Indian Strategic Studies: 01/08/25

8 January 2025

Bangladesh is becoming a security threat to India. Yunus govt is stoking anti-India politics

Gen MM Naravane (Retd)

Bangladesh and India share a long and complex history, defined by both cooperation and tensions. Over the years, the relationship has evolved, shaped by political, economic, social, and security factors. Both nations have made strides in cooperation, including trade, infrastructure, and water-sharing agreements. However, the student-led demonstrations and violence in Bangladesh leading to the ouster of the Sheikh Hasina-led government, with Hasina having to flee to India in August, is perhaps the most overwhelming of the events of the year gone by. It has changed the dynamics of our bilateral relations, with grave security implications for India that can be directly attributed to the change in regime in Bangladesh.

This regime change culminated over two years of ever-increasing protests against a government that had lost citizens’ confidence. The extent of the anti-Awami League sentiment can be gauged from the backlash against anything connected to the party and its founder, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. That a persona who was revered as the Father of the Nation, was vilified and his statues desecrated, was the venting of public anger against years of repression and corruption. By supporting the Hasina government, India by association, also suffered from the backlash and is a factor in the prevailing anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh. Hasina’s continued presence in India further fuels this outlook.

Anti-India Bangladesh

The current dispensation, under Muhammad Yunus as Chief Adviser and various ministers, is using the anti-India sentiment as a rallying point to cement their positions. This fundamentally changed outlook impacts various dimensions of our bilateral relations, including security concerns, economic cooperation, and regional stability. The political direction taken by a new government in Bangladesh would have significant diplomatic consequences for India. Historically, India has maintained good relations with Bangladesh under the leadership of Hasina, whose government has generally been cooperative with India on issues like border security, terrorism, and economic partnerships. However, the pendulum has now swung the other way, as it has in the past too.

Looking Back at India-Japan Security Ties in 2024: A Way Forward

Simran Walia

Significantly, in 2024 two major Asian democracies, Japan and India, celebrated the 10th anniversary of their Special Strategic and Global Partnership. This special relationship, forged under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, significantly increased strategic collaboration between India and Japan. In addition to their business relationship, India and Japan share a long history of Buddhism and a close people-to-people bond. Japan and India’s bilateral partnership is growing and demonstrating a variety of cooperative efforts. 2024 also saw the re-election of Modi as India’s prime minister for a third term and the election of Japan’s new Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru.

India and Japan have similar perspectives on economic growth, strategic objectives, and regional security. The two countries now work together on several fronts, including trade, investments, technology, security, and defense, as the relationship has developed into a strategic partnership in recent years. India and Japan are leading efforts to keep the Indo-Pacific region stable in the current geopolitical environment, which has made the region a focus of international attention.

Security ties between the two nations have been expanding, and 2024 saw several notable developments. The revised National Security Strategy Document (NSS) of Japan in 2022 showcased ambitions for cooperation with India to grow. Japan and India do not currently have any direct bilateral concerns, and have every incentive to continue strengthening their partnership given that China continues to be both nations’ primary and immediate security worry.

Dr S. Jaishankar, India’s external affairs minister, travelled to Japan in March 2024. Jaishankar and his then-counterpart, Kamikawa Yoko, reviewed the India-Japan special strategic and global relationship during the 16th India-Japan Strategic Dialogue. Strengthening the semiconductor supply chain and promoting India as a dependable location for chip manufacturing were two of Jaishankar’s top concerns during his trip to Japan. The two ministers pledged to actively promote collaboration in defense technologies and equipment, and they applauded the holding of coordinated security training exercises by all of their armed forces. Additionally, the two ministers decided to expand the chances for cooperation in space, the internet, and other developing fields.

How Satellite Internet Can Bridge India’s Digital Divide and Expand Its Strategic Heft

Rakshith Shetty, Ashwin Prasad

The benefits of satellite internet access would be far-reaching, with improved connectivity enhancing education and healthcare delivery

Recent events in India highlight the growing prevalence of satellite-based internet technologies. In the Northeast state of Manipur, Indian security forces recovered a Starlink dish and router with weapons during a raid. This is not an isolated occurrence; another Starlink device was recently found in a drug-bust off the Andaman coast. Authorities suspect that these devices were smuggled in from Myanmar, where Starlink is reportedly active despite lacking regulatory approval. It is likely being used to circumvent government-imposed internet restrictions there. These incidents highlight the potential as well as the penetration of space-based technologies like satellite internet.

Massive Potential

Satellite internet provides a global alternative to the traditional internet infrastructure. While traditional internet services rely on localised terrestrial infrastructure and are easier to monitor and disrupt, satellite internet provides coverage from space, reaching remote areas where difficult terrain or sparse populations make terrestrial networks impractical.

