{"id":64,"date":"2025-08-13T15:07:27","date_gmt":"2025-08-13T15:07:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.talkframework.com\/?page_id=64"},"modified":"2025-08-13T16:23:30","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T16:23:30","slug":"politics","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.talkframework.com\/?page_id=64","title":{"rendered":"Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
Home<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
The model<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
The book<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
The author<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Politics<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When engaging in the space of politics, make sure that you understand what political group an audience defines as. It seemed obvious to both the Soviets and the West when entering Afghanistan that they were dealing with, well, Afghanistan. It seemed obvious to myself and my colleagues when engaging with civic education in Herat and Kandahar that the populace of these regions saw themselves as Afghans first and perhaps Heratis or Kandaharis second. But these political groupings and priorities was not what we found. Just like Mike Martin describes in\u00a0An Intimate War<\/a><\/em> and\u00a0Why We Fight<\/a><\/em>, most people in the South West of Afghanistan see themselves as Pashtun first with their Afghan identity relegated to third place after Muslim. My attempts at appealing to their shared Afghan identity and cohesion often fell on deaf ears, but once I realised that the political entity that I should address was the Pashtun one, or the clan or the village, I had more impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legitimacy of a democratic state is derived from the quality of its democratic processes, and a good influence analyst is aware of when the next election is and what the polls indicate \u2013 for the target audience as well as its allies and enemies. China targeted the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections\u00a0to this end, with the aim not only of boosting China-friendly candidates but more broadly of undermining public confidence in democratic institutions, including the judiciary. Russia assists populist right-wing and left-wing movements across the West that push against NATO and Western military intervention in Ukraine, and also influences elections from Serbia to Georgia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes, sowing chaos can have long-term unintended consequences. In the First World War, Germany was increasingly concerned about the threat of Russia as its own resources were stretched very thinly across two fronts. The existing social unrest in Russia provided an opportunity to sow discord: this might distract Russia from the war effort, or even lead it to withdraw. Germany funnelled millions of Reichsmarks to the Bolsheviks and set up Lenin\u2019s famous sealed train journey from exile in Switzerland to Petrograd in April 1917, ensuring he could lead the revolutionary movement. Germany\u2019s short-term goals were to\u00a0provoke revolution, weaken the Russian government, and force Russia out of the war, which they achieved with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. This didn\u2019t, however, end up being a short-term distraction: it reshaped history for a vast swathe of the world, with consequences that continue to resonate today.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When thinking about political levers, it is therefore critically important to map out all the alternative future timelines that could happen as a result. The principle of \u201cmy enemy\u2019s enemy is my friend\u201d is popular for a reason \u2013 it works. But it can work in unintended ways too, as, for example, the US have found on numerous occasions when funding Islamic militias against anti-US governments. When thinking about defensive measures against foreign influence campaigns, a good heuristic is to look for any narratives whose effect is to foster resentment. Open a newspaper or watch the news, and notice the stories that leave you with a festering, angry feeling \u2013 or overwhelming pride at being on the side of the angels. Those stories are leverage gold. They are everywhere in our engagement-optimised media landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A good influence analyst is able to put themselves in the boots of the staunch libertarian that wants to limit the state to only providing the structures of security and law, as well as the sandals of the committed communist holding that all should get what they need and provide what they can. Once situated in the appropriate footwear, a cornucopia of influence opportunities presents itself. The differences in how we see \u201cfairness\u201d means that the libertarian feels as offended by taxes and cultural edicts as the communist feels offended by inequity and oppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to popular opinion, there are very few staunch libertarians and committed communists in the West. Most of us are somewhere in the middle and, at least in Europe, agree that all have a right to health, education and support. We may disagree on how much each of us should pay for these rights, but even there most of us would agree that those that have more should pay more. Why, then, is everyone so angry at each other? Constantine Nicolaidis<\/a> offers an answer: \u201canybody to the left of center is as crazy as the craziest figure to the far-left. And anybody to the right of center is just as crazy as the craziest figure to the far- right. And so that\u2019s not actually how our population splits out what they think and how they feel, but everybody believes the craziness as long as it\u2019s on the other side of the political spectrum. And so they\u2019re not seeing the true, core centrist qualities of the general population on both the Left and the Right<\/em>.\u201d Nicolaidis proceeds to identify how there are \u2018counter-elites\u2019 at the very ends of the political spectrum, influential individuals so disillusioned by the mainstream system that they want to break it, and who can be boosted or otherwise supported by external actors.\u00a0They often appeal to populist sentiments, presenting themselves as champions of the people against the out-of-touch establishment on the other side, whether on the left or right, stoking political hostilities by casting anyone outside their shared worldview as the enemy.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n