By: Tushar Jain, Research Analyst, GSDN

Approval ratings are one of the simplest ways to understand how people feel about a President. They do not tell the full story of governance, but they show whether the public believes the President is doing a good job. When approval is high, it usually means people feel confident about leadership and the country’s direction. When approval is low, it often signals worry, anger, or disappointment.

Donald Trump has always been a unique figure in American politics. His leadership style, communication methods, and political ideas have divided the country more sharply than most presidents in modern history. Because of this, his approval ratings have been closely watched, debated, and argued over since his first term.

Now, as Trump serves another term as President of the United States, his approval ratings once again raise an important question: Is the President of the United States (POTUS) on the right track? To answer this, we must look carefully at the numbers, understand what drives them, and explore what they say about the country’s mood and direction.

What Are Approval Ratings and Why Do They Matter?

Approval ratings measure how many people approve or disapprove of the job a president is doing. Polling organizations regularly ask a simple question: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling his job? The answers are then presented as percentages.

These ratings matter for several reasons. First, they show public trust. A president with high approval usually has more political strength to pass laws and push policies. Members of Congress are more willing to support a president who is popular with voters. Second, approval ratings influence elections. Low presidential approval often hurts the president’s party in midterm elections. Third, approval ratings shape how history remembers a president.

However, approval ratings are not perfect. They are influenced by emotions, party loyalty, media coverage, and current events. They do not always reflect careful judgment of policy details. Still, they remain one of the best tools to understand public opinion.

A Brief Look at Trump’s Approval History

Donald Trump’s approval ratings have been unusual compared to other presidents. During his first term, his approval rarely crossed 50 percent. From the beginning, the country was deeply divided about him. Supporters strongly approved of his leadership, while critics strongly disapproved. There were fewer undecided people than usual.

This pattern has continued into his current term. His approval ratings tend to stay in the high 30s or low 40s. Disapproval is usually higher than approval. What is striking is not just that the numbers are low, but that they do not change much. Big events, major speeches, or policy announcements often cause only small shifts.

This stability suggests that many Americans have already made up their minds about Trump. For many people, opinions about him are fixed and unlikely to change.

The Role of Political Division

One of the biggest reasons for Trump’s approval pattern is political division. The United States is more polarized than it has been in decades. People increasingly identify strongly with political parties, and this shapes how they view leaders.

Republican voters mostly approve of Trump. Their approval often stays very high, sometimes above 80 percent. Democratic voters almost always disapprove of him at similar levels. Independent voters, who do not belong to either party, usually lean toward disapproval, though less strongly.

Because of this, Trump’s approval ratings say more about party loyalty than performance alone. Supporters see him as fighting for their values. Critics see him as harmful to democracy and social unity. This divide makes it very hard for Trump to gain broad national approval, even if some policies succeed.

The Economy and Public Opinion

The economy is usually the most important factor in approval ratings. When people feel financially secure, they tend to approve of the president. When prices rise or jobs feel uncertain, approval falls.

During Trump’s current term, many Americans have expressed concern about the economy. Issues such as inflation, cost of living, housing prices, and healthcare expenses affect daily life. Even if economic indicators show mixed or moderate performance, what matters most is how people feel in their own lives.

Polls show that Trump’s approval on economic handling is lower than on some other issues. Many voters feel that prices are still too high and that their wages are not keeping up. These feeling hurts approval, especially among middle-class and working-class families.

Economic dissatisfaction also affects independent voters more than party loyalists. While Trump’s supporters may defend his economic policies, many independents judge based on personal experience, and this has pushed approval down.

Immigration and Border Policy

Immigration is one area where Trump performs relatively better in approval ratings. His strong stance on border security has long been central to his political identity. Many supporters believe he is addressing a serious national issue that previous administrations ignored.

Polls often show higher approval for Trump’s handling of immigration compared to his overall job rating. Some independents also support stricter border controls, which gives Trump some broader backing on this issue.

However, this support is limited. Critics argue that his immigration policies are too harsh and create humanitarian problems. As a result, while immigration boosts his standing among supporters, it does not significantly raise his overall approval nationwide.

Foreign Policy and America’s Image

Foreign policy also influences approval ratings, though less directly than the economy. Americans usually pay less attention to foreign affairs unless there is a crisis. Still, leadership on the global stage affects how people view a president.

Trump’s foreign policy style is direct and often confrontational. He emphasizes national interest, strong borders, and fair trade. Supporters see this as strength. Critics see it as damaging to alliances and global trust.

International surveys show that confidence in U.S. leadership has declined in many countries during Trump’s leadership. While this does not directly affect domestic approval for all voters, it shapes the overall picture of American leadership and influences how history may judge his presidency.

Leadership Style and Personal Image

A president’s personality matters. Trump’s communication style is very different from most presidents. He speaks directly, often emotionally, and frequently uses social media. This approach excites supporters but frustrates critics.

Many people who disapprove of Trump point not only to policies but also to tone and behaviour. They express concerns about respect for institutions, political norms, and democratic traditions. These concerns affect approval ratings, especially among educated voters and moderates.

At the same time, supporters admire his willingness to challenge political elites and speak plainly. For them, his style feels honest and refreshing. This contrast shows why approval ratings remain divided and stable.

The Media’s Influence

Media coverage plays a major role in shaping public opinion. The modern media environment is highly fragmented. Different news outlets present very different views of the same events.

Supportive media highlight Trump’s achievements and defend his decisions. Critical media focus on controversies, legal issues, and political conflicts. Because many Americans consume news that matches their beliefs, opinions are reinforced rather than challenged.

This media division helps explain why approval ratings do not move much. People see different versions of reality, and approval reflects those separate narratives.

Comparing Trump to Other Presidents

When comparing Trump’s approval ratings to past presidents, a clear difference appears. Most presidents since World War II have enjoyed periods of majority approval, especially early in their terms. Trump has rarely reached that level.

This does not mean he is the least effective president, but it does mean he governs without broad national support. Historically, presidents with low approval often face more resistance in Congress and weaker influence over national debate.

Trump’s situation is unusual because his base support remains strong even when overall approval is low. This allows him to continue leading his party effectively, even if national approval is limited.

Does Low Approval Mean Failure?

Low approval does not automatically mean a president is failing. Some presidents have passed major reforms despite low popularity. Others were popular but ineffective.

For Trump, low approval reflects division more than complete rejection. He has achieved policy goals that matter deeply to his supporters. At the same time, he has not convinced a majority of Americans that his leadership benefits the whole country.

This creates a presidency that is strong in one direction and weak in another. Strong among loyal supporters, weak in building national unity.

Is the Country on the Right Track?

When people are asked whether the country is on the right track, responses often mirror approval ratings. Many Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Reasons include economic stress, political conflict, and social tension.

Supporters of Trump often say the country is improving, especially in areas like border control and national pride. Critics believe division and uncertainty have increased.

These mixed views show that there is no shared national agreement on progress. Approval ratings reflect this lack of consensus.

What Approval Ratings Mean for the Future

Approval ratings shape the political future. Low presidential approval can hurt the president’s party in elections. It can also affect long-term legacy.

If approval remains low, Trump may struggle to gain support for large new initiatives. However, strong base loyalty ensures he remains influential within his party.

Future historians will likely view Trump’s presidency as one defined by division rather than consensus.

Final Assessment

So, is POTUS on the right track? The answer depends on perspective.

From the viewpoint of Trump’s supporters, he is doing what he promised. They see approval ratings as biased or irrelevant. From the viewpoint of the broader population, approval ratings suggest dissatisfaction, concern, and division.

Factually, Trump’s approval ratings remain low compared to historical norms. They show limited national support but strong partisan backing. They reflect a country deeply divided in values, priorities, and trust.

In the end, Trump’s approval ratings tell us less about short-term success and more about the long-term state of American democracy: polarized, emotional, and struggling to find common ground.

By: Sanya Singh, Research Analyst, GSDN

Bondi Beach has been considered one of the most iconic and symbolically Australian public areas. Lying on Sydney’s eastern coastline, the beach signifies much more than natural beauty; it is also a manifestation of social openness, multicultural coexistence, and easy public life that characterizes modern Australia. Decades on, Bondi has turned into a shared civic space in which locals, migrants, and tourists interact amongst themselves without anything getting in the way, hence signifying a national identity tied to trust, availability, and democratic principles. It was this very symbolism that made the impact of the terrorist attack near Bondi Beach last December 14, 2025, all the more profound.

In recent years, Australia has not been immune to any of the pressures common throughout most liberal democracies around the world: growing political polarization, rapid digital transformation, social isolation further exacerbated by online environments, and the spread of violent ideologies through global networks. Against this backdrop of tensions, Australia nonetheless enjoyed a pervasive sense of safety underpinned by strong institutions, effective policing, and an extensive counter-terrorism framework. The Bondi Beach attack brought this feeling of security to an abrupt end.

The attack was as much a psychological rupture as one of violence. It showed that radicalization can be homegrown, without large terrorist networks or foreign structures of command, and it can use the most mundane forms of public space to generate maximum fear and disruption. The incident made Australians confront some tough questions regarding radicalisation, the failure of prevention, and whether existing approaches were adequate to deal with current security challenges. Understanding the full context of the attack is what will enable them to prevent such tragedies in the times to come.

The Bondi Beach Attack: A Detailed Account

On December 14, 2025, Bondi Beach and its environs were teeming with people enjoying the peak of the Australian summer. The promenade along the beachfront was packed with families, joggers, surfers, and tourists, as were the nearby cafés, public walkways, and access roads. This typical setting was a holiday season afternoon filled with leisure and motion rather than tension or alertness.

Calls started rolling in about violent incidents near pedestrian zones adjacent to the beach around 4:30 p.m. Witnesses, out of breath, described two attackers making their way through crowded public spaces, targeting civilians with bladed weapons. In addition to blade-carrying individuals, there were improvised incendiary devices used to generally create widespread panic and disorientation. The attackers seemed to act together and with purpose, targeting areas where many people usually converge on foot.

Chaos spread quickly in seconds, with civilians running in all directions, some toward the open beach, others into nearby buildings or side streets. Scores of people were injured in the first few minutes while onlookers attempted to help in a scenario of confusion and terror. Fire only raised panic levels, complicating the evacuation process and making access for the emergency services difficult.

In minutes, police units from New South Wales arrived, joined by ambulance services and counter-terrorism officers of the police. Authorities went into exclusion zones, evacuated areas within proximity, and initiated mass-casualty response protocols. The attackers were neutralized shortly after a short pursuit and confrontation in a violent standoff.

There was little time to dwell upon the speed and professionalism of the response since the human cost was terrible: several civilians had been killed, and scores were suffering from serious injuries. All the hospitals in Sydney were put on emergency footing; trauma counselling services were activated for victims, eyewitnesses, and first responders. Evening fell with Bondi Beach being completely sealed off, the venue having turned from a symbol of fun and frolic to a scene of national tragedy.

Who were the perpetrators?

Further investigations showed that the attackers were a father-son duo from New South Wales. The fact that the perpetrators were related made it all the more disturbing for the public and debunked many conceptions regarding terrorism. Whereas other terrorist cells involve members unrelated to each other, this attack was the result of a personal, home-based network where ideological views had been propagated and strengthened by close personal ties.

Background checks revealed nothing significant as a criminal element tied to violent crimes. On the other hand, intelligence agencies verified that both of them previously drawn attention due to online activities related to extremist material. Digital forensic examination showed continued access to propaganda videos, ideological texts, and extremist forums. The use of encrypted messaging platforms was consistent with exchanging radical content and reinforcing ideological commitment.

The formal charge sheet listed terrorism-related offenses, murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to intimidate the public. Authorities emphasized that the Bondi case underlined the evolving phenomenon of micro-radicalisation in which the conventional structures of organization give way to small family units or intimate networks. It allows the development of radical ideas behind closed doors, well hidden from early detection.

The perpetrators showed how extremism can breed in quiet privacy before exploding into public violence. Their actions challenged the existing intelligence models, which mainly focus on large networks rather than small self-enclosed extremist units.

Motives and Radicalisation

Preliminary investigations have established that the attackers were ideologically driven under the influence of the Islamic State, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Although there was no direct operational or financial linkage, it was a case of ideological allegiance through materials recovered, symbolism, and even online activities. This is in line with global trends where the influence of extremist organizations is mainly through ideologies other than by command structure.

In this case, the process of radicalization was gradual and cumulative: long-term exposure to radicalizing digital ecosystems normalized violence, and continually reinforced grievance-based narratives that framed Western societies as corrupt and hostile, and violent action was morally justified and necessary. Over time, a narrative of this kind lowers psychological barriers to committing acts of terror.

The authorities also looked into the attackers’ travel patterns. In the absence of any confirmed attendance at training camps overseas, short international trips in turn point to the potential for exposure to transnational extremist ideas. The Bondi case underlines the trend of growing radicalization devoid of any direct physical contact with terrorist organizations and often based merely on ideological indoctrination amplified by online platforms.

Security and Counterterrorism Response

Australia boasts one of the best-developed systems of counterterrorism in the Indo-Pacific: federal and state coordination, mechanisms for intelligence sharing, preventive detention laws, financial monitoring mechanisms, and community-based prevention programs. Following the attack at Bondi Beach, national threat assessments were reviewed, with security stepped up for a period at major public venues.

The security and anti-terror response to the Bondi Beach assault was rapid, coordinated, and reflective of Australia’s established crisis-handling system. Immediately after the eruption of violence on December 14, 2025, officers from the New South Wales Police Force arrived at the location within minutes. Their swift intervention subdued one assailant and captured the other, effectively shortening the attack and averting additional casualties. Emergency medical teams simultaneously initiated mass-injury protocols, ensuring quick treatment and evacuation of the wounded.

Within hours, Australian officials officially classified the event as a terrorist strike, activating the national counter-terrorism apparatus. This enabled federal bodies, notably the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to collaborate with state police in a joint inquiry. Specialized task forces carried out synchronized raids, confiscated electronic devices, and launched comprehensive forensic and intelligence reviews to uncover ideological drivers, planning details, and potential external connections.

A major emphasis of the investigation was online radicalisation. Security services scrutinized digital activity, encrypted messaging, and extremist media consumption, highlighting the shifting character of lone-offender terrorism. Intelligence sharing was strengthened between federal and state levels, while global information-exchange channels were engaged to evaluate any cross-border extremist influence.

In the immediate period following the incident, security alerts were elevated nationwide. Police presence expanded across public venues, religious sites, and large events, while risk evaluations for upcoming gatherings were updated. Politically, the reaction prioritized prevention over mere response, reigniting debate on early-intervention policies, monitoring of online extremism, and community-driven counter-radicalization programs.

In total, although the operational response succeeded in containing the assault, the episode highlighted the necessity for more robust preventive measures to tackle radicalization before it escalates into violent acts.

Societal Impact

At the society level, the attack provoked a profound sense of shared shock and fragility. Bondi Beach, long seen as an emblem of openness, recreation, and multicultural harmony, was abruptly turned into a place of dread and grief. The targeting of a public, faith-based gathering magnified the psychological effect, as it shattered the belief that social and cultural occasions were naturally secure environments.

