FP at Davos: Fighting Cyber Wars

Source Link

This year began with conflict on nearly every continent, in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, and Haiti. But it’s not just armed violence. War has spread to the digital world. Cyberattacks can target civilian infrastructure, create new biothreats, and sow disinformation. What tools can private and governmental actors use to defend against these risks?

At this year’s World Economic Forum summit, FP’s Ravi Agrawal moderated the session ​​“Defending the Cyber Frontlines,” in discussion with leaders in technology, defense, and humanitarian work. The panel included Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Joe Kaeser, chairman of the supervisory board of Siemens Energy; Andrius Kubilius, the European Commission’s commissioner for defense and space; Matthew Prince, the co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare; and Samir Saran, president of the Observer Research Foundation.

“Preparation of the Battlefield”: Cybersecurity Experts Testify on Global Threats to the Homeland

Source Link

This week, the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), held a hearing to examine global cybersecurity threats to the homeland, featuring testimony from the private sector. Witness testimony was provided by Adam Meyers, senior vice president of Counter Adversary Operations at CrowdStrike; retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Brandon Wales, vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne; and Kemba Walden, president at Paladin Global Institute.

In the Committee’s first hearing of the 119th Congress, retired Rear Admiral Montgomery revealed the startling extent of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ongoing access to our networks, as well as the sinister reason behind China’s pre-positioning efforts in our critical infrastructure. Meyers further outlined how threat actors, such as China, Russia, and North Korea, find and exploit known or zero-day vulnerabilities in American technology. As America’s adversaries increasingly use cyberspace as a battlefield, every witness called for enhanced cyber readiness across the government and private networks. Witnesses agreed the danger lies in failing to prioritize cybersecurity efforts––whether defensive or offensive.

5 Physics Equations Everyone Should Know

Rhett Allain

Source Link

All the tech we rely on, from cars to smartphones, was engineered using physics. You don’t need to know the science to use these things. But a well-rounded human should understand at least some of the key concepts—along with some music, art, history, and economics. Robert Heinlein said it all in Time Enough for Love:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

Three Reasons Why AI’s Momentum Could Stall in 2025

DAMBISA MOYO

Source Link

The rapid pace of technological advances over the past year, especially in artificial intelligence, has provided many reasons for optimism. But as we head into 2025, there are signs that AI’s momentum may be waning.

Since 2023, the dominant narrative has been that the AI revolution will drive productivity and economic growth, paving the way for extraordinary technological breakthroughs. PwC, for example, projects that AI will add nearly $16 trillion to global GDP by 2030 – a 14% increase. Meanwhile, a study by Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey R. Raymond estimates that generative AI could boost worker productivity by 14% on average and by 34% for new and low-skilled workers.

Recent announcements by Google and OpenAI seem to support this narrative, offering a glimpse into a future that not long ago was confined to science fiction. Google’s Willow quantum chip, for example, reportedly completed a benchmark computation – a task that would take today’s fastest supercomputers ten septillion years (ten followed by 24 zeros) – in under five minutes. Likewise, OpenAI’s new o3 model represents a major technological breakthrough, bringing AI closer to the point where it can outperform humans in any cognitive task, a milestone known as “artificial general intelligence.”

But there are at least three reasons why the AI boom could lose steam in 2025. First, investors are increasingly questioning whether AI-related investments can deliver significant returns, as many companies are struggling to generate enough revenue to offset the skyrocketing costs of developing cutting-edge models. While training OpenAI’s GPT-4 cost more than $100 million, training future models will likely cost more than $1 billion, raising concerns about the financial sustainability of these efforts.

Military Strategy and the Political Dynamics of War

Joseph Roger Clark 

Source Link

Colin Gray, the late scholar of strategy, was correct — politics is master. War is a political event. Although this observation is most often attributed to Carl von Clausewitz, it can be traced back to Cicero. It can also be found in the military texts of ancient China.[i] Nonetheless, the political dynamics of war often fail to be fully appreciated by military strategy. This condition helps explain a recent inability on the part of nations to wield military force to secure their political objectives. It suggests a need for military strategy predicated on a more nuanced understanding of the political dynamics of war.

War is a simultaneous collection of political and military events. The political milieu that catalyzes war shapes the belligerents’ strategic centers of gravity and forges the strategic logic of the war. However, the political dynamics responsible for war continue after the exchange of fire. Military events and their interpretation continue to affect political dynamics, which in turn affects military efficacy. Military strategy must appreciate — and be responsive to — these recursive relationships. The consideration of political dynamics cannot be cleaved from military strategy without placing the objective of the war in serious jeopardy.

This article posits the following argument: military strategies must fully appreciate the political dynamics of war. To be clear, political dynamics are not synonymous with political conditions. It would be difficult to find practitioners or scholars arguing that military strategy need not consider the political context. It would be equally difficult to find examples of military strategy devoid of political considerations. Yet, what is often missing is consideration of the evolving recursive relationships — the political dynamics — that exist between the political and military aspects of war.

