Anatomy of an Insurgency: Balochistan’s Crisis and Pakistan’s Failures

Source Link

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province, comprising 44 percent of the country’s territory, yet it has a relatively small population of approximately 14.8 million. Of this population, only 5.9 million are ethnic Baloch, with Pashtuns forming the other significant demographic group.

The province has been engulfed in an insurgency since 2006, but the conflict has recently undergone a dramatic transformation. What began as a tribal resistance movement has evolved into a formidable insurgency with separatist ambitions,

 complemented by a broader peaceful political movement. Recent escalations demonstrate both the insurgents’ growing operational capabilities and the Pakistani state’s persistent reliance on heavy-handed military responses that continue to alienate Baloch society.

Federal Overreach: The Catalyst for Modern Insurgency

The roots of contemporary unrest, according to Baloch nationalists, trace back to Pakistan’s founding when in 1948 the State of Kalat was forcibly incorporated into the federation despite local resistance. However,

 the current insurgency was catalyzed by then-President General Pervez Musharraf’s unilateral decision to construct Gwadar Port, bypassing constitutional structures including the National Assembly, Council of Common Interest, 

and the Balochistan Provincial government. This decision came despite ongoing negotiations through a Senate Committee led by Senator Mushahid Hussain, then the secretary general of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Q), that had nearly achieved consensus.

Akbar Bugti – a veteran political leader and Tumandar of the Bugti tribe who had served as chief minister, governor, 

The Implications for Global Governance of China and Russia’s Post-2022 Alignment

Evgeny Roshchin

Source Link

Executive Summary The political alignment of China and Russia is best defined as a friendship rather than a classical alliance. While they are committed to coordinating and supporting each other, the relationship does not entail the strict obligations of an alliance

There is an established imbalance in the friendship, with Russia often being seen as the Junior partner in the relationship. In the global arena, the countries act as free agents, taking independent action and occasionally expressing divergent opinions. This allows them to test institutional rules and norms as well as world public opinion, and distance themselves from the other if necessary.

The two countries emphasize multipolarity and the United Nations in their global governance strategies. However, Beijing and Moscow have different understandings of the way the system of global governance should evolve, and different priorities for international organizations and their various bodies.

While both countries voice their priorities at the UN Security Council (UNSC), they pursue differing regional policies. In Africa, Russia’s goals are narrowly protectionist of national governments, while China’s policies, which reflect its global ambition and commitment to institutions, promote development and international cooperation. Beijing and Moscow also hold significantly different views on UN reform.

Since 2022, Russia and China have transformed the role of the BRICS countries in the global arena, using its expansion to indirectly improve their own international standing. The group expanded membership and increased cooperation across policy domains, utilizing the tactics of logrolling to trade support for policy advancement.

Introduction

The Enshittification of American Power

Source Link

For decades, allies of the United States lived comfortably amid the sprawl of American hegemony. They constructed their financial institutions, communications systems, and national defense on top of infrastructure provided by the US.

And right about now, they’re probably wishing they hadn’t.

Back in 2022, Cory Doctorow coined the term “enshittification” to describe a cycle that has played out again and again in the online economy. Entrepreneurs start off making high-minded promises to get new users to try their platforms. But once users, vendors, and advertisers have been locked in—by network effects, 

insurmountable collective action problems, high switching costs—the tactics change. The platform owners start squeezing their users for everything they can get, even as the platform fills with ever more low-quality slop. Then they start squeezing vendors and advertisers too.

People don’t usually think of military hardware, the US dollar, and satellite constellations as platforms. But that’s what they are. When American allies buy advanced military technologies such as F-35 fighter jets, they’re getting not just a plane but the associated suite of communications technologies, parts supply, and technological support. When businesses engage in global finance and trade,

 they regularly route their transactions through a platform called the dollar clearing system, administered by just a handful of US-regulated institutions. And when nations need to establish internet connectivity in hard-to-reach places, 

chances are they’ll rely on a constellation of satellites—Starlink—run by a single company with deep ties to the American state, Elon Musk’s SpaceX. As with Facebook and Amazon, American hegemony is sustained by network logic, which makes all these platforms difficult and expensive to break away from.

