Friday
September 19, 2025
Home Blog Page 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China, Russia, and Iran

Why the Gulf of Oman Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran, Russia, China to hold joint military exercises

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

China’s Olive Branch to India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China, India, United States, Russia, Allies

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

At the same time, he needs India –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Geopolitically Khaund: Trump, Chabahar, and the Question of India’s Strategic Autonomy?

GSDN
-
0
Yours Geopolitically Khaund: Trump, Chabahar, and the Question of India’s Strategic Autonomy?

By: Anuraag Khaund

Donald Trump: source Internet

Last month witnessed a flurry of activities and analyses as PM Narendra Modi went for his first summit on 13 February with US President Donald Trump post the latter’s re-election last November. The summit focused on key areas such as trade, economic partnership, defence and technological partnership and cooperation in multilateral fora which were encapsulated in the India- US Joint Statement released in the aftermath of the Summit. Some of the actions outlined in the Statement such as the signing of a new ten-year Framework for US- India Major Defense Partnership in the 21st century and the announcement of initiatives such as the US- India COMPACT (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Commerce & Technology), Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA) and the US- India TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology) among others underscored and reiterated the importance of the partnership with Washington for India’s own strategic ambitions.

Meanwhile, just days before the meeting, the Trump administration targeted the port of Chabahar as part of its ‘maximum pressure’ against Iran. The National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM)-2 signed by Trump on 4 February 2025 regarding this matter stipulated the Secretary of State to ‘modify or rescind sanctions waivers, particularly those that provide Iran any degree of economic or financial relief, including those related to Iran’s Chabahar port project’ in a bid to exacerbate the financial and economic pressure on Tehran. The NSPM 2 comes at a time of heightened Indian involvement in the Shahid Behesti terminal of Chabahar with the port playing an important role in furthering Indian interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia. While India has not officially commented on the decision by the Trump administration, yet questions were raised whether PM Modi’s visit to the US and his bonhomie with Trump would work the charm offensive in getting Washington to re-think its perspective on the strategically important port (for India) and provide the same leeway to India on Chabahar as was done during the first Trump administration in 2018.

However, both the above events clubbed together has raised important questions on India’s much touted Strategic Autonomy which has defined New Delhi’s interactions with key geopolitical actors such as US, Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Gulf, and the Israel especially in theatres such as Ukraine and the Middle East.

Strategic Autonomy broadly refers to the ability of a country to take decisions that best serve its interests irrespective of the exertion of pressure from the outside. It is marked by the refusal to take sides with any particular country or bloc and instead seek partnerships and alignment with multiple actors or multiple alignment. Most importantly, in terms of the current geopolitical scenarios, it refers to the exercise of autonomy in seeking benefits from both sides of any conflict without being forced to ally with one against the other. These aspects of strategic autonomy were seen in India’s outreach and maintenance of ties with both the US led West, including Ukraine and Russia at the height of the conflict since 2022 as well as the maintenance of ties with Israel and Iran in the backdrop of the conflict in Gaza since 2023. However, the current ascension of the Trump administration marked by its volatile and often maximalist goals as witnessed in the rescinding of Chabahar and the exhibition of transactionalism in dealing with both friends, allies and foes have raised questions over New Delhi’s ability to maintain its Strategic Autonomy as during the Biden era. Most importantly, in addition to Chabahar other factors too have added to the doubts about the same some of which were seen in the Modi- Trump summit.  

Foremost amongst these issues were tariffs, oil and gas purchases and the weapons deal. The announcement of reciprocal tariffs on India while sharing the dais with PM during the press conference as well as the insistence on increasing two-way trade to 500 billion by 2030 through the means of a ‘mutually beneficial, multi-sectoral Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA)’  which entails India reducing its tariffs and other barriers to increase American access to its markets has raised doubts whether the above might end up serving US interests at the expense of the survival of Indian enterprises. So too has been the Indian decision to import more oil and gas from the US which in the backdrop of continuous American sanctions on New Delhi’s purchase of cheaper Russian and Iranian energy supplies  over the years have led to the speculation of the above being an instance of ‘arm-twisting’ by Washington in exchange for defence deals. With regard to the purchase of weaponry and defence acquisitions, the potential sale of F-35 Stealth Fighter Jets to India has raised a flurry of comments ranging from those seeing the offer as elevation of India’s value as a strategic partner in the eyes of US to viewing it as a costly deal with minimal benefits to India. The latter perception got more traction due to the comments from Trump’s close aid Elon Musk labelling the F-35 as the ‘worst military value for money in history’ and its ‘obsoleteness’ in front of new technologies like drone and UAV warfare which has led to questions of whether the deal was aimed more at filling US coffers than in genuinely aiding Indian defence modernisation.

Adding to the above was the issue of the manner of deportation of undocumented Indian immigrants in US military planes and India’s apparent acquiescence and non-objection to the same despite speculations that the issue might have been raised in private conversations with Trump has also raised doubts in some quarters regarding India’s ability to stand up for itself at a time when smaller nations like Columbia and Mexico turned away US military flights carrying deportees hailing from both the countries while stressing for the humane treatment of the same in the face of Trump’s backlash. So too was the Indian decision to pre-emptively reduce tariffs on 30 items originating from the US in a bid to ameliorate Washington compared to Mexico’s announcement of retaliatory tariffs to similar threats emanating from its northern neighbour.

All in all, the commentariat remain divided on the nature of the Modi- Trump Summit and the events preceding the latter with some seeing it as a reflection of India’s strategic flexibility and ‘mission accomplished’ while others questioning it as an instance of New Delhi ‘bending the knee’ to Trumpian pressure. For the purpose of the article, it can be said that there lies uncertainty regarding the extent to which India can exercise its strategic autonomy in the current era with a Trump led USA at the helm of global affairs.

This is none the more evident than in the case of Chabahar as outlined in the beginning of the article. The port’s importance for Indian strategic interests in Central Asia and Afghanistan needs no mention given that it featured prominently in the discussion between Indian Foreign Secretary Vikrant Misri and Acting Taliban Foreign Minister Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi in Dubai during January this year. Moreover, the port remains a vital conduit for strengthening Indo- Iranian ties in the backdrop of Tehran’s displeasure at Indian hesitancy to purchase oil in compliance with US sanctions in 2019. Most importantly, Chabahar remains crucial to New Delhi’s plans in countering Chinese influence not only in Iran but also the wider Central and South Asian region especially with regard to the port of Gwadar. In addition, Chabahar also lies at the centre of connectivity projects such as the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) involving India, Iran and Russia which is being touted as a possible alternative to the China led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). All of these explain the massive investment worth 120 million USD and extension of line of credit worth 250 million USD to Iran as well as the handling of the Shahid Behesti terminal by Indian Ports Global Limited (IPGL) in Chabahar which might come to naught in the face of rescinding of waivers.

Any form of retrenchment or reduction of Indian participation in Chabahar would be inimical only for New Delhi but US as well. India’s withdrawal from Chabahar under Trump’s duress would only end up strengthening China’s influence in Iran and push Tehran further into Beijing’s embrace thereby reducing any chance of thaw in the strained US- Iran relations necessary not only for the stalled nuclear talks but also for a stable West Asia. The loss of Chabahar would also affect India’s bargaining position with the Taliban vis-a vis China as in the absence of any alternative, the regime in Kabul would be compelled to fully embrace the BRI, thereby strengthening Beijing’s hand. Not to mention the fillip it would provide to Gwadar and plans to expand the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Afghanistan and Central Asia thereby deepening Beijing’s influence in the region while undercutting Indian as well as US presence. Such strengthening of Chinese foothold is not conducive to American interests in the above strategic region as Washington seeks to establish a sort of ‘intelligence presence’ in Taliban ruled Afghanistan. However, access to India involved Chabahar could be used by the Trump administration as a leverage with the regime in Kabul.

The repercussions of any possible Indian exit from Chabahar will also be witnessed in ties with Russia. The most immediate impact will be on the INSTC which has witnessed a steady increase in the transit of goods between India and Russia. The removal or non-inclusion of Chabahar would raise questions over the feasibility of the above route which would force member states of the connectivity project especially the Central Asian and Caucasus states to consider joining alternatives such as the Trans Caspian International Trade Route (TITR) also known as the Middle Corridor with China being one of its terminals as well as a major stakeholder, thereby posing a challenge to Russian influence in the above areas. In addition, Indian acquiescence to the threat of sanctions in Chabahar might also compel Moscow to question New Delhi’s ability to maintain its commitments to other connectivity projects such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Chennai Vladivostok Maritime Corridor in the face of similar US pressure in future. Moreover, any interpretation of India becoming ‘subservient’ to Trump-led USA by Russia would also lead Moscow to re-value its ties with Pakistan  as seen in the Russian expression of support for Islamabad’s BRICS membership bid and the launch of international freight train service connecting the port of Karachi with Russia passing through Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan thereby posing a direct challenge to Indian ambitions regarding INSTC.

From Washington’s perspective, continued Indian engagement with Russia will prevent the latter from slipping completely into Chinese embrace as speculations abound about Trump’s outreach to Putin as an attempt by the former to drive a wedge in the Moscow- Beijing ‘no limits partnership’. As Trump seeks a quick end to the stalemate in Ukraine, it can ill afford to displease Moscow by having adverse implications on the latter’s interests with other countries such as India. Nor would Trump prefer any jeopardization of Indo- Russian given New Delhi’s potential to act as a mediator between Washington and Moscow, despite the US President’s explicit endorsement of China as ‘a very important player’ who could aid in ‘getting this (Russia-Ukraine) war over’.

Despite the increasing Indo- US alignment, what cannot be overlooked is Trump’s contradictory attitudes towards China. While Beijing continues to be seen as the principal challenger to the US as viewed in the latter’s designation as the ‘biggest threat’ to US by newly elected Secretary of State Marco Rubio, yet Trump’s emphasis on his closeness with and fondness for Chinese President Xi Jinping raises doubts over the preceding sentiment. While it can be brushed off as one among the compliments showered to numerous world leaders by Trump, yet the importance of personality and interpersonal relations in shaping the latter’s attitude and manner of outreach to countries, friend and foe alike, cannot be discounted. Who knows whether his bonhomie with Xi might affect the current US administration’s outlook towards China and even towards ‘major partners’ like India? Such suspicions are not unfounded given the offer for mediation in ending the India- China dispute made by Trump during the joint press conference with Modi while also showering praises on Xi at the same time. Also interesting were the remarks by the Pakistani politician Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Islamabad’s role to act as a bridge between US (Trump) and China almost a week after the above press conference. This was followed by the release of 397 million USD for the maintenance of F-16 fleet in Pakistan by the same Trump administration which was heavily cutting down on all foreign funding under USAID. Coincidence or something big in the offing involving US, China, and Pakistan?

Most importantly, what should not be overlooked is Trump’s tendency for transactionalism in addressing global conflicts and his tendency to seek a quick end to conflicts without resolving deeper underlying issues. This was made evident in the demand for access to Ukrainian rare minerals as re-payment for the 60 billion USD military ais offered by the US since 2022 and the comments by Pete Hegseth on the ‘unlikelihood’ of the restoration of Ukrainian territories captured by Russia as well as the acknowledgement by Trump regarding the same as Moscow’s leverage over Kyiv. Adding to this is the statement of ‘Ukraine someday becoming a part of Russia’ marking the disregard, even if informally, of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country− characteristic of the unpredictability of Trumpism. It won’t be far-fetched to assume that such a scenario would not play out in the event of a Trump led mediation between India and China whereby New Delhi, like Ukraine, would be asked to accept the changed status quo along the LAC forcibly wrought by Beijing since 2020 for the sake of an ‘early end’ to the confrontation. Not to mention the outright threat of tariffs as well as the possibility of ‘arm-twisting’ to increase Indian purchases of US hydrocarbons and weapon systems or demands for allowing unfettered access to the Indian market by American corporate interests at the expense of our domestic civilian as well as defence industries in return for Trump’s continued support which can be snapped off any moment just as in the case of Ukraine or the NATO.

Further bolstering the above scepticism is the importance attached to China and Xi in Trump’s plan for outreach to Russia as well as President Putin which he has reiterated in several forums. Besides Moscow, Beijing’s partnership with Iran and North Korea would also make it a crucial partner in the eyes of Trump as it seeks to find solutions to issues such as the crisis in Middle East, Tehran’s nuclear program and the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. All these factors combined might make Trump question the ‘indispensability’ of India as a partner over the prospect of ‘quick solutions’ to the aforementioned crises offered by partnership with China. Not to mention the business  interests of Musk in China which could further blunt Trump’s policy against Beijing. Taken together, it might not be an overstatement to state the possibility of Washington making peace with Xi regime and leaving the Indo- Pacific and Asia as belonging to the Chinese sphere of influence . All the while, New Delhi would be abandoned to fend for itself in an unstable and constrained near and extended neighbourhood.

As the world braces for a return to the era of ‘stark and naked’ realpolitik, it becomes necessary for India to not only defend but also uphold and enhance its strategic autonomy while strengthening its alignment and partnerships with key players across geographies and spectrums− be it Russia, Iran, Israel, the EU, ASEAN, Gulf, BRICS, NATO− while also maintaining its partnership with the US and communication with China.

As stated by Indian External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar “No country can have a veto on India’s ties” –the maxim applies equally to Washington and other partners of New Delhi.

Because the words of Lord Palmerston ‘We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow’ still rings true in today’s geopolitical arena as it did back in the 18th century.

About the Author

Anuraag Khaund is pursuing PhD in International Politics from the School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat. He has published opinion pieces in The Diplomat, Deccan Herald, Kashmir Observer and Modern Diplomacy.  His interests include International Relations and Geopolitics with a focus on Eurasia, East, West, South and Southeast Asia. In addition to geopolitics, he also looks at the intersection between civilizational histories and current global politics. The author can be contacted at khaundanuraag@gmail.com

Shaurya Yatra: Endeavour to Showcase India’s Unity in Diversity

GSDN
-
0
Shaurya Yatra: Endeavour to Showcase India’s Unity in Diversity

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

The Shaurya Yatra team: source Author

Assam Rifles is organizing a historic Bike Rally from Vijaynagar (Arunachal Pradesh) to Rann of Kutch (Gujarat), covering 3,900 km from March 12-24, 2025. The rally, which is the longest Bike Rally of the Indian Armed Forces ever, comprises personnel from Assam Rifles, the Indian Army, and civilians from Arunachal Pradesh, symbolizing the theme “Ek Bharat, Shreshta Bharat”. The rally would comprise of 12 bikers (04 each from Assam Rifles, Indian Army and civilians of Arunachal Pradesh).

Introduction

Stretching from India’s easternmost frontiers to the rugged terrains of the west, the Indian Armed Forces have embarked on a historic motorcycle rally “the longest of its kind to date”. This extraordinary event, which will commence in the remote region of Vijaynagar in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, is a testament to the relentless spirit and unwavering commitment of India’s soldiers. In Vijaynagar, where the Assam Rifles stand as the Sentinels of the Northeast amid limited infrastructure and challenging terrain, our forces have built a legacy of perseverance and sacrifice. Their presence in such testing conditions underscores a commitment not only to their duty but also to the ideals of service and sacrifice that define India.

This rally is more than an expedition across geographical boundaries. It is a moving tribute to the brave men and women who secure our borders and ensure our nation’s safety every day. The journey spans thousands of kilometers from the rugged eastern highlands to the arid expanses of the west symbolizing the unity and strength of a nation that thrives on diversity yet is bound together by a common purpose. The rally encapsulates the very essence of what it means to serve, to endure, and to inspire a generation of citizens and future leaders alike. Every mile traversed is steeped in the legacy of valor, and every stop along the route is a reminder of the sacrifices that have paved the way for the security and freedom that India enjoys today.

Theme and Aim of the Rally

Under the stirring banner of “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat,” (One India, Great India), this rally has been conceptualized to reinforce the ties that bind India’s diversity together. At its heart, the event aims to ignite a renewed sense of patriotism and unity among all citizens—whether they are seasoned soldiers, ex-servicemen, or the youth who represent the future of the great country. By showcasing the unwavering spirit of the Armed Forces, the rally highlights the extraordinary capabilities of the military personnel and the profound depth of their commitment to duty.

The rally also carries a pivotal objective: to underscore the importance of civil-military cooperation. In today’s world, nation-building is not the sole responsibility of the armed forces; it is a shared endeavor that calls upon every segment of society. In this spirit, the event has been designed to bring together military personnel, ex-servicemen, and civilians alike, fostering an environment of mutual respect and collaboration. A special emphasis is placed on raising awareness for the “Bharat ke Veer” (Braves of India) initiative, a program dedicated to honouring the families of the fallen heroes from the Central Armed Police Forces. Through this initiative, the rally serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifices made by countless soldiers and the enduring gratitude of a nation that owes its freedom to their valor.

Furthermore, by involving diverse groups, including four civilian riders from Arunachal Pradesh, the rally stands as a symbol of the integration of forces and the seamless collaboration between the military and civilian sectors. This initiative not only strengthens the bond between these communities but also sets an inspiring example for the youth, who are encouraged to carry forward the legacy of service and patriotism. In essence, the rally is a powerful demonstration that in a united India, every citizen plays a vital role in ensuring peace, progress, and prosperity.

Briefing of the rally team in progress: source Author

Conduct of the Bike Rally

The success of this historic motorcycle rally is rooted in its exemplary conduct, which is a reflection of our military’s discipline, precision, and strategic planning. The event has been organized to encapsulate multiple facets of interaction, inspiration, and unity. The conduct of the rally is detailed under the following key headings:

Interaction with Ex-Servicemen (ESM):   One of the most significant aspects of this rally is the planned interaction with ex-servicemen (ESM) from both the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army. These veterans, who have served with distinction and honour, bring with them a wealth of experience and a legacy of sacrifice that is both humbling and inspiring. Their participation in the rally is not merely ceremonial, it is an integral part of the narrative of resilience and commitment that the event seeks to portray.

Throughout the journey, designated stops have been arranged where these seasoned veterans will share their stories, lessons learned from the battlefield, and insights on the values that have guided them through years of service. Their narratives of grit, valor, and dedication serve as powerful reminders of the sacrifices made for the nation’s safety and freedom. The veterans speak of the camaraderie, the discipline instilled in them, and the deep sense of duty that has defined their careers. By engaging with current service members and the rally participants, they bridge the gap between past and present, reinforcing a continuum of commitment that is essential for the future of our armed forces.

These interactions are conducted in a formal yet accessible manner, ensuring that the stories resonate not only with military personnel but also with civilians who attend these sessions. The aim is to create an atmosphere where every listener feels a personal connection to the sacrifices made by these heroes. The ex-servicemen provide practical insights into overcoming adversity, and their heartfelt messages of patriotism and service instill a renewed sense of duty in the hearts of the young and the old alike. In doing so, they contribute significantly to the overarching theme of “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat,” reinforcing the idea that the spirit of service is timeless and transcends generations.

Inspiring the Youth:   The rally places a strong emphasis on engaging with the youth, a critical demographic that represents the future of the nation. In an era where the challenges of modernity intersect with the age-old traditions of valor and sacrifice, inspiring young minds is paramount. The rally has incorporated several initiatives specifically aimed at motivating the youth along its route.

At various waypoints during the rally, the participating soldiers and veteran riders will conduct interactive sessions with local youth. These sessions are designed to provide a platform for open dialogue, where the young can ask questions, share their aspirations, and learn about the realities of military life. The goal is to demystify the life of a soldier and present it as a noble and fulfilling career choice, one that is rooted in service to the nation and the protection of its values.

These engagements go beyond mere speeches; they involve hands-on activities, mentorship programs, and storytelling sessions where real-life examples of courage and determination are shared. The youth are encouraged to reflect on the lessons of discipline, perseverance, and unity that are central to the rally’s ethos. By witnessing the dedication and resilience of both active soldiers and ex-servicemen, the young are motivated to embrace a sense of responsibility towards their country. They learn that patriotism is not just a sentiment but a way of life, one that requires commitment, sacrifice, and an unyielding resolve to make a difference.

Moreover, the rally’s presence in various states allows for a broader reach, ensuring that young people from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds are exposed to the ideals of service and national pride. The interactive sessions serve as a catalyst for inspiring community-led initiatives and encourage the youth to actively participate in nation-building efforts. This direct engagement with the military not only fosters a spirit of adventure and courage but also lays the groundwork for a future where the next generation upholds the legacy of service with pride and determination.

Promoting Joint Integration of Forces:   A defining feature of this rally is its emphasis on the joint integration of forces, a seamless collaboration between the Assam Rifles, the Indian Army, and the civilian participants. This joint effort is emblematic of a modern military strategy that recognizes the value of unity, coordination, and collective strength. By uniting different arms of the nation’s security apparatus along with civilians, the rally sets a powerful example of how diverse elements of society can come together to achieve a common goal.

The integration is evident in every aspect of the rally, from the strategic planning and execution to the on-ground interactions and logistical coordination. The joint operations of the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army are meticulously choreographed to ensure maximum efficiency and safety throughout the journey. This level of coordination demonstrates the high standards of operational excellence that our Armed Forces are known for. It also highlights the importance of interoperability among different services, ensuring that each unit complements the other in times of need.

The inclusion of four civilian riders from Arunachal Pradesh further strengthens this message. Their participation is not merely symbolic; it is a clear demonstration that the responsibility of nation-building is shared across all segments of society. These civilians work side by side with military personnel, sharing experiences, challenges, and the common mission of fostering unity and progress. Their involvement brings a unique perspective to the rally, one that is rooted in community values and the collective aspirations of the people.

Through joint training exercises, coordinated travel plans, and shared moments of reflection at various checkpoints, the rally promotes an integrated approach to service and duty. It reinforces the idea that the strength of a nation lies in its ability to unify different forces under a common banner. This model of integration is a powerful statement to the nation: when the military and civilians unite, the result is a formidable force capable of overcoming any challenge. It is a testament to the resilience of our nation and a reaffirmation that unity and collaboration are the cornerstones of true national strength.

Visit to Iconic Places: No historic rally is complete without stops at landmarks that have defined the nation’s heritage and history. As the rally progresses, participants will have the opportunity to visit several iconic places that are steeped in cultural and military significance. Among these, two landmarks stand out: Namo Ghat in Varanasi and Gwalior Fort in Madhya Pradesh.

Namo Ghat, located in the spiritual heart of Varanasi, is a revered site dedicated to honoring the sacrifices of our security forces. This sacred ghat is not only a place of remembrance but also a powerful symbol of the eternal bond between the nation and its defenders. Here, participants will have the opportunity to pay homage to those who laid down their lives in the service of our country. The serene ambience of Namo Ghat, combined with the solemn rituals performed by the local community, creates a reflective atmosphere that allows everyone present to contemplate the true cost of freedom. This visit is designed to be an emotional yet uplifting experience, serving as a reminder that every sacrifice made by our soldiers has contributed to the legacy of our great nation.

Similarly, a stop at Gwalior Fort in Madhya Pradesh adds another dimension to the rally. Gwalior Fort, renowned for its storied past and strategic military importance, stands as a monument to the valor and determination of our forefathers. Its imposing structure and historic battlements tell tales of battles fought and won, of bravery displayed in the face of overwhelming odds. As the rally participants explore the fort, they will not only gain insights into the rich military history of the region but also draw inspiration from the indomitable spirit that the fort embodies. These visits to iconic places are carefully integrated into the rally’s itinerary to reinforce the connection between history, heritage, and the modern-day commitment to safeguarding the nation.

Spreading the Bharat ke Veer Initiative

At the core of this historic rally is a commitment to honor and remember the sacrifices made by our brave soldiers. Central to this commitment is the Bharat ke Veer initiative, a program established to support the families of fallen heroes from the Central Armed Police Forces. The rally provides an ideal platform to spread awareness about this noble initiative, ensuring that the sacrifices of these brave souls are never forgotten.

During the journey, dedicated sessions and interactive events have been organized to educate participants and local communities about the Bharat ke Veer initiative. These sessions highlight the stories of valor and the ultimate sacrifice made by soldiers in the line of duty. Through speeches, testimonials from veterans, and multimedia presentations, the rally aims to create a lasting impact on every participant. The initiative is portrayed not only as a gesture of gratitude but also as a commitment by the government and the nation to stand by the families of these heroes during times of need.

In addition to formal sessions, the rally incorporates moments of silent tribute at various checkpoints, moments where the crowd pauses to remember the fallen, to offer prayers, and to renew their commitment to ensuring that the sacrifices of our soldiers continue to inspire future generations. This deliberate focus on the Bharat ke Veer initiative reinforces the message that true patriotism involves not only celebrating the valor of our heroes but also ensuring that their legacy is preserved for posterity.

Conclusion

As the motorcycle rally charts its historic course from the eastern extremities to the western frontiers of India, it stands as a powerful testament to unity, courage, and the enduring spirit of our Armed Forces. Embodying the essence of “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat,” the event weaves together diverse threads of military precision, civil-military cooperation, and national heritage into a single, inspiring narrative. The rally is a vivid demonstration of our nation’s collective resolve a resolve that is strengthened by the interaction with ex-servicemen, the active engagement of youth, and the seamless integration of military and civilian efforts.

Each component of the rally, from the solemn recollections of veteran heroes to the impassioned speeches delivered to the next generation, reaffirms our shared commitment to upholding the legacy of service and sacrifice. The visits to iconic landmarks like Namo Ghat and Gwalior Fort serve as living classrooms where history and heritage converge, reminding us all of the valor that has defined our past and the promise that our future holds.

In every mile covered by this historic journey, there is an unspoken pledge that our nation, in its rich diversity, stands united in purpose and pride. The rally is more than just a display of military might; it is a celebration of the indomitable human spirit that refuses to yield in the face of adversity. It is a message to every citizen, every soldier, and every youth that the path to a brighter tomorrow is paved with the ideals of discipline, unity, and relentless patriotism.

As we witness this unparalleled confluence of forces and hearts, we are reminded that our strength lies in our unity. The rally not only honors the heroes of the past through the “Bharat ke Veer” initiative but also inspires the heroes of tomorrow. Through every interaction, every shared story, and every moment of reflection, this journey reaffirms our commitment to safeguarding the nation a commitment that transcends generations and speaks to the very soul of our collective identity.

The epic motorcycle rally is a celebration of our nation’s enduring legacy a legacy that is built on the principles of honor, sacrifice, and unity. It is a journey that encapsulates the true spirit of service, a journey where every mile traveled is a tribute to the valor of our soldiers, a beacon for the youth, and a symbol of the integrated strength of a united India. As the rally reaches its conclusion at the western frontiers, it leaves behind not just memories of a historic journey but also a renewed commitment to the ideals that define our nation a commitment to an India that stands strong, united, and ever-vigilant in the face of all challenges.

Through this monumental event, we are reminded that every effort, every sacrifice, and every moment of valor contributes to the tapestry of our national identity. The rally is a tribute to those who have guarded our borders, a tribute to those who continue to serve with unmatched courage, and a tribute to the enduring spirit of a nation that is, indeed, Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat

Israel Blocks Humanitarian Aid to Gaza amid Ceasefire Standoff

GSDN
-
0
Israel Blocks Humanitarian Aid to Gaza amid Ceasefire Standoff

By: Kashif Anwar

Destruction in the Gaza Strip: source Internet

Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza, enacted on March 2, 2025, followed the swift collapse of ceasefire talks that had briefly raised hopes for relief. The negotiations faltered over Hamas’s demand for a permanent end to the conflict and Israel’s push to dismantle the group’s military strength, exposing the fragile trust between the parties and their mediators. This breakdown escalated tensions, transforming a diplomatic deadlock into a humanitarian crisis. Israel halted aid deliveries, citing security risks of weapons smuggling through relief channels, a stance backed by past incidents but fiercely contested globally. The blockade has left Gaza’s population on the brink, surviving on a fraction of needed sustenance, with images of suffering amplifying the urgency. Regionally, outrage mounts as nations condemn the move as collective punishment, while Egypt’s reconstruction plan and US diplomatic efforts face an uphill battle amid deepening strife.


Escalation of Tension

The immediate catalyst for Israel’s aid blockade lies in the disintegration of ceasefire talks, a process that briefly flickered with promise before collapsing under irreconcilable demands. As reported on March 1 that Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office had endorsed a US-crafted plan for a temporary ceasefire, aimed at pausing hostilities and enabling aid to flow into Gaza. Yet, by March 2, this agreement lay in tatters which highlight that the talks stumbled over Hamas’s demand for a permanent end to the conflict and Israel’s insistence on dismantling the group’s military capabilities. The rapid unravelling of this diplomatic effort underscores the brittle trust between the warring parties and their mediators.


Israel’s subsequent decision to halt aid deliveries has transformed a political standoff into a humanitarian catastrophe. As the blockade stranded convoys of aid trucks at border crossings like Kerem Shalom and Rafah, with Israeli officials citing security risks—namely, the potential for Hamas to exploit aid channels for weapons smuggling. The BBC corroborates this, quoting Israeli military sources who argue that past breaches justify stringent controls. However, the move has drawn fierce backlash as the United Nations estimates Gaza’s population is surviving on less than 10% of the required daily caloric intake, a statistic worsened by the aid cut-off. Images of malnourished children and overcrowded hospitals, widely shared on X, amplify the urgency of the situation.


Regionally, as the blockade has ignited a firestorm of reactions, on the other hand, Egypt, long a mediator in the conflict, is poised to unveil a Gaza reconstruction plan. This initiative, which includes rebuilding infrastructure and bolstering civil services, aims to address the long-term fallout of the war. As its feasibility is questionable amid Israel’s current posture, Saudi Arabia has condemned the aid stoppage as “collective punishment,” a sentiment echoed by Jordan and Qatar in statements on X. These nations, alongside Egypt, fear that Gaza’s collapse could destabilize the region, driving refugee flows and radicalization—a concern San.com flags as a growing risk for Lebanon and Jordan.


The United States, instrumental in the ceasefire proposal, finds itself in a precarious position. As US officials have privately pressed Israel to reverse the blockade, warning of damage to bilateral ties and international credibility. Publicly, the State Department has called for the “unimpeded humanitarian access,” a stance reiterated on March 2. However, as the US plan – balancing Israel’s security needs with Gaza’s humanitarian plight – now appears naive in the hindsight. As protests have erupted in cities like Ramallah and Istanbul, with demonstrators accusing Washington of enabling Israel’s actions through its military support.


The escalation is further complicated by the interplay of domestic and international pressures. In Israel, hardline factions within the government view concessions to Hamas as untenable, a position bolstered by public demands for retribution following years of rocket attacks. Conversely, Hamas has leveraged the blockade to rally support, framing it as proof of Israel’s intent to strangle Gaza. Analysts who warn of a “vicious cycle” – each side’s intransigence fuels the other’s, with civilians bearing the brunt. Social media posts on X reveal a polarized discourse: some defend Israel’s right to secure its borders, while others decry the aid halt as a war crime under international law.


Beyond the immediate actors, the Israel blockade threatens broader geopolitical ripples, Iran, a backer of Hamas, could exploit the crisis to expand its influence, potentially arming proxies in response. Meanwhile, the European nations are mulling sanctions or increased aid pledges, though logistical barriers persist. Egypt’s reconstruction proposal could shift the diplomatic center of gravity, but only if Israel and Hamas relent a prospect, however, is dimmed by the current escalation. For now, Gaza remains a pressure cooker, with aid workers warning of an impending tipping point.

Conclusion

Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza on March 2, 2025, has thrust the Middle East into a perilous new chapter, unravelling fragile ceasefire hopes and plunging the region into a deeper humanitarian abyss. What began as a tentative US-led truce initiative has morphed into a stark demonstration of conflict’s human toll and blockade could result in dire consequences for Gaza’s civilians. The aid stoppage—framed by Israel as a security necessity and decried by critics as a breach of moral and legal norms—has exposed the limits of diplomacy in a war marked by mutual distrust.

Escalation of tensions reveals a region at a crossroads, Egypt’s reconstruction plan, could offers a potential lifeline, yet its success depends on cooperation that neither Israel nor Hamas seems willing to extend. Saudi Arabia’s plea for global intervention, coupled with US unease, signals a clamour for resolution, but path forward is obstructed by competing agendas and entrenched positions. Coverage of global protests underscores the crisis’s resonance beyond the Middle East, pressuring world leaders to act decisively.


For Gaza’s people, the stakes could not be higher, as blockade has turned a chronic emergency into an acute disaster, with food, water, and medicine dwindling as winter looms. As it paint a grim picture: families scavenging for scraps, hospitals rationing supplies, and children facing irreversible harm. This crisis is not just a test of humanitarian resolve but a mirror reflecting the international community’s ability – or inability – to bridge divides.


Ultimately, the events of March 2025 demand more than condemnation or stopgap measures. They call for a reckoning—with the cycles of violence, the failures of mediation, and the cost of inaction. Whether the blockade galvanizes a breakthrough or entrenches suffering depends on the choices made in the days ahead. For now, Gaza hangs in the balance, a stark reminder that peace remains elusive when humanity is held hostage to geopolitics.

Achievers Articulate: Lt Col Gagan Khanna (Retd) discusses Success as an Entrepreneur

GSDN
-
0
Achievers Articulate: Lt Col Gagan Khanna (Retd) discusses Success as an Entrepreneur

After Trump’s Europe Snub, All Eyes On France. Can It Provide The Security That Europe Needs And What Does France Hope To Gain In This New Posturing?

Consulting Editor
-
0
After Trump’s Europe Snub, All Eyes On France. Can It Provide The Security That Europe Needs And What Does France Hope To Gain In This New Posturing?

Donald Trump’s return to the White House came with a flood of congratulatory messages from world leaders. And why not? Here was a man elected for a second term amid two prolonged wars – Ukraine vs. Russia and Israel vs. Hamas in Gaza. Many hoped that he would provide much-needed direction to help bring these conflicts to an end.

But Trump had other plans. Not only did he dash these expectations, but he went a step further and shook Europe to its core. His open disdain for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his dismissive stance on NATO, essentially telling the alliance to “take care of itself” has left European nations scrambling to rethink their security strategies. In contrast, his unwavering support for Israel remains firm.

Enter France. A European Nuclear Shield?

Even as this uncertainty played out in the global arena, French President Emmanuel Macron has floated a bold idea – one that could reshape Europe’s defense dynamics. On Wednesday, he suggested that France’s nuclear deterrence force (Force de Frappe) could be associated with the defense of other European nations.

This proposal has sparked outrage from hard-right and hard-left politicians, who claim that France is considering “sharing” its nuclear arsenal. The reality, however, is more nuanced. France, along with the UK, is one of only two European nations with nuclear weapons.

France possesses nearly 300 nuclear warheads, deployable from both submarines and France-based aircraft, while the UK has around 250. The key difference is that the French arsenal is entirely sovereign, developed independently by France, whereas the UK’s nuclear program relies on American technical support.

French officials, including Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, have been quick to clarify that nothing is being “shared.” He has reiterated that France’s nuclear deterrent “is French and will remain French from its conception to its production to its operation, under a decision of the president.”

So, what exactly is being proposed? Well, it is not about handing over the nuclear codes to other nations rather, the discussion revolves around whether France’s nuclear protection should be explicitly extended to include other European allies.

Trump, France,

A Shift in French Nuclear Doctrine?

Until now, France’s nuclear doctrine has been built around the principle of deterrence, promising massive retaliation if the country’s “vital interests” are threatened. These “vital interests” have always been deliberately vague, as ambiguity is a key part of nuclear deterrence.

However, past French presidents, dating back to Charles de Gaulle, have hinted that some European nations might already be under this protective umbrella. In 1964, de Gaulle stated that if the USSR attacked Germany, France would consider itself threatened.

So, in many ways, Macron’s suggestion isn’t entirely new. What is new, however, is that for the first time, other European countries are actively asking for it.

European nations have traditionally been reluctant to engage in discussions about a French-led nuclear shield. But Trump’s stance has changed that perception. While the US is not pulling its nuclear deterrent from Europe, its credibility has weakened, leading Germany to reconsider its security options.

Last month, Friedrich Merz, the likely next German chancellor, surprised many by suggesting that it might be time for discussions with France and the UK on nuclear cooperation.

What Would a Franco-British Nuclear Deterrent Look Like?

The specifics of how a European nuclear deterrent might operate remain uncertain. However, defense analysts suggest a few possibilities –

French Nuclear-Armed Planes in Other European Countries: France could position nuclear-capable aircraft in allied countries like Germany or Poland. The decision to launch would still rest solely with the French president, but their presence would send a strong deterrence signal.

Extended Air Patrols: French bombers could patrol European borders, similar to how they currently secure French airspace.

Rapid Deployment Bases: Developing airfields in allied countries that could quickly accommodate French bombers in case of an emergency.

Emmanuel Macron's vision of a more muscular Europe is coming true

Is France’s Arsenal Enough to Deter Russia?

France’s 300 nuclear warheads are dwarfed by Russia’s vast arsenal; however, when combined with the UK’s stockpile, the number rises to 550. Additionally, the American nuclear deterrent remains in place, with US nuclear bombs stationed in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

One of the key debates is whether France should reformulate its nuclear doctrine to explicitly state that its “vital interests” extend to European allies. Some argue that no change is needed, as the existing strategic vagueness is part of the deterrence itself. Others, like Haroche, believe a clearer commitment would strengthen European solidarity.

France’s Emergence as Europe’s Security Anchor 
With Trump effectively telling Europe to fend for itself, the continent is looking for alternatives. Enter France, stepping into the void left by the United States with Macron floating the idea of extending France’s nuclear deterrence to its European allies.

However, what does France stand to gain, and where does that leave the rest of Europe?

France’s Strategic Calculations
For France, perhaps it is not just about playing the responsible European leader. Macron sees an opportunity to solidify France’s role as the primary military power on the continent. Germany, despite its economic dominance, has always been reluctant to take on military leadership due to historical reasons, and the UK, post-Brexit, is somewhat detached from the EU’s collective defense vision. That leaves France as the natural contender to step up.

But what could France gain from this new posturing?

Firstly, by being seen as Europe’s security anchor, France strengthens its bargaining power within the EU and NATO. It shifts the balance of power, making Paris a key voice in defense policy rather than just a contributor.

Secondly, Berlin, now questioning the reliability of the U.S., is warming up to the idea of Franco-German security cooperation. This could lead to deeper defense collaborations, including joint nuclear strategies, military exercises, and technology sharing.

France’s defense sector, led by companies like Dassault and Naval Group, could see increased demand for nuclear deterrent capabilities, submarines, and missile systems. If European nations align with France’s deterrence plan, French defense contracts could see a major uptick.

Likewise, with security being an existential issue, Macron can leverage this moment to push for broader EU defense autonomy. This aligns with his vision of “strategic sovereignty” where Europe is less dependent on external powers like the U.S.

German minister calls for British and French nuclear weapons to protect Europe | Euronews

What About the Rest of Europe?
France stepping up isn’t necessarily good news for all European nations. While some might welcome a more independent European security structure, others will have serious reservations.

Germany’s Dilemma – While Germany is open to discussions, it faces a tough choice – continue relying on U.S. protection under NATO or shift toward a Franco-European deterrence. A Franco-German military alignment would be unprecedented, but Germany remains cautious about fully endorsing a nuclear-backed security strategy.

Eastern Europe’s Concerns – Poland, the Baltic states, and other countries close to Russia have always preferred American guarantees over European ones. France’s nuclear umbrella might not be enough to convince them.

The UK’s Position – Britain, despite its nuclear arsenal, is unlikely to fully integrate into a French-led defense framework. While cooperation may increase, London will prioritize its longstanding security alignment with the U.S.

Smaller European Nations’ Uncertainty – Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy will have to reassess their strategic alignments. Some might see an opportunity in a European-led security framework, while others will fear that distancing from NATO could make them vulnerable.

Is France Ready for the Burden?
The biggest challenge for France is whether it has the resources to back up its ambitions. While its nuclear arsenal is formidable, it pales in comparison to Russia’s vast stockpile. Moreover, military leadership requires more than just deterrence, it needs a full-fledged security apparatus with conventional forces, intelligence-sharing, and rapid deployment capabilities.

Furthermore, France risks overextending itself. If European allies don’t fully commit to a French-led deterrence, Paris could find itself shouldering a massive burden with little return. Additionally, NATO’s presence in Europe remains strong, and the U.S. is unlikely to fully step away, no matter what Trump says.

The Last Bit 
While France’s emergence as Europe’s security leader is a bold and strategic move, its success depends on how other nations respond. If Germany, Italy, and Eastern European nations align with France, we could see a new, more independent European defense structure take shape. But if skepticism prevails, France might find itself leading a security initiative that few truly trust or support.

The world is shifting, and so is Europe’s approach to defense. With Trump’s unpredictability and the possibility of a reduced US role in NATO, European nations are looking inward for security solutions.

A European nuclear deterrent led by France and potentially supported by the UK could mark a significant transformation in how the continent secures itself.

In A First, The US Talks To Hamas. What’s On The Table Even As Trump Issues A ‘Last Warning’? And Why Is Netanyahu Fuming?

Consulting Editor
-
0
In A First, The US Talks To Hamas. What’s On The Table Even As Trump Issues A ‘Last Warning’? And Why Is Netanyahu Fuming?

In a first, the Trump administration has done what would have been unthinkable months ago, it has opened a direct channel with Hamas. This signals a shift from Trump’s hardline stance of “total victory” to a more pragmatic approach, likely driven by the urgency of hostage negotiations.

The war in Gaza has been nothing short of relentless, for over 17 months, this conflict is defined by destruction, unwavering ultimatums, and a staggering death toll. Any talk of a political solution has been drowned out by the relentless bombing, the iron-fisted rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the US’s long-standing refusal to engage with Hamas, a group it categorizes as a terrorist organization.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the development, stating that the special envoy handling negotiations now has the authority to engage with any relevant parties. While Trump himself has been vocal about his disdain for Hamas, at one point calling its members “sick and twisted” and threatening to expel Palestinians from Gaza, the reality on the ground appears to be forcing a different strategy.

With 59 hostages still in Hamas’ custody, including at least one surviving American, Edan Alexander, the US may be testing the waters to see what Hamas wants in return for their release. This is a significant shift from previous negotiations, which were always conducted through mediators like Qatar and Egypt.

But here’s the real dilemma – even if Hamas engages in talks, will they agree to disarm? That’s the billion-dollar question haunting both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Hamas, United States,

Hamas. Surrender Political Power or Keep Fighting?
For Israel, the war in Gaza has always had one primary objective, eliminating Hamas. Netanyahu has built his entire military strategy around achieving “total victory” but what if Hamas is willing to step away from governance?

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem hinted at this possibility in an interview last month, stating that Hamas does not necessarily need to be part of the future political or administrative structure of Gaza. This was further reinforced when Arab leaders proposed a transitional government for Gaza that would exclude Hamas, an idea the group surprisingly did not reject.

The harsh reality is that Hamas has long struggled to balance governance with resistance. Running schools, hospitals, and municipal services while also leading an armed struggle against Israel has created internal friction. Many of its top leaders, who have lived abroad in Qatar and Turkey for years, were reportedly unaware of the October 7 attack on Israel, indicating a divide between its political and military factions.

The big unknown is whether Hamas will agree to lay down its weapons. Internally, there’s growing debate. Some factions are reportedly open to the idea, but a hardline contingent insists that disarmament is a “red line” that cannot be crossed.

Gershon Baskin, a veteran Israeli negotiator who has spent years speaking with Hamas, warns that this internal divide could lead to chaos.

Why Netanyahu is Unhappy
As the US takes an unexpected diplomatic route, Netanyahu finds himself in a difficult position. For months, he has promised the Israeli public that Hamas will be wiped out entirely but if the US negotiates an agreement that allows Hamas to step down politically while keeping some form of armed resistance alive, it will be seen as a massive failure for his government.

Moreover, if Hamas walks away from political leadership but refuses to disarm, Israel could find itself stuck in an endless cycle of war. And Netanyahu, already facing domestic pressure and international scrutiny may soon have to explain why his grand plan for “total victory” has turned into a strategic puzzle with no clear solution.

The Negotiations

The reality of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and its diplomatic entanglements may be more complicated than what is publicly stated by involved parties.

Hamzé Attar, a Palestinian journalist and defense analyst, illustrates that Hamas is not acting irrationally. They understand that there is a point where weapons cease to be leverage and instead become an obstacle to their broader political ambitions. This point is inextricably tied to the idea of Palestinian statehood, which remains a non-negotiable issue for them. As political analyst Abusada points out, under international law, any occupied people, including Palestinians, have the right to resist, an argument often echoed in discussions about the war in Ukraine.

Hamas is also acutely aware that any agreement regarding a Palestinian state must have strong international backing. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has explicitly stated that its normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel hinges on the establishment of Palestinian statehood.

However, Netanyahu’s government has long dismissed the idea of a two-state solution. Since October 7, his stance has only hardened, branding any discussions about Palestinian sovereignty as a “reward for terrorism.” His administration has even entertained Trump-era plans encouraging the mass emigration of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents. His far-right allies have gone even further, pushing for the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza, a move that would inflame tensions even more.

Trump, as demonstrated in past dealings with the Taliban, has shown that he is willing to force American allies into uncomfortable positions if it suits his political interests. His administration’s deal with the Taliban led to the eventual collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government, raising concerns in Israel about what he might be willing to negotiate with Hamas. These fears intensified when it was revealed that U.S. envoys were in direct talks with Hamas, prompting a cryptic response from Netanyahu’s office, signaling unease over Washington’s diplomatic maneuvering.

However, analysts notes that the U.S. has minimal leverage over Hamas, and threats from Washington are largely ineffective. The real concern, they suggests, is that U.S. backing may embolden Israel to push further into legally and morally ambiguous territory, such as intensifying the humanitarian blockade on Gaza, a move Israel denies constitutes a breach of international law.

‘No Deal’ 

Despite mounting pressure, any resolution remains elusive. Hamas continues to assert that there is no deal without an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, the full release of hostages, and an end to the war. Trump’s approach to the situation has been confrontational, issuing ultimatums to Hamas via social media. His posts have threatened the militant group with complete annihilation if hostages are not released immediately, while simultaneously dangling the prospect of a “beautiful future” for Gaza, if only Hamas complies.

Trump’s remarks were met with swift condemnation from Hamas, with spokesman Abdel-Latif al-Qanou accusing him of strengthening Netanyahu’s efforts to tighten the siege on Gaza. Al-Qanou maintained that the only viable path to resolving the hostage crisis was to move into the next phase of the ceasefire negotiations. However, the first phase of the ceasefire has already ended, with Israel subsequently imposing an even stricter blockade, barring all supplies from entering Gaza. Humanitarian groups warn that the situation is becoming dire, with over 2.3 million Palestinians facing the prospect of starvation.

Amid these developments, the U.S. has reportedly proposed a 60-day ceasefire in exchange for Hamas releasing 10 Israeli hostages. This deal, sources say, would also include humanitarian aid for Gaza and discussions regarding the positioning of Israeli forces along the Philadelphi Corridor. Hamas is still considering its response, though its spokesman Abu Obeida has warned that renewed Israeli aggression will likely lead to more hostages being killed.

Meanwhile, diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Hamas, held in Doha under the mediation of Egypt and Qatar also appear to have hit a snag after leaks to the media. These discussions reportedly focused on securing the release of American-Israeli hostages, a development that Netanyahu was allegedly kept in the dark about. The Israeli prime minister’s dissatisfaction perhaps shows a deepening rift between Israel and its key ally, the U.S., over how best to handle the ongoing crisis.

Trump’s national security team remains concerned that Hamas has managed to recruit more fighters than it has lost in battle. Senior Hamas figures have also indicated that the group is prepared for a long struggle and will resist any outside force attempting to dictate terms in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel’s military chief has warned that the nation must prepare for a prolonged, multi-front war of attrition, an outcome that is unlikely to sit well with any American administration, let alone one that aims to present itself as a peacemaker.

in the end, the political reality remains grim. Israeli public opinion remains staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state, despite the undeniable demographic reality, more than seven million Israeli Jews and seven million Palestinian Arabs coexisting in a volatile, contested land. The future of the region hangs in the balance, shaped by competing nationalist aspirations, external diplomatic maneuvers, and the inescapable realities of war, forcing us to question – what will become of Gaza?

Trump’s Tariff War: Changing the Global Geopolitical Trade

GSDN
-
0
Trump’s Tariff War: Changing the Global Geopolitical Trade

By: Paarvana Sree, Research Analyst, GSDN

Trump and tariff: source Internet

The second Trump tariffs are basically the trade initiatives announced by US President Donald Trump during his second tenure as the president of the US. For Trump, ‘ import tariffs ‘ served as a key aspect of negotiating the deals and also retaliating against the countries that believe to be “ripping off” the US.

After the re-election to the second term in the beginning of 2025 , Trump began resuming a trade war with China and began threatening the second one with that of Canada and Mexico. Trump made an announcement that a direct tariff on Mexico and Canada would be initially ceased for one month , until March 4, 2025 after both the countries agreed to take broader steps to protect the border security of the US . Many countries including the European union took steps to proactively negotiate to avoid tariff wars with trump.

The broader trade strategy of US President Donald Trump reflects an old worldview rooted in the mercantilism of the 19th Century, emphasizing the aspect of protection and aggressive use of tariffs. According to Trump, tariffs served many purposes – sometimes it served as a means to end, which means as a negotiating leverage to cut a deal and at times as ends to undo themselves, which means basically to encourage American manufacturing and to pay for spending and tax cuts. Under this approach according to Trump, tariffs are considered to be ‘costless’ with no defined negative impacts contained by domestic consumers by high prices or by business basically through high priced inputs and disturbed supply chains, or tariffs may increase consumer prices, but that price is worth to pay in order to revive the America industrial base. For America and its trading partners, the emergence of protectionism is an interconnected world which poses a large amount of economic, strategic and institutional risks.

Tariff Impact on China, Mexico and Canada

1) China:

The announcement of 10% tariff for China is less aggressive than previously announced 60% which provides great relief to China. China’s initial reaction to this may be the devaluation of Renminbi (RMD), which effectively counter balances the tariff by lowering the dollar price of the goods it tends to export. This tactic was effectively used by China during the first presidency term of Trump. When Renminbi is already weak, China can further be afforded to weaken the RMD in order to maintain the export competitiveness without directly escalating tensions with the US. If Trump sought to issue additional trade measures and tariffs to China, China’s reaction will be automatically a function of president Xi Jinping’s strategy for countering Trump. Xi’s position has already changed and is markedly different from the first time he engaged with Trump. Xi is more domestically stronger and is surrounded at the top of the Chinese government by a group of allies, giving him a greater aspect to navigate the external pressures.

Xi would then seek to take the merits of this politically dominant position and always seek to engage with US constructively, often prioritising the mitigation of consequent economically, while avoiding the greater risk of political instability. Trump’s tariffs to China can be seen as an immediate response to China’s limited efforts to restrict the precursors of fentanyl from making a way to the US States through Mexico and other channels . In order to address the concern of America Xi could then make more serious efforts so that China could also further seek to engage with Trump on a broader range of trade related issues, perhaps hanging down the hopes of a ” phase two” deal. If that happens, it is sure that China is more likely to take a strategy that includes drawing out various negotiations by knowing that Trump will have an political imperative to make a successful deal before the midterm elections in 2026.

China has always prepared for the return of Trump and Xi is better prepared to do a more assertive posture if he already decides to do so. Xi is now less inclined to tolerate the aggressive trade tactics of Trump. It is obvious that China might not show much patience if Trump tries to bully him. If a trade war between these countries occurs it is no doubt that China will deploy its full range of retaliatory tools against the interests of the US . Furthermore , instead of this eye for an eye imposition of counter tariffs, China will ratchet up its use of restriction of exports especially on critical materials, in order to utilise its own ” Unreliable Entities list ” and to impose its own export controls akin to the US . The foreign direct product rule potentially affects the global trade everywhere and the US who is a party to this and where any kind of component of a product can be tracked back to China. These measures will enable China to attack with greater precision, targeting the specific US companies or any kind of critical industries and potentially inflict significant Economic pain without going into a full time war.

2) Canada and Mexico

For Mexico and Canada both the countries of that these tariff threats are basically mere negotiations ploys to which further concessions can be made even before he takes his office by allowing him to declare victory and to delay the actual tariffs. The stakes in the short term are very high so that they cannot be taken for granted.

For the automobile industries which cover up all the three countries is subjected to the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement ( USMCA) in which there is 25% tariff on the goods crossing the border have many implications. Every vehicle produced under the framework of USMCA crosses the border

for about an average of eight times during the time of production meaning that at each stage a percentage of tariff could be compounded . This affects the employment , increase the costs , disrupts the supply chains and also make high prices for the consumers.

For Mexico it is expected that the tariffs would exacerbate tensions with the new President of Mexico Claudia Shein Baum , whose reaction would be to threaten the retaliatory measures. Mexico is constrained because much of what Trump demands from Mexico is inconsistent with the political reality and that violent cartel have become entangled in the political system of the country and attempts to control them may cause widespread domestic unrest and violence.  The political structural , practical and structural challenges of addressing the drug cartels and immigration make it unlikely that Mexico is able to meet Trump’s demands in such a way that satisfies his expectations. Shein Baum may promise a wide range of good measures that exhibit good faith efforts in order to address Trump’s concern, she might be powerless to stop the fentanyl trade . This poses the risk that Trump ‘s tariff serves as a punitive measure which is basically designed to protect the strength.

The entire trade surplus of Canada comes from crude oil exports to the US. The American refineries are specifically configured to process Canadian crude oil and crude oil unlike other manufactured goods cannot be rerouted easily. Canada’s  pipelines are basically immovable infrastructure. This dependency tends to impose a bilateral monopoly limiting the practical flexibility of both sides. Canada has other viable alternatives for its crude oil exporting and also the American refineries have the same alternatives for sourcing crude oil to process. In this case both the parties will suffer.

Trump’s adversarial stands on tariff risk the bilateral trade with both Mexico and Canada which undermine the broader North American economic partnership. Regardless of whatever national emergency premise to justify them the tariffs represents a transparent violation of USMCA undermining the stability of the agreement and increasing the growing likelihood of a contentious review which is expected to be concluded by 2026 , putting the entire aspect of trading relationship on the table once again . Trump’s  former US  trade representative , Robert Lighthizer who led the USMCA negotiations noted that “no deal is forever “.

While US continue to remain as a dominant economic power and the unilateral policy and aggressive tactics by Donald Trump may yield some immediate concessions but they may tend to have long term consequences including the alienation of key allies and  accelerating the fragmentation of global trade networks does vanishing the US influence in the global economy. Reversing those alliances is worrying given the efforts of Biden administration to reset the global trading relationships around the concept of friend sharing in which allies who are like minded are treated in preference to those seen as economic threads or strategic so as to ensure complete resilience .

China is trying to play a longer game in contrast to Trump’s short-term approach, which seeds to reduce its reliance on the US and sought to strengthen its trade relationships with other countries in global south and with the US allies such as Europe and Japan. Recent signs of China’s renewed interest in joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for transpacific partnership signifies the efforts of Beijing to position itself as a global trade leader in contrast to the unilateralism by the US.

Always Trump’s preference is to follow a protectionist agenda. While all the international allies, domestic business interest and trading partners are likely to make a case against Trump’s aggressive set of policies the fact check on trump’s ability to sustain the energy is likely to depend on the reaction of the stock economy and also the broader economy. It is obvious that the sharp decline in the equity markets or a significant hike in the inflation would serve as most efficient check on his policies facing a recalibration.

Trump’s trade war : Impact on India

It is known that president Donald Trump has signed an executive order on reciprocal tariff which raises the concerns about the impact on exports of India ,  given the relatively high tariff rates for India.

t is to be noted that between the period of 2021 and 2024 , the US seemed to be India’s largest trading partner . From April till November 2024, trade between the two nations reached $52.89 billion and imports have reached $29.63 billion ultimately favouring India. The US accounts for about 18% of India’s total exports , 6.22% of its imports and 10.73% of overall trade.

According to Aravind Panagariya, professor of economics and the Jagadeesh Bhagawati professor of Indian political economy of Columbia University , the tariffs will likely be product – specific with reference to heavy products like automobiles potentially faced by higher tariffs.

The present approach of Trump is to impose the tariff on Indian exports at the same terms that the US goods will face in India. However, this won’t apply to the same level of products as India and US exports different kinds of goods to each other. According to  Panagariya trump’s basic aim is to ensure that each country’s export faces a similar kind of tariff level. Since India is likely to impose a similar kind of higher tariff on US goods compared to Indian exports that face the US, the plan is to create a more balanced trade structure by increasing the tariff on Indian products. Automatically the tariffs will be adjusted on a product by product basis. For instance, some kinds of US exports to India already faced tariffs higher than 9.5% . So similarly certain exports to the US could also see a significantly higher tariff than a uniform rate.

According to Goldman Sachs Trump’s “reciprocal tariff ” is likely to affect India mainly in three ways.

  1. country level tariff, with an average tariff increase on all US  imports from India by the weighted average differential. Under this scenario, the US effective rate of tariff on Indian products would likely increase by  ~6.5pp. This can be considered as one of the simplest ways for the implementation of reciprocal tariffs as the officials could  apply one uniform rate for each country on the top of pre-existing tariff rates.
  2.  product – level reciprocity , is where the US tries to match India’s tariffs on each product imported from India . This ultimately increases the average tariff differential by approximately by ~11.5pp, but it would be more complicated with a longer timeline of implementation.
  3. Reciprocity, including non-tariff barriers which includes the administrative barriers , import licenses and also export subsidies etc…This becomes the most complicated that given the cost of estimating the non-tariff barriers , but it could presumably lead to higher tariff than the other two scenarios.

Conclusion

Trump’s tariff 2.0 channels a shift towards a more radiant  form of aggressive economic nationalism, which disrupts the global trade and affects the geopolitical world order. The increase in tariff rates on Chinese Mexican and European goods ultimately fuel the retaliatory measures thus intensifying the trade wars. Supply chains will face uncertainty, compelling the business to relocate the production which potentially benefits South East Asia. The authority of the World Trade Organization weakens as unilateral tariffs bypass multilateral trade rules. The US – China tensions will escalate reinforcing economic decoupling. Allies will tend to question American reliability pushing for greater economic self-sufficiency. Developing nations suffer from volatility of markets while inflationary pressures rise globally. In short , Tariff 2.0 accelerates the geopolitical fragmentation, challenging the post war economic order built on free trade and cooperation.

The Simmering Undercurrents In Europe Due To Trump-Zelenskyy-EU Showdown. Macron Says Europe Under Threat Ahead Of EU Summit

Consulting Editor
-
1
The Simmering Undercurrents In Europe Due To Trump-Zelenskyy-EU Showdown. Macron Says Europe Under Threat Ahead Of EU Summit

The geopolitical tension in Europe is at an all-time high, and its not because of the Russia factor alone. It is also about the cracks forming in transatlantic alliances. French President Emmanuel Macron has issued a warning – Europe needs to be prepared to stand on its own in the face of a Russian threat, especially if their longtime ally, the United States, decides to step back.

Macron’s statement comes ahead of an emergency EU summit in Brussels, where all 27 European leaders will gather to discuss the unfolding situation. Adding to the weight of the meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also expected to attend.

What’s fueling this urgency?

The Trump administration’s recent move to suspend intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, a decision that could have serious consequences on the battlefield. The US has been a crucial source of intelligence for Ukraine, helping Kyiv target Russian positions effectively. Cutting off this support could shift the dynamics of the war, and Europe is feeling the pressure to step up.

But France isn’t waiting around. French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu made it clear that France is stepping in, offering intelligence to Ukraine independently. “Our intelligence is sovereign… with our own capacities,” he said, indicating that Paris will now take a more active role in assisting Kyiv.

Kryvyi Rih Attack
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shared grim news about a Russian strike on his hometown, Kryvyi Rih, which left four people dead.

According to his statement, the attack could have been even deadlier. Just before the strike, volunteers from a humanitarian organization including citizens from Ukraine, the US, and the UK had checked into a nearby hotel but managed to evacuate in time. “More than 30 people were injured, all of whom have received medical assistance,” Zelenskyy confirmed. Several civilian buildings near the hotel were also damaged.

Emmanuel Macron, Europe, ukraine

Macron vs. Moscow
Meanwhile, the Kremlin isn’t holding back its criticism of French President Emmanuel Macron. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova lashed out, calling Macron a “storyteller” who is detached from reality.

Her comments come after Macron labeled Russia a direct threat to Europe and suggested he would consider putting European allies under France’s nuclear protection. Clearly, that didn’t sit well with Moscow, and Russian state media wasted no time in ridiculing him.

In another key development, Vladimir Putin has appointed Alexander Darchiyev as Russia’s new ambassador to the US. Washington has reportedly given the green light for the appointment after discussions in Türkiye.

Darchiyev is no stranger to the diplomatic scene. He’s spent years in Russia’s Washington, DC, embassy and even served as ambassador to Canada from 2014 to 2021. Now, he’ll be stepping into one of the most challenging roles in global diplomacy—managing US-Russia relations at a time when the two countries can barely find common ground.

Fractured Europe Struggles for a United Front
The past few weeks have been a whirlwind of diplomatic activity -high-level calls, NATO defense minister meetings in Brussels, and urgent EU security discussions. The underlying concern is Europe’s security is on shaky ground, and the old reliance on Washington is looking less certain by the day.

Friedrich Merz, the man likely to become Germany’s next leader, didn’t mince words when he said Washington now seems to “not care about the fate of Europe.” That’s a chilling realization for many European leaders, who are scrambling to strengthen their defenses and reassure Kyiv.

The EU’s response has been a mix of bold statements and urgent pledges. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called for “action, not words,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine”—meaning rapid arms deliveries to make it an impenetrable force.

But will these efforts be enough?

Europe has two key objectives right now –

One, convince Trump to stay in the game. European leaders hope that by taking on more responsibility, they can persuade Trump to resume military aid to Ukraine and continue backing Europe’s security.

Second, prepare for the worst. If Trump pulls out, Europe must be ready to defend itself, independent of US support. That means significantly ramping up military spending and coordination, something easier said than done.

Macron hopes for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine

Russia is Watching Too
Moscow doesn’t need to make any sudden moves, it just needs to sit back and watch Europe struggle. And right now, the cracks are showing.

The Kremlin has already pointed out the disunity among Western allies, gloating about the divisions it sees. And if Europe’s big emergency meetings don’t translate into real military commitments, those divisions will only widen.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s unpredictable stance on NATO and Ukraine – one minute, he’s praising Vladimir Putin. The next, he’s throwing jabs at NATO allies. His comments calling Ukraine’s president a dictator didn’t go unnoticed either—least of all by Moscow.

Russia knows that, despite all of Europe’s talk about standing strong, it still heavily relies on the US for security. That’s why European leaders have been scrambling to keep Washington engaged, with Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak separately making their way to Trump’s orbit, trying to ensure that even if he wins, the US won’t completely abandon Ukraine.

But here’s the real issue – Europe isn’t militarily self-sufficient.

The US has been plugging the gaps left by years of European defense cuts and underinvestment. European countries reduced their troop numbers after the Cold War, with most dropping conscription altogether. Today, the US has around 100,000 troops stationed in Europe and holds nuclear weapons under NATO’s sharing agreement. One of the biggest hosts? Germany, ironically, a country without its own nuclear arsenal, now left wondering how exposed it would be if Trump decided to scale back US commitments.

The “Coalition of the Willing”—Or the Struggling?
The UK and France are trying to assemble what they call a “coalition of the willing”—a group of European nations that would send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine once a ceasefire is in place. Sounds great in theory, but in practice? It’s complicated.

Poland has already said no thanks. Its focus is on defending its own borders rather than sending troops into Ukraine. And who can blame them? Eastern European countries are nervous that if the US starts withdrawing troops, they’ll be left vulnerable.

Even if a European force does take shape, it will still need US military backing. Europe lacks critical battlefield infrastructure, from air-to-air refueling to the munitions needed to strike Russian defenses. A European force without US support isn’t just risky, it’s practically unworkable.

And that brings us to intelligence.

Ukraine has been heavily dependent on US intelligence-sharing to target Russian forces. But now, reports suggest Washington has already cut off key intel streams to Kyiv. If that’s true, it’s a huge problem. Without real-time intelligence, Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian advances is seriously compromised. And Europe? It doesn’t have a replacement for what the US provides.

Also, if Europe really wants to take the lead, it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Germany has been the biggest donor of military aid to Ukraine after the US, and it argues that if other European powers stepped up in the same way, they could replace American support. But that’s a big if.

Some northern European nations have already voiced frustration with France, saying that while it talks tough on Ukraine, its actual contributions have been underwhelming. The reality is, military aid requires serious spending, and not all European countries are willing—or able—to foot the bill.

Europe

Can Europe move fast enough?

Ursula von der Leyen is making it clear – Europe is gearing up for an “era of re-armament.”

On Tuesday, the EU Commission chief laid out ambitious plans to mobilize 800 billion euros for defense spending. The idea is to get creative with the EU’s budget, provide 150 billion euros in loans for things like missile defense and military mobility, and even suspend fiscal rules so individual countries can ramp up their spending.

Sounds bold, but will it work?

EU leaders will be debating these proposals on Thursday, along with another big question—whether they should use frozen Russian assets in Europe to fund Ukraine’s defense. That’s sure to spark heated arguments.

The Big Divide
Some countries, especially those near Russia, are already all-in. Estonia and Lithuania, tiny but vulnerable, are pushing defense spending beyond 3% of GDP, aiming for 5% soon. For them, the threat isn’t theoretical—it’s right at their doorstep.

But then there’s Italy and Spain, far from Russia, still failing to meet NATO’s 2% spending target. And in Germany, France, and the UK? Many voters, according to recent polls, actually want to reduce defense spending—they’d rather see that money go elsewhere.

Then there’s Hungary. Close to both Russia and Trump’s circle, it’s a roadblock in nearly every EU debate on Ukraine. And Slovakia? Brussels is increasingly worried it might be heading in the same direction.

Mark Rutte, NATO’s new Secretary General, isn’t sugarcoating things. He’s warning Europe to wake up—fast.

 

 

1...222324...65Page 23 of 65

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

Quick Links

Follow Us

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

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

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

Powered By
Best Wordpress Adblock Detecting Plugin | CHP Adblock