By: Mahima Sharma, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) stands as a pivotal forum for international dialogue and negotiation on disarmament issues, playing a crucial role in shaping global efforts towards arms control and non-proliferation. With a history dating back to 1979, the CD has been instrumental in facilitating discussions among member states to address pressing security challenges and promote peace through disarmament measures. In the context of the 2024 session, the theme of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Peace and Security: Towards a Safer World” underscores the collective commitment of nations to reinforce multilateral cooperation in tackling contemporary disarmament challenges and fostering a more secure global environment.

The Conference has a rich history dating back to its establishment as a single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum by the Tenth Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly in 1978. Over the years, the CD and its predecessors have played a crucial role in negotiating major arms limitation and disarmament agreements, including significant treaties like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CD’s agenda items encompass critical issues such as nuclear disarmament, prevention of nuclear war, arms control in outer space, and transparency in armaments. Despite its achievements, the CD has faced challenges in reaching consensus on a program of work due to disagreements among member states and attempts to link progress in different areas. The CD’s annual sessions, divided into three parts, involve discussions among its 65 member states, including key military powers. The CD’s work is guided by a rotating presidency and conducted through consensus, with support from the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. The 2024 session of the CD focuses on strengthening multilateralism for peace and security towards a safer world, highlighting the ongoing commitment to advancing global disarmament efforts through collaborative international dialogue and negotiation.

The High-Level Segment of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in 2024 was held from February 26 to March 1, marking a significant period of intense discussions and diplomatic engagements at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. This segment served as a crucial platform for high-ranking officials and representatives from member states to address pressing disarmament issues and reaffirm their commitment to global peace and security. During this session, notable statements were made by participating countries, with the European Union (EU) notably condemning Russia’s actions, underscoring the importance of upholding international norms and agreements in the face of escalating tensions.

In his speech at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the importance of values and trust in fostering global peace and security. He stated, “Deadlock over disarmament is ‘not acceptable.’” Guterres highlighted the need for collaboration and partnership, acknowledging that the United Nations cannot succeed alone and must work with other actors to address complex global challenges. He also stressed the necessity for reform within the UN to enhance its effectiveness in promoting peace and sustainable development. Guterres emphasized the urgency of preventing crises and transitioning from fear to trust among nations, advocating for a shift towards a more peaceful and stable world. 

During the 2024 session, several key issues were addressed, reflecting the diverse challenges and priorities in global disarmament efforts. Non-proliferation efforts took center stage, with a focus on strengthening international norms and agreements to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Emerging technologies also emerged as a critical topic, highlighting the need to establish international norms regarding the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure responsible and ethical practices in warfare. Additionally, disarmament treaties were a key area of discussion, emphasizing the importance of upholding existing agreements and exploring new avenues for arms control and reduction.

Specific concerns raised by different countries during the 2024 session including Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which drew condemnation from various nations for violating international norms and destabilizing regional security. The European Union (EU) strongly condemned Russia’s actions, including its nuclear rhetoric and threats, underscoring the urgent need for accountability and adherence to international law. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)’s persistent pursuit of nuclear and missile programs, which pose a significant threat to global disarmament efforts. Calls were made for DPRK to engage in dialogue and commit to comprehensive abandonment of all weapons of mass destruction programs in a verifiable manner. These discussions at the CD highlighted the complex geopolitical landscape and underscored the ongoing challenges in achieving disarmament and non-proliferation goals amidst evolving security threats.

Various Member States expressed their viewpoints on critical disarmament issues, reflecting a diverse range of perspectives and priorities. South Korea, represented by Vice Minister Kang Insun, highlighted concerns regarding recent setbacks in global non-proliferation efforts. Specifically, Vice Minister Kang emphasized Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its unilateral suspension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and its withdrawal from the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). She called upon the five nuclear-weapon states (P5) to actively re-engage in dialogues aimed at promoting transparency and rebuilding mutual trust. Additionally, South Korea underscored its active participation in initiatives dedicated to strengthening the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, emphasizing the need to address the rapid advancement of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) in military contexts.

