India 'engaging with US' after shackled deportees spark anger

Cherylann Mollan

Source Link

India's Foreign Minister S Jaishankar has told parliament the government is working with the US to ensure Indian citizens are not mistreated while being deported.

His statement came a day after a US military flight brought back 104 Indians accused of entering the US illegally.

One of the deportees told the BBC they had been handcuffed throughout the 40-hour flight, sparking criticism.

But Jaishankar said he had been told by the US that women and children were not restrained. Deportation flights to India had been taking place for several years and US procedures allowed for the use of restraints, he added.

Deportation in the US is organised and executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"We have been informed by ICE that women and children are not restrained," Jaishankar said.

He added that according to ICE, the needs of deportees during transit, including for food and medical attention, were attended to and deportees could be unrestrained during bathroom breaks.

Lessons from Russia-Ukraine war makes Indian Army seek Active Protection System for T-90 tanks

Snehesh Alex Philip

Source Link

The Indian Army is scouting for protection gear to boost the survivability of its T-90 tanks, with the Ukraine war exposing the vulnerability of Russian armoured units to new-age weapons.

This pursuit involves equipping the Russian origin T-90, a workhorse for the Army, with an active protection system (APS) that can stave off threats from loitering munitions and top-attack missiles—weapons that have reduced Russian tanks to fireballs.

The Army plans to undertake the upgrades through the Make in India route. Currently, it operates about 1,250 T-90s, with around 350 more on order. A Request for Information (RFI) has been issued to identify the prospective global vendors to manufacture the APS for the T-90 S/Sk tanks in India.

The Russian tanks, the mainstay of the Indian Army, have effective firepower and mobility but with lesser protection compared to the Western Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

Lightweight, shoulder-fired American-manufactured Javelins, and the Swedish- and British-made New Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW), together with drones, have relentlessly hunted down the Russian tanks in Ukraine.

Over 1,400 Russian tanks are confirmed by independent photographic evidence to have been destroyed, abandoned, or captured—and that’s not counting the armoured personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, and tracked artillery, within the first few months itself of the war.

Factors Shaping the Future of China's Military

Mark Cozad & Jennie W. Wenger

Source Link

China’s population is changing rapidly. Although the one-child policy has ended, China’s birth rate continues to drop precipitously. At the same time, China seeks to modernize and professionalize the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). In this work, we place China’s current population dynamics in context to consider how demographic changes will affect the PLA and China’s broader society. First, we discuss China’s current and past fertility rates. We contextualize these rates by comparing trends in China with those in other countries and by considering China’s past population growth. Next, we document China’s age distribution—in the recent past, the present, and the near future—and compare it with that of the United States. We discuss other specific health- and education-related trends that will influence PLA recruiting, present information about China’s past and its likely future economic growth rates, and analyze the implications for the PLA and the country as a whole. Finally, we discuss the PLA’s aims and the ways in which demographic and other trends may influence its capacity to achieve its goals.

Demographics in Detail

Declining Fertility Rates

The size of the population and trends in population growth play a role in China’s capacity to fill its military ranks. China’s birth rate, or total fertility rate (TFR), which is the average number of births per woman, has fallen substantially in the past decade.1 But this past decade is not the period in which China’s fertility rate changed most dramatically. During the 1960s and 1970s, before the one-child policy was enacted, China’s fertility rate began to fall quite sharply; after a period of relative stability during the 1990s and 2000s, China’s fertility rate declined further. The one-child policy was formally ended in late 2015, although rules had been relaxed prior; China’s fertility rate continued to decline during and after these changes (see Figure 1). This suggests that the one-child policy is far from the only driver behind China’s fertility rate patterns.

Trump gives Saudi Arabia cause to pause joining BRICS

ANDREW KORYBKO

Source Link

Saudi Minister of Economy and Planning Faisal Al-Ibrahim told the World Economic Forum during last month’s Davos Summit, “We’ve been invited to the BRICS, similar to how we’ve been invited to many other multilateral platforms in the past historically. We assess many different aspects of it before a decision is made and right now, we are in the middle of that.”

Saudi Arabia has good reason to delay on formally joining BRICS.

It was posited here in January 2024 when the country first revealed that it hadn’t yet accepted the group’s official membership invitation, saying this “is due to Western perceptions about this association, Iran’s involvement in the Red Sea Crisis, and Israeli-US pressure,” which still holds true.

Regarding the first, Saudi Arabia would arguably feel uncomfortable with its name and national brand being included in the plethora of agenda-driven promotional materials misportraying BRICS as an anti-Western alliance.

The Kingdom used to be solidly in the Western camp but has taken a page from India’s book in recent years by multi-aligning between them and what Russia now calls the “World Majority.”

Trump’s USAID Freeze Will Undermine Global Health and Security

Marcus Mildenberger

Source Link

Hours after his return to the Oval Office, Donald Trump began implementing his America-first foreign policy agenda, signing a flurry of executive orders that included freezing all U.S. foreign aid and assistance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio eventually attempted to backtrack through a vague memo that allowed some programs to continue temporarily, but the damage has already been done.

Life-saving medications, vaccinations, educational programs, and critical care will be stopped, while aid organizations and federal employees worldwide are left confused about the future of the U.S. foreign service. A complete end to U.S. foreign assistance would be the most significant disruption to U.S. foreign policy in decades and grant adversaries, particularly China, an opportunity to supplant the United States as a trusted trading and development partner.

Now, the administration appears to be deferring all foreign aid oversight decisions to Elon Musk, who called the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—which is in charge of managing and dispersing billions in humanitarian aid and developmental assistance—a “criminal organization.” The administration has already removed two officials for trying to prevent Musk and his Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) staff from accessing classified USAID materials. Never before has an unelected official flagrantly interfered with a federal agency and pushed an administration to end decades of congressional appropriations for foreign assistance.

Like it or not, the rules-based order is no more

Ivo Daalder

Source Link

A few weeks ago, when Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen spoke with soon-to-be U.S. President Donald Trump about his insistence on making Greenland part of America, the phone call didn’t go well.

She understood America’s defense concerns, but Greenland wasn’t for sale, she said. Trump was having none of it.

The call between these two equally obdurate leaders not only revealed a clash of interests but a clash of realities: Frederiksen’s reality is the rules-based order, a world where nations are expected to abide by treaties, rules and norms. Whereas Trump’s reality is the world of power politics, where the strong do as they will and the weak — even allied nations — do as they must.

Until that phone call, most had dismissed Trump’s musings about Greenland (and the Panama Canal) as bluster and tough talk meant to set the stage for negotiations. No one took the idea of the U.S. seizing the territory of an ally by force seriously.

But that was a big mistake. This time around, Trump is serious, and he’s no longer surrounded by his former aides whose job it was to steer him away from crazy ideas. Rather, his current cadre is a team of loyalists, who see it as their job to implement whatever their leader wants — and what he wants is Greenland.

Israel Begins Preparations for Gaza Exodus as Egypt Lobbies Against Trump Plan

SAMY MAGDY

Source Link

Israel says it has begun preparations for the departure of Palestinians from Gaza despite international rejection of President Donald Trump’s plan to empty the territory of its population. Egypt has launched a diplomatic blitz behind the scenes against the proposal, warning it would put its peace deal with Israel at risk, officials said.

Trump administration officials have tried to dial back aspects of the proposal after it was widely rejected internationally, saying the relocation of Palestinians would be temporary. But officials have provided few details.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said that the Palestinians would be “resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes,” after which Israel would turn Gaza over to the United States. No U.S. soldiers would be needed for his plan to redevelop it, he said. Hours later, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted again that the relocations would be temporary, with Palestinians living “somewhere else in the interim,” while Gaza is cleaned up and rebuilt.

Palestinians have vehemently rejected Trump’s proposal, fearing that Israel would never allow refugees to return. Egypt has warned that an expulsion of Palestinians would destabilize the region and undermine its peace treaty with Israel, a cornerstone of stability and American influence for decades.

The Sheer Lunacy of Trump’s Gaza Takeover Plan

Steven A. Cook

Source Link

One of the special privileges of being the president of the United States is that people have to take what you say seriously no matter how bananas. So it is with President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Washington facilitate the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip and then, when that task is accomplished, own the territory. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians needs new ideas, and Gaza, in particular, presents a set of extremely difficult problems, but Trump’s proposal is not just morally bankrupt—it is sheer lunacy.

The Chaos at USAID, Explained

John Haltiwanger and Christina Lu

Source Link

The Trump administration on Monday said it is merging USAID with the State Department, a move that came amid days of turmoil at the agency and statements by tech billionaire and close presidential advisor Elon Musk that the agency was being shut down completely.

Elon Musk’s Takeover Is Causing Rifts in Donald Trump’s Inner Circle

Jake Lahut

Source Link

Elon Musk and President Donald Trump, publicly at least, are on good terms.