The demand for high-speed internet connectivity has surged worldwide, driven by increasing smartphone use and the growth of digital services. Streaming platforms, cloud services, and video conferencing have become essential tools in modern life. In areas with poor terrestrial coverage, users are willing to adopt satellite internet despite higher costs. As the technology matures and competition increases among providers, falling prices are expected to further accelerate adoption rates worldwide.

The global satellite internet market was valued between $5.33bn and $9.24bn in 2023. It is projected to reach $29.7-37.64bn by 2034. SpaceX's Starlink exemplifies this rapid growth, operating 6,800 low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites and serving over 4mn subscribers across more than 100 countries.

New Orleans attack proves the persistence of Isis ideology

Tom Rogan

Early on Wednesday morning Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old US citizen, drove a truck into revellers celebrating New Year’s Eve on New Orleans’s famed Bourbon Street. At least 15 people were killed and dozens more wounded. Law enforcement found an Isis flag in Jabbar’s vehicle, and President Joe Biden has stated that the perpetrator’s social media posts suggest he was inspired by the terrorist group. Jabbar, who was killed in a shootout with police, claimed on his now-removed LinkedIn account that he was formerly in the US military.

The New Orleans attack underlines the continuing appeal of Isis to certain malcontents within society. The Isis-K syndicate based out of Afghanistan remains the primary concern when considering directed attacks of the kind seen in Moscow last March. But terrorists who seek purpose in Isis ideology and then carry out attacks in its name remain overwhelmingly the main concern for Western security services. There are tentative indications that Jabbar may have operated as part of a broader cell, but his attack demonstrates the persistent influence of Isis, even though the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is long dead and his Syria-Iraq caliphate near entirely deconstructed.

Rooted in a warped interpretation of already hardline Sunni Salafist ideology, Isis makes al-Qaeda look moderate in comparison. The beheading, immolation and drowning videos of a decade ago — the highpoint of the group’s theatre of death — were not solely designed to cause fear. Instead, they were geared towards showing malcontents such as Jabbar that there is purity in the absolute and unashamed deconstruction of others. This idea is central to the Isis vein of Salafi-jihadist thought. How else do you persuade someone to drive a car into strangers?

The group’s ideological forebears have a fanatical view of how to bring about God’s will on Earth. In a basic sense, they believe that the urgency of delivering divine rule requires the matching of sacrifice to absolute brutality. Isis asserts that by inflicting pain on enemies — whether innocent Yazidi women, Jordanian fighter pilots, or concertgoers in Paris or Moscow — they can prove heroic submission to God’s will. It is notable that the oratory in musical overlays for Isis propaganda videos is far less rooted in narratives of humble (if murderously warped) service to God, and far more in sagas of angry defiance. The notion of “heroism”, however, is still important.

5 Factors That Catapulted Arakan Army to Unprecedented Success Against the Myanmar Military

Rajeev Bhattacharyya

A morning drill of a new batch of trainees at an Arakan Army camp in Myanmar’s Rakhine State.Credit: Special Arrangement

Of all the ethnic armed organizations operating in Myanmar, the Arakan Army has managed to bring under its control the largest expanse of territory in less than two decades since its formation. It has liberated as many as 13 townships from the military junta so far, covering a vast swathe in Arakan, a region that includes southern Chin State and Rakhine State, even as it seeks to wrest control over areas still under the control of the Myanmar military.

Formed in Kachin in 2009 by 26 functionaries, including Commander-in-Chief Twan Mrat Naing, with the assistance of the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), the Arakan Army (AA) started engaging in armed conflict with the military in northern Rakhine State in 2015. Fighting was intermittent for five years thereafter.

Then in November 2020, the AA entered into an informal ceasefire with the military. But hostilities resumed early in 2022. Another brittle ceasefire came into effect in November of that year. On November 13, 2023, the AA launched a full-scale offensive against the military which continues to date.

So, what underlies the AA’s achievements? In an interview with The Diplomat, Twan Mrat Naing said that in addition to learning from the failures of previous generations of Arakan fighters to liberate Arakan from Burmese rule, the AA’s leadership, its organizational capacity and alliances enabled it to build a robust movement led by AA and its political wing, the United League of Arakan (ULA).

Based on my observations and travel in the region, as well as discussions and interviews with AA and ULA functionaries, five factors seem to have contributed to the organization’s success against the military.

J-36: Assessing China’s New Generation Combat Aircraft

Rick Joe

The aircraft that made its debut flight above Chengdu on Dec. 26, 2024, in a photo widely circulated on Chinese social media.Credit: Weibo

On December 26 in the city of Chengdu, China, a new generation, stealthy combat aircraft made by Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) had its maiden flight. Images and videos emerged in near real time, showing the highly swept flying wing aircraft accompanied by a J-20S twin-seat chase plane. This aircraft generated significant furor on defense tracking internet and news sites, with questions surrounding its role, capability, maturity, and more.

