“We’ve seen that attacks on civilian infrastructure have not eased at all in the first night after this supposedly groundbreaking, great phone call,” Pistorius said in a televised interview. He also criticized the Kremlin’s insistence that a total halt to Western military and intelligence support for Ukraine should be a precondition for peace, calling it “unacceptable.”
“This is very transparent,” Pistorius added. “Putin wants to ensure that Ukraine’s backers are unable to support it in defending itself if another attack occurs, either during or after a ceasefire.”
Russia ‘Doesn’t Want to Make Any Concessions,’ Says EU Foreign Policy Chief
Echoing Pistorius’ skepticism, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that Moscow could not be trusted. This skepticism follows the Kremlin’s temporary agreement to halt attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, a pledge made during Putin’s call with Trump.
“If you read the two readouts from the call, it is clear that … Russia does not really want to make any kind of concessions,” Kallas told reporters in Brussels.
The phone call, initiated by Trump, was centered around a simple yet ambitious demand – a 30-day ceasefire on land, sea, and air, an agreement Ukraine had already signed up to as a preliminary step toward peace. However, rather than a firm commitment, Trump received ambiguous responses, partial offers, and, most notably, a striking demand from Putin that would effectively weaken Ukraine’s position in the conflict.
If accepted, this would mean not only an end to U.S. military assistance but also a halt to support from Britain, France, and other allies. This would also disrupt post-conflict security plans, such as the proposed “reassurance force” aimed at guaranteeing Ukraine’s long-term security by securing its ports, airports, and utility infrastructure.
Such a demand is impossible for Ukraine to accept. After three years of war, with tens of thousands of casualties and approximately 20% of its territory under Russian control, Kyiv knows it cannot regain lost ground through sheer military force. However, cutting off Western support would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression, rendering any peace deal meaningless.
A Ceasefire or a Strategic Ploy?
Over the past three years, Russia has relentlessly bombed Ukraine’s power plants, leaving the country with little energy generation capacity beyond its nuclear facilities which is too risky even for Moscow’s forces to attack. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been conducting destabilizing strikes on Russian refineries, a campaign that is still ongoing. While any reduction in hostilities is welcome, the question the world is asking – is Putin’s latest ceasefire move a genuine effort toward peace or a calculated maneuver?
Orysia Lutsevych, a Ukraine expert at the Chatham House think tank, argues that Putin’s offer is more about strategic positioning than genuine goodwill. With the arrival of spring, Ukraine does not gain much from a 30-day halt on energy attacks. She describes Putin’s offer as “a kind of goodwill gesture to keep Trump interested and get a bigger prize: [the] US abandoning Ukraine.”
Despite skepticism, the White House announced that both sides would begin “technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire.” Trump himself emphasized that the discussions were happening “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a complete ceasefire,” though the Kremlin’s version of events downplayed this aspect.
The Kremlin was quick to frame the negotiations as a bilateral matter, excluding Ukraine from direct participation. The Russian readout stated that “the leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts to achieve a Ukrainian settlement in a bilateral mode,” a move that conveniently restores some legitimacy to Russia while sidelining Kyiv. For Ukraine and its allies, this raises concerns that Russia’s real aim is to detach the U.S. from Europe, creating fractures in Western support.
Amid these geopolitical maneuverings, a rather unexpected agreement emerged, Trump and Putin agreed to organize ice hockey matches between American and Russian leagues. While the symbolism of sports diplomacy is notable, it is hardly a substitute for genuine peace efforts.
Further Talks in Saudi Arabia, Will It Be A Step Toward Peace or Another Stalemate?
U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed that negotiations will continue on Sunday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with both sides “in a relatively short distance to full ceasefire.” Speaking to Fox News, he suggested that Russia has also agreed to terms on “the Black Sea maritime aspect of a ceasefire,” and expressed hope that Ukraine would support the initiative. However, it remains unclear whether Kyiv will be invited to participate in these discussions.
Following the Trump-Putin call, the Russian government claimed that Putin had “responded constructively” to Trump’s proposals and agreed to further negotiations to “elaborate specific details.” Yet, there are significant concerns about the conditions Russia is trying to impose, particularly its demand that Ukraine be prevented from rearming during the ceasefire period.
When asked whether there would be reciprocity in these arrangements, Witkoff admitted, “I think the devil is in the details. We’ve got a team going to Saudi Arabia, led by our national security adviser and our secretary of state, and I think we’ve got to figure out those details.”
As discussions continue, the world watches closely. Is this the beginning of a path to peace, or just another chapter in Russia’s strategic playbook?
Donald Trump has always maintained that he would never be the one to start a war. “I have nothing to do with wars. American troops should not get involved in external conflicts,” he has often claimed. Yet, in a surprising U-turn, he has ordered bombings in southern Yemen, home to the Houthis.
On March 18, 2025, President Donald Trump, authorized a series of airstrikes targeting Houthi-controlled regions in Yemen. These strikes resulted in significant casualties, including the deaths of several Houthi leaders and fighters.
The U.S. Defense Department said the strikes hit more than 30 sites and involved fighter jets launched from a carrier in the Red Sea. The Houthis, an Iran-aligned rebel group, have vowed retaliation, “We will hit you back.” Trump has also accused Tehran of providing unprecedented support to the Houthis. But why is this location so important, and what is actually happening here?
The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is also a critical maritime chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. It serves as a vital conduit for global trade, with a substantial portion of the world’s oil and natural gas shipments passing through its narrow passage. In 2018, an estimated 6.2 million barrels per day of petroleum products transited this strait, underscoring its importance to global energy markets.
Why Has Donald Trump Suddenly Woken Up to This Area? What Is His Agenda?
Since returning to power, Trump has been aggressively pushing his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda, not just within the U.S. but globally. A key part of this strategy is directing countries to buy American oil, India included. However, there is a logistical issue – the U.S. is geographically far from major energy-consuming nations like India and China.
India and China, are two of the world’s top five economies with massive energy needs. Their primary oil suppliers include Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Oman and the bulk of their energy supply comes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Trump Game -Disrupting the Middle East to Control Global Oil Markets
One cannot help but wonder, by bombing Houthis in southern Yemen, Trump may be setting the stage for a calculated chain reaction. The Houthis will not attack America; it’s too far away. Instead, they are more likely to target Israel or U.S. military bases in the Gulf of Aden. This is not speculation; a missile was already launched toward Israel but ended up hitting Egypt. Israel is now investigating whether it was a misfire or an intended attack.
Escalation of Regional Conflict: The Houthis have threatened retaliation, which could destabilize the already volatile Middle East region. Potential targets for such retaliation could include U.S. allies like Israel or strategic military installations in the Gulf of Aden. Indeed, there have been concerns about possible Houthi attacks on vessels such as the British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales as it transits the Red Sea.
Impact on Global Oil Markets: Disruptions in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could have significant repercussions on global oil supplies. Any threat to the security of this passage could lead to increased shipping and insurance costs, thereby driving up oil prices. Such instability could compel nations heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, like India and China, to seek alternative sources, potentially benefiting U.S. oil exports.
Geopolitical Maneuvering: By engaging militarily in Yemen, the U.S. may be signaling its intent to counter Iranian influence in the region, given Iran’s support for the Houthis. This move could be interpreted as part of a broader strategy to assert control over critical energy corridors and reassert U.S. dominance in global oil markets.
North Korea Slams U.S. Strikes on Yemen, Calls It a Violation of Sovereignty
Meanwhile, North Korea has strongly condemned the recent U.S. strikes on Yemen, calling them an outright violation of international law and the country’s sovereignty. According to state media KCNA, Pyongyang’s ambassador to Yemen, Ma Dong Hui, said Washington’s actions were unjustifiable.
Ma, who is also North Korea’s envoy to Egypt, accused the U.S. of “indiscriminately” attacking civilians and infrastructure, using its air and naval forces, including an aircraft carrier.
“This military attack is a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, as well as an infringement on another nation’s territorial sovereignty that cannot be justified in any way,” Ma stated. “I strongly condemn and reject the reckless military actions of the United States, which is fixated on advancing its geopolitical ambitions.”
Will U.S. Strikes on the Houthis Deter Iran or Fuel More Conflict?
The latest U.S. attacks on the Houthis in Yemen were the most intense since joint U.S.-U.K. air operations began in January 2024, and the first under President Donald Trump’s new administration. Sending a direct warning to Tehran, Trump declared that “every shot fired by the Houthis will be viewed as a shot fired from Iran.”
This stance is unsurprising. Since the October 7, 2023, attacks, the Houthis have gained prominence within Iran’s Axis of Resistance, carrying out hundreds of strikes on Red Sea shipping and launching drones and missiles at Israel.
