Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Blog Article

Blog Article

Series on Women and Children’s Health in Conflict: Introduction

by

MedGlobal Volunteer Performs Surgery at Al-Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip. Photo credit: MedGlobal, licensed under Creative Commons.

While conflict’s direct effects – deaths and injuries – often take the limelight, its indirect effects, including population displacement, infrastructure destruction and human insecurity commonly cause prolonged suffering that is greatly exacerbated by the length of conflict and persists long after direct hostilities cease. Though men tend to be affected more by the direct effects of a conflict, women and children, often held to be ‘vulnerable’ in context of conflict, are at much greater risk of suffering its indirect effects.[1]

This series seeks to promote the accounts of healthcare professionals who have first-hand experience dealing with medical and health issues related to women and children in protracted conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean region. In doing so, it addresses a gap often found in scholarship of health in conflict seen from a top-down perspective, and instead foregrounds the micro-level picture. The four pieces included in the series, therefore, highlight issues which are neither routinely discussed nor prioritized.

The first article discusses maternal, sexual, and reproductive health in the Gaza Strip, and the differential levels of healthcare accessible dependent upon whether an attack is ongoing or has recently ended. In the second piece, the author shares her experience working in refugee camps in Jordan, where gender-based violence and discrimination against women are prevalent. The third article sheds light on child development in Gaza and how it is exacerbated by continual psychological trauma inflicted because of the protracted conflict and blockade. The final piece describes difficulties children with craniofacial anomalies and their families experience in accessing the care their children need in the midst of conflict and political disputes.

Publication Schedule

Part I: Maternal and Reproductive Health in the Gaza Strip: the impact of years of blockade and conflict by Maisara Alrayyes

Part II: The Voice of Gender: Shedding Light on the Impact of Emergencies and Armed Conflicts on the Health and Safety of Women and Girls by Asmaa Essa

Part III: The hidden face of the blockade and wars: Palestinian children with psychological wounds by Bahzad Alakhras

Part IV: Children with craniofacial anomalies in the Gaza Strip: treatment options and access to care by Wafaa Alzaanin

[1] Craig, Sophia. “Effects of Conflict on Societies.” In Conflict and Health, 14–24. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012.

Is China a security threat to the liberal international order?

by

People’s Liberation Army’s parade in 2015. Licensed under Creative Commons.

China has enjoyed tremendous economic growth over the last thirty years and is on course to remain a key growth engine for the world’s economy. This economic success has enabled China to bolster its military and to take a more active role on the global stage. Leader of China’s Communist Party since 2012, Xi Jinping has envisioned a new “Chinese dream” that would restore China’s lost national greatness. This desire, coupled with global ambitions, has generated a large amount of anxiety in the Western world and Asia, where China’s neighbors are wary of its intentions. That anxiety has translated into several security issues, which can be critically assessed through the lens of realism.

Offensive realism and China’s intentions for regional hegemony

According to realists, the world is in a state of anarchy as there is no central authority. Furthermore, realism emphasizes that the main international actor is the state. Survival is a states’ primary goal, and it can rely only on its security posture as cooperation in the international system is not assumed. Thus, realist state behavior is sometimes referred to as ‘the security dilemma,’ which leads to the capacity building of defense and offensive capabilities within each state, leading to further insecurity. As a subset of realism, offensive realism seeks to maximize the amount of power. For offensive realists, security trumps prosperity as the only safe position is dominance.

As such, offensive realism is a relevant lens to use when assessing China as a security threat, as there are multiple signs that China is seeking to challenge the current international order by becoming the global super power. Indeed, China aims to maximize its military might by building capabilities that translate into insecurity for its regional neighbors and the U.S.

Conversely, Mearsheimer argues, “if China continues to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia.” By 2035, Bloomberg Economics stated “China will have overtaken the U.S. to become the world’s biggest economy“. Some others argue that China faces domestic pressures such as slower economic growth rate and an aging population. But given China’s demography, it is only a matter of time before China surpasses the U.S. both economically and militarily. Also, the U.S. is labeling China as the number one threat to its national security as China builds capabilities to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the world.

