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 EurasianTimes Website on 26 Dec 24.
PAKTIKA UNDER FIRE: PAKISTANI AIR STRIKES IN AFGHANISTAN
In a recent escalation of cross-border tensions, Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province have resulted in the deaths of 46 individuals, highlighting the ongoing volatility of the region. These strikes, which targeted areas suspected of harbouring militants, have sparked outrage and condemnation, both within Afghanistan and from the international community. The attack underscores the fragile security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and the broader geopolitical tensions between the two countries.
The situation is fraught with complexity, involving not only the two neighbouring states but also international actors such as the United States, China, and the Taliban, which has recently regained control of Afghanistan. The United States, a key player in the War on Terror, has a vested interest in the stability of the region. China also closely monitors the situation with its Belt and Road Initiative and economic investments in the region. The Taliban’s resurgence and its relationship with Pakistan further complicate the geopolitical landscape. Understanding the motivations behind these air strikes, the implications for regional security, and the broader geopolitical consequences is essential for assessing the future of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations and the overall stability of the South Asian region.
Historical Context of Afghan-Pakistani Tensions.
The history of Afghan-Pakistani relations, deeply rooted in the colonial past, has been marked by frequent tension, often arising from political, territorial, and security concerns. The division of Afghanistan and Pakistan following the partition of British India in 1947 created lasting complications, particularly concerning the Durand Line, the controversial border that separates the two nations. Afghanistan was the only country that initially refused to recognise this border, leading to disputes that have lingered ever since. These disputes have significantly shaped the region’s geopolitical dynamics and continue influencing contemporary events.
In recent decades, the issue of militancy and cross-border insurgency has exacerbated tensions. Pakistan has been accused of using its territory as a haven for Afghan militants, particularly during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), when Pakistan supported Afghan mujahideen factions in their fight against Soviet forces. This support led to the rise of groups such as the Taliban, which took control of Afghanistan in the 1990s and provided a safe haven for terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda.
The post-9/11 era marked a shift in the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistan became a crucial ally in the War on Terror. Still, at the same time, it continued to support certain militant groups as part of its strategy to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan. This double-dealing led to accusations that Pakistan is playing a double game, supporting insurgent groups while pretending to be a partner in counterterrorism efforts.
Boomerang Effect. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) supported the formation of the Taliban in the 1990s, seeing them as a potential ally to ensure a friendly government in Afghanistan, which would provide Pakistan with strategic depth against India. While the Taliban still maintains some ties with Pakistan, there have been periods of tension. Taliban-linked groups, such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), have turned against the Pakistani state, conducting attacks within Pakistan. The TTP aims to overthrow the Pakistani government and establish a stricter interpretation of Islamic law, which has led to significant violence and conflict within Pakistan itself.
The Geography and Strategic Importance of Paktika Province
Paktika is one of Afghanistan’s eastern provinces, bordering Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces. This region has been a hotspot for insurgent activity for years, with various militant groups, including the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP), using the rugged terrain to hide from Afghan and Pakistani forces. The province is strategically important due to its proximity to the Durand Line, making it an ideal location for militants to cross between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The geography of Paktika also makes it difficult for both the Afghan government and Pakistan to secure the region. The mountainous and forested landscape provides natural cover for insurgents, while the porous border allows for the easy movement of fighters and weapons between the two countries. Over the years, various militant groups have exploited these conditions to launch attacks across the border.
Pakistani Narrative and Possible Reasons.
Pakistan’s air strikes in Afghanistan, particularly in Paktika, are typically framed as responses to cross-border attacks by militants. These strikes are part of Pakistan’s broader counterterrorism strategy, aimed at dismantling militant groups operating in the border region. Pakistan has long accused Afghanistan of harbouring insurgents who use Afghan soil to launch attacks on Pakistani targets, particularly in the tribal areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. In response, Pakistan has argued that it has the right to conduct air strikes and military operations on Afghan territory to safeguard its national security.
Cross-Border Militancy. The presence of Pakistan-based militant groups in Afghanistan, especially the TTP, is one of the primary reasons for these air strikes. The TTP has been involved in numerous attacks on Pakistani military and civilian targets, leading Pakistan to launch retaliatory strikes against their hideouts in Paktika and other Afghan provinces. These groups are often blamed for destabilising the region, and Pakistan’s military views these air strikes as a necessary measure to contain the threat.
Out of Control Region. Afghanistan’s inability to fully control its territory, particularly in the eastern and southern regions, has been a significant factor in the escalation of violence. The Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021 has further exacerbated the situation. Pakistan perceives the Afghan as incapable of effectively dealing with the cross-border insurgency, legitimising unilateral military action.
Pakistan’s Desire for Regional Influence. Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies have long had a strategic interest in maintaining influence over Afghanistan. By launching air strikes, Pakistan aims to retain control over militant groups operating along the border and to prevent any spillover of instability that could undermine its security or its strategic objectives in the region.
Domestic Political Considerations. Pakistan’s military leadership is often under pressure from domestic constituencies, particularly in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan regions, to take decisive action against militants. Air strikes in Afghanistan serve as a signal to domestic audiences that Pakistan is committed to protecting its sovereignty and securing its borders while also sending a message to Afghanistan and the international community about Pakistan’s resolve to fight terrorism.
Impact on Afghanistan and Regional Stability
Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan, especially in Paktika, have had significant implications for both Afghan civilians and the broader regional stability. The loss of civilian lives and the disruption of daily life in the region due to these strikes cannot be overstated.
Civilian Casualties and Displacement. One of the most immediate consequences of air strikes is the toll on Afghan civilians. These strikes, while aimed at militant targets, often result in civilian casualties and the displacement of local populations. This exacerbates the already dire humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, which is dealing with the aftermath of decades of war, economic collapse, and the resurgence of the Taliban.
Sovereignty Concerns. Afghanistan has repeatedly protested Pakistani air strikes, viewing them as violations of its sovereignty. Afghanistan’s government (under both the previous Western-backed administration and the current Taliban regime) has argued that such strikes undermine the principle of territorial integrity and violate international law. The strikes further strain Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, which are already fraught with mistrust and historical grievances.
Taliban’s Response. The Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in 2021 has added a new dimension to the conflict. While the Taliban has historically maintained close ties with Pakistan, its control over Afghan territory has not led to a reduction in cross-border militancy. The Taliban’s reluctance or inability to clamp down on Pakistani militants operating from Afghan soil has prompted Pakistan to continue its air strikes. However, this has created a delicate situation where the Taliban must balance its relationship with Pakistan while dealing with growing public discontent over the air strikes.
Regional Security and Geopolitical Dynamics. The air strikes also have broader regional implications. Pakistan’s actions are viewed with concern by India, which has long been wary of Pakistan’s influence over Afghanistan and the destabilising effect of cross-border militancy. India has consistently accused Pakistan of using Afghan-based militant groups to advance its strategic interests in the region. Furthermore, the involvement of external actors such as the United States, which has interests in Afghanistan and is concerned about Pakistan’s role in the area, complicates the situation. These air strikes may lead to greater instability in an already volatile region, affecting the prospects for peace and development in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Conclusion. Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province represent a complex and multifaceted issue in South Asian geopolitics. These strikes are driven by security concerns, political motivations, and strategic interests, with significant implications for Afghanistan’s sovereignty, civilian population, and regional stability. While Pakistan justifies its actions as a necessary response to cross-border militancy, the long-term consequences of these strikes may not only strain Afghanistan-Pakistan relations further but also exacerbate the instability in the broader region.
BBC News. “Pakistan Air Strikes in Afghanistan Kill 46: A Critical Overview.” BBC, December 2023.
Al Jazeera. “Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Border Tensions: An Analysis of the 2023 Air Strikes.” Al Jazeera, December 2023.
Mansoor, Safdar. “The Durand Line: A Historical Perspective on Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations.” Asian Affairs, vol. 38, no. 3, 2007, pp. 405-421.
Johnson, Thomas H., and M. Chris Mason. “The Taliban’s War with Pakistan: A Strategic Overview.” Middle East Policy, vol. 17, no. 4, 2010, pp. 56-70.
Tanner, Stephen. “Pakistan’s Military Strategy and Its Afghan Frontier.” International Security Studies Review, vol. 32, no. 2, 2014, pp. 99-113.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Pakistan’s Afghan Policy: Challenges and Opportunities.” Carnegie Report, 2021.
Gul, Imtiaz. The Most Dangerous Place: Pakistan’s Lawless Frontier. Penguin Books, 2010.
Khan, Mehmood. Pakistan’s Counterterrorism Strategy: A Comprehensive Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). “Afghanistan: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.” UNAMA Annual Report, 2023.
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.
