The Dalai Lama Succession: Religious Tradition, Geopolitical Contest And Implications For South Asia – Analysis

Nirupama Rao

Source Link

The succession of the 14th Dalai Lama has become a pivotal issue at the intersection of religion and geopolitics. 

Traditionally guided by Tibetan Buddhist rituals, this sacred process is now entangled in a web of complications.

The Dalai Lama has confirmed that his lineage will continue and that his reincarnation will be born in a “free country”, 

identified strictly through religious procedures under his personal office. Conversely, the Chinese government asserts authority over the succession process. 

This scenario raises the likelihood of two rival Dalai Lamas, with significant implications for India, regional stability and global diplomacy.

Tibetan Buddhism determines the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation through visions, omens, oracle consultations and recognition tests administered by senior lamas. 

A committee traditionally searches for boys born around the time of the previous Dalai Lama’s death, 

guided by spiritual signs and visions (often from sacred sites like Lhamo La-tso lake in Tibet). Candidates are tested by their ability to recognise objects from their predecessors’ life. 

The current (14th) Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was discovered in 1939 through such methods. Historically, 

Tibetans have rejected the Qing-imposed ‘Golden Urn’ lottery system (1793), used only sparingly and under duress, as contrary to spiritual discernment.

China begins building world's largest dam, fuelling fears in India

Source Link

Chinese authorities have begun constructing what will be the world's largest hydropower dam in Tibetan territory, in a project that has sparked concerns from India and Bangladesh.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang presided over a ceremony marking the start of construction on the Yarlung Tsangpo river on Saturday, according to local media.

The river flows through the Tibetan plateau. The project has attracted criticism for its potential impact on millions of Indians and Bangladeshis living downriver, as well as the surrounding environment and local Tibetans.

Beijing says the scheme, costing an estimated 1.2tn yuan ($167bn; £125bn), will prioritise ecological protection and boost local prosperity.

When completed, the project - also known as the Motuo Hydropower Station - will overtake the Three Gorges dam as the world's largest, and could generate three times more energy.

Experts and officials have flagged concerns that the new dam would empower China to control or divert the trans-border Yarlung Tsangpo, which flows south into India's Arunachal Pradesh and Assam states as well as Bangladesh, where it feeds into the Siang, Brahmaputra and Jamuna rivers.

A 2020 report published by the Lowy Institute, an Australian-based think tank, noted that "control over these rivers [in the Tibetan Plateau] effectively gives China a chokehold on India's economy".

In an interview with news agency PTI earlier this month, Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Pema Khandu expressed concern that the Siang and Brahmaputra could "dry up considerably" once the dam was completed.

He added that the dam was "going to cause an existential threat to our tribes and our livelihoods. It is quite serious because China could even use this as a sort of 'water bomb'".

Security News This Week: China’s Salt Typhoon Hackers Breached the US National Guard for Nearly a Year

Lily Hay Newman, Andy Greenberg, and Dell Cameron

Source Link

After reporting last week that the “raw” Jeffrey Epstein prison video posted by the FBI was likely modified in at least some ways (though there is no evidence that the footage was deceptively manipulated), 

WIRED reported on Tuesday that metadata analysis of the video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is facing controversy over DNA samples taken from approximately 133,000 migrant children and teens that the department added to a criminal database. Meanwhile, 

researcher Jeremiah Fowler published findings this week that more than 2 GB of extremely sensitive adoption-related data—including information about biological parents, children, and adoptive parents—was exposed and publicly accessible on the open internet.

Roblox’s new Trusted Connections feature includes age verification that uses AI to scan teens’ video selfies and determine whether they can be granted access to unfiltered chatting with people they know. 

And as video deepfake capabilities mature—including AI tools that can even manipulate live video footage—AI “nudify” platforms are drawing millions of users and generating millions of dollars in revenue using tech from US companies.

And there’s more. Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there.

