Author: Caracal

  • Decoding the Flourishing India-France Affair

    Decoding the Flourishing India-France Affair

    France once sailed in step with Britain, Spain, and Portugal, its ambitions stretching as far as the winds would carry its ships. It fought on distant shores, its banners raised in the great imperial struggle that shaped the modern world. From the Americas to Asia—including in India, where it vied with Britain for influence—France played its part in the violent theater of empire, but history had other plans. In the end, it yielded to Britain, its colonial reach eclipsed as the English secured their grip on global power.

    The British Empire, in time, grew old, its influence fraying at the edges, and from its shadow emerged a new master of the world—the United States. France, ever watchful, remained an ally of the West but never quite relinquished its longing for distinction. In partnership with Germany, it imagined a Europe unshackled from Anglo-American dominance, a world where Paris and Berlin, not Washington and London, set the terms. But as the English-speaking nations tightened their bonds, France found itself seeking new avenues for influence.

    Now, with nationalist fervor stirring on both sides of the Atlantic, France is once again in search of a role, a place in the shifting global order. It needs a partner—one formidable enough to shape the world alongside it, yet not so powerful as to cast it into the shadows. And so, France is turning to India. India-France relations are  evolving into a great partnership rooted in shared interests. As India grows wary of the deepening China-Russia partnership and faces limitations in its ties with the U.S., it, too, seeks a reliable ally. With defense, trade, and technological cooperation at the forefront, the India-France relationship is emerging as a key pillar of global diplomacy. 

    While India and France have long shared a strategic partnership, their ties are now reaching new heights. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to France underscored this deepening relationship, culminating in a stop at the Mediterranean port city of Marseille—an entry point that French President Emmanuel Macron envisions as Europe’s gateway to a future shaped by the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).

    Announced at the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi, IMEC is a planned railway and maritime corridor designed to strengthen trade between India and Europe via Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The initiative has been framed as a potential alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and was championed by the U.S. under former President Joe Biden. France, Italy, and Germany joined India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE as co-signatories, marking a significant step in Europe’s engagement with this new connectivity project.

    But for France, IMEC is more than just a trade corridor—it is an opportunity to revive its long-standing ambitions of expanding France-India trade. Historically, France saw India as a vital market and resource hub, but its aspirations were overshadowed by Britain, which secured dominance during the colonial era. Now, as France seeks to reassert its global relevance, its engagement with India has taken on a new strategic urgency, positioning India-France relations at the heart of its economic and geopolitical agenda.

    Macron emphasized that Marseille could serve as the main entry point for the European market, describing IMEC as a significant catalyst for concrete projects and investment. During his visit to Marseille, Prime Minister Modi attended a presentation by the CMA CGM Group, a French shipping and logistics giant eager to play a key role in making IMEC a reality. Modi stated on social media that as India expands its maritime and trade networks, collaborations with industry leaders will be essential in strengthening connectivity, supply chains, and economic growth. Recognizing the project’s significance, Macron had already appointed a special IMEC envoy last year to shape France’s role in the initiative.

    For India, Russia remains its most trusted partner, with deep ties spanning trade and defense. However, India’s concerns are growing as Russia strengthens its relationship with China. There is a fear that as Russia becomes more dependent on Beijing, China could dominate the partnership, potentially sidelining India. Given the already strained India-China relationship, such a shift could disrupt India’s access to critical Russian defense supplies and other essential imports.

    To mitigate this risk, India is actively diversifying its strategic partnerships and looking westward. France has emerged as a natural choice, offering advanced military technology and ammunition without the geopolitical constraints often imposed by the U.S. and Britain. Additionally, India sees France as a key partner in strengthening supply chains and securing greater access to European markets.

    India is set to acquire 26 French-made Rafale fighter jets, adding to the 33 already in service, while talks are underway for the purchase of three more Scorpene submarines, complementing the six previously acquired by the Indian Navy. These defense deals, worth approximately €10.6 billion, underscore the growing strategic alignment between the two nations. But France’s ambitions extend beyond defense—it sees India as a vital partner in shaping a world increasingly defined by the China-Russia axis and the U.S.-led order. For India, forging closer ties with France provides a powerful counterbalance, offering an ally beyond the dominant geopolitical blocs. With shared interests and mutual gains at play, this partnership is transforming into something deeper—a strategic alliance with the allure of a grand geopolitical romance.

  • Georgian Parliament Races to Limit Opposition

    Georgian Parliament Races to Limit Opposition

    Georgia’s democratic crisis is worsening as a government aligned with Russia clashes with an opposition backed by Europe. The ruling Georgian Dream party, backed by a highly questionable parliament, pushes laws that further weaken opposition forces and endanger Georgia’s European aspirations. In a decisive move, the government ousted opposition MPs from three parties who had previously accused it of widespread fraud in last October’s parliamentary elections. On February 5, parliament voted to strip 49 of these MPs of their mandates—a major setback in the 150-seat legislature—further cementing the ruling party’s dominance in the Georgian Parliament.

    On February 5, Salome Zourabichvili, the opposition leader who claims to be the country’s only legitimately elected president, declared Georgian democracy dead, accusing Georgian Dream of turning parliament into a mere rubber stamp for its authoritarian agenda. She argued that political life in Georgia had effectively ended, with no space left for political activity, the constitution rendered irrelevant, and fundamental rights—such as free expression and assembly—no longer protected. To revive democracy, she urged increased pressure from the United States and the European Union to push for fresh parliamentary elections.

    While Washington had imposed sanctions on Georgian Dream officials for their authoritarian actions, further intervention seemed unlikely, especially given the Trump administration’s early foreign policy stance. Unlike Biden, Trump showed little interest in EU expansion and instead prioritized seeking compromise with Russia over Ukraine, repeatedly emphasizing that U.S. interests came first, not those of the EU.

    Meanwhile, Georgian Dream has grown more assertive in advancing its agenda. On February 6, Mikheil Kavelashvili, the Georgian Dream-appointed president, signed several laws passed by MPs that same day, tightening restrictions on public demonstrations and imposing harsher penalties on violators, according to RFE/RL.

    On February 5, the same day opposition MPs were ousted, lawmakers introduced a bill to amend media legislation, restricting foreign funding for Georgian-registered media organizations. The measure directly targets many of the country’s leading independent news outlets, which have long relied on financial support from government and non-governmental sources in the U.S. and EU to sustain their watchdog role.

    While presenting the amendments, Mamuka Mdinaradze, a key power broker in Georgian Dream, argued that media outlets should generate most of their revenue from “Commercial Advertising.” He failed to acknowledge that Georgia’s advertising market can support only a handful of media organizations and that advertisers are more likely to favor state-aligned outlets to maintain good relations with the government.

    Additional amendments under consideration include a proposal to limit the role of non-governmental organizations in the public decision-making process. The government also plans to revise the foreign agents law to mirror the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, according to Civil.ge.

    On February 6, parliament appointed four Georgian Dream loyalists to the National Bank of Georgia’s board, giving the ruling party full control over the country’s monetary policy. That same day, MPs confirmed Natia Turnava as the bank’s governor. In early January, U.S. Congress members had urged the addition of Turnava and other Georgian Dream affiliates to the U.S. sanctions list, accusing them of being part of a network of enablers pushing Georgia toward authoritarianism.

    The situation is increasingly dire. The Georgian parliament is adopting a governing style reminiscent of Russia’s, moving closer to Moscow while drifting further from the West. Meanwhile, the opposition, which seeks to break free from authoritarian influence and strengthen ties with the West, is being systematically weakened or entirely sidelined in parliament. Despite maintaining public support, opposition figures are being excluded from key political institutions. With Trump maintaining a “mind your own business” stance, the Georgian government appears poised to consolidate its control in the coming days.

  • Will Jordan Be Forced to Take in Gazans Under Trump’s Plan?

    Will Jordan Be Forced to Take in Gazans Under Trump’s Plan?

    Donald Trump unveiled his Gaza plan, presenting it as a mutually beneficial solution for the United States, Israel, and the people of Gaza. The proposal envisions improved living conditions for Gazans, greater security for Israel, increased aid to countries that accept displaced Gazans, and potential U.S. influence over Gaza’s strategic coastline. Trump’s plan has provoked diverse reactions. It has gained support from the far right and found unexpected backing in some social media circles beyond traditional conservative groups, but it continues to face significant opposition, particularly from leftists and Muslim communities.

    Despite its seeming feasibility, a critical question remains: who will accept the displaced Gazans? Many are unlikely to leave, as their connection to Gaza is driven not only by survival but also by deep religious and ideological ties. Even with calls for Islamic solidarity, many Muslim-majority nations have been hesitant to take in large numbers of Gazans. Trump is unlikely to pressure wealthy Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Qatar, as maintaining strong business ties with them is a priority. This narrows the options to Egypt and Jordan, both of which have long standing relationships with Washington and a history of accepting Palestinian refugees in exchange for substantial American aid.

    Jordan, however, emerges as the more likely candidate due to its monarchy, which offers greater political flexibility compared to Egypt’s republic. If Trump’s plan proceeds, Jordan may once again find itself under significant pressure to accommodate displaced Palestinians.

    Donald Trump has pressured Jordan’s King Abdullah to accept Palestinians who would be permanently displaced under his proposal—a plan the Jordanian monarch has firmly rejected. Standing alongside King Abdullah at the White House, Trump made it clear he would not waver on his vision, which involves relocating Gaza’s war-weary residents and transforming the devastated territory into a high-end coastal destination modeled after the Riviera of the Middle East.

    For Jordan, however, the proposal presents a serious challenge. The country already hosts more than two million Palestinian refugees within its population of 11 million, a demographic reality that has long been a source of political sensitivity. Accepting more refugees would further alter Jordan’s demographics, intensify internal tensions, and risk fueling a resurgence of extremism. Moreover, Jordanian leaders recognize that agreeing to such a plan would effectively eliminate the possibility of a free Palestine, a cause the kingdom has consistently supported.

    King Abdullah reaffirmed Jordan’s steadfast opposition to the displacement of Palestinians, both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, which borders his country. He emphasized that the Arab world remains united on this issue, insisting that efforts should focus on rebuilding Gaza without forcing its residents to leave and on addressing the region’s escalating humanitarian crisis.

    Despite King Abdullah’s opposition, Trump remained confident that Jordan and Egypt would ultimately agree to host displaced Gazans. He suggested that both nations, dependent on U.S. economic and military aid, would be inclined to cooperate. Trump stated that he expected land in Jordan and Egypt to be allocated for resettling Gazans, with the possibility of additional locations being considered. He maintained that once negotiations were finalized, a suitable place would be secured where displaced Palestinians could live safely and comfortably.

