The practical takeaway is that we can intentionally design “elite development environments” by fostering “deep practice” – pushing to the edge of ability, embracing mistakes as information, and aiming for a “sweet spot” of 20% error. These environments also prioritize observing and “stealing” ideas from others, and ignite motivation through social connection, like Pixar inviting all employees to contribute to film development, or Curacao Little League having older kids coach younger ones.

In an era obsessed with individual achievement, we often fall prey to a captivating but misleading narrative: the myth of the self-made individual. We celebrate the lone genius, the singular talent, the person whose sheer will and innate gifts propel them to greatness. But what if this focus blinds us to the true origins of success? What if talent isn’t a magical, solitary spark, but a flame meticulously fanned by specific environments and collective dynamics?

Daniel Coyle, author of “The Talent Code,” “The Culture Code,” and “Flourish,” challenges this deeply ingrained individualistic lens. He argues that when we scratch beneath the surface of exceptional performers—be it a Hemingway, a Steve Jobs, or a Michael Jordan—we invariably discover not just an individual, but an “elite environment,” a tapestry of relationships, and a profound sense of connection that nurtured their growth. This ecological perspective, Coyle suggests, doesn’t diminish achievement; it illuminates the conditions necessary for anyone to thrive.

For years, Coyle has explored “talent hotbeds” around the world—places that produce an impossible number of top performers, from a small Russian tennis club to a unique Brazilian soccer school. These seemingly disparate locations share common environmental features that defy our conventional understanding of talent development.

One of the most striking observations Coyle made about these talent hotbeds was their often “junky” appearance. He dubbed them “chicken wire Harvards.” These weren’t luxurious, pampered environments; quite the opposite. They were Spartan, focused explicitly on work and craft, not comfort. This deliberate lack of opulence signaled a core truth: elite development isn’t about ease; it’s about engagement with challenging work.

Crucially, these environments fostered a radically different relationship with mistakes. Coyle introduces the concept of “learning velocity” through the story of Clarissa, a 15-year-old musician. During a six-minute segment of practice, Clarissa progressed more than in a month of normal practice. What did it look like? She played a snippet, made a mistake, stopped, re-read, hummed, and tried again. This isn’t passive learning; it’s an active, deliberate engagement with error, pushing to the edge of ability, sensing failure, and reaching again. This is “deep practice”—the deliberate process of making mistakes to build skill.

Coyle notes that the talent hotbeds he visited were all practicing “like a bunch of Clarissas.” They were not avoiding mistakes; they were actively seeking them out. This leads to what Coyle calls the “rule of 20%”: if you’re making mistakes about 20% of the time, you’re likely in the “sweet spot” for learning. No mistakes means no learning; 80% mistakes means it’s too overwhelming. The irony, Coyle points out, is that the sweet spot often feels “kind of bitter” because it’s hard.

Consider the example of skateboarders versus algebra students. A 12-year-old on a skateboard is a fast learner because the environment (the skateboard, the ground) immediately provides feedback on mistakes, allowing for instant correction. In a passive algebra class, knowledge washes over them, and the immediate feedback loop is absent, hindering learning velocity.

Brazilian futsal (football d’salão) offers another vivid illustration. This intense, small-sided game played in tight spaces with a smaller, heavier ball forces players into constant, rapid decision-making and error generation. It pushes them into that “Clarissa spot” repeatedly, cultivating exceptional ball control and vision—a stark contrast to the common but insufficient explanation of “warm weather and love of soccer.”

At the Spartac tennis club in Moscow, which produced more top-25 women players than the entire United States in the 90s and early 2000s, Coyle witnessed slow-motion practice. Coach Larissa Preobrazhenskaya, at 79, would have her students swing without a ball, perfecting each stroke until it was “absolutely built and grooved” before they were allowed to compete. This wasn’t about finding magical talent; it was about meticulously building fundamentals, piece by piece, through deliberate, focused struggle.

While the “10,000-hour rule” has seen its share of debate, Coyle emphasizes that for most skills, “you need to deep practice a lot, and you need to build that circuitry.” There are no shortcuts; it’s about investing time in building fundamentals, making mistakes, and repeatedly pushing the edge of your ability. While this might sound “depressing” to some, Coyle finds it “immensely liberating” and “joyful.” Each repetition, each mistake, is a moment of growth, moving you “a slightly further place.”

This consistent, deliberate effort leads to a “compounding effect.” Coyle highlights the astonishing fact that if you improve just 1% a day for a year, you end up 37 times better than when you started. This exponential growth explains why seemingly unimpressive individuals can “take off like rocket ships,” revealing the immense, often untapped, potential waiting when we shift from an individualistic to a holistic, ecological lens.

Elite environments also foster a culture where learning from others is not just accepted but encouraged—a “borrow, beg, and steal ideas” mentality. This is the first step of deep practice: observing a skill, falling in love with it, and internalizing it.

Coyle points to the Renaissance in Florence as a historical talent hotbed. While many factors are cited, a crucial, often overlooked element was the evolution of craft guilds. These workshops immersed young apprentices in the fundamentals of their craft—mixing paints, carving stone, preparing pigments. They gained “hundreds of reps, thousands of reps,” learning by watching masters, struggling with tasks, and “stealing” techniques. It was a hands-on, collaborative, and deeply immersive learning environment, far from the “country club” model of simply taking lessons.

The challenge for our schools, families, and workplaces, Coyle concludes, is to “create that environment where it is safe to stare, struggle, and steal together” in the pursuit of getting better—to cultivate a modern guild mentality.

If skill is built through deep practice, what makes someone commit to such a demanding process? The answer, Coyle says, is “ignition.” We often perceive motivation as an internal trait, but Coyle argues it’s an “outside in” phenomenon, born from our interaction with culture.

Motivation is unlocked when we see “someone that we want to become,” a “vision of our future self,” or a “person on the horizon toward which we want to travel.” Coyle cites a fascinating “birthday experiment” where students who shared a birthday with a mathematician worked three times harder on an unsolvable math problem. This “little guitar string” of connection, however irrational, unlocked energy and motivation.

Talent hotbeds often have a clear “ignition moment.” For Russian tennis, it was Anna Kournikova reaching the Wimbledon finals. For baseball in Curaçao, it was Andruw Jones hitting three home runs in the 1996 World Series. These moments act like “lightning bolts,” prompting a collective “If they can do it, why can’t I?” This powerful, often illogical, social connection fuels the energy needed for deep practice.

Pixar, known for its creative output, provides a playbook for cultivating this ignition. New employees hear a simple, powerful message from Ed Catmull: “Whatever you did before, you’re a movie maker now. We need you to help us make our films better.” The company also holds “brain trust” meetings where everyone, from baristas to engineers, watches rough cuts of films and offers suggestions. An IT guy, for example, saw his suggestion for a character’s badge in “Up” make it into the final movie. This isn’t magic; it’s “creating a moment where you’re inviting someone in to play a role of active contribution.”

In Curaçao, Little League practices involve older kids teaching younger ones. Instead of an old coach, children are taught by “older versions of themselves”—kids who’ve been to the Little League World Series or are on their way to the majors. This direct, relatable vision of a future self, coupled with an invitation to contribute to the struggle, is a potent igniter of motivation.

Beyond individual talent, Coyle delves into how groups achieve extraordinary results, where “two plus two was equaling ten.” He defines culture not as a vague “vibe” or “identity,” but as “a set of living relationships in pursuit of a shared goal.” This functional definition focuses on the core behaviors that enable a group to become greater than the sum of its parts.

Coyle identifies three core relationships that define thriving individuals and groups:

1. Relationship to Self: A belief in growth and change, not being fixed.
2. Relationship to Others: Defined by curiosity and connection, not self-focus.
3. Relationship to the World: Characterized by contribution and creativity.

These qualities, Coyle argues, are deeply wired into us; we evolved in communities, not as “rugged individuals.” When present, they create a “bubbling sort of aliveness” that is palpable.

Coyle likens a great team in motion to a flock of starlings, moving as one through obstacles. They are:

1. Connected: Everyone is “all in,” not separate.
2. Sharing Information: Moving together with shared awareness, transparently responding.
3. Handling Direction: Moving toward a common “north star.”

These are the functional hallmarks of a high-performing culture, underpinned by specific behaviors.

The absolute foundation of any great culture is building safety. Coyle emphasizes, “Nothing happens without connection.” When attempting hard things in a fast-paced world, establishing connection is primal.

The “marshmallow tower” experiment vividly illustrates this. Groups of CEOs, lawyers, MBA students, and kindergarteners were tasked with building the tallest tower from spaghetti, tape, and a marshmallow. Adults talked, planned, and divided roles, managing their “status” and subconsciously asking, “Is it okay to say that?” Kindergarteners, however, ate all but one marshmallow and immediately started “jamming pieces together,” trying, failing, and fixing. They didn’t win because they were smarter; they won because they were safer. No one was trying to be “CEO of Spaghetti Incorporated.” This safety allowed for rapid iteration and learning.

