Asia (Page 1,363)

People who used propaganda tactics in the past US election will not be surprised by the White House’s recent revelations about Russian attempts to influence this month’s US presidential vote.

The Kremlin used its state-sponsored media outlets, the news website Sputnik, and the global television station RT to air a number of articles that questioned the legitimacy of the US political operation during the 2020 strategy. Additionally, it was discovered that network of bots and trolls operating under the Russian government were actively promoting conspiracy theories and propaganda online.

This time around, the US has seized a network of Russian-run internet domains and sanctioned ten people including Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT ( formerly Russia Today ), for “activities that aim to deteriorate public trust in our institutions”.

Restrictions may include the US frothing of any property or goods and imposing sanctions on any US-based businesses or individuals.

The US has also charged two Moscow-based directors of RT, Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva, under money laundering laws with paying US information makers to squeeze out “pro-Russia misinformation and propaganda” in the US.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed that Russia was looking to undermine US support for Ukraine in the battle by promoting its “preferred results” in the upcoming presidential election.

The techniques that the US Department of Justice ( DOJ) claims are closely related to what my co-authors and I have identified in our new guide, Russia, Disinformation and the Liberal Order, as having become a accepted practice in Russian attempts to influence global audiences.

We identified five important aspects of Russian data adjustment that can aid in understanding the most recent election-meddling controversy.

1. Using native bloggers

The DOJ claims that RT workers paid a Tennessee-based company roughly US$ 10 million to create social media content that supports Russian interests, but they did not disclose that the Russian state paid the money in the end.

Numerous of the celebrities who work for the Tennessee organization have since claimed to have editorial control over their information and denied knowing anything about Russian connections. However, this fits the designs found in our analysis.

Second, RT has long worked with the nationalist right-wing media room, and generally mimics the style and techniques of US right-wing nationalistic media. It often references their articles on its website, has promoted right-wing press figures, distributed their shows, and featured them on its own platforms, and has linked to their articles.

Building on this, RT has frequently given a system, funding and free reins to media personalities from the states they are targeting, whose fairly held beliefs fit Russia’s personal interests. After all, studies shows that regardless of whether or not those claims are accurate, people are more likely to believe the claims they have heard repeatedly.

2. Fake news sources

In accordance with this situation, the US has seizes a network of online domains that are said to have been used to spread false information to certain demographics.

As well as boosting core Russian talking points, their content, which masquerades as regional websites, frequently taps into specific social issues and disagreements that appeal to specific target groups.

This has been demonstrated in the past, when the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency created a phony left-wing information page and duped unaware consultants into writing for Russian data activities. RT’s previous accomplishments demonstrate that it has no reservations about purposefully hiding its connections to other advertising outlets and organizations.

We are aware from our study that these websites usually cross-reference other self-styled counter-mainstream sites to increase their credibility with certain online demographics, as well as generally do so.

3. Adding more fuel to the fire

Another popular strategy for making content credible is tying it to concerns and worries that are already prevalent in any society.

For instance, Russia did not initiate the US cultural battle, but it has skillfully tapped into British society’s concerns. These have been brought to the fore by Russian media activities without engaging with them in any significant way.

Also, when Russian websites masquerade as regional sources, they prioritize themes that are common to their specific audiences. Often, though, controversial subjects are embellished with a mishmash of genuine and fabricated information. They are difficult to distinguish between because of their preconceived notions, which frequently prevent them from trying.

4. Flipping the storyline

Moscow has frequently denied involvement in control activities, just as it did in 2018 when the UK accused the Soviet government of a number of deaths in Salisbury from Novichok illnesses. Russian officials and the media boosted a complicated web of conspiracy theories that mirrored the accusations made against the UK and US security companies back then.

We have seen the “flipped script” response from Russia’s representatives again this time around. Moscow’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, dismissed US allegations as a product of” Russophobia” – the same term used by the Russian embassy following the Salisbury poisonings.

And Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, has repeated her favourite theme of recent years, accusing the US of becoming a” totalitarian neoliberal dictatorship”. This may seem absurd from the head of a state that has condemned criticism of its invasion of Ukraine.

However, bare-faced lies and humorous dismissals often go together in Russia’s information operations.

5. Humor

The Russian state&nbsp, routinely uses humor strategically, and RT has emerged as&nbsp, a pioneer&nbsp, in using humor to legitimize Russia’s actions or&nbsp, neutralize critiques.

However, the network does n’t only use humor to report on international politics. Its signature tactic is to knowingly make itself known as a joker. Numerous RT advertising campaigns have used foreign criticisms as a selling point.

The sarcastic response to the most recent allegations by Simonyan displayed the same spirit. The editor-in-chief dismissed the accusations as US scaremongering” about the almighty RT” in comments posted to Telegram and gleefully reproduced by RT. Her words are a perfect illustration of how RT makes a “populist pariah” of itself.

Russia is working to control agendas outside of its borders, and there is no indication this will stop anytime soon.

Precious Chatterje-Doody is Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Studies, The Open University

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Evidence suggests that civilizations frequently overextended their coping methods when they are in decline.

The declining kingdom may therefore combine or clash with defense actions, infrastructure issues, and social welfare demands, accumulating costs and negative effects.

Plans aimed to improve empire—and that previously did—now destroy it. Modern cultural changes inside and outside the empire does strengthen, slow, or invert the decline.

However, when drop leads officials to claim its life, it can become self-accelerating. In the early years of dynasties, officials and the led may suppress those who stress or even notice drop.

Cultural problems may also be denied, minimized, or, if admitted, blamed on practical scapegoats—immigrants, foreign powers, or cultural minorities—rather than linked to royal drop.

The US kingdom, ingeniously proclaimed by the Monroe Doctrine shortly after two liberation wars won against Britain, grew across the 19th and 20th ages, and peaked during the years between 1945 and 2010.

The US empire’s expansion and decrease merged with one another’s. There were never any significant economic opposition or threat, but the Soviet Union did, at least, present a minimal number of political and military challenges.

The Cold War was a tense battle whose result was predetermined from the beginning. World War II devastated the US emperor’s possible financial rivals or threats in total.

Europe lost its territories in the years that followed. The exclusive worldwide position of the United States then, with its excessive place in world trade and investment, was anomalous and good untenable.

At the time of the drop, a rejection attitude was all but certain, but it has since changed to one that is now completely denial.

In its combat there in 1950-1953, the United States was unable to physically overthrow all of Korea. The US lost its following wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. None of those benefits could be altered by the NATO ally.

The US’s extensive sanctions against Russia and the US military and financial aid for Ukraine are both failures and likely will continue to be. Cuba, Iran, and China have all fallen short of US restrictions.

However, the BRICS empire counteracts US policies to protect its kingdom, including its sanctions war, with increasing usefulness.

In the realms of business, investment, and financing, we can calculate the decrease of the US empire separately. The reduction in the US dollars as a central banks reserve having is one score. Another is its collapse as a means of business, debts, and expense.

Finally, consider the US currency’s drop alongside that of dollar-denominated goods as abroad desired means of holding success. Across the Global South, countries, business, or businesses seeking business, money or investments used to go to London, Washington or Paris for decades, they now have various options. They may get rather to Beijing, New Delhi or Moscow, where they often secure more attractive words.

The region that holds the empire’s dominance has a number of advantages that lead to amazing profits for local businesses. The 19th centuries was remarkable for its never-ending conflicts and conflicts between civilizations that fought for country and, in turn, for their higher profits.

Any declines in any one kingdom may open up more opportunities for competing civilizations. If the latter grabbed those prospects, the latter’s reduction may increase. In the last century, a number of competing civilizations resulted in two world war. Another generation seems to be being driven to have worse, potentially nuclear world war in this century.

Before World War I, there were rumors that the formation of multinational corporations based on only federal mega-corporations may end or lessen the danger of war. As a natural expansion of their profit-maximizing strategies, owners and directors of exceedingly worldwide corporations may work against war between nations.

The season’s two world wars undermined those beliefs ‘ presence of truth. The fact that global mega-corporations increasingly leased government and subordinated position plans to those firms ‘ competing growth strategies also made sense.

State laws were governed by entrepreneurs ‘ opposition at least as much as the opposite. Out of their conversation emerged the warfare of the 21st centuries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza. In addition, as a result of their discussion, rising US-China tensions have grown in the South China Sea and Taiwan.

