Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

The recently released Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has upended what had been the decades-long consensus about American foreign policy. Most notable in it is the Trump Administration’s prioritization of the Western Hemisphere as an American security concern, its deemphasis on defending America’s traditional European allies, its identification of China as far more of a threat than Russia, and its determination not to be drawn into conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. But while the 2025 Trump Administration National Security Strategy breaks with much of previous American foreign policy, the logic behind it is not something completely new. Even though the document makes no mention of him, the policy outlined in the NSS comports with what John Mearsheimer described in his influential book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, which was first published in 2001 and updated in 2014. In his book Mearsheimer declared that no nation has ever achieved global hegemony. According to Mearsheimer, America is the only country that has achieved predominant influence in its own region (the Western Hemisphere) and has also been able to prevent any other great power from dominating any other region. Mearsheimer wrote, “States that achieve regional hegemony seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peers” (2014 edition, p. 41). Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy has, whether knowingly or not, adopted these aims as well. It discusses the various regions of the world in the order of their priority for the Trump Administration: the Western Hemisphere first, followed by Asia (or Indo-Pacific), Europe, the Middle East, and lastly Africa. With regard to the Western Hemisphere, the NSS unambiguously calls for the restoration of “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” and states, “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” This is very much in keeping with what Mearsheimer described as America being a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. As for the other four regions of the world, though, the Trump Administration seeks either to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant — or it doesn’t see this as a possibility that needs to be worried about. According to the NSS, the Middle East was a priority in the past because it was the world’s most important energy supplier and was a prime theater of superpower conflict. Now, however, there are other energy suppliers (including the U.S.) and superpower competition has been replaced by “great power jockeying” in which the U.S. retains “the most enviable position.” In other words: the Trump Administration does not see any other great power as able to become predominant in this region which is now less strategically important than it used to be anyway. Similarly, the NSS does not see any other great power as even seeking to become predominant in Africa. The NSS thus sees America’s main interests there as mainly commercial. By contrast, China is seen as a threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The NSS, though, discusses Chinese threats in the economic and technological spheres before turning to the military one. A continued U.S. military presence in the region is seen as important for preventing Chinese predominance. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia are all enjoined by the NSS to increase their defense spending in order to counter this threat. The NSS also identifies “the potential for any competitor to control the South China Sea” as a common threat that not only requires investment in U.S. military capabilities, “but also strong cooperation with every nation that stands to suffer, from India to Japan and beyond.” Unlike the Middle East and Africa, then, the NSS does identify a rival great power as striving for predominance in the Indo-Pacific region. Countering it, though, is not seen as just being America’s responsibility, but also that of other powerful states in the region. The strangest section in the 2025 NSS is the one on Europe. While acknowledging that “many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat,” the NSS envisions America’s role as “managing European relations with Russia” both to “reestablish conditions of strategic stability” and “to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” This is very different from the decades-long U.S. policy of seeing America’s role as defending democratic Europe against an expansionist Soviet Union in the past and Putin’s Russia more recently. Indeed, the NSS’s claim that the European Union undermines “political liberty and sovereignty” and its welcoming “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” (in other words, anti-EU right wing nationalist ones) suggests that it is not Russia which the Trump Administration sees as a rival, but the European Union. The 2025 NSS does call for a “strong Europe…to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” The NSS, though, seems to envision the European Union as either greater than or equal to Russia in threatening to dominate European nations. In his book, Mearsheimer did not envision the European Union as a potential great power rival to the U.S. Indeed, there isn’t even an entry for it in the book’s index. The way that the NSS envisions the world, though, comports with how Mearsheimer described America’s great power position: predominant in the Western Hemisphere and able to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant in any other region of the world. Mearsheimer, though, is a scholar who described the position in the world that he saw the U.S. as having achieved and which would seek to maintain. The 2025 NSS, by contrast, is a policy document laying out how the Trump Administration believes it can best maintain this position. And there is reason to doubt that it has done so realistically. Keeping non-Hemispheric great powers out of the Western Hemisphere will not be easy when there are governments there that want to cooperate with them. Further, devoting American resources to being predominant in Latin America when this will be resented and resisted could not only take away from America’s ability to prevent rival great powers from becoming predominant in other regions, but could counterproductively lead Latin American nations than have already done so to increase their cooperation with external great powers which the Trump Administration wants to avoid. Further, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce the influence of the European Union runs two risks: the first is that such an effort will succeed, but that the rise of anti-EU nationalist governments throughout the old continent results in a Europe less able to resist Russian manipulation and incursion. The second is that Trump Administration efforts to weaken the European Union backfire and result not only in a Europe united against American interference but unnecessarily emerging as a rival to the U.S. It would be ironic indeed if pursuing the NSS’s plan for upholding what Mearsheimer described as America’s ability to predominate over the Western Hemisphere combined with an ability to prevent any rival from predominating over any other region ended up undermining America’s ability to do either.

