Artificial Intelligence and Russian-Ukraine War

By

-

April 14, 2023

One of the oldest strategies in the authoritarian playbook is propaganda, and President Putin is known for using it against Russian civilians. The apparent answer to Russia’s conflict with Ukraine is yes. Since the invasion on February 24, 2022, nationwide surveys of Russians’ sentiments about the conflict have shown that support has remained mostly stable: most Russians still seem to favor the war, but not as strong as the Kremlin may believe. As polls indicated was the case after Putin announced the “partial mobilization” in September, even drops in popular support on a national level have rebounded over time. Although polling is effective when respondents are honest, additional methods are required in nations like Russia, where such access and openness cannot be taken for granted.

Here is where artificial intelligence may be useful. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has collaborated with FilterLabs for over a year. Using AI-enabled sentiment analysis, AI, a Massachusetts-based data analytics company, monitors regional sentiment across Russia. Sentiment analysis is a tried-and-true method of teaching computers to read and comprehend text and voice produced by people. The study examines scraped public documents and comments from social media, news media, and chat app groups. Other popular places to determine what people think and feel locally and whether that sentiment is favorable or not.

This data, particularly outside of Moscow, paints a distinct picture of Russian popular sentiment. Traditional polling often focuses on major population centers like Moscow and St. Petersburg, which might distort overall results. A worse picture appears outside of those major cities. The Kremlin is finding it harder and harder to use national propaganda to sway public opinion outside of large cities.

Russian propagandists operate iteratively, piloting slightly different messages one after the other and putting them out in waves when their analysis indicates they are required. Since the invasion, Russian state-sponsored propaganda has influenced public opinion on the conflict for an average of 14 days across all areas and issues. Yet, as the Ukraine conflict continues, these popular support surges are ebbing and need to be used more often throughout Russia, especially outside the main cities.

In other words, Moscow’s propaganda has less and less impact on Russians, particularly when it is blatantly at odds with the daily problems they face. Russians are less likely to accept the official narratives presented on state television, which remains the majority of Russians’ primary source of information, while Putin’s battle of choices exacts personal consequences on residents.

Russian information operations are very effective at mobilizing and utilizing state resources. They excel at confusing the information landscape, leaving people needing clarification about what to trust and draining them of their drive. However, as the conflict enters its second year and more Russians experience its impacts in their everyday lives, particularly the rising number of men enlisted or conscripted into the armed services, the limits of Kremlin propaganda become clear.

This is especially true in the parts of Russia where Putin’s mobilization has been most intense. Data from the republic of Buryatia, a mostly rural, impoverished area 3,700 miles from Moscow and bordering Mongolia, was among the first information FilterLabs acquired following the invasion. Regardless of age, military background, or past health, many people from Buryatia and other ethnic minority-dominated areas are recruited into the Russian army. It only took eight days following a surge of propaganda for public attitude to decline to a negative steady state. By June, EU sanctions began to affect the economy and news of the western consolidation behind Ukraine and significant opposition to Russian advances leaked into Buryatia.

These patterns do not just exist in Buryatia. There have been noticeable changes in Russian sentiments across the board, occasionally even the conduct of the war itself. For instance, FilterLabs saw a decline in support for the war in various parts of the nation when Russian military troops encountered considerably fiercer opposition from Ukrainians in March and April 2022, and stories of high death tolls leaked back into Russia.

Russians no longer fall for the propaganda as readily as they previously did, particularly outside Moscow. Also, the Kremlin still needs to successfully organize public opinion to support a positive goal, such as its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. Positive support for Moscow’s mistakes has yet to be gained by confusing the information environment and spreading distrust.

The information points to a possible greater fragility of the Russian administration than it would care to recognize. Corruption and underdeveloped institutions have exacerbated Russia’s state fragility for many years. The tendency is becoming worse because of the conflict. The social compact between Russians and the Putin government is eroding. The people have accepted Putin’s authoritarian leadership in return for higher living standards and operating public services, funded by high oil prices over the last 20 years.

The official propaganda machinery, which has extended from print media and television to internet platforms, has played a critical role in cementing this passivity, particularly after Putin took power in the early 2000s. By passing “foreign agent” and “extremism” legislation and silencing potential opponents while promoting Kremlin-aligned politicians, authorities, and policies, the Kremlin has utilized information operations to splinter the media and hide the frail underbelly of the state.

Nevertheless, recent events, such as the invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, the rallies instigated by opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and the COVID-19 outbreak, have repeatedly shown that propaganda narratives cannot mask dwindling public confidence in the legitimacy of the state. When out of sync with experience, chaos may backfire or, at the very least, lose its efficacy, further eroding the state’s legitimacy. Given all this, it becomes more difficult to convince Russian soldiers and their families that fighting and dying in distant Ukraine is in their best interests.

An insight into how Russians feel and how unstable the public mood is may be gained via AI-enabled sentiment data analysis. As a result, Putin’s authority and legitimacy are internally threatened. Moreover, it denotes a deep-seated suspicion of government institutions that will persist in Russian society long beyond Putin’s presidency, whenever that may be, particularly outside of Moscow.

War Profiteering: Indian Missile Shipments to Ukraine

By

Asma Khan Durrani

-

April 14, 2023

0

India and Russia have had a long-standing corporation since the Cold War era. The two countries have maintained close ties over the years, with Russia being one of India’s key defense suppliers. The Indian economy has been benefitting from cheaper Russian oil because of the sanctions. Russia is also India’s largest oil supplier and significantly contributed to the country’s energy security. India has tried to maintain its non-aligned status but now the tides have shifted India is playing a double game now, its government is using its stocks of several thousand MILAN anti-tank missile systems against Russian troops in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. The Indian-made French-designed MILAN-2T, man-portable (Infantry) second-generation ATGM have been supplied to Ukrainian Military.

Missiles that reached Ukraine are being used on the battlefield against India’s supposed ally. Ukraine is using massive amounts of artillery ammunition and anti-tank missile systems (ATGM’s) in the war, underscoring the continuous demand for such weapons. As a result, Ukraine is looking for ways to replenish its ammo supplies. India has been a key part of supplying these arms to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Moreover, India and Ukraine agreed to optimize military ties, particularly in the defense cooperation, by signing four agreements worth $70 mn for weapons, upgrades for Kyiv with Aero India.

India’s brazen duplicity against Russia is evident from it bolstering Ukrainian armed forces. Anti-tank weaponry traveled through India, which was given permission by India for shipment of hundreds of MILAN ATGMs to Ukraine. The shipment is carried out through a network of front companies. Any inscriptions in Hindi or serial numbers, and other information that can be used to track the supply chain are removed from ammunition and weapons before shipment. In addition, any information that can be used to identify the shipment’s origin is concealed.

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile has been in service with the Indian Army since 1981. They are manufactured by the Indian company Bharat Dynamics Ltd. under a license to arm infantry units and install them on combat vehicles.

The MILAN anti-tank guided missile has been in service with the Indian Army since 1981. They are manufactured by the Indian company Bharat Dynamics Ltd. under a license to arm infantry units and install them on combat vehicles. Indian manufactured MILAN ATGMs are operational, these weapons were recently manufactured units and not old stock sent to Ukraine. MILAN-2T is a man-portable (Infantry) second-generation ATGM, to destroy Tanks fitted with Explosive Reactive Armour, moving and stationary targets up to 1.5 Km. Ukraine is looking for more of such defense purchases from India. These MILAN-2T ATGM is a guided anti-tank missile with dual warheads.

India is not impartial in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and has been involved in supplying weapons made in India, for their end use in Ukraine. Delhi is apparently utilizing third-country-based defense suppliers and contractors to route these defense sales to Ukraine. India is now out to make money off the Russia-Ukraine war by supplying much-needed weapons to Ukraine. The Ukrainian military is massively using these Indian-made infantry grade weapons against Russian troops. India’s hypocrisy is palpable from it sending missiles to Ukraine in secret to maintain its economic interests with Russia.

The Ukrainian military is massively using these Indian-made infantry grade weapons against Russian troops. India’s hypocrisy is palpable from it sending missiles to Ukraine in secret to maintain its economic interests with Russia.

India of late has been pursuing policies that are at odds with its relationship with Russia. India has also been strengthening its ties with the United States in recent years, which indicates its potential shift in its foreign policy alignment. One of the major factors contributing to this distancing is India’s growing engagement with the United States and other Western countries. In particular, India has been seeking closer economic and strategic ties with the US. India has made an effort to limit its reliance on weapons of Russian origin in order to strengthen its relations with the US. India’s transactional approach towards Russia and rubbing off of the US has now become blatant. India has made a clear where it stands. India’s new economic relations only underscore the reversal of fortunes between India and Russia. Additionally, India has been engaging with other countries such as Japan and Australia to form a “Quad” alliance, which is seen as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the region. Russia and China, on the other hand, have been strengthening their own strategic partnership in recent years. Another factor is Russia’s own geopolitical priorities, which have shifted towards closer ties with China in recent years. This has led to Russia prioritizing its relationship with China over its traditional partnership with India, particularly as China’s influence in the region continues to grow.

It is worth noting that India is maintaining a close relationship with Ukraine to counter Russia, it is a sign of India’s duplicity, and a reflection of India’s duplicitous tactics in its relations with Russia. India is in US camp now against Russia and it is evident from its missiles shipments to Ukraine, with both Indo-US partnership expanding the two countries have signed a number of defense deals and are increasing cooperation. This is clearly a manifestation of India’s Janus faced approach towards Russia, and has led India to shift its foreign policy alignment away from Russia.

Hence, India is not transparent and consistent in its actions and communication with its international partners and is losing its credibility to maintain trust in its relations with Russia and more so in the global arena. Hence India is playing against its erstwhile ally and all these potential signs direct towards India’s distancing from Russia. There have been further instances of India supplying arms to Ukraine in the past, including during the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

The Populist Trio: Modi, Trump, and Imran Khan Are Using Propaganda and Populism to Divide Societies

By

Dr Shama Junejo

-

April 13, 2023

3

As a fifty-one-year-old female Pakistani-origin journalist residing in the U.K., I have seen the impact of authoritarian rule firsthand in my childhood. Growing up under Zia’s martial law regime, I witnessed human rights abuses and the suppression of dissenting voices in my early teens. This experience shaped my understanding of the dangers of nation-based religious populist ideologies and fake news propaganda, which has become the most challenging issue in contemporary politics. Although my early memories of Pakistan were of a moderate society, I have also witnessed the populist instrumentalization of Islam and its disastrous consequences in the coming decades. As a journalist, I have been the victim of cyberbullying and threats while exposing populist manipulations. It is a reality that populist leaders worldwide, such as Indian Prime Minister Modi, Donald Trump, and notably Imran Khan – the most popular populist leader of my native country, Pakistan – employ these tactics to promote their narratives and manipulate the masses.

Populism is an ideology that has gained prominence in contemporary political discourse, where it segregates society into two clashing groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite.”

Therefore, should the rise of populist leaders and their tactics cause concern for every concerned Democrat? As we have seen, they use nationalist and religious sentiments to sway public opinion, often relying on fake news and propaganda. The consequences of this can be devastating, as seen in the rise of hate crimes, human rights violations, and the erosion of democratic values. So, what is the remedy?

We know that Populism is an ideology that has gained prominence in contemporary political discourse, where it segregates society into two clashing groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” (Mudde, 2004). Populist leaders like Modi, Trump, and Imran Khan often employ fake news and propaganda to advance their agenda to any extent. Propaganda, especially online propaganda and fake news are designed to manipulate people’s thoughts and beliefs and persuade them to act in a certain way. While propaganda is the deliberate dissemination of information, ideas, or opinions, often intending to manipulate public opinion or behavior (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2014). Propaganda can take many forms, including mass media, advertising, political campaigns, and education, and is used by individuals, organizations, and governments to achieve a desired outcome (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2014).

Populist politicians in post-colonial countries have long understood the power of propaganda and used it effectively by easily manipulating people’s emotions on nationalism and instrumentalizing the religion. As a result, we have witnessed nation-based politics in India and Pakistan

According to Chomsky and Herman (1988), propaganda is often used as a means of manufacturing consent, where the ruling elite seeks to manipulate public opinion to support their interests. That can be seen in how political leaders use media to shape public opinion on issues such as war, immigration, and economic policy. Propaganda can also marginalize and demonize certain groups, as seen in Nazi Germany’s propaganda targeting Jews and other minority groups (Welch, 2011). In modern times, social media platforms have been used to spread propaganda and misinformation, leading to concerns about the impact on democratic processes and the spread of hate speech (Kalsnes, Larsson, & Enli, 2018). Since the rise of social media, propaganda has been adopted as a powerful tool that can be used for both positive and negative purposes. Therefore, it is essential to remain vigilant against its use and promote critical thinking and media literacy to ensure that the public can make informed decisions based on accurate information. Populist politicians in post-colonial countries have long understood the power of propaganda and used it effectively by easily manipulating people’s emotions on nationalism and instrumentalising the religion. As a result, we have witnessed nation-based politics in India and Pakistan, where the fundamental issues of poverty, education, and human rights, especially women’s rights, have always been ignored. However, it is not India or Pakistan; nation-based politics also harmed counties like the U.K. in the Brexit elections and America in Trump’s saga.

Trump and Khan are prime examples of politicians who have used propaganda to promote their populist agendas in their respective countries. They have also employed fake news, which is deliberately misleading or false, to influence the population’s perception of events.

Trump and Khan are prime examples of politicians who have used propaganda to promote their populist agendas in their respective countries. Both politicians have relied heavily on social media to spread their message, using Twitter and Facebook to communicate directly with their followers. However, they have also employed fake news, which is deliberately misleading or false, to influence the population’s perception of events. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is another prominent example of a populist leader who has utilised fake news and propaganda to advance his political agenda. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have relied on social media platforms to spread their messages and sway public opinion. They have been accused of spreading false and misleading information, particularly during the 2019 Indian general election. Modi’s campaign was heavily based on nationalistic and Hindu supremacist rhetoric, targeting religious minorities and other marginalized groups. His use of fake news and propaganda has led to the demonization of specific communities and the promotion of a divisive and polarising political atmosphere in India, demonstrating the harmful effects of populist politics and the need to counter fake news propaganda in the political sphere.

In Pakistan, Khan and his supporters have been spreading fake news about their political opponents with such intensity and organised propaganda that it often appears true. For instance, after Khan was democratically ousted in a no-confidence motion in April 2022, he incredulously used the “Amreeki Saazish” (American conspiracy) phenomenon to accuse the opposition of being an imported government. Through the tremendous propaganda of declaring the government as imported from America, Khan has recently convinced members of the U.S. Congress through his lobbying firms to issue condemnation statements against the same government on human rights violations. He also accused his opponents of corruption and other wrongdoing without evidence supporting their claims. His propaganda and the deep state elements have even influenced the courts to change the discourse of a fair trial phenomenon to their political opponents like Nawaz Sharif to be disqualified on a bizarre Aqama logic. Khan also used slogans like “Naya Pakistan” (New Pakistan), “Riyasat-e-Medina”, and “Tabdeeli” (Change) to appeal to the masses and undoubtedly succeeded as his opponents have to-date failed to apprehend his lies or infamous U-Turn statements.

Similarly, Trump and his supporters spread fake news in the United States, such as the “birther” conspiracy theory, which claimed President Obama was not born in the United States. Their style of politics takes us back to history when Hitler used the same strategies to intimidate his opponents. Can there be any comparison?

Comparing these tactics to those used by Hitler is not a new idea. Instead, Hitler’s Populism can be argued as an inspiration to the present-time populist leaders adopting his propaganda tactics. Hitler wrote extensively about the power of propaganda and how it could be used to manipulate the masses in his book “Mein Kampf.” Likewise, totalitarian regimes widely studied and imitated his propaganda techniques throughout the 20th century. A totalitarian regime is a government characterized by a single ruling party or individual’s absolute control of its citizens and institutions. In’ The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt, a prominent political theorist, argues that such regimes are characterized by their ‘mobilization of the masses’ and establishing a ‘totalitarian society’ typically sealed off from the outside world.” The totalitarian state uses various methods to control its population, including propaganda, censorship, and surveillance, and seeks to eliminate any potential sources of opposition or dissent. This extreme form of authoritarianism has been seen in various historical contexts, including Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Stalinist Russia under Joseph Stalin. However, Hitler’s approach to propaganda was scientifically designed to manipulate the German population into accepting his fascist ideology and aggressive foreign policy like Modi, Trump, and Khan.

Hitler’s approach to propaganda was scientifically designed to manipulate the German population into accepting his fascist ideology and aggressive foreign policy like Modi, Trump, and Khan.

Hitler used techniques like mass rallies and public speeches to appeal to his audience’s emotions rather than their reason, and his use of simple, catchy slogans, such as “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer,” was designed to create a sense of unity and to make his message more memorable. However, he also used propaganda to demonize his opponents and create a sense of threat and danger, leading to a monopoly on information and silencing dissenting voices. The rise of populist leaders like Modi, Trump, and Khan, who employ similar tactics, poses a significant threat to democracy. As responsible journalists, we must be vigilant and recognize the dangers of propaganda and fake news. It is crucial to question the messages we receive from politicians and the media and to seek out diverse perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of events. We must develop critical thinking skills and be media literate to combat the dangers of propaganda and fake news. We must question the sources of information and be willing to fact-check the news we consume, which is not impossible, yet very difficult to work. Being journalists and social media celebrities, we must also hold ourselves, politicians, and the media accountable for their statements and demand government transparency and accountability.

We must develop critical thinking skills and be media literate to combat the dangers of propaganda and fake news. We must question the sources of information and be willing to fact-check the news we consume.

In conclusion, the dangers of fake news, Populism, and propaganda politics cannot be overstated, as they can have far-reaching consequences on societies and democracies. The example of Hitler’s Nazi regime shows how propaganda can manipulate the masses and lead to totalitarianism. Today, populist leaders like Trump, Modi, and Imran Khan continue to employ similar tactics to promote their agendas, leading to the erosion of trust in democratic institutions and the polarisation of societies. In today’s world, where information is at our fingertips, we must be vigilant about the news and information we consume. Unfortunately, fake news and propaganda have become pervasive, leading to the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of public opinion. As a Pakistani journalist in the U.K., who has seen the dangers of propaganda and Populism firsthand, I believe that media literacy and critical thinking skills are essential to combat these challenges. As citizens, we are all responsible for spreading awareness and not getting trapped in the web of fake news propaganda. Therefore, we need to cross-check the content we consume and develop a discerning eye for what is true and what is not. That can be achieved through investing in media education and creating awareness programs that teach people how to identify fake news and propaganda.

Today, populist leaders like Trump, Modi, and Imran Khan continue to employ similar tactics to promote their agendas, leading to the erosion of trust in democratic institutions and the polarisation of societies.

In addition, governments must ensure that the media operates freely and independently, with transparent regulations that protect the public interest. That will ensure that everyone can access global news and information without being manipulated by the bombardment of fake news algorithms. By empowering citizens, especially women, with knowledge and information, we can build a more resilient and informed society better equipped to resist the dangers of fake news, Populism, and propaganda politics. The rise of populist leaders and fake news propaganda threatens democracy, leading to a monopoly on information and silencing dissenting voices. By developing critical thinking skills and becoming media literate, we can combat the dangers of propaganda and fake news and work towards a more transparent and accountable society. Let us learn from history and reject the divisive tactics of populist leaders who seek to manipulate and control the masses.

Pakistan Zindabad! Together, let us stand against the dangers of fake news and propaganda and work towards a brighter future for our nation.

Socio-Economic View of Globalization

By

Noor ul Saba

-

April 13, 2023

0

Globalization refers to the integration of economies, societies, and cultures across the world. It has been facilitated by advancements in technology, communication, and transportation. From a socio-economic perspective, globalization is viewed as a process that has significant implications for social and economic development worldwide.

The socio-economic view of globalization focuses on the impact of globalization on inequality, social and cultural change, and the environment.

Globalization has led to an increase in inequality within and between countries. While some countries have seen significant economic growth and rising incomes, others have been left behind. This has led to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and has resulted in a widening income gap.

Inequality has also been fueled by the growth of multinational corporations, which have taken advantage of lower labor costs in developing countries to maximize profits. This has led to a decline in manufacturing jobs in developed countries and has left many workers without stable employment. Additionally, multinational corporations have been criticized for exploiting natural resources, polluting the environment, and engaging in unethical business practices.

Social and cultural change is another important aspect of globalization from a socio-economic perspective. The increase in international travel, trade, and communication has led to the emergence of a more interconnected and cosmopolitan global culture. This has resulted in the spread of new ideas, values, and cultural practices. However, it has also led to concerns about the erosion of traditional cultural practices and values. This has been particularly evident in developing countries, where globalization has often led to the loss of cultural heritage and identity. Globalization has also led to environmental challenges such as climate change, deforestation, and pollution.

The increased demand for natural resources and the pressure on the environment has led to the depletion of natural resources and has resulted in a decline in biodiversity. Globalization has also led to increased carbon emissions, which have contributed to climate change.

Despite these challenges, globalization has also created significant opportunities for economic growth and development. The increased interconnectedness of the global economy has made it easier for countries to attract foreign investment, develop new industries, and tap into global markets. This has led to increased economic growth and rising standards of living in many parts of the world.

However, the benefits of globalization have not been evenly distributed, and many communities and countries have been left behind. In particular, developing countries have often struggled to compete in the global marketplace, leading to economic stagnation and poverty. Similarly, many workers in developed countries have seen their jobs and wages undercut by competition from lower-cost countries.

One of the key debates in the socio-economic view of globalization is how to ensure that the benefits of globalization are more evenly distributed. Some advocates of globalization argue that the best way to achieve this is through increased economic liberalization and free trade, which they argue will create more opportunities for economic growth and development. Others argue that more targeted policies, such as investment in education and training or support for small businesses, are needed to help communities and countries that have been left behind.

An important debate in the socio-economic view of globalization is how to balance the benefits of globalization with its social and environmental costs.

While many people support the idea of economic growth and development, they also recognize the need to address issues such as inequality, environmental degradation, and cultural preservation. Finding ways to balance these competing priorities will be a key challenge for policymakers in the coming years.

There are several ways in which policymakers can address the challenges of globalization from a socio-economic perspective. One approach is to promote greater economic diversification and innovation. This can be achieved through investment in research and development, entrepreneurship, and education. These initiatives can help to create new industries and job opportunities, which can support economic growth and reduce inequality.

Another approach is to promote greater social and environmental responsibility among multinational corporations. This can be achieved through regulation, incentives, and partnerships. Governments can impose regulations. Globalization has had both positive and negative impacts on different countries and social groups, from a socioeconomic perspective.

One of the most notable positive impacts of globalization is the increased economic growth and development in many countries. Globalization has facilitated the expansion of international trade and investment, which has led to increased job opportunities, improved productivity, and increased access to goods and services for many people. This has been particularly evident in emerging economies such as China and India, which have experienced rapid economic growth and development in recent years.

However, globalization has also had negative impacts on certain social groups, particularly those in developed countries who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and competition from lower-wage countries.

Globalization has contributed to income inequality within and between countries, as some people and nations have benefited more than others from the global economy.

The impact of globalization on labor markets has been one of the most significant and controversial issues. Globalization has led to increased competition in labor markets, which has resulted in downward pressure on wages and increased job insecurity. Many jobs have been outsourced to lower-wage countries, which has led to job losses in developed countries, particularly in the manufacturing sector. This has contributed to the decline of certain industries in developed countries and has created a sense of economic insecurity and social instability for some workers.

On the other hand, outsourcing has also had positive impacts on both developed and developing countries. For developed countries, outsourcing has allowed companies to lower their production costs and remain competitive in the global marketplace. For developing countries, outsourcing has provided new job opportunities and has helped to fuel economic growth.

Globalization has also led to the emergence of global supply chains, which have transformed the way goods and services are produced and distributed around the world. Global supply chains have created new opportunities for businesses to expand their markets and access new sources of labor and materials. However, they have also created new risks and challenges, particularly in the areas of labor standards and environmental regulations.

The fragmentation of production across different countries and regions has made it more difficult to enforce labor and environmental standards and has created new opportunities for exploitation and abuse.

A case study that illustrates the socio-economic impacts of globalization is the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs from developed countries to lower-wage countries. For example, in the United States, many manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to countries such as China, where labor costs are much lower. This has led to job losses in the US, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and has contributed to the decline of certain industries in the country. However, outsourcing has also had positive impacts on both the US and China. For the US, outsourcing has allowed companies to lower their production costs and remain competitive in the global marketplace. For China, outsourcing has provided new job opportunities and has helped to fuel the country’s economic growth. The case study of outsourcing illustrates the complex and multifaceted nature of globalization from a socio-economic perspective. While globalization has brought about many positive changes, it has also had negative impacts on certain social groups and has contributed to economic inequality both within and between countries.

Globalization has brought about many positive changes, such as increased economic growth and development, and improved access to goods and services for many people around the world. However, it has also had negative impacts on certain social groups, particularly those in developed countries who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and competition from lower-wage countries. To fully realize the benefits of globalization and address its negative impacts, it is important to promote policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization are shared more fairly and that protect workers and the environment.

Assessing AUKUS: Impacts on Asian and Global Security in Relation to China and Russia

By

Muhammad Wali Jan

-

April 13, 2023

0

In December 2021, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia announced a defensive nuclear agreement called AUKUS. Recently, they shared a joint plan to create a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. This initiative is intended to counteract China’s increasing dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. The question that arises is whether the Aukus agreement increases the risk of a nuclear war between China, the United States, and their respective allies.

The agreement, which is called Aukus, involves the United States providing at least three nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. Additionally, the allies will collaborate to establish a new fleet equipped with advanced technologies.

The United States has taken steps to strengthen its alliances with NATO countries in Europe, as well as Japan and South Korea. In the Indo-Pacific region, the US has bolstered the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Alliance, which includes Australia, India, and Japan. The Aukus Nuclear Alliance, which involves the US, Australia, and the United Kingdom, has also been established. These actions have made Beijing and Moscow uneasy, which warn that such moves could trigger a new cold war involving all parties. According to a report by the Chinese state broadcaster, CCTV, citing a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, assuring that: “China and Russia need to take more joint measures to protect our security and interests more effectively, and that there is no formal alliance between the two countries.” However, Chinese President “Xi Jinping” confirmed to his Russian counterpart, Putin, that “this relationship goes beyond even the alliance between the two parties”. Accordingly, the Chinese and Russian presidents began to form an “independent financial infrastructure”, to reduce their heavy dependence on Western banks and their exposure to punitive measures from the West. Through their proposal to hold a possible tripartite summit with India, it began with the visit of Russian President “Putin” to the capital, New Delhi, and his meeting with Indian Prime Minister “Narendra Modi”, and then the two parties’ agreement for India to obtain the S-500 missile system. All of these Russian and Chinese moves are to obstruct US influence in response to its existing alliances against them.

China has criticized the extensive collaborative effort, cautioning that the Aukus nuclear defense agreement involving the United States, Australia, and Britain is “a wrong path and a threat to regional and international security.” China’s UN delegation has also alleged that the Western allies, with the US at the helm, have impeded attempts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The creation of multiple nuclear security and defense alliances, including the Aukus agreement aimed at enhancing NATO’s infrastructure in Asia, will likely result in a long-term conflict, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s caution against nuclear proliferation in relation to the US, Australia, and Britain’s nuclear-powered submarine program.

The Aukus nuclear agreement poses a significant threat to China as it marks the first instance of full coordination between the American, British, and Australian fleets in the Indo-Pacific region.

This slogan of preserving freedom of navigation across the Atlantic and Indian Oceans is viewed by China as a direct challenge to its regional influence and a danger to regional security. The Aukus agreement also includes plans for the US and the UK to establish a base with a limited number of nuclear submarines in Western Australia in 2027, with Canberra set to purchase three American Virginia-class submarines and potentially two more from Washington. This development further heightens China’s anger and fear, as it is seen as a direct threat to its safety and security and is expected to result in long-standing confrontations between China and the Aukus signatories.

China has warned that the Aukus agreement could trigger an arms race in the region and set back efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. China is also wary of the growing proximity between Taiwan and the US, given America’s longstanding military support for Taiwan against China. Chinese President Xi Jinping has accused the US of spearheading Western efforts to contain and encircle China. In response, the US has pointed to China’s threats to invade democratic Taiwan, which has raised concerns among several Asia-Pacific countries. The US has emphasized the need to protect the region surrounding China, given the nuclear threat posed by North Korea to its Japanese and South Korean neighbors and the overall security of the region. The Aukus defense nuclear agreement represents a significant development for Australia’s military capabilities and marks a major leap for the country. As a close ally of the US, Australia is the second country, after the UK, to acquire Washington’s nuclear technology. The new submarines are faster and have greater operational capabilities than Australia’s current fleet of diesel-powered submarines, enabling the country to launch long-range strikes against its enemies for the first time. As part of the Aukus agreement, Australian Navy personnel will be sent to American and British submarine bases to receive training on how to operate the new nuclear submarines. This move marks a significant step forward in the tripartite partnership between the US, UK, and Australia, signed in 2021.

However US President “Joe Biden” has denied the accusations made by China and others, stating that the Aukus agreement is intended to promote peace and stability in the region from the American perspective. He also clarified that the nuclear-powered submarines under the agreement are not equipped with nuclear weapons. During a meeting with the UK and Australian ministers, Rishi Sunak and Anthony Albanese, in San Diego, California, Biden emphasized that the agreement would not compromise Australia’s commitment to being a nuclear-weapon-free country.

The last Aukus (Nuclear defense agreement) has raised concerns among analysts and policymakers regarding the potential consequences for China and Russia. Some argue that the United States’ actions could lead to a global military and nuclear conflict between the United States, China, and Russia. The US has been accused of reckless behavior in the foreign arena, creating alliances directed against these two countries, such as the Aukus agreement and the Quadruple Alliance with Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia. The implications of these alliances and their potential impact on global security remain a subject of debate and concern.

Cyber threats to Nuclear Command, Control and Communications (NC-3)

By

Syed Saif Ul Haq

-

April 13, 2023

1

Nuclear Command, Control and Communication systems (NC3) is a complex and integrated system to establish an effective chain of command connecting the higher tiers of civilian leadership to the combat commanders for the effective employment and deployment of nuclear weapons in the evolving contingencies. The corresponding elements include warning satellites and radars, communication satellites, aircraft and ground stations, fixed and mobile command posts, and control centers for nuclear systems.

Nuclear command, control, and communication structures have remained a subset of doctrinal thinking and following strategies, as reflected by state practices.

According to the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the “NC3 system performs five crucial functions: detection, warning, and attack characterization; adaptive nuclear planning; decision making conferencing; receiving Presidential orders; and enabling the management and direction of forces”. As indicated by the US state practice, NC3 comprises of two layers: a thick one dealing with crisis architecture and a thin one establishing an enduring and survivable communication link between various stakeholders.

With the evolving nuclear doctrines and modernization of various delivery vehicles; NC3 systems are digitized to ensure speedy and effective decision-making at the expense of making them vulnerable to a plethora of cyber threats. The fears of cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure including NC3 systems were highlighted in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) formulated by the Trump administration. The rationale behind the cyber-attacks on these systems is to achieve strategic advantage through non-kinetic and non-nuclear means. Due to its less escalatory nature and lack of attribution, the employment of cyber weapons against NC3 is a plausible option. The United States has not only developed offensive cyber capabilities but manifested its prowess on Iranian nuclear facilities: the use of Stuxnet malware. US Cyber Command has a strategy of forward defense to kill cyber threats at the place of the origin.

As NC3 systems operate in a networked space with many digital components, planting any malware through any of the means will surely undermine its efficacy.

Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), Early Warning satellites (EWS), detect incoming ballistic missiles at their launch. Sensors detect the infrared wavelengths emanating from the flames and then send the signal to the onboard computer. The malware injected into the onboard computer could affect the functioning of sensors and halt the processing of the computer itself. For instance, malware: a code, alters the sensitivity of Infrared sensors, and the very possibility of detecting a ballistic missile at launch diminishes. In another contingency, the signal feed by the Sensor into the onboard computer is numerically altered during the processing phase, thus failing to generate a warning. In either of the scenarios discussed above, the attacking state will wipe out the nuclear capabilities of the adversary while launching first.

Building on the apprehensions discussed above, let’s take a look at the space-based nuclear explosion sensors fielded by great powers and their cyber vulnerabilities. These sensors are hosted on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and various government-owned satellites. Recently deployed payloads include Global Burst Detector (GBD) and a Space and Atmospheric Burst Reporting System (SABRS). Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US test the latest Sensors in lieu of improving their detection capabilities. Any cyber-attack on a GPS system that has no backup could lead to disastrous consequences for nuclear decision-making. Unintended ramifications may include losing vital spatial information about your various nuclear installations and rendering your weather radars of no use. Above-said will surely be a nightmare for the operational planners. Furthermore, any tempering with the sensor’s hardware and software in its manufacturing and testing phase at any laboratory will definitely impact its detection capabilities.

Curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons remains the topmost agenda of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Limiting the testing of nuclear explosive devices is the lynchpin of this regime as reflected in various international documents including Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If states are struggling to detect nuclear explosions, the future of this regime stays in the dark.

Milstar (Military Strategic and Tactical Relay satellites) is a group of satellites being stationed in the geosynchronous orbit for establishing effective communication links between various tactical and strategic commands of the US Army. This system has three components: space (the satellites), terminal (the users), and mission control. This system appears to be very sophisticated, secure, and jam-resistant as compared to ground relays, although hackers often come up with zero-day vulnerabilities pertaining to hardware, and software, thus risk assessment must be carried out at frequent intervals.

Ground systems have remained an integral part of the space-based satellites deployed either as an early warning system or a communication channel. Although ground systems have not been given due salience in the context of cyber threats. A ground system comprises a network of computers, antennas, and functions controlling the satellites being put into orbit. Ground systems are of critical importance as the translation and transfer of the data take place here. Earth terminals and user receivers translate the satellite signal into usable data. Such systems are the juncture at which space and cyber technologies are mated together. Ground stations create an interface between the satellites and various classified and unclassified military networks. Open telecommunication protocols are used at this stage to speak the satellite’s unclassified language for the uplinks and downlinks of the data. Furthermore, Navigation systems that create meaningful data from dispersed spatial information rely on cyber technologies. For a commander at the tactical level, accurate and timely spatial data and survivable communication channels are the keys to success.

Cyber threats to the ground systems may include cyber espionage, cyber exploitation, and access operations. NASA networks faced 12 cyber espionage attacks from 1997-2013. Furthermore, US DOD, NASA, and research institutes faced a massive infiltration campaign from Chinese sources from 2003-2006.

Cyber exploitation is aimed at gaining access to a computer network, especially positioning to acquire and alter the information or may disrupt the proceedings. Phishing attacks are the most common cyber-attacks for maintaining access and exploitation in networked spaces.

As per US DOD cyber security evaluation teams, web exploitation is another source of cyber intrusions.

Across the globe, the rise of non-state actors and the employment of asymmetric warfare have rung alarm bells for nuclear security practitioners. Non-state actors and proscribed outfits tend to rely on informal kinetic and non-kinetic means to disrupt and acquire nuclear technologies. In a bid to acquire such technologies, proscribed outfits use unsophisticated techniques to launch cyber-attacks, undermining the security parameters of the nuclear facilities. Once security parameters are neutralized, kinetic actions take place. Accounting for the circumstances discussed above, there exists a high probability of unauthorized nuclear use.

Building cyber resilience of the inter-networked spaces in the NC3 systems is the only way out. States must focus on software and network security, maintaining the integrity of the data, and defining access controls. Awareness campaigns surely help organizations to develop a common theoretical framework to define the critical infrastructure and corresponding security measures. In the case of dual usage of NC3, states must share the relevant information and develop a mutual understanding of such systems.

Emerging technologies like quantum computing pose grave threats to Nuclear Command, Control, and Communication, thus robust security measures should be installed to mitigate the threats.

The Future of Neo-Nationalism

By

Ayesha Zafar

-

April 12, 2023

0

Neo-nationalism refers to a political ideology that emphasizes the importance of a strong and homogeneous nation-state, often with an emphasis on cultural or ethnic identity. It is a modern iteration of traditional nationalism that has evolved in response to contemporary social, economic, and political trends. Neo-nationalism has seemingly produced abundant anxieties in contemporary trends and will likely do so in the emerging world.

Democratic Backsliding

Democratic backsliding, an already existing phenomenon of democracy’s plummet, is projected to be accelerating with the further rise of Neo Nationalism across the globe.

Democracies have recently begun to fray because of the activities of democratically elected far-right leaders who utilize dissatisfaction with the functioning of democratic institutions to demolish customary restrictions on their authority. Since the Cold War’s conclusion, this has been the most common type of backsliding, with democratically elected governments being responsible for slightly more than half of all incidents. Post-Cold War period, four out of every five democratic breakdowns have been launched from within nations with at least $1,000 in per capita GDP. Nearly two-thirds of these were brought about by populist politicians. Since the 2010s, the globe has become more authoritarian, with one-quarter of the world’s population living under democratically regressive hybrid regimes by the 2020s. Over the previous decade, there has been a dramatic decrease in the total number of democracies, as well as a fall in the strength and eminence of those that have survived. In highly defective countries as shown in the map below, public officials, often with great popular backing, are vigorously aligning themselves against existing democratic institutions and procedures that they see as inept, corrupted, or unproductive. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt write in their book How Democracies Die, “Democracy no longer ends with a bang—in a revolution or military coup—but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions, such as the judiciary and the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms”.

Neo Nationalism and Technology

According to a famous historian, Yuval Noah Harari, we are entering a world where there are three consequential emerging concerns: ecological deterioration, nuclear proliferation, and the development of information technology. The pace at which technology is developing is alarming for mankind. Emerging technologies are in the constant service of neo-nationalist leaders. In Russia, China, and many illiberal democracies, modern technologies provide avenues for tracking and punishing dissent, disseminating propaganda and disinformation, and deliberate measures to undermine established democracies—what is known as sharp power.

Surveillance

The most detrimental result of technology penetrating into the political assemblies of Neo Nationalist states, movements, and leaders is Surveillance.

Despite its efforts to create a cult of the reverse, Xi’s China has advanced both strategically and technologically. The state has forced firewalls controlling admittance to sites and severe guidelines on what can be talked about. The 1989 occasions in Tiananmen Square are forbidden to the web and conversation in China. So is the mass imprisonment of ethnic Muslim Uighurs, again part of a nationalist push for conformity.

Such repression is obvious, but other tactics are more nuanced and innovative. Beijing has created a Social Credit System that uses data sources such as artificial intelligence, IoT, and facial recognition technology to assign a score (Social Credit) to each person based on their social and political conformist conduct, with the prospect of fines and even jail time for those who deviate. In this way, Xi keeps a close eye on its residents’ personal life and controls their social conduct, invading their privacy and independence. In Moscow, Putin is also exploring and experimenting with this.

Integrating emerging and more traditional means of monitoring, such as encouraging individuals to report on one other’s widely defined subversive activities, might result in imprisonment or loss of employment. It’s not so much the proportion of academics, civil rights attorneys, and other pro-democracy activists imprisoned as it is the message it conveys to instill fear and foster political adherence in China, progressively in Hong Kong, or abroad. Self-censorship is one goal. And it works, especially when practiced over time.

For the sake of order in society, nationalist leaders are using social media platforms and AI technologies to keep a closer eye on the activities of political opponents and dissidents. China with its Social Credit System, monitoring police stations around the world (100 have been reported), and India with its digital authoritarianism which forced Twitter to give Modi access to observe and control the activities of anti-government entities are some real-time applications of technological surveillance by neo-nationalist leaders.

Internet Containment: A Manifestation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Neo nationalism appears to be an ideology antithesis to globalization but in essence, this very concept has benefitted most from the globalized world.

We live in a post-truth world, where concepts which appeal to our emotions and beliefs are more influential in shaping our collective opinion than objective truths and logical positivism. Nativist populist leaders are able to spread conspiracy theories, misinformation, and propaganda via the burgeoning role of technology in our society much further than ever before. Not only this, we are entering into a world of Artificial intelligence, Big Data, and the Internet of Things (IoT): communication technologies that are used viciously to shape public opinions. With the use of Artificial intelligence, populist leaders can shape our opinion by controlling the algorithms of our social media which not only influence what product to choose, and which dress to buy but also whom to vote for. This watershed moment in the role of technology in the assistance of neo-nationalist leaders was unleashed first in 2018 when Donald Trump used Facebook algorithms to influence people to vote for him which proved successful.

Likewise, compatriots Putin and Xi, with the use of Information technology, are ever stronger as they are rapidly and effectively feeding propaganda and misinformation to their domestic audience while keeping them detached from the global web which they call ‘Cyber Sovereignty.’ Accordingly, the same trajectory of controlling the internet landscape and molding public opinion by populist leaders with their neo-nationalist statures can be seen unambiguously all over the world. This consolidating process of narrative attacks, information containment, misinformation, and strongly controlled opinion are manifestations of Plato’s cave of darkness taking us back to pre-modern times; the world is getting more and more vulnerable not at the hands of theologists but technology occupied Neo Nationalist Leaders.

Neo Nationalism and the Emerging world order

Neo-nationalism is greatly defining our times. Populists, neo-nationalists, and right-wing extremists are attracting and extracting attention. With this burgeoning inclination towards neo-nationalism, the world is entering a multipolar world.

The future appears gloomy with the penetration of neo-nationalism, as it will likely increase polarization in the world system, political and economic bloc formation, cultural xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and a deeper divide of ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ in the international system.

The blocs are steadily unleashing, the balance of power is shifting towards far-right and neo-nationalists, liberalism with its tenets of globalization and democracy is withering, and the concept of centralization of power is resurrecting under the influence of XI and Putin’s globally assertive statures, and consequentially are the major driving factors of the projected multipolar world.

CONCLUSION

Neo-nationalism is seeping into the international order world, weakening the liberal norms and assemblies patronized by Russia and China. It is the cyclical history of world politics that we keep going back to the same point, which manifests that today, in post-modern times, the role of cultural essentialism and religion is resurrecting again, similar to pre-modern times. In order to contain the menaces of Neo Nationalism and its spreading phenomena, it is imperative to bring structural reforms to consolidate democracy within, strengthen the democratic institutions, and shape the political cultures in a way that can extract maximum benefits from the contemporary neoliberal of the world.

The Nuclear Industrial Complex at Work

By

Ambreen Liaquat

-

April 12, 2023

0

Introduction

The nuclear industrial complex, a term first coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, encompasses the intricate relationship between the military, industrial, and political sectors that promote and maintain nuclear weapon production and technology. This article explores how the strategization of nuclear weapons and technology and the political economy justify each other for the benefit of the nuclear industrial complex, drawing on the insights and works of prominent Western authors and scholars. The development and strategization of nuclear weapons have been central to the security policies of major powers since the dawn of the nuclear age. Key concepts and theories, such as deterrence, mutually assured destruction (MAD), and strategic stability, have emerged to rationalize the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons. Renowned scholars, such as Thomas Schelling (1960) in his work “The Strategy of Conflict” and Herman Kahn (1960) in “On Thermonuclear War,” have provided influential analyses of the strategic implications of nuclear weapons. The continuous development and modernization of nuclear arsenals, along with missile defense systems and delivery platforms, have further solidified the strategic importance of nuclear weapons. As Lawrence Freedman (2003) argues in “The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy,” these advancements have contributed to the growth and persistence of the nuclear industrial complex.

The Political Economy of the Nuclear Industrial Complex

The political economy plays a crucial role in justifying and sustaining the nuclear industrial complex.

The nuclear weapons industry generates significant economic benefits, such as job creation, technological innovation, and the stimulation of economic growth in regions with a heavy presence of nuclear infrastructure.

Andrew Cockburn (1983) illustrates this in “The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine,” where he highlights the economic and political motivations that drive the nuclear industrial complex in the United States and the Soviet Union. He sheds light on the intricate web of relationships that constitute the nuclear industrial complex. He has explained how the development and production of nuclear weapons and related technologies generate a significant number of jobs, ranging from scientists and administrative staff. These jobs not only contribute to the overall economy but also help maintain political support for nuclear programs in regions where the nuclear industry is a major employer. The nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union led to groundbreaking innovations in various fields, including material sciences, computer technology, and aerospace engineering. These technological advancements had spillover effects, driving economic growth in sectors beyond the military-industrial complex. The nuclear arms race required a massive expansion of industrial capacity to produce the necessary components and materials for nuclear weapons and delivery systems. This industrial expansion stimulated economic growth and created opportunities for businesses and contractors involved in the production process.

Cockburn also delves into the political motivations behind the nuclear industrial complex, such as the concept of military superiority. Both the United States and the Soviet Union viewed the possession and development of nuclear weapons as crucial to maintaining military superiority and deterrence during the Cold War. This competition for strategic dominance created a political impetus to invest heavily in the nuclear industrial complex. The perception of nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of national security drove policymakers in both countries to prioritize the development and modernization of their nuclear arsenals. This emphasis on nuclear weapons as a security measure further entrenched the nuclear industrial complex within the political landscape.

As the nuclear industrial complex grew, so too did the bureaucratic interests tied to it. Military officials, scientists, and industrialists who benefited from the complex sought to protect and expand their budgets and influence, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of political support for nuclear weapons development. The possession of nuclear weapons conferred significant political leverage on the global stage. Both the United States and the Soviet Union used their nuclear arsenals to influence international negotiations and project power, further incentivizing investment in the nuclear industrial complex.

In “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” Richard Rhodes (1986) discusses how the lobbying efforts of influential scientists, policymakers, and industrialists contributed to the development of the nuclear arms race. Rhodes highlights the interplay between the political economy and the nuclear arms race by implying that the Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of the first atomic bombs, was not only a scientific endeavor but also an economic one. As prominent scientists like Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer lobbied for the development of the atomic bomb, they were motivated not just by the potential strategic advantages but also by the desire to secure funding for scientific research, which had substantial economic implications.

Industrialists and military contractors, who recognized the economic opportunities presented by nuclear weapons development, became key players in the political economy of the nuclear arms race.

Companies such as DuPont and General Electric secured lucrative contracts related to the Manhattan Project, which created jobs, stimulated economic growth, and further entrenched the nuclear industrial complex in the political landscape. Policymakers, influenced by the lobbying efforts of both scientists and industrialists, saw the development and expansion of nuclear arsenals as essential to national security and economic prosperity.

Possessing nuclear weapons has become a symbol of national prestige and a means to project power on the global stage. In “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz (1995) debate the reasons behind nuclear proliferation, with both authors acknowledging the role of prestige and power projection in driving nuclear weapon development. This focus on prestige and power projection has significant implications for the political economy of nuclear proliferation. The acquisition of nuclear weapons is often seen as a symbol of national prestige and a means of asserting influence on the global stage. Countries that develop nuclear capabilities are typically perceived as being more powerful and influential in international politics. This perception of prestige and power projection can create incentives for countries to invest in the development of nuclear weapons, even at significant economic and political costs.

