Indian Strategic Studies: 01/31/25

31 January 2025

India: Meghalaya’s Contentious Path – Analysis

Afsara Shaheen

On January 22, 2025, the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) accused the Meghalaya Police of using the surrendered cadres as weapons against it. In a statement, HNLC ‘general secretary-cum-publicity secretary’ Sainkupar Nongtraw claimed the government’s actions during and after the peace talks with the HNLC demonstrate “bad faith diplomacy.”

He added, “Summoning our leaders during negotiations was not a step toward peace but an act of coercion, proving they sought control, not dialogue. Now, targeting lower-ranking members is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and fragment our movement – a textbook example of the divide-and-rule strategy.”

Earlier, on January 20, 2025, HNLC issued a new ‘manifesto’ demanding recognition of a ‘semi-sovereign status’ for the Hynniewtrep people, while accusing the Indian government of violating decades-old agreements. The 10-chapter ‘manifesto’ focuses on violations of the 1947 Standstill Agreement and claims the Instrument of Accession (IOA) was signed under coercion. “These agreements, intended to safeguard our autonomy, were signed under coercion and amidst grave injustices perpetrated by the Government of India,” the manifesto states. The HNLC presented four key demands to the central government, including acknowledgement of the IOA violations and direct dialogue for autonomy restoration. The manifesto further outlines a vision for self-governance, including control over land resources and cultural practices.

The Rise And Fall Of Afghanistan’s Local Defense Forces – Analysis

Arturo Munoz

The joint Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) / US military campaign that overthrew the Taliban regime by December 2001 was not an invasion. Instead, small CIA teams on the ground supported rebellions by local Afghan enemies of the Taliban. The Agency’s Northern Alliance Liaison Team (NALT) and Team Alpha backed mainly ethnic Tajic and Uzbek rebels in the north, while Teams Echo and Foxtrot supported tribal Pashtun rebels in the south. The Americans provided considerable US military and logistical support, including devastating air strikes against Taliban targets. To provide exact coordinates to the pilots, US Army Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel were embedded in the CIA teams. Despite the crucial role of air strikes, and aerial resupply, it is important to emphasize that Afghans did the fighting and were led in battle by their own commanders.[2] It is highly unlikely that they could have triumphed without US support, but the US teams on their own could not have won without Afghan fighters. It was an outstanding example an effective partnership with locals, using minimal and low-visibility force to project US power in a foreign conflict.

After the US-sponsored rebellion overthrew the Taliban regime, many of them went into hiding or fled across the border into Pakistan. Certain that God was on their side, the Taliban began a long-term guerrilla warfare campaign to regain power and drive out the foreigners. By 2009, the insurgency was expanding in the countryside, taking control of isolated villages and threatening main roads and population centers. At the same time, it became evident that the original plan to build up the Afghan army to protect all the national territory was not working.

DeepSeek shows Trump tariffs doomed to fail - Opinion

Nigel Green

DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence startup, has shaken global markets and disrupted long-held assumptions about the effectiveness of tariffs as a tool for economic dominance.

Its breakthrough—a cost-effective AI model that operates on less-advanced chips—highlights a critical challenge for the United States: tariffs and other economic restrictions like chip bans may no longer be enough to contain and outpace technological competitors like China.

Revelations about DeepSeek’s low-cost success in the high-cost AI space rocked global technology stocks on Monday, with Nvidia’s shares down 9% in premarket trading and Dutch high-end chip equipment maker ASML down as much as 11%, according to breaking news reports.

Bloomberg reported the hitherto largely unheard-of startup’s AI assistant has rocketed to the top of the app download charts since it was released last week with capabilities widely seen as competitive with the likes of OpenAI, Google and Meta’s AI offerings. That, in turn, has called into question America’s supposed large lead over China in the AI race.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s recent threat to impose tariffs as high as 60% on imports underscores Washington’s reliance on economic restrictions to maintain its global tech standing. For years, tariffs have been a cornerstone of US efforts to curb China’s rise and preserve dominance in key tech and other industries.

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

Kelly Ng, Brandon Drenon, Tom Gerken and Marc Cieslak

A Chinese-made artificial intelligence (AI) model called DeepSeek has shot to the top of Apple Store's downloads, stunning investors and sinking some tech stocks.

Its latest version was released on 20 January, quickly impressing AI experts before it got the attention of the entire tech industry - and the world.

US President Donald Trump said it was a "wake-up call" for US companies who must focus on "competing to win".

