India’s Fraught Push for Digital Decolonization

Muhsin Puthan Purayil, 

Source Link

An assistant professor at Manipal Law School in Bengaluru.Four men are standing in front of a display of silver laptops.A worker gestures next to a display of laptops at a computer store in New Delhi on July 4. Arun Sankar / AFP

India’s government is making a high-profile push to turn the country’s Swadeshi, or self-sufficiency, tech dream into reality. In October, Home Minister Amit Shah announced that he was switching to Zoho Mail, an email service from the Chennai-based Zoho Corp. He joined Electronics and IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, and 1.2 million government employees on the platform.

The government has framed its renewed push for homespun technology as part of a broader campaign against a global digital order that is still overwhelmingly dominated by the United States. In the past, the government has assiduously promoted “indigenous” digital platforms such as Koo (as an alternative to Twitter, now X) and Sandes (as an alternative to WhatsApp) in the name of Atmanirbhar Bhara

How the China-Japan Rift Could Cost Both Countries

Miranda Jeyaretnam

Source Link

China and Japan have been locked in a diplomatic spat that could come at a heavy cost to both sides.

On Nov. 7, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested that an attack on Taiwan could constitute an existential threat to Japan and warrant a forceful response, prompting strong condemnation from Beijing. China has imposed a slew of economic measures that appear aimed at Japan, as its Commerce Ministry said Takaichi’s comments have “severely damaged” trade cooperation between the two countries. China claims sovereignty over the self-governed island of Taiwan and maintains the right to take control of it by force if necessary.

Tensions thus far show no sign of abating, with China sending a letter to the U.N. promising self-defense if Japan “dared to intervene militarily in the Taiwan Strait,” drawing criticism from Tokyo. On Friday, the Chinese embassy in Japan also posted on X that China has the “right to take direct military action” without U.N. Security Council authorization if Japan “takes any step to once again implement a policy of aggression. Takaichi for her part has refused to cave to pressure to retract her remarks, noting that they were consistent with Japan’s long-held position, while Japanese officials have sought to cool tensions through dialogue.

Hezbollah in the Digital Sphere: The Cyberattack Group BQT.Lock and Its Leader Karim Fayad

Alma Research

Source Link

This report, written by Dos-Op and the Alma Center, presents a comprehensive mapping of the cyberattack group BQT.Lock (BaqiyatLock) and its leader Karim Fayad, revealing a direct and systematic affiliation with Hezbollah and the Iranian cyber apparatus.

BQT.Lock operates as an offensive cyber arm with a distinctly ideological and religious motive, combining criminal cyber activity, (including ransomware attacks and the sale of ransomware tools), with the advancement of Hezbollah’s security, psychological, and economic goals.

The group operates a Ransomware-as-a-Service platform under the brand Baqiyat and claims to have encrypted hundreds of servers and stolen sensitive data around the world.

The Persian Gulf’s geopolitical flexibility is a useful revelationby Gilead Sher, opinion contributor

Gilead Sher

Source Link

Gone are the days of rigid alliances and permanent enemies. In their place, the wealthy Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar — are taking a new approach: Cutting flexible, case-by-case deals to buy stability while keeping every option on the table. This is very useful: It helped end, or at least pause, the ruinous Gaza war.

Nevertheless, there are more than a few quid pro quos. A proposed sale of up to 48 cutting-edge F-35 stealth fighters to Saudi Arabia by President Trump cuts directly to the core of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

For decades, the qualitative military edge — a statutory commitment guaranteeing Israel’s technological superiority over any regional coalition — has served as the unshakeable bedrock of U.S. defence strategy.

Can Washington reconcile this massive arms deal with its strategic obligation to protect Israel’s qualitative military edge, or is this sale a direct and fundamental breach of the commitment that underpins regional stability?

Trump’s tariffs might actually be working as he intended

Matthew Lynn

Source Link

It was, by any measure, a lot of red ink. When Volkswagen announced its third-quarter profits at the end of October, the German auto giant said it anticipated heavy losses for this year. The reason? It is taking a 5 billion-euro hit from tariffs imposed in the American market.

