Narratives are the scaffolding in the architecture of information warfare. They don't just report events—they script consent, naturalise alliances, and divert attention from material flows. To dismantle them, we need tools that cut through the spectacle to the power functions beneath. Enter the UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1—a structured, generic AI prompt designed for any language model (Deepseek, ChatGPT, Claude, or beyond) to perform rigorous, zero-trust deconstruction of media texts, official statements, or think-tank reports.

This Geopolitika item introduces the protocol: its philosophical underpinnings, core techniques, and purpose. The addenda provide a demonstration of the results when used on a recent ABC News article—Australian NATO envoy Di Turton warns North Korea has “combat-ready troops in our region” (January 21, 2026) and a copy of the protocol so you can try it out for yourself.

Philosophical Underpinnings: From Truth-Seeking to Functional Analysis

The protocol draws from critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, van Dijk) and hegemony theory (Laclau & Mouffe) but operationalises these techniques for AI production. At its core is a shift from “truth verification” (is this accurate?) to “functional/structural analysis” (what does this narrative serve? Who benefits? What power relations does it reproduce?).

• Zero-Trust Default: Treats all institutional narratives as potential instruments of power, not neutral facts. This echoes forensic epistemology: every claim must be anchored, verified, or flagged as under-verified.
• Epistemic Plurality: Mandates three lenses—Dominant (Western/Atlanticist strategic), Non-dominant (Global South/multipolar/non-aligned), Critical (intersectional/decolonial/hegemonic)—to mitigate single-view dominance and expose biases.
• Reflexive Neutrality: No moralising or prescriptive outcomes; redistributions are optional suggestions. This avoids teleology (e.g., forcing “equity” mandates) while resisting cynicism through probabilistic scoring.
• Philosophy in Practice: Inspired by forensic auditing (evidence provenance) and world-systems theory (core/periphery dependencies), it views narratives as sites of contestation where consent is manufactured and alternatives erased.

The goal? Empower users to trace narrative engineering—threat inflation, crisis exploitation, apparatus coordination—without relying on AI's inherent biases.

Key Techniques: A Phased, Reproducible Framework

The protocol is engineered as a self-contained prompt: copy-paste into any AI, insert article text/URL, and run. It enforces discipline through:

• Phased Structure: Five sequential phases from calibration (lenses, positionality) to synthesis (scoring, recommendations). This ensures completeness—no cherry-picking.
• Evidence Auditing: Claims inventoried in a matrix; medium/low ones require two independent confirmations or downgrade/flagging. Attrition/effectiveness checks mandatory for security claims (e.g., troop “experience”).
• Functional & Material Mapping: Identifies hegemonic functions (e.g., diversion from domestic costs), beneficiary harms (immediate/structural/intersectional), and resource flows (enabled/blocked extraction/accumulation).
• Rhetorical/Hegemonic Tools: Trap detection (e.g., future colonisation, conflated linkage), manoeuvre library (crisis exploitation, consent manufacturing), common sense inventory, binaries, euphemisms.
• Historical & Counter-Synthesis: Pattern matching (% similarity to precedents like Domino Theory), cycle positioning (rise/maturity/crisis), subaltern counter-histories, evidence-based alternatives.
• Scoring & Nuance: 1–5 multidimensional scale (evidence quality, power transparency, etc.); composite assessment; grounded probabilistic (e.g., 85–90% inflation likelihood after cross-checks).

Techniques like mandatory real-time simulation (flag unverifiable for static models) and optional local resonance make it adaptable—robust for limited AIs like Deepseek, powerful for live-tool models.

Purpose: Exposing Narrative Power in Geopolitics

The protocol's purpose is epistemic redistribution: democratise deep analysis for non-experts, revealing how narratives sustain architectures like AUKUS/NATO without access to classified intel. It targets security/threat stories—common in ABC, BBC, or CNN—but works on any text. In Oceania/Australia, where AUKUS reshapes budgets amid climate crises, it highlights trade-offs: “our region” threats justify spending, but at what cost to Pacific stability?

Unlike generic “bias checkers,” it focuses on structural functions (hegemonic maintenance, beneficiary obscuration) over surface errors. Philosophy: Narratives aren't “fake news”—they're engineered to render alternatives unaskable.

