51Թ

FO° Talks: An Indian Ringside View of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict

Air Commodore Ashutosh Lal offers a detailed view of the Russia–Ukraine war, drawing from his experiences as India’s air attache in Ukraine during the 2014 Crimea crisis. He explores the geopolitical miscalculations of the West, the enduring regional ties and the technical and cultural significance of Ukraine for India. Ashutosh emphasizes the necessity of managing neighborhood relations locally.

Check out our comment feature!

Atul Singh: Welcome to FO° Talks. With me is one of the legends of the Indian Air Force, Air Commodore Ashutosh Lal. He did his schooling from Lucknow, a place where I did my university and where my father went to medical college. So he’s here because he was an air attaché in Ukraine. He speaks Russian, he’s flown Russian helicopters, he’s been to Ukraine regularly. So today, you will get an Indian Ringside View of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict. Welcome, Ashutosh.

Ashutosh Lal: Thank you very much. Thanks, thank you so much.

Atul Singh: Alright, Ashutosh, you’ve been to Ukraine over a number of years. Walk us through how you saw — and I don’t mean as a story, because, of course, you’re a pilot, not a historian. But still, you’ve had your brush with history — how you saw the conflict (a) emerging and (b) developing.

Ashutosh Lal: Right. Just to debunk, I am knowledgeable, actually.

Atul Singh: Well, you were an instructor. All your formal students swear by you!

Ashutosh Lal: Many of us have been, and we all have our stories here and there. But trust me, I’m a very ordinary person who — God was kind — that I had a tryst with the Indian Air Force for a pretty long time. And God was kind to give me all the opportunities to fly the airplanes, to do whatever I was supposed to do. In that, there was a responsibility given to me to go to Ukraine as air attaché in the year of our Lord 2011, and I came back much later in 2014 after a little bit of extension.

Atul Singh: So you were there three years.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah. So from that point of view—

Atul Singh: That is when Crimea occurs.

Ashutosh Lal: I saw the first conflict, if you may call it so: the genesis of the entire fault line as to how it developed, what exactly happened, how Crimea was taken away…

Atul Singh: Or how Russians took Crimea. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: But let’s say how Ukrainians gave it up. For that matter, that’s also another way to look at it. But like I said, how green men, little green men, who sprung up and they took away everything. So I saw it from all up front, close. It was very clear to me as to how it was going to affect us, and since then on, I’ve been visiting, revisiting and trying to keep myself updated — not because I’m not a historian by profession, but the trigger which happened in me because of my boss over there. I must give credit to him for many understandings — our ambassador, Shri Rajiv Chandra, who was extremely kind to us and who taught us, who shaped us, mentored us. And under his tutelage, if I may say, we went on to do whatever work we could do with him. So I must duly construct, or he came in at the point when I landed up in Ukraine in 2011. Believe you me, Atul, it was perhaps one of the most beautiful countries in the world. To be very honest, I had traveled a fair amount of the world before that, so I could draw a comparison and say that there was a great amount of vibrance and there was a great amount of joy and happiness. There was a great amount of respect for Indian culture, and there was a great amount of likeness between our two cultures. Later on in the chat, we can point out a few for that matter. But the point here is that that was the phase: UEFA Euro 2012, which was co-hosted by Poland and Ukraine in 2012. I remember I saw that, and I was there. The first match was Sweden–Ukraine, both playing blue/yellow jerseys. And Ukraine was magnanimous to ask Sweden to choose their color so that Ukraine could choose their colors. Andriy Shevchenko, the legendary football player — I believe he’s turned pro golfer now—

Atul Singh: Oh, has he?

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, yeah.

Atul Singh: Okay.

Ashutosh Lal: He scored the first goal. It was a sight to be seen on the Maidan, which is the Independence Square, which turned later into dark and ugly pictures when the conflict broke through. See, I thought that was the apex of Ukraine, what I saw at that time as to how Ukraine was prospering. And it appeared to us very clearly that Ukraine is heading toward the European or EU way. Now, this was the belief which all my colleagues in the embassy, including my boss, had, that this is what’s going to happen. However, I was not convinced, because whatever little I dug up — and I lived on the streets over there, I spoke the language of the streets. (Chuckles) I was working the streets, so to speak. It was a very different time altogether. But in that particular—

Atul Singh: You weren’t just staying in your diplomatic bubble and kettle. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: The whole idea was to get a feel of the place. And because of my link with Russian machinery — half of which, I did not know, was built in Ukraine — it was totally Ukrainian in its pedigree. So when that happened to me, and I realized how my life was saved by many of these Ukrainian workmen working in the different zavod — the plants — I used to visit over there, that drew me to the entire thing to try and understand what exactly was happening on the ground. So in that, my belief was — I think I’m quite sure about it — that Ukraine, under the influence of who and who — we can talk about it — did not envisage this outcome, which it eventually turned out to be. And they thought that they could dissect themselves from the larger ecosystem of East Europe. I’m not talking in terms of the Russian Federation. I’m talking about that larger ecosystem of East Europe. They wanted to dissect themselves and get attached. Please, when I’m saying that, those of you interested should look up where the west of Ukraine, the cities of Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk — which part of Europe they kept changing hands with, whose background — Khmelnytskyi, might as well look him up: the ruler and the horse rider who came winning and marauding. You need to see that, as to what they were doing: carrying the symbol of power, something like a gada, which they carry in their hand. So you need to see that, and how Ukraine went from one to the other side needs to be seen. Notwithstanding that, post-Second World War, post- that era when everything was developing, post-Germany, when the Wall fell, unification happened, perestroika — how things were moving forward. This particular aspiration of Ukraine to come to the West or the European side, and this game plan of the West to try and snatch Ukraine out of the close, tight embrace of the East European ecosystem — I think that was the conflict which led to what happened.

Historical claims and regional politics

Atul Singh: So if you go back to 300 years ago — and Vladimir Putin’s op-ed talks a lot about it — there is a sense that Ukraine is the ancestral kingdom of Rus. Ukraine was attacked and taken over by the Polish–Lithuanian empires, and therefore, it is inevitable that Ukraine should remain in the sphere of influence of Russia. That is the Moscow view of the world. At the same time, if you take the Polish view of the world, they say, “Well, Western Ukraine in particular is a land contiguous to ours, and therefore has a lot more in common with us. And therefore, it should come more to the West and give us a greater buffer against Russia.” And if you go back to Soviet times, what people forget is that the brunt of collectivization — and there are books and books and books one can read — was borne by the Ukrainian peasantry. The kulaks were mainly Ukrainians. And in fact, Joseph Stalin killed three and a half million of them. And I have friends who are historians, and I have friends who are in MI6 and the British Foreign Office, and they often joke that had the British invaded Ukraine, they wouldn’t have treated them with the racism Nazis did. They would have set up an independent Ukrainian state. They would have played divide and rule, as they did around the world — they were rather good at it — and they wouldn’t have killed three million Ukrainians like the Nazis. So the reason I’m giving this historical color — and of course, those of you who want to dig up more can read a piece that retired CIA officer Glenn Carle and I wrote just before the war begins in 2022. We wrote it on Christmas Eve, December 2021 — and the point is, it is a tortured land with a tortured past, with contending narratives of history and different geopolitical interests. Over to you: What did you see transpiring at that stage?

Ashutosh Lal: So business? What Atul said is what I’m going to stay totally off.

Atul Singh: Okay, fine. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: Academics and everything else you’ve heard about him, for that matter, you can go back and read. So this is where the ringside aspect comes in. And where did I pick up this issue and this feeling that Ukraine would not be able to be pulled out from the embers of East Europe, or whatever the big brother was. I picked it up from Romania. Let me narrate.

Atul Singh: Excellent.

Ashutosh Lal: So there was this seminar happening over there — a conference, perhaps — which was discussing—

Atul Singh: In the capital?

Ashutosh Lal: Romania, Bucharest.

Atul Singh: Bucharest?

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah.

Atul Singh: Okay.

Ashutosh Lal: Romania was also under my watch. I was there. So I was required to be there because a senior official from India was traveling over there, and he had to do a presentation on Prithvi missiles. There was a test done on an anti-ballistic missile of the three-stage model. So he had come to present a paper on that. And I was with him, and I was part of that seminar. And as always, my ears were out on the ground to try and figure out what’s happening. Why? Because the interesting part was in the front row, or perhaps just behind the front row, there was a row of ushankas — an ushanka is the P-cap which Russians wear — there was a row of ushankas. A senior, perhaps a general, on the right-hand side and a lieutenant down the line, age-wise, stacked up over there — and the presentation was going on. Please remember: Romania houses the active component of the missile defense, right? And that was a time when Deveselu base was being reactivated, because the earlier launch base which had been developed for Afghanistan was being denied, and they had no choice but to come back to this. And Deveselu was this Aegis Ashore site; radars were in Turkey. You know the whole idea. So in that context, to a speaker, I asked a question. I said, “Sir, the talks are on. Ukraine is likely to follow the EU very shortly. The handshake will take place very soon. And if you look at the European conundrum, you’ll realize that wherever in the East either the US has gone forward and NATO has caterpillared, or NATO has gone forward, the EU has caterpillared. So it’s just a foregone conclusion that today it is the EU, tomorrow it will be NATO, and Ukraine will turn into a NATO state. By which would I understand that these missiles here in Romania, or this site here in Romania, may shift to Donbas, Donetsk, Luhansk.” Those were my exact words. You know what the response was? Before anybody else on the stage could respond, the general with the ushanka passed an elbow down the line, and the elbow traveled all the way. Up sprang a young lieutenant, and in chaste English, he just spoke to the audience. He said, “Whatever the gentleman is talking about is in the realm of fiction. It can never happen.” And he sat.

Atul Singh: That is totally understandable.

Maidan and the fall of Yanukovych

Ashutosh Lal: Understandable. So that’s what my point is. That is the time that, from a ringside view, being on the ground, I understood and realized the fact that it is the dynamics of neighbors. Being on the ground in the streets and working over there, I knew that the economic ties of East Ukraine with Russia were very close.

Atul Singh: They had been for centuries.

Ashutosh Lal: There was travel, there were relationships — husband, wife, families, blah, blah, blah — whatever you call it. So it was absolutely unthinkable that you could draw a line there. And here was the West. The likes of — you know who — Victoria Nuland.

Atul Singh: I mean, our Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, despises her. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So that phone call is there on the net if you want to listen.

Atul Singh: (Laughs) I’ve heard it, yeah, yeah.

Ashutosh Lal: But the fact remains that here they were trying to call this out. When this happened — and I analyzed this comment, I dug deeper into it. Then comes out the next ringside exposé or understanding of mine. Dnipropetrovsk is a town where you have the usual — I may be getting on mixed up names here and there. Sometimes it happens.

Atul Singh: We won’t hold you to it. More important was the point rather than the detail.

Ashutosh Lal: I understand. But now, this base agency of Ukraine. Exceptionally brilliant products they had. In my scouting for trying to see that, imagine: You could have a Su-27 which carries a missile rocket under the belly, goes to the highest possible altitude in a particular direction and vector, launches that missile and that missile puts a LEO satellite into orbit. So it was the easiest possible way to give you coverage over a battleground if you want to put a LEO, which is persistent but finishes off sometime. A Low Earth Orbit satellite, right? So they had some wonderful systems, like the floating dock for the Zenit rocket, which launches a satellite into orbit. That means you didn’t have to have a Sriharikota. You could drag that platform on the ocean with the help of tugs to the appropriate place to have the rocket launching your satellite in the most economical manner. So that’s a wonderful, brilliant system. But also, the credit was that they were the father of all SS-series missiles of Russia. From SS-18 to SS-21, everything was being found there. It was their patent. And if you look at the books at that time, which I did, you realize that these missiles were approaching the end of life, and they would need extension. So just imagine: If this part of Ukraine was taken out of Russia’s influence, that factory would not have been available. They would not have been able to life-extend the intercontinental basing of Russia. And in one masterstroke, the West would have utilized a large part of the arsenal on which Russia primes. Not much has been spoken about it. But like I said, the ringside views are this—

Atul Singh: It adds a great degree of detail, granular detail.

Ashutosh Lal: It’s very clear and very straightforward, that I came back to my boss. I told him, and we had a discussion, and he said, “No, I do not deal. You see what’s happening.”

Atul Singh: But, you know, the Indian Foreign Services often aren’t the truest foreign service! (Both laugh) I’ve had to deal with them for too many years!

Ashutosh Lal: Of course, that is what I’ve heard. Then what happened was the last 24 hours, when the Maidan turned and everything else started. Yanukovych had to take off in his helicopter. It was the second time it was happening in that part. In fact, in Romania also, there had been a dictator who was trying to get in a helicopter from a rooftop, who was pulled back.

Atul Singh: Nicolae Ceaușescu.

Ashutosh Lal: Absolutely.

Atul Singh: Yeah, a friend of mine, his father fled Ceaușescu, nearly died! (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So I’ll stay to my point — that Yanukovych fled, and inside Ukraine, everything changed. And suddenly all that happened and the independent districts sprung.

Escalation and evacuations

Ashutosh Lal: To link it up to Euro 2012, the way I saw the development happening over there — the airports were built up, the hotels were built up, the infrastructure was done up — absolutely prime and very beautiful. All that was destroyed in the last seven to eight months in front of me. That’s how the tide turned.

Atul Singh: What you’re saying is that it was overreach on the part of the US? Political overreach?

Ashutosh Lal: I would put it differently. One has to understand: That geographical neighborhood is a real fact of life.

Atul Singh: Of course. I mean, look, the US did not allow missiles in Cuba. There was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Ashutosh Lal: I was about to say the same thing. In fact, the cross-reference was made to my reply there. I said, “Look, you also have the same issue in Cuba.” The same issue was there? Quite possible there could be an issue happening in that particular conference when I was discussing with people. But be that as it may, it tells us very clearly, and in our own context. And we also have a very turbulent neighborhood that keeps shifting from one side to the other. So the neighborhood is a fact, and the neighborhood is required to be managed by the people who are involved directly. It cannot be managed remotely by someone sitting very far away. Because, for all these reasons, as it is very clear now, they would always have their vested interest deployed inside.

Atul Singh: That’s history, the law of history.

Ashutosh Lal: So, if that was so, it could have been seen, it should have been seen. It should be seen by us in managing our neighborhood issues — how we want to swing from one to the other side — because the neighborhood is something. There is another issue which I would just like to mention over here: Amongst the leadership of Ukraine I saw from that point in time, there was Tymoshenko.

Atul Singh: The braided lady who was put in jail by Yanukovych?

Ashutosh Lal: Yes, she was in jail when I reached her. And if you read that history as to who was on which side, there’s plenty of interesting things over there. But she was in jail when I reached there. People were doing dharna protests to try and get her out from detention at that point in time. But the fact remains that from there—

Atul Singh: Just for members of the global audience: You go, sit down and protest, and stop the streets, really.

Ashutosh Lal: Basically. Atul, thank you for that connection. But I’m just saying that from there, what I saw — the leaders, how they were fanning out to be — when I come to Mr. Zelenskyy, I often wonder: Could he have done something differently, so as not to ruin that beautiful country of Ukraine, which I call моя друга батьківщина — “my second homeland?” I just want to remind your viewers that if you’ve ever had any bit of sunflower oil, you have a little bit of Ukraine in you. And I’ve got my tooth also sorted out over there—a root canal. So I have it in my tooth as well! (Laughs) So the point is that being that affectionate to that land, and having seen the potential — imagine a country which is largely under snow for four to six months, yet is the largest grower of grain in Europe. So there is an immense amount of potential—

Atul Singh: Sunflowers, wheat, so many other agricultural products.

Ashutosh Lal: And I will come to the region a little later, when the conflict has already broken out. Because right now we’re talking about what could have happened. So, I’m talking with Zelenskyy. Could he have done something differently? Did the other side — Americans, mostly — realize that here is a person who is used — like what we are doing with a mic and a camera — and if he has a narrative, he will read that and he will enact that. Was that the thing in the initial phase, where he kept enacting what he was being told to say, and then took the entire conflict south? Now he was in a different mode; he changed clothes, and wore different things and came to the front end, trying to do what was required to be done? Was it too late by then? That question has to be asked. So how the neighborhood is to be managed and how the national interests — which are always a sacrosanct thing, not the friends and foes — that needs to be seen very clearly. This is my gathering of lessons from the ringside.

Atul Singh: Okay, so — 2014: You’re there, and the conflict really erupts. Because Russia simply cannot give away Crimea. After all, Potemkin, the great lover of Catherine the Great, conquered it for her, and that was Russian access to warm water. There’s no way the Russians were ever going to give Crimea away to Ukraine. And in 1954, it was none other than Nikita Khrushchev who gifted it to Ukraine. So in Russian minds, it was theirs. And then, of course, the conflict erupts in Donbas and Luhansk. The little green men you’ve already mentioned, walk us through that period. So what did you see?

Ashutosh Lal: Thank you very much. Trust me, in Crimea — right up to Alupka or Atakoy, where I traveled — I thought it was the most amazing place, and that Russian and Ukrainian existence was practically inseparable. Truly international. A couple of times, I was there on Victory Day — I was there at Crimea to see the wonderful parade, the Black Sea Fleet and whatnot. Yalta — you know what happened in the Second World War. The Yalta Conference is still a very important landmark, as you know.

