Cited by 2Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesInternational Relations and Foreign PolicySecurity, Politics, and Digital Transformation

Merging the interests of governments and Western monopolies in the field of ICT: modern geopolitical models

Open access
Sidorenko, E.L.·2024·Полис. Политические исследования

Abstract

The events in Ukraine have become evidence of a radical transformation of ideas about what armed conflicts are and who participates in them. The issue of the legal and political status of technology companies as participants in armed conflicts and actors in international politics has become especially acute. Unfortunately, in the modern scientific literature, this issue is not only not resolved, but also not properly posed. The exponential growth of the foreign policy influence of large IT enterprises leaves no doubt that they are closely merging with the public sector and at the same time developing their own geopolitical agenda. In the context of the active development of the digital economy and the formation of a global information field of non-governmental actors, there is a demand for an analysis of the synergy of states and corporations with an outlet for forecasts of the development of various strategies for merging governments with technology giants. In the dialectic of relations between Western public authorities and IT giants, both sides have effective resources to contain each other. However, much more valuable and important for political analysis is the search for their “common interests” and an assessment of the prospects for cooperation within the framework of the “win/win” strategy. Such an analysis allows not only to assess the “boundaries of friendship” between Western business and government, but also to use the contradictions in their geopolitical rhetoric to promote the Russian international digital agenda. The author analyzes various concepts of public authority transformation in the context of the digital economy, offers an original vision of strategies for merging the interests of Western IT giants and governments both in areas of activity and in geopolitical tasks, and predicts possible scenarios for such cooperation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17976/jpps/2024.06.03

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Digital technology giants bring additional benefits to countries by creating training centers and R&D programs in areas such as smart cities, artificial intelligence, robotics, clean energy, and others.

    “цифровые технологические гиганты приносят дополнительные выгоды странам, создавая учебные центры и программы исследований и разработок в таких областях, как умные города, искусственный интеллект и робототехника, чистая энергия и др.”

    From China’s Digital Silk Road initiative: directions and prospects of development, advantages and risks for Russia (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    The G7 passage discusses investment in education, research and clean energy, while the section «Стратегия экономической поддержки» discusses government support for R&D. Neither passage says that digital technology giants create training centers or R&D programs that bring additional benefits to host countries; searches for training centers, smart cities and robotics found no such account in our copy. Page numbers were not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By 2040, the global infrastructure financing deficit will reach almost 15 trillion dollars.

    “к 2040 г. мировой дефицит финансирования инфраструктуры достигнет почти 15 трлн долларов.”

    From China’s Digital Silk Road initiative: directions and prospects of development, advantages and risks for Russia (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    The G7 infrastructure discussion (section 3, page unavailable) describes a plan to mobilize $600 billion by 2027, not a global financing deficit. Searches for 2040 and $15 trillion found no passage in our copy giving the claimed projection. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • According to a Global System for Mobile Communications report, by 2030 at least 88% of Africans will own smartphones, 4G usage will reach 50%, and 5G usage will reach 17%.

    “Так, согласно отчету Глобальной системы мобильной связи, к 2030 г. как минимум 88 % африканцев будут владеть смартфонами, использование услуг *4G* достигнет 50 %, а *5G* – 17 %29.”

    From China’s Digital Silk Road initiative: directions and prospects of development, advantages and risks for Russia (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The section “Стратегия защиты корпораций от внешних угроз” discusses 5G policy and telecommunications, but not the claimed projections for Africa. Searches for the 2030 smartphone forecast and the 88%, 50%, and 17% figures found no passage in our copy reporting them or attributing them to a mobile-communications report. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Fukuyama, F., Richman, B., & Goel, A. (2021). How to save democracy from technology. Foreign Affairs, 100(1), 98-110.
  2. Krause, K. (1995). Arms and the state: patterns of military production and trade (No. 22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Moore, M., & Tambini, D. (2018). Digital dominance: the power of Google, Amazon, Facebook*, and Apple. London: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bogdanov, A. (2014). American hegemony and factors of systemic instability in the 21st century. International Trends, 12(3), 8-22 (In Russ.)
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1995). Structures, habitus, practices. (Russ. ed.: Bourdieu, P. Struktury, habitus, praktiki). Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University Press. (In Russ.)
  6. Entin, M.L., Entina, E.G., Davranova, S.B., & Nadzharov, A.M. (2024). Theoretical and methodolog- ical aspects of the Western sanctions policy research. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 7-20. (In Russ.) https://doi. org/10.17976/jpps/2024.01. · DOI
  7. Fedorov, A.V., & Zinovieva, E.S. (2017). Informatsionnaya bezopasnost': politicheskaya teoriya i diplo- maticheskaya praktika [Information security: political theory and diplomatic practice]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.) · DOI
  8. Komleva, N.A. (2013). Global corporations as actors in the modern geopolitical process. Political Expertise: POLITEX, 9(3), 107-118. (In Russ.)
  9. Smorgunov, L.V., & Sherstobitov, A.S. (2014). Politicheskie seti. Teoriya i metody analiza [Political networks: theory and methods of analysis]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)
  10. Дегтерев Д.А., Пискунов Д.А., Еремин А.А. 2023. 5G-конкуренция США и КНР в странах Латинской Америки: у истоков технологического декаплинга. Полис. Политические исследования. № 3. С. 20-38. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.03.03. EDN: OPJLVI. Зайцев С.Ю. 2022. Направления взаимодействия цифровых корпораций и государства в по- литической сфере России. Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. Т. 18. № 1. С. 56-71. https://doi. org/10.21638/spbu23.2022.104. EDN: FPRJOE. Комлева Н.А. 2013. Глобальные корпорации как акторы современного геополитического про- цесса. Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. Т. 9. № 3. С. 107-118. EDN: TALJKZ. Кравченко С.А. 2024. Синергия сложности как императивный принцип организации власти в цифровую эпоху: новые вызовы человеческому капиталу. Полис. Политические исследования. № 2. C. 65-79. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.06. EDN: GDHVVD. Куликова Н.Н. 2016. Модель межорганизационных взаимоотношений в электронной промыш- ленности. Проблемы современной экономики. № 2. С. 98-101. EDN: WONXVL. Райков Ю.А. 2019. Американо-китайские отношения: поворот к конфронтации. США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура. Т. 49. № 11. С. 20-34. https://doi.org/10.31857/S032120680007284-6. EDN: BNVWMB. Сморгунов Л.В., Шерстобитов А.С. 2014. Политические сети. Теория и методы анализа. М.: Аспект Пресс. EDN: VDPEVZ. Темирбулаев Т. 2013. Транснациональные корпорации и геополитические стратегии США в Каспийском регионе. Власть. № 12. С. 81-83. EDN: RSCXSV. Томин Л.В. 2019. Отношения государств и корпораций в эпоху "капитализма платформ". Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. Т. 15. № 4. С. 483-496. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2019.403. EDN: MGLZOB. Фёдоров А.В., Зиновьева Е.С. 2017. Информационная безопасность: политическая теория и дипломатическая практика. М.: МГИМО-Университет. EDN: ZDBTGZ. Фуко М. 2004. Археология знания. СПб.: Наука. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sidorenko, E. L.
Affiliations
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (RU)
Corresponding author
Sidorenko, E.L.
Venue
Полис. Политические исследования
Published
2024-11-27
Issue
6
Pages
22-39
ISSN
  • 1026-9487 (ISSN-L)
  • 0321-2017
  • 1684-0070
OpenAlex
W4404790453
Cited by
2
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Полис Политические исследования (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Security, Politics, and Digital Transformation
Keywords
state-corporation relations, digital economy, Western governments, Russian invasion of Ukraine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review