For the community of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) watchers, this aircraft was not unexpected. I have published articles on Chinese next-generation fighter efforts over the last half decade. Indicators over the last year-and-a-half strongly suggested a new generation/sixth-generation air-to-air combat aircraft would emerge rather soon, and these hints accelerated over the past four months, with increasing details on the type of platform to expect.

The PLA watching community’s working designation of this new CAC aircraft is the “J-36,” in reference to its expected tasking as an air-to-air/air superiority platform, with “36” reflecting the visible serial number: 36011. I will refer to the aircraft as “J-36” as well, with the proviso that both its prefix and suffix are not yet definitive (I have previously used the term “J-XD” as a stand-in).

In this article, I will review the leadup to the J-36’s maiden flight, current knowns and unknowns, as well as prevailing debates and narratives surrounding it. I will also consider its role in the PLA Air Force, and key topics to consider in future.

I have no particular opinion on calling the J-36 a “sixth-generation” aircraft, and prefer to describe it as “new” or “next generation.” Furthermore, I will not discuss the new generation stealthy combat aircraft that Shenyang Aerospace Corporation (SAC) had flown earlier in December, except to acknowledge that the emergence of that aircraft was somewhat surprising.

Moscow–Pyongyang Partnership Could Derail Japan’s Indo-Pacific Strategy – Analysis

Ben Sando

In November 2024, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya stopped in Kyiv for a surprise meeting with his counterpart, Andrii Sybiha. Iwaya’s priority was to discuss the some 12,000 North Korean soldiers battling Ukrainian forces in the Kursk border region of Russia.

This burgeoning military alliance between Pyongyang and Moscow threatens to upset the security balance in Northeast Asia and may force Tokyo to scale back its engagement with maritime issues in East Asia.

For the past two decades, a new generation of political leadership in Tokyo has encouraged a pivot away from Japan’s insular, restrained defence posture towards greater engagement in defence multilateralism, led by the United States. Former prime minister Shinzo Abe signalled his resolve in 2014 by reinterpreting Japan’s pacifist constitution to allow greater leeway for the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to come to the aid of an ally under attack, an act Japan’s armed forces were previously unable to perform.

In 2016, Abe announced the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy, which was geared towards curbing China’s growing influence in maritime Asia. Japan helped revitalise the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad), and has participated in naval exercises with Quad members in waters as far-flung as the Indian Ocean. In tandem with this enhanced multilateral engagement, the SDF has shifted its focus south and has invested in the defence of its southernmost islands, the Nansei Shoto, against Chinese aggression. Japan’s expansive new foreign policy has cemented it into the United States’ vision for East Asian order and endeared Tokyo to capitals throughout the Indo-Pacific.

But Tokyo’s expansive regional vision has implicitly relied on a relatively predictable balance of power in Japan’s immediate vicinity, Northeast Asia. The principal impediment to peace in Northeast Asia — North Korea — has historically been deterred by the US nuclear umbrella and remained weak and impoverished due to decades of economic sanctions. While South Korea has been preoccupied with balancing North Korean military power, Japan has been able to prioritise issues beyond its main archipelago, such as China’s threats to maritime security in East and Southeast Asia. For Japanese defence planners, the North Korean threat is not as urgent as China’s expansionism.

Avoiding the McNamara Trap With China

Francis P. Sempa

Observers of U.S.-China relations frequently invoke the “Thucydides Trap” to explain China as the rising power challenging the United States as the world’s preeminent power. These observers hope that U.S. and Chinese diplomacy will avoid any kinetic consequences of the Thucydides Trap. But a recent Pentagon report provides evidence that China’s military build-up, especially its nuclear weapons build-up, threatens to repeat another historical “trap” for the United States — let’s call it the McNamara Trap.

The McNamara Trap — named for the Kennedy-Johnson administration’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — refers to the twin ideas that nuclear superiority is meaningless and strategic defenses only undermine “strategic stability.” The underlying rationale for those ideas was McNamara’s strategic doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which posited that the United States only required enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to survive a first-strike attack by (then) the Soviet Union in order to effect strategic stability and deter a Soviet attack. At the time McNamara implemented MAD — in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis — the United States enjoyed nuclear superiority vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was American nuclear (and conventional) superiority that likely enabled the crisis to end peacefully, though the secret trade of our missiles in Turkey for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba obviously contributed to the Soviet decision to remove the missiles.

