Tuesday
July 1, 2025
Home Blog Page 14

Germany’s Military Awakening, From “Zeitenwende” To Action At A Critical Time For Europe

Consulting Editor
-
0
Germany’s Military Awakening, From “Zeitenwende” To Action At A Critical Time For Europe

For the first time in decades, Europe is reevaluating its military strength, largely prompted by a reality – can Putin be trusted? The consensus across the continent is a resounding no.

With the United States under the Trump administration exploring a potential resolution to the war in Ukraine, one that could potentially favor Moscow over Kyiv, European nations are realizing the necessity of bolstering their own defenses. No country embodies this shift more than Germany.

For years, Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, suffered from chronic underfunding. However, that era of neglect is now coming to an end. Presumptive Chancellor Friedrich Merz has committed to revitalizing Germany’s military, pushing investment levels unseen since the Cold War.

A landmark reform to Germany’s constitutional debt brake has now unlocked billions of euros for military spending. One projection, estimates that if Germany directs 3.5% of its GDP toward defense over the next decade, it could result in an astonishing €600 billion ($652 billion) in military funding.

Germany’s Military Awakening – From “Zeitenwende” to Action
At a classified location in central Germany, five NATO allies recently participated in military exercises simulating an attack by a “foreign adversary” on an alliance member. Amid the strategic drills, German military officials emphasized that the country is now stepping up.

Speaking at the simulated command center, General Hammerstein stated,

“Germany is a capable nation in Europe and has to be a partner for other nations. We are a responsible partner, and as a big nation, we must step up. And we will.”

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a watershed moment for Europe, marking the return of war to the continent after decades of relative peace. In Germany, it led to the “Zeitenwende” or “turning point” – a paradigm shift in military and security policy.

Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded by creating a €100 billion fund dedicated to revitalizing the Bundeswehr, even amending Germany’s Basic Law (the country’s constitution) to make it happen. But implementation fell short, bureaucratic delays, political infighting, and sluggish decision-making meant that little tangible progress was made. Eventually, the lack of execution played a role in Scholz losing his job.

Now, Merz is aiming to supercharge the Zeitenwende. As he disclosed his defense vision in Berlin, he acknowledged the decades-long neglect of military readiness –

“For at least a decade—probably much longer—we have been living under a deceptive sense of security. Now, we face a fundamental shift in defense policy.”

Germany’s military spending had plummeted over the years, from 4.9% of GDP in 1963 to an all-time low of 1.1% in 2005. Only in 2024 did Germany finally meet NATO’s 2% defense spending target, for the first time in over 30 years.

While the Bundeswehr is now on a more vigorous financial trajectory, experts argue that money alone won’t solve its problems.

Bundeswehr, Military, Germany

The Bundeswehr’s Uphill Battle. More Than Just Money
While Merz’s commitment to strengthening Germany’s military is clear, a recent report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces, Eva Högl, gives an outline of the challenges ahead.

Högl’s findings, released last week, showed severe shortfalls in Germany’s military preparedness –

—Recruitment targets remain unmet – The Bundeswehr currently has 181,174 personnel, far below its original goal of 203,000 by 2025, which has now been pushed to 2031.

—Aging personnel – The average age of German soldiers was 32.4 years in 2019 but has since risen to 34, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of the force.

—Infrastructure in disrepair – The report estimates that €67 billion is needed just to upgrade military infrastructure, with barracks described as being in a “disastrous state”.

Högl’s report concluded bluntly: “The Bundeswehr still has too little of everything.”

A major issue Germany faces is its voluntary military system. Unlike many European neighbors, Germany ended conscription in 2011, shifting to an all-volunteer force. But with recruitment failing to keep pace, some officials including General Hammerstein are calling for a return to some form of mandatory service.

Hammerstein, who himself joined as a conscript in 1992, argues that bringing back compulsory service, even in a limited capacity, could be crucial.

While reinstating conscription remains a politically sensitive topic in Germany, a shifting national mindset could make it more feasible.

The Changing German Psyche. Public Sentiment on Military Expansion
Historically, Germany has maintained a cautious stance towards military expansion due to its past. However, recent geopolitical tensions particularly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shifted public perception.

A March 2024 survey conducted by German public broadcaster ARD found that:

–66% of Germans support increasing spending on defense and the Bundeswehr.

–59% agree that Germany should take on additional debt to meet defense and infrastructure needs.

–Only 31% believe that military spending should remain the same or be reduced.

This marks a significant transformation in how Germans perceive military preparedness. The once-dominant pacifist approach is giving way to a more pragmatic outlook, as the nation recognizes the need for stronger defenses in an increasingly unstable Europe.

German defense officials craft a digital über-model for the Bundeswehr

Germany’s Message to the World: ‘We Are Back’
For decades, Germany relied on the “peace dividend” from the post-Cold War era, keeping military spending low. That era is now over, the Bundeswehr’s modernization is no longer just an ambition – it’s a necessity.

Merz, fully aware of this necessity, delivered a bold declaration in Berlin last week:

“Germany is back. Germany is making a significant contribution to the defense of freedom and peace in Europe.”

Germany’s decision to supercharge its military with hundreds of billions in investment marks one of the most significant shifts in European defense policy since the Cold War. For decades, Germany has taken a restrained approach to military spending, relying on NATO’s collective security while keeping its own forces underfunded and under-equipped.

Likewise, for years, Europe’s security has rested on two fragile pillars:

American Military Support – A long-standing assumption that the U.S. would protect Europe through NATO.

Diplomatic Engagement with Russia – A belief that economic ties and diplomacy could prevent conflict.

Both these pillars have cracked under geopolitical realities. Donald Trump’s threats to pull back U.S. support for NATO have left Europe feeling vulnerable, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed the dangers of complacency in military readiness.

Germany, often reluctant to take a leadership role in defense, has now decided it must step up, and once the biggest economy in Europe starts flexing its military muscles, others are bound to take notice.

Who Will Follow Germany’s Lead?
Several European nations have already increased military budgets, but Germany’s move could push them even further:

France: As Europe’s only nuclear power within the EU, France already has a strong military. However, Macron has long called for a “European army” independent of NATO. Germany’s increased spending could accelerate those ambitions.

Poland: Already one of the biggest military spenders in Europe, Poland is likely to welcome Germany’s shift but will remain wary, given historical tensions. Poland has been rapidly expanding its military and may increase cooperation with Germany under NATO.

The Nordic States (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway): With Sweden and Finland now in NATO, Scandinavian nations are already ramping up defense spending in response to Russian threats. Germany’s move will reinforce the urgency of a stronger European military presence.

The Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): Sitting on Russia’s doorstep, these nations have been vocal about the need for a stronger European military. Germany’s commitment will be a welcome sign, but they will push for faster action.

A More Militarized Europe
Germany’s military expansion will undoubtedly change Europe’s security dynamics.

Strengthening NATO: Germany’s larger military means Europe will be less reliant on the U.S. for defense, making NATO more self-sufficient.

Greater European Unity: If other nations follow Germany’s lead, we could see a more cohesive European military strategy rather than fragmented national efforts.

Risk of Military Competition: Increased defense spending across Europe could spark an arms race, leading to greater militarization across the continent.

Rising Geopolitical Tensions: A militarily stronger Europe might provoke Russia further, escalating tensions rather than deterring them.

The Last Bit,  The Dawn of a New European Military Era?

Germany’s Zeitenwende marks a policy shifty and it also signals to the world that Europe is no longer relying on old security assumptions. Whether other European nations match Germany’s military ambitions or remain cautious will determine the future of European defense.

Still, Europe’s days of military complacency are perhaps over, what remains to be seen is whether this shift will bring greater stability, or if it will lead to new conflicts and challenges with Russia.

Can India And China Turn Their Sourness Into Friendship In 2025? A Slow Turn Of Events Marked By Shaky Geopolitics

Consulting Editor
-
2
Can India And China Turn Their Sourness Into Friendship In 2025? A Slow Turn Of Events Marked By Shaky Geopolitics

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently spoke positively about India’s relationship with China, suggesting that normalcy had returned to the disputed border and calling for stronger ties, it took everyone by surprise. Given the history of animosity between the two nations, his remarks stand out, especially considering that just four years ago, the two countries saw their deadliest border clash since the 1962 war.

China, too, responded with cautious optimism. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning welcomed Modi’s words, stating that India and China should be “partners in each other’s success.” This exchange signals a possible thaw in relations, but it would be premature to assume a full-fledged rapprochement , and while both nations have made efforts to mend ties, deep-rooted geopolitical and strategic differences continue to cast a long shadow over the relationship.

The Bright Spots in India-China Ties
Despite their differences, India and China are deeply intertwined, particularly in trade. Even after the Ladakh clashes, China has remained India’s largest trade partner, and economic ties have remained resilient. Beyond commerce, both countries engage in multilateral platforms like BRICS and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, advocating for alternative global economic models, opposing Islamist extremism, and pushing back against what they see as Western moral policing.

Even at their lowest point in decades, diplomatic and military communication never entirely broke down. High-level military talks led to an October agreement to resume border patrols. Modi and Xi Jinping met at the BRICS summit in Russia, where they pledged further cooperation. The two countries even resumed direct flights earlier this year, a sign of incremental normalization.

India, China, Modi,

Roadblocks to True Reconciliation
However, despite these positive developments, the India-China relationship remains fragile. Both countries have deep security ties with each other’s primary adversaries – India aligns with the US, while China maintains close strategic ties with Pakistan.

Moreover, Beijing has frequently blocked India’s ambitions on the global stage, whether it’s denying New Delhi’s bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council or the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It also remains at odds with India’s position on Kashmir. Meanwhile, India strongly opposes China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which includes projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a region claimed by India.