On a different note, Pakistan obstructed the adoption of the ‘2024 Program of Work’ proposed by India, which aimed to set the agenda for future disarmament talks. Despite India’s efforts to formulate a comprehensive proposal during its presidency, Pakistan’s opposition, rooted in concerns about the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and military posture vis-à-vis India, effectively derailed the consensus-based decision-making process at the CD. This move by Pakistan drew criticism from disarmament experts and other delegations, including major powers like the US, France, Russia, the UK, and China, who supported India’s proposal. Diplomats familiar with the matter speculated that Pakistan’s blockade was driven by a desire to prevent India from achieving success rather than substantive concerns related to the proposal itself. 

During this year’s Conference on Disarmament, diverse calls to action and resolutions were proposed to address pressing disarmament challenges, emphasizing the critical need for collective efforts to promote global peace and security. Member States urged for renewed commitment to existing disarmament treaties and agreements, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), to strengthen the international disarmament regime. Additionally, proposals were made to enhance transparency in armaments, prevent the weaponization of outer space, and address emerging threats posed by new technologies like cyber warfare and autonomous weapons systems. The conference highlighted the importance of international cooperation and multilateral dialogues in advancing disarmament goals, underscoring the shared responsibility of nations to work together towards a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons and other arms. Collaborative efforts, mutual trust, and diplomatic engagement were emphasized as essential components in achieving meaningful progress in disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives on a global scale. As we move forward, it is imperative for countries to uphold their responsibilities, strengthen existing disarmament frameworks, and foster a culture of peace to address the evolving threats to international security effectively.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war,” notably remarked Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain when he signed the famous Munich Agreement with Hitler’s Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938, to avoid a greater war in Europe. Churchill was soon proven to be right when, on September 1, 1939, a year after signing the Munich Agreement, Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began. Next year, in 1940, Churchill became Prime Minister and led the British war efforts. Britain was soon joined by the United States in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, which compelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) to take all measures for the defence of America.

Though the allies were together and fought in the theatres in their vicinity, i.e., the US in the Pacific and the UK in Europe, there was a need to have a common strategy in order to defeat advancing Nazi forces. To synergize Allied military strategy and further plans of action vis-à-vis the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, military leaders and politicians from both the UK and US came together in Casablanca, Morocco, and prepared effective military strategies that eventually led to the defeat of both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

Noting down the detailed events of what happened between January 14–24, 1943, in Casablanca, award-winning author and Honorary Fellow of the Massachusetts Historical Society James B. Conroy, in a book titled “The Devils Will Get No Rest: FDR, Churchill, and the Plan That Won the War,” published by Simon & Schuster, highlighted the importance of that conference and the role that various military leaders, diplomats, and politicians play in it.

Divided into eighteen chapters, which cover not only the ten days of the conference but also how military personnel prepared for it in addition to covering the aftermath of it.

British Strategic Advantage

After the end of World War II, while it was America that dominated the great power politics, the book argues that, in the initial years of that war, the British and, for that matter, the Soviets had the upper hand in strategy and military planning. Royal British forces not only had a better understanding of strategy but also had battle experience spanning more than a century. By contrast, America, though it had a greater advantage in technological advancements and industrial planning, lacked strategic foresight when it came to warfare.

This was as true at the level of the military as it was at the level of politicians. In contrast to FDR, who had little experience with military planning and strategy, Churchill was heavily involved in British war planning. Highlighting this difference between both personalities, the author writes, “He [FDR] had never worn a uniform, understood naval strategy but had never shaped it, and knew less about ground and air power… He did not pretend to be a serious strategist and seldom took firm positions on military issues, which Churchill did twice before breakfast. Even when he made up his mind, FDR often kept its contents from his Chiefs of Staff, but Churchill’s [chiefs] never had to guess what he was thinking.”

This strategic advantage culminated in the British articulating their point of prioritising Germany in this war while keeping Japan at arm’s length by means of maintaining the status quo and extending the battles of exhaustion.

Initial Planning from Operation Bolero to Sledgehammer

The author accentuates how, while talks of cooperation were ongoing with the allies endorsing the Atlantic Charter on January 1, 1942, these efforts were accelerated after the fall of Singapore, which Churchill called “the worst disaster in British military history” in February 1942. In March of 1942, General George C. Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the US Army, asked then Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower to coordinate with his British counterparts and prepare a plan to be presented to President FDR.

Gen. Eisenhower presented an initial plan of action that FDR approved and which was further explored and discussed with the British in Casablanca. The plan would initiate with Operation Bolero, under which a rapid buildup of U.S. forces would be accumulated in the United Kingdom culminating with Operation Roundup, a full-scale continental invasion of Europe after attaining air superiority in the theatre. As an alternative to the full-scale continental invasion, there would be Operation Sledgehammer, a smaller attack that would pull the Germans off the Red Army if it started to collapse before Operation Roundup was ready.

