Indian Strategic Studies: 10/21/25

21 October 2025

India Willing to Spend $15 Billion on US Oil Amid Trade Talks

India has the capacity to purchase an additional $15 billion of oil from the US, according to a senior commerce ministry official.

India's energy purchases from the US have gone up, with an average of $12-$13 billion as per FY25 figures.

India is considering roughly $40 billion of big-ticket purchases from the US to narrow its trade surplus.

Follow Bloomberg India on WhatsApp for exclusive content and analysis on what billionaires, businesses and markets are doing. Sign up here.

India has the capacity to purchase an additional $15 billion of oil from the US, a senior commerce ministry official said Wednesday, signaling New Delhi’s intent to speed up trade talks and get a deal.

Data over the last few years shows that energy purchases from the US have gone up, India’s Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal told reporters on Wednesday in New Delhi.

“Right now we are at an average of $12-$13 billion as per FY25 figures and there is headroom for $14-$15 billion” more with the current refinery configuration, he said.

The move could bridge the $42.7 billion trade surplus India enjoys and assuage President Donald Trump who has slapped the South Asian nation with a punitive 50% tariff, partly due to its purchase of Russian oil. Indian officials are in the US to meet counterparts and are hoping to secure a deal as early as next month, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

New Delhi’s broad strategy includes reducing the trade surplus by buying more American goods, improving access to Indian markets and easing trade barriers. It is considering roughly $40 billion of big-ticket purchases such as defense and oil from the US to narrow the surplus.

Indian industries have been resilient, absorbing some cost due to the high tariffs and maintaining their supply chains, Agrawal said.

India’s trade deficit widened to the highest in more than a year in September to $32.15 billion, but exports rose 6.7% from a year ago despite the US imposing its steepest tariffs in Asia on Indian goods.

Uzbekistan Weighs Risks of Chabahar Investment

Nargiza Umarova

Uzbekistan’s plans to build infrastructure facilities at the Iranian Chabahar port to gain direct access to the Indian Ocean have not been implemented, indicating Tashkent’s possibly cautious approach to this issue.

New Delhi is strengthening its economic ties with Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) through ongoing negotiations to create a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union.

Tashkent is pivoting toward an alternate Trans-Afghan railway corridor linking Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, aiming for a faster, more direct Eurasia–South Asia route and reduced dependence on Iranian infrastructure.

On September 29, the U.S. State Department’s decision to reimpose sanctions on the Iranian port of Chabahar came into effect (U.S. Department of State, September 16). This move reflects Washington’s current maximum pressure policy to isolate the Iranian regime. Renewed sanctions will hinder the development of Chabahar, affecting the economic interests of Tehran and other countries, such as India and Russia, that participate in trade routes involving the port. India, Iran, and Russia are increasing mutual trade and are keen to establish fast transport links with each other. The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is one such joint infrastructure project, and currently hinges on the deep-water port of Chabahar (see EDM, April 18, 2022). Additionally, Iranian land transit can reduce the cost and time of transporting goods from India to Central Asia and back compared to sea routes through Europe or the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

New Delhi is seeking closer economic ties with Russia (see EDM, September 10). Indian negotiations on establishing a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have progressed, offering a promising boost to India’s trade presence in Eurasia (Trans.ru, August 25). The prospective free trade zone increases the need for interregional transport connectivity, which is the purpose of the INSTC and the Chabahar Agreement signed by India, Iran, and Afghanistan in 2016. In 2018, it was the Afghan factor at the time that helped New Delhi convince Washington to provide a sanctions waiver for Chabahar. The seaport serves as a trade gateway for Indian manufacturers to reach Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. In May 2024, India signed a 10-year contract with Iran to operate the port and pledged an additional $370 million to transform the transport hub’s infrastructure (The Hindu, May 13, 2024).

Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry

Michael J. Mazarr, Amanda Kerrigan, Benjamin Lenain

The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China embodies risks of outright military conflict, economic warfare, and political subversion, as well as the danger that tensions between the world's two leading powers will destroy the potential for achieving a global consensus on such issues as climate and artificial intelligence. Moderating this rivalry therefore emerges as a critical goal, both for the United States and China and for the wider world.

The authors of this report propose that, even in the context of intense competition, it might be possible to find limited mechanisms of stabilization across several specific issue areas. They offer specific recommendations both for general stabilization of the rivalry and for three issue areas: Taiwan, the South China Sea, and competition in science and technology.

Key Findings

Several broad principles can guide efforts to stabilize intense rivalriesEach side accepts that some degree of modus vivendi must necessarily be part of the relationship.