Yet when it comes to the staff in and around the new administration, it’s a different story. Just two-and-a-half weeks into Trump’s second term in office, a fissure has begun to emerge following Musk’s DOGE takeover of the US government, according to a half-dozen Trump loyalist Republican aides and advisers inside and around the administration who spoke with WIRED.

“I think it’s more the staff who have an issue with Elon than President Trump,” a Republican aide familiar with the discussions around DOGE and the administration tells WIRED. This staffer, like others, requested anonymity to relay sensitive conversations due to fears of retaliation.

In the space of a couple of weeks, Elon Musk and his associates have taken control of multiple government agencies, and a cadre of young and inexperienced engineers with ties to Musk have been given access to some of the most highly sensitive federal systems through DOGE. As Musk’s associates tore through the federal apparatus over the first weekend of February, a ride-or-die MAGA Republican operative who knows President Trump personally confided something to WIRED they never thought they’d find themselves saying before the past two weeks.

How is Canada readying its arsenal for a trade war with the US?

Rafi Schwartz

Source Link

Perhaps contrary to its national reputation of equanimity, Canada is matching President Donald Trump's bellicosity about tariffs with a steely resolve. The actions "by the White House split us apart instead of bringing us together," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a Saturday speech. The country has wasted little time readying retaliatory measures against the Trump administration's planned tariffs.

In a fitting metaphor for the United States' standing with Canada, the typically jocular hockey rivalry between the two nations took on a sharper edge as Canadian fans drowned out the U.S. national anthem with a chorus of boos at recent games against American teams. But arena-echoing jeers aren't Canada's only response to the Trump administration's trade war, initially set to go into effect this week but delayed a month after last-minute negotiations.

What did the commentators say?

Canada plans on "moving forward with 25% tariffs on $155 billion worth of goods in response to the unjustified and unreasonable tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian goods," its government said. The retaliatory tariffs will apply to "American products like orange juice, peanut butter, wine, spirits, beer, coffee, appliance, apparel, footwear, motorcycles, cosmetics and pulp and paper," said the CBC — goods that Canada would ordinarily import from the U.S. "for which there is a replacement" from other countries, said Finance and Intergovernmental affairs minister Dominic LeBlanc. Trudeau has also encouraged shoppers to focus on buying Canadian products, "effectively urging a boycott of U.S. goods," said The Associated Press.

The Warning

W.J. Hennigan

Source Link

U.S. military personnel at Space Command, in Colorado Springs, have kept a close eye on Cosmos 2553 ever since it reached orbit. Bathed in the bluish glow of their computer screens, they sit and watch what’s going across all of space day after day, tracking the latest information on satellite constellations, coming rocket launches and the daily operation of the space-based systems that shape modern life.

But Cosmos 2553 is different. It circles Earth every two hours in a region called a graveyard orbit. Only 10 other satellites are out there, and all of them have been dead for years. The area is rarely used in part because it’s inside the Van Allen belts, zones of high radiation that encircle the planet.

That’s why Moscow claims Cosmos 2553 is there — to test out “newly developed onboard instruments and systems” against radiation. But what it’s really doing, U.S. officials say, is testing components for a Russian weapon under development that could obliterate hundreds, if not thousands, of critical satellites. Cosmos 2553 isn’t armed, but it does carry a dummy warhead, one of several details being reported here for the first time. So while the orbiting satellite poses no imminent danger, the officials caution it does serve as a forerunner to an unprecedented weapon.

Underperforming Software and Information Technology in the Department of Defense

Bonnie L. Triezenberg, Sarah Zabel, Rachel Steratore, Adrian Salas, Ivan Lepetic, Katie A. Wilson, Natalia Henriquez Sanchez, James Fan, Alexis Levedahl, Sarah W. Denton

Source Link

Introduction

This report presents results of an independent study regarding the performance of information technology and software systems in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the impact of that performance on DoD operations and mission readiness.1 The study was sponsored by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) in accord with direction in Section 241 of the fiscal year 2023 (FY23) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Section 241 of the FY23 NDAA directed an independent study of the challenges associated with the use of software and information technology (IT) in DoD, the effects of such challenges, and potential solutions. More specifically, the NDAA directed that this independent study should include (1) a survey of members of each armed service to identify the most important software and IT challenges that result in lost work hours; (2) a summary of policy and technical challenges that limit the ability of military departments to implement needed software and IT reforms, based on interviews with military department CIOs; (3) the development of a framework for assessing underperforming software and IT; and (4) the development of recommendations to address challenges identified in the survey and to improve processes through which DoD provides software and IT. The study explicitly excluded embedded software in weapon systems. The full text of Section 241 of the NDAA is provided in Appendix E.