Atul Singh: The contours of the post-war world.

Ashutosh Lal: So how did I come into this entire thing? And how did I get that inside view of this conflict brewing, apart from what was happening in Kyiv? Kyiv, of course, we knew. You remember those snipers on the Maidan and the people who came and occupied over there in the thick of winter. Somewhere, I have a picture in which I’m standing on Maidan with everything burnt out. I mean, I was yelled at — “Get back into the embassy!” — because I was out there in Maidan trying to see what exactly was happening, because of my own curiosity. And when the snipers were taking shots, everything was happening over there. So that was in Kyiv, but I got involved because there were our students who were studying in different cities. So the first place we got an SOS call from was Crimea. Our ambassador got a call from the parents of our children in Crimea — in Ukraine — now under Russian control. “What’s happening?” So the ambassador came and said, “Boys, we have this issue at hand.” So I said, “Let me go. I’ll go and be with them. I’ll comfort them and I’ll take care of what was required, and then I’ll come back to you.” He was apprehensive, of course, because we’d not changed sides yet, and there was the issue of passports and blah, blah, blah. I said, “Don’t worry, sir, because I’ve been working the streets. I will be able to go through that way.” I was given the go-ahead. I went across, and I stayed in Crimea at the same hotel where the group from BBC and World Service was staying, mind you. And they were staying in the same hotel, carrying out such coverage of the entire situation while the city was rather peaceful. Leninsky Square was where the main protest was happening. That is where the hands had changed and everybody went to dinner in the restaurants. Later that night, I asked those two, “Why are you raising this red flag?” But then there are dynamics, too. The point is that when I was there and I spoke to the students — this was the city of Simferopol, the capital of Crimea — I gathered them all together and then briefed them. “Now this is how we will do. This is what we will do.” But luckily, we did not have to evacuate them from there. The transition was rather peaceful. I went and saw their parliament building, as they call it, and there were these little green men standing there with balaclavas. And that’s about all. Because there, the narrative had been set, and that wonderfully intertwined Russian–Ukrainian presence had changed. Ukrainian soldiers and officers had joined the Russian Armed Forces. Then all of that happened and it just changed. Remember, that was the first change of nationality of a sizable portion of land after the Second World War in that area, and that would happen without firing a single bullet. So obviously, I can understand the West was feeling pretty let down that they let this happen. They didn’t have their ear to the ground, which was a failure on their part, and a lot happened. But in that, I understood that now the Russian mechanism — their so-called hybrid warfare, which we can speak about in a different interview altogether — was already deployed. It was happening. Crimea, of course, has a problem of freshwater shortage and access to the mainland, which they have now secured through this conflict. As you are aware, all of that has been secured. So it was very clear to us that—

Atul Singh: They have a landbridge now.

Ashutosh Lal: In fact, talking about bridges, we had a small problem at hand. While in Ukraine, I was handling Project 832 — modernization. It was a very big project of, what, 105 airplanes, but one got crashed, so 104 were left. The plot was: Five airplanes would come, get overhauled in this plant — which is contiguous to Zhuliany Airport, the smaller airport in Kyiv — and then they fly out to India and practice. We had to do 35 airplanes. The second-last batch was at my hand, and I was about to come back when this war happened. And the air route to Ankara — the first thought was to route over Crimea — and now we could not go over Crimea. So I had no choice but to take the airplanes all the way west to Bucharest, and then from Bucharest head to Istanbul because you could not make it to Ankara. You know, the whole planning had to be changed. So be that as it may, the fact remained that I realized that Crimea was gone for good, and that gave us an indication as to what was going to happen in the East. Because that mechanism of hybrid warfare had started to deploy over there, and it was very clear that if they didn’t get their acts together, then that would happen. This is where the West woke up in a significant manner, and they deployed a good number of boots on the ground under different guises. That gap was simple, but it was what we call “standard and recommended practices” — exercises between two forces. The radio phraseology to be used commonly, so that they can be used in some peacekeeping somewhere. How do you use radio? How do we use basic tactics that can be synchronized? So under that guard, the trainers who were there from the West — and NATO especially — became the custodians of now keeping their watch. And that had started. This is where the conflict started to happen, which basically brewed in the eastern part: Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, even down till Kherson later, you know. This is a tragic chapter. Sir, that’s where I thought, it’s very important to understand — just 30 seconds more — because this, again, happened in Lugansk. The city of Lugansk had a big medical college. By the way, I hope you’re aware that the cost of East European MBBS is sizably less than what is available here in India.

Atul Singh: That’s what I’ve been told.

Ashutosh Lal: That is the reason why many of our students go over there, which I suppose is a good thing. Of course, they have to come back and take an MCI exam before they can start practicing over here. But I found very bright young people over there from all parts of the country who were there. So I was sent to Lugansk again under a similar situation, where this thing was happening, and now it was live. Because the gunshots were being fired outside and everything was happening, I had to hire a train and move about 800, 900 students in the train, over buses, put them in the train, and the train came to Kyiv where the ambassador and all our setup was waiting for them to be received. I had to go there because of my connections with the plants over there, and I used the help from the people on the ground. And that is what I used to do. Whatever I could do, we managed it. But it again allowed me — and that was Holi at that point of time. I spent Holi with those boys and girls over there in that place. When I put them in a hall — I had gone along with my sister — I addressed them and I told them, I made groups. I made leaders. I said, “When this happens, this is how the message will go, this is what you will do.” So I built that quasi-operation, and I built them out in that place. This is where I again realized that now it is not coming back. The situation is such that it will not come back, it will not go to foster — it’s going to get worse from here, it’s only going to get more destructive from here, now both sides will suffer, whichever.

Atul Singh: So the train had been set in motion.

Ashutosh Lal: Yes, and it was an irreversible train to my mind. And which unfortunately—

Atul Singh: That’s up for debate, sure.

Ashutosh Lal: After you make your point, then I will come back to what happened in the second conflict, because I was there again.

Russian hybrid warfare and the 2022 invasion

Atul Singh: Okay, so you mentioned hybrid warfare. Okay, what’s the Russian model of hybrid warfare, and how did the West respond?

Ashutosh Lal: Atul, hybrid warfare would be another episode.

Atul Singh: We’ll have to get you back! (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So let’s keep that aside.

Atul Singh: Give us an outline, give us a teaser.

Ashutosh Lal: A good point, yeah. So the hybrid warfare spoken about by many authors and a lot of literature available over there, is Russia’s war actually hybrid warfare? And some mechanics leave us asking the question. But leave the mechanics aside; look at the results. The result was, like I mentioned to you, that they managed to change the nationality of a large piece of land — a crucial warm sea port where the Black Sea Fleet was based — without firing a single bullet. Do I see any more moving? So this is what was the trajectory of the warfare, which was running out. Of course, the West jumped in, and the contest heated up, so to speak. People lost lives, and so much destruction took place subsequently. But that is the potential of hybrid war, because it’s a very important issue for our own armed forces. And it includes everything — lawfare, I don’t know what all — because the entire set of academia, the entire set of institutions of army, judiciary, administration, diplomacy, foreign services, economy, everything comes into it. So that is an amalgamation which is an ultimate binder of the national policy.

Atul Singh: Okay, well, you mentioned the second phase of the conflict: February 24, 2022. Alright, Russian troops move in, and you were there again.

Ashutosh Lal: Yep.

Atul Singh: So what transpires then for the Russian tanks to start rolling in?

Ashutosh Lal: Right. So, I was back in 2014. I came back to my job normally here. Whatever happened, I had a wonderful time in the Air Force. Early January 2020, I left the Air Force and I was trying to become a civil helicopter pilot, which I am right now. I was flying till very recently for a company in Mumbai, taking passengers from the point of dispersal to their ships and rigs and getting them back. But in that, my interest in trying to understand during this conflict — and this is a very, very important key point — the way I saw through the conflict, I am completely mesmerized by the Ukrainian ingenuity. That’s not only on the battlefield. People will tell you how males exited Ukraine, how their own population deserted, they don’t have boots on the ground, some people have gone away or whatever. But in that also, how common Ukrainians — leave politicians aside — held on to their nationality, held on to their spirit, held on to their ingenuity on the battlefield, off the battlefield, in the domain of military tech. For those of your viewers who are perhaps not very much aware, Ukrainian military tech is huge. It may surprise you that 40% of the Indian Navy’s frontline ships are powered by Zorya’s engine, which is made in Ukraine. It’s absolutely important for us that we have them with us. And mind you, unlike the airplanes, the ships are different. You have to first choose the engine, because Indian transmission has to be quiet, and then you build the ship around it, so then can’t change it. So you have to identify the engine provider first before you arrive at your ship. That is the kind of planning process. So Zorya powers more than 40% of the Indian Navy; it’s very important for us. Antonov — anything to do with Antonov — A-12 and A-22, what we flew in our Air Force, and the An-124 is what the US survives on.

Atul Singh: Which most people don’t know.

Ashutosh Lal: Antonov is thoroughbred — inside to out, including engines and everything else — Ukrainian. It’s got nothing to do with the honor of Russian women. So Ukraine MIC, or Military Industrial Complex, was itself huge at that point, alright. But in the war, how it transformed itself is a story that someday the world should document.

Atul Singh: I’m sure people are documenting it already.

Ashutosh Lal: I’m sure. But you look at it from my perspective as to how this tech… To give an example, in Kharkiv, I found out that some small company was making a very peculiar ammunition which could be mounted on the pylon of a low-flying airplane. It just dispenses very small transmitters over a swath of ground: GPS jammers. They would all transmit, they would noise-jam the GPS, and they would die down as the battery dies down. So in a period of time when you want to operate over there, you can deny GPS in assault. Selective non-availability of GPS you could achieve at that point of time. Their expertise in radio listening and eavesdropping is very well known. There was an incident which happened in an unknown army, and there was a unit which had some equipment from there — I’m sure your listeners know about it. So it was being brought from there. So you could do that. There were many things. They made passive radars. That means it’s just a receiver, not transmitting anything else. Poland has a solution, but this equipment of Ukraine was such that, using the normal transmission from the radio nav-ways of Europe, they were able to mimic and understand. Without opening up any transmitter, they can get comfortable with the surroundings. Wonderful technology. Of course, needs to be matured, needs to be tied up, needs to be inducted into the systems — that is where our ingenuity could have come. LWS-6 Żubr, perhaps the largest hovercraft, skims over any rocky stretch and the sea, carries tanks and has an amazing technology in which it can sidestep and turn around in a very small place, which is also there on the Zorya engines. Crazy, absolutely. So they were at that level already. From there, those boys and girls, those men and women — what unmanned aerial systems have done to this war — very soon people will be coming out. And I know for sure that people who built it then, during the conflict, tested it during the conflict, and used it to destroy very expensive equipment. Otherwise, a large country like Russia would not have—

Atul Singh: Tanks, for instance.

Ashutosh Lal: So specifics will take time. So I’m just trying to tell you indicators as to where you should research and try and transfer.

Atul Singh: I mean, we should get into specifics, because a lot of our viewers wouldn’t have the time. Some would, some would spend hours, but others wouldn’t.

Ashutosh Lal: Like I said, these very inexpensive unmanned aerial systems, which affected very large equipment on the ground, how they intercepted, they went into Kursk. Of course, there’s a lot of Western help that was available. But still, when they realized that the fighter planes were not coming through — Su-27 deploying — they applied the Internet to keep the conflict on, to keep the pressure. Now, I come back to February of 2022. That is when the tanks rolled across from Kharkiv and from the East. So my friend called me for something or other — I would go down there. I said, “Okay, I’ll come. But are you sure Mr. Putin is all lined up? That said, you’re not gonna come down? No, no, everything is okay, just — apparently — come, come.” I landed at Kharkiv, I took a car, and I was driving to his approach.

Atul Singh: You were not yet a civilian helicopter pilot?

Ashutosh Lal: No, I was.

Atul Singh: You were already?

Ashutosh Lal: I was. So in our academy, we had breaks. When you fly for six weeks, you have three weeks off. So I left the military for 15 days because I had the qualification. Of course, Covid also hit at that point of time, but that’s another story. The point here is that when I reached the provision, I had a good time with my friend, chatted and met old contacts and everybody else. And I was looking for the local beer, Natsu. Fifteen-seventeen is really old, even in beer. So we went to the bar and had that, came back, slept it off — only to be woken up by the phone ringing consistently, because Mr. Putin had dropped across. Now, this is the time to speak about the operation which Russia launched to quickly end this conflict on their own terms, and the fight back with the help of the people who are deployed on ground from the West, and Ukrainian beauty. I’m talking about a very audacious attempt by helicopters of Russian armed forces to carry out what, in typical terms in the Air Force, we call SHBO — Special Heli-Borne Operations — taking troops in the helicopters all the way from their secured bases, where? To a small airport outside Kyiv — home to Antonov. So when I was there in Bucha, I got stuck badly. And I take the car, and as I start driving back towards Kyiv, these helicopters are flying over. Su-25s, Su-27s flying over, and there was chaos, and there were roadblocks, but I was somehow managing and coming. Because the idea was to come close to Kyiv, because all the flights were canceled. I did not have a flight to come back home. I had to have a plan in my mind to get back, because remember, I had to come back to my job. (Atul laughs) And I don’t have any visa toward either place.

Atul Singh: You couldn’t have flown into Poland!

Ashutosh Lal: Minor issues actually fucked me! (Laughs)

Atul Singh: Minor issues! (Both laugh) You could’ve swum through the Black Sea, swum through the Suez Canal…

Ashutosh Lal: The Bosphorus was calling me, be that it may.

Atul Singh: You’re a fit man!

Ashutosh Lal: So the point I was trying to make was that when this was happening, I realized that this was something, it’s a very important moment in a helicopter pilot’s life. Unfortunately, I could not be part of that formation or that fight, but I was there to witness it from close quarters and to follow up later about—with the help of my other friends who were there — to follow their help, as to what exactly happened. So the long and short is that this train of helicopters — the Mils — “Mi version.” For them, everything is “Mi version,” Mils. Mi-17 is an export version — which, we’ll call it null patterns — for them — everything is “Mi version.” So Mi-8s are carrying these troops. Mi-35s, my own helicopter, which I live in and die by—

Atul Singh: You like it, clearly.

Ashutosh Lal: There is no match to it. That’s another story.

Atul Singh: We’ll cover it in another video! (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So Ka-50s were escorting them. Great machine, for that matter. So they were escorting, and there was this battle. There are many videos. Missiles flying across, flares flying across, hits taking place — and animations available as to how they turned over here, there, and then took a hit and took a hit. It was crazy. So they reached this airport outside, and initial gains were being made. Because that night, I was in Kyiv, and I was staying on a highrise, where everybody else was inside the bunker. I was left in that flat alone, horizon, and I could hear the noises. So it is then when the system kicked on, and the reaction to make sure that the runway is not made available for a follow-on fixed-wing transport aircraft to land over there, with a fleet of Ilyushins or Antonovs or whatever the Russians had. Because this normally happens; it’s called the link-up. Initially, the SHBO force goes, secures the airport. Now the link-up happens on the fixed wing runway. So they made sure that this doesn’t happen. And although they had taken ground on that airport, the Ukrainians with the help of—

Atul Singh: With the help of other foreign troops.

Ashutosh Lal: Yes, because there were instructors over there. And it is my understanding, which I’m very clear about, that they quickly stopped this entire plan. And then they said, “This is the counter.”

Atul Singh: Reports are that this was mainly Americans and British instructors. There must have been others because of NATO.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, NATO and the West always have a very good mix of things.

Atul Singh: Interoperability, as they say.

Ashutosh Lal: No, so the point I was trying to make was that this is where this fight started to turn dirty, and the link-up could not happen. And that became very messy. That was another very important turning point from the point of view of Russia. Russia had lost the initial momentum, because obviously—remember, the attacker always has the initiative. He chooses where to come in from. The defender has to jockey and adjust itself. So Russia had the initiative. It had the first move, and they came and they tried something out, which was very audacious —over that distance, over that range. Of course, we are at Sagar Chak. Reminds us of ‘71. But those distances were much smaller when it happened from one of—

Atul Singh: Just very quickly: Sagat Singh — we’ve had an on him. He was the great hero of the 1971 war. We’ve had his son interview with us, actually. So General Sagat Singh Rathore is a legend of the Indian military. And of course, he used helicopters and yada ya. You can read about him, learn more about him. But that was a much smaller distance.

Ashutosh Lal: So that’s a much more manageable distance, much less air defense—

Atul Singh: Dense.

Ashutosh Lal: Density against the — and it was all dark and night, and it was small hops against Maghna rivers and tributaries. Here, this was a large distance given out that you have entered now, and you could be tracked. See, the peculiar thing about helicopters — which we are all very aware of — is that once you spot a helicopter, visually or by radar or by the beam, you can put a pin on that location. And now, what is our speed? Two hundred forty kilometers an hour at the max, right? Four kilometers per minute. So you can start expanding it. So in that time, we cannot exit. We cannot just go away. We have to be there only. So if a faster-moving platform comes in, he will find us in that using a known area. So I’m just saying, that is the kind of—

Atul Singh: They’re sitting ducks, basically, once that happens. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: I would not accept at first, but be that as it may, it brings you—

Atul Singh: Flying ducks.

