Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Rand Issues Commentary: Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future - Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution
SANTA MONICA, California, Sept. 5 -- Rand issued the following commentary:
* * *
Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future: Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution
Commentary
By Jacob Parakilas and Oliver Gill
Amidst a changing strategic context which has seen Russian fortunes recede from their high water mark, Ukraine's armed forces are facing another inflection point. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) of 2026 bear little resemblance to the army which faced Russia's initial seizure of Crimea, the force which fought Russian-backed separatists in Donbas from 2014-2022, ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Sept. 5 -- Rand issued the following commentary: * * * Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future: Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution Commentary By Jacob Parakilas and Oliver Gill Amidst a changing strategic context which has seen Russian fortunes recede from their high water mark, Ukraine's armed forces are facing another inflection point. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) of 2026 bear little resemblance to the army which faced Russia's initial seizure of Crimea, the force which fought Russian-backed separatists in Donbas from 2014-2022,and even the force that turned back Russia's attempt to decapitate Ukraine in February 2022. That army, which just over a decade ago was still defined by its Soviet legacy, has emerged today as something new: a hybrid force, in which legacy organizational structures and Soviet-era kit work alongside imported doctrines, arms from Western partners, and increasingly domestically produced equipment and experimental methods.
But like the war itself, that force has not reached a static final form. It remains a work in progress, adapting to circumstance as Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression. The question we ask here is: if Ukraine's armed forces are a substantial evolution relative to the beginning of the war, what form will they take on next?
The choice facing Ukraine's forces is far from a binary between East and West. As the full-scale war enters its fifth year, with its character still changing, the AFU continues to be tasked with building, deploying, and improving its existing capabilities while simultaneously developing innovative organizational structures, tactics, and doctrine to use them most effectively.
Two camps have emerged into view this last month, each associated with a senior official whose disputes became highly public and controversial. A traditionalist camp, personified by recently relieved Chief of the General Staff Oleksandr Syrskyi, highlights the way in which Ukraine's forces succeeded in holding the frontline against a materially and numerically superior adversary with an often-overlooked reliance on traditional tactics and weapons (https://static.rusi.org/tactical-developments-third-year-russo-ukrainian-war-february-2205.pdf). A reformist camp, symbolized by equally recently dismissed Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, champions technological superiority and suggests more fundamental restructuring to better leverage novel weapons, unconventional tactics, and reformed procurement practices favoring decentralization, SMEs, and increased transparency. Put simply, this reflects a struggle of the old guard against the next generation.
One could interpret the dismissal of the senior figures in both camps as a sign that Ukraine's leadership is trying to find a middle path, but the fundamental questions of how to continue the AFU's evolution in the face of ongoing Russian assaults is unlikely to disappear. And as General Syrskyi's successor Mykhailo Drapatyi assumes the role of Chief of the General Staff of the AFU, it is worth first questioning the validity of this framing. The distinction between Old and New, static and maneuverable, traditional and novel, is perhaps an oversimplification. The public rivalry between General Syrskyi and Fedorov cannot be viewed simply as a difference of opinion on military management, divorced from the political and cultural context from which both men have emerged. For the future of the AFU, it is far more useful to view these two sides as a contest between theories of victory and governance -- and about what kind of force posture and approach to military management best achieves that end goal.
The Unmanned Systems Forces: The Command of the Future?
Within the AFU, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) stand out as a source of pride for their technological and technical mastery of asymmetric warfare with attritable, adaptable tools (https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/2025-04-05-DRONES-MatlackSchwartzGill-FINAL-WEB-03.pdf). The USF make up just two percent of the military's personnel strength yet are responsible for roughly 30 percent of Russian losses, having irrevocably changed the character of the battlefield. Converting the AFU into a vehicle for a massively expanded USF is one possibility. That said, the remaining 98 percent of personnel (what might be termed the "traditional army") are just as essential, still accounting for the remaining 70 percent of Russian losses. To achieve full effect, hold the line, and sustain Ukraine's valiant defense over the past four years, both the "traditional" and "novel" camps have had to work together, regardless of friction, every step of the way. This is not as outlandish as it might seem at first blush. After all, it was under General Syrskyi's tenure that the world's first Unmanned Systems Force was codified as a branch of the armed forces.
But what would be the implications of either camp--the Traditionalists or the Technologists--taking the lead on the AFU's future? To structure this discussion, we consider four areas of potential change: unit structure, training, recruitment, and procurement. And for the purposes of this thought exercise, our assumption is a relatively steady state over the next two years, with no ceasefire and a constant level of ongoing hostilities with Russia.
Scenario One: Traditionalist Retrenchment
In this scenario, the General Staff fend off radical transformation while continuing an approach of large-scale but selective integration of emerging technologies. Doing so has preserved interoperability with NATO, avoiding the unknown vulnerabilities that radical restructuring might introduce, and leaned into a narrative of battlefield success and national effort to keep the ranks filled with volunteers.
Unit Structure
Over the course of the full-scale war, traditionalists have consistently favored fielding the maximum number of brigades. As fresh recruits complete basic training, they continue to be more or less evenly distributed across all active units, rather than being preferentially assigned to higher-performing or more combat-effective formations.
Despite efforts to centralize command and control into a Corps structure, the AFU has continued to centralize decision-making at the General Staff level. As in previous years, brigades subordinated to this new corps structure remain non-contiguous across the frontline -- a complicating factor that has continued to require constant intervention from the General Staff.
Training Structures
Under General Syrskyi's tenure, General Basic Military Training was extended from 30 to 51 days for standard entry into the Ground Forces. Under this regime, all soldiers are first trained as infantrymen, only later being potentially trained as Uncrewed Systems (UxS) operators. Given the prevalence of Russian infiltration tactics, and the subsequent risk of finding themselves in direct small-arms engagements, this approach persists. Moreover, despite Technologist aspirations toward full battlefield automation, human spotters and ground troops have remained essential for taking and holding positions. Centralized training ensures all personnel master foundational soldiering skills, enabling tactical movement and combined-arms discipline. In this scenario, technical expertise has remained a specialist force enhancer rather than the central organizing principle of individual training.
Recruitment
In a war of attrition, with frontline ground forces bearing the cost of holding the line, waves of mobilization have continued to be key to maintaining a viable force. As training structures continue to emphasize infantry skillsets, voluntary recruitment, which was already struggling to meet demand, has become increasingly inadequate. Despite public protest and frustration, more coercive forms of mobilization and conscription have become necessary to fill the ranks.
Procurement
Legacy systems, alongside a staggering scale of unmanned systems production, have remained the potent toolkit that has frozen the frontline against the Russian invaders. Innovation has been rewarded where it guarantees immediate return on investment. Contracts for procurement, refurbishment and upgrading of legacy systems have continued to scale consistent with trends from previous years, and large scale contracts continue to be awarded at the discretion of the General Staff, with more decentralized procurement and production of unmanned systems remaining the exception rather than the rule.
Assessment
The Traditionalist theory of victory emphasizes the need to preserve traditional offensive capability--the weapons and tactics which allowed Ukrainian forces to retake territory around Kharkiv and the city of Kherson in 2022 and punch into Kursk in 2024. In this now dominant view, over-reliance on unmanned systems, and the temptation of autonomous kill-chains that seek to separate weapon operators from danger, risks only prolonging the war. Only by eventually driving the invaders from occupied territory by maneuver can the war be ended justly. Offensive action by assault units, with uncrewed systems in a crucial but supporting function, remains indispensable.
This model has minimized structural risk by reinforcing combined-arms fundamentals and adapting new technology and tactics wholesale once they are proven, not before. While UxS and medium-range strike platforms offer unprecedented operational agility, they cannot independently solve every tactical problem. Heavy artillery, armored breachers, and conventional strike assets have remained indispensable for reducing hardened, protected infrastructure. By treating UxS as a preparatory enabler used to clear logistics, destroy enemy electronic warfare and soft targets, or degrade enemy air defenses ahead of ground maneuver, this approach has maintained operational balance while avoiding command duplication.
