America Needs a Real Indian Ocean Strategy

Arzan Tarapore

Source Link

Last month in New Delhi, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Paparo, met with senior counterparts from Australia, India, and Japan. This informal group of four countries, known as the Quad, has repeatedly declared that it has no defense pillar, so a meeting of its military leaders is an extremely rare event. In January, a meeting of the Quad’s foreign ministers also placed an unusually heavy emphasis on security.

From its inception, the Quad has grappled with nontraditional security challenges, such as natural disasters and illegal fishing. But its members have largely refrained from integrating their

Myanmar’s military prioritizes its own survival in earthquake response

Dr Bill Hayton

Source Link

The scenes from earthquake-hit parts of central Myanmar are apocalyptic. At least 2,000 people are known to have been killed and unknown numbers lie buried in the rubble. Thousands of homes have been destroyed or damaged and key pieces of national infrastructure, from the Ava railway bridge between the cities of Mandalay and Sagaing to the airport at Naypyidaw, have been destroyed or rendered unusable. The costs of years of shoddy construction and poor maintenance have been made painfully obvious. The consequences of the events of 28 March will be long-lasting.

The earthquake is the latest in a line of tragedies to affect the people of Myanmar in the past few years. The hope created by the first democratic elections of 2015 has long since evaporated. In August 2017, the military and local militias killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims in the north-western state of Rakhine and hundreds of thousands more were forced to flee to Bangladesh. In February 2021, the military launched a coup and imprisoned the country’s democratic leadership, including Aung San Suu Kyi. During the four years since, the country has fragmented. Separatist ethnic armed groups have restarted dormant campaigns and more than 6,000 people have been killed by the military’s response.

Neither US nor China ready for once-in-a-lifetime trade war

William Pesek

Source Link

Donald Trump’s trade war with China is producing one of the most tantalizing split screens in the history of global economics.

On one, the US president is going full bore against China and threatening a 104% tariff. This includes Vice President JD Vance dismissing the 1.4 billion-plus people generating the gross domestic product of Asia’s biggest economy as “Chinese peasants.”

On the other is Trump’s apparent willingness to talk to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and other nations cowering in fear over reciprocal tariffs.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba rushed key economic ministers, including Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato, to Washington to try to talk Trump out of tariffs sure to deal a huge blow to Japan’s export-heavy economy.

As US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News, “Japan is a very important military ally. They’re a very important economic ally, and the US has a lot of history with them. So I would expect that Japan is going to get priority just because they came forward very quickly.”

South Korea is doing the same. On Tuesday, Korea’s acting President Han Duck-soo said he and Trump had a “great call” about tariffs — Trump slapped a 25% tax on Seoul — and potential deals in energy and shipbuilding.

China Would Be Foolish to Invade Taiwan Now

Michael Peck

Source Link

As the Trump administration disrupts global politics, some fear that China might take advantage of the chaos to invade Taiwan.

But this raises a basic question: Why should China invade Taiwan now, when they can sit back and allow Trump to destroy a system that has protected Taiwan for 75 years?

There are some reports that an invasion will happen in a matter of months. The Trump administration has also cut back on support for Ukraine and may withdraw the U.S. from NATO. If America is reneging on these commitments, might not it also throw Taiwan to the tender mercies of Beijing?

However, Beijing doesn’t need to hurry. The strategic balance between China, versus Taiwan, America and America’s allies, seems likely to improve in Beijing’s favor over time. Trump’s tariffs have led to tensions with allies who might have supported a U.S.-led effort to defend Taiwan, including Japan, South Korea and Australia, as well as NATO nations.

Post-1945 U.S. security has rested upon an elaborate web of allies and bases that may have been expensive, but proved invaluable in containing the Soviet Union and China. With Taiwan a hundred miles from China, defending the island was always going to be a challenge. Antagonizing America’s traditional allies – as well as Vietnam and other Asian nations fearful of Chinese hegemony – only makes that task harder.

Growing Closeness Between Russia and the Taliban: A Paradigm Shift?

Muhammad Murad

Source Link

On March 31, Russia’s Supreme Court announced that it had received a petition from Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov seeking to lift the ban on the Taliban. The Supreme Court stated that it would hold a hearing regarding this petition on April 17. According to a law adopted by Russia last year, the court has the authority to suspend the official terrorist designation of any organization.