Ashutosh Lal: It brings in new challenges. So we had this interesting contest, which is what I saw, and that’s what happened. So that—

Atul Singh: It was massive casualties, wasn’t it?

Ashutosh Lal: That was one turning point. I’ll be very specific: There was one turning point where Russia lost. And then onwards, the entire conflict turned into a different manner. It became a war of attrition, not much of a war was taking place. And several issues — what kind of soldiers are coming in, what’s happening — given the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people, soldiers and people on the ground, the tech support on the ground, what they started doing… that’s another success story.

Turning points and military operations

Atul Singh: The use of drones.

Ashutosh Lal: Yes. If I’m not wrong, the last attack from Russia on the right front has come about two days, three days prior. That has happened now. You see what happened in Kursk? They went inside that deep and held it to that long, unless that Russian operation happened. And, you know, now they’ve been obstructed.

Atul Singh: They came through a pipeline.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, I mentioned to you that they came through a pipeline — Russian special forces. Please note, gentlemen, that they came through a pipeline. They came through a pipeline, and there were casualties, but they emerged on the other side. If this tussle happened—

Atul Singh: Just an extraordinary operation. On both sides, the troops have proven to be pretty innovative. I mean, the Russians have come up with glide bombs, the Russians have come up with innovations themselves.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, that is there, because in the first war, I saw how the helicopters were shot by machine guns. Planes were destroyed. You know how all that was done? Because I remember, in the first time when I was there — 2014 — and we were trying to work out, can we have a runway secure enough to land an airplane from India and pull the boys and girls out from there? So I was scouting for that, and I reached this airport, and I hitched a ride with the milkman to try and see what the runway is. But that was the place where the night before, an Il-76 was shot. And Il-76 was landing on the runway, and it was shot by a shoulder-fired missile on the idling Indian pilot who was landing, and the entire airplane was strewn up on the runway.

Atul Singh: Wow.

Ashutosh Lal: So it was very obvious and clear to me that no matter what you do in this part — of course, it was too close to the conflict — it can happen. Mind you, by then the other issue would also happen. You lost a civil airplane.

Atul Singh: Yes, indeed.

Ashutosh Lal: Tail color, red and blue.

Atul Singh: Yeah, yeah.

Ashutosh Lal: Being mixed up with an Il-96, and Mr. Putin is coming back and Mr. Modi was coming back as well behind him. We had to intervene and get his route altered away from the conflict. So all that was also happening. The times are very specific. That is when it was decided that it is best to go on the ground and try and pull them out by the train. We fixed up in Kyiv. We went there, we managed that — seven, eight coaches — and pulled everybody out. And that was our—

Geopolitical lessons and India’s opportunity

Atul Singh: So what now? What now? You’ve laid out a wonderful ringside view. And now, of course, we have a new president in the White House, and we have talk of a truce. In fact, some sort of truce, apparently. And it seems that now Zelenskyy will have to read from a new script.

Ashutosh Lal: So Atul, I’ll— (laughs) …Yeah, that’s one interesting way to put it across, actually. But let me just say this: Let me look at the idealistic view as to how this can resolve, actually. Okay, then we can say the best possible action, and then we can see how it can—

Atul Singh: The scenarios.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, that. Like I said, the neighborhood requires restoration. And a very important point which comes in — which links me up to this famous mythology of India, of Mahabharat — Kaurav, Pandav. When this issue was being discussed about EU being signed for Ukraine—

Atul Singh: Ukraine is a part of the EU.

Ashutosh Lal: Yes, yes. So you’re aware that even Russia, as a federation, also has a—

Atul Singh: Of course, yeah.

Ashutosh Lal: —Something like an EU of their own. It’s called the Customs Union. So Russia offered that, “Okay, you want to be with the EU? No problems, go with them, no issues. But do not exit the Customs Union. Keep us included.” Because they wanted to have that tie, which was carrying on. They said, “Okay, doesn’t matter.” They had adjusted that much. So it reminds me of that — Kaurav, Pandav, who said, “Five villages. You give us just five villages — five Pandavs, five villages — not even of the…” What should I tell your viewers?

Atul Singh: Not even tipping the needle. (Laughs) So you seem to be holding Victoria Nuland and the hawks in Washington, D.C., responsible for this. The neoconservatives, in a way.

Ashutosh Lal: Look, Atul, history is fraught with examples when people who were not in that area, and they were sitting somewhere else in a much part of the world.

Atul Singh: That’s the history of the last 500 years. We are sitting in front of a map of the world. So you look at the map in the world — Latin America, Portuguese and Spanish all the way to Mexico. India — the British and the French East India companies had a bish, bash, bosh.

Ashutosh Lal: That is why I was talking about the idealistic solution. Why? Because I am not counting out that such new Newlands and Pyatts are still sitting in that setup. There are rare elements in Ukraine which are to be taken out. So there are people who are trying to anchor everything else to do what is required to be done. So I will leave that out right now, because that’s a dynamic switch — which is a different issue, but whatever. But I’m saying, ideally, the earnestness of maintaining a neighborhood needs to be considered.

Atul Singh: So what you’re saying is Russia and Ukraine have to learn to live together.

Ashutosh Lal: There is no choice.

Atul Singh: Got it.

Ashutosh Lal: There is no choice. Now, the flavor changes on the East. And what this bitterness will do over the years and how it can be managed is a different ballgame. Mind you, the people in the west of Ukraine — and very dear friends of mine, very interesting. I was traveling with my friend, and his son, a basketballer of 16, 17, 18 years, of which I spoke to in Russian, and he refused to speak to me for the whole duration. Talking Russian.

Atul Singh: I’ll only speak in Ukrainian. So that divide has cast a different line.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah. So all those divisions have come in already.

Atul Singh: The division is even there in the Church now.

Ashutosh Lal: Many things have happened. Church has changed. The oldest Orthodox monastery was in Ukraine. That was the Vatican of Orthodox Christianity in the east of Europe, which is Lavra the cave. It was the cave monastery — it was by the side of Dnipro. Now, I’ve taken our former chief there when he came down to visit. He was a Catholic himself, but he was kind enough to go there and accept that honor. So that changed. The old calendar went out. Stary Novy God has gone out. So many things have changed for them. So I’m saying those scars would remain. So how they manage this neighborhood — but I have a firm belief that only people who are there involved, they should have the biggest say. And if they have it right, then probably they can work out a constructive or a positive—

Atul Singh: So that’s the idealistic view. So what happens now?

Ashutosh Lal: This idealistic view, Atul, simply said, is not going to happen. We do not have one Angela Merkel, one European leader who was able to speak to both sides.

Atul Singh: Yeah, Angela Merkel. She was from East Germany, she spoke Russian.

Ashutosh Lal: This conflict went down the drain because she was not in the office, to my belief. Perhaps, if there was somebody who could speak on both sides and can do that. I thought our prime minister went on the train all the way. He also had that latitude to do that.

Atul Singh: But we don’t have the heft yet.

Ashutosh: Yeah. Be that it may, I mean, we’ll have to try whichever way you look at it right now. So my belief is this idyllic, idealistic solution is not going to be fructifying. It is going to get meddled and dirtied by many such power factions. What’s happening across the Atlantic — the government changing and everything else happening — they have their own issues. The people who were before them, they had their own issues. So they will drive it this way. But this ideation will not happen.

Atul Singh: Got it.

Ashutosh Lal: Poland is emerging as a very strong pull in this entire game.

Atul Singh: Of course. They already said they’ll go nuclear.

Ashutosh Lal: So please understand, this idealization is not going to happen. Now, how badly it gets muddled, how much time it takes, and what all is taken out of there — and what is taken out of Ukraine is my last point, which you will have to give me two minutes.

Atul Singh: Yeah, sure, take all the time you want. Actually, go ahead. Take the two minutes now.

Ashutosh Lal: Okay. So let’s put this conflict aside. I just want to tell you that what I look at — from our country’s interest.

Atul Singh: From India’s interests.

Ashutosh Lal: And I’m a military man. I was a military man in my head, in mind. I’m still one. So I would talk about that.

Atul Singh: I would love to see you as air chief marshal. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: Aw, thank you. I never had that caliber. I could not have been there. But let me still make a point here. So now we are not talking about Russia–Ukraine. I’m talking about national interest. When the regions in which you have some penetration are at conflict, and those regions have a technical, or economical, or a geographical or a mineral-wise edge over you — world over, history over — that is the time for the national interest to be kicked in and try and to get things to cut that delta and get your own system up. Right? You should not have had an issue to ask Indians from somewhere else to build your own ships. By now, we should have become quite omniversal, so to speak. Self-reliant, for your audience. So this is where I thought our eastern neighbor played a very good card.

Atul Singh: China.

Ashutosh Lal: In my only tenure over there — ’11 to ‘14 — what I kept seeing is what they were at. Singularly, very focused, very sharp, very quick. And they were able to execute things and take it. Technologies, expertise… So the story of Liaoning is the most interesting impact. And your viewers might have read it. I’ll just narrate it very shortly.

Atul Singh: No, please, go on ahead. Not all of them have, so it’s an education.

Ashutosh Lal: So what happens is that when you hear the story, it will tell you what was the level they were operating at. Well, surprise to some of you that our Vikramaditya and their Liaoning are actually brothers. They both were born in a city called Mykolaiv, which is—

Atul Singh: Just tell them what both these vessels do.

Ashutosh Lal: Okay, I’m sorry. My apologies. So Vikramaditya is our aircraft carrier. Liaoning is the Chinese aircraft carrier, which is floating in the South China Sea, and it has led the development of their subsequent aircraft carrier. Vikramaditya has come to us from Russia. It has come from the city of St. Petersburg, where it was a Russian aircraft carrier earlier. It has been now refitted to take our aircraft on board — MiG-29s — and that’s what is now flying its last service. So I’m saying — Vikramaditya and Liaoning, yeah — are both brothers. They were the same model, displacement, design of aircraft carriers, born in a dockyard which is in the city of Mykolaiv. Ukrainians will call it Mykolaiv, Russians will say Nikolayev. So in the city of Nikolayev they were born. Vikramaditya went to Russia and was in St. Petersburg, where we contracted it from. And finally our team went there and refitted for a long period. So the story of Liaoning is that Liaoning was a lining, just like a shell. The news came that there was a company in Macau which wanted to buy this Liaoning and make a floating casino out of it in Macau.

Atul Singh: By the way, Liaoning is the northern state, right next to North Korea. (Laughs) So they claimed it was going to Macau.

Ashutosh Lal: The claim was it will go to Macau as a floating casino. Immediately west, everybody’s ears went up. “No, it’s not them, it’s something deeper, actually.” Now Liaoning was bought by this company. It was being dragged through the Bosphorus Strait. And the environmentalists put up a big fight and said, “No more. You can’t take it through Bosphorus.” They tried to stall, delay what was required. But of course, deep pockets, focus, everything else — it went. Now, God intervened. In the Sea of Greece, there was a massive storm. And this hull got decoupled from the tug. They almost lost it.

Atul Singh: Wow.

Ashutosh Lal: But then the storm subsided. And again, it was caught on. And by the time this combination was turning around Cape and heading towards our part of the world, that company in Macau merged with Liaoning, as you say. My pronunciation is wrong.

Atul Singh: I’ve traveled a bit around China. That’s the only reason. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So please help me with that.

Atul Singh: I also had a Chinese girlfriend. That also helps! (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: So that company got merged with that shipyard over there: Dalian. And in this period, there were hordes of experts from the city of Mykolaiv, which were relocated over there. And now, when this hull reached over there, the work started. By the time we were refitting and trying to get our ship back, and after huge overruns of time and cost and whatnot, Liaoning was out roving the sea, the trials in the South China Sea. And the rest is known to your viewers focused not only on the military part, but on the food security part. It was surprising that China leased an area of land as more or as much as Belgium in size. Built a deep-sea port right next to it. Now obviously, the south doesn’t have snow, so it can grow the year long. So year-round, they would grow grains over there and ship it. Call it food security. When you are having a region under pressure, under conflict, and they’re looking for help and what they have not. The people who are involved in diplomacy, they are looking after their own national interest. And that is why geopolitics is a blood sport. So that is what I was understanding that this should have happened. There were many such places and some such cases where we could have really scored well, because we have a very good emotional connection.

Atul Singh: Yeah. I mean, they watch Raj Kapoor. (Laughs)

Ashutosh Lal: No, sir. Raj Kapoor is history. Only babushka will respond to you about Raj Kapoor. By the way, do you know who is the most famous actor in that part of the world? You’d be surprised: Mithun Chakraborty.

Atul Singh: Oh, okay. Yes, I would have—

Ashutosh Lal: If the song plays, “Jimmy Jimmy,” there is not a single Ukrainian woman or girl who will not dance in that hall. That is a fact. I’ve witnessed the funeral of a young girl who went to her grave wearing a saree and holding a Mithun portrait in hand. And we had to get a letter from him, the ambassador, to speak to him. I told him, “No, sir, you must speak to him.” And he has to write back. And he wrote back; the letter was given to the father as a closure on that. So that is the kind of emotional connection. Family is one important cultural connection within us. The religion is another important—

Atul Singh: Religion? In what way?

Ashutosh Lal: The allegiance to our religion. You know, here also, we are — whichever way we tell — we are spiritual people, deep inside. And, there also, whatever happens, you would find them born from the Church, and they would be God-fearing before the food and everything else. You will see that. So they’re—

Atul Singh: Religiosity.

Ashutosh Lal: Absolutely. So there are these two strong pillars. And third is friendship, which I am a living example. So that’s how I realized that we are so much in common, and we could have leveraged much more. But I think we must have done it. I’m sure people who are responsible — they are doing it right now.

Atul Singh: Well, one can live in hope. I can tell you they are not doing so in Washington, DC, where I live. (Ashutosh laughs) Anyway, Ashutosh, lovely to have you. We’ll continue this discussion. We’ll have you for other episodes, and we have a lot to discuss.

Ashutosh Lal: Yeah, all in all, I want to just say from my side, a big thank you to you and your viewers. I hope I’ve been able to do justice to the ringside view. (Both laugh) And thank you very much.

Atul Singh: Thank you.

[, Aaditya Sengupta Dhar and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.