China’s Salt Typhoon Hackers Breached the US National Guard for Nearly a Year

How the BRICS countries destroyed their potential

Mani Basharzad @ManiBasharzad

Source Link

Nietzsche once wrote, ‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him’. In the case of the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, 

Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (BRICS), the first two lines apply – but not the third. We didn’t kill it. The BRICS project was a slow-motion suicide from the start.

The 17th BRICS summit took place in Rio de Janeiro on July 6 and 7, and if this is the first time you’re hearing about it, 

you’re not alone. The event passed largely unnoticed. Neither Xi Jinping nor Vladimir Putin showed up.

Vladimir Putin, who once boldly claimed that BRICS, not the West, would drive global economic growth, was absent. 

Speculation points to the risk of arrest under an International Criminal Court warrant, given Brazil’s membership of the court. 

Xi’s absence marked his first no-show in over a decade. It’s a symbolic moment: if two of its leading figures don’t even attend the summit, what kind of future can BRICS really claim?

The original illusion

All the countries in BRICS that experienced high growth did so with the help of the US market. After their initial period of catching up,

 they seemed to forget this. They thought they could now do it on their own and ‘play God’ for the other members – an illusion from the start. There’s a reason Deng Xiaoping, 

once Mao’s right hand, wore a cowboy hat during his 1979 state visit. The so-called economic miracle was made possible by the US and the West.

Serbia As Gateway For Russian Oil In Balkans, While US Imposes 100% Tariffs On Russian Oil Buyers – OpEd

Dr. Gurakuç Kuçi

Source Link

On the same day the United States announced the potential imposition of 100% tariffs on any buyer of Russian oil, 

a measure that includes secondary sanctions on countries maintaining cooperation with Moscow, Serbia, Russia, 

and Hungary signed a new agreement to construct an oil pipeline connecting Belgrade to the Hungarian network. 

This is no coincidence. It is a calculated countermove by Moscow and a deliberate act of strategic engagement by Serbia within the Russia-Hungary energy axis.

On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on the Serbian oil company NIS (Naftna Industrija Srbije), 

more than 56% of whose shares are controlled by Gazprom Neft and Gazprom. However, to prevent the immediate collapse of Serbia’s internal supply, the U.S. 

granted temporary waivers (until July 29, 2025) to allow a transition from Russian oil to alternative sources. Yet Serbia did not abandon Russian oil supply; on the contrary, it changed the route and the means of transportation.

The pipeline that will connect Serbia to Hungary’s supply system is not a neutral project. It represents:An evasion of EU and U.S. checkpoints by passing through a state (Hungary) that is already a strategic ally of Moscow.

The establishment of a secure route for Moscow to channel oil into Southeastern Europe, with Serbia acting as a buffer zone and friendly territory.

An increase in Russia’s independence from traditional distribution networks, helping bypass risky or sanctioned routes.

Russian nuclear weapons, 2025

Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, Mackenzie Knight-Boyle 

Source Link

Russia is in the late stages of a multi-decade-long modernization program to replace all of its Soviet-era nuclear-capable systems with newer versions. 

However, this program is facing significant challenges that will further delay the entry into force of these newer systems. 

In this issue of the Nuclear Notebook, we estimate that Russia now possesses approximately 4,309 nuclear warheads for its strategic and non-strategic nuclear forces. 

Although the number of Russian strategic launchers is not expected to change significantly in the foreseeable future, 

the number of warheads assigned to them might increase. The significant increase in non-strategic nuclear weapons that the Pentagon predicted five years ago has so far not materialized. 

A nuclear weapons storage site in Belarus appears to be nearing completion. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: 

director Hans M. Kristensen, associate director Matt Korda, and senior research associates Eliana Johns and Mackenzie Knight.

This article is freely available in PDF format in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ digital magazine (published by Taylor & Francis) at this link. To cite this article, 

please use the following citation, adapted to the appropriate citation style: Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, 

Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight, Russian Nuclear Weapons, 2025, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 81:3, 208-237, DOI:

United States nuclear weapons, 2025

Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, Mackenzie Knight-Boyle

Source Link

The United States has embarked on a wide-ranging nuclear modernization program that will ultimately see every nuclear delivery system replaced with newer versions over the coming decades. 

