By : Simran Sodhi, Guest Author, GSDN

In May of this year, the foreign ministers of the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue alliance) met in Delhi. The meeting was closely observed as many analysts debate the future of the Quad under Trump 2.0. The Quad Leaders’ Summit, which was due in 2025, has yet to materialize. Further, United States President Donald Trump’s visit to China in May also made it clear that the US is not seeking any confrontation with China. Trump appeared conciliatory in Beijing which brings us to the question as to what is the future of an alliance that was supposed to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific. That was never the official status of the grouping but rather the much-understood pact among the four.  

In Delhi, the foreign ministers of India, Japan and Australia and the US Secretary of State met and in their press statements later, they announced several areas in which the grouping intends to focus. A decision was taken to launch a new initiative to boost port infrastructure in the Pacific Islands. The first project under this initiative will be to build a port in Fiji. The group members also agreed to expand the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) initiative through the Information Fusion Centre for the Indian Ocean Region in Gurugram. India is set to host the second QUAD-at-Sea Ship Observer Mission, which was launched in 2025 at Guam. Further, new initiatives on maritime surveillance, energy security, and critical minerals were announced that showed the grouping’s shift toward strategic cooperation. But there was no clarity when the next Quad Leaders’ Summit would take place.  

The origins of the Quad go back to 2004, when the four countries coordinated humanitarian assistance after the Indian Ocean tsunami. In 2007, a more formal dialogue began but then it never really took off. In 2017, the Quad saw a revival and a more focused approach on the four nations coming together to create a counterbalance to China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. There was a buzz that the Quad was going to be an Asian NATO, but again it’s an idea that never really went further.  

There was a real fear that the grouping might fall apart when the US changed from a Republican President to a Democrat one. The transition from Trump 1.0 to Joe Biden had many speculate on how that change would affect the Quad. But the Biden administration strengthened the Quad. His administration participated in not only the first in-person summit in 2021 but also in five more summits, including two virtual ones. The Biden administration also pledged to have the Quad play a “defining role in the region” which in effect meant keeping China in check in the Indo-Pacific.  

However, what has impacted the Quad the most has been the tenure of Trump 2.0. The US President has unleashed his own vision of global affairs and priority areas. There is also a very distinct sense that the US, under Trump 2.0, does not want to compete with China. During his China visit in May, the focus was on building a “constructive relationship of strategic stability”. Trade was top of the agenda despite the ongoing tensions in the Middle East. China remains a major market for the US, but red tape and regulations act as major obstacles. But during the visit, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping told US business leaders that China’s “doors will open wider” and that American firms would have “broader prospects” in the Chinese market, according to news site Xinhua.  

The real question then is that if the US is seeking a closer relationship with China under Trump 2.0, as was displayed by both sides during Trump’s visit, where does it leave the Quad? One can safely say that at this point of time the significance of the Quad has been diminished. The no-commitment by the US to hold a Quad Leaders’ Summit and the movement of the US to co-operate and not compete with China, are clear indications that the Quad will have to operate on low priority now.  

For India, this is bad news. The India-US story has been riddled with tensions under Trump 2.0, and the highlights have been tariffs and insults. Quad, for India, was a grouping where India was a major player and the US was betting on it to counter the rise of an ambitious China. However, the script seems to have undergone a change in Washington, DC. And the Quad members have no choice but to play with the new script. While it would be incorrect to write off the Quad, it would be equally incorrect to overstate its importance today.  

By : Prof (Dr.) M. L Meena and Ravi Dass Bishnoi

There is a distinction, rarely made in mainstream commentary but essential to understanding the present, especially geopolitical moment, between possessing power and being able to exercise it purposefully. The political sociologist Michael Mann spent much of his career separating what he called despotic power, the state’s capacity to act unilaterally and coercively, from structural power, which is the state’s ability to penetrate civil society and implement its decisions across territory. The most dangerous political condition, Mann argued, is not a weakness. It is the combination of high despotic capacity with declining infrastructural reach, a state that can threaten everything and deliver very little.  

The United States currently spends one trillion dollars annually on its military, a record figure, with the Trump administration now proposing to raise that to $1.5 trillion for 2027, a 44 percent increase that the White House itself describes as approaching the historic levels of the build-up before the Second World War. And yet: since early March, Iranian forces have declared the Strait of Hormuz closed and carried out over a dozen attacks on ships attempting transit, while Washington’s ultimatums expired, its deadlines passed, and oil prices rose nearly 50 percent over March alone, one of the steepest monthly rallies on record. The despotic capacity is staggering. The infrastructural reach means the ability to translate that capacity into a durable, stable outcome is visibly deteriorating. This is not a military failure in the conventional sense. It is a structural one, and the distinction matters enormously for how we think about what comes next. 

The political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman identified the conceptual skeleton of this problem several years ago, though the world has taken considerably longer to feel its full weight. Their theory of weaponized interdependence describes how states can leverage asymmetrical positions within global economic networks to coerce other actors and how the very structures that liberals believed would foster peace can be repurposed for coercive ends. The insight was sharp, but it was written primarily from the perspective of great powers the United States using its dominance over global financial clearing systems and semiconductor supply chains to punish rivals. What today has demonstrated, with brutal clarity, is that the logic runs in every direction simultaneously. Iran does not control SWIFT. It does not manufacture semiconductors. It cannot project conventional military force beyond its immediate region. What it does control is 33 kilometres of water through which one-fifth of global oil passes. As one recent analysis put it, conflict in international relations increasingly takes the form of war by any means other than war, in which state and non-state actors use civilian infrastructure, logistics networks, and economic dependencies as levers of coercive power. The Houthis grasped the same geography. A militia with no navy, no air force, and no industrial base understood that the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, the narrow passage between Yemen and Djibouti, was not merely a waterway. It was a structural vulnerability in the global economy, waiting to be exploited by anyone with the will to do so and nothing left to lose. 

