Indian Strategic Studies

17 February 2025

What’s Driving China’s Controversial Mega-Dam in Tibet?

Genevieve Donnellon-May and Mark Wang

On December 25, 2024, Chinese state media Xinhua reported that the country had officially approved the construction of what will be the world largest hydro-dam with annual capacity of 60 gigawatts (GW), or 300 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. The planned site is on the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River in the Tibet Autonomous Region, in the foothills of the Himalayas.

With recent estimates suggest that the new hydropower dam’s cost to potentially exceed 1 trillion yuan ($137 billion), the planned hydropower dam is expected to surpass the country’s famous Three Gorges Dam as the largest – and most expensive – in the world. The Three Gorges dam cost 254.2 billion yuan and generates 88.2 billion kilowatt-hours annually.

The Power Construction Corporation of China (PowerChina), in partnership with the Tibet Autonomous Region government, is expected to oversee the project. When the proposal was unveiled in late 2020, Yan Zhiyong, chairman of PowerChina, hailed it as an “historic opportunity for the Chinese hydropower industry.”

Chinese officials and media have declared that the day will be a “people-centric project aimed at enriching the people and promoting Tibet’s development.” The hydropower dam’s construction is expected to boost rapid growth in local industries (such as logistics) and also create local employment opportunities.

Donald Trump And Narendra Modi’s Opportunity

Kaush Arha

This week, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Washington, DC for two days of talks with newly-elected President Donald Trump. While the summit will no doubt be full of announcements on trade deals and defense cooperation, it is important not to lose sight of the greater opportunity.

The United States and India’s core national interests call for a strong alliance between two great nations in an era of great power competition. Bureaucratic skepticism borne from past mistakes keeps the world’s oldest and largest democracies from forging an epoch-shaping alliance. However, it is time for President Trump and Prime Minister Modi to overcome the hesitations of history through a clear-eyed and reciprocal partnership that propels India’s strategic autonomy from the shadows of China to its rightful place—a truly great power and a redoubtable American ally.

India’s primary goal is to regain historic parity with China as one of two leading Asian powers with expanding global influence. India needs to substantially augment its hard power capabilities to optimize its strategic autonomy. Presently, this is constrained by China’s superior military and economy. Hard power determines a nation’s strategic autonomy and the reach of its soft power. To paraphrase President Theodore Roosevelt, soft speech is greatly amplified when accompanied by a big stick. A strong alliance with the United States is India’s optimal conduit to build and sustain its hard power.

Putting the Trump-Modi Bromance to the Test

BRAHMA CHELLANEY

Last time Donald Trump was president, ties between the United States and India flourished. But the bilateral relationship began to fray during Joe Biden’s presidency, owing not least to divisions over the Ukraine war. Will Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s latest meeting with Trump at the White House mark the first step toward restoring this critical relationship?

Trump has made no secret of his conviction that personal bonds between leaders can underpin stronger bilateral relationships. And he and Modi certainly share an affinity: both are nationalist politicians who love little more than to please a roaring crowd with elaborate theatrics. In September 2019, the two came together for a public rally in Houston, attended by 50,000 Indian-Americans and several US legislators. The following February, Trump addressed more than 100,000 people in Ahmedabad. “America loves India,” he declared. “America respects India, and America will always be faithful and loyal friends [sic] to the Indian people.”

US-India relations took a turn for the worse after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Biden administration mobilized America’s allies and partners to join its campaign to punish Russia – and, ideally, compel it to change its behavior. But far from joining this effort, India stayed neutral and seized the opportunity to secure cheap Russian oil.

Beginning Of The End, Or End Of The Beginning, For Bangladesh’s Revolution? – Analysis

Jon Danilowicz

Following a period of relative quiet, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina again sparked unrest in Bangladesh on the six-month anniversary of her ouster by a student-led popular uprising.

She angered those who participated in ending her brutal dictatorship by giving a speech on Feb. 5 via social media – from hiding in India – during which she alleged that the interim administration, which was formed by a consensus after she fled Bangladesh, was an “unconstitutional” power grab.

And she further inflamed passions by urging her supporters to resist the interim administration.

The protesters decided to send a message by destroying the former home of Hasina’s father, the independence hero Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, around whom his daughter built a cult of personality during her tenure.

News clips uploaded on social media site X showed no footage of Hasina’s controversial speech, focusing on the destruction of the memorial – playing on a loop scenes of protesters setting fires in the building and taking hammers to its walls.

It is likely that Hasina and her supporters intended to provoke just such a response from the students. Predictably, her Awami League party highlighted the events as evidence of the growing lawlessness in the country.

Does Anyone Care About the Climate Crisis in Tibet?

