This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
This article was independently developed by The Economy editorial team and draws on original analysis published by East Asia Forum. The content has been substantially rewritten, expanded, and reframed for broader context and relevance. All views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of East Asia Forum or its contributors.
This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
‘Gemini’ Floods Korean Smartphones Included in SK’s A.Dot as a ‘Multi-LLM Agent’ Integrated into Wear OS, Google TV, and Android XR Platforms
Google’s generative AI “Gemini” is rapidly expanding across the globe, but it appears to be failing to capture significant user attention in South Korea. However, this perception is largely based on surface-level statistics tied to individual user accounts. In reality, analysts say Gemini is deeply embedded across the entire Android ecosystem, steadily solidifying its dominance behind the scenes.
According to app analytics platform MobileIndex on June 5 (local time), Gemini's monthly active users (MAU) in South Korea last month reached 55,010, a 227% increase from 16,803 the previous month. Compared to 3,501 in May of last year, this represents a fifteenfold rise. However, despite this steep growth, Gemini still remains a niche app in terms of user volume. By contrast, ChatGPT recorded 10.17 million MAUs during the same period—approximately 180 times more users than Gemini.
ChatGPT’s MAUs in Korea surged from around 2.9 million at the end of last year to over 10.72 million in April. Although last month marked its first decline, it still maintains more than 10 million users. Industry analysts believe the launch of GPT-4o's image generation capabilities has driven a spike in paid subscribers. The viral spread of “Studio Ghibli-style” AI-generated profile pictures on social media helped fuel user adoption. According to OpenAI, South Korea now ranks second globally after the U.S. in terms of paid subscribers.
Some observers note that the usage gap between Gemini and ChatGPT is especially stark in the Korean market compared to other countries. Yet many experts argue that Gemini is actually penetrating the Korean market more rapidly from a functional and ecosystem standpoint. Unlike a traditional chatbot, Gemini is being embedded across a wide range of Android-powered devices. To expand its domestic presence, Google is increasing Gemini 2.0 supply and has extended support for “Gemini Live”—originally introduced on Samsung Galaxy smartphones—to older models as of April.
SK Telecom has also added Gemini to its A.Dot AI assistant, which features a multi-LLM agent that can interact with multiple language models simultaneously. A.Dot users can select Gemini as the model to respond to their queries, and receive both answers and Google search results in return.
Google plans to replace its existing voice assistant, Google Assistant, with Gemini starting later this year. CEO Sundar Pichai has announced plans to expand Gemini’s global user base to 500 million by the end of 2025, with Android smartphones—like Samsung’s Galaxy line—playing a central role in reaching that goal.
Google aims to roll out Gemini not just on smartphones but across smartwatches, vehicles, TVs, and headsets, offering a more intelligent and responsive assistant experience. In the coming months, Gemini will be integrated into Wear OS for smartwatches. Gemini will assist users by integrating with apps, answering questions, and recalling important context.
Gemini will also be incorporated into Android Auto and Google Built-In for vehicles. Android Auto connects Android smartphones to a vehicle’s infotainment system, while Google Built-In runs Android Automotive OS natively in the car. Drivers will be able to converse with Gemini naturally—asking for local information, for instance—and receive responses synced with their apps.
Later this year, Gemini will come to Google TV, where it can recommend age-appropriate movies for children or suggest educational YouTube videos. Google also announced plans to bring Gemini to Android XR, a new platform developed in collaboration with Samsung, designed for extended reality (XR) devices like headsets and smart glasses. The first XR headset is expected to launch by the end of the year.
Alongside Gemini's expansion, Google will revamp the Android UI under the design system “Material 3 Expressive” to offer a more personalized user experience (UX) powered by AI. Enhanced scam detection features will also be applied to the default messaging app, while device tracking and family safety tools will be integrated into a new app called Find Hub. These updates are part of Google’s broader effort to significantly strengthen user safety and privacy across its ecosystem.
Reddit Challenges ‘Free-Riding’ on Data Legitimate Licensing Models Already Exist with OpenAI and Others The Dawn of API Monetization and Licensing Battle
Reddit, the largest online community in the United States, has filed a lawsuit against artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic, accusing it of unauthorized data scraping and raising alarms over data usage practices in the AI industry. While OpenAI signed a formal agreement and paid for access to the same data, Anthropic is alleged to have bypassed Reddit’s API to collect large volumes of training data through scraping. With Reddit having already announced API monetization and begun asserting its platform as a proprietary asset, this lawsuit is expected to mark a pivotal moment in reshaping the rules of data governance in the age of AI.
