The internet has been a haven for extremists since long before most people even knew it existed. Today, extremists share their likes and tweet their thoughts like everyone else. But they have also spun off into an ever-widening array of social media sites with greater appetites for hateful words and violent images.

Since its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has claimed Kyiv is developing biological weapons with support from the US and Germany. Experts familiar with laboratories in Ukraine say the accusations are groundless.

A recent article in Nature offers a disturbing look at the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the creation of chemical and biological weapons. “Anyone unfamiliar with recent innovations in the use of AI to model new drugs will be unpleasantly surprised,” Paul Rosenzweig writes. “The benefits of these innovations are clear. Unfortunately, the possibilities for malicious uses are also becoming clear.”

Drones that carry weapons are increasingly employed as counterterrorism tools, but nations use and constrain strikes differently. France, for example, submits its strikes to the U.N. for approval; the U.S. typically does not. This difference matters when it comes to public support and perceptions of legitimacy.

Much research remains to be done on the precise qualitative difference between the structures and linguistic markers that are evident in violent and non‐violent conspiratorial language, especially on the extreme far right, and how this encourages an individual to violent action. A new report offers findings which are both striking and, in some cases, unexpected.

Over a hundred million American adults read news on social media. In the wake of the crisis in Ukraine, antisemitism, hate speech, and disinformation have spread widely on Facebook. Researchers found evidence of the continued presence of problematic posts on the platform, the most popular site for getting news, as well as the prevalence of external links directing users to alternative platforms and sites popular among extremists.

A new report examines whether better-known frameworks of radicalization leading to terrorism involvement are readily observable through available data. “Perhaps the most valuable contribution of analytical frameworks is the guidance they can provide to support the interpretation of constellations of WHO, WHY, HOW and WHERE indicators in context,” the researchers say.

DOD released its report on countering extremist activity in the ranks. Andrew Mines writes that the report is timely, as data from research by different organizations provide multiple metrics that show a relatively small but growing problem of extremism in the military. “Today, the U.S. faces an extremist threat that is increasingly mainstream and harder to counter with traditional prevention tools. The federal government is already undergoing a sea change in its own approach, and the military has shown that it isn’t shying away from the problem either,” he writes.

Jihadist militants from Chechnya have been helping Russia in its war in Ukraine, but the influx of jihadist militants does not constitute the bulk of foreign fighters who have joined the war. It is feared that the pro-Ukraine ‘International Legion’ is infiltrated by far-right extremist groups who support Ukraine’s own far-right organizations. One expert warns that the war “will almost certainly attract far-right extremists, who have long viewed [Ukraine] as an ideal training ground to gain combat experience for the eventual ‘race wars’ they anticipate waging back home.”