Sunday
July 13, 2025
Home Blog Page 17

Trump Finally Concedes, Peace Is Now Russia’s Prerogative, Even As Putin Makes An Unexpected Visit To Kursk And Vows To ‘Defeat The Enemy’!

Consulting Editor
-
0
Trump Finally Concedes, Peace Is Now Russia’s Prerogative, Even As Putin Makes An Unexpected Visit To Kursk And Vows To ‘Defeat The Enemy’!

Russian President Vladimir Putin made an unannounced visit to the occupied Kursk region on Wednesday, a move that shows Moscow’s growing confidence as its forces close in on Ukraine’s last strategic bargaining chip. The visit comes as the Kremlin weighs a US-backed 30-day ceasefire proposal amid rapid Russian advances on the battlefield.

Dressed in military fatigues in footage aired by Russian state television, Putin addressed frontline troops, reiterating Moscow’s goal of achieving the “complete liberation” of Kursk. This marks his first trip to the western Russian region since Ukraine’s surprise incursion there last year, a campaign that initially caught Moscow off guard but has since crumbled under sustained Russian pressure.

Ceasefire Talks Hang in the Balance

Putin’s highly choreographed appearance appeared aimed at rallying morale among Russian forces, who have reportedly reclaimed most of the territory seized by Ukrainian troops in August. The visit also coincided with fresh diplomatic efforts from Washington, as US President Donald Trump confirmed on Wednesday that US representatives were en route to Russia to discuss the ceasefire deal.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later told reporters that Putin was “carefully studying” the US proposal and would await a formal briefing from American officials in the coming days.

Moscow’s Gains and Ukraine’s Retreat

Meanwhile, Russian forces appear to be tightening their grip on Kursk, further diminishing Ukraine’s negotiating leverage. Russian General Valery Gerasimov, meeting with Putin during the visit, claimed that Russian forces had already recaptured 86% of the territory taken by Ukraine and had surrounded the remaining holdouts. He also stated that 430 Ukrainian soldiers had been captured, while others were either retreating or encircled.

Kyiv’s ambitions of using Kursk as a bargaining chip in future peace talks had “totally collapsed,” Gerasimov declared.

For Ukraine, the situation is growing more precarious. On Wednesday, Ukraine’s top general Oleksandr Syrskyi acknowledged that Ukrainian forces had been pushed out of multiple settlements in the region, calling the withdrawals “tactical retreats” to “more favorable positions.” Syrskyi also revealed that Russian airstrikes had devastated parts of Kursk, with the town of Sudzha “almost completely destroyed” by Russian bombardment.

Putin

Russia’s Next Steps and US Diplomatic Efforts

During his visit, Putin not only called for the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk to be expelled but also floated the idea of establishing a “buffer zone” along the Russia-Ukraine border, potentially signaling Moscow’s intent to push deeper into Ukrainian territory.

His remarks come as the Kremlin signals that the final phase of the operation is underway. Peskov told state media outlet TASS on Thursday that Russian forces were in the “endgame” of clearing Ukrainian forces from the region.

With negotiations in flux, US officials are scrambling to keep diplomatic channels open.

Trump’s Special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is set to visit Russia later this week, though it remains unclear whether he will meet with Putin. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged ongoing discussions, noting that talks were taking place “on the phone and in person with some of our representatives over the next couple of days.”
Putin Eyes Buffer Zone in Sumy as Russia Tightens Grip on Kursk

Speaking to Russian troops during his visit to the recently recaptured areas, Putin emphasized the need to restore security along the border, describing the situation as one requiring immediate action.

“The situation along the state border must be restored,” Putin said, calling for a swift and decisive operation to neutralize the remaining Ukrainian forces still fighting in Kursk. “Our task in the near future, in the shortest possible timeframe, is to decisively defeat the enemy entrenched in the Kursk region.”

The comments signal that Moscow is not merely aiming to reclaim lost territory but is also considering expanding its military presence deeper into Ukrainian land, a move that could further escalate the conflict.

Russia’s Rapid Gains in Kursk
Putin’s visit came as Russian forces celebrated their most significant gains in months.

One of the most notable victories was the recapture of Sudzha, a strategically important town near the Ukrainian border. Russian state media and military bloggers published images of Russian soldiers raising the country’s tricolor flag in the town square, confirming Moscow’s control over the area.

Zelenskyy arrives in Saudi Arabia as US voices hope for Ukraine peace talks | World News - Business Standard

Ukraine’s Stubborn Resistance
Despite these setbacks, Ukraine has vowed to continue fighting in Kursk for as long as necessary. While Deep State, a Ukrainian conflict-tracking outlet, acknowledged that Kyiv’s forces no longer controlled Sudzha, reports of continued clashes on the town’s outskirts suggest that Ukraine is not giving up without a fight.

Ukraine’s top military commander described the battle for Sudzha as “intense,” while a Ukrainian military blogger known as Skadovskyi Defender confirmed that Ukrainian troops were withdrawing from Kursk but promised that heavy strikes on Sudzha would continue.

This suggests that Ukraine may shift toward a strategy of sustained aerial and artillery attacks, rather than attempting to hold ground against the advancing Russian forces.

Putin’s Stance on Captured Ukrainian Fighters
In a notable escalation of rhetoric, Putin declared that foreign fighters captured in Kursk while fighting for Ukraine would not be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. He also labeled Ukrainian soldiers captured in the region as “terrorists.”

This statement raises serious concerns over the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) and signals Moscow’s hardline approach toward those fighting against Russian forces.

Trump Warns Putin of ‘Very Bad’ Consequences

Meanwhile, amid renewed diplomatic efforts to halt the Russia-Ukraine war, US President Donald Trump has issued a strong warning to Vladimir Putin, cautioning against rejecting a proposed ceasefire agreement. Trump suggested that while his priority was peace, he was prepared to take severe financial measures if Russia refused to comply.

“I can do things financially that would be very bad for Russia. I don’t want to do that because I want to get peace,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. He confirmed that US officials were set to visit Russia to discuss the possibility of a 30-day ceasefire and broader peace talks.

The push for negotiations follows extensive discussions in Saudi Arabia, where Ukraine reportedly agreed to a temporary truce, placing the decision in Moscow’s hands. Trump remained cautiously optimistic, stating, “Hopefully, we can get a ceasefire from Russia.”

Washington Seeks Unconditional Russian Compliance
While Trump hinted at diplomatic maneuvering, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a harder stance, insisting that Russia must accept the ceasefire without conditions.

“If their response is ‘yes,’ we know we’ve made real progress. If it’s ‘no,’ then their intentions are clear,” Rubio said while en route to a G7 meeting in Canada.

Meanwhile, in a rare development, the CIA and Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service held their first direct communication in years. At the same time, defense ministers from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Poland convened in Paris to discuss continued military and economic support for Ukraine and the ceasefire proposal.

Russia-Ukraine war latest updates: West cautious after drone attacks in Russia - The Washington Post

Russia Holds Its Ground, Ukraine Remains Skeptical
Despite growing international pressure, Russia has yet to issue an official response. However, Moscow’s foreign ministry previously dismissed the idea of a temporary ceasefire, arguing that it would merely allow Ukraine to regroup militarily.

Putin, who recently visited troops in the strategic Kursk region, reiterated that Russia remains committed to achieving its military objectives. “All combat tasks will be fulfilled,” he assured Russian forces.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, voiced doubts about Russia’s sincerity, suggesting that Moscow has no real intention of ending the war. Speaking to AFP, he remarked, “Everything depends on whether Russia wants peace or to continue killing people.”

Escalating Hostilities. Ukraine Faces Pressure
The diplomatic uncertainty comes as Ukraine faces mounting battlefield setbacks. Russian advances in the east and south have forced Ukrainian troops to retreat from several key positions.

In a show of military strength, Moscow reported that its forces had shot down 77 Ukrainian drones, just days after Kyiv launched its largest-ever drone attack on Moscow in the war’s three-year history.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv and Kherson, suffered fresh Russian strikes, with reports of multiple casualties.

The Last Bit 
With the ceasefire proposal now in Moscow’s hands, the next few days will determine whether diplomacy can achieve a breakthrough or if the war will continue unabated.

If Russia refuses, Trump has hinted at economic retaliation, potentially signaling a shift toward a more aggressive financial strategy against Moscow.

For now, the world watches as the delicate balance between war and diplomacy plays out.