Each side accepts the essential political legitimacy of the other.

In specific issue areas, especially those disputed by the two sides, each side works to develop sets of shared rules, norms, institutions, and other tools that create lasting conditions of a stable modus vivendi within that domain over a specific period (such as three to five years).

Each side practices restraint in the development of capabilities explicitly designed to undermine the deterrent and defensive capabilities of the other in ways that would create an existential risk to its homeland.

Each side accepts some essential list of characteristics of a shared vision of organizing principles for world politics that can provide at least a baseline for an agreed status quo.

There are mechanisms and institutions in place — from long-term personal ties to physical communication links to agreed norms and rules of engagement for crises and risky situations — that help provide a moderating or return-to-stable-equilibrium function.

US-China trade war hotspots could put fire in Beijing’s belly: scholars

Ji Siqi, Mandy Zuo

With trade tensions between China and the United States reignited less than two weeks before a major political gathering in Beijing, Chinese scholars said the flare-up could provide a common cause for the country to rally behind as policymakers take steps to protect technological development and national security.

“Pressure, whether from internal or external sources, has the potential to foster unity,” said Yang Jianwen, a senior economic researcher at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. “This is our national character: external pressure can be transformed into motivation.”

Tensions between the world’s two largest economies ratcheted up last week amid a barrage of economic sanctions, export controls and threats of triple-digit tariffs. Numerous punitive actions have been employed, despite months of negotiations and multiple extensions of a temporary truce after the conflict reached its peak in April.

The newest battleground is the shipping sector, with both sides imposing port fees on each other’s vessels starting Tuesday. On the same day, Beijing announced it would sanction five US-based subsidiaries of South Korean shipping giant Hanwha Ocean over what it views as collaboration with American efforts to constrain China’s maritime and shipbuilding industries.

From Beijing’s perspective, the latest escalation began with the US, and China’s actions are calibrated, reciprocal responses, according to Wang Dan, China director for Eurasia Group.

“This sets a tone for the fourth plenum that China will emphasise a long-term, steady strategy, staying the course without yielding to US pressure or altering its economic plans,” Wang said.

The plenum, a meeting of the ruling Communist Party’s powerful Central Committee, is scheduled to run from October 20 to 23.

At the gathering, President Xi Jinping and the more than 300 members of the committee are expected to discuss the outline for the next five-year plan, a document that will summarise the country’s broad goals for economic and social development over the rest of the decade – targets made more trying amid heightened tensions with the US.

China will prepare for the worst, so that even if bad situations really occur, they will not have a fundamental impact

The Next Drone Threat Comes from the Sea: Is NATO Ready?

Olena Kryzhanivska

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine barely had a navy. Over the past three years, Ukraine has disabled a third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and forced the rest to retreat hundreds of miles to safer harbors.

Instead of relying on traditional, costly naval capabilities that require years to develop, Ukraine focused on building an unmanned fleet, which is now ready for export to countries in need of such systems.

When I met with Rui Costa, a former Portuguese Navy officer, board member of the Royal Netherlands Society of Marine Engineers, and host & co-founder of UNMANNED_X, I intended to focus on Ukraine’s naval drone exports. However, our conversation soon shifted toward the growing threats posed by Russia. In the end, we reached a shared conclusion: NATO countries must prepare not only for aerial threats but also for those emerging from the sea.

Ukraine has developed several types of naval drones, including the most famous unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) — such as Magura and SeaBaby — and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) like Toloka.

In addition to that, there are a few less public innovations, such as Mamai, developed in 2023, and called the fastest vessel in the Black Sea, capable of reaching speeds of up to 110 km/h. Also, at the DEFEA 2025 defense exhibition, company Nordex unveiled its Seawolf – a modular USV platform. Additionally, there is another impressive innovation - the naval drone Katran built for multi-domain warfare. These USVs are modular “motherships” capable of engaging targets in the air, on the surface, and deep behind enemy lines. Katran can accommodate a wide range of armaments — from missile systems to swarms of FPV drones. The platform also uses artificial intelligence for precision targeting.

“Ukraine’s geopolitical context is truly unique; the naval systems in Ukraine were born out of evolutionary pressures — they emerged from the realities of war, not from theory,” says Rui Costa.

Georgian Government Intensifies Pressure on Western Diplomats

Khatia Shamanauri

Western diplomats are coming under unprecedented pressure from the Georgian Dream government, with Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kohakhidze accusing EU Ambassador to Georgia Pawel Herczynski of backing an attempt to overthrow the constitutional order.

The European Union has categorically rejected and condemned disinformation about its role in Georgia, as well as personal attacks against the EU ambassador.