Likewise, the German sportswear manufacturer Adidas warned of a 120 million-euro hit to its earnings, in part because the levies its sneakers now face in the United States, while Toyota warned of a $9 billion hit from tariffs.

For anyone following the corporate earnings season over the last month, a clear theme has emerged from the giants of European and Asian industry: President Trump’s tariff regime is starting to significantly reduce their profits.

But hold on. Weren’t we told that tariffs would simply be passed straight on to American consumers in the form of higher prices? That they were a tax on ordinary working people?

Instead, it is already becoming clear that at least some of the costs are being paid by foreign conglomerates and even by foreign governments.

Trump’s Ukraine Fiasco

Richard Epstein

Source Link

President Donald J. Trump has long regarded himself as the ultimate of negotiations, even before the 2016 campaign, when he crowned himself such in his best-seller The Art of the Deal. Sadly, it should now be evident that Trump has lost his touch; today, he has no idea how to act when high-stakes international matters are on the table. The plan was reportedly drafted by Trump and Putin, with no involvement from Ukraine, which helps explain why reports that the supposed deal calls for “Outright capitulation” from Ukraine, which “risks becoming another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.” The New York Sun stated “Trump’s Peace Plan for Ukraine Leaves Putin Gloating, Zelensky Despondent,” given Trump’s explicit demand that Ukraine accept these terms of abject surrender or lose American military and logistical support. It was exactly backwards. He should have leaned on Putin to moderate his demands.

But now that Trump has made the wrong choice, one can hope that an errant United States has already its wad by having reduced its support so far that by now, Ukrainian ingenuity has stepped up. Ukraine replaced American long-range Tomahawk missiles with its homegrown Flamingos, with the same range and power, all guided by its own intelligence and cybercapacity, buttressed by increasing support from Germany and other NATO allies. The President that he can take advantage of a current corruption scandal (of which there are many instances of in the second Trump administration). But Europe has to, and will, step up its support, so the correct political judgment is, as the UK’s Independent, to tell Trump to buzz off while backing Ukraine to the hilt.

Zelenskyy’s grim choice: Take Trump’s peace deal or rely on flaky European friends

Tim Ross, Clea Caulcutt, Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Nette Nöstlinger

Source Link

LONDON — European officials congratulated themselves after talks in Geneva at the weekend suggested Donald Trump will listen to their concerns about forcing a bad peace deal on Ukraine.

“While work remains to be done, there is now a solid basis for moving forward,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she hailed “good progress” resulting from “a strong European presence” at the talks.

It was certainly “progress” for top advisers from the EU and the U.K. to be invited to join Sunday’s meeting in Switzerland after they were cut out of America’s original 28-point plan, which they feared was so biased it would embolden Russia to launch further attacks.

5 Places World War III Could Break Out in 2026

Christian Orr

Source Link

-Today, five flashpoints could drag nuclear-armed powers into a global war as soon as 2026: Russia’s grinding campaign in Eastern Europe, a Chinese move on Taiwan and the South China Sea, a still-unfinished Korean War on a nuclear peninsula, Iran’s collision course with Israel, and the volatile India–Pakistan rivalry in South Asia.

-Each theater is now wired into great-power competition—meaning a miscalculation in any one of them could light the fuse for everyone.

World War III in 2026? These 5 Flashpoints Should Worry Washington

Throughout the Cold War, it was commonly envisioned that World War III would break out in Eastern Europe, as dramatically depicted in bestselling novels such as “The Third World War: August 1985” (published in 1980) by the late General Sir John Winthrop “Shan” Hackett and “Red Storm Rising” (published in 1986) by the late Tom Clancy, as well as nuclear apocalyptic movies such as “The Day After” and “Threads.”

No one will support it': Ukraine's soldiers react to US peace plan

Jonathan Beale, Anastasiia Levchenko and Volodymyr Lozhko 

Source Link

Ukraine's frontline soldiers have reacted to draft US peace proposals with a mixture of defiance, anger and resignation.

The BBC spoke to half a dozen who sent us their views via social media and email in response to the original US plan – details of which were leaked last week.

Since then, American and Ukrainian negotiators have been working on changes to the proposals – and are set to continue talks about the "peace framework".

Of the original US plan, Yaroslav, in eastern Ukraine, says it "sucks… no one will support it" while an army medic with the call sign Shtutser dismissed it as an "absolutely disgraceful draft of a peace plan, unworthy of our attention".

But one soldier with the call sign Snake told us "it's time to agree at least on something".

This is what the soldiers who spoke to the BBC had to say about some of the key points in the original US draft peace plan.

A Decade After the Paris Agreement, Climate Promises Still Leave the Poor Behind

Brian Mukhaya

Source Link

Ten years after the landmark Paris Agreement, the world is still trying to solve two crises as if they were separate: climate change and economic development. That’s a dangerous illusion. Climate progress cannot succeed if billions of people remain in poverty, without electricity, stable food systems, or the means to build better lives. And development, if it ignores climate risk, is little more than a short-term fix that will collapse under the weight of future disasters.

I saw this tension firsthand at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the annual UN climate summit. The energy there was unmistakable—a mixture of urgency and frustration. Delegates from across Africa reminded the world that promises made in Paris have not been kept. Wealthy nations pledged to support developing countries as they cut emissions and adapted to rising temperatures. Yet, a decade later, those commitments remain largely unfulfilled.

A Self-Defeating Reversal on Ukraine

Thomas Wright

Source Link

The Trump administration’s new plan for Ukraine is apparently to reverse all the progress it has made there in recent months. And not just that—to create a much bigger strategic problem that will bedevil the administration for the next three years. The strangest part of all of this is that the plan emerged at a moment when Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy had finally found its footing after a very turbulent start.

Over the past 24 hours, multiple media outlets, citing several administration officials with direct knowledge, have published details of a new U.S. peace proposal that is tantamount to a Ukrainian surrender. As drafted, the plan would require Ukraine to give up territory and fortifications in the parts of the Donbas that it still controls, cut the size of its armed forces by half, abandon weaponry that Russia deems to be offensive (including long-range missiles), accept an end to U.S. military assistance, and agree to a ban on foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. The Trump administration is dangling a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine in the event of future Russian aggression, but what that would entail is unclear and would almost certainly fall far short of a NATO-style mutual-defense commitment. The plan actually guts the one security guarantee that would make a real difference, namely a strong and capable Ukraine.

Globalisation and its Discontents

Noel Yaxley

Source Link

Ray Freeman Cycles, founded in 1890, was a lovely family-run business that served Norwich with all its cycling needs for over 125 years. Nestled at the end of Heigham Street, this charming shop, with its distinctive yellow sign and large front windows, had a delightful Victorian feel; place Fred Dibnah might’ve adored. It was based on traditional, socially conservative communitarian beliefs. Everyone who worked there knew your name and family. It was somewhere you could go for a chat, as well as anything bike-related. If you had a puncture, you’d go to Ray’s. Whether you’d knocked your chain off the gears or buckled your wheel, the guys there could fix it in no time.

I still vividly remember stepping into that shop as a kid: the place was a treasure trove with its endless shelves of dusty screws, bolts, and tyres. The air carried that unmistakable, comforting yet overwhelming, smell of oil. When my bike was ready, one of the guys would show up in grease-covered overalls, give my father a firm handshake, and the two of them would sort out the price with ease. That all ended recently. Richard Freeman, the proud fifth-generation owner, decided to retire in 2021 after fifty years of committed service to the community through bicycle maintenance.

A Farewell to Europe

Cheryl Benard

Source Link

In military history, there are instances in which one side unleashes a completely new weapon or form of combat, leaving the adversary so entirely off guard that they are unable to muster any effective defense. The Eurasian rider nomads are an example; their archers stunned the Europeans with their ability to shoot accurately from the back of a galloping horse, an assault method never seen before. Their incredibly agile hit-and-run mounted troops fired off flurries of arrows while attacking at high speed, and then, in a maneuver called the “Parthian shot,” they continued to shoot backwards over their shoulders as they sped away.

The longbow upended medieval combat by adding unparalleled lethal range; the Byzantine use of Greek fire introduced shock and awe into naval battles; the British use of tanks in the First World War brought mobility and firepower to static trench warfare. These are the black swans of combat—forms of attack that you can’t prepare for, because you can’t imagine them. You must then wrap your mind around what just happened, regroup, and alter your defensive and offensive arsenal. If you can’t manage that fast enough, you’re going down.

Europe is presently under attack from just such an unexpected, black-swan form of warfare. The undercover invaders are wreaking havoc, upending the economies, undermining civil security with hitherto unseen levels of crime, splitting domestic politics, degrading the education systems, gridlocking the courts, and altering the cherished cultural practices of their host nations. While also plotting terrorist attacks, building ISIS cells, and unleashing a wave of sexual assault. European governments are struggling even to grasp what is happening, let alone formulate an effective response.

Realpolitik not rhetoric: Witkoff’s Ukraine peace plan is generous to Kiev

Source Link

It didn’t take long for the predictable chorus of indignation to make itself heard. Steve Witkoff’s 28-point peace proposal for the Ukrainian War said far more about just how detached Kiev and its diehard supporters in the European establishment are from reality than it did about the plan itself. They didn’t even wait for the ink to dry to denounce the document as a Kremlin trick, a capitulation dressed up in diplomatic prose, or a ploy designed to “sell out” the Ukrainians. Yet, for all the outrage, not many have paused to consider what the plan actually asks of each side – and, more importantly, what it does not ask of Kiev.

When one strips away the performative moral grandstanding, what one encounters is an ironic truth: If the proposal were genuine, and if its broad contours were a practical way forward–which is to say, acceptable to Moscow – then in many respects the plan would be far more favourable to Ukraine than any settlement it is likely to obtain later. Indeed, viewed in the cold light of realpolitik rather than the comforting glow of rhetoric, the proposal seems so lenient to Kiev that it’s all but inconceivable Moscow would accept it – which alone should give pause to those dismissing it out of hand for being too “pro-Russian” or even, as The Guardian has absurdly claimed, as having fundamentally been co-written by the Russians themselves.

The Murky Plan That Ensures a Future War

Anne Applebaum

Source Link

The 28-point peace plan that the United States and Russia want to impose on Ukraine and Europe is misnamed. It is not a peace plan. It is a proposal that weakens Ukraine and divides America from Europe, preparing the way for a larger war in the future. In the meantime, it benefits unnamed Russian and American investors, at the expense of everyone else.

The plan was negotiated by Steve Witkoff, a real-estate developer with no historical, geographical, or cultural knowledge of Russia or Ukraine, and Kirill Dmitriev, who heads Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and spends most of his time making business deals. The revelation of their plan this week shocked European leaders, who are now paying almost all of the military costs of the war, as well as the Ukrainians, who were not sure whether to take this latest plan seriously until they were told to agree to it by Thanksgiving or lose all further U.S. support. Even if the plan falls apart, this arrogant and confusing ultimatum, coming only days after the State Department authorized the sale of anti-missile technology to Ukraine, will do permanent damage to America’s reputation as a reliable ally, not only in Europe but around the world.

The central points of the plan reflect long-standing Russian demands. The United States would recognize Russian rule over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk—all of which are part of Ukraine. Russia would, in practice, be allowed to keep territory it has conquered in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. In all of these occupation zones, Russian forces have carried out arrests, torture, and mass repression of Ukrainian citizens, and because Russia would not be held accountable for war crimes, they could continue to do so with impunity. Ukraine would withdraw from the part of Donetsk that it still controls—a heavily reinforced and mined territory whose loss would open up central Ukraine to a future attack.

The Ukraine Peace Plan Looks Like a Giant Gamble

Reuben Johnson

Source Link

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Nov. 20 was scheduled to meet with senior U.S. Army civilian and military officials in Kyiv—the highest-level Army delegation to visit the Ukraine capital since Russia invaded the country in February 2022.

The visit came after the U.S. presented a previously unannounced plan to end the war.

“The good news is that there is an interest from the U.S. side in ending the war,” said a Ukrainian defense industry executive speaking from the far-western region of the country, near the border with Poland.

“The bad news is that this is a plan that calls for substantial concessions on the part of Ukraine, while at the same time Russia gives up almost nothing in return,” he continued. “There are also no concrete guarantees that Russia would not attack Ukraine again—just promises on paper. We have all been here before. It’s that useless piece of paper called the Budapest Memorandum.”

What does US ‘national interest’ really mean?

Christopher Mott

Source Link

In foreign policy discourse, the phrase “the national interest” gets used with an almost ubiquitous frequency, which could lead one to assume it is a strongly defined and absolute term.

Most debates, particularly around changing course in diplomatic strategy or advocating for or against some kind of economic or military intervention, invoke the phrase as justification for their recommended path forward.

But what is the national interest, really?

It should come as no surprise that the term is actually as contestable as any other social science label. Different people will approach the question with perspectives that vary based on factors as different as what region they originate from or what their concept of the national government is. A person of a more conservative disposition might see it as ensuring the protection of a culture from outside influence, while a leftist could see it as one defined by class interests, with the National Interest itself being both defined and controlled by the ruling class of a given society for their own internal as well as external self-interest.

The End of the Longest Peace?

Graham Allison and James A. Winnefeld

Source Link

The past eight decades have been the longest period without a war between great powers since the Roman Empire. This anomalous era of extended peace came after two catastrophic wars, each of which was so much more destructive than prior conflicts that historians found it necessary to create an entirely new category to describe them: world wars. Had the rest of the twentieth century been as violent as the preceding two millennia, the lifetimes of nearly everyone alive today would have been radically different.

The absence of great-power wars since 1945 did not happen by accident. A large measure of grace.

Japan's high-stakes gamble to turn island of flowers into global chip hub

Suranjana TewariAsia 

Source Link

The island of Hokkaido has long been an agricultural powerhouse – now Japan is investing billions to turn it into a global hub for advanced semiconductors.

More than half of Japan's dairy produce comes from Hokkaido, the northernmost of its main islands. In winter, it's a wonderland of ski resorts and ice-sculpture festivals; in summer, fields bloom with bands of lavender, poppies and sunflowers.

These days, cranes are popping up across the island – building factories, research centres and universities focused on technology. It's part of Japan's boldest industrial push in a generation: an attempt to reboot the country's chip-making capabilities and reshape its economic future.

Locals say that beyond the cattle and tourism, Hokkaido has long lacked other industries. There's even a saying that those who go there do so only to leave.

But if the government succeeds in turning Hokkaido into Japan's answer to Silicon Valley - or "Hokkaido Valley", as some have begun to call it - the country could become a new contender in the $600bn (£458bn) race to supply the world's computer chips.

In Ukraine's 'kill-zone', robots are a lifeline to troops trapped on perilous eastern front

Abdujalil AbdurasulovIn 

Source Link

"The toy is delivered," a Ukrainian soldier whispers into the radio.

In the dead of night, he and his partner move quickly to roll out their cargo from a van. Speed is crucial as they are within the range of deadly Russian drones.

The fifth brigade's new "toy" is an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), a robot that provides a lifeline for Ukrainian troops at the front in Pokrovsk and Myrnograd, a strategic hub in eastern Ukraine.

Russian forces are relentlessly trying to cut off Ukraine's supply routes in the area.

Without fresh food and ammunition, Ukraine's frontline soldiers would face a choice of either surrender or a costly retreat.

Kyiv has sent special forces, elite assault units and drone groups to reinforce its troops in and around Pokrovsk, but Russia's grip on routes into the city means going in with armoured vehicles would bring almost certain death.

ASEAN Is No Longer Just a Talk Shop

Derek Grossman, 

Source Link

A professor of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California.Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the ASEAN summit in MalaysiaMalaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi walk past national flags during the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26. CHALINEE THIRASUPA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is often dismissed as little more than a talk shop—long on meetings and statements but short on concrete action. As I have previously argued in Foreign Policy, the bloc has generally suffered from policy paralysis since its inception in 1967, mainly because of disunity among members over collective security actions to address challenges across Southeast Asia. This assessment, however, needs an update: In recent years, the 11-member group has increasingly striven to match its words with deeds—probably due to rising threat perceptions, stronger leadership, and greater pressure from U.S.-China competition that is pushing ASEAN to act to avoid irrelevance.

The latest example involves Cambodia and Thailand, two ASEAN members that have been locked in border disputes for many decades. During U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to Malaysia last month for the annual ASEAN summit, he also presided over a peace signing ceremony that officially ended hostilities between Phnom Penh and Bangkok over the disputed Preah Vihear temple and surrounding areas. But a fresh round of violence has put these two countries back on edge. On Nov. 10, four Thai soldiers were wounded by a land mine, followed by an exchange of gunfire that led to the death of one Cambodian villager. Bangkok blames Phenom Penh for recently planting the explosive device, while the Cambodian government claims it was lef

The Inevitable Logic of a Japanese Nuclear Weapon

Bilahari Kausikan, 

Source Link

a former Singaporean diplomat.A screen fixed to a wall shows a video of a mushroom cloud. A soldier in a formal dress uniform stands beside the screen with his hands clasped behind his back as he leans against the wall.A security guard stands next to a screen showing a video about China’s atomic bomb program at an exhibition in Beijing on Oct. 17, 2007. China Photos/Getty Images

It is no longer a question of if but when Japan and South Korea will acquire independent nuclear deterrents within the U.S. alliance system. That system would otherwise loosen in East Asia as the United States’ extended deterrence—the so-called nuclear umbrella—erodes due to China’s and North Korea’s acquisition of second strike capabilities targeting the U.S. mainland. To acquire nuclear weapons will be a politically difficult and highly fraught decision—much more so for Japan than for South Korea, where opinion polls already show considerable support. But regardless of public opinion, changes in the global and regional strategic environment are inexorably pushing both countries in this direction. Resisting the logic of these changes could lead to very grave geopolitical consequences.

In democracies, security policy must rest on a foundation of public support. Such a foundation does not yet exist in Japan on the nuclear question. It is therefore imperative that Japan engage in an open, realistic, and timely public debate to build a national consensus on this vital issue. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi took a first step in this direction earlier this month, when she announced that her government is considering a review of Japan’s long-standing policy on hosting nuclear weapons.

Don’t Call This a ‘Peace Plan’

Christian Caryl

Source Link

the former Moscow bureau chief for Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declares "peace for our time" at Heston Aerodrome in London on his return from negotiations with Adolf Hitler in Munich, Germany.British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declares "peace for our time" at Heston Aerodrome in London on his return from negotiations with Adolf Hitler in Munich, Germany. Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The 1938 Munich Agreement left the Czechoslovak state with no choice but submission. Led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Britain joined France and Italy in accepting Adolf Hitler’s demands for Czechoslovak territory. The Führer managed to neutralize two of the country’s other neighbors, Poland and Hungary, by offering them other chunks of Czechoslovak land—which also effectively thwarted the Soviet Union (another ally of Czechoslovakia at the time) from intervening, since the Poles refused to allow Soviet troops to cross their territory.

Updated peace plan could be a deal Ukraine will take - eventually

Sarah RainsfordSouthern

Source Link

That's why when the US began pushing it to agree to a deal by Thanksgiving on what looked close to surrender terms, Ukraine pushed back.

It scrambled senior officials to talks in Geneva and all of Sunday we saw delegates from the US and Ukraine shuttling back and forth between the two main venues in black limousines with darkened windows.

They were joined by national security advisers from Germany, France and the UK.

The only time I glimpsed Andriy Yermak, heading the negotiating team from Kyiv, he looked stony-faced.

No wonder: the starting proposal on the table was so skewed towards Russia's demands, the talks began with the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio having to deny it had been written by the Kremlin.

But Donald Trump had been clear that Ukraine needed to sign up fast or face unspecified consequences. So Kyiv had to engage.

On Sunday night, Marco Rubio declared there'd been "tremendous progress" in the talks with just a "couple of things" still outstanding. When pressed, he wouldn't be more specific, calling the situation "delicate".

Golden Dome faces challenges of size, scope and scale from every angle

Casey Laughman

Source Link

A Space X Falcon 9 rocket launches from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, Feb. 14, 2024. The rocket was launched as part of classified mission USSF-124, sending six satellites to orbit - two for the Missile Defense Agency and four for the Space Development Agency. (U.S. Space Force photo by Airman 1st Class Spencer Contreras)

The announcement of the Golden Dome missile defense system to protect the United States from missile attacks represented a major shift in defense priorities for the US military — and presents myriad challenges when trying to protect a country the size of the US.

The model is Israel’s Iron Dome, but that system covers a relatively small area and mostly protects against traditional ballistic missile attacks. Golden Dome will cover a much larger area, and must be able to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. All of those requirements add complexity, engineering challenges and cost considerations.

The US has announced $175 billion to fund the program, and has placed it under the control of Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein. Guetlein will have oversight and acquisition authority for Golden Dome, which signals a different approach than the norm, says John Plumb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy.

Cyber Warfare and Its Limits: A Response to Soesanto and Gajos

Kubo Mačák

Source Link

On Nov. 3, Lawfare published a thought-provoking piece by Stefan Soesanto and Wiktoria Gajos advancing the argument that Western governments should learn from Ukraine’s offensive cyber strategy and adopt what the authors call a “responsibly irresponsible” approach to cyber warfare. While they present compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL, also referred to as the law of armed conflict) as a worthy aspiration, they frame it as ultimately at odds with “the realities of contemporary digital conflict”.

The idea that the necessities of war should take precedence over the rules of war is not new. In the 19th century, it appeared as the German maxim “Kriegsraison geht vor Kriegsmanier.” In the 20th century, it reemerged in the post-Nuremberg trials in the form of the (unsuccessful) attempts by some defendants to justify actions such as reprisal killings of civilians during World War II. And in the 21st century, it seems to return as claims that “idealistic legalism” and “arcane rules” lead to inescapable defeat on the digital battlefield, leaving belligerents with no choice but discard these “taboos and legal limitations.”

DOGE disbanded: Elon Musk’s Cost-Cutting Project Quietly Ended Ahead of Schedule

Rebecca Schneid

Source Link

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been quietly disbanded with eight months left in its charter, according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) director.

OPM Director Scott Kupor told Reuters that DOGE—the sweeping cost-cutting effort led by billionaire Elon Musk that dominated the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term—“doesn't exist,” adding that most of the office's functions have been absorbed by OPM, the federal government’s human resources agency.

Kupor said that DOGE is no longer the “centralized entity” it once was when Trump appointed Musk to lead the agency in January.

Later Sunday, Kupor appeared to take issue with the Reuters story in a social media post, without challenging any of its facts.

“The truth is: DOGE may not have centralized leadership under the [U.S. DOGE Service] But, the principles of DOGE remain alive and well: de-regulation; eliminating fraud, waste and abuse; re-shaping the federal workforce; making efficiency a first-class citizen," Kupor wrote on X.

Hybrid warfare in the Information Age: The cybersecurity implications of a distorted information ecosystem

Mujahid Al-Ibenu

Source Link

The rapid digitalization of modern societies has intensified the scale, speed and impact of information disorder, creating new vulnerabilities that adversaries exploit across political, social and security domains. Misinformation, disinformation and malinformation have become strategic tools used by state actors, non-state actors, cybercriminal groups and opportunistic individuals to influence public perception, destabilize institutions and compromise national security. Although the phenomenon is often treated as a media problem, the reality is that information manipulation now functions as a cyber-enabled threat vector with operational, psychological and geopolitical consequences.

The fundamental danger lies in the way digital platforms compress time, distance and verification barriers. Once a deceptive narrative is introduced into an information ecosystem, algorithms amplify it based on engagement rather than accuracy. Social media networks act as accelerators that deliver false content at a scale previously impossible. In this environment, disinformation campaigns do not require sophisticated tools; they require emotional triggers, cultural fault lines and an audience overwhelmed by the speed of content consumption. The result is a highly reactive population susceptible to engineered narratives designed to exploit confusion, fear or political polarization.

When AI Goes Rogue, Science Fiction Meets Reality

Dan Lohrmann

Source Link

My son and I went to see the movie Tron: Ares, this past week. I was excited to see this 2025 sequel, because the original Tron movie from 1982 is a classic and one of my ’80s sci-fi technology favorites along with the movie War Games.

Without ruining the plot for readers, the 2025 Tron, the latest installment in the franchise, flips the script on the 1982 version. Instead of a human entering into a computer and facing various tests and adventures, a computer “AI agent” comes to life and enters our real world. There are plenty of interesting twists and turns in the movie, and I actually thought the movie was just OK overall. To be honest, I liked the original better.

But this blog is about some of the areas I started thinking about related to the movie’s themes. And the clearest example of a lesson from Tron: Ares is that an AI agent can go rogue and not obey clear instructions.

I wondered: Could that really happen in the future? Or, more pertinent, is it happening now with AI agents?

China’s Approach to AI Development and Governance

Ren Xiao

Source Link

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a new technological frontier that has wide-ranging economic, political, and military implications that could lead to changes in the global balance of power. The People’s Republic of China has embraced AI and enthusiastically attempted to advance it as part of the country’s drive to become a self-strengthening scientific and technological power. As a result, China is in many areas at or near the forefront of AI development and application. However, as global AI governance becomes a higher priority in the international community, China, like others, is grappling with the question of how to govern AI and its advancement, both domestically and internationally.

China’s Embrace of AI

In May 2015, China released the Made in China 2025 plan, which provided a blueprint for the next decade to establish the country as an advanced manufacturing powerhouse. The plan identifies nine strategic tasks and key areas, including enhancing manufacturing innovation, promoting integration of information technology and industry, strengthening the country’s industrial base, and building quality and brand development. Almost all of these priorities are directly related to or impacted by the development of AI. Thus, AI has become the core technology indispensable for future intelligent manufacturing and China’s economic plans in this space. The Made in China 2025 plan, together with the subsequent “Robotics Industry Development Plan (2016–2020),” released in April 2016, and the “‘Internet Plus’ Artificial Intelligence Three-Year Action and Implementation Plan,” released in May 2016, demonstrated that China has elevated developing AI technology to a level of national strategy.

JUST IN: New National Cyber Strategy to Impose More Costs on Adversaries

Josh Luckenbaugh

Source Link

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration is developing a new national cyber strategy, and a key element of it is imposing consequences on malicious actors in cyberspace, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Nov. 18.

The forthcoming guidance is meant to serve as the “single, coordinated strategy in this domain in a way that hasn't happened before,” Cairncross said during a keynote conversation at the Aspen Cyber Summit. “We are working in very close partnership with our inter-agency colleagues to develop this strategy and get it out the door.”

The national cyber strategy will be a “short statement of intent and policy, and then it will be paired very quickly with action items and deliverables under that,” he added.

A key pillar of the strategy is “shaping adversary behavior, introducing costs and consequences into this mix,” he said.

The United States has not done a “terrific job of sending a signal to our adversaries that this behavior is not consequence free,” he said, “and we need to do that because it is scaling, and it is becoming more aggressive every passing day.” Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence will make cyberattacks more potent, he added.