Pages

7 April 2025

Tariffs and Inflation for the US, Disruption for Indian Supply Chains

Anuradha Chenoy

U.S. President Donald Trump has initiated a global trade war — politely called “reciprocal tariffs.”

Tariffs are taxes that countries levy on imported goods which make them more expensive and unaffordable with the intent of encouraging domestic manufacturing. At the same time, the global economy prospers if some goods are imported from other countries where they are cheaper to produce, and satisfy domestic consumers. In return, the importing country can produce goods or technologies that serve the exporter countries. This becomes a cycle of trade flows and value chains based on comparative or even absolute advantage.

Trump, who won a second term on the slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), has two underlying assumptions behind his economic un-planning.

One, that he can literally kickstart American manufacturing by putting high tariffs on basic goods imported from all countries into the United States. Two, he will use the instrument of reciprocal tariffs; i.e., any country that puts tariffs on U.S. goods will be subject to tariffs in return, whether those goods imported by the U.S. are important for the U.S. consumer or not.

This, he believes, will force countries that import U.S. goods to lower the taxes on them, so they are more affordable in the host country.

Trump, Xi, and a Brewing Battle Over the Indian Ocean

Mike Watson

The winter is lovely in Oman. For centuries, this sultanate at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula has been a meeting point for the Middle East and the rest of Asia (its cuisine reflects this rich history). It signed its first treaty with the United States early in Andrew Jackson’s second term.

Jackson is back in the Oval Office—at least, his portrait is—and at the Indian Ocean Conference, I learned about the geopolitical stakes of the jockeying in this region, and what Donald Trump can do about it.

Dozens of ministers emphasized in their speeches how vital freedom of the seas is for their countries. Houthi attacks on ships traveling through the Red Sea deeply disturbed a region that depends on maritime trade. India usually tries to avoid Middle Eastern conflicts, but its military escorted merchant ships and rescued crews from vessels the Houthis struck.

The Biden administration’s stunning failure to protect these waters was mostly left unsaid at the conference. Freedom of the seas has been a core national interest since the Founding: Congress created the U.S. Navy to protect Americans sailing in the Middle East, and the U.S. Marine Corps anthem celebrates the Corps’ first overseas combat deployment, "to the shores of Tripoli."

India could help save an aging Europe

Anchal Vohra

The impetus to push the deal forward appears to be the result of an EU scramble to find alternative markets, as their closest ally across the Atlantic declares a trade war. With U.S. President Donald Trump threatening tariffs against Europe almost as soon as he took office, von der Leyen first signed a long-controversial deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc, and then looked east toward India.

“We both stand to lose from a world of spheres of influence and isolationism. And we both stand to gain from a world of cooperation and working together,” she said during her February visit to New Delhi.

And with a population of more than 1.4 billion people, India offers a vast market for European goods and services, a manufacturing base it could invest in and nurture to counter China, and — crucially — a vast reserve of human capital to utilize.

Back in 2023, the EU had prepared an action plan to lure foreign workers and meet bloc-wide shortages in 42 occupations. And provided their qualifications are recognized and visa processes made easier, Indian citizens are now poised to plug these gaps.


Taiwan’s balancing act: Keeping the US in, China out, and domestic technology superior

Camille Grand, Janka Oertel & Jana Puglierin

Nearly 8,000 kilometers separate Taipei and Kiev, but reminders of the fate of Ukraine are ever-present in Taiwan’s capital. They are seen in a yellow solidarity wristband with the word “unbroken” emblazoned in blue, a symbolic gift from the mayor of Lviv to his Taiwanese hosts. A Ukrainian flag drapes the wall of a meeting room, while a Taiwanese activist fighting Chinese disinformation wears a smaller version on his lapel as a sign of solidarity. Every conversation holds the shared conviction: the struggles of these two geopolitical theatres are inextricably intertwined.

