Sources: ASPI The Strategist; Atlantic Council; Chatham House; RUSI; The Jamestown Foundation; UN News
Artificial Intelligence
(UN News) Fresh scientific evidence and options for harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) were unveiled Wednesday following the launch of the first global, independent scientific assessment of opportunities, risks and impacts by a pioneering UN expert panel. “The science is here,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the report launch. “We can no longer say we did not know. What we do with it is now up to all of us”. The more AI advances without shared rules, the less say governments and people will have in the outcome, the UN chief said, adding “my message to governments is simple: do not wait”. Aiming to build a shared understanding and evidence at this critical juncture, the Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI: Evidence-based assessment of opportunities, risks and impacts of AI was penned by the first global, fully independent scientific body dedicated to assessing its real impacts across economies and societies. – ‘The science is here’: UN chief welcomes first global AI assessment | UN News
China
(Gerald Mako – ASPI The Strategist) For decades, Chinese military planners have viewed logistics as the decisive factor in any campaign against Taiwan and across the broader Indo-Pacific. Sustaining large-scale operations across the strait would require moving and supplying forces under intense pressure, making logistics both a critical vulnerability and a priority for reform. China is now placing a big bet that artificial intelligence offers the solution. The Chinese military is incorporating AI into its logistics systems to support what it calls ‘intelligentised warfare’. AI tools promise to improve demand forecasting, routing and the allocation of supplies. The armed forces are also applying AI to predictive maintenance, allowing logistics units to anticipate failures and schedule repairs well before breakdowns occur. Established in 2016 as part of Chinese military reforms, the Joint Logistic Support Force serves as the Chinese army’s centralised logistics command, coordinating support across all services. It manages theatre‑level support centres and depots while drawing data from military units, bases and civilian contractors to develop cross‑theatre sustainment plans. China refers to this as ‘smart joint logistics’, with the force fusing data from military and civilian systems into unified support plans across theatres. Recent work has focused on combining information systems with AI applications to support more automated planning processes. – China’s military AI logistics: peacetime gains, wartime vulnerabilities | The Strategist
Destinus – Ukraine – Europe
(John C. K. Daly – The Jamestown Foundation) On May 18, Dutch defense company Destinus unveiled plans to begin production on the Ruta Block 3 mini-cruise missile, offering a 1,242-mile range to provide Europe and Ukraine with a cheaper, mass-produced long-range strike capability. Destinus—founded by the former head of Russia’s first private space company, Mikhail Kokorich—pivoted to defense after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and has since supplied thousands of drones and Ruta Block 1 mini-cruise missiles to Ukraine and Europe. Kokorich, who renounced his Russian citizenship in January 2024, says Destinus is developing long-range strike programs across Europe and aims to produce missiles faster and more cheaply than existing systems. In April, Russia labeled Destinus a military target, underscoring the company’s growing role in strengthening Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities and Europe’s defense-industrial base. – Former Russian Space Entrepreneur Producing Long-Range Missiles for Ukraine – Jamestown
Europe
(Joana de Deus Pereira and Michael Jones – RUSI) In the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine and a more volatile global environment, European leaders have moved to strengthen Europe’s security posture, expanding defence budgets and launching new instruments. At the same time, aid, humanitarian and peacebuilding budgets are being quietly pared back, folded into more flexible external spending pots and redeployed towards politically salient priorities such as infrastructure and migration management. The result is a security approach that appears more robust on paper, but risks leaving Europe more exposed in the fragile regions where many of its long-term risks are actually brewing. The latest cuts to USAID, combined with the fiscal and political pressures generated by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, have triggered a chain reaction that reaches far beyond Washington. As budgets tighten, European and multilateral donors are not simply doing less of the same; they are rerouting funds away from the slower, less visible work of peace, governance and conflict prevention towards regional envelopes, high profile infrastructure and politically salient partnerships. Country specific support in some of the most fragile contexts has collapsed, while migration deals and initiatives such as Global Gateway absorb a growing share of what used to be classic development and peacebuilding budgets. Taken together, these shifts are quietly chipping away at Europe’s presence and leverage in poor, conflict-affected states just as the global security environment becomes more volatile. If we observe the latest 20 years’ timeline, we will easily conclude that conflicts and fragility do not pause when budgets are redrawn: they evolve. Shocks such as deep USAID cuts and the intensification of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have set off a cascade in which donors are pushed to invest more in defence and crisis response, and, by consequence, less in slower prevention work. That trade-off may look manageable on paper, but it creates security gaps we have not yet fully understood or measured, particularly in ecosystems where everything is interconnected, and small shifts in funding can have large downstream effects. The abrupt suspension of USAID funding alone precipitated a surge in riots, protests and conflict-related deaths within weeks, while studies estimate ODA reductions by major donors including the UK, France and Germany could lead to over 9 million fatalities by 2030. Upper estimates suggest 22.6 million. – Defence Up, Aid Down: Europe’s New Security Blind Spot | Royal United Services Institute