In addition to attacking Nazi-controlled Europe, two more theatres of operations were Africa and the Pacific. The book explains how the British were keen on securing Northern Africa and southern shores of Italy before going all in with the channel crossing to Europe. Americans, on the other hand, had a twin strategy: Gen. Marshall suggested prioritising channel crossing, while Admiral Ernest J. King demanded more resources and focus in the Pacific theatre to deter Japanese forces.

Gen. Marshall had geopolitical considerations in mind as well when he insisted on crossing the English Channel at the earliest. Russians were fighting hard, and he did not want Russians to feel abandoned by Anglo-Americans in the fight against Hitler.

After the conference, however, the joint allied strategy called for an invasion of Sicily, under Operation Husky, that would secure British maritime communications channels in the Mediterranean and pave the way for further invasion of the continent. Simultaneously, allies will maintain the status quo in the Pacific, making sure Japanese advancements are curtailed.

Individual Conflicts and Collective Cooperation

One of the unique attributes of the book is its coverage of the human aspects of the strategy. With the benefit of hindsight, what we see is the end version of the strategy that helped Allies win the war without realising the discussions, deliberations, and cooperation it takes to delineate such a strategy that can be materialised in due course. Some of the incidents that went from conflict between individuals to collective cooperation deserve to be mentioned here.

Although they were united in presenting an American point of view of the war in front of the British, the American Navy and Army had their own differences. The inter-service rivalry was indeed very new to the British witnesses who were present there, especially during the initial planning.

Mentioning the rift between General Marshall and Admiral King, the author notes, “As a gifted naval strategist, King had no peer in the world, and no senior American officer was more despised. In 1942, Brigadier General Dwight D. Eisenhower shared a fantasy with his diary: “One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot King.””

The author further mentions the frustration of British officers due to this interservice rivalry; quoting the British Army’s Brigadier General Vivian Dykes, he says, “Dykes too was frustrated. The Americans could not have been friendlier, but their interservice conflicts were crippling and their military secretariat useless. “Light relief” was provided by their record of a White House meeting. “It read just like a child’s comic story.””

General Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Chairman of the British Chiefs of Staff Committee, and one of the key architects of the allied military strategy at Casablanca, had a particularly hard time convincing his military counterparts from the USA while finalising the operations, for they believed that the British, who had an upper hand in strategy, were prioritising British interest at the expense of the American Pacific campaign. American General Wedemeyer wrote to his fellow General Handy, expressing his contempt as well as appreciation for British strategic foresight “We came, we listened, and we were conquered… The Brits were good enough not only to plan American operations but German operations too… The British planners were just smarter than hell.”

Finally, it’ll be an injustice to this book review if we fail to discuss the two military menaces of General Giraud and Charles de Gaulle, who managed to keep both FDR and Churchill occupied till almost the end of the conference. General Giraud, being the senior of De Gaulle, wanted full control over allied French forces, but De Gaulle, being De Gaulle, refused to yield any powers to Giraud and demanded full autonomy and absolute control over French colonial territories and resources. The author’s articulation of this rivalry gives the book a necessary comical appearance amid all the serious talks of strategy and warfare.

Conclusion

The book, although a very interesting read for any military history enthusiast, due to the inclusion of operational technicalities, prior study of World War II is feasible if one wishes to read it. All the personal anecdotes give the book a human-centric approach, despite primarily focusing on military history and strategy. The book ends with key outcomes of the conference; one of the most important of them was the commitment to unconditional surrender of Axis powers, a bold stance that reaffirmed the Allies’ resolve and unified their objectives despite initial disagreements. Through meticulous research and compelling storytelling, the book not only offers a gripping account of the Casablanca Conference but also provides valuable lessons for leaders in any field.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

On February 28, 2022 Ukraine requested to become the official member of European Union (EU), just a few days after the full-scale attack launched from Russia. Just a few days after the invasion the members of European Union collaborated with each other to support Ukraine in the area of economy and defence, by supplying arms and humanitarian aid, opening their borders for the refugees and promising to give them jobs. Simultaneously, NATO also increased their defence budget by 2% of their GDP.

As this war has been going on over two years, it has starting to show some major cracks in the aid to Ukraine. Some of the EU countries are now trying to cut off defence supply because of the political and economic reasons. Similarly, many US officials are now voting against additional funding to Ukraine in the ongoing war. The Ukrainians authorities are also worried that the Russian could possibly win this war by simply waiting out the war. 

Cracks in European Aid

Since the beginning of the war, both the US and the EU showed determination towards the fight against Russia. Both have provided humanitarian aid for the civilians and defence aid to military to fight against Russia. However, this determination did not last very long. This war has been going on for so long, that it is now becoming difficult for the European Union to maintain the solidarity towards the aid for the Ukraine.

In the end of 2023, Ukraine asked for more 500,000 new troops for the year 2024 so that they can continue defending the nation. President Volodymyr Zelensky showed cracks in the aid from both EU and USA, that the new troops might not be having any arms and ammunition to fight. Thus, addressing urgent need for defence aid along with the new troops. Furthermore, Europe is facing difficulties in getting their own aid from Hungary, is the main stumbling block. The President of Hungary has also signalled that he will make trouble for Ukraine for joining the European Union. 

Firstly, these fissures are because of the economic crisis, energy crisis, and political elections closing in. Due to the economic crisis, political parties among European Union have exploiting the costs of war to influence public opinion. Some political parties from western European countries believe that Ukraine is far too weak against Russia to fight this war any longer, and Ukraine should consider a peace treaty with Russia. They believe that giving more aid to Ukraine will only give rise to inflation, refugees, bankrupt industries and unemployment to their own people. On the other hand, the bordering countries to Russia, demand the imposition of the most severe sanctions on Russia for the war crimes and increase military support for Ukraine. Simultaneously, growing energy crisis is one of the main concerns for the European leaders, as it could have geopolitical effect in the nation. Because of this conflict European leaders have realized how much they are dependent on Russian energy through oil and natural gas.

Secondly, the war in the Middle East between Palestine and Israel has highlighted the disagreements among the EU members in choosing to support either of the nations, in which some countries have supported the pro-Israel ideology and others want to protect the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It has shown limitations of influence the EU has in the Middle-East. These difference also have increased incoherence among policymakers at the headquarters in Brussels, resulting in growing tensions to manage more than one ongoing conflict in the world. This growing tensions can risk distracting EU governments from humanitarian and military funding to Ukraine’s war of self-defence.

Both the US and the EU are deeply divided over continuing funding the Ukraine with the defence and humanitarian aid, all while Russia is increasingly getting more aggressive in this war increasing the numbers of casualties and destruction on both sides. Recently, Russia has also increased the defence production with one-third of its 2024 budget. The NATO as a whole with the political parties of the US and the EU should take some serious action in order to end this war.

Why European Aid is essential to Ukraine war

The United States and European Union has aided Ukraine since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war. The EU countries especially the bordering countries to Russia see Russia’s aggression as a threat to their own countries and to treat this crisis as a priority. Since, February 2022, the total of €926 million has been provided to Ukraine for humanitarian aid by the European commission for the civilians for essential services like cash assistance, food, water, shelter, health care, psychosocial support, and protection.

Other than humanitarian aid the USA and EU have also provided military aid through arms and ammunition. Since the full scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, $44.2 billion has been provided to Ukraine by the USA for defence aid to the military to defend and protection the civilians from the war. The total of €77 billion have been given to the Ukraine by EU for the defence aid. Germany helped with 17.7 billion Euros worth of defence aid, and the European Union facilitated the transfer of arms and ammunition to Ukraine for the first time and in the end of the last year, Germany also delivered second Patriot air defence system with missiles, spare parts and ammunition to Ukraine in new aid package. UK  has given €9.1 billion, Denmark has committed €8.4 billion, Norway €6.6 billion and Finland authorities have promised to double the ammo production by building new factories to help Ukraine.

The difference in opinion within Washington authorities has become a big stumbling block in aid to Ukraine. The White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby stated that “Time is not our friend.” Ukraine backers in Washington are supporting Biden’s request to give $24 billion in new economic and military assistance to Ukraine. John Kirby said “We have enough funding authorities to meet Ukraine’s battlefield needs but we need Congress to act to make sure there is no disruption in our support.”  US military aid is rapidly running out due to the delay in making decisions on a new budget package in Congress drag on.

Ukraine is working to increasing its own capacity to develop weapons that are likely to run out from US and EU military supplies. In attempt to increase the military power, they hosted an International Defence Industry Conference in Kyiv late last year. In that conference, Zelensky mentioned that about 252 military companies and more than 30 countries represented at the forum showed a readiness to help Ukraine. He stated “to build the arsenal of the free world together with Ukraine and in Ukraine. A modern and powerful arsenal that will leave no chance for any aggressor.” 

Beyond the financial and military needs, Ukraine also needs solidarity and diplomatic support in this war. To support solidarity, the foreign policy chief of European Union Josep Borrell held a meeting in Kyiv with representatives of the 27 EU members, including at least 23 foreign ministers. He stated “By coming to Kyiv, the European Union’s foreign ministers sent a strong message of solidarity and support to Ukraine in the face of this unjust and illegitimate war.” President of the European commission vowed to fund Ukraine with or without the help of few European countries being a barrier to Ukraine aid. EU diplomats even increased the pressure on Hungary by threatening to invoke the nuclear option. 

The solidarity of few European countries have been wavering because of political and economic reasons. For instance, Prime Minister of Slovakia called for cutting off military aid to Ukraine, and suggested for a peace settlement between Moscow and Kyiv. Similarly, Hungary refused to provide military support to Ukraine. Hungary has been taking Ukrainian refugees all-along, while maintaining economic ties with Russia and blocking Ukraine’s approach to join the European Union. Politicians from Poland promoted anti-Ukraine agendas to motivate voters in the election last year, such as blocking Ukraine’s grain shipment in order to protect the polish farmers and not sending defence aid beyond already established agreement. Prime Minister of Poland said that we are no longer transferring any weapons but arming ourselves with the most modern weapon.

Despite Russia and some of EU and US diplomats sees Ukraine as a lost cause and are trying to push Ukraine towards peace negotiations, this year Europe Council decided to give 50 billion Euros to Ukraine from which 17 billion euros via grants and 33 billion euros via loans. This success comes just in time when all hopes of defence and economic aid have dried up. This is a good news for Ukraine and will keep Ukraine in the fight against Russia for next four years for the basic needs such as government salary, humanitarian help, develop arms and ammunition, defend against missile and cyberattacks and carry out military operations.

This agreement has shown that European Union is now spending more than the United States in supporting Ukraine in this war. This is also a signal to US that EU is stepping up and is ready for the upcoming years if the war drags on. The EU will supply this military aid to Ukraine in a ‘timely, predictable and sustainable’ manner. The European Council also acknowledged the shortcomings in defence aid with one million artillery shells that they promised to provide by March 2024.

Conclusion

Ukraine needs as much help as it can get from both EU and US to sustain this fight for future. If Russia manages to conquer Ukraine, its border will extend to more NATO countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania. European leaders should take this Ukraine crisis as their own crisis, since the bordering countries could be attacked next after Russia occupies Ukraine. Therefore, Europe needs to communicate among themselves, keeping their differences in opinion aside and work together in order to increase effectiveness of military power and efficiency of defence technology. The Ukrainians authorities are also worried because the Russian’s vast military power and defence technology, they could possibly win this war by simply waiting out the war. US and EU both needs to double down the supply by working on the fissure in the aid and keep supplying humanitarian and military aid till Ukraine wins the war or the war end up in a peace agreement.

By: Pinkle Gogoi, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

The analysis aptly underscores the pivotal role corruption plays in Ukraine’s current challenges and its ability to effectively navigate its existential crisis. While corruption may not be the sole problem facing the country, its pervasive nature exacerbates other issues and erodes vital domestic and international support.

The recent corruption scandal, coupled with reported rifts within Ukraine’s power structure, further diminishes confidence in the country’s ability to overcome its challenges and maintain Western support. Without tangible progress in combating corruption, doubts about Ukraine’s credibility in avoiding defeat or achieving victory persist, potentially jeopardizing future aid and weakening support for pro-Western and pro-European agendas.

Corruption scandal

Moreover, corruption’s corrosive effects extend beyond domestic politics to the broader perception of Ukraine’s European future. Western support may increasingly be viewed as bolstering a corrupt elite rather than fostering genuine democratic reforms and economic development.

Ukraine has set an ambitious military objective for this year. However, it’s the third year of the country’s full-scale conflict with Russia, marking a decade since Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the initiation of a conflict in eastern Ukraine. Despite initial despair at the onset of the attack and subsequent hopes for a swift reversal, the current frontline situation suggests a year of stagnation.

Ukrainian soldiers are facing exhaustion, and the military is grappling with shortages of artillery ammunition and air defense rockets. Furthermore, critical weapons such as F-16 fighter jets and the U.S.-made MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) have yet to arrive in substantial numbers.

In addition to the precariousness of ongoing western support, Zelensky faces increased vulnerability domestically. Repeated high-profile corruption scandals undermine one of his fundamental election promises from 2019, to eradicate graft.

While the Ukrainian President has taken steps to strengthen anti-corruption agencies and has been transparent about the ongoing challenges Ukraine faces, his continued crackdown can now also be interpreted as politically motivated by his domestic critics. This is likely to exacerbate and solidify political divisions within Ukraine. At a time when there is already a highly contentious debate over war strategy and when disagreements between the country’s political and military leaderships are becoming more pronounced, this is the last thing Zelensky needs.

Rift between the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and General Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief, Ukrainian Armed Forces

For over a year, the elites in Kyiv frequently confronted decisions regarding their allegiance, aligning either with President Volodymyr Zelensky or his chief military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny. These tensions often unfolded discreetly, primarily within the confines of the President’s war room, sparking concerns of a potential rift within the nation’s leadership that could imperil its efforts in the conflict against Russia.

However, when Zelensky ultimately relieved the General of his duties, Zaluzhny remained silent initially. The photographs shared on the presidential website depicted the two individuals embracing and sharing smiles as Zelensky conferred upon General Zaluzhny Ukraine’s most prestigious military accolade, the Hero of Ukraine award.

Their disagreement could have concluded much less cordially. Zaluzhny holds the position of the nation’s most revered figure, credited extensively with safeguarding the country during the initial stages of the Russian invasion. Certain advisors had encouraged him to contemplate running against Zelensky for the presidency. Conversely, some of the president’s close associates cautioned that dismissing the general might estrange a significant portion of the officer ranks, potentially leading to a defense of their commander. Consequently, this division presented the most substantial internal challenge to Zelensky’s leadership during wartime. Yet, it now seems he has effectively resolved it.

At the onset of the invasion in February 2022, President Zelensky delegated significant authority to his generals to oversee battlefield operations, allowing him to concentrate on diplomatic efforts aimed at securing substantial military and financial support from international allies. However, as time progressed, the President and his advisors began to formulate their own strategic vision for Ukraine’s defense, which didn’t always align with General Zaluzhny’s perspective. Disagreements arose regarding the necessity of conscripting around 500,000 troops into the military, as well as the general’s choice to declare a stalemate along the frontlines last autumn.

One of their earliest disagreements revolved around Snake Island, a small piece of land in the Black Sea that the Russians seized in the initial days of the invasion. According to sources familiar with the Ukrainian response, Zelensky advocated for a military operation in the spring of 2022 to reclaim the island, viewing it as a demonstration of strength against the Russians and a means to safeguard crucial shipping lanes in the Black Sea. However, General Zaluzhny expressed reservations, believing that the operation posed undue risks to soldiers and military equipment, which he prioritized for other sectors of the front. Ultimately, Zelensky’s position prevailed. The operation, spanning over two months and involving multiple attempts to retake the island, finally ousted the Russian occupiers in June 2022.

A parallel disagreement unfolded that summer regarding the location for a significantly more ambitious counteroffensive. In collaboration with his U.S. and European counterparts, General Zaluzhny conducted a series of virtual war simulations to evaluate different offensive strategies. Ultimately, he settled on an ambitious proposal to advance southward towards Crimea, with the objective of rupturing Russia’s primary lines of defense. This plan necessitated meticulous planning, along with substantial reserves of weaponry and personnel. However, the president’s office favoured a swifter approach, one that could swiftly showcase Ukraine’s capacity to reclaim territory.Top of Form

Satellite imagery and intelligence analysis revealed that the Russian defenses were most vulnerable not in the south, towards Crimea, but in the northeast, particularly around the city of Kharkiv. Zelensky pressed his top commander to initiate an offensive in the direction of Kharkiv. However, Zaluzhny resisted, contending that such a manoeuvre would prove to be a costly diversion from the critical thrust towards the south. By the onset of autumn, Zelensky once again opted to overrule the general and authorized the Kharkiv offensive to proceed, with command entrusted to Ukraine’s second-highest-ranking officer, Colonel General Oleksandr Syrsky.

The operation exceeded expectations. In September 2022, Ukrainian forces successfully recaptured the Kharkiv region from the Russians, compelling thousands of fleeing Russian troops in the face of the advancing forces under General Syrsky’s leadership. Subsequently, Zelensky journeyed to the battlefield to rendezvous with Syrsky and hoist a flag over the liberated city of Izyum.Top of Form

Rumours swiftly circulated among high-ranking officials that the President aimed to remove General Zaluzhny from his position and appoint Syrsky as his successor. True to speculation, the president executed this decision after hesitating for over a year, primarily due to apprehensions that acting against Zaluzhny could adversely affect morale among the military ranks. Additionally, the President’s office harboured concerns that Zaluzhny might opt to pursue a political career, posing a direct challenge to Zelensky’s leadership.

Throughout the duration of the Russian invasion, opinion polls have consistently indicated that Zelensky and Zaluzhny are by far the two most popular leaders in the country. A survey conducted in December by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology revealed that Zaluzhny commands the trust of 88% of Ukrainians. Meanwhile, trust in the President stood at 62%, a notable decline from 84% recorded a year earlier.

Conclusion

In the context of an ongoing war, the implications of corruption become even more dire. It not only undermines critical domestic institutions and erodes public trust but also weakens Ukraine’s position on the international stage, making it more vulnerable to external threats.

Addressing corruption, therefore, remains paramount for Ukraine’s survival and long-term stability. Efforts to combat corruption must be accompanied by visible reforms and a commitment to transparency, not only to mitigate the immediate effects of corruption but also to rebuild trust and secure continued support from both domestic and international stakeholders.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

“Everything is propaganda.” ~ Jacques Driencourt

Since the inception of human civilization, and for that matter, the origin of the species, we have been fighting—fighting to make sure that our interests are protected, fighting to keep one’s tribe and people safe, and most importantly, fighting for the survival of our existence. From the time of Alexander the Great, where the prime focus was on linear battles between the forces, to today, where the battlefield of the war has transcended into every aspect of the public sphere, warriors and soldiers have used many weapons, but one of the most potent weapons of them would be that of deceit.

Deception and propaganda have been inalienable parts of wars fought throughout history. Thus, it becomes imperative not only to understand the intent of propaganda but also to understand its operations and proliferation in warfare and, in this digital age, in normal public life. This piece aims to examine how propaganda originates, how it proliferates, and, most importantly, how to establish the necessary channels of counter-propaganda in order to diminish its effect.

What is Propaganda?

Initially, the word ‘propaganda’ was not such an inglorious one. It was coined in 1622, when Pope Gregory XV erected the Office for the Propagation of the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide) that would supervise the Church’s missionary efforts in the new world. With time, however, the word has gained new and, for obvious reasons, vicious meaning.

French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul, in his work ‘Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes’, citing American political scientist Harold Lasswell, writes, “Propaganda is the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and through psychological manipulations.” Further exploring this definition, he quotes Italian author Antonio Miotto, who said, “Propaganda is a technique of social pressure which tends to create psychological or social groups with a unified structure across the homogeneity of the affective and mental states of the individuals under consideration.”

In simpler terms, propaganda means a certain set of persuasive tactics designed to sway public opinion towards desired ends. Based on those desired outcomes, the tactics of persuasion target a specific audience in the domains of business, education, politics, and most importantly, war.

Propaganda as Public Relations

American writer Edward Bernays, who is also known as the father of Public Relations, in his seminal work Propaganda (originally published in 1928), provides quite an interesting perspective about the functioning of Propaganda. Public relations, he argued, was a civilised version of propaganda where traditional propagandists would be replaced by expert public relations counsels.

Believing the prime function of propaganda is to manufacture consent throughout the public sphere, he provided various political and business case studies in which various political parties and business organisations have used several public relations campaigns to manipulate the popular psyche.

Out of all the available information, which one to use and tweak is sine qua non when designing any propaganda campaign? Bernays argued in this context, “Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea, or group… anatomy of society, with its interlocking group formations and loyalties. It sees the individual not only as a cell in the social organism but as a cell organised into the social unit. Touch a nerve at a sensitive spot, and you get an automatic response from certain specific members of the organism.”

Let’s take an example of the US’ aid to Ukraine. The prevailing assumption here is that there are two groups, one of which wants to send Ukraine financial aid as much as it requires to defeat Russia, and the other opposes unconditional aid. In the first case, if someone wishes to influence the public sphere, he will argue that the Russia-Ukraine war is a war of democracy vs. autocracy and how the fall of Ukraine can lead to the endangering of democracy across the world, which in turn will also threaten the US’ sphere of influence. By contrast, the opposing side, in an attempt to sway public opinion in its favour, points at the rising unemployment and inflation in the USA in addition to the border security issues and argues that such money should be spent on securing the United States instead of arming Ukraine. Any objective reader of this piece may find both arguments compelling because both of them are not entirely wrong, but they are designed and tweaked in a way to target a particular audience group.

Bernays emphasised the indispensability of appropriate and acceptable emotional content for the success of any propaganda campaign. He argued that emotional content must—(i) coincide in every way with the broad basic plans of the campaign and all its minor details; (ii) be adapted to the many groups of the public at which it is to be aimed; and (iii) conform to the media of the distribution of ideas.

Means to an End

Any research on the topic of propaganda will be incomplete without mentioning Nazi propaganda tactics. “Propaganda is a means and must therefore be judged in relation to the end it is intended to serve,” wrote Adolf Hitler in his autobiographical manifesto ‘Mein Kamph’ in the chapter concerning war propaganda. Hitler argued that propaganda is a weapon—a most terrifying weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.

Propaganda is supposed to be designed for the broader masses, most importantly those of the lowest mental common denominator, and not for the intellectual classes, for the purpose of propaganda is to appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers. Further, it is important that well-organised propaganda not investigate the truth objectively; on the contrary, it must present only those aspects of the truth that are favourable to one’s own side. Simply put, propaganda is not entirely a lie but not the objective truth either.

Apart from emotional appeal and repetition, another aspect of Nazi propaganda was heavy censorship and control of information. Including control over education. “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion,” infamously remarked Joseph Goebbel, chief propagandist for the Nazi Party and later Reich Minister of Propaganda, stressing the importance for governments to have absolute control over the information processed in the public sphere.

Propaganda In the Age of Social Media

In the age of technological advancements, everything becomes easy, from getting groceries to doorsteps to being aware of developments in every part of the world. Likewise, it is also very easy for propaganda to proliferate. It becomes much more dangerous when supplemented by offensive strategic directives.

Countries like China, for example, use modern tools to wage what it calls unrestricted warfare. One of the key components of China’s three warfares strategies is public opinion warfare, the other two being psychological and legal warfare. China’s propaganda machinery works two-fold: on the one hand, it uses all the manipulation and propaganda techniques to boost the CCP’s political agendas domestically; on the other, it also projects China as a muscular power in the international arena.

Another example of well-organised propaganda machine is Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), which acts as the public relations wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces, but one of its aims is to spread disinformation primarily against India. Its YouTube channel is filled with anti-India propaganda videos; it further employs people to organise mass dissent against India on various social media platforms.

In recent times, apart from China & Pakistan, countries like Russia, Iran, and non-state actors like Hamas have been using social media to further their propaganda, flooding the internet with so much information that it has become nearly impossible for the general public to distinguish between a real piece of information and propaganda.

With the widespread use of technologies such as artificial intelligence, new deepfakes can be exploited by any modern propagandist to create unrest and chaos in society.

Countering Propaganda and Way Forward

There is an urgent need to take necessary, legal and governmental, measures to counter the proliferation of propaganda. It is often believed that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The key lies with the people themselves. There is a need for a proper education drive that can make the general population aware of various propaganda tactics used by propagandists.

Instant and timely fact-checking also plays a crucial role in countering propaganda. The process of fact-checking bridges the gap between dubious propaganda and reality. Along with fact-checking, a simultaneous promotion of counter-narratives is equally important, for it is hard to discard old information until we have the updated one to replace it.

In this age of information warfare, the importance of civil-military fusion, especially in developing countermeasures, cannot be overemphasised. Intergovernmental cooperation between like-minded countries can also lead to the development of robust counter-propaganda mechanisms. At the military level, where there do exist proper channels to counter propaganda and information operations, there is an urgent need to develop robust offensive capabilities against the adversaries to win this digital modern war, which was also reaffirmed by recent conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.