Programmes

Beyond short-term wartime dynamics, the global defence sector is undergoing a significant and far-reaching transformation. The recent increase in military spending, initially framed as a cyclical response to regional conflicts, is increasingly recognized as part of a broader structural repricing of security across global markets. This has also prompted a reassessment of defence firms’ role, shifting their perception from cyclical industrial contractors primarily tied to procurement cycles toward strategic assets embedded within the dynamics of geopolitical fragmentation and sovereign competition.   Consequently, this shift has contributed to the erosion of the post-Cold War peace dividend model, which underpinned global economic integration for more than three decades. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, advanced economies largely embraced the assumption that economic interdependence would mitigate conflict risk, thereby justifying sustained declines in defence expenditure. This assumption underpinned an efficiency-oriented model of globalization, optimized around lean inventories, cost minimization, and geographically dispersed supply chains, while assigning comparatively limited importance to redundancy and strategic industrial depth.   However, by 2026, this model had demonstrated its material vulnerabilities. Security considerations were no longer treated as external to economic policy, but rather embedded within it, as states sought to integrate defence production, industrial capacity, and supply-chain control into a broader framework of national resilience.

By 2101, the concept of democracy and the architecture of governance will undergo a profound transformation that moves far beyond traditional mechanisms such as ballot boxes and political rhetoric. In their place will emerge a system built around transparent digital interfaces that display the outputs of exceptionally powerful algorithms entrusted with making consequential decisions on behalf of societies. The central dilemma in political philosophy will no longer concern who holds the right to vote. Instead, the debate will shift toward a far deeper and more consequential question: who will possess the authority to design the code that governs human destinies and shapes control over the world’s resources?   Meanwhile, Nada sat in a soaring glass chamber overlooking the heart of the city, where vast digital walls shimmered with data visualisations and undulating lines. The space was known as the Pulse of the People Hall, the neural hub through which algorithms monitored public sentiment in real time. The main display contained no reference to parties or candidates; instead, it presented dense layers of complex code and finely calibrated colour indicators that measured levels of fear, anger, satisfaction, and trust, using the same precision as that used to measure temperature and humidity.   Nada released a heated exhale and murmured to herself, “All of this happened because democracy eroded from within.” She had studied at university what historians came to describe as the Age of Political Chaos in the late twenty-first century, a period in which elections degenerated into open arenas of cyber warfare, driven by legions of automated bots and engulfed by unending torrents of fabricated news. During that era, borderless capital asserted dominance over every dimension of political life, purchasing electoral campaigns, opinion polls, and platforms for public debate. Confronted with successive climate, pandemic, and financial crises, elected governments stood paralysed, absorbed by internal rivalries far more than by the act of governing.   At that pivotal moment, fatigued governments and weary societies alike came to regard a single path as the only rational recourse: “Let the machine decide.” What first emerged was the Comprehensive Algorithmic Governance System, an advanced suite of frameworks designed to support decision-makers in interpreting data and reaching swifter, more objective judgements. These systems were introduced to the public as neutral entities: unconcerned with transient popularity, untroubled by ballot boxes, and untouched by private interests. Yet what began as an auxiliary tool soon transformed into the primary centre of authority and, ultimately, the sole arbiter of decision-making.

For decades, the systems that governments, banks, universities, and public institutions built to verify who someone is rested on a single foundational assumption that personal information, documents, and physical characteristics were difficult to convincingly fake. A Social Security number combined with a date of birth and a driver's license was, for most practical purposes, enough to establish identity.   That assumption has now been broken. The US recorded its highest number of data breaches in 2025 since tracking began, identity theft reports to the Federal Trade Commission rose nearly 20% year over year, and global fraud losses now exceed $534 billion annually. Generative AI, the same technology powering productivity tools and creative applications across the economy, has become a force multiplier for those seeking to deceive digital systems at scale. The speed, sophistication, and accessibility of these tools mean that the problem is no longer confined to the margins of financial crime. It has moved to the centre of a broader question about whether the digital infrastructure modern states depend on to function is as reliable as they have assumed.

Mounting doubts regarding U.S. strategic success in the 2026 Iran war have made Washington eager to project strength by reasserting pressure in other contested regions, including the Caribbean. Cuba is re-emerging as a focal point of great power competition involving the United States, China, and Russia. Most prominently, the country stands out to the U.S. President Donald Trump administration as a “failing state.” The administration believes such a state requires intervention.   The growing U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere and its drive to expand its influence over the region align with the long-standing tradition of U.S. regional dominance rooted in the Monroe Doctrine. Despite outward claims of victory, do the underlying doubts surrounding U.S. strategic success in the 2026 Iran war increase the likelihood of direct military intervention in Cuba, or do they instead reinforce a model of coercive pressure?