Scenario Two: Technologist Transformation
In this scenario, the Technologist camp is ascendant and leans fully into an emerging model--operationally, technologically, and organizationally. At the front line, human soldiers do less of the fighting directly; increasingly, the role of traditional frontline specialists (riflemen, machine gunners, etc.) shifts toward guarding strongpoints and securing rear areas to protect logistics and communications functions. ISR, defensive fires, short-range strike, and even ground assault are increasingly handled by remote and autonomous systems, with humans serving as a backup force rather than leading the charge. This has reduced AFU personnel's exposure to enemy direct fire and allows volunteers who might otherwise be unfit for frontline duty to continue contributing to combat operations. However, it has also destabilized existing structures, increased turnover at higher ranks, and opened opportunities for Russian forces to exploit seams in Ukrainian defenses--both physically and informationally. The AFU's rapid transformation also risks outpacing NATO's own force-transformation efforts, creating new obstacles to interoperability.
Unit Structure
Technologists have pursued corps structure reforms more thoroughly and centralizing command and control into coordinated hubs. High-performing brigades and corps have been further rewarded with recruits and materiel, while underperforming commands are gradually dissolved, with personnel redistributed to units under more effective leadership. Under this model, newer formations like the USF have been formalized as primary drivers of combat power. Tactical tasking has shifted away from traditional combined-arms brigades toward specialized autonomous units, with more offensive roles almost entirely delegated to autonomous platforms. Greater effort is directed toward strategic asymmetry--targeting enemy logistics at mid-range, and industry, supply chains, and military and energy infrastructure at long range and strategic depth. Where predominantly human formations undertake offensive operations, they do so in discrete, carefully bounded circumstances, helped by close collaboration with robotic systems and only in areas where systematic preparation has maximized their odds of success and survival.
Training Structures
Taking the Unmanned Systems Force's approach as indicative of the broader Technologist model, Ukrainian soldiers have continued to train first and foremost as infantry. Drone operators emerge from a unified fighting culture of frontline soldiers, not the reverse. That said, experimentation with and adoption of UxS has been more deliberately integrated into standard Basic Training, preparing soldiers to support unmanned systems-led operations. Defensive tactics, rather than the perceived costliness of offensive training, become the predominant skillset.
Recruitment
Under the Technologist approach, greater effort has gone into reforming recruitment along more practical lines. Conscription has been reimagined as an invitation to serve during defined, limited service periods, paired with a narrative emphasis on survivability as a core institutional value. Such a structure has built significant goodwill among the general population, but has not produced the raw numbers that mass mobilization would, further driving reliance on UxS and novel tactics and reducing the AFU's ability to surge forces to shore up weak points in the line or to contain enemy breakthroughs.
Procurement
Market forces have increasingly squeezed out manufacturers previously protected by unregulated contracts. Innovation has surged as small- and medium-sized enterprises seize smaller contracts on the periphery, while the Ukrainian and European drone-primes of tomorrow have consolidated market share and continue scaling up. Ukrainian firms have become increasingly viable players on the global defense market, but demand for their products has created some tension as the government tries to balance sustainable export success with continuing to feed the needs of the AFU.
Assessment
The Technologist theory of victory runs in a markedly different direction to the Traditionalist approach. Under this approach, unmanned systems offer asymmetric advantage and create distance between operators and the enemy. Offensive operations, rather than serving as the key to victory, become momentary and opportunistic--such as the recent pushes in the south following the whitelisting of Ukraine-based Starlink terminals, which triggered connection and communication failures on the Russian side. This camp instead pursues a theory of victory built on unrestricted technological dominance in the operational domain, particularly through medium- and deep-strike capabilities against Russian logistics and industrial infrastructure, gradually degrading the enemy's ability to wage war. Preserving human life, even at the cost of static defense, allows attritable forces to absorb the brunt of punishment. Victory, in this view, comes through economic and logistical collapse rather than decisive battlefield action.
Conclusion
A senior officer in the USF advised the authors not to reduce the question of the AFU's future to a simple dichotomy between old and new ways of doing things, especially regarding force structure. Unmanned systems, he explained, are a single tool in the commander's toolbox. Increasingly essential, but still just one capability among many that must be used together and selected carefully to achieve full operational success. Unmanned systems alone cannot take a heavily fortified position; yet in the Ukrainian battlefield of 2026, it is not possible to accomplish that task without them. Those systems are essential for harassing enemy infantry, armor, and logistics at short-to-medium range, and for destroying other soft targets--but heavy artillery and armor are still needed to destroy hardened targets, and infantry is still needed to move in and hold a position once cleared. This, indeed, is the purpose of Ukraine's domestic C2 system, DELTA: to link the full range of military capabilities together via live feed and to put the most appropriate tool to any given battlefield task. Whichever theory of victory Ukraine ultimately pursues, unmanned systems and traditional military hardware will need to be used in tandem to achieve it.
The distinction between traditional and novel approaches may be more clearly evidenced not in force structure itself, but in approaches to military culture and command (USF brigades, for instance, are largely staffed by recently recruited civilians at the command level), in approaches to recruitment, training, and procurement, and in differing theories of victory: combined maneuver and large-scale breakthrough versus attritional, asymmetric harassment of strategic and economic objectives.
Indeed, the distinction between the Unmanned Systems Forces (13 out of over 100 total AFU brigades) on one hand, and the land forces, National Guard, and territorial defense forces on the other, is again not as clear-cut as it may seem. While the Unmanned Systems Forces pioneer new technologies, procurement practices, and force structures, all of Ukraine's forces--land, territorial defense, and National Guard alike--use unmanned systems to varying degrees and in different ways.
The question is whether this robotic integration ends up proving that the fundamentals of war have changed and that revolutionary rather than evolutionary approaches are necessary for victory--or that war changes slowly and victory comes from paying heed to fundamentals. At this stage, the question is not yet answered, but the ultimate shape and fate of the AFU will be our strongest evidence one way or the other.
* * *
More About This Commentary
Jacob Parakilas is a research leader at RAND Europe. Oliver Gill is Associate of the Democratic Resilience in a New Age of War Program at LSE IDEAS and managing director of 0I0 Consulting.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/09/tomorrows-victory-and-the-army-of-the-future.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future: Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution
Commentary
By Jacob Parakilas and Oliver Gill
Amidst a changing strategic context which has seen Russian fortunes recede from their high water mark, Ukraine's armed forces are facing another inflection point. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) of 2026 bear little resemblance to the army which faced Russia's initial seizure of Crimea, the force which fought Russian-backed separatists in Donbas from 2014-2022, ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Sept. 5 -- Rand issued the following commentary: * * * Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future: Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution Commentary By Jacob Parakilas and Oliver Gill Amidst a changing strategic context which has seen Russian fortunes recede from their high water mark, Ukraine's armed forces are facing another inflection point. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) of 2026 bear little resemblance to the army which faced Russia's initial seizure of Crimea, the force which fought Russian-backed separatists in Donbas from 2014-2022,and even the force that turned back Russia's attempt to decapitate Ukraine in February 2022. That army, which just over a decade ago was still defined by its Soviet legacy, has emerged today as something new: a hybrid force, in which legacy organizational structures and Soviet-era kit work alongside imported doctrines, arms from Western partners, and increasingly domestically produced equipment and experimental methods.
But like the war itself, that force has not reached a static final form. It remains a work in progress, adapting to circumstance as Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression. The question we ask here is: if Ukraine's armed forces are a substantial evolution relative to the beginning of the war, what form will they take on next?
The choice facing Ukraine's forces is far from a binary between East and West. As the full-scale war enters its fifth year, with its character still changing, the AFU continues to be tasked with building, deploying, and improving its existing capabilities while simultaneously developing innovative organizational structures, tactics, and doctrine to use them most effectively.
Two camps have emerged into view this last month, each associated with a senior official whose disputes became highly public and controversial. A traditionalist camp, personified by recently relieved Chief of the General Staff Oleksandr Syrskyi, highlights the way in which Ukraine's forces succeeded in holding the frontline against a materially and numerically superior adversary with an often-overlooked reliance on traditional tactics and weapons (https://static.rusi.org/tactical-developments-third-year-russo-ukrainian-war-february-2205.pdf). A reformist camp, symbolized by equally recently dismissed Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, champions technological superiority and suggests more fundamental restructuring to better leverage novel weapons, unconventional tactics, and reformed procurement practices favoring decentralization, SMEs, and increased transparency. Put simply, this reflects a struggle of the old guard against the next generation.
One could interpret the dismissal of the senior figures in both camps as a sign that Ukraine's leadership is trying to find a middle path, but the fundamental questions of how to continue the AFU's evolution in the face of ongoing Russian assaults is unlikely to disappear. And as General Syrskyi's successor Mykhailo Drapatyi assumes the role of Chief of the General Staff of the AFU, it is worth first questioning the validity of this framing. The distinction between Old and New, static and maneuverable, traditional and novel, is perhaps an oversimplification. The public rivalry between General Syrskyi and Fedorov cannot be viewed simply as a difference of opinion on military management, divorced from the political and cultural context from which both men have emerged. For the future of the AFU, it is far more useful to view these two sides as a contest between theories of victory and governance -- and about what kind of force posture and approach to military management best achieves that end goal.
The Unmanned Systems Forces: The Command of the Future?
Within the AFU, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) stand out as a source of pride for their technological and technical mastery of asymmetric warfare with attritable, adaptable tools (https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/2025-04-05-DRONES-MatlackSchwartzGill-FINAL-WEB-03.pdf). The USF make up just two percent of the military's personnel strength yet are responsible for roughly 30 percent of Russian losses, having irrevocably changed the character of the battlefield. Converting the AFU into a vehicle for a massively expanded USF is one possibility. That said, the remaining 98 percent of personnel (what might be termed the "traditional army") are just as essential, still accounting for the remaining 70 percent of Russian losses. To achieve full effect, hold the line, and sustain Ukraine's valiant defense over the past four years, both the "traditional" and "novel" camps have had to work together, regardless of friction, every step of the way. This is not as outlandish as it might seem at first blush. After all, it was under General Syrskyi's tenure that the world's first Unmanned Systems Force was codified as a branch of the armed forces.
But what would be the implications of either camp--the Traditionalists or the Technologists--taking the lead on the AFU's future? To structure this discussion, we consider four areas of potential change: unit structure, training, recruitment, and procurement. And for the purposes of this thought exercise, our assumption is a relatively steady state over the next two years, with no ceasefire and a constant level of ongoing hostilities with Russia.
Scenario One: Traditionalist Retrenchment
In this scenario, the General Staff fend off radical transformation while continuing an approach of large-scale but selective integration of emerging technologies. Doing so has preserved interoperability with NATO, avoiding the unknown vulnerabilities that radical restructuring might introduce, and leaned into a narrative of battlefield success and national effort to keep the ranks filled with volunteers.
Unit Structure
Over the course of the full-scale war, traditionalists have consistently favored fielding the maximum number of brigades. As fresh recruits complete basic training, they continue to be more or less evenly distributed across all active units, rather than being preferentially assigned to higher-performing or more combat-effective formations.
Despite efforts to centralize command and control into a Corps structure, the AFU has continued to centralize decision-making at the General Staff level. As in previous years, brigades subordinated to this new corps structure remain non-contiguous across the frontline -- a complicating factor that has continued to require constant intervention from the General Staff.
Training Structures
Under General Syrskyi's tenure, General Basic Military Training was extended from 30 to 51 days for standard entry into the Ground Forces. Under this regime, all soldiers are first trained as infantrymen, only later being potentially trained as Uncrewed Systems (UxS) operators. Given the prevalence of Russian infiltration tactics, and the subsequent risk of finding themselves in direct small-arms engagements, this approach persists. Moreover, despite Technologist aspirations toward full battlefield automation, human spotters and ground troops have remained essential for taking and holding positions. Centralized training ensures all personnel master foundational soldiering skills, enabling tactical movement and combined-arms discipline. In this scenario, technical expertise has remained a specialist force enhancer rather than the central organizing principle of individual training.
Recruitment
In a war of attrition, with frontline ground forces bearing the cost of holding the line, waves of mobilization have continued to be key to maintaining a viable force. As training structures continue to emphasize infantry skillsets, voluntary recruitment, which was already struggling to meet demand, has become increasingly inadequate. Despite public protest and frustration, more coercive forms of mobilization and conscription have become necessary to fill the ranks.
Procurement
Legacy systems, alongside a staggering scale of unmanned systems production, have remained the potent toolkit that has frozen the frontline against the Russian invaders. Innovation has been rewarded where it guarantees immediate return on investment. Contracts for procurement, refurbishment and upgrading of legacy systems have continued to scale consistent with trends from previous years, and large scale contracts continue to be awarded at the discretion of the General Staff, with more decentralized procurement and production of unmanned systems remaining the exception rather than the rule.
Assessment
The Traditionalist theory of victory emphasizes the need to preserve traditional offensive capability--the weapons and tactics which allowed Ukrainian forces to retake territory around Kharkiv and the city of Kherson in 2022 and punch into Kursk in 2024. In this now dominant view, over-reliance on unmanned systems, and the temptation of autonomous kill-chains that seek to separate weapon operators from danger, risks only prolonging the war. Only by eventually driving the invaders from occupied territory by maneuver can the war be ended justly. Offensive action by assault units, with uncrewed systems in a crucial but supporting function, remains indispensable.
This model has minimized structural risk by reinforcing combined-arms fundamentals and adapting new technology and tactics wholesale once they are proven, not before. While UxS and medium-range strike platforms offer unprecedented operational agility, they cannot independently solve every tactical problem. Heavy artillery, armored breachers, and conventional strike assets have remained indispensable for reducing hardened, protected infrastructure. By treating UxS as a preparatory enabler used to clear logistics, destroy enemy electronic warfare and soft targets, or degrade enemy air defenses ahead of ground maneuver, this approach has maintained operational balance while avoiding command duplication.
Scenario Two: Technologist Transformation
In this scenario, the Technologist camp is ascendant and leans fully into an emerging model--operationally, technologically, and organizationally. At the front line, human soldiers do less of the fighting directly; increasingly, the role of traditional frontline specialists (riflemen, machine gunners, etc.) shifts toward guarding strongpoints and securing rear areas to protect logistics and communications functions. ISR, defensive fires, short-range strike, and even ground assault are increasingly handled by remote and autonomous systems, with humans serving as a backup force rather than leading the charge. This has reduced AFU personnel's exposure to enemy direct fire and allows volunteers who might otherwise be unfit for frontline duty to continue contributing to combat operations. However, it has also destabilized existing structures, increased turnover at higher ranks, and opened opportunities for Russian forces to exploit seams in Ukrainian defenses--both physically and informationally. The AFU's rapid transformation also risks outpacing NATO's own force-transformation efforts, creating new obstacles to interoperability.
