Zero Hedge

Germany Wind Power Firms Face Millions In Losses As Wind Speed Drops To 50-Year Low

Germany Wind Power Firms Face Millions In Losses As Wind Speed Drops To 50-Year Low

By ReMix News

In many ways, Germany’s wind power revolution has been a success, with wind power serving as the country’s largest source of electricity. However, the current wind lull over the last three months has led to an extreme dip in energy production, which is costing firms millions in losses.

The wind speed average has dropped below less than 5.5 meters per second in the first quarter of 2025, according to German Meteorological Service (DWD). The last time the country saw such low speeds was in 1972 and 1973, and before that, in 1963.

Wind energy producers have been hit hard. For example, PNE, a wind farm operator in Coxhaven, showed revenue dropped to €27.9 million from €31.4 million the previous year, but perhaps more importantly, it went from an operating profit of €1.1 million in the first quarter to a loss of €7.1 million, according to Welt.

The company indicated that there was 31 percent less electricity generated nationwide in the first quarter of the year than in the same period last year, according to data from the German Energy and Water Industry Association (BDEW).

However, it should be noted that April 2024 and 2022 saw much higher wind speeds than previous years, so comparing 2024 to 2025 makes this drop look even more extreme. Experts say there is no evidence of climate change being at work, noting that previous decades have had similar lulls in wind speed.

Germany experienced so-called “dark lulls” over the winter, featuring little sunlight and low wind speed, which led to extremely high prices. Germany imported energy from neighboring countries and turned to conventional power plants in response.

Former Economic Minister Robert Habeck of the Greens had already planned to provide incentives to build 40 large gas-fired plants by 2030 to deal with fluctuations in wind and solar energy. These gas plants had a number of climate protections allegedly built in, such as being able to be switched to hydrogen at some point in the future.

The grid is also at risk due to renewable energy in some instances, especially during holidays when there is less power demand. Solar power cannot be regulated by grid operators, which means that when there is too much electricity and not enough sources that need it, the grid is pushed to its limit. The previous German government, at the urging of grid operators, implemented the PV Peak Act to deal with surplus solar power production.

The average share of solar power energy in 2023 was 31.5 percent, with coal-fired plants in second, at 22.5 percent.

Renewables make up an increasingly large share of Germany’s energy profile, which supporters say reduces reliance on foreign countries such as Russia while also reducing carbon emissions. Critics, on the other hand, say wind power has harmed energy security and also presents a number of environmental risks to wildlife and even forests.

However, it is not just countries like Germany turning to renewables. Conservative governments, including Hungary’s, are also increasingly shifting to wind and especially solar, where it is one of Europe’s leaders.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 07:20

Harvard Tops America's Largest University Endowments (For Now)

Harvard Tops America's Largest University Endowments (For Now)

University endowments held more than $870 billion in assets last year, largely dominated by America’s elite institutions.

While Harvard, Yale, and Stanford have amassed tens of billions in assets, the median endowment stands at $243 million across 658 institutions.

Overall, endowment assets increased by 4% in 2024 driven by donations and investment returns.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the largest university endowments in America, based on data from the NACUBO via College Transitions.

Harvard Leads Nationally

As the largest university endowment worldwide, Harvard boasts a number of wealthy donors including Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson.

After the Trump administration froze billions in grants and funding, it raised $1.1 million across more than 4,000 online donations in the first two days after stating it would push back against their demands. Overall, the fund holds $52 billion in assets, as shown in the table below:

As we can see, the University of Texas System is the only public university endowment ranking in the top five.

In fact, UT Austin is among the few universities that has invested in Bitcoin, along with Stanford and Brown. While endowments typically avoid riskier investments, they are increasingly allocating funds into cryptocurrency thanks to regulatory factors.

Overall, a number of elite institutions have the largest endowments nationally, including Stanford (#4) and Princeton (#5).

How Do University Endowments Spend Their Assets?

While university’s hold significant endowment funds, much of the assets are designated for a specific purpose, such as scholarships.

At the same time, these assets are often invested in illiquid assets such as real estate and hedge funds. As a result, it can be damaging to sell these at a loss if universities face a funding shortfall.

Below, we show how $30 billion in endowment funds were spent during fiscal year 2024:

Overall, nearly half of spending went toward student financial aid, with some of the largest endowments such as Stanford and Harvard covering 100% of students financial aid requests.

Academic research was the second-highest category, at 18%, followed by endowed faculty positions, at 11%. Specifically, these positions are funded by endowment donations over a number of years. Finally, facilities operation and management accounted for the smallest share, at 7% overall, covering renovations and building repairs.

