Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Despite months of tension, weeks of pleas and diplomatic efforts – a full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces has occurred. The situation is developing by the minute and media are scrambling to explain what has happened, why it happened, and tell stories of how this invasion is impacting people not just in Ukraine, but in America too. It’s why experts like Florida Atlantic University’s Robert Rabil is front and center to explain what’s going on to reporters. According to Robert Rabil, a political science professor at Florida Atlantic University, the crisis between Russia and Ukraine has been building since the 1990s. "This is on the account of two factors. The first factor is the expansion of NATO to the border of Russia, merely, especially to the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia," Rabil said. "The second factor is from a Russian perspective they believe that they treated Russia like a bygone power." Rabil said with increased sanctions underway and formal diplomatic channels not working, the west could be pushing Russia to deepen its ties to other regimes globally. "It might go to Iran and it will support Iran in acquiring or hastening the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he added. "It will deepen its embrace with China." February 23 – WPTV NewsChannel 5 The invasion of Ukraine is historic and could lead to escalations of violence in other parts of Europe and further. And, if you are a reporter looking to cover this ongoing story – then let our experts help. Robert Rabil, Ph.D., is an expert in political Islam, terrorism, U.S. foreign policy, and U.S.-Arab relations. He is available to speak with media about the current situation in Ukraine, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Podcast: Germany’s caution over Russian aggression ‘disappointing’ NATO
Russia’s threat to Ukraine has highlighted differences between east and west Germans over handling of Russia, and the country’s cautious foreign policy Aston University academic explains why German soldiers shooting at Russian counterparts would be seen as a “tremendous failure” New Chancellor Olaf Scholz faces massive challenges including how to handle Covid-19, “crumbling” infrastructure, and climate change targets. Germany without its stalwart former leader Angela Merkel faces a number of huge challenges – not least the threat of Russia invading Ukraine. While Germany wants to provide leadership within the European Union, its diplomatic stance over Russia is at odds with many other countries within NATO. Those are the views of Dr Ed Turner, a reader in politics at Aston University, who was interviewed in the latest episode of the 'Society matters' podcast series, presented by journalist Steve Dyson. The episode, subtitled 'What Germany's new government means for the UK, Europe and Russia', follows a political shift following the departure of Chancellor Angela Merkel last year after 16 years in charge, after the defeat of her Christian Democratic Party. Dr Turner said the immediate priority for new Social Democrat Chancellor Olaf Scholz was “undoubtedly the crisis in Ukraine and the positioning of large numbers of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border, and the real worry that Russia will invade”. He said Germany wants the issue addressed, “but is doing so in a way that is really very cautious and is disappointing to many of Germany’s allies”. Dr Turner, who is also co-director of the Aston Centre for Europe, said Germany’s “very different approach” was reflective of its history with Russia. He explained: “There is a strong sense that Germany owes a significant debt, has a particular responsibility towards Russia for the losses incurred in World War One and, particularly, in World War Two. “The perception is that German troops once again firing at Russian soldiers would be a tremendous failure. Germany also places a strong emphasis on diplomacy as a way of engaging in foreign relations rather than hard military interventions.” There were also “economic angles”, he added, with Germany needing Russian energy at a time when it was committed to phasing out coal and nuclear power. Dr Turner, whose fascination with Germany began when he cycled through the country as a teenager, said a “carrot and stick” balance was dividing the country, with 68 per cent of west Germans but only 34 per cent of east Germans last year supporting EU sanctions against Russia. This reflected “really big disparities” more than 30 years after German reunification, with 60 per cent of east Germans feeling they are treated as second class citizens. Dr Turner said post-Merkel Germany faced big challenges including handling Covid-19, large parts of German infrastructure “really crumbling” with a big backlog of investment needed, and a pledge to move faster towards net zero emissions. But he added that UK-German relations in the wake of Brexit were not on the list of big things. “Good relations between the UK and Germany will depend on the nature of the UK’s relations with the European Union,” he said. “If the UK is at loggerheads with the European Union, in particular if there was a worsening of the situation in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, then relations with Germany would get worse.” But Dr Turner said there was “huge affection” for the UK in Germany. “Germans are willing to disentangle the UK from Brexit and to say ‘we want to move on and don’t think badly of you’. I really want to see bridge-building between the two countries over the coming years.” Dr Turner said Germany remained “nervous” of the advance of the far right, especially if numbers of refugees coming to Germany were to grow. He said Angela Merkel would be remembered for Germany’s “humane response” to the 2015 refugee crisis, but others were “much more critical” over her policy. This, he added, led to German society becoming divided and the far right gaining ground. But Dr Turner acknowledged Mrs Merkel as a “remarkable leader who really broke the mould” as the first woman Chancellor and first from the east. In contrast, her successor is seen as a “steady hand on the tiller” as he heads a “traffic light coalition” of Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals. Episode 6 in series 2 of the ‘Society matters’ podcast and all previous episodes can be found HERE.
Troops are amassing along both sides of the border separating Russia and Ukraine. Diplomatic efforts from leaders from across Europe are in high gear as the concerns of an invasion and potentially all-out war between Russia and Ukraine could send the region into chaos. As the world watches and both sides gather allies for support, there are a lot of questions to ask, history to explore and explanations needed about what’s going on now and why. Dr. Craig Albert, associate professor of political science and director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at program at Augusta University, sat down with ABC News to answer some of those lingering questions. Q: What is the reason for Russia’s interest in Ukraine? "If NATO allows Ukraine to become a member of NATO, which is what Putin is fearing here, he might think that they might want to go to Belarus next. Where else are they going to go? Georgia, the Republic of Georgia? Putin does not want NATO literally bordering the Russian federation. He thinks that’s a threat and would allow NATO to put missiles and missile defense in those countries, which as you know, is much more of a direct threat to Russia." Q: Maybe it comes down to the possibility of military threats. Why does the US care what’s happening way over there? "So, when you have any type of European possible land mass war, conventional war, that’s going to be a cataclysmic problem for the world. I think of the untold numbers of dead that would happen in some type of land conventional war, kinetic operations on Europe. The last time we had something like that was the wars in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in the early ’90s. That resulted in up to 300,000 to 400,000 dead in two or three years. So, we live in a globalized world, so if you have Eastern or Central Europe that gets confronted with a massive conventional war, that’s going to effect the security and the economy of the entire world including us." Q: So, is it just the US being world police again? "Each side is viewing the other as acting aggressively and I think both sides are just trying to sure up their defenses, just trying to make sure that they can handle the current situation. The United States is entering in what’s called a status quo power cycle, where the United States just wants the power of the international arena to stay where it is.” With news reports of an invasion potentially happening soon, there will be an enormous amount of coverage on this topic – and that’s where the experts from Augusta can help with your stories. Dr. Craig Albert is director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. He is a leading expert on war, terrorism, and American politics. This is an important national and international issue. Albert is available to speak with media – simply click on his name to arrange an interview today.
Kelley expert: Olympics could be targeted by hacktivists, others seeking to embarrass Beijing
Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics at Kelley, IU Cybersecurity Risk Management Program chair and director of the Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance, said the high-profile diplomatic breach leading up to the games — including the boycott led by the United States – “means that the games could be targeted by hacktivists and other groups seeking to embarrass or otherwise harass Beijing.” Scott Shackelford “There are always issues associated with the Olympics given that they are a target-rich environment for criminals seeking to target athletes and spectators alike,” Shackelford said. “Beijing’s harsh data localization, cybersecurity, and cyber sovereignty laws also raises human rights concerns for athletes and reporters attending the games.” He also noted that ironically while the Olympic games generally often coincide with a peaceful break from ongoing geopolitical tensions, this might not last long. “Witness the Russian invasion of Crimea three days after the 2014 Sochi games concluded,” he said. Shackelford can be reached at sjshacke@indiana.edu.
Cyber-attacks are rising to the top of American concerns
With the rising occurrence of cyber-attacks across America, institutions, banks, government agencies and top-tier companies are now either falling victim or feeling vulnerable to attack from online enemies abroad. It’s a topic that is now front and center that has most leaders regardless of poltical party in agreement - and media across the country are starting to cover with more depth and seriousness. Most Americans across party lines have serious concerns about cyberattacks on U.S. computer systems and view China and Russia as major threats, according to a new poll. The poll by The Pearson Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that about 9 in 10 Americans are at least somewhat concerned about hacking that involves their personal information, financial institutions, government agencies or certain utilities. About two-thirds say they are very or extremely concerned. Roughly three-quarters say the Chinese and Russian governments are major threats to the cybersecurity of the U.S. government, and at least half also see the Iranian government and non-government bodies as threatening. October 11 – Associated Press "I am really interested in the security of our critical infrastructure systems," said Dr. Michael Nowatkowski. " If an attacker were able to shut those systems down, great harm would result. This is a national security issue." If you’re a journalist look to know more or have been assigned to cover any aspect of cyber-security in the country, then let our experts help with your coverage. Dr. Michael Nowatkowski is an Associate Professor with the School of Computer and Cyber Sciences at Augusta University. He also serves as the Head of the Cyber Program of Study. Nowatkowski is available to speak with media regarding the emerging threat of cyber-security in America, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Emily Baum: Chilling academic exchanges between China and the U.S. Emily Baum is an associate professor of modern Chinese history and director of the Long U.S.-China Institute, which aims to bridge the gaps between academia, journalism and the public sector. Baum says the pandemic will likely affect study abroad for years to come, in both directions, with negative impacts on both sides. There was already a significant disparity with roughly 370,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S. and only 11,000 Americans studying in China annually. “A drop in Chinese enrollments will have major consequences for the future of higher education in the U.S., where many schools rely on the full tuition paid by international students to stay afloat,” Baum says. But equally worrisome: “The educational decoupling that had already begun before COVID-19 — and will be greatly exacerbated by it — means that there will be far fewer opportunities for each country’s students to gain firsthand knowledge of, and mutual understanding about, the other.” Reach Baum at: emily.baum@uci.edu Wang Feng: China has passed its peak Wang Feng is a professor of sociology and an adjunct professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, China. He is an expert on global social and demographic changes and social inequality. He has served on expert panels for the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, as well as he served as a senior fellow and director at the Brookings Institution Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy. Wang sees the ascendance of China in the last 40 years as the result of a unique confluence of circumstances: a dynamic leader in Deng Xiaoping, plus a significant rural population that moved to cities and provided a huge labor force. In the last 20 years, China has produced 600 billionaires — and gaping wealth disparities. “When China was poor, people thought it would be poor forever. Now that China is rich, people think it will be rich forever. But China has passed its peak,” he says. “The headwinds of an aging population, the legacy of the one-child policy, and tremendous social inequality will present enormous internal challenges in the years ahead.” Reach Wang at fwang@uci.edu. Jeffrey Wasserstrom: China’s box office changes Hollywood portrayals Jeffrey Wasserstrom is a Chancellor’s professor of history. A specialist in modern Chinese history, he has testified before a Congressional-Executive commission on China, conducted a State Department briefing on contemporary Chinese politics, and worked with the Hong Kong International Literary Festival. His articles have been published by TIME, The Nation, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New York Times and others. Wasserstrom notes that Hollywood films and TV often negatively present whichever East Asian country is most feared at the time. However, the power of China’s box office is changing that. “Due to concern with the massive market for movies in the People’s Republic of China, you do not often see negative portrayals of that country on American screens,” says Wasserstrom. “A telling example of our living in a new era is that when filmmakers were setting out to make a new version of ‘Red Dawn,’ a film that originally portrayed a Russian invasion of the U.S., the plan was to have Chinese soldiers serve as the enemies. Concern about PRC box office receipts led to a change in nationality — the enemies became North Korean soldiers.” Reach Wasserstrom at: jwassers@uci.edu. Yong Chen: Chinese food in the U.S. and China Yong Chen is the author of several books including "Chop Suey, USA: The Story of Chinese Food in America" (Columbia University Press, 2014). He also co-curated “‘Have You Eaten Yet?’: The Chinese Restaurant in America” in Atwater Kent Museum, Philadelphia (2006), and the Museum of Chinese in the Americas, New York City (2004–05). He is professor of history. He points out that the COVID-19 pandemic hastened changes to culinary habits that were already underway in China, including less consumption of wild animals, greater demand for fast food, and a shift away from communal or “family style” meals. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Chinese restaurants have been hit hard by anti-Asian sentiments, while also showing signs of resilience thanks to the popularity of Chinese takeout. “If the seriously strained relationship between China and the US continues to deteriorate, it is possible that more people in America will lose their appetite for Chinese food, to say the least,” Chen says. Reach Chen at: y3chen@uci.edu.
The odd couple – Can Biden and Putin find a way to thaw relations between America and Russia?
It was a meeting of two world powers that came with low expectations but much anticipation. The face-to-face meeting between American President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin may not have accomplished much, but it did allow Biden to set a tone on his approach to foreign relations. President Joe Biden's meeting Wednesday with his Russian counterpart came after months of diplomatic wrangling over the details, days of preparation with reams of research and the elaborate construction of two separate lakeside venues for the leaders to appear afterward. But after the summit had concluded, the ornate French style manor home was locked up and the leaders were jetting in opposite directions home, the state of relations between the United States and Russia seemed about the same as before. That is not necessarily a surprise, least of all for Biden, who entered the summit with the vague and modest goal of establishing a "predictable and rational" relationship with Vladimir Putin. Putin's performance afterward was certainly predictable, if not entirely rational. Ultimately, Biden set expectations so low for his first face-to-face encounter with Putin that anything more than someone not showing up at all amounted to breaking even. June 16 - CNN What comes next is up to both leaders – but the world will be watching. Is there a chance to find common ground between the two countries? Will Russia continue to interfere in U.S. elections and hack American agencies - and how will American respond? What happens if Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in prison? And, did this meeting give Putin the elevated push he needs internationally? If you are a journalist looking to cover this subject – then let us help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media any time. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
U.S.-Iran Crisis: Outlook and Implications
Executive Summary: The immediate crisis following the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a U.S. airstrike and Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against two U.S. airbases appears to have settled down. However, the conditions for a future flare-up remain in place because the underlying conditions have not changed. Going forward, each side is likely to double down on its stated strategic objective, with Iran pushing for an end to U.S. presence in the region and the U.S. pushing for an end to the Iranian nuclear program. Further, the norms that had previously prevented an open exchange of fire between the two sides have been eroded. Why It Matters: The events of January 3rd and 8th represent the first time since the skirmishes of the “Tanker Wars” of 1987-88 that the military forces of the United States and Iran have directly and openly exchanged fire with each other. For the last three decades, the contest between the two states has been a shadow war of proxy conflicts, plausible deniability, and non-military measures. The American decision to strike Soleimani and the Iranian decision to fire missiles in response removed many of the guardrails that have set limits on previous escalations of tensions. The Iranian decision to renounce cooperation with the 2015 nuclear agreement places back into contention an issue that had previously brought the U.S. and Israel to the point of war with Iran in 2012-13. Business Impact: Markets have been largely taking a wait-and-see approach in order to determine the form of Iranian response to Soleimani’s death, and they responded with relief when President Trump signaled that the U.S. would not retaliate. To an extent, uncertainty in the Middle East had already been priced into the markets due to tensions in the second half of 2019. A significant or prolonged conflict would have an obvious negative impact on energy markets and regional economies. In addition, American and Western companies operating internationally or their employees could suffer collateral damage from any future Iranian proxy attacks against visible symbols of U.S. presence overseas. Looking Forward: In the immediate term, the resolution of the crisis represented one of the best possible outcomes: Iran has publicly signaled that the missile launches conducted on January 8th constituted the extent of their military retaliation to Soleimani’s death and President Trump’s White House address acknowledged Iran’s desire to de-escalate and spoke of finding mutually beneficial outcomes with no further mention of military action. Going forward, both Iran and the United States are likely to double down on their desired strategic outcomes. Iran will seek to use all of the levers of its influence to drive the United States from the region, beginning with Iraq but also including indirect pressure on the Gulf states that host U.S. forces. Offensive cyber operations and deniable proxy attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Gulf could be part of that campaign, returning to tactics observed in the past. For its part, the United States will continue its maximum pressure campaign over the Iranian nuclear program, with President Trump promising additional economic sanctions even as he stepped back from military action. Therefore, although