The newsletter snippets from the Economist, Monocle, Semafor and New York Times, June 16-18, 2025, offer a panoramic view of a world in transition, where geopolitical strife, technological innovation, cultural shifts, and urban aspirations collide and converge. From Israel’s drone strikes on Iran to Tokyo’s steamy election campaigns, these fragments reveal a global landscape shaped by the interplay of power, progress, and identity.

The recent newsletters present a world crackling with tension and transformation. Reading them is like assembling a mosaic from fragments found in the digital ether; each piece reports on a discrete event, yet together they form a coherent, if unsettling, portrait of a global "polycrisis." This is a state, as described by the historian Adam Tooze (2022), where disparate shocks interact, creating a cascade of uncertainty that is more than the sum of its parts. The curated snippets reveal a world grappling with the kinetic violence of drone warfare, the quiet anxieties of cultural identity, the dislocating speed of technological change, and the fracturing of the post-Cold War geopolitical order. Through an associative and critical lens, we can unpack these fragments to understand their deeper implications.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The central, most alarming narrative is the direct kinetic conflict between Israel and Iran. Andrew Mueller’s observation that drone technology has enabled “something new” is the critical insight. The conflict described is not a traditional war of attrition but a campaign of targeted "decapitation strikes." This represents a profound shift in military doctrine, moving beyond the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that, for all its terror, stabilized the Cold War. MAD relied on the shared faith, as one snippet puts it, "in the rationality of leadership, in the instinct of self-preservation." The new paradigm, enabled by precision drones and sophisticated intelligence, makes strikes appear surgically clean and politically palatable, thereby lowering the threshold for conflict.

This new reality resonates with the work of the French philosopher Paul Virilio, who argued that speed is the unacknowledged engine of power and warfare. In his concept of "dromology," the logic of speed dictates reality (Virilio, 1986). The drone, and the AI-powered systems behind it, represents the near-total collapse of time and distance in the kill chain. A decision made in a command center is executed moments later, hundreds of miles away. This acceleration leaves little room for the "talks," "backchannels," and "de-escalation" that diplomats desperately try to foster. The technology of war is outrunning the human capacity for diplomacy.

Furthermore, the Paris Air Show snippets reveal the economic and industrial dimensions of this shift. The event is "decidedly militaristic," with slogans like "Ready for the Unknown" signaling a turn away from the optimistic globalization of the post-Cold War era towards a Hobbesian focus on national sovereignty and security. The observation that "a $100 toy can destroy a $100m plane" is not merely a technical note; it is a marker of strategic disruption. Asymmetric warfare is no longer a tactic of non-state actors; it is being industrialized by nation-states, creating an arms race not just in platforms, but in the AI and swarm technologies that will control them. This is the world that P. W. Singer (2009) foresaw in Wired for War, where the lines between soldier and civilian, human and machine, peace and conflict become irrevocably blurred.

The escalating Israel-Iran conflict, highlighted by Israel’s "Operation Rising Lion," exemplifies the fusion of ancient tactics with modern technology. The use of drones to eliminate Iran’s military leadership recalls the Assyrian Empire’s beheading of King Tuemman in 653 BCE, yet the precision of today’s strikes introduces new ethical dilemmas. Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars provides a framework for this tension, emphasizing the principles of proportionality and discrimination (Walzer, 1977). As the newsletter notes, Israel’s actions aim to disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a strategy rooted in a decades-long doctrine of preemption, seen in past strikes on Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007). Yet, the collateral damage—over 200 deaths reported by Iran’s health ministry—challenges the moral clarity of such operations.

The UAE’s diplomatic role as a mediator between Jerusalem and Tehran underscores a different approach: the exercise of "soft power," as theorized by Joseph Nye (2004). The image of "air-conditioned halls" and "private majlises" evokes a Middle Eastern diplomacy that blends tradition with pragmatism, a theme explored in Vali Nasr’s The Shia Revival (Nasr, 2006). This contrasts with the newsletter’s portrayal of a fractured G7 summit, where Trump’s call for Iran’s "unconditional surrender" reflects a realist stance at odds with liberal multilateralism, as critiqued in Robert Kagan’s The Jungle Grows Back (Kagan, 2018). Carl von Clausewitz’s dictum, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means" (Clausewitz, 1832/1989, p. 87), resonates here, as military action and diplomacy vie to shape the region’s future.

Beneath the din of war, the newsletters chronicle a series of cultural and social anxieties that plague even the world’s most prosperous societies. Michael Booth’s lament over the "stagnating" Danish food scene is particularly telling. His theory that a "Lutheran disapproval of hedonistic indulgence" might be reasserting itself is a powerful cultural critique. This invokes Max Weber’s thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, where the rationalization and "disenchantment of the world" born of the Reformation created a culture suspicious of sensual, "unproductive" pleasure (Weber, 2002). The Danish return to "frozen pizza and processed pork," despite the global fame of Noma, suggests that deep-seated cultural dispositions are remarkably resilient. The culinary revolution was perhaps a thin veneer, easily scraped away by the pressures of inflation and the monopolistic power of price-focused supermarkets. The irony of the nation that invented the pleasure-denying drug Wegovy reverting to a pleasureless diet is profound.

This theme of the failure of utopian visions is echoed in the piece on London's high-rises. The article brilliantly juxtaposes Le Corbusier's optimistic modernism—"streets in the sky"—with J.G. Ballard's dystopian vision in High-Rise. In Ballard’s novel, the sleek, rational apartment block does not elevate its residents; it becomes an incubator for their most primal instincts, a vertical battlefield where "subtle differences and barely perceptible social gradations" devolve into tribal warfare (Ballard, 1975). London's ongoing "fear of heights" is not just an architectural debate; it is a referendum on the promises of modernism and a deep-seated anxiety about what happens when social cohesion frays in the anonymizing density of the megacity.

Meanwhile, Tokyo's attempt to use "steamy ad campaigns" in sentō (public baths) to combat voter apathy illustrates a different kind of urban dislocation. Here, a traditional space of community and debate is repurposed as a tool of the state to solve a crisis of civic engagement. This speaks to a society where the organic bonds of community have weakened, requiring contrived interventions to remind citizens of their political duties. It is a gentle, almost whimsical, form of what Guy Debord (1994) called The Society of the Spectacle, where authentic social relations are replaced by their mediated representation—in this case, civic duty as a component of the trendy bathhouse experience.

Denmark’s fading culinary prestige offers a cultural counterpoint to the newsletter’s geopolitical and economic narratives. Once a global leader in the New Nordic movement, the country’s retreat to "Dr Oetker’s frozen pizza" reflects a stagnation Pierre Bourdieu might attribute to shifts in cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984). The newsletter’s invocation of a "Lutheran disapproval of hedonistic indulgence" ties this decline to Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber, 1905), where ascetic values stifle sensory pleasure. Karen Blixen’s Babette’s Feast (1958), cited in the text, amplifies this tension: a French émigré’s lavish meal shocks a pious Danish community, mirroring Denmark’s struggle to reconcile its past with its culinary ambitions.

In contrast, Tokyo’s bathhouse election campaign leverages cultural heritage for modern ends. By placing ads in sentō, the city taps into a historical space of political discourse, aligning with Marshall McLuhan’s assertion that "the medium is the message" (McLuhan, 1964). This playful adaptation contrasts with Denmark’s regression, illustrating how culture can either anchor or propel societal change.

The newsletters provide ample evidence that technology is not a monolithic force for progress but an accelerant of economic division and ideological fragmentation. The snippets on AI in the workplace, where firms like McKinsey and BT use AI to perform tasks once given to junior employees, illustrate Schumpeter's "creative destruction" in real-time. However, the analysis that AI might be "breaking… the bottom rung of the career ladder" suggests a darker, more socially stratified outcome than Schumpeter envisioned. This could lead to a permanent cognitive proletariat, locked out of the professions not by lack of ambition, but by the automation of entry-level experience.

This fragmentation is also ideological. The rise of a "parallel consumer economy" where home-goods brands like Instant Pot and Lenox release "Trump-inspired collections" is a striking phenomenon. It signals that the logic of political polarization has moved beyond the voting booth and into the marketplace. Consumption has become a primary vehicle for expressing tribal identity. This is the world of Jean Baudrillard's (1994) Simulacra and Simulation made manifest, where the sign-value of an object—its ability to signify allegiance to "MAGA"—eclipses its use-value. The purchase of a rice cooker is no longer just a domestic act; it is a political statement, reinforcing an ideological "hyperreality."

This trend connects with the global "race" for AI dominance. The concern that the US might "lose the AI competition to China" is not merely economic. It reflects, as one snippet notes, a culmination of "different cultural values." An AI-dominated future shaped by a techno-authoritarian state will look vastly different from one shaped by the messy, rights-focused, and increasingly fractured liberal democracies. The digital world is not converging; it is splitting into spheres of influence, a "splinternet" of competing technological and ideological ecosystems.

Support to Keep in Open Access

The economic fallout from the conflict—surging oil prices and market turmoil—underscores the fragility of global systems, a phenomenon Paul Krugman analyzes in Geography and Trade (Krugman, 1991). The Paris Air Show’s militaristic turn, with drones dominating the tarmac, signals a shift in economic priorities, echoing Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 warning about the "military-industrial complex" (Eisenhower, 1961). The newsletter’s description of a "$100 toy" destroying a "$100m plane" highlights the disruptive economics of modern warfare, while Airbus’s $10 billion in commercial deals reflects resilience in aviation’s civilian sphere.

Boeing’s retreat from the spotlight, following a 787-8 Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad, mirrors corporate crises like Enron’s, as detailed in McLean and Elkind’s The Smartest Guys in the Room (2003). This juxtaposition of defense-driven growth and commercial fragility suggests a bifurcated economic landscape, where security trumps stability, a dynamic Naomi Klein critiques in No Logo (1999) as emblematic of corporate overreach in turbulent times.

Finally, the newsletter chronicles the definitive end of the unipolar, US-led global order. The G7 summit is characterized as the "G6 versus Trump," a body paralyzed by internal divisions and struggling for relevance in a world where its members can no longer dictate terms. The image of President Trump leaving early to deal with the Middle East crisis, refusing to sign joint statements, is a powerful symbol of the unraveling of the Western alliance.

Into this vacuum step new actors. The UAE's positioning as a key mediator between Israel and Iran is a masterful display of "middle power" diplomacy. Not aligned with any major bloc, but maintaining pragmatic relations with all, the UAE leverages its unique position for its primary goal: "self-preservation." This is a model of 21st-century statecraft—flexible, transactional, and ideologically agnostic. Similarly, China's push into Central Asia is not just about economics; it is a deliberate effort to build an alternative, non-Western-centric global order, as noted by scholars like Kishore Mahbubani (2018), who have long predicted the shift of global power eastward.

This new, multipolar world is inherently more volatile. As one analyst quoted in the snippets says, "Volatility is here to stay and markets have not adjusted for the geopolitics question marks yet." The old certainties are gone, and what is emerging is a complex, contested landscape where military, economic, and cultural power is diffuse, and the risk of miscalculation is perilously high. The world of June 2025, as depicted in these fragments, is a world holding its breath, caught between the wars of the past and the uncertain shocks of the future.

The G7 summit’s discord, dubbed "G6 versus Trump," reflects a fracturing of global governance, a theme Kagan explores in The Jungle Grows Back (2018). Trump’s early departure and refusal to sign a de-escalation statement highlight a retreat from multilateralism, while the UAE’s bridge-building suggests middle powers filling the void, as Parag Khanna predicts in Connectography (2016). Hannah Arendt’s insight, "The world becomes a human world only when it becomes an object of discourse" (Arendt, 1958, p. 24), underscores the need for dialogue amid this fragmentation.

Andrew Mueller’s comparison of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion to the Assyrian decapitation of King Tuemman underscores both the historical continuity of warfare’s symbolic violence and the radical rupture introduced by drone technology. Where ancient empires wielded brute force to terrorize, today’s remotely piloted vehicles instantiate what Carl von Clausewitz described as “war made easy,” reducing adversaries to data points in a battlefield algorithm (Clausewitz, 1976). Yet drones also produce new forms of “friction” (Clausewitz, 1976) in the sociopolitical arena: the challenge of replacing targeted leaders (Mueller, 2025) evokes Michel Foucault’s notion of biopower, as states increasingly manage life and death through technological intermediaries (Foucault, 1978). This evolution demands renewed ethical reflection—as Hannah Arendt warned, modern techniques may outpace our moral frameworks, transforming killing into a sanitized managerial exercise (Arendt, 1963).

Simon de Bouvier’s account of the Paris Air Show highlights Europe’s quest for “strategic autonomy” from U.S. defence dependency (de Bouvier, 2025). This shift resonates with Ulrich Beck’s thesis of a “risk society,” in which states respond to transnational uncertainties (climate, migration, war) by reconfiguring alliances (Beck, 1992). Emmanuel Macron’s and Olaf Scholz’s calls for independence reflect a new geopolitical cartography, one in which arms and aerospace become instruments of continental identity as much as security (de Bouvier, 2025). Yet this rearmament also risks sparking an “arms race” dynamic akin to the Cold War, as economies divert resources from social welfare to defence—a tension Jurgen Habermas might describe as eroding the post-war social contract under pressure from an increasingly militarized public sphere (Habermas, 1981).

The Paris Air Show’s focus on drones and AI reflects a technological revolution reshaping warfare and work. Paul Virilio’s Speed and Politics warns of technology’s compression of time and space, a prophecy borne out by drone swarms and AI logistics (Virilio, 1977). The newsletter’s mention of AI’s workplace applications—BT cutting jobs, McKinsey automating slideshows—echoes Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s The Second Machine Age (2014), where automation threatens labor’s future. Philosophically, this evokes Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology, where technology "enframes" human existence, reducing it to a resource (Heidegger, 1954/1977, p. 20).

China’s Labubu plushie, a soft-power tool, offers a lighter technological narrative. Its global craze suggests a cultural export challenging Western dominance, a phenomenon Edward Said might view as inverting Orientalism’s gaze (Said, 1978). Yet, its fleeting popularity underscores the ephemerality of such victories in a tech-driven world.

Michael Booth’s lament about Denmark’s “reverting to type” in food culture (Booth, 2025) can be read through Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of taste as a marker of class distinction. The New Nordic movement, inaugurated by Noma, had democratised haute cuisine through local, seasonal sourcing—trickling down into everyday consumption (Booth, 2025). That supermarkets now defaults to frozen pizzas and processed pork signals a re-entrenchment of “taste of necessity,” which Bourdieu equates with economic constraints and cultural capital deficits (Bourdieu, 1984). Booth’s invocation of Karen Blixen’s Babette’s Feast further reminds us that culinary pleasure is historically coded as “sinful” in Lutheran Denmark—suggesting that the country’s Protestant heritage continues to shape collective appetites and notions of “deserved” pleasure (Booth, 2025).

Fiona Wilson’s report on Tokyo’s steamy election ads in sentō (Wilson, 2025) revives Habermas’s idea of the public sphere as spaces of reasoned debate. In Edo-era Japan, sentō were genuine loci of political exchange; today’s hot-spring posters aim to re-ignite that spirit in a post-Fordist, media-saturated context. This tactic exemplifies what Saskia Sassen describes as “digital spatial fix”—using physical sites to counteract the disembodiment of digital campaigning (Sassen, 2006). The campaign’s reliance on sensual environments to spur rational civic action also gestures toward Judith Butler’s theory of vulnerability, positing that public policy must engage bodies as both sites of pleasure and responsibility (Butler, 2004).

Inzamam Rashid and Andrew Tuck trace two facets of Emirati innovation: first, as a mediating power between Jerusalem and Tehran (Rashid, 2025); second, as a pioneer of algorithmic city‑planning in Abu Dhabi (Tuck, 2025). The former role exemplifies what Edward Said termed a “third space” of diplomatic hybridity, where Gulf states leverage cultural affinity to broker discreet dialogue (Said, 1994). The latter reflects Henri Lefebvre’s production of space: by quantifying walkability, healthcare access, and green areas, Abu Dhabi seeks to manufacture not just infrastructure but social cohesion, turning lived space into a metric of governance (Lefebvre, 1991). Both developments point to a Gulf model that blends soft power with technocratic experimentation.

Abu Dhabi’s data-driven urban planning, unveiled at the Infrastructure Summit, embodies the "smart city" ideal, prioritizing liveability through algorithms. Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities critiques such top-down approaches, advocating for organic urban vitality (Jacobs, 1961). The newsletter’s vision of a city where residents "live, work, raise a family, and retire" contrasts with London’s "fear of heights," where JG Ballard’s High-Rise (1975) casts vertical living as a descent into chaos. Ballard’s opening line—"Later, as he sat on his balcony eating the dog"—captures the dystopian underside of modernist ambition (Ballard, 1975, p. 1), a warning Abu Dhabi might heed.

Josh Fehnert’s invocation of J.G. Ballard’s High‑Rise (Fehnert, 2025) invites us to reconsider the cultural meanings of tower blocks. Ballard’s novel, with its nightmarish collapse of civility among upwardly mobile residents, anticipates current debates on urban density and social stratification. William Cronon’s critique of suburban sprawl might seem the inverse—the dream of horizontality as alienating (Cronon, 1991). Yet both narratives converge on the idea that architecture is never neutral: it shapes—and is shaped by—forms of sociability and power. The renewed interest in high‑rise living in London and beyond thus carries latent anxieties about community, belonging, and the capacity of built environments to foster solidarity rather than fragmentation.

The snippets portray a world where technology accelerates conflict and connection, geopolitics redraws boundaries, and culture grapples with its past and future. From Israel’s strikes to Abu Dhabi’s urban dreams, these events demand reflection on power, progress, and human agency. As Arendt suggests, it is through discourse—scholarly, literary, and philosophical—that we humanize this complexity, forging meaning from the chaos of our time.

[Supporters can find bibliographical information at this link: https://ko-fi.com/post/Redefining-Warfare-with-Drones-Navigating-Urban-A-Z8Z71GR8PE?fromEditor=true.]

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of ChatGPT, OpenAI, Grok, X Corp, and Gemini, Google, Alphabet, tools (June 20, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (June 20, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (June 20, 2025). Redefining Warfare with Drones, Navigating Urban Anxiety, and Confronting a Fractured Tech Economy. Open Economics Blog.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.