McNamara, however, took the wrong lesson from the crisis in Cuba. As Patrick Glynn , “the missile crisis inspired … McNamara to begin a radical revision of U.S. nuclear strategy, designed to remove U.S. policy even farther from the traditional logic of military power and bring it even closer into line with the vision embodied in arms control theory.” The decision was made to surrender our nuclear superiority and forego building and deploying strategic defenses. Glynn described it as McNamara “arguing in favor of strengthening the Soviet strategic arsenal.” And it also involved, wrote Glynn, “a deliberate decision to permit, even encourage, an increase in U.S. vulnerability to a Soviet second strike, in the supposed interest of assuring mutual stability.”

What really happened in Wuhan

Matt Ridley

It is now five years since we woke to the news of a new outbreak of infectious pneumonia in China. Retelling the story of those early days of the Covid pandemic helps to shed light on how something that could have been prevented, contained and eradicated instead went on to kill more than 20million people and devastate the education, economics and mental health of many more.

At one minute to midnight, US East Coast time, on the last day of 2019, there was a brief ‘request for information’ on ProMED-mail, an online newsletter that monitors unofficial sources to gather intelligence about new disease outbreaks affecting people and animals. It read, simply: ‘Undiagnosed pneumonia: China (Hubei).’

Dr Marjorie Pollack, the deputy editor of ProMED-mail, had been alerted by a Taiwanese colleague to a message on WeChat, the Chinese social-media site, sent by an ophthalmologist in Wuhan named Dr Li Wenliang: ‘Seven cases of SARS have been diagnosed at the Huanan Fruit and Seafood Market, quarantined in our hospital’s emergency department.’

Li had learned of this from a colleague, Dr Ai Fen, the director of the emergency department of the Wuhan Central Hospital, who had sent samples from her latest pneumonia patient for testing. The results came back on the afternoon of 30 December: ‘SARS coronavirus’, a shocking diagnosis not seen in China for 15 years. Ai circled the word ‘SARS’, photographed it and copied it to a friend at a different hospital.

China flexes lithium dominance with plans for tech-export curbs

China is planning tougher scrutiny on exports of technology to make battery materials, as Beijing looks to protect its grip on a crucial supply chain amid rising global trade tensions.

The government has proposed adding various technologies- some used for lithium refining and battery chemicals production — to its list of items that are subject to export controls, according to a notice seeking public opinion from the Ministry of Commerce on Thursday.

The plan appears aimed at protecting innovations that China has developed during its rise to dominate global battery and electric-vehicle production. It comes against a backdrop of burgeoning competition with the US in everything from critical minerals to semiconductors.

“This shows the government is aware of the importance of keeping these advanced lithium technologies secret,” said Yu Yakun, analyst at Cofco Futures Co. “Overseas investments with such technologies will be under stricter scrutiny.”

116980332The proposed curbs target a selection of processes used to make battery-grade lithium chemicals, including direct lithium extraction, an emerging method in which China has considerable expertise. It also covers some specific types of chemical compounds used in making cathodes that are crucial to the performance of batteries.

The latest move is subject to public feedback and could change, but it left battery companies in China and the rest of Asia scrambling to understand the potential implications. There’s a focus on what the tighter scrutiny might mean for China’s growing overseas investments in the battery supply chain, especially in the case of joint ventures with foreign companies.

The restrictions “may not affect the projects which are currently operational or under construction” outside China but they might impact some future investments, said Peng Xu, an analyst at BloombergNEF.

The new export controls would cover technology for making certain types of lithium-iron-phosphate cathode, as well as lithium-iron-manganese-phosphate cathode and iron phosphates. Last year, China put the know-how for making rare earth metals under similar restrictions, which subject overseas shipments to a higher degree of scrutiny.

The measures are relatively narrow in scope, for example targeting only the more advanced types of the named products. Battery cathodes can differ widely in performance and cost, and China has spearheaded efficiency gains in the lithium-iron-phosphate, or LFP, units that are gaining popularity in the global EV industry.

US sanctions prominent Chinese cyber company for role in Flax Typhoon attacks

A Chinese cybersecurity company has been sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in facilitating attacks conducted by a state-sponsored hacking group known for targeting critical infrastructure.

Beijing-based Integrity Technology Group provided the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Ministry of State Security and several Chinese state-backed hacking groups with infrastructure that allows them to attack multiple victims based in the U.S., according to U.S. officials.

The Treasury Department said Integrity Technology provided Flax Typhoon actors with infrastructure between the summer of 2022 and fall of 2023 — with the state-backed groups sharing and receiving information from the company.

In September, the Department of Justice disrupted a botnet of more than 260,000 consumer devices infected and controlled by Integrity Technology. At the same time, the FBI and National Security Agency published an advisory about tactics used by Flax Typhoon and Integrity Technology.

“Integrity Tech is a large PRC government contractor with ties to the Ministry of State Security. It provides services to country and municipal State Security and Public Security Bureaus, as well as other PRC cybersecurity government contractors,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Friday.

