Indian Strategic Studies

4 January 2026

2025: A Challenging Year for India’s Diplomacy

Sudha Ramachandran

U.S. President Donald Trump points to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a press conference during the latter’s visit to Washington D.C., February 13, 2025.Credit: The White House

2025 was a challenging year for India on the foreign relations front. Ties with strategic partners, such as the United States, frayed, and those with key neighbors, Pakistan and Bangladesh, worsened. India also found itself alone in times of crisis.

A silver lining came in the form of improved relations with China.

The mood in Delhi was upbeat at the start of the year. Indians welcomed Donald Trump’s return for a second term as U.S. president. During his first term, bilateral relations were warm and Trump had established a close rapport with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While there were apprehensions in Delhi that differences over trade and immigration would surface, analysts felt these could be addressed. The fact that close India-U.S. relations enjoyed a bipartisan consensus in the U.S. and the Trump-Modi friendship were expected to reduce the severity of any American action.

‘Respectful Responder’: How India Is Reshaping Regional Security Partnership

Shreya Upadhyay

In the last week of December, India announced a $450 million “reconstruction package” for Sri Lanka to help the island nation recover from the devastating impact of Cyclone Ditwah. The cyclone battered Sri Lanka in late 2025 and the Indian Navy undertook comprehensive humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) operations under Operation Sagar Bandhu. Indian naval ships INS Vikrant and INS Udaygiri, which were present in Colombo as part of the 75th Anniversary International Fleet Review (IFR-2025) of the Sri Lanka Navy, were tasked at short notice to provide immediate relief based on emerging requirements ashore. Ship-borne helicopters were deployed for aerial reconnaissance of the affected areas and augmented ongoing search and rescue efforts. INS Sukanya was also deployed, carrying critical relief supplies.

Operation Sagar Bandhu represented the distinct approach to regional engagement that India has been carefully cultivating: being a “respectful responder” rather than an uninvited provider.

For years, India has grappled with the label of “net security provider” – a term first coined by U.S. officials at the 2009 Shangri-La Dialogue to describe India’s emerging role in the Indian Ocean Region. The net security provider framework, while acknowledging India’s growing capabilities, carried uncomfortable implications. It suggested comprehensive coverage, unilateral responsibility, and by extension, a big-brother posture that made smaller neighbors nervous. Pakistan’s warnings about Indian hegemonism, the Maldives’ “India Out” campaign, and Bangladesh’s consistent hedging behavior all reflected regional discomfort with the idea of India as a self-appointed regional policeman.

India-Pakistan armed conflict likely in 2026 due to 'heightened terrorist activity', warns US think tank

India and Pakistan could face the possibility of seeing a "renewed" armed conflict in 2026 due to "heightened terrorist activity" according to a report by a US think tank that surveyed American foreign policy experts. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) dubbed the chances of armed conflict as "moderate likelihood" that it could have a "moderate impact" on American interests. It also stated that the Donald Trump administration had "sought to end" the conflict between New Delhi and Islamabad.

There is a "moderate likelihood" of a "renewed armed conflict between India and Pakistan due to heightened terrorist activity", the CFR said in its Conflicts to Watch in 2026 report.

The CFR report also pointed that Pakistan could face another flashpoint with Afghanistan.

There is a moderate likelihood of "renewed armed conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, triggered by resurgent cross-border militant attacks", the report mentioned.

Op Sindoor, upgraded firepower and new battlefield structures: How Indian Army enhanced its warfighting edge in 2025

New Delhi: The Indian Army on Tuesday outlined ten major milestones achieved at in 2025, covering Operation Sindoor After Action Review (AAR), new capabilities, technology induction, military diplomacy and indigenisation.

In a detailed statement, the Army said the year marked a clear shift towards future-ready warfare, with a focus on precision, technology absorption and jointness.

The year's most significant development in the military domain was Operation Sindoor, launched in May 2025 after the Pahalgam terror attack by "Pakistan Army-backed terrorists".

According to the statement, the entire operational planning was carried out by the Military Operations Branch of the Indian Army, while execution was monitored from the Directorate General of Military Operations' Ops Room, with the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and all three Service Chiefs present.