Putin’s Game of War-Making and Bargaining Comes to End

Source Link

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fake readiness to negotiate the end of Moscow’s war against Ukraine amid its relentless attacks on Ukraine appears to be coming to a breaking point as the United States continues its efforts to build a peace agreement.

Continued North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) support for Ukraine’s defense capabilities indicates growing alignment among Western powers despite Putin’s attempts to exploit divisions in the West.

Russia’s war effort is being undercut by severe economic degradation, unsustainable military costs, and instability, illustrated by mounting battlefield losses, a shrinking defense budget, and the death of Transport Minister Roman Starovoit following his dismissal.

The combination of fake readiness to negotiate an end to Russia’s devastating war against Ukraine and relentless attacks on Ukrainian positions and cities has worked fine for Russian President Vladimir Putin for nearly half a year. Presently, however, it appears to be coming to a breaking point. The need to pretend is created by U.S. President Donald Trump’s expressed desire to end the war, 

and Putin has done his best to convert this urge into a “reset” in bilateral relations (Republic.ru, July 11). Every time Trump became disappointed and demanded “Vladimir, stop,” Putin produced flattery, messages on flexibility, and dispatched a team of negotiators (Vechernyaya Moskva, April 24). 

This game of simulation could not continue indefinitely, and the meeting on July 10 between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, marked perhaps Russia’s last attempt to prolong it for a few more weeks (Nezavisimaya gazeta, July 10).

Countering Russian Cruise Missiles and Long-Range Drones

Source Link

Over the past week, Russia has launched over 1,800 Geran-2 (the indigenized version of the Iranian Shahed-136) alongside decoy long-range drones. This marks a sharp increase in the average intensity of long-range drone attacks per day, peaking at 728 combined drones and decoys on 9 July. This is on top of dozens of cruise and ballistic missiles being launched at Ukraine.

Beyond the quantitative increase, Russia has recently introduced qualitative changes that both enhance the lethality of its long-range drones and make them harder to intercept (while likely also making them more expensive).

This post reviews recent developments in the long-range drone domain and assesses the capacity of the Western defense industrial base to respond to airbreathing missile threats, including Geran-2-type drones and land-attack cruise missiles.

It is the second part of my analysis of Europe’s missile defense capabilities in the context of Russia’s growing missile production. Last week’s post examined Russian ballistic missile capabilities and Western missile defense. You can access it here.

Thanks for reading Missile Matters — with Fabian Hoffmann! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribe

Qualitative Russian long-range drone and cruise missile developments

Iran and the Logic of Limited Wars

Raphael S. Cohen,

Source Link

Israel’s air war against Iran—“Operation Rising Lion”—may be over, but the controversy surrounding the attacks lives on. One key question is whether the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, 

dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” succeeded in obliterating the deeply buried Fordow site or merely incapacitated it for a few months. The extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is, of course,

important from an operational perspective. But the broader critique—that the 12-day air campaign was somehow foolhardy because it may not have permanently destroyed the Iranian nuclear program—misses the point.

Operation Rising Lion was a limited war fought with limited means for an even more limited period—all of which, in turn, means that the campaign’s objectives were also limited. The campaign, therefore,

 needs to be judged against the alternative strategies—engaging in a longer, more protracted campaign or doing nothing militarily and sticking with diplomatic options. And by that measure, the operation was a success.

From Tanks to TikTok: Adapting Article 5 for Graduated Responses to Hybrid Warfare

Ciprian Clipa 

Source Link

The Soviet-era bronze statue in Tallinn was relocated long ago, but the cyberattack it precipitated in 2007 has overhauled NATO’s approach to collective security. When Russian-linked hackers debilitated Estonia’s digital infrastructure following riots sparked by the controversial relocation,

 NATO members were forced to reconcile with the fact that Article 5, the cornerstone of collective defense, was crafted to respond to conventional threats — like tanks rolling over the borders of member states — rather than ambiguous hybrid attacks. But what use was it now against enemies who could use keyboards, ethnic tensions, and commercial vessels as weapons to elicit strategic effect, even without firing a shot?