The Russian government designated the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist organization in 2003, and since then, any contact with the group has been punishable under Russian law. However, since the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in 2021, Russia has been growing closer to the group – a far cry from Moscow’s approach during the Taliban’s previous stint in power.

During the Taliban’s rule from 1996 to 2001, Russia, along with its long-time ally India, worked to end the group’s dominance in Afghanistan. To that end, Russia supported the Northern Alliance, also known as the United Front. This small anti-Taliban coalition was led by the veteran Mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik nicknamed the “Lion of Panjshir.” The Northern Alliance controlled parts of northeastern Afghanistan, particularly the areas in and around the Panjshir Valley.

China-led anti-US tariff pact bruited as Trump 50% deadline looms

Yong Jian

Source Link

Tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated after US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose an additional 50% tariff on Chinese goods on April 9 if China does not meet his deadline and withdraw its announced 34% on American products by April 8.

“If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8, 2025, the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account on Monday. “Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!”

In another post, Trump said China is the biggest tariffs-abusing country. He criticized China for raising its tariffs by 34% for American goods, on top of its “long-term ridiculously high tariffs,” and for not acknowledging his warning to abusing countries not to retaliate.

On April 2, Trump said the US would impose a 34% tariff on Chinese goods, as China had imposed a 67% tariff on American goods over the past years. (His math is controversial, to say the least.) In addition to the 20% tariff unveiled in February and March, Trump has raised the US tariffs on Chinese goods by 54% since his inauguration on January 20.

US Protectionism Reborn: Trump’s Response to China’s Ascendancy - Opinion

Dr. Hasim Turker

Source Link

The onset of the second term of President Donald Trump has been accompanied by a marked escalation in the protectionist nature of US trade policies, reflecting profound strategic concerns over the widening economic and technological disparities between the United States and China. The Trump administration has espoused a protectionist stance, recognizing it as a pivotal strategy to address the perceived decline of the United States in pivotal sectors that fuel economic prosperity and national security, as compared to China.

A Narrowing Technological Gap

The United States has historically dominated global innovation and maintained technological supremacy in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and renewable energy. However, recent developments indicate that China has made substantial progress in this area, driven by a combination of state-led strategic initiatives and sustained investments. In the year 2023, for instance, China’s investment in R&D surged to approximately $722.8 billion, nearly matching the 784-billion-dollar figure recorded in the United States. The convergence of these trends signifies a notable shift in the balance of technological superiority, a matter of significant concern for US policymakers. The urgency of this situation is underscored by President Trump’s introduction of protectionist measures.

China has spent billions of dollars building far too many data centers for AI and compute - could it lead to a huge market crash?

Wayne Williams

Source Link

China’s AI infrastructure boom is faltering, as according to a report in MIT Technology Review, the country built hundreds of data centers to support its AI ambitions, but many are now sitting unused.

Billions were invested by both state and private entities in 2023 and 2024, with the expectation that demand for GPU rentals would keep growing, but uptake has in fact dropped off, and as a result many operators are now struggling to survive.

Much of the early momentum was driven by hype. The government, keen for China to become a global leader in AI, encouraged local officials to fast-track data center construction with the result that more than 500 projects were announced nationwide, and at least 150 were completed by the end of 2024, according to state-affiliated sources. However, MIT Technology Review says local publications are reporting that up to 80% of this new computing capacity remains idle.

Trade Will Move On Without the United States

Michael Schuman

Source Link

In his quest to make America great, President Donald Trump is withdrawing the United States from global trade. American families, companies, and investors will pay a price for this, as many commentators have noted. But the repercussions don’t end there. The tariff regime is also destroying a pillar of American global power, and it will further isolate the country at a moment when others stand ready to fill the vacuum.

On Wednesday, Trump announced that America would impose a 10 percent duty on imports from virtually all countries, plus additional punitive tariffs on countries he deems bad actors on trade, including Japan and members of the European Union. Some of these duties are extremely high. Adding the new levies to those previously imposed, China’s average tariff rate is now near 70 percent. Trump described the tariffs as payback: “Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream,” he said. “Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore.”

Trump’s tariffs are the culmination of a decades-long shift in political perceptions in the United States, in which trade has gone from an unalloyed good to the source of all ills. The U.S. once sought to bring down barriers and open markets globally—forging trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and supporting the World Trade Organization. The resulting global trading system lowered the cost of goods, which benefited the companies and consumers of wealthy countries such as the United States. It also connected poorer countries, such as China, to international supply chains, allowing them to create jobs, woo investment, and alleviate poverty. The United States became, in effect, the world’s ultimate consumer, which tied other countries to its economy and its interests.