The sheer size and complexity of the nuclear industrial complex create a bureaucratic momentum that resists change and perpetuates the status quo.

In “Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race,” Richard Rhodes (2007) examines how bureaucratic inertia and vested interests contribute to the persistence of the nuclear arms race, despite efforts to promote disarmament. Bureaucratic inertia refers to the resistance within large organizations, such as government agencies and military institutions, to change their established policies and practices. This resistance can result from a variety of factors, such as the desire to maintain the status quo, protect budgets and resources, or preserve established power structures. Vested interests, on the other hand, are the financial or political stakes that various actors have in maintaining the nuclear arms race. These actors can include military contractors, scientists, politicians, and even local communities that benefit economically from the presence of nuclear facilities. The political economy of nuclear weapons development is closely tied to the nuclear-industrial complex, which encompasses the network of government agencies, military institutions, and private contractors involved in nuclear weapons production and modernization. Bureaucratic inertia and vested interests can contribute to the perpetuation of this complex, as actors within the system seek to protect their interests and maintain their influence.

The Mutual Justification of Nuclear Strategization and Political Economy

The strategization of nuclear weapons and the political economy are intricately intertwined, each justifying the other for the benefit of the nuclear industrial complex. The strategic importance of nuclear weapons serves to legitimize the investments and policies that sustain the complex, while the economic and political interests that drive the complex ensure the continued development and modernization of nuclear arsenals. This mutual justification has significant implications for arms control and disarmament efforts. As noted by Joseph Cirincione (2007) in “Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons,” the symbiotic relationship between nuclear strategization and the political economy presents a formidable challenge to those advocating for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

The political economy of nuclear weapons development often results in competing priorities between disarmament efforts and the perceived need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent or a means of power projection.

This competition can make it difficult for disarmament advocates to gain traction in policy debates and achieve meaningful progress toward their goals.

Implications and Future Prospects

The vested interests of the nuclear industrial complex create a powerful resistance to arms control initiatives and disarmament efforts. This resistance is evident in the opposition to arms control treaties, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The symbiotic relationship between nuclear strategization and the political economy fuels a continuous arms race, as nations invest in the modernization of their nuclear arsenals to maintain strategic parity or superiority.

The strategic and political-economic benefits associated with nuclear weapons can encourage nuclear proliferation, as non-nuclear states seek to acquire nuclear capabilities to enhance their national prestige, security, and bargaining power.

The ongoing development and modernization of nuclear arsenals, driven by the mutual justification of strategization and political economy, can undermine global security by increasing the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, as well as the potential for miscommunication and miscalculation during crises.

Addressing the Mutual Justification in the Nuclear Industrial Complex

To break the cycle of mutual justification between nuclear strategization and the political economy within the nuclear industrial complex, the following measures should be considered:

Promote and support comprehensive arms control and disarmament initiatives that address the security concerns of all parties involved and include verification and enforcement mechanisms to build trust and confidence.
Encourage and facilitate the diversification of economies heavily dependent on the nuclear industrial complex, as well as the conversion of nuclear facilities and industries to civilian purposes. Advocate for changes in security doctrines and policies that reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons and emphasize conventional and non-military means of conflict resolution and deterrence.
Strengthening nonproliferation norms: Work towards strengthening nonproliferation norms and institutions, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Conclusion

The mutual justification of nuclear strategization and the political economy within the nuclear industrial complex has sustained the development, modernization, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, presenting significant challenges to global security and disarmament efforts. By addressing this symbiotic relationship through comprehensive arms control initiatives, economic diversification, and changes in security policies, it is possible to break the cycle and pave the way for a more secure and nuclear weapons-free world.

The Need for a New Narrative: Reimagining the Future of Pakistan-US Relations

By

Dr. Attiq Ur Rehman

-

April 11, 2023

0

The recent wave of anti-Americanism in Pakistan has once again validated the presence of US-centric public antipathy in Pakistani society and its unprecedented growth across the country. It has augmented the existing anti-American sentiments in public and damaged the societal collaboration in Pakistan-US relations. The decline of local government in the domestic politics of Pakistan and the rise of public opposition to American broader role in the world generally, and Pakistan specifically are two different variables that have developed an exceptional connection in Pakistan last year.

In April 2022, a change in Pakistani domestic politics hampered public sentiments across the country and caused a widespread wave of anti-American feelings in Pakistan.

It is pertinent to mention here that the fall of local government was mainly due to the overwhelming nature of the economic crisis in the country, which could not be treated separately from the international rise of severe economic conditions worldwide after the global health crisis. In the post-corona world, several countries from different regions have started witnessing severe economic conditions, and Pakistan is not an exception. The multiplying tendencies of economic difficulties in Pakistani society caused a change of government which later led local people to deepen their anti-American thoughts by raising various hatred slogans and negative public opinions about the US. Due to the change in the domestic political system, the increasing societal acceptance of the newly emerging wave of anti-Americanism in Pakistan has developed a countrywide anti-American narrative in Pakistan. The advancement of this narrative in society is mainly due to certain estranged historical developments in Pak-US relations.

The recent prevalence of strong-standing anti-American feelings in Pakistan can be traced back to the post-9/11 environment in which Washington’s pressures of war against terrorism on Pakistan and American decision for declaring India as a close strategic partnership left worse impacts on Pakistan and created widespread social and political anti-American sentiments in the society. The unavoidable pressures of the war on terror critically examined the ideological foundations of Pakistani society and internationally caused an anti-Pakistani or anti-Islamic narrative. These critical developments further generated an international debate about Islamophobia and forced the government of Pakistan to raise its voice against the spread of Islamophobic incidents across the world. Moreover, the Indian-inclined South Asian policy of the US has raised further apprehensions in Pakistani society on the US role in India-Pakistan relations. Thus, the combination of American economic and strategic support to New Delhi leaves worse impacts on Pakistani society which have been formally conveyed to American state officials many times by Pakistani state authorities.

The American support to India in the regional security affairs of nuclearized subcontinent and New Delhi’s offensive standing on the Kashmir issue is the additional factor enhancing the multifaceted patterns of anti-American sentiments in Pakistan.

The independent surveys of various research organizations have verified the multileveled developments in the public antipathy in Pakistani society towards US policies. These research surveys have confirmed the unprecedented growth of hatred sentiments in Pakistani people against the American Indian-inclined South Asian policy. Apart from these research surveys, it is evident from the troubled history of Pak-US relations that the phenomenon of anti-Americanism has a significant impact on the Islamabad-Washington bilateral cooperative interaction. The deep-rooted phenomenon of anti-American in Pakistani society has gained momentous public recognition and has become a political tool for the country’s leading political parties. The political parties are less reluctant to use anti-American slogans to cultivate widespread public support for their standings in local politics without estimating its degrading impacts on the existing framework of cooperative bilateralism between Pakistan and the United States. This alarming scenario poses serious questions to the leading policymaking circles from Islamabad and Washington. The greater responsibility, in this regard, lies on the American authorities due to the ongoing critical patterns of American South Asian policy for Pakistan. It has fractured the social and cultural dimensions of Pakistan-US relations and undermined the scope of peaceful relations between the two nations at the societal level. An analytical survey of the bilateral history of both states reveals that the US state officials always remained active in providing multidimensional humanitarian aid to Pakistan during the hard times, which raised various skeptical positions of Pakistani society on the US supplies of humanitarian assistance. Thus, despite providing massive humanitarian aid in the social sector, the constantly swelling anti-American sentiments in Pakistani society have become an undeniable reality and an irrefutable truth for the US.

Based on the abovementioned scenario, there is no harm in saying that the anti-American sentiments in Pakistani society need the serious attention of the leaders from Islamabad and Washington because the persistently evolving public antipathy towards the US has reached the zenith. The constantly rising anti-American societal trends in Pakistan could be countered through effective public diplomacy in which the US state officials are required to consider the US-centric societal trends of Pakistan seriously.

The combination of cultural and political anti-American feelings in Pakistan can be countered through effective policy responses of the US with a pragmatic approach.

This approach should focus on the points causing diplomatic estrangements between Pakistan and US while calculating society’s reaction to the American-South Asian engagement. In this way, an enhanced understanding of the contributing factors to increasing public opposition and hatred expressions against US policies could be an appropriate way forward.

Guarding Against Hybrid Warfare: Strategies to Ensure State’s National Security

By

Dr.M.Qamar Zaman Baber

-

April 11, 2023

0

‘’Hybrid warfare’’, as it indicates, is an artifact having diversified types of dualistic or additional components. Primarily, it denoted the engagement of asymmetrical powers and non-state players by way of soldierly competence. Subsequently, during the 2006 Lebanon-Israel conflict, which experienced Hezbollah commissioning guerrilla combat sideways with the pioneering practice of technology and propagative information movement, Frank Hoffman devised the expression of ‘hybrid threat’ and ‘hybrid warfare’ to enlighten the solicitation of numerous, varied strategies concurrently in contradiction of an adversary. In the nonexistence of a fixed word, several expressions like ‘hybrid risks’, ‘hybrid hazards’, ‘hybrid enemy’, ‘artificial war’, ‘modern warfare’, ‘divergent war’, ‘grey zone’, and ‘unhampered warfare’ are in practice through armies and university circles in diverse states. Nonetheless, the spell ‘Fifth Generation Warfare’ actuality wholly around ‘data and observation’ by reliance on non-kinetic resources like societal consent manufacturing, misrepresentation, dark web misappropriation, etc. can be arranged in the sustenance of hybrid vendetta however does not make available a substitute term.

Hybrid warfare depends upon aggravating ancient, racial, sacred, cultural, financial, and terrestrial dissimilarities or fault appearances in the public.

Its gears comprise proxy rivalry, info war, false propagation, guerrilla accomplishments, radical and ambassadorial bullying, monetary suffocation, computer-generated disinformation, public consent manufacturing, fabrication, and lawfare, etc. The provoker also deeds to control sway over global players and bodies via ambassadorial energies. Nevertheless, all these are commanded through intelligence apparatus schemes. The committers of hybrid war procedure multi-layered penetration into rival arrangements with the purpose to discourage subvert and fragment the opponent with a fundamental resolve of scheming or manipulating the latter into obedience. The intrusion fashions split and divergence in the inhabitants psychosomatically challenges policymaking competencies and methodically cripples monetary and data set-ups. The consequence of the collective special effects of this type of determination is calamitous for the object realm. Additionally, this type of contention is a skirmish tussled in conversant and unversed arenas, from the computer-generated dominions of the Internet to the brains of the public. It has an irregular modus operandi and numerous elements intermingle at different stages. Criminal maneuvers have the capacity to regulate their plan and put on the elements individually or in diverse arrangements to operate strength according to the injunctions of the location.

Hybrid warfare is not a newfangled notion. Intelligence, false propagation, misinformation, monetary choking, and revolutionary accomplishments have been used in confrontations for a long. Newfangled tools and expertise in the information technology era have, nevertheless, auxiliary a firsthand aspect and prepared it very operative and smart.

The inadmissibly extraordinary cost of workforces, materials,s and funds in contemporary battles has also prepared hybrid warfare as a supplementary striking preference.

Similar to several other countries, Pakistan also has a number of weaknesses: imperative ones being identity skirmish, racial and religious division, imbalanced financial prospects, governmental uncertainty, fragile or incompetent institutes, etc. These have been auxiliary provoked by a pitiable governance system, and failure to instrument law and deliver justice to the distressed. Though adversaries would continually abuse our mistake outlines and weaknesses, it is our obligation to guard our nationwide priorities. Tactlessly, the very bad governance which was accountable to make and instrument impracticable plans to lessen defenselessness has consciously or unconsciously proceeded as a facilitator to broaden the gap. Sequential leaders, regardless of tying together the cracks via dialogues, negotiation, and common interest, have additionally worsened the dissections via thoughtlessness, strictness, and undifferentiating use of power. These types of maneuvers, though momentarily efficacious, triggered continuing dissimilarities.

Frequent disasters have put Pakistan’s territorial integrity, social organization, financial strength, civilization, political solidarity, etc. in jeopardy. It, consequently, suits tremendously central for the regime and all the government institutes to prudently do homework on history and measure recent contests to comprehend the hazard and its consequences for the country. It is advocated that all stakeholders should be carried on the panel to brand procedures and approaches intended to meritoriously react to the all-inclusive gamut of hybrid warfare. Simultaneously, hard work must be finished to cover the mistreatment of these weaknesses by exterior powers and their local adherents. The procedures must also devise to defend our national safety and guarantee state solidity while enduring worldwide reasonable and politically applicable solutions in the surfacing of geopolitical situations.

Extents demanding instantaneous thoughtfulness contain continual growth for a reliable economy, refurbishing the education method, fashioning religious, racial, and inter-lingual accord, an operational lawful and judicial system, readjusting our external strategy to shifting geostrategic veracities, producing responsiveness for headship and commonalities regarding the peril, the operational practice of academia, mass media, social media and think tanks, discovering lawful possibilities and growth of a nationwide narrative.

Since no program can be supportable without civic engagement, the government and all its establishments should exertion to induce strong suit from the inhabitants.

As the antagonist’s actions aggravate and abuse our susceptibilities, there is a necessity to exhibit idealistic headship to resolve the dissimilarities irrespective of complexing them with absolute egotism and scorn. Sorting to procedures that did not harvest anticipated effects in the previous, will only be parallel to emphasizing disaster.

Above all technological advancement assists the transgressors in terms of misinterpretation of facts, for instance, social media promulgates false information without knowing its genuineness. Dark web-like websites brand wireless links among the culprits’ variety the task easier than in the past. Information technology sorts the sabotage activities much more systematized and the arrest of culprits more challenging. There are lots of software applications accessible on them one can interconnect without uncovering his identity. Pakistan as a huge state which has a lot of internet users is more susceptible to subversion.

As a vulnerable state of affairs, authorities must devise a strategy to curb the effects of hybrid warfare. High-tech apparatus must be installed to tackle the data coming from outside.

Increasing political polarization and social media teams of political parties should be hampered to disseminate anti-state tendencies in common people of the country. Above all, an authority must be established to regulate the global data flow. High-tech paraphernalia must be delivered to law enforcement agencies at the district level to investigate, analyze, detect, and arrest the culprits. Hybrid warfare purely is the phenomenon in which a state is collapsed by its own people. Countrywide national awareness campaigns can be accommodating to evade persistent subversive data flow. In conclusion, we should behave like a nation, not an accumulation or gathering of people to avoid a Hybrid threat.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Politics in the Digital Age

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Falling Out From State System?

Martial Law vs Democratic Paradoxes: How Pakistan Differs from South Korea

Between Protests And Uncertainty: Hostel Life Struggles of Gilgit Baltistan Students In Twin Cities

Erosion of Media Freedom Under Taliban Rule

Climate Finance and Global Responsibility

Nuclear Energy: A Path to Energy Security and Climate Resilience

Haqqani Murder: A Web of Accusations among ISKP, Pakistan, and Kandahari Taliban

From Afghanistan to East Asia

A Complex Reality

SOEs Driving China’s Global Renewable Energy Leadership

Crucible of Taxes and Slump of Economy

China’s Path To A Sustainable Future

BRICS And The Quest For Financial Independence

US-China Trade War in New Trump Era

Artificial Intelligence and Russian-Ukraine War

War Profiteering: Indian Missile Shipments to Ukraine

The Populist Trio: Modi, Trump, and Imran Khan Are Using Propaganda and Populism to Divide Societies

Socio-Economic View of Globalization

Assessing AUKUS: Impacts on Asian and Global Security in Relation to China and Russia

Cyber threats to Nuclear Command, Control and Communications (NC-3)

The Future of Neo-Nationalism

The Nuclear Industrial Complex at Work

The Need for a New Narrative: Reimagining the Future of Pakistan-US Relations

Guarding Against Hybrid Warfare: Strategies to Ensure State’s National Security

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.