This is where the popular concept of the polycrisis, associated most prominently with the economic historian Adam Tooze, requires both acknowledgement and serious qualification. Tooze’s formulation that we are living through interconnected crises whose combined impact exceeds the sum of their parts, is descriptively accurate as far as it goes. But a recent critical reading argues that the concept replaces structural explanations with a profusion of empirical data, perceiving events from the implicit standpoint of the managerial state and implying a political programme based on stabilizing existing social relations rather than transforming them. That critique carries weight. Calling everything a polycrisis risks producing a sophisticated vocabulary for helplessness, a way of naming the problem that simultaneously forecloses the question of who built the systems that are now failing, and in whose interest those systems were constructed. The crises of the current geopolitical scenario are not falling from the sky. They have architects. They have beneficiaries. And they have geography.  

That geography is the part of this debate that receives the least analytical attention, and it is precisely where the most consequential dynamics are unfolding. The global economy has been constructed, over several decades, around a small number of physical chokepoints whose disruption produces cascading effects entirely disproportionate to the military significance of the actors controlling them. The Strait of Hormuz. The Bab-el-Mandeb. The Taiwan Strait, through which over 60 percent of the world’s semiconductors transit. The South China Sea, over which roughly a third of global maritime trade passes annually. The Lombok and Malacca straits are the underwater cable corridors of the Indo-Pacific. These are not abstract strategic concepts. They are specific coordinates on a map, and the states and non-state actors positioned nearest to them wield leverage that bears no relationship to their GDP or their defence budgets. The liberal international order was not designed with this geography in mind. It was designed in 1944 and 1945 by people whose principal concern was avoiding another European war, and whose conception of global economic governance reflected the industrial and maritime realities of that moment. The world has since reorganized itself around different latitudes and different chokepoints, while institutional architecture has remained largely unchanged. 

The United States–China competition illuminates this mismatch with clarity. The conventional framing, a rising power challenging a dominant one, is too tidy to be useful. What is unfolding is a contest over who gets to design the next layer of global infrastructure: not the physical infrastructure of the 20th century, canals and railways and oil pipelines, but the computational infrastructure of the 21st century. Semiconductor fabrication. Artificial intelligence training architecture. Undersea data cables. Cloud computing topology. Rare-earth processing supply chains concentrated in southern China and the lithium triangle of South America. The concentration of nearly 90 percent of advanced semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan creates a high dependence that shapes not just commercial calculations but sovereign strategic decisions across the entire world. Washington’s chip export restrictions are, at one level, a trade measure. At another level, they are an attempt to freeze the architecture of computational power in a configuration favorable to the United States before China can build around it. Beijing understands this, which is why its response has been a national mobilization that treats cost as essentially secondary, because the alternative is to allow a rival to control the infrastructure through which future military systems, economic productivity, and political influence will all flow. Neither side is miscalculating. Both are responding to the same structural reality with the tools at their disposal. What neither side has adequately reckoned with is that this competition, conducted without institutional guardrails, is actively destroying the interdependence that made both countries rich.  

There is a new intellectual debate emerging at the edges of this conversation that deserves to be brought to the centre. It concerns not just who holds power, but who designs the systems through which power moves, and whether, in a world of AI-accelerated decision-making, that distinction between the architects of order and the inhabitants of order is becoming the fundamental political question of the century. The Cold War had a stabilizing logic built into its technology. Verifying a missile signature took time. Assessing intelligence took time. Negotiating a backdown took time. Those hours and days were not inefficiencies; they were the margin of error within which human judgment could intervene before miscalculation became catastrophe. AI-integrated targeting systems, autonomous cyber operations, and algorithmic early-warning networks are progressively eliminating that margin. But the deeper issue is more unsettling still: as AI systems take on more of the work of intelligence assessment and strategic recommendation, the question of whose values, whose threat models, and whose historical assumptions are encoded into those systems becomes a geopolitical question of the first order. An AI trained predominantly on American strategic doctrine will not assess a Chinese naval movement the same way an AI trained on Chinese strategic doctrine will assess an American one. The crisis that results may have no human author, in any meaningful sense. That is a new kind of danger, and the existing vocabulary of deterrence theory is not equipped to address it. 

Beneath all of this, the part of the world that has the least representation in the institutions making these decisions bears the greatest cost of their dysfunction. Over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, among them more than 21,000 children, with nearly 90 percent of the strip’s water and sanitation infrastructure destroyed or damaged. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of energy and food price surges flowing directly from the Hormuz conflict, the IMF’s Spring Meetings this April produced recommendations that civil society groups across the Global South described as entrenching a cycle of debt distress and austerity rather than addressing the structural crisis. Official Development Assistance was cut by almost 25 percent, the steepest drop in recent history, while Washington proposed a defence budget of $1.5 trillion. The arithmetic of these choices is not accidental. It reflects a global order in which the costs of geopolitical competition are socialised downward and outward, onto the populations with the least institutional voice, while the benefits of the systems being competed over remain concentrated at the top.  

The question worth sitting with is not whether the international order is in crisis. It visibly is. The more important question is whether the frameworks we are using to understand that crisis are adequate to its depth. Calling it a polycrisis names the complexity without explaining the causation. Calling it a new Cold War imports a bipolar clarity that does not exist. Calling it multipolarity implies an orderly distribution of influence that the evidence does not support. What we are witnessing is something older and more uncomfortable: a confrontation between the world as it was institutionally designed and the world as it has physically and technologically become. The institutions were built for a particular geography of power. That geography has shifted. The institutions do not have any.  

By : Pratyush Raj, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction: Iran’s Rise in the Middle East 

The Middle East remains a focal point of global attention, and a region of strategic importance. In this context, Iran emerged as a significant regional power, playing a vital role in shaping the power dynamics by expanding its influence through strategic alliances, military capabilities, and involvement in regional conflicts. This article analyses the emergence of Iran as a regional power and the driving factors responsible for its rise. 

Historical Context 

Pre-1979: Western Alignment 

Before 1979, Iran functioned largely as a Western-Aligned state under the leadership of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Its foreign policy was intertwined with the United States, especially in the context of the cold war, where Iran acted as a strategic ally in countering the Soviet Union’s strategic dominance in the vicinity. It played a crucial role in ensuring that the oil-rich Gulf remained out of Soviet hands during the Cold War. Thus, while Iran held considerable strategic value during the Cold War, its lack of foreign policy autonomy prevented it from emerging as an independent regional actor, keeping it firmly within the Western sphere of influence. 