Many fear that under the Georgian Dream government, it will be difficult to establish positive relations with Western countries, leaving Georgia dependent on unreliable partners and increasing authoritarian influence in the region.

Relations between representatives of Western countries in Georgia and the Georgian Dream government have long been strained, with tensions escalating in recent months. Foreign diplomats have increasingly become targets of the Georgian government amid the pre- and post-election protests in Tbilisi. Georgian Dream officials accused EU representatives of supporting attempts to destabilize the country, prompting the European Union to dismiss the allegations as disinformation and personal attacks (see EDM, October 7).

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze held two briefings on October 4, hours after the police detained several people in connection with the attempted storming of the presidential palace following that day’s municipal elections. During his first appearance, Kobakhidze alleged that EU Ambassador to Georgia Pawel Herczynski supported the “announced attempt to overthrow the constitutional order” in Georgia (Radio Tavisupleba, October 5).

Later that night, during his second briefing, Kobakhidze reiterated his stance, claiming that “specific ambassadors, diplomats, and politicians bear direct responsibility to clearly distance themselves from the violence we witnessed yesterday” (Radio Tavisupleba, October 5). Kobakhidze emphasized the same message again a few days later during the television program “Night Courier.” “The public no longer follows the U.S. Ambassador or the EU ambassador blindly—and that is one of our main achievements,” said Kobakhidze (ImediNews, October 6).

Press conference by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte following the meeting of NATO Ministers of Defence in Brussels15 Oct. 2025 -

Good afternoon, again. We saw each other this morning.

We have just concluded our meeting of NATO Defence Ministers – and this was the first meeting since the Summit in The Hague.

We discussed current challenges to our security, as well as our capacity and resolve to address them.

Last month, NATO met drones and jets violating our airspace with quick and decisive action that ensured the security of Allied territory. These incidents highlighted the effectiveness of our deterrence and defence posture while also providing impetus to improve it further.

Under the initiative of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, we have stepped up our vigilance and enhanced our posture in the Baltic Sea. We recently launched Eastern Sentry, which adds strength and flexibility to our posture across and along the eastern flank – or wherever needed, whenever needed.

I think it is truly impressive to see the speed and determination with which Allies have made additional military resources available. And I want to thank them for that.

And today we have agreed to further step up, building our capacity to act on the commitments made in The Hague to invest more in defence.

Defence Ministers discussed the planning underway as Allies chart a credible path to sustainability in terms of the increased investment in defence.

We also discussed our deterrence and defence posture and some of the ways in which we are innovating to deal with new and novel challenges – including those posed by drones.

As a result, NATO will implement a number of additional counter-drone measures that will build on, and expand, and accelerate our ability to counter drones.

Trump’s H-1B Visa Change: What to Know

Clara Fong and Diana Roy

However, the H-1B program has long faced criticism over claims that it displaces American workers and suppresses wages. Citing this, President Donald Trump announced in late September a significant increase to the fee that employers must pay for new H-1B petitions. Some experts warn this change could harm the U.S. economy, undermine competitiveness with China, and drive highly skilled talent to other countries.

Why did Trump impose a new $100,000 fee for H-1B petitions?

The Trump administration has contended that the H-1B program undermines the president’s “America First” agenda, which seeks to prioritize American workers over foreign labor. On September 19, Trump announced a new policy requiring employers to pay a one-time $100,000 fee for new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, effective for one year. Previously, fees typically ranged from approximately $2,000–$5,000 per application, depending on the size of the company applying for the visa. Trump’s proclamation said there had been “systemic abuse” of the program, and that it undermined U.S. economic and national security by undercutting American wages and outsourcing tech jobs. (The new plan includes a provision for a “national interest” exemption on a case-by-case basis.)

The Trump administration also proposed [PDF] overhauling the existing H-1B lottery system with a weighted process that would favor higher skilled and higher paid foreign workers. The change, according to the Department of Homeland Security, would disincentivize employers from using the program to “fill lower paid or lower skilled positions.”

These actions are in line with the administration’s broader trade agenda to prioritize American businesses and workers while curbing foreign competition, including by implementing tighter restrictions on legal immigration to the United States. However, experts say the dramatic H-1B fee increase could ultimately harm the economy by turning away highly skilled foreign talent.

What is an H-1B visa?

Established by the Immigration Act of 1990, the H-1B program allows employers to temporarily hire foreign professionals in “specialized occupations” that require at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent. According to the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, there are currently as many as 730,000 H-1B visa holders living in the United States, along with an additional 550,000 dependents, including spouses and children.