“PRC-based hackers working for Integrity Tech, known to the private sector as ‘Flax Typhoon,’ were working at the direction of the PRC government, targeting critical infrastructure in the United States and overseas.”

The hackers have successfully targeted universities, government agencies, telecommunications providers and media organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere, Miller added.

The sanctions on Integrity Technology freeze all U.S. assets of the company and limit the amount of interaction financial institutions can have with it.

Why Pager Blasts In Lebanon Put The Global Electronics Supply Chain At Risk

John Gong

Last September, thousands of electronic devices such as pagers and walkie-talkies exploded across multiple locations in Lebanon and Syria, primarily targeting Hezbollah members in Lebanon. These incidents resulted in dozens of deaths and thousands of injuries. The United Nations, the European Union, and other entities issued statements condemning the attacks, urging all parties to exercise restraint and avoid escalating regional tensions.

Al Jazeera quoted a Hezbollah official as saying that the pagers “exploded just seconds after receiving a suspected message from Hezbollah leadership.” Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad reported that the incident caused over 4,000 injuries and more than a dozen deaths. The UN Secretary-General called on all governments to comply with Security Council Resolution 1701, emphasizing that civilian equipment must not be weaponized and urging effective controls. Jeanine Antoinette Hennis-Plasschaert, the U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon, warned on social media that any actions escalating the situation could risk catastrophic consequences. Josep Borrell, the E.U. High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned these attacks as jeopardizing Lebanon’s security and stability and increasing the risk of conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed solidarity with Lebanon, stating that France stands with the Lebanese people. Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the United States P.R.I.S.M. surveillance program, commented on social media that the operation was “indistinguishable from terrorism.”

Outside the Middle East, European media widely condemned Israel’s actions. Reuters reported that this incident has raised unprecedented doubts about the safety of U.S. electronic products. If the U.S. fails to prove their safety, it could lead to a significant decline in trust in American electronics. Reports indicate that diplomats from the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, and Italy convened in Paris on September 19 to discuss the escalating tensions in the Middle East. On September 20, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting regarding the incident. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan criticized Israel’s actions during a call with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, describing them as “extremely dangerous” for the escalation of regional conflicts and assured Turkey’s continued efforts to curb “Israeli aggression.”

Iran vs. Israel redux: The enormous difficulties and ramifications if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites

Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill

Israel's April 19 strike on the Eighth Shekari Air Base in Iran reportedly damaged a S-300 missile defense system (shown here during a test in 2017) deployed to protect the nearby nuclear sites.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in April, after an Iranian attack on Israel and Israel’s military response. We are republishing the piece because of its relevance to Iran’s massive missile attack this week against Israel and the near-certainty of some sort of Israeli retaliation.

On April 19, Israel carried out a strike deep inside Iranian territory, near the city of Isfahan. The attack was apparently in retaliation for a major Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel a few days earlier. This exchange between the two countries—which have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories—has raised fears of a potentially serious military escalation in the region.

Israel’s strike was carried out against an Iranian military site located in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. Although the attack did not target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, earlier reports suggested that Israel was considering such attacks. The Iranian leadership has, in turn, threatened to reconsider its nuclear policy and to advance its program should nuclear sites be attacked.

These events highlight the threat from regional escalation dynamics posed by Iran’s near-threshold nuclear capability, which grants Iran the perception of a certain degree of deterrence—at least against direct US retaliation—while also serving as an understandably tempting target for Israeli attack. As tensions between Israel and Iran have moved away from their traditional proxy nature and manifested as direct strikes against each other’s territories, the urgency of finding a timely and non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has increased.

What a second Trump administration may mean for the Saudi nuclear program

Nour Eid

Saudi Arabia's first nuclear research reactor (center) in King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in the outskirts of Riyadh is nearing completion but has yet to be started. In September 2024, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al-Saud announced the kingdom would sign the full Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Small Quantities Protocol—the most basic safeguards agreements the International Atomic Energy Agency has been asking for years. However, the kingdom continues to refuse to sign the Additional Protocol, which would allow the agency to conduct a more thorough oversight.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House could mean the end of the nonproliferation regime: As the Iranian-Israeli confrontation intensifies, and the threat of an Iranian nuclear breakout looms, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could see in a second Trump administration an opportunity to finally get the nuclear cooperation the Saudis have been yearning for.

Riyadh has been very clear on the kind of nuclear partnership it expects, and it is no secret that its favored option is cooperation with South Korea, similar under a 123 agreement (a nuclear cooperation document that establishes the legal basis and prerequisites for nuclear deals with the United States) allowing it to enrich uranium domestically. The problem, however, lies in the last bit of the sentence. The United States currently insists on an agreement that requires the Saudis forgo enrichment and reprocessing capabilities—two pathways to building a bomb. The reelection of Trump might be the Saudis’ chance to tip the balance in their favor.

Saudi Arabia’s nuclear rationale. Many reasons explain the kingdom’s desire to develop its nuclear know-how.

Top Risks 2025

EURASIA GROUP'S TOP RISKS FOR 2025

Top Risks is Eurasia Group's annual forecast of the political risks that are most likely to play out over the course of the year. This year's report was published on 6 January 2025.

Download Full Report

OverviewWe are heading back to the law of the jungle. A world where the strongest do what they can, while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former—whether states, companies, or individuals—can't be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over.

It's not a sustainable trajectory.

Risk 1: The G-Zero wins

We’re entering a uniquely dangerous period of world history on par with the 1930s and the early Cold War.

Risk 2: Rule of Don

The erosion of independent checks on executive power and the rule of law will increase the extent to which the US policy landscape depends on the decisions of one powerful man.

Risk 3: US-China breakdown

Trump's return to office will unleash an unmanaged decoupling in the world’s most important geopolitical relationship.

The Man Who Predicted Today’s World Over a Century Ago

Hal Brands, Columnist

British geographer and diplomat Halford Mackinder foresaw the epic Eurasian conflicts that would ravage the 20th century — and that will challenge the democratic world in the 21st.

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” John Maynard Keynes once wrote. “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

Keynes was making the point that ideas drive policy, even when policymakers hardly realize it. That’s a good way to understand the life and legacy of Sir Halford Mackinder, the most important strategist you’ve probably never heard of.

Today, Mackinder has faded into obscurity. A British geographer and politician who lived from 1861 to 1947, he is remembered — not always fondly — by academics who study international relations. He has been forgotten by nearly everyone else.

Trump Is on a Collision Course With the US Budget

JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

No matter how committed Donald Trump and his oligarch cronies are to a tax cut, the laws of arithmetic cannot be repealed. If only a handful of Republican lawmakers keep their promise not to increase the US budget deficit, there is no way that the incoming administration can enact its economic agenda and keep the government running.

NEW YORK – There has been endless speculation about the chaos that may (or may not) await America and the world following US President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. No one knows how much of Trump’s stated agenda is “for real,” and how much of it is political posturing for his base, a show of power for his enemies, or part of a negotiating strategy vis-à-vis Congress and various foreign friends and adversaries. But for all his bluster and devotees who want to create alternative realities, Trump cannot repeal the laws of arithmetic, as much as he may try in the weeks ahead, when the government hits the federal debt limit.

Europe Needs Shared Defense Capabilities

LARS FRØLUND and FIONA MURRAY

COPENHAGEN/BOSTON – Following Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, Europe has recognized the need to strengthen its security and bolster its economic resilience. European defense industry leaders have called for more investment in the sector, and defense ministries are spending more on science and technology to ensure their countries’ readiness for the wars of today and tomorrow.

But it is not enough for each country to act alone. The European Union and the United Kingdom must approach technological innovation with the goal of building shared defense capabilities. Recent moves in this direction are promising: the German defense company Rheinmetall announced that it would open a new factory in the UK in 2027, as part of a landmark defense agreement between the two countries. The UK’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo, and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are collaborating to develop a next-generation fighter aircraft. Germany’s Helsing, which specializes in AI-based defense software, is working closely with Swedish defense giant Saab and plans to expanded its presence in the UK.

Focusing on collective, rather than national, interests would enable large economies of scale. Each country could build on its comparative advantages – both in technological innovation and military capabilities – and thus strengthen European resilience for decades to come. This would also ensure that Europe serves as a strong partner to the US, contributing its unique defense expertise and industrial base.

Advanced European technological capabilities also form the foundation of economic prosperity, as reflected in Mario Draghi’s recent report on the future of European competitiveness and the European Commission’s policy agenda. But national policies continue to focus on technological sovereignty, with the goal of strengthening and protecting domestic industry, at the expense of sharing resources and information with allies.

Shaping the Narrative: America’s Struggle for Strategic Coherence

Ian Whitfield

Throughout history, information has been integral in shaping the outcomes of competition and conflict. From Alexander the Great's calculated propaganda campaigns to the Phoenix Program in the Vietnam War, these examples underscore the timeless power of information as a tool of strategy. Such operations are designed to exploit the “fog", the uncertainty and confusion that clouds decision-making, and " friction", the unpredictable and disruptive elements that impede even the best-laid plans, inherent in competition and conflict.

The United States has wielded information throughout history to achieve strategic objectives. During World War II, the Office of War Information (OWI) played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and controlling the flow of information. Utilizing radio broadcasts, films, posters, and print media, OWI rallied domestic support and crafted and managed narratives that emphasized the United States’ role in defending democratic values and highlighted the moral struggle against fascism. By coordinating informational activities across government agencies, OWI ensured a consistent and accurate flow of information on the Homefront, avoiding war fatigue and turning the U.S. into the Arsenal of Democracy. During the Cold War, the United States Information Agency (USIA) expanded the scope of information operations overseas. Through academic exchanges, international broadcasting, English language programs, and curated policy messaging, USIA sought to break through the informational iron curtain authoritarianism used to insulate itself from democratic values. In both cases, these agencies demonstrated the power of strategic communication campaigns, contextually relevant messages tailored to their target audiences, which aligned with the national interest at the time, and the spread of democratic values.

These historical examples of using information to shape perceptions highlight an area the United States is severely lacking: strategic communications. This is the deliberate curation (the action of collecting and presenting information in a truthful manner like white propaganda, versus the creation of manipulated or false narratives, like black propaganda) of actions, messages, signals, and engagements to harmonize the disparate efforts of government by utilizing all levers of national power to inform, influence, or persuade target audiences in support of the nation’s strategy. Unlike ad hoc or isolated information campaigns, strategic communications require a unified voice that integrates policy objectives with targeted messaging to ensure consistency and credibility.

2025 Will Be a Pivotal Year for Ukraine and Russia | Opinion

Daniel R. DePetris

Outside of a Ukrainian offensive in Russia's Kursk region that began over the summer, surprised the Kremlin, and forced the Russian army's high-command to scramble a defense inside its own territory, Moscow now holds the advantage in the nearly three-year long war. Russian troops continue to maul Ukrainian defensive positions in Donetsk, with the critical transportation hub of Pokrovsk increasingly under threat of encirclement. The Kursk operation, which the Ukrainian government hoped would re-allocate Russian forces away from the east, has instead devolved into another attritional grind, with Ukrainians at the front increasingly questioning whether the offensive was a smart play.

Support for a full Ukrainian military victory, meanwhile, is getting more precarious in Europe with every passing day. According to a poll released in late December, backing for a negotiated end to the war has risen in Sweden, Denmark, the U.K., Germany, Spain, France, and Italy over the last 12 months. All of this, combined with Donald Trump's return to the White House on Jan. 20, is having an impact on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's calculations. The same man who once insisted that nothing short of total victory over Russia was acceptable is now talking about forging a settlement that would allow Moscow to retain the roughly 20 percent of Ukraine it now occupies, albeit temporarily.

Just because Ukraine is struggling doesn't mean Russia is close to victory. Despite what Russian President Vladimir Putin may tell the Russian public during his monotonous press conferences and New Years Day speeches, everything isn't going well in the motherland.

There's no disputing that militarily, the Russians are on the upswing. Russia captured approximately 1,500 miles of territory in 2024, seven times more than 2023, the year when Putin had to fight back an internal rebellion from Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner mercenary group as well as a Western-backed Ukrainian counteroffensive. But gains on the ground have come at an extremely high cost. While assessing casualties during wartime is more art than science, it's safe to say that hundreds of thousands of Russians have been lost to death or injury since the war began in February 2022. In October, the U.S. intelligence community stated that Russia sustained at least 600,000 casualties; Kyiv says the Russians have lost more than 430,000 over the last 12 months alone.

Donald Trump Must Avoid Getting Sucked Into the Ukraine War

Doug Bandow

Donald Trump will soon be president. Washington policymakers are understandably skeptical that he will be able to fulfill his promise to end the Russo-Ukraine war in a day. Critics charge that he plans to simply pressure Kyiv to yield.

However, his hawkish advisers suggest otherwise. For instance, Keith Kellogg, chosen by Trump to special Ukraine war envoy, earlier described his plan for peace: “We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up’.” Then “you tell Putin, ‘He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field’.” Possible terms included a halt in the fighting, Russian control over territory that it occupied, NATO membership for Kyiv placed on hold for a decade or two, and security guarantees offered to Ukraine, backed by Western peacekeepers.

What Can Donald Trump Accomplish?

This is an awful approach that would likely fail while sacrificing fundamental American interests.

Washington would end up even more entangled in a conflict not its own. Kyiv would risk its army’s collapse while relying on another round of unenforceable allied promises of support. Moscow would feel continuing pressure to escalate for advantage. It also would deepen its reliance on China and increase its assault on US interests in the Middle East and Korea. The best result might be a European frozen conflict and global cold war persisting for years or even decades.

The Trump administration’s policy toward Ukraine should be directed at advancing American, not Ukrainian interests. For obvious and understandable reasons, Kyiv cares only about its own survival. In the conflict’s first year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to lie the US into the war, blaming Russia for an errant Ukrainian missile that struck Poland. Zelensky recently turned his personal charm and PR machine onto the president-elect, attempting to persuade Trump that Washington should embrace Ukraine’s interests as America’s own.

Ukraine Launches New Attack in Kursk Region of Western Russia

Marc Santora

Ukrainian forces have gone on the offensive in the Kursk region of Russia, Ukrainian and Russian officials said Sunday, in what appeared to be an effort to regain the initiative there as they struggle to thwart relentless Russian assaults across eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine took about 500 square miles last summer in the Kursk region in a surprise incursion, but Russia clawed back about half of the territory in the months that followed.

On Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry said Ukrainian forces had launched a large new assault featuring tanks, mine-clearing equipment and at least a dozen armored vehicles. The ministry claimed to have thwarted the attack.

Ukrainian soldiers fighting in the area who were reached by phone declined to discuss continuing operations beyond saying that Ukraine was on the offensive in parts of the Kursk region and that fierce fighting was raging there. The Ukrainian military high command said on Sunday night that there were 42 “combat engagements” in the region over the past 24 hours and that 12 were still happening.

It was not possible to verify the claims by either side independently, and the scope of the Ukrainian assaults remained unclear.

Ukrainian and Western military analysts said that the attacks could be a deliberate attempt at misdirection, trying to force Russian troops to shore up defenses there in the hopes of weakening them on the front line in Ukrainian territory.

Drones, Exploding Parcels and Sabotage: How Hybrid Tactics Target the West

Lara Jakes

When mysterious drones began appearing over oil rigs and wind farms off Norway’s coast about three years ago, officials were not certain where they came from.

But “we knew what they were doing,” Stale Ulriksen, a researcher at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, said in a recent interview. “Some of it was espionage, where they are charting a lot of things. Some of it, I think, was positioning in case of a war or a deep crisis.”

The drones were suspected of being launched from Russian-controlled ships in the North Sea, Mr. Ulriksen said, including some ships that were near underwater energy pipelines. Norway could not do much to stop them, he added, given that they were flying over international waters.

In recent weeks, reports of drone swarms over the United States’ East Coast have brought fears of hybrid warfare to widespread attention. Only 100 out of 5,000 drone sightings there required further examination, U.S. officials said, and so far none are believed to have been foreign surveillance drones. But it is a different story for the drones spotted in late November and early December over military bases in England and Germany where American forces are stationed.

Military analysts have concluded those drones may have been on a state-sponsored surveillance mission, according to one U.S. official familiar with the incidents, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an open investigation. British and German defense officials declined to discuss details of the sightings.

CMMC 2.0 and the possibility of a cyber service: 2025 preview

Carley Welch

Staff Sgt. Wendell Myler, a cyber warfare operations journeyman assigned to the 175th Cyberspace Operations Group of the Maryland Air National Guard monitors live cyber attacks on the operations floor of the 27th Cyberspace Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by J.M. Eddins Jr.)

WASHINGTON — Over the past year, the Department of Defense has set the stage for how it wants to strengthen cybersecurity and information technology infrastructure against adversarial threats, namely the People’s Republic of China.

But with another Donald Trump presidency on the horizon, all eyes are on him to see if he keeps the existing programs afloat or scales them back. Simultaneously, some cybersecurity experts and lawmakers have predicted that the president-elect will stand up a new cyber service.

These are some of the programs and shifts to look out for in the next year.

[This article is one of many in a series in which Breaking Defense reporters look back on the most significant (and entertaining) news stories of 2024 and look forward to what 2025 may hold.]

This year the Pentagon released its final rule for the long-awaited Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0, which sets new standards for contractors who handle controlled unclassified information (CUI). The 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) final rule, which lays the framework for CMMC 2.0, went into effect on Dec. 16, but the DoD won’t actually begin implementing the CMMC 2.0 requirement for contractors until the 48 CFR final rule is released — likely in the spring of 2025.

AI goes nuclear

Dawn Stover

Big tech is turning to old reactors (and planning new ones) to power the energy-hungry data centers that artificial intelligence systems need. The downsides of nuclear power—including the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation—have been minimized or simply ignored.

When Microsoft bought a 407-acre pumpkin farm in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, it wasn’t to grow Halloween jack-o’-lanterns. Microsoft is growing data centers—networked computer servers that store, retrieve, and process information. And those data centers have a growing appetite for electricity.

Microsoft paid a whopping $76 million for the pumpkin farm, which was assessed at a value of about $600,000. The company, which has since bought other nearby properties to expand its footprint to two square miles, says it will spend $3.3 billion to build its 2-million-square-foot Wisconsin data center and equip it with the specialized computer processors used for artificial intelligence (AI).

Microsoft and OpenAI, maker of the ChatGPT bot, have talked about building a linked network of five data centers—the Wisconsin facility plus four others in California, Texas, Virginia, and Brazil. Together they would constitute a massive supercomputer, dubbed Stargate, that could ultimately cost more than $100 billion and require five gigawatts of electricity, or the equivalent of the output of five average-size nuclear power plants.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)