#Geopolitics and drone tech | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 1 year ago

Text

One of the section leaders for my computer-science class, Hamza El Boudali, believes that President Joe Biden should be killed. “I’m not calling for a civilian to do it, but I think a military should,” the 23-year-old Stanford University student told a small group of protesters last month. “I’d be happy if Biden was dead.” He thinks that Stanford is complicit in what he calls the genocide of Palestinians, and that Biden is not only complicit but responsible for it. “I’m not calling for a vigilante to do it,” he later clarified, “but I’m saying he is guilty of mass murder and should be treated in the same way that a terrorist with darker skin would be (and we all know terrorists with dark skin are typically bombed and drone striked by American planes).” El Boudali has also said that he believes that Hamas’s October 7 attack was a justifiable act of resistance, and that he would actually prefer Hamas rule America in place of its current government (though he clarified later that he “doesn’t mean Hamas is perfect”). When you ask him what his cause is, he answers: “Peace.”

I switched to a different computer-science section.

Israel is 7,500 miles away from Stanford’s campus, where I am a sophomore. But the Hamas invasion and the Israeli counterinvasion have fractured my university, a place typically less focused on geopolitics than on venture-capital funding for the latest dorm-based tech start-up. Few students would call for Biden’s head—I think—but many of the same young people who say they want peace in Gaza don’t seem to realize that they are in fact advocating for violence. Extremism has swept through classrooms and dorms, and it is becoming normal for students to be harassed and intimidated for their faith, heritage, or appearance—they have been called perpetrators of genocide for wearing kippahs, and accused of supporting terrorism for wearing keffiyehs. The extremism and anti-Semitism at Ivy League universities on the East Coast have attracted so much media and congressional attention that two Ivy presidents have lost their jobs. But few people seem to have noticed the culture war that has taken over our California campus.

For four months, two rival groups of protesters, separated by a narrow bike path, faced off on Stanford’s palm-covered grounds. The “Sit-In to Stop Genocide” encampment was erected by students in mid-October, even before Israeli troops had crossed into Gaza, to demand that the university divest from Israel and condemn its behavior. Posters were hung equating Hamas with Ukraine and Nelson Mandela. Across from the sit-in, a rival group of pro-Israel students eventually set up the “Blue and White Tent” to provide, as one activist put it, a “safe space” to “be a proud Jew on campus.” Soon it became the center of its own cluster of tents, with photos of Hamas’s victims sitting opposite the rubble-ridden images of Gaza and a long (and incomplete) list of the names of slain Palestinians displayed by the students at the sit-in.

Some days the dueling encampments would host only a few people each, but on a sunny weekday afternoon, there could be dozens. Most of the time, the groups tolerated each other. But not always. Students on both sides were reportedly spit on and yelled at, and had their belongings destroyed. (The perpetrators in many cases seemed to be adults who weren’t affiliated with Stanford, a security guard told me.) The university put in place round-the-clock security, but when something actually happened, no one quite knew what to do.

Stanford has a policy barring overnight camping, but for months didn’t enforce it, “out of a desire to support the peaceful expression of free speech in the ways that students choose to exercise that expression”—and, the administration told alumni, because the university feared that confronting the students would only make the conflict worse. When the school finally said the tents had to go last month, enormous protests against the university administration, and against Israel, followed.

“We don’t want no two states! We want all of ’48!” students chanted, a slogan advocating that Israel be dismantled and replaced by a single Arab nation. Palestinian flags flew alongside bright “Welcome!” banners left over from new-student orientation. A young woman gave a speech that seemed to capture the sense of urgency and power that so many students here feel. “We are Stanford University!” she shouted. “We control things!”

“We’ve had protests in the past,” Richard Saller, the university’s interim president, told me in November—about the environment, and apartheid, and Vietnam. But they didn’t pit “students against each other” the way that this conflict has.

I’ve spoken with Saller, a scholar of Roman history, a few times over the past six months in my capacity as a student journalist. We first met in September, a few weeks into his tenure. His predecessor, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, had resigned as president after my reporting for The Stanford Daily exposed misconduct in his academic research. (Tessier-Lavigne had failed to retract papers with faked data over the course of 20 years. In his resignation statement, he denied allegations of fraud and misconduct; a Stanford investigation determined that he had not personally manipulated data or ordered any manipulation but that he had repeatedly “failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes” from his lab.)

In that first conversation, Saller told me that everyone was “eager to move on” from the Tessier-Lavigne scandal. He was cheerful and upbeat. He knew he wasn’t staying in the job long; he hadn’t even bothered to move into the recently vacated presidential manor. In any case, campus, at that time, was serene. Then, a week later, came October 7.

The attack was as clear a litmus test as one could imagine for the Middle East conflict. Hamas insurgents raided homes and a music festival with the goal of slaughtering as many civilians as possible. Some victims were raped and mutilated, several independent investigations found. Hundreds of hostages were taken into Gaza and many have been tortured.

This, of course, was bad. Saying this was bad does not negate or marginalize the abuses and suffering Palestinians have experienced in Gaza and elsewhere. Everyone, of every ideology, should be able to say that this was bad. But much of this campus failed that simple test.

Two days after the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Stanford released milquetoast statements marking the “moment of intense emotion” and declaring “deep concern” over “the crisis in Israel and Palestine.” The official statements did not use the words Hamas or violence.

The absence of a clear institutional response led some teachers to take matters into their own hands. During a mandatory freshman seminar on October 10, a lecturer named Ameer Loggins tossed out his lesson plan to tell students that the actions of the Palestinian “military force” had been justified, that Israelis were colonizers, and that the Holocaust had been overemphasized, according to interviews I conducted with students in the class. Loggins then asked the Jewish students to identify themselves. He instructed one of them to “stand up, face the window, and he kind of kicked away his chair,” a witness told me. Loggins described this as an effort to demonstrate Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. (Loggins did not reply to a request for comment; a spokesperson for Stanford said that there were “different recollections of the details regarding what happened” in the class.)

“We’re only in our third week of college, and we’re afraid to be here,” three students in the class wrote in an email that night to administrators. “This isn’t what Stanford was supposed to be.” The class Loggins taught is called COLLEGE, short for “Civic, Liberal, and Global Education,” and it is billed as an effort to develop “the skills that empower and enable us to live together.”

Loggins was suspended from teaching duties and an investigation was opened; this angered pro-Palestine activists, who organized a petition that garnered more than 1,700 signatures contesting the suspension. A pamphlet from the petitioners argued that Loggins’s behavior had not been out of bounds.

The day after the class, Stanford put out a statement written by Saller and Jenny Martinez, the university provost, more forcefully condemning the Hamas attack. Immediately, this new statement generated backlash.

Pro-Palestine activists complained about it during an event held the same day, the first of several “teach-ins” about the conflict. Students gathered in one of Stanford’s dorms to “bear witness to the struggles of decolonization.” The grievances and pain shared by Palestinian students were real. They told of discrimination and violence, of frightened family members subjected to harsh conditions. But the most raucous reaction from the crowd was in response to a young woman who said, “You ask us, do we condemn Hamas? Fuck you!” She added that she was “so proud of my resistance.”

David Palumbo-Liu, a professor of comparative literature with a focus on postcolonial studies, also spoke at the teach-in, explaining to the crowd that “European settlers” had come to “replace” Palestine’s “native population.”

Palumbo-Liu is known as an intelligent and supportive professor, and is popular among students, who call him by his initials, DPL. I wanted to ask him about his involvement in the teach-in, so we met one day in a café a few hundred feet away from the tents. I asked if he could elaborate on what he’d said at the event about Palestine’s native population. He was happy to expand: This was “one of those discussions that could go on forever. Like, who is actually native? At what point does nativism lapse, right? Well, you haven’t been native for X number of years, so …” In the end, he said, “you have two people who both feel they have a claim to the land,” and “they have to live together. Both sides have to cede something.”

The struggle at Stanford, he told me, “is to find a way in which open discussions can be had that allow people to disagree.” It’s true that Stanford has utterly failed in its efforts to encourage productive dialogue. But I still found it hard to reconcile DPL’s words with his public statements on Israel, which he’d recently said on Facebook should be “the most hated nation in the world.” He also wrote: “When Zionists say they don’t feel ‘safe’ on campus, I’ve come to see that as they no longer feel immune to criticism of Israel.” He continued: “Well as the saying goes, get used to it.”

Zionists, and indeed Jewish students of all political beliefs, have been given good reason to fear for their safety. They’ve been followed, harassed, and called derogatory racial epithets. At least one was told he was a “dirty Jew.” At least twice, mezuzahs have been ripped from students’ doors, and swastikas have been drawn in dorms. Arab and Muslim students also face alarming threats. The computer-science section leader, El Boudali, a pro-Palestine activist, told me he felt “safe personally,” but knew others who did not: “Some people have reported feeling like they’re followed, especially women who wear the hijab.”

In a remarkably short period of time, aggression and abuse have become commonplace, an accepted part of campus activism. In January, Jewish students organized an event dedicated to ameliorating anti-Semitism. It marked one of Saller’s first public appearances in the new year. Its topic seemed uncontroversial, and I thought it would generate little backlash.

Protests began before the panel discussion even started, with activists lining the stairs leading to the auditorium. During the event they drowned out the panelists, one of whom was Israel’s special envoy for combating anti-Semitism, by demanding a cease-fire. After participants began cycling out into the dark, things got ugly.

Activists, their faces covered by keffiyehs or medical masks, confronted attendees. “Go back to Brooklyn!” a young woman shouted at Jewish students. One protester, who emerged as the leader of the group, said that she and her compatriots would “take all of your places and ensure Israel falls.” She told attendees to get “off our fucking campus” and launched into conspiracy theories about Jews being involved in “child trafficking.” As a rabbi tried to leave the event, protesters pursued him, chanting, “There is only one solution! Intifada revolution!”

At one point, some members of the group turned on a few Stanford employees, including another rabbi, an imam, and a chaplain, telling them, “We know your names and we know where you work.” The ringleader added: “And we’ll soon find out where you live.” The religious leaders formed a protective barrier in front of the Jewish students. The rabbi and the imam appeared to be crying.

Saller avoided the protest by leaving through another door. Early that morning, his private residence had been vandalized. Protesters frequently tell him he “can’t hide” and shout him down. “We charge you with genocide!” they chant, demanding that Stanford divest from Israel. (When asked whether Stanford actually invested in Israel, a spokesperson replied that, beyond small exposures from passive funds that track indexes such as the S&P 500, the university’s endowment “has no direct holdings in Israeli companies, or direct holdings in defense contractors.”)

When the university finally said the protest tents had to be removed, students responded by accusing Saller of suppressing their right to free speech. This is probably the last charge he expected to face. Saller once served as provost at the University of Chicago, which is known for holding itself to a position of strict institutional neutrality so that its students can freely explore ideas for themselves. Saller has a lifelong belief in First Amendment rights. But that conviction in impartial college governance does not align with Stanford’s behavior in recent years. Despite the fact that many students seemed largely uninterested in the headlines before this year, Stanford’s administrative leadership has often taken positions on political issues and events, such as the Paris climate conference and the murder of George Floyd. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Stanford’s Hoover Tower was lit up in blue and yellow, and the school released a statement in solidarity.

When we first met, a week before October 7, I asked Saller about this. Did Stanford have a moral duty to denounce the war in Ukraine, for example, or the ethnic cleansing of Uyghur Muslims in China? “On international political issues, no,” he said. “That’s not a responsibility for the university as a whole, as an institution.”

But when Saller tried to apply his convictions on neutrality for the first time as president, dozens of faculty members condemned the response, many pro-Israel alumni were outraged, donors had private discussions about pulling funding, and an Israeli university sent an open letter to Saller and Martinez saying, “Stanford’s administration has failed us.” The initial statement had tried to make clear that the school’s policy was not Israel-specific: It noted that the university would not take a position on the turmoil in Nagorno-Karabakh (where Armenians are undergoing ethnic cleansing) either. But the message didn’t get through.

Saller had to beat an awkward retreat or risk the exact sort of public humiliation that he, as caretaker president, had presumably been hired to avoid. He came up with a compromise that landed somewhere in the middle: an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’s “intolerable atrocities” paired with a statement making clear that Stanford would commit to institutional neutrality going forward.

“The events in Israel and Gaza this week have affected and engaged large numbers of students on our campus in ways that many other events have not,” the statement read. “This is why we feel compelled to both address the impact of these events on our campus and to explain why our general policy of not issuing statements about news events not directly connected to campus has limited the breadth of our comments thus far, and why you should not expect frequent commentary from us in the future.”

I asked Saller why he had changed tack on Israel and not on Nagorno-Karabakh. “We don’t feel as if we should be making statements on every war crime and atrocity,” he told me. This felt like a statement in and of itself.

In making such decisions, Saller works closely with Martinez, Stanford’s provost. I happened to interview her, too, a few days before October 7, not long after she’d been appointed. When I asked about her hopes for the job, she said that a “priority is ensuring an environment in which free speech and academic freedom are preserved.”

We talked about the so-called Leonard Law—a provision unique to California that requires private universities to be governed by the same First Amendment protections as public ones. This restricts what Stanford can do in terms of penalizing speech, putting it in a stricter bind than Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, or any of the other elite private institutions that have more latitude to set the standards for their campus (whether or not they have done so).

So I was surprised when, in December, the university announced that abstract calls for genocide “clearly violate Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, the code of conduct for all students at the university.” The statement was a response to the outrage following the congressional testimony of three university presidents—outrage that eventually led to the resignation of two of them, Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill. Gay and Magill, who had both previously held positions at Stanford, did not commit to punishing calls for the genocide of Jews.

Experts told me that Stanford’s policy is impossible to enforce—and Saller himself acknowledged as much in our March interview.

“Liz Magill is a good friend,” Saller told me, adding, “Having watched what happened at Harvard and Penn, it seemed prudent” to publicly state that Stanford rejected calls for genocide. But saying that those calls violate the code of conduct “is not the same thing as to say that we could actually punish it.”

Stanford’s leaders seem to be trying their best while adapting to the situation in real time. But the muddled messaging has created a policy of neutrality that does not feel neutral at all.

When we met back in November, I tried to get Saller to open up about his experience running an institution in turmoil. What’s it like to know that so many students seem to believe that he—a mild-mannered 71-year-old classicist who swing-dances with his anthropologist wife—is a warmonger? Saller was more candid than I expected—perhaps more candid than any prominent university president has been yet. We sat in the same conference room as we had in September. The weather hadn’t really changed. Yet I felt like I was sitting in front of a different person. He was hunched over and looked exhausted, and his voice broke when he talked about the loss of life in Gaza and Israel and “the fact that we’re caught up in it.” A capable administrator with decades of experience, Saller seemed almost at a loss. “It’s been a kind of roller coaster, to be honest.”

He said he hadn’t anticipated the deluge of the emails “blaming me for lack of moral courage.” Anything the university says seems bound to be wrong: “If I say that our position is that we grieve over the loss of innocent lives, that in itself will draw some hostile reactions.”

“I find that really difficult to navigate,” he said with a sigh.

By March, it seemed that his views had solidified. He said he knew he was “a target,” but he was not going to be pushed into issuing any more statements. The continuing crisis seems to have granted him new insight. “I am certain that whatever I say will not have any material effect on the war in Gaza.” It’s hard to argue with that.

People tend to blame the campus wars on two villains: dithering administrators and radical student activists. But colleges have always had dithering administrators and radical student activists. To my mind, it’s the average students who have changed.

Elite universities attract a certain kind of student: the overachieving striver who has won all the right accolades for all the right activities. Is it such a surprise that the kids who are trained in the constant pursuit of perfect scores think they have to look at the world like a series of multiple-choice questions, with clearly right or wrong answers? Or that they think they can gamify a political cause in the same way they ace a standardized test?

Everyone knows that the only reliable way to get into a school like Stanford is to be really good at looking really good. Now that they’re here, students know that one easy way to keep looking good is to side with the majority of protesters, and condemn Israel.

It’s not that there isn’t real anger and anxiety over what is happening in Gaza—there is, and justifiably so. I know that among the protesters are many people who are deeply connected to this issue. But they are not the majority. What really activates the crowds now seems less a principled devotion to Palestine or to pacifism than a desire for collective action, to fit in by embracing the fashionable cause of the moment—as if a centuries-old conflict in which both sides have stolen and killed could ever be a simple matter of right and wrong. In their haste to exhibit moral righteousness, many of the least informed protesters end up being the loudest and most uncompromising.

Today’s students grew up in the Trump era, in which violent rhetoric has become a normal part of political discourse and activism is as easy as reposting an infographic. Many young people have come to feel that being angry is enough to foment change. Furious at the world’s injustices and desperate for a simple way to express that fury, they don’t seem interested in any form of engagement more nuanced than backing a pure protagonist and denouncing an evil enemy. They don’t, always, seem that concerned with the truth.

At the protest last month to prevent the removal of the sit-in, an activist in a pink Women’s March “pussy hat” shouted that no rape was committed by Hamas on October 7. “There hasn’t been proof of these rape accusations,” a student told me in a separate conversation, criticizing the Blue and White Tent for spreading what he considered to be misinformation about sexual violence. (In March, a United Nations report found “reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence,” including “rape and gang rape,” occurred in multiple locations on October 7, as well as “clear and convincing information” on the “rape and sexualized torture” of hostages.) “The level of propaganda” surrounding Hamas, he told me, “is just unbelievable.”

The real story at Stanford is not about the malicious actors who endorse sexual assault and murder as forms of resistance, but about those who passively enable them because they believe their side can do no wrong. You don’t have to understand what you’re arguing for in order to argue for it. You don’t have to be able to name the river or the sea under discussion to chant “From the river to the sea.” This kind of obliviousness explains how one of my friends, a gay activist, can justify Hamas’s actions, even though it would have the two of us—an outspoken queer person and a Jewish reporter—killed in a heartbeat. A similar mentality can exist on the other side: I have heard students insist on the absolute righteousness of Israel yet seem uninterested in learning anything about what life is like in Gaza.

I’m familiar with the pull of achievement culture—after all, I’m a product of the same system. I fell in love with Stanford as a 7-year-old, lying on the floor of an East Coast library and picturing all the cool technology those West Coast geniuses were dreaming up. I cried when I was accepted; I spent the next few months scrolling through the course catalog, giddy with anticipation. I wanted to learn everything.

I learned more than I expected. Within my first week here, someone asked me: “Why are all Jews so rich?” In 2016, when Stanford’s undergraduate senate had debated a resolution against anti-Semitism, one of its members argued that the idea of “Jews controlling the media, economy, government, and other societal institutions” represented “a very valid discussion.” (He apologized, and the resolution passed.) In my dorm last year, a student discussed being Jewish and awoke the next day to swastikas and a portrait of Hitler affixed to his door.

I grew up secularly, with no strong affiliation to Jewish culture. When I found out as a teenager that some of my ancestors had hidden their identity from their children and that dozens of my relatives had died in the Holocaust (something no living member of my family had known), I felt the barest tremor of identity. After I saw so many people I know cheering after October 7, I felt something stronger stir. I know others have experienced something similar. Even a professor texted me to say that she felt Jewish in a way she never had before.

But my frustration with the conflict on campus has little to do with my own identity. Across the many conversations and hours of formal interviews I conducted for this article, I’ve encountered a persistent anti-intellectual streak. I’ve watched many of my classmates treat death so cavalierly that they can protest as a pregame to a party. Indeed, two parties at Stanford were reported to the university this fall for allegedly making people say “Fuck Israel” or “Free Palestine” to get in the door. A spokesperson for the university said it was “unable to confirm the facts of what occurred,” but that it had “met with students involved in both parties to make clear that Stanford’s nondiscrimination policy applies to parties.” As a friend emailed me not long ago: “A place that was supposed to be a sanctuary from such unreason has become a factory for it.”

Readers may be tempted to discount the conduct displayed at Stanford. After all, the thinking goes, these are privileged kids doing what they always do: embracing faux-radicalism in college before taking jobs in fintech or consulting. These students, some might say, aren’t representative of America.

And yet they are representative of something: of the conduct many of the most accomplished students in my generation have accepted as tolerable, and what that means for the future of our country. I admire activism. We need people willing to protest what they see as wrong and take on entrenched systems of repression. But we also need to read, learn, discuss, accept the existence of nuance, embrace diversity of thought, and hold our own allies to high standards. More than ever, we need universities to teach young people how to do all of this.

For so long, Stanford’s physical standoff seemed intractable. Then, in early February, a storm swept in, and the natural world dictated its own conclusion.

Heavy rains flooded campus. For hours, the students battled to save their tents. The sit-in activists used sandbags and anything else they could find to hold back the water—at one point, David Palumbo-Liu, the professor, told me he stood in the lashing downpour to anchor one of the sit-in’s tents with his own body. When the storm hit, many of the Jewish activists had been attending a discussion on anti-Semitism. They raced back and struggled to salvage the Blue and White Tent, but it was too late—the wind had ripped it out of the ground.

The next day, the weary Jewish protesters returned to discover that their space had been taken.

A new collection of tents had been set up by El Boudali, the pro-Palestine activist, and a dozen friends. He said they were there to protest Islamophobia and to teach about Islam and jihad, and that they were a separate entity from the Sit-In to Stop Genocide, though I observed students cycling between the tents. Palestinian flags now flew from the bookstore to the quad.

Administrators told me they’d quickly informed El Boudali and his allies that the space had been reserved by the Jewish advocates, and offered to help move them to a different location. But the protesters told me they had no intention of going. (El Boudali later said that they did not take over the entire space, and would have been “happy to exist side by side, but they wanted to kick us off entirely from that lawn.”)

When it was clear that the area where they’d set up their tents would not be ceded back to the pro-Israel group willingly, Stanford changed course and decided to clear everyone out in one fell swoop. On February 8, school officials ordered all students to vacate the plaza overnight. The university was finally going to enforce its rule prohibiting people from sleeping outside on campus and requiring the removal of belongings from the plaza between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. The order cited the danger posed by the storm as a justification for changing course and, probably hoping to avoid allegations of bias, described the decision as “viewpoint-neutral.”

That didn’t work.

About a week of protests, led by the sit-in organizers, followed. Chants were chanted. More demands for a “river to the sea” solution to the Israel problem were made. A friend boasted to me about her willingness to be arrested. Stanford sent a handful of staff members, who stood near balloons left over from an event earlier in the day. They were there, one of them told me, to “make students feel supported and safe.”

In the end, Saller and Martinez agreed to talk with the leaders of the sit-in about their demands to divest the university and condemn Israel, under the proviso that the activists comply with Stanford’s anti-camping guidelines “regardless of the outcome of discussions.” Eight days after they were first instructed to leave, 120 days after setting up camp, the sit-in protesters slept in their own beds. In defiance of the university’s instructions, they left behind their tents. But sometime in the very early hours of the morning, law-enforcement officers confiscated the structures. The area was cordoned off without any violence and the plaza filled once more with electric skateboards and farmers’ markets.

The conflict continues in its own way. Saller was just shouted down by protesters chanting “No peace on stolen land” at a Family Weekend event, and protesters later displayed an effigy of him covered in blood. Students still feel tense; Saller still seems worried. He told me that the university is planning to change all manner of things—residential-assistant training, new-student orientation, even the acceptance letters that students receive—in hopes of fostering a culture of greater tolerance. But no campus edict or panel discussion can address a problem that is so much bigger than our university.

At one rally last fall, a speaker expressed disillusionment about the power of “peaceful resistance” on college campuses. “What is there left to do but to take up arms?” The crowd cheered as he said Israel must be destroyed. But what would happen to its citizens? I’d prefer to believe that most protesters chanting “Palestine is Arab” and shouting that we must “smash the Zionist settler state” don’t actually think Jews should be killed en masse. But can one truly be so ignorant as to advocate widespread violence in the name of peace?

When the world is rendered in black-and-white—portrayed as a simple fight between colonizer and colonized—the answer is yes. Solutions, by this logic, are absolute: Israel or Palestine, nothing in between. Either you support liberation of the oppressed or you support genocide. Either Stanford is all good or all bad; all in favor of free speech or all authoritarian; all anti-Semitic or all Islamophobic.

At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.

“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.

“But are you a Zionist?”

“Yes.”

“Then we are enemies.”

48 notes · View notes

i-identify-tanks-in-posts · 1 year ago

Note

Less of an ID here, but what are your thoughts on the AbramsX, both as a platform as whole, and what technologies from it do you think will show up on future upgrades to the Abrams?

Oh boy, the Abrams X tech demo.

AKA: "Oh, so that's what the FCS program was for."

I have a lot of thoughts on the Abrams X, so, if you don't care to read all that, I'll leave a tl;dr at the bottom, in case someone wants to know my opinion without wanting to know why I have that opinion (for some reason.)

The Abrams X incorporates a lot of technology that excites me an awful lot. However, there are three things that stick out the most, so I'm gonna talk about them:

#1. The engine. The Abrams X uses a hybrid diesel engine (designed by Cadillac, if I remember correctly), which is a massive improvement over the current Abrams' gas turbine, which is less fuel efficient than just about every other MBT around. The new engine solves this problem by both switching to a hybrid design, which has greater performance, lesser noise, and lesser fuel consumption.

2. The turret/gun. It's remotely controlled, and miles better than the current m256, being lighter and even further integrated into optics/targeting. While I expect the real next-gen tanks to be equipping larger bore guns (in response to Russia and China looking to up-gun their next-gen MBTs), this Cannon is a fantastic intermediate step, and a great test bed/proof of concept for a remote-operated, auto-loading turret. This also drops the required crew down to 3, which may not seem like a big deal, but actually represents some pretty big stuff.

3. The integration. Ah, the "system of systems", come at last. Full integration to a combat network of drones, CAS fighters, other tanks, and in the future, perhaps fully autonomous ground vehicles. This is the thing that excites me most, as it means a truly massive level of integration and cooperation between every element of a combined arms forces, allowing every part to operate at a greater capacity. I've actually spoken with M1 tankers, and they seem most excited about the new Airplane-style helmets, and the level of coordination and targeting and spotting ability supplied by integrated drones.

However, it's not all sunshine and roses. With any massive leap forward in technology, this introduces a thousand thousand new potential points of failure into the system of every Abrams tank, which can cost lives when it counts. In addition, concerns have been expressed over the lowered crew count, saying that three people is not a reasonable number to expect to service and maintain a tank of the Abrams size out in the field, even with the supposed lower maintenance requirements of the Abrams X. Additionally, the smaller crew size and heavier focus on technology could indicate a shift in American tank ideology, towards the tanks being put out by other geopolitical powers, like China, Russia, and others.

So, to summarize, (here's that TL;DR I was talking about.) I think the Abrams is an incredibly promising test bed that is the culmination of the 1999-2009 Future Combat Systems program, and am excited to see how the technology will develop into the next generation of MBTs. However, I am cautious, as I can see several possible downsides to a lower crew size and a heavier reliance on tech.

#tanks #us tanks #Abrams tank #Abrams X

33 notes · View notes

futuretrendstoday · 4 months ago

Text

Google Updates AI Ethics Policy Amid Growing Military AI Use:

Big Tech’s Shift Toward AI-Powered Defense

Google has quietly revised its AI ethics principles, removing a key pledge to refrain from developing artificial intelligence for weapons or harmful technologies. The change comes in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke an executive order from former President Joe Biden, which sought to promote the safe and ethical development of AI.

The update has sparked concern among human rights advocates, as Google’s previous commitment explicitly ruled out developing AI for technologies that cause harm, facilitate injury, or violate international norms on surveillance and human rights. The shift aligns Google with a growing trend of AI militarization among major tech companies, raising questions about the future role of AI in global defense strategies.

Tech Giants Increasingly Involved in Defense

The military integration of AI has accelerated in recent months. In September 2024, top officials from the Biden administration met with leading AI firms, including OpenAI, to discuss the national security implications of AI. A month later, the administration announced an initiative to leverage AI for defense purposes, signaling a shift in policy that big tech companies quickly followed.

Meta, for instance, announced in November 2024 that its Llama AI models would be made available to U.S. defense and national security agencies—despite its own policies prohibiting military applications. Around the same time, Anthropic partnered with Palantir and Amazon Web Services to provide AI solutions to intelligence and defense sectors. OpenAI soon joined the trend, collaborating with defense startup Anduril Industries to integrate its AI models into U.S. military drone defense systems.

National Security Interests vs. Ethical Concerns

Defending these policy shifts, companies cite geopolitical competition and national security threats. Google, in a recent blog post, pointed to the global AI race, rising tensions with China, and evolving security landscapes as justification for its revised AI principles.

This development follows the ongoing U.S.-China trade war over AI technology. The U.S. imposed export controls on advanced AI chips to China in October 2022, prompting retaliatory restrictions from Beijing on key raw materials for chip manufacturing. More recently, the emergence of highly efficient AI models from China’s DeepSeek, allegedly developed using U.S.-banned Nvidia chips, has further intensified competition. The growing tensions appear to be shaping how U.S. tech firms approach AI policy, particularly regarding defense applications.

The Human Cost of AI in Warfare

AI’s role in military operations has already raised ethical alarms. In the ongoing Gaza conflict, the Israeli military has reportedly relied on advanced AI tools, developed with infrastructure support from Microsoft and Google, to identify targets. However, soldiers have acknowledged inaccuracies in AI targeting, contributing to a rising civilian death toll, which Gaza authorities estimate has surpassed 61,000.

With Google’s removal of its pledge against AI applications that cause harm, human rights advocates warn that these policies may lead to further ethical dilemmas. International law emphasizes “security of person” as a fundamental right, and critics argue that Google’s policy shift undermines these principles.

The Growing Need for AI Safeguards

Despite Google’s assurance that its AI products will align with international human rights principles, organizations such as Human Rights Watch remain skeptical. They highlight the company’s failure to provide concrete explanations on how it will uphold ethical AI use while working with defense agencies.

The revocation of Biden’s executive order has further removed regulatory guardrails on AI development, making independent oversight more critical than ever. While the order was not without flaws, it represented an effort to establish responsible AI guidelines—guidelines that now seem to be fading as tech companies deepen their involvement in defense initiatives.

As AI becomes increasingly intertwined with military operations, global leaders and advocacy groups face mounting pressure to implement safeguards that prevent the unchecked proliferation of AI-driven warfare technologies.

#tag for this #ChatGPT said:#AI #Ethics #MilitaryAI #TechPolicy #NationalSecurity

2 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year ago

Text

By: Theo Baker

Published: Mar 26, 2024

I switched to a different computer-science section.

Experts told me that Stanford’s policy is impossible to enforce—and Saller himself acknowledged as much in our March interview.

Stanford’s leaders seem to be trying their best while adapting to the situation in real time. But the muddled messaging has created a policy of neutrality that does not feel neutral at all.

“I find that really difficult to navigate,” he said with a sigh.

For so long, Stanford’s physical standoff seemed intractable. Then, in early February, a storm swept in, and the natural world dictated its own conclusion.

The next day, the weary Jewish protesters returned to discover that their space had been taken.

That didn’t work.

At January’s anti-anti-Semitism event, I watched an exchange between a Jewish attendee and a protester from a few feet away. “Are you pro-Palestine?” the protester asked.

“Yes,” the attendee responded, and he went on to describe his disgust with the human-rights abuses Palestinians have faced for years.

“But are you a Zionist?”

“Yes.”

“Then we are enemies.”

#Theo Baker #Hamas supporters #Hamas #hamas terrorism #hamas terrorists #antisemitism

5 notes · View notes

oddygaul · 2 years ago

Text

The Mountain in the Sea

I picked this up at a bookstore in Seattle where the shelves were covered in sticky notes with employee recommendations, reviews and comparisons on them. I wish every bookstore had that.

It was ok.

My favorite part of this book was the subtle, implied-but-not-focused-on decolonization of the world that can be gleaned through context. I think a lot of the time when you see a work take place in a realistic, “near-future” setting, unless the it’s specifically about geopolitics, you tend to see one of two things. With more entrenched subgenres, often they’ll just borrow from the classics for aesthetic and call it a day - see, for example, every cyberpunk novel that’s set in a world-dominating Japan just because. Alternatively, the author just won’t engage with the idea at all, and, despite being 50-or-whatever years into the future and centered around some life-changing technology or concept, the world powers will somehow have remained nearly unchanged in terms of makeup and influence. And I get these approaches; writing’s hard, and sometimes re-imagining the whole world isn’t what you want to spend your energy on. However, especially with the latter approach, it implies a certain immutability and determinism to the world order, and to me, lends the setting a certain hopelessness that the author may not have even intended.

So, it’s refreshing to read a novel where the world has dramatically changed in interesting, optimistic or well-considered ways, especially when it’s entirely incidental and not really even relevant to the plot like it was here. Tibet is its own autonomous nation state, seems to have fought for and claimed back its independence, and is now a world leader in semi-sentient networked drone tech. The U.S. is mentioned I think once, as an aside that implies its flagging power. And my favorite bit: many of russia’s current colonies have broken apart from the empire, derussified, and reclaimed their sovereignty, land and culture, leaving russia a fraction of what it once was and seemingly a failing state. And again, this isn’t a plot point; we just pick it up via worldbuilding moments like when one of our leads (who we later learn is ethnically a Tatar) stops in at a teahouse in the Republic of Astrakhan, next to the “whitewashed old Kremlin walls”, or when he mentions that his hometown, formerly in the Republic of Tatarstan under the control of russia, is now a part of the free ‘Ural Commonwealth’. The world as presented in the book still has plenty of bleak, horrible shit going on, of course, but it’s nice when an author takes the time and effort to present some prospects like that as a matter of course.

I didn’t think the book really delivered on its main premise especially well. I’ll admit that I read the synopsis wrong when I bought the book (I was hoping for a first contact story set on an water-based exoplanet; I’m still chasing the high of In Other Waters), but I was still game for a first contact story set on near-future Earth, and octopi are pretty dope. Thing is, the book isn’t really as interested in telling one satisfying narrative as it is in almost academically examining the concept of intelligence from a variety of different angles; it almost felt like an anthology masquerading as a novel.

While that’s not a bad approach on its face, I simply didn’t find most of the scenarios very compelling. Evrim’s sentience and relationship with DIANIMA didn’t feel like a very unique view on AI - if anything, the point-fives, the AI partners people are increasingly turning to instead of real relationships, seemed like the most prescient take. The algorithm-driven fishing ship, with its crew trapped eternally at the whims of its churning data analysis, was a fascinatingly macabre concept, but the scenario plays out without any real surprises. Amidst all that, the encounters with the burgeoning octopus society were well done, but with all the space given to all the other subplots, the ‘main’ story felt like it just got to the end of its first act before the book ended. It’s certainly true that actually getting the two species to a point of mutual linguistic understanding would take many years; to me, though, that means the narrative demands a timeskip, not to just be ended with a shrug.

I learned a lot of neat octopus facts, at least. Did you know octopi and other cephalopods are capable of editing their own RNA?

#will's media thoughts / virtual brain repository #books #the mountain in the sea

3 notes · View notes

rainytimetravelfart · 4 days ago

Text

10 Essential Navy Current Affairs for 2025 You Shouldn’t Miss

As we sail deeper into 2025, global naval landscapes are undergoing rapid evolution. From advanced tech integration to powerful new alliances, navy current affairs 2025 are setting a bold new direction for maritime defense strategy. TheVeza brings you a curated list of the 10 essential navy developments for 2025 — key headlines that every defense enthusiast, strategist, and citizen should be aware of.

1. AUKUS Rolls Out Quantum-Enabled Naval Systems

The AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK, and the US has taken a leap forward in 2025 with the deployment of quantum-enabled naval systems. These systems are improving threat detection, secure communications, and undersea warfare capabilities. This leap is seen as a game-changer in securing the Indo-Pacific region.

2. India Commissions INS Vishal — Its Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier

India’s naval strength was significantly bolstered in 2025 with the commissioning of INS Vishal, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Built with indigenous technology and enhanced drone-launch capabilities, this vessel is symbolic of India’s “Make in India” initiative in defense manufacturing.

3. US Navy Integrates AI-Controlled Swarm Drones for Coastal Defense

In a bold step toward automation, the US Navy deployed AI-controlled swarm drones for coastal reconnaissance and surveillance missions. These drones offer real-time threat analysis and coordinated strike capability — a true reflection of the U.S. Navy’s investment in next-gen maritime warfare.

4. China Expands Blue Water Navy with Five New Destroyers

China continues to flex its maritime muscles with the launch of five Type 055 guided-missile destroyers in 2025. These additions have significantly enhanced China’s long-range naval combat capabilities, heightening tensions in the South China Sea.

5. NATO Conducts Largest Ever Naval Exercise ‘Poseidon Shield 2025’

NATO’s ‘Poseidon Shield 2025’, involving 40 ships and 25,000 personnel, was held across the Atlantic and Mediterranean zones. The massive show of force reinforced NATO’s commitment to maritime security in the face of increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

6. Japan Revamps Constitution to Expand Maritime Defense Role

For the first time since World War II, Japan has amended Article 9 of its constitution, allowing for a more proactive naval defense policy. This includes blue-water operations and freedom of navigation patrols in contested waters.

7. Russia Launches Hypersonic Anti-Ship Missile System: Zircon-X

Russia made headlines in 2025 by unveiling the Zircon-X hypersonic missile system, capable of evading radar and hitting naval targets with extreme precision. The system has already been installed on select Russian warships, raising alarms across Europe and NATO.

8. Indian Ocean Naval Symposium Expands With New African Members

The Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) saw a significant diplomatic breakthrough with the inclusion of Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar. This move aims to improve maritime cooperation, anti-piracy efforts, and humanitarian response strategies in the Indian Ocean region.

9. Green Navy Movement Gains Momentum: France Launches First Hydrogen-Powered Frigate

In a nod to climate-conscious military innovation, France launched the world's first hydrogen-powered navy frigate, a major step in reducing the carbon footprint of naval operations. The Green Navy movement is now gaining traction among EU nations.

10. Cyber Navy Division Formed to Counter Digital Maritime Threats

Cyber warfare is no longer the future — it’s the present. In 2025, multiple navies including the US, UK, and Australia have formed dedicated Cyber Navy Divisions to combat threats to digital navigation systems, port infrastructure, and fleet networks.

Why These Developments Matter

These navy current affairs for 2025 signal a transformative period for maritime defense and geopolitical strategy. With major powers innovating rapidly, and middle powers asserting their regional presence, the world’s oceans are once again becoming a critical arena for global influence and security.

For the average citizen, these headlines may seem distant. But in truth, they affect everything — from global trade routes and fuel prices to the internet cables on the seabed. A strong and smart navy ensures peace, trade continuity, and disaster response readiness.

Conclusion

From AI drones to green warships, and strategic alliances to constitutional reforms — the world’s navies are rewriting the rules of maritime power in 2025. As tensions rise and technology evolves, keeping track of these navy current affairs is not just for policy-makers — it’s essential for all global citizens. Stay informed, stay secure — with TheVeza.

0 notes

thousandflowerscampaign · 16 days ago

Text

War economics in the 21st century

War economics in the 21st century has evolved significantly due to globalization, technological advancements, and shifts in geopolitical power structures. Unlike traditional warfare, modern conflicts involve hybrid tactics (cyber warfare, economic sanctions, proxy wars) and have profound economic implications for both belligerents and the global economy. Here are key aspects of 21st-century war economics:

1. Economic Sanctions as a Weapon

Primary Tool of Modern Conflict: The U.S., EU, and UN frequently impose sanctions (e.g., on Russia, Iran, North Korea) to cripple economies without direct military engagement.

Secondary Sanctions: Extending penalties to third-party entities doing business with sanctioned states (e.g., China’s Huawei facing U.S. restrictions).

Effectiveness Debate: Sanctions often hurt civilians (e.g., Venezuela’s hyperinflation) but may fail to topple regimes (e.g., Russia’s adaptation via alternative trade routes).

2. Resource Wars & Energy Economics

Oil & Gas Conflicts: Wars in Iraq, Libya, and tensions in the South China Sea are partly driven by energy control.

Rare Earth Minerals: Competition over lithium, cobalt, and semiconductors fuels tensions (e.g., China’s dominance in rare earths affecting U.S. tech/military supply chains).

3. Cyber Warfare & Economic Disruption

State-Sponsored Hacking: Attacks on infrastructure (e.g., Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine’s power grid, North Korea’s cryptocurrency theft).

Financial System Vulnerabilities: SWIFT bans (e.g., Russia’s partial exclusion in 2022) push countries toward alternative systems (China’s CIPS).

4. Private Military Companies (PMCs) & War Profiteering

Mercenarization of War: Firms like Wagner Group (Russia) and Blackwater (U.S.) operate with profit motives, blurring state-vs-corporate warfare lines.

Military-Industrial Complex Growth: Defense stocks (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon) surge during conflicts (e.g., post-9/11, Ukraine war).

5. Economic Resilience & Wartime Adaptation

Russia’s War Economy: Despite sanctions, Russia shifted to Asian markets, ramped up arms production, and used "shadow fleets" to bypass oil price caps.

Ukraine’s Dependence on Aid: Over 60% of Ukraine’s 2023 budget came from Western aid, highlighting how modern wars rely on external financing.

6. Global Supply Chain Shocks

Ukraine War Fallout: Disruptions in wheat, fertilizer, and neon gas (critical for chips) caused global inflation (2022–2023).

Red Sea Crisis (2024): Houthi attacks on shipping raised insurance costs, mimicking WWII-style blockade economics.

7. AI & Autonomous Warfare

Cost-Efficiency: Drones (e.g., Bayraktar TB2 in Ukraine) are cheaper than traditional aircraft, changing defense spending priorities.

AI in Economic Warfare: Algorithmic sanctions enforcement, predictive targeting, and disinformation campaigns reshape conflict economics.

8. The Rise of "Fortress Economies"

Decoupling & Onshoring: U.S.-China tech war leads to supply chain redundancies (e.g., semiconductor bans, TikTok bans).

Economic NATO?: Western alliances increasingly weaponize trade (e.g., CHIPS Act, embargoes on dual-use tech).

Conclusion

21st-century war economics is characterized by asymmetric financial warfare, resource competition, and technological disruption, with states leveraging economic tools as much as military ones. The line between war and peace blurs as sanctions, cyberattacks, and supply chain warfare become permanent features of global rivalry.

0 notes

sepblogs1211 · 21 days ago

Text

8 Global Forex Setups as Trade Tensions Reshape Markets

Market Overview

The current global landscape is defined by escalating trade wars, especially between the U.S. and China. The U.S. has recently revoked Chinese student visas in key tech fields and implemented renewed sanctions on Chinese firms—moves that fuel market volatility. President Trump’s May 30 announcement to double tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% by June 4, 2025, further intensifies economic concerns. India’s unexpected pushback on tariff policies, demanding the removal of existing U.S. tariffs, signals growing global frustration. This shift underlines the fragility of U.S. trade relations and points to a broader wave of uncertainty. With global partners adjusting their stances and geopolitical tensions increasing—especially with fresh drone attacks in Moscow and U.S. warnings over China’s military goals for Taiwan—markets are bracing for sharp movements.

Market Analysis

GOLD

Among the 8 Global Forex Setups, GOLD is a standout, showcasing a strong bullish breakout driven by global trade war tensions and geopolitical instability. MACD and RSI confirm heightened buying momentum and volume. A short consolidation may precede further upside, reinforcing GOLD’s position as a key setup this week. For more insights on precious metal trends, visit RichSmart FX.

SILVER

SILVER has broken out of its consolidation zone, supported by strong bullish momentum. Within the 8 Global Forex Setups, SILVER mirrors GOLD’s safe-haven behavior, making it a valuable asset to watch for continuation trades. Price action remains favorable, though pullbacks should be monitored. Keep up with silver-based forex strategies through RichSmart.net.

DXY

The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) remains under pressure, with ongoing sell-offs confirmed by MACD and RSI. As one of the 8 Global Forex Setups, DXY reflects bearish sentiment across markets due to growing economic policy doubt and weakening international confidence in U.S. trade actions. For broader macro insights and currency outlooks, check Axel Private Market.

GBPUSD

The British Pound shows consistent bullish strength, supported by both momentum and structure. Included in the 8 Global Forex Setups, GBP/USD presents an opportunity for buyers watching for retracement entries as trade volume and optimism increase across the board. Dive deeper with analysis from GFS Markets.

AUDUSD

The Australian Dollar continues its bullish trajectory, trading above 0.64801. As part of the 8 Global Forex Setups, AUD/USD is responding to both technical strength and evolving trade dynamics with China. MACD and RSI support further upside, though retracement remains a possibility. For technical updates, refer to DBGMFX.

NZDUSD

The Kiwi’s bullish strength is gaining traction, despite a complex trade backdrop between the U.S. and China. Within the 8 Global Forex Setups, NZD/USD stands out as a high-potential pair, especially if it breaks through the 0.60455 resistance. Momentum remains strong. Get real-time insights from TopMax Global.

EURUSD

EUR/USD is gaining bullish momentum following supportive European data and clear breakout from consolidation. As a pillar of the 8 Global Forex Setups, this pair is well-positioned for continued upward movement amid ECB rate speculation and Germany's economic optimism. Track its evolution through WorldQuest FX.

USDJPY

USD/JPY has turned bearish again, with selling pressure building after rejection from higher levels. This setup rounds out the 8 Global Forex Setups, with USD/JPY offering bearish opportunities driven by Yen strength and overall market sentiment against the Dollar.

USDCHF

USD/CHF is seeing bearish follow-through as global uncertainty favors the Franc. While not in the core 8 Global Forex Setups, it remains relevant as a risk-off asset to monitor for potential continuation moves.

USDCAD

USD/CAD remains under pressure with continued Canadian Dollar strength. Though not part of the top 8 Global Forex Setups, its bearish structure aligns with broader market themes and offers secondary opportunities for strategic traders.

COT Market Analysis

AUD - WEAK (5/5)

GBP - STRONG (5/5)

CAD - WEAK (5/5)

EUR - STRONG (3/5)

JPY - STRONG (3/5)

CHF - WEAK (4/5)

USD - MIXED

NZD - WEAK (4/5)

GOLD - STRONG (3/5)

SILVER - STRONG (5/5)

Final Thoughts

The 8 Global Forex Setups this week underscore the growing influence of trade tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and geopolitical risks on the currency markets. EUR/USD, GOLD, and DXY provide particularly clear setups, while others like AUD/USD and NZD/USD continue to gain momentum. With strategic forex trade planning and careful price action observation, traders can position themselves to take advantage of this volatility-driven environment.

0 notes

gis56 · 1 month ago

Text

Agri Micronutrients Market shooting from $4.5B to $8.3B by 2034 🌻📈 (CAGR 6.3%)

Agricultural Micronutrients Market is experiencing a remarkable transformation, driven by the increasing need for sustainable agriculture and improved crop productivity. Valued at $4.5 billion in 2024, the market is set to reach $8.3 billion by 2034, growing at a healthy CAGR of 6.3%. Micronutrients such as zinc, iron, boron, and manganese are essential for plant growth, aiding in processes like photosynthesis, enzyme function, and resistance to disease. The rising demand for high-yield crops and healthy soil composition is compelling farmers worldwide to turn to these micro-elements. With food security becoming a global priority and arable land under stress, micronutrients are now the unsung heroes of modern farming.

Market Dynamics

The market’s momentum is being fueled by a mix of drivers and challenges. Technological advancements in precision agriculture — like GPS-guided soil mapping and sensor-based nutrient monitoring — are enabling more efficient application of micronutrients.

Click to Request a Sample of this Report for Additional Market Insights: https://www.globalinsightservices.com/request-sample/?id=GIS21475

Farmers can now deliver the right nutrient, in the right amount, at the right time. However, high raw material costs, a lack of awareness among farmers, and regional soil variability are posing challenges. Moreover, the fluctuating prices of key minerals used in micronutrient formulations are creating volatility. Still, the shift toward organic farming, government subsidies, and innovations in biofortification are helping counterbalance these hurdles, opening up new avenues for market expansion.

Key Players Analysis

A mix of global giants and emerging innovators are shaping the competitive landscape. Yara International, BASF SE, The Mosaic Company, and Nutrien dominate the market with wide product portfolios and global distribution networks. Their investments in R&D and collaborations with agricultural tech firms are keeping them ahead in innovation. Meanwhile, a wave of emerging players like Micro Green Solutions, Nutra Field Technologies, and Vital Soil Components is disrupting the market with niche formulations and organic micronutrient blends. These players are agile, experimental, and closer to the ground realities of farmers in emerging economies, positioning them well for future growth.

Regional Analysis

Asia-Pacific remains the undisputed leader, commanding over 55% of the global market share. Countries like India and China are at the forefront due to their massive agricultural footprint and adoption of advanced farming techniques. North America follows, driven by a tech-savvy farming community and regulatory emphasis on sustainable agriculture. In Europe, stringent nutrient management laws and a growing organic food trend are propelling the demand for eco-friendly micronutrient products. Latin America shows promising growth, especially in Brazil and Argentina, due to large-scale commercial farming. The Middle East and Africa are emerging markets, with governments pushing agricultural productivity in water-stressed regions using micronutrient solutions.

Recent News & Developments

The past year has seen a surge in strategic collaborations and product innovations. Companies like ICL Group and Wilbur-Ellis are integrating AI and drone technology to fine-tune micronutrient delivery. In Europe and North America, the push for eco-friendly agriculture is influencing pricing strategies, leading to an uptick in demand for organic micronutrient products. Supply chain disruptions due to geopolitical issues and climate change are prompting companies to localize their sourcing strategies. Meanwhile, precision agriculture is evolving rapidly, with GPS-enabled tools and smart sprayers enhancing micronutrient efficiency, reducing wastage, and improving ROI for farmers.

Browse Full Report : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/agricultural-micronutrients-market/

Scope of the Report

This report offers a deep dive into the type, application, form, and regional breakdown of the Agricultural Micronutrients Market. It includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis covering growth drivers, challenges, competitive landscape, and future opportunities. Segments such as chelated vs. non-chelated micronutrients, application methods like soil, foliar, fertigation, and end-users including farmers, cooperatives, and research organizations are meticulously analyzed. Moreover, the study explores market behavior across regions and forecasts performance up to 2034. It is designed to help stakeholders — ranging from investors to policymakers — make informed, data-driven decisions in the agricultural ecosystem.

Discover Additional Market Insights from Global Insight Services:

Pea Protein Market : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/pea-protein-market/

Ice Cream Market ; https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/ice-cream-market/

Agricultural Micronutrients Market : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/agricultural-micronutrients-market/

Food Contact Paper Market : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/food-contact-paper-market/

Wet Pet Food Market : https://www.globalinsightservices.com/reports/wet-pet-food-market/

#agriculture #micronutrients #sustainablefarming #precisionagriculture #soilhealth #cropnutrition #planthealth #agritech #organicfarming #zincfertilizers #boronbenefits #smartfarming #farminnovations #yieldboost #agriculturalreform #farmingtech #agroindustry #cropyield #plantgrowth #greenfarming #ecofriendlyagriculture #climatefarming #biofortification #agroscience #nutrientmanagement #foodsecurity #cropscience #farmingfuture #soilscience #smartagriculture #sustainablesoil #fertilizertech #farmerfirst #agribusiness #foodinnovation #modernfarming #farminginsights #precisioncropcare #smartsoil #organicgrowth #greentechnology

About Us:

Global Insight Services (GIS) is a leading multi-industry market research firm headquartered in Delaware, US. We are committed to providing our clients with highest quality data, analysis, and tools to meet all their market research needs. With GIS, you can be assured of the quality of the deliverables, robust & transparent research methodology, and superior service.

Global Insight Services LLC 16192, Coastal Highway, Lewes DE 19958 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +1–833–761–1700 Website: https://www.globalinsightservices.com/

0 notes

the-hem · 2 months ago

Text

🔥 The Heat Belt Is Real — Here's How We Cool America Down. Fast.

Here’s a comprehensive Rapid Atmospheric Cool-Down and Stabilization Plan for the USA, assuming the Russo-Ukraine War ends and immediate intervention is possible. This plan is designed to reverse heat belt effects exacerbated by geopolitical conflict, fossil fuel emissions, and disrupted weather systems.

Post-War Climate Emergency Plan (2025–2027) You heard it right: the Russo-Ukraine war’s ripple effects are cooking the U.S. We need a rapid temperature taper, climate justice, and tech deployment—like, yesterday.

🌡️ GOAL: COOL THE USA BY 3°C IN 3 YEARS

Starting Point: 🌡️ +3°C above baseline in key states (Texas, Arizona, Midwest)

Taper Plan: 🌀 2025: Cool by 1.0°C 🌀 2026: Cool another 1.0°C 🌀 2027: Normalize to baseline, coast into climate stability

🛠️ MASSIVE COOL-DOWN INTERVENTIONS

🌬️ 1. Atmosphere Scrubbing

CO₂ & Methane? Gone. We build 500+ Direct Air Capture plants + deploy methane oxidizers around landfills and farms.

🧾 Cost: $770B 📆 Timeline: 80% online by end of 2026 🚧 Where: Midwest, Texas, industrial belts

☀️ 2. Block the Sun (a little)

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SRM) — think sunscreen for Earth. Jets release tiny particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight.

🚀 50 climate-mod jets 🌫️ Inject 8M tons/year of sulfate or CaCO₃ 🛰️ Launch satellites to track everything

🧾 Cost: ~$15B/year 📆 Starts mid-2025

🏙️ 3. Cool the Cities

💠 White rooftops everywhere 🛣️ Reflective asphalt 💦 Urban misting stations 🌱 Desert greening projects

🧾 Cost: $350B 📆 Nationwide by 2027

🧍‍♀️🧳 HUMANITARIAN SIDE: RELOCATE + PROTECT

🚨 Climate Relocation Program

Move 5–10 million people from heat danger zones like Phoenix & Vegas.

🏙️ 20 smart climate cities (500k each) 🚉 Emergency transit + shelters 💼 Job training for climate corps

🧾 Cost: $1.2 Trillion 📆 Begins Q3 2025

🧊 Emergency Cooling Support

🏕️ Mobile climate relief fleets 🧴 Hydration + electrolyte kits 🏟️ Retrofit schools & stadiums into "Cool Zones"

🧾 Cost: $75B 📱 National alert app goes live in 6 months

🛰️ MONITORING GRID: EARTH GETS A CHECK-UP

🛰️ 30 new satellites 🌐 200,000 ground climate sensors 🛩️ Drones scan real-time chemistry 📊 AI dashboard for full transparency

🧾 Cost: $60B 🧠 Data shared with public

💸 TOTAL COST: ~$3.4 Trillion (over 3 years)

Funding It? 🔁 Redirect war budgets 📉 Carbon tax on polluters 🌍 Global Climate Finance Consortium

✨ BONUS: TARGETED TEMP GOALS BY STATE (BY 2027)

Region/Goal Temp Reduction

Texas & Gulf-3.5°C

Midwest-3.0°C

Southwest-4.0°C

Appalachia-1.5°C (buffer zone)

Pacific Northwest-1.0°C

REBLOG IF YOU BELIEVE IN COOLING THE PLANET WITH TECH, EQUITY & SPEED.

🌎💨🚨 #climateaction #coolamerica #geoengineering #climatetech #heatbelt #postwarfuture #russiacommonwealth #ecodreams #humansurvival #climatejustice

0 notes

cyberbenb · 3 months ago

Text

How is Russia Monetizing Its War Experience in Ukraine? Analytics by Vox Ukraine & TFUA

This is an overview by the analytical platform Vox Ukraine and Tech Force inUA, an association of private arms and military equipment manufacturers. It aims to show how Russia is converting its war experience in Ukraine into arms export contracts and what our country can do about it.

The analysis provides a detailed review of the following questions: how the export of Russia’s military-industrial complex has changed since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine; why, in the fourth year of aggression, Russia continues to showcase its military achievements at international exhibitions actively; how the aggressor country profits from its war experience; and how Ukraine can gain advantages from its expertise in technological warfare and resistance against the aggressor.

For decades, the Russian Federation has positioned itself as a leader in developing the military-industrial complex and actively invested in innovations and modernization of its defense products. Within this strategy, Russia established international connections by exporting its military equipment to various countries, which allowed it to strengthen its position in the global arms market and raise geopolitical stakes. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has continued to actively demonstrate its military achievements at international exhibitions, where representatives of the aggressor state openly state that their weapons are tested in real combat conditions. This allows the country to enhance its reputation among potential partners and strengthen economic and military ties with states that support it despite international sanctions.

General overview

The core of Russia’s arms exports consists of aircraft, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), engines, and missile weapons (Fig. 1). At the same time, the available data does not show the volume of UAV sales. There may be several reasons for this: a) a ban on exporting such products from Russia; b) hidden supply contracts; c) concealment of UAV exports under the guise of other products.

Source: SIPRI

Russia is actively promoting the idea of the power of its military-industrial complex, trying to convince both domestic and international audiences of its ability not only to finance the needs of its army for the war in Ukraine but also to remain an important player in the global arms market. For example, at the end of 2024, the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation stated that the portfolio of Russian arms export orders has remained at $50-55 billion for several years. In January 2025, Rosoboronexport CEO Alexander Mikheev announced that contracts worth $4.5 billion had been signed with 15 “friendly countries” at the beginning of the year alone. According to Mikheev, about 50% of the orders Rosoboronexport is currently fulfilling are from North Africa and the Middle East.

According to a Kyiv Independent investigation based on leaked Ruselectronics documents, Rosoboronexport continued to work on fulfilling contracts signed in previous years after the start of the full-scale invasion and received new requests for arms exports.

For example, Saudi Arabia, which ordered 39 Pantsir-S1 systems, missiles, and command centers from Russia in 2021 with the contract to be completed by 2026, received the first systems at the end of 2023. Armenia inquired about the possible supply of a command center for Ranzhir-M1 air defense systems, and Venezuela was interested in Pishchal-Pro and Kupol systems. These are systems that destroy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Currently, there is no publicly available evidence that such deliveries have taken place. Such information suggests that Russia is monetizing its experience of the Russian-Ukrainian war, particularly in the field of countering drones.

According to international organizations, Russia has weakened its position in the global market due to the need to supply weapons for the war with Ukraine. Thus, according to SIPRI, Russian arms exports have decreased by 44% since the full-scale invasion. While in 2021, Russia was ranked 3rd in the world in terms of arms sales with a 9.2% share of the global market, in 2024, it dropped to 5th place in the ranking with a 4.6% share of global arms exports, behind the United States, France, Germany, and Italy. It is noteworthy that before the aggression began in 2013, Russia was the world’s leading arms exporter, with a market share of 29%. While in 2021, Russia exported arms to 21 countries, in 2024, this number dropped to 12. In particular, deliveries to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Ethiopia, Turkey, Nigeria, and others stopped.

Source: SIPRI

Some Russian analysts have even reported a sharp decline (14 times) in Russian arms exports compared to 2021. Thus, in 2021, revenue from arms exports amounted to $14.6 billion; in 2022, it dropped to $8 billion, and in 2023 — to $3 billion.

Regarding geography (Fig. 3), according to SIPRI, India is the main buyer of Russian weapons. However, every year since 2017 (except for 2021 and 2024), arms exports to India have decreased by an average of 10% (a record drop occurred in 2023 — 61% compared to the previous year). Arms exports to China (CAGR -37%) and Algeria (CAGR -44%) have dropped by almost a third in 7 years. Despite previous close cooperation, exports to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Vietnam stopped in 2024.

Source: SIPRI

Positive export dynamics in 2017-2024 were observed only in trade with Kazakhstan (CAGR +13%) and Myanmar (CAGR +9%), and the volume of arms sales to the Republic of Belarus remained virtually unchanged (CAGR -1%). Despite the sharp decline in arms exports to Kazakhstan in 2023 (-54% compared to 2022), the volume of arms supply contracts increased almost 4 times in 2024. Arms exports to Myanmar also increased in 2024 (+20% compared to 2023). The volume of arms exports to Belarus remained roughly constant until 2022, except for an almost complete decline in arms sales in 2020, which was apparently due to the presidential elections in Belarus. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Russia, the volume of arms exports to the Republic of Belarus has been declining (by 22% in 2023 and 8% in 2023). However, it is obvious that Russia continues to arm Belarus under the Treaty on Security Assurances within the Union State, which is not always accompanied by relevant contracts that SIPRI takes into account in its statistics.

Development in the UAV segment

According to the Russian government’s decree of March 10, 2022, the export of aircraft, drones, and satellites from Russia is temporarily banned until the end of 2025. These restrictions are explained by the priority use of drones in the so-called “area of the special military operation”. In the summer of 2023, Rusdronoport emphasized that it was not exporting drones, as they were banned due to the urgent need for them at the front.

However, the Russian government is actively promoting the idea of setting up a new economic sector related to the creation and use of drones. In particular, in June 2023, the Strategy for the Development of Unmanned Aviation of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 and prospectively to 2035 was signed. The strategy includes five key areas: stimulating demand for domestic UAVs, their development and mass production, infrastructure development (airfields, heliports, drone ports), training and research in this area. The Strategy emphasizes stimulating the development of civilian UAS (unmanned aerial systems), but it is likely that a significant share of the targets will be related to military needs.

Table 1. Targets for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles in Russia according to the Strategy established by the government in 2023

Indicator Russian UAS market volume (demand), units Number of UASs produced in Russia, units Number of specialists in the field of research, development, production, and operation of UASs Scenario basic progressive basic progressive basic progressive Plan for

2023-2026

372 700 389 700 52 100 55 400 330 000 450 000 Plan for

2027-2030

684 500 718 800 105 500 116 800 1 000 000 1 100 000

Plan for

2031-2035

989 500 1 039 000 177 700 199 100 1 500 000

1 600 000

* The basic scenario assumes stable development of the UAS market with an average growth of 14% per year, with peak production in 2025-2027. The progressive scenario predicts 25% growth, an increase in the share of domestic UAS in the market, and possible exports to friendly countries

Given that the Russian government has developed a Strategy for the development of the industry, we can expect a significant increase in revenues of companies engaged in the production of UAVs. According to reports from Russian drone manufacturers submitted to the federal authorities of the Russian Federation, they receive excessive profits. They can also purchase components for drones even despite the sanctions (hence, sanctions against Russia need to be strengthened). Although most of them declare that the drones they produce are for civilian use, there is still information about gratitude from the government for the supply of drones for military purposes.

As of 2023, there were 570 aircraft manufacturing companies in Russia, and 200 of them were registered after the start of the full-scale invasion. A similar trend is observed in the production of FPV drones — most of the companies were registered in 2023.

The National Technology Initiative Fund plans to finance 400 more drone development startups in Russia by 2030, with 30 billion rubles (almost $335 million) allocated for this purpose.

As for the companies’ earnings, the market price of Russian FPV drones is relatively low due to cheap labor and mass production. The average price is $2966, which increases the demand for them among foreign partners.

Table 2. Prices for Russian-made FPV drones

FPV drones costing up to $700 FPV drones costing up to $2000 FPV drones costing over $2000 Grach – $310.8

Stuzha, Vyuga – $330 – $440

Piranha – $340 – $503

Boets 40 – $430

Hava – S530-630

Upyr-88 – $550

Bekas – $550

VT-40 – S550

ZvyoZdochka – $650

Muravey – $880

Geoscan Pioner FPV – S991

Rusak-S-S1000

Dobrynya – $1084 – S1777

Privet-82 – S1200

ZvyoZdochka – $1300

Ovod-10 – $1500

Sarmat – S1546

MiS-35 – $4 345-6 345

Sibiryachok – $10 962-27 405

Izdelive 1-390 – $13 945

Exhibitions and export plans

After the start of the full-scale invasion, Russia continues to hold its own arms exhibitions and attend them in other countries. This indicates that Russia is expanding its military cooperation with different regions of the world despite international sanctions. Russian companies demonstrate the latest technologies in the defense sector, including UAVs, and are considering the possibility of establishing joint ventures to produce weapons and equipment in “friendly countries”.

Table 3. Examples of russia’s participation in exhibitions

Exhibition Country Year Weapons presented IDEX Abu Dhabi, UAE 2023 Ka-62 and Ka-226T helicopters, Iskander-E air defense systems, 9K515 MLRS (Tornado-S), Khrizantema

-S and Kornet-E, Orion-E, Orlan-10E and Orlan-30 UAVs

«Army» Russia 2022

2023

2024

Ka-52E, Mi-28NME, Mi-17 helicopters, Orion-E, Orlan-10E, Orlan-30, Kub-E UAVs Airshow China 2024 Zhuhai, China 2024 Orlan-10E, Orlan-30, Skat, Kub-E UAVs World Defense Show 2024 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2024 Armored vehicle Typhoon, Orlan-10, Orlan-30, TOS-1A, Kornet-EM UAVs, small arms Africa Aerospace and Defense Expo 2024 Pretoria, South Africa 2024 Orion-E, Orlan-10E, Orlan-30, Skat, Kub-E UAVs IDEX Abu Dhabi, UAE 2025 Supercam S350 UAV, Т-90МS tank, Forpost-RE, Pantsir-SMD-E, Lancet-E UAVs Aero India-2025 Bengaluru, India 2025 Su-57E, Lancet-E, S-400 Triumph, Karakurt and Goliath UAVs

Note: The table does not contain an exhaustive list but some examples of the presented weapons.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Russia has participated in a number of international arms exhibitions, including the largest IDEX in Abu Dhabi, Airshow China 2024 in Zhuhai, World Defense Show 2024 in Riyadh, Africa Aerospace and Defense Expo 2024 in Pretoria, and Aero India 2025 in India. The Middle East, Asia, and Africa were expected to become key areas for Russia.

During these exhibitions, Russia tried to promote joint arms production, adapting its offer to the needs of the regions. For example, in the Persian Gulf, they actively promoted drones for monitoring infrastructure and combating terrorist threats (for this purpose, they offered Supercam S350, Orlan-10E, and Orlan-30 UAVs), while in India, they focused on joint projects in the field of aviation and armored vehicles.

At the same time, Russia organized its exhibitions. The most significant is the annual Army Forum, which is both a propaganda tool and a tool for promoting Russian weapons abroad. In addition to Russia, six countries presented their exhibits in 2024: Belarus, Vietnam, India, Iran, Pakistan, and China. Although the number of participants is limited, these countries have large markets, and Russia primarily focuses on them.

Russia is trying to use the opportunity to attend such events not only to demonstrate its military strength. The exhibitions mainly feature export weapons or export modifications of conventional weapons. During the presentation of the samples, Russia refers to its experience of using them in combat during the Russian-Ukrainian war. In other words, Russia is trying to sell the experience of a full-scale invasion.

Russia is expanding the amount of equipment it displays at exhibitions, changing its emphasis. For example, Russia is increasing the number and type of UAVs on display:

At IDEX 2021, Russia presented the Orlan-10E UAV.