Armed Conflict? Trump’s Venezuela Boat Strikes Test U.S. Law

Matthew C. Waxman

Trump has declared that the United States is now engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels and has suggested further escalation. He has since signaled that his administration is preparing military options to target drug traffickers inside Venezuelan territory, saying on September 30 that the United States would “look very seriously at cartels coming by land.” A White House notice sent to Congress in early October also reportedly referred to suspected drug smugglers as “unlawful combatants.”

These moves could mark a major shift in U.S. counternarcotics policy and raise legal and diplomatic questions by blurring the lines between law enforcement, interdiction, and war.

A new U.S. ‘armed conflict’—and past precedent

Trump reportedly determined and notified Congress that the U.S. government is involved in an “armed conflict”—i.e. a legal state of war— with drug cartels, marking the latest in an escalating series of legal moves by the administration. It previously designated some cartels as FTOs, unlocking certain criminal law, immigration, and sanctions authorities. It has invoked a 1798 law authorizing the swift removal from the United States of “enemy aliens,” and applied it to suspected Tren de Aragua members. It has used lethal force against alleged Tren de Aragua drug vessels in the Caribbean, claiming national self-defense.

One of the most significant implications of this declaration is that it purports to justify using lethal force against some unspecified categories of cartel members, essentially treating them as enemy soldiers. Because the Trump administration has provided so little information about the strikes and their legal justifications, however, it’s unclear how far the White House is stretching this theory.

The closest analogy is the ongoing armed conflict against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, which is a more legally precise term for the “Global War on Terror.” That’s been the legal basis, across five presidential administrations now, for lethal force and detention of al-Qaeda fighters. The Trump administration seems to be applying that same template, but this time against drug cartels instead of a transnational terrorist group.

Why the UK Government was Taken to Court Over Arms Sales to Israel

Political Quarterly and Anna Stavrianakis

But there was a big loophole. Parts and components for F-35s would be excluded because they play “an important role in the maintenance of global peace and security.”

A legal case was brought against UK arms exports by Palestinian human rights organisation Al Haq and the Global Legal Action Network, claiming that licensing arms sales to Israel was unlawful given they were being used to commit genocide in Gaza.

But on 30 June 2025, two High Court judges refused Al Haq’s case, accepting the government’s arguments.

As part of growing opposition to UK support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestinian human rights organisation Al Haq and the Global Legal Action Network brought a legal case against UK arms exports. It said that the government’s ongoing licensing of arms sales to Israel was unlawful, given the risk that the weapons might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) against Palestinians, including genocide in Gaza.

On 30 June 2025, two High Court judges refused Al Haq’s case. They decided that some of the legal issues were not justiciable in a UK court and that it was not for judges to second-guess the decisions made by the government. They also accepted at face value the government’s claim that the risks to international peace and security of halting arms sales overrode the risks to Palestinians of continuing them.

How did this perverse situation come about?

Is the UK selling arms to Israel to use in Gaza?

Israel has used all the conventional weapons at its disposal in its war on Gaza since October 2023. Its main arms supplier, by an enormous margin, is the USA; the UK plays a secondary but significant role. It is not possible to know the true value of UK arms exports to Israel but they are significantly higher than the government claims. UK industry provides at least 15% of the parts for every new F-35 combat aircraft manufactured, as well as parts for the global spare parts pool for the aircraft. The F-35 has become particularly controversial in the war: for example, Israel used F-35s on 18 March 2025 when it broke the ceasefire, killing over 436 Palestinians in one day.

President Trump’s radical attack on radiation safety

Daniel Hirsch, Haakon Williams, Cameron Kuta

In May, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders that, in part, require the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider dramatically weakening its radiation protection standard. If federal radiation limits are gutted in the manner urged by the president, the new standard could allow four out of five people exposed over a 70-year lifetime to develop a cancer they would not otherwise get.

Contesting the scientific consensus. Section 5(b) of the executive order—formally titled “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”—directs the NRC to issue a proposed “wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents,” including reconsideration of the agency’s “reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure.” The LNT model maintains that risk from radiation exposure is proportional to the dose: Even a tiny amount of radiation causes some small but real increased risk of cancer, and that risk goes up linearly as the dose increases.

While most Americans have doubtless never heard of the LNT model, it has been the bedrock of radiation exposure risk analysis for decades and forms the basis of public health protection from radiation. The LNT model is scientifically robust, supported by the longstanding and repeatedly affirmed determinations on low-dose radiation by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, virtually all international scientific bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the NRC itself.

Despite the LNT model’s long track record and the well-established body of scientific evidence upon which it is built, President Trump has unilaterally issued a presidential finding that this scientific consensus is wrong. His order could lead to LNT’s complete abandonment in a matter of months, posing a serious increase in the amount of radiation that industries and government agencies would be allowed to inflict upon the public.

If the NRC goes along with Trump’s assertion, the weakening of radiation protection standards would likely be extreme. Advocates of abandoning LNT have often asserted that low-dose radiation is harmless or even beneficial, and therefore, that the public health radiation limits should be hugely increased. In 2015, three petitions for rulemaking to the NRC proposed doing away with the LNT model and increasing allowable radiation exposures for everyone—including children and pregnant women—to 10 rem. (The Roentgen equivalent man (rem) is a unit of effective absorbed radiation in human tissue, equivalent to one roentgen of X-rays. One rem is equal to 0.01 Sievert in the international system of units.)

Kyiv Moving Toward More Direct Support of Non-Russian Movements within Russia

Paul Goble

Kyiv is moving toward more openly backing non-Russian national movements within Russia. It is convinced that such efforts will help it defeat Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and that the decolonization of Russia will ensure Ukraine’s future security.

Such moves, which have their origins in earlier efforts by Ukraine and others to counter Moscow, have so far been largely limited to declarations about Russian colonialism and providing a haven for nationalist leaders. That appears set to change.

The lengths that Ukraine will now go to, however, remain unclear, but its moves have already alarmed Moscow and prompted it to crack down, and are worrying some in Ukraine and the West that any such moves could prove counterproductive, at least in the short term.

Since gaining independence in 1991, Ukrainians have focused attention on the large Ukrainian communities inside the Russian Federation (see EDM, January 18, 2023, January 25, July 30, 2024). Since Moscow launched its attacks on Ukrainian territory in 2014 and especially since 2022, Kyiv has also devoted more attention to non-Russian national movements within the current borders of the Russian Federation (see EDM, October 13, 2023). It has done so both in response to Moscow’s efforts to play up the ethnic factor in Ukraine and because it is convinced that such moves will help Ukraine defeat Russian invaders now and ensure Ukraine’s security over the longer term (Politarena, October 6).

Many Ukrainian commentators and Verkhovna Rada deputies have long pressed for a more activist approach and have invoked the precedent of Poland’s Promethean movement and Captive Nations Week resolutions in the United States and the actions flowing from both as precedent (see EDM, October 8, 2013, October 13, 2022, July 18, 2023). Kyiv’s official steps, however, have been largely limited to declarations about Russian colonialism, the formation of some small non-Russian units to fight on the side of Ukraine against Russia, and the providing of a haven for non-Russian leaders under attack at home (Window on Eurasia, June 7, 2023; see EDM, July 28, 2022, November 19, 2013, January 14). Even these moves have been sufficient to alarm Moscow and prompt it to intensify repression against non-Russians in the Russian Federation, while presenting itself as the defender of Russia as a whole (see EDM, August 10, 2023; Window on Eurasia, October 10, 2023).

What Palestinians and Israelis Have Learned Since October 7th

Earlier this week, Hamas and Israel agreed to a ceasefire that included the release of the twenty living hostages who remained in Gaza and some two thousand Palestinians who are held in Israeli jails. The success of the exchange has raised hopes that the devastating war may really be coming to an end. President Donald Trump, who took credit for the deal after pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept it, now wants both sides to implement his twenty-point peace plan, which would require Hamas to disarm and Israel to leave Gaza. (Israeli officials told the New York Times that they are now considering punitive measures after Hamas said late on Wednesday that the remains of more than a dozen Israeli hostages—who are also supposed to be returned to Israel—were unable to be located. Separately, Israeli forces that still operate in Gaza have continued to kill Palestinians since the ceasefire began.)

Former Trump Aide John Bolton Is Indicted Over Handling of Classified Information

Devlin Barrett Glenn Thrush and Minho Kim

John R. Bolton, the national security hawk and former adviser to President Trump who became one of his most outspoken critics, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland on Thursday on charges of mishandling classified information.

The indictment against Mr. Bolton was 18 counts and accused him of using personal email and a messaging app to share more than 1,000 pages of “diary” notes about his day-to-day activities as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019. The notes, which were sent to two family members who did not have security clearances, included national defense information, such as details classified as top secret, according to the indictment.

President Trump and his former aide parted bitterly toward the end of his first term, and the president greeted the news with grim satisfaction. “He’s a bad guy,” Mr. Trump said in response to a question from a reporter at the White House about Mr. Bolton. “That’s the way it goes.”