Ukraine and Taiwan see themselves as being on the front line of defence of democracy, freedom and information warfare. Both have to hold their own against powerful, authoritarian neighbours, who are closely collaborating to exert maximum pressure. “Russia and China have employed an identical narrative to justify their actions against us,” explains a Taiwanese researcher. “They claim that we have no right to make our own choices, that we possess no identity of our own, and that our governments are mere puppets of the United States.”

Trump’s Indo-Pacific playbook

The US is a key source of defence and security support for Ukraine, but for Taiwan it is even more critical. Although cooperation with Japan and the Philippines has been enhanced, Taipei cannot withstand a Chinese attempt to take the island by force without the US. The images of US president Donald Trump publicly humiliating Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky at the Oval Office, followed by America’s abrupt suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, has cast a shadow of strategic uncertainty over Taiwan.

China Is an Indispensable US Trade Partner. Will Trump’s Tariffs Hurt Beijing?

Bala Ramasamy and Matthew Yeung

The Trump-initiated U.S.-China trade war restarted on February 4, 2025, when China’s Ministry of Finance announced a 15 percent retaliatory tariff on certain types of coal and LNG and a 10 percent tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, large cars, and pickup trucks. This amounts to $20 billion, which is a fraction of the $500 billion worth of Chinese goods that will be taxed by Trump. China has also imposed export restrictions on some rare earth metals, put several more U.S. companies on its blacklist, and has lodged a complaint to the WTO for a violation of trade rules.

Trump’s basis for imposing tariffs is confusing. It ranges from trade imbalances to the unregulated flow of some fentanyl precursor chemicals from China to the U.S. through Mexico, to arm-twisting ByteDance into selling its international wing, TikTok, to an American company. None of these excuses makes total sense.

Surely, controlling the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. is a customs control issue that would be more effectively done on the buyers’ side, and if the U.S. were serious about combating the opioid epidemic, non-tariff measures would be more powerful. If a collaboration between China Customs and its 100,000 staff and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with its 20,000 officers cannot overpower the drug cartels and syndicates, no amount of tariffs will bring the opioid crisis under control.

Trump’s Subtle Shift on China: From Economic Coercion to Military Confrontation

Jiachen Shi

Three months into his return to the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump has churned out a series of sweeping domestic and foreign policies. The underlying motivation behind these moves is crystal clear: to solidify a loyal inner circle and consolidate power in Washington – especially as he considers seeking an unconstitutional third term. Trump’s China policy is no exception to this broader strategy.

At the same time, China is also serving as a test case for Trump’s growing authority, a reality underscored by his ongoing restructuring of the Washington bureaucracy. These changes subtly signal a shift in approach, from economic coercion to military confrontation.

In an era of deepening ideological polarization, foreign policy success is often more effective in bolstering a leader’s overall popularity than domestic policy victories. This is because successful foreign policy not only shifts public focus from internal divisions to external challenges – offering a unifying effect – but also because domestic policies take longer to yield tangible results and are unlikely to satisfy an increasingly diverse electorate.

Worst week for US stocks since Covid crash as China hits back on tariffs

Natalie Sherman

Stock market turmoil deepened on Friday, as China hit back at tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump, raising the likelihood of an extended trade war and damage to the global economy.

All three major stock indexes in the US plunged more than 5%, with the S&P 500 dropping almost 6%, capping the worst week for the US stock market since 2020.

In the UK, the FTSE 100 plunged almost 5% - its steepest fall in five years, while Asian markets also dropped and exchanges in Germany and France faced similar declines.

Trump, who has vowed to remake the global trade order, dismissed concerns about the market shock, noting that the US labour market is strong.

"Hang tough," he urged his followers on social media. "We can't lose."

The global stock market has lost trillions in value since Trump announced sweeping new 10% import taxes on goods from every country, with products from dozens of countries, including key trading partners such as China, the European Union and Vietnam, facing far higher rates.

