Key Reflections
* To understand how to achieve peace and eradicate violence, it is important to study what makes peaceful societies peaceful.
* Economic stability is an important factor in achieving and preserving peace. If people can feel their lives getting better, they are less likely to resort to violence.
* Far fewer wars and conflicts are ending in peace agreements compared to a few decades ago, which has led to ‘forever wars’ which are damaging to the global economy.
* Data literacy is a crucial tool for peacebuilding as it allows nations and multilateral organisations to study the aspects of societies that garner ‘positive peace’, as well as enabling the identification and analysis of national security threats.
* Technology has immense potential to be used for both good and bad purposes. AI, DNA splicing, and drones, for instance, can all be used to benefit or harm people.
* Human beings are ingenious and are, for the most part, striving to be better people. While we are flawed, our innate capacity for empathy, combined with our intellect, can lead to great progress.
Transcript:
SG: Dr. Sajjan Gohel
SK: Steve Killelea
SG: Welcome to the NATO DEEP Dive podcast. I’m your host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel, and in this episode, I speak with Steve Killelea, Founder and executive chairman for the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).
Steve Killelea has combined a highly successful career in technology with a philanthropic focus on peace and sustainable development. He founded the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) in 2007 as an independent not-for-profit global research institute analysing the intertwined relationships between, peace business, and economic development. As one of the world’s most impactful think tanks, IEP’s research is extensively used by multilaterals, including the United Nations and World Bank, as well as taught in thousands of university courses around the world. He is also the creator of the Global Peace Index, the world’s leading quantitative measurement of global peacefulness, as well as producing the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) which provides a comprehensive summary of the key global trends and patterns in terrorism.
SG: Steve Killelea, welcome to NATO Deep Dive.
SK: Great, it’s my pleasure to be here.
SG: It’s great to have you.
We met a couple of months ago at the LinCT (Leadership in Counter Terrorism) conference in Melbourne. I recall it because you and I were trying to work out how the tea machine worked! and we ended up having a brief conversation and it turned into a more substantive contact. I found your whole career and your work fascinating.
Maybe we start from the beginning. You had a very successful career in tech before turning towards peace research. What was the turning point that made you dedicate your life to understanding and quantifying peace?
SK: Well, I guess it really needs to start from the background. I basically started off as a programmer, developed two computer programs, launched two companies. One ended up publicly listed on NASDAQ and the other on the Australian Stock Exchange. So, I made quite a bit of money out of that. That set me up in all sorts of different ways.
Then I decided to set up a family foundation to work with the poorest of the poor. Since then, it’s done about 300 projects around the world now. You’ve probably got about 4 million direct beneficiaries. What I didn’t realise at the time was that the poorest people in the world generally live in conflict zones. And so, there’s all these different things which go together in conflict zones, like terrorism, for example–that’s where most terrorism occurs. The worst poverty, worst ecological degradation. So, you’ve got this vicious cycle.
There was one point there, I was in northeast Kivu in the Congo, walking through there and just thinking about these cycles. I’m thinking, ‘well, what’s the opposite? What are the most peaceful nations in the world? Is there anything we could learn about them which we could bring to the projects we were doing in Africa?’ It was really a fantasy question, to be honest. So, I got back, searched the internet, and couldn’t find anything, and that’s how the Global Peace Index was born.
I guess that creates really quite a profound question. If a simple businessman such as myself can be walking through Africa and wonder, ‘what are the most peaceful nations in the world?’ and it hasn’t been done, then how much do we know about peace? If you can’t measure something, can you truly understand it? If you can’t measure it, how do you even know whether your actions are helping you or hindering you in achieving your goals? You simply don’t. And so that was the start of my journey on peace.
But at the time then, it was just a one-off project–I guess this is the entrepreneur in me coming through–I guess at that stage, it was a one-off project. I was going to put it into a university, fund it a quarter million dollars or something a year and move on. But I couldn’t find anyone who’d actually really had the same passion for it as me. The more I looked at it and studied peace, I realised that we didn’t ever really study peace. We mainly studied violence, thinking that it was peace.
Peace isn’t exactly the opposite of violence. The best analogy is, I guess, when you think about health. So, we go back to the 60s, great breakthroughs in pathology, none of us are going to die of a heart attack young, we’re even curing cancers, really important. But if we want to stay resilient and we want to stay healthy, then we need the right diet, correct mental disposition, and good exercise. You’re not going to learn anything from studying people on their deathbed. You need to study people who are healthy. And it’s a similar thing if we want the resilience to be peaceful. We need to understand healthy societies with high levels of peace. And that, for the Institute for Economics and Peace, is really what we’re about.
SG: Well, that’s absolutely fascinating. And kind of building on that, to some degree, I think you’ve answered part of it. But when you first began asking the question, ‘what are the most peaceful nations and why?’ What surprised you most about the lack of existing data on peace?
SK: Well, I think what I realised is that the peace movement is generally–how can I put it–they’re coming from the heart, [they’re] good people, really good people. A lot of them are engaged in the concepts of personal peace, which you’ll see reflected in a whole range of different areas, particularly in a lot of the major religions within the world. And I guess in many, many ways, it’s morally based.
And so, for me, because I’ve got a quantitative background–I’ve always been interested in maths–I really wanted to make something which was grounded. And part of it was really to pull peace back to the centre ground. And that’s why the Institute is called the Institute for Economics and Peace. If you can understand the economics of peace, for policy makers, it’s a lot easier then to make decisions which are rational, logical, but peaceful.
SG: You said that peace is not just the absence of violence, but the presence of conditions that sustain it. So, what does peace mean to you, personally?
SK: Yeah. Well, I guess it comes at many, many different levels. And this is one of the traps with peace and the study of peace. Everyone thinks they know what peace is, but we’ve all actually probably got slightly subtle, different visions of peace. So, for example, for the military, peace may be when the guns of war fall silent. For an authoritarian dictator, peace is when you’ve got no opposition. For other people, peace might be a religious experience, the eschacy of being with God. For others, it just might be the absence of afflictive emotion, which is a Buddhist definition of peace.
Now, for me, personally, we work off a number of different definitions at the Institute for Economics and Peace. So, the first one is the absence of violence or fear of violence. And out of that, we built the Global Peace Index, and that consisted of three different domains: One was the internal safety and security, ongoing conflict and militarisation.
The second one is positive peace, which is the attitude, institutions and structures which create and sustain peaceful societies. And that we derive empirically, mainly through mathematical modelling and statistics based around the Global Peace Index, about 50,000 data sets, which we then compare it to.
SG: How do you see the relationship between economic stability and peace resilience in the current geopolitical context?
SK: Well, I think it’s complicated, but certainly what we find is there’s a strong correlation between strong economic performance and peace.
Obviously, it’s not the only thing which creates a peaceful society, but it’s an important factor. So, if most people can see their lives improving, and most people, one of the big views is economic lens, and also personal violence, whether they’re exposed to it. But [if] their lives are improving, they’re a lot less likely to seek alternatives or resort to violence. Now, when you start to see countries with decreasing economic stability and low levels of growth, stagnant growth, or for many, particularly the poor, when it’s reversing, then you’re likely to see violence arise.
So, we’re just doing a study at the moment–In fact, I’ve got an interview with Reuters in a few hours on this subject–it’s about the youth riots, which are occurring in different parts of the world. So, if we look at that, what we can see is it’s all related to a group, to similar sorts of issues. So, one of them is corruption. Two is the lack of opportunity and stagnant economic growth, and a feeling of isolation. So, we’re finding those kinds of things come together. So, that’s an example of just how you can see the economic impact of peace.
SG: Very, very interesting. Much of what I look at, Steve, is terrorism. That’s why I was in Melbourne for the LinCT conference, where I was giving a presentation. What are the trends in global terrorism, such as with the Global Terrorism Index, that concern you the most at the moment? And do you see any regional patterns that are shifting that we should be paying attention to?
SK: Well, I think we’ve been now producing the Global Terrorism Index probably for about 12 years, and we’ve got data going back probably about 25 years. And I think the thing which really strikes me is just the shifting nature of terrorism and how fast it can actually change.
The terrorist organisations themselves, particularly the jihadists, are highly fluid groups. So, the Islamic State, for example, is now active in 22 countries. So, I think the area of the world which concerns me the most at the moment would be the Sahel, and its particularly Burkina Faso, Niger, and what we can see there in Mali.
And what we can see there is that the terrorism in many ways is growing, and it’s starting to now spread into the west coast of Africa. And I don’t think there’s enough attention on that. So, for example, Togo had the most terrorist attacks in its history in 2024.
And we’re currently talking to a couple of governments out there, like Ghana, for example, which are now getting quite worried about their security situation as well. So, I think that’s the area of the world which is most concerning to me. If we come back over and we look at the rise of the Islamic State chapter [Islamic State Khorasan Province, ISKP], I think there’s a concern with that, because that’s now moving out into Eastern Europe and further beyond out into the ‘stan’ states.
So, I think the rise of them, because they’ve got exceptionally good social media skills and propaganda skills, and they produce their content now in a whole range of different languages. They do do it in English, but, for example, they don’t do it in French or Spanish, because their focus is out in that direction. So, I think that’s another area of concern.
Pakistan, I think we need to worry about Pakistan. Obviously, you’ve got the issues between Pakistan and India, which have resulted in two wars, if we go back over the last 60 years, and we can see an eruption again last year. There was a bombing in Delhi just in the last couple of days, which again brings back to the worry of it.
But you’ve then also, with Pakistan, you’ve got Afghanistan as well. You’ve got the issues which are flowing through there with the PKK. And so, I think that’s another area of concern.
But one of the things I would say is just this, it’s so fluid. So, if we went back to, let’s say, 2015, 2016, at the height of the Islamic State, and 2011, you find then that Iraq was the country most affected by terrorism. But today, terrorism deaths in Iraq are 1% of what they were a decade ago.
Now, if we went back a decade ago, and we went over to the Sahel, there were virtually no terrorist deaths. And this just gives you an idea of just how the fluidity with which it can change. And I guess that’s probably my biggest concern is just, it’s a bit like whack-a-mole. You hit it somewhere, and it comes up somewhere else again.
SG: So you used a couple of times the word fluidity, and the world has been seeing this rising instability from Ukraine, to the Middle East, to tensions in South Asia, you mentioned Pakistan, as well as the fact that Pakistan is now having tensions with Afghanistan and the Taliban, which I don’t think many people could have predicted before. Based on the data by your institute, are we witnessing a long-term global decline in peacefulness, or is this just a cyclical turbulence?
SK: Well, that’s an excellent question. I guess, to some extent, it’s the timeline you look over, isn’t it? So, if you look over a much broader and longer timeline, we’ve just been through an age of exceptional peacefulness. We did have the Cold War, but the emphasis was on cold, wasn’t it? Then with the breakup of the USSR, and it stayed fairly static. We did have the rises, wars in the Middle East with Afghanistan, and then followed on with Iraq.
But we’re looking at it at the moment, and let’s look at the data. What we can see is over the last 17 years, there’s only been three years where peace has actually increased. In fact, it hasn’t increased since 2017. It’s just fallen off slightly each year. But having said that, we look at it last year, and these are just roughly the figures. There were about 96 countries which deteriorated in peace, but about 79 which improved.
And so, you can see by that, it’s quite finely balanced. So, the key issue really, and this is my take on it anyway, is what we’re finding is that we’re not able to solve the existing war. So, we all talk about the concept of forever wars. It’s an accurate statement. So just to support that, if we went back to the 1970s, let’s say, 23% of all conflicts finished with a peace agreement. In the 2010s, that was down to 4%.
So, if we went back to the 1970s, 49% of conflicts finished with a victory, mainly for the government, but sometimes for the rebels. And if we now move forward to the 2010s, that’s down to 9%. So, the issue really is how can we as an international community come about really trying to solve some of these conflicts, because there’s a huge economic benefit if we can actually decrease the levels of conflict and then decrease the money we have to spend to ward against conflict.
SG: If we build on this, how do you interpret the data on militarisation and authoritarian resurgence? And what does that suggest for global peace trajectories? Because we’ve seen that in sub-Saharan Africa, there has been a rise in military strongmen rule. We’ve seen in Pakistan that they are trying to pass the 27th Amendment, which will give unprecedented powers to Pakistan’s chief of army staff. How does this impact on global peace trajectories?
SK: Yes, look, it’s a complex and difficult question. So, one of the facts which very, very few people realise, so if we’re looking at the militarisation up to the start of the Ukraine war, so say 2022, the average militarisation within countries had been actually declining. More countries were spending less percentage of their GDP on the military.
The number of soldiers they have were going down as well. So that reversed with the start of the Ukraine war, and that’s mainly because of just the number of European countries which are now increasing their expenditure for very, very good reasons. So, as we look at it, it’s a lot more complex than what it looks.
So, for most countries, for weapons, they have to import the weapons. There’s only a few countries which can really globally compete in arms manufacturing globally. The obvious nations are like the US, Russia, China, UK, France, and India to a lesser degree.
So, a lot of countries then were trying to redirect their money to things like health, education, business development, and such. And so that may come back. It may come back. But if we’re looking now at the rise, that may come back, but that’ll be dependent on whether we’re able to solve a lot of these ongoing conflicts and get more creative and better ways of being able to create peace.
The authoritarianism globally is on the rise, and that’s a concern. So, we can see that there’s a number of models now which are rising, and they’re very different types of authoritarian states which are attractive to others. So, for example, you’ve got the Singapore model. You’ve got the UAE model, and they’re quite benevolent types of authoritarian models. But on the other hand, you’ve got China, which is militarily aggressive, incredibly suppressive of its people.
It’s even down to trying to control the way they think. And then obviously, we can see the rise of Russia. And obviously, you can see the concepts of the forever dictators, which you can see in Africa as well. So, I think really, a lot of these people would be looking at the West, where in the past, the Western models of democracy seemed the only way to which you could actually get economic progress.
That’s not true anymore. So, I think in many ways, there’s a need for democracies, Western democracies in particular, to re-look at themselves, understand better what they need to do to actually improve their own internal economic performance. And then they’ve got a model which they can push out to the rest of the world.
SG: The economic cost of violence, Steve, is a powerful figure in your reports. They make for sobering reading and are compelling. Do you think policymakers though, are taking those numbers seriously enough? Or is peace still seen as idealistic, rather than economic? And I hope I’m not coming across as cynical in that!
SK: No, no, you’re not coming across cynical at all. So, the economic cost of violence in the global economy was roughly $20 trillion last year. So, try and put that in perspective, that’s about 11.6% of global GDP. And if we look at it on a per capita basis, you’ll have 40 countries in the world which have a lower per capita income than the cost of violence per capita globally. And those countries would be the poorest in the world.
So, if you could literally stop violence there, you’d probably be able to double the per capita income in those countries. And in the process, you’d alleviate a large portion of the poverty in the world. So just look at that underneath. I think it varies depending on whom you’re speaking to. And it varies from country to country. So, I think people are getting a lot more cognisant and a lot better understanding of the costs of violence.
And I think some of the modern wars, when you see the destruction, which you can see happened in the Gaza Strip, for example, or what’s happened in Lebanon recently, I think governments are more and more understanding just the massive cost to infrastructure. If you get a modern war, it really destroys infrastructure quicker than any time in the past. So, I think at that level, there’s a reasoning and a rationale around it.
Without naming any countries, we’ll see there are a number of other countries, look, they want to keep the peace at home, but they’re quite happy to try and exploit violence in another country if they think it’s of economic, rational benefit to them. So, I think it’s a complex issue. You’ve got to look at the individual country.
You’ve got to look at the individual leaders. You’ve got to look at the empathy, I guess it’s the collective empathy of a country too, and the way it now views the way it should deal with the rest of the world in terms of the way it deals with its influence. So, I think those things all come into it as well.
But I think as we’re moving on, I think certainly if you look at the Trump administration, for example, a lot of people will be highly critical. I think they do understand just the economic perils of war. You look at how much the Iraq War cost the US and for an outcome where Iraq’s probably closer to Iran than it is the US.
SG: So, as you know, this is a NATO podcast. And in the context of NATO and defence education, which I’m myself involved in, what role do you think data literacy plays in shaping peace building and also deterrence strategies?
SK: Look, I think it’s essential for people to understand the meaning of data and how they use it. Now, certainly organisations like NATO are pivotal to the security of Europe. And we certainly can see that through the invasion of Ukraine. And so, people need to really understand the trade-offs and the values between what’s the appropriate level of military expenditure to guarantee security, and also just the other things, the softer things which actually create a resilient peace so that peace can be maintained within cultures and societies.
So, if we’re looking at that, it comes around to number of different things. So, if we’re looking at, first up, it’s a well-functioning business environment, which we’ve spent time on, well-functioning government, equitable distribution of resources, low levels of corruption, high levels of human capital, which in many ways you can see is education, good relationships with neighbours.
You can see the issues with that, let’s say through Europe at the moment, acceptance of the rights of others. Now, these eight different pillars come together to form a systemic way of being able to view how to develop societies so they’re highly resilient. But when we’re looking at this, and this is what we call positive peace, that also strongly correlates with a lot of other things we think are important.
So, the same things which build peace also build the building blocks of all these other things we think are important, like higher GDP growth. For example, countries improving in positive peace compared to countries deteriorating have twice per annum GDP growth rates. Measures of well-being and happiness are highly correlated as are performance on ecological measures and development and a whole range of other things.
So, in many ways, positive peace can describe an optimal environment in which human potential can flourish. So, I think for NATO, and we’re seeing this picked up in many other areas, being able to sort of now try and help create these background conditions which create for the kind of resilience, so that the countries are strong when they’re hit with external shocks, I think it’s incredibly important.
As being able to clearly articulate, and within the societies they operate, the trade-offs between military expenditure and social expenditure. You see in many of the European countries at the moment as they increase the level of military expenditure, that comes at the cost of education, social support, and particularly when the economies are struggling, this can now be a double-edged sword.
SG: Double-edged sword, absolutely. It makes me want to go back to how you started and see how that impacts on the future, and what I mean by that is technology. How is that contributing to global peace, or is it harming it? What’s good, and in your opinion, what’s bad about it?
SK: Yes, well, it’s an interesting question. It’s a question which quite often comes up, actually, to be honest, but technology is like a knife. It’s a tool. You can use it to cut up your food. You can use it to craft and shape carvings of your life, so you can create something of beauty, or you can use it to kill someone, and technology is pretty much the same.
So, it’s really sort of the use of technology which determines its goodness or its badness, I suppose. So, there’s so many different areas of technology, isn’t there? So many different areas of technology.
So, if you’re looking at, let’s say, artificial intelligence, for example, it has the capacity to free human beings up, and create much more productive environments, providing you get that productivity and the outcome of its spread. We’ll all be a lot more wealthy and have a lot more free time to be able to choose and do what we want. On the other hand, you can use it to create propaganda, which would be more compelling in the area of terrorism. It can create more compelling propaganda than we’ve ever seen before.
So at the Institute for Economics and Peace, for example, we’ve just produced a series of videos that might at least take a couple of hours to produce, where we’ve got an avatar, an excellent looking person, much better than me and with a much better voice, and it just pulls off the data we’ve got as a person speaking. It’s highly charismatic and the presentation is filled with all these graphics explaining the story. And so that’s a positive example of how to use AI.
But on the other hand, we can see Khorasan State, the Khorasan chapter of Islamic State, for example, using it to produce highly influential and very, very dangerous videos. So, I guess the use of technology, it’s so vast, it comes back to what technology you’re looking at, and where do you use it?
So, for example, another one would be like, let’s say CRISPR technology, so we can actually splice DNA. Great, we’re going to come up with all sorts of things which will cure all sorts of issues we’ve got at the moment and into the future. But on the other hand, you can now take them in splices and create new viruses. So again, it’s back to the usage.
Now, how do you bring all this together? I don’t think anyone’s doing it in a comprehensive way to really understand which technologies, the various technologies, and how they’re used. When is it good? When is it bad?
So, if we look at the development of drones, it’s been great for the defence of Ukraine. Excellent, excellent, and really commendable, and you’ve got to really admire the advances made. But on the other hand, as that technology now gets picked up and is used by ELN and the drug cartels down in Colombia, they’ve now got the ability to better survey the jungles as the military may come in. They’ve also got the ability now to stage attacks remotely like they could never do before. So again, the technology, it depends how you use it.
SG: So, I like the part of what’s good and positive, because the bit that’s negative and bad scares me in many regards. And I feel like it’s one of those challenges we’ll keep talking about. But I want to sort of, as we reach the near end of our discussion, I want to try and stay on that positive dynamic. And one question I always wanted to ask you is what is the most peaceful place you’ve ever been? Other than my podcast, of course!
SK: Well, obviously, this is the most peaceful place because the two of us are both peaceful men!
So, Iceland’s actually the most peaceful place in the world. I’ve been there many times. I love Iceland. For a holiday, it’s spectacular. I mean, it’s one of the most spectacular places in the world. But over and above that, you always get the standard joke, well it’s so cold, no one wants to go outside. But that’s not true. It’s not true. So, if you look at Iceland and you trace back through its history, there’s a lot to be learned from that.
I think the last time there was a war fought in Iceland was about 1000 AD. Now, the country was incredibly hostile, one of the most hostile places in the world for people to live. It’s also sparsely populated.
So, people of Iceland would come together once a year in the middle of summer, obviously, at a place where you’ve got the two tectonic plates meeting. And it’s the place where you can see the most impact of tectonic plates anywhere in the world. It’s a fascinating place. And then they’d set the laws which they’d then follow. So obviously, they’d have the laws and there’d be adjustments and then grievances would be heard and sorted out. But because it was so sparsely populated, you didn’t have the king’s army or the king’s sheriffs to actually implement the law. The locals had to implement the law.
And so, what that meant was that it was really the law that was shared around, you needed a common set of values which bound you all together. And like, even up to maybe 30 or 40 years ago, you could walk into anyone’s place in Iceland, if they weren’t home, it was okay to put the kettle on and fix yourself a cup of tea. That was because the environment was so harsh. If you got caught out in it, you’d seek out the nearest place of shelter. The people may or may not be there.
And similarly, like if you go back and look at other aspects of the culture as well. So, the men quite often were seafarers, so they’d be away for lengthy periods of time, sometimes a year, sometimes even more. They’d come home and they’d find their wives have had a child by another man. So, to get the social harmony and get it working, there was a whole different set of dynamics that came on than what happened in, let’s say, the rest of Europe. So those are just some of the examples which you can pull out of Iceland. But for a holiday, I’d recommend it as one of the best places in the world. And peaceful, you don’t have to worry about getting mugged.
SG: Well, that’s very reassuring and pleasing, and also the fact that Iceland was one of the founding members of NATO. So, it’s nice that a NATO member has been identified in your list.
Final question, Steve. What gives you hope? Despite some of the IEP data that identifies the challenges that exist, and it’s, of course, verifiable. What gives you that hope that gives us a sense of positivity and a desire to believe that there are better days to come?
SK: Well, I think the ingenuity, it’s hard to quantify, but yes, I’m basically optimistic. I don’t think the human race is going to disappear soon. I guess it’s ingenuity.
Human beings are ingenious people. We’re also, in many ways, striving to create a better world and a better outcome. But we’re also, in many ways, flawed as well because we’re flawed human beings.
And I think there’s also a capacity within human beings at an individual level, generally, not the truth for everyone, but generally, to try and strive to be a better person. And so, certainly within my life and within the sphere I’ve been, and even though people may be flawed in many ways, they do grievous things but think they’re doing right, but most people really are struggling to be better people. You can see it reflected in the way we bring up our children. We learn from the beginning to be better people, don’t we? That’d be one simple example.
So, I think there’s, within us, there is an innate capacity for empathy as well. And never underestimate the power of empathy, along with the logical and level head, because empathy on its own is not enough for us to actually bring about profound change.
We just look at the world today. We’re living longer, for example. We’re wealthier. And so, there’s all this positive progression which has happened, and it’s been going on since the dawn of human history, but with setbacks like the First World War, the Second World War, Spanish flu, and inquisitions through the Middle Ages. But there’s a progression through which human beings are evolving and improving and growing. And with the modern sciences too, I think we’re going to find other ways of being able to improve our intellect and improve our empathy. And you need the two. Just intellect, you can be very, very dangerous. Just empathy, you’ll be very, very useless.
SG: Well, I’m so glad that you did talk about empathy, because I think that’s such a key component. It’s what keeps us human and what keeps us kind and compassionate. And also, as you rightly say, that intellect to accompany that is quite a potent force for good.
And that is a really good way to end this podcast. It’s been such a pleasure to have you, Steve. Hope to have you back again in the future with more discussion about the research that you’re doing and the new findings that you are uncovering.
SK: Great. Well, I look forward to that. And thank you for the interview. Been thoroughly enjoyable.
SG: It’s been our pleasure.
Thank you for listening to this episode of NATO DEEP Dive, brought to you by NATO’s Defence Education Enhancement Programme (DEEP). My producers are Marcus Andreopoulos, Victoria Jones, Eve Register, and Henry McCabe. For additional content, including full transcripts of each episode, please visit: deepportal.hq.nato.int/deepdive.
Disclaimer: Please note that the views, information, or opinions expressed in the NATO DEEP Dive series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily represent those of NATO or DEEP.
This transcript has been edited for clarity