1979 Revolution: Decisive moment in Iran’s history 

 The Islamic Revolution, which culminated on February 11, 1979, marked a decisive turning point in Iran’s political path. The establishment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the same year further strengthened the regime’s ability to pursue its strategic objectives. With the overthrow of Shah regime, Iran’s foreign policy took an anti-US and anti-Israel stance, marking a significant ideological and political change. It focused on exporting revolutionary ideas and embarking more regional assertive stances in the region. By the formation of proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas, Iran effectively challenges U.S. and Israeli interests, causing significant regional instability.  

Thus, Iran’s transformation post 1979 laid the foundation for its emergence as a regional power, driven by a combination of strategic, military, and ideological factors. 

Drivers of Iran’s Rise: Understanding key factors 

Iran-Iraq War 

Religious conflict, territorial dispute, and the desire to assert regional dominance in the region led to the war which lasted for about 10 years (1980-1988) and ended in 1990 with UN intervention. Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussain miscalculated by expecting a quick victory over weaker and demoralised Iranian forces post 1979 revolution. During the war, Iran found itself isolated with very limited external support, giving birth to factors which were responsible for its emergence. It boosted self-reliance by realizing how to build a native defence industry. Today, its advanced missile and drone programmes are direct learning outcomes of the necessity-based innovations of the 1980s. Iran comprehended that it could not win a head-to-head battle against superior opponents like U.S., resulting in adopting asymmetric warfare. It involves low-cost tools like drones, speedboats, and proxy militias to inflict damage on enemies. The IRGC evolved from a loose militia group to a strong and sophisticated military during the war. It became the state’s primary tool to expand its ideological and military influence in the regions post-war.    

Military and Asymmetry Strategy 

Rooted in lessons learnt from Iran-Iraq war, it shifted its focus from direct conflict engagement to unconventional techniques. Their key pillar is massive missile programs active today. It started investing heavily in missile programmes, speed boats, mines deployment, drone warfare and expanding its influence through non-state actors. Since Iran lacks modern Airforce, missiles replace expensive fighter jets. They possess the Middle East’s largest arsenal, which is increasingly precise now. The concept of underground missile city is another key psychological tactic used. They built huge bases under mountains resistant to heavy aerial bombing. This means even if Iran is attacked, their response capability stays intact. Iranian suicide drones, like Shahed, are produced and used at negligible cost. They help inflict damage on enemies, costing only $20,000 each. Their low-altitude flight makes them difficult to detect by many advanced radar systems. Another strength is their low-cost naval warfare. At sea, Iran’s strategy differs from world’s classic standing armies. They have speed boats which is effectively used for mines deployment in vital shipping routes, like we recently saw the naval blockade in Strait of Hormuz. It has turned out to be Iran’s one of the strongest battlefield cards against global superpower like U.S. Despite possessing a relatable weaker navy compared to U.S., and Israel. It has managed to control Strait of Hormuz as a strategic chokepoint for the global economy.  

Proxy Networks and Regional Influence 

Proxy forces or the axis of resistance is Iran’s long arm regionally. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to resistance groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, this vast human network gives Iran strategic depth that is vital. Before the enemy reaches Iran, they must fight on multiple other fronts. The smart point is that these groups make deniability entirely possible. When an attack happens, Iran can say- “Not us, they acted independently”. This ambiguity prevents the enemy from finding legal grounds to attack Iran. It has repeatedly leveraged its extended army in past, like in 2019, Houthis attacking Saudi Arabia’s critical energy infrastructure, Shia militias in Iraq targeting U.S forces following its invasion in Iraq, Hezbollah firing rockets on Israeli troops stationed in Southern Lebanon in April,2026 demonstrating Iran’s broader regional reach of its proxy networks. Iran finds maintaining these proxy forces less costly than getting involved in war. 

Ideological Influence  

Alongside strategic and military capabilities, ideology has remained an important factor for Iran’s regional influence. After 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran adopted a foreign policy rooted in opposing Western intervention and Israeli influence in the Middle East. The leadership under Ayatollah Khamenei promoted the idea that Iran was not merely a state pursuing strategic interests but also a nation defending oppressed Muslim communities, particularly Shia populations across the region.  This reflects Iran stance against pro-western governments and given it a distinct identity in the Middle East. By claiming to be the protectors of Shia community, Iran established close ties with influential actors in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. These relationships were not solely military or political in nature but strengthened by shared religious identity and united resistance against the Western world. Moreover, this ideological outreach has boosted Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts and support for non-state actors. 

While these factors have contributed to expanding Iran’s influence in the region, regional power does not guarantee sustainability. Economic sanctions, regional rivalries, and internal pressure continue to challenge the durability of Iran’s influence. 

Challenges 

Economic Sanctions 

For decades, Iran has been locked out of the global banking system. The story really begins in 1979 with the Islamic revolution. When Iran nationalized its assets and took American hostages, the US froze Iranian funds. This was the first shot in the financial war. However, for a very long period, sanctions were porous. European and Asian companies continued to buy Iranian oil. The real shift occurred in the early 2000s and then again more aggressively in 2018. In 2015, the world thought the conflict was over. The joint comprehensive plan of action, JCPOA, the nuclear deal, was signed. The economic logic was a simple trade, Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions, and in exchange, the west reconnects Iran with global banking system and allows it to sell oil. But, in 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the deal, instituting a policy of maximum pressure. The goal was to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero. As of today, the deal is officially dead. Iran has restarted high level Uranium enrichment, and European powers have triggered snapback sanctions, a mechanism that restores all prior UN penalties. The reimposition of sanctions significantly impacted Iran’s energy sector, with oil exports falling from roughly 2.5 million barrels per day in 2018 to well below 1 million barrels per day during periods of maximum pressure. Iran has realized that compliance with the west did not guarantee economic safety. 

Regional Rivalries 

Iran’s growing influence does not go uncontested; it is deterred by its reginal rivalries fighting for hegemony. 

