Geopolitics

It is a crucial time for Africa in terms of how it interacts with the rest of the world. Africa is no longer viewed as a place of humanitarian interest or of mere charity. Instead, Africa is increasingly seen as a prize, as a place that contains large populations and is a place where great and emerging powers struggle to win influence. With fifty-five states, more than one billion people, and the youngest population of any continent, Africa’s future will determine the politics of the world for decades to come. However, this potential strategic significance exists in an uneasy context of instability, dependency, and weak governance. The key question this paper seeks to address is whether Africa will remain a subject of outside influence and internal problems, or be able to turn its potential into real strategic power.

A Continent in Transition: Crisis, Change and Transformation

The transition of Africa is evident in its economic output. According to the IMF, it should come as no surprise that sub-Saharan Africa will grow at about 4.3% in 2026 and that the region will be one of the fastest growing in the world, even beating out developed nations facing the challenges of monetary tightening and shrinking populations. It is estimated that nations such as Ethiopia, Guinea, Uganda, Rwanda, and Benin will have growth rates of 7% or more because of mining, construction, industrial parks, and infrastructure spending. Africa’s aggregate nominal GDP will reach around 3.3 trillion dollars in 2026.

This data indicates true evolution; however, these very reports indicate that growth in Africa is uneven since economies relying on resources and importing oil experience worsening trade accounts and increasing cost of living. The contradiction within Africa’s transition process is that while there is economic momentum, there is also economic fragility, which means that growth indicators do not mean development per se.

Shifting Security Landscapes and the Crisis of Regional Stability

One does not have to look further than the Sahel region to see just how critical this problem of stability becomes. Military coups seized control in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger; in these regions, the Alliance of Sahel States was formed and left the Economic Community of West African States. According to the information available from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, the level of violence in central Sahel increased dramatically from 2018 to 2024.

Humanitarian organizations working within the United Nations reported approximately nine thousand three hundred casualties in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger in 2025. While the withdrawal of French troops and UN peacekeepers was not completed by an improvement of local armies, the Russia-based Africa Corps, a successor to the Wagner Group, became the main security partner of junta regimes with varied success. Extremist organizations such as Jama’at Nusrat al Islam wal Muslimin and the Islamic State Sahel Province expanded their operations and started to use more often armed drones in their actions with a possibility of destabilization spreading to the countries of the Gulf of Guinea coast.

Economic Crossroads: Resources, Growth and Strategic Dependency

The development of the economy in Africa has a direct connection with the natural resources present in the continent, including the minerals used in the process of energy transition in the world such as copper, cobalt, manganese, and lithium. China has been the largest trading partner of Africa for the past sixteen years, and the expected value of the total trade between these two regions in 2025 is three hundred and forty-eight billion dollars, which is an increase by eighteen percent compared to the preceding year.

The main countries contributing to the largest share of trade include South Africa, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Egypt. China is involved in the continent’s economy not only in traditional sectors like natural resources but also in renewables, digitalization, and low carbon technology, as China plans to invest over fifty billion dollars in the continent by 2027 under the Beijing Action Plan. According to Boston University Global Development Policy Center, Africa’s exports to China are mostly raw material and the trade deficit with China is approximately equal to three percent of regional GDP.

Diplomatic Repositioning in an Emerging Multipolar World

The states of Africa are increasingly seeking to assert their independence in a multipolar world. With the admission of the AU to the G20 in 2023, the continent has secured a place among the major powers of the world permanently. Some of the African states have sought membership to BRICS, a power bloc which included Egypt and Ethiopia in addition to the founders and some other new members, making it another power bloc which its supporters argue is an alternative to the Western dominated groupings.

This diplomatic maneuver by the continent represents the larger strategy that the Africans follow in terms of strategic non alignment where they seek relations with all the major centers of power, including the US, China, Russia, Europe, and the Gulf countries. The Africans have used this diplomatic clout to their advantage in securing better deals on debt, trade, and security cooperation. But this diplomatic repositioning itself faces limitations because of the divide among the African states and lack of ability to capitalize on it.

Domestic Politics, Governance and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Underlying the security crossroads and the economic crossroads is a more fundamental crisis of political legitimacy. Since 2020, there have been coups across the Sahel and Central Africa as a manifestation of public discontent with corruption, poor service delivery, and the inability of the civilian government to ensure security. While military regimes in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Guinea partly justify their takeover of power by invoking issues of sovereignty and anti-colonial rhetoric – an argument that struck a chord with a lot of people while the indicators of good governance in those countries continued to decline rather than improve.

In other cases, disputed elections, the manipulation of constitutions to prolong the rule of presidents, and the constriction of civic space challenge the viability of the democratic institutions that were put in place after the opening up period of the 1990s. At the same time, a number of countries such as Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia have shown the potential for power transitions and active civil societies, which means that the crisis of legitimacy in Africa is not consistent.

External Powers and the Contest for African Influence

Today’s contest for influence in Africa is characterized by a larger and broader coalition of players than has been seen since the attainment of independence. The United States has attempted to make a comeback through efforts aimed at the development of critical minerals and infrastructure, in response to the increasing influence of China and Russia in the region, although the future of favorable trade policies like the African Growth and Opportunity Act appears to be in doubt due to changes in American trade policy.

The influence of Russia has primarily been gained through security collaboration and disinformation, rather than economic investment. Russian interests lie in forming partnerships without having to be conditional upon the governance of the partner country. Countries from the Gulf region, such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have invested heavily in ports, agriculture, and renewable energy, especially in the Horn of Africa. The influence of Turkey has been formed in the form of business and military connections, especially in the Sahel and East Africa regions. With so many external partners involved in Africa, there is an increase in the chance that the continent becomes a battleground for great powers, rather than a partner in determining the outcome.

From Strategic Importance to Strategic Agency

The concept of strategic importance and strategic capability is essential to understand the strategic positioning of Africa at present times. Strategic importance is bestowed upon a country by external actors due to the recognition of the natural resources and markets of the region. Strategic capability on the other hand involves the setting of terms by African institutions and states rather than mere reactions to the interests of external forces.

In this regard, the African Continental Free Trade Area, which seeks to create a common market of over one point three billion people is an attempt to exercise such a strategic capability through reduction of dependency on external trade partners and increased intra-African trade which currently constitutes only a limited portion of total trade in the continent. Credibility of organizations like the African Union and Economic Community of West African States in conflict and coup mediation will determine whether African diplomacy will be conducted through collective institutions or ad hoc decisions made by individual African nations.

Now which direction will Africa take?

The geopolitical position of Africa in international politics is that of a paradoxical nature. The African continent can be characterized by both immense economic potential and security crises, both rising diplomatic power and an area of contestation between foreign forces, both a land of resilient democracy and an example of authoritarianism. The statistical information provided above gives evidence of a rising continent, despite the existing weaknesses. Whether or not Africa becomes a strategic player on its own or stays an object of contestation in the new multipolar world will depend solely on decision-making of the African continent. Whether the African continent will follow the path of development or the road of stagnation depends on how Africa will deal with the issues of governance, regional integration and economic diversification.

When Washington celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, the celebrations will arrive bruised. There will be the customary funding disputes, a federal commission fighting against a more partisan task force from the White House, and a public worn by years of political turmoil, all of which will turn what could have been an occasion of civic healing into another USA ‘celebration’ in the world. None of this has gone unnoticed in Beijing, given that this ‘celebration’ is being interpreted more as a diagnosis than a birthday. What is being asked throughout the commentaries from Qiushi (求是), on CCTV, in Tsinghua and Peking University, is simply put, what kind of America is turning 250?

Within the last five years, the interpretation given from both the official channels and the more informal academic channels in Beijing has varied considerably. Most importantly, these streams have been diverging for some time and therefore offer significant insight into how Beijing has been interpreting the country it has been comparing itself to for the last 20 years.

From “the East rising” to a measured retreat

Many are familiar with the upbeat version of the story. After 2020, the phrases that framed China’s worldview included “great changes, unseen in a century” (百年未有之大变局) and “the East is rising, the West is declining” (东升西降). The latter, used by Xi Jinping in remarks to senior officials in early 2021 and again in 2023, provided the slogan for the official narrative. The Covid-19 pandemic, the insurrection at the US Capitol, and a decade of US political instability seemed to provide the empirical evidence for a thesis, rooted in Chinese Marxist theory, that capitalist systems contain the principle of their own disintegration. This was rationalized and systemized after the 2008 financial crisis and has remained largely unchanged.

However, the reality is far more complicated than the slogan implies. Researchers who have traced the terminology in Chinese academic publications through the CNKI database have found that scholarly use of “the East is rising, the West is declining” (东升西降) peaked around 2021 and has subsided since then, even though the idea itself remained more prevalent than it was during the entire duration of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. In other words, the slogan was being diplomatically retracted within scholarly circles at the very moment it was most associated with official optimism. When Xi’s speech in 2023, which was published in Qiushi in January 2025, described the West’s decline, it was more a formal, official copy of a sentiment than a newly published speech.

The official rhetoric, however, did not soften. A Brookings study found a near doubling in the use of “American decline” terminology in official Chinese documents from 2025. State Security Minister Chen Yixin wrote in Qiushi in December of 2025, what could be described as a near complete inventory of the ills of the world: the usurpation of unipolar dominance gives way to economic decline and social disintegration, a domestic credit crisis and the collapse of foreign mythic structures. Around the same time, a popular phrase borrowed from gaming, the “kill line” (斩杀线) found its way to official Chinese publications. A Qiushi article from January 2026 described an America, the working class of which had been pushed (beyond the point of no return) along the path of ruin by an unrepairable (decomposing) industrial base while financial capitalism strangled the benefits. The conclusion that was drawn was that we had already entered the post-American world.

The correction of early 2026

Then the story changed once more, and the correction was from within Beijing’s own strategic community.

The consensus in Chinese policymaking following the Busan summit in October 2025, was that China had won the trade war and forced the US into a stalemate. The years of maximum pressure, they said, did not lead to the systemic concessions China had sought, but rather worsened American inflation and reduced productivity. For a few months, the optimism was high. However, by 2026, the optimism was replaced by apprehension. A series of adverse events for China, from losing equity in a German port buyout, to the Nexperia debacle, to the Iran war, led many to wonder if China’s victory was, in fact, a loss. The dominant question that the strategic community was debating was whether American power was in decline or if it was in fact, power rebounding.

What was most interesting was who took the cautious side. Both Chen Wenling and Yan Xuetong argued that the US had, and has, the military and economic capability to project power. In their view, the US had the edge, and Trump’s high stakes, risky policy decisions were based on the belief that the US had the dominant position. The gap was definitely closing, but was not yet a reality. The advice they gave was to be patient. If China was able to “manage its own affairs well,” it was likely that the US would be compelled to return to a more stable relationship.

The key observation regarding prominent intellectuals in Beijing is this. They have never been champions of the triumphalist position. Yan Xuetong has spent a great deal of time dismissing talks of “The East is rising and the West is declining” and multipolarity as delusional. His recently published book, Inflection of History (历史的拐点), which was published by CITIC Press in December of 2025, predicts a US-China bipolarity which, during the next decade, would be expected to stabilise rather than destabilise. In this scenario, over the next decade the gap in capability between the two powers would be expected to converge, although the US would retain an overall advantage. In this scenario, the US would retain overall dominance in services, cyberspace and global influence, while China would retain relative superiority in manufacturing and be dominant in the international arena. In this scenario, Yan does argue that Trump would be expected to damage American power, especially with regards to the international balance, through the closure of laboratories, the loss of researchers, and a declining international trade. However, damage to the leader of the bipolar order is not the same as the collapse of the order, and Yan is very cautious not to make confuse the two.

As China’s foremost authority on US studies, Wang Jisi (王缉思) of Peking University, has placed the greatest emphasis on the need for a clear and level-headed approach. His influential essay, titled, “Has America really declined? Chinese people should hold a sober understanding” ( 美国到底有没有衰落？中国人应有清醒认识), leads with the argument that the most important factors influencing the relationship are domestic political issues, and are not to be found in some quantifiable assessment of relative national strength, or within the confines of the Thucydides Trap. He has argued that the effects of Trump’s immigration restrictions would be more symbolic than real, and would not negatively impact the long-term potential of the US economy. Along with American scholar David Lampton, he wrote, that while both societies have convinced itself that the other is an existential threat, which is a dangerous narrative trap, similar to a noticeable shift of power.

Why AI keeps rewriting the script

If the quest for technological dominance was to be provided as a single reason for the inconsistency in the narrative, it would be the most accurate. The same confidence that characterized 2025 is the same that will characterize the sobriety of 2026. When Trump had his second inauguration in January 2025, DeepSeek had launched their R1. It disrupted the presumption of AI dominance in America and had a day effect of 200 billion on Nvidia’s valuation. For Chinese decision makers, since then, it has been electric. Carnegie researchers described it as the rediscovery of technological confidence. The effect was the realization of the theory of “The East is rising and the West is declining” (东升西降): a monumental achievement with controls on exports from a young lab in Hangzhou.

The second installment was more sobering. The launch of DeepSeek’s next model, V4, in April 2026, was received with indifference. In fact, DeepSeek’s own internal product documentation stated that V4 was between three and six months behind American models. Furthermore, V4 was reliant on domestic chips from Huawei, and was, in most assessments, dependent on American technology that was not easily replaceable. For Chinese analysts, this was not a case of falling behind, but one of the more difficult problems of maintaining the technological edge. Reshoring and tariffs told a similar story. The American industrial base, which the “kill line” (斩杀线) commentary presumed was a terminally stagnated industrial base, was the target of a renewed, aggressive, and partially successful push to bring industry back to America. A competitor with such a focus on rejuvenation and renewal is not, on the surface, a declining competitor.

The G2 Puzzle

There’s another element coming from Washington that adds to the complexity of the story of American decline. This element relates to Trump. Before the Busan meeting, Trump used the term “G2,” and several Washington officials followed suit. The decline thesis cannot account for this. If America is indeed in decline, why is it offering G2 (shared leadership) with China?

Chinese reflexive responses are interesting. The official position, as expressed in Zhou Li’s (周力) December 2025 article, is that G2 as a hegemony is incompatible with China’s commitment to a multipolar world and would alienate the Global South which China is trying to court. These scholars have found their own workarounds. Yan Xuetong and Zheng Yongnian have suggested that G2 is more a description of a scenario of existing bipolarity than a policy to adopt. Xia Liping of Tongji University has suggested that G2 be rephrased as “China-US coordination” (中美协调) instead of “China-US co-governance” (中美共治), which makes it easier for Beijing to accept peer status while not succumbing to a duopoly. The attempt to manage the terminology suggests that the US at 250 is still sufficiently powerful that its offer of co-leadership is significant, even to a China that is more confident than ever.

A mirror, not a verdict

What emerges from five years of this commentary is not a single Chinese view of America at 250 but a layered one. The loudest polemical phrase is that the US, a hegemon, is in an irreversible decline. Within a Chinese context, this serves a purpose unrelated to the US. The state media have found it convenient to juxtapose gun violence and homelessness against the backdrop of Chinese economic performance. The decline of the US economy flouts the-premise, as socialism is the ultimate victor among capitalist competition.

But that was in the loud tier. In the reserved tier, the people in Beijing who are actually relying on reading Washington have converged on a more cautious and, frankly, more accurate assessment. They have described America as a relative decline, but erratic, and still very formidable as well as technologically advanced, especially in the field of the upcoming and new challenges of competition. The assessments have consistently referred to America as “declining but dangerous,” and this phrase has proven to be the most accurate of the lot. Reality has justified the phrase. The same cannot be said of unqualified and total victory.

The inconsistency in narratives can be attributed to the fact that the accounts are serving two purposes simultaneously. They are both analysis and propaganda, and the two types of work are at odds with each other. After AI successes or trade wins, the propaganda is ahead of analysis. After the impacts of reshoring or when a Chinese model stays behind, the analysts bring it back. The occasion is provided by the anniversary, but the underlying reason is that China has not decided, and maybe cannot decide, if they think that simply waiting will work in their favour or if the gap they have slowly been closing over the past 25 years is going to be a stubborn gap.

At 250, in other words, the United States functions in Chinese discourse less as a subject to be judged than as a mirror. What Beijing sees in it, in any given month, tells you a great deal about how confident Beijing is feeling about itself

The greatest geopolitical and economic challenge facing the United States today is the proliferation of international Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs.) While the United States has the “sweet geopolitical spot in the world’s geography and topographic landmass,” its economic dominance is being challenged by the proliferation of international SWFs. It is true, at present, that the United States has the largest reserve of oil and mineral wealth in the world, yet with SWFs gaining traction in the world economy, the oil reserves and mineral wealth may not matter.

Those countries that have initiated SWFs as part of their economic and geopolitical life are on an upward trajectory. The United States, on the other hand, is on a downward path by not marshalling its vast mineral wealth in a comprehensive and dynamic SWF. If things continue on their present course, those countries utilizing their mineral wealth and excess cash surplus will eventually catch up and overtake the size of the US economy. This is an evolving threat to the national security of the United States and to its very polity.

The most immediate threat to the United States is the race to develop mining facilities on the Moon to harvest and transport the critical element of Helium-3 (He-3.)    He-3 is a critical element for the increasing economic demands of a modern world economy. Whoever can establish mining dominance for this critical element will become the world’s leading economic power in the world, regardless of that nation’s mineral wealth on Earth.

However, with its present economic and political strength, the United States has the means to reverse that trend if its two major political organizations can compromise on the very nature of the framework that establishes a United States SWF; this challenge is not easily dealt with.

This article discusses the legislative gridlock surrounding the creation of a United States SWF and the accelerating international competition that challenges the current United States dominance in space technology.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) is currently constructing the SPARC at Devens, Massachusetts. CFS is constructing the SPARC to demonstrate to the world that it has solved the fusion problem. Despite some technological setbacks, CFS is on schedule to make the SPARC operational by the end of 2026, or early 2027. At the same time, CFS is currently constructing a fusion reactor (called a tokamak) in Virginia, which is scheduled to go online in the early 2030s. Critical to the ARC’s development is a shortage of the element He-3. He-3 is ignited by radio frequency and is the sparkplug that begins the plasma process, which is fusion energy, in the ARC tokamak.

The Commercial Landscape: U.S. Private Frontrunners

Terrestrial Helium-3 supply—derived primarily from nuclear stockpile maintenance—is severely capped at 22,000 to 30,000 liters annually. With surging demand for ultra-low-term quantum computer cooling, private aerospace firms are leading the transition to lunar harvesting:

• Interlune: Founded by former Blue Origin executives, the company unveiled a full-scale prototype harvester developed with Vermeer to process one hundred metric tons of regolith per hour. Backed by a $6.9 million NASA contract for its Prospect Moon payload, Interlune secured a historic $300M+ supply agreement with Finnish quantum firm Bluefors. Its first mapping payload is scheduled for an upcoming commercial lunar launch.
• Lunar Helium-3 Mining (LH3M): This firm holds five U.S. patents on a non-invasive, gas-separation architecture designed to extract solar wind volatile gases while bypassing traditional, high-wear mechanical regolith excavation.

The U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund Gridlock

While Helium-3 is valued at roughly $20 million per kilogram, the asset cannot currently be utilized to seed an American Sovereign Wealth Fund due to severe political domestic gridlock:

• The Legislative Catch-22: The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act explicitly protects private enterprise, granting corporations exclusive ownership over extracted space resources. To capture this value, Congress would need to enact “space-severance taxes” or equity-for-infrastructure deals—both of which face massive ideological pushbacks in a deeply divided legislature.  It should be noted that American taxpayers have invested some $1.9 trillion (adjusted for inflation) in technology developed by NASA. Since the American people invested this money, they should be entitled to a return on investment.
• The Deficit vs. Surplus Dilemma: Traditional SWFs rely on state-managed resource surpluses (e.g., Norway’s oil). The U.S. operates at a massive structural deficit. Republicans propose seeding a fund via tariffs or fossil-fuel extraction, while Democrats demand funding via corporate wealth taxes or clean-energy equity. These disputes, combined with immediate 2026 midterm election priorities, have stalled the SWF framework completely.

Global Geopolitical Competitors: State-Driven Alternatives

While the U.S. model depends heavily on the private market, international adversaries are leveraging unified state power to establish dominance over lunar resources:

• China (CNSA): China’s Chang’e lunar exploration program is systematically mapping Helium-3 concentrations. Unlike the U.S. focus on near-term quantum cooling, Beijing explicitly views lunar He-3 as a long-term strategic energy priority to fuel Earth-based Deuterium-Helium-3 nuclear fusion reactors.
• The China-Russia Coalition: Beijing and Moscow have formalized a binding industrial partnership to construct an automated nuclear reactor on the Moon’s South Pole by 2035–2036. This autonomous reactor is designed to resolve the “Lunar Night” problem, providing continuous power to massive, automated mining rovers and scientific labs under the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) framework.
• Japan (ispace): In the allied sector, Japanese lunar robotics firm ispace has partnered with European mining tech developers to pioneer its own automated, energy-efficient recovery models for lunar Helium-3.

·        Conclusion

·        The race for Helium-3 represents a critical shift from symbolic space exploration to deep-space industrial supply chains. While U.S. commercial tech is moving quickly, domestic policy gridlock risks ceding permanent, state-backed infrastructure dominance to the China-Russia ILRS coalition.

·        While the concept of using outer space resources to build national wealth is actively discussed by think tanks, Congress has separate, targeted pieces of legislation addressing artificial intelligence revenue, foreign transparency, and space resource exploration rules.

·         

·        The primary draft bills and legislative vehicles currently stalled in committee reveal how Congress is attempting to navigate these frameworks:

The American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act (S. 4825)

Introduced in June 2026 by Senate Finance Committee member Bernie Sanders (I-VT), this is the most direct legislative attempt to create a federal wealth fund.

• The Mechanism: The bill proposes imposing a specialized excise tax on systemically critical artificial intelligence models and automation infrastructure. The revenue would seed a citizen-owned national wealth fund.
• Why It’s Stalled: It is currently deadlocked in the Senate Finance Committee. The bill faces severe pushback from lawmakers who argue that taxing emerging domestic tech sectors will cause the U.S. to lose the AI race to China, preferring instead to seed a potential fund via tariffs or natural resources.

2. The Sovereign Wealth Fund Transparency Act (S. 1488)

Introduced by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), this bill tackles the national security and foreign policy side of state-owned investment vehicles.

• The Mechanism: Rather than creating a U.S. fund, this bill forces heavy disclosure requirements, financial auditing, and security screening on foreign sovereign wealth funds operating within U.S. critical infrastructure, high-tech, and aerospace sectors.

Why It’s Stalled: Referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, it has remained stagnant due to concerns that over-regulating allied sovereign wealth funds (such as those from Gulf state allies or Singapore) could chill necessary foreign direct investment into U.S. tech startups.

3. Space Resource Extraction & Regulatory Frameworks (CRS / Commerce Committee Review)

There is currently no singular active bill trying to place federal royalties on lunar Helium-3 mining. Instead, the debate is gridlocked during budget reconciliation and agency authorizations within the House and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees.

• The Conflict: Congressional research reports on space resource extraction outline a widening gap in regulatory authority. NASA’s Artemis framework pushes heavily for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) via public-private partnerships. However, some factions in Congress are pushing for strict government-owned procurement models to prevent private monopolies over lunar sites, effectively freezing long-term policy development
• Midterm Postponements: Broad commercial space bills have been repeatedly delayed because committee attention is entirely consumed by urgent federal budget reconciliation battles and defense appropriations.development.

Summary of Bill Statuses

Conclusion

Until the two major political organizations can begin to compromise for the good of the American people, the United States will eventually revert to a second-class power.

Foxconn’s (FXCOF) June revenue surged 52.11% year-over-year, and it forecast a growth outlook for the third quarter but cautioned about a “volatile global political and economic situation.”

The company saw a record second quarter revenue, which also beat analysts expectations, on ​strong demand

The Iranians have come out on top after the conflict. They have demonstrated themselves as a pure and united nation by not dividing into small factions during the recent militarily confrontation with the United States and Israel. The Americans and Israelis were seemed to be launching a shock and awe strategy against the Iranians to overwhelm them and easily bring down their regime. 

However, they were unable to accomplish their task, resulting in social pressure from within the United States, as 61% people were not in favor of launching a war of choice against Iran while the escalation concluded in huge financial setbacks for both the U.S and Israel.

According to John Kiriakou – the former CIA officer, Trump was told by the Israeli Prime Minister that they could easily topple the regime of Iran due to prevailing social unrest at that time. But the Iranians remained intact and united, rallying behind their government. This shattered Americans and Israelis ambitions.

On the day Americans and Israelis launched an unprovoked aggression against Tehran, Iran imposed a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which made Iran to maintain upper hand throughout the confrontation and sustain its position against the enemy.

Strait of Hormuz was open before 28^th February, but during the war it was observed that the United States presented its closure as a cause of war, whereas it was obviously a consequence of the war. In addition to this context, Tehran laid a lot of mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz to hinder the flow of maritime trade across the strait.

From the beginning, the Iranians adopted a military strategy called Mosaic Defense, in which they decentralized their defense system, dividing their military into 31 factions which were able to take any decision on spot without asking from the central command of Tehran. This gave their military to take sudden military decisions and hit military targets as per their choice. This strategy significantly helped the Iranians hold the upper hand in the conflict, maintain their position, and stand firm against their enemy.  

The Iranians also pursued the strategy of asymmetric warfare, attacking with cheap Shahed-136 drones and using different types of missiles to overwhelm the enemy. They used drones of worth around  20000 to 50000 $ while the Americans and Israelis were using expensive defensive equipment of worth 1 million to 4million dollars.

Iran fought Americans forces using a strategy called horizontal warfare, broadening the conflict across the Middle East by attacking Americans bases in the region and making the region increasingly vulnerable and unstable for the other countries there. This helped Iran consolidate their hard power in the region.

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) eliminated the most expensive radars of the US situated in different countries of the region. They blew up AN/FPS-132 and AN/TPY-2 Radar systems of the US in Qatar and Jordan respectively. 

Along with that, they decimated American 5^th fleet headquarter in Bahrain, which held 75% of the US military power in the region, resulting in heavy losses for Washington. Furthermore, Iran inflicted pain on more than dozen American bases in the Middle East. 

It was seemed that Tehran converted this war into a war of attrition by slowly weakening the Americans over time. They were fully prepared for this protracted war but it did not go in favor of the United States, as Washington was unable to afford a protracted war at lot. 

Therefore, President Trump was increasingly perceived as pursuing a deal with Tehran over time, emphasizing that a deal was in progress and would be reached soon.  As a result, president trump had to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Tehran on 17^th June 27, 2026 to save the world economy from another Great Depression.

The extent which Washington achieved its objectives remain open to debate. These goals included the overthrow of the regime, the de-weaponization of Iran, and the weakening of the country’s strategic potential.  

According to the U.S political scientist Robert Pape, Iran has emerged as the fourth center of power, following the US, China, and Russia. It was obvious that Iran had been preparing for possible military misadventure by the U.S and Israel since 1979. 

One of the crucial steps that Iran took after the Islamic revolution was the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) parallel to its national army. Consequently, it had huge leverage over the US and Israel during overall confrontation.

Moreover, this military confrontation between the U.S and Iran gave huge advantage to Tehran, making its position stronger in the regional politics and globally. Resultantly, Tehran has achieved what it had been unable to gain over the last 47 years. It successfully gained the removal of sanctions, the release of its $24B frozen assets, dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, and recognition as a regional power. Apart from that, it still retains its regional proxies and ballistic missile program. 

While the Americans and Israelis miscalculated the war, assuming that they could win a quick and decisive victory by decapitating the regime. For that they orchestrated a plan to quickly topple the regime through a shock-and-awe campaign and they wanted to place people on the top that were subservient to them. However, the Iranian military emerged as a key deterrent against the adversary and made the pursuit of Washington’s objectives complicated.

Until not so long ago Latin America had been considered a quiet region, located far from the world’s superpower main strategic confrontations, with sporadic but crucial moments that helped to shape the international order as we know it today. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the clearest example: it became the starting point for a series of agreements and treaties on nuclear and strategic security, involving both the US and the Soviet Union at first, and later extending to other actors of the international community, from Europe, Asia and Latin America, which became the first region free from nuclear weapons after the signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967, 5 years after the crisis. After this episode, the region’s relevance seemed to fade, and Latin American countries appeared condemned to a destiny of surfing between weak political cohesion internally and relatively stable economies, even as most of its governments remained closely aligned with Washington on foreign policy matters.

It was precisely during this period of perceived irrelevance that China began building its presence in the region, very gradually and over the course of a little more than two decades. Washington largely ignored this process, even as it became clear that the Asian giant was becoming the largest trading partner for several South American countries, such as Peru and Brazil, and in many cases also the main investor in their economies. This neglect was not born of ignorance: it reflected, instead, a confidence that local governments would remain compliant regardless of who was investing in them. President Trump’s first term illustrates this well. Despite isolated clashes with the governments of Mexico and Venezuela, these episodes looked minor when compared to the “tariff wars” waged against the EU and China. In fact, the only time Trump ever set foot in the region during his entire first term was in November 2018 when he attended the G20 Forum in Buenos Aires. Significantly, there was a planned short visit in Colombia after this event, but I was cancelled. This was widely read at the time as a confirmation that Latin America remained a low priority for Washington’s foreign policy agenda, more due to the expectable compliance of local governments than ignorance of the importance of the region as a resource base capable of fueling US power projection in other regions.

It was only during Trump’s second term that American foreign policy has shifted towards the Western Hemisphere, attributing strategic importance to the region and setting the objective to maintain a near-absolute dominant presence, involving both economic and military dimensions, as is stated in the latest National Security Strategy of 2025.

By the time this shift was formalized, China’s footprint in the region was already deep and country-specific. In Brazil, China had been the largest trading partner since 2009; bilateral trade hit a record $171 billion in 2025, with China accounting for 27.2% of Brazil’s total foreign trade, besides, EV plants and a still planned bi-oceanic railway linking Brazil to Peru’s Pacific coast were being negotiated as part of the Chinese investment strategy in both countries. In Argentina, China became the primary supplier of mobile network infrastructure, part of a broader Chinese push into Latin American 5G and data-center markets. And in Peru, China invested around $1.3 billion in the strategic port of Chancay, a deepwater facility that entered full operation stage in November 2024, and set a new phase for trade between China and South America, bypassing the traditional deepwater ports located in the US, like the ports of Oakland and Stockton. Reinforcing this, China pledged in May 2025, at the CELAC forum ministerial meeting in Beijing, to ramp up its regional engagement even further. These were not isolated transactions but a structural presence, one that the 2025 National Security Strategy now identifies strictly as the rival foothold it intends to dislodge.

Now, within this context in 2026 the declared shift of interests proved it wasn’t merely rhetorical. The year started with the launching of Operation Resolve, when a group of American special military forces conducted a military raid and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, transporting them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. Trump declared that the US was now “in charge” of Venezuela until a transition takes place. This meant in practice that the US would hold control over the country’s oil exports, which during the first four months after Maduro’s capture were estimated at $8 billion, but the data on how much oil has been sold, the revenue from it and the use given to those funds remains secret. The main importers of Venezuelan oil during this period were the United States (43 percent), India (26 percent, part of the strategy to reduce Indian import of Russian oil), and Spain (8 percent). This episode, condemned by critics as a return to the old days of imperialism, set the tone for the rest of the year: a hemisphere where Washington would use military force, tariffs, and other mechanics for pressuring countries to sign economic deals where American core interests prevail.

An example of this is the new and controversial Trade and Investment agreement signed by the United States and Argentina in February of this year. According to the text, Argentina shall adapt the regulatory framework to implement US trade standards and prioritize American direct investment in the country, while the counterpart shall “try to review its tariffs” and “consider supporting investment financing”. Milei’s government has justified this as the price for ideological loyalty and continued financial support after the $20 billion credit line that helped to stabilize the local currency (peso) last year.

On the other hand, Brazil took the opposite path: rather than just seeking accommodation to this policy, the government of Lula da Silva accelerated diversification, finalizing the long-delayed EU-Mercosur agreement in January, deepening trade with China and signing a memorandum of understanding with aims for further strategic partnership with Russia. Notably, the US has implemented another mechanism of pressure here, condemning the imprisonment of former president Jair Bolsonaro and holding a meeting with his son Flavio Bolsonaro, who will participate in the presidential elections this October. This gives clear signs of indirect support for this far-right candidate, following the regional trend with Milei in Argentina and Keiko Fujimori in Peru.

Peru, meanwhile, illustrates a third pattern and an interesting case, because alignment here is imposed less by negotiation than by sheer state fragility. Amid a presidency turning over for the ninth time in a decade, the US State Department warned in February that China’s control over the Chancay megaport threatens Peru’s sovereignty, following a Peruvian court ruling that exempted the port from national oversight. Peru’s case pictures a scenario where both counterparts keep pushing for concessions and more privileges. Under the government of José María Balcázar, the ninth president in 10 years, the country has been involved in the controversial purchase of 12 F-16 jetfighters with a cost of around $3.5 billion. On April he postponed the official ceremony where this deal was supposed to be signed arguing that it would have to be the responsibility of a new president, the decision was met with pushback, both internally, with declarations from the Ministry of Defense and in the US Embassy, with ambassador Bernardo Navarro declaring “If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of [President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region.” After this, with both internal and diplomatic pressure, the deal was signed on the 17th of April.

Taken together, these cases suggest the current US approach to Latin America is not fueled by a single ideological logic, but by transactional calculations that value compliance and heavily punishes resistance, exploiting weaknesses here and there and aiming to these policy goal indifferently to whether the country in question is led by a right, left or ideologically undefined government. What seems quite clear is that the decades of quietness in Latin America have ended, not necessarily because the region has changed, many of the deep challenges for development are still present, but because the rivalry that once defined the Cuban Missile Crisis has returned, this time fought over trade tariffs, infrastructure and technology access rather than missiles.

Authors: Dr Soumyodeep Deb & Aung Kyaw*

Myanmar’s president Min Aung Hlaing is currently on a 5-day state visit to India on the invitation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. This is his first foreign visit after the recent election where he was elected as the new president of Myanmar. However, the elections that brought him to power were not democratic in nature. Therefore, “Min Aung Hlaing is not Myanmar’s legitimate president,” as noted by Mercy Chriesty Barends, a member of the Indonesian Parliament and chairperson of the ASEAN Parliamentarian on Human Rights. He oversaw a campaign of widespread crimes against his own people after masterminding a bloody coup that toppled a democratically elected government. As a result, APHR has asked India to condemn Min Aung’s government as undemocratic and illegal. Thus, the question of why India, which claims to be the largest democracy in the world, is dealing with an undemocratic administration that is accused of violating its own citizens’ human rights emerges.

The idea of democracy and human right violation had been India’s central position during the 1988 military coup in Myanmar. The Indian government had cut ties with the then military junta. India’s idealistic position had sidetracked India-Myanmar relations and led China to occupy the strategic sphere in India’s immediate neighborhood. Chinese investment and trade with Myanmar grew exponentially with the junta purchasing military hardware worth $1 billion from Beijing in 1989 one of the largest weapons deals in Myanmar’s history. This had led China to exert its influence on Myanmar. For Beijing the geo-strategic location of Myanmar having access to the Indian Ocean was of strategic interest. Enhancement of Chinese influence in Myanmar had a security implication for India as China used Myanmar to train major northeastern Indian insurgent groups like NSCN, ULFA etc. Thus, India’s rupturing of relationship with Myanmar after 1989 on idealistic grounds led China to exploit major gain at India’s immediate neighborhood.

This had led India to recalibrate its strategy towards Myanmar post the 2021 coup when India took a more pragmatic stand. The Indian ministry of external affairs had categorically pointed that any development in Myanmar has implications for India so India’s policy must serve its strategic interest. Therefore, we have seen India engaging both the military junta and the ethnic armed groups trying to balance its ties with both the parties. Since the coup India has been providing steady military assistant to the junta in form of military hardware and spares. It has also engaged the various ethnic armed groups by sending officials across the border and by inviting some of the groups to New Delhi for a conference. This makes it very evident that rather than maintaining the moral superiority of democracy, India is striving to further its strategic interests. The support to the rebel groups like the Arakan Army (AA) which controls a major part of strategic Rakhine state. After seizing control of majority of the state the Arakan Army pushed the initiative to have dialogue with the military junta. The AA had always held the ambition of having greater strategic autonomy in the Rakhine state. Thus, India’s engagement with the AA by sending government officials over to Myanmar signals that it wants to have strategic relation with the AA as that would enhance its influence and uphold India’s economic and trade ambitions. 

For India, the geographical location of Myanmar holds a great strategic significance. It shares a 1,693 kms of border and is seen as India’s gateway to the ASEAN. This had led India to invest heavily on major infrastructure projects in Myanmar. The Kaladan Multimodal Transit Corridor and Sittwe Port are two of India’s largest projects in Rakhine and Chin state of Myanmar. This project is seen to give India’s landlocked northeastern states access to Myanmar’s Sittwe port. This project is also seen as a counter to China’s Kyaukphyu Port at the Rakhine state. This has made the relation with Arakan Army of geo-strategic importance. The other major project that India is working on is to physically connect itself ASEAN via the India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway. This project would give India land access to the two ASEAN states which can further be expanded to other nations like Vietnam. Although the projects are currently stalled due to the civil war, India is working with both the ethnic armed groups and the government to safeguard and fast-track the projects.

Thus, the recent visit of Min Aung Hlaing to India shows that India has chosen pragmatism over idealism. New Delhi has kept itself away from the nature of democracy in Myanmar and is trying to engage based on strategic interest. During the press briefing the Indian foreign sectary had pointed that India’s engagement with Myanmar is not based on Myanmar’s internal political arrangement. India does not want to disengage based on internal political dynamics as history has shown that other powers which has no interest in democracy would eventually take the advantage. This statement although has not mentioned China but was directed towards it. Therefore, the visit led to the signing of various agreements and MOUs between both the states. Myanmar has also reiterated that it won’t allow its territory to be used against anti-India activities. The recent advancement by the Myanmar Army is further leading it to consolidate its power and capture grounds. With the new conscript law, it can funnel additional troops to keep its advancement. Further being supported by Russia, China and India the firepower of the junta is superior to the rebel forces. This has also led India to recalibrate its Myanmar policy by engaging the current powerful junta and strategic rebel forces like the AA in Rakhine state.

Therefore, it can be argued that the growing India-China competition has made India move its Myanmar strategy towards pragmatism from idealism. Unlike in 1988 when India lost its strategic foothold to China in Myanmar due to its idealistic stand, the situation has now altered as the competition grows. But as a democracy, India must tread carefully on this fine line and bring up important issues of human rights and democracy in Myanmar.

Bio: Aung Kyaw is a recent graduate from Lingnan University majoring in Global Development and Sustainability and minor in Sociology. His research interests are politics of southeast asia, peace and conflict studies, social development, social issues in southeast asia. kyawkyawaung@ln.hk

The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran deserves cautious support, not celebration. Its most important promise is immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. That is a serious achievement if it holds. The reported US-Iran text also commits both sides to avoid threats or use of force and to respect sovereignty. But wars do not end because officials announce elegant clauses. They end when armies, proxies, navies, banks, inspectors and political leaders behave differently the next morning.

The reported Versailles signing, with President Macron nearby, gave the accord theatrical weight. The reported confirmation by Iran’s Foreign Ministry gave it visibility in Tehran. Yet the title “Islamabad” may be the most revealing symbol. It suggests that diplomacy around Iran is no longer owned by Washington and Europe alone. Pakistan, Qatar, Oman and Gulf states now matter. That is healthy. But symbolism cannot replace sequencing. A memorandum is useful only if it becomes a disciplined path toward a final settlement.

Hormuz is the pressure point

The Strait of Hormuz is the economic heart of this agreement. The International Energy Agency describes it as one of the world’s critical oil chokepoints, so restoring commercial shipping is a global necessity. The MOU’s promise of safe, toll-free passage for 60 days can calm markets, but it cannot settle maritime governance. Iran’s future talks with the Sultanate of Oman and other littoral states must produce rules on fees, inspections, de-mining, escorts and disputes. Without that, Hormuz remains a bargaining chip, not a secure passage.

The most controversial part is economic. Washington would provide waivers for Iranian oil exports, make frozen assets usable, avoid new sanctions during talks and support a reconstruction plan of at least $300 billion. This could be pragmatic statecraft or a strategic mistake. The OFAC Iran sanctions system affects banks, insurers, traders and shippers. Recent State Department sanctions show how aggressively Iranian petroleum networks had been targeted. Relief must therefore be sequenced with measurable action. If Tehran receives benefits before verification, critics will call it capitulation. If Washington delays relief after compliance, Tehran will call it bad faith.

Nuclear language cannot stay vague

Iran’s renewed pledge not to build nuclear weapons is necessary, but not enough. The decisive issue is the future of enriched material, enrichment activity and inspection access. Any final deal must put IAEA Iran monitoring at the centre. The IAEA’s NPT safeguards framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty offer the right balance: Iran has civilian nuclear rights, but the world has a right to credible assurance that military pathways are closed. Down-blending enriched material under inspection may be a start. It cannot be the finish line.

Including Lebanon in the ceasefire is wise, but risky. The promise to protect sovereignty echoes the UN Charter. But Lebanon has long suffered from the gap between formal sovereignty and armed reality. If Hezbollah, Israel, Iran or any other actor treats Lebanon as a loophole, the ceasefire will collapse at its weakest seam. The final text must clarify what “all fronts” means, how non-state armed groups are restrained, and what happens if a party violates the ceasefire through an ally.

The final agreement must be public and enforceable

A binding UN Security Council resolution is essential, but it should not rubber-stamp ambiguity. The history of Resolution 2231, wider UN sanctions practice, IAEA reports to the Security Council, and the UN record on Iranian ballistic missiles shows why detail matters. The final agreement must define deadlines, verification triggers, consequences for breach and the exact sanctions schedule. The Guardian’s analysis and Iran International’s reporting underline the same reality: the MOU buys time, but time can be wasted.

The Islamabad MOU is not peace. It is a pause with possibilities. It should be supported because war has already proved disastrous, but it must be judged by performance: ceasefire maintained, Hormuz reopened, sanctions relief sequenced, nuclear material verified, Lebanon protected and the final deal anchored in law. Anything less would turn a promising memorandum into another diplomatic mirage.

For decades, historian’s discussion about colonialism has revolved around large armies, territorial conquests and vast empires. Yet, they often fail to focus on the fact that one of the most powerful empires did not begin with soldiers – it emerged because of corporations. The British East India Company, in 1600 started its commercial activities in the sub-continent, initially as a trading merchandise seeking profit in foreign markets. Within the period of two centuries, it acquired its own military, expanded its territorial influence, and started acting as a ruling government that ultimately blurred the difference between private capitalist enterprises and sovereign national authority. More than two hundred years later, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest incarnation of that colonial legacy. Unlike previous forms of colonialism of territory and resources, this control is primarily centered around data, algorithmic decision-making systems, and automated computation. Their territories are not like land, it is the dominance over data ecosystems; their currency is not raw materials, it is ‘data’, and their empires are not built on castles, but are gigantic ‘data-centers’. Instead of emancipation for the marginalized, this technology creates new forms of dependency known as ‘digital dependency’.  

The 21^st century is witnessing a growth of an imperial empire that is built on establishing control over datasets, computational power, and algorithmic sovereignty. Where a few Chinese and American tech giants such as NVIDIA, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure are controlling the digital markets through complete ownership of cloud platforms, chip production, and algorithmic intelligence. These hegemonic corporations act as imperial powers that perpetuate similar inequalities to traditional colonists, in which the global south risks becoming a resource for the tech giants. The comparison might seem like an exaggeration, but in reality AI colonialism follows similar patterns. Historically great economies were built on extraction; they extracted raw materials from peripheries, and then the industrial base at the center transformed into a worthy product, geopolitical influence, innovation, and wealth. Cotton flowed from subcontinent to Britain; rubber moved from southeast Asia to European countries, while minerals obtained from Africa were sent to imperial empires.

Today, the AI economy adopts an akin model where “data” is the vital material for digital functioning.  Millions of people from the south utilize these platforms; every search, GPS location, digital personal profile, and digital transaction becomes part of the data ecosystem that is required for its training, but their economic value is located elsewhere. It is particularly evident in African countries, where millions of people rely on these foreign platforms for information. Their data from search engines, digital databases, and social media, is then used to train the AI models, whilst the African community receives little economic benefit or no influence over how these technologies are deployed in their region. By controlling these giant data ecosystems, these tech conglomerates also gain leverage over their political, social, cultural, and economic affairs. Even though having a digital footprint is a sign of progress, when it is foreign owned or funded by external actors, it can be manipulated as imperialistic power that not only controls the data system, but also significantly affects the local traders and businesses.

Similar to east India companies, these tech corporations operate across national jurisdictions, shape economic trajectories and influence domestic governments to sustain their digital dominance. They shape information systems, and their regimes of truth. They decide which technology should be introduced in the market, at what cost, what conditions, and for whom. The east India company governed India not through military conquests but because the local leaders became dependent on the commercial and political networks controlled by the corporation. Their economic dependency paved the way for the east India company’s takeover. Today, the danger is not that the tech corporations will rule the state directly, rather it is the fear that the national governments will become so dependent that the exercises of their sovereign autonomy will be meaningless. AI colonialism is at the front, recreating the colonial dependency traps.

Another manifestation of ‘digital colonialism’ in the global south is the extraction of data through coercive bundles of consent forms. Most people from third-world countries click ‘accept all’ to install an app or to log into a website without reading its full contents. It is an illusion of ‘choice’ created by these companies, but in actuality, these people have no choice. If they ‘refuse’ to click they might lose their access to digital accounts, bank apps, or mobile services. Colonial powers used a similar tactic of ‘terra nullius’ ­to lay claim on foreign land and resources. The new digital ecosystems are now integrating modern forms of terra nullius to govern the global data and algorithmic infrastructures. In addition to controlling the databases, the new AI colonial world order exploits the cheap labor services of the global south to maximize their profits. During Venezuela’s economic crisis, the prime educated force was readily exploited as ‘cheap labor’ by the Silicon Valley. In exchange for survival income, they were exposed to precarious working conditions, pay-cuts, unstable contracts. This reflects that the AI colonialism is following the legacy of historical empires step-by-step; controlling foreign ecosystems, exploiting cheap labor, and profiting over their raw materials.

The digital hegemony in the global south extends beyond economical matrix; it is the struggle over political influence, power, and raw materials that will ultimately determine who will produce the knowledge, who controls the technology, and who profits off the wealth generated by AI ecosystems. Colonial history should not be merely viewed as the ancient past, but as a lesson to reject the ‘modern empires’. In order to do so, the global south must invest in indigenous technology companies, data systems and regulatory digital frameworks to protect the local’s data. Unless the global south acts collectively against AI colonialism, it may again serve as a colony supplying critical resources that enrich others whilst itself remains excluded from the global power centers. 

The war between Russia and Ukraine has entered its fifth year, with military operations continuing alongside intermittent diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement. The United States and European allies remain Ukraine’s principal supporters, providing military, financial, and political backing.

At the recent G7 summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met U.S. President Donald Trump and other Western leaders to discuss the war and prospects for peace negotiations. Following those discussions, Trump expressed optimism that a peace deal could eventually be reached.

What Happened?

Senior Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said European leaders likely influenced Trump’s views on the Ukraine war during the G7 summit.

Ushakov suggested Trump had been given misleading information about developments on the battlefield and rejected claims that Ukraine’s recent drone operations had significantly improved Kyiv’s military position.

The Kremlin official also said Moscow still expects visits from Trump’s envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, although no timetable has been announced.

Key Statements

Kremlin Position

• European leaders are exerting an “unhelpful influence” on Trump regarding Ukraine.
• Russia believes Trump may have received inaccurate assessments of the battlefield situation.
• Moscow maintains that Ukraine’s military position has not improved as claimed by Kyiv and its allies.

Trump’s Position

• Trump said after meeting Zelenskiy that Russia should make peace with Ukraine.
• He described discussions at the G7 as constructive.
• Trump has continued to signal interest in facilitating a negotiated settlement.

Why It Matters

The comments offer insight into how Moscow views Trump’s evolving position on the war and the role of European leaders in shaping Western policy.

Russia appears keen to preserve direct communication channels with Trump while simultaneously pushing back against narratives advanced by Ukraine and its European supporters. The remarks also suggest the Kremlin remains attentive to potential diplomatic openings involving the United States despite ongoing military operations.

The episode highlights the growing importance of diplomacy and messaging as all sides attempt to influence future peace discussions.

Stakeholders

• Donald Trump
• Volodymyr Zelenskiy
• Vladimir Putin
• Yuri Ushakov
• European G7 leaders
• U.S. diplomatic envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner
• Russian and Ukrainian armed forces

What’s Next?

• Potential visits by Trump’s envoys to Moscow for further discussions.
• Continued efforts by Ukraine and European allies to secure stronger U.S. backing.
• Russian attempts to influence Washington’s understanding of battlefield developments.
• Further diplomatic contacts aimed at exploring conditions for a possible peace framework.
• Monitoring whether Trump’s public optimism translates into concrete negotiations.

Analysis

The Kremlin’s comments reveal an important strategic calculation: Moscow wants to criticize European influence on Trump without alienating Trump himself.

By describing Trump as a strong leader who ultimately forms his own views, the Kremlin is attempting to preserve a working relationship with the U.S. president while casting doubt on information coming from Kyiv and European capitals. This messaging suggests Russia still sees value in engaging directly with Trump and may believe he could play a decisive role in future negotiations.

The remarks also reflect a broader battle over perceptions of the war. Ukraine and its allies have highlighted successful long range drone strikes and attacks on Russian infrastructure as evidence that Kyiv retains leverage. Russia, meanwhile, seeks to project confidence and reject suggestions that its strategic position has weakened.

Looking ahead, the key question is whether the apparent diplomatic momentum emerging from recent meetings can produce substantive negotiations. Both Moscow and Kyiv continue to believe they have leverage, making compromises difficult. As a result, public statements from leaders and advisers are increasingly becoming part of a larger effort to shape the diplomatic environment before any formal peace talks begin.

With information from Reuters.

Kazakhstan’s Energy Minister Yerlan Akkenzhenov said international partners are urging the country to increase oil exports as concerns grow over disruptions to energy supplies linked to tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Akkenzhenov, buyers are seeking the maximum possible increase in Kazakh oil shipments due to uncertainty surrounding one of the world’s most important energy transit routes. However, he noted that Kazakhstan faces infrastructure and production constraints that limit how quickly exports can be expanded.

To support higher output, Kazakhstan has postponed planned maintenance work at the Kashagan Oil Field until 2027. The country is also considering increasing crude shipments through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline, potentially raising volumes from 1.5 million tons to 2.2 million tons annually and beyond.

The development comes as global energy markets remain sensitive to geopolitical tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for international oil and gas exports.

Why It Matters

Kazakhstan’s growing importance highlights how global energy markets are seeking alternative supply sources amid rising geopolitical risks in the Middle East.

Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could affect a significant share of global oil shipments, prompting importers to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on vulnerable routes. Kazakhstan, one of the world’s major oil producers, is increasingly viewed as a reliable alternative supplier.

The decision to delay maintenance at Kashagan signals that Kazakhstan is prioritizing production stability and export capacity at a time when energy security has become a major concern for consuming nations.

The move could also strengthen Kazakhstan’s strategic position in global energy markets, giving it greater influence as countries seek dependable suppliers outside conflict affected regions.

Key Stakeholders

• Kazakhstan – Seeking to expand exports while balancing OPEC+ commitments.
• Yerlan Akkenzhenov – Overseeing the country’s energy strategy.
• Kashagan Oil Field – One of the world’s largest oil fields and a key source of future production growth.
• OPEC+ members monitoring compliance with production agreements.
• Energy importing countries seeking alternative crude supplies.
• Oil traders and global energy markets responding to supply risks.
• Countries along the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline route that facilitate exports to international markets.

Future Outlook

Kazakhstan is likely to face increasing pressure from international buyers if instability around the Strait of Hormuz persists. While production constraints may limit immediate gains, the postponement of Kashagan maintenance suggests authorities are positioning the country to maximize output over the coming years.

The expansion of exports through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline could become increasingly important as energy consumers seek routes that bypass geopolitical hotspots. This would further enhance Kazakhstan’s role in global energy diversification efforts.

However, Kazakhstan must also balance market demand with its commitments under the OPEC+ framework. Any significant increase in production could attract scrutiny from fellow producers seeking to maintain supply discipline and price stability.

If Middle East tensions remain elevated, Kazakhstan is likely to emerge as one of the key beneficiaries of the global search for secure and reliable oil supplies.

With information from Reuters.