Indian Strategic Studies: 03/10/25

10 March 2025

Recent Video Mocking Hinduism Reflects Growing Religious Polarization – Analysis

Iman Muttaqin Yusof

A seven-second video clip on social media targeting a Hindu festival is the latest incident that reflects growing polarization in multi-faith, multi-ethnic Malaysia, analysts say.

The clip, posted Tuesday on a radio station’s social media platform, showed three Malay Muslim on-air personalities mimicking devotees in a trance during a Hindu festival celebrated by the country’s ethnic Indian community. The Thaipusam festival was held last month.

Era FM, the station owned by the country’s largest broadcaster, Astro Radio, deleted the video on the same day it was posted but not before it was widely viewed. Malaysia’s largest Indian political party, the Malaysian Indian Congress, condemned the clip as a blatant insult to Hinduism.

Political analyst Azmil Tayeb said the incident reflected “growing insensitivity that is the result of the polarization we are seeing” in Malaysian society.

“Every slight, perceived or otherwise, can easily trigger raw emotions and be seen as an attack against one’s community. Polarization hardens people’s sense of ethnic and religious identity,” Azmil, from Universiti Sains Malaysia, told BenarNews.

Are Uyghur Militants Becoming ISKP’s New Force?

Besmillah Taban and David O’Brien

Uyghur separatist groups have consistently supported the Taliban in their two-decade-long fight for control of Afghanistan, but increased Chinese presence in the country is altering the status quo with significant risk for Beijing

The Taliban have long provided members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), also known as the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), with opportunities for residence, education, and illicit trade. In return these groups have supported the Taliban both financially, benefiting from complex Uyghur financial systems across the region, and with a supply of fighters.

The former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan government repeatedly reported the presence of these groups as one of the main foreign factions backing the Taliban, particularly in the northern and northeastern provinces of Afghanistan. The erstwhile Afghan government considered these Uyghur militant groups to be key operational arms of the Taliban in certain areas.

With the 2021 fall of the Republic and the Taliban’s return to power, China swiftly revealed and expanded its previously covert two-decade-long relationship with the Taliban. Although the Taliban initially expected extensive economic and political support from China, Beijing has backed a chosen few initiatives aligning with its economic and strategic interests.

America Needs Taiwan To Win the Semiconductor Race

Michael Cunningham

Any successful coach will tell you that if you have a winning playbook, don’t throw it out. Stick with what works. And that principle applies not just in sports, but in other fields too.

Take the United States and China. They’re locked in a battle for semiconductor dominance because both know that the winner will have an edge in the technologies that will shape the economic and security environment for decades to come.

Fortunately, the U.S. is already way ahead. It’s by far the world leader in semiconductor technology, and as long as it continues following this formula, there’s little China can do to catch up. It might even bankrupt itself trying.

The golden formula is as follows: U.S. semiconductor firms pour enormous sums of money into developing the world’s most advanced microchips. To maximize the amount of cash available for research and development, they outsource manufacturing to third-party foundries, many of which are in Taiwan. Not having to foot the tens of billions of dollars required to build each fabrication facility, U.S. chip designers have more capital to use for R&D, which results in even more advanced chips, and the process continues.

Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific: China’s Use of the Instruments of Power

Robert E. Hamilton & Christopher Primiano

Introduction

The first report in this series examined Chinese and Russian influence and interests in the Indo-Pacific region. This report, the second of five in the series, analyzes China’s use of the instruments of power to build its influence and advance its interests in a region it sees as vital to its future. We use a modified version of the DIME framework (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments) here, with the modification being that we do not analyze the information instruments separately. Even in an information environment as controlled as China’s, the state has multiple ways to shape the information space—some official and some unofficial, some acknowledged and others unacknowledged. Given these facts, a separate examination of the information instrument is beyond the scope of this report. Although it does not explicitly analyze the information instrument, the report weaves Beijing’s use of information throughout the narrative.

The report analyzes Beijing’s use of diplomatic, military, and economic instruments in the Indo-Pacific region, and then examines how Russia perceives China’s activity in the region. As with all reports in this series, this one defines the Indo-Pacific region as the Area of Responsibility (AOR) of US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM). Within the AOR, the report examines Chinese activity in the following subregions: Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, Japan/East China Sea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)/South China Sea, and India.