What makes DeepSeek so special is the company's claim that it was built at a fraction of the cost of industry-leading models like OpenAI - because it uses fewer advanced chips.

That possibility caused chip-making giant Nvidia to shed almost $600bn (£482bn) of its market value on Monday - the biggest one-day loss in US history.

DeepSeek also raises questions about Washington's efforts to contain Beijing's push for tech supremacy, given that one of its key restrictions has been a ban on the export of advanced chips to China.

Beijing, however, has doubled down, with President Xi Jinping declaring AI a top priority. And start-ups like DeepSeek are crucial as China pivots from traditional manufacturing such as clothes and furniture to advanced tech - chips, electric vehicles and AI.

Hands On With DeepSeek’s R1 Chatbot

Reece Rogers

The app is completely free to use, and DeepSeek’s R1 model is powerful enough to be comparable to OpenAI’s o1 “reasoning” model, except DeepSeek’s chatbot is not sequestered behind a $20-a-month paywall like OpenAI’s is. Also, the DeepSeek model was efficiently trained using less powerful AI chips, making it a benchmark of innovative engineering.

I’ve tested many new generative AI tools over the past couple of years, so I was curious to see how DeepSeek compares to the ChatGPT app already on my smartphone. After a few hours of using it, my initial impressions are that DeepSeek’s R1 model will be a major disruptor for US-based AI companies, but it still suffers from the weaknesses common to other generative AI tools, like rampant hallucinations, invasive moderation, and questionably scraped material.

How to Access the DeepSeek Chatbot

Users interested in trying out DeepSeek can access the R1 model through the Chinese startup’s smartphone apps (Android, Apple), as well as on the company’s desktop website. You can also use the model through third-party services like Perplexity Pro. In the app or on the website, click on the DeepThink (R1) button to use the best model. Developers who want to experiment with the API can check out that platform online. It’s also possible to download a DeepSeek model to run locally on your computer.

US tech stocks partly recover after Trump says DeepSeek AI chatbot is ‘wake-up call’

Mark Sweney

US tech stocks tentatively recovered on Tuesday after Donald Trump described the launch of a chatbot by China’s DeepSeek as a “wake-up call” for Silicon Valley in the global race to dominate artificial intelligence.

The emergence of DeepSeek, which has built its R1 model chatbot at a fraction of the cost of competitors such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, wiped $1tn (£800bn) in value from the leading US tech index on Monday.

Nvidia, a leading maker of computer chips that has experienced explosive growth amid the AI boom, had $600bn wiped off its market value in the biggest one-day fall in US stock market history.

The market fall spread to Asia on Tuesday, as Japan’s Nikkei share average fell 1.3%. Japanese-listed tech stocks fell, as the manufacturer Advantest was down 11%, Tokyo Electron off almost 6% and Disco Corporation dropped nearly 3%. Stock in the tech investor SoftBank fell more than 5%.

DeepSeek R1: The “Impressive Model” & Military Affairs

Mick Ryan

The past 24 hours have seen technology and business publications reporting on the release of the DeepSeek-R1 chatbot in the United States. The developers of the latest version of the DeepSeek AI model have claimed that it operates on par with OpenAI-o1, that it is fully open-source and that it cost just $6 million to develop. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman described it as “an impressive model”.

Understandably, investors in the United States have questioned the billions of dollars they have been pouring into American developers. Chip maker Nvidia lost $588 billion in value in a single day, which is slightly more than the GDP of Norway. Besides the reassessment of tech investment in America, and the losses suffered by tech companies, there may be a range of technological, commercial and political implications of the new DeepSeek-R1 model. As one commentator has noted, “it upends the way that investors have thought about how AI needed to be developed and implemented.”

I intend to explore in this article the potential military implications of this DeepSeek-R1 development. I should emphasise that I write this as an expert in military affairs, and someone who has written about the impact of new technologies on military organisations, not as someone who is an AI or software expert. Despite that, I think there are sufficient implications that we can identify now – and many questions that should be asked.

Decoding China’s Approach to Escalation & De-Escalation in the South China Sea

Anushka Saxena

I. Introduction

The People’s Republic of China continues to deploy an aggressive foreign policy towards its neighbourhood, and shape the status quo into a new, tense normal. Hence, it becomes pertinent to examine Beijing’s escalation and de-escalation strategies in various theaters of the Indo-Pacific, especially on disputes pertaining to territoriality and sovereignty. Such an examination has the potential to inform diplomatic policy vis-à-vis the Asian power.