Today, as Russian hybrid attacks against NATO members have nearly tripled, the Alliance faces an urgent question: How should collective defense evolve when adversaries deliberately operate in the gray zone between war and peace? The answer requires rethinking Article 5, not by abandoning its principles but by adapting its application to confront threats that are increasingly hybrid, persistent, and ambiguous.

Russian military doctrine views hybrid warfare (гибридная война, gibridnaya voina) as a systematic strategy integrating conventional and special-operations forces, cyber- and electronic-warfare strikes, information-psychological operations, economic coercion, political subversion, energy manipulation, and proxy forces to achieve strategic objectives while maintaining plausible deniability. 

While Estonia’s 2007 cyber siege captured global attention, Russia has since turned the Wider Black Sea Region into its main laboratory for refining hybrid warfare tactics. The 2008 synchronized cyber and kinetic operations against Georgia demonstrated Moscow’s evolving playbook, notably by combining traditional military force with digital attacks to multiply strategic effects. 

Drones Are The New “Bullets”! U.S. Plans To Leapfrog Rivals With Low-Cost Drones In Radical Policy Shift

Sumit Ahlawat

Source Link

Treat drones like bullets and “small munitions more than high-end airplanes.” This was the most crucial message from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he signed a new memo, signaling far-reaching changes to the Pentagon’s UAV policy, that can have a significant impact on how the US conducts warfare in the coming years and decades.

Launching the US’s boldest military drone modernization effort to date, Hegseth has ordered the removal of any policies that slow down the development and deployment of drones.

Pointing out that drone technology is advancing rapidly and acknowledging that the adversaries of the US are collectively producing millions of cheap drones every year, Hegseth has directed the US armed forces to equip combat units with a wide range of low-cost drones.

Notably, this year, Russia has set a target of producing four million drones, while Ukraine is aiming to produce 4.5 million drones.

Hegseth blamed the red tape of previous administrations for the US military units lacking lethal combat drones required by modern warfare.

“I am rescinding restrictive policies that hindered production and limited access to these vital technologies, unleashing the combined potential of American manufacturing and warfighter ingenuity,” he wrote.

The memo makes far-reaching changes to the US drone policy.

The Tectonic Shift In US Drone Policy

Supporting US Drone Industry: In the memo, Hegseth demonstrated a commitment to protecting and developing the US’s domestic drone industry.

“Our overt preference is to Buy American…we will power a technological leapfrog, arming our combat units with a variety of low-cost drones made by America’s world-leading engineers and AI experts,” Hegseth wrote in the memo.

Russia’s Taliban Recognition Signals Potential Domino Effect

Islomkhon Gafarov

Source Link

The Russian Federation’s formal recognition of the Taliban government on July 3 may fundamentally reshape the international community’s approach to Afghanistan. Since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, 

the regime has made notable diplomatic gains over nearly four years. Unlike the first Taliban government (1996–2001), which received recognition primarily from within the Islamic world, the current recognition by a major non-Islamic power underscores a new, more pragmatic and proactive direction in the Taliban’s foreign policy – what might be termed “Taliban 2.0.”

Impacts of Russia’s Taliban Recognition

The appointment of a Taliban ambassador to Moscow, the raising of the Taliban flag on Russian soil, and the official recognition of the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government carry significant geopolitical implications.

First, the Taliban have secured recognition from a major global power not on the basis of religious or ideological affinity, but through strategic, political, and economic considerations. This constitutes a significant diplomatic victory for the Taliban and suggests that the regime exhibits core features of statehood and sovereign governance.

Second, this recognition comes from a leading representative of Slavic civilization – a region with which Afghanistan has historically had adversarial relations, particularly during the Soviet era. Yet, both sides have demonstrated the ability to move beyond historical grievances, engaging instead in forward-looking diplomacy driven by realism and mutual interests.

