geopolitics – Page 3 – Air Marshal's Perspective

December 15, 2024December 15, 2024

557: SOUTH KOREAN CRISIS: RIPPLE EFFECT ON INDIA

Pics Courtesy Net

The South Korean crisis, a pivotal moment in the nation’s history, was ignited when President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law on December 3, 2024. This unprecedented decision was met with a wave of backlash, triggering an impeachment vote and eventually reversing the martial law order. These moves, viewed as a direct violation of the constitution, sparked widespread protests and calls for Yoon’s removal by the opposition parties. The public outrage, a testament to the severity of the crisis, has been significant, with even members of Yoon’s party openly criticising the declarations. South Korea is engulfed in significant political turmoil due to escalating protests over his administration’s policies. This political crisis has not only heightened regional tensions, especially with North Korea’s provocations, but also has far-reaching regional repercussions, intensifying the U.S.-China rivalry and reshaping diplomatic and economic alliances across East Asia.

Reasons for South Korean Crisis

The ongoing crisis reflects more profound governance issues, political polarisation, and public dissatisfaction with the establishment. The South Korean crisis stems from several key factors. Protests over President Yoon Suk-yeol’s policies, particularly regarding national security and economic issues, led to his controversial declaration of martial law. Subsequent impeachment proceedings have deepened divisions between political factions. North Korea’s increased provocations and the broader U.S.-China rivalry have amplified geopolitical pressures, complicating South Korea’s diplomatic and security landscape. The current political crisis in South Korea is rooted in several controversial policies and political decisions by President Yoon Suk-yeol, which have sparked widespread protests and opposition.

- Controversial Governance Style. Yoon’s frequent use of presidential veto power, more than any previous leader, has deepened tensions with the opposition-controlled National Assembly. His refusal to cooperate with legislative processes, such as skipping the National Assembly’s opening, has alienated lawmakers and fuelled public distrust.

- Corruption Allegations. Scandals involving Yoon’s administration, such as allegations of corruption linked to former Defence Minister Lee Jong-sup and controversies involving the First Lady, have further eroded public confidence. These issues have been exacerbated by long-standing perceptions of corruption in both the ruling and opposition parties.

- Failed Policy Initiatives. Yoon’s domestic agenda has been largely stalled, with many of his key proposals on healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure facing strong opposition in the National Assembly. His attempt to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality also generated significant backlash.

- North Korea Policy. Yoon’s hawkish stance on North Korea, including the revival of joint military drills with the U.S. and closer ties with Japan, has increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula. However, these moves have failed to garner domestic support, as many South Koreans are tired of continuous threats from Pyongyang and remain sceptical of Yoon’s approach.

Geopolitical Repercussions

The political crisis in South Korea has significant geopolitical repercussions, both regionally and globally. The geopolitical aspects of South Korea’s internal crisis could reverberate far beyond its borders, potentially destabilising regional security and economic dynamics. The crisis can intensify the U.S.-China rivalry, as both countries may seek to influence the situation’s outcome to their advantage.

North Korean Tensions. The internal political turmoil in South Korea could embolden North Korea, which has continued its provocations and strengthened ties with Russia. Any perceived weakening of South Korea’s leadership may lead Pyongyang to increase military pressure or pursue more aggressive nuclear posturing. The instability could also undermine South Korea’s efforts to forge meaningful dialogues or a strategy of peaceful resolution with North Korea.

U.S.-South Korea Alliance. South Korea’s alliance with the United States, crucial for countering North Korea and ensuring stability in the Indo-Pacific, may be strained by internal instability. President Yoon’s administration has emphasised a strong military partnership, primarily through joint exercises and anti-missile systems. Still, his governance style and political struggles could weaken the effectiveness of these collaborations. A continued erosion of domestic support for Yoon’s policies could make it difficult for South Korea to maintain its assertive position in security matters, potentially weakening the U.S.-South Korea security framework.

Regional Power Dynamics with China and Japan. South Korea’s relations with China and Japan are central to the region’s strategic landscape. If Yoon’s administration falters, it could shift South Korea’s diplomatic focus. South Korea’s current administration has sought to strengthen trilateral cooperation with Japan and the U.S. However, political gridlock and instability could limit its ability to navigate these competing powers. China, in particular, may capitalise on a weakened South Korea to assert its influence in Northeast Asia, especially given the growing U.S.-China rivalry.

Economic Impact. The ongoing domestic Crisis in South Korea, with its key role in global supply chains, particularly in the technology and semiconductor industries, could have a significant global economic impact. The potential for policy inconsistencies due to domestic instability could hurt South Korea’s global economic position, especially in its dealings with China, the U.S., and Japan. The ongoing crisis could undermine investor confidence and disrupt trade agreements and economic policies, underscoring the situation’s urgency.

Role of Foreign Powers

While not directly involved in the South Korean crisis, foreign powers play a significant role through their impact on regional security dynamics and economic relations. The U.S., a staunch supporter of South Korea’s security policies, could find its alliances with Seoul complicated by the political instability, including Yoon’s low approval ratings and internal divisions. North Korea and China, on the other hand, could seek to exploit the political uncertainty in Seoul, further complicating the already tense geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia.

United States. The U.S. remains South Korea’s closest ally, significantly influencing its foreign and security policies. The U.S. has been a key supporter of South Korea’s security policies, particularly in countering North Korean aggression and China’s growing influence. President Yoon’s foreign policy, including military cooperation and efforts to strengthen the trilateral alliance with Japan and the U.S., aligns with Washington’s broader strategy. However, the political instability in South Korea, including Yoon’s low approval ratings and internal divisions, complicates these alliances. The U.S. has expressed support for South Korea’s security measures, but instability within South Korea could undermine its ability to carry out joint defence and security initiatives effectively.

North Korea. North Korea is among the most direct beneficiaries of South Korea’s internal turmoil. North Korea could exploit the political rift in South Korea, interpreting internal instability as weakening Seoul’s stance. This could encourage Pyongyang to increase military tests or alter its regional posture, further destabilising the Korean Peninsula.

China. China is critical in shaping the broader geopolitical environment as a regional power and South Korea’s largest trading partner. The instability in South Korea could create opportunities for China to exert more influence, especially in economic and diplomatic spheres. Should South Korea’s leadership falter, China may seek to further align with North Korea, which could shift the balance of power in Northeast Asia. Additionally, China has been sensitive to South Korea’s cooperation with the U.S., particularly regarding defence issues, such as the THAAD missile defence system. A weakened South Korea could create diplomatic space for China to pursue its interests more assertively.

Japan. Japan is another important external actor. While relations between Japan and South Korea have been historically strained, Yoon’s administration has worked to improve ties, particularly in a trilateral U.S.-South Korea-Japan alliance. However, domestic instability in South Korea could hinder these diplomatic efforts, potentially leading to setbacks in regional cooperation. Moreover, Japan’s security concerns regarding North Korea’s missile tests and China’s growing influence may motivate it to take a more active role in regional security issues if South Korea becomes less reliable as a partner.

Impact on India

The South Korean crisis could have several implications for India. While India may not be directly involved in the situation, its ripple effects—especially regarding economic disruptions, regional security, and diplomatic positioning—could challenge India’s long-term strategy in Asia.

Impact on Trade and Economic Relations. South Korea is an important economic partner for India, with strong ties in technology, manufacturing, and trade, particularly in electronics and automobiles. If South Korea’s domestic instability disrupts its economic policies or the stability of its industrial sector, it could lead to a slowdown in trade or supply chain disruptions, affecting Indian businesses relying on Korean exports. Additionally, South Korea’s position in global tech markets (mainly semiconductors) means that political turmoil could create ripple effects in global supply chains, potentially impacting India’s technology sector.

Regional Security Dynamics. South Korea’s crisis could shift security priorities in Northeast Asia, with potential implications for India’s strategic interests. India has been increasing its engagement with regional powers in Asia, particularly in response to growing Chinese assertiveness. South Korea’s political instability could create uncertainties in the Indo-Pacific security architecture. Furthermore, a weakened South Korea could reduce its capacity to contribute to regional security efforts, such as countering North Korea’s nuclear program and addressing challenges posed by China.

Diplomatic Consequences. India has been strengthening ties with South Korea. A prolonged crisis in South Korea could strain Indo-Korean relations, particularly if it leads to shifts in foreign policy or internal conflicts affecting South Korea’s role in regional diplomacy. India may also need to navigate tensions between the U.S., China, and Japan as they respond to the crisis, which could complicate India’s positioning in regional and global diplomatic forums.

Indirect Effects. Should North Korea respond to South Korea’s instability with increased provocations, it could destabilise the broader region. Though geographically distant, India closely monitors East Asian developments as part of its broader security and foreign policy strategy. Increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula could affect India’s strategic calculus in balancing relations with major powers, particularly China and shaping its defence posture.