    However, while Trump mentioned both Jordan and Egypt, Jordan would be more vulnerable if he decided to take action. Unlike Egypt, which holds strategic importance due to the Suez Canal and its broader regional influence, Jordan carries less geopolitical weight despite its border with Israel and the presence of U.S. military bases. If Washington were to impose economic pressure, such as trade restrictions or an embargo, Jordan would likely face greater hardship than Egypt.

    Although Trump has previously suggested the possibility of withholding aid to Jordan, he maintained that U.S. financial support was not being used as leverage. He stressed that Washington contributes significantly to Jordan’s economy but argued that exerting pressure was unnecessary, expressing confidence that diplomatic negotiations would ultimately yield a favorable outcome.

    However, Jordan will undoubtedly face pressure, making King Abdullah the first Arab leader to meet with Trump since the Gaza plan was announced. He has consistently opposed any efforts to annex land or forcibly displace Palestinians. While the meeting between the two leaders remained cordial, Trump’s remarks about Gaza heightened tensions, given Jordan’s sensitivity to the Palestinian right of return—a longstanding issue tied to the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 war that led to Israel’s creation.

    At one point, Trump seemed to nudge King Abdullah toward accepting Palestinians from Gaza, subtly suggesting that Jordan take on the responsibility. The king, however, remained steadfast, emphasizing that he would prioritize Jordan’s interests above all. Rejecting the notion of mass displacement, he offered a more measured response—Jordan would take in 2,000 sick children from Gaza for medical treatment, a humanitarian gesture that Trump acknowledged. With his usual forthrightness, Trump framed the conversation as one of mutual advantage, underscoring the importance of finding a solution that would benefit all parties. The proposal that Jordan might house displaced Palestinians, accompanied by the quiet promise of additional U.S. aid, lingered in the air, a tacit expectation yet to be fully voiced.

    Jordan, a kingdom long dependent on U.S. financial support, receives $1.72 billion annually, a lifeline funding essential sectors from education and public infrastructure to critical water security initiatives. Yet, recent cuts—$770 million in aid from USAID—have begun to fray the fabric of its economy. These funds, despite their political strings, are crucial to Jordan’s stability and survival. Given this fragile equilibrium, it’s clear that, in the days ahead, Jordan will once again find itself torn between economic necessity and geopolitical pressure, with Washington holding the reins of aid and influence firmly in its grasp.

  • Is Support for Hasina on the Rise in Bangladesh?

    Is Support for Hasina on the Rise in Bangladesh?

    Bangladesh has been in deep political turmoil for the past six months, marked by the ousting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in mass protests led by students and Islamists. These demonstrations escalated into violent attacks on Hasina’s supporters and minorities. Even after Hasina fled the state and her official residence was vandalized and looted—down to her personal belongings—the unrest did not subside. Despite Western-backed Yunus Khan assuming the role of interim leader and promising imminent elections, even at the cost of constitutional changes, the situation remains unstable. After six months of chaos, the country’s deepening economic troubles and worsening living conditions have led many to lose hope and many to shift their support back to Hasina. Her party is witnessing a revival, and pro-Hasina hashtags are resurfacing on social media, fueling fears of further political turmoil in the days ahead.

    The country is now sharply divided into two factions. On one side are the forces that led the mass protests that ousted Sheikh Hasina—students, leftists, Islamists, and anti-India groups—who not only oppose Hasina but also reject the legacy of the nation’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the Awami League, along with any historical ties to India.

    On the other side are Awami League supporters and those disillusioned with the interim government’s rule. This group remained largely silent over the past six months due to intense crackdowns, but they are slowly resurfacing. As part of this resurgence, Sheikh Hasina, now in exile in India, addressed her supporters, sparking widespread outrage. In response, violent attacks erupted against symbols of her legacy, including her family home and institutions built during her tenure in Bangladesh.

    Bangladesh police have arrested over 1,500 people since Saturday amid reports of mob violence and a sweeping security crackdown. The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, called for calm following the attack on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s residence. Hours later, members of the student-led movement that ousted Hasina were attacked in Gazipur, near Dhaka, prompting students to demand action.

    The police crackdown, dubbed Operation Devil Hunt, is a joint effort between the army and police to suppress groups involved in recent violent incidents, targeting both supporters and opponents of the ousted premier. As Islamist factions gain ground, liberals and minorities who were once safeguarded under Hasina’s rule are increasingly becoming targets. On Monday, police placed publisher Shatabdi Bhaba under protective custody after a group of enraged Islamist students surrounded his stall at the Amar Ekushey Book Fair in Dhaka, where works by exiled feminist author Taslima Nasrin were on display.

    The interim government, grappling with instability, fears Sheikh Hasina’s return as the nation’s identity remains closely tied to the Awami League, which still commands a loyal and sizable support base. Alarmed by the party’s potential resurgence, the government is reportedly considering a constitutional ban to curb its influence. On Monday, Bangladesh National Party (BNP) Secretary-General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir met with interim leader Muhammad Yunus to voice concerns over the escalating unrest, according to AFP.

    Global perceptions of the Bangladesh riots that erupted in August have shifted in recent months. India appears to be leaning toward supporting Sheikh Hasina, wary of the prospect of Islamist rule on its eastern border. The viral image of Bangladeshi students desecrating Indian and Israeli flags circulated widely in India and the West, shaping opinions on the interim government.