One of the most immediate social repercussions was the intensified feeling of insecurity in everyday life. Mass assemblies, religious observances, and cultural festivities came under greater examination, with groups voicing unease about their protection. This climate of apprehension threatened to reshape daily conduct, fostering self-restraint, diminished involvement in communal activities, and increased mistrust in interpersonal relations.

The incident also deepened worries about escalating antisemitism and religious bigotry. By striking a Hanukkah event, the attackers reinforced anxieties among Jewish communities about their safety and sense of belonging. This produced a ripple across other minority groups, who interpreted the episode as a cautionary sign of how extremist beliefs could evolve into targeted aggression. Although there was a surge of solidarity and interfaith backing, there was simultaneously the danger of stigmatization and societal division.

Political Impact

Politically, the Bondi Beach attack triggered swift and resolute actions from the Australian authorities. National figures denounced the brutality without hesitation, presenting it as an assault on Australian ideals rather than a single group. This rhetorical positioning was crucial, as it aimed to avert social division while reaffirming the government’s duty to safeguard all citizens equally.

The episode rekindled discussions on homeland security and anti-terror strategies. Legislators encountered renewed demands to assess whether current intelligence systems, monitoring powers, and preventive mechanisms were sufficient to identify and counter radicalization at earlier stages. Special focus was placed on solitary actors and online-driven extremism, which strain conventional security approaches centred on organized networks.

Safety at public gatherings emerged as a major political concern. Doubts were raised about risk evaluation procedures, collaboration between national and regional agencies, and the adequacy of safeguards for religious and cultural assemblies. This spurred appeals for greater investment in community policing, intelligence sharing, and rapid-response infrastructure.

The incident also shaped political dialogue on individual rights. Although there was wide agreement on the necessity of stronger protection, worries surfaced about the possible expansion of surveillance authority and its consequences for privacy and democratic liberties. Political conversations increasingly revolved around how to balance citizen security with the preservation of Australia’s liberal democratic identity.

Why Australia Should Act Against Radicalism

Radicalism serves as the ideological foundation for terrorism. Although not every person influenced by radical ideas resorts to violence, nearly all terrorist acts are preceded by ideological indoctrination. Australia has long confronted dangers from both organized extremist groups and solitary attackers, the latter being especially challenging to identify and stop.

Contemporary radicalism often evolves gradually, largely through digital platforms, encrypted messaging systems, and global propaganda networks. Individuals may adopt radical beliefs without traveling overseas or formally joining militant organizations, thereby reducing conventional intelligence warning signs. If ignored, such radicalization heightens the risk of sporadic, high-impact assaults aimed at civilians, religious minorities, or public venues, as demonstrated in the Bondi Beach episode.

Neglecting to address extremism at an early stage compels the state into reactive counter-terrorism actions, which are more expensive, less efficient, and frequently occur only after irreversible damage has been done.

Australia should confront extremism not from fear and anxiety, but with strategic and deliberate foresight. Extremist ideologies weaken national defence, erode social unity, threaten democratic principles, and create enduring economic and institutional burdens. The Bondi Beach incident revealed that even strong societies remain susceptible when radical movements are left unchallenged.

The attack showed that radicalism is both a concrete, real-life threat and one that resides in domestic environments, online spaces, and everyday communities. The strategies to address it need to be long-term and comprehensive, going beyond reactive policing.

Education is the key to prevention: schools and universities have to develop critical thinking, digital literacy, and civic engagement to counter radical narratives. Community-based programs can help in early intervention and assist the vulnerable to radicalization. Through an integrated strategy that unites protection, learning, civic participation, and online regulation, Australia can address radicalism at its foundation rather than only its aggressive expressions. Taking firm action now is vital to safeguarding Australia’s future as a safe, welcoming, and democratic nation.

Programs of deradicalization also have to be expanded. These programs need to focus on disengagement, rehabilitation, and reintegration, not punishment. Online platforms should also be made accountable for the extremist content they host, more so, with the major revenues they amass in Australia, usually running into hundreds of millions of US dollars annually.

Conclusion

The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025 marked a real turning point in the Australian understanding of domestic security threats. It exposed something about the evolving nature of radicalism, testing assumptions about safety in public space. Beyond the immediate tragedy, it underlined the urgent need for proactive prevention and social resilience that would be sustained.

Any Australian response will have to be vigilant and inclusive, firm but principled. Reinforcing efforts to address the causes of radicalisation, strengthen community cohesion, and adapt counter-terrorism frameworks, Australia can pay homage to the victims of Bondi, taking further action toward ensuring that such an incident will never happen again.

By: Jaiwant Singh Jhala, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS) is a significant bilateral administrative arrangement that will enhance military cooperation between India and Russia. The RELOS agreement sets out procedures governing the movement of military formations, warships and military aircrafts between Russia and India, as well as the arrangements for providing logistical support to each other’s forces. It is a military pact which allows both the nations to draw on each other’ ports, airfields and facilities for refuelling, resupply, maintenance and berthing. The pact is administrative rather than a mutual-defence treaty. It will be applicable during both wartime and peacetime missions. The agreement was signed earlier in 2025 and moved through Russian parliamentary ratification late in the year. President Vladimir Putin signed the law formally enacting the pact on Russia’s side. RELOS was ratified by the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, on December 2, followed by approval from the Federation Council, the upper house, on December 8.

Its Effects

RELOS agreement enables armed forces to operate far from home bases for longer durations. Access to partner-country ports, airbases, and logistics hubs reduces dependence on long supply chains, thereby improving mission endurance during joint exercises, patrols, or humanitarian operations. It will enable smoother utilisation of the host nation’s existing logistics networks and enhance the ability to respond swiftly to crises. It will also provide a strategic edge to the military operations of both countries. Exposure to advanced logistics practices of partner militaries helps improve domestic logistics planning, inventory management, and maintenance standards, contributing to long-term military modernization. It enhances India’s maritime outreach and influence in strategically important regions. It will boost Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) and shared logistics facilities would enable better information exchange about maritime activities. Access to refuelling and replenishment facilities enhances naval and air force presence in critical regions such as sea lanes of communication, choke points, and contested areas, contributing to deterrence and regional stability. The practical effect of RELOS depends on which facilities the two sides make available and how often they are used. Russia’s territory spans the Arctic, the Pacific, Baltic and Black Sea littoral zones. Indian access to certain Russian ports or airfields could extend India’s operational options from the Indian Ocean into higher latitudes and Eurasian approaches. The arrangement could open access to scores of Russian naval and air facilities stretching from Vladivostok to Murmansk, a capability that, if operationalised, would materially expand Indian options in areas like the Northern Sea Route and Russia’s Far East. That prospect is strategically significant because it deepens India’s ability to operate in theatres that were previously remote or logistically difficult to sustain. For Russia, reciprocal access to Indian ports in the Indian Ocean would make long-distance deployments, logistics for joint operations and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) missions more sustainable in the Indo-Pacific region. RELOS balances India’s logistics agreements with Quad countries and Russia’s non-Quad stance. It strengthens Russian presence in Indo-Pacific without Quad involvement. It Counterbalances US influence and China’s regional role for both India and Russia. The pact gives India an additional logistics partner and reduces single-point dependencies. That diversification can be seen as strengthening autonomy rather than constraining it. India already has logistics arrangements and defence cooperation with other partners such as the United States, France and Australia. Adding a formal logistics arrangement with Russia expands the menu of partners and complicates attempts by any one external power to limit India’s operational freedom. By sharing existing logistics infrastructure instead of creating new facilities abroad, countries can significantly reduce operational costs. This reimbursement model avoids heavy upfront investments while still ensuring logistical availability. RELOS would strengthen the strategic partnership between India and Russia, deepen trust and institutionalize defence cooperation between the two countries. It acts as a confidence-building measure and signal long-term strategic intent, reinforcing broader diplomatic and security relationships. In UN peacekeeping, anti-piracy patrols, and multinational task forces, RELOS simplifies logistics coordination. Shared support structures reduce duplication of effort and improve mission efficiency. RELOS agreement demonstrates India’s ability to operate with major powers or regional partners like Russia, signalling strategic depth and readiness. This can have a deterrent effect by showcasing extended operational capabilities.

Its Challenges

Logistics cooperation is as much about common procedures and standards as it is about geography. India will need to invest in interoperability protocols, legal frameworks, and supply-chain agreements so that visiting Russian and Indian units can be serviced smoothly without ambiguity. Many Russian bases are optimized for Russian systems and logistics chains and currently unsuitable for Indian machines. India will need to evaluate which ports and airfields can practically and safely service Indian platforms and vice versa, and what upgrades or mutual-standard provisions are necessary for both the nations. Differences in equipment, fuel standards, accounting procedures, and documentation complicate execution. India will have to be careful of the legal and administrative details as such agreements work only if customs, diplomatic clearances, status of forces, health and medical protocols and liability rules are clearly spelled out. Issues such as jurisdiction, liability, taxation, and dispute resolution can be contentious. While India and Russia can agree bilaterally, the use of certain technologies, spare parts, dual-use equipment, banking or payment channels could be complicated by third-country sanctions or export controls. It may affect relations with Western institutions or investors sensitive to geopolitical alignments. Both, India and Russia will need compliant mechanisms to avoid exposure to secondary sanctions or legal entanglements. Neighbouring countries or adversaries may view such agreements as threatening resulting in escalation of regional insecurity. Maintaining good relations with them and gaining their trust is crucial. Such agreements complicate a country’s stance during international conflicts involving the partner state. Access to ports, airbases, and logistics hubs carry a risk of leakage of strategic or operational information resulting in exposure of sensitive facilities. Sharing logistics systems can also expose vulnerabilities in supply chains and infrastructure. RELOS does not guarantee support during wartime and access may be restricted due to domestic laws or political decisions. The agreement may be ineffective in fast-moving or high-intensity conflicts. While RELOS agreements enhance logistical efficiency and military reach, they are not cost-free. Strategic autonomy concerns, security risks, geopolitical repercussions, and operational complexities limit their effectiveness.

Indo-Russian Engagement

Politically, both countries engage through annual meetings of two Inter-Governmental Commissions. One focuses on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological, and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC) and another on Military-Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC). India and Russia regularly conduct the Tri-Services exercise ‘INDRA’. The joint military programs between both the nations include BrahMos cruise missile program, 5th generation fighter jet program and Sukhoi Su-30MKI program. India has purchased S-400 Triumf, T-90S Bhishma and AK-203 Rifles from Russia. Kamov Ka-226 200 are going to be manufactured in India under the Make in India initiative. Russia remains India’s largest and most important arms seller.

India needs to treat RELOS as a tool to increase operational flexibility and resilience, not as a geopolitical pivot. If implemented with carefully, with multiple logistics lines, legal safeguards, and transparent diplomacy, RELOS will add to India’s strategic autonomy.

By: Sk Md Assad Armaan, Research Analyst, GSDN

In the twenty-first century, global power is no longer defined by military strength or territorial control. Instead, it is increasingly shaped by technological dominance and control over digital infrastructure. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and data governance now form the backbone of economic productivity, military capability, and political influence. This transformation has given rise to what analysts describe as Pax Silica a technology centric global order led primarily by the United States and its allies, grounded in dominance over chips and digital standards. Much like Pax Americana once relied on military and financial supremacy, Pax Silica rests on technological superiority as the primary instrument of global influence. At the heart of this emerging order lies a strategic question with profound geopolitical implications: can Pax Silica meaningfully counter China’s rise as a technological and systemic rival? Rather than confronting China through direct military conflict, US and its partners have increasingly turned to technological containment restricting access to advanced chips, limiting knowledge transfers, and shaping global technology governance. These measures have undeniably introduced friction into China’s technological ascent. Yet they also expose the limits of containment in an era defined by scale, adaptation, and long-term strategic patience. Pax Silica may constrain, but whether it can decisively counter China remains deeply contested.

Technology as Power: How Pax Silica Seeks to Counter China

Pax Silica operates on simple logic: advanced technologies, particularly semiconductors and artificial intelligence, form the foundation of modern economic growth, military power, and geopolitical influence. Control over these technologies translates into leverage across global supply chains, defense systems, and future innovation pathways. In this framework, technological leadership becomes a substitute for territorial control, and access denial replaces traditional coercion. The most visible portrayal of this strategy has been the tightening of export controls on advanced semiconductor technologies. Restrictions on cutting-edge chips, chip-design software, and manufacturing equipment aim to slow China’s progress in high-performance computing and AI systems. Advanced lithography machines, produced by firms such as ASML, and fabrication capabilities concentrated in companies like TSMC, remain embedded within an ecosystem of allied states. Pax Silica seeks to use these chokepoints by ensuring that China remains downstream in the technological value chain. This approach reflects a deliberate attempt to weaponize interdependence. Rather than decoupling entirely, the United States accelerates its position at the global tech networks to impose selective constraints. Export controls, and supply-chain reshoring initiatives under policies such as the CHIPS and Science Act aim to preserve technological asymmetry without triggering open conflict. In theory, Pax Silica offers an efficient, low-cost method of strategic competition one that avoids military tension while imposing real constraints. In the short term, this strategy has produced tangible effects. Chinese firms face rising costs, limited access to AI training hardware, and engineering inefficiencies caused by reliance on older-generation chips. These constraints do not halt innovation, but they slow down its pace. Delays in AI model training, reduced computing power, and higher capital expenditure translate into strategic friction, particularly in sensitive domains such as military simulation, autonomous systems, and advanced surveillance technologies. Pax Silica thus succeeds as a form of temporal containment: it buys time for the United States and its allies to consolidate their technological lead while complicating China’s trajectory. Moreover, Pax Silica reinforces alliance cohesion. By coordinating export controls and setting shared standards among like-minded states, the United States constructs a rules-based technological environment that China must either adapt to or bypass. This collective approach enhances the credibility of technological containment in the near future. In this sense, Pax Silica does not merely constrain China it reshapes the structure of global technological competition itself.

Limits of Technological Containment: China’s Adaptation and the Boundaries of Pax Silica

Yet, technological containment faces fundamental limitations when applied to a state like China. Unlike smaller or economically dependent countries, China possesses the scale, resources, and political capacity to counter external pressure and respond strategically. Rather than collapsing under technological denial, Beijing has increasingly turned inward accelerating domestic innovation, expanding research and development, and framing technological self-reliance as a core national objective. One of the most significant factors undermining Pax Silica’s long-term effectiveness is China’s scale advantage. With a vast population, immense data-generation capacity, and centralized state coordination, China can compensate for technological constraints in ways that most countries cannot. In artificial intelligence development, access to massive datasets can partially mitigate limitations in hardware. Over time, this allows China to pursue alternative technological pathways rather than replicating Western models exactly. Technological pressure has also strengthened China’s political narrative of self-reliance. External restrictions are framed domestically not as evidence of vulnerability, but as justification for intensified national investment. This framing reduces political costs and mobilizes long-term state support for indigenous innovation. Paradoxically, Pax Silica risks accelerating the very decoupling it seeks to avoid pushing China toward a more autonomous and resilient technological ecosystem.

