Geopolitics Unplugged

Summary:

In this episode, we discuss the complexities and controversies surrounding time zones and daylight saving time. We explore how time zones have been used for political and economic purposes, citing examples like China's adoption of a single time zone for national unity and Russia's imposition of Moscow time on annexed Ukrainian regions. We also examine the potential economic and energy impacts of daylight saving time, with some arguing that it may not be as beneficial as previously thought. Finally, we highlight the international complexities that arise from differing time zones, particularly in the context of business, travel, and communication.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What are the historical, political, and economic factors that have influenced the adoption and rejection of daylight saving time in different countries?

2. How have time zones been manipulated as tools of political control and national identity by governments around the world?

3. To what extent do time zones, including daylight saving time, impact international trade, travel, and communication, and how can these challenges be reduced?

Long format:

 Geopolitics of time zones

Timezones. They exist. But there is some controversy involved in their existence especially when it comes to local options like day light savings time. There is an alternative which is to switch to universal time or Zulu time. Zulu time is the military name of Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). 

Zulu time provides a uniform time reference across the globe, eliminating confusion that can arise from time zone differences. This is particularly crucial for international communication and coordination. In aviation and military contexts, Zulu time is used to ensure that all parties have a consistent understanding of timing. Flight schedules, military operations, and navigation rely on precise timing to avoid misunderstandings. Events that involve participants from multiple time zones, such as conferences, sports events, and broadcasts, use Zulu time to synchronize activities and schedules.

Is the US the only country that does daylight savings?

No, the United States is not the only country that observes daylight saving time (DST). In fact within the US not every state participates in DST. In the United States, every state except Hawaii and Arizona observes DST. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 allows states to choose whether to observe DST, but it must be statewide.

Fewer than 40 percent of countries in the world currently apply daylight savings time switches, although more than 140 countries had implemented them at some point.

Here is a chart that shows what countries who changes their clocks. 

DST and economic impact

The principal reason for introducing (and extending) daylight saving time (DST) was, and still is, projected energy savings, particularly for electric lighting. However many energy experts and economists dispute its savings in modern times with more efficient lighting. While some historians point to railroad time tables being an original reason some modern historical research seems to refute this. 

Daylight saving time (DST) is considered inefficient by some because it can disrupt sleep, increase energy costs, and make international travel, trade and communications more difficult. Some studies show that DST can increase energy costs. For example, a study in Indiana found that DST increased residential electricity consumption by 1% overall, and up to 4% in the late summer and early fall. 

Different countries change their time on different days, and some poorer countries don't change their time at all, which can make international business and travel more difficult. Airlines estimate that DST costs them $147 million per year. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 63% of Americans favor eliminating seasonal time changes. A study from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that only 25% of Americans like the current system of shifting between DST and standard time. 

One study has found that time zone differences are found to reduce bilateral trade between the US and Canada by 11% on average, which amounts to about one-sixth of the international border effect between the US and Canada. 

As one author summed it up:

Benjamin Franklin conceived of it. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle endorsed it. Winston Churchill campaigned for it. Kaiser Wilhelm first employed it. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt went to war with it, and more recently the United States fought an energy crisis with it.

Does China have only one time zone?

Yes. China has one time zone. It is officially called China Standard Time (CST). It is 8 hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC+08:00).

Well…. the most complete answer is the People's Republic of China spans geographically across five different time zones when measured from the Greenwich Mean time or the Universal Coordinated time as the case may be. However, the country observes one time across all the extent of the territory of China.

Why only one zone? Controlling time became part of an official narrative about a China united under the party's rule. Officially, they claim one time zone would allow a national work schedule (important during the times of communal work units), for news to be broadcast at the same time throughout and for communication. 

But China isn’t the only one using time and time zones to control. In January 2024, Russian authorities announced that annexed regions of Ukraine were to switch from Ukrainian time to Moscow time.

During Sri Lanka’s 25-year civil war between the central government and the Tamil Tigers, the government adjusted the country’s time by setting clocks back half an hour. However, in 1996, the Tamil Tigers rejected and did not implement this change in the regions they controlled, creating a situation where Sri Lanka effectively operated in two different time zones at the same time.

Other time anomalies and time rebels exist. When India gained independence from Britain in 1947, it eliminated the separate time zones for Mumbai and Kolkata, unifying the country under a single official time zone.

Nepal, meanwhile, set its time zone to align with the peak of the sacred Gaurishankar Mountain, east of Kathmandu, resulting in a unique quarter-hour time zone, unlike most other nations that base their timekeeping on hourly increments or, less commonly, half-hour increments.

In 2015, North Korea’s government announced a shift in its time zone by setting clocks back by half an hour.

Sources 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/04/the-strange-weird-geopolitics-of-time/

https://www.europastar.com/the-watch-files/a-world-watch-tour/1004089853-the-geopolitics-of-world-time.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/tesg.12114

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/8/9/conflict-over-the-clock-china-among-countries-where-time-is-political

https://www.statista.com/chart/24473/countries-changing-clock-daylight-savings/#:~:text=Outside%20of%20Europe%20and%20the,Zealand%20and%20parts%20of%20Australia

https://costcontrolassociates.com/blog/the-cost-of-daylight-savings-time/

https://www.csg.org/2024/03/11/is-daylight-saving-time-worth-saving/

https://qz.com/636313/why-america-will-never-get-rid-of-day-light-saving#:~:text=justification%20for%20DST.-,There%20is%20no%20economic%20justification%20for%20DST.,$147%20million%20dollars%20a%20year

Summary:

In this episode we explore the challenges of creating super robots that can perform human tasks, focusing specifically on the area of computer vision. We rely on Kai Fu-Lee’s book “AI 2040” to explain that computer vision involves teaching computers to "see" not just by capturing images, but by understanding what they see. This process encompasses several levels of complexity, ranging from basic image processing to scene comprehension. We highlight that humans effortlessly apply knowledge of the world to their vision, but teaching this to a computer is a major challenge addressed by innovative technologies like convolutional neural networks.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What are the major challenges in developing robots that can perform complex tasks?

2. How does computer vision contribute to the development of intelligent robots?

3. What are the key differences between human vision and computer vision?

Long format:

One of the most difficult aspects of getting robots to “work” is the interface of dexterity and “seeing” (computer vision). 

Computer vision (CV) is a sub branch of AI that focuses on the problem of teaching computers to see. The word “see” here does not mean just the act of acquiring a video or image, but also making sense of what a computer sees. Computer vision includes a following capabilities, increasing complexity:

Image capturing and processing—use cameras and other sensors to capture real-world 3D scenes in a video. Each video is composed of a sequence of images, and each image is a two-dimensional array of numbers representing the color, where each number is a “pixel.”

Object detection and image segmentation—divide the image into prominent regions and find where the objects are.

Object recognition—recognizes the object (for example, a dog), and also understands the details (German Shepherd, dark brown, and so on).

Object tracking—follows moving objects in consecutive images or video.

Gesture and movement recognition—recognize movements, like a dance move in an Xbox game.

Scene understanding—understands a full scene, including subtle relationships, like a hungry dog looking at a bone.

When we humans “see“ we are actually applying our accumulated knowledge of the world – everything we’ve learned in our lives about perspective, geometry, common sense, and what we have seen previously. These come naturally to us, but are very difficult to teach a computer. This is a quite fine use of AI: the invention of convolutional neural networks (CNN).

Source:

AI 2040 by Kai Fu-Lee

Summary:

In this episode, we discuss the work entitled “Rethinking Gropolitics” by Jeremy Black. In that book Black examines the similarities between the geopolitical challenges facing the United Kingdom in the early 20th century and the United States today. We discuss how the work “highlights the parallels between Britain's position as a declining global power facing rising competition from countries like Russia, Germany, and the United States, and the US's current situation with China”. Black emphasizes how both countries struggled with balancing their global commitments with domestic political pressures and how their strategic priorities shape their future. We talk about how Black’s theories are different than our own. Where Black suggests that just as the USSR and the US emerged as superpowers following World War II, the world may see the rise of new superpowers in the future as America decoupled like Britain did. We discuss how this differs from our view that the decoupling will result in regional powers and most likely no single superpower or multiple superpowers.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. How does the text relate the current geopolitical landscape to the historical example of Britain's transition from global superpower to a more regionally focused power?

2.What are the implications of the author's comparison between the current state of the US and Britain in 1904 for the future of the world order?

3. What is the author's argument about the role of technology in shifting global power dynamics?

Long format:

 A contrary view of geopolitics and deglobalization

I’m reading an interesting book that although I find it interesting, ultimately, I would not recommend. 