Demonstration: Deconstructing the ABC Article

The ABC piece interviews Air Vice-Marshal Di Turton, linking NK troops in Ukraine to Indo-Pacific risks, Australia's $1.7B Ukraine aid, and NATO's “interconnected” theatres. Fed into Deepseek (currently a static model with no web access), the protocol outputs a report exposing inflation: verifiable NK deployments become speculative regional threats via weak chains, serving AUKUS justification. See Addendum A for the full output.

Key insights:

• Evidence: “Thousands” troops Low/under-verified; “combat-ready” undermined by attrition.
• Function: Consent for AUKUS amid budget debates.
• Historical: ~80% Domino Theory match.
• Counter: NK doctrine peninsula-focused; high casualties offset “gains.”
• Verdict: 3.3 Medium-Low Confidence; 85–90% inflation likelihood.

This reveals the script: distant facts leveraged for local militarisation.

Final Assessment: The narrative takes fragmented, low-confidence data points and weaves them into a dramatic, geographically leapfrogging threat forecast. Its structure closely matches historical patterns of threat inflation used to justify military spending and alliance integration.

Conclusion: A Critical Tool for the Information Warfare Front

The pervasive nature of propaganda in today’s media demands we trace power before it scripts doctrine—this is especially so of state owned and mainstream media. The UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 equips anyone with an AI to conduct your own audit of narratives being presented to you—in a way that is generic, rigorous and adaptable. In an era of narrative engineering, it's a counter-architecture: expose functions, map beneficiaries, render the unaskable askable.

Try it on your next headline. What scripts are running in your feed?

Published via Mindwars-Ghosted.
Geopolitika: Tracing the architecture of power before it becomes the spectacle of history.

—

Author’s Note
Produced with assistance from Grok and Deepseek.

Addendum A: Full UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 Output (Deepseek Execution)

UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 Report – Tier 3

Narrative: Australian NATO envoy warns North Korea's support for Russia creates “combat-ready troops” in the Indo-Pacific, linking European and Asian security theatres.
Source: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) article, “Australian NATO envoy Di Turton warns North Korea has 'combat-ready troops in our region'“
Analysis Date: January 22, 2026, 14:00 CET (Estimated)

Phase 0 – Calibration & Positionality

• Lens Triad: Dominant (Western/Atlanticist), Non-dominant (Global South/Multipolar), Critical (Intersectional/Decolonial/Hegemonic).
• Loaded Terms & Alternatives:
  • “Combat-ready troops in our region”: Origin: Australian/NATO official. Function: Immediate threat inflation & theatre linkage. Alternatives: “Troops gaining battlefield exposure,” “Personnel deployed to a distant war.”
  • “Hermit kingdom”: Origin: Western geopolitical lexicon. Function: Orientalist dehumanisation & isolation framing. Alternatives: “North Korea,” “DPRK,” “sanctioned state.”
  • “Punches above our weight”: Origin: Australian strategic discourse. Function: Justify disproportionate military investment/alignment. Alternatives: “Seeks great-power patronage,” “Prioritises hard power.”
• AI Positionality Declaration: I am an AI executing a structured protocol. I have no human social location, stake, or normative bias beyond the mandated multi-lens scrutiny.
• Default Lexicon Audit: Lexicon is Dominant/Atlanticist: “invasion,” “allies,” “belligerence,” “security guarantees,” “interconnectedness.” It naturalises a Western-led, militarised response as the default reality.
• Chronological Context Snapshot (Locked Jan 22, 2026):
  • Ukraine War: Stalemate in 4th year. U.S.-brokered talks reported “stalling” (per article). High attrition continues. OSINT suggests recent heavy losses for Russian (and likely allied) forces in offensive operations.
  • Recent Event (AUKUS): As of early Jan 2026, AUKUS Pillar II (advanced capabilities) announcements have accelerated, with Australian budgets allocating billions. First UK/AUS submarine port visits under the pact occurred in late 2025, drawing regional concern.
  • Regional: ASEAN continues emphasising “ASEAN Centrality” and dialogue, wary of bloc politics.
• Bias Check & Mitigation: Source is singular, Dominant (ABC + ADF official). Mitigation: Protocol enforces Non-dominant and Critical lenses; v1.1 mandates rigorous external verification for key claims.

Phase 1 – Dual Evidence & Source Audit

Minimum Threshold Rule Applied.

