Troops withdrawn but de-escalation eludes India-China border: Satellite images

Shivani Sharma

Source Link

Following the disengagement between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh's Depsang and Demchok regions earlier this year, further de-escalation was highlighted as a key priority for future India-China discussions. External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar outlined these expectations in Parliament earlier this month: "The immediate priority was to ensure disengagement from friction points so that there would be no further untoward incidents or clashes, this has been fully achieved… The next priority would be to consider de-escalation that would address the massing of troops along the LAC..."

High-resolution satellite images sourced exclusively by India Today's Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) team show signs of disengagement but provide no clear indication of de-escalation from China's side.

China continues to upgrade its military and dual-use infrastructure in disputed regions near the north bank of Pangong Lake, even as both nations engage at various levels to improve bilateral ties.

Satellite imagery from space firm Maxar Technologies also reveals, for the first time, new camps constructed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in rear positions in Depsang, after vacating forward positions during the disengagement process.

China to build world's largest dam near India border

Source Link

China has approved the construction of the world's largest dam, stated to be the planet's biggest infra project costing USD 137 billion, on the Brahmaputra River in Tibet close to the Indian border, raising concerns in riparian states -- India and Bangladesh.

The Chinese government has approved the construction of a hydropower project in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River, the Tibetan name for the Brahmaputra, according to an official statement quoted by state-run Xinhua news agency on Wednesday. The dam is to be built at a huge gorge in the Himalayan reaches where the Brahmaputra river makes a huge U-turn to flow into Arunachal Pradesh and then to Bangladesh.

The total investment in the dam could exceed one trillion yuan (USD 137 billion), which would dwarf any other single infrastructure project on the planet including China's own Three Gorges Dam, regarded as the largest in the world, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported on Thursday. China has already operationalised the USD 1.5 billion Zam Hydropower Station, the largest in Tibet in 2015.

The Brahmaputra dam was part of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) and National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035 adopted by Plenum, a key policy body of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2020. Concerns arose in India as the dam besides empowering China to control the water flow, the size and scale of it could also enable Beijing to release large amounts of water flooding border areas in times of hostilities.

The Indus Waters Treaty: Need to adapt, or perish

Shravan Yammanur

Source Link

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) chief minister Omar Abdullah recently voiced concerns about the impact of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) on the Union territory’s power generation crisis and sought compensation from the Union government for the restrictions encoded in the treaty. While India grapples with the internal demands arising out of some of the antiquated terms of the IWT, Pakistan continues to ignore the legitimate attempts by India to initiate discussions to modify the IWT, provided for under Article XII (3) of the treaty.

In August, India issued its fourth notice to Pakistan under Article XII (3), seeking government-to-government discussions. These notices seem to have been triggered by the World Bank’s dubious decision in October 2022 to allow parallel proceedings before the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration; the climate crisis’ impact on the Indus river basin also has a role to play.

India’s notices came after years of frustration over Pakistan’s refusal to engage constructively in the implementation of the IWT. Pakistan, of course, has repeatedly chosen to ignore government-to-government negotiations. Its government and experts appear to believe that Pakistan should not engage with India in these discussions because India cannot unilaterally terminate the IWT. This perception may be unfounded, as India would be within its rights to move this way given Pakistan’s disregard for its treaty obligations under Article XII and continued abuse of the dispute resolution mechanism under the IWT to stall crucial hydroelectric projects in J&K, all of which amounts to bad faith conduct under international law.

Pakistan Launches Air Strikes On Militant Hideouts In Afghanistan

Source Link

Pakistani military jets on December 24 conducted air strikes inside Afghanistan, targeting suspected hideouts of the Islamist militant group Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

The TTP positions targeted were in the Murgha area of the Bermal district in Afghanistan’s Paktika Province, according to sources. The area borders the Angoor Adda town in Pakistan’s volatile South Waziristan tribal district.

Pakistani jets carried out strikes against one target in the Murgha area and two more areas of the Bermal district.