Russia’s Nuclear Program

GSDN
-
1
Russia’s Nuclear Program

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

President Vladimir Putin and Russian nuclear weapons: source Internet

Russia is the largest nuclear weapons state, and a depository state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under which a safeguards agreement has been in force since 1985. The Additional Protocol was ratified in 2007. However, Russia takes the view that voluntary application of IAEA safeguards is not meaningful for a nuclear weapons state and so they are not generally applied. Russia has the highest number of Weapon of Mass Destruction, making Russia one of the largest threat in the world when they come in to a war scenario. Russia did not attend the first meeting of states parties to the TPNW, held in Vienna in June 2022, putting Russia under the suspicion for the nuclear development.

History

The nuclear program of Russia started on August 1949, when the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear weapon in Kazakhstan. After that U.S. and Russia raced to compete for the missiles testing and space technology for a decade. In 1962, Cuban Missile Crisis happened, which is considered as the Crisis that brought world closest to a nuclear war. Just after a year, in 1963, ‘Limited Test Ban Treaty’ was established in which a high-speed “hotline” connecting the leaders of the Soviet and U.S. governments established in order to prevent any future nuclear war.

The pursuit of nuclear weapons by more states lead to calls for an international framework to halt proliferation. After multiple drafts, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on July 1, 1968, agreeing to pursue general disarmament. China and France did not join until 1992. And all the other countries which became nuclear power after U.S. and Russia, remained outside of the treaty, including India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Sudan.

Russia’s Nuclear Technology

Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for an expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology. It is committed to closing the fuel cycle, and sees fast reactors as key to this. Rosenergoatom is the only Russian utility operating nuclear power plants. It was established in 1992 and was reconstituted as a utility in 2001, as a division of Rosatom. Russia uses about 5500 tonnes of natural uranium per year. Russia’s last plutonium production reactor started up in 1964 and was finally closed down in 2010. Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology and is consolidating this through its Proryv (‘Breakthrough’) project.

Russia’s first nuclear power plant, and the first in the world to produce electricity in 1954, was the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor. Russia has 36 of total reactors capable of producing 26,802 MWe, from which, 6 reactors are under construction which will be making 3,901 MWe, and 11 reactors are shutdown which used to making 4,893 MWe. Total consumption of electricity in Russia is around 808 TWh, Nuclear energy contributes around 216 TWh which make 19% of the countries requirement.

Exports of nuclear goods and services are a major Russian policy and economic objective. Russia is currently involved in the construction of about 20 reactors abroad. Russia is exporting plants to meet world energy demand for some 300 GWe of new nuclear capacity before 2030. Early in 2016 Rosatom said that Russia’s GDP gained three roubles for every one rouble invested in building nuclear power plants domestically, as well as enhanced “socio-economic development of the country as a whole.”

Rosatom made plans to build around 8 floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs) by 2015. Rosatom signed the contract in 2008 and started the construction in 2009. The KLT-40S is a version of the icebreaker reactor for floating nuclear power plants which runs on low-enriched uranium (<20%) and hence has a bigger core and shorter refuelling interval of 3-4.5 years and with the Operational lifetime of 40 years. Although, the construction was delayed multiple times due to military, political and economic problems. Fuel loading was completed in October 2018, with startup in December 2019, and commercial operation in May 2020.

Many countries came forward to sign a contract with Russia. For instance, China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) from China signed a contract for FNPP with Rosatom in 2014, although it was not followed through completely. Similarly, in 2015 Indonesia’s BATAN signed an agreement with Rosatom on construction of FNPPs, but nothing further has been announced. Also, in 2024, the Republic of Guinea signed an MOU with Russia for the development of Floating Power Plant to supply electricity in the African country.

Missiles

Russia possesses approximately 5,580 nuclear weapons, which can be launched from Aircraft, Submarines and Land Based Missiles. It is also believed that Russia has nearly 1200 nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement and around 1,822 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. In 2022, Russia spent an estimated US$ 9.6 billion to build and maintain its nuclear forces. Russia possess around 521 of Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. Russia inherited nearly 35,000 nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR. However, under the treaty of New START Treaty they limited the number up to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads. But, in 2022, Russia announced it was suspending its participation in the New START Treaty and the U.S. has claimed Russia is in non-compliance with its treaty obligations. According to the September 2022 New START declaration, Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on 540 strategic delivery systems including ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers.

Both Russia and the United States have committed to adhering treaty limits until 2026. The U.S. intelligence community assesses that, as of December 2022, Russia also maintains an arsenal of 1000-2000 non-strategic nuclear warheads not limited by the New START Treaty. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates that Russia’s military stockpile consists of approximately 4,380 nuclear warheads, with 1,200 delivery system.

Russia has an aim of modernizing the missile delivery system with the goal of eliminating Soviet legacy systems by 2026. Russia have been working on new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) such as the RS-26 Rubezh road mobile ICBM, RS-28 Sarmat heavy liquid-fueled ICBM, as well as the Yars-M, Osina-RV, and Kedr ICBMs. They have deployed 12 submarines of two different classes, each carrying a different model of submarines launch Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). In 2021, Russia also deployed a new mobile missile defense system, the S-500, however, it was not proven to successfully defend against a hypersonic ICBM reentry vehicle until February 2024.

Russia’s Nuclear Threat

On 24 February 2022, Russia issued an order which was interpreted as a threat on Ukraine and on NATO countries as well, if they tried to interfere. Putin stated that ‘Russia will respond immediately’ he said, ‘and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history’. Just after few days on 27 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a ‘special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.

The 2020 Russian Doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons ‘in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy’. However, Russia published new Nuclear Doctrine on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use. The 2024 doctrine said that ‘New Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence’ refers instead to aggression against Russia ‘with the use of conventional weapons creating a critical threat to their sovereignty or territorial integrity’. Specific types of conventional weapons are also defined in the document as a ‘massive launch’ of aircraft, cruise missiles, UAVs and other flying devices.

Russia’s new nuclear doctrine was months in the making. Although it was released soon after President Biden’s announcement allowing Ukraine to use medium-range conventional missiles (ATACMS) against Russian territory. According to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to ‘combat’ allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty prevents Russia from ever using the Nuclear Weapon on any NATO countries since NATO countries would most likely respond according to the impact of nuclear weapons crosses borders and affects the countries surrounding Ukraine. It has the potential to even trigger full on war with Russia from all the NATO countries. The US has around 150 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs stationed in five NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey. The US, UK, and France also have long range capability for nuclear attacks under NATO auspices. But both scenarios mean NATO being drawn into a major war with Russia.

It is believed that if Russia ever decides to use a Weapon of Mass Distraction on Ukraine, it would more likely be using a short rang, low yield nuclear weapon. Russia has thought to have more than 1000 of them in reserved, which can be deployed quickly. However, any movement of Russian missiles can be monitored by the U.S. and other satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022. 

Conclusion

Russia being the biggest nuclear power globally, constantly requires watchful eyes on the Russia’a nuclear fuel cycle and missile development. Russia is constantly developing its nuclear program for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. One of the main reason of technological development is to export the nuclear technology for the economic growth of their country and to make political relationships. Second reason is to compete and to deter from other major nuclear power including U.S. and NATO countries. Russia came really close to using the nuclear weapon on Ukraine in 2022. However, due to the consequences, it is less likely for Russia to use nuclear weapon on Ukraine or any NATO countries.

The evolution of Russia and U.S. geo-military scenario has the potential to influence global conflict and peace. In order to maintain credibility and to protect its military and economic interest, Russia needs to have a calibrated approach by balancing diplomatic, economical and defence ties with NATO and other countries. In order to decrease global conflict, all the nuclear countries have to agree on ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and follow the aim of ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’.

Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Meets Russian Reality, Has Putin’s Bluff Been Called Or Played?

Consulting Editor
-
1
Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Meets Russian Reality, Has Putin’s Bluff Been Called Or Played?

A 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine sounds like good news, at least on paper. But a truce in this long conflict is not only complicated; it’s fragile. Its endurance will determine the fate of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the resilience of its global support, and, ultimately, its survival as an independent state.

The Dilemma of a Truce

After what is likely to be hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian casualties, rejecting a ceasefire might seem callous. Moscow, too, faces immense pressure to show it isn’t the biggest obstacle to U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision of peace, even if that peace comes at a questionable cost.

This is an odd position for the Kremlin to be in, considering its unrelenting aggression over the past three years and the lack of real public demand to end the war outside the framework of recent U.S.-Russia diplomacy. To maintain the illusion of being Trump’s cooperative partner, Russian President Vladimir Putin may go along with the ceasefire proposal, at least in some form. However, he may also delay its implementation, using the time to advance Russia’s military objectives, particularly in the Kursk region, where Ukraine has been holding onto a small portion of Russian land since August.

When Diplomacy Meets Reality

Here’s where the real test begins. There are two fundamental challenges that this ceasefire will face.

First, can the Kremlin be trusted to uphold a truce? History suggests otherwise. Russia has a well-documented pattern of engaging in diplomacy as a stalling tactic rather than a genuine effort to stop hostilities. Second, Ukraine has no intention of accepting a freeze on the front lines. Doing so would mean acknowledging the permanent loss of around 20% of its territory, a scenario that Kyiv finds unacceptable. It would also allow Russia to regroup and rearm, putting Ukraine at a severe disadvantage in any future conflict.

At the same time, many Ukrainians now see a full-scale counteroffensive as increasingly unrealistic. The war has drained their ammunition supplies and stretched their manpower to the limit. The immediate concern is not regaining lost land but simply surviving the next Russian assault.

Ukraine

A Truce Doomed to Fail?

The brutal nature of this war suggests that any ceasefire is unlikely to hold. Instead, it will become a blame game over who broke it first.

Putin’s primary strategy will be to reinforce Trump’s skepticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. If the ceasefire collapses, Moscow wants the world, or at least Trump to believe that Ukraine was the problem. Putin can’t outright reject a ceasefire without undermining his own position of being a willing negotiator. However, what happens during or after this 30-day pause will shape the trajectory of the war far more than the mere act of agreeing to stop fighting.

The Challenge of a Complete Ceasefire

A full-scale ceasefire across all front lines for an entire month is an enormous demand. This is a war where both sides have used everything from heavy artillery to drones in relentless combat. The assumption that all hostilities can suddenly stop without incident is highly optimistic. It requires believing that no soldier will panic and fire a shot, that no accident will trigger an unintended escalation, and that no provocation will be used as a pretext to resume fighting.

Some European officials and Ukraine had initially suggested a limited ceasefire, focusing only on air, sea, and energy infrastructure attacks. The idea was that a narrower scope would make it easier to monitor violations and assign blame. However, this proposal was rejected in favor of a broader, more ambitious truce. If Moscow agrees to it, everything must stop instantly for 30 days.

The Russian Playbook. Lies and Manipulation

The likelihood of small clashes or violations is almost inevitable. And when they happen, determining who is at fault will be nearly impossible. Russia has mastered the art of misinformation, maskirovka (deception on the battlefield), and false flag operations, all aimed at manufacturing justifications for military action.

If history is any guide, skepticism is warranted. Russia denied invading Crimea in 2014 but did. It agreed to a ceasefire in 2015 but then seized the Ukrainian town of Debaltseve within days. It insisted it had no plans to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, only to do precisely that. It initially claimed it wasn’t deploying prisoners to the front lines, yet now, some Russian jails are nearly empty because of forced military recruitment.

Moscow’s track record should be the biggest red flag when assessing how long any peace will actually last. The Kremlin’s goals, not just freezing the front lines, they need a bigger win to justify the staggering losses so far. And let’s not forget Putin’s paranoia about the West; he won’t settle for anything less than a grand victory.

The real danger is if a ceasefire falls apart, perhaps, most likely because of Russian aggression, Trump mistakenly blames Ukraine for wrecking his so-called peace plan, and boom, aid to Kyiv gets cut off again. This time, though, not a temporary pause; it’ll come with a serious grudge, with Ukraine branded as the bad guy. Moscow, as always, plays the victim card, cranks up its attacks, and suddenly, the brief lull in fighting means Western support and military readiness have slowed down at the worst possible time.Putin's faced some tough US presidents. Not this one

Putin’s Bluff, Called or Played?
With Ukraine on board with the US-backed 30-day ceasefire, the ball really is in Putin’s court now. The world is watching to see if the Kremlin will go along with Trump’s temporary peace plan.

Russian officials are hinting at upcoming talks with the US, but they’re playing coy about whether they’ll actually accept the terms hashed out at the Saudi summit. This is the moment of truth for Moscow, it either makes some tough compromises or proves once and for all that peace was never the goal.

For years, Putin has claimed he’s open to negotiations while pushing for his over-the-top demands, like controlling all the territories Russia annexed. Just last week, he stood in front of grieving mothers and widows of Russian soldiers and swore that Moscow would never “give in.” Hardliners back home aren’t going to love the idea of a truce – they might even see it as a betrayal.

Even if Russia tries to strong-arm Ukraine into withdrawing from the small pocket of Kursk it captured, it’s hard to imagine Putin settling for just that. His bigger goals, like pushing NATO back, aren’t on the table, and he knows it.

This might also be a turning point in Putin’s surprisingly warm relationship with Trump. After all the mutual praise and political maneuvering, Trump might actually expect Putin to play along this time.

And that’s where things get interesting. Trump once said Russia had “all the cards.” But now? Whether he meant to or not, he may have just forced Putin to show his hand

The Last Bit

A ceasefire in Ukraine may sound appealing, but the realities on the ground make it a nearly impossible feat to sustain. The war has been shaped by deception, shifting battle lines, and deep-seated distrust.

Even if Putin agrees to pause the fighting, it will likely serve as a tactical maneuver rather than a step toward genuine peace. The fundamental issues remain – Russia wants to keep its territorial gains, Ukraine refuses to surrender its land, and both sides understand that any break in combat will only set the stage for the next round of conflict.

Ultimately, Trump’s dream of peace in Ukraine now faces the brutal reality of Russian war tactics. And the world should be ready for what happens next.

 

Inside Pakistan’s Shocking Jaffar Express, Train Hijacking. The Baloch Insurgency And A Rising Tide Of Violence In Pakistan

Consulting Editor
-
0
Inside Pakistan’s Shocking Jaffar Express, Train Hijacking. The Baloch Insurgency And A Rising Tide Of Violence In Pakistan

In a dramatic escalation of insurgent violence, a long-distance passenger train was hijacked in Pakistan’s restive Balochistan province on Tuesday, March 11 . The Balochistan Liberation Army, BLA claimed responsibility for the attack on the Jaffar Express, taking hostages and claiming significant military casualties. This incident is part of a broader history of Baloch insurgency and illustrates the region’s ongoing instability.

The Jaffar Express Hijacking. What Happened?

The Jaffar Express, en route from Quetta to Peshawar, was intercepted in a mountainous stretch between Pehro Kunri and Gadalar in Balochistan’s Kachhi district. Armed BLA militants forced the train to a halt in Tunnel No. 8, taking control of the passengers. The group later released a statement claiming they had killed 20 Pakistani Army personnel, shot down a military drone, and taken 182 people hostage, including members of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies.

By early Wednesday, Pakistani security forces reported they had rescued around 100 passengers and killed 16 militants. The situation remains tense, with authorities working to secure the remaining hostages.

What is the Jaffar Express?

Named after Baloch tribal leader Mir Jaffar Khan Jamali, the Jaffar Express has been in operation for over 20 years, initially running between Quetta and Rawalpindi before being extended to Peshawar in 2017. Covering over 1,600 km, it connects major Pakistani cities and is a crucial lifeline for passengers traveling across the country. However, its operations have been repeatedly disrupted by militant attacks.

Just last year, the Jaffar Express was suspended from August 26 to October 10 after a series of bombings by the BLA, which destroyed vital railway infrastructure, including a key bridge. Security concerns led to further suspensions in December. The most devastating attack came in early November when 62 people were killed in a blast at Quetta railway station.

Balochistan Insurgency, Pakistan

The Baloch Insurgency

The Baloch insurgency has simmered for decades, with separatist groups like the BLA demanding greater autonomy or outright independence from Pakistan. The conflict is rooted in historical grievances, including economic marginalization, resource exploitation, and political repression. Balochistan, despite being rich in natural resources, remains one of Pakistan’s most impoverished regions, fueling resentment and militant resistance.

The insurgents have targeted state infrastructure, military installations, and Chinese projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The attack on the Jaffar Express aligns with their broader strategy of disrupting key transportation and economic networks in the region.

So far, the Pakistani military hasn’t released an official statement about the BLA’s claims. Meanwhile, the provincial government has taken action—Shahid Rind, a government spokesperson, said hospitals in Sibi, the nearest city, were put on emergency alert to handle casualties. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi condemned the attack, calling the perpetrators “beasts” who don’t deserve any leniency.

What Do We Know About Recovered Passengers and Casualties?

According to railway official Rana Farrukh, about 70 passengers, including women, children, and the elderly, managed to reach Panir railway station, about 6 km from the attack site, after walking along the railway tracks. Security forces later rescued more than 50 other passengers, bringing the known number of safe passengers to 127.

To evacuate them, officials used a special freight train to transport the rescued passengers to Mach station, 65 km from Quetta and about 90 km from the attack site. Once at Mach, passengers received food and medical assistance. Authorities plan to bring them to Quetta by Wednesday.

What Are the BLA’s Demands?

The BLA says it still holds over 200 captives, mostly security personnel. They have issued a 48-hour ultimatum, demanding the unconditional release of Baloch political prisoners, forcibly disappeared persons, and national resistance activists.

So far, neither the government nor the military has made an official statement in response to these demands.

Who Has Been Killed?

Security sources say they have killed 27 BLA fighters so far. However, at least 10 passengers, including the train’s driver, were also killed by the attackers.

The condition of the remaining hostages is unclear. Security forces claim the militants are using women and children as human shields, complicating any military response.

A path to peace and stability in insurgent-riddled Balochistan - Asia Times

How Uncommon Is This Attack?

The Jaffar Express has been a frequent target of Baloch separatists over the years. Covering more than 1,600 km (995 miles) from Punjab to Peshawar, the train is often used by security personnel from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The last big attack on the Jaffar Express happened in November 2023 when a suicide bomber hit Quetta’s train station just as passengers were preparing to leave. The BLA claimed responsibility for that attack, which killed at least 30 people.

In August 2024, a bomb attack on the tracks in Balochistan halted Jaffar Express operations for two months. Another bombing in January 2023 near Bolan injured at least 13 passengers.

However, this is the first time that Baloch fighters or any armed group have taken over an entire train in Pakistan.

Train hijackings are rare worldwide too. One of the most infamous cases was in 1923 when Chinese bandits hijacked a luxury train for 37 days, holding 300 passengers hostage. The Netherlands also saw train hijackings in the 1970s by Moluccan nationalists. In 2009, more than 300 Maoist rebels hijacked a train in India as it traveled from West Bengal to New Delhi.

How Has the BLA Upgraded Its Capabilities?

Experts believe the BLA’s increasing strength is a sign of the government’s failure to effectively counter the insurgency.

Malik Siraj Akbar, a Balochistan specialist based in Washington, D.C., says the BLA has shifted from smaller attacks – like targeting individuals or sabotaging pipelines – to large-scale operations.

“The group now undertakes major attacks, like the recent assault on a passenger train. This shift reflects both its increasing audacity and its confidence that the government lacks the capability to contain them, let alone pursue them effectively after such high-profile acts of terrorism,” Akbar stated.

Political analyst Rafiullah Kakar says the BLA has strengthened its command structure, giving field operatives more control over attacks.

Additionally, access to advanced weapons, including some reportedly left behind by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has increased the group’s firepower, making their attacks more sophisticated and deadly, Kakar added.

Why hasn’t the state been able to stop the BLA’s rise?

Back in January, the Islamabad-based think tank Pak Institute For Peace Studies (PIPS) flagged the situation in Balochistan as “alarming.” Their report showed a staggering 119% rise in attacks, with over 150 incidents recorded last year.

The government had announced plans for a large-scale military operation in the province, but so far, it hasn’t materialized.

Malik Siraj Akbar, a Balochistan expert, believes that even when the state does crack down after such attacks, it often ends up targeting innocent Baloch civilians rather than the actual militants.

Another major challenge?

The military is at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting in Balochistan.

“The BLA knows the terrain like the back of their hand, while security forces—who mostly come from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—are unfamiliar with the land and its routes. This gives the insurgents a huge edge,” Akbar explained. On top of that, poor intelligence gathering makes it even harder for the state to stay ahead of the militants.

Baloch diaspora: A closer look at brain drain in Balochistan | Pakistan Today

Can the government stop the BLA from gaining ground?

Rafiullah Kakar, a political analyst and doctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge, believes the root of the problem goes beyond just intelligence failures, it’s about the growing disconnect between the state and the Baloch people.

“Over the past decade, Balochistan has become a testing ground for political experiments controlled by the military. The province has had six different chief ministers in 10 years – excluding caretaker setups,” he said. This constant instability has weakened democracy and left the Baloch people feeling even more alienated.

And who benefits from this? The insurgents. Kakar says the worsening disconnect has made it easier for groups like the BLA to recruit young men who are willing to carry out deadly missions.

Akbar agrees. He argues that the government refuses to treat the Baloch people with dignity, instead relying on a provincial administration that serves as little more than a mouthpiece for the military. “Islamabad wants to convince the world that everything is fine in Balochistan, but the reality is far from it,” he said.

The Last Bit

The train hijacking marks a new level of boldness in the Baloch insurgency, raising concerns over Pakistan’s ability to secure its critical transport networks. The government faces the dual challenge of quelling militancy while addressing the root causes of Baloch grievances. With the region already experiencing a surge in violence, further escalations could destabilize Pakistan’s fragile security situation even further.

As Pakistan struggles with these persistent challenges, can military crackdowns alone bring peace, or will a more inclusive political and economic approach be required to address the long-standing demands of the Baloch people?

 

 

 

D-10 Strategy Forum: An Overview

GSDN
-
0
D-10 Strategy Forum: An Overview

By: Anushka Khatri, Research Analyst, GSDN

D-10 nations: source Internet

The D-10 Strategy Forum is a vital project in worldwide rule, created to encourage planned collaboration between leading free countries. This forum effectively brings together policy planning officials of a top tier and seasoned strategy experts from ten prominent democracies, namely Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with the European Union participating, too. This project, back in 2008, started with a State Department policy planning staff project and was officially started by the Atlantic Council in 2014.

The D-10 Strategy Forum plays a major role in promoting democratic values as well as in dealing with global challenges through collaborative efforts. The forum aims to strengthen the rules-based international order. It also improves global stability by easing dialogue as well as cooperation among like-minded democracies. The initiative’s emphasis on many key subjects such as cybersecurity, climate change, and economic cooperation shows its firm dedication to dealing with meaningful global issues.

As multiple geopolitical tensions grow and certain authoritarian regimes gain influence, the D-10 Strategy Forum is a venue for democracies to coordinate plans and strengthen democratic governance around the world. Despite the difficulties and criticisms faced squarely, the D-10 remains a considerably meaningful effort for promoting democratic cooperation and maintaining a stable environment internationally.

Origins and Evolution

The idea of the D-10 was originally floated by the policy planning staff of the U.S. Department of State in 2008. The initiative was to establish a strategic dialogue between policy planning directors of U.S. allies in the Atlantic and Pacific to tackle global issues. The idea picked up steam when Ash Jain and David Gordon, who were former State Department officials, proposed turning it into a standing platform for strategic cooperation among like-minded democracies.

In 2014, the Atlantic Council led in establishing the D-10 Strategy Forum, with the inaugural meeting taking place in Ottawa, Canada. The forum has since met every year, with meetings being hosted by the foreign ministries of member countries. Some notable venues include Washington, Berlin, Seoul, London, Tokyo, Brussels, and Rome.

Membership and Participation

The primary members of the D-10 Strategy Forum are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union. Other democracies like India, Indonesia, Poland, and Spain have joined as observers on special occasions.

Recent talk has called for the expansion of the G7 into a D-10 involving the inclusion of Australia, India, and South Korea as proposed by Kurt Campbell, who is one of the major stakeholders in U.S. foreign policy. This move to expand has also been held up due to opposition against it to avoid making a China-fighting bloc but still requires overwhelming approval among members of the G7.

Objectives and Discussions

The main aim of the D-10 Strategy Forum is to advance and facilitate democracy around the world by building cooperation between the world’s greatest democracies. The forum’s discussions are centered on overarching themes like sustaining a rules-based democratic order and confronting global challenges. Yet particular strategic issues, such as Chinese telecommunications technology alternatives, have been addressed, especially concerning the British proposal for a D10 initiative.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its intentions, the D-10 initiative has been plagued by various challenges. One of the primary issues is that it may be seen as an anti-China bloc, which could erode its legitimacy and make international cooperation on global challenges such as climate change and infectious diseases more difficult. Furthermore, the omission of “swing states” like Indonesia and Kenya may constrain the effectiveness of the initiative in areas where China’s influence is considerable.

The British initiative to broaden the G7 into a D10 was also resisted from within the G7, not least by France, Germany, and Italy, who were wary of forming a club that could be perceived as anti-China. The opposition from Japan to South Korean membership made the initiative all the more difficult.

Future Prospects

Despite all these challenges, the D-10 Strategy Forum is still a significant forum for strategic discussion between the world’s leading democracies. The Atlantic Council continues to host the D-10 Ambassadors Roundtable, which features Washington-based ambassadors for periodic discussions on global issues.

With increasing authoritarianism and geopolitical tension, efforts such as the D-10 Strategy Forum are pivotal in upholding democratic principles and collaboration. However, they should tread the paths of international diplomacy with caution to guarantee inclusivity and efficacy.

Strategic Initiatives and Outcomes

The D-10 Strategy Forum has resulted in several strategic initiatives to boost cooperation between member states. For example, debate on cybersecurity and digital governance has led to concerted efforts to establish standards and best practices for secure digital infrastructure. The forum has also promoted debate on climate change, resulting in collective commitments to cut carbon emissions and promote sustainable development.

Cybersecurity Cooperation:

  • Threat Assessments: Member states have worked together on joint threat assessments to determine and counter potential cyber threats.
  • Joint Response Strategies: The D-10 has established joint response strategies to improve cybersecurity resilience among member states.

Climate Change Initiatives:

  • Joint Research Initiatives: The forum has promoted joint research initiatives aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.
  • Policy Coordination: Member states have coordinated policies to promote sustainable development and minimize carbon emissions.

Case Studies: Achievements and Challenges

Achievements:

  1. Cybersecurity Cooperation: The D-10 has effectively fostered cooperation on cybersecurity, with member nations working together to conduct threat analyses and coordinated responses.
  2. Climate Change Initiatives: The forum has enabled joint efforts to respond to climate change, such as collaborative research initiatives and policy alignment.

Challenges:

  1. Perception as an Anti-China Bloc: The D-10’s emphasis on democratic values has caused some to view it as a counterbalance to China’s increasing influence, making it harder for it to interact with non-member nations.
  2. Inclusivity Concerns: Excluding some democracies has raised concerns regarding the initiative’s inclusivity and whether it risks alienating influential regional actors.

In-Depth Analysis: The Role of Key Players

United States:

The United States has been the prime mover of the D-10 initiative, using its influence to foster democratic values and strategic cooperation among the member states. Its leadership role has, however, raised issues regarding the initiative’s independence and possible biases.

European Union:

The EU’s membership in the D-10 underscores its vision for global democratic governance. The EU contributes a distinctive voice, stressing multilateralism and collaboration on matters such as climate change and trade.

Japan and South Korea:

Japan and South Korea have both played significant roles in setting the agenda for the D-10, especially in deliberations on regional security and economic cooperation. Membership by Japan and South Korea has assisted in broadening the focus of the initiative beyond classical Western democracies.

Comparative Analysis with Other Initiatives

The D-10 Strategy Forum can be compared to other global governance efforts, including the G7 and the G20. While the G7 is concerned with economic matters between a selected group of developed countries, the G20 involves a larger number of countries, including emerging economies. The D-10 aims to fill these voids by concentrating on democratic cooperation and strategic dialogue.

G7:

  • Economic Orientation: The G7 focuses mainly on economic concerns, serving as a forum for the developed economies to coordinate their policies.
  • Limited Membership: The limited membership of seven nations in the G7 can restrict its influence worldwide.

G20:

  • Broader Membership: The G20 has a broader membership that includes emerging economies, hence a better reflection of the world’s economic realities.
  • Diverse Agenda: The G20 has a diverse agenda covering economic, environmental, and social matters.

Global Governance Impact

The D-10 Strategy Forum can play a significant role in global governance by advocating for democratic values and cooperation among top democracies. Its success will, however, be determined by its capacity to navigate geopolitical complexities and respond to inclusivity issues.

In-Depth Analysis of Central Issues

Cybersecurity:

D-10 has highlighted the importance of cybersecurity in the attainment of national security and economic resilience. The member states have united to foster robust cybersecurity systems and exchange best practices in building resilience to cyber-attacks.

Climate Change:

The platform has promoted cross-learning regarding climate change, that is, lowering carbon emissions and encouraging sustainable development. This involves collaborative research and policy convergence in a bid to adopt a collective response to climate challenges.

Economic Cooperation:

The D-10 has also attempted to enhance economic cooperation among member states through trade agreements and investment policy as a means of economic development within democratic principles.

Future Directions:

As the world keeps evolving, the D-10 Strategy Forum must adapt to new challenges and opportunities. These include expanding membership to more democracies, enhancing cooperation on new issues like biotechnology and artificial intelligence, and forging partnerships with other global governance initiatives.

Building Membership:

  • Emerging Democracies: The D-10 would be enriched by the inclusion of emerging democracies, which would boost its global relevance and credibility.
  • Inclusivity Concerns: Expanding membership would help address concerns regarding the initiative’s exclusivity and improve its ability to address different regions.

Strengthening Cooperation on Emerging Challenges:

  1. Artificial Intelligence: The D-10 must prioritize creating ethical guidelines and regulatory structures for AI to enable its safe and useful application.
  2. Biotechnology: Biotechnology cooperation can result in medical and environmental management progress and solve ethical issues.

Comparative Analysis with Other Global Governance Frameworks

United Nations:

  • Global Representation: The UN provides a platform for nearly every country to be involved in world governance, having a broader perspective than the D-10.
  • Diverse Agenda: The UN deals with a diverse agenda of issues, ranging from peace and security to sustainable development.

BRICS:

  • Emerging Economies: BRICS is an alliance of emerging economies, and it provides a platform for these economies to coordinate policies and share common issues.
  • Varied Economic Interests: BRICS countries have various economic interests, and sometimes these interests result in diversified priorities among the group.

Impact on Regional Governance

The D-10 Strategy Forum is of regional governance importance, particularly where member states are dominant in a region. For example, in Asia, membership by Japan and South Korea can set regional security terms and economic cooperation.

Asia-Pacific:

  • Regional Security: The D-10 emphasis on democratic values can be leveraged to inform regional security debates, especially in the context of China’s increasing military presence.
  • Economic Integration: The economic cooperation focus of the forum can facilitate regional economic integration efforts, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Europe:

  • EU Leadership: EU membership in the D-10 demonstrates its leadership towards democratic governance in Europe and the world.
  • Transatlantic Relations: The D-10 will enhance transatlantic relations by promoting cooperation between North American and European democracies.

Conclusion

The D-10 Strategy Forum is an important initiative by the world’s major democracies to come together and deal with international issues while upholding democratic values. In spite of the challenges and criticism, it is an important platform for strategic discussion and cooperation. As the world goes forward, the success of such endeavours will be determined by the capacity of such efforts to change and meet the interests of all the stakeholders.

Final Reflections on Future Adjustment

To stay current and contemporary, the D-10 Strategy Forum must evolve to accommodate emerging global challenges as they occur. This involves embracing emerging technologies, encouraging environmental sustainability, and creating inclusive governance models that are sensitive to the diversity of democratic voices worldwide.

The Much-Anticipated Saudi Talks, Can The US And Ukraine Salvage Their Relations?

Consulting Editor
-
0
The Much-Anticipated Saudi Talks, Can The US And Ukraine Salvage Their Relations?

This week, all eyes are on Saudi Arabia as officials from Ukraine and the United States prepare for a crucial meeting aimed at finding a solution to the ongoing war with Russia.

But can a viable solution be reached, with tensions high and diplomatic relations strained, or will this just be another round of political posturing?

A Meeting of Big Bets

The meeting marks the first high-level engagement between the US and Ukraine since the explosive February 28 White House encounter between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump. That meeting, attended by Vice President JD Vance, quickly spiraled into a public feud, playing out in front of cameras for the world to see. Since then, relations have been anything but smooth, with Trump and Vance accusing Zelenskyy of warmongering and failing to appreciate US military assistance.

Now, Zelenskyy is set to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, followed by a crucial discussion on Tuesday between US and Ukrainian officials. On the Ukrainian side, key players such as Andriy Yermak (Zelenskyy’s chief of staff), Andrii Sybiha (minister of foreign affairs), and Rustem Umerov (minister of defense) will be present. The US delegation, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will also include Trump’s Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, US

Why Saudi Arabia?

Jeddah, a port city on the Red Sea, has become a hotspot for diplomatic negotiations, and Saudi Arabia’s strategic ties with both Moscow and Kyiv make it an ideal mediator. With the kingdom having previously hosted multiple meetings on the Ukraine conflict, this latest round of discussions is seen as another attempt to bridge the widening gap between the warring sides.

What’s on the Table?

There are several key issues expected to dominate the discussions –

Ceasefire and Confidence-Building Measures – Zelenskyy has outlined potential peace terms, including the release of prisoners and an agreement to halt missile and drone attacks on civilian infrastructure. A temporary truce could serve as a confidence-building step, but whether Russia will reciprocate remains a major question.

US-Ukraine Military and Intelligence Cooperation – Following the suspension of US military and intelligence support to Ukraine after the February fallout, one major discussion point will be whether the US is willing to reinstate this crucial assistance. Trump has hinted that the suspension could be lifted, but nothing is set in stone yet.

The Controversial Minerals Deal – A significant but often overlooked topic in these talks is the potential agreement between the US and Ukraine on critical minerals, particularly rare earth minerals. The deal was supposed to be signed during Zelenskyy’s previous White House visit but was left hanging. While Ukraine is eager to proceed, Trump has been more hesitant, suggesting that Ukraine needs to demonstrate a stronger commitment to peace before any economic agreement moves forward.

Russia’s Next Move – While Ukraine continues to resist Russian advances, the reality is that Russia still controls around a fifth of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. Trump’s recent comments suggest he believes neither side can achieve a decisive military victory anytime soon. Instead, he has hinted at a mysterious “different way” – one that only he supposedly knows – to end the conflict.

Saudi Arabia’s Role in Mediation

Saudi Arabia has been positioning itself as a diplomatic middleman since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The kingdom has played a part in brokering prisoner exchanges and even hosted secretive talks last month between Moscow and Washington. Now, with Zelenskyy in town, Riyadh is once again stepping into the spotlight as it pushes for a resolution to the ongoing conflict.

According to the Saudi state news agency SPA, the crown prince reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to supporting international efforts for peace in Ukraine. While that sounds diplomatic, the reality is that peace in Ukraine has been an elusive goal, with both sides deeply entrenched in their positions.

The Russia-Ukraine Jeddah meeting reflects a changing global order | Responsible Statecraft

High Hopes, But Realistic Expectations

Tuesday’s meeting between Ukrainian and U.S. officials marks their first formal dialogue since the now-infamous White House confrontation between Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has been setting expectations high, stating that the goal of the Jeddah talks is to establish a framework for a peace agreement and an initial ceasefire. However, history suggests that any ceasefire or peace deal will face enormous hurdles, especially given Moscow’s hardened stance.

The Proposal on the Table

Zelenskyy’s approach to negotiations includes a proposed truce in the air and at sea, along with a large-scale prisoner exchange. He sees these steps as a way to test Russia’s sincerity about ending the war.

However, Moscow has already dismissed the idea, labeling it a strategic ploy to buy time for Ukraine’s military. Russia has also rejected similar proposals from Britain and France, showing little inclination for any pause in hostilities.

The Reality on the Battlefield

Even as diplomacy plays out in Jeddah, the war rages on. Russia has intensified its missile and drone attacks, launching over 1,200 guided bombs, nearly 870 attack drones, and more than 80 missiles in just the past week, according to Zelenskyy.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s forces are struggling to hold their ground with Russia controlling about 20% of Ukraine’s territory – including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014 – Moscow is pressing further into the eastern Donetsk region.

Ukraine is now facing mounting pressure on the battlefield and is even bracing for potential retreats from key areas.

The Last Bit. Will This Meeting Make a Difference?

With neither side showing signs of backing down, the Saudi-hosted talks may not bring an immediate resolution, with Ukraine’s Zelenskyy pushing for stronger security guarantees and Trump playing a wait-and-see game, the outcome of this meeting remains uncertain. But they could lay the groundwork for future negotiations.

Will this be a turning point, or just another round of political maneuvering, the world will know soon enough!

US sanctions Qatar aid to the new Syrian Regime

GSDN
-
1
US sanctions Qatar aid to the new Syrian Regime

By: Kashif Anwar

Qatar & Syria’s flags: source Internet

Qatar who emerged as a key player in Syria’s fragile transition pledged to provide financial aid to fund salaries for Syrian public sector workers – a lifeline for a war-torn economy plagued by hyperinflation and unemployment. This bold commitment, coupled with Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani’s historic visit to Doha on January 5, 2025, signals Qatar’s intent to bolster the HTS-led government despite its Al-Qaeda roots. Framing its role as a catalyst for “Syrian national dialogue”, unite Syria and provide much anticipated financial aid, the US sanctions tied to the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) terrorist past on February 26, 2025, have stalled this aid, leaving promised salaries unpaid and Syria’s recovery in limbo. As Qatar navigates its U.S. ties and Gulf rivalries, this standoff underscores the tension between geopolitical strategy and Syria’s urgent humanitarian needs, with millions hanging in the balance.

Qatar’s Bold Commitment to Syria

On February 26, 2025, Reuters and Middle East Monitor reported that Qatar had promised to fund salaries for Syria’s public sector employees—a cornerstone of economic stability in a country where state institutions have been gutted by war. This commitment followed a series of diplomatic overtures, including Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani’s landmark visit to Doha on January 5, 2025. The visit, one of the first high-level engagements between Syria’s new rulers and a Gulf state, underscored Qatar’s intent to build a constructive relationship with the HTS-led government, despite the group’s controversial history as an offshoot of Al-Qaeda.


As Qatar’s Foreign Ministry has framed its involvement as part of a broader push for a “Syrian national dialogue,” a position highlighted on February 27, 2025. This initiative seeks to bring together Syria’s fractured factions – Islamists, secularists, and ethnic minorities – in order to forge a unified path forward. On December 8, 2024, a report quoted a Qatari official saying, the “Arab states will talk to all forces in Syria to prevent reignition of war,” reflecting Doha’s determination to avert a relapse into conflict. Qatar has also positioned itself as a vocal defender of Syrian sovereignty and on February 27, 2025, it “strongly condemned” Israeli airstrikes on the Syrian territory. Such a stance not only aligns Qatar with Damascus but also enhances its credibility as a regional advocate for Arab interests.


The financial pledge, meanwhile, addresses a pressing need. Syria’s economy is in ruins, with hyperinflation, widespread unemployment, and a collapsed currency. Public sector workers, once a backbone of the state, have gone months without pay, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis that has left over 13 million Syrians displaced. Qatar’s offer given on February 27, 2025, aimed to inject immediate relief into this dire situation, signaling to both Syrians and the international community that the Gulf state is serious about supporting the country’s recovery.

U.S. Sanctions: A Geopolitical Wrench

Despite Qatar’s readiness to act, U.S. sanctions have thrown a wrench into these plans, as the US restrictions, tied to HTS’s prior terrorist designation, have put Qatar’s funding on indefinite hold. As per the sources, Doha is wary of transferring money without explicit U.S. approval, fearing secondary sanctions that could jeopardize its own economic interests or its strategic partnership with the United States, home to the massive Al Udeid Air Base. This hesitation has left Syria’s public sector dangling, with Investing.com noting that the promised salaries remain unpaid as of late February.


As the sanctions issue came to a head during HTS leaders’ visit to Doha, and in meetings with Qatari officials, Syria’s new rulers appealed directly to the U.S. to lift these measures, arguing this could choke off the resources needed to stabilize the country and govern effectively. Seeing situation in Syria, sanction is seen as barrier to peace in the country, a sentiment that resonates with Qatar’s own frustrations. As the development restricted Qatar’s move causing delay that has  sparked disappointment in Damascus, where the officials had banked on Qatar’s swift aid to shore up their legitimacy and address urgent public needs.


Regards to the US move and position, however, its rooted in a cautious calculus. HTS, despite its recent efforts to rebrand as a pragmatic governing force, carries the baggage of its extremist past. Lifting sanctions risks legitimizing a group that once espoused jihadist ideals, a move that could provoke backlash in Washington and strain ties with allies like Israel, which views HTS with deep suspicion following its consolidation of power in Syria.

Diplomatic Manoeuvring in a Crowded Arena

Qatar’s outreach to Syria is not an isolated act but part of a broader Gulf strategy to shape the country’s post-conflict landscape. Considering the on-going geo-political developments in the Middle East, the Gulf states see Syria as a geopolitical prize, a chance to counter the influence of Iran and Turkey, both of which have entrenched themselves in the country during the war. Qatar, with its history of supporting Sunni Islamist movements and mediating conflicts from Afghanistan to Lebanon, is well-positioned to lead this effort. Qatar’s condemnation of Israeli attacks and hosting of Al-Shaibani signal a dual approach aligning Arab nationalist sentiments while engaging directly with Syria’s Islamist rulers.

Further, Syria’s state-run SANA news agency reported on February 26, 2025, that the interim government warmly received Qatar’s diplomatic gestures, hinting at a potential alliance that could bolster HTS’s regional standing. As the sanction delay the progress in Syria it threaten or undermine the progress or momentum achieved under Syrian new regime. A lack of tangible aid has fueled scepticism among Syrians about whether foreign promises will translate into action or not due to scepticism born of years of abandonment by the international community.


Qatar’s role also pits it against other Gulf players as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who wary of HTS’s Islamist leanings, have taken a more reserved approach to Syria’s new government, leaving Qatar to test the waters. This dynamic suggests a delicate balancing act for Doha, which must navigate intra-Gulf rivalries while maintaining its partnership with the U.S.

Analysis: A High-Stakes Standoff

The clash between Qatar’s ambitions and U.S. sanctions encapsulates the broader challenges of Syria’s reconstruction. For Qatar, supporting Syria aligns with its foreign policy of championing Sunni-led causes while asserting influence in a region contested by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. Its financial pledge and diplomatic outreach reflect a calculated bid to shape Syria’s future, potentially positioning Doha as a kingmaker in the Levant. Yet, its dependence on U.S. military and economic goodwill – symbolized by Al Udeid – constrains its room to manoeuvre, forcing it into a cautious dance with Washington.


For the US, the sanctions dilemma is equally fraught. HTS’s evolution from a militant faction to a governing entity presents an opportunity to engage with Syria’s new reality, as hinted by its appeal for sanctions relief. Pragmatic US approach could leverage this opening to influence HTS’s policies, perhaps steering it away from radicalism and toward governance that aligns with Western interests. However, the political risks are steep: easing sanctions could be seen as rewarding a former terrorist group, a narrative that opponents in Congress or Israeli leaders could seize upon.

The human cost of this standoff is stark. Syria’s 22 million people, battered by war, sanctions, and economic collapse, face a precarious future. As the delay in Qatari funding, if prolonged, could erode trust in the interim government, fuel social unrest, and could create openings for spoilers – be they remnants of the Assad regime, ISIS, or rival militias. Qatar’s stated goal of preventing a “reignition of war,” hangs in the balance.

The Road Ahead: Stability or Stagnation?

Today ,as the impasse persists. Qatar continues to press the U.S. for clarity, while advocating for a Syrian-led solution that includes all stakeholders. HTS, for its part, is eager to prove it can govern, but its hands are tied without external support. The outcome of this diplomatic tug-of-war will reverberate beyond Syria’s borders, shaping the Gulf’s role in the Middle East and testing the U.S.’s ability to adapt its policies to a shifting landscape. For Syrians, the stakes could not be higher. With schools shuttered, hospitals crumbling, and millions still displaced, the need for aid is urgent. Qatar’s stalled support, if unresolved, risks becoming yet another unfulfilled promise in a land long accustomed to hardship. As the world watches, the question looms: will the geopolitics once again trump humanitarian imperatives or can a compromise emerge to give Syria’s new era a fighting chance?

Longest Bike Rally of the Indian Armed Forces: The Military Shines Yet Again

GSDN
-
0
Longest Bike Rally of the Indian Armed Forces: The Military Shines Yet Again

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

The Bike Rally team after flagging-off: source Author

As the weather in Vijaynagar in the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh started getting inclement, with heavy rains and thunderstorm lashing this beautiful part of India, the Indian Armed Forces authorities decided to prepone the flagging-off of the Indian Armed Force’s biggest bike rally which was originally scheduled on March 12, 2025 to March 10, 2025.

In a befitting tribute to Veterans of the Indian Armed Forces whose contribution to nation building is legendary, 90-year-old Rifleman Padam Singh Rawat (Retired) of the Assam Rifles who is settled in Vijaynagar, was given the honour and privilege of flagging off the rally in the presence of senior Military and Civil Administration Officers and other Veterans, Ladies and Children.

Flagging-off ceremony by Rifleman Padam Singh Rawat: source Author

The 3900-kilometers long rally under the theme “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat,” (One India, Great India) to Rann of Kutch in the western Indian state of Gujarat, will be the longest Bike Rally of the Indian Armed Forces ever, comprising personnel from Assam Rifles, the Indian Army, and civilians from Arunachal Pradesh. The rally contingent comprises of 12 bikers (04 each from Assam Rifles, Indian Army and civilians of Arunachal Pradesh).

The diverse group of the bike riders exemplifies India’s unity in diversity, national integration and collaborative strength. The poignant flagging-off ceremony witnessed several generations of soldiers and veterans coming together along with civilians from all walks of life, dedicating themselves to the “Bharat ke Veer” (Braves of India) initiative that acts as a beacon to all Indians to embrace secularism, unity, service and patriotism.

The Bike Rally team: source Author

The bike rally apart from going in the history books as the biggest bike rally ever undertaken by the Indian Armed Forces will also showcase to the world, India’s military might and resilience which has reckoned the Indian Armed Forces as one of the finest militaries in the world.

Iran, China, And Russia Flex Their Muscles In The Gulf Of Oman, But The Timing Says It All!

Consulting Editor
-
0
Iran, China, And Russia Flex Their Muscles In The Gulf Of Oman, But The Timing Says It All!

Warships from Iran, China, and Russia have kicked off their annual “Security Belt-2025” naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman, sending a clear signal about their growing military ties. While these joint drills have been happening since 2019, this year’s display of force comes at a particularly crucial moment, right when US President Donald Trump is shaking up long-standing Western alliances and redefining America’s role on the world stage.

Taking place near Iran’s strategic port of Chabahar, these exercises are more than just about testing weapons and tactics. They are instead a powerful geopolitical message, showing how these three authoritarian nations are strengthening their military coordination to push back against US influence.

A Stronger Alliance Against the US?
For years, these naval drills have been seen as a symbol of defiance against the West, but this time, things are different, the global balance of power is shifting, and this so-called “axis of autocrats”, a term increasingly used in Washington is not hiding its ambitions anymore.

The reasons are clear – Trump’s America First strategy has weakened traditional alliances, especially in Europe and Asia. His embrace of Putin and his push to make allies pay more for US military protection have left many wondering about America’s long-term commitments.

Meanwhile, Russia and North Korea’s relationship has grown significantly, with Pyongyang even sending troops to aid Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine. In response, the US has started ringing alarm bells about a growing military bloc that spans multiple regions.

Iran is also under renewed US pressure, as Trump has brought back his “maximum pressure” strategy, aiming to choke Tehran’s oil exports and halt its nuclear ambitions. The Iranian regime, however, is refusing to back down.

China, Russia, and Iran

Why the Gulf of Oman Matters

The Gulf of Oman, is a critical gateway for global energy supply. It connects to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints, where over 25% of global seaborne oil shipments pass through daily.

By flexing their military strength in this region, Iran, China, and Russia are making a calculated move – they are signaling that they, too, have the ability to control global trade routes, testing how far they can push the US presence in the region without triggering a direct response. And they are showing solidarity against Western-imposed economic sanctions, proving that sanctions alone won’t weaken their military ambitions.

Who’s Bringing What to the Table?
This year’s naval drills involve a formidable lineup of warships, helicopters, and combat vessels from all three nations –

—Russia has sent two powerful corvettes—Rezky and Russian Hero Aldar Tsydenzhapov—along with a support tanker from its Pacific Fleet.

—China has deployed its Type 052D guided-missile destroyer Baotou and a supply ship, reinforcing its naval strength in the region.

—Iran has contributed a stealth missile corvette and a patrol ship, further cementing its ability to defend its waters.

According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the drills will include simulated attacks on maritime targets, boarding and seizure exercises, and coordinated search-and-rescue operations – all essential skills in potential future conflicts.

Trump Brushes It Off, But Should He?
When asked about the naval exercises, Trump seemed unbothered, “We’re stronger than all of them. We have more power than all of them.”

But beneath this confident rhetoric, concerns are mounting in Washington. The fear is real, not just limited to these nations acting alone but even more concerning, what happens if they start coordinating military moves in multiple regions at the same time.

Could China make a move in the South China Sea while Russia escalates in Ukraine?
Could Iran provoke tensions in the Middle East while North Korea stirs trouble near the Korean Peninsula?

And could these nations start conducting joint operations beyond naval drills, forming a new military alliance that directly challenges NATO?

For now, the US still maintains a significant naval presence in the region through its Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain. But the growing partnership between these authoritarian regimes suggests that future conflicts might not be so easy to contain.

Russia, China, Iran to hold joint naval drills in Gulf of Oman

Why This Alliance Is More Than Just a Military Drill
At first glance, the joint naval exercise between Iran, China, and Russia might seem like just another round of routine war games. But dig a little deeper, and the implications become far more serious.

For years, the global order was defined by Western dominance, with the US and its allies setting the rules. But as fractures appear in the Western alliance fueled by Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, rival powers are seizing the moment to reshape global influence on their terms.

The Strategic Significance of the Location
The Gulf of Oman, where these drills are taking place, sits at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital oil chokepoints. Nearly 30% of the world’s seaborne-traded oil passes through this narrow passage.

Control over this region means control over a key artery of global energy supply. And Iran already notorious for its threats to disrupt oil shipments in retaliation for US sanctions has every incentive to flex its muscles here. With China and Russia joining in, these drills signal the West – that it alone is not the only player with military influence over critical trade routes.

Considering that this is the fifth joint naval exercise between Iran, China, and Russia since 2019, it tells us that this a part of an evolving military relationship.

Russia and Iran have grown particularly close in recent years. With Moscow heavily sanctioned due to its war in Ukraine, Iran has stepped in as a key weapons supplier, providing drones and ammunition that have been crucial in Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian cities.

China and Russia, while often competing for influence, have found common ground in countering US dominance. The two have significantly expanded military cooperation, conducting joint patrols in the Pacific and Arctic and increasing weapons technology exchanges.

China and Iran also have a growing security relationship. Beijing has been a lifeline for Tehran, helping it sidestep Western sanctions by buying Iranian oil and even signing a 25-year cooperation agreement that promises deeper economic and military ties.

The inclusion of North Korea in this growing axis adds another dangerous angle.  Pyongyang has been sending weapons, artillery shells, and even troops to aid Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. This is a major escalation, one that brings together four authoritarian states with a shared hostility toward the West.

The Economic and Diplomatic Implications
Beyond military coordination, this alliance is also reshaping economic and diplomatic dynamics –

—China is reducing dependence on the US dollar by promoting trade in local currencies, particularly with Russia and Iran. The growing de-dollarization trend weakens US economic leverage over these countries.

—Russia and Iran have found economic lifelines in China as Beijing continues to buy oil from both, undermining Western sanctions.

—Weapons technology sharing between these countries could accelerate military advancements, especially in drone warfare, cyber capabilities, and missile systems, all of which could be used in conflicts against Western-backed forces.

Iran, Russia, China to hold joint military exercises

Could This Alliance Become a Global Security Threat?
The bigger question is – does this growing coalition pose a real challenge to the global balance of power? The answer is not simple, but the trajectory is worrying.

Individually, these countries have their own struggles – Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, Iran is struggling with domestic issues and economic turmoil, China is dealing with economic slowdowns, and North Korea remains isolated. But together, they create a powerful bloc that can coordinate military actions, support each other’s regimes, and counter US influence in multiple regions simultaneously.

And if Trump continues to pull back from NATO, question support for Ukraine, and demand that Asian allies pay more for protection, it could leave a vacuum that these countries are eager to fill.

The Last Bit
What was once seen as a loose collection of authoritarian regimes acting independently is now turning into something far more structured and coordinated. The Iran-China-Russia-North Korea axis is quickly evolving into a long-term strategic partnership with significant military, economic, and geopolitical consequences.

The world may not be on the brink of a new Cold War just yet, but the lines are being drawn. And as US alliances weaken and new power centers emerge, the next few years could see a dramatic shift in the global order.

 

China’s Olive Branch to India After Trump’s Tariffs, Should India Accept? China-Russia Closeness Is An Emerging Threat To The United States And India—But India Should Not Bend Its Knee!

Consulting Editor
-
0
China’s Olive Branch to India After Trump’s Tariffs, Should India Accept? China-Russia Closeness Is An Emerging Threat To The United States And India—But India Should Not Bend Its Knee!

China’s Olive Branch to India.

There is one undeniable truth in geopolitics, there are no permanent friends or enemies. The only thing that remains constant is national interest. Alliances shift, friendships are opportunistic, and enmities are often dictated by strategic and economic compulsions rather than ideological commitments.

This brings us to the curious case of China extending an olive branch to India after the U.S. under Donald Trump imposed fresh tariffs on Chinese imports. Should India engage with China economically while tensions remain unresolved at the border? Or should it stand firm against Beijing’s opportunism? The answer isn’t simple, however, India should not bend its knee to China without securing tangible benefits.

The Tariff War and China’s Sudden Warmth Towards India
The Trump administration recently slapped reciprocal tariffs of 10-20% on Chinese goods, making them more expensive in the U.S. and thereby reducing China’s competitiveness. The fact is, for decades, the U.S. outsourced large-scale manufacturing to China while focusing on innovation and high-end technological development. This led to China becoming the world’s factory, but also resulted in tensions as the U.S. saw its trade deficit balloon.

Now, with these tariffs, China faces a dilemma, it needs alternative markets to sustain its manufacturing prowess. Enter India, one of the fastest-growing economies with a massive consumer base.

After years of hostility, China is now suddenly calling for economic cooperation with India. The rhetoric has changed from aggressive posturing at the border to “Let the Elephant and Dragon Dance Together”—a statement made by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. But why this sudden shift, well, the answer lies in geopolitics.

China’s Global Isolation
China finds itself increasingly isolated on the world stage – it has tensions with the European Union over its stance on Ukraine. It is in an escalating trade war with the U.S..It has territorial disputes with Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines.It continues to have border skirmishes with India over the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Hence, with a growing list of adversaries, China is now desperately seeking new allies. It sees India as a potential economic partner, not out of goodwill but out of necessity.

But India must tread cautiously – China has violated trust multiple times, whether through territorial incursions, economic coercion, or debt-trap diplomacy. Simply put, China does not seek friendships, just like the America, it seeks leverage.

China, India, United States, Russia, Allies

The U.S.-India Equation Is A Complicated Friendship
While Trump’s trade war with China indirectly benefits India, he hasn’t exactly been a reliable partner either. He has accused India of unfair trade practices, calling it “tariff king”, pointing to high import duties in sectors like automobiles.

At the same time, he needs India –

  1. H-1B Visa Conundrum: The U.S. tech industry heavily relies on Indian talent through the H-1B visa program, also known as the “genius visa.” Any drastic cuts to this program would cripple Silicon Valley.

2. Defense Partnerships: The U.S. is trying to position itself as India’s key defense supplier, but its past history of favoring Pakistan over India has created trust issues.

3. Geopolitical Strategy: The U.S. wants India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Therefore, despite Trump’s unpredictable policies, India and the U.S. are bound by strategic necessity. However, India’s reliance on U.S. cooperation should not come at the cost of independent policymaking.

Why India Should Be Cautious of China’s Overtures
India’s biggest concern with China is not trade, but trust. Economic cooperation is possible, but only under the following conditions –

  1. China Must Return All Occupied Territories – Border disputes, particularly along the LAC, remain a major roadblock. If China truly wants better relations, it should return Indian territories it has encroached upon.

2. Clear Demarcation of Borders – A permanent border resolution should be achieved through joint commissions with equal representation from both sides. This must result in a clearly marked internationally recognized boundary.

Until these conditions are met, China cannot expect India to engage in full-fledged economic cooperation. No country can afford to trade freely with an adversary that encroaches on its land.

Putin mobilizes 300,000 reservists in significant escalation | Responsible Statecraft

Russia. The Silent Power Player
Meanwhile, in this game of global power politics, Russia remains a key player. The U.S., despite its vocal support for Ukraine, has now declared its intent to impose sanctions on Russia. However, history has shown that Russia is largely unaffected by Western sanctions.

In fact, a miscalculation on America’s part could push Russia and China even closer, which would be a direct threat to both the U.S. and India. Historically, the U.S. has made short-term decisions that have cost India dearly—for instance, in the 1960s, it refused to sell weapons to India but readily armed Pakistan. This forced India into a long-standing defense relationship with Russia, which continues to this day, with 60-65% of Indian military equipment sourced from Russia.

Now, the U.S. is urging India to cut defense ties with Russia, but India remains skeptical. Unlike the U.S., Russia has been a consistent ally. India cannot risk buying American weapons only to find itself abandoned when political leadership changes in Washington. Geopolitical consistency matters.

The Last Bit. India Must Prioritize Self-Sufficiency
Neither China nor the U.S. can be fully trusted. The only viable solution for India is self-reliance in manufacturing, technology, and defense. A strong, independent India will be in a position to dictate its own terms rather than choosing between unreliable partners.

As for China’s “Elephant-Dragon Dance”, India must ensure that it is not merely being used as a pawn in China’s larger strategic game. Trade is fine, but not at the cost of sovereignty.

Hence, India should engage with China only if it gets clear strategic advantages. America remains a complicated ally, but still a necessary one. Russia’s importance cannot be ignored, despite U.S. pressure. Self-reliance is the only true path to long-term security and economic stability.

If anything can be learnt from the recent geopolitical upheavals is this –  India must play smart, stay firm, and never compromise on national interest.

1...161718...60Page 17 of 60

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
Best Wordpress Adblock Detecting Plugin | CHP Adblock