While Mr. Bolton is part of a string of perceived enemies of the president to become prosecutorial targets, the federal investigation into him gained momentum during the Biden administration, when U.S. intelligence agencies gathered what former officials have described as troubling evidence.

The prosecution appeared to follow normal department channels, without firings or forced transfers. Kelly O. Hayes, the U.S. attorney in Maryland, was among the career prosecutors to sign off on the charges in conjunction with the Justice Department’s national security division.

By contrast, Mr. Trump in recent weeks has removed or sidelined prosecutors in order to secure indictments against two of his longtime targets: James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, New York’s attorney general.

If convicted of the charges, Mr. Bolton, 76, could spend the rest of his life in prison. Each count carries a maximum potential sentence of 10 years.

Ukraine Braces for Another Hard Winter

Yuri Lapaiev

Ahead of winter, Russia launched another campaign of combined air strikes on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, including energy, gas production, and railway facilities.

Russia is continually upgrading its missiles and strike drones, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of its air attacks. Several Ukrainian cities have already been severely affected by this, and in some areas, the situation is critical.

Drones have become a key element of the attack, while Ukraine is actively developing interceptor drones as an effective and inexpensive means of countering massive UAV attacks by Russia.

Long-range weapons, both domestic and, potentially, U.S.-supplied Tomahawk cruise missiles, could become a powerful means of deterrence or retaliation.

On the night of October 10, the Russian army launched a combined air strike on Ukraine. In total, the Ukrainian Air Force detected 497 air attack units, comprising 32 missiles (both ballistic and cruise) and 465 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of various types (Telegram/@ComAFUA, October 10). Russia’s focus was on degrading critical infrastructure, primarily energy facilities. Damage to the Kyiv Thermal Power Plant (TPP-6) left several districts in Kyiv and the Kyiv oblast without power. Additionally, problems with electricity, gas, and water supplies were reported in the Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, Poltava, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts (BBC Ukraine, October 10).

On October 7, during a meeting with the ambassadors of the Group of Seven (G7) countries, Ukrainian Energy Minister Svitlana Grinchuk stated that Russian troops had carried out 26 separate strikes on Ukrainian energy facilities in one day (Ministry of Energy of Ukraine, October 7). Later that evening, Russia attacked the DTEK thermal power plant, one of Ukraine’s largest energy companies. According to the company, two power engineers were injured, and the attack caused significant damage to the plant’s equipment. After the air strike ended, energy engineers quickly began to repair the damage (DTEK, October 8). Due to Russian strikes, more than half of Ukrainian natural gas facilities were destroyed, significantly decreasing gas production (Bloomberg; The Kyiv Independent, October 9). On October 16, the Russian army launched another combined strike on a gas production facility in the Poltava region. Due to the attack, the company was forced to suspend operations (Telegram/@dtek_ua, October 16).

US warns that hackers using F5 devices to target government networks

Reuters

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - U.S. government officials said on Wednesday that federal networks are being targeted by an unidentified "nation-state cyber threat actor" that's trying to exploit vulnerabilities in products made by the cybersecurity company F5 (FFIV.O), opens new tab.

In a statement and an accompanying emergency directive, opens new tab, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said hackers had compromised F5's systems and extracted files, including a portion of its source code and information about vulnerabilities, and could use the knowledge as a roadmap to break into F5 devices and software, something that could eventually lead to a full compromise of the targeted networks.

Learn about the latest breakthroughs in AI and tech with the Reuters Artificial Intelligencer newsletter. Sign up here.

"The cyber threat actor presents an imminent threat to federal networks" using F5 products, CISA said.

CISA's Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Nick Andersen told reporters that government officials were being ordered to identify F5's devices on their network and apply urgent updates. Andersen encouraged others to do the same, noting that "the risk of this vulnerability extends to every organization and sector that's using this product."

Andersen refused to say who the hackers were and said there had so far been no evidence of any compromise at a U.S. civilian agency.

Earlier, F5 said it had detected unauthorized access to certain company systems by a threat actor, but the breach had no impact on its operations.

The company discovered the intrusion on August 9 and took "extensive actions" to contain the threat, engaging external experts, including CrowdStrike, Mandiant, NCC Group and IOActive, to assist with the investigation, it said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said it found no signs that its software development process had been tampered with. F5, which has clients across the private and public sector, said information from a few customers was involved in the breach, and it was reaching out to those affected directly.

Russian cyber-attacks against Nato states up by 25% in a year, analysis finds

Dan Milmo

Russia has increased cyber-attacks against Nato states by 25% over the past year, according to an analysis, as the Kremlin escalates its “hybrid war” against European countries.

Microsoft said nine of the top 10 countries most affected by Russian state cyber-activity were members of the Nato alliance and attacks against them had risen by a quarter compared with the previous year.

The US was the most targeted region, at 20% of all attacks, followed by the UK at 12% and Ukraine – the only non-Nato member in the top 10 – at 11%. Microsoft declined to give exact details of Russian state hostility, but said the most targeted sector was government, representing a quarter of all attacks, followed by research and academia, and thinktanks and non-governmental organisations.

Amy Hogan-Burney, a vice-president for cybersecurity policy at Microsoft, said the company expected to “continue to see activity across many Nato-based areas”.

Experts and politicians have warned that Russia is conducting “hybrid warfare” – the term for a range of unconventional tactics such as drone incursions, sabotage or cyber-attacks that occupy a “grey zone” between peace and war – against Nato members.

A former head of the UK’s domestic spy agency, MI5, warned last month the UK may already be at war with Russia because of the intensity of cyber-attacks and other hostile activity orchestrated by Moscow against the UK. Eliza Manningham-Buller said it was a “different sort of war, but the hostility, the cyber-attacks, the physical attacks, the intelligence work is extensive”.

Other Nato nations have been affected by Russia-linked incidents. In Poland, 19 unarmed Russian drones crossed into its airspace last month, while Denmark was forced to close airports due to unidentified drones. In another incident last month, Nato intercepted three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets that violated Estonia’s airspace over the Baltic Sea in a 12-minute incursion.

Your New Teammate Is a Machine. Are You Ready?

Nelson Lim

Companies across various industries are investing heavily in AI to enhance employee productivity. A leader at the consulting firm McKinsey says he envisions an AI agent for every human employee. Soon, a factory manager will oversee a production line where human workers and intelligent robots seamlessly develop new products. A financial analyst will partner with an AI data analyst to uncover market trends. A surgeon will guide a robotic system with microscopic precision, while an AI teammate monitors the operation for potential complications.

These scenarios represent the forefront of human-machine collaboration, a significant shift that is quickly moving from research labs into every critical sector of our society.

In short, we are on the verge of deploying AI not just as a tool, but as an active partner in our most important work. The potential is clear: If we effectively combine the computational power of AI with the intuition, creativity, and ethical judgment of a human, the team will achieve more than either could alone.

But we aren't prepared to harness this potential. The biggest risk is what's called “automation bias.” Humans tend to over-rely on automated systems—but, worse, also favor their suggestions while ignoring correct contradictory information. Automation bias can lead to critical errors of commission (acting on flawed advice) and omission (failing to act when a system misses something), particularly in high-stakes environments.

Automation bias can lead to critical errors of commission (acting on flawed advice) and omission (failing to act when a system misses something), particularly in high-stakes environments.

Even improved proficiency with AI doesn't reliably mitigate the automation bias. For example, a study of the effectiveness of Clinical Decision Support Systems in health care found that individuals with moderate AI knowledge were the most over reliant. Both novices and experts showed more calibrated trust. What did lead to lower rates of automation bias was making study participants accountable for either their overall performance or their decision accuracy.

How AI-driven decision-making is shaping Army modernization

Breaking Defense

Artificial intelligence is a cornerstone of the Army’s modernization efforts. AI’s biggest impact is when it is applied to decision-making processes, enabling troops in both command centers and the field to make informed decisions with real-time information.

Breaking Defense spoke with Appian’s Jason Adolf and Li Ma about how AI is enabling the Army to provide warfighters with better tools for decision making and mission execution.

Battlefield and domestic drone threats show the need for mobile counter-UAS

As threats evolve on both the battlefield and homeland, counter-UAS must be able to keep pace.

The drone threat on today’s battlefield is evolving quickly, and counter-UAS systems must be able to keep pace. Mobility and adaptability are key to implementing systems that can respond to the threat of drones and their flexibility.

Breaking Defense spoke to Honeywell’s Tom Konicki about the challenges of drone warfare and how they’re meeting the challenge with an on-the-move system.

Evolving under strain: Networks, cyber and EW in transition

Breaking Defense

What’s next in the military’s digital realm? Catch up on Breaking Defense’s coverage of how the Army’s reorganization, federal staff cuts and more are reshaping nonkinetic operations.

As government reorganizations and cutbacks, the rise of artificial intelligence and an unrelenting workload redefine the military’s digital workforce, we’ve got you covered.

