#India China border conflict

[code-of-conflict]

AI as a Tool of Military Modernization: India and China’s Defense Strategies

Introduction: AI in Modern Warfare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a pivotal force in shaping the future of warfare. Both India and China have recognized the strategic importance of AI in modernizing their military capabilities. However, their approaches to AI integration diverge in terms of scale, investment, and focus. While China is leveraging AI for global dominance with heavy emphasis on military-civilian fusion, India is cautiously advancing, focusing on strategic defense and autonomy.

Comparative Analysis of India and China’s Military AI Integration

1. Border Surveillance

AI-driven surveillance has transformed how nations monitor and secure their borders. For India, securing its northern borders, particularly in the volatile regions of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, requires sophisticated surveillance systems. AI can help automate border monitoring using drones and ground-based sensors. India's development of AI-enabled UAVs, such as the Rustom-II and Ghatak UCAVs, demonstrates its focus on real-time surveillance, intelligence gathering, and precision strikes​.

China, on the other hand, has rapidly advanced its border surveillance through AI. Its use of drones like the Caihong series and the WZ-8 hypersonic reconnaissance drone has given China a significant advantage. These unmanned systems, capable of high-altitude and long-range surveillance, provide Beijing with a strategic edge in monitoring the India-China border along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Furthermore, China's integration of AI into border security reinforces its aim to dominate information warfare by creating an "informationized" battlefield.

2. Cyber Warfare Capabilities

In the realm of cyber warfare, China has developed a highly sophisticated network, which blends civilian and military cyber capabilities under its Strategic Support Force (SSF). China's cyber strategy includes offensive operations such as espionage, disrupting enemy networks, and stealing classified information. The integration of AI allows China to automate these cyber-espionage activities and increase the speed and efficiency of cyberattacks​.

India, while lagging in this area, has made significant progress by establishing the Defence Cyber Agency in 2018. India's focus has primarily been on defensive operations, aiming to protect critical infrastructure and secure its networks. However, with growing cyber threats from adversaries like China, India must further develop AI-based cyber defense mechanisms and enhance its offensive cyber capabilities to deter potential attacks .

3. Autonomous Weaponry

Autonomous weaponry is one of the most significant areas where AI is transforming military arsenals. China has been a global leader in developing autonomous systems, such as drones and missile guidance systems. China's Academy of Military Science has been tasked with integrating AI into all aspects of warfare, focusing on autonomous drones, AI-driven missile systems, and robotic soldiers​. The deployment of AI-guided cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is expected to reshape future combat scenarios, allowing for precision strikes and reduced human involvement in the battlefield​.

India is still in the early stages of developing autonomous weaponry. Although India has started working on AI-driven drones and systems, it lacks the scale and speed of China’s developments. However, India’s commitment to creating an indigenous AI ecosystem, as seen in projects like the HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), reflects its focus on autonomous systems for future air combat​. The reliance on AI-enabled UAVs like the Harop drone shows India’s intent to integrate AI into its military strategies, but significant investments are needed to match China’s rapid advancements.

Conclusion: A Diverging Path to AI-Driven Military Power

India and China are both integrating AI into their military strategies, but their approaches reflect broader geopolitical goals. While China’s strategy is rooted in achieving technological supremacy and global military dominance, India’s efforts are more defensive, focused on autonomy and securing its borders. However, with China’s rapid advancements in AI-driven warfare, India must accelerate its investments in AI technology to ensure strategic parity. The future of conflict between these two nations may very well be determined by their success in harnessing AI for military modernization.

[gitakartecommerce]

The Revival of Tech Trade: Importing Computer Parts and Electronics from China to India Post-Border Conflict Resolution with Russia's Mediation-2024

Electronics from China: In the dynamic and politically sensitive landscape of international trade, the relationship between India and China has often been influenced by border conflicts, economic tensions, and geopolitical maneuvering. However, the recent resolution of a prolonged border conflict between the two countries—with Russian President Vladimir Putin playing a pivotal mediating role—has…

[prakhar0017]

भारत और चीन के युद्ध की शुरुआत कहां से हुई?

