Latest news with #BelferCenter
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
India's new warfare: Drones, data, and the defence race that can't wait
Warfare isn't what it used to be. The enemy might not come with boots and rifles, but with buzzing drone swarms, silent cyberattacks, and AI algorithms calculating their every move. For India, this future is already here. The recent exchange of drone fire between India and Pakistan in May 2025—the most serious clash in decades—marked the beginning of a new era. Both sides unleashed loitering munitions and kamikaze drones . For the first time in South Asia, unmanned aerial vehicles ( UAVs ) became one of the central instruments of conflict. It was a live demonstration of what future conflict looks like. Thousands of UAVs filled the skies. Some watched. Some struck. Others confused enemy sensors or jammed communications. It was the subcontinent's first true drone war—and perhaps the start of a new era. Swarms over Sindoor: When the future arrived early India's 'Operation Sindoor' launched with precision missile strikes on nine terror camps across the Line of Control . But it was the drones that stole the headlines. Loitering munitions like the IAI Harop and kamikaze UAVs from Indian and Israeli origin swarmed across targets. In response, Pakistan retaliated with Turkish Bayraktar TB2s and Chinese Wing Loong IIs. Each side deployed over 1,000 drones. Not just to attack, but to observe, disrupt, and deceive. 'This marks a significant shift in the character of South Asian warfare,' said Rabia Akhtar, visiting fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center in a report by Foreign Policy. 'Drones weren't just tools of surveillance. They were instruments of strategic messaging—fast, low-risk, and deadly.' Live Events For the Indian Army , the learning curve was sharp. 'Managing the airspace with so many flying objects, jammers on both sides, and other users of airspace will be a huge challenge,' admitted a senior officer in a Deccan Herald report. More than eyes in the sky 'Drones now are not just about surveillance,' said Agnishwar Jayaprakash, founder of Garuda Aerospace . 'They need to carry payloads, drop bombs, and execute kamikaze missions. That requires integration between drone intelligence and explosive intelligence.' Garuda is among a growing list of Indian companies stepping up. The firm, which aims to reach 75% indigenous content in its drones within three years, collaborates with HAL and BEML. They're building UAVs that don't just watch—they think, strike, and survive. Another major player, ideaForge, underlined what's really needed now: consistency. 'Operation Sindoor has rightly placed India's defence-tech startups in the spotlight,' said Ankit Mehta, CEO of ideaForge. 'However, what the sector urgently needs is a clear and consistent procurement pipeline from the government.' He told ET, 'Defence innovation cannot succeed in isolation. It requires clear public-private collaboration and transparency in buying cycles. Above all, the sector's key expectation is consistent demand, ensuring the capabilities we develop are fully utilised when national security needs them most.' Brains behind the bots: AI and autonomy It's not just about flying machines—it's about smart ones. Garuda's systems now use AI and machine learning (ML) for everything from autonomous flight to target recognition and predictive fleet analytics. 'AI and ML are at the core of our drone technology,' the company states, noting over 10 lakh flight hours across its fleets. Yet, the challenges are real. A senior defence company senior official warned: 'Nobody is going to give us the latest AI or drone technology. We have to develop it ourselves, customised to our terrain, our needs, and our systems.' India's strategy runs on two AI tracks—civilian and defence. But while the software side has matured, the hardware story is bleak. 'We're still dependent on imports for edge-AI processors and high-performance computing chips,' the expert added. Without homegrown AI hardware, software superiority won't be enough. The invisible war: Cyber and electronic frontlines Cyber-electronic warfare doesn't make headlines—but it can end wars before they begin. From GPS spoofing to malware that freezes command centres, the dangers are growing. 'A cyberattack is like putting a pin in your brain,' the defence company senior official said. 'Your body—your assets—remain intact, but you're paralysed.' India's communication systems, increasingly digitised and centralised, make this a critical vulnerability. The consensus is clear: India needs a dedicated Cyber Command , built like those of the US or Israel. One that can detect, defend, and—when needed—disrupt. Not just Make in India, but Create in India. India's defence posture is shifting from manpower-heavy to tech-intensive. But this transition can't succeed with assembly lines alone. It requires invention. 'Make in India is not enough,' the defence company senior official said. 'We need to 'Create in India'. Designing, developing, and producing end-to-end solutions domestically is the only way forward.' This means accepting risk. Tolerating failure. Funding early-stage ideas without expecting instant ROI. India's defence R&D ecosystem—from DRDO and CDAC to private firms and academia—must align under one goal: self-reliant innovation. Cost, capability and the counter-drone race India isn't just building drones—it's building ways to stop them. During Operation Sindoor , Bharat Electronics Limited's revamped L-70 anti-air guns played a starring role. So did electromagnetic jammers and homegrown detection systems. "You can't shoot down a ₹20 lakh drone with a ₹5 crore missile,' the expert said. 'That's not sustainable.' DRDO has licensed six Indian companies to mass-produce counter-drone systems. And it's not stopping at the skies. Underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs) are next, along with radars that can detect swarm attacks without triggering friendly fire. Upward trajectory: The Space race By the time a hypersonic missile is detected, it might already be too late. That's why India is looking skyward. Space-based early warning systems—constellations of satellites using synthetic aperture radar (SAR)—will become the new first responders. A recent ISRO launch failed to deploy one such payload. Still, optimism persists. 'The setbacks are technical, not strategic,' the official said. 'We will overcome them.' In fact, Garuda Aerospace sees crossover potential, 'Our strong R&D in drone autonomy can also feed into future space-based autonomous systems.' Collaboration: The four pillars The senior defence company senior official envisions a four-pillar model: Academia, Startups, R&D Institutions, and Industry. Together, they must build both the ideas and the tools India needs. But many startups face a familiar frustration. 'You involve us in development, we invest time and money thinking production will follow—and then nothing comes,' the expert noted. 'That's demoralising.' Consistency and continuity in defence orders could change that. Export or perish India's defence budget is vast—yet most of it funds salaries and pensions. Little goes toward future tech. 'If the government can't buy everything, it must help us sell,' the expert argued. Countries like Armenia and Morocco have already begun ordering Indian systems. But exports require more than product—they need deals, diplomacy, and government-backed financing. 'Look at South Korea,' he said. 'They started with nothing and are now exporting advanced systems. We must do the same.' The war before the war Drones, cyber tools, and AI aren't just weapons. They're deterrents. And diplomats. Used well, they allow targeted responses without escalation. Used poorly, they could provoke catastrophe—especially in a nuclear-armed neighbourhood. As drone warfare expert James Patton Rogers noted, Drones allow militaries 'to limit strikes to military targets, test defences, and provide a lower escalation response.' But that flexibility comes with temptation. If war is easier to start, will it be harder to stop? India's answer must be bold, strategic—and unshakably local. The new war has already begun. And this time, it won't wait.
Arab Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Trump urges India and Pakistan to resolve conflict, offers mediation
NEW DELHI, India, May 8: The Trump administration is actively working to prevent missile exchanges between India and Pakistan from evolving into a nuclear crisis, marking the first major international conflict since the US president's inauguration. President Donald Trump expressed hope that the hostilities would cease, saying, 'If I can do anything to help, I will be there. I get along with both, I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out.' The crisis erupted following Indian airstrikes on what New Delhi described as 'terrorist infrastructure' in Pakistan. In response, Islamabad claimed it shot down Indian aircraft and vowed to retaliate. The violence has left 31 dead and 57 injured in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, according to its military, while Indian officials reported 13 civilian deaths and 59 injuries from Pakistani shelling along the Line of Control. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been in touch with leaders from both nations and also spoke with Saudi Arabia's foreign minister to discuss diplomatic solutions. Despite the U.S.'s historical role in de-escalating South Asian conflicts, analysts warn that current American focus on Ukraine and Gaza might hinder its capacity to respond effectively to this crisis. Experts have criticized Washington's mixed signals. Although the U.S. condemned the April 22 terror attack in Kashmir that killed 26 and triggered India's response, its subsequent call for both sides to de-escalate was poorly received in New Delhi. Tanvi Madan, a South Asia specialist at the Brookings Institution, noted that such calls are perceived in India as pressuring restraint on the victim of the attack—an approach the U.S. would not adopt in cases involving allies like Israel. India, however, emphasized a separate message from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who reaffirmed America's support for India's anti-terrorism stance and its right to defend itself during a May 1 conversation with Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. This was interpreted as tacit approval for India's military actions. Three days later, Trump downplayed the crisis, stating the two nations would 'get it figured out,' acknowledging their long-standing tensions. Moeed Yusuf, senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center and Pakistan's former national security adviser, described the U.S. response as more disengaged than in past conflicts. He said the U.S. has historically led successful diplomatic efforts involving even China and Russia, but no such cohesive effort appears to be underway now. This conflict unfolds as the U.S. is strengthening ties with both South Asian nations. The U.S. and India are advancing a strategic, defense, and technology partnership to counterbalance China, while negotiating a trade deal to avoid Trump's proposed 26% tariff on Indian exports. Following its strikes, India's national security adviser, Ajit Doval briefed U.S. and regional counterparts including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Japan. Pakistan, once a key U.S. defense partner, has seen its role diminished since the fall of the Western-backed Afghan government in 2021. Still, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb welcomed potential U.S. or allied mediation, calling America a vital strategic partner. Tensions intensified as Pakistan claimed it shot down 12 Indian Harop drones, a type of loitering munition made by Israel Aerospace Industries, which it said caused casualties and damage from Rawalpindi to Karachi. One drone reportedly wounded four soldiers near Lahore and killed a civilian in Sindh province. Pakistan's military remains on high alert. The president of the UN General Assembly, Philemon Yang, urged restraint and emphasized resolving the issue through diplomacy. A UN delegation visited Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where Pakistan alleged Indian missiles struck a mosque—claims India denied, stating no civilian or religious targets were hit. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed gratitude to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his support and reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty. Turkey, a close ally, condemned India's strikes as provocative and warned they heightened the risk of full-scale war. Ankara also backed Pakistan's call for an independent investigation into the April 22 attack in Indian-administered Kashmir—an incident India attributes to Pakistan, which denies involvement.
Malay Mail
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Aerial showdown over South Asia: India, Pakistan, and the global arms race — Phar Kim Beng
MAY 8 — South Asia has once again become the epicenter of global attention. In what experts are calling the most intense air-to-air combat between two nuclear powers in the modern era, India and Pakistan have engaged in a high-stakes military exchange that not only tests national resolve but also showcases a global arms race playing out in real time. According to Dr. Rabia Akhtar, Visiting Scholar at the Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School, the encounter saw 27 Pakistani fighters—including the Chinese-made JF-17 Thunders, US-made F-16s, and Chinese J-10Cs—squaring off against 70 Indian aircraft, including France's Rafales, Russia's MiG-29s and Su-30MKIs. Both sides employed airborne early warning systems (AWACS) to provide real-time targeting data, while long-range air-to-air missiles such as the Chinese PL-15 and European Meteor were deployed. This was the first full-scale jet-age dogfight between nuclear powers in a compact battlespace, where the margin for error was dangerously thin. This handout satellite image courtesy of Maxar Technologies taken on May 7, 2025 shows Markaz Taiba after an Indian strike in Muridke, Pakistan. — AFP pic Reports indicate that five Indian aircraft were downed, while India conducted pre-emptive strikes on nine locations allegedly linked to extremist groups supported by Islamabad. The conflict has now escalated beyond a single engagement: Pakistan's National Security Committee has invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, granting its armed forces the right to respond in self-defense. What we are witnessing is more than a bilateral clash—it is also a covert trial of military-industrial complexes. China's JF-17, America's F-16, France's Rafale, and Russia's MiG-29s and Su-30s are all under the global spotlight. Performance in combat will likely influence future arms sales, alliance dynamics, and strategic trust in these weapon systems. Beijing, Washington, Moscow, and Paris are all watching closely. The skies over South Asia are now a proxy arena for global defense markets. A failure of any system could jeopardize billions in defense contracts; a triumph could lock in strategic influence for years to come. More alarmingly, if this conflict spirals out of control in the absence of third-party mediation, the world could witness a nuclear flashpoint with devastating humanitarian and ecological consequences. As Chair of ASEAN, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has called for restraint and mediation through international or regional mechanisms, including the United Nations. Waiting to see who blinks first in a nuclear standoff is a gamble humanity cannot afford. This is not just a South Asian crisis. It is a critical test of global diplomacy, deterrence, and the limits of escalation in the nuclear age. • This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
CNBC
25-04-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Nicholas Burns on U.S.-China trade tensions: Neither economy can sustain a trade war like this
Nicholas Burns, Harvard's Belfer Center professor and former U.S. Ambassador to China, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the state of U.S.-China trade tensions, what the best outcome for both countries is, whether a 50% tariff is sustainable for both economies, how much leverage both sides have in trade negotiations, and more.