China and Russia Will Not Be Split

Michael McFaul and Evan S. Medeiros

Many American foreign-policy makers dream of being the next Henry Kissinger. Whether they admit it or not, they look to him as the model of shrewd calculation of national interests, geopolitical acumen, and devotion to diplomacy. He was a leader who struck grand bargains with global effects. And no diplomatic maneuver is more quintessentially Kissinger than the U.S. opening to China in 1972.

As great-power competition heats up again, today’s U.S. policymakers may be tempted to try to replicate that success by orchestrating a “reverse Kissinger”—pulling Russia closer to balance a rising China, in a reversal of what Kissinger did beginning in 1971, when he was serving as national security adviser to President Richard Nixon. In an influential paper published in 2021 by the Atlantic Council, the anonymous author, a former government official, proposed that Washington “rebalance its relationship with Russia” because “it is in the United States’ enduring interest to prevent further deepening of the Moscow-Beijing entente.” In its first few months, the Trump administration has seemed to warm to this idea. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for the United States “to have a relationship” with Russia rather than let it “become completely dependent on” China. Running a “reverse Kissinger” is also the perfect alibi for President Donald Trump’s courtship of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Americans dislike Putin, but if Trump’s embrace of the Russian dictator can be presented as pragmatic, realpolitik, or otherwise Kissinger-esque, they might accept it.

Capitalizing on PLA Vulnerabilities: Taiwan’s Opportunities for Enhanced Defense

Holmes Liao

Andrew Marshall, the visionary founder of the now-disbanded Office of Net Assessment (ONA) in the Pentagon, once remarked, “The purpose of net assessment is to look at the big picture and to assess the long-term competition between states.” He believed that the essence of net assessment is to compare both sides’ strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and vulnerabilities to determine the most effective means of achieving national security objectives.

The recently released 2025 Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) provides an overview of global security, reflecting the collective insights of the 18 intelligence agencies under the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The section on China — occupying a quarter of the report — states, “The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) probably is making steady but uneven progress on capabilities it would use in an attempt to seize Taiwan and deter — and if necessary, defeat — U.S. military intervention.” The phrase “uneven progress” deserves deeper scrutiny, as it highlights China’s weaknesses and crucial opportunities for Taiwan to exploit.

For Taiwan, conducting a net assessment should inform its broader strategic planning and guide its procurement of military technologies, thereby enhancing the country’s ability to deter, disrupt, and defeat a Chinese invasion.

Russia Regenerates Its Forces With 160,000 New Conscripts – Analysis

Hudson Institute

1. Battlefield Assessment

Last week Russia targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, in violation of the deal that Washington brokered between Moscow and Kyiv in Riyadh. The Kremlin also continued to pound Ukrainian population centers with air strikes and missile salvos.

Though neither side made significant gains, tactical engagements flared along multiple critical flashpoints, including Toretsk, Velyka Novosilka, Pokrovsk, Kurahkove, Kupiansk, the Kursk-Sumy axis, Vovchansk, and Chasiv Yar. On the Kharkiv front, the Russian military attempted river crossings to maintain its maneuver advantage. Ukrainian formations repelled these efforts with drones and fire-support weapons.

Russia and Ukraine also fought on the electromagnetic spectrum. Reports from the field indicate that mounting electronic warfare activities interfered with several platforms, including combat aircraft and precision-guided munitions.

The EU and Central Asia Can Forge a Strategic Partnership Through Connectivity

Javlon Vakhabov and Alouddin Komilov

On April 3-4, delegations from the European Union and the five Central Asian nations will convene in Samarkand for the first-ever Central Asia-European Union Summit. This landmark gathering takes place amid a complex new phase in international relations, characterized by growing unpredictability, erosion of international norms, economic weaponization, and intensifying climate challenges.

What makes this summit particularly significant is the participation of the EU’s new top leadership, including European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Their presence underscores that this is not just another diplomatic forum but a strategic opportunity to deepen cooperation between two regions that currently share an unprecedented convergence of interests, challenges, and aspirations.

