Indian Strategic Studies: 05/31/25

31 May 2025

India and France Are At Each Other’s Throats Over the Dassault Rafale Fighter

Brandon J. Weichert

The crisis within the IAF cannot by itself explain the excellent performance of Pakistani PL-15 missiles against what were supposedly India’s superior air capabilities.

The dismal showing of India’s expensive French-built Dassault Rafales in its recent war against Pakistan has triggered a wave of recriminations between the Indian and French governments. Not only has the unimpressive display of the Dassault Rafales in the opening phases of the recent conflict come as a shock to the world, but other clients of French defense contractors are having second thoughts.

As was first reported last week, the government of Indonesia has launched an audit of its recent deal with Dassault to purchase a handful of the fighters. Though no reason was given for the audit, it is transparently clear that Jakarta is worried about the poor performance of the Indian-owned Rafales against what many assumed was an inferior Pakistani Air Force.

This week, in order to salvage the Rafale’s reputation, Paris is punching back at New Delhi—pinning the losses on maintenance and pilot error rather than deficiencies in France’s most advanced fighter jet.

India Refuses to Grant French Auditors Access to India’s Rafales

Unconfirmed reports in the international press and across social media indicate that the Indian government is refusing to allow Dassault’s audit team to gain access to India’s arsenal of Rafales. Dassault’s auditors want to inspect the Indian fleet of Rafales to ensure that there are no technical problems that the Indian Air Force (IAF) may have missed.

What happened to that Pakistan-India war?

Zac Weisz

It’s been 18 days since India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire which ended the clashes that had killed dozens on either side of the de facto border in Kashmir. But while the guns are silent, the two arch rivals are still locked in a war of words, with each dispatching officials abroad to shape the narrative.

What’s happened since the ceasefire? The physical fighting – which erupted after a terror attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan – has mostly paused. There were reports of violence in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, but neither government was fazed – they each stood by the ceasefire.

Even so, India-Pakistan relations have dropped to a new nadir, punctuated by New Delhi’s refusal to reinstate the Indus Waters Treaty. The pact outlines how each country can use reserves from the Indus river – without it, Pakistan is at risk of losing access, in the long run, to virtually its only water source. Signed in 1960, the agreement has survived several rounds of conflicts between these warring neighbors – including ones worse than this latest flare up – yet there are no signs that it will be patched back together this time.

Has Modi’s Diplomacy Undermined India’s National Interests?

Muqtedar Khan

There is a growing perception both in India and abroad that India won the recent military encounter with Pakistan but lost the battle of narratives.

This perception has been validated by India’s decision to send seven diplomatic delegations to 32 countries to share with the world not only India’s version of what happened in Pahalgam, during Operation Sindoor, and what led to the ceasefire, but also to persuade the world that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. The need for this diplomatic mission is a recognition and admission that during the brief but intense war between the South Asian neighbors, India’s messaging did not land.

India’s Message and Messengers

India wanted the world to know that Pakistan was behind the horrendous terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam on April 22. India has long suffered cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and carried out by terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and it wanted the world to accept that the Pahalgam attacks were just a continuation of past cross-border terrorism. New Delhi offered no evidence, however; it wanted the world to take its word for it.

India also wanted to convey that its military response, Operation Sindoor, was calculated and restrained and designed only to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and not a war against the state of Pakistan or its people. This was new India, which would no longer suffer terrorism but would respond decisively and forcefully, but also responsibly.

The world did not buy this narrative. No leader and no country held Pakistan directly responsible for the Pahalgam attack. No one condemned Pakistan. There was no appreciation for India’s carefully calibrated military response; on the contrary, the world was preoccupied with how many of the Indian Air Force’s Rafale jets were shot down by Pakistan, and how Chinese jet fighters and air-to-air missiles were besting Western-made weapons deployed by India. U.S. President Donald Trump’s social media posts about his decisive role in bringing about the ceasefire, a claim that Pakistan confirms and Indian denies vehemently, then sucked away the oxygen from India’s narrative.