    Western governments have also voiced serious concerns over the rise in extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh. In early February, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), a Bangladeshi human rights organization monitoring attacks on minority communities, reported that 17 people had died in law enforcement custody during the interim government’s first five months, including a BNP leader. The report highlights an alarming increase in extrajudicial killings, fueling international criticism of human rights violations.

    Despite this, support for Hasina and the Awami League appears to be growing. Even as party offices and homes of Awami League leaders were targeted—attacks spanning 35 districts, including the residence of A.K.M. Mozammel Haque, Minister for Liberation War Affairs—Hasina’s leadership continues to command significant backing. Both the interim government and Islamist factions remain wary of the Awami League. If constitutional changes are not implemented and elections are further delayed, support for Hasina will likely continue to surge, raising the possibility of yet another political upheaval. Bangladesh has a long history of mass mobilization, and the prospect of a new uprising looms large.

  • Stormy Waters or Smooth Sailing? Japan’s Fate Under Trump 2.0

    Stormy Waters or Smooth Sailing? Japan’s Fate Under Trump 2.0

    In his second term, Trump continues to clash with allies, undermining longstanding partnerships, all while the global political landscape grows ever more volatile. Against this backdrop, Japan’s Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, visited Washington last week, seeking to reaffirm the U.S.-Japan alliance. Their first meeting struck a notably cordial tone, with Japan—at least for the time being—avoiding the tariffs Trump has imposed on other allies. But as Trump pushes for greater reciprocity, Tokyo may soon find itself facing the harsher, more transactional aspects of his foreign policy.

    The meeting was marked by a cordial exchange of praise between the two leaders at the White House, where they pledged solidarity in the face of Chinese “aggression” and unveiled a resolution to a stalled deal involving the troubled U.S. Steel. However, Trump also pressed Ishiba to address the U.S. trade deficit with Japan, warning that Tokyo could still face tariffs on its exports if it did not meet that demand. Despite Japan’s role as a steadfast U.S. ally and a key player in managing the escalating tensions between China and the U.S. in the region, the central theme of their discussions remained Trump’s “America First” policy.

    During Trump’s first term, the U.S.-Japan relationship flourished, strengthened by the close rapport between Trump and Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Ishiba, a self-proclaimed “geek” and warship enthusiast, has been under pressure to emulate the strong ties that Trump shared with Abe. Both leaders claimed to have formed a connection during what was only the second visit by a foreign leader in Trump’s second term. Ishiba, a proponent of an Asian NATO and increased U.S. involvement in the region, now finds himself contending with a president who has consistently criticized NATO spending and threatened to cut security support to allied nations.

    Trump also made a significant announcement that Japan’s Nippon Steel would make a major investment in U.S. Steel, though it would not proceed with the original plan to take over the struggling company. Instead of a full acquisition, the focus would be on a strategic investment. This shift came after his predecessor, Joe Biden, had blocked the deal, underscoring Trump’s distinct approach to international business. While this move raised questions about the stability of the U.S.-Japan relationship, it also signaled Japan’s growing investments in the U.S., especially in light of its own demographic challenges. Many speculate that Trump’s show of support is linked to Japan’s commitment to a $1 trillion investment in the U.S. and its promise to increase purchases of U.S. defense equipment. Ishiba emphasized that Japan is already the largest foreign investor in the U.S. and would continue to ramp up its spending.

    Trump and Ishiba agreed to address what they termed “Chinese Economic Aggression,” and in a joint statement, they condemned Beijing for its “provocative activities” in the contested South China Sea. They also reiterated their call for a denuclearized North Korea, though Trump—who had previously met with Kim Jong-un during his first term—expressed a desire to maintain “relations” with Pyongyang.

    Thus far, Trump has imposed tariffs on China, briefly extended them to Mexico and Canada before pausing the measures for a month, and vowed to impose tariffs on the European Union. He has also hinted at announcing unspecified “Reciprocal Tariffs” in the coming week. Should the EU face pressure, Japan may no longer enjoy the same guarantees of protection it once did. While Trump’s personal friendship with Abe had been a factor in their prior rapport, it may not carry the same weight in his second term, where he appears more resolute. In the end, only Trump can predict whether the waters ahead will be stormy or smooth for Japan in the years to come.

  • How Azerbaijan Found the Nerve to Stand Up to Russia

    How Azerbaijan Found the Nerve to Stand Up to Russia

    Russia is floundering on all fronts. Humiliated on the battlefield and steadily losing once-friendly nations in Europe, it faces mounting economic hardship, forced to sell its resources at cut-rate prices to China and India. Yet perhaps the greater indignity lies in the defiance of its former satellite states—once obedient, now emboldened to seek new alliances. The war in Ukraine, one of Putin’s most catastrophic miscalculations, has become a lingering nightmare for the Kremlin. Countries that once deferred to Moscow now openly challenge its authority. The latest to break ranks is Azerbaijan, a small but strategically significant Caucasus nation long dependent on Russia. As tensions rise over the downing of an Azerbaijani passenger jet, the standoff is yet another sign of Moscow’s eroding influence over its former empire.

    Azerbaijan has every right to be outraged after losing its citizens in what it considers a Russian mistake. Few, however, could have anticipated that the fallout would escalate into a full-blown standoff.