In this issue of the Nuclear Notebook, we estimate that the United States maintains a stockpile of approximately 3,700 warheads—an unchanged estimate from the previous year. Of these, only about 1,770 warheads are deployed, 

while approximately 1,930 are held in reserve. Additionally, approximately 1,477 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement, giving a total inventory of approximately 5,177 nuclear warheads. 

Of the approximately 1,770 warheads that are deployed, 400 are on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, roughly 970 are on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 300 are at bomber bases in the United States, 

and approximately 100 tactical bombs are at European bases. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: 

director Hans M. Kristensen, associate director Matt Korda, and senior research associates Eliana Johns and Mackenzie Knight.

This article is freely available in PDF format in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ digital magazine (published by Taylor & Francis) at this link. To cite this article, 

please use the following citation, adapted to the appropriate citation style: Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, 

Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight. 2025. “United States nuclear weapons, 2025.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 

He's a madman": Trump's team frets about Netanyahu after Syria strikes

Source Link

A second senior U.S. official also pointed to the shelling of a church in Gaza this week, which led President Trump to call Netanyahu and demand an explanation. "The feeling is that every day there is something new. What the f***?"

A third U.S. official said there's growing skepticism inside the Trump administration about Netanyahu — a sense that his trigger finger is too itchy and he's too disruptive. "Netanyahu is sometimes like a child who just won't behave."

Why it matters: Six U.S. officials tell Axios that despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire that halted this week's escalation in Syria on Friday, this week ended with the White House significantly more alarmed about Netanyahu and his regional policies.

However, Trump has so far refrained from public criticism and it's unclear if he shares his advisers' frustrations. It is not totally clear whether he shares his advisers' recent concerns about Israel's actions in Syria.

Driving the news: On Tuesday, Israel bombed a convoy of Syrian army tanks en route to the city of Suwayda to respond to violent clashes between a Druze militia and armed Bedouin tribesmen, 

which had killed over 700 people as of Saturday according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Israel claimed the convoy crossed into a zone of southern Syria it demands be demilitarized, and that the Syrian military was participating in attacks on the Druze minority, 

which Syria denies.

U.S. envoy Tom Barrack asked his Israeli counterparts on Tuesday to stand down to allow for a diplomatic resolution, and the Israelis committed to do so, according to a U.S. official.

Instead, after a pause, Israel escalated the strikes. On Wednesday, Israel dropped bombs on Syria's military headquarters and near the presidential palace.

The Geopolitics of Code: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of American Soft Power

Kamran Bokhari,  Mark Polyak

Source Link

We are in the midst of a historic geopolitical transformation, which necessitates that the United States develop a foreign policy approach that prioritizes technological dominance as part of its core objectives. 

Amid the thunderous noise over Washington’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, the global trade war, the intensifying US-China competition, 

and more recently, the Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan wars, the levers of influence are changing. As traditional humanitarian and military assistance is scaled back, 

the United States and its competitors are increasingly seeking to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) as a means of projecting power. 

The Trump administration has already begun a seismic shift from the status quo, but it will require a comprehensive grand strategy to ensure continued global dominance of the American suite of technologies.

US State and Commerce Department officials have quietly been assessing Chinese artificial intelligence programs in terms of their output conforming to the ruling Communist Party’s official line, 

Reuters reported on July 9. These assessments underscore the US-China competition over the deployment of large language models (LLMs). According to the documents shared with the wire service, 

American officials have recently been testing models, including Alibaba’s Qwen 3 and DeepSeek’s R1, 

scoring the models according to whether they engaged with the questions or not, and how closely their answers aligned with Beijing’s talking points when they did engage. 

The findings show that the responses from the Chinese LLMs heavily aligned with China’s official positions.

American Tech Companies Are Under Attack in Global Markets

Hilal Aka

Source Link

US trade negotiators have long understood that to expand market access for American goods and services, they must address at least two types of policy barriers. 