Jagannath Panda

In early January, a powerful 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck the remote Dingri county (Shigatse) on the Tibetan Plateau, generating thousands of aftershocks within the first three days. The ripple effects were felt in neighboring Bhutan, India, and Nepal. It was the most severe earthquake to impact the Himalayan region in the past century. Media observers have argued that this natural disaster may serve as an indicator of the deleterious effects of China’s unsustainable exploitation of Tibetan ecological resources to satisfy its domestic developmental imperatives.

Days before the earthquake, in late December, China had announced plans to build one of the largest hydroprojects in the world on Tibet’s Yarlung Tsangpo River, triggering strong opposition from neighboring Himalayan states and the Tibetan community. Beijing’s relentless pursuit of large-scale infrastructure projects in Tibet – under the guise of economic development – is exacerbating the region’s environmental fragility. Critics argue that such projects, particularly in an ecologically sensitive and seismically active zone, not only threaten local ecosystems but may also contribute to heightened seismic risks. The question, then, is whether China’s unchecked exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources is not just an environmental crisis in the making but a direct catalyst for disaster.

The Subtle Invasion: China’s Long-Game In Ukraine

Drew N. Peterson

While Beijing is 4,000 miles from Kyiv, China’s support for Russia’s war has been significant even as the conflict has presented conundrums for China’s Belt and Road Initiative to knit together the entire Eurasian landmass into a single, Chinese-dominated intermodal logistics and trading network. Over the last three years, Beijing has played a careful balancing act between its partnership with Russia, its broader global ambitions, and its ostensible prioritization of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

As the incoming second Trump Administration increasingly looks for potential resolutions to the conflict, it will be important to recall the history of China’s involvement in Ukraine before and during the war on an economic and technological level. Just as no analysis of any international issue today is complete without a China angle, China’s involvement in Ukraine must be better understood, especially in light of any potential role Beijing might aim to play in Ukraine’s post-conflict reconstruction.

Opening The Wallet

China’s opportunistic economic involvement in Ukraine predates Russia’s deeper invasion of the country in 2022 and has evolved in response to the last three years of full-scale war. Ukraine joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2017, and in 2019 China surpassed Russia as Ukraine’s largest trading partner. China became a top importer of Ukrainian foodstuffs, energy commodities, and armaments while pioneering investments and construction projects in Ukrainian infrastructure, such as port terminals, transit, and “clean” energy.

China: one country, two economies, two strategies

Francesco Sisci

The Chinese economy is divided into two parts, one geared toward domestic growth and another for exports. The structure can function because its currency, the RMB, is not fully convertible and its market is not freely accessible.

Exports help access resources for the development of dual-use Chinese technology. But the entire architecture could face a severe setback if exports and their derived surplus decline. It’s a race against time. If Chinese tech outpaces Western technology, Beijing’s strategy may prevail while the US appears uncertain about its path forward.

China has two economies that work in parallel. They influence each other, yet they live almost separate lives. One is the domestic economy which is now plagued by debt and sagging demand. The other is thriving and booming – its unrivaled export machine.

The two have a special relationship with one another, as Michael Pettis recently pointed out. Domestic development is stalling, driven by infrastructure investments with declining returns and efficiency, while the growth is led by net exports, which “contributed 30.3% to GDP growth in 2024, their highest share since 1997.”

Protecting European AI-Related Innovations: Preventing Their Use in China’s Military Advancements

Sofia Romansky, Joris Teer and A. Plantenga

Introduction

1.1 The Current Geopolitical Landscape and the Impact of AI on the Military Domain

Increased great-power rivalry has contributed to an acceleration of competition in defence, dual-use and civilian industries. Specifically, China’s rapid military modernisation has caused alarm in the US, Asia and Europe. If the US-China military balance of power definitively tips in China’s favour, this could have far-reaching consequences for security in East Asia, as well as globally.2 After all, both East Asian democracies and Europe rely on US military power for their protection. In turn, Europe depends on East Asia as the world’s manufacturing hub.3 For over a decade, China has made large scale investments to close the military-technological gap between the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Western militaries.4 If China complements its quantitative advantages—such as its shipbuilding capacity, which far exceeds that of any other country— with leadership in emerging disruptive technologies (EDTs), particularly artificial intelligence (AI), the PLA could threaten stability in East Asia.

Post-Assad Syria: Challenges, Opportunities, and the US Role in Shaping its Future

Mohammed A. Salih

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham: Leading the New Syria

HTS, or the Organization for the Liberation of the Levant, led the coalition that toppled Assad’s regime on December 8 in a campaign marked by minimal bloodshed or retribution against loyalists. HTS originated in 2017 from a coalition of hardline Islamist groups, many with jihadi backgrounds. Its predecessor, Jabhat al-Nusra, was al-Qaeda’s official franchise in Syria, created by the Islamic State of Iraq (a precursor to ISIS) before their split. HTS leader Sharaa was arrested in Iraq during the mid-2000s for planting a bomb while part of al-Qaeda.

Over the years, HTS has undergone ideological shifts, evolving from a group in the transnational jihadi orbit into a Syrian-focused revolutionary entity. Following its campaign against Assad, HTS has displayed surprising tolerance toward non-Muslim and non-Sunni groups, including Christians, Druze, and Alawites. The HTS-led interim government has appointed Mohsina al-Mahithawi, a Druze woman, as governor of the southern Druze-majority Suwaida province. Additionally, HTS has permitted unveiled women in public, let bars in major cities like Damascus function, and allowed New Year celebrations. These gestures of inclusivity have earned the group cautious praise from various quarters inside and outside Syria.

However, as recent remarks by Sheikh Hikmat Hajari, the spiritual leader of the Druze community, reveal, there is deep distrust of HTS among the country’s minorities that could threaten the emergence of a unifying central authority in the country. The group’s actions and governance practices have generated concern. For instance, reports of an Alawite shrine being burned by opposition fighters during the recent anti-Assad campaign in Aleppo caused unrest in the Alawite-majority coastal regions. The Ministry of Education’s proposals to amend school curricula to reflect Islamist views have also drawn criticism. Compounding these issues is recently leaked footage of Justice Minister Shadi al-Waisi overseeing a public execution of two women in Idlib in 2015 on charges of prostitution.

Global defence spending soars to new high

Fenella McGerty & Karl Dewey

In 2024, global defence spending reflected intensifying security challenges and reached USD2.46 trillion, up from USD2.24trn the previous year. Growth also accelerated, with the 7.4% real-terms uplift outpacing increases of 6.5% in 2023 and 3.5% in 2022. As a result, in 2024, global defence spending increased to an average of 1.9% of GDP, up from 1.6% in 2022 and 1.8% in 2023.

Increases were driven by deteriorating security environments and sharpened threat perceptions, particularly in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which both saw major increases, as did some key Asian countries. Moreover, easing inflation allowed many countries to invest in new capabilities rather than just covering higher operating costs and wages. The only region that did not see real-terms increases was Sub-Saharan Africa, where defence spending declined by 3.7%.

Europe, NATO and RussiaOver the last year, European defence spending jumped by 11.7% in real terms to reach USD457 billion, with 2024 marking the tenth consecutive year of growth. Indeed, Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea elevated threat perceptions across the continent and rejuvenated long-standing commitments from NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Regional growth in 2024 was dominated by the 23.2% real uplift in the German defence budget; however, future defence-budget growth there is uncertain following the collapse of the ruling ‘traffic light’ coalition in November 2024 and the upcoming election.

How Trump 2.0 Challenges the Global Order

Ahmed Charai

Donald Trump radically breaks with the traditional dogmas of American foreign policy, long known as the “postwar consensus.” In the wake of World War II, the thinking of a handful of Ivy League graduate schools was reflected and amplified through national and (U.S.-funded) international institutions. Politicians could emphasize one or another of its nostrums but never question the “consensus” itself or the institutions. The “consensus” became a kind of hymnal for American decisionmakers.

Trump 2.0, buoyed by a resounding electoral success and a political comeback story for the ages, dares to question both the consensus and the institutions. He points to its results and asks: Why would any citizen want more of the same?

This question, and the answer it implies, is what Trump’s supporters hail as “common sense” and what the president’s foes call “chaos.”

Trump’s political life story embodies this divide. His allies see him in almost messianic terms, a leader who rose from near-death experiences in the face of gunmen. Trump’s refusal to yield or plea bargain and his repeated survival against ambushes made him a hero to half of America. The open hostility of the Establishment, if anything, galvanizes his followers and fuels him to deconstruct a system that, according to him, has unjustly thwarted and unfairly hindered him.

Why The U.S. Army Wants Voice-Controlled Robot Tanks

Michael Peck

Robot combat vehicles are becoming common features on the modern battlefield. From serving as mechanical mules and bomb disposal devices, unmanned ground vehicles have evolved into automated scouts, and gun and missile platforms that resemble miniature tanks.

But how will human operators control these vehicles? Typing commands into a laptop may be fine in a laboratory, but not in the middle of a firefight.

Hence, the U.S. Army wants to develop a system that allows crews of manned armor, such as tanks and troop carriers, to use plain-language voice commands to control robot vehicles.

“The system should interpret commands such as ‘move 300 meters east’ or ‘retreat to rally point’ and translate them into actionable, autonomous maneuvers,” according to an Army Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) solicitation.

Despite predictions that drones will make traditional tanks obsolete, the Army isn’t giving up on old-fashioned manned armored vehicles. But it does envision expensive main battle tanks – and their precious crews – being escorted by hordes of cheap and expendable unmanned combat vehicles.

