Strategic Studies

The Networked Empire in a Multipolar World argues that power in the twenty-first century increasingly operates through networks, infrastructures, and systems rather than territorial control alone. The book examines how legitimacy, technology, finance, education, data, and transnational institutions have become strategic instruments of influence in an interconnected world. Drawing on theories of globalization, structural power, and network society, it explores the transformation of sovereignty, the rise of elite ecosystems, digital dependency, artificial intelligence, and cognitive geopolitics. The study concludes that contemporary geopolitical competition is increasingly shaped by the ability to influence the systems through which societies communicate, govern, innovate, and develop.

This article examines the geopolitical, energy, and security implications of the recent escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran, with a particular focus on its systemic impact on global stability. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative geopolitical analysis with quantitative indicators related to energy markets and military capabilities, the study explores how regional conflicts in the Middle East generate far-reaching global consequences. The analysis highlights the strategic centrality of the Strait of Hormuz as a critical energy chokepoint, through which a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit flows, thereby amplifying the vulnerability of international energy markets to geopolitical disruptions. It further examines Iran's asymmetric military capabilities-including ballistic missiles, drones, naval assets, and proxy networks-as key instruments shaping regional power dynamics and deterrence strategies. In addition, the study assesses the growing risk of nuclear escalation by analyzing recent developments in Iran's uranium enrichment program, the reduction of nuclear breakout time, and the evolving strategic postures of regional and global actors. The findings suggest that the current crisis reflects a broader transformation of the international security environment, characterized by increasing multipolarity, hybrid warfare, and intensified geopolitical competition. Ultimately, the article argues that contemporary conflicts in strategic regions such as the Middle East must be understood as multidimensional and systemic phenomena, requiring integrated analytical frameworks and coordinated policy responses. The study concludes by emphasizing the need for renewed diplomatic engagement, strengthened multilateral governance, and enhanced mechanisms for managing global energy and security risks.

This working paper proposes an alternative analytical framework for understanding contemporary great power competition, grounded in competing policy schools and strategic traditions rather than the conventional Left–Right or Liberal–Conservative binary. Applied to the United States, Russia, China, and India, it identifies three convergent structural principles across all four dominant schools: sovereigntism, civilisational state-building, and transactionalism. Currently under peer review.

Cet article examine le paradoxe entre les hiérarchies de puissance visibles et les potentiels stratégiques latents dans les relations internationales. En partant du parallèle historique de 1939 , où les États-Unis et l'Union soviétique étaient systématiquement sous-estimés malgré leur profondeur structurelle,  il analyse les positions contemporaines des États-Unis, de la Chine, de la Russie et de l'Europe. L'Union européenne y est présentée non comme un acteur en déclin, mais comme une puissance silencieuse, dont la densité économique, scientifique, industrielle et normative constitue un capital latent considérable. L'article soutient que le facteur décisif des transformations géopolitiques n'est pas la puissance apparente à un moment donné, mais la capacité à convertir des structures diffuses en action collective lorsque les circonstances historiques l'exigent.

After the end of the Great War, the vast domains that had been under the sovereignty of the Habsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs, and the Ottoman dynasty were partly occupied by new states artificially constructed in homage to the fanciful geopolitics of the Paris Peace Conference. Those multiethnic political systems that had managed to ensure peace and stability—from Central Europe to the Baltic, from the Upper Adriatic to the Balkans, from the Danube to Siberia, from the Caucasus to Central and Northeastern Asia up to the borders of China—vanished into nothingness. Between 1918 and 1922, this immense space became the battlefield of warlords who turned it into a torn conglomerate of “bloodlands.” This book recounts the desperate—sometimes noble, sometimes infamous—epopee of these adventurers, heroes, dreamers, and executioners, ultimately “children of a lesser god,” evoking the grim deeds of Kurtz, the protagonist of the novel Heart of Darkness written by Joseph Conrad.
Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel, supreme commander of the White Volunteer Army, fighting against the Workers’ and Peasants’ Army created and led by Leon Trotsky, who turned Crimea into an autonomous state. Wilhelm Franz of Habsburg-Lorraine, a member of the ruling house that dominated the oldest European empire, whose aim was to become sovereign of a united and independent Ukraine. Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, a Baltic Russian nobleman loyal to the Holy Tsarist Autocracy and to the creed of Lamaism, who in February 1921 occupied part of Mongolia. İsmail Enver, Minister of War of the Ottoman Empire, who cherished the mirage of raising the banner of the crescent over a hypothetical Emirate of Turkestan. Finally, Gabriele D’Annunzio, who, after wresting Fiume from Slavic incursion, decided to create an independent duchy from the Kingdom of Italy, extending from the Gulf of Carnaro to the coasts of Dalmatia and its islands—a faithful, though miniaturized, replica of the “Stato da Mar” of the Republic of Venice.

