Category: World

  • Beijing’s Bid to Be the Grown-Up in the Room

    Beijing’s Bid to Be the Grown-Up in the Room

    As the long-standing alliance between the United States and Europe shows signs of strain in the turbulent Trump era, uncertainty grips the global order. Smaller nations, caught in the confusion, struggle to determine their stance. However, this upheaval in international relations has created an opportunity for one power to adopt a steadier, more authoritative presence on the global stage—China. For China, this is the moment it has long anticipated—a chance to establish itself as the world’s stabilizing force.

    As Beijing’s annual Two Sessions unfolds, the country is setting its priorities—strengthening the economy, advancing technology, and managing its prolonged trade dispute with Donald Trump. While the meetings continue, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi addressed the global press on Friday with a clear message: in an increasingly uncertain world, China positions itself as a steady force, ready to uphold global peace.

    What Wang Yi Says

    At his assertive, “Wolf Warrior”–style press conference, Wang Yi outlined China’s vision for the global order with calculated precision. While he made only a few direct references to the United States, the contrast he drew between Beijing and Washington was unmistakable—casting the U.S. as a destabilizing force and China as the steadfast champion of the developing world.

    Wang framed the present moment as one of profound transformation and uncertainty, where stability is increasingly elusive. He stressed that the choices made by the world’s major powers will not only shape the course of history but also determine the future of global governance. Positioning China as a pillar of stability, he asserted that the country’s diplomacy would remain firmly aligned with progress and the “right side of history,” offering a steady hand in a world adrift.

    Trump: The Bad Guy

    China attributes much of this uncertainty to Washington, as Donald Trump’s return to the White House signals a sharp departure from previous administrations. His “America First” agenda, defined by protectionist policies and the looming threat of tariffs, has raised fears of a broader trade war and potential damage to the rules-based global system.

    When asked about Trump’s withdrawal from international organizations and his prioritization of American dominance, Wang Yi warned that an obsession with strength would lead the world back to the law of the jungle. He cautioned that smaller and weaker nations would bear the brunt of such a shift, while international norms and order would suffer a severe blow.

    Wang emphasized that major powers must uphold their international obligations and act responsibly, rather than placing self-interest above fundamental principles.

    China: The Good Guy

    China’s top diplomat vowed that Beijing would stand as a force for global peace and stability, championing fairness and justice on the world stage. He emphasized China’s commitment to upholding true multilateralism, pledging to build consensus for a more balanced and orderly multipolar world. Beijing, he said, would serve as a constructive force for global development, safeguard the multilateral free-trade system, and promote an open, inclusive, and non-discriminatory environment for international cooperation.

    Wang underscored China’s belief in lasting friendships built on shared interests, pointing to the Belt and Road Initiative, which he noted has been embraced by over three-quarters of the world’s nations. History, he argued, would prove that true leadership lies in prioritizing the common good and fostering a global community with a shared future. 

    China’s World Order

    We can’t say, based on Wang Yi’s remarks, that China intends to replace the United States outright. But Beijing is certainly making its case: the U.S. is unreliable, a disruptor of the global order, and a habitual rule-breaker. In contrast, China presents itself as the more stable, trustworthy, and mature alternative. The message is clear: Europe and other nations would be better off relying on China to preserve the current world order.

    Unlike Washington, Beijing insists that it seeks to uphold international institutions like the United Nations and ensure that all nations, regardless of size, are treated as equal members of the global community. If the U.S. is unwilling or unable to maintain global stability, China is signaling that it stands ready to step in—not as a direct replacement, but as a leader among partners in Europe, Asia, and beyond.

  • As the U.S. Withdraws, Can China Take the Helm?

    As the U.S. Withdraws, Can China Take the Helm?

    Donald Trump’s policies—cutting aid, imposing tough tariffs, downsizing alliances, and publicly humiliating leaders—have significantly damaged the United States’ global reputation. The humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a shock to the Western world and marked a major setback in U.S. foreign relations. Many now believe that by the end of Trump’s second term, America’s international standing could erode even further.

    While the U.S. economy and the dollar remain dominant, even its closest allies are questioning whether promoting a second global power is inevitable. But if not the United States, then who?

    The traditional European powers—Britain, France, and others—once led the world but are now weakened. Even if the European Union consolidated its economic strength, reaching a GDP of $18 trillion, it would still trail the U.S. Moreover, Europe remains a fragmented bloc, deeply divided by political conflicts between the left and right, making a unified challenge to U.S. dominance unlikely. Militarily and technologically, Europe also lags far behind.

    Russia, once the United States’ great rival under the Soviet Union, has proven itself a diminished force. Its war in Ukraine has exposed deep military and economic weaknesses, making it clear that Moscow is no longer a serious contender for global leadership.

    That leaves China as the only nation truly positioned to rival the U.S. With a $19 trillion economy—just $10 trillion behind America’s—an increasingly sophisticated military under centralized command, and technological advancements that have even caught Washington off guard, China has both the ambition and the capacity to assert itself on the world stage. The question is: Can it seize the moment?

    U.S. Step-Back

    To safeguard its interests, the United States is increasingly withdrawing from international institutions. It has already pulled out of the World Health Organization, and under Trump, there is even the possibility of an exit from the United Nations or NATO—the very alliance that anchors Western Europe to the U.S. Cuts to security funding and demands for increased financial contributions from NATO allies have been viewed as humiliating by many member-state politicians.

    Trump is also shifting away from traditional alliances with strategically located partners. In 2024, he suggested that Taiwan should pay the U.S. for its defense, despite the self-governing island already spending billions on American arms. This year alone, Taiwan is reportedly considering an additional $7–10 billion in military purchases to maintain favor with the Trump administration—a strategy that other nations may attempt but cannot all afford.

    At the same time, cuts to U.S. foreign aid could weaken ties with many countries that rely heavily on American financial support. Numerous political parties and organizations worldwide operate with U.S. funding, and if those resources dry up, they may easily shift their allegiances to new backers.

    Ambitious China 

    China’s ambition for global dominance extends far beyond Communist Party meetings and nationalist action films. As the United States retreats from international commitments, it creates a power vacuum that China is eager to fill. Despite its authoritarian governance and poor human rights record, global institutions have done little to challenge Beijing. By funding these organizations, China can subtly influence international agendas in its favor.

    The rise of trade wars and economic protectionism may further push nations to decouple from the U.S., creating opportunities for Chinese products to dominate global markets. Meanwhile, China’s extensive infrastructure investments have already forged deep ties with many countries. As the U.S. cuts foreign aid, China is well-positioned to step in, offering financial lifelines and strengthening its influence.

    Many nations seek investment but fear U.S. retaliation. However, if Washington intensifies economic punishments, these countries may increasingly turn to China as an alternative partner. Additionally, the U.S.’s handling of Taiwan presents another potential opening for Beijing. Should Washington waver in its commitment to defend the island, China could swiftly assert control over Taiwan and expand its dominance across the South China Sea. Such a move would significantly advance China’s strategic influence, further positioning it as a central force in global politics.

    Is China Capable?

    Over the past decade, many news outlets predicted that China would overtake the United States, citing its rapid GDP growth, technological advancements, and large-scale infrastructure projects. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, strict lockdown measures, trade restrictions, and a real estate crisis—coupled with a declining population—slowed China’s momentum. While the West anticipated a complete economic collapse, China managed to withstand these challenges and is now showing signs of renewed growth, expanding its influence in Central Asia and other regions. China is asserting itself in global affairs.

    However, China’s ascent to global leadership still hinges on its relationship with the West. While Trump’s policies have strained U.S.-China ties, many liberal democracies maintain economic partnerships with Beijing. A key uncertainty remains China’s military preparedness—unlike the U.S., its forces lack combat experience, casting doubt on their operational effectiveness. Nevertheless, Beijing continues to strengthen its position, steadily advancing toward its long-held ambition of global dominance.

    What Happens Next?

    Political experts strongly believe that despite disruptions and diplomatic humiliations, the West will remain firmly aligned with the United States. Without breaking Western unity or expanding its influence in the Middle East, China cannot achieve true global dominance.

    Although Ursula von der Leyen envisions a stronger and more independent Europe, the continent remains deeply tied to Washington—willing to endure tariffs and occasional setbacks rather than sever ties. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern leaders, driven by economic interests, are likely to maintain their alignment with the U.S., as will India. This leaves Russia as China’s only major strategic ally.

    Analysts suggest that Washington is now seeking an  opportunity to weaken the Russia-China partnership. If Moscow were to distance itself from Beijing, China could find itself increasingly isolated on the global stage.

    However, if Russia remains firmly aligned with China and Europe drifts away from its close relationship with the U.S., the balance of power could shift significantly. If China also manages to strengthen ties with India, its global influence would be further solidified.

    For years, Beijing has aspired to global leadership but has struggled to fully realize that ambition. Ironically, the evolving geopolitical landscape—largely shaped by U.S. actions—may become the very force that propels China to the forefront.

  • With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    What began as an offhand suggestion from Jared Kushner—turning Gaza into a luxury enclave—has steadily evolved into a serious proposal, now fully endorsed by Donald Trump as a solution to what he calls Israel’s “Gaza problem.” Trump’s plan to place Gaza under U.S. control and transform its coastline into a high-end development has gained traction among Israeli leaders and the political establishment, who view Gaza as a persistent security threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly supported a post-war arrangement that aligns with Trump’s plan. He has been unequivocal: once the war ends, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will govern the enclave. Instead, he has embraced Trump’s vision of fundamentally reshaping Gaza, presenting it as the most viable solution to the region’s ongoing tensions.

    Many Arab states and European nations, including key U.S. allies, had expected Gaza to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognized governing body of the West Bank. Hamas, the terrorist organization that controlled Gaza, also signaled its willingness to cede power to its West Bank-based rival. However, these plans remain in limbo as Trump’s unexpected proposal for the U.S. to take control of Gaza and relocate its 2.3 million residents to countries such as Egypt and Jordan gains momentum in Israel.

    The second phase of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is set to begin in early March and is expected to include the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, effectively ending the war. This would be followed by a third phase, which aims to address the exchange of bodies, a reconstruction plan for Gaza, and discussions on its future governance. However, significant uncertainty remains about whether the plan will proceed as intended.

    Israeli media reports that Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionism party, which opposed the ceasefire, continues to threaten Netanyahu’s coalition, insisting that Israel must resume military operations once the initial truce expires. At the same time, Trump’s proposal for U.S. control over Gaza has gained traction within Netanyahu’s government, not only as a strategic alternative but also as a lifeline for Netanyahu’s political survival. Aware that the plan could help secure his political standing, Netanyahu has consistently supported Trump’s vision of turning Gaza’s coastline into a luxury enclave. During a Sunday visit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he reiterated that his government is actively coordinating with Washington to advance the initiative. The next day, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the creation of a new agency to oversee the mass relocation of Palestinians from Gaza, signaling Israel’s firm commitment to the plan.

    Yet, Trump’s plan for Gaza faces outright rejection from both Gazans and the broader Arab world, which is now scrambling to devise alternatives. Gaza carries immense symbolic weight in global Muslim solidarity, and any move to strip it from Palestinian governance would trigger significant backlash across the Muslim world and Europe. Still, Arab states remain unwilling to assume control, as ruling over a deeply hostile population under another nation’s authority is not only impractical but also politically untenable—particularly given the entrenched hostility toward Israel.

    This leaves the United States as the only feasible option. Trump, a seasoned negotiator, has the ability to refine and elaborate on his plan, outlining where Gazans would be resettled, what benefits the host countries would receive, and how Gaza itself would be governed under this new arrangement. As a result, his proposal, once dismissed as improbable, is now emerging as one of the more realistic options for Gaza’s future.

  • Can Iran Withstand Trump’s Imminent Onslaught of Sanctions?

    Can Iran Withstand Trump’s Imminent Onslaught of Sanctions?

    Economic sanctions have become the most powerful weapon of the 21st century, replacing traditional warfare as real weapons now carry the risk of turning the earth to ashes. In this new battlefield, the United States—armed with the world’s most dominant economy—stands as the undisputed superpower. And now, at the helm, is a leader who wields this weapon with precision: Donald Trump. His primary target? The Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Iran was dealt a severe blow last year, losing one of its most hardline presidents in a helicopter crash while simultaneously watching its influence erode in key regional strongholds like Syria and Lebanon. Meanwhile, internal fractures have deepened, particularly among the youth, who are increasingly torn between their Muslim and Persian identities—some even questioning the future of the Islamic Republic itself.

    Now, Iran appears more vulnerable than ever as Trump escalates pressure, determined to punish Tehran while strengthening alliances with its regional adversaries, Israel and Saudi Arabia. These three powers have expanded their influence and remain unwavering in their effort to dismantle pro-Iranian groups in Yemen and Iraq.

    With mounting internal unrest and relentless external pressure, Iran is at a crossroads: is it losing its foothold in the region? As Trump and Khamenei lock horns, their hardline stances are pushing the U.S. and Iran ever closer to a collision course—one that may redefine the balance of power in the Middle East.

    Europe, once a key diplomatic bridge between Iran and the US, finds itself increasingly sidelined as Trump reasserts his dominance on the global stage. Having maintained dialogue with Tehran even after Trump abandoned negotiations in his last term, Europe is now losing its leverage in international politics. With Washington tightening its grip, Tehran sees little prospect for renewed discussions or a return to the nuclear agreement.

    In response to Trump’s mounting pressure, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has adopted an increasingly defiant tone. During a visit to a defense exhibition in Tehran on Wednesday, he urged the Iranian government to further expand its military capabilities. “Progress cannot be stopped,” he declared, warning against complacency. In a pointed message to adversaries, he added, “Today, our defensive power is well-known. Our enemies fear it.”

    But in reality, Trump’s diplomatic overtures toward Khamenei, coupled with his administration’s relentless “maximum pressure” campaign, have considerably eroded the Supreme Leader’s standing. In recent weeks, several senior Iranian officials have shown a growing openness to direct negotiations with Washington. Khamenei’s firm opposition to reviving U.S.-Iran nuclear talks seems less about ideology and more about his weakening grip—both within Iran and across the region.

    Nowadays, Khamenei’s primary concern is not foreign threats but the potential for domestic upheaval. His greatest fear is that Iran’s disillusioned silent majority could exploit the pressure from U.S. sanctions as an opportunity to rise against his leadership. His persistent anti-U.S. rhetoric is not merely an act of defiance—it is a strategic attempt to channel public frustration outward, portraying Washington as the root cause of Iran’s struggles to consolidate support.

    The regime believes that any conflict with the U.S. could serve as a rallying point, uniting the nation against an external enemy and preserving the Islamic Republic’s grip on power. However, with the Trump administration unlikely to pursue a large-scale military confrontation, the weight of economic hardship caused by sanctions may fall directly on the regime. As living conditions deteriorate, more Iranians may begin to see the Supreme Leader—not Washington—as the true source of their suffering, further destabilizing the country.

    Iran finds itself at one of its most precarious moments. Once the backbone of the Islamic regime, the country’s lower and middle-income groups are growing increasingly disillusioned as economic pressures mount. Tougher sanctions imposed by Trump will almost certainly deepen the strain, fueling public frustration and resentment. Simultaneously, a rising sense of Persian identity over Muslim identity—especially among the Iranian diaspora in the West—signals a broader ideological shift. Clashes between young Iranians and pro-Palestinian activists in Western cities highlight this evolving divide.

    Inside Iran, protests against both the regime and Islam itself are becoming more frequent, despite the significant risks. As economic conditions worsen, dissent is likely to intensify, further destabilizing the country. Ethnic minority groups, already restless, could take advantage of the weakening central authority to assert greater control. Given this mounting pressure, Iran may have little choice but to consider diplomacy.

    However, the regime remains reluctant to reopen talks with the U.S., fearing that any negotiations would require sweeping concessions to Trump on key issues. Yet, if economic engagement were to ease public hardship, the government might see it as a temporary lifeline—buying time to navigate the crisis and maintain its hold on power.

    If Trump escalates pressure further by tightening restrictions on Russia and India—two of Iran’s crucial economic partners—the Islamic Republic’s survival will become even more uncertain. As economic conditions deteriorate, the Iranian people, faced with worsening hardship, may ultimately decide to take matters into their own hands—just as they have in the past.

  • Can India Steer Clear of Trump’s Tariff Fury?

    Can India Steer Clear of Trump’s Tariff Fury?

    Donald Trump and Narendra Modi have been carefully cultivating a political kinship that extends beyond diplomacy into mutual admiration. They showcased their relationship through grand public displays, from campaign-style rallies to meticulously choreographed photo-ops, projecting the ease of old friends. In a distinction typically reserved for America’s closest allies, Modi became only the fourth world leader to visit Trump early in his term—a visit that underscored not just strategic ties but a personal affinity.

    Yet, despite the warmth of their exchanges, India remains vulnerable to Trump’s economic nationalism. As he upended trade relations with U.S. allies, India found itself in a particularly precarious position. Its sizable trade surplus and rigid barriers to foreign businesses made it an obvious target for Trump’s protectionist agenda. He did not see India as an indispensable partner but as a market resisting American goods—a problem to fix, a prize to claim.

    At their joint press conference in Washington on Thursday evening, Trump and Modi once again projected a united front, their camaraderie intact despite the growing complexities of their relationship. The two staunch nationalists exchanged pleasantries, reinforcing a sense of mutual understanding even as unresolved tensions loomed—from tariff disputes to the deportation of undocumented migrants and the broader uncertainties of global trade.

    Speculation about the future of their partnership ran high, yet their personal chemistry remained undeniable—a dynamic that had long shaped their public engagements. Still, Modi understands that personal rapport has its limits. America First was never designed to align seamlessly with India’s interests—and never will.

    Just hours before Modi’s meeting with Trump at the White House, the U.S. president signed an executive order on reciprocal tariffs, aiming to match the duties imposed on American exports with equivalent levies on foreign imports. A fact sheet released by the White House singled out India, highlighting the disparity: while the U.S. applies an average Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariff of 5% on agricultural goods, India’s stands at 39%. The document also noted that India imposes a 100% tariff on American motorcycles, whereas the U.S. levies only 2.4% on Indian bikes.

    India, taking the concern seriously, had already begun making concessions. Just a week prior, it reduced import tariffs on heavyweight motorcycles from 50% to 30%, with further tax cuts following. But the Trump administration remained unsatisfied. The announcement of reciprocal tariffs, timed to coincide with Modi’s visit, underscored the pressure on India to strike a delicate balance—protecting domestic industries while preserving its crucial access to the American market.

    For Modi, this balancing act carries political risks, especially as India grapples with an economic slowdown. The U.S. push for greater market access primarily targets consumer goods, a sector where entrenched protections have long shielded Indian small and medium enterprises. These businesses form a significant part of Modi’s voter base, making any concessions a potential political liability.

    India is banking on large-scale purchases of American oil, gas, and defense equipment—including the coveted F-35 stealth jets—to soften Trump’s frustration over their trade relationship. Rather than challenging U.S. tariffs directly, Modi’s government has chosen a different approach: addressing Trump’s fixation on trade deficits. By ramping up imports from the U.S., India signals its willingness to spend, allowing Trump to claim victory in narrowing the $45.6 billion trade gap while boosting American exports.

    But trade was not the only pressing issue. Trump’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented migration has also affected Indians, making it another focal point of Modi’s visit. An estimated 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants live in the U.S., making them the third-largest group of unauthorized migrants after Mexicans and Salvadorans, according to Pew Research. Just days before Modi’s arrival, the U.S. deported 104 Indians on a military flight, a move that ignited outrage in India after footage showed deportees shackled and handcuffed. Many in India demanded that Modi push back against Trump’s hardline policies.

    Instead, Modi aligned himself with Trump, stating unequivocally that anyone entering another country illegally has absolutely no right  to stay—a stance that underscored his preference for pragmatism over confrontation.

    Trump’s tariff war shows no signs of slowing, sparing neither allies nor adversaries. India stands among the most vulnerable, making Modi’s visit all the more critical. His government has already shown signs of bending to U.S. demands—accepting deported undocumented migrants on American military planes and negotiating energy, defense, and broader trade deals. With limited support from Russia or China, India faces a harsh reality: if Trump imposes tariffs on Indian goods, the consequences will be severe. More high-level meetings are inevitable as Modi works to defuse tensions and avoid an escalating trade war. But in these early days of Trump’s second term, the tone is already set.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Trump Takes a Swing at China with Tariffs

    Trump Takes a Swing at China with Tariffs

    Donald Trump has once again turned to tariffs as a tool of economic warfare. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the president had imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods. The lower rate on Chinese imports might seem like a concession, but the numbers suggest otherwise. China accounts for nearly 17 percent of total U.S. imports, and these new tariffs, stacked atop those from Trump’s first administration, will hit with considerable force. For Chinese businesses and the government, this latest economic squeeze could have far-reaching consequences.

    The White House has presented the move as a crackdown on illegal drugs and migration, but the broader aim is clear: bringing countries in line with American interests and pressuring U.S. trading partners to relocate operations to American soil, bolstering domestic industries—a strategy Trump views as essential to his vision of making America great again. Yet, the consequences won’t be confined to Beijing. American businesses and consumers are likely to feel the strain as well.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing that the tariffs were a response to the illegal fentanyl sourced and distributed into the U.S., which she claimed had killed tens of millions of Americans. She described the tariffs as necessary, arguing that Canada, Mexico, and China had failed to provide sufficient cooperation in addressing long standing domestic political issues—problems Trump had vowed to fix during his campaign.

    Political experts argue that the tariffs are driven more by economic concerns and trade imbalances than by issues of drugs and migration. China, Mexico, and Canada remain America’s three largest trading partners, accounting for over $2.1 trillion in annual trade in goods and services in 2023, the most recent available data. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada nearly doubled, rising from $31 billion in 2019 to $72 billion in 2023, while the deficit with Mexico grew from $106 billion to $161 billion over the same period. However, the trade deficit with China fell to $279 billion in 2023, a decline of more than 25 percent from the previous year.

    Despite the reduction in the trade deficit, U.S. imports continue to be heavily dependent on China. During his first term, President Trump imposed tariffs ranging from 7.5% to 25% on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. As part of the “Phase One” trade agreement in 2020, China committed to purchasing an additional $200 billion in U.S. products over two years. However, Beijing fell short of meeting these targets, a shortfall attributed in part to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some conspiracy theorists suggest a connection between these unmet commitments and the lab leaked pandemic.

    Asian shares declined on Monday morning following President Donald Trump’s implementation of tariffs on key trading partners. Investors are concerned about a potential trade war that could impact major companies’ earnings and global economic growth. Canada and Mexico have announced retaliatory tariffs, while China has pledged “corresponding countermeasures” and intends to challenge Trump’s actions at the World Trade Organization.

    The U.S. auto industry is particularly vulnerable to the newly imposed tariffs, as major automakers like General Motors and Ford rely heavily on imports from Mexico and Canada. President Trump has suggested that these import taxes could prevent Chinese carmakers from using Mexico as a workaround for U.S. tariffs on electric vehicles from the mainland. However, such imports are already largely restricted by other trade barriers.

    Even before Friday’s announcement, Canada and Mexico signaled retaliation. Reports indicate that Ottawa could target American exports like orange juice, toilets, and steel products. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stated this week that she believed the U.S. would not impose new tariffs, despite White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s assertion the day before that February 1 was “still on the books.” In November, Sheinbaum warned that further tariffs would trigger greater retaliation and potentially endanger cross-border business.

    Trump’s game of tariffs on key trading partners has sent ripples through the global economy, raising concerns about a potential trade war that could impact major companies’ earnings and global economic growth. By targeting both China and Canada, the administration signals that no nation is exempt from these economic measures. China, striving to recover from the pandemic’s economic impact, faces significant challenges due to these tariffs. While China plans to approach the World Trade Organization to contest the U.S. actions, the absence of formidable opposition suggests that the U.S. may secure favorable agreements with these countries in the near future. The effectiveness of these tariffs in reducing fentanyl-related activities remains uncertain, but their impact on global economics is undeniable.