DOGE and Elon Musk—synonyms that have wreaked havoc and perhaps panic within the walls of the White House. At the same time, the world was being greeted with countless posts on DOGE and how it is positioned to Make America Great Again!
On Monday afternoon, a federal judge had a question that really shouldn’t have been this hard to answer: Is Elon Musk the administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)? A simple answer would have sufficed except not if you’re the Trump administration.
According to Justice Department lawyer Bradley Humphreys, Musk is just a “close adviser to the president.” That’s like saying the pilot is just a helpful addon who happens to be sitting in the cockpit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to clear things up. While acknowledging that Trump had “tasked” Musk to oversee DOGE, she also insisted that a team of career officials and appointees were actually running the show.
So, who’s really in charge? That remained a mystery—at least for a while.
Meanwhile, Musk himself has been front and center in DOGE’s operations, making grand appearances, throwing cryptic tweets into the ether, and making it look like he’s the man running the show. Lawsuits have piled up, questioning the legitimacy of DOGE’s actions, especially since the agency reportedly gained access to Treasury Department systems controlling trillions of dollars. But still, officials stood firm—Musk is not the administrator.
Yet, Trump being Trump, went ahead and contradicted his own administration. Speaking at a financial conference in Miami last week, he declared, “I put a man named Elon Musk in charge.” Well, there you have it—or maybe not.
In a last-minute twist, the White House finally dropped a name on Tuesday—Amy Gleason. She’s apparently the acting administrator of DOGE. Her LinkedIn still listed her as a senior adviser at the United States Digital Service as of Tuesday afternoon, leaving everyone wondering – When was she appointed? What’s her real role? And how does Musk still fit into this puzzle?
Why The Confusion?
Meanwhile, Musk has been leading an outside effort to aggressively curtail government spending through funding cuts and firings.
Some say its a game, if Musk was actually the administrator, then this issue about him needing Senate confirmation and his actually having to abide by the conflict of interest laws would be much clearer.
Experts said that Musk has given the impression of being in charge of Doge by staffing the government entity with employees and engineers from his various companies, posting constantly about its work on X, appearing alongside Trump in the Oval Office to promote the cuts it has made to the federal workforce, and representing it on stage at the Conservative Political Action Committee gathering last week while wielding a chainsaw.
Trump established Doge by renaming the United States Digital Service—an agency focused on digital and web infrastructure—to the United States Doge Service via an executive order.
The order establishes Doge’s leadership structure, saying that “there shall be a USDS Administrator” that reports up to the White House chief of staff.
Doge’s arrival has caused turbulence in the existing US Digital Service ranks. The administration fired several staffers there earlier this month, and the Associated Press reported that 21 employees resigned in protest on Tuesday.
In a letter to management, they alleged Doge employees were creating “significant security risks.”
A series of lawsuits challenging Doge have slowed some of the administration’s effort to cut the federal workforce, and they have forced the Trump White House to face the question of Musk’s status in court.
Until the administration stated that Ms. Gleason was the acting administrator late on Tuesday, it gave vague answers about Doge’s leadership across multiple lawsuits.
Though she did not rule in the hearing on Monday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly expressed concern about Doge’s constitutionality. She noted it might run afoul of the appointment clause of the US Constitution, which sets out nominating procedures for agency leaders.
Experts say that Musk’s work does not fit the traditional definition of “special government employee,”which has specific rules.
The White House has previously said that Musk “is a special government employee and has abided by all applicable federal laws.”
While Musk appears to have made several moves regarding the federal workforce largely unencumbered, his recent demand that federal employees list five accomplishments in an email was met with pushback from some Trump-appointed agency leaders.
The directive was walked back as optional at some agencies, over concerns staff could reveal sensitive information and that the order violated federal policies.
Resignations Rock DOGE Amid Growing Dissent
A wave of discontent has hit the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with over 20 civil servants stepping down in protest against Elon Musk’s aggressive restructuring.
The resigning employees, many of whom were experienced technocrats, accused DOGE of undermining essential public services rather than optimizing them. Their departure marks a significant escalation in tensions between traditional bureaucratic structures and Musk’s disruptive approach to governance.
Critics argue that Musk’s recruits, handpicked to spearhead sweeping cost-cutting measures, lack the expertise required to manage complex federal programs. Some have gone so far as to label the initiative a reckless purge rather than a reform effort. As government agencies brace for further upheaval, the exodus raises pressing questions about the long-term viability of Musk’s vision.
Does Musk’s Cost-Cutting Claim Hold Water?
While Musk touts DOGE as a revolutionary force in slashing government waste, a closer examination suggests a starkly different reality. A recent analysis found that nearly 40% of canceled federal contracts listed by DOGE as cost-saving measures would yield no actual financial benefits. In several cases, funds had already been allocated or spent, rendering the cancellations futile.
One glaring example of exaggeration was a contract Musk’s team had celebrated for saving $8 billion—when in fact, it was worth a mere $8 million. Such discrepancies have cast doubt on the legitimacy of DOGE’s cost-cutting claims, with some experts likening the approach to confiscating “used ammunition after it’s been shot.”
The ‘Five Accomplishments’ Mandate
Amid the bureaucratic shake-up, Musk issued a directive requiring over 2 million federal employees to submit a weekly report listing five accomplishments—or face termination. The policy, which was met with swift resistance, has triggered confusion across federal departments. Some Trump-appointed officials have actively resisted enforcement, further fracturing an already divided administration.
Notably, Kash Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI Director, instructed his employees to disregard the directive, leading to an escalating standoff between DOGE and key government agencies. Despite mounting opposition, Musk has doubled down, warning that noncompliance with the order could lead to immediate dismissal.
The Last Bit
With mass resignations, questionable cost-cutting claims, internal resistance, and mounting legal scrutiny, DOGE’s future remains uncertain.
The controversy has exposed deep rifts within the Trump administration, raising critical questions about the balance between efficiency and accountability in government reform.
As Musk continues to push the boundaries of federal oversight, and after all this back and forth, the real question remains—does DOGE have a leader, or is it just running on pure, unfiltered chaos? Either way, it seems Musk is still pulling the strings, whether officially or not.
The United States and Ukraine are on the brink of finalizing a controversial minerals deal that could reshape not only Kyiv’s economic future but also the geopolitical arena of the Russia-Ukraine war.
But with no security guarantees included in the deal, has Zelensky been backed into a corner, effectively paving the way for a Russian victory? And what does this mean for NATO’s broader security framework?
The Minerals Deal.
The proposed agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine involves Washington receiving a significant share—50%—of Kyiv’s future revenues from critical minerals and natural resources. In exchange, Ukraine will receive military equipment and continued U.S. support for its war efforts against Russia.
Trump’s remarks further complicated matters, as he remained ambiguous about whether the aid would be sustained indefinitely. “Shipments could go forward for a while, maybe until we have a deal with Russia,” he said, suggesting that U.S. support might have an expiration date that depends on diplomatic negotiations rather than Ukraine’s security needs.
The Evolution of the Minerals Agreement
The idea for a minerals deal was first floated by Zelensky himself in his “victory plan” presented to Trump last September. The objective was to provide a solid economic reason for Washington to continue its security guarantees to Ukraine. However, the latest draft, pushed by the U.S., omits any security commitments while demanding a large cut of Ukraine’s natural wealth—terms that many in Kyiv view as extortionate.
Zelensky initially rejected the offer, arguing that it would impose a massive financial burden on future generations of Ukrainians without guaranteeing their security. But after weeks of intense negotiations, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, Olha Stefanishyna, indicated on social media that a deal was near.
Yet, reports indicate that even the revised deal remains far from what Ukraine initially sought. It was revealed that while the updated terms may be marginally more favorable, they still exclude the security guarantees that Kyiv has desperately requested.
Trump’s Business First, Security Second!
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the minerals deal is Trump’s willingness to explore similar agreements with Russia. Speaking from the Oval Office, he expressed interest in securing critical minerals from Russian territory as well.
Russia Dangles A Counteroffer In what appears to be a calculated message to Washington, Russian President Vladimir Putin extended an open invitation for American businesses to invest in Russia’s resource-rich territories. Speaking to Russian state television on Monday, Putin hinted at lucrative opportunities, including mining rare earth metals—even in Russian-occupied Ukraine
According to Putin, Russia possesses significantly larger reserves of rare earth metals than Ukraine. The offer was not limited to rare earth mining; Putin also suggested that U.S. companies could reap substantial profits by participating in aluminium production in Siberia.
The Resource War Kyiv estimates that around 5% of the world’s critical raw materials are located in Ukraine, making the country a key player in the global minerals market. Among its vast reserves are:
—Graphite: 19 million tonnes of proven reserves, placing Ukraine among the top five global suppliers. —-Lithium: A third of Europe’s lithium deposits, a crucial component in battery production. —Titanium: 7% of global titanium production before the war. —Rare Earth Metals: Essential for military technology, electronics, and renewable energy.
However, since Russia’s invasion, a significant portion of these mineral-rich territories has fallen under Moscow’s control. Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko estimates that resources worth $350 billion remain in occupied territories.
Russia, meanwhile, also boasts vast rare earth metal reserves but has yet to fully develop them. By enticing U.S. firms to invest in Russian-controlled extraction, Moscow is likely aiming to shift economic alliances while tightening its grip on global mineral markets.
Why The U.S. Wants In?
The U.S. push for a minerals deal with Ukraine is part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on China, which currently dominates 75% of global rare earth production, according to the Geological Investment Group.
Tensions between Washington and Beijing over critical minerals have escalated in recent years. In December, China imposed a fresh ban on exporting certain rare earth metals to the U.S., following a similar restriction the previous year. With mineral security emerging as a key geopolitical battleground, Washington’s eagerness to secure resources—whether from Ukraine or elsewhere—is hardly surprising.
Further, marking a dramatic turn in U.S. foreign policy, the Trump administration has twice voted in alignment with Russia at the United Nations, signaling a departure from America’s previous stance on the Ukraine war.
The first instance came at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, where the U.S. voted against a European-drafted resolution condemning Russia’s invasion and affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity—placing itself in the same camp as Russia, North Korea, and Belarus.
Then, at the UN Security Council, Washington introduced its own resolution, calling for an end to the conflict but notably omitting any criticism of Russia. While the resolution passed, key American allies, including the UK and France, abstained after their attempts to introduce amendments were blocked.
A Transatlantic Rift on Full Display
The UN votes unfolded against the backdrop of French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Washington, as he sought to bridge growing divisions with President Trump over Ukraine. The diplomatic rift will further be under the lens on Thursday when British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer meets with Trump in an effort to recalibrate U.S.-UK relations.
Trump’s White House has increasingly distanced itself from traditional European allies, fostering closer ties with Moscow and raising doubts about America’s long-term commitment to European security. This shift was evident as U.S. diplomats at the UNGA pushed for a resolution mourning the loss of life in the “Russia-Ukraine conflict” without assigning blame—an approach that sharply contrasted with Europe’s more explicit condemnation of Russian aggression.
Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa did not mince words, stating, “We need to reconfirm that the aggression should be condemned and discredited, not rewarded.”
