It’s Time for a U.S.-India Trade Deal

Kenneth I. Juster and Mark Linscott

Source Link

Ignore the conventional wisdom in Washington and New Delhi that the U.S.-India trade relationship is likely to deteriorate during U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term: The two countries in fact have a huge opportunity to expand trade and a realistic path forward for doing so.

Though U.S.-India economic ties have grown steadily in the 21st century, this cooperation has underperformed relative to the extraordinary advances in virtually every other aspect of the bilateral relationship. Over the years, the United States has accumulated a growing trade deficit in goods and services with India, reaching more than $45 billion in 2022. India’s high barriers to trade led Trump to label the country the “king” of tariffs. Indeed, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used high tariffs to protect domestic industries, attract foreign investment, and promote his “Make in India” policy.

Why India and Maldives Are Reticent Over Alleged RAW Plot

Ahmed Naish

Source Link

A recent Washington Post report alleged an India-backed plot to impeach Maldives President Dr Mohamed Muizzu. However, the Muizzu government’s response to the bombshell exposé has been rather reticent.

According to the Post report, which was published on December 30, in early 2024, Indian intelligence agents plotted with leaders of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to impeach newly-elected President Muizzu. The report cited internal documents, surveillance records, and interviews with key Indian and Maldivian sources.

After secret talks with agents working for India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), MDP politicians sought $6 million from India to bribe 40 parliamentarians as well as 10 senior army and police officers and three powerful criminal gangs, according to a RAW document titled “Democratic Renewal Initiative.”

The Indian government ultimately “did not pursue or finance an attempt to oust [Muizzu].” But the aborted plot offered “a rare view into the much broader, often shadowy struggle between India and China for influence over a strategic swath of Asia and its surrounding waters,” the Post observed.

India’s New Space-Based Spy Network

Usman Haider

Source Link

Modern warfare requires enhanced space-based sensors capable of monitoring events happening on Earth in real time. To this end, India has recently commenced phase three of its Space-Based Surveillance (SBS) program. Under this initiative, it will place 52 surveillance and communication satellites into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geo-stationary Orbit (GEO). The ambitious project is part of New Delhi’s strategy to reduce reliance on foreign countries (like the United States and Israel) and to build an indigenous constellation of space-based sensors. Once functional, the SBS-III will significantly augment India’s space-based surveillance capability.

The SBS-I was formally initiated in 2001 with the launch of four satellites belonging to the Cartosat and Risat series. These satellites aimed at monitoring adversary forces’ maneuvers along the borders as well as important military facilities, including supply depots, airbases, and cantonments. The one meter resolution imagery produced by the satellites was accurate enough to provide important information during the India-Pakistan military standoff in 2001-02. Following the success of the SBS-I, India went ahead with its successor, the SBS-II, in 2013, consisting of six surveillance satellites, including Cartosat-2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, Microsat 1, and Risat 2A.

For the latest version, the SBS-III, India has earmarked $3.2 billion to build new-generation satellites over the next decade. India’s state-owned space agency will manufacture the initial package of 21 satellites, while the private sector is being invited to build the remaining 31. The new sensors will incorporate artificial intelligence (AI), enabling them to interact with each other. India is also expected to launch quantum satellites in the next two to three years. Under the SBS-III package, India may collaborate with France to manufacture next-generation spy satellites. In addition to the space sensors, the requisite support infrastructure on the ground will also be expanded.

Myanmar’s Escalating Crisis: A Year in Review and the Road Ahead

Ye Myo Hein

Source Link

Myanmar's post-coup conflict has now stretched into its fourth year, with no resolution in sight. Far from subsiding, the conflict has escalated dramatically. Last year was particularly devastating for the Myanmar military, marking its worst losses in history. The fall of key military strongholds in Lashio and Ann stands as the most significant events but is only part of a broader pattern of losses; 91 towns and 167 military battalions have been lost, signaling a crisis of unprecedented scale for the regime.

2024: Escalating Conflict and Chinese Intervention

Having gained steady momentum over the past two years, the resistance reached a turning point in 2024, posing an existential threat to the regime. Alarmed by this shift, China intervened more actively to prevent the junta’s collapse and contain the conflict.

Operation 1027, launched by ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) on China’s border in late 2023, peaked in 2024, transforming the conflict’s trajectory. Its impact is evident in four key areas:

1. Nationwide Escalation: Although Operation 1027 originated in northern Shan State, it triggered major offensives in Sagaing, Rakhine, Kachin, Chin and Rakhine regions, creating simultaneous fronts that overwhelmed the Myanmar military’s capacity to respond effectively. This widespread escalation fractured the military’s command and logistical networks, highlighting its inability to maintain control over its borders. The military’s severely weakened position gave resistance forces a significant morale boost and increased their confidence in their capacity not only to wage conventional warfare against the military, but also to seize towns and cities.