Negotiating tactic or not, Trump’s Gaza plan has already done irreparable damage

Ahmed Aboudouh

President Donald Trump has started a new reality in the Middle East, regardless of what comes next. Did he also torpedo the hostage deal in Gaza? Possibly. What other outcome should people expect if proposed US policy on the territory has led to warnings against ethnic cleansing by the UN Secretary General and would effectively end the US commitment to the two-state solution?

Israel’s military has already been ordered to prepare plans to allow Palestinians to exit Gaza. That follows the US president saying the US would take over the Gaza Strip and ‘do a job with it too’.

‘We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,’ he said, explaining that America would take ‘a long-term ownership position’ to turn it into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’.

The White House later dialled back some aspects of his proposal, saying the US is not offering a commitment to rebuild Gaza or send troops. But Trump later doubled down on his position, saying the strip would be handed over to the US by Israel. This signals that Israel has no intention of leaving Gaza. That, in turn, provides a pretext for Hamas to renege on implementing the remaining phases of the deal and resuming the fight.

Welcome to 2035 : What the world could look like in ten years, according to more than 350 experts

Mary Kate Aylward, Peter Engelke, Uri Friedman, and Paul Kielstra

Another devastating world war, potentially bringing China and the United States into direct conflict. The spread and even the use of nuclear weapons. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza failing to ultimately produce favorable outcomes for Kyiv and Israeli-Palestinian peace. A more multipolar world without robust multilateral institutions. A democratic recession further devolving into a democratic depression.

These are just some of the future scenarios that global strategists and foresight practitioners pointed to when the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security surveyed them, in late November and early December 2024 following the US elections, for its third-annual survey on how they expect the world to change over the next ten years.

Not all the projections were pessimistic. Fifty-eight percent of those who participated in our Global Foresight 2025 survey, for example, felt that artificial intelligence would, on balance, have a positive impact on global affairs over the next ten years—an increase of 7 percentage points from our Global Foresight 2024 survey. Roughly half of respondents foresaw an expansion of global cooperation on climate change.

Technology vs Democracy

Sam Freedman

Much of what Donald Trump has done so far is recognisable from his first term: the use of tariffs to force negotiations, 25% on steel and aluminium imports, the overhyped deportation “spectaculars”, the paranoid fixation on his enemies real and imagined. The structure of his economic and foreign policy teams are similar to term one, as are the debates they’re having. There is, as last time, no clarity over his legislative agenda.

The big difference is Elon Musk. It was obvious before the inauguration that he had successfully ingratiated himself with Trump and would play a significant role, but no one knew quite what it would look like. Now we know that he, and his handpicked team, mostly people who’ve worked for his companies, have been allowed to insert themselves into government departments, with no effective controls whatsoever.

A lot of this activity appears straightforwardly unconstitutional, and federal courts are starting to react by imposing temporary injunctions, some of which will ultimately be tested in the Supreme Court. But his team of wreckers is doing plenty of damage in the meantime, not least to USAID and the millions around the world who depend on them. Musk is now publicly talking about judicial orders being ignored, which is the point at which the constitution properly starts to fall apart.

Raw material and supply chain vulnerabilities in the Dutch defence sector: An analysis of the Air Defence & Command Frigate

Irina Patrahau and Benedetta Girardi

Introduction

Global tensions have renewed the interest of the European Union (EU) and member states like the Netherlands to invest in modernizing their militaries and revitalizing domestic industrial capabilities. The rise of China and the shift of the United States (US) strategic interest from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, Russia’s military threat, and conflicts in the Middle East point to the need for European militaries to strengthen operational readiness and invest in the development of capabilities. The revitalization of conflict around Europe’s borders – the Russo-Ukrainian war and the conflict in Gaza – has shown the EU and its member states that they must boost military operational readiness to be able to deter and/or withstand direct military confrontation.

At the same time, geopolitical tensions are putting pressure on trade relations, with implications for the supply security of strategic goods. Global supply chains have been strained ever since the COVID-19 pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine. These events have been wake-up calls for the EU that import dependencies in vital sectors – energy, healthcare, hightech products – are undesirable and should be reduced. The escalating US-China tensions are bringing even more urgency for the EU to strengthen self-suciency. While the competition for economic, military, and technological superiority between the US and China has been unfolding for more than a decade, the rivalry has come to the forefront of global trade and national industrial policy.

Dirty deals, done dirt cheap? Implications of a Trump-brokered deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war

Bob Deen, Tim Sweijs, Roman de Baedts & Nora Nijboer

Introduction

Eventually all wars must come to an end – including the war between Russia and Ukraine that began nearly eleven years ago with the Russian annexation of Crimea. President-elect Donald Trump has claimed to ‘end the war in 24 hours’ after his inauguration and his transition team is already floating peace plans, nominating envoys and reaching out to political leaders around the world.1 Despite scepticism about Trump’s ability to deliver a deal at short notice, the clock until January 20 runs out fast. Both Ukrainians and Europeans are apprehensive about the contours of a Trump-brokered deal.2 A quick fix might seem tempting to end the bloodshed, but it could present problems of its own if it is incomplete, ill-conceived or otherwise unpalatable to Ukraine as well as to European allies. It also remains an open question whether Trump can convince a confident Russia to cease hostilities when it has the upper hand on the battlefield and how any deal could be more than merely a temporary armistice.

Regardless, the outcome of a possible ceasefire-agreement will have sizeable implications for the future of European security and prosperity for decades to come.4 Europe needs to be involved if the parties involved reach such an agreement, not in the least because it will have profound repercussions for a post-war security architecture for the continent.5 The European Union as an actor in its own right, as well as European NATO member states need to carve out their own position and objectives – and implement policies to attain these accordingly. This paper serves as input for a discussion on the European position on war termination agreement negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

The Fight Against Disinformation: A Persistent Challenge for Democracy

Kateryna Odarchenko

Introduction

Disinformation, the deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information to deceive or manipulate public opinion, represents a profound and ongoing threat to Western democracies. It erodes trust in institutions, fuels polarization, and undermines decision-making processes. Russian disinformation campaigns, in particular, showcase a sophisticated, multilayered system of narratives tailored to exploit societal vulnerabilities. Understanding their architecture and methodologies is critical for crafting effective countermeasures to safeguard democratic systems.

Moscow’s disinformation campaigns have achieved significant victories in reshaping public opinion and influencing geopolitical trajectories. In Georgia, Russian narratives have successfully steered segments of the population away from a Western-oriented path, fostering skepticism toward European integration and NATO membership. Similarly, these campaigns have undermined international support for Ukraine by spreading false narratives about the conflict, portraying Ukraine as a failed state or aggressor, and sowing doubts about the necessity of Western involvement. Moreover, Russia’s strategic use of disinformation has eroded trust in NATO, amplifying fears of alliance overreach and internal divisions. These successes highlight the dangerous efficacy of disinformation in advancing Moscow’s geopolitical agenda and emphasize the urgent need for robust counter-strategies.

The Path to American Authoritarianism

Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way

Donald Trump’s first election to the presidency in 2016 triggered an energetic defense of democracy from the American establishment. But his return to office has been met with striking indifference. Many of the politicians, pundits, media figures, and business leaders who viewed Trump as a threat to democracy eight years ago now treat those concerns as overblown—after all, democracy survived his first stint in office. In 2025, worrying about the fate of American democracy has become almost passé.

The timing of this mood shift could not be worse, for democracy is in greater peril today than at any time in modern U.S. history. America has been backsliding for a decade: between 2014 and 2021, Freedom House’s annual global freedom index, which scores all countries on a scale of zero to 100, downgraded the United States from 92 (tied with France) to 83 (below Argentina and tied with Panama and Romania), where it remains.

The country’s vaunted constitutional checks are failing. Trump violated the cardinal rule of democracy when he attempted to overturn the results of an election and block a peaceful transfer of power. Yet neither Congress nor the judiciary held him accountable, and the Republican Party—coup attempt notwithstanding—renominated him for president. Trump ran an openly authoritarian campaign in 2024, pledging to prosecute his rivals, punish critical media, and deploy the army to repress protest. He won, and thanks to an extraordinary Supreme Court decision, he will enjoy broad presidential immunity during his second term.

Army, Navy remove web pages highlighting women’s military service

Claire Barrett

In an effort to align with President Donald Trump’s recent executive order that terminated diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives across the federal government, the Army and Navy have taken down web pages that highlight the history and myriad contributions of female soldiers and sailors.

While webpages on the history of female service remains intact on the U.S. Army Reserve website, the Army’s link to its “Women in Army History” page has been taken down as of Monday and leads readers directly back to its homepage.

Similarly, last week, a page devoted to women’s service in the U.S. Navy, as well as a page entitled “Navy Women of Courage and Intelligence,” was removed by the Navy History and Heritage Command, replaced by a “page not found” message.

“We are working to fully execute and implement all directives outlined in the Executive Orders issued by the President, ensuring that they are carried out with utmost professionalism, efficiency, and in alignment with national security objectives,” Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Ivester, a spokesman for the command, told Military Times.

Energy Literacy-Understanding Crude Oil’s Vital Role – OpEd

Ronald Stein

Over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of the more than 6,000 products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space programs that did not exist before the 1800’s. Today, the world is a materialistic society.

We have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and more than 50,000 military aircraft that use the fuels manufactured from crude oil. The fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, and the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs, are also dependent on what can be manufactured from crude oil.

Today, American policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that electricity came AFTER the discovery of crude oil, and everything that NEEDS Electricity, are made with the products made from oil derivatives.

ALL electrical generation methods from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil,
All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
Getting rid of crude oil would eliminate electricity, and all the products that need electricity to operate!

We’ve had more than 200 years to “clone” oil to support the supply chain of products demanded by our materialistic society and have been unsuccessful.

A Tech Power Playbook for Donald Trump 2.0

Todd Young

On January 20, Donald J. Trump entered office as our nation’s forty-seventh chief executive. With his electoral mandate for bold change, the opportunities are boundless. Following recent decades of costly foreign entanglements—from our abusive relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to our disastrous military engagement in Iraq—most Americans are understandably eager for change. They want President Trump to press forward with his campaign promises to avoid unpopular foreign commitments, insist that allied countries stop “free riding” off of the United States, supercharge America’s manufacturing might, and ensure that the world plays by America’s rules, not China’s.

Meanwhile, tech power—AI, biotech, quantum, drones, and more—is fundamentally transforming our economy, security, and the very nature of global power. The Trump administration can seize on the intersection of the president’s promises and the opportunities for peace, freedom, and prosperity that the dynamic technological revolution presents.

President Trump wisely selected a Vice President who understands tech power and how it is fundamentally transforming our economy and security. JD Vance is familiar with Silicon Valley and has strong relationships with prominent tech luminaries like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Just days after the election, Trump also appointed a White House AI and Crypto Czar to spearhead federal policy and nominated tech strategist Jacob Helberg to lead the economic portfolio at the State Department.

=

Why Does Trump Want Ukraine's Rare Earth Elements

Samya Kullab

Ukraine has offered to strike a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump for continued American military aid in exchange for developing Ukraine’s mineral industry, which could provide a valuable source of the rare earth elements that are essential for many kinds of technology.

Trump said he wanted such a deal earlier this month, and it was initially proposed last fall by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as part of his plan to strengthen Kyiv’s hand in future negotiations with Moscow.

“We really have this big potential in the territory which we control,” Andrii Yermak, chief of staff to the Ukrainian president, said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press. “We are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.”

Here is a look at Ukraine’s rare earth industry and how a deal might come together:

What are rare earth elements?

Rare earth elements are a set of 17 elements that are essential in many kinds of consumer technology, including cellphones, hard drives and electric and hybrid vehicles.

It is unclear if Trump is seeking specific elements in Ukraine, which also has other minerals to offer.

Top tech titans feud in bitter battle for AI's future

Dan Primack

The only fight more hostile than Elon Musk vs. the federal bureaucracy may be Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman, the CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI.

Why it matters: The victor could help determine the future direction of the world's most powerful technology.

Driving the news: Musk yesterday bid $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI's for-profit assets, which Altman is in the midst of cleaving from the company's nonprofit board.

This is partially about trolling, partially about upstaging the Paris AI Summit, and partially about trying to slow down a strategic rival who's made recent inroads with President Trump.

The big picture: Either way, Musk wins.

At a minimum, he makes life difficult for one of his most bitter rivals.
And if Musk or his xAI somehow ends up with OpenAI's assets, which is extremely unlikely for a slew of reasons, then he wouldn't kick them out of bed either.

Zoom in: It's unclear if Musk is offering more for the assets than is Altman, but it may not matter.

OpenAI's board is mission-driven, meaning that it needn't necessarily take the most lucrative offer.
This is unlike what happened when Musk bid on Twitter, which was chaired by the exact same person who now chairs OpenAI's board (Bret Taylor).

L3Harris unveils Amorphous autonomy software to manage drone swarms

Courtney Albon

L3Harris on Monday unveiled a software platform, Amorphous, for controlling large swarms of uncrewed systems across multiple domains, allowing aerial drones, ships and other platforms to operate together seamlessly.

The software is designed with an open architecture to be platform-agnostic and scalable. To date, the company has demonstrated the ability to connect multiple systems, but it envisions Amorphous eventually managing thousands of payloads — a key requirement for the U.S. Defense Department as it looks to better integrate uncrewed systems into operations.

Jon Rambeau, president of integrated mission systems at L3Harris, told reporters in a briefing last week the company’s vision is for Amorphous to serve as an orchestra conductor, helping operators command and control autonomous systems.

“One of the big problems that has yet to be solved is, how do you think about the control of, not 10, not 100, not even 1,000, but thousands of assets simultaneously,” Rambeau said. “That’s really not something that’s possible to do with human control only.”

16 February 2025

Can India and China Turn the Corner? - Analysis

Fahad Shah

This year, India and China will mark the 75th anniversary of their diplomatic relationship, which is characterized by a mix of collaboration and disputes. Since the 1962 Sino-Indian war, New Delhi and Beijing have developed a sense of mistrust that has worsened in recent years.

In 2019, tensions deepened after India revoked the special autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, including the Ladakh region, which borders China in the east; Beijing sharply objected. In 2020, military clashes along the countries’ disputed border in the Galwan Valley resulted in the deaths of more than 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers. As border skirmishes continued that year, India responded by restricting Chinese investments; banning several Chinese mobile apps, including TikTok; and preventing the resumption of passenger flights to China following COVID-19 pandemic pauses.

The Mixed Results of Made in China 2025 - Opinion

Farhad Gojayev

Ten years ago, in 2015, China introduced the “Made in China 2025” (MIC25) plan, an ambitious industrial strategy to transform its manufacturing base and rise as a world leader in high technology – taking the German Industry 4.0 model as a reference. MIC25 not only aimed at technological self-sufficiency in sectors such as robotics, semiconductors, and electric vehicles, but also became a point of controversy and realignment in international relations. Over the past decade, the plan has redefined global competitiveness, sparked trade wars, and pushed other countries to reformulate their technological and economic policies. With companies such as Huawei, BYD and DJI, China has marked its presence, but has faced significant challenges from the United States and the European Union, who have responded with measures to protect their industries and counter China’s technological ascendancy.

While MIC25 has enabled China to advance in renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles, establishing itself as a leader, restricted access to advanced technologies, especially in semiconductors, shows geopolitical constraints. The expansion of 5G infrastructure by Huawei and ZTE has raised tensions with the West, leading to trade restrictions and strategic alliances such as the “Chip 4 Alliance” to reduce China’s technological dependence. Robotics and artificial intelligence, while growing, reveal the need for international collaboration to overcome technological barriers. In the electric vehicle sector, the success of BYD and NIO has led to global competition for the necessary resources, affecting international trade dynamics.

Chinese Critiques of Large Language Models

William Hannas, Huey-Meei Chang, Maximilian Riesenhuber, and Daniel Chou

Introduction: Generative AI and General AI

Achieving general artificial intelligence or GAI—defined as AI that replicates or exceeds most human cognitive skills across a wide range of tasks, such as image/video understanding, continual learning, planning, reasoning, skill transfer, and creativity1—is a key strategic goal of intense research efforts both in China and the United States.2 There is vigorous debate in the international scientific community regarding which path will lead to GAI most quickly and which paths may be false starts. In the United States, LLMs have dominated the discussion, yet questions remain about their ability to achieve GAI. Since choosing the wrong path can position the United States at a strategic disadvantage, this raises the urgency of examining alternative approaches that other countries may be pursuing.

In the United States, many experts believe the transformative step to GAI will occur with the rollout of new versions of LLMs such as OpenAI’s o1, Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, and Meta’s Llama.3 Others argue, pointing to persistent problems such as LLM hallucinations, that no amount of compute, feedback, or multimodal data sources will allow LLMs to achieve GAI.4 Still other AI scientists see roles for LLMs in GAI platforms but not as the only, or even main, component.

China Dominates Global Manufacturing

Brian Hart, Hugh Grant-Chapman, and Leon Li

China’s manufacturing boom has fueled decades of export-oriented economic growth, undercutting foreign competitors and contributing to a growing appetite for tariffs in the United States and Europe.

China’s economic rise has been undergirded by its large manufacturing sector and high volumes of manufactured exports. Thanks to abundant, low-cost labor, large economies of scale, and significant state support, Chinese net exports of manufactured goods grew more than 25-fold over the last two decades.
In the United States and many other developed economies, consumers have enjoyed cheaper products as a result—but their manufacturers have struggled to compete. The subsequent political backlash has contributed to a growing appetite for tariffs and industrial policies in many advanced economies as they attempt to make their own manufacturing sectors more competitive in global markets.
In the face of these mounting geopolitical tensions, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is doubling down, with repeated calls for China to become a “manufacturing power” and dominate global markets for advanced high-tech goods.

As Jordan’s King Abdullah meets Trump, can he resist US pressure on Gaza?

Justin Salhani

Jordan’s King Abdullah II is set to meet with United States President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, amid the latter’s repeated insistence that the monarch accept Palestinians he would like to expel from Gaza so the US can take control of the enclave.

The idea came up in Trump’s comments – made alongside a smiling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week – that Palestinians should be “removed” from the devastated Gaza Strip. Trump has emphasised that, to his mind, the Palestinians would not return, making his ideas ethnic cleansing.

Jordan rejects the idea.

Trump’s comments were condemned not only by Jordan but also Egypt, which Trump also said should “take” Palestinians from Gaza, as well as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

However, Trump said US financial support for Jordan and Egypt would force their hand.

“If they don’t agree, I would conceivably withhold aid,” Trump said on Monday, the day before meeting King Abdullah.

The Evolving Russia-Iran Relationship

Julian G. Waller, Elizabeth Wishnick, Margaret Sparling and Michael Connell

INTRODUCTION

The Russia-Iran relationship has changed significantly over the course of the past decade, with considerable dynamism evident across several dimensions of cooperation—especially since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. To date, however, a full characterization of the changes and current state of the relationship has not been developed.

Considering this need, and at the request of US European Command’s Russian Strategic Initiative, this report examines the Russia-Iran relationship’s temporal and thematic dimensions.1 To do so, the report identifies and then measures a variety of indicators that characterize trends in political, military, and economic cooperation. This method allows the research team to track developments over time. It uses a variety of qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure the health and depth of the bilateral relationship. Our framework takes cues from the general diplomatic, informational, military, economic (DIME) framework, which is widely used in political-military and strategic analysis to delineate the core set of “instruments” or dimensions of “national power” available to states.2 For the purposes of this report, a tripartite political-militaryeconomic division is used to structure the overall characterization of the relationship.

Restoring the U.S. Advantage in Satellite Navigation

Marc J. Berkowitz

The United States has ceded its leadership position in space-based positioning, navigation and timing (PNT), with stark ramifications for most all U.S. critical infrastructures and the U.S. military.

The Global Positioning System (GPS), which is owned and operated by the U.S. government, is vital to America’s well-being, prosperity and security in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world. The majority of the current satellite constellation is comprised of old space vehicles, with the oldest launched in the 1990s. Of the 31 satellites in the current GPS constellation, only seven are the more advanced GPS IIIs with better accuracy and the civilian L1C signal, which enables interoperability between GPS and international satellite navigation systems.

China’s Beidou and Europe’s Galileo satellite systems not only have surpassed GPS, but GPS is vulnerable to a variety of threats such as jamming and spoofing –sending false signals to receivers in place of valid ones.

Art of the Deal Meets Art of Tariffs: Donald Trump’s Economic Game Plan

James Jay Carafano

The new United States President, Donald J. Trump, channels his inner Alexander Hamilton, employing tariffs as an integral instrument of American foreign and economic policy. The sooner everyone starts focusing on the framework the President has been employing and less on the rhetoric, the quicker they can make sense of Trump’s tariffs.

Past Really is Prologue

Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on Manufactures outlined a specific tariff policy. This report is relevant to Trump’s time. Hamilton’s analysis was rooted in prescribing a US foreign economic policy rooted in national interests—precisely how the President looks at economic policy.

Hamilton argued there were three valid reasons for tariffs—raise revenue, national security, and address market imbalances that hurt US manufacturers. To be fair, neither the Congress of the time nor subsequent presidents and legislatures followed his prescription to the letter. Historically, Republicans and Democrats have alternatively defended and decried tariffs. Tariffs have never been an issue of the orthodoxy of major American political parties.

That trend continues today where the parties stood and reflected on their geographical base and business interests. While Trump is attacked for his addiction to tariffs, the Biden administration implemented more duties than President Trump did in his first term.

Orbán & Russia: It’s the Geopolitical Realities, Stupid

Gergely Varga

The recent last-minute conditional support by Hungary for extending EU sanctions against Russia was just the latest example of a long history of disputes between Brussels and Budapest about policy towards Moscow. Ever since Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán came to power in 2010, much of Europe has been accusing his subsequent governments of cosying up to Moscow. Some critics trace the Hungarian leader’s supposedly friendly approach to Russia to a 15-minute-long meeting between Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán in St. Petersburg in November 2009.

For many of Orbán’s opponents, the meeting still holds an almost mystical significance, as if the previously staunchly anti-Russian Hungarian political leader had suddenly and inexplicably undergone a Pauline conversion. On the contrary, the change in the Hungarian right-wing leader’s foreign policy perspective was not the result of a fifteen-minute conversation with Putin, but of international developments over the previous fifteen months. The roots of the change in Orbán’s outlook should be sought not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in the capitals of Hungary’s Western allies.

Trump the 'peacemaker' faces many obstacles

Benjamin H. Friedman & Jennifer Kavanagh

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” President Donald Trump promised the American public in his inaugural address on January 20, 2025. About three weeks later, it’s safe to say that no one will remember Trump as a unifier, but he still has a chance to claim the peacemaker title.

Of course, Trump is not talking much like a dove these days. He’s already threatened several U.S. neighbors in service of territorial aggrandizement, mused about making war on Mexican cartels, and proposed occupying the Gaza strip with U.S. troops after its residents are ejected. But at the same time, he’s still pushing for peace talks in Ukraine, signaling openness to a new nuclear deal with Iran, and has mentioned reopening talks with North Korea.

Ultimately, whether Trump can be a peacemaker will largely come down to the president himself, specifically his ability to keep his administration focused and his willingness to persevere through arduous talks and criticism, rather than giving up and reverting to belligerent posturing. Pessimism seems warranted.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)