India: Maoists’ Crippled Movement – Analysis

Deepak Kumar Nayak

On May 21, 2025, in a major tactical blow to the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), Nambala Keshava Rao aka Basava Raju aka Ganganna aka Krishna aka Vijay aka Prakash (70), the ‘general secretary’ of the party (the highest executive post), a ‘Politburo member’, ‘Central Committee (CC)’ member, and Central Military Commission (CMC)’ member, was killed along with 26 other Maoists, in an encounter with Security Forces (SFs) in the dense jungles between the Abujhmad Forest and the Indravati National Park in the Narayanpur District of the Bastar division of Chhattisgarh. One supporter (informer) of the Police was also killed in the encounter. During the operation, one District Reserve Guards (DRG) jawan Khotluram Korram (38), was killed in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast.

During a combing operation along the border of Dantewada, Narayanpur and Bijapur Districts, in the Abhujmadh area, following intelligence inputs about the presence of senior cadres of the Maoists’ ‘Maad division’, coincidentally, on the night of the encounter, both Basava Raju and the DRG personnel unknowingly camped within a radius of 1 to 1.5 kilometres. At dawn, a chance firing took place between Basava Raju’s sentry and a DRG trooper, which led to the fierce gun battle, which lasted for about 30 to 40 minutes, with over 300 rounds fired by both sides. The identity of Basava Raju was confirmed by a DRG trooper, who was a former Maoist and had worked with him.

Two women bodyguards of Basava Raju, Sangeeta and Bhoomika, both aged around 35, active members of Peoples Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) Company No. 07, carrying a bounty of INR 1 million each, were also reportedly killed in the encounter. Also killed was Jang Naveen akaMadhu (45), a high-ranking strategist, a member of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC) and part of the Central Committee’s strategic team, with a bounty of INR 2.5 million; as well as Ugendra aka Vivek (30), a member of PLGA Company No. 07 and affiliated with the People’s Party Committee (PPCM), carrying a bounty of INR 800,000. The identities of the other slain cadres were still being ascertained at the time of writing.

Guess who India, Pakistan and Iran are all wooing? The Taliban

Usaid Siddiqui

For a country whose government is not recognised by any nation, Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi has had an unusually busy calendar in recent weeks.

He has hosted his counterpart from Pakistan, spoken on the phone with India’s foreign minister, and jetted to Iran and China. In Beijing, he also met the Pakistani foreign minister again. On Wednesday, he joined trilateral talks with delegations from Pakistan and China.

This, even though the ruling Taliban have historically had tense relations with most of these countries, and currently have taut ties with Pakistan, a one-time ally with whom trust is at an all-time low.

While neither the United Nations nor any of its member states formally recognise the Taliban, analysts say that this diplomatic overdrive suggests that the movement is far from a pariah on the global stage.

So why are multiple countries in Afghanistan’s neighbourhood queueing up to engage diplomatically with the Taliban, while avoiding formal recognition?

We unpack the Taliban’s latest high-level regional engagements and look at why India, Pakistan and Iran are all trying to befriend Afghanistan’s rulers, four years after they marched on Kabul and grabbed power.

Who did Muttaqi meet or speak to in recent weeks?

A timeline of Afghanistan’s recent diplomatic engagements:April 19: Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar travels with a high-level delegation to Kabul to meet Muttaqi and other Afghan officials. The two sides discussed an ongoing spat over Pakistan’s repatriation of Afghan refugees, bilateral trade and economic cooperation, the Afghanistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

When The Sea Moves Inland: A Global Climate Wake-Up Call From Bangladesh’s Delta

As sea levels climb and weather grows more extreme, coastal regions everywhere are facing a creeping threat: salt.

Salinization of freshwater and soils adversely affects 500 million people around the world, especially in low-lying river deltas.

A new study led by researchers at the University of Portsmouth, in partnership with Dhaka University and Curtin University, sheds light on how rising oceans are pushing saltwater into freshwater rivers and underground water sources in the world’s largest river mouth – the Bengal Delta in Bangladesh.

Drawing on nearly two decades of data from over 50 monitoring stations in coastal Bangladesh, the team tracked a consistent rise in salt levels in rivers and estuaries, particularly since the mid-2000s.

The western parts of the delta, already more prone to tidal influence, showed the fastest increases in salinity. The data suggests that the combination of sea-level rise, reduced freshwater flow, and increasingly frequent storm surges are all contributing to the inland movement and retention of saltwater.

Since around 2007, many parts of the delta have experienced stepwise increases in salinity, often linked to powerful storms like Cyclone Sidr. These changes can devastate crops, erode food security, and force communities to move. While the analysis focused primarily on environmental data, it underscores how salinity intrusion is increasingly a threat to livelihoods, public health, and regional stability.

The study, published in Ecological Indicators, uses one of the most detailed and long-running salinity datasets in any delta system worldwide. It applied advanced statistical methods to distinguish long-term trends from short-term weather or seasonal changes.

The researchers introduced a new conceptual model called the Offshore Controlled Estuarine and Aquifer Nexus (OCEAN) framework, that highlights how offshore features like steep underwater slopes and restricted tidal flows can trap salt in low-lying coastal zones.

China says Trump Harvard ban will ‘tarnish’ US image as students caught in crosshairs

Simone McCarthy

The Trump administration’s move to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students has ricocheted across China, with officials and commentators seeing it through one lens: the growing rivalry between Washington and Beijing.

“China has consistently opposed the politicization of educational collaboration,” a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said Friday, adding that the US move “will only tarnish its own image and reputation in the world.”

Some commentators across Chinese social media platforms took a similar tack: “It’s fun to watch them destroy their own strength,” read one comment on the X-like platform Weibo that garnered hundreds of likes.

“Trump comes to the rescue again,” wrote another, commenting on a hashtag about the news, which has tens of millions of views. “Recruiting international students is … the main way to attract top talent! After this road is cut off, will Harvard still be the same Harvard?”

The announcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a clear escalation of a dispute between the oldest and the richest Ivy League institution and the White House and part of a broader drive to tighten control over international students in the US amid an immigration crackdown. The administration of US President Donald Trump has revoked hundreds of student visas in nearly every corner of the country as part of a vast immigration crackdown.

These Are The Key Strategic Areas Where China Is Building Overseas Ports

Evan Comen

Over the past 10 years, no country has invested more in the rest of the world than China. Since commencing its Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, China has invested over $950 billion in infrastructure and other development projects over 140 countries, building roads and railways, cultivating energy supplies, and expanding its influence across the globe.

International ports are one of the largest and most controversial sectors of Chinese overseas spending. Over the last decade, China has invested more than $30 billion in overseas port development, allowing China to gain a critical foothold in key geopolitical hotspots. While the investments have spurred economic development in host countries and improved infrastructure around the world, they have also raised concerns about sovereignty and debt sustainability. Critics argue that many of the more vulnerable recipient countries risk falling into debt traps that may force them to cede strategic assets to China in order to repay loans, bolstering the Red Dragon’s global naval power. A closer look at the data reveals the key ports where overseas investment is allowing China to gain a strategic military foothold.

To determine the key strategic areas where China is building overseas ports, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data on development projects financed by China in foreign countries from AidData, a research lab at the College of William & Mary. Ports were ranked based on the total, inflation-adjusted value of development projects funded by the Chinese government and state-owned institutions from 2000 to 2021.

Financial values were converted from original currencies to constant 2021 U.S. dollars and aggregated according to AidData recommendations. Supplemental data on primary investment sector and the largest project by amount invested were calculated from the AidData dataset. Investment per capita was calculated using population averages from 2000 to 2021 from the World Bank.

Reports on China’s victory are greatly exaggerated

James Rogan

In the 1950s and 1960s, professor Paul Samuelson was arguably America’s preeminent economist. His textbook for introductory economics was used at colleges and universities across the United States. He was a close adviser to President John F. Kennedy.