How Trump Could Reshape the Middle East

Raja Khalidi

Source Link

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump, now U.S. president-elect, promised that “the Middle East is going to get solved” but offered few details on how he might achieve such an outcome. When he returns to the White House, his “America first” agenda will be challenged by the United States’ involvement in Israel’s war in Gaza and the unimaginable humanitarian crisis there that has yet to be relieved. The Middle East that Trump will inherit from the Biden administration has undergone tectonic shifts. Over the past year, Iran and Israel have directly attacked each other’s territory, Israel has

Ending War Is Hard to Do

Gideon Rose

Source Link

Ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are at the top of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda, and many expect the new administration to change American policy in both. It may well try to. But unless Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu play along, Trump could easily find himself shifting back toward the Biden administration’s approach in both theaters—because U.S. interests and geopolitical realities don’t change with the election returns.

Popular discussion often approaches war through the prisms of morality or law or justice. Beneath all of these, however, lie interest and power. Every war begins with differing views on the belligerents’ relative power, as each side thinks itself strong enough to achieve important goals by fighting. As the battlefield tests their relative strength, the situation becomes clearer and views converge. When both sides agree on their relative power, having marked their ambitions to market, the war’s endgame begins.

In both Ukraine and Gaza, many things have become clearer over time: how much military and economic potential the belligerent coalitions have, how easily that potential can be transformed into usable power, how likely that power is to be deployed in the field, and what it can and can’t accomplish there. This new clarity could help produce settlements of both wars in the coming year, based on realistic assessments of which objectives each side cares most about and can afford. Whether the settlements last, however—whether they produce peace rather than merely a pause in fighting—will depend on the details.

Trump tells Putin to end 'ridiculous war' in Ukraine or face new sanctions

Sarah Rainsford

Source Link

Donald Trump has warned he will impose high tariffs and further sanctions on Russia if Vladimir Putin fails to end the war in Ukraine.

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, he said that by pushing to settle the war he was doing Russia and its president a "very big favour".

Trump had previously said he would negotiate a settlement to Russia's full-scale invasion launched in February 2022, in a single day.

Responding to the threat of harsher sanctions, the Kremlin said it remains "ready for an equal dialogue, a mutually respectful dialogue".

"We're waiting for signals that are yet to arrive," said President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.

He added that Russia sees nothing new in Donald Trump's threats to impose sanctions.

"He likes these methods, at least he liked them during his first presidency."

Unconstrained Actors: Assessing Global Cyber Threats to the Homeland

RADM (Ret.) Mark Montgomery

Source LInk

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today.

Every president since the tragic attacks of 9/11 has stated that “defense of the homeland” is the nation’s number one national security mission. In his first term as president, Donald Trump approved a National Security Strategy that stated his first responsibility was “to protect the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life.”1 As he takes office again eight years later, the homeland has never been less secure, and America’s greatest vulnerability is not a physical attack from non-state actors and terrorists, although that risk still exists. Rather, the greatest vulnerability is the threat of cyberattacks and long-range missile strikes by China and Russia — risks that undermine historical assumptions that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans will protect America from foreign aggression.

I am confident the Armed Services Committee is looking hard into the missile defense issues, but House oversight of the protection of our national critical infrastructure from cyberattack starts here in the Committee on Homeland Security

The Opposite of War is Not Peace

Thomas Frey

Source Link

Introduction: Revisiting the Nature of War in 2024

In 2008, I explored the shifting nature of war and peace, predicting that battles would one day extend beyond borders and physical battlefields. At the time, the conversation centered on traditional conflicts, but the seeds of a new kind of warfare were already being sown. Fast forward to 2024, and the world has changed dramatically. Wars in Ukraine, Syria, and Gaza have shown us that while battles still rage with boots on the ground, their nature has evolved. Emerging technologies have given rise to non-traditional conflicts—cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and proxy wars—where the lines between combatants, civilians, and nations blur.

Today, war is no longer just about territorial conquest or armies clashing in open fields. It is about shaping perceptions, crippling infrastructure, and fighting battles that most people cannot see. At the same time, peace remains as elusive as ever. When the gunfire stops, hostilities rarely end. The scars of war—emotional, social, and economic—persist long after treaties are signed, creating a fragile world that feels closer to “not-war” than true peace.

