The Economist Asia - 27.01.2018

The EconomistJanuary 27th 2018 7

THE FUTURE OF WAR

2

SPECIAL REPORT

be growing. China resents the American naval presence in the

western Pacific, and particularly the “freedom of navigation” op-

erations that the USSeventh Fleet conducts in the South China

Sea to demonstrate that America will not accept any Chinese

claims or actions in the region that threaten its core national in-

terests or those of its allies.

For its part, China is planning to develop itsA2/ADcapabili-

ties, especially long-range anti-ship missiles and a powerful

navy equipped with state-of-the-art surface vessels and a large

submarine force. The idea is first to push the USNavy beyond the

“first island chain” and ultimately make it too dangerous for it to

operate within the “second island chain” (see map, previous

page). Neither move is imminent, but China has already made a

lot of progress. If there were a new crisis over Taiwan, America

would no longer send an aircraft-carrier battle group through the

Taiwan Strait to show its resolve, as it did in 1996.

How such tensions will play out depends partly on Ameri-

ca’s allies. If Japan’s recently re-elected prime minister, Shinzo

Abe, succeeds in his ambition to change the country’s pacifist

constitution, the Japanese navy is likely to increase its capabili-

ties and more explicitly train to fight alongside its American

counterpart. At the same time other, weaker allies such as Viet-

nam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia may conclude

that bowing to Chinese military and economic power is a safer

bet than hoping for a declining America to fight their corner.

The greatest danger lies in miscalculation through a failure

to understand an adversary’s intentions, leading to an un-

planned escalation that runs out of control. Competition in the

“grey zone” between peace and war requires constant calibra-

tion that could all too easily be lost in the heat of the moment. 7

THERE IS NOTHING new about either fake

news or Russian disinformation campaigns.

Back in 1983, at the height of the cold war, an

extraordinary story appeared in a little-

known pro-Soviet newspaper called the

Patriot. It claimed to have evidence that the

Pentagon had deliberately created AIDSas a

biological weapon and was ready to export

the virus to other countries, mainly in the

developing world, as a way of gaining control

over them. Within a few years the story had

reappeared in mainstream publications in

more than 50 countries.

In February last year, in the wake of

revelations about Russia’s interference in

America’s presidential election but before

the full extent of its activities on Facebook,

Twitter and Google had become known, the

Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu,

announced that he had created units within

the army to wage an information war: “Es-

sentially the information conflict is a compo-

nent of general conflict. Deriving from that,

Russia has made an effort to form structures

that are engaged in this matter.” He added

that these were far more effective than

anything Russia had used before for “coun-

ter-propaganda” purposes. A week earlier,

General Petr Pavel, the Czech head of NATO’s

military committee, had revealed that a false

report of a rape by German soldiers in Lithu-

ania had been concocted by Russia.

The internet and social media are

creating entirely new opportunities for

influence operations (IO) and the mass

manipulation of opinion. Those technologies

allow IOaccurately to target those people

likely to be most susceptible to their mes-

sage, taking advantage of the “echo-cham-

ber” effect of platforms such as Facebook,

where users see only news and opinions that

confirm their prejudices.

Facebook now estimates that during

and after the American election in 2016 a

Russian-linked troll farm called the Internet

Research Agency was responsible for at least

120 fake pages and 80,000 posts that were

directly received by 29m Americans. Through

sharing and liking, the number multiplied to

nearly 150m, about two-thirds of the poten-

tial electorate. The ads aimed to exploit

America’s culture wars. Similar IOhave been

launched in Europe, where Russia attempts to

bolster support for populist movements that

oppose liberal social norms.

It is not just Russia that conducts IO

against other countries. Jihadist extremists

and hacker groups employed by rogue states

or criminal networks pose similar if lesser

threats. And although the big social-media

companies now claim to be working on sol-

utions, including better and quicker attribu-

tion of messages, Russian IOtechniques are

My truth against yours

The power of fake news and undue influence

bound to adapt accordingly. Rand Waltzman,

a former programme manager at America’s

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA) and now at the RANDCorporation,

explains that “when target forces start to

counter these [Russian] efforts and/or

expose them on a large scale, the Russians

are likely to accelerate the improvement of

their techniques...in other words, an infor-

mation-warfare arms race is likely to ensue.”

In the future, “fake news” put together

with the aid of artificial intelligence will be so

realistic that even the best-resourced and

most professional news organisation will be

hard pressed to tell the difference between

the real and the made-up sort. Official web-

sites and social-media accounts will become

increasingly vulnerable to hackers, who may

be able not only to provoke stockmarket

crashes and riots but even contrive crises

between countries that may induce them to

go to war with each other.

But which one?

РЕЛИЗ

ГРУППЫ

"What's

News"