This study attempts to assess China’s escalation and de-escalation strategies toward the Philippines in the South China Sea. It assesses and identifies patterns of Chinese behaviour, tools of escalation and mechanisms China deploys to de-escalate, and its objectives in shaping power dynamics a certain way across theaters, given a gap in literature. Such a study has the potential to understand the drivers of Chinese behaviour and inform policy.

How Tourism Trapped Tibet

Judith Hertog

A young woman wearing an elaborate brocade dress gazes up at the Jokhang Temple, the oldest and holiest pilgrimage site in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa. Surrounding her is an array of people in colorful ensembles. Women with braided hair spin hand-held prayer wheels. Couples in matching traditional chuba robes lovingly look into each other’s eyes. Men in fur-lined nomad coats stride through the alleys, swords strapped to their sides—seeming remnants from an idyllic past.

But upon closer inspection, cracks appear in the facade. The jewelry is fake. The braids are hair extensions. The chubas are rented. Many of the women are spinning their prayer wheels the wrong way. The young woman in the brocade dress is not, in fact, a pilgrim, but a Chinese tourist posing for a professional photographer. As she angles her face for the perfect shot, an actual pilgrim impatiently walks through the frame, glaring at the people blocking his way along the prayer path.

Explaining Chinese Inaction in the Red Sea Crisis: A Foreign Policy Analysis

Natalia Kearney Fang

Since November 2023, ships crossing the Red Sea have found themselves at risk of attacks from Iran-backed Houthi militants, attacks made in retaliation for Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas (Cooban, 2024, para. 2). The Houthis, Shia rebels who have fought Yemen’s government for almost two decades, are supposedly part of Iran’s “axis of resistance” against Israel and the US (Hall, 2024, para. 4-5). This conflict has been considerably disruptive towards world trade. The Suez Canal, connecting the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, accounts for 10-15% of world trade and 30% of global container shipping volumes (Cooban, 2024, para. 5). In response, on January 11, US and UK forces launched airstrikes against dozens of targets across Yemen (Hall, 2024, para. 1). While the conflict has brought the US and many of its allies into the conflict, there is another major regional player whose attitude and actions (or lack thereof) should be considered: the People’s Republic of China.

In this brief article, I seek to explain Chinese foreign policy regarding the Red Sea crisis. I will do so by taking a dual-prong approach: First, I will establish a baseline based on neoclassical realism and role theory; secondly, this analysis is expanded upon with more precise tools, namely the rational actor model, poliheuristic theory, Xi Jinping’s operational code, and public opinion. Finally, using these theories, I will evaluate three foreign policy options for China. I ultimately conclude that China has chosen inaction because it maximises its opportunity to criticise the US, while the PRC also lacks any better alternative course of action.

Iran and Russia deepen cyber ties with new agreement

Daryna Antoniuk

A deal signed last week between Iran and Russia includes commitments to deepen the countries’ military, security and technological ties.

The agreement between the world’s two most sanctioned nations aims to elevate “friendly interstate relations between the countries to a new level,” according to a statement from the Kremlin. Parts of the agreement specifically address cooperation in cybersecurity and internet regulation.

Russia has signed similar strategic treaties with China and North Korea in the past, agreeing to share expertise in information technology and digital development.

Signed last Friday in Moscow by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, the agreement stipulates the two countries will “expand cooperation in countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes.”

The countries also agreed to exchange expertise in managing national segments of the internet and to advocate for stronger control over the global digital space by creating rules for international tech companies.

Water Wars in the Middle East: Reality or Fiction?

Reza Sohrabi

Water shortage has been identified as the greatest threat in the Middle East, where more than 60 per cent of the people live in lands with high and very water scarcity situations (World Bank, 2017). The continuity and severity of water stress in the Middle East are significant factors affecting societies. According to the World Resource Institute (2015), fourteen of the thirty-three countries projected to be the most water-stressed in 2040 are in the Middle East. This highlights the urgency of addressing water scarcity in the region.

Water shortage has also been linked to social and political unrest. De Châtel (2014) and Gleick (2014) argue that water shortage drives conflict in Syria. The inaccessibility of water in rural areas has prompted widespread migration to urban areas, leading to increased social discontent and heightened political tensions against the regime. The refugee crisis further illustrates this connection, as displaced people from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya often face acute water scarcity in their regions (World Bank, 2017; UNHCR, 2015; IDMC & NRC, 2016). Gleick (2014) notes that displacement, food supply crises, and unemployment significantly affect political stability in Syria.

