PLA Maneuvers Near Taiwan in December: Misperceptions and Strategic Realities

Yu-cheng Chen

Source Link

Recently, China conducted a series of large-scale military activities near Taiwan and in the Western Pacific, drawing significant attention from regional and international actors. According to Reuters, China deployed 90 naval vessels (a number unprecedented in recent history) and set up seven “temporary reserved areas” of airspace to the east of its eastern Fujian and Zhejiang provinces, targeting the entire First Island Chain.

Furthermore, a large number of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft repeatedly entered Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Data from Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) indicates that the PLA deployed over 130 sorties of military aircraft and dozens of naval vessels from December 9 to 11. These actions reflect Beijing’s strategic calculations and its policy direction under both domestic and international pressure.

The scope of these military activities extends beyond the Taiwan Strait to include waters near Japan and the Philippines, as well as areas outside the First Island Chain. Particularly, the PLA’s naval deployments east of Taiwan formed a distinctive “dual wall” formation, indicating an intention to demonstrate anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities.

Taiwan’s MND assessed that the military actions aimed not only at rehearsing a comprehensive blockade of Taiwan but also at extending the PLA’s operational reach, with a broader objective of “internalizing” the Taiwan Strait. This aligns with the PLA’s operational principle of “training where battles are fought.”

China’s Largest Naval Exercise in Decades: Why Send 90 Warships Near Taiwan?

Brent Sadler

Source Link

Why the Secrecy Surrounding China’s Recent Naval Exercises Near Taiwan? – Amid the hysteria over unknown drone swarms sweeping the U.S. mid-Atlantic, a massive and very unusual Chinese naval operation was conducted near Taiwan.

What China Did Near Taiwan

Between December 9-11, over 90 Chinese warships and dozens of aircraft participated in the largest Chinese naval exercise in decades. The drills were made more remarkable by the fact that Beijing made no public statement before, during, or after the operation to explain it.

The first public notice of this unprecedented military operation was the establishment on December 9 of seven airspace exclusion zones stretching from the Yellow Sea, Taiwan Straits and into the South China Sea. That same day, Taiwan defense officials stated large number of warships and significant numbers of aircraft had been engaged in the most widespread Chinese military operation since the third Taiwan crisis (1995-1996). Importantly, Chinese aircraft carriers Liaoning, Shandong, and Fujian remained in port during the operation.

Adding to the intrigue was the lack of any public statement before this massive military operation. Typically, Beijing has signaled such activities as an act of protest against something Taipei or the U.S. did. The only official comment from Beijing on the December operation came from a Chinese military spokesman:

China’s Mosaic Warfare

Matthew P. Arsenault

Source Link

The potential for conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan has been a central focus of contemporary military strategy. Both nations have developed distinct approaches to modern warfare that emphasize innovation, adaptability, and the exploitation of technology to gain operational advantages. The United States' Mosaic Warfare, which prioritizes distributed, composable systems and AI-driven decision-making, contrasts sharply with China’s System Destruction Warfare, which seeks to paralyze adversary systems through multi-domain disruption (Clark, Patt, & Schram, 2020; Engstrom, 2018). If such a conflict were to occur, these strategies would inevitably collide, creating a complex and unpredictable battlefield shaped by divergent military philosophies.

Mosaic Warfare is fundamentally about flexibility. It envisions a disaggregated force structure composed of smaller, highly specialized units that can operate independently or as part of a larger system (Clark, Patt, & Schram, 2020). These units are connected by advanced communication and AI systems, enabling rapid reconfiguration based on battlefield needs. By decentralizing decision-making, Mosaic Warfare aims to accelerate operational tempo, outmaneuver adversaries, and overwhelm traditional command structures. This strategy is designed to exploit technological superiority and ensure the resilience of U.S. forces in the face of concentrated enemy attacks.

United Front: China's 'magic weapon' caught in a spy controversy

Koh Ewe and Laura Bicker

Source Link

The People's Republic of China has a "magic weapon", according to its founding leader Mao Zedong and its current president Xi Jinping.

It is called the United Front Work Department - and it is raising as much alarm in the West as Beijing's growing military arsenal.

Yang Tengbo, a prominent businessman who has been linked to Prince Andrew, is the latest overseas Chinese citizen to be scrutinised - and sanctioned - for his links to the UFWD.

The existence of the department is far from a secret. A decades-old and well-documented arm of the Chinese Communist Party, it has been mired in controversy before. Investigators from the US to Australia have cited the UFWD in multiple espionage cases, often accusing Beijing of using it for foreign interference.

Beijing has denied all espionage allegations, calling them ludicrous.

So what is the UFWD and what does it do?

Wakeup Call: The U.S. Risks Losing Latin America to China

Michael Cunningham

Source Link

When U.S. officials are asked about China, the discussion usually defaults to Taiwan or tariffs. But another threat from Beijing has been growing for years, and it can be found much closer to home—in Latin America. Case in point: the deep-sea mega-port that just opened in Chancay, Peru.

A port opening hardly looks like something that should worry the United States. But this port is 60 percent-owned by the Chinese state-owned giant COSCO Shipping, which has exclusive operating rights.

Chancay Port is a huge win for Beijing. It’s expected to slash roughly 10 days off the time it takes to ship goods between China and South America, making it easier and more cost-effective for Beijing to exploit the continent’s resources and flood the region with its exports, from solar panels to electric vehicles. These benefits will further multiply after a planned rail link connects Chancay to Brazil, China’s biggest South American trading partner.

Peru’s government hopes the new port will enable it to capitalize on China’s increasing trade with the region and become, in the words of one Peruvian official, “the Singapore of Latin America.”

China’s Quiet War Against America

Frank Fannon

Source Link

China has been waging a quiet war on the United States for years. It is a war not fought with missiles and bullets but waged with minerals and refineries. It’s past time for Washington to acknowledge this reality so America can adopt the war footing necessary for victory.

During his first term, President Donald Trump sounded the alarm that “America cannot be dependent on imports from foreign adversaries for critical minerals.” In Congress, Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Mike Waltz, the president-elect’s nominees to serve as secretary of state and national security advisor, led the charge against Beijing’s critical minerals dominance. They understood that China’s state-directed control of the critical minerals supply chain was not just friendly competition but a strategic attack on America’s industrial base.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hostile to democracy globally and seeks to displace the United States as the world’s indispensable power. U.S. intelligence reports confirm that Communist China is an existential threat. Yet, Washington has failed to recognize this fact because it clings to an anachronistic definition of war.

Post-Asad Syria: the actors at play

Source Link

On December 8th, 2024, the regime of Bashar al-Asad evaporated. In the early morning hours the Syrian dictator of the last twenty-four years fled to Moscow via Russian aircraft, leaving the capital and entire country to jubilant crowds and several rebel coalitions. The significance of this date within modern Syrian history cannot be overstated; it is arguably only rivaled by April 17th, 1946, the day the last French soldiers left what had been the Mandate of Syria, and November 13th, 1970, when Bashar’s father Hafiz al-Asad launched his ‘Corrective Movement’ coup and seized power from fellow Ba‘th party rivals.

While the fall of the regime ends the central conflict within the Syrian civil war, the country remains divided between four primary actors – three of which are nominally allied under a broad opposition umbrella.

The first and most significant of these is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former al-Qa‘idah affiliate led by Abu Muhammad al-Julani or Ahmad al-Shar‘, which initiated and oversaw the offensive that broke the regime. Prior to November 27 HTS and its allies were confined to the Idlib pocket of northwestern Syria, administered by the HTS-controlled Syrian Salvation Government (SSG). Idlib was protected by Turkey via military outposts established as part of a deconfliction agreement with Russia, however HTS’s relationship with Turkey is somewhat ambiguous.

Chaos in Syria will complicate an already complicated world

James Corera

Source Link

The Assad family’s half-century rule has come to a seemingly unexpected demise in the span of just 11 days. There is little doubt the end of the 13 years of murderous repression and civil fighting which has fragmented Syria is welcomed. But the need to avoid the establishment of a new Islamic State-style regime or the further implosion of the Syrian state into little fiefdoms requires us to pause any celebration.

While the apparent blow to Iran and Russia’s grip on the region consumes immediate oxygen, the chaos that is likely to follow is the greater strategic concern. As Bruce Hoffman reminds us, the fall of the Shah of Iran was heralded as a positive development as Ayatollah Khomeini triumphantly swept into Tehran. It was the same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.

The prospect of chaos in Syria further complicates an international scene that is already challenging Western countries and their allies—from terrorism to dealing with China and Russia. It heightens the need for them to work together.

