russia – Air Marshal's Perspective

January 24, 2025

585: IMPERIAL OVERSTRESSING: A CRUCIAL ASPECT IN THE RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES

Pics Courtesy Net

My Article published on the Life of Soldier website on 24 Jan 25.

Imperialism—the extension of a nation’s power through military force, diplomacy, and economic means—has been a driving force behind much of world history. The sustainability of such power often hinges on how well an empire can manage its vast resources and territories. The idea that empires succumb to imperial overstretch stems from the concept first articulated by historian Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. The idea of imperial overstressing refers to the point at which the burden of managing expansive territories, diverse populations, and economic interests becomes too great to bear. It posits that empires decline when their ambitions and commitments abroad exceed their economic and societal resources. The hypothesis is not outdated but is a relevant issue for current global powers like the United States and China.

Theories of Imperialism

Understanding imperial overstressing is not just a theoretical exercise but a crucial aspect of understanding historical and contemporary geopolitics. It requires a foundation in the different theories of imperialism that have shaped historical and modern geopolitics and their practical application in analysing the rise and fall of empires.

Economic Theory. A Key Driver of Imperialism. This theory, championed by thinkers like John Hobson and Vladimir Lenin, offers a unique perspective on the motivations behind imperialism. It posits that the search for new markets, investment opportunities, and surplus capital drives imperial expansion, with the need to find profitable avenues for surplus capital being a key factor. Lenin’s emphasis on imperialism as a monopoly stage of capitalism, where the economic elite seeks new outlets for their excess capital by exploiting weaker regions, further enriches our understanding of this phenomenon.

Strategic Theory. The Significance of Key Areas. This approach focuses on the strategic importance of key areas such as naval routes, ports, and choke points. It underscores the significant advantages these areas provide in global power projection and how empires expanded to dominate these regions, securing trade routes and protecting vital interests. For instance, the British Empire’s control over the Suez Canal allowed it to maintain influence in the Indian Ocean and Asia, highlighting the strategic value of such key areas.

Cultural Theory. The cultural theory views imperialism as driven by a desire to spread dominant cultural, religious, or ideological values. It justified expansion as a form of “civilising mission,” presenting imperial control as beneficial for native populations. The British Empire’s justification for colonisation in Africa and Asia often emphasised the need to introduce Christianity and Western civilisation to supposedly “backward” societies.

Historical Context: Case Studies

The Roman Empire

Expansion and Limits. At its height, the Roman Empire spanned from the British Isles to the Middle East, encompassing diverse cultures, languages, and resources. The Roman system of governance needed to be equipped to handle the complexities of such a vast empire. Maintaining an enormous legionary force stretched the empire’s resources, especially when dealing with distant provinces needing protection and oversight.

Economic Strain. The Roman Empire faced profound economic challenges. It relied heavily on slave labour, heavy taxes from provinces, and tributes from conquered peoples to fund its expenditures. The vast system of roads, military garrisons, and cities required a continuous flow of resources. The reliance on trade and the dependence on foreign resources, such as grain from Africa and olive oil from Spain, made the empire vulnerable to disruptions.

Military and Political Challenges. The Roman military’s attempts to expand—through campaigns in Parthia, for example—often overstretched the system. Long supply lines, the need for vast garrisons, and the difficulty of integrating newly conquered peoples into the Roman system all contributed to inefficiencies. The Roman political system struggled to manage these challenges, with corruption, favouritism, and nepotism undermining administrative effectiveness.

Decline and Fall. The decline of the Western Roman Empire is often attributed to the failure to manage the economic, military, and administrative challenges of ruling such a vast territory. The Roman system could not adapt to the pressures of dealing with a constantly shrinking tax base, the costs of suppressing rebellions, and the necessity of defending its borders against ever-increasing barbarian invasions. The eventual collapse in 476 AD was a military defeat and a reflection of the empire’s inability to control its territories.

