Indian Strategic Studies: 11/15/25

15 November 2025

Op Sindoor was a political success but a diplomatic disaster: Strategic expert

As India reels from the car explosion near Delhi's Red Fort that killed 12 people and injured several others, strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney has questioned the long-term impact of Operation Sindoor, describing it as a "political success but a diplomatic and strategic disaster".

Speaking to India Today TV, Chellaney said the recent arrests linked to the blast point to the survival and rebuilding of Pakistan-backed terror infrastructure that Operation Sindoor had once sought to dismantle.

"If it is true that the car bomber and others arrested are linked to Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad, it raises a larger question about the enduring results of Operation Sindoor. The operation was launched to impose deterrent costs on Pakistan for cross-border terrorism. But the terror infrastructure remains intact. Whatever India destroyed during the operation is now being rebuilt by Pakistan," Chellaney said.

He noted that the Red Fort terror module had operated from within the National Capital Region, not Jammu and Kashmir, underscoring the evolution of what he called a dangerous "urban extension of Pakistan's terror doctrine".

"They were operating from the heart of the Indian state. They managed to accumulate nearly 2,900 kg of explosives. Operation Sindoor was meant to send a clear message, but Pakistan today appears more emboldened. Look at its provocations and military build-up in Sir Creek," he added.

Furthermore, Chellaney said that India's diplomatic position had weakened following Operation Sindoor, citing the deterioration of ties with the United States.

India’s Biggest Problem Is Its Own Backyard

Safina Nabi

NEW DELHI—Back-to-back student-led uprisings in Bangladesh and Nepal have toppled governments there, signaling a generational shift in South Asian politics. From Colombo to Dhaka to Kathmandu, Generation Z is emerging as a disruptive force, challenging corruption, dynastic elites, and stagnant economies.

The scale and speed of these social movements have surprised entrenched political classes in their respective countries—but also the political leaders of India, the region’s biggest and most influential country. India now finds itself grappling with an unexpected question: What does its rise as a global power mean when its immediate neighborhood is in political free fall?

Safina Nabi is an independent multimedia Journalist from South Asia based in Kashmir. She covers South Asia and Indian administered Kashmir. She writes on a range of subjects including gender, social justice, human rights. She has written for publications like Fuller Project, Christian Science Monitor, Nikkei Asia, Aljazeera among others.

Herat to Mazar-i-Sharif Railway Project May Shift Uzbekistan’s Transit Role

Nargiza Umarova

Afghanistan, Iran, and Türkiye have agreed to jointly construct a railway between Afghanistan’s Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif (Tolo News, October 24). Representatives from the three countries reached the agreement on October 22 at the Regional Assembly of the International Union of Railways in Istanbul. Each country will contribute financial, technical, and human resources to the project. A $10 million technical and economic feasibility study is scheduled for completion by March 2026, with cargo trials to follow a year later (South Asian Desk, October 25).

The extension of railway lines along Afghanistan’s northern provinces positions it as a key transit hub in East–West connectivity through Eurasia. The October 22 agreement marks another milestone in the implementation of the Five Nations Railway Corridor (FNRC) concept, which gained momentum in the early 2000s (see EDM, December 15, 2020). The 2,100-kilometer (1,205-mile) route features a single 1,435 millimeter standard gauge and spans the borders of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, with additional access to Türkiye and the European Union. The FNRC is designed to provide the shortest land connection between East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, posing serious competition to transit routes from the PRC to the European Union via Central Asia, including the Middle Corridor, also known as the Trans-Caspian International Transit Route (TITR).

Pakistan’s Fight Against the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Limits of Diplomatic Engagements with Afghanistan

Qurat-UL-Ain Shabbir

The recent clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan has again demonstrated how the border between the two countries is volatile, mistrustful, and one of the most vulnerable regions in South Asia. Despite the trilateral talks between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China this year, the latest one being held at the end of August, the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan are once again in crisis. The airstrikes of Pakistan in response to the attacks of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), in the vicinity of Kabul, along with the ensuing war of words, indicate that the region is caught in a vicious cycle of militarization and diplomatic stalemate.

Terrorist attacks by TTP and their safe havens in Afghanistan are the primary sources of the military conflict and the current diplomatic rift. Having been established in 2007 in the context of the so-called war on terror, the TTP is still ideologically linked to the Afghan Taliban. It tries to impose an extreme vision of Islamic law, and it has long been insisting that the merging of its tribal areas with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should be reversed. Pakistan has been adamant that TTP fighters are using the Afghan territory to carry out terrorist activities inside the country, taking advantage of the uncontrollable areas and the ambivalence of Kabul. Taliban government, however, dismisses these claims, with the government of Islamabad being urged not to make provocative utterances. Such denial and inaction by the Afghan Government have virtually frozen substantial diplomatic engagement.

The most recent wave of violence seems to have been instigated by an upsurge in the number of attacks on Pakistani soldiers. These well-organized and fatal attacks have been directed at the military posts along the frontier. Islamabad’s retaliation, albeit unofficially, indicates its frustration since it believes that Kabul neither has the intent nor the ability to contain TTP. The retaliatory attacks by Pakistan were conducted when the Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi was on an official visit to India. Some analysts believe that this visit has prompted Pakistan to take a firm decision to intensify its military activities. The timing is significant since Pakistan has made it clear that it will not take diplomatic optics lightly, which may imply that Kabul is inclining towards New Delhi and neglecting the security requirements of Islamabad.