Trump’s tariffs won’t hurt ChinaThe superpowers divorced years ago

David Goldman

While President Trump seesaws between punishing or not punishing Canada and Mexico with tariffs, he has shown no such hesitation when it comes to China. Upon returning to the Oval Office, he doubled the 10% tariff on Chinese exports to the United States. The People’s Republic retaliated with tariffs on a range of US agricultural products, with the latest People’s National Congress in Beijing warning of a “bitter” fight ahead.

That sounds like a script for a trade war, but it may not play out this way.

Chinese tech stocks have rallied sharply in recent days, and Beijing shows little inclination to escalate relentlessly in response. This is because both Washington and Beijing know well that the old bilateral China-US trade relationship is untenable. Under that arrangement, US consumers underwrote China’s industrial might at the expense of America’s domestic manufacturing sector. It was the product of a neoliberal consensus that has proved deeply unpopular with the working-class and lower-middle-class Americans who form the Trumpian GOP’s base.

In short, the old free-trade regime isn’t coming back, and both sides are making plans accordingly. Trump may reduce tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for stronger action to curb illegal immigration and opioids, or other concessions. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on 5 March, “I think [Trump’s] going to figure out, ‘you do more, and I’ll meet you in the middle some way’. And we’re probably going to be announcing that tomorrow”. Hong Kong’s tech stock index, which traded flat until just before Tuesday’s close, jumped 10% in the three sessions after Lutnick’s remarks came across the wire.

The Limits of a U.S.-China Deal

Brendan Kelly and Michael Hirson

In his first few weeks back in the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken a split-screen approach to his dealings with China, leaving U.S. financial markets, multinational firms, and Chinese leaders in limbo. Trump has already imposed a ten percent tariff hike on imports from China and threatened another increase. These moves will raise the U.S. weighted average tariff rate on Chinese goods by 20 percentage points over the course of just two months, much more than the 12 percent rise during his first term’s U.S.-Chinese trade war.

Ukraine Forced To Saudi Talks With Fewer Cards Than Ever – Analysis

Ray Furlong

Ukraine is a recalcitrant mule that’s been smashed on the nose with a plank of wood.

This colorful image is a paraphrase of a telling remark this week by US special envoy Keith Kellogg that sums up Washington’s view of Ukraine’s rocky road from the bust-up in the White House to new talks with US negotiators in Saudi Arabia.

Kellogg was discussing the US decision to pause military supplies to Ukraine and suspend intelligence cooperation. The aim, he said, was to compel Ukraine to join talks.

“The best way I can describe it is sort of like hitting a mule with a two by four across the nose,” Kellogg said. “You got their attention.”

In other words, Ukraine’s biggest military backer has wielded a big stick to get its way, and it seems to have worked.

“The push is to get them to engage in diplomatic activities…. The bottom line is that it’s a forcing function to get them to the table,” Kellogg said at an event in Washington on March 6.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy heads to Riyadh on March 10 to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, followed by talks between Ukrainian and US delegations in Jeddah later in the week.

Turkish-Kurdish Conflict at a Turning Point: What’s Next?

Paulo Aguiar

On February 27, 2025, Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), made a groundbreaking call for the group to lay down its arms, dissolve, and integrate into the Turkish state. The momentous announcement could bring an end to a conflict that has spanned decades, taken over 40,000 lives, and shaped the political landscape of the region. While there is cautious optimism, the future of the peace process remains uncertain, especially considering past attempts, the internal complexities of Kurdish politics, and broader regional geopolitics. The announcement is not just about the PKK ceasing its armed struggle but also about the possibility of redefining the relationship between Turkey and its Kurdish population, impacting domestic politics and regional alliances alike.

Key Developments

Öcalan’s statement set off a chain of events, each carrying profound political and military implications. Pro-Kurdish Turkish legislators publicly read his message, emphasizing that the PKK no longer holds the same historical, sociological, or ideological relevance it once did. This public acknowledgment by the government was not merely symbolic but indicated a broader effort to frame the organization as obsolete in the eyes of both Turkish citizens and the international community.

Trained on classified battlefield data, AI multiplies effectiveness of Ukraine’s drones: Report

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Ukraine has taken publicly available AI models, retrained them on its own extensive real-world data from frontline combat, and deployed them on a variety of drones — increasing their odds of hitting Russian targets “three- or four-fold,” according to a new thinktank report.

“By removing the need for constant manual control and stable communications … drones enabled with autonomous navigation raise the target engagement success rate from 10 to 20 percent to around 70 to 80 percent,” writes Ukrainian-American scholar Kateryna Bondar, a former advisor to Kyiv, in a new report released today by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “These systems can often achieve objectives using just one or two drones per target rather than eight or nine.”

To be clear, Ukraine has not built the Terminator. “We’re very far from killer robots,” Bondar told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview. But in contrast to the more cautious bureaucracy of the West, she said, “the Ukrainians are more open to testing and trying anything and everything that can kill more Russians.”

President Trump’s Shout-Out To The Military-Industrial Complex – OpEd

Adam Dick

President Donald Trump’s efforts, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and otherwise, to reduce United States government spending is the focus of much attention. Indeed, in his speech Tuesday night in the US Capitol, Trump listed several expenditures his administration had uncovered that he categorized as “appalling waste.” He also declared that his administration would balance the budget, something he noted had not been accomplished in 24 years.

It was thus peculiar that Trump slipped into his over hour and a half speech a shout-out to one of the groups most notorious for involvement in massive spending by the United States government — the military-industrial complex. The shout-out, though, was likely not understood by most people. This is because Trump did not use the term “military industrial complex.”

The term “military-industrial complex” was first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech in the context of a warning to the American people. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” declared Eisenhower on January 17, 1961. Continuing, Eisenhower warned that this military-industrial complex threatened to “endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” Over the decades since, the term has been regularly used by other individuals who have warned, like Eisenhower did, against this particularly dangerous and expensive public-private venture.

Three Scenarios For The War In Ukraine – Analysis

Can Kasapoğlu

Battlefield Assessment

Last week both sides won modest tactical gains. But no strategic changes altered the map significantly.

In eastern Ukraine, areas adjacent to Pokrovsk saw continued intensive combat, while the southern theater was relatively calm. In occupied Kherson, the Ukrainian Separate 14th Regiment successfully targeted a Russian training ground with cluster munitions. In Ukraine’s north, near Kharkiv, Russia conducted air and missile strikes. The Russian military continued to suffer more than 1,000 casualties per day, and Ukraine carried out multiple loitering munitions salvos targeting the Russian hydrocarbon network.

Kursk was a notable exception to the general battlefield stasis. Russia has been pushing hard in Kursk following the return of North Korean servicemen to combat operations. Alarmingly, the Ukrainian military lost 15 to 20 square miles in less than a week.

Ukrainian defense intelligence officials announced that they have been tracking a serious hike in Russian drone proliferation efforts, with the joint Russia-Iran drone plant in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan boosting production capacity. According to other Ukrainian officials, the Russian military has long sought to achieve the capability to launch 500 drones at Ukraine in a single salvo, a dangerous strike pattern if it can be realized. The increase in Russia’s drone production is an important trend that this report will continue to monitor.

Here’s How Much Aid the United States Has Sent Ukraine

Jonathan Masters and Will Merrow

Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has become by far the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. This marks the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II. Yet 2025 appears to mark a potential turning point, with President Donald Trump in early March pausing all aid to Ukraine as he presses the country to move forward on peace talks with Russia.

How much money has the United States provided Ukraine?

The U.S. Congress has voted through five bills that have provided Ukraine with aid since the war began, doing so most recently in April 2024. The total budget authority under these bills—the “headline” figure often cited by news media—is $175 billion. The historic sums have helped a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU), are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine.

Can France and the United Kingdom Replace the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella?

Astrid Chevreuil and Doreen Horschig

On February 20, 2025, shortly before Germany’s snap elections, Friedrich Merz, chairman of the conservative Christian Democratic Union and Germany’s next chancellor, made a prominent declaration about the future of European nuclear deterrence: “We need to have discussions with both the British and the French—the two European nuclear powers—about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, could also apply to us.” Germany has been a key participant in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement since the Cold War, hosting U.S. nuclear weapons and maintaining dual-capable aircraft that could deliver them if necessary. This role has long been a symbol of transatlantic solidarity, yet it has become the subject of renewed political debate amid growing uncertainty over U.S. commitments to NATO’s security guarantees.

Q1: How is uncertainty over U.S. commitment shaping the European nuclear deterrence debate?