India – Middle East – Europe Economic Corridor
(Afaq Hussain and Maisoon H. Kafafy – Atlantic Council) An expanded India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor, or IMEC, could replace roughly 60 percent of the container traffic that flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Building out connected networks with nodes in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria could unlock upward of $330 billion in trade. This networked approach to the IMEC project hedges against the kind of disruption caused by the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. – A network of corridors is the only reliable hedge against Middle East chokepoint disruptions – Atlantic Council
Israel – Palestine
(UN News) The continued expansion of areas under Israeli control in Gaza since October’s ceasefire agreement is placing civilians at greater risk and severely constraining humanitarian operations, the UN and humanitarian partners warned on Wednesday. The alert comes amid continued displacement and mounting humanitarian pressures across the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). In a statement, the combined Humanitarian Country Team in the OPT said the expansion of the area under Israeli control, together with movement restrictions, are limiting access for aid workers and reducing the space available for civilians already displaced by the conflict. – Expanding areas under Israeli control in Gaza increase risks to civilians, UN warns | UN News
Israel – US
(Ksenia Svetlova – Chatham House) The relationship between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has grown increasingly tense since the start of the Iran war and seems to have reached an all-time low amid Trump’s efforts to end hostilities in both Iran and Lebanon. His memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran was largely criticized in Israel. Netanyahu – who always bragged about his great relationship with Trump – was seen as responsible. Another MoU between Israel, the US and Lebanon followed last week. Although it looks more favourable to Israel, it has nevertheless been met with a great deal of suspicion in Israel where the majority supports military action against Hezbollah. Before last week’s deal, the US president had grown increasingly frustrated that Israel’s actions in Lebanon would jeopardize the ceasefire deal with Iran. Trump has confirmed reports he called Netanyahu ‘crazy’ and used an expletive during a tense phone call. A new book claims there was a similarly angry phone call just days before the public announcement of the ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza. These revelations paint a picture of two leaders who have always emphasized their close alliance and ‘beautiful friendship’ but no longer seem to be on the same page. But does this mean Trump is ready to translate his growing resentment towards Netanyahu into new policy? If so, how would it affect Israeli politics and the upcoming elections? – Netanyahu is caught between Trump and a hard place | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
Russia
(Yuri Lapaiev – The Jamestown Foundation) The number of combat-ready strategic bombers in the Russian Aerospace Forces is steadily declining due to Western sanctions, inadequate maintenance, and successful Ukrainian strikes. Russia is forced to cannibalize existing aircraft to keep them operational or smuggle spare parts. As the number of operational aircraft decreases, the workload on the remaining aircraft increases, which raises the likelihood of malfunctions and accidents. A strict sanctions regime targeting Russia’s defense industry enterprises, along with constant monitoring of compliance with those sanctions, could hinder the development of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. – Russian Aviation Industry Facing Problems – Jamestown
Russia – Ukraine
(Peter Dickinson – Atlantic Council) The Kremlin-installed authorities in Russian-occupied Crimea declared a state of emergency last week amid energy blackouts and fuel shortages caused by Ukraine’s intensifying blockade of the Black Sea peninsula. The deteriorating situation in Crimea is creating major practical challenges for the Russian war effort in Ukraine. Crucially, it also poses a direct threat to the carefully crafted Kremlin mythology portraying Vladimir Putin as the great restorer of the Russian Empire. Ukraine’s strategic bombing campaign in and around Crimea has been unfolding since early 2026 and relies heavily on a new generation of strike drones capable of operating deep behind enemy lines. These mid-range drones have made it possible to target access routes in and out of the peninsula, along with high-value targets in Crimea itself. A key focus has been the so-called “land bridge” across occupied southern Ukraine that serves as a lifeline linking Crimea to the Russian Federation. This militarily unprecedented drone-led blockade has proved highly effective. The Crimean occupation authorities have been forced to impose restrictions on public transport, street lighting, and electricity supplies, while the sale of gasoline to civilians is now tightly controlled and was stopped altogether for a period in late June. Many residents have resorted to traveling across the Crimean Bridge to search for petrol in Russia’s Krasnodar and Rostov regions, but some report that fuel stations have refused service to Crimean vehicles due to local shortages. With gasoline largely unavailable and power cuts now a daily fact of life, reservations in Crimean tourist resorts reportedly plummeted by 79 percent in June. – Ukraine’s blockade of Crimea puts Putin’s greatest victory under threat – Atlantic Council
Sanctions