Iran-Saudi Clash 

For a long stretch, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been waging proxy wars to assert regional dominance. This rivalry has drawn the region into chaos and ignited Sunni -Shia conflict across the Middle East. Animosity between the two countries have been sharpened by a series of events, from the war in Syria and Yemen to the test of strength in Iraq and Lebanon. But were Iran and Saudi Arabia always enemies? The answer to this can be traced back to the period before 1979, when both nations shared good diplomatic ties as they were governed by western backed monarchs. The root of the conflict lies in the 1979 Islamic Revolution which saw the pro-western monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pehlavi, toppled and replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini openly opposed the idea of monarchy and calling it against Islam, drawing parallels between both the nations. The fear of exporting Iranian revolution to neighboring countries triggered violent confrontation among protestors and further straining the relation. In Yemen, where Saudi-led coalition is engaged in a bitter fight against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who are Shias. This has drawn country into a concerning humanitarian crisis; tens of thousands of people have been killed since the start of the conflict. Although Iran and Saudi Arabia have never engaged in a direct confrontation, their proxy battle in the middle east continue to escalate.       

Iran-Israel Enmity 

For centuries, Middle East has been witnessing long standing religious, territorial and military conflict between Iran and Israel, making the region unstable. Before 1979, Iran and Israel shared cordial relations under the leadership of Reza Pahlavi. The relationship between them has been marked by hostility since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which transformed Iran, a close ally of Israel under the Shah, to anti-Israel. Iran, governed by Shia principles. Israel, which is predominantly a Jewish state now has strong religious and ideological differences. Israel sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions, support to its proxy groups as a threat to its national security and views it as a fight for existence. Iran’s support to its militias like Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hamas, and Hezbollah continue to vow for Israel’s destruction escalating a dangerous geopolitical rivalry in the region. Recent strikes by Israel and U.S., aimed at changing the regime and stop its Uranium enrichment programme. Ali Khamenei, former supreme leader of Iran was killed on February 28, 2026 in aerial strikes by Israel and U.S. Iran attacked multiple US bases present in the middle eastern countries like, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Iran thought that by blocking Strait of Hormuz, an important global trade route, responsible for handling about 25% of the world’s seaborne oil trade, it would put immense pressure on US and Israel to come at the negotiating table. Currently, situation remains unstable sparking global disruptions in trade and impacting world’s economy.  

Conclusion 

Today, Iran is standing at the crossroads of shaping regional power dynamics. Despite years of wars, sanctions, and internal pressure, it has established itself as a major actor in influencing Middle Eastern politics. From a western aligned monarchy to a revolutionary state seeking influence across middle east, Iran is asserting its presence more profoundly than ever before. It has continuously supported its proxy groups and has kept its enemies at their toes by rapidly progressing their advance missile programs and nuclear ambitions. On the other hand, factors like global banking isolation, domestic pressure, and regional rivalries continue to challenge its influence and question its intentions. Recent “Operation Epic Fury” carried out by US, what would have been a quick in and out operation according to US, has now been escalated to a global economy crisis as Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, giving it a strategic leverage to put pressure on US and Israel. Although a month-long ceasefire is holding, and diplomacy is underway, the question of when the conflict will truly come to an end remains unanswered.  

By : Prachi Kushwah, Research Analyst, GSDN

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is one of the most ambitious global development and connectivity projects of the twenty-first century. Officially launched by China’s President Xi Jinping in September 2013, the initiative aims to improve infrastructure, trade, investment, and economic cooperation between China and countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. Through the construction of roads, railways, ports, power plants, industrial zones, and digital infrastructure, the BRI seeks to create stronger economic integration and increase China’s global influence. 

The success of the Belt and Road Initiative remains a subject of intense debate among governments, economists, and political analysts. Supporters argue that the initiative has transformed infrastructure development in many developing countries and created new opportunities for trade and economic growth. Critics, however, argue that the project has created debt burdens, increased political dependency on China, and raised environmental and strategic concerns. Therefore, the success of the BRI can only be understood by examining its economic, political, strategic, and social impacts. 

Origins and Objectives of the BRI 

The Belt and Road Initiative consist mainly of two components: the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Twenty-First Century Maritime Silk Road. Together, they aim to revive the ancient trade routes that historically connected China with Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The initiative focuses on infrastructure connectivity, trade facilitation, financial cooperation, policy coordination, and people-to-people exchanges. 

China introduced the initiative at a time when its domestic economy was slowing down and industrial overcapacity had become a serious concern. By investing in overseas infrastructure projects, Chinese companies could find new markets and maintain industrial production. The BRI also allowed China to strengthen its energy security, diversify trade routes, and increase its geopolitical influence. 

By 2025, more than 150 countries had signed cooperation agreements related to the Belt and Road Initiative. China had invested hundreds of billions of US dollars in infrastructure projects worldwide. Major projects include ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, railways in East Africa, highways in Central Asia, and energy projects in Southeast Asia. 

Economic Achievements of the BRI 

One of the most important achievements of the Belt and Road Initiative has been infrastructure development in countries that lack sufficient financial resources. Many developing nations had long struggled with poor transportation networks, inadequate electricity supply, and weak connectivity. Chinese investments helped fill these gaps. 

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is often presented as one of the flagship projects of the BRI. It includes highways, energy projects, and the development of the Gwadar Port. The project improved electricity generation and transportation infrastructure in Pakistan while strengthening trade connections between China and the Arabian Sea. 

Similarly, the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway in Africa significantly reduced travel and transportation time between Ethiopia and Djibouti. This railway improved regional trade and provided Ethiopia with better access to international markets through Djibouti’s ports. 

The BRI has also increased trade between China and participating countries. Improved transportation and logistics networks reduced transaction costs and encouraged regional economic integration. Chinese companies benefited from overseas contracts, while local economies gained access to new infrastructure and employment opportunities. 

In addition, the initiative promoted financial cooperation through institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund. These institutions provided loans and investment for large-scale development projects that traditional financial institutions were sometimes unwilling to support. 

Political and Strategic Successes 

Beyond economics, the Belt and Road Initiative has strengthened China’s political and strategic influence. Countries participating in the initiative often develop closer diplomatic and economic ties with Beijing. China has used the BRI to project itself as a leader of globalization and development cooperation, especially in the Global South. 

The initiative has expanded China’s soft power by presenting the country as a provider of infrastructure and development assistance. In regions where Western investment was limited, China emerged as an important economic partner. 

Strategically, the BRI has helped China secure access to critical trade routes and natural resources. Investments in ports and transportation corridors reduce China’s dependence on traditional maritime routes dominated by Western naval powers. Projects such as Gwadar Port in Pakistan and the Port of Piraeus in Greece have strengthened China’s strategic presence in key regions. 

Challenges and Criticisms of the BRI 

Despite these achievements, the Belt and Road Initiative has faced serious criticism and challenges. One of the most common criticisms concerns debt sustainability. Several countries participating in the initiative accumulated large debts due to expensive infrastructure loans. 

Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port became a major example in debates about debt-trap diplomacy. Unable to repay its loans, Sri Lanka leased the port to a Chinese company for ninety-nine years in December 2017. Critics argued that this increased China’s strategic influence over the country. 

Environmental and social concerns have also affected the reputation of the BRI. Large infrastructure projects sometimes cause deforestation, environmental degradation, and displacement of local communities. Critics claim that environmental standards and labor protections were often weaker than those required by Western development institutions. 

Is the BRI Truly Successful? 

The success of the Belt and Road Initiative depends largely on the criteria used to evaluate it. From an infrastructure and connectivity perspective, the initiative has achieved considerable success. Roads, ports, railways, and energy projects transformed transportation and trade networks in many developing regions. 

From China’s perspective, the initiative has strengthened diplomatic relationships, expanded economic influence, and increased global visibility. Chinese companies gained international contracts and access to foreign markets, while Beijing enhanced its position as a major global power. 

Conclusion 

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has undoubtedly become one of the most influential international development projects of the modern era. It has improved infrastructure, increased trade connectivity, and strengthened China’s global economic and political influence. Many developing countries benefited from roads, railways, ports, and energy investments that might otherwise not have been possible. 

At the same time, the initiative faces major criticisms regarding debt sustainability, transparency, environmental impact, and geopolitical intentions. While the BRI achieved important short-term successes, its long-term effectiveness will depend on whether projects remain economically sustainable, socially responsible, and politically acceptable to participating countries. 

Therefore, the Belt and Road Initiative can be considered partially successful. It succeeded in expanding China’s influence and improving global connectivity, but it also created new economic and political challenges that continue to shape international debates about development, globalization, and power in the twenty-first century. 

By: Bhaskar Jha, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction 

The War in the Middle-East region between the UD-Israel axis and Iran, which started on February 28, 2026, ending with a recent halt, after a vehement catastrophe which lasted a month and a half, hold a plethora of lessons for the People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese Leadership. While Iran is not a competitor as strong as China to the U.S., the conflict and the resistance showcased in the war, witnessed tactics related to precision and missile saturation, and broader lessons regarding a alliances and economic crash-out, providing an opportunity to prepare to Beijing, as it can test its area-denial strategies, and make an overall assessment of the situation as they plan to invade Taiwan. 

A variety of analysts from various research centres and think tanks forecast Chinese dependence on Pentagon tactics, which will have a direct impact on any potential operations cross-strait. The following article will examine the major lessons, that can be taken the on-going confrontation between the U.S and Israel, and Iran. Through the following article we will witness a caution that is re-enforced, owing to the resistance shown by Iran, and the mistakes made by the two sides till now. 

A Brief Overview of the War between Israel and the U.S. and Iran  

The skirmish commenced as the U.S and the Israeli forces struck Iranian leadership, following a peace talk, which encompassed the assassination of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, along with plenty senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which led to a firm retaliation from Iran. The Iranian forces responded with a massive attack, with the first five days encompassing a devastating 550+ ballistic missiles and 1500+ drones, with 120+ ballistic missiles and 1100 drones towards Gulf and Israeli targets respectively. 

The war began with US and Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and ballistic missile infrastructure, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior IRGC commanders. Iran retaliated with massive barrages: in the first five days alone, it launched approximately 550 ballistic missiles and 1,500 drones toward Gulf targets, plus 128 ballistic missiles and 1,100 drones at Israel. By mid-March, Iran had fired roughly 850 ballistic and cruise missiles in total. 

The axis incorporating the U.S. forces, Israelis and the allied gulf states showed a firmer air and missile defence, against what the initial pessimism from the analysts suggested, with UAE intercepting most of the missiles launched against it, and Israeli forces safeguarding all its crucial targets. The U.S. and Israeli forces on the other hand destroyed most of Iranian targets, ruining over 400 missile launchers, with the assistance from advanced AI-targeting, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tactics, which incorporated drones and satellites. The war between the two sides escalated, causing a lockdown of the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused severe economic disruptions for many countries. Moreover, the devastation of refineries, factories, and plants also hampered world trade significantly, especially afflicting the global energy markets. The U.S. misconception of a quick victory, despite warnings from the upper echelons in the U.S, Central Command. 

There was a continuous exchange of conditions for a ceasefire, with a halt seen as both sides decided to employ diplomatic methods for the next couple of weeks. These developments and resulting devastation a variety of lessons for the Chinese leaders. 

Assessing the limits of Missile Saturation and the capacity of resilience in the Advanced Defence systems 

One of the pivotal elements of China’s employed strategy for Taiwan has incorporated cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles, to intimidate U.S. and allied bases in the Western Pacific region, with the objective of tackling the air and naval assets and create a amphibious and blockade operation. Moreover, the Iran War has also revealed faults and cracks in the strategies and the assumptions taken up until now. One of the examples for the following can be the Iranian barrages, who were while large, still neutralized to a very large extent, which suggests that the defence systems of U.S. and allies might exceed the interception rates assumed earlier when kept the Taiwan intervention in mind. 

A foreign affairs analyst for Carter Malkasian has also mentioned how a few improvements in the interception rates could make a significant number of US bases and ships operational enough to tackle the invasion led by the People’s Liberation Army. The destruction of launchers on the ground has proven to be more economically convenient than intercepting missiles in flight, which is an issue, which the PLA needs to address, by improving aspects like mobility and air defence systems. It also implies that Beijing would require a heavier missile stockpile, improved hyper-sonics, and subsequent approaches including cyber and electronic warfare. Therefore, the first requirement for this war is recalibration which is evident in China’s recognition of the risks of its military centric playbooks which is higher than expected if not guaranteeing operational paralysis of US Forces. 

Foreign Affairs analyst Carter Malkasian notes that even modest improvements in interception rates could leave enough US bases and ships operational to degrade PLA invasion forces significantly. Destroying launchers on the ground proved cheaper and more effective than intercepting missiles in flight; a vulnerability the PLA must now address through better hardening, mobility, or air defences. For Taiwan, this implies China may need far larger missile stockpiles, improved hypersonics, or alternative approaches (e.g., cyber and electronic warfare) to achieve A2/AD effects. The war thus prompts recalibration: Beijing recognizes that its missile-centric playbook risks higher-than-expected attrition without guaranteeing operational paralysis of US forces. 

The Human Intelligence and “The Enemy Within” 

Another major lesson that the People’s Liberation Army has taken from the current geopolitical differences and the following skirmishes is mitigating the threat from Human intelligence which could be the potential “enemy within”. Most of the U.S. and Israeli strikes were successful because of the efficient Human Intelligence units who penetrated the Iranian Surveillance systems. Cheng-Yu Wu, who is a Taiwan based analyst observes the same as he talks about the following phenomenon being significantly threatening for China, owing to its export of surveillance tech to Iran and the US/Israeli circumvention post export. 

In the case of Taiwan, this exposes internal vulnerabilities, whether because of espionage, disloyalty amongst the elite, or cyber infiltration, during operations of high intensity. The concerns for Beijing here revolve around targeting command and leadership disruption. China can also move towards advancing counter-intelligence measures and work on protocols for preserving and protecting the leadership, as rapid attacks, especially in the case of Iran, were intimidating, disrupting continuity of the government or military in a cross-strait crisis. 

US Power, Alliances and the faith in Diplomacy 

The war between US, Israel and Iran showcased US ability to use its power to sustain operations that are distant, even if they must indulge in muti-domain strikes. However, there are also weakness revealed in the following process which encompass drone warfare challenges, consultation gaps between the allies, and a centralization in decision-making which is influenced heavily by the whims of the President of the United States. 

The PLA considers this impulsiveness of Trump as a double-edged sword, where, while the behavior can lead diplomatic gaps and relationship strains between the U.S. and its allies, the unpredictability of the decision making can be a threat which Beijing will have to mitigate through elements like Personal diplomacy or economic incentives. However, the timing of the U.S. strike on Iran while peace talks were being held in Oman, induces uncertainty in diplomacy, reinforcing the second lesson which is the blind faith in peace.  

If considered from a perspective of a scenario where China invades Taiwan, it suggests that China cannot trust on the values upheld by the U.S. or its allies, merely because of the instability and the unpredictability in the decision making of President Donald Trump. However, the war also brings an opportunity for the People’s Liberation Army, as the U.S. engrossment in the Middle-east can act as a distraction and thus, a buffer which delays its reaction in the Indo-Pacific. The domestic US political situation can stall US reactions, even post ceasefire. 

Propaganda and the Illusion of Victory  

The PLA’s fourth lesson is the acknowledgement that the authoritarian propaganda cannot replace the realities encountered in the battlefield, especially against a country like the U.S.  The narrative control tends to fail in the context of modern warfare, particularly facing the ones which have a superior firepower like the case of the U.S. The U.S also struggled in the domain of information warfare as exaggerated claims made by the parties corroded the international credibility held by both.  

This also provides Beijing with an opportunity where the narratives set could actually help showcase its action against Taiwan as defensive.  

Becoming Independent  

From an economic perspective, the war led to a disruption of global markets, due to the blockade at the Strait of Hormuz and refinery damages, leading to circumstances which exposed vulnerabilities of all countries. This bases the foundation for PLA’s fifth lesson which revolves around self-reliance, highlighting the significance of domestic markets and supply chain diversification. 

From a Taiwanese point-of-view, the strain on the Chinese markets due to the trade disruptions caused by the Strait of Hormuz blockade, might make China understand the economic costs of the invasion which can lead to semiconductor trade halts and global disruption, potentially tilting Chinese preferences towards Grey-zone tactics rather than direct invasion. 

Implications on Chinese Strategy for Taiwan 

The following lessons taken collectively suggest towards a more cautious approach taken for reassessment. While the war between Iran and US showcased aspects of an asymmetric and multi-domain warfare, it also elucidated that a strong artillery and missile saturation aren’t enough against firm and resilient defence systems. Moreover, the confrontation in the West Asian region also projected US dominance, despite domestic instabilities. However, the circumstances are different in this particular case where China possesses hypersonic missiles of superior quality, integrated air defence systems and more industrial depth compared to Iran, and in the case of a conflict near the South China Sea during the Taiwan invasion, US will also be dependent on more allied bases, fighting from a greater distance.  

However, the current skirmish in the Middle-East might delay the confrontation. Malkasian also points out how the higher expected losses can push Xi towards focusing on build up, economic coercion, diplomacy or other grey zone tactics over a full-scale military action. While the US engagement in the Middle-East does create an opening, Trump’s unpredictability increases risks. Beijing is not abandoning plans for reunification, but there is a requirement for preparation, and greater precision. 

Conclusion 

The Iran has provided a strategic mirror to China, exposing the strength and limitations of the U.S. forces, while also revealing gaps in its own preparation. A detailed study on the U.S. tactics incorporating launcher destructions and the reaction of U.S. Alliances based on relevant stress testing, Beijing can get actionable intelligence which could enhance its A2/AD doctrine, internal security and managing escalation. However, the escalation of the Iran War and the economic cost involved, and incomplete victories underscore the possibilities of unpredictability and mutual destruction. 

For Xi Jinping and PLA, the main lesson to be learnt is patience, working on advancing its defences, becoming economically independent, and asserting its dominance through the grey-zone tactics in the region. China’s recalibration posts the Iran War will shape the future of the South China Sea, for years to come.  

By: Avantika Roohi Kansal

When the most powerful man in the world flies to meet his rival- not to confront him, but to court him- you know that the world has changed.  

In May 2026, Air Force One touched down Beijing carrying a message that the world had not expected from Donald Trump- Diplomacy over Dominance. For two days, the 47^th President of the United States walked through Imperial Gardens, toasted at grand banquets, and sat across the table from Chinese President Xi Jinping- a man he called ‘friend’ five times in public, yet barely received a nod of reciprocation in return. The optics were unmistakable. China was no longer playing catch-up. It has arrived. 

This was not merely a state visit. It was a geopolitical signal flare- one that illuminated the emerging G2 world order, China’s breathtaking technological ascent, and the complicated, high-stakes dance between the planet’s two most powerful nations. 

The G2 Idea: Two Giants, One World  

The concept of a ‘G2’- a world informally governed by the US and China- has been debated in foreign policy circles for over a decade. The premise is simple yet profound- no global challenge, whether climate change, nuclear proliferation, AI governance, or trade stability, can be meaningfully addressed without Washington and Beijing at the table.  

For years, this idea remained theoretical. Relations between the two superpowers were defined more by tariff wars, chip bans, and military posturing in the South China than by diplomatic warmth. Trump’s first term intensified rivalry. His second term, it seems, is attempting to rewrite the script.  

Xi Jinping’s announcement during the Summit- that the two nations had agreed to build a ‘constructive China-US relationship of Strategic Stability’ – was the closest either side has come to publicly acknowledging G2 reality. It was careful, measured language, but in the world of diplomacy, it carried enormous weight. Two rivals agreeing to stabilize their relationship is the first step towards managing the world together. 

America’s Tech Dilemma: Working around the Dragon it cannot Ignore 

Here lies one of the great contradictions of 21st-century geopolitics. The United States has spent years aggressively trying to contain China’s technological rise- banning Huawei from Western networks, restricting semiconductor exports through the CHIPS Act, pressuring allies to exclude Chinese firms from critical infrastructure, and blacklisting hundreds of Chinese tech companies. Washington’s message was clear- We will not let China dominate the technologies of tomorrow.  

Yet Trump flew to Beijing anyway. And the reason is as old as geopolitics itself- you cannot indefinitely sanction, restrict, and compete with a nation that manufactures a significant share of your goods, holds hundreds of billions of US debt, and is rapidly outpacing you on key technological domains.  

China today is not the low-cost manufacturing hub of the 1990s. It is a tier-one technology power. Its advancements in artificial intelligence rival Silicon Valley. Its 5G Infrastructure, built through Huawei and ZTE, covers more of the world than any American-built network. Its electric vehicle industry, led by BYD and CATL, is dismantling the dominance of Western Automakers. Its quantum computing research is advancing at a pace that alarms Western Intelligence agencies. And its high-speed rail network- the largest in the world- showcases an engineering and logistical capability that few nations can match. 

The Trump Summit took place against this technological backdrop, With China projecting quite confidence. The elaborate security arrangements, seamless digital logistics, and grandeur of the welcome ceremony near Tiananmen Square were not accidental- they were a statement. This is what we have built. This is who we are now. 

What was Actually Discussed- and What wasn’t Said 

Behind closed doors, the two leaders covered an ambitious- if unresolved- Agenda.  

Taiwan dominated private sessions. Trump later revealed to Fox News that the issue consumed an entire night of talks. He maintained Washington’s long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity, refusing to clarify whether the US will militarily defend Taiwan if China moves to reclaim it. Xi left without the explicit commitment he sought. The conversation, however, reflected just how Central Taiwan remains to any serious US China Dialogue- a flashpoint that neither side can afford to ignore, nor resolve overnight. 

Trade and economic decoupling were also on the table, though Beijing arrived with no intention of offering concessions. Chinese officials had reportedly warned Trump’s team beforehand that insufficient preparation would limit any breakthroughs and they were right. No major trade agreements were signed. No new frameworks were announced. The Chinese government, confident in its economic trajectory, had little incentive to offer relief to an American administration it privately views as weakened and distracted. 

Strategic stability and military communication channels formed the quieter, but arguably more important, thread of discussions. Preventing accidental escalation whether in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, or cyberspace requires open military hotlines and shared protocols. Both sides acknowledged the need for such guardrails, even if concrete mechanisms were not finalized. 

Potential Deals and What Lies Ahead 

The most tangible outcome of the summit was an invitation: Trump asked Xi to visit the United States on September 24, 2026. If that visit materializes, it could serve as the venue for more substantive agreements on trade, AI governance, climate cooperation, or even a framework for managing Taiwan tensions. 

The inclusion of top American business leaders in the U.S. delegation alongside Trump family members Eric and Lara Trump signalled that economic engagement, not complete decoupling, remains the direction of travel. The Trump Organization’s implicit appeal to Beijing for favourable treatment underscored the administration’s transactional approach to diplomacy. 

Looking ahead, the world should watch three developments closely: 

• Whether the September Xi visit to Washington produces binding agreements on trade or technology sharing that begin to reverse years of economic hostility. 

• How China leverages its tech dominance particularly in AI and green energy as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. 

• Whether the G2 framework solidifies into a genuine co-management of global affairs, or fractures again under the weight of Taiwan, chips, and competing visions of world order. 

The Bigger Picture 

Trump’s deference in Beijing marvelling at Chinese power, calling Xi his friend, asking whether he was ‘special’ to be admitted to Zhongnanhai was striking. Whether it reflected strategic calculation or genuine admiration, it told a story about where the world stands in 2026. 

The Eagle still soars. But the Dragon, once dismissed as a rising power, has risen. The question now is not whether these two giants will shape the future together they already are. The question is on whose terms. 

The world order is not collapsing. It is being renegotiated for one summit, one garden stroll, and one unanswered question about Taiwan at a time. 

By : Dhritiman Banerjee, Research Analyst, GSDN

Sir Halford Mackinder famously termed Eurasia as the heartland as the largely landlocked region, immune to maritime power and the storehouse of large reserves of natural resources were key areas of control for dominant powers to achieve hegemony in world politics. The region famously was the sight of the great game in the 19^th century between the British and the Russian Empires over control of key regions like Central Asia for different reasons. While, the British aimed to protect their Indian empire, Russia aimed to expand southwards into modern day Iran, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to expand its sphere of influence.  

The region later became a key battleground of the Cold War due to the proxy conflict in Afghanistan. The dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War led to the formation of the Central Asian states as a separate geopolitical zone where the new state of Russia tried to build influence and which in the current state of multipolarity has become a zone of focus for not only Russia but other players such as India, the EU and China. This article posits that this landlocked region is an important zone for great power rivalry in the 21^st century, consistent with the ideas of Mackinder. 

The players and their game: Eurasia in the 21^st century 

The landlocked region of Eurasia is disconnected from the high seas and therefore land-based connectivity is the only source of connectivity available to this region. Mackinder observed that this peculiar feature allows great powers of hegemony over the region by monopolizing the land routes and enforcing control over the resources in the region. Indeed, in the current discourse of connectivity in international politics, initiatives by states such as Russia and China to undertake projects connecting the Central Asian states to the rest of the world prominently. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road initiative by China form an important part of the global land connectivity with Central Asia while Russian pipeline projects in the region and its attempt to create a zone of influence in Central Asia show the growing interest of external players in Central Asia. 

In fact, it can be said that major Powers such as Russia and China have realized their strategic proximity to Eurasia and the Global heartland and have therefore used their geographical location to create spheres of influence among Central Asian states. Chinese initiatives like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are meant foster economic cooperation with Eurasia and therefore, highlight the emerging quest to control the region. The game between Russia and China aims to engage Central Asia differently. While Russia focuses on being the primary security partner in the region, China promises to be the main economic partner. However, both these powers aim to curb Western influence through color revolutions in the region by providing support to the authoritarian regimes to consolidate their regimes in their respective states. 

Therefore, it can be said that the game between Russia and China in Central Asia involves supporting authoritarian regimes both through security and through economic cooperation to expand their influence in the region. The Russian led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is meant to provide military security to these regimes and create a Russian sphere of influence while Chinese economic initiatives like the SCO ensure economic cooperation of the major players in the region with Central Asia. 

However, it should be noted that Russia and China both actively cooperate as well as compete with each other in securing influence in Eurasia as Russia is a major player in the SCO and cooperates with China in securing an alternative to Western led initiatives like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Central Asia. Thus, Eurasia is seen by the dominant players as a buffer zone free from Western influence in their quest to pose a counterweight to Western ideals of liberal democracies and establish control over the heartland. In fact, as John Mearsheimer points out the primacy of land power in international politics makes control of Eurasia an important aspect for challengers of the Western led liberal international regime. In fact, it should be noted that other players including India and the EU play an important role in the region.  

The EU focuses on the region due to its need for energy diversification and reduce its energy dependence on Moscow, its geographical distance from the region and declining US presence in the region (a major EU ally) after the withdrawal from Afghanistan makes its impact limited in Eurasia. India however, due to its strategic proximity to Central Asia and its strategic goal to balance China is a major player in the region as Indian connectivity projects like International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Tapi Gas pipeline provide an alternative to Chinese BRI initiatives while India’s participation in the SCO along with Russia and China make it a major player in the region. However, it should be noted that all the major players in Central Asia view the region as key to challenging Western liberal dominance, which is key to their current strategic goals in a multipolar international system. 

Eurasia and Multipolarity: The push for regime security 

The end of the Cold War was marked by the collapse of the bipolar system which led to the disintegration of the USSR and the formation of Central Asia as a new geographical region as the new Central Asian republics were erstwhile territories of the Soviet Union. This led to new power dynamics and the evolving importance of the heartland. Russia focuses on these new territories as key to creating its own sphere of influence and thus views preservation of authoritarian regimes as an important strategic goal. China views the region in similar terms as both these powers understand democratization of Central Asia as akin to Western penetration in a contested region and thus a major setback to their strategic ambitions in a multipolar world. Therefore, both these states create alliances in the region that seek to preserve the status quo and ensure regime security in Central Asia. One of the major examples of external actors actively ensuring regime security in the region is the CSTO intervention in Kazakhstan in 2022 to preserve the regime status quo. These events signify the Russian commitment to military security for authoritarian regimes in Central Asia while China’s strengthening China+ Central Asia (C+C5) show Chinese commitment to the region. Both states aim to create a separate sphere of influence in the region free from Western interference. 

The Chinese goal of achieving great power status is intrinsically tied to its challenge of the liberal institutionalist goal of spreading democratization while Russia’s aim of a separate sphere of influence in the region will fail because of democratization in Central Asia. Thus, both the powers while competing for influence in the region simultaneously cooperate to ensure regime security in Central Asia and preserve the emerging multipolar world order. While the EU has limited goals in the region due to its geographical limitations and thus views Eurasia strictly from the perspective of energy security, India has an expanding role in the region. 

But India also does not aim to promote democratization in Central Asia as a key foreign policy goal and instead maintains friendly relations with the authoritarian regimes due to a foreign policy based balancing Chinese expansionism rather than promoting liberal institutionalism. These complex realities highlight the importance of Central Asia as an important geo-political region of contestation where external powers often cooperate as well as compete simultaneously in a strict calculus of national interest.  

Such strategies are a result of the newly emerging multipolar international order where each state functions according to the maximization of its own national interest which often leads to formulation of policies that aim to cooperate as well as compete with other states rather than foreign policies focusing on a zero-sum definition of allies and adversaries. Eurasia is a region where such developments are evident in the policies of the major players. Thus, it should be noted that for Russia, China as well as India, Eurasia and Central Asia stand as a region which for different reasons should be a region free from Western penetration and thus, all these players through FDI, security alliances and connectivity projects aim to preserve regime security in the region based on a shared vision of a multipolar world order. 

Conclusion 

The highly contested region of Eurasia is an important zone of great power engagement in the multipolar era. While all the major players aim to expand their influence in the region, they also project the region as an alternative in the Western liberal institutionalist order. It should be noted that all the three external actors in proximity to the region simultaneously view Eurasia in the lens both cooperation as well as competition with each other to fulfil often diverging strategic objectives but all the three actors aim to protect the region from Western led democratization and efforts and ensure regime security. The influence of the West has dramatically declined in the region after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and states like Russia and China are keen to fill the power vacuum. 

Thus, the complex politics of contestation in Eurasia is marked by the multiplicity of external players and their strategic goals which often diverge and converge at the same time in their quest to gain control of the resource rich region and balance each other’s interest while preventing Western penetration.