Diplomacy & Crisis News

The border deal aims to end weeks of protests by Palestinians.

The rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its growing influence on the global stage has become a central theme in contemporary international relations, challenging the longstanding dominance of the United States and the Western world. This global rivalry spans multiple dimensions and is characterized by a complex interplay of economic, technological, geopolitical, and ideological factors. The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is an exciting development in this context. It represents an alternative economic integration and connectivity vision that could counterbalance China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The corridor could offer countries an alternative path to economic integration and development by connecting regions across Asia and Europe. However, it remains to be seen whether it can effectively challenge the scale and scope of China’s BRI.

The IMEC vision’s potential as a counterbalance to the BRI framework is rooted in its strategic positioning and objectives. The IMEC carries significant global geopolitical significance, reflecting Washington’s ambition to be more prominent in shaping connectivity, trade, and economic integration worldwide in the twenty-first century. By aligning the United States with the interests of India, Gulf states, and European nations, this initiative creates a global strategic partnership that has the potential to challenge the PRC’s dominance in the Eurasian landmass. Moreover, Eurasian countries concerned about over-reliance on China’s BRI can view the IMEC as an attractive connectivity, trade, and economic integration net alternative. Thus, the IMEC could emerge as a formidable initiative with the potential to alter the global economic and geopolitical landscape significantly. Nevertheless, IMEC’s potential as a game changer and counterbalance to the BRI remains contingent on Washington’s ability to manage and implement this ambitious project effectively. 

The BRI and IMEC: Comparative Analysis

On the sidelines of the G20 Summit in New Delhi 2023, the United States, India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). IMEC aims to bolster economic development by fostering connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. It consists of two separate corridors: the east corridor connecting India to the Gulf region and the northern corridor connecting the Gulf region to Europe. This project aims to establish commercial hubs, expand access to clean energy, enhance telecommunication lines, and ensure secure and stable internet connections.

The IMEC, if executed, will have significant implications for Asia, the Middle East, and Europe’s political, economic, and energy dynamics. Economically, the corridor has the potential to transform the nature of international trade and transportation, ushering in a new era of inter-regional cooperation. The project will boost economic growth by strengthening regional connectivity, commerce, investment, innovation, logistics, and competitiveness, ultimately leading to sustained prosperity throughout the corridor. It could create new opportunities for economic growth, development, and stability in the participating states and regions outside of them (job creation, increased investment, financial improvement, and enhanced access to markets). According to estimates, the IMEC has the potential to make India-Europe cargo flows significantly faster (will reduce the transit time from eighteen to ten days) by a 40 percent reduction in travel time and a 30 percent reduction in transportation costs for goods. 

Energy, the corridor is set to play a vital role in facilitating the trade of renewable energy sources, including hydrogen, through its networks of pipelines. The IMEC aims to link the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel by railway and connect them to India by port, cutting shipping times and costs and reducing fuel usage. IMEC’s focus on sustainability and clean energy is consistent with the worldwide trend to develop environmentally friendly and sustainable infrastructure that addresses environmental issues.

Political, the IMEC can change and forge new alliances to transform world power relations amid a rising regional and global rivalry for economic integration and transportation corridors. The corridor allows member countries to diversify their economic partnerships and lessen reliance on powerful international entities. This change in power relations may impact traditional alliances and alignments, leading to a rebalancing of influence. Further, it holds significant potential to create complex interdependence among rival states (e.g., connecting Haifa port in Israel with the rail line passing through Saudi Arabia), which would be mutually beneficial and strengthen ties. More importantly, the corridor directly challenges China’s BRI by providing BRI member countries with an alternative for infrastructure development and economic cooperation. The planned transport corridor will shorten the supply chain and reduce the dependence of developing countries on China.

The PRC launched the BRI, a massive infrastructure project, in 2013 and has signed BRI-MoUs with nearly 150 countries (75 percent of the world’s population.) and over thirty international organizations, mobilizing almost $1 trillion and creating over 3,000 projects (financed and built roads, power plants, ports, railways, and digital infrastructure). However, there are signs that China is slowing down on BRI because of its flagging economy and the global economic slowdown, which coincides with rising interest rates and inflation. Recent reports indicate that China plans to introduce BRI 2.0, a revised version that aims to exercise greater control over project expenditures and implement stricter scrutiny when announcing new projects. Thus, the question inevitably arises as to whether the IMEC would complement or compete with China’s BRI.

While the IMEC and the BRI share similarities (they feature some of the same keywords such as “connectivity,” “integration,” and “development”) in promoting connectivity, trade, and economic integration, there are significant differences in terms of scale, funding, transparency, and objectives. First, The BRI is much more prominent in scale, the world’s largest global infrastructure undertaking, with nearly 150 member countries, thirty international organizations, and thousands of projects. At the same time, the IMEC includes several dozen countries (mainly from the Middle East and Europe) but does not include African, Central Asian, Southeast Asian, or other South Asian countries besides India. Second, the BRI has been operational since 2013, giving it a decade-long head start over IMEC. 

Third, China has funneled $1 trillion to BRI, and this number may grow to $8 trillion, dwarfing IMEC’s estimated cost of $20 billion. This IMEC is part of the Build Back Better World (B3W), now rebranded as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGII), including the G7 nations. PGII aims to channel private capital to invest in four areas: climate and energy, ICT, gender equity, and health. Hence, the BRI is centrally designed and opaque, with its funding coming from just China. The IMEC corridor is based on consultations with all concerned for a while, and its focus is on viability backed by funding from multiple sources, primarily through public-private partnerships.

Fourth, the BRI has since outgrown its original corridors, becoming global in scope, and has always kept its participants from any state or region. The IMEC, in contrast, is aimed at linking India, the Middle Eastern nations, and Europe. Several IMEC member countries, including Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, are concurrently involved in the BRI. While still technically part of the BRI, Italy strongly desires to withdraw from the initiative. Finally, unlike the BRI, which aims at securing the PRC’s access to natural resources, the IMEC intends to serve the common benefit of all the participants while offering an alternative model of development based on shared values, transparency, sustainability, and respect for sovereignty.

Game-changer or Dud?

We can view the IMEC as Washington’s strategic response to Beijing’s growing influence across Eurasian through the BRI. By cultivating stronger bonds between these critical geopolitical zones, the corridor has the potential to offer an alternative pathway for states seeking to diversify their economic ties and reduce dependency on China. While complicated and multifaceted, the IMEC initiative has the potential to alter regional and global dynamics. The corridor is not only an economic project but also a political and strategic one that reflects the aspirations and values of its partners. Washington supports the IMEC to counter the PRC’s influence and challenge its BRI framework (as part of the PGII), threatening its interests and values. It also sees the corridor as a way to reshape global connectivity, enhance trade and investment opportunities, address common challenges such as climate change, terrorism, and pandemics, and strengthen its strategic partnerships with India, Europe, and the Middle Eastern countries.