On June 4 (local time), CNBC reported that Reddit filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accusing Anthropic of illegally scraping data from its platform without user consent and using it to train AI models. Reddit argues this constitutes an unlawful act carried out for commercial gain. Through the lawsuit, Reddit aims to compel Anthropic to comply with contractual and legal obligations and to seek damages.
Reddit takes issue with Anthropic’s alleged reuse of user-generated content (UGC) for commercial purposes. The company believes Anthropic may have bypassed Reddit’s API, instead scraping massive amounts of content directly. Since Reddit’s archive of hundreds of millions of posts and comments is its core competitive asset, Reddit argues that using such data to train AI models is equivalent to illegally transferring the platform’s intrinsic value to an external party.
An API (Application Programming Interface) allows external services to systematically access platform data. While APIs were often free in the past to support developer-friendly ecosystems, the rise of the AI industry in the late 2010s transformed data into a monetizable asset. Many in the industry are calling Anthropic’s actions a case of “technical trespass” or “free-riding on platform assets.”
The Reddit-Anthropic lawsuit has also shed light on how some AI companies already legitimately pay for access to Reddit’s data. A prime example is OpenAI, which signed a data licensing agreement with Reddit in May 2023. Under this contract, OpenAI was granted access to Reddit posts and comments for GPT model training. In return, OpenAI agreed to support Reddit with AI features and advertising tools for its users.
Earlier, in February 2023, Reddit also formed a data partnership with Google. At the time, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman emphasized the platform’s unique value. He stated that, “Reddit’s unparalleled archive of real, timely, and relevant human conversations on every topic imaginable is a highly valuable dataset for search, AI training, and research.”
According to Reddit’s SEC filings, as of December 2023, the platform averaged 76 million daily users. Reddit’s contracts with Google and OpenAI go beyond simple API calls or one-time data sales. These agreements include provisions for traffic management, server resource usage, data filtering standards, and user privacy protection, effectively establishing a new model for “data distribution contracts.” This could set the benchmark for future negotiations with other tech companies.
The reason AI companies are willing to pay significant sums for Reddit data lies in its irreplaceable quality. Reddit is home to tens of thousands of interest-based communities, where content is long-form, debate-oriented, and context-rich. Unlike news articles or blogs, Reddit offers authentic sentence structures and natural language patterns that make it highly effective for large language model (LLM) training.
Recognizing this value, Reddit no longer treats its data as mere content but as a “premium dataset.” In 2023, the company revised its API policies to charge separate fees for commercial use. It also introduced premium licensing models during negotiations with AI developers, emphasizing data quality and timeliness—a clear signal of intent to end the AI industry’s long-standing reliance on free data harvesting.
This trend is likely to expand across the content platform ecosystem. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, and Stack Overflow have already implemented or announced similar policy changes. These platforms commonly cite server resource waste, disruption to user experience, and unauthorized AI training as justifications for monetization.
Unless AI companies fundamentally change their data acquisition strategies, legal disputes like Reddit vs. Anthropic will likely continue. In the past, developing AI models required mainly technical prowess. Today, however, the key to competitive advantage lies increasingly in how and from where one secures legally authorized data.
Rising Likelihood of a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan China May Launch a Surprise Attack Disguised as Military Exercises Chinese Media: "Taiwan Could Collapse Without a Fight"
The specter of a Chinese military assault on Taiwan has moved from distant speculation to urgent reality. As China accelerates its military posturing and articulates explicit strategic scenarios for subduing Taiwan, senior U.S. defense officials are issuing grave warnings. At the heart of this rising tension lies not only the specter of conventional warfare, but a new era of disruption warfare—targeting the island’s fragile energy infrastructure, sowing chaos, and potentially collapsing the state without firing a shot. What was once dismissed as strategic anxiety is now emerging as a blueprint for real-world escalation.
At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 31, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a sharply worded assessment of Beijing’s intentions and capabilities. He told regional security leaders that China had developed a credible capacity to use military force to reshape the Indo-Pacific balance of power, and that this threat was not only real but possibly imminent. Hegseth explained that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is no longer merely preparing in theory—it is conducting realistic drills and practicing operational maneuvers aimed at invading Taiwan. He also emphasized that the United States is actively restructuring its strategic posture in the region to deter what he described as a gathering storm from communist China.
This warning comes amid years of intensifying Chinese military activity around Taiwan. The PLA has routinely flown warplanes into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone and dispatched warships into surrounding waters. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, these are not symbolic shows of force—they are rehearsals, deliberate and structured, for a future blockade or outright invasion. Just days before Hegseth’s address, China’s military announced that its navy and air force had completed combat-readiness patrols near Scarborough Shoal, a disputed territory in the South China Sea, which Beijing also claims.
