Indian Strategic Studies: 10/25/25

25 October 2025

Can India Continue to Rise Without Its Region?

Chietigj Bajpaee

There has been an eerie similarity to recent developments in South Asia. The Generation Z-led protest movement that ousted Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli in Nepal in September echoes the so-called monsoon revolution in Bangladesh in August last year, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was removed from power, as well as the 2022 aragalaya (struggle) in Sri Lanka that unseated then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The frequency of these “people-power” movements speaks to several structural challenges facing the region, including political dysfunction, economic distress, and demographic pressures.

Nepal, for instance, has seen 14 governments in the 17 years since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. Allegations of corruption, nepotism, and economic mismanagement, coupled with a ban on 26 social media platforms, triggered the country’s young people to take to the streets. More than a quarter of Nepal’s population is below the age of 15, the country has a median age of 25 years, and onefifth of its youth are unemployed.

These events also raise a question about the degree to which India’s global aspirations are held hostage to regional instabilities. India is surrounded by an arc of instability: four countries in the midst of International Monetary Fund bailouts (Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka); two countries that can be regarded as failed or near-failed states (Afghanistan, Myanmar); and two with active territorial disputes, a history of difficult relations with India, and which also happen to be nuclear weapons states (China, Pakistan).

Compounding matters is the fact that South Asia is among the least economically and institutionally integrated regions of the world: Intraregional trade accounts for a mere 5 percent of total trade, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has not held a summit meeting since 2014.

Jammu And Kashmir Grows, But Peace Remains Fragile – Analysis

Sagartirtha Chakraborty and Ankita Chakraborty

‘Paradise regained, or peril persisted?’ – Widely regarded as the ‘Paradise of Earth,’ Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has found itself at the heart of a sharp paradox in recent years. The abrogation of ‘Article-370’ in 2019 is pitched as a new economic dawn for the region with promises of integration, development, and an open invitation to the rest of India. This has also led to a record influx of tourists in the region, crossing 15.5 million per annum for the first time since independence.

But beneath this surge, lies an unsettling reality that refuses to fade – the shadow of extremism that continues to induce fear throughout the valley. While both state and central governments have stepped-up efforts to bring stability, the larger question still lingers: ‘Can peace thrive when the guns haven’t fully fallen silent?’

Tourism and economic resurgence of J&K

In the years following the revocation of Article-370, tourist arrivals in J&K skyrocketed from a mere 1.19 million in 2011 to over 23.5 million in 2024. Kashmir alone accounted for nearly 15 percent of the total share in 2024. From Gulmarg to Sonmarg, Pahalgam to Patnitop; the tourism and hospitality sectors have flourished.

This has resulted in a more than two-fold increase in the tourism-led employment figures from 1.78 million to 4.40 million during 2011-2024. Targeted schemes like‘Sustainable Promotion of Emerging Alternative Destinations’ have also been introduced to boost the tourism industry of the region, under which Rs.3.9 billion has been allocated. Such steps are also expected to push the tourism sector’s contribution in J&K’s GDP from current 7 percent to 15 percent by 2029-30.

Moreover, unemployment has dropped in the region by 0.6 percent after the abrogation of Article-370. This is aided by the establishment of over 40 thousand new business units under various self-employment schemes, and formal registration of over 3.53 million unorganised sector workers on the ‘E-Shram Portal’ till 2024. Complementing this, government programmes like ‘Mission Youth and Mission Yuva’ is also launched to establish 0.14 million new enterprises, which is likely to generate over 0.42 million jobs within next five years. With per-capita income rising at a rate of 8.3 percent, outpacing even Punjab and Delhi, and a projected state GDP growth rate of 7.06 percent in 2024-25, J&K’s economic growth is on an upward trajectory.

A tamer valley?

China–India Rapprochement And Its Strategic Implications For Afghanistan – Analysis

Imran Zakeria, Scott N. Romaniuk and László Csicsmann

Afghanistan’s history reads as a catalogue of great power competition. From the 19th-century rivalry between Tsarist Russia and Great Britain to the Cold War confrontation between the United States (U.S.) and the Soviet Union, the country’s strategic location has repeatedly drawn external actors into its domestic affairs. Its terrain and position have made it both a prize and a battleground, where the ambitions of powerful neighbors have often eclipsed the needs of its own people.

These rivalries not only hindered meaningful reconstruction but actively eroded Afghanistan’s existing infrastructure, underscoring how external competition repeatedly translated into internal devastation. Following the US military intervention at the start of the 21st century, Afghanistan witnessed modest economic growth and partial infrastructure reconstruction, but these outcomes came at an extraordinary cost. External powers once again turned the country into a battleground for their geopolitical rivalries, prioritizing strategic interests over Afghan stability and welfare. Ordinary citizens endured the heaviest burden, facing daily casualties and profound human suffering.

