We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
FILE PHOTO - A Philippine flag flutters from BRP Sierra Madre, a dilapidated Philippine Navy ship that has been aground since 1999 and became a Philippine military detachment on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, part of the Spratly Islands, in the South China Sea March 29, 2014.
Can the US and Philippines get Beijing to back off?
On Monday, 3,500 US and Filipino troops began what could become their largest-ever annual training exercises on the Philippine island of Luzon. This came a day after major multilateral naval drills in the South China Sea and just ahead of a trilateral US-Philippines-Japan summit in Washington on Thursday.
The message to China? Take the US-Philippines alliance seriously.
How we got here: China’s beef with the Philippines is over control of the South China Sea, which Beijing sees as its territory. Manila deliberately beached a ship on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in 1999 and has based a small contingent of Marines in the hulk ever since.
But that shell is falling apart, and when Manila tried to send reconstruction supplies last month, Chinese Coast Guard ships blasted the supply vessel with water cannons, immobilizing it and injuring several aboard.
“China is going up to 9 out of 10 of what it can do short of an armed attack on a public vessel, which would likely trigger the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty obligations,” says Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group.
Could it lead to war? Washington hopes displays of allied strength and unity will keep Beijing from crossing the line, but Beijing is equally determined to assert what it sees as sovereign rights.
“This is one of China’s absolute red lines,” says Chan. “The South China Sea is one of their core interests and part of party doctrine, just like Taiwan.”
Thursday’s trilateral will focus on joint efforts to deter China and will likely include announcements of upgraded US-Japan security ties.
Why Sweden and Finland joined NATO
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Hanoi, Vietnam.
Was the Swedish and Finnish decision to move into NATO, was that driven by fear of Russia attacking them?
Not really. I don't think either of our countries feel any immediate threat by Russian aggression. But what happened when Russia, Mr. Putin, to be precisely, attacked Ukraine was a fundamental upsetting of the entire European security order. And although Mr. Putin's priority at the moment, he’s very clear on that, is to get rid of Ukraine by invading and occupying all of it, you never know where he's going to stop. And this led Finland and Sweden to do the fundamental reassessment of their security policies. Giving up, in Swedish case, we've been outside of military alliances for the last 200 years or something like that.
So it was not a minor step. And that step has now been taken. Finland completed its ratification, has been a member for a couple of months. Sweden has now formally become a member after some hiccups with the ratification process. It's a major change for our two countries need to say. It is a significant strengthening of NATO. It is a significant strengthening of the security in northern Europe and I think also will facilitate a better coordination between the military alliance of NATO and the security alliance of the EU to the obvious advantage of security of Europe and the security of the West.
It's a good day.
US approves F-16s for Turkey, moving Sweden NATO membership closer
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm.
How are things proceeding with the ratification of the Swedish membership in NATO?
Well, it’s been some back and forth. But now Turkey has ratified and that is important. That has to do with also the agreement with the US on deliveries of F-16s and modification kits of F-16s and deliveries of F-35s to Greece. A major package has been negotiated, so that should be okay. Now, remaining with Hungary. Prime Minister Orban is a slightly unpredictable fellow, but I would guess that he can't hold off for very long. So I would hope, expect this process to be wrapped up within a couple of weeks.
What about British generals and others warning for the danger of a major war in Europe?
There have been a couple of such voices. I don’t think they signify anything that is imminent in terms of dangers, but they signify a concern. What might happen if the war between Russia, the aggression, if that continues? If we don't have sufficient support for Ukraine, if Ukraine doesn't succeed, then that could well be the beginning of a much more major war and a much more severe security challenge for all of Europe. So I think what you hear, from different generals, should be seen in that rather serious light.
Off to war again?
No matter how cold it is in your community, it is even colder in the deep winter of discontent that has hit the 2024 political world … aka Mordor.
The year ahead presents two kinds of challenges to the US and Canada: external ones from growing conflicts and internal ones, from US isolationism and what I call “Canadian insulationism.” At the moment, it’s a toss-up which ones are more dangerous.
Let’s look at the external challenges, including the raging conflicts in Israel-Gaza, the Red Sea, and Ukraine – all of which look to worsen in 2024.
Here at Eurasia Group, one of our Top Risks of 2024 is a Partitioned Ukraine — with Russia essentially ending up with about 18% of Ukraine, something once unimaginable. But is that the end? After two years and hundreds of thousands of casualties, will 18% of Ukraine satisfy Putin’s expansionist appetite, or simply whet it for more? The second option is more likely.