The Costs of Killing the Civil Service

Paul R. Pillar

President Donald Trump showed his admiration for Andrew Jackson when, eight years ago, he hung a portrait of the seventh president in the Oval Office. Now, Trump has installed the portrait once again. The act is symbolic of how Trump is shoving the nation back into the Jacksonian era’s “spoils system,” in which the appointment of public officials was based on political loyalty rather than merit.

Although attention has been given to how Trump’s obsession with personal fealty has produced several cabinet-level appointees with meager qualifications for the job, the Trump-led attack on public service goes much deeper than that. By “public service,” I mean not any position that receives a government paycheck but rather a commitment—especially a career-long commitment—to serving the interests of the entire nation and not just a single party, ideology, or leader.

The new administration is wasting no time in mounting the attack. Even before Trump was sworn in for his second term, his incoming national security advisor declared career civil servants to be personae non gratae. At the State Department, numerous experienced members of the foreign service, serving at various levels and not just presidential appointees, were told to leave.

How Can Ukraine's Security Be Guaranteed?

Lawrence Freedman

As the Trump administration embarks on its quest to bring peace to Ukraine, discussed in my previous post, one of the big issues waiting to be addressed is how Ukraine’s future security will be supported as part of any deal.

Consideration of this issue has led to proposals for a multi-national force, which would be largely European. This has sometimes been described as a ‘peacekeeping force’, including by Keir Starmer when speaking about a possible UK contribution, but elsewhere it has been described as a ‘deterrent’ or ‘trip-wire’, though these are very different concepts.

So far there has only been preliminary discussions about these ideas so a certain amount of loose language can be expected. But these labels matter because they can mislead as to the scale of the effort involved or imply more than can reasonably be delivered. Can security really be ‘guaranteed’? Is there a peace to be ‘kept’? Security guarantees can come in a variety of forms, as Bruno Tertrais demonstrated in his post of July 2023. Some will be taken more seriously than others.

This Could Be ‘Peak Trump’

Stephen M. Walt

If you only listened to the Trump administration’s pronouncements or only read the deer-in-the-headlights accounts provided by assorted legacy journalists, you might conclude that the new administration has already built up an irresistible head of steam. Given Trump’s monarchical pretensions, he’d undoubtedly like us all to think he is unbound by limits and that resistance is futile. That is not the case, however, and we should not mistake Trump’s bombastic return and far-reaching early initiatives for unstoppable momentum. On the contrary, we are more likely to look back on this period as the highwater mark of Trumpian hubris. Making lavish promises is easy; delivering positive results is a whole lot harder.

Trump’s skills should not be underestimated, of course. He’s been extremely good at persuading banks to lend him money for dubious business ventures and equally good at getting gullible customers to pay for things he never delivered. He has proven to be remarkably adept at persuading voters that the United States was in desperate shape (no matter what the facts were) and that he alone could fix it, in good part because he is equally adept at finding fictitious enemies to blame for different problems. He’s in a class of his own at avoiding punishment for past crimes and pretty darn good at extracting benefits to himself, his family, and his pals. And let’s be honest: He’s also benefited from his willingness to challenge orthodoxies that deserved to be questioned, most notably the foreign-policy establishment’s tendency to drag the United States into unnecessary and unsuccessful wars.

How Denmark Can Hit Back Against Trump on Greenland

Elisabeth Braw

During his first term as the U.S. president, Donald Trump occasionally floated the idea of buying Greenland, but few took it seriously. Now Trump is repeating the calls, backed with threats against Denmark, and nobody is chuckling anymore.

The Nordic nation is facing the prospect of a close ally taking Danish territory by force. But despite only having a small army and navy, Denmark has no shortage of economic leverage with which it can try to reason with—or, if necessary, pressure—the U.S. president.

Will Trump Follow Through on Gaza? - Analysis

Aaron David Miller and Lauren Morganbesser

This isn’t an agreement between the United States and Switzerland. It’s the grudging result of 15 months of bitter, bloody conflict between two combatants seemingly pledged to the other’s destruction. One of those parties—Hamas—engaged in the willful and indiscriminate killing of civilians; serial sexual violence; the taking of hostages; and is designated by the agreement’s principal mediator as a foreign terror organization. The other—Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose overriding goal is to stay in power—would prefer the war in Gaza continue, and thus is in no hurry to reach the agreement’s second stage, which imagines the end of the war and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations. He is the author of The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President. X: @aarondmiller2

Trump at Davos

Mark Leonard

It is Donald Trump’s world now. Nowhere was this more obvious than at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) latest annual gathering in Davos. Since the 1970s, the WEF has been an integral part of the liberal international order that emerged from the ashes of the second world war. It is where the world’s political and economic elites come together to discuss global risks and explore solutions to collective challenges such as climate change, rising inequality, and the rise of artificial intelligence. In this sense, the 55th Davos summit was a continuation of a longer-running tradition.

And yet, nothing about this year’s gathering was normal, because it coincided exactly with Trump’s second inauguration as president of the United States. Trump’s return to the White House marks the start of an anti-Davos age. Gone is any sense of a global order in which countries pursue joint solutions to shared problems. We are entering a “polyworld” governed by polycentrism, polycrisis, and polysemy (when a word or symbol has multiple meanings).

A polycentric world lacks not only a single order but also any desire to create one. America’s new secretary of state, Marco Rubio, made the administration’s position clear in his confirmation hearing: “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.” And notwithstanding what Chinese leaders tell global gatherings, they are not in the order-building business either. When Chinese leader Xi Jinping speaks of “great changes unseen in a century,” he is not referring to the emergence of a Chinese-led world. Rather, he is instructing Chinese society to prepare for a long period of chaos and disruption.

US does not want to defend Europe any more, but Europeans say ‘Ho-hum’

Anthony J. Constantini

If you have paid attention to European defence issues and NATO conversations these past few weeks, you’d have thought that something got into the water in the various capitals which comprise the alliance. Newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump is calling for NATO members to spend at least five per cent of GDP on defence – and unlike in his first term, he has received positive responses from across the Atlantic. Estonia and Lithuania have already agreed, and others have sounded positive notes.

Not everyone has, of course. Portugal excitedly announced it would finally meet the two per cent benchmark – in 2029, the year Trump is scheduled to leave office. Friedrich Merz, the almost-certain next German chancellor, swore off paying attention to numbers entirely: “And the two, three or five per cent are basically irrelevant; what matters is that we do what is necessary to defend ourselves.” Germany is in a particular bind; the country will barely spend two per cent of GDP on defence this year, and it will only be due to a fund set up by current Chancellor Olaf Scholz which is going to expire in 2027.

Merz, perhaps inadvertently, has actually hit the nail on the head: percentage is irrelevant. But this is not a good thing for Europe. In fact, it has been paying attention to per cents which has taken them into such a problem.

Ukraine War Maps Show Russia on Verge of Capturing Major Target

Brendan Cole AND John Feng

Russia has said it had captured a strategically significant settlement in the west of Ukraine's Donetsk oblast amid reports that its troops are closing in on the key regional city of Toretsk as maps show the state of play along the front line.

Russia's Defense Ministry said it had captured Velyka Novosilka, although Ukraine's military only acknowledged there had been a partial withdrawal and that fighting was ongoing elsewhere in the settlement.

When contacted for comment, Ukraine's Defense Ministry referred Newsweek to an earlier media statement that its forces were holding on to positions on the outskirts of Velyka Novoselka and had avoided encirclement by Russian forces.

Why It Matters

Velyka Novosilka is fewer than 10 miles from the border with Zaporizhzhia Oblast and 13 miles from the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a region so far untouched by Russian occupation. If confirmed, Velyka Novosilka's capture would be the most significant Russian gain in Donetsk since Kurakhove earlier in January.

Psychology Can Be Harnessed to combat Violent Extremism

HARVEY WHITEHOUSE

This prediction is based on several decades of research that my colleagues and I have been undertaking at the University of Oxford to establish what makes people willing to fight and die for their groups. We use a variety of methods, including interviews, surveys, and psychological experiments to collect data from a wide range of groups, such as tribal warriors, armed insurgents, terrorists, conventional soldiers, religious fundamentalists, and violent football fans.

We have found that life-changing and group-defining experiences cause our personal and collective identities to become fused together. We call it “identity fusion.” Fused individuals will stop at nothing to advance the interests of their groups, and this applies not only to acts we would applaud as heroic—such as rescuing children from burning buildings or taking a bullet for one’s comrades—but also acts of suicide terrorism.

Fusion is commonly measured by showing people a small circle (representing you) and a big circle (representing your group) and placing pairs of such circles in a sequence so that they overlap to varying degrees: not at all, then just a little bit, then a bit more, and so on until the little circle is completely enclosed in the big circle. Then people are asked which pair of circles best captures their relationship with the group. People who choose the one in which the little circle is inside the big circle are said to be “fused.” Those are people who love their group so much that they will do almost anything to protect it.

Gaza and Lebanon Truces Are Fragile, but All Sides May Keep Them Going

Patrick Kingsley

The cease-fires in Gaza and Lebanon will most likely hold for now, despite being tested to their limits over the weekend, because all sides want to avoid full-scale fighting at least for a few weeks, analysts said.

In southern Lebanon, Israeli troops remained in position past the deadline on Sunday for their withdrawal, amid Israeli claims that Hezbollah had broken its own pledge to leave the area. In Gaza, Hamas failed to release a female hostage who Israel had hoped would be freed on Saturday, prompting Israel to delay the agreed return of displaced Palestinians to their homes in northern Gaza.

But even as each side accused the other of reneging on their deals, analysts said, both Israel and its opponents had reasons to remain flexible and temporarily overlook the other’s transgressions.

Hezbollah, though angry at Israel for keeping troops in southern Lebanon, would risk a devastating Israeli counterattack if it renews its rocket strikes on Israeli cities. Hamas wants to retain power in Gaza and risks losing it if war returns. And Israel needs to maintain the current arrangement in Gaza long enough to free at least two dozen more hostages. Israeli leaders have also appeared eager to placate President Trump, who campaigned on a promise to keep peace in the Middle East.

Trump and the New Age of Nationalism

Michael Brenes and Van Jackson

As it did in 2016, Donald Trump’s presidency has prompted commentators in and outside Washington to reflect on the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Questions abound over how Trump will deal with China and Russia, as well as India and emerging powers in the global South. U.S. foreign policy is headed into a period of uncertainty, even if Trump’s first term provides a stark reference point for how he might manage the United States’ role in the world in the coming years.

Trump’s return to the White House cements his place in history as a transformational figure. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan shaped distinct “ages” of U.S. history—they redefined the role of government in Americans’ lives and remade U.S. foreign policy in enduring ways. Roosevelt’s presidency, which engendered a multilateral order led by the United States, heralded the dawn of “the American Century.” Reagan sought to maximize U.S. military and economic power; his was a time of “peace through strength.” Post–Cold War administrations have oscillated between these two visions, often taking on elements of both. Trump inherits the remnants of these ages, but he also represents a new one: the age of nationalism.

The Future of Warfare: Autonomous Technologies in Modern Conflict

Brandon Schingh

The emergence of unmanned, autonomous technologies has fundamentally transformed modern warfare, pushing the boundaries of conventional and irregular military tactics. The integration of these technologies with artificial intelligence (AI) has amplified their impact, enhancing precision, adaptability, and strategic insight. This fusion not only redefines conflict but reshapes military doctrines, demanding new approaches to rules of engagement, surveillance, and precision-targeted strikes. As we grapple with these advancements, their implications echo across the global military landscape, creating opportunities and challenges in equal measure.

Evolution of Unmanned Systems

Over the last two decades, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), autonomous land vehicles, and unmanned maritime systems have transitioned from experimental concepts to essential tools of warfare. Their affordability, accessibility, and sophistication have driven widespread adoption by both state and non-state actors. This evolution reflects a paradigm shift where technological innovation and battlefield ingenuity intersect, redefining combat operations.

For example, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) once dominated unconventional tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, inexpensive commercial drones have taken center stage, exemplified by their extensive use in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ukrainian forces have repurposed these devices for reconnaissance, precision strikes, and direct engagement. In July 2024, a Ukrainian operator successfully used a commercial drone to destroy a Russian Mi-8 helicopter, highlighting the rapid evolution of these tools in asymmetric warfare.

Why nobody can see inside AI’s black box

Abi Olvera

When you click a button in Microsoft Word, you likely know the exact outcome. That’s because each user action leads to a predetermined result through a path that developers carefully mapped out, line by line, in the program’s source code. The same goes for many often-used computing applications available up until recently. But artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models that power the likes of ChatGPT and Claude, were built and thus operate in a fundamentally different way. Developers didn’t meticulously program these new systems in a step-by-step fashion. The models shaped themselves through complex learning processes, training on vast amounts of data to recognize patterns and generate responses.

When a user enters a prompt, chatbots powered by these models may, in text applications, predict what the next word in a sentence might be and output text that can feel remarkably human. Similarly, image-generation models like DALL-E and Midjourney create visuals by training on billions of image-text pairs, without following explicit drawing instructions.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)