India’s premiere aircraft manufacturing public sector unit (PSU) – Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will showcase its indigenous products and technologies centered on the theme ‘Innovate. Collaborate. Lead’ at Aero India 2025 beginning February 10, 2025 at Airforce Station Yelahanka in Bengaluru.
“HAL’s indigenously designed and developed Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) will be at the center stage. Various innovative products conceived and developed by HAL R&D (research and development) Divisions in the area of avionics, mechanical systems, engines and aerospace for manned and unmanned aircraft will also be the highlight at HAL stall”, says Dr D K Sunil, CMD, HAL.
The HAL manufactured LUH, Hindustan Turbo Trainer (HTT)-40 Simulator, scaled models of LCA Mk1A fighter, LCA Mk1 Trainer, Hindustan Jet Trainer (HJT)-36, HTT-40, LCH and ALH Mk IV are some of the expected star attractions at HAL’s indoor pavilion, along with the scaled models of Hindustan 228 and its amphibian variant, while the outdoor display adjacent to HAL stall, will comprise the LCA Mk 1A and HJT 36. HTT-40, LCA Mk 1 Trainer, Hindustan 228, Do-228 and LUH on static display.
The flying display will witness the unique LCA Mk 1A formation, HJT 36, HTT-40 and LUH.
The central theme of the India Pavilion is ‘Flight of Self Reliance’. A functional full-scale engineering demonstrator of Combat Air Teaming System (CATS) Warrior will be the highlight of the India Pavilion along with Advanced Light Helicopter Next Generation (ALH NG) and RUAV. ALH NG will be placed in front of the India Pavilion to signify HAL’s entry into civil aviation. For the first time, a 1:1 model of Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will also be placed at the pavilion. There will also be sections for new technologies and future marquee products.
HAL’s indoor pavilion will showcase state-of-the-art avionics systems like Mission Management System, Digital Map Generator, Data Lite-Communication System, IFF & CIT, Indigenous Communication Complex with Audio Management System, Audio Warning System, SCDLU, Radio Control Panels etc. Also, the advanced Flight Control Actuators and electro mechanical systems like Active Side Stick Control will also be on display.
Static models of actual HTSE-1200 and GTEG-60 engines will be showcased displaying their technological challenges and innovation. An exclusive aerospace corner with scaled models of Cryogenic Engine CE-20, GSLV Mk III and Chandrayaan-3 will showcase HAL’s capabilities and role in the aerospace industry.
HAL will promote indigenously built platforms to visiting defence delegations and hold business meetings with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and customers besides signing agreements and contracts with its business partners for various projects.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, has become a central focus in global geopolitics due to its strategic location, natural resources, and the accelerating impacts of climate change. Its significance spans historical military interests, economic opportunities, and environmental considerations that collectively influence international relations.
Greenland is located in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, it connects North America, Europe, and the Arctic region. This distinctive geographical position has historically rendered it a strategic asset for military endeavours and continues to bolster its significance in the realms of global trade and security. The island has rich natural resources, including rare earth elements, like Uranium and Oil which draw the interest of major global powers to obtain essential materials for contemporary technologies. Furthermore, the ongoing melting of Greenland’s ice sheet, which significantly contributes to global sea-level rise, highlights its environmental significance and the wider consequences of climate change.
History
Greenland’s global importance was raised during World War II, when the United States constructed naval posts on the island to safeguard the North Atlantic and Axis powers. The most important of these is the Thule Air Base, which was built in 1941 & is still a crucial part of NATO’s missile defence system today. Recognizing Greenland’s strategic significance, the United States offered Denmark US$ 100 million in gold for the island in 1946, but the offer was turned down. Throughout the Cold War, Greenland’s position made it a vital region for observing Soviet actions in the Arctic and North Atlantic. The Thule Air Base worked as an important early warning system regarding potential missile attacks, emphasising the island’s position within global security frameworks.
2009 Act of Self-Government
An important turning point in Greenland’s journey toward increased autonomy and possible independence from Denmark was the Greenland Self-Government Act of 2009. It replaced the Home Rule Act of 1979 and gave Greenland power over its internal affairs while preserving Denmark’s dominance over defence, foreign policy, and money. The act’s acknowledgment of Greenlanders as a distinct people under international law was one of its most noteworthy features. The Greenlander people decide to seek full independence through a referendum. Furthermore, Greenland’s cultural and national identity was strengthened when Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) was designated as the only official language.
Natural resources and geostrategic
Greenland has large deposits of rare earth elements, which are necessary for technologies and manufacturing the batteries which include electric vehicles and wind turbines, wind and solar technologies that have drawn global interest. The United States and the European Union are eager to get these natural resources so that they can reduce their reliance on China’s dominant supply chain. However, mining in Greenland has been hindered by low ore concentrations, harsh Arctic temperatures, and the island’s dedication to environmental sustainability.
Is climate change opening new trade routes?
The melting of Arctic ice is opening up new shipping routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, which could drastically reduce transit time between Asia and Europe. Greenland’s closeness to these new routes increases its strategic relevance in global trade. Furthermore, the island’s ice sheet contributes significantly to global sea-level rise, making it a key focus of climate change research and worldwide environmental policy discussions.
Greenland is a geostrategic location for countries like the United States, China and Russia. The Arctic has transformed into a stage for geopolitical rivalry among key nations, such as the U.S., Russia, and China. Russia has been increasing Its military activities in the Arctic, whereas China aims to create a “Polar Silk Road” within its Belt and Road Initiative. With its strategic positioning and resources, Greenland stands at the crossroads of these interests, which require careful decision for the geopolitical relations.
The United States maintains a significant perspective on Greenland’s importance to national security. In 2019, President Donald Trump articulated a desire to acquire Greenland, highlighting its strategic position. This suggestion faced strong resistance from Denmark, who underscored the island’s autonomy and the aspirations of its inhabitants to shape their own destiny.
Russia has been expanding its military presence in the Arctic, reopening and modernizing Soviet-era bases and enhancing its capabilities in the region. Greenland’s location is strategically significant for Russia, as it lies along potential Arctic shipping routes and near areas of military interest. Russia’s activities in the Arctic are part of a broader strategy to assert its influence and secure access to natural resources as polar ice melts.
China has expressed interest in Greenland’s vast deposits of rare earth elements, which are needed for a variety of technologies, including electronics and renewable energy systems. Chinese companies have sought to invest in Greenland’s mining sector to secure these resources. China has identified Greenland as a valuable partner in its Arctic strategy, emphasizing economic cooperation. Chinese companies have expressed interest in Greenland’s mining sector, particularly for rare earth elements needed for modern technology. For instance, Chinese firms have engaged in discussions with Greenlandic authorities since 2012, exploring opportunities in mining and infrastructure development.
However, these investments have faced challenges. Greenland, the low concentrations of ore and a strong commitment to environmental stability prevented the extraction of minerals. In addition, the differences and cultural problems have occurred in the practice of work, in particular with regard to the potential influx of Chinese workers for large -scale projects.
Greenland in the world: Nothing about us without us
In February 2024, Greenland introduced its Foreign, Security, and Defence Policy Strategy (2024-2033), “Greenland in the World: Nothing about us without us.” This strategy reflects Greenland’s desire to enhance its presence and influence in global matters, especially concerning the Arctic region.
Enhanced autonomy in Foreign Affairs: Greenland aims to take a more active role in foreign policy decisions, reducing reliance on Denmark and ensuring that international policies affecting Greenland involve direct Greenlandic participation.
Strengthening Arctic Partnerships: The strategy emphasizes building closer ties with Arctic North American regions, including Alaska and Arctic Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut). Greenland proposes establishing a new political forum called the Arctic North American Forum to facilitate collaboration on shared Arctic interests.
Commitment to Peace and Security: Greenland aims to keep the Arctic a region of low tension. The government intends to set up a peace centre in Greenland to encourage dialogue and stability within the area.
Economic Development and Environmental Stewardship: The strategy is important in balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability. Greenland is keen on developing its natural resources, including critical minerals, while implementing measures to protect its fragile Arctic ecosystem.
Greenland’s role in global geopolitics is complex, involving strategic military concerns, valuable natural resources, and significant environmental issues. As climate change alters conditions in the Arctic, Greenland’s significance is expected to increase, presenting both opportunities and challenges. The island must navigate the intricate task of managing economic growth alongside environmental protection while dealing with the interests of major global powers. The future of Greenland will greatly impact, and be shaped by, broader geopolitical trends in the Arctic and beyond.
After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948 it was well aware of the onslaught that it would face from the neighbouring Arab nations, as its unilateral declaration of independence was in contravention to the United Nations resolution 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 and after decades of bloody confrontation with the Arabs in this tiny area of the Middle East measuring 22,145 square kilometres.
But Israel prepared itself militarily well and for decades later, it fought various multi-front wars with its Arab neighbours and each time it emerged victorious thus setting a benchmark for the global militaries for professionalism in the armed forces.