Putin has converted his country into a war economy, with over 6% of his GDP going to military spending, and, despite sanctions, there is enough growth there to fuel concern about inflation.
As he sees critical US military support for Ukraine fade and a potential Trump administration on the horizon, Putin is ready to ramp up his aggression. I was at a meeting with a group of ambassadors to the UN yesterday, and many expressed a strong view that Ukraine is still just the start of Russian aggression, not the end. So it is no surprise that next week NATO will start its largest military exercise in over 20 years, with more than 90,000 troops taking part in Steadfast Defender.
This means they are getting ready for a widening war, and that is sobering.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East and North Africa, the Israel-Hamas war churns on, and efforts to contain it are looking increasingly futile. Hamas has not been sufficiently degraded to give up fighting, it still holds hostages, and it has gained wide support around the world, something the once-isolated terrorist group never enjoyed. One of the group’s greatest victories has been the “Hamasification” of the entire Palestinian cause, meaning their radical, annihilationist cause, once a marginal part of the diplomatic conversation, is now THE cause, overtaking the voice of the Palestinian Authority. And because they remain a terror group whose goal is to eradicate Israel, it makes any two-state solution or prospects of a new governance partner in Gaza extremely thorny.
Meanwhile, Israel under the extremist and embattled leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, is gearing up for a much longer battle in Gaza — and the West Bank. He also does not want a two-state solution and never really has. Just today, in shocking remarks, Netanyahu said he does not want a Palestinian state and then said, “in the future the state of Israel has to control the from the river to the sea.” That was a provocative appropriation of a Palestinian rally cry that many Israelis regard as a call for genocide. The radical cycle is now in full spin.
Meantime, after 100 days of brutal bombings that have stunned even Israel’s closest allies, there is no real end in sight. The sophisticated tunnel systems that are discovered daily reveal the resilience of the Hamas military operation, and it is yet another aspect of the situation Bibi badly underestimated and miscalculated.
With the current Israeli and Hamas leadership, there is very little hope for anything but more war.
While most post-Oct. 7 efforts of containment centered on Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, a surprise player emerged: the Houthis. The Shiite militant group in Yemen, which fought a decade-long war against Sunni Saudi-backed forces, is launching ballistic missiles into the Red Sea near the critical Bab el-Mandeb Strait, aka Gate of Tears, which is living up to its name.
The Strait and the Suez Canal account for about 12% of total global trade, so naturally the US and a coalition of 20 countries steamed into the area to protect this critical supply line. This has a long precedent. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent the US Navy to fight the so-called Barbary Pirates in North Africa to protect US shipping. Today, the corsairs are Iranian-supplied ballistic missiles, but not much else has changed.
In any case, it has done no good. The Houthis flipped the Ballistic Bird at the US and launched over 30 missile attacks, driving much of the shipping business out of the Red Sea and having an immediate impact on the global economy.
The US and the UK, with the support of countries like Canada, counterattacked with a series of intensive bombing missions targeting Houthi military installations, and once again … nothing changed. This is the Houthi Trap. Red Sea shipping is a Red Line for the global economy, so as long as the Houthi attacks continue and shipping insurance rates go up, the US and its allies will have to respond. Maritime choke points like the Bab el-Mandep, the Strait of Hormuz, the Straits of Malacca, or the Panama Canal (which is too dry right now for some ships to use) – are the Achilles heels of the global economy. When any one of them is under threat, it means one thing: expanded conflict.
The internal threats in the US and Canada, however, make dealing with the external ones significantly harder. The US Republican Party is in the grip of a deep isolationism. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told President Joe Biden yesterday that there will be no deal for tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine unless he cracks down on the US border. Johnson’s job is on the line, and he knows that if he approves aid to Ukraine, far-right members of his party will make a motion to vacate and dump him, just as they did with the last speaker. And with Donald Trump in full ascension as the likely Republican nominee, US aid to Ukraine is likely coming to an end. America First means America Gone in many parts of the world, and that’s not a good sign when there are expanding wars everywhere.
Canada doesn’t have an isolationist problem. It has a long history of global involvement and is committed to multilateral originations. The problem it suffers from is an insulationist strain. It simply won’t put its money where its multilaterals are.
For example, Canada spends about 1.3% of its GDP on defense – a far cry from the 2% NATO guideline – and there has been deep concern about another CA$1 billion cut from the force this year.
Proximity to the US and being protected by three oceans have given Canadians a sense of insulation from a dangerous world, so there is no political urgency to keep up national defense. You might not buy home insurance if you don’t think your home will ever collapse, but it doesn’t work that way.
As the 2024 world tips toward widening wars, the isolationism of the US and the insulationism of Canada will make things much worse.
As my Dad used to say, the cheap man pays twice. Trying to save now by shirking responsibility in places like Ukraine and getting off easy on defense spending will only make the inevitable bill twice as expensive when it comes. And the security bill is coming.
Demonstrators gather for a 24-hour protest at "Hostages Square" calling for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza and to mark 100 days since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
Disturbing Hamas footage sharpens focus on hostages in Gaza
As the Israel-Hamas War entered its hundredth day, Hamas broadcast a chilling video on Sunday of three Israeli hostages held in Gaza. Noa Argamani, Yossi Sharabi, and Itai Svirsky are seen pleading for their release, followed by the chyron: “Tomorrow we will inform you of their fate.” On Monday, Hamas released a video of Sharabi and Svirsky dead, with Argamani shown saying they were killed by strikes from the Israeli military.
Israeli officials immediately labeled the broadcast as “psychological warfare.” While not responding directly, IDF spokesman Rear-Admiral Daniel Hagari acknowledged the risks to the hostages from Israel’s offensive operations and emphasized that they were being adapted “in accordance with the threats and the hostages who are in the field.”
Of the 240 people taken hostage by Hamas on Oct. 7, nearly half were released during a weeklong cease-fire in November. Israel says 132 remain captive in Gaza and that 25 of them have died.
The hostage crisis has fractured public opinion and complicated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the crisis. While polls show that most Israelis support his aim of eliminating Hamas, more than 300,000 took to the streets of Tel Aviv this weekend, demanding Netanyahu secure another release deal “at any cost.”
The issue is also dividing Israel’s War Cabinet. Minister Gadi Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff whose son was killed fighting in Gaza, warned his colleagues that “we have to stop lying to ourselves, to show courage, and to lead to a large deal that will bring home the hostages.” Eisenkot’s position was reportedly supported by National Unity party head Benny Gantz and Shas party leader MK Aryeh Deri.
Netanyahu’s position remains that Hamas’ destruction will enable the hostages’ release. In response to the video, Israeli forces intensified their operations in Gaza, where an estimated 24,000 Palestinians have been killed since October. The latest bombardment included airstrikes on Gaza City in the north and shelling of the city of Khan Younis in the south.
An AI-generated image of swarming drones.
Robots are coming to a battlefield near you
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing everything – from education, health care, and banking, to how we wage war. By simplifying military tasks, improving intelligence-gathering, and fine-tuning weapons accuracy — all of which could make wars less deadly – AI is redefining our concept of modern military might.
At its most basic level, militaries around the world are harnessing AI to train algorithms that can make their work faster and more effective. Today, it is used for image recognition, cyber warfare, strategic planning, logistics, bomb disposal, command and control, and more.
But there’s also plenty of debate over whether this could lead to killer robots and an apocalyptic endgame. Science fiction offers plenty of images of this – from Isaac Asimov’s rogue robots, the “Terminator” and Skynet, to Matthew Broderick racing to stop a supercomputer from unleashing nukes in “War Games.” Can we have less deadly wars without robots taking over the world?
Much of the concern about the future centers on lethal autonomous weapons, aka LAWs or killer robots, which are military tools that can target and engage in combat without human intervention. The weapons can be programmed to seek and destroy without a human steering them. LAWs could eventually become commonplace in war, and while critics have long campaigned to ban them and halt their development, militaries around the globe are exploring and testing this technology.
The US military, for example, is reportedly using an AI-powered quadcopter in operations, and early this year, the Air Force gave AI the controls of an F-16 for 17 hours.
During the first AUKUS AI and autonomy trial this spring, the UK tested a collaborative swarm of drones, which were able to detect and track military targets. And the US has reportedly developed a “pilotless” XQ-58A Valkyrie drone it hopes will “become a potent supplement to its fleet of traditional fighter jets, giving human pilots a swarm of highly capable robot wingmen to deploy in battle.” While the AI will help identify the targets, humans will still need to sign off before they shoot – at least for now.
Samuel Bresnick, a research fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, says the potential uses of AI permeate all aspects of the military. AI can help the military “sift through huge amounts of information and pick out patterns,” he says, and this is already happening across the military’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
AI can also be used for advanced image recognition to aid military targeting. “For example, if the US has millions of hours of drone footage from the wars in the Middle East,” he says, “[they] can use that as training data for AI algorithms.”
