Tools and methods of precision medicine are developing rapidly, through both iterative discoveries enabled by innovations in biomedical research (e.g., genome editing, synthetic biology, bioengineered devices). These are strengthened by advancements in information technology and the increasing body of data—as assimilated, analyzed, and made accessible—and affectable—through current and emerging cyber—and systems- technologies.

The United States’ (US) engagement of public health resources to meet the current SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) crisis has revealed vulnerabilities in testing and treatment components of biosecurity. Facing a severe shortage of available testing kits, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) attempted to develop its own test for COVID-19, rather than following World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for testing methods. The lack of tests has made it difficult to track exactly how many people within each state, as well as the US at-large have been affected, which has implications both for the extent of public health response, and considerations for approaches to stabilize and sustain the national economy.

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. The panelists included Dr. David Bray, Dr. Matthew Burrows, Dr. Divya Chander, and Dr. Jason Matheny (All from The Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center, Strategic Foresight Initiative, and Center for Security and Emerging Technology).

The field of biomedical research is rapidly expanding and evolving, providing numerous opportunities for technological advancements in synthetic biology, genome editing, and bioengineered devices.

SMA hosted a speaker session with Dr. Erik Dahl (National Security Affairs Department, Naval Postgraduate School) as part of its SMA General Speaker Series.Scholars and members of the intelligence community have historically caught early warning signs of national security disasters—like the COVID-19 pandemic—however their warnings have not been enough to stop these impending disasters. Several other historic intelligence failures that included warnings from the intelligence communities, including the terrorist attack on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. However, he acknowledged that some do not consider past failures intelligence failures because intelligence analysts consider it their job to relay information and not suggest policy changes. He considered the COVID-19 pandemic as an intelligence failure because of three main factors: a) a strategic warning that got little traction, b) a lack of specific intelligence on the threat as it developed, and c) an absence of receptive decision makers. Dr. Dahl labeled the COVID-19 pandemic a whole-of-society failure.

The creation of a computational model that encapsulates the increasingly complex and overwhelming world as multiple systems that can be measured empirically could have strong implications for civilian and military decision makers. NSI Inc. and SMA are currently working on such a model that is expanding on prior research conducted by TRADOC G-2. NSI has expanded on TRADOC’s original 24 exploitable conditions to create the Global Exploitable Conditions Model (GECM) as part of the Anticipating the Future Operational Environment (AFOE) project for the US Joint Staff. Dr. Kuznar stated that while GECM is supported by a large corpus of qualitative research, a computational model has been built to empirically test it through network and system dynamics. GECM contains 17 subsystems that are comprised of 124 nodes and 829 edges where nodes connect. This model is the starting point for all of NSI’s research during the AFOE project.

SMA hosted a speaker session with Dr. Kacper Gradon (Associate Professor, Department of Cybersecurity, Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology, Warsaw University of Technology (Poland)), Dr. Layla M. Hashemi (Researcher & Data Analyst, Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), George Mason University), Ms. Sarah Meo (PhD Candidate, Public Policy, Schar School of Policy of Government, George Mason University), and Dr. Michael Vlahos (Senior Fellow, The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy) as part of its SMA NIU Panel Discussion.

The COVID-19 pandemic occurred at a time when the global community was more physically and digitally connected than ever before. Mr. Kerbel reflected that those working in the information community (IC) believed that the pandemic would alter their collective worldview and modus operandi. However, he believes that while a larger portion of the IC works from home than ever before, the pandemic did not actually change the IC’s worldview. Instead, while global COVID-19 rates have started to decrease, members of the IC have already started to shift their mindset back to Cold War-era thinking. This is partly because the IC is built to handle complicated issues well, but it is not currently structured to achieve its objectives in a modern world comprised of complex systems. For example, the cyber domain and digital realm did not exist during the Cold War. These developments have led to the addition of an entirely new theatre of asymmetric warfare since the Cold War. Mr. Kerbel also argued that even though some members in the IC believe that countries are going through a phase of deglobalization and that the US is decoupling from China, neither of these hypotheses are true.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the political fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is exposing the weaknesses of value chains and causing academics and economists to question what influences the resiliency of global supply and value chains. Mr. Steen started by making an important distinction between value chains and supply chains.

Gray rhinos—or threats that actors see coming and openly discuss—are having a strong impact on today’s world. How actors respond to these gray rhinos strongly indicates their willingness to take risks.

The economic trend of globalization and the rapid development of global logistics which developed during last four decades will likely slow or even digress.

SMA hosted a speaker session with Dr. Erik Herron (Eberly Family Distinguished Professor of Political Science, West Virginia University) with Dr. Cynthia J. Buckley (Professor of Sociology & Faculty Affiliate of the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies and the European Studies Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) as part of its SMA General Speaker Series.

Lord O’Donnell began the discussion by recalling several moments when the UK’s government was forced to react to a national or international crisis. These events were Desert Storm (1991), Black Wednesday (1992), the Global Financial Crisis (2008), and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). One characteristic that these events had in common, excluding Desert Storm, was that there was no contingency plan in place when the crisis began. The lack of a contingency plan by the government was either a result of the event occurring too quickly or, as in the case of Brexit, the government did not want to influence how the public voted in a referendum. Lord O’Donnell emphasized that even if a government does not have a contingency plan, it is still important for that government to gather data and react quickly to events. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it first broke out, the UK government was working on a contingency plan for a flu virus. COVID-19 is not a flu, however, so the government was left with only a partial contingency plan. The COVID-19 pandemic also demonstrated how dealing with a global pandemic is not solely a medical issue but a societal issue. When addressing how to best counter a pandemic, it will take input from the whole of society, which includes educators, medical personnel, politicians, and communicators, Lord O’Donnell argued.

Sir David argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused countries to realize that they must broaden their definition of national security threats. As proof that some nations are already doing this, Sir David cited the creation of the Joint Biosecurity Center in the UK, which was developed in the image of its Joint Terrorism Center. The creation of the Joint Biosecurity Center is likely the first of several new centers that will help the UK grow its capability to predict the impact of future national security risks, such as climate change. Sir David emphasized that an increase in a country’s ability to predict the impact of future security risks–and thus properly scale the problem–will help combat a sense of over-optimism or pessimism, both of which can lead to a distortion of reality. Sir David concluded his remarks by pointing out that as a result of COVID, some nations have started to adopt surveillance technologies and practices that jeopardize the individual freedoms of their civilians. The creation of new surveillance states could potentially be the beginning of an ideological battle between China’s surveillance society and the US’s ideology based on individuality, he suggested.

SMA hosted a speaker session, presented by Prof. Simon Mabon (Sectarianism, Proxies & De-sectarianisation (SEPAD)), Dr. Luciano Zaccara (Gulf Studies Center, Qatar University), Dr. Lucia Ardovini (Middle East and North Africa Programme, Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI)), and Dr. Rashed Alrasheed (Richardson Institute, Lancaster University), as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series.Prof. Simon Mabon began by stating that the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic increased dialogue among many of the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC): a group which had the potential to geopolitically reconstruct the region. He also compared COVID-19’s ability to improve the region’s political relationships to the softening of GCC geopolitics after past natural disasters. An example that illustrates the enhancement of political relations in the Gulf is the United Arab Emirates’ use of humanitarian aid to improve its own political image by helping countries with less resources early on in the pandemic. However, as GCC countries began suffering economically and COVID-19 rates increased, countries began to point blame, mostly at Iran, and the prospect for a GCC geopolitical renaissance faltered.

SMA hosted a speaker session, presented by Dr. Amy Zalman (Prescient & Georgetown University), as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series.Dr. Zalman began her presentation by discussing the current distribution and redistribution of power in the world. Global power is shifting, and the conditions of the mid-twentieth century—and expectations surrounding how the world looks—have moved to a different place. Corporations, citizens, governments, and regions all possess different kinds of power and different amounts of power relative to each other in the current global system. The pandemic pushed this pattern of redistribution, as it launched the world into a crisis. Some of the effects of this radical redistribution and decentralization of a hegemonic, nation state-focused world of the 1950s that we are currently observing are becoming evident during this pandemic, and Dr. Zalman argues that they can be useful for us to understand. She likened this situation to the Earth drying out, revealing grooves and patterns that were once under water and could not be seen (or were not noticed). While these previously unobserved effects pose numerous negative ramifications, the pandemic has also brought together the global scientific community in order to produce a COVID-19 vaccine.