There has been no official comment from Pakistan, but some accounts on X believed to be related to Pakistani intelligence confirmed the strikes and claimed casualties among the TTP militants.

An Afghan Taliban leader, speaking to RFE/RL on condition of anonymity, confirmed the strikes but added that it is too early to report on casualties.

The Afghan Taliban leader said an Afghan government official confirmed to him that there were strikes in three places in Paktika Province but it was not yet known who was targeted.

Return to Afghanistan: Re-Migration and the Failed Reintegration of Millions of Afghans

Source Link

Introduction

The 2001 United States-led intervention in Afghanistan shifted the country from Taliban rule to an era of war and occupation, during which foreign governments, including the U.S., its allies, and international governing bodies such as the United Nations, seemingly focused on reconstruction and nation-building. This was, as we now know, a parenthesis that lasted two decades and a period during which conflict and insecurity continued. From the onset, the return of Afghan nationals – who had fled for protection abroad – became an integral part of the U.S.-led state-building project. Afghans returning home became a national symbol of people ‘voting with their feet’ in favor of international intervention and the new Afghan administration under President Hamid Karzai. But what awaited those who returned ended up being drastically different from their expectations.

This paper reflects on the human cost of war through the prism of the return and failed reintegration of Afghan nationals between 2001-2021. Today, as governments in the region such as Pakistan force unregistered migrants to return to Afghanistan, it is essential to understand the repercussions of such policies. This paper calls for urgent international attention to the non-viability of foreign governments’ returning or considering returning Afghan migrants to Afghanistan under the current Taliban regime. It also highlights the need for funding to support Afghans’ mobility, and for funding to meet the basic human needs of Afghans in the country.

Malaysia Aggressively Closes Informal Border Crossings With Thailand – Analysis

Murray Hunter

Source Link

The Thais are the greatest beneficiaries

On December 1, the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) swooped onto all of the informal and illegal border crossing points between Kelantan and Thailand. The Malaysian police appear to have taken this action independently of the Thai authorities, although the Thais have supported this move. The Thai 4th Army chief Lt General Paison Nusang said that Thailand respects the Malaysian operation.

These operations were forewarned by the Malaysian home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who last month said that border crossings will only be allowed at the Immigration, Customs, Quarantine, and Security (ICQS) posts at Rantau Panjang, Bukit Bunga, and Pengkalian Kubar, indicating the prime focus is upon interdicting those involved in smuggling and violence from Tak Bai, through Sungai Kolok to Narathiwat and Yala on the Thai side.

The operations equally target Malaysian and Thai nations, as many hold dual country documentation. These people have relatives and families on both sides of the border. The Malaysian media reported that a number of people have been caught and detained at the Immigration Detention Centre at Tanah Merah in Kelantan.

Nepal’s Diplomatic Misstep- Oli’s China Moves Stir Domestic and International Discontent

Jai Kumar Verma

Source Link

The 72 years old Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal, Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli popularly known as K.P.Sharma Oli returned from China on 5th December, after a four day official visit. Oli went to China with an 87 members delegation. On conclusion of his China visit he told the media at Tribhuvan International Airport that “Nepal–China relations have further deepened after my visit. This will certainly benefit Nepal”. He also said that during his visit, agreements were signed under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which will benefit Nepal. He also mentioned that separate agreements would be signed for each project. BRI is a global infrastructure development strategy of Chinese government, which started in 2013 to invest in more than 150 countries and international organisations.

Nepal and China signed the BRI agreement in 2017, and 35 projects were identified however these projects were reduced to 9 in 2019 and that too were not started. Not only this, the details of the BRI cooperation agreement were not made public. It is the common strategy of China that the details of its agreements with other countries are never made public.

Oli during his China visit met President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang and several other senior leaders. A total of ten agreements were signed including BRI cooperation agreement and MoU on Economic and Technical Cooperation, MoU on the Development Plan 2025-2029 and the MoU on Nepal–China Trade Promotion. Oli also addressed a programme in the Peking University. Oli requested Chinese businessmen to invest in China and Chinese people to visit Nepal as tourists. China also promised financial grant of USD 20 million and RMB 500 million. Oli also discussed with his counterpart about industrial and infrastructural development, increasing of connectivity, development of tourism and trade, medical cooperation, agricultural development, science and technology, disaster management and poverty alleviation.

