In this episode, hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso explore the critical concept of techno-nationalism with expert Alex Capri, author of "Techno-Nationalism: How It's Reshaping Trade, Geopolitics and Society."

Techno-nationalism represents the intersection of technology, national security, and economic power in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Capri explains how nation-states are leveraging 12 key power-multiplier technologies--including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum science, hypersonics, biotech, and advanced manufacturing--to maintain competitive advantages and protect national interests.

The discussion reveals how China's strategic approach to technology development caught the West off-guard. While Western companies focused on trade liberalization and efficiency, China implemented long-term techno-nationalist policies, including preemptive decoupling in critical sectors like telecommunications and banking. The Great Firewall, established in the mid-1990s, was an early indicator of China's protective stance toward strategic technologies.

Capri outlines the six core elements of modern techno-nationalism:

1️⃣ Weaponization of supply chains through export controls and investment restrictions

2️⃣ Strategic decoupling from potential adversaries

3️⃣ Offshoring reversal via reshoring and friend-shoring initiatives

4️⃣ Innovation mercantilism through government industrial policy

5️⃣ Tech diplomacy for strategic alliance building

6️⃣ Hybrid Cold War dynamics amid ongoing commercial activity

The Huawei 5G ban exemplifies techno-nationalist concerns about critical infrastructure security. The company's global telecommunications footprint, built through massive state support, raised red flags about potential surveillance capabilities. Similarly, TikTok represents the dual-use nature of modern technology—commercially popular but potentially strategically valuable for data collection and analysis.

Despite China's advances, the US maintains advantages in university systems, defense technology, and innovation ecosystems. However, success requires strategic partnerships with allies, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing and critical mineral supply chains. The conversation highlights concerns about policy continuity across political administrations and the importance of sustained investment in STEM education and public-private partnerships.

Techno-nationalism isn't just about US-China competition—it's a global phenomenon affecting all nation-states as they navigate security, economic stability, and technological sovereignty in an interconnected world.

• Follow our podcast on X, @IndoPacPodcast, LinkedIn or BlueSky
• Follow Ray Powell on X (@GordianKnotRay) or LinkedIn
• Follow Jim Carouso on LinkedIn
• Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia, a strategic advisory firm that specializes in the Indo-Pacific

Hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso interview Congressman Don Bacon (R-NE), a retired Air Force Brigadier General with 29 years of military service. Rep. Bacon serves on the House Armed Services Committee and brings unique insights from both military leadership and congressional oversight.

Congressman Bacon is concerned that America is spending just 2.9% of GDP on defense—the lowest level since 1940, before Pearl Harbor. He argues for increasing defense spending to 4% of GDP, approximately $150 billion more annually, to address critical modernization needs including nuclear triad upgrades, fifth and sixth-generation fighters, attack submarines, and improved military quality of life.

The discussion highlights America's innovation deficit, particularly in drone technology and electronic warfare, where Ukrainian forces have outpaced U.S. capabilities. Bacon emphasizes how Ukraine's recent destruction of 41 Russian strategic bombers using $5,000 drones demonstrates the power of cost-effective innovation over expensive legacy systems.

Bacon addresses growing tensions within the Republican Party between traditional alliance supporters and isolationist factions, drawing parallels to 1930s isolationism. He warns that current diplomatic approaches risk alienating key allies, citing business challenges with Canada and European partners. The congressman advocates for maintaining America's role as "leader of the free world" while acknowledging the need for burden-sharing.

With China potentially spending $700 billion on defense (despite claiming $170 billion), Bacon emphasizes the urgency of military modernization focused on long-range precision weapons, air and missile defense, and drone swarm technology. He stresses that deterring China requires immediate weapons deliveries to Taiwan, noting billions in delayed military aid.

Two years of continuing resolutions have hampered military readiness and prevented new program starts. Bacon explains the bipartisan nature of the Armed Services Committee while criticizing broader congressional dysfunction that prioritizes partisan politics over national security.

Bacon highlights critical nuclear deterrent gaps, including 50-year-old Minuteman III ICBMs that cannot be extended, aging B-2 bombers with outdated stealth technology, and Ohio-class submarines reaching end-of-life. With Strategic Air Command (SAC) Headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in his district, he argues these systems are essential for countering both China and Russia.

Despite being a deficit hawk concerned about the $36 trillion national debt, Bacon argues that defense spending increases are necessary while addressing mandatory spending on Social Security and Medicare, which comprises 73% of federal spending.

This episode provides essential insights into America's defense readiness challenges, alliance management complexities, and the urgent need for strategic clarity in confronting great power competition in the Indo-Pacific region.

👉 Follow Rep. Bacon on X, @RepDonBacon

👉 Follow our pod on X, @IndoPacPodcast, and LinkedIn

👉 Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia

In this compelling episode, Dr. Ely Ratner, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, sits down with Ray and Jim to discuss his provocative Foreign Affairs essay "The Case for a Pacific Defense Pact."

Dr. Ratner argues that China's rapid military modernization and regional ambitions necessitate a fundamental shift from America's traditional "hub-and-spoke" bilateral alliance system to an integrated multilateral defense pact. His proposal centers on creating a collective defense arrangement between the U.S., Japan, Australia, and the Philippines—not a pan-regional "Asian NATO," but a focused alliance among strategically aligned nations.

Unlike failed attempts in the 1950s-60s (SEATO), today's conditions are uniquely favorable. These four countries share unprecedented strategic alignment, advanced military capabilities, and growing intra-Asian cooperation. The Philippines has become "ground zero" for regional security, with China's illegal actions in the West Philippine Sea galvanizing allied support.

Ratner tackles key criticisms head-on: Would Australia really fight over South China Sea disputes? He points to Australia's strategic awakening, with China conducting live-fire exercises requiring Australian airspace closures. Regarding U.S. reliability concerns, he notes that Indo-Pacific defense policy has remained consistent across administrations, unlike NATO rhetoric.

The conversation explores practical hurdles, including Senate ratification requirements, domestic politics in allied nations, and the risk of provoking China. Ratner suggests much operational integration could proceed through executive agreements, building on existing frameworks like AUKUS and the Quad.

A central theme addresses the tension between deterrence and provocation. Ratner argues that maintaining the status quo would embolden Chinese ambitions, making conflict more likely. While a formal alliance may raise short-term tensions, it's ultimately stabilizing by making aggression prohibitively costly.

The discussion covers how ASEAN and India might respond. Ratner emphasizes the alliance would complement, not compete with, existing institutions. ASEAN would retain its convening role, while India could continue bilateral cooperation with the U.S. without joining the pact.

Addressing Secretary Hegseth's push for increased allied defense spending, Ratner advocates a holistic view beyond just budget percentages—including access, basing rights, and operational contributions. He stresses the need for political space in allied capitals to justify deeper U.S. ties.

Ratner describes 2021-2025 as a transitional period, moving from dialogue to unprecedented action. Recent initiatives have laid groundwork for deeper integration, with allies willing to take steps previously unimaginable.

Key Takeaways:

- China's military rise demands integrated allied response

- Strategic alignment among U.S., Japan, Australia, Philippines is unprecedented

- Collective defense would create mutual obligations beyond current bilateral treaties

- Implementation faces political challenges but operational foundations already exist

- Deterrence goal: prevent conflict by raising costs of aggression

Dr. Ratner concludes that preventing Chinese regional hegemony requires "big ideas" and political heavy lifting. The window for action is now, before China achieves its revisionist ambitions.

Follow Dr. Ratner's work at The Marathon Initiative

In this episode, hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso welcome National Review senior political correspondent & Washington Post columnist Jim Geraghty for a wide-ranging discussion that moves from how intelligence agencies are increasingly convinced that Beijing covered up COVID-19's laboratory origins to China's heavy influence on U.S. and international institutions to America's shifting global media strategy under Donald Trump.

Geraghty, who began investigating COVID's origins in March 2020, discusses recent German intelligence reports confirming an 80-95% likelihood that COVID-19 escaped from a Wuhan laboratory. He explains why this matters beyond the pandemic: "I'm trying to think of anything any government has done that is more harmful than the ultimate effect of the COVID pandemic." The conversation explores how China's cover-up cost the world "a year of our lives" and why real accountability remains elusive.

The discussion examines how the WHO fumbled its COVID response, with China effectively having "veto power" over declaring a global pandemic. Geraghty argues that international health institutions may never recover the trust they lost during the pandemic, creating dangerous vulnerabilities for future health crises.

From Hollywood's Transformers movies featuring heroic Chinese military scenes to NBA censorship of Hong Kong support, Geraghty details how China has successfully influenced American institutions. "We didn't bring our values to China. We're bringing their values here," he explains, describing how American organizations increasingly behave with Chinese-style authoritarianism.

With 90% of Radio Free Asia's staff facing layoffs and Voice of America's future uncertain, the hosts and Geraghty discuss the strategic implications of dismantling America's global media presence. While Russia and China invest billions in propaganda, the US is "disarming" its information warfare capabilities just as authoritarian influence operations intensify.

The conversation turns to how Trump's unpredictable approach affects Indo-Pacific allies, with Australia's recent elections influenced by concerns about potential US abandonment. Geraghty warns that allies watching Trump's treatment of Ukraine and Canada are asking: "That could happen to us."

Geraghty describes the emerging "axis of A-holes" - Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea - working together against Western interests, citing examples like Houthis avoiding attacks on Chinese and Russian vessels in the Red Sea.

This episode provides essential analysis for anyone following US-China relations, pandemic accountability, and America's evolving role in global information warfare.

Follow Jim Geraghty on X, @JimGeraghty, and at the National Review or Washington Post

Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia

In this episode, hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso sit down with Cleo Paskal, a leading Indo-Pacific analyst and non-resident senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, to unpack the growing threat of China’s gray zone influence in the Pacific Islands and why it matters for the United States and its allies.

Paskal explains the strategic significance of the Pacific Islands, which include U.S. territories and the three Compact of Free Association states—Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. These islands serve as America’s “gateway to Asia,” enabling military access and power projection across the Pacific to key allies like Japan and Taiwan. Historically, whoever controls these islands can threaten the U.S. mainland and dominate Pacific trade routes—a reality recognized since the days of President McKinley and the Spanish-American War.

Cleo prefers the Filipino term “ICAD” (Illegal, Coercive, Aggressive, and Deceptive) over “gray zone” to describe China’s activities. She details how Beijing uses a “braided” approach that combines commercial investments, strategic infrastructure, and criminal enterprises. Chinese-linked businesses often promise development but end up facilitating elite capture, corruption, and even state capture, while most of the population sees little benefit. Activities include:

• Bribery and elite capture of local officials
• Strategic port and real estate acquisitions near sensitive military sites
• Criminal networks trafficking drugs, gambling, and human trafficking
• Political interference, media manipulation, and lawfare against local opposition

The podcast explores how China’s influx of money and promises of quick infrastructure projects are hard for small island economies to resist—especially when Western aid is slow, bureaucratic, or absent. However, Cleo notes that Chinese economic engagement often benefits only a narrow elite and can leave countries worse off, both economically and environmentally. She argues that the West, especially the U.S., must offer meaningful economic alternatives and support for good governance, not just military or diplomatic engagement.

Despite U.S. political polarization, Cleo notes that support for the Pacific Islands remains bipartisan, especially regarding the renewal of the Compacts of Free Association. She also stresses that Pacific Islanders view the U.S. differently from former colonial powers, seeing America as a beacon of liberty and democracy—an image China is actively trying to undermine through narrative warfare.

This episode makes clear that the Pacific Islands are not just remote dots on the map but are central to U.S. security, the rules-based order, and the future of the Indo-Pacific. China’s gray zone campaign is a sophisticated, multi-layered threat that demands urgent, coordinated action from the U.S. and its allies—combining hard security, economic opportunity, and support for local agency and resilience.

Follow our podcast on X, @IndoPacPodcast; or on LinkedIn or BlueSky

Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia

In this compelling episode, hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso interview Luke de Pulford, founder and executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), who provides an in-depth look at this growing international coalition’s mission of transcending borders and party politics to reform policy on China.

IPAC is a cross-party alliance of lawmakers from democratic countries focused on reforming policy approaches toward China. Founded on June 4, 2020 (the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests), IPAC began with representatives from eight countries and has now expanded to include nearly 300 legislators from 40 countries worldwide.

De Pulford explains that IPAC emerged from growing frustration that many governments weren't taking the necessary steps to defend the rules-based international system, their sovereignty, and human rights in response to China's abuses. The alliance aims to create conditions for collaboration across countries and political ideologies to push governments to reform their China policies.

The conversation highlights several major areas of IPAC's focus:

1. Human Rights in Xinjiang: De Pulford discusses evidence of what he and others consider genocide against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in northwest China, particularly through forced sterilization programs. IPAC has led calls for political action in response to these abuses.
2. Hong Kong's Autonomy: The alliance has been active in responding to China's National Security Law in Hong Kong, which violated promises made in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. De Pulford expresses disappointment that his own country, the United Kingdom, hasn't done more to hold China accountable.
3. Economic Coercion: The interview explores how China uses economic leverage to silence criticism, citing examples like Australia facing 220% tariffs on wine after calling for an investigation into COVID-19's origins.
4. Transnational Repression: De Pulford shares concerning examples of China's efforts to control dissidents abroad, including the recent forced repatriation of Uyghurs from Thailand.

The alliance has seen many of its members progress into influential government positions, including Marco Rubio becoming U.S. Secretary of State and other members taking defense and foreign ministry positions across Europe and Asia. This "maturing of the network" has increased IPAC's ability to influence policy.

De Pulford argues that addressing human rights issues in China requires economic solutions, as "the human rights questions in China are fundamentally economic questions." He points to successes like Volkswagen and BASF withdrawing from Xinjiang under pressure from IPAC politicians.

The interview concludes with De Pulford discussing the personal costs of his advocacy, including cyber attacks, impersonation attempts, and being named as a "co-conspirator" in Jimmy Lai's trial in Hong Kong. Despite these challenges, he remains committed to IPAC's mission of uniting lawmakers to counter China's influence and protect democratic values.

👉 For those interested in following IPAC's work, De Pulford recommends visiting ipac.global or following @IPACglobal on X.

🔥 Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia, a strategic advisory firm that specializes in the Indo-Pacific.

Retired General Mike Minihan, former commander of Air Mobility Command and deputy commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, joins Jim and Ray to talk about how America’s alarming shortfall in military airlift could affect deterrence and readiness in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

General Minihan describes logistics as "the offensive line of a [American] football team"--rarely getting the glory but essential to success. He emphasizes that mobility is "the most relied upon force in the history of warfare" and particularly crucial in the Indo-Pacific region, where vast distances and water create unique challenges compared to Europe's more accessible infrastructure.

"Mobility is the meaningful maneuver that can cross the tyranny of distance and the tyranny of water," Minihan explains, highlighting how air mobility enables the joint force to reach positions of advantage in meaningful timeframes.

The conversation turns to Minihan's famous 2022 memo warning that the U.S. was "not ready to fight and win inside the first island chain" and needed to prepare for potential conflict by 2025. Despite the controversy it generated, Minihan stands by his assessment, explaining it was intended to drive urgent action and focus his command on Pacific readiness.

"I don't regret it," Minihan states, though he acknowledges the turbulence it caused. "I learned I was right."

Minihan identifies several critical areas requiring immediate attention:

1. Communication Systems: Over 90% of the air mobility fleet lacks adequate secure beyond-line-of-sight communications. Commercial airliners often have better connectivity than military aircraft.
2. Next-Generation Systems: The Air Force needs to conceptualize air refueling and airlift as systems rather than individual platforms, potentially including stealth-like tankers for forward operations and diversified airlift capabilities.
3. Procurement Reform: The current acquisition system is fundamentally broken. "Our major producers of American capabilities can no longer deliver on time, at cost," Minihan asserts.

Minihan calls for "bold, unapologetic, urgent action" rather than more studies or reorganizations. He advocates for:

• Clear, precise language about deterring and defeating China, rather than vague terms like "great power competition"
• Robust planning focused on immediate readiness
• Streamlining the acquisition process to work with innovative companies beyond traditional prime contractors
• Ensuring the warfighter's voice is the "loudest in the room"

"We should never put the president in a position where they are constrained by not having a military that's ready to decisively defeat," Minihan emphasizes.

To allies in the Indo-Pacific, Minihan offers reassurance that military-to-military relationships remain strong and stable despite political fluctuations.

While acknowledging improvements in readiness, integration, and agility, Minihan stresses the need to "continue to expand the advantage" through rigorous exercises and close cooperation with partners and allies.

Follow us on X @IndoPacPodcast, LinkedIn, BlueSky

Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia

This episode features Nitin A. Gokhale, one of South Asia’s leading strategic affairs analysts, who joins co-hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso to break down the ongoing conflict along the India-Pakistan border, offering expert insight into its origins, recent triggers and global stakes.

The conflict’s roots trace back to the 1947 partition of India and the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which has sparked four wars between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Tensions reignited recently after a terrorist attack in Kashmir, where militants targeted and killed Hindu tourists. Pakistani terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are allegedly supported by the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

In retaliation, India conducted strikes against terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and, for the first time, across the Kashmir border into Pakistan’s homeland. India emphasized that its response was targeted, non-escalatory, and focused solely on terrorist infrastructure, aiming to avoid a broader military confrontation.

Gokhale explains that Pakistan’s internal instability--including insurgencies in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, strained relations with the Taliban and political unrest--may have influenced the timing of the attack. The Pakistani military, facing low public confidence and political challenges, may have sought to rally domestic support by provoking a crisis with India.

With both countries possessing nuclear weapons, the stakes are high. Gokhale suggests that international pressure and Pakistan’s internal weaknesses could create an off-ramp for de-escalation. India’s careful messaging and restraint are designed to reinforce deterrence without inviting a full-scale war.

The discussion explores the influence of China, Russia, the United States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. While India insists on bilateral solutions, outside actors may quietly urge restraint to protect their own interests in regional stability and economic ties.

The episode delves into the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, a critical agreement for Pakistan’s agriculture. India’s move to withhold hydrological data and potentially control water flows adds another layer of pressure on Pakistan.

Gokhale contextualizes India’s actions within Prime Minister Modi’s security philosophy: resolute on the border, reasonable in diplomacy. Modi’s approach favors decisive retaliation against cross-border terrorism while avoiding unnecessary escalation.

The India-Pakistan border conflict is not just a regional issue–it has global implications due to the risk of nuclear escalation, the involvement of major powers and the precedent it sets for responding to state-sponsored terrorism. Understanding the dynamics at play is essential for anyone interested in international security, South Asian geopolitics or global peace.

👉 Follow Nitin's analysis of this conflict and South Asia security at StratNewsGlobal.com, or check out his book, Securing India the Modi Way.

🔥 Sponsored by BowerGroupAsia, a strategic advisory firm that specializes in the Indo-Pacific.