AI can also help militaries plan hypersonic or ballistic missile trajectories — China reportedly used AI to develop a defensive system to detect such missiles.
There are innumerable other uses too, such as advancing cyber-espionage efforts and simplifying command-and-control decision-making, but the way militaries use AI is already garnering pushback and concern. Just last week, a group of 200 people working in AI signed an open letter condemning Israel’s use of “AI-driven technologies for warmaking, in which the aim is to make the loss of human life more efficient.”
World leaders like US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are likewise concerned about the global adoption of AI-infused military tech, but that’s not slowing down their own efforts to gear up and gain a strategic advantage over one another.
•••
As the US ramps up its military capabilities, it is doing so as part of an AI arms race with China.
Last week, Biden and Xi met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco, where they talked about artificial intelligence (among other things). The two world leaders “agreed to a dialogue to keep the [AI] from being deployed in ways that could destabilize global security.”
As AI becomes increasingly intertwined with their countries’ military ambitions and capabilities, Biden and Xi appear interested in keeping one another in check but are not in any rush to sign agreements that would prevent themselves from gaining a technological advantage over the other. “Both of these militaries want desperately to develop these technologies because they think it’s going to be the next revolution in military affairs,” Bresnick said. “Neither one is going to want to tie their hands.”
Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and founder of Global Cyber Strategies, said he is concerned that AI could become the center of an arms race with no known endpoint.
“Thinking of it as a race …could potentially lead the US more toward an approach where AI systems are being built that really, as a democracy, it should not be building — or should be more cautious about building — but [they] are being built out of this fear that a foreign state might do what we do not,” Sherman said.
But with AI being a large suite of technologies, and one that’s evolving incredibly quickly, there’s no way to know where the race actually ends.
As AI plays an increasing role in the military destinies of both countries, Sherman says, there’s a risk of “the US and China constantly trying to one-up each other in the latest and greatest, and the most lethal technology just becomes more and more dangerous over time.”
How cyberattacks hurt people in war zones
They may not be bombs or tanks, but hacks and cyberattacks can still make life miserable for people caught in the crosshairs of conflicts. By targeting key infrastructure and humanitarian organizations, warring governments can deny crucial services to civilians on the other side of no-man's-land.
And just like with conventional weapons, there can be collateral damage, said Stéphane Duguin, CEO of the Cyber Peace Institute. "We have 53 countries in the world targeted by these attacks across 23 sectors of critical infrastructure or essential services," he said. "At the end of the day, you end up having civilians who cannot benefit from essential services because of what has been escalated into another part of the world."
The perpetrators are often not centrally directed either, and may be located all over the world, complicating enforcement efforts. Hear more about what he said about the problem to Eurasia Group Senior Analyst Ali Wyne in a panel discussion which capped “Caught in the Digital Crosshairs,” a video series on cybersecurity produced by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft and the CyberPeace Institute.
Watch the full panel discussion: The devastating impact of cyberattacks and how to protect against them
FILE PHOTO: Guyanese Military members line up before Britain's Prince Harry laughs arrives for an official visit of Georgetown, Guyana December 2, 2016.
Venezuela and Guyana border dispute
As if Europe’s colonial-era mapmakers haven’t already bequeathed us enough wars. Now the long-running border dispute between Venezuela and its eastern neighbor Guyana is heating up again.
Guyana says Venezuela is sending troops to the frontier, while Caracas says Venezuelan voters will get to decide unilaterally whether to annex Guyanese territory.
At issue: The western two-thirds of Guyana, known as Essequibo, is a jungle terrain inhabited by 250,000 people. The dispute began with a 19th century map that gave the region to Guyana — at the time a British colonial possession — rather than to Venezuela, which maintained earlier Spanish claims to the area. Several international efforts to resolve the dispute since then have failed, and the issue is currently before the International Court of Justice.
But Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro rejects the court’s jurisdiction. He plans instead to put the question of annexation to Venezuelan voters in a plebiscite on Dec. 3.
Why now? Because there’s oil there, lots of it, following massive discoveries by ExxonMobil over the past decade. Maduro has his eye on those reserves, which would bring Guyana’s 800,000 citizens one of the swiftest windfalls of oil wealth in history.
But he may also be playing domestic politics. He recently tried to tar the Venezuelan opposition as national traitors for supposedly advancing a US-backed plan to scuttle the vote — an assertion the opposition vociferously denied.
Los Yanquis are in the area. Any forceful attempts to seize Guyanese territory could spark a crisis that quickly draws in the United States — since 2020, Washington has run joint naval patrols with Guyana.