The British Empire

Global Reach and Maintenance. At its zenith, the British Empire controlled vast territories across Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific. The imperial model relied on leveraging colonies for economic gain—extracting resources and creating markets for British goods. However, maintaining global control required significant military presence and administrative oversight.

Financial Strain. Maintaining an empire was costly. The British government had to fund the Royal Navy, military expeditions, and administrative costs in distant colonies. The burden of protection, trade route security, and the suppression of rebellions greatly strained the British economy. The need to finance these efforts led to increased taxes at home, public discontent, and growing resistance in the colonies.

World Wars as Catalysts. The impact of World Wars I and II on the British Empire was pivotal. The financial costs of these wars were staggering—Britain’s debt ballooned, and the economic impact was felt domestically and internationally. The wars also disrupted global trade and the imperial system, with colonies demanding greater autonomy and independence post-war. The military strain of controlling distant regions was revealed as the British Army was spread thin across multiple fronts, significantly increasing the empire’s burden and contributing to its eventual downfall.

Decolonisation. The aftermath of World War II marked the beginning of the end for the British Empire. The pressure to rebuild post-war economies, combined with nationalist movements across the empire, forced Britain to reassess its imperial strategy. As students, scholars, and individuals interested in history, geopolitics, and imperialism, your understanding and analysis of these events can contribute to reassessing imperial strategies. Decolonisation was hastened by the realisation that the costs of maintaining control over colonies far outweighed the benefits. The granting of independence to India, Pakistan, and other African and Caribbean colonies marked the final phase of British imperial overstretch.

The Soviet Union

Expansion and Control. The Soviet Union extended its influence over Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of the Middle East and Africa. The need to maintain control over these regions placed significant strain on Soviet resources. The empire’s reliance on military force to maintain its influence was economically and politically costly.

Economic Costs. The Soviet Union’s economic model was centred on heavy industry and military spending. The costs of the Cold War arms race with the United States required vast resources. The Soviet leadership prioritised military expenditure over consumer goods and economic diversification, resulting in stagnant living standards and economic growth. The command economy, characterised by state ownership of the means of production and centralised planning, could not allocate resources efficiently, exacerbating the strain on the Soviet system.

Afghan War and Dissolution. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan exposed the limits of Soviet military power. The conflict drained economic resources, led to a protracted war effort, and showed the logistical difficulties of fighting a guerrilla war in a foreign country. The Soviet military, despite its size and capabilities, was overstretched, unable to sustain the conflict or effectively pacify the Afghan population. The economic burden of the war, combined with the impact on public morale and Soviet legitimacy, contributed to the eventual dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

End of the Soviet Empire. Economic stagnation, the inability to adapt to internal and external pressures, and the need for rapid reform precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika policies accelerated the fragmentation and collapse process. The Soviet system could not control its expansive borders and diverse populations.

Analysis of the Present Situation

Understanding the impact of imperial overstressing is crucial for contemporary global powers—particularly the United States and China. They face unique challenges in expanding and maintaining influence while avoiding the pitfalls of past empires.

United States: Policy of Sharing the Burden

Many scholars and commentators argue that the U.S. is experiencing symptoms of overstretch, especially in the 21st century.

Global Presence. The U.S. maintains a vast network of over 750 military bases across over 80 countries and regions, spending nearly $900 billion annually on defence (as of 2023). However, the costs—both financial and political—are high. While this ensures global influence and deterrence, the financial burden of maintaining this military dominance has grown unsustainable.

Military Commitments. It engages in conflicts from the Middle East to East Asia and supports NATO’s collective defence. The prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the U.S. trillions of dollars while yielding questionable strategic benefits. These wars drained resources and contributed to domestic political fatigue regarding foreign interventions.

Rising Competition. American hegemony faces challenges as the unipolar world established after the Cold War transitions to a multipolar order. The emergence of peer competitors like China and Russia, combined with regional challenges from powers like Iran and North Korea, strains U.S. resources further. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, technological advancements, and growing military assertiveness directly challenge U.S. supremacy in Asia and beyond. Long-standing allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even parts of Europe are exploring partnerships with non-Western powers, reflecting diminishing U.S. influence. Efforts by BRICS nations and others to establish alternative financial systems weaken the U.S. dollar’s hegemony, reducing America’s economic leverage.

Domestic issues. Imperial overstretch often involves prioritising external ambitions over internal needs. Internal dysfunction amplifies the effects of overstretching. The U.S. national debt surpassed $33 trillion in 2023, with significant portions of government revenue devoted to servicing debt rather than addressing domestic priorities. Growing public resistance to foreign interventions is challenging the traditional support for expansive global engagement. Deep political polarisation and frequent gridlock in Congress undermine the ability to formulate coherent foreign and domestic policies and the nation’s capacity to adapt to changing global realities.

Economic Costs and Political Dilemmas. The U.S. faces a strategic dilemma—maintaining influence without overcommitting resources. The domestic debate over defence spending, the impact on social services, and the need for economic diversification reflect a broader concern about imperial overstretch. The U.S. must find ways to project power through strategic partnerships, financial ties, and multilateral engagements.

Unique Advantages. While the risks of overstretch are accurate, the U.S. retains unique advantages. America’s technological innovation remains unparalleled, especially in AI, biotechnology, and defence. Unlike many competitors, the U.S. benefits from a relatively youthful and diverse population due to immigration. While strained, the U.S.’s network of allies and partners remains formidable compared to competitors like China.

Possible Way Out. To avoid imperial overstretch, the U.S. must prioritise strategic restraint, focus on domestic revitalisation, and foster multilateral approaches to global challenges. The U.S. can learn from past empires’ decline by focusing on flexibility, adaptability, and the strategic use of alliances. The creation of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and Quad partnership illustrates an attempt to share the burden of regional security with like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific, avoiding the direct military engagement that could lead to overstretch. Whether it can effectively recalibrate its ambitions remains the key question for its future.

China: Influence through Revival of Trade Routes

While China is often viewed as a rising power, some argue it is also at risk of imperial overstretch. As Beijing pursues ambitious global and regional objectives, its expanding commitments could exceed its economic, political, and military capacity, creating vulnerabilities.

Strategic Expansion. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, is a cornerstone of its global strategy. It aims to connect Asia, Africa, and Europe through infrastructure projects. The initiative extends China’s influence through economic investment in infrastructure, trade agreements, and soft power initiatives. It includes projects in Asia, Africa, and Europe, linking China’s markets with new consumers and supply chains.

Challenges. Many BRI recipient countries, such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Zambia, struggle to repay Chinese loans. This has led to debt crises and project defaults, reducing China’s investment returns. The “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative has damaged China’s reputation, forcing it to restructure or forgive loans, adding financial strain. Resistance to the BRI has grown, with countries like Malaysia renegotiating or cancelling projects. Anti-Chinese sentiment in Africa and Southeast Asia complicates China’s efforts to maintain influence. Further, securing Chinese investments in politically unstable regions, such as Central Asia or the Middle East, increases China’s overseas military and diplomatic commitments.

Taiwan and Regional Ambitions: Risk of Overreach. China’s ambitions to assert dominance in its neighbourhood, particularly over Taiwan, risk provoking military and economic overstretch. A military invasion of Taiwan would likely trigger U.S. and allied intervention. This scenario could escalate into a costly conflict, depleting China’s resources and potentially destabilising the Communist Party’s rule.

South China Sea and Border Conflicts. China’s militarisation of the South China Sea has alienated neighbouring countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, driving them closer to the U.S. This increases the cost of managing regional security while undermining Beijing’s goals. Persistent tensions with India along the Himalayan border require significant military deployments, distracting resources from other priorities.