The reality we face is unsettling: ”The opposite of war is not peace—it’s a new, unfamiliar ‘not-war,’ a place where tensions brew, and battles look nothing like we imagined.” To understand the wars of today, we must first confront the complex realities of modern conflicts, where technology, propaganda, and invisible battlefields have replaced the wars of the past.

It’s time to build America's cyber-nuke. We desperately need a deterrent to stop wars before they start

Aaron Ginn

Source Link

American nuclear weapons, specifically the atomic bomb, brought World War II to a close. They then averted a hot war with the Soviet Union and bolstered decades of global stability. The decisive superweapons of the next great conflict will be digital and run on supercomputers (specifically specialized chips called "GPUs"), with the power to break codes, paralyze our enemies’ economies, and destroy their weapons from the inside. Just as America’s military needs the world’s best planes and ships, America’s military needs a state-of-the-art supercomputer to deter future conflicts before they begin. Our adversaries must understand that attacking the United States or our allies in Taiwan will place them in the crosshairs of the world’s most formidable cyberweapon and not prevent us from producing one.

A strategic supercomputer saves lives and ends wars by powering futuristic technologies at scales and speeds never before possible. This means our military leaders can simulate battles before they happen to identify weaknesses and opportunities. Our frontline troops will enjoy a crushing informational advantage owed to systems sifting through data from thousands of satellites, drones, and sensors around the globe. Pro-Trump, Pro-America companies like Anduril and Palantir have already achieved multi-billion dollar valuations building AI-powered systems and software ranging from autonomous fighter aircraft to kamikaze drone swarms.

The Observer view on the Gaza ceasefire: it’s time for both sides to think again

Observer editorial

Source Link

The ceasefire in Gaza, due to begin tomorrow, will bring welcome relief from daily violence but amounts, at present, to little more than a fragile, temporary pause in a conflict that is far from over. Israel has not achieved its principal war aim, as defined by its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu: the total elimination of Hamas. Nor has Hamas achieved its objective: the destruction of Israel. The leaders responsible for the 7 October 2023 terrorist atrocities are dead. The organisation’s capabilities are severely reduced. But it has survived – which its supporters claim is a victory for Palestinian sumud (steadfastness).

Most of the 98 remaining Israeli hostages, alive and dead, will not be freed in this first phase of the ceasefire, which is to last for six weeks. There is no agreed “day after” strategy for devastated Gaza, where nearly 47,000 Palestinians have died and where the hungry and mostly homeless residents exist in a state of near-anarchy, plagued by criminal gangs. And there is nothing in sight that remotely resembles what the Americans call a “pathway to peace” – a long-term plan to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict on the basis of two independent, sovereign states.

The success of Qatari, Egyptian and US negotiators in achieving this vital first step should not be underestimated. But neither should the huge difficulties that remain. Netanyahu is at the centre of a political storm largely of his own making. Deeply unpopular with at least half of the electorate, accused of neglect in failing to prevent the 7 October attacks, and on trial on corruption charges, he has used the war to stay in power and out of jail. His cynical coalition deals with extremist far-right nationalist and religious party leaders now threaten to sink him.

Tech giants are putting $500bn into 'Stargate' to build up AI in US

João da Silva, Natalie Sherman & Imran Rahman-Jones

Source Link

The creator of ChatGPT, OpenAI, is teaming up with another US tech giant, a Japanese investment firm and an Emirati sovereign wealth fund to build $500bn (£405bn) of artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in the United States.

The new company, called The Stargate Project, was announced at the White House by President Donald Trump who billed it "the largest AI infrastructure project by far in history" and said it would help keep "the future of technology" in the US.

But Elon Musk - both a top adviser to Trump and rival to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman - on Wednesday said the venture does not "actually have the money" it has pledged to invest.

Investment in AI is currently exploding, driving demand for new data centres while also raising concerns about the huge amounts of water and power the facilities require.

The venture is a partnership between OpenAI, Oracle, Japan's Softbank - led by Masayoshi Son - and MGX, a tech investment arm of the United Arab Emirates government.

The companies said the new venture, which was in the works before Trump took office, had $100bn in funding available immediately, with the rest to come over four years, creating an estimated 100,000 jobs.

Israel's military chief resigns over 7 October 2023 failures

David Gritten

Source Link

Israel's military chief has resigned, saying he recognised his responsibility for its failure on 7 October 2023, when the Palestinian armed group Hamas carried out a deadly attack on the country that triggered the Gaza war.

In a letter to the defence minister, Lt Gen Herzi Halevi admitted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had "failed in its mission to protect the citizens of Israel".

"My responsibility for the terrible failure accompanies me every day, every hour, and will be so for the rest of my life," he added.

The general said he would leave his role on 6 March at a time of "significant achievements" for the IDF, although he acknowledged that "not all" of Israel's war goals had been achieved.

"The military will continue to fight to further dismantle Hamas and its governing capabilities, ensure the return of the hostages" and enable Israelis displaced by attacks by armed groups to return home, he added.

Shortly afterwards, the chief of the IDF's Southern Command, Maj Gen Yaron Finkelman, also announced he was also stepping down, saying he had had failed in his "duty to protect the Western Negev and its beloved, heroic residents".

What Leaving the WHO Means for the U.S. and the World

Alice Park

Source Link

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO)—a move that experts say makes the U.S. and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public-health threats.

“For Americans it may not be obvious immediately what the impact will be, but given the world we live in and all of the factors that are driving more disease outbreaks, America cannot fight them alone,” says Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the school of public health at Brown University and former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator. “We need an effective WHO to not just keep the world safe from these diseases, but to keep Americans safe from these diseases.”

"The bottom line is that withdrawing from the WHO makes Americans and the world less safe," says Dr. Tom Frieden, president and CEO of the nonprofit health organization Resolve to Save Lives and former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

America’s Awkward Energy Insecurity Problem - Analysis

Keith Johnson

Source Link

For the United States—a country that, especially under incoming President-elect Donald Trump, aspires to be not only energy secure but energy dominant—one energy insecurity problem remains, which could dog the development of a key source of new power.

Some five months after the United States swore off imports of Russian enriched uranium, a key source of fuel for the nuclear reactors that provide almost 20 percent of the country's electricity, U.S. reliance on imports, including from Russia, remains an issue. At stake is less the fuel supply for the current fleet of nuclear reactors than the fuel for the coming generation of advanced nuclear plants that are meant to provide all the extra power needed to run data centers and power artificial intelligence; Russia has a complete monopoly on the commercial production of that richer blend of fuel. (Tech companies are so eager to line up new sources of power that Microsoft is re-commissioning part of the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania and will buy all of its output.)

Crimson Moon Rising

Maurice "Duc" DuClos

Source Link

Part 1 of 4: The Ambush

Diesel fumes hung thick in the night air as Kai crouched in the shadows of a rusting shipping container. His fingers traced the crimson scarf at his throat - a splash of defiant color in the darkness, a symbol that had come to haunt the occupation's nightmares. Beyond the dim glow of flickering streetlights, the convoy rumbled forward - three armored vehicles bristling with machine guns. To the untrained eye, it was an impenetrable fortress on wheels.

To Kai, it was an opportunity.

The convoy inched through a section of the city still bearing the scars of the initial invasion—collapsed buildings and rubble-strewn streets testify to the occupation's brutal arrival. But the area remained vital, its network of access roads feeding the industrial zone, where factories still churned out goods under enemy control. The invaders needed the city's manufacturing capacity intact—they hadn't come to rule over ruins.

From his position on the street's eastern side, Kai could see Liang's shadow waiting in a doorway across the way, while Mei's voice came from somewhere above - the abandoned telecom tower that gave her clear sight lines to both positions. The Crimson Moon could not allow this convoy to pass unchallenged. Rain-slick metal pressed cold against his back as he adjusted his position, the scarf's bold insignia hidden for now but ready to be revealed - let them see who struck this blow.. The weight of his trapo - a crude but effective impact weapon favored by the resistance for its simplicity - rested reassuringly in his jacket pocket. Just a padlock on a loop of cord, but in the right hands, it could shatter bone or kill.

Trump’s Plan to Leave the WHO Is a Health Disaster

David Cox

Source Link

In the summer of 2020, 15 recognized leaders in US public health gathered to author an article in The Lancet—one of the world’s most eminent medical journals—decrying Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization, a decision that was later reversed by President Biden before it took effect.

Nearly five years later, one of the opening salvos of Trump’s second term has been to again initiate the process of withdrawing the US from the WHO. The move is already drawing both controversy and the threat of legal challenges.

According to a 1948 joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress, any such withdrawal requires the US to provide the WHO with one year’s notice, but it appears that Trump’s intentions are to withdraw immediately and do so without seeking congressional approval.