Despite European efforts, the UNGA resolution condemning Russia passed with 93 votes, but in an extraordinary move, the U.S. did not abstain—it actively voted against it. The U.S. found itself on the same side as Russia, North Korea, Israel, Sudan, Belarus, Hungary, and 11 other nations, with 65 countries abstaining.
American Lawmakers Sound the Alarm
The unexpected alignment with Moscow did not go unnoticed in Washington. Republican Senator John Curtis voiced his dismay, writing on X, “I am deeply troubled by this vote, which put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea. These are not our friends. This posture is a dramatic shift from American ideals of freedom and democracy.”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed these concerns, calling the vote “contrary to our long-standing support of democracy.”
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s former Minister of Economy, Tymofiy Mylovanov, dismissed the shift as anything but an accident. “This is no longer just rhetoric or political theatre,” he said
Rarely has the U.S. been so openly at odds with its European allies. Since the war began three years ago, the Security Council has remained largely ineffective due to Russia’s veto power. The UNGA has become the primary global platform for addressing the conflict, though its resolutions lack legal enforceability.
Has Putin Won? With Washington’s stance shifting and European allies visibly frustrated—has Vladimir Putin effectively reshaped the global order to his advantage? If the U.S. continues down this path, it may signal a geopolitical realignment with profound consequences for Ukraine, NATO, and the broader Western alliance.
For Ukraine and its allies, this raises serious concerns. Could Trump be using the minerals deal as a stepping stone to diplomatic negotiations with Russia, at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty? If so, NATO’s security could be compromised, as Washington’s commitment to Ukraine wavers in favor of economic pragmatism.
What This Means for NATO and the War’s Future
The implications of this deal go beyond Ukraine. If Kyiv is forced to cede half of its mineral revenues without ironclad security assurances, it sets a troubling precedent for other U.S. allies. NATO, already struggling to maintain cohesion in the face of Russian aggression, might find its eastern flank more vulnerable than ever.
Moreover, Trump’s approach signals a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy—one where economic interests take precedence over military commitments. While this may align with his “America First” philosophy, it could leave NATO allies pretty much out in the cold.
The Last Bit
Zelensky, caught between a rock and a hard place, faces the difficult decision of accepting a deal that ensures Ukraine’s survival in the short term but leaves it strategically exposed in the long run. Meanwhile, Putin may be watching with satisfaction as Ukraine’s Western support becomes increasingly transactional, rather than a strong security guarantee.
As the world waits for the final signing of the agreement; Has Zelensky folded under pressure, inadvertently giving Putin an upper hand? And if so, how will this reshape the future of NATO’s security and the global order?
Middle East, a pivotal player in the geopolitical architecture of the 21st century. A region engulfed by the Mediterranean Sea in the north and Arabian Peninsula in the south acts as a key corridor to connect Asia, Africa and Europe. The Middle Eastern sphere also encompasses Bab al-Mandab Strait and Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Caspian Sea, Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf that are strategic maritime zones to sustain world trade and transit. The soaring richness of the region in crucial and strategically vital oil and other natural resources is prerequisite to nourish the spiking energy demands of the world states. A secure and stable Middle East also helps to nurture the larger regional security of Asia and beyond. Yet, this geographically, geopolitically and strategically imperative region of the Middle East is engrossed in existential conflicts for decades. One such embroiling friction is the Israel-Palestine conflict that is causing regional repercussions and pushing the entire expanse of the Middle East into geopolitical fragility and humanitarian catastrophe.
The current conundrum in the conflict
The latest Israel-Hamas conflict broke out on 7th October, 2023 with Hamas launching coordinated attacks on Israel that killed more than 1,200 civilians. The 15 months war transcended as one of the world’s deadliest conflicts in the current era that has killed more than 45,000 people in the narrow Gaza strip, millions of people being internally displaced and the region implicated as uninhabitable. After witnessing such a devastating political and humanitarian crisis, both sides have reached a ‘temporary ceasefire’ deal. The truce reached after intense negotiations mediated by the USA, Qatar and Egypt, came into effect on 19th January, 2025, but is described as a ‘fragile ceasefire’.
The ceasefire entails 3 phases. In the maiden phase Israel and Hamas should exchange the hostages and prisoners and also facilitate the movement of humanitarian aid for the distressed population of Gaza. In the second phase, the remaining hostages will be exchanged including the detained male Israeli soldiers. The Israeli armed forces stationed in Gaza will also be removed and the temporary ceasefire will be evolved into a permanent truce. In the third and ultimate phase of the agreement, remains of the killed hostages will be swapped and the process of reconstruction and development of the devastated Gaza will commence.
The first phase of the ceasefire is currently operationalized. Hamas and Israel have concluded the sixth round of hostages and prisoner exchange respectively and more than 10,000 trucks of humanitarian aid have reached the shattered lanes of the Gaza strip. Israeli forces have departed from the Netzarim Corridor, a military zone carved to separate northern and southern Gaza and millions of displaced Palestinians are returning to the northern part of the of Gaza. Despite these positive developments as per the norms of the ceasefire agreement, there exists a lot of loopholes and apprehension about the success of the ceasefire in the long run.
Both the warring parties have indulged in suspicion and blame game. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exclaimed that the ‘gates of hell would be open’ if Hamas didn’t release the remaining hostages and it would resume the military operations in Gaza. On the other hand, Hamas militancy has cited that Israel has violated the obligations in the agreement, has interrupted the entry of humanitarian trucks into the region and is also continuing bombardments on the Palestinian province. The USA, an ardent ally of Israel continues its unhindered support to the Jewish state with the supply of arms, ammunition and other assistance inspite of being a key stakeholder in the ceasefire negotiating table. In this background, the strength and durability of the ceasefire are under severe attrition and the future of the truce is said to be bizarre. Will the temporary truce between Israel and Hamas strike a permanent triumph? Will the warring parties reach an ultimate understanding? Whether lasting peace, security and stability be reached in West Asia and beyond? Let us decipher!
Analyzing from historical experiences
The Israel-Palestine conflict is not a new phenomenon in the geopolitical spectrum. Both the regions have been at loggerheads since 1948 when the region was fragmented into a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine as per the Balfour Declaration passed by the British, who were an imperial power in the region. This partition ignited the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948. The war ended with the Israeli victory over the region, wherein they captured 50% of more land than what was predetermined during the partition.
Again in 1967, the Six-Day war broke out when Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria and East Jerusalem from Jordan and Gaza strip from Egypt. These series of unsolvable contentions led to the signing of Camp David Accords in 1978 brokered by the USA. The framework gave an impetus to Israel and its neighbours to negotiate a solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’ and establish a lasting peace and security in the region. 5 decades since the signing of the accords, the solution for the Palestinian problem has reached a stalemate and the conflict is ever spiralling.
With the formation of Hamas in 1987, the conflict multiplied with greater intensity. The demand for a sovereign Palestinian state reached a boiling point during 1987 that resulted in the First Intifada (Palestinian Uprising) between the militants and the Israeli Army. The intifada ended in 1993 with the signing of Oslo Accords, which gave a framework for peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Despite these efforts, Israel continued to annex and build infrastructure in the occupied Palestinian territory and even Hamas indulged in recurring militancy activities. Thus, before the peace process could materialize the second intifada was revolutionized in 2000 and continued upto 2005.
In 2006, the Second Lebanon War broke out between Israel and Hezbollah (an Iran backed organisation operating from Lebanon which strongly refutes Israeli occupation in the Gaza strip, West Bank and advocates for Palestinian liberation). With the growing grip of Hamas and other non-state actors over the region there were a series of armed conflicts with Israel in 2008, 2012, 2014 and a large-scale military strife even in 2021 as well. These historical conflicts illustrate the magnitude of the hostility between the warring parties and how peculiar & perishable the agreements are! Historical evidence reflects the fact that even amidst high voltage negotiations and mediations, finding a lasting solution to the Palestinian question is a herculean task.
A tenuous truce and treacherous camps
In the latest phase of conflict that broke out in 2023 October, the world has witnessed a massive scale of destruction and humanitarian havoc along with sharp political antagonism among the regional and global geopolitical actors. Though a ceasefire is achieved after transforming the tiny Gaza strip into a living graveyard, the stable future of the truce is still an enigma. The political ambitions of the warring nations, the stingy attitude of the stakeholders is making the truce and humanitarian causes to be stuck in a geopolitical jigsaw.
The Israeli Prime Minister reiterates that his nation has the right to resume the war if the norms of the ceasefire are violated by the other side. It says resumption of war is inevitable if Hamas doesn’t release all the hostages. On the other end, Hamas asserts that it is committed to the agreement, however it is Israel who is violating the ceasefire. For example, Israel recently condemned the Hamas action as ‘cruel and malicious violation’ of the agreement as Hamas gave the body of a non-identified deceased person instead of the body of an Israeli woman and Israel pledged to take revenge for the misdeeds of the Hamas. Such repeated accusations and mutual suspicion, spikes doubt about the sustainability of the ceasefire and fails the aspirations towards a long-term stability and solution for the ‘Palestinian problem’, beyond mere hostage exchanges.
The USA impetus in the Middle East
The USA, a time-tested ally of Israel, is driving the geopolitical circumstances of the Middle East with its hegemonic policies. Reports claim that the US has spent more than US$ 18 billion on military aid to Israel since October 7, 2023. The US has supplied artillery shells, military aircrafts, anti-missile systems, fighter jets, warships and about 40,000 additional and nearly 900 kgs of bombs to Israel, thus fuelling the war ambitions of the latter. Infact, Israel is the biggest recipient of the USA’s military aid. The USA, being the permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has used its veto power to provide diplomatic cover to Israel. Since the war broke out in 2023, the USA has vetoed numerous resolutions that demanded for a ceasefire in Gaza. Infact, since 1970, the USA has used its veto power more than 40 times against the UN resolutions on Israel.
The USA also has had a considerable military presence in the Middle East since decades. However, it has drastically increased since 2024. The USA is conducting anti-piracy operations in the Red Sea against the militants and also coordinated operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen in the name of counter-terrorism. This heightened presence of the USA and unhindered support to Israel has irked the regional actors that has further fuelled animosity among the actors and has created an atmosphere of tension and uneasiness.
The Trump 2.0 administration though advocated for a ceasefire, the supply of arms and ammunition to Israel hasn’t been discontinued. Also, the latest proposal by the USA for the redevelopment of Gaza has created a global outcry. The plan of the USA is to completely take over the region and evacuate the Gaza population to neighbouring states and indulge in the reconstruction process. This has created an outrage in the Middle East and the states have exhibited a strong displeasure to the US plan. Trump has also warned that the ‘hell would break loose’ if Hamas failed to release all the hostages.
These actions by the USA have not just created a rift between Israel and other regional actors but also are a factor to further ripe the conflicts in the Middle Eastern Canvas. The American factor, thus, is a determinant that impacts the future of the ceasefire. The USA’s long standing animosity & contentions with Iran, its unwavering aid to Israel, the US’s actions on foreign soil in the name of counter-terrorism, humanity and development, its hegemonic attitude and jumping into decisions unilaterally without taking the consensus of all the regional stakeholders can lead to a situation of security dilemma in the region. As an impact the sustainability of the ceasefire is at stake. The state and non-state actors will be on the brink of escalating the war again, with long-term solutions to the historical problem being vague and faint.
Regional responses and success of ceasefire
The regional players of West Asia have a diversified approach to the crisis. From Iran to Saudi Arabia to Israel every actor is pulling the Middle Eastern geopolitical jigsaw in diverging directions. For example, the US-Israel alliance’s antagonism towards Iran has led to many regional ramifications and proxy wars since the break out of Israel-Hamas conflict in 2023. The popular ‘Octopus doctrine’ illustrates how Iran, similar to the head of an Octopus, is navigating its various legs i.e. the non-state actors such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis etc. This axis of Iran and the US-Israel alliance are always at odds. In the pretext of the latest Israel-Hamas conflict, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus in April, 2024, which was a clear violation of Iranian sovereignty. In retaliation Iran launched direct attacks on Israel by firing more than 300 drones and ballistic missiles. This brought the Middle East to the brink of a full-scale regional war.
Thus, the further intrusion of the US in Middle East politics and arriving at unilateral decisions without considering all stakeholders of the region will linger the hostile scenario and weaken the strength of the ceasefire. For example, Iran-backed Houthis rebels in Yemen claimed to launch an attack on Israel if the US and Israel materialize their plan to redevelop Gaza by evacuating the population. The Saudi Arabia, UAE and other GCC nations also have expressed their distress against Israel’s unmindful and unrestrained attacks on Gaza. They have championed the cause of Palestinian statehood and have reiterated that restoration of bilateral relations is not possible until a solution is found for the Palestinian problem. Lately, in order to express their non-compliance against the US’s plan on Gaza, Saudi Arabia hosted a conclave with the six GCC states along with Egypt and Jordan. Riyadh, along with advocating for regional peace and stability, firmly upheld that the ‘two-state’ solution is the ultimate remedy for the Palestinian crisis and not the owning or annexation of the region by the USA.
This polarized political landscape of the Middle East can pour down the prospects of the ceasefire. The US-Israel nexus, The Iran and other militant group’s axis, supply of military aid and ammunition to the warring blocs, fragmented opinions of other regional actors can derail the threshold to reach a consolidated and sustainable decision on the Palestinian cause. The ceasefire is yet in its first phase and thus far has witnessed many violations leading to accusations and warning of re-escalation of war from both the parties. Will the ceasefire, thus, act as a stepping stone to draft a long-term solution beyond mere exchange of hostages is a grave concern.
The current era, characterized by a ‘realist’ way of geopolitics, stands as a synonym for expansionist attributes, security dilemma and discredit for international law and norms by the member states. Amidst these upheavals, geopolitical actors should be prudent of the consequences of the geopolitical rivalry because, as neo-realist scholar Kenneth Waltz says, “Asking who won a war is like asking who won the San Francisco earthquake. That in war there is no victory but only varying degrees of defeat”. Realizing this, the stakeholders of the Middle East ceasefire, thus, have to work in tandem to accomplish the goal of hostage exchanges and should address the humanitarian causes.
Successfully executing these initial goals, should spur the momentum further to recede from the occupied territories and respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US shouldn’t indulge in the geopolitics of West Asia as the region is completely extraneous and not proximal to the American geography. Though, the US has to protect its trade, defence and other interests in the region that cannot be at the cost of the Middle East’s sovereignty. Simultaneously the US, Iran or any other state shouldn’t pool arms and ammunition to Israel or any other non-state actors. That will automatically decelerate the thrust of the waging parties. All stakeholders should work at the negotiating table to reach a lasting solution for the ‘Palestinian problem’.
Such a progressive action can definitely yield regional peace and security in the long run. But, beyond hostage exchanges does a ceasefire really have the ability to sustain these idealistic goals for a prolonged duration, when the geopolitical game is actually waged on realist principles! Considering the historical experiences and the hostile atmosphere still hanging on the Middle Eastern latitude, the answer is an ‘enigma’!
Trump’s suggestion to purchase Greenland and even to go one step further with “military intervention” created some waves, at the same time laughed off by many as another one of his outlandish ideas. However, Trump made it clear why? Greenland sits atop vast reserves of rare earth metals—materials crucial for technology, defense, and green energy transitions. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that wars are fought over resources.
Similarly, China’s fixation on Taiwan isn’t just about nationalism. Taiwan is home to TSMC, the world’s leading semiconductor manufacturer. Whoever controls the semiconductor supply chain controls the future—be it AI, defense, or consumer electronics. The modern world runs on chips, and China wants to ensure that future innovation is dictated on its terms.
Meanwhile, in Africa, a new battleground is emerging. Countries like China and Russia are strengthening their presence by securing mining contracts, infrastructure projects, and military alliances.
The U.S. and Europe, on the other hand, are trying to reassert their influence to prevent losing access to critical resources, including lithium and cobalt—essential for electric vehicle (EV) production. The growing economic tension in Africa is not just about development; it’s about who gets to dominate the resource race.
The Truth About Consolidation Of Borders
The current trend of countries sealing their borders and aiming to become more self-reliant, is not just because of nationalism, there are several critical factors for doing so, its like looking through a telescope to see what’s coming in!
Pandemics and Biowarfare Risks – There has been a huge debate on whether COVID-19 was biowarfare, a test run, or if it indeed was a natural phenomenon. We still haven’t got a clear answer for the same, but what it revealed—how fragile global interdependence really is.
Thus, if another pandemic—or worse, a deliberate bioweapon attack—were to strike, nations want to ensure they have resources and manufacturing capabilities within their own borders.
Climate Change and Natural Disasters – As climate-related calamities intensify, governments need to allocate more funds for domestic resilience rather than foreign aid. Disasters cost money, and with economies struggling, the focus is on self-preservation rather than global humanitarianism.
And this could explain one of the main reasons as to why Donald Trump is not so keen on being “kind” especially considering the recent wildfire inferno that has dealt a huge blow in infrastructure collapse and will take a decent chunk of money to rebuild to its original glory.
The New Age of Economic Warfare – Traditional military confrontations are costly and inefficient. We have already seen that with the Russia-Ukraine war. Therefore, what is the next best alternative?
The Invisible Battlefield of the 21st Century
Cyberwarfare operates in the shadows—disrupting financial systems, stealing classified intelligence, and even interfering in democratic elections. Unlike conventional warfare, where clear battle lines are drawn, cyberwarfare thrives in ambiguity, often leaving no fingerprints behind.
From Russia’s cyberattacks on Ukraine to China’s alleged espionage activities and the infamous Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, cyberwarfare has reshaped global conflicts. The most alarming part? It’s no longer just nation-states waging war. Cybercriminals, rogue hackers, and organized cyber-mercenaries are now players in this digital battlefield, often selling their services to the highest bidder.
Cyberwarfare comes in many forms, each designed to infiltrate, disrupt, or manipulate digital systems.
Cyber Armies
Countries are building cyber armies—elite units trained to defend against and launch cyberattacks. The United States has its Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), China has its Strategic Support Force (SSF), and Russia has its APT groups suspected of influencing global events.
In 2020, the SolarWinds hack, allegedly orchestrated by Russian state-backed hackers, infiltrated U.S. government agencies, exposing vulnerabilities at the highest levels. Similarly, North Korea’s Lazarus Group has been linked to major financial cybercrimes, including the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist.
It’s not just governments at risk. Private corporations are prime targets too.
Food and Water Security – With agricultural lands under stress due to climate change, water scarcity is becoming a major geopolitical issue. Nations are acquiring agricultural land abroad, ensuring food security at the cost of weaker nations.
The Middle East and China have been buying farmland in Africa and Latin America, while Western powers are scrambling to secure their own food production.
The Role of Technology and Critical Metals
The world today runs on lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements—resources necessary for electric vehicles, batteries, and the AI revolution. China already controls a significant portion of the world’s rare earth supply chain. The battle for these materials is quietly shaping foreign policies, with the U.S. and Europe scrambling to reduce their dependency or forge new ties.
At the same time, quantum computing and AI are shifting the global power dynamics. With AI revolutionizing decision-making processes in defense, healthcare, and automation, those who control AI infrastructure will wield significant power. This is why nations are aggressively securing data sovereignty and pushing for self-sufficiency in semiconductor production.
Meanwhile, space has also entered the mix. The U.S., China, and private corporations are investing billions into space mining. The moon and asteroids hold resources like helium-3 and rare metals, potentially easing dependence on Earth’s dwindling reserves. The first country to establish a foothold in space mining could set the new rules of the economic game.
The Fragmentation of Global Alliances
We are also witnessing the breakdown of traditional alliances. NATO, once a unified force, is facing internal strife with members having conflicting interests.
The BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is gaining traction, pushing for a multi-polar world order to counterbalance U.S. and European dominance. With de-dollarization efforts underway, countries are trying to escape the grip of Western financial influence by settling trade in local currencies and digital assets.
Scanning Donald Trumps Recent Moves?
President Donald Trump’s recent policy decisions, both domestic and international, suggest a concerted effort to prepare the nation for emerging challenges by securing critical resources, enhancing economic resilience, and asserting geopolitical influence.
The Greenland Acquisition Proposal
One of the most headline-grabbing initiatives has been President Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland. While the idea was initially met with skepticism, the underlying motivations are deeply strategic.
Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals are indispensable for modern technologies, including defense systems and renewable energy infrastructure. By bringing Greenland under U.S. sovereignty, the administration aims to reduce dependence on foreign sources for these critical materials, thereby strengthening national security and technological autonomy.
Moreover, Greenland’s geographic location offers a strategic military vantage point in the Arctic, a region witnessing increased activity from Russia and China. Securing this territory would serve as a countermeasure to rival powers’ ambitions in the Arctic.
Domestic Policies
On the home front, President Trump’s policies indicate a focus on economic realignment and resource security. The recent budget proposal, which narrowly passed in the House, includes significant tax cuts totaling $4.5 trillion and substantial spending reductions of $2 trillion over the next decade. These measures are designed to stimulate domestic investment and reduce the national debt, thereby enhancing economic resilience.
Additionally, the administration has launched a probe into foreign copper production and imports, signaling a move to protect and potentially bolster domestic industries critical to infrastructure and defense.
Immigration Reforms
In a bid to attract foreign investment, President Trump announced the “gold card” visa scheme, offering permanent residency to wealthy individuals willing to invest $5 million in the U.S. economy. This initiative aims to infuse capital into American businesses and create job opportunities, thereby strengthening the economic fabric of the nation.
Simultaneously, the administration is intensifying measures against undocumented immigrants, reflecting a broader strategy to control immigration and prioritize economic contributions.
Geopolitical Maneuvering
Geopolitically, the administration is taking steps to solidify alliances and counteract adversarial influences. The anticipated visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House for the signing of a rare earth minerals deal illustrates this approach.
This agreement not only secures essential resources for the U.S. but also reinforces support for Ukraine amidst ongoing regional tensions, thereby countering Russian aggression.
The Last Bit, A War That May Have Begun
The shift is clear—nations are arming themselves for a future where economic warfare, resource dominance, and supply chain control dictate the global order.
It won’t be about nuclear arsenals alone but also about who controls the chips, the minerals, the energy sources, and the food supply.
World War III has already begun, who will emerge as the dominant force in this silent but seismic battle for supremacy?
Delegates with the President of India: source Author
Women armed forces officers from 35 nations of the Global South are in New Delhi to participate in a first ever conference hosted by India, themed “Women in Peacekeeping: A Global South Perspective”, being organised by the Ministry of External Affairs MEA), in partnership with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Centre for United Nations Peacekeeping (CUNPK). This year marks 25 years since the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which deals with Women, Peace, and Security.
The conference is aimed at bringing together women officials from the Global South to discuss issues of contemporary relevance to peacekeeping and the various challenges being faced by peacekeeping missions, and reflect the progress made so far but also reaffirm the collective commitment of nations towards enhancing and empowering the role of women in peace and security.
The delegates met President of India, Smt Droupadi Murmu, who said that the presence of women in a peacekeeping mission makes it more diverse and inclusive. “Women peacekeepers often have greater access to local communities and can serve as role models for women and children. They are better equipped to address gender-based violence, build trust, and promote dialogue,” further adding that, “Peacekeeping missions with a higher percentage of female personnel have been more effective in reducing violence and achieving long-lasting peace agreements. It is therefore essential that we induct more women in UN peacekeeping missions,” said the President of India.
Conference in progress: source Author
India has a proud history of contribution to UN peacekeeping, with over 2,90,000 India peacekeepers having served in more than 50 UN peacekeeping missions, since the 1950s. Today, there are over 5000 Indian peacekeepers in nine active missions, deployed in often hostile conditions, for the cause of international peace and security.
Exhibiting the highest traditions of professionalism and conduct, India has been at the forefront of deploying women in peacekeeping roles, both military and police. The first chapter of this journey began in the 1960s, when Indian women, as medical officers, were deployed in Congo. In 2007, India became the first nation to deploy an all-women Formed Police Unit in Liberia—a pioneering initiative that had an indelible impact on both the host community and the broader UN framework. Over the years, this initiative empowered Liberian women, increasing their participation in security sectors. Today, India proudly continues this legacy, with over 150 women peacekeepers deployed across six critical missions, which are the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Lebanon, Golan Heights, Western Sahara, and Abyei.
External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar in his address mentioned about India’s singular focus towards the advancement of global peace and security, in the pursuit of which nearly 180 Indian peacekeepers had lost their lives. “One such individual, Captain Gurbachan Singh Salaria, posthumously honored with the Param Vir Chakra for his courage during the UN Mission in Congo, remains a beacon of inspiration. His is the singular case of this highest honor being awarded for operations conducted abroad,” said the EAM.
The Delegates: source Author
India has produced a multitude of exemplary women peacekeepers who have inspired others globally. Dr. Kiran Bedi, who served as the first woman UN Police Advisor, Major Suman Gawani and Major Radhika Sen, recipients of the UN Military Gender Advocate Award in 2019 and 2023 respectively, and Ms. Seema Dhundia, who led the first all-women Formed Police Unit in Liberia, are a few examples who have blazed a trail for others to follow.
The two-day conference in New Delhi is likely to play a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of two significant events due to take place this year, which are the Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin and the Peacebuilding Architecture Review in New York.
As explained by some of the visiting peacekeepers during interactions, that women peacekeepers often have unique access to local communities, acting as role models for women in conflict zones. Training courses tailored to include modules sensitising peacekeepers to issues related to women will enhance the effectiveness of peace operations.
Colonel Dilya of Kazakhstan Army has worked in Lebanon under UNIFIL as part of CIMIC (civil military cooperation). She was under the operational command of an Italian contingent. “My job was to interact with civil society, local administration and the military leadership in Lebanon and help in the repair and reconstruction work of roads, schools, hospitals and Churches, which were ravaged in war”, added Col Dilya.
Moroccan Army’s Colonel Hind Jirari has done a one-year tenure in South Sudan as part of Intelligence, before moving back to headquarters in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, where she was assigned an HRD (human resource development) role. Jirari says, “I have never faced any issues during my posting, in fact my knowledge of Arabic helped me in dispensing my duties in South Sudan, as the language used there is a certain dialect of Arabic.”
Tunisia’s Major R Salhi has been trained in Rwanda and is awaiting her posting to a UN mission. She is a specialist in general services.
Presidents Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin: source Internet
As the Sun set on February 23, 2022 which was a Wednesday, the Ukrainians were looking forward to the last weekend of February a couple of days away, with almost every family planning a fishing, trekking, sight-seeing trip or a dinner in their favourite restaurants.
But all was to change before dawn the next day and this change would not only affect Ukraine but its ripples were to be felt globally.
The next day at 4.30 am on February 24, 2022 well before the sunrise, Russia launched a war on Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine War as it would be known, was the biggest war that Europe would see after World War II and the “end of the era of peace dividend” which came with the collapse of USSR in 1991 and the formal end of Cold War 1.0 that had lasted from the end of World War II till USSR’s disintegration.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was certainly not a sudden decision. It was a result of the buildup taking place since USSR disintegrated on December 26, 1991.
Reasons for the Russia-Ukraine War
While the spotlight for the reason of the Russia-Ukraine War has been the expansion of NATO which includes the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s insistence on joining NATO, another reason of the outbreak of this war which needs mention is the internal disturbance in Ukraine, which has been purposely ignored by many, as it puts Ukraine in an uncomfortable position.
Expansion of NATO: Consequent to the meeting of the US President George W. Bush with the USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1989 in which the Soviet President was assured that the Soviet interests will not be harmed in the backdrop of the revolutions happening in Eastern Europe, the US Secretary of State James Baker met the Soviet President on February 09, 1990 in Moscow and promised that NATO, which was created on April 04, 1949 with 12 nations as its members, will not move one inch eastward.
The very next day, the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl met the Soviet President and took his assent to unify both the Germanys. West Germany and East Germany unified on October 03, 1990.
After the British Prime Minister John Major assured Mikhail Gorbachev in March 1991 that NATO would not be strengthened further, the Soviet President believed the assurances of the US and UK leadership and dissolved the Warsaw Pact on July 01, 1991. At that point of time NATO had 16 members.
With the security cover withdrawn over the Eastern Bloc countries, and US reneging its promise of keeping USSR interests secure, the inevitable happened. USSR, one of the two superpowers, disintegrated into 15 nations in end-December 1991.
Thereafter, US went on a NATO expansion spree after the US President Bill Clinton on January 12, 1994 in Prague expressed his intent to expand NATO. And, by 2021, NATO had 30 members.
Since 1994, Russia had numerous talks with USA to stop NATO’s expansion but all talks failed.
In the 2008 NATO Summit held in Bucharest, Romania from 02-04 April, Ukraine and Georgia expressed interest to join NATO and Russia, the biggest country that was formed after collapse of USSR realised the danger that was closing in to its borders.
In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia and in the 16-day war that lasted from August 01-16, 2008, Russia emerged victorious and a pro-Kremlin government was installed in Georgia and the issue of Georgia wanting to join NATO went on a back-burner.
Witnessing the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko who was in power from 2005-2010, too put on hold its decision to join NATO.
Internal Unrest in Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovych, who became Ukraine’s fourth President in 2010 and had pro-Kremlin leanings was not inclined for the NATO membership. Since he hailed from the Donetsk region of Ukraine having been its Governor and majority of the Donbas region in which Donetsk falls speaking Russian language, in 2012 he enacted the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko Law which made Russian as an official language of Ukraine.
Further, under Russian pressure Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from signing an association agreement with the European Union which was in an advanced stage of negotiations and instead accepted a Russian trade deal and loan bailout in November 2013.
This decision resulted in mass protests across Ukraine and with the civil unrest peaking in February 2014 in which more than 100 people died, the Ukraine Parliament impeached Viktor Yanukovych on February 22, 2014.
The very next day, the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko Law was repealed on February 23, 2014. The same day massive unrest started in Donbas, Odessa and Mariupol and mass defections started happening in the Ukrainian Armed Forces over the language issue.
Grabbing the perfect opportunity that the internal unrest created in Ukraine, Russia invaded Crimea on February 27, 2014which it had been eyeing for long as it overlooked the important sea-route from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea passing though the Bosporus Strait, Dardanelles Strait in the Sea of Marmara to the Mediterranean Sea and finally linking to the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
As the war in Crimea raged on between the Russian & Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russian Navy destroyed three-fourth of the Ukrainian Navy and more than half of the Ukrainian Navy officers defected to Russia.
With the Ukrainian Navy crippled in the Crimean Peninsula, the war in Crimea did not last long and on March 16, 2016, Russia declared its victory in Crimea. On March 18, 2014, Crimea was incorporated as a part of Russia, consequent to a referendum held a couple of days earlier.
Meanwhile, the unrest in Donbas recommenced on April 12, 2014 and the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive codenamed “Joint Forces Operation” for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Heavy fighting ensued between Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Donbas separatists completely supported by Russia.
Buildup to the 2022 Russia-Ukraine War
The first invasion in Europe after the World War II was the invasion of Georgia by Russia from August 01-16, 2008 which resulted in victory of Russia and the installation of a pro-Kremlin government in its capital, Tbilisi. Six years later, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
The Russians were now confident of their military might and the weakening of the US-led NATO and the division, hesitancy and poor leadership in the European Union. On November 07, 2019, the French President Emmanuel Macron had described NATO as “brain-dead”. Clearly, all stars now aligned to Russia’s geopolitical and military advantage in Europe.
As Donbas started witnessing heavy fighting after Crimea was annexed, President Putin assessed that eventually Donbas will fall on its own to the Russians and thus for the next about seven years till February 2021, there were no plans of Russia to launch a full-fledged war on Ukraine.
However, in February 2021, the National Security Council of Ukraine banned three television channels which were owned by Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch with strong pro-Kremlin leanings. Now, television is the strongest medium to indoctrinate views and shift leanings. This act of Ukraine enraged Putin who saw it as a strong rebuttal to his long-term plans of Donbas ceding on its own from Ukraine to Russia.
Two months later, Putin and Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu went on a vacation to a secluded resort in Serbia. It was here that the plan for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was hatched. As a signal of divine blessings, Putin and Shoigu at the end of their vacation in Serbia went to meet a famed Serbian priest who lived in near vicinity and the duo were blessed by him and the priest gave the date of the invasion as February 22, 2022!
On return from the vacation in Serbia, Putin wrote a 5000-word article titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians & Ukrainians” which was uploaded on the Presidential website of Kremlin on June 12, 2021. This article has become a mandatory reading in all Russian military academies since then.
The preparation for Russia war on Ukraine began in right earnest.
While the US intelligence was sure of a large-scale invasion next year by Russia in early-2022, President Zelenskyy dismissed the idea of Russia attacking Ukraine. Thus, the subtle message to the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian citizens was that Russia would never attack Ukraine.
Hence, life in Ukraine went on normal though the war clouds were darkening and the American intelligence repeatedly warning Zelenskyy of the impending war.
Russia, meanwhile was planning a three-pronged attack on Ukraine.
And on February 24, 2022 at 4.30 am early in morning, well before the sun could rise in Ukraine, Russia had invaded Ukraine from the northern, southern and the south-eastern fronts from Belarus, Crimea and the Donbas respectively.
It was not that the Russian offensive went on smoothly. There were serious flaws in the Russian military operations which have been discussed by the Author in an article published earlier.
However, as on date Russia controls 18.2% of the Ukrainian territory which includes a successful land-corridor from the Donbas region to Crimea, while Ukraine controls about 1200 square kilometres of the Russian territory, primarily in the Kursk region.
On the day Russia waged the war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the Russians controlled one-third of the Donbas region apart from the whole of Crimea, annexed eight years earlier.
Though today marks three years of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, the Ukrainians had already lost a large chunk of their land to the Russians before the war had begun on February 24, 2022.
Way ahead for the War
Whatever little hopes Zelenskyy had pinned on the US President Donald Trump for continued aid and assistance to Ukraine in its war against Russia were dashed on January 29, 2025 when the US President suspended all aid globally, except to Israel and Egypt.
And the final American nail on the coffin of Ukraine’s war efforts, came on February 12, 2025, when Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence in Brussels, rejected Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership and called the return to the pre-2014 borders in Ukraine as unrealistic.
Had the Ukrainian President studied international relations and geopolitics, he would have understood that in the past one decade the USA has never sent its military soldiers to any of its ally, whenever war has besieged them.
President Zelenskyy created conditions for Russia to wage a war on his country, which in simplistic terms can be described as fool-hardy. With over 100,000 Ukrainians killed and much of Ukraine reduced to dust and large swathes of land lost to the Russians, Ukraine stands at the same crossroads which it did a decade earlier, with no NATO membership on the horizon.
And to add wounds to Ukraine’s injury, on February 18, 2025, the global media reported of a “privileged and confidential” document of February 07, 2025 that the USA had offered US$ 500 billion to the war-torn Ukraine to take full control of Ukraine’s natural resources including rare earth minerals, oil and gas, ports and infrastructure with a warning that if Ukraine rejects this deal, then it would be handed over to Russia “on a plate”. This deal amounted to a higher share of the Ukrainian GDP than Germany’s First World War reparations and much harsher than the conditions imposed on both Germany and Japan after their defeat in World War II in 1945.
And on the same day the US offer to Ukraine leaked, senior US and Russian officials met for the first time since the outbreak of the war to discuss the end to this war. The American delegation was led by Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and the Russian team was led by Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister. The meeting in Riyadh ended on a positive note of ending the war, both for the USA and Russia. But with Ukraine left out of the meeting, for sure dark and gloomy days will continue for Ukraine even after the war ends.
The words of the former National Security Advisor of USA, Henry Kissinger “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal” would be ringing loudly in President Zelenskyy’s ears as he finds himself standing lonely on a steep precipice looking at the death and destruction in Ukraine including territorial loss due to his own grave blunder of having blind-faith in the American assistance resulting in the imminent Russian victory in near distance, and the mortgaging of Ukraine to USA lurking in the far distance.
International North South Transport Corridor: source Internet
It’s an international corridor for transport from north to south, the corridor that stretches 7200 kilometers multimodal trade routes between India and Russia, connecting to Europe through Iran to Azerbaijan and Central Asia. This corridor was initiated by an agreement in between India, Russia, and Iran in 2000, and has already opened to the full participation of several other members, thus, it has proven out to be increasing in its significance on regional and global trade. Unlike the maritime route, which traversed through the Suez Canal, this offered a shortening and effective alternative route for freight transportation by rail, road, and water transport-the INSTC route.
Geopolitically and economically, the present Eurasia is the outcome of hundreds of years of trade, connection, and strategic competitions. As for geopolitical attributes, Central Asia has been the major historical scene, crossing places between Europe and Asia with rivalries among great powers because of where exchanges occur. In the modern context, owing to the natural resources embedded in Central Asia and the opportunity for connecting this region with the rest of the world, the vast majority of existing world powers such as China, Russia, and the United States have been queuing for possible positions or footholds to gain influence. India too has historical economic and geopolitical relations with Central Asia, which date back to the Silk Route era, when trade routes linked what is now Northern India with Persia, Central Asia, and possibly points further afield.
Today, the engagement for India in Central Asia is bound to be affected by geographical and political barriers as the region is landlocked and lies outside direct access from India to Central Asia through territory of Pakistan. It understands well the strategic necessity for alternative connectivity routes and thus has put its efforts in his direction in aims such as the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) for broadening India’s economic footprint and strategic interests in the region. As a comprehensive, multimodal transport corridor between India and Russia and Europe through Iran and Central Asia, the INSTC has integrated itself fast into Indian regional strategy.
Connectivity, in its essence, is an inevitable pillar of regional cooperation and integration. The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), to be based on a multi-modal transport system, is extremely important in linking India, Central Asia, Russia, and beyond. Enabled initially by an agreement in 2001 among India, Russia and Iran, the corridor has slowly developed to become an increasingly strategic reason for several other countries to join in.
In fact, it brings India close to a very promising alternative route to Central Asia, besides avoiding travel by Pakistan. The corridor joins India’s Mumbai and Kandla, with Bandar Abbas and Chabahar in Iran, connecting for almost all types of trade flows-surface, rail, and seas. Later-on, the goods from Iran are transported by sea, to the Caspian Sea to Russia and to Europe. This explains cost and time spent on it, which has decreased by around 50% or more than the previous route through the Suez Canal.
The INSTC may be the biggest enabling factor for expanding trade and economic linkages for India with Central Asia. Indian traders had traditionally used these land routes to trade in commodities; however, with newer geopolitical realities, they need to think of alternatives. Corridor means for carrying Indian goods from pharma, textiles, and machinery to the Central Asian market. On the other hand, for India, it still needs hydrocarbons that are present in large quantities in Central Asia, primarily oil and natural gas. The corridor thus promises to make for more regional efficiency and attractiveness with the addition of new partners like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey.
Apart from the economic benefits, the INSTC is also strategically relevant to India’s foreign policy toward Central Asia. By increasing economic dependence on this part of the region, India may counteract a significant thrust of the Eurasian influence wielded by China because of the BRI. Also, the promotion of INSTC’s own part, namely Chabahar port, will ensure a connect for India’s connectivity into Afghanistan, thus ensuring less reliance on transit routes through Pakistan.
India’s Export Potential in INSTC Member Countries
According to 30 to 40% of average reduction in transit time and cost savings of about 30%, the INSTC now brings a national opportunity for India to expand its exports with eligible countries like Russia, Central Asia, Iran, and other member countries. The Indo-Russian trade is already exceeding US$ 50 billion and is expected to increase more with the needed acceleration provided by INSTC in the commercial exchanges in sectors where India has a competitive advantage in 2023.
Pharmaceutical products and healthcare commodities form among the most important exports. In 2022/23, pharmaceutical exports from India to Russia included only slightly less than that of $591 million. The increasing demand for affordable generics and medical devices found in Central Asia and Iran thus makes it very possible for the INSTC to act as a significant channel for India’s medical industry.
The engineering and machinery sector, which exported US$ 2.4 billion worth of goods to Russia in 2023, would benefit equally. Faster and more reliable logistics would enable the smooth functioning of the supply chain for automobile components, electrical equipment, and heavy machinery. Another sector with vast potential for export opportunities is IT and digital services, with the demand from Russia and Central Asian countries for Indian software solutions, fintech, and cybersecurity continued to grow.
India is already exporting US$ 567 million worth of tea, coffee, and spices to Russia and US$ 330 million of basmati rice to Iran for agricultural and food processing. The INSTC can increase agricultural exports by reducing spoilage and transit time hence strengthening India’s position as a key food supplier. In the textiles and apparel sector, another major sector, exports were pegged at USD 548 million to Russia and USD 204 million to Iran in 2022, while the corridor can serve to strengthen India’s competitiveness in these markets.
Challenges in the Operationalization of INSTC
The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which holds much strategic promise, has a number of barriers toward its uninterrupted realization. Infrastructure is one significant constraint, especially when it comes to the railway and road infrastructure in Central Asia as well as in the Caucasus. Somewhat well developed, although inefficient because of the delay of connectivity into the rail networks and between these with the transshipment facilities, are the transport networks across Iran, Russia, and India. Moreover, the Bandar Abbas and Chabahar ports in Iran need further expansion to catalyze heavier trade volumes.
Customs and regulatory issues are additional problems posed to trade flow. The varying tariff structures, complex customs procedures, and different documentation are lengthy bureaucratic delays in trade facilitation. In this, the absence of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) works against competitiveness for India in these markets.
Financial issues with sanctions mainly on Iran and Russia create challenges to trade. Limited direct banking channels; alternative payment systems; and currency fluctuations, all contribute to the perceived risk to businesses.
A further impediment presents itself in the exotic realm of risks-the challenge posed by geopolitical factors. US-Iran tensions and sporadic conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia have created uncertainties along major transit routes. At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine war threatens other INSTC routes. In this context, China, with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is constructing competing trade routes such as the Middle Corridor, thus siphoning off traffic from INSTC.
To tackle the situation the countries on the INSTC will have to work towards improving infrastructural development, regulatory harmonization, and advanced financial management. The active participation of India in enhancing logistics and trade facilitation will be helpful for realizing the entire potential of the corridor.
Conclusion
The multi-spherical International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is indeed a commendable advancement in global trade, providing India with an important link connecting Russia with Central Asia and Europe. Development of the corridor is a way of bypassing Pakistan and minimizing the utility of the Suez Canal. Consequently, not only can this reinforce India’s economic outreach, but also add to its geopolitical clout in Eurasia. Depending on how the INSTC program attempts to overcome obstacles arising from infrastructural constraints, financial bottlenecks, and regulatory complications, the project could totally reshape regional trade structures with the kind of fastness and cost-effectiveness which is otherwise not available via existing routes.
Export sectors such as pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, agriculture, and textiles will vary with potential benefits, courtesy of improved access to member states of INSTC. However, the total benefit realization via the corridor will need an integrated approach to put in place appropriate infrastructure, rule-based trade regulations, and financial arrangements. Agreement on such solutions would be necessary through regional cooperation, investments, and coordinated policy effort.
Global economic and geopolitical changes reshaping Eurasian connectivity today would render INSTC an important strategic asset for India, furthering India’s outreach as a major player in the region. By tackling operational impediments and improving trade facilitation, India can guarantee that INSTC develops into a fully functional, resilient, and competitive corridor propelling deeper economic integration and long-term regional stability.
Recently, the United States President Donald Trump wants to ramp up weapon sales to India especially the F-35 Jets. Trump wants to sell these fighter jets to India they’re made by US defense major lockhead Martin’s F35, is a fifth-generation jet something which India needs. Now, New Delhi is spoiled for choice here because the Russians have also thrown their hat in the ring. Russia makes the Sukhoi Su-57 jet it has offered to make it in India for the Indian Air Force.
From February 10-15th, 2025, week both Jets were showcased at Air India Show 2025 and this has never happened before anywhere in the world, the F35 and the s57 at the same event. so New Delhi has a choice to make the offensive F35 or the defensive s57 which one is better? Who will give us a sweeter deal and which jet is more suited to India’s needs?
The Russian Su-57 felon and Lockheed Martin’s F35 lightning both are advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft made by rival countries participated in the same space which India’s defense Ministry has described as historic and this moment comes at a crucial time when India is seeking to bridge its fifth-generation fighter gap. It may not be long before that happens during his high-profile meeting with prime minister Narendra Modi US president Donald Trump has extended an offer to India to purchase the F35.
Trump plans to ramp up weapon sales to India this year and this includes the US made F-35 Jets if the deal comes through India would join a small club of nations including Israel Japan and NATO states which are allowed to buy these aircraft from the US but Washington is not alone in wanting India to buy its fifth gen fighter jets so is Russia while India is a long-standing customer of the US defense industry its top supplier has historically been Russia.
New Delhi depends on Moscow for nearly 60% of its defense equipment the war in Ukraine has added doubts about future supplies but Moscow is looking to boost its defense ties with New Delhi a few days ago Russia offered to make its Su-57 in India for the Indian Air Force.
Which fifth generation Fighters is better suited for India?
The F-35 is a single engine stealth multi-roll fighter aircraft while, the Su-57 is a twin engine stealth multi-roll fighter aircraft. the F35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6 the Su 57 has a top speed of Mach 2. Both the Jets are designed to perform a variety of missions including air-to-air combat and air to ground strikes.
The F35 has a combat range of about 1,500 km while the Su 57 has a combat range of about 1,900 km but when it comes to stealth the F35 has more advanced capabilities it’s equipped with sophisticated avionics and sensor systems simply put the F35 has offensive strengths while the s57 is defensive now.
India would need to look beyond just the capabilities or the cost, all the S-57s have been produced in smaller numbers they haven’t actively participated in combat operations meanwhile, the F-35 is part of many Air Forces more than a thousand aircraft are in active service. the jet is combat proven plus India is also focusing on developing its own fifth generation Fighter (the AMCA) aircraft a single seat twin engine fifth generation stealth multi-roll combat aircraft which has become a focus.
Is India ready for air supremacy?
On Februrary 6, 2025 (Thursday), an Indian Air Force mirage-2000 fighter plane jet crashed in Madhya Pradesh, while the pilots ejected safely in time and escaped with minor injuries but what led to this crash?
The Air Force says a systems malfunction they have ordered an investigation into the crash. We know that mirages are part of an aging Indian Fleet they were manufactured by French company Dassault aviation. India bought 24 retired mirages from France not to fly them but to use them for spare parts and we are considering similar deals with Greece and Qatar. the hope is to somehow extend the lifespan of the mirages the goal was to retire them by 2030 but now they’re expected to fly into the 2040s and why is that?
The major reason is replacements which are not ready as IAF are already phasing out old Soviet Jets so they cannot retire the mirage yet the numbers won’t allow it. IAF has a sanctioned Squadron strength of 42 but only 29.5 up and running and each Squadron has around 18 fighter jets. that’s one big challenge for India’s Air Force to expand our Fleet of jets even the IAF Chief flagged it recently he lamented the delay in India’s homegrown fighter jet program. So, quantity is one problem but so is quality.
On the other side, China already has a fifth-generation fighter jet recently they debuted a sixth-generation jet as well, a futuristic stealth plane. India’s other rival, Pakistan is expanding its fleet. Reports say they will buy fifth gen planes from China.
From Stealth to Nuts & Bolts: F-35 Lighting vs Su-57 Felon
Both of these two aircrafts were designed with very different goals in mind shaped by different economic and military priorities. In reality the Su 57 works best for Russia while the F35 is more aligned with US defense needs.
The US has a defense strategy based on offensive operations, basically striking first and doing it at long range Russia on the other hand focuses more on defensive strategies mainly because of its vast borders and the need to protect its own territory from numerous adversaries.
The Su-57 is built for short range air defense and intercepting intruders in contested airspace especially near Russia’s borders it’s designed to stop enemy fighters and air strikes from breaching Russian defenses on the flip side the F35 is all about penetrating heavily defended airspace targeting enemy air defense systems and striking from long distances think of the F-35 as the US’s offensive tool while the s57 serves as Russia’s defense Shield
Who’s got the better height?
In terms of stealth both planes are stealthy but they handle it differently, the F35 as ultra-low radar cross-section of just 0.15sm making it nearly invisible to the radar it’s got all aspect stealth meaning no matter where a radar is positioned be it front-back or side it’s tough to spot. The su-57 do stealthy has a larger RCS between 0.1 and 0.5 squ/Mtr. it shines when flying head from the front it can sneak up an enemy including the F35 but if it flies into contested airspace from any other angle it’s easier to detect so the F35 has the edge in staying hidden in a wider range of situations
The Su-57s radar Suite is pretty impressive it’s got five Radars including three x-band ASR Radars and two l-band Radars.
The L-band Radars are particularly effective against stealth Fighters like F35 which are optimized to dodge x-band Radars but combining all of its radar systems the s57 can track an F35 from such farther away than one radar alone could that said the F35 isn’t entirely defenseless. it’s designed to disrupt and neutralize enemy air defenses so it could likely penetrate Russia’s multi-defense systems but if the Su-57 is in the mix, it might have better chance of intercepting an F35 in Russia’s airspace
The F35 is made for offense it can get deep into contested airspace undetected locate and identify enemy targets and pass that information to other Fighters it also has limited ground attack capabilities though it’s not as focused on that as it is on striking targets from distance
the s57 on the other hand was designed more for defensive roles it can intercept incoming threats like the F-35 and engage ground Targets in Friendly airspace but lately Russia has been upgrade trading the s57 with long range stealthy missiles giving it a bit of offensive capability as well however the F35 still holds the advantage.
So, who will win the race?
At the end it all boils down to what the IAF values more if they need more cost-effective solution, that can defend the skies and take on offensive operations from inside their own airspace the Su 57 might be the better-fit. but if India leans towards offensive capabilities the ability to strike first and the political alignment with the United States, the F35 could be worth the investment, either way it’s a tough choice each fighter brings something important to the table.
Special thanks to Jai Verma for guiding me throughout the research. His domain knowledge and technical expertise in defence technologies played crucial part in enriching the write-up.
Sri Lanka’s politico-economic trajectory has been unique and also a basket case of governance failure and (near) state collapse. In its history, it has been forced to seek IMF assistance 16 times since 1965- marking a chequered history of civil war, political assassinations, terrorism, economic challenges and constitutional crisis. The latest downturn came with COVID-19 headwinds. Factitious social relations between ethnically dominant Sinhalas and Tamil Hindus, Muslims and Christians, along with regional divide, are all well-known constituents of this postcolonial littoral Asian state. The deadly mix of social disunity, economic mishandling and political cronyism produced the latest upheaval. However, within this tale of multiple governance mistakes, there is also a jubilant reassertion of people’s aspirations and tenacity of Sri Lankan identity after the watershed 2024 elections.
The recent presidential and parliamentary elections delivered a clear break from the past by ushering in the National People’s Power (NPP) government in parliament. For the first time in Sri Lankan history, second-round ballots were counted in Presidential elections – installing the underdog Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD). The 2022 sovereign default of over US$ 50 billion was a landmark moment in Sri Lankan political and economic history, culminating in widespread structural economic woes like hyperinflation, non-availability of essentials, rapidly diminishing foreign reserves and mounting government deficits. There had been ample warning signs. Sri Lankan debt to GDP ratio rose to 115.5% in 2022 on the eve of economic collapse. Curiously, the steadily increasing Foreign Direct Investment from 2020-22, matched by a healthy inflation rate of 4.6% in 2020, rapidly metamorphosed into an economic calamity, charting a rise to 69% in 2022.
Significant trends in the elections
While the ‘Aragalaya’ movement and Gota Go Gama street protests forced President Gotabaya and Mahinda Rajapaksa out of power, India took steps to mitigate the humanitarian suffering by offering US$ 4 billion in aid, currency swaps, loan deferrals, and supply of essentials. China initially hesitated to take interest cuts on Sri Lankan loans only agreed to restructure debts after the Official Creditors Committee (of which India is a part) restructured Sri Lankan debts. While the US$ 2.9 billion loan from the IMF stabilised the economic shock, its political spillover was all but certain. Career politicians and elite parties were voted out, with the anti-systemic, pro-poor coalition NPP sweeping both presidential and parliamentary votes. India was quick to gauge the turning wheels (unlike Bangladesh) and had invited AKD months before the elections for a tete-e-tete.
As Rajapaksas fled after the economic meltdown, Ranil Wickremesinghe and his team of senior economists negotiated with the IMF and steered the path in a highly volatile situation. He had the tough task of reining in inflation and pacifying the rising public anger at the generations of political and economic incompetence. The belle of the ball – the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party of AKD has its roots in the militant leftist movement of the 1970s with a history of opposing regional autonomy for Tamils. It and 21 other political parties inaugurated the NPP coalition in 2019. AKD won only 3.16% of the votes in the presidential elections that year, while JVP bagged only three parliamentary seats. With catapulting socio-economic conditions, its fortunes, too, have somersaulted. As it cut back on Marxist-Leninist rhetoric and rebranded itself as a pro-people progressive force in Sri Lankan politics, NPP has taken the road to political power by fielding professionals, artists, and activists against entrenched dynasts (Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya has been a university professor).
The Tamil common candidate failed to garner a majority vote in the region. Despite JVP’s opposition to devolution under the 13th amendment, AKD managed to secure second highest votes in some districts in the East, with Sajith Premdasa (opposition leader) bagging higher overall support. Further, election campaigning this season was devoid of ethnic and religious polarisation, a pleasant evolution from the low of the 2019 Easter attacks. NPP has consolidated a broad support base of governance-centrism while eschewing sectarian and communal angles. Plummeted vote shares of Namal Rajapaksa, SLPP candidate and Ranil Wickremesinghe (seen complicit in corruption and misgovernance) reflect people’s frustrations with traditional political scions.
The consultative practices followed by NPP in discussions with the electorate, IMF, and foreign countries and proposing a pragmatic 128-page manifesto area marks a fresh start from the oligopolistic and closed-door dealings of Rajapaksas. With several failing regimes in South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar) – Sri Lanka could have been added to this list. Still, it is to the credibility of a responsive domestic political system that acknowledged people’s anger and effectuated a change of guard. Post-election, AKD has already measured down on some of his demands to temper down harsh austerity measures of the IMF. But now he has to navigate promised tax cuts, increased welfare spending, and economic recovery. However, a stable and inclusive political environment is currently a ray of light for the island nation.
Messages for stakeholders
23.7% of Sri Lankan import comes from China (the largest partner), with India a close second with a 22.1% share. Significant foreign aid is tied to structural reforms for opening up and liberalising key sectors and may face resistance from traditional constituents. For example, Sri Lankan fishermen face stiff competition from mechanised Indian trawlers. Investors would do well to involve local communities in sustainable endeavours. NPP has promised to review controversial foreign projects but must also evaluate their revenue-generating potential. In view of the controversy, Adani Group quit its proposed Mannar and Pooneryn wind energy projects where the tariff, according to AKD, had been excessively priced at 8.26 cents or US$ 0.0826. A resilient economy with diversification beyond tourism and export of primary commodities (which, along with remittances, had dwindled in the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the economy’s free fall) is the need of the hour. High tax rates and labour market issues led to the collapse of the MSME sector – its revival is critical to Lankan recovery. According to the World Bank, labour force participation continues to fall from 49.9% in the first quarter of 2023 to 47.1 % in the first quarter of 2024.
Foreign intervention was a major electoral issue, with AKD promising a balancing act between India and China. While India is funding capex like energy, connectivity, and housing projects, China is pursuing a ‘slow swallowing strategy’ with predatory foreign aid (Hambantota project and cucumber farms in Jaffna). High-interest commercial loans continue to expose Sri Lanka to external vulnerabilities and pose significant long-term credit risk. IMF’s $3 billion bailout hinges on the pruning of unsustainable debt-to-GDP ratio and policy predictability (avoiding ad hoc arbitrary straightjacket measures like introducing organic farming in one fell swoop). NPP has a golden chance to correct the social strife and disenfranchisement bred by majoritarianism and economic mismanagement and reclaim Sri Lankan autonomy in foreign dealings.
Lingering aftershocks remain, with 23.7% of households being food insecure and 26% consuming an insufficiently nutritious diet in 2023. The main pain point of net zero foreign currency reserves has been tentatively resolved with a 7.3 % appreciation of Sri Lankan Rupee between January and August 2024 and an official reserve of US$ 6.1 billion by the 2024 end. The reform measures for macroeconomic stability entailing prudential pruning methods such as tweaks in monetary policy, internal debt restructuring, market-sensitive utility pricing, and rational revenue measures have ushered in some semblance of stability and hope. Still, the sustainability and deep-rootedness of revival are questionable as much of these buds of recovery are due to inflows from partner states, increased tourism receipts and remittances. Tell-tale signs like as contraction of real wages by 16.9 and 22% between 2021 and 2024,
FDI has increased post-elections, with Japan, China, and India announcing new projects and resumption of suspended ones. After stabilisation, foreign tourist arrivals have increased by 38% from 2023, along with a rebound in remittances. However, many of its skilled professionals have been leaving the homeland – with 3,00,000 individuals migrating in 2024 alone. This brain drain can be converted from a short-term challenge to a long-term ‘brain circulation’ of rebranding the island economy as a service exporter and smoothing out the long-term economic prospects for prospective returnees. Sri Lanka has tasted ice and fire from rapacious foreign investment proposals (leasing Hambantota Port to China for 99 years) and heavy dependence on commodity exports. The contradiction in ‘comfortable’ per capita incomes (US$ 3342 in 2022 – at the height of slowdown compared to roughly US$ 2352 in India) despite being a low-income country was brought forth in this recent economic crisis. Repeated bouts of political and social turbidity further compound the structural weaknesses of the Sri Lankan economy. Coupled with the disastrous 2019-22 “homegrown solutions” or domestic economic experiments. Learning its lessons, a Financial Stability Fund was operationalised, with a Public Debt Management Office (PDMO) to be unveiled by 2025 end.
Cue for a resurgent Sri Lanka
Green shoots have been recorded, such as a low unemployment rate of 4.7% (2023) coupled with a current account surplus, increasing growth, rising remittances from abroad, and disinflation after 6 successive quarters of negative growth in 2023. The new Sri Lankan government is prioritising inclusive growth by putting women at the centre stage for economic growth (they constitute 56% of the Sri Lankan electorate). Still, it has far to go with only two women cabinet ministers in a 21-member strong cabinet. According to the Sri Lankan Central Bank’s ‘Policy Agenda for 2025’ and beyond, the tentative recovery is premised on an accommodative stance and low inflation stimulating economic activity. By bypassing crowding out of investment, the private sector could secure a much larger share of funds in 2024. To strengthen the banking sector’s resilience, Bank Recapitalisation Strategy for nine public sector banks was prepared. The dominance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) or public sector units (PSUs) is a distinctive feature of the Sri Lankan economy (much like its dominant position in India a few years ago). The government is reportedly considering restructuring, not disinvestment, to turn around the fortunes of these SOEs.
Presiding over a turnaround, the prospects of a democratic deepening and long-term economic reforms seem vivid. This has come as a relief coming after the colossal blunders in Rajapaksa’s reign. The continual decline of tax revenue from 1991 (compounded by a 30% cut in tax demand in the 2022 budget), substantial debt liability from Chinese and private investors’ loans and the final blow of COVID-19 sealed Sri Lanka’s fate. The government then not only failed in handling the pandemic and allaying the foreign investors’ concerns in its debt repayment capacity. The rate of interests of these loans then began to rise – much beyond the government’s capacity to refinance. Even then, the Rajapaksa government decided not to approach the debtors for restructuring constructively and took an overnight ad hoc decision of banning chemical fertiliser imports ostensibly to promote organic cultivation and reduce import bill.
It can reduce dependence on foreign aid by better capitalising on its strengths – marketing itself as a multicultural tourist experience and supporting micro businesses by wellness and hospitality agents. Further, the robust migration networks and garment-tea export can be tweaked to align with global supply chains. Inclusivity and participatory growth can do wonders for this island economy. A recent Sri Lankan parliamentary debate focused on women’s unpaid role in the care economy – a positive development to re-envision the economic contributions of vulnerable sections. A similar focus on other marginalised groups like Tamils and their concerns about labour (tea industry), fishing, and land rights would also be a welcome step. The government has already promised to return Tamilian lands occupied by the government during the deadly civil war. Keeping in pace with changing times, the AKD government ushered in the digital revolution by launching the ‘GovPay’ government digital payment platform and the ‘eBMD’ system for birth, marriage, and death certificates through embassies.
The 2025 budget presented by President Dissanayake has expressed hope for a 5% growth and rising exports of goods and services worth US$ 19 billion (2025). He reported the comfortable forex reserves of December 2024 to be US$ 6.1 billion. The Sri Lankan Rupee is also trailing with a decent exchange rate – LKR 300 worth US$ 1 or INR 88.17. However, he also recognised the high cost of living and the fall in real wages. The sharp increase in poverty has been noted since the 2022 crisis, reaching 25.9% in 2023. AKD has prepared a social welfare (Aswesuma) focused spending plan focused especially on health and education without compromising IMF confidentiality of capping welfarist spending at 0.6% of GDP. This made some point that half of government expenditure has been allocated only for debt payments.
It is clear from the recent toppling of ‘democratic’ South Asian regimes that people’s trust and sound financial management go hand in hand. Sheikh Hasina’s Bangladesh was touted as a poster boy of low-income economic growth while Sri Lanka was seen as a ‘basic needs’ success story – but this strength turned out to be paper tigers. By embodying significant diversity, regional differences and cycles of economic boom and bust, Sri Lanka has narrowly escaped falling into innumerable dreadful possibilities after the Rajapaksa’s mishandling, like a military coup and civil unrest culminating in state failure. Reforms like abolishing the executive presidency, abating institutional corruption, devolution of power through implementation of the 13th amendment, able monetary and fiscal policies, and ditching the focus on ‘bigger and better’ infrastructure projects (often financed with debilitating debt-creating foreign investments) can be the goals for Si Lankan resurgence.
As India’s aerospace public sector unit – Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) faced flak over the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk-1A’s delay owing to delayed engine supplies by the US engine manufacturer GE Aerospace, global engine giants could be seen displaying their cutting-edge propulsion systems at the Bangalore-based biennial airshow-Aero India.
When GE Aerospace was asked about their two-year delay in the 99 F404 IN20 engines which would power the Indian homegrown fighter LCA Tejas Mk-1A, they attributed the delay to the pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, component shortages, and logistical challenges.
For GE Aerospace, meeting the revised March 2025 deadline is crucial—not only to regain the confidence of Indian defence authorities but also to strengthen its strategic foothold in India’s defence market, as their other contract for the F414 engines to power the LCA Tejas Mk-2 and the indigenous fifth generation advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), also has its fate hanging in the balance. The F414 MoU (memorandum of understanding) was signed in June 2023. According to HAL CMD (Chairman and Managing Director) Dr DK Sunil, the F414 contract would have its first meeting at the end of this month in two phases, one of which is about transfer of technology (ToT), as HAL has demanded a 80 percent ToT and the second phase would be about price negotiations.
GE Aerospace Signs Contract with Indian Air Force for T700
GE Aerospace signed a five-year Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract with the Indian Air Force (IAF) to provide a comprehensive sustainment solution for the T700-GE-701D engines powering the IAF’s fleet of AH-64E-I Apache helicopters, at Aero India 2025.
Under this contract, GE Aerospace will be responsible for the Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) of the T700 engines as well as flight parts to ensure engine availability to the IAF. The PBL solution is designed to streamline engine sustainment operations, improve turnaround times, and enhance the availability and operational readiness of the Apache fleet.
“We are honored to continue our partnership with the IAF through this PBL contract, which underscores our commitment to deliver reliable and innovative sustainment solutions for critical defence platforms,” said Youngje Kim, Vice President and General Manager, Asia Pacific, Defence Systems for GE Aerospace. “This agreement demonstrates GE Aerospace’s focus on supporting the IAF’s operational needs and mission readiness by ensuring the T700 engines are maintained at the highest level of performance.”
The T700/CT7 family of turboshaft and turboprop engines powers 15 types of military and civilian helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft with more than 130 customers in over 50 countries.
More than 25,000 T700/CT7 engines have been delivered and approximately 130 million total flight hours accumulated. The T700/CT7 design has proven itself in the harshest environments, logging millions of flight hours in hot-harsh combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.
United Engine Corporation showcases state-of-the-art Russian aircraft and helicopter engines at Aero India
The Russian United Engine Corporation (UEC), a subsidiary of the Rostec State Corporation showcased its latest advancements in aero engine technology at the Aero India airshow. The company highlighted the fifth generation 177S engine, designed for use in fighter aircraft, and the newly developed VK-650V engine, intended for light helicopters. For the first time at Aero India, UEC displayed the VK-650V turboshaft engine, which has received the Type Certificate in Russia and is ready for series production. The engine is designed to power Russian helicopters such as the Ansat and Ka-226T. Its design also allows it to be used on other helicopters and potential future airborne platforms.
A full-scale mock-up of the latest 177S fighter engine was on display at the UEC stand. The innovative design solutions implemented in this new engine ensure a significant increase in thrust while maintaining the same dimensions as the base AL-31FP engine currently in service in India on the Su-30MKI aircraft, which is manufactured locally at HAL Corporation. The 177S engine has a service life of 6,000 hours, with the potential to increase thrust if service life requirements are reduced. The 177S engine features reduced fuel consumption in all operating modes, resulting in lower operating costs.
“UEC, as part of the Rostec State Corporation, is expanding its range of aviation engines for modern aircraft and helicopters, creating new powerplants to meet customer requirements. The 177S engine is classified as a fifth-generation engine and can be installed on both previous and new-generation aircraft without any design modifications. The new VK-650V turboshaft engine can be used on both Russian and foreign light helicopters. We have already received the type certificate confirming that the engine is ready for serial production,” said Mikhail Remizov, UEC Deputy General Director for Strategy, Program-Project Management and Organisational Development.
UEC also presented the AL-55E engine for trainer aircraft. It has been specially developed by UEC for the Indian HJT-36 trainer. This engine has several advantages, in particular its modular design, which simplifies maintenance and repair and reduces operational costs.
The Joint Stock Company UEC (part of the Rostec State Corporation) is the only company in Russia specialising in the development, serial production, and service of engines for aviation, space programs, the oil and gas industry, and energy sectors. Rostec State Corporation is the largest machine-building company in Russia, bringing together over 800 scientific and production organisations across 60 regions of the country. It plays a key role in supplying armaments and military equipment as part of the state defence order.
Collins Initiative 2025: source Author
Safran selects TEAL for the production of LEAP engine turbine parts in India
At Aero India 2025, Safran Aircraft Engines, a world-leading French engine manufacturer specialising in the design, development and production of aircraft engines, and the Bangalore-based Titan Engineering and Automation Limited (TEAL), signed a contract for the production of parts for the LEAP engine’s low-pressure turbine.
This first partnership between the two companies leverages TEAL’s technological expertise and will enhance production capabilities for the LEAP in India. Production of the first parts will start in 2026.
This contract is part of the “Make in India” policy promoted by the Indian government to support the country’s aerospace growth. In this context, Safran Aircraft Engines is developing a complete industrial ecosystem in India, backed by major Indian partners to support the ramp-up of LEAP production, as well as the M88 engine powering the Rafale.
“We are proud to collaborate with Safran Aircraft Engines on this strategic project. This partnership reflects our expertise in the production of complex parts, and strengthens our position as a key player in the aerospace supply chain,” says Sridhar Neelakantan, CEO of TEAL, adding, “We look forward to applying our know-how to the production of the LEAP engine, and to contributing to its expansion in India.”
“We are delighted by this new partnership with TEAL, which marks an important step in our development in India and the setting up of local supply chains,” adds Dominique Dupuy, Purchasing VP at Safran Aircraft Engines, adding, “We look forward to working closely with TEAL, a major partner of our supply-chain in India.”
Safran Aircraft Engines is thus strengthening its footprint in India, a key market where the company already has five production sites in Hyderabad, Bangalore and Goa. A sixth site, dedicated to LEAP engine maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) activities, will open in Hyderabad in 2025. India is CFM’s third largest market in terms of the number of engines in service, with 75 percent of the Indian commercial fleet equipped with CFM engines. Today, of the 500 aircraft operated by seven Indian airlines with CFM engines, over 370 are LEAP-powered, and over 2,000 engines are on order are for Indian airlines.
In addition to the announcement of its partnership with TEAL, Safran Electronics & Defence also announced the expansion of its activities in India with the opening of a new production site for electronic cards and aeronautics and defence calculators in Bengaluru, as well as a new research and development (R&D) center in electronics.
These sites will contribute to the international expansion and exports from India of Safran Electronics & Defence in the fields of defence, space, and avionics. They will reinforce the strong ties between Safran Electronics & Defence and its Indian customers and partners by simplifying industrial schemes, especially to accelerate the availability of critical equipment.
“This double investment, a significant step in the development of Safran Electronics & Defence’s industrial and R&D activities in India, aims to enhance the competitiveness and local integration of industrial and technological activities. This project, which aligns with the government’s Make in India program, demonstrates Safran’s commitment to leveraging the skills and talents of the Indian industry while actively contributing to the industrial growth of the country,” reiterated Franck Saudo, CEO of Safran Electronics & Defence.
In Historic Partnership BEL IAI Aerosystems begin operations to support India’s Defence Forces
Heralding a new chapter in Indo-Israeli defence and security cooperation, a landmark joint venture between Navratna Defence PSU Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announced the commencement of its operations at Aero India 2025.
The JV is a significant step towards strengthening international collaboration, paving the way for a robust strategic partnership envisaged to provide a single point of contact for extending long-term product support services for India’s defence Forces.
Incorporated on September 25, 2024, BIA is uniquely positioned as the exclusive support entity for post-warranty maintenance of India’s defence systems. This initiative leverages manufacturing capabilities and technological innovations, fostering India’s self-reliance in sync with the ‘Make in India’ vision even while delivering world-class solutions.
Beyond post-warranty maintenance, this collaboration will also lead to the transfer of advanced technological capabilities to India, enabling the development of local expertise in critical defence systems. By establishing a dedicated support infrastructure, the JV will empower India to operate, maintain, and enhance its defence systems independently. The venture’s long-term impact extends to creating job opportunities, upskilling the local workforce, and contributing to the growth of India’s defence manufacturing ecosystem, reinforcing the nation’s position as a global defence player.
Boaz Levy, President and CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries, said: “This collaboration is a historic milestone as it marks the first-ever joint company established by leading defence firms of Israel and India. It reflects the robust and flourishing relationship between the two nations, and we are excited about the significant contributions this venture will bring to India’s defence capabilities. We extend our gratitude to the tri-services for their unwavering partnership.”
“The launch of BEL IAI Aerosystems ushers in a paradigm shift in providing seamless product and life cycle support for MRSAM/LRSAM systems supplied to the tri-services. The JVC reflects the strategic partnership between India and Israel and the commitment of BEL and IAI to jointly provide state-of-the-art weapon systems and life cycle support for the Indian Defence forces”, said Manoj Jain, CMD, BEL.
Collins Aerospace, an RTX (NYSE: RTX) business, announced the launch of its Powered by Collins Initiative™ 2025 edition at Aero India. The initiative invites deep tech small- to medium-sized enterprises to work with a leader in aerospace and defence through targeted collaboration opportunities which represent technologies critical to the industry’s future. This year’s opportunities bring focus to material informatics and quantum-enabled navigation.
Collaboration opportunities represent known needs for active aerospace and defence projects and programs, where collaboration through funded, rapid development demonstration programs can accelerate deployment of solutions for customers. Since its launch in 2023, the Powered by Collins Initiative has worked with companies focused on aerospace and defence as well as companies in adjacent industries.
In addition to this year’s collaboration opportunities, Collins has expanded the program with the launch of the Powered by Collins ecosystem on Switchpitch – an online startup relationship management platform that helps to connect startups with enterprises, investors and technology accelerators.
“Innovation and Collins’ technology development needs are constantly evolving, and the Powered by Collins Ecosystem serves as a complement to our existing collaboration network, enabling Collins business teams to engage potential solution providers throughout the year. We believe this will unlock even more dynamic collaboration and rapidly provide solutions to meet our customers’ needs,” said Mary Lombardo, Vice President, Advanced Technology for Collins.
Thales and Bharat Dynamics Ltd Agree on Initial Supply of Man Portable Air Defence systems to India
European defence giant Thales and India’s Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) will provide a first supply of Laser BeamRiding MANPAD (LBRM) Very Short Range Air Defence (VSHORAD) Missiles andlaunchers to the Indian Ministry of Defence. This is a major success, following on fromthe signing of the Partnership Agreement in 2021 between Thales and BDL to work onthe LBRM, with the support of the Indian and UK Governments.
This agreement will improve India’s air defence capabilities to enable them to enhance their national security with a highly accurate and countermeasure-resistant up-to-date technology.
LBRM, manufactured up to 60 percent in India, are short-range, man-portable, air-defence systems and optimised to provide defence against air threats, including fixed-wing fighter ground attack aircraft and unmasking attack helicopters, as well as drones.
This initial supply of High Velocity Missiles (STARStreak) and launchers will be delivered this year and represents the first time that India has received this latest VSHORAD capability. This step confirms the foundation of a long-term collaboration and manufacturing partnership between Thales and BDL. In the spirit of the ‘Make in India’ initiative, this partnership will serve the current and future requirements of the Indian armed forces.
Thales, together with BDL, is committed to the transfer of technology (ToT) of battle proven capabilities to India to equip the Indian armed forces.
This contract represents the first major agreement since the establishment of the India-UK Defence Partnership, a bespoke programme breaking down barriers to trade and offering government-to-government contracting where appropriate, further solidifying the defence and security relationship between the two nations. This contract also reflects Thales’ long-term partnership of 70 plus years with India, serving as a testimony to its continued growth.
BEL delivers 7,000th transmit/receive module to Thales for Rafale RBE2 Radar
In line with the Make in India policy, Navratna Defence PSU Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) has manufactured the 7,000th T/R (transmit/receive) module for the RBE2 radar on-board the Dassault Aviation Rafale, and delivered it to Thales.
Thales is demonstrating its commitment to the Make in India policy through transfers of technology and production. This transfer has been growing since it was initiated in 2017 and has expanded both in scope and quantities.
Thales is an active stakeholder in the Make in India policy of the Indian Government. In November 2020, the first RBE2 AESA (active electronic scanning array) radar with a front end manufactured by BEL in India was delivered by Thales to Dassault Aviation. Four years later, BEL announced that the 7,000th transmit/receive module has been produced and delivered to Thales.
This Thales-BEL cooperation has been expanded with the start-of-the production of advanced technological microwave modules dedicated to the Rafale SPECTRA EW (Electronic Warfare) suite. AESA RBE2
Specifically developed for Rafale, the RBE2 is the first in-service European AESA radar and has been combat proven on Rafale aircraft operated by the French Air Force and the French Navy. It was developed in close partnership with Dassault Aviation and the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) to meet the requirements of air forces, and uses innovative technologies to combine advanced fire control radar functions and target tracking capabilities. The T/R (transmit/receive) modules are key to the RBE2 radar’s active electronic scanning performance, enabling it to steer the radar beam with the speed of an electronic chip.
Building on Thales’s 50 plus years of expertise with earlier generations of radars for combat aircraft, the RBE2 gives the Rafale a number of key advantages. Compared to radars with conventional antennas, the RBE2 delivers an unprecedented level of tactical situational awareness, faster detection and tracking of multiple targets, and can also implement several radar modes instantaneously. Thales and Bharat Electronics Limited are long-standing partners with several technological collaborations to their credit. The manufacturing of T/R modules by BEL for Thales’s RBE2 radar is a key reference, and the recent delivery of the 7,000th T/R module, a remarkable milestone.
“This achievement not only reflects our collective commitment to; Make in India but also highlights the successful transfer of technology and production, with BEL meeting the highest international standards of industrial excellence. We will continue to develop cutting-edge technologies and strengthen local capabilities in India to further contribute to the Aatmanirbhar Bharat vision”, said Pascale Sourisse, President and CEO, Thales International.
“We are proud to have successfully delivered the 7000th T/R module for the RBE2 radar to Thales. This marks a significant step in our partnership with Thales and underscores our dedication to enhancing India’s defence capabilities. Through our close collaboration with Thales, we continue to implement world-class industrial practices and develop advanced technological expertise in line with the ‘Make in India’ initiative,” said Manoj Jain, Chairman & Managing Director, BEL.