Third, Russia’s move may shift the global framing of Afghanistan – from a problem primarily viewed through the lens of regional security to one integrated into the broader geopolitical tensions between East and West. As Western powers continue to disengage from Afghanistan, Moscow’s recognition could pave the way for greater partnerships between Kabul and Eastern capitals.

Why Force Fails to Stop Nuclear Proliferation

Source Link

For a third time in four decades, warplanes have tried to bomb a Middle Eastern nuclear program into submission. The most recent attempt began with an Israeli air campaign against Iran on June 13. Then, 

in the early morning hours of June 22, seven U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers unleashed 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear sites. The United States’ primary targets were the deeply buried enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, as well as a nuclear technology center at Isfahan.

Washington declared the mission, called Operation Midnight Hammer, a resounding success; President Donald

Finish reading this article for free

Enter your email and we’ll send a paywall-free link directly to your inbox.

Is America Breaking the Global Economy?

Source Link

The global economy is, to put it mildly, in a state of flux. Before the most recent U.S. elections, it was already being buffeted by geopolitical shocks and the prospect of transformative technological innovations. 

But now, it also has to endure an unusually high amount of policy volatility from the world’s most powerful country. The result has been a roller coaster not just for bonds and equities but also for economic forecasters and policymakers.

At a deeper level, this turmoil has called into question consensus narratives about the United States. Long-standing assumptions that underpin the choices households, companies,

Finish reading this article for free

Enter your email and we’ll send a paywall-free link directly to your inbox.

ck your browser's developer console for more details.

Digitize or die: Ukraine’s war is a wake-up call for 20th century militaries

Kateryna Chernohorenko

Source Link

A Ukrainian serviceman uses the internet on his smartphone at a base in the Donetsk region on February 23, 2023, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Photo by YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP via Getty Images)

Four years ago, I was managing digital services for newborn registration and COVID certificates in the Ukrainian government. We were building a government in a smartphone. In fact, we were among the first in the world to move so much public administration fully online. Back then, digital transformation was about convenience.

But then Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, the stakes were different. Our job was no longer about convenience — it was about survival.

We faced not only an invasion of our territories, but also a war unlike any seen before: where technology, data, and logistics mattered as much as troops and weapons. That’s when we confronted a truth few militaries want to admit: Bureaucracy kills. Not metaphorically. Literally.

Delays aren’t just inefficiencies — they’re casualties. And the tools you use to move information — whether it’s a form, a request, or a call for help — are just as essential as the weapons in your arsenal.

In 2022, it became painfully clear that no amount of courage or firepower could compensate for outdated processes and broken logistics. Paper forms, manual approvals, soldiers waiting weeks to change units, citizens queuing at recruitment offices for hours, just to confirm basic data. We were losing time, and time in war is oxygen.

In His Own Words: How Trump Changed His Tone on Putin and the War in Ukraine

Minho Kim

Source Link

President Trump’s harsh words in recent days about President Vladimir V. Putin marked a sharp break from the strikingly positive posture he has taken for years toward the Russian leader.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly praised Mr. Putin and predicted the two men would forge a productive relationship. When Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine in 2022, Mr. Trump called Mr. Putin a “genius” for moving to seize large swaths of territory — applauding what he viewed as hard-line negotiation tactics.

“How smart is that? And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper,” Mr. Trump said, adding: “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy. I know him very well.”

As Mr. Putin’s army slaughtered civilians in a Ukrainian suburb and abducted Ukrainian children to Russia, Mr. Trump called such actions “terrible,” but stressed that he “got along with him really well.” Mr. Putin responded with his own compliments, saying that he couldn’t “help but feel happy about” Mr. Trump’s continued support for a negotiated peace favorable to Russia.

Many of Mr. Trump’s comments about Mr. Putin have reflected his anger about the U.S. investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election that dominated his first term.

“Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,” he said in February, seated next to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in the Oval Office.

Open Dialogue | Li Cheng and Andy Browne discuss what Trump gets wrong about China and where next for ties

Source Link

Welcome to Open Dialogue, a new series from the Post where we bring together leading voices to discuss the stories and subjects occupying international headlines.

In this edition, two leading China watchers discuss the consequential relationship between the world’s two largest economies and how ties might develop under the second Donald Trump administration amid growing trade frictions.

Professor Li Cheng, a leading political scientist who has studied China for decades, is the founding director of the University of Hong Kong’s Centre on Contemporary China and the World. He previously spent 17 years at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, which included heading up the think tank’s John L. Thornton China Centre.

Andrew Browne is an award-winning journalist who has covered China for The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters and the South China Morning Post. More recently, he was a partner at advisory firm The Brunswick Group, where he advised some of the world’s largest companies on geopolitical strategy from his New York base.

The past few months have been a roller-coaster ride for US-China relations, beginning with President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, followed by the tit-for-tat trade war and then trade negotiations.

What are your assessments of the health of bilateral ties and how do you see things unfolding?

Li: China certainly feels that the pressure is not just on China. Of course, China is a major trading partner of the US, but the US is not China’s No 1 or No 2 trading partner and trade with the US is only 16 per cent of China’s entire foreign trade – we should put that into perspective.

Under Attack by Trump’s Tariffs, Asian Countries Seek Out Better Friends

Lydia DePillis

Source Link

For most countries that received President Trump’s letters last week threatening steep tariffs, especially the Asian nations with economies focused on supplying the United States, there are no obvious substitutes as a destination for their goods.

But they are doing their best to find them.

Business and political leaders around the world have been roundly baffled by the White House’s imposition of new duties, even as governments shuttled envoys back and forth to Washington offering new purchases and pledges of reform. Mr. Trump is erecting new trade barriers and demanding deep concessions by Aug. 1, claiming years of grievance because America buys more than it sells.

“Across the world, tools once used to generate growth are now wielded to pressure, isolate and contain,” Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister of Malaysia, said at a gathering of Southeast Asian leaders on Wednesday. “As we navigate external pressures, we need to fortify our foundations. Trade among ourselves. Invest more in one another.”

Partners in Deterrence: China and Russia’s Deepening Military-Technical Ties

Daniel Balazs

Source Link

In early May, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Moscow to meet with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and to participate in the Victory Day parade commemorating the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. The two leaders issued a joint statement, expressing their opposition to U.S. defense initiatives such as the Golden Dome and AUKUS, 

which they deem threats to global strategic stability. They also committed “to enhancing the coordination of their approaches and to deepening the practical cooperation on maintaining and strengthening global strategic stability.”

The leaders did not specify the exact ways of this practical cooperation. A scrutiny of Sino-Russian military cooperation in recent years, however, reveals that there are several military-technical cooperation channels and projects — trade of arms and dual-use items, 

missile defense, submarine and helicopter development — that could be strengthened following their proclaimed effort to deepen cooperation. Advances in these areas have the potential to significantly alter the balance of capabilities in the U.S.-China-Russia strategic triangle.

Sino-Russian Military-Technical Cooperation: An Elusive Framework

China and Russia reject the idea of formal military alliances and refer to each other as strategic partners instead. Nevertheless, they still share a military partnership that relies on institutionalized interactions.

At the highest level, Xi and Putin often issue joint statements that form the guiding principles of military cooperation. At the same time, China and Russia have a Strategic Security Consultation, 

America Beware: China Is Planning to Churn Out New Fighter Jets Like iPhones

Brandon J. Weichert

Source Link

Heaven help the Americans if great power war ever comes to their doorstep. The United States’ biggest geostrategic foe—China—has become a technological dynamo and a mass production leviathan, even as it has encountered significant political and economic headwinds of its own in recent years.

After being the industrial base of the world for decades, as well as the second-largest economy, Beijing is deciding to turn its productive might into building a defense arms industry that will rival that of the United States.

China Has Turned Mass Production Into a Science

This isn’t speculative, either.

Evidence from this year alone abounds showing how prolific China’s defense arms industry is becoming worldwide. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May, Chinese weapons and warplanes used by the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) performed better than expected against the Western-provided platforms employed by the Indian military. Since then, interest in Chinese arms exports has exploded around the world.