Central Asia — strategically located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia — has traditionally been a region where the EU plays a secondary role, often overshadowed by larger regional powers and constrained by limited resources. However, as a benign actor, the EU possesses comparative advantages that position it to play a transformative role, particularly in fostering connectivity in the fields of digital infrastructure, transportation, and green energy. These areas align not only with the EU’s strategic priorities but also with a broader vision for a resilient, sovereign, and prosperous Central Asia.

How Trump’s Tariffs Are Reshaping Global Trade

Jorge Jraissati

This week, President Donald Trump announced a comprehensive set of tariffs affecting nearly all U.S. trading partners. This policy includes a 20 percent tariff on goods from the European Union and an additional 34 percent tariff on imports from China. Combined with existing measures, this results in a cumulative tariff rate of at least 54 percent on Chinese imports, which could be even more if we count the administration’s 25 percent tariff on imports from countries that continue to import Venezuelan oil.

Branded as America’s “Liberation Day,” Trump’s initiative fundamentally reshapes the global trade landscape. While its economic consequences remain uncertain, one feature of the policy stands out: it is structured around several principles of game theory. It leverages power asymmetries, imposes strict time constraints, and fragments coordination among trading partners. In doing so, it reframes global trade as a multi-actor negotiation game, rather than a rules-based system.

Forced to Choose

The tariff policy leverages power asymmetries by exploiting virtually all countries’ disproportionate dependence on access to the U.S. market. Since countries export heavily to the United States, they have more to lose from a disruption in trade than the United States does. The tariffs capitalize on this imbalance by imposing large potential costs on those who hesitate or resist.

One State, No Solution: Planning for the Death of Palestinian Independence

Tom O'Connor

On October 6, 2023, an edition of Newsweek hit newsstands proclaiming, "The Palestinian Dream Is Dying—And It's A Nightmare for Israel."

The following day would be the deadliest in Israel's history, sparking a war in which more Palestinians are estimated to have been killed than in all previous conflicts combined.

But the dream of an independent Palestinian state had already begun to fade long before Hamas militants launched their surprise incursion into Israel, killing, maiming and kidnapping men, women and children. A combination of Israel's territorial expansion, the decline of the Palestinian National Authority (PA) and the growing influence of Hamas has eroded the feasibility of a two-state resolution, creating an untenable status quo that shattered into pieces in the early morning hours of October 7, 2023.

Now, residents of Gaza and the West Bank are at the mercy of Israeli military operations in which fighters and civilians are being slain at staggering rates. And with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government considering territorial annexation and mass expulsions while two rival Palestinian governments teeter on the verge of collapse, not the only hopes for a Palestinian state—but the existence of its very people—is at risk.


The Russian Military Could Grind Out a ‘Victory’ in Ukraine

Brent M. Eastwood

Can Russia’s Strategy of Attrition Lead to a Pyrrhic Victory in Ukraine?

There are two ways to look at the Russian army. The first is to see it as a paper tiger: The force is now only a fraction of its former self. The defense industry is working overtime to barely keep up with needs, and the army is hollowed out and will take years to rebuild. But there is an alternate view. The Russian army can still bring the fight to the enemy with violence of action. Despite its losses, it is still manned enough to hold the territory it controls and eject the Ukrainians from Russia’s Kursk region. Plus, it has the ability to win more territory in the Donbas.
Four for Four – Russia’s New Formula for the Fight

The Russian army has found a recipe for success in Ukraine after all of these difficulties. It has a four-part group of techniques for tactical and operational art that is punishing Ukrainian forces: First, bombard the enemy with artillery, then use aerial bunker-busting and anti-personnel glide bombs to take out sections of the Ukrainian trench system. Next, fly fiber-optic FPV (first-person view) drones to attack the rear of the Ukrainian front lines to hinder resupply. Finally, send dismounted infantry and tanks, plus armored personnel carriers, into the breach.

