warfare

Espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, and covert operations are a ‘constant reality’, says Germany’s interior minister.

Germany is facing daily “hybrid warfare” attacks from abroad, an official has said, days after an explosive-laden drone was discovered at Leipzig/Halle Airport.

Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt told the local newspaper Bild am Sonntag on Sunday that foreign powers wanted to subdue Germany politically and socially by stirring up fear.

“We’re not at war, but we are the daily target of hybrid warfare,” Dobrindt said.

“Espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, or covert operations by foreign powers aimed at destabilising Germany or inflicting direct harm are a constant reality.”

He did not identify any countries behind the alleged attacks.

The minister’s comments come after a drone loaded ‌with explosives was discovered at the Leipzig/Halle Airport in eastern Germany on Tuesday.

Some German lawmakers pointed the finger at Russia, which has been at war with Ukraine since its full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.

The Russian embassy in Berlin on Friday dismissed the Leipzig event as a “fabricated provocation”, saying it was another example of unsubstantiated accusations against Moscow.

Germany plans to boost anti-drone capacity

Germany is planning to strengthen its ability to counter drones amid concerns over the threat, Bild reported, citing government sources.

The newspaper said Dobrindt’s ministry wanted to double the federal government’s team of anti-drone experts from 150 to 300 and increase its network of related bases from four to eight.

Germany’s armed forces said on Saturday that two drones were spotted late on Thursday over a German military base site in Mechernich, in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Separately, a drone exploded on Saturday in Bulgaria near the Trans-Balkan gas pipeline.

Bulgaria’s defence ministry said there was no reason to suspect the incident was intentional. Ukraine said it was working with Bulgarian authorities to clarify the circumstances.

The drone incidents across Europe have renewed concerns that Russia’s war in Ukraine could increasingly affect neighbouring NATO states.

NATO and European Union officials have blamed Russia for previous drone sightings. Russia has rejected all the allegations.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the military for planning and operations as a decision support tool at multiple stages. The US’s use of Anthropic’s Claude model against Iran marks a significant moment in the history of warfare. Integrated via Palantir’s Maven Smart System, AI-supported intelligence analysis, target identification, and operational simulations enabled planners to process information faster than human capabilities. While analysts have framed this as an “AI war,” the more significant shift lies in the growing influence of algorithmic systems in shaping military decision-making architectures.

Admiral Brad Cooper, who led Operation Epic Fury, said that AI systems processed massive amounts of intelligence and surveillance data, allowing commanders to gain insights within seconds. This is part of a wider movement to shift more complex intelligence tasks to algorithmic systems, raising questions about transparency, oversight, and reliance on algorithmic assessments.

This is also observed in other conflict zones, but in different operational roles. In Gaza, Israel’s Lavender system, developed by Unit 8200, assisted in the targeting of 37,000 suspected individuals, based on reported affiliations, using AI. Structural strikes and real-time tracking were made possible through the use of additional tools like “The Gospel” and “Where’s Daddy?” These systems reduced human review into quick, seconds-long “stamp of approval” decisions, moving targeting to machine-driven validation. In Ukraine, AI tools were used to assist in drone operations and battlefield analysis by training datasets. Initial programs, like Project Maven, relied on manually labeling 150,000 images. Currently, the Brave1 has enabled over 100 defense-tech firms to train combat AI on millions of annotated images from ongoing missions to improve these AI models.

The modern battlefield produces unprecedented volumes of data from interwoven sensor networks, drones, satellite imagery, and localized communications streams. This information comes at high speed and volume, which can overload the human brain. AI is being used to deal with this information overload, but there are concerns about the accuracy of AI-driven assessments and how much human oversight might be required to rely on AI. Military officials emphasize that humans have the final authority, but systematic integration poses challenges to oversight quality. The other predicament is automation bias, a psychological phenomenon in which a human operator, particularly under pressure or high stress, is likely to rely on the system’s recommendations. Therefore, striking a balance between speed and responsibility, ethical judgment, and accountability in the use of force is a key challenge.

Another area of concern pertains to legal and ethical issues. International humanitarian law is based on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. With the growing use of AI in military operations, it becomes more difficult to apply these principles, thereby making accountability and scrutiny more difficult. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that, when algorithmic systems provide input for analysis, targeting, or operational planning, it is hard to assign responsibility for any errors. Even with humans “in the loop,” the black-box nature of machine learning limits transparency and complicates legal review. It is not just a theoretical problem; it has been seen in practice. In the early US campaign against Iran, an AI-assisted missile struck a girls’ school near an IRGC compound, killing 120 children, likely due to a classification error. Anthropic’s CEO’s admission of limited awareness over Claude’s use in the strike highlights a broader issue. AI developers are fully aware of the risks associated with delegating autonomous functions to AI, yet they continue to promote its adoption. As AI assumes greater decision-making roles, concerns over misidentification and the possibility of AI acting against human directives are often overshadowed by narratives emphasizing its benefits.

For Pakistan, these developments are neither distant nor theoretical. In a region where crises can escalate quickly, AI-enabled decision support offers advantages but also carries risks. It improves situational awareness and accelerates analysis but compresses decision time, limits verification, and heightens the risk of miscalculation. Considering both, Pakistan is accelerating efforts to build AI capacity and strengthen its supporting infrastructure. At the policy level, this translates to a recognition that successful adoption is not just about adopting algorithms but about enhancing data governance, institutional maturity, and a skilled workforce capable of embedding AI into decision-making processes. Thus, Pakistan’s approach remains focused on leveraging AI to bolster human judgment in intelligence fusion, surveillance, logistics, and cyber defense.

There is a clear lesson from the academic literature and initial operational experience: algorithmic systems are transforming military information processing. However, as their role in decision-making grows, they also entail bias, error propagation, lack of transparency, and overreliance on machine-generated recommendations. AI, therefore, must be used as a support system, with humans retaining final decision-making responsibility. This requires investment in training, auditability, and institutional safeguards to ensure that human decision-makers are meaningfully engaged, rather than merely present in form. The future of warfare will likely be defined not by machines acting alone, but by humans making increasingly time-pressured decisions shaped by machine-generated insights. The central strategic challenge is not whether to adopt algorithmic tools, but how to ensure that their speed never outpaces sound judgment.

How has US imperialism targeted Venezuela and Iran? How have years of hybrid warfare shaped resistance? What role does China play in the emerging multipolar world?

In Episode 46 of the VA Podcast, Venezuelanalysis editor Ricardo Vaz is joined by VA co-editor Lucas Koerner and scholar Matteo Capasso to discuss sanctions, sovereignty, deterrence, and international anti-imperialist solidarity.

Powered by RedCircle

Ukraine’s defence ministry believes artificial intelligence is set to fundamentally transform modern warfare, as Kyiv accelerates efforts to integrate AI into battlefield operations amid its ongoing war with Russia.

According to Danylo Tsvok, head of Ukraine’s Defence Ministry AI Research Centre, the country is already employing artificial intelligence across multiple military functions, including drone operations, battlefield planning, intelligence analysis, and missile attack assessments.

The centre, established in March, is part of a broader effort to make data driven decision making a core component of Ukraine’s defence strategy. Officials envision a future where AI systems, sensors, drones, command centres, and weapons platforms operate through a unified digital network capable of processing battlefield information and recommending military actions in real time.

Why It Matters

Ukraine’s experience is increasingly being viewed as a preview of how future wars may be fought. The conflict has already demonstrated the growing importance of drones, autonomous systems, and real time intelligence, but AI could push military operations into an entirely new phase.

Rather than merely supporting commanders, future AI systems may become central to battlefield decision making by processing vast quantities of data faster than human operators can manage. This could dramatically shorten the time between identifying a target and launching an attack.

The implications extend far beyond Ukraine. Military planners around the world are closely monitoring the conflict as a testing ground for next generation warfare technologies.

The Rise of AI Driven Combat

The war has already evolved into a technological competition in which both Ukraine and Russia are attempting to gain advantages through automation, data analysis, and autonomous systems.

Ukraine is working toward a battlefield operating system capable of integrating information from drones, reconnaissance assets, weapons systems, and frontline units into a single decision making framework. The objective is to create a comprehensive operational picture that enables faster and more effective responses.

Russia is pursuing similar capabilities, particularly in drone warfare and strike planning, creating what Ukrainian officials describe as an emerging competition between military operating systems rather than simply armies.

Global Defence Implications

The conflict has attracted significant attention from defence technology firms and AI developers seeking real world operational data. Companies and governments increasingly view Ukraine as one of the most important testing environments for military AI applications.

The lessons learned from the war could influence defence procurement, military doctrine, and security planning across NATO, Asia, and other regions facing evolving security challenges.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded in military systems, countries may be forced to rethink command structures, training requirements, and the role of human decision makers in combat.

Key Stakeholders

• Ukraine military
• Russian military
• Defence technology companies
• NATO members
• Artificial intelligence developers
• Defence ministries worldwide
• Military planners and strategists

Future Outlook

Over the next three to five years, military competition is likely to shift increasingly toward AI enabled command systems, autonomous platforms, and integrated battlefield networks.

Countries capable of rapidly processing information and converting it into actionable decisions may gain a significant operational advantage. At the same time, concerns about autonomy, accountability, and human oversight will become more prominent as AI systems assume larger roles in combat operations.

The race to integrate AI into warfare is expected to intensify, making technological superiority as important as traditional military strength.

Analysis

Ukraine’s assessment points to a deeper transformation than simply adding artificial intelligence to existing weapons systems. What is emerging is a shift from platform centric warfare to data centric warfare, where military advantage depends less on the number of tanks, aircraft, or soldiers and more on the ability to collect, process, and act on information faster than an opponent.

The most significant aspect of this transition is the compression of decision making time. Historically, military success depended on commanders interpreting information and issuing orders. AI has the potential to reduce that cycle from hours or minutes to seconds, creating a battlefield where speed of analysis becomes as important as firepower.

This evolution could fundamentally alter military hierarchies. If AI systems become capable of generating reliable operational recommendations faster than humans can assess them, commanders may increasingly act as supervisors rather than primary decision makers. The challenge will be balancing military effectiveness with accountability and ethical oversight.

The Ukraine conflict is therefore becoming more than a territorial war; it is also serving as a laboratory for the future of warfare. The countries that emerge with the most effective integration of AI, autonomous systems, and battlefield data networks may define military power for decades to come. In this sense, the competition between Ukraine and Russia increasingly resembles a contest between technological ecosystems, foreshadowing a future in which wars are won not only through weapons but through algorithms and information dominance.

With information from Reuters.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the move toward a green transition built on renewable energy are fundamentally restructuring the global economy. While unleashing unprecedented opportunities, these developments also provide new geopolitical weapons due to the unequal distribution of critical minerals, in particular rare earths, the advanced technology and expertise involved in manufacturing, and the omniscient and inexorable role of the resulting products like semiconductors and batteries for the operation of today’s technologised societies. Thus, countries like China and the United States (US) increasingly seek to safeguard national access to these crucial components and products. This weaponization has implications for global business interests, supply chains, technological development and existing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and between the US and China.

Semiconductors—the new oil?

Semiconductors, or advanced chips, have been likened to the oil of the 21st century. Just as in the 20th century, oil formed the basis for global economic activity, semiconductors form crucial parts of everything from critical infrastructure like 5G data networks, military technology like missiles and AI data centers, to smartphones, fridges and electric vehicles. Indeed, the semiconductor market, growing rapidly since the launch of large language AI models in 2022, is projected to hold a value of $1 trillion by 2030. Hence, whoever controls the supply of semiconductors holds the power to bring rivaling economies to a standstill. This capability is reinforced by the fact that advanced microchips, and the rare earths contained in them, lack ready substitutes.

Assuredly, oil still offers geopolitical leverage—brought to the fore by the current energy crisis resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, semiconductors offer a more potent geopolitical weapon. For example, European sanctions on Russian oil and natural gas following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been largely ineffective in crippling the oil-reliant Russian economy, as Russia has been able to find alternative supply routes like the Caspian Sea and alternative buyers such as India, Türkiye and China. By contrast, semiconductor supply chains are more concentrated due to differential geography, and economic, technological and intellectual capital. For example, Taiwan produces over 90% of the world’s advanced chips, while China controls 60% of global rare-earth production, and 90% of mineral refinement. Similarly, the US enjoys supremacy in semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) and expertise, while the Netherlands is the world’s sole producer of extreme ultraviolet lithography required to imprint circuits on semiconductors. Hence, the highly concentrated supply chains of semiconductors gives a handful of countries significant strategic leverage as countries are willing to go far to secure access to these crucial components.

Capitalising on critical mineral supply

This power is reinforced by the fact that the majority of the planet’s critical minerals—such as copper, cobalt and lithium—used in semiconductors and batteries are concentrated in developing countries in Africa and Latin America like Brazil, Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Thus, the capital-intensity of mineral extraction has allowed major powers like the US and China to expand their influence over supply chains through massive investment in the mining industries of these regions. Hence, supply chains are further concentrated in the hands of a few states, enhancing the weaponisability of these resources. This is bolstered by the rarity and geographic disparity of these elements, meaning that countries cannot easily find substitutes or alternative suppliers for these critical resources, should the aforementioned mineral ‘gatekeepers’ choose to wield their strategic leverage and restrict supply.

Global business caught in the crossfire

This development subjects international business activity, especially within emerging technologies like AI, to geopolitical tensions. For example, the US introduced export controls in 2022, banning US semiconductor company Nvidia from exporting its advanced H2000 chips to China to protect US technological dominance. And Nvidia is not an isolated case—in the last few years, the amount of US companies on the Commerce Department’s Entity List restricting exports has quadrupled. In effect, US companies are losing global competitiveness and access to China—one of the biggest markets in the world. This effect might be hard to reverse. Although the Trump administration relaxed export restrictions in early 2026, no Nvidia chips had arrived in China by mid-May. Part of the reason is that China in response to US restrictions has built up its domestic production, and legally favored domestic chips producers like Huawei to reduce its strategic vulnerability to foreign powers. For similar reasons, China prevented US-based Meta in 2025 from buying up Manus, a Chinese-founded AI company. Thus, business interests are highly susceptible to the weaponisation of concentrated critical supply chains in the geopolitical rivalry between US and China.

Semiconductors—beyond oil

Hence, semiconductors and related products may not simply be the economic and strategic, 21st-century equivalent of 20th-century oil, but may indeed hold greater geopolitical leverage than oil ever did. While the US dominates global oil production, China does not have to import oil from its geopolitical rival at the expense of Chinese strategic power—despite China relying on imports for over 70% of its oil—as diversified global energy markets allow for alternative energy sources like coal and natural gas, and alternative suppliers like the UAE, Iran and Qatar. By contrast, China’s ability to manufacture the most advanced semiconductors without the currently unique US SME is highly limited, with Chinese semiconductor development 3 years behind the US. Consequently, China accounts for over half of the semiconductor exports of US-allied Taiwan.

Taiwan in the crossfire

This in turn increases the strategic importance of the Taiwan dispute. While China has long claimed Taiwan to be part of China, the US endorses Taiwanese independence. The importance of semiconductors has cemented this conflict, with China desiring reunification to gain control over global semiconductor manufacturing, while the US for the same reason favors Taiwanese independence from China to maintain US access to its semiconductor supply, in extension of current efforts to induce TSCM to offshore its production to the US, and reduce semiconductor exports to China. Similarly, China has leveraged its global dominance of refined rare earths and battery production by introducing export restrictions on batteries, refined critical minerals, and rare earths in response to US SME restrictions, exploiting the fact that the US has limited ability to employ its SME to manufacture semiconductors without these Chinese inputs. In response, the US and its allies are scrambling for alternative access to critical minerals by expanding trade partnerships with mining countries like the DRC, investment in battery-production, and by launching Project Vault, a $12-billion investment to create a national critical minerals reserve.

The weaponisation capacity of semiconductors has only begun. As countries are approaching the deadlines of net-zero emissions goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, increased dependency on renewable energy will increase susceptibility to global supply chains for batteries, rare earths and semiconductors for products like EVs, solar panels and energy storage.