Theory to Reality: Defensive Operations Confirm Clausewitz’s Theory

Jacob R. Bright

Source Link

Since its publication in 1832, Carl von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (On War) has been an academic pillar for Western military strategists, influencing military doctrine and shaping the debate on power relationships. Clausewitz, a Prussian military officer, fought against the French during the Napoleonic Wars and participated in the Waterloo campaign, which culminated in the surrender of Napoleon Bonaparte. His firsthand experience in these battles provided him with valuable insights into the nature and character of war. In addition to his combat experience, Clausewitz spent considerable time in staff roles within the Prussian Army, affording him the intellectual space to examine the complexities of conflict.[i] This unique blend of theoretical investigation and battlefield experience lends authenticity to “On War,” solidifying its high status in the intellectual study of military theory and making it a seminal text that continues to be studied and debated.

Central to Clausewitz’s theory is the argument that defensive operations hold an inherent advantage over offensive operations[ii]— a proclamation this article argues resonates in contemporary armed conflicts. The aim is to confirm the credibility of Clausewitz’s assertion by examining its relevance through four core tenets of warfare that undergird his philosophy: resource supply, psychological influence, public support, and fortifications. This article first discusses Clausewitzian theory in relation to defensive operations, a brief history of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, and then considers the strategic implications of the culminating point of the attack. The bulk of this article’s analysis defines each tenet according to Clausewitz’s writings, then describes how these four tenets provide defensive advantages to both Ukrainians and Russians amid the ongoing conflict. [iii] The aim of this article is to affirm Clausewitz’s assertion that “defense is a stronger form of fighting than attack.”[iv]

Adanis Face Ouster In Sri Lanka Too – Analysis

P. K. Balachandran

Source Link

The populist Dissanayake government has cancelled a major wind power project given to the Adanis in 2024 and appointed a fresh procurement committee.

In addition to facing troubles in Australia, Kenya, Bangladesh and the US, the Indian tycoon Gautam Adani is facing ouster in Sri Lanka. The populist Sri Lankan government of Anura Kumara Dissanayake has cancelled a major wind power project given to the Adanis and appointed a Procurement Committee to make recommendations on their proposal, which, in other words means, that the Adanis will have to start from scratch.

The Sri Lankan Cabinet of Ministers chaired by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake revoked a decision made by his predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe in June last year, to award a 484 mw wind power plants in Mannar and Pooneryn in North Sri Lanka to Adani Green Energy SL Ltd (AGESL).

But the government did not shut the door to the Adanis. It has appointed a Procurement Committee to make recommendations regarding the Adani’s proposal. This could mean that the Adanis can still submit an amended proposal if they are interested in the project.

The original contract is currently in the Supreme Court with environmentalists, local citizens and professionals challenging it. The court was expected to give a ruling in March this year. But the government’s latest decision to cancel the contract and appoint a new committee to re-consider the contract means that the matter has been taken away from the court.

‘India Against Illegal Immigration, Will Facilitate Return Of Verified Citizens’: MEA On US Deportations

Source Link

India on Friday reiterated its stance against illegal immigration, with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) affirming that it will facilitate the return of Indian nationals found residing illegally abroad, provided their nationality is verified. The statement comes amid a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigrants by US authorities following President Donald Trump’s return to the White House for a second term.

"We are against illegal immigration, especially because it is linked to several forms of organised crime. For Indians, not just in the United States, but anywhere in the world, if they are Indian nationals and they are overstaying or they are in a particular country without proper documentation, we will take them back provided documents are shared with us, so that we can verify their nationality, that they are indeed Indians. If that happens to be the case, then we will take things forward. We'll facilitate their return to India," MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said during a weekly briefing.

He also spoke about the bilateral ties between the two nations emphasising, "India-US relationship is very strong, multifaceted and the economic ties are something which is very special...We have established mechanisms between the US and India to discuss any matter or trade matters or matters related to trade...Our approach has always been to address issues in a constructive manner which is in keeping with the interests of both countries...We remain in close communication with the US administration..."

Definite change in Kashmir. Violence exists only because terrorists have adapted, Army hasn’t - Opinion

Lt Gen H S Panag (retd)

Source Link

Mixed signals are coming in from Jammu and Kashmir. On 2 January, Home Minister Amit Shah said that the Modi government has “completely dismantled the ecosystem of terror in Kashmir, thereby strengthening peace and stability in the region”. An elected government in harmony with the central government is in power, and the restoration of statehood is on the cards. The degree of terrorist violence is, by far, lower than the violent crimes in metropolitan cities. Tourism is thriving and infrastructure development is progressing rapidly.

However, rather than a decrease in military deployment, 15,000 additional troops were inducted into the Jammu region in 2024, and emergency procurement of counter-insurgency equipment was sanctioned. The troop-to-terrorist kill ratio in 2023 and 2024 was 1:2.6—the lowest level in a decade. But in the Jammu region, from 2021 to 2024, the ratio was an alarming 1:1. Both Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and the Chief of the Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi, have stated on record that Pakistan continues to wage a proxy war in J&K. The COAS has said that 80 per cent of the terrorists present in J&K and 60 per cent of those killed in counter-terrorism operations came from Pakistan.

So, what is the reality? By all yardsticks, violence has plateaued to the lowest levels ever. For once, politics is at centre stage to win the hearts and minds of the people. Per my assessment, the sporadic surge in violence is due to the changed tactics of the terrorists, necessitated by their small numbers, and the Army’s failure to adapt. This is imposing disproportionate caution, both politically and militarily. Thus, political and military strategy remains unchanged and continues to focus on long-term conflict management. A review of this is in order.

Union Budget 2025: India, get ready for the modern warfare of tomorrow

Sarahbeth George

Source Link

As India turns the corner and moves to another Budget, the most pressing question for those within the defence industry is whether the new budget will meet the growing demands of its armed forces. The main issue is the pace at which the defence ministry is progressing toward establishing an armed force capable of addressing the modern challenges of the war chessboard. India was the fourth-largest defence spender globally in fiscal 2024. Yet, despite this, efforts to modernise our armed forces have made limited headway over the past five years, according to some experts.

This is especially crucial as we step into another year marked by contentious and unstable global security scenarios. While the 2024-2025 defence budget, with allocation of Rs 6.22 lakh crore, 4.79% higher than FY 2023-24, represents some progress, experts argue that it falls short in addressing the significant gaps that continue to plague India's defence sector.

“India needs to keep the goal of ‘Viksit Bharat,’ and this goal requires more allocation toward infrastructure development and employment generation. Under these circumstances, the only way forward for better utilisation of defence allocation is by encouraging indigenous innovation in modernisation and bringing more products into the import embargo,” TV Chowdary, Managing Director of Premier Explosives Ltd, said.

India’s coaching institutes are having a meltdown. Teachers, students dropping out

Nootan Sharma

Source Link

The warning bells began to sound last year. First, salaries were delayed by a few days. Then came the pay cuts. And now, a 30-year-old team leader from Noida is still waiting for his November salary. He doesn’t work in the beleaguered tech sector but in a well-known UPSC coaching institute with centres in Karol Bagh and Mukherjee Nagar.

“We’ve been experiencing delays in salary payments. On top of that, people are facing a 20 to 25 per cent salary deduction as well,” said the executive, checking his phone for the familiar notification of his salary being credited. He received his October salary on 7 December but is still waiting for his November and December dues.

Delhi’s coaching hubs of Karol Bagh, Mukherjee Nagar, and Rajendra Nagar have not recovered from the deaths of three UPSC aspirants who drowned in the basement library of their coaching institute in July 2024. Crackdowns by the authorities, concerns about overcrowded classrooms, lack of infrastructure, high fees, and even quality of tutors are seeing parents and aspirants rethink enrolment in brick-and-mortar coaching institutes that were once the mainstay of the Rs 3,000-crore coaching industry.

The Narratives of War in Pakistan’s Kurram District

Hassan Turi

Source Link

The district of Kurram, in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal region, has been under siege for the past three months due to the closure of the main Thal-Parachinar Road, a key route connecting the region to the rest of the country. Besieged communities in the district have been facing severe shortages of essential supplies, including food and medicine.

The road has been closed since late November, when sectarian violence broke out in Kurram. The first three days of fighting killed more than 80 people.

A series of sit-ins were organized across the country, including in Karachi, to show solidarity with rival sects. Similarly, a delegation of Pashtun elders, formed during the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM)’s October national jirga, visited the district and held meetings with elders from the rival Sunni and Shia tribes. However, the delegation returned without achieving any fruitful results.

Recently, the government succeeded in signing a fragile peace agreement between the warring tribes after weeks of bloodshed that claimed around 130 lives, raising cautious hopes for stability in this historically volatile region.

Authorities had placed their hopes on a government-protected convoy scheduled for January 4. The convoy was tasked with delivering essential supplies to the besieged communities. Its successful passage was expected to provide much-needed relief and signal the possibility of reopening the road for future movement – a critical lifeline for the region.

No Room For Illness: Myanmar Migrants’ Silent Struggle in Thailand – Analysis

Dr. Htet Khaing Min

Source Link

As of 2024, over 4.18 million Myanmar migrants reside in Thailand, many in irregular status, working in low-wage sectors like agriculture and construction. These migrants face significant barriers to healthcare, impacting both their well-being and Thailand’s public health system. This article explores the healthcare-seeking behavior of Myanmar migrant workers, the challenges they face, and the broader implications for Thailand’s healthcare system.

1. Background of Migration

Myanmar migrants make up one of Thailand’s most significant foreign worker populations, driven by economic instability, political turmoil, and ethnic conflicts, especially after Myanmar’s 2021 military coup. While 90,000 refugees live in border camps, millions live outside in precarious conditions. Around 1.8 million migrants are in irregular status, facing exploitation and limited access to essential services, including healthcare. Migrants enter Thailand through formal channels like MoU agreements or informal routes. While MoU workers have some legal protections, irregular migrants face significant barriers to healthcare and social services.

2. Current Migrant Healthcare Landscape in Thailand

To understand the migrant healthcare system in Thailand, it is essential to examine the broader landscape of the healthcare system first. While Thailand boasts a dual healthcare system comprising public and private sectors, access to these services remains challenging for many migrants.

Why China’s Military Needs a New Communication Playbook

Michael Gritzbach

Source Link

When was the last time you called an automated customer service hotline, desperate to explain your issue, only to find that none of the options fit your needs? Now imagine the hotline keeps parroting irrelevant responses – except millions of lives depend on you getting your point across. This is the daily reality for many military personnel in the Pacific when dealing with their Chinese counterparts.

While global conflicts have been avoided in the past through diplomacy and direct communication – even between bitter adversaries like the United States and Russia – China’s military and Communist Party officials often rely on rigid, scripted responses that obstruct meaningful dialogue. Instead of exchanging information, they parrot party lines, ignore pressing questions, or refuse to engage altogether.

The stakes could not be higher. Misunderstandings in this fragile geopolitical environment, especially with current shifts to more militarization and conflict, risk triggering unnecessary escalations that could spiral into full-scale conflict.

Chinese military officials and diplomats have long displayed a frustrating communication style that prioritizes adherence to party doctrine over constructive engagement. At Harvard Kennedy School, a high-ranking U.S. military official recently described meeting with a senior Chinese counterpart: Every question posed to the Chinese delegation was met with scripted responses. Even worse, these responses bore no relation to the actual questions. While U.S. officials sought to build trust and mutual understanding, the Chinese side remained steadfastly robotic, effectively stonewalling any meaningful exchange.

Trump Has a New NATO—in the Middle East | Opinion

Gordon G. Chang

Source Link

In December, the United Kingdom joined the Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement. More countries will follow. C-SIPA, as the still-small grouping is known, could soon become the NATO of the Middle East.

That region desperately needs stability. The landmark agreement, signed by the Biden administration with the Kingdom of Bahrain in September 2023, can provide it by building on the landmark Abraham Accords of the first Trump term. Bahrain is a party to one of the three ratified accords.

China has its longstanding relationship with the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies. America has something better: the brand new C-SIPA.

"Today, C-SIPA is instrumental in enabling both nations, Bahrain and the U.S., to navigate complex threats and foster resilience," Al Khalafalla of the Bahrain Center for Strategic, International, and Energy Studies told me this month. "The framework promotes coordinated responses to shared challenges, enhancing bilateral cooperation in various vital sectors."

"It should come as no surprise that Bahrain was Washington's first choice when selecting an Arab country for increased cooperation," writes Elizabeth Dent of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The small Shia-majority island ruled by a Sunni royal family has long been a key economic, security, and diplomatic partner in the region."

Taking Taiwan: Will Xi or won’t Xi?

GRANT NEWSHAM

Source Link

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has been clear that he intends to get Taiwan – one way or another. He has good reasons. It would establish Xi as one of the immortals by accomplishing something Mao Tse Tung couldn’t.

By taking Taiwan, China breaks through the first island chain – the island nations stretching from Japan to Taiwan and on to the Philippines and Malaysia – that constrain China’s freedom of access to the Pacific and beyond. Break the chain and the PLA then gets easy access to the Pacific and potentially can surround Japan, cut off Australia and move onwards. These are operational advantages.

As important are the political and psychological advantages. Take Taiwan and Beijing has demonstrated the US military couldn’t save the 23 million free people of Taiwan. Neither could American economic and financial pressure. And US nuclear weapons didn’t stop China either.

In capitals all over Asia, the calculus will change and many will cut the best deals they can and turn “red” overnight rather than try to withstand Chinese pressure on their own. The United States will be finished as a Pacific power. And globally nobody will trust a US promise of protection – explicit or implicit.

Trump’s foreign policy is all about China

James Woudhuysen

Source Link

Too often, mainstream-media accounts of US president Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy descend into cod psychology.

We’re told he is emotionally inclined to cosy up to authoritarian leaders, from Chinese premier Xi Jinping to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Others claim he ‘embrace[s] unpredictability’ and loves to appear ‘crazy’. The US national editor at the Financial Times has even suggested that Trump sees the world as a jungle ruled by big predators determined to ‘pick off weak small ones’ – with America cast as the biggest predator of them all.

These interpretations explain very little. Geopolitical realities will have a far greater impact on US foreign policy than will the psyche of Donald Trump. His and his team’s approach will be characterised, above all, by improvisation in the face of events often beyond America’s control.

While Russia’s war with Ukraine and the ongoing conflagration in the Middle East are dominating the headlines, the US’s principal foreign-policy focus will continue to be China. Indeed, the prospective actions of America’s main global rival are set to dominate the geopolitical strategising of the incoming administration.

Ukraine’s Combat Units to Receive $60 Million per Month for UAVs

Maya Carlin

Source Link

Kyiv’s prioritization of its booming drone industry has been instrumental in the country’s ability to thwart Russian advances.

Nearly three years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, drone use continues to shape the conflict. Since February 2022, both Moscow and Kyiv have relied on an array of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out their respective war agendas. Russian forces have notably acquired many of their most lethal drones from Iran, while Ukraine has deployed both domestically-produced and foreign-delivered aerial weapons more regularly. As the war rages on, Kyiv is set to allocate additional resources to maintain its drone stockpile. This week, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense revealed it would provide its combat units with $60 million of direct funding per month to acquire their own UAVs. According to Defense News, this move will allow for the rapid fulfillment of the combat units’ needs. Ukraine’s Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov added that “Commanders of the units will have the flexibility to use these funds to acquire the drones that are the most effective for carrying out mission requirements at the front, which marks another step towards building a highly flexible system to ensure the military has everything necessary for Ukraine’s defense.” Previously, these units had to rely upon centralized purchasing for essential equipment.