It is titled “Rethinking Gropolitics” by Jeremy Black. I don’t recommend it because it covers history that I think all of us are very familiar with. 

He notes that 120 years ago Halford Mackinder gave an important geopolitical talk featuring what he called the “global pivot”. As we all know at the time (1904) Britain was the world’s true one and only superpower with the world’s greatest navy and true global reach and force projection. Mackinder noted that at the dawn of the 20th century, at the time, Britain was becoming more isolationist and seeking to consolidate its position and not expand its influence. At one point he summed the feeling to be at the time that there was no need for Britain to be the school marms of the world settling arguments it had nothing to do with (sounds familiar, eh?)

Further he noted even back in 1904 that this isolationist/consolidating positioning was leading to serious challenges from more than one power: the USA, Russia and Germany. All three he noted were growing and expansionist. 

He noted the change in technology of the time from the primacy of maritime to rail-borne land power and even an audience member noting the new age of air. 

Quoting directly from his work is the following sentiment:

—-start of quote—-

So also in 2024 for the United States and the challenges it confronts, notably from China but also from the very volatility of a global system in which US leadership is under great challenge, as, more generally, is the civilizational model of and from the West. Indeed, China deliberately sets out to contest US international models, seeing the United States’ global liberalism as a challenge to national sovereignty, as well as being self-interested, with China presenting instead the Communist model of “managed socialism.” At the same time, the United States itself is very divided by the question of engagement with the outside world, as well as the nature of prioritization in strategic areas and tasks, for example, competing commitments to Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. This is a prioritization that sees geopolitics in action. In part, the use of geopolitics in this context is an aspect of the debate about prioritization, one that is rhetorical as well as analytical. This then sets the stage for a consideration of the 120 years from Mackinder to now, as well as geopolitics present and geopolitics future. 

There are clear parallels between past British and present US geopolitical issues. Thus, in 1883, William Henry Smith, a Conservative politician, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty in 1877–80, spoke to the House of Commons about “the duties to be discharged by the Navy, and which are of a very varying nature throughout the world, because heavier duties fall upon the Navy of this country than fall upon the Navies of all other countries taken together. We have a large commerce, and practically we have to perform what are called the police duties of the seas, and we have, in consequence, to maintain an ironclad Fleet equal to any emergency.”

This he explained later that year was difficult: “At this moment, ironclads have to be employed in the China and Australian Seas, in the Pacific, on the Coast of North America, and in the West Indies. Our Fleet is scattered in a manner in which the Fleet of no other power can be scattered; and while it is discharging duties in three or four different seas, if, unfortunately, we should be engaged in a war, Foreign Powers might be able to concentrate their forces against our Navy.” Comparable issues were to face Britain and the United States as leading powers.

——end quote—-

Well if this analogy holds true, would it not be the case that instead of a series of decentralized regional powers that many of us including myself believe will happen, that new superpowers will arise as the USSR and the USA did after WWII? Dunno. 

Interesting to always ponder the other side, right?

Summary:

North Korea successfully launched a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on October 31, 2024. Happy Holloween! This marks a significant advancement in the country's missile program. The missile traveled for 86 minutes, reaching an altitude of over 7,000 kilometers, putting the entire continental United States within its potential range. While experts believe North Korea hasn't yet achieved a fully operational nuclear-armed missile capable of striking the U.S., this test is a crucial step towards that goal and could be timed to influence the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What is the significance of North Korea's latest ICBM test?


2. How might this test impact regional and global security?


3. What are the potential implications of this test for the US?

Long format:

 North Korea launches its furthest distance ICBM test

North Korea has completed preparations to test an ICBM-class missile, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported on Wednesday October 30, 2024, citing the South Korean military, with an intended launch possibly timed to coincide with next week's U.S. presidential election. 

The launch happened today, October 31, 2024. The reports claim that the missile’s flight duration of 86 minutes and its maximum altitude of more than 7,000 kilometers (4,350 miles) and flew over 1000 kilometers exceeding past tests. This was a high angle launch not a standard trajectory launch as such this test cannot examine a missile’s reentry vehicle technology. That is a distance that puts anywhere in the mainland United States within range.

Many foreign experts believe the country has yet to acquire a functioning nuclear-armed missile that can strike the U.S. mainland but this is a step towards that ultimate goal.

Sources:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2024/dprk-241030-rfa03.htm

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-conducts-longest-icbm-test-amid-storm-over-troop-deployment-russia-2024-10-31/

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/31/north-korea-launches-a-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-designed-to-threaten-us.html

Summary:

In this episode, we highlight the alarming prevalence of sexual violence against women in the Sahel region, particularly in Sudan. We detail the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war by way of example of the complaints against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group in Sudan. We cite numerous reports of gang rapes and other abuses, and even a mass suicide by women fearing rape during an attack. We point to the lack of international attention to this issue and call for action to address the rampant gender-based violence in the Sahel.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. How does the RSF's history and actions contribute to the crisis of violence against women in Sudan and the Sahel?


2. What are the broader societal and political factors that contribute to the vulnerability of women in Sudan and the Sahel?


3. What are the long-term consequences of the current situation for women and the broader stability of Sudan and the Sahel?

Long format:

 Reports of over 100 women commit mass suicide in Sudan's Al Jazirah

The Arab Spring all began with one man, Mohamed Bouazizi, and his suicide by self-immolation. He was a simple street vendor with no political power or background. His self-immolation was in response to the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation inflicted on him by a municipal official and their aides.

The treatment of women in the Sahel region is particularly appalling with little public or international coverage. Now we have this report of 100 women or more committing suicide in one village rather than face the potential of rape when their village was attacked by the RSF. This has yet to be independently verified, but regardless of the truthfulness of these reports is this enough to bring attention to the issue?

By all accounts, women in the Sahel face many challenges, including gender-based violence, limited access to education, and restricted participation in civic life. Women in the Sahel experience gender-based violence, including forced marriages, physical and sexual violence, and sexual exploitation. Rape is not uncommon. In fact, random gang rape is not infrequent. This is particularly so for those of a Masalt ethnicity. Masalit are generally darker-skinned non-Arabs.

One of the groups frequently blamed for abuse and rape against women is the RSF. The RSF is a paramilitary group in Sudan. Sometimes they are referred to as the Janjaweed militia. They fought in the Darfur region in the 2000s. The International Criminal Court prosecutors have accused their commanders of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Since 2017, the RSF has been operating under the color of law as the Sudanese government has granted them the status of “regular force.” In a 2019 coup, the RSF leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as “Hemedti”, or “Little Mohamad” was installed as vice chairman of the military-civilian council that would govern Sudan. And on the eve of democratic elections, the RSF along with others were involved in yet another coup with the army stopping the elections. The RSF is institutionalized in the Sudanese government.

The random violent gang rapes and other abuses are not just limited to Sudan and the RSF. Reports are pervasive throughout the Sahel leading some human rights groups have said that rape in the Sahel has become an acceptable weapon of war. Sad.

Sources:

https://www.albawaba.com/node/over-100-women-commit-mass-suicide-1591038

https://twitter.com/KushiteDictator/status/1849918397322072335?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1849918397322072335%7Ctwgr%5E651c1b39f921e0b625e8fe7e112251e9bcf73f8a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.albawaba.com%2Fnode%2Fover-100-women-commit-mass-suicide-1591038

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Voctv1u-o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xpqvz0e88o

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5167024/hundreds-of-people-in-sudan-have-been-killed-in-a-surge-of-violence-in-the-past-week

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/191893/Gender%20inequality%20and%20state%20fragility%20in%20the%20Sahel.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/aug/29/women-in-sudan-facing-a-tragedy-of-sexual-violence-as-cases-rise

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/16/sudan-unrest-what-is-the-rapid-support-forces

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-sexual-violence/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/27/sudan-rape-weapon-war#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20pattern%2C%20scale%2C%20and,in%20more%20than%2090%20countries

Summary:

We discuss the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically focusing on its inability to replicate human creativity, empathy, and dexterity. We argue that while AI is useful for specific tasks, its reliance on narrowly defined objective functions makes it unsuitable for activities requiring genuine creativity, emotional intelligence, or complex physical manipulation. We also criticizes the tendency to overhype AI's capabilities, emphasizing the importance of separating scientific fact from media sensationalism and understanding the limitations of current AI technology.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What are the main limitations of current AI technology, and what are the potential consequences of these limitations?


2. How does AI technology impact human creativity, and what are the future implications for different types of jobs?


3. How do current media portrayals and public perceptions of AI influence the development and acceptance of AI technology?

Long format:

 Is AI “all hype”?

I was on a forum where a contributor was in essence arguing that AI is all fanboy hype and would never amount to anything and is a big old bubble ready to burst.

He quoted an article that is an interpretation of the actual peer reviewed study with quotes from the primary author. Here is the actual peer reviewed article:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.03703

Their own conclusion quoted verbatim is:

"Through this work, we sought to understand the impact of LLMs

on human creativity. We conducted two parallel experiments on

divergent and convergent thinking, two key components of creative

thinking. Taken together, these experiments shed light on the complex relationship between human creativity and LLM assistance,

suggesting that while AI can augment creativity, the mode of assistance matters greatly and can shape long-term creative abilities.

In closing, we hope this work offers a template to experimentally

evaluate the impact of generative AI on human cognition and creativity."

The authors of the study clearly see a place for AI (not that it is all hype) but warns that if relied upon too much that overall creativity may suffer. And that is an interesting thought.

——

I am not here to defend AI or say that even if you don't like it, it cannot be fairly dismissed as "all hype" as time will prove that AI is here, it is useful and it will change things. AI will change things for the better and for the worse like all tools. Fire has good and bad. Cooks food. Burns down house.

----

I don't know of anyone who is a true thought leader in AI that says that AI will supplant human creativity. In fact, quite the opposite. When you look at all of the literature that is in the mainstream and is at a high level, they all speak to the fact that AI will not ever be good at creativity. Even the mainstream super proponents of AI clearly think AI cannot create, conceptualize, or plan strategically. While AI is great at optimizing for a narrow objective function (see definition below and discussion for narrow objective function), it is unable to choose its own goals or to think creatively. Nor can AI think across domains or apply common sense. And it most likely never will.

So yes relying on AI to be creative is like relying on a hammer to be a great screwdriver. It is not its intended function or purpose. Every tool has a use. AI’s use is not in creativity and no one I have read who is a subject matter expert in AI says that it is.

—

In terms of creativity. Yes, jobs that require vision, creativity, outside of the box thinking and “seeing around a corner” are most likely very safe from AI supplanting them. The jobs most at risk of automation by AI tend to be routine and entry-level jobs. Another words the poor will become poorer. AI will also displace increasingly complex types of blue collar work. Warehouse pickers will be replaced and displaced. Kai Fu Lee theorizes that about 40% of jobs could be accomplished mostly by AI and automation technologies by 2033.

What can’t AI do well?

Creativity: AI cannot create, conceptualize, or plan strategically. While AI is great at optimizing for a narrow objective function, it is unable to choose its own goals or to think creatively. Nor can AI think across domains or apply common sense.

Empathy: AI cannot feel or interact with feelings like empathy and compassion. Therefore, AI cannot make another person feel understood or care for. Even if AI improves in this area, it will be extremely difficult to get the technology to a place where humans feel comfortable interacting with robots in situations that call for care and empathy, or what we call “human touch services“.

Dexterity: AI and robotics cannot accomplish complex physical work that requires dexterity or precise hand – eye coordination. AI can’t deal with unknown and unstructured spaces, especially ones that it hasn’t observed before.

Jobs that are asocial and routine, such as insurance adjusters, are likely to be taken over in their entirety by AI. For jobs that are highly social but routine, humans and AI would work together, each contributing expertise. For jobs that are creative but asocial, human creativity will be amplified by AI tools. Finally the jobs that require both creativity and social skills are where humans will shine and will survive past the AI revolution. Please see the charts provided from Kai-Fu Lee’s books.

-----

There are a lot of limitations of AI. The chief of which is the difficulty of defining the appropriate objective function so that a most appropriate outcome of LLM comes about. The possibility for abuse in AI has to do with the simplicity of the objective function, and the danger from single-mindedly optimizing to the single objective function. If the objective function is defined very narrowly, then all other considerations will be discarded and trying to achieve that single-minded objective function.

Further, we humans have a good grasp of what we know and what we don’t know, GPT does not. GPT is also weak in causal reasoning, abstract, thinking, explanatory statements, common sense, and intentional creativity.

And I agree with Kai-Fu Lee when he writes: "People often rely on three sources to learn about AI: science fiction, news, and influential people. Science Fiction books and TV shows, people see depictions of robots that want to control or outsmart humans, and super intelligence turned to evil. Media reports tend to focus on negative, outlying examples rather than quotidian incremental advances: an autonomous vehicle killing a single pedestrian, technology companies, using AI to influence elections, and people using AI to disseminate misinformation in deep fakes. Relying on “thought leaders” ought to be the best option , but unfortunately, most who claim the title are experts in business, physics, or politics, not AI technology. The predictions often lack scientific rigor. What makes things worse is that journalist tend to quote the leaders out of context to attract eyeballs."

Summary:

In this episode, we examine the substantial financial and societal costs of the "War on Terror" initiated following the 9/11 attacks. We explore the financial burden of these conflicts on the U.S. budget, including the expenditures on military operations, veterans' benefits, and reconstruction efforts. We also discuss the influence of the military-industrial complex, highlighting the role of private companies in shaping defense policy and benefiting from these ongoing wars. Additionally, we shed light on the increasing adoption of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, within the military and the potential ethical and societal implications of this integration.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. How has the War on Terror impacted the US military budget and the technology it employs?


2. What are the key players and their roles in the evolution of the US military-industrial complex?


3. How are emerging technologies, specifically artificial intelligence, influencing modern warfare?

Long format:

America’s Addiction to War: The Military-Industrial Complex in the Age of Big Tech

TL;DR

America’s heavy military involvement abroad is driven less by strategic necessity than by a deeply entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC) increasingly tied to Big Tech. While a robust military is crucial, the United States tends to reflexively engage in conflicts, often without considering true national security stakes. The MIC—made up of defense contractors, policymakers, and, now, Big Tech—profits from ongoing warfare and has grown even stronger through mergers, political lobbying, and partnerships with companies like Amazon, Google, and Palantir. This alliance extends the MIC’s reach, funding wars, developing advanced tech for conflict, and making the U.S. more interventionist.

Big Tech’s entry into the MIC has added new dimensions like AI-driven targeting, cloud computing, autonomous systems, and cybersecurity, reshaping military strategies and making engagement easier and cheaper. The result: America’s dependence on war has morphed into an economic and technological reliance, creating incentives for constant conflict. To shift away, the U.S. must implement stricter Congressional controls, and question each military involvement more rigorously.

INTRODUCTION AND THESIS

We (the United States) are ADDICTED to war. Absolutely addicted. The 20+ year GWOT and Iraq are exhibits A and B. But it’s not just the war for war’s sake that is our addiction. It’s the military-industrial spending and the logistics providing. This is especially so in the area of the non-direct warfare functions related to deployment of weapons, troops or materials. Some have argued that the war in the Ukraine is yet another iteration and presentation of this addiction.

America’s vast military footprint is not solely a result of strategic interests or a commitment to global security. Instead, a powerful and increasingly entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC) sustains, and arguably drives, the nation’s seemingly endless cycle of warfare.

I am not a "peacenik," nor do I advocate for defunding the military. In fact, I firmly believe in the importance of a strong, capable military, especially in today’s post-globalization landscape where geopolitical threats are evolving rapidly. A well-resourced and prepared military is crucial to protect national interests and ensure security at home and abroad. However, our frequent and almost reflexive response to deploy troops or send military aid to conflicts worldwide—often without critical examination of their true strategic importance—raises important questions about how we prioritize and approach global engagement. We must evaluate whether every conflict justifies American military involvement or if some of these entanglements detract from our ability to respond effectively to challenges that genuinely threaten our national security.

The GWOT cost 8,000,000,000,000 ($8T). There are no precise figures but it is estimated that well over half of that money was for non-direct warfare functions such as logistics, maintenance, transportation, computer support, training, and other similar types of required capabilities and related activities such as outsourcing food preparation, outsourcing laundry, outsourcing telecommunications back home for troops, bringing along a McDonald’s and/or Burger King, FOB construction, general construction and so on.

The military industrial complex (MIC) in this country is no joke. As former Supreme Allied commander and later US President Dwight D Eisenhower warned us: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (January 17, 1961, in this farewell address)

But the MIC is bigger and more entrenched now than in 1961 with a new dimension added to it—BIG TECH. Big tech has put the MIC on steroids.

In addition there has been a massive consolidation of MIC companies through merger and acquisitions. The rise of mega-firms has led to fewer defense contractors, with five giants now dominating Pentagon contracts.

The MIC also wields enormous influence through political lobbying, spending over $247 million recently, with 820 lobbyists engaging Congress, and through funding foreign policy think tanks that shape pro-defense industry narratives.

The MIC has become more pervasive, more profitable, and more influential, fueled by the burgeoning partnership between traditional defense contractors and Silicon Valley’s tech giants. This paper explores America’s deep-seated dependence on the MIC, examining how Big Tech’s integration into the defense sector has cemented this reliance, expanded it technologically, and ultimately made the MIC harder to disentangle from U.S. foreign policy and economic imperatives.

I. The Foundations of the Military-Industrial Complex: From Cold War to Endless Conflict

Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961 cautioned against the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex, a network of defense contractors, military officials, and policymakers with a vested interest in sustaining military budgets and global conflicts. During the Cold War, this alliance focused on countering the Soviet threat, producing the largest, most advanced military in history. Yet, after the Cold War ended, the MIC did not wither. Instead, it adapted, supporting wars in the Middle East, the war on terror, and an ever-growing range of international conflicts. President Biden recently framed the U.S. as the “arsenal of democracy” amid conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, echoing Roosevelt’s WWII call for American military support. By keeping America in a state of perpetual conflict, the MIC has ensured that military spending, political support for foreign intervention, and the demand for new weapons systems remain high.

Today, the United States controls a staggering 45% of the global arms market, with arms manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman generating billions from foreign arms sales. According to recent figures, wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and the broader Middle East have increased demand for U.S.-produced weaponry, sustaining profits for contractors while generating windfalls for investors and corporate executives. President Biden himself has praised the arms industry as an “arsenal of democracy,” depicting military production as a patriotic pursuit. Yet, this narrative obscures the MIC’s profit-driven motives, which are deeply intertwined with the persistence of international conflict.

II. The Expansion of the MIC: Big Tech Joins the Fray

In recent years, Silicon Valley has added a new dimension to the MIC, as tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Palantir secured massive Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. These companies provide the military with cutting-edge capabilities, including artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and data analytics, which have become essential for modern warfare. The integration of Big Tech into the defense ecosystem reflects a shift toward “data-driven warfare,” which relies on AI-enabled drones, autonomous systems, and cloud-based intelligence processing to identify and target threats.

This Big Tech-MIC collaboration is a significant evolution from the Cold War model, which focused on traditional weaponry. Today, military leaders increasingly view AI and data processing as indispensable tools, and Silicon Valley’s powerful tech giants have proven to be eager suppliers. Contracts like the DoD’s $9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) initiative, awarded to Amazon, Google, Oracle, and Microsoft, signal that tech companies are not merely service providers but are now core players in the MIC. Despite employee protests against projects like Google’s Project Maven or Amazon’s Project Nimbus, Big Tech firms have continued to pursue defense contracts, positioning themselves as crucial partners in America’s military future.

Big Tech has significantly fueled and expanded the military-industrial complex (MIC) by embedding itself into the defense sector and reshaping military operations with advanced technology. Historically, the MIC was dominated by traditional defense contractors focused on manufacturing conventional weapons systems—tanks, jets, missiles. Today, companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Palantir, and Anduril have introduced new capabilities, including artificial intelligence, big data analytics, cloud computing, and autonomous systems. These innovations have become integral to modern warfare, driving a new era of high-tech military operations and dramatically expanding the MIC’s influence, reach, and profitability.

1. AI and Data Analytics: Enhancing Targeting and Surveillance

Big Tech’s AI and data analytics tools have transformed how the military processes and utilizes intelligence. Companies like Palantir provide advanced data integration and analysis, allowing the military to process massive volumes of data for more precise and efficient targeting, pattern recognition, and threat prediction. These AI-driven capabilities are now central to surveillance and reconnaissance operations, making them critical in both domestic security and foreign conflicts.

For example, Google’s controversial involvement in Project Maven, which provided AI to analyze drone surveillance footage, marked a watershed moment in Big Tech’s integration with the MIC. Although Google employees protested the project, arguing it turned civilian tech into tools of war, the project underscored how AI could significantly enhance military efficiency and effectiveness. By partnering with tech firms, the military can leverage AI to automate target identification and threat assessments, ultimately lowering the threshold for deployment and engagement in overseas conflicts.

2. Cloud Computing: The Backbone of Modern Military Operations

Cloud computing has become a cornerstone for military infrastructure, supporting secure, scalable, and centralized data storage and processing. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have all secured major contracts with the Department of Defense to provide cloud services that enable rapid data access and support for real-time operations. The Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC), a $9 billion contract, exemplifies Big Tech’s critical role in modern military strategy. This initiative provides cloud services across Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle, enabling the military to operate across dispersed locations with better data integration, intelligence sharing, and mission coordination.

Cloud computing allows the military to streamline and unify its operations, making it more agile and capable of coordinating complex, data-heavy missions worldwide. It also supports increasingly autonomous warfare by serving as the foundation for real-time data processing required for AI-driven systems like drones and robotic weaponry. In short, cloud computing has not only become essential to military readiness but also enables a more continuous, “always on” operational posture that feeds the MIC’s expansion.

3. Autonomous Systems and Robotics: Redefining Warfare

Big Tech’s advancements in autonomous systems and robotics have also redefined the MIC by moving beyond traditional hardware to include autonomous weapons and surveillance platforms. Defense-oriented startups like Anduril Industries specialize in autonomous technologies, including drones and surveillance systems that do not require human pilots or operators. Anduril’s Lattice AI platform, for example, integrates sensors, drones, and other autonomous systems to detect and track targets autonomously, a capability that reduces reliance on human personnel while expanding military reach.

This shift towards autonomy has profound implications. Autonomous drones and robotic systems allow for persistent surveillance and engagement capabilities without the immediate need for human involvement. This reduces costs and logistical constraints, enabling the U.S. to engage in more operations with fewer personnel—a dynamic that amplifies America’s capacity for military action. By facilitating persistent presence without putting troops on the ground, Big Tech has lowered the perceived costs of military engagements, making intervention more feasible and potentially increasing the frequency and scope of U.S. involvement abroad.

4. Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare: Expanding the Digital Battlefield

The MIC has increasingly expanded into cyberspace, with Big Tech playing a leading role in cyber defense and cyber warfare capabilities. Microsoft and Google provide the military with advanced cybersecurity solutions to protect critical infrastructure, secure communications, and defend against cyber threats. In addition, these companies often work closely with U.S. Cyber Command to defend against foreign cyber-attacks and develop offensive cyber capabilities.

The integration of Big Tech’s cybersecurity tools into the MIC extends the battlefield into the digital realm, creating new opportunities for conflict that require constant surveillance and a rapid response capability. This extension of military activity into cyberspace has broadened the MIC’s domain, reinforcing the need for high-tech solutions and generating a steady flow of government contracts for cybersecurity and cyber intelligence tools. In turn, this expands the MIC’s influence and further intertwines Big Tech with national defense objectives.

5. Global Surveillance Infrastructure: Supporting U.S. Geopolitical Influence

Through partnerships with the intelligence community and military, Big Tech has helped create a global surveillance infrastructure that enhances the U.S. ability to monitor geopolitical threats. Companies like Amazon and Palantir provide platforms for the collection, storage, and analysis of vast amounts of intelligence data. For instance, Palantir’s software is widely used by the CIA, FBI, and military to analyze surveillance data and generate actionable intelligence.

This global surveillance network enables the U.S. to maintain a dominant position in intelligence-gathering, a capability that reinforces its geopolitical influence. By supporting extensive intelligence operations, Big Tech has effectively broadened the scope and ambition of U.S. foreign policy, facilitating a more interventionist stance and enabling the MIC to maintain an active presence across multiple global regions. This infrastructure reinforces the MIC’s entrenchment, as maintaining and expanding surveillance networks creates a constant demand for high-tech solutions and supports a continuous funding stream.

6. Lobbying Power and Political Influence: Reshaping Defense Policy

In addition to providing technological infrastructure, Big Tech also wields significant lobbying power in Washington, which it uses to influence defense policies and secure lucrative contracts. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, for example, have established powerful lobbying teams that advocate for increased defense spending on technology and less restrictive regulations on military contracts. This lobbying influence allows Big Tech to shape defense policy to ensure favorable terms and maintain a steady flow of government contracts.

Furthermore, Big Tech’s role as a defense contractor has blurred the line between private enterprise and public policy, leading to the “revolving door” phenomenon, where executives and officials move between industry and government roles. This convergence of corporate and government interests has resulted in policies that prioritize defense funding for advanced technology and downplay ethical concerns or restrictions on foreign arms sales, ultimately entrenching Big Tech within the MIC.

Big Tech=Big Money

Big Tech’s entry into the MIC has transformed the landscape of American military operations, moving the MIC beyond traditional weaponry and expanding its reach into high-tech domains. From AI-driven surveillance and autonomous systems to cyber warfare and cloud-based intelligence, Silicon Valley’s technologies have become indispensable to the modern military. As a result, Big Tech has not only fueled the MIC’s growth but has entrenched it in new, harder-to-regulate areas of defense.

Most importantly, this expansion has lowered the barriers to military engagement, enabling a more interventionist U.S. foreign policy and creating a constant demand for high-tech solutions that fuel both profits and conflict. The involvement of Big Tech has also made the MIC more politically powerful and harder to reform, as the influence of these companies extends deep into defense policy, government contracts, and military decision-making. Consequently, Big Tech’s integration into the MIC has not only bolstered America’s military capabilities but has solidified a structure that makes reducing America’s dependence on warfare far more challenging.

III. How the MIC Shapes Foreign Policy: Arms Exports and Congressional Influence

The influence of the MIC extends into U.S. foreign policy, where it shapes decisions about where to sell arms, whom to support in conflicts, and how long to maintain military engagements. U.S.-supplied arms fuel conflicts in dozens of countries, from Saudi Arabia to Ukraine. For example, American weapons have been central to Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, which has led to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and a prolonged humanitarian crisis. Though Congress occasionally attempts to restrict arms sales to human rights violators, the MIC’s influence within Washington usually ensures that these efforts fail. Companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin actively lobby to preserve their lucrative deals, leveraging their status as job providers and patriots.

The MIC’s ability to influence Congress is significant. Recent efforts by arms companies to reduce regulatory scrutiny over arms sales highlight how deeply they are embedded in the policymaking process. The Foreign Military Sales program, which expedites weapons transfers to foreign governments, has essentially turned the Pentagon into an international arms broker for U.S. corporations. To make matters worse, current law requires a veto-proof majority to block arms sales, which, given the millions of dollars in campaign contributions from defense firms, has never been achieved. To rein in this unrestrained influence, some suggest reversing this rule to require Congressional approval before sales can proceed, making it more difficult for the MIC to sell arms indiscriminately.

IV. The New Drivers of War: Big Tech and the Militarization of Technology

The involvement of Big Tech has added new pressures for continuous conflict. Silicon Valley thrives on constant innovation and the drive for increased efficiency and scalability. Translated to the defense sector, these impulses result in a constant demand for newer, more advanced, and more automated weapons systems. This cycle of technological innovation pushes the MIC toward creating increasingly advanced forms of warfare, making it difficult to dial back or restrain military spending. With Big Tech involved, the defense sector is incentivized not only to develop and deploy more weapons but to make them more sophisticated, autonomous, and integrated into surveillance networks.

Furthermore, Big Tech’s involvement in the MIC brings immense political and economic clout to the defense sector. Tech CEOs like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt advocate for expanded U.S. defense initiatives, arguing that technological superiority is essential for national security. This alignment between tech leaders and military officials effectively merges the goals of Silicon Valley with those of the defense industry, creating a powerful alliance that propels the U.S. toward continuous military expansion.

V. Breaking the Cycle: Toward a New Approach to National Security

The entrenchment of Big Tech within the MIC has made it harder than ever to reduce military spending to non-essential conflicts or shift away from a reliance on arms exports and military interventions wherever they may be. However, various reforms could help reduce America’s dependence on the MIC and redirect resources toward diplomacy and peaceful engagement.

One possible approach would be to implement stricter Congressional oversight of arms sales, requiring a majority vote for each proposed sale. Increased transparency around defense contracts, particularly with tech firms, would also help reveal the true costs and ethical implications of these partnerships.

Moreover, a greater emphasis on diplomacy and non-military solutions could help counter the impulse to view every geopolitical challenge through a military lens.

Conclusion/Opinion

The partnership between Big Tech and the traditional MIC has created a formidable entity that profits from and promotes continuous military engagement. This alliance ensures that both defense contractors and tech firms have a vested interest in sustaining conflicts, fueling a cycle of military intervention that undermines our true strategic best interests and diverts public resources from critical civilian needs. Reversing this trend will require a concerted effort to curb the influence of the MIC, sitting back and questioning whether or not the US truly has to become involved in a conflict and otherwise be more prudent in our deployment of precious resources. America’s addiction to war is no longer just a matter of defense policy—it is an economic and technological dependency that endangers both the nation and perhaps the world. In reasserting democratic control over the MIC, the United States has the opportunity to redefine its role in the world, not as an arsenal of democracy but as a champion of pragmatism. We do not need to police the world.

Sources:

https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_afghanwarxcost.htm

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/the-staggering-cost-of-the-never-ending-global-war-on-terror

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_U.S.%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Post-9%2011%20Wars_9.1.21.pdf

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/military-industrial-complex-defense/

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/Silicon%20Valley%20MIC.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3239378/department-of-defense-announces-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-procurement/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-29/inside-project-maven-the-us-military-s-ai-project

https://www.hacc.mil/Portfolio/JWCC/

https://www.oracle.com/government/federal/jwcc/

https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-s-lattice-a-trusted-dual-use-commercial-and-military-platform-for-public-safety-security/

Summary:

In this episode, we explore the potential consequences of the Dutch government's export controls on ASML, the sole manufacturer of EUV lithography machines, which are essential for producing the most advanced semiconductor chips. While these controls were intended to hinder China's progress in the chip industry, they have significantly impacted ASML's revenue, leading to concerns that they may be counterproductive. We highlight the intricate relationship between technology, politics, and economics in the global chip market, where the quest for dominance is intertwined with geopolitical considerations.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What are the political and economic implications of the US CHIPS Act and its impact on global semiconductor manufacturing?


2. How does the current geopolitical landscape influence the future of semiconductor production and the global technology race?


3. What are the potential consequences of the Dutch government's export controls on ASML's lithography equipment for both China and the global semiconductor industry?

Long format:

 Is a key part of the goal of the CHIPS act showing cracks?

Maybe. 

Here’s why:

BACKGROUND

Oversimplified, the US CHIPS Act was passed specifically with one main goal in mind, the wrestle back from the world our domestic ability to make start of the art semiconductor chips that will be a major part of the future economy and the key component of AI. This is part of the US’s decoupling and reshoring aims to reduce and return to America manufacturing and reduce our reliance on speed out supply chains (read as get us out of dependence of China).

It has long been my position that the person who wins the chip battle and the one who wins the race for AI will be the top of the global value chain. 

Concurrent with the passage of the CHIPS Act which sought to fund the decoupling and restoring by a combination of unprecedentedly large direct taxpayer infusions of cash and also even larger tax credits, the US Commerce Department issued an exceptionally broad set of prohibitions on exports to China of semiconductor chips and other high-tech equipment.

The US was all in to trying to ban (or really delay) the tech that is necessary for chip design, fabrication and use from China. 

This is where it gets interesting. The single most vulnerable point of pressure to forever stop China from getting to the top of the chip race is in lithography. 

LITHOGRAPHY

Very much oversimplified, Lithography is a process that transfers circuit patterns onto a silicon wafer to create semiconductor devices like microchips and integrated circuits. The lithography process requires precise alignment and high-resolution lenses to create intricate circuit patterns. Different types of lithography systems are used for different layers of the wafer.

In semiconductor manufacturing, lithography is like high-precision "printing" for tiny circuits on a silicon wafer, which will eventually become a chip. Here's how it works in basic terms:

1. Coating: First, the silicon wafer is coated with a light-sensitive material called photoresist.


2. Patterning: A laser or light source shines through a "mask" or "reticle" that has the desired circuit pattern. This projects the pattern onto the wafer, similar to how a slide projector displays an image on a wall.


3. Developing: The light changes the chemical structure of the photoresist where it hits, so after exposure, the wafer is developed to reveal the pattern in the photoresist layer.


4. Etching: Finally, the exposed or protected areas (depending on the type of photoresist) are etched away, leaving a precise, tiny pattern on the silicon wafer.

This process is repeated multiple times, adding layers until the full circuit structure is built up, with each layer helping to create the complex paths and components that make the chip work.