    On December 25, an Azerbaijan Airlines plane crashed near Aktau, Kazakhstan, killing 38 people after being rerouted across the Caspian Sea from southern Russia. In the aftermath, Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev—a close ally of Vladimir Putin—accused Russia of accidentally shooting down the aircraft with its air defense system. He condemned Moscow for attempting to conceal the incident for days, calling the response shocking, regrettable, and a legitimate cause for indignation in Baku.

    In an unusual move, Putin expressed condolences and referred to the crash as a tragic incident, though he stopped short of admitting Russia’s responsibility—a response that only deepened Azerbaijan’s anger.

    Tensions have been high since the incident. On Wednesday, the APA news agency, closely tied to the Azerbaijani government, reported that Baku was preparing to take Russia to international court over the alleged downing of the plane. The agency disclosed that facts and evidence were being collected, with preparations underway for an official appeal. The article also delivered a pointed criticism of Moscow, accusing it of trying to evade responsibility for the incident.

    The report revealed that Azerbaijan had identified both the individuals who gave the order to fire and those who followed through with it. The article implied that Russia was trying to craft a scenario similar to the Malaysia Airlines incident, drawing a parallel to Moscow’s ongoing denial of responsibility for the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. APA warned that unless Russia publicly acknowledged its role and took responsibility, Baku would escalate its response.

    The article, widely believed to have been published with the approval of local authorities in tightly controlled Azerbaijan, appeared a day after a report from Kazakh officials, which revealed that the plane had sustained external damage and had numerous holes in its fuselage. The report, however, was carefully worded and refrained from specifying the cause of the damage, including to the plane’s stabilizers, hydraulics, and trim systems. 

    On Thursday, tensions further escalated when Azerbaijan ordered Moscow to shut down the Russian House cultural center in Baku. The center, operated by Rossotrudnichestvo—a Russian federal agency viewed as a tool of Russian soft power and often suspected of functioning as a front for espionage and covert operations—was the target of this action. Simultaneously, Azerbaijani state media reported that Baku had sent a rare shipment of non-military aid to support Ukraine.

    What gives this small state, traditionally within Russia’s sphere of influence, the courage to engage in a dispute with the mighty Russia? Several factors are at play. First, Russia’s downfall is a significant motivator. When the war in Ukraine began, many expected that Ukraine would fall within a month, but now, three years later, Ukraine is still standing strong and has become a major ally of the West. Meanwhile, states like Sweden and Finland who refused to join the west previously  have joined NATO, and Russia has been unable to block them. Militarily, Russia is no longer perceived as a superpower, and Azerbaijan believes it can withstand challenges from Russia.

    Second, there’s the economic factor. Beyond the surface, Russia’s economy and businesses are struggling under the weight of sanctions. Tying Azerbaijan’s economy to Russia could cause trouble for Azerbaijan’s business interests as well. However, distancing itself from Russia opens up more economic freedom for Azerbaijan. This newfound confidence is also fueled by Azerbaijan’s growing role in the West’s energy plans, especially after the EU sought alternatives to Russian fossil fuels.

    Azerbaijan’s stance is also part of a broader regional trend. Its longtime rival, Armenia, publicly broke with the Kremlin after Russian peacekeeping forces failed to prevent Azerbaijan from seizing control of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. Armenia became the first country to leave the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and began turning to the West and Iran for support. Recently, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan even hinted at pursuing EU membership.

    In neighboring Georgia, thousands have taken to the streets, pushing for Western support. Azerbaijan, however, is not necessarily looking to Europe for support. With Turkey, a key ally and fellow ethnic partner, in power, Azerbaijan sees strengthening its ties with Turkey as a route to greater Western alignment. This shift also reflects a broader change in the Middle East, where Iran’s influence, along with Russia’s, is waning. More countries, including Lebanon and Syria, are gravitating toward pro-Western governments, and Azerbaijan could easily join this trend.

    Many still believe that President Aliyev is playing a delicate game, leveraging his close ties with Moscow to manage the situation. By escalating tensions with Russia, he may be attempting to redirect public anger over the incident, easing pressure on his regime and preventing mass protests. Despite the apparent standoff, Azerbaijan and Russia remain deeply intertwined economically and politically, and some caution against assuming a complete break.

    In recent years, Azerbaijan has solidified its economic ties with Russia, with Moscow increasingly dependent on Azerbaijan as a crucial transit hub. Perched on the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan facilitates the movement of goods to and from Iran and the Persian Gulf, helping Russia circumvent Western sanctions and tap into new markets. While some in Moscow hold out hope that a genuine apology could mollify tensions and restore the status quo, one cannot help but wonder: Has Azerbaijan grown strong enough to challenge the once-unstoppable Russia? Or could it be that Russia’s grip has weakened to such a degree that even a small power like Azerbaijan now dares to stand in opposition?

  • Narendra Modi Finally Got India’s Capital Territory

    Narendra Modi Finally Got India’s Capital Territory

    Delhi, the national capital territory of India, serves as the country’s administrative center, housing Parliament, ministries, the Supreme Court, and other key government institutions and tribunals. Unlike Indian states, it functions as a special administrative zone with limited governing authority, akin to Washington, D.C., in the United States. Despite its small size, Delhi wields significant political influence. Often called “Mini Hindustan” due to the diverse migration from across India, it remains a crucial battleground for political parties, with gaining power in Delhi considered a point of pride.

    For Narendra Modi and the BJP, securing power in Delhi has been a long-standing goal. Though the party briefly controlled the capital in the 1990s, it struggled to regain influence after Modi became prime minister in 2014. Despite its widespread electoral success across India, the BJP consistently lost Delhi’s assembly elections to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), led by Arvind Kejriwal. Originating from an anti-corruption movement, AAP positioned itself as a grassroots alternative to traditional politics, operating more as an activist-driven group than a conventional party. While some experts saw AAP’s rise as a potential third force in Indian politics, the party lost its important ground in this latest election.

    After years of setbacks, the BJP’s hard work finally paid off in the latest Delhi Assembly elections, which concluded on February 5th. This victory—Modi’s fourth attempt at capturing the capital—marks a significant political shift. For the first time in over a quarter-century, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has taken control of Delhi’s government. In the 2025 assembly elections, the BJP won 47 of the 70 seats, ousting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had governed the capital since 2015. AAP secured just 22 seats. In a stunning upset, its leader and founder, Arvind Kejriwal, along with his deputy, Manish Sisodia, lost their seats despite the party’s strong appeal through welfare programs and its anti-corruption agenda. The Indian National Congress, which failed to win a single seat for the third consecutive election, faces serious questions about its future. Once a dominant force in the region, Congress ruled Delhi for nearly 15 years before Kejriwal’s rise. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), another former powerhouse, also suffered a crushing defeat.

    Waving party flags and holding up posters of Narendra Modi, BJP supporters chanted slogans and danced outside the party headquarters in the capital as the vote results started to come in, with most exit polls predicting a decisive win for the party. Addressing the crowd, Modi criticized the Aam Aadmi Party and Arvind Kejriwal for their actions, but reserved his sharpest words for the Indian National Congress, delivering a scathing critique of the opposition. Amit Shah, India’s influential home minister and senior BJP leader, emphasized that the victory represented the people’s rejection of deceit. He noted that the public could no longer be misled by falsehoods. Shah also stressed that under Modi’s leadership, the BJP would transform New Delhi into the world’s leading capital by fulfilling all its promises. He hailed the victory as a testament to the people’s faith in Prime Minister Modi’s vision for progress.

    The election result was a major boost for the BJP, especially after the party failed to secure a majority in last year’s national elections and had to rely on coalition partners to form the government. The BJP regained momentum by winning key state elections in Haryana and Maharashtra. In the lead-up to the election, Modi’s government implemented tax cuts for the salaried middle class, a vital voting bloc. Throughout the campaign, both Modi and Kejriwal promised reforms, such as overhauling government schools, providing free healthcare and electricity, and offering a monthly stipend of over 2,000 rupees ($25) to impoverished women—proposals that have become standard in Indian elections.

    The Delhi election signals important political shifts in India. Narendra Modi and the BJP are reaching new heights, extending their influence into states and territories once beyond their grasp. Modi is also attracting support from Muslim and Sikh communities, groups that were traditionally outside his base. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc, known as I.N.D.I.A., which includes the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), is unraveling. Both parties failed to coordinate and strike agreements ahead of the Delhi election, leading to disappointing outcomes. AAP may distance itself from the alliance, as many parties within the bloc face similar struggles due to a lack of cohesion. Modi’s success is well-deserved, and the BJP is clearly flourishing. However, the opposition must reassess its strategy if it hopes to challenge Modi’s expanding dominance.

  • Sara Duterte’s Impeachment: When Political Heirs Flunk the Job

    Sara Duterte’s Impeachment: When Political Heirs Flunk the Job

    Philippine politics, often regarded as one of the world’s most troubled democracies, feels like a script lifted from third-rate Indian films—a full-on drama with a cast of characters drawn from powerful dynasties. The narrative is laced with an unhealthy dose of masala: intrigue, betrayal, and a penchant for bloodshed. The latest installment, starring President Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte, is performing well in the Philippines’ political theater. The revenge story now reaches its dramatic, inevitable climax. Duterte, embroiled in accusations ranging from plotting the assassination of the president to large-scale corruption and failing to confront China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea, has finally faced impeachment.

    On Wednesday, legislators in the House of Representatives, many of them allies of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., deepened the political rift between the country’s two highest leaders by advancing an impeachment complaint against the vice president. With at least 215 lawmakers signing the petition—well beyond the required threshold—the complaint was swiftly sent to the Senate, which would serve as the tribunal for the proceedings, according to House Secretary-General Reginald Velasco during the chamber’s final session before a four-month recess. Among the signatories were Representative Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, and Speaker Martin Romualdez. The complaint called on the Senate to convene as an impeachment court, convict the vice president, remove her from office, and disqualify her from holding any future public office. It accused her of betraying public trust, abusing power in a tyrannical manner, and showing an inability to hold public office, with actions that demonstrated a disregard for the 1987 Constitution.

    The Marcos and Duterte families remain locked in a political battle that has stymied the Philippines’ progress, with their contrasting policies—especially in foreign affairs—fueling divisions. While Marcos has strengthened defense ties with the United States, his predecessor, former president Rodrigo Duterte, cultivated close relations with China and Russia during his turbulent term, which ended in 2022. Despite these differences, the two families unexpectedly allied during the 2022 presidential election, securing Marcos Jr. the presidency and Sara Duterte the vice presidency. However, their alliance swiftly unraveled, giving rise to a fierce power struggle.

    Though often seen as politically inexperienced, Sara Duterte has gradually carved out her own influence, distancing herself from Marcos’s circle. As this political drama unfolds, she has become a central figure in Philippine politics, attracting public attention in a country where political rivalries often shape leadership prospects. Many now view her as the Duterte family’s strongest candidate for the presidency in 2028.

    However, the impeachment process carries significant risks for her. If the Senate upholds the charges, she would be barred from future elections. While Sara Duterte has not yet responded publicly to her impeachment, her brother, Representative Paolo Duterte, has condemned it as a clear act of political persecution. He accused rival lawmakers of hastily gathering signatures to push a baseless case to the Senate. Duterte has consistently leveled accusations of corruption, weak leadership, and attempts to silence her against Marcos, his wife, and his cousin, House Speaker Martin Romualdez, speculating that they are targeting her due to fears she may challenge Marcos for the presidency once his six-year term concludes in 2028.

    The impeachment complaint against the vice president centers on a death threat she allegedly made against the president, his wife, and the House speaker last year, as well as accusations of irregularities in the use of her office’s intelligence funds and her failure to take a strong stance against Chinese aggression in the disputed South China Sea. 

    During an online news conference on November 23, she stated that she had contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife, and Romualdez if she were assassinated, emphasizing that her words were not meant as a joke. She later clarified that she was not issuing a threat but expressing concerns for her own safety. However, as a member of a powerful political dynasty, she failed to recognize the gravity of making such statements about the country’s leader. Her remarks triggered an official investigation and raised national security concerns.

    Allegations of graft and corruption against the vice president stemmed from a months-long, televised House investigation into the alleged misuse of 612.5 million pesos ($10.5 million) in confidential and intelligence funds allocated to her offices as vice president and education secretary. Her political rift with Marcos eventually led to her departure from the education post.

    She has also faced accusations of unexplained wealth and failing to disclose her assets as required by law. However, she has repeatedly refused to address these allegations in detail, remaining evasive during tense televised hearings last year.

    However, this battle is as much about the next elections as it is about governance. The Philippine general elections are scheduled for May, but the 2028 presidential race is the real prize. Sara Duterte has already signaled her interest, positioning herself as a strong and decisive leader—an image that resonates with the country’s electorate, which has long gravitated toward tough-talking politicians.

    Her fate now rests with the 24 senators, two-thirds of whom must vote for her impeachment to remove her from office. A conviction would not only unseat her but also bar her from holding any future government position, effectively ending her presidential ambitions. But this is the Philippines—where political twists are always unpredictable.

  • Is Everything Set for Trump’s Real Estate Project in Gaza?

    Is Everything Set for Trump’s Real Estate Project in Gaza?

    Donald Trump, the real estate mogul-turned-president, is pushing forward with a controversial plan backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and championed by Israeli conservatives. First floated by his son-in-law Jared Kushner during Trump’s initial administration, the proposal calls for relocating Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring Arab countries and transforming the enclave into a luxury coastal destination.

    With its Mediterranean shoreline and strategic location, Gaza is being positioned for U.S. control, with American investment poised to turn the war-ravaged territory into a lucrative real estate asset. Israel’s sweeping military response to Hamas’s October 7 attack has left Gaza in ruins, paving the way for this vision. For Netanyahu’s government, U.S. control offers a crucial security buffer, preventing displaced Palestinians from returning and potentially reviving Hamas or other Islamist militant groups.

    Trump’s proposal has ignited a global backlash, drawing outrage from Gazans, the broader Islamic world, and European leaders alike. While some have floated the idea of resettlement with U.S. financial backing as a means to ease Gaza’s crushing humanitarian crisis, resistance remains formidable. For much of the Muslim world, Gaza is more than just territory—it is a symbol of Islamic solidarity, and its depopulation is viewed as an assault on both religious and political identity. In Europe, officials warn that Trump’s plan—particularly the forced relocation of Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan—could deal a final, irreparable blow to the already fragile prospects of a two-state solution.

    The idea of “cleaning out” Palestinians to turn a profit in real estate has long united Israel’s settler movement and certain figures in Donald Trump’s orbit of U.S. developers. For decades, state-backed settlers have laid claim to Palestinian land, using concrete and steel not just to build towns but to cement political realities, ensuring that Palestinians are permanently displaced.

    This approach resonated with key figures in Trump’s first administration—not only because it was stacked with apocalyptic evangelicals who see Jewish control of the Holy Land as a biblical prerequisite for the Second Coming, but also because it aligned with the real estate instincts of Trump’s inner circle. No one embodied this more than Jared Kushner, the driving force behind a 2020 Middle East “Peace” plan that never materialized but was strikingly focused on investment rather than sovereignty.

    Trump has now taken the idea to its most extreme conclusion, pushing for the U.S. to seize control of Gaza and forcibly remove its two million residents. His plan envisions development on land flattened by Israeli airstrikes. He has made clear that the U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and reshape it entirely, asserting full ownership. Last month, he dismissed concerns about Gaza’s population, describing the situation as a matter of clearing out more than a million and a half people.

    Israel has long proposed various economic plans for Gaza, all while maintaining a strict siege and insisting on ultimate control over the region. One such proposal, to build an artificial island off Gaza’s coast to host a seaport and airport, was revived last year by Israel’s former foreign minister in an effort to address the frustration of EU diplomats seeking a political resolution. Trump’s plan echoes this proposal, with the president envisioning Gaza as a new “Riviera of the Middle East.” Steven Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, has backed the idea of relocating Palestinians, asserting that a better life doesn’t have to be tied to the physical space in which one resides.

    Meanwhile, Israeli settler groups that were evacuated from Gaza under the 2005 disengagement plan are eager to return. In December, the real estate agency Harey Zahav, which caters to settlers, released an image of new buildings rising amid the rubble of Gaza, accompanied by the message that owning a house on the beach is a tangible dream. It remains unclear how these settler ambitions, or those of the Israeli government, will align with Trump’s takeover plan, though there is a history of collaboration between the two.

    The Trump administration’s plan for Gaza appears to be nearing fruition. With the territory now under Israeli control, a formal handover to the U.S. seems increasingly likely, offering Israel a way to rid itself of the blame tied to this contentious piece of land. However, such a move would effectively mark the end of Palestine, a prospect long advocated against by much of the international community. The West Bank, now nearly fully under Israeli control, shows no signs of returning to Palestinian hands. Losing Gaza to U.S. control, with an eventual handover to Israel, would be the final blow to the Palestinian cause. And it is none other than the calculating real estate magnate, Donald Trump, who has set this entire project in motion, orchestrating the threats, talks, and calls that have propelled it forward.

  • Four Years In: Where Myanmar’s Civil War Stands Now

    Four Years In: Where Myanmar’s Civil War Stands Now

    While the world’s attention remains fixed on the Russia-Ukraine war—largely due to Europe’s involvement—and the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has deepened religious divisions, another war continues to unfold largely unnoticed. As global headlines focus on Gaza and Ukraine, Myanmar’s civil war rages on, drawing little international concern. For many, the country is little more than the backdrop of a viral meme featuring a dancing instructor oblivious to military tanks rolling past her during the 2021 coup. That coup dismantled Myanmar’s democratic government, plunging the nation into a relentless conflict between the military junta and various ethnic armed groups. Now in its fourth year, the war has inflicted widespread devastation, forcing mass displacement and causing staggering human losses. With no immediate resolution in sight, many believe the junta’s hold on power is weakening, raising the prospect of Myanmar fracturing along ethnic lines.

    Four years into the conflict, resistance to Myanmar’s military junta has only intensified. A BBC study estimates that the regime now controls just 21% of the country’s territory, as it battles the People’s Defence Force—formed by the opposition National Unity Government, comprised of remnants of the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won Myanmar’s last democratic election—alongside long-standing ethnic armed groups resisting Naypyidaw’s rule.

    Despite losing 95 towns, key trade routes, hundreds of military bases, and two regional commands, the junta still holds Myanmar’s major cities and central regions, making its removal far from imminent. Yet internal fractures are deepening, with growing calls for its leader, Min Aung Hlaing, to step down. In its desperation, the military continues to deploy brutal tactics—mass killings, torture, sexual violence, and relentless airstrikes on civilian areas. Any effort to further restrict its access to jet fuel should be pursued. The toll has been catastrophic: more than 4 million people displaced, half the population forced into poverty, and fewer than half with access to electricity. Rakhine State, one of the few places that occasionally draws international attention due to its Muslim population, is reported to have an especially dire crisis. The UN warns of imminent famine, with the Rohingya Muslim community particularly vulnerable—trapped between the military, which has forcibly conscripted men, and the Arakan Army, which accuses them of siding with the junta.

    For many in Myanmar, military rule no longer feels like an inevitability. The junta’s refusal to compromise has convinced its opponents that a negotiated settlement is out of reach. Fears of post-junta chaos—and the potential toll on civilians—are understandable. Opposition groups have committed human rights abuses of their own and remain deeply divided, with often conflicting agendas. There is also concern about how a coalition government could function given these vast differences. However, despite these challenges, the opposition has managed to cooperate in surprising ways over the past four years.

    The dramatic rebel advances of late October 2023 were made possible by China’s quiet backing of an alliance of ethnic armed groups, frustrated by the junta’s failure to curb cross-border criminal networks. But Beijing has since cut off arms supplies and key imports, now viewing the regime’s survival as its best chance to secure resources, maintain stability, and keep U.S. influence at bay. Notably, China has emerged as the strongest advocate for elections this year—an exercise that would be both a sham, given the 21,000 political prisoners in detention, and a logistical impossibility, as opposition forces have vowed to disrupt them.

    Meanwhile, U.S. policy shifts are already having dire consequences. The Trump administration’s attacks on the National Endowment for Democracy threaten civic groups providing critical support to Myanmar’s population and would be essential in rebuilding the country. The freeze on USAID operations has already led to the withdrawal of medical care for 100,000 refugees in Thailand. 

    Beyond China and the US, other regional and global powers have a vested interest in Myanmar’s future. India, Thailand, and Europe are involved in varying degrees, with the West supporting the National Unity Government (NUG). However, the cooperation of ethnic armed groups in any future government remains uncertain. A federal union might be the best possible solution for Myanmar, but these groups, now deeply entrenched in their ethnic identities, govern their own territories like independent entities.

    Take the Arakan Army, for example. It controls nearly all of Rakhine State, except for Sittwe, and operates autonomously, despite its nominal alliance with the NUG. If it were to receive support from other nations, it would likely push for full independence. The same applies to other ethnic groups, which, while currently united against the junta, could ultimately seek their own sovereignty.

    As Myanmar marks the fourth anniversary of its civil war, it’s clear that a unified Myanmar, whether under military or civilian rule, is increasingly unrealistic. The coup and subsequent civil war have fractured the country. What remains is a power struggle among multiple factions, each vying for control.