Unit Structure
Technologists have pursued corps structure reforms more thoroughly and centralizing command and control into coordinated hubs. High-performing brigades and corps have been further rewarded with recruits and materiel, while underperforming commands are gradually dissolved, with personnel redistributed to units under more effective leadership. Under this model, newer formations like the USF have been formalized as primary drivers of combat power. Tactical tasking has shifted away from traditional combined-arms brigades toward specialized autonomous units, with more offensive roles almost entirely delegated to autonomous platforms. Greater effort is directed toward strategic asymmetry--targeting enemy logistics at mid-range, and industry, supply chains, and military and energy infrastructure at long range and strategic depth. Where predominantly human formations undertake offensive operations, they do so in discrete, carefully bounded circumstances, helped by close collaboration with robotic systems and only in areas where systematic preparation has maximized their odds of success and survival.
Training Structures
Taking the Unmanned Systems Force's approach as indicative of the broader Technologist model, Ukrainian soldiers have continued to train first and foremost as infantry. Drone operators emerge from a unified fighting culture of frontline soldiers, not the reverse. That said, experimentation with and adoption of UxS has been more deliberately integrated into standard Basic Training, preparing soldiers to support unmanned systems-led operations. Defensive tactics, rather than the perceived costliness of offensive training, become the predominant skillset.
Recruitment
Under the Technologist approach, greater effort has gone into reforming recruitment along more practical lines. Conscription has been reimagined as an invitation to serve during defined, limited service periods, paired with a narrative emphasis on survivability as a core institutional value. Such a structure has built significant goodwill among the general population, but has not produced the raw numbers that mass mobilization would, further driving reliance on UxS and novel tactics and reducing the AFU's ability to surge forces to shore up weak points in the line or to contain enemy breakthroughs.
Procurement
Market forces have increasingly squeezed out manufacturers previously protected by unregulated contracts. Innovation has surged as small- and medium-sized enterprises seize smaller contracts on the periphery, while the Ukrainian and European drone-primes of tomorrow have consolidated market share and continue scaling up. Ukrainian firms have become increasingly viable players on the global defense market, but demand for their products has created some tension as the government tries to balance sustainable export success with continuing to feed the needs of the AFU.
Assessment
The Technologist theory of victory runs in a markedly different direction to the Traditionalist approach. Under this approach, unmanned systems offer asymmetric advantage and create distance between operators and the enemy. Offensive operations, rather than serving as the key to victory, become momentary and opportunistic--such as the recent pushes in the south following the whitelisting of Ukraine-based Starlink terminals, which triggered connection and communication failures on the Russian side. This camp instead pursues a theory of victory built on unrestricted technological dominance in the operational domain, particularly through medium- and deep-strike capabilities against Russian logistics and industrial infrastructure, gradually degrading the enemy's ability to wage war. Preserving human life, even at the cost of static defense, allows attritable forces to absorb the brunt of punishment. Victory, in this view, comes through economic and logistical collapse rather than decisive battlefield action.
Conclusion
A senior officer in the USF advised the authors not to reduce the question of the AFU's future to a simple dichotomy between old and new ways of doing things, especially regarding force structure. Unmanned systems, he explained, are a single tool in the commander's toolbox. Increasingly essential, but still just one capability among many that must be used together and selected carefully to achieve full operational success. Unmanned systems alone cannot take a heavily fortified position; yet in the Ukrainian battlefield of 2026, it is not possible to accomplish that task without them. Those systems are essential for harassing enemy infantry, armor, and logistics at short-to-medium range, and for destroying other soft targets--but heavy artillery and armor are still needed to destroy hardened targets, and infantry is still needed to move in and hold a position once cleared. This, indeed, is the purpose of Ukraine's domestic C2 system, DELTA: to link the full range of military capabilities together via live feed and to put the most appropriate tool to any given battlefield task. Whichever theory of victory Ukraine ultimately pursues, unmanned systems and traditional military hardware will need to be used in tandem to achieve it.
The distinction between traditional and novel approaches may be more clearly evidenced not in force structure itself, but in approaches to military culture and command (USF brigades, for instance, are largely staffed by recently recruited civilians at the command level), in approaches to recruitment, training, and procurement, and in differing theories of victory: combined maneuver and large-scale breakthrough versus attritional, asymmetric harassment of strategic and economic objectives.
Indeed, the distinction between the Unmanned Systems Forces (13 out of over 100 total AFU brigades) on one hand, and the land forces, National Guard, and territorial defense forces on the other, is again not as clear-cut as it may seem. While the Unmanned Systems Forces pioneer new technologies, procurement practices, and force structures, all of Ukraine's forces--land, territorial defense, and National Guard alike--use unmanned systems to varying degrees and in different ways.
The question is whether this robotic integration ends up proving that the fundamentals of war have changed and that revolutionary rather than evolutionary approaches are necessary for victory--or that war changes slowly and victory comes from paying heed to fundamentals. At this stage, the question is not yet answered, but the ultimate shape and fate of the AFU will be our strongest evidence one way or the other.
* * *
More About This Commentary
Jacob Parakilas is a research leader at RAND Europe. Oliver Gill is Associate of the Democratic Resilience in a New Age of War Program at LSE IDEAS and managing director of 0I0 Consulting.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/09/tomorrows-victory-and-the-army-of-the-future.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Daily Wire: AI Nihilism Won't Save The Water Or Create Jobs. But It Will Empower China.
NEW YORK, Sept. 5 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary:
* * *
AI Nihilism Won't Save The Water Or Create Jobs. But It Will Empower China.
By Matias Ahrensdorf
Take it from a web developer: we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out.
In a bizarre joint advertisement for Liquid Death and Garage Beer, Super Bowl champ Jason Kelce calls on viewers to send their urine to data centers.
"AI data centers waste millions of gallons of water," he claims, and so "we want your pee to cool these data centers." Liquid Death's vice president of creative explained ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 5 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary: * * * AI Nihilism Won't Save The Water Or Create Jobs. But It Will Empower China. By Matias Ahrensdorf Take it from a web developer: we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out. In a bizarre joint advertisement for Liquid Death and Garage Beer, Super Bowl champ Jason Kelce calls on viewers to send their urine to data centers. "AI data centers waste millions of gallons of water," he claims, and so "we want your pee to cool these data centers." Liquid Death's vice president of creative explainedthat the sentiment is "literally the one thing that unites all Americans right now, across the spectrum."
As a web developer, most of what I build runs on Amazon Web Services, which means data centers in Northern Virginia and Ohio. Every request that reaches our servers lands in one of those buildings. So does almost everything else people use without thinking about it, from email and banking to every app on a phone.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/ai-nihilism-wont-save-the-water-or-create-jobs-but-it-will-empower-china?author=Matias+Ahrensdorf&category=undefined&elementPosition=10&row=3&rowHeadline=Latest+News&rowType=Vertical+Carousel&title=AI+Nihilism+Won%E2%80%99t+Save+The+Water+Or+Create+Jobs.+But+It+Will+Empower+China.)
* * *
Matias Adrensdorf is a web developer at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/ai-nihilism-wont-save-the-water-or-create-jobs-but-it-will-empower-china
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
AI Nihilism Won't Save The Water Or Create Jobs. But It Will Empower China.
By Matias Ahrensdorf
Take it from a web developer: we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out.
In a bizarre joint advertisement for Liquid Death and Garage Beer, Super Bowl champ Jason Kelce calls on viewers to send their urine to data centers.
"AI data centers waste millions of gallons of water," he claims, and so "we want your pee to cool these data centers." Liquid Death's vice president of creative explained ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 5 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary: * * * AI Nihilism Won't Save The Water Or Create Jobs. But It Will Empower China. By Matias Ahrensdorf Take it from a web developer: we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out. In a bizarre joint advertisement for Liquid Death and Garage Beer, Super Bowl champ Jason Kelce calls on viewers to send their urine to data centers. "AI data centers waste millions of gallons of water," he claims, and so "we want your pee to cool these data centers." Liquid Death's vice president of creative explainedthat the sentiment is "literally the one thing that unites all Americans right now, across the spectrum."
As a web developer, most of what I build runs on Amazon Web Services, which means data centers in Northern Virginia and Ohio. Every request that reaches our servers lands in one of those buildings. So does almost everything else people use without thinking about it, from email and banking to every app on a phone.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/ai-nihilism-wont-save-the-water-or-create-jobs-but-it-will-empower-china?author=Matias+Ahrensdorf&category=undefined&elementPosition=10&row=3&rowHeadline=Latest+News&rowType=Vertical+Carousel&title=AI+Nihilism+Won%E2%80%99t+Save+The+Water+Or+Create+Jobs.+But+It+Will+Empower+China.)
* * *
Matias Adrensdorf is a web developer at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/ai-nihilism-wont-save-the-water-or-create-jobs-but-it-will-empower-china
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Post: This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post:
* * *
This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power.
-
There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a story ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post: * * * This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power. - There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a storywarning the world about China's ambition and what it's prepared to risk to achieve it.
Kinmen Island is known for its seafood and rural calm. It is home to some 140,000 people who remained loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader in China's civil war. The island helped hold back the Communist Red Army, so today it is part of Taiwan, as the Republic of China is commonly known, and they have their own small airport.
The other side of a strait so narrow a dissident once swam across is the Chinese city of Xiamen. There, the new airport is being built. Xiamen's growing population of 5 million is demanding better connections, and the new international hub expected to open later this year will meet that demand.
So far, so normal. Civilian airports often sit close together -- in this case six miles apart -- and have overlapping airspace. That causes problems, but the solutions are now standard: share data, agree on procedures and set up a hotline. Taiwan's civil aviation authority has been asking to do just that for years. It has been ignored.
But this isn't some bureaucratic oversight. It isn't about airports or airspace. It's about control and China's attempts to undermine Taipei and exercise control over the rebel province, and about how it wants to shape the world.
Taiwan attended the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization as a guest in 2013. It participated in the World Health Assembly as an observer from 2009 through 2016. Beijing subsequently blocked Taiwan's participation in both bodies, claiming the one-China policy meant it was the sole voice for both the People's Republic and the Republic of China.
Both of these decisions have made life more dangerous -- for everyone. Excluding Taiwan from the international airline safety body makes Chinese airliners less safe, too. And during covid, Taiwan was one of the first countries to respond successfully; its removal from the WHA puts us all at risk.
Global safety is not China's primary concern. Suborning international institutions to its own ends is.
Every empire inherits the roads its predecessors built and shapes them to its own nature. In the ashes of World War II, the empire the victors built is, by historical standards, strange. They built structures not to extract tribute but to export hope.
Democratic accountability, open trade and rules instead of force were a reflection of our predecessors' desires to avoid war at all costs by ensuring at least tacit consent from every nation and sharing prosperity to embed peace. The United Nations and other global institutions were created to diffuse power under the norms the victorious powers made.
China, then governed by the nationalists, was a founding member.
With notable exceptions, this generation succeeded. The world has been more prosperous and peaceful in the past 80 years than in almost any other previous tract of time. Few have profited more than the People's Republic. But Beijing is now destroying the platform on which its wealth is built and returning to an imperial system Chairman Xi's predecessors in the Forbidden City would have recognized: tribute and coercion, not cooperation and engagement.
Chinese coast guard ships ram and water-cannon Philippine vessels resupplying a garrison inside Manila's own exclusive economic zone. Fishing militias form floating barriers miles long. Military jets regularly harass Taiwanese planes at the edge of its airspace.
Earlier this summer, a Chinese submarine fired a ballistic missile about 4,500 miles into the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, which was established in a treaty whose protocols China signed in 1987. You don't have to be a hawk to find that threatening.
Just like those who signed the U.N. Charter, Beijing's rulers are mirroring abroad what they practice at home. The friction between centralizing authoritarianism and devolved cooperation risks more than an air accident.
Until recently, Beijing's officials simultaneously ran four of the 15 U.N. specialized agencies -- more than any other country -- and more when you count the client states that vote as directed. Those seats are being used to undermine both Britain's reach and America's defense.
Britain wrongly agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a crucial U.S. air base in the Indian Ocean, in part due to worries that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency run until 2022 by a Beijing nominee, might one day be used to challenge control of the radio spectrum that keeps the outpost operating. The argument was that once one U.N. agency denies British jurisdiction, other claims would surely follow.
This is the python's creep of encirclement. China is using organizations built to defend rights to exploit weakness.
That's why Kinmen's airport episode matters -- not for the island itself but for the message it sends. A threatened judgment scared Britain's diplomats out defending British territory. A stated policy scared ICAO members from defending Taiwan's place in the agency and protecting air traffic.
One can recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe they are part of one country while also recognizing that each administration has jurisdiction over its own affairs. And at the same time, know that the order that built today's prosperity can be defended without taking a position on Taiwan's final status.
A carefully worded acceptance of a one-China policy, which most of the West recognizes, forces no one to reject Taiwan's participation in international institutions.
Diplomacy must be able to manage ambiguity. But it should not tolerate bullying, especially when the bullying threatens us all.
Read in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/09/04/how-china-uses-global-institutions-isolate-taiwan/).
* * *
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute. He is also the member of parliament for Tonbridge, Kent, in the United Kingdom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/obscure-airport-tells-you-lot-about-china-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China
A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power.
-
There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a story ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by distinguished fellow Tom Tugendhat to the Washington Post: * * * This Obscure Airport Tells You a Lot About China A dispute near Taiwan reveals Beijing's larger campaign to turn global institutions into tools of power. - There is an airport in Asia almost nobody has heard of, being built next to a city most will never visit, opposite an island now largely forgotten, which sits at the heart of a storywarning the world about China's ambition and what it's prepared to risk to achieve it.
Kinmen Island is known for its seafood and rural calm. It is home to some 140,000 people who remained loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader in China's civil war. The island helped hold back the Communist Red Army, so today it is part of Taiwan, as the Republic of China is commonly known, and they have their own small airport.
The other side of a strait so narrow a dissident once swam across is the Chinese city of Xiamen. There, the new airport is being built. Xiamen's growing population of 5 million is demanding better connections, and the new international hub expected to open later this year will meet that demand.
So far, so normal. Civilian airports often sit close together -- in this case six miles apart -- and have overlapping airspace. That causes problems, but the solutions are now standard: share data, agree on procedures and set up a hotline. Taiwan's civil aviation authority has been asking to do just that for years. It has been ignored.
But this isn't some bureaucratic oversight. It isn't about airports or airspace. It's about control and China's attempts to undermine Taipei and exercise control over the rebel province, and about how it wants to shape the world.
Taiwan attended the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization as a guest in 2013. It participated in the World Health Assembly as an observer from 2009 through 2016. Beijing subsequently blocked Taiwan's participation in both bodies, claiming the one-China policy meant it was the sole voice for both the People's Republic and the Republic of China.
Both of these decisions have made life more dangerous -- for everyone. Excluding Taiwan from the international airline safety body makes Chinese airliners less safe, too. And during covid, Taiwan was one of the first countries to respond successfully; its removal from the WHA puts us all at risk.
Global safety is not China's primary concern. Suborning international institutions to its own ends is.
Every empire inherits the roads its predecessors built and shapes them to its own nature. In the ashes of World War II, the empire the victors built is, by historical standards, strange. They built structures not to extract tribute but to export hope.
Democratic accountability, open trade and rules instead of force were a reflection of our predecessors' desires to avoid war at all costs by ensuring at least tacit consent from every nation and sharing prosperity to embed peace. The United Nations and other global institutions were created to diffuse power under the norms the victorious powers made.
China, then governed by the nationalists, was a founding member.
With notable exceptions, this generation succeeded. The world has been more prosperous and peaceful in the past 80 years than in almost any other previous tract of time. Few have profited more than the People's Republic. But Beijing is now destroying the platform on which its wealth is built and returning to an imperial system Chairman Xi's predecessors in the Forbidden City would have recognized: tribute and coercion, not cooperation and engagement.
Chinese coast guard ships ram and water-cannon Philippine vessels resupplying a garrison inside Manila's own exclusive economic zone. Fishing militias form floating barriers miles long. Military jets regularly harass Taiwanese planes at the edge of its airspace.
Earlier this summer, a Chinese submarine fired a ballistic missile about 4,500 miles into the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone, which was established in a treaty whose protocols China signed in 1987. You don't have to be a hawk to find that threatening.
Just like those who signed the U.N. Charter, Beijing's rulers are mirroring abroad what they practice at home. The friction between centralizing authoritarianism and devolved cooperation risks more than an air accident.
Until recently, Beijing's officials simultaneously ran four of the 15 U.N. specialized agencies -- more than any other country -- and more when you count the client states that vote as directed. Those seats are being used to undermine both Britain's reach and America's defense.
Britain wrongly agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a crucial U.S. air base in the Indian Ocean, in part due to worries that the International Telecommunication Union, an agency run until 2022 by a Beijing nominee, might one day be used to challenge control of the radio spectrum that keeps the outpost operating. The argument was that once one U.N. agency denies British jurisdiction, other claims would surely follow.
This is the python's creep of encirclement. China is using organizations built to defend rights to exploit weakness.
That's why Kinmen's airport episode matters -- not for the island itself but for the message it sends. A threatened judgment scared Britain's diplomats out defending British territory. A stated policy scared ICAO members from defending Taiwan's place in the agency and protecting air traffic.
One can recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Strait believe they are part of one country while also recognizing that each administration has jurisdiction over its own affairs. And at the same time, know that the order that built today's prosperity can be defended without taking a position on Taiwan's final status.
A carefully worded acceptance of a one-China policy, which most of the West recognizes, forces no one to reject Taiwan's participation in international institutions.
Diplomacy must be able to manage ambiguity. But it should not tolerate bullying, especially when the bullying threatens us all.
Read in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/09/04/how-china-uses-global-institutions-isolate-taiwan/).
* * *
Tom Tugendhat is a distinguished fellow at Hudson Institute. He is also the member of parliament for Tonbridge, Kent, in the United Kingdom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/obscure-airport-tells-you-lot-about-china-tom-tugendhat
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Arab News: Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight Over the Falklands
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News:
* * *
Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands
Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands.
The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereignty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News: * * * Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereigntyover the islands, based on historical precedent and, more importantly, the fact that their roughly 3,600 inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British. Argentina, meanwhile, claims the islands as its own and regards Britain as an occupying power.
The US has traditionally sympathized with the British, even providing crucial support to the UK after Argentina invaded and occupied the islands for 74 days in 1982. President Donald Trump has now said that his administration is reviewing America's position, following earlier reports about Washington's frustration over Britain's perceived lack of support during the war against Iran.
The timing is puzzling. There is already enough tension in the transatlantic community over the US interest in Greenland and the trade dispute with the EU. Injecting another unnecessary crisis into an already fraught relationship makes little sense, especially when the transatlantic community needs unity and cohesion.
More importantly, it is difficult to understand the claim that the UK has failed to provide meaningful assistance during US military operations against Iran.
Britain has allowed the US to use its bases and overseas territories in support of the recent Iran operations. For example, Gibraltar hosted a US nuclear submarine visit during the conflict. At the time it was thought that this was done to signal a message to Tehran. The US has also long used British bases in Cyprus for intelligence gathering. Most importantly, the US was allowed to use Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to conduct bombing runs into Iran.
The UK has also allowed the US to use RAF Fairford for operations connected to Iran. British forces have played an important role across the region defending countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan against Iranian missiles and drones.
The American use of British bases is particularly significant because military cooperation has been one of the foundations of the US-UK special relationship for generations. During his famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill described the close military links that should underpin the relationship between the two countries, including the use of each other's military bases around the globe.
Therefore, it seems particularly hypocritical for the Trump administration to rely on British bases and overseas territories during its military operations against Iran, while simultaneously questioning British control over another overseas territory in the South Atlantic.
History also makes a compelling case for the British position.
The first recorded siting of the Falkland Islands was made by an English sailor in 1690. At the time, the islands were uninhabited, and there is no historical or archaeological evidence that an indigenous population had previously lived there.
Britain made its first formal claim to the islands in 1765 and maintained settlements there sporadically during the following decades. In 1833, a British force arrived and removed an Argentine military penal colony that established itself on one of the Falkland's 776 islands. Even though the soldiers were expelled, civilians were allowed to remain -- and most did.
The islands have been under continuous British administration since 1833, with the exception of 74 days in 1982 during the war.
But however interesting the historical claims might be, the history is secondary to the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands.
In 2013, Falkland islanders held a referendum on their status. Turnout was 92 percent, and 99.8 percent voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. Only three people voted against. The referendum was overseen by international observers, even from Latin America, and was considered free and fair.
What matters most is not the opinion in London, Washington or Buenos Aires, but the opinion in Stanley, the territory's capital. For as long as the Falkland islanders want to remain British their wishes should be respected.
The Falkland Islands are also a very emotive political issue in the UK. Support for the islanders' right to remain British stretches across almost the entire British political spectrum. Picking a fight with London over the islands would therefore needlessly create a crisis with one of America's closest allies.
Even viewed narrowly through the lens of American interests, changing the US position makes little sense. There is also a straightforward strategic argument for maintaining the status quo. The Trump administration has proposed stability and security in the western hemisphere. British control over the islands does just that. With the British presence, there is no immediate threat of armed conflict due to the UK's military presence on the islands deterring Argentine aggression. There is also no civil unrest or oppressed population there demanding political change. If Argentina gained control, this would not be the case.
The US was founded on the principle that people should have a say in how they are governed. Applying that principle to the Falkland Islands is a no-brainer. If the islanders want to remain British, Washington should respect their decision.
At a moment when the US needs dependable allies, picking an unnecessary fight with the UK over the Falklands would accomplish nothing. America should support the wishes of the islanders and recognize British control of the territory. This is the best way to maintain stability in the South Atlantic and the western hemisphere.
Now is not the time to create a problem where none exists.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/opinion/trump-is-picking-a-needless-fight-over-the-falklands-3000475).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, where he analyzes European security, transatlantic relations, and foreign policy with a focus on Europe, Eurasia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Arctic security, and Russian imperialism. For his work in support of Ukrainian sovereignty, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded him the Order of Merit, Third Class, in August 2024.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/trump-picking-needless-fight-over-falklands-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands
Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands.
The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereignty ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to Arab News: * * * Trump Is Picking a Needless Fight over the Falklands Another crisis is brewing in the transatlantic relationship, this time between the US and the UK over the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are one of 14 British Overseas Territories and are located in the South Atlantic, about 500 km off the coast of South America. Britain has long claimed sovereigntyover the islands, based on historical precedent and, more importantly, the fact that their roughly 3,600 inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British. Argentina, meanwhile, claims the islands as its own and regards Britain as an occupying power.
The US has traditionally sympathized with the British, even providing crucial support to the UK after Argentina invaded and occupied the islands for 74 days in 1982. President Donald Trump has now said that his administration is reviewing America's position, following earlier reports about Washington's frustration over Britain's perceived lack of support during the war against Iran.
