Indian Strategic Studies: 03/19/25

19 March 2025

India’s diplomacy amid changing great-power dynamics

Rahul Roy-Chaudhury

The second administration of President Donald Trump appears determined to restructure US ties with the other great powers. This presents India with new challenges in the implementation of its ‘multi-aligned’ foreign policy, which seeks to ensure the country maintains and continues to develop a diverse range of political and security partnerships short of a military alliance. However, a reset in great-power dynamics could also provide new opportunities for India’s diplomacy, namely in the form of strengthened defence and economic ties with the EU and within the Quad.

Navigating potential challengesIndia remains cautiously optimistic about its relations with the US, its most important strategic partner. This is due to the personal chemistry between India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and Trump (Modi was the fourth foreign leader to meet him in the Oval Office after his inauguration in January); the intensification of India–US business and defence ties that took place during the first Trump administration (including landmark ‘foundational’ defence agreements); and a convergence of interests in the Indo-Pacific region (the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting was the first foreign-group meeting with new Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the day after Trump’s inauguration). After the Modi–Trump meeting in February 2025, the two countries agreed to sign a new ten-year defence framework agreement by the end of the year and committed to doubling bilateral trade to US$500 billion by 2030. Trump is also expected to travel to India when it hosts the next Quad Leaders’ Summit later this year.

Pakistan’s Hostage-Rescue Failures Exposed As BLA Siege Ends In Heavy Casualties – Analysis

Aritra Banerjee

The recent hijacking of Pakistan’s Jaffar Express by militants from the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has ended in tragedy, exposing serious flaws in Pakistan’s military preparedness and counterterrorism capabilities. While Pakistani authorities quickly declared success in ending the siege, conflicting reports from militants and independent sources have cast serious doubts on the official version, indicating higher casualties and continuing insurgent resistance.

On March 11, 2025, militants belonging to the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a separatist insurgent group seeking independence for Pakistan’s Balochistan province, seized control of the Jaffar Express near the Mashkaf region in Balochistan. The attackers blew up railway tracks, derailing the train, which was carrying around 440 passengers from Quetta to Peshawar, and held hundreds hostage, including Pakistani security personnel.

Initially, the BLA issued a demand for a prisoner exchange, threatening to execute hostages if Pakistani authorities failed to comply within 48 hours. In response, the Pakistani military launched a large-scale operation, employing both ground forces and airstrikes. By March 12, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, declared the operation successfully concluded, stating all 33 insurgents had been killed, 21 passengers and four Pakistani Army personnel had died, and all hostages had been rescued.

Islamic Extremism In Sri Lanka: A Rising Threat To South Asian Security – Analysis

A. Jathindra

Since the onset of Israel’s war on Hamas, the first incident of Israeli tourists facing terrorist threats abroad occurred in Sri Lanka. The war began on October 7 after Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking some 250 others hostage. In October, Israel’s National Security Council urged Israelis to leave Sri Lanka’s Arugam Bay area and other beaches in the island’s south and west immediately, citing terrorism threats in the eastern part of Sri Lanka. This announcement from the Israeli Defense Ministry followed a warning from the US embassy in Sri Lanka, which stated it had “received credible information warning of an attack targeting popular tourist locations” in eastern Arugam Bay.

Eastern Arugam Bay, a hotspot for surfing around 400 kilometers (250 miles) east of Colombo by road, is a popular destination for Israeli tourists. The Indian Intelligence Agency had given a tip-off on October 7 that foreigners could be targeted, the local media reported, citing the Acting Inspector General of Police.

The Sri Lankan government has now received intelligence reports of attempts to propagate extremist ideologies within the Muslim population in the Eastern Province. Most of such activities have been reported from the Kalmunai area, prompting SIS and military intelligence units to increase monitoring. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala has confirmed this, highlighting evidence of a breeding ground for Islamic extremism in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake informed Parliament that six arrests were made following intelligence reports about possible attacks on tourists in the Arugam Bay area.

Mapping China’s Strategic Port Development in Africa

Paul Nantulya

Chinese state-owned firms are active stakeholders in an estimated 78 ports across 32 African countries as builders, financiers, or operators. Chinese port developments are concentrated in West Africa, with 35 compared to 17 in East Africa, 15 in Southern Africa, and 11 in North Africa.

With a total of 231 commercial ports in Africa, Chinese firms are present in over a quarter of Africa’s maritime trade hubs. This is a significantly greater presence than anywhere else in the world. By comparison, Latin America and the Caribbean host 10 Chinese-built or operated ports, while Asian countries host 24.

In some sites, Chinese firms dominate the entire port development enterprise from finance to construction, operations, and share ownership. Large conglomerates like China Communications Construction Corporation (CCCC) will win work as prime contractors and hand out sub-contracts to subsidiaries like the China Harbor Engineering Company (CHEC). This is the case in one of West Africa’s busiest ports, Nigeria’s Lekki Deep Sea Port. CHEC did the construction and engineering, secured loan financing from the China Development Bank (CDB), and took a 54-percent financial stake in the port which it operates on a 16-year lease.

Key Takeaways from China’s Two Sessions in 2025

Neil Thomas

This year’s Two Sessions broadly met the expectations outlined in a preview article I co-authored with my colleague Jing Qian in late February. Li Qiang announced an unchanged economic growth target of “around 5%,” a record-high fiscal deficit target of 4% of GDP, a reduced consumer price inflation target of 2%, and stable targets for creating over 12 million new urban jobs and keeping urban unemployment at around 5.5%. Given falling property prices, weak consumer sentiment, strained local finances, and rising geopolitical volatility, these targets are relatively ambitious.

Despite the pro-growth messaging, we overestimated promises of stimulus. Beyond an extra 1.6 trillion yuan in deficit spending, Beijing will issue 4.4 trillion yuan in local government special-purpose bonds for investment in infrastructure, purchases of idle land and unsold housing, and payments of arrears to government contractors. A 1.3-trillion-yuan issuance of ultralong special treasury bonds will fund projects that advance national security and other interests. Beijing will also issue 500 billion yuan in special sovereign bonds to recapitalize state-owned banks.

All the same, these unprecedented stimulus measures and bond issuances are unlikely to achieve 5% growth, especially given Beijing’s reliance on exports and the potential for further U.S. tariffs, sanctions, and export controls (in addition to the 20% tariff increase since January). Xi Jinping seems open to a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump but is keeping his powder dry in case of further U.S. escalation. The more intense the trade war, the more aggressively Beijing will add stimulus. Nonetheless, debt concerns will likely deter a stimulus “bazooka,” and direct consumer stimulus remains unlikely due to ideological opposition and implementation hurdles.

Harnessing AI to Understand China’s Grand Strategy

Umar Ahmed Badami

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has long concealed its strategic vision behind a great information wall. Western views of Chinese strategy often blend Sun Tzu’s antiquated platitudes with designs for revenge following the Century of Humiliation. Although these ideas are relevant to the philosophy informing the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), they are not sources of military doctrine. The paucity of accessible Chinese-origin doctrinal materials sustains far fewer Chinese experts today relative to the plethora of information available to Russia hands available during the Cold War.

Today’s China analysts must formulate their own frameworks of PRC grand strategy. These are largely based on research reports and policy positions promoting a looming “China threat” from the perspective of the Westphalian world order and Western conceptions of realpolitik. These frameworks may identify patterns across CCP-linked global events, but they cannot adequately explain the rationale behind those events as they lack a Chinese perspective.

Competing with China and countering misinformation are major policy goals in America’s national security strategy. Sun Tzu reminds us that knowing and understanding one’s adversaries is critical to effectively competing. In the absence of widespread China expertise, artificial intelligence provides an opportunity to better approach this problem.

The Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria

Jeremy Hodge

Introduction

In the six weeks between the December 8, 2024, overthrow of former Syrian President Assad and the inauguration of President Trump, the United States (US) quietly widened the territorial scope of its counter-terrorism footprint in Syria more than three-fold, an unprecedented expansion not seen even at the height of the U.S. anti-ISIS campaign from 2014-2017.

The purpose of this growth has been to fill the void left by outgoing Russian troops. Prior to Assad’s ouster, Russian forces were responsible for anti-ISIS operations in the regime-controlled area south of the Euphrates River, per a de-confliction agreement reached between Washington and Moscow in 2015.

Starting in 2024, ISIS activity in Syria increased significantly, with the group’s attacks tripling compared to 2023. This growth pushed the US to breach the deconfliction agreement for the first time in September–October 2024, launching airstrikes targeting ISIS cells south of the Euphrates River that killed more than 100 of the group’s fighters and leaders.

The DRC Conflict Enters a Dangerous New Phase

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has entered a new and more destabilizing stage. A call for a pause in the fighting by leaders from the 8 member states of the East African Community (EAC) and 16 member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was dismissed by Rwandan-backed M23 rebel forces, who have continued their offensive to seize more territory in the eastern DRC.

Following their taking of Goma (population of 2 million) and Bukavu (population 1.3 million), the respective capitals of North and South Kivu Provinces, the M23 has pressed farther south, capturing Kamanyola on its way to Uvira (population of 650,000), the third largest city in the Kivus. Another prong moved north of Goma toward Butembo (population of 280,000).

With the prospect of the M23 controlling the entirety of the 124,000 km2 of the mineral-rich Kivus, Rwanda would effectively be gaining a territory nearly five times its size.

Nor would this necessarily be the culmination of Rwanda’s territorial ambitions. Tensions have already started surfacing in Kisangani (in north central DRC) and Lubumbashi (in the south of the country) following the M23’s threats to push all the way to Kinshasa.

Militant Islamist Groups in Africa Sustain High Pace of Lethality

Highlights

There were an estimated 18,900 fatalities linked to militant Islamist violence in Africa in 2024.
A sharp decline in deaths involving al Shabaab in Somalia brought the continental total below the record high levels of 2023 (23,000 fatalities). Nonetheless, the average annual total number of fatalities for the past 3 years was still more than a third higher than the period from 2019-2021.
The Sahel remained the most lethal theater on the continent for the fourth year in a row. There were an estimated 10,400 deaths linked to militant Islamist violence in the Sahel in 2024. This comprises 55 percent of all related fatalities for the continent.
The Sahel also accounts for the most prevalence of violence against civilians—a metric of direct targeting of civilians by militant Islamist groups. The region accounts for 67 percent (1,840) of these civilian fatalities for the continent. The Lake Chad Basin region was second, comprising 24 percent (670) of such fatalities.
Three theaters accounted for 98 percent of the reported fatalities linked to militant Islamist violence on the continent: the Sahel (55 percent), Somalia (24 percent), and the Lake Chad Basin (19 percent).
Both Mozambique and North Africa saw increases in violent activity and reported fatalities following steady declines in previous years. Nonetheless, the two theaters account for just 2 percent of related fatalities.

Getting Specific on DOGE Efficiencies: Opportunities for Defense

Elaine McCusker, John G. Ferrari, Todd Harrison

The Department of Defense (DOD) is about to undergo a welcome and overdue fundamental shift in its operations. This shift is enabled by four intersecting yet simultaneous forces acting upon it. First, the potential for needed real increases in resources from Congress.[i] Second, clear, global American foreign policy objectives. Third, active participation in defense weapons innovation and production from large and small non-traditional defense contractors. And fourth, a change in the risk profile for reform driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from one in which the fear of failure is replaced with the fearlessness of creativity.[ii]

Describing and providing recommendations for all four of these at once is beyond the scope of this paper, which is focused on opportunities for efficiencies and reprioritization of defense resources. To fully understand the opportunities presented, and particularly the positive pressure DOGE can bring, one should keep in mind the other three forces – money, global leadership, and more players on the field supporting defense technology advancement. All of these elements feed into the changing risk profile that DOGE brings to the table – fearless, innovative, and rapid improvements.

Misunderstanding McKinley

Aroop Mukharji

President William McKinley is having his biggest moment since 1928, when his face was printed on the $500 bill. For the last few decades, only a smattering of quirky historians and cult devotees have paid much attention to him. But in repeated comments over the last several years, including in his second inaugural address, President Donald Trump has brought McKinley back into the spotlight. McKinley was “a natural businessman,” Trump remarked, who “made our country very rich through tariffs and through talent.”

Tariffs are at the core of Trump’s veneration of McKinley. This economic policy defined McKinley’s political career. His final act as a congressman was spearheading the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which set the average tariff on dutiable imports at around 50 percent. For most of his professional life, McKinley conceptualized American power and security as functions of the country’s domestic economic well-being, not the size of its military. This was not unusual. Two protective oceans, new industrial wealth, legal limits on the military, and few foreign threats led even the U.S. Navy in the Gilded Age to often see its primary peacetime role as protecting commerce.

Today, across the U.S. national security establishment, economics is once again a central concern. For Trump, U.S. alliances and relationships, Washington’s reputation, and even foreign threats often boil down to a single—if misleading—statistic, such as a trade deficit. McKinley’s tariff policy thus offers Trump an elegantly simple solution to the United States’ many, varied challenges. One policy to solve them all.

Ukraine Needs US Weapons But It Needs Intelligence More

James Stavridis

Over the past couple of weeks, America’s Ukrainian partners have been riding a roller-coaster of President Donald Trump’s making. The low point was the disastrous blow-up in the Oval Office between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, which led to the US cutting off military aid and intelligence sharing until the Ukrainians were “ready for peace.”

In recent days, after US-Ukraine meetings in Saudi Arabia, things may seem better. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz appear to have somewhat mended the relationship and have a ceasefire proposal to present to Moscow. Most importantly for the Ukrainians, this has come with a reopening of the taps on military assistance and, above all, on intelligence.

Peace or no peace, America can and should arm Ukraine

Bradley Bowman and Ryan Brobst

We may be on the verge of peace in Ukraine — or not. Either way, the United States will need to continue providing Kyiv weapons. That’s because, despite significant progress, Europe still lacks the military-industrial might to replace the United States and meet Ukraine’s and NATO’s deterrent requirements.

A failure to arm Ukraine will increase the chances that the Kremlin will come back for even more Ukrainian territory in the future. The good news is that the United States can afford to provide Ukraine security assistance and has the means to do so without materially delaying the provision of weapons to Taiwan.

This assertion may surprise some, but consider some facts.

The United States has provided about $67 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since Feb 24, 2022, when Putin launched his massive, unprovoked re-invasion. That may sound like an enormous sum, but it actually equates to less than 3 percent of what Washington spent on the Pentagon over the same time period.

And what did Americans get for that relatively modest investment?

Musk visits National Security Agency after urging 'overhaul' of U.S. cyberespionage hub

Dan De Luce, Carol E. Lee and Courtney Kube

Elon Musk paid an unannounced visit to the National Security Agency on Wednesday and met with its chief, an NSA spokesperson said, days after he called for revamping the country’s top cyberespionage hub.

It was Musk’s first publicly confirmed visit to an intelligence agency since he launched the Trump administration’s effort to drastically slash the federal workforce.

The NSA is one of the country’s most valuable tools for collecting intelligence, according to experts, overseeing a vast eavesdropping operation, as well as sophisticated cybersecurity capabilities.

Musk, the billionaire businessman who has come under criticism for his aggressive tactics and sweeping secrecy, posted on his social media platform, X, last week, “The NSA needs an overhaul.” Musk’s post and his visit suggested the long secretive agency, known as the “puzzle palace” for its famed codebreaking abilities, may be next.

During his visit to the NSA’s headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, Musk held talks with Air Force Gen. Timothy Haugh, who oversees the agency, as well as the military’s Cyber Command, the spokesperson said. Musk was also given a tour of the NSA’s Remote Operations Center, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

Census Operations

Michael Trevett

Background

Mao explained that the guerrilla or insurgent swims among the sea of people. Consequently, thoroughly knowing the population is the best method of identifying, finding, and fixing the insurgent. Only after identifying the insurgent, does it become possible to isolate and kill him and protect the population. From the perspective of the counterinsurgent, these are the fundamental purposes of census operations, a subset of populace and resources control (PRC) measures, which, when attained, significantly contribute to the elimination of an insurgency and the establishment of civil governing control.

Law enforcement officers and civil authorities use census information and databases on a daily basis in most nations. In developed nations, when a citizen is stopped and questioned by local, state, or federal law enforcement officers, these officers have multiple databases of information at their disposal. The officials can obtain detailed information about the individual within minutes from these databases, which provide specific data on most aspects of the individual including age, full name, physical description, place of birth, residence, digital photos, and vehicles owned. Although it is more time-consuming to obtain, much information on illegal aliens and foreign nationals is also available to law enforcement agencies. Regardless of the database, and there are many, the information used to populate it was collected consistently and systematically, usually over a period of years or decades.

Pete Hegseth to overhaul US military lawyers in effort to relax rules of war

Hugo Lowell

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is expected in the coming weeks to start a sweeping overhaul of the judge advocate general’s corps as part of an effort to make the US military less restricted by the laws of armed conflict, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The changes are poised to have implications across the military, as Hegseth’s office considers changes to the interpretation of the US rules of engagement on the battlefield to the way that charges are brought under the military justice system.

The defense department is currently in the process of nominating new judge advocate generals (Jags) for the army, navy and air force after Hegseth fired their predecessors in a late-night purge last month, and the overhaul is not expected to start until they are in place.

But remaking the Jag corps is a priority for Hegseth, who on Friday commissioned his personal lawyer and former naval officer Tim Parlatore as a navy commander to oversee the effort carrying the weight and authority of the defense secretary’s office.

Gaza’s Future – OpEd

Neville Teller

The Arab League held a summit in Cairo on March 4 with the sole intention of considering a comprehensive plan for Gaza’s future, master-minded by Egypt. Costed at some $53bn, it focuses in a 112-page document on emergency relief, rebuilding shattered infrastructure and long-term economic development. The conference endorsed the plan, as far as it went. The later stages will require more detailed consideration.

It was on February 4 that US President Donald Trump announced his proposal to turn the Gaza Strip into a US-run “Riviera of the Middle East”, having first evacuated the population to any nearby Arab states willing to accept a total of some 2 million people.

The Arab world, as well as much of the rest of the globe, greeted the idea with a mixture of astonishment and ridicule. Some commentators, claiming to know Trump’s methods, maintained that he had deliberately used shock tactics to goad the Arab world into playing a more active role in considering Gaza’s future and how to achieve it.

If this was indeed the method in Trump’s madness, it produced results. A couple of weeks later, on February 17, news media worldwide reported that Egypt was preparing an alternative to Trump’s proposal in which evacuating the territory and relocating the Gazan population would play no part.

Kra Canal: The Impossible Dream Of Southeast Asia Shipping – Analysis

Paulo Aguiar

The idea of the Kra Canal has been a topic of discussion for centuries, as the promise of an alternative route between the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Thailand could revolutionize shipping and reshape regional geopolitics. While the project has never come to fruition, its potential impact keeps it in strategic conversations, particularly in light of China’s expanding influence in Southeast Asia and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As of now, Thailand has opted for a different path, but debates over the canal’s feasibility and geopolitical consequences remain very much alive.

Historical Background

The concept of the Kra Canal dates back to 1677 when Thai King Narai commissioned French engineer de Lamar to survey the Kra Isthmus for a possible canal. At the time, the idea was not to connect the Gulf of Thailand with the Andaman Sea but rather to establish a navigable waterway between Songkhla and Marid (now Myanmar). De Lamar’s assessment concluded that the mountainous terrain, dense jungles, and the technological limitations of the era rendered the project unfeasible. The immense effort required to dig through the isthmus using 17th-century engineering methods made construction virtually impossible, leading to its abandonment.

Where Are the Democrats?

REED GALEN

In a recent New York Times op-ed, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville suggested a “daring political maneuver” for his party in response to US President Donald Trump’s shock-and-awe tactics: “roll over and play dead.” Unsurprisingly, his suggestion elicited howls of disapproval and scathing rebukes from Democrats across the spectrum. But one could argue, especially after the party’s feckless response to Trump’s joint address to Congress, that it has already taken this advice to heart.

There are several problems with such a strategy. For starters, the idea that Republicans “flat out suck at governing” is greatly exaggerated. Carville cites both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush (for whom I worked) as stumbling economically. To be sure, his critiques of Trump are accurate – namely, that his first administration accomplished little beyond tax cuts for the wealthy and 500 miles of a border wall, while his second is focused on dismantling the federal government. But Carville conveniently leaves out a key ingredient in the current mess: the Democratic Party.

Yes, Bill Clinton – the Democrat whom Carville helped elect in 1992 – got a lot done during his presidency, was re-elected by a wide margin, and left office with an astonishing 66% approval rating. But this productivity had a price: Clinton’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and mass incarceration, his repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated commercial and investment banking activities in the United States), and his push to normalize trade relations with China created several downstream effects. Specifically, these neoliberal policies paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis and contributed to the yawning wealth gap that has pushed so many working-class voters into the arms of Trump’s false populism, or away from politics altogether.

How to Save Ukraine

Can Kasapoglu, and Peter Rough

The transatlantic relationship is in turmoil. With the United States and Europe at odds over Western strategy toward Ukraine and Russia, a chorus of European leaders has questioned the reliability of the United States and sought to breathe new life into the concept of European strategic autonomy.

For many, this concept resembles Charles de Gaulle’s famous description of Brazil: it is the idea of the future and always will be. Yet, whatever the long-term prospects of European strategic autonomy may be, in the near term there is no way to help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression without an abundant supply of American arms, strategic enablers, and intelligence support. Unless it is prepared to give up the fight for Ukraine altogether, Europe and the United States will have no choice but to forge a sustainable way to cooperate in the weeks and months ahead.

Three Ways Forward

Three ideas can help to overcome the current impasse and resume support for Ukraine.

The first is the establishment of a European fund to purchase U.S. weapons and equipment for Ukraine. The resources to make this idea a reality already exist in spades. Norway, for example, is sitting on a €1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund, yet it has spent less than €4 billion in support of Ukraine. Moreover, some €200 billion in Russian assets are frozen in multiple European jurisdictions, principally Belgium. Each day brings a new headline of Europeans pushing for more defense outlays.

Russia a catalyst for EU defence?

Ester Sabatino & Tim Lawrenson

In December 2013 – just months before Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in March 2014 – the European Council’s conclusions on defence clearly stated that ‘defence matters’ and called on European Union countries to increase capability-development cooperation, invest in the defence supply chain and reinforce the market in view of the changing international environment. Following this, the EU began to put forward initiatives aimed at strengthening the defence capabilities and industries of its members.

The fact that the EU still faces the same challenges today raises questions about the effectiveness of the initiatives that were proposed by the European Council and related efforts to deliver change.

Tentative steps: 2014–21The first moves aimed at strengthening EU defence capabilities involved both political initiatives and the launch of small EU-funded instruments dedicated to defence-industrial activities. Political action began with a series of European Commission policy papers and plans, the publication of the EU Global Strategy in 2016 and the activation of the long-dormant Permanent Structured Cooperation in 2017. Meanwhile, the European Defence Agency (EDA) attempted to coordinate national defence capability planning cycles through the Capability Development Plan and launched the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence to try to identify avenues for capability cooperation.

European defence funding: fiscal manoeuvres

Fenella McGerty

Despite significant rates of growth in defence spending over the last two years, European countries are now responding to demands from across the Atlantic and from regional allies for further uplifts required to fill any gaps created by a US retrenchment, not just from Ukraine, but also from wider regional security commitments. Significant announcements have been made in recent weeks, with countries increasingly concerned about the reliability of the US as a strategic ally.

Chief among these was the proposal from Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission (EC), on 4 March, for a ‘ReArm Europe’ programme that seeks to mobilise up to EUR800 billion (USD878bn) in funding for defence. The plan, alongside commitments to bolster European support for Ukraine, was ‘firmly supported’ by 26 of the 27 EU leaders (Hungary being the exception) at a Special European Council meeting on 6 March.

Significant shifts are also evident at the country level, with Germany’s remarkable proposal to ease the country’s debt brake to finance defence, the United Kingdom’s commitment to increase its budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, Denmark’s DKK50 billion (USD7.3bn) Acceleration Fund for defence, and Belgium’s reported aim to accelerate its plan to increase its defence budget from 1.3% of GDP to the 2% benchmark, which has a current target of 2029.

The New Paradigm: How AI is Shaping Narratives and Conversation

Let’s say you and I are discussing a recent basketball game. The conversation might cover the final score, the coach’s decisions, or a controversial call from the referees.

Now, what if the mode of delivery changes?

Maybe we’re talking in person, texting, or debating in a public social media thread. The topic stays the same, but the way we communicate shifts dramatically.

In person, I might gesture for emphasis or raise my voice when complaining about a bad call. Over text, I’d be more casual, using abbreviations and concise phrasing. On social media, I might tread carefully—or not at all—knowing my words are on public display.

Each new medium reshapes how we engage in conversation. Throughout history, humanity has continuously evolved how we share narratives, from oral tradition to the written word, from the printing press to the internet, and now social media. The medium influences the message.

Truthfulness is irrelevant to a narrative’s power. The ability to shape public perception and influence discourse has always been a critical factor in communication. This makes it all the more critical to understand and adapt to new communication mediums. And now, we face the next evolution in conversation: artificial intelligence. Unlike previous shifts, AI doesn’t just change how narratives are transmitted—it actively participates in their creation, enabling the rapid, large-scale production of persuasive content that can blur the line between authentic discourse and engineered influence.

When Robot Becomes Boss: Research On Authority, Obedience And Relationships With Machines

How does a robot perform as a boss at work? The results of research by Polish scientists published in Cognition, Technology & Work suggest that while robots can command obedience, it is not as strong as in the case of humans. The level of obedience towards them is generally lower than towards human authority figures, and work efficiency under the supervision of a robot is lower.

For employers and HR departments, this means the need to take the psychological aspects of implementing robots in the work environment into account – their perception as an authority figure, trust in them, and potential resistance to following orders, says Konrad Maj, PhD, from SWPS University, a psychologist and head of the HumanTech Center for Social and Technological Innovation.

Robot as an authority figure?

The development of robotics has led to a situation in which robots are increasingly found in roles associated with authority, e.g. in education, healthcare or law enforcement. Researchers were intrigued by the extent to which society would accept robots as authority figures. We have shown that people demonstrate a significant level of obedience towards humanoid robots acting as authority figures, although it is slightly lower than towards people (63% vs. 75%).

Why Frugal AI Alone Won’t Fix AI’s Energy Problem

BORIS RUF

While the rise of AI could revolutionize numerous sectors and unlock unprecedented economic opportunities, its energy intensity has raised serious environmental concerns. In response, tech companies promote frugal AI practices and support research focused on reducing energy consumption. But this approach falls short of addressing the root causes of the industry’s growing demand for energy.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)