How the new Syria might succeed or fail

Source Link

AFTER 53 YEARS in power, the house of Assad left behind nothing but ruin, corruption and misery. As rebels advanced into Damascus on December 8th, the regime’s army melted into the air—it had run out of reasons to fight for Bashar al-Assad. Later, Syrians impoverished by his rule gawped at his abandoned palaces. Broken people emerged blinking from his prisons; some could no longer remember their own names.

In Syria, Be Careful What You Wish For

Collin Meisel

Source Link

“No one should shed any tears over the Assad regime.” US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Daniel Shapiro’s reaction to last week’s toppling of the Assad family’s decades-long rule in Syria is fully justified given Bashar and his father Hafez’s infamous brutality. Having forcibly disappeared nearly one hundred thousand people, including thousands of children, and murdered hundreds of others in 2023 alone, and with a long track record of other atrocities and human rights violations, Shapiro is right. The most appropriate reaction to Assad’s flight to Moscow is good riddance.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time to celebrate. History is replete with short-term victories that have evolved into long-term losses.

In 1917, at the height of World War I and the dawn of the Russian revolution that year, Germany was struggling to bring at least one front of its two-front war to a close. As part of the solution, the German government organized and funded a secret train with thirty-two Russian revolutionaries—chief among them V. I. Lenin—to foment turmoil in Russia and guarantee Russia’s permanent exit from the war. It did. And yet it also led to the founding of the Soviet Union, the future source of a seemingly inexhaustible well of people who were essential in defeating Germany just over two decades later.

The Way Forward in Syria

CARL BILDT

Source Link

The collapse of Syria’s Assad regime – with President Bashar al-Assad not even informing his closest associates before fleeing to Moscow – has left regional and international players scrambling to stabilize the country.

Of course, there have been numerous attempts to restore stability to Syria ever since the start of its civil war in 2011, after Assad brutally repressed peaceful Arab Spring demonstrations. Despite the many failures, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously in December 2015, remains the cornerstone of international diplomatic efforts to resolve the Syrian conflict. It provides a clear roadmap for a Syrian-led political transition under a new constitution, with UN-supervised elections and measures to ensure inclusive governance.

True, there has been little progress on any of these fronts. The Constitutional Committee, the body charged with implementing Resolution 2254, exemplifies both the potential and the limitations of the UN process. Comprising representatives of the Assad regime, the opposition, and civil society, it was supposed to draft a new constitution that could serve as the foundation for a political settlement. But the committee has achieved little of substance after numerous rounds of meetings in Geneva, owing to obstruction by the regime’s delegation.

The Slow Motion Death Of Syria – OpEd

José Niño

Source Link

On December 8, 2024, the 24-year reign of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad came to an end after a rebel coalition of Al-Qaeda offshoots, Turkish proxies, and other Islamist militants overwhelmed the capital of Damascus. In effect, a Sunni Islamist saturnalia brought an end to the Middle East’s last secular Arab government.

The Assad family, starting with Hafez al-Assad in 1971, has held an iron grip on Syrian politics for over five decades. As committed members of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, the Assads aligned with rivals to the West and Israel such as the Soviet Union, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and later on the Russian Federation.

For it being a perennial thorn in the US‘s and Israel’s side, Syria was mentioned as a potential target for regime change by neoconservative policy advisors Richard Perle and Douglas Feith in their policy document A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The neoconservative plan, authored in 1996, was directed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was serving his first term as Israeli prime minister. The proposals outlined in the document have guided the foreign policy grand strategies of the ultranationalist Likud coalition that has dominated Israeli politics in the last three decades in addition to American Zionists across the political aisle.

US Officials Take Credit For Regime Change In Syria – OpEd

Edward Hunt

Source Link

Officials in the Biden administration are taking credit for creating conditions in Syria that enabled opposition forces to overthrow the Syrian government.

Now that opposition forces have ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, administration officials are insisting that longstanding U.S. policies, including actions taken by the Biden administration against Assad’s supporters, made the overthrow of the Syrian government possible. Administration officials deny that they aided Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the U.S.-designated terrorist organization that led the drive to overthrow Assad, but they insist that they facilitated the opposition’s victory, citing years of U.S. efforts to empower the opposition and weaken the Syrian government.

U.S. policy “has led to the situation we’re in today,” State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a December 9 press briefing, the day after Assad fled the country. It “was developed during the latter stages of the Obama administration” and “has largely carried through to this day.”

White House Spokesperson John Kirby agreed, giving credit to the president. “We believe that developments in Syria very much prove the case of President Biden’s assertive foreign policy,” Kirby said in remarks to the press on December 10.

How Israel Uses AI in Gaza—And What It Might Mean for the Future of Warfare

Yasmeen Serhan

Source Link

AI warfare may conjure images of killer robots and autonomous drones, but a different reality is unfolding in the Gaza Strip. There, artificial intelligence has been suggesting targets in Israel’s retaliatory campaign to root out Hamas following the group’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack. A program known as “The Gospel” generates suggestions for buildings and structures militants may be operating in. “Lavender” is programmed to identify suspected members of Hamas and other armed groups for assassination, from commanders all the way down to foot soldiers. “Where’s Daddy?” reportedly follows their movements by tracking their phones in order to target them—often to their homes, where their presence is regarded as confirmation of their identity. The air strike that follows might kill everyone in the target's family, if not everyone in the apartment building.

These programs, which the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has acknowledged developing, may help explain the pace of the most devastating bombardment campaign of the 21st century, in which more than 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, whose count is regarded as reliable by the U.S. and U.N. In earlier Gaza wars, Israeli military veterans say airstrikes occurred at a much slower tempo.

“During the period in which I served in the target room [between 2010 and 2015], you needed a team of around 20 intelligence officers to work for around 250 days to gather something between 200 to 250 targets,” Tal Mimran, a lecturer at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a former legal adviser in the IDF, tells TIME. “Today, the AI will do that in a week.”

The Crumbling Foundation of America’s Military

Mark Bowden

Source Link

I. Supply and Demand

Here, in the third decade of the 21st century, the most sought-after ammunition in the U.S. arsenal reaches the vital stage of its manufacture—the process tended by a young woman on a metal platform on the second story of an old factory in rural Iowa, leaning over a giant kettle where tan flakes of trinitrotoluene, better known as the explosive TNT, are stirred slowly into a brown slurry.

Enjoy a year of unlimited access to The Atlantic—including every story on our site and app, subscriber newsletters, and more.Become a Subscriber

She wears a baggy blue jumpsuit, safety glasses, and a hairnet. Her job is to monitor the viscosity and temperature of the mix—an exacting task. The brown slurry must be just the right thickness before it oozes down metal tubes to the ground floor and into waiting rows of empty 155-millimeter howitzer shells, each fitted at the top with a funnel. The whole production line, of which she is a part, is labor-intensive, messy, and dangerous. At this step of the process, both the steel shells and the TNT must be kept warm. The temperature in the building induces a full-body sweat in a matter of minutes.

Putin’s Point of No Return

Andrea Kendall-Taylor & Michael Kofman

Source Link

On August 6, 2024, Ukrainian forces launched a surprise cross-border offensive into Russia’s Kursk region—the biggest foreign incursion into Russian territory since World War II. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response was telling. Days after Ukraine’s offensive, Putin railed against the United States and Europe. “The West is fighting us with the hands of the Ukrainians,” he said, reiterating his view that Russia’s war in Ukraine is in fact a proxy battle with the West. But he initiated no immediate military counterattack. Putin was unwilling to divert substantial numbers of troops away from their operations in eastern Ukraine even to recover territory back home. Three months later, with Ukrainian forces still in Kursk, Moscow instead brought in North Korean troops to help push them out—the first time in more than a century that Russia has invited foreign troops onto its soil.

Moscow’s actions underscore how, after almost three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor, Putin is now more committed than ever to the war with Ukraine and his broader confrontation with the West. Although the conflict is first and foremost an imperial pursuit to end Ukraine’s independence, Putin’s ultimate objectives are to relitigate the post–Cold War order in Europe, weaken the United States, and usher in a new international system that affords Russia the status and influence Putin believes it deserves.

The Bolduc Brief: The Crisis in Military Leadership – A Call for Reform in the US Armed Forces

Donald Bolduc

Source Link

The United States military has long been regarded as one of the most formidable fighting forces in the world. However, a crisis in military leadership threatens to undermine its capability and capacity to effectively engage in modern warfare. Over the past two decades, particularly during the Obama and Biden administrations, the military’s increasing focus on social issues and political correctness has detracted from its primary mission: to fight and win wars.

The responsibility for this shift lies with the senior leadership—specifically, three and four-star generals—who have allowed political considerations to overshadow strategic imperatives. To rectify this situation, significant reforms are necessary, including a reevaluation of leadership at the highest levels.

Historical Context

The military’s current predicament is not without precedent. During World War II, General George C. Marshall recognized that the leadership structure of the Army was inadequate for the challenges ahead. Faced with the need for a more effective military command, he sought out younger, more dynamic officers who could better navigate the complexities of modern warfare. Marshall’s decisive actions were instrumental in reshaping the military leadership and ultimately led to America’s success in the war.

In contrast, the contemporary military establishment appears to have strayed from these principles, prioritizing social agendas over tactical readiness.

Generative AI and Climate Change Are on a Collision Course

SASHA LUCCIONI

Source Link

In 2025, AI and climate change, two of the biggest societal disruptors we're facing, will collide.

The summer of 2024 broke the record for Earth’s hottest day since data collection began, sparking widespread media coverage and public debate. This also happens to be the year that both Microsoft and Google, two of the leading big tech companies investing heavily in AI research and development, missed their climate targets. While this also made headlines and spurred indignation, AI’s environmental impacts are still far from being common knowledge.

In reality, AI’s current “bigger is better” paradigm—epitomized by tech companies’ pursuit of ever bigger, more powerful large language models that are presented as the solution to every problem—comes with very significant costs to the environment. These range from generating colossal amounts of energy to power the data centers that run tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney to the millions of gallons of freshwater that are pumped through these data centers to make sure they don’t overheat and the tons of rare earth metals needed to build the hardware they contain.

Trump Will Reportedly Block the US Government and Military From Buying EVs

Jonathan M. Gitlin

Source Link

The incoming Trump administration has even more plans to delay electric vehicle adoption than previously thought. According to Reuters, which has seen transition team documents, the Trump team wants to abolish EV subsidies, claw back federal funding meant for EV charging infrastructure, block EV battery imports on national security grounds, and prevent the federal government and the US military from purchasing more EVs.

During the campaign, candidate Trump made repeated references to ending a supposed EV mandate. In fact, policies put in place by President Joe Biden only call for 50 percent of all new vehicles to be electrified by 2032 under US Environmental Protection Agency rules meant to cut emissions by 56 percent from 2026 levels.

Instead, the new regime will be far more friendly to gas guzzling, as it intends to roll back EPA fuel efficiency standards to those in effect in 2019. This would increase the allowable level of emissions from cars by about 25 percent relative to the current rule set. US new vehicle efficiency stalled between 2008 and 2019, and it was only once the Biden administration began in 2021 that the EPA started instituting stricter rules on allowable limits of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from vehicle tailpipes.

US government tells officials, politicians to ditch regular calls and texts

Raphael Satter and A.J. Vicens

Source Link

The U.S. government is urging senior government officials and politicians to ditch phone calls and text messages following intrusions at major American telecommunications companies blamed on Chinese hackers.

Right now.

In written guidance, opens new tab released on Wednesday, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said "individuals who are in senior government or senior political positions" should "immediately review and apply" a series of best practices around the use of mobile devices.

The first recommendation: "Use only end-to-end encrypted communications."

End-to-end encryption - a data protection technique which aims to make data unreadable by anyone except its sender and its recipient - is baked into various chat apps, including Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab WhatsApp, Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab iMessage, and the privacy-focused app Signal. Corporate offerings which allow end-to-end encryption also include Microsoft's (MSFT.O), opens new tab Teams and Zoom Communications' (ZM.O), opens new tab online meetings.

Neither regular phone calls nor text messages are end-to-end encrypted, which means they can be monitored, either by the telephone companies, law enforcement, or - potentially - hackers who've broken into the phone companies' infrastructure.

We Need Energy for AI, and AI for Energy

ERIC SCHMIDT

Source Link

In 1903, Mark Twain wrote that “It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing.” This observation still mostly holds true. The invention of artificial intelligence required decades of work by thousands of scientists, engineers, and industry leaders. It will require many more men and women to develop the technology in the years ahead.