SMA hosted a speaker session, presented by Mr. Pete Steen (Joint Staff, J5), as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series.Mr. Steen began his presentation by posing the question, “How did the pandemic affect the US economy, and what are the implications for national security?” He noted that pre-COVID, the underlying narratives that characterized the strategic environment were trade war, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), cheap money, and digital surveillance. In contrast, the post-COVID themes will likely shift to include multipolar competition and lessons on efficacy, durable damage distribution, and uneven digitization. Mr. Steen argued that there is a growing narrative that compares the US to China in terms of their effectiveness in handling the pandemic. He noted that this is an example of the ongoing competition between authoritarianism and democracy as a model for society. According to Mr. Steen, China is propagating a message that argues that the tools of authoritarianism have allowed it to manage the pandemic better than the US and democracies, more generally. This narrative reflects the competition for perceived success, not only in the healthcare realm but also in terms of the economy.

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. The panelists included Mr. Paul Nemitz (Principal Advisor, Directorate General for Justice and Consumers at the European Commission), Dr. Nicholas Wright (Georgetown University), Mr. Steven Feldstein (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and Dr. Jessica Chen Weiss (Cornell University).Dr. Wright first set the scene on how artificial intelligence (AI) has been reshaping critical systems globally. He explained that AI has contributed to the rise of digital authoritarianism in China. AI has also added to the digitization of liberal democracies in the US and Europe. Nations that have adopted these different models are competing for influence in the global system, in which there are critical swing states that may embrace one model over the other. In other words, there is global competition among states with competing visions regarding how we can digitize. COVID-19 has made all of this more pressing due to the rapid global movement towards digitization over the past 8 months. Dr. Wright then discussed the benefits of surveillance, highlighting that the use of surveillance technologies has been entirely necessary in order to enable the rich, industrialized world’s social and economic progress over the past two centuries. Furthermore, actors can determine possibilities for utilization of surveillance technologies based on their state’s environment. This leads to a central question: How does one establish democratically-accountable rules and norms that provide as much of the upsides of AI-supported surveillance as possible, without creating technological affordances that could facilitate authoritarian concentrations of power?

SMA hosted a speaker session as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series, featuring Dr. Davide Natalini (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University).Dr. Natalini began the presentation with an overview of complex social-ecological systems, or how different dynamics between social systems and ecological systems interact and create certain dynamics, such as climate change. He stated that there are four key properties of complex systems. The first is numerosity, or the accumulation of multiple components. The second is non-linearity, or the presence of thresholds that can cause regime shifts. There is also interconnectedness, or the interactions between components and sub-systems. Finally, there is emergence, or characteristics or behaviors resulting from a complex system that could not be captured by merely studying its singular components in isolation. When we refer to interactions between humans and nature, we refer to them as complex social-ecological systems. This framework emphasizes that humans must be seen as a part of nature, as opposed to apart from it, Dr. Natalini explained. Furthermore, human activities have a profound impact on the ecological system, which in turn affects human activities. Biodiversity and connected ecosystem services continue to be destroyed, and one-fifth of the world’s countries are at risk of their ecosystems collapsing due to the destruction of wildlife and their habitats

SMA hosted a speaker session as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series, featuring Dr. Barry Posen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)).Dr. Posen began the conversation by discussing grand strategy. He argued that whether states know it or not, they must make their way through in a world without a sovereign, where any state can do whatever it would like to another state. Therefore, a state needs to develop a strategy that helps it look after itself in the international community. This compilation of plans and policies is known as a grand strategy. It is a system of interconnected political, military, and economic means to address changes and threats. Dr. Posen argued that US grand strategy, including its determination to involve itself in many international conflicts globally, has ultimately failed. The US, according to Dr. Posen, should focus on its enduring interest in offshore powers and preserving the division of Eurasia, where the biggest threat to hegemony is China. Additionally, the US should pay more attention to nuclear proliferation. A system of arms control and cooperation to ensure that states practice good nuclear hygiene is critical. Finally, the US should concentrate more on global terrorism and how to manage it defensively, Dr. Posen argued.

Mr. Hillman’s presentation focused on the findings presented in his new book, entitled The Emperor’s New Road. Mr. Hillman began by stating that China is not only following in the footsteps of other great powers, but it is also falling victim to their mistakes. He then addressed the comparison often made between the BRI and the Marshall plan. He explained that the Marshall plan was much smaller in terms of investment ($140 billion when adjusted for inflation, as compared to the $1 trillion in BRI investments promised by China). Moreover, the Marshall plan was a focused effort with a finite list of activities, a timeline, a set list of participating countries, and a goal of rebuilding economies that had already been developed. The BRI, on the other hand, has much broader participation and a goal of building economies that have not been developed before. Mr. Hillman stressed that those who engage in the BRI are not guaranteed benefits; in fact, despite China’s portrayal of this initiative as being win-win for both parties, investments tend to favor Chinese actors by a significant amount. This has often led participating nations to be disappointed by their involvement. Mr. Hillman used the China-Pakistan economic corridor as an example and stated that a small percentage of what has been announced has actually been completed, despite its portrayal as being the flagship of the BRI.

SMA hosted a speaker session as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series, entitled “In the Eye of the Storm: Managing Terrorism and Asymmetric Threats During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The speakers included Prof. William Braniff (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), University of Maryland), Mr. Chris Holt (CHC Global), and Mr. Jerry Smith (CHC Global).Prof. Braniff began the presentation with a conversation on pandemic fatigue and its role in cognitive dissonance in the coming months. As winter approaches, leaders and civilians alike need to be contemplating how best to prepare for the potentially increased impact of the pandemic, Prof. Braniff argued. He then stated that the insurance industry offers a useful perspective to leadership and can assist in examinations and preparations for the coming winter. Government spending is a problem, according to Prof. Braniff, so government preparedness is always at risk and is not inherently sustainable—a disadvantage that the insurance industry may be able to assist with. Currently, the US’s biggest vulnerability is towards influence operations conducted by our adversaries, who aim to use disinformation to control a given population. More broadly, the world is struggling with the dilemma caused by the devolution of the information age into the misinformation and disinformation age. Because immediate science was unable to provide sufficient answers to questions regarding COVID-19, Prof. Braniff, explained that uncertainty opened the door to a wave of extremist and conspiratorial ideologies. Extremists and conspiratorialists have used the lack of knowledge surrounding the virus to their advantage by promoting unrealistic information and ideas, ultimately leading to internal dissent. Prof. Braniff stated that the insurance perspective is useful in combatting this challenge due to its recognition that bad things will happen, its developed mechanisms that respond to recurring problems, its financial incentives for good behavior, its transferring of some risk from the public to the private sector, and its ability to incentivize the collection and analysis of more and better data.

Mr. Strong first outlined the differences between prediction versus anticipation. Individuals tend to defer to the obvious and not look toward the extreme possibilities of the future, according to Mr. Strong. Moreover, a “black swan” cannot be predicted—a black swan is an event that is unexpected and catches one off guard. A “dragon king,” however, is an event that can be predicted because it is based on measurable factors. The identification of both black swans and dragon kingsis a useful exercise in guiding one’s assumptions and predictions for the future, Mr. Strong stated. He then focused on a classic example of a black swan event: the Arab Spring (2010–2012). This series of protests and uprisings taught individuals about causes and effects. The Arab Spring as a whole could have been anticipated based on pre-existing conditions in the Middle East, but the trigger for the event could not have been predicted, according to Mr. Strong. Events like these, which are inherently anticipatable, are critical in studying trends and indicators. In the case of COVID-19, the world’s response was inadequate, suggesting that although many individuals may have predicted the pandemic, the number of and extent of the repercussions were not anticipated. Mr. Strong then described his current work. He stated that the aim of his work is to think about how various subject areas and regions may be affected by potential problems in the future in order to better predict and anticipate their effects. Some of these problems include various potential clashes, such as disputes over the China and India border. Others consist of an air travel crisis or the possibility that a certain incident, such as the pandemic, could diminish a number of airlines and air travel globally. To conclude, Mr. Strong stressed the importance of getting subject matter experts out of their stovepipes, giving them a chance to think about how their areas of focus may be impacted by certain problems, and allowing them a chance to exchange views with experts of different areas of focus about how scenarios may unfold and how various dynamics may affect each other. He stated that as a society, we seemed to have moved away from this process; however, he is determined to reignite it.

SMA hosted a panel discussion as part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series, entitled “Harnessing Futures and Foresighting Techniques – Using Methods, Approaches, and Multidisciplinary Teams to Understand the Strategic Implications of COVID,” featuring Prof. Rebecca Braun (Professor of Modern Languages and Creative Futures, Lancaster University, UK), Mr. Andrew Curry (Director of Futures, School of International Futures (SOIF)), and Mr. Philip Tovey (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)). The moderator was Ms. Nicole Omundson (NSI, Inc.).

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series, entitled “Alternative Futures of Geopolitical Competition in a Post-COVID-19 World (Part II of II).” The panelists included Lt Col Jake Sotiriadis, PhD (US Air Force AF/AFAC), Ms. Vera Zakem (Technology for Global Security), and Mr. Shannon McGurk (Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability, Strategic Foresight and Futures Branch).

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. The panelists included Lt Col Jake Sotiriadis (US Air Force AF/A5AC), Mr. Jason Schenker (The Futurist Institute & Prestige Economics), Ms. Kara Cunzeman (The Aerospace Corporation), and Dr. Marwa Maziad (Middle East Institute & University of Washington).Lt Col Sotiriadis began by discussing the aims of the Global Futures Report and the four futures framework used throughout. He stated that the primary purpose of this report is to reveal the power of harnessing strategic foresight when thinking about the second- and third-order effects of the pandemic. Strategic foresight, Lt Col Sotiriadis explained, is anticipatory thinking designed to support decision making. He then argued that we (as a society) trade in the currency of uncertainty, and we must become inherently comfortable operating in an uncertain environment without the “definitive” conclusions we often search for. Consequently, he and his report coauthors sought to address how alternative futures can defy accepted probabilities and affect baseline assumptions. Lt Col Sotiriadis also stressed the need to adopt a systems-based approach to futures thinking, to recognize that everyone is a futurist, and to embrace analytic complexity in one’s thought processes. To conclude, Lt Col Sotiriadis presented four futures that he and his report coauthors examined in the context of a variety of potential areas of disruption, ranging from space to supply chains to fault lines in the Middle East. These scenarios included: 1) Transformation (“From Biohegemony to Biosupremacy”), 2) Systemic Collapse (“The New Warring States Period”), 3) Discipline (“Authoritarian Regionalism”), and 4) Continued Growth (“Endemic Disruption”).

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Oliver Kaplan (University of Denver) and Dr. Jonathan Moyer (University of Denver) as part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Moyer presented their research on how the COVID-19 pandemic and its second-, third-, and fourth-order effects may increase the probability of armed internal conflict. Dr. Kaplan predicted that there will be a 56% increase in conflicts through 2022 (approximately 13 additional conflicts), most of which will be concentrated in Africa, South America, and/or Central Asia. Additionally, Dr. Kaplan stated that different states will experience instability for different reasons and with different causal processes. He further explained that COVID-19 has provided a challenging environment of increased poverty, weakened states, and health issues that makes armed conflict more likely and exacerbates the effects of current ongoing conflicts. Dr. Kaplan then presented his and Dr. Moyer’s findings on overall post-pandemic global fragility from 2020-2022, highlighting that countries experiencing armed conflict in 2018 will continue to remain unstable due to the aftermath of COVID-19. Their findings also showed an increased probability of conflicts igniting in certain regions (Africa, in particular) as a result of the pandemic, all of which were calculated using a political instability task force dataset that categorizes revolutionary and ethnic wars. Next, Dr. Moyer discussed the model he and Dr. Kaplan used in their research­—the International Futures Model—in further detail. Through his research, Dr. Moyer identified macro-level indicators that anticipate internal conflicts, including GDP, mixed regimes, states discrimination, and trade. These indicators play into the International Futures Model, which simulates global development at a national level and displays how long-term development patterns work. The model that Dr. Moyer displayed during this brief shows the dynamic effects across health, government, and demographic systems, while contrasting pre-COVID and post-COVID growth rates, as well. He then emphasized this tool’s usefulness in broadening a state’s perspective and drawing it away from narrow probabilistic models in order to better understand and anticipate the drivers of state fragility. Next, Dr. Kaplan expanded on the quantitative part of his and Dr. Moyer’s research and the results of 50 cases studies they examined on fragility conflicts. Their results concluded that “economic stability and challenges” was the most frequently cited explanation for state fragility, along with “horizontal inequality” and “international intervention.” Dr. Kaplan also cited some real-world examples to show how his and Dr. Moyer’s model can be useful when analyzing various conflicts, including the ongoing crisis in Yemen and the recent explosion in Lebanon. To conclude, Dr. Kaplan provided specific policy recommendations for how to mitigate the pandemic now and prevent conflicts in the future, including funding the World Health Organization (WHO) to address first-order effects, tailoring COVID-19 response to higher-risk countries, and addressing “sparks” that could ignite COVID-related conflicts before they occur.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Sir David Omand (King’s College, London/Former Director of GCHQ) as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Sir David began by stating that the first order national security problems as a result of COVID-19 are easy to predict; however, the second and third order problems for national security are harder to predict and thus are important to consider and plan for now. Consequently, he advised that the US and UK governments expand their scope of what issues are considered “national security” issues to prepare for future hazards. Sir David argued that because of COVID-19, malign actors have had more opportunities to exploit disruption and cause trouble. Moreover, COVID-19 has affected the global economy (and continues to do so), as it has led to a one third contraction in US GDP and the deepest recession in a century in the UK. He suggested that a government’s definition of national security should to take into account both natural hazards and external threats to create a stronger form of protection for its citizens. Sir David continued by advocating the expansion of the mission boundaries of the US and UK intelligence communities, armed forces, and defense communities from their traditional definitions to defend from extreme acts of nature in addition to internal and external threats. He also discussed the psychological aspect of national security and the necessity of public trust in government while risks are being mitigated. He argued that when that trust is present, normal life can continue freely and with civilian confidence in the processes in place. However, Sir David stated that although the UK has faith in its government’s response to certain threats (e.g., jihadist threats), when it comes to COVID-19, there is a state of national insecurity. He emphasized that a lesson that the UK government must learn from the pandemic is to establish trustworthiness in quiet times rather than in times of crisis. Next, Sir David discussed the importance of clarity in doctrine followed for civil emergencies and mirroring the same decentralized decision making used in situations involving external threats. He outlined a system of crisis management and decision making that he recommended civil analysts and policy makers use called SEES. He stated that situational awareness, explanation and estimation, and strategic notice (SEES) are all necessary to mitigate risks in real time and prepare for risks in the future. In addition, Sir David underscored the utility of “warning” senior leaders if there are significant risks or errors happening in policy making. To conclude, Sir David reiterated that national security needs to be redefined to include natural hazards, as well as external threats, and reemphasized the psychological importance of public trust in government.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Mr. Raffaello Pantucci (RUSI) and Mr. Keir Giles (Chatham House) as part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Mr. Giles first discussed how Russia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the way it perceives the state of its internal affairs indicates that it wants to emerge from the global pandemic as a major player in a less “imbalanced world.” During this crisis, the world has perceived Russia as being relatively quiet; meanwhile, according to Mr. Giles, its disinformation campaign and preparations to interfere in US politics have not ceased behind the scenes. Mr. Giles stated that at the beginning of the pandemic, Russia tried to take advantage of the Western world’s weakness by undermining sanctions and attempting to reach out to other European countries under a false guise of help and alliance. These attempts at soft power failed because they were not executed well. He then asserted that Russia has not experienced the same scale of domestic economic and social failure as much of the rest of the world because public perception in Russia has not changed much since before COVID; Russian citizens’ confidence in the country’s health care system and government was already low. Mr. Giles added that the main challenges that Russia currently faces are the state of its economy, its older demography, and management of its relationship with China. Since Russia did not seize the opportunity to reform its economy and reduce its dependence on energy and raw materials pre-COVID, it remains uncompetitive on a global stage. Furthermore, Russia’s demographic makeup has remained uneven since the fall of the Soviet Union. Mr. Giles claimed that Russia’s denial that these problems exist and its fear of causing social upheaval by addressing them is irresponsible and not realistic. Regardless, he argued that Russia will emerge from the global pandemic opportunistic and ready to take advantage of a world recovering from COVID.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Carlos Arteta (World Bank) as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Dr. Arteta first stated that the global economy is projected to suffer the deepest and most synchronized recession since WWII, and countries with emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) will likely be disproportionally affected. He then spoke about the global growth prospects in the near-term. Restrictions implemented as a result of this pandemic have led to work closures, international travel restrictions, school closures, etc., which have negatively impacted global GDP. Additionally, traditional economic indicators, such as trade and tourism, have collapsed. As a result, global GDP is projected to contract by 5%, but on a regional scale, regions like Latin America and the Caribbean will be disproportionally affected by upwards of 9%. Furthermore, 90% of per capita income in developing regions will decline, pushing millions of people into extreme poverty. Next, Dr. Arteta explained how the situation could worsen. He suggested that a deeper downturn of the global economy could occur with a more protracted pandemic, reescalation of trade tensions, or ineffective support policies. Additionally, a slower economic recovery from the recession could result from longer-lasting effects on households and firms, larger-than-expected adverse impact on potential growth, and/or weaker development outcomes. Dr. Arteta then used data displaying the spread of COVID-19 cases in advanced economies vs. EDMEs to show that for some of these countries, it is unclear if we have reached the peak of the virus yet; so, there may be worse conditions to come. Moreover, growth projections are fragile, and there is a large degree of uncertainty in the forecast for what will come. Dr. Arteta also addressed the question of what the long-term implications of COVID-19 will be, naming weaker potential output, investment, and productivity over the long term as likely results. He stated that potential growth has been declining in many regions already (pre-COVID), and per capita incomes are projected to plunge. Both of these will be met with sharper declines when accompanied by a recession like the one the world is experiencing now. Dr. Arteta further explained that this recession is unique in that it was triggered by a pandemic. There is also little accurate data regarding the economic effects of a global pandemic, and the projections being made are based on data from regional pandemics, such as SARS, MERS, and Ebola. Therefore, it is ultimately unclear as to how magnanimous the global economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be. Finally, Dr. Arteta emphasized that the first priority for policymakers should be to address the immediate health crisis by supporting healthcare systems, providing aid to vulnerable groups, and cooperating globally to ensure a smooth flow of critical goods and debt relief to EMDEs. He also stressed the importance of sustained long-term growth in the wake of the pandemic. Designing reforms to improve flexibility in product and labor markets, stimulating investment, and creating global policies to address global public health challenges are all ways to prepare for another global recession of this scale.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Mr. Tom McTague (The Atlantic) as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Mr. McTague’s presentation expanded on his article in The Atlantic, published in May 2020, entitled “The Pandemic’s Geopolitical Aftershocks Are Coming.”

Dr. Slaughter presented a new framework for a global order that is more focused on connecting governments and non-government actors, and better mobilizing the resources that each state and region has.

SMA hosted speaker session presented by Sir Lawrence Freedman (King’s College London) as a part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Sir Lawrence presented a series of lessons that can be learned from the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in the UK.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. James Giordano (Georgetown University Medical Center/Naval War College) as a part of its new speaker series with the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD), entitled “COVID-19: Second- and Third-order Effects—System Shocks, Disruption, and Emergence.”

The pandemic is a game-changer—not business as usual. This brief forecasts the possible Impact Futures on US National Security and the operational environment, given COVID-19. Pandemic Geopolitics. China’s Neo-Mercantilism, The New Normal, the Perfect Storm, the Mad Max Scenarios. Great Power clashes. Rise of New Autocracies. Threat Convergence Futures.

The novel coronavirus pandemic is upending societies and their assumptions. Going forward, one of its most significant legacies will be the way that the pandemic dovetails with another major global disruption of the last few years—the rise and spread of digital surveillance enabled by artificial intelligence (AI).

Iran appears to have been hit hard by the COVID-19 virus, and there has been criticism both within and outside the country over the Iranian regime’s response. The subject matter experts (SMEs) who responded to this question, however, do not think it likely that the pandemic will have novel direct effects on the stability of the Iranian regime, either in the short term or further out.