ILMU ADMINISTRASI NIAGA UNIVERSITAS ISLAM BALITAR LATAR BELAKANG Dalam era persaingan bisnis global yang semakin dinamis dan kompleks, perusahaan dituntut untuk tidak hanya mampu merumuskan strategi yang tepat, tetapi juga memastikan strategi tersebut dapat diimplementasikan secara efektif. Banyak organisasi gagal mencapai tujuan strategisnya bukan karena strategi yang disusun kurang baik, melainkan karena lemahnya proses implementasi strategi. Oleh sebab itu, strategy implementation atau implementasi strategi menjadi salah satu faktor penentu keberhasilan organisasi dalam mencapai keunggulan kompetitif dan keberlanjutan bisnis.

This monograph develops a comparative theory of durable power. It argues that victory is politically insufficient unless tactical advantage is transformed into repeatable strategic capacity and then institutionalized as legitimate order. The study introduces a Three-Level Model of Power: stratagem, strategy, and order. Sun Tzu and the Chinese stratagem tradition clarify deception, timing, and indirect action; Musashi presents strategy as disciplined perception and craft; Machiavelli and Hobbes shift the analysis toward founding, conflict, sovereignty, fear, and institutions; Foucault, Lukes, and Arendt provide modern correctives concerning discipline, preference-shaping, and the distinction between violence and legitimate collective power. Through theoretical synthesis and selected stress tests, including Rome, post-apartheid South Africa, and Iraq after 2003, the monograph explains why manipulation can succeed tactically while damaging the trust and credible commitments needed for durable authority. The central claim is that power matures only when it survives beyond the maneuver, the leader, and the crisis.

This chapter explores how artificial intelligence (AI) reshapes governance, sovereignty, and power in the Global South. Drawing on constructivism, modified neorealism, and critical geopolitics, it examines AI as both a catalyst for development and a mechanism of control and inequality reproduction. While AI enhances transparency, public service delivery, and social inclusion, it also introduces challenges such as algorithmic bias, regulatory authoritarianism, and data dependency. Rather than adopting Northern paradigms, AI governance in the Global South reflects a dynamic process of norm localization, where ethics, modernity, and sovereignty are reinterpreted through social negotiation and regional cooperation. The growing influence of non-state actors and frameworks like BRICS+, ASEAN, and the African Union illustrates the rise of pluralistic digital governance. Ultimately, the chapter calls for a decolonized and inclusive AI geopolitics, grounded in justice, solidarity, and epistemic diversity, ensuring that technology supports equitable human development.

El presente artículo propone un marco estratégico para contrarrestar la
manipulación digital hostil, entendida como un instrumento de coerción
que incide sobre el entorno informativo y contribuye a configurar el
espacio de disputa cognitiva en la guerra de la información. A partir de
una concepción de la estrategia como la dirección y el uso —o la
amenaza — de la fuerza al servicio de fines políticos, se analizan cuatro líneas de acción desarrolladas en el ámbito occidental —regulación,
intervención de plataformas, resiliencia cívica y cooperación interestatal — y su integración en diseños de campaña coherentes que articulan fines, modos y medios.

This overview looks at Ukraine’s Spring-Summer offensive expected to occur over 2026. The perspective taken - we are seeing a new type of battle take shape. This new type of master deep battle strategy is based on four components: (1) Radical Inversion of the battle, where the focus of effort begins deep within the opponent’s logistical hubs. (2) The Radical Inversion of the traditional frontline where the defending force overlays the opponent’s held territory some 20 to 40 kilometres with a saturated layer of drone activity – such that this becomes a persistent constantly renewing layer to attack from. The effect is that Russian ground forces are denied the opportunity to concentrate following their normal practices 15 to 20 kilometers from the frontline. (3) The defending force radically disperses its frontline troops into isolated micro-tactical entities. This turns the defending forces’ Zone of Control past the frontline into a Killing Ground, that absorbs the opponent’s forces. (4) The ground battle is linked to the orbital space component, where satellite interference critically impacts the ground force’s ability to operate.