Adult groups, by contrast, are prone to “managing status,” which Coyle describes as “a whisper in our subconscious mind” that slows down iteration and self-silences individuals. Kindergarteners are free from this burden.

Safety in adult groups is delivered through “belonging cues”—simple, clear behaviors that signal, “I care. I see you. We share a future. We are connected.” Coyle recounts the Wipro call center experiment, where a one-hour session focused on trainees’ personal stories and skills (instead of company history) boosted retention by 300%. The simple act of receiving a sweatshirt with their own name on it, rather than the company logo, created a profound sense of belonging.

The inverse is also true: unsafe environments breed dysfunction. The Minutemen missileers, tasked with nuclear readiness, were once among the worst-performing Air Force crews, plagued by cheating and scandals. Attempts to “control people more” only worsened the problem. It was only when new leaders focused on “building community, building a culture from the ground up, creating psychological safety,” and methods for bringing problems to the surface, that performance turned around. “The more you control, the worse you lead,” Coyle asserts.

Building safety doesn’t require grand gestures. Coyle offers simple, subtle tools:

• The Two-Line Email: Asking colleagues, “What’s one thing you’d like me to keep doing?” and “What’s one thing you’d like me to stop doing?” This signals curiosity and a desire for growth.
• The “Open Face”: A relaxed brow and jaw, communicating curiosity, connection, and enthusiasm, especially vital in a world of virtual communication.
• Embrace the Messenger: Going beyond “not shooting the messenger” to actively celebrating those who bring bad news. A leader of a Major League Baseball team, for instance, thanked the person who derailed a major hiring decision, signaling that truth and learning were paramount.

Once safety is established, the next step in building culture is sharing vulnerability. This is how groups “face the truth together” and build a shared consciousness. These moments can feel “weird,” but they are profoundly powerful.

The “two-minute experiment” demonstrates this. Strangers asked surface-level questions (favorite pop star) exchange facts. Strangers asked personal questions (“When was the last time you cried?”) lean in, laugh, and become animated. These personal questions create “moments of genuine openness and disclosure,” igniting connection and trust. Coyle notes that we often mistakenly believe we must build trust before being vulnerable, but science shows the opposite: “Moments of vulnerability, when shared, create trust, ignite connection, ignite relationship.”

Great cultures don’t leave vulnerability to chance; they “engineer” it like a “calisthenic.” Dave Cooper, who commanded the troops that got Bin Laden, famously said, “The four most important words a leader can say are, ‘I screwed that up.’” This isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s an invitation for collective honesty. The Navy SEALs operationalize this with “After Action Reviews (AARs)” after every mission: “What went well? What didn’t go well? What are we going to do differently?” These conversations, often led by junior members, involve raw, vulnerable assessments that strengthen the group.

Vulnerability gives people the courage to speak out. In the 2015 NBA finals, with the Golden State Warriors struggling against LeBron James, a video intern offered a smart suggestion that helped them win the series. This wasn’t just about the idea; it was about the “million moments before that gave him permission to raise his hand”—the countless small interactions that built a safe, vulnerable environment.

Ultimately, Daniel Coyle’s work dismantles the myth of the self-made individual, revealing a more profound and liberating truth. Talent is not a fixed, magical gift, but a dynamic process cultivated by specific environmental conditions. Greatness emerges from environments that foster deep practice, embrace struggle, ignite motivation through connection, and build cultures of safety and shared vulnerability. By shifting our focus from individual genius to collective cultivation, we unlock immense potential, not just for a chosen few, but for anyone willing to engage in the deliberate, often uncomfortable, journey of growth together. The playbook for building exceptional talent and thriving communities is not secret; it’s waiting to be applied.

NATO faces a critical challenge in countering Russia’s “incremental sabotage” campaign, as its traditional deterrence mechanisms are designed for major land invasions, not these low-level, deniable acts. While Germany has authorized its spy services to conduct “active measures” like cyberattacks against Russia, experts believe even these more aggressive responses will be insufficient, suggesting the attacks are likely to continue.

Across Europe, a new and insidious form of conflict is unfolding. What began as sporadic incidents in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated into a dramatic and increasingly frequent series of sabotage attacks, leaving officials scrambling to understand and respond to a campaign designed to destabilize the West without triggering open warfare. This covert aggression, coupled with complex political maneuvers in Washington and seismic shifts in global technology and philanthropy, paints a picture of a world grappling with unprecedented challenges.

In recent years, the alarm bells have grown louder as European nations report a surge in suspicious incidents. A railway line connecting Warsaw to southeastern Poland suffered an explosion, disrupting vital infrastructure. German officials have pointed to Russia as the mastermind behind a failed drone attack at an airport this summer, while Polish authorities suspect sabotage in a fire at a drone factory. Even Denmark reports Russian recruitment efforts targeting individuals to attack defense companies.

These aren’t isolated acts of vandalism; security officials tell The New York Times that these attacks are part of a wider, more organized plot. One chilling example involved a scheme to send incendiary devices through commercial carriers on planes, potentially destined for the United States. Another saw a drone equipped with military-grade explosives bounce off the wing of a plane on the tarmac. While no fatalities or serious injuries have been reported yet, the sheer frequency of these events significantly increases the risk of tragic outcomes.

Michael Schwarz, a global security correspondent, highlights the profound challenge these tactics pose for NATO. The alliance, forged in the crucible of the Cold War, was designed to deter or respond to a major land invasion. It is ill-equipped for this “incremental sabotage.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has meticulously crafted a campaign that appears to remain “well below the threshold of a war,” deliberately falling short of triggering Article 5 – NATO’s central tenet declaring that “an attack on one is an attack against all.” This strategic ambiguity leaves NATO in a precarious position.

The alliance has attempted to respond with traditional measures, expelling diplomats and imposing sanctions, but these have proven largely ineffective in blunting Russia’s campaign. In a significant shift, Germany, for the first time since World War II, authorized its spy services in August to carry out “active measures” – a term encompassing sabotage and cyber attacks directed at Russia. However, even these more aggressive counter-measures are not expected to be enough, with experts anticipating the attacks will simply continue for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Trump administration continues to navigate a turbulent political landscape with controversial moves both at home and abroad.

The Middle East remains a flashpoint, with the US and Iran exchanging airstrikes after a nearly month-long pause in active fighting. Despite this escalation, Vice President JD Vance publicly downplayed the situation, stating he doesn’t “currently consider it a war at all.” Speaking from the White House briefing room – a rare appearance for an administration official in recent weeks, following the resignation of Press Secretary Caroline Levitt – Vance offered no timeline for an end to hostilities, suggesting it was “up to Iran.” His comments underscore a delicate diplomatic tightrope walk, attempting to manage perceptions of conflict while engaging in military action.

Domestically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has launched an intensive operation, reassigning hundreds of federal agents to scour voter rolls across the country for non-citizens. This controversial move comes despite a glaring lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud; a conservative think tank’s database lists only about 100 instances of non-citizens voting over the past quarter-century. President Trump, however, has fixated on the issue, baselessly claiming that “tens of thousands” of non-citizens are registered to vote.

The reassignment of DHS agents from their normal duties, which include investigating trafficking and terrorism, has raised significant concerns. One former immigration official branded the effort a “political fishing expedition,” explicitly designed to “intimidate people from exercising their right to vote.” While DHS maintains that “ensuring the integrity and security of American elections” is a top priority, critics fear the operation’s true intent lies in political manipulation rather than genuine security.

In another display of the administration’s unconventional approach, President Trump is pushing forward with construction of a 250-foot-tall, gold-topped triumphal arch, a project he has championed for months. This ambitious undertaking is proceeding even before a federal commission has approved it and prior to a legally required review under the National Historic Preservation Act.

The project faces significant legal hurdles, with a group of Vietnam veterans suing to halt construction. They argue the massive arch would obstruct historic views from Arlington National Cemetery and that it should have been approved by Congress. Critics point to this as part of a larger pattern, where Trump attempts to “outrun any scrutiny by the courts” by rapidly initiating major construction projects, including the controversial demolition of the White House East Wing to build a new ballroom.

Beyond the political machinations, other stories highlight the shifting sands of global influence and human resilience.

The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, is poised to significantly impact the upcoming midterm elections, reportedly planning to spend up to $120 million from his “war chest” to support Republican candidates. Recent campaign finance reports reveal that his Super PAC has already begun deploying the first wave of these funds in over a dozen key races across the country, including Texas, Michigan, and Iowa. The group’s strategy includes running Facebook and Google ads focused on voter registration and portraying Democrats as “radical socialists.”

Musk’s involvement is particularly notable given his previous political spending; he was the single largest donor in the 2024 election cycle, contributing nearly $300 million. However, questions had lingered about his engagement this year following a public falling out with President Trump and even a threat to establish his own political party. His current commitment signals a clear intent to wield his immense financial power in shaping American politics.

In Nepal, a sudden and devastating flood claimed the lives of over 300 people, with thousands more still missing. Amidst the tragedy, a glimmer of hope emerged this morning as two individuals were miraculously rescued from a tunnel at a hydropower facility, having been trapped for more than a week. Rescuers have been working tirelessly, boring into tunnels, digging through dense sludge and mud, and pumping air into submerged facilities. In one tunnel, dozens of other workers are still thought to be inside, with rescuers reporting that they can hear their voices, fueling an intense and ongoing rescue effort.

Finally, a look at China reveals a nation wholeheartedly embracing artificial intelligence, demonstrating a unique approach that sets it apart from the West. Vivian Wong, who covers China for The New York Times, describes Beijing as “bombarded by AI.” The technology is everywhere: cleaning robots patrol malls, cameras use facial recognition to identify jaywalkers for potential fines, AI-powered trash cans promise to sort garbage, and even humanoid robots attempt to sell coffee, albeit with some difficulty.

This widespread proliferation of AI reflects a distinct national strategy. While US AI companies often prioritize building the most cutting-edge models, Chinese companies and the government emphasize “just putting AI everywhere as quickly as possible.” Their goal is to integrate AI into every facet of daily life – classrooms, factories, hospitals – ensuring people perceive its practical usefulness.

This aggressive adoption is underpinned by a profound public optimism. A recent survey indicated that only about one-third of Americans believe the benefits of AI outweigh the risks. In stark contrast, two-thirds of people in China share this optimistic view, embracing AI with a sense of excitement and a strong belief in its potential to improve their lives. This fundamental difference in perception and strategy could profoundly shape the future of AI development and its global impact.

From the covert battlefields of Europe to the digital frontier of China, the world is in a state of flux, defined by evolving threats, political shifts, and technological revolutions that promise to reshape societies for generations to come.

코일은 재능을 마법 같은 선물로 여기는 대신, 성장 가능한 대상으로 인식할 때 엄청난 잠재력이 발현될 수 있다고 말한다. 이를 위해 그는 ‘점화(ignition)‘의 중요성을 강조하는데, 이는 개인이 미래의 자신을 투영할 수 있는 롤모델을 발견하거나, 능동적으로 기여할 수 있는 기회를 제공받을 때 발생하는 강력한 동기 부여를 의미한다. 픽사(Pixar)의 신입 직원 교육 방식이나 쿠라사오(Curaçao)의 야구 훈련 방식처럼, 사람들에게 ‘당신도 할 수 있다’는 메시지를 전달하고 성장의 과정에 참여하도록 초대하는 환경을 조성함으로써, 개인은 물론 집단 전체의 잠재력을 극대화할 수 있다는 시사점을 제공한다.

우리는 흔히 뛰어난 개인의 성공을 그들 고유의 천부적인 재능이나 독특한 습관 덕분이라고 생각한다. 마치 마법처럼 홀로 빛나는 ‘자수성가형 인물(self-made individual)‘이라는 신화에 매료되곤 한다. 하지만 ‘재능 코드(The Talent Code)’, ‘문화 코드(The Culture Code)’, 그리고 신작 ‘플로리시(Flourish)‘의 저자 대니얼 코일(Daniel Coyle)은 이러한 통념에 도전한다. 그는 재능이 개인의 마법 같은 기프트가 아니라, 특정 환경과 문화가 만들어내는 결과라고 주장한다.

빅씽크(Big Think)와의 인터뷰에서 코일은 재능이 어디에서 오는지, 그리고 위대한 문화가 어떻게 구축되는지에 대한 깊이 있는 통찰을 공유했다. 그의 연구는 우리가 개인의 잠재력을 최대한 발휘하고 번성하는 공동체를 만들 수 있는 구체적인 ‘플레이북(playbook)‘을 제공한다.

현대 사회는 전례 없는 개인주의의 시대에 살고 있다. 우리는 업적을 볼 때마다 그 개인에게, 그들을 특별하게 만드는 것에, 그들의 습관과 행동에만 집중한다. 어니스트 헤밍웨이(Ernest Hemingway)나 스티브 잡스(Steve Jobs), 마이클

이러한 상황은 현대 안보 위협의 복잡성과 비대칭성을 보여주며, 국가와 국제기구는 전통적인 군사적 대응을 넘어선 새로운 전략을 모색해야 함을 시사한다. 특히 사이버 공격, 정보전, 사보타주 등 회색지대(gray zone) 전술에 대한 대비를 강화하고, 국제 협력을 통해 정보 공유 및 대응 역량을 높이는 것이 중요하다. 또한, 시민 사회는 이러한 위협에 대한 인식을 제고하고, 국가 안보에 대한 광범위한 논의에 참여하여 새로운 안보 환경에 맞는 유연하고 다층적인 방어 체계를 구축하는 데 기여해야 할 것이다.

2024년 9월 4일 금요일, 유럽 대륙은 러시아가 배후에 있는 것으로 추정되는 일련의 사보타주 공격으로 긴장감에 휩싸여 있습니다. 폴란드에서 발생한 철도 폭발 사건을 시작으로, 독일 공항 드론 공격 미수, 덴마크의 방산업체 공격을 위한 인력 모집 시도 등 러시아의 은밀한 공작이 서방 세계를 흔들고 있다는 경고음이 울리고 있습니다. 이는 우크라이나 전면 침공 이후 러시아가 전쟁을 서방으로 확산시키려는 광범위한 시도의 일환으로 해석됩니다.

동시에 미국 내부에서는 트럼프 행정부의 막바지 정책 강행과 중간선거를 앞둔 일론 머스크의 대규모 정치 자금 투입 소식이 전해지며 정치적 격변이 예고되고 있습니다. 네팔에서는 대규모 홍수로 인한 수력발전소 매몰 사고로 수많은 인명 피해가 발생했으며, 중국은 인공지능(AI) 기술의 전방위적인 확산에 박차를 가하며 미래 기술 패권 경쟁의 선두에 서고 있습니다. 이처럼 전 세계는 지정학적 긴장, 국내 정치의 혼란, 그리고 기술 혁명의 거대한 물결 속에서 요동치고 있습니다.

최근 몇 년간 유럽 전역에서 러시아가 배후에 있는 것으로 보이는 일련의 사보타주(sabotage) 공격이 급증하며 심각한 안보 위협으로 부상하고 있습니다. 폴란드 바르샤바를 남동부 폴란드와 연결하는 철도 노선이 주말 폭발로 손상되었으며, 독일 당국은 올여름 공항에서 발생한 드론 공격 미수 사건의 배후에 러시아가 있다고 발표했습니다. 폴란드에서는 드론 공장에서 발생한 화재가 사보타주로 인한 것으로 추정되고, 덴마크는 러시아가 자국 내에서 방산업체 공격을 위한 인력을 모집하고 있다고 밝혔습니다.

뉴욕타임스 글로벌 안보 담당 기자 마이클 슈워츠(Michael Schwarz)는 이러한 공격이 우크라이나 전면 침공 직후 시작되었으며, 러시아가 전쟁을 서방으로 더 광범위하게 확산시키려는 시도의 일환이라고 분석합니다. 군사용 폭발물을 장착한 드론이 활주로에 있던 비행기 날개에 부딪히는 아찔한 순간도 있었지만, 다행히 현재까지는 사망자나 심각한 부상자는 발생하지 않았습니다. 그러나 보안 당국은 공격의 강도와 빈도가 점점 더 높아지고 있으며, 이로 인해 인명 피해 가능성도 커지고 있다고 경고합니다.

이러한 러시아의 사보타주 캠페인은 북대서양조약기구(NATO)에 심각한 도전을 제기하고 있습니다. NATO는 본래 대규모 지상 침공을 억지하거나 이에 대응하기 위해 창설된 군사 동맹입니다. 그러나 러시아의 공격은 직접적인 전면전이 아닌, 점진적이고 은밀한 사보타주 형태를 띠고 있습니다. 러시아의 블라디미르 푸틴 대통령은 이러한 공격이 전쟁의 문턱, 즉 NATO의 핵심 조항인 ‘제5조(Article 5)’ 발동 기준을 한참 밑도는 수준에서 이루어지도록 매우 신중하게 접근하고 있습니다. 제5조는 회원국 중 한 국가에 대한 공격을 전체에 대한 공격으로 간주하여 상호 방위를 약속하는 조항입니다.

러시아의 이러한 전략은 NATO를 곤경에 빠뜨리고 있습니다. NATO는 외교관 추방이나 경제 제재와 같은 기존의 대응 방식을 시도했지만, 이것만으로는 러시아의 캠페인을 저지하는 데 거의 효과가 없다는 사실을 깨달았습니다. 이에 따라 NATO는 새로운 대응 방안을 모색하기 시작했습니다. 지난 8월, 독일 정부는 제2차 세계대전 이후 처음으로 자국 정보기관에 ‘적극적 조치(Active Measures)‘를 수행할 권한을 부여했습니다. 이는 러시아를 겨냥한 사보타주나 사이버 공격과 같은 보다 공격적인 대응을 의미합니다. 그러나 전문가와 관계자들은 이러한 강경한 조치만으로는 충분하지 않을 것이며, 당분간 러시아의 공격은 계속될 것으로 예상하고 있습니다.

미국에서는 트럼프 행정부의 막바지 행보가 여러 논란을 낳고 있습니다.

백악관에서 JD 밴스 부통령은 이란과의 갈등을 ‘전쟁’으로 규정하는 것에 주저하며, “현재 활발한 총격전은 없다”고 말했습니다. 이러한 발언은 미국과 이란이 지난주 공습을 주고받으며 거의 한 달간의 교전 중단이 깨진 직후에 나왔습니다. 밴스 부통령은 전쟁이 언제 끝날지에 대한 시간표가 없으며, 이는 이란에 달려 있다고 주장했습니다. 한편, 백악관 대변인 캐롤라인 레빗이 최근 사임한 이후 후임자가 발표되지 않아 백악관 브리핑룸은 한동안 공백 상태였습니다.

뉴욕타임스 보도에 따르면, 국토안보부(Department of Homeland Security, DHS) 소속 수백 명의 연방 요원들이 비시민권자를 색출하기 위해 전국의 유권자 명부를 조사하는 임무에 재배치되었습니다. 이는 광범위한 유권자 사기 증거가 없음에도 불구하고 진행되는 대규모 작전입니다. 보수 성향 싱크탱크의 데이터베이스에 따르면 지난 25년간 비시민권자가 투표한 사례는 약 100건에 불과했지만, 트럼프 대통령은 증거 없이 수만 명의 비시민권자가 유권자로 등록되어 있다고 주장하며 이 문제에 집착해왔습니다.

이로 인해 DHS 요원들은 인신매매나 테러 조사와 같은 본연의 임무에서 벗어나게 되었습니다. 이들이 유권자 명부에서 무엇을 발견할지, 그리고 그 정보가 어떻게 활용될지는 불분명합니다. 한 전직 이민 관리는 이러한 노력을 “사람들이 투표권을 행사하는 것을 위협하기 위한 정치적 낚시질(political fishing expedition)“이라고 비난했습니다. DHS는 성명에서 미국 선거의 무결성과 보안을 보장하는 것이 최우선 과제 중 하나라고 밝혔습니다.

트럼프 대통령은 수개월간 언급해온 250피트(약 76미터) 높이의 황금빛 개선문 건설을 착공할 예정입니다. 이 프로젝트는 연방 위원회의 승인이나 국립 역사 보존법(National Historic Preservation Act)에 따른 검토 등 법적으로 요구되는 절차를 거치지 않은 채 진행되고 있습니다. 베트남 참전용사 단체는 이 거대한 아치가 알링턴 국립묘지의 역사적 경관을 해치고 의회의 승인을 받아야 한다며 건설 중단을 요구하는 소송을 제기했습니다. 이는 트럼프 대통령이 백악관 동관을 철거하고 새로운 연회장을 짓는 등 법원의 감시를 피하기 위해 가능한 한 빨리 건설을 추진하는 패턴의 가장 최근 사례입니다.

세계 최고 부자인 일론 머스크(Elon Musk)는 다가오는 중간선거에서 공화당의 승리를 돕기 위해 자신의 ‘전쟁 자금(war chest)‘을 풀기 시작했습니다. 그의 계획에 정통한 소식통에 따르면, 머스크는 최대 1억 2천만 달러를 지출할 수 있습니다. 이번 주 공개된 선거 자금 보고서에 따르면, 그의 슈퍼팩(Super PAC)은 텍사스, 미시간, 아이오와 등 전국 12개 이상의 경선에 첫 자금 wave를 투입하기 시작했습니다. 이 단체는 유권자 등록에 초점을 맞추고 민주당을 ‘급진 사회주의자(radical socialists)‘로 묘사하는 페이스북 및 구글 광고를 시작했습니다.

지난 2024년 선거에서는 머스크가 거의 3억 달러를 지출하며 개인 기부자 중 가장 큰 손이었지만, 최근 트럼프 대통령과의 공개적인 불화와 자신만의 정당을 만들겠다는 위협 이후 올해 그의 정치 참여 정도에 대한 의문이 제기되기도 했습니다.

네팔에서는 갑작스러운 대규모 홍수로 수력발전소 시설의 터널에 갇혔던 두 명이 일주일 만에 구조되었습니다. 이 홍수로 300명 이상이 사망했으며, 지역 내 여러 에너지 프로젝트에서 일하던 수천 명을 포함해 수많은 사람들이 여전히 실종 상태입니다. 구조대원들은 며칠 밤낮으로 터널을 뚫고 진흙과 잔해를 헤치며 지하 시설에 접근하기 위해 노력해왔습니다. 일부 터널은 잔해로 완전히 메워진 상태였습니다. 구조대는 생존자가 있을 경우를 대비해 최소 한 개의 터널에 공기를 주입하기도 했습니다. 오늘 터널 구조 작업에 대한 보고에 따르면, 수십 명의 다른 작업자들이 여전히 내부에 갇혀 있는 것으로 추정되며, 구조대원들은 그들의 목소리를 들었다고 전했습니다.

현재 베이징 거리를 걷는다면 인공지능(AI) 기술에 압도될 것입니다. 쇼핑몰에는 청소 로봇이 돌아다니고, 안면 인식 기술로 무단 횡단자를 식별하여 벌금을 부과할 수 있다고 주장하는 카메라가 설치되어 있습니다. AI 기반으로 쓰레기를 분류해 준다는 쓰레기통이나 커피를 팔려고 하지만 물건을 제대로 잡지 못하는 휴머노이드 로봇도 있습니다. 말 그대로 AI 광고가 사방에 넘쳐납니다.

뉴욕타임스의 중국 담당 기자 비비안 웡(Vivian Wong)은 중국이 인공지능에 전력을 다하는 방식에 대해 심층 취재했습니다. AI 기술은 프라이버시, 실업 등 민감한 문제에 대한 우려를 낳고 있지만, 비비안은 중국이 이러한 우려에도 불구하고 강력하게 추진하고 있다고 말합니다.

비비안은 이러한 AI의 확산이 중국의 몇 가지 특징을 보여준다고 설명합니다. 미국에서는 AI 기업들이 최첨단 모델을 개발하는 데 집중하는 반면, 중국 기업과 정부는 가능한 한 빨리 AI를 모든 곳에 적용하는 것을 중요하게 생각합니다. 그들은 AI가 교실, 공장, 병원 등 사람들의 삶을 형성하고, 사람들이 AI가 실생활에 유용하다고 느끼기를 원합니다.

또한, 중국인들은 미국인들보다 AI에 대해 전반적으로 훨씬 더 낙관적이라는 점도 특징입니다. 최근 한 설문조사에 따르면, 미국인의 약 3분의 1만이 AI의 이점이 위험보다 크다고 생각했지만, 중국에서는 약 3분의 2에 달하는 사람들이 그렇게 생각했습니다. 이는 AI가 흥미롭거나 적어도 사람들의 삶에 좋은 것을 가져다줄 것이라는 기대감이 훨씬 더 크다는 것을 보여줍니다.

이처럼 유럽의 ‘보이지 않는 전쟁’, 미국의 복잡한 정치 지형, 인류를 시험하는 자연재해, 그리고 빠르게 진화하는 AI 기술은 21세기 세계가 직면한 다층적인 도전 과제를 명확히 보여줍니다. 러시아의 하이브리드 전략은 기존 안보 질서를 뒤흔들고 있으며, 미국 내 정치적 분열은 국내외 문제 해결을 더욱 어렵게 만들고 있습니다. 동시에 AI와 같은 혁신 기술은 인류에게 전례 없는 기회를 제공하지만, 동시에 윤리적, 사회적 질문을 던지고 있습니다. 이러한 격동의 시기에 각국은 복잡하게 얽힌 문제들을 헤쳐나가기 위한 현명하고 선제적인 대응책을 모색해야 할 것입니다.