both sides appear to be committed to non-military means, the points of tension that caused the most recent crisis are all still present and have arguably increased based on Iran’s increased non-compliance with JCPOA. It remains to be seen whether coming close to the brink of open conflict will have changed the risk tolerance of either side or whether the first acknowledged exchange of fires between the U.S. and Iran for 32 years will usher in a new period of low-level conflict. The View from Tehran: Iran has played Soleimani’s death for maximum strategic benefit. The messaging of the past 96 hours was aimed at various audiences within the country, the region, and around the world. Having been caught on the backfoot by the U.S.’s strike on Soleimani, the Supreme Leader allowed the IRGC to retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a calibrated manner, likely calculating that a strike with limited casualties would satisfy demands for vengeance while not prompting a response. Khamenei’s Decision: Ayatollah Khamenei is an inherently conservative figure and one who is above all else motivated by the priority of regime survival. Given their long-standing personal relationship, there is ample reason to believe that his displays of emotion of Soleimani’s death, including weeping over his coffin during the funeral on January 6th, were genuine and heart-felt. However, his expressed desire for revenge has been tempered by the overarching imperative to avoid a conflict that would have threatened the regime’s hold on power, either from within or without. Rally Around the Flag: Within Iran, the regime is seeking to use Soleimani’s death and their subsequent retaliation to build national unity following a period of significant domestic unrest. This has been emphasized by the extended period of mourning for Soleimani, days-long funeral spectacle, and the invocation of religious and cultural symbols associated with Shi’a martyrs. The death of Soleimani comes on the heels of a series of mass protests in Iran that originally began on November 15th in response to proposed increase in the price of gas, but which have since expanded to a wider challenge to the regime. Media reporting from late December suggested as many as 1,500 Iranian civilians have been killed as part of a regime crackdown on the protests, which have been characterized as the most serious challenge to the regime since the Green Movement of 2009. JCPOA as a Wedge Between U.S. and Europe: Iran announced on January 5th that it would cease compliance with the remaining provisions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action but would be willing to return to compliance if sanctions are removed. The nuance in Iran’s position highlights the fact that it is continuing to attempt to use the nuclear issue to drive a wedge between European signatories to the agreement and the United States, which unilaterally walked away from the treaty in May 2018. Regime Dynamics: Soleimani was a high-profile figure within Iran, but his outsized influence on Iranian foreign policy also created friction with other stakeholders in the regime, including leaders of the conventional military forces, the ministry of foreign affairs, and the intelligence services. He was one of few genuinely strategic thinkers in the Iranian national security apparatus and the one with the most extensive and deepest connections within the Arab-speaking world. His replacement as commander of the Quds Force is his long-time deputy who will be familiar with the day-to-day operations of the IRGC’s external operations arm but will not have the stature or the network of Soleimani. As a result, other stakeholders may jockey to move into the vacuum created by his death. The View from Washington: The present challenge for the U.S. is how to maintain both a deterrent posture and establishing the means to avoid further escalation. The policy on Iraq going forward will have to balance President Trump’s desire to disengage from the conflict while not creating the appearance of having been pushed out by Iran. Escalate to Deter: President Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani reflected an “escalate to deter” strategy, using a sudden and unexpected escalation of force during a crisis in order to reestablish deterrence after previous provocations in 2019 had gone largely unanswered. However, deterrence is only as good as the last demonstration of a willingness to respond. The decision to not respond to Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes reflected a pragmatic decision to de-escalate. National Security Decision-Making: Nearly three years into his presidency, Donald Trump feels increasingly confident making national security decisions based on his own instincts. The original coterie of experienced national security establishment members such as Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster who had populated the Situation Room during the early days of the administration have largely resigned or been fired and replaced with individuals of lower profile and/or proven loyalty. Although the mechanisms of the formal interagency process continue to function, President Trump increasingly makes decisions based on a network of informal advisors and media sources. Domestic U.S. Considerations: The decision to launch the strike on Soleimani came during a period of high political tension in Washington, as it had been expected this month that the U.S. Senate would begin a trial in response to articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives in December. The Soleimani strike is being taken up by both Trump’s supporters and opponents as evidence of either his credentials as a decisive commander-in-chief or his unsuitability for office, depending on their perspective. Congress has proposed votes to limit President Trump’s independent authority to initiate hostilities with Iran, but this is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate. Separately, the first voting in the Democratic primary is less than one month away, and a sudden shift in focus to national security issues could have results that are difficult to predict, either boosting those with national security credentials (such as former vice president Joe Biden and military veteran Pete Buttigieg), or rallying support among primary voters for anti-war (such as Bernie Sanders). Third-Party Perspectives and Responses: Iraq: The strike at Baghdad International Airport that killed Soleimani also killed the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Front, a coalition of militias that forms a part of Iraq’s official security apparatus. Iraq’s new Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has condemned the attack as a “massive breach of sovereignty” and an “aggression on Iraq”. Iraq’s parliament passed a draft law on January 5th calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraqi soil, but the law was non-binding and the session had been boycotted by most of the Sunni and Kurdish members of the legislature. Iranian presence has also been the recent target of Iraqi ire, such as in November when a crowd of Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulate in the Shi’a holy city of Najaf, and the Iraqi government will likely try to play both sides against each other to maximize its leverage for military and financial support. Withdrawal from Iraq would mean that the remaining American forces in Syria could no longer be supplied or supported through the western desert of Iraq and would therefore also have to be withdrawn. Iran will likely seek to use all its considerable levers of influence in Iraq to convince the government to see through the expulsion of American forces. The United States leaving Iraq and Syria due to Soleimani’s death would be a fitting legacy from the Iranian perspective and a perverse one from the American perspective given that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers in Iraq (and thousands of Iraqi civilians) through his support for Shi’a militias in the mid-to-late 2000s. Europe: Statements from European capitals emphasized the need for restraint and de-escalation. French President Macron is likely to view this event as further justification for his proposals that the EU develop a defense and security apparatus independent of NATO in order to avoid being entangled by potentially reckless American actions. Iran will likely continue to use this event as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe on the nuclear program and other issues, and their chosen retaliation was likely calibrated at least in part to allow them to continue positioning themselves as a responsible actor. For his part, Trump is urging the European signatories to join him in walking away from the JCPOA in order to increase Iran’s international isolation. United Kingdom: The British government has tried to tread a fine line in its responses to the strike, with Prime Minister Johnson calling for de-escalation while also stating that he “will not lament” the fact that Soleimani is dead. The U.K. is likely trying to balance its desire to remain aligned with France and Germany in trying to keep the JCPOA together with its traditional close alliance with the United States and Johnson’s personal relationship with President Trump. Russia: Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the American strike, which removed a valuable interlocutor for Russian forces in Syria. Russian troops and Iranian-backed militias in Syria had periodically found themselves with diverging interests in their campaign to support the Assad regime, and Soleimani performed a critical function in directing the activities of those militias to ensure that both Russia and Iran achieved their strategic objectives in Syria. A potential American withdrawal from Iraq and Syria would advance Russia’s interest in establishing itself as the indispensable foreign power in resolving the crisis in Syria and within the region more broadly. China: In line with their long-standing principle of non-intervention and their own interest, China condemned the strike, but the response was muted overall. Chinese interests are primarily economic and tied to ensuring a steady supply of petroleum. One of China’s newest and most capable naval destroyers recently participated in trilateral naval exercises with Iran and Russia in the Gulf of Oman. Although such exercises primarily serve a strategic messaging and diplomatic function, they do signal an emerging alignment of interests between the three states that would be significant for the response to any future crises.
Best-selling author Peter Singer talks with the Brunswick Review about winning the increasingly crowded and contentious war for attention What do Isis and Taylor Swift have in common? According to author and digital-security strategist Peter Singer, both the terrorist organization and pop star are fighting for your attention online and employing similar tactics to try and win it. ISIS kicked off its 2014 invasion of Mosul with the hashtag, “#AllEyesonISIS.” More recently, the terror group posted photos of its members holding cute cats in an effort to make them more relatable – tactics familiar to most celebrities and online marketers around the world. These online battles, the rules governing them, and their real-world impact are the focus of Mr. Singer’s latest book, LikeWar, which he coauthored with Emerson T. Brooking, at the time a research fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations. “A generation ago people talked about the emergence of cyber war, the hacking of networks. A ‘LikeWar’ is the flip side: the hacking of people and ideas on those networks. Power in this conflict is the command of attention,” says Mr. Singer, who in addition to his writing is also a strategist and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. Pretty much everyone who posts online – from governments to marketers to reality TV stars – is a combatant in this fight for virality, according to Mr. Singer. Triumph in a “LikeWar” and you command attention to your product or propaganda or personality. Lose and you cede control of the spotlight and the agenda. Mr. Singer recently spoke with Brunswick’s Siobhan Gorman about the trends he’s seeing in LikeWars around the world, and what companies can do to avoid being on the losing end. What were you most surprised by in researching LikeWar? One of the more interesting characters in the book was at one time voted TV’s greatest villain: Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star on MTV’s “The Hills.” He’s basically one of these people who became famous almost for nothing. But what Pratt figured out really early was the power of narrative, which allowed him to become famous through, as he put it, “manipulating the media.” In the same week, I interviewed both Pratt and the person at the US State Department who’s in charge of the US government’s efforts to battle ISIS online. And Pratt, this California bro who’s talking about how to manipulate the media to get attention, understood more of what was playing out online than the person at the State Department. Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star… understood more of what was playing out online than the person at the State Department.” How much have online conflicts changed the rules in the last few years? First, the internet has left adolescence. It’s only just now starting to flex its muscles and deal with some of its responsibilities. The structure of the network changes how these battles play out. So, it’s this contest of both psychological but also algorithmic manipulation. What you see go across your screen on social media is not always decided by you. The rule makers of this global fight are a handful of Silicon Valley engineers. Another aspect of it is that social media has effectively rendered secrets of any consequence almost impossible to keep. As one CIA person put it to us, “secrets now come with a half-life.” Virality matters more than veracity; the truth doesn’t always win out. In fact, the truth can be buried underneath a sea of lies and likes. And the last part is that we’re all part of it. All of our decisions as individuals shape which side gets attention, and therefore which side wins out. But you highlight that this is playing out differently in China. Exactly. There are two different models shaping the internet, and shaping people’s behavior through the internet, playing out in the West and in China. Essentially, internet activity in China is all combined. Look at WeChat, which is used for everything from social media to mobile payment; it’s Amazon meets Facebook meets Pizza Hut delivery. And you combine that with an authoritarian government that’s had a multi-decade plan for building out surveillance, and you get the social credit system, which is like Orwellian surveillance crossed with marketing. The social credit system allows both companies and the government to mine and combine all the different points of information that an online citizen in China reveals of themselves, and then use that to create a single score – think of it as your financial credit score of your “trustworthiness.” For example, if you buy diapers your score goes up, because that indicates you’re a parent and a good parent. If you play video games for longer than an hour your score goes down because you’re wasting time online. And it’s all networked. Your friends and family know your score. It creates a soft form of collective censorship; if your brother posts something that’s critical of the government, you’re the one who goes to him and says, “Knock it off ’cause you’re hurting my score.” And you do that because the score has real consequences. Already it’s being used for everything from seating on trains and job applications to online dating. Your score literally shapes your romantic prospects. So, you have this massive global competition between Chinese tech companies and other global tech companies not only for access to markets, but also for whose vision of the internet is going to win out. How can companies win a “LikeWar”? Everyone’s wondering: What are the best ways to drive your message out there and have it triumph over others? The best companies I’ve seen create a narrative, have a story and have emotion – in particular, they have emotion that provokes a reaction of some kind. It’s all about planned authenticity. That sounds like a contradiction, but it’s about acting in ways that are genuine, but are also tailored because you’re aware that the world is watching you. A good comparison here is Wendy’s versus Hillary Clinton. Wendy’s is a hamburger chain – not a real person – but it acts and comes across as “authentic” online and has developed a massive following. They’re funny, irreverent. Yet Hillary Clinton – a very real person – never felt very authentic in her online messaging. And that’s because it involved a large number of people – by one account, 11 different people – all weighing in on what should be tweeted out. Inundation and experimentation are also key. Throwing not just one message out there, but massive amounts of them. Treating each message as both a kind of weapon, but also an experiment that allows you to then learn, refine, do it again, do it again, do it again. How do you measure and gauge battles online now? Is it just volume? It all depends on what your battle is, what your end goal is. Is it driving sales? Is it getting people to vote for you, to show up to your conference? This is what the US gets wrong about Russian propaganda and its disinformation campaigns. We think they’re designed to make people love or trust a government. From its very start back in the 1920s, the goal of propaganda coming from the Soviet Union, and today Russia, has been instead to make you distrust – distrust everything, disbelieve everything. And we can see it’s been incredibly effective for them. First, we need to recognize that we’re a part of the battle. In fact, we’re a target of most of the battles. How effective have disinformation campaigns actually been in the US? What can be done? One of the scariest and maybe saddest things we discovered is that the US is now the story that other nations point to as the example of what you don’t want to have happen. There’s no silver bullet, of course. But one example was something called the Active Measures Working Group, a Cold War organization that brought together the intelligence community, diplomats and communicators to identify incoming KGB disinformation campaigns and then develop responses to them. We’re dealing with the modern, way more effective online version of something similar, and we haven’t got anything like that. There are also digital literacy programs. I find it stunning that the US supports education programs to help citizens and kids in Ukraine learn about what to do and how to think about online disinformation, but we don’t do that for our own students. What can people like you or me do? First, we need to recognize that we’re a part of the battle. In fact, we’re a target of most of the battles. And we need to better understand how the platforms work that we use all the time. A majority of people actually still don’t understand how social media companies make money. The other is to seek out the truth. How do we do that? And the best way is to remember the ancient parable of the blind man and the elephant – don’t just rely on one source, pull from multiple different sources. That’s been proven in a series of academic studies as the best way to find the facts online. It’s not exactly new, but it’s effective. Where will the next online war be fought? The cell phone in your pocket, or if we’re being futuristic, the augmented reality glasses that you wear as you walk down the street. It’ll come from the keepsake videos that you play on them. If you want to know what comes next in the internet there have always been two places to go: university research labs and the porn industry. That’s been the case with webcams, chat rooms and so on. What we’re seeing playing out now are called “deep fakes,” which use artificial intelligence to create hyper-realistic videos and images. There’s also “madcoms,” which are hyper-realistic chat bots that make it seem like you’re talking to another person online. Combine the two, and the voices, the images, the information that we’ll increasingly see online might be fake, but hyper-realistic. The tools that militaries and tech companies are using to fight back against the AI-created deep fakes are other AI. So, the future of online conflict looks like it’ll be two AIs battling back and forth. Let me give you a historic parallel, because we’ve been dealing with these issues for a very long time. The first newspaper came when a German printer figured out a way to monetize his press’s downtime by publishing a weekly collection of news and advice. And in publishing the first newspaper, he created an entire industry, a new profession that sold information itself. And it created a market for something that had never before existed – but in creating that market, truth has often fallen by the wayside. One of the very first newspapers in America about a century later was called the New England Courant. It published a series of letters by a woman named Mrs. Silence Do-good. The actual writer of the letters was a 16-year-old apprentice at the newspaper named Benjamin Franklin, making him the founding father of fake news in America. In some sense it’s always been there, using deception and marketing to persuade people to your view.
It was a news story that shook America and shattered the lives of many in Boston. Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev set off two bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line. The ensuing manhunt and standoff had America on edge for days. Augusta University’s Dr. Craig Albert was front and center on national news during that time, helping journalists and audiences understand the motivation behind these horrible acts. His interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly is available below: Dr. Craig Albert is director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. He is a leading expert on war, terrorism and American politics, and he testified before U.S. Congress regarding the threat from Chechnya following the deadly bombing. With this story now back in the headlines after a federal appeals court overturned the death sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Albert is available to speak with media – simply click on his name to arrange an interview today.