News - Page 21 of 65 - Global Defense News

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

Flashpoints

-

March 21, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Cost-Effective Defense Solution

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

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

Arms Sales at Record Highs

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

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

Controversy Over US Arms Sales

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

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

A Surge in Global Demand

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

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

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

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 21, 2025

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia’s Economy…

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

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

Estonia Border, A Difficult Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

What About Non-NATO Nations?

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

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

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

NATO, A United Front?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortifying Against Russian Attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Last Bit

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

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

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 20, 2025

0

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

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

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

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

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

The Israeli government has cited multiple reasons.

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

Israel’s broader war objectives remain unchanged:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gap between the two sides remains vast.

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

Israel dismissed the offer as “psychological warfare.”

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

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

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

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

What Does This Mean for Gazans?
It is catastrophic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their families have reacted with anger and despair.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum issued a scathing statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 20, 2025

0

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

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

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

However, does this symbolize a shift in tone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 19, 2025

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 19, 2025

1

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

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

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

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

The Strategic Importance of Bab el-Mandeb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Korea 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.

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

Will U.S. Strikes Work? Probably Not.

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

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

A Smarter U.S. Strategy?

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

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

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

The 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’s Booming Defense Industry Has Turned It Into A Global Powerhouse Of Defense Arsenal

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 17, 2025

4

Turkiye’s Booming Defense Industry Has Turned It Into A Global Powerhouse Of Defense Arsenal

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 –

Army – 2,378 Main Battle Tanks, 6,403 Armored Personnel Carriers, 645 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 91 Attack Helicopters, 2,762 Artillery Units, 1,404 Anti-Aircraft Guns

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 also developing the Steel Dome (Celik Kubbe), an AI-augmented system designed to intercept airborne threats. Simultaneously, its first fifth-generation fighter jet, the KAAN, is in development to replace aging F-16s.

Expanding the Defence Portfolio

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.

Will Zelenskyy Bow Down To Putin’s 5-Point Ceasefire Demand? Zelenskyy, The Man Caught Between Russia-Trump And Trump’s “Follow The Money Trail”

Flashpoints

Consulting Editor

-

March 17, 2025

1

Will Zelenskyy Bow Down To Putin’s 5-Point Ceasefire Demand? Zelenskyy, The Man Caught Between Russia-Trump And Trump’s “Follow The Money Trail”

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.

But then, January 20th happened. Trump re-entered the White House, and suddenly, the geopolitical script flipped. The days of Zelenskyy’s tearful pleas seemed numbered. Trump, the ultimate dealmaker, is now attempting to broker peace, not out of sheer goodwill, but with some hard-nosed business logic.

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?

Amid UN Report and Ceasefire Talk, Turmoil Continues in Gaza

GSDN

-

March 16, 2025

1

By: Kashif Anwar

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.

Myanmar-Bangladesh Relations: Effect on India

GSDN

-

March 15, 2025

2

Myanmar-Bangladesh Relations: Effect on India

By: Samruddhee Sapkale, Research Analyst, GSDN

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.

Global Strategic Defense News

Global Strategic Defense News

Israel’s Response

Global Strategic Defense News

Quick Links

Follow Us

Ads Blocker Detected!!!