A1: Following Merz’s comments in an interview on Saturday, March 1, 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron said he was ready to “open the discussion” on European deterrence and recalled that “there has always been a European dimension to France’s vital interests within its nuclear doctrine.” Nevertheless, he made it clear that such a sensitive discussion would have to be carefully framed in the current strategic context where the U.S. political commitment might be questioned.

Speak softly and carry a big stick

Patrick Porter

In a world where nuclear annihilation is possible, how much should we fear the danger of war escalating?

The question has resurfaced with the conflict in Ukraine. It last seriously arose for the West during the Korean War of 1950–53 and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In Korea, Cuba and now Ukraine, a breed of “maximalist” war hawks offer the same answer: “not much”.

Indeed, they argue our anxiety is the problem. They lambast the policy of blunting Russian aggression whilst taking steps to avoid going to the brink. They accuse doubters of being feckless appeasers, branding policies short of maximalism as cowardly, irrational surrender to Russian coercion. It is folly, they say, to moderate Western efforts against Moscow, since we are already “at war” with Russia. To take Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats seriously is to fall prey to “self-deterrence”.

Since Putin’s “red lines” have proven false before, we should treat them all as bluffs. Shielded by our arsenals, “we” can refuse to be deterred, confident Russia will choose to be deterred. In the words of military historian Eliot Cohen, “What should we do in response to Putin’s nuclear bluster? Follow John Paul II’s wisdom: ‘Be not afraid.’”

Invest in Battlefield Obscuration to Win During Large-Scale Combat Operations

Lt. Col. Michael Carvelli, U.S. Army

Smoke and dust obscure the battlefield as camouflaged M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles support the final assault by members of the 2nd Battalion, 41st Infantry, 2nd Armored Division, during a company team attack exercise on 27 January 1986 at the Shell Point training area on Fort Hood, Texas. (Photo by William U. Rosenmund, courtesy of the National Archives)

Russian and Ukrainian tactics in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict highlight the need for the U.S. Army to revive battlefield obscuration.1 Two types of offensive operations—the combined arms breach and the wet-gap crossing—have shown a lack of obscuration capability, understanding, and use in the Russian and Ukrainian armies. This obscuration gap resulted in debilitating casualties on both sides, delaying progress or causing mission failure. It is prudent for the U.S. Army to learn from its tactics in this ongoing conflict and apply these lessons through doctrinal, organizational, and materiel investments.

When Russia seized more Ukrainian territory in February 2022, Russia quickly consolidated gains and constructed defenses, including a labyrinth of minefields, wire obstacles, and trenches.2 These defenses are reminiscent of World War I when the battle lines stabilized and forces on both sides settled into complex defensives in depth across a wide battlefield. To overcome these defenses, Ukrainian forces attempted to breach the Russian lines in multiple locations with limited success. The Ukrainian military suffered casualties from these offensive operations because the Russians were able to observe their movement and mass a variety of fires, including antitank guided missiles, cannons, mortars, and heavy machine guns. The Ukrainians did not employ vast quantities of smoke, white phosphorus, or other means to blind Russian defenders costing Ukrainian lives in the breach.

How To End The Russia-Ukraine War

Lawrence J. Korb, and Stephen Cimbala

Donald Trump as a presidential candidate in 2024 and now president in 2025 indicated his intention to obtain a peace agreement that would end the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine by engaging in direct talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, has cost many Ukrainian and Russian lives and left much of Ukrainian infrastructure devastated.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, demanded that he be included in any peace talks. The major European countries have indicated a willingness to contribute to post-settlement peacekeeping forces deployed in Ukraine, they have also demanded that they be part of any negotiations.

Although the case for a peace agreement in Ukraine is compelling from a humanitarian standpoint, and even if Ukraine and our European allies become part of the negotations finding the correct protocols to accomplish this mission in a way that satisfies all parties, particularly the Russians, poses major obstacles for participants in negotiations and their various supporters and interlocutors. The objectives and structure for such negotiations must include:

1) Arranging a cease-fire in place at a time agreed upon by Ukraine and Russia;

2) Stipulating which forces on each side can remain stationed on Ukrainian territory after the ceasefire and during follow-on negotiations. For this purpose, Crimea will be assumed as Russian territory, but the status of other oblasts and towns in the east and south of Ukraine will be subjects for further discussion.

Ukraine Is Never Joining NATO

Doug Bandow

Someone needs to explain the meaning of “no” to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He wants NATO to induct his nation and seems to on a mission to get it.

Ukraine Is Desperate for NATO Membership: It Won’t Ever Happen

“An invitation for Ukraine to join Nato is a necessary thing for our survival,” he said in December.

Last month he offered to yield his office if doing so would win alliance approval. After his clash with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, Zelensky declared: “If we cannot be accepted to NATO, we need some clear structure of security guarantees from our allies in the U.S.”

Trump said no. Nor is he alone. President Joe Biden said no. President Barack Obama said no. The only president who advocated bringing Ukraine into NATO was George W. Bush, whose reckless foreign policy caused thousands of American military and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian deaths in the Middle East and South Asia. The transatlantic alliance’s resulting promise to include Kyiv, made at Bush’s behest at the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, was an essential factor in Moscow’s decision for war nearly 14 years later.

'A pig in lipstick': Trump's strategic Bitcoin reserve criticised

Annabelle Liang & Liv McMahon

President Donald Trump's decision to establish official government cryptocurrency reserves in the US has drawn criticism from industry watchers.

He has signed an executive order creating what he calls a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve as well as a Digital Asset Stockpile, which will consist of other forms of digital currency.

The funds will be stocked with coins forfeited to the federal government as part of criminal or civil proceedings.

White House AI and crypto tsar David Sacks likened them to a "a digital Fort Knox for the cryptocurrency", drawing comparison to the Kentucky military base that stores a significant portion of US gold assets.

However, some crypto enthusiasts have criticised the government for not being bolder, while others have raised question marks about the lack of transparency over the process.

Sacks has ordered a full accounting of the federal government's existing crypto reserves, which he estimated at 200,000 Bitcoin alone. That's worth $17.5bn (£13.6bn) at today's prices.

Speaking to reporters at the White House ahead of a special crypto summit on Friday, Sacks said that it was a "real shame that we did not maximise value for the American taxpayer."

Nuclear Warning for Donald Trump

Matthew Tostevin

Although President Donald Trump has said he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, the uncertainty he is creating over global alliances has made it likely more countries will consider them, nuclear weapons experts say.

The risk is of a new wave of nuclear proliferation, with a larger number of nuclear powers increasing the chance of either intentional or accidental use of atomic weapons—if not World War III.

"Many of the countries that earlier decided to forego the nuclear weapons option did so precisely because of the protection provided by the United States and alliances," said Elena Sokova, executive director of the nonprofit Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.

"I'm first and most concerned about the developments among the United States and Europe, the traditional partners, but in the same way in Asia. Asia-Pacific is also feeling the pressure and also concerns about the reliability of the alliances."

A State Department spokesperson told Newsweek: "The United States has long worked to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons."

Trump’s intel, cyberattack cuts threaten Ukraine’s survival

Daniel Williams

US President Donald Trump, in line with his sudden moves to ease hostile relations with Russia and steer Ukraine’s post-war destiny, has taken concrete steps to weaken Kyiv’s ability to defend itself against Moscow’s slow drive for conquest.

After announcing a “pause” in the delivery of US$1 billion worth of US weaponry, top administration officials announced the suspension of a pair of military-related programs, namely the supply of intelligence information to Ukraine’s besieged army and another designed to limit the impact of Russian cyberattacks.

On Wednesday (March 5), director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliff, said the cutoff of intelligence support was part of the “pause” in US aid to Ukraine’s military.

“I think on the military front, and the intelligence front, the pause that allowed that (suspension) to happen, I think will go away,” he said. “And I think we’ll work shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine, as we have, to push back on the aggression that’s there.”

“We are pausing, assessing, looking at everything across our security relationship,” added National Security Adviser Mike Waltz when asked directly about intelligence-sharing with Kyiv.

Is the U.S. Heading Into a Recession Under Trump? Here’s What to Know

Rebecca Schneid

Various experts, utilizing several key financial indicators, are stating that the odds of a recession in the United States may be getting higher.

According to Bloomberg, U.S. consumer confidence has dropped this month the most since August 2021, with recession fears on the rise. The Atlanta Federal Reserve model has also suggested that economic growth might be negative in Q1 2025.

Yet, there’s some disagreement across the economic spectrum as to whether a recession is being indicated. The New York Federal Reserve recently pointed to healthy economic growth in Q1 of 2025.

With consumers and experts alike concerned about a recession, particularly amid mass changes being made by the Trump Administration—such as proposed reciprocal tariffs and mass layoffs—here's what you need to know.

What is a recession?

A recession can be defined as a “significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, income, and other indicators,” says Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the economic think tank Groundwork Collective.

Asian Democracies In Doubt About DeepSeek – Analysis

Seth Hays

The release of China’s DeepSeek R1 generative AI model, purportedly built on significantly less computing power and money than comparable models, made headlines across the world. While much discussion is focused on how this moves US–China AI competition, the rest of Asia is assessing the impact of this new player on their AI governance and industrial policies from practical and rights-based perspectives.

Examining policy moves by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in response to DeepSeek shows the importance of AI governance. Particularly in the areas of privacy protection and national security, AI governance is necessary for a successful cross-border AI industry to thrive in Asia and positioning these countries to take advantage of industry volatility.

South Korea’s Personal Information Privacy Commission suspended the use of DeepSeek in South Korea due to concerns about the company’s collection and processing of personal data. The privacy regulator indicated that DeepSeek expressed its interest in actively cooperating with the authorities by appointing a local agent.

South Korea’s approach has been balanced in that it noted that the deficiencies can be remedied and the services restored after improvements are made. It cited similar concerns that were raised by US-based AI services, such as OpenAI and Google AI services.

The Coming Battle for AI

Ronan Wordsworth

In January, China took the tech world by surprise when it unveiled DeepSeek, an artificial intelligence company that has proved to be as competitive as any other but at a much lower cost. The event was a wake-up call to policy officials of all stripes in Washington, who understand that AI will soon affect, to some degree or another, all aspects of political life.

Dominance in this field requires massive computing power, a big enough energy supply to power the vast data centers behind AI, and, finally, the human resources needed to develop new and innovative iterations. It’s little wonder, then, that governments are racing to finance the very infrastructure on which AI relies. Within days of the beginning of U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration announced the creation of an enterprise known as Stargate, which plans to invest $500 billion in private sector AI infrastructure. In February, ahead of a multinational AI summit in Paris, France announced investments totaling around $112 billion in AI infrastructure and development. This included $20 billion from Canadian investment firms for new AI projects, up to $50 billion from the United Arab Emirates for new data centres, and large investments in Mistral, a European competitor to OpenAI and DeepSeek. China already has a surplus of data centers, having constructed hundreds in the western provinces, while large tech firms such as ByteDance are investing billions in additional facilities.

The AI Boom And The Future Of Data Centers: How Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping Digital Infrastructure – Analysis

Syed Raiyan Amir

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to an unprecedented surge in demand for high-performance computing power. At the heart of this revolution lies the data center, a critical infrastructure that enables AI development, cloud computing, and big data analytics.

As AI-driven applications become more sophisticated, the need for advanced, scalable, and efficient data centers is growing at an exponential rate. This article explores the relationship between AI and data centers, analyzing how the AI boom is fueling a transformation in data center design, infrastructure, energy consumption, and the future of digital ecosystems.

Understanding Data Centers and Their Role in AI

A data center is a facility equipped with powerful servers, networking hardware, and storage systems designed to process and manage vast amounts of data. These centers serve as the backbone of modern computing, supporting applications ranging from enterprise cloud services to complex AI models. The increasing integration of AI technologies is pushing data centers to adopt more robust and efficient infrastructures to meet the growing computational demands.

$2,000,000,000,000 Question: Is the F-35 Fighter Worth It?

Kyle Mizokami

Why the F-35 Lightning II Is Both a Huge Success and Controversial Fighter Jet

The F-35 Lightning II strike fighter is shaping up to be the most successful fighter aircraft ever. But it is also a lock to be the most controversial fighter of all time.

Over the past 20 years, the aircraft has seen repeated delays, endured repeated calls for it to be canceled, and moved through technical, cost, and supply-chain problems.

Now, more than two decades into the program, is the F-35 shaping up to be worth the $2 trillion (or more) it will cost over its lifetime?

There are many criteria to judge an airplane’s success or failure. The most important, its primacy in combat, is still unknown for the F-35, as the aircraft has not faced a peer opponent on the battlefield, and hopefully never will.

This short article will measure the F-35’s worth using other metrics.

The F-35 Is No Joke

The F-35 is on track to becoming a successful fighter, but air forces are having to live with some disappointments related to the fighter—chiefly involving money.