Tag: Cyber

Posted on

605: THE DIGITAL SILK ROAD: IMPLICATION OF CHINA’S TECHNO-POLITICAL STRATEGY

 

My article was published on the Life of Soldier website

on 20 Feb 25.

 

The Digital Silk Road (DSR) is a crucial component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), focusing on expanding digital connectivity, infrastructure, and technological cooperation across the globe. Launched in 2015, the DSR aims to establish China as a global leader in digital innovation, telecommunications, artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and e-commerce. China is reshaping global digital landscapes by investing in undersea cables, data centers, 5G networks, and satellite systems, particularly in developing nations.

 

While the DSR offers economic opportunities, it raises significant concerns about cyber security, digital sovereignty, geopolitical leverage, and the global balance of power. This article explores the implications of China’s techno-political strategy through the Digital Silk Road, highlighting its impact on international relations, digital governance, and technological standards.

 

Objectives and Scope of China’s Digital Silk Road

 

China’s Digital Silk Road (DSR) is an extension of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to build a global digital infrastructure and strengthen China’s role as a technological and cyber power. The DSR focuses on expanding global digital infrastructure, enhancing technological dominance, promoting a state-centric internet governance model, fostering economic and financial integration, and leveraging cyber security for geopolitical influence. These objectives position China as a leader in the digital economy while shaping the global technology landscape.

 

Expanding Global Digital Infrastructure. One of the primary objectives of the DSR is to build and broaden digital infrastructure across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and parts of Europe. China invests heavily in 5G networks, fibre-optic cables, satellite communication, cloud computing, and data centers in partner countries. Companies like Huawei, ZTE, and China Mobile are key in setting up next-generation telecommunications networks. By providing affordable digital solutions, China enhances digital connectivity in developing economies while ensuring long-term dependence on its technology.

 

Enhancing Technological Dominance. China’s DSR is a strategic initiative to establish global leadership in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, blockchain, and smart cities. Through investments in research and development, China aims to surpass Western competitors in critical technological domains. The DSR facilitates technology transfer to BRI nations, strengthening China’s influence in digital economies worldwide. By setting standards for 5G, digital currencies, and AI governance, China aspires to shape the future technological order in its favour.

 

Promoting a State-Centric Internet Governance Model. A significant aspect of the DSR is to promote China’s vision of cyber sovereignty, where individual nations exert greater control over their internet spaces. Unlike the Western model of an open and decentralised internet, China’s approach advocates for government-regulated digital spaces. By exporting its Great Firewall-inspired surveillance technology, China helps partner countries implement censorship, content control, and cyber monitoring. This model appeals to authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes seeking to maintain strict control over digital platforms.

 

Economic and Financial Integration. The DSR aligns with China’s broader goal of deepening economic integration with partner countries. This initiative’s key components are digital payment systems, e-commerce platforms, and fintech solutions. Platforms like WeChat Pay and Alipay are expanding their global reach, offering alternative financial ecosystems independent of Western-controlled networks like Visa and Mastercard. Additionally, China is promoting the digital yuan (e-CNY) as a potential global currency, challenging the dominance of the US dollar in international trade and finance.

 

Cyber security and Geopolitical Leverage. China’s control over global digital infrastructure provides it with significant cyber security and geopolitical leverage. Deploying 5G networks and undersea cables raises concerns about potential espionage and data security risks. Many Western nations have raised alarms about the influence China could exert through its digital infrastructure, particularly in strategic sectors. By establishing cyber security partnerships with DSR nations, China strengthens its digital defence capabilities while expanding its cyber footprint globally.

 

Geopolitical Dimensions.

 

Strengthening China’s Global Influence. The DSR allows China to position itself as a leader in digital infrastructure and emerging technologies. China cultivates long-term dependencies among participating nations by providing affordable, high-quality digital solutions.

 

Challenging Western Technological Hegemony. Western nations, led by the U.S. and the European Union, dominate global technology standards and infrastructure. The DSR challenges this dominance by offering alternative systems for 5G networks, cloud computing, and AI governance. Chinese companies like Huawei, ZTE, and Alibaba Cloud are expanding their presence, often undercutting Western competition in price and accessibility.

 

Digital Authoritarianism and Cyber Sovereignty. China’s model of digital governance favours state control over the Internet. Through DSR partnerships, China exports its Great Firewall approach, influencing governments to adopt stricter cyber regulations, internet censorship, and surveillance technologies. Countries with integrated Chinese digital infrastructure are more likely to follow Beijing’s lead in cyber regulations, shifting global norms toward a state-centric internet rather than a decentralised, open model.

 

Strategic Control over Critical Digital Infrastructure. Control over global digital infrastructure grants China significant geopolitical leverage. Fibre-optic cables, satellite navigation systems (BeiDou), and cloud computing networks enable China to influence data flows, monitor foreign governments, and potentially disrupt communication channels in conflict.

 

Economic and Technological Implications

 

Digital Yuan and Financial Influence. China’s introduction of the Digital Yuan (e-CNY) under the DSR strategy represents a direct challenge to the U.S. dollar’s dominance in international trade. By promoting digital currency adoption in Belt and Road Initiative nations, China reduces reliance on SWIFT transactions, mitigating the impact of Western financial sanctions.

 

E-Commerce and Digital Payments Expansion. Alibaba, Tencent, and other Chinese tech giants are expanding e-commerce and fintech ecosystems across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. This expansion integrates developing economies into China’s digital sphere, creating economic dependencies favouring Beijing’s trade policies.

 

AI, Big Data, and Surveillance Technologies. China’s leadership in artificial intelligence and big data analytics has implications for both governance and security. Many countries that embrace Chinese-built smart cities, AI-driven surveillance, and facial recognition systems risk becoming more aligned with China’s authoritarian digital model.

 

5G and Telecommunications Control. Huawei and ZTE dominate global 5G infrastructure projects, particularly in developing nations. The reliance on Chinese telecom networks raises concerns over data privacy, potential backdoor access, and espionage risks. This leads to Western pushback and bans on Huawei equipment in the U.S., UK, and Australia.

 

Cyber Security Threats and Espionage Concerns

 

China’s involvement in building and managing digital infrastructure raises fears of hidden backdoors, allowing for cyber espionage and data exfiltration. Many Chinese technology firms, such as Huawei and ZTE, have been accused of having close ties with the Chinese government, which could potentially use these networks for intelligence gathering. Nations relying on Chinese-built digital infrastructure risk compromising their communications, governmental data, and critical security operations.

 

Espionage and Data Harvesting. One of the DSR’s primary concerns is the large-scale data collection from participating countries. Chinese firms involved in cloud computing, smart city technologies, and undersea cables could gain access to vast amounts of sensitive information, including personal data, financial transactions, and military communications. This data could be exploited for economic advantage, intelligence gathering, or coercion, enhancing China’s strategic leverage over nations.

 

Cyber Attacks and Infrastructure Disruption. Nations’ dependence on Chinese-built digital infrastructure increases their vulnerability to cyber-attacks. There is a risk that in times of geopolitical tensions, Beijing could leverage access to these systems to disrupt critical services such as power grids, financial networks, and telecommunications. Concerns persist regarding Chinese-manufactured hardware containing software vulnerabilities that could be exploited for state-sponsored cyber operations.

 

AI and Disinformation Campaigns. China’s advancements in AI and big data analytics enable sophisticated disinformation campaigns. By influencing narratives through social media manipulation, AI-generated content, and state-backed media, China could shape public opinion and political outcomes in target countries. Such interference could destabilise democratic institutions, promote pro-China sentiment, and undermine opposition to Beijing’s global ambitions.

 

Digital Sovereignty and Dependency Risks. Many developing nations, enticed by China’s affordable technology and financial assistance, risk becoming overly reliant on Beijing for digital infrastructure. This dependency undermines their digital sovereignty, limiting their ability to control data, cyber security policies, and technological standards. Once deeply integrated into China’s digital ecosystem, countries may struggle to transition to alternative suppliers without significant economic and operational disruptions.

 

Global Responses and Countermeasures

 

In response to the security risks posed by China’s Digital Silk Route (DSR), many nations and alliances have implemented countermeasures to safeguard their digital infrastructure and reduce reliance on Chinese technology. The United States, European Union, and key Indo-Pacific allies have tightened regulations on Chinese firms like Huawei and ZTE, citing concerns over espionage and cyber security threats. The U.S. has led initiatives such as the Clean Network Program, restricting the use of Chinese telecommunications equipment in critical infrastructure. Similarly, the EU’s 5G Toolbox provides guidelines to mitigate high-risk vendors’ influence on European digital networks. Additionally, alternative global initiatives such as the Blue Dot Network and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), spearheaded by the G7, aim to provide transparent and secure alternatives to Chinese digital infrastructure projects. Nations also invest in cyber security frameworks, supply chain diversification, and AI-driven disinformation countermeasures to reduce Beijing’s digital influence. While China’s DSR continues to expand, international efforts are increasingly focused on promoting secure, resilient, and independent digital ecosystems to counter the strategic risks associated with Chinese technological dominance.

 

India’s Strategic Response. India has adopted a multi-faceted approach to counter China’s Digital Silk Route (DSR) by enhancing cyber security, restricting Chinese tech investments, and promoting domestic digital initiatives. New Delhi has banned numerous Chinese apps over data security concerns and imposed stricter scrutiny on Chinese telecom firms like Huawei and ZTE in its 5G rollout. India is also expanding its digital partnerships with the U.S., Japan, and the EU to develop secure alternatives. Initiatives like Digital India and Made in India aim to boost indigenous tech capabilities, reducing dependence on Chinese infrastructure while strengthening national cybersecurity and data sovereignty.

 

Emerging Digital Alliances

 

In response to China’s Digital Silk Route (DSR), global powers are forming strategic digital alliances to promote secure and transparent alternatives. The Quad (U.S., India, Japan, Australia) is enhancing collaboration on 5G, AI, and cyber security. The EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council (TTC) focuses on setting global tech standards. The Blue Dot Network and Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), led by G7 nations, offer financing for secure digital infrastructure in developing countries. These alliances aim to counter China’s technological dominance by fostering worldwide resilient, open, and trustworthy digital ecosystems.

 

Conclusion

 

The Digital Silk Road is more than just an economic initiative. It is a strategic instrument of techno-political influence that enhances China’s global standing. While it offers significant opportunities for digital development, it raises concerns about cyber security, digital authoritarianism, and geopolitical dependence. As nations seek to balance economic engagement with China against strategic vulnerabilities, the future of the DSR will shape the global digital order, cyber security norms, and geopolitical alignments in the coming decades. The world is at a crossroads where the battle for digital supremacy will define 21st-century geopolitics.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

The Digital Silk Road: Implication Of China’s Techno-Political Strategy

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pic Courtesy Internet.

References:-

  1. Eurasia Group. “The Geopolitical Consequences of the Digital Silk Road: China’s Emerging Technology Influence.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021, pp. 12–34.
  1. Feldstein, Steven. “The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism: China, AI, and Repressive Governance.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 99, no. 3, 2020, pp. 56–72.
  1. Chen, Dingding, and Wang, Xiaojun. “AI, Big Data, and China’s Quest for Global Digital Supremacy.” Asian Security, vol. 16, no. 4, 2022, pp. 431–452.
  1. Segal, Adam. “China’s Vision for Cyber Sovereignty and Implications for Global Internet Governance.” International Security, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 65–91.
  1. Creemers, Rogier. “China’s Cyber Governance Model: Between Control and Connectivity.” Journal of Cyber Policy, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 40–57.
  1. Brookings Institution. Beijing’s Digital Strategy: The Global Expansion of the Digital Silk Road. Brookings, 2022.
  1. Mozur, Paul. “How China is Exporting Digital Authoritarianism.” The New York Times, October 15, 2022.
  1. McLaughlin, Timothy. “The Digital Silk Road and the New Internet Order.” The Atlantic, March 22, 2023.
  1. Strumpf, Dan. “Beijing’s Big Tech Play: The Digital Silk Road and the Fight for Global Networks.” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2023.
  1. Denyer, Simon. “China’s Surveillance Tech Goes Global.” The Washington Post, August 27, 2022.
  1. The Economist. “China’s Digital Silk Road: Exporting the Future or a Dystopian Vision?” The Economist, September 12, 2023.
  1. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s Digital Silk Road and Its Implications for U.S. Interests. Washington, D.C., 2023.
  1. Center for a New American Security (CNAS). China’s Tech Expansion and the Global Competition for Digital Supremacy. CNAS Report, 2023.
  1. European Parliament. The EU Response to China’s Digital Silk Road: Strategic Risks and Opportunities. Brussels, 2022.
  1. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “How China’s Digital Silk Road is Reshaping Global Technology Governance.” www.cfr.org
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “The Digital Silk Road: Expanding Chinese Influence in Global Tech.” www.csis.org
  1. Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS). “China’s Tech Diplomacy and the Digital Silk Road.” www.merics.org
  1. RAND Corporation. “The Digital Silk Road: Security and Economic Implications for the West.” www.rand.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.

 

Posted on

589: WINDS OF CHANGE IN GLOBAL DEFENCE

 

Pic Courtesy Net

 

My Article published on the Life of Soldier website on 29 Jan 25

 

The global defence landscape is transforming significantly, driven by technological advancements, shifting geopolitical dynamics, and evolving security threats. Nations increasingly prioritise developing cutting-edge technologies such as hypersonic missiles, artificial intelligence, and quantum radar to enhance military capabilities. The rise of non-traditional threats, including cyber-attacks and space-based warfare, also reshapes defence strategies. As countries adjust to these changes, the winds of change in global defence are prompting nations to rethink military priorities, strategies, and international relations. The winds of change in global defence are characterised by rising defence spending and a shift toward advanced military technologies. Countries are increasing their military budgets in response to escalating geopolitical tensions and emerging threats. This surge in defence spending reflects a global shift toward preparedness, emphasising modernisation, strategic alliances, and a more proactive approach to defence.

 

New Weapons and Dimensions of Warfare

 

AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons. The first fully autonomous AI-controlled weapon systems have been deployed in active combat zones. The deployment of AI-powered autonomous weapons in active combat zones marks a significant leap in military technology, raising concerns over their implications for global security. These systems, capable of making real-time decisions without human intervention, are being tested in conflicts such as those in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. While proponents argue they enhance precision and reduce human casualties, critics fear they could lead to uncontrolled escalation, with machines making life-and-death decisions. Ethical dilemmas arise over accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems, and there are growing calls for international regulations to govern the development and use of such advanced weapons.

 

Intensification of the Hypersonic Missile Arms Race. The hypersonic missile arms race has intensified as countries like the United States, China, and Russia race to develop advanced, high-speed weaponry capable of travelling at speeds greater than five times the speed of sound. These missiles can manoeuvre unpredictably, making them difficult to intercept with existing defence systems. This technological leap raises concerns about the potential for destabilising global security as nations vie for strategic advantage in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable arms race. The growing development and testing of hypersonic missiles signal a new era in military warfare, potentially altering the balance of power and escalation risks worldwide.

 

Cyber Attacks on Critical Infrastructure. Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure have become a growing threat to national security and economic stability. These attacks target essential sectors such as energy, transportation, finance, and healthcare, aiming to disrupt operations, steal sensitive data, or cause widespread damage. Notable incidents, including the 2021 Colonial Pipeline attack in the U.S. and various ransomware campaigns, highlight vulnerabilities in critical systems. As cyber warfare becomes an increasingly prominent tactic, governments and organisations are prioritising cyber security measures and investing in advanced technologies to prevent, detect, and mitigate such threats. These attacks’ rising frequency and sophistication emphasise the urgent need for robust cyber defence strategies globally.

 

Militarisation of Space. Space-based weapons systems are emerging as a new frontier in global defence. Several countries (the U.S., China, India, and France) have unveiled plans for orbital weapons platforms, signalling the militarisation of space and threatening existing space treaties to prevent such developments. These systems, which include anti-satellite missiles, directed energy weapons, and satellite-based lasers, are designed to target and neutralise adversary satellites or other space assets. The growing militarisation of space raises concerns over the potential for conflict beyond Earth’s atmosphere as nations seek to secure space-based resources and gain strategic advantage. The development of space-based weapons could disrupt communications, navigation, and surveillance capabilities, escalating tensions and prompting calls for international regulation of space militarisation.

 

Quantum Radar Military Breakthrough. Quantum radar represents a ground-breaking military technology with the potential to revolutionise defence systems. Unlike conventional radar, which relies on radio waves, quantum radar uses quantum entanglement to detect objects with unprecedented accuracy. This technology can potentially detect stealth aircraft and missiles, which are designed to evade traditional radar. By exploiting the quantum properties of light, quantum radar can function in environments where traditional systems struggle, such as in electronic warfare scenarios. As nations like China and the United States race to develop quantum radar, it could significantly alter the balance of military power, enhancing defence capabilities and complicating interception strategies. China has announced the development of quantum radar technology, which has the potential to render stealth aircraft obsolete and revolutionise detection capabilities in military operations.

 

Research on Genetic Bioweapons. Leaked documents have revealed ongoing research into genetic-based bioweapons, heightening fears of engineered pandemics and the ethical implications of such advancements. Research on genetic bioweapons has raised significant concerns over the moral, legal, and security implications of manipulating biological agents for warfare. Advances in genetic engineering, particularly CRISPR technology (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats enable precise editing of genes), have made it possible to modify pathogens, potentially creating more lethal or targeted biological weapons. The idea of designing diseases that could specifically target specific populations based on genetic markers adds a disturbing dimension to bioweapons research. Although international treaties like the Biological Weapons Convention aim to prevent such developments, the growing accessibility of genetic technologies makes the risk of bioengineered weapons a pressing global concern, necessitating stronger regulations and monitoring.

 

Successful Test of EMP Weapons. Successful electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons tests have raised alarms about the potential impact on global security. EMP weapons generate intense bursts of electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling electronic systems, including power grids, communication networks, and military technologies. In recent tests, countries like the United States, China, and Russia have demonstrated the destructive potential of EMPs, which could paralyse critical infrastructure on a large scale. While EMP weapons are seen as strategic tools for disrupting adversaries, their use also carries significant risks of unintended global consequences, including widespread civilian suffering and the collapse of essential services.

 

Devastating Swarm Drones.  Swarm drones, groups of autonomous or semi-autonomous drones operating in coordination, are emerging as a devastating new tool in modern air warfare. These drones can be deployed in large numbers, overwhelming enemy defences with precision strikes and creating significant disruption. Equipped with advanced sensors and artificial intelligence, swarm drones can navigate complex environments, target multiple objectives simultaneously, and adapt to changing conditions. Their use in military conflicts has raised concerns about their potential for widespread destruction, especially when used for surveillance, sabotage, or large-scale attacks. As drone technology evolves, swarm drones are expected to become a significant threat to global security.

 

Neural Interface Weapons. Neural interface weapons represent a new frontier in military technology, leveraging direct connections between the human brain and machines to control or disrupt enemy forces. These weapons could potentially manipulate neural functions, influencing behaviour and decision-making, or even incapacitating individuals through targeted brain stimulation. Research into brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) is advancing rapidly, opening possibilities for offensive and defensive warfare applications. While these technologies could enhance soldier performance or create new forms of non-lethal warfare, they raise significant ethical, privacy, and security concerns. Developing neural interface weapons could redefine the nature of conflict, blurring the lines between technology and human cognition.