Our latest eBook recaps the biggest news from AFCEA’s TechNet conference in Augusta, Georgia, where leaders in the military’s digital sphere gathered to discuss the future of networks, cyber operations and electronic warfare at a time of transition for the federal government.

Read the five best stories from Carley Welch, our reporter on the ground in Augusta, and check back at Breaking Defense for more throughout the year.

The End of Cybersecurity

Jen Easterly

In November 1988, the Morris worm—an experimental computer program written by a curious graduate student—unintentionally crippled the early Internet and exposed for the first time the serious consequences of poorly designed software. Nearly 40 years later, the world still runs on fragile code riddled with the same kinds of flaws and defects. Amid frequent news reports about hacks and leaks, a key truth is often overlooked: the United States does not have a cybersecurity problem. It has a software quality problem. The multibillion-dollar cybersecurity industry largely exists to compensate for insecure software.

The impact of persistent weaknesses in U.S. software is playing out in real time. Since at least 2021, for instance, hackers connected to China’s Ministry of State Security and People’s Liberation Army have exploited the same types of flaws that the Morris Worm feasted on decades ago. These groups—referred to as Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon—have taken advantage of unpatched systems, poorly secured routers, and devices built for connectivity rather than resilience to infiltrate telecommunications networks, transportation systems, and power utilities. And just this year, Russian Federal Security Service hackers exploited an unpatched flaw in networking devices to compromise thousands of routers and switches connected to U.S. infrastructure. As more institutions, from hospitals to ports, rely on software to function, unsafe code is a growing threat to the United States.

These vulnerabilities endure because software vendors face few incentives to prioritize security. It remains cheaper and faster to shift the costs of insecurity downstream to customers. And because much of the code that underpins critical infrastructure is decades old, rewriting it securely has long been too expensive and time-consuming to make business sense.

But capabilities—including the accelerating power of artificial intelligence—are emerging to fix these software problems across entire digital ecosystems. This could spell the end of cybersecurity as we currently know it—and make the United States much less vulnerable as a result. But the window to take advantage of new technology is closing as U.S. adversaries, too, are looking to use AI to enhance their cyberattack capabilities. Now is the time for U.S. government agencies, large companies, and investors to work together to fundamentally shift economic incentives and use AI to improve the United States’ digital defenses. Cyberspace will never be completely safe. But the cybersecurity market as it currently exists does not have to be a permanent feature of the digital age. A better and more secure approach to software is within reach.

The New Cyber War Explained - This is Not a Drill with Gavin Estler

You can say this adversary is a cyber threat. At the same time, you can have, improving economic relations with them. I don't think we should be so binary about these things. In some ways, the report calls out some of the hostile activity from a number of states and other actors, and shows that you can do that whilst maintaining diplomatic relations ... I wonder if the political understanding of cyber issues is there. I wonder if that political will is there?"

Head of the U.S. Military’s Southern Command Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

Eric Schmitt and Tyler Pager

The military commander overseeing the Pentagon’s escalating attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea that the Trump administration says are smuggling drugs said on Thursday that he was stepping down.

The officer, Adm. Alvin Holsey, is leaving his job as head of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees all operations in Central and South America, even as the Pentagon has rapidly built up some 10,000 forces in the region in what it says is a major counterdrug and counterterrorism mission.

It was unclear why Admiral Holsey is suddenly departing, less than a year into what is typically a three-year job, and in the midst of the biggest operation in his 37-year career. But one current and one former U.S. official, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said that Admiral Holsey had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.

In a statement on social media, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made no mention of any friction with his four-star commander. “On behalf of the Department of War,” said Mr. Hegseth, using the name of the department he now prefers, “we extend our deepest gratitude to Admiral Alvin Holsey for his more than 37 years of distinguished service to our nation as he plans to retire at year’s end.”

Nor did Admiral Holsey publicly voice any policy objections, urging his command’s 1,200 military service members and civilians in a statement, “Keep Charging!!”

But other officials at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill said the praise masked real policy tensions concerning Venezuela that the admiral and his civilian boss were seeking to paper over.

Join the fight.

Midnight in the War Room isn’t just a documentary. It’s a call to action.

Featuring more than 50 experts, the film brings together voices that rarely share the same stage: global CISOs, reformed hackers, military strategists, cyber psychologists, journalists, and victims. Their perspectives collide to expose one truth…time is running out.

We’re standing at the breaking point of a digital arms race. Nation states, criminal syndicates, and rogue actors are exploiting critical systems faster than we can secure them. The defenders holding the line are exhausted — yet they keep going, because the stakes aren’t theoretical. In some cases, they’re life or death.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)