Connect with us

Sukhoi 35 Russia Security

Traditionally, security is viewed through military approach. Indeed, it does make sense. The 20th century is known for its ideological rivalry between two superpowers. Since nuclear confrontation represented a potential threat to peace, security notion was dominated by military factors. The central countries pursued its own interests, including the exploitation of the countries on the periphery for its own benefits. However, if we take current international, this traditional approach seems to be one-sided. 

Yet, back in 90s, Buzan suggested that international security of the new century would be much “less dominated by military and political issues” (p. 433). Why so? Because there was no more Soviet Union, no arms race: it gave a way to other aspects of security.

Military threat has always been seen as special category, since it involves the use of force. The threat is posed by the military power of other states. It can impair the basic ability of the state to protect its people.

Nuclear powers, in this sense, pose an immense military threat to any country (particularly to nuclear-free). That is why the idea of nuclear non-proliferation is very attractive; it has wide support all over the world. Regardless, there was not much progress among the superpowers towards their own nuclear disarmament since the massive reduction in nuclear and strategic forces after the end of the Cold War.  Conversely, for the last decade Russia has been strengthening its nuclear power. Similar calls have been recently made by the newly-elected president of the United States. Donald Trump suggested that America should expand its nuclear weapons program, thus, pursue peace through threat. As far back as in 90s, Buzan pointed out that the success or failure to reach nuclear-free world would greatly influence security and military relations (p. 443). The ambitions of North Korea show that not every country is ready to give up the ability to develop its nuclear arsenals. So, nuclear zero remains rather hard to achieve and nuclear threat persists.

However, as mentioned before, today’s security is not just about military threat (although it is significant). The world we live in is multi-polar, all of us are interconnected. Let’s say we live in a country, free from nuclear threat. Are we still secured from economic collapses or from the influence of climate change?

Economic Security

Economic security is about access to resources, finances and markets that are necessary to maintain political power and the high level of living. It is threatened when national economic system is weak. In this sense, developed countries are trying to maintain their standard of living, and developing countries are doing what they can to improve their own. In this environment international competition is quite strong. That is why strong nations may economically leverage weaker opponents in order to prevail militarily and technologically and achieve its political goals.

Meanwhile, economic threats are hard to identify because of its nature. For example, the recent economic crisis could be a good example. What should be tackled first has been debated for a long time. Now experts, researchers and politicians are arguing what should be done in order to prevent another economic blast. The economic sector clearly shows how different aspects interact with each other.

Moreover, economic and military security is interconnected. For instance, military budget can be constrained, limited or cut due to economic reasons. Furthermore, in the current framework of mutual economic interdependence and accelerated international trade, economic security might become the most significant one. If a state has more powerful economic security, it is easier to maintain other aspects of security. Vice versa, if a state has poor economy, it is hard to keep the national security strong, thus such a state may be leveraged.

Environmental Security

Here the threat is posed by disruption of ecosystem and scarce recourses. Nowadays protection of environment plays a significant role in security agenda. In this sense, the recent Paris Agreement (2015) can be viewed as an attempt to strengthen countries’ security against the overwhelming “conditions that can threaten human existence on a large scale” (Buzan 1991, p. 450). A comprehensive climate policy, apart from the main goals to mitigate the effects of climate change, also addresses adaptation mechanisms to deal with loss and damage caused by global warming (See the Paris Agreement 2015).

The desire to maintain climate may give additional reasons for powerful developed countries to intervene in less developed countries under the name of environmental security. The relations between countries would be affected if the effects of climate change deepened. Natural disasters may inevitable become a driving force for human migration and this, in turn, would change the balance of power in the future.

Global warming threatens not just the way the people lead their lives, but the mere existence of humanity and the planet Earth. Diminishing capabilities of ozone layer to protect the planet can cause floods and fires, eliminate forests and plankton, ultimately causing countries to adapt and deal with the environmental issues in order to protect their state. Sussane Droge from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs points out that current interest in efficient climate policy is fueled by the obvious energy benefits (2016, p. 32). It means greater security and technological progress.

Political Security

Political security concerns the stability of political systems and organizational stability of the state. If this aspect is weakened, it shutters the state as an entity. That is why it can be considered as important as military security. Here the state sovereignty is usually threatened.

The Human Development Report of 1994 places political security as one of the main categories of threats to human security (UNDP 1994, p. 25). Paradoxically, political sector is one of the most challenging. All threats can be viewed as political (See Jahn, Lemaitre & Waever 1987). So, for instance, under economic security, it is usually meant political-economic security, under military one – military-political security and so on.

However, the sector exists and usually consists of political threats. Buzan (1983) describes them as “pressuring the government on a particular policy, overthrowing the government, and disrupting the political fabric of the state” (p. 118), they aim to destabilize the government system and make it easy to perform a military attack.

The national identity and its ideology are a target of political threats. Interestingly, that new changes of the Russian military doctrine recognizes the rising of ideological clashes. They are carefully called “the competition of values and development models” (See “the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation”). Such a statement admits ideological competitions and, consequently, reflects the difference of values between Russia and other countries.

All of aforementioned sectors are interlinked and have importance of their own. So when approaching international and national security, one must take them into account. So if we talk about survival of the state now, it depends not so much on military factors but as on the whole complex of factors (political, military, economic, and environmental). Theoretically speaking, if we are free from military threat, it does not mean that we are secured in other ways. The notion of security is way broader than just military approach.


Buzan, B. (1983). People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Buzan, B. (1991). “New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First Century”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944), 63:3, 431-451.

Droge, S. (2016). The Paris Agreement 2015 Turning Point for the International Climate Regime. Retrieved from <> on 27/12/16.

Jahn, E., Lemaitre, P., & Waever, O. (1987) European Security: Problems of Research on Non-Military Aspects. Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research.

“The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation”. Approved by the President of the Russian Federation on February 5, 2010, Decree №146 (Edited in 2014). Retrieved from <> on 02/01/2017.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1994). Human Development Report. Retrieved from <> on 03/01/2017.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from <> on 26/12/16.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Specialist in global security and nuclear disarmament. Excited about international relations, curious about cognitive, psycho- & neuro-linguistics. A complete traveller.

Continue Reading


Yes, You Should Start Caring About Politics!



One of the most common things that you hear from people a lot of the time is something along the lines of “I just don’t really care about politics.” In fact, you might have even said something along those lines yourself. And it can be tempting to fall into this line of thinking. After all, politics are hardly the most exciting or exotic things in the world. However, the truth is that they impact your life in different ways every single day and if you choose to ignore politics, then that just meant that you’re going to end up falling victim to policies that harm you and the people around you. With that in mind, here are some ways that you can start being more politically minded right now.

Know the issues

Do you know where you stand on many of the most important issues of the modern day? Do you know what most of those issues are? The truth is that many people would rather ignore a lot of the problems that society and the world at large face simply because it can feel as though they’re too big to deal with. Things like the economy, climate change, and social justice aren’t just abstract concepts; they’re things that impact the lives of real people every single day. Being more informed about the issues will allow you to have a much better understanding of your own political views.

Know who to speak to

Do you know who your senator is? Your representative? Most people tend to only know major politicians who have held office at one point or another. Sure, you probably know the president or a senator like John Mccain. But what about all of the other senators like Doug Jones or Mike Crapo? These are the people you can actually contact if you want to start making some changes in the world. Getting to know who you can contact can help you feel much more involved in the modern political process.

Forget about personalities and focus on policies

Modern politics has become as much of a game of personalities as anything else. But the truth is that the personalities of individual politicians are far less important than the policies that they and their party want to enact. After all, the policies are the things that will actually make a difference in people’s lives. You should never vote just because you like or dislike the way that a particular politician talks or what their personality seems to be like. Always vote on policies, not personalities.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you should suddenly let politics take over every conversation that you have or that you need to be constantly thinking about it. But trying to bury your head in the sand and ignore the things that are going on around you isn’t going to do you any good. The only way that you can start to make some genuine changes in the world is if you face up to the realities of the modern world and try to do something about it.

Prev postNext post
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading


How Mafia-States Get Away with Criminality



In theory, all 195 states adhere to the Charter of the United Nations and therefore pledge “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. In other words, to play the game and adhere to basic governmental principles. That’s in theory: in practice, a handful of states in the world behave like mafias, and get away with it.

President George W. Bush first used the terms “failed states” or “rogue states”, during his office. Rogue states seem more adapted because, if they are failed states in the sense that they do not carry out their mission, they are not failed for everyone. Afghanistan is, still today, one of the most prominent examples of how to get personally rich by pretending to represent people. In the wake of the NATO intervention in Afghanistan, billions of dollars were poured into the country in reconstruction efforts, based on the belief that if the population was schooled and busy at work, they would be less likely to join rebel ranks. The idea was good, but most of the massive funds were sidetracked to line officials’ pockets and Afghanistan is pretty much in the same shape as it was before the program, if not worse. Business Insider covered the subject (1): “All districts receive central government budget to cover salaries of front-line forces,” reporter Jessica Purkiss wrote for the Bureau. “In many areas in Afghanistan, some of this budget disappears and the actual number of officers tasked with holding back the Taliban is much lower than the number actually allotted.”

And such rogue states also exist close to the Western sphere of Europe and the US. Almost every single State in Central and South America is at the warning level on the Fragile State Index (2) (the term was brushed up to sound less definitively damning than President Bush’s wording). Hungary was bashed this year, along with the rest of EU low-performers, for dropping sharply in the EU’s good governance ranking, as reported by Nicolaj Nielsen, for the EU observer (3): “Bulgaria scored the worst among EU states with 41, followed by Greece (44), Italy (47), Romania (48), Hungary (48), and Croatia (49). Dolan faulted the crackdown on civil society and other independent institutions in Croatia and Hungary for their worsening performance. Both governments were also embroiled in scandals last year. In one case, Hungary’s government allegedly funneled money from the Central Bank to friends and family.” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán learned from the report (4) that “Hungary loses 200 billion forints every year due to the corruption that exists in public procurement cases.”

Not to forget that States are not all mutually recognized and accepted, some of them are self-proclaimed. While some do indeed strive to carry out their stated mission and serve the people they claim to represent, some other are merely mafia groups with a political cover, which deal in various traffics and racketeering. Bordering Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania, lies Western Sahara, where a group named the Polisario Front announced to the world that it was the shield of the Sahrawi people, who originate from the arid strip of land, with the stated intent of creating a sovereign state. But that must be put into perspective with the endless list of allegations and accusations carried against it, regarding the Polisario’s management of refugee camps in Algeria for example. The self-proclaimed government of the Sahrawi – namely the SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) – is known for keeping the refugees captive in the camps, or keeping family members as hostage to guarantee men’s returns, maintaining a general state of violence and lawlessness within the compound. In addition, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has serious doubts (5) as to what becomes of the humanitarian aid it sends. It suspects not only the food to be sidetracked and sold on the black market, but also to be requested in excessive numbers – the Polisario front claims it holds up to 200 000 refugees but has systematically refused census, leading humanitarian donors to believe the figures are doubtful.

Can this be avoided? Hardly, at the general level. Pablo Escobar coined the phrase which underlies the entire system : Plata o plomo (silver or lead). Officials could be paid off to keep silent and play along, or be shot. Therefore, it is in the nature of corruption systems to maintain themselves because, should a “pure” official arise, he will be removed and replaced by a more complacent one.

Mafia states use the cover of darkness or, better still, a politically activist stance. The Colombian FARCs – Polisario’s allies, incidentally… – and the Medellin Cartel, run by Pablo Escobar, had an intense PR activity with many “social and humanitarian” poses, to help improve their public image and stymie political push-backs. The Polisario Front has moved much of its assaults to the judicial level, in a new form of “civilized” piracy, including with the surprise attempt to seize a Moroccan shipload earlier this year in South Africa. “The conclusion of this case will actually tell us whether it is now conceivable, on the judiciary level, that international shipping industry – which carries 90% of global trade – become hostage to some form of unprecedented and increasingly vicious political piracy,” wrote Philippe Delebecque (6), a French judge specializing in maritime affairs.

Mafia states are here to stay, because the mafia creates the state, and not the other way around. Once the mafia has developed its tentacles and political power enough, it will make kings and topple uncooperative administrators. Other states in the world are fully aware of this fact, and that if they bust a mafia-state, another will replace it within weeks. So, in the best cases, neighboring countries let it be; in the worst cases, they get involved in the graft.


Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading


Should You Support Universal Basic Income? Who else is in favour?

Manak Suri



In the previous article “Universal Basic Income: In Action” we explored that Universal Basic Income under different variants is already being put to trial in different provinces of a number of countries around the world. Before that, in “Universal Basic Income: The Idea” we weighed the potential of UBI in creating a monumental change in the way humanity as a society functions as of today. While there’s still quite some time required to ascertain how easily and efficiently the system can be put into effect and whether it should be put into place at all, some of the more apparent advantages, as well as flaws of the system, are repeatedly considered by experts in determining the answers to the aforementioned questions. In addition, many influential figures have also come out both in support of UBI as well as against it. Let’s take a look at the support UBI has garnered as well as the supposed benefits and criticisms of UBI.

Pros of Universal Basic Income

The first argument often cited in favour of UBI is for its potential to alleviate poverty, improve the standard of living and vastly reduce income inequality no matter which country it is implemented in. the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), which we’ve already discussed, was instrumental in improving the state’s income equality rank from 30 to 2. UBI trials in Namibia, Kenya, and parts of India have also yielded positive results in this regard. UBI has also resulted in the improvement of health, especially mental health, as reported by people who have been part of UBI trials in Ontario, Canada. UBI also encourages entrepreneurial behaviour since it guarantees basic subsistence thereby providing an incentive for people to take up a line of work of their liking. UBI trials in India and Namibia have also shown that it has helped promote financial decision making by women resulting in their empowerment. A guarantee of a fixed income every month also brings more power to people when it comes to deciding where they should spend money. The Roosevelt Institute research we discussed previously also suggests an overall growth in the US economy with a countrywide implementation of UBI. UBI is also expected to lead to a positive job growth and lower the dropout rates in schools since it provides more security to families.

Cons of Universal Basic Income

The critics of UBI argue that money that is essential for the poor is being redirected towards the wealthy and those citizens who have no need for it. Robert Greenstein, founder and President of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington D.C.  “if you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.” In addition to that, it is often argued that UBI programs are highly ineffective when compared to welfare programs that are implemented on targeted populations. Therefore, unless UBI is implemented without the scrapping off of such welfare schemes, it is likely to find opposition from a huge number of people who currently benefit from these programs. Another argument against UBI one may repeatedly encounter is that UBI reduces the incentive to work, which leads to huge costs for the economy. This may also lead to a dearth of skilled and unskilled labour in the economy. The Swiss government have opposed the implementation of UBI for the very same reason, fearing that the current labour shortages may be exacerbated. Finally, an argument that also holds the door open for many debates is that UBI is too expensive to implement and will cost a lot to the government. As opposed to studies which show a growth in the economies through the implementation of UBI, many economists have also opposed it, claiming that UBI in the more developed nations will be very expensive to guarantee an acceptable standard of living to all the citizens.

Who Supports Universal Basic Income?

Since the idea was first proposed by Sir Thomas More in 1516, UBI has found suitors throughout recent history. Founding father of the United States Thomas Paine was in favour of it, philosopher and Nobel Laureate Bertrand Russell argued in its favour, and even Martin Luther King said: “the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” American economist Milton Friedman, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and even former US President Richard Nixon came close to bringing UBI to the United States. As of today, a number of high profile names in the Silicon Valley have expressed their support for UBI. An advocate of entrepreneurship and creativity, Mark Zuckerberg sighted UBI as an worth a look in his statement at his Harvard commencement address: “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.” Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk believes implementation of UBI is inevitable. “There’s a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation,” Musk said in an interview in 2016. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay also donated towards a UBI experiment in Kenya. Coursera founder Andrew Ng expressed on Twitter: “More than ever, we need a basic income to limit everyone’s downside, and better education to give everyone an upside.” The list does not stop here.

UBI has at least gained enough attention to get people, investors, world leaders, and governments to talk about it and more importantly experiment with it. The results are not yet out and will take a considerable amount of time still to be able to present a final verdict on UBI and its effectiveness. However, as robots make humans redundant in recurring waves, is there still enough time to just be experimenting?

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading