trapped

50 boats rushed across the sea to evacuate people from the beach as the fire spread

A couple have described their terrifying escape after a wildfire surrounded their holiday resort, forcing hundreds of guests to flee towards the sea. Stephen and Anna Saunders had been staying at the Gava Waterman resort on Brač in Croatia for a week-long holiday.

Guests at the all-inclusive four-star waterfront hotel were initially reassured there was “nothing to worry about” despite ash falling from the sky and a huge orange glow visible over the hills. The couple, from Rainham, Kent, had arrived on the island last Monday and were aware there had been wildfires in the area for several days.

Stephen said a guide warned them on Friday that lightning strikes had caused the blaze. Despite the fires being close by, he said guests were repeatedly told the situation was under control. But on Saturday evening, September 12, the pair went out to dinner with friends and said they could see an “orange glow” in the sky.

“There was ash falling into our drinks,” Anna said. Just after 9.30pm, the power went out at the hotel. Shortly afterwards, Stephen says ash was “visibly falling from the sky”. At that point, the couple returned to their room and decided to pack a small bag “just in case”. Within minutes, a friend told them that trees were on fire right next to the hotel.

Anna said: “The embers were blowing across. I quickly changed my shoes and we went down by the sea, but there were no lights, and no one from the hotel was present. The fire was just shooting across, and it just came down so quickly, so we thought the best thing to do was get in the water.”

The 52-year-old said hundreds of people eventually gathered on wooden platforms and in the sea as smoke and flames surrounded the bay. “Everyone was absolutely terrified”, she added. “There were hundreds and hundreds of people all on these platforms or in the sea. We were basically trapped.”

Stephen said the only staff members he saw were entertainment and restaurant workers. He says there was no emergency lighting, no clear evacuation route, and reception was empty. A spokesperson for Waterman Hotels and Resorts denied that guests “were abandoned by the resort team”.

Stephen said he had to rescue an elderly couple who became stuck in automatic glass doors. “There were families, elderly people and disabled guests trying to get down a steep, dark resort towards a rocky beach while the fire closed in behind us,” he added.

“Within minutes, the trees around the beach were burning. The flames were above us. It was getting really hot and burning embers were raining down from the sky. At this point, people were jumping into the sea and trying to get away from the smoke.”

Firefighters eventually arrived and helped to organise a sea evacuation, and local boat owners came to help rescue those trapped. Stephen said around 50 boats came to help and praised the firefighters and local people who came to their aid.

The 57-year-old electrician said: “If it weren’t for them, I don’t know what would have happened.” The couple, who booked the holiday through TUI, were moved to accommodation in Split in the early hours of Sunday morning – on Anna’s birthday.

They returned home on Monday evening, but Anna said the experience has had a lasting impact. She explained: “We’re not sleeping properly. You just close your eyes, and you’re going through it all the time.”

Stephen said their luggage is expected to be recovered, although other guests lost their possessions. He is planning to lodge a formal complaint to the hotel along with other people impacted last week.

A spokesperson for Waterman Hotels and Resorts said it recognises how “frightening and traumatic” the ordeal was for guests and does “not seek to diminish or challenge anyone’s individual experience” of the evacuation. They explained that the resort’s layout, the loss of electricity, heavy smoke and poor visibility, and the speed at which the fire advanced meant guests experienced different circumstances and had access to different information at different times.

“We would, however, like to correct one important claim that has appeared in some accounts: our guests were not abandoned by the resort team,” they said. They said staff at the resort, which also hosts easyJet and Jet2 trips, initially acted on “the official information and instructions provided by the authorities and emergency services coordinating the response to the wildfire”, and the resort had been instructed not to evacuate guests.

They added: “Conditions then changed with extraordinary speed. An extreme change in wind drove the fire towards the resort, power was lost, and heavy smoke severely reduced visibility.

“When our team on the ground saw that the situation had changed dramatically and that the fire presented an immediate danger to the resort, our reception manager made the decision to activate the alarm and begin the evacuation. Our employees then assisted guests throughout the evacuation.

“The final group of our employees involved left on the last boat used in the evacuation, after establishing that the guests had gone. Other employees travelled during the fire to assist guests and colleagues at the resort.”

Courage and extraordinary efforts

The spokesperson said reception, kitchen, technical and other resort staff stepped forward to help. They added that the company has received many messages from guests thanking them for their assistance, but accepts that “this does not mean that every guest had the same experience”.

“With more than 360 guests spread across a large resort, no electricity, heavy smoke, extremely poor visibility and a fire advancing at exceptional speed, it was extraordinarily difficult for information and assistance to reach everyone simultaneously,” they explained.

“We understand that some guests therefore felt they did not have the information or guidance they needed at critical moments. We take those experiences seriously.

“However, just as we would never question the fear or distress experienced by any of our guests, we believe it is important that the actions of the many employees who remained and helped others in extremely dangerous circumstances are also accurately represented.”

The team is currently working through inquiries from guests regarding luggage, documentation and other belongings. The spokesperson described the situation as an “extraordinary emergency”, with conditions changing “minute from minute”.

They said: “The courage and extraordinary efforts of the firefighters and emergency services, the solidarity of local people who came by boat and helped evacuate guests, and the commitment of our own employees are not things we believe should be called into question.

Deeply traumatic

“They are a source of profound gratitude and pride, and they are a major reason why far more serious and tragic consequences were avoided.

“We will examine our own actions with the same seriousness. We will conduct a detailed review of the events of that night, including our procedures and communications, and identify any lessons that need to be learned.

“Saturday night was deeply traumatic for our guests, our employees and the local community. Alongside that trauma, however, we will remember the extraordinary courage, solidarity and willingness of people to help one another in exceptionally dangerous circumstances.”

A TUI UK spokesperson said: “We know this will have been a frightening and distressing experience for those affected by the wildfire on the island of Brac. The safety of our customers is our highest priority, and our local teams have been supporting those impacted and working closely with the hotel and local authorities.

“We would like to thank the emergency services for their response to this rapidly developing situation.”

The US-China G-2 concept is both normatively exclusionary and strategically constraining. The inherent limits of a G-2 framework—hierarchy, power structure, and systematic constraints—make it a non-starter in a multipolar reality. Here, I completely agree; the concept of a G2 is unworkable and constitutes a strategic exclusion of many international actors in a multipolar world order characterized by a complex distribution of power and multiple centers of decision-making. The Structural and Political Constraints, represented in:

· Unacceptable Hierarchy: This framework attempts to impose a bipolarity that ignores the rise of major regional and international powers such as the European Union, India, and Russia.

· Lack of Methodological Flexibility: This framework fails to accommodate global issues that transcend borders and require broad collective cooperation, not just bilateral understandings.

· Conflicting Interests: The current strategic and geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing makes it impossible to manage the international system through joint governance. The structural conflict of interests between Washington and Beijing renders joint management of the international system impossible, amidst a fierce struggle for technological leadership, economic dominance, and the reshaping of national security rules. This manifests itself in:

– First: The Roots of the Strategic Conflict

A) The Challenge to Hegemony: China seeks to reshape international rules and challenge absolute American supremacy.

B) The American Shift: Washington adopts a strategy of confrontation and containment to reduce Chinese influence and supply chains.

– Second: Arenas of International Conflict

A) Technology and Trade: The chip war, tariffs, and control over advanced technology.

B) Regional Sovereignty: The escalating competition in the South China Sea and the Taiwan issue.

Trump’s China policy has shifted from confrontation to accommodation. If we wonder how true that is, to claim that Donald Trump’s policy toward China has completely shifted from confrontation to accommodation is inaccurate. It is merely a superficial shift toward de-escalation and managing disputes through deals, while the underlying geopolitical and structural competition remains intense.

– Manifestations of De-escalation and Deals (Tactical Accommodation)

· Diplomatic Summits: A state visit to Beijing in mid-May 2026 and frequent summits with President Xi Jinping to reduce escalating tensions.

· Trade Settlements: Temporarily reducing some reciprocal tariffs and concluding major deals, such as Boeing aircraft orders and easing chip restrictions for major companies.

· Regional Crisis Management: Seeking cautious coordination or neutralizing China’s role in some global energy and shipping crises.

– Constants of Conflict and Confrontation (Ongoing Competition)

· Technological Restrictions and Economic Structure: The complex core of the conflict over intellectual property and control of advanced technology remains unresolved.

· Legal and Institutional Pressures: Reciprocal restrictions and legislation continue, with China activating its blocking statute to counter extraterritorial US sanctions.

· The Taiwan file and military strategy: Divergent major strategic interests and military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.

China wants to be seen on par with Washington. The Chinese gave Trump everything he wanted but nothing of substance. Taiwan was off the table at the Beijing May 2026 meet. Here, political assessments of the Beijing summit held in May 2016 vary. Some believe China successfully established itself as a rival to Washington, while others consider the results to have ranged from symbolic gains to continued ambiguity regarding issues such as Taiwan and trade deals. The summit’s dimensions and outstanding issues can be summarized as follows:

· International parity: Beijing sought to solidify its image as a major power capable of competing with and managing the power struggle with the United States.

· Taiwan’s position: Taiwan was naturally absent from the direct bilateral talks between the two leaders, amidst strong Chinese warnings to Washington about the dangers of arms sales to the island.

· Mutual gains: Opinions differed regarding the extent of concessions. Analysts believe the Trump administration did not secure any decisive, substantive commitments on certain regional issues in exchange for a temporary easing of trade tensions.

Beijing has sought to solidify its image as a major power capable of rivaling and managing the struggle for influence with the United States. It aims to establish itself as a major power on par with Washington through a variety of economic, technological, and military tools, skillfully managed through a policy of gradual retaliation and the management of international competition. This is achieved through:

– First: Economic and Technological Tools

• Rare Earth Minerals: Controlling the production of raw materials vital to advanced technologies and imposing export restrictions on them.

• Trade War: Reciprocal and gradual retaliation against US tariffs to mitigate the effects of economic pressure.

• Supply Chains: Leveraging the Belt and Road Initiative to enhance global trade routes.

– Second: Geopolitical and Diplomatic Presence

• Multipolarity: Supporting a new international order that limits unilateral US hegemony.

• Partnerships and Alliances: Expanding diplomatic and economic influence in vital regions such as Africa and Latin America.

There were some raised questions related to whether US-China friendship is bad for India and whether their infighting is bad for India too. Here, I partially agree with this view, as the interaction between Washington and Beijing presents both gains and risks for India. The conflict grants New Delhi strategic room for maneuver and security alignment with the US, but sharp conflicts or a sudden rapprochement between the two giants could exert economic and political pressure on India’s interests.

– First: Risks of US-China Conflict and Friendship for India

· Bilateral Accords Between Washington and Beijing: If the two powers reach trade agreements or strategic stability without India’s involvement, it could diminish New Delhi’s importance as a crucial ally for containing China.

· Economic and Trade Pressure: Global conflicts, tensions, and reciprocal tariffs affect the stability of markets and supply chains upon which India depends.

· Regional Military Escalation: Direct conflict increases the likelihood of India’s regional involvement due to its direct border disputes with China.

– Second: Opportunities and Gains for India from Competition

· Strengthening Strategic Partnerships: US-China competition is driving Washington and Western countries to deepen military and technological cooperation with India to counterbalance Beijing’s influence.

· The strategy of multiple independence: India benefits from competition by implementing a policy of multiple alignment, protecting its decision-making independence without being completely dependent on any party.

The interaction between Washington and Beijing presents India with both opportunities and risks, most notably strategic room for maneuver, security cooperation with the US, and potential economic pressures. In terms of gains and risks, these can be assessed as follows:

– Strategic Gains

· Role for Maneuvering: New Delhi skillfully balances its relations between the two powers.

· Security Cooperation: Stronger cooperation with the US and the Quad countries to counter China’s influence.

· Economic Gains: Global companies are seeking to relocate their factories from China to India.

– Risks and Threats

· Military Escalation: A direct confrontation could force India to choose sides.

· Sudden Rapprochement: Any major deal between the US and China could marginalize India’s regional role.

· Economic Pressures: Markets and supply chains could be affected by any trade tensions between the two giants.

Beyond the US and China, India and others are building a G Minus Two for Indo-Pacific. Here, the fundamental error in the statement lies in describing India and other countries as building a G-2 alliance with the United States and China. The G-2 concept actually refers to a potential bipolar hegemony or joint management of the world solely by Washington and Beijing, while India and other regional powers are pursuing a strategy known as G-Minus Two to expand their options for independence. This can be understood through:

– Rejection of Bipolar Hegemony:

India adopts a policy of strategic independence and rejects any bipolar system or joint US-China hegemony that diminishes the role of emerging powers.

– The G-Minus Two Strategy:

New Delhi is working with partners such as Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Australia, and Indonesia to build a network of flexible partnerships that balance influence and protect regional interests.

Here, the statement of Beyond US and China, India, and others building a G Minus Two for Indo-Pacific, accurately describes the shift of major regional powers like India towards building a network of independent strategic partnerships, moving away from the bipolar hegemony of the US and China. This is achieved through:

– Concepts of International Alliances

• The G2 concept refers to a shared global management or potential bipolar hegemony confined exclusively to Washington and Beijing.

• The G-Minus Two concept: expresses the middle power strategy of expanding its economic and defense cooperation with countries such as Australia, Japan, Indonesia, and South Korea to safeguard its strategic independence.

– Dimensions of the G-Minus Two strategy

• Diversifying partnerships: avoiding the trap of bipolar polarization between the two superpowers.

• Securing sea lanes and supply chains: building flexible regional blocs to enhance Asian stability.