The U.S.-China technological war through the prism of techno-nationalism

The “technological war” between the United States and China that started in 2017–2018 raises a number of questions about the future role of technological development as a factor in relations between superpowers. Analysis shows that for the United States this conflict is caused by changing balance of risks and benefits of the liberal model of globalization due to the rise of China`s power and growing geopolitical tensions between the two nations. In this context, emerging, especially digital, technologies appear to be a new battlefield between superpowers. Within the realist framework, actors consider emerging technologies as a key factor for strengthening their global postures. This, among other things, contributes to securitized technological agenda and strengthens its geopolitical dimension. Neo-technonationalism has become the platform that integrates different processes and goals into new U.S. policy. Although historically neo-technonationalism took its roots in Asia, the evolving market situation prompted the United States to rethink existing approaches and to upgrade the techno-nationalist dimension of its policy. Considering similar policies of China and the EU (i. e. the European digital sovereignty policy), this trend shapes new realities of technological “blocs”, the struggle for expansion of technological platforms, and technological conflicts. Taking into account prospective development needs of the global economy and future specification of mutual interest areas, as new digital technologies mature, the ground for normalizing the dialogue between the superpowers will emerge. However, at least in the U.S.–China case, this issue will be complicated by geopolitical contradictions that leave little room for any serious compromise.

The Afghan marathon: why no one is in a rush at the Doha talks

The article analyzes the Afghan peace process, including the roles of internal and external players. It examines the impact of the national reconciliation policy on the domestic political process in Afghanistan and on the military and political situation in the country. The national program aimed at settling the armed conflict is interpreted as a response to changes in the U.S. policy for Afghanistan, including preparations for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops. The author also pays attention to the geopolitical dimension of the problem and to possible scenarios for the evolution of the peace process.

The conflict between agribusiness and indigenous peoples of Brazil

The ongoing conflict between agribusiness and Brazilian indigenous peoples is one of the largest conflicts in contemporary Brazil. It combines territorial dispute with racial, ethnic, and environmental issues. On the one hand, as the Brazilian economy mainly relies on agriculture, agricultural business has consolidated power across the country, strongly supported by the government. On the other hand, indigenous communities have been fighting for decades to have their territory demarcated and to ensure their people‟s security and rights. Apart from unsettled issues between indigenous communities and agribusiness, confrontation is aggravated by social intolerance and the heritage of colonialism. Despite being one of the most violent and widespread conflicts in the country, it is often disregarded and silenced by the Brazilian media, and the Brazilian society is barely aware about it.

Forecasting secessions though mathematical modeling

The article outlines and discusses the universal mathematical model created by the author and allowing to predict scenarios for post-Soviet secessions and, more broadly, to forecast secession potentials of any complex subnational regional units. The objects of forecasting are de facto states and different kinds of polities with failed statehood, analyzed through the prism of the “parent state – secession – patron state” triangle. The main research method is quantification of secession factors, which enables a researcher to measure the impacts of objective and subjective conditions on the course and results of secessions through the use of specific variables and indicators. As described in mathematical terms, the model has two extremes: “ideal secession” and “ideal anti-secession”.

The PA-X Peace Agreement Database: reflections on documenting the practice of peacemaking

Since its first release in the form of the PA-X Peace Agreements Database, the initial project undertaken by the University of Edinburgh’s Political Settlements Research Programme has seen four more data releases. Multiple data and visualisation projects stemmed from PA-X. The article provides an update to the initial introduction to the PA-X data and discusses the key lessons learned from the processes of data collection, analysis, and visualisation. This assessment is undertaken in two key areas: first, with regard to the process of “building” a dataset and database; second, with regard to the substantive findings and trends gleaned from the PA-X data on peace agreements and peace processes. The place and impact of this database in the context of peace and conflict studies are also assessed. Data resources pertaining to this field of inquiry are explored, with the focus on the ways in which the PA-X data can be used in conjunction with other datasets on peace and conflict. Finally, the future development of PA-X is addressed. It is argued that keeping up with the direction of the research literature in the field requires that the data on peace processes and peace agreement are better disaggregated, in terms of actors and groups signing deals, and in terms of spatial and temporal coverage of the signed peace deals.

Peace as a composite indicator: the goals and future of the Global Peace Index

This article provides an overview of the purpose, development and future of the Global Peace Index (GPI), a composite indicator of peacefulness at the national level. It explains why the concept of negative peace is well suited to being captured by a composite index, for both theoretical and statistical reasons. It examines how the GPI fits within the field of peace and conflict studies and how its methodological soundness has been assessed. This is done by looking at the history and structure of the GPI and showing how it relates to other definitions and indicators of peacefulness. The article then analyzes how the index is constructed with respect to its weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Some of the criticisms of the index are also explored, as well as the main proposed directions for the GPI evolution over the coming decade. Three main advantages of the index are identified as the ones that best reflect its novel input in peace and conflict studies. First, a composite indicator of peace helps to provide a more compelling narrative around the dynamics of peace between countries, to generate more interest in the peace and conflict field and to promote the concept of peace as a crucial driver of development. Second, the aggregation of multiple indicators of violence allows for the construction of a continuous measure of peacefulness with a less skewed distribution that can serve as the baseline for seeing which factors in other areas are correlated with peacefulness. Third, this composite measure of peacefulness highlights areas where data on aspects of negative peace are missing, incomplete, or not comparable across countries and drives the creation of new and novel indicators to fill these data gaps.

Conflicts in the Middle East: prospects for escalation in the context of general regional instability in the 2020s

The article analyses Middle Eastern conflicts in the early 2020s. The main focus is on the situation in Syria, Libya, and Yemen, three Middle Eastern conflicts that are progressing, with no solution in sight. These conflicts motivated by social, economic and political reasons became a progression of those protests that have started in 2011 and have been called “The Arab Spring”. These “revolutions” have been promoted by Islamist movements and groups whose activity became one of key factors of perpetual tensions in the region. So far, attempts by conflict parties to find consensual solutions have remained rather unsuccessful. Positive resolution of actual and potential conflicts in the Greater Middle East to a significant extent still depends on external regional and non-regional actors, such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the United States. However, each actor involved in these conflicts and in conflict management pursues its own goals. These actors try to retain their positions and influence in these Middle Eastern countries and in the region as a whole. According to the forecast made in the article, more conflicts in the region may be foreseen (in Iraq, the Persian Gulf states etc.) that could form the next wave of the “Arab Spring”.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty

The article analyzes the dynamics, causes and implications of the collapse of the Open Skies Treaty in the broader context of gradual dismantlement of the network of arms control and confidence building regimes created at the end of the Cold War. The central focus is on the explanation of the declining U.S. support for the treaty since the 2010s and the eventual withdrawal addressed against the background of the evolution of the U.S. approach to arms control during the first two decades of the 21st century. While policies changed from one president to another, a sequence of U.S. administrations shared growing loss of interest in arms control and unwillingness to invest in generating domestic support for existing and new agreements. The weakening of arms control became preferable to limitations on the U.S.’ own programs and forces, in line with the belief that the United States was sufficiently advanced to remain ahead of any possible competitors, including Russia. While arms control issues are more effectively addressed through detailed, difficult negotiations and compromises, the evolving U.S. approach to perceived treaty violations by Russia amounted to an ultimatum to Moscow to admit violations and fix them the way the U.S. wants them to be fixed. Russia’s decision to follow suit by withdrawing from the treaty, while not immediate or preordained, is explained as driven both by political motives and, in cost-benefit terms, by concerns that the United States would keep access to data on Russia collected under the treaty through the U.S. NATO allies. The prospects for modest upgrade of the arms control agenda under the Biden administration are also addressed.

The Open Skies Treaty: the Russian views on related problems and possible solutions

The article is devoted to the Treaty on Open Skies that remains one of the few instruments for multilateral and collective security in Europe and North America. The treaty may cease to exist, due to accumulating contradictions about the its implementation among the participating states, the destructive approach to arms control by President Trump's administration, and general degradation of relations between Russia and the West. This article examines Russian approaches to managing the current situation (which is close to a dead end) and finding possible ways out of it. Special attention is paid to the informal consequences of maintaining or destroying the Open Skies regime. Some prospects for future collaborative airborne monitoring regimes are also discussed.