Tensions also extend beyond the subcontinent. China has a growing naval footprint in the Indian Ocean, with its only overseas military base located in Djibouti – India’s broader maritime backyard. India, on the other hand, has been strengthening its defense partnerships, negotiating the sale of supersonic missiles to Southeast Asian nations wary of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

New Delhi has also been deepening its engagement with Taiwan, a move Beijing perceives as highly provocative. Furthermore, India continues to host the Dalai Lama, whom China views as a dangerous separatist figure. These long-standing irritants ensure that any reconciliation will be an uphill battle.

The Winds Of Change
While the recent warming of ties is a positive development, it remains to be seen whether this trend will hold. Several key developments could indicate where the relationship is headed, including border negotiations, trade shifts, and geopolitical alignments.

So, does this signal a real turning point? Or is it just diplomatic posturing?

The Border
At the heart of India-China tensions lies their long-disputed border, with around 50,000 square miles which is roughly the size of Greece, still contested. The border situation is the biggest indicator of how things stand between the two nations. The Ladakh clash shattered trust, but last year’s patrolling deal helped restore some confidence. If both sides can agree on more trust-building measures, it would mark a significant step toward stability.

Another key moment to watch is potential high-level engagement. Modi and Xi Jinping, both strong believers in personal diplomacy, could meet on the sidelines of global summits—BRICS in July, G20 in November, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) later in the year. If such meetings happen, they could reinforce the recent momentum in bilateral ties.

Economics, Can Trade Bridge the Gap?
Chinese investment in India is another crucial factor. With India facing an $85 billion trade deficit with China, more Chinese capital flowing into key sectors like manufacturing and renewables could help balance the scales. Stronger economic ties would not only boost India’s industries but also give China better access to the world’s fastest-growing major economy. If both nations have more economic skin in the game, there will be greater incentives to keep tensions in check.

Trump-Modi talks: ಉರಿದುಕೊಂಡ China ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದರೆ...

The Geopolitical Chessboard
India’s regional dynamics also play a role. Recent leadership changes in four of India’s neighbors – Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka – have brought in more pro-China governments. However, these countries have so far balanced ties between Beijing and Delhi instead of picking sides. If this trend continues, India might feel less anxious about China’s growing influence in its backyard.

China’s relationship with Russia is another factor. Moscow has grown more reliant on Beijing due to the Ukraine war. But if the war ends and China scales back its support for Russia, it could open new diplomatic opportunities for India and China to ease tensions.

The Trump Factor
Then there’s the wildcard – Donald Trump  – while Trump imposed tariffs on China, he has also indicated a willingness to mend ties. If US-China tensions cool under Trump’s second  presidency, India might rethink its own strategic positioning. Additionally, Trump’s likely protectionist policies could hit India with hefty tariffs, giving Delhi another reason to strengthen economic cooperation with Beijing.

The Last Bit, Real Change or Just Rhetoric?
India and China are natural competitors, two of Asia’s biggest economies and ancient civilizations, both with ambitions of global leadership. However, despite the differences, the recent diplomatic overtures suggest a pragmatic shift.

If both sides can build on these positive developments, through border agreements, economic collaboration, and careful geopolitical maneuvering, there stands a real chance for a more stable relationship. The big question is whether Modi’s conciliatory words translate into sustained progress or remain just diplomatic niceties.

Mexico’s Rise as a Global Manufacturing Hub

GSDN
-
0
Mexico’s Rise as a Global Manufacturing Hub

By: Sofiqua Yesmin, Research Analyst, GSDN

Mexico’s flag: source Internet

Over the past few decades, Mexico has changed into a worldwide fabricating powerhouse, drawing in venture from a few of the world’s biggest organizations. The country’s key geographic area, broad exchange assentions, gifted labor drive, and competitive generation costs have cemented its position as a vital player in worldwide supply chains. Mexico has ended up an fundamental fabricating center for businesses such as car, aviation, hardware, and therapeutic devices.

As worldwide financial conditions move, companies are progressively looking for options to China and other Asian fabricating center points, making Mexico an indeed more appealing goal for businesses looking for steadiness, proficiency, and nearness to the United States. This article investigates the components behind Mexico’s rise, the businesses driving its fabricating victory, the challenges it faces, and the future viewpoint for its mechanical sector.

NAFTA and the Change of the Economy

Mexico’s fabricating segment has experienced critical advancement, with different financial arrangements and exchange understandings forming its current position. An essential minute in Mexico’s mechanical development was the execution of the North American Free Exchange Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994. This understanding encouraged the expulsion of exchange boundaries between Mexico, the United States, and Canada, driving to a convergence of outside coordinate speculation (FDI). As a result, various multinational companies built up fabricating plants in Mexico, especially in businesses such as car and gadgets. The development of maquiladoras—export-oriented industrial facilities essentially found along the U.S.-Mexico border—further fortified the country’s position as a key fabricating hub.

The Move to USMCA

On July 1, 2020, NAFTA was supplanted by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which presented upgraded labor and natural directions. The modern understanding put more prominent accentuation on higher compensation and territorial substance necessities for certain businesses, especially the car division. Whereas these arrangements expanded costs for a few producers, they moreover fortified Mexico’s part in North American supply chains by guaranteeing more noteworthy financial integration.

Key Drivers of Mexico’s Fabricating Growth

Several components have contributed to Mexico’s rise as a driving fabricating destination:

  1. Geographic Nearness to the United States

Mexico’s near nearness to the U.S., one of the world’s biggest customer markets, offers a particular calculated advantage. Not at all like producers in Asia, companies working in Mexico advantage from shorter transportation courses, diminished shipping costs, and quicker conveyance times. This advantage has gotten to be indeed more basic in the midst of worldwide supply chain disturbances, making nearshoring an progressively practical choice for U.S. companies looking to move generation closer to home.

  • Broad Exchange Agreements

Mexico has one of the most comprehensive systems of free exchange understandings all inclusive, covering over 50 nations. In expansion to the USMCA, Mexico has understandings with the European Union, Japan, and a few Latin American countries, permitting for duty-free get to key universal markets. This broad exchange arrange makes Mexico a key area for companies looking for to send out products worldwide.

  • Competitive Labor Costs and Gifted Workforce

Mexico’s labor costs stay essentially lower than those in the United States and other created countries. Moreover, the nation has a developing pool of gifted specialists, especially in businesses such as car fabricating, aviation, and gadgets gathering. Mexico’s venture in specialized instruction and professional preparing programs has encourage reinforced its workforce, making it an alluring goal for high-tech industries.

  • Solid Mechanical Clusters and Supply Chains

Mexico’s fabricating victory is fortified by the nearness of well-established mechanical clusters, especially in locales such as Baja California, Nuevo León, and Guanajuato. These clusters make synergies among providers, producers, and coordination’s suppliers, permitting companies to work more proficiently and cost-effectively.

Major Fabricating Businesses in Mexico

  1. Car Industry: A Key Development Engine

Mexico is among the beat car makers in the world, fabricating millions of vehicles yearly for trade. Driving worldwide automakers, counting Common Engines, Portage, Volkswagen, Toyota, and Nissan, have built up broad generation offices over the country.

The country’s auto parts industry is similarly noteworthy, providing basic components to automakers in North America and past. Beneath the USMCA, unused territorial substance prerequisites command that a higher rate of vehicle components be sourced from North America, assist fortifying Mexico’s part in the industry.

  • Aviation Industry: Quick Development and Worldwide Integration

Mexico’s aviation industry has experienced exponential development, situating itself as a driving provider of flying machine components and congregations. The nation has over 350 aviation companies, counting major players such as Bombardier, Safran, and Honeywell.

Government activities, such as charge motivating forces and speculation in aviation preparing programs, have contributed to the sector’s victory. Mexican aviation trades presently surpass billions of dollars yearly, with key fabricating center points in states like Querétaro and Baja California.

  • Hardware and Electrical Manufacturing

Mexico is a major worldwide player in gadgets fabricating, creating everything from tvs and domestic apparatuses to semiconductors and broadcast communications gear. Companies such as Samsung, LG, and Intel have built up large-scale generation offices in Mexico to cater to North American and worldwide markets.

The country’s solid supply chain systems and gifted workforce make it an alluring area for companies included in gadgets gathering and high-tech manufacturing.

  • Therapeutic Gadget Fabricating: A Fast-Growing Sector

Mexico has risen as a driving exporter of restorative gadgets, especially in districts such as Baja California. The nation produces surgical rebellious, symptomatic gear, and implantable therapeutic gadgets for universal markets.

This industry benefits from Mexico’s administrative arrangement with the United States Nourishment and Sedate Organization (FDA) guidelines, permitting consistent send out of therapeutic items to the U.S. and beyond.

Challenges Confronting Mexico’s Fabricating Sector

Despite its qualities, Mexico’s fabricating industry faces a few challenges that must be tended to to maintain long-term growth:

  1. Foundation Development

While Mexico has made critical speculations in transportation and coordination’s foundation, certain ranges still require changes. Improving street systems, extending ports, and modernizing vitality supply frameworks are basic to keeping up fabricating efficiency.

  • Security Concerns

Crime and security issues in certain districts posture dangers to businesses working in Mexico. Whereas mechanical zones are for the most part more secure, continuous endeavors to make strides law requirement and diminish criminal movement are vital to keep up financial specialist confidence.

  • Natural and Labor Regulations

With the usage of the USMCA, companies must comply with stricter labor and natural directions. Whereas these measures point to make strides working conditions and maintainability, they too present unused compliance costs that producers must navigate.