Beyond Taiwan, Hegseth accused China of bullying its neighbors through cyberattacks, aggressive territorial claims, and the militarization of disputed islands in violation of international law. These actions, he argued, are not isolated provocations but warning signals to the United States, its allies, and the broader international community.
While Washington continues to sound alarms, Chinese military analysts are publishing increasingly detailed scenarios for how to neutralize Taiwan without resorting to total war. The military journal Naval & Merchant Ships, affiliated with the PLA, recently described what it considered the optimal moment to strike: a weekday summer afternoon just before a typhoon. The timing, they suggested, would disrupt emergency responses and maximize disarray on the island. The strategy centers on crippling Taiwan’s infrastructure rather than invading with ground forces.
According to this plan, China would only need to target around 30 strategic energy-related facilities to bring Taiwan’s critical systems—transport, communication, and healthcare—grinding to a halt. The aim would be to collapse the island from within, making resistance unfeasible without even requiring troops to land. Evidence that this strategy is more than hypothetical came to light during April’s military drills encircling Taiwan, where liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals were among the simulated strike targets.
Meanwhile, China has enhanced its ability to transition its air and missile forces from peacetime to combat readiness in a matter of hours. Analysts point to the presence of about a dozen Chinese navy and coast guard vessels that now operate continuously in waters near Taiwan—making the conditions for a blockade or sudden escalation increasingly credible.
The urgency of this scenario was underscored last month when Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, stated that China’s recent large-scale troop and ship movements around Taiwan should not be mistaken for simple exercises. They were, he argued, full-fledged rehearsals. He noted that China is evolving rapidly and has set a goal of being fully prepared for a Taiwan invasion by 2027.
China has not refuted these claims directly. Instead, it maintains that Taiwan is an internal matter and continues to emphasize national sovereignty. Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang reaffirmed that the PLA is maintaining a heightened state of readiness to defend its territorial integrity—indirectly reinforcing concerns that military action remains on the table.
If China intends to bring Taiwan to its knees without a direct ground assault, it may already have found its pressure point: energy. On May 17, the Taiwanese government took its last nuclear reactor offline, proudly marking a step toward its long-standing vision of a “nuclear-free homeland.” While symbolically powerful, the move has left Taiwan exposed in concrete terms.
Taiwan now imports nearly 98% of its energy, with more than 80% of its electricity coming from natural gas and coal. But its strategic reserves are alarmingly short—only ten days’ worth of gas and thirty days of coal. Renewables remain unstable, and with nuclear power eliminated, Taiwan’s dependence on imported, seaborne energy is growing by the day.
The timing of the shutdown couldn’t be worse. Even before the summer peak in electricity use, Taiwan’s power reserve margin fell below 8%, well beneath the 15% safety threshold. Rolling blackouts and infrastructure failures are no longer hypothetical. They are material risks that could turn a military standoff into a humanitarian crisis almost overnight.
This vulnerability has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. During its recent “Strait Thunder 2025A” military exercise, the PLA simulated large-scale blockade operations and strikes focused on Taiwan’s energy facilities. Observers fear that if Taiwan’s energy system continues to deteriorate, such drills could easily transform into real attacks designed to induce collapse before foreign reinforcements can arrive.
Historically, Taiwan’s defense doctrine has relied on one critical assumption: that it can hold the line long enough for the United States and other allies to respond. But time is a harsh master in war. U.S. military simulations suggest that Taiwan must survive for 30 to 90 days to allow allied forces to mobilize. A blackout or widespread infrastructure failure could upend that timeline, complicating coordination, increasing costs, and narrowing the window for intervention.
In such a scenario, the battlefield shifts from tanks and missiles to generators and server farms. Chinese analysts appear to understand this well. In a recent assessment, the National Interest noted that for China, collapsing Taiwan’s power grid might be not only more effective—but also far cheaper—than launching a full-scale amphibious invasion.
Intent to Strengthen Effectiveness of Export Controls Global Production Lines at Risk of Paralysis Mounting Likelihood of Real Economic Shocks
What began as a battle over semiconductors and tariff policies between the United States and China is now entering a far more consequential and disruptive phase—a global resource war. As China escalates its export controls on rare earth elements, the ripples are being felt across the real economy, far beyond diplomatic circles and boardrooms. Manufacturing giants and small-scale producers alike are being hit by supply shocks, production delays, and growing uncertainty. What was once a largely intangible confrontation over technological supremacy is now a direct clash over the physical materials that power modern industry.
