USA

The assassination of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk is seen as a significant event amidst rising political violence in the U. S. Experts believe this may lead to further unrest in a country already divided. Mike Jensen, a researcher, noted that in the first half of the year, there were about 150 politically motivated attacks, nearly double from the previous year. He warned that the situation could escalate into wider civil unrest if not controlled, viewing the assassination as a potential trigger for more violence.

Experts attribute the rise in violence to several factors, including economic insecurity, racial and ethnic tensions, and aggressive political rhetoric. The divide in politics has grown from policy disagreements to personal animosity, driven by social media and conspiracy theories. A report by Reuters indicated that there had been over 300 cases of political violence in the U. S. since the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, reflecting the highest level of such violence in decades. Jon Lewis from George Washington University commented that extreme political violence is becoming more common, regardless of clear motives.

Lilliana Mason, a political science professor, emphasized the tendency for people to retaliate rather than initiate violence. Kirk, a prominent figure in the conservative movement and ally of former President Trump, was shot while speaking at an event, resulting in a panic among the crowd of 3,000. As of Thursday, authorities had not arrested a suspect, and the FBI was investigating. Following Kirk’s death, there has been a call for increased security from many lawmakers.

“Vicious Spiral”

Trump was involved in two assassination attempts last year. In one attempt, the shooter was killed by authorities, and in the other, a man with a rifle was arrested near a golf club where Trump was playing. His trial has started this week. This year, two significant attacks by right-wing conspiracy theorists also occurred. In June, a Christian nationalist killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. In August, a gunman targeting the CDC in Atlanta killed a police officer.

There have been at least 21 deaths from political violence since January, including 14 from an attack in New Orleans by a jihadist linked to the Islamic State. In May, a pro-Palestinian activist killed two Israeli embassy employees, stating it was for Gaza. Additionally, in July, a group of militants attacked an immigration detention center in Texas, injuring a police officer.

Since taking office, Trump has reduced efforts to combat domestic extremism, focusing on immigration instead. A researcher from the University of Maryland warns that the political climate is dangerous, with increasing violence from those who oppose recent government changes.

with information from Reuters

From the Cuban Missile Crisis to the war in Ukraine, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union—and later post-Soviet Russia—have followed a dangerous pattern: miscalculation and misadventure followed by blowback. Both sides have pursued strategies and have plunged into involvements that backfired, damaged their own national interests, and destabilized international security. Unless this history is faced honestly, there is a risk that the two nuclear superpowers will continue repeating mistakes with unintended catastrophic consequences.

Early in the Cold War, American policy often failed to adjust to important shifts in Moscow. After Joseph Stalin’s death in 1953, seasoned diplomats and analysts urged Washington to test whether the new Soviet leadership might pursue a less confrontational line. The father of U.S. containment policy, George F. Kennan, though no longer in government, warned against treating the Soviet Union as immutable and pointed to “evidence of flexibility, of experimentation, of responses to circumstance.” Charles E. Bohlen, who succeeded Kennan as U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1957, reported that the Kremlin’s new collective leadership appeared intent on consolidating power at home and sought a breathing spell from confrontation.

Scholars such as the influential Sovietologist Philip Edward Mosely argued that Khrushchev’s language of “peaceful coexistence” reflected more than mere propaganda. Within the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harold Stassen, who served as the president’s special assistant for disarmament from 1955 to 1958, pressed for serious consideration of Soviet arms-control proposals. All of these voices were basically brushed aside by an increasingly hawkish and rigid national security establishment. The costs of that rigidity became clear in the confrontation that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was the most dangerous moment of the Cold War, demonstrating the dangers of poor judgment and misperception and the terrifying reality of deterrence through Mutual Assured Destruction. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev misjudged U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s resolve, believing he could install nuclear missiles in Cuba without provoking confrontation. In Washington, officials failed to appreciate how threatening their deployment of 15 intermediate-range Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey and 30 more in Italy as part of NATO strategy appeared to Moscow. Khrushchev’s move was in part a direct response to this strategic imbalance.

The crisis ended when Moscow agreed to withdraw its missiles from Cuba in return for a public pledge by the U.S. not to invade Cuba and a secret agreement to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy. What one side saw as deterrence, the other viewed as provocation—and the result was near catastrophe. Although Khrushchev won concessions, the perception of a humiliating retreat fatally weakened him, contributing to his removal from power in 1964.

In the U.S. the outcome was remembered mainly as a triumph. Kennedy’s public image as a tough leader capable of standing up to Soviet aggression was markedly enhanced following the earlier failed U.S. invasion of Cuba—the 1961 Bay of Pigs debacle—which had raised doubts about his leadership capabilities. But the deeper lesson—that both sides had stumbled into a confrontation that could have destroyed humanity—was only partly appreciated. The crisis led to the establishment of a teletype “hotline” between the White House and the Kremlin to prevent future miscommunications and to a series of arms control agreements. But Moscow embarked on a massive nuclear buildup over the next quarter-century. Moreover, Cuba’s security was strengthened, solidifying its position as a Soviet client state—just 90 miles from the U.S.—emboldened to eventually intervene militarily, overtly and covertly, in conflicts in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.

Afghanistan, 9/11, and NATO’s Enlargement

Afghanistan was another defining episode. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, later acknowledged that U.S. aid to Afghan rebels secretly began months before the Soviet invasion in 1979, with the deliberate aim of luring Moscow into a costly conflict. When Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in December of that year, the effort escalated dramatically. Billions in U.S. and Saudi funds flowed through Pakistan’s intelligence services to arm the mujahideen, and the introduction of Stinger missiles shifted the balance of the war. President Ronald Reagan expanded it into the largest-ever U.S. covert operation.

The conflict became what Mikhail Gorbachev called a “bleeding wound,” hastening the Soviet Union’s collapse. But the blowback was horrific. Afghanistan became a crucible of jihadist radicalization, producing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and ultimately drawing the U.S. into two decades of war following the terrorist group’s September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. homeland.

The Cold War’s end was expected to usher in a new era of peace and stability. Instead, decisions taken in the 1990s and 2000s deepened mistrust. As former Warsaw Pact states sought NATO membership, Washington viewed enlargement as stabilizing. Russian leaders, however, saw it as betrayal, claiming they had been given assurances during German reunification that NATO would not move eastward.

Boris Yeltsin protested, Vladimir Putin internalized the grievance, and resentment hardened. Washington assumed Russia was too weak to resist. But enlargement, intended to consolidate peace, became a seed of future confrontation.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was the most consequential blunder of the post–Cold War era. Putin underestimated Ukraine’s resilience and misjudged the resolve of the Western alliance. Far from fracturing, NATO was revitalized. Ukraine’s identity was strengthened, and severe Western sanctions isolated Russia from the West, making it heavily reliant on China for trade, technology, and diplomatic support.

The invasion also ended Europe’s longest tradition of neutrality. Finland joined NATO in 2023. Sweden, neutral since the Napoleonic era, followed in 2024–25. Instead of curbing NATO, Russia’s war of aggression produced NATO’s largest expansion in decades and transformed the Baltic Sea into what has frequently been called a “NATO lake” owing to control by the alliance of almost the entire Baltic coastline and key strategic islands.

Nearly eight years to the day before Russia’s invasion, Henry Kissinger had warned in a March 2014 op-ed article in the Washington Post that “Ukraine should not join NATO” and should instead become a neutral East-West bridge, while U.S. and European policy should avoid feeding Russia’s fears that its security or existence was under threat. That advice was ignored. Encouraged to believe it could partner with NATO and eventually be accepted as a member of the alliance, Ukraine became a flashpoint of confrontation and the stage for the largest and most devastating war in Europe since World War II.

In short, from the brinkmanship of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the proxy war in Afghanistan, from NATO expansion to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, actions born of misjudgment have resulted in outcomes neither side intended—with each insisting the other is solely to blame.

Russia’s authoritarian rule suppresses serious discussion and debate. But in the U.S. and allied nations, the aversion to meaningful discourse is harder to excuse. Democracies owe their citizens an honest accounting of past errors to learn from them, not to justify or excuse Moscow’s behavior.

If policymakers keep turning from history, the dangerous dynamic of blunder and blowback will continue—with risks no generation should be asked to bear.

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, a shocking act of political violence that brought widespread condemnation.

Hours after the shooting, the suspected gunman was taken into custody, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X.

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead,” President Trump said on Truth Social. “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us.”

Videos shared on social media show Kirk sitting under a white canopy, speaking to hundreds of people through a microphone, when a loud pop is heard; he suddenly falls back, blood gushing from his neck.

Before he was shot in the neck, he was asked about mass shootings.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

“Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” an audience member asks.

“Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responds.

Almost immediately, Kirk is shot in the neck. One video shows blood pouring from the wound. As the crowd realizes what has taken place, people are heard screaming and running away.

A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that a bullet struck Kirk’s carotid artery.

Charlie Kirk speaks before his fatal shooting Wednesday at Utah Valley University.

(Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

Utah Valley University police said in an alert that “a single shot was fired on campus toward a visiting speaker” and that it was investigating the shooting.

Law enforcement sources said Kirk was fatally wounded from a considerable distance, perhaps 200 yards away, by a sniper-style shot.

Videos shared on X, show an older man in handcuffs on the ground whom witnesses claimed was the gunman. The man is heard saying, “I have the right to remain silent.” In another video, police escort the man while the crowd jeers him. One woman is heard screaming, “How dare you!”

Earlier Wednesday afternoon, Trump posted a message about the incident on Truth Social.

“We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!” he said.

Mike Lee, a Utah senator, posted on X shortly after videos circulated online that he was “tracking the situation at Utah Valley University closely.”

“Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk and the students gathered there,” he said.

The shooting drew immediate words of support and calls for prayers for Kirk from leading conservative politicians.

“Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father,” Vice President JD Vance posted on X.

Crowd members react after Charlie Kirk’s shooting at Utah Valley University.

(Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

Leading Democrats also moved swiftly to condemn the attack.

“The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X. “In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”

Gabrielle Giffords, a former Arizona congresswoman who survived a political assassination attempt in 2011 and is a gun violence prevention advocate, said on X that she was horrified to hear that Kirk was shot.

“Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence,” she wrote.

Kirk, a conservative political activist, was in Utah for his American Comeback Tour, which held its first stop at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.

The tour, as with many of his events, had drawn both supporters and protesters. Kirk’s wife and children were at the university when he was shot, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin posted on X.

Kirk, 31, was one of the Republican Party’s most influential power brokers.

The founder of the influential conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, Kirk had a vast online reach: 1.6 million followers on Rumble, 3.8 million subscribers on YouTube, 5.2 million followers on X and 7.3 million followers on TikTok.

During the 2024 election, he rallied his online followers to support Trump, prompting conservative podcast host Megyn Kelly to say: “It’s not an understatement to say that this man is responsible for helping the Republicans win back the White House and the U.S. Senate.”

Just after Trump was elected for a second time to the presidency last November, Kirk frequently posted to social media from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where he had first-hand influence over which MAGA loyalists Trump named to his Cabinet.

Kirk was known for melding his conservative politics, nationalism and evangelical faith, casting the current political climate as a state of spiritual warfare between a righteous right wing and so-called “godless” liberals.

He declared that God was on the side of American conservatives and that there was “no separation of church and state.” And in a speech to Trump supporters in Georgia last year, he said that “the Democrat Party supports everything that God hates” and that “there is a spiritual battle happening all around us.”

Kirk was also known for his memes and college campus speaking tours meant to “own the libs.” Videos of his debates with liberal college students have racked up tens of millions of views.

Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia, has written a forthcoming book about Christian nationalism that prominently features Kirk and his influence. The book, “The Seven Mountains Mandate,” comes out Sept. 30.

“Today is a tragedy,” Boedy said in an interview with The Times on Wednesday. “It is a red flag for our nation.”

Boedy said the shooting — following the two assassination attempts against Trump on the campaign trail last year — was a tragic reminder of “just how divisive we have become.”

In June, a shooter posing as a police officer fatally shot Minnesota state House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at their home in an incident that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called “a politically motivated assassination.”

Another Democratic lawmaker, state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, were also injured at their residence less than 10 miles away.

In April, a shooter set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, forcing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family to flee during the Jewish holiday of Passover.

In July 2024, Trump himself survived a hail of bullets, one of which grazed his ear, at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa. Two months later, a man with a rifle was arrested by Secret Service agents after he was spotted amid shrubs near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf resort.

Kirk’s presence at the Utah campus was preceded by petitions and protests. But, Boedy noted, that was typical with his appearances.

“Charlie Kirk is, I would say, the most influential person who doesn’t work in the White House,” he said.

Boedy said Kirk reached a vast array of demographics through his radio show and social media accounts and was “in conversation with President Trump a lot.”

Kirk had said his melding in recent years of faith and politics was influenced by Rob McCoy, the pastor of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Newbury Park in Ventura County. Kirk called McCoy, who often spoke at his events, his personal pastor.

Boedy said McCoy turned Kirk toward Christian nationalism, specifically the Seven Mountains Mandate — the idea that Christians should try to influence the seven pillars of cultural influence: arts and religion, business, education, family, government, media and religion.

Boedy said Kirk “turned Turning Point USA into an arm of Christian nationalism. There’s a strategy called the Seven Mountains Mandate, and he has put his TPUSA money into each of those.”

Boedy said Kirk was a vocal 2nd Amendment supporter and that the shooting likely would further the desire among his conservative followers who tout the idea of having good guys with guns “to have more guns everywhere, which is sad.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said the agency was closely monitoring reports of the shooting.

“Our thoughts are with Charlie, his loved ones, and everyone affected,” he said on X. “Agents will be on the scene quickly and the FBI stands in full support of the ongoing response and investigation.”

Meanwhile, 345 miles to the east, at least three students were in critical condition following a shooting at a high school in Colorado.

The shooting happened earlier in the afternoon at Evergreen High School in Jefferson County. A fourth person may have been hurt as well. Among those injured was the shooter, who was described by authorities only as a juvenile. No other details were provided on the shooting.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

The Middle East in 2025 is still a powder keg, a place where dreams of peace get chewed up by the gritty, messy reality of the region. Donald Trump is swinging big with his “peace through strength” slogan, doubling down on his love for Israel. His grand plan? Pump up Israel’s military muscle, hit Iran where it hurts, and get Arab nations to play nice with Israel. Sounds like a neat fix, right? But it’s slammed headfirst into a wall of troubles: the never-ending Palestinian crisis, the boiling rage of people across the region, and the flat-out refusal of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to let Israel call the shots. Those recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear plants? They haven’t brought peace; they’ve just cranked up the odds of a full-blown disaster.

Where “Peace Through Strength” Comes From

               Trump’s whole Middle East game plan boils down to one idea: flex enough muscle, and diplomacy will follow. He’s got Israel pegged as the region’s anchor, betting that backing it to the hilt while smacking Iran’s nuclear sites will somehow calm the storm. That’s why he’s cheering on Israel’s fights against groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and pushing hard to spread the Abraham Accords. But here’s the kicker; this plan’s all about brute force, not sitting down to talk, and it’s turning a blind eye to the Middle East’s messy politics and deep-rooted feelings. Israel’s dependence on Uncle Sam’s cash and weapons just shows how wobbly this idea is from the start.

               This strategy, born from the alliance between America’s hard-right and Israel’s leadership, mistakenly believes military might can forge peace; a brutal approach that ignores the region’s history and heart. By dismissing the people’s realities and internal politics, the plan is inherently fragile. It hasn’t cooled tensions; it’s ignited them, proving you can’t bully your way to calm.

The Palestinian Challenge

               The biggest snag in Trump’s big vision is Palestine. The war in Gaza’s been a gut-punch to the region, breaking hearts and making it tough for Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, to buddy up with Israel. Gulf leaders are under fire from their own people; they can’t just sign deals that leave Palestinians in the dust.              Without a real ceasefire and a promise to give Palestinians a state of their own, any talk of peace is just hot air. Netanyahu’s crew, egged on by hardliners, keeps betting on bombs over talks, digging everyone into a deeper hole. With no real plan for what’s next in Gaza, the region’s spiraling toward chaos and new waves of defiance.

               This war’s not just hurting Israel’s rep in the Middle East; it’s tanking it worldwide. Israel’s operations, with their heavy toll on civilians, have lit a fire under Arab anger and slashed global support for Israel. Even countries that got on board with the Abraham Accords are feeling the heat at home to back off. It’s plain as day: without tackling Palestine head-on, no peace plan’s got a shot. Leaning on military might hasn’t steadied the region; it’s kicked it into a tailspin.

               Big players like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt aren’t about to roll over for Israel’s power grab. Saudi Arabia laid it out straight: no Palestinian state, no deal with Israel. Turkey, which used to be on decent terms with Israel, is now one of its loudest critics, thanks to Gaza and Israel’s chummy ties with Greece and Cyprus. Turkey’s bulking up its military and missiles, carving out its own path in the region. Egypt and other Arab states are also holding back, scared of the blowback if they jump on Israel’s bandwagon. This pushback screams one truth: you can’t force peace at gunpoint.

               Even Gulf states like the UAE and Bahrain, who signed onto the Abraham Accords, are getting jittery. They’re worried that sticking too close to Israel without progress on Palestine could spark trouble at home. Turkey’s stepping up in Syria and playing peacemaker, trying to cut Israel’s influence down to size. These rivalries show that banking on Israel to run the show doesn’t bring folks together; it splits them apart. Real peace? It’s still a distant dream.

Striking Out on Iran

Those recent hits on Iran’s nuclear sites, part of Trump’s go-hard-or-go-home strategy, didn’t land the way he hoped. Reports say only one of three targets got knocked out, and the others are set to fire back up soon. Iran’s digging in, moving its nuclear work to underground hideouts, proving bombs alone can’t stop them. Worse, these strikes have trashed any chance of Iran trusting talks, jacking up the risk of a bigger fight. Instead of breaking Iran’s spirit, this move’s just made it more stubborn.

               The plan’s fallout is chaotic. Fearing a collapsed Iran would mean disaster and refugees, Gulf states are balking at the U.S.-Israel warpath. They’re keeping ties with Tehran to avoid a bigger blowup, proving the region isn’t buying a “peace through strength” doctrine. By juggling relations with both sides, they’re pulling the rug out from under a strategy that puts Israel first and ignores the complex realities on the ground.

The Shaky Ground of the Abraham Accords

               The Abraham Accords, once Trump’s shiny trophy from his first term, are wobbling in 2025. They’ve warmed things up between Israel and some Gulf states, but good luck getting Saudi Arabia or Qatar to join without a fix for Palestine. Public fury over Gaza’s bloodshed has Arab leaders walking a tightrope; they can’t afford to get too cozy with Israel without paying a steep political price. This shakiness proves one thing: a plan that bets everything on Israel’s clout can’t pull the region together.

               Trying to grow the Accords has hit a brick wall too. Countries like Oman and Qatar, who were once open to chatting, are backing off, squeezed by their own people and the region’s vibe. It’s a loud wake-up call: without real movement on Palestine, the Accords won’t turn into some grand regional love-fest. They’re more like quick deals for cash and military perks, not the deep roots needed for lasting peace. It’s another strike against forcing things through.

Israel’s Lonely Road

               Israel’s moves, especially in Gaza, have left it standing alone on the world stage. Even old pals like the European Union are pulling back, though they’re not ready to throw punches. By scoffing at international law with a “rules are for losers” attitude, Israel and the U.S. have dented Israel’s cred as a regional heavyweight. This isolation, plus the crushing cost of war, is wearing down Israel’s staying power.

               This global cold shoulder’s also messing with Israel’s ties to big players like China and Russia, who are calling out U.S. and Israeli military stances while eyeing their own slice of the Middle East pie. This global rivalry, paired with fading support for Israel in world forums, has kneecapped its regional swagger. Without legitimacy at home or abroad, a plan built on firepower can’t deliver lasting peace. It’s a screaming case for real diplomacy and regional teamwork.

               Inside Israel, Netanyahu’s got a firestorm on his hands. Failing to lock in a full Gaza ceasefire or free all hostages has folks fed up, exposing deep cracks in the country. Israel’s die-hard belief that guns can bring peace doesn’t match the region’s reality. The war’s brutal cost, for Palestinians and Israelis alike, shows this road’s a dead end. Without a clear plan for Gaza’s future or a legit Palestinian setup, Israel’s just asking for more trouble and upheaval.

               These homegrown woes are tangled up with money and social struggles. Crazy-high war spending, shrinking foreign cash due to global isolation, and political knife-fights between hardliners and moderates are tying Netanyahu’s hands. This mess, plus pushback from the region and the world, shows that Israel running the show isn’t just a long shot; it’s a one-way ticket to more chaos.

               Trump’s big dream for Middle East peace, riding on Israel’s military might and a chokehold on Iran, has gone up in smoke because it ignored the real issues—Palestine above all. This muscle-over-talks approach hasn’t brought the region together; it’s lit a match under people’s anger and sparked pushback from local governments. Hitting Iran might’ve scored a few points for a minute, but it didn’t stop their nuclear plans; it just killed any hope of sitting down to talk. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, by saying no to Israel’s grip, have made it crystal clear: peace won’t happen without justice and respect for Palestinian rights. Israel’s growing loneliness, the wobbly Abraham Accords, and its own internal fights all shout that “peace through strength” has only churned up more trouble. A calm, steady Middle East needs real diplomacy, respect for people’s rights, and the guts to face the root of the fight, not just leaning on force and control.

The U.S.-China competition is intensifying in the Indo-Pacific, especially in the maritime domain, and it is increasing the risk of a dangerous miscalculation. Both countries are rapidly building up their navies, reinforcing their deterrence posture, and heading for riskier military encounters. Yet while the buildup of hard power is accelerating, crisis management mechanisms are left shockingly underdeveloped.

Such dynamics remind one of the most unfortunate security failures in modern history: the pre-WWI Anglo-German naval race. Similarly, at the time, rising powers clashed at sea, backed by nationalist ambitions and rigid alliance systems, while mechanisms for de-escalation and maritime communication were nonexistent. Eventually, a fragile security environment was formed, prone to escalation from small events into a global conflagration.

Today, the U.S. and China are taking a similar path. If the United States does not urgently invest in an institutionalized crisis management mechanism alongside its defense modernization, it could lead to a strategic trap that is “ready to fight but unprepared for de-escalation.”

Risk of Escalation: Today’s U.S. and China

Like Germany’s pre-1914 maritime expansion under the Kaiser’s rule, China is attempting to modify the regional order by its naval power. In 2023, China’s PLA Navy commissioned at least two Type 055 destroyers and multiple Type 052D and Type 054A frigates, totaling more than 20 major naval platforms (including submarines and amphibious ships). Simultaneously, sea trials of Fujian, China’s third aircraft carrier—the most technologically advanced naval vessel in the fleet—have begun. In addition, coupled with A2/AD capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, including DF-21D and DF-26, such a military buildup can be considered a clear intent to complicate U.S. Navy operations in the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea.

The U.S. response was strong and swift. Under the context of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), Washington has invested more than 27 billion USD since FY 2022 in forward basing, pre-positioning of munitions, and enhancing maritime operational resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In addition, the U.S. Navy is continuously investing in Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, Virginia-class fast-attack submarines, and unmanned platforms. Strategic clarity is increasingly shaped by operational deterrence, and a greater number of U.S. naval platforms are now being forward deployed in contested waters.

Yet, just like before WWI, investment in military hardware is ahead of investment in crisis management systems. The gap between military capability and the mechanisms to manage conflicts is increasing, and such misalignment was what led the European countries to disaster in 1914.

Historical Parallels: The Anglo-German Trap

The Anglo-German naval race that occurred from the 1890s to 1914 reminds us of the current situation in the Indo-Pacific. Due to its industrial confidence, nationalist ambition, and strategic anxiety, Germany challenged the UK’s naval supremacy. In response, the UK reinforced its maritime dominance, built the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought, and eventually triggered a vicious cycle of competitive arms racing.

Despite the growing perception of risk, naval arms control was unsuccessful. The construction freeze proposed by the UK was refused by Berlin, and diplomatic overtures, including the 1912 Haldane Mission, collapsed due to distrust, lack of transparency, and domestic political pressures.

Effective crisis management did not exist. Maritime incidents that occurred in the North Sea and the Mediterranean were not arbitrated while diplomacy was intermittent and reactive. When the two sides tried to slow down the arms race, strategic distrust was deeply embedded. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand transmogrified into a world war not because of one party’s aggression but because there was no off-ramp. Similar vulnerabilities exist in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

The Crisis Management Gap

Although some formal structures (military hotlines) exist between the U.S. and China, such instruments turn out to be continuously ineffective during crisis situations. During the 2023 Chinese balloon incident, Beijing did not respond to the U.S.’s urgent request for a hotline call. After Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit in 2022, China suspended the senior defense dialogue.

Meanwhile, risky close encounters are increasing. For example, in June 2023, a Chinese J-16 fighter intercepted a U.S. RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft in a dangerous manner. In the same month, a Chinese destroyer violated navigation safety norms by crossing directly in front of USS Chung-Hoon in the Taiwan Strait.

These incidents are not individual events but systemic ones. And such events are occurring while there are no reliable institutionalized communication protocols between the two sides, where both are under a constant alert status.

To correct this, it is advisable for Washington to create a Joint Crisis Management Cell within INDOPACOM. This center should include liaison officers from the U.S., Japan, and Australia and be empowered to rapidly activate de-escalation protocols when a high-risk maritime incident occurs, even if high-level political channels are stagnant. This crisis management cell should utilize pre-negotiated crisis response templates—similar to an air traffic controller managing near-miss procedures—and guarantee the clarity and continuity of communication.

At the same time, the U.S. should embark upon a U.S.-China maritime deconfliction agreement, modeled upon the U.S.-Soviet INCSEA accord of the Cold War era. That accord, negotiated in 1972, defined maritime encounter procedures and communication protocols, and it proved durable even during the height of the Cold War. The modern version of INCSEA does not necessitate trust but is a functional necessity when heavily armed parties are operating at close range.

Strategic Effectiveness, Rather Than Symbolic Hardware

In the early 20th century, the UK’s naval expansion was not necessarily strategically consistent. Occasionally prestige overwhelmed operational planning, and doctrine lagged behind technological innovation. The U.S. should avoid falling into a similar trap.

Modern U.S. Navy planning should emphasize systems that actually provide effectiveness in a contested environment. In that sense, unmanned systems, including the MQ-9B SeaGuardian, long-range munitions like LRASM, and resilient RC2 structures are necessities. Such capabilities could enable U.S. forces to function even under missile saturation and communication denial situations.

Logistical innovation is also crucial. Forward bases situated in Guam, the Philippines, and Northern Australia should be diversified and strengthened to serve as maritime resupply nodes and distributed logistics hubs.

In addition, all these elements should be coordinated across domains. The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and allies’ coordinated integrated capacity would be sine qua non for effectively projecting power and managing military escalation.

Alliance Management and Entanglement

Although entangled alliances did not trigger WWI, they did contribute to its rapid escalation. The risk lay not only in misjudgment but also in the absence of a common structure that could manage shocks within complexly interconnected treaty systems.

The U.S. faces a similar risk. While the U.S. is maintaining defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, it is deepening its alignment in the region with AUKUS and the Quad. But many of these arrangements lack joint crisis response protocols or clear role expectations concerning the Taiwan contingency or conflictual situations in the South China Sea.

To mitigate such inherent risk, Japan should proactively lead in creating a Strategic Escalation Forum by 2026. This forum would summon decision-makers of the U.S.’s key allies—Australia, India, and the ASEAN countries—and jointly plan crisis responses, define thresholds, and establish mechanisms that provide political signaling during escalation.

As for South Korea, it should clarify its stance of non-combat in a Taiwan contingency through declaratory policy. This would confirm that South Korea would not dispatch troops to the Taiwan Strait, yet it could include commitments of logistics support, cyber operations, and intelligence sharing. Such a stance would lessen Beijing’s misunderstanding and alleviate allies’ concerns while enabling Seoul to prevent itself from being entrapped by a high-intensity scenario.

At the same time, Washington should initiate scenario planning on how AUKUS and Quad partners could contribute to coordinated crisis management, not necessarily through combat roles but through measures including ISR, sanctions enforcement, and strategic signaling.

The Future Path: To Prevent Another 1914

U.S.-China naval competition will not disappear, at least in the foreseeable future. Yet Washington has a choice: it could escalate through inertia, or it could manage competition through strategy. It is important to construct more submarines and missiles, yet that alone is insufficient. The genuine risk lies in the absence of an institutionalized safety mechanism.

If Europe was engulfed in the 1914 war due to unmanaged arms races and rigid alliances, the Indo-Pacific could also face a similar fate. If leaders in Washington do not create a structure that could absorb shocks and prevent escalation, the Taiwan Strait, just like Sarajevo, could become a spark.

The historical lesson is to plan for great powers not to collide with one another, rather than leaving them to rush toward an inevitable collision.

Washington should act now—not after a collision, but before—by institutionalizing a de-escalation mechanism before the strategic environment becomes rigid. The window of opportunity for prevention is still open, but it is narrowing.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) 25th summit, held early September in Tianjin, China, unprecedentedly redefined its diverse future ambitions; global governance, sustainable development, and security are emerging as the cornerstones—and China is at the forefront of this transition. With strategic alliances in the background, India and Russia, together with SCO’s regional members and the Global South, are unwaveringly playing complementary roles towards establishing a more inclusive, participatory, and fairer world. In other words, the SCO summit served as a space for dialogue and multilateral cooperation, working to strengthen regional security, economic development, and political collaboration.

Our latest insight into reports: Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in his opening speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, that “the SCO represents a model for a new type of international relations, and that we must advocate for equal and orderly multipolarity in the world, inclusive economic globalization, and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech was unanimously approved by all participating leaders, especially with UN Secretary-General António Guterres also stating emphatically that “China plays a fundamental role in supporting global multilateralism.” From a multitude of different perspectives, Jinping’s strategic position to lead the new geopolitical architecture is primarily to challenge the prevailing western-controlled unipolar order. His “peace or war” narrative signals an effort to position China as a primary actor in global decision-making processes and to position China and its partners as influential drivers.

It’s worth noting that China is leveraging current global instability to advance a multipolar framework and further pursuing an assertive shift in global power dynamics, directly challenging the longstanding dominance of Western nations. Significantly, Xi Jinping’s proposal to pursue consistently a bold commitment to world peace and sustainable development, seeking a broad representation in multilateral institutions and organizations (including the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank), is explicitly grounded in renewing primary principles that respect diversity. A concrete example is the call for UN Security Council reform, where China supports expanding representation to better reflect today’s world, including countries from Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Why Multipolarity Matters to Russia

It is well-known and glaringly visible across the world that China has comparatively wider or broader consolidated economic clout and has displayed these past several years, indiscriminately strengthening its economic cooperation with Latin American, African, and Asian countries. On the other side, Russia seemed to be selecting its own ‘reliable partners,’ which offered some limitations despite the official position advocating for tectonic multipolarity. Russia’s world is, more or less, divided into ‘friends and enemies’ according to its definition and understanding of one world, one planet.

Following the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been exploring economic transformation, modernizing and upgrading its economy, as seen unfolding now. And of course, there have been challenges and obstacles. In practical terms, Russia has come a long way with its current perestroika and glasnost in the country and its relations with former Soviet neighbors and consolidating foreign policy around the world.

In conclusion of his official visit to the SCO summit in China, Vladimir Putin, at the final media conference on September 3rd, pointed out that most of the documents adopted by participants look to the SCO’s future in the emerging new world. “In this context, I would like to point out China’s global governance initiative. More importantly, this initiative is aimed at promoting positive sentiments between the countries that attended the summit in China and potential partners among the countries that are not willing today to proclaim their readiness for new partnership.”

As part of the partnership, Putin stressed that “Russia has always opposed Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But we have never questioned its right to conduct its economic and business activities as it wishes, including joining the European Union.” As for whether the multipolar world has formed or not—generally, its contours have certainly taken shape. Multipolarity does not mean the emergence of new hegemons. Among many other countries with similar perspectives, Russia and China consistently advocate for a fairer world order based on the global majority. There are economic powerhouses, such as India and China, and either within the SCO or within BRICS, all participants in international affairs should have equal rights, and all should be in the same position from the standpoint of international law. 

Putin’s expressions throughout the SCO summit, interlaced with candid viewpoints on the emerging world—in fact, the current world system—should concentrate on building relations and interactions on the basis of the world’s majority. “The idea—I mentioned this earlier—is that the world should be multipolar, meaning that all participants in international communication should be equal, and more equal than others should not exist, and the unipolar world must cease to exist, including in the interests of those, at least in the interests of the peoples of those countries, whose leadership still upholds this moribund and, one might even say, already obsolete system,” underscored Putin at the media conference.

China’s Comparative Advantages as Global Leader

China is situated in the Asian region. Despite its large population of 1.5 billion, which many have considered an impediment, China’s domestic economic reforms and collaborative strategic diplomacy with external countries have made it attain superpower status over the United States. While United States influence is rapidly fading away, China has indeed taken up both the challenges and unique opportunities to strengthen its position, especially its trade, investment, and economic muscles.

Arguably, China has worked on all aspects of its economy and external investment footprints; these combined are now recorded as its grandiose achievements. Still, for example, China is engaging in a long-term competition with the U.S., and that is the challenge for the United States. China’s global investment and trade are just unimaginable and give the country global power.

It has systematically transformed its economy at the same time and maintained the political structure. Its major cities and coastal areas are far more prosperous compared to rural and interior regions. Of course, the United States has also developed its individual states, while Russia’s regions look not too far different from the typical Soviet era.

Experts vehemently argue and vividly show how useful the population (demography) has been as a factor for China’s success down the years. It is a matter of how to get the population to support the growth of the economy. With the 1.5 billion population, China has brought more people out of extreme poverty than any other country in history. China reduced extreme poverty by 800 million. The United States has a population of 380 million, two times more than Russia, which has a meager 140 million in relation to the size of the country. In one of his previous speeches, Putin declared that Russia’s population could reach 146 million by 2025, mainly as a result of immigration. Russia has been expelling foreign labor out of the country instead of deploying this labor to the regions, in industries and agricultural fields, to increase its exportable presence in the countries in need and in the external markets.

It is highly likely that Russia would be missing its opportunity, especially due to a shortage of labor. It has to develop its regions and modernize most of the Soviet-era industries to produce export goods, not only for domestic consumption. Its investment and trade in consumables is only developing at a snail’s pace compared to China. While China’s Belt and Road Initiative has expanded significantly over the previous years, Russia is more focused significantly on oil and gas as export products. In recent years, Russia has significantly strengthened bilateral ties with Asian countries such as China, India, North Korea, and Vietnam. With new agreements signed at the 25th SCO summit, China and India would be extending their economic tentacles to Russia’s Far East, producing in the special industrial zones and exporting massively across, utilizing the northern transport corridor to the European Union. 

Certainly, superpower status has to be attained by practical, multifaceted, sustainable development and maintaining appreciably positive relations with the world. In a global context dominated by diverse tensions, Beijing already presents itself as a stable and reliable alternative for international collaboration. From the analysis, China is practically up to this world’s leadership.

Background: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian political, economic, and security bloc, has become a key platform for China and Russia to promote alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. Against the backdrop of strained ties with the United States and global economic turbulence, the bloc converged in Tianjin, China, with leaders from over 20 non-Western countries in attendance. 

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is steadily increasing its influence in addressing pressing international issues. It serves as a powerful driver of global development processes and the establishment of genuine multilateralism. As of today, in addition to its ten (10) full members, the SCO also engages two observer states—Mongolia and Afghanistan—as well as 15 dialogue partners. It was established in 2001 and has actively worked to promote peace, security, trust, and cooperation across the Eurasian continent. 

The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, reflects a major display of solidarity among the countries of the Global South in the face of US and Western hegemony. Chinese President Xi Jinping called on the leaders and members of the SCO countries participating in the summit in China to play a greater role in protecting regional and global peace and stability, considering his country a stable global power that will support the developing world. Chinese President Xi Jinping urged all SCO members to take advantage of their huge market, and in his opening speech to the leaders participating in the summit, he revealed his ambition to establish a new global security and economic order that poses a direct challenge to the United States. President Xi’s statements during the summit come amid Beijing’s efforts to present itself as a major leader of the developing world, and considering that the summit in Tianjin, China, will provide China with an opportunity to build solidarity with the developing countries of the Global South. The international community, particularly the countries of the Global South, also has high hopes for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to play an important role in global security and economic governance in the face of American hegemonic policies and dictates.

  Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in his opening speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, that “the SCO represents a model for a new type of international relations, and that we must advocate for equal and orderly multipolarity in the world, inclusive economic globalization, and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system.” Many leaders of developing countries in the Global South agreed with and endorsed Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech, most notably Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey), Min Aung Hlaing (Myanmar), KP Sharma Oli (Nepal), Prabowo Subianto (Indonesia), Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia), and Mohamed Ma’azo (Maldives), with the participation of UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Kaw Kim Horn.

  The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China is the most important for the organization since its establishment in 2001. It is being held amid multiple crises that have directly affected its members, from the trade standoff between the United States, China, and India to the Russian war on Ukraine, the Iranian nuclear issue and Israeli and American military strikes on Tehran, the Gaza war, the Taiwan issue, and other burning international issues. This summit is subject to unprecedented and stringent security and military measures compared to previous summits. Armored vehicles have been deployed on many streets, blocking traffic in large parts of the Chinese city of Tianjin, where the summit is being held. Signs in both Mandarin and Russian have been posted on the streets, praising the Tianjin spirit and the mutual trust between Moscow and Beijing.

  It is important to understand China’s commitment this year, during the summit in Tianjin, China, to working diligently on three main tracks to assist developing countries of the Global South and the Third World. On the political front, the Tianjin Declaration and the Ten-Year Development Strategy will be adopted to establish a long-term vision for cooperation. On the security front, cooperation will be strengthened by strengthening joint arrangements to combat terrorism and support regional stability. Economically, cooperation will be advanced in the digital economy, green development, and smart cities, as well as promoting trade and investment as fundamental pillars for strengthening the cohesion of the “Shanghai Family.”

 Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Ping commented that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, this year will be the largest in the organization’s history, stressing that the rapidly evolving international situation calls for enhanced solidarity and cooperation.With his veiled reference to the United States of America, he said that “the old mentalities of hegemony and power politics are still influential, as some countries try to prioritize their own interests at the expense of others, threatening global peace and stability.”

 It should be noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech was unanimously approved by all participating leaders, especially with the growing call by Chinese President “Xi” for all SCO partners at the Tianjin Summit to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc-based confrontation, emphasizing the need to support multilateral trading systems. This message is a clear reference to US President Trump’s tariff war on China, which has disproportionately impacted the economies of developing countries, including India, a recent ally of Washington. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also stated that “China plays a fundamental role in supporting global multilateralism.”

  While Russia has succeeded in attracting the majority of members to its positions, India is attempting to balance its call for peace and maintaining relations with the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, at a time when New Delhi is purchasing large quantities of Russian oil. Ukraine has called on the organization’s members to take a clear stance and reject Russian aggression against it. During the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin described Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as his dear friend. Putin considered relations between the two countries to be developing dynamically and unprecedentedly. This all reflects a strong solidarity between the policies of developing countries of the Global South, led and supported by China and its close ally, Russia.

   Regarding the United States’ position on the gathering of developing countries of the Global South in the Chinese city of Tianjin, Washington considered the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin unwelcome, given US President Trump’s repeated attacks on the Global South blocs, his threats to paralyze and obstruct the BRICS group through punitive tariffs, and his description of it as anti-American policies.

  Therefore, we understand that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, in 2025, presents a multilateral model designed by China, distinct from the models dominated by Western powers and the United States. Furthermore, the broad participation in the summit’s events demonstrates China’s growing influence and the SCO’s ability to attract non-Western countries capable of embracing Washington and its policies and monopolizing the West.

China and the United States have once again reached a crossroads in their relationship over bilateral trade issues. On April 2025, the US increased number of tariffs on Chinese imports under its “Liberation Day” policy, imposing duties of up to 145% on various Chinese products. Particularly on electronics, steel-based appliances, and chemicals. China on the other hand put a ban on exporting rare earth metals to the US. These measures disrupted supply chains in the U.S. as the U.S. market is heavily dependent on Chinese imports and the policy on tariffs increased costs for both nations. The US and other developed nations have put in great efforts to promote free trade practices but in recent times protectionist policies seem reversing all those efforts. International trade regimes were created to resolve issues related to trade conflicts but due to America’s unilateral approach, those regimes like WTO seem so fragile that they do not play any significant role in resolving trade related issues.  China is making efforts to implement the Geneva trade consensus. The Geneva trade consensus, which is an agreement to reduce trade barriers and restore supply chain trust, was hailed as a milestone. Nonetheless, the key question on everyone’s mind remains whether the United States will honour its commitments or revert to its conventional backchannel manoeuvres

Following the Geneva talks and subsequent meetings that were held in London on July 4, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce confirmed that the nation would accelerate approvals for rare earth exports, along with reviewing applications for other controlled materials that are according to domestic law. Rare earth elements are crucial for many sectors that the US depends upon, such as Electronics, defense, and clean energy. China is not only continuing to export these materials, but they are doing so despite years of tariffs, trade restrictions, and political tensions with Washington.

The United States agreed that it would remove trade restrictions that have been damaging to Chinese companies. However, the United States has not been holding up its end of the bargain. Chinese experts claim that the US continues to “send signals that undermine economic cooperation”. This raises doubts as to whether the United States is willing to honour its deal.

This was made evident when the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced, following the London meetings, that both parties had reached an agreement to move faster in translating consensus into policy. China did just that almost immediately, speeding up a number of rare earth export applications. The US has been slow on follow-through, taking few steps toward eliminating restraints that were to be removed weeks earlier. For Chinese trade officials, the distance between words and deeds on the American side is growing too glaring to be ignored.

This isn’t new for America. In 2018, the United States introduced tariffs worth billions of dollars on Chinese goods. They justified it with vague claims of trade imbalances and national security. However, in the aftermath, the results were crystal clear. Prices didn’t just go up for American consumers, but businesses on both sides of the Pacific Ocean suffered. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis even reported that the American Economy has shrunk slightly in the first quarter of this year due to US foreign policy towards China.

This economic downturn was not a coincidence. It was caused by built-up tensions, shattered supply lines, and a vicious cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions. Experts in China consider that if the United States keeps going this way, the repercussions will become even worse for its internal economy. Some American producers who rely on secure access to Chinese rare earths and parts are already experiencing higher costs and delays in production. This became evident when China temporarily restricted rare-earth magnet exports, forcing global manufacturers to seek alternative sources and deal with sharply increased costs.

Nonetheless, China continues to uphold its commitment to cooperation by welcoming American businesses into its country. At the recent Summer Davos forum in Tianjin, US companies showed great interest in the Chinese market. US exhibitors expected at the China International Supply Chain Expo have risen by 15%. These businesses know that trade with China is an opportunity, not a threat.

Chinese authorities claim, US participation is not an accident. Politicians in Washington may be posturing for the press. But American companies know China provides a fertile ground for business ventures. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they feel safer conducting business in China than in other markets due to China’s commitment to consistency, long-term planning, and open-door policy.

Beijing is urging Washington to “meet China halfway”. While China continues to follow through on the Geneva consensus. China isn’t being diplomatic. This is a genuine call for mutually beneficial cooperation. China is a country that bases its actions on international cooperation and being predictable.

Chinese policy experts also pointed out that China has nothing to gain from half-hearted agreements. Their support for the Geneva consensus is driven by practical concerns rather than political motives. They want predictability in trade, reliability in export channels, and fairness in economic ties. All of these require the United States to take initiative.

However, meaningful cooperation requires mutual effort from both parties.

If the United States continues to delay, it will not only risk damaging its relationship with China. They will end up eroding their credibility as a global economic leader. In today’s globalized world, where supply chains cross borders and economies are tied at the waist. Trust goes beyond mere goodwill. It’s strategic capital. And as of right now, China is the one building that capital.

Recent developments support this. Chinese authorities have simplified rare earth licensing and established a transparent application process, welcoming oversight from foreign businesses. Meanwhile, American trade policy continues to operate in grey zones. Many Chinese companies are experiencing unjustified scrutiny or barriers when entering the US market, even in sectors not linked to national security.

China consistently honors its commitments and provides stability to its partners. They are positioning themselves as a more dependable partner in Global trade. The US, in contrast, risks isolating itself through backtracking and hesitating. When trust is lost, partnerships will suffer, investments will slow down, and influence will fade.

There have been reports that last year saw foreign direct investment in China from European and Asian nations hold steady. But here is what is surprising: US investments have been slow-moving, not due to issues with China, but because Washington has been sending out confusing signals. That is costing American businesses their edge in one of the most critical markets in the world.

To keep that from happening, Washington must match China’s seriousness.

The Geneva consensus, as Chinese officials insist, was never an empty headline to start with. It was a structural change in trade relations, one that increases transparency and real outcomes. China is already living by that. The US has to either join this new direction or be left behind.

And there is a larger context here as well. With the world facing economic instability, no country can do it alone. China is indicating that it’s willing to contribute to global recovery and sustainable development. But it won’t do it if the US keeps putting obstacles in its path.

The window of co‑operation is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely. China’s message is unambiguously clear: We are delivering. Now it’s your turn.

Cooperation among leading non-Western countries is increasing. Russia and India will increase the scale of economic cooperation, including in the energy sector. This news has become especially relevant and important in light of recent geopolitical events. It reflects important trends in world politics.

Days before, the United States of America sharply criticized Delhi. Washington said that India should not continue to buy oil from Russia. President Donald Trump sharply criticized the Indian leadership and introduced additional large duties on imported goods. At the same time, the Indian authorities do not intend to take any retaliatory measures in connection with the increase in the size of duties on goods supplied to the United States from India. Earlier, a 25% duty on goods from India, introduced by US President Donald Trump in response to Russian oil purchases, came into force. Thus, goods from India are now subject to a duty of 50%, if we consider the previously introduced tariffs of 25% as part of the US administration’s revision of trade agreements with countries around the world. Tariffs on goods will affect more than half of India’s $87 billion exports. According to Reuters experts, the increase in tariffs by America will lead to a drop in Indian GDP growth by 0.8%. This will be a significant blow to the growing Indian economy and corporations that are actively exporting to the United States.

The cooling of US-Indian relations did not end there. The world press noted that President Donald Trump tried to talk to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the phone four times in recent weeks, but he refused to talk. This was reported by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, citing sources. In addition, there has been a certain tilt of the Trumpist American administration towards Pakistan, Delhi’s strategic and sworn enemy. The day before, President Trump said that the United States had made a deal with Pakistan on joint oil production. “We just agreed with Pakistan, according to which Pakistan and the United States will work together to develop their vast oil reserves. We are currently selecting an oil company to lead this partnership,” he wrote on his social media. The American leader suggested that Washington would one day sell oil to India. Let me remind you that Trump announced a sharp increase in tariffs on supplies from 185 countries in early April 2025.

In short, there is a serious cooling between the United States and India, which has the potential to significantly reduce the level of trust and contacts between the two countries. This circumstance is interesting from two sides. Firstly, India, located in South Asia, is of great strategic importance for Washington. In view of the global geopolitical and economic confrontation with powerful China, the United States attached great importance to the role of India. Delhi has quite tense relations and territorial disputes with Beijing. The acute phase of the conflict occurred in 2020. In America’s strategy, India must contain the growing power of China. However, Prime Minister Modi’s policy, which is aimed at protecting India’s sovereign interests, turned out to be more complex and multifactorial.

It was then that Indian and Chinese border guards clashed in the disputed Himalayan region, which both sides claim. The conflict had a fairly wide resonance in both countries. After that, both India and China began to increase their military presence in the region, stopped air traffic, and boycotted some goods. However, in 2025, significant changes occurred that began to bring the leaders of the non-Western world closer together. The parties resumed direct flights, agreed to simplify the visa regime, and also returned to border trade. “China and India should be partners, not enemies,” admitted Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Amid the discord with Washington, Prime Minister Modi visited Beijing for the first time in seven years and met with the Chinese leader. And on August 31, a trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, China, and India took place.

Secondly, the demonstration of India’s sovereignty became an important signal of the new international system that is just being built, where the United States is no longer the absolute hegemon. The “new countries” of Asia and the East are striving to pursue sovereign and more independent foreign policies. Patriotism, respect for their history, and their nation are growing stronger in these societies. And the political elites are striving to achieve a more respectful attitude towards themselves from the “golden billion.” At the same time, the West has ceased to be an indispensable part of the world economy and politics. Cooperation in trade and finance between the countries of Asia, the East, and Eurasia is strengthening. The economies of Russia, China, and India, enormous and colossal in their resources and potential, can well deepen cooperation with each other and achieve high economic results without deep cooperation with the countries of Europe and the United States. In a word, cooperation among leaders of the BRICS and the SCO is becoming stronger and more active. And this, in its potential, is capable of introducing significant transformations into the international system that is only just forming.

The SCO summit in Tianjin, China, was an important event. This forum with the participation of more than twenty world leaders showed that the world is not only larger than the West. This summit showed that the Non-West countries have the political will and desire to deepen cooperation in order to demonstrate their ambitions and sovereignty to the West. But it is not the number of leaders who took part in the forum that was important. The situation and atmosphere of the summit were important. The leaders of powerful and actively developing Russia, China, and India openly demonstrated colossal political will to change the global balance of power. But it is not only the will of the leaders that leads to global and very profound changes, but also objective factors that are almost impossible to reverse today. The economic, military, and technological power of Russia, India, and China is fascinating.

The fall of unipolarity is accomplished. The world is no longer unipolar. There is reason to believe that it will most likely never be so. Unipolarity is, in essence, a bright and short divergence. It became possible due to the loss of will, self-confidence, and potential of the Soviets. The Soviet Union itself, having laid hands on itself, led to unipolarity. In fact, it was not a victory of the United States in the literal sense of the word. Yes, the Soviets in the last period of their existence turned out to be uncompetitive, but they themselves disintegrated. But over the past quarter century, much has changed in the world. The growth of the West turned out to be much faster and more ambitious than many assumed. In the liberal capitals, it was believed that the development of Asia and the East would lead to rapprochement, democratization, and Westernization of the non-Western world. In reality, it turned out that this is not quite so, and in some cases, it is radically different.

In short, developing countries outside the West are actively developing and deepening cooperation with each other. The world is becoming larger and more diverse.

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

“Love Island USA” star Taylor Williams says he is “all good” after being thrown from his horse during the Arizona Invitational Black Rodeo in Scottsdale.

In a TikTok video, Williams’ horse seemingly trips over another horse before falling to the ground. Williams and his horse appear to be trampled by other participants before the horse rolls over Williams and rises to its feet. Williams, 24, was still lying on the ground when officials rushed over to help him.

Williams gave an update on his condition later that day on social media, saying that his injuries would not get in the way of him attending an event that he was scheduled to appear at Saturday night, according to Entertainment Weekly.

“Was in a horse accident last night but I’m still pulling up tonight injured and all,” he wrote on Instagram Stories. “It’s my brothers’ bday [you know] we still turnt!”

He followed up the post with a photo of himself lying on a hospital stretcher, wearing a neck brace and holding two thumbs up. “Preciate all the love!” he wrote over the image. “I’m good.”

Williams’ girlfriend and fellow “Love Island” alum Clarke Carraway later posted a video via Instagram Stories, which showed Williams being wheeled out of a hospital, while Maverick City Music’s “The Story I’ll Tell” plays in the background.

In a second video, Carraway poses next to Williams, who has one arm in a sling, while they rock matching cowboy hats.

The Oklahoma native, who said he “was on a horse before I could walk,” appeared on the seventh season of Peacock’s “Love Island,” which aired earlier this summer. The veterinary student became known for wearing cowboy hats and talking about his love for the rodeo.

Williams first coupled up with fan-favorite Olandria Carthen on the reality dating show, but ultimately ended the series with Carraway, from Charlotte, N.C. The couple made it to the second-to-last episode, but were booted off the island shortly after making their relationship “exclusive.”

During the reunion, which was hosted by Ariana Madix and Andy Cohen last week, Williams and Carraway said that they were still going strong and making their long-distance relationship work.

In a social media post on August 22 2025 the German Ambassador to India Dr Philip Ackermann said:‘New numbers are out! Almost 60,000 students from India are currently studying in Germany – a leap of 20 % over a year.’ He also said that public universities in Germany were a “great choice” due to their reputation and affordability.

The number of Indian students, surpass Chinese students for two successive years

In recent years, the number of Indian students studying in Germany has risen significantly. In 2018-2019, this number was estimated at a little over 20,000 but it has been growing steadily and in 2023-2024 it reached 49,000. Another important point is that Indian students emerged as the largest international student group — surpassing Chinese students —  in Germany for the second year in a row. For long, India and China have been the largest contributors to the International Student Pool in the Anglosphere – US, UK, Canada and Australia. Apart from Canada – especially in the recent past — the number of students from China exceeded students from India in other nations in the Anglosphere. As ties between Washington and Beijing deteriorated, this began to change and the number of Indian students in US higher education institutions surpassed that of Chinese students in 2024.

Indian students and higher education in the US

With the US making several revisions to its student visa policies, the enrolment of Indian students has witnessed a significant decline. In July 2025, the number of Indian student arrivals was estimated at 79,000. This is a dip of 46%. Apart from the policy changes of the Trump administration, it is the delays in visa processing which are discouraging Indian students from pursuing higher studies in the US. One more step which could further discourage Indian students is the proposal of removing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. The OPT gives students, on an F-1 Visa, an opportunity to gain experience post their degrees often leading to full time employment and getting a work visa and residency eventually. This is especially handy for STEM students (it was the George W Bush Administration which had raised the duration of the OTP from 12 months to 29 months). In 2024, 200,000 students gained experience via the OPT. Apart from using the OPT for gaining work experience, it is also important since several of the individuals on F1 visas use the visa as a means for re-paying student loans. The US Department of Homeland Security is also planning some drastic changes to the existing F-1 visa rules.

The recent criticisms of the H1-B Visas by senior officials in the Trump Administration, and possible overhaul of the H1-B visa regime could also discourage several Indian students from going for higher studies to the US.

Indian students showing more interest in Germany

If one were to look at Indian students opting for European countries like Germany, it is important to bear in mind, that while some of the policies of the Trump administration may have encouraged students to look at alternative destinations. Germany by itself has been attractive for several reasons even earlier. The first is affordability. Public universities in Germany charge a nominal-fees (and no tuition fees). Second, the high academic standards of programs in the Sciences and Engineering, along with the fact that the programs are run in English. At a time when the US is thinking of removing the OPT, Germany provides an 18-month job seeker permit after completion of the degree. After this, students can apply for a Blue Card. Germany’s relaxation of citizenship rules and work visas could also add to the country’s attractiveness as

While several German Universities are reputed for having excellent departments of engineering, the country is also home to some top higher education institutions in humanities.

Both the employment opportunities as well as Germany’s growing emphasis on strengthening the country’s Research and Development – R &D eco-system – also could make it an attractive destination for international students.

Germany looking to draw Indian talent

In June 2025, the German Ambassador made a strong pitch for Germany pointing to the strengths it possesses as well as the predictability and stability in immigration policies:

“We are interested in Indian talent, we are interested in Indian brains. We are interested in those Indians who really want to achieve something, and Germany will always be a partner for such people. So, we are not erratic, we are not volatile, we are very, very steady,”

Apart from all the advantages discussed during the article, predictable and stable student visa policies are likely to be an important factor in drawing international students.

Conclusion

Given the strengths which Germany possesses – both in terms of academic standards and logistics – discussed in the article it is likely, that Germany has the potential of emerging as an important destination for higher education for international students – especially from India.

American warships edging closer to Venezuelan waters earlier this year barely made global headlines, overshadowed by louder crises in Ukraine and the South China Sea. Yet this quiet buildup is not accidental. It is part of Washington’s long pattern of targeting regimes that stand at the crossroads of energy and geopolitics. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, remains an indispensable square on the global chessboard, despite years of economic decay. The question worth asking is: Why does the United States persist in exerting pressure on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia and even spar with rising oil consumers like India? The answer lies in a combination of old-fashioned energy security, the logic of sanctions, and a twenty-first-century version of tariff wars.

Energy, Empire, and the Logic of Control

From the early Cold War to the Gulf Wars, American power has been tethered to oil. Securing access to hydrocarbons was never about mere consumption; it was about leverage. Whoever controlled the flow of oil controlled the arteries of the global economy. Venezuela, like Iran and Russia, belongs to the category of states with energy abundance but frail political legitimacy in Washington’s eyes. These states could, in theory, undermine the U.S.-led order by weaponizing supply.

The Trump administration revived this logic with unusual bluntness. Sanctions on Venezuela’s PDVSA, Iran’s National Iranian Oil Company, and Russia’s energy giants were not simply punitive. They were instruments of economic siege, aimed at reducing rivals’ fiscal lifelines while simultaneously making American shale oil more competitive on the global market. The “tariff war” with China, and by extension India, fit the same pattern: weaken alternative energy partnerships and redirect trade flows toward U.S.-friendly networks.

Venezuela: A Pawn or a Prize?

Venezuela is not merely an oil state; it is a symbolic battleground. For Washington, Nicolás Maduro’s survival is a reminder that authoritarian regimes can withstand Western pressure when shielded by Moscow and Beijing. For Russia and China, supporting Caracas is inexpensive but symbolically priceless: it frustrates U.S. hegemony in its own hemisphere.

This symbolism has recently translated into direct diplomatic gestures. When Washington deployed warships off Venezuela’s coast, Beijing condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty and publicly reaffirmed its support for President Maduro. India, in contrast, has been more circumspect: while historically engaged with Venezuelan crude, New Delhi stepped back from oil imports earlier this year under U.S. tariff threats, signaling its preference for strategic neutrality. These divergent responses underscore how Venezuela has become a stage where multipolar fault lines are performed in real time.

The irony is that Venezuela’s oil industry today is a ghost of its former self. Decades of mismanagement and sanctions have collapsed production to levels unthinkable in the 1990s. And yet, the reserves beneath Venezuelan soil still represent untapped potential insurance against a future where Middle Eastern supply chains might be disrupted. U.S. naval maneuvers around Venezuela send a dual message: to Caracas, that Washington retains coercive power; to global markets, that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere is not up for negotiation.

Tariffs, Sanctions, and the Shifting Global Economy

Sanctions and tariffs are often portrayed as separate instruments, but in practice they converge. By sanctioning Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, Washington narrows the playing field for global oil suppliers. By imposing tariffs on India and China, it simultaneously curbs the bargaining power of large consumers. The effect is to reinforce the role of the United States as both an energy producer (through shale) and a gatekeeper of energy commerce (through financial sanctions and naval dominance).

This strategy, however, comes with risks. Sanctions have accelerated experiments in de-dollarization, as Russia and China expand oil trade in rubles and yuan. India, caught between cheap Russian crude and American pressure, finds itself hedging. Venezuela, despite its pariah status, has quietly courted Asian markets with barter-style deals. In short, the very pressure that once guaranteed U.S. leverage is now incubating alternatives.

History’s Echoes

To understand today’s maneuvers, one must recall history. Washington’s approach to oil-rich adversaries is not new; it is a recycled script. The 1953 coup in Iran, the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1990s, and even the naval blockades against Cuba: each reflects a doctrine that energy and ideology cannot be separated.

Yet, history also reminds us that such strategies rarely yield clean victories. Sanctions tend to harden regimes rather than topple them. Tariffs often spark retaliation rather than capitulation. Recent analyses have underscored this dynamic: for instance, an Investopedia study notes that overuse of dollar-based sanctions has accelerated global de-dollarization, with the dollar’s share of global reserves dropping below 47%—as nations increasingly shift into gold, yuan, and local currencies. Venezuela under Maduro looks less like a state on the verge of collapse than a state perpetually enduring collapse, too weak to recover, too stubborn to die.

Theoretical Lens: Realism with a Neoliberal Mask

International relations theory offers a useful lens. Realists would argue that Washington is simply acting in line with its structural interests: preventing rival powers from weaponizing energy. But a neoliberal reading highlights how this coercion is cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and market freedom. Sanctions are framed as moral instruments, when in reality they are economic tools of statecraft. Tariffs are justified as corrections for “unfair trade,” though their deeper function is to secure strategic dominance.

The United States, in effect, performs a balancing act: dressing realist power politics in neoliberal language. Venezuela becomes not just a state to be disciplined but a case study in how the American order sustains itself through economic pressure rather than outright invasion.

Conclusion: A Risky Bet

The naval encirclement of Venezuela may not escalate into open conflict, but it signals a broader pattern: Washington is unwilling to let go of energy geopolitics as the anchor of its global primacy. By targeting Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and by sparring with India and China over tariffs, the U.S. reasserts its role as the central broker of oil and trade.

The gamble, however, is whether this strategy is sustainable in a world edging toward multipolarity. Sanctions fatigue is growing; tariff wars strain alliances; and new financial infrastructures are slowly eroding the dollar’s monopoly. History teaches us that great powers can overextend. The United States risks learning that lesson the hard way, with Venezuela serving less as a pawn to be cornered and more as a mirror reflecting the limits of American power.