Now, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), a key builder of major Chinese warplanes, might be moving into a massive 280,000 square meter facility. SAC produces China’s J-15, J-16, J-35, and J-50 warplanes. These are direct challenges to multiple Western warplanes on the global arms export market, notably systems, like the F-16 or the American fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II.

The US Airstrikes Won’t Stop Iran’s Proxy Wars

Stephen Cimbala, and Lawrence J. Korb

Source Link

The US military strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities in late June presented a picture of military excellence that surprised Iran and much of the international community. The operation featured the most extensive use to date of B-2 spirit bombers in any single operation to attack Iranian targets at Fordow and Natanz with highly accurate GBU-57 (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) bombs.

In addition, a US submarine fired some thirty Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) against surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan. According to Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan (Razin) Cane, Operation Midnight Hammer involved more than 125 aircraft,

 including seven B-2 stealth bombers, numerous fourth and fifth-generation fighters, and dozens of refueling tankers. Some 75 precision-guided munitions were used in Midnight Hammer, including fourteen GBU-57 MOPs used for the first time in combat.

What Are the After-Effects of the US Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Sites?

How much of an impact the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities would have on Iran’s future strategy and policy is a larger and more important topic. Authoritarian regimes based on solipsistic definitions of their historical achievements and myopic expectations of manifest destiny think in terms of years or even generations.

For Iran, the United States is the Great Satan and Israel its puppet. Iran also aspires to become the dominant power in the Middle East, eventually surpassing its Sunni rival, Saudi Arabia. In the view of the ayatollahs, becoming a nuclear weapons state would validate Iran’s claim to regional hegemony and establish a deterrent against Israeli nuclear coercion or first use. Mated to longer-range ballistic missiles, Iran’s nukes could cast a coercive or deterrent shadow not only across the Middle East but also over much of Europe and even North America.

Israel’s twelve-day war against Iran had set back its military capabilities even before the United States entered the fray. Significant destruction was inflicted on Iran’s ballistic missile force, its air defenses, its command and control, and its military and political leadership.

Marco Rubio Drops the Hammer

Charlton Allen

Source Link

In a long-overdue repudiation of international lawfare cloaked as human rights work, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has slapped sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the United Nations’s so-called “special rapporteur” for Palestinian territories, whose tenure has been the epitome of anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Israeli provocation theatre.

Albanese, an Italian academic turned ideological inquisitor, was appointed in 2022 by the United Nations Human Rights Council—a body whose moral compass spins like it was borrowed from James Comey, Crossfire Hurricane edition.

Among its current members: China, Cuba, Sudan, and South Africa—a rogue’s gallery of surveillance states, strongmen, and serial rights abusers, nations that take a brief respite from oppressing their own citizens to lecture the West on justice.

From this perch, Albanese hasn’t monitored human rights so much as targeted them, channeling her mandate into a scorched-earth crusade against America, Israel, and the corporations that dare do business with either.

Her latest gambit? A 2025 report accusing Israel of “genocide,” targeting U.S. and European firms as complicit, and demanding the criminal prosecution of Western citizens and corporations.

The timing was grotesque: the report dropped amid the 2025 Israel-Iran war, as Hamas rockets flew, Israeli jets responded, U.S. forces struck Iranian nuclear sites, and President Donald Trump was brokering a ceasefire to bring lasting peace to the region.

Undaunted by reality, Albanese wrote as if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were a humanitarian NGO and Lockheed Martin the real aggressor.

Netanyahu is playing Trump with his ridiculous Nobel peace prize nomination

Source Link

“Benjamin Netanyahu nominates Donald Trump for Nobel peace prize”– that headline seems to have been pulled straight out of the satirical news outlet the Onion. But it’s 100% real news: the Israeli prime minister who has been indicted by the international criminal court for alleged war crimes in Gaza has proposed the US president, his largest weapons supplier and strongest political backer, as a candidate for the world’s top peacemaking prize.