To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on the top universities outside of America.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 06:55

UK Farmers Fear For Bioethanol Market Following US Trade Deal

UK Farmers Fear For Bioethanol Market Following US Trade Deal

Via City AM,

  • A recent trade deal between the UK and the US has led to the removal of tariffs on American bioethanol, which British farmers fear will undermine their domestic market.

  • Concerns exist among beef farmers that the deal will result in increased American beef imports, leading to unfair competition and impacting their livelihoods.

  • The trade agreement has sparked widespread scepticism among British farmers regarding the government’s commitment to protecting their interests and the future of the agricultural sector.

Ministers and commentators heralded the UK’s trade deal with the United States as a political coup that will save thousands of jobs at British automakers. But changes to beef and bioethanol trade rules have left an already bruised agricultural sector fearing the worst, writes Ali Lyon.

When he’s not slavishly editing clips for the hundreds of thousands of people that subscribe to his Youtube channel, Olly Harrison has the not insignificant job of running 1,500 acres of farmland.

But as his impressively regular feed of videos illustrates, tending to that land – and trying to eke out a semblance of profit from it – has become a difficult, bordering on impossible task, as headwind after headwind hit his arable holding near Liverpool.

“It’s been rubbish,” he tells City AM, still dealing with the aftermath of what was England’s driest April on record. 

“We’ve had extremes of weather, which has been very wet or – like now – very dry.”

Added to recent years’ inhospitable climes, are the input costs for producing the wheat his family has grown for five generations. They have, he says, remained at the elevated prices sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, the price he is able to secure for his end product has fallen by as much as 40 per cent since those 2022 supply-constraint-induced highs.

But it is another, more recent, external shock that has Harrison especially worried. One that, while niche and esoteric, could kibosh the safety net he and his fellow British arable farmers have traditionally fallen back on when the wholesale wheat price drops too low.

Bioethanol: The little-known safety net of arable farmers

“The bioethanol market in the UK – for wheat – is quite big,” Harrison says.

“It’s basically the floor in the market.”

Opening up the UK and US’s agricultural markets to more trade was a key football in the frenzied negotiations that helped the Starmer administration become the first country in the world to secure a trade deal with America since 2 April’s ‘Liberation Day’.

And to spur the States’ capricious President into bringing down painful tariffs on Britain’s export industries like automakers and plane parts, the government agreed to lower its own levies on a selection of American agriculture products; namely beef and the fuel.

The beef tariffs were reduced only on imports that subscribed to the UK’s world-leading food standards, leading some in the farming community to breathe a partial sigh of relief. But the bioethanol concessions – which saw the UK’s 19 per cent tariff abolished completely – contained no such caveats to protect our sizeable domestic industry. That decision has already sparked warnings from key figures involved in domestic bioethanol production that their sector could be facing extinction.

“Bioethanol, for me, is the watch area,” Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) tells City AM.

“I have been speaking to the bioethanol manufacturing sector… and we think [these changes] probably make it unviable.”

The prognosis from Bradshaw – whose assiduous campaigning around the recent inheritance tax reforms has already made him a regular thorn in the government’s side – was echoed by the UK’s two largest bioethanol producers over the weekend.

The chief executive of London-listed AB Foods’ sugar division, Paul Kenward, and Grand Pearson, the chairman of Ensus, both warned in a joint intervention their “strategically essential sector” was under an “existential threat”.

All of which has left Harrison worried about what it will do to demand for his product. “If they can now bring it [ethanol] in from the States – using wheat that’s grown a lot cheaper than we can because they get a lot more support off their government, using technologies that we can’t, from farms that have got scale that we haven’t – then that’s seriously undermining a sector that’s already on its knees,” he says.

A hollowed out bioethanol sector also poses the risk of some unsavoury knock-on effects for livestock farmers, the very area of agriculture that the government sought to protect during its negotiations.

Because just as Unilever sources its ingredients for Marmite from breweries – and the byproducts produced in the fermenting process – bioethanol producers sell one of their own high-protein outputs as feed for cows.

As Bradshaw summarises: “If they’re not making bioethanol, we won’t get that animal feed.”

Yet more farmer beef

The feed supply issue is just one of several fears that Joe Seels, a Yorkshire-based beef farmer, has for his livelihood as the dust settles on the trade deal.