China presents a special logical problem. Similar to those in agitating economies, where 90 % to 100 % of businesses are privately capitalist-informed, are growth imperatives in the private capitalist portion of its hybrid economic system.

The state-owned-and-operated companies comprising the other third of China’s economy exhibit various drives and desires. Revenue is less important to them than it is to personal bourgeois businesses.

Also, the Communist Party’s rule over the state—including the state’s regulation of the whole Chinese economy—introduces other goals besides income, ones that also govern business decisions.

China’s uniqueness may result in a outcome different from previous clashes of empires because it comprises the entity currently competing with the declining US empire and its major economic allies ( G7 ).

In the past, one empire often supplanted another. That may be our future with this century becoming” China’s” as previous empires were American, British and so on. However, China’s history includes earlier empires that rose and fell: another unique quality.

Could China’s hybrid economy and past have an impact on the country’s ability to transition from one empire to a truly multipolar global organization? If and when China makes that happen, will the hopes and dreams that underpin the League of Nations and the United Nations become reality?

Or will China emerge as the next global hegemon in the face of US-intensified resistance, increasing the threat of a nuclear war?

A rough historical comparison might provide some additional insight into the potential future of today’s class of empires from a different perspective. Britain was irritated enough by the country’s desire for its North American colony’s independence that it waged two wars ( 1775–183 and 1812–15 ) to stop it. Both wars failed.

Britain uncovered the valuable lesson that peaceful coexistence with some mutually beneficial planning and accommodations would enable both economies to function and grow, including in terms of trade and investment both ways across their borders. That peaceful coexistence resulted in a shift in the imperial reach of the one over the other.

Why not suggest that US-China relations will continue to develop in a similar manner over time? Except for ideologues detached from reality, the world would prefer it over the nuclear alternative.

Dealing with climate change and inequality in the distribution of wealth and income are two enormous, unwelcome consequences of capitalism, and there are projects for a US-China partnership that the world will support.

After 1815, capitalism drastically changed in both Britain and the US. After 2025, it is likely to do it once more. The opportunities are attractively open-ended.

Richard D. Wolff is visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University, New York, and professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Wolff’s weekly show, “Economic Update”, is syndicated by more than 100 radio stations and goes to millions via several TV networks and YouTube. Understanding Capitalism ( 2024 ), his most recent book, is Democracy at Work, which responds to inquiries from readers of his earlier books, Understanding Socialism and Understanding Marxism.

The Independent Media Institute’s Economy for All project produced this article. It is republished here with kind permission.

Continue Reading

China is ramping up development of its GJ-11 Sharp Sword, a stealthy flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV ) with the potential to reshape the future of drone warfare, The Warzone reported.

Two GJ-11s are visible at Malan Air Base in northern Xinjiang state, a well-known Chinese hub for uncrewed system tests, according to Planet Labs satellite pictures reviewed by The Warzone.

The GJ-11, designed for strike missions and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ( ISR ) tasks, has been increasingly linked to future operations with crewed J-20 stealth fighters and potential deployment from People’s Liberation Army–Navy ( PLA-N) aircraft carriers.

The US government’s lack of comparable formally acknowledged projects contrasts starkly with China’s rise in UCAV screening activity, according to The Warzone.

The GJ-11’s development includes rigorous testing for joint operations and higher autonomy, according to The War Zone. It notes that the GJ-11’s development, from its less subtle design first seen in 2013 to its more sophisticated iterations, underscores China’s large ambitions in uncrewed underwater engineering and commitment to advancing its UCAV capabilities.

The US has switched its focus to low-cost robots intended to work closely with manned jets, according to the report, leaving a gap in the development of subtle flying-wing UCAVs.

According to The Warzone statement, this strategic difference suggests a significant change in aerial fight technology, with China probably gaining a competitive advantage in uncrewed stealth capabilities.

Parth Satam mentions the UCAV’s cunning features and innovative design, including a large flying aircraft architecture and top-mounted air intake, in an August 2024 essay for The Aviationist. Satam says that the GJ-11 you work from China’s Model 075 amphibious assault ships, enhancing its flexibility.

He claims that satellite pictures and mockups indicate that the aircraft may be used for carrier aviation and could be used to operate the new Type 076 amphibious war ship. According to Satam, the GJ-11’s stealth and reconnaissance capabilities make it a significant asset for the People’s Liberation Army ( PLA ), particularly in the Western Pacific, where it could carry out surveillance and strike missions.

China may use parties of drones to attack Taiwan’s air defense systems, both on land and at sea, in the event of a potential war. Following this, more substantial air and missile attacks, and probably even an amphibious assault, might be planned.

Guo Yilun and Ma Quan emphasize the integration of manned and unmanned systems in a June 2022 content for the PLA Daily to allow China to develop a wider range of capabilities. Guo and Ma mention that the interaction between human-operated and intelligent platforms will alter battlefield strategies as a new period of clever warfare dawns.

They say that manned-unmanned partnering, driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and intelligent technology, enhances operating agility and performance.

In line with that thinking, Mandeep Singh mentions in a March 2022 DefStrat article that China’s GJ-11 represents a significant advancement in manned-unmanned teaming ( MUM-T) capabilities.

While Singh notes that the GJ-11’s specific capabilities remain largely unfamiliar due to the classified nature of China’s defense programs, the GJ-11 is expected to enhance China’s MUM-T operations by probably acting as a “loyal friend” to guarded aircraft like the J-20S or another carrier-based fighters.

Singh points out that this integration aims to make use of the UCAV’s advanced sensors and autonomous capabilities to support manned missions, increasing situational awareness and reducing risks for human pilots.

The US Navy is advancing its uncrewed capabilities by integrating them aboard its supercarriers as China increases its development of the GJ-11 stealth drone for integration with manned platforms and potential carrier operations, indicating a new level of competition for naval and aerial warfare dominance.

Beyond conventional aircraft carriers, drone carriers offer power projection advantages, according to Asia Times in June 2024. These benefits are made possible by enabling unmanned aerial operations to be carried out far afield, extending the range of tactical, operational, and strategic options.

Unmanned systems are safer, more cost-efficient and well-suited for high-risk missions. Drone carriers, meanwhile, provide a practical and cost-effective way to improve aerial capabilities over extended distances for middle-income countries that lack land-based facilities.

Nevertheless, drones have limitations in areas with strong air defense systems and electronic warfare capabilities.

The US Navy is advancing its naval warfare capabilities by integrating a dedicated Unmanned Air Warfare Center ( UAWC ) on the USS George H. W. Bush ( CVN-77 ), according to an article from Asia Times in August 2024. This is the first supercarrier to feature a facility like this.

This development, reported by The War Zone in August 2024, is part of a broader plan to equip all Nimitz and Ford-class carriers with UAWCs. The UAWC will act as the operational hub for MQ-25 Stingray tanker drones and upcoming collaborative combat aircraft (CCA ) in the future.

The initiative aims to reduce reliance on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters for refueling tasks and expand the carrier air wing’s reach. Early in the year, the USS George H. W. Bush is scheduled to begin conducting at-sea testing of the UAWC’s operational networks.

This action highlights the growing need for aerial refueling capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region, where extensive distances and changing threats necessitate increased force projection.

The US Navy’s strategy also includes a significant shift towards uncrewed aircraft, with plans for carrier air wings to comprise 60 % uncrewed aircraft, aligning with the broader Next Generation Air Dominance ( NGAD ) program.

The US is redefining its carrier fleet with autonomous systems, while China’s GJ-11 stealth drones represent a significant step toward military dominance in the near future. This tit-for-tat has set the stage for a high-tech aerial and naval power projection competition.

In a June 2024 CIMSEC article, Brent Sadler mentions that aircraft carrier design has changed throughout history due to evolving threats, emphasizing the crucial role of integrating unmanned platforms, long-range weapons and advanced data processing.

Sadler says drones, such as the MQ-25, are repurposed for tanking roles, extending the operational range of manned aircraft like the F/A-18 and F-35. This shift, he says, necessitates design changes, including larger ammo elevators and advanced launch systems like EMALS.

He emphasizes adaptability and flexibility in carrier design to modern challenges, such as drone swarms and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Sadler points out that in order to maintain operational superiority, carrier warfare will need to be conducted in a networked manner, integrating sensors and weapons from various platforms.

Continue Reading