आज हम बात करेंगे, दो ऐसे पड़ोसियों की जो एशिया के साथ-साथ पूरी दुनिया में एक बहुत ऊंचा मुकाम रखते है। टाइटल से यह स्पष्ट समझा जा सकता है कि बात यहां पर भारत और चीन के विषय में ही होने वाली है, तो आइए बेझिझक और बिना लाग लपेट मुद्दे पर आते है। भारत-चीन का युद्ध खासतौर से 1962 में कई कारणों से हुआ था। शुरू से ही पाकिस्तान का हमदर्द रहा चीन भारत को खुद से आगे बढ़ता हुआ नहीं देख सका। हालांकि, 1962 का…

[jasminewilson143]

India and China Agree on Disengagement and Patrolling Arrangements Along LAC: A Step Towards Border Stability

India and China Agree on Disengagement and Patrolling Arrangements Along LAC: A Step Towards Border Stability In a significant development in India-China relations, the two nations have reached an agreement to disengage their troops and establish new patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). This decision, announced by India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, marks a crucial…

[defencecapital]

US, India ‘can’t take eyes off ball’ on Chinese aggression at LAC, says American defence attaché

By N. C. Bipindra New Delhi: India and the United States can’t afford to take their “eyes off the ball” when it comes to Chinese aggression along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), a senior US defence official posted at its embassy here said today, as he made it clear that Washington remains watchful of Beijing‘s moves. Rear Admiral Michael L. Baker, the United States defence attaché in India,…

[mariacallous]

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

[thahxa]

honestly one of the taiwan things is like. if not for taiwan, what's the whole chinese military for? they put an entire 1-2% (or so) of GDP into there! which is like. a totally normal amount of GDP to spend except of course china is so damn big that they get to have lots of cool things like aircraft carriers and stealth fighters and... wait, has anyone figured out what this military is for yet?

like the US spends quite a bit on the military but it has an excuse at least - maintaining military bases in a double-digit number of countries and being europe's army is hard work! occasionally they even decide to go off and fight terrorism or do a coup or whatever

but... the chinese military? their last war was in 1979 (with border conflicts until '91) but since then it's been nothing except occasional border conflicts with india (where, remember, they are not allowed to use guns). china has a state policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs, for any reason (including humanitarian) and wasn't a participant in the war on terror (nor really, had any of their own). in the civil war with burma, a country that it directly borders and whose civil war would have major consequences for china, chinese policy has been to... let some guns fall off the back of PLA trucks to the wa state. it's aiming to have a blue water navy and rival the united states for... what exactly again?

but of course taiwan fixes this! china isn't going to be crossing the yalu to invade south korea or crossing into the jungles and invading vietnam - it has no reason, and honestly no desire to, even though it could probably win if it needed, but at least with taiwan you can justify this force buildup to the beancounters

[mightyflamethrower]

Trump was elected in part on promises to avoid “endless wars” of the sort that cost American blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq but without resulting in strategic advantage or civilized calm.

Yet as a Jacksonian, Trump also restored American deterrence through punitive strikes against ISIS and terrorist thugs like Baghdadi and Soleimani—without being bogged down in costly follow-ups. During the last four administrations, Putin stayed within his borders only during the Trump four years.

But upon entering office, Trump will likely still be faced with something far more challenging as he confronts what has become the greatest European killing field since World War II—the cauldron on the Ukrainian border that has likely already cost 1-1.5 million combined dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians.

There is no end in sight after three years of escalating violence. But there are increasing worries that strategically logical and morally defensible—but geopolitically dangerous—Ukrainian strikes on the Russian interior will nonetheless escalate and lead to a wider war among the world’s nuclear powers.

Many on the right wish for Trump to immediately cut off all aid to Ukraine for what they feel is an unwinnable war, even if that abrupt cessation would end any leverage with which to force Putin to negotiate.

They claim the war was instigated by a globalist left, serving as a proxy conflict waged to ruin Russia at the cost of Ukrainian soldiers. They see it orchestrated by a now non-democratic Ukrainian government, lacking elections, a free press, or opposition parties, led by an ungracious and corrupt Zelensky cadre that has allied with the American left in an election year.

In contrast, many on the left see Putin’s invasion and the right’s weariness with the costs of the conflict as the long-awaited global proof of the Trump-Russian “collusion” unicorn. Thus, after the 2016 collusion hoax and 2020 laptop disinformation ruse, they see in some of the right’s opposition to the war at last proof of the Russophiliac Trump perfidy. They judge Putin, not China’s imperialist juggernaut, as the real enemy and discount the dangers of a new Russia-China-Iran-North Korean axis. And to see Ukraine utterly defeat Russia, recover all of the Donbass and Crimea, and destroy the Putin dictatorship, they are willing again to feed the war to the last Ukrainian while discounting escalating Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent defeat.

Trump has vowed to end the catastrophe on day one by doing what is now taboo: calling Vladimir Putin and making a deal that would do the now impossible: entice Russia back to its February 24, 2022, borders before it invaded and thus preserve a reduced but still autonomous and secure Ukraine.

How could Trump pull that unlikely deal off?

Ostensibly, he would follow the advice of a growing number of Western diplomats, generals, scholars, and pundits who have reluctantly outlined a general plan to stop the slaughter.

But how could Putin reassure the Russian people of anything short of an absolute annexation of Ukraine after the cost of one million Russian casualties?

Perhaps in the deal, Putin could brag that he institutionalized forever his 2014 annexations of once Russian-speaking majority Donbass and Crimea; that he prevented Ukraine from joining NATO on the doorstep of Mother Russia; and that he achieved a strategic coup in aligning Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea in a new grand alliance against the West and particularly the United States, with the acquiescence if not support of NATO member Turkey and an ever more sympathetic India.

And what would Ukraine and the West gain from such a Trump art of the deal?

Kyiv might boast that, as the bulwark of Europe, Ukraine heroically saved the country from Russian annexation as envisioned in the 2022 attempt to decapitate Kyiv and absorb the entire country. Ukraine subsequently was armed by the West and fought effectively enough to stymie the Russian juggernaut, wound and humiliate the Russian military, and sow dissension within the vastly weakened Russian dictatorship, as evidenced by the assassinated would-be insurgent Prigozhin.

Trump then might pull off the agreement if he could further establish a DMZ between the Russian and Ukrainian borders and ensure European Union economic aid for a fully armed Ukraine that might deter an endlessly restless Russian neighbor.

It would admittedly be a shaky and questionable deal, given Putin’s propensity to break his word and insidiously and endlessly seek to reestablish the borders of the old Soviet Union.

How then would Trump pull such a grand bargain off, given the hatred shown him by the American left for “selling out Zelensky,” the likely furor from the MAGA base of giving even one cent more than the current $200 billion to Ukraine, and its “endless war,” and the ankle biting from the Europeans who would be relieved by the end of hostilities on its borders but loathe to give any credit to Trump, whom they detest?

What would be the incentives for any such deal, and would they be contrary to both the interests of the American people and the new Republican populist-nationalist coalition?

Yet consider that if Trump were to cut all support for Ukraine, the right would see Ukraine become shortly absorbed—and it would be blamed for a humiliation comparable to the Kabul catastrophe, only worse, since Ukraine, unlike the Afghanistan mess, required only American arms, not our lives.

In contrast, if the endless war grinds on and on, at some point, the pro-war and so-called humanitarian left will be permanently stamped as the callous party of unending conflict and utterly indifferent to the consumption of Ukrainian youth, spent to further its endless vendetta against a Russian people who also are worn out by the war.

Both Russia and Ukraine are running out of soldiers, with escalating casualties that will haunt them for decades. Russia yearns to be free of sanctions and to sell oil and gas to Europe. The West, and the U.S. in particular, would like to triangulate Russia against China and vice versa, in Kissingerian style, and thus avoid any two-power nuclear standoff.

America wants to increase and stockpile its munitions with an emboldened China on the horizon. It is dangerously exhausted by defense cuts and massive aid to Ukraine and Israel while preferring allies like Israel that can win with a few billion rather than perhaps lose after receiving $200 billion. The Republican Party is now becoming the party of peace, and Trump, the Jacksonian, nonetheless the most reluctant president to spend American blood and treasure abroad in memory.

Europe is mentally worn out by the war and increasingly reneging on its once boastful unqualified support for Ukraine. So, it hopes the demonized Trump can both end the hated war and then be blamed for ending it without an unconditional Ukrainian victory.

In short, there are lots of parties who want, and lots of incentives for, an end to our 21st-century Verdun.

[zogdon]

Despite Zelensky and Nato claims about their ability to still resist the Russian forces advances, in the East and in Kursk, the local reports from ordinary Ukrainians paint a different picture... The locals claim, almost in unison, that Zelensky's Nato forces are running away from key battle zones, and the Russian advances continue, of course at different paces, as the different battle situations demand.

In Kursk, the whole western flank of the earlies Zelensky incursion is now under Russian control, even as Nato is trying to spread the fight even further on, in western border regions.

It's important for people to know, that the Zelensky incursion was far closer to the border, than claimed by western media. For example, Sudja, the only town...but still only with original population of just 5,127...is only 9.6 km from the border. And at best, anywhere, in that incursion, Zelensky Nato troops didn't even make it further than 40 km, into Kursk. Even these measurements are rather fanciful, and only happened in 3 locations.

However, as the major Russian counter started only one week ago, already we see, and get local reports that the Nato forces in Kursk are collapsing...with many troops disobeying orders to stay and fight.. rather, run back into Sumi oblast, Ukraine.

Putin ordered the Russian military to clean up Kursk by October... didn't specify dates, though. So, the most generous interpretation would be: By last day in October 2024. Which, it already appears to be spot on... happening.

In the whole of the East, the Donbas area, the Russian forces are continuing the advance, without any visual impact by the Kursk battle. Zelensky Nato troops are in deep trouble... without any hope to stop the Russian aims, on all battlefronts. And that includes strikes deep in western Ukraine.

In conclusion, the Russians are delivering what they promised originally... even at slower rate, than some people would like.

But it's important to understand, that before the battle, war, not much is clear...in way of timing. As we don't know how deep, and well the waring parties have dug in, and prepared themselves, out of public sights.

For Russia, it was always clear though: No matter what; Russian Federation Forces will be again Victorious, but in this conflict, the mighty Russian Firepower, is very serious in spearing the lives of all civilians and minimising soldiers casualties... even of the enemy. And this is why, the Russian military has been going very systematically and very carefully...of course, that is why it's a slow war in progress...Of course, Russian Federation Progress. No carpet bombing, no clusters used...by the Russian side. However, Zelensky, Nato forces have no such restraints...they want to murder any Russian, anywhere in the world. We see the evidence of that attitude, everyday on our western news and media discussion services.

For World Peace to occur... Truly occur... Russia Hate Has to Go.

And Russian allies, like China and India.. plus other BRICS members...Myst come out Publicly and support the Russian Federation position. Stop thinking about their own pockets, so much....as these countries will lise it all, as the west has them as 'Next Targets', of Western aggression and re-occupation.

Only the Russian Federation is defending BRICS and all other countries under western attack.

And only the Russian Federation Nuclear Specialised Army, can protect any country asking for help against western aggression. China and India, both don't have the Nuclear military requirements, necessary to defend themselves. And that is why both keep Russia close, within pleading reach...if a major war was launched against them by the west.

The Chinese know it...the Indians pretend it isn't happening...ie. western aggression towards India....But both are blind to the truth...no matter how many western led organisations they join, the western main aim is:

Re-Colonisation of China and India.

But hey...the west is getting belted by the Russian Federation, every day now. So, China and India, are safe now, under Russian Federation Protection. As Russia wins, so do China and India.

And these 2 countries, better not forget it.

[kendrixtermina]

Our Governments are not representative of us, nor of our cultures.

The Nation-State was probably the single worst idea in all of humanity, and both the current conflict & the discourse around it really shows why

Before they came up with that in the 19th century, people may have identified themselves with their language, religion, culture or attachment to the region, but not by a "nation" of people thought to have shared traits. At the time of the French revolution, most people in France didn't speak French, and in 1900 some ppl in sicily had no idea what "Italy" is.

A while ago ppl were surprised about a farmer on TV who said he doesn't particularly care if his town is in "Russia" or "Ukraine" he just wants to live there in peace. But until 200 years ago or so, that is how most people thought of home.

Certainly basic xenophobia, tribalism & fear of the other existed before, there were, after all, persecutions in the middle ages. But the construct of nation has nonetheless made conflicts massively worse & more deadly.

It's based on an Illusion

There is this idea that peoples have always existed as some unchanging, unmingling "pure" group on one piece of land that is tainted or adulterated by contact with others.

Even on the left some ppl just uncritically accept this notion (see much of the discourse about 'cultural appropriation')

That was just never true - people have always been copying each other, migrating, trading, interacting etc. often new cultures arose or peoples changed where they lived; Borders shifted over time. And of course, culture evolved over time.

When people think that a state that is an illusion is what naturally should be, and try to adjust reality to the fake model in their head, ugly things happen.

Homogenous groups on a fixed patch of land are not the reality of how cultures work, but if ppl think they are, they enact violence to artificially create those homogenous patches neatly delineated by lines. You get silly disputes about "who was there first", expulsion of minorities and conflicts when people try drawing lines in areas with mixed populations.

The Nazis, the Balkan wars & Israel represent the peak excesses of the madness that can lead to. (and note that 20 years or so after the Nazis fell, tons of immigrants moved into Germany & the artificial homogenity collapsed again, because it's just not natural. Israel will never suceed at their homogenous country either.)

It leads to generalization

There's a really shitty trope in european newspapers sometimes that has much been criticised.

If the article says "Guy robs bank" then people will think he's a bad guy.

If the article says "Turkish guy robs bank" it will get ppl frothing about how immigrants are bad guys. In case of the non-immigrant robber, they don't even bother to write "German guy robbs bank"

That's how you see these shitty responses that when there's a war, random ppl from the involved countries get attacked. China does shit & ppl bother random Chinese.

With the current war, jews & arabs around the world are being harassed.

What can some ordinary shopkeeper Yacob Shmitz in New York do about Netanyahu? What does Khalil Mansoor in Berlin got to do with October 7th? Nothing at all.

This leads ppl to completely overlook all context to look at some ppl as always being victims or perps or otherwise all the same, regardless of context. For example I once heard an Indian acquaintance raving about "the muslims" & how they "want everything" & making wild conflations. A Palestinian living in Al-Quds/Jerusalem wants it probably because he lives there & probably doesn't even know about the contentious site in India, and he was treating as the same people that are wildly different: Powerful elites in Saudi Arabia & persecuted minorities in India & Palestine, arabs in the ME and southeast asians in Pakistan.

Later he went to a Pakistan-themes party & was surprised to wind that culturally they got more in common wit him than arabs despite the different religions. They liked similar music, food & sports.

Or people today feeling guilty & ashamed now for what the Nazis did. Did you, personally, throw people in gas chambers? No? Then what shame is it of yours? Everyone who did it is dead & buried & being roasted in hell if it exists.

To me, this completely destroys the very system of morality. Morality only makes sense if a person can only be blamed or held responsible for what they can personally influence & change. If you're deemed "bad" based on things you can't control, what's the incentive of being good?

Or, you can't criticize some countries cause people take it personally - it's an insult to their identity, their whole culture... which brings me to the next & imho main point.

It conflates people, culture & government

A wise guy in Iran once said that "the difference between you & me is much smaller than you & your government, and our governments are much the same". I wish more ppl listened to him.

There have been greedy leaders looking to enrich themselves pretty much since they invented agriculture. but they spoke for themselves or their supporters.

With Nation-States, it gets assumed that the government speaks not only for the people, but that is somehow represents their values & culture.

All this political & war propaganda isn't really what culture is. Culture is conventions and books and food and little stories and sayings and values that give things meaning. But when someone says "fuck the Muslims/USA/jews/Germans" etc the other side feels like the actual culture, the small & beautiful & meaningful & enlightened things are what's being attacked. Because it's conflated.

Leaders will of course claim to justiy their actions by whatever values are popular with their subjects, but that doesn't mean they actually represent those values.

Look at your own leaders: How much do they support the values you believe in? How much do they do lip-service to that culture without really living up to it?

So you get ppl seeing governments do shit & thinking "fuck all those jews/americans/westerners, they must be demons" and Israelis killing all the ppl in Gaza because of "Hamas".

It's that same logical leap of not just leaders = people, but leaders = culture & values.

Now leaders of course have coalitions of supporters whether it's a bunch of oligarch or a popular movement - active supporters are 100% on the hook for what the government does. The mocking song singers are to blame for Netanyahu & the red hat guys for Trump, and Biden... I mean, it's probably the DNC & some political establishment ppl who wanted him cause no one else really did.

But political coalitions =/= all the people =/= all the "culture".

The evil acts of government are usually the products of greedy leaders and a coalition of supporters, not whole populations or cultures.

The difference between people & political establishment has never been more obvious than now

Case in point: Mainstream news outlets are struggling to explain away why there is 15 times more pro-palestine content being posted on the internet, some getting conspiratorial or frantically attributing it to "iran propaganda", but the true reason is that, as surveys also show, no one outside of Israel wants this fucking war but a few old men with imperialist ambitions & weapons companies.

much of it is ignorance, inertia, & propaganda calculated to work on influential because because theyre influential & fear looking bad.

our cultures may differ but very few cultures would last long if they condoned this kinda shit. Different cultures may give different reasons & many have their flaws of bothersome elements, but i dare say most would on average come down on rejecting this.

Let's not believe the lie that being for this is based on any kind of values, not western ones or any other. They might say it is to sell their bullshit but it's just liars & cowards adapting their lies to the audience.

[luccyqq66]

India wants to take advantage of Burma's civil war

As the fighting rages in Myanmar, Indian scholars have called on the government to seize the opportunity to engage with all parties in Myanmar in order to compete for influence in the country.

Since the Kokang Allied forces in northern Myanmar and other local armed forces, there have been fierce conflicts with the Burmese military government. Myanmar fell into the brink of civil war, the military government and the ethnic armed fight, the first impact is the livelihood of the ordinary people in Myanmar, in the case of war, many living in the border area of Myanmar people in order to avoid the war, naturally began to flee to neighboring countries.

After the outbreak of conflicts in northern Myanmar, many local people ran to China for refuge, and now military conflicts have broken out in western Myanmar bordering India, and local residents will naturally flee to India. At such a time, as a normal neighboring country, what should be done is to resettle refugees as far as possible, encourage peace and stop the war, and at the least not to take advantage of the situation.

In the context of the ongoing chaos in Myanmar, some Indian scholars even believe that now is an "opportunity" to compete with China for influence in Myanmar, advocating that "the Indian government should engage with all parties in Myanmar, which is beneficial to India."

When other people's families are in a mess, these Indian scholars are still thinking about how to expand their influence, which is simply robbing the situation.

[theculturedmarxist]

This might be the real multipolar moment.

The American Empire has suffered two staggering defeats this administration, first in Afghanistan, then in the Ukraine.

China has (ostensibly) brought peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, ending one of the central conflicts in the Middle East. The Belt and Road Initiative has brought American ally Pakistan more closely into China's orbit, and the war in Ukraine has aligned India's (which the US has tried to cultivate into a counterweight to China) interests more towards Russia. Turkey also pursues its own agenda in spite of its Nato membership.

American soft power has basically evaporated. Its influence in the region remains only where it retains boots on the ground. Israel is the linchpin of maintaining control in the region, and Israel's position will never be secure as long as there's one living Palestinian within its borders still drawing breath. If Israel goes, Centcom is basically finished.

