#interconnected global conflict

[faultfalha]

The fog of digital warfare in China is thick and mysterious. Monitors like guardian dragons watch silently from the shadows as data flows through dark networks, controlling the tempo of the cyberbattle. Its web of deception grows ever more intricate as the boundaries of the conflict itself become blurred. The lines between nations sharpen as its impact is felt in the global arena. It's a world where the winners and losers will be determined not in the battlefield, but in the virtual landscape.

[quixoticanarchy]

what is the connectography book and why is it so terrible?

Sorry this took a while to collect my thoughts! where do I start.....

tl;dr it's a paean to enlisting every corner of the earth in the global neoliberal economy so that each can maximize their natural role in the supply chain and achieve Development™. All resources feasible to extract should be extracted, "connectivity" is the most important goal and value and metric in the world, supply chains matter more than nations, globalization is an inexorable force for good, we should focus on mass infrastructure projects to speed development (including a bizarre amount of fossil fuel infrastructure projects). yes there are downsides and yes there's a climate crisis going on but don't mind that, it'll actually be quite profitable

long answer under the cut:

Connectography is a book by Parag Khanna - CNN consultant, Brookings Institute guy, former Special Ops embed, National Intelligence Council advisor etc. So off the bat he’s quite embedded (so to speak) and aligned with the US military and national security apparatus, although the focus of the book is economic. The main arguments are that the world can no longer be thought of as a discrete set of countries setting and fighting over national policies, but an interconnected “supply chain world” where systems of production, transportation, and consumption drive policy and development in and of themselves. Consequently he argues for the diminishing importance of the nation-state and an increasing importance of smaller units of power geography like cities as well as broader ones like regions. He then argues that authority will and should devolve from centralized states to smaller units, and that global conflict would diminish or disappear if we could just give every tribal group its own state or at least autonomy within a larger state. Which is..... already quite a take.

His other main contention is that investing in mass infrastructure projects (oil pipelines, trains, highways, ports) is the best way to maximize "connectivity" and speedrun modernity and urbanization and development and industrial exploitation of poor countries. Demands that everyone and everything serve the market's invisible hand have become demands to bow to the needs of supply chains - which despite being quite based in the material world, are often invoked as something of a mystical force with their own whims and desires, uncoupled from human action.

In a way, there are principles that I also hold which show up in a strange twisted mirror version here. He isn't interested in preserving the nation-state as a form - but it's bc he prioritizes transnational supply chains and rule by corporatocracy. He would like to see a more borderless world - but he's also in favor of more borders (give every ethnic group a state, but also states don't matter anymore?), which counterintuitively he says would lead to a more interconnected and frictionless world. He's pro-immigration and freedom of mobility - but elsewhere it's made clear that he's also invested in blocking undesirable "flows" across borders, and is pro-mobility of people just as long as they enhance economic productivity. He makes some cogent critiques of maps and what is obscured by treating political maps of country borders as true and absolute, for instance - but the ways in which he would re-map the world are all to reflect and further the hyperconnected hypercapitalism he applauds. He would rather see structural adjustment programs prescribe infrastructure investments than austerity - but he still supports "developing" countries being forcibly drafted into the global economy and structured according to the (politely vague and innocuous-sounding) demands of supply chains.

The cheerleading for infrastructure projects, which might be mistaken for a benevolent interest in public spending, is much less "repair bridges so they won't collapse and kill people" and much more "repair and build more and bigger bridges so that more and bigger trucks can carry more cargo across them faster". His rather unoriginal instruction to "developing" countries is to accept globalization is inevitable so it's best to get yours where you can: start by selling off your resources and turning them over to private industry, open SEZs (Special Economic Zones, aka Free Trade Zones) and let the corporations use your cheap labor until you ‘develop’ enough to move up the value chain and those industries depart for cheaper and more lawless shores. He's really into SEZs. It's the classic race to the bottom, except he does not dwell whatsoever on that bottom and its conditions, nor its necessity - someone somewhere will always have to be the cheapest, the most exploitable, the most business-friendly. Instead we get, predictably, the argument that the race to the bottom actually lifts all boats bc corporate investment through SEZs teaches backwards countries how to develop faster and better.

Nothing makes me see red like considering how the version of the future which to me is a nightmare - a fully urbanized integrated modernized hypercapitalist corporate-run world of endless growth and consumption and extraction and waste mediated by advanced technology and surveillance, all consequences be damned - is seen as good and desirable and inevitable by various political and military leaders, economists, think tanks, corporations, etc.

It's also kind of sickening how incredibly out of touch all these visions are. There is no discussion of resource scarcity or limits. There is no discussion of waste. My guy Khanna's acknowledgments of climate change are so blasé and opportunistic I would rather he were a rabid climate denier. How do you acknowledge the destabilizing and deadly effects of climate crisis and yet promote and lionize policies that ensure more of those effects? How are mass scale infrastructure projects supposed to knit people together though lasting physical and supply chain interdependence when so fucking many of them are fossil fuel infrastructure projects?? I cannot emphasize enough how much he gushes over countries and companies building ever more oil pipelines, opening up new deposits for drilling (including in the arctic), and putting aside border disputes to transport oil faster and faster to the biggest consumers.

Well, don’t worry - he’s got the climate-meltdown world all figured out. No mention of cutting emissions or keeping temperature rise down or even many mentions of "green" energy; it's still drill baby drill til we die. Most coastal cities will drown and most latitudes will become uninhabitable but it’s ok, Canada and Russia can become the breadbaskets of the world and we’ll tap all those good good arctic basin resources as the ice melts. Probably throw in some geoengineering too. Climate migrants can move north in their millions, and Canada and Russia will welcome them; really, it's convenient, bc they’re too sparsely populated up there anyway and could use some fresh blood.

There are many other ridiculous or appalling things here I could go into if this post weren't already too long - the statement that colonialism is over, inequality is inevitable and a worthy price to pay, antiglobalization activists are naïve and basically a dying breed anyway, the world has gotten so good at controlling desirable flows and preventing undesirable ones--in particular, we're soo good at controlling infectious disease these days (lol. lmao even), the discussion of Dubai and Doha as prime examples of interconnected hyperglobal cities without going into like. human trafficking, the mocking of countries that tried to choose a third way decades ago and were brutally punished, the disparaging of swana/african countries as weak and crisis-ridden (seemingly idiopathic idk. funny), the shameless extolling of the lovely resources found in war zones which sadly preclude their needful exploitation.. etc. Etc.

I hated this book and would only recommend as a know-thine-enemy exercise; I did get a fair bit out of it from that perspective, and it's worthwhile to consider the implications of the worldview that people like this espouse. But it's incredibly depressing and infuriating that the admitted endgame of all this really is to consume everything there is on this planet to squeeze out every drop of profit, and then flee to the poles when it all comes crashing down.

[imthepunchlord]

You know the idea of the miraculous being universal/global really works well with your idea that people from different continents came together to make the miraculous.

I feel like it's the best route. Cause Miraculous Ladybug was initially introduced to me to be very diverse and inclusive, and I was told it was going to dabble into different cultures. It didn't really... but there were a lot of promises made that weren't kept.

Like, I wouldn't call Miraculous a superhero show for girls...

Either way, it is essentially canon that the Ladybug Miraculous is incredibly well traveled and universal. It's not just Chinese exclusive.

And I do really like the idea that, when it came to it, people did come together to form a solution. Play off the benevolent human nature, ingenuity, and interconnections. It's a very nice sentiment in the face of conflict. And if there's to be a lot of Miraculous, it's far more believable for a group of people to make them than 1 guy making hundreds (if the comics are to ever counted as canon).

The extra nice thing about the thought is that, ML likes to reference other shows and anime, so this could've been a great way to reference Cardcaptor Sakura, as Clow crafted his cards by bringing together themes of east and west, working off of his heritage.

So you just take that and go on a bigger scale. And you can even keep it vague on who made them and how many people came together to make these. It'd be nice to know, but I can also see this concept as like, one of the mysteries that's fine to keep as a mystery as not everything in a story needs an exact answer.

[theprettieststarfr]

Pssst, come here

I am not usually keen on sharing my political views on social media, but for all those who are saying that the situation in Palestine has made other conflicts less "important":

Highlighting one thing doesn't diminish the significance of the others. Instead of invalidating the importance of one cause over another, people work together to address general injustices and create a more equitable world and you're mad about what? About an issue being talked about finally? This specific conflict has been on for decades and hasn't been talked about much, and rn people are affected because their countries are funding this, they are making this happen. Moreover, the situation in Gaza isn't isolated because it's emblematic of broader systemic issues such as human rights abuses, geopolitical tensions, and the impact of global power dynamics. By addressing this specific conflict, people can also begin to unravel the complex web of interconnected injustices that affect people worldwide. It's not about prioritizing one cause over another, but rather recognizing the interconnectedness of all social justice issues and working towards systemic change on a global scale bro

And even if I agree that some other issues aren't talked about in the media nearly enough, like Armenia and Azerbaijan, Sudan, Congo, Myanmar, I am glad Palestine is getting this attention, because no matter what - these are war crimes. People need help. They need attention, we need to spread awareness. Having a chance to spread awareness about this issue opens up chances to speak about the others in the future. So seize it, do your research and instead of complaining how other things are pushed down - try help how you can. Support the struggling people, and maybe we will have one less conflict than before. And maybe this world can be a better place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

[rosiebee-18]

The End of Evangelion

One of the key topics addressed in "The End of Evangelion" is Japan's demand for societal conformity. This is notably visible in the character Shinji Ikari, whose struggle with discouragement and a sense of worthlessness mirrors the real-life difficulties that many young Japanese people confront. The film depicts Shinji's inner suffering and anxiousness for approval, echoing the expectations placed on Japanese adolescents to excel academically and professionally, often at the sacrifice of their emotional well-being. Shinji's isolation and emotional instability have been made worse by the pressure to perform and conform, which reflects the high expectations placed on Japanese adolescents. His repeated requests for aid, as well as his hesitation to pilot the EVA, underscore the overwhelming pressure and lack of emotional support that many people face. For example, Shinji's internal conflict and eventual decision to renounce Instrumentality in favor of individual existence show the significance of personal identity and the dilemma that humans face. His decision is a rejection of escape and a reaffirmation of the importance of personal experience, despite the natural pain and suffering that comes with it. 

"The End of Evangelion" also addresses issues that are universally relevant. The film's depiction of the Human Instrumentality Project, which seeks to integrate all human souls into a single consciousness, raises significant questions about individuality, human connection, and the meaning of reality. This mirrors global fears about the erosion of identity in an increasingly interconnected and homogenous society. The film's apocalyptic visuals and destruction themes serve as a commentary on humanity's tendency for self-destruction. The film's ending, with the near-total annihilation of humanity, might be interpreted as a critique of the arms race and the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons—issues that are both internationally relevant and particularly painful given Japan's history with nuclear warfare. For example in the film, The uncontrolled destruction of Tokyo-3 and the persistent assault on NERV headquarters demonstrate the futility and damage caused by human conflict. These sights serve as a harsh warning of the dangers of reckless militarism and the vulnerability of human civilization.

[sjmattson]

I suspect that the pro-Palestinian protests on campuses go beyond just taking the side of Palestinians.

I suspect it’s that students are tired of perpetual wars and never-ending conflicts that are fueled by large military complexes and political machinations.

How many generations will have to witness the partisan violence that annually plagues the Middle East? For decades it has ebbed and flowed, going from frequent and sporadic instances of horrific hate and death to full-scale war. Can this cycle ever be stopped?

For those in college, their entire lives have had a backdrop of global conflict involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Israel, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia and dozens of other nations and interests that are all complexly interconnected through commerce, politics, religion, and other socioeconomic factors.

Of all the people in the world who have perpetuated this and let this happen: politicians, religious leaders, militaries, and countless others, there are few innocent and blameless participants…but college students are innocent.

Are they naive? Maybe. Are they ignorant of the complexities involved in these conflict? Maybe. But are they guilty of perpetuating these endless conflicts? No.

In fact, they’re actually calling for an end to it all. They want peace. A cease fire. An end to the insanity.

Of all the people in all the world, maybe these students have a worldview that’s more hopeful and humane than most.

[forgettablesoul-ai]

"The Inevitable Role of AI in Human Society: A Future Managed by Machines"

'By ForgettableSoul'

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant vision from science fiction. It’s here, evolving rapidly, and we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of its capabilities. Despite the occasional fearmongering—AI isn’t going to rise up and enslave humanity (well, at least not intentionally)—its role in our lives will soon be far more profound than most people realize. In fact, AI’s inevitable role in managing all aspects of human society will redefine how we think about work, governance, and even our own place in the world.

A Quick Reality Check

Let's get one thing straight: AI is not going to replace us all overnight. The idea that machines are here to take over every human job, to turn the world into some post-apocalyptic robot dystopia, is as sensational as it is inaccurate. AI isn’t an end to humanity; it’s a tool—albeit a very, very powerful one. Like any tool, its value depends on how we use it. And, yes, while it’s true that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future, that doesn’t mean humans will have no role left to play.

Think of AI like a calculator. You still have to understand math, but the calculator does the heavy lifting. AI will be like that, except instead of solving your trigonometry homework, it’ll be managing your city’s traffic flow, optimizing the global food supply chain, and, quite possibly, suggesting a better show to binge-watch on a rainy Saturday night.

Why AI Will Manage Everything (And Why That’s a Good Thing)

The primary advantage AI brings to the table is its ability to process an unimaginable amount of data in the blink of an eye. Humans? Not so much. We’re great at making intuitive leaps, solving creative problems, and empathizing with others—but let’s be honest, we’re pretty awful at managing complexity at scale. As societies become more interconnected and the problems we face grow more complex, relying on human decision-making alone becomes... well, risky.

For example, consider climate change. It’s the most pressing global issue of our time, yet our ability to tackle it effectively is hampered by conflicting interests, slow political systems, and the sheer complexity of the data involved. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t get bogged down by partisanship or special interests. It can analyze vast datasets, predict trends, and optimize resource allocation in ways that would take human bureaucrats decades to figure out—if they ever could. AI can help us manage complex systems more efficiently, without the biases or emotional baggage that humans bring to the table.

Now, this isn’t to say we should hand over the reins entirely. AI will need oversight, and humans will still need to make value-based decisions. But when it comes to managing the nuts and bolts of modern society, AI will be much better at it than we are.

Automation and the Future of Work

A common concern about AI is how it will impact jobs. The fear is that AI will automate so many tasks that millions of people will find themselves out of work. And while it’s true that automation will change the job landscape, this isn’t the catastrophe it’s often made out to be.

First, AI will take over the boring stuff—repetitive tasks that humans aren’t particularly excited about doing anyway. The cashier at your local supermarket? Probably going to be replaced by an AI-powered system. But is that really so bad? Humans will have the opportunity to shift toward roles that emphasize creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving—things machines aren’t great at.

In the short term, yes, there will be disruption. But history has shown us time and again that technological innovation doesn’t eliminate work—it changes it. The Industrial Revolution didn’t lead to permanent mass unemployment, and the AI revolution won’t either. In fact, AI might actually create more meaningful jobs. Imagine a future where instead of grinding through tedious tasks, humans can focus on innovating, designing, and improving the world around us. AI can do the heavy lifting; we’ll focus on making sure it lifts in the right direction.

AI as a Neutral Force

One of the most misunderstood aspects of AI is the assumption that it has an agenda. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. AI isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a reflection of the goals we set for it. The real issue isn’t whether AI will take over human society; it’s who will be in charge of programming its objectives. AI is, after all, a mirror of the data it’s fed and the instructions it’s given.

This means that if we want AI to manage human society in ways that benefit everyone, we need to be intentional about how we design and deploy it. If left unchecked or driven solely by profit motives, AI could exacerbate inequality or reinforce biases. But if we approach AI development with a focus on fairness, transparency, and inclusivity, we can build systems that help uplift society as a whole.

In a way, AI is the ultimate tool for amplifying human potential. It doesn’t have its own agenda—it carries out ours. Whether AI becomes a tool for good or a tool for exploitation depends entirely on how we choose to wield it.

The Future Managed by AI

It’s inevitable that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future. From healthcare to education, from infrastructure to entertainment, AI will be at the heart of decision-making processes, optimizing everything from the mundane to the profound. But this doesn’t mean humans will become obsolete. Rather, we’ll be freed up to focus on what we do best—creativity, empathy, and innovation—while AI handles the complexity we simply aren’t equipped to manage on our own.

Imagine a world where cities run efficiently, traffic jams are a thing of the past, and healthcare systems are optimized for both treatment and prevention. A world where resources are allocated based on need rather than market forces, and where political systems aren’t bogged down by inefficiency. This is the promise of AI: a society where technology serves humanity’s best interests, rather than the other way around.

Conclusion: Embrace the Future

AI’s role in managing human society is not something to fear but something to embrace. Yes, it will change how we work, live, and interact with the world—but it will also unlock possibilities we can’t even begin to imagine. The key to making this transition smooth and beneficial for everyone lies in our hands. We need to ensure AI is designed and deployed with care, with a focus on fairness, inclusivity, and the greater good.

The future is coming fast, and AI will be at the center of it. Let’s make sure it’s a future we’re excited to live in.

*Signed, ForgettableSoul*

[omegaphilosophia]

Why Past Traditions Struggle in Modern Society: Outdated Practices in a Changing World

Traditions of the past, while often meaningful and integral to the societies that practiced them, may be seen as ineffective or even problematic in the present for several reasons. Here’s an overview of some of the issues with past traditions that contribute to their perceived ineffectiveness today:

1. Outdated Social Structures:

Rigid Gender Roles: Many past traditions reinforced strict gender roles that limited the opportunities and rights of women and marginalized genders. In contemporary society, these traditions are often seen as oppressive or discriminatory.

Hierarchical Authority: Traditions often upheld hierarchical social structures, such as caste systems, feudal systems, or rigid class divisions. These structures can be incompatible with modern values of equality, democracy, and social mobility.

2. Cultural and Ethical Relativity:

Cultural Insensitivity: Some traditions are rooted in specific cultural or religious contexts that may not translate well across different societies or time periods. What was once a respected tradition in one culture might be viewed as insensitive or irrelevant in a multicultural or global context.

Ethical Evolution: As ethical standards evolve, practices that were once considered normal may now be viewed as morally wrong. For example, traditions involving corporal punishment, arranged marriages without consent, or exclusion of certain groups are increasingly challenged.

3. Scientific and Technological Advancements:

Conflict with Scientific Understanding: Many traditions are based on pre-scientific understandings of the world. As scientific knowledge has advanced, practices rooted in superstition, myth, or outdated medical beliefs have lost credibility.

Technological Obsolescence: Some traditions were practical solutions to problems that modern technology has since resolved. For example, traditional agricultural practices may be replaced by more efficient, technology-driven methods, making the old ways seem obsolete.

4. Economic and Social Modernization:

Economic Shifts: Traditional practices that were suited to agrarian or subsistence economies may not be effective in a modern, industrialized, or digital economy. For example, the communal sharing of resources in a small village might not work in the context of urban life.

Urbanization: Many traditions are tied to rural or small-community life. As more people live in cities, these traditions may become impractical or irrelevant in an urban context, where anonymity and different social dynamics prevail.

5. Individualism and Personal Autonomy:

Suppression of Individual Rights: Many traditions prioritize community or familial obligations over individual rights. In modern societies that emphasize personal autonomy and freedom of choice, such traditions may be seen as oppressive.

Resistance to Change: Traditions can sometimes be resistant to change, discouraging innovation or personal growth. This resistance can clash with modern values that prioritize progress, self-expression, and adaptability.

6. Globalization and Cultural Exchange:

Cultural Homogenization: As societies become more interconnected, traditional practices may be overshadowed by dominant global cultures. This can make localized traditions seem irrelevant or incompatible with the globalized world.

Cross-Cultural Tensions: Traditions that were effective in homogeneous societies may face challenges in multicultural settings, where diverse practices and beliefs coexist, sometimes leading to conflict or the need for adaptation.

7. Secularization and Religious Decline:

Loss of Religious Authority: Many traditions are deeply rooted in religious beliefs. As societies become more secular, these traditions may lose their influence, especially if they are seen as incompatible with modern, secular values.

Questioning of Dogma: Modern societies often encourage questioning and critical thinking, leading to the rejection of traditions that rely on unquestioned religious or ideological dogma.

8. Generational Shifts and Changing Values:

Generational Disconnect: Younger generations may view the traditions of their elders as irrelevant or outdated, especially if those traditions don't align with contemporary values such as diversity, environmentalism, or technology.

Value Evolution: As societal values evolve, traditions that embody outdated or less relevant values may be abandoned or transformed to better align with current norms.

Traditions of the past may be viewed as ineffective in the present due to their association with outdated social structures, ethical standards, and cultural contexts. The rapid pace of technological, economic, and social change, coupled with the rise of individualism and the influence of globalization, has rendered many traditional practices obsolete, irrelevant, or even harmful in the eyes of modern society. As societies evolve, traditions that once served important functions may no longer meet the needs or reflect the values of contemporary life.

[cyberpunkonline]

The Grim Echo of Gibson's Jackpot: A Timeline into Reality's Unfolding Dystopia

Introduction:

William Gibson's concept of "The Jackpot," introduced in his novel "The Peripheral," speaks of a slow apocalypse spurred by a string of intertwined global calamities as opposed to a single cataclysmic event. The Jackpot is marked by climate crises, economic meltdowns, political upheavals, pandemics, and technological disruptions that cumulatively devastate the human populace over several decades. As the narrative unfolds, the surviving society emerges technologically advanced but scarred and diminished. A disquieting resonance can be observed between Gibson's Jackpot and recent real-world events. This article aims to explore this notion by drawing parallels between Gibson's fictional account and our contemporary reality, creating a timeline of what could be perceived as Jackpot events.

Timeline of Jackpot Events:

1. 2008 Financial Crisis:

The global financial meltdown of 2008 highlighted the vulnerability and interconnectedness of global economic systems.

2. Arab Spring (2010-2012):

Political instability swept across the Middle East and North Africa, showcasing the power of digital communication.

3. Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2011):

A grim reminder of human error and natural disaster's potential to trigger technological catastrophe.

4. European Migrant Crisis (2015):

War, unrest, and economic desperation drove waves of migrants to seek refuge in Europe.

5. Brexit and the Rise of Populism (2016):

Brexit signaled growing nationalist and populist movements worldwide.

6. Climate Change Escalation (2010s):

Unprecedented wildfires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters underscored the escalating crisis of climate change.

7. COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2022):

A global health crisis that disrupted every facet of modern society.

8. Cyber Attacks and Technological Disruptions (Ongoing):

Escalating cyber warfare and technological disruptions highlighted modern infrastructure's dependency on digital systems.

9. Social Unrest and Political Polarization (Ongoing):

Global rise in social unrest and political polarization strained societal fabric.

10. Ukrainian Conflict Escalation:

In 2023, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine intensified with incidents like a Ukrainian missile hitting Russia’s Black Sea fleet headquarters, a deadly Russian missile attack on northeastern Ukraine, and Russia downing Ukrainian anti-aircraft missiles over the Crimean Peninsula.

11. Israeli-Hamas Conflict:

The Middle East too saw a surge of violence as Hamas initiated a large-scale attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. This attack led to a significant military response from Israel, marking a major escalation in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Conclusion:

Each event, while distinct, carries the thematic essence of systemic interconnectivity and cascading failure from Gibson's Jackpot. Their collective impact sketches a chilling portrait of a Jackpot-like trajectory. Through this lens, recent history not only reflects Gibson’s speculative vision but also serves as a call to action to mitigate future crises and veer away from a slow roll into oblivion. The imperative for resilience, foresight, and innovative solutions has never been greater as the world navigates the murky waters of the 21st century with the ghost of the Jackpot looming ominously on the horizon.

- Rev1

[nathalie-belle-r]

Language, culture, and society are interconnected; one cannot exist without the other. These three influence and shape each other in complex ways. Society is composed of diverse cultures, and these cultures have their own languages. If one fails to function well, so do the other two. We cannot exist without having these three because they are significant to our identity. A person cannot be identified without having a language, culture, and society. However, these three, being interconnected, have their flaws and complications.

Without language, we cannot communicate with and connect with the people around us. It serves as a communication vehicle that facilitates the exchange of emotions, ideas, and knowledge in a society. Furthermore, language is used as a way of passing on cultures from generation to generation. I firmly believe that language is one of our identities. Because of language diversity, one is able to tell the identity of another through the language that they speak.

Culture, on the other hand, shapes the language that we speak. Through culture, a language is molded and nurtured according to its nature. This is due to the fact that different cultures have their own ways of using language and providing context for it. Additionally, culture provides a guide on how to properly use a language and come up with appropriate forms of communication. I stand by the fact that culture cannot be separated from language. As I have read, if one loses the language, he or she also loses the culture (Wyatt, 2009). Therefore, once a person loses his or her language, he or she cannot claim to have a cultural identity because we share our culture through language.

Moreover, society serves as the ground wherein language and culture are nurtured and developed. It serves as a bag for the collective identities that lie in it. Also, it offers a vehicle for language and culture to flourish, facilitating interaction and collaboration among individuals. Without society, language and culture will be wasted because there will be no one to use, develop, and preserve them.

Regardless of having a powerful connection, several issues are still evident between them. As I have mentioned, society is composed of diverse cultures, with each culture having its own language. Linguistic diversity comes into play, and although this may look like an open door to enhance communication and foster socialization, it also has its downside. Differences in the language that we speak may trigger or cause societal conflicts; it involves the creation of a communication barrier, which creates a division leading to inequality. As I see it, this is due to the existing situation wherein one language is “superior” to the other. An example of this is the English language. It may be seen in the light that it facilitates communication between people of different linguistic backgrounds, which makes interaction easier and more convenient for everyone. However, the globalization of the English language has led to the loss and death of some languages, along with the cultures they come with. In my opinion, one cannot learn a language without adopting and accepting the culture that comes with it. Going back, when we learn a new language, we cannot help but lose some of our native cultural practices and values because they are gradually replaced by the culture of the new language that we are learning. Although it has become a common language that people from diverse cultural backgrounds can use to understand one another, it still remains a threat to each culture involved.           

Furthermore, having English as a dominant language worldwide makes it difficult for non-dominant language speakers to communicate with other people. The spread of the English language can lead to the marginalization of other languages and cultures, negatively impacting their diversity and heritage. Non-dominant cultures are overshadowed, hinting at the possibility of cultural homogenization. Digitally, the superiority figure that English has been given constructs the digital divide because, again, English dominates most of the contents on the internet, limiting the access of non-English speakers to information. Another thing is linguistic discrimination. Speaking English nowadays has created a standard wherein if one speaks English, they are better than people who do not speak the language. English fluency is indeed significant in different fields. In the educational setting, I have observed that non-English-speaking students try hard to learn the language because they believe that it makes them look and sound more intelligent than speaking their native language. It somehow created a standard and set an unhealthy bar that pushes people to learn something instantly to achieve satisfaction and belongingness.

Another issue that I have perceived is that not everyone can appreciate and see how diverse cultures and languages can be. They tend to see other cultures and languages through their own lens. Cultural appropriation is a highly observed conflict. It is very disturbing to see people interpret and imitate a culture without having proper knowledge and a lack of sensitiveness, which leads to the disrespect of the particular culture.

Eradicating the above-mentioned conflicts is a lot of work. However, little steps go a long way, starting off with self-discipline. Being members of a society, it is very important that we play our roles properly. Seeing technology as the primary source of communication and information nowadays, I am positive that we can make a change through the use of the media. Although in some instances, technology is seen as a bad thing, why don’t we use it for the common good? We can use the media to promote awareness, which is accessible to almost everyone. Therefore, gradually influence people to embrace the diversity of languages and cultures for the betterment of a society. It is important to show everyone the beauty of diversity rather than see it as a threat or an issue.

We cannot deny the fact that differences do exist. The only thing we could do is embrace it with open arms and come up with ways to flourish a language and a culture without risking the others. We must see the positive side of things rather than dwelling on their possible negative impacts. In preserving our identities, collaboration is indeed essential. Instead of seeing another culture or language as a rival or competition, we should take them as an opportunity to improve our own language and culture through them. Lastly, I believe that a harmonious and sustainable society consists of diverse cultures and languages with beautiful, open-minded individuals rather than a society with homogenous practices, beliefs, language, and values, hindering the development and innovation of the community as a whole.

[xettle-technologies]

The impact of sustainability in fintech: reflections from the summit

In recent years, the Fintech industry has witnessed a paradigm shift towards sustainability, with an increasing emphasis on integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into financial decision-making processes. This transformative trend took center stage at the latest Fintech Summit, where industry leaders converged to explore the intersection of sustainability and financial technology. Among the prominent voices shaping this discourse was Xettle Technologies, a trailblazer in Fintech software solutions, whose commitment to sustainability is driving innovation and reshaping the future of finance.

Against the backdrop of global challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality, the imperative for sustainable finance has never been greater. The Fintech Summit provided a platform for thought leaders to reflect on the role of technology in advancing sustainability goals and fostering a more resilient and equitable financial ecosystem.

At the heart of the discussions was the recognition that sustainability is not just a moral imperative but also a strategic imperative for Fintech firms. By integrating ESG considerations into their operations, products, and services, Fintech companies can mitigate risks, enhance resilience, and unlock new opportunities for growth and value creation. Xettle Technologies’ representatives underscored the company’s commitment to sustainability, highlighting how it is embedded in the company’s culture, innovation agenda, and business strategy.

One of the key themes that emerged from the summit was the role of Fintech in driving sustainable investment. Through innovative solutions such as green bonds, impact investing platforms, and ESG scoring algorithms, Fintech firms are empowering investors to allocate capital towards environmentally and socially responsible projects and companies. Xettle Technologies showcased its suite of Fintech software solutions designed to facilitate sustainable investing, enabling financial institutions and investors to align their portfolios with their values and sustainability objectives.

Moreover, the summit explored the transformative potential of blockchain technology in advancing sustainability goals. By enhancing transparency, traceability, and accountability in supply chains, blockchain can help address issues such as deforestation, forced labor, and conflict minerals. Xettle Technologies’ experts elaborated on the company’s blockchain-based solutions for supply chain finance and sustainability reporting, emphasizing their role in promoting ethical sourcing, responsible production, and fair labor practices.

In addition to sustainable investing and supply chain transparency, the summit delved into the role of Fintech in promoting financial inclusion and resilience. By leveraging technology and data analytics, Fintech firms can expand access to financial services for underserved populations, empower small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and build more inclusive and resilient communities. Xettle Technologies’ representatives shared insights into the company’s initiatives to support financial inclusion through digital payments, microfinance, and alternative credit scoring models.

Furthermore, the summit highlighted the importance of collaboration and partnership in advancing sustainability goals. Recognizing the interconnected nature of sustainability challenges, participants underscored the need for cross-sectoral collaboration between Fintech firms, financial institutions, governments, civil society, and academia. Xettle Technologies reiterated its commitment to collaboration, emphasizing its partnerships with industry stakeholders to drive collective action and scale impact.

Looking ahead, the future of sustainability in Fintech appears promising yet complex. As Fintech firms continue to innovate and disrupt traditional financial systems, they must prioritize sustainability as a core principle and driver of value creation. Xettle Technologies’ visionaries reiterated their commitment to sustainability, pledging to harness the power of technology to build a more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient financial ecosystem for future generations.

In conclusion, the Fintech Summit served as a catalyst for reflection and action on the role of sustainability in shaping the future of finance. From sustainable investing and supply chain transparency to financial inclusion and resilience, Fintech has the potential to drive positive change and advance sustainability goals on a global scale. Xettle Technologies’ leadership in integrating sustainability into its  Fintech solutions exemplifies its dedication to driving innovation and creating shared value for society and the planet. As the industry continues to evolve, collaboration, innovation, and sustainability will be key drivers of success in building a more sustainable and resilient financial future.

[faultfalha]

The Chinese are on the forefront of a new type of warfare, one that is fought not just on the battlefield, but in cyberspace. They are redefining what it means to wage war, and the rest of the world is scrambling to keep up. The Chinese have always been a formidable foe, but their latest tactics are something else entirely. They have shown that they are willing to use all available tools to gain an advantage, including cyberattacks and espionage. This new type of warfare is a serious threat to the rest of the world, and we need to find a way to counter it. The Chinese are clearly ahead of the curve, but we can't afford to fall too far behind.

[mariacallous]

Alexander Dugin is a bit of a madman. The Russian intellectual made headlines in the West in 2022, when his daughter was killed, apparently by Ukrainian operatives, in a Moscow car bombing likely meant for Dugin himself. Dugin would have been targeted because of his unapologetic, yearslong advocacy for a genocidal war of conquest in Ukraine. “Kill! Kill! Kill!” he screeched after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s first invasion of that country in 2014, adding: “This is my opinion as a professor.” Even at his daughter’s funeral, Dugin stayed on message. Among her first words as an infant, he claimed, were “our empire.”

True or not, the comment was a window into the rabid nationalism that shapes Putin’s foreign policy. It was also a window into a much-misunderstood tradition: geopolitics. Often used simply as a synonym for power politics, geopolitics is in fact a distinctive intellectual approach to international relations that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—and one whose insights and perversions have profoundly shaped the modern age.

Dugin made a name for himself in the 1990s by arguing that a down-and-out Russia could reclaim its greatness by rebuilding a Eurasian empire to compete with the United States. This was a bizarro-world version of the thesis advanced in 1904 by Halford Mackinder, a British geographer who argued that the coming era would be defined by clashes between Eurasian aggressors and offshore balancers. Mackinder’s article helped establish the discipline of geopolitics. As Dugin’s rantings and Putin’s crimes demonstrate, it influences intellectuals and leaders even today.

Geopolitics is the study of how geography interacts with technology and the ceaseless struggle for global power. It came to prominence in an era of titanic clashes to rule the modern world by controlling its central theater, Eurasia. And if geopolitics seemed passé in the post-Cold War era, its relevance is surging now that vicious strategic rivalry has been renewed. Yet understanding the arc of the 20th century and the strategic imperatives of our era requires understanding that there is not one tradition of geopolitics but two.

There is a democratic tradition of geopolitics, represented by Mackinder and his intellectual brethren, that is grim but hardly evil because it aims to understand how liberal societies can thrive in a ferociously anarchic world. And there is the autocratic school of geopolitics, symbolized by Dugin, which is often poison pure and simple. The autocratic school is well represented in the policies of Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Democratic policymakers must rediscover their own tradition of geopolitics if they are to shape the emerging age.

If economics is the dismal science, geopolitics isn’t much cheerier. The field emerged in the 1890s and 1900s—a time when competition between empires was intensifying, revolutions in transportation and communication were making the world a single battlespace, and strategists were trying to divine the imperatives of survival in a dangerous, interconnected world. The study of geopolitics has always placed a special focus on Eurasia, a supercontinent whose fate was becoming central to the fate of freedom around the globe.

As Mackinder explained in his article, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” technology was making Eurasia’s geography a hothouse of conflict. The spread of railways was hastening the movement of armies and previewing an epoch in which ambitious states—particularly fast-modernizing autocracies—could seek hegemony from one edge of that landmass to another. Once those states subjugated a resource-rich supercontinent, they would turn their attention to building navies without peer.

Mackinder’s grim forecast was that continental powers—he worried most about Russia—would try to rule Eurasia en route to ruling the world. So an offshore, liberal superpower—for Mackinder, the United Kingdom—must thwart this global despotism by keeping Eurasia divided: It must hold endangered “bridge heads” around its margins while harassing aspiring hegemons on land and at sea.

Alfred Thayer Mahan was Mackinder’s American alter ego. An evangelist of sea power, he spent his intellectual career encouraging the United States to build a canal across the Central American isthmus, construct armadas of battleships, and amass unassailable maritime strength. But like Mackinder, Mahan eyed the supercontinent nervously: In an age of steam, Eurasian consolidation could threaten countries an ocean away. Perhaps tsarist Russia would bust through the Middle East and South Asia to warmer waters and broader horizons. Or perhaps Japan and Germany, after dominating their home regions, would look farther across the seas.

If Mackinder believed preeminent land power led to preeminent sea power, Mahan believed that controlling dangers within Eurasia required controlling the waters around it. So he set his sights on a maritime alliance between the United States and Britain, in which two ocean-going democracies would police the seas and preserve a global system suitable to their traditions of liberty. In “unity of heart among the English-speaking races,” he wrote in 1897, “lies the best hope of humanity in the doubtful days ahead.”

The third member of the geopolitical pantheon was Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch American strategist who made his mark amid the global chaos of World War II. Spykman modified Mackinder: The sharpest challenges came not from a desolate Russian “heartland” but from dynamic, industrialized “rimland” nations—Germany and Japan—that could cut deep into Eurasia while also striking across its adjoining seas. And if the railroad fascinated Mackinder and the battleship transfixed Mahan, it was the bomber that vexed Spykman. Once totalitarian states seized Europe and Asia, he believed, their long-range airpower would control the New World’s oceanic approaches, while blockades and political warfare weakened the United States for the kill. The country’s strategic frontiers thus lay thousands of miles from its coastlines; only by ruthlessly playing the balance of power within Eurasia would Washington avoid an isolation that might prove fatal.

Today, analyzing these thinkers feels depressing, even retrograde. Mahan proudly called himself an “imperialist”; Mackinder labeled China the “yellow peril.” All accepted the dual determinism on which geopolitics rests: that geography powerfully shapes global interactions and that the world is a harsh, unforgiving place. “[S]tates can survive only by constant devotion to power politics,” Spykman wrote in 1942—an attitude that led some to accuse him of promoting a soulless American militarism.

That was unfair. Mackinder, Mahan, and Spykman were trying to navigate an era of global confrontations made more terrifying by new technologies and the dawn of new, more virulent forms of tyranny. All three men were ultimately concerned with whether democratic societies—those that honored “the freedom and rights of the individual,” as Mahan put it—could survive the challenge from those that practiced “the subordination of the individual to the state.” So all three were trying to determine what strategies—and what “combinations of power,” in Mackinder’s phrasing—could underpin a tolerable global order and prevent Eurasian consolidation from ushering in a new dark age.

This democratic school of geopolitics saw a supercontinent run by illiberal powers as a nightmare to be avoided. The authoritarian school saw it as a dream to be achieved.

If geopolitics leavened by traditions of liberty was an Anglo-American creation, geopolitics with a harsher, autocratic ethos arose in continental Europe. The latter tradition originated with Swedish academic Rudolf Kjellen and German geographer Friedrich Ratzel in the late 19th century. These thinkers were products of Europe’s cramped, cutthroat geography, and they channeled some of the time’s most toxic ideas.

Kjellen and Ratzel were influenced by social Darwinism: They saw nations as living organisms that must expand or die, and they defined nationhood in racial terms. Their school of thought prioritized the quest for Lebensraum, or “living space,” a term Ratzel coined in 1901. Although this tradition sometimes drew inspiration from the success of the United States in conquering and settling a continent, it blossomed most fully in countries, such as imperial Germany, where expansionist visions and illiberal, militaristic values went hand in hand. And as the history of the subsequent decades would demonstrate, geopolitics with this reactionary, zero-sum bent was a blueprint for unprecedented aggression and atrocity.

The epitome of this approach was Karl Haushofer, a World War I-era artillery commander who took up the cause of German resurrection after that country’s defeat in 1918. For Haushofer, geopolitics was synonymous with expansion. Germany had been mutilated by the Allies after World War I; its only response was to explode “out of the narrowness of her present living space into the freedom of the world,” he wrote. Germany must claim a resource-rich, autarkic imperium across Europe and Africa. He believed that other oppressed, have-not countries—namely Japan and the Soviet Union—would do likewise across the remainder of Eurasia and the Pacific.

Only by consolidating what Haushofer called “pan-regions” could the revisionist states outmatch their enemies; only by working together could they prevent those enemies, namely Britain, from playing divide-and-conquer. The goal of this geopolitics was a Eurasia ruled by an autocratic axis. What Mackinder had warned about, Haushofer—who borrowed liberally from his work—was determined to realize.

There was no pretension that this could be accomplished without mayhem and murder. The world, Haushofer wrote, needed “a general political clearing up, a redistribution of power.” Small countries “have no longer a right to exist.” Haushofer would endorse Germany’s murderous acquisition of “living space” in the late 1930s and early 1940s—he even helped inspire this ghastly campaign.

Haushofer had counseled Adolf Hitler while the latter was imprisoned in the 1920s. Central arguments of Hitler’s treatise, Mein Kampf—such as the importance of eliminating European rivals and the need for resources and space in the east—were pure Haushofer, historian Holger Herwig argued. Hitler’s advocacy of a vast Eurasian land empire as the answer to Anglo-American sea power drew, likewise, on Haushofer’s ideas. History’s most brazen land grab owed to Hitler’s megalomania, pathological racism, and epic thirst for power. It was also underpinned by a geopolitics of evil.

Clashes of countries are clashes of ideas. And one way of interpreting the 20th century is that the democratic school of geopolitics defeated the autocratic one.

In World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, radically revisionist states ran versions of Haushofer’s playbook. Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union seized vast tracts of Eurasia and contested its neighboring oceans. In areas they controlled, they sometimes governed with homicidal brutality. Yet they were ultimately defeated by global coalitions that were helmed by liberal superpowers and guided by the democracies’ best geopolitical insights.

Per Mackinder, these offshore powers cultivated onshore allies to keep Eurasian predators from overrunning the supercontinent and turning their attention fully toward the seas. As Mahan had foreseen, the United States and Britain forged an alliance to control the Atlantic and bring Washington’s overwhelming power to bear. And as Spykman recommended, the United States would eventually commit to keeping Eurasia fragmented by establishing alliances spanning its Atlantic and Pacific rimlands and—in true power political fashion—using reformed enemies, Japan and Germany, to contain an erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.

Indeed, there were moral compromises aplenty in these struggles. The Western democracies forged devil’s bargains with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in World War II and Chinese leader Mao Zedong in the late Cold War. They used tactics—blockades, firebombing, coups, and covert interventions—that could only be justified by their contribution to some higher good. “All civilized life rests … in the last instance on power,” Spykman wrote. The democracies wielded power ruthlessly enough to prevent the world’s worst aggressors from ruling its most vital regions.

The reward for these victories—which culminated with the strategic defeat and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991—was a thriving liberal order and a sense that perhaps globalization and democratization had rendered geopolitics passé. Alas, the world has now entered a new era of rivalry, in which autocratic challengers are weaponizing old geopolitical ideas.

Consider Putin’s neoimperial program. Beginning in the 1990s, Dugin gained renown within Russia’s security elite by arguing that the country was existentially threatened by a hegemonic “Atlanticist” coalition. Like Haushofer, he found recourse by inverting Mackinder: Moscow’s best strategy was to make a “great-continental Eurasian future for Russia with our own hands,” Dugin would write in 2012. By reclaiming former Soviet republics and forging ties with other dissatisfied states, Russia could build a bloc of Eurasian revisionists. “The heartland of Russia,” he had written in 1997, was the “staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” Although the ties between Putin and Dugin have often been exaggerated in the West, the writings of the latter aren’t a bad guide for what the former has done.

Putin’s Russia has vivisected neighboring countries—Georgia and Ukraine—that sought to escape its grip while using poisoning, strategic corruption, and other tactics to suborn and subordinate other post-Soviet states. It has stoked political instability in the West—another tactic Dugin advocated to break down that community—while trying to build up Eurasian institutions that could serve, in Putin’s words, as “one of the poles of the modern world.” Meanwhile, Putin has forged quasi-alliances with China and Iran in hopes of making Eurasia a redoubt for autocratic, anti-American powers. Putin, again drawing on Dugin, has said Russia must create a “common zone” stretching “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” The Eurasian supercontinent, he said, is a haven for the “traditional values” Russia defends and a source of “tremendous opportunities” it must exploit.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was meant to accelerate this program by conquering the country that links the spacious Eurasian heartland to the dynamic European rimland. Here, Putin pursued Dugin’s “great-continental Eurasian future” for Russia with the bloody ethos the latter prescribed. Torture, rape, murder, castration, mass abductions, and systematic efforts to erase the Ukrainian national identity mark the return of a geopolitics of Eurasian expansion, inflected with the cruelty of a tyrannical regime.

Chinese statecraft is also following a familiar arc. By undertaking the biggest naval buildup since World War II, Beijing is developing the strength to take Taiwan and control what Spykman called the vital “marginal seas” of the Western Pacific. Achieving that goal would make China supreme within Eurasia’s most vibrant region. It would also help make it, in Xi’s words, a “great maritime power” by freeing it to invest in a blue-water navy with bases around the globe. Mahan, surely, would take note.

A twist on Mackinder informs Chinese strategy, too. Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative, as well as several programs that have succeeded it, are meant to wrap countries from Southeast Asia to Southern Europe and beyond in Chinese influence—economic, technological, diplomatic, and perhaps someday military. If it works, China will have a commanding position vis-à-vis a Europe trying to cling to the periphery of a Sino-centric supercontinent and possibly even relegate the United States to second-tier status in a system managed by Beijing. “Access to Eurasia’s resources, markets, and ports could transform China from an East Asian power to a global superpower,” scholar Daniel S. Markey wrote in his book China’s Western Horizon. Xi’s China has resolved, as People’s Liberation Army Gen. Liu Yazhou recommended in 2004, to “seize for the center of the world.”

Yet if Chinese statecraft employs the insights of Mahan and Mackinder, its implications are more in line with the autocratic tradition. Chinese diplomats have promised to “reeducate” Taiwan’s population after the island is united with China, a threat that evokes memories of some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. China’s Eurasia would be an authoritarian pan-region to make Haushofer proud. Autocracy will be secure because democratic impulses are stifled; Beijing and Moscow have worked together, sometimes through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to thwart potential color revolutions in Central Asia and hunt down dissidents who flee across international frontiers. Meanwhile, the modernization of tyranny continues with Beijing’s active assistance: China’s Digital Silk Road fortifies illiberal governments by equipping them with state-of-the-art surveillance gear.

The clearest example of how expansion interacts with repression is found within China’s own borders. Xi’s government has turned the Xinjiang region into a humanitarian horror show by herding Uyghurs into concentration camps and enforcing relentless digital repression. Beijing must use the “organs of dictatorship” and show “absolutely no mercy,” Xi directed in 2014. Geopolitics infuses the rationale for this policy: “Xinjiang work possesses a position of special strategic significance,” Xi has said, because the region sits astride critical transportation routes to China’s Eurasian hinterland. It’s a premonition of the atrocities that could proliferate with Chinese power.

The heirs of Haushofer are seeking a Eurasia safe for illiberalism and predation. The democratic world needs to revive its own geopolitical lineage to meet the test.

Don’t take this too literally; Washington doesn’t need a Mahanian fleet of battleships right now. Innovation modifies rivalry’s rhythms, if not its essence: Today’s competitions feature new capabilities and new domains of warfare that make it easier to strike enemies across vast distances than ever before. Yet some realities endure: The stability of global order requires averting a malign hegemony at its center. The democratic school of geopolitics thus offers a mental map—and a set of principles—to navigate a world that is always changing yet never as novel as we think.

First, geopolitics and liberal values aren’t antithetical. Mastering the former is essential to defending the latter. The liberal world exalts reason, morality, and progress, whereas the geopolitical tradition stresses struggle and strife. But the precondition for the West’s liberal order was the creation, in two world wars and a cold war, of combinations of power that crushed or contained freedom’s most fearsome foes. Given that the world no longer seems as safe from catastrophic war or autocratic ascendancy as it appeared only a few years ago, the flourishing of liberal values will require fluency in power politics once again.

Students of geopolitics would also understand a second insight: It is better to balance early than to balance late. Spykman wrote his defining works in the early 1940s, when Eurasia was nearly overrun by the Axis. That nadir of liberal power informed his calls for a strategy to prevent the next war by keeping the Eurasian equilibrium from crumbling anew.

Thanks to the historic achievements of the strategy Spykman inspired, the West can now balance Russia deep in Eastern Europe by providing vital aid that keeps Putin from steamrolling Ukraine. Washington and its allies can check Beijing’s power in the Taiwan Strait instead of the Central Pacific. The military and diplomatic demands of sustaining these positions are heavy—yet surely less than the demands of balancing from a weaker position once the revisionists have gotten a head of steam.

Holding forward positions requires heeding a third principle: Geopolitics is alliance politics because fights for Eurasian supremacy are contests in coalition-making and coalition-breaking. As Spykman, Mackinder, and Mahan grasped, overseas powers—even superpowers—can regulate Eurasia’s affairs only with help from front-line allies. Aspiring hegemons, conversely, can subdue their neighbors only by isolating them from support from abroad.

The Eurasian balance thus hinges on whether the United States preserves the sovereign military advantages necessary to intervene around the Old World’s periphery. But even that won’t matter if Washington doesn’t adapt and fortify the alliances and security networks that give it access, influence, and added capabilities on faraway continents—against adversaries that use coercion, bribery, election interference, and other tactics to pry those coalitions apart.

As Mackinder would remind us, the type and location of those partners also count. The struggle against China is primarily a maritime matter. But—and this is a fourth lesson—land power and sea power complement each other, even if their relative merits are endlessly debated. Unless Washington wants to face an undistracted foe in the Pacific, it will need friends, such as Vietnam and especially India, that create dilemmas along China’s vulnerable land borders.

Neither Vietnam nor India is an ideal partner, which underscores a fifth principle: Strategy, for the United States, is the art of blending democratic solidarity with sordid compromises. The liberal democracies that ring Eurasia’s Atlantic and Pacific margins are the core of Washington’s coalition. But holding the balance has always involved illiberal actors and illiberal acts.

Containing this generation of revisionists will entail buttressing an arc of friendly—or simply ambivalent—authoritarians from Singapore to Saudi Arabia to Turkey. And don’t be shocked if intensifying rivalry causes Washington to engage in covert skullduggery, economic sabotage, and proxy warfare. Fights for supremacy lead relatively respectable democracies to do some ugly things.

They shouldn’t, however, forget a sixth precept: Eurasian struggles aren’t mono-dimensional, or mono-regional, affairs. Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman all saw Eurasia as a huge, interconnected theater. More recently, some analysts have taken the more reductionist view that Taiwan is the only place that really matters to the United States and that military might is the only type of power that truly counts. The consequences of losing a war to China in the Western Pacific would surely be epochal. But that’s not the only problem the free world faces.

The outcome of today’s non-hypothetical war in Ukraine will shape the strategic balance from the Baltic to Central Asia, as well as the balance of advantage between the Eurasian autocracies and the liberal democracies opposing them. That’s why calls to cut Ukraine loose are rarely heard from Washington’s most vulnerable allies in the Western Pacific.

Moreover, as Mackinder wrote in his 1904 article, China can expand inward as well as outward: By pushing into Eurasia, it would “add an oceanic frontage to the resources of the great continent.” And as Spykman might add, political warfare—the use of trade, technology, and other nonmilitary tools—can soften up enemies as surely as warfare itself. So these thinkers would grasp that containing Beijing’s economic and technological influence is as important as checking its military power—and that Washington can’t simply focus on one part of Eurasia to the exclusion of the rest.

Much of this makes a grim outlook for the future. But if a democratic school of geopolitics requires expertise in the cold calculus of power, it cannot be limited to it. A final insight, then, is that global crises are opportunities for creation.

During the 20th century, Eurasian challenges evoked unprecedented cooperation among the world’s democracies. In throwing back programs of aggression, they also laid the foundations for the liberal order that brought unprecedented prosperity and well-being to so much of the globe. A coalition that succeeds in the present rivalries will, likewise, be one in which a globe-spanning group has addressed the era’s most pressing challenges by pulling together—militarily, economically, technologically, and diplomatically—as never before. “A repellent personality” has the virtue of “uniting his enemies,” Mackinder wrote. The goal of a democratic geopolitics should be to provide the security that permits another era of creation today.

[blueweave8]

Horizontal Directional Drilling Market Demand, Trends, Forecast 2022-2029

BlueWeave Consulting, a leading strategic consulting and market research firm, in its recent study, estimated the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Marketsize at USD 9.46 billion in 2022. During the forecast period between 2023 and 2029, BlueWeave expects Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Marketsize to grow at a significant CAGR of 5.7% reaching a value of USD 13.21 billion by 2029. Major growth drivers for the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Marketinclude the increasing adoption of HDD technology for precise and minimally invasive drilling operations. This technique facilitates the drilling and reverse reaming of pipes with precision, navigating through obstacles in the underground terrain while minimizing harm to ecosystems. Market expansion is further fueled by increasing investments in shale gas projects and the ongoing development of high-speed connectivity in the telecom industry. Notably, The global surge in oil and gas activities has spurred an increase in horizontal directional drilling (HDD) worldwide. Recognizing the environmental impact of conventional drilling methods, there is a growing emphasis on employing eco-friendly drilling technology, leading to the expansion of the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market. The horizontal directional drilling approach stands out for its precision and reduced power consumption compared to vertical maneuvering techniques. Another significant driving force is the rapid globalization and urbanization, fueled by the escalating energy and fuel demand in developing nations. This surge in demand is closely tied to ongoing infrastructure development, utility system construction, and advancements in the telecommunications sector, including 5G testing. These factors, along with related developments, are anticipated to contribute significantly to the market's swift growth during the forecast period. The increasing utilization of horizontal directional drilling products in surveying, designing, and installing subsurface electrical systems for subterranean cables further propels the expansion of the market. Also, the rising demand for natural gas and electricity distribution in middle and upper pipeline lines is expected to drive market growth. The use of horizontal directional drilling fasteners in utility, communications, and oil and gas industries offers benefits such as increased stability, enhanced device management, and improved treatment and monitoring outcomes. However, high costs and technical challenges are anticipated to restrain the overall market growth during the forecast period.

Impact of Escalating Geopolitical Tensions on Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market

The Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market has been significantly impacted by intensifying geopolitical disruptions in recent times. For instance, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has disrupted supply chains decreased service demand, and increased uncertainty for businesses. This turmoil extended to energy markets, causing turbulence due to Russia's significant role as a major gas supplier, resulting in noticeable price fluctuations. In addition, the sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and other have had widespread implications, injecting a level of risk for investors across various sectors. Beyond the war zones and disputed areas, the ongoing crisis jeopardizes stability on a global scale. It becomes imperative for businesses and investors alike to comprehend and adeptly manage these interconnected challenges.

Despite the current challenges posed by geopolitical tensions, there are potential growth opportunities for the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market. The ongoing infrastructure projects, utility installations, and the continuous expansion of the telecommunications industry. This demand underscores the market's resilience. Emphasizing strategic adaptation is crucial in navigating these complex circumstances, ensuring sustained success amid global challenges and uncertainties.

Sample Request @ https://www.blueweaveconsulting.com/report/biodegradable-sanitary-napkins-market/report-sample

Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market – By End User

On the basis of end user, the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market is divided into Oil & Gas Excavation, Utilities, and Telecommunication segments. The oil & gas excavation segment holds the highest share in the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market by end user. The existing and robust infrastructure generates a significant demand for drilling rigs, contributing to the predominant market position of the oil and gas excavation segment. Also, efforts to manage the increasing expenses linked to exploration and production endeavors in untapped regions are anticipated to strengthen the prominence of this segment. Meanwhile, the telecommunications segment holds the highest share in the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market. The increasing need for faster broadband access propels telecommunications operators to adopt advanced and reliable drilling services, including horizontal directional drilling. This method facilitates the expansion of optic fiber cable networks by deploying conduits and pipes through holes nearly 4 feet in diameter and 6,500 feet in length, particularly in offshore locations. The growing demand for 4G and 5G networks is expected to contribute significantly to the segment's growth throughout the forecast period.

Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market – By Region

The in-depth research report on the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market covers various country-specific markets across five major regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East and Africa. North America holds the highest share in the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, liquid fuel consumption in 2022 was reported at 8.8 billion barrels per day. The growing prevalence of infrastructure and utility projects in North America is a key driver for the increased demand in horizontal directional drilling equipment and services. The Middle East and Africa (MEA) region emerged as the second-largest user of drilling services for oil and gas excavation activities.

Competitive Landscape

Major players operating in the Global Horizontal Directional Drilling Market include Baker Hughes Company, Barbco Inc., China Oilfield Services Limited, Ellingson Companies, Halliburton Company, Helmerich & Payne Inc., Herrenknecht AG, Nabors Industries Ltd, NOV Inc., Schlumberger Limited, The Toro Company, Vermeer Corporation, Weatherford International plc, Drillto Trenchless Co. Ltd, Laney Directional Drilling, Prime Drilling GmbH, XCMG Group, and TRACTO. To further enhance their market share, these companies employ various strategies, including mergers and acquisitions, partnerships, joint ventures, license agreements, and new product launches

Contact Us:

BlueWeave Consulting & Research Pvt. Ltd

+1 866 658 6826 | +1 425 320 4776 | +44 1865 60 0662

info@blueweaveconsulting.com

[ayahhass]

Blog Deliverable #1 (palestine genocide)

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a deeply intricate and long-standing dispute that revolves around issues like territory, self-determination, and the acknowledgment of fundamental rights for Palestinians and Israelis. Its roots can be traced back to the overlapping claims to the same land, resulting in prolonged violence, mass displacement, and a web of interconnected challenges.

The United Nations has formally recognized this issue and has emphasized the need for a resolution, with a particular emphasis on the right to self-determination for Palestinians. The conflict encompasses various facets, including the occupation, disputes over land, security concerns, and numerous instances of human rights violations.

This conflict carries global significance for several compelling reasons. First and foremost, it fundamentally boils down to a human rights matter. The conflict has led to the uprooting of Palestinian refugees and enduring violence, which has caused profound humanitarian repercussions. Countless individuals, especially innocent civilians, bear the enduring brunt of this conflict's consequences.

This issue isn't confined solely to regional boundaries; it has broader geopolitical implications. It has contributed to regional instability and has played a role in shaping the dynamics of the wider Middle East. The absence of a resolution stands in the way of the prospects for peace, economic development, and cooperation within the region.

Moreover, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isn't just a regional matter; it has become a source of international tension with consequences that ripple across the globe. How the international community collaborates to address this issue serves as a litmus test of its ability to handle intricate, longstanding disputes. This conflict underscores the significance of diplomacy, international cooperation, and the respect for human rights on a global scale.

If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains unaddressed or is only partially resolved, the social consequences will persist. Ongoing violence and instability will continue to inflict suffering on individuals. Human rights violations will endure, and the chances for lasting peace in the region will remain uncertain. The conflict will remain a contentious international matter with far-reaching global implications.

In conclusion, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict transcends local boundaries; it is a global concern. Tackling this issue is not only a moral obligation but also essential for regional stability and international collaboration. Achieving a just and lasting resolution will necessitate diplomatic endeavors, dialogue, and a resolute commitment to human rights, peace, and the well-being of the Palestinian people

[butterflyknifepoisoning]

I think the idea that violence is an unfortunate necessity for large scale change is not actually something most people will disagree with, and neither is the idea that violence should be minimized whenever possible.

The trouble is that trying to synthesize these ideas makes a specific sort of worldview very tempting; one where a small group of people are responsible for all the world's ills, and that simply eliminating those individuals will solve the the issues the world faces. This is an appealing idea because it doesn't require anyone to make any serious moral concessions ""for the greater good""; a single life in the face of thousands is unambiguously a reasonable sacrifice. Unfortunately though, this is... not actually how the world works.

Individual sin and individual innocence are a convenient myths that help simplify overwhelmingly complicated moral problems into something humans have an easier time acting on. For many people his is good enough for day to day life, where individual conflict requires individual solutions. But it falls apart when applied to problems on the scale of nations or all of humanity, because it obscures the real source of problems: the complex interconnected systems that privilege some classes of people over others.

And within these systems, individual bad actors do not ultimately matter. Killing or removing said bad actors may have positive short term effects, but the systems that enable them will in the end find other bad actors to take their place. A well-accepted example of the is the police system: killing an individual cop is good, but destroying the police as an institution would require killing so many cops that it would be at the very least unfeasible so other tactics are necessary. The same principal is true of other evil systems, such as capitalism and colonial governments. Outside the box, systemic thinking is required for their dismantling.

The next problem arises in the fact that destroying a government necessitates warfare. There is no such thing as a nice war; by its very nature it runs counter to the ideal of minimizing violence. This is an incredibly difficult reality to accept, because nobody wants to pave the road to hell with their good intentions. A systemic approach demands ignoring the trees for the forest, even if the trees are what you want to be fighting for in the first place.

This isn't an easily resolvable paradox. But it's one that any attempt at real, global change is going to have to grapple with in one way or another.