(Olivia Allison and Lloyd Meadows – RUSI) Governments increasingly regulate the trade in certain goods, imposing sanctions and trade restrictive measures to prevent sensitive technologies from reaching competitor economies and military opponents. The challenge comes with enforcement: how to promote compliance in the private sector? Regulators have a choice – either rely on the thousands of exporters (who are largely unregulated) or let compliance fall to the much smaller number of banks already subject to stringent oversight. Their choice has been clear. Banks are the financial frontline of sanctions enforcement, tasked with applying a multiplying patchwork of national, UN and multilateral restrictions on trade with Russia, Iran and North Korea – all countries with military, security and proliferation programmes that are subject to extensive sanctions, export controls and trade restrictions, yet continue to seek access to western-origin high-tech goods. If banks are to support governments to restrict the flow of high-value dual-use goods, then governments and regulators should take greater efforts to align restrictions with systems the financial institutions use. Namely, the current system of sanctions based on Harmonised System (HS) codes should be adapted to include reference to the industry codes banks use – for example, UN International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) codes. In addition to the UN ISIC codes system there are others such as SIC and NAICS used by the US and Canada, NACE2, used by the EU and UK and NIZCS used by Australia and New Zealand. Your authors propose using the UN code as it is the most developed, but the approach we recommend could be used with any of these. – Decoding Sanctions: How Governments can get the Best out of Banks | Royal United Services Institute
UK
(Veronica Stratford-Tuke – RUSI) As the global standard setter for anti-money laundering (AML)/counter-terrorist financing (CFT), the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) has long had a culture of privacy, keeping a tight hold on its business among governments and the private sector. Mutual evaluations – the process by which countries are assessed for their compliance with the FATF’s standards – are one of its most influential tools. Yet, those too are shrouded in secrecy with decision-making by consensus in closed-door plenaries. On the other side of this door, the FATF’s engagement with external experts in the research community and wider third sector has traditionally been peripheral. In 2020 under the Singaporean Presidency, the FATF collaborated with civil society on its Illegal Wildlife Trade report. The FATF also seeks third sector inputs on public consultations when finalising new guidance or Recommendations, unintended consequences, and Recommendation 8 around Non-Profit Organisations. But these examples are few and far between. One argument for maintaining a closed shop is that it allows for frank and candid assessments. In reality, we see no evidence that opacity has helped the FATF better achieve its objective of protecting the global financial system or do its job of evaluating countries, and there has even been some evidence to the contrary. In a commendable move, the UK has taken a landmark step to formally invite research and wider third-sector partners into its evaluation preparations and process. So, what does the UK’s cross-sector approach mean for the road ahead? – Opening the Door: The UK’s 2027 Financial Action Task Force Evaluation | Royal United Services Institute
US
(Laurel Rapp – Chatham House) London is a fraught place from which to watch an American revolution. There is an amusing local story, that King George III spent many hours poring over military plans in a basement near Buckingham Palace, scheming how best to supress troublesome revolutionaries. Throughout America’s War of Independence, Great Britain’s leaders dumped blood and treasure into securing their rebellious colonies, intent on overcoming their scrappy but capable countrymen: revolutionaries who sought religious liberty and freedom to dissent. Revolutionaries who opposed unjust taxation and exploitative trade relations. Revolutionaries who rejected the status quo. King George’s basement plotting was for naught, and a new nation was born. Today, 250 years later, leaders in Britain – and across Europe – once again watch with trepidation as new political currents take root across the Atlantic. History doesn’t repeat itself, but in the US its echoes carry a similar spirit of revolt. This movement is not directed at an outside power, but rather at the current system’s ability to address Americans’ biggest worries: the availability and affordability of healthcare above all, followed by issues including the economy, inflation, federal spending and the deficit, and income and wealth distribution. While many Americans agree on the diagnosis, there’s sharp division on the remedies. Some call for reining in expansive US military commitments abroad and redirecting war spending to focus on investments at home. Others hope to dismantle the billionaire class and promote greater economic justice. Some seek a consolidation of executive power to unleash the authority of the presidency. These are live debates heading into the November midterms, and they cut across party lines. – Europe watches the next American revolution take shape | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
US – Syria
(Diana Rayes – Atlantic Council) The decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian asylees was handed down on First Street, Washington, DC, but it will be felt in Damascus, Beirut, Istanbul, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, and far beyond. On June 25, the US Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s decision to terminate TPS programs for thousands of Syrians and several hundred thousand Haitians living in the US under humanitarian protection. Now, over six thousand Syrian asylees in the United States are forced to face a return to Syria, a homeland that many of them no longer recognize. “It feels like we are being besieged,” one Syrian asylee affected by the decision, who asked not to be named due to the uncertain legal situation, told me. “You cannot get any other visa processed. Everything is in limbo”. Syria continues to be a fragile state with over 15.6 million in need of humanitarian assistance due to decades of authoritarian rule under the Assad regime, compounded by a decade-and-a-half-long conflict, which concluded with dictator Bashar al-Assad’s ouster in December 2024. Syrians living in the US under TPS comprise small fraction of the 12.5 million Syrians estimated to be displaced around the world—over half of Syria’s pre-war population. But the Supreme Court decision carries implications for this wider group, too. It sets a precedent for Syrian asylum-seekers and refugees in other major host countries, including Germany, Austria, France, and Canada, and signals to those governments that similar measures are permissible, despite the fact that Syria is not close to ready for the diaspora to come home. – The US is sending Syrian asylees back. Syria isn’t ready. – Atlantic Council
In partnership with