ASML

There is only one company in the world that makes the highest level of lithography devices that must be used to make the state of the art semiconductor chips: ASML.

ASML (ASML Holding N.V.) is a Dutch multinational corporation that designs and manufactures lithography machines used to make computer chips:

ASML is a leading supplier of lithography technology to the semiconductor industry. Their machines use light to expose circuit patterns onto a semiconductor wafer, a process called photolithography. This allows chipmakers to increase the number of transistors on a silicon area, which results in faster, more powerful, and more energy efficient chips.

What they make

ASML's products include: 

• Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems: ASML is the only company that makes EUV lithography machines, which are used to print the most advanced microchips. EUV lithography uses a short wavelength of light to print complex designs on microchips. ASML's EUV systems include the EXE systems, which have a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.55 and provide higher contrast. 


• DUV lithography systems: ASML also makes DUV lithography systems. 


• Refurbished systems: ASML refurbishes classic lithography systems, such as the PAS 5500 and TWINSCAN

You can only make 5nm chips or lower with EUV machines. You cannot use DUV machines other than get under 7nm. Commercially China makes 7nm chips right now. The state of the art is 3nm chips. However Rapidus (Japan) has announced that their 2nm commercial scale fab center is about 80% and that they will be tooling for 1.4nm chips shortly thereafter.

Again, it must be emphasized that currently only ASML makes EUV lithography systems.

The Dutch government January 2024 seemed to agree banning ASML from doing a lot of its preferred business in China.

The solution to stopping or delaying China in the chip war was simple. ASML doesn’t sell to China. Pats on the back and roll out the Mission Accomplished sign right?

October 15, 2024 CHANGES EVERYTHING

ASML accidentally released its third-quarter results a day early in error. And it wasn’t pretty. The company said it expects 2025 net sales of 30 billion euros and 35 billion euros ($32.7 billion and $38.1 billion), in the lower half of a range it had previously provided. Net bookings for the September quarter were 2.6 billion euros ($2.83 billion), the company said — well below the 5.6 billion euro LSEG consensus estimate. ASML’s share plunge saw the critical semiconductor firm lose 49.2 billion euros ($53.6 billion) in market capitalization in a single day. A lot of analysts blamed the Dutch export ban for the ASML stock drop and loss in valuation.

OUTCOME

According to news reports today (October 29, 2024) the Netherlands are rethinking the wisdom of export controls on China given that their best source of future relevancy in the semiconductor world took a very big hit.

Will money beat out politics? Time will tell. 

Sources:

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/about-bis/newsroom/press-releases/3158-2022-10-07-bis-press-release-advanced-computing-and-semiconductor-manufacturing-controls-final/file

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/about-bis/newsroom/2082

https://www.asml.com/en/company/about-asml#:~:text=ASML%20is%20one%20of%20the,essential%20component%20in%20chip%20manufacturing

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/inside-asml-the-company-advanced-chipmakers-use-for-euv-lithography.html

https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems

https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/busting-asml-myths#:~:text=ASML%20is%20the%20only%20company,cargo%20planes%20and%2020%20trucks.&text=ASML%20system%20integration%20engineers%20work%20on%20an%20EUV%20lithography%20system

https://ttconsultants.com/advancing-microchip-technology-the-role-of-extreme-ultraviolet-lithography-euvl/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-hit-hard-dutch-export-093000191.html#:~:text=ASML%20is%20barred%20from%20shipping,due%20to%20a%20heavy%20backlog.&text=Copyright%20(c)%202024.,All%20rights%20reserved

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/01/02/dutch-government-blocks-exports-of-asmls-chip-making-machines-to-china/#:~:text=Tangent,former%20President%20Donald%20Trump's%20administration

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-hit-hard-dutch-export-093000191.html#:~:text=ASML%20is%20barred%20from%20shipping,due%20to%20a%20heavy%20backlog.&text=Copyright%20(c)%202024.,All%20rights%20reserved

https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/article/3278535/china-hit-hard-new-dutch-export-controls-asml-chip-making-equipment#:~:text=New%20restrictions%20announced%20by%20the,many%20semiconductor%20plants%20in%20China&text=Mainland%20semiconductor%20factories%20could%20face,citing%20a%20Dutch%20government%20statement

https://thediplomat.com/2024/10/the-fab-4-allies-are-pushing-back-on-us-export-controls-on-china/

https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/21/asml_setbacks/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20critical%20role%20in,in%20years%20%E2%80%93%20click%20to%20enlarge

Summary:

In this episode, we analyze the potential implications of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's departure from office in 2028. We examine the possible successors to Erdoğan's leadership, the future of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), and the broader political and economic impacts on Türkiye. We discuss the potential changes in Türkiye’s foreign relations with countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, along with the country's future role in the global landscape. We explore how a change in leadership could affect Türkiye’s relationship with Western powers like the United States and the European Union, and how the country's future direction depends on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. What are the key challenges facing a post-Erdoğan AKP government?


2. What are the possible consequences for Türkiye's foreign policy if the AKP loses power in the next election?


3. How might Türkiye's global role change depending on who succeeds Erdoğan?

Long format:

 Après Erdoğan, le déluge? What comes after Erdoğan?

TL;DR

President Erdoğan, Türkiye’s longest-serving leader, announced that the 2024 elections would be his last, setting up a pivotal shift in Türkiye’s future. His departure leaves open questions about the AKP’s continued dominance and the emergence of a successor. Key opposition figures include Ekrem İmamoğlu, who leads in Istanbul, and Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a coalition-backed secular candidate. The AKP’s potential successor, Selcuk Bayraktar, lacks political experience, casting uncertainty over the party’s direction.

Economically, the AKP faces challenges due to high inflation and eroding public confidence, while ideologically, it must balance conservative values with growing demands for change. Internationally, Türkiye’s relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the West could shift significantly if an opposition leader assumes power, potentially softening Türkiye’s Islamist stance and enhancing diplomatic ties. If Erdoğan’s influence remains strong, however, Türkiye may continue its independent, nationalist approach, maintaining current regional complexities and selective Western engagement.

Introduction

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who is 70 years old is Türkiye’s longest-serving leader, having served in that position since 2014. He previously served as the 25th prime minister from 2003 to 2014 as part of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which he co-founded in 2001.

In March 2024, he announced publicly that his current term in office would be his last. This begs the questions:

1. Who comes next?


2. Will the momentum of Türkiye’s advancements run out of steam?

Erdoğan has shaped Türkiye’s political landscape over two decades, transitioning the country from secularism to an Islamist-leaning governance. This paper examines what may come after Erdoğan’s departure, exploring potential successors, the future of the AKP, and the broader political implications for Türkiye.

Erdoğan’s Legacy: Consolidation of Power and Shifting Alliances

Erdoğan’s tenure began as Istanbul’s mayor in the 1990s, and he later served as prime minister in 2003 when the role held primary executive authority. His ascendance to the presidency in 2014, followed by a 2017 referendum shifting Türkiye from a parliamentary system to a presidential one, effectively solidified his grip on power. Under Erdoğan, Türkiye has undergone significant ideological transformation, moving from its secular Kemalist roots toward a governance model that emphasizes religious values and nationalism.

This ideological shift led to substantial changes in Türkiye’s foreign and domestic policies. Notably, Erdoğan’s administration, which initially showed openness toward former allies like Israel, experienced a significant rift with the country. The resurgence of tensions during the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict illustrates Erdoğan’s continued commitment to his Islamist-leaning foreign policy. His authoritarian approach domestically has involved restrictions on the press, civil society, and the judiciary, consolidating power within the executive branch. However, these policies have not been without consequence; Türkiye now faces widespread economic issues, with inflation at record levels and a public demanding change. The upcoming departure of Erdoğan therefore represents a turning point in Türkiye politics.

The Uncertain Future of the AKP

Across analyses, a consensus emerges that Erdoğan’s departure will significantly impact the AKP and Türkiye’s political landscape. His statement that this election was his last in office reflects a degree of confidence that the AKP will retain power post-Erdoğan. He has implied that the March 2024 local elections will offer a “blessing” and a “transfer of confidence” to his successors within the party. This language suggests that Erdoğan’s intent is for a seamless transition of leadership within the AKP, maintaining continuity in the party’s control and influence over Türkiye’s political system.

