Published
on
By
Finland becomes the 31st country to join NATO.The confirmation came on April 4 on the day of NATOs founding day. The secretary general of NATO Jan’s Stoltenberg raised Finlands flag on NATO headquarters and officially starting a new era in the history of this security alliance. On a statement by the Finland’s president he said that,“Finland has today become a member of the defense alliance NATO. The era of military non-alignment in our history has come to an end. A new era begins.” NATO general secretary also Said indicating Vladimir Putin,“He wanted less NATO along his borders , He’s getting exactly the opposite”. With the joining of Finland NATO doubles it’s boarders with Russia. previously the joining of Estonia and Latvia brought NATO to the Russian boarder. so this alliance will have a major impact in the coming days specially in the Nordic region.
NATO an Military alliance led by the United States was established in 1949 with an aim to deter the expansion of the Soviet union but after the dissolution of the Soviet union NATO quickly changed its course and made itself a security pact with an aim to protect it’s allies in Europe and the Atlantic.As a result of this NATO still survives today.
Past NATO expansions
During it’s founding NATO only had 12 members and through the course of time numbers of members increased and currently sits at 31. Let’s take a look past NATO expansions.
1949: On April 4 the North Atlantic Treaty organization is found with 12 members joining initially since then for 74 years NATO has been expanding eastward.
1952: Turkey and Greece joins NATO making turkey the first Asian NATO members and still the only Asian member.
1955: West Germany becomes NATO member and a response to this Warsaw pact by the USSR is created.
1982: Spain becomes member.
1990: with the fall of Berlin wall and Germany unified Germany becomes a part of NATO.
1991: Soviet union falls and the Warsaw pact dissolves this also calls an end to the Cold war and can be seen as the beginning of NATO eastward expansion.
1994: Finland and Sweden joins NATO peace programme while maintaining military neutrality.
1999: Former Soviet satellite States and Warsaw pact members Czech republic, Hungary and Poland joins NATO and as a immediate result of this NATO for the first time has a border with Russia.
2001: on the wake of 9/11 terrorist attack for the first time in history NATO article-5 is activated.
2002: Russia and NATO creates a council to work together on security issues.
2003: NATO forces take on Afghanistan.
2004: seven countries including Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joins NATO which is largest NATO expansion till this date.
2008: Ukraine and Georgia shows interest in joining NATO prompting Putin to attack Georgia and Russia still holds 20% of Georgian territory.
2009: Croatia and Albania joins NATO.
2014: NATO suspends joint council with Russia because of Russian annexation of Crimea.
2017: Montenegro joins NATO .
2020: North Macedonia.
2023: Finland becomes 31st and the latest NATO member.
Causes and result of expansion
After the end of Cold war NATO started it’s eastward expansion and since then Former Soviet satellite States started joining NATO. During the 1990 s in the Russians southern side there began instability like the Chechen war, Dissolution of yougoslavia and Bosnian genocide,ethnic strifes among Armenia and Ajarbijan all promoted the Former satellites to join NATO with an aim to ensure security. But the result of this expansion can still be felt today. The Russians believe that NATO promise Gorbachev that they won’t expand eastward and because of this promise Gorbachev agreed for the dissolution of the Soviet union. But there were not any written or signed treaty among them. Boris Yeltsin in 1993 described it as ‘spirit of the treaty’. Russian president Vladimir Putin often uses this reason to attack his neighbors. He says, “You promised us in the 1990s that Nato would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly” and this is the origin of Putin’s allegation that NATO has cheated Russia. As a result of this Putin attacked Georgia in 2008 after the country showed interest to join NATO and also Putin uses this to legitimize his War on Ukraine.
Russian response to Finland’s joining of NATO
Finland shares 832 mile border with Russia. Finland showed is concern over Russian aggression as a root cause to joining NATO and this joining has certainly created strong response among the Russian leadership and Kremlin has vowed to that it could be forced to take “counter measures” to ensure its own border security. On his daily briefing to Russian reporters Moscow spokesperson Dimitri said, “Naturally, this forces us to take countermeasures to ensure our own tactical and strategic security,”
On a separate comment, Russian foreign ministry vowed to take “military, technical and other retaliatory measures”.
Implications in the future of the alliance
With the joining of Finland the country will have the access to NATO resources also Finland will now come under article-5 of NATO which means that, “any attacks made on an NATO member will count as an attack on all members and all will retaliate in this case”. Also finish troops will train with NATO troops and participate in various NATO excercises. Finland has also signed F-35 stealth fighter program which will allow The finish Air Force( FAF) to work jointly with Canada,UK and other NATO members. An interesting fact here is that Finland has one of the largest and best equipped Artillery force in western Europe this includes 1500 Artillery weapons including 100 missiles. Finlands joining of NATO isn’t without any consequences but rather will face challenges from Russia who are bitter and infact went on to war with Ukraine to keep NATO out of its door but is facing the opposite so The Russians won’t be Happy about it and might even make Putin retaliate more in Ukraine.We can also expect Sweden who have been trying to join NATO for a long time also join in a near future and thus bringing more security to this once neutral Nordic region.
Finland’s joining of NATO is a historical matter indeed and will have long effects in the future specially in the Eastern part of region we can expect this move to also motivate other countries lik Georgia and Bosnia to join NATO . Now NATO with 31 member is becoming stronger than ever and we can hope that this will bring security and stability. Despite Russia’s response to beef up their own border they can also go into talk regarding this issue cause Russia alone cannot fight it.
Negative Security Assurance in the context of Ukraine War
Artificial Intelligence and Modern Warfare: Comparative Analysis of India and Pakistan
Undergraduate Student of International Relations, Jahangirnagar University.
The U.S. government against Israeli PM Netanyahu
Finland’s NATO membership deepens concerns over the bloc’s expansion into Asia
Negative Security Assurance in the context of Ukraine War
The Times: The US supported a failed Ukrainian attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
India preserves independence of decision-making in national interest
The impact of disengagement from the US dollar between China and Russia on the Egyptian economy
Published
on
By
Negative security assurance is a concept in international security that refers to a commitment by a state or a group of states to refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) or against other states that have renounced their possession of nuclear weapons. In 1968 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 255, “Question Relating to Measures to Safeguard Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” The first legally-binding negative security assurance was contained in the Treaty of Tlatelolco (1969).
Latin America and the Caribbean a nuclear weapon free zone. In the beginning of 1980, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) started discussing the term negative security assurances annually from 1983–1994 in an ad hoc committee.
If we look into the Ukraine war, Russia was overconfident to achieve its objective in a very short time because of being nuclear whereas Ukraine was not a nuclear state. But it didn’t happen because Ukraine got the support of western worlds and war got prolonged. Now, this war has become the matter of prestige for Putin. He has made several statements regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict with Ukraine. These statements have been widely criticized by the international community, as the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict would have catastrophic consequences for both countries and the world as a whole. In 2014, during the early stages of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia’s state-owned media outlet RT published an article that suggested Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to any aggression by NATO or Ukraine.
According to the Aljazeera report, Europe’s largest armed war since World War II is set to begin a new chapter in the coming weeks. According to the Ukrainian defense minister, “there is no suggestion of a negotiated end to the 13 months of fighting between Russia and Ukraine a spring counteroffensive could begin as soon as April.” According to reliable sources, US officials have said that a new $2.6bn military aid package could be announced early next week and is expected to include air surveillance radars, anti-tank rockets and fuel trucks for the Ukrainian army. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund said its executive board approved a four-year $15.6bn loan program for Ukraine, part of a global $115bn package to support the country’s economy as it battles Russia’s 13-month occupation. President Joe Biden ruled out deploying F-16 fighter jets last month, and top US officials have frequently stated that the planes are not currently in the plans. However, authorities are working on other methods to strengthen Ukraine’s air force, such as trying to mount advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles on its Soviet-era MiG-29s and evaluating Ukrainian pilots’ abilities.