Nowhere is this shift more visible than in the tightening grip China holds over the rare earth market. These 17 critical elements are essential to the production of electric vehicles, wind turbines, consumer electronics, and advanced weapons systems. With China supplying over 90% of the world’s refined rare earths, its recent policy changes are more than administrative—they are reshaping global supply chains and triggering economic alarm bells.
According to a June 4 report by China’s state-run Securities Times, local governments in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guizhou, and Hunan Province have intensified enforcement against what they describe as “illegal mining activities.” These actions are framed as responses to central government directives to tighten controls on the export of strategic minerals. A Guangxi provincial official declared, “We will strengthen oversight of the mining and exploration sectors,” vowing strict consequences for unauthorized operations and mining conducted outside designated zones.
But analysts suggest that this move goes far beyond law enforcement. Instead, it marks a pivotal moment in China’s strategic weaponization of its resource dominance. As geopolitical tensions with the United States deepen, Beijing is leveraging its control over rare earths to fortify its position. By requiring Chinese government approval before any export of these minerals, the new regulations effectively create a state-controlled choke point in the global supply chain.
This isn’t the first time China has pulled this lever. In previous disputes, it has threatened or implemented similar controls, particularly during trade stand-offs. What sets the current situation apart is the global scale of disruption and the rapid pace at which it’s unfolding.
Beijing insists that these actions are lawful and defensive. Chinese officials argue that it was Washington—not Beijing—that first broke trade agreements by restricting semiconductor equipment exports and blacklisting Chinese firms. From China’s perspective, the current measures are a proportional response. However, many observers view them as an unmistakable shift from traditional economic policy toward geoeconomic confrontation, signaling that China is willing to use its mineral dominance as leverage in a much broader battle for industrial and technological leadership.
Rare earth elements are the unsung heroes behind nearly every modern technological innovation. Embedded in everything from smartphones and laptops to electric motors and missile guidance systems, they form the foundation of the 21st-century economy. Particularly vital are permanent magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, which are essential for high-performance electric motors in electric vehicles, drones, and wind turbines.
Without these rare earths, electric motor production grinds to a halt, and with it, the industrial assembly lines of electric vehicles, home appliances, and defense technologies. This vulnerability is no longer hypothetical. In late May, Ford Motor Company announced a week-long shutdown of its Chicago assembly plant, citing a shortage of magnets—a direct result of supply disruptions originating from China.
The implications are massive. Leading manufacturing nations—including the United States, Japan, and Germany—have issued warnings that if China’s export restrictions persist, they could be forced to suspend some factory operations within weeks. The effects won’t be confined to one sector either. From aerospace to renewable energy to robotics, a wide swath of industries stands to be affected.
The construction and heavy machinery sectors are particularly exposed. Cranes, excavators, and electric tools rely on high-powered motors that use rare earth-based magnets. As industries transition from fossil fuel-powered engines to electric propulsion in line with global climate goals, the demand for rare earths is accelerating, even as supply security becomes increasingly precarious.
The consequences of these dynamics are already visible. As of last month, rare earth prices surged by over 40% year-over-year, and the trading volume for some key elements has dropped sharply due to hoarding and regulatory uncertainty. Many small and mid-sized manufacturers, particularly in Asia and Europe, are now struggling to maintain production, having failed to secure sufficient inventory before the supply crunch.
A recent report by the U.S. Department of Commerce explicitly acknowledged this vulnerability, warning that the EV and semiconductor industries are dangerously over-reliant on China. The report concluded that the U.S. currently lacks the flexibility and capacity to respond effectively to such a sudden and sustained external shock.
The intensifying rare earth squeeze is now casting a long shadow over the recent U.S.–China tariff truce, raising concerns that the fragile balance could unravel. On May 12, trade representatives from both nations met in Geneva and reached a tentative agreement to suspend or roll back most of the retaliatory tariffs for 90 days. It was viewed as a possible turning point in the tech and trade war.
But China’s subsequent decision to tighten rare earth export regulations has undermined that progress, casting doubt over the sincerity and durability of the détente. The shift from abstract trade policies to concrete restrictions on physical resources suggests that the confrontation is moving into uncharted, more disruptive territory.
Whereas earlier phases of the conflict revolved around tariffs, intellectual property, and semiconductor bans, the focus has now shifted to industrial raw materials—resources that are both finite and irreplaceable in the short term. This development risks triggering what some experts call a “resource nationalism era,” where access to critical commodities becomes the new battlefield of global competition.
China continues to defend its measures as legitimate trade policies. Yet the U.S. and its allies see them as a form of political blackmail, pointing to the broader economic fallout already underway. The fear is not just economic; it is structural. By undermining the efficacy of global trade frameworks—such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and bilateral trade agreements—these moves could usher in a fragmented world economy.
Washington and its partners argue that China’s actions could accelerate the formation of resource blocs, in which countries align themselves based on access to strategic materials. Such a shift would mark a profound transformation in global trade, eroding decades of interdependence in favor of rigid, rivalrous blocs competing for control over essential commodities.
Amazon Announced USD 11 Billion Investment in Georgia in January Google, Microsoft, and Meta Also Expanding Investments in AI Infrastructure Big Tech Races to Secure AI Dominance by Expanding Data Centers
As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly evolves into the defining technology of our era, Big Tech is racing not just to innovate but to dominate the physical foundations of the AI revolution. Central to this race are data centers—massive, power-hungry facilities packed with high-performance computing hardware that have emerged as the linchpins of AI speed, quality, and competitiveness. In this context, Amazon’s newly announced USD 10 billion investment in a state-of-the-art data center in North Carolina marks more than just another corporate expansion. It signals a deepening arms race in AI infrastructure, where the winners may well define the future of the global digital economy.
On June 4, Amazon announced a major expansion of its AI infrastructure with a USD 10 billion investment to construct a new data center in North Carolina, operated under Amazon Web Services (AWS). The announcement was framed as part of Amazon’s strategy to meet soaring demand for cloud infrastructure and computing power, driven in large part by the rapid rise of generative AI technologies. According to the company’s official blog post, the project will not only support Amazon’s long-term AI ambitions but also generate approximately 500 local jobs, bringing economic and technological benefits to the region.
This investment is a key part of Amazon’s larger plan to spend up to USD 100 billion in capital expenditures this year, with a majority of the funds channeled into AI-related projects. Earlier this year, Amazon revealed another substantial plan: a minimum USD 11 billion investment in a new data center complex in Georgia, its largest single capital investment to date. Since 2010, Amazon has invested a total of USD 18.5 billion in Georgia, and this latest initiative is focused heavily on AI-specialized infrastructure, including proprietary AI chips, high-performance servers, and advanced network architectures.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has emerged as a vocal champion of the company’s AI ambitions. “Generative AI is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” he declared earlier this year, underscoring Amazon’s strategy to lead in both foundational technology and applications. In line with this vision, Amazon has already launched several AI initiatives: it introduced "Alexa+", a reengineered version of its voice assistant powered by generative AI; unveiled a new AI agent called “Nova Act”, capable of autonomously performing complex user tasks; and rolled out its own large language model (LLM) along with Trainium, a self-developed AI training chip.
Amazon’s external partnerships are equally bold. The company has invested USD 8 billion in Anthropic, the AI startup behind the Claude chatbot, a move widely seen as a bid to diversify and strengthen its foothold in the AI ecosystem. From chip development to model deployment, Amazon is positioning itself not merely as a user of AI, but as one of its chief architects.
Amazon’s strategic investments are part of a broader trend among the "Big Four" U.S. tech companies—Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta—all of whom are ramping up spending on AI data centers at an unprecedented scale. While 2023 saw some caution due to fears of an AI infrastructure bubble, the strong Q1 earnings in 2025, especially in AI and cloud segments, have reignited full-speed capital deployment.
Microsoft, which had previously signaled a possible reassessment of its data center plans, reversed course this year after reporting a 33% year-on-year increase in revenue from Azure, its cloud computing platform. During its earnings call, the company announced a monumental USD 80 billion commitment to AI infrastructure development, making it one of the largest such investments in the industry’s history.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is also charging forward. It has allocated USD 75 billion for AI infrastructure in 2024 alone, more than double its 2023 investment of USD 32.3 billion. CEO Sundar Pichai emphasized that the spending would reinforce AI capabilities across Google’s entire portfolio, including its flagship services, Google Cloud, and DeepMind. Alphabet CFO Anat Ashkenazi added that most of this capital will be devoted to expanding data centers, server infrastructure, and networking systems tailored to AI workloads.
Meta, too, has significantly raised its game. Riding a 16% increase in revenue and a 35% rise in earnings per share (EPS) in Q1, Meta revised its AI infrastructure spending plans upward by about 40%—from an initial estimate of USD 60–65 billion to a new range of USD 64–72 billion. These funds will be invested in building new data centers, recruiting top AI talent, and securing AI semiconductors, crucial for running large-scale models. CEO Mark Zuckerberg projected that “2025 will be a decisive year for AI”, outlining a vision in which Meta’s AI assistant will serve more than 1 billion users as a daily tool.
Together, these announcements represent the largest wave of AI infrastructure investment in tech history. They also mark a strategic turning point: no longer content to rent computing power, Big Tech is building the future—literally—from the ground up.
At the core of this global infrastructure race lies a clear motive: to control the performance, scalability, and sovereignty of AI services. For Big Tech, data centers are no longer peripheral assets. They are the essential engines that power AI models capable of understanding language, generating images and video, and automating complex tasks in real time.
Generative AI’s insatiable need for real-time processing of large datasets makes proximity to users and computational power non-negotiable. If a data center is located too far away, or lacks sufficient capacity, latency issues arise, degrading the speed and quality of AI-driven applications. This is why the leading tech companies are no longer outsourcing this infrastructure—they are building and owning it, ensuring tighter integration, reduced latency, and greater control over mission-critical services.
Moreover, these data centers are vital to maintaining technological independence. Training next-generation models like large language models (LLMs) requires access to vast clusters of GPUs, custom AI chips, and robust networking frameworks—resources that cannot be left to third-party providers. Companies like Amazon and Microsoft are now investing billions to design and operate AI-specific data centers that give them full-stack autonomy—from chip architecture to application layer.
The urgency is magnified by an emerging capacity crunch. The supply of data center space is failing to keep pace with the explosion in AI adoption. In major tech markets like the United States, vacancy rates in data centers have plummeted to just 1–2%, creating bottlenecks that threaten to slow innovation. Against this backdrop, the ability to own and scale infrastructure internally has become not only a financial advantage but a strategic necessity.
By building their own data centers, companies can cut long-term costs, reduce operational risk, and control their growth trajectory. In a world where compute power is the new oil, these facilities have become the battleground for technological supremacy.
U.S.-Russia Summit Call Discusses Ukraine’s Surprise Attack Trump: “It Was Not a Conversation That Would Lead to Immediate Peace” Putin: “Stressed the Need to Respond to Recent Airbase Attacks”
In a volatile geopolitical landscape, where hopes for peace in Ukraine flicker and fade with each new development, a phone call between two of the world’s most influential leaders has deepened uncertainty rather than dispelled it. Former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke for the fourth time since peace talks began, but instead of bridging divides, their exchange underscored just how wide the gap remains. With Ukraine intensifying its military offensives and Russia vowing retribution, the momentum behind ceasefire negotiations is now in serious jeopardy.
On June 4, Trump revealed via his social media platform, Truth Social, that he had spoken with Putin for 75 minutes. The conversation, unannounced and unexpected, came just two weeks after their previous dialogue on May 19. While Trump has taken a personal interest in facilitating a ceasefire and potentially ending the war, his latest call with the Kremlin leader delivered few signs of progress.
“President Putin made it clear that a strong response is necessary to the recent Ukrainian attacks on Russian airfields,” Trump wrote. “We had a good conversation, but it was not one that will immediately lead to peace.”
The urgency of the call was catalyzed by a daring Ukrainian drone offensive on June 1. In what Kyiv described as one of its most successful operations since Russia's 2022 invasion, 117 drones struck four Russian airbases deep inside Russian territory. Among the high-value targets reportedly damaged were 41 military aircraft, including the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers. The Ukrainian military estimated the total cost of destruction at approximately USD 7 billion. These strikes extended far beyond the typical frontlines, demonstrating Ukraine’s evolving drone capabilities and strategic ambition.
From Ukraine’s perspective, the attack was a calculated show of strength, made possible by 18 months of painstaking preparation. It was also a psychological victory, aimed at shifting the battlefield dynamic. The government quickly labeled it a milestone achievement in their defensive campaign. Yet, from Moscow’s standpoint, it was a provocation—one that left little room for negotiation.
During the phone call, Putin expressed outrage, reportedly telling Trump in a “strong tone” that retaliation was inevitable. While Trump attempted to dissuade him, those efforts appeared fruitless. Putin remained firm and went as far as referring to Ukraine as "terrorists," a linguistic escalation that all but confirms a further breakdown in diplomatic dialogue.
The atmosphere of the conversation, while cordial on the surface, signaled a grim reality: neither side was ready to concede. For Putin, the drone attack was not just a military challenge but a personal affront—one that demands a visible, forceful reply. For Trump, who has cast himself as a broker of peace, this latest interaction seems to suggest a retreat from earlier optimism.