 

Military Expenditure & Arms Race Trends

 

Record-Breaking Global Military Expenditure. Global military expenditure has reached unprecedented levels, with countries worldwide allocating record-breaking budgets for defence in recent years. In 2023, global military spending surpassed $2.44 trillion, marking a 3.7% increase from the previous year. This surge is driven by escalating geopolitical tensions, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and growing security concerns, particularly in regions like the Indo-Pacific. Nations like the United States, China, and Russia are leading the charge with significant investments in advanced technologies, including cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence. This increase in military spending raises concerns about global stability and resource allocation.

 

China’s Military Growth. China’s military growth has been a defining feature of its rise as a global power. The country has significantly expanded its defence budget in recent years, investing heavily in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and next-generation weaponry. China’s (official) defence budget has grown over the past decade, totalling $296 billion in 2023. However, defence spending could be at least triple that value, closing in on the U.S. figures of about $1 trillion. Modernising its armed forces includes developing sophisticated missile systems, stealth aircraft, and a growing naval fleet, positioning China as a formidable military presence, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. This rapid military expansion is fuelled by Beijing’s strategic goals of asserting territorial claims, enhancing regional influence, and strengthening its global geopolitical stance amidst rising tensions with the West.

 

China’s Growing Influence in the Global Defence Industry. China’s growing influence in the global defence industry has become increasingly evident as the country emerges as a leading producer and exporter of military technology. Five Chinese firms now rank among the world’s top 12 defence companies, with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) securing the second position globally. China’s military exports are expanding across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, offering competitive alternatives to Western suppliers. The country’s focus on innovation and its strategic partnerships and initiatives like the Belt and Road position China as a key player in reshaping the global defence landscape and challenging traditional arms-exporting powers.

 

Escalation in East Asia’s Defence Budgets. Defence budgets in East Asia are escalating rapidly as regional security concerns intensify, driven by the growing influence of China and its military advancements, as well as North Korea’s continued missile tests. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are significantly increasing their military spending to counter these threats and bolster national defence capabilities. Japan is modernising its forces with advanced missile defence systems and fighter jets, while South Korea is focusing on strengthening its air and missile defence systems. This regional arms build-up reflects heightened tensions, with countries investing in cutting-edge technologies such as hypersonic missiles, cyber security, and naval assets to safeguard their security.

 

Surge in Japan and South Korea Defence Sales. Japan and South Korea have seen a significant rise in defence sales, driven by increasing regional security concerns and growing defence budgets. In 2023, both nations ramped up military spending, fuelled by North Korea’s missile threats and heightened tensions with China. Traditionally focused on self-defence, Japan is expanding its defence capabilities, including advanced missile defence systems and fighter jets. South Korea is boosting its arms production, particularly in defence technology such as drones and military vehicles. This surge in defence sales highlights both countries’ shifts towards more proactive defence strategies amidst evolving security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.

 

Rise in EU Defence Spending. European Union defence spending has sharply increased recently, reflecting growing concerns over regional security and the need for stronger military deterrence. In 2023, EU member states collectively raised their defence budgets by over 10%, with countries like Germany, France, and Poland leading the charge. The Russian invasion of Ukraine drives the surge, prompting EU nations to reassess their defence strategies and military preparedness. Increased investments are being directed toward modernising the armed forces, enhancing cyber defence, and strengthening NATO collaborations. This rise in defence spending signals a shift towards greater military autonomy and readiness within Europe.

 

Boost in Russian Defence Budget. Russia has significantly increased its defence budget recently, primarily driven by ongoing military operations in Ukraine and growing security concerns over NATO expansion. Russia’s defence spending is set to reach unprecedented levels in the coming years. The Kremlin plans to allocate 13.5 trillion roubles ($145 billion) to military expenditures in 2025, a 25% increase from the 2024 budget of 10.4 trillion roubles. This boost reflects Russia’s strategy to enhance its military readiness and maintain a robust defence posture amidst international sanctions and geopolitical isolation. The surge in defence spending also aims to reinforce Russia’s strategic interests, both domestically and globally.

 

Middle East Arms Race. The Middle East is witnessing an escalating arms race as regional powers invest heavily in military technology to assert influence and ensure security. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates are significantly expanding their defence budgets, purchasing advanced weaponry, including missile defence systems, fighter jets, and drones. Tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the conflict in Yemen, and rivalries between Sunni and Shia factions fuel the competition. This arms race intensifies the region’s instability, as military buildups may provoke further conflict and exacerbate existing geopolitical rivalries. The influx of modern arms also poses challenges for regional and global security. Iran has announced plans to triple its military budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani has revealed the proposed 200% increase in defence funding. Iran’s current military spending is estimated at $10.3 billion.

 

North African Arms Race. The North African arms race is intensifying as countries in the region ramp up military spending in response to regional instability, terrorism, and geopolitical rivalries. Nations like Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco are significantly increasing their defence budgets, investing in advanced weaponry, including fighter jets, tanks, and missile systems. The competition is fuelled by territorial disputes, especially over Western Sahara, and concerns over militant groups operating in the Sahel region. In addition to conventional arms, there is growing interest in acquiring cutting-edge technologies, such as drones and cyber warfare capabilities. This arms race threatens to exacerbate tensions and destabilise an already volatile region. Morocco and Algeria are driving a regional military spending surge, accounting for 82% of North African and 45.5% of total African defence expenditure, intensifying the arms race on the continent.

 

Technology for Conflict Prevention

 

Advancements in technology are playing a crucial role in conflict prevention by enhancing early warning systems, improving diplomacy, and facilitating timely interventions. AI-driven data analysis can predict potential hotspots by monitoring social, political, and economic trends and identifying signs of instability before they escalate into violence. Satellite surveillance and geospatial technologies help track military movements, border disputes, and natural resource conflicts. Additionally, communication platforms allow for quicker international coordination, enabling global response mechanisms. Technologies like blockchain can foster transparency in peace agreements. At the same time, social media monitoring tools provide real-time insights into public sentiment, empowering governments and organisations to take preventive action effectively.

 

Please do Comment.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Winds of Change in Global Defence

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. “The Future of Defense: AI, Cybersecurity, and Emerging Technologies”, Journal of Strategic Studies (2022).
  1. “Hybrid Warfare: The New Face of Conflict”, The RUSI Journal (2023).
  1. “2024 Global Defense Outlook”, Jane’s Defence.
  1. “The Future of Military Technologies”, RAND Corporation (2023).
  1. “Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World”, National Intelligence Council (NIC) (2021).
  2. “Defense Expenditure Trends in Asia-Pacific”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (2022).
  1. “Global Security in the Twenty-First Century” by Sean Kay.

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.

 

Posted on

559: CYBER POSTURING AND CYBER STRATEGIC COERCION

 

 

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.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

1014
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the paper on the website:

Cyber Posturing And Cyber Strategic Coercion (Air Marshal Anil Khosla)

 

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Lin, H, “Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know”, Oxford University Press, 2020.
  1. Rid, T, “Cyber War Will Not Take Place”, Oxford University Press, 2013.
  1. Schneier, B, “Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World”, W. W. Norton & Company, 2015.
  1. Alberts, D. S, “The Influence of Information on Military Operations”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 2008.
  1. Chon, G, “North Korea’s Cyber Heists and the Global Financial System.” The Financial Times, 2016.
  1. Gartenstein-Ross, D, “Iran’s Cyber Strategy: A Framework for Analysis.” International Security Program, The Atlantic Council, 2014.
  1. Mueller, R, “Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election”. United States Department of Justice, 2019.
  1. 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.

English हिंदी