The timing is puzzling. There is already enough tension in the transatlantic community over the US interest in Greenland and the trade dispute with the EU. Injecting another unnecessary crisis into an already fraught relationship makes little sense, especially when the transatlantic community needs unity and cohesion.
More importantly, it is difficult to understand the claim that the UK has failed to provide meaningful assistance during US military operations against Iran.
Britain has allowed the US to use its bases and overseas territories in support of the recent Iran operations. For example, Gibraltar hosted a US nuclear submarine visit during the conflict. At the time it was thought that this was done to signal a message to Tehran. The US has also long used British bases in Cyprus for intelligence gathering. Most importantly, the US was allowed to use Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to conduct bombing runs into Iran.
The UK has also allowed the US to use RAF Fairford for operations connected to Iran. British forces have played an important role across the region defending countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan against Iranian missiles and drones.
The American use of British bases is particularly significant because military cooperation has been one of the foundations of the US-UK special relationship for generations. During his famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill described the close military links that should underpin the relationship between the two countries, including the use of each other's military bases around the globe.
Therefore, it seems particularly hypocritical for the Trump administration to rely on British bases and overseas territories during its military operations against Iran, while simultaneously questioning British control over another overseas territory in the South Atlantic.
History also makes a compelling case for the British position.
The first recorded siting of the Falkland Islands was made by an English sailor in 1690. At the time, the islands were uninhabited, and there is no historical or archaeological evidence that an indigenous population had previously lived there.
Britain made its first formal claim to the islands in 1765 and maintained settlements there sporadically during the following decades. In 1833, a British force arrived and removed an Argentine military penal colony that established itself on one of the Falkland's 776 islands. Even though the soldiers were expelled, civilians were allowed to remain -- and most did.
The islands have been under continuous British administration since 1833, with the exception of 74 days in 1982 during the war.
But however interesting the historical claims might be, the history is secondary to the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands.
In 2013, Falkland islanders held a referendum on their status. Turnout was 92 percent, and 99.8 percent voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. Only three people voted against. The referendum was overseen by international observers, even from Latin America, and was considered free and fair.
What matters most is not the opinion in London, Washington or Buenos Aires, but the opinion in Stanley, the territory's capital. For as long as the Falkland islanders want to remain British their wishes should be respected.
The Falkland Islands are also a very emotive political issue in the UK. Support for the islanders' right to remain British stretches across almost the entire British political spectrum. Picking a fight with London over the islands would therefore needlessly create a crisis with one of America's closest allies.
Even viewed narrowly through the lens of American interests, changing the US position makes little sense. There is also a straightforward strategic argument for maintaining the status quo. The Trump administration has proposed stability and security in the western hemisphere. British control over the islands does just that. With the British presence, there is no immediate threat of armed conflict due to the UK's military presence on the islands deterring Argentine aggression. There is also no civil unrest or oppressed population there demanding political change. If Argentina gained control, this would not be the case.
The US was founded on the principle that people should have a say in how they are governed. Applying that principle to the Falkland Islands is a no-brainer. If the islanders want to remain British, Washington should respect their decision.
At a moment when the US needs dependable allies, picking an unnecessary fight with the UK over the Falklands would accomplish nothing. America should support the wishes of the islanders and recognize British control of the territory. This is the best way to maintain stability in the South Atlantic and the western hemisphere.
Now is not the time to create a problem where none exists.
Read in Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/opinion/trump-is-picking-a-needless-fight-over-the-falklands-3000475).
* * *
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, where he analyzes European security, transatlantic relations, and foreign policy with a focus on Europe, Eurasia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Arctic security, and Russian imperialism. For his work in support of Ukrainian sovereignty, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded him the Order of Merit, Third Class, in August 2024.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/trump-picking-needless-fight-over-falklands-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Report: Enemies of Energy - Skyline Foundation
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 4, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Skyline Foundation
Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade and a big contributor to the Sierra Club's war on coal.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Donor type: direct grant maker
With an estimated net ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 4, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Skyline Foundation Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade and a big contributor to the Sierra Club's war on coal. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy. - Donor type: direct grant maker With an estimated networth of $4.6 billion, as of April 2026, Yahoo co-founder David Filo notched spot number 334 on the 2025 Forbes 400 ranking of richest Americans. In 2000, Filo and his wife Angela founded the Yellow Chair Foundation, a grant maker they have since renamed the Skyline Foundation. In its most recent IRS filing, covering activities in 2024, Skyline reported net assets of nearly $1.2 billion.[i][ii]
Skyline has become one of the largest known donors to both the large anti-energy NGOs profiled in this report and the pass-through foundations that fund them. Skyline's 2024 IRS filing shows combined grants of $14.5 million for these recipients.[iii]
Nearly $10.8 million was granted in 2024 to six of the fifteen anti-energy NGOs:[iv]
* Environmental Defense Fund: $4 million
* Sierra Club Foundation: $2.5 million
* Natural Resources Defense Council: $2 million
* Earthjustice: $1 million
* World Resources Institute: $750,000
* org: $500,000
An additional $3.7 million was sent to these three major pass-through donors to the major anti-energy NGOs:[v]
* Windward Fund: $1.5 million
* Climateworks Foundation: $1.2 million
* U.S Energy Foundation: $1 million
Skyline also provides an online grants database that permits a look at more recent grants that will appear in future IRS reports. These entries also note the commitment Skyline has made for future donations. The 2025 grants listed in that database include:[vi]
* S. Energy Foundation: "$7 million over 4 years"
* Climateworks Foundation: "$4,000,000 over 4 years"
* Earthjustice: "$6 million over 6 years"
* Rocky Mountain Institute: "$3 million over 3 years"
While hardly a household name, Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade. In July 2015, while still known as the Yellow Chair Foundation, the Filo couple's giving vehicle was profiled by Inside Philanthropy. The report claimed that while the "Yellow Chair Foundation prefers to fly beneath the radar" it had "quietly" become a major contributor to the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign.[vii]
"The Filos gave out around $9 million in 2013, and they have been giving to environmental causes for a while," reported Inside Philanthropy. "In that year, the Yellow Chair Foundation made big grants to the Energy Foundation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club. In other recent years, EDF was the main environmental grantee."[viii]
* * *
Endnotes
[i] David Filo | Forbes 400. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/profile/david-filo/?list=forbes-400
[ii] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[iii] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[iv] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[v] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[vi] Our Grantmaking. Skyline Foundation. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://skylinefoundation.org/grants/
[vii] "A Billionaire Co-Founder of Yahoo and His Wife Quietly Help Fund the "War on Coal"" Inside Philanthropy. July 13, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015-7-13-a-billionaire-co-founder-of-yahoo-and-his-wife-quietly-help-html
[viii] "A Billionaire Co-Founder of Yahoo and His Wife Quietly Help Fund the "War on Coal"" Inside Philanthropy. July 13, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015-7-13-a-billionaire-co-founder-of-yahoo-and-his-wife-quietly-help-html
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report Link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-skyline-foundation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Skyline Foundation
Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade and a big contributor to the Sierra Club's war on coal.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.
-
Donor type: direct grant maker
With an estimated net ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (TNSLrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following excerpts of a report on Sept. 4, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun: * * * Enemies of Energy: Skyline Foundation Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade and a big contributor to the Sierra Club's war on coal. Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy. - Donor type: direct grant maker With an estimated networth of $4.6 billion, as of April 2026, Yahoo co-founder David Filo notched spot number 334 on the 2025 Forbes 400 ranking of richest Americans. In 2000, Filo and his wife Angela founded the Yellow Chair Foundation, a grant maker they have since renamed the Skyline Foundation. In its most recent IRS filing, covering activities in 2024, Skyline reported net assets of nearly $1.2 billion.[i][ii]
Skyline has become one of the largest known donors to both the large anti-energy NGOs profiled in this report and the pass-through foundations that fund them. Skyline's 2024 IRS filing shows combined grants of $14.5 million for these recipients.[iii]
Nearly $10.8 million was granted in 2024 to six of the fifteen anti-energy NGOs:[iv]
* Environmental Defense Fund: $4 million
* Sierra Club Foundation: $2.5 million
* Natural Resources Defense Council: $2 million
* Earthjustice: $1 million
* World Resources Institute: $750,000
* org: $500,000
An additional $3.7 million was sent to these three major pass-through donors to the major anti-energy NGOs:[v]
* Windward Fund: $1.5 million
* Climateworks Foundation: $1.2 million
* U.S Energy Foundation: $1 million
Skyline also provides an online grants database that permits a look at more recent grants that will appear in future IRS reports. These entries also note the commitment Skyline has made for future donations. The 2025 grants listed in that database include:[vi]
* S. Energy Foundation: "$7 million over 4 years"
* Climateworks Foundation: "$4,000,000 over 4 years"
* Earthjustice: "$6 million over 6 years"
* Rocky Mountain Institute: "$3 million over 3 years"
While hardly a household name, Skyline has been a big donor to the large anti-energy NGOs for more than a decade. In July 2015, while still known as the Yellow Chair Foundation, the Filo couple's giving vehicle was profiled by Inside Philanthropy. The report claimed that while the "Yellow Chair Foundation prefers to fly beneath the radar" it had "quietly" become a major contributor to the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign.[vii]
"The Filos gave out around $9 million in 2013, and they have been giving to environmental causes for a while," reported Inside Philanthropy. "In that year, the Yellow Chair Foundation made big grants to the Energy Foundation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club. In other recent years, EDF was the main environmental grantee."[viii]
* * *
Endnotes
[i] David Filo | Forbes 400. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/profile/david-filo/?list=forbes-400
[ii] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[iii] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[iv] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[v] Skyline Foundation. (EIN: 94-3380194). 2024 IRS Form 990. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380194
[vi] Our Grantmaking. Skyline Foundation. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://skylinefoundation.org/grants/
[vii] "A Billionaire Co-Founder of Yahoo and His Wife Quietly Help Fund the "War on Coal"" Inside Philanthropy. July 13, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015-7-13-a-billionaire-co-founder-of-yahoo-and-his-wife-quietly-help-html
[viii] "A Billionaire Co-Founder of Yahoo and His Wife Quietly Help Fund the "War on Coal"" Inside Philanthropy. July 13, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015-7-13-a-billionaire-co-founder-of-yahoo-and-his-wife-quietly-help-html
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Report Link: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-skyline-foundation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties researchto use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Whitman-Walker Institute is a research organization based in Washington D.C. that provides health policy recommendations and conducts clinical trials and investigations. The Institute is listed as a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a left-of-center network of over 240 organizations that advocates and lobbies on civil rights legislation and presidential appointments. The Institute has previously received grants from George Washington University, the Ford Foundation, the Gill Foundation, and the Greater Washington Community Foundation.
* Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation is a private grantmaking foundation whose grantees include left-of-center organizations promoting environmentalist and abortion access policies. As of 2025, the Foundation was listed as a signatory of "Meet the Moment," a pledge for increased grantmaking in response to federal government cuts organized by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. The Foundation's grant recipients have included the Hopewell Fund, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Clean Energy Fund of Texas.
* Allstate Foundation is a private foundation affiliated with the insurance company Allstate whose grantees include left-of-center activist organizations. In 2024, the Foundation's "Racial Equity" grant program provided funding to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Prosperity Now, the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Additional funding that year went to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, PolicyLink, the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, and UnidosUS.
* Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a research and advocacy organization that focuses on state policy issues such as child welfare, race, the economy, and immigration. Its 2024 funders included the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Arkansas Community Foundation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its donors have also included Community Catalyst, the Economic Policy Institute, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and the Marguerite Casey Foundation.
* Community Organizing and Family Issues is a Chicago-based organization that provides training to low-income residents on influencing public policy. In 2022, the organization received a $2 million grant from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos, which was reportedly the largest single donation it had received in its history at the time. It has also received funding from the Chicago Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the K. Kellogg Foundation, the New Venture Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-04-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties research ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on Sept. 4, 2026: * * * InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups. The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties researchto use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* Whitman-Walker Institute is a research organization based in Washington D.C. that provides health policy recommendations and conducts clinical trials and investigations. The Institute is listed as a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a left-of-center network of over 240 organizations that advocates and lobbies on civil rights legislation and presidential appointments. The Institute has previously received grants from George Washington University, the Ford Foundation, the Gill Foundation, and the Greater Washington Community Foundation.
* Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation is a private grantmaking foundation whose grantees include left-of-center organizations promoting environmentalist and abortion access policies. As of 2025, the Foundation was listed as a signatory of "Meet the Moment," a pledge for increased grantmaking in response to federal government cuts organized by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. The Foundation's grant recipients have included the Hopewell Fund, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Clean Energy Fund of Texas.
* Allstate Foundation is a private foundation affiliated with the insurance company Allstate whose grantees include left-of-center activist organizations. In 2024, the Foundation's "Racial Equity" grant program provided funding to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Prosperity Now, the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Additional funding that year went to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, PolicyLink, the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, and UnidosUS.
* Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a research and advocacy organization that focuses on state policy issues such as child welfare, race, the economy, and immigration. Its 2024 funders included the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Arkansas Community Foundation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its donors have also included Community Catalyst, the Economic Policy Institute, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and the Marguerite Casey Foundation.
* Community Organizing and Family Issues is a Chicago-based organization that provides training to low-income residents on influencing public policy. In 2022, the organization received a $2 million grant from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos, which was reportedly the largest single donation it had received in its history at the time. It has also received funding from the Chicago Community Trust, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the K. Kellogg Foundation, the New Venture Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-09-04-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to The Hill: Europe's Digital Agenda is a Gift to China
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill:
* * *
Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China
Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open.
Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill: * * * Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open. Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting. TheDigital Markets Act is sold in Brussels as a competition and consumer measure. It is neither. It imposes costs, mandates, and compliance burdens triggered by arbitrary thresholds: market capitalization instead of proven dominance, user counts instead of demonstrated harm.
To read the full article, click here (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/6070296-eu-regulation-hurts-us-ai-leadership/).
* * *
Juan Andres Caro serves as a senior fellow for American Justice Policy at AFPI. Caro most recently served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for international and space affairs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he served as the agency's chief international representative, directing U.S. engagement across fisheries governance, space commerce, satellite policy, deep-sea mining, and polar affairs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/europes-digital-agenda-is-a-gift-to-china
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China
Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open.
Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Sept. 4, 2026, by Juan Andres Caro, senior fellow for American Justice Policy, to The Hill: * * * Europe's digital agenda is a gift to China Powerful AI chips are moving into China again. As Beijing does everything it can to close the gap with American AI companies, the U.S. and its European allies should pursue a trade and technology agenda designed to keep that gap open. Instead, Brussels is spending its energy dismantling the American companies that are doing the heavy lifting. TheDigital Markets Act is sold in Brussels as a competition and consumer measure. It is neither. It imposes costs, mandates, and compliance burdens triggered by arbitrary thresholds: market capitalization instead of proven dominance, user counts instead of demonstrated harm.
To read the full article, click here (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/6070296-eu-regulation-hurts-us-ai-leadership/).
* * *
Juan Andres Caro serves as a senior fellow for American Justice Policy at AFPI. Caro most recently served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for international and space affairs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he served as the agency's chief international representative, directing U.S. engagement across fisheries governance, space commerce, satellite policy, deep-sea mining, and polar affairs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/europes-digital-agenda-is-a-gift-to-china
[Category: ThinkTank]