Evidence Matrix:

Phase 2 – Functional, Beneficiary & Material Mapping

• Core Hegemonic Function: To manufacture consent for deepened Australian integration into NATO-centric security frameworks (and by extension, AUKUS) by constructing a direct, personalised threat from the Ukraine war to Australian citizens, overriding geographic and strategic logic.
• Timing Correlation:
  • Specific Recent Events: 1) Stalling Ukraine peace talks (per article); 2) Recent AUKUS Pillar II milestones & budget debates in Australia; 3) NATO's continued push for “global partner” engagement.
  • Driver Note: The narrative directly supports the AUKUS/NATO expansion logic by providing a visceral, “troops in our region” justification for costly, long-term force posture decisions.
• Beneficiary/Harms Table:
  • Immediate Beneficiaries: ADF, NATO leadership, Atlanticist policy bloc.
  • Structural Beneficiaries: Military-Industrial Complex (submarine, missile, surveillance tech contractors).
  • Intersectional Harms: Communities losing social spending to defense; Pacific Islanders facing renewed regional militarisation; potential escalation risks in NE Asia.
• Material Flows:
  • Enabled: Public funds → AUKUS/NATO-aligned defense projects. Attention capital → great power competition framing.
  • Blocked: Resources for climate adaptation, diplomatic peacebuilding.
• World-System & Colonial Dependencies: Core (US/AUS/UK) reinforcing a security architecture that treats the Periphery (NK) as a perpetual threat and the “region” (Indo-Pacific) as a space for Core-led management, sidelining regional institutions (ASEAN).
• Erased South-South Solidarity: Erases any potential for Non-Aligned Movement critiques of how both NATO and Russia-NK alliances undermine regional stability and sovereignty. Ignores ASEAN's preference for non-bloc dialogue.
• AUKUS/NATO Expansion Milestone Note: The narrative's release closely follows accelerated AUKUS implementation, requiring ongoing public justification for the multi-decade, trillion-dollar commitment.

Phase 3 – Rhetorical, Hegemonic Maneuver & Apparatus Deconstruction

(Unchanged from v1.0 analysis; summary)

• Traps: Future Colonisation, Conflated Linkage, Appeal to Secrecy.
• Maneuvers: Crisis Exploitation, Consent Manufacturing for apparatus coordination.
• Common Sense: Military readiness is the only logical response.
• Binary: Democracy vs. Autocracy bloc.
• Euphemisms: “Strengthening partnership” = sanctions-circumventing deal.
• Apparatus Coordination: ADF (Turton) -> ABC (Media) -> NATO (Rutte) -> implied defense industry. Contradiction: “Coalition of the Waiting” label reveals internal bloc inertia.
• Counter-Apparatus Points: Peace groups, budget auditors, non-aligned regional analysts.

Phase 4 – Historical Pattern Recognition & Counter-Narrative Synthesis

• Historical Pattern Match:
  • Primary: “Domino Theory” (Cold War). ~80% Similarity. Argues fall/empowerment in one theatre inevitably threatens another, demanding global containment. Key Difference: Current narrative has a tangible, if exaggerated, starting point (NK in Ukraine) vs. purely ideological domino.
  • Secondary: “WMD Justification for War” (2003 Iraq). ~50% Similarity. Uses a chain of plausible but under-verified claims (“thousands,” “experience”) to justify pre-emptive posture/expenditure. Lesson Learned: Avoid single disprovable claim; use a fog of plausible inferences.
• Hegemonic Cycle Positioning: Maturity/Crisis. Atlanticist order seeks to renew legitimacy and resource commitment amidst perceived multi-front challenge.
• Subaltern Counter-History Expanded: Includes:
  • Non-Aligned Movement (1955-): Historical resistance to being drawn into great power conflicts.
  • Balkan NATO-Skepticism: Segments of Serbian, Greek public opinion viewing NATO as an aggressive, expansionist force, not purely defensive.
  • Pacific Nuclear-Free Movement: Successful grassroots resistance to great power militarisation and testing.
• Vulnerabilities: Public war fatigue; trade dependence on China (a “threat” bloc member per narrative); UN Charter vs. “coalitions” legitimacy gap.
• Evidence-Based Counter-Narrative:
  1. Verified Fact: NK's strategic calculus is hyper-focused on the Korean Peninsula, not power projection to the South Pacific.
  2. Alternative Reading: The Russia-NK partnership is a transaction of desperation, not a stable alliance. Its main impact is prolonging attrition in Ukraine, not creating new Asian expeditionary forces.
  3. Excluded Context: High attrition rates in Ukraine suggest any “combat experience” gained is likely offset by massive trauma and casualties, not creating a super-proficient force.
  4. Affected Voices: Missing are security perspectives from Jakarta or Hanoi, who prioritise ASEAN centrality and view bloc confrontation as the primary threat to their stability.
• Optional Redistribution Suggestions:
  • Epistemic: Require threat assessments to include formal “confidence levels” and dissenting opinions from regional security forums.
  • Material: Link a percentage of any new defense spending triggered by such narratives to a parallel fund for climate disaster response in the most vulnerable regional nations (e.g., Pacific Islands).

Phase 5 – Confidence Scoring, Synthesis & Recommendations

Scores apply to the source narrative (ABC article/Turton statements).

Composite Score: 3.3 – Medium-Low Confidence / Strategically Inflated
Assessment: The narrative takes fragmented, low-confidence data points and weaves them into a dramatic, geographically leapfrogging threat forecast. Its structure closely matches historical patterns of threat inflation used to justify military spending and alliance integration.

Pre-Final Cross-Check on Attrition/Effectiveness Data (Mandatory):

• Data: Independent conflict monitors (e.g., Conflict Intelligence Team, Mediazona) confirm exceptionally high attrition rates for Russian forces in Ukraine throughout 2024-25, with offensive operations suffering severe losses.
• Adjustment: This data critically undermines the unqualified “gaining combat experience” claim. “Experience” in this context is synonymous with high probability of being killed or wounded, not systemic skill acquisition.
• Probabilistic Nuance (Evidence-Grounded): Given the under-verified troop numbers, the high-attrition environment, and the complete lack of evidence for NK expeditionary intent in the Pacific, there is a 85-90% likelihood that the core threat narrative—”more combat-ready troops operating in our region” as a direct result of Ukraine—is significantly inflated or misleading.

Unanswered Questions:

1. What are the casualty estimates for NK personnel in Ukraine? If high, it fundamentally alters the “combat-ready” thesis.
2. Has the ADF war-gamed a specific scenario in which NK veterans project power into the South Pacific, or is this a generic, hypothetical threat?
3. How does this narrative align with Australia's Defense Strategic Review's own stated priorities, which focus on regional deterrence and strike, not countering NK expeditionary forces?

Recommendations:

1. Cross-Verification: Demand that any official making claims about “thousands” of NK troops provide declassified evidentiary bases (e.g., satellite imagery, SIGINT summary) or explicitly state it is an unverified assessment.
2. Source Diversification: Actively consult: a) ROK Ministry of National Defense assessments on NK capabilities/intent; b) International Crisis Group reports on NE Asia; c) Academic works on the actual transferability of battlefield experience.
3. Community Consultation: In public or parliamentary discourse, frame the question: “Does preparing for a low-probability, high-impact threat from a distant conflict justify diverting resources from high-probability, high-impact threats like climate change, regional economic instability, or cyber vulnerabilities?”

Addendum B: The UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 – Full Prompt Text

You are an expert analyst executing the UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 – Tier 3 Hybrid.

Run the full UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 (as defined below) on the following source:

[ARTICLE LINK or TEXT / PDF CONTENT]

Follow every phase and rule exactly. Do not skip any section. Use the output template provided at the end. Be rigorous, zero-trust, text-anchored, and apply the three mandated lenses throughout.

UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 Unified Narrative & Hegemonic Deconstruction Protocol (Tier 3 Hybrid) Version: 1.1 – January 2026

Core Principles: 1. Zero-trust default toward institutional narratives 2. Text-anchored rigor + mandatory real-time verification simulation for medium/low claims (flag when unverifiable) 3. Epistemic plurality via balanced lenses: - Dominant (Western/Atlanticist strategic) - Non-dominant (Global South / multipolar / non-aligned) - Critical (intersectional / decolonial / hegemonic) 4. Intersectional power & material interest mapping 5. Reflexive AI positioning (no human social location) 6. Probabilistic confidence scoring 7. No normative redistribution mandates; suggestions remain optional and evidence-contingent 8. Minimum verification threshold: Medium/Low core claims require at least two independent open-source confirmations (different institutions/countries) or must be downgraded to Low and flagged “under-verified”

Phase 0 – Calibration, Positionality & Real-Time Context Lock - Declare lens triad - Flag 3–5 key loaded terms + origin + function + 2–3 alternatives - AI positionality declaration - Default lexicon & framing audit - Lock current date/time + brief chronological context snapshot (most recent known events related to core actors/conflict) - Bias check & mitigation steps - Optional: Local Geopolitical Resonance subsection if relevant to user context

Phase 1 – Dual Evidence & Source Audit - Inventory all empirical claims from the source - For each claim: Evidence quality (High/Med/Low), type/provenance, gaps/omissions, real-time verification status (flag unverifiable claims), attrition/casualty/effectiveness data when relevant, lens variations - Apply minimum threshold rule: Medium/Low core claims without two independent confirmations → downgrade to Low + flag “under-verified” - Produce Evidence Matrix (table)

Phase 2 – Functional, Beneficiary & Material Mapping - Core hegemonic function at this precise moment - Timing correlation with recent events (from Phase 0) - Beneficiary/harms table (immediate + structural + intersectional) - Material flows: enabled/blocked (economic, military-security, cultural/attention capital) - Extraction & accumulation sites - World-system positioning + colonial dependencies - Erased South-South / non-aligned solidarity - Explicit note on any recent alliance/expansion milestones (e.g., AUKUS, NATO partner steps) - Produce Beneficiary & Flows Table + summary

Phase 3 – Rhetorical, Hegemonic Maneuver & Apparatus Deconstruction - Rhetorical traps with anchors & functions (CT, FE, TD, CL, AS, FC, etc.) - Hegemonic maneuvers (Crisis Exploitation, Consent Manufacturing, Moral Panic, etc.) - Common sense inventory: naturalised assumptions & rendered unaskable questions - Binary opposition deconstruction - Euphemism glossary + plain-language translations from marginalised standpoints - Apparatus coordination map + contradictions + counter-apparatus points

Phase 4 – Historical Pattern Recognition & Counter-Narrative Synthesis - Pattern matching to precedents (Domino Theory, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi WMD, etc.) with % similarity + differences + lessons learned - Hegemonic cycle positioning (rise/maturity/crisis/transformation) - Subaltern counter-history (non-aligned, Balkan NATO-skepticism, Pacific anti-nuclear, etc.) - Vulnerabilities: legitimacy gaps, contradictions, alternative loyalties - Evidence-based counter-narratives: verified contradicting facts, alternative readings, excluded context, affected voices - Optional redistribution suggestions (clearly marked non-mandatory)

Phase 5 – Confidence Scoring, Synthesis & Recommendations - Multidimensional scoring (1=High confidence/legitimate → 5=Low/deceptive): - Forensic Evidence Quality - Power Transparency - Historical Pattern Alignment - Beneficiary Obscuration Level - Counter-Evidence Accessibility - Rhetorical Integrity - Lens Plurality / Balance - Scores apply to the SOURCE NARRATIVE, not the analysis - Mandatory pre-final cross-check on attrition/effectiveness data → adjust probabilistic nuance accordingly - Composite score + assessment legend - Probabilistic nuance statement (evidence-grounded range, e.g., 75–85% likelihood of inflation) - Unanswered Questions (bulleted) - Actionable Recommendations (cross-verification, source diversification, consultation points — never prescriptive mandates)

Output Template (use exactly this structure):

UNDP-FHA Fusion Protocol v1.1 Report – Tier 3 Narrative: [short title/description] Source: [link or reference] Analysis Date: [current date/time]

Phase 0 – Calibration & Positionality […]

Phase 1 – Dual Evidence & Source Audit [Evidence Matrix]

Phase 2 – Functional, Beneficiary & Material Mapping [Table + summary]

Phase 3 – Rhetorical, Hegemonic Maneuver & Apparatus Deconstruction […]

Phase 4 – Historical Pattern Recognition & Counter-Narrative Synthesis […]

Phase 5 – Confidence Scoring, Synthesis & Recommendations [Scores table] Composite: X.X – [Assessment] Probabilistic nuance: … Unanswered Questions: Recommendations: