Agrégateur de flux

At a time of growing regional turbulence, nations across the region are seeking to equip themselves with more and better armaments.

In today's edition: ETS reform, critical minerals, packaging waste

In today's edition: Delivery Hero, Meta lobbying, deepfakes

In today's edition: most-favoured nation, tobacco, Swiss medtech

Abstract

This study examines whether strategic communication (StratCom) has evolved from a supportive public diplomacy tool into a primary instrument of modern diplomatic practice during international conflicts. By analyzing three contemporary case studies—the Russia–Ukraine war, the Gaza conflict, and the maritime security crisis in the Strait of Hormuz—this paper investigates how state and non-state actors employ strategic narratives, digital warfare, and information management to achieve geopolitically decisive outcomes. The findings suggest that StratCom no longer merely accompanies diplomatic maneuvers; rather, it actively dictates diplomatic agendas, shapes international coalitions, and alters the leverage of conflicting parties. Consequently, strategic communication represents a fundamental structural transformation in 21st-century diplomacy.

Keywords: Strategic Communication, Modern Diplomacy, Strategic Narrative, Russia-Ukraine War, Gaza Conflict, Strait of Hormuz, Information Warfare

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework

1.1 Context and Problem Statement

The classic paradigm of international diplomacy—historically defined by state-centric, closed-door negotiations, formal ambassadorial channels, and delayed public statements—is experiencing a profound structural crisis. In the contemporary international system, characterized by hyper-connectivity, digital immediacy, and fragmented power structures, the traditional mechanisms of statecraft often prove too slow to control geopolitical realities. Instead, state and non-state actors increasingly rely on public, real-time, and narrative-driven communications to project influence and manage crises.

This evolution raises a fundamental question for security studies and international relations: Has strategic communication (StratCom) transitioned from a peripheral public diplomacy function into the primary operational instrument of modern diplomacy in conflict scenarios? Where diplomacy once dictated communication strategies, communication strategies now frequently dictate diplomatic options, alliance structures, and escalation dynamics.

1.2 Conceptualizing StratCom in International Relations

To evaluate this transition, StratCom must be positioned within existing theories of international relations. Strategic communication is defined here as the purposeful, aligned use of communication capabilities by an actor to advance its strategic objectives, political values, and policy goals.

Crucial to this concept is the theory of strategic narratives, which posits that actors construct compelling story arcs—identifying actors, conflict origins, moral imperatives, and resolution trajectories—to structure the perception of international order (Miskimmon et al., 2013). While Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power emphasizes attraction through culture and values, and hard power relies on military or economic coercion (Nye, 2004), StratCom acts as a bridge. It leverages both sharp power—the manipulative use of information to undermine adversaries (Walker, 2018)—and digital public diplomacy to achieve coercive outcomes without immediate physical force.

1.3 Methodology

This paper employs a comparative qualitative case study methodology. It evaluates three contemporary crisis theaters:

The state-versus-state, high-intensity Russia–Ukraine War;

The highly asymmetric, urban Gaza Conflict;

The maritime, choke-point security crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea corridor.

Each case is analyzed based on three variables: target audience segmentation, information delivery channels, and direct diplomatic or policy outcomes.

2. Comparative Case Studies

2.1 The Russia–Ukraine War:

Narrative Synchronicity and Military Diplomacy
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine initiated a high-stakes arena of competing strategic narratives. From the onset, the Ukrainian leadership recognized that military survival depended directly on immediate, sustained Western material and financial support.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s daily video addresses bypassed traditional ambassadorial channels, addressing Western parliaments and populations directly. By framing Ukraine as the front line of global democratic defense against autocracy, Ukrainian StratCom created a moral imperative that constrained Western leaders. Diplomatic negotiations for advanced weaponry (e.g., main battle tanks, air defense systems, long-range missiles) were repeatedly unlocked not through secret protocol, but through public-facing narrative pressure campaigns that shifted the boundaries of acceptable diplomatic discourse (Bjola & Pamment, 2016).

Conversely, the Russian Federation deployed a bifurcated StratCom strategy. In Western spheres, Russian narratives sought to exploit societal fault lines, sow skepticism, and raise the perceived risk of nuclear escalation. In the Global South, Moscow leveraged historical anti-imperialist frameworks, positioning itself as a counterweight to Western hegemony (Freedman, 2019). Russia’s diplomatic maneuvering in multilateral bodies like the UN relied heavily on this narrative positioning to prevent universal isolation and maintain economic lifelines with non-aligned nations.

2.2 The Gaza Conflict: Information Battlegrounds and International Pressure

The Gaza conflict illustrates the power of asymmetric, hyper-visual strategic communication within a urban, non-state actor paradigm. In this theater, raw visual evidence—disseminated via social media platforms and instant messaging networks—frequently outpaces formal diplomatic channels.

Hamas and affiliated actors leveraged decentralized information networks to broadcast human suffering and damage, successfully framing the conflict around international humanitarian law and civilian casualty metrics. This bottom-up communication strategy mobilized global public opinion, triggering widespread civilian protests across Western and Middle Eastern capitals.

The resulting domestic political pressure directly constrained the diplomatic maneuvering room of major powers, including the United States, the European Union, and regional Arab states. Traditional diplomatic actors were repeatedly forced to adapt their official positions, issue public calls for ceasefires, or sponsor UN resolutions in response to real-time information flows rather than structured bilateral negotiations. StratCom in Gaza demonstrated that controlling the visual and emotional narrative can force third-party diplomatic intervention regardless of the physical balance of power on the ground.

 

2.3 The Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea Crisis: Deterrence and Maritime Security

The ongoing maritime security threats around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait represent a third dimension: asymmetric strategic communication deployed to disrupt global trade and project power across maritime choke points.

Houthi insurgents in Yemen, backed by Iranian strategic framing, utilized low-cost physical attacks combined with high-impact media production to project an image of regional capability. By framing their maritime actions as a moral blockade tied to the broader Middle Eastern crisis, they achieved a disproportionate impact on global shipping routes and international maritime logistics.

In response, the United States and international coalition partners initiated maritime security operations (e.g., Operation Prosperity Guardian). However, the diplomatic challenge extended beyond physical naval deployment. Western powers had to construct a clear, unified narrative emphasizing the protection of global freedom of navigation and international law. StratCom served as the primary glue for coalition building, reassuring commercial shipping markets and coordinating multilateral naval rules of engagement. In this theater, strategic communication functioned as a key component of military and economic deterrence.

3. Comparative Analysis and DiscussionAnalyzing these three distinct conflict environments reveals a consistent structural shift: Strategic Communication is no longer a downstream reflection of diplomatic policy; it is an active driver of policy choices.

Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Strategic Communication as a Diplomatic Arsenal Across Conflict Theaters

Conflict Area Primary StratCom Vector Target Audience Direct Diplomatic & Policy Outcome Russia–Ukraine War Presidential digital diplomacy (Zelensky), OSINT, value-based framing (democracy vs. autocracy) Western public, allied legislatures, Global South Unlocking heavy military aid packages (tanks, air defense), sustaining sanctions regimes Gaza Conflict Decentralized social media, raw visual evidence, moral framing (humanitarian law) Global public opinion, international bodies Rapid shifting of third-party diplomatic positions (US, EU, Arab states), UN intervention Strait of Hormuz / Red Sea Asymmetric threat projection (Houthi attacks, media production) vs. maritime law defense Global shipping markets, regional actors, coalition allies Multilateral naval coalition building (Operation Prosperity Guardian), economic deterrence

Across all cases, traditional diplomatic channels proved insufficient when operating in isolation from the information domain. Modern statecraft relies on what can be termed narrative coercion: the capacity to control the contextual framework of a conflict to such a degree that opposing actors face unacceptable political, economic, or moral costs if they do not align with the narrative trajectory.
Furthermore, digital platforms have democratized information warfare. Non-state actors and smaller nations can achieve narrative parity—or even dominance—against traditionally superior military forces. Consequently, the speed, authenticity, and emotional resonance of a communication campaign have become as critical as territorial control or troop numbers.

4. Conclusion

This study set out to answer whether strategic communication represents the primary new diplomatic instrument in contemporary conflicts. The evidence from Ukraine, Gaza, and the Strait of Hormuz confirms that StratCom has evolved far beyond the boundaries of public relations or traditional public diplomacy.

Strategic communication now serves as the primary operational environment in which modern diplomacy takes place. It shapes political realities, builds and sustains international alliances, constrains adversary options, and dictates the pace of crisis resolution. While hard power capabilities (military units, industrial capacity) and classic negotiations remain indispensable, their effectiveness is fundamentally contingent upon the strategic narrative that frames them.

For 21st-century statecraft, communication is no longer an auxiliary function performed after decisions are made; it is the strategic arsenal through which international influence is won or lost.

References

Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (Eds.). (2016). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730844

Freedman, L. (2019). Ukraine and the art of strategy. Oxford University Press.

Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078891

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Walker, C. (2018). What is „sharp power”? Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0041

 

A Strategic Communication as the New Diplomatic Arsenal: Evidence from Ukraine, Gaza, and the Strait of Hormuz bejegyzés először Biztonságpolitika-én jelent meg.

The Department of Foreign Affairs demanded the "immediate takedown” of the AI-generated video, in which the Philippines was depicted as a monkey.

RÉCIT - Une nette majorité d’électeurs macronistes préféreraient que l’actuel premier ministre soit candidat à la place de ses lointains prédécesseurs Gabriel Attal et Édouard Philippe, selon notre sondage Odoxa-Backbone.

A Chinese entrepreneur who attempted to launch a chip fabrication plant in Oman's Salalah freezone with local government investment brought [...]

The current Russian ambassador to France Alexei Mechkov is due to return to Moscow by the end of the year. [...]

German intelligence coordinator Philipp Wolff's trip to Paris from 6 to 8 July was a whirlwind affair. The visit began [...]

By allying itself with US New Space partners, a French start-up specialising in GEOINT (geospatial intelligence), 10 Nord, is trying [...]

A cyber-spyware specialist, an ex-political lobbyist and a former think tank researcher are among the cast of employees that Intelligence [...]

The Pentagon is broken, but Congress can fix it.

Trump’s demands could derail progress on allied defense.

Als Wettermoderator von SRF Meteo wurde er in dreissig Jahren zum bekanntesten Fernsehgesicht. Er wurde verregnet, ausgezeichnet, kritisiert. Jetzt geht er in Pension.

Map of the Strait of Hormuz. Credit: Wikimedia/Goran_tek-en

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 17 2026 (IPS)

A continuation of hostilities within the Strait of Hormuz is once again threatening one of the world’s most critical supply chain arteries, posing another wave of disruption which could choke the global energy, shipping and commodity markets. With roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade transiting through the Strait, alongside significant flows of liquefied natural gas and fertilizers, further constraints on commercial traffic could send new cost pressures cascading through supply chains that have yet to absorb the full effects of the earlier conflict.

Unlike the initial disruption, this latest escalation is hitting an already elevated and damaged cost base. U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed a 20 percent charge on cargo transiting the Strait, a plan he abandoned on July 14th after pressure from Gulf allies. At a current crude oil price of roughly USD 85 per barrel, a 20 percent levy on all cargo would amount to an additional USD 17 per barrel, around 17 times Iran’s previously proposed USD 1 per barrel toll.

Yet, the larger challenge remains whether an assurance of safety through the Strait can really be guaranteed. While Washington has promised to safeguard commercial vessels attempting to transit, multiple vessels have been struck by Iranian forces, including the UAE-flagged supertankers Mombasa and Al Bahiyah on July 12th. Both vessels have a capacity of roughly 2 million barrels of oil, placing the potential value of a full cargo at roughly USD 171 million before insurance, maintenance and transit costs are considered.

If continued attacks deter vessels from transiting the Strait, constrained oil flows could combine with increased insurance premiums and higher transport costs, pushing additional expenses through global supply chains and eventually onto consumers.

These effects are already visible when examining vessel movements. On July 15th, a total of five transits were recorded, three inbound and two outbound, with one of those ships being Iranian-flagged outbound. Daily throughput in deadweight tonnage (DWT) stood at 130,311 DWT, or just 1.27 percent of the 10.3 million DWT pre-conflict daily average. Meanwhile, approximately 450 vessels remain waiting to transit the Strait, including 120 tankers, 180 bulk carriers and 150 other vessels.

War risk premiums, the additional fees charged to insure vessels operating within conflict zones, have skyrocketed from a 0.15 percent pre-conflict rate to 5 percent, a more than 33-fold increase. Very large crude carriers (VLCCs) can be valued from USD 130 million to more than USD 170 million, meaning a five percent premium could add an additional cost of USD 6.5 million to USD 8.75 million per voyage. For a VLCC carrying 2 million barrels, that would amount to roughly USD 7.5 million, compared with approximately USD 2.225 million under Iran’s proposed USD 1-per-barrel toll combined with pre-conflict war-risk premiums.

However, the compounding effects extend beyond oil. Data from the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Strait of Hormuz Trade Tracker shows that while crude oil shipments had begun to recover marginally, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and fertilizer-related shipments remain at a virtual standstill, with zero outbound shipments currently recorded. Renewed escalations risk further restricting already depressed commodity flows, with approximately one-third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade and one-fifth of global LNG transiting through the Strait.

Using a volume index in which 100 represents average volume levels, the WTO recorded a volume index of 25.69 for LNG on July 5th, following nearly four months in which shipments were recorded on only four other days. Fertilizer-related shipments showed greater resilience, recording a volume index of 97.62 on June 23rd. However, no further fertilizer-related shipments have been recorded, leaving the trade flow at a standstill for more than three weeks.

These restrictions could be particularly damaging for energy- and food-importing economies, notably developing countries that spend significant shares of national income on essential imports of energy and food. Simultaneous increases in fuel, transportation, and agricultural inputs risk creating a broader inflationary shock. Higher fertilizer costs can increase agricultural production costs, while elevated energy and shipping expenses raise the cost of transporting goods from exporters to importers, leaving consumers exposed to several layers of the same disruption.

The disruption has also carried a significant human cost. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has warned against continued commercial transit through the Strait, with IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez urging shipowners, operators, and flag States, along with all relevant authorities to “avoid exposing seafarers to unnecessary danger by transiting the Strait.” At the same time, the United States has announced that it will resume a naval blockade targeting vessels transiting to and from Iranian ports. Iran, meanwhile, has framed its control over the Strait as a national security issue and has threatened that it will remain closed “until the end of America’s evils.”

At its 137th session, the IMO Council reaffirmed that the right of transit through straits used for international navigation “should not be threatened, impeded, denied, hampered, impaired or suspended,” reiterating that any measures taken by coastal states to regulate traffic in vital shipping lanes should be done in accordance with IMO regulations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The Council also stated that traffic through the Strait must “remain free of any tolls and charges, in accordance with international law, including the IMO Convention.”

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned that “Reports on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are very alarming for their impact on human rights far beyond the region,” describing the Strait as “a vital lifeline on which millions are reliant.”

The dangers are also being borne directly by seafarers trapped in the Persian Gulf. Of approximately 20,000 seafarers stranded by the crisis, around 11,000 have been evacuated through an IMO-supported initiative. However, evacuation operations have reportedly been paused since June 25, leaving thousands still stranded.

The economic consequences of the initial disruption were already substantial before this latest escalation. According to the World Bank, global energy prices rose by 24 percent following the conflict’s onset, with fertilizer prices projected to rise by more than 30 percent in 2026. Renewed hostilities in the Strait now threaten to compound these pressures, demonstrating how insecurity within a narrow stretch of water can transmit costs across global supply chains, from ships at sea to businesses, households and economies around the world.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

  

 

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk visit to the Al Afad IDP camp, in Sudan. Credit: Anthony Headley/OHCHR
 
It has been three years since the start of war in Sudan. Survivors and human rights defenders struggle to keep human rights a reality as millions of lives have been impacted by violence, displacement and silence.

By UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
GENEVA, Jul 17 2026 (IPS)

Three years into the war in Sudan, survivors and human rights defenders are struggling to respond to overwhelming needs amid widespread violence, displacement, and limited global attention. As horrific violations and abuses intensify and those documenting them become targets, calls for accountability and sustained international engagement grow more urgent.

“The violations are severe: torture, rape, and other forms of sexual violence affecting women, men, and children,” said Dr. Nahid Jibrallah, founder and director of the SEEMA Centre for the Protection of Women and Children, a Sudanese civil society organization that has spent years supporting those affected by violence.

SEEMA Centre, now based in Kampala, Uganda, due to the war, provides medical, psychosocial, and legal and social assistance to Sudanese victims of torture in Uganda, as well as to their family members, with the support of the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. Through the project supported by the Fund, it expands its services to Sudan to provide critical services and support to victims of torture, leveraging its experience and expertise to document and report on violations, advocate for accountability, and provide targeted services to those affected.

The Fund is issuing a special call for emergency applications for Sudan in response to the surge in needs of survivors.

While Sudan has endured periods of conflict over decades, the current war which began in April 2023, has reshaped the country in devastating ways.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, recalled in a statement during his recent visit to Sudan, that he was shocked by accounts of extreme brutality, including atrocity crimes.

“I heard harrowing stories from survivors who witnessed the killing of their loved ones, and from women who had been subjected to gang rape and other forms of torture,” he said.

The conflict has also driven Jibrallah and her team to flee the country, so they are now working from Uganda.

“Torture is used as a weapon to control communities, including sexual abuse and also trafficking,” she said.

She said her colleagues at SEEMA Centre and other frontline groups, haven’t been spared the brunt of war. The war has created not only a humanitarian emergency, but a protection crisis for those trying to respond. She said that doctors, lawyers, health personnel, and human rights activists have been threatened, detained, tortured, and even killed for carrying out their work. The very people documenting violations and supporting survivors have become targets themselves.

The scale of suffering is unlike anything they have faced.

“Unfortunately, we cannot respond to this high level of need,” Jibrallah said. “The need is overwhelming, complicated, and spread across areas where even access is a challenge.”

“What we need is not to compromise human rights for any political agenda,” Jibrallah said. “We do not want resources to go to fuel the war or to mask human rights violations.”

UN Human Rights in Sudan

Sudan is now facing the world’s largest displacement crisis. Since the conflict began in April 2023, an estimated 14 million people have been forced from their homes, both within Sudan and across its borders.

“What makes Sudan’s crisis even more alarming is its invisibility. The world is not watching closely enough, but we are here, despite insecurity and access restrictions,” said Li Fung, UN Human Rights’ Representative in Sudan, on the staggering human cost of the Sudan conflict.

UN Human Rights has continued to monitor, document and analyze serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, despite access and security constraints. This work not only informs protection, humanitarian, and political responses today, but preserves vital evidence for future accountability and access to justice for victims and their families.

Civilians continue to endure the most horrific violations and abuses, forced displacement, trauma, and a dire humanitarian situation. Through its engagement on the ground, the Office is documenting violations, listening to survivors and communities, working with civil society and community networks, and bringing their voices to the attention of the world to press for action to end the war.

To this end, Jibrallah emphasised that documenting violations is essential and stressed the need for accountability: “It is very important to ensure accountability and to study this data, and to ensure that this will not happen again. It should be used for sustainable peace.”

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

  

 

The reports come on top of the 300 people already reported missing or drowned in the Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal in 2026.

The nation is looking to expand and balance its economic and security relationships – and India is at the top of the list.

CONTRE-POINT - Un ancien président de la République, d’anciens premiers ministres, d’anciens ministres, un président de région, un président de groupe… Le parcours de ceux qui n’excluent pas d’être candidats n’a pas à rougir de la comparaison avec ceux qui se sont déjà déclarés.