We Didn’t Start the Trade War—We’ve Just Finally Joined It

Charlton Allen

Source Link

When President Donald Trump slapped a fresh round of tariffs on European and Asian imports, the professional hand-wringers and legacy press clodpolls sprang into choreographed action.

Headlines and television anchors blared warnings of trade wars, economic isolation, and diplomatic fallout. The bureaucratic priesthood that worships at the altar of “free trade” without reciprocity—from Brussels to Brookings—launched into familiar homilies: tariffs are regressive, Trump is reckless, and globalism is gospel.

But let’s pause the hysteria momentarily and apply something vanishingly rare in today’s media-industrial complex: perspective.

The prevailing orthodoxy treats tariffs as anathema to prosperity—an outdated relic of 19th-century mercantilism. But this overlooks a simple truth: for trade to be free, it must also be fair. For decades, American policymakers—both Democrats and Republicans—have tolerated a grotesquely asymmetrical global trade regime that has hollowed out the American industrial base and made us dangerously dependent on foreign powers, friend and foe alike.

Netanyahu-Trump Meeting Reveals Unexpected Gaps on Key Issues

TIA GOLDENBERG 

Source Link

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington for a hastily organized White House visit bringing a long list of concerns: Iran's nuclear program. President Donald Trump's tariffs. The surging influence of rival Turkey in Syria. And the 18-month war in Gaza.

Netanyahu appeared to leave Monday's meeting largely empty-handed — a stark contrast with his triumphant visit two months ago. During an hourlong Oval Office appearance, Trump appeared to slap down, contradict or complicate each of Netanyahu’s policy prerogatives.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu declared the meeting a success, calling it a “very good visit” and claiming successes on all fronts. But privately, the Israeli delegation felt it was a tough meeting, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

Netanyahu “didn’t hear exactly what he wanted to hear, so he returns back home with very little,” said Nadav Eyal, a commentator with the Yediot Ahronot daily, who added that the visit was still friendly, despite the disagreements.

Netanyahu's second pilgrimage to Washington under Trump's second term was organized at short notice and billed as an attempt to address the new U.S. tariff regime. But it came at a pivotal time in Middle East geopolitics. Israel restarted the war in Gaza last month, ending a Trump-endorsed ceasefire, and tensions with Iran are rising over its nuclear program.

Why They Fight

M. E. Sarotte

Source Link

“You should have never started it.” As cameras rolled during an explosive press conference in the Oval Office in February, U.S. President Donald Trump used these words to blame Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, for Russia’s full-scale invasion of his country in 2022. The two leaders were meant to sign a deal that day providing the United States with critical minerals from Ukraine, but that plan fell apart, and the U.S. president threw his Ukrainian counterpart out of the White House.

Trump also suspended U.S. military aid to and ceased sharing intelligence with Kyiv. Both were eventually restored, but the temporary freeze cost Ukrainian lives. As the war in Ukraine extends into its fourth year, this ugly Oval Office scene and its aftermath provided proof—if any were needed—that the war over war guilt rages on as well, with real-world consequences.

Trump is not alone in his belief that the guilt lies far from Russia. The British historian Jonathan Haslam agrees in that regard. But unlike Trump, he does not assign blame to Ukraine. Haslam makes clear whom he sees as the guilty party in his new book, Hubris: The American Origins of Russia’s War Against Ukraine: “The fault here lies with the United States.”

‘We are all waiting for a reply.’ Countries say White House hasn’t responded on tariff talks.

Ari Hawkins, Nahal Toosi, Daniel Desrochers and Katy O'Donnell

Source Link

President Donald Trump and his top trade officials say they are negotiating with trading partners to reduce the steep tariffs scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday. But many foreign governments who want to talk are still waiting by the phone.

The Philippines is still waiting for a reply to its request for a meeting, according to one official from the country. The United Kingdom pitched the White House on a framework for a trade deal but failed to avoid the tariff increases. Another foreign diplomat said their government was reaching out to various Trump aides at all levels, but many either were not responding or were unwilling to do anything beyond listen.

On top of that, Trump officials have not spelled out exactly what concessions the administration is seeking that could pave the way for a negotiated solution.

