Khalistan Separatist Propaganda Continues – Analysis

Terry Milewski

Source Link

Ominous threats against two Chief Ministers. A close-up simulating one being shot in the face. A “bounty” offered for an Indian Army general facing assassination. And applause for a terrorist who slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians.

For Indian viewers, these are a few of the surprises — which should not be surprises at all — obscured by the Indian government’s ban on the U.S.-based separatist group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). Fronted by an energetic American lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who is officially labelled a terrorist in India, SFJ has been fighting through the ban and the pandemic to finally begin voting in its unofficial referendum on a breakaway Sikh state called Khalistan.

The timing of the initial vote in London — on the anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984 — was not accidental, and it gives a clue to what Indians are not seeing because of the ban on Sikhs for Justice.

The group was branded an illegal organisation in January 2020, when a government order was ratified by Chief Justice D.N. Patel of the Delhi High Court. Justice Patel ruled that SFJ’s activities “threaten the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of India.” Dozens of SFJ websites were blocked in India and Pannun himself was declared an “individual terrorist.”

What is Tehreek-e-Labbaik, the radical group under spotlight after arrest of 11 Pakistanis in Spain

Debdutta Chakraborty

Source Link

Spanish authorities, last week, arrested 11 Pakistanis in Barcelona for alleged ties to Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), a far-right Islamist party in Pakistan. The accused were apprehended in an early morning joint operation by the Spanish National Police and the Italian police forces.

In a post on X, the Spanish police stated that those arrested were charged with inciting violence, operating through encrypted channels, and allegedly calling for beheadings for blasphemy.

The operation marked the third phase of a three-year-long investigation into radical groups operating in Barcelona, reportedly. A total of 30 arrests have been made over the past three years. In the current phase of the operation, the police arrested 10 members of the group in Barcelona. Meanwhile, one was apprehended in Piacenza, Italy, by the Italian law enforcement in a joint operation.

The alleged leader of the group—reportedly associated with the TLP—is a 55-year-old Pakistani who used encrypted messaging platforms to incite violent actions and praise attacks over blasphemy allegations in Europe and Pakistan, a Pakistani media report stated.

No, The First Island Chain Isn’t Lost

Eric Lies

Source Link

Denial does not equate to dominance. In Brandon Weichert’s recent article in this publication, he argues that the United States has potentially “already lost the First Island Chain” due to China’s growing anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. He follows that up with the argument that U.S. actions in the Second Island Chain are essentially a tacit acknowledgement of Chinese control of the Taiwan Strait. While the challenges he identified in his piece are very real, his conclusion represents a logical leap that misses the mark.

If we had the unfortunate opportunity to see a cross-strait war, what we would see would be more akin to a bloody game of hide-and-seek as commanders take advantage of localized dominance and openings.

There are three primary issues with these arguments. First, the sheer size of the potential conflict area precludes complete dominance. Second, the development of Second Island Chain basing enables improved distributed lethality and survivability. Third, by decreasing the efficacy of a Chinese surprise attack, the likelihood of deterrence holding increases.

Even if combat was limited to the area immediately around Taiwan, the sheer scope of ocean and airspace that would need to be monitored is immense, not to mention the need to monitor Taiwan itself. While improving, the Chinese ability to collect weapons guidance quality data wouldn’t cover the entire battle space at all times.

What Is Trump’s China Policy?

Ravi Agrawal

Source Link

The early weeks of President Donald Trump’s second stint in the White House suggest a sharp turn in how the United States might deal with allies in Europe or issues such as trade or the climate crisis. But how, exactly, are Trump’s policies on China different from those of his predecessor? And how does Beijing view a change in U.S. leadership?

For answers, I spoke with Rush Doshi, a China scholar and former deputy senior director for China and Taiwan on President Joe Biden’s National Security Council. Doshi is the author of The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order and is currently director of the China Strategy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box atop this page or follow the FP Live podcast. What follows here is a condensed and lightly edited transcript.

Iran Could Lose Iraq

Michael Knights and Hamdi Malik

Source Link

Ever since its revolution in 1979, Iran has cultivated a network of proxies and friends throughout the Middle East. For years, this strategy proved successful. Slowly but surely, Tehran’s “axis of resistance” gained influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, where it railed against Israel and the United States. In September 2014, Iran-backed Houthi militants captured Yemen’s biggest city. Shortly thereafter, an Iranian parliamentarian boasted that his government controlled four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sanaa.

But events over the past year have upended the regional order. Today, Iran has largely lost control of two of those four Arab capitals. Israel’s war in Lebanon has decimated Hezbollah, the Tehran-backed militant group that dominated Beirut. In December, Turkish-backed Sunni forces wrested control of Damascus from Bashar al-Assad’s regime, an Iranian ally that had controlled Syria for half a century. Now, the Islamic Republic is terrified that another domino might fall.

Iraq is the most likely place for that to happen. Security forces in Yemen and in Iran itself appear strong and brutal enough to maintain control of their own populations. But Tehran’s lackeys in Iraq are getting nervous. Iran-backed Iraqi militias attacked U.S. forces and Israeli targets regularly throughout 2024, killing three U.S. soldiers in a drone strike in March of that year. But these militias appear to have changed course. They have not launched a strike since early December—a sign that they are growing more fearful of attracting Washington’s attention.

Russia’s Su-35 Fighter Is No Joke—Just Ask Ukraine

Brandon J. Weichert

Source Link

Western media reports on the ongoing Ukraine War have typically lionized the capabilities of the Ukrainian side, while downplaying the strengths of the Russians. Hence it has come as a surprise to some observers that Ukraine’s NATO-donated F-16s have mostly been ineffective against the Russian Su-35—with the spokesman of the Ukrainian Air Force even admitting candidly in 2023 that the F-16s were “outdated” and “cannot counter” the Russian fourth-generation++ warplane.

Russia Has Adapted, And NATO Has Not

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it was widely derided in the Western press for relying on inferior Soviet-era equipment. Indeed, the Russian army’s failures in the opening days of the conflict came at least in part from relying on such equipment against the modern munitions provided to Ukraine by NATO—most notably the Javelin missile.

But in all wars, adaptation is key—and Russia has spent the last three years remedying the inadequacies of their older Soviet equipment and augmenting it after many hard lessons learned in the killing fields of eastern Ukraine. War is a dynamic enterprise, and whatever systems are used at the start of a conflict—especially if that conflict drags on as the war in Ukraine has—means that the military must adapt their systems constantly based upon battlefield experience. Russia has done this. Ukraine, dependent on modern NATO systems, mostly has not—with predictable results in combat. Moreover, Moscow has married its war-time defense industrial base to the need for constant adaptation of equipment.

Nickels And Dimes: Trump’s Defense Cuts Are Unrealistic

Michael O’Hanlon

Source Link

Throughout Donald Trump’s second term, the President has talked about cutting the nation’s military budget in half if China and Russia would do the same.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has asked the military services to show how they might cut 8 percent annually from current budgets each over the next five years, perhaps to reduce the defense budget, but more likely to create substantial new military capabilities like an Iron Dome for the entire United States.

Practically, in today’s turbulent 2020s, the United States would do well to limit the growth of annual defense spending to a few tens of billions of dollars, even without an Iron Dome.

Military Budget Cuts Of Times Past

Such significant cuts in the military’s budget only occurred after the fall of the USSR, marking the end of the Cold War. Secretaries of Defense Dick Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Perry, along with careful congressional stewards of the armed forces, reduced the military from 2.2 million active-duty uniformed personnel to 1.4 million and gave weapons manufacturers a not-so-desired “procurement holiday.”

Zelenskyy’s Last Stand?

Sam Faddis

Source Link

In 1876 Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and a large portion of his 7th Cavalry were killed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. More than anything else, that disaster can be attributed to Custer’s hubris. He refused to wait for the rest of the U.S. Army forces to arrive, divided his own relatively small force and charged with only a dim understanding of how many Native American warriors he was facing. By the time he understood what he had done it was too late.

The Little Bighorn River is in Montana. However, we may be getting ready to see a reenactment in Ukraine. President Zelenskyy has let his own ego drive his decision-making, and Putin is every bit as unforgiving as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull ever were.

A short time ago, Zelenskyy stood on the verge of an historic achievement. If he was at all cooperative, Donald Trump would very likely force an end to the war in Ukraine and end the killing. Zelenskyy might well have to make some territorial concessions, but he would emerge as the man who stopped Putin in his tracks and ended once and for all any thought of Russia resurrecting the Soviet Union.

Doge and American Military Power – There’s a Tsunami Coming

Michael Shoebridge

Source Link

Elon Musk has the goal of saving $1 trillion dollars from the U.S. Federal Government’s expenditure by 30 September 2025. He has to find cuts of $4 billion every day until then. The sheer numbers mean Pentagon and U.S. military power will be in the frame along with everything else.

At the remarkable February Musk-Trump Cabinet meeting, President Trump told Musk to be more aggressive – because it was running about $15 billion behind at that time.

So, we’re only at the beginning for what lies ahead to September.

The raw numbers of the U.S. budget are $7.028 trillion in spending, with $5.163 trillion in revenue, leaving a $1.865 trillion deficit. Musk’s $1 trillion savings goal Musk is 15% of U.S. government spending.

That scale of cuts can’t be found in diversity programs or ending salaries of dead civil servants still on payrolls – two poster children for the MAGA crowd. Closing whole agencies like the Education Department also won’t be enough – they’re blips in $7 trillion. DOGE will have to go to all big spend areas in the budget and get that chainsaw out that Musk frolicked with at a recent conservative convention. That means social security ($1.5 trillion) and health, Medicare and Medicaid (at $1.8 trillion) and Defense (at $859 billion).

Taliban’s fractured regime teeters toward collapse

Muhammad Burhan

Source Link

Since its return to power in 2021, Afghanistan’s Taliban have struggled to transform their insurgent movement into a functioning government. Beneath an outward show of unity, the hardline regime is plagued by deep-rooted factionalism, economic mismanagement and growing public dissatisfaction.

According to analyst Mabin Biek, writing for The Cipher in an article titled “Taliban’s Internal Power Struggle: A Regime on the Brink,” the group’s greatest existential threat may not be another foreign intervention but rather its own internal fractures.

If left unchecked, these divisions could accelerate the Taliban’s collapse and plunge Afghanistan into yet another prolonged crisis.

One of the most pressing issues facing the Taliban government is its inability to maintain cohesion among various factions. Under the leadership of Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, the movement has become more centralized around his Noorzai tribal base. That tribal preference is known to have alienated other key Taliban leaders.

Canada Will Stand Firm Despite Trump's Disastrous Tariffs | Opinion

Faisal Kutty

Source Link

Tariffs on. Tariffs off. Tariffs on. Tariffs off. Just a day after President Donald Trump imposed long-awaited tariffs on Canada, his administration swiftly granted exemptions for the auto industry until April 2 and effectively removed goods shipped under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement—amounting to 38 percent of Canadian exports—from the tariff list until next month.

Last week was a whirlwind of chaos. Rapid trade policy shifts left businesses scrambling, markets uncertain, and governments frustrated. Canadian manufacturers rushed to revise production plans, while once-stable supply chains plunged into turmoil. Financial analysts struggled to gauge the long-term effects of ever-changing policies. Meanwhile, U.S. firms reliant on Canadian materials faced a costly dilemma: absorb rising costs or pass them to consumers.

Canada's foreign affairs minister calls it a "psychodrama"—instability is the only constant. The Trump administration favors bluster over diplomacy, treating Canada with disdain. For Canada, it's an existential threat; for Trump, a game. He mocks Justin Trudeau, claiming the Canadian prime minister is exploiting tariffs to stay in power—which he isn't.

For more than a century, the U.S. and Canada built a close, prosperous partnership—standing together in war, mutually fueling their economies through trade, and maintaining the world's longest undefended border. Trump has upended that relationship, sparking a trade war that threatens families, businesses, and political stability.

Turkey’s Return to Africa

Raphael Parens & Marcel Plichta

Source Link

What Does Turkey Want in Africa?

Turkey is not the largest power interested in Africa. Its economic engagement, arms sales, and foreign aid are dwarfed by one or more of the major powers. However, its position as a minor player is often a major advantage. Having a more modest presence on the continent than the US, China, Russia, or the EU means that Ankara can invest deeply in core areas of interest. Even though it is a NATO member with historical enmity toward Russia and a history of colonialism in North Africa under the Ottoman Empire, Ankara has positioned itself, its NGOs, and its contractors as fairly neutral actors compared to the competition. Where some countries might be worried about dealing with Russia or China for fear of backlash from the US or EU, Turkey often delivers security and economic benefits without upsetting the Great Powers.

So, what does Turkey want out of its partnerships in Africa? Unlike the larger powers, Ankara sees Africa as a core part of its global political and economic engagement, following in the footsteps of its Ottoman forefathers. Turkey could benefit from such new relations by expanding diplomatic support at the UN, becoming a pressure reliever for Syrian political and refugee issues, and negotiating favorable economic trade deals. Growing its political and economic influence in Africa also establishes an avenue to compete with regional rivals in the Middle East. To grow its economic and political clout, Turkey often pairs its projects with military elements through security and resource protection activities or arms sales.

The F-35 ‘Kill Switch’: Separating Myth from Reality

David Cenciotti & Stefano D'Urso

Source Link

In the shadow of escalating tensions between Europe and the United States over NATO commitments and the war in Ukraine, a persistent myth about the F-35 Lightning II has exploded online: the notion that the Pentagon has embedded a “kill switch” in the fifth-generation fighter jet, allowing it to remotely disable or impair the aircraft operated by foreign allies.

With over 1,100 F-35s in service across 16 armed forces worldwide, this rumor has gained rapid traction online, stoking fears among nations like Germany and Canada about their military sovereignty—and U.S. control in a time of significant geopolitical uncertainty.

The “kill switch” narrative posits that the U.S. can deactivate or limit the combat functions of F-35s sold to allied nations, effectively holding a veto over their military operations. This concern has echoed in X discussions, with users claiming, “Europeans are now worried if there is a kill switch in all the American weapons sold to Europe! (Answer: Yes ).”

Philosopher saints Augustine, Aquinas guide US grand strategy

Grand Strategy

Source Link

The art of grand strategy is often treated as an exercise in power projection, deterrence, and securing national interests in an anarchic international order. Yet, the great thinkers of the Western tradition provide a deeper moral and philosophical framework for thinking about statecraft.

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, drawing on the classical tradition, particularly Plato, developed an enduring vision of virtue that should inform our understanding of leadership and strategy. Their articulation of the cardinal virtues — prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance — offers a timeless lens through which to frame and evaluate grand strategy.

Each of these virtues plays a role in crafting a sound approach to foreign policy, but temperance stands out as the most vital in a world where great powers risk overextension, unnecessary conflicts, and countless other self-inflicted wounds ultimately grounded in hubris and the desire for primacy.

.

America’s and Ukraine’s Interests Don’t Align

Anthony J. Constantini

Source Link

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s blowup in the Oval Office was the end of what should have been an obvious chain of events. The press has reported for the past two months on what increasingly dire relations between the Trump and Zelensky administrations. Trump had been offended by a series of Zelensky’s actions, from misleading his team on his thoughts regarding the minerals deal to Zelensky’s criticism of Trump “living in a disinformation space.”

But beyond those personal differences, it also is the result of a truth which had been boiling up since as early as the Biden administration: America’s and Ukraine’s national interests simply no longer align.

Consider Ukraine’s national interests. While the period of maximum peril – when Russian tanks were miles from Kyiv – is long past, Russia, a significantly larger and more powerful country, still has managed to capture about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory. This has included the entirety of the Azov Coast, effectively turning the Azov Sea into a Russian lake. While Ukraine has (thanks to Western weaponry and courageous soldiers) managed to hold its own, they are running out of troops and have been for some time. If the Russo-Ukrainian War becomes a war of attrition, it will end with Russia conquering more territory than it currently possesses.

Moscow Seeks to Capitalize on Weakening Western Unity

Ksenia Kirillova

Source Link

Pro-Kremlin analysts persist in formulating strategies for continued conflict with the West despite Moscow signaling the potential suspension of Russia’s war against Ukraine (see EDM, February 10). One such strategy, consistent with previous years, is to undermine the dominance of the U.S. dollar. Since 2022, Moscow has openly hoped for the creation of a single currency by the BRICS bloc. [1] A single BRICS currency would enable member states to avoid sanctions and replace “the toxic and inconvenient” dollar in international markets (VM.ru, July 3, 2023). This has placed other BRICS states in an awkward position, prompting, for example, South African Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana to officially declare in August 2023 that the question of establishing a single BRICS currency had never been discussed, even during informal meetings (Forbes.ru, August 24, 2023). In December 2024, the notion of another currency replacing the dollar in the global financial system angered then-U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on products from BRICS countries if they continue to implement their plans for de-dollarization (X/@realDonaldTrump, December 1, 2024).

Writers at the “Valdai Discussion Club,” an analytical center close to the Kremlin, have attempted to convince Russia’s BRICS partners to create a new payment system and reserve currency to avoid the risks of the “weaponization of the existing financial system” (Valdai Club, February 3). Shamil Yenikeyev, a professor of international relations at Russia’s National Research University Higher School of Economics, advises potential partners to carefully choose their words and use special terminology to lower the risk of backlash from the United States. For example, rather than calling for an “alternative payment system,” Yenikeyev recommended advocating for a “supplementary payment system.” Likewise, Yenikeyev suggested employing “financial diversification” or “risk management” in the place of “de-dollarization” (Valdai Club, February 3).

Oh Canada!

Kim Campbell and Lawrence Freedman

Source Link

In the first week of January, I was invited by the editors of this substack to write an essay about Canada. It seemed like a good idea at the time since, in a departure from our normal unexciting existence, Canada had become more interesting due to the political changes that were in the offing. In recent months, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had become increasingly unpopular and was facing pressure from even some members of his own caucus to step down as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In December 2024, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned from the Cabinet (but not from Parliament) in a letter that was scathingly critical of the direction of the government.

It turned out that the Prime Minister had advised her that he wanted to move her out of the Finance portfolio to a more general responsibility dealing with the upcoming changes in the United States, but without an actual Ministry to run. As Minister of Trade in the first Trudeau government, Freeland had led the Canadian team in negotiating the replacement for NAFTA – (USMCA)- and in the course of this had earned the enmity of Donald Trump.

In moving to replace Freeland, Trudeau had announced that Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and of the Bank of England, would become Minister of Finance, even though he did not have a seat in Parliament. This surprise announcement was probably key to Freeland’s resignation but it seemed particularly unfortunate since Carney himself publicly disavowed the plan.

Canada’s New Leader Is Ready to Fight Trump

Justin Ling

Source Link

Former central bank governor Mark Carney has been selected as the successor to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the Liberal Party leader. He’s now slated to become the next prime minister—and likely preparing to launch an early general election campaign as Canada faces an onslaught of threats and tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump.

After winning an overwhelming victory with support from more than 130,000 members of the Liberal Party, Carney is set to become prime minister at a time when Ottawa says the White House is violating its free trade agreement with Ottawa, threatening to redraw the border, and demanding that Canada give up its sovereignty and become the United States’ 51st state.

Russia Is Only Winning Inside Trump’s Head

Alexey Kovalev

Source Link

As Yale University historian Timothy Snyder recently posted on X, “The only war that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is winning is inside [U.S. President Donald] Trump’s head. Putin only wins the war on the ground by setting American policy, through Trump.”

And, boy, is Putin succeeding. What transpired between Trump, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 was remarkable—not only for the undiplomatic blow-up, but for the clarity it provided on how Trump and his surrogates view the war. The most persistent among their views is the idea that Ukraine is rapidly losing the war to an unstoppable Russian army and that the only way out of this is to give in to Putin’s demands.

USAID Purge Ends With 83 Percent of Programs Canceled

Christina Lu

Source Link

After weeks of uncertainty, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on March 10 that the Trump administration has terminated 83 percent of programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the country's top humanitarian and development agency.

The decision amounts to a purge of an organization that has long served as a tool of U.S. soft power and provided critical aid to millions of people worldwide, with programs focused on addressing humanitarian crises, disease, and malnutrition, among others.

What I Got Wrong About Trump’s Second Term

Stephen M. Walt

Source Link

Scholars and political commentators should occasionally look back on their forecasts and consider what they got wrong. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Tom Friedman, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Janan Ganesh, Fareed Zakaria, Glenn Greenwald, Anne Applebaum, and other prominent pundits did an annual retrospective on what they had misunderstood or misread over the previous year? None of us are infallible, and if you believe Philip Tetlock, even knowledgeable experts have trouble anticipating the future. Reflecting on our own errors is always instructive and doing so publicly helps everyone learn from our mistakes. I’ve performed this kind of self-criticism on several occasions in the past—see here or here—and it’s time for another round. Read on.

Back in January 2024, I wrote a piece here called “Another Trump Presidency Won’t Much Change U.S. Foreign Policy.” As of March 2025, that sounds pretty stupid. Part of the problem is the clickbait headline (which I didn’t write), and, in fact, some of what I wrote back then has proved correct. I said U.S. President Donald Trump was likely to get tough with NATO (and maybe even withdraw) and that he’d push for a peace deal in Ukraine. But I also thought a second Biden-Harris administration would have sought a peace deal, too, albeit in a more deliberate and responsible way. I still believe that’s what former Vice President Kamala Harris would have done had she been elected.

Carney talks tough on Trump threat - but can he reset relations?

John Sudworth

Source Link

Mark Carney's thumping victory in the race to succeed Justin Trudeau makes him not only leader of the Liberal Party but, by default, the next Canadian prime minister.

It's an extraordinary result for a man with very little political experience. He has never been elected as an MP, let alone served in a cabinet post.

What Carney does have though - as Governor of the Bank of Canada during the global financial crisis and Governor of the Bank of England during the Brexit negotiations - is a long track record in global finance during times of economic turbulence.

And at a moment like this, Carney has been arguing, that could prove invaluable.

Politics in this country has been turned on its head as a result of what's happening south of the border, with US President Donald Trump launching a trade war and threatening to make Canada the 51st state of America.

Addressing a crowd of Liberal supporters after the result of the leadership contest was announced on Sunday evening, Carney promised to face down the threats from Trump, over the tariffs and the claims on Canada's sovereignty.

The AI Integration Crisis: A Special Operator’s View from the Tactical Edge

Richard Byno

Source Link

The humid air of the South China Sea clung to my skin as I peered through my binoculars, scanning the horizon. Our team was tracking a vessel suspected of transporting critical technology to a hostile nation. Suddenly, our target’s signature vanished from our screens.

“Target lost,” my analyst called out, his voice tight with frustration.

In that moment, I knew we were outmatched. Our adversary’s vessels, equipped with edge-processed AI systems, could analyze and react to pattern changes in seconds. Meanwhile, our “advanced” AI capabilities required reaching back to a server farm thousands of miles away. By the time we completed our manual cross-referencing of five different intelligence feeds, the target had vanished into the cluttered maritime environment.

This wasn’t just another missed opportunity. It was a stark reminder of what I’ve witnessed repeatedly during my twenty years in special operations: America’s warfighters are falling dangerously behind in the artificial intelligence revolution. While we debate perfect solutions in comfortable conference rooms, our adversaries are rapidly fielding autonomous systems that fundamentally change the battlefield geometry.

What is Bitcoin?

Nithin Eapen

Source Link

In the first article of the series, we explored why Bitcoin deserves attention as an asset class. In the second and third articles, we discussed the nature of money, its properties, its evolution, and the flaws in our current monetary system—laying the groundwork for understanding Bitcoin.

Any revolutionary technology faces skepticism. It took time for people to embrace ordering everything from groceries to shoes on Amazon, though the concept was relatively easy to explain. Some technologies, however, are much harder to articulate.

Imagine trying to explain the internet to a child who has never seen a computer. Is it a vast library, an information highway, or a network of connected machines? Each description holds some truth, yet none fully encapsulates its essence. Despite using the internet daily, have you ever tried describing it to someone who has never encountered a computer?

Let us revisit the parable of the blindfolded men and the elephant which originated in the Buddhist folklore before delving into Bitcoin. In a distant land, six men heard about a peculiar creature known as the elephant. They heard that elephants could trample forests, carry immense loads, and frighten people of all ages with loud trumpet calls. Essentially, the elephant was a majestic animal.

Earth scientists to environmentalists: AI isn’t all bad

Chad Small

Source Link

If you ask environmentalists about artificial intelligence, they will likely say its biggest drawback involves energy use. One AI research company estimates that querying a service like ChatGPT or Google AI uses 30 times as much energy as a conventional Google search. Energy use is not the only environmental component of AI. Cooling the large data centers that house these AI tools requires enormous amounts of water, an increasingly scarce resource in many parts of the United States. One large data center can suck up the same amount of water per day as a small town. Others have pointed out that AI chatbots can spread misinformation about the climate crisis.

Many environmentalists have argued that AI should be significantly curtailed for these reasons. Perhaps unexpectedly, Earth scientists—researchers who study the environment to make life-saving discoveries—have found themselves at odds with this group of natural allies.

Whether it be for weather forecasting or earthquake detection, Earth scientists argue that AI—particularly machine learning, which is an AI technique that autonomously pulls insights from pools of data—is the most energy-efficient and fastest way to make new breakthroughs. “Traditional” weather forecasters and other researchers have exclusively used computers to solve equations that past scientists would have had to solve by hand. But even if a computer does these calculations much faster than a person, it still takes energy, and a lot of it. AI models for Earth science use pattern recognition and other inference tools to produce results, instead of explicitly solving equations, which brings down energy costs. But even for this application, AI, like any new technology, is not a perfect solution.