The close political affiliations between the two Taliban groups speak volumes about Kabul’s reluctance to take a stand against its Pakistani equivalent. Any decisive move against the TTP would destroy the cohesion and internal unity of the Afghan Taliban.

Nepal’s Discord Vote Might Be the Future of Protest

Aja Romano

It’s a safe bet that absolutely no one had “Nepali citizens hold a meaningful state election on an online gaming server” on their 2025 bingo card. Yet after days of government-toppling protests earlier this month, the nomination, election, and swearing-in of Sushila Karki as Nepal’s new interim prime minister has, so far, gone off without a hitch.

Is this a new era of synergy between politics and online activism? Possibly—though it might depend on what social media platform you’re using.

Gen Z Is Taking to the Barricades

Christian Caryl

Remember the kids of Generation Z? You know—that notorious cohort of entitled, lazy, and apathetic people that Boomers so love to mock?

Over the past two years, members of Gen Z across Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been taking to the streets, covertly organizing revolutions and dethroning entrenched rulers. Quite a few of those involved in the uprisings have paid with their lives—another indicator that these events are worth taking seriously. On Oct. 14, Madagascar President Andry Rajoelina was ousted after weeks of protests and replaced by a military government, underlining the new power of the young and sometimes violent demonstrators who have been demanding change.

Did China Just Perfect a “Soft-Kill” Counter-Drone System?

Brandon J. Weichert

Many nations are working to develop “soft-kill” countermeasures against drones, which rely on disabling them through electronic interference rather than physically shooting them down.

China continues building massive numbers of drone and anti-drone systems as part of its growing arsenal of weapons with which to counter (and possibly deter) the Americans and their allies in any future war.

One such system is the URS-680, which is being reported as a short-range, soft-kill counter-drone/low-altitude air defense system. According to public reports on the new Chinese system, it is meant to detect small UAVs out to around five kilometers and jam or disrupt them out to roughly three or four kilometers. The system is designed to operate autonomously and to protect fixed sites or nearby forces.

Everyone Is Working on Anti-Drone Systems

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, unmanned systems have become ubiquitous both there and throughout the world’s many other battlefields. These systems not only serve as useful surveillance tools, but can be fashioned into quick strike, highly lethal systems that can overfly dense enemy formations, and do significant amounts of damage without endangering the lives of friendly servicemembers. What’s more, in the specific case of smaller drones, they are hard to detect and, unless tracked as early as possible, difficult to defend against.

That is why every militarily significant nation in the world, from Russia to Turkey to China to the states of the NATO alliance, is working feverishly on counter-drone systems that fixate on destroying these small drones. What has been discovered after the three years of fighting in Ukraine is that, while it is possible to track and shoot down small drones, very often the only weapons available are far more expensive missiles, or else small arms fire with a far lower probability of success.

What Is the Soft-Kill Approach in Attacking Drones?

Development or Dependence? Rethinking China’s Economic Playbook in the Americas

Leland Lazarus, Guido Torres

“Economic security is national security.” This core principle, long echoed across the U.S. interagency—from the White House’s National Security Strategy to Treasury and Commerce policy directives—has gained renewed urgency as strategic competition intensifies in the Western Hemisphere. In no place is this more evident than in Latin America and the Caribbean, where economic statecraft has become the terrain of contestation.

For three years, this slogan permeated out of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), stressing that a nation’s economic and national security are intertwined and that economic over-reliance on China could infringe on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)’s sovereignty. While the slogan certainly resonated in Washington, we often discussed with colleagues in the region whether LAC citizens felt the same way.

Oftentimes, they didn’t. Part of the reason is the U.S.’s own fraught history of imperialism in the region, where it militarily intervened in LAC countries dozens of times under the infamous Monroe Doctrine. In the minds of some LAC leaders, U.S. warnings about Chinese threats to their economic and national security come off as hypocritical.

That being said, it is disappointing that the same kind of domestic political discourse in many LAC countries where politicians jealously guard their sovereignty from the clutches of a Monroe Doctrine 2.0 doesn’t also include the same fervent effort to protect their sovereignty from China.

Beijing often cloaks its regional projects in strictly commercial language, but the substance is strategic: using economic leverage to shape the policy behavior of smaller states. In LAC, this coercion is increasingly subtle, pervasive, and effective. China’s tactics constitute a form of irregular warfare as old as Sun Tzu’s Art of War. An ancient Chinese idiom captures this approach well: ‘subdue the enemy without fighting.’ Therefore, LAC countries must identify when and how China is deploying economic coercion, and develop strategies to successfully counteract them and proactively protect their sovereignty.

The following table illustrates all instruments wielded by Chinese embassies.

Here’s How the US Space Force Is Planning to Jam Chinese Satellites

Peter Suciu

The Space Force is interested in two new anti-satellite weapons: the “Meadowlands” and the “Remote Monitor Terminal,” both of which are built to jam enemy satellite communications.

The sixth and newest branch of the United States military has been developing new systems to jam adversarial satellites. The United States Space Force could soon field “two new weapons,” Bloomberg reported last week. Each was developed to “jam” intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites operated by Russia and China.

America and China Are Preparing for Satellite Warfare

The United States already operates a “Counter Communications System,” a transportable (but not exactly “mobile”) electronic warfare system that can be employed to temporarily jam and disrupt satellite communications. The CCS Block 10.2 ground-based system achieved Initial Operating Capability in March 2020. It was designed to deny an adversary access to a space-based communications platform without permanently disabling its infrastructure.

The new systems, dubbed “Meadowlands” and “Remote Modular Terminal,” will further bolster the jamming capabilities. Unlike the bulky CCS, these two platforms can be more easily “dispersed worldwide,” and potentially even operated remotely, the Bloomberg report added.

China currently has around 1,200 satellites in orbit, and the majority of those would be valid military targets in a confrontation, even if they have civilian uses as well. Bloomberg cited the Space Force’s unclassified “Space Threat Fact Sheet,” which was last updated in September; the service notes that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) operates more than 510 ISR satellites, equipped with “optical, multispectral, radar and radio frequency sensors.”

Blinding the satellites in the event of war would be crucial to protecting key US assets, notably carrier strike groups, from the eyes in the sky.

“Intelligence suggests the PLA likely sees counter-space operations as a means to deter and counter U.S. military intervention in a regional conflict,” Gen. Chance Saltzman, commander of the US Space Force, said during the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission in April.

Not Quite Yet, China

Victor Davis Hanson

China has tentatively agreed to curtail sales of fentanyl to Mexico and other Latin American nations.

For three decades, Beijing sent the raw product to Latin American and Mexican cartels. The gangs then processed and disguised the toxic brew as less lethal narcotics and prescription drugs for export. The cartels laundered the profits with additional Chinese help, along with the feigned ignorance of the Mexican government.

Since 1999, imported fentanyl-laced drugs have killed approximately 600,000 Americans through addiction and accidental overdoses. That number nears the death toll of all Americans killed during the Civil War.

Following Donald Trump’s recent visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, China is reportedly set to lift restrictions on its rare earth mineral exports to the U.S. That was a self-interested move, since the U.S. and its allies were already mobilizing to become immune to Chinese cut-offs. Xi Jinping also agreed to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans.

Trump’s concessions include agreeing to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods to 47 percent, while maintaining tariffs on most Chinese imports at levels still higher than those of almost any other importing country.

No doubt, more details will emerge of other concessions. Both China and Trump’s domestic critics will undoubtedly seek to refute the administration’s insistence that the U.S. won most of the advantages.

For nearly half a century, over the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump’s first, and Biden administrations, Americans more or less came to accept that more Americans would die from fentanyl than were lost in all foreign wars in U.S. history. If China really does comply with its agreement, and the cartels cannot find alternate sources of raw product, then Trump might become the greatest savior of American lives in U.S. history.

So why did the Chinese government agree to these tentative agreements, given that no prior president has been able to stop the Chinese fentanyl supply chain or to tariff its goods without fearing a destructive trade war?

PRC Narrates Cyber Victimhood

Jonah Reisboard

Executive Summary:The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has responded to an alleged U.S. cyberattack on its National Time Service Center (NTSC) by constructing a narrative of empire and victimhood, consolidating its alignment with global south countries against U.S. hegemony.

Chinese analysts have used the attack as an opportunity to highlight perceived hypocrisy in the declared values of the United States and the U.S.-led international order, calling for stability and a “new cyberspace order.”

These responses echoed those following alleged Taiwanese cyberattacks earlier this year, which similarly asserted victimhood and attempted to create a more favorable information environment for the PRC to achieve its global aspirations.

On October 19, the Ministry of State Security (MSS; 国家安全部) informed national media that it had disrupted a U.S. cyberattack targeting the National Time Service Center (NTSC; 国家授时中心) (CCTV, October 19). The center is responsible for maintaining and distributing official Beijing Time (北京时间) throughout the People’s Republic of China (PRC), supporting logistics, finance, and energy functions (NTSC, accessed October 20). In response to the attack, state media claimed that the United States is “the biggest source of chaos in cyberspace” (网络空间的最大乱源), while denying what it calls the “PRC cyber threat theory” (中国网络威胁论) (CCTV, October 19).

Earlier this year, the Public Security Bureau of Tianhe District in Guangzhou announced that it had foiled a cyberattack linked to the Information, Communications, and Electronics Force (ICEFCOM; 國防部資通電軍指揮部) of Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (Xinhua, June 5). According to the PRC’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC; 国家计算机病毒应急处理中心), the Taiwanese unit carried out cyberattacks on the country’s military-industrial, government, energy, and transportation sectors over several years (CVERC, June 5). In this case, the PRC responded with a coordinated hybrid warfare campaign, releasing the identities of 20 suspected participants and offering rewards for their arrest (China Brief, July 25).

Eric Schmidt said he worries that most governments will use Chinese AI models

Shubhangi Goel

Eric Schmidt warned that most countries may adopt Chinese open-source AI models.

It comes down to the cost: open-source models are free.

Tech execs are urging nations to build sovereign AI systems to avoid dependency on other countries.

Google's former CEO said he worries that most countries could end up using Chinese AI models because of the cost.

"This produces a bizarre outcome where the biggest models in the United States are closed source and the biggest models in China are open-source," Eric Schmidt said in an episode of the "Moonshots" podcast released on Tuesday. "The geopolitical issue there, of course, is that open source is free and the closed source models are not free."

Open-source AI models allow for the free and open sharing of software to anyone, for any purpose.

"So the vast majority of governments and countries who don't have the kind of money that the West does will end up standardizing on Chinese models not because they're better, but because they're free," Schmidt said.

Those who support open source say it allows technology to develop rapidly and democratically, as anyone can modify and redistribute the code. On the other hand, advocates for closed-source models argue that they're more secure because the code is kept private.