In 1961, Samuelson predicted that the then Soviet Union would overtake the United States in economic size somewhere between 1984 and 1997. By 1980, he continued to suggest that the Soviet Union would become the world’s largest economy within a few decades.

Obviously, Samuelson was wrong. He did not understand that extreme authoritarianism and the rejection of free market capitalism would consign the Soviet Union to the dustbin of history.

Today, however, other respected academics are making Samuelson's mistake in their assessments of Communist China. They opine that in the current century, China will become the dominant global economic power. One researcher from Princeton University wrote recently in the New York Times that the battle for global economic superiority is being “decisively” won by China and that the U.S. is becoming economically irrelevant.

Let's be clear, researchers who predict the ascendancy of China are wrong.

Yes, some of President Donald Trump’s economic policies are misguided and, in the short run, will impede economic growth. But over the coming decades, economic history and current data say the U.S. will continue to be the world’s largest economy.

Financial markets have a way of sorting out political nonsense. Over the past 10 years, the S&P 500, the U.S. benchmark equity index, is up 170% or so. In stark contrast, a broad index of Chinese equities is flat. U.S. equities have soared on optimism about the future of the U.S. economy. Chinese equities have done nothing, reflecting the enormous buildup of debt in China, its demographic decline, and the deep real estate recession that continues to plague the country.

China Is Preparing a “Pearl Harbor” Attack on America, US General Warns

Brandon J. Weichert

United States Air Force Brigadier General Doug Wickert, the commander of the Air Force’s 412th Test Wing, warned an audience of airmen that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is preparing to conduct a Pearl Harbor-style attack on the United States as part of China’s larger effort to conquer Taiwan. Gen. Wickert’s nearly 40-minute talk is available for viewing on YouTube, and it already has well over 400,000 views.

What’s missing from the speech, though, is what form Beijing’s surprise attack might take. The general fixates on known Chinese military training designed to condition Chinese forces to target US Navy warships—particularly the Ford-class aircraft carrier. If the Chinese are going to be successful, though, they will have to conduct a full-spectrum attack upon US assets in space, cyberspace, and the Chinese will have to disrupt the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.

China Is Undoubtedly Planning a Space Pearl Harbor

Sweeping attacks executed upon critical US satellite architecture will be key for any Chinese invasion of Taiwan to go forward with a modicum of success. Recall that a coterie of military and private sector imaging satellites operate in low-Earth orbit (LEO). These systems will be key for giving the Americans situational awareness if the Chinese military mobilizes to invade Taiwan. Beijing understands this, and has doubtless concluded that blinding those satellites will be a critical first step in a military attack.

China is well-equipped for such a strike. It has prepared a novel anti-satellite (ASAT) laser weapon at the Koral East Test Site in Xinjiang Province. In 2023, the Financial Times reported that the Chinese ASAT laser operates prolifically during what is known as the “solar moon” phase of Earth’s orbit—the period of the day in which many US imaging satellites are most active near China. According to the Financial Times, these lasers fired at undefended American imaging satellites can “seize control of a satellite, rendering it ineffective to support communications, weapons, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.”

What Trump Gets Right About China

YI FUXIAN

When Donald Trump complains that Chinese exports have contributed to the decline of US manufacturing, he has a point. But no one has paid a higher price for Chinese overcapacity than China, which is now staring down the barrel of demographic collapse.

MADISON, WISCONSIN – US President Donald Trump’s embrace of tariffs has been met with considerable criticism, and for sound reasons. But Trump’s diagnosis of the global trading system – and, specifically, its impact on US manufacturing – may not be entirely wrong. The problem, instead, is the treatment: rather than using a chainsaw, which would probably kill the patient, he should reach for a scalpel.

Will Trump Tip the AI Race in China’s Favor?