The faltering peace process had initially shown signs of life through two rounds of direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The first took place on May 16, followed by a second on June 2 in Istanbul, Türkiye. The meetings marked a rare moment of face-to-face dialogue between the two nations since the full-scale invasion began. While the parties succeeded in arranging a prisoner exchange, they failed to narrow the gulf over the larger issues of ceasefire and peace terms.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, eager to push the momentum forward, proposed a four-party summit involving the United States and Türkiye. The idea, however, received a lukewarm response from the Kremlin, which remained skeptical of external involvement.
As speculation grows about Russia’s retaliatory plans, concerns mount that the entire peace process—largely driven by Trump’s diplomatic overtures—could unravel. Adding to the uncertainty is Trump’s own ambiguity about his role. The New York Times observed that Trump now appears to frame himself as a “bystander,” giving the impression that Russia’s response to Ukraine’s actions is inevitable and beyond his influence.
While Trump’s aides insist that he is frustrated with both Putin and Zelensky, they also acknowledge that he shows more personal respect toward the Russian leader. This sentiment aligns with Trump’s measured tone in public statements, where he refrains from condemning Russia’s aggression and instead emphasizes his desire to end the conflict.
This latest stance contrasts sharply with his earlier declarations. After a two-hour call with Putin on May 20, Trump had expressed confidence in initiating peace talks, suggesting that a ceasefire and eventual war termination were within reach. His rhetoric then was hopeful; he believed that direct dialogue between the warring parties could yield results. Now, however, his communications focus more on Putin’s resolve and the scale of Ukraine’s provocations—an implicit admission that the situation is becoming more intractable.
Even amid escalating hostilities, both Russia and Ukraine are keeping the door to diplomacy slightly ajar—at least for now. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the draft memoranda exchanged during the second round of negotiations are currently under review and must be evaluated before a third round of talks can be scheduled.
According to Russian state media outlet TASS, Ukraine has suggested convening the next round between June 20 and 30. However, Peskov cautioned against setting concrete dates without adequate preparation. “Time is needed to review the exchanged draft memoranda,” he stated. “Once both sides are ready, they will agree on the schedule for the next round of talks.”
He also emphasized the difficulty in establishing a regular timetable for negotiations. “It is hard to standardize the frequency and regularity of these talks,” Peskov explained. “This depends on the continued willingness of both negotiating parties. In this context, setting a fixed schedule is nearly impossible.”
Nonetheless, diplomatic sources suggest that Istanbul remains the likely venue for the third round. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko confirmed that alternative locations—such as the Vatican—are not being considered at this time. “Choosing a new venue is not under consideration,” he said firmly, indicating that despite the turmoil, some structure remains in place.
But that structure is fragile. Each new act of aggression threatens to derail the process entirely. Putin’s promise of retaliation, Ukraine’s bold attacks, and Trump’s shifting tone all point to a peace process that is slowly unraveling. The channels for negotiation are still open—but the path through them grows narrower by the day.
Global AI Power Shift Exposes Apple’s Struggles Structural Momentum Falters as Analysts Lower Ratings A Triple Threat: Technology Lag, Policy Pressure, and Investor Doubt
Apple, once the undisputed symbol of innovation and sleek consumer technology, now finds itself facing a storm it did not anticipate. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes the new engine of global economic transformation, the world's most iconic tech company appears to be slipping behind. While its peers among the M7—Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Nvidia, and Tesla—forge ahead in the AI arms race, Apple is grappling with investor skepticism, a declining stock price, and intensifying regulatory and political headwinds. What was once seen as Apple’s golden era may be giving way to a period of reckoning.
Apple’s market performance is sounding alarm bells across the financial world. On June 4, the company closed at USD 202.82 on the New York Stock Exchange, marking a decline of nearly 19% since the start of the year. Its market capitalization has shrunk to USD 3.029 trillion, now barely hovering above the USD 3 trillion line it once confidently surpassed. While four members of the M7 have posted negative returns so far this year, Apple stands out for having the steepest drop.
Tesla, despite a one-day drop of over 3%, has declined just over 17% year-to-date—slightly better than Apple’s performance. Alphabet and Amazon have each seen drops of over 11% and 5%, respectively. Meanwhile, Meta has surged 17%, and Nvidia, now the most valuable public company, has gained 5.3%. Even Microsoft, which lost the top market cap spot to Nvidia, has grown by over 10%.
Yet despite Apple’s underwhelming trajectory, some investment banks argue that the company remains overpriced. Analysts point to its price-to-earnings ratio, which currently sits at about 26 times projected earnings per share for the fiscal year—still high for a company with such visible growth concerns. These analysts believe the market has not fully accounted for weak performance in China, where Apple’s iPhone sales have notably softened.
This growing concern has been reflected in a series of downgrades. Needham shifted Apple’s rating from “Buy” to “Hold,” and erased its previous USD 225 price target. Jefferies also cut its rating earlier this year, lowering Apple from “Hold” to “Underperform,” citing the brand’s weakening foothold in China. At the same time, Loop Capital revised its outlook from “Buy” to “Sell,” citing supply chain research that suggested iPhone demand was falling faster than expected.
Behind the financial anxiety lies a deeper concern: Apple’s failure to keep pace in the AI race. While competitors are rapidly integrating generative AI into their ecosystems and products, Apple has been slow to act. Analysts and insiders alike believe that the company is trailing far behind in AI development—a sentiment echoed internally by senior engineers. Some even admit that the company is in a state of decline, suggesting Apple may be drifting toward irrelevance if it doesn’t reverse course soon.
Perhaps the starkest warning came from Eddy Cue, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Services, who reportedly remarked that the iPhone could disappear within a decade—just as Apple itself once made Nokia’s dominance obsolete. This dramatic prediction underscores how deeply Apple’s leadership is aware of the existential threat posed by falling behind in AI.
The centerpiece of Apple’s troubled AI journey is Apple Intelligence, a service born more out of urgency than strategy. The project was not even under consideration before OpenAI’s ChatGPT upended the market. Once ChatGPT’s influence became undeniable, Apple scrambled to produce its own response. What emerged late last year was Apple Intelligence—an AI model developed in haste, without the methodical innovation Apple was once known for.
From the outset, the results were troubling. The product launch was delayed and rushed simultaneously, resulting in numerous glitches, performance failures, and public backlash. The company faced criticism for misleading promotional claims, and each software patch seemed to fix one bug only to introduce several new ones. Some industry experts went so far as to describe the product as a technological embarrassment. For Apple—a brand synonymous with polish and perfection—this was an unfamiliar and unsettling reputation.
As speculation about the eventual decline of the smartphone intensifies, Apple’s weaknesses are becoming more exposed. The company, once praised for leading with bold technological vision, is now seen by some as surviving on design aesthetics and the loyalty of its ecosystem rather than true innovation. In the fast-evolving world of AI, such a posture could prove fatal.
As Apple stumbles in AI, its heavily guarded ecosystem—long a source of competitive advantage—is now under regulatory assault. In March, the European Commission ordered Apple to ensure greater interoperability between its devices, including the iPhone and iPad. Citing the Digital Markets Act, the Commission argued that breaking down walled gardens would create a more open environment for developers, expand consumer choice, and drive innovation.
This move targeted Apple’s famously closed ecosystem head-on. In response, Apple filed a lawsuit against the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg at the end of May. The company argued that the mandated changes were impractical and cost-prohibitive. It also warned that such requirements could compromise user privacy and security by allowing competitors access to sensitive information. Apple maintained that singling out its ecosystem for regulation would limit its ability to innovate and ultimately result in a degraded experience for European consumers.
But the pressure on Apple is not limited to Europe. In the United States, Donald Trump’s reemerging trade policy is threatening to disrupt the company’s supply chain. After initially proposing reciprocal tariffs on imported goods in April, Trump later announced plans to impose a minimum 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the U.S.
He made it clear that he expected Apple to bring its production home, having previously informed CEO Tim Cook that iPhones sold in America should be made in America—not in India or any other foreign country. Trump warned that if Apple failed to comply, it would face heavy tariffs.
This reversal in policy has created significant uncertainty for Apple. However, experts believe the likelihood of the company relocating its production to the U.S. in the near future is slim. Analysts estimate that a full-scale move could take five to ten years, during which time the cost of producing an iPhone in the U.S. could drive retail prices to an eye-watering USD 3,500 per unit—an outcome that would alienate millions of consumers and further weaken Apple’s global competitiveness.
Apple today is no longer shielded by its legacy. The company is under pressure from every angle: a flailing AI strategy, shaken investor trust, external demands to dismantle its tightly held ecosystem, and political threats that could inflate costs and shatter supply chains. What once looked like an endless winning streak is now clouded with doubt. Whether Apple can course-correct and reassert itself as a leader in the age of artificial intelligence remains uncertain—but the urgency to act has never been greater. Its golden era may not be over yet, but the clock is undeniably ticking.