First, there are overt barriers to trade, such as tariffs. Second, foreign governments also enact covert barriers to trade, 

known in the professional vernacular as “non-tariff barriers” (NTBs). NTBs include import licensing, quotas, embargoes, 

customs delays, technical barriers, rules of origin, pre-shipment inspections, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 

These are not officially trade policies, but they nonetheless tilt the playing field to protect a country’s domestic industries by raising the cost of doing business for US companies and other foreign competitors.

But in recent years, a third type of barrier has emerged. These policies are not benign NTBs that apply equally to all companies, 

but instead, policies specifically tailored to inhibit or take down a single class of companies: US big tech firms. 

Call them “non-tariff attacks” (NTAs). Examples of these policies include antitrust regulations, content-moderation requirements, 

data-localization mandates, digital service taxes, and exorbitant fines. The EU’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, 

and similar laws in Brazil, India, and Japan, are examples. In the last five years, they have spread to dozens of countries around the world. US trade negotiators should take note and push back.

Russia Has Not Given up on the T-72 Tank

Peter Suciu

Source Link

The T-72 main battle tank (MBT) entered service with the Soviet Army in 1973, with a total of more than 25,000 produced. 

Although it was widely exported and adopted by dozens of countries around the world, Russia remains the largest operator of the T-72. 

It has continued to serve as the workhorse for the Russian Army in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine; however, the Kremlin has increasingly had to rely on older and less capable models.

According to reports from open-source intelligence (OSINT) researcher Jompy, the Russian military has begun to pull Soviet-era T-72A MBTs from storage to replenish its armored forces,

as losses of more modern MBTs continue. These are not the oldest Cold War tanks that the Kremlin has returned to service, as Moscow has pulled T-62 and even older T-54/55 series tanks from its storage yards.

According to the social media posts from Jompy, many of the T-72A and T-72 Ural models were in “poor” or even “very poor” condition. Russia had primarily stored its out-of-service tanks at military bases, 

leaving them exposed to the elements. Beyond the harsh winters and blistering summers, the tanks are not maintained much better than the old, 

retired American tanks that sit in front of National Guard armories or VFW halls. It could be argued that the old Patton tanks get more TLC than the T-72s that have languished at Russia’s military bases for decades.

Compared to the T-54/54 and T-62 tanks, the T-72 is a far more capable fighting machine. Even those old tanks that have sat for years unserviced might have “good bones,” meaning that the hull and chassis could be the starting point for a refurbished tank.

How Political Polarization Is Killing Grand Strategy

Andrew Latham

Source Link

One of the most common political phrases in modern America is that the country has never been more divided. Whether it appears in the news, 

throughout government, or even at family gatherings, the term “political polarization” has become a defining feature of the national conversation. 

Yet, this polarization reflects more than just dividing domestic partisan disagreement. It represents dramatic national shifts across American culture, ideals, 

and perspectives, and this division does not stay confined within the national borders. It ripples outward, 

actively shaping how the United States interacts with the world. As politics at home splinter, American grand strategy is also beginning to crack.

The United States, since its inception, has always been a more politically polarized country than most. 

Its two-party system has stood in some form or other since the late eighteenth century, and most internal questions, 

from slavery to tariffs, have always been home to fierce ideological battlegrounds. Yet, when it comes to grand strategy abroad, 

the United States has often retained a greater bipartisan consensus on foreign policy and national interests abroad.

Whether it be Westward expansion in the nineteenth century, isolationism in the early 20th century, or internationalist interventionism after the Second World War, 

OPEC Is Playing The Long Game

Irina Slav 

Source Link

“There is no peak in oil demand on the horizon,” the head of OPEC, Haitham al Ghais, said last month in Canada. Demand will continue to increase as global population grows, 

he added. And OPEC will be there to respond with what supply is necessary. OPEC is now playing the long game.

Fast-forward a month and Reuters is reporting on “signs of strong demand more than offset the impact of a higher-than-expected OPEC+ output hike for August”, 

not to mention now chronic worry about Trump’s tariffs. In fact, after OPEC+ announced the bigger than expected supply boost, prices rose, not least because not everyone boosting supply was boosting it fast enough.

