Q. No. 2: What will be the strategic and political implications of the US withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, and how is it impacting the arms control arrangements between the great powers?
- Introduction
The US withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty (OST) in November 2020 under President Trump marked a significant blow to the post-Cold War arms control architecture. Though largely symbolic, the move reflected a deepening strategic mistrust among nuclear powers and has contributed to a growing erosion of transparency, verification, and diplomatic trust among the US, Russia, and other stakeholders.
- What is the Open Skies Treaty?
- Signed in 1992, entered into force in 2002, involving 34 countries, including the US and Russia.
- Allows unarmed aerial surveillance over participating countries’ military activities and facilities.
- Objective: Build transparency, trust, and early warning of aggressive troop movements or buildup.
- Why Did the US Withdraw?
| Reason | Details |
| Accusations of Russian Non-compliance | US claimed Russia restricted flights over Kaliningrad and border areas near Georgia. |
| Technological Redundancy | Advancements in satellite imagery reduced dependence on manned flights. |
| America First Doctrine | Trump aimed to exit agreements seen as disadvantaging US security. |
| Cost vs Benefit Concerns | High cost of aircraft operations with perceived limited strategic gain. |
- Strategic and Political Implications
- For US-Russia Relations
- Triggered retaliatory withdrawal by Russia in 2021.
- Marked further decline in bilateral arms control diplomacy.
- Contributed to the militarization of Eastern Europe amid NATO-Russia tensions post-Ukraine invasion.
- For NATO and European Allies
- Undermined European security framework; allies like France and Germany criticized the move.
- Loss of shared intelligence capability—Europe relied on US reconnaissance under OST.
- Created a rift between transatlantic partners over trust in US commitment to arms control.
- For Global Arms Control Regime
- Followed US withdrawal from INF Treaty (2019) and Iran Nuclear Deal (2018).
- Raised doubts over the renewability of the New START treaty, though Biden administration later extended it till 2026.
- Impact on Arms Control Architecture
| Area | Impact |
| Transparency | Loss of mutual aerial inspection = decline in predictability and trust. |
| Verification Norms | Undermines cooperative inspection mechanisms fundamental to non-proliferation. |
| Security Dilemma | Powers may assume worst-case intentions, leading to arms buildup. |
| Global Perception | Weakens US credibility as a promoter of rules-based order. |
- Future of Arms Control Between Great Powers
- US–Russia: With New START expiring in 2026, future treaties face hurdles due to Ukraine war and rising NATO-Russia hostility.
- US–China: China never joined OST and has resisted trilateral arms talks, preferring bilateralism.
- Multipolar Arms Race: Unregulated development of hypersonic missiles, space-based weapons, and AI-driven military platforms increases risks.
- Emerging Trends:
- Shift from arms reduction to arms modernization.
- Decline in verification-based treaties, rise of deterrence doctrines.
- Conclusion
The US exit from the Open Skies Treaty marked not just a policy change but a symbolic retreat from cooperative security. Its implications—strategic mistrust, diminished transparency, and weakening of multilateral institutions—signal a broader arms control crisis in the emerging world order. Without bold diplomatic renewal and trust restoration among the great powers, the world may edge toward a new arms race more dangerous and less predictable than the Cold War.
Q. No. 3: What are the similarities and differences between Nagorno-Karabakh and Kashmir conflicts?
- Introduction
- Historical Overview
- A mountainous enclave predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians within Azerbaijan.
- Soviet-era administrative boundaries placed the region under Azerbaijani control (1920s).
- Armed conflict erupted in 1988–1994, reignited in 2020, and again in 2023, leading to Azerbaijani control over the area.
- Ceasefires brokered by Russia; no final status yet formally resolved.
- A Muslim-majority region disputed between India and Pakistan since Partition of 1947.
- Maharaja’s controversial accession to India led to three Indo-Pak wars (1947, 1965, 1999).
- UNSC passed Resolution 47 (1948) calling for a plebiscite.
- India’s Article 370 abrogation (2019) sparked renewed tensions; Pakistan calls for international mediation.
- Key Similarities
| Similarity | Description |
| Ethnic/Religious Roots | Nagorno-Karabakh: Christian Armenians vs Muslim Azerbaijanis Kashmir: Muslim majority vs Hindu-majority Indian control |
| Disputed Sovereignty | Both regions have been claimed by two or more states with international legal ambiguity. |
| Violent History | Thousands killed in multiple wars, skirmishes, and civilian crackdowns. |
| External Involvement | Russia in Nagorno-Karabakh; China and global powers in Kashmir indirectly. |
| Right to Self-Determination | Both regions have local populations claiming autonomy or independence. |
| Use of Military Force | Both states used force to assert control (e.g., Indian military in Kashmir; Azerbaijani offensives in 2020 & 2023). |
- Key Differences
| Aspect | Nagorno-Karabakh | Kashmir |
| International Status | Seen as a territory within Azerbaijan under international law | Disputed territory per UN resolutions (e.g., UNSC 47) |
| Mediation Efforts | Mediated by Russia, OSCE Minsk Group | India rejects third-party mediation; Pakistan seeks UN involvement |
| Conflict Intensity | Resolved temporarily via military victory (Azerbaijan) in 2020–23 | Remains active with insurgency and state repression |
| Geopolitical Stakes | Regional conflict with limited global implications | A nuclear flashpoint between two major South Asian powers |
| Demographic Changes | Armenia evacuated population post-2023 | India accused of settler colonialism post-Article 370 repeal |
- Role of International Community
| Nagorno-Karabakh | Kashmir |
| Russia has brokered ceasefires; Turkey supports Azerbaijan | UN passed resolutions; China, OIC, HRW criticize Indian actions |
| OSCE Minsk Group (France, US, Russia) sidelined post-2020 | Global silence post-2019 due to strategic ties with India |
- Geopolitical Implications
- Nagorno-Karabakh: Demonstrates a shift toward military solutions in post-Soviet conflicts. Russia’s weakening role post-Ukraine war may embolden Azerbaijan.
- Kashmir: Remains a simmering conflict with potential for escalation, especially amid India-China tensions in Ladakh.
- Conclusion
Q4: The Democracies Rise of the Right: Causes, Challenges, and State Responses in Liberal ________________________________________
- Introduction
- Defining the “Right-Wing” & Its Rise
- The “Right” refers to political ideologies emphasizing nationalism, traditionalism, social conservatism, and often authoritarian tendencies.
- Contemporary right-wing movements are often:
- Populist (us vs them),
- Anti-globalist (protectionist),
- Anti-immigration and
- Skeptical of liberal institutions and the media.
- Causes of the Rise of the Right-Wing Movements
- Economic Discontent
- Globalization & automation = job losses in manufacturing sectors.
- 2008 Financial Crisis: Erosion of trust in liberal economic elites.
- COVID-19 and inflation intensified anti-elite resentment.
- Cultural Anxiety
- Migration crisis (e.g., Syrian refugees in Europe) triggered fear of identity loss.
- Rise in Islamophobia, xenophobia, and “replacement theory” narratives.
- Perceived erosion of traditional values (family, religion, gender roles).
- Political Polarization
- Mainstream parties have failed to address middle-class concerns.
- Rise of “strongman” leaders who promise decisive action.
- Decline in trust in liberal media and state institutions.
- Technological Disruption
- Social media platforms amplify right-wing populist messaging.
- Echo chambers, algorithms, and disinformation favor emotionally charged narratives.
- Weaponization of fake news and conspiracy theories.
- Key Manifestations Around the World
| Country | Right-Wing Expression |
| USA | Trumpism, Capitol Hill riot, anti-immigrant laws |
| India | Hindutva, anti-Muslim laws (CAA, NRC), crackdown on dissent |
| Brazil | Jair Bolsonaro’s militaristic populism |
| Hungary/Poland | Anti-EU rhetoric, curbs on judiciary and press |
| Italy | Giorgia Meloni’s far-right ascent |
| Germany | AfD’s surge in East Germany post-refugee crisis |
- Challenges to Liberal Democracy
- Erosion of checks and balances (e.g., judiciary and press freedom).
- Rise of authoritarian populism—leaders bypass institutions for direct “people’s mandate.”
- Threats to minority rights and civil liberties.
- Undermining of multilateralism (e.g., UN, WHO, EU) by nationalist governments.
- Fueling hate speech, discrimination, and polarization.
- Strategies for Democratic Resilience
- Economic Inclusion
- Redistribute globalization gains through fair taxation and social safety nets.
- Support deindustrialized regions and focus on job reskilling.
- Rebuild Trust in Institutions
- Transparent governance, judicial independence, electoral integrity.
- De-polarize through dialogue-based civil society engagement.
- Regulate Tech Platforms
- Counter fake news and algorithmic manipulation.
- Enforce digital accountability and fact-checking regimes.
- Civic Education & Social Cohesion
- Invest in critical thinking, pluralistic education, and inter-faith harmony.
- Promote inclusive nationalism and democratic patriotism.
- Democratic Reform
- Revitalize political parties with grassroots engagement.
- Encourage coalition politics and avoid majoritarianism.
- Conclusion
Q. No. 5: Most of the major political parties have committed to the creation of the new provinces in Pakistan. Should new provinces be created or not, in Pakistan? Elaborate your answer by giving references from the new provinces debate.
- Introduction
- Historical Background of Provinces in Pakistan
- Initially comprised of West and East Pakistan, the 1971 separation left four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
- Article 239(4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for amending provincial boundaries, requiring 2/3rd majority in the concerned provincial assembly.
- Repeated proposals include South Punjab, Hazara, Bahawalpur, and Karachi province.
- Arguments in Favor of New Provinces
- Administrative Efficiency
- Smaller provinces = better governance, especially in larger regions like Punjab.
- Pakistan has only 4 provinces for 241 million people, while India has 28 for 1.4 billion.
- Ethnic and Cultural Recognition
- Ethnic identities (e.g., Seraiki, Hindko) demand cultural acknowledgment via separate provinces.
- Enhances political inclusion and reduces separatist tendencies.
- Equitable Resource Distribution
- Provinces like South Punjab remain underdeveloped despite contributing to national GDP.
- Smaller provinces can better manage PSDP projects, local funds, and health/education.
- Political Decentralization
- Devolution of power aligns with Article 140-A of the Constitution (local governance).
- Ensures representation and curbs Punjab-dominated centralism.
- Arguments Against New Provinces
- Threat to National Unity
- Ethnic or linguistic lines may deepen communal divisions and fuel sectarianism.
- Political Manipulation
- Major parties may exploit the issue for vote banks without a clear administrative roadmap.
- Economic Viability
- New provinces need bureaucracy, capital, judiciary, assemblies, and infrastructure.
- Could strain federal resources and increase tax burdens.
- Legal & Procedural Hurdles
- Constitutionally difficult: requires provincial assembly and parliamentary approval.
- Resistance from provincial elites fearing power dilution.
- Current Political and Legal Developments
- PML-N and PPP have supported South Punjab and Bahawalpur provinces in manifestos.
- PTI announced administrative reforms in Punjab but didn’t formalize new province.
- In 2022, Punjab Assembly passed a resolution for South Punjab Province, but constitutional hurdles remain.
- Hazara Province Movement gained momentum post-2010 renaming of NWFP as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
- Case Studies
| Region | Demand | Key Arguments |
| South Punjab | Separate province for Seraiki belt | Underdevelopment, lack of representation |
| Hazara | Opposition to KP identity | Hindko-speaking identity, local governance |
| Karachi | Proposed as 5th province | Urban mismanagement, ethnic tensions |
- Recommendations
- Constitutional Clarity: Establish a Provincial Reorganization Commission with parliamentary oversight.
- Administrative Basis: Provinces should be formed on governance and development lines, not ethnic divides.
- Public Referendum: In disputed regions (e.g., Hazara), conduct legal referendums.
- Local Government Empowerment: Parallel strengthening of Tehsil and Union Council levels.
- Balanced Federation: Avoid Punjab-splitting rhetoric unless consensus exists within the region.
- Conclusion
Q. No. 7: How is militarization of Artificial Intelligence and Computing revolutionizing the military affairs?
- Introduction
The 4th Industrial Revolution has brought Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced computing to the forefront of global defense strategies. Their militarization is redefining how wars are fought, planned, and even deterred—ushering in an era of autonomous systems, algorithmic warfare, and data-centric command structures.
- What Is the Militarization of AI and Computing?
- Militarization of AI refers to the deployment of AI algorithms, machine learning, and big data analytics in military operations.
- This transformation is known as the “Third Offset Strategy” in defense circles—where technological superiority replaces sheer manpower.
- It is altering not just weapons, but also the doctrines, strategies, and ethics of warfare.
- Key Domains of AI & Computing in Modern Warfare
- Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS)
- Drones, unmanned ground vehicles, loitering munitions (e.g., Israeli Harop).
- Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) can select and engage targets without human intervention.
- Example: Russia’s Uran-9, US’s Loyal Wingman Project.
- Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
- AI-driven satellites and drones enhance real-time threat detection.
- Facial recognition, pattern analysis for tracking enemies.
- Cyber and Information Warfare
- AI defends critical infrastructure and predicts cyber threats.
- Deepfake videos, disinformation bots—psychological operations powered by computing.
- Decision Support & War Gaming
- AI simulates multiple battlefield scenarios for real-time decision-making.
- Predictive modeling used in logistics, troop deployment, and risk analysis.
- Strategic Advantages for Militaries
| Advantage | Explanation |
| Speed & Precision | AI reduces decision time from minutes to milliseconds. |
| Reduced Human Risk | Unmanned systems lower casualties. |
| Cost Efficiency | Fewer soldiers, more automation. |
| 24/7 Operations | Machines don’t need rest—ideal for persistent ISR missions. |
| Predictive Warfare | Anticipating enemy movements and pre-emptive responses. |
- Global Trends: Key Military Powers
| Country | Key Developments |
| USA | Pentagon’s Project Maven, JAIC (Joint AI Center), Autonomous Drones |
| China | AI in hypersonic missiles, facial tracking, and electronic warfare |
| Russia | AI in cyber defense, robot tanks like Uran-6, voice-activated command systems |
| Israel | Pioneers in drone warfare, AI-powered Iron Dome interceptors |
| India | Developing AI roadmap in defense under DRDO and defense startups |
- Risks and Ethical Concerns
| Risk | Description |
| Loss of Human Control | Lethal decisions by machines can trigger unintended escalation. |
| Algorithmic Bias | AI misidentifies targets—civilian casualties rise. |
| AI Arms Race | Destabilizing effect on global peace like Cold War nuclear buildup. |
| Legal Grey Zones | No international treaties fully regulate AI warfare. |
| Cyber Vulnerabilities | AI itself can be hacked, manipulated or spoofed. |
- Future of Military Affairs
- Hybrid Warfare: AI will integrate with space, cyber, and traditional domains.
- Swarm Drones: Dozens of autonomous mini-drones overwhelming enemy defenses.
- AI-Enabled Defense Shields: Instant interception using AI-calculated trajectories.
- Strategic Deterrence: Nations may deter wars not just by nukes, but by tech superiority.
- Ethical Frameworks: Growing demand for a Geneva Convention for AI weapons.
- Conclusion
The militarization of AI and computing is not just a technological evolution—it is a doctrinal revolution. It has the potential to enhance military efficiency, but also destabilize strategic balances and undermine humanitarian laws. The path forward lies in regulated innovation, international cooperation, and the assertion of human control over lethal decisions.