US support to Ukraine is evident and it is placing nuclear weapons in Europe like Ukraine during war as a part of its nuclear deterrence. The deployment of nuclear weapons is further escalating the war. It is obvious Russia will not accept the defeat and eventually will use tactical nuclear weapons in response. Global leaders must focus on the importance of Negative security assurance rather than on extended deterrence to bring out peace and to avoid conflicts. If leaders want to work on the reduction of arms control then there is a need to implement this. Negative security assurances can be an important confidence building measure, which strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation regime, contributes to nuclear disarmament and enhances regional and global security, in line with the goals and objectives of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Published
on
By
Vladimir Putin stated that “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind. It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world”. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the mimicry of human intellect in computers that have been designed to carry out operations like speech recognition, decision-making, and language translation that traditionally need human intelligence. Machine learning, natural language processing, and other cutting-edge technologies are all part of the rapidly expanding field of artificial intelligence (AI). In modern warfare, AI is being used to increase the capabilities of military forces. This intelligence technology can quickly analyze huge amount of data, it can easily point out all the data patterns, and it can give predictions on which armed forces can make decisions. AI can be used, for instance, to evaluate satellite imagery and spot potential dangers on the battlefield. AI may be used to create autonomous weapons systems like drones and robots that can function without human supervision.
Nearly every nation on earth has embraced artificial intelligence due to its growing application. Pakistan and India are in a similar situation. This article will provide a thorough explanation of how the two countries are compared in reference to artificial intelligence. Looking at the India’s capabilities, she has invested a lot in AI sector which has also boosted her economy.
According to a story by The Times of India, which cited senior defence sources, India’s defence forces are now “increasingly focusing” on deploying artificial intelligence (AI) in the military to facilitate quicker decision-making and reduce the sensor-to-shooter loop. According to reports, the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, and Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) are taking measures to make sure AI is employed effectively in conflict prevention.
The Defence Artificial Intelligence Council (DAIC), chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, was recently established in the Asian nation to offer general direction and support for initiatives incorporating cutting-edge technologies. Singh has previously stated that by 2024, India would create 25 AI products tailored specifically for the defence industry.
The Military AI Project Agency (DAIPA), which has a $13.2 million ($13.2 million) annual budget, was also established by India. 30 AI projects are apparently in the works for the Indian Navy, with an emphasis on enhanced decision-making, autonomous systems, border security, and maritime domain awareness. The creation of autonomous systems, such as ground vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), is one of India’s primary research topics for AI in the military. India has been working on a variety of drones for military uses, such as combat, surveillance, and reconnaissance. For instance, the T-Hawk, a small, lightweight UAV that can be used for surveillance and reconnaissance in challenging terrain, has been tested by the Indian Army.
India is also making investments in the creation of AI-driven systems for applications related to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Large volumes of data, including satellite photography, can be analysed by these systems to spot trends and potential dangers.
India is using several AI systems for the defence purpose. Some of them are listed below;
Integrated Battlefield Management System (IBMS): An AI-powered technology called IBMS gives commanders on the battlefield real-time situational awareness. The system combines information from several sources, including sensors, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to create a comprehensive image of the battlefield. IBMS is made to facilitate quicker response times and better decision-making.
Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&C): An AI-powered system called the Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&C) alerts users to potential hazards such as enemy aircraft and missiles in advance. Target detection and tracking are performed by the system using a combination of radar and AI algorithms. The Indian Air Force uses AEW&C to improve its air defence capabilities.
Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs): India has created a number of UGVs for use in military surveillance and reconnaissance. These unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are outfitted with AI-powered systems that let them negotiate challenging terrain and identify potential hazards. Indian-made UGVs include the Daksh bomb-disposal vehicle and the Abhay reconnaissance vehicle, for instance.
Cyber Security: India is making investments in the creation of AI-driven cybersecurity solutions. For instance, to identify and address cyber threats, the nation’s National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) employs AI algorithms. The NCIIPC is also working on a system that uses AI to anticipate cyberattacks and spot holes in key infrastructure.
These are some examples showing the success stories of India in AI sector. In contrast with it, Pakistan is lagging behind India in AI technology due to multiple reasons which will be discussed later. However, Pakistan has been putting more money into artificial intelligence technology for use in the military. The military of the nation has been updating its gear and arsenal, and AI has become a crucial component of this modernization process.
To focus on AI and other cutting-edge technologies, the Pakistani military has set up research and development facilities. The National Centre for Artificial Intelligence (NCAI), for instance, was founded in 2018 to advance national AI research and development. For a variety of military applications, including automated threat identification, decision-making, and logistics management, the centre has been focused on developing AI-based solutions. The military of Pakistan has also implemented AI in its drone programmes.