Meanwhile, other Axis members, Hamas and Hezbollah, have suffered major setbacks. Israel has successfully targeted their leadership, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria in December dealt another blow to Tehran. Even Iran itself has been hit hard, its missile and drone attacks on Israel last year were largely ineffective, while Israeli retaliatory strikes destroyed key military assets.
In contrast, the Houthis have emerged stronger. Yemen’s fractured government has allowed them to consolidate power, and their attacks in the Red Sea have given them global relevance. Their operations, framed as support for Palestinians, have embarrassed Arab governments that are wary of direct involvement.
However, treating the Houthis as mere Iranian proxies oversimplifies the reality. While they have ties to Tehran, their actions are also shaped by their own political and military goals. Overestimating Iran’s control over the Houthis could lead to flawed policy decisions and unintended consequences.
Iran’s Role in Houthi Strength
While the fact is that without Iran’s backing, the Houthis wouldn’t be as powerful as they are today; their relationship with Tehran really took off after the Arab Spring, as part of Iran’s strategy to push back against Saudi Arabia. Even after the Saudi-backed truce in April 2022, Iran hasn’t slowed down its support. If anything, weapons, fuel, and tech smuggling to the Houthis has only ramped up, while the group keeps strengthening its homegrown military capabilities.
For Iran, this is a win-win situation. Having a strong ally right on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep gives Tehran a strategic advantage. Iran’s long game is to make sure Houthi power becomes more entrenched and institutionalized, all while keeping a low profile and maintaining just enough distance to claim plausible deniability.
In practice, this means Iran wants the Houthis to play a bigger role in the region. That’s why it’s been helping them expand their influence in places like Iraq and the Horn of Africa.
Not Always on the Same Page
That said, the Houthis and Iran don’t always see eye to eye. The Houthis tend to take way bigger risks than Tehran. After October 7, Iran was hesitant about the Houthis attacking Red Sea shipping, worried it could escalate tensions, but the Houthis went ahead anyway. Their confidence comes from years of surviving Saudi and Emirati airstrikes, along with their aggressive ideology. Iran, on the other hand, usually prefers calculated provocations over outright confrontation, especially with the U.S. and Israel.
This difference in approach makes Tehran a bit uneasy about the Houthis’ bold moves in the Red Sea. There’s a real fear that the group could drag Iran into another round of violence. And if the fragile Yemen truce collapses, Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE would likely resume, putting the region on edge and potentially undoing the recent thaw in Iran-Saudi relations.
Trump 2.0 and the New Tensions
Enter Trump, his administration’s decision to slap the Foreign Terrorist Organization, FTO label on the Houthis in early 2025 has already triggered a reaction. The Houthis have warned they’ll strike back against anyone enforcing the designation.
If this leads to a fuel blockade at Hudaydah port (one of their main revenue sources), expect them to abandon their de facto truce with Saudi Arabia. It would also push them further into informal financial networks, think money exchanges, Hawala systems, and even crypto investments.
The expanded U.S. air and naval attacks aren’t likely to weaken the Houthis much. They’ve been playing this game for years and know how to disappear into Yemen’s rugged terrain when needed. Their military infrastructure is already spread across the country, including in crowded urban areas.
Instead of deterring them, these strikes will probably push them to ramp up attacks on Western shipping and resume drone and missile launches at Israel. And don’t expect Iran to hit back directly, it’s not their style. If the strikes were meant to pressure Tehran into negotiations, that plan’s likely to backfire. Instead, Iran will probably double down on its support for the Houthis, since they’re the only Axis member still standing strong.
A Smarter U.S. Strategy?
If the Trump administration really wants to weaken the Houthis, it should focus on long-term peace efforts in Yemen. Strengthening the internationally recognized Presidential Leadership Council – both politically and militarily -would be a step in the right direction. Without a strong anti-Houthi coalition, U.S. policies might just make Yemen’s fragmentation even worse.
Washington also needs to step up efforts to stop weapons and fuel smuggling from Iran and Iraq, especially via the sea, and cut off the Houthis’ financial interests outside Yemen.
Most importantly, the U.S. shouldn’t act alone in Yemen, it needs to coordinate with Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These countries have already learned the hard way what doesn’t work when dealing with the Houthis. A more collaborative approach could prevent yet another endless cycle of conflict.
The Last Bit. Under The Covers….Is This the Beginning of Trump’s Oil War?
Trump’s actions in Yemen appear to be more than just counterterrorism; they might be a move to manipulate global oil markets in favor of the U.S. By creating turmoil in an already fragile region, he could drive up costs, making American energy exports more attractive while keeping geopolitical rivals on edge.
If this is indeed the strategy, the world should brace for further instability, skyrocketing energy prices, and a Middle East on the brink of another prolonged crisis – not favoring anyone!
Turkiye has always prioritized a strong defense industry, initially relying on foreign purchases before transitioning to developing its own advanced military hardware. Today, as the owner of NATO’s second-largest standing army, Turkiye has firmly established itself as a global arms exporter. With defense exports surging from $1.9 billion in 2014 to a staggering $7.1 billion in 2024, the country has positioned itself as a formidable player in the international arms market.
So, what’s behind this remarkable growth? What are Turkiye’s capabilities? And why does this matter?
The Shift to Domestic Production
Turkiye’s journey toward military self-sufficiency began in 1985 with the establishment of the Defence Industry Development and Support Administration Office (SAGEB). Initially focused on international research collaborations, the country gradually shifted towards local production as it encountered increasing restrictions on weapons procurement and usage.
By the 2010s, Turkiye had pivoted to prioritizing domestic design and production, resulting in a significant boost in homegrown military technology. Today, thousands of Turkish defense manufacturers contribute to cutting-edge developments across land, air, and naval capabilities.
Strength in Numbers. Turkiye’s Military Arsenal
Turkiye’s military might is undeniable. As of 2023, the country’s defense budget stood at a hefty $89.69 billion, with a total of 355,200 active personnel, backed by a 378,700-strong reserve force.
Here is taking a closer look at its military might –
Navy – 12 Submarines, 16 Frigates, 50 Patrol and Combat Boats
Air Force – 294 Combat Aircraft, 58 Drones, 32 Surface-to-Air Missile Systems
The Rise of Turkish Drones
Turkiye’s drone program has been one of its most celebrated achievements. The Bayraktar TB2, first deployed in 2014, has become one of the most widely sought-after UAVs in the world.
Beyond the TB2, other Turkish drones have gained recognition, including –
Anka-S: A medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV with a 200kg payload
Vestel Karayel: A tactical UAV with a 70kg payload
Turkiye is not only concentrating on drones; it has also made massive strides in land, sea, and air combat capabilities:
Land Systems
Altay Main Battle Tank: Comparable to the German Leopard and American Abrams tanks.
Kirpi (Hedgehog) Mine-Resistant Vehicle: Used extensively in counterinsurgency operations.
Kaplan and Pars Infantry Fighting Vehicles: Modern, adaptable, and battlefield-tested.
Naval Strength
Turkiye’s MILGEM (National Ship Project), launched in 2004, has produced next-generation warships, including:
Ada-class corvettes
Istanbul-class frigates
TCG Anadolu: An amphibious drone-carrying assault ship, and the largest in the Turkish navy (deployed in 2023).
Missiles and Smart Munitions
Bora: A short-range ballistic missile.
Atmaca (Hawk): A long-range cruise missile.
Why Turkiye Chose Military Self-Sufficiency
Turkiye’s drive for military independence has been shaped by geopolitical factors and past embargoes – 1970s US Arms Embargo – In response to Turkiye’s intervention in Cyprus. 1990s German Export Ban – Over concerns about the use of armored vehicles domestically. 2020 US Sanctions – Triggered by Turkiye’s purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system.
Rather than being hindered, these challenges pushed Turkiye to strengthen its domestic arms industry. Today, the country boasts over 3,000 weapons companies, exporting to markets across the world.
A Booming Export Market
Turkiye’s exports now account for 1.7% of global arms exports, making it the 11th-largest arms exporter from 2020-2024, according to SIPRI.
Top Customers (2020-2024) include, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Qatar
Meanwhile, when it comes to countries Using the Bayraktar TB2, at least 31 countries, including Iraq, Ukraine, Kenya, Bangladesh, and Japan, have procured the Bayraktar TB2.
Future Ambitions
To further solidify its independence, Turkiye’s Baykar, the maker of Bayraktar drones, announced a $300 million investment in developing its own jet engines. The company aims to build an in-house engine for the Akinci drone, develop a turbofan engine for Kizilelma, an under-development unmanned air-to-air combat vehicle.
Currently, both systems use Ukrainian engines, but Turkiye aims to replace them with local alternatives to avoid supply chain vulnerabilities.
The Last Bit
Turkiye’s defense industry is no longer looking out for its own security needs, it is in fact quickly emerging as a global player in arms manufacturing. From combat drones to submarines, missiles to warships, its advancements have placed it among the top defense exporters worldwide. With ambitious projects like the KAAN fighter jet, AI-powered Steel Dome, and homegrown jet engines, Turkiye is set to strengthen its position in the defense industry even further.
An ever-expanding export market, geopolitical influence, and a solid manufacturing base, Turkiye is quickly emerging as a leader in the global arms race.
Zelenskyy is caught in a Catch-22 situation. U.S. President Donald Trump is trying to win Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support for a 30-day ceasefire proposal that Ukraine accepted last week. But Putin, as always, has a few conditions – five, to be precise.
Now, before we dissect Putin’s demands, let us rewind the story a bit to the important parts.
For the longest time, no major global leader was willing to sit down with Putin regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. It was an era where peace summits happened, Zelenskyy walked in with his signature combat outfit, collected a fresh batch of money and arms, waved at everyone, and walked out. The world stood by Ukraine, and Russia remained the villain.
And now, Putin has placed five solid conditions on the table.
The Five Conditions of Putin’s Ceasefire
1. Withdrawal of Ukrainian Forces from Four Key Regions
Putin demands that Ukraine withdraw its military forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—territories that Russia has already claimed. Let us not forget that Crimea was snatched by Putin back in 2014, giving Russia direct access to the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.
Now, why are these four regions so crucial? Because once Ukraine pulls back, Russia gets an even firmer grip over strategic locations, natural resources, and trade routes. Simple as that.
2. Halt All Ukrainian Military Activities
Putin insists that Ukraine must completely stop all military operations, including rearming and mobilization, during the proposed 30-day ceasefire. Translation – “You sit back and do nothing while we consolidate power.”
3. Abandon NATO Membership Aspirations
This demand is the core of the entire conflict.
Ukraine’s NATO dream is what triggered this war in the first place. And here’s why,
NATO’s famous Article 5 states that if one NATO member is attacked, the entire alliance (30+ countries) responds collectively. Now, imagine Russia waking up one morning to find Ukraine officially part of NATO. That would mean U.S. missiles parked right at Russia’s border.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 15 independent countries emerged, including Ukraine. At that time, there was a tacit understanding – NATO wouldn’t expand towards Russia. But NATO didn’t listen. Over the years, NATO slowly crept in—Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland.
Now, if Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia sees it as a direct security threat – because, to put it bluntly, it kind of is and Putin wants to put an end to that conversation once and for all.
4. Suspension of All Western Military Aid to Ukraine
Putin wants all military aid from the West to stop immediately. This means no more money, no more weapons, no more logistical support from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Canada – basically, the entire NATO club.
Trump, from his very first day back in office, declared no more U.S. aid to Ukraine. Other countries, however, are still sending money, military gear, and supplies. But here’s the catch, nobody is sending their own soldiers to fight this war.
Sure, the U.K. made some noise about sending troops to Ukraine, but so far, it’s been all talk, no action. And Putin is making it clear – cut off Ukraine’s supply line, or the war drags on.
5. Ukrainian Forces Must Surrender in Kursk
The final demand is that Ukrainian forces that have taken positions in certain areas of Kursk must surrender to Russian forces, and Putin promises to spare their lives. Nice little “offer”—surrender, or face the consequences.
The Hand Of Big Daddy
On October 4, 2024, Zelenskyy met Joe Biden in the White House and put forth some demands –
–Protection for Ukraine’s grain exports (since the war has severely damaged its economy).
–Recognition of Ukraine’s territorial integrity according to the U.N. Charter.
–Withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian land.
–Establishment of a special tribunal to investigate Russian war crimes.
–Security guarantees for Ukraine within the Euro-Atlantic alliance (ahem, NATO).
All of this sounds great, except the fact that Trump is now in power and has no interest in playing along.
The “Minerals Deal” and His Business Mindset
Trump, being Trump, looks at Ukraine and asks a simple question – “What’s in it for me?” His policy is purely transactional.
For instance, there’s a $500 billion price tag attached to the military aid that the U.S. has given Ukraine over the years. So Trump essentially says, “You want my help? Pay up. Can’t pay? Hand over your minerals.”
Ukraine is rich in critical minerals – graphite, lithium, titanium, beryllium, zirconium, and rare earth elements. These resources are concentrated in two key regions – Ukrainian Shield (a massive belt of ancient rock formations). Dnipro-Donets Depression (loaded with coal, oil, and natural gas).
Trump wants control over these mineral resources in exchange for past aid. His proposal is simple enough, do not have money, no problem – just hand over your national wealth.
Zelenskyy is in a bind, while he has agreed, in principle, to a minerals deal, but he also wants a guarantee that Russia won’t attack Ukraine again.
But Trump has reiterated – “No guarantees. But if American workers are on Ukrainian soil, Russia won’t dare attack, that’s your guarantee.”
This is classic Trump, leveraging business interests as a strategic deterrent!
Under the Lens
With the Russia-Ukraine war dragging on for over two years, a potential ceasefire is on the table, at least in theory. Russian President Vladimir Putin has laid out five non-negotiable demands, and the world is waiting to see if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will comply. The wildcard in the equation is U.S. President Donald Trump, who is attempting to broker a deal that aligns more with his business instincts than traditional diplomacy.
Zelenskyy can either accept Trump’s minerals deal and risk being left vulnerable to Russia, or reject it and risk losing U.S. financial support entirely. Trump, ever the dealmaker, suggests that if Ukraine signs over its mineral rights, American workers will be on the ground, essentially creating a de facto security buffer that might deter Russia.
But what if Russia doesn’t back down? That’s the question no one seems to have a solid answer for.
Meanwhile, Putin’s demands are about reshaping global power dynamics. If Ukraine concedes, it’s a major win for Moscow. If it doesn’t, the war continues, but with a vastly reduced Western commitment.
As for Trump, his approach is purely transactional – no ideological commitment, just a trade negotiation. And Zelenskyy? He’s running out of moves, caught between a Russian leader who wants territorial control and an American leader who wants a return on investment.
So, will Ukraine bow down and what is Zelenskyy willing to trade to keep Ukraine alive?
As the ongoing conflict in Gaza has escalated amid grave allegations and fragile diplomatic efforts, the United Nations has published a report accusing Israel of genocide, sexual violence, and deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza, amplifying international condemnation amid the protracted conflict. The UN Commission of Inquiry’s findings allege war crimes, including systemic destruction of healthcare infrastructure and disproportionate harm to women and children, with over 48,000 Palestinian fatalities reported. Israel dismissed the allegations as politically motivated, defending its military actions as self-defence following Hamas’s October 2023 attack. Concurrent ceasefire negotiations in Qatar, involving US mediation, aim to secure a permanent truce, Israeli troop withdrawal, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange.
However, progress is hampered by Israeli hardliners’ opposition and mistrust of Hamas’s hostage-release proposals. Controversially, reported US-Israel discussions on resettling displaced Gazans in African nations, including Sudan and Somalia, have sparked allegations of ethnic cleansing and breaches of international law. As the International Criminal Court explores potential war crime charges, resolving the conflict demands balancing accountability, humanitarian imperatives, and geopolitical complexities, with global attention fixed on achieving lasting stability.
Accusations of Genocide and Sexual Violence Against Israel in Gaza
The conflict in Gaza has intensified as United Nations experts have accused Israel of committing genocide and engaging in sexual violence against Palestinians. These allegations come amid an already devastating war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, primarily among Palestinian civilians. As the international community grapples with the implications of these accusations, ceasefire negotiations have resumed in Qatar, offering a glimmer of hope for an end to the bloodshed.
The United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory recently published a damning report accusing Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The report highlights the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, the targeting of women and children, and the use of sexual violence as a tool of war. According to the report, Israeli forces have engaged in:
Sexual and gender-based violence – The UN experts found evidence suggesting that Israeli forces used sexual violence, including rape and other forms of abuse, against Palestinian detainees and civilians.
Targeting of women and children – With over 48,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom are women and children, the report suggests that Israel’s military campaign has been disproportionately aimed at vulnerable populations.
Destruction of healthcare facilities – Israel has bombed hospitals, maternity wards, and other medical facilities, preventing women from accessing reproductive healthcare and leading to numerous maternal and infant deaths.
Israel’s Response
Israel has strongly denied the allegations, dismissing them as baseless and politically motivated as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has criticised the U.N. Human Rights Council, accusing it of bias against Israel. He rejected the claims of genocide and gender-based violence, arguing that Israel operates within international law and takes measures to avoid civilian casualties. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strongly denied the allegations, calling them “absurd and politically motivated.” He has accused the UN Human Rights Council of bias against Israel and dismissed the claims as propaganda.