At IDEX 2023, the Orion-E, Orlan-10E, and Orlan-30 UAVs.

At IDEX 2025 – Supercam S350, Forpost-RE, Karakurt, Goliath, Quasimatch, Kub-10E, Lancet-E UAVs.

In addition to expanding the range of UAVs, Russia is also demonstrating equipment that can counter various types of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. For example, at IDEX 2025, the demonstration of the T-90MS emphasizes its anti-drone defense. An updated version of the Pantsir-SMD-E was also presented. Although traditional types of weapons are not disappearing from the exhibitions, there is a noticeable emphasis on the current requirements of the battlefield, where unmanned and robotic systems play a significant role.

At international exhibitions, Russia mainly demonstrates weapons that it claims to be able to produce in excess or potentially capable of producing in excess. The main task of its defense enterprises is to meet the needs of the front line. For this reason, Russia seeks not only to export its products but also to create joint ventures with partner countries to reduce the burden on its industry and expand production capabilities, particularly to purchase technologies to circumvent sanctions. At exhibitions, Rosoboronexport stated that the main vector of partnership is shifting towards joint development and the production of weapons.

Plans to create joint ventures

Russia has planned to establish joint ventures (JVs) since the beginning of its invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and is currently actively engaged in JVs to strengthen its manufacturing capabilities, particularly in the field of drones. These projects are aimed at meeting domestic arms needs, but their scope may also include supplies to foreign markets.

Iran is one of Russia’s key partners in joint production of UAVs. In cooperation with Iran, Russia has established a drone production facility in the Alabuga special economic zone in Tatarstan. This plant produces barrage munitions similar to Iran’s Shahed, as well as Albatross reconnaissance drones. The plant has been operating since July 2023 and, according to initial plans, should produce 6,000 drones per year with further expansion plans.

Another partner in the joint venture is likely to be China. According to information published by Reuters, Russia has launched a covert program in China to develop and produce Garpiya-3 (G3) long-range attack drones for use in the war against Ukraine. Local specialists have been working on the development. The Chinese Foreign Ministry says it is not aware of such a project.

According to Bloomberg, Russia and China are jointly developing the Sunflower 200, which is supposed to be an analog of the Shahed 136. Also, Chinese companies Fimi, AEE, and ZeroZero, which are involved in civilian drones, wanted to either organize production in Russia or create a joint venture with Russian developers. Defense Express claims that many Russian unmanned systems rely heavily on components purchased from the People’s Republic of China, some of which are even fully developed by local companies but disguised as Russian products.

In early March 2025, it was reported that Russia proposed to establish a drone manufacturing facility in Belarus, which would be capable of producing up to 100,000 drones per year.

Russia plans to further expand joint ventures and create new ones, expanding the geography of production. According to representatives of the Russian Federation, a significant number of countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia are interested in joint production of Russian weapons.

In February 2025, the head of Rosoboronexport said that Russia is implementing about 20 projects in partnership with 10 countries in the North Africa and Middle East region to jointly develop and produce UAVs, precision munitions, small arms, and armored vehicles.

In February 2025, the Russian group of companies Kronstadt announced the possibility of localizing production and establishing joint ventures in India. According to the organization, India is interested in Orion UAVs. Russia is also interested in joint production of a 5th-generation fighter jet in India. At the Egyptian International Airshow, which took place in September 2024, the possibility of joint development of an aircraft based on the Su-57 fighter was discussed.

The Russian company Transport of the Future also plans to enter the Indian market in partnership with the local Sasaa Electronics Private Limited. The parties will establish a joint venture to assemble drones for the local market, expecting to take up to 25% by 2030.

In September 2024, Russia considered localizing the production of civilian drones and components in Uzbekistan. It is not yet known whether there are plans to produce UAVs for military use. Russian companies Vega and ZALA Aero Group have representative offices in Kyrgyzstan.

In addition to the aircraft, Russia was considering localizing the production of the Pantsir-S1 in Saudi Arabia, which would allow Russia to earn even more from arms sales than the €2 billion contract under which it sold air defense systems to the country. However, the project has not yet begun.

Japanese TV channel NHK World, citing sources, claims that North Korea will develop drones in cooperation with Russia. Their production should begin in 2025 as a payment for the involvement of the Korean military in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Thus, Russia is trying to expand its capabilities in joint arms production. In addition to traditional weapons, Russia places considerable emphasis on the joint production of various types of drones. Currently, according to Russian representatives, they are planning or counting on joint ventures with a wider range of countries. This can be either a joint venture or localization of production in Russia or another country. How successful their actions in this direction will be remains to be seen.

The regions Russia uses to implement its plans to establish joint ventures or localize production are Africa, Asia, and the CIS countries.

Geopolitical consolidation of position

Russia uses arms exports not only as a source of revenue but also as a tool for establishing and strengthening geopolitical ties. Exports of modern weapons systems allow Moscow to increase its influence in strategically important regions, such as the Middle East and Africa, and build long-term political and military alliances.

Moreover, Russia is actively seeking partners for joint projects and technological cooperation in countries without international sanctions, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

In addition to arms exports and plans for joint ventures, Russia is deploying paramilitary forces, such as the African Corps, to strengthen its influence on the continent. This structure was created as a successor to the Wagner Group and operates under tighter control of the Russian state. The African Corps cooperates with the governments of countries such as Libya, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and the Central African Republic, providing military equipment and support in the fight against “terrorism”.

However, the war against Ukraine has significantly undermined the aggressor’s ability to maintain its position in the arms market, although it is still widely represented there. The main problems of the Russian Federation at the moment are:

Western sanctions make accessing high-tech components for weapons production, such as aircraft engines and electronics, difficult.

Reorientation of production. Much of Russia’s defense industry is focused on recovering from losses on the battlefield, leaving fewer resources for exports.

Decreased confidence of importers. Some traditional partners (e.g., Egypt, which worked closely with Moscow after the 2013 coup but canceled a lucrative contract to purchase Su-35 fighter jets in 2022) are refusing to sign deals with Russia for fear of sanctions or technical delays.

The Russian Federation cannot compete with other suppliers — the United States, China, Turkey, and other countries are actively occupying the niches that are being vacated by Russia’s weakening.

For Ukraine, which will seek to expand its defense industry and enter global markets after the war, Russia’s current weakening position creates a unique window of opportunity.

How Ukraine can benefit from the experience of war and countering the enemy

The Ukrainian defense industry is already prepared to offer innovative solutions that have been tested in combat conditions, and there is a demand for this expertise. According to TFUA, most NATO countries have already approached Ukrainian manufacturers for partnerships or weapons supplies.

For example, the success of Ukrainian naval drones is of interest. Russia is already trying to monetize its experience in countering drones, and Ukraine can compete with it in this area.

It is important that as many countries as possible seek Ukraine’s experience rather than Russia’s.

To make this possible, Ukraine should

enter international markets with its technological warfare expertise and innovations,

continue to advocate and insist on the need to strengthen sanctions against Russia, making it impossible for the aggressor to attend international events and reduce opportunities for joint ventures and the supply of components for the Russian defense industry.

With open arms exports, Ukraine could actively present advanced models to potential partners at international exhibitions and offer technological cooperation, including through joint production.

Ukrainian producers are ready and waiting for the opening of exports, which is important today for enhancing collective security and integration into global supply markets. Such integration increases the competitiveness of Ukrainian producers in the world market and strengthens their position in the global economy. Moreover, this would not only contribute to a technological break from the enemy but could also serve as a counterweight to Russia’s intentions to regain its lost share of the global arms market.

Authors:

Viktoriia Ahapova – Senior Analyst, Reform Index Deputy Head;

Viktor Sholudko – VoxCheck Analyst;

Kateryna Ionova – VoxCheck Analyst;

Mariia Balytska – Vox Ukraine Analyst;

Dariia Kolodiazhna – Vox Ukraine Dana Analyst;

Alina Tropynina – VoxCheck Managing Editor;

Kateryna Mykhalko – Director-General of Tech Force in UA.

Photo: depositphotos.com/ua/

0 notes

madisontaylor84 · 3 months ago

Text

The Veza Explores Modern Threats and Strategic Shifts in Naval Security 2025

Naval strategy in 2025 is shaped not only by traditional maritime challenges but also by rapidly shifting global dynamics. Geopolitical rivalries, non-state actors, and digital warfare have all forced navies to adapt at an unprecedented pace. As a result, maritime forces are investing in strategic overhauls that emphasize foresight, collaboration, and resilience.

Expanding Threat Horizons

The definition of a maritime threat has broadened dramatically. It's no longer limited to foreign fleets or piracy. Today’s navies must contend with underwater drones used by rogue actors, data breaches that disrupt fleet logistics, and environmental sabotage in strategic shipping lanes.

The rise of hybrid warfare—where cyber, information, and kinetic attacks blend—means that every naval mission now requires cybersecurity integration and misinformation countermeasures.

AI-Powered Maritime Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing surveillance and threat detection. In 2025, AI algorithms can monitor thousands of data points simultaneously—analyzing satellite feeds, sonar echoes, and even social media to detect risks. This early-warning capability enables navies to act decisively before threats escalate.

AI also assists in decision-making during emergencies by simulating multiple outcomes and recommending optimized courses of action.

Shifts in Naval Strategy

Instead of concentrating firepower in a few large vessels, many navies are now diversifying with fleets of smaller, more agile ships that can work in tandem. This approach—known as distributed lethality—ensures survivability and flexibility during conflict.

Combined with stealth technology and long-range weaponry, modern vessels are built to operate independently in contested zones or quickly regroup with allies.

Strengthening Regional Coalitions

Multilateral naval agreements have gained importance in 2025. Shared patrols, information exchanges, and rapid deployment protocols have become critical tools for maintaining maritime security. Regional alliances are especially vital in the Indo-Pacific and Arctic corridors, where tensions remain high.

Joint training missions now incorporate standardized protocols, language compatibility, and unified command drills.

Ethical Considerations in Conflict Zones

As navies project power, they are also under scrutiny for how that power is used. Rules of engagement are continuously updated to reflect international humanitarian standards. There is growing pressure to maintain ethical conduct, especially in gray-zone conflicts where attribution is unclear.

Naval ethics training now includes courses on cultural awareness, non-lethal conflict resolution, and accountability frameworks.

The Role of Civil-Military Collaboration

In disaster-prone areas, civilian and naval cooperation is saving lives. Navies are partnering with non-governmental organizations and civilian agencies to deliver medical care, supplies, and infrastructure rebuilding after natural disasters or humanitarian crises.

This civil-military integration enhances the navy’s image and ensures smoother operations in politically sensitive regions.

Conclusion

As maritime challenges grow in scope and complexity, naval forces in 2025 are reshaping how they define readiness, ethics, and cooperation. By combining high-tech tools with a human-centered approach, modern navies are learning to lead with both strength and accountability. For more detailed updates on transparency, contractor oversight, and military ethics, follow Navy news 2025. The Veza continues to explore how defense institutions evolve in response to today’s most pressing maritime issues.

#navy news

0 notes

rainytimetravelfart · 14 days ago

Text

10 Essential Navy Current Affairs for 2025 That Are Shaping the Future of Maritime Power

As the world sails deeper into a complex geopolitical era, the maritime domain continues to be a decisive theater for national security, technological innovation, and global strategy. In 2025, the navy isn't just about ships and sailors—it's about data, alliances, autonomy, and deterrence. Here's a comprehensive look at the 10 Essential Navy Current Affairs for 2025, offering an insightful lens into what’s shaping the navies of today and tomorrow.

1. The Rise of Autonomous Maritime Systems

The integration of autonomous vessels and underwater drones has seen a massive push across leading naval forces. From the U.S. Navy’s unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to China’s underwater swarm tech, autonomy is transforming how reconnaissance, mine-sweeping, and patrolling are executed.

2. India’s Indigenous Naval Advancements

India continues its aggressive pursuit of Atmanirbhar Bharat in the defense sector, with the INS Vikrant’s full operational deployment, new P-75I submarines, and AI-driven coastal monitoring. These home-grown capabilities mark India’s shift from a regional to a blue-water navy.

3. South China Sea: High-Stakes Naval Presence

The South China Sea remains a flashpoint, with escalating naval drills between the U.S., China, and ASEAN countries. 2025 has already seen increased freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs), with multi-national joint patrols signaling solidarity against expansionist maritime claims.

4. NATO’s Naval Strategy Reinvented

In response to rising Arctic militarization and Russian naval activities, NATO has updated its maritime doctrine. Greater investment in cold-water capabilities, cyber-defense integration, and hybrid-warfare readiness are key features of its 2025 strategy.

5. Green Navies: Sustainability at Sea

In an unprecedented shift, several navies—including those of Norway, the UK, and Australia—are adopting green propulsion systems, biofuels, and emission-reduction targets. The concept of "Sustainable Sea Power" is becoming not just a goal but a global mandate.

6. Cybersecurity & AI Warfare at Sea

Naval warfare now transcends the physical realm. 2025 has brought forward AI-driven threat detection systems, real-time cyber defense protocols, and quantum encryption, with navies investing heavily to shield their fleets from digital sabotage.

7. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) Expands

The United States has significantly ramped up the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, ensuring more carrier strike group deployments and logistics hubs across the Indo-Pacific. This counters China's growing influence and reassures allies like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.

8. Submarine Warfare Reimagined

With next-generation stealth submarines like the U.S. Columbia-class and the UK’s Dreadnought-class entering trials, undersea dominance remains a strategic priority. Enhanced sonar stealth, lithium battery systems, and long-range nuclear deterrence are redefining submarine doctrine.

9. Women in Navy Leadership

2025 is a landmark year for gender diversity in naval leadership. Multiple navies, including Canada, the U.S., and the UK, now have women commanding major vessels, fleet commands, and even submarine crews. Policy reforms and inclusive recruitment have made navies more reflective of modern society.

10. Joint Naval Exercises and Strategic Alliances

Mega exercises like RIMPAC 2025, Malabar, and AMPHEX are more than shows of force—they’re proof of shared values, interoperability, and collective defense. India, Australia, the U.S., and Japan continue to lead these multilateral drills to enhance regional security.

TheVeza’s Verdict:

The navy current affairs 2025 showcase how modern naval forces are embracing innovation, sustainability, and multilateralism. From AI algorithms detecting threats before they materialize to submarines operating silently in contested waters, the naval domain is evolving rapidly.

Naval powers can no longer afford to act in silos. The interconnectedness of global trade routes, cybersecurity, climate challenges, and regional instabilities demand agile, transparent, and cooperative maritime strategies. As TheVeza continues to track these waters, one thing is clear: the future of global power projection lies not just in firepower—but in foresight.

0 notes

shipziplogistics · 3 months ago

Text

Must-Have Important Challenges Facing in Today’s Logistics Industry

Introduction

In the age of digital transformation, global e-commerce, and rising consumer expectations, the logistics industry has become the backbone of the modern economy. From moving raw materials to delivering final products to the consumer’s doorstep, logistics companies are under more pressure than ever to perform with precision, speed, and adaptability. Yet, with opportunity comes challenge.

The logistics industry today faces a complex web of hurdles—ranging from technological integration, cost optimization, sustainability concerns, to managing unpredictable global events. These challenges not only test the operational resilience of logistics providers but also push them to innovate and evolve constantly.

1. Rising Customer Expectations

Customers now expect same-day or next-day deliveries, real-time tracking, and zero delays—thanks to giants like Amazon setting new benchmarks. In a world where convenience is king, logistics companies must manage fast deliveries without compromising on cost or service quality.

Key issues:

Increased pressure on delivery timeline.

Need for real-time updates and transparency

Rising return rates in e-commerce

What’s being done: Advanced tracking tools, AI-driven route optimization, and demand forecasting have become critical parts of modern logistics solutions to meet customer expectations and maintain loyalty.

2. Last-Mile Delivery Complexities

Last-mile delivery refers to the final step of the delivery process, often the most time-consuming and expensive part of the supply chain. Urban congestion, lack of address standardization, and customer availability issues all complicate this crucial stage.

Challenges include:

High operational cost per delivery

Difficulty in reaching remote or crowded urban areas

Environmental impact from vehicle emissions

Emerging solutions:

Micro-fulfillment centers and local hubs

Electric delivery vehicles and drones

Crowdsourced delivery models

Companies investing in best logistics solutions often focus heavily on last-mile efficiency to drive both customer satisfaction and profitability.

3. Labor Shortages and Workforce Management

The logistics industry is heavily dependent on human resources—from warehouse workers to drivers. However, labor shortages are a persistent issue worldwide, particularly in trucking and warehousing.

Core issues:

Aging workforce in the trucking industry

Low retention rates due to job fatigue

Lack of skilled labor for operating high-tech systems

How companies are coping:

Investing in automation and robotics for warehousing.

Implementing driver well-being programs.

Offering training and upskilling as part of comprehensive logistics solutions.

4. Supply Chain Disruptions

Global supply chains are more interconnected than ever, making them more vulnerable to disruption. Events like the COVID-19 pandemic, the Suez Canal blockage, or geopolitical conflicts (such as the Russia-Ukraine war) can cripple operations across entire continents.

Critical pain points:

Inability to source raw materials on time

Port congestions and backlogs

Dependency on single-country manufacturing (e.g., China)

Adaptive strategies:

Building resilient, multi-sourced supply chains

Adopting predictive analytics to anticipate disruptions

Investing in digital twin technology to simulate different scenarios

When looking for the best logistics solutions, resilience and adaptability are two key pillars businesses now prioritize.

5. Technological Integration and Digitization

Technology is no longer a luxury in logistics—it’s a necessity. But integrating cutting-edge technology into traditional systems can be a daunting task, especially for legacy logistics providers.

Major challenges include:

Fragmented data across supply chain partners

High cost and complexity of implementation

Cybersecurity threats

Trends in logistics technology:

Internet of Things (IoT) for smart warehousing

Blockchain for secure and transparent transactions

AI and machine learning for forecasting and optimization

Providers offering comprehensive logistics solutions increasingly bundle these technologies into scalable packages to help companies stay competitive.

6. Environmental Sustainability and Regulations

Logistics is one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions. Governments and consumers alike are demanding greener supply chains, pushing companies to adopt sustainable practices without compromising efficiency.

Current sustainability challenges:

Carbon emissions from transportation

Packaging waste from e-commerce

Compliance with carbon tax and sustainability regulations

Eco-friendly solutions:

Transitioning to electric or hydrogen-powered fleets

Using biodegradable or reusable packaging

Implementing carbon offsetting programs

The best logistics solutions in the industry are now those that combine efficiency with environmental responsibility.

7. High Operational Costs

From fuel prices to warehousing rents, logistics companies are constantly battling rising operational costs. Fluctuations in international trade, tariffs, and inflation only worsen the situation.

Cost-related hurdles:

Rising fuel and energy prices

Increasing labor and insurance costs

Maintaining vehicle fleets and infrastructure

Smart cost-reduction techniques:

Route optimization using AI

Shared warehousing and transportation

Leveraging economies of scale through 3PL partnerships

Advanced logistics solutions are helping companies automate processes and reduce redundancies to keep costs under control.

8. Data Management and Visibility

Having data is no longer the issue—it’s about using it effectively. With hundreds of data points generated every second across transportation, warehousing, and customer interfaces, managing and making sense of this data is a huge challenge.

Why this matters:

Poor data can lead to bad decisions

Lack of end-to-end visibility reduces efficiency

Data silos prevent collaboration between departments

How companies are improving:

Real-time dashboards for end-to-end visibility

Cloud-based platforms to centralize operations

Predictive analytics to guide decision-making

9. Global Trade Compliance and Customs

With international shipping comes the burden of navigating complex customs regulations, trade agreements, and cross-border duties. One mistake in paperwork can cause massive delays and financial penalties.

Challenges in compliance:

Ever-changing import/export regulations

Non-standardized documentation across countries

High risk of audits and inspections

Recommended practices:

Automating compliance checks through specialized software

Hiring in-house trade compliance experts

Partnering with logistics companies that specialize in international trade

Choosing the right logistics solutions with built-in compliance protocols can prevent costly errors and speed up global trade processes.

10. Cybersecurity Risks

As logistics operations become more digitized, the risk of cyberattacks increases significantly. From ransomware to data breaches, logistics firms are attractive targets due to the sensitive nature of their data and their reliance on continuous operations.

Key risks:

Ransomware halting entire systems

Theft of sensitive customer and shipment data

Attacks on third-party systems

Preventive measures:

Implementing multi-layered cybersecurity frameworks

Regular security audits and penetration testing

Employee training on data hygiene and phishing awareness

Cybersecurity is no longer an IT issue—it's a core component of the best logistics solutions being adopted worldwide.

11. Scalability and Flexibility

As businesses grow and market dynamics shift, logistics operations must be able to scale up (or down) quickly. Many companies struggle to adjust capacity without compromising service quality.

Challenges include:

Limited infrastructure to support seasonal peaks

Difficulty scaling tech and manpower on short notice

Balancing fixed and variable costs

Scalability tips:

Use of cloud platforms for digital scalability

On-demand warehousing and transportation models

Working with 3PL and 4PL providers for flexible logistics support

The best logistics solutions are now built to be modular, allowing companies to scale operations efficiently and cost-effectively.

12. Inventory Management Issues

Poor inventory management can lead to stockouts, overstocking, or wastage—all of which directly impact customer experience and profitability. With globalization, managing inventory across multiple regions adds more complexity.

Inventory challenges:

Lack of real-time inventory visibility

Overstocking due to inaccurate forecasting

Inability to adapt to demand fluctuations

Effective inventory strategies:

Just-In-Time (JIT) inventory systems

Use of AI for real-time demand forecasting

RFID and IoT-based inventory tracking

Reliable inventory management systems are a key feature of many logistics solutions today, especially in retail and e-commerce industries.

Conclusion

The logistics industry is navigating through a period of significant transformation, driven by digital innovation, consumer expectations, and global uncertainty. While these must-have important challenges are daunting, they are also opportunities in disguise. Companies that confront these challenges head-on with the right strategies, technology, and partners will not only survive—but thrive.

Embracing modern logistics solutions is no longer optional—it’s essential. From real-time visibility and predictive analytics to green transportation and automated warehousing, the industry is teeming with innovation. Those seeking the best logistics solutions must prioritize flexibility, sustainability, cost-efficiency, and resilience in their operations.

#logistics solutions #best logistics solutions

0 notes