The nation has created its own drone technology, including the Burraq drone, which was employed for military operations in the country’s northwest region. According to reports, the drone employed AI to find targets and give operators up-to-the-minute situational awareness.
In order to defend its military and other national assets from cyberthreats, Pakistan has also been investigating the use of AI in cybersecurity. The Information Warfare Wing was established by the nation’s military in 2019 to combat cyber threats and improve its cybersecurity posture. According to media sources, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has started a Cognitive Electronic Warfare (CEW) programme at its Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Computation (CENTAIC).
In order to improve the creation and usage of Electronic Warfare (EW) technologies for the military sector, cognitive systems—commonly referred to as Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning—are used in what is known as Cognitive Electronic Warfare (CEW). Next-generation EW threat identification, suppression, and neutralisation technologies are being developed and implemented more quickly thanks to cognitive systems’ ability to sense, learn, reason, and interact organically with people and their surroundings.
When using AI in modern warfare, Pakistan must overcome a number of obstacles, some of which are as follows:
Restricted resources: AI adoption in modern combat necessitates considerable investments in research & development, hiring new talent, and computer infrastructure. Pakistan is a developing nation with limited resources.
Lack of knowledge: Pakistan may struggle to find specialists in artificial intelligence (AI) and related disciplines including machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing. Because of this, creating and implementing AI-based solutions for military applications might be difficult.
Data quality and quantity: To train and boost the accuracy of AI models, a lot of data is needed. It might be difficult for Pakistan to acquire reliable data for military applications, and there might only be a small amount of data available for some uses.
New cybersecurity challenges are brought about by the employment of AI in contemporary combat. To safeguard its military and other national assets from online threats, Pakistan may need to establish effective cybersecurity measures.
Using AI in modern combat creates ethical and legal challenges, such as the possibility of AI systems making discriminating or prejudiced judgements. To regulate the creation and implementation of AI in military applications, Pakistan may need to create ethical and legal frameworks.
International laws: International laws, like as the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, apply to the use of AI in modern combat. Pakistan may need to abide by these rules and make sure that its use of AI for military purposes adheres to accepted international standards.
If both countries are compared, India is at advantage because of larger talent pool, economy and more resources. At the other hand, Pakistan has less talent pool and economic resources than India. In conclusion, India and Pakistan have both made investments in artificial intelligence technology for military uses, and their capacities in this area are growing. Pakistan is advancing in the development of its AI capabilities, even if India may have an advantage in terms of talent pool and resources.
Published
on
By
“Clocks slay time.”-William Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury
Some facts speak for themselves. For Israel, no arena of national decision-making is conceivably more important than defense and security. Nonetheless, this primary arena is still dominated more by technical weapon-system considerations than by any meaningful regard for advanced conceptual thought. A particularly worrisome example of this self-defeating domination concerns policy-relevant concepts of time.
Why? It’s not a difficult question. Despite Israel’s continuous success on the “hardware” side of national defense – success that is both enviable and irrefutable – it remains difficult to discover any pertinent philosophical underpinnings. With notably few exceptions, the published product of the beleaguered country’s defense-centered think tanks displays little or no deep-seated erudition. This product, though commendably “professional,” could have been developed by engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists who never consulted a scintilla of philosophy, literature, art or poetry.[1]
In this unfortunate regard, Israel has made itself into an America microcosm. Now, already, the tangible world of Israel’s defense community is one that exemplifies what Jose Ortega y’Gasset called “the barbarism of specialization.”[2] Significantly, by the Spanish philosopher’s own design, it was a purposeful nomenclature of lamentation.
There is much more to understand. To explore defense/security-related ideas, Israeli analysts could begin with suitably reinvigorated concepts of time. But any such beginning would first require acknowledgements in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that “defense time” should always be experienced palpably, differentially, as subjective duration. In essence, for Israel’s national security planners, “real time” ought never to be interpreted solely in terms of clock measurement.[3] Because “clocks slay time,” any such interpretation would prove simplifying and injurious.
Further clarifications are in order. Seemingly reasonable objections to what is being proposed here would be raised against any “fanciful” (non-objective) metaphysics of time. Inter alia, it would likely be argued here that this is not the right moment for Israeli planners to immerse themselves in any abstract complexities of chronology. After all, they would inquire, aren’t Israel’s core security problems unmistakably tactical or “practical?”
There is one plainly proper response to such a query. As every serious scientist understands, nothing is more practical than good theory. It follows that carefully fashioned theories of time could not only assist pragmatic foreign policy decision-making in Israel; they could also prove indispensable.
For military decisional calculations, Israeli securityanalyses should always contain certain core elements of chronology. Accordingly, Israel’s many-sided struggle against war and terror will need to be conducted with more intellectually determined and conspicuously nuanced conceptualizations of time. Though seemingly “impractical,” such “felt time” or “inner time” conceptualizations could reveal more about Israel’s existential security challenges than would any “objectively” numbered intervals on clocks.
There is an evident historical irony to this observation. The notion of “felt time” or time-as-lived has its actual or doctrinal origins in ancient Israel. By rejecting time as simple linear progression, the early Hebrews already approached chronology as a qualitative experience. Once dismissed as something that can submit only to quantitative measures, time began to be understood by early Jewish thinkers as a specific subjective quality, one inherently inseparable from personally infused content.
On its face, such classical Hebrew logic or logos could accept no other point of view. For Israel’s present-day national security defense planning, it’s a perspective worthy of prompt policy-making resurrection. Yet, no such resurrection could possibly emerge ex nihilo, out of nothing. First, there would have to take place a far-reaching recommitment to intellect, learning and “mind.”[4]
In world security matters, of course, time is not exclusively or necessarily about Israel. For American national security defense planners currently focused on Vladimir Putin and Russian crimes against humanity,[5] the ancient Hebrew view of time could prove clazrifyingly useful. Vladimir Putin’s cumulative decisions on aggressive war[6] against Ukraine could stem more-or-less directly from his own personal metaphysics of time.[7]
From its beginnings, the Jewish prophetic vision was one of a community living in time and under a transcendent God. Political space in this immutable vision was vitally important, but not because of any territoriality issues per se. Instead, the relevance of space – today, Israelis and Palestinians are apt to speak of “land” – stemmed from certain unique events that had presumably taken place within now-sanctified boundaries.
For present-day Israel, the space-time relationship reveals at least two major defense/security policy implications. First, any considered territorial surrenders by Israel (Judea/Samaria or “West Bank”) would reduce the amount of time Israel has left to resist war and terrorism. Second, and similarly unassailable, some past surrenders, especially when considered “synergistically,”[8] had provided extra time for Israel’s enemies to await optimal attack opportunities.
For Israel, still faced with recurrent war and terror on several fronts, the strategic importance of time can be expressed not only in terms of its unique relationship to space, but as a storehouse of memory. By expressly recalling the historic vulnerabilities of Jewish life, Israel’s current leaders could begin to step back sensibly from a seemingly endless pattern of lethal equivocations. Ultimately, such policy movements could enhance “timely” prospects for a durable peace.
Eventually, a subjective metaphysics of time, a reality based not on equally numbered chronological moments but on deeply-felt representations of time as lived, could impact the ways in which Israel chooses to confront its principal enemies. This means, among other things, struggling to understand the manner in which enemy states and terror groups chooseto live within time. For the moment, any such struggle would have to be undertaken without any credible expectations of analytic precision or accuracy.
If it could be determined that particular terrorist groups now accept a shorter time horizon in their continuous search for “victory” over Israel, any Israeli response to enemy aggressions would have to be swift. If it would seem that this presumed time horizon was calculably longer, Israel’s response could still be more or less incremental. For Israel, this would mean relying more on the relatively passive dynamics of military deterrence and military defense[9] than on any active strategies of war fighting.[10]
Of special interest to Israel’s prime minister and general staff should be the hidden time horizons of a Jihadist suicide bomber. Although a counter-intuitive sort of understanding, this martyrdom-focused adversary is overwhelminglyafraid of death. In all likelihood, he or she is so utterly afraid of “not being” that the correlative terrorist plan for “suicide” is actually intended to avoid death. In terms of our present investigation of time and Israeli national security decision-making, “martyrdom” is generally accepted by hard-core Muslim believers as the most honorable and heroic way to soar above the mortal limits imposed by clocks.
A key question dawns. As a strategy or tactic for Israel, how can such a perplexing acceptance be meaningfully countered? One promising way would require prior realization that an aspiring suicide bomber see himself or herself as a religious sacrificer. This would signify an adversary’s “escape from time” without meaning, a move from “profane time” to “sacred time.”
There is more. Abandoning the self-defiling time conceptualizations of ordinary mortals, the martyrdom-seeking suicide bomber seeks to to transport himself or herself into a rarefied world of “immortals.” For him or her, and from “time to time,” the temptation to “sacrifice” despised “infidels” upon the altar of Jihad can become all-consuming. Among Israelis, prima facie, this murderous temptation by familiar enemies is well recognized.
What should Israel do with such an informed understanding of its adversaries’ concept of time? In principle, at least, Jerusalem/Tel Aviv’s immediate policy response should be to convince prospective suicide bombers that their intended “sacrifice” could never elevate them above the mortal limits of time. But first the would-be sacrificers would need to convince themselves that they are not now living in “profane time,” and that killing of “infidels” or “apostates” could not offer the Jihadist power over death.[11]Such power, it goes without saying, is the greatest conceivable form of power.
By definition, no other form of power could possibly seem more attractive.
No such complex task of self-persuasion could ever prove easy.
Soon, Israeli policy-makers will need to recognize certain dense problems of chronology as religious and cultural quandaries. They will also need to acknowledge to themselves that any search for promising peace plans must be informed by intellectual understanding and genuine Reason,[12] not just the transient considerations of domestic politics or global geopolitics.
“As earthlings,” asserts Hoosier author Kurt Vonnegut, “all have had to believe whatever clocks said.” As national security decision makers, Israeli strategic thinkers now have it in their power to look beyond the simplifying hands of clocks and affirm more authentically clarifying meanings of time. For them, exercising such latent power could represent a defense/security policy decision in the optimal direction. First, however, they would need to be reminded that serious national security planning is always more than just a technical, tactical or weapon-system matter.
Going forward, Israeli planners should take calculated steps to ensure that policy-related concepts of time include vital elements of subjective duration. Otherwise, taken in isolation, clocks could only undermine more substantial understandings of chronology. In essence, clocks do represent a universally agreed upon paradigm of what should inform national security decision-making. What they do not represent, however, are usable standards for crisis decision-making processes. In circumstances where their calculable measurements are not finely interpreted, clocks would only “slay time.”
[1] “Yesterday,” warns Samuel Beckett, in his analysis of Proust, “is not a milestone that has been passed, but a daystone on the beaten track of the years, and irremediably a part of us, heavy anddangerous.” By this warning, the prescient playwright would likely have understood Israel’s chronology-based risks and obligations. Sometimes, therefore, as we may learn from the creator of Waiting for Godot, military imperatives are better understood by the poet than the strategist.
[2] See by the twentieth century Spanish existentialist philosopher, The Revolt of the Masses, Chapter 12 (1930). See also, by Professor Louis René Beres, at Modern Diplomacy: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/09/13/american-democracy-and-the-barbarism-of-specialisation/
[3] In contrast to “inner time” or “felt time,” clock time is unable to recognize that human beings react not to variously disconnected points in their mental constructions, but to instantaneous sections of an indefinite temporality. From the ancient era of Hebrew prophets and the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus, humans have acted upon time as universal flow, as a state of continuing transformation.
[4] In the 17th century, French philosopher Blaise Pascal remarked prophetically in Pensées: “All our dignity consists in thought. It is upon this that we must depend…Let us labor then to think well: this is the foundation of morality.” Similar reasoning characterizes the writings of Baruch Spinoza, Pascal’s 17th-century contemporary. In Book II of Ethics, Spinoza considers the human mind or “intellectual attributes,” and drawing from René Descartes underscores a comprehensive endorsement of human learning. Later, French poet Guillaume Apollinaire, in The New Spirit and the Poets (1917)clarifies further: “It must not be forgotten that it is perhaps more dangerous for a nation to allow itself to be conquered intellectually than by arms.”
[5] See, by this author, at JURIST Louis René Beres: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2022/05/louis-rene-beres-putins-nuremberg-level-crimes/
[6] For the specific crime of aggression under international law, see: Resolution on the Definition of Aggression, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 14, 1974, U.N.G.A. Res. 3314 (xxix), 29 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 31), 142, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1975), reprinted in 13 I.L.M., 710 (1974).
[7] In a worst case scenario, such decisions could lead to nuclear war with the United States. For authoritative accounts by this author of nuclear war effects, many of them synergistic, see: Louis René Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Louis René Beres, Mimicking Sisyphus: America’s Countervailing Nuclear Strategy (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1983); Louis René Beres, Reason and Realpolitik: U.S. Foreign Policy and World Order (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1984); and Louis René Beres, Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1986). Most recently, by Professor Beres, see: Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (New York, Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed. 2018). https://paw.princeton.edu/new-books/surviving-amid-chaos-israel%E2%80%99s-nuclear-strategy
[8] On synergies, see, by this author, Louis René Beres, at Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School: https://harvardnsj.org/2015/06/core-synergies-in-israels-strategic-planning-when-the-adversarial-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/ See also, by Professor Beres, at Modern War Institute, West Point: https://mwi.usma.edu/threat-convergence-adversarial-whole-greater-sum-parts/
[9] See Professor Louis René Beres and General (USAF/ret.) John T. Chain, “Could Israel Safely Deter a Nuclear Iran”? The Atlantic, 2012; Professor Beres and General Chain, “Israel and Iran at the Eleventh Hour,” Oxford University Press (OUP Blog, 2012); Louis René Beres and Admiral (USN/ret.) Leon “Bud” Edney, “Facing a Nuclear Iran, Israel Must Re-Think its Nuclear Ambiguity,” US News & World Report, 2013; and Louis René Beres and Admiral Edney, “Reconsidering Israel’s Nuclear Posture,” The Jerusalem Post, 2013. General Chain was Commander-in-Chief, US Strategic Air Command (CINSAC). Admiral Edney was NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT).
[10] Nuclear war fighting should never represent an acceptable strategic option for Israel. Always, Jerusalem’s nuclear weapons and doctrine should be oriented toward deterrence, not actual combat engagements. This conclusion was central to the Final Report of Project Daniel: Israel’s Strategic Future, ACPR Policy Paper No. 155, ACPR, Israel, May 2004, 64 pp. See also: Louis René Beres, “Facing Iran’s Ongoing Nuclearization: A Retrospective on Project Daniel,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vo. 22, Issue 3, June 2009, pp. 491-514; and Louis René Beres, “Israel’s Uncertain Strategic Future,” Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College, Vol. XXXVII, No.1., Spring 2007, pp, 37-54. Professor Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon).
[11] See, by this author, Louis René Beres: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/11/louis-rene-beres-counter-terrorism-martyrdom/
[12] The critical importance of Reason to legal judgment was prefigured in ancient Israel, which accommodated the core concept within its special system of revealed law. Jewish theory of law, insofar as it displays the evident markings of a foundational Higher Law, offers a transcending order revealed by the divine word as interpreted by human reason. In the words of Ecclesiastes 32.23, 37.16, 13-14: “Let reason go before every enterprise and counsel before any action…And let the counsel of thine own heart stand…For a man’s mind is sometimes wont to tell him more than seven watchmen that sit above in a high tower….”
The U.S. government has been funneling taxpayer money to the left-wing group bankrolling protests against Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu,…
There is no doubt that when NATO’s “strategic plague” spreads to Asia, its primary target is China, ‘Global Times’ stresses….
As a deadly disease that people can catch from ticks moves across the continent, the EU is seeking new tests…
The Japanese government is reportedly concerned about the potentially massive impact a magnet supply disruption could have on various public…
The global pandemic and technological advancements have changed the way we work, communicate, collaborate, travel, eat, and see life and…
Authors: Tri Bagus Prabowo and Luky A Yusgiantoro* The Paris Agreement was organized at COP21, or the Conference of Parties…
When the Europeans colonized the Global South, they not only appropriated tangible resources but also occupied and transformed the epistemological…
A fading Petrodollar
Global Innovation is shrinking because of distressed US-China relations
Can Russia Really Break Away from the West?
From Abundance to Scarcity: The Changing Value of Water
American Position on the Saudi-Iranian Agreement
On Taiwan, China Redefines Restraint
The Politics of Maandamano: Understanding Kenya’s Cost of Living Demonstrations
Kashmiris at the UN Demand Security from Islamist Terrorism: Erdogan Has Other Ideas
Copyright © 2023 Modern Diplomacy