But things did not go according to Erdoğan’s plan with the March 2024 elections. This recent Turkish elections highlight a potential turning point as the opposition gained momentum against Erdoğan and his ruling AKP party. Led by Ekrem İmamoğlu, the opposition CHP has not only maintained control in major cities like Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir but has also won several traditionally AKP-controlled municipalities, signaling Erdoğan's weakening grip on power. İmamoğlu's significant win in Istanbul, despite Erdoğan’s heavy campaigning and media support for the AKP, establishes him as a formidable opponent and potential future presidential candidate.

The AKP’s inability to recover in urban areas, coupled with Türkiye’s struggling economy and high inflation, suggests that Erdoğan and his party may be losing public favor. Despite Erdoğan’s strategic use of media and judiciary power, his repeated defeats by İmamoğlu raise the possibility of a post-AKP Turkey. However, İmamoğlu’s political future remains uncertain due to ongoing legal challenges which could block him from running against Erdoğan in the 2028 presidential race. These issues center on allegations of insulting public officials during a 2019 speech following his initial victory in Istanbul’s mayoral race. The legal dispute underscores the broader challenge of judicial independence in Turkey, as critics argue that the judiciary may be used as a tool to sideline political rivals to Erdoğan and the ruling AKP. İmamoğlu faces a potential ban from politics if an appeals court upholds a previous ruling against him, stemming from a charge of “insulting public officials.” In Turkey, such legal convictions can result in restrictions on holding public office, which would prevent İmamoğlu from running for president. While İmamoğlu has appealed the ruling, the process’s outcome is uncertain, and any political ban would effectively remove a leading opposition figure.

Nonetheless, Turkey's shifting political landscape shows Erdoğan facing a stronger, revitalized opposition.

However, Erdoğan’s absence will create a leadership vacuum, posing questions about who will rise to fill it. The AKP’s core constituency, approximately 40% of the Turkish electorate, remains loyal, largely due to Erdoğan’s emphasis on conservative and nationalist values, but this base alone may not be sufficient to sustain the party’s dominance. The rise of secular opposition and factionalism within Turkish politics underscores that the AKP must retain its ideological coherence and political unity to survive without its long-time leader. Analysts agree that the AKP faces internal challenges in sustaining Erdoğan’s policies while potentially adapting to Türkiye’s changing economic and social climate.

The Viability of Successors and the Prospects of Continued AKP Dominance

While there is broad agreement on the importance of Erdoğan’s legacy, there is debate over the viability of potential successors and whether the AKP will retain its influence in Turkish politics. Several successors are speculated to inherit Erdoğan’s mantle, yet none possesses the same charismatic authority.

Ekrem İmamoğlu: A Strong Opposition Candidate

Ekrem İmamoğlu, Istanbul’s current mayor and a member of the secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP), has emerged as one of Erdoğan’s most formidable challengers. His decisive victories in Istanbul, including a recent re-election, have made him a popular figure, even among moderate conservatives. His governance style emphasizes inclusiveness, a stark contrast to Erdoğan’s more authoritarian approach, and his populist tactics allow him to appeal across ideological divides within Türkiye’s opposition. Analysts see İmamoğlu as a likely presidential candidate for 2028, with the potential to lead Türkiye toward a more secular, democratic governance model, yet his popularity does not guarantee victory. İmamoğlu’s secular rhetoric and association with Atatürk—a secular icon in Türkiye—could alienate religious conservatives and limit his appeal among Erdoğan’s core base. However, as noted above, his political future certainly is in jeopardy due to court decisions.

Kemal Kilicdaroglu: The CHP Leader and Coalition Candidate

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the CHP and the Nation Alliance coalition’s presidential candidate, contrasts Erdoğan in both style and substance. Known for his integrity and secular principles, Kilicdaroglu brings a “calmer” vision for Türkiye’s future, promising to address corruption, restore the parliamentary system, and prioritize human rights. Kilicdaroglu’s backing from a coalition that includes six political parties marks a significant milestone in Turkish politics, as the opposition parties have set aside ideological differences to collectively oppose Erdoğan.

Despite this coalition, Kilicdaroglu’s lack of charisma compared to Erdoğan has been criticized, potentially making it difficult for him to gain widespread appeal across Turkey’s conservative-leaning electorate. Analysts believe that Kilicdaroglu may succeed in establishing institutional reforms if elected but may struggle to maintain long-term support due to his perceived lack of dynamism.

Selcuk Bayraktar: A Potential Successor from Within the AKP

Among those within Erdoğan’s circle, his son-in-law Selcuk Bayraktar has garnered attention as a potential successor. Bayraktar’s reputation as a defense technology innovator, particularly with the Bayraktar drones, has earned him national and international recognition. While Bayraktar’s conservative values align with Erdoğan’s, his limited political experience and association with Erdoğan’s family could hinder his ability to rally independent support. Bayraktar’s stance on foreign policy, particularly his hardline position on Israel, suggests continuity with Erdoğan’s Islamist agenda, yet his viability as a political leader is uncertain.

Key Challenges for a Post-Erdoğan AKP

The AKP, facing an economy strained by inflation and a skeptical electorate, must navigate several challenges if it is to retain power in the post-Erdoğan era. Analysts highlight the following areas of concern:

1. Economic Crisis: High inflation and declining wages have eroded public confidence in the AKP’s economic management. For any successor, restoring the economy will be paramount. Analysts believe that economic recovery will require a shift from Erdoğan’s heavy-handed monetary policies, which have contributed to currency devaluation and high living costs.


2. Preservation of Conservative Values: Erdoğan’s leadership has promoted an Islamic identity within Turkish society, appealing to conservative Turks wary of secularist policies. AKP successors must navigate the delicate balance of retaining this ideological base while addressing the demands of a more diverse electorate.


3. Institutional Legacy and Foreign Policy Realignment: Erdoğan’s approach has centralized power in the presidency and reoriented foreign policy toward a more nationalist, sometimes isolationist stance. Türkiye’s diplomatic relations with NATO, the European Union, and the United States may experience renewed strain under an Erdoğan successor if foreign policy becomes a campaign issue. Some speculate that the CHP may realign Türkiye’s stance more favorably toward the West, potentially restoring ties strained by Erdoğan’s Islamist-leaning policies.

What the immediate internal future looks like

Türkiye’s post-Erdoğan future presents a dynamic and uncertain political landscape. While Erdoğan has asserted that the AKP will continue to dominate Turkish politics, his departure leaves open critical questions about the country’s direction. The challenges for his successors include overcoming entrenched economic issues, managing ideological divides, and recalibrating foreign relations.

Ekrem İmamoğlu and Kemal Kilicdaroglu emerge as leading opposition candidates, advocating for a secular and democratic Türkiye that contrasts sharply with Erdoğan’s Islamist governance. Within the AKP, figures like Selcuk Bayraktar represent continuity with Erdoğan’s legacy, though his political experience remains limited. For Türkiye, the period after Erdoğan’s departure will likely involve an ideological tug-of-war, a potential shift in foreign relations, and a reevaluation of its position within the global landscape.

The departure of Erdoğan signals the end of an era marked by centralization, populism, and religious conservatism. In his absence, the AKP’s future will hinge on whether it can adapt to Türkiye’s evolving political and economic landscape, a challenge that may redefine Türkiye’s governance and influence its democratic stability for years to come.

What the immediate external future looks like

Ekrem İmamoğlu’s potential disqualification from the presidential race could have a broad impact on Türkiye’s foreign relations, particularly with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as well as Türkiye’s future role on the global stage. As a leading figure in Turkey’s secular opposition, İmamoğlu represents a break from President Erdoğan’s Islamist-leaning foreign policy. If he or another opposition leader were to rise to power, Türkiye’s diplomatic posture could shift significantly. Conversely, if Erdoğan’s influence persists or another figure from the AKP or a similarly aligned successor takes power, Türkiye is likely to maintain its current foreign policy orientation. Here’s how these dynamics could play out:

Türkiye-Israel Relations

Türkiye’s relationship with Israel has fluctuated sharply under Erdoğan, who has often criticized Israel, particularly over Palestinian issues, and maintained close ties with Hamas. While recent attempts were made to improve relations, the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict saw Erdoğan revert to strong anti-Israel rhetoric, once again straining diplomatic ties.

1. If İmamoğlu or a Similar Opposition Leader Gains Power: A shift in leadership could lead to a more balanced and less antagonistic relationship with Israel. İmamoğlu’s secular background and pragmatic approach could foster better cooperation, especially in trade, technology, and defense sectors. An opposition-led Türkiye might also distance itself from groups like Hamas, opening the door to diplomatic rapprochement with Israel, possibly even working jointly on regional security issues or energy projects.


2. If Erdoğan’s Influence Persists: If Erdoğan remains influential through an AKP successor or if his party continues to shape Turkish politics, the current approach toward Israel—supportive of Palestinian causes and at odds with Israeli policies—would likely continue. Türkiye would probably sustain its critical stance on Israel’s handling of Palestinian territories, keeping relations cool and constraining the potential for cooperation.

Turkey’s Relations with Saudi Arabia and Egypt

Erdoğan’s foreign policy also impacted relations with other key regional players, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Türkiye’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its opposition to Saudi-Egyptian policies on issues like Qatar and Libya have led to years of tension. Recent diplomatic overtures have brought some improvement, but fundamental ideological divides remain.

1. Under an Opposition Government: An İmamoğlu-led or opposition-aligned government could further thaw relations with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The opposition, more secular in orientation, is less likely to support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and more likely to engage constructively with Riyadh and Cairo. This change could ease tensions and lead to a normalization of relations, enabling Türkiye to play a more collaborative role in regional economic initiatives, security arrangements, and energy cooperation.


2. If the AKP or Erdoğan’s Influence Continues: An AKP-led administration would likely maintain an ambivalent stance toward Saudi Arabia and Egypt, balancing pragmatic cooperation with ideological differences. While pragmatic in terms of trade and security coordination, an AKP-led Türkiye may continue to support factions in regional conflicts that align with Erdoğan’s Islamist leanings, potentially complicating deep diplomatic alignment.

Türkiye’s Future Place in the World

Türkiye’s role on the global stage has shifted under Erdoğan from a Western-aligned secular state to a regional power pursuing independent, often contentious policies that prioritize Turkish sovereignty and nationalism. Türkiye’s relations with the EU, the United States, and NATO have become increasingly complex as Erdoğan’s policies have sometimes conflicted with Western priorities, including relations with Russia and regional security concerns.

1. If İmamoğlu or a Secular Successor Takes Office: A leadership shift could bring Türkiye closer to the West and improve its standing in NATO and relations with the EU. The opposition has indicated support for a return to a parliamentary system, democratic reforms, and the rule of law, which would align with EU standards. Improved democratic credentials could revive EU accession talks and foster better relations with the U.S. A recalibrated foreign policy would likely aim to balance relations with Russia, maintain NATO commitments, and potentially bolster cooperation with Western allies on regional security issues.


2. Continuation of Erdoğan’s Foreign Policy: If Erdoğan’s legacy endures through an AKP successor or another ideologically similar figure, Türkiye may continue to pursue an independent and assertive foreign policy. This approach would likely involve balancing relations with Russia, engaging selectively with the West, and maintaining influence in the Middle East. Türkiye’s position as a bridge between East and West would remain, but the emphasis on sovereignty and nationalism could make closer integration with the EU and deeper NATO collaboration more challenging.

Conclusion

Türkiye’s future global role will be shaped significantly by the outcome of its internal political dynamics. If İmamoğlu or a secular opposition figure takes power, Türkiye could pivot toward a more Western-friendly and diplomatically balanced approach, potentially easing regional tensions and strengthening international partnerships. However, if Erdoğan’s influence persists through a successor, Turkey may continue to prioritize an independent, nationalist approach, which could limit deeper cooperation with Western allies and maintain regional complexities in its relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The outcome of Türkiye’s political transition will therefore play a crucial role in defining its future influence and alliances on the global stage.

Sources:

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/06/the-question-of-erdogans-succession/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/04/turkey-local-elections-erdogan-akp-imamoglu/

https://theconversation.com/whats-next-for-turkey-after-local-elections-put-erdogan-on-notice-227430

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/erdogan-battles-key-rival-turkeys-local-elections-2024-03-31/

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1172704065/turkey-election-candidate-kemal-kilicsdaroglu-erdogan-challenger

Summary:

In this episode, we discuss the potential for a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College during the US presidential election. It explains how the 12th Amendment mandates that the House of Representatives would then choose the President, with each state delegation receiving one vote. We analyze the current composition of the House and Senate to assess which party would likely have the advantage in such a scenario, ultimately concluding that the outcome is uncertain and depends heavily on the results of the upcoming Congressional elections.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. How does the Electoral College system potentially lead to a 269-269 tie in the presidential election?


2. What are the procedures outlined in the 12th Amendment for resolving a presidential election tied at 269-269?


3. How does the current composition of the House of Representatives and Senate impact the potential outcome of a 269-269 tie?

Long format:

 The 269-269 scenario

In one week from now the United States turns to the ballot box to select various elected officials including members of Congress, some US Senators and the President of the United States.

As we all know the President of the United States is selected by the Electoral College. Under this system, rather than a direct popular vote, each state is assigned a certain number of electors (equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress). When voters in a state cast their ballots for president, they’re actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to a candidate. The candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state typically gets all its electoral votes (except in Maine and Nebraska, which split them). A candidate needs a majority of the 538 total electoral votes to win the presidency (270 or more). There are a total of 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College. A candidate needs at least 270 of these votes to win the U.S. presidency. But as one can see by math because the total number of Electoral College votes is an even number, then the result in theory could be 269-269. A tie.

The 12th Amendment was adopted to examine this outcome and codify what happens in the event of an Elector Collage tie. Here is the relevant text as it exists (don’t worry we will make it plain after the legal gobblydegook).

The exact text:

“and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.–]”

Stated more plainly, if there’s an Electoral College tie, meaning each candidate receives exactly 269 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment specifies that the election for president moves to the House of Representatives. In this process:

1. Each state’s delegation in the House gets one vote. So, instead of each representative voting individually, the representatives from each state come together to decide which candidate they’ll support as a state.


2. A candidate needs a majority of states (at least 26 out of 50) to win the presidency.


3. If the House cannot come to pick and it is 25-25, and that log jam keeps up until March 4th, then whomever the Senate picks as Vice-President becomes the President.

So let’s use math and look at the current composition of the House other see what would happen in the case of the 269-269 tie. If the current House were to vote (meaning that there was no 2024 election for Congress and every Congress member remained and if every member of Congress followed party lines and voted for the President of their party), the result would be the Republican candidate would get 26 votes, the Democrat candidate would get 22 votes and two states would be tied as they have the same exact number of Democratic members of Congress and the same exact number of Republican members of Congress (those two states are Minnesota and North Carolina). This is the fourth column of my chart. The current Republican candidate would win given all of these assumptions.

Now, obviously with this Congressional election some seats will be won by one party and lost by the other. But in the aggregate, will flipping one or two seats change the outcome of a state’s delegation enough to flip the one vote that the state has to the entire other party? In my analysis, I looked at the “balance of the parties” to look at the number of Democrat versus Republican Congress members. If that balance of the parties were within 2 Congress folks, I designated that the state was “too close to call” and therefore could go either way under the one vote per state rule. I figured that it was unlikely that in a state that 3 seats would flip. A line has to be drawn somewhere and that’s where I drew the line. Under this scenario, the math shows 25 solid Republican states, 17 solid Democrat states and 8 too close to call. Under this scenario, the Republican candidate would have to pick up one of the “too close to call” states to win, but the Democratic candidate would need to pick up ALL of the “too close to call states” just to tie. A tie would do no good to that Democratic candidate unless there would an entire state that would show attrition and come over to the Democratic candidate before March 4th.

If it is tied and goes past March 4th, the Senate would have picked the Vice President and the Vice President would then be President. Let’s look similarly how the Senate would most likely vote. Again, applying similar logic as we did with the House of Representatives, this is the math as far as current composition of the US Senate. Recall they also get one vote per state too. As of right now there are 20 states where both Senators are Republican. There are 23 states where both Senators are Democrat. There are 3 states that have one Democrat Senator and one Republican Senator (a tie). And that leaves 5 states that have independents. I labeled the states with the independents as unknown. However, one can look at those 5 states with independents to see which of the two parties that other Senator is and imperfectly infer which way it “leans” perhaps. When one does that it reveals that there are 3 states leaning Republican and 1 leaning Democrat.

When we do this, under the current composition, there is no clear winner. However with 23 votes, the path for the Democratic candidate by math alone is a little bit easier.

(N.B., I did not have time or interest to research which way each independent Senator tends to vote or which US Senators are vulnerable or safe— so sorry. But I figured that if there were two of one party, then there is no way that both flip because of staggered terms. I therefore recognize that there could be more ties too. I also did not care to delve into the polls and discover what the possible outcome might be of a given race. This is just a thought exercise if a really deep whatif.)