As international order evolves in the 21st century, strategic competition is increasingly shaped by technological frontiers and emerging domains of power. Unlike the unipolar moment following the Cold War, the contemporary landscape is defined by multipolarity, where major powers vie for influence across space, cyberspace, and biotechnology. Outer space has emerged not only as a frontier for exploration but also as a potential arena for resource acquisition and military projection, raising novel challenges for international law, security policy and cooperative governance. Examining interstellar phenomena in this context underscores the importance of preparedness, coordination, and risk management, even without assuming the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence, yet acknowledging the unprecedented nature of events that are pushing the boundaries of human observation. Humanity is gradually entering an era in which technological progress is reshaping our conception of cosmic exploration. As advancements in rocket propulsion, materials science, and observational astronomy accelerate, the prospect of humanity departing Earth towards other worlds becomes less a distant dream and more an inevitable chapter in our long-term evolution. The future of our species increasingly appears to be tied to the potential terraforming of new planets and celestial bodies, alongside the development of aerospace technologies capable of carrying us deeper into the cosmos. Within this transformative horizon, the Fermi paradox or the Dark Forest theory gains renewed relevance, challenging humanity to consider the existential filters that civilizations must surpass to survive, expand and potentially encounter other life forms. Yet, while such milestone may unfold centuries from now, the foundations of that future are being laid in the present. In the 21st century, specifically by the year 2026, humanity will become more capable of observing its immediate cosmic neighborhood. Modern telescopes and space-based observatories allow us to detect objects that for centuries have likely passed through our solar system unnoticed. Only within the brief span of our scientific maturation have we acquired the tools to identify interstellar objects, bodies originating beyond the solar system whose physical properties and trajectories challenge our existing frameworks. These objects, often catalogued as cometary in nature, possess characteristics that warrant careful study. Their unusual shapes, compositions, and velocities offer insights into environments beyond our interstellar cradle and, in some cases, raise questions about their natural origin or even the possibility of artificial extraterrestrial technology. As our detection capabilities improve, the arrival of each interstellar visitor represents not only a scientific opportunity but also a critical data point for understanding planetary security and defense. Consequently, their study urges nations to evolve towards a more serious and coordinated international framework capable of addressing the strategic, scientific, and existential implications of interstellar encounters. The emergence and Relevance of Interstellar Objects The scientific understanding of interstellar objects (ISOs) has evolved rapidly in recent years, propelled by technological advances and the unexpected discovery of bodies crossing the solar system on hyperbolic trajectories. Before 2017, the existence of such objects was largely theoretical, supported by models of planetary formation and stellar dynamics that predicted the ejection of debris during the early stages of planetary system evolution. These models implied that the Milky Way should contain vast populations of wandering fragments- comets, asteroids, and potentially more complex bodies such as extraterrestrial debris moving freely through interstellar space. Yet observational confirmation remained unattainable due to instrumental limitations. This changed with the detection of the first confirmed interstellar object, 1/Oumuamua, whose physical properties departed radically from known solar system bodies. Its non-gravitational acceleration, lack of a visible coma, and elongated shape challenged established models of cometary activity and asteroidal composition (Meech et al, 2017). The subsequent discovery of 2I/Borisov, a more conventionally cometary object, confirmed that the solar system is indeed exposed to material originating from other stellar environments (Jewitt & Luu, 2019). The contrast between both objects highlighted a key insight: ISOs are highly diverse, and their properties may reveal mechanisms and materials absent from our own planetary system. Advances in wide-field surveys, high-resolution instrumentation, and automated sky- monitoring systems have significantly expanded humanity´s capacity to detect and track ISOs. The increasing sensitivity of these tools marks a transition toward a new observational era in which interstellar detections may become more frequent. As a result, we are now able to observe the behavior of bodies entirely foreign to the solar system-objects whose trajectories, compositions, and signatures often defy established expectations and expose gaps in existing theoretical frameworks. This expanding observational capability not only advances scientific knowledge but also underscores the urgency of early warning detection. Because ISOs are typically identified within narrow observational windows, delayed characterization can lead to the loss of critical scientific and strategic information. Consequently, the growing presence of ISOs calls for enhanced global coordination, standardized protocols, and a more serious international approach to monitoring and interpreting near-Earth interstellar encounters. The Impact and Arrival of 3I/ATLAS The discovery of 3I/ATLAS, the third confirmed interstellar object entering our solar system, marks a significant milestone in modern astronomy. Unlike 1/Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov, whose observational windows were limited and partially constrained, 3I/ATLAS has provided a comparatively longer period for systematic study. Its hyperbolic trajectory, unusual photometric behavior, and non-standard luminosity variations have made it an object of exceptional scientific interest. While early observations suggest that while 3I/ATLAS shares key characteristics with known cometary bodies, its behavior reinforces broader findings that interstellar objects often display physical and dynamical properties that do not fit neatly within exiting taxonomies of solar system objects (Jewitt, 2023). The media response to 3I/ATLAS has been unprecedented. As with Oumuamua, the object rapidly became the subject of public fascination, sensational claims, and speculative narratives. News outlets, online forums, and social media ecosystems proliferated interpretations ranging from exotic physics to extraterrestrial probes. While much of this discourse lacks grounding in empirical evidence, its widespread circulation reflects a broader sociological trend: interstellar phenomena increasingly operate not only as a scientific event but also as catalysts for public, imagination, cultural anxiety, and geopolitical attention. As Kaku (2020) notes, humanity approaches a technological threshold where cosmic discovery intersects directly with public consciousness, provoking both curiosity and apprehension. From a scientific standpoint, researchers such as Loeb (2021) have emphasized that anomalous behavior in interstellar visitors should not be dismissed lightly. Although 3I/ATLAS currently appears consistent with a natural origin, its unique features-and the difficulty in categorizing ISOs-underscore the need for serious, methodical investigation. Loeb argues that humanity must abandon its complacency regarding the unknown nature of interstellar technologies or civilizations and instead adopt a posture of preparedness, open inquiry, and systematic risk assessment. In his view, phenomena like 3I/ATLAS are reminders that humanity is not isolated, and that contact-whether intentional or incidental—with non-human intelligence represents a real possibility with profound implications. The arrival of 3I/ATLAS has also highlighted the potential consequences of extraterrestrial technological encounters. Even in the absence of direct evidence of artificial origin, the mere ambiguity of such objects can trigger global destabilization through speculation, misinformation, or geopolitical competition. Historical examples such as the economic collapses of 1929 and 2008, the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the global tensions surrounding major wars demonstrate how uncertainty-especially when amplified by media-can generate widespread instability. In this context, an interstellar object exhibiting unexplained characteristics could easily become a flashpoint for international tension, economic turbulence, or strategic miscalculation. Thus, beyond its scientific significance, 3I/ATLAS has brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities and responsibilities of a species becoming increasingly aware of its cosmic environment. The object serves as a practical reminder that humanity must develop not only more advanced observational systems but also coordinated international frameworks for managing unexpected astronomical events. As we confront the possibility of encountering technologies or life beyond Earth, the world must adopt a more mature, structured approach to detection, interpretation, and global communication. This moment sets the stage for next critical dimension of the discussion, the implications of interstellar objects for planetary security and defense, and the urgent need to assess humanity’s readiness for cosmic contingencies. Toward a Multiplanetary Security Architecture Planetary security has grown increasingly complex as scientific capabilities expand toward detecting and characterizing interstellar objects whose origins and physical attributes lie beyond conventional astrophysical categories. Within the United Nations framework, existing mechanisms-such as COPUOS, the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN), and the Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG) provide the foundational structure for global coordination on natural impact hazards (UN COPUOS, 2014). However, these institutions were established under assumptions limited to solar system derived natural threats, leaving them poorly equipped to address unknown interstellar phenomena. The Outer Space Treaty and subsequent conventions introduced broad principles on cooperation and peaceful use, but no anticipated scenarios involving technologically anomalous interstellar objects or potential artificial extraterrestrial artifacts, resulting in a significant global governance vacuum. These mechanisms are designed primarily for probabilistic, natural impact scenarios, not for interstellar objects exhibiting anomalous trajectories, non-gravitational accelerations or uncertain technological signatures. Recognizing this gap, recent scientific proposals-most notably those advanced by Loeb (2023)-have called for the development of a dedicated international coordination mechanism under the United Nations system for the study and assessment of interstellar objects. Rather than proposing a fixed institutional blueprint, these contributions emphasize the need for a structured platform capable of integrating scientific analysis, risk assessment, and transparent diplomatic communication in cases involving anomalous interstellar phenomena. Such proposals should be understood not as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward-looking reference points for the type of governance architecture of international community must begin to contemplate. As humanity´s observational reach extends beyond the boundaries of the solar system; this governance gap becomes increasingly consequential. Interstellar objects introduce forms of uncertainty that existing planetary defense regimes-designed around predictable, solar system-derived threats were never Intended to manage, underscoring the need for flexible and adaptive legal frameworks capable of integrating scientific uncertainty into decision making processes. Within this emerging landscape, conceptual assessment tools have gained relevance as mechanisms to structure uncertainty rather than eliminate it. One illustrative example is the Interstellar Threat Assessment Scale (ITAS) proposed by Loeb (2024), which offers a simplified framework for evaluating interstellar detections based on observable characteristics rather than speculative intent. As its lower levels, the scale categorizes objects that behave consistently with natural interstellar debris, such as comet-like bodies exhibiting predictable physical and dynamic properties. Higher levels correspond to increasing degrees of anomaly-such as unexplained non-gravitational acceleration, unconventional trajectories, or geometries inconsistent with known natural formation processes. While the scale is not explicitly designed to identify extraterrestrial technology, it intentionally encompasses characteristics that fall outside established natural baselines. This design allows it to function across multiple scenarios, from rare or poorly understood natural phenomena to detections that may warrant closer scrutiny due to their atypical behavior. In this sense, the framework remains agnostic regarding origin, yet adaptable enough to support both conventional astrophysical analysis and precautionary assessments under conditions of elevated uncertainty. Importantly, it does not assert hostile intent or artificial origin, rather it operates as a risk-management tool that helps differentiate levels of scientific uncertainty and potential planetary relevance. Approached in this manner, such frameworks contribute to the evolution of international space governance by providing a shared analytical language for policymakers, scientific institutions, security agencies and statecraft-oriented decision-makers. By standardizing how uncertainty is assessed and communicated, they reduce fragmented national interpretations, limit reactive or militarized responses, and promote cooperative, evidence-based decisions. Decision-making under conditions of incomplete information. This process reflects a broader need for international space law to evolve dynamically. However, the governance of interstellar risk cannot rely solely on conceptual models or isolated scientific initiatives. It requires a genuinely planetary response that integrates the full spectrum of contemporary technological, institutional, and political capacities. International legislation governing outer space must be adaptive and evolutionary, capable of responding to emerging scientific realities. Artificial intelligence, real-time global surveillance networks, and autonomous detection algorithms must be incorporated into a unified planetary architecture capable of identifying and characterizing interstellar objects far earlier than current capabilities allow. Equally important is the sustained collaboration among major space agencies-including NASA, ESA, CNSA, ISRO, Roscosmos, and JAXA- alongside private actors such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and emerging aerospace enterprises, whose technological capabilities and rapid innovation cycles are increasingly central to space governance. Equally critical is great-power cooperation. From a realist perspective, the international system remains defined by competition, power asymmetries, and strategic mistrust. Yet planetary defense represents a rare domain in which shared existential vulnerability can partially override zero-sum logic. The detection of an anomalous interstellar object must never become a catalyst for geopolitical rivalry or strategic miscalculation, but rather an opportunity for transparent scientific collaborations and coordinated global response. In an international order strained by power competition, planetary security stands as one of the few areas where shared survival interests necessitate shared responsibility. Ultimately, interstellar objects compel humanity to transcend political fragmentation and adopt a forward- look global strategy. Building a resilient planetary security architecture requires the integration of scientific expertise, adaptive international governance, technological innovation, and coordinated commitment of state and private actor alike. Whether future interstellar encounters prove benign or reveal unprecedented anomalies, preparedness is not speculation, it is an essential step in the evolution of humanity´s role within the cosmos. References - Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. (2023). The interstellar interlopers. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 197–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221 - Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. (2019). Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/2019 Q4 (Borisov). The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886(2), L29. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b - Kaku, M. (2018). The Future of Humanity: Terra­forming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555722/the-future-of-humanity-by-michio-kaku/ - Loeb, A. (2021). Extraterrestrial: The first sign of intelligent life beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL31850155M/Extraterrestrial?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Loeb, A. (2024). The interstellar threat assessment scale. Medium. https://avi-loeb.medium.com/ - Meech, K. J., et al. (2017). A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid. Nature, 552, 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25020 - United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS). (2014). Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its fifty-first session. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/stsc/2014/index.html

Introduction Artificial intelligence has become a critical technology in the 21st century, with applications spanning healthcare, commerce, and scientific research. However, the same algorithms that enable medical diagnostics can guide autonomous weapons, and the same machine learning systems that power recommendation engines can identify military targets. This dual-use nature, where technologies developed for civilian purposes can be repurposed for military applications, has positioned AI as a central element in evolving global security dynamics. The strategic implications are substantial. China views AI as essential for military modernization, with the People's Liberation Army planning to deploy "algorithmic warfare" and "network-centric warfare" capabilities by 2030 (Department of Defense, 2024). Concurrently, military conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have demonstrated the operational deployment of AI-driven targeting systems. As nations allocate significant resources to military AI development, a critical question emerges: whether the security benefits of dual-use AI technologies can be realized without generating severe humanitarian consequences. The Reversal Commercial Innovation Driving Military Modernization Historically, military research and development drove technological innovation, with civilian applications emerging as secondary benefits, a phenomenon termed "spin-off." The internet, GPS, and microwave ovens all originated in defense laboratories. This dynamic has reversed. Commercially developed technologies now increasingly "spin into" the defense sector, with militaries dependent on technologies initially developed for commercial markets. This reversal carries significant implications for global security. Unlike the Cold War era, when the United States and Soviet Union controlled nuclear weapons development through state programs, AI innovation occurs primarily in private sector companies, technology firms, and university research institutions. Organizations like DARPA influence global emerging technology development, with their projects often establishing benchmarks for research and development efforts worldwide (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 2024). This diffusion of technological capacity complicates traditional arms control frameworks based on state-controlled military production. The scale of investment is considerable. The U.S. Department of Defense's unclassified AI investments increased from approximately $600 million in 2016 to about $1.8 billion in 2024, with more than 685 active AI projects underway (Defense One, 2024). China's spending may exceed this figure, though exact data remains unavailable due to the opacity of Chinese defense budgeting. Europe is pursuing comparable investments, with the EU committing €1.5 billion to defense-related research and development through initiatives like the European Defence Fund. Dual-Use Applications in Contemporary Warfare AI's military applications span the spectrum of warfare, from strategic planning to tactical execution. Current deployments include: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): AI systems process large volumes of sensor data, satellite imagery, and signals intelligence to identify patterns beyond human analytical capacity. In 2024, "China's commercial and academic AI sectors made progress on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based reasoning models, which has narrowed the performance gap between China's models and the U.S. models currently leading the field," enabling more sophisticated intelligence analysis (Department of Defense, 2024). Autonomous Weapons Systems: Autonomous weapons can identify, track, and engage targets with minimal human oversight. In the Russia-Ukraine war, drones now account for approximately 70-80% of battlefield casualties (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Ukrainian officials predicted that AI-operated first person view drones could achieve hit rates of around 80%, compared to 30-50% for manually piloted systems (Reuters, 2024). Predictive Maintenance and Logistics: The U.S. Air Force employs AI in its Condition-Based Maintenance Plus program for F-35 fighters, analyzing sensor data to predict system failures before occurrence, reducing downtime and operational costs. Command and Control: AI assists military commanders in processing battlefield information and evaluating options at speeds exceeding human capacity. Project Convergence integrates AI, advanced networking, sensors, and automation across all warfare domains (land, air, sea, cyber, and space) to enable synchronized, real-time decision-making. Cyber Operations: AI powers both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, from automated vulnerability discovery to malware detection and sophisticated social engineering campaigns. Gaza and Ukraine: AI in Contemporary Conflict Recent conflicts have provided operational demonstrations of AI's military applications and associated humanitarian costs. Israel's Lavender system reportedly identified up to 37,000 potential Hamas-linked targets, with sources claiming error rates near 10 percent (972 Magazine, 2024). An Israeli intelligence officer stated that "the IDF bombed targets in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It's much easier to bomb a family's home" (972 Magazine, 2024). The system accelerated airstrikes but also contributed to civilian casualties, raising questions about algorithmic accountability. The system's design involved explicit tradeoffs: prioritizing speed and scale over accuracy. According to sources interviewed by 972 Magazine, the army authorized the killing of up to 15 or 20 civilians for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, while in some cases more than 100 civilians were authorized to be killed to assassinate a single senior commander (972 Magazine, 2024). Foundation models trained on commercial data lack the reasoning capacity humans possess, yet when applied to military targeting, false positives result in civilian deaths. Data sourced from WhatsApp metadata, Google Photos, and other commercial platforms created targeting profiles based on patterns that may not correspond to combatant status. Ukraine has implemented different approaches, using AI to coordinate drone swarms and enhance defensive capabilities against a numerically superior adversary. Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Kateryna Chernohorenko stated that "there are currently several dozen solutions on the market from Ukrainian manufacturers" for AI-augmented drone systems being delivered to armed forces (Reuters, 2024). Ukraine produced approximately 2 million drones in 2024, with AI-enabled systems achieving engagement success rates of 70 to 80 percent compared to 10 to 20 percent for manually controlled drones (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Both sides in the conflict have developed AI-powered targeting systems, creating operational arms race dynamics with immediate battlefield consequences. Civilian Harm: Technical and Legal Limitarions The integration of AI into lethal military systems raises humanitarian concerns extending beyond technical reliability. AI's inability to uphold the principle of distinction, which requires protecting civilians by distinguishing them from combatants in compliance with international humanitarian law, presents fundamental challenges. Current AI systems lack several capabilities essential for legal warfare:  Contextual Understanding: AI cannot comprehend the complex social, cultural, and situational factors that determine combatant status. A person carrying a weapon might be a combatant, a civilian defending their home, or a shepherd protecting livestock.  Proportionality Assessments: International humanitarian law requires that military attacks not cause disproportionate civilian damage. Human Rights Watch noted that it is doubtful whether robotic systems can make such nuanced assessments (Human Rights Watch, 2024).  Moral Judgment: Machines lack the capacity for compassion, mercy, or understanding of human dignity, qualities that have historically provided safeguards against wartime atrocities.  Accountability: With autonomous weapon systems, responsibility is distributed among programmers, manufacturers, and operators, making individual accountability difficult to establish. As one expert observed, "when AI, machine learning and human reasoning form a tight ecosystem, the capacity for human control is limited. Humans have a tendency to trust whatever computers say, especially when they move too fast for us to follow" (The Conversation, 2024). The risks extend to specific populations. Autonomous weapons systems trained on data predominantly consisting of male combatants in historical records could create algorithmic bias. In the case of Lavender, analysis suggests "one of the key equations was 'male equals militant,'" echoing the Obama administration's approach during drone warfare operations (The Conversation, 2024). Communities of color and Muslim populations face heightened risks given historical patterns of discriminatory force deployment. Export Controls and Technology Transfer Challenges Recognizing AI's strategic importance, governments have implemented export control regimes. The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security now requires licenses for exports of advanced computing chips and AI model weights, imposing security conditions to safeguard storage of the most advanced models. These controls face inherent tensions. Overly broad restrictions risk hampering legitimate research and commercial innovation. Analysis suggests that if AI technology is too extensively controlled, American universities may face difficulties performing AI research, resulting in a less robust U.S. AI ecosystem. Insufficient controls enable adversaries to acquire cutting-edge capabilities. The effectiveness of export controls remains uncertain. In 2024, hundreds of thousands of chips, totaling millions of dollars, were smuggled into China through shell companies, varying distributors, and mislabeling techniques (Oxford Analytica, 2025). China's DeepSeek models, which achieved performance approaching U.S. systems, were reportedly trained on chips that circumvented export restrictions. International Governance: Fragmentation and Competing Frameworks The international community has struggled to develop coherent governance frameworks for dual-use AI. Rather than a cohesive global regulatory approach, what has emerged is a collection of national policies, multilateral agreements, high-level summits, declarations, frameworks, and voluntary commitments. Multiple international forums have addressed AI governance: ● The UN Secretary-General created an AI Advisory Board and called for a legally binding treaty to prohibit lethal autonomous weapons systems without human control, to be concluded by 2026 ● The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems has held discussions under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons since 2013, with limited concrete progress ● NATO released a revised AI strategy in 2024, establishing standards for responsible use and accelerated adoption in military operations ● The EU's AI Act, adopted in 2023, explicitly excludes military applications and national security from its scope This fragmented landscape reflects geopolitical divisions. The perceived centrality of AI for competition has led the U.S. to position itself as leader of ideologically aligned countries in opposition to China, including for security purposes. China promotes its own governance vision through initiatives like the Belt and Road, exporting technology standards alongside infrastructure. Strategic Stability Implications AI creates strategic stability challenges. Autonomous weapons enable substitution of machines for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the human cost and thus political cost of waging offensive war. This could increase the frequency of conflicts between peer adversaries, each believing they can prevail without significant domestic casualties. For conflicts between non-peer adversaries, reduced casualties further diminish domestic opposition to wars of aggression. The implications extend beyond conventional warfare. Armed, fully-autonomous drone swarms could combine mass harm with lack of human control, potentially becoming weapons of mass destruction comparable to low-scale nuclear devices. The technical barriers to such systems are declining as components become commercially available. AI also complicates nuclear stability. Advances in AI-enhanced sensors and data processing could undermine second-strike capabilities by improving detection of mobile missile launchers and submarines. This erosion of assured retaliation could incentivize first strikes during crises. Simultaneously, AI systems managing nuclear command and control create risks of accidents, miscalculations, or unauthorized launches. Ethical Framework Limitations The integration of AI into warfare strains traditional ethical frameworks. Just War Theory requires that combatants maintain moral responsibility for their actions, possess the capacity to distinguish combatants from civilians, and apply proportionate force. Automation bias and technological mediation weaken moral agency among operators of AI-enabled targeting systems, diminishing their capacity for ethical decision-making. When operators interact with targeting through screens displaying algorithmic recommendations rather than direct observation, psychological distance increases. This mediation risks transforming killing into a bureaucratic process. The operator becomes less a moral agent making decisions and more a technician approving or rejecting algorithmic suggestions. Furthermore, industry dynamics, particularly venture capital funding, shape discourses surrounding military AI, influencing perceptions of responsible AI use in warfare. When commercial incentives align with military applications, the boundaries between responsible innovation and reckless proliferation become unclear. Companies developing AI for civilian markets face pressure to expand into defense contracting, often with insufficient ethical deliberation. Conclusion Dual-use AI technologies present both opportunities and risks for international security. One trajectory leads toward normalized algorithmic warfare at scale, arms races in autonomous weapons that erode strategic stability, and inadequate international governance resulting in civilian harm. An alternative trajectory involves international cooperation that constrains the most dangerous applications while permitting beneficial uses. The timeframe for establishing governance frameworks is limited. AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, and widespread proliferation of autonomous weapons will make policy reversal substantially more difficult. The challenge resembles nuclear non-proliferation but unfolds at greater speed, driven by commercial incentives rather than state-controlled programs. Because AI is a dual-use technology, technical advances can provide economic and security benefits. This reality means unilateral restraint by democratic nations would cede advantages to authoritarian competitors. However, uncontrolled competition risks adverse outcomes for all parties. Concrete action is required from multiple actors. States must strengthen multilateral agreements through forums like the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to establish binding restrictions on autonomous weapons without meaningful human control. NATO and regional security alliances should harmonize AI ethics standards and create verification mechanisms for military AI deployments. Military institutions must implement mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements for lethal autonomous systems and establish clear chains of accountability for AI-driven targeting decisions. Technology companies developing dual-use AI systems bear responsibility for implementing ethical safeguards and conducting thorough threat modeling before commercial release. Industry alliances should establish transparency standards for military AI applications and create independent audit mechanisms. Universities and research institutions must integrate AI ethics and international humanitarian law into technical training programs. Export control regimes require coordination between the United States, EU, and allied nations to prevent regulatory arbitrage while avoiding overreach that stifles legitimate research. Democratic governments should lead by demonstrating that military AI can be developed within strict ethical and legal constraints, setting standards that distinguish legitimate security applications from destabilizing weapons proliferation. As Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg observed, this represents the Oppenheimer moment of the current generation, recognizing that dual-use AI, like nuclear weapons, represents a technology whose military applications demand collective restraint. The policy choices made in the next few years will have long-term consequences. They will determine whether AI becomes a tool for human advancement or an instrument of algorithmic warfare. The technology exists; the policy framework remains to be established. The actors are identified; the question is whether they possess the political will to act before proliferation becomes irreversible. References 972 Magazine (2024) 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Center for Strategic and International Studies (2024) Where the Chips Fall: U.S. Export Controls Under the Biden Administration from 2022 to 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-chips-fall-us-export-controls-under-biden-administration-2022-2024 Center for Strategic and International Studies (2025) Ukraine's Future Vision and Current Capabilities for Waging AI-Enabled Autonomous Warfare. https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare Defense One (2023) The Pentagon's 2024 Budget Proposal, In Short. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/03/heres-everything-we-know-about-pentagons-2024-budget-proposal/383892/ Department of Defense (2024) Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2024. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF Foreign Policy Research Institute (2024) Breaking the Circuit: US-China Semiconductor Controls. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/ Human Rights Watch (2024) A Hazard to Human Rights: Autonomous Weapons Systems and Digital Decision-Making. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/04/28/a-hazard-to-human-rights/autonomous-weapons-systems-and-digital-decision-making National Defense Magazine (2024) Pentagon Sorting Out AI's Future in Warfare. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/10/22/pentagon-sorting-out-ais-future-in-warfare Queen Mary University of London (2024) Gaza war: Israel using AI to identify human targets raising fears that innocents are being caught in the net. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2024/hss/gaza-war-israel-using-ai-to-identify-human-targets-raising-fears-that-innocents-are-being-caught-in-the-net.html Reuters (2024) Ukraine rolls out dozens of AI systems to help its drones hit targets. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/31/reuters-ukraine-rolls-out-dozens-of-ai-systems-to-help-its-drones-hit-targets/

Europe stands at a precipice. Following the US military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump and his close advisers have reiterated that Greenland – currently an autonomous territory of Denmark – will be next. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters this week. “Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.” The threat is not mere hyperbole. Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who publicly supports US annexation, as special envoy to Greenland. And Katie Miller, wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, recently posted an image of Greenland in US flag colours with the caption “SOON”. These are not random provocations but coordinated pressure tactics against a sovereign territory. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded by saying “That’s enough now. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation.” Danish leaders have warned a US attack on Greenland would signal “the end of NATO” and of post-second world war security. Threats against NATO members (such as Denmark) could also embolden Russia even more and lead to more uncertainty for Europe. So why are European leaders not more forcefully calling out Trump’s threats against Greenland – as well as his government’s shocking intervention in Venezuela? And what’s at stake? Europe’s weak response NATO’s Article 5 commits members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. If the US were to attack Greenland, Denmark would expect NATO’s collective defence mechanisms to activate against the US. European leaders have been forced to confront a reality they hoped to avoid: the US, NATO’s founding member, may become the alliance’s gravest threat. But so far, the response across the continent to both the Greenland threats and the US’ actions in Venezuela has been feeble and confused. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted he wanted to speak to President Trump before he condemned the attacks, epitomizing Europe’s subordination. A letter signed by the Danish prime minister and the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Italy, and Poland, has affirmed only Greenland and Denmark should determine Greenland’s future. The European Union has pledged to defend members’ territorial integrity. But they didn’t articulate any solid counter-threat to Trump’s comments about Greenland. They could, for instance, have reiterated their long-term partnership, the potential collapse of the biggest alliance in human history, or the costs in losing cooperation (both economic and security) with Europe that directly benefits the US. And such vague declarations about Greenland ring hollow when the same governments hesitate to condemn US violations of international law in Venezuela. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the “legal classification of the US intervention [in Venezuela] is complex” and that Germany needed time to consider this. Such equivocation on the most basic, foundational concept of international law not only signals incredible weakness. It also undermines Europe’s credibility when invoking the “rules-based order” against Russia and its actions in Ukraine, making it near impossible to mobilise Global South support, sustain sanctions coalitions, or claim principled restraint. When European leaders respond so cautiously to the Venezuela operation – stressing respect for international law while avoiding direct criticism of Washington – their principles are exposed as highly selective. Russia benefits Russia understands this dynamic perfectly. Moscow has already characterised US actions as “armed aggression” while pointing to Western hypocrisy. Moscow benefits from this in fundamental ways. First, Western hypocrisy validates Russia’s narrative that international law is merely a tool the powerful use against the weak. The vacillation on condemning US action in Venezuela or threats against fellow NATO members contradicts the European narrative against Putin’s war. Second, NATO’s potential collapse or paralysis would hand Moscow a strategic victory that Russian military power alone has been unable to secure. If the United States annexes Greenland, Denmark would face an existential choice: accept the violation and remain in a compromised NATO or leave an alliance that no longer protects its members. All other members would face the same choice. The NATO alliance cannot function if its members no longer share fundamental values about sovereignty and law. Trump has forced Europe to confront whether it will defend these principles universally or accept a world where might makes right. Appeasement all over again? This moment recalls Europe’s crisis of the Munich agreement. In 1938, Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty to appease Nazi Germany, excluding Prague from negotiations over its future while negotiating away its territory. Only later would the democratic powers discover that appeasing aggression – however politically convenient at the time – would only invite yet more aggression. Today, Europe faces a parallel dilemma: how to respond when its most powerful ally directly threatens an EU and NATO member state. Europe is edging toward another Munich agreement moment, with concessions dressed up as stability and peace a euphemism for appeasement. The events in the coming weeks will largely determine the very future of Europe. The continent faces a choice between political expediency or rules-based international order built on the prohibition of aggressive war, respect for sovereignty, and collective security. Will its leaders be prepared to confront their own hypocrisy or timidly accept the erosion of the rules they claim to defend?