It was customary to say when President Trump assumed office that trade was one area worth watching. After all, Trump loved the word “tariffs” and threatened to use it massively against one and all. But fast forward 6 months, Trump has surprised everyone. Consider the deals he has made: with china in May, with Japan in July and now with EU. These are significant, since US, China, EU and Japan not only top the global GDP charts but also top the share of global trade. With these deals, it may even be argued, somewhat counterintuitively, that a certain amount of security and predictability has been injected by Trump into the global economy.

The one with China was perhaps the most important, at least from a geopolitical perspective. Foreign policy wonks were keen to know how he would deal with China. In the event, Trump agreed a deal with China, with both countries making compromises. The White House Fact Sheet said the following:

. Both US and China affirmed the importance of the critical bilateral economic and trade relationship between both countries and the global economy.

• For too long, unfair trade practices and America’s massive trade deficit with China have fueled the offshoring of American jobs and the decline of our manufacturing sector.
• In reaching an agreement, the United States and China will each lower tariffs by 115% while retaining an additional 10% tariff. Other U.S. measures will remain in place.
• Both sides will take these actions by May 14, 2025.
• This trade deal is a win for the United States, demonstrating President Trump’s unparalleled expertise in securing deals that benefit the American people.

The fact of the matter, however, is that both countries wanted a truce in the matter. But maybe, just maybe, the US wanted it more since China’s restrictions of rare earths to the American market had the potential to seriously hurt the US economy.

Japan, a treaty ally of the US, was next. Western analysts were concerned that Japan was being treated not as an ally but like any other country. But the deal announced on July 22 again called a truce between the two countries. The most important feature was the promised commitment by Japan to invest USD $550 billion directed by the United States to rebuild and expand core American industries. The following points are noteworthy:

• This is the single largest foreign investment commitment ever secured by any country in a trade deal and may generate U.S. jobs, expand domestic manufacturing, and secure American prosperity.
• These funds will be targeted toward the revitalization of America’s strategic industrial base, including:
  • Energy infrastructure and production, including LNG, advanced fuels, and grid modernization;
  • Semiconductor manufacturing and research, rebuilding U.S. capacity from design to fabrication;
  • Critical minerals mining, processing, and refining, ensuring access to essential inputs;
  • Pharmaceutical and medical production, ending U.S. dependence on foreign-made medicines and supplies;
  • Commercial and defense shipbuilding, including new yards and modernization of existing facilities.
• The United States will retain 90% of the profits from this investment.

Japan may have found it convenient to agree to this massive investment in the US, rather than risk a trade war with an important ally. Japan has also agreed to a baseline 15 per cent tariff and has agreed to open up its market for American agriculture products, US autos and also agreeed to buy commercial aircrafts and LNG from the US.

Last, but not least, US has also agreed to a trade deal with its most important transatlantic partner i.e. the EU on July 27. The White House Fact Sheet calls it a “massive trade deal”. Again, the US has emphasized the fact that the EU will purchase USD 750 billion in US energy and will make investments amounting to USD 600 billion in the US, both by 2028. With the exception of steel, aluminum and copper where the EU will pay 50 per cent tariffs, all other EU exports to the US will attract a baseline tariff of 15 per cent. There has been some criticism from some EU countries, mainly France against the deal agreed with the US by the Commission. It is doubtful however that any country will derail the deal reached with the US.

It is worth recalling that in April of this year President Trump declared a national emergency in response to the “large and persistent U.S. goods trade deficit caused by a lack of reciprocity in bilateral trade relationships, unfair tariff and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption”. The question is has Trump managed to find answers to the difficult question of America’s persistent trade deficit? Whatever the answer, it is clear that Trump’s negotiating strategy is based on two main objectives: one, securing market access using tariffs as an instument and two, seeking massive foreign investment from its trading partners into the US to create jobs and a manufacturing base to make America great again. Will it work? Only time will tell.

June 5 was the world environment day. But it came and went without a trace. If there is one area where it is hard to make Cassandra-like predictions, it is climate change. The incontrovertible evidence is all round us. Intense rainfall and flooding has been observed in several southern provinces of China, not to mention unprecedented heatwaves in Beijing. Devastating floods in Texas recently took precious lives. Searing heat and water shortage, the likes of it one has never heard of in Europe. And the latest data makes it clear that 2024 was a watershed moment for India, and not in a good way. It was India’s warmest year on record, with 25 Indian states experiencing record-breaking rainfall.

To put things in perspective, the top Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emitters in the world are China, US, India and EU (taken as one country). For the year 2023, China was responsible for a whopping 30 per cent of total GHG emissions in the world, followed by USA with 12 per cent, India with 7.8 per cent and EU with about 7 per cent. Combined, these four entities are responsible for over 55 per cent of global GHG emissions. So, if the fight against climate change is to be meaningful, it is this category of countries which have to make a difference.

Among the four, it is China which really requires global attention but has largely escaped it by hiding behind India at UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) negotiations and by claiming developing country status. For a country the same population (more or less) as India, it emits a huge amount of greenhouse gases, which is unparalleled in the world. In addition, China accounts for approximately 53.8% of global coal consumption which means that it actually burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. And China until recently was building six times more new coal plants than the rest of the world combined. While it is true that China is also the global lead spender on renewables, it is simply showing no sign of admitting that it should have reached peak emissions at least a decade ago. Instead, it has recently committed to peak emissions in the year 2030 although there are several reports saying it has already reached peak in 2023. It has also committed to net zero by 2060, which is simply too late. All this is a complete travesty of China’s commitment to fight against climate change. This is important since the more China takes up the limited carbon space available in the world, the less will actually become available for countries like India and those in Africa.

US has recently sent clear signals that it is no longer interested in taking a leadership role in the fight against climate change. It has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. Recent executive decisions suggest there will be more loggging of national forests in America and we all know about “drill, baby, drill” to ramp up oil and gas production. A number of environmental regulations have been rolled back by the US Environmental Protection Agency in March 2025. There has also been a pushback against the use of Electric Vehicles in the US.

The case of the European Union is most interesting. It was supposed to take on the global leadership role as the only “green superpower”. European Council President Ursula Von der Leyen announced the so-called “Green Deal” in 2019 with great fanfare describing the climate plan as a “man on the moon moment,” a revolutionary transformation of the European economy that would lead to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and changes to nearly every sector of the economy. But six years later, the Green Deal is unravelling. Far from charting a path toward climate leadership, the Green Deal has exposed European Union’s structural weakness and its inability to reconcile environmental ambitions with economic, democratic, and geopolitical realities. Over the past two years, opposition to the Green Deal has exploded in Europe—from farmers, industry groups and ordinary citizens and to populist political parties. The 2024 European Parliament elections saw a surge in right-populist representation, unified in their criticism of the green agenda. As a result, the European Commission has quietly but decisively begun to roll back many of the Green Deal’s key provisions. Recent reversals include watering down soil and chemical safety regulations, repurposing climate funds for military spending, watering down biodiversity protections, and removing the phrase “Green Deal” from the European Parliament’s reports. Even the 2040 emissions reduction target, announced recently, includes major loopholes and exemptions, such as allowing EU countries to meet future emissions targets by buying carbon credits from other countries. The signs are clear: Europe’s purported “green revolution” is in retreat.

India finds itself in a quandary. On the one hand, it is likely to come under lesser global pressure than before to take on onerous commitments in the area of climate change. After all, the principal polluters are looking for bailouts from their own climate commitments. On the other hand, India is also a vicitm of climate change and it needs tremendous amounts of finance to tackle both mitigation and adaptation. But finance is not likely to be forthcoming. That said, India may get valuable policy space because of the positions taken by the big polluters, namely, China, US and EU, which has been outlined above. India must put this period to good use by taking on ambitious climate targets, of its own will and volition, something that is in its own national interest. This window of opportunity for India will not be unlimited in scope and time. India chafes at external pressure; perhaps, it can prove to the world that it is capable of taking critical decisions at its own rhythm and pace.

In sum, the global fight against climate change is floundering and there is virtually no power to take on the leadership mantle in this crucial area. It is a sign of the times that the existential issue of climate change is not getting the traction it deserves.

Lenin’s reported quote: There are decades where nothing happens; then there are weeks where decades happen, is terribly apt for the decade of the 2020s so far. And mind you the decade is only half way through.

It all began with the COVID which broke by the end of 2019. It was as black swan as they come. The world ground to a halt and the global economy tanked. The word “zoom” became commonplace as did “work from home”. Most of all, wearing masks became ubiquitous, out of fear if nothing else. Millions perished, including in developed countries. For those of us born post-World War II, the idea of people dying in peacetime due to disease and illness was a first and a disturbingly novel experience. COVID had lasting impacts. First, the idea of resilient supply chains was born since the global value chains simply failed to deliver. Second, I wonder what would have happened if COVID had broken out not in China but say, in the African continent. Would the world have reacted the same way as it did? But then, no one said things were fair in this world. Third, the marvel of Science by which a vaccine was developed in record time and produced for mass consumption was very impressive. Last, but not least, India proved to the world that its rough and tumble democracy, for all its alleged dysfunctionality, can deliver results – after all, vaccinating a billion people twice over was no mean achievement.

Just as the world showed signs of recovering from the disruption caused by COVID, Russian President Putin decided to invade Ukraine in February 2022. This one act upended the security architecture of europe and created such geopolitical mayhem that the former German Chancellor Scholz was constrained to use the word “Zeitenwende”. For once, this was not customary hyperbole by a politician. “Zeitenwende” it certainly was with Ukraine initially supported to the hilt by the US and more broadly the West, resulting in short term gains for it. But Russia and reality imposed themselves on Ukraine soon enough and a war of attrition ensued. This, inevitably, played to Russia’s advantage.

As if the above were not enough, the Hamas carried out horrific attcks in Israel in Octber 2023 which unleashed a train of events in that most volatile of regions i.e. Middle East. With Iran under attack from both Israel and the US, the Middle East is up in flames at the time of writing. Pakistan, as is its wont, did what it does best: carry out terrorist attacks in Kashmir which brought the two countries to blows in May 2025. And China, against the run of play, attacked India in May 2020 along the Himalayan border to provoke a bloody conflict which disrupted peace that had largely held for decades.

But it was in January 2025, that the unthinkable (at least for many people if not all) happened and Trump won a convincing victory in elections to become the 47th President of the United States of America. It was a remarkable victory against all odds. A lot of people had written him off. Yet others predicted a narrow victory. In the event, it was close to a landslide. With President Trump, what you see is what you more or less get. So, in the 6 months he has spent in office, he has transformed the American judiciary, its executive, its economy and its foreign & security policy. And because it is the United States of America that we are talking about, the impact of the Trump presidency was felt all over the world in small or big measure. Every major and middle power has had to make adjustments to its foreign and security policy vis-a-vis the US. Perhaps no other power more so than Europe. Not to put too fine a point on it, the transatlantic relationship is under enormous stress and it is not clear what strategic outcome can be expected in the future. The NATO just concluded its summit in The Hague and while it just about managed to preserve itself, the proof of the funding commitments by many European countries is in the eventual coughing up of money. President Trump means it when he says America comes first for him and is totally determined to try and make America great again. History will judge him solely on how successful he is in this endeavour.

By middle of 2025, if one were to sum up the geopolitical mid-term report, it would be this: We are clearly in a post-Western world order!

The NATO Summit concluded on 25 June and the Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in The Hague is a remarkable one for what it does not say, rather than what it does. The following points suggest themselves.

The length of the declaration appears to be strongly influenced by President Trump. It has exactly five short paragraphs. Compare this with the thirty eight paragraphs last year at the Washington Summit (July 2024) and ninety paragraphs, yes ninety, in Vilnius, Lithuania (July 2023). Even so, this year’s NATO Declaration is ridiculously brief since it has nothing to say on recent geopolitical developments.

On Russia, the relevant language is “long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security” which is then linked to the commitment of all NATO Members to increase their defence expenditure to 5 per cent of GDP, a subject close to Trump’s heart. Compare this to last year’s language on Russia:

“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security.” The language in 2023 read thus: “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” So, the question is what has changed for NATO? Is it the fact that President Trump is still mediating an end to the war in Ukraine? It is also interesting that NATO now believes the threat from Russia is “long term” rather than “direct”.

The most interesting thing about this year’s Declaration is that there is hardly anything substantial about Ukraine. It says “Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies’ defence spending.” It makes it sound like an accounting methodology, rather than a solid commitment. A far cry from past declarations which stated clearly: Ukraine’s future is in NATO. President Zelensky cannot be thrilled.

The NATO Summit Declarations of 2024 and 2023 also had critical references to China. The 2024 Declaration said among other things that: ” China continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security. We have seen sustained malicious cyber and hybrid activities, including disinformation, stemming from China”. Similarly, the 2023 NATO Declaration said: “China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.” The current Declaration has no reference whatsoever to China. China will be relieved that NATO is no longer focusing on its activities, whether benign or malignant.

In the past, North Korea came in for severe condemnation at NATO Summits. For instance: “We condemn in the strongest terms the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) WMD and ballistic missile programmes which violate multiple UN Security Council Resolutions.” This time there is radio silence on DPRK.

Past NATO Declarations have referred to the strategic nuclear force of the Alliance, particularly that of the United States, calling it the supreme guarantee of the security of the Alliance. The current Declaration makes no reference to this, perhaps indicating a subtle shift in policy from the US?

Past NATO Declarations have talked of EU-NATO cooperation and how the European Union remains a unique and essential partner for NATO. Again, the current NATO Declaration is silent on this aspect.

Considering Iran and Israel have been at each other’s throats and the US has used bunker busters against Iran just a few days before the Summit, one might have expected the NATO to say something on this earthshaking geopolitical event in the Middle East. But no, it is as though the events of the past few days in the Middle East never happened.

In conclusion, this NATO Summit in The Hague on June 25 was focused on achieving one single objective i.e. ensuring that President Trump is committed to the collective security of the Alliance outlined in Article 5. Indeed the very first paragraph of The Hague Declaration talks of this: “We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all.” In return, the NATO Members have all made a solemn commitment to raising their annual defence expenditure to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. It should be clear to all that NATO at its recent summit meeting wanted, above all, to guarantee its survival & relevance by ensuring continued American support. Nevertheless, a total of just five paragraphs for the final declaration of a summit-level meeting involving 32 Heads of State/Government must be a first in global diplomacy.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is some reordering of the world which is under way. Some of it had begun well before President Trump took office in 2025. It is nevertheless fair to conclude that his actions are expediting matters in this regard. While the broad contours of a fragmented multipolar world are discernible, it is hard to know what the end product will look like.