The deeper limitation of Pax Silica lies in its assumption that technological superiority alone can counter a systemic rival. Technology does not operate in isolation. Political systems, economic resilience, and demographic scale shape outcomes in long-term rivalries. China’s model of technological development differs fundamentally from that of liberal market economies. Whereas Pax Silica relies on private innovation governed by legal and ethical constraints, China integrates technology directly into state strategy. This enables rapid resource mobilization, tolerance for short-term inefficiencies, and prioritization of strategic outcomes over market logic. Additionally, Pax Silica depends on sustained alliance coordination with an inherently fragile foundation. Export controls and technology governance require long-term consensus among democracies with divergent economic interests. Any fragmentation within this coalition weakens the effectiveness of containment. China, by contrast, benefits from centralized decision-making. These asymmetries suggest that while Pax Silica can shape the pace and cost of China’s rise, it cannot decisively determine its outcome.

Strategic Insights: Global South and the China Question

Beyond bilateral competition, the effectiveness of Pax Silica also depends on how it shapes the broader global technological environment, particularly in the Global South. China’s technological rise is not confined to domestic innovation alone; it is deeply intertwined with its ability to export digital infrastructure, platforms, and standards across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Through initiatives such as digital connectivity projects, smart city technologies, and affordable telecommunications infrastructure, China embeds itself within the technological ecosystems of developing states. This presents a structural challenge for Pax Silica. While advanced semiconductor controls target the upper end of the technology spectrum, much of China’s global influence operates at the middle and lower tiers, 5G networks, surveillance systems, digital payment platforms, and cloud services. For many Global South states, Chinese technology is not only cheaper but also bundled with financing, infrastructure, and political non-interference. Pax Silica, by contrast, offers technological superiority without always offering accessibility at scale. Standard-setting further complicates containment. Global governance bodies that define technical norms for telecommunications, data flows, and artificial intelligence are increasingly contested arenas. China’s active participation in international standards-setting institutions allows it to shape the technical rules that govern future digital systems. Even if Pax Silica maintains dominance over cutting-edge innovation, losing influence over standards risks eroding long-term leverage. Technological leadership without normative leadership produces an incomplete form of power.

Moreover, the perception of Pax Silica matters as much as its material strength. If technological containment is viewed by non-aligned states as exclusionary or protectionist, it may generate resistance rather than alignment. Many emerging economies seek access to technology, not participation in great-power rivalry. Without offering alternatives, Pax Silica risks reinforcing a fragmented digital order rather than consolidating global influence. These dynamic highlights a central paradox: the more Pax Silica focuses narrowly on denying China access to advanced technologies, the more space it may leave for China to consolidate influence elsewhere. Containment at the top of the value chain does not automatically translate into dominance across the broader digital arena. As a result, Pax Silica’s success in countering China depends not only on restriction, but on its capacity to provide attractive, scalable, and politically legitimate technological alternatives.

Conclusion: Constraint Without Containment

Pax Silica represents a significant evolution in how global power is exercised. By shifting strategic competition from military confrontation to technological dominance, it offers a means of managing rivalry without immediate escalation. In doing so, it has redefined the terrain of great-power competition for the digital age. Yet the evidence suggests that Pax Silica can delay and constrain, but not fully counter, China’s rise. Technological containment imposes costs and friction, but it does not neutralize the structural advantages of scale, and long-term strategic commitment that underpin China’s trajectory. Rather than preventing China’s ascent, Pax Silica reshapes it forcing adaptation rather than submission. The future global order will therefore not be decided by technological dominance alone. It will depend on how technology interacts with political legitimacy, economic resilience, and strategic vision. Pax Silica may define the rules of competition, but it cannot, by itself, determine the winner. The central question moving forward is not whether Pax Silica can counter China, but whether technological power without broader political consensus and global legitimacy can sustain a stable order in an increasingly fragmented world.

By: Jaiwant Singh Jhala, Research Analyst, GSDN

The 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS), released under President Donald Trump’s administration, marks a pivotal shift toward a sovereignty centered approach, prioritizing American interests while demanding greater self-reliance from European allies. It marks a sharp departure from the language and priorities of recent administrations. President Trump believed the past US strategies to be too vague or unrealistic so he introduced the NSS to focus only on core national interests. After the cold war, United States’ leaders tried to dominate the whole world, which drained resources and exploited the middle class. The NSS acts as President Trump’s ‘correction approach’. It focuses on economic growth, industrial policy, defence, and supply-chain security as national security imperatives, not just as trade or domestic policy topics but as core instruments of statecraft. The NSS emphasizes on safety and sovereignty of the state by building the world’s strongest military which can protect the borders and take actions as per US interests. US believes in peace through strength. It also stressed upon the prevention of espionage, drugs, propaganda and uncontrolled immigration. The United States is home to the majority of immigrants and President Trump is set to take control on who enters and exits the American borders. It prioritizes on safeguarding free speech, religion and democracy. The NSS links domestic industrial revival and protection of critical technologies to geopolitical advantage, signaling that the United States will use tariffs, export controls, and targeted investment policies as instruments of national strategy.

Its Implications

The 2025 NSS amends US grand strategy in ways that matter for Europe on multiple levels. The document in its ‘America First’ frame, says, that America will prioritize direct national interests first and expect partners to shoulder more of their own defense and regional stability as it advances a narrower conception of US global responsibility. It pushes Europe for self-reliance. The doctrine’s insistence that allies must take on greater responsibility for their security logically pushes European governments to boost defense spending and capability development. For many states that is politically acceptable or necessary. For example, the German government has already adopted measures to increase military expenditure following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The US wants Europe to take primary responsibility for its own defense rather than relying heavily on American support. This reprioritization does not mean US withdrawal but a rebalanced partnership. NATO allies are expected to spend more on defence. President Trump’s ‘Hague Commitment’ has set a target of 5% of the GDP for all NATO states.

The document contains unusually sharp critiques of European governments and institutions, questioning European migration, governance, and what it describes as erosion in civic culture. It also signals limits to US backing for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) enlargement. The strategy suggests NATO should not keep expanding indefinitely. This could mean fewer new members in the future and a focus on strengthening existing alliances instead of enlarging them. European capitals responded with surprise and to some extent, anger. European political leaders reacted publicly and quickly. Several EU (European Union) leaders and officials condemned the tone of the NSS and its apparent willingness to criticize European democracies. Germany’s chancellor called for Europe to become less dependent on the US for security.

One of the sharpest concrete implication concerns Ukraine. The US is interested to negotiate a quick end to the Ukraine war to stabilize Europe and prevent escalation of the conflict. It emphasizes on restoring ‘strategic stability’ with Russia, which could mean encouraging Europe to accept compromises for peace. This posture of America increases the pressure on Europe to become the primary security broker for Ukraine’s future, role European nations are not uniformly prepared to accept. This is a shift from open-ended support for Ukraine toward a settlement that prioritizes stability. International relations (IR) experts and analysts worry that the NSS’s messaging about NATO expansion and its emphasis on regional responsibility could be read in Russia as a window for aggressive diplomacy or coercion. European publics and policymakers in countries bordering Russia and in those with high stakes in Ukraine’s future fear that US’s signaling might embolden Russia’s bargaining position or reduce the appetite in the US for strong deterrence measures in Europe. Media and think-tank commentary suggests that the NSS’s combination of praise for nationalist movements in some allied states and its critique of European governance risks inflaming division within Europe itself. The document criticizes Europe’s low birthrates, migration policies, censorship, and loss of national identity. It implies the US will support European movements that promote national sovereignty, cultural revival, and resistance to EU-style transnational governance. This could help in emboldening the nationalist or populist parties across Europe. The NSS will affect domestic politics in European democracies. The document’s critique of certain European policy choices and its apparent sympathy in tone towards nationalist movements may embolden far-right parties that already favor closer ties with the US administration responsible for the NSS. Pro-Atlantic parties will face pressure to demonstrate both independence and competence in national security. This dynamic could increase polarization, complicate coalition-building, and make sustained transatlantic coordination more difficult.

The NSS emphasizes on economic security. Reshoring, secure supply chains, and protection of critical technologies will prove to be both, advantageous and disadvantageous for Europe. European leaders share an interest in protecting semiconductor production, critical minerals, biotech and other strategic industries and coordinated industrial policy between the US and EU could yield mutual resilience but a competitive mercantilist streak in US policy could increase trade friction, pressure European firms to choose between markets and accelerate de-globalization trends. The NSS makes it likelier that United States will adopt unilateral measures such as tariffs, investment screens, export controls, etc. to protect domestic industry and forcing Europe to respond with its own defences or accept regulatory divergence. America wants Europe to combat Chinese overcapacity, tech theft, and cyber espionage. Europe is urged to open markets to US goods and treat American businesses fairly. This means that Europe will be pushed to align more closely with US trade and technology policies.

The NSS essentially accelerates Europe’s trend of moving towards strategic autonomy. This has positive sides for Europe. A Europe capable of credible defense, stronger industrial bases, and independent diplomacy would be less vulnerable to external coercion and better able to act as a global security actor in its own right. A more capable Europe would also be a stronger partner to the United States on shared challenges like China’s assertiveness, climate security, and technological governance but strategic autonomy is not a binary switch. Building military capabilities, industrial capacity and political strength will take time and resources. European states remain interdependent with the US for nuclear deterrence, power projection, certain intelligence capabilities and advanced defense technologies. The optimal path is therefore not autarky but ‘strategic sovereignty’. This means strengthening European capacities while preserving the institutionalized transatlantic cooperation that delivers unique value. The NSS’s challenge is to push Europeans toward this middle ground.

Despite criticism, the United States sees Europe as vital for global stability and prosperity. Transatlantic trade, science, and culture remain central pillars. The US wants a ‘strong Europe’ that can partner in preventing adversaries like Russia or China from dominating the continent. Europe must redefine its role with discipline, ensuring priorities like Russian deterrence are defended amid US recalibration. Unity requires accepting US-led diplomacy, internal cohesion, and economic hardening to remain indispensable. Failure risks strategic irrelevance, but renewal could strengthen the West against shared threats. The 2025 US National Security Strategy is a political and strategic provocation as much as it is doctrine.​ The NSS shapes years of US policy, pushing Europe towards sovereignty. Transatlantic ties endure but evolve, with Europe’s agency pivotal in a competitive era.