It’s a sign that even as the administration tries to reassure financial markets, business leaders and fellow Republicans that they have an end game for the market-shaking duties, the White House is still very far from reaching any substantive trade deals with major foreign partners. Rapid progress will be even harder because now the administration is trying to negotiate bilateral deals with nearly 100 countries simultaneously to achieve a murky set of goals.

How Trump Could Dethrone the Dollar

Edward Fishman, Gautam Jain, and Richard Nephew

Source Link

The U.S. dollar has been the dominant currency in global trade and finance for more than seven decades. Over that time, little has ever truly threatened its position. Global economic systems operate with significant inertia. Major players, from governments to banks to multinational corporations, prefer tried and tested mechanisms for conducting trade and finance. Breathless headlines frequently declare that countries are seeking alternatives to the dollar, that a new consortium is attempting to create a rival currency, or that the latest political crisis in Washington will finally end the dollar’s reserve status. But through decades of changing economic growth around the world, periods of turmoil in global markets, and questions about the future of U.S. economic policy, the dollar’s dominance has remained secure.

Until now. On April 2, U.S. President Donald Trump announced steep new tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner. His plans, which have sent U.S. and global stock markets plunging, are the latest example of a consistent theme in his approach to governance: the weaponization of U.S. economic power. Trump has slapped tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico in response to a variety of purported ills and reinvigorated the maximum pressure campaign against Iran begun in his first term. Combined with Trump’s attacks on the rule of law, his clumsy, erratic attempts to weaponize Washington’s economic advantages pose the greatest threat so far to the dollar’s status as a reserve currency.

Pentagon considering proposal to cut thousands of troops from Europe, officials say

Gordon Lubold, Dan De Luce and Courtney Kube

Source Link

Senior Defense Department officials are considering a proposal to withdraw as many as 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe, sparking concern on both continents that it would embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to six U.S. and European officials who have been briefed on the matter.

The units under consideration are part of the 20,000 personnel the Biden administration deployed in 2022 to strengthen the defenses of countries bordering Ukraine after the Russian invasion. The numbers are still being discussed, but the proposal could involve removing up to half of the forces sent by Biden.

Internal discussions about reducing American troop levels in Romania and Poland come at a time when President Donald Trump is trying to persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire.

How the Houthis Outsmarted Washington

Ramon Marks

Source Link

The Yemeni Houthis refuse to go away. Despite the efforts of the U.S. Navy and allies, a ragtag, rebel insurgent group has managed to keep one of the world’s most strategic waterways—the Red Sea—blocked for almost two years. The majority of maritime traffic has been forced to take the longer, more circuitous and expensive Cape of Good Hope route around the tip of Africa. Washington has failed to maintain maritime freedom in one of the world’s key maritime chokepoints.

The technological revolution in naval warfare brought by anti-ship missile systems and drones has handed a small rebel group the ability to cut off the Red Sea’s strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This continuing standoff carries dangerous implications for the United States as a global maritime power.

The first lesson is obviously technology. Drones and land-based missile systems can now take out surface warships hundreds or even thousands of miles away from littoral coastlines. The Houthis’ Red Sea attacks underscore the challenging situation in which the U.S. Navy finds itself. Already no longer the world’s largest navy—having ceded that position to China’s—the Navy is searching for new approaches to deal with drones and antiship missiles. Its legacy aircraft carriers and other warships, equipped with expensive and sophisticated manned aircraft and missile systems, have proven to be less than ideally suited for this new age of warfare. Evolving to counter these weapons is a process that could take years for the Navy and Congress to develop and refine.

A Bodyguard of Lies

Paul Brannan & Patricia Schmaltz

Source Link

Summer 1943, in a nod to this maxim, Operation Bodyguard was initiated in order to deceive German intelligence into believing a false narrative for the allied invasion of Northwest Europe. Although there are disagreements amongst historians as to the impact of the deception operations that were conducted under the Bodyguard umbrella, it is worth considering how the United States might employ similar techniques in a future large scale combat operations (LSCO) environment.

Ideally, deception operations should be constructed around central narratives so that, through their connective tissue, certain falsehoods can gain the sheen of truth by way of repetition. This framework ensured that even as some ruses were uncovered or discounted by the enemy, a confirmation bias was inculcated in the German intelligence and leadership that would negatively impact their response to the actual Operation Overlord plan. The core fiction of the July invasion at Pas-de-Calais was still being successfully sold to the Germans over a month after the landings at Normandy.

Tariffs will awaken the American Dream Trump must ignore the lords of Martha's Vineyar

Edward Luttwak

Source Link

For decades, the United States provided a market that was unlimited for most exporters, enabling countries large and small to transfer their populations from marginally productive farms in overcrowded villages to low-tech industries producing garments, footwear, simple hand-tools and such like. In that first stage of one-sided market opening, poor people worldwide became less poor, while working-class Americans started to lose their jobs — and the American ruling elite in both parties remained uncritically devoted to free trade.

How did the US pay for that first tidal wave of cheap low-tech imports? Partly with earnings from American agricultural exports, as well as some irresistible consumer products such as Coca Cola and cigarettes. Increasingly, though, America paid for these products by selling Treasury bonds, eagerly bought up by exporting countries. That, in turn, drove up the dollar, and made foreign wares even more competitive.

But this model came with a downside. In the US, producers of low-tech and craft products started going out of business, even as the newly unemployed were encouraged to abandon hard industrial jobs for splendid new positions in the services sector. Go into marketing analysis foreign-exchange trading, they were told, whose winnings could earn you more money in a day than a lifetime spent turning out garden tools — which now anyway arrived more cheaply from overseas.

The Houthis’ Road to Nowhere

Ari Heistein

Source Link

A key advantage of the proactive “Axis of Resistance” over the reactive Western powers has been their ability to take the initiative and maintain the element of surprise. Still, the U.S. campaign in Yemen has now reversed that dynamic.

The Houthis are likely in a state of deep strategic confusion. Although the group is committed to supporting Hamas, they cannot predict how long this will keep them in conflict with the United States. Meanwhile, they face mounting domestic crises, including economic collapse and emboldened enemies.

With each passing day, they increasingly resemble their Lebanese Hezbollah mentors, risking their long-term project to avoid the ideological and reputational damage of breaking their pledge to fight alongside Hamas.

The Houthis did pause their attacks on Red Sea shipping and Israel after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire took effect. Still, their leader, Abdelmalek, declared in a televised address that the group was keeping its “finger on the trigger.”

The Houthis’ Crumbling Popularity at Home

When the ceasefire collapsed, after the parties disagreed on how to implement Phase Two or extend Phase One, Israel‘s government announced it would no longer allow aid into Gaza until Hamas released the remaining hostages.

Trump's game of chicken over tariffs leaves world guessing

Anthony Zurcher

Source Link

A day before Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs are scheduled to kick in, the US president appears locked in a high-stakes game of chicken, with the world's economy hanging in the balance.

Some nations labelled "worst offenders" are scrambling to make nice with the White House to end this game before it reaches a potentially devastating climax.

China, in contrast, is playing a different game, one of retaliation and resistance.

Meanwhile, Trump has pressed ahead, even as some allies – in Congress and on Wall Street – wonder if he's going too far. On Sunday, when asked what level of market fall he would tolerate before changing course, he snapped that it was a "stupid question".

So is it all a negotiating tactic as many investors and politicians hope – or is he playing a longer game aimed at permanently restructuring the global economy and America's place in it? In this new world, whether a country is an ally or an adversary depends on whether that nation is giving the US a good deal.

Zelensky confirms Ukraine troops in Russia's Belgorod region

Jaroslav Lukiv

Source Link

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly acknowledged for the first time that his troops are active in Russia's Belgorod region, which borders Ukraine.

"We continue to carry out active operations in the border areas on enemy territory, and that is absolutely just - war must return to where it came from," he said on Monday.

His comments also referred to Russia's Kursk region, where Ukraine still holds a small area after a major offensive last year. Moscow has since retaken most of the territory.

Zelensky said "the main objective" was to protect Ukraine's Sumy and Kharkiv border regions, and to "ease the pressure" on other parts of the vast front line, particularly in the eastern Donetsk region.

Russia's military had last month reported Ukrainian attempts to cross over into the Belgorod region - but said such attacks had been rebuffed. The areas in question are only a short distance inside Russian territory.

Wall Street Bursts With Anger Over Tariff ‘Stupidity’

Rob Copeland, Maureen Farrell and Lauren Hirsch

Source Link

Wall Street billionaires are not used to being on the outside looking in. But that is where they find themselves after President Trump ignored their appeals to call off his tariff plans which they fear could endanger the economy.

With the backdrop of rapidly mounting stock market losses, corporate titans have worked every angle — phone calls, social media and even a typically staid shareholder letter — to try to change Mr. Trump’s mind.

The day after the president announced his most sweeping round of tariffs last week, chief executives from major banks, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, had a private meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick organized by a lobbying group in Washington. But Mr. Lutnick was not persuaded to reverse course, three people briefed on the sit-down said.

Over the weekend, megadonors to Mr. Trump’s re-election effort tried a different tack, pleading their case in calls to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, people familiar with the calls said. Those efforts also came up empty.

How to stop bioterrorists from buying dangerous DNA

Steph Batalis & Vikram Venkatram

Source Link

Imagine you work for a hypothetical gene synthesis company, one of dozens around the world that manufacture tiny strands of custom nucleic acids like DNA for customers in academia and industry. DNA isn’t just the basis for life on Earth—it’s also the basis of many research laboratories. Plastic tubes of DNA are a familiar sight for many researchers, from students in undergraduate biology labs to scientists in pharmaceutical development facilities. Scientists’ capacity to perform genetic engineering, design new medical tests and therapies, and understand gene functions has skyrocketed thanks to the ability to design specific DNA sequences that meet particular research goals.

Along with new possibilities, however, the ability to custom-order genes also has the potential to open up new risks. Some DNA codes for genes from pathogens and toxins—sequences that could cause harm if misused. To limit such an outcome, experts from industry, government, and academia recommend screening orders and customers before filling an order.

In the United States, this screening is at a pivotal moment. A Biden administration executive order that would require researchers working with federal funds to order from companies that screen DNA orders was short-lived; the Trump administration rescinded the requirement less than three months after it went into effect. While many of the leading synthesis companies are committed to voluntarily screening orders as members of an industry-led consortium, the revoked executive order would have marked the first time that the practice was made standardized and compulsory. Since the new administration may retain some aspects of the Biden executive order, it remains unclear what the status of screening requirements will be moving forward.

Armis Warns AI Supercharging the Global Cyberwarfare Threat Amid Heightened Geopolitical Tensions

Source Link

Armis, the cyber exposure management & security company, is warning that AI-powered cyberwarfare attacks are now becoming a supercharged cyber weapon and urges organizations to immediately close the divide between current cybersecurity programs and future proactive preparation as threats will increase.

New data from Armis Labs’ third annual global Cyberwarfare Report, Warfare Without Borders: AI’s Role in The New Age of Cyberwarfare, shows the threat of AI has increased for organizations and governments worldwide in the past year. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of IT decision-makers globally express concern about nation-state actors using AI to develop more sophisticated and targeted cyberattacks.

“AI is enabling nation-state actors to stealthily evolve their tactics to commit acts of cyberwarfare at any given moment,” said Nadir Izrael, CTO and Co-Founder of Armis. “At the same time, threats are emerging at overwhelming rates from smaller nations and non-state actors leveraging AI to elevate to near-peer cyber threats. It is imperative that cybersecurity leaders shift their programs left of boom, enabling them to stop cyberattacks capable of crippling their operations before there’s any impact to their organization.”

The Signal and the noise: Why the messaging app is great for privacy but not for war plans

Rachel Nuwer

Source Link

Almost immediately after news broke that US government officials had inadvertently shared war plans with a journalist last week, misinformation began to fly. Much of it had to do with the inner workings of Signal—the encrypted messaging app that officials were using to discuss military strikes in Yemen in a chat group to which US national security advisor Mike Waltz inadvertently added The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

At first, Waltz suggested that Goldberg could have added himself to the chat, which is not possible. He also speculated, falsely, that some other technical glitch in Signal could have caused Goldberg’s number to be “sucked into this group.”

The mainstream media also contributed to misunderstandings about the snafu now known as Signalgate. An NPR headline, for example, stated that members of the Pentagon had recently been warned in a memo about a “Signal vulnerability”—falsely implying that the app’s core technology had been compromised. In fact, the memo was about phishing attempts, a common cybercrime unrelated to Signalgate. The Signal account on the social media platform Bluesky addressed this concern in a post: “Phishing isn’t new, and it’s not a flaw in our encryption or any of Signal’s underlying technology. Phishing attacks are a constant threat for popular apps and websites.”

Much of the public discourse around the Signal fiasco stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how encryption works. It has also contributed to further confusion and ill-informed speculation. To push back against the misinformation, we spoke with several encryption experts about how these technologies actually work.