stance

There are growing signs of a tectonic shift in U.S. President Donald Trump’s publicly expressed attitude toward Russia over the conduct of its war in Ukraine and its increasing belligerence toward the rest of Europe. Following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last month, Trump seemed far more amenable to Moscow’s point of view. However, the American leader’s messaging appears to be moving strongly in favor of Kyiv, calling Russia a “paper tiger,” and massive policy shifts could come very soon as a result.

Trump now says that with the proper support, Ukraine can win back the territory Russia has gained. He also appears more willing to provide Kyiv with long-range cruise missiles and has called for NATO to shoot down Russian aircraft intruding into alliance airspace. Whether all this represents a real change of heart or merely a negotiating tactic remains unclear, but either way, Trump has altered his public stance about the conflict dramatically.

The latest indication of a reversal in Trump’s position came on Friday after reports emerged that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked Trump for Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAMs) during a meeting Tuesday between the two on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting. Axios reported that Zelensky said Trump had a positive reaction to his request for an unnamed long-range cruise missile.

Obtaining the TLAMs, with a range of about 1,000 miles and packing a 1,000-pound warhead, would give Ukraine a munition that can strike major targets deep into Russia, putting major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg at risk. Providing these weapons would be in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s previous stance on denying Ukraine long-range cruise missiles. In addition, Trump has in the past also throttled the flow of armaments to Kyiv, though more recently the U.S. president worked out a plan to sell NATO weapons that it could then turn over to Ukraine.

The meeting with Zelensky seems to have had a large impact on Trump’s worldview. So too has a recent incursion into Estonian airspace by Russian MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors and a wave of drones into Poland, some of which were shot down. After spending time with Zelensky, Trump made a surprising post on his social media site, indicating a major change, at least publicly, in his attitude about the Russia-Ukraine war.

“After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form,” Trump exclaimed on Truth Social. “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like ‘a paper tiger.’” 

“Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act,” Trump added. “In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!”

Not surprisingly, the Kremlin pushed back on Trump’s paper tiger claim.

“Russia is in no way a tiger,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov, with a degree of levity, told a local radio station. “Still, Russia is more compared with a bear. There are no paper bears.”

Following Trump’s “paper tiger” comment, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“The meeting lasted roughly 50 minutes,” ABC News reported. “Lavrov didn’t respond to questions as he left, including whether he was concerned about the shift in tone from Trump or whether the U.S. president had turned his back on Russia.”

A spokesperson for Rubio released a short statement after the meeting, only saying that Rubio “reiterated President Trump’s call for the killing to stop and the need for Moscow to take meaningful steps toward a durable resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war,” the network noted.

US President Trump has repeatedly changed his position on the Ukraine war, even after vowing to end it within 24 hours of taking office. Eight months later, with ceasefire talks stalled, he and Russian President Putin are pushing for a peace deal that skips a ceasefire — putting them at odds with Kyiv and its allies.

The Moroccan Sahara dispute is one of the most persistent and complex regional conflicts in North Africa, lasting over forty years. This ongoing disagreement involves the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, which is supported by Algeria. The conflict centers on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national identity, making it a highly sensitive and crucial issue for regional stability.

In this ongoing dispute, China’s role as an emerging global power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is particularly significant. China’s involvement is strategically important due to its increasing influence in international affairs and its promotion of a multilateral approach to global stability. As a result, China’s position on the Sahara issue holds critical strategic importance, not only for Morocco but also for the broader regional and international community.

Recently, Moroccan scholars and researchers have been actively examining and questioning China’s stance on the Sahara conflict. They ask whether China recognizes the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 as a valid political solution. There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Chinese Communist Party holds a neutral position or leans toward supporting one side. These questions are important because they influence how Morocco and its allies perceive China’s diplomatic approach.

Furthermore, experts are eager to determine China’s official stance on Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern territories. Given China’s foreign policy focus on non-interference and respect for territorial integrity, the analysis assesses whether China follows these principles in this situation or if its actions suggest a departure. Overall, China’s changing position in this dispute has significant implications for regional stability and the future diplomatic landscape of North Africa.  

First: The evolving strategic landscape of Moroccan-Chinese relations

Since the announcement of the strategic partnership between Morocco and China in May 2016, bilateral relations have experienced significant growth across various sectors. These include the economy, infrastructure development, energy projects, technological progress, and higher education initiatives. Morocco also actively participated in China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic cooperation among participating countries. Through this involvement, Morocco has established itself as a key financial partner for Beijing in North and West Africa, strengthening regional ties.

This expanding cooperation and engagement have transformed Morocco into a strategic launchpad for China’s broader strategy in Africa. The partnership has enhanced the country’s international reputation, presenting Morocco as a stable, open, and welcoming partner for foreign investment and diplomacy. Furthermore, this strengthened relationship has indirectly influenced China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue, where China has adopted a more cautious, pragmatic, and balanced approach, demonstrating a deeper diplomatic understanding and respect for regional sensitivities.

Second: China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue

China’s official position at the United Nations is neutral, consistent with its traditional foreign policy principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

During discussions on extending the MINURSO mission’s mandate, China emphasizes the need for a realistic, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution. It advocates for the “continuation of dialogue” between the involved parties, refrains from harsh language toward Morocco, and seeks to maintain a balanced tone while not recognizing the Polisario Front as a sovereign state. Although this position seems “neutral,” it implicitly supports Morocco’s sovereignty.

Third: China’s position on the Moroccan autonomy proposal

In 2007, Morocco proposed its autonomy initiative as a practical political solution within the framework of national sovereignty for the ongoing conflict, and this initiative gained support from many major countries in Africa, as well as in the Arab and Western worlds, including France, the United States, Britain, Germany, and Spain.

Regarding China, it did not explicitly support or oppose the initiative but expressed indirect approval, noting that it “contributes positively to international efforts to find a solution to the conflict.” Since then, China has not opposed the Moroccan proposal but has shown tacit acceptance, especially when calling for “realistic and viable” solutions.

Fourth: Factors Affecting China’s Position

Many key factors and influences shape China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue.

The principle of sovereignty and national territorial integrity: China rejects any efforts at secession, as it faces similar challenges within its territory, such as those in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. Therefore, it tends to support countries that uphold their territorial integrity, although it has not explicitly stated this.

Relations with Algeria: Despite the increasing closeness between China and Morocco, Algeria remains a key energy partner for China, especially in the gas sector. This leads China to carefully balance its diplomatic efforts to protect its interests with both countries. Investing in regional stability: China believes that regional stability benefits its economic interests, so it prefers peaceful and stable solutions to disputes without supporting separatist movements that could cause chaos or armed conflicts.           

Fifth: Is China’s stance shifting?

This question poses a challenge for researchers and those interested in the Moroccan Sahara conflict, as increasing signs suggest a possible gradual shift in China’s stance in the years to come.

– Growing Chinese trade and investments in Morocco, including the Mohammed VI Smart City project, the Atlantic port in Nador, and solar energy initiatives.

– Enhancing strategic visits and high-level diplomatic meetings between China and Morocco.

– China’s diplomatic language, like “realistic solution” and “viable political solution,” hints at autonomy and is a key reference for the Moroccan autonomy proposal.

– China’s ties with the West, especially the U.S., are weakening, pushing China to build and diversify its alliances in the Global South, including with Morocco.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese Communist Party’s approach to the Moroccan Sahara issue is marked by a kind of “thought-out neutrality,” balancing core principles of Chinese foreign policy with increasing strategic interests in Morocco. Despite China’s public commitment to the policy of “neutrality,” its diplomatic and economic actions imply implicit support for Morocco’s sovereignty over its deserts, or at least a practical acceptance of the autonomy initiative. Therefore, in light of international geopolitical shifts, Morocco has a strategic opportunity to strengthen its ties with Beijing and convince it that supporting the autonomy proposal does not conflict with its political and diplomatic principles but aligns with its vision of global stability.  

Iran has taken an unequivocal stance against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summarily dismissing its chief Rafael Grossi’s request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States during a 12-day conflict earlier this month.

“Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” said Araghchi on X on Monday. “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.”

In tandem, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron that Tehran had halted cooperation with the IAEA due to what he called Grossi’s “destructive” behaviour towards Iran, his office said.

“The action taken by parliament members … is a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct of the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Pezeshkian told Macron in a phone call, according to a presidency statement.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, said the Iranian leadership is making it clear that the IAEA is an “international body with defined responsibilities and these responsibilities are not political but technical”. But, he added, Tehran views the nuclear agency as an international body “under immense [political] pressure from Israel and the United States”.

Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday voted in favour of a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, citing Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran and later strikes by the US on nuclear facilities.

A ceasefire between Iran and Israel took hold on June 24.

Since the start of the conflict, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes, but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked.

‘Anger of Iranian public opinion’

In the meantime, France, Germany and Britain have decried “threats” made against Grossi.

“France, Germany and the United Kingdom condemn threats against the director general of the IAEA Rafael Grossi and reiterate our full support to the agency,” Foreign Ministers Jean-Noel Barrot, Johann Wadephul and David Lammy said in a joint statement.

“We call on Iranian authorities to refrain from any steps to cease cooperation with the IAEA,” they added. “We urge Iran to immediately resume full cooperation in line with its legally binding obligations, and to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of IAEA personnel.”

While none specified which threats they were referring to, Iran’s ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed.

Iran has insisted no threats were posed against Grossi or the agency’s inspectors.

On Monday during his weekly press conference, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the Iranian parliament’s decision to halt cooperation with the IAEA reflected the “concern and anger of the Iranian public opinion”.

He further criticised US and European powers for maintaining what he described as a “political approach” towards Iran’s nuclear programme.

At least 935 people were killed during the recent conflict with Israel, Iran’s judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said, citing the latest forensic data. The deceased included 132 women and 38 children, Jahangir added.

Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said later on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and urged that negotiations resume for a deal to address Iran’s nuclear program, according to a joint statement.

“We reaffirm that Iran can never have nuclear weapons, and urge Iran to refrain from reconstituting its unjustified enrichment activities,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, a Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman has said the country is involved in efforts to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue and a guarantee against a return to escalation by all parties.

Pezeshkian issued an official apology to the Qatari people in a phone call to Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani after the targeting of Al Udeid Air Base, the biggest US military base in the Middle East, he added.

The German leader and European Commission president were quick to back Israel as the conflict began with Iran last Friday.

The European Union has since called for de-escalation, reflecting growing anxiety over what might happen next.

So, what is the thinking in European capitals – and how much influence does Europe really have?

Presenter: Neave Barker

Guests:

Pieter Cleppe – Editor-in-chief at BrusselsReport.eu

Steven Erlanger – Chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe at The New York Times in Berlin

Ellie Geranmayeh – Deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations

In today’s fast-changing world, where uncertainty and power rivalries are on the rise, some voices are calling for a return to old-style diplomacy—a new version of the 1945 Yalta Conference. This idea, often referred to as “Yalta 2.0,” imagines the world’s major powers—the United States, Russia, and China—coming together to divide up regions, settle territorial disputes, and determine the political fate of smaller countries. At a time when global tensions are high, this approach may seem tempting to some. But for China, the path forward does not lie in revisiting the power politics of the past. It lies in creating a peaceful, inclusive, and multipolar future.

From the outset, it is important to recall that the original Yalta Conference, while historic, was also deeply flawed. While it ended the horrors of World War II and contributed to the formation of the United Nations, it also sidelined the interests of many nations, including China. In exchange for Soviet participation in the final stages of the war against Japan, key Chinese interests in Northeast Asia were compromised without Beijing’s consent. As a country that once suffered from colonialism and great power bargaining, China cannot support any model that seeks to reintroduce a world order based on dividing the globe into spheres of influence.

China’s foreign policy has long been rooted in principles such as respect for sovereignty, peaceful coexistence, non-interference, and mutual benefit. These are not just abstract ideals; they are grounded in China’s own historical experience. China knows what it means to have its territory divided, its dignity trampled, and its voice ignored. That is why Beijing has always stood firm against unilateral changes to territorial status—whether in Kosovo, Georgia, Crimea, or elsewhere. Today, despite growing calls for the West to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, China’s position remains consistent: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, must be respected.

Supporters of Yalta 2.0 often argue that China could benefit from such a deal. They suggest that a seat at the table with Washington and Moscow would elevate Beijing’s global standing and provide an opportunity to advance core interests such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. But this view misses the point. China’s rise has never been about bargaining away the rights of others. Rather, it has been about building a more connected world where all countries—big or small—have a voice. For China, diplomacy is not a zero-sum game. True leadership lies in lifting others, not containing them.

In fact, returning to exclusive power-sharing arrangements would be deeply harmful to China’s vision for the world. China’s global strategy is based on open connectivity, economic cooperation, and institutional reform. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI), and China’s leadership in the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) all reflect this commitment to inclusiveness and fairness. These platforms are not about dividing the world, but about bringing it closer together. A Yalta-style settlement, by contrast, would create divisions, deepen mistrust, and undermine the very institutions that China has helped to strengthen.

Moreover, the return of ideological conservatism in parts of the West, marked by skepticism of globalization and rising right-wing nationalism, poses an additional risk. While such political movements may find common ground with Russia’s cultural traditionalism or even aspects of Trump’s America First approach, they diverge fundamentally from China’s pragmatic and development-focused policies. China does not seek to impose its model on others. Instead, it supports a world where countries choose their own path of modernization and development.

The current U.S. push to re-engage Russia and draw it away from China—sometimes called a “reverse Nixon” strategy—also reflects a Cold War mindset that China does not share. While trilateral dialogues can help improve global stability, using them to isolate or contain any one country is neither sustainable nor responsible. For China, multipolarity means balance, not blocs. It means cooperation based on mutual interests, not coercion or side-deals made behind closed doors.

Indeed, as the idea of Yalta 2.0 gains traction in some circles, we are already seeing signs of strain in global relationships. China’s trade with Russia has shown early signs of cooling, with car exports and overall bilateral trade declining in early 2025. This is a reminder that trust and interdependence must be nurtured carefully. China is prepared to deepen strategic ties with its partners—but always on the basis of equality and long-term vision.

Equally concerning is the risk that Yalta 2.0 would alienate the Global South. Countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have increasingly turned to China not only as a trade partner but as a champion of equitable development and reform of global governance. To now support a return to great-power bargaining would undermine this trust. It would send a signal that the future of smaller states can still be decided without their consent. China must—and will—stand against such a return to outdated thinking.

As we approach the 80th anniversaries of the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations, we are reminded of the importance of these historic moments. They marked the beginning of a global order based on dialogue, not domination. For all its imperfections, that rules-based order gave the world decades of relative peace and prosperity. It is this legacy that must be preserved—not through nostalgia for 1945, but through renewed commitment to shared responsibility and sovereign equality.

The world today is not the world of Yalta. It is more complex, more interconnected, and more hopeful. Emerging powers want dignity, not dependency. Regional blocs seek cooperation, not confrontation. And the people of the world want peace, not power politics.

For China, the answer is clear. A Yalta 2.0 is not the way forward. What the world needs is not a division of spheres, but a convergence of minds. Not backroom deals, but open partnerships. Not great power privilege, but global progress.

Let us work together, not to rewrite the map, but to build the bridges that will carry all of us toward a more just, peaceful, and inclusive future.