Donald Trump’s Golden Dome

Lawrence Freedman

The headlines are currently dominated by President Trump’s new tariffs. These have led to a mass of commentary, little of it favourable, to the new measures. But Trump is not abandoning the rest of his agenda. As a president who believes that there are no problems that cannot be solved with an ambitious executive order, one of those issued in his first week, on 27 January, identified what promises to be one of his top defence priorities for his second term. He requested that the Pentagon come up with plans for an ‘Iron Dome for America.’ The plans, already delayed, could reach his desk this coming week.

Here the objective is to solve one of the biggest problems of all – how to protect the homeland of the United States from deadly ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missile threats. The model is Israel’s Iron Dome which has done an impressive job protecting the country from missiles launched by Hamas to its south and Hezbollah to its north. Unsurprisingly mere emulation of the Israeli system is not enough so the proposal now is for a ‘Golden Dome.’

One explanation for the change of name is that Iron Dome is a trademark owned by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense System. Another is that it follows a slip of the tongue from Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth who spoke in a video address of ‘Golden Dome, or Iron Dome’, and the White House decided it preferred the alternative. Curiously the original name for Israel’s system was Golden Dome but it was rejected because it was considered ‘ostentatious’.

Hezbollah at crossroads after blows from war weaken group

Hugo Bachega

Last year, on 17 September, at around 15:30, a pager which a nurse called Adam was given at the start of his shift at a hospital in Lebanon received a message. The devices had been distributed by Hezbollah, the Shia Muslim group, to thousands of its members, including Adam, and he said it was how he and his colleagues expected to be alerted of emergencies or a disaster.

"The pager started beeping non-stop and, on the screen, it said 'alert'," Adam, who did not want to use his real name for safety reasons, said. The text appeared to have been sent by the group's leadership. To read it, he had to press two buttons, simultaneously, with both hands. Adam did it many times, but the beeps continued. "Then suddenly, as I was sitting at my desk," he said, "the pager exploded".

On his phone, Adam showed me a video of the room, filmed by a colleague minutes after he was rescued. There was a trail of blood on the floor. "I tried to crawl to the door because I had locked it while I changed my clothes," he said. The blast had opened a hole in the wood desk. I noticed a beige-like object. "That's my finger," he said.


The new great power competition for minerals

Paul Josephson

Donald Trump’s views of wealth and power – the belief that control of real estate and minerals doth make a man – are playing out in the foreign policy of the second Trump administration. Trump wants mineral wealth that belongs to Canada, Greenland and Ukraine. Belief that minerals are the foundation of power is nothing new. Gold, silver, platinum and other minerals have been the fantasy of colonial powers for hundreds of years. Great powers have risen and fallen in the effort to expand abroad to secure this mineral wealth.

In the 21st century, the minerals that are essential to state power have changed in response to modernising electronics, aerospace, energy, communications and other industries. These minerals, too, have been subject to various efforts to control them. Cold War desiderata stimulated a new wave of mining in search of such strategic minerals as antimony, bismuth, gallium, germanium, indium, graphite, scandium, tungsten and uranium. A uranium boom for weapons and reactors led to the pursuit of nuclear material in Namibia, Kazakhstan, and the vast spaces of Canada, the western United States, Australia and elsewhere.

For Trump, this impetus is central. Trump wants Canada as the 51st state for its uranium, he wants Greenland for its proximate strategic wealth, and he desires Ukrainian minerals in exchange for the US’s past and continuing support for Ukraine’s defence against Russia.

Army Planners Are Weighing Force Reductions of Up to 90,000 Active-Duty Soldiers

Steve Beynon

The Army is quietly considering a sweeping reduction of up to 90,000 active-duty troops, a move that underscores mounting fiscal pressures at the Pentagon and a broader shift in military strategy away from Europe and counterterrorism, according to three defense officials familiar with the deliberations.

Internal discussions are exploring trimming the force to between 360,000 and 420,000 troops -- down from its current level of roughly 450,000. The potential cuts would mark one of the most dramatic force reductions in years, as military planners aim to reshape the Army from a blunt conventional force into what they hope could be a more agile, specialized instrument better suited for future conflicts. It's unclear whether any cuts are being mulled for the Army Reserve or National Guard.

The move comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon to come up with plans to cut 8% from the budget. Hegseth has long criticized what he describes as "woke" initiatives within the military, though that critique has centered on ill-defined cultural grievances and confused the force on how to comply and on what exactly needs scrubbing.

The Age of Tariffs

Eswar Prasad

The era of increasingly free and extensive international trade, built on a rules-based system that the United States helped create, has come to an abrupt end. On April 2, in a theatrical White House event, U.S. President Donald Trump rolled out a series of massive tariffs that will affect almost every foreign country. In one sense, his announcement wasn’t a surprise: from the moment he took office, businesses and financial analysts knew that Trump would raise trade barriers. But the scale and scope of the tariffs confirmed their worst fears. In one fell swoop, Washington has severely restricted international commerce.

In justifying this new era of tariffs, Trump has argued that the United States is the victim of unfair trading practices. As with many of Trump’s ideas, there is more than a kernel of truth in his claims. China, for instance, has taken advantage of World Trade Organization rules to gain access to other countries’ markets for its exports while limiting access to its own markets. Beijing has also used extensive subsidies and other measures to boost the global competitiveness of Chinese companies, including by forcing foreign firms to hand over technology.

But rather than fixing the rules that some U.S. trading partners took advantage of, Trump has chosen to blow up the entire system. He has taken the hatchet to trade with practically every major U.S. trading partner, sparing neither allies nor rivals. China now faces high tariffs, yes, but so do Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Long-standing, mutually beneficial economic relationships and geopolitical alliances have counted for little.

The Economic Consequences of State Capture

Elizabeth David-Barrett

Since returning to office, U.S. President Donald Trump and his benefactor, the tech billionaire Elon Musk, have taken a chainsaw to the government. In just over three months, Musk has purged agencies of staff, replaced fired workers with loyalists, and canceled existing public contracts—including for completed work. Trump, meanwhile, has fired inspectors general and removed the head of the Office of Government and Ethics. Together, the two men have taken resources that Congress had appropriated, abusing the power of the purse to redirect funds toward themselves and away from their perceived opponents. The Trump administration has ordered more Musk-made Starlink satellite dishes and put Musk’s companies, already some of the government’s biggest clients, in the running for billions more in contracts. At the same time, Trump has canceled government funding for universities and law firms that don’t support his agenda.

To most Americans, this kind of corruption will seem unfamiliar. Never in modern U.S. history has a businessman president partnered with the world’s wealthiest man to seize control of the federal government. But globally, it is part of a worrying pattern. In struggling democracies around the world, small cliques of politicians, business elites, and politicians with business interests—what political scientists call “poligarchs”—have warped the state to serve their interests. Together, these unholy alliances change rules, fire bureaucrats, silence critics, and then eat up the country’s resources. The politicians commandeer banks, rewrite regulations, and take control of procurement contracts. Their friends in the private sector, meanwhile, provide kickbacks, donations, and favorable media coverage.

The rules-based global trading system is mostly irrelevant

Chris Clague

Amid the chaos of United States President Donald Trump’s trade actions in his first two months in office, one key development has been overlooked. This is that two of the countries most vulnerable to US tariffs – China and Canada – surprisingly requested consultations with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in early February and early March 2025. These requests are the first step in dispute settlement at the WTO. The US accepted both requests on 14 March. However, cheers for the enduring integrity of the global trading system should be withheld. The rules of the WTO are no longer enforceable and have not been since 2019. All sides involved know this, which makes the requests, and their acceptance, indicative of the institution’s long slide into irrelevance – the equivalent of institutional death.

A mix of American hostility and indifference

Since December 2019, when the first Trump administration blocked new appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body, leaving it unable to review appeals due to a lack of members, the WTO has been moribund, albeit with occasional flickers of life. There were, for example, various proposals from European members and others to reform the overall dispute-settlement system – the organisation’s ‘crown jewel’. The WTO General Council was tasked with building consensus for reform. As of the end of 2024, however, progress towards a resolution of the various disagreements between members had been halting. The chairperson of the reform process in 2024 and Norway’s ambassador to the WTO, Petter Ølberg, concluded in his December report that ‘the majority of Members have indicated that their interests are best served by the key features of the current system without fundamental changes to them’.

Code, Combat, And Command: How The Indian Army Is Leveraging AI And Big Data For The Battlefield Of Tomorrow – Analysis

Ashu Mann

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data are not merely support tools in today’s rapidly evolving battlefield. They are becoming the backbone of modern warfare. From enabling precision targeting and predictive logistics to creating integrated command structures, AI and data analytics are revolutionising how militaries plan, fight, and win wars. For the Indian Army, the future lies not in distant promise but in present transformation, with significant technological strides underway under the ‘Decade of Transformation’ initiative.

The Global Shift Toward AI-Enabled Warfare

Across the globe, recent conflicts such as the Armenia-Azerbaijan war, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war have highlighted the decisive role of AI and Big Data. AI-enabled drones and loitering munitions have been used for surveillance and precision strikes. Real-time data processing has allowed forces to anticipate enemy moves, while cyber warfare has blurred the lines between conventional and non-conventional warfare. The United States and China have made significant advances in military AI, developing battlefield management systems that can process thousands of data points in real-time, from satellite imagery and drone feeds to electronic intercepts, offering commanders a comprehensive situational picture.

The AI Power Play: How ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, And Others Are Shaping The Future Of Artificial Intelligence – Analysis

Sharon Kumar

The competition among top AI models is transforming how we work, create, and communicate. But as these systems grow smarter and more accessible, new questions emerge about cost, sustainability, and responsible development in a rapidly evolving landscape.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen rapid growth, transforming industries and daily life. From chatbots to advanced generative models, AI’s capabilities continue to expand, driven by powerful companies investing heavily in research and development. “The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone,” wrote Bill Gates in 2023. “It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other.”

In 2025, companies such as OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and emerging challengers like DeepSeek have pushed the boundaries of what large language models (LLMs) can do. Moreover, corporate solutions from Microsoft and Meta are making AI tools more accessible to enterprises and developers alike. This article explores the latest AI models available to the public, their advantages and drawbacks, and how they compare in the competitive AI landscape.


One Digital Destination, Millions of Opportunities

Devon Bistarkey

Companies and academic institutions will soon be able to match their technologies and products to real Defense Department business opportunities using the latest generative artificial intelligence tools in a secure platform.

For the department, this means platform users can discover commercial and academic capabilities that meet their mission needs in one digital location.

The Defense Innovation Unit is partnering with commercial technology companies to develop the DOD Digital OnRamp platform in collaboration with organizations across the department, including service members, acquisition professionals, research scientists and the innovation community.

Leveraging the latest advancements in AI and large language model technologies, the OnRamp tool will be a single sign-on platform that simplifies and enhances the process of matching private sector capabilities with defense opportunities.

"As a matching tool for commercial technology and the department, we are seamlessly and securely integrating data sets to help the commercial sector find the best fit for their technology matched to a defense need with the training and support needed while also making commercial and academic solutions visible to department employees trying to solve a mission problem," said Cheryl Ingstad, DIU deputy director of digital platforms and developer ecosystem.

Fuel on the Fire: Information as a Weapon

Karl Stoltz

Introduction

On December 7, 1941, the United States was thrust into the Second World War when Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor. While there were already warning signs of Japanese aggression, the surprise assault still caught America sleeping.

Similarly, on September 11, 2001, the United States suffered the deadliest single-day series of terrorist attacks in history, as al-Qaeda agents used commercial airplanes as weapons to destroy the World Trade Center in New York City and severely damage the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Again, there were warning signs of increased al-Qaeda activity, but few anticipated such a massive attack on our national landmarks.

It is hard to determine when exactly the third surprise attack that caught America sleeping actually started, because it did not begin with a bang, but a whisper. That third assault is still underway today, though as yet few are aware that it exists.