New York Times
07-03-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Wants Europe to Defend Itself. Here's What It Would Take.
President Trump has never had much love for the NATO alliance, which he thinks is overdependent on American largess, and in his first term, talked about abandoning the collective defense pact. In his second term, Mr. Trump and his senior officials have made it clear that the security of Europe is no longer the first priority of the United States, which wants to concentrate resources on its own border and the Indo-Pacific, where China has become a peer rival. On Thursday, Mr. Trump suggested that the United States might not protect NATO members that he believed were not paying enough for their own defense, calling it 'common sense.' But what would Europeans need to do to replace the enormous American contribution to NATO? The answer comes down to money, personnel, time and cooperation with Washington, said Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to NATO and a coauthor of a recent report from Harvard's Belfer Center on how to create 'a strong European pillar' in the alliance. The central problem is that NATO was built as an American-dominated alliance, intentionally dependent on American leadership, sophisticated weaponry, intelligence and airlift. The current NATO command structure is essentially owned and operated by the United States, led by Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli. 'The United States is the linchpin of the alliance so we could control our allies and get them to do what we want,' Mr. Daalder said. More practically, the United States military is the skeleton of NATO, and 'if you suddenly pull out the skeleton, the body dies.' Money Relative to other challenges, money is the easiest part of the European quandary. The question, as ever, is political will and commitment to spending larger sums — and the trade-offs and political costs it will entail. Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland put it simply last week, saying: '500 million Europeans ask 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.' What Europe lacks, he said, is 'the belief that we are truly a global force.' Friedrich Merz, who is on course to be the next chancellor of Germany, offered a bold response this week to the new pressures on Europe, proposing to spend nearly 1 trillion euros, or $1.07 trillion, on the military and infrastructure over the next 10 years. Britain, Belgium, Poland and Denmark have also recently said they would spend more. On Thursday, E.U. leaders agreed to boost military spending outside normal debt limits. But overall, European nations remain far shy of the spending that experts say they will need to replace the American commitment. Those estimates vary, but could mean a hike of €250 billion a year, or about 1.5 percent of the European Union's gross domestic product, according to a study from two research institutions, Bruegel and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The study recommends that European nations spend at least 3.5 percent of G.D.P. per year on the military; currently just five of 32 NATO members, including the United States, spend above 3 percent. The Europeans possess a lot, but also need a lot more sophisticated weaponry, now largely provided by the United States. The biggest gaps are in integrated air and missile defense and long-range precision strike capability, said Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. Europe also lacks 'strategic enablers,' including transport aircraft, sophisticated drones and satellites — crucial systems for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It has the capacity to produce more of its own weapons, he said. But that would require better coordination among nations to invest in the right industries and purchase jointly. Ideally, Europe should have sufficient stocks of ammunition and missiles to fight a high-intensity war for at least six months, but those are badly depleted from the war in Ukraine. A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies found that even fundamentals like the number of combat battalions and in-service battle tanks have remained static or fallen since 2014, despite Russia's annexation of Crimea. Political will matters here, too — to overcome bureaucratic constraints and requirements on manufacturers. The European Investment Bank is prohibited from providing loans to make weapons, though the European Union is rethinking the rule. And German law requires that weapons makers have direct orders from the government before production can even start. That makes production for potential future sales impossible even if they have excess capacity now. Personnel Right now, there are only about 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe — a number that could fit into the University of Michigan's football stadium — said Mr. Hodges, who used to command them. Yet it seems almost impossible that the Europeans, even if they increase military spending, could quickly replace the bulk of them, let alone fight on their own for any extended period. Of the U.S. troops, 20,000 were sent to Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, to shore up NATO deterrence. Analysts expect the Trump administration to pull out those troops before too long. Another 40,000 of the U.S. troops, Mr. Hodges said, are in Europe on expensive rotations, which Mr. Trump is also likely to want to stop. There are multiple problems for Europe in replacing such numbers. Only a handful of European nations still have conscription forces. And attracting the right recruits is hard; pay scales and career prospects are better in the civilian world. Even once soldiers are trained, especially in high-tech warfare or 'back office' jobs like engineering or mechanics, it is hard to retain them. Recent suggestions that Europeans put troops into Ukraine to secure a potential peace deal would put extra strain on personnel, potentially for the long term. NATO is already pressing members to meet requirements for a new force model. Under that agreement, more than 300,000 troops would need to be available within 30 days to reinforce the alliance's eastern flank against Russia in the event of a crisis. For now, there are simply not enough soldiers, logistics specialists and intelligence officers to go around. 'European armies are too small to handle even the arms that they've got now,' said Jim Townsend, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now at the Center for a New American Security. 'The British and the Danes, to pick two examples, are good militaries, but they would not be able to sustain intense combat for more than a couple of weeks,' he said. 'It doesn't matter how good you are if there aren't enough of you.' Time The scale of what the Americans now handle for NATO is too big to replace quickly. To buy or produce the necessary equipment and recruit and train the necessary troops will simply take time. In normal times, it would take a decade for Europe to catch up, said Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary general, who wrote a detailed report about the problem for the European Council on Foreign Relations last year. Today's accelerated sense of urgency might help the Europeans do it a little sooner. But critics argue that Europe has waited far too long to respond to clear signaling from Mr. Trump's first presidency, let alone to his Russia-friendly comments during the campaign. American officials from both parties have been urging European allies to do more for their own defense for 50 years, and President Emmanuel Macron of France's warnings in 2019 about fading American commitment to NATO were heard but largely unheeded. The Europeans are finally trying to address the money problem. But they cannot magically reduce the time needed to make a transition from American domination of NATO in a way that would not damage their security sufficiently to tempt Russia to test the alliance. Most importantly, it would require that the United States aid the transition and synchronize its withdrawals with the European buildup. Cooperation To move from a U.S.-dominated conventional defense of Europe to a European one could be very dangerous without American cooperation. A sudden American withdrawal would be tremendously tempting for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who wants to undermine NATO. The United States must be willing to wait to withdraw key capabilities until Europeans are ready to take them over, Mr. Daalder said. Even in Ukraine, with its 900,000 soldiers helping to pin down the Russian army, a European commitment of even 30,000 to 40,000 peacekeeping troops could undercut NATO's ability to deter Russia from testing the alliance in the Baltics, for example. That has led some experts to suggest that a European force in Ukraine should be a NATO force, without U.S. troops on the ground, something Mr. Trump has in any case ruled out. But a NATO force, at least, could use existing NATO assets, like surveillance planes and intelligence capabilities, within the NATO command structure. Others, like Max Bergmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, think it's time to revisit the concept of a European army, which had long been opposed by the United States. A unified army, he suggests, would go a long way to ending duplication and making spending more efficient. But who would command such an army, and under what political authority, are difficult questions to answer. A standing European army, he argues, need not replace the United States in each capacity but could be integrated into NATO and be robust enough to do its main job: to deter Russia from invading member states. After all, he notes, 'Europe on paper has nearly 2 million personnel in uniform and spends roughly $338 billion per year on defense, more than enough to deter Russia and enough to make Europe collectively a military power.'
