Analysis grounded in field validation: what contested environments are actually proving about emerging technology, written for the institutions that must act on it.
How defense innovation actually happens under wartime conditions: the improvised, contested, socio-technical process by which new capabilities move from workshop to front line. Field cases in Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel.
The framework paper: how the lessons of Ukraine’s defense-tech mobilization transfer to Taiwan’s deterrence problem.
Co-authored with Dr. Ping Wang, via the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute, U.S. Naval War College.
Whitepaper co-authored with the CSO of Recorded Future on how network compromise converts to balance-sheet exposure.
Firm research and analysis: Ukraine/Russia, cross-Strait dynamics, the Middle East, European rearmament, the American industrial base, the Arctic.
What does combat pressure actually do to technology? I study how conflict accelerates invention: which adaptations are real, who drives them, and whether battlefield-forged capability transfers to peacetime ecosystems. It runs from my doctoral research through most of my professional work.
No theater stands alone. A shock in one propagates through supply chains, alliances, and industrial capacity in the others. I read geopolitics as a coupled system and map the transmission mechanisms between fronts. The aim is to understand how one front moves the rest.
The gap between what a capability claims and what it proves can be enormous. My work is verification: testing claims against evidence, grading confidence honestly (even when the record is fragmentary or in another language) and setting aside what can't be validated.
Capital and procurement decide what reaches the field. I study how money, acquisition incentives, and market structure shape which technologies get built, and how firms position themselves in that flow.