. If the Europeans succeed, this summit could become a landmark moment of strength.

This would show Trump that Europeans are committed, capable, and worthy allies, who are useful in pursuing his goals—and not just engaging in creative accounting to placate him. For a president who does not view alliances favorably, it would be no small feat. Europeans would also benefit: They would be much better equipped to face the growing Russian threat. It would strengthen the NATO alliance and make it more durable because it would be going forward on a fairer footing.

It would also help strengthen the case within the Trump administration for maintaining U.S. leadership in force generation and integration. And it would also help preserve U.S. strategic enablers such as the unrivaled American ability to gather and process intelligence and convert it into actionable military targets, as well as long-range precision fires and the extended nuclear deterrence. These are not capabilities the Europeans could replace over the next ten years.

At Mere 30%, Ukraine’s Drone Interception Rate Shockingly Down As Kyiv’s European AD Missiles “Run Dry”: French Media

Sakshi Tiwari

Source Link

Russia has gone on a rampage against Ukraine with multiple barrages of drones and missile attacks aimed at obliterating its infrastructure. However, Ukraine finds itself in a bind with its air defense missile stockpiles almost running dry.

Citing unidentified sources, French publication Le Monde reported on May 26 that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have run out of missiles for their two SAMP/T air defense batteries.

Additionally, the service has not received even a single missile for its French-made Crotale short-range surface-to-air anti-aircraft system in eighteen months.

This shortage comes as Russia batters Ukrainian cities with missile and drone attacks, necessitating a strong air defense response by Kyiv to neutralize these threats.

Ukraine’s emergency services said there was an atmosphere of “terror” in the country on May 25 after a second straight night of massive Russian air strikes, including on the capital Kyiv.

Ukraine has been rapidly depleting its air defense missile stockpile due to a constantly changing Russian strategy that involves an increasing number of projectiles fired simultaneously, such as drones, cruise, and ballistic missiles, and the complexity of the routes they take.

In addition, the interception rate in Ukraine has also allegedly plummeted. The report claims that Ukraine’s air defence managed to shoot down more than 90% of enemy drones as recently as 2024, but that figure has now fallen to 30% in certain areas.

Ukraine found a way to beat Russia’s unjammable drones. It doesn’t work anymore.

BYDAVID AXE

Source Link

Fiber-optic first-person-view drones are jam-proof. Sending and receiving signals along millimeters-thick but miles-long optical fibers, these FPV drones are impervious to the radio interference that can ground wireless FPV drones.

That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to defeat a fiber-optic drone. Ukrainian forces have tracked Russian operators by spotting, in bright sunlight, the reflective fibers spooling out behind a drone—and then following the fibers back to the Russians’ base, potentially kilometers away.

But now there are so many old drone fibers littering the busiest battlefields that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to trace them back to an active drone base.

Ukraine’s fiber-optic drone detection challenge

For months, Ukrainian electronic-warfare expert Serhii “Flash” has been shooting videos of fiber-cluttered fields in order to emphasize the increasing difficulty of countering jam-proof drones. The fields around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast are apparently the most heavily littered.

The videos “demonstrate the difficulties in trying to trace specific fiber optic cables from the hundreds in the fields back to an operator,” one Canadian electronic warfare expert explained.

That’s surely disappointing to the Ukrainian drone operators who famously struck back against Russian drone operators back in February. The drone team from the Ukrainian national guard’s Kara Dag Brigade hunted down a Russian drone team on the snowy battlefield just south of Vodyane in Donetsk—by following a web of optical fibers back to the Russians’ hideout, and then bombing it.

The tactic doesn’t work if there are fibers practically everywhere, many of them leading back to launch positions the operators have long abandoned. As more drone warfare units on both sides adopt fiber-optic FPV drones, there are fewer ways of defeating them.

Discover the Secret World of CIA’s Elite Paramilitary Operatives

Guy D. McCardle

Source Link

Everyone in the United States has heard of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which was borne from the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) in the dark covert alleys of war-torn Europe in the 1940s. The agency has come a long way from the cloak-and-dagger images of WWII and the Cold War with Russia. However, few know the full scope of what the agency does abroad to protect and promote American interests.

The CIA is not a military organization but a foreign intelligence service of the United States and part of our federal government.

The CIA’s Mission

It is tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information worldwide, primarily through human intelligence (HUMINT). As one of the principal members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), the CIA reports to the Director of National Intelligence and primarily focuses on providing intelligence to the President of the United States and his Cabinet.

Unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a domestic security service, the CIA has no law enforcement function and mainly focuses on overseas intelligence operations.

The agency is supposed to be strictly an offshore organization, prohibited from conducting operations on US soil but SOFREP has had credible sources from within JSOC and the NSA tell us that the agency routinely uses foreign business proxies to spy on US soil, essentially legally bypassing the restriction.

What do we mean by this?

Poland, Romania lead a drone bonanza in Eastern Europe

Jaroslaw Adamowski

Soure Link

WARSAW, Poland — As Poland’s military is developing the Drone Force, its latest military component that was launched earlier this year, the Ministry of National Defence recently signed a deal to purchase the largest number of unmanned aerial vehicles in the country’s history.

The move comes as various Eastern European allies are advancing major drone purchases, drawing lessons from Russia’s war against Ukraine.

On May 15, the Polish ministry signed a framework agreement with local private defense company WB Group to buy some 10,000 units of the Warmate loitering munition. The contract foresees deliveries until 2035.

“This is a large-scale investment – 10,000 Warmate drones are becoming a fact,” Władysław Kosiniak Kamysz, Poland’s deputy prime minister and defense minister, said at the official signing ceremony, as quoted in a statement.

“They will soon start being delivered to the Polish military. The next deals, which will be executive, will be signed in the near future,” he added.

WB Group has been expanding its portfolio of UAVs over the past years. Some of the latest additions to the company’s range include the Warmate TL-R reconnaissance system, FT5 mini tactical class drones in new variants, Warmate 20 loitering munition, and the extended-range Warmate 50. Warmate 20 has a range of “several hundred kilometers” and Warmate 50’s range exceeds that of Warmate 20, according to the company.

Remigiusz Wilk, the head of communications at WB Group, told Defense News that, since the war’s outbreak, the drone producer has observed a surge in interest in unmanned capabilities across the region.

“Drones are now considered an important protective measure for soldiers,” Wilk said. “When combined, they allow to create complex aerial systems.”

Securing the Flow: Addressing the National Security Vulnerabilities in the US Water Supply

Brandon Schingh 

Source Link

Protecting the sanctity of our water supply is not merely an environmental concern, it is a critical national security priority and challenge. As demand for water increases due to population growth, climate change, and industrial expansion, the United States faces significant vulnerabilities in its water supply distribution systems, such as aging infrastructure and outdated information technology (IT) systems which plague water management capabilities at every level, from municipal utilities to federal agencies. Many water treatment plants and distribution networks rely on decades-old infrastructure, making them susceptible to failures and contamination. Additionally, legacy IT systems, often lacking modern cybersecurity measures, expose critical water assets to cyberattacks from state and non-state actors. A targeted attack on the domestic water supply—whether through direct contamination, such as introducing a biological agent into an aquifer, or through a cyberattack on critical command, control, and distribution systems—would be considered an act of aggression with serious consequences. Such disruptions could cripple water distribution, triggering a cascade of problems, from local economic instability to major public health crises like cholera or typhoid outbreaks. If left unaddressed, these emergencies could also escalate into broader political tensions, similar to the ongoing water disputes between Mexico and the US. With water becoming an increasingly contested resource, safeguarding its availability and security must be recognized as a national priority requiring immediate investment and policy reform.

The security of our nation’s water supply is not an isolated concern; rather, it is deeply intertwined with broader national security threats, including agroterrorism–the deliberate release of plant or animal diseases as an act of terror—and foreign exploitation of critical resources such as “virtual water”, the act of using local water by a foreign entity to grow crops for export. Addressing these interconnected threats requires a strategic approach that prioritizes water security as a fundamental pillar of national resilience, supported by the implementation of strategic infrastructure investments, policy reforms, and cybersecurity enhancements.

Growing Demand and Strain on Water Resources

USA Soft Power Waning, Hard Power Flexing: The Trump Effect – OpEd

Lim Teck Ghee

Source Link

Two developments, one unfolding and the other about to take place, are not only emblematic of the Trump effect on U.S. politics and policy making. They also have consequential ramifications for America’s soft and hard power standing in international relations.

The first relates to the Trump administration’s action in halting Harvard University’s ability to enrol international students.

“I am writing to inform you that, effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Programme certification is revoked,” U.S. Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem said in a letter shared on X.

Noem, although providing no evidence, asserted that the Trump administration is holding Harvard accountable for “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

Quite surprisingly, this latest pro Israel and anti-China target of the Trump administration has drawn supporters of President Trump in the Western media outlets to join the almost unanimous condemnation of the move as a disastrous politically motivated attack on higher education and a damaging blow to America’s global standing. For now, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the order. But the announcement and ongoing legal battle is continuing to generate media coverage around the world.

Reaction to Charges Against Harvard

Alongside the numerous reports of the widespread anxiety and confusion among Harvard’s international student body and incoming cohort, including from Asia, critics argue that the ban will undermine Harvard’s and the broader U.S. higher education system’s appeal as a top destination for international talent.

Concerned American educationists have noted that international students contribute significantly to their university revenue and research, and they point out that the ban will have severe economic and academic consequences, especially if extended to other universities and colleges with international student enrolments.

Russia’s Gray Zone Warfare Campaign In Europe – Analysis

Zachary Fillingham

Source Link

According to the head of MI5, Russia is on a mission to ‘generate sustained mayhem on British and European streets.’

The statement refers to a string of high-profile sabotage and arson events that have occurred in Europe since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, ranging from the destruction of undersea cable infrastructure in the Baltic Sea to the burning down of Warsaw’s largest shopping mall, and even the petty harassment of pro-Ukraine public figures in Estonia.

When assessing the manifestations of this continental ‘mayhem,’ a novel modus operandi becomes evident: this is not the work of professional intelligence agents, many of whom are now being forced to operate from Russia having been expelled from their former postings in European states. Rather, the sabotage is being performed by amateurs recruited on social media, some of whom aren’t even legal adults, and typically for love of money more than love of the motherland. Such tactics reflect a fluidity well suited to the digital age, where saboteurs can be recruited, trained, and paid without even coming into contact with state intelligence agents.

On the strategic level, gray zone warfare remains highly appealing in its deniability. Yet as the events below suggest, this could actually be changing as a casualty of the new tactical normal. With more amateur operatives being caught and disclosing the details of their recruitment process, a clearer picture of Russian state involvement emerges, one that is generating in-turn responses from Western states. One example is NATO’s ‘Baltic Sentry,’ which seeks to establish an active military presence in the Baltic Sea to protect critical infrastructure there from sabotage. Another is the Biden administration’s direct warnings of severe consequences should Russian intelligence attempt to send exploding packages to North America. In both we see attempts to delineate limits on gray zone warfare – the establishment of diplomatic and security consequences where before there were none. This process is largely in its infancy however, with both offensive and defensive actors still navigating largely uncharted territory.

BALTIC SEA UNDERSEA CABLE SABOTAGE

AI-controlled fighter jets may be closer than we think — and would change the face of warfare

Arun Dawson, Ph.D candidate

Source Link

An F-16 Fighting Falcon undergoes modifications as part of the Viper Experimentation and Next-gen Operations Model – Autonomy Flying Testbed program at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The changes include software, hardware and instrumentation that will allow the aircraft to fly autonomously. Source: USAF/Samuel King Jr.)

Could we be on the verge of an era where fighter jets take flight without pilots — and are controlled by artificial intelligence (AI)? U.S. Rear Admiral Michael Donnelly recently said that an upcoming combat jet could be the Navy’s last one with a pilot in the cockpit. That marks a striking, if not entirely surprising, shift in thinking about the future of aerial warfare.

The U.S. Navy is not alone. Other programs to develop next generation fighter jets are also touting uncrewed options as a distinct possibility.

However, we have been here before. Senior leaders in the U.S. Navy said they believed the last crewed fighter jet had been procured in 2015. As far back as 1957, premature obituaries were being written for the fighter pilot era. So, is there anything different now?

The ability of a fighter jet to maneuver, accelerate and maintain high speeds, crucial for air combat, is called kinematic performance. Estimates are as high as 80% on how much pilots reduce kinematic performance. Though this figure may be disputed, there is no question that uncrewed aircraft enjoy several key advantages.

Without the need for life support systems such as ejection seats and oxygen supplies, these aircraft can perform in ways that are beyond the scope of piloted aircraft. But additional trends are pushing militaries to reconsider the role of the human pilot altogether.

Systems enabled by AI are already demonstrating superior performance in military exercises. In existing remotely piloted aircraft, a human operator remains in control. This model is known as “human-in-the-loop." AI is now enabling the possibility of human-on-the-loop (where humans take a step back, supervising and intervening if necessary) and even “human-out-of-the-loop” systems (in which AI selects and engages targets autonomously).

Ike and the “Military Industrial Complex”

Alan J. Levine

Source Link

In the 1960s, the Eisenhower years were ‘revisioned’ as a period of stagnation, instead of the era of fantastic prosperity and progress it really was.

Most people, even those like myself brought up on the absurd “goofing and golfing” image of Dwight D. Eisenhower, now recognize that he was an exceptionally fine president. In my opinion, he was a great president, whose excellence has exceeded that of any of his successors.

That is despite the fact that much that is still said about Eisenhower and his administration simply regurgitates the silly ideas about his policies entertained at the time, and not just by liberals. National Review, for example, was not especially friendly to Eisenhower in the 1950s.

One such falsehood is the idea that Eisenhower was hostile to desegregation in the South. That seems to have been a product of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s personal hatred for the man who had destroyed his hopes of becoming president and who, after leaving the Oval Office, was critical of many of the more dubious later decisions of the Warren Court. It was under Eisenhower that Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. acted as a friend of the Court in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Warren court desegregated public schools. Eisenhower’s journal, a letter to his close friend Everett Hazlett, and remarks he made during the Little Rock crisis in 1957 all show that he regarded desegregation as just. He thought, however, that it might have been wiser and would have evoked less opposition had it begun in higher education rather than lower down.

It’s true that Ike was understandably unenthusiastic about the rulings of the Warren court that undermined anti-crime efforts, such as Mapp v. Ohio, which seriously restricted the use of evidence in criminal cases, and Miranda v. Arizona, which hampered police interrogations. Whatever merits of these rulings hold in the protection of the innocent, there is no doubt they paved the way for our current nightmare of a police force hamstrung by overbearing legal oversight.

Three Qualities of Good Leaders: A Message for New Lieutenants from the Chief of Staff of the Army

General Randy George 

Source Link

You are entering our profession with a world that is more dynamic and volatile than I have known in my time in uniform. Warfighting is evolving as rapidly as the technology in all our pockets. You will see more change in the next five years than senior leaders today have witnessed in the last twenty, and you will help lead that change. You’re going to need to think creatively, decide quickly, and act purposefully.

And yet, what won’t change is our Army’s need for physically and mentally tough leaders of character. You are trained for that role. You are ready for what’s next. As you take the next step in your journeys as leaders in the profession of arms, I’d like to share three qualities that good leaders embody.

First, good leaders immerse themselves in their craft. They understand the importance of self-development and spend the effort necessary to properly prepare themselves before they train their units.

You must do this because you will be asked to lead incredible soldiers, who have made it their duty to prepare themselves for combat. Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha was one of those soldiers in my formation. His tireless preparation paid off when he and his team at Combat Outpost Keating in the mountains of Afghanistan found themselves with the odds stacked against them. They kept the base from being overrun and saved many lives because they were experts. You will lead soldiers like Romesha—soldiers who are immersed in their craft—so take full advantage of the training, coaching, and mentoring that’s available to you. As President John F. Kennedy said, “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.”