Putin’s Fight Won’t End With Ukraine

Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Michael Kofman

Source Link

After nearly three years of war, the mood among many of Ukraine’s allies has turned grim. Russian forces are making steady gains; Kyiv is running low on ammunition; and the return of Donald Trump to the White House has only added to anxieties about the conflict, casting doubt over not only the future of American military aid, but also the prospect of a negotiated settlement that is satisfactory to Ukraine.

In an essay for Foreign Affairs, titled “Putin’s Point of No Return,” Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Michael Kofman argue that the risks are even greater—that Putin’s Russia will pose a threat to Western interests even if the current fighting in Ukraine ends. Kendall-Taylor is a former intelligence official and scholar of authoritarian regimes and Russian politics; Kofman is one of the most astute analysts of the war in Ukraine.

They speak with editor Dan Kurtz-Phelan about the battlefield dynamics and political dimensions of the conflict—and about Vladimir Putin’s enduring ambition to reshape the global order.

Deterring Russia: U.S. Military Posture in Europe

Seth G. Jones and Seamus P. Daniels

Source Link

Introduction

Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the ongoing war that has followed, have dramatically shifted the strategic landscape in Europe, triggering the most devastating war on the continent since World War II. More Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine than in all previous Soviet and Russian wars since World War II combined, including Russia’s bloody wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya.1 The Ukraine war has caused the most significant refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, driving over 6 million Ukrainian refugees to Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, and other countries.2 The war has also had substantial humanitarian implications, causing widespread civilian deaths and destruction in Ukraine and disrupting public access to water, electricity, heating, health care, and education.3

Despite Russian aggression in Ukraine and increase in gray zone activity across Europe, there has been a robust debate about whether the United States should focus its defense priorities and military posture on the Indo-Pacific to counter China. While the Indo-Pacific is a strategically important region, the United States needs to be prepared to deter two major theater wars—one in Europe and the other in the Indo-Pacific—as well as ensure readiness for contingencies elsewhere, such as in the Middle East and Korean Peninsula. After all, Russia has invaded one country (Ukraine) and waged war in several others, such as Syria. China has not—at least not yet. In its approach to defense planning, the Trump administration should ensure that the allocation of limited forces between the two theaters is tailored to match the unique demands of each region while carefully managing risks and trade-offs.

Tariffs Using Emergency Economic Powers Risk Undermining U.S. Economic Security

Navin Girishankar and Philip Luck

Source Link

Talk has finally turned into action and the first shots of the 2025 trade war have been fired. President Trump has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to place 25 percent tariffs on products from Mexico and Canada (10 percent on Canadian “energy resources”) and 10 percent on all products from China. For all three countries, the rationale for these measures is to motivate action to address the fentanyl crisis in the United States—a pressing economic security priority that deserves immediate attention. However, counter to their intended goal, the tariffs on Mexico and Canada (which have since been delayed by one month) in particular risk undermining U.S. economic security by their direct economic repercussions; their inadequacy in motivating policy change by our partners, and their likelihood of degrading partnerships essential to countering global threats, in particular from China.

Direct Economic Impacts

Over several decades, as a result of the USMCA, signed by President Trump, and NAFTA before it, the North American economy has evolved into a deeply interconnected network, fostering economic integration and prosperity for all three countries. This integration has led to the development of complex, cross-border production processes, particularly evident in industries such as automotive manufacturing, electronics, and agriculture.

Trump’s tariffs hand China a free-trade opportunity - OPINION

NIGEL GREEN

Source Link

Donald Trump’s second term is off to a combative start, and the first casualty may be America’s own influence.

His sweeping tariff escalation, including 25% duties on imports from Mexico and Canada, a 10% levy on Canadian energy and new tariffs on Chinese goods, underscores a US shift towards aggressive economic nationalism.

He has also signaled forthcoming tariffs against the EU, further rattling global markets. While Trump asserts economic leverage, China appears well-positioned to benefit.

The response to Colombia is a case in point. Gustavo Petro, the country’s president, last week publicly challenged the United States over the treatment of deported migrants.

Soon after, Trump imposed tariffs on Colombian exports, introduced banking sanctions and restricted government officials from US travel. The move was a hard power shift in Washington’s approach, one that could have broader implications for international partnerships.

But if the White House views this as a needed firm stance, its effects remain to be seen.

The episode highlights the unpredictability of America’s global relationships under Trump. If a country historically aligned with Washington can face sudden economic punishment, others may seek to diversify their alliances.

And Beijing, with its growing economic engagement in Latin America, is watching closely.

Has Brexit finally paid off? What Trump’s tariff reprieve means for Starmer

Tim Ross

Source Link

It’s not the economy, stupid.

Brexiteers are crowing that U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to hit the EU with tariffs while (probably) leaving Britain out of his trade war proves that quitting the bloc was worth it.

But Brexit was never about economics.

During the 2016 referendum campaign, George Osborne’s Treasury ran a so-called Project Fear strategy of trying to scare voters into backing Remain, with dire warnings that families would be £4,300 a year worse off after Brexit. Voters chose to leave the EU anyway.

A few months later, Osborne reflected that the referendum showed Brits had put economic concerns second and prioritized political change instead.

Voters had wanted to restore Britain’s "sovereignty" and to “take back control,” as the Leave campaign slogan put it, especially over immigration and the courts, regardless of the risk of economic damage.

So while Trump’s hint he will give Britain a pass on punitive tariffs would amount to an economic win from Brexit, that misses a vital point about the politics.

Russia’s Costly Conquest in Ukraine

Andrew Kosenko and Peter Liberman

Source Link

Today, about 20 percent of southeastern Ukraine is under Russian occupation, including Crimea and large parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. Russian President Vladimir Putin has painted the war in Ukraine as a nationalist campaign to repel Western advances and reclaim territory that, in his view, rightfully belongs to Russia. But conquest has another motivation: economic gain. If Russia maintains military control over these regions, it may be hoping to reap that benefit. At this stage, however, it is hardly clear that they would become economic assets for Moscow; supporting the war-torn territories could just as easily become a drain on its coffers.

The human costs of this war are enormous. Russian forces are ruling occupied Ukraine with an iron fist, engaging in a ruthless campaign of torture, kidnapping, violence, and arbitrary killing. Any assessment of the war’s economic consequences should not minimize its awful depravity or the immense suffering it has inflicted. But its economic outcome will affect future judgments of Putin’s decision to invade in February 2022. If Russia benefits economically from the occupation of Ukraine, the war may be remembered as a strategic success, albeit a coldblooded one. If Russia instead suffers economically, the invasion will be seen as a self-defeating, barbaric blunder.

Trump Just Crossed a Line in the Middle East. There's No Way Back | Opinion

Raoul Wootliff

Source Link

There was a time in Israeli politics when the idea of population transfer—the mass displacement of Palestinians—was so toxic that it was met with universal condemnation. Even within Israel's fractious and divided political system, there was a line that could not be crossed.

When Rabbi Meir Kahane, the far-right extremist and founder of the Kach party, stood in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) and called for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, lawmakers from across the political spectrum, including hardline Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, would walk out of the chamber in protest. His rhetoric was so extreme that his party was banned, declared racist even by his own nationalist allies. For decades, transfer remained the third rail of Israeli politics - so extreme, so indefensible, that it could not be spoken of in polite company.

Yesterday, standing beside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump gave Kahane's vision a certificate of approval.

At a press conference, Trump suggested the permanent relocation of Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring Arab countries, saying they "would be much happier elsewhere." He spoke casually about "taking over" the devastated enclave, presenting the idea of removing Gaza's entire population as a legitimate policy proposal. Netanyahu, who in past decades might have recoiled at such rhetoric, stood there, smiling.

Canada Is Merely First in Line

Jonathan Berkshire Miller

Source Link

Earlier this week, it appeared as if the Trump administration was going to follow through on its threat to impose a sweeping 25 percent tariff across the board on Canadian exports to the United States. Canada owes the United States “a lot of money, and I’m sure they’re going to pay,” President Donald Trump claimed. “We may have, short term, some little pain, and people understand that. But long term, the United States has been ripped off by virtually every country in the world.” Ottawa was sent scrambling for a response and announced a set of retaliatory tariffs, targeting $150

Congo's Curse : How competition for scarce resources causes grief and instability

Lawrence Freedman

Source Link

Conrad’s 1899 novella was a searing critique of European colonialism, but especially the form practiced on the misnamed Congo Free State. King Leopold II of the Belgians had established the area around the Congo basin as a private venture, treating the country’s resources as booty and controlling the population through barbaric practices in a way that was considered shameful even by other imperialists. This set a pattern. The country always seemed to get the worst of whatever was going at the time - colonial rule, corrupt dictatorships, civil wars, and foreign interference. Most of the country’s population still lives in poverty. This year rebels, backed by Rwanda, took over the eastern city of Goma, in a region which has never enjoyed much stability and in which many militias operate.