The Energy Transition That Couldn’t

RICHARD HAASS and CAROLYN KISSANE

Source Link

Ideas, and the words we use to frame them, matter. For example, as the Cold War wound down, “the end of history” suggested that the disintegration of Soviet communism would leave liberal democracy and market economies unchallengeable. That idea took hold among Western policymakers, leading them to believe they could afford to relax. Three decades later, “the end of history,” and the policies that followed from it, appears woefully misguided.

Today, it is “energy transition” that has gained a hold over policymakers. While the term suggests the necessity of shifting from fossil fuels to renewables – a seemingly compelling idea that aligns with climate goals and technological innovation – it inaccurately describes what is happening (and will happen) and has led some governments to adopt costly, counterproductive policies. And it has pitted goals that should be complementary – addressing climate change and promoting energy security – against each other.

To be clear, energy transitions – a move away from one form of energy to another – have occurred throughout history, coinciding with economic changes that created demand for the new energy source. After the Industrial Revolution began, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, and the rise of manufacturing economies impelled societies to shift from wood to coal and later to oil and gas.

Trade Wars Are Neither Good Nor Easy To Win – Analysis

Sourabh Gupta

Source Link

‘Trade wars are good, and easy to win’, US President-elect Donald Trump tweeted three weeks before he authorised tariffs on China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in March 2018.

Trade wars are easy to start, for sure.

The US president enjoys extensive congressionally delegated authority to ratchet tariffs upwards. Courts will not second-guess this exercise of authority if its usage is based on an ‘intelligible principle’, allowing the president to enact measures bearing a ‘reasonable relationship’ to the proposed trade policy objective. The US consumer towers, too, over their international peers and tariff-regulated market access can be a useful source of leverage to instigate dealmaking on trade and non-trade concerns such as market purchase targets, shutting down illegal immigration and closing passageways for fentanyl trafficking.

But are trade wars ‘easy to win’ too, as Trump claims?

The Trump tariffs did lead to a sharp dip in China’s share of US imports. His campaign promise of 60 per cent tariffs could have punishing short-term effects on China’s macroeconomy and currency as it flirts with the familiar ailments of overcapacity, underconsumption, deflation and indebted local governments.

Quantum Technology, Peace and Security: A Primer

ZHANNA L. MALEKOS SMITH & GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI

Source Link

Introduction: The Rise of Quantum Technology

The rise of research, innovation and investment in quantum technology is becoming a global phenomenon.1 As a technology, it holds much promise for enabling significant breakthroughs in support of many sustainable development goals.

Despite the alluring benefits of quantum technology, there is also apprehension about the risks it could bring to international peace and security. The United Nations Secretary-General cautioned the General Assembly in 2022 that quantum computers could potentially “destroy cybersecurity and increase the risk of malfunctions to complex systems. We don’t have the beginnings of a global architecture to deal with any of this.”

To be sure, the extent to which quantum-based technologies may shape the future character of warfare, or of security more generally, remains highly uncertain, especially given the fragile and nascent state of quantum systems.4 Despite this ambiguity, from a global security perspective, because quantum science and technology could revolutionize the field of computing so profoundly, it is important to invest in early education and knowledge-building.

Exploring the AI-ICT Security Nexus

GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI & SAMUELE DOMINIONI

Source Link

Introduction

As governments, businesses, and societies grow more digitally interconnected, cyber resilience and cybersecurity strategies have become pivotal issues in safeguarding national and global stability. Artificial intelligence’s (AI) application in the information and communication technologies (ICT) domain is reshaping the landscape of both offensive and defensive cybersecurity, providing enhanced capabilities to malicious actors while simultaneously offering unprecedented tools to defenders.

In the ongoing Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021–2025 (OEWG), States are increasingly expressing concerns over threats coming from AI-enabled malicious ICT activities. In the last Annual Progress Report (APR) adopted in July 2024, AI was specifically mentioned in the Existing and Potential Threats section, where States noted that AI (as well as other emerging technologies) “could potentially have implications for the use of ICTs in the context of international security by creating new vectors and vulnerabilities in the ICT space”.

However, to support a more concrete examination of the impact of AI, both positive and negative, on the implementation of Framework of Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace,2 it is paramount to develop a more granular understanding of how AI is in practice changing capabilities and behaviours of both perpetrators (i.e., the attackers) and defenders during each step of malicious ICT activities.