Indian Stand

India has long had a strong relationship with South Korea, bolstered by economic, technological, and cultural ties. The two nations are also engaged in trilateral collaborations with the United States, particularly in technology, trade, and defence. This alignment allows India to support South Korea’s economic and security interests amidst regional instability, mainly as China grows more assertive.

India has always emphasised the importance of a rules-based international order. At the same time, India is mindful of the internal challenges South Korea faces, which could affect the nation’s ability to navigate geopolitical tensions. India’s stance on the South Korean crisis reflects its broader strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks to maintain stability and safeguard regional security.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

Chung, J. (2024). The South Korean Crisis: Implications for Regional Stability. Asian Studies Review.

Kumar, A. (2024). India’s Foreign Policy in the Context of South Korean Instability. Indian Foreign Affairs Journal.

Lee, H., & Park, S. (2024). South Korea’s Political Turmoil: Economic and Diplomatic Consequences. Korea Economic Review.

Sharma, R. (2024). The Impact of South Korean Unrest on Indo-Pacific Security. Strategic Insights.

Deep Dive Editorial Team. (2024). South Korean Political Crisis and Its Ripple Effects in Asia. The Deep Dive.

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.

December 8, 2024December 8, 2024

551: SYRIAN CRISIS: GEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTIES

Syria - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

My Article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 08 Dec 24.

The Syrian crisis has escalated significantly, with opposition forces making substantial territorial gains. Syrian rebels have declared that Damascus is “free,” claiming Bashar al-Assad has fled the capital. The rebels earlier claimed to have entered the capital and taken control of the notorious Saydnaya Military Prison north of Damascus. Reportedly, scenes of chaos are unfolding everywhere in Damascus as Syrian rebel forces continue their lightning advance into the capital city.

Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Ghazi al-Jalali has said, “We are ready to cooperate with any leadership the people choose, offering all possible support to ensure a smooth and systematic transition of government functions and preserve state facilities.” The militant leader of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), the leading group driving the country’s armed opposition, released a statement calling on rebel forces to leave state institutions unharmed.

The Syrian conflict is experiencing a significant shift. This resurgence follows years of relative stalemate since the 2020 Idlib ceasefire. These developments have potential geopolitical ramifications, including challenges for Assad’s allies like Russia and Iran.

Syria’s Rebel Groups. The Syrian opposition consists of a diverse array of rebel groups and factions. These groups have varying degrees of influence and control across Syria. They are often linked to regional sponsors such as Turkey, the U.S., and the Gulf States. Syria’s rebel coalition consists of Islamist and moderate factions who, despite their differences, are united in fighting the Assad regime. The fragmentation among these groups complicates negotiations and challenges international peace efforts.

- Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS). The most prominent and formidable group is HTS, also known as the Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant. HTS was founded by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, a military commander who gained experience as a young fighter for al Qaeda against the United States in Iraq. He created Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, and operated the group until a public split with in 2016 over ideological differences and opposition to ISIS. Jolani formed HTS in 2017. Despite Jolani’s effort to distance HTS from al Qaeda and ISIS, the US and other Western countries designated it a terrorist organisation in 2018 and placed a $10 million bounty on him.

- The Syrian National Army (SNA). The Syrian National Army (SNA) is a coalition of various Syrian rebel factions, predominantly supported by Turkey, established in 2017. It was formed to consolidate opposition forces and strengthen their position against the Assad regime and Kurdish forces in Syria. The SNA has been active in northern Syria, especially in regions like Afrin and Azaz, and is involved in conflict zones such as Idlib. The group’s formation reflects Turkey’s influence in Syrian affairs and its aim to curb the Kurdish YPG’s influence.

- Syrian Democratic Forces. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is a multi-ethnic alliance of Kurdish, Arab, and other minority groups fighting against ISIS and other jihadist factions in Syria. It was established in 2015 with the support of the U.S. to provide stability in the region and counter ISIS’s control over significant parts of north-eastern Syria. The SDF has played a crucial role in the fight against ISIS.

- Free Syrian Army (FSA). The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a loose coalition of rebel groups that emerged during the early stages of the Syrian civil war in 2011. It initially sought to overthrow the Assad regime but has since evolved into a broad-based opposition force with various factions, ranging from moderate to Islamist groups. The FSA is backed by Turkey, the U.S., and several Gulf states and has played a significant role in the conflict, particularly in the northern and southern regions of Syria. Its influence has fluctuated due to internal divisions and competition from other groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

- Druze. In Syria’s south, fighters from the country’s Druze religious minority have also joined the fight. Druze are fighting in the southern city of as-Suwayda, which neighbours the Daraa province, where opposition forces claim to have taken control of Daraa city.

Geopolitical Consequences

Internal Power Struggle. Assad’s core territory is now fragmented. Losing Aleppo and Hama removes critical industrial and economic hubs. With the fall of Damascus, dwindling resources, and troop morale collapsing, Assad’s ability to mount counteroffensives is limited. This creates a vacuum, increasing the likelihood of factional infighting within his loyalist base or between foreign backers like Russia and Iran.

Regional Implications. Turkey gains in influence as its backed forces expand control. This supports Ankara’s goal of creating a buffer zone along its border to prevent Kurdish dominance. However, Turkey risks overextending itself as it juggles domestic instability and its role in NATO. Assad’s setbacks reduce Iran’s access to key routes for its “Shia Crescent” strategy, complicating support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran might escalate direct military involvement, which could further drain its economy. Moscow’s efforts to maintain its naval base in Tartus and airbase in Latakia are under threat. Increased instability could undermine Russia’s ability to project power in the region, exposing it to higher costs and reduced influence. With Assad and Iran weakened, Israel may exploit the opportunity to target Hezbollah and Iranian forces in Syria, potentially leading to broader regional skirmishes.

Humanitarian Crisis. The opposition’s rapid advance has displaced hundreds of thousands, with more expected to flee as conflict zones expand. The UN and NGOs are struggling to provide aid, with many areas inaccessible. Neighbouring countries like Turkey and Jordan, already hosting millions of refugees, face additional strain, risking social and political unrest. In Europe, renewed refugee flows could exacerbate political divides over immigration, impacting EU cohesion and policy-making.

International Dynamics. The U.S. might aim to position the opposition for a post-conflict settlement, countering Russian and Iranian influence. However, this risks deepening U.S.-Russia tensions. The conflict’s escalation might draw in Saudi Arabia and Gulf allies on the side of opposition forces, intensifying competition with Iran. Meanwhile, though less directly involved, China may push for diplomatic solutions to protect its regional Belt and Road interests. The crisis could dominate discussions at the UN, with calls for new peace talks. However, divisions among global powers might stymie meaningful resolutions.

India and the Syrian Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities

Geopolitical Neutrality: Balancing Relationships. India should push for negotiations and political solutions through international bodies, supporting initiatives for a ceasefire and political settlement while avoiding direct involvement in military action. India needs to maintain a nuanced diplomatic approach with significant powers involved in Syria—particularly the U.S., Russia, and Iran. It should avoid becoming overly dependent on any nation’s stance to protect its strategic interests. Active participation in forums like the UN and BRICS can provide a platform for influencing discussions on Syria without directly taking sides.

Energy Security. To protect against potential supply disruptions from the Middle East, India must maintain and expand its strategic oil reserves, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. Establishing relationships with non-Middle Eastern suppliers (e.g., Russia, Africa) can also provide alternatives. Strengthening ties with key oil-producing nations in the Gulf (e.g., Saudi Arabia, UAE) is vital. This can include trade agreements and economic partnerships to ensure stability in energy supply routes.

Humanitarian Aid. India could use humanitarian aid to bolster its image as a responsible global player and reinforce its commitment to international peace and security. It could expand financial and material support to affected populations in Syria through UN channels and bilateral assistance programs. This can include funding for healthcare, food, shelter, and education for displaced people. Collaboration with international partners to invest in rebuilding infrastructure, health, and education systems in conflict-affected areas can provide stability and foster goodwill.

The Syrian crisis has brought significant geopolitical uncertainties to the forefront, with wide-reaching implications for global powers and regional stability. As the conflict evolves, it poses complex challenges. The outcome of the Syrian conflict will shape the region’s future and impact India’s strategic positioning in a rapidly changing global landscape. Balancing these risks while maintaining neutrality will be key for India as it seeks to safeguard its national interests.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

Link to the article on the website:

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/bashar-al-assad-iranian-embassy-stormed-in-damascus-syrian-state-tv-declares-fall-of-assad-regime/

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

November 28, 2024November 28, 2024

541: COLD WAR REDUX: TRAITS AND DRIVERS OF COLD WAR 2.0

My Article published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on 27 Nov 24.

“Cold War 2.0” describes the re-emergence of intense geopolitical competition between major powers, mainly the U.S. and China, and Russia’s increasingly assertive foreign policy. This framework parallels the original Cold War, which saw the United States and the Soviet Union locked in ideological and strategic rivalry. However, the current scenario has distinctive traits shaped by global interconnectedness, economic interdependence, and digital warfare.

Economic Interdependence and Competition. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the current era is marked by deep financial ties between rival states. For instance, the U.S. and China have significant trade and investment links, creating a complex relationship between competitors and economic partners. This has led to policies like “decoupling” and “friend-shoring,” where nations look to limit economic dependencies with strategic rivals, especially in critical sectors like technology and energy.

Tech and Cyber Dominance. The competition now prominently features digital spaces and technological development. China’s rise in artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and quantum computing has led the U.S. and its allies to push for greater control over digital infrastructure and intellectual property. Cyber security is another battlefield, with accusations of hacking and surveillance shaping security policies and alliances.

Military Posturing and Arms Races. The military build-up is also central to Cold War 2.0. While nuclear capabilities remain crucial, the focus has expanded to space warfare, hypersonic missiles, and advanced drone technology. For example, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy counters China’s growing military influence in Asia. At the same time, Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine have led NATO to strengthen its military presence on Europe’s eastern flank.

Ideological Clashes. While less ideological than the original Cold War, there is a growing divergence between the democratic and authoritarian governance models, particularly as China promotes its model as an alternative to Western liberalism. This has led to ideological contestation in digital governance, human rights, and trade rules, with each power attempting to influence international norms and institutions to reflect its values.

Strategic Alliances and Blocs. The current rivalry sees the emergence of new alliances and a revival of older ones, such as NATO and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) among the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, which aims to counterbalance China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, China and Russia are strengthening their ties, often working together in the United Nations and other forums to counter Western initiatives.

Resource Control and Economic Leverage. Access to resources such as rare earth metals, energy, and food is another area of strategic competition. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which funds infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, is seen as expanding its influence by creating economic dependencies. The U.S. counters with its initiatives, such as the Build Back Better World (B3W) program, which offers alternatives for development financing.

Impacts on Global Relations. The emergence of Cold War 2.0 has led to shifting alliances, with some nations choosing sides and others attempting a non-aligned approach to maintain autonomy. Middle powers like India, Brazil, and South Africa find themselves balancing between the two giants, shaping new multilateral dynamics. Meanwhile, the increased emphasis on national security in trade and technology policies is reshaping globalisation, potentially leading to more isolated economic blocs.

Comparison of Drivers of the Earlier and Current Cold War

The drivers of the original Cold War (1947–1991) between the U.S. and the Soviet Union differ from those of today’s “Cold War 2.0,” primarily between the U.S. and China, with Russia playing a significant but secondary role. These geopolitical, ideological, and technological rivalries reveal continuities and marked differences.

Sl No

Drivers

Differences

Ideological Rivalry

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and the Soviet Union were divided by sharply contrasting ideologies: capitalism and democracy versus communism and authoritarianism. Each superpower sought to promote its ideology globally, often through proxy wars, propaganda, and cultural influence campaigns.

Current Cold War: Although there’s still an ideological component, the divide is less rigid. The U.S. advocates liberal democracy, while China’s governance model blends authoritarianism and state-led capitalism. Rather than openly promoting its ideology as a direct alternative, China emphasises economic development and “pragmatic” governance as models for stability and growth. There’s less overt ideological export and more influence through economic interdependence and development projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Geopolitical Power Struggles

Earlier Cold War: The rivalry largely revolved around Europe, with proxy conflicts extending to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The focus was to prevent either side from gaining influence in these regions, as seen through U.S. and Soviet interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other hotspots.

Current Cold War: The U.S. and China focus on the Indo-Pacific region as the primary sphere of influence, with attention to Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. The U.S. is strengthening alliances with Japan, Australia, India (QUAD), and other Indo-Pacific partners, while China is extending its influence through its BRI and increasing its military presence in disputed territories. Russia, meanwhile, has focused on asserting control in Eastern Europe, as seen in the Ukraine conflict, though this rivalry is more geographically constrained.

Economic Rivalry and Interdependence

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and Soviet Union had limited economic interactions, creating two largely independent blocs. Economic influence was exerted through aid programs (like the U.S. Marshall Plan) and political-economic treaties with allied countries. Global trade and economies were less intertwined, allowing for distinct capitalist and socialist economic systems.

Current Cold War: Economic interdependence is a defining factor. China and the U.S. are each other’s largest trading partners, and both economies are deeply embedded in global supply chains. Despite economic competition, each depends heavily on the other. This dynamic has led to “selective decoupling,” where each side aims to reduce dependence on critical technologies and resources without severing all economic ties. This is especially prominent in sectors like semiconductors, 5G, and renewable energy technologies.

Technology and Cyber Warfare

Earlier Cold War: The technological competition focused on space, nuclear capabilities, and conventional military technology. The “Space Race” and “Arms Race” were significant components, with the Apollo moon landing and arms treaties like SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) symbolising the intense scientific and military rivalry.

Current Cold War: The focus has shifted to advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and cyber security. Cyber warfare has become a core area of conflict, with cyber-attacks, espionage, and influence operations playing significant roles. There’s competition for dominance in 5G networks and critical infrastructure control, with concerns about digital sovereignty, surveillance, and influence operations on social media. This “Tech Race” lacks the clear-cut technological “wins” of the Space Race, but it’s arguably more pervasive and impactful on civilian and governmental life worldwide.

Military Strategies and Posturing

Earlier Cold War: The focus was on nuclear arms buildup and deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), with proxy wars to avoid direct confrontation. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established, and military posturing often involved nuclear tests, displays of military hardware, and highly symbolic confrontations (e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Current Cold War: While nuclear deterrence remains, military competition now involves a broader range of strategies, including space militarisation, hypersonic missile development, and significant advancements in drone and cyber warfare. China is focused on expanding its naval capabilities and power projection in the South China Sea, while the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to a renewed focus on NATO’s defensive posture in Europe.

Alliances and Proxy Conflicts

Earlier Cold War: Alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact formalised the division of East and West. Many proxy conflicts emerged, particularly in developing regions, where both superpowers supported opposing sides to prevent ideological shifts. Examples include the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Current Cold War: Alliances are less rigid, and there’s an emphasis on “flexible” partnerships. The U.S. builds security frameworks like the Quad and AUKUS (Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.) while strengthening alliances like NATO. China, meanwhile, does not engage in formal military alliances but leverages economic influence through the BRI and diplomatic coalitions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Russia uses its influence in post-Soviet states and controls Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Propaganda and Influence Operations

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in direct propaganda campaigns, including Radio Free Europe, cultural exchanges, and global information wars to win hearts and minds.

Current Cold War: Information warfare is more complex and digital. Social media platforms have become battlegrounds for influence, with disinformation campaigns, election interference, and social polarisation strategies targeting rivals. China and Russia conduct sophisticated operations, leveraging global media channels, online platforms, and soft power to shape narratives. The U.S., in turn, supports global media initiatives that promote democratic governance and transparency.

Cold War 2.0 has introduced new complexities into international relations, where intertwined economies, advanced technology, and a globalised world order shape competition. The drivers of today’s “Cold War 2.0” reflect a multi-dimensional competition that diverges from the earlier Cold War in its deep economic interdependence, technology-centric rivalry, and more fluid alliances. The ideological divide is softer but still significant, with the U.S., China, and Russia vying for global influence. This rivalry unfolds in a digitally connected world where technology and information warfare play unprecedented roles, resulting in a complex geopolitical landscape with intensified tensions and interdependencies. Unlike the bipolar world of the original Cold War, today’s scenario is multipolar, involving several influential states that resist being drawn entirely into either camp. The result is a fluid, high-stakes environment that demands careful diplomacy and strategic restraint.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

George Takach. “Cold War 2.0: The Battle Between Democracies and Autocracies.” The Diplomat, June 2024.

Ferguson, Niall. “The Rise of Cold War II.” Milken Institute Global Conference, May 2022.

Mayer, Maximilian, and Kavalski, Emilian. “Cold War 2.0 and European Security.” Intereconomics Journal, July 2022.

Traub, James. “A New Non-Aligned Movement in a Divided World.” Foreign Policy, July 2022.

Bishara Marwan. “And so, Cold War II begins”, Al Jazeera, 24 February 2022.

Westad Odd Arne “Has a New Cold War Really Begun?”, Foreign Affair, 09 February 2019.

Smith Nicholas Ross, “A New Cold War: Assessing the Current US-Russia Relationship”, Wayback Machine. Springer, 23 March 2021.

Woodward Jude, “The US Vs China: Asia’s New Cold War? Manchester University Press, 2017.

Zhao Minghao, “Is a New Cold War Inevitable? Chinese Perspectives on US-China Strategic Competition”. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 2019.

Willy Wo-Lap Lam, “The New Cold War that Threatens to Turn Hot”, The Jamestown Foundation 2023.

Disclaimer: