In the West, the corporate capture of academia, driven by wealthy elites and multinational entities, presents a critical issue of exploitation. These actors frequently wield influence via lobbying, funding, research agendas, and governance frameworks, directing academic priorities towards profit-oriented goals. Other global actors and multinational corporations exploit this culture of self-drawn conclusions. These circumstances have led to the marginalization of critical research, the promotion of corporate interests over public good, and the erosion of academic freedom. The focus shifts from pure knowledge seeking to commercially viable outcomes, further widening societal inequalities and potentially compromising the integrity of educational institutions.
Health Industry
Most of the funding for research on global health issues comes from wealthy countries and multinational corporations. Only a small amount comes from poorer regions, such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This imbalance makes us question whether research is being directed toward the most pressing global health issues, as funding may be insufficient to address them. In the health industry, mandated research has already influenced global health issues by impacting the development of public health interventions and medicines, as well as the capacity of health systems to deliver them effectively. Scandals in the global pharmaceutical industry have led many people to lose faith in the industry, revealing significant ethical and regulatory issues. Some of the most important issues are the opioid crisis in the U.S. caused by Purdue Pharma’s marketing of OxyContin, which killed more than 500,000 people, and the Vioxx scandal, in which Merck hid the risks of heart disease, which also caused many deaths. Price gouging, like the huge price hikes from Turing Pharmaceuticals and Mylan, makes the industry look even worse.
The thalidomide disaster in Europe and Servier’s slow withdrawal of Mediator show that regulations aren’t working well. Pfizer was sued for unethical drug trials in Nigeria. The publication bias in drug research and ghostwriting practices undermines scientific integrity, exacerbated by conflicts of interest among regulatory committee members. The publication bias in drug research and ghostwriting practices undermines scientific integrity, exacerbated by conflicts of interest among regulatory committee members.
Concerns about vaccine safety compared to their benefits show how important it is to communicate eloquently about public health. Calls for reform include stricter rules that aren’t influenced by the industry, punishment for unethical behavior, and changes to how clinical trials are overseen. These changes show that the pharmaceutical industry needs to be more patient-centered and open to regain the public’s trust and put health outcomes ahead of profits.
Entanglement of Realism with the Military-Industrial Complex: Fueling Regional Instability
In international relations (IR), realism posits that states operate in an anarchic system where power, security, and self-interest dominate, often leading to conflict as nations prioritize survival over cooperation. This theory becomes deeply entangled with the military-industrial complex (MIC)—a term coined by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 to describe the symbiotic relationship between US government and defense contractors that profit from perpetual armament. In the US, it features major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, alongside political lobbying for high military spending. Other countries, such as Russia, France, and Israel, exhibit their forms of MICs, with Russia being the second-largest arms exporter and France having a state-managed defense industry. Israel’s MIC specializes in advanced military technologies.
The MIC thrives on realist ideas by seeing world politics as a zero-sum game, where building up the military is necessary for deterrence and dominance. However, this entanglement exacerbates regional instability by incentivizing arms races, proxy wars, and resource diversion from social needs to defense spending.
For instance, in the context of ongoing U.S.-China tensions, realist policies have bolstered the MIC, with U.S. defense budgets reaching record highs in 2025 amid fears of multipolar competition. This has led to heightened instability in regions like the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, where U.S. arms sales to allies fuel escalatory cycles. Similarly, Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine highlighted how realist power plays intersect with MIC interests: Western sanctions and aid packages have funneled billions into defense firms, prolonging the conflict and destabilizing Eastern Europe. The 2025 NATO summit further exemplified this, with leaders fabricating threats from Russia and China to justify increased military spending, perpetuating a cycle of “homeland insecurity” and potential civil unrest in the West. In essence, realism’s emphasis on hard power aligns with MIC profiteering, turning regions into battlegrounds for economic gain rather than genuine security, as seen in the U.S.’s “secret war” within the Pentagon, where contractors lobby for endless engagements. ### India’s Defense Spending and Arms Purchases Over the Last Two Decades (2005-2024)
Over the past two decades, from 2005 to 2024, India has significantly ramped up its defense expenditures, reflecting a strategic push toward military modernization amid escalating geopolitical tensions, particularly along its borders with China and Pakistan.  Drawing from data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the World Bank, India’s cumulative defense budget during this timeframe amounted to approximately 1,188 billion U.S. dollars in current terms, positioning India as the fourth or fifth largest defense spender globally by 2024. India’s procurement of arms and ammunition has been robust, making it one of the world’s top importers for much of the period. Measured in SIPRI’s Trend Indicator Values (TIV). The imports peaked dramatically in the 2010-2014 window, averaging about 4,588 million TIV annually, with major deals including French Rafale fighter jets and Russian S-400 missile systems pushing the 2013 figure to a high of 5,971 million TIV. This era saw Russia dominating as the primary supplier, accounting for up to 62% of imports, supplemented by Israel for drones and missiles and the U.S. for transport aircraft. In summary, India has spent nearly 1.3 trillion dollars when combining budget and estimated arms costs. Thus making the military-industrial complex the biggest beneficiary of India’s spending
Entanglement of Liberalism with Capitalism: Giving Rise to Multinationalism
Liberalism in international relations (IR) says that interdependence, free trade, and international institutions can help bring about peace and prosperity. It also says that economic integration can help reduce conflict. However, capitalism, which prioritizes profit maximization, market expansion, and deregulation, inextricably links this theory. This fusion gives rise to multinationalism—a global order dominated by multinational corporations (MNEs) that transcend national boundaries, influencing policies through economic leverage and eroding state sovereignty.
Liberal capitalism promotes “multinational capitalism” as a cultural logic, where globalization masks exploitation under the guise of diversity and openness. For example, while liberalism champions democratic institutions, capitalism’s inequalities—such as wealth gaps and job insecurity—stress these systems, as seen in rising populism worldwide. MNEs like tech giants (e.g., Google, Amazon) embody this, operating across borders with minimal regulation, shaping political ideologies and economic policies. In developing regions, this paradigm leads to “developmental capitalism” in states like China, blending state control with market forces, versus pure economic liberalism in the West. The result is a multinational framework where corporations lobby for liberal trade pacts (e.g., CPTPP), but at the cost of labor rights and environmental standards, fostering economic interdependence that can mask underlying tensions. Ultimately, capitalism’s profit motive co-opts liberalism’s idealistic cooperation, resulting in a world of interconnected markets but fragmented societies.
 Constructivism Marred by Algorithms, AI, and Deepfakes
Constructivism views IR as socially constructed through ideas, norms, and identities, where actors’ perceptions shape reality rather than objective structures. However, algorithms, AI, and deepfakes increasingly undermine this academic conclusion by manipulating these social constructs to distort narratives, erode trust, and weaponize information.
AI and deepfakes exacerbate “post-truth” geopolitics, wherein fabricated realities, such as synthetic videos of leaders, have the potential to reshape identities and norms. Disinformation undermines the constructivist focus on shared meanings, as algorithms create echo chambers that strengthen biased identities. AI-generated content, which blurs human-AI interactions and questions authenticity in diplomacy, undermines constructivism’s focus on discourse in IR scholarship. Deepfakes exacerbate the problem by enabling “deepfake diplomacy,” where states or non-state actors fabricate events to securitize threats, altering collective identities and international norms. This “marring” risks turning constructivism from a tool of understanding to one of exploitation, as AI-driven misinformation reshapes global perceptions without accountability.
 The Ultimate Future of Humanity: Contrasting Inputs and Exploitative Outputs
Amid these theoretical entanglements, humanity’s future hinges on navigating contrasting inputs—realism’s power-centric instability, liberalism’s market-driven integration, and constructivism’s tech-corrupted social constructs—with exploitative outputs like endless wars, corporate dominance, and informational chaos. The trajectory could lead to dystopian fragmentation or a hybrid renaissance.
Pessimistically, unchecked AI existential risks (e.g., superintelligent systems misaligned with human values) could amplify these divides, replacing humanity in a “six futures” scenario: from AI-dominated blocs to total obsolescence. Realism’s MIC might escalate AI-fueled wars, while liberalism’s capitalism commodifies AI, widening inequalities. Constructivism, tainted by deepfakes, could erode trust, leading to societal collapse akin to a “post-truth” apocalypse.
Optimistically, “human-first AI” governance could harmonize research-based knowledge: realism tempered by ethical AI arms control, liberalism channeling capitalism toward equitable multinationalism, and constructivism reclaiming narratives through AI literacy. By 2030, collaborative frameworks might steer AI toward humanity’s benefit, fostering a future of enhanced cooperation rather than exploitation. The outcome depends on proactive choices: without them, exploitation prevails; with them, a balanced, resilient humanity emerges.