As the Israeli government asserts that any civilian casualties are a result of Hamas embedding its military infrastructure in residential areas. Israel has also stated that the destruction of hospitals and civilian infrastructure in Gaza was due to Hamas using them for military purposes. Netanyahu emphasized that Israel’s military actions are in response to Hamas’s October 2023 attack, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 Israelis. He insisted that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, which he accused of using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
International Responses
The allegations have elicited varied reactions from the international community. The State of Qatar expressed deep concern over the continued exposure of children to violations in armed conflicts, emphasizing the importance of protecting children’s rights in all situations. Abdulrahman Saud Abdullah Naqdan, Second Secretary at the International Cooperation Department of Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, highlighted Qatar’s commitment to safeguarding children affected by armed conflicts through initiatives in education, health, and humanitarian aid.
Further, international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have echoed some of the UN’s findings, calling for an independent investigation. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has also taken an interest in the case, with some legal experts suggesting that Israeli leaders could face charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite these accusations, Israel maintains that it is acting in self-defence against Hamas, which launched a surprise attack on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 Israelis. The Israeli government argues that Hamas operates within civilian areas, making it difficult to avoid collateral damage. Nevertheless, the sheer scale of the destruction and loss of civilian life in Gaza has led to growing international condemnation.
Ceasefire Negotiations in Qatar
Amid mounting allegations of war crimes, Hamas has announced that it is resuming ceasefire negotiations with Israel in Doha, Qatar. The talks, mediated by Qatari officials and international diplomats, aim to bring an end to the devastating war and secure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
According to Hamas officials, their primary demands in the negotiations include:
An immediate and permanent ceasefire – Hamas insists that Israel must halt all military operations in Gaza and commit to a lasting peace.
The withdrawal of Israeli forces – Since the war began, Israeli forces have occupied large parts of Gaza, and Hamas is calling for their complete withdrawal.
The reconstruction of Gaza – With much of the enclave reduced to rubble, Hamas is seeking international aid to rebuild homes, hospitals, and schools.
A prisoner exchange deal – Hamas is negotiating for the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages.
The Israeli government has expressed cautious optimism about the negotiations, with some officials suggesting that a deal could be reached in the coming weeks. However, there are significant challenges ahead, as Israeli hardliners oppose any concessions to Hamas.
The United States has also been involved in the negotiations, with US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff arriving in Doha to participate in the talks. Washington has urged both sides to reach an agreement, emphasizing the need to protect civilians and restore stability to the region.
Qatar’s Role in the Conflict Resolution
Qatar has played a crucial role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leveraging its diplomatic ties with both Hamas and Western nations. The Gulf nation has previously brokered ceasefire agreements and prisoner swaps between the two sides, earning it a reputation as a key negotiator in Middle Eastern conflicts. Despite its efforts to bring peace, Qatar has also been criticized by Israel for allegedly providing financial support to Hamas.
However, Qatari officials maintain that their funding is directed toward humanitarian aid, including rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure and providing assistance to displaced civilians. The international community is watching closely as ceasefire talks unfold in Doha. If successful, the negotiations could bring much-needed relief to the millions of Palestinians suffering from the war. However, past attempts at peace have often been short-lived, with fighting resuming shortly after agreements were reached.
More Challenges Ahead – Displacement of Gaza people
In a move to advance ceasefire negotiations, Hamas has expressed willingness to release Edan Alexander, a dual American-Israeli national, along with the bodies of four deceased individuals. However, Israel has expressed skepticism regarding this offer, viewing it as a potential tactic to manipulate ongoing negotiations in Qatar. The specifics of the release, including timing and terms, remain unclear. Further, reports have emerged that the United States and Israel have approached African nations, including Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland, regarding the possibility of resettling Palestinians from Gaza.
As the US and Israel have reportedly explored plans to resettle Palestinians displaced from Gaza in African nations, including Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland, according to multiple sources. The proposals, part of controversial diplomatic efforts, have faced fierce backlash, with critics condemning them as potential violations of international law. Sudan explicitly rejected the idea, while Somali and Somaliland officials denied any formal discussions. Human rights organisations and legal experts argue such forced displacement could amount to ethnic cleansing or a war crime, infringing on Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland. The plans have drawn parallels to historical instances of population transfer, raising ethical and legal concerns. Meanwhile, the US and Israel have not publicly confirmed the proposals, which remain shrouded in diplomatic ambiguity. The discussions underscore the deepening complexity of the Gaza conflict’s humanitarian fallout, with international scrutiny intensifying over measures perceived to undermine Palestinian self-determination.
Conclusion
The ongoing conflict in Gaza remains mired in allegations and diplomatic complexities. A recent UN report accuses Israel of genocide, sexual violence, and disproportionate targeting of civilians, claims Israel vehemently denies as politically motivated. Amid escalating casualties—over 48,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children—ceasefire negotiations in Qatar seek a permanent truce, Israeli troop withdrawal, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange. Qatar’s mediation, supported by U.S. involvement, faces hurdles due to Israeli hardliners’ resistance and Hamas’s demands. International bodies like the ICC and human rights groups urge investigations, while controversial proposals to resettle Palestinians in African nations draw condemnation. Despite cautious optimism, skepticism persists, fueled by failed past agreements and Israel’s dismissal of Hamas’s hostage-release offer. The conflict’s resolution hinges on balancing accountability, humanitarian needs, and geopolitical stakes, with the world watching for a breakthrough that could redefine regional stability.
India, Bangladesh and Myanmar flags: source Internet
Myanmar and Bangladesh share a complex and historically rich connection, with official diplomatic ties established in 1972. This relationship has faced challenges, including border conflicts and the Rohingya refugee crisis, which has significantly strained their interactions. The 270-kilometer border reflects a long history of cultural, commercial, and political ties between the regions. Both countries were under British colonial rule, which further intertwined their histories. The Rohingya issue remains a major source of tension, contributing to ongoing conflicts. For India, Myanmar and Bangladesh are strategically important for national security, economic interests, and regional connectivity. Myanmar serves as a gateway to Southeast Asia, supporting India’s “Act East” policy, while Bangladesh provides crucial access to the Bay of Bengal. As regional dynamics evolve, India must navigate its relationships with both countries to bolster its interests and ensure regional stability.
Historical Context
Myanmar and Bangladesh share a complex relationship shaped by history, colonial legacies, and current geopolitical issues. Their connection dates back to medieval times, featuring cultural and trade exchanges. Both regions were under British colonial rule, which resulted in migrations from Bengal to Burma and contributed to ethnic tensions in Myanmar.
Myanmar recognized Bangladesh’s independence in 1972, after which they began diplomatic engagements, including a trade agreement in 1973. However, military rule and isolationist policies hindered the development of deeper relations, and formal trade links were established only in 1995. Ongoing tensions, particularly related to the Rohingya crisis and border conflicts, continue to present humanitarian and security challenges.
The Rohingya Crisis
The Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic group in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, face severe persecution and are denied citizenship by the government, which regards them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Since the late 1970s, they have faced regular crackdowns, with the most notable occurring on August 25, 2017, when around 730,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, an event labelled as crimes against humanity by human rights groups.
Currently, nearly a million Rohingya live in harsh conditions in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, causing tensions with local populations. After Myanmar’s military coup in 2021, the situation worsened for the approximately 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar, who endure security crackdowns, travel restrictions, and humanitarian crises, with recent clashes leading to further displacements.
Border Clashes and Airspace Violations
Rising instability in Myanmar has led to frequent border conflicts with Bangladesh, highlighted by a mortar shell incident in September 2022 that killed a Rohingya boy at the Zero Point border. Ongoing tensions include landmine explosions and armed clashes. Additionally, Myanmar’s military aircraft have violated Bangladesh’s airspace, prompting demonstrations. Although Myanmar’s border forces expressed remorse, the deteriorating relationship poses significant diplomatic and security challenges, exacerbated by airspace breaches, a refugee crisis, and cross-border insurgencies. The Rohingya crisis continues to strain Bangladesh’s resources and diplomatic ties. Addressing these complex issues requires sustained communication, humanitarian aid, and regional cooperation to promote stability and peace.
Current Developments in Myanmar-Bangladesh Relations
Arakan Army’s Rise
The emergence of the Arakan Army (AA) has dramatically shifted the dynamics in Rakhine State, Myanmar, by challenging the authority of the Myanmar military and controlling a significant portion of the region. With its strategic gains, including the capture of key military locations, the AA has exacerbated tensions not only within Myanmar but also along the Bangladesh border. The escalating violence, particularly through incidents like the major assault on Border Guard Police in December 2024, has raised alarm in Bangladesh, highlighting the potential for cross-border ramifications and security threats. Additionally, the Myanmar military’s tactics, such as the conscription of Rohingya people to combat the AA, have deepened ethnic tensions and created humanitarian concerns. The situation has prompted both Myanmar and Bangladesh to reevaluate their security strategies to address the challenges posed by the AA’s influence. As noted by former Indian ambassador Rajiv Bhatia, the rise of ethnic armed groups necessitates regional cooperation, suggesting that India and Bangladesh may need to engage collaboratively to manage the evolving security landscape in their border regions.
Recent Border Incidents
The conflict in Myanmar has led to border security challenges for Bangladesh. In February 2024, 264 Myanmar military troops fled into Bangladesh during clashes with the Arakan Army (AA) and were later disarmed and housed by the Bangladesh Border Guards. In January 2025, the AA disrupted trade by seizing three cargo ships on the Naf River carrying valuable supplies from Yangon to Teknaf port. Additionally, Myanmar’s military has recruited soldiers from Rohingya armed groups like the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), increasing regional instability and raising concerns of violence spilling over into Bangladesh. In response, Bangladesh has strengthened border security and engaged in diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions.
Economic Ties
Myanmar and Bangladesh have economic ties with growth potential despite security challenges. Myanmar exports rice and pulses, while Bangladesh focuses on textiles and pharmaceuticals. Bilateral trade reached approximately US$ 748.36 million in 2019-2020, but ongoing instability raises uncertainties for future projections. Both countries are part of BIMSTEC, which encourages collaboration, and Myanmar’s natural resources could address Bangladesh’s energy and food needs. Proposed infrastructure projects aim to improve connectivity and trade, but issues like the Rohingya crisis and border conflicts, including cargo vessel seizures by the AA in early 2025, hinder deeper integration.
Future Prospects
Efforts to boost bilateral trade between Bangladesh and Myanmar focus on sectors like energy, agriculture, and the BCIM Economic Corridor, which aims to enhance trade routes and utilize Bay of Bengal resources. This could help Bangladesh with trade deficits and support Myanmar’s economy. However, the Rohingya refugee crisis poses significant challenges, making it crucial for both countries to address humanitarian issues and ensure safe repatriation. Additionally, the rise of the Arakan Army and shifting political dynamics complicate relations, necessitating a careful balance of security and economic cooperation to foster regional stability.
Impact of Myanmar-Bangladesh Relations on India
National Security Concerns
The evolving dynamics between Myanmar and Bangladesh significantly affect India’s national security, particularly in its northeastern states that border both countries. The porous India-Myanmar border (approx. 1,642 km) poses security challenges, with around 2,000 insurgents from groups like ULFA-I and NDFB-S finding refuge in Myanmar, exploiting cultural ties to plan operations against India.
Drug trafficking further complicates the situation, as northeastern states are linked to the narcotics trade from the “Golden Triangle,” with heroin and amphetamines entering via Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. There is an emerging collusion between local drug syndicates and Nigerian cartels.
The instability in Myanmar following the February 2021 military coup has heightened these security issues, exemplified by the ethnic violence in Manipur in May 2023, which resulted in over 220 deaths and significant displacement. In response, India has strengthened border security with measures like electronic surveillance and vulnerability mapping, demonstrated by an April 2024 operation that seized $418,000 worth of heroin.
Myanmar’s Internal Conflict and Its Regional Impact
Since the 2021 military coup, Myanmar has been embroiled in widespread civil unrest, military crackdowns, and ethnic conflicts. The rise of the Arakan Army (AA), which now controls significant parts of Rakhine State, has created further instability. The ongoing clashes between the AA and Myanmar’s military have led to cross-border security challenges for Bangladesh and India. Over 1.1 million Rohingya refugees now reside in Bangladesh, straining its resources and exacerbating tensions in the region.
India’s Economic Interests
The economic relationship between Myanmar and Bangladesh, despite enduring security challenges, illustrates the complexities of regional trade dynamics. The substantial trade volume of US$ 748.36 million in 2019-2020 indicates strong export relationships, with Myanmar exporting primarily agricultural products and Bangladesh contributing textiles and pharmaceuticals. However, ongoing instability, exemplified by the seizure of Myanmar cargo vessels in January 2025, reveals the vulnerability of this trade to external disruptions, complicating efforts to maintain and expand economic ties.
India’s strategic initiatives, such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan Multimodal Project, reflect a commitment to enhancing connectivity and trade in the region, aligning with its broader “Look East” and “Neighbourhood First” policies. However, progress has been hindered by Myanmar’s political instability post-2021 coup, which has raised concerns over concerted efforts. The growing influence of China in Myanmar and Bangladesh’s involvement in the Belt and Road Initiative further complicates India’s aspirations, challenging its regional dominance and necessitating a careful recalibration of its foreign policy strategies to navigate the emerging geopolitical landscape effectively.
Regional Influence and China’s Expanding Role
India’s strategy towards Myanmar and Bangladesh aims to counter China’s growing influence. After the 2021 military coup, India embraced a “twin-track approach,” engaging with Myanmar’s military while promoting democratic restoration. Unlike Western nations that impose sanctions, India focuses on strategic stability. In contrast, China has strengthened its ties with Myanmar through economic investments and military support, including a second-hand submarine in 2021. India’s challenge is to maintain its influence amidst China’s expanding presence.
India’s Diplomatic Balancing Act
India’s relationship with Bangladesh focuses on stability, economic cooperation, and shared security concerns, notably the Rohingya crisis and cross-border terrorism. Challenges persist in water sharing and border management. India is also engaged with ASEAN on Myanmar’s crisis. In July 2023, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar highlighted the need for peace in border areas, counter-trafficking efforts, and people-centric initiatives, reflecting India’s commitment to balancing security and regional diplomacy.
Future Outlook
As Myanmar and Bangladesh navigate bilateral relations, India must adapt its approach to safeguard its strategic interests. Key areas of engagement include:
Enhancing Border Security: Strengthening surveillance along the India-Myanmar border to curb insurgencies and trafficking.
Expanding Economic Ties: Accelerating infrastructure projects like the Trilateral Highway and Kaladan Project despite Myanmar’s instability.
Diplomatic Engagement: Balancing relations with both Bangladesh and Myanmar while countering Chinese influence in the region.
India’s Strategic Response to Myanmar-Bangladesh Dynamics
Diplomatic Engagements with Regional Partners
India’s approach to Myanmar and Bangladesh balances security and economic interests. In Myanmar, India employs a dual strategy of supporting democratization while engaging with the military junta, as seen in the October 2023 visits of Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla and Army Chief Gen. Manoj Naravane. Geopolitically, India seeks to counter China’s influence by fostering alternative partnerships and coordinating with ASEAN for regional stability. In Bangladesh, political changes have occurred after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster. This has led to a shift in priorities. India’s aid allocation in the 2025 Union Budget has remained stable for Bangladesh, unlike the increases seen for other neighbours.
Security Measures and Border Management
To enhance border security, India plans to fence the 1,643-kilometer India-Myanmar border, following similar measures along the Bangladesh border. This decision addresses concerns over escalating conflict in Myanmar and ethnic violence in Manipur. India is also reconsidering its free movement regime, which grants visa-free travel up to 16 kilometres for border communities, due to rising issues like insurgent activities, drug trafficking, and illegal migration.
Economic Initiatives for Regional Connectivity
India recognizes economic integration as vital for regional stability and is advancing multiple infrastructure and digital initiatives. The Bharat Net Project aims to enhance digital infrastructure in northeastern states, with 5G services available in 779 districts as of December 2024. Expanding 4G services to border villages enhances connectivity, facilitating trade. India is investing in transport corridors like the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan Multimodal Project, although Myanmar’s instability has delayed progress and complicated trade efforts.
Strategic Calculations in a Complex Neighbourhood
India’s approach to the Myanmar-Bangladesh dynamics focuses on balancing security, economic development, and diplomacy. The decision to fence the Myanmar border prioritizes security, potentially affecting local economies and cultural ties. India aims to maintain regional influence amidst China’s growing presence while fostering cooperation with Bangladesh’s new leadership on connectivity and security.
Conclusion
India’s engagement with Myanmar and Bangladesh is driven by security, economic, and geopolitical factors. Stability in these regions is essential for India’s national security, particularly in its northeastern states, which face cross-border insurgencies and trafficking. Economic initiatives like the Trilateral Highway and Kaladan Multimodal Project aim to strengthen trade and reduce reliance on China.
India seeks to balance relations with both neighbours while countering China’s influence, engaging with Myanmar’s military, and supporting democratic efforts in Bangladesh. However, challenges such as the Rohingya crisis and border conflicts hinder progress. To ensure national interests and promote regional stability, India should focus on border security, infrastructure development, and diplomatic coordination. Adapting policies in response to Myanmar’s internal issues and political changes in Bangladesh will be crucial for effective engagement and regional cooperation.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a wealthier nation in terms of natural resources, but a nation plagued by prolonged conflicts, political instability, and humanitarian crises. The nation has been stricken by violent conflicts, exploitation, and governance problems for decades, displacing millions and exposing them to risk. International community efforts have been futile as the violence has persistently escalated with internal power struggles and external interventions fueling the violence. This piece writes about the origins of the crisis, its current status, humanitarian impact, international responses, and potential solutions towards a future of stability.
Historical Context of the Crisis
The origin of Congo’s crisis is rooted in its colonial past. Under the Belgian rule (1885–1960), the country underwent extensive exploitation, particularly in its rubber and mineral industries. At Congo’s independence in 1960, political unrest quickly followed. Patrice Lumumba, the country’s first prime minister, was assassinated, and this paved the way for Joseph Mobutu, who ruled as a dictator for over thirty years. His dictatorship was typified by widespread corruption and economic abuse.
The crisis deepened in the 1990s with the Rwandan Genocide (1994), which sent refugees and armed militias into eastern Congo. This led to the First Congo War (1996–1997), which ended in the toppling of Mobutu. His successor, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, however, could not provide stability, which gave rise to the Second Congo War (1998–2003), also known as “Africa’s World War” since it involved multiple countries. While a peace deal was signed in 2003, violence has continued to be a common occurrence, particularly in the nation’s eastern regions.
Current Conflict and Key Actors
The ongoing crisis in Congo is driven mainly by armed groups, ethnic tensions, and competition for valuable natural resources. The DRC’s east remains a theater of conflict for numerous militias, including:
• March 23 Movement (M23): A rebel movement consisting mainly of Tutsi combatants, accused of receiving support from Rwanda.
• Allied Democratic Forces (ADF): An Islamist extremist militant group, which has launched numerous attacks on civilians.
• These are different community-based militias that have formed to fight against external forces but are also often responsible for committing atrocities.
• Congolese Military (FARDC): The army, which has often been accused of human rights violations and lacks the capacity to exert control.
Neighboring countries, Rwanda and Uganda in particular, have also been accused of supporting opposing groups to seize Congo’s mineral resources. The United Nations peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO), also one of the largest globally, has also not been able to curb the violence despite having been deployed for decades in the region.
Humanitarian Crisis and Socio-Economic Impact
The brutality has given rise to one of the world’s most severe humanitarian emergencies. Over 6 million have been displaced from their homes, and countless more are living in abject poverty, with no access to even the most basic necessities such as food, medicine, and education. The crisis has yielded:
•Mass displacement: Thousands of Congolese are displaced every day, seeking refuge in overpopulated camps or neighboring countries.
•Sexual violence: Rape has been widely used as a weapon of war, and women and girls have been the main victims by the military.
•Child soldiers: Most of the rebel forces recruit children as soldiers and force them to fight.
•Economic exploitation: Congo’s natural resources, including gold, coltan, and diamonds, are being illegally mined and sold, funding armed forces instead of reaching the locals.
• Environmental degradation: Deforestation and illegal mining have resulted in immense ecological degradation, endangering wildlife as well as local communities.
International Response and Challenges
The global world has tried addressing the crisis using diplomatic interventions, peacekeeping measures, and provision of humanitarian relief. The central actors are:
•United Nations (UN): UN peacekeeping division, MONUSCO, was stationed in Congo more than twenty years ago but has been under scrutiny for their failure to hinder violence.
•African Union (AU): Peacemaking initiatives have consistently taken place through attempting to arrange peace agreements but enforcing them continues to be wanting.
• Western countries: The US, EU, and other world superpowers have individually sanctioned those who are funding the war and have sent humanitarian assistance but not gone in themselves to fight.
• NGOs and international agencies: Organisations like the International Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) provide critical humanitarian aid, even if it gets curtailed by access to the affected areas due to issues of security.
Despite these efforts, there continue to be problems, including government corruption in the Congo, impunity for war criminals, and persistent foreign meddling in the war.
Possible Solutions and the Path Forward
Though the Congo crisis is very intricate, there are a few measures that can be taken to lay the groundwork for long-term stability:
1. Governance strengthening: A transparent and accountable government is needed to put an end to corruption and impose law and order.
2. Regional cooperation: The neighboring nations need to pledge non-interference and collaborate on peace efforts.
3. Disarmament and reintegration: There ought to be efforts to demobilize and reintegrate former militants into society via education and jobs.
4. Economic reforms: The Congo government ought to own the mining industry to ensure that the riches benefit the people and not foreign powers and armed groups.
5. Support for civil society: Empowering local groups and local leaders can help advance peace and development at the local level.
Conclusion
The Congo conflict is a tragic but ongoing one, and millions of people are suffering from violence, displacement, and economic exploitation. Despite numerous international interventions, peace remains elusive, and stronger action is needed to address the root causes of conflict. Constructing governance, promoting regional cooperation, and implementing economic reforms are critical steps towards stability. The world cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering in Congo—global awareness and action are necessary to support lasting peace and justice for its people.
For decades, the United States Agency for International Development or USAID has been a lifeline for millions across the Global South, funding critical programs to combat diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But with US President Donald Trump’s administration drastically scaling back foreign aid, the very survival of these efforts is now in question.
Until recently, the fight against malaria in Southeast Asia’s Mekong sub-region was a rare public health success story. Named after the 4,900-kilometer (3,000-mile) river that flows from China through Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, the region had seen a remarkable drop in malaria cases. Between 2010 and 2023, infections caused by the most common malaria parasite plummeted from nearly half a million to fewer than 248,000, thanks in large part to US-backed initiatives, particularly through the Global Fund.
But now, those gains are at risk.
A Health Crisis Unfolding in Myanmar
Nowhere is the rollback of USAID funding more devastating than in Myanmar, where a brutal civil war since 2021 has displaced millions and led to an explosion of malaria cases. Myanmar alone accounted for nearly 229,000 of the 248,000 malaria cases in the region last year. With USAID cutting support for Myanmar’s anti-malaria initiative, experts fear the situation will spiral out of control.
“Myanmar’s government estimates that malaria cases have risen by 300 percent since the start of the civil war, but independent research suggests the real figure is more than double that,” said health researcher Wharton-Smith.
The crisis is spilling across borders. Parts of Thailand, which had previously eliminated malaria, are now seeing fresh outbreaks as refugees and migrants from Myanmar seek safety. With USAID suspending critical disease prevention programs, cases are expected to rise sharply.
USAID Cuts. A Blow to Global Health
The rollback of malaria funding in the Mekong is just one example of a much larger crisis unfolding across the Global South. USAID, once the world’s largest source of international aid, is set to slash 5,200 of its 6,200 global programs – an 83% reduction. The cuts are sending shockwaves through humanitarian networks, threatening decades of progress against tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and malnutrition.
On Wednesday, a top United Nations official called the cuts a “seismic shock” to global aid efforts.
“Many will die because that aid is drying up,” said Tom Fletcher, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The Politics of Aid Reduction
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the move, arguing that many USAID programs did not serve America’s core national interests.
“The 5,200 contracts that are now canceled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, and in some cases even harmed, the national interests of the United States,” Rubio said on X (formerly Twitter). He also confirmed that the remaining USAID programs will now be overseen directly by the US State Department.
A Looming Humanitarian Disaster
The decision to dismantle USAID’s funding structure is a matter of life and death. In countries like Myanmar, where war and displacement have already stretched healthcare to the breaking point, the loss of US-backed aid programs means preventable diseases will surge once again.
Public health experts warn that if international donors don’t step in to fill the void, the progress made over the past two decades could unravel entirely. The Global South, once promised a healthier future, is now bracing for a humanitarian disaster.
And for the millions who relied on USAID’s support, the question now is – who will step up before it’s too late?
The chaos at USAID has finally reached a boiling point and the fallout was immediate – thousands of USAID employees, contractors, and support staff were either put on leave or furloughed, while projects across the world were abruptly shut down with “stop work orders.”
Meanwhile, NGOs scrambled to figure out what was happening, trying to fill budget gaps and understand which programs might still get funding under an emergency waiver for life-saving projects.
Amid all the confusion, the Supreme Court stepped in last week, ordering the Trump administration to comply with a lower court ruling and release $2 billion in back pay owed to USAID partners and contractors from before the freeze. But on Monday, a federal judge had to call out the administration again, insisting the funds were “unlawfully” held back – especially since they had already been approved by Congress for specific programs.
At the heart of this mess is the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, led by none other than Elon Musk. The department has been aggressively targeting US development aid, pushing for sweeping reforms.
Catherine Kyobutungi, executive director of the African Population and Health Research Center in Kenya, acknowledges that USAID had its flaws. “We’ve always said USAID’s funding system was inefficient – there wasn’t enough focus on long-term impact or sustainability. But you don’t just tear down an imperfect system overnight,” she stated.
She emphasized that global aid isn’t just about handing out medicine – there’s an entire structure in place that ensures people get the help they need. “The total disregard for how things actually work is just astounding,” she added.
When Aid Becomes Political
The full impact of USAID’s cuts is still unfolding, a humanitarian worker from a leading nonprofit tackling malnutrition across Africa and the Middle East warned that even a short funding gap could be catastrophic.
The biggest concern? Children in intensive care units at emergency feeding centers, where complications like organ failure and hypoglycemia can quickly turn fatal. The global humanitarian community runs thousands of stabilization centers with US funding.
“These centers cannot afford to shut down, not even for a day. If the lights go off, children die. It’s that simple.”
What’s even more alarming is how humanitarian aid, something that was once bipartisan and apolitical, has now been dragged into the political arena. “Up until now, feeding starving children wasn’t a political issue. Now, it is,” the worker added.
It’s also unclear what will happen to major US-backed health initiatives like PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and the President’s Malaria Initiative. Launched by George W. Bush 20 years ago, these programs have saved over 32 million lives, according to UNAIDS and archived USAID data.
Though Congress funds these programs, they are executed by agencies like USAID and the CDC – both of which are now in DOGE’s crosshairs for budget cuts. Last month, UNAIDS revealed that the US government had abruptly ended their partnership, impacting HIV programs in at least 55 countries. Funding for UNICEF’s polio efforts and the UN Population Fund’s reproductive health initiatives has also been scrapped.
USAID has outright denied waivers for anything linked to family planning or what it calls “gender ideology.” Meanwhile, NGOs in Asia, Africa, and beyond are struggling to plug the funding gaps, with vital programs still stuck in limbo due to the 90-day “pause.”
To make matters worse, USAID-funded food and medical supplies are reportedly sitting locked in warehouses while officials figure out their next move. Senator Marco Rubio’s latest statements haven’t exactly cleared up the confusion either.
Dressed in military fatigues in footage aired by Russian state television, Putin addressed frontline troops, reiterating Moscow’s goal of achieving the “complete liberation” of Kursk. This marks his first trip to the western Russian region since Ukraine’s surprise incursion there last year, a campaign that initially caught Moscow off guard but has since crumbled under sustained Russian pressure.
Ceasefire Talks Hang in the Balance
Putin’s highly choreographed appearance appeared aimed at rallying morale among Russian forces, who have reportedly reclaimed most of the territory seized by Ukrainian troops in August. The visit also coincided with fresh diplomatic efforts from Washington, as US President Donald Trump confirmed on Wednesday that US representatives were en route to Russia to discuss the ceasefire deal.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later told reporters that Putin was “carefully studying” the US proposal and would await a formal briefing from American officials in the coming days.
Moscow’s Gains and Ukraine’s Retreat
Meanwhile, Russian forces appear to be tightening their grip on Kursk, further diminishing Ukraine’s negotiating leverage. Russian General Valery Gerasimov, meeting with Putin during the visit, claimed that Russian forces had already recaptured 86% of the territory taken by Ukraine and had surrounded the remaining holdouts. He also stated that 430 Ukrainian soldiers had been captured, while others were either retreating or encircled.
Kyiv’s ambitions of using Kursk as a bargaining chip in future peace talks had “totally collapsed,” Gerasimov declared.
For Ukraine, the situation is growing more precarious. On Wednesday, Ukraine’s top general Oleksandr Syrskyi acknowledged that Ukrainian forces had been pushed out of multiple settlements in the region, calling the withdrawals “tactical retreats” to “more favorable positions.” Syrskyi also revealed that Russian airstrikes had devastated parts of Kursk, with the town of Sudzha “almost completely destroyed” by Russian bombardment.
Russia’s Next Steps and US Diplomatic Efforts
During his visit, Putin not only called for the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk to be expelled but also floated the idea of establishing a “buffer zone” along the Russia-Ukraine border, potentially signaling Moscow’s intent to push deeper into Ukrainian territory.
His remarks come as the Kremlin signals that the final phase of the operation is underway. Peskov told state media outlet TASS on Thursday that Russian forces were in the “endgame” of clearing Ukrainian forces from the region.
With negotiations in flux, US officials are scrambling to keep diplomatic channels open.
Trump’s Special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is set to visit Russia later this week, though it remains unclear whether he will meet with Putin. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged ongoing discussions, noting that talks were taking place “on the phone and in person with some of our representatives over the next couple of days.”
Putin Eyes Buffer Zone in Sumy as Russia Tightens Grip on Kursk
Speaking to Russian troops during his visit to the recently recaptured areas, Putin emphasized the need to restore security along the border, describing the situation as one requiring immediate action.
“The situation along the state border must be restored,” Putin said, calling for a swift and decisive operation to neutralize the remaining Ukrainian forces still fighting in Kursk. “Our task in the near future, in the shortest possible timeframe, is to decisively defeat the enemy entrenched in the Kursk region.”
The comments signal that Moscow is not merely aiming to reclaim lost territory but is also considering expanding its military presence deeper into Ukrainian land, a move that could further escalate the conflict.
Russia’s Rapid Gains in Kursk
Putin’s visit came as Russian forces celebrated their most significant gains in months.
One of the most notable victories was the recapture of Sudzha, a strategically important town near the Ukrainian border. Russian state media and military bloggers published images of Russian soldiers raising the country’s tricolor flag in the town square, confirming Moscow’s control over the area.
Ukraine’s Stubborn Resistance
Despite these setbacks, Ukraine has vowed to continue fighting in Kursk for as long as necessary. While Deep State, a Ukrainian conflict-tracking outlet, acknowledged that Kyiv’s forces no longer controlled Sudzha, reports of continued clashes on the town’s outskirts suggest that Ukraine is not giving up without a fight.
Ukraine’s top military commander described the battle for Sudzha as “intense,” while a Ukrainian military blogger known as Skadovskyi Defender confirmed that Ukrainian troops were withdrawing from Kursk but promised that heavy strikes on Sudzha would continue.
This suggests that Ukraine may shift toward a strategy of sustained aerial and artillery attacks, rather than attempting to hold ground against the advancing Russian forces.
Putin’s Stance on Captured Ukrainian Fighters
In a notable escalation of rhetoric, Putin declared that foreign fighters captured in Kursk while fighting for Ukraine would not be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. He also labeled Ukrainian soldiers captured in the region as “terrorists.”
This statement raises serious concerns over the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) and signals Moscow’s hardline approach toward those fighting against Russian forces.
Trump Warns Putin of ‘Very Bad’ Consequences
Meanwhile, amid renewed diplomatic efforts to halt the Russia-Ukraine war, US President Donald Trump has issued a strong warning to Vladimir Putin, cautioning against rejecting a proposed ceasefire agreement. Trump suggested that while his priority was peace, he was prepared to take severe financial measures if Russia refused to comply.
“I can do things financially that would be very bad for Russia. I don’t want to do that because I want to get peace,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. He confirmed that US officials were set to visit Russia to discuss the possibility of a 30-day ceasefire and broader peace talks.
The push for negotiations follows extensive discussions in Saudi Arabia, where Ukraine reportedly agreed to a temporary truce, placing the decision in Moscow’s hands. Trump remained cautiously optimistic, stating, “Hopefully, we can get a ceasefire from Russia.”
Washington Seeks Unconditional Russian Compliance
While Trump hinted at diplomatic maneuvering, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a harder stance, insisting that Russia must accept the ceasefire without conditions.
“If their response is ‘yes,’ we know we’ve made real progress. If it’s ‘no,’ then their intentions are clear,” Rubio said while en route to a G7 meeting in Canada.
Meanwhile, in a rare development, the CIA and Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service held their first direct communication in years. At the same time, defense ministers from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Poland convened in Paris to discuss continued military and economic support for Ukraine and the ceasefire proposal.
Russia Holds Its Ground, Ukraine Remains Skeptical
Despite growing international pressure, Russia has yet to issue an official response. However, Moscow’s foreign ministry previously dismissed the idea of a temporary ceasefire, arguing that it would merely allow Ukraine to regroup militarily.
Putin, who recently visited troops in the strategic Kursk region, reiterated that Russia remains committed to achieving its military objectives. “All combat tasks will be fulfilled,” he assured Russian forces.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, voiced doubts about Russia’s sincerity, suggesting that Moscow has no real intention of ending the war. Speaking to AFP, he remarked, “Everything depends on whether Russia wants peace or to continue killing people.”
Escalating Hostilities. Ukraine Faces Pressure
The diplomatic uncertainty comes as Ukraine faces mounting battlefield setbacks. Russian advances in the east and south have forced Ukrainian troops to retreat from several key positions.
In a show of military strength, Moscow reported that its forces had shot down 77 Ukrainian drones, just days after Kyiv launched its largest-ever drone attack on Moscow in the war’s three-year history.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv and Kherson, suffered fresh Russian strikes, with reports of multiple casualties.
The Last Bit
With the ceasefire proposal now in Moscow’s hands, the next few days will determine whether diplomacy can achieve a breakthrough or if the war will continue unabated.
If Russia refuses, Trump has hinted at economic retaliation, potentially signaling a shift toward a more aggressive financial strategy against Moscow.
For now, the world watches as the delicate balance between war and diplomacy plays out.
President Vladimir Putin and Russian nuclear weapons: source Internet
Russia is the largest nuclear weapons state, and a depository state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under which a safeguards agreement has been in force since 1985. The Additional Protocol was ratified in 2007. However, Russia takes the view that voluntary application of IAEA safeguards is not meaningful for a nuclear weapons state and so they are not generally applied. Russia has the highest number of Weapon of Mass Destruction, making Russia one of the largest threat in the world when they come in to a war scenario. Russia did not attend the first meeting of states parties to the TPNW, held in Vienna in June 2022, putting Russia under the suspicion for the nuclear development.
History
The nuclear program of Russia started on August 1949, when the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear weapon in Kazakhstan. After that U.S. and Russia raced to compete for the missiles testing and space technology for a decade. In 1962, Cuban Missile Crisis happened, which is considered as the Crisis that brought world closest to a nuclear war. Just after a year, in 1963, ‘Limited Test Ban Treaty’ was established in which a high-speed “hotline” connecting the leaders of the Soviet and U.S. governments established in order to prevent any future nuclear war.
The pursuit of nuclear weapons by more states lead to calls for an international framework to halt proliferation. After multiple drafts, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on July 1, 1968, agreeing to pursue general disarmament. China and France did not join until 1992. And all the other countries which became nuclear power after U.S. and Russia, remained outside of the treaty, including India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Sudan.
Russia’s Nuclear Technology
Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for an expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology. It is committed to closing the fuel cycle, and sees fast reactors as key to this. Rosenergoatom is the only Russian utility operating nuclear power plants. It was established in 1992 and was reconstituted as a utility in 2001, as a division of Rosatom. Russia uses about 5500 tonnes of natural uranium per year. Russia’s last plutonium production reactor started up in 1964 and was finally closed down in 2010. Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology and is consolidating this through its Proryv (‘Breakthrough’) project.
Russia’s first nuclear power plant, and the first in the world to produce electricity in 1954, was the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor. Russia has 36 of total reactors capable of producing 26,802 MWe, from which, 6 reactors are under construction which will be making 3,901 MWe, and 11 reactors are shutdown which used to making 4,893 MWe. Total consumption of electricity in Russia is around 808 TWh, Nuclear energy contributes around 216 TWh which make 19% of the countries requirement.
Exports of nuclear goods and services are a major Russian policy and economic objective. Russia is currently involved in the construction of about 20 reactors abroad. Russia is exporting plants to meet world energy demand for some 300 GWe of new nuclear capacity before 2030. Early in 2016 Rosatom said that Russia’s GDP gained three roubles for every one rouble invested in building nuclear power plants domestically, as well as enhanced “socio-economic development of the country as a whole.”
Rosatom made plans to build around 8 floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs) by 2015. Rosatom signed the contract in 2008 and started the construction in 2009. The KLT-40S is a version of the icebreaker reactor for floating nuclear power plants which runs on low-enriched uranium (<20%) and hence has a bigger core and shorter refuelling interval of 3-4.5 years and with the Operational lifetime of 40 years. Although, the construction was delayed multiple times due to military, political and economic problems. Fuel loading was completed in October 2018, with startup in December 2019, and commercial operation in May 2020.
Many countries came forward to sign a contract with Russia. For instance, China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) from China signed a contract for FNPP with Rosatom in 2014, although it was not followed through completely. Similarly, in 2015 Indonesia’s BATAN signed an agreement with Rosatom on construction of FNPPs, but nothing further has been announced. Also, in 2024, the Republic of Guinea signed an MOU with Russia for the development of Floating Power Plant to supply electricity in the African country.
Missiles
Russia possesses approximately 5,580 nuclear weapons, which can be launched from Aircraft, Submarines and Land Based Missiles. It is also believed that Russia has nearly 1200 nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement and around 1,822 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. In 2022, Russia spent an estimated US$ 9.6 billion to build and maintain its nuclear forces. Russia possess around 521 of Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. Russia inherited nearly 35,000 nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR. However, under the treaty of New START Treaty they limited the number up to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads. But, in 2022, Russia announced it was suspending its participation in the New START Treaty and the U.S. has claimed Russia is in non-compliance with its treaty obligations. According to the September 2022 New START declaration, Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on 540 strategic delivery systems including ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers.
Both Russia and the United States have committed to adhering treaty limits until 2026. The U.S. intelligence community assesses that, as of December 2022, Russia also maintains an arsenal of 1000-2000 non-strategic nuclear warheads not limited by the New START Treaty. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates that Russia’s military stockpile consists of approximately 4,380 nuclear warheads, with 1,200 delivery system.
Russia has an aim of modernizing the missile delivery system with the goal of eliminating Soviet legacy systems by 2026. Russia have been working on new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) such as the RS-26 Rubezh road mobile ICBM, RS-28 Sarmat heavy liquid-fueled ICBM, as well as the Yars-M, Osina-RV, and Kedr ICBMs. They have deployed 12 submarines of two different classes, each carrying a different model of submarines launch Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). In 2021, Russia also deployed a new mobile missile defense system, the S-500, however, it was not proven to successfully defend against a hypersonic ICBM reentry vehicle until February 2024.
Russia’s Nuclear Threat
On 24 February 2022, Russia issued an order which was interpreted as a threat on Ukraine and on NATO countries as well, if they tried to interfere. Putin stated that ‘Russia will respond immediately’ he said, ‘and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history’. Just after few days on 27 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a ‘special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.
The 2020 Russian Doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons ‘in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy’. However, Russia published new Nuclear Doctrine on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use. The 2024 doctrine said that ‘New Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence’ refers instead to aggression against Russia ‘with the use of conventional weapons creating a critical threat to their sovereignty or territorial integrity’. Specific types of conventional weapons are also defined in the document as a ‘massive launch’ of aircraft, cruise missiles, UAVs and other flying devices.
Russia’s new nuclear doctrine was months in the making. Although it was released soon after President Biden’s announcement allowing Ukraine to use medium-range conventional missiles (ATACMS) against Russian territory. According to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to ‘combat’ allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty prevents Russia from ever using the Nuclear Weapon on any NATO countries since NATO countries would most likely respond according to the impact of nuclear weapons crosses borders and affects the countries surrounding Ukraine. It has the potential to even trigger full on war with Russia from all the NATO countries. The US has around 150 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs stationed in five NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey. The US, UK, and France also have long range capability for nuclear attacks under NATO auspices. But both scenarios mean NATO being drawn into a major war with Russia.
It is believed that if Russia ever decides to use a Weapon of Mass Distraction on Ukraine, it would more likely be using a short rang, low yield nuclear weapon. Russia has thought to have more than 1000 of them in reserved, which can be deployed quickly. However, any movement of Russian missiles can be monitored by the U.S. and other satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022.
Conclusion
Russia being the biggest nuclear power globally, constantly requires watchful eyes on the Russia’a nuclear fuel cycle and missile development. Russia is constantly developing its nuclear program for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. One of the main reason of technological development is to export the nuclear technology for the economic growth of their country and to make political relationships. Second reason is to compete and to deter from other major nuclear power including U.S. and NATO countries. Russia came really close to using the nuclear weapon on Ukraine in 2022. However, due to the consequences, it is less likely for Russia to use nuclear weapon on Ukraine or any NATO countries.
The evolution of Russia and U.S. geo-military scenario has the potential to influence global conflict and peace. In order to maintain credibility and to protect its military and economic interest, Russia needs to have a calibrated approach by balancing diplomatic, economical and defence ties with NATO and other countries. In order to decrease global conflict, all the nuclear countries have to agree on ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and follow the aim of ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’.
)