Why Ukraine needs more UAVs

Ukraine’s prioritization of drones was recently highlighted by the announcement that Kyiv would produce 4 million UAVs annually. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed that Kyiv was quickly ramping up its production of these aerial weapons, which was virtually non-existent prior to Moscow’s invasion. In the same statement given by the Ukrainian president, it was also revealed that Ukraine had already contracted roughly half a million more drones in the first three quarters of 2024 than its original target.

Europe’s Energy Crisis: How To Shoot Yourself in the Foot

Pieter Cleppe

Source Link

By 2025, natural gas prices in Europe are expected to be five times higher than in the United States. This will make it very difficult for energy-intensive industries to compete.

One explanation for the difference in energy prices is the U.S. fracking revolution. According to some estimates, Europe has significant reserves of extractable shale gas. But there is a de facto ban on shale gas development in Europe, which does not prevent European countries from importing the same (and expensive) gas from the U.S.

A second explanation is the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which functions as a de facto climate tax. This tax is so high that it exceeds the entire price of natural gas in the United States.

One might expect that there would be strong political pressure to do something about the situation, for instance by mitigating the ETS climate tax or considering shale gas extraction. On the contrary, the EU decided last year to extend the scope of the European climate tax to more sectors, which will make heating with gas or driving a diesel car even more expensive for consumers.

The US retreat on climate comes with steep costs for the economy and the American people

Jorge Gastelumendi

Source Link

On its first day in office, the Trump administration has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The United States’ repeated withdrawal (President Donald Trump withdrew in his first term, then President Joe Biden rejoined) will not halt the global efforts to meet the 2015 Paris goals to limit global temperature rise. The climate crisis has moved far beyond the capacity for the United States to solve it unilaterally. Nevertheless, this decision will make progress more challenging and implementation more tenuous since the United States is one of the largest emitters.

While the withdrawal is an important global signal and will make efforts to combat climate change more difficult, the new administration’s de-prioritization of climate action will have immediate and concrete consequences for Americans themselves. The country will bear a heavier burden of inaction as well as the losses of delayed national investment in adaptation and resilience if Trump succeeds in fully repealing the Biden administration’s climate investments.

This month provided a stark example of that opportunity cost. The Los Angeles wildfires killed twenty-seven people and burned through over 12,000 structures. The loss is visible and immediate. Notably, the true cost is still being calculated. Analysts are projecting economic losses of as much as $150 billion and anticipate more deaths as the ramifications of degraded air quality and smoke take full effect.

Emperor Trump’s New Map - Opinion

Franklin Foer

Source Link

When Vladimir Putin daydreams, he imagines himself saluting a phalanx as it goose-steps across central Kyiv. In Donald Trump’s version of the fantasy, he is triumphantly floating through the Panama Canal on a battleship. Both men see themselves recovering lost empires, asserting their place in history by reversing it.

During his first term, Trump set about dismantling the architecture of postwar internationalism by trash-talking and bullying the institutional implements of global cooperation, the likes of NATO and the World Health Organization. This assault on the old order was waged in the name of populism, an attack on elites in foreign capitals who siphoned off taxpayers’ dollars. But what Trump hoped to achieve with these rhetorical fusillades was sometimes unclear, other than pleasing his political base, which adored them.

As Trump enters his second term, those attacks now seem more purposeful. In retrospect, he may have been laying tracks for a more ambitious plan, weakening those institutions so that he could eventually exploit their weakness.

Over the past weeks, he’s declared himself the tribune of a new era of American imperialism, which abandons any pretext of promoting liberal values to the world. In Trump’s newly hatched vision of empire, America stands poised to expand—not just into Panama but into Greenland and outer space—simply because its raw power entitles it to expand. To use the phrase he invoked in his inaugural address, a callback to the 19th-century vision of American imperialism, it is his “manifest destiny.”

The Great Power Threat is Back: Why America Needs a National Security Reset

Andrew A. Michta

Source Link

As Donald J. Trump takes office as the country’s 47th President, American foreign and security policy are at an inflection point.

While analysts routinely predict various and sundry policy changes when a new administration arrives on the scene, I will refrain from assessing the defining pillars of the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda until the principals are in the saddle and the policy process moves forward.

Instead, I would like to focus on where the United States is today regarding its relative power position in the world, and how we got here.

And the news is not good. In just one generation, America’s policy elites frittered away an inordinate amount of power. Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, the US policy community all but abandoned our traditional pragmatism and the respect for geopolitical constraints that heretofore had tempered America’s strategic thought.

In short, we let ideology overpower geopolitical considerations.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has played a normative game, professing that we lived in a world of rules tied to principles-based interlocking systems that would compel states to pursue integration into the global trade networks to set them on the course for reform, liberalization and “complex interdependence.”

Five Problems on Marco Rubio's Desk

Martha McHardy

Source Link

As Marco Rubio takes the helm at the State Department, he is facing a growing list of challenges.

Newsweek reached out to the State Department for comment via email.

Why It Matters

President Donald Trump's foreign policy stance has been described by some as isolationist, which could cause difficulties for the United States on the world stage.

