Indian Strategic Studies: 04/19/25

19 April 2025

Disquiet on the Western Front: A Divided Resistance in Myanmar’s Chin State

Overview

Anti-regime armed groups have expelled the Myanmar military from most of Chin State, but deep divisions between two factions are preventing agreement on political and governance issues, while sporadic clashes between them could spill into broader conflict. For people displaced by war in this remote part of the country, a lack of trade, resources and donor support is making life increasingly difficult. The rival Chin National Front and Chin Brotherhood have committed to unite under a single political body. It is crucial that they now move to dampen the tensions between them as they pursue that goal, failing which it will be hard to resettle the displaced, restart the economy and provide essential aid and public services. The two groups should put in place formal communication channels and protocols to avert fighting. Meanwhile, they should identify shared objectives in areas such as humanitarian assistance, education, health and justice. Donors should make greater efforts to overcome aid delivery challenges and provide more support to the fledgling authorities.

Chin State witnessed some of the first major clashes between the military and resistance forces following the February 2021 coup. Since then, the resistance has driven the military out of most of the state. Its strength was in part the result of deep grievances arising from decades of neglect and discrimination by successive central authorities against the Chin ethnic minority – dry tinder that was ignited by the coup and subsequent military violence. Over the last four years, the conflict has caused extensive destruction and forced some 160,000 people – more than one third of the state’s population – from their homes. Most are internally displaced, while the rest have sought refuge in neighbouring India. Fighting continues, as resistance forces attempt to seize the remaining military bases in the state and the regime launches punitive airstrikes on towns and villages it has lost in an attempt to prevent its opponents from consolidating control.

China has a powerful card to play in its fight against Trump’s trade war

Nectar Gan and John Liu

Less than a year into Donald Trump’s first trade war with China, Chinese leader Xi Jinping made a high-profile visit to an unassuming factory in Ganzhou, an industrial city nestled among rolling hills in the country’s southeast.

Touring its exhibition hall in 2019, Xi examined row upon row of unremarkable gray metal blocks and declared to his entourage of Communist Party officials: “Rare earths are a vital strategic resource.”

Nearly six years on, China’s dominance of the rare earths supply chain has emerged as among its most potent tools in a renewed trade war with the United States president. The minerals – used to power everything from iPhones to electric vehicles – are vital components for the kinds of advanced technology that will define the future.

And unlike tariffs, it’s a front where Trump has little room to retaliate in kind.

Rare earths are a group of 17 elements that are more abundant than gold and can be found in many countries, including the United States. But they’re difficult, costly and environmentally polluting to extract and process.

For decades, the US and other countries have been dependent on Beijing’s supply of these processed metals. China accounts for 61% of global mined rare earth production, but its control over the processing stage is 92% of the global output, according to the International Energy Agency.

Why China Laughs at the Idea of Americans Taking Their Manufacturing Jobs

Miranda Jeyaretnam

A“Make American Strong Again” banner hangs on the wall as rows upon rows of overweight workers assemble Nike sneakers; one lifts a burger up to his mouth as he eats while working, another rests his head on the sewing machine in front of him, barely able to keep his eyes open.

It’s a caricature of U.S. manufacturing that Chinese netizens have been laughing at over the past week, as social media platforms have seen a wave of AI-generated videos portraying what some think it would look like for Americans to work in sweatshop-like textile factories and iPhone assembly lines more commonly associated with China.

As U.S. President Donald Trump escalates a trade war with China that he began in his first term—seeing tariffs, which are taxes on imports, as a path to restore a U.S. manufacturing sector that has steadily declined over decades—China’s government has made its opposition clear: After Trump’s “Liberation Day” on April 2, when he hiked tariffs on all global trade partners, Chinese state media produced AI-generated parody videos slamming Trump’s approach as costly, divisive, and dangerous. After Trump announced a 90-day pause for other countries but further hiked tariffs on China, which now stand at 145%, China’s finance ministry raised its retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods to 125% but said that it wouldn’t continue to respond with tit-for-tat increases, arguing that doing so amounts to nothing more than a “numbers game” as the current rate already makes imports from the U.S. prohibitively expensive.

China appoints new trade envoy in face of tariff turmoil

Suranjana Tewari

China has unexpectedly appointed a new trade envoy, as officials said the US's practice of "tariff barriers and trade bullying" is having a serious impact on the global economic order.

Li Chenggang, a former assistant commerce minister and WTO ambassador, is taking over from veteran trade negotiator Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen.

The shift comes as Beijing refuses to back down in an escalating trade war with Washington triggered by US President Donald Trump's hefty tariffs on Chinese goods.

China's already sluggish economy is bracing for the impact on a key source of revenue - exports.

Beijing announced on Wednesday its GDP grew by 5.4% between January and March, compared with the same period a year earlier.

The figure has exceeded expectations but reflects the period before US tariffs jumped from 10% to 145%, and Chinese officials warned of more economic pain ahead.

China May Have a Revenge List for Tariff Wars - Analysis

James Palmer

What other measures is the Chinese government considering in response to the spiraling trade war with the United States? Two prominent Chinese pundits have both posted an identical list of potential responses on social media accounts. Neither of these is an official account, but they are both connected to officialdom; one is the personal account of Liu Hong, a senior editor at Xinhuanet, the online platform of the state media news agency. The other is a prominent nationalist account, “Chairman Rabbit,” run by the grandson of a Chinese Communist Party city chief.

The list is attributed only to “sources,” which usually means mid-tier government officials or policy advisors. Both pundits added their own commentary—Chairman Rabbit referred to the conflict as a “war without gun smoke,” a popular phrase in Chinese strategy.

Chinese Military Views of Low Earth Orbit

Howard Wang, Jackson Smith & Cristina L. Garafola

Introduction

Space is a critical domain for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) vision of future power and military competition with the United States. Chinese space industry officials view China as being on track to surpass the United States as the world’s foremost space power by 2045.2 China’s space program has the second-most satellites in orbit behind the United States, including sophisticated capabilities, such as an all-weather 24-hour remote sensing system and the GPS-like Beidou navigation system.3 It is also developing a number of counterspace capabilities, including direct ascent antisatellite (ASAT) weapons; co-orbital ASAT weapons, such as the Shijian (SJ) series satellites;4 electronic warfare capabilities, such as ground-based jammers targeting satellite communications (SATCOM) and synthetic aperture radar (SAR); and offensive cyber capabilities intended for strategic deterrence to counter U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific region.5

Central to the space domain’s importance in CCP thinking is the potential for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to leverage space assets for conducting informatized joint operations. PLA analysts frequently refer to space as the “ultimate high ground” enabling modern informatized operations through space-based command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems.6 Accordingly, the PLA has been adjusting its warfighting doctrine and forces around the goal of obtaining space superiority so that it is better positioned to achieve information superiority, or the ability to freely use information and deny the adversary’s use of information. In 2015, China’s defense white paper designated space a critical military domain, and the PLA established the now-reorganized Strategic Support Force (SSF),

How China sees the future and what it means for NATO

Alice Politi

China’s rise has been met with concerns over its global vision and aspirations by the United States and its like-minded partners. Whilst China is not part of the North Atlantic region, its rise has direct and critical implications for NATO’s key interests. As this paper analyses, this is especially evident regarding China’s fast-growing military modernisation and its projection of power in the South China Sea. This is of particular significance considering the growing interest in the region of NATO members, as well as risks deriving from current NATO members’ critical dependencies on China, and engagement in sensitive areas, such as 5G and AI.1 Therefore, this paper aims to contribute on this timely issue and investigate the implications of China’s rise on Euro-Atlantic security, focusing on the ways China’s geopolitical behaviour could become a threat to NATO and how NATO could face the challenges posed by a rising China.

This paper is divided into three main sections, each addressing key aspects of China’s geopolitical ambitions and their implications for NATO’s strategic interests. The first section examines China’s stated geopolitical objectives for the centenary of the People’s Republic in 2049, drawing on official Chinese government documents that outline the country’s long-term goals. This section also explores China’s anticipated, but unstated, geopolitical aims for 2049, delving into predicted objectives that, while not explicitly mentioned in government sources, are expected to be integral to China’s pursuit of its second “centenary goal.” The second section focuses on the issue of Taiwan, analysing how China’s ambitions for 2049 intersect with its approach to Taiwan and what implications this may entail for NATO’s strategic interests. This section discusses potential scenarios and their relevance to NATO, particularly in terms of crisis management and regional stability. The third section assesses the feasibility of China achieving its “Great Rejuvenation” goals in light of the economic challenges the country currently faces. By analysing both the stated and anticipated geopolitical aims, this paper evaluates whether these am itions could pose potential threats to NATO’s interests. The conclusion of the study offers actionable policy recommendations based on the findings of the analysis.

ISIS is on the ropes in Syria. A successful transition in Damascus could deliver a knockout blow

Charles Lister

For much of the past two decades, the Islamic State (ISIS) has enjoyed favorable conditions in Syria, but since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, dynamics have changed. With Assad’s departure, ISIS lost its long-standing and vitally important safe haven in Syria’s central desert and its most significant driver for recruitment. The results — so far — have been dramatic.

In 2024, ISIS was resurgent in Syria, conducting an average of 59 attacks per month, but since Assad’s departure on Dec. 8, 2024, its operational tempo has fallen by 80% — to just 12 attacks per month, on average. Even more significantly, the deadliness of ISIS’s attacks has plunged by 97% — from an average of 63 killed per month under Assad in 2024 to just 2 per month since then.

There are several reasons for this dramatic change, all of which relate to new dynamics that came into play when Assad’s regime fell. These changes will prove fleeting, however, if Syria’s new reality is not managed well. Ultimately, ISIS’s durable defeat will come about only if Syria’s transition succeeds — with the formation of a government that represents all of the country’s rich diversity; with an economy that is given air to breathe through sanctions relief, substantial investment, infrastructure rehabilitation, and reconstruction; and with the gradual demobilization of a society over-militarized by nearly 14 years of brutal civil conflict.

Calming the Red Sea’s Turbulent Waters

Introduction

The Red Sea, which connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans to the Mediterranean Sea, and thus Asia and Africa to Europe, is a strategic body of water through which commercial shipping must have free passage. Lapping at the shores of eight countries and with chokepoints at both ends – the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Suez Canal – the Red Sea is both vital to world trade and vulnerable to being blocked. Any threat to navigation there can set off a wide-ranging economic shock. Even minor disruptions, such as when the mammoth container ship, the MV Ever Given, got stuck in the Canal for six days in March 2021, can have repercussions felt around the globe.1

At its southern end, the Red Sea opens into the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean through the Bab al-Mandab. Some 7 per cent of global maritime trade, carried by over 25,000 ships and valued at $700 billion each year, passes through this strait.2 Its proximity to the Gulf also makes the Bab al-Mandab the main sea route from major Middle East oil and gas fields to the West, with 6.2 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products in transit every day.3 Europe receives about 60 per cent of its energy needs through the Bab al-Mandab. The U.S. gets a lesser but still important share of its oil through the strait, about 10 per cent (down from 20 per cent five years ago, reflecting the decline in U.S. dependence on Middle East oil for domestic use).

Trump Wants Tariffs to Bring Back U.S. Jobs. They Might Speed Up AI Automation Instead

Billy Perrigo

Announcing his tariffs in the White House Rose Garden last week, President Trump said the move would help reopen shuttered car factories in Michigan and bring various other jobs back to the U.S.

“The president wants to increase manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added on Tuesday. “He wants them to come back home.”

But rather than enticing companies to create new jobs in the U.S., economists say, the new tariffs—bolstered by recent advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics—could instead increase incentives for companies to automate human labor entirely.

“There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that this is going to bring back a lot of jobs,” says Carl Benedikt Frey, an economist and professor of AI & work at Oxford University. “Costs are higher in the United States. That means there’s an even stronger economic incentive to find ways of automating even more tasks.”

In other words: when labor costs are low—like they are in Vietnam—it’s usually not worth it for companies to invest in the expensive up-front costs of automating human labor. But if companies are forced to move their labor to more expensive countries, like the U.S., that cost-benefit calculation changes drastically.

What to Know About the Universities That Have Had Their Funding Targeted by the Trump Administration

Chad de Guzman

President Donald Trump has placed the higher education system in a pressure cooker. A number of Ivy League and other elite universities have been forced to make a tough choice: either comply with his Administration’s agenda or lose critical federal funding.

Harvard, the nation’s oldest and perhaps most prestigious university, was the latest target. Hours after the school announced it wouldn’t accede to the Trump Administration demands, the federal government on April 14 froze more than $2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.

Harvard is just one of several U.S. universities targeted by the Trump Administration to force compliance with its agenda. Pressure is being placed on these educational institutions not only through slashed budgets but also via government orders and probes into schools’ diversity-related practices. Trump has promised funding cuts to schools that pursue diversity initiatives since he was on the campaign trail last year; his Administration has also targeted universities that were involved in last year’s wave of campus protests against the war in Gaza.

Experts have previously warned that such cuts to academic institutions pose a risk for the U.S., a global leader in research and innovation. The impact of taking away government grants—lifeblood for many of these research universities—could include hampering advancements in medicine and technology, and could cost the country economically as well by weakening American competitiveness.

Why Authoritarians Attack Universities First

John Haltiwanger

One of the leading U.S. experts on fascism is so unsettled by the political climate under President Donald Trump that he’s packing up and leaving the country. Jason Stanley, a philosophy professor at Yale University and the author of books including How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, has accepted a position at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy that will begin in the fall.

Stanley is not the only prominent Yale professor leaving the Ivy League university amid Trump 2.0. He’ll be joined at Munk by two colleagues, historians Timothy Snyder and Marci Shore, in one of many signs that the United States is in the midst of a Trump-induced brain drain as the new administration threatens university funding, among many other unfriendly steps toward the world of academia.

A Defining Year for Space: Why the U.S. and Europe Must Unite or Fall Behind

Billy Bryan

Space exploration is entering an exciting, but precarious, new phase. Private robotic missions to the Moon, cheaper heavy-lift launchers, and even the first commercial space station are all on the horizon. As the transatlantic alliance is tested in unprecedented ways, the United States and European allies must ask themselves how they can unite to work better together in space. The answer will be shaped by how they tackle security, safety, sustainability, investment, and scientific cooperation in the space domain.

Security, Sustainability, and Strategy

Russia's war on Ukraine has exposed the West's reliance on private space assets and services from single suppliers: SpaceX's satellite communications system Starlink has been a lifeline (for now), but it is solely operated by SpaceX in the United States. This raises urgent questions about dependency on private actors in one nation for secure communications and space situational awareness. The European Union's proposed space law offers a chance to align policies across the bloc, and NATO must take on a stronger role in space security. Without coordinated action, the West risks ceding control over critical capabilities to those who do not share the same priorities with no alternative joint services that can operate at the same scale.

AI and the Future of the U.S. Electric Grid

Despite its age, the U.S. electric grid remains one of the great workhorses of modern life. Whether it can maintain that performance over the next few years may determine how well the U.S. competes in an AI-driven world.

AI is a big part of the challenge. Its vast data centers suck up energy like small cities. But a recent RAND study suggests AI could be a big part of the solution, too. There are risks here—some obvious, some not—and grid operators need to move with caution. But AI could usher in an energy future that is more resilient, more efficient, and more affordable for customers.

“The important thing is to do it without rocking the boat,” said Ismael Arciniegas Rueda, a former energy executive, now a senior economist at RAND. “The grid can fail, definitely, and I don't think people understand the consequences if that does happen. It's not just the lights going out. Our whole life depends on whether or not energy is available 100 percent of the time.”

Companies working with AI have warned that they are already struggling to find the power they need. Keeping them on U.S. soil has become a national imperative, especially in light of the deepening competition with China. That means upgrading and modernizing the grid, much of which was built in the 1960s and ‘70s.

Russian cyber and information warfare and its impact on the EU and UK

Dr Lukasz Olejnik

Cyberwarfare is a geopolitical tool, with Russia using it as statecraft. Cyberattacks linked to Russian actors have affected European countries and the UK, raising concerns about security, economic stability and democracy. Information operations are likewise a systematic risk. These are long-term activities and cannot be reduced to the mundane sending of individual messages.

Russia’s reputation in cyberwarfare

Russia is a leading cyber actor. Notable incidents include the Bundestag hack (2015) and the Macron leaks (2017), both were executed remotely. But there were also close-access operations. Reports of Russian infiltration attempts, such as targeting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Netherlands, highlight its aggressive approach.

Development of Russian cyber capabilities

Russia has a strong foundation in cyber, with state agencies cultivating cyber expertise. Intelligence services like the GRU, the FSB, or the SVR conduct operations involving cyber-espionage, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns. We know this from numerous public reports, including reports from the US Department of State and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre.

Trump’s Tariffs Hit Hard Tech Realities - Analysis

Rishi Iyengar, Lili Pike, and Christina Lu

The flurry of on-again, off-again tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed have thus far exempted the semiconductor chips that power much of the modern economy. That may be about to change.

The Department of Commerce on Monday filed a so-called Section 232 investigation into semiconductors and their impact on national security, providing three weeks for the public to comment before the potential imposition of tariffs.

Lessons learned from critical reviews of Gen. Saltzman’s “Competitive Endurance”

Brian G. Chow

Two years ago, Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations (CSO) of the US Space Force, called on both government insiders and external experts to “think deeply and critically” about his proposed theory of success for the Space Force, Competitive Endurance. In response, critical reviews have been published, fostering a broader exchange of ideas and feedback that are essential for refining the theory as it remains in the proposal stage.

As this review process continues, it is now crucial to assess its effectiveness, identifying both successes and shortcomings. This analysis reveals that several practical adjustments are necessary to ensure that Gen. Saltzman’s vision receives more comprehensive feedback. Without a broader range of input, the improvements required to effectively guide the Space Force could be significantly delayed.

Gen. Saltzman introduced Competitive Endurance during his keynote address at the Air & Space Forces Association (AFA) Warfare Symposium on March 7, 2023. In concluding his address, he emphasized the importance of critical thinking and collaboration, urging his audience to engage with his ideas. He stated, “My final comment is a challenge to all Guardians, mission partners, and other stakeholders, think deeply and critically about what I’ve proposed here. Challenge the assumptions, make your own assertions, recommendations, test your ideas, and share those ideas broadly.”

Can Trump’s Tariffs Restore US Manufacturing?

KEUN LEE

Earlier this month, after US President Donald Trump introduced high “reciprocal” tariffs on 57 countries running trade surpluses with the United States, the stock market plunged, the dollar slid, and US Treasury yields climbed. Within 24 hours of the tariffs taking effect, Trump announced a 90-day “pause” on most of them, though a 10% baseline tariff remains in effect, and tariffs on most Chinese imports have continued to climb in a rapidly escalating trade war. Despite the pause, Trump continues to insist that tariffs are essential to bring manufacturing back to the US.

America’s own historical experience – particularly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 – is often cited as evidence of the profound damage tariffs can do. But East Asia has successfully used tariffs to help it build up a strong manufacturing base. Unfortunately for the US, there are important differences between the approach that worked in East Asia – in particular, South Korea – and the approach taken by the Trump administration.

For starters, South Korea’s tariffs were asymmetric: very high for consumer goods (such as household electrical appliances), which it sought to promote as export industries, and very low for the capital goods (such as machinery) that it needed for manufacturing. Without those low capital-good tariffs – together with low wage rates – South Korea could not have established itself as a low-cost production hub.

The Global South Will Pay for Trump’s Trade War

JAYATI GHOSH

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs have unleashed economic chaos, roiling stock and bond markets and triggering panic around the world, especially in lower-income countries that rely heavily on exports to the United States. The result could be an entirely manufactured global recession, with the developing world bearing the brunt.

America Self-Destructs

SHLOMO BEN-AMI

US President Donald Trump is not known for respecting science and history. From promoting unproven treatments for COVID-19 to insisting that any discussion of shameful elements of America’s past is “divisive,” he prefers to manipulate them for political ends. One wonders whether he realizes, when he waxes nostalgic about America’s historical “greatness,” that he is usually referring to times when the United States was a geopolitical weakling.

‘We Are Not Programmed to Die,’ Says Nobel Laureate Venki Ramakrishnan

Sandro Iannaccone

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, the man of death. Although this does not sound like a good moniker, it is: Ramakrishnan is one of the world’s most eminent scientists in the fields of structural biology and cellular processes related to aging and death. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2009 for his discovery of the structure of the ribosome, a crucial cellular machine responsible for gene expression.

In addition to being a leading researcher, Ramakrishnan is also a prolific author. After the enormous success of The Gene Machine, a memoir in which he recounts his human and scientific journey, he published the mighty Why We Die, a book—as its name suggests—dedicated precisely to illustrating the dynamics that regulate aging and which, progressively and inexorably, lead to death.

Ramakrishnan was recently in Italy, in Milan, where he gave a lecture at the second edition of the Milan Longevity Summit, the most important Italian event dedicated to longevity and psycho-physical well-being, organized by BrainCircle Italia. It was an opportunity to meet him and ask him a few questions. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

ENISA Space Threat Landscape 2025

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Office for outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space counts a total of 17,852 objects, out of which 11,331 are currently registered having an ‘in orbit’ status.1 As of 19 September 2024, the satellite tracking website “Orbiting Now” lists 10,786 active satellites in various Earth orbits.2 Taking a closer look into satellite operators shows that the commercial space sector is taking the lead of the overall space landscape, with private companies owning most of the active satellites (over 60% among the top 10 satellite operators). 3

Such rates of commercial exploitation of space, coupled with an increasing number of private companies also launching and operating Space-as-a-Service business models, have made the application of satellites a standard enabling practice across a myriad of sectors and solutions. This includes phones and internet access, critical communications, satellite TV and radio broadcast, land and water resources monitoring, precision farming, remote sensing, management of remote infrastructure, and logistics package tracking, amongst others. Satellites have also been defined as central to achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the global level4 , as well as the objectives of the EU’s green and digital transition5 .

Combating Terrorism Center (CTC)CTC Sentinel, March 2025, v. 18, no. 3

On the Horizon: The Ukraine War and the Evolving Threat of Drone Terrorism

A View from the CT Foxhole: Dr. Christian Klos, Director General of Public Security, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Interior and Community

The New Syrian Government’s Fight Against the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and Captagon

The Rising Threat of Non-State Actor Commercial Drone Use: Emerging Capabilities and Threats

Into the Crowd: The Evolution of Vehicular Attacks and Prevention Efforts

Cyber Espionage Among Allies: Strategic Posturing in an Era of Trade Tensions

U.S. Cyber-Espionage Targeting Allied Nations

Despite long-standing alliances and shared security interests, the United States has not hesitated to direct its formidable cyber espionage capabilities at its closest partners. While collaboration through frameworks such as NATO and intelligence-sharing agreements like Five Eyes suggests a foundation of trust, a series of high-profile leaks over the past decade have revealed a more complex reality. Since 2013, multiple disclosures have shown that even “friendly” nations are not exempt from American surveillance efforts, particularly when strategic or economic interests are involved.

One of the earliest and most controversial revelations came in 2013 when documents leaked by Edward Snowden confirmed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted communications from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her inner circle. The incident severely strained German-American relations, prompting Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to remark, “You don’t do that among friends.” The breach was not just a diplomatic affront – it signaled to other allies that their privileged status did not shield them from U.S. monitoring.

Subsequent disclosures reinforced this view. In 2015, WikiLeaks published the “Target Tokyo” files, revealing that the NSA had conducted surveillance on Japanese government entities, including the Cabinet Office, central bank, and Trade Ministry, as well as major corporations such as Mitsubishi and Mitsui. These operations coincided with critical trade negotiations, suggesting that economic intelligence was a primary objective.

Roadmap for America’s Leadership in AI Action Plan

Mohammed Soliman & Vincent Carchidi

Introduction

The global race for AI leadership is intensifying, with the United States and China as the primary competitors vying for dominance in this transformative technology. As the geopolitical and economic stakes rise, the US must reassess its approach to AI to ensure its continued leadership and safeguard its strategic interests. At the same time, AI presents unprecedented opportunities for global cooperation, innovation, and societal advancement. MEI recognizes that AI is not just a technological challenge — it is a geopolitical one, with implications that extend far beyond national borders.

In light of this, MEI presents this report as a strategic framework for the United States to maintain its technological edge in AI while addressing the growing influence of China and other global competitors. The US must align its AI policies with national security interests, economic goals, and ethical standards to stay ahead in the global competition. This report examines key areas of action that the US must take to secure its AI future, including investments in infrastructure, research, and regulatory frameworks.

Drawing on insights from experts and leaders in the field, the report explores the intersections of AI, geopolitics, and global governance. It offers recommendations for fostering international collaboration, advancing AI research, and ensuring that the development of AI is aligned with American values and interests. As AI continues to shape the future of technology, defense, economy, and society, the US must act decisively and strategically to ensure that it remains the global leader in AI innovation and governance.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)