Neither the UN resolution 242 of 1967 which declared Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and the Golan Heights illegal, deterred Israel as the might of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) was enough for the four multi-front wars that had been waged on Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, nor the numerous skirmishes and minor conflicts that Israel has fought since its independence impeded Israel’s military might.
The high point of IDF’s combat prowess came in 1973 when in the 19-day Yom Kippur War it defeated a 11-nation coalition force.
The successful Raid on Entebbe codenamed “Operation Thunderbolt” launched on July 03-04, 1976 to rescue 104 hostages hijacked onboard an Air France flight between Tel Aviv and Paris which was diverted to Entebbe International Airport, Uganda, embedded IDF’s position as the finest professional military in the world.
But the supremacy of the IDF in the Middle East and as the pole leader as the world’s most professional military was set to be challenged.
After Hamas was formed on December 10, 1987 and started governing the 365-square kilometres Gaza Strip since 2007, Israel has attacked the Gaza Strip located on its southern border, five times in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2023. But each time Israel had to end its war with Hamas with a ceasefire.
On Israel’s northern border too, the IDF had to end its war on the Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and 2024 with a ceasefire.
Clearly, the same IDF which had defeated a 11-nation coalition force during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 ending its wars with a ceasefire with both the Hamas and Hezbollah on January 19, 2025 and November 27, 2024 respectively, which ended the 15-month war with Hamas and the 60-day war with Hezbollah, is definitely what the global militaries and the IDF too, need to ponder upon.
The resignation of the Chief of Staff of the IDF, Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi and its Southern Army Commander Major General Yaron Finkleman on January 21, 2025 clearly indicated defeat for the IDF.
Hence, it is important to analyse the changes that IDF went through which transformed it from winning the war in 1973 against a 11-nation coalition force, to its defeat in 2025 against Hamas and Hezbollah, which are not professional armies as they lack air power, naval power and artillery firepower.
Disregarding the Conventional War Threat
After the Arab Spring hit Syria and the regime of Bashar al-Assad was on a shaky wicket with a civil war engulfing Syria, Israel judged that that the last of the conventional war threats to it in the Middle East from Syria had crippled. Of the assessed major conventional war threats to Israel were Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel had signed a peace treaty with Egypt on March 26, 1979 and with Jordan on October 26, 1994. Thus, the only remaining conventional war threat of Syria with whom Israel had no peace treaty, was crippled severely as per Israel’s assessment.
Hamas and Hezbollah were not major threats and were dismissed by the IDF as “mere terrorist organisations” who lacked combat experience, confidence and firepower to be elevated as primary military threats.
Hence, in 2015, the IDF promulgated the Gideon Multi-Year Plan (GMYP) to reform, recalibrate and reduce the IDF to counter the asymmetric and non-state adversary threats overlooking the conventional war considerations.
As time would prove later on, the GYMP was a blunder and the IDF couldn’t achieve victories in the ground operations launched against Hamas in the Gaza Strip or against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2025.
An important lesson for the global militaries is never discard conventional war threats.
Changes in Battlegroup Formations
Before the formulation of GMYP, a Division was the cutting edge fighting force of the IDF. After 2015, Brigades were redesignated as Independent Battle Groups (IBGs) which replaced the Divisions as frontline fighting forces of the IDF. Each IBG with six battalions of Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Engineers could directly communicate with the Air Force and the Navy for combat support.
This reform of IBGs clearly failed in the conventional war scenario as is evident from the huge reverses and setbacks that the IBGs suffered in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
An important take-away for the global militaries is that the time-tested Divisions as the cutting edge should not be replaced.
Reduction of Manpower
The IDF reduced their combat and non-combat manpower by 10% and the size of the conscripted forces by 30%. The length of conscripted service was reduced by four months. The commissioned and warrant officer posts were reduced by 45,000.
In the recent operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, the IDF experienced a severe shortage of manpower.
It would be pertinent to highlight that global militaries should avoid large reduction in manpower, for how advanced technology might become, what will finally matter is the soldier behind the weapon.
Drastic change in Infantry training
Consequent to 2015, the IDF Infantry soldiers’ training focussed primarily on urban warfare and open-battlefield warfare practises were removed from specialized training programmes.
It would be pertinent here to highlight that an IDF soldier undergoes two stages of training – basic training and specialised training. Basic training is common to all soldiers and specialized training is as per the respective combat role ie Infantry, Armoured, Artillery etc.
The removal of open-warfare practises from the specialized training of an Infantry soldier did immense damage in Israel’s recent war with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Global militaries should avoid doing away with the teachings of conventional warfare.
Reduced Armour
In accordance with the GMYP wherein emphasis was on urban warfare rather than conventional warfare, ten reserve armoured brigades of the IDF were reduced and the size of each armoured battalion was reduced from six armour companies to three armour companies along with two companies of infantry and one company of engineers. This resulted in drastic reduction of armour firepower which proved disastrous in the recent wars.
Armour firepower will play a critical role in conventional wars and global militaries need to remember that.
Reduction in Artillery
The Artillery in IDF too saw half of its reserve artillery brigades dismantled, leaving the IDF with just four active artillery brigades and four reserve artillery battalions. Artillery is known as the “God of War” and the inadequacy of the IDF’s artillery firepower was noticed in the recently concluded ceasefires with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Global militaries should never reduce the traditional firepower sources like Artillery as their usage in a conventional war scenario is extremely beneficial.
Conclusion
Clearly, by negating conventional war threats and preparing for only asymmetric warfare, Israel paid a heavy price and its pole position as the world’s finest professional military for many decades, has been dented severely. The resignation of IDF’s Chief of Staff and the Southern Army Commander should be having the IDF and the global militaries introspecting and taking suitable and time-bound measures in protecting their respective nations as war clouds darken in various parts of the world.
Never before in Israel’s history has the IDF’s Chief of Staff or the Commander of any of its Commands resigned after any war that Israel has fought since 1948, as after each war from 1948 till couple of years back, Israel emerged victorious. This wasn’t the case this time.
The warning of the United Kingdom Defence Secretary on January 15, 2024 that the “era of the peace dividend” which came with the end of the Cold War is over with the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, and these wars are the forerunners of future wars, needs no over-emphasis to global militaries in learning lessons from the IDF and preparing for the era of wars that is already on the horizon.
European defence giant-Thales will showcase its cutting-edge technologies across the defence and aerospace sectors at the 15th edition of Aero India 2025, highlighting the Group’s commitment to ‘Make in India for India and for the world’, aligned with the ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ vision.
For the first time in India, Thales will showcase its innovation in avionics through the FlytX suite for helicopters, in advanced aeronautics navigation systems such as TopAxyz, TopShield and TopStar M. Connectivity solutions such as SYNAPS-A, the airborne member of the SYNAPS software-defined radio family designed to support battlespace digitisation, Modem 21 Air Compact, and the NextW@ve TRA 6030 radio, will also be brought to Aero India this year.
As a leader in the fast-growing market of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Thales will provide an overview of its portfolio of drone solutions, including its EagleShield drone countermeasures (an integrated nano, micro, mini and small drone countermeasures solution to protect and secure civil and military sites); the PARADE system that provides 360 degree protection of people, properties and activities, optimised for micro and mini UAS, ranging from 25kg to 100g and Gamekeeper (a holographic radar that allows detection, tracking and classification of unlimited targets simultaneously including micro and mini drones), in addition to its safe and efficient UTM (Unmanned Traffic Management) system for cooperative and non-cooperative drones, to be unveiled for the first time in India.
Thales will also present its LGR 68 and LGR 70 Laser Guided Rockets that come with laser guidance precision, are jamming-proof and are extremely precise for guiding ammunition to target.
Some of the products, Thales boasts of are state-of-the-art equipment on board fighter aircraft, including the RBE2 AESA radar, the Spectra electronic warfare suite, optronics, the communication, navigation and identification suite (CNI), key cockpit display systems and a logistics support component.
The avionics leader will also highlight its combat-proven airborne optronics, including TALIOS (Targeting Long-range Identification Optronic System) pod, the 2-in-1 system that delivers unmatched image quality, and the InfraRed Search and Track (IRST) system. Also on display will be Thales’s air defence solutions such as the Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM), the STARStreak missile and ForceShield, alongside air surveillance capabilities such as the GM 200 MM/A radar and the SkyView air command and control system.
As part of its underwater solutions for efficient Maritime Security Operations, Thales will feature its Sonoflash sonobuoy, an anti-submarine warfare system that allows the detection, classification and localisation of submarines. It will also showcase the AirMaster C radar- the latest addition to its Air Master range of airborne surveillance radars -that is highly adaptable and can be integrated into both manned and unmanned airborne platforms.