QIYUAN XU and YAQIANG WANG

BEIJING/SINGAPORE – Their tariff war maybe stalemated, but the competition for technological supremacy between the United States and China is shifting into high gear. As the two countries battle for dominance in AI – and the productivity and geopolitical gains that will come with it – one question looms large. Will China’s AI capabilities catch up with – and even surpass – those of the US?

Driving this trend is a series of policies introduced by US President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump’s presidency marks a dramatic break from the commitment to openness that has underpinned America’s technological leadership for decades. Measures intended to bring innovation back to the US may boomerang and end up paving the way for Chinese dominance.

The evolution of the digital economy may provide some insight into how today’s AI race will play out in the wake of Trump’s policies. In the 1990s, the US led the internet revolution, dominating the pivotal “zero to one” phase by quickly moving innovations from lab to market. This fueled what many at the time lauded as the “new economy,” characterized by rapid growth, strong productivity gains, and low inflation. China, initially a follower, later injected remarkable dynamism into the digital economy by scaling its own innovative technologies.

China’s digital development unfolded in three stages. The first was copy-and-follow: from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, Chinese firms mirrored US models, launching web portals and online services that drove explosive user growth.

White Paper Offers Chinese Wisdom at the Crossroads of History

Arran Hope

Executive Summary:A new white paper titled “China’s National Security in the New Era” is targeted to both domestic and international audiences and offers “Chinese wisdom” and solutions to contemporary challenges.

In a bid for global leadership, the document frames “unstoppable” world historical trends as aligning with its mission of national rejuvenation and rebukes the United States for being a destabilizing international actor.

Claiming the world is at a “historical crossroads,” the document is a call for countries to fall in line behind its vision of ensuring peace, development, stability, and order in the international system.

For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the world is in constant, complex motion; in flux. There are “trends” (动态) and “flows” (流动). History has “tides” (历史潮流) and thought has “currents” (思潮). A scientific analysis of the world tells us that any movement in time and space has two qualities: magnitude and direction. Time moves relentlessly in one direction. Nothing else does. In some cases, the direction of travel is upward (升); in others, it is in reverse (逆). There is, however, an overall direction (大方向). The Party, in a white paper on “China’s National Security in the New Era” (新时代的中国国家安全), now tells us with confidence that that direction aligns with its vision: “The historic tide … is unstoppable; the overall direction of human development and progress, and the overall logic of world history, have not changed” (历史潮流不可阻挡，人类发展进步的大方向、世界历史曲折前进的大逻辑没有变) (State Council Information Office, May 12).

Ingrained in the Party’s ideological frame is a fear of the human vulnerabilities that exposure to unwelcome movement—turmoil (变乱) and turbulence (动荡)—brings. Its response to this fear is an overwhelming preoccupation with immovability—or, in other words, stability (稳) and order (序). (‘稳’ appears more than 70 times in the text, which runs to over 20,000 characters, and ‘序’ nearly 20.)

The Quad Should Work Together on Maritime Surveillance To Counter China

Arzan Tarapore

The Quad is not keeping pace with security needs in the Indo-Pacific. Its members—Australia, India, Japan and the United States—should step up cooperation to keep an eye on what’s going on at sea. They have the tools for this.

The partnership is already helping other countries in the Indo-Pacific to monitor their own and nearby waters. A program known as the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) provides commercially sourced imagery from satellites to regional states.

But Chinese naval activity in the Indo-Pacific is intensifying. This calls for more systematic operational coordination among the four partners, particularly by coordinating operations of and sharing information from maritime patrol aircraft, especially Boeing P-8s. The Indian Ocean is the ideal venue for this cooperation, because Chinese maritime activity is expanding there and violent disputes, such as those in the South China Sea, are absent.

Gone are the days when Indo-Pacific states needed to worry only about illegal fishing fleets. In just the past three months, China deployed a naval task group in a long-range show of force around Australia, sent a dual-use research vessel to loiter off Western Australia, and announced a new capability to cut undersea internet cables. More broadly, China maintains a high tempo of military-affiliated survey ship deployments in the Indian Ocean, signalling its intention for a greater regional military presence.

Such conventional military challenges affect all Quad members and impinge on other regional states’ national security interests. Chinese ships operating in the Indian Ocean transit through the South China Sea and the Indonesian archipelago, directly challenging Southeast Asian states’ maritime claims. They often act recklessly. For example, recent incidents include unannounced live-fire exercises in international waters as well as increasingly violent grey-zone scuffles with neighbouring states. The whole Indo-Pacific has an interest in monitoring and understanding China’s actions and demanding greater transparency from it.

Can Syria Recover?

Natasha Hall and Ninar Fawal

During his trip to the Middle East in mid-May, U.S. President Donald Trump did something extraordinary. On the Saudi leg of his four-day tour, the president issued a sweeping change to U.S. policy toward Syria. First, he announced, to riotous applause in Riyadh, that the United States would suspend all sanctions on the country as the Syrian government navigates a difficult transition following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December. The following day, Trump met publicly with Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda fighter who just months ago had a $10 million U.S. government bounty on his head. After the meeting, Trump referred to Shara as a young, attractive guy with a “strong past.”

In taking these abrupt steps, Trump skirted what in any other U.S. administration would likely have been a long and tedious policymaking process. For months, many Syrians and Syria watchers had worried that the United States might never lift its sanctions. Washington first imposed sanctions on Syria in 1979, when it declared its regime to be a state sponsor of terrorism, triggering a ban on arms sales and other restrictions on exports to the country. Congress imposed additional sanctions in the early years of the twenty-first century. After Syria’s civil war began in 2011, both the United States and Europe added further restrictions. Armed groups within Syria—some of which are now represented in the government in Damascus—were also issued terrorist designations and therefore remain subject to sanctions. Together, these measures largely cut Syria off from international trade and investment and have been a major barrier to economic recovery in the war-ravaged country.

Elon Musk Steps Down From Government Role After Criticizing Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill

Chad de Guzman

Trump senior advisor and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House, April 30, 2025.Andrew Harnik—Getty Images

Elon Musk, the billionaire tech mogul who had a near-constant presence in the tumultuous early weeks of President Donald Trump’s second-term administration, is stepping down from his official senior adviser role at the White House.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted Wednesday on the social media platform he owns, X. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

Musk’s announcement came a day after an interview clip showed him expressing dissatisfaction with Trump’s legislative priority: a giant tax-and-spending package dubbed the “big, beautiful bill.”

Like some Republican lawmakers, Musk criticized the megabill over how it would significantly raise the national debt. In an excerpt released Tuesday night of an exclusive interview with CBS that will air in full on Sunday, Musk said he was “disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases.” He added that the bill “undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”

Are Trump’s tariffs making money? Watch this chart.

President Donald Trump’s radical new tariff regime has brought in a surge of revenue from importers who must pay the higher duties. But is it enough to replace the income tax as the main source of funding for the federal government, as Trump administration officials have argued?

Treasury Department data shows that will be a massive stretch.

The United States has generated $67.9 billion this year from tariffs as of May 27, the latest data available — 77.6% more than the same time last year. Federal income taxes, meanwhile, brought in $2.4 trillion in 2024.

And the $29.7 billion difference in tariff revenue year-on-year is just part of the story. High levies can cause huge surges in revenue that later level off as trade patterns shift and businesses seek to lower costs along their supply chains.

But with Trump trying to undo the global status quo, there’s a lot to watch for. Even though plenty of attention has been put on the president’s gambit to impose — and then pause — a series of steep “reciprocal” tariffs against dozens of countries, the trade barriers he’s kept in place haven’t been this high in a century. Matters are even more complicated after Trump’s tit-for-tat escalation with China, America’s No. 3 trading partner, left tariffs on goods from that country at 145 percent.

Tracking the fluctuations in revenue over the coming weeks and months will help give a sense of what’s happening.

Ukraine’s New Way of War

Nataliya Gumenyuk

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 Sanctions Era Is Quietly Ending. The West Isn't Ready | Opinion

Brett Erickson

On May 22, the Trump administration imposed decisive sanctions against Sudan's military leaders, accusing them of using chemical weapons on the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It was certainly a morally and ethically justified action to take. However, the timing reveals a troubling paradox: while the U.S. swiftly punishes Sudan, Syria, another regime guilty of repeatedly using chemical weapons, is being quietly readmitted into the global community, effectively free from lasting consequences.

The message sent by this inconsistency isn't subtle. Sanctions are no longer seen as permanent tools of diplomacy or meaningful deterrents. They've become temporary inconveniences, political bargaining chips that regimes can simply outlast. And this is something that can't be allowed to take root.

Throughout the past decade, Bashar al-Assad's regime has employed chemical weapons, sarin and chlorine gas, in civilian areas, including well-documented attacks in Aleppo. Global outrage led to intense sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Initially, these measures worked, crippling the Syrian economy and limiting Assad's influence. But Assad held out, betting on geopolitical fatigue.

Why Donald Trump Was Right to End Houthi Strikes

Will A. Smith

The campaign against Yemen’s Houthi rebels was ineffective and costly. Now, the president should resist pressure to reengage.

When the United States launched “Operation Rough Rider” against the Houthis in mid-March, the group was targeting Israel but not U.S. ships. Around $1 billion later, the same is true today. While President Donald Trump declared victory against the Houthis in announcing his surprise ceasefire, the agreement merely restored the status quo that existed between the United States and the Houthis before the campaign.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration was right to take an offramp from what was quickly becoming an open-ended campaign with rising costs and escalation risks. However, with Houthi attacks on Israel continuing and criticism mounting, even among some of Trump’s allies, Washington could very well be drawn back in. The administration should reject pressure to “finish the job” and stand firm in its decision to walk away from the campaign.

A Futile and Costly Campaign

The campaign against the Houthis was misguided from the beginning—neither necessary to protect U.S. economic and security interests nor likely to succeed. Fundamentally, the limited economic disruption caused by Houthi attacks on shipping did not warrant costly military intervention, nor was the bombing campaign conducted by the United States capable of eliminating the Houthis’ ability to attack shipping.

Shipping firms quickly adapted to strikes on ships, rerouting vessels around Africa without major price increases for consumers, particularly in the United States. Moreover, even with the U.S.-Houthi ceasefire, most shippers do not plan on returning to the Red Sea until the Gaza War ends.

Ukraine could collapse. What will that look like?

A scenario European leaders would do well to consider, as Kyiv enters the Washington-sponsored peace process with profound frustration: with the White House determined to put an end to the war in Ukraine, the Europeans are telling Zelensky that no peace is necessary. The war can continue indefinitely, they say; and, if the Americans want out, Europe can still step in to fill the void.

But Zelensky is foolish to believe that the Europeans will save him from the forces of reality. Europe, the last bulwark of the once-insurmountable pro-war consensus, is a continent of hawks without beaks. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia with just European support. Ukraine will collapse.

Look at what will happen then. Ukraine’s predicament seems increasingly reminiscent of that of the Second Spanish Republic after its defeat at the battle of the Ebro in late 1938 destroyed any remaining hope of turning the tide.

Ukraine’s Ebro was its disastrous counteroffensive in 2023. Since then, Kyiv’s position has become more and more untenable. As the public loses the will to fight and political infighting in Kyiv becomes too loud to ignore, conditions seem increasingly ripe for a collapse of order and a grave internal crisis.

In March 1939, convinced that the war was lost and that prolonging it was causing a needless, useless loss of life, Spanish Republican officer Segismundo Casado deposed the pro-war government of Juan Negrín, leading to a collapse of the Republic and to the complete, unconditional victory of General Franco. Such fears appear more pertinent still if one considers that Zelensky is now a deeply unpopular leader, with polls suggesting he would lose a new election against former general Valeriy Zaluzhniy by as much as 25 per cent to 75 per cent of the vote.

'For Europe to become the new leader of the free world, it must act with courage and conviction'

Today, in 2025, we can sadly witness that the United States, once the steadfast leader of the free world, has increasingly and rapidly retreated from its global responsibilities. Under the new Trump administration, the US has more and more aligned itself with Vladimir Putin's authoritarian narratives, cut crucial funding for international initiatives, acted against the International Criminal Court (ICC), halted support for several journalists and threatened to expel political refugees and researchers. This retreat has left a void in global leadership, one that only the European Union (EU) can now fill.

Editorial Trump betrays Ukraine by freezing military aid

The EU has the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This means standing firmly against authoritarian regimes that suppress dissent, violate human rights and undermine democratic institutions. The EU should acknowledge its diplomatic and economic strength and use it to pressure these regimes.

The war in Ukraine, in particular, is a test of the EU's resolve. The EU must step up its support and put humanist values at the heart of peace negotiations, as called for by "People First," an international campaign led by Ukrainian and Russian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) united in calling with one voice not to forget the hostages.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum for Golden Dome To Succeed

Robert Peters

There is a huge debate going on right now in Washington regarding the electromagnetic spectrum.

The crux of the debate centers around whether the Federal government should auction additional portions of the electromagnetic spectrum to private industry, or if it should refrain from doing so in the name of national security.

The portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in question are those that fall between 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz (GHz) and 7 and 8 GHz. Telecommunication companies for years have utilized parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to deliver faster internet speeds, more reliable connectivity, and breakthroughs in artificial intelligence.

By auctioning off additional parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved to do earlier this month, the government could not only reap billions of dollars in tax revenues, but also enable advances in wireless technology in the private sector that could support the development of driverless cars, more reliable remote surgeries, or other types of technological breakthroughs.

President Trump indicated in a May 20 post that the U.S. government should auction off large chunks of the spectrum in order to ensure that the United States can remain a world-leader in 6G technologies and WiFi accessibility. These are critically important goals, and President Trump is correct that America must remain a leader in these technology areas.

PsyWar: AI Bots Manipulate Your Feelings

Robert W Malone MD, MS

The splinternet refers to the fragmentation of the internet into separate, often isolated networks due to political, cultural, technological, or commercial reasons. It describes a scenario where the internet is no longer a unified global system but is instead divided into distinct "splinters" or subnetworks. This can happen through government censorship (like China's Great Firewall), regional regulations (such as the EU's GDPR), or tech companies creating walled gardens (e.g., Apple's ecosystem).

The term highlights how these divisions limit universal access to information and create digital borders, often reflecting real-world geopolitical tensions or differing values on privacy, security, and free expression.

Elon asked a key question. This is not dark humor or sarcasm; this is today’s reality:

The crisis facing the Royal Navy

General Sir Gwyn Jenkins is stepping into the role of First Sea Lord at a difficult time, with the Royal Navy’s fleet in a sorry state.

On 22 April, Carrier Strike Group 25 (CSG25) set sail on an eight-month publicity tour, leaving British waters sparsely defended. Keir Starmer posed on the flight deck of HMS The Prince of Wales, his battleship grey hair perfectly set like a middle-aged Ken doll. He said the CSG25 shows ‘the UK’s leadership on global issues and security and defence’.

It really doesn’t.

Britain could only field one of its two carriers, one destroyer, one frigate and one attack submarine. The Royal Navy also has insufficient logistics vessels to support the deployment, with no new solid store ships expected before the end of this decade. Today, besides coastal patrol vessels, all we have to defend British shores are one seaworthy destroyer, two frigates and one attack submarine.

The Royal Navy has shrunk in the teeth of defence cuts and each new efficiency drive makes it smaller. The two Albion class landing vessels, in service for only 20 years, are laid up and negotiations about their sale to Brazil are at an advanced stage. The uplift in defence spending will mostly be swallowed by the MoD’s bloated procurement programmes, which are typically delayed and always over budget.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)