This is a country that should be enjoying its wealth. What is now the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is Africa’s second largest and fourth most populous country, with a surface area equivalent to Western Europe. It rests on approximately $24 trillion worth of natural resources. Before King Leopold concentrated on ivory and rubber. Now the range of its potential mineral wealth is extraordinary: cobalt (the largest producer in the world), copper (the largest producer in Africa), niobium, tantalum, coltan (80% of the world’s reserves), diamonds (30% of the world’s reserves), gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, and coal. Yet about a fifth of its population of about 100 million rely on aid to survive.

What Trump’s Trade War Would Mean, in Nine Charts

Shannon K. O'Neil and Julia Huesa

Source Link

On February 4, President Donald Trump imposed 10 percent tariffs on China, after reaching last-minute agreements with Canada and Mexico to delay tariffs by thirty days. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports come as punishment for Beijing’s failure to rein in the smuggling of fentanyl precursor chemicals, while the stay on tariffs for Ottawa and Mexico City comes after both countries promised greater cooperation on combatting drug smuggling. China has responded with 15 percent tariffs on U.S. coal, gas, and other goods, as well as restrictions on some minerals exports and the launch of an antitrust investigation into Google.

Here are nine graphics that show the potential economic effects of such tariffs on all four countries.

How could tariffs affect the United States?

Nearly half of all U.S. imports—more than $1.3 trillion—come from Canada, China, and Mexico. However, analysis by Bloomberg Economics shows that the new tariffs could reduce overall U.S. imports by 15 percent. While the Washington, DC-based Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs will generate around $100 billion per year in extra federal tax revenue, they could also impose significant costs on the broader economy: disrupting supply chains, raising costs for businesses, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and ultimately driving up consumer prices.

Will the Paris artificial intelligence summit set a unified approach to AI governance—or just be another conference?

Mia Hoffmann, Mina Narayanan, Owen J. Daniels

Source Link

Early next week, Paris will host the French Artificial Intelligence Action Summit, yet another global convening focused on harnessing the power of AI for a beneficial future. One of the conference’s key themes is devising structures to employ AI for good, with the primary aim being “to clarify and design a shared and effective governance framework with all relevant actors.”

While the summit’s intent is admirable, this goal has been attempted numerous times with limited success, given the challenges of getting nations with different priorities on the same AI page. It also ties into a broader concern for artificial intelligence in 2025, namely, how (and even whether) governments and companies creating AI will approach developing and controlling powerful new AI systems in a responsible way. In the past few weeks alone, China’s DeepSeek R1—a model approaching OpenAI’s o1 performance at a reportedly much lower cost—hit the market, President Trump announced the OpenAI-Softbank-Oracle Stargate Initiative, a $500 billion plan to build data and computing infrastructure in the United States, and his administration quickly rescinded the Biden administration’s executive order focused on AI safety and testing standards.

New models are arriving on the scene and massive business interests hope to drive AI advancements forward, full steam ahead. Safety has largely been given lip-service, if even that.

The convergence of space and cyber: An evolving threat landscape

Joseph Rooke

Source Link

What is currently happening?

Nation-states are swiftly adapting their militaries to compete in space, a largely unregulated domain abundant with resources. History has shown that advanced nations often exploit new frontiers, and space is no exception. With its virtually limitless resources, space has become a critical battleground.

Earth’s orbit is already highly contested, hosting satellites essential to global economies and military operations. Many of these satellites have been victims of cyberattacks, a trend that is certain to intensify. However, the focus extends beyond Earth’s ground stations and orbit, where we see espionage, destructive attacks, supply chain compromise, and signal hijacking. Nation-states are now setting their sights on deeper space, and that is where our attention must also turn.

What is going to happen?

The initial stage of Space Race 2.0 centers on Earth’s orbit, but the Moon, asteroids, and planets hold vast resources with the potential to transform nation-states in ways we can only begin to imagine. Efforts are already underway to colonize the Moon, mine asteroids, and establish a presence on habitable worlds beyond Earth.