Monroe Doctrine Lite: After decades of limited engagement, the US under President Trump 2.0 has once again started focusing on the Western Hemisphere. US appears to have three strategic objectives in mind. First, immigration and border security. Second, drug trafficking, with specific focus on Fentanyl. Last, but not least, China’s strategic and economic presence in Latin America which is a source of great concern for the US. In response, the Trump administration has used a carrot and stick approach to countries in the region. For example, Mexico’s National Guard was deployed to intercept migrants travelling northward, essentially serving as an extension of the U.S. border. On drug trafficking, Canada is taking significant action to stop the production and devastating impacts of illegal fentanyl and other illegal drugs on public health and public safety. The Canadian Government is investing over $30 million to launch a Precursor Chemical Risk Management Unit (PCRMU) and $48 million to establish the Canadian Drug Analysis Centre (CDAC). Canada is working closely with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration to enhance existing collaboration and information sharing between our governments. But it is China’s increasing trade, investment and infrastructure imprint in the Western Hemishpere that is most concerning to the US. As a result of not-so-subtle pressure from the US, Panama was the first Latin American country to pull out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The issue of Panama Canal illustrates American concerns about Chinese influence. Though the Canal itself is operated by Panama, the ports on either side of the crucial maritime passage are owned by China. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to take control of the Panama Canal. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, was to buy controlling share of the two ports on either side of the canal, but Chinese regulators have reportedly put the sale on hold. Recent reports also highlight Chinese ownership of ports in Jamaica, Peru and Mexico.

In May 2025, China hosted the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum in Beijing. Colombia signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative. Public opinion polling showed the United States is ceding ground to China in South America. Last year, trade between Latin America and China exceeded $ 500 billion for the first time. Brazil is hoping to take advantage of renewed trade tensions between the United States and China to boost soy exports to China, potentially resulting in an additional $7 billion in profits due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Last year, Brazil supplied more than 70 per cent  of China’s soy imports. So far, US efforts to achieve its strategic objectives in the Western Hemisphere have met with mixed results. But the US-China tug of war may be expected to continue. Whatever else US does, it will seek to exercise maximum influence in the Western Hemishpere.

Dramatic Power Shift in the Middle East: The real geopolitical change, dramatic even by the region’s volatile standards, has occurred in the Middle East, otherwise known as West Asia. First, there was the horrific terrorist attacks of Hamas on October 7, 2023. Following that, Israel unleashed devastating attacks in Gaza leading to massive destruction of life and property. A complex mix of authorities governs the 5.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza strip and West Bank. With the destruction of Gaza, the weakening of Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, it is fair to say that Israel holds the strings to the ultimate fate awaiting the Palestinians. Israel has also gone about defenestrating Iran’s proxies i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, with great success. The US has actively helped Israel in achieving this. But it is the latest action by Israel & the US against Iran that represents a pardigm shift in the geopolitics of the Middle East. In the short term, it leaves Israel enormously strengthened at the expense of every other power in the Middle East. Two forces were eternally aligned against Israel in the past i.e. the Palestinian cause for nationhood and the Shia actor Iran. Both were not just implacably opposed to Israel but challenged the very legitimacy of Israel as a state. Today, Israel under Netanyahu can justifiably argue that both these forces have been significantly weakened, if not destroyed altogether. The position of the other powers in the Middle East is disingenuous. On the one hand, they will all pay lip service to the Palestinian cause and express strong criticism of the US/Israel bombing of Iran. But it is hard to see them going beyond that. The only concern for some of these powers will be whether the Arab street rises in anger and fury. So far, there is very little evidence of this occurring. In the long term, it is far from clear that all this will lead to some kind of equilibrium, much less peace, in a region that is notorious for producing more history than it can consume.

Russia back in Europe: When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it seemed at the beginning as though this would be a cake walk for Russia. After all, one was a huge nuclear ex-super power and the other was a relatively small country on the margins of Europe. Russia’s stated objectives were to occupy territory, to de-nazify the regime and render Ukraine free from both NATO and Western influence forever. To everyone’s surprise, Ukraine fought back bravely and resisted for a while. Eventually though, reality imposed itself and Russia not only succeeded in occupying 20 per cent of territory but also inflicted disproportionate damage to Ukrainian lives and property. At the time of writing, there is a war of attrition in which Russia certainly holds the upper hand. President Trump’s arrival in the White House has also changed the dynamics of the Western alliance which supports Ukraine. Europe has been largely left to fend for itself and a diplomatic solution seems the only way out. But Russia can be expected to play hardball, having got the better of Ukraine on the battlefield. In any future European security architecture, Russia can and must be expected to assume a principal role. Europe thus has no choice but to reckon with a resurgent Russia.

China on the sidelines: It is easy to think that China, the other Great Power, would be pleased with all these developments for no other reason than it would keep the US bogged down and take the focus away from the Indo-Pacific. But that would be an incorrect reading of the situation. The fact of the matter is that despite being a Great Power, China has had nothing to do with the above momentous events and is not in a position to shape strategic outcomes in theatres other than its own. A Middle East in turmoil with a weakened Iran is simply not in the long-term interest of China which still depends on crude oil imports via the Strait of Hormuz, not to mention the strategic investment that the Chinese have made in Iran. And Israel has reasons to be miffed with China. Similarly, a resurgent Russia has more strategic room for manoeuvre and is likely to avoid total dependence on China. All things considered, an unstable Middle East and a resurgent Russia works against China’s fundamental interests. In all of this, China’s strategic options are diminshing, not expanding.

India’s Challenge: India’s primary challenge emanates from South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. There is a tendency in India to obsess about Pakistan and follow every move it makes. This is indicative of strategic insecurity which must be overcome. Frankly, there is no comparison between India and Pakistan at present and at least we must be sure of this, even if others are not. Yes, the US is encouraging Pakistan for its own strategic expedience, whether it is pursuing its interests in the Afpak region or indeed to try and drive a wedge between Pakistan and China. We can and should monitor Pakistan’s strategic moves in this regard but I hardly think there is justification for fretting and fuming. I think India’s principal challenge lies in the Indo-Pacific region in coping with China and conquering its own internal demons: the latter having to do with economic growth and social cohesion. If India does that successfully, other things will follow.

There is wide consensus among foreign policy wonks that the Liberal International Order established in the aftermath of World War II has well and truly ended. There is also substantial agreement that a new and settled order is yet to take its place. So, what are we witnessing at present and how can countries navigate this turbulent period?

Politically, the great institutions set up immediately after the end of World War II are displaying signs of irreversible atrophy. The main among these is the United Nations (UN) set up with enormous idealism in 1945. The UN Charter stood the test of time with articles of faith such as national sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and refraining from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of a member state. Looking at the world today, it is hard to imagine any of the above principles being scrupulously observed by even the so-called permanent members of the UN Security Council, the P5 as it were. If the P5 cannot set an example, why should other member states follow the UN Charter? In a situation where it is each country to its own and the devil take the hindmost, the world has quickly moved from relative order to utter disorder. Examples abound: Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, South Sudan, Myanmar — the list is endless.

The paralysis of the UN has been accompanied by a real tumult in the transatlantic alliance between US and Europe and the coming into being of new alliance-like ties between China and Russia. This is putting tremendous strain on the regulatory architecture that had hitherto kept peace in the world for much of the cold war period.

From an economic and trade perspective, the guardian was the World Trade Organization (WTO) which came into being with fanfare in 1995. After successfully fulfilling its mandate for about a decade, the organization began a process of terminal decline which now appears unstoppable. All three functions of the WTO, namely, negotiations, dispute settlement and trade monitoring have ground to a halt. And the WTO has little to show now for the 30 years it has existed. The result has been a free for all in which there has been a tariff war, a rush to sign Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which are not necessarily WTO-compatible, weaponisation of trade, investment and technology and a mad rush to acquire critical minerals and rare earths.

From a military perspective, world military expenditure reached a little under 2.8 trillion dollars in 2024, rising by about 10 per cent compared to 2023, which is the steepest year-on-year rise since the end of cold war. There are as many as 22 conflicts in the world classified as wars. Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East all have serious ongoing conflicts and the UN Security Council, specifically tasked to resolve matters involving war and peace, appears impotent to both putting an end to existing wars or indeed preventing new ones from occurring. Institutions like the NATO are wobbly and dialogue between the Great Powers such as US, China and Russia is either absent or highly inadequate. 2025 may well be the most violent year that mankind has seen since the end of World War II.

The stability of the international relations system depends, inter alia, on the distribution of power among the major countries, such as US, China and Russia. The system is likely to be stable when either there is a single hegemon which has the potential to impose its will in any part of the world (unipolar moment) or there is a concert among the major powers , signifying a balance of power (better part of the cold war period). Today’s world resembles neither of the above scenarios.

US is doubtless the most pre-eminent power in the world today. But China is catching up fast and there are a plethora of middle powers who can swing one way or the other. This essentially means that the US, despite being the most powerful country in the world, cannot always have its way in every region of the world. Indeed, the Great Powers, namely, US, China and Russia are challenged even in what may be considered their own backyard. The current world order is therefore characterised by “fragmented multipolarity” which by definition entails instability and unpredictability. This makes it challenging for decision-makers and statesmen to formulate viable foreign and security policies which can withstand the turbulence inherent in the existing strategic landscape. There is really no alternative for a majority of the countries except to hedge their bets, say a prayer and hope for the best.

It is perhaps too soon to dissect the intricate details of the conflict that was triggered by the horrific terrorist attacks that took place at Pahalgam on April 25. Yet, some lesssons can be learnt and some inferences drawn even at this preliminary stage.

Change in military doctrine: By declaring to the outside world that any future terrorist attack will be deemed an act of war, India has signalled a fundamental change in its military doctrine vis-a-vis Pakistan. This should act as a serious deterrence but only time will tell. Having announced this doctrine, we must do everything to implement it fully and unreservedly, should an eventuality occur in the future.

Airpower: In terms of the number of fighter aircrafts, India only enjoys a slight numerical advantage i.e. 513 for India as opposed to 328 for Pakistan. This plus the fact that our initial attacks had lost all element of surprise helped matters for Pakistan. Pakistan may have had lesser drones, overall, than India, but it is a fact that 300 to 400 drones were used just on the night of 8 and 9 May alone, as confirmed by our military. This may be kept in mind for the future. There must be an audit, in due course, of how effective our fighter aircrafts were, how many we lost and more crucially, the role of Chinese fighter aircrafts and Turkish drones in this conflict. Remedial measures after proper evaluation cannot be postponed any further.

Air Defence: This is one area where India came out absolutely on top. S 400 missile defense system deserves praise, perhaps the best in the business. With its ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously (as many as 36) it probably saved a lot of lives and property for us. The Barak-8 used by us, was jointly developed by India and Israel, and is a versatile surface-to-air missile system designed for both land and naval platforms and offers a range of 70 to 100 kilometers. Finally, we also used the indigenous Akash which is a short range defence system  to protect vulnerable areas and vulnerable points from air attacks. The attack by the Pakistan Fatah-II missile on India was thwarted in Sirsa (Haryana) and that was dangerously close to Delhi. All three missile defense systems therefore deserve praise, but the “Sudarshan Chakra S-400” system takes the cake.

Tipping point? It is too early to confirm this, but the tipping point in this conflict may well have been our attack targeting the Nur Khan, Murid and Rafiqui airbases. Nur Khan base, Rawalpindi, is a mere 10 Kms from Islamabad. More importantly, it is not that far from Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Headquarters. The existential fear of Pakistan is that India, through a strike, can decapacitate this nuclear command centre. Is it possible that this was conveyed by the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir to American Secretary of State Marco Rubio? The IMF loan to Pakistan may have also played a secondary role.

US Role: It is hard to deny a substantive, if not exclusive, role played by the US in all of this. There have been telephonic conversations not just between Rubio and Indian interlocutors, but Vice President JD Vance seems to have talked to PM Modi as well. This after saying previously that the Indo-Pak conflict was “fundamentally not the business” of the US. Again, what made the US change its mind so quickly? The above fear of nuclear conflagration may have been one reason; second, it is good for the Trump administration to score a diplomatic success while facing headwinds in both Ukraine and Gaza.

Support for India: Israel’s support for India was unconditional and that was good to see. US certainly supported our right to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, before getting involved in some kind of mediation. Our other partners such as EU, Japan and more broadly the G7 countries made it a point to condemn the terrorist attacks before calling on both sides (emphasis mine) to exercise restraint, thus creating a morally false equivalence. Worse still, no one really called out Pakistan by name. This requires detailed scrutiny and introspection by us. Could it have been any different if we had furnished some proof of Pak involvement? What about the five eyes’ countries and their evidence gathering ability? We must hold them to this at least in the future. Also, if we had proof that two of the terrorists were Pakistanis, could we have shared this with the world at large. May be we did with select partners, but international press coverage may have been a tad better if we had done that without compromising our sources. That said, the Western press coverage of the Pahalgam incidents themselves were abysmally one-sided and misleading.

Future Scenarios: We have made it clear that while we accept the cease fire, all other measures announced in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attacks such as our holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance etc will remain. For now, we must maintain only military level contacts at the level of DGMO which is essential for maintaing peace. During the conflict, there were unconfirmed reports of the National Security Advisers of both countries being in touch. There was a curious reference in the message on “X” by Secretary Marco Rubio that both India and Pakistan have consented to start talks on a “broad set of issues at a neutral site”. This has since been denied by Indian sources. Be that as it may, what did Secretary Rubio have in mind? Back-channel talks? Either way, this will be problematic for India and may be widely perceived as Pakistan being “rewarded” for carrying out terrorist attacks. In any case, in the immediate future the goal must be on maintaining peace and tranquility between the two countries.

Big Picture: I had said earlier that for India, Pakistan must remain a sideshow. It cannot take its eye off the ball when it comes to achieving economic heft, military dominance and maintaining social cohesion. The last mentioned point was admirably displayed by the nation during the conflict. Political parties in India also spoke with one voice. But India is at a crossroad. A lot of nation building is still required on the political, economic, social and military front. The country must now move on from this sad episode and hunker down to achieve the ultimate goal of overwhelming and comprehensive national power.

It is hugely risky to write anything definitive about a kinetic military operation which is still ongoing. And yet, something deserves to be said about India’s diplomatic and military moves in the past one week. There was absolute consensus within the country that the terrorist attacks in Pahalgam were horrific and condemnable. One does not need to be a strategic affairs expert to infer where the terrorists got their support from. Equally, the strong sentiment in India was that something needed to be done by our armed forces by way of retaliation.

Two excellent moves by India to begin with. First, to call it “Operation Sindoor” was brilliant for all the connotation that it entailed. Second, getting two wonderful armed forces personnel i.e. Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Colonel Sofiya Qureshi to brief the nation on the military operation was a real masterstroke. The professionalism and symbolism of that briefing was noteworthy and there for the world to see. The larger strategic calculus is that “Operation Sindoor” may be part of a long term plan by India to tackle Pakistan in particular and terrorism in general.

The operation itself was characterised by restraint and precision. Restraint, because the Pak military was deliberately not targeted. Precision, because of the kind of activities that went on in the buildings that were targeted. Two key questions suggest themselves: (1) Would it be right to say India has achieved escalation dominance vis-a-vis Pakistan? (2) Can things still spiral out of control? On the first, this is as close to escalation dominance that India has come, keeping in mind all similar episodes in the past. The reasons are not far to seek. We now enjoy an economy ten times the size of Pakistan, overwhelming conventional superiority and an Air Force which is more than a match. That said, Pakistan is also in a bad way both economically and politically, thus helping matters for us. It is my assessment that total escalation dominance can be attained when India becomes the third largest economy with some 10 Trillion dollars worth of GDP with a commensurate per capita income. The terrorist attacks had two immediate objectives and one that was long term. The two immediate ones were to demonstrate to the world that Kashmir was anything but normal and the other was to disrupt internal cohesion in India, particularly from a Hindu-Muslim angle. The long term objective of the attacks was to somehow prevent or slow down India from achieving international political clout and overall economic heft necessary for total escalation dominance. For all these reasons, India’s stakes in avoiding a regional conflagration are much higher than Pakistan’s. We can all be proud of the internal cohesion that India has demonstrated so far in this period of crisis.

One indication that there are elements in Pakistan that realize the stakes for them are also high is the reported statement by the Pak Premier that it has already “given a befitting response” to “Operation Sindoor”. Regardless of whether or not one or two of our aircrafts have been downed, if matters can be allowed to rest here, it is no bad thing. Whether this is mere wishful thinking, we will all know soon enough.

US reaction has been unsurprising. They have so many irons in the fire that their only wish is to see that this does not lead to a wider regional conflict. After all, they have no Assistant Secretary for South Asia in place and do not have envoys in either New Delhi or Islamabad. Still, America’s implicit support for India was all too obvious. Israel’s support for India, on the other hand, was all too explicit. Today is Israel’s national day and one can expect warm sentiments pouring in for it from Indians in all walks of life. EU’s reaction was arguably meek as was Japan’s. Both of them wanted nothing more than for the two parties to exercise restraint. The External Affairs Minister stated, somewhat testily, that India was seeking partners not preachers! But it is also important for Indians to recognize that with so much of strategic turbulence ( Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen and the Indo-Pacific, not to mention the tariff imbroglio), the world at large does not wish to see another theater of conflict between two nuclear powers.

China’s reaction has been most interesting. It has made the appropriate amount of noise supporting its “iron brother” Pakistan, but has sounded like a Great Power calling for restraint from both India and Pakistan. Their media has gone overboard giving credence to mischievous reports from the Pak side, which was properly countered by our Mission in Beijing. Still, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Himalayas is quiet, despite massive troop presence maintained by either country. The importance of this in the current context cannot be overstated. Maybe, just maybe, the Chinese are serious about a rapprochement with India.

To conclude, this is an ongoing episode and so it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions just yet. It is however vital that India not take its eye off the ball. The overall strategic objective for India must be to achieve economic heft, to acquire military superiority and to maintain absolute internal cohesion. Important as it is, Pakistan must remain a sideshow for India.

The two-front scenario that India might face has been analyzed to death by both military and strategic scholars. This is commonly understood to mean that India may be forced into a situation where it has no choice but to tackle China and Pakistan, both at once. The Late Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat as far back as September 2020 had said: “Chinese economic cooperation with Pakistan, in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, along with continued military, economic and diplomatic support mandate high levels of preparation by us. This also poses the threat of coordinated action along the northern and western fronts, which we have to consider in our defence planning”. In October 2020, the then Air Force Chief RKS Bhadauria stated in a press conference that his “force was ready for a two-front war”. In January 2021, the then Army Chief General Naravane said: “There is increased cooperation between Pakistan and China, both in military and non-military fields. A two-front situation is something we must be ready to deal with”. Thus, it is fair to say that the top Indian military leadership has been carefully considering and seriously preparing for a two-front security threat. But preparation is one thing; confronting it in reality is another.

The real question at present is whether the two-front nightmare has come true for India? It is easy to forget that following the deadly clashes in Ladakh in June 2020, there was massive mobilization of troops by both China and India. Since then, there have been numerous parleys between the two countries leading to some military disengagement of troops especially in Eastern Ladakh. But the fundamental fact remains that as many as 50,000 Chinese soldiers and an equal number of Indian troops are in a “eyeball to eyeball” situation. The Sino-Indian border, fortunately, is not “hot” and a thaw in Sino-Indian ties is both evident and welcome. Even so, it is hard to deny that there is a strategic threat confronted by India at its Himalayan border with China.

On 22 April 2025, a group of five armed terrorists attacked tourists in the picturesque Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, Kashmir. 26 innocent tourists lost their lives and at least twenty others were injured. This was by far the deadliest terrorist attack that India has endured since the horrific 2008 events in Mumbai. A little known offshoot of the well known Pak-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, called The Resistance Front, initially claimed responsibility, only to retract it four days later. That does not change the fact of Pakistan’s involvement which India announced to the world at large, before taking a series of punitive measures: Holding of the bilateral Indus Waters Treaty (1960) in abeyance, closing the Integrated Check Post Attari, cancelling the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme for Pak nationals, declaring defence personnel posted at the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi as Persona Non Grata and bringing the overall strength of the High Commissions down to 30 from 55. Pakistan took retaliatory action, mirroring most of India’s measures. Most imortantly, Pakistan suspended the Simla Agreement of 1972. It seems unlikely that the matter will end here. There is almost a presentiment of some military action that India might undertake, at a time and place of its choosing. It is fair to say that the Indian subcontinent is on edge.

With fifty thousand troops each from China and India continuing to remain in Ladakh and the Indo-Pak border seeing live exchange of fire over the last few days, both the LOC (the Line of Control which separates India from Pakistan as the de facto border) and the LAC (the Line of Actual Control which separates India from China as the de facto border) are in an abnormal state. For India therefore, there is little doubt that a two-front strategic threat now emanates from both the LOC and the LAC. This is probably the first time in independent India that this has come about. Some go as far as to say that there might be a three-front threat, given the linkages developing between the Pak and Bangladesh armies, but I will desist from going there.

It will be interesting to see how China deals with the emerging crisis between India and Pakistan. On the one hand, China is Pakistan’s all weather friend and it is easy to see unconditional support for Pakistan coming from China. On the other hand, there is an ensuing thaw in Sino-Indian ties and India will want to know whether China is willing to risk it all by throwing its weight behind Pakistan in the unfortunate eventuality of hostilities breaking out between India and Pakistan.

How the Trump Administration reacts to all of this is crucial as well. Two statements by President Trump may be revelatory in this regard. One, when PM Modi was visiting DC in February this year and in the joint press conference with President Trump, a question was posed about events in Bangladesh. While the question was directed at President Trump, he responded by saying that PM Modi will take the question on Bangladesh. In reaction to the events in Pahalgam, President Trump called the terrorist attacks a “bad one”, mischaracterised the Kashmir issue as going on for 1000 years and when asked whether he would intervene, President Trump declined and said “they (meaning India and Pakistan) will get it figured out one way or the other.” With US focusing its efforts on resolving the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza, pursuing the tariff war and monitoring the emerging threats in Indo-Pacific, it should hardly surprise anyone that the US may neither have the inclination nor the bandwidth to tackle conflict in South Asia, should it arise.

The bottomline therefore is this. The continuing stand-off in Ladakh and recent events in Pahalgam have brought India’s strategic focus back to the LOC and the LAC. India will need to rely both on military deterrence and nimble diplomacy to ensure that what is at present a two-front threat does not escalate into a two-front war in the future.

The US Department of Defense is periodically tasked with preparation of an interim guidance in the form of a memo. It is usually classified and the last known one that I could see online was four years ago. Since this memo is secret and dated March 2025, the only way to get hold of its contents is through newspaper leaks.

The leaked features of the memo, which have not been denied by the US Department of Defense, if true, indicates major shifts in American Defence posturing and strategy. This was only to be expected what with the new Trump adminstration ringing in enormous changes in American foreign and security policy. Given below are the main aspects of the new defense doctrine along with comments:

(1) China is the American Defense Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland — is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.

Comment: This is the first time the US is placing the Chinese threat in Taiwan alongside and on the same level as homeland security. This plus the tariff war unleashed against China ( US has imposed massive triple digit tariffs against Chinese imports, even while not sparing its friends and allies) makes it abundantly clear who the US thinks its main adversary is. Additionally, there will be a heightened focus on bunker-busting bombs and other weapons designed to destroy reinforced targets, which could be crucial in a conflict over Taiwan. The Washington Post noted that these strategic shifts are part of a broader effort to deter China from launching a surprise attack, often referred to as a “fait accompli” seizure of Taiwan.

(2)   US will pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to spend more on defense to take on the bulk of the deterrence role against threats from Russia, North Korea and Iran.

Comment: It is clear that the US will at best provide a “backstop” (if that) and leave the job of providing Europe’s security to Europe. The big change therefore seems to be a reduced focus in Europe, no question about that.

More crucially, Japan and South Korea should take note: the main job of deterring North Korea (which is supported by China and more recently by Russia) falls on them.

On Iran, the role of deterrence would fall presumably on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Again, these propositions, if confirmed to be true, would indicate that the Middle East would likely get higher priority than Europe in the American scheme of things.

(3) The Trump administration also has a vision for the Indo-Pacific region. It wants Taiwan to sharply increase its defense outlays. The administration also wants to work with Japan and other allies to enhance deterrence against China. The Pentagon’s new plan involves increasing the deployment of submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialized Army and Marine Corps units in the Indo-Pacific.

Comment: Presumably, the deterrence against China by co-opting its allies and partners would be in addition to its own defence posturing against China. US treating Japan and South Korea more favourably than Europe may also be explained by this.

(4) US attaches high importance to protecting American interests in the Western Hemisphere, such as ensuring access to the Panama Canal and combatting drug and human trafficking cartels in Latin America. The White House, according to the leaked memo, has asked for credible military options from the Pentagon to ensure unfettered access to the Panama Canal.

Comment: Monroe doctrine 2.0

(5) US believes that European countries should play a greater role in dealing with the Ukraine situation.

Comment: If the US means this, then Europe should be more involved in the mediation talks being held with Russia and Ukraine. The EU Commission President Von der Leyen is yet to meet President Trump. And its foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas was basically stood up by Secretary Marco Rubio when she went to Washington some weeks ago, causing her to miss the trip of the EU College of Commissioners to India.

None of the above should come as a total surprise. President Trump and his cabinet colleagues have been hinting at all of the above, either implicitly or sometimes even explicitly. Still, if the secret memo is true (and there is no reason to believe it is not), then it has the potential to fundamentally recast the international strategic landscape.