Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their own culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

– Plato

"There is some good in the world, and its worth fighting for."

– J.R.R. Tolkien

"Anger is the opposite of strength."

– Marcus Aureilus

1. Trump Turns to Small Group of Advisers, Shrinks National Security Council

2. China Has a Different Vision for AI. It Might Be Smarter.

3. Chinese Footage Reportedly Found on Downed Russian Geran Drone

4. Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit could shed light on intentions of member states

5. The Big Five - 31 August edition by Mick Ryan

6. ‘Korea-style DMZ’ for Ukraine? US officials, Expert Argue for New Approach to Kyiv’s Security

7. Tokyo City Releases AI-Generated Videos of Mount Fuji Eruption to Scare the Living Crap Out of Japanese Citizens

8. How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box?

9. Portsmouth celebrates 120th treaty anniversary with bellringing on Sept. 5

10. August 29, 1945: President Ho Chi Minh met Archimedes Patti to discuss the draft “Declaration of Independence”

11. What Just Happened? Dismantling the Intelligence Community’s Foreign Malign Influence Center

12. Can TV Help Prepare for Invasion?

13. The U.S. Wooed India for 30 Years. Trump Blew That Up in a Few Months.

14. Palantir is mapping government data. What it means for governance

15. Three Ways Cognitive Warfare Exposes Character And What To Do About It

16. Military support to law enforcement is supposed to be temporary. DOD is making it a core mission

17. Don’t forget the downsides of China’s innovation push

18. So You Want to Work in International Affairs

19. The Enemy That Hegseth and Trump Insist on Honoring

20. Iron Man in the Himalayas? China’s PLA embraces exoskeletons

1. Trump Turns to Small Group of Advisers, Shrinks National Security Council

I do not think the NSC has been shrunk - only the NSC Staff. I believe the principles of the NSC remain the same (though each president does decide which cabinet officials are members of the NSC so it varies. The current make-up is found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/organization-of-the-national-security-council-and-subcommittees/ ). Too often we confuse the principles of the NSC with the NSC staff who work for the National Security Advisor (though many of whom are seconded to the staff from the offices of the principles).

But smaller than a small national security staff?

Does size matter? It is only a small group of people who really do the thinking and work in most organizations (though that is often because the larger number of people are doing all the scut work required to keep the trains running on time).

And I suppose, as the SECDEF says, if diversity is not a strength, you really do not want a large staff where there might be diverse opinions (note sarcasm here and more than one attempt at humor).

The real question is what size staff does the President require in terms of national security expertise to support making presidential level national security decisions? Every president is different and thus his NSC and NSC staff are different. Only history will likely judge.

Excerpts:

It was a sign of how far Trump has gone to create an ad hoc, centralized approach to national security decisions. He has downgraded the role of the National Security Council staff, which other presidents have relied on to oversee developing policy options, ensure presidential decisions are carried out and coordinate with foreign governments.

The NSC’s staff is now fewer than 150 compared with around 400 in previous administrations. Trump ousted national security adviser Mike Waltz after three months, assigning Secretary of State Marco Rubio to handle the job along with his role as top diplomat. The moves have left Trump reliant on a handful of senior advisers.

...

After Rubio took over as national security adviser in May, he argued for deep staff cuts to revert the NSC to its original function as more of an interagency coordinator and less of an advisory body. That approach best suited Trump’s top-down style, officials said.

Current and former Trump administration officials said the approach minimizes the risk of leaks that plagued his first term and allows the president and his close confidants to implement decisions swiftly, instead of debating them at length.

...

The NSC’s day-to-day operations are handled by deputy national security advisers Andy Baker and Robert Gabriel as well as Mike Needham, the State Department’s counselor. They add detail to Trump’s more general orders and share them with senior officials ahead of meetings with Trump.

“They don’t have the same kind of bottom-up process that perhaps we’re most accustomed to,” said Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser during the George W. Bush administration, at the Aspen Security Forum in July. “I don’t think you can stand outside and prescribe an NSC process. It depends a lot on the president.”

Trump Turns to Small Group of Advisers, Shrinks National Security Council

NSC’s role in overseeing national security decisions has been curtailed

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-turns-to-small-group-of-advisers-shrinks-national-security-council-65b12aa5?mod=hp_lead_pos1

By Alexander Ward

and Robbie Gramer

Aug. 30, 2025 9:00 pm ET

President Trump has created an ad hoc, centralized approach to national security decisions. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Quick Summary

President Trump has adopted a centralized approach to national security decisions, downgrading the role of the National Security Council.View more

WASHINGTON—When President Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, U.S. diplomats who would normally be told of the decision were left in the dark.

After the attack, officials from Middle East countries pressed officials in Washington and at U.S. embassies in the region for information about whether the attack signaled Trump was launching a broader regime-change campaign, officials involved in those conversations said.

Almost no one had an answer, other than to refer them to Trump’s public announcement of the bombings. They hadn’t received talking points on what to tell other governments.

It was a sign of how far Trump has gone to create an ad hoc, centralized approach to national security decisions. He has downgraded the role of the National Security Council staff, which other presidents have relied on to oversee developing policy options, ensure presidential decisions are carried out and coordinate with foreign governments.

The NSC’s staff is now fewer than 150 compared with around 400 in previous administrations. Trump ousted national security adviser Mike Waltz after three months, assigning Secretary of State Marco Rubio to handle the job along with his role as top diplomat. The moves have left Trump reliant on a handful of senior advisers.

An operational timeline of a strike on Iran was shown during a June news conference. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“It is a top-down approach,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “Maybe previous administrations wanted to tell everyone everything to make them feel good, but we don’t really care if your feelings are hurt. We just need to get a job done.”

Other officials and critics warn this approach has hurt—not helped—the Trump administration.

“In many respects, the national security process has ceased to exist,” said David Rothkopf, author of a history of the NSC under several administrations and a staunch Trump opponent. Trump, he added, effectively is the national-security system—“the State Department and the Joint Chiefs and the NSC all rolled into one.”

The current system denies Trump the views of experts within the government that could inform his policies, said the critics. What’s more, officials charged with executing Trump’s orders often don’t know in detail what they are required to do, leading to delays, mistakes or even inaction, the critics added.

Trump’s process has encouraged freelancing by senior officials to gain the White House’s attention and advance their own priorities.

In May, Troy Fitrell, then the State Department’s top Africa official, announced during a speech in the Ivory Coast that there would be on the sidelines of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in September a high-level gathering with African countries to focus on trade and investment.

Troy Fitrell Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Fitrell revealed the idea of a summit before it was confirmed on Trump’s schedule, administration officials said. He made plans to visit Britain before the U.N. gathering, leaving little time to squeeze in a meeting with African leaders.

No instructions to set it up were conveyed to officials and diplomats from the White House. Administration aides noted that Trump has already met with African leaders at the White House and expects more gatherings with his counterparts from the continent.

During his short tenure, Waltz staffed the NSC with seasoned congressional aides and officials who had served in Trump’s first term. Some were quickly ousted after being accused of disloyalty by far-right MAGA influencers such as Laura Loomer. Others resigned following Waltz’s removal.

Waltz and Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, then chief of U.S. Central Command, persuaded Trump in March to order weeks of airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen, even though most members of his national security team were against the operation.

The U.S. needed to husband its dwindling munitions stockpile for a potential war with China, they argued, adding that the U.S.-designated terrorist group was unlikely to surrender under U.S. bombing.

Two months into the campaign, Trump abruptly reversed course, announcing that the Houthis had agreed to no longer attack American ships. But Houthi attacks on Israel and against other countries’ ships have continued.

After Rubio took over as national security adviser in May, he argued for deep staff cuts to revert the NSC to its original function as more of an interagency coordinator and less of an advisory body. That approach best suited Trump’s top-down style, officials said.

Current and former Trump administration officials said the approach minimizes the risk of leaks that plagued his first term and allows the president and his close confidants to implement decisions swiftly, instead of debating them at length.

U.S. airstrikes were carried out in March in Yemen. Photo: Yahya Arhab/EPA/Shutterstock

“There is just a lot of whiners in the bowels of the NSC who are complaining that they are not getting their voice heard, when, in fact, maybe their voice doesn’t need to be heard,” said Gordon Sondland, who served as Trump’s ambassador to the European Union in his first term.

The NSC’s day-to-day operations are handled by deputy national security advisers Andy Baker and Robert Gabriel as well as Mike Needham, the State Department’s counselor. They add detail to Trump’s more general orders and share them with senior officials ahead of meetings with Trump.

“They don’t have the same kind of bottom-up process that perhaps we’re most accustomed to,” said Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser during the George W. Bush administration, at the Aspen Security Forum in July. “I don’t think you can stand outside and prescribe an NSC process. It depends a lot on the president.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued for steep cuts in national security staff. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

White House envoy Steve Witkoff Photo: drew angerer/AFP/Getty Images

White House envoy Steve Witkoff often calls Trump immediately after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders. But summaries of those conversations rarely filter through to the government.

“We don’t expect anything more” from Witkoff than briefings for Trump and the senior national security team, said Leavitt.

With a slimmed-down NSC, sometimes Trump himself is out of the loop.

He was surprised to learn in July that the Pentagon had paused weapons deliveries to Ukraine during an inventory review until the freeze became public. Trump reversed the decision about a week later.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How might a lack of bureaucratic coordination affect the U.S.’s ability to carry out its foreign-policy agenda? Join the conversation below.

Write to Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com and Robbie Gramer at robbie.gramer@wsj.com

2. China Has a Different Vision for AI. It Might Be Smarter.

Is Ai the future of strategic competition?

Excerpts:

But unlike the U.S., which largely leaves the industry to its own devices, Beijing is putting the full muscle of the state behind its vision. In January, the central government unveiled an $8.4 billion AI investment fund focused on supporting startups. Local governments and state banks have since rolled out their own funding programs, while cities have published AI development plans as part of a campaign dubbed “AI+.”

On Tuesday, China’s cabinet spelled out broader ambitions for the campaign, calling for an even stronger push to integrate AI into science and tech research, industrial development and other areas to “comprehensively empower” China’s economic development by 2030.

China is also more actively embracing open-source models that are free for users to download and modify, making it cheaper and easier for Chinese companies to build businesses around the technology. That approach is helping Chinese AI spread globally, a trend that has shaken Silicon Valley into following suit.

AGI dreams

That emphasis is somewhat different from the ambitions of many of the U.S.’s biggest tech players, who believe that machines that can outthink humans will revolutionize science, open up entirely new fields of inquiry and transform the American military.

Some in the tech industry have predicted that artificial superintelligence could arrive as soon as 2027. Companies such as Meta, Google and OpenAI are spending lavishly in a competition to acquire the talent, data centers and energy they need to be first.

A congressional commission focused on competition with China has floated a “Manhattan Project” for AGI to ensure the U.S. wins the race.

But OpenAI’s highly anticipated release in August of GPT-5, a model the company had initially touted as a major steppingstone on the path to AGI, left many users underwhelmed. OpenAI’s Sam Altman acknowledged the bumpy rollout and has since tried to tap the brakes on AGI hype and warned about the possibility of an AI investment bubble.

Other Silicon Valley titans have also started to waver, opening the door to the idea that China’s approach might make more sense.

“It is uncertain how soon artificial general intelligence can be achieved,” former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and technology analyst Selina Xu wrote in a recent opinion column for the New York Times.

China Has a Different Vision for AI. It Might Be Smarter.

With growing fears of an AI bubble, Beijing is charting a pragmatic alternative to Silicon Valley’s pursuit of artificial superintelligence

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/china-has-a-different-vision-for-ai-it-might-be-smarter-581f1e44

By Josh Chin

and Raffaele Huang

Aug. 30, 2025 11:00 pm ET

A robot at a car dealership in Shanghai. Photo: Go Nakamura/Reuters

Quick Summary

The U.S. is spending billions to win the race to artificial general intelligence, while China focuses on practical, low-cost AI applications.View more

The U.S. is spending billions of dollars and burning gigawatts of energy in a rush to beat China to the next evolutionary leap in artificial intelligence—one so great, some boosters say, that it will rival the atomic bomb in its power to change the global order.

China is running a different race.

Since the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT nearly three years ago, Silicon Valley has spent mountains of money in pursuit of AI’s holy grail: artificial general intelligence that matches or beats human thinking. Enthusiasts say it will give the U.S. insurmountable military advantages, help cure cancer and solve climate change, and eliminate the need for people to perform routine work such as accounting and customer service.

In China, by contrast, leader Xi Jinping has recently had little to say about AGI. Instead, he is pushing the country’s tech industry to be “strongly oriented toward applications”—building practical, low-cost tools that boost China’s efficiency and can be marketed easily.

The diverging visions represent a head-to-head bet with significant stakes. If China’s gamble turns out to be wrong, it could find itself lagging far behind the U.S. in the most consequential technology of the 21st century.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping is pushing the country’s tech industry to focus on applications for AI. Photo: Xie Huanchi/ZUMA Press

But if AGI remains a distant dream, as more people in Silicon Valley now believe, China will be in position to steal a march on its global rival in wringing the most out of AI in its current form, and spread its applications worldwide.

Already in China, domestic AI models similar to the one that powers ChatGPT are being used, with state approval, to grade high-school entrance exams, improve weather forecasts, dispatch police and advise farmers on crop rotation, say state media and government reports.

Tsinghua University, China’s equivalent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is rolling out an AI-powered hospital, where human doctors will be assisted by virtual colleagues armed with the latest data on diseases. Intelligent robots are being deployed to run automotive “dark factories” and inspect textiles for flaws while still on the loom.

“They see highly impactful AI applications not as something to theorize about in the future but as something to take advantage of here and now,” said Julian Gewirtz, a former National Security Council official who specialized in tech competition with China during the Biden administration.

U.S. tech companies are developing plenty of practical applications using current AI, of course. Google has wired its latest Pixel smartphones to do real-time translation, while U.S. consulting companies are using AI agents to build PowerPoint decks and sum up interviews for clients. Others are using it to improve drug discovery and food delivery.

But unlike the U.S., which largely leaves the industry to its own devices, Beijing is putting the full muscle of the state behind its vision. In January, the central government unveiled an $8.4 billion AI investment fund focused on supporting startups. Local governments and state banks have since rolled out their own funding programs, while cities have published AI development plans as part of a campaign dubbed “AI+.”

On Tuesday, China’s cabinet spelled out broader ambitions for the campaign, calling for an even stronger push to integrate AI into science and tech research, industrial development and other areas to “comprehensively empower” China’s economic development by 2030.

China is also more actively embracing open-source models that are free for users to download and modify, making it cheaper and easier for Chinese companies to build businesses around the technology. That approach is helping Chinese AI spread globally, a trend that has shaken Silicon Valley into following suit.

AGI dreams

That emphasis is somewhat different from the ambitions of many of the U.S.’s biggest tech players, who believe that machines that can outthink humans will revolutionize science, open up entirely new fields of inquiry and transform the American military.

Some in the tech industry have predicted that artificial superintelligence could arrive as soon as 2027. Companies such as Meta, Google and OpenAI are spending lavishly in a competition to acquire the talent, data centers and energy they need to be first.

A congressional commission focused on competition with China has floated a “Manhattan Project” for AGI to ensure the U.S. wins the race.

But OpenAI’s highly anticipated release in August of GPT-5, a model the company had initially touted as a major steppingstone on the path to AGI, left many users underwhelmed. OpenAI’s Sam Altman acknowledged the bumpy rollout and has since tried to tap the brakes on AGI hype and warned about the possibility of an AI investment bubble.

Other Silicon Valley titans have also started to waver, opening the door to the idea that China’s approach might make more sense.

“It is uncertain how soon artificial general intelligence can be achieved,” former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and technology analyst Selina Xu wrote in a recent opinion column for the New York Times.

“In being solely fixated on this objective, our nation risks falling behind China, which is far less concerned with creating A.I. powerful enough to surpass humans and much more focused on using the technology we have now.”

Pragmatic approach

The Chinese government’s enthusiasm for more-practical uses of AI is visible in Xiong’an, Xi’s built-from-scratch dream city two hours south of Beijing.

In February, the city announced the release of an agricultural AI model, using technology from the Chinese startup DeepSeek, which gives local farmers guidance on crop selection, planting and pest control, according to a local government report. The city’s meteorological service is using DeepSeek to improve the accuracy of weather reports. DeepSeek is also helping local police analyze case reports and decide how to respond to emergencies.

The Chinese government is using several AI applications to help run the city of Xiong’an. Photo: Luo Feilin/ZUMA Press

Xiong’an’s branch of 12345, a government question hotline that fields hundreds of thousands of calls a day nationwide, is using DeepSeek to sort and route inquiries.

A major portion of government investment is going to build data centers. But unlike the sprawling facilities being built in the U.S. to train cutting-edge models, the Chinese versions tend to be smaller.

To a large extent, Beijing has no choice but to break a different trail on AI. U.S. trade restrictions, particularly on high-end semiconductors, have made it difficult for Chinese AI companies to compete head-to-head with American giants in scaling up the training of the most advanced models.

The choice makes even more sense given growing uncertainty about the return on investment of chasing scale, said Jeffrey Ding, a professor at George Washington University and author of ChinAI, a newsletter focused on Chinese AI.

“You let the technology leader, the U.S. in this case, eat the cost of exploration, and then you try to be the fast follower or be the one who optimizes for implementation,” he said.

The Chinese tech company Alibaba has said it would pursue artificial general intelligence. Photo: Go Nakamura/Reuters

To be sure, some Chinese companies, including DeepSeek and Alibaba, have said they would pursue AGI. And some analysts have speculated that China could be trying to keep a lid on some of its AGI ambitions.

It is possible, even likely, that Xi will decide at some point to more aggressively pursue AGI, said Kendra Schaefer, head of tech-policy research at Trivium China, a Beijing-based consulting firm. But he will do so cautiously with plenty of safeguards, she said, given the potential risk that thinking machines could pose to Communist Party stability.