“The executive order announces the immediate withdrawal from WHO, and he’s not seeking congressional authorization, and he’s also not giving the required one year’s notice,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor in public health law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, and one of the coauthors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my view, this is reckless and it’s lawless, and it needs to be challenged in court.”

Trump’s Day One Executive Orders Will Worsen Climate Crisis

Matt Reynolds

Source Link

On his first day in office, President Trump has signed a slew of executive orders that will set the United States on a radically different environmental path from the Biden administration. The executive orders and memoranda take the first steps to fulfilling many of Trump’s promises from the campaign trail: withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement, drilling more oil and natural gas, and repealing multiple Biden-era environmental directives and departments.

While Trump’s day-one executive orders are far-reaching, it’s not yet clear how they will be implemented or how quickly they will be felt. Executive orders direct government agencies how to implement the law, but they can be challenged by courts if they appear to violate the US Constitution or other laws, as happened with Trump’s travel ban executive order in January 2017.

Trump’s executive orders do, however, send a clear signal about his administration’s environmental priorities: extracting more fossil fuels, weakening support for green energy, and stepping away from global climate leadership.

An Emerging Road Map for Trump’s Use of the Military to Combat Immigration

Chris Mirasola

Source Link

As expected, President Donald Trump signed a flurry of executive orders clamping down on immigration on his first day in office. Of these executive orders, at least five relate to how his administration will use the military to stop border crossings and (potentially) enforce immigration laws within the United States.

None of these executive orders directs an immediate military deployment. But they do make such deployments almost a certainty. And they reveal the range of legal theories we should expect to play out over the months to come. Some of these legal theories are recycled from Trump’s first term. Others are far more extreme (and dubious) interpretations of statutory authorities and the president’s constitutional powers.

Supporting the Department of Homeland Security Through Increased Defense Department Personnel and Barrier Construction at the Southern Border

In “Securing Our Borders,” Trump lays out his concrete policy objectives for the southern border. They include building “a physical wall and other barriers,” “deterring and preventing the entry of illegal aliens,” and “obtaining complete operational control” of U.S. borders. To achieve these ends, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. This national emergency is nearly identical to what Trump pursued in his first term. It makes available to the secretary of defense 10 U.S.C. § 12302, which expedites the Defense Department process for activating reservists, including National Guard personnel, for deployments to the southern border. The national emergency also makes available to the secretary of defense an emergency military construction authority—10 U.S.C. § 2808.

With Trump Back in the White House, the Age of Free Trade Could Be Coming to an End

Sami Bensassi and Agelos Delis

Source Link

For a superpower like the United States, free trade is, in practice, an invitation to partake in its wealth. But it also implies an obligation, including political support (or at least non-opposition) and an expectation that the poorer nation will give back part of its new riches by buying the superpower’s high-tech exports and debt. This, in essence, is the system that has worked wonders for the U.S. for nearly 75 years.

From 1978, the People’s Republic of China signaled its acceptance of this invitation with “economic free zones” in several of its provinces, which began to open up the Chinese economy to the outside world. It was an extraordinary moment, when former enemies the U.S. and China willingly chose a new path focused on trade.

Then in 2001, after more than two decades of a relationship characterized by mutual admiration, mistrust, and suspicion, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and over the next 11 years, further built up its relations with the United States.

But China did not play completely fairly. It subsidized and protected its nascent industries, manipulated its currency, and forced technological transfers (meaning that foreign companies had to enter joint ventures with local firms, sharing their technology and intellectual property).

The Battle Against Inequality: A Message To The Elite And Super-Rich In Davos – OpEd

Thalif Deen 

Source Link

As the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), described as a gathering of the world’s elite and super rich, meet in Davos, Switzerland, January 20-24, more than 30,000 activists across nearly 50 cities staged protests over the weekend demanding economic justice, climate action, and an end to billionaires’ hold on democracy.

The campaign—organized by Fight Inequality Alliance (FIA)—includes the message: “TAX THE SUPER RICH!” which was projected onto a mountainside near a private airport outside of Davos next to the faces of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Another image declared: “LET’S DRAW THE RED LINE & STOP PAYING BILLIONAIRES’ TAX BILL!”

The campaign coincides with a new report from Oxfam released today, which finds that as billionaires’ wealth soars rapidly, the number of people living in poverty has not changed significantly since the 1990s.

The rising inequalities are not only economic but also gender based, with women suffering the most.

Niki Kandirikirira, Equality Now’s Global Director of Programmes, told IDN globally, women remain overrepresented in low-paid, insecure, and unregulated jobs.

Is Trump Really Going To Practice Military Restraint? – OpEd

Ivan Eland

Source Link

The three popular pillars of Donald Trump’s electoral success have been grievances about immigrants, unfair trade practices by other countries, and American “forever wars” overseas.

The last one of these beefs was legitimate and fueled by the interventionist U.S. superpower’s major quagmires or debacles in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

As an example, a recent op-ed by John F. Sopko, who, as special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction since 2012, chronicled the profligate waste of lives and money during the latter half of the two-decade U.S. fiasco in Afghanistan, convincingly argued that bureaucratic incentives in the U.S. military and other agencies to claim success rendered the truth of failure to long be kept from American taxpayers. That problem can be found in the other American catastrophic failures as well.

To his credit, during his first presidential term Trump had concluded the Afghan War was a loser, signed an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, but failed to carry it out before he left office. Joe Biden, his successor, after a short delay, agreed with Trump about the war and took a big hit in the popularity of his new administration when the U.S.-supported Afghan regime collapsed rapidly during the American troop withdrawal, leading to some chaos and more American and Afghan deaths.

WEF panelists: cyber frontlines crawl into uncharted territories

Gintaras Radauskas

Source Link

At the World Economic Forum, cybersecurity professionals who participated in one of the summit’s panels discussed how geopolitical crises are extending into uncharted territories these days.

Indeed, almost every day now, we hear about major ransom attacks paralyzing hospitals and other major infrastructure, and the cyberwar between the US and China is escalating.

Late last year, Chinese hackers breached the ultra-sensitive systems of the US Treasury Department. They also hacked telecommunications networks across America and gained the ability to shut down US ports, power grids, and other targets almost at will.

Sources told The Wall Street Journal back then that China’s keyboard warriors, “once seen as the cyber equivalent of noisy, drunken burglars,” have become astonishingly skilled and stealthy cyber soldiers, building leverage inside US computer networks in case open conflict between the countries breaks out, say, over Taiwan.

Needless to say, cyberspace is a dangerous place right now. How can the international community move towards a detente?

From trade wars to cyber wars in modern era

Source Link

In December 2024, the US Bureau of Industry and Security imposed a new set of export controls on Chinese companies, escalating tensions between the two countries to a new level. After Beijing retaliated with a ban on export of rare earth metals, the matter apparently receded - but only to be fought in cyber space.

A couple of weeks ago, the US Treasury department reported a hacking incident where they accused a Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actor of accessing treasury department's computers remotely. Instead of directly hacking the department's infrastructure, the APT actor compromised a third-party service provider BeyondTrust for API keys to remotely access Treasury department's assets. Under the Federal Information Security Modernisation Act (FISMA) of 2014, all US state departments must file a comprehensive report about attack vectors, the impact on operations and the incident response actions taken, if an APT actor is found involved in hacking.

Till the final report of cyber inquiry is published in public domain, it is hard to tell what the modus operandi of the APT group was. However, the US's cyber capabilities leave a lot to be desired. In September 2024, a severe cyber attack on US telcos including ATandT, Verizon, T-Mobile and Lumen Technologies was discovered that had been targeting high-profile targets including presidential candidates for months.

The Forgotten War: Ransomware and Cyber Conflict Studies

Sara Seppanen & Jamie MacColl

Source Link

Hostile cyberattacks on hospitals, energy infrastructure, and strategic ports. Retaliatory offensive cyber operations carried out by Five Eyes members. Ransomware bears many of the hallmarks of the kind of cyber conflict long imagined by academics, military planners, and policymakers, albeit one waged primarily by law enforcement agencies and financially motivated criminals rather than cyber commands. Indeed, the FBI recently announced that its agents have conducted over 30 disruption operations against ransomware criminals in 2024 alone, emphasising the importance of ransomware as a strategic challenge.

Despite this, scholars of cyber conflict largely overlook ransomware. This leaves policy debates about ransomware poorer. Given the increasing use of offensive cyber operations and other tools of statecraft in counter ransomware strategies, more scholars should seek to interrogate the assumptions and concepts that underpin their implementation.

Ransomware in cyber conflict studies

Historically, strategic studies has focused on cyber competition and conflict in interstate relations. Academics are split between framing cyber operations as an intelligence contest or using the US-driven lens of persistent engagement. This literature has successfully tempered inflated expectations about one-off, strategically decisive cyberattacks, and helped re-orient policymaking and the study of cyber conflict towards an approach focusing on the cumulative effects of campaigns. However, these debates remain narrowly tailored to state-centred dynamics.