Economic Challenges. China’s economic engine, long its greatest strength, is now showing signs of strain, which could undermine its ability to sustain global ambitions. Post-pandemic recovery has been sluggish, with growth rates declining to their lowest in decades. Youth unemployment and a slowing property market exacerbate internal vulnerabilities. The transition from export-driven to domestic consumption-driven growth has proven difficult, limiting China’s ability to finance overseas commitments. The U.S.-led “decoupling” of supply chains and restrictions on technology exports, such as advanced semiconductors, threatens China’s technological ambitions and long-term competitiveness.

Domestic Difficulties. China’s authoritarian model under Xi Jinping centralises power but creates systemic risks that could exacerbate overstretch. Xi’s consolidation of power reduces flexibility in decision-making and increases the risk of policy mistakes. For instance, China’s zero-COVID policy severely disrupted its economy and global supply chains. China faces a demographic decline due to decades of the one-child policy. Fewer workers and a rapidly ageing population reduce economic productivity and increase social welfare costs. Economic inequality, ethnic tensions in regions like Xinjiang and Tibet, and crackdowns on freedoms create internal unrest, diverting attention and resources from external ambitions. While China has invested heavily in modernising its military, sustaining this pace of spending strains its economy, particularly during a period of slower growth.

Global Backlash: Resistance to Chinese Influence. China’s assertive foreign policy has sparked resistance across various regions, straining its resources and soft power. Western democracies, led by the U.S., have formed coalitions to counter China’s rise, such as AUKUS, the Quad, and NATO’s increased focus on Asia. China must expend significant diplomatic and economic resources to manage these challenges. While China has made inroads in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, its investments often face criticism for being extractive and environmentally damaging. Local resistance to Chinese influence, such as protests against Chinese companies in Africa, adds to the cost of maintaining its foothold.

Recalibration to Avoid Overstretch. China’s rise is remarkable, but its ambition to reshape the global order comes with significant risks of overreach. Whether it can sustain its ascent without succumbing to imperial overstretch will depend on its ability to balance global ambitions with domestic stability and strategic restraint. To avoid imperial overstretch, China must recalibrate its strategies. It should focus on high-value, strategically important BRI projects rather than overextending into low-return or high-risk regions. Domestic economic stability and technological innovation must be prioritised to support long-term ambitions. Shifting from coercive tactics to building genuine partnerships and addressing local grievances in host countries would pay higher dividends. It should avoid entanglements that could escalate into costly conflicts, particularly with the U.S. or regional neighbours.

Conclusion. The historical examples of empires that succumbed to imperial overstretch—such as the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union—reveal common patterns in the relationship between expansion, resource management, and sustainability. The present-day geopolitical landscape, marked by the U.S. and China, requires these nations to carefully navigate the challenges of imperial overstretch. The United States must balance its global responsibilities with economic constraints, while China’s BRI presents a new form of strategic expansion that relies heavily on economic diplomacy and investment. By learning from the past, contemporary powers can avoid the pitfalls that led to the decline of previous empires. The focus should be on maintaining strategic flexibility, using economic partnerships to share the burden of influence, and avoiding overcommitment in military and economic terms. The future will likely shift from direct imperial control to networks of influence, economic leverage, and strategic alliances—less visible than traditional empires but no less potent in shaping global geopolitics.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

Link to the article on the website:-

Imperial Overstressing: A Crucial Aspect in the Rise and Fall of Empires

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

Hobson, John. Imperialism: A Study. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1902.

Lenin, Vladimir I. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1917.

Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Ikenberry, G. John. “The Future of American Power.” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 6 (2010): 56-68.

Trevithick, Richard, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Assessing Its Scope, Scale, and Impact.” The Diplomat, September 25, 2023. https://thediplomat.com/2023/09/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-assessing-its-scope-scale-and-impact/

Chatham House: “The Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for Europe,” June 2023. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/06/belt-and-road-initiative-implications-europe

Council on Foreign Relations: “U.S. Global Strategy in an Era of Competitive Great Power Politics,” November 2022. https://www.cfr.org/2022/11/us-global-strategy-era-competitive-great-power-politics

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.

November 30, 2024November 29, 2024

543: RUSSIAN USE OF THE ORESHNIK MISSILE AND ITS STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Sputnik News, a Russian news agency and radio broadcast service, sought inputs on the Analakshya Project.

Article on the subject:-

RUSSIAN USE OF THE ORESHNIK MISSILE AND ITS STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The development and deployment of the Oreshnik missile, a hypersonic, intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) by Russia, marks a significant shift in global military power dynamics. First publicly revealed in November 2024 during a strike on Ukraine, the Oreshnik has been described as a highly advanced missile capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads with hypersonic speeds exceeding Mach 10. The missile’s introduction highlights Russia’s continued push towards leveraging next-generation military technology to assert its influence, challenge adversaries, and fortify its strategic deterrence capabilities

Oreshnik Missile

Hypersonic Speed and Manoeuvrability. The Oreshnik missile stands out for its hypersonic velocity, with reports indicating speeds of around 2.5 to 3 kilometers per second (Mach 10). This speed renders it nearly immune to current air defence systems, as interception at such velocities requires cutting-edge detection and response technologies. Hypersonic missiles like Oreshnik can also perform mid-flight manoeuvres, making their trajectory unpredictable and further complicating interception efforts.

Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). Oreshnik reportedly carries multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs), with estimates ranging from three to six warheads per missile. These MIRVs can be programmed to strike different targets simultaneously or overwhelm defence systems through sheer volume. The MIRV capability enhances the missile’s destructive potential, especially in scenarios where multiple high-value targets are prioritized.

Intermediate Range and Versatility. The missile’s range is believed to fall between 3,000 and 5,000 kilometers, making it an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). This range covers a significant portion of Europe and parts of Asia, but falls short of reaching the United States. However, this strategic range allows Russia to maintain a strong regional deterrence posture, capable of targeting European NATO members and other adversaries within proximity.

Operational Deployment and Combat Testing. Russia’s first known operational use of the Oreshnik missile occurred in November 2024, when it was deployed against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. According to reports, this strike served as a combat test for the missile in a non-nuclear configuration. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the test was successful, with the missile reaching its intended target without interception. The deployment was designed to demonstrate Russia’s capability to strike with precision and lethality, even in high-pressure combat environments. This deployment signals a shift in Russian military doctrine, emphasising the operational use of hypersonic weapons for both deterrence and offensive purposes. By using Oreshnik in combat, Russia showcased its ability to field advanced missile systems under real-world conditions, sending a clear message to both adversaries and allies regarding its military prowess.

Strategic Implications

Strengthening Regional Deterrence. The Oreshnik missile significantly enhances Russia’s ability to deter regional adversaries. Its intermediate range allows Russia to project power across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia, creating a buffer zone of influence where neighbouring countries must consider the risk of hypersonic strikes. This capability provides Russia with a powerful bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations, particularly in contexts involving NATO expansion, territorial disputes, and geopolitical tensions.

Challenging NATO’s Defence Systems. NATO’s current air defence systems are primarily designed to intercept traditional ballistic and cruise missiles. The deployment of Oreshnik, with its hypersonic speed and manoeuvrability, presents a significant challenge to these systems. NATO countries may be forced to accelerate the development of hypersonic defence systems or pursue alternative deterrent measures, increasing military expenditures and deepening the arms race between Russia and Western powers.

Arms Control Frameworks. The introduction of Oreshnik further undermines the already fragile state of global arms control agreements. In 2019, both Russia and the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which previously prohibited the development of missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The Oreshnik missile, with its intermediate range and potential nuclear capability, exacerbates concerns over the proliferation of such systems and the absence of regulatory frameworks to mitigate their deployment.

Global Reactions and Countermeasures

United States and NATO. In response to the growing hypersonic threat, the United States and NATO have intensified efforts to develop next-generation missile defence systems. Programs focusing on space-based sensors, directed-energy weapons, and hypersonic interceptors are being accelerated to counteract Russia’s advancements. Additionally, NATO may consider deploying more conventional deterrents, such as forward-deployed forces and ballistic missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.

China’s Perspective. China, a close military partner of Russia, may view the Oreshnik missile as an opportunity for technological collaboration. Given its own hypersonic weapon developments, China could seek to integrate lessons from Oreshnik’s deployment into its missile programs. Alternatively, the missile’s success might prompt China to accelerate its efforts to match or surpass Russian capabilities, potentially increasing regional tensions in Asia.

India’s Strategic Calculations. For India, the development of the Oreshnik missile poses both a strategic challenge and an opportunity. India’s focus on developing its own hypersonic weapons, such as the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV), aligns with the need to counter future threats from China. Furthermore, India may consider enhancing its missile defence systems and investing in early-warning systems capable of detecting hypersonic threats.

Broader Implications for Global Stability

Escalation of the Hypersonic Arms Race. The successful deployment of Oreshnik signals the start of a new era in missile technology, prompting other nations to accelerate their hypersonic weapons programs. This arms race could destabilize existing power balances, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations and accidental escalations during geopolitical conflicts.

Shift in Military Doctrine. The introduction of hypersonic missiles like Oreshnik is reshaping military doctrines worldwide. Traditional reliance on nuclear deterrence is now supplemented by hypersonic weapons, capable of delivering swift and precise strikes without the political fallout associated with nuclear weapons. This shift is likely to result in the development of new tactical doctrines.

Conclusion. The Oreshnik missile represents a bold leap in Russia’s military capabilities, reflecting the country’s commitment to leveraging advanced technologies for strategic dominance. Its deployment in Ukraine served as a clear demonstration of Russia’s readiness to use hypersonic missiles in both conventional and nuclear contexts, reshaping the global security landscape. As nations around the world grapple with the implications of this new weapon, the Oreshnik missile underscores the urgent need for renewed international dialogue on arms control and missile defence. Without such measures, the risk of a hypersonic arms race escalating into broader conflict remains a profound concern for global stability.

Inputs:-

(The views expressed are of the Individual, not IAF or GOI).

- The missile’s ability to carry multiple homing warheads and reach extreme temperatures of 4,000°C presents a significant threat to conventional missile defence systems.
- India’s military establishment would likely view Russia’s Oreshnik missile with a strategic interest.
- India may closely study the technology behind Oreshnik’s hypersonic speed, multi-warhead capabilities, and extreme heat resistance.
- India might assess this development in terms of its missile defence upgrades and hypersonic capabilities development programs.
- This could drive India to accelerate its hypersonic programs, such as the HSTDV (Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle), and enhance its missile defence systems.
- This could influence India’s strategic partnerships and technology acquisition efforts, particularly bolstering its Ballistic Missile Defence and hypersonic deterrence programs.
- India would be careful about directly acquiring the Oreshnik missile due to its commitment to Indigenous defence development under Atmanirbhar Bharat.
- India may seek technology partnerships with friendly nations to develop home-grown versions of similar advanced missile systems while maintaining strategic independence.

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:-

BelTA News. (2024). Oreshnik: A Precision Weapon Comparable to Nuclear Strike Capability.

Asia Times. (2024). Russian Oreshnik Missile: A Warning to NATO, US, and Ukraine.

Komsomolskaya Pravda via BelTA. (2024). Military Expert Commentary on the Oreshnik Missile’s Impact in Ukraine.

Global Security Review. (2024). Hypersonic Missiles and Modern Warfare: The Russian Edge.

Military Balance Report (2024). International Institute for Strategic Studies.

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: