Is Bhutan Tilting Towards China?

By

-

May 18, 2025

By: Sofiqua Yesmin, Research Analyst, GSDN

Nestled in the eastern Himalayas, the Kingdom of Bhutan has long maintained a delicate balance between its two giant neighbors, India and China. Historically, Bhutan has cultivated a special relationship with India, rooted in the 1949 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which has shaped its foreign policy and ensured close strategic alignment with New Delhi. Bhutan’s lack of formal diplomatic relations with China, combined with its policy of avoiding ties with any permanent members of the UN Security Council, reflects its cautious approach to international engagement However, recent developments particularly Bhutan’s intensified border negotiations with China and Chinese infrastructure activities in disputed territories have sparked debates about whether Bhutan is tilting toward Beijing, potentially reshaping regional dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. This article explores Bhutan’s evolving relationship with China through recent examples, assesses the extent of any perceived tilt, and examines the implications for Bhutan, India, and the broader Indo-Pacific region, drawing on reliable sources such as academic analyses, think tank reports, and international media.

Bhutan’s Historical Stance and India’s Influence

Bhutan’s foreign policy has been shaped by its geographical position, sandwiched between India to the south and China’s Tibet Autonomous Region to the north. The 1949 treaty, updated in 2007, allows Bhutan greater autonomy in foreign affairs but maintains close coordination with India, particularly on security matters. India remains Bhutan’s primary trading partner, financier of hydropower projects, and provider of military training, with the Royal Bhutanese Army relying on Indian support to secure its borders. This relationship is critical given Bhutan’s proximity to the Siliguri Corridor, a narrow strip connecting India’s mainland to its northeastern states, which is strategically vulnerable to Chinese influence.

Bhutan’s historical ties with China have been limited, marked by a lack of formal diplomatic relations and ongoing border disputes along their 477-km frontier. These disputes, dating back to the 1950s when China annexed Tibet, center on areas like the Doklam Plateau in the west and the Jakarlung and Pasamlung valleys in the north, with China recently claiming Bhutan’s eastern Sakteng region. Since 1984, Bhutan and China have held 24 rounds of border talks, with agreements in 1988 and 1998 to maintain peace and the status quo along the border. Bhutan’s cautious approach stems from its desire to avoid entanglement in great power rivalries and preserve its sovereignty, guided by its philosophy of Gross National Happiness.

India’s influence has historically deterred Bhutan from pursuing closer ties with China. For instance, during the 2017 Doklam standoff, when Chinese troops attempted to build a road in the disputed tri-junction area, Indian forces intervened on Bhutan’s behalf, halting construction after a 73-day confrontation. This incident underscored Bhutan’s reliance on India for security and its reluctance to engage China independently. However, recent developments suggest Bhutan may be reevaluating its approach, driven by domestic pressures and China’s persistent diplomatic and territorial advances.

Recent Developments Signaling a Potential Tilt

1. Bhutan-China Border Negotiations and the 2023 Beijing Visit

A significant indicator of warming Bhutan-China relations is the resumption and acceleration of border talks. In October 2023, Bhutanese Foreign Minister Tandi Dorji made a historic visit to Beijing, the first by a senior Bhutanese official, marking the 25th round of boundary negotiations the first since 2016. The visit followed a 2021 memorandum of understanding (MoU) outlining a three-step roadmap to expedite border demarcation, finalized during a 2020 expert group meeting. During the 2023 talks, Bhutan and China signed a cooperation agreement establishing a joint technical team for border delimitation, signaling progress toward a potential resolution.

Chinese officials expressed optimism about establishing diplomatic relations, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Vice-President Han Zheng hosting Dorji warmly. Dorji reportedly indicated Bhutan’s willingness to “strive for an early settlement of the boundary question and advance the political process of establishing diplomatic ties”. This rhetoric alarmed Indian observers, as Bhutan’s traditional policy avoids diplomatic relations with major powers, including China. The timing of the visit, amid strained India-China relations following the 2020 Ladakh clashes, raised concerns in New Delhi about Bhutan drifting toward Beijing.

Bhutan’s urgency to resolve the border issue may stem from domestic pressures. Prime Minister Lotay Tshering, in a 2023 interview with La Libre, emphasized that all three parties Bhutan, China, and India have equal stakes in resolving the Doklam dispute, a departure from Bhutan’s earlier deference to India’s strategic concerns. Tshering’s remarks suggest Bhutan seeks a pragmatic solution to secure its northern borders, possibly involving a land swap where Bhutan cedes Doklam for northern territories like Jakarlung and Pasamlung. Such a deal could grant China strategic access to the Doklam Plateau, threatening India’s Siliguri Corridor.

2. Chinese Infrastructure in Disputed Territories

China’s construction activities in Bhutanese-claimed territories provide compelling evidence of Beijing’s assertive approach and Bhutan’s constrained response. Since 2015, China has built over 22 villages, roads, and military outposts in Bhutan’s northern Beyul Khenpajong region, particularly in the Jakarlung and Menchuma valleys, covering areas revered for their cultural and religious significance. Satellite imagery from September 2023 revealed new outposts in Jakarlung, suggesting China’s intent to establish permanent control. These actions violate the 1998 agreement to maintain the status quo, challenging Bhutan’s sovereignty.

In 2020, China escalated tensions by claiming the Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary in eastern Bhutan, a region never previously disputed, during a Global Environment Facility meeting. This claim, alongside construction in the west and north, is seen as a pressure tactic to push Bhutan toward a border deal favorable to Beijing. For example, the village of Gyalaphug in Beyul, developed since 2015, includes extensive infrastructure, indicating long-term Chinese presence. Bhutan’s response has been notably restrained, with officials maintaining “disciplined silence” to avoid antagonizing China or India. This reticence, coupled with ongoing talks, suggests Bhutan may be open to conceding some territories to secure peace, a move that could align it closer to China.

3. Bhutan’s Domestic and Economic Pressures

Bhutan’s evolving stance is also driven by internal factors. Since transitioning to a constitutional monarchy in 2008, Bhutan has faced growing economic challenges, including youth unemployment (19% in 2024) and outmigration, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (World Bank, 2024). Hydropower exports to India remain a key revenue source, but non-hydro sectors lag due to high trade costs and a small domestic market. The 13th Five-Year Plan (2024–2029) and the ambitious Gelephu Mindfulness City project aim to diversify the economy through foreign investment and tourism, but these require regional stability.

China’s economic success and Belt and Road Initiative appeal to some Bhutanese elites, who see engagement with Beijing as a path to development. The 2021 MoU and 2023 talks reflect Bhutan’s pragmatic approach to resolving border disputes to unlock economic opportunities, such as trade routes through Tibet. However, Bhutan’s democratic government faces pressure to balance economic growth with sovereignty and India’s security concerns, complicating its China policy.

Assessing the Extent of Bhutan’s Tilt

While recent developments suggest warming Bhutan-China ties, the notion of a significant “tilt” toward Beijing must be qualified. Several factors indicate Bhutan is navigating a delicate balance rather than aligning with China:

1. Continued Reliance on India

Bhutan’s strategic and economic dependence on India remains robust. India finances 70% of Bhutan’s hydropower projects, which account for 30% of GDP, and provides critical security support. The election of Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay in January 2024, whose People’s Democratic Party is seen as pro-India, signals continuity in Bhutan’s India-centric policy. Tobgay, who served as prime minister from 2013 to 2018, is expected to prioritize India’s interests, particularly regarding Doklam, and maintain close consultation with New Delhi. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swift congratulations post-election underscored the enduring partnership.

Bhutan’s historical perception of China as a threat, rooted in the 1950 Tibet annexation and subsequent refugee influx, persists among its leadership and Buddhist populace, who share cultural ties with Tibet. The 2017 Doklam intervention by India reinforced Bhutan’s trust in New Delhi as a security guarantor, making a full pivot to China unlikely.

2. Bhutan’s Strategic Silence and Non-Alignment

Bhutan’s approach to China reflects its long-standing policy of strategic silence and non-alignment. By engaging China in border talks, Bhutan seeks to reduce tensions without committing to formal diplomatic relations, which would provoke India. Analysts like Yun Sun from the Stimson Centre argue that Bhutan is unlikely to negotiate without India’s involvement, especially on Doklam, which requires tripartite consent. Bhutan’s rejection of China’s Sakteng claim in 2020 and its cautious rhetoric during talks demonstrate its intent to protect sovereignty while avoiding confrontation.

Bhutan’s “disciplined silence” on Chinese construction, as noted by commentator Tenzing Lamsang, is a pragmatic strategy to avoid escalation while maintaining dialogue (India Today, 2023). This approach allows Bhutan to explore economic benefits from China without alienating India, aligning with its GNH philosophy of balanced development.

3. China’s Aggressive Tactics and Bhutan’s Constraints

China’s territorial encroachments, such as the construction of Gyalaphug and Pangda villages, place Bhutan in a difficult position. With a population of 727,145 and a small military, Bhutan lacks the capacity to counter China’s actions directly. Beijing’s “salami-slicing” strategy gradual territorial expansion through infrastructure mirrors its tactics in the South China Sea and along the India-China border, pressuring Bhutan to accept a deal that legitimizes Chinese gains. For instance, China’s offer in the 1990s to cede 495 km² in the northern valleys for 269 km² in Doklam was rejected due to India’s concerns, but recent talks suggest Bhutan may revisit this swap.

Bhutan’s willingness to negotiate does not necessarily indicate a pro-China tilt but rather a pragmatic response to China’s growing presence. The 2023 Beijing visit and cooperation agreement reflect Bhutan’s attempt to manage this pressure diplomatically, but any agreement ceding Doklam would likely involve India’s approval, limiting the extent of Bhutan’s alignment with China.

Implications for the Indo-Pacific Region

Bhutan’s evolving relationship with China has significant implications for the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the context of India-China rivalry and the broader geopolitical contest.

1. India’s Strategic Concerns

A Bhutan-China border deal, especially one ceding Doklam, would undermine India’s security. Control of Doklam would give China a vantage point over the Chumbi Valley and proximity to the Siliguri Corridor, enhancing its ability to threaten India’s northeast. Indian analysts warn that New Delhi cannot afford to lose Bhutan as a “reliable security partner” in the Himalayas, prompting calls for deeper engagement with Thimphu. India’s response includes increased economic aid, such as $500 million for Bhutan’s 13th Five-Year Plan, and military cooperation to reinforce the partnership.

2. China’s Regional Ambitions

China’s push for a border deal and diplomatic relations with Bhutan is part of its broader strategy to expand influence in South Asia, challenging India’s traditional dominance. By establishing settlements in Bhutan, China seeks to create “facts on the ground,” pressuring Bhutan to concede territory and potentially open the door for Belt and Road investments. A successful deal could embolden China to pursue similar tactics with other neighbors, escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

3. Bhutan’s Small-State Agency

Bhutan’s engagement with China highlights the agency of small states in navigating great power competition. By balancing dialogue with China and loyalty to India, Bhutan asserts its sovereignty while mitigating risks. However, its limited resources and China’s territorial assertiveness constrain its options, underscoring the challenges faced by small states in the Indo-Pacific.

4. Broader Indo-Pacific Dynamics

Bhutan’s border talks occur amid heightened Indo-Pacific tensions, with the U.S., India, and allies like Japan and Australia countering China’s expansionism through frameworks like the Quad. A Bhutan-China deal could weaken India’s position, prompting a stronger U.S.-India alignment to secure the Himalayan frontier. Conversely, Bhutan’s balanced approach could inspire other small states to engage China diplomatically without fully aligning, fostering a multipolar regional order.

India’s Perspective

From India’s perspective, Bhutan’s engagement with China is a cause for concern but not yet a definitive tilt. New Delhi views Bhutan as a critical buffer against Chinese aggression, particularly after the 2020 Ladakh clashes, which killed 20 Indian soldiers. The Doklam Plateau remains a flashpoint, with India wary of any agreement that enhances China’s strategic position. India’s close ties with Bhutan, reinforced by economic aid, military training, and cultural affinity, provide leverage to maintain influence. However, India must address Bhutan’s economic challenges and youth unemployment to prevent Beijing’s economic allure from gaining traction.

India’s strategy includes deepening engagement with Bhutan while countering China’s regional influence. Prime Minister Modi’s visits to Bhutan in 2019 and 2024, alongside increased funding for hydropower and infrastructure, aim to solidify the partnership. India also leverages its role in regional forums like SAARC and BBIN to integrate Bhutan economically, reducing its reliance on China. Nonetheless, India must tread carefully to avoid pressuring Bhutan, which values its autonomy and non-alignment.

Conclusion

Bhutan’s recent engagement with China, marked by the 2023 Beijing visit, accelerated border talks, and China’s territorial encroachments, suggests a pragmatic shift rather than a definitive tilt toward Beijing. Driven by domestic economic pressures and China’s assertive tactics, Bhutan seeks to resolve its border disputes to ensure stability and development, but its deep ties with India and strategic caution limit the extent of alignment with China. India remains Bhutan’s primary partner, with Tobgay’s pro-India government and New Delhi’s economic and security support anchoring the relationship. However, China’s infrastructure activities and diplomatic overtures pose challenges, potentially reshaping Bhutan’s foreign policy and Indo-Pacific dynamics.

For India, maintaining Bhutan’s trust requires addressing its economic needs while reinforcing security cooperation. For Bhutan, balancing India and China demands careful diplomacy to preserve sovereignty and avoid entanglement in great power rivalries. The Indo-Pacific region watches closely, as Bhutan’s choices could influence the balance of power in the Himalayas and beyond. While Bhutan is not yet tilting decisively toward China, its evolving stance underscores the complexities of small-state agency in a contested geopolitical landscape.

How Economic Depression of 1930 led to World War II

By

GSDN

-

May 18, 2025

0

By: Paarvana Sree, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Great Depression was one of the most terrible events that started in the United States in 1929 and has lasted since 1939. Historians are of the view that Great Depression certainly was one of the triggering reasons that caused the Second World War.

The US stock market cracked in 1929. Before the crash, people’s financial situations were way better than they ever had. It was much easier to get credit, which meant that there was a lot of spending on things that were luxury items. Prices rose, as people began to spend more. The heavy industries that emerged to build the things needed for the First World War were still producing iron and steel. There was an increase in building cars because more people could afford them and car manufacturers needed to hire workers.

Farmers were producing more food than they actually could sell, so at one point they began throwing away vegetables, eggs, milk, wheat and rice instead of selling it cheaply. The US economy could not maintain these expensive spending. When the stock market crashed, the country slid into a major economic crisis.

By the crash it is meant that major stocks dropped to their lowest levels. Most of the companies were closed during this time because they did not have sufficient money to pay salaries. As a result people lost their jobs at most of the people were unemployed. Banks were also closed as a result people lost any money that they had in stocks or savings account.

Lot of Americans lost all their jobs. People stopped their spending which caused many business that supplied goods and services to close. Putting food on the table was a challenge for many Americans. As a result there were wide spread food riots scattered across the country and some large cities reported that some families died from starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. The entire country plunged into panic. Countries all over the world had similar experiences.

Most of the people were hungry and homeless all over the world. Countries in Europe were all struggling to recover from the huge damages that happened to their countries during the war. There citizens were disappointed and this led to the import of food and raw materials from other countries. By the mid 1930 there was slight improvement in economic condition, but total recovery was not accomplished until the end of the decade.

At the end of the great depression in Europe a large number of politicians took the opportunity to give rise to power. In addition to people struggling in US, people in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK and USSR were basically tired of being poor and hungry. They were in a mind to follow and support leaders who promised to bring their countries to prosperity and greatness. Adolf Hitler in Germany, Stalin in USSR, Francisco Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy started getting popular.

These men became dictators who ruled their countries by force, once there were in power. They never made life of the people better. They began taking total control over the way people lived and made decisions about how they could live with their lives. Citizens slowly began losing their rights to freedom of speech and religion. People who disagreed with the dictators were sent to concentration camps to forced labour camps. This made countries to build their military strength and create plants to take control of the neighbouring countries. Leaders began promoting ethnic pride, military might and importance of national prestige.

Between the period of 1920 and 1930, the European authoritarian government had adopted two different types of political systems: communism and fascism. Although the Great Depression was not the main reason for the Second World War, it definitely affected what happened in countries or over the world. When the first world war ended, European Nations who had been badly damaged by all the wars and what they could to live in peace. One major thing they all agreed on was that it was important to keep Germany happy and under control. This was called “appeasement”.

Unfortunately, that Treaty of Versailles did not produce the desired result. Italy was unhappy and they were not given enough money or territories to make up for what they had lost. France was unhappy because they wanted Germany to be harshly punished. The Soviet Union had not even been invited to the peace conference. Spain had remained neutral throughout the war and all the people were split in support, and Spain did not officially support either side.

The policies of appeasement that Germany was supposed to follow in turn actually made Hitler bolder and gave him more time to build up a massive Army. The German people were insulted that Germany had to take responsibility for starting the war, hated the situation they were living in.

The country had huge fines they knew they could never pay. Lots of territory all over the world had been confiscated and divided up among other countries. The Great Depression made everything worse.

To conclude, it is evident that The Great Depression, though not the only reason for the World War II, had greatly contributed to its start. The worldwide economic crisis meant that economies and citizens everywhere were at their lowest points. Loss of jobs, loss of money and hardships created by the war all made them vulnerable. The great Depression was in fact a starting point for World War II.

Trump’s Middle East Power Play. Snubbed Again, Is Netanyahu No Longer In The Room?

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 13, 2025

0

Riyadh marked the first stop of President Donald Trump’s much-anticipated return to the Middle East in his second term – an itinerary that notably excludes Israel.

The visit, billed by the White House as a “historic return to the Middle East,” includes stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The administration has positioned the trip as part of a broader strategy to advance “a shared vision of stability, opportunity, and mutual respect” with Arab partners.

However, the absence of Israel from the president’s travel schedule has raised concerns in Jerusalem and evoked comparisons to President Barack Obama’s first major overseas trip to the region in 2009. At that time, Obama visited Saudi Arabia and delivered a widely discussed speech in Cairo outlining a new approach to the Muslim world, but bypassed Israel. That decision was perceived by many in Israel as a diplomatic slight and set the tone for what would become a strained relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Now, more than a decade later, a similar dynamic appears to be unfolding under Trump – despite the longstanding rapport between the two leaders.

Israeli officials reportedly inquired about the possibility of adding a stop in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to Trump’s itinerary, but those hopes were dashed when Trump made it clear he had no such plans. “We will be doing it at some point,” he told reporters last week. “But not for this trip.”

Sources familiar with the discussions suggest Trump may have been open to visiting Israel if there had been a clear diplomatic achievement to announce – such as a Gaza ceasefire, a new humanitarian aid plan, or the release of hostages. However, with Israel preparing to intensify its military operations in Gaza and no breakthrough in sight, no such “deliverables” were available. “Without results, he’s not coming,” a source familiar with the matter said.

Netanyahu had earlier touted his close ties with Trump, being the first foreign leader to visit the White House during Trump’s second term in February. He returned again in April to initiate discussions on a potential new trade deal following Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs. That visit yielded no agreement, and instead left Israeli officials blindsided by Trump’s surprise announcement of renewed talks with Iran.

Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas noted that Netanyahu’s influence in Washington appears diminished. “There’s nothing that Netanyahu has that Trump wants, needs, or that he can give him—as opposed to, say, the Saudis, the Qataris, or the Emiratis,” Pinkas told CNN. These Gulf nations are reportedly preparing announcements of major arms deals and investment packages that Trump can present as victories for U.S. jobs and manufacturing.

Despite years of vocal support for Trump, Netanyahu is now seen as having little leverage. While he previously relied on U.S. Republicans to influence Democratic administrations, his strategy is less effective under a friendly Republican White House that appears more focused on transactional diplomacy with Arab powers.

Trump’s Unpredictable Diplomacy Raises Israeli Concerns Ahead of Gulf Visit

As President Donald Trump prepares to begin a high-profile tour of the Middle East, concerns are mounting in Israel over what new diplomatic surprises may emerge from the trip.

In the weeks leading up to the visit, the Trump administration has taken a series of steps that have reportedly caught Israeli officials off guard. Chief among them is Trump’s revived push for nuclear negotiations with Iran – talks that, according to sources, may allow Tehran to retain elements of its civilian nuclear program. Israeli leaders, long wary of Iran’s intentions, see the move as a significant concession.

Another major point of concern is the ceasefire agreement brokered between the U.S. and Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The deal, while aimed at reducing regional tensions, does not explicitly stop the Houthis from launching attacks on Israel – an omission that has raised red flags in Jerusalem.

Additionally, a report revealed that the U.S. is no longer insisting on Saudi normalization with Israel as a precondition for supporting a Saudi civil nuclear program. The apparent policy shift has deepened Israeli fears that normalization efforts with Gulf states may be losing momentum under Trump’s current strategy.

Perhaps the most unexpected development came Sunday, when the Trump administration bypassed Israel to negotiate directly with Hamas for the release of Edan Alexander—the last known living American hostage held in Gaza. Trump described the release as a humanitarian breakthrough and suggested it could be the first step toward a broader resolution. “Hopefully this is the first of those final steps necessary to end this brutal conflict,” he wrote on social media.

Israeli officials are now struggling with what Trump’s time in the Gulf – where he will meet leaders who have been openly critical of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza – may signal for U.S. policy on ceasefire negotiations and humanitarian aid.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, the U.S. has intensified pressure on Egypt and Qatar in recent weeks, urging them to push Hamas toward a hostage release deal that could unlock a temporary ceasefire and pave the way for sustained humanitarian relief into Gaza. With Alexander’s release now secured, a second source indicated that the Trump administration is eyeing the moment to launch “immediate peace deal negotiations.”

Trump has made clear that ending the war is a top priority. But that stance increasingly places Washington at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has publicly reaffirmed his commitment to defeating Hamas – insisting that dismantling the group takes precedence over any near-term hostage agreements.

U.S. officials now believe that if a broader deal with Hamas appears achievable, pressure on Israel to accept it will intensify, especially during Trump’s high-stakes visit to the Gulf. Some in Israel fear that Hamas, and its leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar, may have managed to outmaneuver Israeli diplomacy this time by engaging directly with Washington.

Tensions Surface as Trump Pushes Agenda With Little Consultation

Further, as U.S. President Donald Trump intensifies his diplomatic push for a ceasefire and the release of hostages in Gaza, tensions with Israel appear to be mounting, fueled by an apparent breakdown in communication and trust between the two long-time allies.

“There has to be a practice of no surprises on either side,” said Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank. “Otherwise, the trust that is so essential for this partnership breaks down really, really quickly.”

According to Shapiro, Trump is moving “like a bulldozer” in pursuit of his goals in the region, which currently center on brokering a ceasefire and securing further hostage releases. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cautious approach to decision-making, coupled with what many see as a tendency to prioritize domestic political calculations, has reportedly tested the White House’s patience.

“He’s clearly frustrated with Netanyahu, as every other president who’s worked with Netanyahu has been,” Shapiro told.

Amid these strains, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has attempted to downplay any signs of a rift. Huckabee expressed confidence that Trump would visit Israel later in the year and emphasized the president’s long-standing support.

“No president has ever cared as much and done as much as President Trump has for the state of Israel,” Huckabee said. “And his relationship with the prime minister is, I think, remarkable.”

However, public perception in Israel paints a different picture. The popular daily Yedioth Ahronoth featured a front-page cartoon last Thursday depicting Trump preparing a soup labeled “a policy of surprises,” while Netanyahu watches uneasily in the background.

Even Israel HaYom, a newspaper known for its strong support of Trump, has acknowledged signs of discord. In a weekend opinion piece, columnist Shai Golden wrote: “The old saying ‘Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it’ perfectly captures the trap Netanyahu has fallen into with Trump.”

The Last Bit

What once seemed like an unshakable alliance between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu is beginning to show visible fault lines. The absence of Israel from Trump’s high-stakes Middle East tour and the series of policy moves made without prior consultation point to a growing divergence in priorities.

Trump’s bulldozer diplomacy, which now favors transactional gains with Gulf Arab states, hostages-for-ceasefire breakthroughs, and nuclear bargaining with Iran, appears to be leaving Israel – and its embattled prime minister – in the diplomatic shadows.

Netanyahu, once considered a fixture in Trump’s inner foreign policy circle, now seems relegated to the periphery of the conversation. The Israeli PM’s cautious, survival-driven politics are clashing with Trump’s hunger for quick wins and global optics. While official statements and loyal envoys attempt to preserve the illusion of harmony, Israeli media, diplomats, and even allies quietly acknowledge a shift: Jerusalem may no longer be the first call, or even the second, when Washington acts in the region.

If this trajectory continues, Netanyahu could find himself not only out of sync with a president he once claimed as a steadfast partner, but increasingly isolated on the world stage. The realpolitik of Trump’s second term suggests that loyalty without leverage may no longer be enough to guarantee Israel a seat at the table or even a stop on the itinerary.

What’s Brewing In Kirana Hills, Radioactive Secrets? Mystery Deepens Around Pakistan’s Kirana Hills And The Sudden US Aircraft Presence

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 13, 2025

0

A thick cloud of mystery hangs over Pakistan’s Kirana Hills. Ever since India carried out a series of precision strikes under Operation Sindoor, speculation has flared on social media and defense circles about a possible nuclear radiation leak emanating from the highly sensitive region in Pakistan’s Sargodha district.

While India has categorically denied targeting any nuclear installations, including Kirana Hills, and Pakistan has issued no official statement acknowledging a radiation emergency, the swirling rumours have only intensified. Adding fuel to the fire is the reported presence of a specialized U.S. aircraft, one known to respond to nuclear events, flying over Pakistani airspace.

As of May 13, 2025, there have been no confirmed medical emergencies in Pakistan that would indicate exposure to high levels of radiation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remains silent, and Pakistani officials have neither confirmed nor denied the swirling allegations. Still, in the age of open-source tracking and real-time digital chatter, the absence of confirmation is not always the absence of crisis.

Kirana Hills, A Fortress Wrapped in Secrecy
For decades, Kirana Hills has remained one of Pakistan’s most closely guarded military zones. Nestled in the Sargodha district, the region is believed to house a network of over ten underground tunnels, long suspected of being used to store Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Its proximity to the Sargodha Air Base (just 20 km away) and the Khushab nuclear complex (approximately 75 km distant) only adds to its strategic sensitivity.

It’s precisely this geography that has triggered alarm bells.

Despite widespread speculation, India’s Air Force maintains it did not strike Kirana Hills. Air Marshal AK Bharti stated unequivocally: “We have not hit Kirana Hills—whatever is there.” India insists that the targets under Operation Sindoor were limited to terrorist infrastructure and military assets, not nuclear facilities.

The Spark That Lit the Fire, Origins of the Leak Rumour
The origins of the radiation scare seem rooted in unverified reports that one of India’s strikes occurred near Sargodha, uncomfortably close to the Kirana zone. These whispers gained traction online after supposed sightings of American and Egyptian aircraft monitoring the area.

Most notably, a BrahMos missile, India’s supersonic precision strike weapon, was rumored to have been used near the vicinity. While this added to the urgency of the discussion, there is no credible evidence to support claims that India directly targeted Kirana Hills, let alone caused a nuclear leak.

Yet, one element in the narrative refuses to fade: the reported flight of a U.S. Beechcraft B350 “Aerial Measuring System” (AMS) aircraft over or near Pakistan.

The US Aircraft That Changed the Conversation
Enter the Beechcraft B350 AMS, an aircraft unlike any other routinely seen in South Asia’s skies. This isn’t a combat drone or a spy plane, it’s a nuclear emergency response aircraft operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Part of the elite Aerial Measuring System, its purpose is chillingly clear: detect radiation leaks, map nuclear fallout, and support disaster response teams during radiological crises.

Its unexpected presence, if verified – speaks volumes.

Historically, the B350 AMS has flown missions after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, during U.S. nuclear weapons tests, and in the wake of major radiological exercises. Its deployment overseas is exceptionally rare, and when it happens, it usually requires diplomatic clearance and a specific mission tied to a potential or ongoing nuclear event.

What was it doing near Sargodha?

Two Possibilities
Open-source flight data suggests that a B350 AMS variant with tail number N111SZ briefly entered Pakistani airspace. Intriguingly, some defense analysts claim this aircraft was transferred to Pakistan’s Army Aviation in 2010. If accurate, that would mean either:

Pakistan deployed its own former-US nuclear emergency aircraft in response to a suspected radiation scare, or

The United States, in coordination with Pakistan, dispatched a radiation monitoring aircraft to evaluate potential fallout, possibly fearing something far more serious occurred behind closed doors.

Neither option is ordinary. Both suggest a level of concern that has not been reflected in public statements by either country.

Under The Lens – Something Stirred in Kirana

There are moments in geopolitics when official silence says more than press briefings. The air is unusually thick around Pakistan’s Kirana Hills, and not because of spring dust or monsoon winds. Following India’s precision strikes under Operation Sindoor, something stirred deep beneath Pakistan’s most fortified terrain and the world may never be told what.

So, what are we to make of it?

To understand the implications, one must understand the real significance of Kirana Hills. Located roughly 20 km from the major Sargodha Air Base, the area is believed to host a network of underground tunnels possibly used to store Pakistan’s tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. Its proximity to Khushab, a site linked with plutonium production, elevates it from merely “sensitive” to potentially “existential.”

India’s Operation Sindoor was touted as a calibrated, preemptive strike targeting terror infrastructure and forward-operational bases. But in modern warfare, even the best-laid flight paths are not immune to proximity risks. Could a high-yield, high-precision weapon like the BrahMos have landed too close for comfort?

If even a tremor affected subterranean nuclear silos, Pakistan would be compelled to assess any possible breach. That’s where the B350 AMS comes in.

Equipped with gamma-ray spectrometers, real-time isotope mapping tools, and low-altitude scanning capability, the Beechcraft B350 AMS is a flying Geiger counter on steroids. It doesn’t circle over cities for fun.

This aircraft is deployed during:

–Nuclear accidents (Fukushima, Chernobyl-type scenarios)

–Post-nuclear weapon tests

–Dirty bomb exercises

–Suspected radiation leaks

The B350 AMS can not only detect the presence of radioactive particles, but also identify specific isotopes, helping authorities understand if nuclear material has escaped, been tampered with, or is simply unguarded.

So when this aircraft shows up in your airspace, you’re not just worried about image management. You’re worried about containment.

Whose Plane Was It, Really?
Here’s where the plot thickens. The tail number N111SZ previously belonged to a U.S.-owned AMS aircraft , one that was transferred to Pakistan Army Aviation in 2010, according to open-source records.

So was the plane flying last week:

A U.S.-operated mission, requiring diplomatic clearance?

Or a Pakistani-operated AMS platform, scrambled in urgency?

Or a joint exercise cloaked in plausible deniability?

Each possibility is significant. If it was American, it implies U.S. concern over a potential nuclear incident and quiet coordination with Pakistan. If it was Pakistani, it indicates a deep internal worry about radiation exposure, a level of concern that belies their official silence.

Either scenario tells us one thing – something triggered nuclear monitoring protocols.

Final Word – We May Never Know But We Must Keep Watching
The truth about what happened in Kirana Hills may not emerge for months or ever. But the choreography of this incident Indian strikes, silence from nuclear watchdogs, and the arrival of a radiation-hunting aircraft speaks volumes.

It tells us that in the shadowy corridors of nuclear deterrence, every tremor is taken seriously, even if no mushroom cloud follows. It also reminds us that in this part of the world, nuclear flashpoints are never more than one miscalculation away.

Until official records speak, if they ever do Kirana Hills remains a riddle shrouded in gamma rays and geopolitics.

Showdown In Turkey? Zelenskyy Dares Putin To Talk As West Demands Ceasefire

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 12, 2025

0

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced his readiness to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Turkey this Thursday, just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly urged Kyiv to accept the Kremlin’s latest proposal for direct talks. The announcement comes as diplomatic tensions hit new heights, and both Europe and the U.S. weigh in on how to bring the brutal conflict to a halt.

Zelenskyy’s overture capped a whirlwind 48 hours in which European leaders, during a high-profile visit to Kyiv, pressed for a 30-day ceasefire starting Monday. Their message was unequivocal – either halt hostilities or face a new round of “massive” sanctions. The Kremlin, however, responded with a counter-proposal, an offer for the first direct Russia-Ukraine talks since the early months of the 2022 invasion, with Istanbul suggested as the venue.

Zelenskyy took to X (formerly Twitter) to challenge Putin directly, writing, “I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses.” The message was amplified by his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, who posted on Telegram: “What about Putin? Is he afraid? We’ll see.”

Despite the bold declarations, it remains unclear whether Putin actually intends to attend in person. The two leaders have not shared a room since December 2019, and their mutual disdain has only grown more pronounced as the war has dragged on.

Trump’s Intervention Shifts the Conversation
Complicating things further was the unexpected intervention from Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 U.S. presidential race. Taking to his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump posted a late-night statement:

“President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY.”

Trump’s position directly contradicted the European-led effort to first secure a ceasefire before proceeding to negotiations. Instead, he called for immediate engagement to assess the feasibility of peace and “determine where everything stands.”

His statement illustrated the pivotal role Washington continues to play. Ukraine depends heavily on U.S. military and financial support – lifelines that could shift depending on who occupies the White House next year. Kyiv, for its part, is eager to maintain bipartisan backing, while Moscow sees a window of opportunity to ease sanctions and reshape its global story.

What’s on the Table?
In a televised address timed for prime viewership in the United States, Putin called for “direct negotiations without any preconditions.” But within hours, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov complicated matters, stating any talks must consider both a shelved 2022 draft peace framework and “the current situation on the ground.”

This diplomatic phrasing masks significant Russian demands. The 2022 draft framework, leaked shortly after talks in Istanbul that year, reportedly called for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality in exchange for security guarantees and an acceptance of de facto Russian control over parts of eastern and southern Ukraine – a non-starter for Kyiv, which sees such concessions as a form of surrender.

The war, now in its third year, has left hundreds of thousands dead or wounded and triggered the most perilous East-West confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russian forces have made slow but steady gains in recent months, yet the cost in human lives and economic fallout remains staggering.

A Calculated Move or Political Move?
Analysts remain divided over whether Putin’s offer is a genuine olive branch or a calculated move to fragment Western unity, especially with elections looming in both the U.S. and key European nations. For Zelenskyy, the counter-proposal presents both an opportunity and a trap – an opening to demonstrate Ukraine’s willingness to seek peace, but also a test of whether Russia’s intentions are sincere or simply strategic.

Regardless of whether the Turkish meeting materializes, one thing is clear: global pressure on both sides is reaching a boiling point. As Trump attempts to reassert himself on the world stage and Europe pushes for a ceasefire, the question remains – will Putin show up?

Putin Rejects ‘Ultimatums’; Europe and Ukraine Hold the Line for Ceasefire

Even as the prospect of direct Ukraine-Russia negotiations loomed larger, President Vladimir Putin pushed back sharply against mounting international pressure, rejecting what he characterized as Western “ultimatums” for a ceasefire. In a statement that signaled defiance more than concession, Putin dismissed demands from European leaders and Ukraine for a full and unconditional 30-day truce starting May 12, suggesting instead that any dialogue must first tackle the “root causes” of the conflict – a Kremlin euphemism widely interpreted to mean recognition of Russian territorial gains and Ukraine’s neutrality.

Russia’s foreign ministry further clarified the Kremlin’s position, stating that any discussion of a ceasefire was premature unless the underlying issues behind the war were addressed. This included reference to the now-defunct 2022 draft peace framework, which Kyiv has repeatedly dismissed as unacceptable, as it implicitly demands Ukraine surrender significant territory and alter its geopolitical orientation.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stood firm, reiterating that Kyiv’s proposal for a ceasefire beginning Monday still stands. “We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy,” he said in his nightly video address. Zelenskyy emphasized that while Ukraine is committed to peace, its forces would be ready to respond if Russia failed to observe the truce. The U.S. embassy in Kyiv also issued a security alert warning of a “potentially significant” Russian airstrike in the coming days – indicating how tenuous the situation remains.

Ceasefire Appeal Backed by European Powers and Trump
Zelenskyy’s latest outreach comes in the wake of a high-stakes diplomatic push in Kyiv on May 10, where the Ukrainian leader was joined by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The show of unity was visually captured in a widely circulated photo of the leaders in Kyiv, following a joint video call with U.S. President Donald Trump.

In a forceful joint statement, the leaders demanded that Russia agree to a “full and unconditional” ceasefire beginning May 12, warning that any preconditions by Moscow would be seen as attempts to prolong the conflict. The statement laid out the contours of a potential peace framework that included a complete halt to all military operations – air, land, and sea – and the initiation of diplomatic efforts to establish long-term security, political, and humanitarian guarantees for Ukraine. The ceasefire was described as a prerequisite for credible negotiations, and the leaders stressed that monitoring would be conducted in close cooperation with the United States.

“We agreed that a month-long ceasefire is essential to create diplomatic space,” Zelenskyy said. “Without silence, there can be no dialogue. Without dialogue, there can be no peace.”

In a warning aimed squarely at Moscow, the joint communiqué declared that failure to comply would trigger a significantly tougher 17th package of EU sanctions, aligned with similar measures from the U.S., UK, and Norway. These would target key sectors of the Russian economy, particularly energy, banking, and the so-called “shadow fleet” allegedly used by Russia to evade oil embargoes.

War of Optics: From Kyiv to Moscow
The Kyiv meeting of allied leaders coincided with Putin’s grand Victory Day celebration in Moscow on May 9, where he played host to foreign dignitaries including the Presidents of China and Brazil. The stark contrast between the two scenes—one focused on diplomacy and peace, the other on military parades and pageantry—was not lost on observers.

Ukraine had refused to honor the May 8–10 unilateral ceasefire declared by Putin, calling it a “sham.” Both sides accused each other of violating that short-term truce, adding to the tension ahead of the potential Istanbul meeting on May 15.

Western leaders used the Kyiv meeting to express solidarity with Ukraine in deeply personal terms. “Ukraine’s security is our security,” said British PM Keir Starmer, who also visited war memorials and paid tribute to fallen soldiers. “We will not rest until there is a just and lasting peace,” he added.

Macron, too, sought to personalize the stakes, sharing a video of a warm embrace with Zelenskyy, captioned: “Count on us, my friend.” German Chancellor Merz called Zelenskyy a “partner and friend” and assured continued support: “Always, if you want. You can call.”

Putin’s Countermove – Istanbul Summit on May 15
As Ukraine and its Western allies rallied for peace, Putin made a countermove by proposing direct talks in Istanbul on May 15, describing them as a chance for “durable peace” and “addressing the root causes of the war.” However, Kremlin spokespersons quickly muddied the waters by asserting that talks must reflect “current realities” – a veiled reference to Russia’s military occupation of Ukrainian territories and its demand for Kyiv’s neutrality.

Despite widespread skepticism over Putin’s intentions, Trump seized upon the Russian leader’s proposal as a breakthrough moment. “This could be a potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine,” he posted on Truth Social, urging Zelenskyy to accept the offer and attend the Istanbul talks.

Whether Putin will show up in person remains uncertain. He and Zelenskyy have not met face to face since December 2019, and relations between them remain openly hostile. Nevertheless, Zelenskyy posted on X:

“I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope this time the Russians will not look for excuses.”

As the week begins, the eyes of the world are fixed on two cities – Kyiv and Istanbul – wondering whether this moment could mark a genuine opening in a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, destabilized Europe, and redrawn the global balance of power.

Defensive Shift Or Dangerous Regression? Eastern Europe’s Alarming Turn Back To Landmines

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 12, 2025

0

Alarming Turn Back To Landmines, five European countries – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania- have initiated steps to withdraw from the landmark Ottawa Treaty, an international agreement that prohibits the use, production, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines – a shift that has alarmed disarmament campaigners and human rights groups,

Citing escalating security concerns posed by Russia, the five nations- all of which share borders with the Kremlin-controlled state – argue that the 1997 treaty no longer reflects the current geopolitical reality. Their decisions mark a significant departure from decades of global progress toward eliminating one of the world’s most indiscriminate and enduring weapons.

Anti-personnel landmines, designed to maim or kill upon contact, have long been condemned by humanitarian organizations for their devastating impact on civilians. These weapons can remain active for decades after hostilities end, continuing to claim lives and limbs long after peace is restored. Since the Ottawa Treaty’s adoption more than 25 years ago, the use of landmines has declined significantly, and the treaty has been credited with saving tens of thousands of lives and reducing civilian harm.

However, the renewed sense of vulnerability along NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has prompted a reassessment among some of its frontline members.

In March, Poland and the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania issued a joint statement declaring their intention to withdraw from the treaty. They emphasized the need to give their militaries greater “flexibility and freedom of choice” in response to the growing threat from Moscow, calling for a fresh evaluation of what constitutes acceptable defense weaponry in the current context.

In April, Latvia became the first to formalize its withdrawal, after its parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the move. Under the treaty’s provisions, Latvia will officially exit six months after submitting its notice after which it will be legally permitted to stockpile and deploy anti-personnel landmines again.

Finland followed suit shortly thereafter. Speaking to journalists, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said that Russia represents a long-term threat to European security and that the decision to leave the treaty will allow Finland to adapt its defense strategy accordingly. “Withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way,” Orpo stated.

The announcements have drawn swift condemnation from international watchdogs. Amnesty International described Finland’s move as a “disturbing step backwards,” warning that it “goes against decades of progress on eliminating the production, transfer and use of inherently indiscriminate weapons.” The organization said the shift could endanger civilian lives not only in Finland but also in other potential conflict zones across the region.

As of early 2025, the Ottawa Treaty had 165 signatories. However, several major military powers – including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the United States – have never signed the accord, a long-standing point of criticism among disarmament advocates.

The decisions by these five European states come amid growing anxiety over what comes next after the war in Ukraine. While Western support for Kyiv continues, some NATO members fear that once Russia reaches a resolution in Ukraine whether through victory, stalemate, or negotiated settlement it may turn its attention elsewhere.

Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House and author of Who Will Defend Europe?, cautioned that Moscow’s ambitions are unlikely to end with Ukraine. “If and when Russia’s grinding conflict in Ukraine does come to an end by whatever means,” Giles said, “Moscow will be readying itself for its next target.”

For now, the return of landmines to Europe’s strategic calculations illustrate the broader unraveling of post-Cold War arms control agreements and a sobering reminder that peace and progress, once taken for granted, may now be giving way to hardline deterrence.

Military Logic Meets Humanitarian Concern

As five European countries exit the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, defense analysts argue the decision is driven by urgent national security concerns in the face of a resurgent Russia. The move, while drawing criticism from human rights groups, is also backed by military logic that sees landmines not as relics of a brutal past, but as strategic tools in modern warfare.

“Nobody is in any doubt that Russia is looking for further means of achieving its objective in Europe,” said Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, in an interview. His stark assessment of the security environment captures the mindset driving these nations – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania – to abandon a long-standing commitment to disarmament.

Giles emphasized that the military rationale for landmines is well-established. These buried explosives can slow an advancing army, either by forcing them to divert into more defensible terrain or by delaying their momentum while attempting to cross mined areas.

“They are a highly effective tool for augmenting the defensive forces of a country that’s going to be outnumbered,” he said, indicating their potential utility for smaller NATO countries facing the prospect of Russian aggression.

The experiences of the war in Ukraine, he argued, have likely reinforced the perception of landmines as a necessary evil. Russian forces have employed vast minefields along Ukraine’s southern front, significantly impeding the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023. The mines didn’t just slow military progress, they redefined the pace and strategy of the war.

According to United Nations assessments, Ukraine has become the most heavily mined country on the planet. Ukrainian government figures estimate that Russian forces have contaminated more than 174,000 square kilometers (around 65,637 square miles) of land with mines and unexploded ordnance. This poses an ongoing hazard to civilians, particularly in areas previously under Russian occupation and now back under Ukrainian control.

“The large-scale contamination of land by explosive ordnance has created an ‘invisible threat’ in people’s minds,” noted a February 2024 report by Humanity & Inclusion, an international charity focused on aid for communities affected by war and disaster.

“As a result, people’s movements are extremely reduced or restricted, they can no longer cultivate their land, and their social, economic, or professional activities are hindered.”

While international outrage has focused largely on Russia’s indiscriminate use of landmines, the issue is not entirely one-sided. A 2023 report by Human Rights Watch revealed that Ukrainian forces, despite being a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, have also used anti-personnel mines and received them from allies such as the United States.

Still, Giles was quick to note the critical difference in intent and design between nations. “There are very different design philosophies,” he said, pointing to a fundamental divergence in the way landmines and cluster munitions are produced and deployed. “Some countries are not concerned with civilian casualties- or may even deliberately seek to cause them. Others are trying to avoid them.”

This distinction lies at the heart of how Finland and other withdrawing nations are attempting to frame their decision. While they have opted out of the Ottawa Treaty, they maintain they will not abandon humanitarian principles in the process. Finland, for example, has pledged to use landmines responsibly, with a focus on minimizing civilian impact.

“Finland is committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines,” President Alexander Stubb posted on X (formerly Twitter), as the government formally announced its exit from the treaty.

Defense officials argue that responsible landmine use is achievable through strict protocols, including accurate mapping and documentation of minefield locations, educating local populations about mine dangers, and clearing or deactivating mines once hostilities end. These steps, they say, are critical to reconciling military necessity with ethical warfare.

Despite these assurances, critics remain unconvinced that any use of landmines can ever be truly “humane.” For organizations like Amnesty International and Humanity & Inclusion, the very nature of landmines—indiscriminate and enduring—makes them incompatible with modern humanitarian standards.

Despite these nations’ assurances that they will use the weapons responsibly, experts and advocates are warning that the decision could undo years of hard-won progress in reducing civilian casualties from these explosive remnants of war.

Landmines have a long and devastating history. They have killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians worldwide and continue to pose a significant risk long after a conflict has ended. According to the 2024 report from the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines and explosive remnants of war in 2023 alone. Shockingly, civilians made up 84% of those casualties, indicating the disproportionate toll on non-combatants.

Sudden Ceasefire Declared Between India And Pakistan Amid Escalating Hostilities—US Claims Role In Brokered Truce, India Rejects! But Will It Hold?

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 11, 2025

0

In a sudden development, India and Pakistan announced an immediate ceasefire on Saturday, putting a temporary halt to the most intense cross-border hostilities witnessed in decades. The announcement came amidst spiraling retaliatory strikes and mounting fears of a full-blown military confrontation in the subcontinent.

The truce, declared shortly after 5:00 PM IST, followed four days of sustained conventional strikes targeting military installations deep within both nations’ territories. Though the situation on the ground remains volatile, the ceasefire has averted, for now, the possibility of an uncontrolled escalation between the South Asian rivals.

Hello, It’s Me!

Adding to the geopolitical intrigue, US President Donald Trump was the first to publicly claim credit for brokering the ceasefire via a post on his Truth Social platform. Trump announced, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to confirm that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.” He further lauded the leadership of both nations for “using common sense and great intelligence.”

Soon after, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio corroborated Trump’s statement, asserting that American diplomatic efforts, particularly those led by himself and Vice President JD Vance, were instrumental in bringing both sides to the table. According to Rubio, the agreement included not just cessation of hostilities, but also a tentative proposal to initiate broader talks on regional stability at a neutral venue.

However, the details emerging from New Delhi sharply contrasts with Washington’s self-congratulatory tone.

India Acknowledges Ceasefire, Rejects External Mediation
India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed the ceasefire as a mutually agreed bilateral step but explicitly downplayed any direct role played by the United States. The Ministry’s brief statement maintained that the cessation of hostilities was “arrived at through direct communication between the two nations’ military channels,” and emphasized that there was “no agreement” regarding any forthcoming diplomatic dialogue.

Strategic observers see India’s posture as consistent with its longstanding opposition to third-party mediation, particularly on issues involving sovereignty and territorial integrity. New Delhi has historically maintained that all outstanding disputes with Islamabad, including Kashmir, must be resolved bilaterally.

Pakistan Welcomes Washington’s “Decisive Role”
By contrast, Pakistan’s government openly acknowledged and welcomed the role of the United States. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Trump and his team for their “leadership and proactive efforts to de-escalate regional tensions.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources, the truce was in jeopardy until the eleventh hour, with US negotiators stepping in to bridge gaps in trust and communication.

This divergence in attribution once again reflects the larger strategic orientations of both nations, India as a rising global power wary of foreign involvement, and Pakistan as a security-dependent state often seeking international mediation to spotlight the Kashmir issue.

Flashpoints Prior to Ceasefire
The ceasefire announcement came against the backdrop of an intense exchange of firepower between the two militaries. Early Saturday morning, Islamabad accused the Indian Air Force of launching precision strikes on military facilities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and near Islamabad. The Pakistani military said responded with retaliatory air and ground-based strikes targeting Indian assets in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Line of Control (LoC), often described as the most militarized border in the world, lit up with sustained artillery duels, rocket barrages, and drone incursions over the past four days. Civilian casualties have been reported on both sides, although precise numbers remain unverified amid a fog of war and heavy disinformation.

In perhaps the most politically charged moment of the conflict, Islamabad claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets. New Delhi denied any losses.

American Intervention, Reluctance Turned Into Sudden Engagement?
Until late last week, the White House had maintained a cautious distance from the unfolding crisis. Vice President JD Vance had gone on record stating the conflict was “fundamentally none of our business.” However, by Friday, alarming intelligence reports—likely involving satellite surveillance and SIGINT intercepts, appear to have galvanized a shift in the US position.

According to sources within the State Department, Rubio and Vance engaged in a flurry of high-level communications with both Indian and Pakistani defence establishments in a bid to forestall further escalation. The Americans reportedly warned that the window for diplomacy was closing rapidly.

While the United States may have succeeded in pressing for an immediate cessation of hostilities, analysts warn that tactical de-escalation does not equate to strategic resolution.

A Fragile Truce with Questionable Durability
Even as the ceasefire came into effect, reports of fresh violations began to surface. Explosions were heard in Srinagar and Jammu late Saturday evening, and Indian officials accused Pakistan of “continuing provocations and ceasefire breaches.” Pakistan, meanwhile, alleged that Indian artillery targeted civilian areas near Muzaffarabad.

India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, in a late-night briefing, warned that “any further aggression will invite calibrated and proportionate responses,” illustrating the tenuous nature of the ceasefire.

Moreover, the broader bilateral fallout remains unresolved. Both nations have suspended trade ties, withdrawn diplomatic envoys, and paused cooperation on key agreements, including water-sharing under the Indus Waters Treaty; whether these moves will be reversed remains uncertain.

Defence analysts caution that while ceasefires can create space for dialogue, they cannot substitute for meaningful political engagement. As long as the Kashmir dispute festers unresolved, the cycle of provocation and retaliation may well resume.

The Last Bit, A Pause?
The so-called “Trump truce,” while sudden, is unlikely to hold unless accompanied by sustained backchannel diplomacy and a shift in strategic calculus on Pakistan’s sides. For now, the guns have fallen silent but history suggests that without structural remedies and mutual trust-building, the ceasefire may merely serve as an intermission in yet another chapter of Indo-Pak hostilities.

As with all such military stand-downs, time will tell whether Pakistan turns a new leaf or merely a temporary reprieve.

China-Russia Alliance Grows But What Is Putin Really After? Russia’s Ambitions May Lie Elsewhere

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 9, 2025

0

China-Russia have pledged to further cement their “no limits” strategic partnership, issuing a joint statement on Thursday that strongly criticised the United States and its allies while reaffirming shared historical narratives around World War II.

The statement, released during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow for the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War—marked in Russia on 9 May as Victory Day, is indicative of the two nations’ alignment on global issues and mutual resistance to what they describe as Western hegemony.

Xi, on his 11th visit to Russia since 2013, held nearly four hours of talks with President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders hailed their personal rapport and strategic coordination, with Putin confirming plans to visit China in the autumn for commemorations of Japan’s surrender in the Pacific theatre.

In one of their strongest joint condemnations of the US to date, the two powers accused Washington of attempting to reshape the post-war international order.

“Certain countries … are attempting to tamper with the results of the victory of the Second World War,” the statement said, alluding to perceived Western revisionism.

It further charged the United States and its allies with advancing NATO’s reach into the Asia-Pacific and pursuing the “Indo-Pacific strategy” to contain China and Russia through regional alliances.

The leaders also jointly opposed the use of “unilateral coercive measures” such as sanctions that bypass the UN Security Council, arguing such actions violate the UN Charter and undermine global stability.

Amid escalating trade tensions between China and the US, and Western pressure on Russia to engage in peace talks over Ukraine, the statement presented a united front against what both leaders called an increasingly aggressive and destabilising Western posture.

Xi also reiterated Beijing’s historical claim over Taiwan, describing World War II as marking the “return” of the island to China. The statement affirmed Moscow’s support for China’s reunification efforts, with Russia backing “the measures taken by the Chinese government to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

While the two countries maintain that their partnership is not a military alliance, their growing defence cooperation has raised alarm in Western capitals. In 2024 alone, China and Russia conducted 14 joint military exercises, signalling deepening coordination in strategic domains.

For the first time since 2015, a Chinese honour guard will participate in Russia’s Victory Day parade, a symbolic gesture of the countries’ growing alignment in both military and ideological spheres.

Western assessments of Russia’s geopolitical posture often fall into reductive patterns casting Moscow as either a fading power clinging to influence through aggression or as a junior partner increasingly dependent on China. But such directions fail to capture the longer-term strategic calculus underpinning the Kremlin’s actions, particularly across its southern and eastern peripheries.

The dominant discourse continues to frame Russia as a threat to the liberal international order, its economy in decline, and its foreign policy reduced to reactive maneuvers in Ukraine or subordination to Beijing. However, this overlooks the broader spatial and historical logic that guides Moscow’s external engagements.

To understand Russia’s current trajectory, it is necessary to move beyond short-term crises and instead examine its evolving infrastructure strategy, geographic priorities, and long-term quest for geopolitical resilience.

Strategic Depth Beyond Ukraine
Despite speculation about a future ceasefire or diplomatic settlement in Ukraine, the Kremlin is likely to continue deepening its footprint across adjacent regions.

President Vladimir Putin’s outreach across Russia’s southern and eastern corridors is not a recent pivot but part of a longer strategic orientation. His “Look East” policy, formally introduced in 2012, preceded both the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That same year, Russia enacted the Federal Law defining the scope of the Northern Sea Route, an Arctic maritime passage intended to reframe Moscow’s access to global trade networks and reduce dependence on chokepoints like the Suez Canal.

Parallel to the Arctic strategy is the Kremlin’s drive to operationalize the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) – a 7,200-kilometer multimodal trade route linking Russia to India via Iran. The INSTC holds both economic and geostrategic significance, offering Russia a sanctions-resilient supply chain and a southward vector of connectivity outside the purview of Western-controlled maritime routes.

Eastern Expansion and Infrastructure as Strategy
Russia’s engagements with China are similarly framed less by dependency and more by infrastructural pragmatism. Cross-border trade continues to surge, supported by expanded logistical corridors: modernised Far East ports, trans-Siberian pipelines, and rail links through Mongolia into the broader Asia-Pacific. These projects are not merely about commerce, they reflect a concerted effort to reshape the flow of goods, energy, and influence across Eurasia.

As scholar Nicola P. Contessi notes, infrastructure dictates access, and access, in turn, shapes power. For the Kremlin, creating alternative corridors is not just an economic imperative but a geopolitical one. Infrastructure allows Russia to influence contract attribution, resource extraction, and even the military utility of neighboring territories.

Rethinking Russia’s Near Abroad
Rather than being dictated solely by present conflicts or external alliances, Moscow’s approach is anchored in a longer arc of strategic depth. The regions to Russia’s south and east are increasingly central to its vision of multipolarity, spaces where the Kremlin seeks not only to project influence but to secure enduring autonomy from Western pressure.

In this context, the growing military, energy, and logistical coordination with countries like China and Iran should be seen not as evidence of over-reliance, but as efforts to construct a parallel architecture of power, one that offers Russia both leverage and insulation in an evolving global order

Putin’s Southern and Eastern Gambit: A Broader Vision of Geostrategic Realignment

As the West continues to focus on Russia’s confrontation with NATO and its deepening ties with Beijing, a more nuanced reality is taking shape beneath the surface.

President Vladimir Putin’s strategy is not confined to the theatre of Ukraine or a pivot toward China, it is anchored in a broader effort to reorient Russia’s geopolitical posture through strategic infrastructure, maritime access, and regional influence across Eurasia. At the core of this shift is a sharpened southern and eastern vector of engagement – both built on long-term planning rather than tactical necessity.

The Southern Vector: A Maritime and Inland Network Recast
Russia’s south-facing strategy centers on three key maritime zones – the Caspian, Azov, and Black Seas – interlinked through what Moscow terms the Unified Deep-Water System of European Russia (UDWS). At the heart of this system lies the Volga-Don Canal, a critical artery that connects these seas and facilitates inland maritime movement across European Russia.

The strategic significance of this system was reinforced at an April 10 meeting in Tolyatti, chaired by Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council and a long-time confidante of Putin. The session, held under the auspices of the Russian Maritime Collegium, focused on enhancing the integration of Russia’s railway network with river ports along the UDWS. The goal: to streamline logistics supporting the North-South Transport Corridor, a top priority in Russia’s bid to bypass traditional Western trade routes.

Patrushev’s presence was more than ceremonial. While his portfolio includes maritime policy, his prominent role in post-Ukraine strategic recalibration lends weight to the meeting’s subtext: Russia is accelerating its southern corridor infrastructure not merely for trade, but as a foundation for geopolitical maneuverability. The North-South axis, running from Russia to India via Iran, is emerging as a strategic hedge against maritime chokepoints and Western sanctions alike.

The Eastern Drive: China and Beyond
In the east, Russia is adopting a calibrated dual-track strategy. While deepening economic integration with China, its largest trade partner, Moscow is simultaneously cultivating independent channels of influence across Asia. This approach is reflected in both domestic and cross-border infrastructure development.

Take the Rasht-Astara railway in Iran, a critical link in the North-South corridor. In response to a query in April, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk confirmed that Russian specialists were already operational on the ground in Iran – signaling not only a commitment to the project’s acceleration, but Russia’s broader southward entrenchment. Days later, Overchuk spoke at the Federation Council about the corridor’s potential extension into Afghanistan and Pakistan, casting the initiative as a gateway to “Greater Eurasia and the Global South.”

The Kremlin’s eastward ambitions are also venturing into Africa. On April 9, Russian Deputy Transport Minister Dmitry Zverev met with Sudanese Ambassador Mohammed Siraj to discuss bilateral cooperation on infrastructure. Sudan, for its part, extended an invitation to Russia to participate in key railway and road projects – suggesting a growing appetite for Moscow’s presence beyond its immediate periphery.

Soft Power on the Steppes
Alongside these hard infrastructure plays, Russia is recalibrating its soft power strategy in Central Asia. On March 28, Yevgeny Primakov, head of Rossotrudnichestvo—Russia’s external cultural agency, announced a shift in focus toward educational and cultural outreach within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Speaking at a Sputnik Uzbekistan briefing, Primakov emphasized that the agency is retooling its efforts toward “international development,” particularly targeting Uzbekistan and neighboring states. This illustrates Moscow’s intent to shape regional identity and loyalties through narrative control and cultural influence.

The China Equation: Cooperation With Caution
Despite frequent assertions in Western circles of Russian subservience to Beijing, the China-Russia relationship remains complex and pragmatically transactional. Trade between the two countries surged to $250 billion in 2023, up from $147 billion in 2021. Yet this rapid growth masks deeper anxieties within Russian business circles, many of whom remain wary of China’s long-term strategic intentions. Putin may be leaning on China, but he is also building firebreaks.

Rather than dependence, the relationship reveals an asymmetric interdependence—where economic cooperation serves immediate needs, while long-term hedging continues quietly in the background. The signal from the Kremlin is increasingly clear: China is a partner of convenience, not inevitability.

Russia’s southern and eastern strategies reveal a leadership thinking beyond today’s battlefields. Moscow is laying the groundwork for a multipolar future in which Russia is not merely a spoiler of Western designs, nor a junior partner to China, but a sovereign actor crafting its own corridors of power across Eurasia and beyond.

Southern and Eastern Neighbors Welcome a Strong Russia

India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, and China notably declined to align with the West in condemning Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, Russia exported nearly half of its oil and petroleum products to China. India has also emerged as a major consumer of Russian oil, by 2024, roughly 35 percent of its total crude oil imports came from Russia.

In Central Asia, despite a gradual pushback against the Russian language and Soviet-era influences, Russia remains a key player, economically, politically, and in terms of regional security. China may be expanding its influence in the region, but Russian involvement, especially in trade and transport policy, appears to be growing in major economies like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Most notably, Tashkent has repeatedly invited Moscow, first in 2018, and again in 2022, to participate in the Trans-Afghan Railway project. In early April 2025, the transport ministries of Russia and Uzbekistan, along with their national railway operators, began preparations for a feasibility study. Two key routes are being considered:

Route 1: Termez to Naibabad, Logar, and Kharlachi.

Route 2: Mazar-i-Sharif to Herat, Dilaram, Kandahar, and Chaman.

Meanwhile, Kazakhstan is engaged in talks with Russia to develop a strategic transit corridor linking Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, a potential game-changer for both energy relations and overland trade.

The Last Bit

As U.S. President Donald Trump re-engages in negotiations with Putin and Europe scrambles to fortify its defenses, it’s time for Western diplomats to zoom out and revisit their playbook. An honest and urgent reassessment of the sanctions regime is overdue.

Putin has spent over a decade preparing for sanctions and, while Russia suffers from inflation, high interest rates, and labor shortages, the country has outperformed expectations. In 2023, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6 percent, and this growth continued into 2024. Key Russian industries benefit from state-subsidized loans at artificially low interest rates, giving them a shield against external financial pressure.

Western policymakers must craft a more nuanced strategy that takes into account Russia’s evolving security interests not only in Europe but also across the southern and eastern flanks—where Moscow is actively reshaping its sphere of influence.

There are several steps the West can take:

Step up defenses in the gray zone – the murky space between peace and war.

Impose targeted sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet and offshore holding companies with potential Kremlin ties.

Closely monitor and disrupt covert Russian influence operations that destabilize markets or seek economic monopolies in neighboring states.

Deploy regional task forces of experts who can offer real-time, contextualized insights to diplomats and policymakers.

This won’t be easy. As the U.S. increasingly adopts a go-it-alone approach, its interests may diverge from those of the U.K. and EU. Meanwhile, Moscow will likely respond in kind, advancing its southern and eastern strategies while watching the West’s every move.

To counterbalance Russia’s rise, the West must maintain open channels and build influence in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. But without the cooperation of key swing countries like India, China, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, any attempt to contain Putin’s “transformed Russia” will remain incomplete.

After Pakistan Strikes, India Responds With Drones And Naval Front Reopens After Decades. India-Pakistan Jet Battle Captivates Global Militaries And Trump’s Silence Speaks Volumes

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 9, 2025

0

In response to Pakistan’s attempted coordinated assault the previous night on 14 Indian military installations using a barrage of drones and missiles, the Indian Armed Forces launched precision strikes early Thursday on multiple high-value military targets deep within Pakistani territory.

Among the key targets were advanced Chinese-origin HQ-9 air defence systems positioned near Lahore and Multan, according to senior defence officials familiar with the operation. This marks a strategic shift from India’s traditional counter-terror posturing to a direct military-on-military confrontation—an inflection point between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The retaliatory action came Targeted locations included major military hubs in Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan, with cities like Srinagar, Chandigarh, and Bhuj in the crosshairs. India’s integrated air defence command swiftly neutralised the incoming threats, with dozens of drones and missiles intercepted mid-air. Defence sources confirmed that debris is being recovered and analysed for forensic and intelligence assessment.

In the aerial engagement, one Pakistani fighter aircraft is believed to have been shot down by Indian defences.

India’s counter-offensive reportedly employed Harop loitering munitions – autonomous “suicide drones” – to strike forward-deployed Pakistani air defence positions. Significant damage was inflicted on Pakistan’s air defence architecture, including HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems supplied by China, which were allegedly used in the offensive targeting of Indian assets.

The Indian air defence shield, comprising indigenous systems, Russian-built S-400s, and Israeli-origin platforms, proved decisive in safeguarding critical military infrastructure across northern and western sectors.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh lauded the military’s rapid response, stating:

“The operations underscore the preparedness and precision of our armed forces, and their resolve to defend national sovereignty using state-of-the-art combat systems.”

He further confirmed that a high-value Pakistani airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system had sustained substantial damage during the strikes.

Indian Navy Opens Western Front; Karachi Port Targeted for First Time Since 1971
In a strategically significant manoeuvre, the Indian Navy opened a western maritime front by launching targeted strikes on Pakistani naval assets near Karachi Port—an operation of this scale not seen since the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict. Explosions were reported late Thursday near Karachi’s southern dockyard and adjacent military infrastructure. According to naval sources, missile systems deployed by the Western Naval Command from Mumbai were used in the strike package.

The operation is reminiscent of 1971’s Operations Trident and Python, and signals India’s willingness to escalate on both land and sea. Widespread disruption across Karachi’s port zones has been reported, with signs of damage to key logistical and military assets.

India’s Western Fleet is on full operational alert in the Arabian Sea, with expanded deployments and sustained surveillance of maritime movements indicating readiness for further escalation.

Heavy Shelling Along LoC as Pakistan Opens Fire Across Multiple Sectors
On the land front, Pakistani forces initiated intensified artillery and mortar shelling along the Line of Control (LoC), targeting multiple sectors including Kupwara, Baramulla, Uri, Poonch, Mendhar, and Rajouri. Indian units responded with calibrated but forceful retaliatory fire. Exchange of heavy weaponry continued through Thursday evening.

The escalation follows Pakistan’s previous night’s attempt to overwhelm Indian defences across Awantipora, Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Adampur, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Nal, Phalodi, Uttarlai, and Bhuj – utilising drone swarms and tactical missile strikes. India’s layered air defence system neutralised most incoming threats, significantly mitigating potential damage.

Maritime Tensions Rise: Overlapping Naval Exercises in Arabian Sea Raise Risk of Confrontation
In a further sign of deteriorating stability, both nations have issued Notices to Mariners (NOTAMs) for overlapping live naval firing exercises in the Arabian Sea. India’s drills will run from May 8–13, while Pakistan’s are slated for May 9–12. With naval assets deployed in close proximity and under heightened alert, the risk of unintended engagements or maritime incidents is considerable.

Despite the clear military escalation, New Delhi reiterated its commitment to non-escalation, stating that the strikes were “calibrated, proportionate, and limited in scope” in response to provocation from Islamabad. Indian officials added that further action would depend entirely on Pakistan’s conduct in the coming hours and days.

Why Trump’s Silence on the India-Pakistan Flashpoint Speaks Volumes
As India and Pakistan exchange military fire across land, sea, and air with precision strikes, naval bombardments, and drone swarms reshaping the strategic arena — one voice that traditionally would have boomed across diplomatic channels has fallen to a mere whisper – that of the United States. More specifically, of President Donald Trump.

Historically, Indo-Pakistani hostilities have drawn urgent and visible American intervention, often behind closed doors, but always with unmistakable force. Not this time. With nuclear-armed states engaging in direct military conflict, and the possibility of escalation rising by the hour, Trump’s response has been alarmingly hollow – a few hollow platitudes and vague overtures that carry neither weight nor will.

His initial reaction, describing the conflict as “a shame” and vaguely hoping “it ends quickly” — fell far short of the moment’s gravity. A follow-up comment, offering help “if I can do anything,” was not a policy position but a shrug disguised as diplomacy. The White House has not announced any formal intervention plan, nor has it activated the full weight of American diplomacy.

There is no shuttle diplomacy, no high-level envoy dispatched, no Security Council initiative, no pressure campaign. Washington is watching – passively.

Behind the silence lies a larger strategic vacuum. The Trump administration has long signaled its disdain for complex foreign entanglements that don’t yield immediate transactional benefit. South Asia’s dense layers of history, nationalism, and military calculus offer no quick-win optics or lucrative deal-making opportunities. And so, a conflict that could convulse global markets and destabilize a volatile nuclear triangle unfolds without the U.S. at the table.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly conducting quiet backchannel diplomacy but without a broader framework, such gestures are little more than diplomatic footnotes. There is no serious de-escalation architecture in motion. And in its absence, the world is left with a gaping leadership void at a time when steady hands are in short supply.

The Trump doctrine, to the extent one exists, trades patient statecraft for coercive leverage – often directed at weaker nations and bound to transactional goals. Whether it was the attempt to mine rare earths from Ukraine or the unsettling propositions floated in the Gaza crisis, American diplomacy under Trump has been opportunistic, not stabilizing.

In the case of Kashmir, there’s no profit to be made – no resources, no trade windfall, no political optics to exploit. Just the dull, necessary work of diplomacy. Trump is not interested.

The contrast with past American presidencies is stark. Bill Clinton intervened directly during the Kargil crisis, compelling then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull back from a near-nuclear edge. Even in 2019, after the Pulwama attack and the subsequent Balakot airstrikes, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played an active role in defusing tensions. “The world [didn’t] properly know just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration,” Pompeo later admitted.

Now, with India targeting Pakistani military assets deep within its territory, and Pakistan vowing retaliation, the dangers are far from theoretical. Precision strikes have given way to cross-border bombardments, naval deployments, and airspace violations. Any miscalculation, any rogue commander, could tip the balance.

Yet, Trump appears unwilling or unable to assert the traditional role of the United States as crisis manager-in-chief. This is not isolationism rooted in caution; it is abdication masked as restraint. Experts like Tim Willasey-Wilsey of the Royal United Services Institute warn that the White House’s lack of engagement reflects more than just fatigue. “We now have a president in the White House who says he doesn’t want to be the policeman of the world,” he notes grimly, adding that Trump’s overt affinity for Modi and hostility toward Pakistan’s leadership further erodes any perception of American neutrality.

A Tilted Balance of Power: U.S. Realignment and Waning Leverage
Historically, the United States played a critical role in de-escalating tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad. From the Kargil War in 1999 to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Washington served as a somewhat impartial actor with enough leverage over both nuclear-armed neighbors to coax restraint. However, that equation has dramatically changed.

Today, India is not just a regional player; it is central to the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at counterbalancing China’s assertiveness. This deepening U.S.-India relationship – encompassing defense cooperation, technological transfers, and intelligence sharing has created a diplomatic asymmetry. Washington is now visibly more reticent to criticize or pressure New Delhi publicly, even when crises demand impartial engagement.

On the flip side, Pakistan’s strategic utility to the United States has eroded. With the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, Islamabad’s traditional role as a conduit to the Taliban and a frontline state in the War on Terror has faded. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s growing reliance on China – manifest in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and expanding military ties—has placed it squarely in Beijing’s orbit, further reducing American influence.

As Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment rightly observed, the U.S. today is more invested in its strategic and economic partnership with India than in playing the old role of a neutral arbiter. The Biden administration, like its predecessor, is likely to choose carefully worded statements over assertive diplomacy, particularly in an election year with domestic preoccupations mounting.

A Global Military Laboratory, A Case Study China’s J-10 and India’s Rafale Fighters
Meanwhile, beyond the geopolitical maneuvering, the military dimension of the current crisis is drawing sharp attention from global defense establishments. The aerial dogfight between Pakistan’s Chinese-made J-10s and India’s French Rafale fighters marks a rare, real-world opportunity for rival defense blocs to assess the effectiveness of advanced weaponry and tactics under live combat conditions.

Though confirmation of exact weapons used remains murky, military analysts globally are scrambling to extract operational insights. This confrontation represents the first instance where China’s most advanced missile might have been used in combat against the West’s premier air-to-air weapon, something defense planners in Washington, Paris, and Beijing are keenly dissecting.

Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies called it a rare “ground truth” opportunity. “You have arguably China’s most capable weapon against the West’s most capable weapon,” he noted, although the fog of war continues to obscure definitive conclusions. The live combat data – on missile evasion, electronic countermeasures, and pilot training – will shape the next generation of fighter aircraft and air-to-air strategies across continents.

For the U.S., the performance of the PL-15 reinforces the urgency behind developing its next-gen AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile. Similarly, European defense firms are revisiting plans to upgrade the Meteor’s propulsion and targeting systems. This live testing ground, inadvertently provided by South Asia’s long-standing conflict, has implications far beyond the subcontinent, it is effectively a live simulation for potential future conflicts in Taiwan or the South China Sea.

Trump Pressuring Ukraine To Give Up Land Is “Modern-Day Appeasement,” Biden Warns In Candid Interview

By

Consulting Editor

-

May 7, 2025

0

In a revealing and wide-ranging interview, former U.S. President Joe Biden delivered one of his most forceful public condemnations yet of Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach especially on the issue of Ukraine. Speaking from his home state of Delaware, Biden warned that the Trump administration’s apparent willingness to pressure Ukraine into ceding territory to Russia amounted to “modern-day appeasement”, a sharp historical comparison to the failed pre-WWII policies of Britain’s Neville Chamberlain toward Adolf Hitler.

Biden’s remarks come as Allied nations commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, a fitting backdrop as he sounded the alarm over what he perceives to be an unraveling of the transatlantic alliance under Trump’s second term.

“You Give Him an Inch, He’ll Take a Mile”
On the question of peace with Russia, Biden was direct. “Putin believes Ukraine is part of Russia. Anybody that thinks he’s going to stop if some territory is conceded is just foolish,” he stated. The suggestion by Trump’s White House team that Ukraine should consider giving up parts of its territory especially Crimea and eastern regions currently occupied by Russian forces was met with sharp criticism from Biden.

Comparing these calls to the disastrous appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, Biden warned that making concessions to authoritarian leaders never ends with just one demand. “I just don’t understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to take significant portions of land that aren’t his, that that’s going to satisfy him,” Biden said, visibly frustrated.

The Trump Doctrine: Appeasement or Realignment?
Trump’s foreign policy stance, particularly through Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appears to be pivoting toward a ceasefire that would freeze current territorial lines, essentially legitimizing Russia’s occupation. Vance went as far as to say that Ukraine and Russia would have to “give up some of the territory they currently own,” while Hegseth called any expectation of returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders “unrealistic.”

Trump, meanwhile, has maintained a publicly neutral stance, saying, “I have no favourites. I want to have a deal done.” However, he has also implied that Crimea is already lost and accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of obstructing peace talks. In Biden’s view, this isn’t neutrality, it’s complicity.

Cracks in the Alliance?
A major concern Biden raised is the signal such a policy shift sends to Europe. “Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America and the leadership of America,” he warned. This sentiment echoes growing unease among European NATO members, particularly those bordering Russia, who may feel increasingly vulnerable if the U.S. wavers in its support for Ukraine.

“There’s strength in alliances,” Biden emphasized, noting that far from being a burden, partnerships with European allies ultimately save the U.S. money and enhance global security.

The Oval Office Showdown
The tension between the current administration and Ukraine reached a boiling point earlier this year when Zelensky was summoned to the White House for what turned into a highly critical televised meeting. Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader for what they saw as insufficient gratitude for U.S. aid. Biden described the exchange as “beneath America,” pointing to it as evidence of how far the tone of U.S. diplomacy has shifted.

Reflecting on His Own Record—and His Exit
Biden was also asked to reflect on his own record on Ukraine. He defended the gradual escalation of U.S. support during his presidency, saying, “We gave them everything they needed to provide for their independence.” While acknowledging that policy evolved over time, he stood by his administration’s decisions.

Turning to his abrupt exit from the 2024 presidential race following a stumbling debate performance, Biden remained reflective but firm. “I don’t think it would have mattered,” he said about whether stepping down earlier would’ve helped the Democrats. “We left at a time when we had a good candidate.”

The decision, he admitted, was emotionally wrenching. “It was just a difficult decision,” he repeated, though ultimately, “the right one.”

Biden vs. Trump is a Tale of Two Americas
Contrasting the Trump administration’s brash and isolationist tone, Biden defended the state of the nation when he left office: “Our economy was growing… stock markets were up… our global influence was expanding.” In contrast, he questioned the flurry of executive actions and drastic federal cuts initiated by Trump, saying: “I’ll let history judge that. I don’t see anything that was triumphant.”

From proposals to buy Greenland to suggesting Canada be the 51st U.S. state, Biden said Trump’s foreign policy ideas are outlandish and fundamentally un-American: “What the hell’s going on here? What president ever talks like that?”

A Warning to the World
Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from Biden’s interview was his fear that the world is becoming desensitized to autocracy. “If Ukraine gives up land, NATO countries might begin to think they too must make accommodations with Russia,” he warned.

His closing message was – diplomacy without principle is not peace – it is submission. And that, Biden suggested, is exactly what the Trump administration is asking of Ukraine.

Global Strategic Defense News

Global Strategic Defense News

Global Strategic Defense News

Quick Links

Follow Us

Ads Blocker Detected!!!