A key driver in China’s desire to challenge the international order is nationalism. Chinese nationalism emphasizes the ‘century humiliation’ – a period of Western interventionism in China between 1839 and 1949. China’s nationalist sentiment is seen especially through Xi Jingping’s ‘Chinese dream’ to restore its rightful place as the natural leading world power and contributes to China’s lingering anger and resentment toward Japan and the United States.

China’s Offensive Capacity Building

In the last thirty years, China’s defense spending has grown exponentially to reach $178 billion in 2020. This increase can be explained by the strong performance of its economy and its intention to expand its influence. However, the Chinese government has been inconsistent in reporting its defense budget and has been criticized for its lack of transparency. Some analysts estimate that an extra 33% should be added to get the right level of spending, raising the military expenditures to $230 billion. As the recent white paper about Japan’s Defense highlights, this exponential growth, coupled with a lack of transparency, creates greater concern for states neighboring China. Thus, those conditions create some uncertainties regarding China’s intentions and fuel an arms race as China’s military developments continue to destabilize the balance of power in the region.

China has been steadily investing in offensive capabilities that will allow China to project its power. China is bolstering its “Anti-Access/Area-Denial” (A2/AD) capabilities with additional amphibious helicopter dock ships, anti-ship missiles, and its latest DF-17 hypersonic missile – the first system of its kind to be operational in the world. It has also developed some indigenous capabilities such as fifth generation fighter aircraft (i.e., the J-20 and J-35), comparable with the U.S. F-35 stealth aircraft. Furthermore, China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade. While its reserve will remain way below the current U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile (200 versus 3,800), which shows China’s global power ambitions as it seeks to build the most extensive nuclear warhead stockpile in Asia.

Aligned with offensive realism, the development of a blue-water navy will allow China to globally project its power. While some may argue, this development is consistent with the rise of economic power, it is essential to note that the level of China’s blue-water navy capability is in line with its hegemonic ambitions. China has now completed two aircraft carriers with a third in construction. Furthermore, Captain James E. Fanell – former Director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet – estimates that China will almost double its submarine fleet to reach 110 units by 2030. To address its global ambitions, China is building blue water capabilities faster than Washington can, which demonstrates China’s determination to overtake the U.S. in that aspect. China’s ambitious space program is another area of concern as it seeks to dominate both access and presence in outer space.

Power Competition? China’s Power in the Asia Pacific

According to John Mearsheimer, China is devising its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, much as the U.S. did in the Caribbean and the Gulf, as well as Imperial Japan in the 1930s. To achieve global hegemony, China will seek to push the U.S. out of the Asia-Pacific region. This policy is in line with the offensive realism’s school of thought and the type of military capabilities China is currently building. Indeed, a blue water navy would be instrumental in pushing China’s territories’ boundaries and transforming the South China Sea into a “Chinese lake.”

One of the most strident security threats that China represents is its assertive and revisionist behavior in the South China Sea. In 2009, China claimed an area called the “nine-dash line,” which extends way beyond China’s territorial waters and overlaps with territories belonging to Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan. This area, where transits 80% of China’s oil imports through the Strait of Malacca, bears strategic and geopolitical importance. Besides hosting significant oil and gas resources, it is an area of deep water where Chinese nuclear-powered attack and strategic submarines can navigate with stealth. Furthermore, China has been building airstrips and military bases in the South China Sea to strengthen its ability to project power, raising security tensions with its ASEAN neighbors.

Another severe security issue in the region is China’s claim over Taiwan’s sovereignty. China has launched a “gray zone” warfare, which entails a reunification with Taiwan without firing a single shot. China has been threatening Taiwan with almost daily multiple aircraft sorties toward Taiwan’s airspace, amphibious landing exercises, naval patrols, cyber-attacks, and diplomatic isolation. China has been employing a similar strategy regarding its territorial dispute with Japan in the East China sea, prompting Tokyo to strengthen its Self-Defense Forces.

In addition to its regional revisionism, China has global ambitions with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to expand its sphere of influence in the world. For example, China is gaining more influence at the United Nations, strengthening its ambition to challenge the international status quo. For example, China is leveraging the UN system to support its BRI under the guise of UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). In addition of leading four UN specialized agencies, China was seeking to gain control of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The move sparked some concerns amid multiple violations of property rights through a state-led campaign of cyber exploitation attacks.

In line with offensive realism, the U.S. has been engaged in a containment policy (i.e., Obama’s pivot to Asia, 2012) and is building a coalition with their partners to check Beijing, as the U.S. does not tolerate a peer competitor. However, this containment policy could increase security competition between the U.S. and China, leading to further insecurity: the more the U.S. try to contain China, the more assertive China could become.

To conclude, offensive realism demonstrates that China is a significant security threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in Asia to the extent that it seeks to challenge the status quo by becoming a regional hegemon. While offensive realism shows a pessimistic view of China’s rise, it is also a realistic one. Despite China’s growth recent slowdown, it remains on track to become the leading power globally.

China’s Defense budget’s exponential growth, coupled with a lack of transparency, creates high-level anxiety about its real intentions: does China seek to preserve its survival or desire to become a hegemon? All signs point at the latter, generating significant levels of insecurity with the U.S. and its Asian neighbors.

Putin’s People Part 2: How the Oligarchs Took Russia’s Wealth and then Silenced the Journalists

by

Russian Newspapers by Ruslan Krivobok / Руслан Кривобок is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Most books on modern Russia tend to isolate Russia’s re-emergence as a significant power in Europe from the West. Its rise is often attributed to Putin’s bellicosity in dealing with the West, buffeted by the rising oil prices and Russia’s wealth of natural resources. However, Catherine Belton’s Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West is a deep dive into the corruption of the system behind Putin. It is a self-assured description of how the officers of the KGB implemented a system, beginning in the dying days of the Soviet Union, to ensure that the hold on power is never left to chance. But it is also a damning indictment of the West’s blindness to the risks of accepting what was obviously dirty money and the foolishness in suggesting that were the organisations peddling this cash exposed to Western ways of doing things, then they would see the error of their ways. The Western financial systems were not unwitting victims of disinformation and cleverly concocted schemes; rather, they were complicit actors in the fleecing of the Russian people and the consolidation of Putin’s power.

During Andropov’s premiership, the KGB realised that the Soviet Union was beginning to lag far behind the West in terms of economic prosperity and capacity and that the system in the Soviet Union could not compete with the West for much longer. The inefficiencies of a planned system and compulsory employment could not hope to compete with the efficiencies demanded and the innovation encouraged by the capitalist system in the West. The KGB had always had access to ‘black’ money to finance its operations in the West[1] and to ensure their networks were maintained. They began to funnel ever greater amounts out of the Soviet Union for slush funds and to ensure permanent access to the financial networks of the West.

It is no secret that many of the Russian billionaires who earned their wealth in the 1990s did so through shady, secretive schemes and that many have done so since through their connections with the people at the centre of Putin’s Kremlin. We also know that those who refused to play ball such as Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, Berezovsky to name just a few, were relieved of their possessions through the shameful use of the courts in barely masked power grabs by the Kremlin and its allies. While it may be hard to feel sorry for people whose own wealth was generated in what many view today as theft on a mass scale, it opens up questions about what other billionaires from Russia do in order to prevent that happening to them.

The research that went into this book is phenomenal. There are countless interviews listed over a number of years as well as reports and articles written by journalists and investigators during the Putin years. What I took most from this book and that I think others will too, is not the names of the Russian billionaires involved or the numerous schemes that the KGB have used to funnel money out of Russia, but the appalling lack of judgement and due diligence on the part of Western financiers who have allowed this flow of illicit finance into the stock markets and property markets.[2] The furore that has been caused by the publication of this book has also once again exposed the complicity of London’s courts in Russian score settling. Author Belton is facing numerous lawsuits from some of the oligarchs listed in the book – Roman Abramovich is not only suing the publishing house Harper Collins but also Belton herself; Mikhail Fridman, owner of Russia’s largest non-state bank, Pyotr Aven, Fridman’s business partner, and Shalva Chigirinsky are also suing. London-based lawyers are representing them. The UK Government continually promises to counter Russia’s disinformation campaigns as well as rid and clean the London markets of their corrupting financial influence. As these court cases show, the UK Government is failing miserably.

Investigative journalists are vital for upholding democracy but too many are being impeded in their work by SLAPPs – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Those with money, and therefore power, are using the courts to harass the media and civil society, to silence journalists and activists who are drawing attention to the abuses of power that are happening on a huge scale across the world. Of course, there should be laws to protect innocent people from libel and from illegal intrusions. However, investigations that are in the public interest and which are carefully carried out so as to ensure that information is accurate and corroborated must be given the respect and protection that it deserves. SLAPPs are a cynical use of the legal system to protect the malign interests of the few whose money makes them believe they are untouchable. Our courts are renowned around the world for their long-standing dedication to fair trials for all, regardless of one’s background or finances. This reputation is being sullied and the UK Government are doing little to stop that happening.

In July of last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament released their ‘Russia Report’, an investigation into the security threat that Russia poses to the UK and the weaknesses of the UK in resisting this threat. It was noted that Russia views any loss for the West as a win for Russia – foreign policy as a zero-sum game.[3] One of the report’s recommendations was to develop a new statutory framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite, and the ‘enablers’ who support this activity. It is there in black and white in a UK Government report. The financial dealings of the Russian elite are considered a threat to the security of the UK – Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’. There are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene and accepted because of their wealth[4]

It is clear from this book that changes in the markets need to be made. Audits should be demanded for companies operating in the UK, and the company only accepted if they are transparent and show adherence to Western laws. UK courts must be above reproach and should be protected against being used as pawns in a cynical game to protect the wealth and interests of those corrupting our system. Putin believes that he can behave as he likes because the West can be bought. The West must demonstrate that this is wrong; that the West will forego the millions and billions that are stolen from the Russian people and used to prop up the Kremlin’s authoritarian regime. The West must demonstrate that they will stand by the principles of transparency so vital to maintaining our democracies.

[1] Belton, Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West, Harper Collins, 2020. p.15, 64

[2] Belton, Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West, Harper Collins, 2020. p., p.488

[3]Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, Russia, https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20200721_HC632_CCS001_CCS1019402408-001_ISC_Russia_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf p.1

[4] Ibid, p.22

Russia’s battle with COVID: One Step Forwards, Three Steps Back

by

Russia continues to struggle against the Covid-19 pandemic as cases and deaths increase each day (by focusonmore.com; licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Russia was the first country to approve a vaccine to treat the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its Sputnik V jab, which has since been complemented by the development of two other homegrown vaccines, CoviVac and EpiVacCorona. Moscow also directs a national vaccination program which is free and accessible to all Russian citizens who wish to receive a shot. Russia ought to be well on its way to achieving a high-level of immunity in its population, with the government repeatedly claiming ‘victory’ over the deadly coronavirus.

Yet any claims of victory are false. The country’s Covid defence is in a poor position relative to other large nations. As of July 21 Russia has a paltry 14.38% of its population fully vaccinated; 54.3% are fully vaccinated in the UK by contrast. Meanwhile, cases and deaths multiply at alarming rates each day, with 24,098 infections and 711 fatalities recorded on 20 July. Though democracies are also still struggling to defeat the virus, especially the highly transmissible Delta variant, responsibility for Russia’s poor performance in managing the pandemic largely falls at the feet of Vladimir Putin and his authoritarianism.

Rather than properly getting to grips with the pandemic, the severity of which the Kremlin has sought to downplay, the government has instead often prioritised its shady political objectives, carrying out a comprehensive crackdown against civil society following Alexei Navalny’s imprisonment and preparing for the upcoming elections to the State Duma, Russia’s parliament, scheduled to happen this year on 19 September. Meanwhile a combination of a historic lack of trust in the state among Russians, government disinformation about vaccines produced outside Russia, and lack of adherence to proper development standards in the production of Russia’s vaccines has seen the Russian population largely shun vaccination and remain vulnerable to the third wave of Covid. The authorities, when they do try to mitigate the virus’ effects, are increasingly being forced to impose restrictions which are widely unpopular with the public, including the enforcement of mandatory vaccinations and infringements on everyday life such as requiring proof of vaccination status to visit cafés and restaurants, which has led to a thriving black market in fake QR codes and vaccination certificates.

Putin has repeatedly expressed confidence about beating the virus but his government continues to lag behind in terms of its response (World Economic Forum; licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Russia’s continued covid-crisis has three main causes: vaccine hesitancy and mismanagement, disinformation, and an undemocratic political system. Firstly, vaccine hestitancy is widespread among the Russian population. While this is also an issue in many other countries, including democracies, it is a problem which is particularly pronounced in Russia. Data collected by a poll conducted by the Levada Centre, Russia’s largest polling agency, revealed that 54% of respondents were unwilling to be vaccinated, 25% were willing, and 19% reported that they had already received the vaccine; 69.4%, 68.6%, and 48.9% of the UK’s, the US’, and France’s populations respectively have accepted at least one shot of a  vaccine.

Second, Russians’ vaccine hesitancy is compounded and made more likely by the behaviour of the government. Not only was Russia’s flagship vaccine, Sputnik V, developed and administered before the completion of routine mass trials to assess its efficacy (it is considered safe by experts now), the government has mismanaged its promotion. President Vladimir Putin’s own vaccination was shrouded in secrecy as he refused to be pictured during it and initially he did not reveal which shot he had received (in the end it transpired to be Sputnik V), forfeiting a PR opportunity taken by many other world leaders to demonstrate to the public the safety of Covid vaccines. There have additionally been reports that Russians were given a different vaccine to the one they were informed they were receiving, while lockdowns have generally been ‘eschewed’ by the government. The Kremlin has also taken a highly nationalist approach to the utilisation of its vaccine. Sputnik V has become a tool in the Russian government’s foreign policy, offering it to African countries to boost Moscow’s standing. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has simultaneously promoted conspiracy theories regarding vaccines developed in other countries in order to lift the profile of its own. The combined effect has been to worsen public confidence in the best line of defence against the increasingly rampant virus.

Yet third, and most fundamental of all, is that the above factors are symptoms of the longer-term illness which undermines the effectiveness of Russia’s governance: the poor health of its democracy and civil society. It is not so much that Russians do not trust vaccine itself. Rather, they do not have faith in the government that provides the vaccine. The Russian state already interferes in the daily lives of citizens to sometimes intolerable degrees, which provokes cynicism towards any government scheme. Despite the vaccine’s necessity, it is seen as just another untrustworthy authoritarian measure that the state is trying to enforce on the population.

Russia’s Covid crisis is a lesson in the ills of autocracy. Having long lost the trust of millions of Russians, the state cannot not rely on voluntary uptake of the vaccine, meaning further unpopular mandatory measures may be necessary, regardless of the fact Putin said he hoped there would be no need for a new lockdown at 2021’s Direct Line session, a public relations event where the Russian President fields questions from ostensibly ‘typical’ Russians over videocall. The regime also plans to use the elections as an opportunity to ‘refresh its legitimacy’ and Covid will take careful management in order to avoid any upsets for the ruling but increasingly unpopular United Russia party. For now, though, the Russian government remains on the back foot.

Modern Conflict Favours Autocracies

by

Photo by Mathias P.R. Reding on Unsplash

According to Freedom House, 2020 marked the 15th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Russia continues to interfere with foreign politics and brashly intimidate Ukraine, China leveraged the COVID-19 pandemic to tighten control of its population, and Iran has indicated intentions to increase nuclear activities. Meanwhile, the United States (U.S.) has left a broken Afghanistan after twenty years, Great Britain is reeling from the consequences of Brexit, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is struggling to maintain relevancy and address growing threats at its borders.

Amidst these changing politics and growing murmurs of great power competition is a shift in the nature of modern conflicts. Some experts argue that the conventional total wars of the 20th century will never occur again. Advances in artificial intelligence, space technologies, and cyber capabilities are digitising the battlefield and encouraging the adoption of unconventional and hybrid warfare. Modern conflict is extending beyond set-piece battles to encompass ever broader means of attaining political aims. Rapid advancements in technology mean that cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and proxy militias are replacing conventional troops while being leveraged more cheaply, effectively, and discreetly than ever before. This technology-driven battlefield favours autocracies as it blurs the line between combatants and civilians and confuses the traditional laws of war. Authoritarian regimes are better positioned for this 21st century conflict than democratic states for three key reasons – their suppression of domestic dissent, centralisation of government, and close relationships with industry.

First, a defining characteristic of autocracies is their elimination of opposition and control of information. Authoritarian regimes of the 20th century relied on extensive networks of informants and secret police – 1 in every 6 East Germans provided information to the Stasi after the Second World War. Today’s technology eliminates such cumbersome systems while simultaneously improving a state’s ability to surveil and control its population. Freedom House’s 15-year decline in democracy corresponds closely with the rise of the internet age, while research has found that today’s ‘digital autocracies’ are more durable than both their historic predecessors and their less technologically adept peers. Led by China, the use of digital tools enables autocracies in previously impossible ways. Massive amounts of data are generated on every citizen and used to control the population through social credit scores and arrest. Autocracies leverage technology by using deep fakes, disinformation, and internet outages to discredit political opponents, tamp down protests, or suppress unfavourable news coverage. And technological advancements only promise increasingly sophisticated ways for autocracies to monitor and manipulate their populations.

Digital autocracies are thus advantaged over democratic states in modern conflict because they effectively reduce public pressure on government actions. A 2020 RAND report found that the influence of public opinion restricted the options and tools available to democracies as compared to autocracies in conflicts. While democracies experience immense public pressure that often limits foreign policy decisions, authoritarian regimes enabled by technology face fewer constraints. Democratic leaders must spend nontrivial amounts of time and money during war to reduce civilian casualties, maintain public support, and win re-election. By contrast, authoritarian regimes are less accountable to their populations, making it easier for them to break international law without consequence, such as Russia’s enforced silence regarding soldiers killed in Ukraine. In suppressing domestic dissent more successfully than ever, autocracies are at an asymmetric advantage in modern conflict because of their flexibility of action unchecked by public opinion.

A second common, although not universal, attribute of autocracies is government centralisation. By concentrating power, authoritarian leaders ensure more control over their state’s budget, long-term planning, national security, legal infrastructure, popular culture, and foreign policy. The U.S. and China demonstrate the stark difference between decentralised and centralised government. The U.S. government quarrels annually over a budget and sometimes shuts down, whereas the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) articulates long-term plans spanning decades. Although the legitimacy of these long-term plans are contested, their mere existence demonstrates a governmental unity that democratic states like the U.S. will likely never achieve. Autocratic governments also tend to be more consolidated than democratic ones, with few independent bodies, limited organic growth, and highly integrated systems. China even has surveillance mechanisms in place to ensure CCP employees are dedicated to the party’s vision and motivated to perform.

Such centralisation can be advantageous to authoritarian states in modern conflict, particularly with the rise of hybrid and unconventional warfare. The commonly espoused antidote for Western democracies in the face of hybrid warfare is a ‘whole of government’ response. Because hybrid warfare is so diffuse, targeting everything from power grids to congressional emails, an enormous number of entities outside of the military may be involved. Democracies often scramble to unite disparate entities for a cohesive defence and response to unconventional warfare, such as the U.S. during the recent SolarWinds hack. Conversely, centralised autocracies are inherently well-positioned because they enact ‘whole of government’ responses to conflict by default. Moreover, centralised autocracies may have fewer cyber and human vulnerabilities to exploit. Aggressive control of communications infrastructure and security practices, such as the CCP’s monitoring of all internet traffic, can improve cybersecurity nationwide. Centralised autocracies use methods to control employees and citizens’ loyalty and technology usage, further limiting susceptibilities to information operations and social engineering. Government centralisation thus benefits autocracies in modern conflict by reducing vulnerabilities and structurally ensuring holistic responses to threats.

Finally, autocracies tend to be much more closely integrated with national industry than democracies. China and Russia typify two differing ways these relationships manifest. China’s president Xi Jinping has taken steps to integrate the CCP into all private companies, pushing for CCP board appointees, eliminating powerful or disloyal business leaders, and coercing foreign companies to support the CCP’s ‘United Front’. Furthermore, China’s 2017 national intelligence law requires organisations within China to ‘support, assist, and cooperate with the state intelligence work’. This law effectively mandates all businesses operating in China to provide any or all of their information and services to the government if asked. While the law technically only applies to intelligence, it is an easy stepping stone to more malign uses – and Chinese companies touch everything from Apple to General Electric, from Hollywood to Wall Street. As China has aggressively legislated its control over industry, Russia has embraced opportunities of partnership. Russia is increasingly using private military companies as proxy militias while encouraging or hiring civilians to undertake cyberattacks and information operations. Usage of civilians in these roles provides Russia with plausible deniability and increased capability. It also complicates any response from NATO and the West because of the complexities of international law and combatant designations.

Despite differences in approach, Russia and China’s leverage of national industry in a way unique to autocracies advantages them in modern conflict. Democracies, built on ideas of freedom of expression and freedom of action, cannot force industry to partner with defence.

Burgeoning technology companies, the quickening pace of research, and the evolving role of dual-use technology are forcing western defence departments to rely more heavily on private innovation. Budgetary constraints and public resistance, such as with Project Maven, are antagonising Western democracies’ defence contracts even as peer autocracies forge ahead with industry relationships unfettered by morals or law. Such easy relationships with industry cheapen and quicken defence acquisitions for autocracies. Conversely, democracies are obligated to pursue contracts within a framework heavily restricted by democratic principles, public opinion, and law. Autocracies are thus vastly advantaged in modern conflict by relationships with industry that democracies cannot match.

Rapid technological development is shaping the 21st century, changing the nature of warfare, and cementing the power of autocracies. Modern conflict, defined by hybrid and unconventional warfare, favours some of the unique characteristics of autocracies – suppression of domestic dissent, government centralisation, and close relationships with industry. Autocracies are of course not infallible though, and democracies are not doomed. Democracies are advantaged with a creativity, diversity, and passion rarely found within authoritarian regimes. While quashing of dissent and extreme centralisation can be beneficial, it is also dangerous. There are few mechanisms in place to guide autocratic leaders away from missteps – any one of which may be disastrous given the often deeply integrated nature of the government. And even as technology enables better surveillance, it enables better evasion, too. Populations under repressive rule are rarely silent, and an autocracy’s power is fragile. Western democracies would be prudent to consider the chinks in autocracies’ armour, even as they reckon with the large chinks in their own. Modern conflict favours autocracies, and the democratic West must prepare to face this new reality.

Disclaimer: The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private opinions of the author and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the United States Department of Defense or the United States Air Force.