Future Viewpoint: Mexico’s Part in Worldwide Manufacturing

Several patterns demonstrate that Mexico’s fabricating division will proceed to develop and advance in the coming years:

  1. The Rise of Nearshoring

The COVID-19 widespread and progressing worldwide supply chain disturbances have quickened the drift of nearshoring—relocating generation closer to customer markets. Numerous U.S. companies are presently moving generation from China to Mexico to decrease dependence on long-distance supply chains and geopolitical risks.

  • Expanded Speculation in Robotization and Industry 4.0

Mexico is grasping progressed fabricating advances, counting mechanization, mechanical technology, and fake insights (AI). As companies contribute in savvy production lines and advanced change, Mexico’s fabricating segment is anticipated to gotten to be indeed more competitive.

  • Maintainability and Green Manufacturing

Global weight to embrace maintainable fabricating hones is driving companies in Mexico to actualize eco-friendly generation strategies. The selection of renewable vitality sources, squander decrease methodologies, and maintainable supply chains will play a vital part in the industry’s future.

Conclusion

Mexico’s rise as a worldwide fabricating center is the result of decades of vital financial approaches, exchange understandings, and speculations in mechanical foundation. The country’s competitive labor costs, nearness to the United States, and solid mechanical base have made it an appealing goal for multinational companies.

While challenges stay, Mexico’s capacity to adjust to advancing worldwide trends—such as nearshoring, advanced fabricating, and sustainability—will decide its long-term victory. With proceeded venture and approach bolster, Mexico is well-positioned to keep up its status as a key player in worldwide fabricating.

Artificial Intelligence’s role in Countering Grey Zone Tactics in the East & South China Sea

GSDN
-
2
Artificial Intelligence’s role in Countering Grey Zone Tactics in the East & South China Sea

By: Munira Qaiser, Research Analyst, GSDN

Warships in the South China Sea: source Internet

The East and South China Seas are central to global trade and security, and their geopolitical significance has led to ongoing territorial disputes among multiple nations, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, as well as broader regional and global powers such as the United States. These disputes often manifest through grey zone tactics—strategic actions that are intentionally ambiguous, not overtly aggressive, but intended to alter the status quo in favour of the actor employing them. Grey zone tactics include economic pressure, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, maritime militia operations, and other forms of irregular warfare. These tactics are particularly difficult to counter as they operate below the threshold of conventional warfare, making traditional military or diplomatic responses less effective.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers significant promise in countering these grey zone strategies. With advancements in AI, nations can leverage machine learning, autonomous systems, predictive analytics, and enhanced surveillance technologies to detect, analyse, and respond to grey zone tactics in real time. AI-driven systems can provide better situational awareness, faster response times, and more accurate predictions of potential threats. AI’s ability to process large amounts of data, recognize patterns, and generate insights could prove crucial in identifying subtle or covert actions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Furthermore, AI could improve decision-making processes by supporting human operators with data-driven recommendations or automated actions.

This article delves into the ways AI can be applied to counter grey zone tactics, with a particular focus on the East and South China Seas. It examines the role of AI in enhancing surveillance, improving response strategies, and fostering international cooperation to address these challenges. The article also addresses the ethical implications, the potential risks of escalating conflicts, and the limitations of AI in complex geopolitical environments. Ultimately, the integration of AI into counter-grey zone strategies could significantly reshape the security dynamics of the region, contributing to more effective deterrence and conflict management.

Introduction

The East and South China Seas represent one of the most strategically important regions in the world today. These seas are not only rich in resources but are also vital maritime trade routes that facilitate a significant portion of global commerce. However, these areas are also embroiled in complex territorial disputes, most notably over islands, reefs, and maritime zones. The claims and counterclaims by various nations have led to an environment where traditional diplomatic and military strategies have proven to be less effective. In recent years, countries have increasingly turned to grey zone tactics to pursue their objectives, which are designed to avoid direct confrontation but still achieve strategic gains.

Grey zone tactics are a series of actions that are deliberately ambiguous and fall below the threshold of full-scale military conflict. In the context of the East and South China Sea, grey zone activities include the use of paramilitary forces disguised as civilian entities, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns to sway public opinion and international support. These tactics are particularly difficult to counter because they operate in the space between diplomacy and military action, making it hard for affected nations to respond without escalating the situation to open conflict.

AI offers significant potential to address these challenges. With its ability to process vast amounts of information in real-time, AI can be used to enhance the monitoring of activities in the region, improving early warning systems for potential threats. AI-driven surveillance technologies, such as drones and satellite systems, can track suspicious movements and identify grey zone activities before they escalate into larger crises. Additionally, AI can assist in analysing patterns of behaviour, allowing for more accurate predictions of future tactics and helping nations to develop proactive measures rather than reactive responses. Furthermore, AI tools can facilitate the sharing of intelligence and the coordination of responses among regional and global stakeholders, promoting collective security and stability in the region.

However, the deployment of AI in countering grey zone tactics also raises a number of concerns, including the risk of over-reliance on technology, the potential for AI-driven escalation, and ethical issues surrounding the use of autonomous systems in military contexts. These considerations must be carefully weighed as AI technologies are integrated into the region’s security strategies. This article will explore these challenges, alongside the technological potential of AI, to provide a comprehensive view of how AI can play a role in shaping the future of security in the East and South China Sea.

Overview of Grey Zone Tactics

Grey zone tactics refer to a set of strategies that fall between traditional warfare and peaceful diplomacy, often used by states or non-state actors to achieve their goals without provoking open conflict. These tactics are typically non-kinetic, subtle, and difficult to detect or attribute, which makes them challenging to counter. Rather than engaging in direct military action, grey zone tactics involve activities designed to influence, intimidate, or alter the status quo in a region, all while avoiding a full-scale confrontation. They are particularly effective in regions where tensions already exist, and they often operate below the threshold of armed conflict.

In the context of the East and South China Seas, grey zone tactics have been notably employed by China to assert its territorial claims and expand its influence. The South China Sea is a highly contested area, with overlapping territorial claims from China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. China’s use of grey zone tactics has included the deployment of maritime militias disguised as civilian fishing boats, which often operate in disputed waters alongside Chinese coast guard vessels and military assets. These actions are designed to establish Chinese control over the area while avoiding outright military aggression. Additionally, China has been involved in the construction of artificial islands and the militarization of these disputed territories. These tactics are ambiguous and subtle, often difficult for other nations to respond to effectively.

Another key aspect of grey zone tactics is their ability to create gradual but significant changes to the status quo without crossing the line into open conflict. For example, cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns can be used to weaken an opponent’s confidence, disrupt decision-making, or manipulate public opinion, all without resorting to physical violence. Similarly, economic coercion, such as using trade or investment to influence other countries’ decisions, can be seen as a form of grey zone activity. These tactics are difficult to counter because they do not always appear as overtly aggressive or illegal, making it hard for countries to justify a strong, forceful response.

Current Countermeasures and Limitations

Countries in the East and South China Seas, particularly those that are directly impacted by China’s grey zone tactics, have tried various strategies to counter these actions, but many of these countermeasures have proven to be inadequate or insufficient in dealing with the complexity and subtlety of grey zone operations. Traditional methods, such as military, diplomatic, and economic responses, have often fallen short of addressing the full range of tactics involved.

One of the primary countermeasures has been the increased military presence in the region. The United States, along with other countries like Japan and Australia, conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to challenge China’s territorial claims and maintain open access to international waters. These naval operations are meant to demonstrate international opposition to China’s actions. However, while they make a statement, they are often reactive and do not directly address the grey zone tactics, which are not typically military in nature. In addition, the risk of escalation in such a sensitive region makes military responses a difficult and potentially dangerous option.

Diplomatic efforts have also been attempted, particularly through multilateral forums like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United Nations. These efforts have included calls for international arbitration, such as the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which rejected China’s claims in the South China Sea. Despite this, China has continued its actions, demonstrating the limits of international legal and diplomatic solutions. While these forums provide a platform for discussion, they often lack the ability to enforce decisions, and regional powers may be reluctant to confront China due to economic dependencies and the fear of further antagonizing a powerful neighbour.

Economic measures have been another tool used to counter grey zone tactics. Countries have employed sanctions or trade restrictions in response to China’s actions. However, China’s growing economic power makes it less susceptible to these measures. In some cases, economic sanctions may even backfire, as China has the means to bypass or mitigate these pressures. Additionally, economic coercion itself is a form of grey zone tactic, making it difficult for countries to respond effectively without escalating the situation further.

Cybersecurity and information warfare have become more important in countering grey zone tactics, particularly as China has been accused of launching cyberattacks and spreading disinformation. Countries have increased their efforts to strengthen cybersecurity and combat misinformation, but these responses are often insufficient. Cyberattacks are notoriously difficult to trace and attribute to specific actors, making it hard to mount an effective response. Disinformation campaigns, particularly those that target public opinion, can be equally challenging to combat, as they are designed to sow confusion and undermine trust in institutions, making it difficult to know when or how to respond.

Finally, regional cooperation among countries like Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam has been limited. While these countries have made efforts to collaborate in areas like maritime security, there are still divisions over priorities and national interests. Some countries are hesitant to take strong actions against China, due to economic ties or concerns about retaliation. As a result, there is no comprehensive regional strategy to counter grey zone tactics, and countries are often left to respond individually, which weakens the overall effectiveness of these efforts.

Case Studies on AI in Countering Grey Zone Tactics

  1. AI in Tracking Maritime Movements in the South China Sea
    • Case Study: In recent years, AI has been used to track and monitor maritime activities in the South China Sea. Countries like the United States and regional powers have deployed satellite-based AI systems to monitor ships’ movements in disputed waters. These AI systems use pattern recognition to automatically detect unusual activities, such as the construction of artificial islands or military vessels moving into sensitive areas.
    • Example: The US Navy and other defences agencies use AI to analyse satellite imagery and track Chinese military and fishing ships, which are often used as tools in grey zone tactics. These AI systems help identify changes in ship behaviour, such as unreported military deployments or irregular fishing activities, and allow for quick responses to potential threats.
  2. AI in Countering Cyber Attacks and Information Warfare
    • Case Study: Grey zone tactics often involve cyber-attacks and misinformation campaigns. AI has been successfully used to help detect and block cyber threats in real-time. For example, during regional tensions, AI systems have helped monitor and defend against cyber-attacks aimed at disrupting critical infrastructure, such as ports and military communication lines.
    • Example: The Pentagon has used AI-based tools to detect and counter misinformation campaigns aimed at influencing public opinion and destabilizing governments in the region. AI algorithms help analyse vast amounts of online data to spot fake news or coordinated disinformation efforts.
  3. AI for Monitoring Fishing Activities (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing)
    • Case Study: In the South China Sea, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is often used as part of grey zone tactics to assert control over contested waters. AI has been used to monitor and track illegal fishing vessels by analysing data from satellites, drones, and automated vessel identification systems.
    • Example: The company Ocean Mind uses AI to track fishing activities in the region. By analysing satellite images and vessel tracking data, AI can identify suspicious activities like illegal fishing in disputed zones. This helps countries involved in the conflict to act against such tactics before they escalate.

Future outlook on AI in Countering Grey Zone Tactics

As AI technology improves, we will see more advanced AI systems capable of predicting grey zone tactics before they happen. AI could analyse historical data, military activities, and even social media patterns to forecast potential military actions or economic coercion. This would allow countries to prepare for or prevent these actions. In the future, AI might be able to predict when a country is likely to deploy a maritime militia or start a cyber-attack. This will help nations make faster, more informed decisions to counter such moves.The use of unmanned drones and autonomous vehicles will expand, with AI controlling these systems for surveillance in the disputed waters of the South and East China Seas. These autonomous systems will patrol the area, monitor activity, and gather intelligence without human intervention, providing real-time information for military and diplomatic decisions. Future naval patrols may use AI-powered drones to monitor the waters for any grey zone activities like maritime militia operations or unreported military exercises. These AI systems would provide constant surveillance without putting human lives at risk.With cyber warfare becoming more common in grey zone tactics, AI will play a bigger role in defending against cyber-attacks. AI could learn to detect cyber threats faster than humans, and even predict where future cyber-attacks might occur based on patterns in data. Countries will use AI systems to defend their military networks from potential cyberattacks or espionage that are often used in grey zone warfare. These systems will be able to react in real-time, identifying, and neutralizing threats without delay. As AI becomes an essential tool in countering grey zone tactics, countries will likely collaborate more on AI development and sharing intelligence. By working together, countries can pool resources, share data, and ensure AI systems are used ethically and responsibly in monitoring and responding to grey zone tactics. In the future, nations could set up joint AI systems to monitor contested areas like the South China Sea. These systems would share data in real-time, allowing multiple countries to respond more effectively to grey zone tactics and prevent conflict escalation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, AI has already proven to be a valuable tool in countering grey zone tactics in the East and South China Sea, whether it is tracking maritime movements, detecting cyber-attacks, or identifying illegal fishing activities. Looking ahead, AI will become even more sophisticated, helping countries predict and prevent grey zone tactics with even more accuracy. As AI is used more in military and security operations, there will be greater focus on ensuring that it is used ethically. Countries will need to establish international agreements on how AI should be used to avoid conflicts, protect civilian populations, and ensure that AI does not escalate situations unnecessarily. Future discussions and agreements could focus on ensuring AI does not make decisions that could lead to unintended military actions. Countries might agree on rules for AI in combat zones, especially concerning autonomous drones and military robots. However, as this technology grows, so too will the need for international cooperation and careful consideration of ethical issues surrounding its use.

North Korea Flexes Military Muscle As Russia’s Security Chief Visits. U.S. Approves Precision Rockets For Saudi, Records Highest Arms Sales In 2024

Consulting Editor
-
0
North Korea Flexes Military Muscle As Russia’s Security Chief Visits. U.S. Approves Precision Rockets For Saudi, Records Highest Arms Sales In 2024

North Korea is once again in the headlines, flexing its military muscle with an anti-aircraft missile systems, with none other than Kim Jong Un personally overseeing the test launch. According to North Korea’s state-run media, the latest test demonstrated that the country’s new air defense weapons are “highly reliable” and give Pyongyang an “advantageous combat response.”

Interestingly, this missile test happened just as Russia’s top security official, Sergei Shoigu, arrived in Pyongyang for high-level talks, fueling speculation about deepening military cooperation between the two nations.

Timing and Intentions
The missile test took place on Thursday under the supervision of Kim Jong Un and top military officials from the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea. While KCNA didn’t disclose the exact location, it released images of a missile streaking across the sky, a midair explosion, and Kim smiling as he observed the launch. The North Korean leader seemed pleased with the results, calling the new weapon system a “major defense asset” with strong combat capabilities.

Interestingly, this show of force comes just a day after South Korea and the U.S. wrapped up their annual joint military drills. Pyongyang has long accused Washington and Seoul of using these exercises as a pretext for war, and this time was no different. KCNA called the drills a “rehearsal of war of aggression,” making it clear that the missile test was, at least in part, a response to what it sees as provocations from its southern neighbor and its allies.

North Korea, Russia,

Is Russia Helping North Korea’s Military?
One of the biggest questions following this missile test is whether Pyongyang is receiving direct military support from Moscow. Experts believe that, given the increasingly close ties between the two countries, Russia could have provided North Korea with key technology or even materials for its air defense systems.

Shin Seung-ki, a researcher specializing in North Korea’s military at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, stated that the “strengthening of cooperation” between Moscow and Pyongyang makes it “highly likely” that Russia assisted in building these new weapons. Others, like Ahn Chan-il, a North Korean defector-turned-researcher, went a step further, suggesting that Pyongyang could be testing weapons for export to Russia, possibly to be used in Ukraine.

These claims aren’t entirely out of the blue. South Korea has previously alleged that Russia provided North Korea with military aid, including anti-aircraft missiles, in exchange for North Korean troops being deployed to support Moscow in its war against Ukraine. Some analysts even estimate that over 10,000 North Korean soldiers have already been sent to Russia, with more troops recently redeployed near the front lines in the Kursk region.

Russia-North Korea Ties Strengthen, Rising Global Tensions
The timing of Russia’s Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu’s visit to North Korea only adds to the speculation. Shoigu’s arrival follows another visit earlier this month by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko, who held meetings with North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui. These back-to-back visits indicate that Russia and North Korea’s relationship is rapidly evolving beyond just diplomatic pleasantries.

This closer alignment between Moscow and Pyongyang could have serious implications for global security. Even as the war in Ukraine still rages and tensions on the Korean Peninsula remaining high, North Korea’s missile developments, and its potential collaboration with Russia, will likely keep military analysts and world leaders on high alert.

US approves first sale of laser-guided precision rockets to Saudi Arabia
In another interesting development, the United States has officially approved the sale of laser-guided precision rockets to Saudi Arabia, marking the first such deal in a growing list of arms transactions between the two nations. The US State Department gave the green light to sell Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS) to Saudi Arabia for an estimated $100 million, according to a statement from the Pentagon.

The APKWS is a laser-guided rocket system designed to accurately target both airborne and surface threats. With its precision-guided capabilities, this system significantly reduces the risk of collateral damage, a major concern with traditional guided missile systems. According to the Pentagon, this sale is intended to enhance Saudi Arabia’s ability to counter emerging threats effectively while aligning with US foreign policy goals in the Gulf region.

A Cost-Effective Defense Solution

At an individual price of approximately $22,000 per unit, the APKWS presents a cost-effective option for neutralizing low-cost small armed drones, such as those deployed by Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Saudi Arabia has been engaged in ongoing conflict with the Houthis, who have frequently used drone warfare to target key infrastructure and military positions. The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency has formally notified Congress about the potential sale, which includes the procurement of 2,000 APKWS units, alongside training and associated equipment.

Despite the approval, the deal is not yet final. The notification to Congress signals the start of the process, but negotiations and contract finalizations are still pending. The primary contractor for the sale will be BAE Systems, a well-established defense manufacturer known for its advanced weapons technology.

US Arms Sales Suffer Setback After Ukraine Weapons Pause - Newsweek

Arms Sales at Record Highs

The approval of this sale comes at a time when US arms exports are reaching greater levels. In 2024, foreign military sales of US defense equipment surged by 29%, reaching a record-breaking $318.7 billion. This figure includes a wide range of arms deals, such as an $18.8 billion agreement for fighter jets to Israel, $23 billion worth of F-16 jets and upgrades for Turkey, and $2.5 billion in sales of M1A2 Abrams tanks to Romania.

According to the US State Department, arms sales serve as a crucial foreign policy tool, shaping global security dynamics. However, this surge in sales also coincides with heightened regional instability and escalating conflicts, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Controversy Over US Arms Sales

While the US government emphasizes a “holistic approach” to arms sales, factoring in political stability, human rights, and civilian protection, there has been growing criticism regarding the ethical implications of these deals. Investigative reports suggest that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken ignored explicit warnings about Israeli human rights violations and continued approving arms transfers to the country, potentially violating US laws governing military aid. The controversy deepens as more than 47,200 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, with extensive destruction caused by US-supplied weapons and military equipment.

The Biden administration has been accused of knowingly enabling Israel’s military actions despite growing international condemnation. In November 2024, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing Israel’s alleged attempts to permanently prevent Palestinians from returning to parts of Gaza. These accusations have raised concerns over the ethical considerations of US arms deals and their impact on global conflicts.

A Surge in Global Demand

Beyond the Middle East, demand for US military equipment has skyrocketed due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion has driven ministries of defense worldwide to ramp up their weapons stockpiles, with the US struggling to replenish its own supplies after providing extensive military aid to Kyiv. Defense contractors are under significant pressure to meet this surge, with increased production planned for artillery rounds, Patriot missile interceptors, and armored vehicles.

With the Saudi deal now in motion, the US continues to solidify its position as the world’s leading arms supplier. However, as conflicts escalate and international scrutiny intensifies, the ethical and strategic ramifications of these sales remain hotly debated.

The Russia-Ukraine Conundrum Continues With Ukraine Strike On Russian Strategic Bomber Airfield. What’s Russia’s Next Move And How The Baltic States Are Upping Their Game?

Consulting Editor
-
0
The Russia-Ukraine Conundrum Continues With Ukraine Strike On Russian Strategic Bomber Airfield. What’s Russia’s Next Move And How The Baltic States Are Upping Their Game?

Russia has accused Ukraine of violating a proposed ceasefire on energy sites by striking a Russian oil depot, the country’s foreign ministry said on Thursday. The ceasefire, initially pushed by the U.S., was meant to last 30 days, but according to Russia, Ukraine didn’t stick to the deal.

Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, stated that it was now up to the U.S. to hold Ukraine accountable. This comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin had reportedly agreed to the ceasefire in a call with U.S. President Donald Trump. However, the truce fell short of what the U.S. had originally wanted, a blanket 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine had already agreed to.

Meanwhile, tensions escalated further as Ukraine launched a drone attack on a major Russian airfield, located about 700 km (435 miles) from the front lines. The attack caused a massive explosion and fire, as confirmed by both Russian and Ukrainian officials. Verified footage showed the blast wrecking nearby houses. Russia’s defense ministry claimed its air defenses had shot down 132 Ukrainian drones over various regions.

The targeted base, Engels, is a key site for Russia’s Tupolev Tu-160 nuclear-capable bombers, also known as “White Swans.” Officials confirmed a Ukrainian drone attack in Engels, stating that an airfield was set ablaze and nearby residents had to be evacuated. However, he stopped short of mentioning whether the Engels airbase itself was hit.

What’s Next for Russia? And Who’s Bracing for Impact?
While the war continues, neighboring countries are growing increasingly anxious – especially the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. These small states, which share borders with Russia, have long relied on their NATO membership for security. But with Trump’s unpredictable stance on U.S. military support, their sense of safety is wavering.

Trump has made it clear that Europe should no longer assume American military backing is a given, something that hasn’t happened since World War Two. That uncertainty has left the Baltics on edge. They were once part of the Soviet Union before it collapsed, and Putin has never been shy about his belief that they still belong in Russia’s sphere of influence.

So, if Russia claims victory in Ukraine, could Putin set his sights on the Baltics next, especially if he suspects that Trump wouldn’t step in to stop him? It’s a question that’s keeping many in the region up at night.

Russia, Baltic Nations,

Russia’s Economy…

Many believe that even if a long-term ceasefire is eventually reached in Ukraine, it won’t necessarily mean an end to Russian aggression. European intelligence officials are increasingly saying that while it may not be imminent, conflict is no longer a distant possibility, in fact it could happen in three, five, or ten years.

Russia’s economy is now fully operating on a war footing. Nearly 40% of its federal budget is being allocated to defense and internal security, with much of the country’s resources funneled into military production.

Estonia Border, A Difficult Game

For Estonia, Russia’s presence is an ever-present concern, especially in the northern city of Narva, where the two countries are separated only by a narrow river. A medieval fortress on each side marks the divide, one flying the Russian flag, the other Estonian and between them stands a bridge, one of the last pedestrian crossings still open to Russia in Europe.

Estonian Border Police Chief Egert Belitsev says he is not surprised by Russia’s provocations and that the Russian threat is nothing new. Right now, tensions at the border are constant, with recorded incidents of Russian border guards removing buoys that mark the boundary under the cover of darkness.

Russia’s interference doesn’t stop there. The Estonian police rely on drones, helicopters, and aircraft for surveillance, all of which use GPS. However, they frequently encounter GPS jamming, making border patrol increasingly difficult.

On the Estonian side, a row of reinforced concrete anti-tank obstacles, known as dragon’s teeth, stands as a deterrent. While no one expects a large-scale tank invasion, Estonia fears that even a small military incursion could create significant instability.

The concern is heightened by Narva’s demographics, about 96% of the population are native Russian speakers, and many hold dual citizenship. Estonia fears that Putin could use the presence of a large ethnic Russian community as a pretext for intervention, a strategy he has previously employed in Georgia and Ukraine.

Reflecting these growing anxieties, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland announced this week that they are seeking parliamentary approval to withdraw from the international anti-personnel mine treaty. This move, they argue, would grant them “greater flexibility” in defending their borders. Lithuania has already withdrawn from a separate convention banning cluster bombs earlier this month.

Massive' election interference by Russia, Moldovan officials say in decisive presidential vote | World News | Sky News

What About Non-NATO Nations?

Camille Grand, former Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at NATO, believes that if Russia were to make another move post-Ukraine, it would likely target a non-NATO country like Moldova. The reason is less risk of international retaliation compared to a direct confrontation with a NATO member.

Historically, the Baltic nations, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, were seen as particularly vulnerable due to their geographical isolation from NATO’s core members in Western Europe. However, with Sweden and Finland now part of NATO, that vulnerability has significantly diminished. As Grand puts it, “The Baltic Sea has become the NATO Sea.”

Many suggest that the biggest risk of conflict with Russia might come from miscalculation rather than an intentional strike. Even if peace is brokered in Ukraine, they expect Russia to continue cyber warfare, misinformation campaigns, sabotage, and espionage across Europe.

NATO, A United Front?

The question that is doing the rounds – if Putin were to consider further expansion, he would first weigh NATO’s willingness to respond. Would the U.S., France, Italy, or the UK risk war with nuclear-armed Russia over a small region like Narva in Estonia?

There’s also the concern of a repeat of Russia’s 2014 Donbas strategy, where paramilitary forces fought without official Russian military identification, giving Putin plausible deniability. In such a scenario, would NATO step in, or would hesitation create an opportunity for Russia?

A limited Russian incursion, even if indirect, could still cause major destabilization in the Baltics, discouraging foreign investment and shaking up the region’s political and economic stability.

Adding to the uncertainty is the potential shift in U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump. If he were to reduce U.S. military presence in Europe or even pull out altogether, it could significantly alter the balance of power in the region.

Estonian Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur remains cautiously optimistic, emphasizing NATO’s collective defense principle: “We don’t know what the U.S. decision will be, but Europe must take more responsibility for itself. We have to believe in ourselves and trust our allies.”

He concludes with a question that weighs heavily on European leaders – “Are we together or not?”

Baltic States

Fortifying Against Russian Attack 

Poland recently declared that every adult man in the country must be battle-ready, with a new military training scheme set to be in place by the end of the year. Prime Minister Donald Tusk has also shown interest in a French proposal to extend its nuclear umbrella to European allies, anticipating the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from its nuclear commitments.

In Estonia, the urgency is reflected in a new law mandating that all new office and apartment buildings above a certain size include bunkers or bomb shelters. Tallinn has also committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP next year, while Lithuania is eyeing an even more aggressive target of 5-6%.

Poland is set to allocate 4.7% of GDP to defense, aiming to build Europe’s largest army, surpassing even the UK and France. For comparison, the U.S. spends roughly 3.7% of GDP on defense, while the UK currently spends 2.3%, with plans to increase this to 2.6% by 2027.

Meanwhile, going a step further, with mixed signals from Washington, Estonia is forging closer ties with European allies. The UK, in particular, plays a crucial role in this strategy. Britain has stationed 900 personnel in Estonia, its largest permanent overseas deployment, and pledged to increase its presence.

In Tapa, a key NATO base, British forces are entrenched in vast hangars filled with armored vehicles and Challenger Main Battle Tanks.

A British squadron leader stationed in Estonia, emphasized the region’s importance, stating, “I think NATO at large feels exposed. This is a critical flank for our collective defense. Everyone in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is acutely aware of the clear and present threat posed by the Russian Federation.”

While NATO’s response to an attack remains a political decision, Estonia is preparing for all scenarios. The country has been stress-testing new army bunkers along its border with Russia and heavily investing in drone warfare capabilities. Though its armed forces alone could not repel a full-scale Russian invasion, Estonia has been studying lessons from Ukraine’s resistance, hoping it won’t have to put them to the test.

The Last Bit

In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, these nations are leaving nothing to chance. “Putin-proofing” may not be an official term, but it aptly captures the spirit of the sweeping defense initiatives being enacted across NATO’s eastern front even as the Russia-Ukraine Conundrum remains unsolved.

Why Has Israel Resumed The War In Gaza, What Changed?

Consulting Editor
-
0
Why Has Israel Resumed The War In Gaza, What Changed?

Early Tuesday morning, Israel launched a heavy bombardment of Gaza, marking a dramatic escalation in the conflict. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas barely lasted two months before it completely fell apart.

Hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the strikes, making Tuesday the deadliest day in Gaza since the initial weeks of fighting that began in late 2023. By Wednesday, the Israeli military had announced it was conducting “targeted ground activities” and had partially reclaimed the Netzarim Corridor, a critical route that cuts through Gaza. Airstrikes continued across the strip, including in Al-Mawasi – a zone Israel had previously designated as “safe,” despite repeated attacks there.

Once again, Israel dropped leaflets ordering evacuations, forcing more Palestinians to flee. And in a televised address Tuesday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear: “From now on, negotiations will only take place under fire… This is just the beginning.”

Gaza

So, what triggered this escalation? Why Did Israel Resume the War?

The Israeli government has cited multiple reasons.

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant blamed Hamas for refusing to release hostages and for threatening Israeli troops and civilians. This justification isn’t new, it’s the same reason Israel has given since October 7, 2023, when Hamas first took hostages and launched attacks.

Israel’s broader war objectives remain unchanged:

–Bring home the remaining hostages.
–Dismantle Hamas’ political and military control over Gaza.

But there’s more to it. On Tuesday, Israel’s foreign ministry claimed the strikes were a response to Hamas rejecting two ceasefire proposals brokered by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. An Israeli official later described the attacks as the “first phase in a series of escalatory military actions” meant to pressure Hamas into releasing more hostages.

Domestic Politics Played a Huge Role
Beyond military objectives, Israeli domestic politics has been a major factor in resuming the war.

For months, Israel’s far-right factions have opposed the ceasefire, arguing that it amounted to surrendering to Hamas. Some hardliners even advocate for the complete removal of Palestinians from Gaza and the re-establishment of Israeli settlements.

Netanyahu’s political survival depends on keeping these far-right leaders in his coalition. One of them, Itamar Ben Gvir, had quit the government in protest of the ceasefire. Another, Bezalel Smotrich, threatened to do the same unless Israel resumed the war—an act that could have toppled Netanyahu’s government.

By Tuesday, Ben Gvir’s party, Jewish Power, agreed to rejoin Netanyahu’s coalition, a major political win for the Prime Minister.

At the same time, Netanyahu is facing backlash over his plan to fire the head of Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, a decision that has sparked calls for mass protests. Resuming the war in Gaza shifts attention away from that controversy.

Israel’s military leaders, now under a new IDF Chief of Staff, appear to be preparing for a long, drawn-out fight. As Smotrich put it: “This is a phased operation… And with God’s help, it will look completely different from what has been done so far.”

For Gaza, that means more airstrikes, more evacuations, and more devastation. For Netanyahu, it means political survival, at least for now.

Mediators seek a new deal to release more than half of the hostages in Gaza | WBHM 90.3

But What Really Happened to the Ceasefire Talks?
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which began on January 19, was supposed to have a second phase. Hamas expressed its willingness to negotiate this phase, as outlined in the original truce agreement.

Under the proposed terms, Israel would have withdrawn from Gaza entirely and agreed to a permanent end to the war, while Hamas would have released all remaining hostages. However, Israel rejected these conditions, insisting that hostages should continue to be released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners – without any commitment to end the war or withdraw troops.

Negotiations for this second phase were supposed to begin on February 3, but Israel ignored the deadline. In an unusual diplomatic shift, the U.S. began direct talks with Hamas, despite classifying the group as a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, Israeli negotiators held meetings in Qatar and Egypt, reportedly as recently as Sunday, to push discussions forward.

Israel claims that U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff proposed a temporary ceasefire extension through Ramadan and Passover in late April. However, this proposal did not include the commitments made in January. Hamas rejected it outright, accusing Netanyahu’s government of attempting to sabotage the original agreement.

The gap between the two sides remains vast.

Last week, Hamas offered to release American-Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, along with the bodies of four other dual nationals -presumably deceased American-Israelis -in exchange for Israel adhering to the original ceasefire terms agreed upon on January 17, 2025.

Israel dismissed the offer as “psychological warfare.”

Has the War Resumed in Full?
While Israel has been tight-lipped about operational details, its military announced it was conducting “extensive strikes on terror targets in Gaza.”

By Tuesday, Israel ordered thousands of Palestinians to evacuate large sections of Gaza, particularly areas near its border. This has fueled speculation that Israel is preparing for another full-scale ground invasion, potentially pushing deeper into urban centers, a move it has not previously undertaken.

Since the ceasefire began on January 19, Israeli forces had largely withdrawn to Gaza’s borders, but the latest developments suggest a strategy of escalating pressure on Hamas. An Israeli official confirmed that military operations will gradually intensify, with the goal of forcing Hamas to negotiate “under fire.”

Meanwhile, Hamas and its allies, who have killed hundreds of Israeli soldiers since October 7, 2023, have thus far upheld the ceasefire on their end. Israel has repeatedly claimed that rockets were launched from within Gaza, but it has not provided evidence, and Hamas has not fired any missiles into Israel during the two-month truce.

US official calls Gaza ceasefire talks in Doha the most constructive in months | Reuters

What Does This Mean for Gazans?
It is catastrophic.

Tuesday marked the deadliest day in Gaza since November 7, 2023, when 548 Palestinians were killed.

For over two weeks, Israel has blocked all humanitarian aid into Gaza, citing Hamas’ refusal to accept its revised ceasefire terms. With war resuming, conditions are set to deteriorate further.

Palestinians have once again been forced to flee. Israel’s military ordered civilians to abandon areas deemed unsafe, leaving them with almost nowhere to go.

Ahmad Al Shaafi, a Palestinian sheltering in Deir el-Balah, described the horror of the latest bombings:

“Don’t the Israelis have any promises they are committed to? It was a terrifying night. Only God is merciful. There are still two children under the rubble—one 26 years old and the other 5. We cannot retrieve them.”

Since Hamas’ October 7 attack, Israeli military strikes have killed nearly 49,000 Palestinians—the majority of them civilians—according to Gaza’s health ministry.

Philippe Lazzarini, the UN’s top official on Palestinian affairs, warned:

“Fueling ‘hell on earth’ by resuming the war will only bring more despair & suffering.”

What Does This Mean for the Hostages?
The resumption of war is a devastating setback for hostage negotiations.

There are still 59 hostages in Gaza, with only 24 believed to be alive.

Their families have reacted with anger and despair.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum issued a scathing statement:

“The Israeli government chose to give up on the hostages. We are shocked, angry, and terrified by the deliberate dismantling of the process to return our loved ones from the terrible captivity of Hamas.”

What Role Did the U.S. Play?
The United States was deeply involved behind the scenes.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that “the Trump administration and the White House were consulted by the Israelis on their attacks in Gaza.”

President Donald Trump had previously taken credit for brokering the initial ceasefire, but he has also openly supported Israel’s decision to resume military operations.

In a fiery statement earlier this month, Trump declared: “I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job. Not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!”

With war escalating and diplomatic efforts crumbling, Gaza now faces one of its darkest chapters yet.

 

 

 

 

Trump Floats The Idea Of The U.S. Running Ukraine’s Power Plants As UK Gears Up For Peace Talks

Consulting Editor
-
0
Trump Floats The Idea Of The U.S. Running Ukraine’s Power Plants As UK Gears Up For Peace Talks

In a turn of events that has grabbed global attention, U.S. President Donald Trump had what he called a “very good” hour-long phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The call, which came a day after Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin, touched on everything from potential ceasefires to, interestingly, the idea of the U.S. managing Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

Zelensky, optimistic after the conversation, later stated that he believes “lasting peace can be achieved this year” under Trump’s leadership. But while the White House acknowledged that the topic of nuclear plants came up, Zelensky clarified that the discussion was only about the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia facility.

However, does this symbolize a shift in tone?

This conversation between Trump and Zelensky stands in just the opposite spectrum to their last in-person meeting at the White House. That encounter was tense, with Trump accusing Zelensky of not showing enough gratitude for U.S. support and even warning him that he was “gambling with World War Three.” That interaction led to a brief suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. However, diplomatic efforts eventually smoothed things over, and a ceasefire agreement was reached on March 11.

The recent phone call was the first time Trump and Zelensky had spoken since that Oval Office meeting. Their respective teams have been actively working in the background, though, with U.S. and Ukrainian officials meeting in Saudi Arabia to negotiate a proposed 30-day ceasefire. While Ukraine and the U.S. have backed the idea, Putin outright rejected the proposal when speaking to Trump earlier this week.

Partial Ceasefire on the Table
During his conversation with Trump, Zelensky reportedly said he was open to a partial ceasefire focused on protecting critical infrastructure. This would mean a halt in attacks on energy grids, railways, and ports, facilities that are vital to Ukraine’s economy and daily life. However, he made it clear that Ukraine would retaliate if Russia violated the terms.

“I understand that until there is a formal agreement, everything will continue to fly,” Zelensky said, referencing ongoing drone and missile strikes.

Trump, meanwhile, took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to emphasize that the call was meant to align Ukraine and Russia “in terms of their requests and needs.” He also suggested that ceasefire efforts were progressing.

Trump

U.S. Involvement in Ukraine’s Energy Sector?
One of the more surprising topics from the call was the potential role of the U.S. in running Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later released a statement confirming that the two leaders had discussed “Ukraine’s electrical supply and nuclear power plants,” with Trump suggesting that “the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise.”

Rubio went even further, stating, “American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy security.”

Zelensky later clarified that the discussion focused only on Zaporizhzhia, which remains under Russian control. However, the idea of foreign ownership of Ukraine’s power plants is sure to raise eyebrows, both in Kyiv and internationally.

Peace Talks and Ongoing Strikes
The latest developments will likely come as a relief for Zelensky, who described his talk with Trump as “positive, frank, and very substantive.” He later reiterated on X (formerly Twitter) that he believes peace is possible with American leadership.

Despite these diplomatic efforts, tensions on the ground remain high. Zelensky acknowledged that Putin is unlikely to agree to a full ceasefire as long as Ukrainian troops continue operations in Russia’s western Kursk region, a hotspot of conflict since Kyiv launched an offensive there last August.

Both sides had previously agreed to stop targeting energy infrastructure. However, accusations of continued strikes have been thrown around freely, with each side blaming the other. Just hours after Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, Ukraine and Russia launched fresh attacks. Reports emerged that Kyiv had struck an oil depot in Russia’s Krasnodar region with a drone, while Ukraine alleged that Russia had targeted hospitals.

Prisoner Swap Amidst the Chaos
Despite ongoing hostilities, Ukraine and Russia managed to carry out a significant prisoner exchange on Wednesday. Each side released 175 prisoners of war (POWs), with Russia reportedly including 22 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers in the deal.

Zelensky hailed the exchange as “one of the largest,” stressing that even amidst war, moments of diplomacy remain possible.

UK 'ready' to send peacekeepers to Ukraine, PM Starmer says – POLITICO
UK Gears Up for Ukraine Peacekeeping Talks Amid Rising Tensions
Meanwhile, the UK is stepping up its role in the Ukraine conflict by hosting a meeting on Thursday, bringing together senior military officials from more than 20 nations in what’s being called a “coalition of the willing.” The goal is to hash out plans for a Western-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

The meeting will take place at the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, with top brass from Britain, France, and other allied nations discussing how such a force could be deployed. However, turning these discussions into action won’t be easy.

The Roadblocks Ahead
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it crystal clear that Moscow won’t stand for any NATO troops, peacekeeping or otherwise, on Ukrainian soil. And it’s not just Russia causing headaches. The US, a key player in any military operation, is hesitating to provide the much-needed air cover that many coalition members say is essential for the mission’s success.

Starmer’s Big Day of Diplomacy & Defense
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is expected to attend part of the Northwood meeting, but first, he’s making a stop in Barrow-in-Furness, home to Britain’s nuclear submarine program. There, he’ll lay the keel of HMS Dreadnought, a next-generation nuclear-armed submarine. Starmer is using the visit to illustrate how defense spending can fuel local economies, calling Barrow a “blueprint” for national security investments.

Adding to the day’s symbolism, Starmer will also announce that King Charles has approved Barrow being granted the honorary title of “Royal” in recognition of its contribution to UK defense.

A Strong Nuclear Message to Russia
Before heading to the peacekeeping talks, Starmer also made a trip to Scotland to meet the crew of HMS Vanguard, one of Britain’s nuclear submarines patrolling the North Atlantic. He didn’t mince words when it came to the UK’s nuclear capabilities.

“The Kremlin understands and respects our nuclear deterrent because it’s independent and credible,” Starmer told reporters. “And it most certainly is.”

Defense Secretary John Healey, who accompanied Starmer, reinforced the message, calling the UK’s nuclear deterrent “the ultimate guarantor of our national security and that of our NATO allies.”

The Last Bit
Technical teams from Ukraine and the U.S. are set to meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to continue ceasefire discussions. Meanwhile, the UK is preparing to host a new round of Ukraine peacekeeping talks, which could be another crucial step in the complex process of negotiating an end to the war.

However, with both Ukraine and Russia still launching attacks and Putin unwilling to accept a full ceasefire without an end to Western military aid, peace remains a distant goal.

As always, when it comes to Trump, diplomacy is never dull. With Russia standing firm against NATO troops in Ukraine and the US showing reluctance on air support, the path to deploying peacekeepers remains uncertain. But the fact that high-level discussions are moving toward an operational phase suggests Western leaders are serious about stepping up their involvement – one way or another.

For now, all eyes will be on Northwood to see if this coalition of the willing can turn words into action.

Putin ‘Playing A Game On Ukraine’; Is The German Defense Minister Right?

Consulting Editor
-
2
Putin ‘Playing A Game On Ukraine’; Is The German Defense Minister Right?

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of “playing a game” with Ukraine, denouncing Moscow’s continued assaults despite recent diplomatic overtures. His remarks come in response to Russia’s overnight attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, just hours after a high-profile phone call between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump.

“We’ve seen that attacks on civilian infrastructure have not eased at all in the first night after this supposedly groundbreaking, great phone call,” Pistorius said in a televised interview. He also criticized the Kremlin’s insistence that a total halt to Western military and intelligence support for Ukraine should be a precondition for peace, calling it “unacceptable.”

“This is very transparent,” Pistorius added. “Putin wants to ensure that Ukraine’s backers are unable to support it in defending itself if another attack occurs, either during or after a ceasefire.”

Russia ‘Doesn’t Want to Make Any Concessions,’ Says EU Foreign Policy Chief

Echoing Pistorius’ skepticism, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that Moscow could not be trusted. This skepticism follows the Kremlin’s temporary agreement to halt attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, a pledge made during Putin’s call with Trump.

“If you read the two readouts from the call, it is clear that … Russia does not really want to make any kind of concessions,” Kallas told reporters in Brussels.

The phone call, initiated by Trump, was centered around a simple yet ambitious demand – a 30-day ceasefire on land, sea, and air, an agreement Ukraine had already signed up to as a preliminary step toward peace. However, rather than a firm commitment, Trump received ambiguous responses, partial offers, and, most notably, a striking demand from Putin that would effectively weaken Ukraine’s position in the conflict.

According to the Kremlin’s statement following the call, the “key condition” for resolving the war is “the complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv.”

If accepted, this would mean not only an end to U.S. military assistance but also a halt to support from Britain, France, and other allies. This would also disrupt post-conflict security plans, such as the proposed “reassurance force” aimed at guaranteeing Ukraine’s long-term security by securing its ports, airports, and utility infrastructure.

Such a demand is impossible for Ukraine to accept. After three years of war, with tens of thousands of casualties and approximately 20% of its territory under Russian control, Kyiv knows it cannot regain lost ground through sheer military force. However, cutting off Western support would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression, rendering any peace deal meaningless.

Putin,

A Ceasefire or a Strategic Ploy?

Over the past three years, Russia has relentlessly bombed Ukraine’s power plants, leaving the country with little energy generation capacity beyond its nuclear facilities which is too risky even for Moscow’s forces to attack. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been conducting destabilizing strikes on Russian refineries, a campaign that is still ongoing. While any reduction in hostilities is welcome, the question the world is asking – is Putin’s latest ceasefire move a genuine effort toward peace or a calculated maneuver?

Orysia Lutsevych, a Ukraine expert at the Chatham House think tank, argues that Putin’s offer is more about strategic positioning than genuine goodwill. With the arrival of spring, Ukraine does not gain much from a 30-day halt on energy attacks. She describes Putin’s offer as “a kind of goodwill gesture to keep Trump interested and get a bigger prize: [the] US abandoning Ukraine.”

Despite skepticism, the White House announced that both sides would begin “technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire.” Trump himself emphasized that the discussions were happening “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a complete ceasefire,” though the Kremlin’s version of events downplayed this aspect.

The Kremlin was quick to frame the negotiations as a bilateral matter, excluding Ukraine from direct participation. The Russian readout stated that “the leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts to achieve a Ukrainian settlement in a bilateral mode,” a move that conveniently restores some legitimacy to Russia while sidelining Kyiv. For Ukraine and its allies, this raises concerns that Russia’s real aim is to detach the U.S. from Europe, creating fractures in Western support.

Amid these geopolitical maneuverings, a rather unexpected agreement emerged, Trump and Putin agreed to organize ice hockey matches between American and Russian leagues. While the symbolism of sports diplomacy is notable, it is hardly a substitute for genuine peace efforts.

Six Countries That Could Mediate Possible Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks - Newsweek

Further Talks in Saudi Arabia, Will It Be A Step Toward Peace or Another Stalemate?

U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed that negotiations will continue on Sunday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with both sides “in a relatively short distance to full ceasefire.” Speaking to Fox News, he suggested that Russia has also agreed to terms on “the Black Sea maritime aspect of a ceasefire,” and expressed hope that Ukraine would support the initiative. However, it remains unclear whether Kyiv will be invited to participate in these discussions.

Following the Trump-Putin call, the Russian government claimed that Putin had “responded constructively” to Trump’s proposals and agreed to further negotiations to “elaborate specific details.” Yet, there are significant concerns about the conditions Russia is trying to impose, particularly its demand that Ukraine be prevented from rearming during the ceasefire period.

When asked whether there would be reciprocity in these arrangements, Witkoff admitted, “I think the devil is in the details. We’ve got a team going to Saudi Arabia, led by our national security adviser and our secretary of state, and I think we’ve got to figure out those details.”

As discussions continue, the world watches closely. Is this the beginning of a path to peace, or just another chapter in Russia’s strategic playbook?

What Is America’s Big Game? Trump Who Maintains “Will Never Start A War”—Why Bombard Southern Yemen? Is This Trump’s Oil War?

Consulting Editor
-
1
What Is America’s Big Game? Trump Who Maintains “Will Never Start A War”—Why Bombard Southern Yemen? Is This Trump’s Oil War?

Donald Trump has always maintained that he would never be the one to start a war. “I have nothing to do with wars. American troops should not get involved in external conflicts,” he has often claimed. Yet, in a surprising U-turn, he has ordered bombings in southern Yemen, home to the Houthis.

On March 18, 2025, President Donald Trump, authorized a series of airstrikes targeting Houthi-controlled regions in Yemen. These strikes resulted in significant casualties, including the deaths of several Houthi leaders and fighters.

The U.S. Defense Department said the strikes hit more than 30 sites and involved fighter jets launched from a carrier in the Red Sea. The Houthis, an Iran-aligned rebel group, have vowed retaliation, “We will hit you back.” Trump has also accused Tehran of providing unprecedented support to the Houthis. But why is this location so important, and what is actually happening here?

The Strategic Importance of Bab el-Mandeb

This area is called the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, located near the Gulf of Aden. Close by is Djibouti, where major global powers – including China, Japan, Italy, France, the UK, and Saudi Arabia – have established military bases. This makes the region one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is also a critical maritime chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. It serves as a vital conduit for global trade, with a substantial portion of the world’s oil and natural gas shipments passing through its narrow passage. In 2018, an estimated 6.2 million barrels per day of petroleum products transited this strait, underscoring its importance to global energy markets.

War, Donald Trump, Houthis

Why Has Donald Trump Suddenly Woken Up to This Area? What Is His Agenda?

Since returning to power, Trump has been aggressively pushing his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda, not just within the U.S. but globally. A key part of this strategy is directing countries to buy American oil, India included. However, there is a logistical issue – the U.S. is geographically far from major energy-consuming nations like India and China.

India and China, are two of the world’s top five economies with massive energy needs. Their primary oil suppliers include Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Oman and the bulk of their energy supply comes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Trump Game -Disrupting the Middle East to Control Global Oil Markets

One cannot help but wonder, by bombing Houthis in southern Yemen, Trump may be setting the stage for a calculated chain reaction. The Houthis will not attack America; it’s too far away. Instead, they are more likely to target Israel or U.S. military bases in the Gulf of Aden. This is not speculation; a missile was already launched toward Israel but ended up hitting Egypt. Israel is now investigating whether it was a misfire or an intended attack.

So, is this Trump’s master plan? By destabilizing the Middle East, the U.S. can maintain leverage over global oil markets. A few bombs in this highly weaponized region can set it ablaze, triggering multiple consequences –

Escalation of Regional Conflict: The Houthis have threatened retaliation, which could destabilize the already volatile Middle East region. Potential targets for such retaliation could include U.S. allies like Israel or strategic military installations in the Gulf of Aden. Indeed, there have been concerns about possible Houthi attacks on vessels such as the British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales as it transits the Red Sea.

Impact on Global Oil Markets: Disruptions in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could have significant repercussions on global oil supplies. Any threat to the security of this passage could lead to increased shipping and insurance costs, thereby driving up oil prices. Such instability could compel nations heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, like India and China, to seek alternative sources, potentially benefiting U.S. oil exports.

Geopolitical Maneuvering: By engaging militarily in Yemen, the U.S. may be signaling its intent to counter Iranian influence in the region, given Iran’s support for the Houthis. This move could be interpreted as part of a broader strategy to assert control over critical energy corridors and reassert U.S. dominance in global oil markets.

North Korea fires ballistic missile into eastern sea, South Korea military says | AP News

North Korea Slams U.S. Strikes on Yemen, Calls It a Violation of Sovereignty

Meanwhile, North Korea has strongly condemned the recent U.S. strikes on Yemen, calling them an outright violation of international law and the country’s sovereignty. According to state media KCNA, Pyongyang’s ambassador to Yemen, Ma Dong Hui, said Washington’s actions were unjustifiable.

Ma, who is also North Korea’s envoy to Egypt, accused the U.S. of “indiscriminately” attacking civilians and infrastructure, using its air and naval forces, including an aircraft carrier.

“This military attack is a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, as well as an infringement on another nation’s territorial sovereignty that cannot be justified in any way,” Ma stated. “I strongly condemn and reject the reckless military actions of the United States, which is fixated on advancing its geopolitical ambitions.”

Will U.S. Strikes on the Houthis Deter Iran or Fuel More Conflict?

The latest U.S. attacks on the Houthis in Yemen were the most intense since joint U.S.-U.K. air operations began in January 2024, and the first under President Donald Trump’s new administration. Sending a direct warning to Tehran, Trump declared that “every shot fired by the Houthis will be viewed as a shot fired from Iran.”

This stance is unsurprising. Since the October 7, 2023, attacks, the Houthis have gained prominence within Iran’s Axis of Resistance, carrying out hundreds of strikes on Red Sea shipping and launching drones and missiles at Israel.

Meanwhile, other Axis members, Hamas and Hezbollah, have suffered major setbacks. Israel has successfully targeted their leadership, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria in December dealt another blow to Tehran. Even Iran itself has been hit hard, its missile and drone attacks on Israel last year were largely ineffective, while Israeli retaliatory strikes destroyed key military assets.

In contrast, the Houthis have emerged stronger. Yemen’s fractured government has allowed them to consolidate power, and their attacks in the Red Sea have given them global relevance. Their operations, framed as support for Palestinians, have embarrassed Arab governments that are wary of direct involvement.

However, treating the Houthis as mere Iranian proxies oversimplifies the reality. While they have ties to Tehran, their actions are also shaped by their own political and military goals. Overestimating Iran’s control over the Houthis could lead to flawed policy decisions and unintended consequences.

Iran supreme leader urges support for Yemen's Houthi rebels | The Seattle Times

Iran’s Role in Houthi Strength

While the fact is that without Iran’s backing, the Houthis wouldn’t be as powerful as they are today; their relationship with Tehran really took off after the Arab Spring, as part of Iran’s strategy to push back against Saudi Arabia. Even after the Saudi-backed truce in April 2022, Iran hasn’t slowed down its support. If anything, weapons, fuel, and tech smuggling to the Houthis has only ramped up, while the group keeps strengthening its homegrown military capabilities.

For Iran, this is a win-win situation. Having a strong ally right on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep gives Tehran a strategic advantage. Iran’s long game is to make sure Houthi power becomes more entrenched and institutionalized, all while keeping a low profile and maintaining just enough distance to claim plausible deniability.

In practice, this means Iran wants the Houthis to play a bigger role in the region. That’s why it’s been helping them expand their influence in places like Iraq and the Horn of Africa.

Not Always on the Same Page

That said, the Houthis and Iran don’t always see eye to eye. The Houthis tend to take way bigger risks than Tehran. After October 7, Iran was hesitant about the Houthis attacking Red Sea shipping, worried it could escalate tensions, but the Houthis went ahead anyway. Their confidence comes from years of surviving Saudi and Emirati airstrikes, along with their aggressive ideology. Iran, on the other hand, usually prefers calculated provocations over outright confrontation, especially with the U.S. and Israel.

This difference in approach makes Tehran a bit uneasy about the Houthis’ bold moves in the Red Sea. There’s a real fear that the group could drag Iran into another round of violence. And if the fragile Yemen truce collapses, Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE would likely resume, putting the region on edge and potentially undoing the recent thaw in Iran-Saudi relations.

Trump 2.0 and the New Tensions

Enter Trump, his administration’s decision to slap the Foreign Terrorist Organization, FTO label on the Houthis in early 2025 has already triggered a reaction. The Houthis have warned they’ll strike back against anyone enforcing the designation.

If this leads to a fuel blockade at Hudaydah port (one of their main revenue sources), expect them to abandon their de facto truce with Saudi Arabia. It would also push them further into informal financial networks, think money exchanges, Hawala systems, and even crypto investments.

Worst case is that an open conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia reignites. Both sides are trying to avoid this, but if the U.S. starts using Saudi airspace to bomb Yemen, things could spiral quickly.

Will U.S. Strikes Work? Probably Not.

The expanded U.S. air and naval attacks aren’t likely to weaken the Houthis much. They’ve been playing this game for years and know how to disappear into Yemen’s rugged terrain when needed. Their military infrastructure is already spread across the country, including in crowded urban areas.

Instead of deterring them, these strikes will probably push them to ramp up attacks on Western shipping and resume drone and missile launches at Israel. And don’t expect Iran to hit back directly, it’s not their style. If the strikes were meant to pressure Tehran into negotiations, that plan’s likely to backfire. Instead, Iran will probably double down on its support for the Houthis, since they’re the only Axis member still standing strong.

A Smarter U.S. Strategy?

If the Trump administration really wants to weaken the Houthis, it should focus on long-term peace efforts in Yemen. Strengthening the internationally recognized Presidential Leadership Council – both politically and militarily -would be a step in the right direction. Without a strong anti-Houthi coalition, U.S. policies might just make Yemen’s fragmentation even worse.

Washington also needs to step up efforts to stop weapons and fuel smuggling from Iran and Iraq, especially via the sea, and cut off the Houthis’ financial interests outside Yemen.

Most importantly, the U.S. shouldn’t act alone in Yemen, it needs to coordinate with Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These countries have already learned the hard way what doesn’t work when dealing with the Houthis. A more collaborative approach could prevent yet another endless cycle of conflict.

The Systemic Risks at Play in the Oil War Fallout | Disruption Banking

The Last Bit. Under The Covers….Is This the Beginning of Trump’s Oil War?

Trump’s actions in Yemen appear to be more than just counterterrorism; they might be a move to manipulate global oil markets in favor of the U.S. By creating turmoil in an already fragile region, he could drive up costs, making American energy exports more attractive while keeping geopolitical rivals on edge.

If this is indeed the strategy, the world should brace for further instability, skyrocketing energy prices, and a Middle East on the brink of another prolonged crisis – not favoring anyone!

1...131415...58Page 14 of 58

Global Strategic and Defence News (GSDN) started its foray on November 11, 2022 as a forum to provide accurate analysis on geopolitical and defence issues that concern the world at large

Quick Links

Follow Us

Copyright © 2022 .All Rights Reserved . Global Strategic Defence News

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
100% Free SEO Tools - Tool Kits PRO