Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The United States and Vietnam, former adversaries but now significant trading partners, are in their second year of the comprehensive strategic partnership, further improving their ties. In 2025, the comprehensive strategic partnership makes a major two-year milestone as both America and Vietnam are thirty years into normalization, as five decades ago, both countries were intertwined in one of the most deadly wars in modern history. The comprehensive strategic partnership is a significant counterbalance in international relations in the Indo-Pacific region against China’s rising soft power and naval force projection into the South China Sea. In its second year, questions remain: Will the partnership hold up, and is there still room to grow between Washington and Hanoi? On September 10th, 2023, then-U.S. President Joe Biden and the late General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of Vietnam signed the comprehensive strategic partnership, which is a major turning point in Southeast Asia. The elevation of relations between Hanoi and Washington puts America along the same bilateral status as Russia and China in Vietnam’s hierarchy, signifying a major diplomatic breakthrough between the former two countries. Under the upgraded relations, Vietnam and the United States will further strengthen cooperation in trade, investments, science, technology, and climate action, with more opportunities in other sectors. Southeast Asia is an emerging global supply chain hub for not just the United States but the entire world, and Hanoi is a top ten major trading partner of Washington. The opportunity to grow supply chains in the Indochina region with Vietnam as a starting point would be an essential step toward digressing from the People’s Republic of China, which the United States government looks to do, especially as the latter two superpowers now compete for global hegemonic status. The United States and Vietnam share the ideals of growing their technological and economic sectors. The growth of semiconductors in Eastern Asia continues to grow not only in Taiwan, China, Japan, and South Korea but also in Vietnam. Amkor, an American firm, is opening a $1.6 billion firm in Vietnam for this endeavor. Furthermore, Reuters reported in January 2024 that fifteen American firms are vying to invest $8 billion in semiconductors in Vietnam. American companies and business owners currently heavily invest in Vietnam, such as Intel, Apple, Nike, Amkor, Marvell, and First Solar, and the list can continue to grow in the comprehensive strategic partnership. Simultaneously, Vietnamese companies such as VinFast and VGN Corporation are increasing investments in the United States. VinFast’s growth in North Carolina is helping the local economy by creating more manufacturing opportunities. Though Vietnam and the United States have reached new peaks in upgraded relations, it is vital to mention that the comprehensive strategic partnership is not a mutual defense accord including direct military assistance. During the joint signing, neither Washington nor Hanoi mentioned ‘containment’ of Beijing’s ambitions, even though the South China Sea continues to grow into a potential regional powder keg. Vietnam’s upgraded partnership with the United States correlates with India’s current strategy of not fully aligning to one side to trigger ire or retaliation from the People’s Republic of China but strategically keeping full diplomatic cohesion with all regional powers while maintaining its sovereignty. Vietnam is also a close ally of Russia as the United States ignored the original requests for their self-determination post-WWII. Though they do not supply the Russian military’s illegal aggression in Ukraine, it is tantamount for the U.S. government not to push or strong-arm Hanoi closer to Moscow. Nevertheless, in the future, the U.S. and Vietnamese Armed Forces could establish backchannels to warn each other of any potential military threat by the People’s Liberation naval movements around the South China Sea without openly engaging in military cooperation that could draw strong actions from China and Russia. Hanoi looks to advance its interests amidst rising economic and technological competition in the Indo-Pacific and growing American investments will only push Vietnam’s marketing further. Simultaneously, Washington gains a growing economic and diplomatic presence in Southeast Asia. To promote a growing relationship, the United States can also further reconciliation efforts in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, as many of Vietnam’s demographic majority and elderly still remember the American aggression in the Indochina conflicts. In its second year, Hanoi and Washington continue to grow ties through several key sectors that advance both country’s national interests and further open opportunities between the East and West. Rebuilding and rewriting the wrongs of the past, the United States reached out to Vietnam to solidify a comprehensive strategic partnership, which is decades in the making and a landmark agreement long envisioned by Ho Chi Minh. With opportunities to expand into the technology, economic, and trade sectors, Hanoi and Washington continue to grow bilateral ties in year two of the partnership. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The impact of a government is not only measured by its institutional performance, but also by its ability to transform the mental habits of politicians, officials, and citizens. Political action must offer collectively desirable futures. Retrospectively, however, many future projects are like lottery tickets that have already been played: records of unfulfilled illusions. The case of Petro’s government is no exception—but that doesn’t mean everything remains the same in Colombia. Change came and didn’t come. In some respects, the “government of change” has, in reality, remained stationary. This is the case, to begin with, regarding corruption. From campaign financing to suspicions of gifts offered to congress members in exchange for approving reforms, and including the various scandals involving the president’s son, the administration has been embroiled in numerous controversies. In Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Colombia dropped several positions, although it still ranks similarly to Brazil or Argentina, and at levels consistent with those seen under President Duque during most of his term. On matters of peace and security, and despite a shift in strategy, the government’s results are just as poor as its predecessor’s. The opposition’s narrative—that Petro’s arrival has brought the country to the brink of collapse in terms of security—is unsustainable. Red zones like Catatumbo have a long and complex history, and the Gulf Clan wasn’t invented yesterday. Nonetheless, the “Total Peace” policy is unlikely to be more than a grandiose slogan, with tangible results limited to a few local successes—such as the demobilization of one ELN dissidence group in Nariño and a temporary truce among the main gangs in Buenaventura. The protection of social leaders has not substantially improved (174 assassinations in 2024), the homicide rate, though slightly reduced, remains very high (25.4 per 100,000), crimes such as extortion have increased (18% rise between 2023 and 2024), and by April 2025, 21 police officers had been killed—four times more than during the same period the previous year. At the macroeconomic level, this government has not been the disaster predicted by the opposition, but broadly speaking, it also fits within the country’s stationary movement. President Petro has boasted, for example, about inflation rates (5%) and the unemployment rate (8.2%). However, inflation control is partly the result of measures taken by the Central Bank, and although Petro inherited the highest inflation in 23 years (13.1%), the average inflation rate during the Uribe, Santos, and Duque administrations was 4.88%. Petro’s unemployment figures are positive, but for much of Santos’s second term they were similarly favorable. Multidimensional poverty has continued its uninterrupted 14-year decline and, nationally, stands at 11.5% for 2024 (0.6% lower than the previous year). Economic growth under Petro has been rather modest (1.7% in 2024). Under Duque, average annual growth was 3%, and both previous administrations had higher averages. Growth expectations for 2025 don’t exceed 3%. In short, there’s been neither collapse nor spectacular takeoff. A constant, inertial movement is not change. So where is the change, then? In terms of public policy and governance practices, first, there has been a rethinking of the executive’s relationship with big business and the military leadership. Colombian capitalism has not mostly been built by heroic, Schumpeterian entrepreneurs who innovate and take risks, but rather by a kind of “crony capitalism” based on reciprocal favors between economic and political elites—and, as shown emblematicly in the Odebrecht case, their capacity to cover for one another. Petro’s bitter relationship with Sarmiento Angulo is part of this. That Petro is branded by the opposition as an “enemy of business” and labeled a “communist” is a natural reaction to a disruption in the usual dynamics between the presidency and large corporate conglomerates. The same can be said, secondly, about criticisms regarding the alleged weakening and “demoralization” of the Armed Forces. As proven by the initial appointment of Iván Velásquez as Minister of Defense, Petro has emphasized the need to reject the criminalization of social protest and human rights violations that, for decades, were legitimized by the counterinsurgency discourse of the “internal enemy.” The purging of generals has been part of this aim. Opposition marches have been aggressive, but there hasn’t been a hint of police brutality. The contrast—especially with the right-wing governments of Uribe and Duque, marked by extrajudicial executions and repression of the Social Uprising—could not be more stark. Naturally, the right links Petro’s civilian approach with poor security outcomes. Duque, however, is his opposite, and the results were no better. Thirdly, Petro has pursued an ambitious social policy, and as the failed health reform illustrates—derailed by the convergence of pharmaceutical managers, traditional politicians, and health service providers—he has shown a willingness to challenge powerful groups. This framework also includes the pension reform approved in Congress, which will benefit 2.8 million elderly Colombians. Likewise, there has been a strengthening of rural communities through the creation of 13 new peasant reserve zones and the acquisition and formalization of land at volumes far surpassing those of the previous two governments. In the same vein, there’s the labor reform (blocked in Congress), which will be submitted to a public referendum. The reform aims to restore workers’ rights eroded over the past 20 years and coincides with a historic 9.5% increase in the minimum wage. Also worth mentioning are the development of 300 energy communities and the guarantee of free higher education in public institutions. Seniors, rural workers, formal laborers, ethnic communities, and youth are the direct beneficiaries of these policies—groups that have not typically been at the center of recent Colombian governments. Beyond concrete practices or policies, however, the greatest transformation brought by the “Government of Change” is cognitive openness. Petro has sparked controversies that have de-naturalized hegemonic ideas. The virulent reactions against him are partly due to his break from the establishment’s common sense on many issues—that is, he has turned into public problems, requiring justification and debate, what was previously accepted as obvious, generalized consensus. It has been a pleasure to see politicians and journalists forced to react to discussions on “degrowth,” the “energy transition,” or the “extractivist model”; compelled to justify the mantra that better labor conditions mean higher unemployment; to reflect on whether illegal crops are effectively fought with glyphosate spraying; or to ask, in disbelief, whether habitual submission to the United States is truly desirable, or whether a “pragmatic” foreign policy allows one to speak, with Petro’s moral clarity, about the genocide in Gaza. Not everything the president has said on these topics has been accurate, of course, but the point is how the generation of these debates contributes to the development of a more plural, reflective, and democratic political culture in Colombia. The impact of a government cannot be measured solely in terms of institutional performance, but also in terms of changes in the mental habits of professional politicians, public officials, and citizens. In that sense—more than in any other—the Government of Change has indeed lived up to its name.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Nearly a fifth of the energy generated in the region never makes it to usage. Experts call for more energy planning, investment and control Latin America has made significant steps towards its energy transition. The region already generates 60% of its electricity from renewable sources, a figure that the International Energy Agency expects to continue to rise. However, there is one factor in this journey that receives limited attention – and is affecting the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy. Energy losses – the difference between the amount of electricity generated and the amount that is ultimately accounted for via consumer bills – averaged 17% per year in Latin America over the past three decades, according to a report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). It says this is three times higher than in developed countries. That represents between five and six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, equivalent to the emissions of 1.3 million cars. Specialists have termed these as “compensatory emissions”, as more electricity generation is required to compensate for the losses. Countries with a higher share of fossil fuel generation, such as Argentina, Mexico and Colombia, are mainly responsible for these additional emissions. Energy losses affect all countries in the region and occur for both technical and non-technical reasons. The former refers to problems in transmission and distribution lines, mostly due to a lack of investment and infrastructure maintenance; the latter corresponds to energy delivered and not paid for by users, such as theft and energy fraud. “Energy losses have the potential to affect the fulfilment of the climate targets,” Ana Lía Rojas, executive director of the Chilean Association of Renewable Energy and Storage (Acera), tells Dialogue Earth. “Every unit of energy that is lost means more generation is needed to meet demand.” Energy losses Most electricity is produced in power plants and sent over long distances through high-voltage transmission lines. It then reaches consumers through the distribution network – the poles and wires that connect homes and businesses. This infrastructure can suffer from various problems that result in technical energy losses. For example, losses due to the resistance of the conductive material through which the energy flows, ageing infrastructure and malfunctioning transformers. While these are inherent problems in electricity transmission, experts agree that there is a general lack of investment in transmission and distribution networks across Latin America. “Decision-makers prioritise having energy, and the grid is left as a second priority. You have to invest in parallel in the grid and in generation – it’s about seeing the system as a whole,” Ramón Méndez, Uruguay’s former energy director, tells Dialogue Earth. “A deficient infrastructure can become a major economic and technical problem.” Between 2015 and 2021, investment in distribution and transmission infrastructure in the region fell by about 40%. Not only can this lead to energy losses, but it also leaves grids more exposed to extreme weather events and can lead to service problems, which particularly affect vulnerable populations. In Latin America, most electricity losses occur in the distribution system. This is mostly due to non-technical factors, such as energy theft, says Santiago López Cariboni. A professor of economics at the University of the Republic of Uruguay, he co-authored the IDB’s energy losses report. “It is energy that is produced and transported, but not consumed legally. People break or tamper with meters or run a cable straight from the grid to their homes or businesses,” López Cariboni tells Dialogue Earth. “Even if governments could cut off the power to all those homes, they wouldn’t do it – it would create a huge social and economic problem.” A user that steals energy consumes up to three times more than one that does not, estimates López Cariboni. By not paying a tariff, people have no incentive to consume less or to have low-consumption technology. According to the IDB report, irregular connections are related to the disorderly growth of Latin American cities in recent decades. The dumping of energy Although it does not generate emissions, renewable energy can also generate a problem of energy losses. This has happened recently in Chile. The share of solar and wind energy reached a record 40% of the country’s energy generation in 2024. However, as their weight in the mix increases, so do energy losses. This phenomenon, also known as curtailment, occurs because the development of renewable projects is progressing much faster than available transmission and storage capacity. In 2024, 5,900 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power were wasted in Chile, 148% more than in 2023. The figure represents 20% of the solar and wind energy generated by the country, estimates Lía Rojas. Jorge Leal Saldivia, a partner at the Chilean renewable energy company LAS Energy, says this wasting corresponds mainly to solar energy generated in the north of the country. “The transmission infrastructure is not in place to be able to bring that energy to central and southern Chile. The lines become congested, and the energy has to be dumped,” he tells Dialogue Earth. Rodrigo Palma, a researcher at the Energy Centre of the University of Chile, tells Dialogue Earth there have been delays in energy planning: “The entry into operation of solar and wind has not stopped, and the rate of entry is greater than the rate of capacity-building by the state. This may slow down the penetration of renewables into our energy system.” By 2040, all coal-fired power plants will have to cease operating in Chile. This is expected to be mostly compensated for by renewable energy. In April, the government announced a tender for eight new projects to upgrade the grid, adding to 12 projects launched last year. One of the biggest initiatives, the Kimal-Lo Aguirre transmission line, is now under review after complaints from social and environmental groups. Possible solutions Half of the 26 countries analysed in the IDB report have experienced greater energy losses in recent years, highlighting the urgent need for solutions. Honduras, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic lose more than 30% of their energy, followed by more than 20% in Jamaica, Paraguay and Guyana. The IDB also highlights how grids face increasing vulnerability and impacts due to climate change. Specialists consulted by Dialogue Earth highlight the need for comprehensive planning by governments to address losses. For technical losses, the incorporation of technology can help, such as smart meters and storage. For the non-technical ones, a social policy perspective needs to be added, says López Cariboni. “Societies justify energy theft by necessity; they see energy as a right,” he explains. “For those who can pay, you can work with sanctions and regulations. But for those who can’t, the state should formalise those losses and take it as part of their budget. It’s more public expenditure, but it’s an expenditure that is already being made.” Martin Dapelo, a member of the board of directors for the Argentine Chamber of Renewable Energies (Cader), questions the lack of progress in the region on smart metering. “It is the first big step. We are missing out on the possibility of measuring in real time,” he tells Dialogue Earth. In storage, Chile has so far been the only country in the region to take the first steps. Distributed generation – energy generated by consumers themselves in small-scale, localised systems – is also on the region’s solutions list. These arrangements place solar or wind farms at the site of consumption, for example among housing or industry. This removes the need for energy transportation, avoiding grid overload. “We have gotten used to the idea that planning has to be indicative, and that it is the market that decides which direction to take with the energy sector. The case of Chile, with an oversupply of solar, but without transmission grids, shows that this is not the case,” say Méndez. “The optimal system is one that looks at the whole and determines the best combination.” This article was originally published by Dialogue Earth under the Creative Commons BY NC ND licence

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The pressure exerted by Trump on Mexico has prompted a shift in the López Obrador government's anti-drug strategy, which now operates under the logic of negotiation imposed by Trumpism. In the Obradorist ideology, it was unthinkable to launch a new war against the narcos—partly because there is now suspicion that deals were made with organized crime, and partly because opposition to such a war was one of the key narratives that propelled former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to power. He consistently and harshly criticized the confrontation initiated by President Felipe Calderón (2006–2012). The “hugs, not bullets” policy of the former Mexican president empowered the drug cartels, and its effects spilled onto the streets of the United States, where designer drugs (fentanyl, methamphetamines) proliferated like never before. However, the electoral campaign and Donald Trump’s return to the White House spotlighted the drug trafficking issue, highlighting that it was costing 100,000 American lives a year. That surely struck a chord with the average American and hurt the Democratic Party’s candidate. “Donald Trump embodies what I want for my country,” said a white woman from the Midwest—a sentiment echoed by many who witnessed the destructive effects of these drugs in neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles. This segment of the population turned out en masse to vote for Trump, joining millions of others who, for ideological, political, or economic reasons, gave the New York politician a sweeping victory. That resounding win shook the status quo—just look at the turmoil in global stock markets—but it also generated Trump’s own agenda with his trade partners. One key item: declaring war on the Mexican cartels, which he elevated to the status of “terrorist organizations” that must be destroyed. It was a powerful message for President Claudia Sheinbaum, who had not made the direct confrontation with the cartels a priority. She likely saw them as part of the structure López Obrador had built for the first stage of the so-called Fourth Transformation, and believed it best not to disturb them beyond occasional arrests and seizures. Sheinbaum had been inclined to continue that routine agenda in dealings with her main trading partner. However, Trump’s victory and his increasingly aggressive rhetoric against the cartels led to a direct confrontation with criminal organizations. Trump increased the pressure by deploying spy ships in Pacific waters off the Baja California coast. Mexican skies saw surveillance aircraft capable of capturing images of homes in the Golden Triangle—the border region between the states of Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and Durango, traditionally a haven for drug lords. Additionally, the U.S. security agency presence in Mexico was reinforced. Thus, the indulgent and criminal “hugs, not bullets” policy began to fade, leaving cartel leaders stunned. They have responded with a forward-escape strategy, creating an atmosphere of persecution and violence across different regions of the country—costing thousands of Mexican lives and pushing the public’s fear perception beyond 61%, according to INEGI. The myth López Obrador promoted—that “fentanyl is not produced in Mexico”—collapsed when Omar García Harfuch, the Public Security Secretary, recently stated that more than 800 laboratories have been destroyed. The problem, however, isn’t just the cartels and their capacity to produce and distribute drugs on American streets. It also includes the entire political scaffolding that enables the business to function efficiently—something it could not have achieved without the complicity of politicians with drug lords or intermediaries. And while one might think Trump would be pleased with the results of his pressure, that’s not the case. He bluntly stated that the Mexican government merely wants to make him “happy”—by sealing the northern border, making arrests and deporting drug lords, destroying labs, and even allowing U.S. agents to collaborate with Mexico’s national security system. They’ve even permitted spy flights and menacing naval patrols in Pacific waters. But even with these surprising results, the pressure continues—both publicly and diplomatically. Kristi Noem, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, recently met with President Sheinbaum at the National Palace. Beyond the formal courtesies, the headline came when Noem, upon returning to the U.S., revealed that she had handed Sheinbaum a list of requests to continue strengthening the good relationship between the two countries. President Sheinbaum was stunned when tariffs became a reality. Although Mexico and Canada weren’t mentioned in Trump’s public list of targeted countries, that was because the tariffs had already been decided before the press conference: a 25% tariff would apply to imports of steel and aluminum, as well as to products not covered by the USMCA—representing roughly 50% of Mexico’s exports to the U.S. In short, Trump’s pressure on Mexico has altered the policy upheld by Obradorism and now operates under the logic of Trump-style hard negotiation: “If the adversary yields at the first push, you can keep pressuring and gain more.” Some say that the list handed over through diplomatic channels includes the names of many currently serving politicians. That’s the reality, amid an anti-crisis narrative that tries to sell the idea that defeats are victories and losses are gains. And now, the time has come to find out where President Sheinbaum draws her red line.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands. But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president. So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains? Ukraine’s natural resource wealth Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing. However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited. Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia. What does the new deal mean for Ukraine? American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals. But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia). These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public. In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine. First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine. Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries. Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers. Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe. Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine. Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees. Profits may be a long time coming Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win. For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests. But in reality, profits are a long way off. The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement. Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade. Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments. What’s perhaps more important It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important. Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies. The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies. Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”. Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table. So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском While Trump declared the truce agreement a US victory, Ansar Allah said that Washington contacted them in order to “avoid drowning in the mountains of Yemen”. Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement reached a ceasefire deal with the United States on Wednesday, May 7, according to Oman, which mediated the negotiations. The deal stipulates the halt of Ansar Allah’s attacks on US ships in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, and an end to US aggression on Yemen. However, it does not prevent the Yemeni movement from launching attacks on Israel.  “Following recent discussions and contacts conducted by the Sultanate of Oman with the United States and the relevant authorities in Sana’a, in the Republic of Yemen, with the aim of de-escalation, efforts have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides,” Omani Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, wrote on X. “In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” the minister added. Peoples Dispatch spoke to a member of the Communist Party of Jordan, Dr. Emad Al-Hatabeh, to discuss the ceasefire, which he described as a “sudden development in the war in the Red Sea.” Dr. Emad Al-Hatabeh indicated that “both the US and Oman didn’t comment on Ansar Allah’s missiles targeting Israel, especially that this agreement was reached shortly after a Yemeni missile reached Ben Gurion airport, near the occupied city of Lydda (also known as Lod).” As per Al-Hatabeh’s analysis, “important questions about this agreement are left without answers. Taking into consideration the Omani role in the American – Iranian negotiations, is the ceasefire in the Red Sea part of the deal? Another question will arise from this assumption, did America give up some of Israel’s interests in order to reach an agreement with Iran? Where does this agreement leave Netanyahu’s government, especially after Ansar Allah’s spokesman told Reuters that the agreement doesn’t include Israel.” Ansar Allah says the US contacted them seeking a truce One day before Oman announced that the deal was sealed, US President Donald Trump alluded that a ceasefire agreement was about to be reached, claiming that Ansar Allah agreed to stop the fight with the US because they “capitulated”.  “They just don’t want to fight, and we will honor that and we will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated,” Trump said from the White House on Tuesday, May 6. “They will not be blowing up ships anymore, and that’s what the purpose of what we were doing. So that’s just news. We just found out about that. So I think that’s very, very positive,” he added. Although Trump bragged about the deal, presenting it as a US victory, analysts suggest that it was Ansar Allah that forced the world’s greatest military superpower to the negotiating table, after paralyzing US naval traffic off the Yemeni coast.  Ansar Allah’s chief negotiator, Mohammed Abdulsalam, confirmed during an interview with Almasirah TV channel, that the movement “did not make any request to the Americans to hold ceasefire talks”. Abdulsalam asserted that, on the contrary, the movement recently received US requests and messages seeking a truce, via the Sultanate of Oman. The Yemeni official pointed out that US endeavors to reach a ceasefire with Ansar Allah were a great disappointment to Israel. “The Israelis have endured great disappointment after the stance of the US, which tried to walk away and avoid drowning in the mountains of Yemen,” he said. However, Abdulsalam clarified that Ansar Allah is still “assessing this US position so that the facts on the ground do not contradict its statements”. He further warned that in the event that the US “would not abide by the agreement in any way”, the movement “will respond”. Abdulsalam considered the deal “a success to be added to Yemen’s credit, as it enhances a situation that would leave the “usurper entity” [Israel] in a situation of loneliness, in confrontation with the great popular and military stance led by Yemen on behalf of the Arab and Islamic nation.” The ceasefire was announced two months after Trump ordered a large-scale aerial campaign against Yemen on the pretext of protecting US shipping, air, and naval assets and to restore “navigation freedom” from Ansar Allah’s attacks. Trump’s order followed Ansar Allah’s decision to resume a ban on Israeli ships due to Israel’s continuous blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Yemen threatens Israel with a devastating and painful response for attacking Sana’a airport  While Ansar Allah agreed to a truce with the US, it vowed to escalate its operations against Israel as long as its blockade on humanitarian aid to Gaza is not lifted.  In response to Israel’s aggression on Sana’a International Airport on Tuesday, that destroyed terminal buildings and caused USD 500 million in damage, Yemen’s Supreme Political Council Chairman, Mahdi al-Mashat, threatened that “Sanaa’s response will be devastating, painful, and beyond what the Israeli enemy can endure.” “From this moment onward, stay in your shelters or leave for your homelands immediately. Your failed government will no longer be able to protect you,” Al-Mashat warned Israeli people.  Moreover, the Yemeni senior official reaffirmed that no aggression will deter Yemen from its “rightful decision” to support the people of Palestine “until the genocide ends and the siege on Gaza is lifted.” The Yemeni Armed Forces’ spokesman, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, also confirmed in a televised statement late Wednesday, that the movement will continue its ban on Israeli ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, alongside the comprehensive aerial blockade on Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. Text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The agreement was an acknowledgment of the significance of their trade for mutual economic development and the health of the global economy, the joint statement says. China and the US agreed to roll back high tariffs imposed on one another last month for a period of 90 days. The agreement was announced in a joint statement issued on Monday, May 12. The agreement was a result of a high-level meeting on trade and economic affairs held between Chinese and US delegations in Geneva, Switzerland over the weekend. As described in a press conference on Monday by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who was part of the US delegation, both sides have agreed to reduce the tariffs by 115%. That would mean that the US will reduce its tariffs on China to 30% from its present 145% while the Chinese will lower their tariffs to 10% from its present 125%. These new tariff rates would be effective from Wednesday for the next 90 days. Both the countries also agreed to explore a more stable arrangement in the interim period. China also agreed to reverse additional measures imposed in response to US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, such as putting various US companies on the sanctions list and placing export controls on rare earth minerals. The parties committed to taking these measures as an acknowledgment of the mutual significance of their bilateral trade and its importance for the global economy and for “moving forward in the spirit of mutual opening, continued communication, cooperation and mutual respect,” a joint statement says. The 30% US tariff includes a 10% baseline tariff imposed on all imports by Trump in April after suspending his reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days, and a 20% tariff imposed by the Trump administration before April in the name of stopping the illegal flow of the drug fentanyl. Answering a question on the cooperation between both the countries over fentanyl, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Lin Jian criticized “the wrongly slapped tariffs on Chinese imports” by citing the issue and claiming that “if the US truly wants to cooperate with China, it should stop vilifying and shifting the blame.” Jian also advised the US “to seek dialogue with China based on equality, respect and mutual benefit.” Relief for the global economy  Trump announced a reciprocal tariff regime on April 2 against all those countries which had a trade surplus with the US, including China. After global backlash, Trump later postponed the implementation of the regime for 90 days, inviting countries to seek bilateral agreements to avoid high tariffs while imposing a 10% common tariff. The Trump administration had claimed that reciprocal tariffs were required in order to lower the US trade deficit, which is over a trillion dollars. China, the third largest trade partner of the US, faced the highest tariff rates under Trump’s tariff war and chose to retaliate. It also called the policy a violation of international law and an attempt by the US to weaponize trade. On Tuesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his country’s position that there are no winners in trade and tariff wars, claiming bullying and hegemony will only result in self-isolation. He was addressing the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) forum in Beijing. The tariff war between the world’s leading economies was seen as a disaster for the global economy and trade. A large number of US businesses had also opposed Trump’s tariff war. They had claimed high tariffs may lead to a rise in prices which harm both the consumer and domestic production. Several businesses filed lawsuits in the US claiming Trump’s reciprocal tariff regime was illegal and harmful for their ability to do business. US trade representative Jamieson Greer, who was part of the negotiating team in Geneva, claimed that the talks with various countries, including China, is the first step to reducing the US trade deficit and ending the national emergency declared by Trump to authorize the reciprocal tariff decrees, South China Morning Post reported. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hailed the agreement as “substantive progress” for mutual economic development. It expressed hope that “the US side will build on the meeting, continue to work with China in the same direction, completely rectify its wrong practices of unilateral tariff hikes, and keep strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation.” Acknowledging that “high levels of tariffs were equivalent to an embargo and neither side wanted that,” Bessent declared on Monday that the US wants a trade relationship with China, though a balanced one. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hoped that the US would pursue the matter much more seriously and “inject more certainty and stability into the world economy.” Both the countries have agreed to establish “a joint mechanism” to continue their trade and economic negotiations in future. Text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The Israeli army seeks to mobilize 30,000 reservists for a new expansion of its offensive on Gaza. UN-affiliated organizations warn of famine and disease in an enclave where clean drinking water is scarce. The Israeli security cabinet has approved a plan to intensify the operation in Gaza, which includes capturing or seizing additional areas across the Palestinian coastal territory and expanding the area controlled by the IDF. Government members, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, are already using the term “occupation” to clarify the plans for Gaza. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not specified which parts of the territory are involved in the new escalation, anonymous military sources have claimed that the goal is to occupy the entire Gaza Strip. The idea put forth by the Zionist regime, in any case, is to seize the territory and not return it in the future. Hamas has rejected this plan and continues to pursue “a comprehensive agreement that guarantees the safety and protection of our people,” according to one of its senior officials. The announcement includes the destruction of “all infrastructure above and underground,” according to Israeli Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir. The meeting followed IDF orders to mobilize 30,000 reservists last Saturday. Israel is thereby increasing pressure on Gaza during the same month that U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, where he will present his colonization plans aligned with the wishes of the Tel Aviv regime. The plan also entails a new forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to the south of Gaza, expected to last for months. The government of Netanyahu — who is considered a suspected war criminal by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — faces internal resistance from the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which has protested what they see as prioritizing territorial conquest over the return of prisoners captured by Hamas on October 7. Fifty-nine people remain held by the Gaza government after Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire on March 18. The Forum mentioned before, criticized the Gaza occupation plans, referring to them as the “Smotrich-Netanyahu Plan for the Sacrifice of Hostages,” according to a public statement. The main debate within the security cabinet focused on whether to open routes for humanitarian aid — routes that have been closed since early March, two weeks before the ceasefire collapsed. According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Itamar Ben Gvir — also subject to ICJ arrest warrants — argued for keeping all aid routes closed: “I don’t understand why we have to give them anything; they have enough food there. We should bomb Hamas’s food reserves,” the outlet quoted. The Chief of Staff called the idea “dangerous.” According to the same leaks, Ben Gvir also proposed “bombing food warehouses and generators.” The International Criminal Court has reminded that blocking humanitarian aid may constitute a war crime. The Israeli government has leaked to the press that under the new escalation, humanitarian aid would be allowed in only through “international organizations and private security contractors.” On Sunday, May 4, the Country Humanitarian Team (CHT), under the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), reported that for nine weeks Israeli authorities had blocked all supplies from entering Gaza: “Bakeries and community kitchens have shut down. The warehouses are empty. Children are starving.” Two days earlier, UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell expanded on the critical situation in Gaza: “In the past month, more than 75% of households have reported increased difficulty accessing water. Families don’t have enough to drink, cannot wash their hands when needed, and often must choose between showering, cleaning, or cooking,” Russell said in a statement. UNICEF also warned of the prevalence of acute watery diarrhea, especially dangerous for children: “Over 9,000 boys and girls have received treatment for acute malnutrition,” the organization added. At the end of April, during ICJ hearings related to South Africa’s case against Israel, Claire Nicolet, Head of Emergencies at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), stated that “Israeli authorities are not only using aid as a bargaining chip but also as a weapon of war.” Since October 7, 2023, 52,567 Palestinians have been killed and 118,610 injured as a result of Israeli attacks, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Of those fatalities, 2,459 occurred after the March ceasefire was broken. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском India and Pakistan have seen the scenario play out before: a terror attack in which Indians are killed leads to a succession of escalatory tit-fot-tat measures that put South Asia on the brink of all-out war. And then there is a de-escalation. The broad contours of that pattern have played out in the most recent crisis, with the latest step being the announcement of a ceasefire on May 10, 2025. But in another important way, the flare-up – which began on April 22 with a deadly attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed – represents significant departures from the past. It involved direct missile exchanges targeting sites inside both territories and the use of advanced missile systems and drones by the two nuclear rivals for the first time. As a scholar of nuclear rivalries, especially between India and Pakistan, I have long been concerned that the erosion of international sovereignty norms, diminished U.S. interest and influence in the region and the stockpiling of advanced military and digital technologies have significantly raised the risk of rapid and uncontrolled escalation in the event of a trigger in South Asia. These changes have coincided with domestic political shifts in both countries. The pro-Hindu nationalism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has heightened communal tensions in the country. Meanwhile Pakistan’s powerful army chief, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, has embraced the “two-nation theory,” which holds that Pakistan is a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims and India for Hindus. This religious framing was even seen in the naming of the two countries’ military operations. For India, it is “Operation Sindoor” – a reference to the red vermilion used by married Hindu women, and a provocative nod to the widows of the Kashmir attack. Pakistan called its counter-operation “Bunyan-un-Marsoos” – an Arabic phrase from the Quran meaning “a solid structure.” The role of Washington The India-Pakistan rivalry has cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. But since the late 1990s, whenever India and Pakistan approached the brink of war, a familiar de-escalation playbook unfolded: intense diplomacy, often led by the United States, would help defuse tensions. In 1999, President Bill Clinton’s direct mediation ended the Kargil conflict – a limited war triggered by Pakistani forces crossing the Line of Control into Indian-administered Kashmir – by pressing Pakistan for a withdrawal. Similarly, after the 2001 attack inside the Indian Parliament by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-based groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi, averting war. And after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which saw 166 people killed by terrorists linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, rapid and high-level American diplomatic involvement helped restrain India’s response and reduced the risk of an escalating conflict. As recently as 2019, during the Balakot crisis – which followed a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, that killed 40 Indian security personnel – it was American diplomatic pressure that helped contain hostilities. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later wrote in his memoirs, “I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration in February 2019.” Where is Kashmir?  A diplomatic void? Washington as peacemaker made sense: It had influence and a vested interest. During the Cold War, the U.S. formed a close alliance with Pakistan to counter India’s links with the Soviet Union. And after the 9/11 terror attacks, the U.S. poured tens of billions of dollars in military assistance into Pakistan as a frontline partner in the “war on terror.” Simultaneously, beginning in the early 2000s, the U.S. began cultivating India as a strategic partner. A stable Pakistan was a crucial partner in the U.S. war in Afghanistan; a friendly India was a strategic counterbalance to China. And this gave the U.S. both the motivation and credibility to act as an effective mediator during moments of India-Pakistan crisis. Today, however, America’s diplomatic attention has shifted significantly away from South Asia. The process began with the end of the Cold War, but accelerated dramatically after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. More recently, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have consumed Washington’s diplomatic efforts. Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the U.S. has not appointed an ambassador in New Delhi or Islamabad, nor confirmed an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs – factors that must have hampered any mediating role for the United States. And while Trump said the May 10 ceasefire followed a “long night of talks mediated by the United States,” statements from India and Pakistan appeared to downplay U.S. involvement, focusing instead on the direct bilateral nature of negotiations. Should it transpire that Washington’s role as a mediator between Pakistan and India has been diminished, it is not immediately obvious who, if anyone, will fill the void. China, which has been trying to cultivate a role of mediator elsewhere, is not seen as a neutral mediator due to its close alliance with Pakistan and past border conflicts with India. Other regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia tried to step in during the latest crisis, but both lack the power clout of the U.S. or China. This absence of external mediation is not, of course, a problem in itself. Historically, foreign interference – particularly U.S. support for Pakistan during the Cold War – often complicated dynamics in South Asia by creating military imbalances and reinforcing hardline positions. But the past has shown external pressure – especially from Washington – can be effective. Breaking the norms The recent escalation unfolded against the backdrop of another dynamic: the erosion of international norms since the end of the Cold War and accelerating after 2001. America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged international legal frameworks through practices such as preemptive strikes against sovereign states, targeted drone killings and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” of detainees that many legal scholars classify as torture. More recently, Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have drawn widespread criticism for violations of international humanitarian law – but have resulted in limited consequences. In short, geopolitical norms have been ebbed away and military actions that were once deemed red lines are crossed with little accountability. For India and Pakistan, this environment creates both opportunity and risk. Both can point to behaviors elsewhere to justify assertive actions that they have undertaken that, in previous years, would have been deemed a step too far – such as attacks on places of worship and sovereignty violations. Multi-domain warfare But what truly distinguished the latest crisis from those of the past is, I believe, its multi-domain nature. The conflict is no longer confined to conventional military exchanges along the line of control – as it was for the first five decades of the Kashmir question. Both countries largely respected the line of control as a de facto boundary for military operations until the 2019 crisis. Since then, there has been a dangerous progression: first to cross-border airstrikes into each other’s territories, and now to a conflict that spans conventional military, cyber and information spheres simultaneously. Reports indicate Chinese-made Pakistani J-10 fighter jets shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including advanced French Rafale jets. This confrontation between Chinese and Western weapons represents not just a bilateral conflict but a proxy test of rival global military technologies – adding another layer of great-power competition to the crisis. In addition, the use of loitering drones designed to attack radar systems represents a significant escalation in the technological sophistication of cross-border attacks compared to years past. The conflict has also expanded dramatically into the cyber domain. Pakistani hackers, claiming to be the “Pakistan Cyber Force,” report breaching several Indian defense institutions, potentially compromising personnel data and login credentials. Simultaneously, social media and a new right-wing media in India have become a critical battlefront. Ultranationalist voices in India incited violence against Muslims and Kashmiris; in Pakistan, anti-India rhetoric similarly intensified online. Cooler voices prevailing … for now These shifts have created multiple escalation pathways that traditional crisis management approaches weren’t designed to address. Particularly concerning is the nuclear dimension. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened, and it has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons intended to counter Indian conventional advantages. Meanwhile, India has informally dialed back its historic no-first-use stance, creating ambiguity about its operational doctrine. Thankfully, as the ceasefire announcement indicates, mediating voices appear to have prevailed this time around. But eroding norms, diminished great power diplomacy and the advent of multi-domain warfare, I argue, made this latest flare-up a dangerous turning point. What happens next will tell us much about how nuclear rivals manage, or fail to manage, the spiral of conflict in this dangerous new landscape.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском April 2025 marks the second anniversary of Finland’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Although the prospect of joining the alliance began to be seriously considered after the escalation of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, a final decision was repeatedly postponed due to the unclear advantages of this move and insufficient public support. Despite close economic ties with Russia and a tradition of cautious diplomacy known as the “Paasikivi–Kekkonen line” (often criticized as “Finlandization”), the 2022 international crisis pushed Finland to join NATO. Since then, the once-neutral country has shifted its foreign policy, increased defense spending, and expanded its arms exports. Government and Military Perspectives In December 2024, the Finnish government presented a new Defense Report in Helsinki, replacing the previous strategy issued in September 2021. Back in 2021, Finland had highlighted the growing military activity in the Baltic Sea and Arctic regions, along with the increased interest of major powers in the natural resources of the North and the Northern Sea Route. Notably, the country didn’t name any specific enemy, choosing to keep its message broad and carefulThe 2024 document takes a much more serious tone. It clearly names Russia as the main source of global instability and describes China as a growing power that challenges the U.S. and its allies. Terrorism is mentioned too, but much less often. Some of the main points about global security include the following - The return of a "large-scale, protracted war" to the European continent;- The Special Military Operation (SMO) is interpreted as a continuation of Russia’s aggressive actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, as well as in Georgia in 2008;- An increase in hybrid attacks and incidents involving critical infrastructure;- Growing Chinese influence on Finland and its neighboring countries;- An unpredictable and unstable defense and international security environment, with a clear tendency toward further deterioration;- The largest NATO military buildup on the eastern flank since the end of the Cold War;- Accession to NATO is described as “the most significant transformation in Finland’s defense policy since World War II”;- Ongoing integration of Finland’s armed forces into NATO’s structures and joint defense planning;- Finland is now planning its defense together with NATO, focusing not just on its own territory but also on the Baltic States, the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Ocean, and the North Atlantic. In the section on shifts in global power, Russia is named as the main cause of instability. It is described as “the most significant and immediate threat to the Allies, to security, and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region.” Other claims include: a long-standing effort to weaken the European Union, a push to restore its great power status, and an attempt to divide Europe into spheres of influence using military force. Russia is also accused of using hybrid tactics—such as spreading fear, influencing public opinion, stirring political divisions, and blocking decisions—to target European countries and their people. Its Special Military Operation is seen as the beginning of a broader, more direct, and unpredictable conflict with the West. China is characterized as a less aggressive player. It is noted that Beijing is rapidly modernizing its armed forces, has intensified intelligence activities in the United States and Europe, and has strengthened military and economic cooperation with Russia, the development of which will determine Moscow’s ability to exert influence over Europe. At the same time, Finnish strategists place greater emphasis on the ongoing competition between China and the United States for global political, military, economic, and technological dominance. In matters concerning NATO’s role in defense, it is noted that the Alliance has intensified its cooperation with partners in the Indo-Pacific region, increased its military presence on the eastern flank and the number of military exercises, and is continually updating both general and regional defense plans in the event of a large-scale conflict. With the accession of Finland and Sweden, NATO has become geographically closer to strategically important areas for Russia, including Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kaliningrad, the Kola Peninsula, Belarus, the Baltic Sea, and the Arctic region. Within the Alliance, ensuring the security of maritime transport routes and the modernization of military infrastructure in Northern European countries is viewed as a key condition for the potential reinforcement of troops from North America. The role of the European Union is described as complementary to NATO, while it is also noted that the EU is increasing defense spending and expanding technological cooperation. The report was published after the election victory of Republican U.S. President Donald Trump, known for his isolationist views, which is partially reflected in the document through emphasis on European independence in security matters and the need for further military expenditures. On intra-European regional issues, the report focuses on cooperation with the member states of the Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO), the Baltic States, and the United Kingdom, as well as on Germany’s shift in security policy, France’s increased defense spending, and Poland’s growing purchases of military equipment. In military and technology matters, the document highlights the growing role of unmanned systems (both remote-controlled and autonomous), artificial intelligence, and advanced human capabilities like improved thinking and synthetic biology. It stresses the need to use the latest scientific and tech innovations in developing weapons — a step that could help make up for fewer soldiers on the battlefield. Cyberspace and outer space are seen as new areas of military and technological competition. This view is based on several factors: the rapid growth of space technologies (driven by private companies), easier access to space, and heavy reliance on cyber tools and satellites for both military and civilian use. Information warfare is also becoming more influential alongside traditional combat. The document notes that small countries can benefit in such conflicts by using innovations smartly and managing resources well. Still, Helsinki does not rely only on high-tech solutions. A key part of Finland’s military strategy is preparing both its army and population for long-term, grinding conflicts. This includes signing long-term arms supply contracts, building strategic reserves, keeping supply chains strong, and staying ready to protect their way of life. Among the main conclusions, the authors of the report present the following: - Finland and Europe are facing a significant decline in security, with no short-term improvement expected.- Russia poses and will continue to pose a constant security threat to Europe and Finland;- Finland will provide military assistance to Ukraine for as long as necessary;- Following the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, the Nordic countries, the Baltic Sea region, and the High North have formed a unified geostrategic space; the Baltic Sea region holds strategic importance for Finland;- Finland’s defense will rely on maintaining conscription, strengthening the training of its military reserve, a strong public will to defend the country, and support from NATO membership.- Commitment to total defense — a combination of all national and international military and civilian measures that ensure the protection of the country under any circumstances (seven components are listed: government administration, international relations, defense capability, internal security, economy, functional capabilities of the population, and psychological resilience of people); There is a need to improve working conditions in the defense industry, increase production, and secure steady, reliable supply chains. A gradual increase in Finland’s military spending. - The development of the EU’s defense potential, and movement toward greater independence of the European Union both in policy and in the development of military technologies and defense supplies;- NATO’s readiness to provide the full spectrum of forces necessary for large-scale, high-intensity combat operations; Finland, in turn, must also create all the necessary conditions for the presence of allied troops on its territory. Similar assessments are presented in the Military Intelligence Review of Finland — 2025 (previous publications date back to 2021 and 2023), prepared by the General Staff of the Finnish Defence Forces. Russia is also named as the main threat there, which “seeks to reduce Western influence, secure its sphere of influence,” “views security policy as a zero-sum great power game in which NATO expansion strengthens the position of the United States and thereby weakens Russia’s security,” and “the interests or security of neighboring countries are not an important factor in Moscow’s calculations.” In addition, Russia is accused of seeking to turn the Global South against Western countries, in particular, there is a reference to “an attempt to present the BRICS group as part of an anti-Western ‘global majority’” . As for the Northern European direction, the Finnish General Staff notes the buildup of Russian forces on the Kola Peninsula and in the Arctic region, attributes to Moscow attempts to gain unrestricted access to the Northern Sea Route and to weaken the integration of Finland and Sweden into NATO structures. Helsinki predicts that after the end of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia’s priority will be the accelerated buildup and modernization of forces in the reestablished Leningrad Military District, bordering Scandinavia. Finnish military officials do not believe in a quick settlement of the situation in Ukraine and forecast a deterioration of Russia’s relations with the West in the coming years, a struggle by Russia for shipping in the Baltic Sea “by any means,” continued attacks on underwater infrastructure in the Baltic (a reference to damage to undersea cables, although no exact culprit is named), escalation of the race between the West, Russia and China for the resources of the High North, and increased intelligence and sabotage activities by Russian special services in Finland. China is not viewed in an entirely negative light; instead, there is recognition of Beijing's ambition to become a political, economic, military, and technological leader by 2049, marking the centenary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. China's growing influence over countries of the Global South is also noted. Russia–China relations are seen as a "lifeline" for the Russian economy and a means of circumventing sanctions. However, Beijing is not seen as an equal partner, but as someone benefiting from Russia’s growing isolation. This makes Russia more dependent on China. The war in Ukraine is seen as helping China, since it distracts the West from China's global rise. At the regional level, Helsinki plans to enhance cooperation and update the foundational NORDEFCO agreement during its presidency of the organization in 2025. This push for renewal is driven by the evolving security environment and Finland’s recent accession to NATO alongside Sweden. Back in April 2024, the defense ministers of the member states signed a memorandum outlining a new vision for NORDEFCO. According to the document, by 2030 the countries plan to improve joint military planning and operations, make it easier to move troops across borders, boost cooperation and intelligence sharing, both directly and through NATO and the EU, and keep strengthening the defense industries of the Nordic countries. NORDEFCO is not officially seen as a mutual defense agreement or a command system like NATO; however, in recent years, it has started to show features usually found in a defense alliance, mostly because of the actions of some of its members. In 2021, the defense ministers of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden signed a deal to strengthen cooperation, allowing for "joint action in times of peace, crisis, or conflict." In 2022, they gave each other permission to use their airspace and military bases. That same year, the defense ministers of Finland, Norway, and Sweden updated their three-way agreement, further growing their military cooperation. After Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway made a joint promise to fully support them if either country were attacked. While NORDEFCO has not yet become an organization like NATO, the current level of defense cooperation between the Nordic countries at the regional level — and repeated promises to help each other in case of conflict — suggest that in the coming years, this effort might start to look like a smaller version of NATO in Northern Europe. This kind of setup would likely be less full of red tape, quicker at making decisions, and made up of countries that share similar views and speak with one voice. It would also have a lower risk of going backward — unlike some NATO members who, in recent years, have threatened to block decisions, added extra demands for new members, or even talked about leaving the Alliance. Defense and Military-Industrial Complex Expenditures Threats identified by Finnish politicians and the military automatically require growing expenditures and an acceleration of the defense industry. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), from 2014 to 2020, Finland’s military spending remained annually at the level of 1.5% of GDP, while in absolute terms it gradually increased — from $3.57 billion to $3.9 billion. Amid the pandemic in 2021, the figure dropped to $3.65 billion, but by the end of 2022 it amounted to $4.47 billion, and in 2023 — to $6.85 billion, or 2.4% of GDP. The British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) provides similar estimates: growth from $3.72 billion in 2014 to $6.89 billion in 2024, with the budget for 2025 estimated at $7.47 billion. Helsinki does not intend to stop there — on April 1, 2025, following recommendations from the Ministry of Defense, the government began preparations for a phased increase of the military budget to at least 3% of GDP by 2029. Over four years, it plans to raise allocations by €3.7 billion, expand the state defense order, and develop new rearmament programs for the 2030s. Helsinki also views the prospects of its domestic defense industry with optimism — according to the Finnish think tank SaferGlobe (which, according to its website, is “engaged in the study and development of tools to promote sustainable peace and security”), in 2023 arms exports reached €333 million (of which €141 million accounted for weapons intended for civilian use in self-defense, sports, and hunting) — a record since record-keeping began in 2002. About 85% of military exports were distributed within Europe. The largest importing countries by value were Sweden (€51 million), Latvia (€34 million), and Lithuania (€19 million) — together, these three countries accounted for more than half of all military product exports. In value terms, the largest share of exported military products (32%) consisted of land vehicles and their components. The next largest export categories were ammunition (17%), as well as explosives and charges (15%). The largest exports of civilian weapons were to the United States (€52 million), Canada (€15 million), and Australia (€9 million). The year 2023 also set a record for issued export licenses for military products — €667 million. The largest recipient countries of export licenses were Slovakia (€201 million), Japan (€154 million), and Ukraine (€88 million). Similar conclusions were reached by the state investment company Finnish Industry Investment (Tesi), which in autumn 2024 surveyed 368 domestic defense companies: 144 of them were identified as “fast-growing startups and growth companies,” while the rest were described as “more established players with a long history, mainly providing consulting services to the Finnish Defence Forces.” The highest growth rates were shown by producers of dual-use goods, whose net profit has increased annually by 30–40% since 2022. At the same time, companies engaged exclusively in the military sector faced difficulties in attracting investment. 50% of defense companies were located in the capital region of Uusimaa, where the leaders were Helsinki (74 companies) and its satellite city Espoo (65); another 16% were based in the Pirkanmaa region centered around Tampere (40). Rounding out the top five were the high-tech “capital” Oulu (21) and another satellite of Helsinki, Vantaa (14). By type of activity, the majority of companies (246) operated in the support and logistics sector; 70 were engaged in the design of combat command and control systems (C4I — Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence); 20 firms cooperated with the land forces, 13 with the navy, 10 with the air force, five worked in joint operations, and the remaining four were involved in space technologies. A New Strategy — A New President Finland’s entry into NATO happened during the second and final term of President Sauli Niinistö. While he followed the West’s general approach on the war in Ukraine and supported anti-Russian sanctions, he still tried to keep some level of political dialogue with Russia. After February 2022, this became almost impossible, and Finland officially ended its nearly 80-year policy of staying neutral. In the two-round election held in January and February 2024, Finnish voters chose Alexander Stubb from the National Coalition Party as their new president. Stubb studied in the United States and France, and previously worked as a Member of the European Parliament, as well as Finland’s Foreign Minister and Prime Minister. Back in 2014, when Finland still followed the "Paasikivi–Kekkonen line" of cautious foreign policy, Stubb was one of the only top officials who openly supported joining NATO. On the topic of relations with Russia, he said that “Russia’s integration with the West was an illusion.” This view may be influenced by his family history. Stubb’s father, Göran Stubb, was born in Käkisalmi — a town that was given to the Soviet Union after the Soviet–Finnish War of 1939–1940, renamed first as Kexholm (in Swedish), and later as Priozersk. On his father's side, Stubb’s grandparents came from Vyborg, which also became part of the Soviet Union after the war. However, the family had already moved to Helsinki before the conflict started. In his inaugural speech on March 1, 2024, Alexander Stubb uncompromisingly stated to the citizens of Finland that “the post–Cold War era is over” (placing the blame on Russia), “the instruments of cooperation have been turned into weapons,” “the world is in a transitional state,” and “the creation of a new world order takes time.” He added that Finns “will have to respond quickly to changing circumstances, as was the case with NATO membership,” and that “when times become difficult, I too will be ready to make tough decisions to ensure the security of our country.” In addition to his campaign promises, the newly elected president confirmed his commitment to the previously introduced “value-based realism” (arvopohjainen realismi), which he pledged to be guided by in the conduct of foreign policy if elected. Later, this was officially included in the government’s report on foreign and security policy in June 2024. Among other ideas, the report especially highlighted the following: commitment to democratic values, the rule of law, international law, and human rights; strengthening the country’s defense; staying out of military conflicts; and being open to dialogue with countries that do not share these values. The election of A. Stubb as president strengthened the pro-Western trends in Finland’s foreign policy. On September 1, 2024, the Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States entered into force, under which Finland opens 15 of its military facilities for possible use by U.S. forces, while Helsinki will not charge rent for premises or land made available to the United States. On September 27 of the same year, the Finnish Ministry of Defense announced the placement of NATO headquarters on Finnish territory — in Mikkeli in the southwest of the country, 140 km from the border with the Russian Federation, and in the northern region of Lapland. On April 1, 2025, the Finnish authorities announced preparations to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines (a similar step had previously been taken by the defense ministers of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Estonia), stating that this is “a cost-effective way to supplement the capabilities of the armed forces,” but adding that the country would remain “committed to the humanitarian goals of the convention” even after a possible withdrawal. On April 15, 2025, a Finnish servicemember took part for the first time in a flight aboard a NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft during Ramstein Alloy 2025 exercises in the Baltic region. The NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force (NAEW&CF) includes personnel from 17 countries, in addition to which Canada, France, Finland, and Lithuania also contribute their staff. NATO noted that the E-3A is the first multinational flying unit created by the Alliance. Statements regarding Russia, despite initial uncompromising tone, began to soften after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, who held a different view of the Ukrainian conflict compared to the strongly pro-Ukrainian administration of Joe Biden. As early as April 2024, Alexander Stubb stated that there was no need to conduct political dialogue with Russia, and considered military action the only path to peace in the context of Ukraine. Under the new Washington administration, the Finnish president approved of the negotiations between the U.S. and Russian leaders, but again repeated the Ukrainian position on the need for a “just peace” and Ukraine’s accession to the EU and NATO. During his March 2025 visit to Florida, Stubb attempted to dissuade Donald Trump from cooperating with Russia and also called for tougher sanctions against Moscow. On April 1, 2025, the Finnish president admitted that European countries had started talking about renewing contact with Russia. He said that Finland must "morally prepare" for rebuilding political ties with Russia, since "nothing changes the fact that Russia exists and will always be a neighbor." However, he did not give any timeline for when relations might be restored. The situation around the war in Ukraine is made more difficult by the Trump administration’s growing isolationism, along with threats to pull out of talks and a trade war that Washington has launched against almost the entire world (though some parts of it have been paused). This raises fears of a new “Great Depression.” The European Union’s success at the negotiating table will depend on how united its member states are, since they have different geopolitical interests. Although Finland supports calls for a ceasefire, it does not plan to stop its military support for Ukraine or oppose Ukraine joining NATO. Alexander Stubb, on at least two occasions (in November 2024 and March 2025), publicly warned Ukraine against following a “Finnish scenario.” This would mean giving up on NATO membership and possibly giving up territory—similar to what Finland did after World War II, when it accepted neutrality and lost 11% of its land. In a comment on efforts to resolve the conflict in 2025, Stubb criticized Finland’s past policy of “good neighborliness” with the Soviet Union. He said that while Finland kept its independence in 1944, it lost land, part of its sovereignty, and the ability to make its own decisions freely.