When OPEC+ first said they were going to start unwinding their production cuts, agreed back in 2022, reactions were varied. 

Some argued it was all about trying to kill U.S. shale again. Others said the Saudis, the biggest cutter, 

simply had no other choice any longer after the cuts failed to produce significantly higher prices. Yet others claimed OPEC in general and Saudi Arabia specifically are trying to please Trump—by hurting some of his biggest donors. OPEC itself has not endorsed any of these versions of events.

The fact remains that OPEC is reversing the cuts, boosting oil supply—but prices are not tanking as so many prominent energy analysts said they would, 

and are still saying they would, later this year. Of course, this is because of factors unrelated to OPEC, 

namely geopolitical developments such as U.S.-Chinese trade talks and Canadian wildfires, as well as yet more EU sanctions against Russia. But OPEC certainly wouldn’t mind these factors supporting prices, if not more U.S. rig additions.

The Houthis are meddling with ship-tracking technology and running rings around the West

Source Link

Ceasefires are good. They mean the shooting and the killing stops. The problem is that they often only suit one side, which may need an opportunity to reorganise and rearm. 

Back in March, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire in the Black Sea. This allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to come out of hiding and restock, putting Ukraine, which had restored freedom of navigation there, on the back foot.

Similarly, the recent uneasy ceasefire between the Houthis and the US initially looked positive and resulted in a large reduction in missiles fired at international ships,

but it gave the terrorists time to reorganise and rearm. As quickly as they could say, “this is all about Israel” they then broke the ceasefire by attacking two ships with only tangential links to Israel, sinking both and killing nine mariners.

How did they re-arm though? This is one of two questions that have been asked since the Houthis started this latest campaign back in October 2023: 

where are they getting their weapons from and, less frequently asked but perhaps more important, why are they not being stopped?

The answer to the first part is as easy as it is obvious – the weapons come from Iran. There is UN evidence based on recovered missile remnants and seized propellant materials to prove this, as if it were needed. 

What is less clear is which parts the Houthis can now make on their own and which parts they still need either Iranian assistance or components for.

In general the simpler it is, the more likely it is to have been manufactured in Yemen. China is in the picture here with some of the engines coming from there and there are even reports that technology has been exchanged for guarantees of safe passage through the Southern Red Sea.

The first US atomic rush was a bust. Will Trump’s big nuclear-for-AI plans fare any better?

Chloe Shrager 

Source Link

Amazon's recently acquired data center (foreground) in Salem Township, Pennsylvania, is a stone's throw from the Susquehanna nuclear power plant. 

In November 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission blocked the company's request to obtain more electricity directly from the plant. 

President Trump's nuclear-for-AI executive orders could bypass the traditional market and regulatory regime entirely by deploying reactors on federal sites. (Credit: Talen Energy)

As Big Tech turns to nuclear power to solve the artificial intelligence power problem, critics have cast doubt on energy developers’ ability to build new reactors on a timeline that will satisfy data centers’ energy needs.

High costs and lack of commercial economic viability have been persistent obstacles to new nuclear infrastructure development. But on May 23, 

President Donald Trump signed four executive orders that represent the most explicit government commitment to nuclear power for artificial intelligence yet.

Three of the orders explicitly mention AI as a driver for nuclear energy development and a potential beneficiary.

One directive incentivizes the operation of privately funded advanced nuclear reactor technologies on federal sites—mainly national laboratories or military installations—allegedly to power AI infrastructure, labelled as “critical defense facilities,” 

and mandates the deployment of small modular nuclear reactors on one of these sites within 30 months.

Previously, tech companies were the most vocal advocates pushing for nuclear power to meet AI’s energy demands. 

Top Gun’ for drones: Pentagon plans August exercise with FPV drone units

Sydney J. Freedberg

Source Link

WASHINGTON — With President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “unleashing American drone dominance” in both civil and military aviation, 

the Pentagon is taking a Biden-era experimentation program and turning up the heat with Top Gun-style air combat training for FPV operators.