Nevertheless, the future of the IMEC is uncertain, and it is premature to call this a severe counterweight to China’s BRI. The corridor is still in its early stages, and it is unclear how it will be implemented. The IMEC can be a major game-changer in global connectivity and economic integration by serving as an alternative option for states cautious about over-dependence on China. This would be contingent on IMEC’s ability to present a more sustainable and transparent model for infrastructure development, effectively addressing some of the criticisms directed at the BRI (debt concerns, lack of transparency, environmental issues, and geopolitical tensions).

The realization of IMEC (expected to take over a decade) hinges on many factors, including a significant Western commitment, navigating geopolitical tensions, addressing environmental concerns, ensuring security and stability along the corridor, regional cooperation, financial viability, and technological advancements. Therefore, while IMEC holds immense promise, its successful implementation necessitates meticulous planning, robust governance mechanisms, and unwavering commitment from all participating countries. Additionally, the corridor’s multimodal nature, spanning land and sea, will cost tens of billions of dollars and face substantial logistical challenges. The corridor’s potential as a game changer and counterbalance to the BRI remains contingent on the United States’ ability to manage and implement this ambitious project effectively. This endeavor holds far-reaching implications for the economic and geopolitical dynamics of the regions it encompasses.

In short, while the IMEC concept appears attractive as a vision or idea, much remains to be done to see it through to completion—a result that, with previous announcements concerning the B3W and the PGII schemes, leaves some skepticism as concerns the United States’ ability to make the corridor proposal a working reality.

Dr. Mordechai Chaziza is a senior lecturer at the Department of Politics and Governance and the Multidisciplinary Studies in Social Science division at Ashkelon Academic College (Israel) and a Research Fellow at the Asian Studies Department, University of Haifa, specializing in Chinese foreign and strategic relations.

Image: Shutterstock.

Russia is spent. Foreign investors and some of the country’s best minds have fled, the economy is hobbled by sanctions, and its military is bogged down in Ukraine, with many of its elite soldiers dead and best equipment destroyed. The revolt of Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner Group in June 2023 seemed a final humiliation, revealing a once-feared dictator reduced to bargaining with individual commanders. This weakness is real: if Russian president Vladimir Putin could turn back the clock, it is hard to imagine he would again choose to invade Ukraine. 

Russia’s massive losses will probably make Putin cautious about conventional military operations in the foreseeable future. Even if Putin were tempted, the United States has increased the number of its ground forces in Europe to their highest level in nearly two decades, and NATO’s conventional and nuclear deterrence is robust. Nor would the Russian people and elite be eager to support an invasion of a NATO country and risk escalation to nuclear war.

Yet Putin shows no sign of leaving power. He continues to harbor revisionist aims and expresses admiration for Russian conquerors like Peter the Great. Russia still seeks influence in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. As long as Putin is in power, he will undermine any future Ukrainian government and attempt to deter and punish Western countries that support Kyiv. The expansion of NATO to include Finland and eventually Sweden, the military build-up of NATO forces in Eastern Europe, and continuing military aid to Ukraine are particular affronts to Putin, even though they are justified as necessary responses to Russian aggression. Putin sees the United States, which he refers to as the “main enemy” (or glavny vrag), engaged in both hard and soft power actions to encircle and overthrow his regime.

There is a way for Russia to square this circle of maximal ambitions and weak conventional capabilities: gray zone warfare, which we define as covert operations, disinformation, subversion, sabotage, cyber-attacks, and other methods that advance a state’s security objectives but fall short of conventional warfare. Russia has numerous skilled intelligence officers, paramilitary forces, elite hackers, and other personnel who enable it to excel in this arena. Moreover, Russia’s track record in gray zone warfare is impressive, in contrast to its poor performance on the battlefield.

Russia’s future gray zone warfare will likely take many forms. European countries could suffer clandestine attacks against oil and gas pipelines and underwater fiber-optic cables. Border states like Poland, Finland, and Estonia could face a flood of illegal immigrants massing on their borders. Central Asian and African leaders who stand up to Moscow might find local insurgents awash in Russian weapons and trained by Russian special operations forces. Local critics of Moscow might suddenly suffer a series of suspicious accidents, including poisonings. Cyber attacks might take down financial systems and other critical infrastructure. Disinformation on social media platforms might be used to divide the West, while propaganda explains away Russian misdeeds, with artificial intelligence (AI) being used for even more creative mischief.

Despite Russia’s impressive gray zone capabilities, however, it has significant weaknesses. Moscow’s gray zone efforts are often uncoordinated, and the country’s technical talent is limited compared with that of the United States and Europe. Its private military companies, like Wagner, may face many additional restrictions as Putin questions their loyalty.

Bolstering U.S. and allied cyber and border defenses, sharing intelligence, and providing training and advice to local militaries can reduce the danger of gray zone warfare. But the West does not only have to play defense. Russia is also vulnerable to gray zone tactics by the United States and its European allies in Belarus, the Middle East, Africa, and even Russia itself.

Russia’s Gray Zone Toolbox 

Russia’s gray zone warfare draws on a long and robust history. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union excelled at conducting covert intelligence operations and subverting its enemies, tarnishing global views of the United States and at times creating opportunities for near-bloodless communist takeovers of governments. KGB active measures included creating front organizations, backing friendly political movements, covertly funding political parties, provoking domestic unrest, and churning out forgeries and other types of disinformation.

These operations continued after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s support for separatists in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria; assassinations of dissidents; cyber and information campaigns in the Baltic states; and use of private military companies in Africa and the Middle East to project its influence all are experiences on which Russia will build as it pursues an aggressive foreign policy while seeking to avoid all-out war. Such organizations as the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Foreign Security Service (FSB), and Spetsnaz have a robust history of gray zone warfare.

Gray zone warfare also fits Moscow’s worldview. Russian security elites, not just Putin, see the world as full of secret threats and have an operational culture that considers the best defense as a good offense. As former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper contends, Russians “are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.”

Consequently, Russia poses a multifaceted threat through its use of covert action, cyber operations, disinformation, and political subversion. These components of gray zone warfare are not mutually exclusive. Moscow frequently uses a combination of them to weaken its adversaries and expand its influence.

Covert Action

Moscow has long conducted covert action to deter or punish defectors and opposition leaders, subvert U.S. and NATO policies, and expand Russian influence. During the Cold War, the KGB assassinated several foreign leaders, such as Afghan president Hafizullah Amin, in pursuit of Russian foreign policy interests. The KGB’s 13th Department was particularly notorious for targeted assassinations abroad, including the killing of Russian revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940.

Moscow targets political opponents abroad for two major reasons. The first is to exact revenge on Russian spies, diplomats, soldiers, and even journalists and academics who flee the country, criticize the Kremlin, and aid Moscow’s enemies. A second goal is to deter future betrayals and send an unambiguous message that defectors will be hunted down. In March 2006, Russian agents poisoned Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who defected to the United Kingdom, at a London hotel. In March 2018, Russian agents poisoned Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer that defected to the UK, who Putin called a “scumbag” and a “traitor to the motherland.”

Russia’s war in Ukraine triggered an exodus of technocrats, soldiers, spies, oligarchs, and journalists who fled to the West, disenchanted with Putin’s authoritarianism and strategic blunders. Those who cooperate with Western governments or publicly speak out against the Kremlin could become targets of Russian intimidation and even assassination.

Russian security agencies have also conducted paramilitary activity abroad to further Russian foreign policy interests and undermine its adversaries, including the United States. Perhaps the quintessential example was in Crimea in 2014. The Kremlin effectively used masked special operations forces, or “little green men,” to seize Crimea from Ukraine without firing a shot. Russia also conducted sabotage operations in Europe, including planting bombs at two weapons depots in 2014 in the Czech Republic that were allegedly storing arms headed to the Syrian opposition, which Moscow opposed. In March 2023, Polish authorities uncovered a GRU operation to bomb rail lines that transported weapons and other aid to Ukraine. Russian actors with ties to Russian intelligence also plotted to organize protests in Moldova in 2023 as a pretext for mounting an insurrection against the Moldovan government, which Moscow viewed as too pro-Western.

U.S. and European critical infrastructure are potential targets of paramilitary activity. One example is the underwater fiber-optic cables that connect Europe with North America and link European countries with each other. There are currently sixteen cables running under the Atlantic that link the United States with mainland Europe, which are critical for global communication and account for roughly 95 percent of all transatlantic data traffic. Russia has already signaled that it could target these cables with special operations forces, intelligence units, and submarines. In January 2022, the Russian Navy allegedly mapped out the undersea cables off the coast of Ireland and carried out maneuvers, raising serious concerns in Europe and the United States about Russian sabotage.

Other potential Russian gray zone activities include weaponizing immigrants and targeting Europe’s intricate network of gas and oil pipelines, which serve as the lifeblood of European energy. Migration, especially from Africa and Muslim countries, is an emotional issue in Europe. In 2021, Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko threatened to “flood” the European Union with “drugs and migrants.” His government then sent thousands of migrants from Iraq, Syria, Myanmar, and Afghanistan to the borders of Latvia, Lithuania, and especially Poland. In August 2023, leaders from Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia warned that they were seeing growing tensions on their borders with Belarus and threatened to seal their borders if Lukashenko weaponized immigration. The Italian government claimed in 2023 that the Wagner Group was behind a surge in migrants from Libya, where Wagner is active.

Despite Prigozhin’s death, the Kremlin could also use private military companies in the Middle East, Africa, and other regions to increase Russian influence, undercut U.S. leadership, present itself as a security partner, and gain military access and economic opportunities. Russia could also work with partners like Iran to covertly target U.S. or other NATO forces overseas. During the war in Syria, Russia and Iran worked closely with Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi militias to retake territory for the Bashar al-Assad government. These covert tools give Moscow numerous options to hit back at the West.

Cyber Operations

Russian security agencies, such as the GRU, SVR, and FSB, have increasingly conducted cyber attacks to target critical infrastructure, undermine democratic institutions, steal government and corporate secrets, and sow disorder within or between Western allies. In some cases, Russia has conducted cyber attacks in tandem with military or paramilitary operations.

One frequent tactic is to sabotage adversaries’ critical infrastructure or to plant malware in critical infrastructure for use in a future war. Russian malware is designed to do a range of malicious activities, such as overwriting data and rendering machines unbootable, deleting data, and destroying critical infrastructure, such as industrial production and processes. Russia and Russian-linked hackers use a range of common intrusion techniques, such as exploiting public-facing web-based applications, sending spear-phishing e-mails with attachments or links, and stealing credentials and using valid e-mail accounts.

In 2017, for example, the GRU deployed NotPetya, a data-destroying malware that proliferated across multiple networks before executing a disk encryption program, which destroyed all data on targeted computers. NotPetya’s global impact was massive, disabling an estimated 500,000 computers in Ukraine, decreasing Ukraine’s GDP by 0.5 percent in 2017, and affecting organizations across sixty-five countries. Global victims included U.S. multinational companies FedEx and Merck, which lost millions of dollars because of technology cleanup and disrupted business.

In 2022, Russia conducted multiple cyber operations against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. A day before the invasion, Russian attackers launched destructive wiper attacks on hundreds of systems in Ukraine’s energy, information technology, media, and financial sectors. Russia’s goal was likely to undermine Ukraine’s political will, weaken Ukraine’s ability to fight, and collect intelligence that Russia could use to gain tactical, operational, and strategic advantages. Over the next several weeks, Russian actors linked to the GRU, FSB, and SVR conducted numerous cyber attacks utilizing such malware families as WhisperGate and FoxBlade.

The West is also a target. In 2020, the SVR orchestrated a brazen attack against dozens of U.S. companies and government agencies by attaching malware to a software update from SolarWinds, a company based in Austin, Texas, that makes network monitoring software. The DarkSide, a hacking group operating in part from Russian soil, conducted a ransomware attack against the U.S. company Colonial Pipeline, which led executives to shut down a major pipeline for several days and created fuel shortages across the southeastern United States.

In 2023, Polish intelligence services claimed that Russia hacked the country’s railways in an attempt to disrupt rail traffic in the country, some of which are used to transport weapons to Ukraine. According to U.S. government assessments, Russia has targeted the computer systems of underwater cables and industrial control systems in the United States and allied countries. Compromising such infrastructure facilitates and demonstrates Russia’s ability to damage infrastructure during a crisis.

Russian agencies also use cyber attacks during elections to undermine faith in democracy by influencing public sentiment during an election campaign and raising questions about the democratic process. Moscow has targeted specific candidates by stealing or forging documents and then leaking them on public websites or social media platforms. Often referred to as “hack-and-leak operations,” the objective is to undermine faith in political candidates. Another tactic is to disrupt the voting or counting process by targeting computer systems. In addition, Russia has conducted cyber attacks during elections in an attempt to influence issues of importance to Moscow. For example, Russian security agencies have conducted cyber attacks during multiple European elections to weaken support for the European Union, NATO, and the United States.

The breadth of Russian activity is impressive. Russian cyber campaigns have attempted to disrupt elections in the United States, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria, and dozens of other countries, according to the Dyadic Cyber Incident Database compiled by U.S. academics. These attacks are likely to continue, including during the 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign.

Disinformation

Russia has long used disinformation, often more effectively than its rivals, to supplement other tools and as a weapon by itself. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union successfully promoted the falsehood that the CIA was linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that U.S. scientists invented the AIDS virus, a campaign referred to as Operation Denver.

Russia uses information campaigns abroad to make the Putin regime look good at home. By highlighting pro-Russian sentiment in Europe, the corruption of Russia’s enemies, and unpopular European policies on immigration, Moscow tries to make its own regime more popular as well as discredit its enemies. Similarly, Russia has tried to create an image of itself as a muscular Christian nation, contrasting its policies with LGBTQ+ and immigrant-friendly Europe and the United States.

Beyond bolstering Putin, disinformation is a way to weaken and divide Russia’s enemies. Famously, the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm, used disinformation in an attempt to influence the 2016 U.S. election, seeking to discredit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and promote Donald Trump. On YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, trolls pushed propaganda on immigration, race, and gun rights to conservative accounts while other parts of the Russian effort encouraged Black Americans to protest, inflaming tension among Americans.

In subsequent years, Russia has spread disinformation related to COVID-19 and other conspiracies, used a false news site in 2020 to get legitimate U.S. journalists to write stories on social disruption in the United States, and magnified the potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines to decrease support for the Biden administration.

Ukraine is both a subject and a target of disinformation. In the years between Russia’s 2014 proxy war and 2022 invasion, Russian propaganda stressed that Ukraine was a failed, Nazi-led state, whose army was brutal to the local population. After Russia invaded Ukraine, the disinformation machine kicked into overdrive, both to justify the invasion at home and to undermine support for helping Ukraine abroad. To European audiences hosting large numbers of refugees like Poland, Russian propaganda claimed that the government was helping refugees over their own citizens. In Africa and other parts of the developing world, Moscow pushed the idea that the EU had banned Russian agricultural products while keeping Ukraine’s grain, causing a global food crisis.

Russia exploits overt and covert information sources, ranging from official government media to disinformation via government agencies, often in combination. Russia’s Foreign Ministry, for example, has played up false reports from Russian media of immigrants raping a thirteen-year-old Russian-German girl to stir up divisions in Germany and accusing the German government of not doing enough to protect its people, a sentiment that undermined German confidence in government and bolstered Russia’s image as tough on criminal immigrants. Even the Russian Orthodox Church, whose patriarch is staunchly pro-Putin, is involved. The church spreads propaganda while allowing its facilities to be used as safe houses for Russian priests to work with Russian intelligence agents.

Social media offers numerous, and cheap, additional ways to spread disinformation. Moscow uses fake accounts, anonymous websites, bots, and other means to spread its message, often using these sources to spread RT and Sputnik propaganda and to provide “evidence” for further lies from official media. Some of this involves troll accounts monitored by humans. Moscow also uses bots to try to amplify content and tries to exploit social media company algorithms to target particular audiences. At times, Russia will create innocuous accounts focused on health, fitness, or sports and then later, when they have a substantial following, begin to introduce political messages.

The wide array of actors each has its own audience. In addition, they amplify each other, with state voices and seemingly independent ones validating each other. Halting some are more difficult than others: it is one thing to block Russian state television or take down fake accounts, but it is another to block the Orthodox Church with millions of adherents outside Russia.

Generative AI offers a new means of disinformation. At the outset of the Ukraine war, Russia attempted to use a deepfake of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led it to appear that he had fled the country and was urging troops to lay down their arms. Less dramatically, Russia spread deepfakes on Facebook and Reddit that showed Ukrainian teachers praising Putin. The technology has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Deepfakes will be increasingly cheap and easy to produce, and this can be done at scale, allowing Russia to flood the zone with convincing falsehoods.

There are myriad potential uses of deepfakes. Russia’s attempt to blame Ukraine for instigating the 2022 invasion could be more convincing in the future by “leaking” deepfakes of Ukrainian generals planning an attack on Russian territory. Moscow can spread scurrilous rumors about anti-Russian leaders and undermine their political support by releasing fake videos of them in compromising situations or saying offensive remarks. Moscow could try to further polarize the United States or other countries, worsening existing racial tension by releasing videos of supposedly violent Black Lives Matter rallies or of police abuses of members of minority communities. In Europe, variations of this might play out with anti-migrant videos showing migrants committing rape and murder, often mixing genuine crimes and violence with false information.

Such efforts might not sway people to Russia’s position. However, they are likely to sow discord and decrease confidence in government in general. All information, even the truth, would be suspect.

Political Subversion

In the Soviet days, Moscow aggressively subverted unfriendly governments, and these efforts helped it install Communist regimes in several Eastern European states at the end of World War II. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union infiltrated trade union movements in Africa, encouraged radical nationalist parties, and otherwise tried to shape the politics of countries it sought to influence.

Although Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and disinformation related to the Brexit vote that year correctly gathered considerable attention, Russia has also subsequently interfered in elections throughout Europe. In 2017, Russia pushed conspiracy theories and other radical ideas into the Czech Republic, played up migrant crime in the March 2018 Italian election, and used fake news, social media trolls, and other means to target Emmanuel Macron’s campaign in France. In Sweden, Russia spread disinformation about a joint military exercise with NATO. Russian disinformation also heated up during large-scale protests, such as pro-independence ones in Catalonia in 2017 and “yellow vest” demonstrations in France in 2018-2019. Russian propaganda regularly questioned the legitimacy of the European Union, blaming it for problems with migrants, and used disinformation to try to depress turnout in the May 2019 EU elections. Indeed, data from the University of Toronto suggests that almost every European country was targeted in one way or another. 

At times, Russia supports political parties that share its interests. Some of these are anti-establishment parties, like the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany or Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, the latter of which also received a loan from a Russian bank. In Greece, Russia backed both far-left and far-right parties, as both were Euro-skeptical. A 2020 study by the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy found at least sixty cases of Moscow supporting political campaigns outside Russia, although the evidence on some cases is weaker than others. As of August 24, 2023, the figure was 199 cases of interference overall, with techniques including “malign finance,” information operations, and civil society disruption.

Russia also seeks to create, and then exploit, economic dependencies. Russia uses its extensive energy sector to create links to its oil and natural sectors with leaders in other countries, giving them a personal and financial interest in having a country with a strong relationship with Russia. Moscow also has developed close relationships with smuggler networks in neighboring states.

Instigating protests is another way of shaping perceptions and increasing support for Russia in preparation for more aggressive measures. In Ukraine, Russia originally sought to use its agitators to create extreme right-wing anti-Russian protests, infiltrating them with paid criminals and agent provocateurs who would then attack the police. Russia would then use these protests as proof of a “far-right coup” to justify its invasion. Indeed, Russia intended to defeat Ukraine quickly in 2022 in part by fomenting instability and chaos in Ukraine itself and, in so doing, undermining trust in government, tarnishing Ukraine as an ally for potential partners, and promoting pro-Russian voices in the country.

Russia sees such subversive operations in part as a tit-for-tat response to Western pressure. Moscow viewed the various color revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine as fomented by the West, and it also blames the United States and the West for anti-government street protests in Moscow, such as those that occurred in 2011 and 2012. U.S. efforts to promote democracy and build the rule of law are viewed as transparent attempts to undermine Moscow and its allies.

Russian Weaknesses

Gray zone warfare is a necessity for Russia in part due to its weaknesses. Russia’s military is a shell of the Red Army that posed a serious threat to Western Europe during the Cold War. Its economy is stagnant, even without the impact of Western sanctions, and is roughly the size of Canada. The threat from Russia is not a return to the Cold War when two superpowers wrestled over control of the world. Instead, Russia is a weak challenger trying to play a bad hand to its advantage.

Although numerous Russian actors are involved in gray zone activities, they are generally uncoordinated. These actors include military intelligence, domestic and foreign intelligence services, state-owned enterprises, official media, private military companies, self-proclaimed patriotic groups in Russia including biker gangs, various oligarchs, co-opted hackers, the Russian Orthodox Church, and many others. This broad set of actors allows more opportunism and creativity, but it makes unity of effort harder. Many of Russia’s front groups and local allies are also of limited loyalty, especially in a crisis. In Ukraine, Wagner Group contractors and the Russian military clashed over high casualty rates and a shortage of ammunition. Even some structures created by Russian intelligence in Ukraine, such as organizations composed of retired KGB special forces, stayed loyal to Ukraine when the invasion occurred.

Although Russian cyber attacks can be disruptive, Moscow’s capabilities are limited if countries can build a strong defense. Ukraine successfully blunted Russia’s cyber attacks during its 2022 invasion, thanks to help from the United States, the United Kingdom, and private companies such as Microsoft. Russia is at best middling in its AI capabilities and comparable to Canada, rather than to the United States or China. The exodus of much of Russia’s tech talent following the 2022 invasion and subsequent conscription only worsens Moscow’s problems.

Russia itself is also vulnerable to gray zone activity. Views of Russia across the globe are highly negative, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center poll that covered twenty-four countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. A median of 82 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view of Russia, and 87 percent had little or no confidence in Vladimir Putin. These sentiments create opportunities for subverting Russian diplomatic, military, and other actions.

The same is true of Russian private military companies, which are active in Africa, the Middle East, and even Latin America. Prigozhin was instrumental in expanding Russia’s influence by using his Wagner Group to train foreign forces, conduct military operations, extract resources, and help coup-proof local regimes. But Prigozhin’s death in August 2023, almost certainly at Putin’s instruction, is likely to undermine the morale, leadership, and effectiveness of some Russian private military companies. Social media channels linked to Wagner blamed Putin and other Russian officials for orchestrating Prigozhin’s death and threatened retaliatory action against Moscow. Leaders in the Central African Republic, Libya, Mali, Sudan, and other countries may opt to break ties with Wagner and consider alternatives to improve security.

Recommendations

Training and aid packages must focus not only on stopping Russian conventional aggression but also on fighting gray zone warfare. Russia’s efforts are most successful when a country has weak border controls, poor counterintelligence, internal divisions, is awash in firearms, and is unprepared for Russian machinations, according to a RAND study. All these conditions can be countered or at least reduced.

The specifics will vary by country and area. Efforts to combat corruption, improve border security, fight low-level insurgencies, and encourage political reform are vital for reducing Moscow’s influence in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. In Europe, assistance should focus on intelligence coordination, cyber defense, and border control measures. Europe must prepare for a surge of migrants facilitated by Russia, especially in such frontline states as Finland, Poland, the Baltics, and Romania. Finland is building a three-meter-high fence made of steel mesh and barbed wire in case Russia attempts to flood its 1,343-kilometer border with illegal immigrants. But it could use additional assistance in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance collection from drones and other systems. The Baltic states’ military leaders warned that they would shoot any “little green men” and otherwise quickly respond to covert Russian military attacks.

Moscow’s cyber and AI skills, while impressive, are far less than those of the United States and its European allies, and bolstering cyber defenses will reduce some dangers. Intelligence sharing and training of allied militaries can diminish the impact of Russian support for insurgency and terrorism. Public exposure of Russian election manipulation can, in some cases, reduce its impact, and U.S. influence operations may prove more effective given the shaken condition of the Russian regime today. Most of all, the United States and its allies should link sanctions relief and other current punishments to Moscow’s gray zone meddling as well as its invasion of Ukraine.

The United States and its allies should also prepare efforts to discredit Russian private military companies around the world and counter Russian propaganda that promotes Putin as a successful leader. This would involve highlighting increases in terrorism in areas where groups like Wagner are used in Africa, the corruption of Russian officials, and videos that highlight the challenges for ordinary Russians due to Putin’s rule. More specific information efforts may target Russian elites that help hold up the regime: this may decrease their support for Putin or at the very least increase mistrust within elite circles.

Allies need to stand firm against Russian gray zone warfare—and Washington must back them. Moscow may be economically weak, and its conventional military is a far cry from the feared Red Army of the Cold War. But Russia is not down and out. The most effective way to contain Putin is to limit his ability to operate in the gray zone.

Daniel Byman is a professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and a senior fellow with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His latest book is Spreading Hate: The Global Rise of White Supremacist Terrorism.

Seth G. Jones is senior vice president, Harold Brown Chair, and director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He was a plans officer and adviser to the commanding general, U.S. Special Operations Forces, in Afghanistan, as well as the author of In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan (W.W. Norton).

Image: Shutterstock.

Geopolitical provocateurs can cause serious diplomatic headaches.

Rien de commun a priori aux univers de Florence Aubenas et de Michel Butel, décédé en 2018. La première, issue du Centre de formation des journalistes (CFJ), a travaillé pour Libération puis au Monde, deux journaux solidement installés dans le paysage et maintenus à flot par des milliardaires. Le (...) / Médias, Société, Politique - 2023/09

Solidaire, riche, entreprenante et pratiquant aisément l'entre-soi. Telle est souvent décrite l'importante communauté iranienne vivant à Los Angeles, aux États-Unis. Si la République islamique est largement critiquée — certains n'attendant que sa chute pour rentrer au pays —, les divergences politiques (...) / Iran, États-Unis, Immigrés, Dictature - 2023/09

World leaders are betting big on clean hydrogen. How much of it is hype?

Groupe de pays créé entre 2009 et 2011, les Brics — Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine, Afrique du Sud — viennent d'accueillir six nouveaux membres : l'Arabie saoudite, l'Argentine, l'Égypte, les Émirats arabes unis, l'Éthiopie et l'Iran. Si elle est trop diverse pour proposer une vision commune de l'ordre (...) / Diplomatie, Géopolitique, Relations internationales, Organisation internationale - 2023/09

Legislation authorizing the 2003 war is still on the books—and alarmingly open-ended.

The bloc must add Ukraine—but it won’t be simple.

Counterterrorism alone will never bring peace.

Washington is committed to partnership with New Delhi, despite U.S. intelligence cooperation in the Hardeep Singh Nijjar case.

Six Portuguese youth have accused 32 European nations of violating their human rights by not doing enough on climate change.

In mid-September, Vietnam bypassed the intermediate strategic partnership tier and elevated the United States directly to a comprehensive strategic partnership (CSP). The unprecedented upgrade not only manifests a striking rise in trust between the two partners but also offers pivotal opportunities for the two to fortify their relations, one of which is new technology collaboration. Leaders on both sides have recently emphasized that the CSP centers on technology, innovation, and investment.

The United States is working to deepen ties with Vietnam because of its critical role within its strategic blueprint to safeguard the semiconductor supply chain from potential dangers posed by China’s dogged pursuit of technological dominance. During a July visit to Hanoi, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen underlined that “Vietnam has emerged as a critical node in the global semiconductor supply chain.” To fortify technology cooperation, the United States has pledged to help Vietnam develop its own semiconductor industry and provide training in semiconductor assembly, testing, and packaging (ATP). American companies such as Amkor, Onsemi, and Intel Corporation are also deepening their engagement in Vietnam, especially by expanding chip assembly and test manufacturing facilities. 

On the occasion of U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Hanoi, the United States lauded Vietnam for its potential “as a partner in ensuring the semiconductor supply chain is diverse and resilient.” The two countries highlighted the importance of discovering fresh avenues that could “attract industry investments and expand the technical workforces in both countries.” Biden also announced numerous business deals in semiconductor, aerospace, and infrastructure, heralding a “new stage” in the economic relationship between the United States and Vietnam. The Biden administration also pledged that Vietnamese technology companies would be listed on the U.S. stock market while picking “new semiconductor partnership” as the new pillar for collaboration in the first portion of the CSP’s statement. The two countries recently inked a Memorandum of Cooperation on Semiconductor Supply Chains, Workforce, and Ecosystem Development, which would help Vietnam utilize the American International Technology Security and Innovation (ITSI) Fund to develop workforce and infrastructure needs and expand its semiconductor capacity ecosystem, particularly in semiconductor design centers and training.

Vietnam, for its part, has sought to bolster its technological industry while entangling itself in Southeast Asia’s supply networks, particularly in electronics. The country has advanced digital transformation and invested heavily in its digital sector, with the dual goals of strengthening domestic technology capabilities and attracting foreign investment. The Vietnamese government also offers a preferential corporate income tax rate of 10 percent for fifteen years and 17 percent for ten years for large manufacturing ventures, especially those in the high-tech industry. Moreover, Vietnam is now home to Intel Technology Group’s largest chip assembly and testing plant and ranks third in chip sales to the U.S. market, behind Malaysia and Taiwan. A significant chunk (10 percent) of the United States’ entire chip import volume comes from Vietnam, making Hanoi a crucial partner in Washington’s “friend-shoring” policy for semiconductors. Moreover, through collaboration in the Developing Electronics & Leading Technology Advancement Partnerships (DELTA) Network, Vietnam is well-positioned to collaborate with the United States and like-minded regional partners to build a robust technology supply chain.

Vietnam would be sensible to join forces with the United States to benefit from the superpower’s technological edge and highly skilled professionals. The Southeast Asian country has been implementing a series of reform policies, commonly referred to as “renovation” or “Đổi mới” in Vietnamese, since 1986. The country’s economy has gradually restructured and transitioned from a centralized to a more open market system. Now more than ever, policies centered on technology and innovation are needed to revitalize Vietnam’s economic growth. Pham Minh Chinh, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, has recently underscored that bolstering supply chains and expanding semiconductor chip production are at the heart of the country’s economic development. As a result, Vietnam requires both state-of-the-art equipment and skilled workers to operate it.

While enhancing its ties with the United States in emerging technologies, Vietnam has also attempted to cut down on its technological dependency on China. In 2017, Vietnam offered an open welcome to Chinese corporations to participate in the country’s burgeoning high-technology industry. Nevertheless, after six years, this overture is conspicuously absent from economic deliberations between Hanoi and Beijing. Instead, Vietnam has made concern-driven attempts to attract high-quality American investments while proactively seeking engagement with Washington’s semiconductor ecosystem through high-tech collaborative frameworks outlined in the CSP’s agenda. For Vietnam, investment and technological support are essential to assisting the nation in escaping the foreseen middle-income trap.

This discernible shift indicates Vietnam’s growing preference for the United States over China as a destination for high-tech investment at a time when the technological chasm between Washington and Beijing on supply chains is widening. Given the current sanctions and constraints imposed by the United States and Western countries on China’s high-tech sector, Vietnam is in danger if it decides to engage closely with China. Not to mention maritime tensions between the two neighbors in the South China Sea, Vietnam is also cognizant of China’s sway over trade and technology. These concerns prompt Hanoi to decide who will be its crucial partner in promoting high-tech economic development.

However, due to Vietnam’s reliance on China for imported components, pundits hold a gloomy view of Hanoi’s ability to disengage from Beijing economically. However, by making this statement, the significance of Vietnam’s endeavors to enhance the synergy of its supply chain is undermined. Instead of conceptualizing Vietnam’s ongoing strategy as “decoupling” from China, it is more prudent to recognize that the country is actively pursuing a “de-risking” strategy. This strategy involves a discerning process of mitigating economic vulnerabilities stemming from excessive reliance on the Chinese market rather than giving Beijing a wide berth or turning inwards. This process also involves efforts to diversify Vietnam’s supply chain market while at the same time avoiding severing ties with the economic giant. Having the highest level of diplomatic relations with the world’s two largest economies, China (since 2008) and the United States (since 2023), is a nuanced indicator of Vietnam’s efforts to pursue a two-pronged strategy that is strengthening economic security and bolstering its regional stature.

Vietnam has risen to be Washington’s “friend-shoring base” and “key production site for semiconductors and other high-tech products.” Accordingly, the country stands to gain access to American cutting-edge technology and investment. Yet, Vietnam has grappled with a talent shortage and over-reliance on raw materials and components from Beijing. Nonetheless, the United States is not immune to these difficulties. There will be a shortfall of roughly 67,000 skilled workers in Washington’s semiconductor industry by 2030. In addition, one-third of essential components used in manufacturing American-made technological products come from China.

To address these challenges, the United States should support projects and initiatives that could help cultivate talent in Vietnam’s high-tech sectors through funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), universities, institutions, organizations, and foundations. Additionally, the Fulbright University Vietnam, sponsored by the United States and renowned for its science and engineering, economics, mathematics, and computing programs, should serve as the vanguard of Vietnam’s efforts to train a skilled workforce in this sector. To sum up, Washington’s promise to help Vietnam acquire technological capabilities and address the country’s lack of experienced technicians depends on the synergy of financial and human resources support.

De-risking supply chains is gaining ground as geopolitical clashes may entail far-reaching geoeconomic ramifications, and this is precisely what Washington and Hanoi are adopting to shield the high-tech supply chain from China’s rising power and influence. In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, friend-shoring with like-minded partners has become an indicator of economic friendship, and the United States and Vietnam are working together to develop technological ties that will help solidify the Indo-Pacific region’s supply chains. If the U.S.-Vietnam CSP is to reach its full potential, collaboration on new and cutting-edge technologies should become its cornerstone and perhaps even the “signature” of the U.S.-Vietnam alignment.

Huynh Tam Sang is a Lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, a Young Leaders Program member of the Pacific Forum, and a Research Fellow at the Taiwan NextGen Foundation. He tweets at @huynhtamsang2.

Vo Thi Thuy An is a Research Assistant at Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities and a Research Associate at Social Life Research Institute.

Image: Shutterstock.

China’s Huawei, a technology giant that has been facing Western-led sanctions for years, has unveiled its Huawei Mate 60 Promade, a breakthrough development in the ongoing chip war between the United States and China, According to the analysis of TechInsights, the smartphone is powered with a 5G chip Kirin 9000S processor based on the 7nm (N+2) technology. The chip is designed by Huawei’s division HiSilicon and is developed with Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation’s (SMIC) N+2 technology. 

Both Huawei and SMIC are Entity List companies. The U.S. Bureau of Industry Standards (BIS) in October 2022 updated the U.S. Entity list that names companies that are scrutinized. For American companies to do business with the listed companies requires a prior license by U.S. government authorities. Experts anticipated a sharp cut in the flow of technology and equipment from the United States to China that will effectively limit China’s growth in the chip industry and throw Chinese chip capability decades behind the United States’ advanced chip capabilities. However, Huawei’s resurgence with a 7nm chip capability raises doubts about the efficacy of Western sanctions among those who discounted China’s capability in microchip manufacturing and now wonder how China has been able to mass produce 7nm leading-edge semiconductor technology despite embargos.

The 2022 October regulations introduced by the BIS clearly stated that “No company should be assisting Chinese companies with below 14-nanometer using American technology.” Huawei’s resurgence with 7nm chip-making capability marks a failure of America’s entity list and licensing regime. One, the companies on the entity list are not the only companies that ensure the flow of equipment to China. Say, if ten companies are enlisted, ten new companies would emerge to ensure an unhindered flow of business with the American suppliers and vendors, which are also looking forward to running a profitable business with Chinese buyers. A host of shell companies have been set up in China to trade with American equipment makers to bypass the sanctions. Second, several companies dealing with American sellers are ultimately routed to SMIC, especially in the wake of October 2023 licensing requirements. In many cases, these companies will attain licenses just to ensure final shipping to SMIC. According to an industry expert, Dylan Patel, licenses are being handed out as candy, and the entity list is not really bulletproof. 

Another loophole lies in understanding the chip development capability within various thresholds on the nanometer scale. American shortsightedness lies in underestimating the capability of Chinese ways of acquiring high-tech with clandestine means. The ban on equipment sales used only for the production of high-end chips never banned the business in equipment and technology used in producing lower-end chips. The Chinese strategy lies in producing the leading-edge chips by repurposing the lagging-edge tools and equipment. For example, a metal disposition tool that is used for a 28 nm chip can also be used in a 10 nm chip.

Also, it is not possible for China today to make 7nm or 14nm chips without external support. Since China’s semiconductor industry is developed sporadically with no company providing end-to-end solutions to producing even lagging-end chips, it's impossible to build a 7nm capability without the support of Western tools, machinery, and software provided collectively by the global players in the value chain. TechInsights in their hardware analysis also revealed that SMIC has access to sophisticated EDA tools that they are not supposed to have. The anticipation that banning China’s access to Dutch ASML’s advanced lithography tools would render China with no facility to implant circuits on silicon wafers turned ineffective. The DUV tool 1980i was used by both TSMC and Intel in their production of 7nm chips. The same tool can be shipped to China which can be used by the Chinese manufacturers for 7nm or even 5nm chips. Equipment distribution companies like Applied Materials, Tokyo Electronics, Kokusai, Lam Research, ASM International, etc. have been selling equipment for 28nm chips to China, which can also be used for the production of 7nm chips.

Huawei’s Kirin 9000S processor is similar to Intel 10 which was renamed to Intel 7. According to American experts, the technological equipment that was used in the production of Intel 7 was not restricted from being shipped to China under the export control regime. Also, specific restrictions are built around equipment devices that lie under a particular threshold. For example, restrictions of EDA (a chip designing software) tools are imposed only for 3nm chips. That means specific equipment used for above 5nm chips can still be accessible to the Chinese, and especially to various Chinese shell companies that have proliferated to skirt sanctions. The Chinese have exploited the grey areas in the export control measures that hardly considered that the equipment being sold to the lagging-edge buyers can also be used by the leading-edge manufacturers. This policy loophole is very clear and having this ignored by regulators clearly reflects a lack of policy insight.

Also, there’s doubt about how deep political will is among allies like Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, and South Korea to restrict the flow of their instruments to China, which is one of their largest markets. If the Netherlands is selling spare machine parts to China, will they not retrograde an outdated tool with a better tool to bypass the rules and carry on their business with China? Thus, blind negligence to regulatory restrictions or the support provided by other countries has also contributed to China getting material supplies.

China’s successful launch of a 5G-powered device with 7nm technology reveals that Western regulators have failed to understand the intricacies of semiconductor manufacturing and simply anticipated a completely restricted flow of technology to China with a bunch of export control regulations. It was a strategic mistake of policymakers and pundits who underestimated China’s perseverance in pursuing trial-and-error methods and well-known competence of acquiring talent, technology, and tools through back channels. As the applied rules were practically irrelevant, Huawei’s 7nm capability is not even a breakthrough, rather it came as a surprise due to the repeated lack of determination by American policymakers to see it through. The stated loopholes in the regulations not only enabled the Chinese manufacturers to source exactly what America did not intend to but rather helped in spurring a wave of indigenous manufacturing capability in the chip segment.

Megha Shrivastava is a Dr. TMA Pai Fellow and a Doctoral Research Scholar at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India. Her work focuses on China’s ICT industry. She also writes on the semiconductor industry and the U.S.-China technology conflict.

Image: Karlis Dambrans / Shutterstock.com

 

Although demographic policy has long been discussed at an international level, family policy has typically been viewed as a domestic policy concern. Yet it is becoming clear that this field—a way of orienting national legislation toward fostering and defending family life—provides an alternative value basis that is drawing increasing interest in international relations. Indeed, elements of a quiet consensus on family policy are beginning to take hold among countries that want to strengthen their societies.

Family Policy as a National Interest

In recent years there have been two alternative approaches to managing demographic challenges within countries. One approach emphasizes the free movement of peoples as an overall win-win: “Rich, aging countries need workers,” as a 2010 New York Times report put it, while “people in poor countries need jobs.” A few countries, however, have begun to follow the other approach of family policy, whereby national governments incentivize domestic population growth and encourage talent retention.

Family policy has not typically been viewed as a matter of international affairs. Contemporary international institutions have been largely oriented toward advancing a liberal understanding of sexual freedom, particularly through international norms such as the Beijing Declaration and the Istanbul Convention. The Biden administration has trumpeted its global prioritization of LGBTQ issues “through U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance,” and EU institutions have done the same.

Developments in family life have reflected the same shift in recent decades. During the second half of the twentieth century, global birth rates fell while expectations around industrial capacity increased. International efforts at managing population growth were common, especially through promoting the use of birth control. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the theme of global discussions shifted toward breaking down international barriers—from borders to glass ceilings to norms around marriage and family.

In retrospect, it is clear that the post-1990 consensus had a demographic thesis embedded in its foreign policy; one of global mobility under a soft regime of social liberalism. With the advent of the Schengen Area, Europe became a model of how free-trade areas and shared economic zones could lead to the free movement of peoples. It no longer mattered where things were made. Classical family structures were likewise viewed as restrictive.

But the traditional family has returned to international discussion. First, economists such as Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan have pointed out that societies with low birth rates are aging societies. Aging societies tend to become industrially sclerotic and experience intergenerational tensions. Industry must shift toward medical care, and economies can become inflation-prone. Yet declines in family formation seem to be common across all industrial societies, outside of certain highly-religious subgroups. For this reason, measures supportive of family life ought to have broad consideration in international discourse.

Second, the values that promote family formation are no longer taken for granted. Western societies have steadily moved away from a classical definition of the family. Western governments, as well as popular culture, have also placed greater emphasis on defending and even celebrating alternative lifestyles than on the classical definition of the family.

With each passing year, it becomes clearer that demographic challenges lie at the heart of international affairs as well. A report from the New York Times this summer highlighted the fact that, “By 2050, people age 65 and older will make up nearly 40 percent of the population in some parts of East Asia and Europe.” In these aging societies, working-age populations will shrink, while “the best-balanced work forces will mostly be in South and Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East.” The geopolitical and geoeconomic consequences of this shift are only beginning to be envisioned.

In light of reports like this one, at the European Council meeting this past summer heads of state requested that the European Commission develop a “Demographic Toolbox,” citing in particular the relationship between demographic strength and economic competitiveness. The reason is fairly simple: governments around the world are beginning to realize—both individually and in common—that demographic challenges won’t be helped by putting further pressure on traditional family structures or by further encouragement of mass migration.

It is in this context that, in recent years, “family policy” has emerged as a nationally oriented approach to managing demographic challenges. In my view, family policy is built on three pillars: 1) a state support system linked to the family and incentivizing family life; 2) protection of and promotion of the traditional family as integral to the functioning of society; 3) rejection of mass migration and emphasis on the integrity of borders and an orderly approach to immigration. Together, these three elements are aimed at bolstering the role of the family within society.

All large economic structures have the ability to, and are designed to, shift incentives around life choices. When state support and welfare systems are not tied to family structures, the system itself can come to take the place of fathers. Contrast this with Hungary, where the family support system built since 2015 is designed to make the choice to start a family more financially beneficial than the alternative. Mothers receive their full salary for an extended period after the birth of their child, parents can apply for large loans and grants to cover the cost of setting up a household, and a variety of other financial incentives are in place to encourage family formation. This suite of policies has drawn broad foreign attention: the recently concluded fifth Budapest Demographic Summit included official representation from the governments of Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, Tanzania, Kazakhstan, Türkiye, Qatar, Bahrain, Tunisia, and Ecuador. In recent years, former U.S. vice president Mike Pence as well as official representatives from Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Latvia and elsewhere have also attended. The Polish government has also introduced family support policies in recent years, as well.

The International Implications of Family Policy

Although family policy is currently pursued at a national level, each element of family policy has potential international repercussions. For this reason, it has all the elements of an alternative international consensus. But because existing international structures are oriented against strong border policies and interpret human rights institutions against domestic pro-family policies, this phenomenon has not fully reached international visibility.

Will the global geopolitical order shift in such a way as to allow the emergence of international mechanisms for promoting family policy on these lines? The post-1990s global order was built on a unitary package of American-led military security, economic opportunity (through expanding free-trade facilities), and a liberal interpretation of ever-expanding human rights. But with the rise of non-Western-led economic organizations and with an ever more aggressive Western approach on sexual lifestyles, the incentives for a “multi-vector” foreign policy are rising. In that environment, states have a stronger mutual rationale for sharing good practices with regard to the promotion of stable family life, even where they differ in other respects.

The reality is that the overall package of a country’s demographic policies is now of immense importance in the international context, given that many states are facing similar challenges. But instead of waiting for the European Union to create a “Demographic Toolkit,” the basic elements of family policy already exist—and are needed in different respects in different parts of the world.

In Europe, the mass migration experienced since 2015 has not been followed by increasing social cohesion; meanwhile, the key elements of strong family life have continued to decline. Since the turn of the century, illegitimacy rates have risen by nearly 70 percent, so that 42 percent of births in Europe are now outside wedlock. During the height of the migration crisis in 2015, EU leaders confidently predicted that the arrival of three million migrants would bring an economic benefit to Europe. Instead, the European economy now looks more sclerotic than at any point in recent years.

While the United States—itself unique due a long history of processing and assimilating immigrants, along with well-developed immigration-related institutions—has maintained population growth through immigration, current circumstances with millions of border crossers per year seem unsustainable. At the same time, cultural and economic pressures on American families have made family life less attractive for the young.

Even among the rising countries that will soon lead the world in working-age population—like South Africa, India, or the Philippines—family policy will be necessary to maintain a strong social structure and avoid following the path of aging Western societies.

Now that the “package” of the post-1990s global order is becoming unbundled, it is no surprise that the world is becoming more polarized, not more liberal, in terms of attitudes toward socially liberal family structures. As Western societies have progressed beyond twentieth-century norms to become more aggressive in promoting alternative lifestyles, even through diplomatic channels, some governments have quietly grown more skeptical. Many countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America benefit from Chinese investment yet, from the Western side, feel only pressure to change their fundamental cultural values.

The arrival of demographic policy as foreign policy is also a sign that the “values” identified at the heart of the existing global order are considered by many global actors to be insufficient to power it. With the West trying to step back from fully integrated global markets—sanctioning its geopolitical opponents and “de-risking” from trade with China—the reasons for accepting the “values” part of the Western package have also begun to decline. Countries will have to evaluate whether their demographic position requires economic development to meet a rising population, financial incentives to rescue a falling population and, in conjunction with this, other types of cultural and legal support for traditional family structures.

A Turning Point?

The most interesting question concerning the international aspect of family policy is whether it could constitute a new element for a “values-based” international policy. Is public support for robust family life sufficient to bring countries together that otherwise diverge? From the standpoint of classical geopolitics, where conflict over resources and territory defines international relations, the answer is “No.” Countless wars and conflicts have occurred between countries with robust demography.

Yet stable family life can no longer be taken for granted in international relations. In modern societies, family life is not simply an assumed input into social strength, economic growth and military readiness, but an output of favorable culture, protective legislation and sound policy. With global markets still highly integrated, a steady collapse in demography in one area—either through aging, family collapse, or mass migration—can cause immediate problems in another. And if a country’s economy becomes more sclerotic through demographic decline, its value as an export market or industrial provider is likely to fall, as well.

Finally, there is another reason that a strong, values-oriented family policy can go along with a flexible or more pragmatic interests-based foreign policy: a strong family policy enables economic growth and increases overall confidence, which together provide more room for maneuver in foreign policy. A country with a strong national culture and growing families need not fear that economic exchange and partnerships will undermine it.

How could a new consensus favoring family policy as a core element of international affairs come into being? Looked at from the standpoint of existing international institutions, the situation might seem rather challenging. But global institutions are also now at an inflection point. With new economic arrangements like the BRICS+ coming into view, it remains to be seen what set of values might be attached to institutions eventually built out of them. Yet it is entirely likely that values will return to international institutions in unexpected ways. As countries face many upcoming demographic challenges, there will be strong incentives for them to create new platforms through which to hash out good policy practices. In the meantime, the tight bundle of post-Cold War international policy will likely have fallen further apart. When that moment comes, it won’t be surprising if attention turns toward family policy. In the coming decades, family policy will not merely be an answer to domestic demographic challenges, but a core part of a functioning global order.

Gladden Pappin is president of the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Presidents, officials, and candidates tend to fall into six camps that don’t follow party lines.

The Biden administration has refrained from issuing a strong statement about allegations that the Indian government was involved in the assassination of a Sikh activist.

The historian with a million Substack subscribers describes how Americans can hit reset.

Data and accountability mechanisms can encourage states to avoid their worst impulses.