While Afghanistan’s strategic geography has made it a target of foreign rivalries, the persistence of its problems cannot be explained by external factors alone. The absence of effective strategic vision among Afghan rulers, coupled with their inability to manage the country’s geopolitical position within regional and international frameworks, has perpetuated instability and limited opportunities for national resilience. Domestic political challenges—including factional divisions within the Islamic Emirate, governance capacity limitations, and local power dynamics—further shape decision-making and influence Afghanistan’s ability to leverage regional partnerships. Without stronger internal legitimacy and administrative effectiveness, even well-intentioned foreign engagement faces significant constraints.

Afghanistan–Pakistan Relations and Regional Frictions

During the period of US military presence, relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan were characterized by persistent tension and mistrust. Since the return of the Islamic Emirate in 2021, these frictions have not only continued but intensified, reflecting enduring disputes over border security, militancy, and mutual accusations of interference.

America imagines Asim Munir is the cure to jihadism. He is the disease

Praveen Swami

Less than an hour earlier, William Putscher had been lunching on a hot dog by the poolside, in the congenial environment of the American Embassy’s club in Islamabad, nestled inside a 32-acre campus. Now, he was being held hostage in the dormitories of the élite Quaid-e-Azam University, facing trial for unspecified crimes “against the Islamic movement.” The students who had attacked the embassy had thrown a brick at Putscher’s face, and then hit him on the back of the head with a pipe. The young accountant had been relieved of his wallet and his two rings by the mob: “Kill the Americans,” the crowd sang.

Twenty kilometres away in the garrison town of Rawalpindi, military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was being showered with rose petals by women strategically positioned along the route of his open jeep ride. Everywhere he stopped, his staff handed out sacks of flour, quilts and copies of the Quran.

Lieutenant-General Faiz Ali Chishti, the executor of the coup that brought Zia to power, watched as Zia addressed the crowds at Warris Khan Chowk. A question was asked about the storming of the Masjid al-Haram at Mecca the previous night. Either intentionally or otherwise, General Chishti later wrote, Zia replied, “the Americans had inspired the attack on the Holy Kaaba.” This was untrue: the Masjid al-Haram had in fact been occupied by Saudi rebels. Zia, however, fuelled the rumours.

As Zia’s soldiers watched, the American flag at the Embassy was brought down and burned. An American military guard was shot in the head and died.

Last week, Field-Marshal Asim Munir did what General Zia wouldn’t: Troops chased down and shot fleeing protestors of the far-right Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan party, sometimes at point blank range, after they marched on the American Embassy to protest the Gaza peace plan. Figures like Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s son-in-law, Muhammad Safdar Awan, openly backed TLP causes, like the persecution of the Ahmadiyya minority, and the murder of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Today, the PML-N is pushing for the TLP to be banned.

Field-Marshal Asim, like Zia, has recruited political Islam to his cause—but where Zia wheedled, inveigled and bought out the clerics, the Field Marshal is trying to keep them under his jackboots.

Is Ashley Tellis Really a China Spy?

Hemant Adlakha

Given the geopolitical climate, no one is surprised to hear about the arrest of Chinese students, scientists, and other academics in the United States on charges of spying or smuggling out scientific information and biological materials. Such stories are all too common.

But the news that Ashley Tellis, an Indian-born foreign policy strategist and a leading expert on U.S. and South Asian affairs, has been arrested sent shockwaves in policymaking in Washington, New Delhi and beyond. Well-known as a key figure in promoting an India-U.S. “alliance” to counter a rising China, scholars and analysts in China found it extraordinary that Tellis is now seemingly being accused of, among other things, spying for China.

Tellis has been charged with the unlawful retention of national defense information, the U.S. Justice Department said on October 14. He was arrested over the weekend after more than a thousand pages of documents with “top secret” or “secret” classifications were allegedly found at his home.

According to an affidavit from an FBI agent, Tellis had allegedly “met with government officials of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on multiple occasions over the past several years,” dating at least back to 2022. Tellis has not yet officially been charged for spying for China, perhaps due to lack of sufficient evidence, but the inclusion of his meetings with PRC officials in the affidavit has raised eyebrows.

Tellis has denied the charges. In a statement, his lawyers said they would be “vigorously contesting the allegations brought against him, specifically any insinuation of his operating on behalf of a foreign adversary.”

Who Is Ashley J. Tellis?

Future U.S. Army Infantry Fighting Vehicle XM30 Designed to Survive Modern Battlefields.

The U.S. Army’s XM30 Infantry Fighting Vehicle is emerging as the service’s next-generation replacement for the aging M2 Bradley. Designed to endure drone swarms, top-attack munitions, and digital-age warfare, the XM30 signals a leap in how mechanized forces will fight and survive.

Washington D.C., United States, October 20, 2025 - The U.S. Army is moving forward with its XM30 Infantry Fighting Vehicle program, a clean-sheet design that breaks from decades of incremental upgrades to the M2 Bradley. Developed under the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle initiative, the XM30 is intended to thrive on battlefields defined by electronic warfare, autonomous systems, and near-peer threats. Army acquisition officials describe it as a networked, modular vehicle capable of operating with or without a crew, integrating seamlessly with the Army’s future command and control architecture.

The American Rheinmetall Vehicles Lynx KF41 (left) and General Dynamics Land Systems Griffin III (right), the two competing prototypes selected by the U.S. Army for the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle program, aimed at replacing the legacy M2 Bradley in frontline mechanized units. (Picture source: Army Recognition Group)

Developed under the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle portfolio, the XM30 is engineered to give Armored Brigade Combat Teams a decisive edge with modular design, hybrid-electric propulsion, advanced sensor integration, and superior lethality. It is not just a new vehicle; it is a transformational shift in how the U.S. Army conceives of armored infantry warfare.

As of October 20, 2025, the XM30 IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) U.S. Army program is well into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase following a Milestone B decision taken in June 2025. This critical approval moved the project from the design phase into the physical prototyping stage. Both General Dynamics Land Systems and American Rheinmetall Vehicles are currently constructing full-scale prototypes, scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Army in early 2026. Evaluation and trials will inform the final selection process, with a low-rate initial production decision expected by late 2027.

A ‘Fortified Freeze’ Might Be How the Ukraine War Ends

Andrew Latham

Key Points and Summary – Russia’s autumn offensive has stalled, yielding only microscopic gains at a colossal cost in blood and metal. While Russia has adapted its tactics, it has not achieved a decisive breakthrough.

-Ukraine has also adapted, using defense-in-depth and robotic systems to survive the war of attrition.

-This battlefield stalemate, where neither side can sprint, is making a “fortified freeze” along the current front lines increasingly likely

-While a ceasefire rewards aggression, a durable one—wired with strong deterrence and enforcement—could give Ukraine time to rearm and prevent a future Russian attack.

Could Putin Be Forced to Accept a ‘Fortified Freeze’ in Ukraine?

From a distance, Russia’s autumn offensive looks like a knockout punch; up close it lands like a glancing jab.

The front has shifted at the edges—villages taken, tree lines contested—but the sweeping breakthrough Moscow keeps promising never shows up. What we’re witnessing instead is less breakthrough than abrasion. And that raises the question: could Moscow be forced to accept a fortified freeze along the current front line?

There are those, of course, who believe that Moscow will be forced wo accept no such thing. To them, Russian battlefield adaptation looks like a war-winning evolution. And not without cause., Russian units have learned what works and what doesn’t. They push more small-group assaults under drone overwatch, level strongpoints with glide bombs, and flood the battlespace with cheap FPVs hunting guns and vehicles.

But, on closer inspection, these tactical innovations – as radical as they are – have not changed the fundamental battlefield calculus. Every step forward still exacts a toll in Russian blood and metal. In this “new phase” of the war, Moscow has figured out how to grind on somewhat more efficiently. But it has definitely still not figured out how to achieve a decisive battlefield victory over its Ukrainian foe.

The Stagnant Order And the End of Rising Powers

Michael Beckley

In 1898, as the United Kingdom joined other powers in carving up the once mighty Qing empire, British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury warned a London audience that the world was dividing into “living” and “dying” nations. The living were the rising powers of the industrial age—states with growing populations, transformative technologies, and militaries of unprecedented range and firepower. The dying were stagnant empires, crippled by corruption, clinging to obsolete methods, and sliding toward ruin. Salisbury feared that the ascent of some, colliding with the decline of others, would hurl the world into catastrophic conflict.

Now, that era of power transitions is ending. For the first time in centuries, no country is rising fast enough to overturn the global balance. The demographic booms, industrial breakthroughs, and territorial acquisitions that once fueled great powers have largely run their course. China, the last major riser, is already peaking, its economy slowing and its population shrinking. Japan, Russia, and Europe stalled more than a decade ago. India has youth but lacks the human capital and state capacity to turn it into strength. The United States faces its own troubles—debt, sluggish growth, political dysfunction—but still outpaces rivals sinking into deeper decay. The rapid ascents that once defined modern geopolitics have yielded to sclerosis: the world is now a closed club of aging incumbents, circled by middle powers, developing countries, and failing states.

This reversal carries profound consequences. Over the long run, it may spare the world the ruinous cycle of rising powers—their quests for territory, resources, and status that so often ended in war. In the near term, however, stagnation and demographic shocks are spawning acute dangers. Fragile states are buckling under debt and youth bulges. Struggling powers are turning to militarization and irredentism to stave off decline. Economic insecurity is stoking extremism and corroding democracies, while the United States drifts toward thuggish unilateralism. The age of rising powers is ending, but its immediate aftermath may prove no less violent.

THE AGE OF ASCENT

Putin–Trump Call Stalls Tomahawks but Reactivates Ceasefire Discussions

Pavel K. Baev

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to meet in Budapest to discuss Russia’s war against Ukraine during an October 16 phone call that preempted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington.

Putin’s phone call yielded a short-term advantage by prompting Trump to delay a decision on supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but intensified U.S. diplomatic pressure on Russia for a ceasefire.

Despite Russia’s worsening economic situation and public fatigue with the war, Putin remains resistant to a ceasefire, prioritizing his political ambitions over domestic and international pressure.

On October 16, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to meet in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss Russia’s war against Ukraine. Putin timed his phone call to occur while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in the air on the way to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with Trump on October 17. Anticipation of a new round of talks with Russia likely affected U.S.–Ukraine talks. Russian mainstream media has eagerly announced that Zelenskyy “yet again” failed to establish common ground with Trump on expanding support for the Ukrainian war effort (Izvestiya, October 18). This self-congratulation is based on Trump postponing a decision about whether to supply Ukraine with long-range offensive weapons, namely Tomahawk missiles, but conveniently plays down re-energized U.S. pressure to stop the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine (RBC, October 18). Putin may have scored a tactical win, but renewed diplomatic pressure to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine means he will have to contemplate a wider scope of compromises.

Zelenskyy has persistently requested U.S. BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which Trump highlighted ahead of October 17 talks but never committed to supplying (Meduza, October 14). Some Russian experts argued that Trump’s public consideration of supplying Tomahawks to Ukraine was merely a “bluff” because there are very few ground launchers for this primarily sea-based weapon (Business Online, October 12). The Tomahawks have nevertheless become a major political discussion in Russia’s war against Ukraine, so Putin had to take a stance on the issue, including at an October 2 Valdai Club meeting (Kommersant, October 3). Putin has downplayed the threat of Tomahawks and refrained from drawing any “red lines,” while warning that the damage to the Russia–U.S. relations would be heavy should Washington supply the missiles to Kyiv (Vedomosti, October 10; TopWar.ru, October 14). Putin argued, publicly and directly to Trump, that Tomahawks would minimally impact the battlefield, which is technically correct as Ukraine would primarily use Tomahawks on strategic long-range targets inside Russia rather than on the front lines of battle. Putin prefers to omit that Kyiv could use these weapons to significantly increase the Kremlin’s fuel supply crisis caused by Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries (The Moscow Times, October 17).

The Bolduc Brief: The Cease-Fire Brokered by the Trump Administration – An Analysis

Donald Bolduc

The cease-fire agreement brokered by the Trump administration marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, yet it was undeniably vulnerable from the very beginning. Political agreements in regions rife with complex histories of animosity and violence must rest on stable foundations; however, this particular truce was undermined by several critical misjudgments that would ultimately reveal themselves over time.

One of the most contentious aspects of the cease-fire was the decision to remove Israeli defense forces, thereby leaving Hamas in a position to enforce security within the region. This move not only raised questions about the safety of Israeli citizens but also set a dangerous precedent. Without the deterrent presence of Israeli forces, the truce essentially provided Hamas with an opportunity to regroup and assert control. History has shown that groups like Hamas often capitalize on such voids, and it was overly optimistic to assume they would adhere to a peace agreement, given their track record of violence and intimidation. The expectation that Hamas would respect the terms of the cease-fire was naïve; their tendency to violate agreements for tactical advantages was well-documented.

Further complicating matters was the involvement of various Arab nations that pressured Hamas into accepting a deal that they did not embrace. Such dynamics often lead to hasty agreements that lack a thorough understanding of the underlying conflicts and grievances. It became increasingly apparent that Hamas would seek to exploit any perceived weakness, aiming to expand its control and influence over contested territories. The very fact that Arab nations felt compelled to endorse this cease-fire hinted at deeper fractures within the region, revealing that many actors were unwilling participants rather than enthusiastic allies.

As anticipated, the cease-fire swiftly became a flashpoint for renewed violence; the attacking of Israeli defense forces by Hamas was perhaps an inevitable outcome. The subsequent Israeli retaliation followed a familiar pattern that has played out numerous times in the past—each cycle of violence further entrenched animosities, making genuine peace seem increasingly elusive. While the release of hostages as a direct outcome of the cease-fire was a noteworthy development, it was painfully clear that this was the only tangible achievement. The grand declaration of achieving everlasting peace was not only premature but also indicative of a profound misunderstanding of the complexities at play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Washington’s neglect of South Korea’s security concerns is a proliferation problem

Jack Kennedy

In September, the US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a battery plant in Georgia. The plant was operated by South Korean companies Hyundai and LG Energy Solution. Of the 475 people detained, over 300 were South Korean nationals. ICE claimed the workers had overstayed their visas or committed other violations of immigration law, but did not provide evidence. In recent months, ICE has frequently detained people, including US citizens, without legal justification.

The raid has caused outrage in South Korea across the political spectrum, and Seoul has announced it is investigating whether human rights abuses occurred. Following the incident, the former mayor of South Korea’s third-largest city Daegu, Hong Joon-pyo, reportedly said that the US raid is evidence that the country must acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Hong’s is merely one voice and calls for an independent South Korean nuclear deterrent are nothing new, particularly on the political right. (Hong is a member of the right-wing People’s Power Party.) More notably, however, Hong characterized the ICE raid as an “intentional provocation” and “both humiliating and disgraceful… Why are we still perceived as a subordinate rather than an equal?” His comments encapsulate the breadth and depth of the South Korean fury over the raid. While the People’s Power Party has supported nuclear armament for some time and has traditionally represented the most pro-American wing of South Korean politics (particularly in the era of Trump), Hong’s use of defiant language is rare for a prominent party member—and it revives the problem of South Korean proliferation.

Washington’s missteps. The images of Korean workers being paraded in shackles by ICE agents were bad enough on their own, but they come as part of a parade of missteps and poor policy decisions Washington made in its dealings with Seoul in recent years.

South Korea and the United States are embroiled in tariff negotiations, and President Lee Jae-myung has said that agreeing to the current US demands would cripple the South Korean economy. South Korean companies have made enormous investments in the United States (and vice versa) in recent years, particularly in critical areas such as electric battery and semiconductor manufacturing. But this has not been enough for the Trump administration, which has demanded hundreds of billions in additional upfront South Korean investment in the United States, a concession which Lee has said would get him “impeached”.

Hamas ruled Gaza with an iron rod - will it really give up control?

Paul Adams,Diplomatic correspondent, Jerusalem and Rushdi Abualouf,Gaza correspondent

How does a group that has governed the Gaza Strip for almost 20 years, ruling two million Palestinians with an iron rod and fighting Israel in repeated wars, suddenly lay down its arms and relinquish control?

Judging by a steady stream of gruesome images emerging from Gaza since the ceasefire came into effect on 10 October, Hamas seems intent on reasserting its authority.

Its masked men, back on the streets, have been seen beating and executing opponents. Impromptu firing squads have dispatched kneeling men they say are members of rival groups, including some of Gaza's powerful clans.

Other victims, cowering in terror, are shot in the legs or beaten with heavy clubs.

Some of those now being attacked by Hamas had been part of groups involved in looting and diverting aid, according to one aid worker I spoke to, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. The UN has also accused criminal gangs of stealing aid.

This is not yet a world in which, as US President Donald Trump's 20-point Gaza peace plan envisages, Hamas fighters turn over their weapons, submit to an amnesty, leave Gaza and hand over to an international stabilisation force.

For his part, President Trump initially seemed ambivalent about the brutality.

On his way to Israel on 13 October, he signalled the US had given Hamas - designated a terrorist group by the US, UK, Israel and others - a green light to restore order.

"We have given them approval for a period of time," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Three days later, he hardened his tone. "If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the Deal," he wrote on Truth Social, "we will have no choice but to go in and kill them."

So, where does this situation on the ground in Gaza today leave Hamas?

Sanae Takaichi makes history as Japan's first female prime minister

Shaimaa Khalil and Yvette Tan

Sanae Takaichi has been elected Japan's prime minister by its parliament, making her the first woman to hold the office.

The 64-year-old won a clear majority on Tuesday - 237 votes in the powerful Lower House and another 125 in the Upper House - as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

A staunch conservative and admirer of the late former UK PM Margaret Thatcher, Takaichi takes over at a challenging economic moment as Japan grapples with a rising cost of living and a frustrated public.

It's also been an uncertain time for the world's fourth-largest economy. She is the fourth PM in just five years, after her predecessors' terms were cut short by plunging ratings and scandals.

Although she defeated four men to win the LDP race in early October, her path to the top job appeared to be blocked when the LDP's long-time coalition partner, the Komeito party, withdrew support.

But a last-minute deal with another opposition party - the right-leaning Japan Innovation Party (JIP), known as Ishin - saved her. She and the LDP will face voters next in 2028.

Meanwhile, aside from domestic challenges, she faces tricky relationships abroad. South Korea, which had started to mend historically delicate ties with Japan, is wary because of her right-wing politics, which lean nationalist. And, like some of her predecessors, including the late former PM Shinzo Abe, she is seen as hawkish when it comes to an increasingly powerful China.

But the most important relationship is with the US and a test is around the corner - a meeting with US President Donald Trump next week.

Déjà Vu All over Again

Lawrence Freedman

Donald Trump’s two-and-a-half-hour telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin on 16 October, followed by a claim that he is on course once again to find an end to the Russo-Ukraine War, triggered a profound sense of déjà vu.

These moments seem to come when Trump has all but given up on Putin and is talking about either extending sanctions or transferring weapons to Ukraine. In this case it was Putin who asked for the call knowing that Trump was due to meet the next day with Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The delivery of US Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine was high on the agenda.

The subsequent Trump-Zelenskyy meeting, which also lasted for some time, was described by insiders to CNN as ‘a tense, frank and, at times, “uncomfortable” discussion.’ The Financial Times went further, in describing the stormy nature of the exchanges, although its report was not sourced to anyone who was actually present at the meeting. The juiciest quotes came from a European official ‘with knowledge of the meeting.’ Neither Trump nor Zelenskyy described it afterwards in quite the same way and a Ukrainian source has now described the meeting as ‘tense,’ but without ‘shouting.’ Nonetheless a new narrative was established of Trump, having been sounding almost friendly to Zelenskyy, now turning on him viciously. The new narrative would have been more credible if these heated exchanges with Trump’s new pro-Putin demands had carried on subsequently in public, but they didn’t.

Nonetheless, and whatever the tone of the meeting, Putin did achieve two objectives. First, there was no movement on the Tomahawks. Second, using the standard techniques required to get Trump’s attention, involving lashings of praise for the Gaza deal and promises of a great economic relationship in the future, Putin gained agreement on yet another summit between the two, this time to be hosted by their mutual friend Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The venue was apparently suggested by Trump. What is less clear, however, is what another summit achieve.

Trump has been prone to wishful thinking when it comes to describing potential Russian concessions, and this case may be no exception. At least this time before the next big step, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are due to talk to prepare the ground and check that there is a possibility of real progress at a summit. Though the venue has been agreed there is as yet no date. It may not happen.

The Challenge of Golden Dome

Kevin Eyer

The “Golden Dome Project,” announced by President Trump in May 2025, is advertised to be a multi-layer defense system for the United States, designed to safeguard the homeland from various aerial threats, including ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise weapons.

In other words, the President intends to render the United States impervious to air attack originating anywhere on the globe, from any enemy possessing any level of sophistication.

There is an allure to this, especially considering Israel’s remarkable anti-missile record over the past two years. Invulnerability to a missile attack? What could be more desirable, and what foolishness it would be to not achieve the timely completion such a wonderful thing. Here, finally, is the realization of the promise made by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, when he proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

SDI was intended to protect the United States from attack by nuclear ballistic missiles, primarily from the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. “Star Wars,” as SDI was more commonly known, was to include space-based laser and particle beam weapons, sophisticated ground, and space-based sensors, and a new generation of ground-based, anti-missile missiles, featuring Kinetic Kill Vehicles (KKVs) that would maneuver, post-launch, to directly impact threat warheads. Ultimately, Star Wars broke apart on the rocks of the closing of the Cold War. As the threat of nuclear exchange diminished, the nation began to look for a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” and it quickly became plain that the cost of SDI was not only exorbitant, but that the technologies required to operationalize the system were far beyond the capability of the day.

Today, while global thermonuclear war seems far less of a threat than it did in 1983, it remains a ghastly possibility. Yet even if the desire to shield the nation from existential attack exists, the other issues that haunted SDI into an early grave remain. As was the case in the 1980s, the technology required to make the Golden Dome a reality is not nearly here, and much of that technology remains little more than theoretical. Moreover, even if the US should decide to shoulder the burdens necessary to mature the required technologies, the cost to field a capable system will certainly reach into the trillions.

The Battle Inside Israel Over Who Must Fight in Its Wars

Joshua Leifer

On a sweltering day in early July, when a cease-fire in Gaza seemed impossibly remote, the funeral procession for Moshe Shmuel Nol, a 21-year-old Israeli soldier killed by Hamas fighters, left from his family’s home in Beit Shemesh, a religious suburb west of Jerusalem. It was the kind of scene that had become routine in Israel over the last two years. Mourners lined the street, Israeli flags held aloft, almost limp in the breezeless air. The bereaved family strode in a silence broken only by muffled sobs. Since Oct. 7, 2023, more than 900 Israeli soldiers have been killed. Military funerals have often been broadcast on television, the eulogies played over the radio, sometimes several in the span of a few hours. Nol was one of five soldiers from his unit buried in two days.

Yet the cortege in Beit Shemesh was also very unlike those to which Israelis have become accustomed. The father who came to bury his son was dressed in the black suit, white shirt and black hat worn by ultra-Orthodox Jews, or as they are known in Hebrew, Haredim — “those who tremble before God.” The grief-stricken mother, her hair covered by a wig, walked behind him, wearing a long-sleeved dress in the punishing sun. Among the mourners were Hasidim in long black coats and black hats, men with beards and curled sidelocks. Video of the procession and funeral spread quickly on social media and in the press.

The Haredim have historically been exempt from Israel’s draft, which is compulsory for most citizens, and over the two years of Israel’s war in Gaza, this became the source of considerable political strife. Ever since the most recent provision extending their exemption expired in 2023, the Haredi political parties — which made up nearly one third of Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing right-wing, religious coalition — have pushed to enshrine a new exemption into law, despite widespread opposition. The Haredi parties backed the coalition’s controversial “judicial overhaul,” a sweeping program, unveiled in January 2023, that would strip the country’s judiciary of much of its power and shred Israel’s fragile system of checks and balances. They did so in order to shield any new draft exemption law from judicial review.

But if the images of Haredim standing alongside soldiers in Beit Shemesh suggested that the struggle over ultra-Orthodox conscription was headed toward resolution, it was an illusion. After Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in June of last year that the government’s refusal to draft the Haredim was unconstitutional in the absence of any legal framework to extend their exemption, the defense ministry began to issue draft orders. The Israel Defense Forces say they have so far sent out 80,000; barely 3,000 Haredim have complied.

Europe Is at War

Michael Kimmage

Russia’s intensifying incursions into European airspace are often described as acts of hybrid war. The implication is that while conventional war rages in Ukraine, with the Russian military directly targeting Ukrainian civilians, Russia’s war in Europe remains in a gray zone. It is psychological shadowboxing intended to degrade Europe’s motivation and resolve.

But this distinction is misleading. It is better to think of the war in Ukraine as a single war, with different levels of participation. If nothing else, Russia’s airspace violations show that Moscow makes no sharp distinction between Europe and Ukraine. Analysts must abandon this distinction if they hope to understand Russia’s thinking, and European states must abandon this distinction if they hope to gain lasting advantage in the war.

As the United States recedes from the conflict, scaling back direct military support for Ukraine, Europe is already stepping forward, investing heavily in the defense of Ukraine. Europe’s oft stated goal of a Ukraine integrated into European political and security structures is anathema to Russia. Yet, despite this, Europe is still trying to keep the war at arm’s length.

Going forward, Europeans should dispense with the crutch of hybrid war. When they do, they will see that Europe’s position vis-à-vis Ukraine may be more robust than Europeans might think, if more intertwined with the war than they might wish. In a long confrontation with Russia, Europe holds many of the best cards.

The Countries Courting Trump With Critical Minerals

Rishi Iyengar

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese became the latest leader to use critical minerals as a fast-track into U.S. President Donald Trump’s good graces, signing a deal during his visit to Washington on Monday that will give the United States greater access to Australia’s critical mineral reserves and infrastructure.

As part of the deal, the two countries will jointly invest $3 billion in critical mineral projects over the next six months, aiming to unearth minerals worth an estimated $53 billion, according to the White House. The Pentagon will also invest in an advanced refinery in Western Australia to mine the mineral gallium.

An illustration shows the back of a person wearing a graduation cap with a globe motif on it. A hand reaches in to move a locator pin on the top of the cap/map.

Their Water Taps Ran Dry When Meta Built Next Door

Eli Tan

After Meta broke ground on a $750 million data center on the edge of Newton County, Ga., the water taps in Beverly and Jeff Morris’s home went dry.

The couple’s house, which uses well water, is 1,000 feet from Meta’s new data center. Months after construction began in 2018, the Morrises’ dishwasher, ice maker, washing machine and toilet all stopped working, said Beverly Morris, now 71. Within a year, the water pressure had slowed to a trickle. Soon, nothing came out of the bathroom and kitchen taps.

Jeff Morris, 67, eventually traced the issues to the buildup of sediment in the water. He said he suspected the cause was Meta’s construction, which could have added sediment to the groundwater and affected their well. The couple replaced most of their appliances in 2019, and then again in 2021 and 2024. Residue now gathers at the bottom of their backyard pool. The taps in one of their two bathrooms still do not work.

“It feels like we’re fighting an unwinnable battle that we didn’t sign up for,” said Ms. Morris, a retired payroll specialist, adding that she and her husband have spent $5,000 on their water problems and cannot afford the $25,000 to replace the well. “I’m scared to drink our own water.”

The Morrises’ experience is one of a growing number of water-related issues around Newton County, which is a one-and-a-half-hour drive east of Atlanta and has a population of about 120,000 people. As tech giants like Meta build data centers in the area, local wells have been damaged, the cost of municipal water has soared and the county’s water commission may face a shortage of the vital resource.

The situation has become so dire that Newton County is on track to be in a water deficit by 2030, according to a report last year. If the local water authority cannot upgrade its facilities, residents could be forced to ration water. In the next two years, water rates are set to increase 33 percent, more than the typical 2 percent annual increases, said Blair Northen, the mayor of Mansfield, a town in Newton County.

“Absolutely terrible,” he said.

Russia now has a strategy for a permanent state of hybrid war

Stefan Wolff

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

Drone incursions into Poland, fighter jets in Nato airspace, election interference in Romania and Moldova and “little green men” (soldiers of unconfirmed origin) in Estonia. These are just a few examples of the tactics Russia has been using in the past few weeks.

They appear to be part of a much broader strategy variously referred to as the “Gerasimov doctrine”, non-linear war or new-generation warfare. What lies behind these terms is the very worrying and very real “weaponisation of everything” – Moscow’s strategy to reshape international order.

As a researcher on great-power rivalries in Eurasia, I’ve observed this kind of hybrid warfare long before the full-scale invasion in Ukraine. We saw it most obviously with Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. But it has intensified since the Ukraine conflict began in 2022.

These tactics cover a broad spectrum. They range from information operations, including propaganda and disinformation campaigns, to attacks on critical infrastructure, such as undersea cables. They involve the use of drones to disrupt air traffic and malicious cyber-attacks against Russia’s enemies. They have also included assassination campaigns against defectors and dissidents in the UK and elsewhere.

Russia is struggling to retain its traditional influence in post-Soviet regions like the south Caucasus and central Asia. Meanwhile it has also sought to extend its influence elsewhere, such as in Latin America or Africa.

But the main focus of the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare is Europe. The continent has become a key battleground in Moscow’s attempts to restore Russia to its erstwhile great-power status and reclaim a Soviet-style sphere of influence.

Empower the National Guard for Cyber Defense

Robert M. Lee

As cyber threats grow in scale and sophistication, America’s most critical and vulnerable systems - our power grids, water supplies, and gas pipelines - are increasingly in the crosshairs. These systems, known as Operational Technology (OT), are the invisible backbone of our daily lives – they’re what makes critical infrastructure, critical. Yet when it comes to cyber defense, OT has too often been treated as an afterthought, overshadowed by traditional IT-focused cybersecurity strategies and left exposed to adversaries intent on sowing disruption. Underinvestment has been matched with under preparation. OT networks are too often left unmonitored, and incident response plans are under-developed, or often nonexistent. Speedily addressing these vulnerabilities is a national security imperative. Fortunately, we have a ready resource available to lead OT-related cybersecurity preparation and incident response in the U.S. National Guard.

Why the National Guard? No other federal force combines local presence, dual federal-state authority, and deep operational ties with civil and private-sector counterparts the way the Guard does. With units in every state and territory, the Guard is uniquely suited to respond swiftly and cooperatively to attacks on critical infrastructure assets in communities across the country. The Guard has well built, well prepared, and capable cyber-focused units already that offer a strong foundation to build from.

I was honored recently to be tasked with creating national OT incident response plans as part of the 91st Cyber Brigade of the Virginia National Guard, in conjunction with other federal policymakers to help address the nation’s shortcomings in OT incident response. I am now working with these partners to build out the concept of the National Guard as a critical cyber incident response resource. This mission stems from a Congressional mandate to U.S. CYBERCOM to improve OT defenses and response. I am confident that with the ideas that we are developing, the personnel we are hiring and training, and with new authorities and reforms from Congress and the executive branch, the Guard can scale its mission to provide this badly needed line of defense, leaving our nation much safer.

When Everything Is Fake, What’s the Point of Social Media?

Andrew R. Chow

Earlier this week, a heartwarming post about a girl, a puppy, and a police officer went viral across social media platforms. The post consisted of two dashcam images of a distraught 12-year-old who, desperate to heal her sick puppy, got behind the wheel for the first time and tried to drive to the vet. She was pulled over, but commended by a police officer for being “amazing, strong, compassionate, and smart,” and the puppy was saved. Comments flooded in celebrating the bond between a girl and her furry best friend.

But when social media users took a closer look, they noticed a few strange things: the steering wheel was on the right side of the car, which also lacked a dashboard. And the image hadn’t originated on any news platform or official police page, but rather simply appeared on Facebook on its own.

The image, perhaps predictably, was another example of AI slop: images created via AI, designed for maximum engagement on social media, slipping into user feeds with no signal of whether they’re real or fake. As far as AI slop goes, this instance was relatively harmless. But increasingly more AI slop churned through social media this week thanks to the arrival of Sora 2, OpenAI’s new advanced text-to-video model.

Some videos were clearly fabricated, like Pope John Paul II wrestling Tupac in the ring. Others were harder to discern, like a boy being swept away by a tornado, or homeless men being inserted into people’s homes. Sora became the most downloaded free app in Apple’s App Store in its first week.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, says he hopes these Sora 2 videos will “feel fun and new,” while also helping train his AIs about how the 3D world works. Critics, on the other hand, see them as a potential death knell for social media. What was supposed to be a revolutionary medium for maintaining friendships and relationships has now become a fake content generation machine—where it’s impossible to tell what’s real and what’s not.

“For years, the internet has been a place where people go to feel connected. But if everything online starts to feel fake, and our For You pages are all Sora-generated videos, people will start retreating back into what's physically provable,” says Kashyap Rajesh, a vice president at the youth-led organization Encode. “The irony is that AI might end up saving human connection and human relationships because they're making us so desperate for that real thing.”

It’s the Internet, Stupid

Francis Fukuyama

We are delighted to feature Francis Fukuyama in the pages of Persuasion once again. Some of you may not know that he writes a regular column, “Frankly Fukuyama,” which is proudly part of the Persuasion family, and which you need to manually opt in to receive.

To get all of Frank’s writing—and to get articles from American Purpose, the magazine he founded, and its culture-focused podcast, Bookstack—simply click on “Email preferences” below and make sure you toggle on the relevant buttons.

Ever since the year 2016, when Britain voted for Brexit and Trump was elected president, social scientists, journalists, pundits, and almost everyone else have been trying to explain the rise of global populism. There has been a standard list of causes:

Economic inequality brought on by globalization and neoliberal policies.

Racism, nativism, and religious bigotry on the part of populations that have been losing status.

Broad sociological changes that have sorted people by education and residence, and resentment at the dominance of elites and experts.

The special talents of individual demagogues like Donald Trump.

The failures of mainstream political parties to deliver growth, jobs, security, and infrastructure.

Dislike or hatred of the progressive Left’s cultural agenda.

Failures of leadership of the progressive Left.

Human nature and our proclivities towards violence, hatred, and exclusion.

Social media and the internet.

I myself have contributed to this literature, and like everyone else ticked off cause #9, social media and the internet, as one of the contributing factors. However, after pondering these questions for nearly a decade, I have come to conclude that technology broadly and the internet in particular stand out as the most salient explanations for why global populism has arisen in this particular historical period, and why it has taken the particular form that it has.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)