Fifth-Generation Warfare As A Foreign Policy Tool For Hegemons

1. Available literature on the topic and
2. how existing literature will help strengthen or question the hypothesis and research objectives/questions
3. Explain your own synthesis that what is found missing in the existing literature and what you plan to add value to the existing knowledge either by giving.
  - a)a new perspective to existing scholarly debate,
  - b)a new theoretical framework as compared to existing theories, or
  - c)question (critique of) the existing theoretical or conceptual frameworks
  - d)Suggest a solution based on existing trends captured by literature or forecasting of impact of current trends or future trends from global perspective on various regions like US getting competition in Africa, South East Asia, etc)

D. Fifth Generation Warfare

1. 1. generations (evolution from 1st to 5^{th )} in light of literature review and connect it with theoretical framework
  2. tools (from available tools define these three political stewarding, economic manoeuvring and social engineering)

E.Foreign Policy in a 5GW era

F.Hegemony

(explain in-depth the concept in light of theoretical framework and literature review and how it is defined and what is its importance, both for and agains, in the wake of post cold war and to maintain peace/order in the world and whether it is needed or not)

1. 1. US as a global hegemon
    - a)(explain in light of literature review and theoretical perspective and its successes and failures as a hegemon and what impact it is having on global scale by briefly explaining regions like Europe, Africa, Asia, Southeast Asia, Middle East,)
    - b)Explain how it has used and is using 5GW tools to strengthen its grip over the global and various regional blocks
    - c)How it is using 5GW to strengthen its grip over the world and quell competition or has it helped to give rise to competitors like China/Russia)
  2. Challengers to US Hegemony
  3. China as a competitor (in light of literature review and theoratical framework that how it is competing US hegemony at global (by defining its FP, its designs and its competition in regions like Europe, Africa, South East Asia, Middle East etc)
  4. Russia as Competitor (in light of literature review and theoratical framework that how it is competing US hegemony at global (by defining its FP, its designs and its competition in regions like Europe, Africa, South East Asia, Middle East etc)

G. Research Methodology

1. 1. 1.Conceptual/theoretical framework, including
    - a)specific theories (hegemonism and AI)
    - b)how these theories will examine the topic and
    - cd)these theories have to be aligned with the literature review and hypothesis to ensure consistency and flow of thoughts
  2. Research model (modify the existing one by including political with social engineering and economic manoeuvring),

a)Tools of research including

(1)data collection and analysis,

1. 1. Proposed outcomes of the research,
  2. Challenges and shortcomings

H. Conclusion

ABSTRACT: Rewrite but only after writing all these sections then write an abstract which captures the topic, focus, methodology and possible outcomes (about 400-500 words)

I. Abstract

In a rapidly evolving geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape and growing influence of cyberspace and information technology, this research study plans to examine the hegemonic designs of two global (US and China) as well as two regional (Russia and India) powers and how they are equipping their foreign policies with the formidable tools of fifth-generation warfare (5GW). This study will be based on a case study approach to determine how global and regional hegemons have armed their respective foreign policies with two key tools of 5GW, i.e., social engineering and economic manoeuvring in a technologically advanced world and how they are employing various tools available to wage a war that many believe is fought not on the battlefields but rather in the minds and palms (mobile phones) of every individual.

II.Introduction

A. Background

With the advancement in technology and related devices, there is a formation of the latest globe that reflects the modern era, where every individual and institution and every sphere of life including politics, governance, foreign relations, business, and economies are having a direct or indirect impact. This evolving IT-led globe has impacted the leadership style and almost every dynamic of geopolitical environment that would alter foreign policy’s drivers and determinants (Kardaş, 2020). The advancements in information technology, artificial intelligence, and communication networks have also altered the international political landscape. Foreign policy has shrunk as a result of narrative construction in the virtual space of the internet and social media, making it necessary to have a consistent, established, and efficient mechanism to deal with all the complexities and challenges of the current environment (Chan, 2021). Similarly, the state is no longer solely responsible for diplomacy and combat in the modern era. The whole field of statecraft has altered through the participation of non-state actors in terms of peace as well as war (Le Gouriellec, 2018).

There has been a continuous development in warfare from the dawn of humanity. There was not a long delay of hundreds of years between the invention of the musket (rifle) and the appearance of first-generation warfare or 1GW- observed in the ancient age, when wars and battles were fought with massive manpower by using phalanx, and tactics based on lines and columns (Neculcea, 2020). Thus, 1GW is often abbreviated as the war of lines and columns.

In the century after Waterloo (British-French1815) but before Verdun (French-German 1916), second generation of warfare (2GW) flourished—defined by US military specialists in 1989 and as an era of using modern rifles and breech-loading weapons for fighting the battle. It lasted till the development of machine guns and indirect fire (Siev, 2020). After 25 years, third generational warfare (3GW) was fully developed, which reflected the concept of bypassing the enemy’s line in order to collapse their lines by using artillery (canon) and fighter jets. The 3GW indicated an end to the linear warfare as face-to-face outmaneuver had started (Stimmer et al., 2020). The rise of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, gave rise to the fourth generational warfare (4GW) whereby Lind, et. al (1989) called it decentralization of traditional warfare. This is typical cold war and decolonization era whereby rise of non-state actors and guerrilla warfare came into the foray.

Thereafter, constant realignment of political and social loyalty to causes rather than countries led to the rise of the fifth great extinction, which is 5GW (Qureshi, 2019). Since 9/11, researchers Krishnan (2022), and Patel (2019), have been reviewing 5GW and have defined it as forcing an opponent into servitude through use of force, threat to use arms, show of military might, highlighting the risk of casualties via media’s agenda-setting, and imposing economic sanctions. Thus, it has been observed that the incident of 9/11 and, the anthrax assault of 2001 in the United States, marked the first observable appearance of the 5GW. Other scholars believe that proliferation of biotechnology defined the concept of 5GW (Kelshall, 2022). It is also defined as a war of fake media or misinformation (Jowett, Garth) to destabilize and demobilize the enemy, hence the fifth-generation warfare is terms is a war that would be fought through cyber networks, remote technologies, and explosion of biotechnology. It will also provide necessary information about the pieces of equipment and materials (IT/mobile equipment), also based on disseminating vital information from authentic sources (fake media), providing the necessary resources to support the dissidents (uprisings) within enemy territory, and serving as a recruiting ground to form the field (non-state actors) of exploitation for the nation (Kelshall, 2022).

The process of developing and disseminating Information and Communication Technology (ICT), spearheaded by the big technical forces and their vast money, constructed a wide digital infrastructure of international monitoring and domestic social control. However, the first insight from the industrial policy conflict is that the contentious issue of forced technology transfer is really about China, using its market dominance to the detriment of its trading partners. On the other hand, concerns have been raised in the United States about the impact that trade with China has created on the country’s national security. It has been studied (Veebel, 2020) that the concept of national security in U.S. trade policy failed to take into account the most important factors in determining American innovation prowess. In terms of Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory, it is studied by Szuba (2022) that there are invisible hands that transform society into the general utility of pursuing gains specifically for social benefits through monopoly. US implemented this theory to explain the distribution of wealth and power, while China applied the same concept to strengthen its economic and to some extent the military agenda (Huo & Parmar, 2020). Conversely, many scholars believe that United States has become more vulnerable in the long term if the leaders prioritise the technical containment of China above other threats (Wu, 2020).

Due to tremendous economic expansion, military and diplomatic strength consolidation, and ubiquitous cultural influence, the United States (US) rose over the 20th century from being an isolated country to becoming a worldwide powerhouse. Many people consider the twentieth century to be the American Century. In a similar vein, the 21st century seems destined to be known as the Asian century, with China and India taking center stage. However, China will play a significant role in future international relations and security issues while, India is far from being prepared to take on a comparable position as a global power and security player and seems to be more content with its grip over his regional Asian sphere. India is a nation with great potential that has progressively increased its regional and global influence since the turn of the century (Stent, 2020). However, Brazil, Germany, China, India, Japan, Russia, and South Africa are new and old regional powers that are increasingly defining regional relations and, in many cases, exerting more influence on the world stage.

Since the collapse of Soviet Union, one of Russia’s primary foreign policy objectives has been to increase its neighbours’ reliance on its energy and market infrastructure to help enhance its trade and defence policy (Leleux et al., 2021). Thus, with the developmental aspect of economic power, Russia is projecting itself as a regional power through neo-imperialist strategy.

B. Research Objectives

In light of the above-defined background, the research objectives are framed below:

1. - To determine how global powers such as US and China use fifth generation warfare tools in their respective foreign policies to achieve hegemonic designs.
  - To determine how regional powers such as Russia and India use fifth generation warfare tools in their respective foreign policies to achieve hegemonic designs.

C. Justification of Selecting the Objective for Research

The rationale behind studying the first objective is that China and US are two major global actors that are playing a significant role in the determining the parameters of the geopolitical and geoeconomic frontier of the world. In terms of hegemony, China is maintaining peace (without waging any war) as well as overtaking the other developed states in terms of strengthening it military group (Goh, 2019). Also, China’s industrial growth reflected the economy as the largest manufacturer in the world of factories (Morrison, 2019). On the other hand, in terms of the US, the hegemony is based on strengthening, influencing, and implicating International Institutions such as the World Bank, United Nations, International Monetary, and World Trade Center to intervene, impact and fortify its hegemonic designs. From this perspective, the hegemony of the US is based on conveying three main features of hegemonism such as power, dominance, and leadership (Mastanduno, 2019). Thus, it has become an essential approach to conduct a comparative study based on how global powers such as US and China, while riding on their prowess of superior knowledge, technological advancements, and economic muscle use fifth generation warfare tools to achieve their respective hegemonic designs in a world which has already come to be known as a global village due to increasing influence of the market economies, technologies, and multinational corporations.

In order to conduct the study at the regional level, the researcher selected the two boundaries named India and Russia. In terms of the hegemony of India, the purpose is to develop the economy in such a way that it has rising power status like China (Kim, 2019). On the other hand, in terms of the hegemony of Russia is based on the concept to remain the largest Nuclear Power in the entire Globe (Ritchie, 2019).

Therefore, with four various concepts of hegemony, the present study plans to focus on determining these competing and at time complementing hegemonic designs of the two global and two regional powers. The study also plans to explore the approaches and tools of 5^th generation warfare employed by these global and regional powers in their respective foreign policies to ensure that they achieve their geopolitical and geoeconomic goals. This study will help build a knowledge base on the use of 5GW in foreign policies by selected global and regional powers and its impact on International Relations.

III. Literature Review

The researcher plans to review the available literature on the topic of fifth-generation warfare and how it has shaped the foreign policy of the USA and China as a hegemon in attaining their respective stated as well as hidden agendas. Additionally, the literature review will shed light on the use of fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool by two regional hegemons namely, India and Russia.

Two establish the base of this research, available literature will be consulted to develop and establish two variables of this research, i.e., the concept and use of fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool and how these tools help solidify the concept of hegemonism by the selected global and regional powers in their respective spheres of influence. The literature review will help the researcher to develop a theoretical framework as a basis for the research. The literature gap will help identify further points of consideration.

A. Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW)

Warfare strategies in the contemporary period reflect the changing needs of the global community. This century is defined by unprecedented levels of economic, political, and social interconnectivity, making media the primary tool for 5^th Generation Warfare (5GW). It has been studied (Layton-2018) that fifth-generation warfare makes use of evolving technology to facilitate deception and misunderstanding in order to achieve strategic objectives. The information and perception war entails no actual fighting on the battlefield. Through this revolutionary change, a new kind of warfare is growing both inside the nations and between the states bypassing the geographic and physical considerations of the past decades and centuries. However, scholars do believe that 5GW is not always intended to provoke or begin a war against any particular group (Grinin & Grinin, 2022). Therefore, in this situation, cultural dominance, legitimacy, and authority are formatted based on shared values across different groups. Despite the fact that economic marginalization as a result of one group’s established cultural superiority over another is not a primary driver of fifth-generation warfare (Goldstone, Grinin & Korotayev, 2022), yet it is being witnessed across due to widening gap between haves and have-nots, A world renowned wealth management agency Credit Suisse is its recent report released in November 2022 stated the data-based fact that “One percent of the world’s population now owns more than half of the world’s wealth.” Thus, fifth-generation warfare can be seen as an internal power struggle, that is rising the political temperatures even for the globally and economically stable states.

1. 1. First Generation (IGW): This era is also called as Classic Nation State War that initially emerged from the mid-17th century onward. This was the time of classic nation state war concluded by the time of Napoleonic Wars, it was completely dependent upon manpower and use of firearms to achieve great power within the restricted range of time and place. The defense and offence both were linear that enabled the soldiers to use and attack maximum volume of fire on the enemy, it was a disciplined and linear battlefield in which nothing is hidden as all the power from both the sides was exposed to calculate and predict the result of the war and this is called as frontline. This generation developed a culture of order in the military; its strategy was based upon mass and central tactics on deployment in lines and columns in order to maximize the firepower (Grey, 2007).
  2. Second Generation (2GW): In the beginning of 19th century, second generation warfare emerged with the introduction of new technologies, industries were growing, and new techniques were utilized in different field of life so, the battle grounds were highly adapted because of the increased volume of direct fire with machineguns and efficient rifles. This technology replaced the older war norms and strategies as now; the paradigm was shifted towards fire power through guns and artillery. With the comparison of first generation, battlefield is still linear, but the width of the zone was expanded as there is a variety of armaments with heavy firepower in the form of guns and other artillery moreover, it was also equipped with the air power capable of breaking through thick fortified zones led to extreme breakdown. According to Jomini, it was the era of mobilization and movement of bigger armies than that of opponent. In this particular era, huge armies were able to move to attack over the enemies as it was facilitated by technologies such as telegraph and railways (Gingrich, 2016).
  3. Third Generation (3GW): Third generation war can also be called as Maneuver war as it was evolved because of the second-generation Stalemates. At the end of the World War I, German soldiers used storm tactic that was intended to end a deadlock on the western front in which specialized German soldiers infiltrated into enemy area, aim was to gather resources on a focal point, make a breakthrough and cut the enemy support. This all needed quick movement, and in this generation, tanks and jets were the source of quick maneuver, but these advancements were still under the power of idea (Bowdish, 2013).
  4. Fourth Generation (4GW): When it comes to 4th generation Warfare then this can be clearly known as unconventional warfare that can be called as evolved form of insurgency and it is a complete opposite of the traditional concept of the war as the differentiation between military lines and civilian lines was completely last and everything became fare in war including attacks on civilians, undermining the economic and social powers of the enemy etc. and Fifth Generation war between India and Pakistan in the perspective of Regional Security: A Study of Daily Dawn and Times of India’s News Coverage. (January 1st.2020 to December 31st.2021). peace has completely vanished.
  5. 5. Fifth Generation (5GW): It is the war of concepts, ideologies sand civilizations as in this era, political, social, economic, and military means are using to defeat the enemy’s will to resist. This war could be initiated by the states, trans-national or sub-national non-state organizations, 5GW has turned the older dimension of revolutionary guerrilla wars and old terrorism by utilizing the modern approach in every dimension as with the adoption of new and fast technologies, dissemination of instructions, ideas and perspective had turned the military endeavors around. Better communication makes the dispersion and functioning easy and quick furthermore; it reduces the pressure on limited logistics (Ahmed, 2019).

B. Fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool by global powers

With the development in the field of Information and Technology, the traditional aspects of wars are being replaced with modern warfare, such as information warfare, asymmetric warfare, media propaganda, and hybrid warfare. However, with the vast use of technology in the 5^th generation warfare, there is a threat of cybercriminal activities that hack national data and intelligence (Rashid, Khan, and Azim, 2021). In accordance with this, it is observed that after September 11, 2001, warfare took a new shape which is based on the technological weapon, warfare of the fifth generation, formerly considered too far-reaching in scope, has come, and is forever altering the nature of the human conflict (Ali, 2022). Thus, this creates a new strategic paradigm that the United States has to adapt for a powerful social and economic identity based on its purported democratic policies.

Microelectronics and computing in the United States gave rise to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Because of initial demand from the US military and subsequent government funding, these technologies were developed and eventually implemented in the civilian sector. On the other hand, from the past shred of evidence, after the end of the Cold War, it is observed that the United States is no more the only player in this arena and use it as a tool of its foreign policy to defect of military and financial capacity and impose its real, formal global hegemony (Keohane, 2019). However, the United States’ role as a world leader has resulted in what is called hegemonic governance or global governance by using various global institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and even United Nations. Additionally, the decline in NATO’s external value profile shows that the United States is still an expendable hegemonic player inside this trans-Atlantic alliance (Silver & Payne, 2020). Thus, initial literature review helps the researcher to summarise that although the United States is being challenged by emerging global players like China in fifth-generation warfare but due to its established knowledge industry US is embarking on an advanced trajectory of combing both its military and economic prowess–both being the tools of 5GW—to supplement and complement each other for establishing its value profile hence the foreign policy dominance on the global stage.

Though world politics saw a visible shift of power from a bipolar world to a unipolar world after the dismemberment of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is argued by Abbas & Shah (2021) that the US might have resulted in the emergence of China as a rival for the king of the unipolar world. However, it is also studied by Floridi (2020) that China has hegemonic designs, but the ways and means are far different from what the US has employed to dominate the world’s political, economic, and even cultural spheres by using its home-grown and at times whipped superior technology and multiple media tools (Brands & Gaddis, 2021). The significant reason behind this difference is that the US focuses on adopting new technology for future warfare, whereas China is following the traditional concepts of Generation Warfare as its foreign policy aides (Foot, 2020). Therefore, although China and US have their own strong hegemonic designs, but both have different means of sustaining and perusing them at a global stage.

The last two decades have seen a number of major crises in the global order, the most significant of which has been the loss of American hegemony, often known as the crisis of US leadership in the global system (Maliniak et al., 2018). Accordingly, the concept of foreign policy is based on a policy that reflects the defined values and goals that would drive the political and economic aim in such a manner that it interacts with other states. In terms of the theoretical grounds of US foreign policy, it is extracted that there are four significant goals that defined the policy based on protecting the United States and Americans (also known as security cooperation), focusing on the advancement of democratic rules, human rights, and global interests, (such as good governance, and sustainable development), promoting the values and policies of America at the international level (such as trade expansion, economic stability). To make these goals a reality, US support its diplomats (Schenoni, 2019) by providing them technological, scientific, military, and economic support.

On the other hand, the theoretical grounds of China’s foreign policy are based on resolving international disputes in order to maintain reasonable defence through its national military and retain territorial integrity (Köstem, 2018). Thus, avoiding any war mongering and deployments of its national armies outside its national borders, China is investing strategically and enormously in global infrastructure with the stated objective to brining economic integration into the global order. Its investments in strategic countries and regions like Asia, Africa and Pacific including Far East under its “one belt, one road” and “maritime silk road” are considered another extension of its foreign policy goals of securing both its security and trade interests.

Thus, from the theoretical aspect, it can be summarised that US foreign policy is based on enhancing its own set of values by raising a profile of axis of evil for all those opposing its global values and agenda by using 5GW tools, whereas, in the comparison China, focuses more to maintaining its cultural and social conclave intact, security paramount and promote its economic advancement by focusing on regional and global gaps, often left open or unattended by US Such a contrasting position between the two global hegemons is slowly but gradually pitching one against the other as they continue to compete and outclass each other not only in terms of show-casing (especially in pacific) and building up their respective military-power but also in terms of knowledge, technology and economic outreach as well as manipulations.

C. Fifth-Generation warfare as a foreign policy tool by regional powers

The competition for global hegemony is resource and knowledge intensive. Evolving and advancing knowledge base, razor-edge technological advancements, stable as well as growing economic base and more importantly sustaining internal (in-house or in-country) stability are some of those ingredients which shapes the countries, their outlooks and eventually their internal and foreign policy goals. Many states unable to play such an intensive and often cut-throat global hegemonic games seem to have contended to box their desires in a regional confine. The custodian of Soviet Union might, i.e., Russian Federation and the emerging economic giant in the world, i.e., India are the two such examples that remain the point of concern for some literature reviews.

Interestingly, the literature review highlights that both the selected regional power for this research have evolved and adopted their respective foreign policies in the past couple of decades as per the US policies while both have been making a concentrated effort to promote themselves as proponents of the multipolar world to satisfy and sustain their respective internal setups as well as to stay relevant and potent in the race for their regional hegemonic designs. Further literature and research will help to determine that how far they have been successful in this endeavour, especially with the rise of China as a competitor to US global hegemony.

It is evident from the study that Russia’s foreign policy is modified according to the needs of the country, whereby it still needs to be seen as a great power because this status will provide both international and internal legitimacy to the state (O’Rourke, 2022). The continuing influence of Russia on the former Soviet Union countries enable the state to doing efforts to portray Russia as the dominant regional power thus promoting the concept of a multipolar world where power is regarded as being diffused with the rise of regional blocks that compete with the West through anti-immigration agenda, and domestic reform agenda (Tipaldou & Uba, 2019).

Various literature sources agrees that since the dissolution of Soviet empire, the Russian hegemonic designs tried to blend in with Western culture as Russia’s membership in the IMF, World Bank, and G7 all indicate a desire on the part of the country’s leadership to be seen as a responsible member of the international community (Kirton, 2019). Additionally, Russia has traditionally followed U.S. foreign policy because it aspires to have a strategic alliance with the United States (Demmelhuber, 2019). However, in recent decades, scholars (David O. Shullman et.al 2022) have seen a visible shift in Russian foreign policy from being reactive to US manoeuvres to being supportive of Chinese endeavours for countering the US manoeuvres. They have gone to the extent of saying in one of their recently published articles in Centre for Strategic and International Studies (June 2022) that “China and Russia are fundamentally aligned—Moscow and Beijing share a view of the United States as their most important security challenge, and together they seek to erode U.S. power and influence.” Some of the most important arguments in favour of this shift to multilateral diplomacy by Russia is a direct security threat to Russia with the eastward expansion of NATO by US. (Nukusheva et al., 2021).

However, in terms of India, the country has remained single-handed champion of the South Asian region for almost seven decades thus providing security to its own economy and advancing its military to dictate its will on neighbouring countries (except for Pakistan and Afghanistan) (Baruah, 2018). The stated five principles of India’s foreign policy are outlined as conventional security, economic growth, energy security, nuclear capability and non-proliferation, and prestige security (Murtaza, Azhar & Murtaza, 2022). India places a premium focus on expanding its traditional security forces–recently became the second largest in the world (Hagerty, 2020), and is considered as one of the fastest growing economies after China with a growth rate expected to be around 9% per annum (Zhang & Xie, 2019) & (Lamba & Subramanian, 2020).

Literature review helps to extract that main resting pillar of India’s foreign policy has traditionally revolved around strengthening the relations with other nations in contrast and comparison to the foreign policies of China and the US, thus portraying itself as the champion of the region while managing the superpowers bilaterally as a self-claimed champion of the region. Interestingly, superpowers, too allowed this to happen which helped India to keep its hegemony over the region through traditional means of military prowess and economic might. However, these contours of Indian hegemony over South Asian region is in question with the rise of Chinese investments in its transnational and regional projects like “one belt, one road” and “maritime silk road” and subsequent bilateral agreements between China and the Indian-shadowed countries like Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives (Sandeep Bhardwaj-2018). Literature, further helps to demystify that unlike Russian counterpart, looking for regional domination within a global power struggle paradigm, India has been slow in exploring the kinetic warfare (5GW). Some scholars believes that despite having technological advancements and cyber capabilities, India is gearing up its kinetic warfare capabilities to wade off Chinese influence in the region and targeting Pakistan for obvious reasons while ignoring the other low-income countries in the region. (Dr. Syed Shujat Husain et.al-2021). Scholar will further explore these ideas to expand the knowledge base on these areas.

D.Fifth generation warfare tools employed by Hegemons

Fifth Generation Warfare is fought more in the minds than on the actual battlefields. Therefore, both global and regional hegemonic contenders are employing various tactics, tools, and technologies to ensure that they achieve their respective stated and non-stated foreign policy objectives to sustain their edge or at times surprise and shock the intended adversaries and targets alike. In terms of global hegemons, it is extracted that the executive list of 5GW tools hovers around the concepts like globalisation, strengthening the utility of power, economic dependence, and use of technology for empowering the defence policy, which indicates that these tools theoretically are based on social engineering such as cyber security and agenda setting theories of media (Aldawood & Skinner, 2019). On the other hand, in terms of regional hegemons, it is based on the securing the national territory by defining a regional sphere of influence and subsidise it with security and trade incentives which indicates the theoretical concept of economic manoeuvring (Caballero & Crescentino, 2020).

Due to the massive scale and scope of these various tools, this study plans to focus on two overarching tools, namely, social engineering and economic manoeuvring, which will be seen from the perspective of both the global and regional hegemons and the subplots each one carries with them. The significant rationale behind the selection of these two tools are these would cover the conduct of foreign policy in terms of diplomacy, UN, economic aid or funding, military defence, and collective security (Chowdhry et al., 2020), which are further highlighted below:

1. Social engineering

Social engineering is the effort that influences the act or secret information that the government often undertakes. Additionally, it is based on engaging with international partners to promote reliable cyberspace through cyber security. The significance of this concept in terms of foreign policy is that it boosts the economy through an online networking system by following the security of federal government policies under cyber security (Sozanskyy et al., 2020). In terms of global powers such as the US and China, it is evident from the literature that through the collection of information by hackers, the original exploit of the network is able to find out through which the next policies based on strengthening the monopoly and targeting the remaining world is possible (Durand, C., & Milberg, 2020). On the other hand, in the case of India and Russia, the increased frequency of involvement of the private sector introduced major changes in the defence industry through the cybersecurity chain (House, 2021). Therefore, the above-mentioned literature is based on highlighting the interrelation between Global and Regional powers as the practices of Regional Powers to follow the Global Powers in terms of overlapping the power of wealth and economic condition with long-term benefits.

Economic Maneuvering

A logical extension of Keynesianism (government spending spree to lubricate economy) that is based on the concept of implementing fiscal and monetary manoeuvring has been able to maintain the economy and develop it in a healthy perspective. In addition, this concept’s role in foreign policy is based on highlighting the security objectives of actions that affect the potential measures of policies (Brem & Nylund, 2021).

In terms of the US, the military forces are working to help maintain the level of power over the entire world, as well as in the case of Russia and India, as India’s foreign policy is based on 5^th generation warfare against Pakistan (Nadeem, Mustafa & Kakar, 2021), however, Russia is aimed to accomplish the goal of economic stability and growth by pursuing political and military cooperations (Renz, 2019). On the other hand, Global Power China is working on the defence industry for peace and implementing new technology for resolving international disputes on its own (Zakaria, 2020). Thus, the tool of economic manoeuvring is based on reflecting the authority and dominance of the US, China, Russia, and India from various aspects.

E. Theoretical Narrative

The course of analysis of the pre-existing research literature has determined that the world has been encountering a period of rapid change since the cold war ended in 1989. The constant change is due to the aspects of globalisation that are being affected inevitably, due to the alterations in the power elitism (Yilmaz, 2010). The concept of globalisation is regarded as the effective expansion of the cultural and social norms as well as the economic systems. The concept of globalisation is treated and understood as a relative progressive process that potentially weakens the homogenous structures. Thus, the terms such as articulation, hybridization, and mosaic are observed to explain the term of globalisation in an organised manner. The exploitation of holy emotions goes hand in hand with the rebirth of political religion (Ziegler & Menon, 2014). Placing democracy and democratic rights on national agendas raises new political issues like minority rights and the right of people of different identities to express oneself and safeguard their cultures in other nations. The power of globalisation to affect nations and communities is its most significant characteristic (Waldman & Barakat, 2016). A defensive reaction against globalisation and its values develops in countries that are vulnerable to these effects or unable to keep up with it, along with emotions of fragility and oversensitivity. In actuality, few countries possess the authority, clout, and aptitude necessary to control the opportunities made possible by globalisation (Yilmaz, 2010). The industrialised countries and multinational corporations serve as the main actors that have mainly benefitted from the progressive adoption of globalisation, as they are able to utilise their resources and powers in a manner of protecting their political and economic interests. The research has shown that the globalisation is destroying the structural and economic developments of developing countries, in an indirect proportionality (Crowe et al., 2011). The ethnic wars, third and fourth generation warfare, new wars, and non-Trinitarian wars exhibits similar causes and similar characteristics. These wars elaborated several actors with differential grievances. These actors are usually regarded as the non-state groups which can be national, sub-national or transactional groups (Waldman & Barakat, 2016).

The word “hegemony,” which comes from the Greek word “hegemonia,” literally refers to one element’s dominating and oppressive status over other elements in the system. A better understanding of modern international relations and power relations is substantially aided by the concept of hegemony (Ziegler & Menon, 2014). Antonio Gramsci made a crucial contribution to the formulation of this idea by arguing that power depends on “permission” as much as force. Hegemony, in Gramsci’s view, refers to either a state’s position as the dominant state in a given territory or as the most powerful nation in the global system. Hegemony, in Gramsci’s view, comprises “cooperation secured by force,” which combines social and political control, coercion, and consent (Crowe et al., 2011). Theories like realism and neo-realism were developed to uphold the status quo and assist the elites of wealthy, hegemonic Western nations (Yilmaz, 2010). These hypotheses sought to make the global system appear natural and unchanging. Hegemony allowed the dominant state to permeate society and smaller groups with its moral, political, and cultural ideals. Institutions from civil society were used to accomplish this. Civilian society is made up of a web of institutions and customs that operate in part independently of the government. The goal of hegemony is to create social and political structures that will be implemented in the targeted countries (Petrović et al., 2019).

It has been noted that the concept of hegemony primarily manipulates the relationships between powers with no superior bodies involved. While the imperial powers are significantly responsible to ensure the superiority of the senior political powers.

The literature evidence represented that the aspects of major power held by a system should not rely on the force, dominancy, and hard power (Ziegler & Menon, 2014). At the start of the post-Cold war era, there was a lot of hope and a secure atmosphere, but these conditions only lasted for a short while. Through the emergence of regional hegemonic aspirations and ethnic and nationalist movements in nations like Iraq and the Former Yugoslavia, old security issues have resurfaced with global implications. Transnational risks like the spread of nuclear weapons and global terrorism dominate the general security agenda. New forms of conflicts with racial, religious, and tribal elements not seen during the Cold War era characterized the early years of the globalization period (Crowe et al., 2011). The increased rate of crime and terrorism has always been the issue of focus in the period of globalization, potentiated by non-state groups, but significantly supported by the political bodies. The evidence obtained from the prevailing studies represented that three theoretical perspectives that are dominant in explaining the issues associated to globalization (Waldman & Barakat, 2016), post-cold war, hegemony, and power, these includes regionalists, globalists, and neo-realists. According to the neo-realist perspective, power distribution is still state-centered and oscillates between unipolarity and multipolarity. As the antithesis of neo-realism, globalists combine cultural, transnational, and international economic-political approaches (Ziegler & Menon, 2014). They emphasize the structural role of non-governmental actors (corporations, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society organizations) in the system and assert that these actors control capital, technology, information, and organizations because the state is a participant in that global net. Regionalists support giving domestic issues and issues on the periphery of foreign policy precedence as a result of the loss of bipolarity and the weak powers in the asymmetric power order (Petrović et al., 2019).

There are a wider variety of global security issues today than there were in the 20th century. The historical link between national security and sovereignty has deteriorated. As it once was, war is no longer a formally acknowledged governmental problem. The infrequent conflicts, which are typically fought by industrialized nations against less developed nations, will be fought with delicate weapons for the purpose of controlling and disarming the adversary. In the era of globalization, war is typically fought through covert operations, special and proxy wars, and propaganda battles that are supported by an international network of intelligence services (Waldman & Barakat, 2016).

Considering the theoretical perspectives and the narratives addressed in the pre-existing evidence-based literature, the use of secondary qualitative research can primarily serve a viable role in determining appropriate analytical results for the study. The non-probability purposive sampling method will be used to ensure the collection of viable and relevant amount of data from the existing literature and factual sources. The use of secondary qualitative analysis will contribute to the development of a generational typology of war and conflict based on four fundamental characteristics of war: the emergence of new conflict domains, the evolution of adversaries, the diversification of goals, and the development of alternative military conflict methods.

F. Theoretical Framework

The study plans to develop a theoretical framework to establish that how global powers establish a dependant variable (DV); i.e., hegemonism, by employing various independent variables (IVs); i.e., tools of the 5^th generation, to achieve their stated and hidden foreign goals. A correlation will be established between these dependent and independent variables to review and analyse that how one impacts the outcome of the other and how a combination of these IVs can have a direct or indirect impact on the DV for both global and regional hegemons. This theoretical framework will be based on two key theories as defined below.

1. Artificial Intelligence Theory

Artificial intelligence is referred to as a theory that encompasses the development of computer systems in such a way that they can perform tasks that would normally require either only humans or at least some extent of human intervention (Michalski, Carbonell, and Mitchell, 2013). These tasks involve decision-making, perceptions, and explanations to reach some kind of conclusion. Since technology is advancing, artificial intelligence is being incorporated into every field of life and is on its way to changing the dynamics of every aspect of life. Similarly, the theory of artificial intelligence is also applicable in warfare. Modern warfare which is also referred to as the fifth-generation warfare has evolved a lot from traditional warfare methods (Cummings, 2017; Taddeo et al., 2019). From the above shreds of literature, it is studied that this theory is based on flourished military actions, advanced economy, and implement the practices of cyber security including hacking, infiltration and destabilizing the national systems, which is displayed in the figure below:

Since the application of the theory of artificial intelligence is performed in the defence sector, modern wars are being fought by virtual attacks rather than physical attacks. Artificial intelligence is playing a huge role in modern warfare.

1. Theory of Hegemonism

The theory of Hegemonism is defined as the democratic parties in the specific regions that passed and regulates the policies in terms of strengthening the trade and military rules and regulations for the economic growth and welfare of the country and nation (Keohane, 2019). From the above shreds of literature, it is extracted that the hegemony of China, the US, India, and Russia is based on strengthening the economy in terms of supremacy by considering the factors of power, dominance, and leadership. All of them are employing both the independent variables like social engineering and economic maneuvering to establish their power, dominance, and leadership. These factors have a significant relationship with global institutions and the multinational corporations (MNCs) and involve many sub plots, which the study plans to explore.

I. Statement of the Problem & Research Questions

This research study will review the hegemonic designs of two global as well as two regional powers and how they are arming their foreign policies with the potent tools of fifth generation warfare in a technologically and economically evolving geographic and cyber world.

In between the landmark developments ranging from Westphalia to Bretton Woods and from Globalization to neo-mercantilism, world has seen the emergence of nation-states, international economic controls with levers leading to social, political, economic, and cultural liberalizations. Emergence of information highways, cyber capabilities, and transformation from traditional to kinetic warfare, all has happened in the past few decades at a lightning speed and pace is not slowing down at all.

When Daniel Abbot described fifth generation as a war of “information and perception” in his “Handbook of Fifth Generation Warfare” in 2010, media’s agenda-setting theory and art of propaganda had already become things of the past. The concepts of social engineering, misinformation, cyberattacks, along with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and fully autonomous systems pretty much became the name of the game. This new generational warfare relates not only to key actors and beneficiaries of the globalization but also to the very survival of small nation-states against hegemonic actors and competitors including neo-imperialists, globalists, multinational corporations (MNCs), conservatives, and the latent entry of non-state actors.

Hegemonism is an established phenomenon and global as well as regional and even states players have been employing various tactics and tools over the centuries to outmaneuver the opposing parties. From Cold war ear to the present day and from a bipolar world to a uni-polar one, hegemons have used various media and agenda setting theories to propagate, influence and achieve their foreign policy stated and hidden goals. This research will try to look at these evolutions in terms of geopolitical and geoeconomics to determine that how it has impacted the global as well as regional races for hegemonism.

This study will be based on a case study approach to determine that how global and regional hegemons have shaped up their foreign policies in a technologically advanced world and how they are employing various available tools to wage a war which many believes is not fought in the battlefields rather in the minds and palms of every individual (mobile phones). The difficulty in formulating the present study is that it takes into account the holistic nature of fifth-generation warfare and its unique characteristics in terms of two various approaches, i.e., global and regional. Insight into these aspects that will help to find answers to our research questions by the expanding body of literature from historians and theorists, allowing for the conduction of the present case study.

Surpassing the theories of communication and agenda setting, this research will focus on theoretical framework to develop a list of dependent and independent variables as explained under the theoretical framework on this synopsis.

According to Fifth Generation Warfare’s description of war’s generations, it is clear that the fourth generation of warfare has merged with the concept of the 5GW, which makes another definition of the 5^th Generation Warfare, that increase the requirement of studying the various concepts and definition of this terminology (van der Klaauw, 2021).

The fundamental factors that influence fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool highlight the economic emergence, the morphing of enemies, the evolution of goals, and the transformation of military policies. However, in terms of critical evaluation of the data, the researcher will try to gather the information which is present in the literature in terms of historical information (Salhi, Abdelkader & Kired, 2020). Thus, by focusing on the facts, the present research will be conducted in order to highlight the use of fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool by two global (US-China) and two regional (India-Russia) hegemons. Various tools of fifth-generation warfare are being employed by both the global and regional hegemons to achieve their stated and hidden foreign policy objectives will also be reviewed through a critical evaluation that is not present in the literature collectively.

A. Research Questions

On the basis of defined research objectives, the research questions are framed below:

1. - What tactics and tools are being used by global and regional hegemons to achieve their foreign policy goals?
  - To what extent does the threat of fifth-generation warfare exist among global and regional powers?
  - Can regional states hedge against this modern warfare?

II. Significance of the study

The study will be focusing on the emergence of 5GW as a potent tool of foreign policy for the hegemons (both at global and regional level). The study has chosen to stay focused on picking up two competitors in the sphere of global hegemony, i.e., US and China and has also tried to pick up two regional players having hegemonic designs within their respective areas of influence, i.e., Russia and India. The study will explore the available literature and explore the current trends of hegemonism and how 5GW tools like social engineering and economic maneuverings within theoretical framework of artificial intelligence and hegemonism will shape up the future trends of hegemony both at the global and regional level.

III. Proposed solution

The research study is likely to help analyse the current and future trends of hegemonism and how it is having a direct and indirect impact on the geopolitical and geoeconomics of the world and selected regions.

The study is proposed to add evidence to the existing knowledge base by adopting a case study approach to determine some efficient solutions to establish the parameters of hegemonism and how best global and regional powers can help establish an equitable and rights-based system.

The study will also help to look at the role of the international institutions like the World Bank, IMF, United Nations and other regional and global organizations like SAARC (Asia), SCO (China, Russia) and EU to see how best they can offer a just geopolitical and geoeconomics framework for the world and regional hegemons where cooperation and collaborations becomes the norms and technologies can be used to help the humanity instead of destroying it (Matraeva et al., 2019).

The results from this study will help construct a generational typology of war and conflict on the basis of four basic features of war: the emergence of new realms of conflict, the evolution of adversaries, the diversification of aims, and the development of alternative means of military conflict.

The research would also help examine that how cyberattacks and information controls are used to gain geopolitical and geoeconomics advantages at the cost of least privileged actors in the global order. Since The study will help elaborate that since data is the new lubricant that influence the decision making, how information is used by the global and regional powers to gain geostrategic, tactical and geoeconomics advantage in use of 5GWs.

The study is likely to give more insights into the fifth-generation warfare strategies that highlight cyber-attacks, the use of artificial intelligence, and non-kinetic methods such as economic and political manipulation, as well as traditional military tactics.

The study will examine and evaluate that how internal economic strengths of any global and regional hegemon helps (Soni et al., 2022) the hegemons to dominate the geoeconomics in their given area of influence.

IV. Research Methodology

The present research is based on a secondary research approach as the significant purpose of the research is to examine and explore the use of asymmetrical warfare as a foreign policy tool with special reference to the global powers (US and China), and regional powers (Russia and India) from a historical perspective by analysing existing literature on the subject. A qualitative approach will be used as the research sought to describe the phenomenon in detail, particularly to investigate a range of factors or variables that influenced the topic at hand (Hancock, Algozzine, and Lim, 2021). The significant rationale behind the selection of a secondary qualitative approach is that the present research is based on elaborating the various dimensions including themes from existing literature (Davidson et al., 2019). Additionally, qualitative research is based on the explanation of data which indicates a subjective approach. In accordance with this, a study conducted by Petrović et al. (2019) based on the collection of facts and information from magazines, articles, journals, and web sources that highlighted the subjective nature of the study consisted of the concepts of the Fifth Generation of War and Conflict. On the other hand, the concepts and ideas gathered from the secondary data is the reflection of various point of view that it is considered to be the joint endeavour of the present researcher and the previous author (Anderson & Paulus, 2021). Thus, with all this past evidence and the framed set of research objectives, the appropriate research methodology for the present study is secondary qualitative.

V. Tool of research

A case study design, therefore, was utilised in keeping with the qualitative nature of the research with the phenomenon of asymmetrical warfare in the context of the US and China rivalry for global hegemony and Russian and Indian hegemonic designs in their respective regional spheres as two parallel case studies.

A case study method is proposed for this research, essentially to carry out an in-depth investigation of a real-life phenomenon that relies upon gathering qualitative data from secondary sources such as interviews, archives, or participant observation (Harrison et al., 2017). The case study is specifically used in the discipline of political economy, politics, and international relations to review and critically analyse the complexities of geopolitical or geoeconomics institutions, processes, and relations (Harrison et al., 2017). A case study approach uses data triangulation as the data collection strategy which leads to a detailed description of a case and thus helps to understand underlying questions of “why” and “how” (Ridder, 2017). Moreover, by unravelling the causes and origins of a phenomenon, a case study can potentially open up a block box to help identify inner patterns and relationships and lay the groundwork for future inquiries (Ridder, 2017). Lastly, epistemological approaches like critical, interpretivism, and positivism are associated with case study research, however, a case study is drawn upon from more than one approach as in the case of interpretative case studies which has incorporated a critical perspective to conduct the study at a particular case such as wider social and political context (Crowe et al., 2011). Therefore, the case study tool for research will be implemented in this study to draw thorough comprehension and in-depth analysis based on stated research objectives.

VI. Data collection and analysis

The section that elaborates on the collection of data and measures the information in a systematic manner for obtaining efficient results is terms of data collection and analysis. Additionally, this section will be based on high-quality information that would show a high level of accuracy in outcomes. In the present study, the researcher will use qualitative data, which indicates that choosing an analytical technique will help analyse the data successfully.

According to Lazazzara, Tims & De Gennaro (2020), qualitative case studies are mainly of two types: intrinsic and extrinsic. An intrinsic case study is centred on an interest in a research topic and does not aim to theorise, whereas a case in an instrumental case study is of secondary interest and serves to supplement or bolster understanding of a research issue. In the qualitative case study design, two methods of data analysis are used: direct interpretation and categorical aggregation.

Accordingly, the current research will be an intrinsic case study attempted to provide a holistic and detailed description of fifth-generation warfare as a foreign policy tool for hegemons and then interprets the two cases, one each of global (US and China) and regional (Russia and India) powers to understand hegemonic behaviour in general concerning asymmetric warfare. The research proceeded through a series of stages typically associated with case study design, beginning with defining and selecting the case, collecting, triangulating, and analysing data, followed by data interpretation, and reporting the findings (Crowe et al., 2011). Accordingly, the researcher formulated several research questions in light of existing literature and selected the particular case of global and regional hegemons. For collecting data, the researcher conducted an exhaustive analysis of multiple sources of secondary data, particularly a literature reviews on the subject of the development of 5^th Generation Warfare and its use as a foreign policy tool by hegemons, and then proceeded to investigate the case of the two global and two regional hegemons from a historical perspective.

VII. Conclusion

The potential outcomes of the present research would be based on the comparison between two global (US and China) and two regional (Russia and India) hegemons to help explain their respective hegemonic designs in light of their stated foreign policies and how they are using the various available tools of fifth generation warfare to achieve sustain and maintain their hegemony over their respective spheres. The study is designed to explore the basic and advanced insights into concepts of hegemonism, foreign policy and 5^th generation warfare by adopting a case study approach within the theoretical framework of artificial intelligence and hegemonism and various kinetic foreign policy tools as dependent and independent variables.

The globe has witnessed the establishment of nation-states, international economic regulations with levers leading to social, political, economic, and cultural liberalisations in between the historic advances ranging from Westphalia to Bretton Woods and from globalisation to neo-mercantilism. The development of information highways, cyber capabilities, and the shift from conventional to kinetic combat have all occurred in the last few decades at a breakneck rate that is showing no signs of slowing down. Additionally, this study will help outline the historic patterns and evolution of hegemony, its impact on geopolitical and geo-economics in the given circumstances, role of various supportive and conflicting actors including international institutions and even the non-state actors.

The study will be focusing on specific two tools of the 5^th generation warfare to help see that how these two are employed by various global and regional hegemons to what impact. These findings can be replicated at the state level and other regional bloc globally to determine the accuracy of these findings. This might also open the doors for other scholars to test theoretical framework used in this study on identical studies at regional and global level and compare and evaluate other emerging actors vying for hegemony on the world or regional stage.

This study will also help to explore the areas where global and regional hegemons collide and cooperate with each other for the sake of their foreign policy, strategic or tactical gains and how this impacts the geopolitical and geoeconomics spheres.

The study will also help to highlight the evolution and formation of the foreign policy by the global and regional hegemons besides helping to explore the gaps and undercurrents involved in these processes. This study will also help us find out that how foreign policies adopt to the advancements witnessed in recent decades in terms of technological and cyber capabilities. In terms of the literature review, a significant conclusion will obtain as secondary qualitative methods would use to collect the data based on various ideologies of researchers.

VIII. Shortcomings of the Research

In order to conduct the entire research study, the possible shortcomings that the researcher would face are elaborated on below:

1. - The collection of the data based on the hegemony of the US and China according to the selected tools would be difficult, as gathering concise data is based on additional effort and time.
  - In terms of gathering the qualitative data that reflect the comparison between India and Russia also based on the extraction of specific objectives that might create issues.
  - As the collection of data is based on secondary qualitative, thus there might be the possibility of obtaining some unusual information or assumption which is not according to the theme of the present study.

I. References

Abbas, M., & Shah, H. J. (2021). Declining US Status as A Superpower: Implications for The World Order. Margalla Papers, 25(1), 131-142.

Aldawood, H., & Skinner, G. (2019). Reviewing cyber security social engineering training and awareness programs—Pitfalls and ongoing issues. Future Internet, 11(3), 73.

Ali, J. (2022). Empire Online: The US Government’s Reterritorialization of Cyberspace After 9/11 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)).

Anderson, L. A., & Paulus, T. M. (2021). Secondary qualitative analysis in the family sciences. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 49(4), 362-375.

Baldwin, D. A. (2013). Power and international relations. Handbook of international relations, 2, 273-297.

Mikael Weissmann. (2015). Chinese Foreign Policy in a Global Perspective: A Responsible Reformer “Striving For Achievement”. Journal of China and International Relations JCIR: VOL. 3, No. 1 (2015) 152-157

David O. Shullman and Andrea Kendall-Taylor (June 2022). Marshal Papers: Best and Bosom Friends Why China-Russia Ties Will Deepen after Russia’s War on Ukraine, Centre for Strategic and International Relations, 1-8

Baruah, D. M. (2018). India’s Answer to the Belt and Road: A Road Map for South Asia.

Sandeep Bhardwaj (2018). India and the mantle of regional hegemon, Asia Research Institute

The University of Nottingham’s Asia Research Institute,

Brands, H., & Gaddis, J. L. (2021). The New Cold War: America, China, and the Echoes of History. Foreign Aff., 100, 10.

Brem, A., & Nylund, P. A. (2021). Maneuvering the bumps in the New Silk Road: Open innovation, technological complexity, dominant design, and the international impact of Chinese innovation. R&D Management, 51(3), 293-308.

Caballero, S., & Crescentino, D. (2020). From the quest for autonomy to the dual break: structural and agential changes in Brazil’s foreign policy during the 21 st century. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63.

Chan, S. (2021). Challenging the liberal order: the US hegemon as a revisionist power. International Affairs, 97(5), 1335-1352.

Chowdhry, S., Felbermayr, G., Hinz, J., Kamin, K., Jacobs, A. K., & Mahlkow, H. (2020). The economic costs of war by other means (No. 147). Kiel Policy Brief.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A. & Sheikh, A., (2011). The case study approach. BMC medical research methodology, 11(1), 1-9.

Cummings, M. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare. London: Chatham House for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Davidson, E., Edwards, R., Jamieson, L., & Weller, S. (2019). Big data, qualitative style: a breadth-and-depth method for working with large amounts of secondary qualitative data. Quality & quantity, 53(1), 363-376.

Demmelhuber, T. (2019). Playing the diversity card: Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy under the Salmans. The International Spectator, 54(4), 109-124.

Durand, C., & Milberg, W. (2020). Intellectual monopoly in global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 404-429.

Floridi, L. (2020). The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369-378.

Foot, R. (2020). China’s rise and US hegemony: Renegotiating hegemonic order in East Asia?. International Politics, 57(2), 150-165.

Goh, E. (2019). Contesting Hegemonic Order: China in East Asia. Security Studies, 28(3), 614-644.

Goldstone, J. A., Grinin, L., & Korotayev, A. (2022). Introduction. Changing yet persistent: Revolutions and revolutionary events. In Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century (pp. 1-34). Springer, Cham.

Grinin, L., & Grinin, A. (2022). Revolutionary waves and lines of the twentieth century. In Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century (pp. 315-387). Springer, Cham.

Hagerty, D. T. (2020). India and the Global Balance of Power: A Neorealist Snapshot. In Indian Foreign Policy in a Unipolar World (pp. 23-42). Routledge India.

Hancock, D.R., Algozzine, B. & Lim, J.H., (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R. & Mills, J., (2017), January. Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: qualitative social research (Vol. 18, No. 1, 1-17)

House, A. (2021). The Price of a Cybersecurity Culture: How the CMMC Should Secure the Department of Defense’s Supply Chain Without Harming Small Businesses and Competition. Public Contract Law Journal, 50(3), 449-470.

Huo, S., & Parmar, I. (2020). ‘A new type of great power relationship’? Gramsci, Kautsky and the role of the Ford Foundation’s transformational elite knowledge networks in China. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 234-257.

Kardaş, Ş. (2020). Turkey’s Libya policy: militarization of regional policies and escalation dominance. China International Strategy Review, 2(2), 325-336.

Kelshall, C. M. (2022). Fifth Generation Warfare? Violent Transnational Social Movements as Security Disruptors. In Disruption, Ideation, and Innovation for Defence and Security (pp. 269-298). Springer, Cham.

Keohane, R. O. (2019). The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes, 1967–1977. In Change in the international system (pp. 131-162). Routledge.

Kim, M. H. (2019). A real driver of US–China trade conflict: The Sino–US competition for global hegemony and its implications for the future. International Trade, Politics and Development.

Kirton, J. J. (2019). The dynamics of G7 leadership in crisis response and system reconstruction. In Shaping a New International Financial System (pp. 65-93). Routledge.

Köstem, S. (2018). Different paths to regional hegemony: national identity contestation and foreign economic strategy in Russia and Turkey. Review of International Political Economy, 25(5), 726-752.

Kozon, M. J. (2022). A History of Eastern Europe 1918 to the Present. Modernisation, Ideology and Nationality: Ian D. Armour, London & New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic, 2021, x+ 470pp.,£ 26.99 ebook.

Krishnan, A. (2022). Fifth Generation Warfare, Hybrid Warfare, and Gray Zone Conflict: A Comparison. Journal of Strategic Security, 15(4), 2.

Kuznetsov, A. (2014). Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international affairs. Routledge.

Lamba, R., & Subramanian, A. (2020). Dynamism with incommensurate development: The distinctive Indian model. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(1), 3-30.

Layton, P. (2018). Fifth-generation air warfare. Australian Defence Force Journal, (204), 23-32.

Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., & De Gennaro, D. (2020). The process of reinventing a job: A meta synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103267.

Le Gouriellec, S. (2018). Regional power and contested hierarchy: Ethiopia, an ‘imperfect hegemon’in the Horn of Africa. International Affairs, 94(5), 1059-1075.

Leleux, D., Woodruff, R., Perry, K., & Bergesen, D. (2021). Fifth Generation Wireless Development in Great Power Competition. The Cyber Defense Review, 6(1), 15-32.

Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M. J. (2018). Is international relations a global discipline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484.

Mastanduno, M. (2019). Partner politics: Russia, China, and the challenge of extending US hegemony after the Cold War. Security Studies, 28(3), 479-504.

Matraeva, L., Solodukha, P., Erokhin, S., & Babenko, M. (2019). Improvement of Russian energy efficiency strategy within the framework of” green economy” concept (based on the analysis of experience of foreign countries). Energy Policy, 125, 478-486.

Michalski, R.S., Carbonell, J.G. & Mitchell, T.M. eds., (2013). Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Springer Science & Business Media.

Morrison, W. M. (2019). China’s economic rise: History, trends, challenges, and implications for the United States. Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western Asia, 28(2/3), 189-242.

Murtaza, K., Azhar, M., & Murtaza, Z. (2022). Indo-USA 123 Deal and Nuclear Cooperation Agreement Feature and Reasons: Perspective of China and Pakistan. Political Horizons, 1(1), 44-52.

Nadeem, M. A., Mustafa, G., & Kakar, A. (2021). Fifth Generation Warfare and its Challenges to Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 4(1).

Neculcea, C. A. (2020, October). Warfare Generations–Conventional and Unconventional in Warfare Evolution. In Romanian Military Thinking International Scientific Conference Proceedings (pp. 310-317). Centrul tehnic-editorial al armatei.

Nukusheva, A., Ilyassova, G., Rustembekova, D., Zhamiyeva, R., & Arenova, L. (2021). Global warming problem faced by the international community: International legal aspect. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 21(2), 219-233.

O’Rourke, R. (2022, February). Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense-Issues for Congress. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC.

Patel, A. (2019). Fifth-Generation Warfare and the Definitions of Peace. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 2(2), 12-12.

Petrović, B., Međedović, J., Radović, O., & Lovrić, S. R. (2019). Conspiracy mentality in post-conflict societies: Relations with the ethos of conflict and readiness for reconciliation. Europe’s journal of psychology, 15(1), 59.

Prestes, E. G. (2022). The digital geopolitics of 5G: elements to understand the Chinese technological development of the fifth generation of mobile telephony. GEOUSP, 26.

Qureshi, W. A. (2019). Fourth-and fifth-generation warfare: Technology and perceptions. San Diego Int’l LJ, 21, 187.

Rashid, A., Khan, A. Y., & Azim, S. W. (2021). Cyber hegemony and information warfare: A case of Russia. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 5(1), 648-666.

Razma, G. (2019). A modern warfare paradigm: reconsideration of combat power concept. Journal of security and sustainability issues, 8(3), 435-452.

Renz, B. (2019). Russian responses to the changing character of war. International Affairs, 95(4), 817-834.

Ridder, H.G., (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10(2), 281-305.

Ritchie, N. (2019). A hegemonic nuclear order: Understanding the Ban Treaty and the power politics of nuclear weapons. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(4), 409-434.

Salhi, B., Abdelkader, I., & Kired, S. (2020). The Role of Technology in Orienting US Foreign Relations: US-Chinese Technological Competition between Trade War and Global Dominance.

Schenoni, L. L. (2019). Hegemony. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.

Siev, J. (2020). The Second-Generation Snag. THE CLARION: THE CLARION, 30.

Soni, A., Das, P. K., Hashmi, A. W., Yusuf, M., Kamyab, H., & Chelliapan, S. (2022). Challenges and opportunities of utilising municipal solid waste as alternative building materials for sustainable development goals: A review. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 27, 100706.

Sozanskyy, T., Krasnytskyi, I., Lutsyk, V., Yaremko, G., & Tuz, N. (2020). International practice of legal support of cyber security of the country. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 23(2), 1-8.

Stent, A. (2020). Russia and China: Axis of revisionists. Brookings Series on Global China, 1-13.

Stimmer, A., Lenz, M., Forschauer, M., Leonhardt, M., Gawlik, W., Alacs, C., … & Marchgraber, J. (2020). Options for the Implementation of Fast Control Reserves in the Continental European Power System. In Proceedings of the 4th Grid Service Markets Symposium; Imboden, C., Ed (pp. 54-65).

Szuba, T. (2022). Toward Understanding of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand for Human Social Structures/Markets. In Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand as Self-control Mechanism of Social Structures (pp. 295-382). Springer, Cham.

Taddeo, M., McCutcheon, T., & Floridi, L. (2019). Trusting artificial intelligence in cybersecurity is a double-edged sword. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(12), 557-560.

Tipaldou, S., & Uba, K. (2019). Movement adaptability in dissimilar settings: the far right in Greece and Russia. European Societies, 21(4), 563-582.

van der Klaauw, C. (2021). Generations of Warfare: An Outdated Concept. The Three Swords Magazine, (37), 71-74.

Veebel, V. (2020). The future of Russia’s military industry: can “special deliveries”, desperate needs, generous loan deals, and “old love” from Soviet Times keep partnerships running? Global Affairs, 6(4-5), 577-592.

White, J. T. (2021). After the foundational agreements: An agenda for US-India defense and security cooperation. Brookings Institution.

Wu, X. (2020). Technology, power, and uncontrolled great power strategic competition between China and the United States. China International Strategy Review, 2(1), 99-119.

Zakaria, F. (2020). The new China scare: Why America shouldn’t panic about its latest challenger. Foreign Aff., 99, 52.

Zhang, Y., & Xie, H. (2019). Interactive relationship among urban expansion, economic development, and population growth since the reform and opening up in China: An analysis based on a vector error correction model. Land, 8(10), 153.

Zhekenov, D. (2020). Chinese Foreign Policy Through the Prism of’Community of Common Destiny’. Available at SSRN 3602271.

Yilmaz, S. (2010). State, power, and hegemony. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3).

Ziegler, C. E., & Menon, R. (2014). Neomercantilism and great-power energy competition in Central Asia and the Caspian. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 8(2), 17-41.

Waldman, T., & Barakat, S. (2016). Understanding influence: The use of statebuilding research in British policy. Routledge.

Fifth-Generation Warfare As A Foreign Policy Tool For Hegemons

Order Now

To Get 50% Discount

Retrieve your password