Donald Trump’s Pakistan Reset Is Not the End of “India First”

Maheen Safian

The year 2025 saw a shift in US-Pakistan relations not seen since 9/11. The same country that was placed on the FATF grey list for four years has now been a close operational partner to US CENTCOM in the Iranian security theater and Afghan counter-terrorism operations. With bilateral trust restored, Trump even requested that Islamabad provide forces in Gaza as part of his 20-point Gaza plan to disarm Hamas. Earlier this month, Pakistan received a $686 million F-16 deal from the Trump administration during the final month of 2025.

All the while, US-India relations are at their most strained in recent decades. 2025 has been marked by botched trade negotiations, Indian irritation at Trump’s claim to have played a mediating role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire in May, growing US-Pakistan military dialogue, and India’s continued purchases of Russian oil (despite Trump’s public attempts to broker a Ukraine peace deal).

After the “Golden Era”: Getting Bangladesh-India Ties Back on Track

What’s new? The demise of Sheikh Hasina’s government in Bangladesh has led to a deterioration in relations between Dhaka and New Delhi. There have been disputes over the border, tit-for-tat trade restrictions and a rise in inflammatory rhetoric. Bangladesh’s forthcoming elections offer an opportunity for a reset.

Why does it matter? New Delhi’s support for Sheikh Hasina fanned longstanding anti-India feeling in Bangladesh, contributing to her ouster. Poorer relations could spell violence, further destabilisation of the border and hindered economic development. Violent protests surged in Bangladesh in mid-December after the killing of a young activist critical of India, underscoring the risks.

China’s Role in Afghanistan and Pakistan Post US-Nato Withdrawal: Implications for India2025

Priyanka Singh

The monograph examines the inception of China’s geostrategic/geo-economic pivot towards Pakistan— and more recently, Afghanistan— before charting the trajectory of its expanding role in the Af-Pak region. It assesses the viability of the evolving geopolitical triangle comprising China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, before evaluating possible Chinese strategy behind deepening engagement with a region marked by chronic volatility. The study, in particular, assesses China’s strategic interests in Afghanistan and how Pakistan remains central to its Afghan policy. The monograph also seeks to explore whether the return of the Taliban and China’s rising profile in the region would signal the evolution and fruition of China’s Af-Pak strategy. By examining both convergences and divergences in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s bilateral ties with China, the study investigates the contours of a potentially hyphenated approach. It concludes by outlining prominent security paradigms in the region and the inherent dilemmas that shape China’s strategic calculus in this complex geopolitical theatre.

Drone Warfare in South Asia

Betzalel Newman • Jupiter Huang

Drones have reshaped the battlefield in several recent conflicts, most notably in the Russia-Ukraine war, but also in the May India-Pakistan crisis. Over their four days of fighting, India and Pakistan used a variety of drone systems for gathering intelligence, carrying out attacks, and playing other supporting roles.

This conflict marked the first time India and Pakistan used drones in major combat roles, and unmanned systems are likely to remain a key component of both sides’ arsenals for years to come. To make sense of these capabilities, the Strategic Learning team interviewed five drone warfare experts on drone technologies, their current and future role in South Asian security, and their potential consequences for strategic stability and escalation dynamics in the region.

Saab 2000 intelligence aircraft induction in 2009 transformed Pakistan Air Force capabilities.

At the heart of the platform lies the Erieye active phased array radar mounted in a dorsal fairing above the fuselage. Operating in the S-band, the radar provides 300-degree coverage with detection ranges commonly assessed in excess of 450 km against high-altitude targets, while retaining strong performance against low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles. Unlike mechanically scanned systems, Erieye’s electronic beam steering allows it to track hundreds of targets simultaneously, refresh the air picture rapidly, and maintain performance even in dense electronic environments.

Complementing the radar is an integrated Thales identification friend or foe system capable of interrogating multiple modes, significantly reducing the risk of fratricide and misidentification during high-tempo operations. The onboard command and control suite fuses radar, IFF, and electronic support data into a single recognised air picture displayed across multiple operator consoles. This architecture allows AEW&C controllers to conduct fighter intercept control, manage beyond-visual-range engagements, and coordinate air defence assets with a level of precision previously unattainable from ground nodes alone.

