Indian Strategic Studies

12 April 2025

Insurgent Groups Seize Two Major Towns In Northwest

A rebel army and allied forces near Myanmar’s northwestern border with India have seized towns that were previously under the junta control, sources told Radio Free Asia.

The Chin Brotherhood captured Chin state’s second largest town of Falam, located near the border of Mizoram state in India, according to residents.

The rebel group, which is comprised of six allied Chin insurgent armies, began attacks on Falam on Nov. 5, 2024 and seized the junta’s remaining Battalion 268 on Monday.

“We’re continuing clearance operations now,” said an official from the Chin Brotherhood, declining to be named for fear of reprisals. “Tomorrow and the following day, we’ll release details.”

More than 10,000 residents fled into India to avoid the clash, he added.

Separately, Indaw People’s Defense Force also seized control over the town of Indaw in northern Sagaing region, capturing prisoners of war during the battle, said a junta soldier, who declined to be identified for security reasons.

“The battle for the town has been ongoing since Aug. 16, they captured it today on April 7,” he said. “There were casualties on both sides and about 40 of our soldiers were taken prisoner.”

Trump’s Tariffs Hammer Big Tech as Apple, Meta, Amazon Shares Plunge

Fiona Jackson

U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday a host of new tariffs that sent the stock prices of numerous tech giants plummeting. He applied individual “reciprocal” tariffs to several nations, equivalent to half of its trade deficit with the U.S., and a baseline 10% levy on all imports.

Goods from Vietnam are now subject to a 46% reciprocal tariff
32% on imports from Taiwan
26% from India

Additionally, China faces a 34% reciprocal tariff, which is on top of the 20% tariff that has been in effect since March.

By Thursday’s close, NVIDIA’s stock had fallen by nearly 8% as a result of the tariffs announcement, while Amazon and Meta dropped by 9% each, according to CNBC. Apple led the declines, tumbling 9% — its steepest drop since the COVID-induced market sell-off in March 2020.

Shares of Microsoft and Alphabet both fell about 2% and 4%, respectively. The Nasdaq Composite Index, a benchmark heavily weighted toward tech stocks, dropped by almost 6%. This is all due to fears that their operational costs will rise and that supply chains, which rely heavily on overseas manufacturing and imports, will be disrupted.

Pakistan’s ugly geopolitical playbook exploits Afghan refugees for aid and other concessions

Aishwaria Sonavane

Pakistan’s migration policy, reflected in the mass expulsion of Afghans, many born and raised in the country, is explained as a political tool and a gesture of Islamabad and Rawalpindi’s growing frustration with the Afghan Taliban. The ongoing deportations, including those of Afghan Citizenship Card (ACC) holders, a state-issued document meant to legitimise their stay, have been widely characterised as a pressure tactic, a means to control immigrant populations and, by extension, the administration in Kabul.

This approach is not new. Pakistan has long leveraged the displacement of Afghans to its advantage by reinforcing colonial-era borders, extracting foreign humanitarian aid, and asserting regional dominance. This piece examines the ongoing mass deportation through the lenses of securitisation theory, neo-colonial control, and the refugee bargaining model, demonstrating how forced displacement has always been a tool in Pakistan’s geopolitical playbook.

This move follows a protracted impasse between Pakistan and the Taliban administration, despite efforts involving military interventions, diplomatic engagements, tribal jirgas, and international appeals. This is not to take away from the fact that Pakistan has witnessed a sharp spike in militancy, with attacks doubling from 517 in 2023 to 1,099 in 2024. The country was ranked the second-most affected in the Global Terrorism Index 2025.

China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway Emerges as Competitor to Kazakhstan’s Rail Network

Syed Fazl-e-Haider

On March 3, a new container rail service linking the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Poland was launched in Kazakhstan. This service is a collaboration between Kazakh transportation service KTZ Express and China Railway Container Transport. The route will start in the PRC and pass through Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Türkiye, then enter Europe, ending in Poland. The route will ensure uninterrupted cargo delivery between these countries and improve international logistics (The Astana Times, March 4). By launching such a project, Kazakhstan is asserting its role as a key transit hub in the wake of the $8 billion China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan (CKU) railway launched in December 2024 (see EDM, May 7, July 17, 2024; Global Times, December 27, 2024). The CKU railway is emerging as a competitor to Kazakhstan’s rail infrastructure for the transportation of goods between the PRC and Europe. Currently, rail traffic to and from the PRC must transit through Kazakhstan, as it is the only Central Asian country connected to the PRC by rail. With the completion of the CKU railway, Kyrgyzstan will have a direct railway connection to the PRC, and Uzbekistan will have the option of traveling to the PRC via Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan by rail (Eurasianet, January 7).

In December 2024, a launching ceremony was held in the border city of Jalal-Abad, Kyrgyzstan, to mark the commencement of the CKU railway project. The CKU railway, a part of the PRC’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, aims to provide a faster and more cost-effective alternative to the existing routes connecting the PRC to Europe, which traverse Kazakhstan and Russia. Starting from Kashi in the PRC’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, the CKU railway line will pass through the Torugart Pass into Kyrgyzstan and then through Jalal-Abad, ending in the city of Andijan in Uzbekistan (Global Times, December 27, 2024).

The US Must Change Course on Myanmar

BRAHMA CHELLANEY

Myanmar needs help. After more than four years of brutal civil war, the country has been hit by a 7.7-magnitude earthquake, the strongest it has suffered since 1946. The resulting humanitarian crisis is dire, and continues to escalate, but despite an extraordinary appeal for international aid from Myanmar’s military ruler, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the United States has largely failed to deliver.

Between China’s Advance and America’s Retreat: Europe’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy

Angelo M’BA and Douglas Brenton Anderson

On February 28, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas declared that “the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.” This call to action captures a shifting Europe – one less willing to let its future be decided in Washington or Beijing.

This posture reflects a growing sentiment in Europe, which, despite having braced for the return of the “America First” policy, has been consistently caught off guard by the second Trump administration. For the last two months, tariffs, insults to U.S. allies, and casual references to exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over Canada, Greenland, and Panama have almost become routine.

This situation prompted some to argue that if Europe cannot rely on its transatlantic ally anymore, it should consider building a closer relationship with China, whose economy and political status may help the Europeans face compounded challenges.

Europe finds itself in an ever-more challenging situation to solidify its economic unity and uphold its strategic autonomy – especially when considering increased Chinese assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific.

China vows ‘resolute and effective measures’ after Trump’s 104% tariffs take effect

Nectar Gan

China has promised to take “resolute and effective measures” to safeguard its rights and interests, hours after US President Donald Trump’s 104% tariffs on Chinese imports took effect on Wednesday.

“The United States is still imposing arbitrary tariffs on China and relentlessly applying extreme pressure. China firmly opposes this and will never accept such domineering and bullying behavior,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told a regular news conference.

China and the US have been involved in a game of tit-for-tat on trade, with Beijing standing firmly against each new tariff introduced by Washington.

After the latest round kicked in on Wednesday, Lin told media that US needed to “demonstrate an attitude of equality, respect and mutual benefit” if it truly wanted to resolve the trade war through dialogue.

“If the US disregards the interests of both countries and the international community and insists on waging a tariff war and trade war, China will fight to the end,” Lin added.

Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham: Terrorists With A Democratic Face – Analysis

Matija Šerić

The spectacular conquest of large parts of Syrian territory and cities such as Homs, Daraa, Aleppo, and Damascus, and the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s government in early December, surprised the world.

Syrian Islamists led by the organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) managed, after many years of being largely pushed into the Idlib province, to make a 180-degree turnaround and capture large parts of the country. Although the war in Syria is not over yet, and it is uncertain when it will end, HTS has positioned itself as the new ruler of Syria after the ousting of Assad’s regime, and its leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani (also known as Ahmed al-Sharaa) is a political star.

Although HTS fighters overthrew the authoritarian Assad regime, which the West despised not because of its authoritarianism but for rejecting Western dictates (e.g., the Qatar-Turkey pipeline), this organization should never be idealized because they are not the bringers of democracy, peace, freedoms, and human rights. Quite the opposite. HTS has long been rightly labeled as a terrorist organization by much of the world (with a radical Salafi-Wahhabi ideology), and its past actions show a radical and criminal character. This will not change, even if influential countries remove the group from the list of terrorist organizations.

Felon outflanked?

Douglas Barrie & Joseph Dempsey

That Egypt’s orphaned Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker M fighter/ground-attack aircraft (FGA) would find a new home was likely and was expected to be with Iran. Instead, the first of these Flankers has been seen at Ain Beida/Oum el Bouaghi Air Base in Algeria. Widely touted as the first export customer for the Sukhoi Su-57 Felon, Algiers may also have become a customer for the Su-35.

The appearance of the Su-35 in Algeria, however, does not rule out Iran as a buyer, nor does it mean the Su-57 is no longer destined for the Algerian Air Force. There have also been reports of an initial Su-35 delivery of the aircraft to Iran, but unlike in Algeria, these have not been verified by open-source imagery.

All Su-35s are built at the Yuri Gagarin Komsomolsk-on-Amur production site, and the 24-plus aircraft originally intended for Egypt have sat on the hardstand for years following the 2018 order.

In 2019, the United States warned that the sale would invoke the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act and that should the deliveries proceed Egypt would face sanctions from Washington. Production of the aircraft nonetheless went ahead in 2019, and by 2021, at least 12 aircraft had been completed and were parked outside at the production site. The manufacture of the order appeared complete in 2022, but delivery did not begin.

Trump’s Misguided Tariff Formula

SHANG-JIN WEI

US President Donald Trump reportedly delayed the launch of his global “reciprocal tariffs” until after April 1. If his goal was to avoid being dismissed as a fool by the rest of the world, it is not at all clear that he has succeeded.

Despite the branding, Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” are nothing of the sort. Consider South Korea: the country collects no tariffs on most US imports under its free-trade agreement with the United States, yet it will now face a 25% US tariff. Meanwhile, Hong Kong – recognized by the World Trade Organization as a separate customs territory from mainland China – imposes no tariffs on US imports, either, but will still be hit with tariffs exceeding 100%.

Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs are based on a peculiar formula: the tariff on any country, k, is set at a maximum of either 10% or a higher value, 0.5 times k*, where k* is what the White House determines as a comprehensive tariff equivalent of all trade barriers that k imposes on the US. This is computed as k’s trade surplus with the US in 2024, divided by its exports to the US in the same year.

Trump’s Intelligence Purge Is a Nightmare for National Security

Peter Suciu

Last week, President Donald Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM). Though Trump campaigned on downsizing the federal government, the removal of four-star Gen. Timothy Haugh was one few could have seen coming.

Haugh was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate in 2023 to lead the agency and the command. Though appointed to the posts by former President Joe Biden, Haugh has been seen as largely apolitical.

He worked in signals intelligence and was a career military officer who likely understood the nation’s challenges in the cyber domain from near-peer adversaries, rogue states, and criminal actors.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers expressed outrage and concern over Haugh’s removal.

“We’re under attack, and the president just irresponsibly removed our most important general from the field,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told reporters in response to Haugh’s ouster last Thursday.

Three Years Into the Ukraine War, Russia’s Army Is Stronger Than Ever

Stavros Atlamazoglou

Since the early morning hours of February 24, 2022, the Russian armed forces have engaged in the largest conflict on European soil since the end of World War II.

Of course, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and his intelligence and military advisers decided to launch the full-scale invasion of their neighbor, they did not expect that the conflict would last so long. Indeed, according to information that came out later, the Russian leadership believed that the “special military operation” in Ukraine would last anywhere between three days and two weeks. The Kremlin reportedly anticipated the quick collapse of the Ukrainian military and a friendly reception from Ukraine’s Russian-speaking eastern half. It received neither.

After more than three years of bitter fighting and over one million casualties on both sides, it is clear that Putin’s intelligence officers were wildly off the mark. But what is the condition of the Russian military today after over 1,000 days of fighting? Surprisingly to many—and unfortunately for Kyiv—the Russian military is reconstituting fast.

The State of the Russian Military

Last week, U.S. Army General Christopher Cavoli, the commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and also the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO (SACEUR), spoke to Congress for the annual combatant commanders testimony. He provided some interesting facts with regard to the state of the Russian military.

Fresh Ukraine Talks To Highlight Divisions Between US And Europe

Ray Furlong

Another week of military planning and diplomacy will again underline the divisions between Washington and its European allies over policy on Ukraine, with two key meetings on successive days at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The United States will be absent from the first and also looks set to play no major role in the second, as European countries seek to forge ahead with their own plans.

The first gathering on April 10 will bring together Defense Ministers from the so-called coalition of the willing , which also includes non-European countries such as Canada and Australia.

The 30-nation group formed in early March following an explosive bust-upbetween US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House. Among its chief goals is the creation of a military force to deploy to Ukraine following a cease-fire or peace deal.

A big problem for creating the force is that many nations, including Britain, have said that it would only be possible with a “US backstop,” meaning air support, logistics, and intelligence.

So far, there’s been no clear signal from the United States that it’s ready to help.

Accelerating to Where? How the U.S. Can Better Compete in the Chip War

Nate Picarsic & Emily de La Bruyère

The “Chip War” remains a critical domain in U.S.-China competition. This was clearly the case during the Biden administration, which made semiconductor investment the focus of its marquee legislation. And the emphasis on semiconductors – and competition with China therein – remains under the Trump administration; the field is front and center for the Commerce Department’s newly announced United States Investment Accelerator.

Still, despite this consistent prioritization, Washington risks heading the wrong direction in the chip war. Washington’s framing of the semiconductor competition misinterprets China’s positioning. In particular, the U.S. risks ignoring the upstream foundations on which all integrated circuits (ICs) are built, and China’s growing stranglehold over that foundation.

Beijing’s industrial, scientific, and technological policy prioritizes the semiconductor sector. And Beijing operationalizes this prioritization according to a practiced and well-documented playbook: Beijing backs companies with State investment and subsidies, directly funds research and development, and leverages international ties to acquire foreign technology and human capital. This playbook has already allowed China to catch up to international leaders in mature nodes of the semiconductor value chain and in the less high-tech, but nonetheless critical, realms of packaging and testing IC products.

U.S. Space Command chief calls for new capabilities for combat while emphasizing deterrence

Sandra Erwin

Gen. Stephen Whiting, commander of U.S. Space Command, warned that the U.S. is in a fast-moving race to defend its orbital assets, driven by growing threats from China. Speaking April 8 at the annual Space Symposium, Whiting outlined the command’s strategy to deter space-based aggression — including preparing for the once-unthinkable war in space.

“Our opponents, most notably China, have accelerated the terrestrial and on-orbit space weapons, expanded their space-enabled kill chains, and are moving at breathtaking speed,” Whiting told attendees.

He emphasized that while the U.S. does not seek conflict in space, it is preparing for it to prevent adversaries from gaining an upper hand. “There has never been a war in space, and we don’t want a war to start in space or to extend into space, and war in space is not inevitable,” Whiting said. Still, he added, “there is no longer any debate that space is a war fighting domain.”

U.S. Space Command, established in 2019 and headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado, is one of the military’s unified combatant commands. While it doesn’t procure weapon systems directly, it plays a key role in shaping the Pentagon’s requirements and directing technology efforts through partnerships with private industry and allied governments.

The Rise of a New Axis: Great Power Struggle and the Future of Conflict

Peppino DeBiaso

Introduction

The Trump Administration has taken office during a period of perilous transformation that presages a new era in international security. This new era is unlike anything the United States has encountered since perhaps the period leading up to the Second World War. Its most prominent feature is the growing collaboration and coordination among revisionist and belligerent autocratic nations. They are building more lethal militaries while fueling crises and conflicts across Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. To a large degree, these regimes are aligned in their opposition to the United States and the post-World War II security order established in the wake of American leadership.

China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are pursuing concerted actions to further a common strategic aim, namely, strengthening each countries’ military capabilities as a means, in the near term, to shift the balance of power in their respective regions, while in the longer term, altering the conditions under which future conflict with the United States and its allies would be waged. If this challenge is to be effectively countered, American political leaders must be clear on the nature of the strategic competition that is underway. While today’s adversaries have varying individual regional interests and goals, they recognize the struggle to forge an alternative order of power can likely be achieved only through an entente that erodes American military preeminence, which is at the core of its freedom of action to deter aggression and prevail in conflict with acceptable risks and costs.

The Other Side of Signalgate

Rozina Ali

On the morning of March 14th, while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice-President J. D. Vance debated a possible U.S. attack on Houthi targets in a now infamous Signal chat, it was afternoon in Yemen, and a five-year-old boy named Hamad was still alive. Hamad had spent the day running around the city with his father, and when night fell he was back home, playing in the yard with his cousins, likely slipping one too many sweets into his mouth.

In a thread called “Houthi PC Small Group,” which included other top national-security officials, Vance seemed concerned about getting dragged into another conflict that was peripheral to American interests. The operation was meant to disrupt the Houthis’ ability to attack commercial ships and American military vessels in the Red Sea, which they had been doing for about a year and a half, in response to Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. Vance floated the possibility of delaying the strikes so that the Administration could work on the public “messaging.” “I understand your concerns,” Hegseth told him, but messaging would be “tough” no matter the timing. “Nobody knows who the Houthis are,” he explained.

The debate didn’t last long. Within half an hour, Vance was persuaded. The next day, as sunset prayers ended and families broke their Ramadan fast in north Yemen, Hegseth announced to the group in Washington, “Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/ CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Shortly after, a “package” of F-18s was launched, the first of many strikes.

Europe’s Make-or-Break Military Decision - Analysis

Giovanni Legorano

Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, predicted that the continent’s union would develop through crises. “I’ve always thought that Europe would be made in crises, and what would be the sum of the solutions we would bring to these crises,” he famously said.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign-policy revolution seems to have pushed the EU precisely toward a crisis from which it could emerge stronger and more integrated. The U.S. administration’s sharp turn away from Ukraine and toward Russia, coupled with the specter of Washington’s disengagement from NATO, has sent Europe into a frenzy of rearmament—and a scramble to finance it.

A Spatial Vision for Palestine

Shelly Culbertson, C. Ross Anthony, Kobi Ruthenberg, Robert Lane & Shireen Shelleh

Why Now?

The current realities of this volatile region were significantly shaped by the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords, which were intended to be temporary, five-year agreements while a more permanent solution was negotiated. However, in the decades since they were signed, there has been no movement toward a political resolution. Both sides have lost faith in the process.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reemerged on the world agenda, however, stimulated by the grim reality of the brutal and tragic October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and Israel’s devastating military response in Gaza. There is an urgent search for real change. Emerging negotiations offer a rare opportunity to craft a future that stabilizes the region and addresses both Palestinian and Israeli needs for security, mobil ity, dignity, and economic development.

Integrated Design

To develop a new spatial vision for Palestine, we conducted extensive interviews with Palestinian, Israeli, and other stakeholders; reviewed relevant literature and secondary data; and examined available statistical and geospatial data. We categorized the information into six sectors: governance, environment, cities, transporta tion, energy, and water, as shown in Figure S.1. This integrated design process considers factors individually and then collectively to understand how they affect one another. It is an iterative process in which the layers inform each other and are modified to account for interactions with other layers.

Defending American Interests Abroad

Christopher A. Mouton, Caleb Lucas & Shaun Ee

Malign information operations by foreign actors seek to undermine the strategic interests of the United States.1 These operations, which are often orchestrated by authoritarian regimes, are intended to manipulate the global information environment for geostrategic purposes.2 Such operations seek to shape public perceptions abroad by “creat[ing] propa ganda to undermine other nations’ national security.”3 The advent of advanced technologies and the popularity of digital media platforms have increased the potential scale of these operations by allow ing malign entities to generate and distribute misinformation with increased efficiency and reach.

In addition to spreading false or misleading information, malign information operations often employ broader forms of propaganda to shape narratives, shift public discourse, and undermine other nations’ national security.5 These operations often leverage classical propaganda techniques, such as

• name-calling, which attaches disparaging labels to opponents

• glittering generalities, which use vague, positive phrases to garner approval

• transfer, which links the authority or prestige of something else to what is being promoted

• testimonial, which uses endorsements from celebrities or authorities to imply credibility

• plain-folk, which appeals to the average person’s values and experiences

• card-stacking, which selectively presents information favorable to one perspective

a• bandwagon, which promotes the idea that because everyone else is doing it, one should too.

America Should Recycle Its Own Rare Earths, Not Grab Ukraine’s

Elisabeth Braw

At the end of March, it emerged that the Trump administration was making a new push for Ukraine’s natural resources, including its now famous rare earths. It’s no surprise that the United States wants access to the precious commodity, since relying on the world’s top processor, China, is hardly sustainable. But very little is known about Ukraine’s actual rare-earth deposits, and a large part of them sit in Russian-occupied territories. Building the infrastructure for extraction would take years—and require peace first.

Here’s a better idea, one that would make the United States dependent on no one and create jobs at home (not to mention do a good deed for the environment): recycle rare earths in Americans’ used gadgets.

'Freezing' Ukrainian Conflict Will Not Bring Peace

Paul Goble

Over the last year and particularly in the last several weeks, both Ukrainian and Russian officials have insisted that they have no interest in a frozen conflict. Kyiv has ever more pointedly claimed that Ukraine could not survive such an arrangement, and Russia has declared that any peace accord must address the “underlying causes” of the conflict (President of Ukraine, December 19, 2024; Kremlin.ru, March 13). That might seem to be the end of the matter, but moving in the direction of a ceasefire toward a frozen conflict, one in which there is no final settlement outside of a written agreement or a continuation of fighting, is perhaps the only scenario in which Russia’s war against Ukraine can be quieted in the short term. This is a timetable that the third participant in these negotiations, the United States, appears to be committed to and an outcome that Washington would likely declare as a peace settlement (see EDM, March 21). While making the argument against a freeze to affect negotiations, Moscow is likely to escalate military aggression against Ukraine if peace talks do not go its way.

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Lead to a Global Recession

Miranda Jeyaretnam

Economists have warned that U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war, which kicked into its highest gear yet on Wednesday, is likely to hurt Americans more than it will any other country.

Taxing all imports will lead to greater costs for U.S. businesses, which will then raise prices for U.S. consumers, and may well bring the U.S. into a recession, a sustained economic decline.

“It will be difficult for the U.S. to avoid a recession if the tariffs stay at the level that’s been announced,” Claudia Sahm, chief economist at New Century Advisors, recently told TIME.

“The biggest loser of this is definitely the U.S. itself,” says Yuan Mei, assistant professor in the School of Economics at Singapore Management University.

But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a range of knock-on effects that will ripple across the world.

In the last week, J.P. Morgan raised its forecast of the global economy entering a recession by year end from 40% to 60%.

The Decade+ Successes of SpaceX and U.S. Space Programs

Forrest Marion

In recent days, domestic terrorists have engaged in political violence against Elon Musk’s Tesla enterprise: torching cars, vandalizing dealerships, and more. Leftist political leaders have employed the same kind of rhetoric against Mr. Musk that, during last year’s campaign, encouraged two assassination attempts against President Trump. Apparently, the ongoing violence against Tesla and the personal threats against the former darling of the Democrats are for no other reasons than Musk’s willingness to lead the Trump 47 administration’s attempts to curb the long-running and insanely wasteful, fraudulent, and corrupt federal spending that threatens the country with fiscal and economic ruin. In short, Musk is doing his best to halt Social Security payments to “eligible” recipients who are, literally, older than Moses (Deuteronomy 34:7).

These developments are timely for recalling Elon Musk’s accomplishments a decade or more ago, which have proven indispensable to advancing his adopted country’s space capabilities and in the process bringing benefits to many millions of Americans as well as to earthlings all over the globe.

I’m fully aware that the documented record of the 2010s is ancient history for many. So this piece seeks to lay out the historical record plainly and concisely.

At the Global Technology Summit, realism meets imagination—and India makes it possible - Opinion

Rudra Chaudhuri

Sambhavna, which translates to “possibility” or “opportunity,” is not a term that immediately comes to mind as the theme for a global gathering that brings the often-separated worlds of geopolitics and technology under one roof. Good friends, many from the fragmented “West” and focused on geopolitics, have described this year’s theme for the Global Technology Summit (GTS) as “strange,” “out of sync,” “unreal.” In the dynamic world of technology, “possibilities” is the name of the game.

For those of us at Carnegie India, preoccupied with an outcome-oriented GTS, our sense was that despite the turbulence in global orders and international orientations alike, there is space for Sambhavna. The theocracy of older orders has met with a sledgehammer. Europe’s welfare future is in potential disarray. Trade and tariff wars are the common theme in national and local politics across the world. Get real. Get practical. And embrace realism—that is the tone of the day.

Still, there is a verve in India and beyond—across other parts of Asia, within Latin America, and in large parts of Africa—to seize opportunities for change and shake off older shibboleths that have slowed economic and technological progress. One cannot move without the other.

11 April 2025

America Needs a Real Indian Ocean Strategy

Arzan Tarapore

Last month in New Delhi, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Paparo, met with senior counterparts from Australia, India, and Japan. This informal group of four countries, known as the Quad, has repeatedly declared that it has no defense pillar, so a meeting of its military leaders is an extremely rare event. In January, a meeting of the Quad’s foreign ministers also placed an unusually heavy emphasis on security.

From its inception, the Quad has grappled with nontraditional security challenges, such as natural disasters and illegal fishing. But its members have largely refrained from integrating their

Myanmar’s military prioritizes its own survival in earthquake response

Dr Bill Hayton

The scenes from earthquake-hit parts of central Myanmar are apocalyptic. At least 2,000 people are known to have been killed and unknown numbers lie buried in the rubble. Thousands of homes have been destroyed or damaged and key pieces of national infrastructure, from the Ava railway bridge between the cities of Mandalay and Sagaing to the airport at Naypyidaw, have been destroyed or rendered unusable. The costs of years of shoddy construction and poor maintenance have been made painfully obvious. The consequences of the events of 28 March will be long-lasting.

The earthquake is the latest in a line of tragedies to affect the people of Myanmar in the past few years. The hope created by the first democratic elections of 2015 has long since evaporated. In August 2017, the military and local militias killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims in the north-western state of Rakhine and hundreds of thousands more were forced to flee to Bangladesh. In February 2021, the military launched a coup and imprisoned the country’s democratic leadership, including Aung San Suu Kyi. During the four years since, the country has fragmented. Separatist ethnic armed groups have restarted dormant campaigns and more than 6,000 people have been killed by the military’s response.

Neither US nor China ready for once-in-a-lifetime trade war

William Pesek

Donald Trump’s trade war with China is producing one of the most tantalizing split screens in the history of global economics.

On one, the US president is going full bore against China and threatening a 104% tariff. This includes Vice President JD Vance dismissing the 1.4 billion-plus people generating the gross domestic product of Asia’s biggest economy as “Chinese peasants.”

On the other is Trump’s apparent willingness to talk to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and other nations cowering in fear over reciprocal tariffs.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba rushed key economic ministers, including Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato, to Washington to try to talk Trump out of tariffs sure to deal a huge blow to Japan’s export-heavy economy.

As US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News, “Japan is a very important military ally. They’re a very important economic ally, and the US has a lot of history with them. So I would expect that Japan is going to get priority just because they came forward very quickly.”

South Korea is doing the same. On Tuesday, Korea’s acting President Han Duck-soo said he and Trump had a “great call” about tariffs — Trump slapped a 25% tax on Seoul — and potential deals in energy and shipbuilding.

China Would Be Foolish to Invade Taiwan Now

Michael Peck

As the Trump administration disrupts global politics, some fear that China might take advantage of the chaos to invade Taiwan.

But this raises a basic question: Why should China invade Taiwan now, when they can sit back and allow Trump to destroy a system that has protected Taiwan for 75 years?

There are some reports that an invasion will happen in a matter of months. The Trump administration has also cut back on support for Ukraine and may withdraw the U.S. from NATO. If America is reneging on these commitments, might not it also throw Taiwan to the tender mercies of Beijing?

However, Beijing doesn’t need to hurry. The strategic balance between China, versus Taiwan, America and America’s allies, seems likely to improve in Beijing’s favor over time. Trump’s tariffs have led to tensions with allies who might have supported a U.S.-led effort to defend Taiwan, including Japan, South Korea and Australia, as well as NATO nations.

Post-1945 U.S. security has rested upon an elaborate web of allies and bases that may have been expensive, but proved invaluable in containing the Soviet Union and China. With Taiwan a hundred miles from China, defending the island was always going to be a challenge. Antagonizing America’s traditional allies – as well as Vietnam and other Asian nations fearful of Chinese hegemony – only makes that task harder.

Growing Closeness Between Russia and the Taliban: A Paradigm Shift?

Muhammad Murad

On March 31, Russia’s Supreme Court announced that it had received a petition from Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov seeking to lift the ban on the Taliban. The Supreme Court stated that it would hold a hearing regarding this petition on April 17. According to a law adopted by Russia last year, the court has the authority to suspend the official terrorist designation of any organization.

The Russian government designated the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist organization in 2003, and since then, any contact with the group has been punishable under Russian law. However, since the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in 2021, Russia has been growing closer to the group – a far cry from Moscow’s approach during the Taliban’s previous stint in power.

During the Taliban’s rule from 1996 to 2001, Russia, along with its long-time ally India, worked to end the group’s dominance in Afghanistan. To that end, Russia supported the Northern Alliance, also known as the United Front. This small anti-Taliban coalition was led by the veteran Mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik nicknamed the “Lion of Panjshir.” The Northern Alliance controlled parts of northeastern Afghanistan, particularly the areas in and around the Panjshir Valley.

China-led anti-US tariff pact bruited as Trump 50% deadline looms

Yong Jian

Tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated after US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose an additional 50% tariff on Chinese goods on April 9 if China does not meet his deadline and withdraw its announced 34% on American products by April 8.

“If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8, 2025, the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account on Monday. “Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!”

In another post, Trump said China is the biggest tariffs-abusing country. He criticized China for raising its tariffs by 34% for American goods, on top of its “long-term ridiculously high tariffs,” and for not acknowledging his warning to abusing countries not to retaliate.

On April 2, Trump said the US would impose a 34% tariff on Chinese goods, as China had imposed a 67% tariff on American goods over the past years. (His math is controversial, to say the least.) In addition to the 20% tariff unveiled in February and March, Trump has raised the US tariffs on Chinese goods by 54% since his inauguration on January 20.

US Protectionism Reborn: Trump’s Response to China’s Ascendancy - Opinion

Dr. Hasim Turker

The onset of the second term of President Donald Trump has been accompanied by a marked escalation in the protectionist nature of US trade policies, reflecting profound strategic concerns over the widening economic and technological disparities between the United States and China. The Trump administration has espoused a protectionist stance, recognizing it as a pivotal strategy to address the perceived decline of the United States in pivotal sectors that fuel economic prosperity and national security, as compared to China.

A Narrowing Technological Gap

The United States has historically dominated global innovation and maintained technological supremacy in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and renewable energy. However, recent developments indicate that China has made substantial progress in this area, driven by a combination of state-led strategic initiatives and sustained investments. In the year 2023, for instance, China’s investment in R&D surged to approximately $722.8 billion, nearly matching the 784-billion-dollar figure recorded in the United States. The convergence of these trends signifies a notable shift in the balance of technological superiority, a matter of significant concern for US policymakers. The urgency of this situation is underscored by President Trump’s introduction of protectionist measures.

China has spent billions of dollars building far too many data centers for AI and compute - could it lead to a huge market crash?

Wayne Williams

China’s AI infrastructure boom is faltering, as according to a report in MIT Technology Review, the country built hundreds of data centers to support its AI ambitions, but many are now sitting unused.

Billions were invested by both state and private entities in 2023 and 2024, with the expectation that demand for GPU rentals would keep growing, but uptake has in fact dropped off, and as a result many operators are now struggling to survive.

Much of the early momentum was driven by hype. The government, keen for China to become a global leader in AI, encouraged local officials to fast-track data center construction with the result that more than 500 projects were announced nationwide, and at least 150 were completed by the end of 2024, according to state-affiliated sources. However, MIT Technology Review says local publications are reporting that up to 80% of this new computing capacity remains idle.

Trade Will Move On Without the United States

Michael Schuman

In his quest to make America great, President Donald Trump is withdrawing the United States from global trade. American families, companies, and investors will pay a price for this, as many commentators have noted. But the repercussions don’t end there. The tariff regime is also destroying a pillar of American global power, and it will further isolate the country at a moment when others stand ready to fill the vacuum.

On Wednesday, Trump announced that America would impose a 10 percent duty on imports from virtually all countries, plus additional punitive tariffs on countries he deems bad actors on trade, including Japan and members of the European Union. Some of these duties are extremely high. Adding the new levies to those previously imposed, China’s average tariff rate is now near 70 percent. Trump described the tariffs as payback: “Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream,” he said. “Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore.”

Trump’s tariffs are the culmination of a decades-long shift in political perceptions in the United States, in which trade has gone from an unalloyed good to the source of all ills. The U.S. once sought to bring down barriers and open markets globally—forging trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and supporting the World Trade Organization. The resulting global trading system lowered the cost of goods, which benefited the companies and consumers of wealthy countries such as the United States. It also connected poorer countries, such as China, to international supply chains, allowing them to create jobs, woo investment, and alleviate poverty. The United States became, in effect, the world’s ultimate consumer, which tied other countries to its economy and its interests.

We Didn’t Start the Trade War—We’ve Just Finally Joined It

Charlton Allen

When President Donald Trump slapped a fresh round of tariffs on European and Asian imports, the professional hand-wringers and legacy press clodpolls sprang into choreographed action.

Headlines and television anchors blared warnings of trade wars, economic isolation, and diplomatic fallout. The bureaucratic priesthood that worships at the altar of “free trade” without reciprocity—from Brussels to Brookings—launched into familiar homilies: tariffs are regressive, Trump is reckless, and globalism is gospel.

But let’s pause the hysteria momentarily and apply something vanishingly rare in today’s media-industrial complex: perspective.

The prevailing orthodoxy treats tariffs as anathema to prosperity—an outdated relic of 19th-century mercantilism. But this overlooks a simple truth: for trade to be free, it must also be fair. For decades, American policymakers—both Democrats and Republicans—have tolerated a grotesquely asymmetrical global trade regime that has hollowed out the American industrial base and made us dangerously dependent on foreign powers, friend and foe alike.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)