My Article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 16 Dec 24.
Operation Bashan Arrow, a pivotal Israeli military campaign, commenced in a volatile and fractured Syria on 08 December 2024. Named after the ancient biblical region of Bashan, which included parts of the modern-day Golan Heights, the operation targeted the dismantling of Syrian military capabilities following the fall of the Assad regime. The operation has profound implications for regional stability, geopolitics, and military strategy.
Background and Objectives. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in late 2024 led to a chaotic power vacuum. This collapse came amidst years of internal strife, international intervention, and the rising influence of extremist factions like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). For Israel, the disintegration of the Assad regime posed both risks and opportunities. The risk was the proliferation of advanced weapons to hostile actors, especially Iranian proxies and extremist groups. The opportunity was to secure the strategically vital Golan Heights further and neutralise long-standing threats from the Syrian military. Israel launched Operation Bashan Arrow to prevent advanced weaponry, including missiles and aircraft, from falling into hostile hands, notably Iranian-backed militias or extremist groups. This was critical for securing the Israeli-Syrian border and neutralising threats to Israel’s northern front.
Execution of the Operation. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) deployed an unprecedented 350 aircraft, about half the Israeli Air Force, conducting hundreds of sorties across Syria. It was one of its most comprehensive air campaigns in history. Key targets included military bases, air defence systems, missile stockpiles, and command centres in Damascus, Tartus, Homs, and Latakia. The operation obliterated Syrian air capabilities, including MiG-29 fighter jets and cruise missiles. Simultaneously, the Israeli Navy targeted Syria’s naval fleet, destroying 15 missile-equipped vessels at the al-Beida and Latakia ports. This eliminated maritime threats, securing Israel’s coastal borders and reducing risks to international shipping lanes. On land, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) moved to establish a buffer zone in the demilitarised area along the Golan Heights. The IDF denied crossing into core Syrian territory, maintaining operations within the zone to prevent spillover effects from the conflict. Operation Bashan Arrow was a comprehensive demonstration of the effectiveness of coordinated multi-domain operations. Israel’s use of air, naval, and ground forces, combined with intelligence-driven targeting, underscores the evolution of military strategy in asymmetric conflicts.
Strategic and Tactical Impact. Operation Bashan Arrow dismantled 70–80% of Syria’s military assets. The destruction of strategic stockpiles prevented terrorist organisations from utilising advanced weaponry. Notably, this operation has significantly shifted the balance of power in the region. Iran, a key backer of Assad, now faces reduced influence in Syria, while Israel solidifies its strategic position. However, this could push Iran to intensify its proxy activities elsewhere, such as in Lebanon or Iraq.
Regional and International Reactions. The operation drew criticism from Arab nations and international observers, who accused Israel of overreach and destabilisation. The concerns of the international community were palpable, with Arab states condemning the operation, particularly the IDF’s occupation of the buffer zone. They viewed it as a violation of Syrian sovereignty, even in the absence of a stable Syrian government. Qatari media labelled it an “escalation” and accused Israel of exploiting Syria’s disarray. The United Nations expressed grave concerns over regional instability, urging de-escalation to foster a political transition in Syria. Geir Pedersen, the UN envoy to Syria, emphasised the need for de-escalation to facilitate Syria’s political transition. Critics argued that Israel’s actions could further complicate humanitarian efforts in the region.
Regional Security and Israel’s Position. For Israel, the operation underscored its military superiority and willingness to act unilaterally for national security, even at the risk of provoking a backlash from neighbouring countries and militant groups. The campaign also demonstrated the Israeli military’s advanced capabilities in air, sea, and cyber warfare.
Challenges and Future Implications. While the operation was a tactical success, it strained Israel’s relations with the international community at large. The creation of a buffer zone may temporarily stabilise the border but could invite retaliatory actions from groups opposed to Israel’s presence. With significant infrastructure destroyed, Syria faces additional challenges in rebuilding. This could prolong instability and make the country more vulnerable to external manipulation by regional powers. Additionally, HTS’s rise complicates Israel’s security calculus, as the group with an Islamist ideology creates uncertainty about pragmatic coexistence with Israel. The long-term implications of these developments are complex and uncertain, adding a layer of gravity to the situation.
Conclusion. Operation Bashan Arrow represents a defining moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics; it reflects the complexities of modern warfare and the Middle East’s geopolitical challenges. By neutralising Syrian military capabilities, Israel has secured its borders in the short term. However, the operation’s long-term ramifications for regional stability are yet to be fully understood. As Syria grapples with reconstruction and a new political reality, Israel would have to navigate a complex web of alliances and adversaries to maintain its strategic edge. The operation’s impact on the balance of power in the region and the potential for increased proxy activities by Iran in other countries underscores the need for continued analysis and vigilance.
Jerusalem Post. “Israel destroys 80% of Assad’s army in Syria.” December 2024.
All Israel News. “IDF strikes 320 targets in Syria during Operation Bashan Arrow.” tps://allisrael.com/idf-we-destroyed-up-to-80-of-syr
3. Middle East Monitor. “Operation Bashan Arrow and its implications.”
UN Reports on the Middle East, December 2024
Times of Israel, “IDF announces conclusion of Operation Bashan Arrow, says Syria no longer a threat”.
Haaretz, “Israel’s bold military campaign: What Bashan Arrow means for the region”. Dec 2024.
UN Reports on the Middle East, “Regional stability in question after Israeli strikes in Syria”, December 2024.
Al Jazeera, “Israel’s strikes in Syria spark Arab world criticism”, Dec 2024.
BBC News, “Syria in turmoil: The aftermath of Assad”, Dec 2024.
Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Israel’s Operation Bashan Arrow: A case study in air supremacy”, Dec 2024.
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “Preemptive Defense: Israel’s new doctrine in Operation Bashan Arrow”, Dec 2024.
Disclaimer:
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
My article published on the Indus International Research Foundation Website on 16 Dec 24
In the 21st century, the digital realm has become an essential arena for national power and international influence. Among the most potent strategies in cyberspace are cyber posturing and cyber strategic coercion. These techniques, though related, serve distinct purposes in the broader context of geopolitical competition. Cyber posturing is the demonstration of cyber capabilities to deter or influence adversaries. In contrast, cyber strategic coercion uses cyber tools to compel an adversary to change behaviour, often causing economic, social, or political disruption.
Cyber Posturing: Signalling Strength and Intent
Cyber posturing refers to the strategic actions and signals a country, organisation, or actor sends regarding its capabilities, intentions, and readiness in cyber security. It can involve various activities, from public statements and demonstrations of cyber capabilities to developing and deploying advanced cyber tools. Cyber posturing typically aims to achieve multiple objectives, such as deterrence, signalling intent, or shaping perceptions among adversaries and allies.
Defining Cyber Posturing. Cyber posturing refers to a state or actor’s strategic actions to protect its cyber capabilities, either in preparation for conflict or as a demonstration of power. Just as a nation might showcase its military hardware or nuclear arsenal during tension, cyber posturing involves actions or public signals designed to communicate resolve, strength, or deterrence in the digital domain. Cyber posturing includes various activities, from showcasing offensive cyber tools in public forums to conducting limited cyber operations to signal resolve. It can be overt—such as publicly revealing cyber capabilities—and covert, involving more subtle actions meant to project power without confrontation. According to Cyber security expert Herbert Lin, cyber posturing is a form of “strategic ambiguity,” where a state’s true capabilities and intentions are not fully clear, keeping adversaries on edge and uncertain of the consequences of escalation. This uncertainty can help maintain a balance of power, as adversaries may be deterred from acting out of fear of unknown retaliation.
Purposes of Cyber Posturing. Cyber posturing is often difficult to measure directly because it involves ambiguity and strategic ambiguity; the true intent behind cyber actions can be hard to decipher, creating uncertainty among adversaries and possibly preventing miscalculations.
Deterrence. The primary goal of cyber posturing is to deter adversaries by demonstrating a credible cyber retaliation capability. For example, the United States National Cyber Strategy emphasises the importance of using cyber capabilities to defend its national interests and to deter hostile cyber actors. U.S. actions, such as publicly attributing cyber attacks to foreign adversaries, are part of a broader cyber posturing strategy to make clear that cyber aggression will provoke a significant response. A nation or group may seek to deter potential adversaries from attacking or engaging in malicious cyber activities by demonstrating advanced cyber capabilities. The idea is to make the cost of an attack seem higher than any potential benefit, much like nuclear deterrence during the Cold War.
Signalling Capability. By demonstrating advanced cyber capabilities, countries signal their technical prowess and ability to shape international norms. Nations may engage in cyber posturing to align themselves with global cyber security standards, shaping the perception of their role in international cyber governance. Countries might use cyber posturing to signal their strength or preparedness in the cyber domain. This can include publicising or testing offensive cyber tools or defending against high-profile attacks to showcase resilience.
Coercion or Influence. A nation may use cyber means to coerce or influence another country through direct attacks or create an impression of vulnerability that pressures the other side to act in a certain way. This could involve denial-of-service attacks, data breaches, or other disruptive cyber actions.
Demonstration of Intent. By engaging in cyber posturing, actors might communicate specific geopolitical intentions. For example, if a country wants to demonstrate support for an ally, it may engage in cyber defence collaboration or publicly disclose its cyber capabilities.
Cyber Warfare Preparation. Nations may posture in cyberspace to prepare for future cyber warfare, either to gain an advantage or to ensure readiness in a cyber conflict.
Examples of Cyber Posturing. Russia has frequently engaged in cyber posturing to reinforce its global influence and project power over adversaries. The 2007 cyber attack on Estonia disrupted government and banking operations and is one of the earliest instances of cyber posturing. Though Russia denied involvement, the attack sent a clear message about the power of cyber operations. David S. Alberts, a U.S. defence strategist, noted that the attack illustrated how cyber operations could be used to “exhibit the coercive power of digital tools” without resorting to kinetic military force. China has also engaged in cyber posturing, particularly in the South China Sea, to project its military capabilities and deter other nations from challenging territorial claims. Chinese cyber activities, such as the alleged theft of intellectual property from foreign companies, demonstrate cyber prowess meant to deter international interference.
Cyber Strategic Coercion: The Power to Influence Behaviour
While cyber posturing is about signalling strength, cyber strategic coercion involves using cyber tools to directly influence an adversary’s behaviour, often through the threat or execution of disruptive cyber actions. In this context, coercion is aimed at forcing an adversary to change its political, military, or economic behaviour, usually in the face of an ongoing crisis or negotiation. This form of coercion can be employed in various ways, from targeted cyberattacks that disrupt infrastructure or cause economic damage to more subtle tactics such as cyber espionage or manipulating public perception through disinformation campaigns.
Defining Cyber Strategic Coercion. Cyber strategic coercion operates on the principle of using threats, punishment, or the disruption of an adversary’s infrastructure to force a change in its behaviour. This is often done through cyber attacks that disrupt critical systems, steal sensitive information, or manipulate public perception. Thomas Rid, a leading scholar on cyber security, argues that cyber coercion is effective when it exploits the adversary’s vulnerabilities, pushing them into a position where they either concede to demands or risk escalating the conflict.
Methods of Cyber Strategic Coercion. Cyber attacks that cripple a nation’s economy or infrastructure are a potent form of coercion. Denial of Service (DoS) and ransomware attacks often damage the adversary economically, forcing them to the negotiating table. One of the most notable examples is the WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017, attributed to North Korea, which crippled hospitals, businesses, and government agencies globally. Cyber strategic coercion can also disrupt political processes. The most well-known instance of this was Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which involved cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and the hacking of political parties. The attack on the U.S. political system aimed to destabilise public confidence in the electoral process and influence the election outcome, signalling a new form of cyber-enabled strategic coercion.
Examples of Cyber Strategic Coercion. Russia has employed cyber strategic coercion in its ongoing conflict with Ukraine. This includes cyberattacks aimed at destabilising the Ukrainian government, such as the 2015 and 2016 attacks on Ukraine’s power grid. These attacks were designed not only to cause direct harm but also to demonstrate Russia’s ability to disrupt critical infrastructure, coercing Ukraine to comply with Russian geopolitical goals. Iran has used cyberattacks as a form of strategic coercion, particularly against the West. In 2012, Iran’s Cyber Army launched a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) campaign against Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia, causing significant disruption. This attack, part of a broader cyber deterrence strategy, was seen as a retaliatory move following the imposition of international sanctions on Iran. North Korea has increasingly used cyberattacks to finance its regime, with operations such as the Bangladesh Bank cyber heist in 2016, which netted North Korean hackers over $81 million. This type of cyber strategic coercion is not just about inflicting damage on adversaries but also about coercing economic change by undermining the financial infrastructure of global institutions.
Key Elements of Cyber Strategic Coercion
Threats and Demonstrations of Capability. States or actors may use cyber operations to demonstrate their ability to inflict significant damage without using traditional military force. This can include publicising capabilities or engaging in limited cyber-attacks meant to signal intent and influence adversaries’ decision-making. For example, a country might conduct a cyberattack against a minor target to send a message about its capabilities, thus deterring an adversary from escalating a conflict or behaving in a manner the attacker disapproves of.
Disruption and Denial. Cyber strategic coercion can disrupt critical infrastructure or services, creating economic or social pressure on a target. For instance, a nation might use a cyberattack to disrupt transportation, energy grids, or financial institutions, forcing an adversary to negotiate or comply with demands. A notable example of this tactic is the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, which disrupted government and banking services, ostensibly responding to a political dispute.
Economic and Political Leverage. Cyber operations can also be used to influence the political or economic landscape of a nation. Cyber actors can weaken the target’s internal stability or manipulate public opinion by compromising data, spreading disinformation, or interfering in political processes. For example, the use of disinformation campaigns, such as those seen during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, can be considered a form of cyber coercion, aiming to sway public opinion or disrupt the political process in a way that benefits the actor behind the campaign.
Coercive Diplomacy. Cyber operations can be used to exert pressure in diplomatic negotiations. By threatening or carrying out cyberattacks, an actor can force a country to the table or push for concessions. This form of coercion often leverages the uncertainty surrounding the attribution of cyberattacks to pressure adversaries into compliance without needing to escalate to kinetic warfare.
Limited Engagement and Escalation Control. Unlike traditional military force, cyberattacks are often more ambiguous in attribution, allowing states to engage in coercion while maintaining a level of plausible deniability. This provides the attacker with the ability to escalate or de-escalate as needed. This ambiguity can be advantageous for coercion, as it leaves the targeted state uncertain about the full scale of potential retaliation, which might lead them to make concessions to avoid further escalation.
Challenges and Considerations. One of the critical challenges in cyber strategic coercion is the difficulty of attributing attacks to specific actors. This ambiguity can complicate retaliatory measures, but it also means that the target may need help to assess the nature or scale of the threat entirely. While cyber coercion is often seen as a way to avoid full-scale military conflict, it still carries the risk of escalating tensions. A cyberattack might provoke a traditional military response or lead to unforeseen consequences, making it a double-edged sword. Cyber coercion can also test the limits of international law and norms. Many international agreements and conventions were written before the rise of cyber capabilities and the line.
Analysis: The Role of Cyber Warfare in Modern Geopolitics. Both cyber posturing and cyber strategic coercion have reshaped the nature of conflict and statecraft in the digital age. While the physical world constrains traditional warfare, cyber operations have no such boundaries, making it easier for states to influence global power dynamics. Cyberattacks are faster, cheaper, and often more ambiguous than traditional military operations, providing states with new tools for shaping international relations. The strategic ambiguity inherent in cyber operations—where attribution is usually unclear—gives states an advantage in using cyber posturing and coercion. The lack of clear attribution makes it difficult for adversaries to respond proportionally, potentially leading to heightened tensions and escalation risks. However, this very ambiguity also complicates the enforcement of international norms and laws governing cyber warfare. George Washington University’s Bruce Schneier states, “Cyber weapons exist in a grey zone where international law and traditional military rules do not apply with clarity.” This uncertainty will likely persist as cyber operations evolve, posing challenges to the global order.
Conclusion. Cyber posturing and cyber strategic coercion represent a new frontier in geopolitical power projection. By using the digital realm to signal strength or coerce adversaries, states can achieve their objectives without resorting to traditional forms of warfare. As demonstrated by the actions of nations like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, cyber operations have become integral tools in the arsenal of modern statecraft. Cyber posturing and strategic coercion are powerful tools for statecraft, enabling actors to achieve their geopolitical objectives through non-kinetic means. However, it requires careful calculation, as it can lead to unintended escalation or miscalculation due to the ambiguity and complexity of the cyber domain. The growing reliance on cyber tools for coercion highlights the need for robust international agreements on cyber conduct. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is clear that the next stage in warfare will not only be fought on land, air, or sea but also in the cyber domain.
Lin, H, “Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know”, Oxford University Press, 2020.
Rid, T, “Cyber War Will Not Take Place”, Oxford University Press, 2013.
Schneier, B, “Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World”, W. W. Norton & Company, 2015.
Alberts, D. S, “The Influence of Information on Military Operations”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 2008.
Chon, G, “North Korea’s Cyber Heists and the Global Financial System.” The Financial Times, 2016.
Gartenstein-Ross, D, “Iran’s Cyber Strategy: A Framework for Analysis.” International Security Program, The Atlantic Council, 2014.
Mueller, R, “Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election”. United States Department of Justice, 2019.
FBI. “WannaCry Ransomware.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017.
Disclaimer:
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
Presented my Paper during the National Conference on Cold War 2.0 at Reva University 0n 14 Dec 24.
“Cold War 2.0” refers to the resurgence of strategic competition, primarily between the United States and China, but also involving Russia and other global players. The military repercussions of Cold War 2.0 are profound, impacting global security, defence strategies, alliances, and the development of cutting-edge technologies. As the U.S., China, Russia, and other nations adjust to this renewed strategic competition. This modern geopolitical rivalry differs from the original Cold War but still shares significant military aspects.
Cold War 2.0
While ‘Cold War 2.0’ resembles the original Cold War, it is a distinct and modern iteration marked by new issues and complexities. This contemporary version shares some similarities with its predecessor but also differs in crucial ways, reflecting the evolution of global dynamics.
Key Drivers of Cold War 2.0
Technological and Economic Rivalry. Unlike the ideological battle of capitalism vs. communism during the original Cold War, today’s competition revolves around technological dominance and economic power. The U.S. and China compete fiercely over technologies like AI, quantum computing, semiconductors, and 5G networks, considered strategic assets.
Military Posturing. While direct military confrontation is unlikely, the U.S. and China (and, to some extent, Russia) are investing heavily in modernising their militaries. This includes advancements in cyber capabilities, nuclear arms, space defence, and hypersonic weapons.
Influence and Alliances. The U.S. is strengthening alliances through initiatives like AUKUS (Australia-UK-U.S. security pact) and Quad (U.S., Japan, India, and Australia), which focus on countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. China, in turn, builds influence through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aiming to expand economic influence in Asia, Africa, and Europe.
Cyber Warfare and Information Manipulation. Cyber attacks, espionage, and misinformation campaigns are central to Cold War 2.0. Often attributed to state-backed actors, these efforts target critical infrastructure, government agencies, and private enterprises to gain a strategic advantage.
Space Race. Space is now a potential battleground, with the U.S. and China investing in capabilities to assert dominance in outer space. This includes satellite technology, anti-satellite weapons, and plans for potential lunar exploration bases.
Differences from the Original Cold War
Interconnected Economies. Unlike the U.S. and Soviet Union, which had limited economic ties, the U.S. and China are deeply interwoven economically. Trade dependencies complicate outright antagonism and make the situation more complex.
Ideological Tension. While ideology still plays a role (with China promoting an authoritarian governance model), the rivalry is not purely ideological. The focus is more on pragmatic control over global norms, standards, and resources rather than on spreading a single political ideology worldwide.
Multipolar World. The Cold War had two superpowers, but today’s world is multipolar. Other major players, including the European Union, India, and Brazil, add nuance to global power dynamics and complicate the binary nature of the U.S.-China rivalry.
Implications
If this Cold War 2.0 continues, it could have wide-ranging and potentially destabilising consequences.
Global Supply Chain Decoupling. Increased tariffs, restrictions on technology transfers, and efforts to localise supply chains might lead to a more bifurcated global economy.
Fragmented Technology Ecosystems. Competing standards for technologies (like internet governance or 5G) could lead to incompatible systems in different parts of the world, affecting everything from telecommunications to digital commerce.
Increased Regional Tensions. Areas like Taiwan, the South China Sea, and Ukraine (regarding U.S.-Russia relations) may become flashpoints as major powers assert control in contested regions.
Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0
Key military aspects of Cold War 2.0 include an intensified arms race in hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare capabilities, and space militarisation. Additionally, the rise of proxy conflicts, strategic military alliances, and an emphasis on grey-zone tactics—such as economic coercion and information warfare—underscore the multidimensional nature of this renewed standoff. These dynamics are reshaping global security frameworks with far-reaching implications for international stability.
Heightened Risk of Military Confrontations. China’s militarisation of the South China Sea and its increased pressure on Taiwan have elevated the risk of confrontations with the U.S. and its allies, who patrol these regions to uphold freedom of navigation. The Russia-Ukraine war has spurred NATO to reinforce Eastern European defences, increasing the chances of miscalculations and escalations. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany are enhancing their military capabilities in response to major powers, creating more densely armed regions. As nations become more intertwined through complex alliances and forward deployments, the potential for crises to escalate quickly grows. Miscalculations or misunderstandings could lead to rapid military responses, increasing the risk of conflict.
Expansion of Alliances and Security Pacts. The war in Ukraine reinvigorated NATO, leading countries like Finland and Sweden to join or seek membership. It has also increased defence spending, especially among European NATO members. The U.S. is strengthening alliances with countries like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Initiatives like AUKUS (Australia, U.K., and U.S.) exemplify new defence partnerships focused on technology sharing, particularly in nuclear-powered submarines and cyber warfare. China, meanwhile, has increased its military presence in the region and conducted joint drills with Russia.
Proxy Conflicts and Regional Instabilities. Cold War 2.0 has revived proxy conflicts, with the U.S., Russia, and China supporting opposite sides in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. This increases regional instability as these powers compete for influence. Similar to Cold War-era proxy wars, there are areas where indirect conflicts play out, such as arms support in Yemen, Syria, and parts of Africa. Techniques like information warfare, economic pressure, and covert operations are increasingly used, allowing states to destabilise rivals without conventional conflict.
Increased Military Spending and Arms Development. Heightened tensions are prompting nations to boost defence budgets. The U.S. and China lead in military spending, while Russia, Japan, India, and several European countries also increase expenditures. The modernisation of Military-Industrial Complexes (MICs) reflects a race to develop next-generation weaponry, cyber-security capabilities, and space-based technologies. The strategic objectives include staying technologically ahead, ensuring supply security, and reinforcing national defence ecosystems. Defence sectors in the U.S., China, and Russia are seeing significant investment, but high spending can strain national budgets and lead to economic vulnerabilities, particularly in countries with weaker economies.
Securing Rare Earth Elements and Critical Minerals. Rare earth elements (REEs) are essential for producing advanced military technology, including missile guidance systems and radar. China currently dominates the production and processing of REEs, which has prompted the U.S., EU, and Japan to invest in alternative sources and develop domestic processing capabilities. The U.S. has signed agreements with Canada and Australia, significant allies with REE deposits, to establish REE supply chains outside Chinese control. The EU has also launched initiatives to develop rare earth mining and processing within its borders.
Supply Chain Dependencies and Resilience. The globalised defence industry, especially for high-tech components, may become vulnerable to disruptions and sabotage, impacting military readiness. Global supply chains are increasingly segmented and politicised, driven by the need to reduce reliance on potentially hostile or unstable sources. Supply chain security now plays a central role in defence strategy, and there’s a trend toward “friend-shoring,” where critical industries are moved closer to allied or domestic markets. Countries increasingly pursue joint development and production initiatives to strengthen defence supply chains, combining resources, technological expertise, and market access to reinforce allied military capacities. Western countries are working to reduce dependence on Chinese manufacturing for critical goods, particularly in areas like semiconductors, healthcare, telecommunications, and defence equipment. The U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and other initiatives aim to build alternative trade and supply networks, encouraging countries like India, Vietnam, and Mexico to take on more prominent roles in global supply chains.
Challenges to Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Efforts. Non-state actors and smaller nations could acquire technologies like drones, cyber tools, and precision-guided munitions, amplifying threats to global security. With the INF Treaty and Open Skies Agreement no longer in force and New START potentially at risk, the arms control framework is fragmenting. This may encourage additional nations to pursue nuclear capabilities.
Emerging Technologies in Warfare. The U.S. and China invest heavily in hypersonic missiles, artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous weapon systems, quantum computing, and advanced cyber-security. The U.S. aims to stay technologically superior, while China is rapidly advancing, aiming to match or exceed Western capabilities in these critical areas. Artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and robotics are core technologies with applications for surveillance, targeting, and combat scenarios. China and Russia have tested hypersonic missiles, which can reach speeds above Mach 5 and evade conventional missile defence systems, reshaping strategic calculations. Autonomous drones, unmanned submarines, and AI-driven decision-making tools are also reshaping military tactics. AI is transforming intelligence analysis, logistics, and even combat operations. These technologies offer asymmetrical advantages and can reduce crisis response times, raising the possibility of automated escalation.
Nuclear Arms Race and Deterrence. Both China and the U.S. have expanded and modernised their nuclear arsenals. China has built hundreds of new missile silos and enhanced delivery systems, while the U.S. is investing in new nuclear-capable missiles, bombers, and submarines. Like the original Cold War, nuclear powers are re-emphasizing deterrence and signalling capability, with periodic tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and hypersonic weapons. Existing treaties, like New START, have faltered or faced resistance in extending to all major powers, leading to a less regulated nuclear landscape.
Cyber Warfare and Information Warfare Escalation. Modern warfare increasingly includes cyber and information warfare. Cyber capabilities are critical, with cyber espionage, network sabotage, and data theft frequently targeting government and military systems. Countries are building offensive and defensive cyber forces, with China, Russia, and the U.S. leading in cyber warfare capabilities. NATO has invested in its Cyber Operations Canter and collaborates on cyber defence with private cyber-security firms, reflecting the changing nature of warfare where digital and information domains are as crucial as traditional military strength.
Space Militarisation. Space has become a critical defence frontier. All major powers are developing space-based assets. The U.S., China, and Russia have established space-focused military agencies that manage satellite communications, space-based sensors, and potentially space-based weapons. The U.S. Space Force and similar programs in China and Russia signify the militarisation of space. Countries are investing in anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons and systems to ensure secure and competitive space-based communication, navigation, and intelligence capabilities. This militarisation of space requires sophisticated technology and collaboration across traditional defence contractors and tech innovators.
Maritime and Air Control. China has militarised artificial islands and increased its naval presence, heightening tensions with neighbouring countries and the U.S. Military assets like bombers, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers are being used to display power, as seen in increased air and naval operations in contested regions.
Impact of Cold War 2.0 on India’s Security
India finds itself uniquely amid the ongoing geopolitical tensions of “Cold War 2.0.” As one of the world’s emerging powers, India faces opportunities and security challenges from this evolving U.S.-China rivalry and the reassertion of Russian influence.
Tensions with China. Cold War 2.0 has escalated tensions between India and China, particularly along their disputed border in the Himalayas, where standoffs and skirmishes have become increasingly common (e.g., the 2020 Galwan Valley clash). China has expanded its military presence along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), forcing India to respond by enhancing its military infrastructure and deploying additional troops to secure the region. With cyber warfare a vital tool in Cold War 2.0, India must be prepared for cyber attacks from China that target critical infrastructure, government systems, and private companies.
Strategic Partnerships and Alliances. The U.S.-China rivalry has led India to deepen its engagement with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) alongside the U.S., Japan, and Australia. This non-military alliance is a significant strategic move that would help India counterbalance China’s influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, while benefiting from intelligence sharing, joint military exercises, and defence technology transfers. India’s growing defence partnership with the U.S. is evident in agreements like the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), which enhance interoperability and intelligence-sharing between the two countries.
Naval and Maritime Security Concerns. China’s expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean and initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), primarily through ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, present urgent strategic challenges for India. China’s military presence in these regions could jeopardise India’s control over critical sea lanes, affecting its trade and energy security. In response, India has to invest heavily in bolstering its naval capabilities and forging partnerships with countries such as the U.S., Australia, and Japan to ensure a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.
Technology and Cyber-security Vulnerabilities. India faces the challenge of securing its technology infrastructure, mainly as it develops its 5G networks. Given U.S.-China tensions over companies like Huawei, India must carefully navigate its partnerships to secure technology free from foreign influence or vulnerabilities. With cyber warfare playing a central role in Cold War 2.0, India has to heighten efforts to enhance its cyber-security framework. Partnerships with the U.S. and other allies focus on intelligence-sharing and cyber defence strategies to protect critical national infrastructure from Chinese and other state-sponsored cyber threats.
Nuclear Deterrence and Security. As U.S.-China tensions spur advancements in nuclear and hypersonic weapons, there’s increased pressure on India to maintain credible nuclear deterrence, especially given its proximity to China and its longstanding rivalry with Pakistan, a Chinese ally. India’s nuclear policy may face adjustments to account for these growing regional threats. The “No First Use” policy could be revisited to enhance deterrence, while advanced missile and early warning systems are likely priorities.
Economic and Trade Implications. Amid efforts to reduce dependencies on China, Cold War 2.0 could open opportunities for India to become a manufacturing hub. The “China plus One” strategy followed by many multinational corporations has increased foreign investment in India, providing economic benefits that indirectly strengthen India’s security capabilities. India’s “strategic autonomy” policy—balancing relations with the U.S. and Russia — is increasingly difficult to maintain. The U.S. expects alignment with its policies toward China, while Russia’s growing alignment with China complicates India’s traditional ties with Moscow, especially in defence procurement.
Regional Security and Stability in South Asia. China’s economic and military investments in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar challenge India’s influence in its neighbourhood. These developments pose potential security risks as China could gain leverage over India’s neighbouring countries, potentially encircling it in a “string of pearls” strategy. U.S.-China rivalry has left a security vacuum in Afghanistan that complicates India’s security calculus, with Pakistan and China seeking to increase their regional influence. India is concerned that increased Chinese and Pakistani influence in Afghanistan could lead to heightened terrorism risks along its borders.
Modern technology and multipolar dynamics define this Cold War-like rivalry, making it less ideological but more complex than its 20th-century counterpart. The focus on non-traditional warfare and regional tensions underscores the evolving nature of military competition in the 21st century. The Cold War 2.0 has prompted a comprehensive transformation of military-industrial complexes and a strategic diversification of supply chains. The current MICs are more integrated with advanced technology sectors, collaborating with private companies to maintain a competitive edge in AI, cyber-security, and space capabilities. Simultaneously, the need for secure, resilient supply chains has led to efforts toward friend-shoring and regional production, reducing dependencies on China and minimising vulnerabilities to disruptions. These shifts indicate a move toward greater self-reliance and alliance-based defence economies, underscoring how interconnected MICs and supply chains have become integral to economic security and national defence in a highly competitive global landscape. These Cold War 2.0 repercussions are shaping a more uncertain and contested world, with direct consequences for international security, diplomacy, and the stability of global power structures.
Think it Over
Are we in the midst of Cold War 2.0
or in the beginning of World War 3.0?
Your valuable comments are most welcome.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Allison, G. (2015). The Thucydides trap: Are the U.S. and China headed for war? The Atlantic.
Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A new history. Penguin Books.
Kaplan, R. D. (2018). The return of Marco Polo’s world: War, strategy, and American interests in the twenty-first century. Random House.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (Updated Ed.). W.W. Norton.
Nye, J. S. (2012). The future of power in the 21st century. Foreign Affairs, 91(2), 90–104.
U.S. Department of Defence. (2022). Summary of the 2022 National Defence Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC.
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). “World Military Spending Reaches All-Time High.” Press Release, 2023. https://www.sipri.org.
NATO. NATO 2030: United for a New Era. NATO Reflection Group, 2020.
Friedberg, Aaron. “The Growing Cold War with China.” Foreign Policy, 18 June 2021.
Economist. “The New Cold War.” The Economist, 22 March 2023.
Council on Foreign Relations. “China’s Military Modernization.” CFR Backgrounder, updated July 2023. https://www.cfr.org.
Disclaimer:
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