What To Know

Rubio became the first of Trump's cabinet picks to be confirmed by the Senate on Monday. The former Florida senator received overwhelming support from his former colleagues, with 99 senators backing his nomination.

As he assumes leadership at the State Department, he now confronts five key challenges in navigating a complex geopolitical landscape.

How Microsoft powered Israel's war machine in Gaza: Report

Source Link

Leaked internal documents reveal Microsoft's role as a major purveyor of cloud services and artificial intelligence (AI) technology to the Israeli military, with its support picking up pace after Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel ignited the Gaza conflict.

A joint investigation by the Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call details how Microsoft bolstered its relationship with Israel's defence establishment following the unprecedented Hamas assault, signing deals worth at least $10 million. These agreements reportedly provided thousands of hours of technical support, alongside expanded computing and storage services.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), facing increased demand for computing power after launching its offensive in Gaza, turned to tech companies to scale its infrastructure, triggering a "gold rush". As firms vied for military contracts, Microsoft offered steep discounts to edge out rivals.

According to one military commander who spoke to the Guardian, this marked a shift toward "the wonderful world of cloud providers."

The documents, first obtained by Drop Site News, show the IDF's reliance on Microsoft, Amazon, and Google for data storage and intelligence analysis grew sharply. Between June 2023 and April 2024, Microsoft's cloud storage usage within the military surged by over 155 per cent, peaking before the Rafah offensive in May 2024.

Two officers were fired for bucking their chain of command. Now they’re going to work at the Pentagon.

Jeff Schogol

Souce Link

Two of President Donald Trump’s picks for Pentagon posts are former officers who publicly challenged senior military leaders and during the most recent administration: Former Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier and former Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller.

Trump prizes loyalty first and foremost in his subordinates and he has shown an eagerness to reverse many of his predecessor’s policies. The fact that Scheller and Lohmeier are critics of the military under President Joe Biden, and the views that got them in trouble in uniform now mirror many that Trump has publicly endorsed, could give them clout with the new administration.

Along with Trump’s nominee for defense secretary Pete Hegseth, both men have criticized military diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, or DEI.

Lohmeier has been nominated to serve as undersecretary of the Air Force. In May 2021, he was fired as commander of 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base, after talking about his book “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military” on the “Information Operation,” podcast hosted by Creative Destruction, or CD, Media, Military.com reported.

Donald Trump’s Biggest Foreign Policy Test: The Axis of Upheaval

Robert Kelly

Source Link

Donald Trump is the US president again. While his domestic agenda is fairly clear – he talked relentlessly about immigration and tariffs as a candidate – his foreign policy is seemingly wide open.

The broad strokes are known: Trump is friendlier to autocrats than any other American president has been, and he is tough, almost bullying, toward smaller, weaker states, including US partners.

However, how Trump will resolve the Ukraine issue, which he promised to fix in one day, is unclear.

Nor is it clear how he will deal with the significant challenger to the US for the next decades – China.

Tariffs will not be enough.

China’s rise is hardly new, but under its current president, Xi Jinping, China has embarked on a much more revisionist, belligerent course.

There is much suspicion that China will move against Taiwan in the coming decade. It is unclear how Trump would respond, given his comments about Taiwan in the past. And more broadly, China is the leading member of a potential ‘axis of upheaval.’

The Fallacy of the Abraham Accords

Khaled Elgindy

Source Link

U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to cement his legacy in the Middle East were well underway even before he reclaimed the White House. “There’s just no way that President Trump isn’t going to be interested in trying to expand the Abraham Accords,” Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s former Middle East envoy, told thousands of international delegates at Qatar’s Doha Forum in December. The Abraham Accords, a series of normalization deals signed in 2020 by Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates, remain Trump’s signature foreign policy achievement from his first term, and one hailed by both his allies and his staunchest political opponents—including former President Joe Biden.

Indeed, Biden not only wholeheartedly embraced the Abraham Accords but sought to build on them by securing a landmark deal with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful and influential Arab state. Biden’s offer was that, in return for Israeli-Saudi normalization, the Saudis would get a major upgrade in the strategic partnership with the United States, on par with that of a NATO ally. A Israeli-Saudi agreement would be the biggest breakthrough in Arab-Israeli diplomacy since Egypt broke ranks with the Arab world and became the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979—and would pave the way for other Arab and Muslim nations to follow suit.

This approach to Arab-Israeli peacemaking, however, is contingent on sidestepping the Palestinian question. Until 2020, the consensus among Arab states had been that normalization with Israel would come only after the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The decision by Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates to break ranks therefore effectively robbed Palestinians of an important source of leverage against Israel. Since then, Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel in 2023 and Israel’s devastating war on Gaza have effectively derailed the Israeli-Saudi track, in an explicit reminder that the Palestinian question cannot be ignored or subordinated to Arab-Israeli normalization.

A Korean-style armistice for Ukraine?

STEPHEN BRYEN

Source Link

​The New York Times reports that US officials are planning to propose an “armistice” for Ukraine, allegedly similar to how the Korean War ended in 1953. However, an Armistice Agreement like the Korean one does not align with Russia’s goals and probably can’t be achieved if limited to a ceasefire.

The 1953 agreement was reached after difficult negotiations that involved the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, the former Soviet Union and United Nations forces. Its main provisions were:

1. ​suspending open hostilities;
2. withdrawing all military forces and equipment from a 4,000-meter-wide zone, establishing the Demilitarized Zone as a buffer between the forces;
3. ​​ both sides ​w​ill not enter the air, ground or sea areas under control of the other;
4. ​a​n arrangement for the release and repatriation of prisoners of war and displaced persons; and
5. ​a​ Military Armistice Commission (MAC) and other agencies to discuss any violations and to ensure adherence to the truce terms.

T​he Korean armistice is now 72 years old. For the most part, it has prevented open war involving North and South Korea.

​The demilitarized zone, or DMZ, in Korea is about 160 miles long and 2.5 miles wide. Running through the DMZ is a Military Demarcation Line (MDL) which is where the opposing forces were when an armistice was reached.

Friend or foe? Trump’s threats against ‘free-riding’ allies could backfire - OPINION

NICHOLAS KHOO

Source Link

Donald Trump is an unusual United States president in that he may be the first to strike greater anxiety in allies than in adversaries.

Take the responses to his pre-inauguration comments about buying Greenland, for instance, which placed US ally Denmark at the center of the global foreign policy radar screen and caused the Danish government – which retains control of the territory’s foreign and security policies — to declare Greenland isn’t for sale.

Canada is also in Trump’s sights with trade tariff threats and claims it should be the 51st US state. Its government has vociferously opposed Trump’s comments, begun back-channel lobbying in Washington and prepared for trade retaliation.

Both cases highlight the coming challenges for management of the global US alliance network in an era of increased great power rivalry – not least for NATO, of which Denmark and Canada are member states.

Members of that network saw off the Soviet Union’s formidable Cold War challenge and are now crucial to addressing China’s complex challenge to contemporary international order. They might be excused for asking themselves the question: with allies like this, who needs adversaries?

The Challenge of AI-Enhanced Cognitive Warfare: A Call to Arms for a Cognitive Defense - Opinion

Douglas Wilbur

Source Link

Specialist Jones was in the motor pool when he received the Facebook post that led to his demise. A Facebook friend he had never met with sent him a video. His wife Carla was engaged in sexual intercourse with Sergeant Martinez. Jones, who is prone to impulsive behavior, became enraged and irrational. He went home, grabbed a hammer, and beat Carla to death. Then he committed suicide. For the Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) system, it was a spectacular success. A well-trained and experienced soldier was neutralized in an hour at a negligible cost. The AI system analyzed the social media history of Jones and his wife, and within 20 seconds, determined that Jones was liable to violence if presented with a deepfake video denoting marital infidelity. The AI gathered social media pictures of Carla and Martinez and made a reasonably accurate assessment of what they might look like naked. This speculative and graphic example demonstrates how emerging AI-enabled cognitive threat systems and methodologies can be employed to exploit systemic personnel vulnerabilities and undermine the health and functionality of America’s warfighters. To date, this cognitive threat receives little, if any, consideration within the DoD.

The advent of AI-driven information warfare weapons is leading a new revolution in military affairs, and the future could be grim unless defensive measures are undertaken. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is aggressively pursuing what they call cognitive warfare. The goal is to manipulate a target’s mental functioning in a wide variety of manners to obtain some desirable goal. The Chinese Communist Party Party’s (CCP) philosophy of conflict is evolving to consider the human brain as an operational domain. They envision an integrated system of systems where humans will integrate into and be cognitively enhanced by information technology (IT) systems as some type of transhuman evolutional development. In this theory of victory, war no longer entails the destruction of enemy troop formations on the battlefield. A new form of victory where one’s systems overwhelm, disrupt, paralyze, or destroy the ability of enemy systems to operate at all, let alone engage in a traditional military offensive. This fictional story presents hypothetical scenarios presented here are meant to elucidate the threat that powerful emerging technologies can exploit human biological weakness.

GAO Report on Pentagon Modular Weapon Systems

Source Link

A modular open systems approach (MOSA) is a strategy that can help the Department of Defense (DOD) design weapon systems that take less time and money to sustain and upgrade. Recent legislation requires acquisition programs to implement a MOSA to the maximum extent practicable. GAO found that 14 of the 20 programs it reviewed reported implementing a MOSA to at least some extent. Other programs cited barriers to doing so, such as added cost and time to conduct related design work. While a MOSA has potential benefits, it may also require programs to conduct additional planning, such as to ensure they address cybersecurity aspects related to a MOSA.

However, none of the 20 programs GAO reviewed conducted a formal analysis of costs and benefits for a MOSA because DOD’s policy does not explicitly require one. As GAO reported in March 2020, program officials often focus on reducing acquisition time and costs. Unless required to consider the costs and benefits of a MOSA, officials may overlook long-term MOSA benefits.

Further, most programs did not address all key MOSA planning elements in acquisition documents, in part, because the military departments did not take effective steps to ensure they did so. As a result, programs may not be well-positioned to integrate a MOSA into key investment decisions early in the life of the program. Also, DOD’s process for coordinating MOSAs across portfolios does not ensure the level of collaboration needed to achieve potential benefits such as lower costs from using common components across programs.

India’s Limited Options Against China: Strategic And Diplomatic Dilemmas – OpEd

K.S. Venkatachalam

Source Link

Three recent developments involving China are raising alarms in South Asia, with serious implications for the geopolitical landscape, particularly for India. These developments are:

1. China’s plan to build a $137 billion Yarlung Tsangpo dam in Tibet, which could generate 40,000 megawatts of electricity annually. This dam, located in Medog County, could potentially be used as a weapon to control and divert the flow of water to India, leading to flooding risks.
2. China’s refusal to withdraw troops from areas they intruded upon in 2020, coupled with military drills in Eastern Ladakh to prepare for possible future conflicts with India.
3. China restricting the export of critical equipment to India, especially for manufacturing solar panels, electric vehicles, and electronics.

These actions indicate that China is unlikely to mend ties with India anytime soon. There’s a growing sentiment that China is determined to prevent India from emerging as a dominant power in Asia.

First, The Yarlung Tsangpo dam project, which will be the world’s largest hydroelectric project, has raised serious concerns. While China claims that the dam is a “run-of-the-river” project meant solely for hydroelectric power, India worries that China could use the dam to control the water flow of the Yarlung Zangbo river, which flows from Tibet to India’s Arunachal Pradesh and then to Bangladesh. If China were to divert or block the flow of water, millions of people downstream in India and Bangladesh could be affected.

BRICS: Concern For West? – OpEd

Patial RC

Source Link

The Concern: Original BRICS members are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The so-far 10-member BRICS+ grouping already comprises nearly half of the world’s population and over a third of the global economy. It also has more than 25 per cent of the world’s landmass, produces more than 30 per cent of the world’s oil output. In the 21st Century, with the rise of Asia, and economies like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and others, the world has become much more multi-polar, instead of being bipolar. Brazil in South America and South Africa in Africa were also rising global economies. BRICS and is on track to surge ahead of the G7 economies in less than 20 years. Though the BRICS group was created in 2009. However, the renewed interest saw its membership double within one year. Lately Indonesia became a full member of BRICS group.

President Trump is after the BRICS+ and is threatening to impose 100 per cent tariffs on member countries if it tries to replace the US dollar for international trade. The US feels threatened by the grouping ,because it can actually make the US dollar vulnerable. “If the BRICS nations want to do that (replace the US dollar), that’s okay, but we’re going to put at least a 100 per cent tariff on the business they do with the United States,” President Trump told the international media shortly after his presidential inauguration. Naturally the West led by the US seem genuinely concerned about the challenge to its existing ‘World Order’, the West-made international system.

Carrots and Sticks? Taiwan and Semiconductor Supply Chains Under Trump 2.0

Ming-Yen Ho and Chiang Min-yen

Source Link

The decisive Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. election has handed President Donald Trump a full mandate to implement his economic agenda. His plans for punitive global tariffs and extended corporate tax cuts are clear. However, the future of Biden-era policies, such as the CHIPS and Science Act (often shortened to the CHIPS Act) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), remains uncertain.

Taiwanese firms face two key concerns under the second Trump administration. The first is the sustainability of U.S. commitments to support Taiwanese manufacturing under the CHIPS Act and related incentives. Will federal and state-level agreements reached in the Biden era be honored? If new subsidies arise, Taiwanese firms need a level playing field with U.S. competitors. Taiwanese companies must stress their critical role in bolstering the U.S. supply chain – a network vital for allied countries. Favoring U.S. manufacturers alone risks inefficiency, higher costs for U.S. customers, and misallocation of resources essential for competing with China.

The second issue involves potential tariffs and trade barriers targeting Taiwanese semiconductor and electronics supply chains. Trump’s past suggestion that he would use tariffs to coerce investments remains salient. Historical precedent from the Japan-U.S. trade conflict shows this strategy could pressure Taiwanese firms, especially in sectors with U.S. competitors. Preemptive investment in the U.S. may mitigate this risk while expanding business opportunities.

Why India’s Fence Along its Bangladesh Border Riles Dhaka

Sudha Ramachandran

Source Link

India’s fencing of its border with Bangladesh has emerged as the latest sore spot between the two neighbors.

On January 12, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Indian high commissioner in Dhaka to convey to him Bangladesh’s “deep concern” over the “unauthorized attempts to construct barbed wire fencing and the related operational actions” by India’s Border Security Force (BSF), which “have caused tensions and disturbances along the border.”

The following day, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) informed Bangladesh’s interim high commissioner in New Delhi that India had “observed all protocols and agreements between the two governments” and between the BSF and Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) in erecting the fencing.

The latest bilateral border spat erupted on January 8, when India resumed fencing work along its border with Bangladesh. According to reports, BGB personnel objected to BSF fence construction activity at several places. There were violent clashes too between Indian and Bangladeshi civilians living near the border. Importantly, Bangladesh accused the BSF of shooting dead a Bangladeshi citizen and injuring several others.

India and Bangladesh share a 4,096.7 kilometer-long border. India began fencing it in 1986 amid rising concerns over Bangladeshi migration into India’s Northeast, which fueled a powerful anti-foreigner movement and an armed insurgency.