“Drones are the biggest battlefield innovation in a generation, accounting for most of this year’s casualties in Ukraine,” 

Hegseth told reporters in the Pentagon courtyard at a “drone day” exhibition of new, domestically built unmanned systems.

“Our adversaries collectively produce millions of cheap drones each year,” Hegseth said. But, he warned, 

the US military and defense industry were well behind. “We will speed up the timeline of rapid innovation. We have to, on behalf of our warfighters.”

One of the surprising innovations in Ukraine has been the recent rise of first-person view (FPV) drones,

controlled by wearing a virtual reality headset that lets the operator see through the drone’s front-mounted sensors as if they were onboard themselves. 

Originally built for recreational drone races, FPV drones have been adapted by both sides to serve as low-cost precision-guided missiles. 

While notoriously tricky to control, these armed FPVs have proven remarkably effective on the battlefield — if the operator has the reflexes and the training to handle them.

The America First approach to trade and tariffs is only getting started

Source Link

Donald Trump has declared in sending tariff letters to his counterparts across the world “You will never be disappointed with The United States of America”.Unfortunately, for US trading partners, they almost certainly will be.

Any hopes that the “reciprocal” tariffs initially revealed on 2 April would be the end of Trump’s America First trade policy are misplaced. 

A series of legal challenges could slow down his tariffs push, with currently two cases expected to be decided by the US Supreme Court. But Trump has other legal mechanisms for implementing tariffs.

Typically, control of commerce rests with the US Congress, not the President. A ruling against reciprocal tariffs, 

which Trump has justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, would be a setback. Whether Trump obeys such a ruling is another question.

And either way, the Commerce Department, under direction from the President, can undertake investigations which Trump can then use to justify the imposition of tariffs. 

What are termed Section 232 investigations under the Trade Expansion Act are used to determine whether imports in certain sectors pose a national security threat. 

These investigations present recommendations and empower the President to act without Congressional approval.

It was this authority that allowed Trump to impose steel and aluminium tariffs in his first term. He used the same mechanism to re-introduce them in his second term, and further increase them to 50 per cent. He also imposed new 25 per cent automotive tariffs.

Where’s our bomb?”

Source Link

What exactly did Israel’s and the United States’ bombings of Iran last month accomplish? As the dust begins to settle, 

it is clear that neither of the stated intentions of the attacks’ architects—to unravel the Iranian regime and to decapitate the country’s nuclear capabilities—have been realized.

On the contrary, argues Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on Iranian foreign policy, 

the brazen attacks have only united Iranians around the flag and made the task of Iranian pro-democracy activists far more difficult. “Israel and the United States didn’t obliterate Iran’s nuclear program,” 

he says, “but they may have obliterated the confidence in diplomacy needed to pursue a diplomatic outcome.”

How did we get to this point? Last week Rajan Menon, senior research fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies, 

spoke with Parsi by phone to discuss the history of U.S. and Israeli relations with Iran, the current geopolitical situation, and more.

Rajan Menon: The attacks’ proponents framed them as a matter of self-defense: Israel, up against the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, 

had no choice but to preemptively strike the country that has called for its destruction. But can Israel’s actions be justified in any way by international law?

Trita Parsi: When it comes to where international law falls on this, there is no debate. This is not a scenario in which an imminent attack in any way, shape, 

or form could be pointed to. Israel has not provided any evidence for that. Even its statements that by 2026, the Iranians would have X, Y, and Z nuclear capability—this is not anything that could be categorized as imminent.

The United Wa State Party: Myanmar’s Most Powerful Ethnic Army

Source Link

The United Wa State Party, also known as the UWSP, is the ruling party of the autonomous Wa state – a region in northeast Myanmar. 

The UWSP was founded on 3 November 1989 as a merger of the Burma National United Party (BNUP) and several smaller organised non-communist Wa groups.

The Wa people are an ethnic group which live in Northern Myanmar and also along the China-Myanmar border and in the Chinese Yunnan province. 

The UWSP’s armed wing, known as the United Wa State Army, effectively operates as a Wa ethnic militia group with numbers of around 30,000 organised and well-equipped fighters.

Significant efforts have been made by the UWSP to combat the flourishing drug trade in Southeast Asia.

Specifically, the focus lies on tackling methamphetamine production and the regional opium trade. 

The UWSP maintains close ties with China, and from which the group receives equipment and military assistance. 

Its organisational structure is based on that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which has allowed the group to operate the part of the Wa state under a one-party communist system. .

Precision Paradox and Myths of Precision Strike in Modern Armed Conflict

Source Link

Precision strike has assumed an outsized role in modern warfare. In the First Drone Age, drone-based precision strike promises to deliver accurate, 

first-time hits. Some assert that drone-based precision strike and precision strike-based strategies appear to offer a more civilised and antiseptic method of waging war. 

Amos C Fox argues that the Precision Paradox is a cautionary heuristic to illustrate the potential shortcomings of precision strategies, 

thereby allowing decision-makers to incorporate a modicum of realism into their thinking. The Precision Paradox also helps to illustrate the need to return to military thought rooted in realism and reason, 

On 4 April 2003, the US Air Force dropped two Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) satellite-guided bombs on the home of Ali Hassan Al-Majid – better known as ‘Chemical Ali’. Ali, 

the cousin of Saddam Hussein and the director of Saddam’s intelligence service, was one of the US coalition’s high-profile targets. 

In the strike’s immediate aftermath, US secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, stated that ‘[w]e believe that the reign of terror of Chemical Ali has come to an end’.Footnote1 The strike on Chemical Ali came only a few weeks after the US’s precision strike on Dora Farms,

 an area in which intelligence suggested Saddam Hussein might be hiding. In both cases, the strikes were accurate – hitting their intended target precisely – but ineffective. In Saddam’s case, 

the strike was ineffective because he was not present at the farm during the time of the strikes; regarding Ali’s, he was present, but the strike did not kill him.

Writing about the impact of those strikes on the war, Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor stated: ‘Chemical Ali was still alive and well. 

China Reacts As Russia Floats New Geopolitical Power Bloc With India

Robert Birsel

Source Link

China has welcomed a Russian proposal for the restoration of a three-member bloc with India, saying cooperation would be in their interests and would contribute to peace and security, raising the prospect of a revitalized alliance that could challenge U.S. influence.

The three largest countries on the Eurasian land mass first floated the idea of a trilateral cooperation bloc in the 1990s, 

and they later held several ministerial meetings. But the initiative has stalled in recent years because of tensions between China and India over sections of their border.

Why It Matters

A revival of the Russia, India, China, or RIC, bloc could pose a challenge to the U.S. if it resulted in more coordinated action by the three nuclear-armed countries on diplomatic, economic and security issues.

The proposal for greater three-way cooperation comes as the administration of President Donald Trump is promoting his "America First" agenda, 

including the imposition of sweeping tariffs, which has raised questions in some countries about their standing with the U.S.

China has criticized U.S. tariff policy as "bullying." U.S. officials have defended the tariffs saying unfair trade arrangements have to be adjusted. 

India and the U.S. are negotiating a trade deal while the United States has imposed sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

Brothers in Arms: Macron, Merz and Starmer Plan for a Post-U.S. Future

Michael D. Shear and Jim Tankersley

Source Link

The leaders of Britain, France and Germany are burying lingering grievances. They are creating new defense partnerships. And, together, they are keeping a wary eye on their longtime ally, the United States.

In the six months that President Trump has rattled the decades-old trans-Atlantic alliance, his counterparts in Europe’s most powerful countries are building parallel diplomatic and defense institutions for a future without the United States as the primary guarantor of economic and military security.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain and Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany signed a wide-ranging treaty for mutual defense, economic cooperation and other partnerships.

 Last week, Mr. Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron of France agreed to coordinate their nuclear arsenals. In May, 

the three men traveled together by train to Ukraine for a demonstration of solidarity. Next week, Mr. Macron will visit Mr. Merz in Berlin.