It’s absurd, akin to nominating one’s drug dealer for the Nobel prize in medicine. But there’s a cynical logic behind Netanyahu’s publicity stunt: he is exploiting Trump’s need for flattery to prolong Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and to continue attacking other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, 

Lebanon and Yemen. Before Netanyahu showed up for dinner at the White House on Monday with a copy of his Nobel nomination letter, Trump was eager to announce a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas this week.

Taken aback by Netanyahu’s gesture, Trump backed off on pressuring the Israeli leader to reach an agreement with Hamas. And Netanyahu wins yet again by playing for time, as he has done since the Hamas attack on southern Israel in October 2023. The prime minister has repeatedly sabotaged negotiations to stay in power.

 He wants to keep his extremist government coalition intact so he can avoid early parliamentary elections, which his Likud party is likely to lose, and to block an independent investigation into his administration’s security failures that led up to the Hamas attack. But most of all, Netanyahu wants to save himself: he’s clinging to power to avoid a bribery and corruption trial that is rooted in one of his earlier stints as premier.

A new strategy for destroying Hamas?

David Horovitz

Source Link

US President Donald Trump wants to end the war in Gaza as soon as possible. “We’ve got to get that solved,” he told his cabinet on Tuesday. A deal is close at hand, he indicated. Both Israel and Hamas want it, he said.

Added the president’s most trusted envoy, Steve Witkoff: “We think it will lead to a lasting peace in Gaza.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was hurriedly called back to the White House, a day after he, his team and his wife had dinner there. He left more than an hour later, with both he and Trump, uncharacteristically, eschewing meetings with the media before, during or after their talk, at which Vice President JD Vance was also present.

Happy, smiling pictures were released, however, including one showing Netanyahu holding a baseball cap emblazoned, “Trump was right about everything!”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Editionby email and never miss our top stories

Newsletter email addressGet it

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a cap with the message “Trump was right about everything!,” in a photo posted by the White House on July 8, 2025, after Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Donald Trump. (via X)

Netanyahu has not been prepared to back a one-time deal to end the war in exchange for all the hostages because he fears, he says, that the US and international community will not permit Israel to resume fighting Hamas, when, as it inevitably will, it breaches the terms of any permanent ceasefire.

Independent Thinking: One year hard Labour: Why is the UK so difficult to govern?

Source Link

After a crisis week for Britain’s ruling Labour Party, host Bronwen Maddox and Chatham House’s Olivia Sullivan are joined by economist Professor Stephen Millard and pollster Joe Twyman to look at the foreign and domestic challenges facing the country just one year after Keir Starmer won a landslide election victory.

About Independent Thinking

Independent Thinking is a weekly international affairs podcast hosted by our director Bronwen Maddox, in conversation with leading policymakers, journalists, and Chatham House experts providing insight on the latest international issues.

Independent Thinking: One year hard Labour: Why is the UK so difficult to govern?

Olivia Sullivan, Stephen Millard and Joe Twyman join the podcast to discuss the state of the UK one year on from Keir Starmer’s election win.

AUDIOPUBLISHED 4 JULY 2025 30 MINUTE LISTEN

Show authors

After a crisis week for Britain’s ruling Labour Party, host Bronwen Maddox and Chatham House’s Olivia Sullivan are joined by economist Professor Stephen Millard and pollster Joe Twyman to look at the foreign and domestic challenges facing the country just one year after Keir Starmer won a landslide election victory.

About Independent Thinking

Independent Thinking is a weekly international affairs podcast hosted by our director Bronwen Maddox, in conversation with leading policymakers, journalists, and Chatham House experts providing insight on the latest international issues.

AI is polluting truth in journalism. Here’s how to disrupt the misinformation feedback loop.

Susan D’Agostino 

Source Link

As a journalist, I’ve spent years reporting on artificial intelligence. I’ve traveled to four continents to interview headline-making AI luminaries and unsung researchers doing vital work,

 as well as ethicists, engineers, and everyday people who have been helped or harmed by these systems. Along the way, I’ve been a journalism fellow focused on AI at Columbia, Oxford’s Reuters Institute, and the Mila-Quebec AI Institute.

And still, I find myself unsettled. Headlines about AI in journalism swing between clickbait panic and sober alarm. They can feel speculative, even sci-fi—but also urgent and intimate:

“Your phone buzzes with a news alert. But what if AI wrote it—and it’s not true?” an editor at The Guardian wrote.

“It looked like a reliable news site. It was an AI chop shop,” two reporters at the New York Times wrote.

“News sites are getting crushed by Google’s new AI tools,” two reporters at the Wall Street Journal wrote.

Misinformation is hardly a modern invention, but with AI as an amplifier, it now spreads faster, adapts smarter, and arguably hits harder than before. This surge comes as independent journalism—the traditional counterweight to falsehood—faces economic decline, shrinking newsrooms, and eroding public trust.

Every time a falsehood is shared in outrage or belief, it signals demand, and the information marketplace may respond with even more invented nonsense. On the supply side, bad actors who leverage misinformation to widen societal and political divides have emerged as “the most severe global risk” in the years ahead, according to a 2024 World Economic Forum Global Risks Report. You may or may not agree with that last statement. But most can agree: AI is disrupting the world’s information ecosystem.

Tailored and Time Constrained: Key Considerations for Military Innovators

Christopher Jordan 

Source Link

Those who innovate well find success, while those who do not become cautionary tales. When discussing military innovation, there are many considerations. The most important considerations that influence military innovation are that the innovation must solve a problem and that no innovation provides a permanent advantage. 

When evaluating military innovation, and thinking about how to approach future innovations, an interconnected focus on doctrine, organization, technology, and tactics, or the DOTT framework, provides an effective lens.

Innovation does not occur in a vacuum. Military innovation, as a strategic study, requires a link between a theory and practice. Put simply, military innovation should seek to overcome existing battlefield dilemmas and create new dilemmas for one’s foes. History demonstrates that good innovations come from theories that are tailored to solve specific problems. At the same time, theories that seek a panacea tend to fare poorly.

The improvements in combined arms warfare is an example of innovation overcoming a specific problem. Immediately after World War I (WWI), the defense appeared to be the dominant form of warfare. Trench warfare, accurate predicted artillery fire, and machine guns made the battlefield static. Static battlefields fuel wars of attrition, in which both sides seek to exhaust their foes.

German leaders, like General Hans von Seeckt, responded by developing a new doctrine to “wage offensive warfare even against larger enemy armies and letting it aim at a decisive battle of annihilation against the enemy.” For the Germans, innovation occurred because a new problem, static trench warfare, needed to be overcome.

Though faced with the same dilemmas of trench warfare, the British in the interwar period did not innovate as well as their German counterparts. British failure seems especially galling since J.F.C. Fuller, one of the leading advocates for armored combined arms warfare, 

The Human Element

Andrew Latham

Source Link

In the 1990s, the military world buzzed with the promise of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA), heralding a new era defined by cutting-edge technology and transformative strategies. Yet, as history has shown, 

the anticipated seismic shifts in warfare were often overstated, overshadowed by the enduring truths of human nature and the timeless nature of war. Today, as we stand on the brink of another supposed RMA driven by drones and artificial intelligence, we must confront a harsh and enduring reality: the nature of war remains unchanged. 

The human element—our motivations, fears, and decisions—continues to shape the battlefield far more than any technological advancement ever could. This article argues that, much like the RMA of the past, the current fixation on technological innovation risks neglecting the enduring centrality of the human element that has defined the very nature of war down though the ages and across the globe.

The 1990s RMA was characterized by an overwhelming belief that technology would redefine how wars were fought. Proponents argued that precision-guided munitions, advanced surveillance systems, and network-centric warfare would render traditional military strategies obsolete. However, as conflicts unfolded in the years that followed, 

it became clear that while technology could enhance capabilities, it could not replace the human judgment and adaptability that are essential in warfare. The Gulf War showcased the effectiveness of high-tech weaponry,

 but subsequent engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed the limitations of relying solely on technology in complex, asymmetric conflicts. The human element—understanding the local populace, navigating cultural dynamics, and making ethical decisions—remained paramount.