The NFU’s Bradshaw went to lengths to praise the government for maintaining standards in the face of US pressure. But for Seels, who documented his attendance at the string of protests in London around the changes to inheritance tax on his own Youtube channel, the deal represents yet another example of British agriculture being the fall industry to fix problems elsewhere in the economy.

His primary concern is that there will now be a glut of beef supply in the UK, without the same opportunities to export to the US. Because while the deal ostensibly brings down barriers to trade both ways – both countries agreed to accept 13,000 metric tonnes of beef imports each other each year tariff free – Seels can’t imagine a world in which American food producers buy British.

“I’m really sceptical that it will open up new export avenues,” he says. 

“Being American is eating American beef, they won’t accept ours which will be at a premium to [the hormone-aided beef] in their market.”

While the challenging trade environment in the US will persist, British farmers, he adds, will now face stiff competition from the low-cost American beef that will now be available at home.

Consumers and supermarkets are likely to continue to prefer domestically produced beef. Despite other large beef producing nations having access to the UK market, shoppers overwhelmingly prefer meat produced domestically or in Ireland. Senior figures in retail believe that the ubiquity and salience of farm labelling – from the ‘red tractor’ signifier of food standards to the regular sight of union-jack adorned packaging – mean shoppers are unlikely to find American meat in supermarket aisles.

Where Seels and Bradshaw imagine the influx of American beef will be felt, however, is catering and hospitality, where choice is constricted and labelling is less prominent.

“They [the US] have got less red tape, fewer planning restrictions, and their farming operations are just on a huge scale, which all leads to being able to create a product that’s much cheaper,” says Seels.

“We won’t see that on shelves,” he adds, “but where this beef might have a market is food services.”

Ministers have been at pains to trumpet the deal’s positive impact on livestock farmers, many of whom have long feared the spectre of chlorinated chicken and hormone beef being a concession in wider UK-US trade talks. But years of feeling let down by successive governments, mean farmers remain fearful of what the future holds.

“I have no faith whatsoever that the government will protect our interests in future negotiations,” says Harrison. 

"They’re just giving us another kick every time, and not realising how vulnerable the farming sector is.”

That scepticism is shared by Seels, who like Harrison is also a popular farming video blogger and has previous in using his channels to vent at political decision making.

“This government has said things to us in the past that it wasn’t going to do then it’s turned around and changed its mind,” he says.

If it does so again, ministers can expect the vitriolic response comprising more than just a few fiercely worded Youtube videos.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 06:30

A Third Of Americans Worry About Manipulated News

A Third Of Americans Worry About Manipulated News

Almost half of the people surveyed in the United States as part of a Statista Consumer Insights survey actively try to keep up to date with world events and politics. 

However, as Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, about a third of survey participants also fear that news in the so-called mainstream media is being manipulated

Americans' trust in the media is therefore under pressure.

 A Third of Americans Worries About Manipulated News | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

The widespread use of AI to create images and text or to manipulate them has recently added another layer to the mistrust in news consumers already have.

Statista data shows that 28 percent of respondents in the U.S. want to know whether the news they consume was generated using artificial intelligence. 

The survey data also shows that around 42 percent are turning away from print media or their online presence, preferring to consume their news audiovisually.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 05:45

French Minister To Meet Crypto Firms After Kidnapping Attempt

French Minister To Meet Crypto Firms After Kidnapping Attempt

Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

The French interior minister reportedly plans to meet cryptocurrency professionals in the aftermath of a violent kidnapping attempt on the family of a crypto exchange executive in Paris.

According to a May 14 France24 report, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau has invited crypto professionals to meet him after a brazen attempt to kidnap the daughter and grandson of Pierre Noizat, the co-founder and CEO of French crypto exchange Paymium.

”I will assemble businesspeople working in cryptocurrencies, and we have a few of those in France, at the interior ministry to work with them on their security,” Retailleau reportedly told the Europe 1/CNews broadcaster.

On May 13, three masked men attacked Noizat’s daughter while she was walking in Paris’ 11th district with a man and her son. The attackers tried to force Noizat’s daughter and her son into a white van.

Passersby intervened, with one scaring the assailants while brandishing a fire extinguisher before throwing it at them as they fled. The event is now being investigated by local authorities, with the vehicle used being found abandoned nearby on the same day.

Growing risk for cryptoholders

Jameson Lopp, a cypherpunk and co-founder of self-custodial firm Casa, has created a list on GitHub recording dozens of offline crypto robberies, with 22 incidents of in-person crypto-related theft so far this year. Many in the crypto industry highlight that anonymity is the only way to effectively protect holders and their close circle against so-called “$5 wrench attacks.”

$5 wrench attack explanation. Source: XKCD

Lopp’s list is likely undercounting the total number of attacks targeting people over their involvement in the crypto industry. A University of Cambridge study in September 2024 found that these so-called “wrench attacks” are often underreported due to revictimization fears.

France saw its fair share of cases

Paris is also no stranger to these attacks. Earlier this month, Paris police freed the father of a crypto entrepreneur who was held for several days in connection with a 7 million euro ($7.8 million) kidnapping plot.

At the start of this year, David Balland, co-founder of leading crypto hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger, was abducted from his home in central France. He was held captive until a police operation on the night of Jan. 22 secured his release.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 05:00

Netanyahu Charges Macron With 'Despicable' Support For Hamas As Spat Deepens

Netanyahu Charges Macron With 'Despicable' Support For Hamas As Spat Deepens

A new Gaza-related spat is now raging between the leaders of France and Israel, amid new reports that famine is hitting the Palestinian population, which is said to be impacting 500,000 people.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called the military policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "shameful" and "unacceptable" in a fresh interview with a national broadcaster. 

"What the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is doing is unacceptable," Macron began in a Gaza segment of the interview"There is no water, no medicine, the wounded cannot get out, the doctors cannot get in. What he is doing is shameful," he continued.

Via Associated Press

He then interestingly appeared to leverage recent reports saying that Trump-Netanyahu relations have reached a low point, and that the White House is fed up with Bib.

"We need the United States. President Trump has the levers. I have had tough words with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I got angry, but they [Israel] don't depend on us, they depend on American weapons," Macron said. 

Macron here seemed to be calling on Washington to essentially put the Netanyahu government in its place, as Trump has sidelined Tel Aviv on everything from the Houthi ceasefire to gaining the freedom of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander. And more:

"My job is to do everything I can to make it stop," Macron said, adding that the possibility of revisiting the EU trade cooperation agreements with Israel is on the table.

Never one to back down from a diplomatic war of words, Netanyahu hit back on Wednesday, going so far as to say that Macron stands with Hamas.

"Macron has once again chosen to stand with a murderous terrorist organization and echo its despicable propaganda, accusing Israel of blood libels," a statement from the Israeli prime minister's office said.

"Instead of supporting the Western democratic camp fighting the Islamist terrorist organizations and calling for the release of the hostages, Macron is once again demanding that Israel surrender and reward terrorism," the blistering Netanyahu statement added.

The NY Times has issued an alarming report this week which said "Some Israeli military officials have privately concluded that Palestinians in Gaza face widespread starvation unless aid deliveries are restored within weeks, according to three Israeli defense officials familiar with conditions in the enclave."

The report continued by saying "Israeli military officers who monitor humanitarian conditions in Gaza have warned their commanders in recent days that unless the blockade is lifted quickly, many areas of the enclave will likely run out of enough food to meet minimum daily nutritional needs, according to the defense officials."

Currently a US-backed aid plan is being worked on, which is said to be 'independent' amid accusations that Hamas has been stealing and reselling inbound aid. Others have accused Israel of blocking it, in pursuit of a total siege policy.

What's clear is that Netanyahu is increasingly in the political hotseat not just at home, but on the international stage as well - where his closest ally the United States has appeared to grow somewhat cool on the previously enthusiastic support and relationship.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 02:45

Yemen Taught Trump Some Lessons That He'd Do Well To Apply Towards Ukraine

Yemen Taught Trump Some Lessons That He'd Do Well To Apply Towards Ukraine

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

The lessons from Trump’s Yemeni debacle could inform his future decisions on Ukraine...

Five New York Times (NYT) journalists collaborated to produce a detailed report earlier this week about “Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia”. It’s worth reading in full if time permits, but the present piece will summarize and analyze its findings. To begin with, CENTCOM chief General Michael Kurilla proposed an eight- to -10-month campaign for degrading the Houthis’ air defenses before carrying out Israeli-like targeted assassinations, but Trump decided on 30 days instead. That’s important.

The US’ top regional military official already knew how numerous the Houthis’ air defenses were and how long it would take to seriously damage them, which shows that the Pentagon already considered Houthi-controlled North Yemen to be a regional power, while Trump wanted to avoid a protracted war. It’s little wonder then that the US failed to establish air superiority during the first month, which is why it lost several MQ-9 Reaper drones by then and exposed one of its aircraft carriers to continued threats.

The $1 billion in munitions that were expended during that period widened preexisting divisions within the administration over whether this bombing campaign was worth the mounting costs. New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine was concerned that this could drain resources away from the Asia-Pacific. Seeing as how the Trump Administration’s grand strategic goal is to “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China, this viewpoint was likely decisive in Trump’s final calculations.

Oman reportedly provided the “perfect offramp” for him by proposing to his envoy Steve Witkoff, who was visiting them as part of the US’ nuclear talks with Iran, that the US could stop bombing the Houthis while they’ll stop targeting American ships but not ships that they deem helpful to Israel. This draws attention to that country’s outsized diplomatic role in regional affairs, but it also shows that the US was hitherto unsure of how to end its campaign in a face-saving way despite already realizing that it failed.

Two pathways were considered:

  1. ramping up operations for another month, carrying out a “freedom of navigation” exercise, and declaring victory if the Houthis didn’t fire on them;

  2. or continuing the campaign while strengthening the capacity of local Yemeni allies to start another offensive in the North. 

Both were reportedly scrapped in favor of Trump’s sudden victory announcement after another US jet fell off of an aircraft carrier, a US attack killed dozens of migrants in Yemen, and the Houthis hit Ben Gurion Airport.

Five conclusions can be drawn from the NYT’s report. 

For starters, Houthi-controlled North Yemen is already a regional power and has been so for some time, the status of which they achieved despite the Gulf coalition’s previous years-long bombing campaign and ongoing partial blockade. This impressive feat speaks to their resilience and the effectiveness of the strategies that they’ve implemented. North Yemen’s mountainous geography indisputably played a role in this, but it wasn’t the sole factor.

The second conclusion is that Trump’s decision to authorize a very time-limited bombing campaign was therefore doomed from the get-go. He either wasn’t fully informed of the fact that North Yemen had already become a regional power, perhaps due to military officials self-censoring for fear of getting fired if they upset him, or he had ulterior motives in having the US bomb them for only a brief time. In any case, there was no way that the Houthis were going to be destroyed in just several months’ time.

Optics are important for every administration, and Trump’s second one prioritizes them more than any other in recent memory, yet the third conclusion is that he still beat a hasty retreat once the strategic risks started spiraling and the costs began piling up instead of doubling down in defiance. This shows that ego- and legacy-related interests don’t always determine his policy formulations. Its relevance is that no one can therefore say for sure that he won’t cut and run from Ukraine if peace talks collapse.

Building upon the above, the Trump Administration’s acceptance of Oman’s unsolicited proposal that led to the “perfect offramp” shows that it’ll listen to proposals from friendly countries for defusing conflicts in which the US has become embroiled, which could apply towards Ukraine. The three Gulf states that Trump is visiting this week have all played roles in either hosting talks or facilitating exchanges between Russia and Ukraine so it’s possible that they’ll share some peace proposals for breaking the impasse.

And finally, the China factor looms over everything that the US does nowadays, ergo one of the reported reasons why Trump suddenly ended his unsuccessful bombing campaign against the Houthis after being informed by his top brass that it was wasting valuable munitions that would be better sent to Asia. Likewise, Trump might be convinced by similar arguments with regard to the strategic costs of defiantly doubling down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse, which the Gulf states might convey to him.

Connecting the lessons from Trump’s Yemeni debacle with his ongoing efforts to end the Ukrainian Conflict, it’s possible that he might at first instinctively double down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse only to soon thereafter be dissuaded by his top brass and/or friendly countries. Of course, it would be best for him to simply cut his country’s losses now instead of continuing to add to them, but his increasingly emotional posts about Putin hint that he might blame him and overreact if talks collapse.

It's therefore more important than ever that peace-loving countries which have influence with the US immediately share whatever creative diplomatic proposals they might have in mind for breaking the impasse between Russia and Ukraine.

Trump is creeping towards a Yemeni-like debacle in Ukraine, albeit one with potentially nuclear stakes given Russia’s strategic arsenal, but there’s still time to avert it if the “perfect offramp” appears and he’s convinced that accepting it would assist his “Pivot (back) to Asia”.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 02:00

Adapt Or Die: Redefining Wargaming For The Age Of Algorithmic Warfare

Adapt Or Die: Redefining Wargaming For The Age Of Algorithmic Warfare

Authored by S.L. Nelson via RealClearWire (emphasis ours),

Commentary

“Adapt or die.” This isn’t just a cliché; it’s a fundamental truth of human survival. Security—the psychological need for stability and protection—is second only to food and water in Maslow’s hierarchy. War directly threatens this security, so understanding war is essential for preserving peace.

One of the oldest tools for grasping the nature of war is wargaming. It is, in essence, a rehearsal—an intellectual simulation that helps leaders make sense of complex, high-stakes decisions before lives and national resources are on the line. But while its utility has persisted, its form has not evolved fast enough to meet the demands of the modern battlefield.

The Problem With Today’s Wargaming

Wargaming is indispensable, but too often, it’s outdated, misused, or misunderstood. In some defense circles, it functions as little more than a stage for confirmation bias, where senior leaders seek validation for preconceived notions rather than insight into novel threats. Worse, wargames frequently remain trapped in analog formats: players huddle around maps, move tokens, make subjective choices, and imagine the rest.

This traditional model assumes that human decisions lie at the heart of conflict. That remains true. But the battlefield is rapidly changing—and the human element is no longer acting alone. As militaries increasingly rely on uncrewed systems, autonomous platforms, and AI-driven operations, our method of simulating war must evolve accordingly.

To prepare for war in 2030, NATO and its allies cannot afford to rely on wargaming methods from 1980. The urgency of modernizing wargaming is not a choice but a necessity for our collective security.

The Rise of Algorithmic Warfare

Consider this: some forecasts suggest that by the 2030s, one-third of militaries could consist of robotic systems. In Ukraine, drone production is trending toward over 2.5 million units annually. This isn’t speculation—it’s already reshaping how war is fought.

In such a world, the idea of a wargame that exclusively simulates human decision-making is dangerously incomplete. Swarms of autonomous drones executing algorithm-driven tactics change not only the character of war but also the speed, scale, and unpredictability of combat. Abstracting these developments away misses the point entirely. A game without machines is a game divorced from reality.

Critically, decision-making itself is changing. While senior leaders continue to anchor their intuition in past experiences, research shows that overconfidence increases in situations involving more chance and ambiguity. Gut instinct, seasoned though it may be, will not suffice when confronted with system-level interactions between thousands of autonomous platforms and sensors.

Technology as a Catalyst, Not a Crutch

The tools to modernize wargaming already exist. Digital environments can now simulate everything from force placement to logistics flows to legal compliance, with users interacting via natural language, voice, or keyboard. This technological advancement offers a beacon of hope for the future of wargaming, allowing commanders to stress-test strategies in real time and track every decision across a replicable digital thread.

This is not science fiction. It is an underused science fact.

Yet many in the defense establishment cling to narrow definitions of wargaming. A leading DoD-affiliated practitioner recently declared, “If the players or sponsors are better equipped at the end of the wargame to do the things they need to do, then there is value. Nothing else matters.” Another dismissed the importance of outcomes altogether, stating that “wargames are about ideas, not facts.”

That’s a dangerous mindset. Strategy may be rooted in ideas, but execution lives in facts. As Churchill famously warned, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”

Toward a New Definition of Wargaming

Commanders’ expectations have evolved, even if the tools haven’t. In 1945, General Eisenhower might have asked his staff for a logistics overlay of the European theater—delivered with pen, paper, and pins. In 2025, General Cavoli might make the same request—but with the expectation of a digital interface offering dynamic updates, AI-enhanced forecasting, and real-time operational feedback.

Unfortunately, EUCOM and NATO commanders still rely too heavily on analog tools. What they need are decision-support systems embedded in the planning process—not adjuncts or afterthoughts.

This calls for a redefinition of wargaming.

A New Definition

Wargaming must be understood not as a parlor game of human strategy but as a rigorous, replicable method of exploring conflict at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. This includes human decisions and system-level interactions conducted in a synthetic digital environment.

A proposed new definition: “Wargames represent human actions and system-level interactions of conflict or competition in a synthetic environment from the strategic to the tactical level.

This definition bridges the gap between cognition and computation, people and platforms, gut instinct and algorithmic feedback. It accounts for the growing role of autonomy and artificial intelligence without excluding the indispensable human element.

The Stakes

Wargames must evolve not only because they can but because they must. Definitions matter. The current models fall short of providing leaders with the clarity they need to design force structures that are effective, affordable, and aligned with future threats.

Failure to modernize wargaming risks misinforming critical decisions, wasting resources, and, worst of all, misjudging the very nature of the next fight. The stakes are high, and the battlefield of 2030 will not wait for the analog mind to catch up.

To prepare, we must simulate what war has been and what war is becoming.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 23:25

Pages