The three men are also leaders of a “coalition of the willing” aimed at supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia as American support wanes, 

an effort that will soon get a formal headquarters in Paris. Planning for a possible Europe-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine has been underway for months. On Friday, the European Union announced an 18th package of sanctions against Russia.

The “triangle alliance,” as Britain, France and Germany are sometimes now called, are already partners through NATO and the Group of 7 — forums that include the United States. 

Officials for the three European countries are careful to say that the institutions they are building are meant to supplement those alliances, not replace them.

assumptions on war between the U.S. and PRC

Source Link

Dr. Taylor Fravel of MIT published a noteworthy piece in Foreign Affairs this week entitled “Is China’s Military Ready for War?” because it reminds us that the decisions to use force may surpass concerns about readiness. Put otherwise,

Xi Jinping could decide to use the People’s Liberation Army regardless of its ability to assure victory in a conflict.

The gist of Fravel’s argument is a reminder that China’s use of its military during the CCP era has occurred more than once. 

The most important line is “it is useful to remember that Beijing has rarely waited for the right conditions before ordering the PLA into battle”. In other words, 

rather than focusing on the parlor game of who is under investigation versus who is now in a new position, 

we would be better off recognizing that Xi may feel the need or desire to employ the military instrument, regardless of whether he trusts his senior military personnel.

The PLA, after all, is an arm of the Communist Party rather than an autonomous body within the Chinese state apparatus. 

As I have mentioned many times over the past two and a half years, CCP General Secretaries scold the 2 million active-duty military members, 

stating that their role is to serve the Party rather than as a force with independent status; this occurs seemingly weekly, which raises doubts about whether the oft-repeated message is getting through.

Perplexity vs ChatGPT vs Gemini: 5 different challenges, who wins?

Source Link

The competition among AI chatbots is no longer limited to casual conversation. As the need for quick, reliable and referenced internet research grows, 

the so-called "deep research" features of advanced bots, most notably Perplexity, ChatGPT, and Gemini, 

are transforming how information is consumed online. But when put to the test, which AI delivers the strongest performance in real-world challenges?

We have compared these three chatbots across five core challenges: research and information, general content creation, 

ease of use and interface, Integration with other tools, and cost and accessibility. Each chatbot has its advantages and disadvantages, 

hence choosing one as a winner is quite difficult. Here's how these three chatbots stand against each other.

Perplexity's deep research mode goes beyond summarising existing knowledge. It conducts iterative web searches, 

consults hundreds of sources, and rigorously refines its findings before assembling them into a detailed, referenced report. 

Citations are embedded in responses, enabling users to verify facts in real-time. Perplexity has scored as high as 93.9% on relevant factuality benchmarks and stands out for its transparent, 

reproducible research summaries. Its capability is particularly valued in academic, legal, and journalistic settings, where verifiable sourcing is paramount.

How to Delete All of Your Social Media Accounts

Source Link

Social services have evolved even further into becoming sticky traps for doomscrolling and AI-generated slop, and are hitherto unprecedented frontiers for rage bait. 

Bummed out about all the misinformation and being part of a profit machine that funds one increasingly unhinged billionaire or another? Well, there’s a way out.

Unfortunately, social media companies don’t always make it very easy to rescind their grips on your attention. 

They bury deletion and deactivation options deep in their sidebars and menus and do everything in their power to keep you engaged and scrolling.

It’s not always easy, but if you’re eager to exorcise the demons of social media from your life, here’s how to carry out those cleansing rituals.

]

Meta always seems to be in the midst of one controversy or another. Whether it be the company’s history of a wanton approach to user privacy, 

criticism over its addictive nature, or its tendency to foster misinformation, you’ve got your pick of reasons to feel sketchy about having Meta plugged into your life.

Before its rebrand from Facebook to Meta, the different sites in the Zuckerberg empire were siloed, and if you wanted to leave one network, 

you had to cancel your account from within that app or website. Now, your accounts on Facebook, Instagram, and Meta’s AI app can be deleted from a central hub, called Meta Accounts Center.

Tap that link. Log in, then you should see all your Meta profiles tied to that account. To actually start deleting things,