This year's popularity of Chinese models like DeepSeek and Alibaba's Qwen3 has raised concerns about data privacy, national security, and America's competitive advantage.

Schmidt was Google's CEO from 2001 to 2015 and led the company through its 2004 initial public offering. He is now a founding partner at venture capital firm Innovation Endeavours and runs an aviation startup called Relativity Space. He has a net worth of nearly $50 billion, per Bloomberg.

Taiwan moves to counter China’s drone dominance

Brandi Vincent

The Albatross II attack and surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drone developed by the National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology (NCSIST) and its American partner, is on display at the Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition 2025 (TADTE), in Taipei, Taiwan, on September 19, 2025. (Photo by Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Taiwan is strategically moving to expand its arsenal of military and commercial drones, as China mobilizes and modernizes its forces with aims to be ready to seize its smaller, self-governing neighbor as early as 2027.

During a panel hosted by the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday, defense experts discussed Taiwan’s unfolding plans to grow its domestic production pipelines for unmanned aerial systems and its military’s adoption of associated, emerging weapons technologies. They also shed light on ways recent U.S. initiatives, as well as the Russia-Ukraine war, are informing those pursuits.

“China now has the dominance of the supply on a lot of different components that are used in drones,” said Hong-Lun Tiunn, a nonresident fellow at the Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Emerging Technology.

“So that is very critical for Taiwan, for us to actually start gradually building up a non-reliant supply chain [and] to basically make sure that — way before the contingency happens — we already have the capacities to manufacture enough and good quality components and drone models that can be integrated into our layered defense strategy,” Tiunn noted.

Advertisement

Although the Chinese government sees the island as a piece of its territory, Taiwan has been self-ruled for more than 75 years.

Tensions between Beijing and Taipei have intensified in the last decade, and particularly since Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled his intent to ensure that the People’s Liberation Army would be prepared and equipped to “unify” or invade its smaller neighbor by 2027.

PRC Narrates Cyber Victimhood

Jonah Reisboard

Executive Summary:The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has responded to an alleged U.S. cyberattack on its National Time Service Center (NTSC) by constructing a narrative of empire and victimhood, consolidating its alignment with global south countries against U.S. hegemony.

Chinese analysts have used the attack as an opportunity to highlight perceived hypocrisy in the declared values of the United States and the U.S.-led international order, calling for stability and a “new cyberspace order.”

These responses echoed those following alleged Taiwanese cyberattacks earlier this year, which similarly asserted victimhood and attempted to create a more favorable information environment for the PRC to achieve its global aspirations.

On October 19, the Ministry of State Security (MSS; 国家安全部) informed national media that it had disrupted a U.S. cyberattack targeting the National Time Service Center (NTSC; 国家授时中心) (CCTV, October 19). The center is responsible for maintaining and distributing official Beijing Time (北京时间) throughout the People’s Republic of China (PRC), supporting logistics, finance, and energy functions (NTSC, accessed October 20). In response to the attack, state media claimed that the United States is “the biggest source of chaos in cyberspace” (网络空间的最大乱源), while denying what it calls the “PRC cyber threat theory” (中国网络威胁论) (CCTV, October 19).

Earlier this year, the Public Security Bureau of Tianhe District in Guangzhou announced that it had foiled a cyberattack linked to the Information, Communications, and Electronics Force (ICEFCOM; 國防部資通電軍指揮部) of Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (Xinhua, June 5). According to the PRC’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC; 国家计算机病毒应急处理中心), the Taiwanese unit carried out cyberattacks on the country’s military-industrial, government, energy, and transportation sectors over several years (CVERC, June 5). In this case, the PRC responded with a coordinated hybrid warfare campaign, releasing the identities of 20 suspected participants and offering rewards for their arrest (China Brief, July 25).

How China and Taiwan are Preparing for War

Micah McCartney

With China appearing to be planning for a possible invasion of Taiwan, and the self-ruled island girding itself in response, Newsweek has spoken to analysts about the state of preparations on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials have warned Chinese President Xi Jinping has ordered the People's Liberation Army to be at least capable of moving against Taiwan by 2027. Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, has said Beijing’s increasingly sophisticated military exercises, including simulated blockades, are "dress rehearsals.”

The government in Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, has controlled the island since 1949, after losing the mainland to communist forces. Today it functions as a self-governing democracy with its own military and foreign relations.

The gap between the two militaries is enormous and widening. China spends roughly 10 times more on defense than Taiwan and now operates the world’s largest navy, backed by an expanding missile arsenal and about 600 nuclear warheads. Xi has vowed to build a “world-class military” by mid-century, a goal widely seen as meaning one capable of rivaling the U.S.

Forces on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are preparing for a possible Chinese invasion. | Getty Images

Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Embassy and Taiwan's de facto embassy in the U.S. via emailed requests for comment.

Washington has long urged Taipei to invest less in heavy weapons—like tanks and large warships—and more in asymmetric systems such as drones, mobile rocket launchers, and coastal missiles that can slow a far larger invasion force.

A Daunting Amphibious Invasion

The US must not endorse Russia and China’s vision for cybersecurity

John Yoo and Ivana Stradner

Even as Russia and China wage a relentless cyber war against the West, the United Nations is celebrating a new cybercrime treaty whose chief architects were none other than Moscow and Beijing.

It should come as no surprise, then, that this U.N. convention, signed by 65 nations last month, is less about fighting cybercrime than about legitimizing authoritarian repression of free speech. Although his predecessor grudgingly supported the treaty, President Trump should lead the charge against it.

Russia’s and China’s efforts to shape global cyberspace norms stretch back decades. In 1999, Moscow proposed “principles of international information security,” although this initiative received little support. In 2001, Russia and China refused to ratify the first-ever international treaty on cybercrime, known as the Budapest Convention, viewing it as too intrusive and a threat to state sovereignty.

But Moscow and Beijing did not give up. In 2018, the Russians launched a fresh effort to replace the Budapest Convention. They formed a new U.N. working group on cyber as an alternative to a rival U.S.-favored forum.

The following year, the U.N. General Assembly passed a Russian resolution, cosponsored by China and other authoritarian countries and opposed by Washington and its allies, to begin drafting a new international treaty to counter cybercrime.

The U.S. and other democracies then had little choice but to join that process or else cede it entirely to the authoritarians. And in 2021, shortly before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration launched an abortive effort to find common ground with Moscow on cyber and other issues.

During the drafting of the convention, the U.S. and its allies advocated for “a focused criminal justice instrument which is aimed at improving the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime” as traditionally defined. Moscow, Beijing and like-minded regimes, by contrast, pushed for an expansive definition of cybercrime that would provide U.N. approval of repression of online political dissent and independent media.

Putin and Aliyev Meet in Dushanbe

Yunis Gurbanov

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on October 10 in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, amid a deep crisis in bilateral relations between their two countries (President of Azerbaijan, October 10). The previous year has seen an avalanche of tensions in the diplomatic, informational, and political spheres that tested what had long been perceived as a pragmatic and effective relationship (see EDM, May 20, July 7, September 9; Azemedia, August 1). The Dushanbe summit, however, revealed a controlled readjustment, not a reset. It was an indicator of pragmatic moderation rather than a fresh partnership (Azernews, October 15). Baku reaffirmed the guiding principle of its foreign policy—engagement without subordination—by reestablishing contacts with Moscow without giving up independence.

The roots of the rift date back to the end of 2024, when a Russian missile defense system shot down an Azerbaijani civilian commercial aircraft near the Russian border, resulting in the plane crashing in Aktau, Kazakhstan (see EDM, January 15; Caspiannews, August 9). The incident shocked Azerbaijani society and triggered a tidal wave of diplomatic protests. Baku suspended several joint projects and refrained from top-level visits for several months. According to most commentators, Azerbaijan–Russia relations have reached an all-time low since the beginning of the 1990s (Azemedia, July 26). Putin took responsibility on Russia’s behalf for the shoot down and professed regret (Meduza, October 9). Aliyev publicly took up Putin’s acknowledgment of error. The episode demonstrated Baku’s ability to extract diplomatic advantage from challenging circumstances, a capacity that is increasingly central to its geopolitical strategy (Azertag, October 10).

Russia Officially Introduces New Branch of the Armed Forces: Unmanned Systems Forces

Simplicius

The head of the unmanned systems troops has already been appointed, military command bodies have been formed at all levels, and regular regiments, battalions, and other units have been assembled.

Combat operations of UAV units are conducted according to a unified plan and in coordination with other units.

The Ministry of Defense showed the emblem of the unmanned systems troops in two videos — crossed arrow and sword with a winged microchip and a star at the intersection.

From the above, pay particular attention to this section, which will become important later: “Combat operations of UAV units are conducted according to a unified plan and in coordination with other units.”

The golden double-headed eagle with outstretched wings placed on it (similar to the State Emblem, but with differences in details) symbolizes statehood, unity, and sovereignty. There are no questions here. Nor are there any questions regarding the arrow and sword, which refer to attacking and destroying the enemy. However, the presence of a microchip, in our opinion, looks controversial. It would be appropriate here to place some Christian symbol like Saint George the Victorious (the fight against evil, tyranny, etc.). Or you could take an even simpler path — borrow the heraldry from an already existing structure: the Directorate for the Construction and Development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems. The latter looks as stately and beautiful as possible, since it also features a scepter — a symbol connecting earth and sky and referring to the fact that drone operators control the sky while working from the ground.

U.K. sends anti-drone troops to Belgium as airports shut down amid warnings of Russian "hybrid warfare"

London — Britain is sending anti-drone equipment and personnel to Belgium after a spate of sightings near airports and military bases, the head of the U.K. military said Sunday.

While Belgium and the U.K. have not accused anyone of flying the unidentified drones, they're the latest in a growing trend of airspace violations by mysterious aircraft in about half of a dozen European nations, including around NATO military bases, that at least one U.S. ally calls part of escalating Russian "hybrid warfare."

In the past week Belgium's main international airport in Brussels and one of Europe's biggest cargo airports, near the Belgian city of Liege, were forced to close temporarily because of drone incursions. Before that, authorities reported a series of unidentified drone flights near a military base in Belgium where U.S. nuclear weapons are stored.U.S. troop drawdown in Europe brings anxiety, GOP rebuke

Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, the head of Britain's armed forces, said over the weekend that the U.K. had agreed to "deploy our people, our equipment to Belgium to help them," after a request from Belgian authorities.

"We don't know — and the Belgians don't yet know — the source of those drones, but we will help them by providing our kit and capability, which has already started to deploy to help Belgium," Knighton told the BBC.

U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said the U.K. was sending a team of Royal Air Force specialists to NATO ally Belgium "to counter rogue drone activity."

"As hybrid threats grow, our strength lies in our alliances and our collective resolve to defend, deter and protect our critical infrastructure and airspace," he said.

Drones plague European airports amid rising tension with Russia

Drone incidents across Europe have forced airports to suspend flights many times in recent months. While Belgium has not said who it believes is operating the drones, Russia has been blamed in some cases by other NATO allies.

Zelenskyy seeks US Patriot systems against Russia’s power grid attacks

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday he wants to order 25 Patriot air defense systems from the United States, as Ukraine desperately tries to fend off relentless Russian aerial attacks that have brought rolling blackouts across Ukraine on the brink of winter.

Zelenskyy acknowledged that the Patriot systems are expensive and that such a large batch could take years to manufacture. But he said European countries could give their Patriots to Ukraine and await replacements, stressing that “we would not like to wait.”

Combined missile and drone strikes on the power grid have coincided with Ukraine’s frantic efforts to hold back a Russian battlefield push aimed at capturing the eastern stronghold of Pokrovsk. Meanwhile, international peace efforts appear to have dissipated, nearly four years after Russia invaded its neighbor.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine recently received more Patriot systems from Germany. It is not known how many Patriot systems are in Ukraine. But on the whole air defenses remain stretched thin across wide expanses of Ukrainian territory, and the threat to the provision of heating and running water in the bitter winter is acute.

NATO is coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine. European allies and Canada are buying much of the equipment from the United States. The Trump administration is not giving any arms to Ukraine, unlike the previous Biden administration.

Russia’s attacks on energy infrastructure have grown more effective. It launches hundreds of drones, some equipped with cameras to improve targeting, that overwhelm Ukraine’s air defenses, especially in regions where protection is weaker. Also, this year it is striking region by region, hitting local switchyards and substations, instead of taking aim at the centralized national grid.

Ukraine’s Energy Ministry said Monday that Russian attacks caused more damage to its power infrastructure, resulting in scheduled blackouts in most of the country’s regions. It urged Ukrainians to rationalize their use of electricity, especially during peak consumption hours in the mornings and evenings.

America First? For DC swamp, it's always 'War First'

Senator Rand Paul

The Washington establishment’s long war against reality has led our country into one disastrous foreign intervention after another.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same. They tell us that a country is a threat to America, or more broadly, a threat to American democratic principles. Thus, they say the mission to topple a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom and prosperity to foreign lands. The warmongers will even insist it’s not a choice, but that it’s imperative to wage war.

These “War First” ideologues across Washington have recycled their experiments in regime change for decades, with only instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment to show for it. But no matter their recent failures, they promise that the next regime change will work, that the next country in the crosshairs will soon be a beacon of human freedom and aspiration. If anyone questions this narrative, they are warned of some hypothetical alternative that is always worse, but never real. It’s a geopolitical game of: Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.

We are assured that only drug smugglers are the target of U.S. operations in the Caribbean, but these assurances don’t reflect the growing reality in the region — that is, unless the U.S. plans to attack small drug boats with the overwhelming power of an aircraft carrier, which is perhaps akin to killing a housefly with a steamroller. But with over 10,000 U.S. troops, eight warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and a dozen F-35s already in the Caribbean, and now the USS Gerald Ford Strike Group surging toward the region, the stage is clearly being set for something larger.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect anything different than history has already shown. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bayonet.

Overthrowing Maduro risks creating more instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that even the drug cartels themselves may fill. A generation of purges within the ranks of the Venezuelan military makes them a wild card in the event of an actual war, and we cannot assume they will fold and happily serve a new government preferred by the United States. Think of the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard?

F.B.I. Director Is Said to Have Made a Pledge to Head of MI5, Then Broken It

Adam Goldman

At a secret gathering in May, south of London, the head of Britain’s domestic security service asked Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, for help.

British security officials rely on the bureau for high-tech surveillance tools — the kind they might need to monitor a new embassy that China wants to build near the Tower of London. The head of MI5, Ken McCallum, asked Mr. Patel to protect the job of an F.B.I. agent based in London who dealt with that technology, according to several current and former U.S. officials with knowledge of the episode.

Mr. Patel agreed to find funding to keep the posting, the officials said. But the job had already been slated to disappear as the White House moved to slash the F.B.I. budget. The agent moved to a different job back in the United States, saving the F.B.I. money but leaving MI5 officials incredulous.

It was a jarring introduction to Mr. Patel’s leadership style for British officials. They had long forged personal ties with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with three other close allies, in an intelligence partnership known as the Five Eyes.

The relationships among the organizations matter because many top national security officials view trust and reliability as paramount to sharing critical information with allies — vital for communication between agency directors, and hard to restore once lost.

On the same day in 1946 that Winston Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech in the United States, Britain and the United States secretly signed the pact that formed the basis for their intelligence alliance. It was an outgrowth of their collaboration during World War II. The partnership expanded during the advent of the Cold War to include other countries — Australia, Canada and New Zealand — earning it the name Five Eyes.

Can Ukraine Still Win the War with Russia?

Stavros Atlamazoglou

A successful future Ukrainian counteroffensive would need both the necessary means and the element of surprise.

In less than four months, the war in Ukraine will reach its fourth anniversary. Both sides have taken nearly 2 million casualties in a fight that does not seem to have an end in sight. For another November, the Russian forces are pushing hard to make gains in the Donbas and eastern Ukraine at a very high cost. The Ukrainian military is putting up a fierce resistance while slowly retreating.

Under these conditions, can Ukraine win the war? Yes, but it would need the necessary means and time to change the balance of power on the battlefield and force the Kremlin to the negotiation table.

Ukraine Strikes Back

To win the war or achieve a favorable settlement, Ukraine needs to go on the counterattack and liberate most, if not all, of its territory currently occupied by the Russian military.

To begin with, the Ukrainian military has proven that it can plan and successfully execute large-scale counteroffensive operations. In the fall of 2022, the Ukrainian forces caught the Russians by surprise, liberating hundreds of square miles of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine in just a few days.

However, not all Ukrainian counteroffensives have been successful. A year later, in the summer of 2023, the Ukrainian military launched its much-anticipated counteroffensive in southern Ukraine. The goal was to reach and enter Crimea. Due to a combination of reasons, such as a delay in supplying Kyiv with the necessary weapon systems, including sufficient numbers of main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, as well as the Ukrainians facing the most comprehensive defensive works since World War II, the counteroffensive failed.

Then, in the summer of 2024, the Ukrainians launched a foray into Russia’s Kursk Oblast. Once more, they were able to catch the Russian military by surprise and create a foothold inside Russia. The foray in Kursk forced the Russian military to dedicate tens of thousands of troops and even involve North Korean forces.

How America Protects Its Airspace

Harrison Kass

The United States air defense network relies on a mix of sensors, rapid response fighter jets, and surface-to-air missiles—creating a nearly impenetrable shield over America’s skies.

No nation has a more advanced or comprehensive air defense system than the United States. From Alaska to Florida, American airspace is watched, managed, and protected by a vast network of thousands of sensors, aircraft, and data links—all stitched into one command framework. Adaptive, layered, and deterrent-focused, the US air defense system is comfortably the most secure and sophisticated air space in the world. But it is not impenetrable.

America’s Eyes in the Sky

The first layer of US air defense is awareness. The US and Canada share continental defense through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a binational command that integrates long-range radars, space-based infrared satellites, and civil air-traffic data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Every flight plan, transponder return, and radar echo feeds into a real-time common operating picture that spans the continent. And over the oceans, over-the-horizon radars, shipborne Aegis systems, and airborne early-warning aircraft like the E-3 AWACS extend surveillance thousands of miles outward. Such detailed coverage ensures that any large or fast-moving object entering North American airspace is detected, identified, and tracked.

The second layer of US air defense is the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) fighters—the F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s that sit fueled and armed at air bases around the country, ready to scramble and intercept at a moment’s notice. QRA encounters with anomalous aircraft are usually benign—resulting from lost transponders, off-course aircraft, or unresponsive pilots. But the system that works for a lost Cessna would work the same for an enemy fighter, demonstrating a viable deterrence mechanism.

Behind the QRA fighters sits a strategic defense layer including missile-defense architecture that combines Patriot, THAAD, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors in Alaska and California. Together, these systems protect the homeland from both regional and intercontinental missile threats. And above it all, the US maintains a global constellation of early-warning satellites and a space-based sensor network feeding into the US Northern Command and the National Military Command Center. The overlapping systems create redundancy with no single point of failure.

How to Shoot Down an Enemy Fighter Jet

Harrison Kass

Modern surface-to-air missiles give poorer nations the ability to shoot down advanced fighter jets over their territory for a fraction of their cost.

The surface-to-air missile is a ground (or ship) launched missile designed to destroy airborne targets like planes, helicopters, drones, and other missiles. The SAM sounds simple enough—and it is in certain respects. But SAM operations follow a surprisingly complicated process—a launch sequence that moves from detection to detonation in seconds.

How Surface-to-Air Missiles Work

The SAM’s process begins with detection. Long-range surveillance radars, shipborne arrays, airborne early warning platforms, and optical sensors are all capable of tracking a target and offering a track to the SAM’s fire control system. The track consists of range, bearing, velocity, and predicted intercept point. The quality of a specific track dictates whether a SAM system can engage, and which missile will be chosen.

Launch phase: The SAM missile’s launch begins the kinetic portion of its sequence. Short-range MANPADS (like the Stinger missile) are often fired from shoulder tubes or light vehicle canisters, while medium and long-range systems use canister, rail, or vertical launch cells. Propulsion methods vary, with significant implications. Solid-rocket motors dominate the field because they are simple, reliable, and provide a quick boost. But advanced systems use dual-pulse motors or ramjet/ducted-rocket designs to sustain speed and maneuverability over long midcourse flights.

Boost phase: Following the launch of the SAM, it enters the boost phase, which is short but energetic; the motor accelerates the missile to cruise speed, clearing the launch infrastructure. In long-range missiles, the boost is followed by a sustained cruise (ramjet) or a throttle-able solid-rocket profile that conserves fuel for terminal maneuvers. Propulsion profile affects time-to-target and the energy available for last-second turns against evasive aircraft or incoming missiles.

Midcourse guidance systems are varied. Simpler missiles rely on command guidance, which features ground radar tracking both target and missile and sending steering commands. More advanced SAM systems combine inertial navigation with datalink updates, in which ground or airborne radars transmit revised target locations so the missile corrects its course.

Pentagon releases ‘revised’ plan to boost cyber talent, ‘domain mastery’

Mark Pomerleau

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department has released a highly anticipated plan to attract and retain cyber talent by better integrating US Cyber Command with other military departments for recruitment and training, and establishing three new organizations to improve the military’s hacking and defensive prowess.

Announced late Thursday, the new effort is light on details, but “fundamentally changes the Department’s approach to generating cyber forces, enabling increased lethality in our cyber forces and establishing a warrior ethos built on domain mastery, specialized skills, and mission agility,” said Katie Sutton, assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, echoing the priorites of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The three “enabling” organizations will be a Cyber Talent Management Organization to “identify, attract, recruit, and retain an elite cyber force”; an Advanced Cyber Training and Education Center to “develop mission-specific training and education to build expertise and mastery”; and a Cyber Innovation Warfare Center to “accelerate the rapid development and delivery of operational cyber capabilities.”

The plan is additionally based on seven “core attributes”:Targeted recruiting and assessments, seeking to assess recruits for the proper work role fit at US Cyber Command;

Incentives to recruit and retain top cyber talent;

Tailored and agile advanced training;

Tailored assignment management aiming to adopt career paths that enable the development and retention of cyber mastery

Specialized mission sets

Presented with headquarters and combat support; and

Optimized unit phasing that will support a sustainable operational tempo

The 20-Somethings Who Raised $121 Million to Build Military Drones

Farah Stockman

Soren Monroe-Anderson, a champion drone racer, was only 20 years old when he first tried to sell his drones to the U.S. military. He was building them for Ukrainian forces in his parents’ garage with a friend.

The military was not interested.

“‘You can’t just waltz into the Pentagon as 21-year-olds and sell weapon systems to the D.O.D.,’” said the friend, Olaf Hichwa, recalling the response from a senior Department of Defense official.

But two years later, Mr. Monroe-Anderson, now 22, and Mr. Hichwa, who just turned 24, are selling drones to the U.S. Army.

Neros, the company they founded in 2023, has been selected to supply its signature drones, called Archer, to the Army, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. Neros is one of three American drone manufacturers picked as vendors for the first phase of an Army program that is buying low-cost, expendable drones.

Although specific financial terms have not been disclosed, the Trump administration has budgeted more than $36 million for the “Purpose-Built Attritable Systems” program in 2026.

Neros’s selection comes as military leaders are scrambling to catch up with adversaries who have the ability to mass-produce small drones, which have become crucial to modern warfare. The Army aims to buy at least one million drones in the next two to three years, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told Reuters on Friday.

Bill Gates says there’s one profession AI will never replace, no matter how advanced it gets

Miora Danielle Raveloarison

Bill Gates has sparked a thought-provoking conversation about the future of work in an age dominated by artificial intelligence. While AI is rapidly transforming countless industries, Gates, cofounder of Microsoft and a visionary voice in technology, has confidently stated that programming will remain a uniquely human profession, even 100 years from now. This assertion challenges us to reconsider which skills are truly irreplaceable as AI continues to evolve.

The dual faces of AI: promise and uncertainty

In a candid interview with France Inter, Bill Gates shared his complex feelings about the growing presence of artificial intelligence in our lives, admitting, “I’m scared, too.” This transparent acknowledgment captures a broader public sentiment: while many are excited about AI’s potential, there’s also anxiety about what it may mean for jobs and society at large.

According to the World Economic Forum, AI could displace roughly 85 million jobs by 2030. However, it may simultaneously generate around 97 million new roles, shifting the workforce in dramatic ways. Gates envisions a future where AI enhances productivity so significantly that humans might enjoy more free time and pursue work that is more personally fulfilling rather than purely survival-driven.

Such a vision invites us to reflect on how society can actively guide technological adoption to benefit everyone. It suggests a future where AI serves as a partner, amplifying human potential rather than replacing it.

Why programming remains a deeply human craft

Among various professions, programming stands out as one likely to resist full automation. Gates emphasizes that programming requires a blend of creativity and human judgment that no machine can replicate. While AI tools can assist by automating repetitive tasks like debugging, the core of programming—the innovation of new solutions and problem-solving—still depends on uniquely human insights.

Military experts warn security hole in most AI chatbots can sow chaos

Aliya Sternstein

Current and former military officers are warning that adversaries are likely to exploit a natural flaw in artificial intelligence chatbots to inject instructions for stealing files, distorting public opinion or otherwise betraying trusted users.

The vulnerability to such “prompt injection attacks” exists because large language models, the backbone of chatbots that digest hordes of user text to generate responses, cannot distinguish between malicious and trusted user instructions.

“The AI is not smart enough to understand that it has an injection inside, so it carries out something it’s not supposed to do,” Liav Caspi, a former member of the Israel Defense Forces cyberwarfare unit, told Defense News.

In effect, “an enemy has been able to turn somebody from the inside to do what they want,” such as deleting records or biasing decisions, according to Caspi, who co-founded Legit Security, which recently spotted one such security hole in Microsoft’s Copilot chatbot.

“It’s like having a spy in your ranks,” he said.

Former military officials say that, with greater reliance on chatbots and hackers backed by China, Russia and other nations already instructing Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Copilot to create malware and fake personas, a prompt injection that orders the bots themselves to copy files or spread lies looms near.

Microsoft’s annual digital defense report, released last month, for the first time said, “AI systems themselves have become high-value targets, with adversaries amping up use of methods like prompt injection.”

What’s more, the problem of prompt injection has no easy solution, OpenAI and security researchers say.

An attack simply involves hiding malicious instructions — sometimes in white or tiny text — in a chatbot or content that the chatbot reads, such as a blog post or PDF.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)