Diplomacy & Crisis News

What to watch for during Modi’s first trip to China since 2018.

Beijing’s influence efforts can be surprisingly small-scale.

The move comes after Australia’s spy agency concluded that Tehran orchestrated arson attacks in the country.

The government and army are taking back their own country.

The organization’s current cash crunch is a historic opportunity for reform.

Central banks are independent for a reason.

A peace treaty would settle a long and bloody conflict—and create new geopolitical options in the region.

It’s time for Washington to shift from patron to partner.

The deadly attack killed at least 20 people, including five journalists.

European states would be primary targets for Moscow.

The Trump administration is throwing away a chance to end HIV worldwide.

A new book argues that the world’s two biggest economies need a bit more of each other’s cultures.

Washington needs to move quickly if it hopes to compete in this critical industry.

The United States is pressuring developing countries to make a binary choice without making itself a better choice.

Essays and insider accounts on the secret history of the agency.

The three points of security contention for the West; Russia, Iran and China, seemed to become ever closer until recently when Russia stepped aside during the US attack on Iran’s nuclear program. For years, closer ties came with North Korean soldiers and former PLA Chinese mercenaries contributing to Russia’s front with Ukraine, a relationship previously thought to be only as a parts supplier of China to Russia’s industrial base. China’s links in the Middle East and recent moves in becoming a broker between Saudi interests and Iran’s interests ended with an evacuation of the region as entrenched Russian allies fell and international shipping became targets, affecting Russian, Chinese and international trade interests.

Much of the reversal of the Axis came with assertive moves from the US and their allies against ties between Russia, Iran and China. With the US and Europe now fully united in the re-invigoration of NATO and a full defense of Ukraine, moves by the Axis has galvanised the West militarily on the Ukrainian front, in focusing on Iran, and may quickly collect a united front if China was to attack Taiwan or India. A tactical error that would mirror Sweden and Finland’s ascension into NATO would be for China to pressure both NATO and India’s common security interests as India and NATO would rapidly form defensive alliances if either interests faced military pressure from China or their regional allies in Asia.

The lack of success on the battlefield by the Axis may explain other policy developments that are designed to fracture the Western alliance, mostly by playing the Delay Card and forcing internal upheaval in Western countries. The targeting of Western norms, via the normalization of disproportionately eroding actions in local communities, clearly function by permanently altering Western interests and the internal degradation of Western norms. Most of these orchestrated events come about when there is a Western victory or paradigm shift towards Western interests, often countered by leadership in the West that have low approval ratings or are in power due to outside interest campaigns.

The race to tear down the internal strength of Western powers must be juxtaposed with the deterioration of regimes in Russia and China due to age or political divisions within their Cabinets and ruling party politics. It is hoped that stability can hold so that Western countries would not fracture, nor would countries like Russia or China fracture, as it would likely lead to a more complicated security situation in both countries. A fractured Russia and/or China is bad for the West as it would harm both local allies and adversaries of Western powers. The race to the bottom must not hit the floor, as the end result is bad for everyone.

Since the October 7th massacre, Israeli society has been greatly torn between those who send their children to the army and are suffering the effects of the war, and Haredim who are exempt from sending their children to the army.  Many segments of Israeli society that send their children to the army are growing greatly resentful of the Haredim, who do not send their children to the army, especially as the causalities from the Gaza War continue to rise, with almost every day us hearing about soldiers who were killed in action.

Israeli society is furthermore torn between those who want this war to end as soon as possible and for the hostages to be released by whatever means necessary, and those who would like to see Hamas militarily defeated, even if it means that not all of the hostages will make it back. While Israeli society has always been divided between the secular and the religious, the right and the left, these divisions have only grown stronger since the October 7th massacre.   In the eyes of some, these internal divisions pose a grave threat to Israeli society, as it is hard to focus one’s efforts on fighting external threats if one lacks a united home front. Some argue that these internal divisions have gotten so bad that they threaten the future functioning of the State of Israel.

The Dor Moria Think Tank recently proclaimed, “Israeli society faces a crisis that transcends traditional political or religious divisions. According to groundbreaking research by the Dor Moriah Analytics Center, the nation is trapped within what researchers call an “ontological bubble”—a self-perpetuating system of mutual antagonism that threatens the very fabric of the state.”

According to the Dor Moria Think Tank, “This isn’t merely another analysis of Israel’s well-documented secular-religious divide or left-right political split. The ontological bubble represents something far more insidious: a complete breakdown in shared reality, where opposing worldviews have crystallized into simplified, irreconcilable narratives that feed on conflict itself.”

“The Dor Moriah Center’s extensive research program—encompassing 14 nationwide sociological studies, 5 expert surveys, and collaboration with leading Israeli polling firms Maagar Mochot and Geocartography—has revealed a disturbing pattern,” the Dor Moria Think Tank noted. “Israeli society has bifurcated into two dominant, antagonistic worldviews: the “secular-liberal” and the “religious-conservative.””

“What makes this an ontological bubble rather than a conventional societal split,” one may ponder. According to the researchers, “it’s the self-sustaining nature of these divisions. Traditional information campaigns or dialogue initiatives don’t bridge the gap—they actually intensify it. Any attempt at neutral positioning triggers negative reactions from both sides. The bubble feeds on conflict, growing stronger with each clash.”

Dr. Lola Kolpina, a sociologist at Haifa University and one of the study’s authors, noted that “the high level of radicalization in respondent answers revealed by the study should be considered. On the most significant social issues, most people take extreme positions, reflecting not so much a process of situation analysis as a behavioral strategy oriented toward pushing through their values and interests rather than dialogue and interest coordination.”

The data confirms this grim assessment:

• Only 27.2% hold moderate positions on the state structure question
• Radical positions outnumber moderate ones by 1.5 times on key issues
• The polarization coefficient for critical dichotomies approaches zero, indicating maximum conflict potential

For example, 45% of ultra-Orthodox Jews frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an existential clash between Judaism and Islam.   However, only 30.1% of secular Jews share this view, with 34.1% seeing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as territorial dispute.   While 30.8% of Israelis favor complete annexation of Palestinian territories—the single most popular position—most (52%) doubt it would resolve the conflict. Yet they’re equally pessimistic about alternatives—only 22.6% believe peaceful coexistence is possible without territorial changes.  Nevertheless, 56.9 percent of the ultra-Orthodox support complete annexation of all Palestinian areas, while only 23.3 percent of secular Jews support this extreme position.

This ontological bubble according to the researchers at the Dor Moria Think Tank adversely affect the functioning as Israel as a state, leaving the state strongly divided between those who are religious versus secular, those who favor a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared to a two-state solution.  According to the researchers, unless the issue of the ontological bubble is addressed, Israel will not be able to exist in its present form, as the high level of conflict between the sides and the lack of national solidarity will make it difficult for Israel to function in its present format.

We are already beginning to see signs of how the ontological bubble is adversely affecting the functioning of the Israeli government. Elana Sztokman, co-host at Women Ending War Podcast, recently stated on Facebook: “The Knesset has quietly continued with a whole series of terrible actions aimed at breaking democratic processes and enabling the government to do whatever it wants without any criticism. Among other things, they are frantically trying to remove from office anyone who disagrees with their actions, such as the Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav (still in place, thus far, but in peril), Mk Ayman Odeh (saved for now), and the Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein — out.”

According to Sztokman, “Edelstein, who I don’t have any particular affinity for considering he has spent most of the past two years as an obedient arm of this corrupt government, did exactly one thing that reflects a possibly lingering conscience within him. That is, he refused to automatically allow the continuing of the haredi draft exemption, while the rest of the country is suffering through this war. For that, for still believing in what’s called “sharing the burden” and putting a stop to the free-flowing faucet of budgets and exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox, he was fired from his speaker job and other important Knesset positions.”

“Now, his powerful position as chair of Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is about to go to a little-known Knesset member named MK Hanoch Milwidsky,” she added. “Aside from being a Netanyahu loyalist who will do whatever Bibi wants, there is another little item worth knowing about this little Milwidsky guy: He is under investigation for rape. Multiple rapes. His victims are still coming forward.”

However, prominent Middle East scholar Dr. Mordechai has a quite different view than Sztokman and the Dor Moria Think Tank: “Polarization is dangerous when both sides are equal in their power. However, the right side is much more powerful than the left side of the spectrum in Israel. This is why the left stick to the judicial system, the arts, academia, the economy, and media in order to hold onto power. The smaller they become, the more perspicuous they are and more extreme in their actions against the majority. Since this risk is unbalanced, they will finish when the left will be finished and it is going in that direction.”

According to Dr. Kedar, “This is what the demography leads to, with the religious population bigger and more numerous and the secular population smaller and therefore, they become more and more violent. A lady was recently arrested for wanting to acquire a weapon and use it against the prime minister. This means they are desperate. The left lacks significant leadership for they are a large array of positions, which vary from ultra-leftists who identify with Hamas to people who are more centric and define themselves as left because they don’t want to define themselves as right.”

Dr. Kedar feels that polarization in American society is a greater issue than it is in Israeli society: “American society is polarized for it is half and half.   They are divided between Democrats and Republicans. Here, the system represents the people much better for we have a multi-party system for people stick to their parties that they supported in the past. This is the way to manage with this.”    

Source: World Bank

At the core of the strategic rivalry between the United States and China lies China’s heavy dependence on maritime trade routes. As of early 2025, about 57.3% of China’s foreign trade transited by sea, with exports reaching nearly $325 billion in June alone. This maritime reliance underscores the economic dominance of China’s eastern coastal regions—Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Shandong—which together generated over $5.1 trillion in GDP in 2024. These provinces thrive on export-oriented manufacturing and port infrastructure, while inland regions such as Wuhan and Chengdu, despite faster population growth and rising consumption, continue to lag economically, with GDP per capita roughly half that of the coastal hubs in 2023. This stark regional disparity creates a national imperative for Beijing to rebalance economic development toward the interior, driving China’s strategic expansion into Central Asia.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Central Asian corridors play a crucial role as an economic equalizer by channeling trade, investment, and infrastructure into inland provinces, thereby reducing coastal dominance and maritime dependency. Through integrating overland logistics networks—like transnational railways and highways—China empowers inland cities with direct access to global markets. This strategy not only lowers transportation costs and diversifies export routes, but also fosters industrial growth in the interior, fundamentally altering China’s economic geography. Consequently, a rising share of China’s foreign trade is shifting from sea-based routes to land-based networks, narrowing regional economic gaps and significantly lessening China’s vulnerability to maritime chokepoints and external disruptions.

The traditional Indo-Pacific Strategy, which has historically emphasized maritime dominance, now faces a critical gap as China diversifies its export and investment pathways toward Eurasia. To effectively counter China’s expanding multi-vector influence, the U.S. must broaden its policy beyond maritime competition, deepening strategic engagement with the Eurasian landmass by integrating economic, political, and security dimensions across the continent. This calls for a shift toward fostering a more resilient and interconnected regional framework.

Fostering Competitive Cooperation to Reflect Realpolitik in Central Asia

Building on this strategic imperative, America should actively promote the development of an open, resilient, and inclusive regional economic ecosystem in Central Asia. The crucial insight is that by enlarging the overall economic “pie,” greater opportunities emerge for meaningful engagement and dynamic interactions among all regional actors—including Russia, China, Turkey, and other ambitious players. By fostering sustainable development and deeper integration, the U.S. can establish itself as a constructive yet strategically savvy partner, cultivating a competitive environment that deliberately harnesses the region’s natural rivalries as a strategic advantage.

This model of competitive cooperation—or “coopetition”—creates space for emerging and increasingly influential actors to contribute to regional development while preventing any single power from achieving dominance. Turkey, for instance, has rapidly expanded its economic footprint, with exports to Central Asia reaching $12 billion in 2022 and bilateral trade with Turkmenistan hitting $2.5 billion in 2023. Ankara’s influence is strengthened not only by trade and defense partnerships—including UAV cooperation with Kazakhstan—but also by deep linguistic and cultural ties to Turkic-speaking populations.

While enlarging the economic pie through engaging diverse actors is crucial, the U.S. must exercise necessary caution in this approach. Critics rightly warn that deepening economic ties with authoritarian-leaning states such as China risks entrenching illiberal governance models across Central Asia. Infrastructure investments and expanded trade may strengthen state capacities for surveillance and repression as much as for development. This tension is particularly evident in the record of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, where investment often advances without governance conditions, effectively decoupling growth from liberal reform and potentially undermining democratic development.

Therefore, as the economic pie grows, U.S. engagement—especially in coordination with the European Union—must move beyond mere commercial diplomacy. Any strategy for economic integration should embed robust mechanisms that promote transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation by civil society. Without addressing these governance dimensions proactively, growing economic interdependence risks solidifying authoritarian resilience, thereby limiting the U.S.’s ability to advance long-term democratic governance and human rights in the region. This governance-conscious approach ensures that economic expansion serves not just growth, but also the development of more open and accountable political systems.

The U.S. Needs to Strategically Leverage Regional Rivalries to Diversify Supply Chains in Central Asia

With this long-term framework in mind, the U.S. should remove Cold War-era constraints on Central Asian countries, most notably by repealing the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. According to a 2025 Atlantic Council report, this outdated provision denies permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to several Central Asian nations that have already met original human rights criteria, resulting in higher tariffs and reduced investment that directly impede U.S. influence and limit economic engagement with the region. The bipartisan efforts led by Senators Marco Rubio, Steve Daines, Chris Murphy, and Todd Young to eliminate this barrier represent a crucial first step toward unlocking trade, infrastructure investment, and cooperation in critical sectors such as rare earth minerals and counterterrorism. Repealing Jackson-Vanik would bring U.S. policy into alignment with current geopolitical realities, enabling more substantial partnerships that promote development grounded in human dignity and democratic accountability.

Building on this policy foundation, the U.S. short-term strategy should adopt a complementary two-pronged approach. First, it must strengthen its institutional toolkit by expanding the role of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to effectively “coopete” with the region’s multipolar actors. This involves promoting private investment and the development of high-quality infrastructure to advance economic diversification and regional connectivity, while enforcing rigorous environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards to support transparent and sustainable growth, along with facilitating the entry and expansion of U.S. companies in competitive markets.

Second, the U.S. should prioritize diversifying trade routes and supply chains by actively engaging both the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) and the Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR), thereby capitalizing on the ongoing China-Russia rivalry for strategic advantage. This dual-corridor approach helps ensure reliable transportation of natural gas to EU allies while securing access to critical minerals in Siberia, reducing dependence on any single transport pathway or political arrangement.

The strategic logic behind reinforcing these complementary infrastructure corridors lies in fostering a competitive dynamic between China and Russia in Eurasia that ultimately serves U.S. interests. The TITR serves as a vital energy corridor that allows Central Asia to reduce dependence on Russian-dominated supply chains while countering China’s growing influence in regional energy exports. In 2023, freight volumes along the TITR increased by 63.7%, with Kazakh exports surging by 122%, highlighting its rising prominence as an alternative to Russian-controlled transport routes and demonstrating its potential to reshape regional trade patterns. This development systematically diminishes Moscow’s leverage while strengthening regional economic autonomy and diversification.

Simultaneously, the TSR remains crucial for Russia’s mineral exports, underpinning its economic strength despite recent fluctuations in transit volumes due to geopolitical tensions. By ensuring Central Asia maintains access to viable alternatives to both Chinese and Russian transport monopolies, the U.S. empowers the region to enhance its economic sovereignty and alleviate authoritarian pressures from any single dominant power. Together, these competing yet complementary transport corridors promote a balance of economic interdependence and healthy rivalry, bolstering regional bargaining power and allowing U.S. firms to secure strategic resources within politically neutral environments that are not dominated by adversarial powers.

By advancing a pluralistic transport network centered on both the TITR and TSR, the U.S. pursues a sophisticated strategy of competitive cooperation—encouraging diverse connectivity options that simultaneously challenge and engage regional powers constructively. This nuanced approach ultimately supports the development of a stable, multipolar, and rules-based economic order in Central Asia that prevents hegemonic dominance while fostering prosperity and development that aligns with American values and strategic interests.

Azerbaijan is undergoing a significant geopolitical realignment, moving away from Moscow’s traditional dominance and pursuing a more independent, multi-vector foreign policy. This strategic shift has been shaped by historical grievances, the post-war dynamics of the South Caucasus, and the weakening of Russia’s regional influence following the Ukraine war.   For years, Azerbaijan maintained a careful balance with Russia, recognizing Moscow’s power while safeguarding its own sovereignty. However, Russia’s decades-long alliance with Armenia, its reluctance to ensure the implementation of post-war agreements, and its failure to restrain Armenian provocations have eroded trust in Moscow’s role as a “neutral” mediator.   The 2020 Second Karabakh War highlighted a changing reality: Turkey’s military and diplomatic support, rather than Russian involvement, enabled Azerbaijan’s decisive victory. This demonstrated that Moscow was no longer the only power capable of shaping events in the South Caucasus.   Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 weakened its global standing and diminished its ability to project power in the South Caucasus. Preoccupied with the conflict and isolated by Western sanctions, Moscow’s influence in the region has noticeably declined.   This created an opportunity for Azerbaijan to strengthen its role as a reliable energy partner for Europe. The Southern Gas Corridor, supplying gas to European markets, has made Baku a key player in Europe’s energy security strategy, further reducing its reliance on Moscow.   The proposed Zangezur Corridor, which would connect mainland Azerbaijan with its exclave Nachshivan through southern Armenia, is a strategic priority for Baku. This corridor would not only enhance regional trade and connectivity but also reduce Azerbaijan’s dependence on Russian-controlled routes.   Moscow’s lukewarm stance on this project and its attempts to maintain control over all transit links in the South Caucasus have created additional friction. Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, seeks to establish the corridor as a sovereign project without Russian oversight.   Moreover, the corridor is viewed by Western and regional partners as a critical route that would integrate the South Caucasus with global trade networks, bypassing both Russia and Iran.   Azerbaijan’s partnership with Turkey has evolved into a robust strategic alliance. Military cooperation, defense industry collaborations, and joint regional initiatives underscore the “one nation, two states” principle.   At the same time, Baku has strengthened its relations with Israel, particularly in defense technology, intelligence sharing, and energy. The European Union and the United States have also deepened their engagement with Azerbaijan, viewing it as a vital partner in energy diversification and regional stability.   Azerbaijan’s growing influence is reshaping the South Caucasus power dynamics. While Russia remains a factor due to geography and trade, its weakened position has allowed Baku to pursue a more independent path. By leveraging its energy resources, modern military capabilities, and strong alliances, Azerbaijan is positioning itself as a leading regional power that is no longer bound by Moscow’s dictates.   Azerbaijan’s strategic pivot is not about severing ties with Moscow but about redefining its role in a multipolar world. The combination of energy diplomacy, the Zangezur Corridor initiative, and strong partnerships with Turkey, Israel, and the West reflects Baku’s determination to act as an autonomous and influential force in the South Caucasus.

A few short weeks into the Ceasefire with Iran, Iranian backed Houthis Kill Four, 15 kidnapped/missing after Houthis sink Greek ship in Red Sea.

After much talk and negotiations, the US has finally decided to go full steam ahead and resume its natural state of being as the tip of the spear for NATO in support of Ukraine. With much of the EU pushing for further kinetic involvement and border countries near Ukraine, notably Poland becoming the next major security superpower, the alignment of NATO comes after tough discussions between the Europeans and the United States on financial and supply obligations to the organisation. The new wartime commitment of 5% matches the reality of the current situation in Europe, a conflict that has erupted in other parts of the world despite the haughtiness of European denials on the reality of these situations. While not part of the common discussion in many NATO capitals, Europeans outside of Ukraine are being fired upon as European shipping fleets continue to be targeted and sunk abroad with limited response by the noble Western alliance. These actions during a supposed Ceasefire has resulted in deaths and likely more hostages, with an insufficient response by NATO against one of Russia’s allies. This trend of weak responses does nothing but encourage more conflict it seems, as Russia’s test of NATO’s fortitude continues to fuel more destruction.

In a sincere effort to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, new tariff measures aim to end Russia’s export of oil and gas to its main customers in many BRICS nations. Since the 2022 war began, there has been a concerted efforts to end the dependence on Russian oil and gas, while silently purchasing much of those same products by countries helping Ukraine to the tune of billions in military aid. The prohibition on the sale of North America energy to allies in Europe and Asia likely did more to fund Russia’s war machine than any attempted sanctions, as with high oil prices and the unwillingness to apply workable limits, the Russian military industrial complex would always be able to outproduce NATO with funding being constant. With these half measures, the war could always continue as long as there were men and metal available to put on the field, and Russia seems to be using many allies for these missions.

Effective sanctions on oil and gas must come with the displacement of these resources so other nations dependent on Russian energy have an alternative to conflict themselves. Acknowledging this reality was always a step never truly taken since 2022. A further acknowledgment of the greater war also prohibited and end to the conflict in Ukraine, as NATO sat on intelligence for years on drone production from Iran being sent to Russia. The scourge of these drones have become the essential terror weapon that are now murdering civilians at night in Ukraine. Now that drone facilities are operating in Russia, tank factories are on 24 hour shifts producing new armour and weapons, and former Soviet weapons storage facilities are being emptied out in record time providing refurbished equipment for the front, these targets should be met with the same vigour as the mission to end many of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet on the ground by Ukraine’s intelligence service.

A concerted effort should be taken against Russia’s military supply allies so that all sources of weapons can be limited along with tariffs and sanctions limiting funds towards Russia’s war production. Taking small steps to claim ceasefires only works when the ceasefire is committed to by both sides. In many situations, there is no rational side that can hold to any ceasefire agreement as it is usually just a tactic to delay a conflict until the West tires of the mission, leading to many deaths of innocents until that time comes. The war of delay is one that will always be lost as since the War in Vietnam, all adversaries of the United States have used this tactic with great effectiveness, now mixed with internal conflicts degrading the security situation in many of Europe’s and America’s great cities. Anarchy mixed with the normalisation of disproportionately undemocratic actions is the internal conflict that will likely weaken one side to such a great degree, that they will be unable to counter any conflict. To admit there is a war is the first step, to fight the war is what these new actions hope to achieve before it is no longer an option. Only time will literally tell of the eventual outcomes.