Long shadows of history
'The Voices of War' is a sharp, thought-provoking podcast that cuts through simplistic narratives to unpack messy truths behind conflict. In this standout episode, Decoding the Echoes of Empire: How Imperial Legacies Shape Today's Geopolitics , host Vedran 'Maz' Maslic interviews Samir Puri , visiting lecturer in war studies at King's College London , on the enduring legacies of empire.Puri uses his books, The Great Imperial Hangover, and Russia's Road to War with Ukraine, as springboards to unpack how imperial structures still shape modern geopolitics. This episode challenges listeners to move beyond 'presentist' thinking and recognise how the roots of today's conflicts are entangled in legacy.Puri explains how ancient empires, maritime colonialism and more recent forms of economic dominance still shape global power structures. He calls the empires formal (conquest-based) and informal (influence-based), arguing that today's superpowers - China, the US, Russia - are essentially empires in modern garb.This is not just a history lesson but a vital framework for understanding current global tensions. A must-listen for anyone trying to make sense of today's geopolitical mess.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 days ago
- First Post
Are American companies underreporting carbon emissions? Satellites offer a clue
New satellite data shows US oil and gas companies may be underreporting methane emissions by up to two-thirds, casting doubt on corporate climate disclosures. As federal oversight weakens under Trump-era rollbacks, researchers urge governments to adopt satellite-based monitoring to enforce transparency. read more New satellite data reveals that many American companies, especially in the oil and gas sector are underreporting their greenhouse gas emissions, raising doubts about the reliability of corporate self-disclosures. This discrepancy highlights the potential for satellite monitoring to become a critical tool in ensuring accurate climate reporting and enforcing environmental accountability. Recent academic research, including a study from King's College London, compared emissions detected by Climate Trace, a global initiative using over 300 satellites and thousands of sensors, with companies' publicly reported figures. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Alarmingly, about 75 firms were found to be reporting only around a third of their actual methane emissions. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a warming effect 80 times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years, primarily leaks from oil and gas operations, making accurate reporting vital for climate mitigation efforts. More from World Big blow to Chinese plane-makers as Trump bars export of critical jet parts, technology This growing evidence of underreporting comes at a politically sensitive moment in the US, where the federal government under President Donald Trump rolled back numerous climate regulations and openly questioned the science of climate change. Meanwhile, some states, led by Democrats are pushing forward with their own climate disclosure laws to fill the regulatory void left by federal rollbacks. State-level initiatives in New York and California seek to mandate comprehensive emissions reporting, including scope 3 emissions from supply chains, in contrast to the diluted or frozen federal rules. These efforts face legal challenges but signal increasing pressure on companies to provide transparent climate data. Experts note that while many companies voluntarily disclose emissions and climate risks, standardised and enforceable reporting remains crucial for investors and policymakers. Satellite technology, currently more precise in detecting methane than carbon dioxide, offers a promising avenue for governments to independently verify emissions data. Researchers propose that authorities use satellite estimates as default emission figures, requiring companies to prove if their actual emissions are lower, a move that could drastically reduce underreporting and improve climate policy effectiveness. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As states move ahead despite federal inaction and as investors grow more skeptical of inconsistent disclosures, satellite monitoring could play an essential role in holding companies accountable. The technology may well become a cornerstone of future climate transparency, particularly in the areas where political resistance and misinformation continue to cloud efforts to tackle global warming.
NDTV
23-05-2025
- NDTV
"In The Nuclear Era....:" What UK Analyst Said On Operation Sindoor
New Delhi: The recent military action between India and Pakistan was the first instance of two nuclear weapon states engaging in continuous strikes and counter-strikes, which sparked global tensions, Dr Walter Ladwig, a professor at King's College London, said. Mr Ladwig, who has written an analysis titled 'Calibrated Force: Operation Sindoor and the Future of Indian Deterrence for security think tank Royal United Services Institute, also said India carried out the military action to punish the terrorists behind the Pahalgam terror attack and not provoke a "wider conflict" with Pakistan. The Senior Lecturer in International Relations at King's College was speaking to NDTV when he made the remarks. Mr Ladwig said Operation Sindoor demonstrated a range of abilities the Indian Air Force (IAF) has built over the last decade. "This might also mean that we are in a very undiscovered country when it comes to military operations. In the context of the nuclear era, we do not have an example of two nuclear arms states who have engaged in reciprocal airstrikes like this," he said. "The year 2019 was a little bit of a watershed moment, and that was very calibrated and orchestrated," he said, referring to the Balakot airstrikes that were carried out in response to the Pulwama terror attack. "We don't have this. The Russians and the Chinese fought in the late 1960s, this was on the ground, and in some cases, the combators were worried about escalation. This is a really new space and this is going to be studied in the decades to come." The King's College London professor credited the Indian government's policies for its precision strikes on terror infrastructure in the neighbouring country. "I see it as an evolution in the government's policies. If we go back to 2016, the surgical strikes (in response to the Uri terror attack), these sort of cross border raids have happened in the past but they were never publicised. They were never made so public. The 2019 airstrikes in Balakot were a break from past precedent... And now you have the next level, which is to say multiple targets are being struck in multiple rounds," he said. On the intervening night of May 6 and 7, the IAF conducted a series of precision strikes and destroyed infrastructure in nine terror bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). The act - codenamed Operation Sindoor - was in response to the April 22 in Jammu & Kashmir's Pahalgam that killed 26 tourists. The Resistance Front, a shadow group of the banned Pakistan-based LeT terror group, claimed responsibility. India's actions, however, escalated bilateral tensions as it led to strikes and counter-strikes between the two nations. The Pakistani actions were strongly responded to by the Indian side. On May 10, India and Pakistan reached an agreement to stop all firing and military action on land, air and sea, with effect from 5pm. Operation Sindoor "tried to change the equations that the onus is on the other side", Mr Ladwig said. "...the policy change of not feeling the need to assemble the dossier, connect the dots to say it is incumbent on India to prove in a courtroom sense or beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that there are these connections... If you fail to deny them (terrorists) the space to operate, then that is enough. We will decide that we may take serious action," he said. However, the analyst added, putting the onus on the other side does not mean India stops making efforts to put forward a credible case in front of the global audience. "The immediate aftermath of the (Pahalgam) terror attack saw solidarity pouring in for India. There were messages of understanding and support. In the present moment based on recent history, I think India has the benefit of the doubt from its partners but they shouldn't take that for granted," he said. The professor also said that India's counter-strikes to Pakistan's attacks on the country, which lasted for three nights after Operation Sindoor, were essential to avoid doubts over its long-term goals. "Operation Sindoor sought to inflict punishment on the terrorists and not provoke a conflict. Beyond that, once the tit for tat cycle began, there was a desire to show and demonstrate abilities to strike, do more than the ability to just hit terror infrastructure, and have the ability to show a degree of escalation. It raises questions otherwise as to why did the government stop when it did (Pakistan retaliated) and it gets back to what was the mission in the first place," he said. He said India's showcase of its ability to retaliate will only lead to a "cat and mouse game". "After the strikes, the smart terrorists will go underground the moment something big happens. They will not be sitting around in known facilities, waiting for retaliation," he said. "The ability to track and monitor and know precisely where the pin points are going to become harder because groups are going to spend a lot more time on concealment and covering their tracks, making it difficult for intelligence officials," he added.
India.com
20-05-2025
- India.com
China the real winner...? How India-Pakistan conflict turned into a jackpot for Beijing, could be a game-changer for export of...
China the real winner...? How India-Pakistan conflict turned into a jackpot for Beijing, could be a game-changer for export of... The recent four-day military clash between India and Pakistan has caught world's attention. It began on the night of May 6, when India launched 'Operation Sindoor,' targeting terrorist camps inside Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. In response, Pakistan attempted retaliatory strikes on Indian territory. Tensions escalated rapidly, bringing both nuclear-armed neighbors to the brink of war. However, a ceasefire was agreed upon on May 10, and since then, both sides have made strong claims about their actions and outcomes. While the spotlight has mostly been on India and Pakistan, another country has quietly emerged in the backdrop and one such is China. According to a report by the BBC, China may have gained the most from this conflict, especially when it comes to its defense industry. Experts point out that Pakistan used Chinese-made weapons and fighter jets during the conflict with India. This has unexpectedly boosted China's military export profile. The conflict acted almost like a live demonstration of Chinese arms in action, particularly their fighter aircraft, which could now attract attention from other countries looking to modernize their air forces. China's silent victory During the war-like confrontation, the skies became a battlefield, with both countries deploying drones, missiles, and fighter jets. India relied on aircraft built by France and Russia, while Pakistan took to the skies with Chinese-made J-10 and JF-17 jets. Though both India and Pakistan claimed their fighter jets did not cross each other's borders and only launched missiles from within their own airspace, the use of airpower was central to this conflict. Interestingly, this clash has unexpectedly become a turning point for China's defense industry. Some defense experts are calling it a 'Deepseek moment', a rare opportunity for Chinese weapons to prove their worth in real-world conflict, even though China was not directly involved. Zhou Bo, a Chinese military analyst, told the BBC that the air battle served as a massive advertisement for China's arms industry. Until now, China had little to show in terms of how its weapons perform in actual warfare. But this conflict, through Pakistan's use of Chinese jets, offered the world a glimpse of their strength. One of the most visible effects of the conflict was the spotlight on Pakistan's use of Chinese-made J-10 fighter jets. The attention these aircraft received helped boost the reputation of Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, the Chinese manufacturer behind the J-10. 'Too early to say that Chinese jets had an edge' However, defense experts warn against jumping to conclusions. Professor Walter Ladwig from King's College London stated, 'It's too early to say that Chinese jets had an edge in this conflict.' So far, no concrete evidence suggests Chinese weapons decisively outperformed others. Still, the buzz around Chinese arms, especially on platforms like Chinese social media, paints a different picture. Carlotta Rinaudo, a researcher from the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, noted that Chinese platforms are flooded with messages celebrating their country's defense technology. 'Even though there's limited information, the narrative being built is that China came out on top,' she said. World's largest arms exporter The US is currently the world's largest arms exporter, with China at fourth place. Until now, Beijing has mainly sold weapons to countries like Pakistan and Myanmar, but this conflict could help open doors to other nations that have traditionally looked to the West for military supplies.