China’s Year in Review

James Palmer

Source Link

It was a long year in China, with the economic slowdown dominating the news and a gloomy public mood settling in. The country is still in a post-COVID-19 hangover and a political morass. Will 2024 be the calm before the storm for China?

Putin Chose Ukraine Over Syria

Alexander Baunov

Source Link

In 2015, when Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Syria at the request of dictator Bashar al-Assad, he had several goals in mind. He wanted to help Russia escape the international isolation it endured following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. He sought to return Russia to a position of influence in the Middle East, where its presence had waned after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And he wanted to establish Russia as a global power capable of supporting its allies and halting efforts to topple friendly governments. The intervention in Syria also allowed Russia to assume the role of protector of Christians in the Middle East—a role that, in Putin’s view, decadent Western powers had abdicated, and a mission that fit neatly with Putin’s desire to present Russia as Europe’s last bastion of Christian values.

In the wake of the rapid collapse of the Assad regime, Putin has little to show for this triple agenda. Russia faces the loss of its military bases in the Middle East and showed little concern for the Syrian Christians it claimed to protect as Assad’s secular government was toppled by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. And Russia’s isolation from the international community has only intensified since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Syria’s Ten Post-Assad Challenges – OpEd

Anwar Abas

Source Link

It took barely ten days for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to fall. But his dramatic ousting was not simply down to the surprise military offensive by Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Shams (HTS). It was rather the fruit of 14 years of revolution, conflict, destruction and death, and the struggle by media, civil society and human rights groups to keep the dream of freedom alive.

Syrians have paid a very heavy price – the country also endured 61 years of single-party and military rule by the Baath Party, and 54 years of one-family rule by the Assads.

And amidst their euphoria, Syrians know they now face serious domestic, regional and international challenges to rebuild their country.

Syria has been left devastated by the conflict that began with Assad’s brutal response to peaceful demonstrations that began in March 2011. Armed groups soon emerged, with regional and international powers fueling the conflict. While Turkey, the West, and some Arab countries backed the opposition, support from Russia and Iran meant Assad’s regime regained much of its power by 2015.

Remembrance of Things Past

Francis J. Gavin

Source Link

In December 1964 — 60 years ago — the holiday classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” was aired in the United States for the first time.1 The following year, “A Charlie Brown Christmas” was televised.2 One year later, in December 1966, “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” premiered.3 All three were tremendous successes, and for many American families, watching them has become an annual ritual, marking the season of joy and holiday celebration. I loved them as a child, loved introducing them to my children even more, and anticipate viewing them with my grandchildren, should, inshallah, I get any.

There are at least two puzzling questions, however, about the seemingly timeless success of this Christmas triumvirate.

First, why were arguably the three most popular American Christmas specials produced within two years of each other, in the mid-1960s, and never dethroned or replaced? Consider the financial and cultural incentive to produce a holiday classic watched year after year, embraced by every new generation. There have been some contenders to this classic status — I watch Will Ferrell’s Elf every December, and The Muppet Christmas Carol with the inestimable Michael Caine is underrated. But in the animated world, despite profound advances in technology and vast improvements in the quality of television overall since my childhood, no show has even come close to matching the holiday staying power of Rudolph, Charlie Brown, and the Grinch. They were not produced in some golden age of television — the most watched shows produced by these networks at the time included such unwatchable dreck as Hogan’s Heroes, The Beverly Hillbillies, and a hilariously terrible Batman (shown two nights a week!). The success of the Christmas specials is all the more surprising as the creators of these shows never anticipated such long-term success. Why should they have? Rudolph’s stop-action animation was directed by an artist who had previously made propaganda films for both Imperial Japan and Communist forces in China, the creators of the Peanuts special thought after screening the special that “they had ruined Charlie Brown,” and the production of the Grinch was fraught and over budget.

Japanese Automotive Giants Honda And Nissan Announce Merger To Tackle Global Competition – Analysis

Wei Wei

Source Link

According to Nikkei Asia, Japanese automotive giants Honda and Nissan are in talks to establish a holding company that would oversee both automakers, with plans to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for this new entity as soon as possible. At the same time, Honda and Nissan are considering including Mitsubishi Motors in this new holding company.

Currently, Nissan holds a 24% stake in Mitsubishi Motors, making it the largest shareholder. Reuters also reports that it remains unclear whether the creation of the new holding company is intended to lead to a full-fledged alliance between the two companies, but they have indeed begun merger negotiations. As of December 2024, Honda has a market value of JPY 5.95 trillion (approximately USD 38.8 billion), while Nissan’s market value is JPY 1.17 trillion (approximately USD 7.6 billion). If the merger goes through, it would become the largest deal in the industry since the 2021 merger between Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot-Citroën.

In fact, since March of this year, the two automakers have strengthened their cooperation. They have agreed to explore strategic partnerships in electric vehicles (EVs) and other areas, as well as to explore various possibilities for future collaboration, with the aim of sharing more resources in the face of intense global competition. In August, they further deepened their ties, agreeing to collaborate on batteries, axles, and other technologies. Analysts at the time pointed out that their goal is to catch up with Chinese automakers, who have already taken the lead in the EV sector, while Japanese companies have lost their edge by focusing on hybrid vehicles. Honda and Nissan are the second and third-largest automakers in Japan, behind Toyota. However, their market share in key regions has been steadily declining, with stagnant demand in Europe and the United States adding to the pressures they face.

A Quick Note On Trade And Inequality – OpEd

Dean Baker

Source Link

Oren Cass, the head economist of Compass, had a column in the New York Times touting Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs. The gist of the piece is that “free trade” has not worked out as economists’ textbooks promised and we should look to take a different path.

As someone who was very critical of the major trade deals of the last three decades, I would say that they did work out very much as the economists’ textbooks promised. But they were also not “free trade” and imposing high tariffs will not help us going forward.

First, the economists’ textbooks did not promise that everyone would benefit from opening trade. They show that there would be a redistribution from some types of workers to other types of workers and/or capital. There is a famous article, co-authored by the first American Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson, that laid out this theoretical argument more than 80 years ago.

Economists pushing NAFTA, China’s entry into in the WTO, and other recent trade deals always waved off the logic of the Stolper-Samuelson model, or alternatively promised government policies to offset the distributional impact of trade openings. As a practical matter, the policies (mostly trade-adjustment assistance) were one or two orders of magnitude too small for the job.

Dealing with Trump, Israel, and Hamas: The path to peace in the Middle East

Hugh Lovatt & Muhammad Shehada

Source Link

A just diplomatic solution

More than one year after Hamas’s 7 October attacks against Israel, the war in Gaza continues unabated, deepening the strip’s humanitarian catastrophe. But while Israel has significantly weakened Hamas, killing many of its leaders and destroying a significant portion of its infrastructure, it has not accomplished its twin goals of destroying the group and freeing the Israeli hostages. With Hamas already regenerating its ranks and waging a protracted insurgency, Israel lacks a viable strategy to achieve its core objectives. Instead, it is preparing for a long stay – depopulating and destroying northern Gaza as a possible prelude to returning Israeli settlements. The incoming US administration of Donald Trump risks encouraging Israel to keep pursing these maximalist ambitions.

Unsurprisingly, the Gaza war is not playing out in isolation. It is feeding an intensifying conflict in the West Bank where Israel is also quickly expanding its settlements and Hamas is leveraging popular Palestinian anger at Israeli actions to consolidate its domestic position. A ceasefire deal between Hizbullah and Israel reached in November 2024 offers a diplomatic window for regional de-escalation. But any progress risks being derailed by continuing violence in Gaza.

Europe and the United States need to revolutionize their defense industrial bases—and how they cooperate

Rob Murray

Source Link

The impact of transatlantic defense industrial base relations has been affected by the entanglement of national security with economic stability, environmental sustainability, and rapid advancements in emerging technologies—putting NATO and its members on a back foot in the race to dominate the future battlespace in the face of mounting aggression from near-peer competitors.1 Put simply, allies need to harness and combine lethality, market power, and green power.

Navigating the complexities of twenty-first-century geopolitics requires a modern vision for transatlantic defense industrial base cooperation. This report articulates such a vision, outlining a set of policy recommendations for bold steps the United States and its allies should take. Recommendations include the establishment of a Global Resilience Bank for pioneering deep technology sectors,2 the creation of multilateral defense innovation districts, the conceptualization of a common defense digital currency, as well as establishing a transatlantic climate-neutral defense initiative. The goal of such ideas is to catalyze a redefined cooperative structure that adeptly navigates the realities of both the current and future geopolitical environments, thus helping to realign those strategic objectives of NATO allies and to reinforce collective security and prosperity through the defense industrial base.

As NATO and EU nations deliberate these challenges, they should consider the recommendations found in this report through the wider context of the Alliance’s Defense Production Action Plan, the European Defense Industrial Strategy (EDIS), and the growing realization that NATO’s industrial base now needs to be put on a war footing to genuinely support allied deterrence measures.3

A Gift From Cipher Brief Experts: Reasons for Hope in 2025

Source Link

In the last days of 2024, The Cipher Brief turned to our network of experts – who spend much of their time looking at the risks and threats facing the U.S. and the rest of world – and asked them a different question, more in line with the holiday season: What gives them hope?

While our focus – and theirs – is necessarily on war, cyberattacks, gray-zone tactics, the “Axis of Authoritarians,” and so forth, here we asked the experts to reflect on one specific question: What, if anything, on the national/global security landscape gives you reason for hope?

Their answers covered a range of issues and parts of the world – from the spirit of innovation to advances in AI to the Middle East (yes, “hope” and “Middle East” were joined in more than one answer). Some offered several paragraphs; others a single sentence; one respondent – the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – gave a two-word (and not so hopeful) answer.

Taken together, they have given us much to think about, as 2024 draws to a close and the new year beckons. We hope they add notes of hope to your holiday season as well.

AI Is a National Security Imperative

Monica Farrow

Source Link

Many people forget that the Department of Defense conceived the internet as a secure and dynamic communication tool. Still, it took the private sector to turn it into an economic powerhouse that has revolutionized commerce and political discussion and transformed how people connect, work, and share information globally. Many argue that artificial intelligence’s impact on our society and economy will be greater than that of the internet, both economically and in national security. This public-private partnership can unlock AI’s potential, allowing the nation to protect itself while enriching itself.

That’s why the Department of Defense, which has said that AI “will change society and, ultimately, the character of war,” wants to expand the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This venture will advance America’s defense and ensure the United States remains the world leader in technological modernization. However, while the Defense Department desperately seeks to develop and expand AI, the Department of Justice has declared war on it. It is taking legal actions that threaten to smother the industry, which is still in its infancy.

AI technology is already touching every facet of modern life. For national defense, AI has the potential to analyze vast amounts of intelligence in real-time, assist in decision-making, and help with battlefield strategy. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear matters recently noted that AI’s adoption will be a “considerable advancement in our ability to safeguard critical assets."

Killer Apps: 5 stories highlight quiet progress on military AI and CJADC2

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Source Link

This year saw major progress in the Pentagon’s years-long push to harness artificial intelligence — not for drones or “killer robots,” but for software tools that help staff officers bring some order to the chaos of modern conflict.

From the intelligence analysis algorithms of Project Maven, the seven-year-old granddaddy of military AI tools, to the data-sharing systems collectively known as CJADC2, 2024 has seen significant expansion in both capabilities and the number of people using them for real-world operations.

These unglamorous utilities matter, because the ultimate weapon is often not a weapon at all. Prussia united Germany in the 1800s in large part thanks to the superior organizational skills of its General Staff. The Nazi Panzers in 1940 didn’t outgun or outnumber their French opponents, but they had radios to coordinate mobile operations, while the French relied on landlines and signal flags. The Pentagon itself, today a byword for bureaucracy, was built in 16 months to house the massive administrative apparatus essential to running a global war.

OpenAI's Latest Model Shows AGI Is Inevitable. Now What?

Kevin Frazier, Alan Z. Rozenshtein & Peter N. Salib

Source Link

Last week, on the last of its “12 Days of OpenAI,” OpenAI unveiled the o3 model for further testing and, eventually, public release. In doing so, the company upended the narrative that leading labs had hit a plateau in AI development. o3 achieved what many thought impossible: scoring 87.5 percent on the ARC-AGI benchmark, which is designed to test genuine intelligence (human performance is benchmarked at 85 percent). To appreciate the magnitude of this leap, consider that it took four years for AI models to progress from zero percent in 2020 to five percent earlier in 2024. Then, in a matter of months, o3 shattered all previous limitations.

This isn't just another AI milestone to add to a growing list. The ARC-AGI benchmark was specifically designed to test what many consider the essence of general intelligence: the ability to recognize patterns in novel situations and adapt knowledge to unfamiliar challenges. Previous language models, despite their impressive capabilities, struggled on some tasks like solving certain math problems—including ones that humans find very easy. o3 fundamentally breaks this barrier, demonstrating an ability to synthesize new programs and approaches on the fly—a crucial stepping stone toward artificial general intelligence (AGI).

The implications are profound and urgent. We are witnessing not just incremental progress but a fundamental shift in AI capabilities. The question is no longer whether we will achieve AGI, but when—and more importantly, how we will manage its arrival. This reality demands an immediate recalibration of policy discussions. We can no longer afford to treat AGI as a speculative possibility that may or may not arrive at some undefined point in the future. The time has come to treat AGI as an inevitability and focus the Hill’s regulatory energy on ensuring its development benefits humanity as a whole.

AI Models Are Getting Smarter. New Tests Are Racing to Catch Up

Tharin Pillay

Source Link

Despite their expertise, AI developers don't always know what their most advanced systems are capable of—at least, not at first. To find out, systems are subjected to a range of tests—often called evaluations, or ‘evals’—designed to tease out their limits. But due to rapid progress in the field, today’s systems regularly achieve top scores on many popular tests, including SATs and the U.S. bar exam, making it harder to judge just how quickly they are improving.

A new set of much more challenging evals has emerged in response, created by companies, nonprofits, and governments. Yet even on the most advanced evals, AI systems are making astonishing progress. In November, the nonprofit research institute Epoch AI announced a set of exceptionally challenging math questions developed in collaboration with leading mathematicians, called FrontierMath, on which currently available models scored only 2%. Just one month later, OpenAI’s newly-announced o3 model achieved a score of 25.2%, which Epoch’s director, Jaime Sevilla, describes as “far better than our team expected so soon after release.”

Amid this rapid progress, these new evals could help the world understand just what advanced AI systems can do, and—with many experts worried that future systems may pose serious risks in domains like cybersecurity and bioterrorism—serve as early warning signs, should such threatening capabilities emerge in future.

The 2024 cyberwar playbook: Tricks used by nation-state actors

Shweta Sharma

Source Link

In 2024, nation-state cyber activity was off the charts, with Chinese, Russian, and Iranian actors leading the charge. Their campaigns weren’t just relentless — they were innovative, using a crafty mix of Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) to gain footholds, stay hidden, and spy-like pros.

“There was definitely a continued and noted uptick in nation-state activity in 2024,” said Chris Hughes, a cyber innovation fellow at the US government’s Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency (CISA). “Some of the largest activities in 2024 included from Chinese APTs, such as Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon.”

No single TTP was the main player on its own. Instead, they worked together (often mutually inclusive) like puzzle pieces, each playing a role in the bigger picture. One actor, for example, might deploy spear-phishing to gain entry, exploit zero days for privilege escalation, and use wiper malware to cover their tracks — all in the same campaign.

While these actors operated full-blown strategies with many moving parts, here are a few key TTPs that defined nation-state cyber warfare in 2024.

Navigating the Cyber Threat Landscape: Lessons Learned & What’s Ahead

Source Link

A look at the cyber threat landscape of 2024, including major breaches and trends. An expert weighs in on key lessons and what to expect in 2025.

The cybersecurity landscape in 2024 was marked by unprecedented challenges, significant breaches, and evolving regulatory requirements that fundamentally reshaped how organizations approach data protection.

From record-breaking incidents to stringent new legislation, the year provided crucial insights into cybersecurity. It highlighted critical priorities for strengthening organizational defenses in an increasingly complex digital ecosystem. The escalating sophistication of cyber threats and the expanding attack surface created by digital transformation initiatives posed unprecedented challenges for organizations across all sectors.

Record-breaking breaches define the year

2024 witnessed several devastating cybersecurity incidents that underscored the growing sophistication of threats:

• The year began with the ongoing effects of the MOVEit supply chain breach, which impacted over 2,600 organizations and exposed 77 million records. This incident highlighted the cascading effects of supply chain vulnerabilities in an interconnected digital world and sparked a renewed focus on third-party risk management across industries.

The cyber dimension of space systems – an analysis of offensive cyber operations targeting space infrastructure

Source Link

Cyber security and space security are merging due to increased digitalization of space infrastructure and operations. Non-kinetic counterspace capabilities such as cyber operations are an attractive alternative to kinetic weapons due to their ability to avoid hazardous debris and operate below the threshold of armed conflict. This continued intertwining of outer space and cyber space introduces a larger cyber dimension to space infrastructure. This report is a step towards building an understanding of what this development may entail by exploring how offensive cyber operations can be used to target space infrastructure. It serves as a starting point for understanding the implications of these developments for security and strategy.

The research question guiding the analysis is “how does the space-cyberspace nexus influence the risk of offensive cyberoperations targeting space infrastructure?” The question is answered by analyzing how a motivated actor can gain access to key components of the infrastructure and what effect such operations may create. The analysis begins with a description of the elements of space infrastructure before expanding on a conceptualization of offensive cyber operations derived from cyber conflict literature. Further, we analyze how offensive cyber operations may be used to target space infrastructure. Focus is on two of the three components in space infrastructure: the ground segment and the space segment. Finally, we present a summary of effects and a categorization of vulnerabilities, before concluding and pointing to recommendations.

AI and the Future of Workforce Training

Matthias Oschinski, Ali Crawford and Maggie Wu 

Source Link

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to substantially increase productivity for the U.S. economy, in turn bolstering economic growth and overall living standards. At the same time, it may have the capacity to transform the nature of work across various industries, thereby significantly reshaping employment patterns and job roles. Research suggests that knowledge workers, typically shielded from technological disruption, may be significantly impacted by AI.  

As a consequence, the rapid rise and integration of AI has sparked renewed discussions on workforce development, primarily driven by concerns over worker displacement. Moreover, it underscores the pressing need to cultivate a larger pool of skilled but economically resilient talent. In the context of these technological shifts, the United States also faces the challenges of low and declining labor force participation, a decentralized training system, and reduced federal support for training programs. Against this backdrop, a new era of workforce development is emerging with renewed focus on skills-based learning programs. Both workers and employers are starting to shift away from traditional workforce on-ramps and embracing avenues for re skilling and upskilling. Government agencies, employers, and educational institutions need to evaluate whether current workforce training and work-based learning programs are designed to maximize the country’s ability to reap the economic benefits of AI-driven productivity growth and ensure that these benefits are widely shared across the workforce. Achieving this requires a deep understanding of existing challenges, as well as identifying and scaling the key factors that drive successful workforce training.