If the Belt and Road initiative is supposed to define the major trade and economic engine of the 21st century and beyond, I think that kind of highlights Israel's predicament. I haven't seen a single piece of news or map or anything that makes Tel Aviv a central part of this trade network. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran though all are.

Israel has to secure itself and its position as a regional power sooner rather than later, because otherwise its ship is going down with the same wave taking down the US.

So we're looking down the barrel of the current global hegemon (and its nuclear armed cohort) staring down what is essentially a catastrophic or even existential defeat, with what looks like China, Russia, and possibly Turkey trying to talk them down from setting off what will probably be a nuclear World War 3.

If there's no war, then the Savage Autocracies™ might just have pulled us all from the brink.

If there is war, then heaven help us all.

[libbylayla1984]

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

[beardedmrbean]

SRINAGAR, India — Weapons left behind by U.S. forces during the withdrawal from Afghanistan are surfacing in another conflict, further arming militants in the disputed South Asian region of Kashmir in what experts say could be just the start of the weapons’ global journey.

Authorities in Indian-controlled Kashmir tell NBC News that militants trying to annex the region for Pakistan are carrying M4s, M16s and other U.S.-made arms and ammunition that have rarely been seen in the 30-year conflict. A major reason, they say, is a regional flood of U.S.-funded weapons that fell into the hands of the Taliban when U.S.-led NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021.

Most of the weapons recovered so far, officials say, are from Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) or Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), both Pakistan-based militant groups that the U.S. designates as terrorist organizations. In a Twitter post last year, for example, police said they had seized an M4 carbine assault rifle after a gunfight that killed two militants from JeM. 

Militants from both groups had been sent to Afghanistan to fight alongside or train the Taliban before the U.S. withdrawal, said Lt. Col. Emron Musavi, an Indian army spokesperson in Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir.  

“It can be safely assumed that they have access to the weapons left behind,” he said.

Government officials in Afghanistan and Pakistan did not respond to requests for comment.

Kashmir, a Himalayan region known for its beautiful landscapes, shares borders with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. A separatist insurgency in the part of Kashmir controlled by India has killed tens of thousands of people since the 1990s and been a constant source of tension between nuclear powers India and Pakistan. 

The year opened in violence as Kashmir police blamed militants for a Jan. 1 gunfire attack that killed four people in the southern village of Dhangri, followed by an explosion in the same area the next day that killed a 5-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. At least six people were injured on Jan. 21 in two explosions in the city of Jammu.

While the U.S.-made weapons are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the Kashmir conflict, they give the Taliban a sizable reservoir of combat power potentially available to those willing and able to purchase it, said Jonathan Schroden, director of the Countering Threats and Challenges Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group based outside Washington.

“When combined with the Taliban’s need for money and extant smuggling networks, that reservoir poses a substantial threat to regional actors for years to come,” he said. 

A trove of weapons

More than $7.1 billion in U.S.-funded military equipment was in the possession of the Afghan government when it fell to the Taliban in August 2021 amid the withdrawal, according to a Defense Department report published last August. Though more than half of it was ground vehicles, it also included more than 316,000 weapons worth almost $512 million, plus ammunition and other accessories.

While large numbers of small arms that had been transferred to Afghan forces most likely ended up in the hands of the Taliban, “it’s important to remember that nearly all weapons and equipment used by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan were either retrograded or destroyed prior to our withdrawal,” Army Lt. Col. Rob Lodewick, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, said in a statement.

The Defense Department report also pointed out that the operational condition of the Afghan army’s equipment was unknown.

Questions around the weapons being used in Kashmir were raised in January 2022, when a video of militants brandishing what appeared to be American-made guns was shared widely on Indian social media. Though the origin of the weapons in such cases can be difficult to verify — some may be modified to look like U.S. weapons, while others may not have been manufactured in the U.S. — the Indian military says it has recovered at least seven that are authentic.

“From the weapons and equipment that we recovered, we realized that there was a spillover of high-tech weapons, night-vision devices and equipment, which were left by the Americans in Afghanistan [and] were now finding their way toward this side,” Maj. Gen. Ajay Chandpuria, an Indian army official, was quoted as saying by Indian media last year.

Jammu and Kashmir Lt. Gov. Manoj Sinha said the government was aware of the issue and that measures were in place to combat the infiltration of U.S. weapons into Kashmir.

“We are monitoring the situation closely and have taken steps accordingly. Our police and army are on the job,” Sinha, the region’s top official, said on the sidelines of a news conference last year at his official residence in Srinagar.

Kashmir police official Vijay Kumar also said authorities were fully capable of countering the militant threat.

“Our forces are tracking down militants on a daily basis,” he said. “We are constantly upgrading our equipment and have the latest weaponry at our disposal.”

The militant groups JeM and LeT could be buying U.S. weapons from the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the United Nations says both groups have bases, or through smugglers in Pakistan, said Ajai Sahni, an author on counterterrorism who serves as executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management, a think tank in New Delhi. 

Militants will struggle to get the upper hand, however, without more advanced weapons that have greater firepower but are more difficult to smuggle into the region, Sahni said.

Schroden said that although he had not seen substantial reports of U.S.-made weapons left behind in Afghanistan appearing outside of Kashmir, it would not be surprising if they eventually began turning up farther away in places such as Yemen, Syria and parts of Africa.

“I suspect there hasn’t yet been enough time for these weapons to percolate out that far,” he said. “It’s also possible that the Taliban have held tightly to most of them thus far as part of their efforts to consolidate power and seek legitimization from the international community.”

Beyond weapons, the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan gave an ideological boost to radical militants in Kashmir and elsewhere, said Ahmad Shuja Jamal, a former Afghan civil servant living in exile in Australia. 

Such militants, he said, “now see in clear terms the political dividends of long-term violence.”

[etiennekissborlase]

Current Economic Crises in 2023

In its annual Global Economic Outlook report released on Tuesday, the World Bank, a U.S.-based agency that offers loans and grants to different nations pursuing capital projects, said the world economy might experience a recession and one of the slowest growth rates ever in 2023. The reasons include a year marked by increased inflation, deteriorating financial circumstances, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

  The organization reduced its projections for global growth in 2023 by almost half, from 3% to 1.7%. This is the third-weakest growth rate it has ever predicted, below rates seen during the recessions of 2009 and 2020. According to projections, the real GDP of the United States would expand by 0.5% in 2023, compared to no growth for the European Union and 2.7% for emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), which exclude China (4.3%) and include nations like India (6.6%) and Russia (-3.3%). In contrast to the World Bank’s predictions, Goldman Sachs forecast a 0.6% increase for the E.U. in a report on Tuesday, saying that inflation has gone beyond the top. The firm also kept its prediction of a severe recession in the U.K.

  According to the groups, growth predictions have been lowered because rising inflation rates have driven surprisingly quick policy changes, deteriorating financial circumstances, continuing economic shockwaves, and an energy crisis brought on by Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine. 

  Global economies saw an incomplete recovery in 2022 due to banks having to undo pandemic-era policy changes. The IMF continues to reduce its prognosis for the worldwide economy in the organization’s biannual report due to growing inflation and interruptions brought on by the conflict in Ukraine. The organization’s statement is a percentage point lower than forecasts made in October by that institution. The problem confronting development is deepening. 

  While the globe is tightening its purse strings, no space should exist for defeatism. Significant reforms could be undertaken now to steer the economy from recession. Proposed ideas include investing in new jobs, improving cross-border trade, and increasing energy access. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and other reserve officials cited the U.S. job market, which recorded stronger-than-expected data last month, as proof that the U.S. economy can continue to sustain further rate rises. Nonetheless, despite this, after roughly 125,000 people were let go in 2020, layoffs still occur at several influential American organizations.

This post was originally published on Etienne Kiss-Borlase’s Finance blog. For more info about Etienne, please visit his homepage.