Thales euronaval sono flash: source Author
AI Systems
Thales is a major AI player in these complex environments. The company is Europe’s top patent applicant in the field and devotes a lot of effort to research on AI, both in-house and through academic and industry partnerships. The Group provides armed forces with greater efficiency in data analysis and decision-making, while taking into account the specific constraints, such as cybersecurity, embeddability and frugality, associated with critical environments. On display will be how Thales embarked AI on its solutions such as TALIOS or AirMaster C radar.
“As India progresses towards its Aatmanirbhar Bharat vision, Thales is proud to be a trusted partner in the nation’s ambitious journey. We remain committed to ‘Make in India’ and are advancing our roadmap by strengthening our local teams, collaborations and bringing advanced defence and aerospace technologies to the country. We look forward to continue equipping the Indian armed forces with the next generation of innovative and effective solutions to support their strategic defence ambitions. Aero India 2025 will serve as a key platform for us to present our flagship capabilities and engage with the authorities, forces and our industry partners.” said Pascale Sourisse, President & CEO, Thales International.
Thales euronaval flash: source Author
Thales Partners Airbus in New Study Contract For French A321 MPA
The French Defence Procurement Agency (Direction Générale de l’Armement) has signed a contract with Airbus Defence and Space as prime contractor, in partnership with Thales, for a risk-assessment study of its future maritime patrol aircraft programme-the A321 MPA. This 24-month contract follows on from the architecture and feasibility study launched at the end of 2022.
“The A321 MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) has all the assets to become a true flying frigate capable of responding to the wide range of missions entrusted to the French maritime patrol,” said Jean-Brice Dumont, Executive Vice President, Head of Air Power at Airbus Defence and Space. “Airbus offers a sovereign solution that provides the autonomy, availability and reliability required to contribute to the oceanic component of the nuclear deterrence.”
The aim of this new definition study and risk-assessment contract is to prepare for the development and production launch of the maritime patrol aircraft programme at the end of 2026. This study will enable the initial results of the architecture study to be taken further, in order to refine the economic and industrial conditions for carrying out the programme, to guide the technical choices of the systems to be integrated on the aircraft, and to carry out the first wind-tunnel tests.
The A321 MPA is a militarised version of the Airbus A321XLR, designed to meet all the operational requirements of the French Navy, mainly in anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, from low to high intensity, as well as intelligence gathering. The aim is to have a new aircraft to replace the fleet of Atlantique-2 operated by the French Navy from the Lann-Bihoué (France) naval air base by the 2030-2040 timeframe.
The A321 MPA will have a long-range and high-manoeuvrability capability, including at low altitude. The aircraft will be equipped with a full range of sensors specific to maritime patrol aircraft, to which Thales is a major contributor: latest-generation radar with active antennas; an acoustic system using passive and active sonar buoys; electronic and electro-optical warfare systems; magnetic anomaly detection (MAD), and self-protection systems.
It will also carry communications systems, including satellite communications, as well as the weapons needed for anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, comprising torpedoes and the future anti-ship missile (FMAN). The aircraft’s large cargo bay and the open architecture of its mission system give it a great capacity to evolve throughout its lifecycle to meet the emergence of new threats.
The extraordinary success of the A320 family – the world’s best-selling single-aisle aircraft with more than 10,000 aircraft in service and more than 300 million flight hours – ensures that the A321 MPA has long proven availability, reliability and low maintenance costs.
Airbus Defence and Space has long experience in converting commercial aircraft into military aircraft, culminating in the success of the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) , which has more than 90 percent of the world market (excluding the United States). The company also has extensive expertise in the integration of sensors and mission systems on the P3, C295 and CN235 aircraft, with more than 170 aircraft in service in various maritime patrol and surveillance configurations.
North Korean President Kim Jong Un in front of an ICBM: source Internet
In the last decade, North-Korea has boosted the mass production of conventional and nuclear missiles, which have become a matter of serious concern to the international community as it not only threatens the Korean Peninsula but also other countries such as Japannand the United States. This has become a big issue especially after IAEA found North Korea in non-compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which North Korea withdrew from in 2013.
For more than three decades, the ROK government and relevant countries have made intensive efforts to resolve this issue. Although, North Korea has declared that their nation has entered the point where there is no turning back from becoming a nuclear superpower. South Korea and U.S. is trying their best to bring North Korea to the agreement of “the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”
History
North Korea’s Nuclear program started near 1960s, when the Soviet Union assisted North Korea with the construction of Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center and in 1970s they got access to Plutonium by learning the reprocessing technology from the Soviet Union. After that, North Korea ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In January 1992, both North and South Korea signed a Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, under which both countries agreed to never test and use nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes. Both countries also agreed to mutual inspections for verification, but they were never able to reach an agreement on implementation.
However, North Korea was not loyal to the treaty. Later in 1992, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raised concerns about the country’s plutonium stockpiles. North Korea refused to cooperate with IAEA in order to clarify any discrepancy, due to which in 1993, IAEA declared that North Korea was in non-compliance with its NPT and might be using the nuclear grade Plutonium for non-civilian purposes. After two decades, North Korea formally declared the Joint Declaration void in January 2013.
In 1994 the leaders of U.S. and North Korea made an agreement to stop their Plutonium development program in exchange of 2 light water reactor for energy production. But this agreement broke in the Bush administration due to illicit uranium enrichment program found in North Korea, due to which U.S. decided to stop the energy deal with North Korea. After few years in 2003, North Korea withdrew from the NPT and restart nuclear activities.
After the withdrawal of North Korea from NPT, the six-party talks were arranged with both the Koreas, Russia, China, Japan, and the United States. In September 2005, the six party talks had its major success by making North Korea agree to abandon its nuclear weapons activities and return to the NPT. Under the 2005’s the six party talks agreement, North Korea disabled its plutonium reactor at Yongbyon in 2007 and allowed IAEA inspectors into the country and North Korea received oil in return. However, due to increased tensions, North Korea again declared in April 2009 that it would no longer be bound by agreement of the six party talks.
North-Korea’s Nuclear Arsenal
It is estimated that as of 2024, North Korea has 50 warheads. The has the stockpile of nearly 70-90 nuclear material for weapon production. It is also estimated that they have around 280-1500 kg of highly enriched uranium and 60-80 kg of nuclear grade Plutonium. Although, because of the clandestine nature of the North Korean, these estimation is highly uncertain due to lack of information on the nuclear material enrichment facilities. Therefore, nothing can be said for sure.
According to the experts, North Korea’s 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests likely used plutonium because by that time North Korea already had enough Plutonium to use in the weapon. After announcing the Joint Declaration void in January 2013, North Korea restarted its Yongbyon 5MWe Reactor for plutonium production in April 2013 and declared that reactor is ‘fully operational’ by the end of August 2015. This reactor is capable of producing 6 kg of weapon grade plutonium per year. It has been confirmed by the satellite images that the production activities have increased.
North Korea has the ability to produce the weapon grade Uranium by using gas centrifuge technology. North-Korea has declared only one uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon enrichment facility estimated to have 4000 centrifuge. Although, it can be predicted from the satellite images that North Korea has extended around 1000 more centrifuges. It is believed that North-Korea might have constructed second enrichment facilities in Kangson. Because of which, in 2022, United Nations listed Kangson as a “suspected clandestine uranium enrichment facility.”
Missile technology of North-Korea
North Korea’s started its ballistic missile program in the late 1970s and early 1980s, by reverse-engineering the acquired Soviet Scud-type missiles from Egypt. Besides land based ballistic missiles, North Korea has successfully tested a submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Pukguksong-1. In addition to this, North Korea also has a Space Launch Vehicle, the Unha, which based on technology of their ballistic missiles. North Korea have also tested its first hypersonic missile in September 2021, the Hwasong-8, which possess a big challenge to missile defense systems due to their speed and maneuverability. However, North Korea is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
In 2006, North Korea did their first underground nuclear testing, estimated around 1-2 kilotons of explosion yield. After the first test in 2006, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1718, enacting a variety of multilateral sanctions and demanding that Pyongyang return to the NPT and halt its nuclear weapons activities. They tested total seven of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles, between 2006 and 2017. However, North Korea performed more than seventy ballistic and cruise missile tests by the end of 2022. This was continued by North Korea in 2023 and 2024, with ICBMs caring maximum range of 15000 km. These tests triggered condemnation from the countries such as United States, United Nations, Japan, and South Korea.
North Korea has not only been making missiles but have been a big part of the global missile trade. They are one of the largest supplier of missiles in the East-Asian and West-Asian countries, including Myanmar, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen. North Korea has also helped Syria to build an undeclared nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by Israeli airstrike in 2007, while the reactor was still under construction. North Korea also allegedly attempted to sell graphite rods to Syria in 2012.However, missile export of North Korea has reduced significantly due to sanctions from U.S. and U.N. on the bases of resent missile development in North-Korea.
Future prospects
In January 2016, North Korea declared its nuclear doctrine that they would not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict unless its sovereignty was under direct threat and committed to “strive for the global denuclearization.” However, in September 2022, North Korea updated its nuclear doctrine in which they enumerated the circumstances under which North Korea would use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. North Korea considered some scenarios, such as “taking the initiative in war” and preempting a “fatal military attack against important strategic objects.” This new nuclear doctrine also stated that the nation’s leader, Kim Jong Un has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons and a nuclear strike will be conducted automatically if the country’s leadership is targeted.
Kim Jong Un has declared that North-Korea will continue mass production of ICBMs with nuclear payloads to give their country a “quick nuclear counterstrike” capability. Kim gave the reasoning for the mass production of ICBMs as a necessary action to counter South Korea’s “preparations for war” and “worrying military moves” by the United States and other hostile forces targeting North Korea. Kim’s announcement for the mass production of missiles came after South Korea updated the five-year defence plans specifically designed to counter the threat from Pyongyang’s nuclear missiles. South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol also announced the creation of a new drone unit after North Korean unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flew into South Korean airspace.
The future of North Korea has always been a part of big concern specially to U.S. and South Korea. The willingness of North Korea to denuclearize has long been questioned because it views its nuclear deterrent as necessary to protect the Kim regime and the state. Kim Jong Un said that the country’s status as a nuclear weapons state “has now become irreversible” and that there will “never be any declaration of giving up our nukes or denuclearization” in future negotiations.
Conclusion
Complete denuclearization of Korean Peninsula might never be possible. Considering North-Korea has already declared that their nation has entered the point where there is no turning back from becoming a nuclear power. North Korea also has support from Russia including reprocessing technology, missiles technology and space research. North Korea considers United States as one of the biggest threats to the Kim regime and to the state safety. South Korea playing a big part against North Korea’s nuclear issue has worsened the relations between South Korea and North Korea. Which makes it even hard for North Korea to consider complying with the U.S. and to restart nuclear talks.
South-Korea not only trying their best to denuclearize North-Korea because they are the neighbouring country but also because it is causing friction with United States. The ROK government aims to establish sustainable peace regime through dialogue and diplomacy. Furthermore, as a key stakeholder in the North Korean nuclear issue, the ROK will lead international cooperation to create a strategic environment that leaves North Korea no option but to return to the path of denuclearization.
As the new millennium progressed in the year 2000, whilst the world at large was celebrating this historic year which few witness in their lifetime and the failure of the much-touted Y2K bug, further added relief and joy to the millennium revellers. In the offices of the Chinese Ministry of Education on the Xizhimenwai Street of Beijing and the Ministry of Science & Technology located on Fuxing Road, Beijing there was a growing worry about lesser Doctorates (PhD) in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) that China was producing in contrast to USA.
For, in that year China produced 9038 PhDs in STEM while USA was the global pole leader in this field having produced 18,289 PhDs in STEM.
Both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology knew that if China had to make technological strides than more PhDs in STEM were required as they were the pivots in technology development and Research & Development (R&D).
After lot of brain-storming and studying various global models, China launched the “Young Thousand Talents Program” in 2007. The results of this decision were quick to be seen and in 2010, China surpassed USA in the number of PhDs in STEM, with China producing 34,801 STEM Doctorates that year while USA produced 26,076.
In 2019, China produced 49,498 PhDs in STEM and in the same year USA produced 33,759 and India had 700 plus STEM PhDs. Of these 700 plus Indian STEM PhDs, 70% have renounced their Indian citizenship and have migrated to foreign countries.
Buoyed by the unprecedented success of the “Young Thousand Talents Program”, China launched the “National High-end Foreign Experts Recruitment Plan” on March 17, 2020 to further hone up their technological prowess and by this year end, China is projected to produce 77,179 PhDs in STEM in comparison to USA’s 39,959.
As the Doctorates in STEM in China kept on increasing, so did their numbers of world-leading scientists. A world-leading scientist is one who has published research papers in the world’s top scientific journals.
Sample the period 2020-2024 for the number of world-leading scientists in both China and USA. In 2020, USA had 36,959 world-leading scientists while China was almost half of that number at 18,805. In 2024, China became the global leader in the world-leading scientists with 32,511 and the USA had 31,781.
Currently, China is the global leader in 37 out of 44 critical technologies while the USA leads in the balance seven critical technologies.
Clearly, China built the conducive scientific temperament for it to be the global leader in technology today. This certainly was not done in one day and as is visible from the above stated facts and figures, the process started a quarter of a century back, despite USA being the global leader in technology then.
In the field of technological advancements China proved their famous proverb apt “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now”. And China started their technological superiority journey in right earnest in 2000.
So, when DeepSeek, the Chinese artificial intelligence software that develops open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) was announced on January 20, 2025, it was no surprise to those who understood China well, for it was the product of investments in technology that China had started in 2000 and the result of strong educational fundamentals espoused by Mao Zedong in 1949.
After China was devastated by a civil war that ended in 1949, the literacy rate in China was just between 20-40%. The communist party on taking over power made education as one of its foremost priorities and through both formal schooling and literacy programmes was able to achieve school enrolment getting tripled, secondary school enrolment increasing by a factor of 8.5 and college enrolment quadrupling in the first sixteen years, thus laying a strong bedrock for education.
The fact that the date of announcement of DeepSeek on January 20, 2025 on the same day as of the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of USA was no coincidence but a well-planned strategy to show China’s biggest rival that it meant business.
A week later, President Donald Trump reacted by terming DeepSeek as a “Wake-up Call” as during the first week of its launch, DeepSeek surged to become the most downloaded free application displacing OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google termed the launch of DeepSeek as a turning point in the global AI race.
The shares of US-based Nvidia whose chips are used for making of ChatGPT tanked 17%, suffering a loss of over US$ 1 trillion since the launch of DeepSeek. Clearly, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom which was ignited by ChatGPT’s release on November 30, 2022 had Nvidia and OpenAI laughing all the way to the bank, besides giving USA the pole position in AI.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement on September 04, 2017 that the nation leading in AI will be the ruler of the world, had the USA in that important driver’s seat for a brief period of 26 months till DeepSeek shattered the American dream-run in AI last month.
Costing a mere US$ 5.76 million to create DeepSeek, at one-tenth the cost that made ChatGPT, Hangzhou DeepSeek AI Technology Research Company Limited, the owners of DeepSeek is a Hangzhou-based startup founded in China in July 2023.
Using open-source approach the team that created DeepSeek has 50% of its members born after 1995 and 75% of its members born after 1990. Clearly, the young talent of China shocked the world in AI which is a testament of the technology-driven initiatives launched by China since 2000.
DeepSeek is an apt example of open collaboration dovetailing the successful integration of technology, information, capital and talent as DeepSeek using open-source approach collaborated with Sugon and Tencent Cloud, already well-established Chinese information technology companies in technology development, application, implementation and expansion. The words of Thomas Malone hold true “True innovation will come not from new technologies but from new ways of collaboration”. And, DeepSeek did exactly that.
The words of US President Donald Trump terming DeepSeek as a wake-up call are of immense importance to the six littoral nations of the South China Sea ie Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, apart from India and USA as China is to wage three wars in the next one decade on Taiwan in 2027, Spratly Islands in 2029 and a joint two-front war with Pakistan on India in 2035 in which AI will play a very significant role in China’s futuristic wars which will involve all the eight nations listed above at some point or the other in next one decade.
It is important to remember that the future wars will be fought using modern technology and not the past supremacy in culture or civilization.
A case in point of use of modern technology in modern warfare is when Hamas attacked Israel on October 07, 2023 at 6.30 am. For the next 20 minutes, the electromagnetic spectrum of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) was jammed. As result of which, the Israeli military commanders were not able to communicate with each other and this gave the crucial first-mover advantage to Israel and they were successful in taking 251 Israelis as hostages. The electromagnetic spectrum was jammed by China for Hamas and the Israel-Hamas War which ended on January 19, 2025 resulted in defeat for the IDF which is evident by the fact that the Chief of Staff of the IDF, Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi and its Southern Army Commander Major General Yaron Finkleman resigned on January 21, 2025.
The same IDF which had defeated a 11-nation coalition force during the 19-day Yom Kippur War of 1973 had to seek a ceasefire with both the Hamas and Hezbollah on January 19, 2025 and November 27, 2024 respectively ending the 15-month war with Hamas and the 60-day war with Hezbollah, as one of the pivotal factors was the Israeli hostages with Hamas and there was mounting pressure from the majority of the Israeli citizens to get the hostages released.
There is no runner-up in a war and with technology forming a very important edge in modern warfare, the choice rests with each nation that is to go to war with China in the next one decade.
China needs to be understood well. For those who understand China well, will be better prepared to tackle it when the balloon goes up (an army slang meaning commencement of a war) and not be surprised when softwares like DeepSeek are launched.
Expected to be the showstopper at this year’s Aero India, after the US Air Force (USAF)’s F-35 Lightening II’s India debut in 2023, Russia is all set to launch its fifth-generation fighter, the Su-57 Felon, developed by Russian aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi in India at the upcoming 15th edition of the biennial airshow-Aero India, from Feb 10-14, 2025 at Yelahanka, Bengaluru. India is the second country for the Felon to debut in after China, where it flew for the first time at the Chinese airshow in Zhuhai last November.
Though the USAF F-35 Lightning II will be on static display, unlike the Felon, the clear signalling is not lost on the strategic community about America’s last-minute decision to send its stealth fifth generation fighter, which enthralled viewers during Aero India-2023, through its aerial display and awe-inspiring manoeuvres.
Both US President Donald J Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are reported to visit India this year and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has had a long pending RFP (request for proposal) for its 114 MRFA (multi-role fighter aircraft) deal valued at US$ 20 billion, still to be announced. The F-35 Lightening’s return to the airshow this year is also timed with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US visit, after a few days.
It maybe noted that India had initially agreed to co-develop its own fifth generation stealth fighter jet along with Russia, under a 2007 project named PAKFA-FGFA, which got derailed in 2018, but the Russian side maintains that the PAKFA-FGFA is only delayed and might get revived soon.
Fifth Generation Fighters
Fifth-generation fighter jets boast advanced capabilities, including stealth, super-cruise, and super-manoeuvrability. They also offer superior precision strike capability, speed, agility, and situational awareness. While the Su-57 is a twin-engine aircraft, the F-35 is a single-engine fighter. Stealth is the main feature of a fifth-generation fighter, which is a technology enabling radar evading feature to reduce detection. Advanced avionics in a fifth generation comprise an integrated sensor fusion for superior situational awareness. Their super-cruise capability ensures a sustained supersonic flight without afterburners. The fifth-generation fighters are capable of network-centric warfare, meaning they have seamless data sharing with other assets in a real-time multirole environment. They excel in air-to-air, air-to-ground and electronic warfare missions.
India is also working on developing its own fifth-generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) gave its approval to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the project in 2023, while the financial sanction came only in 2024. The first prototype is expected to have its debut flight by 2028, according to DRDO sources.
It may be noted that India’s fighter fleet has declined to 29.5 squadrons, well below the sanctioned strength of 42.
The only fifth generation stealth fighters in the world, which are operational are the American F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightening II, both developed by Lockheed Martin and in service in the USAF, the Russian Su-57 Felon, which has been part of operations in Syria and Ukraine and the Chinese Chengdu J-20 ‘Mighty Dragon’.
While those under development are Russian Su-75 ‘Çheckmate’, Shenyang FC-31 ‘Gyrfalcon’, the Chinese twin-engine, multi-role fifth generation stealth fighter, India’s AMCA, Tai TF Kaan, the twin-engine, multi-role fifth generation fighter being developed by the Turkish Aerospace Industries, Mitshubishi F-X-the sixth-generation stealth fighter being developed for the Japan Air Self-Defence Force, and the Korean KAI KF-21 Boramae programme.
F-35
The single-engine, single-seat F-35 is essentially being sold to the United States’ NATO allies, although non-NATO allies Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore also operate it, while Switzerland, which is also non-NATO, is considering an F-35 purchase. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the fifth-generation fighter is co-developed in partnership by eight countries and presently flown by 14 air forces and navies worldwide.
F-35: source Internet
F-35’s debut in India at the 2023 edition of Aero India, according to the US Embassy was not about Foreign Military Sales; but more about the closeness of a defence partnership of two maritime democracies with great air power, naval power and land power collaborating to provide deterrence and security across the region.
The F-35’s superior stealth design comes with internal weapons bays, radar-absorbent materials, and advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities. The Lightening II is reportedly less manoeuvrable, with no thrust-vectoring, but still agile due to its advanced flight control systems. The F-35’s AN/APG-81 AESA radar is one of the most advanced in the world, with superior target tracking and electronic warfare capabilities. The fighter has a longer operational range of 1,700 plus kilometres due to its efficient fuel management. The weapons package comprises AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, and precision-guided bombs, all designed for stealth carriage. The F-35 is a multi-role stealth fighter focused on strike missions, intelligence gathering, and electronic warfare.
Su-57 Felon
The Su-57 is a twin-engine stealth fighter aircraft, presently operational in just the Russian Airforce. The two engines are typically identified as Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofan engines. It is a more air-superiority-focused fighter with ground-attack capabilities.
The Felon is highly manoeuvrable with 3D thrust-vectoring engines, making it superior in close-range dogfights. The jet is faster at Mach 2+ and has a combat range of ~1,500 km (without refuelling). The Su-57 uses a mix of beyond-visual-range missiles like the R-77M and R-37M, which has very long-range capabilities. The N036 Belka AESA radar has multiple arrays, providing good situational awareness.
AMCA
The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is India’s upcoming fifth-generation stealth fighter being developed by HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) and DRDO. It aims to rival other fifth-gen fighters like the F-35, Su-57, and J-20 while incorporating cutting-edge technologies. The fighter is expected to roll out for trials by 2028.
This fifth-generation, twin-engine, multirole, low-observable fighter is due to have a maximum take- off weight in the 25-tonne category, and includes a number of fifth-generation features including Diverterless Super-sonic Inlets (DSIs), serpentine intakes an internal weapons bay, and thrust vectoring engines. At present, the AMCA still in the design phase.
The Diamond-shaped AMCA has a blended wing-body structure for reduced radar signature. It is supposed to be incorporated with a low radar cross-section (RCS) with stealth shaping and radar-absorbent materials (RAM). It is expected to achieve Mach 2+ speed. The twin-engine configuration is for a high thrust-to-weight ratio and enhanced combat range of 1,500 km+ (extendable with aerial refuelling). The AMCA will be equipped with AI-powered avionics for automation and reduced pilot workload. The weapons package would comprise Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles: Astra Mk-2, Astra Mk-3, Astra Mk-1, Python-5, precision-guided munitions, like smart bombs and air-to-ground missiles. AMCA will be India’s first stealth fighter, designed to balance stealth, manoeuvrability, and sensor fusion.
This year’s event will also showcase Boeing’s KC-135 Stratotanker refuelling aircraft and Embraer’s C-390 transport aircraft, along with other exciting highlights.
Foreign Ministers of the SQUAD nations on May 02, 2024: source Internet
The Biden administration had proposed SQUAD to bolster peace, mutual deterrence and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. The US Secretary of Defence, Llyod George said, “We have chartered an ambitious course to advance that vision together” at the sidelines of the April 2024 meeting of Defence Ministers – Richard Marles (Australia), Kihara Minoru (Japan), Gilberto Teodoro (Philippines) and Lloyd Austin (US) in the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) in Hawaii. The seeds for this grouping were sown in the preliminary meeting of defence ministers in the 2023 Shangri La Dialogue. Later, joint maritime patrols in the hotly contested South China Sea (SCS), followed by a trilateral summit of American, Japanese and Phillipino leaders, further cemented this partnership.
This institutionalisation of SQUAD comes at the hills of regime change in the Philippines from pursuing a passivist policy towards China towards the current term of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s shift towards collaborating with the US to strengthen ‘integrated deterrence’ in the South China Sea (SCS). Further, Australia, in recent years, has also shed its reticence in irking China of not entering into strategic partnerships with others in the region. Japan also looks to wean away from its pacifist constitution. The other major player in the region, India, forms QUAD with the US, Japan and Australia, but its insistence on ‘strategic autonomy’ while keeping independent ties with Russia and also resisting a more militaristic colour to this union has prevented QUAD from achieving strategic coherence and utility against formidable Chinese intransigence.
As a part of the larger trend of transitioning beyond traditional foreign policy tools, the Indo-Pacific has been the incubator of minilateral associations as the site of hot strategic competition. The growing intersection of economic, military, political, and cultural conflicts within and outside the region’s states has been a shot in the arm for such rebalancing strategies. Initiatives like QUAD, US-Republic of Korea-Japan Trilateral, AUKUS, and SQUAD, all grapple with traditional and non-traditional currencies of power politics. Both China and the US are spearheading activist diplomatic regimens to woo countries to broaden their network of friendly and cooperative states. Whether to funnel strategic rivalry by perusing ‘hard’ politics or pursue ‘human security’ and ‘soft’ issues (Singapore-Indonesia-Malaysia Malacca Straits Patrol) – minilateral initiatives in Indo-Pacific are blurring boundaries in strategic wargaming.
QUAD to SQUAD à a mere strategic dribble or a concrete gameplan?
Chinese commentators have seen SQUAD as a part of the declining hegemon’s (US) last-ditch attempt to ‘contain’ an inevitable Chinese ascendancy. The Dragon has accused the US of fielding proxies like the Philippines to provoke its “Ukrainization”. They claim that the United States is manipulating the Philippines and provoking it against China. This ‘cold war mentality’ will entrench regional divisions and mistrust, complicating the security atmosphere even more. This will force states to take sides and pose challenges to cooperation between China and Southeast Asian countries. This point is of relevance as China-ASEAN trade has increased four times since 2019. Furthermore, the Regional Comprehensive Partnership (RCEP) backed by China has been touted as the world’s biggest security pact by Al Jazeera, covering 30% of the global population and economy. This raises doubts about the efficacy of the strategic alignment of US-led groups with SCS littoral states.
But the era of simplistic geopolitical games is over as the age of alliances has eclipsed countries, especially from the Global South, valuing the strategic depth accruing from issue-based ad hoc coalitions. As Kissinger famously opined that ‘America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests’ – this maxim underscores the need for adaptation to constantly changing geopolitical alignments. SQUAD is a much more focused attempt than QUAD to build pressure on China to temper its predatory attitude in SCS, especially the Taiwan Straits. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has already reasoned in the Munich Security Conference on February 19, 2022, that QUAD is not Asian NATO and simply about “four countries who have common interests, common values, (a) great deal of comfort, who happen to be located in the four corners of the Indo Pacific”. This counterbalance will perhaps be much more effective with replacement of a reluctant India with Philippines, an ally of United States, having a Visiting Forces Agreement with Australia and negotiating Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan.
SQUAD, by aiming for greater military interoperability and strategic coordination, is a step forward from QUAD. Aiming to strengthen the joint response to a wide variety of traditional and non-traditional threats, SQUAD is a part of the “lattice-like” security architecture that the US has been cultivating in recent years. Moving away from an unpopular, costly and strategically dubious collective defence posture for sustaining a favourable balance of power, the United States, as the preeminent power, is now seeking mutual plurilateral partnerships. The greater shift from grand alliances to minilaterals underscores the need to counter a limited but imminent spectrum of threats in flexible and improvised groupings.
Informalism in Indo-Pacific diplomacy
With its roots in off-the-table diplomatic manoeuvres, the SQUAD needs to institutionalise and promise actionable partnership through regular punitive and preventive joint patrols in the South China Sea and across the Pacific, coordinated intelligence-sharing and maritime security cooperation, and modernisation and interoperability of partners’ defence systems. It needs to score a bullseye in its counter plans to Chinese aggression and hybrid grey zone warfare, which have seriously jeopardised regional security and cooperation. China smartly nibbles at others’ territory by playing the victim and enmeshing its target in disadvantageous bilateral negotiations, but with mechanisms like ASEAN and QUAD, South East Asian states can proffer a multilateral response to the Dragon’s increasingly threatening behaviour. Such institutionalised cooperative platforms signal to China that its targets are not alone and that it can be subjected to military and economic countermeasures.
However, there are problems with this interpretation of SQUAD for two reasons. First, SQUAD is not Asian NATO – an idea dumped by all relevant stakeholders but one that irks China. A collective defence system in South East Asia is not even a remote possibility because even if China is recognised as a common threat – the perception of the nature of its irredentism differs between Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and others. Furthermore, despite China’s economic coercion by weaponising its supply chain dominance, surveillance infiltration, and trade dumping – South East Asian states are so deeply integrated and have benefitted from RCEP and bilateral arrangements with China that they will ponder twice before directly standing up to it. It is a chicken and egg situation of whether to float a militarised forum to respond to already prominent Chinese abrasions while also risking an enraged China.
Deep Chinese pockets have successfully orchestrated its ‘dual circulation’ strategy in which its manufacturing exports-driven economy earns foreign exchange by becoming the factory of the world and also caters to booming domestic demand. This has been aided by piloting gargantuan projects, massive in imagination and investments, all across the world to capture the markets and minds of the larger world, especially the Global South. Initiatives like the Global Civilisation Initiative are part of China’s attempt to replace the cultural industry of American hegemony and replace it with its own. It remains to be seen if SQUAD can provide real deterrence beyond the reputational deterrence of standing against a ‘quartet of chaos’ of autocracies.
Way Forward
An assessment of Chinese strategic culture is aptly summed by recalling an observation of its founding father, Mao Zedong, that power flows from the barrel of a gun. All revisionist powers like China are hardwired to maniacally try to bridge their strategic insecurities in the balance with the current superpower. Military capabilities and economic resourcefulness are the two rules of the game, with its theatre, the Indo-Pacific, transforming into a textbook case of Mandala dynamics. India already has its playbook astutely described by master strategician Kautilya. Guided by new age wisdom of eschewing war by pursuing ‘dialogue and diplomacy’, India has done well to shun the militaristic avatar of QUAD and by refusing to play the Western proxy. By retaining its value as an autonomous swing state, India has preserved sufficient systemic space for a cold war between the ‘Alliance of Democracies’ and ‘Eurasian Entente’ to cement.
China, meanwhile, has been pursuing its own brand of ‘value-based’ minilateralism against the ‘cold war mentality’ of block politics. It insists on a Global South and Asian solidarity against the erstwhile colonial and imperialist powers. It poses a ‘common future for mankind’ under the benign Chinese umbrella. This is a reproduction of the 1990s talk shop of ‘Peaceful Rise’ where Beijing successfully managed to use multilateral arrangements of liberal internationalism like WTO to their full potential to be the indisputable challenger state to the US. As is the fundamental tenet under Hegemonic Stability Theory, a rising power invariably faces off with the current one. China’s claim to power has been to promote ‘common prosperity’, and yet its actions within and outside its borders suggest otherwise.
As for SQUAD itself, someone has to stand up and build resilience and guarantee mutuality in acknowledging and addressing a common strategic irritant. Chinese mouthpiece Global Times has regularly lambasted the idea of Asian NATO, but China itself is pushing South East Asia into a Western embrace by failing to honour international laws. It refused to accept the 2015 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the South China Sea dispute and recently scuttled an attempt by ASEAN to have a voluntary code of conduct for non-confrontational and non-interventionist open and free navigation. It has turned SCS and the broader Indo-Pacific into a playground for great power showdown. On the contrary, the continuous intrusion of the United States, an extra-regional alien power, in Asian subregions has delegitimised existing regional security architectures like ASEAN, East Asia Summit and even SAARC to reproduce dependencies of client states on superpowers. Such western interventions have precluded the natural emergence of an autonomous regional balance of power within Asia and raked up insecurities for Russia and China.
The spectrum of offensive tactics followed by China just manages to remain actions short of provoking a full-scale war – but it should be mindful that this rapidly changing, volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world poses newer definitions and strategic thresholds. Unlike conventional war, the escalation ladder in grey zone kinetic warfare (as implemented by China) does not have a clear chain. All modern wars are wars of attrition, with even so-called major powers being embarrassed into the ‘Afghanistan Trap’ of never-ending conflicts with smaller and ‘insignificant’ states. China’s possible future misadventure in Taiwan can learn lessons from Iraq (US) and Ukraine (Russia).
In Senkakau Paradox, Michael E. O’Hanlon poses the danger of small states acquiring magnified and bloated perceptions in the balance of power politics and provoking war – a similar danger is faced in the South China Sea where small (and some artificial islands) risk igniting this region. In contrast, he proposes an ‘integrated defence’ of a mix of mild military reprisals and economic sanctions to deter the threat actors. Such measures are already in place – Mineral Security Partnership, IPEF, iCET etc. However, the deployment of geoeconomic tools is a dicey proposition as it can further push the adversary into evolving alternative and independent architectures like the proposed BRICS currency against the weaponisation of SWIFT and sanctions regimes by Euro-Atlantic countries.
An opposite reading would suggest that small states have very often been ignored and trampled in the interstate system. In the Indo-Pacific itself, the Pacific Islands are mentioned as an afterthought, and their existential concerns of being drowned by rising sea levels due to climate change are dismissed as ‘low politics’ matters. The superpowers only remember them for their strategic locales while eyeing their rich mineral resources. Indo-Pacific remains a unique stage of enactment of geopolitical rivalries as non-state actors are not major players, unlike in the Gulf, where Houthis have wreaked havoc. In this sense, traditional IR models of statism and power politics still seem to apply and offer prescriptive models for Asian hawks and doves.
The Pacific Islands, often seen as small and remote, have become increasingly important in global geopolitics due to their strategic location, rich natural resources, and vulnerability to climate change. These islands, controlling vast Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), are key players in maritime security and global trade. As geopolitical rivalries intensify, particularly between the United States and China, the region’s significance is amplified. At the same time, the existential threat posed by climate change is reshaping the islands’ future, creating new challenges for their sovereignty, security, and migration. This article explores the strategic, environmental, and geopolitical implications of the Pacific Islands in the 21st century.
Strategic Importance
The Pacific Islands have become a battleground for global and regional powers, whose competition for control over key maritime routes and resources defines the future of the region’s geopolitical landscape. Beyond their strategic importance as maritime routes, the Pacific Islands have increasingly become a focal point in the broader geopolitical competition, attracting attention from global powers. These islands are situated adjacent to trade lanes that connect eastern Australia and New Zealand to Asia, facilitating the transportation of critical resources such as oil, iron ore, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ((ADB), 2007) and (Bureau of Infrastructure, 2013). Ports in the region also play a significant role in refuelling and other maritime services. (Air Mobility Command (AMC), 2018).
From a strategic standpoint, control over marine routes during wartime offers substantial advantages, including the ability to monitor naval movements, enforce blockades, and secure essential supply chains. Additionally, these routes serve as critical corridors for deploying naval forces and disrupting adversarial logistics, underscoring their importance in maritime security and strategic operations.
Geopolitical Competition and Power Rivalry
The Pacific Islands have emerged as a central arena of geopolitical competition and power rivalry, with global and regional powers vying for influence in a region defined by its strategic location, rich natural resources, and critical role in ensuring maritime security. Historically, the islands have attracted significant attention due to their proximity to vital maritime routes, serving as key hubs for trade, diplomatic engagement, and military interests (State, n.d.).
To advance their strategic goals, global powers involved in this competition must control key trade routes, telecommunications infrastructure, and underwater spaces. These spaces are essential for deploying submarines and monitoring undersea activities. Furthermore, the implementation of governance norms through institutions such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) plays a crucial role in shaping the region’s political and security dynamics. The Pacific Islands, with their strategic depth, have become pivotal in the power rivalry, as controlling this region is crucial for broader geopolitical influence.
Additionally, the location of Pacific Island countries offers significant advantages for monitoring and controlling naval movements across the Pacific, making them central to the defence strategies of major powers. This strategic depth has placed the region at the heart of the geopolitical competition, where the United States, China, and other powers increasingly vie for influence (Institute, 2020).
The concept of island chain competition further intensifies the geopolitical rivalry in the Pacific Islands. These chains, strategically located across key maritime routes, play a significant role in the broader contest for influence between global powers. As the United States, China, and other regional actors vie for control, securing these critical zones becomes central to their power strategies in the region. The island chain strategy involves three zones, but the main contestation in the Pacific focuses on the second and third island chains. Originally formulated by John Foster Dulles in 1951 as a strategy to contain the naval expansion of the USSR and China, the concept has recently regained prominence in due to contemporary geopolitical dynamics (Defence Island Chain Strategy: Steps to Checkmate China, 2018).
The second island chain, which includes Pacific states such as Guam and the Federated States of Micronesia, holds strategic significance. While China has never officially acknowledged plans to expand its military presence in the region, its actions within the framework of the island chain strategy suggest otherwise. The third island chain, which encompasses the majority of Pacific Islands, is a key area where China seeks to exert influence in order to restrict U.S. control to Hawaii during potential conflicts (Pascal, 2018).
As China’s strategic intentions have become increasingly transparent, the United States has formulated a range of strategies to counter its actions and contain its growing influence in the Pacific Islands. The initial step in this strategy involves establishing a network of military bases spanning from Australia to Guam, designed to enhance the resilience of U.S. forces against potential threats from China. Another significant development in this direction is the launch of the “Replicator” program, aimed at producing small, cost-effective drones with the capability to deliver powerful firepower. (Brands & Cooper, 2024)
After detailing the strategic competition between the United States and China in the Pacific, it is equally important to examine the role of regional players, particularly Australia, which has taken proactive steps to safeguard its interests and foster cooperation with Pacific Island nations. The Pacific Islands, situated in close proximity to Australia, hold strategic importance for the country due to their geopolitical dynamics, regional stability, and economic engagement. Stability in the region is vital for Australia’s internal security, as geopolitical tensions in the Pacific can directly impact its national interests. Moreover, the Pacific Islands are significant for Australia’s trade and investment activities, fostering economic growth and development for both regions. Australian businesses have established a strong presence in the Pacific, further solidifying the mutual benefits of economic collaboration. ( Wulandari, 2023)
Australian leaders have often referred to the Pacific Islands as the nation’s “backyard,” emphasizing the historical and strategic ties between Australia and the region (Keating, 1991) However, this traditional regional hegemony has been increasingly challenged by China in recent decades. China’s growing influence in the Pacific, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is perceived as a direct threat to Australia’s position as the dominant regional actor ( Wulandari, 2023). Given the Pacific Islands’ geographical proximity, any potential conflict in the region could significantly impact Australia’s economy and national security. Australia’s extensive trade relations with not only Pacific Island countries but also other regions make the stability of the Pacific Islands crucial for maintaining uninterrupted supply chains and ensuring maritime security. As a vital crossroad for global trade routes, a peaceful and stable Pacific is essential for safeguarding Australia’s economic interests, both within the region and beyond. Disruptions in the Pacific could ripple across Australia’s broader trade networks, impacting its ability to effectively engage with global markets ( Wulandari, 2023). To mitigate such risks and strengthen its influence, Australia has consistently provided assistance to Pacific Island nations, aiming to maintain robust diplomatic ties, promote economic stability, and enhance regional security. In 2016, Australia allocated AU$176.9 million to its Pacific Regional Program. However, this assistance saw a significant increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching AU$356.9 million, as the Pacific Islands were severely impacted by the health crisis (Australian Government, 2022).
To mitigate such risks and strengthen their influence, countries like Australia, the United States, and other regional powers have proactively engaged with Pacific Island nations. Their combined efforts aim to maintain robust diplomatic ties, promote economic stability, and enhance regional security. This strategic engagement underscores the understanding that the stability of the Pacific Islands is crucial for the broader geopolitical balance, impacting national security, trade, and resource management across the region. As the geopolitical competition intensifies, the ongoing cooperation and rivalry among global and regional powers will shape the future of the Pacific Islands and their pivotal role in global security and economics.
Natural Resources and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
The Pacific Islands, while often viewed as small land masses, control some of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) in the world, extending their influence far into the Pacific Ocean. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) grant sovereign rights to coastal states, allowing them to exploit and manage both living and non-living resources within their maritime boundaries, which extend up to 200 nautical miles from their coastlines ((WTO), n.d.). The EEZs of the Pacific Islands are particularly significant, encompassing vast areas rich in natural resources. These zones are home to abundant marine life, such as tuna and prawns, as well as valuable non-living resources, including gold, silver, and rare minerals critical for modern technologies ((FAO), n.d.) and (Thomas, 2012).
The Pacific Islands are home to a significant portion of the world’s tuna population, with approximately one-third of global tuna catches originating from these waters (Tuma A Key Economic Rseource in the Pacific Islands, 2001). Beyond marine life, the seabeds of these islands contain untapped reserves of rare earth materials, which are crucial for modern and renewable technologies, including batteries, electric vehicles, and aerospace components (mining, 2024). According to a World Bank report, deposits of cobalt-rich manganese crusts and mineral-rich sulphides have been identified in various parts of the Pacific Islands. These findings highlight the region’s potential as a critical supplier of minerals essential for the global transition to green energy (Clark, 2018). With the growing global demand for these resources, the Pacific Islands have become a key arena for geopolitical competition, with powerful states seeking to secure access to the region’s wealth. Control over these valuable resources now has broader implications, not only for technological progress but for the balance of power in the Pacific region. The intensifying competition over seabed mining rights directly contributes to the shifting dynamics in global geopolitics, making the Pacific Islands increasingly important on the world stage.
The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China further underscores the strategic importance of these resources. As land-based reserves of rare earth minerals deplete, the race to secure seabed mining rights in the Pacific is intensifying, with broader implications for global technological advancements and economic dominance. For instance, China has initiated the Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association (COMRA), which focuses on deep-sea mining in the Pacific. Through this project, China has identified valuable polymetallic and cobalt nodules, as well as hydrothermal sulphide deposits, and has produced several deep-sea mining maps of the region, highlighting its growing interest in securing these crucial resources. (mining, 2024)
Climate Change in the Pacific Islands
The Pacific Islands, while often viewed as small land masses, control some of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) in the world, extending their influence far into the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Islands are on the front lines of climate change, grappling with its immediate and long-term effects. Many of the islands, such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands, lie at low sea levels, significantly increasing their vulnerability to rising seas and extreme weather events (Bhandari, 2023). This rise poses grave threats to their socioeconomic viability, as climate change exacerbates challenges for biodiversity. The biodiversity in small islands, constrained by their limited land area, faces enormous difficulties adapting to these changes, making the problem even more acute (Taylor & Kumar, 2016)
The perils induced by climate change on biodiversity in the Pacific Islands will ultimately affect the socioeconomic status of the region (Organization, 2024). Most islanders rely heavily on biodiversity for their livelihoods, including fishing, agriculture, and eco-tourism. The degradation of these resources could have far-reaching consequences, not only for local communities but also for the geopolitics of the region. As global powers compete for control over the Pacific Islands and their abundant resources, the depletion of these resources could diminish the region’s strategic importance, altering the balance of power and interests in the Pacific.
Despite contributing only 0.02% to global greenhouse gas emissions, Pacific Islanders face severe challenges and the most alarming impacts of climate change. To address these issues, they have begun raising their concerns in international forums. Under the “polluter pays” principle, the islanders are advocating for the “loss and damage” initiative to secure compensation for the challenges brought by climate change (Organization, Climate change transforms Pacific Islands, 2024) However, their persistent demands for loss and damage have yielded nothing tangible—only empty promises have come their way.
As the Pacific Islands face existential threats from climate change, rising sea levels and extreme weather events are forcing populations to migrate, creating new geopolitical challenges as displaced communities seek refuge and resources, reshaping regional dynamics. Island states like Kiribati have taken proactive measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change by purchasing atolls in Vanua Levu, Fiji, as part of their long-term strategy to relocate populations from their sinking homelands. However, such plans come with a multitude of political and legal challenges, particularly regarding sovereignty, land ownership, and the rights of displaced populations. The question of whether a nation can retain its sovereignty when its land and people are forced to migrate to another country raises complex legal and ethical issues. Additionally, there is the matter of the legal status of displaced persons, their rights to citizenship, and the integration of these communities into new territories (Brown & Middleton, 2024)
From a broader geopolitical perspective, the migration of entire populations due to climate change could destabilize not only the affected nations but also the region at large. The potential creation of “climate refugees” from Pacific Island nations could strain the resources and infrastructures of neighbouring countries, leading to tensions over immigration, land rights, and access to resources. As nations like Australia and New Zealand are expected to bear the brunt of migration, this could reshape their foreign policies and their approach to climate-related international cooperation. In the longer term, these movements could further intensify competition for maritime and territorial claims, especially as countries look to secure safe zones for their citizens and resources in an increasingly unstable region. This migration challenge would significantly alter the geopolitical landscape of the Pacific, highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental security and traditional geopolitical power struggles. The result may be the emergence of new alliances and tensions, as both regional powers and global stakeholders navigate the intricate web of migration, sovereignty, and resource management in the face of climate change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Pacific Islands hold immense strategic, economic, and geopolitical significance, from their control over vital maritime routes and resources to their role in global power rivalries. Climate change further compounds their importance, presenting existential challenges that not only threaten the islands’ sovereignty but also reshape regional and global dynamics. As nations navigate these emerging complexities, the future of the Pacific will be defined by a delicate balance of resource competition, environmental sustainability, and geopolitical alliances.
In a world increasingly defined by globalization, the European Union (EU) stands as a remarkable experiment in political and economic integration. Established in the wake of World War II, the EU was designed to foster cooperation among its member states, ensuring that the devastating conflicts of the past would not be repeated. Today, it comprises 27 nations, collectively representing over 449 million people and generating a significant portion of the global economy. The EU has successfully implemented policies that promote free movement, economic collaboration, and shared governance, earning accolades such as the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for its role in promoting peace and democracy across Europe.
However, as we delve into the question of whether the EU has been successful, it becomes evident that this union faces formidable challenges. From economic disparities among member states to rising nationalism and Euroscepticism, the EU’s unity and effectiveness are under scrutiny. Assessing its success is crucial not only for understanding its past accomplishments but also for shaping its future trajectory in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. Ultimately, while the EU has achieved significant successes in various areas, it grapples with challenges that question its overall effectiveness and sustainability as a cohesive entity.
Why EU Exists?
The European Union (EU) was formally established by the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and effective from November 1, 1993. This treaty marked a significant transformation of earlier European communities into a more integrated political and economic union. The EU’s foundation was built on three primary treaties: the Treaty of Paris (1951), which created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the two Treaties of Rome (1957), which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in December 2009, further reformed these foundational treaties, enhancing the EU’s institutional framework and decision-making processes.
The key objectives of the EU, as outlined in the Lisbon Treaty, include promoting peace, its values, and the well-being of its peoples; establishing an area of freedom, security, and justice; promoting sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability; and fostering economic, social, and territorial cohesion among member states.
The EU has experienced several significant milestones throughout its history. One of the most notable expansions occurred in 2004 when ten new countries joined the Union, marking the largest single enlargement in terms of both number of countries and population. This expansion was pivotal in promoting stability and prosperity in Eastern Europe following the end of the Cold War.
In recognition of its role in fostering peace and reconciliation across Europe, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. This accolade underscored the Union’s contributions to transforming a continent historically plagued by conflict into one characterized by cooperation and unity.
What has EU accomplished? The European Union has made remarkable strides in economic integration, most notably through the creation of the single market. Established to facilitate the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people, the single market has significantly impacted trade among member states. By removing tariffs and regulatory barriers, it has enabled a more competitive environment that fosters innovation and efficiency. The EU’s single market is now one of the largest and most open common markets in the world, allowing for extensive internal trade that surpasses external trade for many member states.
Post-accession economic growth has been particularly pronounced in Eastern European countries that joined the EU during the 2004 enlargement. These nations have benefited from increased foreign investment, access to larger markets, and EU funding aimed at enhancing infrastructure and economic stability. As a result, average GDP per capita in these countries has risen significantly, narrowing the income gap with their Western European counterparts.
One of the EU’s most significant achievements is its role in promoting peace and political stability across Europe. For over six decades, the EU has maintained a framework that encourages diplomatic dialogue and conflict resolution among member states. This unprecedented period of peace is often attributed to the economic interdependence fostered by EU membership, which discourages conflicts that could disrupt trade and cooperation.
Moreover, the EU actively contributes to global diplomatic efforts, positioning itself as a key player in international relations. Through initiatives such as humanitarian aid, peacekeeping missions, and trade negotiations, the EU seeks to promote stability not just within its borders but also in regions facing conflict or instability.
The EU has also made significant advancements in social progress, particularly concerning human rights and social justice. It has established frameworks that protect individual rights and promote equality across member states. Initiatives aimed at combating discrimination based on gender, race, or sexual orientation reflect the EU’s commitment to fostering an inclusive society.
Additionally, one of the hallmark achievements of the EU is the freedom of movement for its citizens. This principle allows individuals to live and work anywhere within member states without facing barriers—an opportunity that has enriched cultural exchange and economic dynamism across Europe. The ability to relocate for work or study has not only enhanced personal freedoms but has also contributed to a more integrated European identity.
Where it Lacks?
Despite the European Union’s achievements, significant economic disparities persist among its member states. Certain countries continue to grapple with ongoing economic challenges, exacerbated by the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis stemming from geopolitical tensions, and inflationary pressures. For instance, while some nations experience modest growth, others, particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, face stagnation and high debt levels. The European Central Bank (ECB) has projected a growth rate of just above 1% for the euro area in 2025, highlighting a sluggish recovery compared to other global economies. The lack of coordination in national economic policies complicates efforts to address these disparities effectively, creating a paradox where a single currency exists alongside varied national fiscal strategies.
The rise of Euroscepticism and nationalist movements represents another significant challenge for the EU. In recent years, there has been a notable shift in public sentiment across several member states, with increasing support for parties that advocate for reduced EU influence and greater national sovereignty. This fragmentation complicates the EU’s ability to achieve consensus on critical issues, from immigration policy to economic reforms. Political uncertainty in major economies like France and Germany further exacerbates this issue, as internal divisions hinder collective decision-making.
As the geopolitical landscape evolves with the rise of global powers like China and India, the EU’s role on the world stage is increasingly scrutinized. The Union faces pressure to assert its influence amid shifting alliances and trade dynamics. The potential for renewed trade conflicts, particularly with the United States under changing administrations, poses risks to European economies that are heavily reliant on global trade networks.
EU – A Success or a Failure?
The European Union (EU) has been a significant force in shaping modern Europe, but its success is a topic of ongoing debate. Established to promote peace, stability, and economic cooperation among member states, the EU has achieved notable milestones since its inception. It has created one of the world’s largest single markets, facilitated the free movement of over 500 million people, and played a crucial role in advancing human rights and environmental standards. However, the EU also faces considerable challenges, including economic disparities among member states, rising Euroscepticism, and the complexities of global positioning amid shifting geopolitical dynamics.
Assessing the EU’s success is essential not only to understand its past achievements but also to evaluate its current relevance and future potential. While it has made significant strides in fostering economic integration and political stability, the EU must navigate significant hurdles that could undermine its effectiveness. Ultimately, while the EU has achieved substantial successes in various areas, it grapples with challenges that question its overall effectiveness and sustainability as a cohesive entity. As it moves forward, the Union must find innovative ways to reconcile these competing demands while ensuring that it remains a relevant and powerful entity on the global stage.