China’s Critical Minerals Strategy in Africa

Paul Nantulya

Global demand for critical minerals—nickel, graphite, manganese, cobalt, copper, lithium, and rare earth minerals—used in defense and aerospace systems, electronic vehicles (EV), semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and medical devices, is surging. China now controls over half of global critical minerals production and an estimated 87 percent of processing and refining. China also produces nearly 70 percent of rare earth minerals, manufactures 93 percent of high-strength rare earth permanent magnets, and is responsible for 95 percent of the necessary heavy processing of critical minerals.

While China’s critical minerals strategy has emphasized its processing and refining capabilities, Beijing has diversified upstream by acquiring major African mining assets, including Botswana’s Khoemacau copper mine (2023), Mali’s Goulamina lithium mine (2024), and Tanzania’s Ngualla rare earth mine (2025). Illustratively, the world’s largest EV maker, the Chinese company BYD, secured six African lithium mines, ensuring sufficient feedstock (or raw materials) through 2032.

4 Predictions for China in 2026

James Palmer

Compared with what lies further ahead, next year may be relatively quiet for China. The following year, 2027, marks both the end of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s unprecedented third term and a frequently cited benchmark for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s ability to attack Taiwan.

China stages war games around Taiwan after hitting out at major US arms deal

Simone McCarthy, Wayne Chang, Yong Xiong, Laura Sharman

A woman works in a noodle store near a television screen showing a news report on China's "Justice Mission 2025" military drills around Taiwan, in Taipei, Taiwan on Monday. Tsai Hsin-Han/Reuters

China’s military mobilized army, navy, air and rocket units around Taiwan for two days of military drills aimed at sending a “serious warning” against any push for Taiwanese independence and “external” forces interfering with the island.

The exercises – dubbed “Justice Mission-2025” – would test combat readiness and “blockade and control of key ports and critical areas,” China’s Eastern Theater Command said Monday.

The drills have included live-fire activities as well as rocket launches according to both Chinese and Taiwanese authorities.

Rockets fired on Tuesday landed in waters near Taiwan, according to Taiwan’s Defense Ministry. The drills have also sparked flight delays and cancellations inside Taiwan over the last two days.

The 2025 Thai-Cambodian Conflict Viewed Through Glasl’s Nine-Stage Conflict Escalation Model

Murray Hunter

This study examines the 2025 Thai-Cambodian border conflict through the lens of Friedrich Glasl’s Nine-Stage Conflict Escalation Model, analyzing its progression from simmering tensions to intense military engagement. Triggered by disputes over the Ta Muan Thom temple and escalating into widespread clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border from July 24 to July 28, 2025, the conflict resulted in over 30 deaths and significant civilian displacement. By mapping the conflict’s timeline onto Glasl’s model, this paper identifies its evolution through rational, emotional, and fighting phases, culminating in a fragile ASEAN-brokered ceasefire on August 7, 2025. The analysis highlights the model’s utility in dissecting the dynamics of interstate military conflicts, while also revealing its limitations in capturing historical, geopolitical, and socio-economic factors unique to nation-to-nation disputes. The findings underscore the need for nuanced conflict resolution strategies that address underlying territorial and political grievances to prevent future escalations.

Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy Signals the Start of Imperial America

Carlos Roa

The 2025 National Security Strategy abandons the liberal international order’s ideological pretensions, embracing transactional imperialism, hemispheric primacy, and economic nationalism to secure America’s survival and unapologetic renewal.

Foreign policy announcements during the second Trump administration are often like mortar shells; they disappear into the air for a heartbeat, then crash down with enough force to rattle everyone in range. The release of the 2025 US National Security Strategy (NSS) at 10 pm on a Thursday earlier this month was a perfect example of this.

It was immediately obvious that this particular NSS was not meant for the foreign policy crowd. It’s not the usual lengthy and jargon-laden document that wonks are used to. The strategy’s authors went to great lengths to write a short, clear, easy-to-understand strategy accessible to ordinary Americans. To quote one analyst, it has “a clear layout saying, ‘This is what we want. This is why we have a strategy. What are the ends, ways, and means? What does that mean?’”

The Separation: Inside the Unraveling U.S.-Ukraine Partnership

Adam Entous

The train left the U.S. Army depot in the west of Germany and made for Poland and the Ukrainian border. These were the final 800 miles of a trans-Atlantic supply chain that had sustained Ukraine across more than three long years of war.

The freight on this last day in June was 155-millimeter artillery shells, 18,000 of them packed into crates, their fuses separated out to prevent detonation in transit. Their ultimate destination was the eastern front, where Vladimir V. Putin’s generals were massing forces and firepower against the city of Pokrovsk. The battle was for territory and strategic advantage but also for bragging rights: Mr. Putin wanted to show the American president, Donald J. Trump, that Russia was indeed winning.

Why the US Shouldn’t Pledge Long-Term Military Support for Israel

William D. Hartung

When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Mar-a-Lago on December 29 for a meeting with President Donald Trump, he likely discussed the possibility of a 20-year military aid pledge from the United States. This would potentially take effect when the commitment, known as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), expires in 2028. President Donald Trump should not forego the leverage needed to bring Israel in line with US foreign policy.

The public and Congress should vigorously press the administration to say no to an extended MOU. Given its conduct of the past two years, Israel should not be receiving any military aid from the United States, much less a 20-year pledge. A new, long-term military aid agreement would basically be an endorsement of Israel’s criminal conduct in Gaza and its ongoing aggression in the West Bank and the wider region.

Here is to a quarter century of US military havoc

Belén Fernández

The year 2025 has come to an end, and along with it, the first quarter of the 21st century. Reflecting on the course of the past 25 years, it is hard to understate the extent to which global events have been shaped by the military excesses of the United States – not that the same cannot be said for the 20th century, too.

Shortly after the new century kicked off, the US launched the so-called “global war on terror” under the enlightened guidance of President George W Bush, who offered the professional call to arms following the 9/11 attacks of 2001: “We have our marching orders. My fellow Americans, let’s roll.”

The Strange Fear of Russia

George Friedman

There is talk of Russia moving into Belarus, launching attacks on Latvia and Lithuania, and preparing a massive operation in and around the Black Sea. Many fear that if the Russia-Ukraine war ends without Russia being forced out of the relatively small territory it now holds, Moscow will surge into other areas to restore the borders of the former Soviet Union.

What is strange, given the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine, is that it still inspires such fear. Nearly four years since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia controls only about a fifth of the country and is bogged down in fighting over a handful of towns and villages along the front line. The fact is that Russia failed in its original mission, which was to occupy all of Ukraine, as shown by its failed attempt to capture Kyiv, far from today’s battlefront.

A Middle Way for American Foreign Policy

Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz

The “America first” foreign policy of U.S. President Donald Trump has unsettled the world America made. Allies are questioning the United States’ reliability as a strategic partner and are concerned that Washington is now more foe than friend of the liberal rules-based order. They have reason to worry. The Trump administration believes that international pacts, open trade, and foreign assistance are degrading, not amplifying, U.S. power and influence. Trump has made quite clear his hostility to multilateralism, stating that he opposes “international unions that tie us up and bring America down.”

Afghanistan, A History Already Forgotten: Counterinsurgency Lessons U.S. Senior Military Leaders Must Not Ignore

Daniel Rix, Doug Livermore

The United States fought a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, resulting in the loss of 2,448 U.S. military, 3,846 U.S. contractor, and over 100,000 Afghan lives and costing trillions of dollars. Bookended by al-Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S. homeland and Afghans clinging desperately to the tires of an Air Force C-17 during the evacuation of Kabul while Marines were slaughtered at Abbey Gate, the war in Afghanistan will be remembered as one of the greatest strategic losses in American history. Worse than the collapse of the South Vietnamese government, which persisted for two years after U.S. troop withdrawals, Ashraf Ghani’s Afghan government fell even before the U.S. military frantically departed the Hamid Karzai International Airport. Even the Soviet-backed Afghan government remained in power for three years after the Red Army left, highlighting the ineptitude of U.S. conduct in this conflict. This article identifies clear strategic failures throughout this counterinsurgency that the United States must learn from and endeavor never to repeat. An inability for U.S. senior military leaders to understand them and effectively apply appropriate lessons in a future counterinsurgency or

Deterrence by Disruption

Paul Zgheib

Powerful militaries can lose wars to weaker opponents, and small states can deter stronger ones. These outcomes contradict the conventional theory of force and show that military power alone does not guarantee political success. Modern conflicts reveal that this is not an anomaly but a recurring pattern. Great powers possess advanced platforms and precision weapons yet often struggle to achieve their political outcomes against less capable adversaries. Where small states cannot force victory, they can impose deterrence by shaping the costs and uncertainties that make aggression politically unattractive. Understanding why the weak endure, and how they deter, is a central problem for contemporary strategy.

Scholars provide explanations for parts of this puzzle. Andrew Mack argues that asymmetric conflict is shaped by interest and survival. Jeffrey Record demonstrates that strong powers lose limited wars when domestic patience collapses. Ivan Arreguin-Toft shows that weaker actors prevail when they adopt methods that undermine the stronger. Gil Merom explains how democracies defeat themselves when moral costs rise. Yarger links success to a coherent strategy that aligns ends, ways, and means. However, most of this literature focuses on irregular warfare and insurgency. There is less attention on how the same logic now appears in deterrence, especially at sea and in multi-domain competition.

5 Revealing Stats About War Around the World in 2025

John Haltiwanger

Conflict has been on the rise across the globe in recent years, increasing instability and exposing the weaknesses of the international system. This trend continued in 2025, with intractable, long-running wars ongoing in many parts of the world; a new conflict emerging in the Western Hemisphere, as the United States conducts strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats near Latin America; and historic border disputes continuing to fuel fresh clashes between countries such as Cambodia and Thailand.

Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine war is still raging, and there are many reasons to be skeptical that peace negotiations will produce a deal—particularly as Moscow continues to pummel Kyiv with devastating strikes and pushes for more Ukrainian territory.

What will the US economy look like in 2026?

Joel Mathis

The American economy at the end of 2025 looks very different from a year ago. Tariffs are higher, AI occupies a greater share of overall spending, and the federal government under President Donald Trump is demanding a greater say in how businesses are run. All that change leaves observers uncertain about what 2026 will bring.

Wall Street is “generally pretty bullish” heading into the new year, said Fortune. The “massive stimulus” unleashed by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” should kick in in 2026, giving analysts reason for optimism. But those same observers say the “conditions for success” in the American economy are “getting narrower and narrower.” Many of the good vibes are “derived from the promise of AI,” even though there are “questions mounting” about whether massive investment in the sector will pay off. The one word to describe the economy heading into 2026: “precarious.”

Why 2025 was a pivotal year for AI

Will Barker

“By 2030, if we don’t have models that are extraordinarily capable and do things that we ourselves cannot do, I’d be very surprised,” said OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in an interview published by Politico in September. After this year, “I think in many ways GPT5 is already smarter than me at least, and I think a lot of other people too”.

The AI advances we have seen this year could “set the world on a path of explosive growth”, said The Economist. “The picture that is emerging is perhaps counterintuitive and certainly mind-boggling.”

The latest ‘charismatic megatrauma’

We have reached a “pivotal moment” in our relationship with artificial intelligence, said Idan Feingold on CTech. Over the last year, the AI hot potato has “evolved from a buzzword to the epicentre of every business conversation”. There has been an unprecedented “surge” in productivity linked to AI innovation, with practical applications advancing “at a pace we have never seen before”.

Top 10 most advance weapon systems that rely more on software than firepower

Ilma Athar Ali

Modern weapon systems increasingly rely on artificial intelligence and autonomous software rather than firepower. From drone swarms to hypersonic missiles, machine learning now guides military strategy and battlefield decisions globally.

F-35 Lightning II: The World's Most Connected Fighter

The F-35 transforms raw sensor data into unified battlefield awareness through advanced fusion software. All pilots see the same integrated picture, sharing real-time intelligence across networks without manual input.

Hypersonic Missiles That Think

Modern hypersonic systems use machine learning to adjust flight paths mid-course, avoiding defences and accounting for wind shear. AI analyses target data from satellites and radar simultaneously for precision guidance

3 January 2026

2026 will be the year of hard decisions: Brahma Chellaney says India can no longer afford reactive diplomacy

India’s long-prided nonalignment policy has run its course, with the year 2025 exposing the fragility of these ties, said geostrategist Brahma Chellaney. He said for long India’s independent course in world affairs seemed effective, as its nonalignment ensured warm ties with rival powers.

In a column for Nikkei Asia, Chellaney said that a series of external shocks this year revealed India’s structural weaknesses in India’s foreign policy. The cumulative effect of these shocks was a broader loss of strategic room for maneuver, said Chellaney.

The “most jarring shock” came from Washington, said Chellaney, adding that US President Donald Trump’s policy towards a “rising India turned overtly punitive”. The 50 per cent tariff was more than a trade dispute, he said, adding that it was a political signal that India was less of a strategic partner and more of an economic rival to be squeezed.

The Year That Took India and Pakistan to the Brink

Audrey Wilson

In May, India and Pakistan faced off in their worst military conflict in decades, perhaps permanently altering the status quo on the subcontinent. The crisis began with a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. New Delhi quickly—and without concrete evidence—blamed the violence on Islamabad; a few weeks later, India launched missile strikes against militant targets in Pakistan, which swiftly retaliated.

The resulting confrontation lasted four days and killed dozens of people, including civilians. It saw faster escalation than ever before and the first full-scale use of combat drones between the two nuclear-armed countries. The fighting ended abruptly with a cease-fire that generated further disagreement and both India and Pakistan claiming that they had won. Ultimately, the brief military skirmish may have raised the risks of a future war.

Afghanistan-Tajikistan: Border Clashes

Afsara Shaheen

On December 23, 2025, at least five security personnel, including three Afghan nationals and two Tajikistan Border Guards, were killed in a cross-border armed clash along the Tajikistan-Afghanistan border, highlighting persistent instability along Afghanistan’s northern frontiers. Tajikistan’s State Committee for National Security confirmed that two of its border guards were killed after armed assailants opened fire from Afghan territory. The exchange of fire erupted when attackers launched an assault from Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province, specifically from the Shahr-e-Buzurg District, and from Chah Ab District in the neighbouring Takhar province. Tajik border forces retaliated, killing at least three attackers during the confrontation. Later on December 26, 2025, Tajikistan asked the Taliban to issue a formal apology and step up security along the shared border following the incident.

This incident followed a series of deadly cross-border attacks in December and November 2025, marking a sharp escalation in violence along the Tajikistan-Afghanistan frontier.

Bangladesh is worshipping Islamists as heroes. Jamaat is having the last laugh

Deep Halder

Bangladesh’s July revolution is beginning to resemble a tragedy devouring its own. What started as a students’ revolution against corruption and authoritarianism is now corroding the very ideals on which the country was formed.

Abu Sayed’s death at the hands of the police during the 2024 students’ uprising had turned the movement bloodier. And the recent killing of yet another young leader from the revolution, Osman Hadi, has taken it further—triggering attacks on media offices and cultural centres, stoking rampant anti-India rage, and revived calls for azadi in Kashmir.

As tragic as these deaths are, the fallen “heroes” of the revolution have been deified in today’s Bangladesh. Their Islamist agendas, so far hidden under the garb of a fight for democracy, have a disturbingly large number of takers among the country’s youth.

China hiding missiles on merchant ships for a Taiwan war

Gabriel Honrada

China appears to be experimenting with missile-armed merchant ships, probing whether commercial hulls packed with concealed firepower can deliver surprise salvos and tilt the naval balance in a Taiwan or US-China clash. This month, multiple media sources reported that China appears to be testing the rapid militarization of commercial cargo ships as part of a broader effort to expand naval firepower at lower cost and with greater ambiguity, according to satellite imagery.

Images circulating online show a Chinese container vessel at a Shanghai shipyard – the Zhongda 79 – a 97-meter container ship equipped with containerized vertical launch missile cells with a 60-round capacity, phased-array radars, close-in weapon systems (CIWS), and electronic countermeasures, suggesting a modular “arsenal ship” concept that could quickly convert civilian hulls into combat platforms. The Zhongda 79 may be an experimental prototype designed to verify containerized weapon systems that can be rapidly installed and removed, in line with China’s military-civil fusion (MCF) strategy.

New Pentagon report on China’s military notes Beijing's progress on LLMs

Jon Harper

The Defense Department’s latest report to Congress on China’s military developments stated that Beijing has been catching up with the United States in the race for new generative AI capabilities. This year’s iteration of the annual study was quietly released by the DOD this week before the Christmas holiday.

“In 2024, China’s commercial and academic AI sectors made progress on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based reasoning models, which has narrowed the performance gap between China’s models and the U.S. models currently leading the field,” Pentagon officials wrote. Those types of tools can generate software code, text, images, audio and other media following human prompts.

“LLMs and LLM-based reasoning models are useful for a range of military applications, including coding tasks to assist cyber operations, question-answering tasks to assist military decision-making, and synthetic content tailoring to assist influence operations. The [People’s Liberation Army, or PLA] continues to use [military-civil fusion, or MCF] mechanisms to ensure China’s academic and commercial AI communities provide robust, continuous support to military research and development projects,” the new Pentagon report noted. “These mechanisms provide the PLA with an opportunity to incorporate recent private sector AI breakthroughs into military systems.”

The National Security Strategy Paper on China

Mel Gurtov

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy paper, released this month, is filled with nasty, nativist language and half-truths straight out of the Project 2025 playbook. But amidst the bluster about historic success in strengthening national security and claims about resolving wars is a stark reminder of the direction US foreign policy is taking, which looks to be a world divided into American, Chinese, and Russian spheres of influence.

That would explain why Latin America receives so much more attention in the NSS paper than China or Russia. The theme of strategic competition with those two countries that was emphasized in Trump’s first national security overview has vanished. Now, China is viewed mainly as an economic rival. That is surely welcome news in Beijing.

How Much “Weaponization” Can the Global Economy Take?

CARLA NORRLÖF

STOCKHOLM – In January 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end the “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, alleging that the previous administration had exploited the interlinkages between law enforcement and intelligence to target political opponents. While critics dismissed the order as theatrics, loyalists applauded what they saw as a bold stand against partisan excess. Yet beneath this spectacle de jure looms a much larger story, involving energy pipelines, shipping routes, global trade, and financial flows.

Students of international affairs have long examined how asymmetrical economic relationships can be used to gain strategic advantages. A seminal twentieth-century contribution was Albert O. Hirschman’s 1945 National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade, which demonstrated that dominant powers in unbalanced trade relationships can leverage their position to extract political concessions from weaker partners. Similarly, in the 1980s, David A. Baldwin’s Economic Statecraft catalogued many different forms of economic leverage, arguing that sanctions, aid, and trade incentives can serve the same coercive functions as military power.

America’s world turned upside down

Bill Emmott

2025 was defined by AI exuberance and America First, as technological advances gathered momentum while the Trump administration sought to radically reshape the international order.

A storm rolls in over the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Credit: ZUMA Press, Inc.

It has been a dark and stormy year, although not in as benign a sense as the much-mocked melodrama by Edward Bulwer-Litton from which this paraphrase of his opening line derives, nor as funny as the Peanuts cartoons that played on it. The year has blended dangerous geopolitical turmoil and extraordinary political destructiveness with a powerful surge of technological development that could presage either prosperity or calamity – or perhaps both.

As such, for this author the year’s principal themes are best evoked not by the purple prose of Victorian gothic fiction but by one famous quotation from an Ancient Greek historian and two famous book titles from past eras.

The Greek historian is Thucydides (who else?) and the quotation his poignant description of the might-is-right era of the Peloponnesian War, nearly 2,500 years ago. That was a time, as he wrote, when some felt that ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’.

Why Is the United States Drawn to War? - FPIF

Emanuel Pastreich

The United States is drawn to war on every front, like a moth to a candle. It does not matter that Americans are sick of foreign wars stretching back 25 years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Venezuela, wars that have bankrupted the nation. It has no effect that the United States lacks the economic, technological, and manufacturing capacity necessary to sustain a conventional war. Nor would the United States likely win an unconventional war employing nano-technology, bio-technology, and information warfare.

The critics allowed to appear on TV like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs attribute this war-mongering to the foolishness and the ignorance of political leaders like Donald Trump, or to the incompetence of bureaucrats. They intentionally avoid any analysis of the economic structure of the United States, or the role of multinational banks and corporations in the formulation of policy. Their only explanation for the drive for war is the foolish actions of a “few bad apples.”

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)