“It is one of the most risk-averse governments on the planet,” she said.

As with the internet, which had to weather the dot-com crash and years of development before being able to rewire the global economy, it could take decades to determine winners and losers in AI, according to George Washington University’s Ding.

The U.S. has important advantages over China in harnessing new technologies, he said, including a broad education system beyond elite universities that can spread technical knowledge widely.

If it is careful to maintain that edge, Ding said, the U.S. has a good chance at eventually beating China at its own race.

Write to Josh Chin at Josh.Chin@wsj.com and Raffaele Huang at raffaele.huang@wsj.com

3. Chinese Footage Reportedly Found on Downed Russian Geran Drone

There should be no doubt that the CRInK is coordinating, collaborating, and colluding.

Chinese Footage Reportedly Found on Downed Russian Geran Drone

The latest discovery reinforces the notion that Moscow continues to rely on foreign tech and production despite attempts to domesticize weapon production.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59207

by Leo Chiu | Aug. 31, 2025, 12:19 pm

Content

Share Flip

A test footage shot from a Chinese factory was found in a recently downed Russian Geran drone.

The Geran is Russia’s domestic analogue of the Iranian Shahed drones frequently used to overwhelm air defense and strike civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian military communications and electronic warfare expert known by the handle “Flash,” shared the footage on Saturday evening on his Telegram channel – presumably shot by a camera with object tracking functions, as indicated by the videos.

The videos, apparently filmed from an office or lab in China, showed roads outside where cars were quickly identified and tracked by the camera.

Details were scarce, but defense outlet Militarnyi, using a photo of the camera provided by Flash, reported that it is the A40 model from Chinese manufacturer Viewpro.

Viewpro’s official site lists the camera as $2,999 per unit before discounts, which also hailed the A40’s AI “detection and tracking” features.

“Features: 40x Optical Zoom, AI Detection and Tracking, 360°Continuous Yaw, 3axis Gyro Stabilized Gimbal, Metal Ball Housing for Anti-interference, Viewport Plug and Play, KLV Metadata Output Supported, HTTP Read TF Card Online, Point Camera Here on 3D Map,” the listing states.

Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence (HUR), which tracks foreign components found in Russian weapons via its database, did not list the camera or Viewpro among the components found at the time of publication.

Militarnyi added that the footage was geolocated to the Aotexing Science Park in the Nanshan District of Shenzhen, China, citing Ukrainian geolocator Cyber Boroshno – an address that corresponds to Viewpro’s official address.

Kyiv Post cannot independently verify the authenticity of the reports.

Russia’s evolving drone tech

While Shaheds – or the Gerans – have been a staple in Moscow’s aerial campaign against Ukraine in the three-year war, the drones have gone through countless reiterations.

One reported upgrade is the addition of an onboard camera and AI – a claim that the latest report would confirm if accurate.

Shaheds observed at the start of the 2022 invasion rely on GPS for navigation, making them vulnerable to jamming and spoofing. The addition of stabilized cameras with AI detection could, in theory, allow them to lock onto targets independently, bypassing GPS during the final phase of flight.

Cameras, AI chips and 4G modems have also been found in other Russian drones in recent months.

Each Russian or Iranian Shahed drone is estimated to cost under $50,000 and has a reported range of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), making them Moscow’s weapon of choice for its aerial campaign against Ukraine.

Moscow, Beijing’s growing ties

Chinese manufacturers have been known to supply dual-use components to Russia for its war efforts – and in some cases, to Ukraine.

In 2023, Russian officials could be seen inspecting Chinese-made all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for the military, presumably procured via a government contract.

Beijing has refused to sanction Moscow, allowing Chinese firms to both manufacture and supply components for Moscow from third nations, including Western microchips found in missiles.

Politically, Beijing has shown support for Moscow while stopping short of directly endorsing the invasion.

Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin arrived in China on Sunday for a four-day visit with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, with the two previously calling each other “dear friends” amid Western pressures.

Unofficially, Beijing’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told the EU that China cannot abide a Russian loss in Ukraine.

Leo Chiu

Leo Chiu is a news reporter residing in Eastern Europe since 2015 with a profound interest in geopolitics, having witnessed two presidential elections in Belarus and visited numerous contested regions worldwide. He believes in the human side of journalism and that there's a story to be told behind every number and statistic.

4. Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit could shed light on intentions of member states

I expect we will read a narrative highlighting the "Shanghai Spirit" and soft power attributes listed below. Those attributes used to belong to us. So I guess if imitation is not only the sincerest form of flattery, imitation must also mean that they believe something works (as they know these attributes contributed to victory in the Cold War 1.0). Maybe we should take note of what China is doing and why.

Excerpts:

Beijing has given few hints of what solid progress it expects from the summit, which is in keeping with the secretive nature of its diplomacy and politics.

The official Xinhua News Agency on Monday called the gathering the “largest-ever SCO summit in history” and said it would be used for “charting the blueprint for the bloc’s next decade of development.”

The leaders of about a dozen other countries are joining the summit as SCO dialogue partners or guests, including Egypt, Nepal and several Southeast Asian nations.

Xinhua spoke of the organization being guided by the “Shanghai Spirit, which features mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit of common development.”

Citing growing trade and rail freight between China and other members, observer states and dialogue partners, Beijing seems eager to emphasize the bloc’s economic benefits.

Xinhua noted documents would be signed including a notice of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which the ruling Communist Party will mark with a military parade in central Beijing on Sept. 3.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit could shed light on intentions of member states

AP · CHRISTOPHER BODEEN · August 31, 2025

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and leaders of eight other nations are set to meet in northern China for the latest summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in a possible challenge to often incoherent approaches by the United States to trade and regional conflicts.

The 10-member group that will gather Sunday and Monday in the port city of Tianjin has grown in size and influence over the past 24 years, even while its goals and programs remain murky and name recognition low. Some call it the scariest grouping you have never heard of.

The full membership includes Russia, Belarus, China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Originally seen as a foil to U.S. influence in Central Asia, the original organization picked up four new members with the addition of India and Pakistan in 2017, Iran in 2023 and Belarus in 2024.

Some of those are clear foes of the West, especially Iran and close Russian ally Belarus. Others including India, China and Russia have a more nebulous relationship, either because of Washington’s wobbly stance on Russia’s war with Ukraine or because of chaos surrounding U.S. tariffs that have upended key trading relationships with countries such as China and India.

The SCO’s two-day summit may shed more light on issues surrounding the group’s activities and intentions.

◆ Stay up to date with similar stories by signing up to our WhatsApp channel.

Growing from regional bloc to encompasing alliance

Since its 2001 founding, the SCO primarily has been dominated by China, the regional economic superpower, with Russia seeking to use the group to maintain its influence over former Central Asian Soviet republics Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

While Russia’s economic influence has declined steadily, especially under increasingly severe Western sanctions, both Russia and China have used the alliance as a framework for regional military cooperation, albeitlimited to joint drills and firing competitions.

Belarus, Iran, Pakistan and India joined later in an apparent attempt to share in the SCO’s budding influence, though the value of their membership is debatable. Iran and Belarus have faced international condemnation over sanctions and human rights violations, while Pakistan is highly dependent on China for military hardware.

India’s entry challenges the equation

India has long stuck to a self-avowed policy of neutrality, though that may be part of a strategy of self-interest.

Since the Russia-Ukraine war began, India has become a major buyer of Russian oil, increasing tensions with Washington. Modi also remarked on “steady progress” in improving relations with China after meeting its top diplomat in August and noted “respect for each other’s interests and sensitiveness.’'

India’s SCO entry potentially challenges Russian and Chinese domination over the association. Despite their trade ties, India is unlikely to offer meaningful support for Russia’s war in Ukraine or China’s claims to Taiwan and the South China Sea.

India has also long sought a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council but has received only tepid back from China and Russia, possibly to prevent their influence with the West from being diluted. Still, New Delhi stands to lose little as long as Washington continues to broadcast uncertainty with its foreign trade.

India has said it will not sign a joint statement with the SCO because it sees a pro-Pakistan stance in the omission of a mention of a deadly April 22 terror attack on tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Yet expectations have not been high for India to sign.

Little ventured and little to lose for China

Beijing has given few hints of what solid progress it expects from the summit, which is in keeping with the secretive nature of its diplomacy and politics.

The official Xinhua News Agency on Monday called the gathering the “largest-ever SCO summit in history” and said it would be used for “charting the blueprint for the bloc’s next decade of development.”

The leaders of about a dozen other countries are joining the summit as SCO dialogue partners or guests, including Egypt, Nepal and several Southeast Asian nations.

Xinhua spoke of the organization being guided by the “Shanghai Spirit, which features mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit of common development.”

Citing growing trade and rail freight between China and other members, observer states and dialogue partners, Beijing seems eager to emphasize the bloc’s economic benefits.

Xinhua noted documents would be signed including a notice of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which the ruling Communist Party will mark with a military parade in central Beijing on Sept. 3.

Group showcases Xi Jinping’s multipolarity vision

University of Chicago political scientist Dali Yang said the SCO is one of the most prominent regional organizations China has cofounded.

“For China’s leadership, there is a lot of emphasis on maintaining existing relations in the international arena even though the SCO has not been effective in dealing with the major challenges of today,” Yang said.

The summit comes just days before a massive military parade through Beijing marking the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender at the end of WWII attended by Xi and other leaders, including a rare showing by North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Yang said.

The SCO seems to show a desire to move from a dialogue platform to a “full-fledged mechanism of practical cooperation that brings tangible results to the citizens of the member states,” said June Teufel Dreyer, a University of Miami expert on Chinese politics. Yet the questions remain, ”to what end and how?”

For Xi, “presiding over the gathering in Tianjin should net him some favorable publicity and possibly further his image as leader of a new global world order,” Dreyer said.

AP · CHRISTOPHER BODEEN · August 31, 2025

5. The Big Five - 31 August edition by Mick Ryan

After providing his assessment of Ukraine and the Pacific he gives us his big five. Note the graphics from the Pacific section at the link below.

The Big Five articles for consideration:

1. The Purpose of China’s Rapid Nuclear Weapon Expansion

2. Why Putin Wants the ‘Fortress Belt’

3. Access Denied: Airpower in a Pacific Conflict

4. Russia’s Coming Reckoning

5. Building a Wartime Mindset

The Big Five

The Big Five - 31 August edition

My regular update on global conflict. This week: Gerasimov's Ukraine war update and the ongoing aerial campaigns of Ukraine and Russia, Japan's missile moves, China's big parade and my Big Five reads.

https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-big-five-31-august-edition?publication_id=1198399&post_id=172313327&isFreemail=false&r=7i07&triedRedirect=true

Mick Ryan

Aug 30, 2025

Ukraine’s amazing emergency service first responders in action this week. Image: @ZelensyyUa

The war—it’s a lottery. When we go to bed, we have no idea whether or not we will get up the next morning because you never know what next residential building will be hit. It’s difficult to live in such conditions, but we try to adapt to this new normality. Because Russians came to steal everything from us: our children, our country, our future, our freedom, our democratic choice, our families, our joy, our love—and we decided not to provide them this chance. Oleksandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties, interview with Garry Kasparov, 29 August 2025.

Before starting the update this week, a shout out to all of the amazing and courageous emergency service first responders in Ukraine. Every night, these heroes standby and respond to Russia’s ongoing attacks against Ukrainian cities. Thank you for your selfless dedication to saving the lives of your fellow citizens.

It has been another hectic week in international affairs and the war in Ukraine. In the past week, Ukraine and Russia continued pummelling away at each other with their aerial attacks. Despite the appalling death toll of Russia’s attacks against Ukrainian cities, Ukraine appears to be hurting Russia more than Russia is hurting Ukraine. And as this is happening, Trump is apparently getting more frustrated by his inability to wave a magic wand and make the war ‘go away’.

In the Pacific, Japan announces several measures related to its counter-strike missile capabilities. China continues is strategic influence operations and rehearsals for its big 3 September parade, which will be attended by Putin and an array of the world’s finest authoritarian leaders.

To conclude, I have included my top five national security and war reads.

Welcome to this week’s The Big Five!

Ukraine

Gerasimov’s Update. The Russian military Telegram channel published an update by the Russian military leader, General Gerasimov, during the week. As one might expect, Gerasimov claimed all kinds of successes for the Russian military in its war against Ukraine. There has been a bit of analysis of the map in the background (what a crappy map for the commander of the Russian military to use) and there are many discrepancies with the reality on the ground.

In his briefing, Gerasimov declared that Russian combat operations in Ukraine will “continue until the army achieves its set goals.” Simply put, this means that nothing that the Trump administration is doing at the moment is deterring Russia from continuing its war against Ukraine.

Source: Social media.

Gerasimov also stated during his briefing that Russian military forces are conducting a continuous offensive along almost the entire front line. This is broadly true - the Russians have been executing a rolling offensive on the eastern front since 2024. Their operations in the north east and south of Ukraine have been more sporadic.

Gerasimov claimed Russia holds the “strategic initiative.” In military affairs, having the initiative means having the power to make an adversary’s actions to conform to one’s own. It is about whether or not one’s forces possess the capacity and inclination to take the offensive, thereby forcing an enemy to respond before they are prepared and waste resources.

If he is referring to ground operations, in the broadest sense of the term, he is right. Russian forces have the strategic initiative due to their advantage in manpower, which permits them to threaten Ukraine on a larger number of fronts than Ukraine might effectively cover, and to sustain offensive operations (albeit with a continuously evolving tempo) over a longer period of time.

But the air campaign is an area where Ukraine probably has the initiative. As I have covered for the last couple of years, Ukraine is able to attack Russian targets deep inside Russia, forcing the Russians to expend enormous resources on air defences and other measures to reduce the effectiveness of Ukrainian aerial attacks - and deny the strategic impact of Ukraine’s air campaign to domestic and foreign audiences.

On the diplomatic front, Russia has the initiative because it has been able to manipulate the American president (and key interlocutors such as Steve Witkoff) into using Russian talking points and assuming Russian positions about war termination. This has provided Russia with more time to hurt Ukraine. This diplomatic performance, coupled with the new administration’s refusal to seek the appropriation of more aid for Ukraine from Congress and the ongoing campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize, has essentially handed the diplomatic initiative to Russia.

Long Range Strike Campaigns. Both Ukraine and Russia have sustained their aerial strike campaigns over the past week, and if anything, these strikes are only expanding in scope and the damage caused.

Three nights of Russian strikes on Ukraine. Source: Ukrainian Air Force

Russia launched large drone and missile strikes on Ukraine this week. While the head of the Russian military, General Gerasimov, claimed in his briefing this week on the Russian military Telegram channel that only military and industrial targets were being struck by Russian weapons:

According to the plan of the General Staff, targeted massive fire strikes are being carried out exclusively against military facilities and objects of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex.

The reality is very different. Russia has had the ability to plan and conduct such strikes for decades - they know exactly what they are doing with their terror campaign aimed at Ukrainian cities.

Ukraine has continued its campaign to hit Russia oil infrastructure, and critical military targets such as area air defence systems. In the latest attacks, on the evening of 30 August, two Russian oil refineries were struck by Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles in Krasnodar Krai and Samara Oblast.

This is a topic I have been tracking from 2022, and the growth in the capacity and sophistication of Ukraine’s strategic strike capability (assisted by its western partners) has been very impressive. I have published two additional updates on this topic in the past two weeks, including one that provides the lessons for other military organisations of Ukraine’s new strategic strike capacity.

Ukraine’s New National Military Memorial Cemetery. This week, in a ceremony attended by the President of Ukraine, the first Ukrainian heroes were buried with military honours at the new Ukrainian National Military Memorial Cemetery. In the words of President Zelenskyy:

Eternal memory to our heroes. Eternal glory and gratitude to each and every one who perished defending our country.

Image: @ZelenskyyUa

Ukraine News Shorts. Some other short updates on the war in Ukraine from this week:

The U.S. has agreed to sell 3,500 extended-range cruise missiles and GPS navigation kits to Ukraine. The cost - $825 million. This has been paid for by Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, with some assistance from the Pentagon.
After the recent shock of Russian troops infiltrating the Ukrainian front line near Dobropillia and penetrating to a depth of around 15 kilometres, it appears that the Ukrainians have now stabilised the situation, and have some Russian troops in the area surrounded.
In this report from Euromaidan, a good account of Ukrainian tanks destroying Russian infiltrators point-blank after an attempted Russian river crossing near Lyman in eastern Ukraine. It just shows that Russia’s infiltration tactics don’t always work. Who says tanks are dead!
This week, Trump sounded a more pessimistic note about a trilateral summit between Zelenskyy, Putin and himself. Trump said he spoke to Putin and that he believes the Russian president’s dislike of Zelenskyy is holding up a meeting between the two leaders. “He doesn’t like him,” Trump told reporters on Monday (Tuesday AEST) in the Oval Office.

The Pacific

China’s Joint Readiness Patrols - Update. The latest update from the Research Project on China's Defense Affairs was released this week, and can be seen below.

Taiwan’s Defence Budget. The Lai Ching-te administration has approved the 2026 budget proposal. This seeks to increase spending on defence from 2.08 to 3.32 percent of Taiwan’s GDP. The budget includes funds for procuring artillery, anti-tank missiles, air defence, attack drones, and other munitions. The budget is now sitting with the KMT-controlled legislature for approval.

Image: @ChingteLai

U.S. Congressional Delegation to Taiwan. As China prepares to hold its big military parade this week (see more below), two members of the U.S. Senate - Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and Senator Deb Fischer - are visiting Taiwan. In the lead up to the visit, Wicker stated that:

We come here from the United States bringing a message from the Congress of commitment, of long-term friendship and a determination that a free country like Taiwan absolutely has the right to remain free and preserve self-determination.

China, as usual, has stated its opposition to the trip.

Japan’s Long Range Missile Deployments. Japan has announced the temporary deployment of American Typhon missile systems. A spokesperson for Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force said the Typhon missiles would be deployed to the U.S. Marine Air Station Iwakuni as a part of the forthcoming Exercise Resolute Dragon. The exercises runs from 11 to 25 September.

Also this week, the Japanese government announced the deployment of indigenous long-range ‘counter-strike’ missile systems to different regions from March 2026. The Japanese Defense Ministry said late last week that it would deploy the Type-12 surface-to-ship extended-range missiles to the Ground Self-Defense Force’s Camp Kengun in Kumamoto in March 2026. In 2027, additional Type-12 systems would be deployed to Camp Fuji in Oyama, Shizuoka Prefecture.

Additionally, the Japanese Self Defence Force will deploy Hyper Velocity Glide Projectile missiles to two locations in Japan.

Image: @TaiwanMonitor

China-Russia Joint Submarine Patrol. The Russian military announced this week that it had conducted a joint submarine patrol with the PLA-Navy in early August. As reported by USNI News and @DzirhanDefence:

Two Kilo-class submarines, supported by a surface warship and submarine rescue ship each, sailed in the Sea of Japan in early August, the Russian Navy Pacific Fleet announced Wednesday. The submarine patrol indicates an expansion of the bilateral military activities between Russia and China, which already conduct joint naval patrols and joint bomber flights.

This builds on the range of military collaboration projects between Russia and China. This cooperation extends beyond military exercises, and includes industrial collaboration and large-scale Chinese support for Russia’s war effort in Ukraine.

Australian Engagement in the Western Pacific. This week, Australia signed a Statement of Intent with The Philippines to develop and sign a Defence Cooperation Agreement. This agreement is designed to encapsulate the totality of the Australia-Philippines defence relationship. This will have defence infrastructure elements, and as the Australian defence minister stated this week, “Australia is pursuing eight different infrastructure projects across five different locations here in the Philippines.”

Image: Australian Department of Defence

The Australian ministerial visit took place during the conduct of the Australia-Philippines-U.S.-Canada Exercise Alon 2025. This was a major joint exercise that included naval, air, land and amphibious elements. Around 3600 military personnel participated in the different aspects of the exercise.

Also this week, the Australian defence minister held talks with his Indonesian counterpart. The meeting saw the endorsement of the new Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Peace and Stability (Partnership).

China’s Big Parade. In the coming week, China will hold a large parade in Beijing that, in the words of the Chinese Communist Party news release, will “mark the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.” The big day is 3 September, and the parade will feature many different contributions from all the services of the PLA.

Rehearsal for the PLA’s 3 September parade. Image: @DragonChainNews

The parade will also be attended by foreign leaders. Two of the most notable are the leaders of Russia and North Korea. For Putin, the parade will probably highlight just how much the Chinese have advanced recently, and how much he should be worried about Russia’s capacity to defend the eastern regions of its territory against any future Chinese aggression.

The Chinese are sure to show off some new equipment and weapons. And the 1000-person military band is sure to impress. So far, based on sightings reported on social media and speculation from experts on the Chinese military, we might expect sightings of the following:

At least one new cruise missile a subsonic anti-ship cruise missile with the designation YJ-18C.
Another large cruise missile, the CJ-1000.
At least one and perhaps two very large torpedo / unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV).
New unmanned aerial vehicles and combat drones.
A new light tank and next-generation infantry fighting vehicles.
The commissioning of the new aircraft carrier ‘Fujian’.

*********

It’s time to explore this week’s recommended readings.

I have included a new article from Peter Caddick-Adams that examines Russia’s military and economic difficulties, and a good piece from Mykola Bielieskov that looks at why Putin wants the Ukrainian fortress belt in the Donbas. There is a long read about the application of American Air Power in the Pacific and an article on NATO and strategic thinking.

Finally, I have included a recent report that examines the key drivers behind China’s massive expansion of its nuclear arsenal.

As always, if you only have time to read one of my recommendations, the first one is my read of the week.

Happy reading!

1. The Purpose of China’s Rapid Nuclear Weapon Expansion

Lavina and John Lee are two of my favourite strategic analysts. In this recent report, they explore the political and strategic drivers that lie behind China’s ongoing expansion of its nuclear arsenal. They argue that the Chinese Communist Party has embarked on this journey “not primarily because China wants to “win” a nuclear exchange against the US. Rather, Beijing wants to create political and psychological effects that lead to enormously important strategic and military effects.” This is a detailed and highly readable examination of China’s expanding nuclear capability, and can be read at this link.

2. Why Putin Wants the ‘Fortress Belt’

In his latest piece for The Atlantic Council, Ukrainian analyst Mykola Bielieskov explores the rationale for Putin’s demands for the entirety of the Donbas, including its fortress belt. As Mykola notes, “the region currently serves as a bastion against Russia’s invasion. While there is no guarantee that fortified areas will be able to hold out indefinitely against Russian attacks, Putin would almost certainly be forced to sacrifice huge numbers of troops before achieving his goal. In this sense, the Donbas fortress belt is one of Ukraine’s trump cards in its war of attrition against Russia.” You can read the full article at this link.

3. Access Denied: Airpower in a Pacific Conflict

In this article, the authors examine the application of land-based AirPower in a future conflict against China. It explores a range of issues, and models the defending of Taiwan’s airspace, survivability of U.S. military aircraft and sustainment of military operations in the Pacific. As a result, the authors find that “trends have shifted the military balance significantly toward China. Across a wide range of model assumptions about, for example, U.S. deployment strategy, missile defense capabilities, PLA missile effectiveness, and dozens of other variables, a major PLA attack on regional air bases would destroy hundreds of U.S. aircraft on the ground.” The full, very detailed article, is available here.

4. Russia’s Coming Reckoning

There is mounting evidence that Ukraine’s increasingly capable long-range strike capability is compounding the pressure that the Ukraine War and foreign economic sanctions has placed on the Russian economy. In this piece for Engelsberg Ideas, Peter Caddick-Adams explores the current Russian position and how its increasingly weak military and economic positions may not permit it to achieve the objectives that Putin has laid down for his war against Ukraine. You can read the full article at this link.

5. Building a Wartime Mindset

In this article, the authors examine NATO’s approach to strategy and strategic thinking, and find that the drive towards efficiency and busyness is impacting on the organisation’s ability to think clearly and develop a mindset that embraces the uncertainty inherent in war. As they write in the article, “NATO’s organizational culture increasingly mirrors a civilian caricature of military life. To reassure voters asked to make sacrifices, and to meet US expectations of return on investment, the Alliance adopts the language of military precision, but without embracing its underlying tolerance for friction, uncertainty, and adaptation.” The full article is at this link.

Recommend Futura Doctrina to your readers

A conversation about technology, ideas, people and their convergence in contemporary war and competition. Also covering issues related to the war in Ukraine, Chinese aggression against Taiwan and Indo-Pacific defence.

6. ‘Korea-style DMZ’ for Ukraine? US officials, Expert Argue for New Approach to Kyiv’s Security

For decades Korea has been marginalized and considered a Cold War anachronism among many in the national security community. Yet it is the "gift that keeps on giving." There are so many lessons to learn from Korea (positive and negative) that it is always worthy of study and understanding.

Some of the lessons we should have learned is how to negotiate with communists (or totalitarian leaders) and that temporary solutions (e.g., Armistice) have long term impact and could become nearly permanent. Maybe we should have finished Korea in 1953 (the north that is and the unnatural division of the peninsula)). Does Ukraine (and Europe) want a DMZ dividing its territory for the next 7 decades? Do we want to see Ukraine unnaturally divided?

‘Korea-style DMZ’ for Ukraine? US officials, Expert Argue for New Approach to Kyiv’s Security

As Trump administration reportedly floats a DMZ plan with Europe, a retired US Army Colonel with NATO experience suggests it could provide the only path to peace, despite widespread opposition.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59036?utm

by Alex Raufoglu | Aug. 28, 2025, 3:33 am

Share Flip

Talks over Ukraine’s future security have recently intensified, but a significant rift has emerged between the US and its European allies over who will shoulder the long-term burden of the war-torn country’s defense.

A final framework for security assurances remains elusive, with the disagreements exposing a fundamental divide on the path forward.

As Kyiv Post has learned from diplomatic sources, US officials have recently floated a controversial peace proposal centered on a demilitarized zone (DMZ), a concept that has not been well-received by European counterparts.

One Western diplomat told Kyiv Post on Tuesday that the Europeans were not “awfully fan” of the idea, signaling deep-seated concerns that it would leave them to police a fragile peace alone.

In the meantime, a retired US Army Colonel with NATO experience suggests it could provide the only path to peace, despite widespread opposition.

‘Credible’ But Unpopular DMZ Model

Retired US Army Colonel Richard Williams – who once served as Deputy Director of the Armaments Section in NATO’s Defense Investment Division – offers a bleak assessment of what he calls the “elusive post-conflict ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine and Europe” in an interview with the Kyiv Post.

Williams argues that given Vladimir Putin’s “restrictions,” credible security guarantees for Ukraine are almost impossible to find. He points out that Russia has made “no compromises itself in the interest of promoting peace,” citing a lack of territorial concessions, no moves toward a ceasefire, and no deadlines for de-escalation.

According to Williams, the promised sanctions from the Trump administration have also not been implemented. “Anyone looking for daylight between Putin’s and Trump’s policies to curtail the war would be hard pressed to find any!” he said, adding that “little effort has been made by either.”

Williams also noted that Trump has criticized Ukraine for its recent strikes, rather than the “unprecedented Russian air strikes aimed at killing civilians.” The expert reminds that Putin has stated Ukraine can never join NATO and that no NATO nations can be part of a peacekeeping force.

Given the limited options, Williams suggests that the “only credible ‘security guarantee’ would be generally replicating the ambitious Korean DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) used to divide the two Koreas when the Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953.”

While acknowledging a Ukrainian DMZ would be longer, he believes an “approximately 4 kilometer width would be reasonable” and that “sensors, drones & other surveillance capabilities would reduce the requirement for a large peacekeeping force.”

Williams also proposed a controversial element: “Should a belligerent aggression make it to the 2 kilometer point, certain measures can be taken. In the case of Ukraine, a NATO-like Article 5 would be proposed to be invoked as a consequence of the aggression.”

He concludes with a pessimistic view of Russia’s intentions, stating, “in the meantime, there are no indications that Moscow is serious about pursuing peace, even if all her preconditions for it are met.”

Trump Team’s Old Plan

As Kyiv Post has learned from diplomatic sources, the DMZ proposal has recently been a central component of the Trump administration’s broader promise to end the war.

The concept, which has been floated with European officials since early summer, is part of a series of scenarios being considered by the administration to swiftly end the conflict.

The plan would effectively freeze the conflict, allowing Russia to retain control of occupied Ukrainian territory.

In return, Ukraine would be pressured to formally renounce its ambition to join NATO for at least two decades.

The enforcement of the DMZ, a critical sticking point, would be left to European forces, with the U.S. providing only intelligence and air defense support.

One administration member reportedly stated that “the barrel of the gun is going to be European.”

Kyiv, European Leaders Unwavering

Ukraine has consistently rejected any notion of territorial concessions, with President Volodymyr Zelensky calling the DMZ proposal a “dead” idea.

Kyiv argues that it would not lead to lasting peace but would instead leave Ukrainian cities vulnerable to Russian artillery.

The presence of Ukrainian forces in Russia’s southern Kursk region also complicates the notion of a fixed border.European leaders also share this wariness, Western diplomats told Kyiv Post. They are concerned that the plan would legitimize Russian aggression and undermine international law.

Alex Raufoglu

Alex Raufoglu is Kyiv Post's Chief Correspondent in Washington DC. He covers the US State Department, regularly traveling with US Secretary of State. Raufoglu has worked extensively in the South Caucasus and Black Sea regions for several international broadcast outlets, such as VoA, BBC, RFE/RL, etc. He holds an MA in Interactive Journalism from American University, Washington DC.

7. Tokyo City Releases AI-Generated Videos of Mount Fuji Eruption to Scare the Living Crap Out of Japanese Citizens

AI for the wake-up call.

Tokyo City Releases AI-Generated Videos of Mount Fuji Eruption to Scare the Living Crap Out of Japanese Citizens

Though Mount Fuji isn't showing any signs of an imminent eruption, one video warns that this disaster could strike "at any moment, without warning."

Ellyn Lapointe and Gayoung Lee Published August 29, 2025 | Comments (11)

Gizmodo · Ellyn Lapointe and Gayoung Lee · August 29, 2025

Ellyn Lapointe and Gayoung Lee Published August 29, 2025 | Comments (4) |

Mount Fuji looms over Tokyo, Japan in May 2024 © Simo Räsänen via Wikimedia Commons

For more than 300 years, Mount Fuji has quietly loomed over Tokyo, but an eruption could, apparently, strike at any moment. In honor of Volcanic Disaster Preparedness Day on August 26, Japanese officials released computer- and AI-generated videos to remind its citizens of that harrowing fact.

The videos, created by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and Japan’s Cabinet Office of Disaster Management, aim to prepare Tokyo’s 37 million residents for this potential disaster. In the Cabinet Office’s video, which you can watch below, ash rains down over the city, drastically reducing visibility. The eruption material builds up to about 24 to 28 inches (60 to 70 centimeters) thick over just a few days, the narrator explains. A roof caves in and traffic grinds to a halt as highways become impassable. You can watch the English version here (we’re unable to embed the English version for some reason).

According to the Associated Press, the Tokyo government said in a statement that there are currently no signs of Fuji erupting. “The simulation is designed to equip residents with accurate knowledge and preparedness measures they can take in case of an emergency,” it explained.

Preparing for Mount Fuji to reawaken

Mount Fuji is a 12,300-foot-tall (3,700-meter-tall) stratovolcano that lies about 60 miles (100 kilometers) from central Tokyo. Though it hasn’t erupted since 1707, geologists consider it “potentially active” due to the fact that it has erupted during the Holocene epoch, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

What’s more, Fuji is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, an area of significant seismic and volcanic activity. This volcano sits at the three-way intersection of the Pacific, Eurasian, and Philippine tectonic plates. Subduction of the Pacific plate beneath the Philippine plate drives Fuji’s activity.

The volcano’s most recent eruption was also its largest in recorded history.

Likely triggered by an 8.6 magnitude earthquake in October 1707, the eruption began months later on December 16 and lasted until January 1. Fuji ejected tons of tephra, or a mix of pyroclastic materials including ash and rock, into the air, according to National Geographic. This material blanketed the city of Edo, known today as central Tokyo, and decimated crops. Many starved to death during the resulting famine.

Due to its proximity to densely populated Tokyo and other cities, experts continuously monitor Fuji for signs of activity. Still, it’s impossible to predict the timing of this volcano’s next eruption. This is why Japanese officials urge residents to be ready at any time.

The public reacts

Though the videos are meant to inform, they also caused anxiety and confusion among some Tokyo residents, the AP reports.

“Are there actually any signs of eruption?” Shinichiro Kariya, a 57-year-old hospital employee, asked the AP. “Why are we now hearing things like ‘10 centimeters of ash could fall,’ even in Tokyo? I’m wondering why this is happening all of a sudden.”

“Honestly, Mt. Fuji had always felt far away, so watching this made me feel very scared,” an unnamed 26-year-old nurse told the Japanese news station NTV News.

University of Tokyo professor and risk communication expert Naoya Sekiya told the AP there is no particular significance to the timing of the videos’ release, explaining that the government has modeled scenarios for volcanic eruptions and earthquakes for years.

Japan is prone to a variety of natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and typhoons. These in turn can trigger other disasters, such as landslides, tsunamis—and even nuclear disasters.

As for Mount Fuji, “we are unable to predict when an eruption will come—could be weeks later, one year later, a decade, or a century later,” Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto, a researcher at the Yamanashi Prefectural Government’s Mount Fuji Research Institute, told NTV News. “I hope that citizens will each get an idea of when and how they must evacuate with the information they have.”

AI Japan video Volcanic eruptions

Gizmodo · Ellyn Lapointe and Gayoung Lee · August 29, 2025

8. How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box?

If there is one thing that should unite Americans is the fight against foreign influence in our elections. There should be universal understanding that China, Russia, Irna, and north Korea (the CRInK) all want to undermine the legitimacy of US democratic elections. We, the American people. should not fall for ethir subversion nor be complicit in their subversion by denying foreign election interference. Again, I hate to dredge up old thoughts but I have to say that the 2017 National Security Strategy signed by President Trump is something all Americans should agree on (I know I may be naive). (Thanks to Dr. Nadia Schadlow and LTG (Dr.) H.R. McMaster for writing these words). The words below apply to every foreign threat to US elections and American society.

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box? – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

spectator.org · John Mac Ghlionn

China is America’s greatest adversary. Not merely an economic rival or a diplomatic competitor, but an existential threat to everything the United States claims to stand for. Beijing dreams of an America in retreat, a world where democratic values collapse and the Middle Kingdom reclaims the throne of global dominance. Their strategy isn’t nuclear war. It’s far more insidious: buying America one acre at a time.

The land acquisition pattern is unmistakable and deliberate. In New Hampshire alone, Chinese companies have made several major purchases in the last decade. Nongfu Spring, owned by China’s richest man, bought a warehouse and land near Nashua’s water system for $67 million — four times its assessed value. Chinese investor Sui Liu purchased the former Daniel Webster College campus that sits just 6 miles from BAE Systems Electronic Systems, a defense contractor supporting Air Force and Space Force programs. These aren’t random real estate investments — they’re strategic positioning near military installations and defense contractors.

The mathematics are revealing. When foreign companies systematically overpay by 300-400 percent for properties adjacent to sensitive military sites, that’s not market dynamics. That’s reconnaissance disguised as commerce. The New Boston Space Force Station sits within striking distance of multiple Chinese-owned properties. The pattern repeats across critical infrastructure: airports, water systems, defense facilities.

Americans celebrate this as economic development. State officials actively courted Nongfu Spring as part of an economic development initiative, competing against Maryland to land the deal. The promise of 200 jobs apparently justified selling strategically vital land to a company controlled by an individual who couldn’t have become China’s wealthiest citizen without complete alignment with Communist Party priorities. And land purchases are only the surface layer. Beneath them lies something even more dangerous: political infiltration.

While Chinese companies buy land near military bases, Chinese operatives are simultaneously manipulating American elections with breathtaking audacity. More than 50 organizations with ties to Beijing have mobilized members to fundraise and endorse political candidates over the past five years. Many nonprofit charities, legally prohibited from electioneering, openly violate federal tax law with impunity, as American authorities look the other way.

Chinese consulate officials are literally leading American citizens in loyalty ceremonies. As the New York Times recently reported, videos show festive gatherings where diplomats guide hometown association leaders through pledges to “love the motherland,” support reunification with Taiwan, and contribute to the “great rejuvenation” of China. These are not harmless cultural celebrations. They are loyalty tests carried out on American soil, under the cover of tax-exempt organizations.

The electoral manipulation works with surgical precision. When State Senator Iwen Chu attended a reception for Taiwan’s president, Chinese diplomats summoned hometown association members to the consulate for interrogation about her political positions. Association leaders who had previously supported her flipped their endorsements. She lost her reelection, costing Democrats their supermajority.

When Yan Xiong, a Tiananmen Square veteran, dared run for Congress, a Chinese intelligence agent hired a private investigator to dig up compromising material, discussing hiring prostitutes and suggesting “Violence would be fine, too.” Simultaneously, the Chinese Consulate directed hometown association leaders to oppose his campaign. He was systematically sabotaged by the very government he had once challenged.

The pattern repeats with mechanical efficiency. Susan Zhuang won her New York City Council seat after Chinese-American organizations circulated damaging photos of her opponent at a Hong Kong democracy rally, branding her as supporting “violent Hong Kong independence.” Once elected, Zhuang distributed over $300,000 in city funds to the same Chinese nonprofits that had supported her campaign.

The mythology of the melting pot, free markets, and cultural diversity has made Americans incapable of recognizing obvious threats.

This represents systematic foreign interference in American democracy. Tax-exempt organizations openly violating federal law. Foreign intelligence agents targeting American candidates. Consulate officials coordinating domestic political campaigns. Yet American officials treat this as normal community organizing rather than what it obviously is: a hostile takeover.

So why, one might ask, is this madness allowed to persist?

American psychology has created a fatal blind spot. The mythology of the melting pot, free markets, and cultural diversity has made Americans incapable of recognizing obvious threats when they arrive wrapped in the rhetoric of investment and community engagement. When hostile foreign powers exploit American openness, millions of Americans call it tolerance.

Republican Congress hopeful Lily Tang Williams, who escaped communist China in the 1980s, understands the strategy. Beijing, she told “doesn’t want to get into hard war, they don’t want to fire on shot,” which explains why “they are using these so-called acceptable international expansion strategies to get the world on their side.” China plays chess while Americans play checkers, thinking in decades while Americans think in quarterly earnings reports.

The solution requires immediate action on multiple fronts.

First, emergency legislation must ban all land purchases by Chinese entities within 25 miles of military installations, defense contractors, or critical infrastructure. No exceptions, no grandfather clauses. National security trumps economic development.

Second, the IRS must immediately revoke tax-exempt status for every organization that has violated federal election law. If they want to engage in politics, they can pay taxes like everyone else.

Third, the Justice Department must aggressively prosecute foreign agents operating on American soil. Election interference is a federal crime, regardless of the perpetrator’s diplomatic cover.

Fourth, state and local officials who accepted money from Chinese-linked organizations must return every dollar. Public corruption is public corruption, even when disguised as campaign contributions.

Finally, Americans must abandon their dangerous naivety about adversarial intentions. When China’s richest man buys land next to military bases, that’s intelligence gathering. When foreign consulates orchestrate domestic political campaigns, that’s election interference.

Time is running out. Every day of delay allows China to dig in deeper. They succeed because they play the long game, setting traps that may not snap shut for decades. The question is whether America will act before the jaws close, or keep pretending there’s no danger until the trap springs and there’s no way out.

Portsmouth celebrates 120th treaty anniversary with bellringing on Sept. 5

unionleader.com · Provided by Portsmouth Peace Treaty Forum

The Japanese (left) and Russian diplomats at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard during the negotiations that produced the Portsmouth Peace Treaty on September 5, 1905.

Provided by Portsmouth Peace Treaty Forum

This year marks the 120th anniversary of the Portsmouth peace conference orchestrated by President Theodore Roosevelt to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 and the signing of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty on September 5, 1905.

The commemorations this year focus on citizen diplomacy and the Portsmouth Peace Treaty Anniversary Committee (PPTAC) community groups who produced dozens of events in 2005 for the 100th anniversary of the Treaty signing. Events included eight exhibits, several lecture series, an international scholarly symposium at Dartmouth College and another at the Green Acre Baha'i School, a 15-week concert series, three original plays including Pontine’s “Peace of Portsmouth,” three original musical compositions, fifteen art works, two formal dinners (both hosted by the New Hampshire Governor), a Mayor's Centennial tea, two re-enactments at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, a formal port visit by the Navy's USS Ross and a National Guard parade that drew thousands of people into the streets, replicating the Guard's 1905 parade that welcomed the two delegations.

In 2025 for the 120th Treaty anniversary, the Treaty exhibit in the John Paul Jones House Museum showcases the accomplishments of PPTAC and members of the committee are being invited to participate in commemorative activities around the September 5th anniversary, including a screening of the film, “An Uncommon Commitment to Peace, 2005-2025” featuring interviews with 22 PPTAC members. That free screening takes place in the Levenson Room of the Portsmouth Public Library on September 3 at 6 pm.

On Thursday, September 4, Portsmouth Mayor Deaglan McEachern welcomes a special delegation from the Nichinan Mayor's Office to help celebrate the 120th. The delegation includes Mayor Toru Takahashi, City Council President Koichiro Kitagawa, Superintendent of Education Masafumi Toko, Sister City Friendship Association Chair Shotaro Hidaka, Nichinan City Section Manager Munehiro Mizumoto, Nichnan City General Administration Assistant Manager Mikio Hori and Nichinan City Coordinator of International Relations Jose Luis Gonzalez.

On September 5, the annual bellringing and Governor Ayotte’s reading of the Governor’s Proclamation of Portsmouth Peace Treaty Day (the date the Treaty was signed at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard where negotiations were held) takes place in Market Square starting at 3:15 pm. The program takes place outside Piscataqua Savings Bank at 15 Pleasant Street. The bellringing starts at 3:47 pm, the moment the Treaty was signed in 1905. Church bells in and around the Seacoast and in communities around the state are rung to commemorate New Hampshire’s history and the critical role of citizen diplomacy.

Participating in the bellringing are:

• Middle Street Baptist Church, Portsmouth

• Christ Episcopal Church, Portsmouth

• North Congregational Church, Portsmouth

• Second Christian Congregational United Church, Kittery

• St. John’s Episcopal Church, Portsmouth

• Unitarian Universalist (South) Church, Portsmouth

• First United Methodist Church, Portsmouth

• Temple Israel, Portsmouth (sounding the shofar)

• Wentworth By the Sea Hotel, New Castle (which hosted both delegations in 1905)

• Portsmouth Historical Society John Paul Jones House (Portsmouth Peace Treaty exhibit)

• Strawbery Banke Museum

• Wentworth-Coolidge Mansion

Portsmouth Peace Treaty Living Memorial cherry tree sites in Dublin, Hanover, Lancaster, Meredith, Manchester and Milford NH also traditionally participate in the Portsmouth Peace Treaty Day observances.

Portsmouth’s Sister City of Nichinan and Sister School Nichinan Gakuen Junior-Senior High School are also planning bellringing commemorations.

“People-to-people connections that make a difference are the central idea of citizen diplomacy and the focus of Portsmouth Peace Treaty Day,” commented Charles B. Doleac, Portsmouth Peace Treaty Forum chair and president of the Japan-America Society of NH. “When researching the history of the negotiations between Russia and Japan that led to the signing of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, we discovered that in 1905, the Governor, the Navy at the Shipyard and local people created the welcoming atmosphere that sustained the formal negotiations. By re-enacting the bellringing that occurred when the Treaty was signed on September 5, 1905, we echo the celebration all around the Seacoast that greeted the news that the Russo-Japanese War was over and we commemorate the active role local citizens played in helping to achieve that peace. The sounding of bells by citizens around the state at 3:47 pm on September 5th is the historical, and in many ways most meaningful, celebration of Portsmouth Peace Treaty Day. We welcome the participation of the Nichinan delegation and other special guests in that celebration.”

For more information, visit PortsmouthPeaceTreaty.org

10. August 29, 1945: President Ho Chi Minh met Archimedes Patti to discuss the draft “Declaration of Independence”

Some often overlooked history. How would history have turned out if we had not sided with French colonialism and had instead supported a people's self determination of government? Would Vietnam have turned communist?

And the other lesson is that we have often had Americans on the ground (the OSS in this case but often Foreign Area Officers, Special Forces, Civil Affairs and PSYOP personnel who gain incredible local knowledge and understanding of the political situation. Sometimes their reports are heeded and sometimes they are.

But the real lesson is to understand the impact our Declaration of Independence has had on oppressed people.

August 29, 1945: President Ho Chi Minh met Archimedes Patti to discuss the draft “Declaration of Independence”

https://en.nhandan.vn/august-29-1945-president-ho-chi-minh-met-archimedes-patti-to-discuss-the-draft-declaration-of-independence-post152298.html

Friday, August 29, 2025 at 01:20

The Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. (File photo: The Ho Chi Minh Museum’s branch in Ho Chi Minh City)

On August 29, 1945, President Ho Chi Minh invited the head of the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Colonel Archimedes Patti, to the house at 48 Hang Ngang Street to discuss the draft “Declaration of Independence” and the planned organisation of the declaration ceremony; the entry of the Chinese Nationalist Party into Indochina to disarm the Japanese troops from the 18th parallel upwards; and the “nationalisation programme” of the Vietnamese Government concerning a number of important economic sectors.

At the reception, he wished to exchange with Colonel Patti on some of Viet Nam’s policies and future plans, such as the activities of the Provisional Government in the coming days, including the organisation of the Independence Day on September 2, the introduction of the members of the government, and the government’s programme of action for the people to know.

He called an interpreter to translate for Colonel Patti to hear the draft Declaration of Independence. Patti was extremely surprised to find that Ho had included in it some sentences from the US’s Declaration of Independence of 1776 but had rearranged the order and replaced certain words to give them a new meaning.

A large crowd of people gathered at Ba Dinh Square to listen to President Ho Chi Minh read the Declaration of Independence on the morning of September 2, 1945. (Photo: VNA)

On behalf of the Provisional Government, President Ho Chi Minh requested Patti to convey to US President Truman (Harry S. Truman) a telegram stating: “To ensure effective results for the matter which the Joint Commission of Allied Powers is tasked with resolving in Viet Nam, we request that the US mission be admitted as a member of the said commission and establish relations with our government.

“We request that our government, the sole legitimate authority in Viet Nam, and the only one that has fought against Japan (military activities conducted by the Viet Minh Front and US officers), be given the right to represent in that commission.”

On the same day, the Viet Bac Liberation Army arrived in Ha Noi and made its debut at the square of the Ha Noi Opera House.

On August 29, 1945, the Viet Bac Liberation Army arrived in Ha Noi and made its debut at the square of the Ha Noi Opera House.

NGOC TOAN

Translated by NDO

11. What Just Happened? Dismantling the Intelligence Community’s Foreign Malign Influence Center

And north Korea. Do not forget the last member of the CRInK.

Excerpt:

The administration should not get a free pass to tear down the bureaucratic architecture – established, ironically, during Trump’s first administration — to protect U.S. national security and democracy from a metastasizing ecosystem of foreign interference threats. If it does, the beneficiaries reside in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.

What Just Happened? Dismantling the Intelligence Community’s Foreign Malign Influence Center

By David Salvo

Published on August 28, 2025

justsecurity.org · David Salvo · August 28, 2025

Published on August 28, 2025

Listen to Article

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently announced that the functions of the intelligence community’s Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC) would be reduced and absorbed into other parts of the U.S. intelligence community. In doing so, Gabbard has dismantled the last remaining U.S. federal government organ dedicated to tracking and analyzing State-sponsored efforts to interfere in U.S. institutions, elections, and society. After the Trump administration shut down related units at the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and Department of Justice earlier this year, Gabbard’s announcement is a particular blow to U.S. national security and a gift to America’s adversaries, who have no interest in slowing down malign influence operations that harm U.S. national interests.

In the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the FMIC meticulously documented State-sponsored threats, particularly from China, Iran, and Russia, that targeted candidates and the electoral process itself. It also made public the process by which the executive branch would notify key stakeholders, including the American public, of threats to the election. The FMIC posted regular notifications to the American public, outlining the tactics, techniques, and procedures that State-sponsored actors used to influence the American public surreptitiously. The center highlighted specific instances of deepfake videos that sought to undermine confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, such as a Russian State-sponsored viral clip that purported to show mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania being destroyed. FMIC’s transparency contributed to bipartisan efforts to quickly debunk the video.

The FMIC and Gabbard’s predecessor as DNI, Avril Haines, also publicly outlined the objectives that China, Iran, and Russia apparently had for conducting interference operations against the United States. This helped to shed light on similarities and differences in the three countries’ strategies, including their preferred presidential candidate(s).

To its credit, the FMIC didn’t fixate on one threat actor (say, Russia). Nor did it only fixate on attempts to help then-former President Donald Trump and undermine his Democratic opponents, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, as “Russia hoax” conspiracists claim the intelligence community did during the 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, the FMIC went to great lengths to explain how some actors, notably Iran, clearly wanted to undermine Trump’s candidacy.

One would think the Trump administration would have an interest in preserving government functions that monitor nefarious foreign government activity targeting the president of the United States. Instead, in her Aug. 20 announcement of the broader ODNI reorganization and the dismantlement of FMIC, with its remaining work spread across other units, Gabbard claimed the office had politicized intelligence (a charge she also leveled at the intelligence community when the administration recently declassified materials purporting to support its claim that Russia did not interfere on behalf of Trump’s 2016 campaign). To the contrary — not only did the FMIC avoid putting its thumb on the scales of the election results, but it also avoided doing anything that could be misconstrued as censorship of free speech. The FMIC did not recommend censoring specific sources of information, nor did it tell citizens what to read or what to believe. There was no deep-state plot to deplatform conservative voices or denigrate the Trump campaign.

While the law passed by Congress in 2019 to authorize the FMIC stipulates that the center cannot be formally closed until 2028, ODNI’s decision to cripple it now means the United States has effectively ended any meaningful government role in addressing the foreign interference threat. In the meantime, China, Iran, Russia, and other nation-States will continue to use information operations, cyber operations, and other hybrid threat vectors to destabilize the U.S. government, subvert American society, and damage U.S. national security. For example, Russia is ramping up efforts this year to inject Russian State propaganda into the data sets informing AI chat bots, a tactic certain to be copied by other adversarial governments. In July, Microsoft unmasked a cyber operation by the Russian State Security Service (FSB) to target foreign embassies in Moscow with malware.

As congressional oversight rapidly atrophies, members of Congress likely will not rally to the defense of FMIC on a bipartisan basis. But that does not preclude members from using their oversight power to ensure the FMIC’s functions endure in other capacities. Only a year ago, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an open hearing, not only voiced their shared belief that hostile governments were waging campaigns to undermine Americans’ confidence in elections and democracy, but also seemingly agreed that the U.S. government should play an important role in defending against these threats.

Members can still demand the Trump administration specify which U.S. agencies will monitor the various State-sponsored threats that target national interests and, in the absence of ODNI coordination, which part of the U.S. government will coordinate analysis of this multifaceted threat ecosystem so policymakers can use the information responsibly. Relevant committees, including on intelligence and foreign relations, should call hearings that compel administration officials to delineate which countries are conducting hybrid operations to threaten U.S. interests at home and overseas and what specific steps the administration is taking to counter them.

The administration should not get a free pass to tear down the bureaucratic architecture – established, ironically, during Trump’s first administration — to protect U.S. national security and democracy from a metastasizing ecosystem of foreign interference threats. If it does, the beneficiaries reside in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.

FEATURED IMAGE: Seal of the Foreign Malign Influence Center (Wikimedia Commons)

About the Author

David Salvo

David Salvo (LinkedIn) is a senior fellow and managing director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) at the German Marshall Fund (GMF). An expert in Russian affairs, he was a Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. Department of State, most recently as the deputy secretary of state’s policy advisor for Europe, Eurasia, and international security issues.

Send A Letter To The Editor

justsecurity.org · David Salvo · August 28, 2025

12. Can TV Help Prepare for Invasion?

It is all about telling the story. Controlling the narrative.

Who would have thought nationals security is compelling entertainment?

"Occupied" was a good show. I binged on it. I am looking forward to watching Zero Day. Watch the 17 minute trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAnZdVG041Y. I also think Mick Ryan's book, White Sun War: The Campaign for Taiwan, would be excellent on the big or little screen.

Excerpts:

Like Taiwan, other democracies have seen hostile states target them in a variety of ways in recent years: Beyond the ubiquitous cyberattacks and influence campaigns, there have been subsea cable cuts, arson attacks, parcel bombs, election interference, weaponization of migration, sabotage of cars, GPS jamming, “weather balloons,” and much else.

But unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, most of this goes unseen and unnoticed. That leaves governments with a dilemma: How to convince voters that defense budgets need to increase when they’re largely unaware of the aggression?

About a decade ago, the Norwegian series Occupied did for Norwegians what Zero Day Attack is now setting out to do for the Taiwanese. It, too, was compelling television—so compelling that global audiences binged it on Netflix. National security is, in fact, the best possible entertainment; it has nail-biting drama, variety, panorama shots of famous cities, all manner of people—and these days it’s also bound to have repair crews fixing cables on stormy seas.

Can TV Help Prepare for Invasion?

Taiwan’s “Zero Day Attack” sets an example other threatened states can follow.

August 29, 2025, 2:20 PM

Braw-Elisabeth-foreign-policy-columnist3

Elisabeth Braw

By Elisabeth Braw, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Foreign Policy · Elisabeth Braw

Taiwan
Elisabeth Braw

Imagine a fleet of Chinese ships suddenly appearing in the Taiwan Strait, tasked with inspecting all vessels traveling through the busy thoroughfare—including on the Taiwanese side. Or a Chinese fighter jet crashing off the Taiwanese coast and Chinese warships blockading the island to look for it.

One of these events actually happened, the other is part of a new Taiwanese television show, but the events feel equally real. “A Chinese Y-8 reconnaissance aircraft entered the South China Sea at 10 a.m. today and crashed into the Pacific, right off Taiwan’s east coast. In the name of search and rescue, the Chinese army deployed its navy and air force. … Taiwan is now under a de facto blockade,” a news anchor announces on Taiwanese TV.

Thus begins Zero Day Attack, which began airing in Taiwan this month. In addition to providing entertainment, the show’s objective is to warn the Taiwanese of large-scale Chinese interference. As threats from China and Russia loom, such stories are needed far beyond Taiwan.

Taiwan’s misfortune doesn’t end with the blockade. The People’s Liberation Army’s search and rescue operation turns into an encirclement of Taiwan, both in the water and in the air. (Such operations would be easy for China, which in real life has the world’s largest naval fleet, and whose air force has been undergoing major modernization and expansion.) It’s frightening, and Taiwan needs imports and exports to survive, but the Taiwanese get on with their lives.

Then Chinese military vehicles appear in the streets. Then the internet starts cutting out. (An influencer in the middle of recording a video can’t believe she’s been cut off.) Then, with the internet gone, the financial system collapses. Enraged residents can’t use credit cards or make smartphone payments, and ATMs can’t dispense cash. Hacker attacks on infrastructure follow, as does sabotage. Life quickly becomes extremely cumbersome. The outgoing president, about to be succeeded by the recent presidential election’s winner, records a message to the nation: “Without freedom, Taiwan is not Taiwan.” Around him, the attacks continue to grow, in variety and intensity.

Zero Day Attack is compelling television; the trailer has been watched 2.5 million times. The show, which premiered in Taiwan on Aug. 2, features 10 episodes, and while it may simply be brilliant television for anyone who manages to watch the series outside of Taiwan, for the Taiwanese themselves, the storyline is frighteningly real.

People on a Chinese-flagged vehicle with loud speakers. Below, soldiers on the ground under camo netting.

A scene from Zero Day Attack.Zeroday Cultural and Creative

In 2023, immediately after then-U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hosted the Taiwanese president in California, Beijing dispatched an inspection fleet to the Taiwan Strait. The message was unmistakably clear: China could decide to inspect the roughly 240 ships that pass through every day; if it did, massive delays would ensue and shipping routes would be altered to avoid the strait. Taiwan would be cut off.

The inspection flotilla is, of course, not the only aggressive act Taiwan has had to endure in recent years. There have been disinformation campaigns, election interference, cyberattacks, and sudden blockades of Taiwanese food exports. When China abruptly suspended imports of Taiwanese pineapples, the #FreedomPineapple campaign sought to soften the effects of the Chinese ban.

And there have been multiple suspicious cable cuts. In February 2023, two Chinese merchant vessels cut the two lines connecting the Matsu Islands with the rest of Taiwan. This February, the Taiwanese coast guard caught a Chinese ship in the act of cutting another Taiwanese cable.

Street art shows U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a section of the former Berlin Wall at Mauerpark in Berlin.
Street art shows U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a section of the former Berlin Wall at Mauerpark in Berlin.

Trump Might Sell Out Taiwan—Here’s How to Prevent It

Taipei needs to spend more on defense and invest more in the U.S.

Most Taiwanese are aware that their country is at risk, but the government, whose culture ministry has helped fund Zero Day Attack, believes the public needs a reminder—including the fact that the harm may not stop at cable-cutting and cyberattacks. (It’s a sign of the times that Taiwan’s Chunghwa Telecom also contributed funding: Chunghwa owns the cables that have been damaged by Chinese ships.)

Taiwan is on the front lines, but other nations could benefit from such edutainment. The last time the West saw a spate of invasion fiction, it was in the run-up to WWI, when British writers regularly warned of the menace to Britain’s shores posed by the Hun—one that, in the event, the Royal Navy had little problem warding off. During the Cold War, stories like Red Dawn popped up sporadically, but they tended to be more focused on improbable scenarios than realism or education.

A tank moves toward a man on a bicycle.

A scene from Zero Day Attack.Zeroday Cultural and Creative

Like Taiwan, other democracies have seen hostile states target them in a variety of ways in recent years: Beyond the ubiquitous cyberattacks and influence campaigns, there have been subsea cable cuts, arson attacks, parcel bombs, election interference, weaponization of migration, sabotage of cars, GPS jamming, “weather balloons,” and much else.

But unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, most of this goes unseen and unnoticed. That leaves governments with a dilemma: How to convince voters that defense budgets need to increase when they’re largely unaware of the aggression?

About a decade ago, the Norwegian series Occupied did for Norwegians what Zero Day Attack is now setting out to do for the Taiwanese. It, too, was compelling television—so compelling that global audiences binged it on Netflix. National security is, in fact, the best possible entertainment; it has nail-biting drama, variety, panorama shots of famous cities, all manner of people—and these days it’s also bound to have repair crews fixing cables on stormy seas.

These might be scary futures, and sometimes less likely ones, but it’s worth thinking about them now. Taiwan’s residents can be better prepared, and television dramas could educate the public in most other countries too. I have every faith that Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian (again), German, and British television would make a smashing job of it. Let’s see what global entertainment can come up with.

Foreign Policy · Elisabeth Braw

13. The U.S. Wooed India for 30 Years. Trump Blew That Up in a Few Months.

Does our POTUS deserve all the blame? Let's think about India's actions.

Excerpts:

Indian hedging against such risks may have already begun. This weekend Mr. Modi is making his first visit to China in seven years for a regional summit, where President Xi Jinping will personally welcome both him and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Indian and Chinese armies clashed on their disputed border in 2020, and this visit is a potentially momentous opportunity to reset India-China relations, finesse lingering disputes over their border, trade and regional security, and — for China — to begin drawing India away from Washington’s orbit.

Ultimately, the United States may have the most to lose in this landscape. It’s unclear whether anyone in Washington ever really expected fiercely independent India to serve as a frontline ally in a future conflict with China. But India mattered because after decades in which Indians regarded America with deep suspicion, the United States was beginning to enjoy genuine good will in the world’s most populous country, a democracy that happens to border on China.

This extraordinary achievement now lies in tatters. Mr. Modi and Mr. Trump, colossal figures today, will inevitably fade away. India and the United States will be left with the task of emancipating themselves from the legacy of these two leaders.

Guest Essay

The U.S. Wooed India for 30 Years. Trump Blew That Up in a Few Months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/opinion/trump-us-india.html

Aug. 31, 2025, 1:00 a.m. ET

Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Share full article
0

By Kapil Komireddi

Mr. Komireddi is the author of “Malevolent Republic: A History of the New India.” He wrote from London.

For three decades, successive American presidents have invested enormous diplomatic capital to cultivate a friendship with India.

Bill Clinton, who laid the foundations of the modern U.S.-India partnership, called the two democracies “natural allies.” George W. Bush described them as “brothers in the cause of human liberty.” Barack Obama and Joe Biden both cast the relationship as one of the defining global compacts of this century.

To Washington, India was a vast emerging market, a potential counterweight to China, a key partner in maintaining Indo-Pacific security and a rising power whose democratic identity would bolster a rules-based international order. For its part, India — mistrustful of the West after nearly a century of British colonial rule — shed its Cold War suspicion of Washington, which had armed and financed its archnemesis Pakistan for decades, and moved steadily closer to the United States.

It took Donald Trump one summer to obliterate these gains.

In May, he claimed credit for ending a brief military conflict between India and Pakistan. This incensed India, which regards its dispute with Pakistan as strictly bilateral, and humiliated Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had touted his closeness to “my friend Donald Trump.” Mr. Trump proceeded to have lunch at the White House with Gen. Syed Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief and former head of the country’s spy agency, which the United States has accused of supporting international terrorist groups. He also called India’s economy “dead” and imposed punishing 50 percent tariffs on Indian imports to the United States.

This abrupt falling-out has profound implications. Mr. Trump’s insults have, to some degree, united India’s permanently clashing political parties — a striking development in a country where Mr. Modi’s divisive rule has left little political common ground. For the first time in decades, the United States is the common foe of almost every political faction in India.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

No nation is entirely safe from Mr. Trump’s unstable temperament. But India had been lulled into the delusion that it was uniquely protected by the supposed special bond between Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi, two self-aggrandizing men who have subordinated their nations’ foreign relations to their personalities.

Mr. Modi has built a formidable cult of personality at home, burnished in part by claims that Mr. Trump and other world leaders adulated him. When Mr. Trump was elected in November, pro-Modi Indian media personalities exploded with a mawkish mixture of triumphalism and schadenfreude. They declared that with Mr. Modi’s friend back in the White House, India’s adversaries were on notice and rhapsodized about the chemistry between the two men. In 2020, Mr. Modi even trampled on the nonpartisan nature of India’s relationship with the United States by endorsing Mr. Trump for a second term.

Mr. Biden overlooked this slight during his presidency. His administration continued to treat New Delhi as a vital partner while occasionally raising concerns about the deterioration of democracy under Mr. Modi. The Indian leader’s supporters believed that Mr. Trump, rather than lecture New Delhi, would squeeze the country’s enemies and accelerate India’s rise.

It hasn’t worked out that way. Mr. Trump has jeopardized the bilateral relationship and dismantled, almost overnight, Mr. Modi’s meticulously crafted image as a globally venerated statesman — something his rivals in the Indian political opposition have been unable to do.

The United States is India’s largest trading partner, and the tariffs are expected to devastate businesses across a range of sectors, causing factory closings, job losses and slower growth.

Mr. Trump at first applied a 25 percent tariff on Aug. 1 as part of his global assault on U.S. trading partners. Days later, he announced an additional 25 percent levy to punish India for buying Russian oil. The latter outraged and puzzled Indians — it was Washington, after all, that had initially encouraged India to purchase Russian oil to help stabilize global prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China, which imports more Russian oil, and Europe, whose overall trade with Russia is larger than India’s, have not been penalized for that.

The tariffs are now being challenged in U.S. courts. And in the long run, with the world’s fourth-largest economy, a vast domestic market and strong global trade and investment links, India is likely to withstand the blow anyway. Sooner or later there will be an effort to repair the relationship with the United States. But the trust that took 30 years to build will not easily be restored. Indian resentment will burn for a long time.

For New Delhi, this is a defining moment. Should it submit to Mr. Trump in hopes that the United States will strengthen the partnership against China or pursue a pragmatic rapprochement with Beijing to safeguard trade, investment and long-term strategic stability in Asia? After all, how can India be certain that Washington will not abruptly weaponize their strategic partnership, just as it has weaponized trade?

Indian hedging against such risks may have already begun. This weekend Mr. Modi is making his first visit to China in seven years for a regional summit, where President Xi Jinping will personally welcome both him and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Indian and Chinese armies clashed on their disputed border in 2020, and this visit is a potentially momentous opportunity to reset India-China relations, finesse lingering disputes over their border, trade and regional security, and — for China — to begin drawing India away from Washington’s orbit.

Ultimately, the United States may have the most to lose in this landscape. It’s unclear whether anyone in Washington ever really expected fiercely independent India to serve as a frontline ally in a future conflict with China. But India mattered because after decades in which Indians regarded America with deep suspicion, the United States was beginning to enjoy genuine good will in the world’s most populous country, a democracy that happens to border on China.

This extraordinary achievement now lies in tatters. Mr. Modi and Mr. Trump, colossal figures today, will inevitably fade away. India and the United States will be left with the task of emancipating themselves from the legacy of these two leaders.

Palantir is mapping government data. What it means for governance

The partnership between Palantir and the federal government raises fundamental questions about accountability in a data-driven state.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91393957/palantir-government-data-governance?utm_source

FacebookLinkedInBlueskyXLink

[Source Illustration: Freepik]

The Conversation

Listen to this Article

More info

0:00

8:31

When the U.S. government signs contracts with private technology companies, the fine print rarely reaches the public. Palantir Technologies, however, has attracted more and more attention over the past decade because of the size and scope of its contracts with the government.

Palantir’s two main platforms are Foundry and Gotham. Each does different things. Foundry is used by corporations in the private sector to help with global operations. Gotham is marketed as an “operating system for global decision making” and is primarily used by governments.

I am a researcher who studies the intersection of data governance, digital technologies, and the U.S. federal government. I’m observing how the government is increasingly pulling together data from various sources, and the political and social consequences of combining those data sources. Palantir’s work with the federal government using the Gotham platform is amplifying this process.

Gotham is an investigative platform built for police, national security agencies, public health departments, and other state clients. Its purpose is deceptively simple: take whatever data an agency already has, break it down into its smallest components, and then connect the dots. Gotham is not simply a database. It takes fragmented data, scattered across various agencies and stored in different formats, and transforms it into a unified, searchable web.

The stakes are high with Palantir’s Gotham platform. The software enables law enforcement and government analysts to connect vast, disparate datasets, build intelligence profiles, and search for individuals based on characteristics as granular as a tattoo or an immigration status. It transforms historically static records—think department of motor vehicles files, police reports, and subpoenaed social media data like location history and private messages—into a fluid web of intelligence and surveillance.

These departments and agencies use Palantir’s platform to assemble detailed profiles of individuals, mapping their social networks, tracking their movements, identifying their physical characteristics, and reviewing their criminal history. This can involve mapping a suspected gang member’s network using arrest logs and license plate reader data, or flagging individuals in a specific region with a particular immigration status.

The efficiency the platform enables is undeniable. For investigators, what once required weeks of cross-checking siloed systems can now be done in hours or less. But by scaling up the government’s investigative capacity, Gotham also alters the relationship between the state and the people it governs.

Shifting the balance of power

The political ramifications of Palantir’s rise come into focus when you consider its influence and reach across the government. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement alone has spent more than $200 million on Palantir contracts, relying on the software to run its Investigative Case Management system and to integrate travel histories, visa records, biometric data, and social media data.

The Department of Defense has awarded Palantir billion-dollar contracts to support battlefield intelligence and AI-driven analysis. Even domestic agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Internal Revenue Service, and local police agencies like the New York Police Department, have contracted with Palantir for data integration projects.

These integrations mean that Palantir is not just a vendor of software; it is becoming a partner in how the federal government organizes and acts on information. That creates a kind of dependency. The same private company helps define how investigations are conducted, how targets are prioritized, how algorithms work, and how decisions are justified.

Because Gotham is proprietary, the public, and even elected officials, cannot see how its algorithms weigh certain data points or why they highlight certain connections. Yet the conclusions it generates can have life-altering consequences: inclusion on a deportation list or identification as a security risk. The opacity makes democratic oversight difficult, and the system’s broad scope and wide deployment means that mistakes or biases can scale up rapidly to affect many people.

Beyond law enforcement

Supporters of Palantir’s work argue that it modernizes outdated government IT systems, bringing them closer to the kind of integrated analytics that are routine in the private sector. However, the political and social stakes are different in public governance. Centralized, attribute-based searching, whether by location, immigration status, tattoos or affiliations, creates the capacity for mass profiling.

In the wrong hands, or even in well-intentioned hands under shifting political conditions, this kind of system could normalize surveillance of entire communities. And the criteria that trigger scrutiny today could be expanded tomorrow.

U.S. history provides warning examples: The mass surveillance of Muslim communities after 9/11, the targeting of civil rights activists in the 1960s, and the monitoring of anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era are just a few.

Gotham’s capabilities may enable government agencies to carry out similar operations on a much larger scale and at a faster pace. And once some form of data integration infrastructure exists, its uses tend to expand, often into areas far from its original mandate.

A broader shift in governance

The deeper story here isn’t just that the government is collecting more data. It’s that the structure of governance is changing into a model where decision-making is increasingly influenced by what integrated data platforms reveal. In a pre-Gotham era, putting someone under suspicion of wrongdoing might have required specific evidence linked to an event or witness account. In a Gotham-enabled system, suspicion can stem from patterns in the data—patterns whose importance is defined by proprietary algorithms.

This level of data integration means that government officials can use potential future risks to justify present action. The predictive turn in governance aligns with a broader shift toward what some scholars call “preemptive security.” It is a logic that can erode traditional legal safeguards that require proof before punishment.

The stakes for democracy

The partnership between Palantir and the federal government raises fundamental questions about accountability in a data-driven state. Who decides how these tools are used? Who can challenge a decision that was made by software, especially if that software is proprietary?

Without clear rules and independent oversight, there is a risk that Palantir’s technology becomes normalized as a default mode of governance. They could be used not only to track suspected criminals or terrorists but also to manage migration flows, monitor and suppress protests, and enforce public health measures. The concern is not that these data integration capabilities exist, but that government agencies could use them in ways that undermine civil liberties without public consent.

Once put in use, such systems are hard to dismantle. They create new expectations for speed and efficiency in law enforcement, making it politically costly to revert to slower, more manual processes. That inertia can lock in not only the technology but also the expanded scope of surveillance it enables.

Choosing the future

As Palantir deepens its government partnerships, the issues its technology raises go beyond questions of cost or efficiency. There are civil liberties implications and the potential for abuse. Will strong legal safeguards and transparent oversight constrain these tools for integrated data analysis? The answer is likely to depend on political will as much as technical design.

Ultimately, Palantir’s Gotham is more than just software. It represents how modern governance might function: through data, connections, continuous monitoring, and control. The decisions made about its use today are likely to shape the balance between security and freedom for decades to come.

Nicole M. Bennett is a PhD candidate in geography and assistant director at the Center for Refugee Studies at Indiana University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The early-rate deadline for Fast Company’s Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.

15. Three Ways Cognitive Warfare Exposes Character And What To Do About It

As the moral is the physical is three is to one (Bonaparte) the cognitive is to the kinetic as ten is to one (just made that one up) - actually I have long used a variation of this in my lectures on irregular warfare her:

•What is the major difference in the views of conflict, strategy, and campaigning between China, Russia, Iran, nK, AQ, and ISIS and the US?

–The psychological takes precedence and may or may not be supported with the kinetic

–Politics is war by other means

–For the US kinetic is first and the psychological is second

–War is politics by other means

–Easier to get permission to put a hellfire on the forehead of terrorist than to get permission to put an idea between his ears

•Bonaparte: In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one

•In the 21st Century the psychological is to the kinetic as ten is to one

•The US has to learn to put the psychological first

–Can a federal democratic republic “do strategy” this way

–Or is it only autocratic, totalitarian dictatorships that can “do strategy” this way?

•An American Way of Political Warfare: A Proposal https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE300/PE304/RAND_PE304.pdf

And yes, character counts.

Seethe graphics at the link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marycrossan/2025/08/30/three-ways-cognitive-warfare-exposes-character-and-what-to-do-about-it/

Topics covered:

1. Understand Character As Vulnerability And Strength

2. Account For The Headwinds That Undermine Character And Amplify Cognitive Warfare

3. Develop Character To Combat Cognitive Warfare

Three Ways Cognitive Warfare Exposes Character And What To Do About It

ByMary Crossan,Contributor. Mary Crossan is a professor and global expert in strategic leadership

Aug 30, 2025, 07:30am EDTAug 30, 2025, 07:50am EDT

Forbes · Mary Crossan · August 30, 2025

Cognitive Warfare: The Forces Shaping Judgment

getty

In a 2023 post, NATO's Strategic Warfare Development Command unpacked a relatively new concept known as cognitive warfare. At its core, according to NATO, cognitive warfare is the manipulation of stories, information, and ideas to "gain an advantage." It is not warfare in the traditional sense of the word in that we aren't seeing soldiers exchanging fire on a battlefield. Instead, information is being manipulated to create stories and influence ideas that then circulate among the populations of a target country. These ideas then erode the norms and values that hold the country together, opening opportunities that an adversary can exploit. Indeed, we are regularly being targeted with cognitive warfare by our adversaries.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), with its far-reaching influence, has heightened the threat and underscored the need for solutions. Every day, we consume a diet of unhealthy and toxic information that nudges behavior, often without us understanding how or knowing the difference between fact and fiction. Plenty has been written about the systems required to detect and thwart these unwanted attacks, including cybersecurity and combating fake news; however, there has been little attention to how cognitive warfare exposes and undermines individual character, and how strengthening character should be a strategic priority to counter its effects. Identifying how cognitive warfare exposes character and what to do about it should prompt educators and organizations to consider character development as a strategic investment that not only achieves the aims of strengthening human flourishing and sustained excellence but is a cornerstone of strengthening democracy. Like anything that provides a sustainable competitive advantage, understanding, developing, and embedding character in organizations is complex; however, there are three key pillars to consider.

1. Understand Character As Vulnerability And Strength

The seeds for understanding how character can be both a vulnerability and a strength in cognitive warfare are revealed in research by a group of international scholars who published an article in Behavioral Sciences in 2024, entitled “Fake-News Attitude Evaluation in Terms of Visual Attention and Personality Traits: A Preliminary Study for Mitigating the Cognitive Warfare.” Focusing on the Big Five personality traits, they found that individuals who were lower on the trait of being “open-minded” were more likely to recognize fake news. These findings should be concerning. Personality theory seeks to identify semi-stable traits that differentiate individuals, with little in the way of a developmental paradigm. This is perhaps best understood in terms of one of the Big Five Personality traits – introversion and extraversion – as many people have come to realize that there are individual differences, but one is not inherently better than the other. The conclusion from the cognitive warfare study on open-mindedness is troubling. Should we be less open-minded? Research on character provides a different take.

Building on extensive research in philosophy, psychology, and education, researchers at the Ivey Business School identified 11 dimensions of character, each with a corresponding set of behaviors as shown in Figure 1. Being “open-minded” is one of the behaviors related to the character dimension of collaboration. A key insight from character research is that any dimension of character can manifest in a deficient or excessive vice state when not supported by other dimensions of character. Therefore, a person should not diminish a strength, like being open-minded, but rather strengthen the supporting dimensions. In the character wheel, the dimension of judgment is central – Aristotle called it “practical wisdom.” Differentiating fake news from facts relies on judgment. The dimension of judgment encompasses behaviors such as being a critical thinker and analytical. Instead of suggesting people should be less open-minded, the proper conclusion is that they should strengthen other dimensions so their open-mindedness does not become excessive, which can make them vulnerable to influence.

Figure 1 - 11 Interconnected Character Dimensions

Adapted from Crossan et al. 2017

MORE FOR YOU

The deficient vice of being open-minded is being narrow-minded. Narrow-mindedness is a significant problem in organizations and society and should not be confused with being focused. Other character dimensions, like courage (e.g., tenacious, determined) and drive (results-oriented), help ensure proper focus. Still, dimensions like accountability and justice are especially valuable for guiding focus and preventing us from being caught in an echo chamber of self-interest; instead, they help us grow our accountability to a broader group of stakeholders and enhance our fairness, equity, and social responsibility.

Becoming an open-minded person requires effort. Forbes contributor Dede Henley described four practices that help cultivate an open mind: inviting outsiders in, being willing to listen before speaking, being open to being wrong, and asking good questions. All of these practices point in the direction of strengthening other character behaviors, such as the empathy and compassion associated with the dimension of humanity to hear, not just listen; the patience, calm, and self-control associated with temperance to listen before jumping in to speak, often associated with jumping to conclusions that compromise judgment. See my 2025 Forbes article on how temperance is the “quiet strength that shapes character.” To be willing to admit mistakes requires a great deal of humility, which is in short supply for most people. The challenge regarding individual judgment is to strengthen all supporting character dimensions—being open-minded is just one of 62 behaviors.

Strengthening character not only serves to combat cognitive warfare, but it is also the basis for sustainable competitive advantage as Bill Furlong, Rob Austin, and I argue in our 2023 MIT Sloan article, “Make Leader Character Your Competitive Edge.” The same forces shape how individuals think and act in organizations and life. The bottom line is that everyone should care about cognitive warfare, but perhaps see it through the broader lens of the headwinds that undermine character.

2. Account For The Headwinds That Undermine Character And Amplify Cognitive Warfare

Cognitive warfare focuses on the intentional approaches and practices to influence people’s beliefs. Like a hacker looking for vulnerabilities in a computer network, perpetrators seek weaknesses in the way we make decisions. Although there is a lot of attention to vulnerabilities such as biases, the discussion often neglects the fact that human systems already have significant vulnerabilities that need to be understood and addressed – the headwinds that undermine judgment more generally. These headwinds can be so strong that philosophers debate whether we have any free will at all. Instead, the way we think is determined or programmed by the systems we are in. Like the famous Matrix movie, people often fail to recognize the influence of the systems that shape their perceptions and judgments. Psychologists and sociologists have identified major forces, such as the bystander effect, whereby individuals lose their sense of accountability in groups, and social comparison, whereby others influence how we think and act. Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated that the system we are in shapes how we think and act. In his experiment, students who were randomly assigned to be guards began abusing the students who were prisoners after only five days. Although the strength of character of participants has not been examined in these types of social experiments, it is noteworthy that there are always outliers who don’t conform to the toxic influences. Ivey researchers reveal that the differences between weak and strong character are correlated with significant outcomes, such as an 18% difference in employee voice, indicating that individuals with stronger character are more likely to express their point of view. That research also reveals a 16% difference in psychological safety between individuals with weak and strong character, as I described in my 2025 Forbes article, “Getting to the Heart of Psychological Safety Through Character.”

AI amplifies the challenges to character. In my 2025 Forbes article “Why Artificial Intelligence Needs Character-Based Judgment,” I reinforce Shannon Valor’s view that AI is a mirror of our collective character. This means that weaknesses in character and character imbalances are embedded in AI. While AI can provide enormous gains in productivity, it comes with risks. One of the significant risks is that it can compromise judgment. When AI reflects to us what we want to see and hear, it becomes a massive echo chamber of skewed judgment.

Ultimately, a profound difference across generations is the extent to which social media has influenced character. Forbes Contributor Alison Escalante, in her 2024 article on the mental health harms of social media, documents that “Overuse of social media is so detrimental to teens’ mental health that the surgeon general of the United States issued a social media advisory in 2023.” Social media has significantly influenced the current generation entering the workforce, primarily by weakening character dimensions such as integrity, where people struggle with identity development and their authentic selves. Furthermore, social media operates like a weapons delivery system for those who seek to influence how we think and what we think about. As my colleague Matthew Bentley, who has served in the military and specializes in cyber security, describes: “Social media is the perfect tool for a cognitive warrior! My view is that they are weapons delivery systems. They are the airframes of cognitive warfare that deliver cognitive payloads to achieve desired effects on identified targets. The fact that we are allowing our youth to spend so much time on these platforms without providing them with a means to defend themselves (through character development) is, in my opinion, one of the most significant national security issues. These platforms create the illusion of freedom for the user, while stealing their ability to freely develop their own character (the best type of freedom).” Failure to understand and address these headwinds leaves individuals particularly exposed to cognitive warfare. Focusing on character development not only combats the headwinds but also the effects of cognitive warfare.

3. Develop Character To Combat Cognitive Warfare

Developing and strengthening character inoculates individuals. Bentley describes the term “inoculation” as being on point. He states: There is a concept of a neurolinguistic virus that I find helpful in understanding cognitive warfare. A virus isn't dead or alive; it is just a packet of information that floats around looking for a vulnerable host. Once it finds a vulnerable host, it takes control of the host and does one thing: replicate the virus. This phenomenon occurs in the biological domain with biological viruses, but it also exists in the digital space with neurolinguistic viruses. Some people are more vulnerable (weaker immune systems), and some people are super spreaders (social media influencers). Without inoculating people through character development, we are sending them into the virus-infested information space without any immune system.”

Strengthening character inoculates individuals by enhancing the quality of the person’s judgment and decision-making. Imagine if we focused on developing character as much as we do competence in our educational systems and organizations. It would be the cornerstone of human flourishing and organizational excellence. Neglecting character development has exposed extensive vulnerabilities, as first revealed in the 2009 Ivey Business School “Leadership on Trial” study, implicating character-based judgment in the Global Financial Crisis.

Understanding character and how it manifests in the deficient and excess vice states is the first step to inoculating individuals and organizations. It is easy to misunderstand character, as I wrote in my 2025 Forbes article “Addressing the Crisis of Leadership Character.” However, knowing what character is and how it operates is like understanding the anatomy of the body and thinking that leads to fitness. In the same way that we need physical exercise, we also need to exercise our character intentionally. To help individuals and organizations understand what it takes to elevate character alongside competence, I wrote a 2025 Forbes article, “From Good to Great: 10 Ways to Elevate Your Character Quotient.”

The key point is that we need to see the development of character as the foundation and starting point for not only combating cognitive warfare, but also for addressing the broader threats to judgment that will undermine human flourishing, sustained excellence, and democracy.

Forbes · Mary Crossan · August 30, 2025

16. Military support to law enforcement is supposed to be temporary. DOD is making it a core mission

How does our Constitution guide us on this? What do the American people want and expect of our military?

What about the impact on preparation for large scale combat operations and fighting and winning the nation's wars?

Then again the late SECSTATE Madeline Albright's words are ringing in my ears (and perhaps the Administration's): "what good is having a military if I cannot use it?" Of course the context was a little different.

Military support to law enforcement is supposed to be temporary. DOD is making it a core mission

“Sealing the border,” helping ICE, and counter-drug ops top the list, according to Pentagon documents.

defenseone.com · Meghann Myers

Defending the homeland, not deterring China, tops the list of priorities that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent to senior Pentagon leaders and combatant commanders earlier this month, ahead of the expected release of the second Trump administration’s first National Defense Strategy.

This focus reflects “the President’s determination to restore our neglected position in the Western Hemisphere,” Hegseth wrote in an Aug. 7 memo laying out his defense-planning guidance. Defense One obtained a copy of the memo.

Before mentioning China—long seen as the “pacing challenge” with which the U.S. is jockeying for influence in not only the Indo-Pacific, but Africa and Latin America—the guidance’s first listed priority is to “seal our borders, repel invasion, counter narcotics and trafficking, and support the Department of Homeland Security mission to deport illegal aliens.”

The language continues the current Trump administration’s departure from not just the Biden National Defense Strategy, but the president’s own first-term strategy, both of which placed deterring China as first priority.

It’s a shift in rhetoric that has borne out in action, as Trump has ordered the militarization of the southern border while deploying Marines and National Guardsmen to Los Angeles—illegally, according to the state’s governor—to dispel protests of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.

It may be the best option in the short term, in the face of poorly resourced law-enforcement agencies, but it’s not what the Defense Department is designed to do, Glen VanHerck, a retired Air Force general and former head of U.S. Northern Command, told Defense One.

“I think ultimately, if our government had another option—such as with ICE and Customs and Border Protection, with more capacity, capability—that they would utilize it. They just don't have it,” VanHerck told Defense One.

DHS has requested DOD support at the border every year since 2018. Though the number of requested troops dropped during the Biden administration from a high of 5,500 troops to 2,500 before Trump took office in January, the agency made the case every year that CBP was incapable of securing the border alone.

CBP has taken strides to fill its persistent staffing shortages, mainly by offering recruiting bonuses and streamlining the hiring process. But that takes time.

“And so if you're the president, you've got four years, you're not going to wait and build the capacity and capability within DHS or other agencies beyond DOD in that time, to execute what you need,” VanHerck said.

But supporting law enforcement shouldn’t be a core mission for the military, VanHerck said, echoing public statements he made during his tenure at NORTHCOM.

“I am concerned that DOD has become the ‘easy button’ for everything. So it doesn't matter if it's a Biden administration or a Trump administration—‘when you need capacity and capability, call on DOD’,” he said. “That, long-term, is not good for our nation, to have DOD in our streets. We need to resource those agencies, spelled out in law to enforce our laws, and to conduct crisis response, in our homeland.”

Asked for comment on the defense secretary’s planning guidance, Pentagon spokesman Joel Valdez referred questions to the White House.

None of Hegseth’s written documents or public statements suggest this is a short-term project. In April, the U.S. established a militarized zone across the border that allows troops to detain trespassers, a mission previously reserved to law-enforcement agencies. This month he created a new medal to be awarded to troops who serve at least 30 days on the border mission.

“In the meantime, when you're using DOD, what are you doing at DHS and DOJ to develop more capacity, more capability, to utilize technology better—not just the human—so the DOD doesn't have to do this long-term?” VanHerck said.

Beyond the border

Meanwhile, more than a dozen states are activating National Guard troops locally to help ICE, not only by processing paperwork and handling other administrative tasks, but by driving agents around.

"The story is, why haven’t we resourced law-enforcement agencies to enforce our laws that Congress puts on the books?” VanHerck said.

DHS’s 2026 budget request cuts $81 million from CBP’s 2025 levels while adding more than $800 million to ICE. They both benefit from $165 billion infused into DHS through the reconciliation bill, which includes funding for recruitment.

“We need a whole-nation strategy, led by DHS, that leads to lines of effort by department, that leads to funding for each of those lines of effort, that leads to training for those lines of effort,” VanHerck said.

That could include this newly codified counter-narcotics priority, which DOD has intermittently supported in the past and has continued into this year, which so far has included surveillance flights and ships deployed off the coast of Central America

"One of the challenges is that Mexico does not have the ability to conduct high-fidelity surveillance like we can,” VanHerck said. “We can help point them in the right direction if we’re willing to share information.”

But the administration has also been considering drone strikes against cartels operating in Mexico, though that country’s president has said, "The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military.”

There are options aside from deploying troops into the country, VanHerck said.

“One of the things I advocated for, for a long time: help Mexico identify precursor materials coming in so they can seize them at their ports, those types of things,” he said.

And then there is the deployment of troops to major U.S. cities: Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; and possibly Chicago and Baltimore.

While deploying the Guard to enforce local laws isn’t an explicit part of any national-security strategy yet, it’s becoming a go-to move.

“As you all know, Chicago’s a killing field right now,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. (Hundreds have been killed in the past year, but the city’s murder rate is at a decade low.) He later added that he isn’t keen to “barge in on a city and then be treated horribly by corrupt politicians,” following reports the Pentagon had been working on Chicago deployment plans for weeks.

As these aren’t long-planned operations, it’s unclear what kind of readiness or financial impact they will have on the units themselves.

“Is the money going to prevent some units from drilling? I don't think anybody knows that at this particular point in time,” said John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association of the United States. “The numbers would suggest no, but this is something the Pentagon is going to have to answer.”

The Guard’s primary mission is to train for war, Goheen said, with disaster relief a common additional mission.

They aren’t resourced to be continuously supporting law enforcement, said Gordon Adams, a professor emeritus in international affairs at American University’s School of International Service.

“From a budgetary perspective, it means that the domestic use of forces is not necessarily planned or budgeted,” Adams said. “If the special intervention units of the National Guard are actually created at DOD, at some point they will likely budget for them. But at present, the regime’s practice seems to be—‘act first, find the money later’.”

While Guard budgets are flexible enough to cover pay and travel costs of unplanned deployments, they are not funded to the level of an ongoing national-security priority. DOD also has small pots of money to support DHS’s border mission and the counter-trafficking mission.

The problem is, DOD’s current budget does not have enough money for a surge in these missions, which are now treated as a cornerstone of Hegseth’s strategy. The 2026 budget puts some money toward them, but it’s an open question every year of if or when a proper budget will be signed at all, much less on time.

“If it's something that you're going to prioritize and it's not a contingency, or it's not emergent, it's going to be in the budget,” said Elaine McCusker, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon comptroller during Trump’s first administration.

In general, unplanned deployments like the border plus-up earlier this year or the current Guard deployment to D.C. can be covered by operations and maintenance funding.

“And that's pretty typical for any kind of unexpected operation that the department does, and the impacts also range based on the size, right?” McCusker said. “What were you planning on doing with that money that you're not able to do now? And how do you go about making that up?”

A prime example, during McCusker’s tenure at the Pentagon, was the reprogramming of billions in military construction funding to build the border fence, which pushed back planned projects including weapons ranges and training facilities.

“Every time a new mission is assigned to the Defense Department, it must manage, plan, execute, assess, and report on the activity,” McCusker wrote in an essay for Lawfare last year. “This draws personnel, management focus, and resources away from what should be the defense core mission: preparing for, fighting, and winning America’s wars.”

The reconciliation bill has some funding to cover these missions, she told Defense One, though the vast majority of it goes to DHS. DOD has $1 billion to spend over the next four years.

It’s not clear what homeland defense as the No. 1 DOD priority will look like in the 2026 budget.

“I think that that's going to, in part, depend on what the top line is, and if you have to actually divert resources from a second or third priority into a first priority, or if you have kind of an ongoing effort that you augment, based on what the what the requirement is,” McCusker said.

defenseone.com · Meghann Myers

17. Don’t forget the downsides of China’s innovation push

Leaders | Innovation v involution

Don’t forget the downsides of China’s innovation push

China’s industrial policy attracts fans abroad, critics at home

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/08/28/dont-forget-the-downsides-of-chinas-innovation-push

Illustration: Olivier Heiligers

Aug 28th 2025

3 min read

Listen to this story

ot so long ago, Westerners dismissed China as a copycat, a fast follower or a “fat tech dragon”, consuming vast amounts of money and manpower while rarely taking flight. But as China has triumphed in high-tech industries such as electric vehicles, clean energy and lean AI, the condescension is giving way to admiration, fear and even envy.

Now some Western governments are paying the copycat nation the compliment of imitating its policies. The European Union has offered subsidies to Chinese battery companies that share their know-how. America’s government is taking a stake in Intel, a once-mighty chipmaker, in the hope that state ownership will restore its fortunes. Back in China, techno-optimism is helping fuel a market rally. Cambricon, a potential rival to Nvidia, has reported first-half revenues up by over 4,000% year on year.

Chart: The Economist

Amid the hope and hype, it may seem churlish to point out the downsides of China’s innovation push: the fiscal cost, market distortion and policy duplication. But ignoring these pitfalls would be a mistake, not least because they have recently begun to trouble China’s own government. Indeed, one of the most prominent critics of its industrial policy is the man whose vision it is meant to reflect: the supreme ruler, Xi Jinping, himself.

Industrial subsidies, direct and indirect, cost China over 1.7% of GDP a year in 2019, compared with about 0.6% in dirigiste France. The country boasts more than 2,000 government-guided investment funds scattered throughout the land, aiming to raise over 10trn yuan ($1.4trn). That could buy a lot of innovation. But as these funds have grown, private venture capital has dried up. Waste and fraud also take their toll. One pot of money earmarked for semiconductors, known as the “Big Fund”, became notorious for big corruption, leading to the investigation or detention of at least a dozen people.

Even when they invest honestly, policymakers don’t always invest wisely. Local officials, Mr Xi noted in July, always promote the “same few things: artificial intelligence, computing power, new-energy vehicles”. This has led to overcrowded industries and vicious price wars. Leaders now complain about “involutionary” competition: companies are cutting prices to poach customers, forcing rivals to do the same, which leaves everyone’s profits lower and no one’s market share higher.

Supporters say this is all part of the plan. The government encourages excessive entry into promising areas, knowing that the frenzied competition will propel improvements. Once the best companies have proved their worth, the government can cull the rest. But this process does not always yield the most innovative or efficient firms. Often it favours those with the most indulgent provincial patrons, or firms that are too big to cull.

Moreover, China’s industrial policy has not achieved all its goals. Civil aviation and cutting-edge chipmaking remain elusive. And not all successes owe much to explicit policy. DeepSeek was the side-hustle of a hedge fund, an industry frowned upon by Beijing.

China’s innovation push has met with some undeniable success. At this year’s Spring Festival celebrations, robot dancers stole the show. But the government’s industrial choreography is not nearly as tight as this example suggests. Instead it resembles the “robot Olympics” held recently in Beijing. The events featured bustling fields of competitors. Their human controllers huffed and puffed alongside them, like over-protective local officials. Even so, several of the robots fell flat on their faces—and others struggled to stay in their lane. ■

Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.

18. So You Want to Work in International Affairs

For all our aspiring national security and international affairs professionals out there:

1. Should you go to grad school now or later?

2. What about law school?

3. International experience is a requirement.

4. Internships matter more than you think.

5. Real jobs teach real skills.

6. Build a real network.

7. Find mentors, and don’t be afraid to reach out.

8. Write, publish, and share your ideas.

9. Be your own advocate.

10. Be smart about social media.

11. Understand salary—but know your worth.

12. Always be looking for the next best thing.

There is one very glaring omission in this: Military Service. but I am biased. I recall when I was at Georgetown about 20% of the students in the Security Studies Program were current or former military. Military service can contribute to many of the 12 recommendations above/below.

As an aside, when I was rejected by the CIA in the late 1970s, I was told that I needed either a graduate degree or military service. I knew I could not go to graduate school (but the Army gave me important opportunities later with CGSC, SAMS, and the National War College). I wanted to be a Green Beret since 1965 when my father brought home a Green Beret from a business trip and then we saw John Wayne in the Green Berets so I joined the Army and went to OCS. Of course I was rejected from Special Forces training three times because the Infantry Branch said it was not int the best interests of my career. It was not until the Nunn-Cohen Amendment of the Goldwater Nichols act in 1987 made Special Forces a branch and said no one could be denied from volunteering that I finally had the chance to go to the Q Course.

So You Want to Work in International Affairs

A veteran practitioner’s 12 tips to land that first job.

August 29, 2025, 3:00 PM

By Luke Coffey, a senior fellow for national security and defense at the Hudson Institute.

Foreign Policy · Luke Coffey

Foreign & Public Diplomacy
U.S. State Department
United States

As students return to their campuses after what was hopefully a busy and productive summer—or as recent graduates begin to reckon with the realities of post-university life and the job market—this is an ideal moment to take stock. If you’re interested in a career in international affairs, now is the time to begin thinking strategically about how to land that all-important first job.

After nearly 25 years working in international affairs—first as a young U.S. Army officer during the early years of the so-called global war on terror, then as a rare U.S. national appointed as a special advisor in the British government, and later in leadership roles at major Washington think tanks—I’ve had the privilege of mentoring hundreds of undergraduate students and interns. Many of them have asked me the same question: How do I land my first job in international affairs?

These repeated conversations prompted me to write this article. While there’s no single formula, there are practical, proven ways to improve your chances. What follows is a collection of my best advice to help graduates and early career professionals step into the world of international affairs.

1. Should you go to grad school now or later?

This is one of the most frequent questions I get when I speak with undergraduates. Graduate school is a major investment. Don’t rush into it unless you’re confident about the issue area you want to study. Getting a few years of real-world work experience under your belt will sharpen your focus and make you a stronger candidate when you do apply.

That said, if you’re a recent graduate and struggling to land your first job—and already know exactly what you want to study—there’s nothing wrong with an early start with grad school. For better or worse (and I think for worse), a graduate degree is increasingly a requirement for serious career advancement in the foreign policy field.

One option worth considering is doing your master’s abroad. In the United Kingdom, for example, many programs last only one calendar year, making them more affordable than the standard two-year U.S. degree. Universities in the non-English-speaking world, especially in continental Europe, offer a profusion of international graduate programs in English at relatively low cost. You’ll also gain valuable international exposure and build a network of peers from around the world.

An illustration of hands tossing graduation caps into the air against a blue sky and lines of a chart for a ranking of international relations schools.

Infographic

The Top International Relations Schools of 2024, Ranked

An insider’s guide to the world’s best programs—for both policy and academic careers.

2. What about law school?

Washington is full of people with law degrees who never practice law. Law school is a major commitment—of time, money, and energy—and should only be pursued if you have a burning desire to practice law or plan to work in a position where a law degree is strictly required. It’s not a decision to take lightly, especially when there are alternative paths into foreign policy that don’t require such an intense financial and personal investment.

If you just want to work in international affairs, a law degree might look impressive on paper, but it won’t necessarily give you the tools or network you need to break into the field. A well-chosen master’s degree may be a better fit and could provide more directly applicable knowledge and connections.

That said, there are some narrow areas in foreign policy that depend on legal expertise, such as trade law, human rights law, treaty law, and other aspects of international law. But think carefully before committing yourself to this track.

3. International experience is a requirement.

An illustration shows a woman in a cap and gown opening a curtain with a world map motif on it.

Entry-level jobs in foreign policy are rare and attract hundreds of applicants. You need to make your résumé stand out, and one of the best ways to do that is with international experience.

You can’t claim to be a credible Africa analyst if you’ve never set foot on the continent. That doesn’t mean you need to have worked abroad for years, but you do need to show initiative and willingness. At a minimum, that could mean studying abroad, backpacking internationally, or taking an immersive language course.

There are also more structured options. In some countries, you’ll find language programs where you not only study a foreign language but live and interact within a different cultural environment. These programs can last anywhere from a few weeks to several months and offer valuable experience that is both educational and personally enriching.

Additionally, several countries operate formal programs that place native English speakers into their public schools—often elementary schools—to assist with English instruction. These placements usually include travel reimbursement and a modest living stipend, and they offer a great opportunity to gain teaching experience, learn about another society from the inside, and develop the intercultural skills that are essential in foreign policy work.

I understand that getting overseas can be expensive, but there are ways to cut costs. Instead of studying abroad in Paris or London, look at more affordable options like Cape Town (which is what I did). Many U.S. universities offer study abroad programs in less pricey destinations that still provide a rich educational and cultural experience. Seek out scholarships, especially those specifically geared toward international study. And if studying abroad isn’t feasible, consider working at the embassy or consulate of a U.S. ally as a local hire or at one of the World Affairs Council chapters dotted around the United States. These positions are often accessible to recent graduates and provide insight into diplomacy and foreign cultures without leaving the United States.

Regardless of how you do it, time abroad is a must. It is an absolute necessity that anyone working in international affairs or foreign policy, even at the most junior level, has spent time overseas. Having a passport—and using it—is foundational to this line of work, even if your first overseas experience was backpacking on a shoestring budget.

Depending on where you are in your career, the expectations around overseas experience will differ. For those just starting out or looking to land an entry-level position, a few weeks of budget travel through a region of interest can still make a meaningful impression. It shows curiosity, initiative, and a willingness to engage the world beyond your borders. Later in your career, of course, more sustained and specialized international experience will be expected.

This is also a good time to check your passport. Make sure it’s valid. You never know when an opportunity might arise to attend a young leaders’ program in another country, travel with your supervisor, or represent your school or organization at a conference abroad. You don’t want to miss out because your passport has expired—or worse, because you don’t have one at all.

4. Internships matter more than you think.

Internships open doors. They provide hands-on experience, strengthen research and writing skills, and build networks. Many organizations hire from their own intern pools. While unpaid internships are unfortunately still common, several summer programs at Washington-based think tanks and nonprofits now offer stipends and housing. Seek those out.

Don’t overlook the fact that internships often serve as informal job interviews. If you’re enthusiastic, reliable, and capable during your internship, you’re far more likely to be remembered when a full-time position becomes available. Internships are also an excellent way to test different types of organizations and roles before committing to a specific career path.

Just remember: You get out of an internship what you’re willing to put in. If you take the opportunity to find and study under mentors; to network with other interns and colleagues around town; and seek out ways to contribute (whether through conducting research, drafting articles, compiling talking points, or helping organize public events), you will learn far more than the intern who simply shows up from 9 to 5 and checks the box.

FP-Interns-Underpaid-Washington-DC-Government-Matt-Chase

Feature

Washington Runs on Interns

So why are most of them not paid enough—and some not paid at all?

5. Real jobs teach real skills.

If you need a way to pay for internship living expenses, consider getting a real job. Too many applicants have polished résumés but no real-world work experience. Don’t underestimate the value of a job in the service industry. Waiting tables, pulling pints, or driving for Uber builds people skills—skills that transfer directly to foreign policy work.

Why? Because so much of foreign policy involves dealing with people from all walks of life, from every corner of the world, who come from vastly different circumstances. Knowing how to communicate clearly, listen attentively, and respond thoughtfully across cultural and social boundaries is essential. Customer-facing jobs teach you to do just that, often under pressure.

These aren’t just filler jobs—they’re foundational experiences that demonstrate your ability to engage respectfully and effectively with others, which is at the heart of diplomacy and international affairs. In fact, I’ve chosen one candidate over another in the final interview round because they had a barista job on their résumé. It showed work ethic and humility. In this field, the ability to communicate with people from various backgrounds is essential.

If you haven’t worked at McDonald’s, as a lifeguard at the local pool, or mowing lawns as a teenager, then consider earning some cash with a service job now. Your first job shouldn’t be as a recent college graduate on Capitol Hill. The foundational skills you gain from real-world, service-oriented work are far more transferable—and often more respected—than you might think.

6. Build a real network.

In foreign policy, whom you know often matters just as much as what you know. Many organizations in this field—particularly think tanks and NGOs—don’t have large human resources departments. When a junior position opens up, the manager who is hiring doesn’t have time to sort through hundreds of applications. More often than not, they’ll rely on their personal networks to identify promising candidates.

That means you need to be on their radar. Attend public events. Follow up with people you meet. Build real relationships, not just transactional ones. If you interned somewhere, stay in touch with your supervisors and colleagues. If someone gave you advice or took a coffee meeting with you, thank them and keep them posted on your progress.

Cities like New York or Washington may seem big, but the foreign policy community is small. Make yourself known in the community, and people will begin to think of you when opportunities arise. Networking isn’t about schmoozing, free booze, and a vast collection of LinkedIn contacts, it’s about showing people that you’re committed, capable, and someone they would want to work alongside.

7. Find mentors, and don’t be afraid to reach out.

Identify the people in your field whose work you admire. Read their bios. Study how they got to where they are. Then reach out—respectfully. Ask for 20 minutes on Zoom or a quick coffee. You’d be surprised how often people say yes. Better yet, seek out internship possibilities with them. There is no better way to learn from mentors than to work for them.

Most professionals remember what it was like to be starting out. If you’re polite, prepared, and clear about what you’re hoping to learn, many will be willing to talk. A good mentor can help guide your career, provide honest feedback, and open doors when the time is right. But you have to take the first step.

Harvard Kennedy School graduates wearing caps and gowns hold up inflatable globes in celebration during commencement in 2019.

Argument

How to Succeed in the Foreign-Policy Blob

Some graduation advice for aspiring members of the foreign-policy establishment in the class of 2023.

8. Write, publish, and share your ideas.

If you want to be taken seriously in this field, you have to write. Publishing shows you can articulate ideas clearly and contribute meaningfully to the policy conversation.

But start small; don’t pitch your first article to Foreign Policy. Try student journals, local newspapers, or niche policy blogs. Better yet, submit a full draft—not just an idea—and in your email, explain why it’s relevant now. Editors appreciate contributors who make their jobs easier. You can often find editors’ contact information on a publication’s website or LinkedIn.

And if no one publishes your work right away, don’t get discouraged. Start a Substack or Medium page to build a portfolio. Having a body of work to point to—however modest—can make all the difference when you’re applying for that first job.

On the other hand, remember that anything you write can and will be found by future employers. Keep it thoughtful, professional, and grounded—even when expressing strong views.

9. Be your own advocate.

In a place like Washington, no one will advocate for you more than yourself. Most hiring decisions are made quickly and informally. With entry level positions in international affairs receiving hundreds of applications, organizations look for someone who’s already on their radar.

That’s why it’s so important to build relationships before you need them. It’s also why you can’t afford to be passive. If a job opens and you don’t apply, no one is going to come looking for you.

Yes, it can feel uncomfortable to promote yourself, but if you don’t advocate for yourself, who will? Making your case—on paper, in person, over email, or at a networking event—is a crucial skill. Learn it early and use it often, but do so subtly and with modesty.

10. Be smart about social media.

This advice may seem obvious, but it cannot be said enough: Be very careful about what you post online. At this stage in your career, your online presence is an extension of your résumé. Future employers will almost certainly look you up, and your social media accounts can either reinforce your professionalism—or tank your chances entirely.

If you want to maintain a personal online presence, keep it either private or anonymous. Better yet, start cultivating a professional digital footprint. Set up a dedicated X account focused on foreign policy commentary, for example. Use LinkedIn to follow thought leaders, share articles, and engage in respectful discussion about international affairs.

There have been real cases where otherwise qualified candidates were cut from the final hiring round because of a careless meme or photo buried deep in their online history. In one such instance that I’m familiar with, a politically controversial Pinterest post derailed someone’s application at the final stage. You never know who’s watching or what they might find inappropriate.

In short, don’t give someone an easy reason to say no. Be thoughtful. Be professional. Think before you post.

11. Understand salary—but know your worth.

Be realistic about your salary expectations. Entry-level positions in foreign policy often come with low starting salaries, especially in Washington. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know your worth.

Do your research. Understand what typical compensation is for someone in your role with your education and experience. And if the salary you’re offered is too low, don’t be afraid to negotiate professionally and respectfully. You might not always get more, but you’ll show that you value your own work.

And remember, the salary you start with often sets the baseline for future raises and promotions. It’s not always easy to make a big jump later, so be thoughtful about what you’re willing to accept now.

12. Always be looking for the next best thing.

In the early stages of your career, you need to keep your eye on the next best thing. That might mean looking for advancement within your current organization or keeping an eye out for better opportunities elsewhere.

A good rule of thumb is that once you’ve been in your first full-time role out of college for 18 to 24 months, it’s time to start thinking about the next step. That doesn’t mean you should leave automatically or right away—but you should be having conversations, scanning job boards, and figuring out what skills or experience you need to level up.

Many young professionals hesitate to job hunt out of loyalty or fear of how their employer might react. But if you’re in your early 20s and working in an entry-level position, it would be strange not to be thinking about growth. And if your employer can’t understand that, that’s their problem—not yours. As long as you handle things professionally, there’s nothing wrong with looking to advance.

And if they truly want to keep you, they’ll find a way to offer a clear path forward—whether it’s a raise, a new title, or more responsibility. Career growth is your responsibility. Don’t wait for permission.

To conclude all this advice: Stay positive and keep going. Breaking into the foreign policy space—or any entry level job in any field—is hard. It takes time. It’s frustrating. But don’t quit. There’s more movement in the labor market than you might think, especially at the junior level.

You will send out applications and hear nothing. You’ll get interviews and not get the offer. That’s all part of the process. Keep applying. Keep networking. Keep building your skills. Eventually, something will bite.

And when it does, all the effort will have been worth it.

Foreign Policy · Luke Coffey

19. The Enemy That Hegseth and Trump Insist on Honoring

The Enemy That Hegseth and Trump Insist on Honoring

The U.S. won the Civil War. So why is the administration so keen on the Confederate side?

By Mike Nelson

The Atlantic · Mike Nelson · August 31, 2025

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced earlier this month that he would return a Confederate memorial to Arlington National Cemetery, he blamed “woke lemmings” for it having been taken down. Created by the sculptor Moses Ezekiel, the statue in question, which Hegseth described as “beautiful and historic,” features sentimental images of Confederate soldiers and loyal Black slaves. It was first installed in the cemetery in 1914 and was removed in late 2023, as part of the Biden administration’s larger effort to remove memorials that glorified the Confederate cause and to rechristen bases whose names lionized traitors to the United States. The war against the Confederacy killed more than 300,000 members of the military that Hegseth leads—a grim fact that the defense secretary trivializes in his efforts to score political points against the left.

Hegseth’s move is one of several by the Trump administration to bring Confederate commemorations back. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon is returning a portrait of Robert E. Lee to West Point. The Pentagon has reinstated old base names—in defiance of a law, enacted in 2021 over Donald Trump’s veto, that required their removal—by identifying honorable but previously obscure veterans who share a surname with rebel generals such as Lee and George Pickett. A statue of the Confederate general Albert Pike, pulled down during the 2020 George Floyd protests, is being reinstalled in Washington, D.C., by the National Park Service.

Clint Smith: Arlington’s Civil War legacy is finally laid to rest

“Unlike the left, we don’t believe in erasing American history—we honor it,” Hegseth said after announcing the return of the Ezekiel sculpture. That claim is hard to square with Trump’s recent complaint on Truth Social that the Smithsonian Institution is “OUT OF CONTROL” because of its museums’ focus on “how bad Slavery was.”

At best, Hegseth is going out of his way to needle and mock Americans who rightly see the Confederacy for what it was—a treasonous, doomed effort to keep millions of Americans in bondage. At worst, he and the Trump administration are making common cause with apologists who believe that the wrong side won the Civil War. Many people who refuse to repudiate even Confederate leaders claim they are merely honoring battlefield sacrifices of common soldiers. Americans should reject this sophistry.

My family has a tradition of military service. When I was a U.S. Army artillery officer during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I thought about my immigrant grandfather, who had been an artilleryman during World War II. Despite my love and admiration for him, I sometimes found him scary when I was a child—he had a quick temper and a thick Sicilian accent that I often struggled to parse. Once I’d seen combat, I felt proud to have shared an experience with him and wrote to him to discuss it. That he died before my letter reached him in Los Angeles is one of my great regrets in life.

But my reverence for my grandfather didn’t change an important fact about his service: He had fought in Mussolini’s army. He and his comrades had tried to repel the American invasion of Sicily—the combat debut of the 82nd Airborne Division, the very unit in which I served as it moved toward Baghdad six decades later. Fortunately, my grandfather lost.

Many Americans have ancestors who took up for bad causes. My children are descendants, on their maternal side, of two great-grandfathers who fought in Normandy on D-Day. One landed on Utah Beach. The other was already present as a soldier in the German army. I hope my kids never feel obliged to make excuses for the latter’s cause.

Clint Smith: Actually, slavery was very bad

As a military brat, I lived in Germany at a time when many people vividly remembered the war years. On weekends, my family and I used to hike through Bavarian fields that abutted small graveyards, where fresh flowers lay alongside crosses holding the pictures of young Wehrmacht soldiers. These families were mourning their sons, brothers, and fathers without glorifying Hitler or National Socialism.

Americans can similarly pay proper respect to military sacrifice while rejecting Confederate nostalgia. In small-town public squares across the South—a region in which I have spent much of my adult life—I have seen countless statues and monuments dedicated to local residents who did not return from the Civil War. Many of these solemnly recount the names of the dead without rhapsodizing about the Confederate cause.

Like many institutions, the Virginia Military Institute, my undergraduate alma mater, has struggled to balance the two impulses. The school was deeply enmeshed in the Confederate cause. In its graduation rituals every May, the school commemorates cadets who died for the Confederacy at the 1864 Battle of New Market. It also holds a huge commissioning ceremony to honor the newest officers from VMI, who are entering the Army those cadets were fighting.

The New Market commemoration includes the placement of wreaths on the graves of six VMI cadets who died. Looming over those graves is a statue called Virginia Mourning Her Dead, also by Ezekiel, the creator of the Arlington memorial. Before becoming a sculptor, Ezekiel was the first Jewish person to attend VMI, and he saw combat at New Market. One of his closest friends, a 17-year-old named Thomas G. Jefferson, was among the 10 cadets who died in the battle.

When I attended the school, a second Ezekiel statue stood on campus. It featured the Confederate general Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who had taught at VMI before the war. In 2021, VMI took down this statue and later relocated it to the New Market battlefield museum. The institute wasn’t erasing history; it was recognizing that an institution that educates officers for the U.S. military should not revere generals who helped lead wars against it. The school left in place the monument to the dead cadets, who, like their counterparts in countless other armies, were average teenagers, whipped up in the pursuit of adventure and eager to prove their manhood.

The Ezekiel work now set to be returned to Arlington—likely sometime in 2027, after a refurbishment—goes far beyond commemorating dead soldiers. It bears a Latin inscription that translates as “The victorious cause was pleasing to the gods, but the lost cause pleased Cato.” This quotation, from the poet Lucan, is widely interpreted as an observation that righteous efforts sometimes fail. But nothing was righteous about the rebellion against the United States, and paeans to it do not belong in a U.S. military cemetery.

I loved my grandfather who served in Mussolini’s army, and I am proud of my alma mater. But I am also proud to have held a commission in the Army that defeated them both.

About the Author

Mike Nelson

Mike Nelson is a retired Army Special Forces officer.

The Atlantic · Mike Nelson · August 31, 2025

20. Iron Man in the Himalayas? China’s PLA embraces exoskeletons

Iron Man in the Himalayas? China’s PLA embraces exoskeletons

Lightweight frames that run on power tool batteries are no longer just sci-fi

By Tye Graham and Peter W. Singer

August 29, 2025

defenseone.com · Tye Graham

Imagine powered exoskeletons that enable soldiers to operate in the world’s most austere regions. Accompanied by robotic dogs and cargo drones, the troops can move through snow, easily carrying over 100 pounds of gear.

This is no longer science fiction. Earlier this year, China’s People’s Liberation Army executed an "intelligent logistics devices” exercise on the far-western Karakoram Plateau of the Xinjiang Military District, part of a push to move such gear from demonstrations to deployment.

China has spent the last several years building a diverse exoskeleton research-and-development ecosystem: In 2019, the PLA hosted a “Super Warrior” contest in which 50-plus prototypes from 25 developers competed in categories such as lightweight mobility, heavy-load marching, and munitions handling. This broad base suggests China’s exoskeleton R&D is not limited to one program, but is spread among state-supported primes, private venture players, and universities, each tackling aspects like materials, power systems, and artificial intelligence for gait assistance.

In 2020, state-owned defense conglomerate Norinco delivered a passive, backpack‑style frame to troops on the Tibet border. Their positive feedback triggered a follow‑on contract one month later. Separately, engineers at state-owned aerospace firm CASIC developed a powered frame with an electric‑motor drive and a swappable battery pack, unveiled in 2021 as the ‘Portable Ammunition Support Assist’ suit. This version adds roughly 44 pounds of lift, records usage data on a tablet, and straps on in under 40 seconds. PLA testers report the suit off‑loads more than 50 percent of the weight burden and lets one soldier haul a 110-pound ammo box “without much effort.”

A lighter, knee-only brace surfaced at the 2024 Zhuhai Airshow. Built by Beijing Precision Mechatronics, the device injects 55 pounds of torque during ascent, but weighs only a few pounds. Though marketed for military special operations work, exhibitors noted the knee brace is small enough for tourist or industrial markets—a perfect example of China’s military-civil fusion ecosystem.

Private start‑ups have also started to get involved. Beijing‑based Blood Wingnse previewed its hybrid Vanguard full‑body suit in Weibo clips ahead of the 2025 Shanghai Defense‑Industry Expo. According to the company, the carbon‑fiber/titanium frame weighs less than 55 pounds and offers three assist modes that pair 88 pounds of arm assistance with 132 pounds of leg support. Engineers claim the structure can handle a 220-pound continuous load, but pull up to 440 pounds for a short time, a figure echoed in recent Chinese coverage of consumer exoskeletons.

With the systems moving from lab prototypes to more and more capability, the PLA has begun to selectively introduce exoskeletons to units operating in China’s most physically demanding terrains—including the high-altitude mountain brigades and border defense regiments in Tibet and Xinjiang. These plateau units were early adopters because they regularly conduct long foot patrols and supply missions at an elevation of 4,500–5,500 meters, where oxygen is thin and a typical soldier’s endurance is severely limited.

PLA forums and tech outlets reported in January that plateau infantry brigades have been test marching with the new third-gen powered suits. This drill, notably conducted near the sensitive Indian border before India’s Army Day, aimed to validate man-machine teaming in extreme environments. Chinese sources claimed that exoskeletons, by alleviating altitude fatigue, help troops “overcome the physiological difficulties of high-altitude combat” and arrive mission-ready.

A mid high‑altitude field drill offers additional data on field performance. CCTV‑7 followed Joint Logistic Support Force engineers from the Xining Joint Logistics Support Center as they laid a fuel‑pipeline kit at 4,000 meters in Qinghai. Troops wearing knee‑hip frames that weighed less than 13 pounds carried 154‑pound hose reels and pump modules across loose gravel while contending with thin air and freezing temperatures, demonstrating that the suits preserve lifting capacity under extreme conditions.

Among the specific PLA units known to use exoskeletons are the frontier defense companies stationed in Tibet’s Ngari prefecture, along the Line of Actual Control with India. Observers have also identified additional PLA mountain infantry brigades, also under the Western Theater Command, integrating the gear in training. Although official unit designations aren’t always disclosed, it’s clear the Western Theater forces along or near the contested Line of Actual Control with India have led testing and implementation.

But the technology is no longer confined to the plateau, and has started to spread to other commands. A PLA Daily feature on the 73rd Group Army opposite Taiwan showed an Eastern Theater Command medic sprinting with a 154-pound casualty while wearing a leg‑and‑waist frame—a development that would cut stretcher teams in half. A news report on a June 2025 Northern Theater logistics exercise casually noted the use of exoskeletons by logistics soldiers in transporting munitions. Chinese defense bloggers now track exoskeleton sightings in the Western, Eastern, and Northern Theater Commands, all training with the rigs as part of a wider push toward unmanned and assisted logistics.

Within official PLA discourse, exoskeletons have shifted from laboratory curiosities to items the Army now slots directly into logistics, patrol, and battlefield‑aid drills. A December PLA Daily article on historical logistics innovation describes the “robotic exoskeleton system” as a new link in the “steel transport line,” easing heavy physical logistics support activities such as ammunition handling. A July account of an Army Logistics University exercise adds that exoskeleton porters, teamed with UAV “swarms” and unmanned ground vehicles, raise a single soldier’s load capacity by 110 to 176 pounds and are central to an emerging “unmanned, intelligent supply chain”.

Doctrine writers frame these advances under the banner of “smart support,” contending that mechanical exoskeletons let troops effortlessly carry and move more equipment, making the rigs a combat‑power multiplier for extended patrols and high‑altitude resupply missions. During a recent demonstration of a PLA logistics unit using at least three different exoskeletons, Senior Colonel Gong Zhansheng, director of the Quartermaster Procurement Department at the PLA Army Logistics University in Chongqing, explained that the PLA uses both active frames (which integrate a series of technologies such as automatic control, intelligent sensing, and mechanical design) and simpler passive versions of exoskeletons, allowing small logistics detachments to push vital supplies through the ‘last mile’ without mustering large porter teams or calling up vehicles.

China’s decision to continue to pursue and field soldier augmentation reshapes the tactical math in places where every ounce and breath counts. On the Himalayan frontier, frames that let a porter move 110 to 176 pounds alone mean patrols can haul heavier sensors or extra ammunition without adding mules or vehicle convoys. The development alters sustainment, casualty evacuation, and squad mobility. It also shortens the logistics tail that Indian and U.S. planners could seek to disrupt.

Dual use economics mean export models may soon surface in partner armies from Pakistan to the Arabian Gulf, undermining long‑held assumptions that Western or allied forces will field the most capable medics and porters during disaster relief and peacekeeping missions.

Lightweight frames that strap on in under a minute and run on power tool batteries no longer should be thought of as sci‑fi; in China they are edging toward baseline kit.

defenseone.com · Tye Graham

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website

Trump Turns to Small Group of Advisers, Shrinks National Security Council

NSC’s role in overseeing national security decisions has been curtailed

Quick Summary

AGI dreams

China Has a Different Vision for AI. It Might Be Smarter.

With growing fears of an AI bubble, Beijing is charting a pragmatic alternative to Silicon Valley’s pursuit of artificial superintelligence

Quick Summary

AGI dreams

Pragmatic approach

Chinese Footage Reportedly Found on Downed Russian Geran Drone

Russia’s evolving drone tech

Moscow, Beijing’s growing ties

Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit could shed light on intentions of member states

Growing from regional bloc to encompasing alliance

India’s entry challenges the equation

Little ventured and little to lose for China

Group showcases Xi Jinping’s multipolarity vision

The Big Five - 31 August edition

My regular update on global conflict. This week: Gerasimov's Ukraine war update and the ongoing aerial campaigns of Ukraine and Russia, Japan's missile moves, China's big parade and my Big Five reads.

Ukraine

The Pacific

1. The Purpose of China’s Rapid Nuclear Weapon Expansion

2. Why Putin Wants the ‘Fortress Belt’

3. Access Denied: Airpower in a Pacific Conflict

4. Russia’s Coming Reckoning

5. Building a Wartime Mindset

‘Korea-style DMZ’ for Ukraine? US officials, Expert Argue for New Approach to Kyiv’s Security

Tokyo City Releases AI-Generated Videos of Mount Fuji Eruption to Scare the Living Crap Out of Japanese Citizens

Preparing for Mount Fuji to reawaken

The public reacts

How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box? – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Portsmouth celebrates 120th treaty anniversary with bellringing on Sept. 5

August 29, 1945: President Ho Chi Minh met Archimedes Patti to discuss the draft “Declaration of Independence”

What Just Happened? Dismantling the Intelligence Community’s Foreign Malign Influence Center

Listen to Article

About the Author

Can TV Help Prepare for Invasion?

Taiwan’s “Zero Day Attack” sets an example other threatened states can follow.

Read More

The U.S. Wooed India for 30 Years. Trump Blew That Up in a Few Months.

Shifting the balance of power

Beyond law enforcement

A broader shift in governance

The stakes for democracy

Choosing the future

1. Understand Character As Vulnerability And Strength

2. Account For The Headwinds That Undermine Character And Amplify Cognitive Warfare

3. Develop Character To Combat Cognitive Warfare

Three Ways Cognitive Warfare Exposes Character And What To Do About It

1. Understand Character As Vulnerability And Strength

2. Account For The Headwinds That Undermine Character And Amplify Cognitive Warfare

3. Develop Character To Combat Cognitive Warfare

Military support to law enforcement is supposed to be temporary. DOD is making it a core mission

Don’t forget the downsides of China’s innovation push

China’s industrial policy attracts fans abroad, critics at home

1. Should you go to grad school now or later?

2. What about law school?

3. International experience is a requirement.

4. Internships matter more than you think.

5. Real jobs teach real skills.

6. Build a real network.

7. Find mentors, and don’t be afraid to reach out.

8. Write, publish, and share your ideas.

9. Be your own advocate.

10. Be smart about social media.

11. Understand salary—but know your worth.

12. Always be looking for the next best thing.

So You Want to Work in International Affairs

A veteran practitioner’s 12 tips to land that first job.

1. Should you go to grad school now or later?

2. What about law school?

3. International experience is a requirement.

4. Internships matter more than you think.

5. Real jobs teach real skills.

6. Build a real network.

7. Find mentors, and don’t be afraid to reach out.

8. Write, publish, and share your ideas.

9. Be your own advocate.

10. Be smart about social media.

11. Understand salary—but know your worth.