Comment

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Ahmed Ihab Abuward" post_date="August 01, 2026 06:50" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-talks-making-sense-of-what-life-is-like-in-palestine-today/" pid="163730" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor Lucy Golish speaks with Youth for Palestine founder Ahmed Ihab Abuward about the humanitarian crisis, the unequal distribution of resources and the resilience that has emerged amid prolonged conflict in Gaza. Its residents face severe shortages of water, electricity, housing and healthcare while class, institutional connections and trust shape access to their aid. Abuward also reflects on the unexpected ways young Palestinians are adapting through innovation, education and community leadership, arguing that long-term recovery requires more than humanitarian relief.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Basic necessities remain out of reach</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Golish begins by asking Abuward to describe daily life in Gaza. He explains that ordinary concerns have given way to a struggle for survival, with access to clean water, electricity and medical care remaining severely limited. While humanitarian aid continues to enter the territory, it falls far short of meeting the needs of the population, particularly newborns and patients requiring specialized treatment. Many serious medical conditions cannot be treated locally, while travel restrictions prevent patients from seeking care elsewhere.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a medical student, Abuward paints a bleak picture of an overstretched healthcare system where shortages of medicine, equipment and personnel continue growing. The gap between medical needs and available resources keeps widening. As he puts it, “The percentage of [dead] people... is [getting higher and higher] every time, day by day, moment by moment.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The crisis extends beyond hospitals. Golish notes that images from Gaza often focus on physical destruction, but Abuward emphasizes that the collapse of basic services affects every aspect of daily life, making even routine activities difficult.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conflict reshapes family life and social priorities</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite the ongoing war, Abuward describes an unexpected increase in marriages and births. He contends that this trend stems from the disappearance of many traditional life paths. With education disrupted, employment scarce and travel largely impossible, many young people see marriage as one of the few remaining ways to move forward with their lives.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This demographic shift has placed additional pressure on an already overwhelmed healthcare system. Maternity wards operate at full capacity while hospitals struggle with severe staffing shortages. Experienced doctors have left Gaza in large numbers, leaving nursing students and junior medical students to fill critical roles long before completing their training.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Golish asks how healthcare workers cope psychologically after years of continuous crisis. Abuward explains that many effectively live inside hospitals, eating and sleeping there because they expect new casualties to arrive at any moment. Although this life is exhausting, many have adapted because they feel they have no alternative.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Innovation and education become tools for resilience</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite the hardship, creativity has emerged from necessity. Gazans routinely improvise practical solutions using whatever materials remain available. Makeshift drying machines built from wood, glass and plastic allow families to wash and dry clothes without electricity, while homemade games help children and young people maintain their mental well-being despite the absence of schools and recreational spaces.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Abuward says that prolonged disruption has encouraged experimentation and problem-solving. “The person who has free time is creating the creativity,” he comments, suggesting that necessity has become a catalyst for innovation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This philosophy also shapes Youth for Palestine, the nonprofit organization he founded. The organization provides informal education in practical skills such as curriculum vitae writing, leadership, analytical thinking and professional development. Rather than focusing solely on emergency relief, Abuward hopes to help students discover talents that conflict has interrupted rather than erased.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He explains that several graduates have gone on to become ambassadors for international organizations or launch their own projects. One student-led initiative developed a Short Message Service-based educational platform that allows students in conflict zones to access coursework and complete examinations without reliable Internet access. This illustrates how locally developed solutions could have broader international applications.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trust, inequality and aid distribution</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation then turns to the uneven distribution of resources inside Gaza. Abuward argues that access to aid often depends on personal connections, employment with international organizations or financial resources established before the war. He describes what he sees as three broad social groups: a small minority with outside connections, those employed by non-governmental organizations and the much larger population struggling in camps with few resources.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Golish asks how these inequalities shape public attitudes. Abuward argues that many Palestinians have lost confidence in aid organizations because they believe assistance does not always reach those most in need. In his view, rebuilding trust has become as important as providing material support.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He therefore contends that transparency and accountability should accompany humanitarian assistance. Without confidence that organizations are acting honestly, vulnerable people become reluctant to share their needs or seek help, making relief efforts less effective.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Recovery requires opportunity as well as relief</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Looking beyond immediate humanitarian needs, Abuward identifies temporary housing as one of Gaza’s most urgent unmet priorities. He argues that simple shelters made from wood or other inexpensive materials would offer protection from extreme weather while allowing families to remain in their communities during reconstruction.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Golish asks how international supporters can contribute effectively. Abuward cautions against donating indiscriminately through unverified fundraising campaigns, recommending instead that contributions should go to transparent, accountable organizations that clearly document how resources are used.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He concludes by calling Youth for Palestine an investment in Gaza’s future rather than only its present. The organization’s goal is to help cultivate what he calls a “leading generation” capable of rebuilding society when conditions eventually improve. His closing message broadens beyond Gaza itself: “Everyone in the world should have rights and everyone in the world [has]  a talent. We just need to think before [we] act.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor Lucy Golish speaks with Youth for Palestine founder Ahmed Ihab Abuward about the humanitarian crisis, the unequal distribution of resources and the resilience that has emerged amid prolonged conflict in Gaza. Its residents face severe shortages of water, electricity, housing and healthcare..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Lucy Golish and Ahmed Ihab Abuward discuss Gaza’s humanitarian conditions. Abuward describes severe essential resource shortages, unequal aid distribution and healthcare pressures, but he also highlights the resilience and creativity that have emerged among its people. Gaza’s future depends on rebuilding trust, expanding opportunities for young people and empowering them to lead reconstruction." post-date="Aug 01, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Making Sense of What Life Is Like in Palestine Today" slug-data="fo-talks-making-sense-of-what-life-is-like-in-palestine-today">

FO Talks: Making Sense of What Life Is Like in Palestine Today

August 01, 2026
Gary Grappo" post_date="July 28, 2026 06:12" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-talks-make-sense-of-donald-trumps-new-peace-deal-with-iran/" pid="163646" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, who served as Envoy and Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative Tony Blair in Jerusalem, examine the Trump administration’s new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran and assess whether it marks the beginning of peace or simply a pause in hostilities. They explore the agreement’s implications for Iran’s economy, the future of its nuclear program, the security of the Strait of Hormuz and the broader balance of power in the Middle East. What does the deal mean for US influence, Israel’s strategic position and the risk of a wider regional arms race?</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A temporary pause, not a lasting peace</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Gary describes the agreement as “a very unsatisfactory and … abysmal memorandum of understanding.” He argues that it merely creates a 60-day framework for further negotiations rather than resolving the underlying conflict. Despite fighting alongside the United States during the war, Israel is absent from the negotiating table, which highlights an important shift in regional diplomacy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The immediate beneficiaries are Iran’s economy and leadership. Washington has temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil exports, allowing Tehran to sell oil in US dollars for the first time in decades. While this will not fully repair Iran’s struggling economy, Gary says the agreement provides a significant financial boost at a moment when Tehran desperately needs liquidity. Simultaneously, conflicting public statements over nuclear inspections suggest both governments are presenting different narratives to domestic audiences while leaving the core nuclear dispute unresolved.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The Strait of Hormuz becomes the central battleground</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the agreement calls on Iran to make “best efforts” to keep shipping lanes open. Yet Tehran has also indicated that it intends to administer traffic through the strait, potentially charging vessels for passage.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Atul argues that such payments resemble protection money, while Gary calls the proposal “pretty much extortion” because it lacks any legal basis under international maritime law. Unlike the Panama or Suez canals, Iran provides no infrastructure that would justify transit fees. If accepted, this precedent could undermine the longstanding principle that international waterways remain open to global commerce.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Gary also draws on his experience as US ambassador to Oman. Although Iran has suggested Muscat could participate in any collection scheme, Oman has remained publicly silent. He believes the Omanis are unlikely to violate their international commitments, though they could legitimately charge for services such as search and rescue or environmental protection if necessary. Meanwhile, Oman has emerged comparatively well positioned because its oil exports largely avoid the vulnerable shipping route through the Persian Gulf.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Economic shockwaves extend far beyond the Gulf</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Atul and Gary state that the conflict has disrupted the financial architecture built around Gulf energy exports. Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar face severe challenges because their economies depend heavily on energy exports that pass through Hormuz. Higher transportation costs and uncertainty threaten both government revenues and global energy prices.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Atul expands the analysis beyond oil markets. Gulf monarchies may have to draw down reserves or sell overseas investments to maintain domestic spending commitments while simultaneously increasing defense budgets. Reduced purchases of Western assets and US Treasury bonds could tighten global financial conditions and place upward pressure on borrowing costs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The United Arab Emirates has requested a Federal Reserve swap line. Gary describes this as an emergency liquidity mechanism. Atul characterizes the development as a reversal of the traditional flow of petrodollars, arguing that instead of Gulf wealth supporting Western financial markets, the US may increasingly find itself supporting Gulf partners during periods of crisis. Together, they suggest that the consequences of the conflict extend well beyond the Middle East into the foundations of the global financial system.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Intelligence failures and misunderstanding Iran</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Much of the discussion examines why Washington misjudged the conflict. Gary argues that recent reductions in experienced personnel at the CIA and State Department removed many of the officials with the deepest knowledge of Iran. He believes this weakened strategic planning and contributed to serious miscalculations.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He is particularly critical of the assumption that military pressure and targeted assassinations could trigger the collapse of the Iranian government. Instead, the campaign strengthened domestic support for the regime through a rally-around-the-flag effect while reinforcing a political culture shaped by the 1979 Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Gary argues that American policymakers underestimated Iran’s ideological resilience and negotiating style. “The Iranians have never won a war or lost a negotiation,” he says. He expects negotiations to last far longer than the 60 days envisioned in the MOU because Iranian officials have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to delay agreements while extracting additional concessions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A transformed strategic landscape</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion concludes by examining how new military technologies have altered the balance of power. Gary argues that drones have fundamentally changed naval strategy because even a single successful attack on a tanker can disrupt shipping and drive insurance costs high enough to halt commercial traffic. Control of strategic waterways no longer depends solely on major naval fleets.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Looking ahead, both speakers warn that the agreement leaves Iran’s nuclear program unresolved while increasing pressure on neighboring states to reconsider their own security strategies. Saudi Arabia may accelerate nuclear planning if confidence in American security guarantees continues to erode. Other regional powers could eventually follow.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Rather than marking the end of the crisis, Atul and Gary conclude that the MOU begins a new phase of prolonged negotiations and strategic competition. Iran appears economically strengthened, the US faces difficult diplomatic and financial challenges and the Middle East enters an even more uncertain era in which regional stability, energy markets and the global balance of power remain interconnected.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, who served as Envoy and Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative Tony Blair in Jerusalem, examine the Trump administration’s new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran and assess whether it marks the..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Gary Grappo argue that the Trump administration’s agreement with Iran has weakened the US, Israel and their partners’ standing. The unresolved status of Iran’s nuclear program, uncertainty over the Strait of Hormuz and disruptions to Gulf energy exports could have great consequences. The memorandum begins a prolonged period of instability." post-date="Jul 28, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Make Sense of Donald Trump’s New Peace Deal With Iran" slug-data="fo-talks-make-sense-of-donald-trumps-new-peace-deal-with-iran">

FO Talks: Make Sense of Donald Trump’s New Peace Deal With Iran

July 28, 2026
James M. Dorsey" post_date="July 23, 2026 06:07" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-talks-make-sense-of-qatars-situation-in-the-us-israel-iran-war/" pid="163568" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with journalist and author James M. Dorsey about Qatar’s position at the heart of the US/Israel–Iran war. They explore the consequences of attacks on Qatar’s critical energy infrastructure, the limits of the country’s long-standing soft power strategy and the broader transformation of Gulf security. While the war has exposed new vulnerabilities, Qatar possesses the financial resources, diplomatic experience and strategic flexibility to remain an influential regional actor.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Soft power meets military reality</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Dorsey begins by explaining why Qatar occupies such an important position in the Middle East despite its small population. As one of the world’s largest natural gas producers, it shares the world’s largest offshore gas field with Iran, creating a relationship unlike that of any other Gulf state. The country has also built an international reputation as a mediator in regional conflicts, making Iran’s decision to strike Qatar particularly significant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The attack on the Ras Laffan gas facility marked a turning point. Around 17% of Qatar’s production capacity was disabled, with estimated losses of roughly $20 billion annually and repairs expected to take as long as five years. Dorsey calls the strike a “very significant blow” to Qatar’s economy. It forced Doha to step back temporarily from its traditional mediating role before later helping facilitate negotiations between Iran and Pakistan that contributed to the recent memorandum of understanding.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh notes that Qatar’s influence extends well beyond energy through the Al Jazeera network and its successful hosting of the FIFA World Cup. Dorsey argues these initiatives formed part of a broader security strategy developed after Iraq’s invasion of neighboring Kuwait. Rather than relying solely on military strength, Qatar sought to make itself globally indispensable through diplomacy, media and international visibility. The current conflict, however, demonstrates that while soft power enhances influence, it cannot substitute for effective missile defenses.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Geography limits Qatar’s options</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh describes Qatar as a “prisoner of geography,” wedged between Saudi Arabia and Iran and heavily dependent on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Dorsey explains that this dependence is even greater for natural gas than for oil because gas exports cannot easily be redirected through pipelines.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Unlike Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have invested in alternative export routes, Qatar remains closely tied to maritime access through the Strait. This explains why Doha has adopted a more measured position on proposals involving Iranian control or temporary fees for shipping through Hormuz, emphasizing stability rather than confrontation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Dorsey says Qatar has spent decades “having to maneuver and balance on a tightrope,” maintaining workable relations with competing regional powers. Until the recent war, this balancing strategy proved remarkably successful. The attacks nevertheless demonstrate that even careful diplomacy cannot entirely shield a small state from the consequences of great-power conflict.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Security priorities shift across the Gulf</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion then turns to the future of Gulf security. Dorsey believes that the United States will remain the principal security guarantor because no alternative power possesses both the capability and willingness to assume that role. However, Gulf governments are likely to demand a relationship that is more consultative and conditional than in the past.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simultaneously, Qatar and its neighbors are expected to increase defense spending significantly. Dorsey contrasts Qatar’s earlier emphasis on “software” — its diplomatic influence and soft power — with a new focus on military “hardware.” Investment in missile defense, domestic weapons production and defense industries is likely to accelerate throughout the region.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh questions whether countries with relatively small citizen populations can sustain larger military establishments. Dorsey responds that labor shortages can be addressed through immigration, as Gulf economies have long relied on foreign workers. He points to the UAE as evidence that a small population does not necessarily prevent the development of capable armed forces or an expanding defense industry.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation also highlights increasing diversification in Gulf security partnerships. Alongside continued American protection, countries are strengthening ties with Pakistan, India, European states and potentially China while expanding indigenous military capabilities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A permanent relationship with Iran</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite the conflict, Dorsey argues that geography ultimately forces the Gulf states and Iran to coexist. He describes their relationship as “a Catholic marriage,” emphasizing that neither side can simply walk away from the other.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Both speakers suggest that discussions over managing the Strait of Hormuz may eventually become part of a broader regional security framework that includes Iran. Such an arrangement would remain politically difficult, particularly given unresolved tensions involving Israel and the Palestinian issue, yet both regard regional dialogue as unavoidable over the long term.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Dorsey believes Iran has emerged from the conflict strategically stronger despite suffering military and economic damage. The survival of the Iranian regime, the prospect of sanctions relief and the possibility of reconstruction funding leave Tehran better positioned than many observers expected. Although domestic grievances remain unresolved, he believes that they have temporarily been overshadowed by wartime nationalism.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Qatar remains resilient despite greater risks</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In concluding, Singh asks whether Qatar can preserve its international influence despite becoming a direct target during the conflict. Dorsey says that although the country’s security environment has become considerably more dangerous, its core strengths remain intact.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Qatar retains substantial financial resources, sophisticated diplomacy and decades of experience navigating complex regional rivalries. Those advantages, combined with its central role in global energy markets, provide the resilience needed to adapt to a changing Middle East.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Gulf states are entering a new era in which diplomacy alone is no longer sufficient. Soft power will remain an important source of influence, but it will increasingly be complemented by stronger defense capabilities, diversified security partnerships and greater regional coordination as the balance of power continues to evolve.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with journalist and author James M. Dorsey about Qatar’s position at the heart of the US/Israel–Iran war. They explore the consequences of attacks on Qatar’s critical energy infrastructure, the limits of the country’s long-standing soft power strategy and..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and James M. Dorsey examine how the US/Israel–Iran conflict has made diplomatic Qatar a target. They discuss the economic consequences of attacks on its gas infrastructure and the Gulf’s shift toward diversified security partnerships. Qatar’s financial strength and regional influence should help it adapt to the changing power balance." post-date="Jul 23, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Make Sense of Qatar’s Situation in the US/Israel–Iran War" slug-data="fo-talks-make-sense-of-qatars-situation-in-the-us-israel-iran-war">

FO Talks: Make Sense of Qatar’s Situation in the US/Israel–Iran War

July 23, 2026
Kent Jenkins Jr." post_date="July 21, 2026 06:03" pUrl="/politics/fo-talks-andy-burnham-britains-new-captain-in-tumultuous-times/" pid="163547" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Kent Jenkins Jr., a former political reporter from <em>The Washington Post</em> turned communications consultant, discuss the rise of Andy Burnham as Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade. They examine Burnham’s working-class roots, his governing philosophy of “Manchesterism” and the political and economic challenges awaiting his government. Can Burnham offer a credible alternative to both Thatcherism and the populist movements that have reshaped British politics over the past decade?</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">King of the North challenges London’s political orthodoxy</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jenkins believes that Burnham stands apart from recent British prime ministers because of his background and his political experience. Rather than emerging through Westminster, Burnham spent nearly a decade as mayor of Manchester, where he developed a policy platform centered on stronger local government, public investment and regional empowerment. As Jenkins puts it, Burnham is “very much unlike his predecessors” because of his biography, political path and policy agenda.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh places this argument in historical context, noting that Britain has produced several prime ministers from modest backgrounds, including Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Keir Starmer. Even so, Burnham’s rise from Manchester rather than Westminster remains unusual.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Additionally, Singh and Jenkins explore Burnham’s working-class upbringing, his Catholic background and his experience as the first member of his family to attend university. Unlike most recent prime ministers, Burnham is a Cambridge graduate. These experiences, together with his years outside what he calls “the Westminster bubble,” allow him to connect with voters who feel ignored by Britain’s political elite.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Burnham’s personal story has appeared to resonate with working-class voters who have defected from Labour during the Brexit era. His struggles with what he later described as imposter syndrome reinforce an image of a politician who personally understands the struggle of moving up in society.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">New Manchesterism and break with New Labour</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation turns to Burnham’s governing philosophy, which he calls Manchesterism. Singh explains that the original 19th-century Manchester School championed free trade and laissez-faire economics, whereas Burnham has repurposed the term to describe a more interventionist approach with more government involvement. However, New Manchesterism involves devolving power away from Westminster to local bodies in the UK.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jenkins highlights several reforms Burnham introduced as Mayor of Greater Manchester, including bringing buses back under public control, capping fares, improving regional transport and advocating greater investment in technical education and council housing. He argues that Burnham’s visible improvements, such as Manchester’s bright yellow buses, demonstrated that the government could still deliver practical results at a time of widespread political cynicism.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh agrees that Burnham deserves credit for improving regional planning and transport integration but says that Manchester’s wider revival also reflected broader economic forces. Foreign investment, growth in technology and life sciences, sovereign wealth funding in sports a la Manchester City, similar investments in real estate that have lowered rents compared to London, and the city’s expanding knowledge economy have all contributed to the city’s resurgence. Burnham successfully “rode a wave” of economic transformation while also helping shape it.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Much of the discussion contrasts Burnham’s priorities with those of former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair recently argued that Labour should focus primarily on artificial intelligence, national competitiveness and Britain’s role in the global economy. Burnham instead emphasizes inequality, local communities and rebuilding public trust from the ground up.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jenkins states that Burnham represents one of the first major center-left leaders to develop a comprehensive response to the populist politics that emerged after Brexit and Donald Trump’s election. Rather than dismissing those voters, Burnham seeks to address the economic frustrations and regional inequalities that fueled their dissatisfaction.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Critics question Burnham’s consistency, pointing out that he previously opposed devolution when he was part of the Westminster bubble before opportunistically embracing them when he became a mayor. Even so, Singh and Jenkins agree that Burnham has fundamentally shifted Labour’s emphasis away from Westminster and toward local communities. His proposal to devolve greater authority to cities and regions reflects both practical experience and a broader political strategy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A difficult inheritance and Burnham’s big test</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite Burnham’s popularity, Britain faces severe problems. Singh outlines a daunting economic landscape that includes high public debt, persistent fiscal deficits, deteriorating infrastructure and mounting welfare costs. Burnham inherits what he calls a “poisoned chalice” after years of economic stagnation and institutional decline.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jenkins observes that many important questions remain unanswered. Burnham has spoken extensively about local government, housing, transport and vocational education but far less about national economic management or foreign policy. Whether Manchesterism can successfully expand from governing a city to governing an entire country remains uncertain.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh and Jenkins further examine Burnham’s dispute with Blair over Labour’s future direction. As noted earlier, Blair and Burnham have different visions of the future. The former prescribes a top-down approach to drag the UK to the heart of the global economy while the latter pushes for a bottom-up approach that puts communities first. Clearly, Blair and Burnham not only have policy disagreements but also fundamentally different worldviews.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh and Jenkins go on to place Burnham within the bigger picture of Anglo-American politics. Singh compares Burnham’s rise with earlier political realignments led by Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Blair in the days before the populism of Brexit and Trump. Burnham is now attempting to define the next phase of that political cycle by offering a center-left alternative based on local empowerment instead of more globalization.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Neither speaker sees an easy path ahead. Jenkins believes Burnham is an exceptionally skilled politician who has successfully navigated both local and national politics, though he stresses that success in office will require considerable luck alongside political talent. Singh is more pessimistic, arguing that Britain’s fragmented political landscape and mounting economic pressures make lasting success unlikely regardless of who occupies Downing Street.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Burnham has already altered the terms of Britain’s political debate. Whether Manchesterism ultimately reshapes the country or becomes another short-lived experiment will depend not only on Burnham’s leadership but also the larger economic, political and geopolitical forces no one really controls.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Kent Jenkins Jr., a former political reporter from The Washington Post turned communications consultant, discuss the rise of Andy Burnham as Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade. They examine Burnham’s working-class roots, his governing philosophy of..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Kent Jenkins Jr. discuss British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s rise and how his philosophy of Manchesterism seeks to reshape British politics. Burnham is attempting to reconnect Labour with working-class voters by shifting power from Westminster to local communities. Whether Manchesterism can succeed may determine the future of Britain’s center-left." post-date="Jul 21, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Andy Burnham — Britain’s New Captain in Tumultuous Times" slug-data="fo-talks-andy-burnham-britains-new-captain-in-tumultuous-times">

FO Talks: Andy Burnham — Britain’s New Captain in Tumultuous Times

July 21, 2026
Emma Isabella Sage" post_date="July 20, 2026 06:28" pUrl="/world-news/fo-live-antisemitism-is-rising-again-why-and-why-now/" pid="163539" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Emma Isabella Sage, a research affiliate at the University of Glasgow, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the historical roots and contemporary resurgence of antisemitism. Drawing on personal experiences, historical analysis and debates over Zionism, they argue that the current wave of hostility cannot be understood solely through the lens of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Instead, they explore how centuries-old prejudices, political polarization and competing historical narratives continue to shape perceptions of Jewish identity and the State of Israel.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Personal histories reveal an enduring prejudice</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh opens by asking why antisemitism appears to be resurging around the world. Olmert responds with personal experiences from Great Britain and the United States that convinced him antisemitism often lies dormant before reemerging during moments of crisis. He says that the October 7 attacks and the war in Gaza became a catalyst that revived long-standing prejudices, causing many Jews outside Israel to fear being judged collectively for the actions of the Israeli state. He also notes that Jews remain disproportionately targeted in religious hate crimes; antisemitism repeatedly assigns collective responsibility to Jewish communities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sage complements this perspective with her family history. Her grandfather lost his banking job in Britain because he was a German citizen, and was then forced to return to Germany, where he was persecuted for being Jewish. She recounts how her great-grandmother starved herself to death so her son could escape Nazi Germany, and reflects on returning decades later to a German village that had once been 13% Jewish, where she is now the only Jewish inhabitant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Living in Germany today, Sage observes that Holocaust education has created widespread awareness of Jewish suffering without necessarily producing genuine knowledge about Jewish life. Many people believe they understand Judaism because they know its history of persecution, yet know little about Jewish traditions, culture or identity. Sage and Olmert agree that personal stories illustrate how antisemitism persists across generations in ways that broad historical narratives often fail to capture.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical narratives and national responsibility</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion broadens to examine how different countries confronted antisemitism before and during World War II. Olmert states that prejudice against Jews extended well beyond Nazi Germany, citing British political attitudes during the 1930s and claiming that many Allied leaders opposed Hitler for strategic rather than humanitarian reasons. Singh counters that Britain remained comparatively more tolerant than continental Europe, noting that Benjamin Disraeli had become prime minister despite his Jewish origins. Their exchange highlights the tension between judging historical figures by contemporary standards and recognizing how deeply embedded antisemitism was across European societies.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sage then shifts attention to the US. She challenges the popular narrative that America entered the war primarily as a humanitarian force, pointing instead to the Evian Conference and the widespread reluctance to accept Jewish refugees before the Holocaust. She says that opportunities existed to save lives before mass extermination began but were not taken. This raises uncomfortable questions about international responsibility.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Additionally, Olmert mentions that antisemitism has never been universal. Jewish communities historically experienced far less hostility in some civilizations, such as India and China, than they did in Europe or parts of the Middle East. Singh suggests that societies without exclusive religious claims to universal truth often developed different relationships with minority faiths, leading to a discussion of how theological traditions may have shaped attitudes toward Jews across different regions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sage and Olmert suggest that acknowledging the variations in attitudes worldwide is essential to understanding contemporary debates. Antisemitism is not an exclusively German phenomenon; rather, it is a broader problem that existed across Europe, the Middle East and North America long before the Holocaust reached its deadliest phase.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Israel, Zionism and competing historical narratives</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Can contemporary antisemitism be explained primarily as a reaction to Israeli policies? Singh presents the argument, frequently postulated by Muslim intellectuals, that hostility toward Jews in the Arab largely stemmed from the creation of Israel. Olmert strongly rejects this interpretation, pointing to examples of anti-Jewish discrimination under earlier Muslim rule. He says hostility toward Jews predates Zionism by many centuries.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert believes the deeper issue is the transformation of Jews from a vulnerable minority into a sovereign people capable of defending themselves. He contends that many societies struggle to accept this reversal of historical roles. Sage agrees, but adds that the Middle East contains many vulnerable minorities besides Jews whose experiences are often overlooked, and that if the problem of discriminatory hatred in the Middle East really stemmed from the creation of Israel, then stateless minorities should be faring much better than they are. She describes the Israeli–Palestinian conflict principally as an ethnic and national conflict over land and self-determination rather than primarily a religious struggle. She compares it to disputes in the Balkans, Nagorno-Karabakh and Cyprus as examples of ethnic conflict between competing national claims..</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sage also challenges common descriptions of Jewish identity. She and Olmert both reject labels such as “Judeo-Christian,” arguing that Judaism developed along its own historical path rather than serving merely as a precursor to Christianity. She describes Jews as an ancient people with a shared ethnic identity as well as a religious tradition. Many contemporary misunderstandings arise, she contends, because outsiders struggle to distinguish between Judaism as a faith and the Jewish people as a nation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion also addresses widespread misunderstandings surrounding Zionism. Sage defines it simply as support for Jewish self-determination and contends that many critics attach far broader meanings to the term. As she explains, “It’s the belief that Jews have a right to self-determination.” Olmert similarly maintains that Zionism represents the collective response Jews developed after centuries of persecution rather than an ideology that can be separated from Jewish historical experience.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">New forms of antisemitism on the left and right</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The speakers both argue that antisemitism today emerges across the political spectrum. Olmert points to hostility from far-right movements alongside growing anti-Zionism on parts of the political left. Sage believes the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism has become deliberately obscured by language which conceals deeper prejudices.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>She introduces the idea of “Holocaust inversion,” and explains that some Europeans and Americans cope with inherited historical guilt by drawing a false moral equivalence between  Jews and Nazis. According to this interpretation, shifting blame onto contemporary Israel allows societies to distance themselves from responsibility for past atrocities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Drawing on her previous experiences as a university student, Sage describes initially participating in progressive activism before discovering that her Jewish identity was being used to deflect accusations of antisemitism: that she was valuable to the group as a “fig leaf” to cover unseemly truths. After the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, she says fellow activists responded not with sympathy, but by questioning the political views of the victims. This convinced her that Jewish communities ultimately could not rely on others for protection. As she puts it, “We have to be the ones who look out for each other.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert states that criticism of Israel often applies standards not demanded of other states engaged in armed conflict. While acknowledging that Israeli governments can make mistakes and criticizing some figures on Israel’s far right, he insists that Jews retain the right to defend themselves and rejects attempts to deny Israel’s legitimacy through comparisons with Nazi Germany.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Compromise, coexistence and the future</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation concludes by examining why efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict remain so difficult. Olmert says the greatest obstacle is what he calls an absolutist approach that rejects any Jewish national rights. He contrasts this with his own support for compromise, while acknowledging that Israeli extremists also damage prospects for peace.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh raises critiques from figures such as political scientist Norman Finkelstein, who argues that Israeli military actions have become disproportionate and counterproductive. Olmert dismisses proportionality as an unreliable measure in wartime and insists that Israel’s first obligation is to protect its citizens. Sage similarly believes that genuine support for Palestinians should focus on improving refugees’ political and economic futures rather than perpetuating permanent displacement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Throughout the discussion, Singh repeatedly returns to the human cost of the conflict, pointing out that continuing cycles of violence risk radicalizing new generations on both sides. Olmert agrees that political compromise remains desirable. However, he insists that any lasting settlement must begin with mutual recognition of both Jewish and Palestinian national rights rather than denying either people’s legitimacy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite the bleak picture they paint, the speakers end on an optimistic note. Olmert predicts that renewed antisemitism will ultimately strengthen Jewish identity and support for Israel rather than weaken it. He closes with a declaration of resilience: “Whether you like us or not... we are going to exist for 3,000 years more.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Emma Isabella Sage, a research affiliate at the University of Glasgow, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the historical roots and contemporary resurgence of antisemitism. Drawing on personal experiences,..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Live, Atul Singh, Emma Isabella Sage and Josef Olmert discuss the historic roots and modern resurgence of antisemitism. Longstanding antisemitic narratives have been revived and reshaped around the Gaza war, bolstered by political extremism. Confronting antisemitism requires a deeper understanding of history, identity and the enduring forces that continue to shape modern conflicts." post-date="Jul 20, 2026" post-title="FO Live: Antisemitism Is Rising Again — Why and Why Now?" slug-data="fo-live-antisemitism-is-rising-again-why-and-why-now">

FO Live: Antisemitism Is Rising Again — Why and Why Now?

Mehdi Alavi" post_date="July 19, 2026 08:24" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-talks-what-the-domestic-situation-in-iran-tells-us-about-the-war/" pid="163520" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Multimedia journalist Luke De Cresce and Mehdi Alavi, author and founder of the Peace Worldwide Organization, discuss how the ongoing war has reshaped political life inside Iran. While much international attention focuses on military operations and diplomacy, Alavi argues that the domestic consequences tell a different story, with tighter information controls, rising nationalism and growing public support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He contends that many Western assessments misunderstand Iranian society and therefore misread both the country’s internal politics and its negotiating position.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Communication restrictions reinforce domestic control</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>De Cresce and Alavi begin with the state of communications inside Iran. Although Western media reports that Internet access has largely returned, Alavi says restrictions on international communication remain significant. Before January 8, contacting relatives and friends through WhatsApp was straightforward, but since then international calls often fail and messages that once received replies within hours can now take days or even a week.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simultaneously, Alavi notes that communication within Iran remains far more reliable through domestic platforms such as Bale. He says that the government has maintained these internal systems while limiting outside connections because it believes foreign intelligence agencies have used international communication channels to organize terrorist opposition activity. In his view, these restrictions are intended to strengthen domestic security rather than isolate ordinary citizens.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">War strengthens the IRGC and national unity</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A central theme of the interview is the growing influence of the IRGC. Alavi argues that American military action has produced the opposite effect from what Washington expected by increasing public support for the Iranian state instead of encouraging regime change. “They really united Iran,” he says, describing frequent large nighttime demonstrations in support of the Revolutionary Guard across major cities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Alavi attributes this response to Iran’s long civilizational history, saying that outsiders underestimate the strength of national identity. He compares the country to a family that may have internal disagreements but will unite against an external threat. He believes this shift has strengthened the IRGC politically and will allow it to play an even larger role after the conflict ends.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He also distinguishes between Iran’s elected government, which he characterizes as more willing to negotiate with Western countries, and the IRGC, which he says prioritizes national strength and self-reliance. According to Alavi, many Iranians now favor a significantly tougher response toward the United States than government leaders have been willing to pursue.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Economic hardship does not weaken public resolve</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Inflation and sanctions have affected everyday life in Iran. Alavi acknowledges that economic conditions have deteriorated sharply, with some consumer prices doubling within a year. Despite these pressures, he says many Iranians are prepared to accept financial hardship if they believe it protects the country’s independence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“Inflation is very bad in Iran,” Alavi says. But strong family and community networks help people endure economic difficulties. He contrasts Iranian social structures with those in the US, noting that relatives and neighbors often assist one another during periods of financial distress.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Alavi also suggests that many Iranians believe prolonged conflict will impose increasing economic costs on the US through higher energy prices and domestic political pressure. From this perspective, enduring short-term hardship is viewed as part of a longer strategic contest rather than a sign of national weakness.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Western reporting and future geopolitical alignment</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Alavi concludes by assessing media coverage, domestic unrest and Iran’s long-term future. He states that protests reported in Western media were much smaller than portrayed and notes that authorities relied largely on volunteer Basij forces operating within the IRGC rather than deploying the regular military, which he interprets as evidence that officials did not view the demonstrations as an existential threat.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Alavi further contends that Western media coverage consistently exaggerates negative developments inside Iran while overlooking events that contradict prevailing narratives. This, he argues, contributes to persistent misunderstandings of Iranian public opinion and government policy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Looking ahead, Alavi predicts that Iran will increasingly orient itself toward China, Russia and other non-Western partners. “The future should be with China and Russia and the neighboring countries,” he says. He believes the war has convinced many Iranians that closer ties with the West are unlikely to deliver lasting economic or political benefits. In his view, this strategic reorientation will shape both Iran’s postwar economy and its place in an increasingly multipolar international system.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Multimedia journalist Luke De Cresce and Mehdi Alavi, author and founder of the Peace Worldwide Organization, discuss how the ongoing war has reshaped political life inside Iran. While much international attention focuses on military operations and diplomacy, Alavi argues that the domestic..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Luke De Cresce and Mehdi Alavi examine how the ongoing war has reshaped Iran’s domestic political climate, communications and public attitudes. Foreign pressure has strengthened national unity, increased IRGC support and reinforced skepticism toward the West. Alavi predicts Iran will deepen its partnerships with China and Russia while avoiding Western influence." post-date="Jul 19, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: What the Domestic Situation in Iran Tells Us About the War" slug-data="fo-talks-what-the-domestic-situation-in-iran-tells-us-about-the-war">

FO Talks: What the Domestic Situation in Iran Tells Us About the War

July 19, 2026
Glenn Carle" post_date="July 16, 2026 05:55" pUrl="/region/europe/fo-exclusive-keir-starmer-falls-to-the-king-of-the-north/" pid="163455" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and <a href="https://fointell.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">FOI</a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine why the British Labour Party’s commanding parliamentary majority has failed to translate into political domination. “Broken Britain,” as the UK is often called these days, faces deep-rooted, difficult problems that no change of government can solve speedily. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>After a poor showing at the local elections, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is increasingly vulnerable. Lying in wait is Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester known as the King of the North. Burnham has just won a by-election to parliament, clearing his path to 10 Downing Street.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A shallow victory masks a deeper crisis</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>At first glance, Labour’s 2024 election victory appeared overwhelming. The party won 411 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons after the Conservatives had secured 365 seats in 2019, breaching Labour’s fabled red wall in the North. Yet it was a shallow victory. The number of votes went down, even as seats went up, suggesting that Labour’s mandate was far weaker than its parliamentary majority implied.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:image {"id":163457,"width":"840px","height":"auto","sizeSlug":"full","linkDestination":"none"} --> <figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img src="/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Screenshot-2026-07-16-182045.png" alt="" class="wp-image-163457" style="width:840px;height:auto"/></figure> <!-- /wp:image --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Starmer entered office with a reputation as an honest, decent and hardworking public servant, and an excellent lawyer. What he lacked, however, was vision, direction, agenda, policies and governing philosophy. Like former prime minister Rishi Sunak, Atul says, he displayed the “charisma of a dead mouse,” combined with U-turns and damaging lapses in judgment that quickly undermined public confidence in his leadership.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:image {"id":163456,"sizeSlug":"large","linkDestination":"none"} --> <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/image-6-1024x708.png" alt="" class="wp-image-163456"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://foi.partners/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">FOI</a>’s data analysis of the 2019 and 2024 election votes and members of parliament (MPs) elected</figcaption></figure> <!-- /wp:image --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Almost immediately after Starmer took office, his blunders reinforced that perception. The decision to scrap a popular winter fuel handout for pensioners provoked an immediate backlash. He also admitted accepting free clothing and football tickets from wealthy donors, damaging the image of integrity that had helped bring Labour to power. The appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US revived old controversies when it came to light that the “Dark Lord,” a nickname for Mandelson, was close to infamous sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For all his faults, Starmer had some genuine achievements. He helped steer international support for Ukraine after US President Donald Trump largely withdrew American backing. Starmer also worked to position Britain for a leading role in the AI revolution. Importantly, he brought net immigration down from the record levels that had fueled support for the populist right. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Broken Britain looks to Burnham</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Starmer’s governing philosophy rested on a simple proposition: “Tories were responsible for all problems in the UK.” Yet Britain’s malaise cannot be pinned on the sins of one party. Broken Britain has endured years of economic stagnation, strained public services and declining confidence in political institutions. As veteran journalist Andrew Neil observed, the country has been <a href="https://youtu.be/-fV7w1cNuU4?si=vkvJr13ZohZnqaFO" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">governed</a> by a “parade of mediocrities.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Political instability has become the norm. Britain had five prime ministers in 37 years and then cycled through seven in ten years, leaving successive governments focused on surviving rather than governing. As Atul puts it, living in Britain today is “like watching the Romans turn into Italians.” One can see a slow erosion of national confidence rather than a dramatic collapse of the country.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>These pressures on the country have exposed Labour’s internal contradictions. Labour presides over an unwieldy coalition of liberal and left-leaning middle classes, working-class white voters and minorities, which now comprise mainly Muslims. Holding together such a broad alliance becomes increasingly difficult as economic pressures and cultural divisions deepen.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Against that backdrop, attention has shifted to Burnham. Mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 to 2026 and the member of parliament for Leigh from 2001 to 2017, Burnham served in several cabinet positions under Gordon Brown, ending up as Secretary of State for Health from 2009 to 2010. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Burnham identifies as a socialist and is associated with the soft left faction of the Labour Party. He also presents himself as a politician guided by faith. A Catholic like former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, he attended a Catholic school and has said that “Catholic social teaching underpins my politics.” Unlike Johnson and Blair, who attended Oxford, Burnham studied English literature at Cambridge. No less than 31 British prime ministers have been Oxonians, while only 14 have been Cantabrigians. Burnham will become the first Cambridge man to enter 10 Downing Street since Stanley Baldwin, who was prime minister from 1935 to 1937.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Burnham’s ascent to the top job has been gradual. He finished fourth in the 2010 Labour Party leadership election, then came second to Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 election. During the Covid pandemic, Burnham dramatically raised his national profile by standing on the steps of Manchester Central Library in October 2020. Dressed in jeans and a worker’s jacket, this ambitious politician harshly criticized the Johnson government’s Covid restrictions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Burnham is a slippery politician who has changed his positions opportunistically. In 2015, he opposed devolution of health services to local leaders as shadow health secretary. Less than a year later, Burnham reversed course and championed devolution. By this time, he was running for mayor of Greater Manchester, and devolution meant he would enjoy greater power. The public forgave Burnham for his opportunistic inconsistency and his popularity continued to grow. When he applied to stand as Labour’s candidate for the House of Commons in the 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election, Starmer shot it down. The prime minister was keeping a potential rival out of Westminster and, unluckily for him, Labour not only lost that seat but <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr453rvy6kvo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">finished</a> in third place. Once Labour <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2026/england/results" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">fared</a> poorly in the local elections, Starmer’s position was untenable and Burnham’s entry into 10 Downing Street inevitable.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Starmer’s greatest political challenge has come not from the Conservatives but from within his own party. As Broken Britain continues to struggle, Labour’s future will be shaped not by the man in Downing Street, but by the King of the North.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine why the British Labour Party’s commanding parliamentary majority has failed to translate into political domination...." post_summery="In this section of the June 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine why British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s huge parliamentary majority has proved fragile in the face of the country’s deep problems. At a time of crisis, Starmer’s political blunders and lack of vision have opened the door to Andy Burnham, the “King of the North,” who is likely to take over as the next prime minister." post-date="Jul 16, 2026" post-title="FO Exclusive: Keir Starmer Falls to the King of the North" slug-data="fo-exclusive-keir-starmer-falls-to-the-king-of-the-north">

FO Exclusive: Keir Starmer Falls to the King of the North

July 16, 2026
Glenn Carle" post_date="July 15, 2026 06:29" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-exclusive-iran-trumps-trump-in-new-art-of-the-deal/" pid="163418" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and <a href="https://fointell.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">FOI</a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the broader strategic implications of the US/Israel–Iran conflict. Its significance extends well beyond the immediate military and diplomatic outcomes, revealing a changing balance of power in the Middle East and a transformation in the character of modern warfare. The lessons, they contend, will shape how both great and lesser powers approach conflict in an increasingly contested international order.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A memorandum in Iran’s favor</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Perhaps the month’s most consequential geopolitical development is the reported US–Iran Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. This memorandum reveals that the state of affairs is worse than prior to the conflict.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>According to the memorandum, Washington would lift its blockade on Iran, allowing normal commercial transit through the Strait of Hormuz to resume. The US would also withdraw its naval forces from the region within 30 days and end sanctions on Iranian petrochemicals and oil. This would make large-scale sales to China and other countries possible once again. In addition, Washington reportedly pledges to prepare an international reconstruction fund worth $300 billion.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Iran’s commitments are more limited and explicitly temporary. Tehran offers a 60-day pause in hostilities, together with a temporary 60-day agreement allowing commercial vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran also agrees to maintain the status quo on its nuclear program while negotiations continue, rather than expanding or dismantling it during the talks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The memorandum also raises questions about Israel and Shia militia Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon. Iran insists that the understanding includes a cessation of Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has resisted and denied that such a commitment exists. Even so, the practical effect appears to be that the US has pressured Israel to adhere to Iran’s conditions by avoiding further escalation while negotiations proceed.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The memorandum leaves many of the underlying strategic issues unresolved while granting Iran major economic and diplomatic concessions. If implemented, the memorandum would represent a settlement that is fundamentally different from, and arguably less favorable to Washington than, the <em>status quo ante bellum</em> (the situation before the conflict).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trump’s war aims: incoherent, ad hoc and changing</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Four principal strategic objectives justified the conflict. The <em>sine qua non</em> was eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. Yet the reported outcome appears to represent a regression from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), rather than an improvement on it. The Obama administration negotiated the JCPOA over many years and curbed Iran’s nuclear program. The memorandum does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Instead, it merely maintains the status quo on its nuclear program while talks continue, leaving the central issue of nuclear proliferation unresolved.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A second objective was overthrowing Iran’s regime of mullahs. US President Donald Trump’s attack on Iran has enabled hardliners to take charge in Iran. They are now more securely in power than <em>antebellum</em>. Rather than weakening the Islamic Republic politically, the war seems to have strengthened the regime and bolstered the people’s fighting spirit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A third objective was degrading Iran’s conventional military capabilities, notably its missile capabilities and stockpiles. Iran’s conventional capabilities were always largely toothless, incapable of projecting power beyond its immediate region. To that extent, any degradation of those conventional capabilities is strategically irrelevant and does not materially change the balance of threats.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Iran’s missile capabilities have been degraded, but remain at roughly 70% of their <em>antebellum</em> level, leaving Tehran still able to strike anywhere in the Middle East and destabilize the region. Drones, by contrast, were barely mentioned before the conflict. They are now defining the war space worldwide, demonstrating an ability to challenge conventional military power, particularly by denying access to territory and destabilizing entire regions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The fourth objective was stopping Iran’s support for its regional surrogates: Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraqi Shia militias. Those surrogates have been weakened, but primarily as a result of Israeli military action rather than US action. Simultaneously, they remain supported <em>de facto</em> and <em>de jure</em> by Iran. Tehran has not renounced its long-standing commitment to them. As a result, the broader regional network that has underpinned Iranian influence has been damaged, but not dismantled.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Taken together, none of the four principal strategic objectives appears to have been fully achieved. The nuclear program remains intact, the regime has become more secure, missile capabilities remain a regional threat and Iran’s proxy network survives despite suffering important setbacks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Strategic implications</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The memorandum has other far-reaching strategic implications. In the region, Iran appears stronger than before. Although it has suffered military and economic costs, Iran has emerged with its political system intact, its missile deterrent largely preserved and the prospect of renewed economic relief through the easing of sanctions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Israel is tactically and operationally safer in the medium term. Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed groups have been weakened, reducing the immediate military threat on Israel’s borders. In the long term, however, Israel may be worse off, becoming more isolated from the US, from its allies and within the region if Washington increasingly prioritizes regional stability over confrontation with Iran.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Beyond the Middle East, the US and all great powers must now confront the equalization of the battle space. Hegemony has become harder to achieve than ever before. Technological change has made it increasingly difficult for even the most powerful militaries to dominate weaker adversaries at an acceptable cost.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Drones in 2026 are what the machine gun was in 1914. Just as the machine gun transformed warfare by making traditional offensive operations extraordinarily costly, drones are reshaping the modern battlefield by making it easier to deny territory, disrupt logistics and impose significant costs on conventionally superior forces.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a result, offensives have become harder, and lesser powers are increasingly able to challenge great powers. This lesson extends well beyond the Middle East and is relevant for the US, China, Russia and even Turkey. The strategic environment has shifted in ways that make military intervention more uncertain and more expensive than many policymakers have so far assumed.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In that context, he who hesitates might survive, instead of becoming bogged down and suffering defeat. Strategic restraint may increasingly prove to be a source of strength rather than weakness as major powers adapt to a more contested and technologically equalized battlefield.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conflict has ultimately panned out much as FOI <a href="https://docsend.com/view/s/u74fj2r66jx93hhb" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">predicted</a> in May. The Trump administration is trapped in a Hormuz Crisis, and the memorandum reveals that America is playing a weak hand badly.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the broader strategic implications of the US/Israel–Iran conflict. Its significance extends well beyond the immediate..." post_summery="In this section of the June 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle assess the reported US–Iran Islamabad Memorandum, which favors Iran and fails to achieve American objectives. The war didn’t eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, topple its regime or neutralize its military capabilities and curb its regional influence." post-date="Jul 15, 2026" post-title="FO Exclusive: Iran Trumps Trump in New Art of the Deal" slug-data="fo-exclusive-iran-trumps-trump-in-new-art-of-the-deal">

FO Exclusive: Iran Trumps Trump in New Art of the Deal

July 15, 2026
Glenn Carle" post_date="July 14, 2026 06:57" pUrl="/world-news/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-june-2026/" pid="163400" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and <a href="https://fointell.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">FOI</a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, recap the most important developments of the month.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">American stocks, economics and politics</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Elon Musk’s much-hyped company SpaceX’s massive initial public offering (IPO) dominated the news for days. This IPO is not a marker of just success in business but captures how the market itself is eroding dramatically. Regulators rewrote rules to make exceptions for SpaceX. Elon Musk, the SpaceX CEO, is clearly proving that he can defy or bend the rules. The IPO is setting a precedent that may shift the free market from the public domain into a private affair for billionaires.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Global business leader <a href="/author/usama-malik/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Usama Malik</a> compares SpaceX to other stocks on the markets: “At the offering’s $1.75 trillion floor, roughly 94 times trailing revenue. The most expensive stock in the S&P 500, Palantir, trades at 67 times sales. Meta went public, growing 88% a year at 28 times revenue; Google, growing 240%, went out at ten. Value SpaceX’s three segments at twice what their public rivals command — a deliberately ‘soft ball’ exercise — and you reach about $1 trillion. The remaining three-quarters of a trillion dollars rests on one device: a ‘total addressable market’ of $28.5 trillion, nearly the size of the entire US economy, of which $22.7 trillion is filed under ‘enterprise AI,’ about 30 times the size of the enterprise software market that actually exists.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The SpaceX IPO shows that the US economy is increasingly reliant on technology and rich people, while consumer industries and poorer people are falling behind. <em>The Financial Times </em><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/e318cc17-a42d-40b9-b112-2a2a401a6795" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">reports</a> that a data center boom is going on even as traditional consumer goods companies are struggling, hobbled by insurgent rivals and flat population growth.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Note that the surging stock market has boosted the upper class’s wealth. This is what Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist, Mark Zandi, <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/trumponomics/id1038108799" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">told</a> <em>Bloomberg</em>. Upper class spending has driven economic growth, which is vulnerable to a market crash. In contrast, the lower half of earners have barely seen wage growth for a year. Data <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/sheddataviz/unexpectedexpenses-table.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">shows</a> that 37% of Americans could not cover an unexpected $400 expense from cash or savings, up from 32% in 2021.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Given such economic circumstances, it is unsurprising that leftwing challengers in New York <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/06/24/2026/mamdani-allies-succeed-in-new-york-primary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">ousted</a> two House Democrats in the primary on June 23. This is a major victory for Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his faction of the party.<strong> </strong>Representative Dan Goldman lost in a landslide defeat to former New York city council member Brad Lander, who told supporters that their movement could “vanquish Trump’s fascism.” Meanwhile, Representative Adriano Espaillat narrowly lost to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a pro-Gaza <a href="https://www.cityandstateny.com/personality/2026/06/like-aoc-but-left/414164/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">activist</a> who has not held any political office. State Legislator Claire Valdez, another Mamdani ally who rallied last week with him and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, easily won an open seat over Brooklyn’s borough president. At her victory party, Valdez called for “Solidarity forever, abolish ICE, free Palestine, organize your union and join [Democratic Socialists of America].”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Indian protests, Chinese pharmaceuticals and Norway considering rejoining EU</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>An Indian political movement that began as satire attracted thousands of supporters in a protest on June 20, reflecting real frustration among the country’s youth. Recent Boston University graduate Abhijeet Dipke started the Cockroach Janata Party (janata means people) after Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant compared young unemployed Indians to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/india/india-cockroach-janta-party-protest-youth-anger-intl-hnk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">cockroaches</a>. Anger swelled in May after a medical school entrance exam was voided over a leak, setting <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-06-03/india-s-cockroach-army-and-the-great-exam-betrayal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">millions</a> back in their careers. The New Delhi protesters were “disillusioned with the institutions of the republic itself” amid a tough job market and rising costs, per <a href="https://scroll.in/article/1093392/watching-the-cockroach-janta-party-cautiously" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Scroll</em></a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Even as India is embroiled in a hot mess, China’s spectacular ascendance in biotech is raising alarm bells among some Western lawmakers and investors. American drug manufacturer Eli Lilly entered into its latest <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/unit-chinas-haisco-eli-lilly-sign-collaboration-licensing-deals-2026-06-01/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">agreement</a> with Chinese drugmaker Haisco Pharmaceutical Group on June 1. The licensing deals have raised concerns that the US could rely too heavily on Chinese biotech firms, making the industry susceptible to weaponization in a future conflict between the superpowers. “Biotech is just the latest battleground,” one investor <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/679ea661-559d-4bfd-9ec1-f8f743731fe5" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">commented</a>. China’s advantage in pharma is not unlike its dominant electric vehicle sector. According to <a href="https://www.chinatalk.media/p/the-empire-of-wuxi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>ChinaTalk</em></a>, “process expertise, cost efficiency, labor and talent, and deep integration into global supply chains” make Chinese biotech formidable.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On June 1, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide stated that Norway is reconsidering joining the EU. He cited a shift from a “benign world” to a “crazy world” as the reason. Norwegians voted twice, in 1972 and 1994, to remain separate from the bloc. However, the nation joined the single market, which makes it subject to EU trade agreements without any negotiating power.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tariff wars with Washington and NATO’s growing divisions make EU membership more appealing <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/5c8a871f-9a49-45f4-9ac0-543a608a5a9d" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">per</a> Eide. The EU would benefit from admitting Europe’s largest oil and gas producer. It is already looking to add new members: Iceland will hold a referendum in August, and nine other European countries are candidates, including Ukraine. The bloc <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/18/no-tailor-made-deal-uk-eu-brexit-officials-rejoin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">opposes</a> a British return, however.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">American push for quantum computing</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Back in the US, the Trump administration is investing $2 billion in nine quantum computing companies, a major bet on the nascent technology becoming commercially viable. In return, the US government will receive some equity, as it acts increasingly more like a sovereign wealth fund. <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/quantum-computing-grants-ibm-rigetti-globalfoundries-7382e6be" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">reports</a> that the government recently backed a rare-earths magnet maker and a mining company. Quantum, like fusion power, self-driving cars and AI, is a technology that skeptics joke is 30 years off and always will be. But like those industries — especially AI — it looks to have turned a corner, with the remaining obstacles being ones of scale and engineering rather than theoretical breakthroughs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>State capitalism seems to be taking root in the US. Refilling America’s dwindling cache of munitions took center stage at the White House<strong> </strong>as US President Donald Trump gathered defense companies to talk about juicing production. On June 22, Trump <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/white-house-set-to-host-weapons-makers-amid-stockpile-concerns">s</a><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/white-house-set-to-host-weapons-makers-amid-stockpile-concerns" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">a</a><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/white-house-set-to-host-weapons-makers-amid-stockpile-concerns">id</a>, “We’re really in a big strong economic push to do the weapons” and added that auto companies with “excess capacity” would help produce missiles.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The meeting followed <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/defense-companies-to-quadruple-production-of-exquisite-weapons-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">one</a> from March with defense contractors and included similar participants. The Iran War has <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-missile-inventory-multiyear-project" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">eroded</a> stockpiles of expensive weapons that take months to assemble. The Pentagon declined to provide details about the meeting itself, but the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Richard Sean Parnell, stated that the military “has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing.” Meanwhile, Congress sought to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/defense-contractors-stock-buybacks-senate-warren-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">bar</a> defense contractors from executing stock buybacks or paying dividends without Pentagon approval, an extension of a January executive order. This shows how the US is now tempering capitalism in the defence space, planting the seeds of a new system.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, recap the most important developments of the month.American stocks, economics and politicsElon Musk’s much-hyped company..." post_summery="In this section of the June 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle analyze several key developments of the month. They analyze SpaceX’s IPO, left-wing candidates winning Democratic primaries in New York, and the American economy’s increasing reliance on tech and rich people with consumer industries and the poor falling behind. They also highlight rising youth disillusionment in India with the institutions of the republic, Norway reconsidering joining the EU, China’s ascendance in biotech, and other issues." post-date="Jul 14, 2026" post-title="FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of June 2026" slug-data="fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-june-2026">

FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of June 2026

July 14, 2026
Martin Plaut" post_date="July 12, 2026 09:32" pUrl="/video/fo-explainers-xenophobic-attacks-in-south-africa/" pid="163362" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, explains the wave of xenophobic violence unfolding across South Africa. As groups demand that undocumented migrants leave the country, he examines the economic pressures driving the unrest, the government’s response and the broader political forces he believes may be shaping the crisis.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Economic hardship fuels rising violence</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut describes South Africa’s xenophobic violence as an urgent national crisis that intensified after activist groups gave undocumented migrants a deadline of June 30 to leave the country. Marches have taken place across the country, with participants carrying weapons and whips while targeting migrants from elsewhere in Africa. Calling the situation “extremely explosive,” Plaut argues that the unrest reflects deep social and economic frustrations rather than isolated incidents.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>South Africa’s exceptionally high unemployment rate, Plaut explains, lies at the heart of the violence. Around 60% of people under the age of 24 are unemployed, leaving many young South Africans with few economic opportunities. Rather than directing their anger toward political leaders or economic structures, many instead blame migrants competing for scarce jobs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut points to the human cost of this violence. Nearly 500 foreign Africans have been killed over the past four years, while thousands more have fled areas such as Durban or accepted evacuation assistance from governments including Malawi, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Roughly three million migrants currently live in South Africa, many without formal documentation, making them especially vulnerable during periods of unrest.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Civic organizations are attempting to counter the anti-migrant narrative by arguing that South Africa’s economic woes stem from systemic failures rather than the presence of foreign workers. This message has struggled to gain widespread support, however.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Political narratives and disputed outside influence</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Beyond the economic causes, Plaut argues that political rhetoric and competing interests are aggravating tensions. He points specifically to the African National Congress, criticizing comments by the party’s secretary general blaming Zimbabwean workers for undermining unions during apartheid. Such statements risk encouraging further hostility toward migrants at a particularly volatile moment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut also presents broader claims about foreign influence, while acknowledging that evidence remains incomplete. He says there are “indications” that Israeli or Jewish funders have supported xenophobic political groups following South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, although he is not alleging direct involvement in the street marches themselves.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He advances a second, more far-reaching argument involving Russia and South Africa’s abandoned 2015 nuclear agreement with Moscow. Plaut contends that interests connected to that project have supported campaigns seeking constitutional changes, including replacing the preamble stating that South Africa belongs to all who live there with language limiting that principle to South African citizens. He acknowledges that the argument “sounds bizarre” but maintains that political efforts surrounding constitutional change are genuine.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut concludes that South Africa faces an immediate security challenge. Although South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has appealed to traditional leaders and deployed police, Plaut criticizes authorities for failing to enforce existing laws prohibiting demonstrators from carrying weapons. He also notes that the government has neither declared a state of emergency nor banned the marches despite the escalating tensions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Unless the government can contain the violence and address deeper economic problems, both migrants and South African society face growing risks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, explains the wave of xenophobic violence unfolding across South Africa. As groups demand that undocumented migrants leave the country, he examines the economic pressures driving the unrest, the government’s response and the broader political..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Explainers, Martin Plaut explains how soaring unemployment and economic hardship have fueled xenophobic violence against migrants across South Africa, creating a national crisis. Allegedly, foreign interests linked to Israel and Russia are influencing groups seeking constitutional change. The government’s limited response has failed to contain the unrest, leaving the country exposed to escalating risks." post-date="Jul 12, 2026" post-title="FO Explainers: Xenophobic Attacks in South Africa" slug-data="fo-explainers-xenophobic-attacks-in-south-africa">

FO Explainers: Xenophobic Attacks in South Africa

July 12, 2026
David Mahon" post_date="July 09, 2026 06:23" pUrl="/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-north-korea-unveiling-the-hidden-truth/" pid="163330" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon examine why North Korea has suddenly become more visible on the international stage following high-profile visits by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They explore North Korea’s history, economic realities, nuclear strategy and uncertain future while considering how changing US influence may reshape regional security. Pyongyang’s growing importance reflects broader shifts in the balance of power across Asia rather than a simple strengthening of alliances.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A dynasty shaped by history</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Understanding North Korea requires looking far beyond the Korean War. Mahon traces the country’s political culture back to the Joseon Dynasty, which ruled Korea for roughly five centuries and established a tradition of dynastic continuity that still shapes public acceptance of the Kim family’s authority today. Legendary qualities attributed to the Kim leaders, he suggests, resemble those once associated with Korea’s monarchs, reinforcing a political culture in which one ruling family occupies an almost sacred position.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh and Mahon then turn to the upheavals of the 20th century. Japanese colonial rule, liberation after World War II and the Korean War fundamentally reshaped the peninsula, yet the conflict ended only with an armistice rather than a peace treaty. Mahon notes that China withdrew its forces from North Korea after the war while the United States maintained troops in the South, creating the strategic balance that still defines Northeast Asia.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Isolation and economic survival</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>North Korea remains one of the world’s most isolated countries despite recent diplomatic attention. Mahon describes an economy constrained by mountainous terrain, limited farmland and chronic shortages, leaving the country heavily dependent on China, which accounts for roughly 90% of its trade. During his visit a decade ago, he found a sharp contrast between the relatively prosperous appearance of Pyongyang and the extreme poverty of rural communities, where traditional farming methods remain common.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“There’s a desperation in that country,” Mahon admits.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Beyond official trade, North Korea relies on weapons exports and illicit activities to generate revenue while maintaining strict internal controls over information and movement. Singh notes the country’s chronic malnutrition, pointing to the significant height difference between North and South Koreans as evidence of decades of economic hardship. Yet despite repeated predictions of collapse, the regime has continued to survive through external support, internal repression and extraordinary political resilience.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Russia, China and the nuclear question</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Recent visits by Putin and Xi signal what Mahon sees as a new phase in managing North Korea rather than transforming it into a formal military ally. Russia’s need for ammunition and manpower during the war in Ukraine initially deepened ties with Pyongyang, while China now appears more willing to engage directly with its neighbor after years of frustration over its nuclear and missile programs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mahon argues that Beijing’s primary objective is stability rather than confrontation. “China has no benefit in seeing any conflict anywhere,” he states.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mahon characterizes North Korea’s nuclear arsenal as an insurance policy. He says that Pyongyang believes nuclear deterrence is the only reliable guarantee of regime survival after observing the experiences of countries that surrendered their strategic capabilities. Singh notes that while North Korea’s conventional military already poses a serious threat to South Korea, long-range nuclear weapons have transformed it into a global security concern for both Washington and Beijing.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Reform or renewed instability?</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Succession remains one of North Korea’s greatest uncertainties. Singh observes that the leading candidates to succeed Kim Jong Un are reportedly women, an extraordinary possibility in a traditionally patriarchal political culture. Mahon nevertheless describes Kim as an effective ruler who has consolidated power despite inheriting leadership without the revolutionary credentials of previous generations.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Looking ahead, Mahon considers gradual economic reform modeled loosely on Deng Xiaoping’s China to be the most plausible path toward greater prosperity while preserving political control. Simultaneously, he warns that declining American influence across the Asia-Pacific region could create new security risks by encouraging regional tensions involving Japan, the Philippines and the Korean Peninsula.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh also questions whether North Korea can indefinitely sustain its current economic model. Mahon acknowledges that repeated predictions of imminent collapse have consistently proven incorrect, arguing that highly centralized regimes often endure far longer than outsiders expect. While he believes gradual economic opening offers the country’s best long-term prospect, he cautions that any transition will depend on decisions by the Kim leadership rather than outside pressure. Whether Pyongyang embraces reform, maintains its current path or faces an unforeseen crisis, he concludes that North Korea will remain a significant factor in the evolving strategic balance of East Asia.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The West has to wake up and realize it's about 500 years behind on its homework on Asia.” Mahon concludes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>North Korea’s future remains deeply uncertain, but its isolation can no longer be understood in isolation from the wider transformation of the Asia-Pacific. As China, Russia and the US adjust to a changing regional balance, the choices made in Pyongyang will increasingly shape Northeast Asia’s security and geopolitical future.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon examine why North Korea has suddenly become more visible on the international stage following high-profile visits by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They explore North Korea’s history,..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and David Mahon examine North Korea’s historical development and growing geopolitical importance as China and Russia engage with Pyongyang. Its nuclear program, dependence on China and dynastic political system have allowed it to endure despite repeated predictions of collapse. Its future depends on how shifting power dynamics reshape its strategic environment." post-date="Jul 09, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: North Korea — Unveiling the Hidden Truth" slug-data="fo-talks-north-korea-unveiling-the-hidden-truth">

FO Talks: North Korea — Unveiling the Hidden Truth

July 09, 2026
Sam Tully" post_date="July 05, 2026 06:33" pUrl="/economics/fo-talks-indias-reckoning-reform-or-regression/" pid="163287" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully discuss the sharp withdrawal of foreign capital from India and what it reveals about the country’s economic trajectory. They explore whether recent market weakness reflects temporary geopolitical turbulence or deeper structural problems involving investment, manufacturing, bureaucracy and policy. While Singh fears India risks repeating past crises without major reforms, Tully argues that the country retains important economic strengths despite mounting challenges.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Foreign investors lose confidence</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation opens with a striking statistic: Foreign portfolio investors have withdrawn roughly $45 billion from Indian markets over the past two years, including about $18.5 billion in 2025 and another $20 billion by early June 2026. Foreign ownership of Indian equities has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, raising concerns that international investors are reassessing India’s prospects.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully attributes the trend to both external and domestic factors. Geopolitical instability around the Strait of Hormuz has threatened energy and fertilizer supplies that are critical to South Asia, creating inflationary pressures across the region. Simultaneously, India’s traditionally high market valuations have become harder to justify because corporate earnings have disappointed while competing markets such as China, Taiwan and South Korea have benefited from the global boom in AI-related hardware.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As Tully explains, “India’s expensive. It doesn’t have the exposure to the AI hardware that we see in Korea, Taiwan and China.” As a result, investors increasingly see better opportunities elsewhere.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Growth slows as structural weaknesses emerge</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh says that India’s problems extend well beyond short-term market sentiment. He points to sluggish private-sector capital expenditure, weak innovation and declining international competitiveness. Indian technology companies have excelled in services but invested relatively little in proprietary products, leaving the country absent from many of today’s fastest-growing industries.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully agrees that private investment has lagged despite strong corporate balance sheets. Rather than a shortage of capital, he points to structural obstacles including land acquisition, labor regulations and complex approval processes that discourage businesses from expanding manufacturing.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The speakers also revisit earlier policy decisions such as demonetization and the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax. Singh contends these measures damaged small and medium-sized businesses, reducing employment and weakening domestic demand. Tully adopts a more measured view, acknowledging that consumption has slowed while emphasizing that India’s large domestic consumer market remains one of its greatest long-term advantages.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>They also note that India failed to capitalize fully on the “China plus one” opportunity. Although initiatives such as Make in India encouraged manufacturing, production has not expanded at the pace seen elsewhere in Asia, leaving India with relatively little exposure to sectors such as semiconductors and AI hardware.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Demographic pressures meet bureaucratic barriers</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion then turns to India’s labor market. Around 90% of employment remains in the informal sector, only about 80–90 million people are registered taxpayers and roughly ten million new workers enter the labor force every year.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh argues that without stronger job creation, India’s demographic dividend risks becoming a liability rather than an advantage. He observes that many talented Indians continue to pursue education and careers overseas, suggesting both capital and skilled labor increasingly “vote with their feet.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully acknowledges these concerns but highlights encouraging developments within India’s startup ecosystem. Entrepreneurs are applying new technologies to agriculture, education and other sectors, creating innovative businesses that continue attracting venture capital despite broader economic uncertainty.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The speakers devote considerable attention to India’s bureaucracy. Drawing on his own experience in government, Singh criticizes the Indian Administrative Service for retaining a centralized, interventionist mindset that he believes discourages entrepreneurship and efficient policymaking. Tully is more sympathetic toward institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India, though both agree that structural reforms remain necessary to improve the business environment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The rupee, domestic investors and reform</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The weakening rupee becomes another focal point of the discussion. Singh states that continued currency depreciation erodes investor returns while making India less attractive for foreign capital. Unlike export-driven economies that may benefit from weaker currencies, India’s domestic-oriented economy gains relatively little from this adjustment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully agrees the rupee’s decline deserves attention but believes the broader economy remains more resilient than it was before the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis. Domestic investors have increasingly offset foreign selling, helping stabilize markets even as overseas funds reduce their exposure.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Nevertheless, Singh warns that systematic investment plans have left many middle-class investors supporting valuations while experienced foreign investors exit. He raises the possibility of a sharp correction if confidence deteriorates further.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully remains cautious but less pessimistic. “I don’t have quite that strong a sense of foreboding,” he says. He considers India’s underlying fundamentals reasonably robust despite the recent setbacks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Waiting for reform</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>India stands at an important crossroads. External shocks — from Middle Eastern instability to US tariffs — have compounded domestic weaknesses, yet many of the country’s challenges originate within its own institutions and regulatory framework.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh and Tully believe another wave of structural reforms is needed to strengthen manufacturing, encourage investment and improve ease of doing business. They differ on urgency, however. Singh says history shows that meaningful reform often follows severe crises. Tully hopes corrective measures can arrive before conditions deteriorate that far.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tully concludes, “We must not underplay the extent of the success and transformation that you have seen in India,” even as the country confronts difficult choices about sustaining growth in an increasingly competitive global economy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully discuss the sharp withdrawal of foreign capital from India and what it reveals about the country’s economic trajectory. They explore whether recent market weakness reflects temporary geopolitical turbulence or deeper structural..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Sam Tully examine why investors have withdrawn $45 billion from Indian markets — does India face a temporary slowdown, or structural crisis? They discuss weakening earnings, geopolitical shocks and declining competitiveness while weighing India’s strengths against mounting risks. Though major reforms come after crises, India’s fundamentals seem stronger than critics acknowledge." post-date="Jul 05, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: India’s Reckoning — Reform or Regression?" slug-data="fo-talks-indias-reckoning-reform-or-regression">

FO Talks: India’s Reckoning — Reform or Regression?

July 05, 2026
Alix Willemez" post_date="June 24, 2026 06:07" pUrl="/world-news/fo-talks-who-owns-the-ocean-the-hidden-law-that-rules-the-ocean/" pid="163123" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>51Թ’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Dr. Alix Willemez, a specialist in the law of the sea, about the growing importance of ocean governance in an era of geopolitical competition, environmental pressure and technological dependence. Their discussion ranges from the foundations of maritime law to the emerging High Seas Treaty and the strategic waterways that keep the global economy functioning. Willemez argues that humanity is only beginning to understand the ocean’s central role in sustaining modern life and regulating the planet.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The ocean’s hidden role in modern life</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Campani begins by asking a deceptively simple question: Who owns the ocean, and why does it matter?</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Willemez explains that the ocean underpins nearly every aspect of modern civilization. Half of the oxygen humans breathe is produced by marine phytoplankton. The ocean also absorbs and redistributes heat through global currents, moderating temperatures and creating the stable climate conditions that make agriculture possible.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Its economic importance is equally significant. Roughly 90% of global trade travels by sea, while approximately 95% of international communications rely on fiber-optic cables laid along the ocean floor. Internet traffic, banking transactions, streaming services and countless other digital activities depend on infrastructure hidden beneath the waves.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The ocean is also becoming an increasingly important source of renewable energy through offshore wind and tidal power. Yet despite this dependence, Willemez notes that many people remain largely unaware of the ocean’s role in their daily lives.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">From cannonballs to freedom of the seas</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The legal framework governing the oceans developed gradually over centuries. Willemez describes how early maritime jurisdiction was based on the so-called cannonball rule. A state’s authority extended only as far as a shore-based cannon could fire, roughly three nautical miles.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As maritime technology advanced and states expanded their commercial ambitions, this approach became inadequate. The emergence of global trade routes forced governments to develop more sophisticated legal principles.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A pivotal figure in this process was the 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius. Working during an era when Spain and Portugal sought to dominate major sea routes, Grotius argued that oceans should remain open to all rather than becoming private domains controlled by individual powers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>His principle of freedom of navigation became one of the foundations of modern maritime law. While states eventually expanded their maritime claims, the idea that ships should generally be able to move freely across the world’s oceans remains central to contemporary governance.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">UNCLOS and the rise of the High Seas Treaty</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The modern legal foundation for ocean governance is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>UNCLOS established territorial seas extending 12 nautical miles from a country’s coastline, where states exercise broad sovereignty. Beyond that lies the Exclusive Economic Zone, stretching to 200 nautical miles, where states enjoy rights over fisheries and natural resources while preserving freedom of navigation for foreign vessels. The convention also recognizes continental shelf rights over seabed resources.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>However, UNCLOS left significant gaps regarding the high seas, the vast areas beyond national jurisdiction that cover roughly half the planet’s surface.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Scientific discoveries have transformed understanding of these regions. Researchers increasingly recognize the importance of deep-sea ecosystems and genetic resources that could contribute to future medical and technological breakthroughs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To address these challenges, governments negotiated the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement, commonly known as the High Seas Treaty. The treaty was adopted by UN member states on June 19, 2023, and entered into force on January 17, 2026, after reaching the 60-ratification threshold required to take effect. It seeks to strengthen protections for biodiversity in international waters and establish new mechanisms for cooperation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Willemez notes that support continues to grow. “145 countries have signed the treaty,” she explains, while a large and growing number have formally ratified it, making its provisions legally binding.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Maritime chokepoints and geopolitical conflict</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation then turns to places where maritime law collides with geopolitical realities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical waterways. Although international law guarantees freedom of passage, tensions between Iran and the United States have produced a de facto double blockade.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Iran raises commercial risks through threats involving mines and drones, dramatically increasing shipping insurance costs. Simultaneously, Washington seeks to restrict Iranian oil exports. The result is growing pressure on one of the world’s most important energy corridors.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Other chokepoints face different challenges. The Strait of Malacca serves as a vital route for Asian trade and global electronics supply chains. The Suez Canal, governed through separate treaty arrangements and administered by Egypt, remains indispensable to commerce linking Europe, Africa and Asia.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Panama Canal faces a different threat. Because its lock system depends on freshwater supplies, drought conditions can significantly reduce shipping capacity, increasing transportation costs and disrupting supply chains worldwide.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Toward a more integrated system of ocean governance</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite progress, Willemez argues that ocean governance remains fragmented. Shipping, fisheries, biodiversity protection and seabed mining are overseen by different organizations operating largely independently of one another.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>That fragmentation is increasingly at odds with scientific understanding of the ocean as an interconnected ecosystem.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Willemez considers the most promising development to be the growing shift toward ecosystem-based governance. The High Seas Treaty could enable the creation of marine protected areas that safeguard migratory species throughout their entire life cycles rather than only within individual national jurisdictions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The fact that we think of the ocean as an ecosystem is a real progress,” she says.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Looking ahead, Willemez believes the combination of scientific discovery, international cooperation and growing environmental awareness is pushing governments toward a more holistic approach. As debates over deep-sea mining, biodiversity and maritime security intensify, the ocean is becoming one of the defining arenas of global governance in the 21st century.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" 51Թ’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Dr. Alix Willemez, a specialist in the law of the sea, about the growing importance of ocean governance in an era of geopolitical competition, environmental pressure and technological dependence. Their discussion..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Roberta Campani and Alix Willemez examine the ocean’s vital role in sustaining modern life and the laws that govern it. Willemez traces maritime law’s evolution from the principle of freedom of the seas to the High Seas Treaty. They also discuss the growing challenges of balancing global commerce, security and environmental protection." post-date="Jun 24, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Who Owns the Ocean? The Hidden Law That Rules the Ocean" slug-data="fo-talks-who-owns-the-ocean-the-hidden-law-that-rules-the-ocean">

FO Talks: Who Owns the Ocean? The Hidden Law That Rules the Ocean

Karimi Gatimi" post_date="June 23, 2026 05:32" pUrl="/region/africa/fo-talks-why-is-france-deepening-ties-with-kenya-after-fleeing-west-africa/" pid="163107" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>51Թ’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with journalist Karimi Gatimi and filmmaker Dickens Awiti about French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Kenya and France’s broader effort to rebuild influence in Africa. Against the backdrop of France’s expulsion from several Sahel states, Gatimi and Awiti argue that Paris is pursuing a pragmatic pivot toward Anglophone Africa. They explore Kenya’s evolving foreign relationships, the country’s economic pressures and the increasingly competitive geopolitical landscape shaping African diplomacy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">France’s pivot to Anglophone Africa</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Macron’s visit centered on a major summit in Nairobi that brought together 35 African presidents and thousands of delegates. Awiti notes that the gathering was historically significant because it marked the first time such a French-led summit was held in an English-speaking African country. The decision reflected France’s growing interest in partnerships beyond its traditional Francophone sphere.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The shift comes after a difficult period for Paris. In recent years, military governments in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso expelled French forces and deepened cooperation with Russian security actors. Awiti describes France’s departure from the Sahel as a painful setback and suggests that Kenya offers an opportunity for France to demonstrate that it can still build influential partnerships on the continent.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simultaneously, both speakers emphasize that France’s relationship with Kenya differs fundamentally from its relationships in former French colonies. Kenya’s interactions with France have largely been shaped by business, education and cultural exchange rather than the tensions that characterize many Francophone states.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">From aid to investment</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For Gatimi, the summit’s most important outcome was not a specific agreement but a change in mindset. She states that African leaders and participants increasingly reject relationships based on aid and dependency. Instead, discussions focused on investment, entrepreneurship and mutual benefit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Awiti agrees that the event served primarily as a diplomatic and commercial opening rather than a venue for major policy breakthroughs. He characterizes it as a “charm offensive” designed to create a favorable environment for French businesses seeking opportunities in Africa.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The visit came with controversy. Macron’s widely discussed attempt to quiet a noisy audience during one event drew criticism and revived debates about lingering colonial attitudes. For some observers, the incident symbolized older power dynamics that France still struggles to overcome.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Nevertheless, both speakers acknowledge France’s substantial economic weight and longstanding presence in Africa. French companies remain active across multiple sectors, while institutions such as the French Cultural Center have played a significant role in supporting Kenya’s creative industries for decades.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Why Kenya matters</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Gatimi believes Kenya’s growing importance explains much of the renewed international interest. The country is widely viewed as one of Africa’s more stable economies and attracts attention from the United States, Europe, the Gulf states, China and other partners.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>She stresses that Kenya approaches these relationships pragmatically. As she puts it, “Whoever marries my mother becomes my father.” The saying captures a broader attitude that foreign partnerships should be judged primarily by the benefits they bring to Kenyan society rather than by historical loyalties or ideological commitments.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Awiti echoes this view. Unlike many Francophone societies, where France retains deep cultural and political influence, many Kenyans have a less emotional relationship with their colonial past. Foreign partners are evaluated according to investment, jobs and development opportunities rather than symbolic considerations.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This practical approach has allowed Kenya to maintain relationships with a wide range of global actors simultaneously, positioning itself as a diplomatic and economic hub in East Africa.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Kenya’s balancing act</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion places France’s outreach within a broader contest for influence across Africa. China has become a dominant economic player through infrastructure investment and trade. Russia has expanded its presence in areas where Western powers have retreated. The US remains influential but faces growing skepticism about its long-term commitment to the continent.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Rather than aligning exclusively with any single power, Gatimi argues that Kenya seeks partnerships that advance national interests. She emphasizes the importance of infrastructure development, technology transfer and investment while warning that corruption and weak institutions can undermine the benefits of foreign engagement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Gatimi and Awiti both suggest that Kenya’s future foreign policy will continue to be guided by practical considerations rather than ideological preferences. The country’s leaders are likely to work with whichever partners offer the most useful opportunities for economic growth and development.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Economic pressures driving foreign policy</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Awiti concludes that Kenya’s domestic challenges are ultimately the strongest force shaping its international relationships. The country faces rapid population growth, persistent unemployment and significant fiscal pressures.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>According to Awiti, Kenya is borrowing heavily to sustain government spending, while debt is growing much faster than the broader economy. He notes that around one million young people enter the labor market each year while fewer than 100,000 jobs are created. These realities place enormous pressure on political leaders to secure investment and financing.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a result, Awiti says, Kenyan policymakers are less concerned with ideological debates than with finding resources to fund development projects and maintain economic stability. “The Chinese, the Turks, Egyptians, the Indians, the BRICS, the UK, the US — I think these guys will go on a shopping spree. Wherever they get the money, they bring it home.” In that environment, Macron’s visit represents less a return of old colonial relationships than another chapter in Kenya’s search for partners capable of helping it meet urgent economic needs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" 51Թ’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with journalist Karimi Gatimi and filmmaker Dickens Awiti about French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Kenya and France’s broader effort to rebuild influence in Africa. Against the backdrop of France’s expulsion from several..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh, Karimi Gatimi and Dickens Awiti examine France’s pivot toward Kenya following its loss of influence in Francophone West Africa. In foreign partnerships, Kenya prioritizes investment, jobs and development over ideological alignments. As debt rises and global powers compete, Kenya seeks to work with partners that can support its economic ambitions." post-date="Jun 23, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Why Is France Deepening Ties With Kenya After Fleeing West Africa?" slug-data="fo-talks-why-is-france-deepening-ties-with-kenya-after-fleeing-west-africa">

FO Talks: Why Is France Deepening Ties With Kenya After Fleeing West Africa?

Appo Jabarian" post_date="June 22, 2026 07:14" pUrl="/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-armenia-election-can-nikol-pashinyan-win-another-term-despite-geopolitical-churn/" pid="163094" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[Editor’s note: This interview was published on May 27, before Armenia held its June 7 election.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with political commentator Appo Jabarian about Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections and their significance for the South Caucasus. Jabarian argues that the vote represented a choice between continued foreign-policy diversification under Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and a return to closer alignment with Russia. The discussion ranges from Armenia’s strategic geography and post-Nagorno-Karabakh politics to the interests of regional and global powers who watched the election.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Armenia’s strategic position</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jabarian begins by explaining why Armenia occupies an outsized place in regional geopolitics despite its small size. Situated at a crossroads linking north and south as well as east and west, Armenia serves as a land bridge connecting multiple regions of Eurasia. The South Caucasus is an area of intense geopolitical competition where major powers seek influence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The election carried implications beyond Armenia itself. Jabarian frames the country as part of a broader democratic space stretching across Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. The outcome may determine whether Armenia continues expanding its international partnerships or falls back into a sphere dominated by a single external power.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Two competing visions for Armenia</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Khattar Singh asks Jabarian to explain the main political camps that contested the election. Jabarian identifies one camp with former Presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, as well as businessman Samvel Karapetyan. He characterizes this group as representing Armenia’s former political establishment and alleges that it benefits from substantial Russian support.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The opposing camp was led by Pashinyan and his Civil Contract Party. This coalition sought to diversify Armenia’s foreign relations and strengthen ties with Europe and other democratic partners. The objective was not exclusive alignment with the West, but broader integration with what Jabarian calls the global free world, including countries such as India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Responding to criticism that Pashinyan has simply replaced dependence on Russia with dependence on the United States, Jabarian rejects that interpretation. He calls such claims “Kremlin-approved talking points” and points to Armenia’s growing relationship with India as evidence of a more diversified foreign policy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The legacy of Nagorno-Karabakh</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To this day, the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh region to neighboring Azerbaijan continues to shape Armenian politics. Khattar Singh notes that this was the first parliamentary election cycle taking place after the region’s depopulation and asks how voters were responding at the time.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jabarian presents a highly contested interpretation of the conflict. He says the events of the 2020 conflict were not a conventional war but “staged terrorist aggression” involving multiple regional actors. He also traces the dispute back to the Soviet period, claiming that Joseph Stalin’s administrative decisions laid the foundations for later conflict.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jabarian contends that successive Armenian governments failed to achieve a lasting settlement and that Russian influence helped preserve instability in the region. He contrasts what he sees as Russia’s approach of maintaining leverage through regional disputes with the development model offered by democratic states. Throughout the discussion, Khattar Singh challenges several of Jabarian’s assumptions, particularly regarding the role of the US in international affairs.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pashinyan’s standing with voters</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Khattar Singh asks whether Pashinyan remains popular after losing Nagorno-Karabakh, noting that media portrayals range from democratic reformer to national traitor.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Jabarian mentions that the prime minister enjoys substantial support. Many Armenians view Pashinyan not as the architect of the defeat, but as a victim of a broader geopolitical effort involving Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Public pressure after the 2020 conflict encouraged Pashinyan to remain in office rather than resign because many voters feared a return of the previous political elite.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He further alleges that corruption and internal sabotage weakened Armenia during the conflict and contributed to the outcome. As a result, he believes the election was less a referendum on Pashinyan personally than a decision about Armenia’s future geopolitical direction.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Regional and international stakes</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In the final part of the conversation, the speakers examine the interests of outside powers. Jabarian argues that Russia, India, Iran, Israel, Turkey and Western countries all closely watched the vote because of Armenia’s strategic location.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He alleges that Russia conducted a large-scale influence campaign involving financial resources, election bribery and hybrid operations, while Armenian authorities attempted to counter such efforts. Jabarian also emphasizes the importance of Armenia’s growing relationship with India and suggests that Iran may pursue broader international engagement in the future.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion concludes with Israel’s ties to Azerbaijan. Jabarian attributes Israel’s support for Azerbaijan largely to energy considerations, particularly oil imports routed through Turkey. Despite current tensions, he expresses confidence that regional relationships will eventually normalize.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For Jabarian, the election determined whether Armenia pursues deeper integration with a broader network of international partners or returns to a more Russia-centered orientation. He argues that the result influences not only Armenia’s future but the wider geopolitical balance in the South Caucasus.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ultimately, Pashinyan’s Civil Contract Party would win the election with 49.81% of the vote, securing 64 seats in the 105-seat National Assembly, retaining power in Armenia. The Russian-supported opposition parties, Strong Armenia and the Armenia Alliance, received about 23% and 8% of the vote and netted about 29 and 12 seats, respectively.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short="51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with political commentator Appo Jabarian about Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections and their significance for the South..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Appo Jabarian examine Armenia’s parliamentary elections and their implications for the country’s geopolitical future. Voters faced a choice between continued foreign-policy diversification and a return to a more Russia-oriented political order. Jabarian portrays Armenia as a strategic crossroads whose electoral outcome could shape political alignments across the South Caucasus." post-date="Jun 22, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Armenia Election — Can Nikol Pashinyan Win Another Term Despite Geopolitical Churn?" slug-data="fo-talks-armenia-election-can-nikol-pashinyan-win-another-term-despite-geopolitical-churn">

FO Talks: Armenia Election — Can Nikol Pashinyan Win Another Term Despite Geopolitical Churn?

June 22, 2026
Lauren Dagan Amoss" post_date="June 21, 2026 05:49" pUrl="/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-live-us-surrenders-to-iran-leaving-israel-in-the-dark/" pid="163075" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Lauren Dagan Amoss, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the reported memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. They focus on whether the agreement represents a strategic retreat by Washington and what that could mean for Israel’s position in the Middle East.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Amoss and Olmert view the reported deal as a turning point. The US appears increasingly focused on avoiding economic disruption and regional escalation rather than pursuing earlier goals such as regime change in Iran or the dismantling of Tehran’s broader regional network. For Israel, the consequences extend beyond Iran itself and raise deeper questions about national strategy, diplomacy and relevance.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A perceived defeat for Israeli strategy</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert says the agreement reflects Washington’s determination to avoid a wider confrontation. He contends that concerns about global economic stability, particularly the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, pushed the Trump administration toward compromise. In his view, key issues that previously justified confrontation with Iran have largely been set aside.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The result is a sense of strategic disappointment in Israel. Amoss describes the situation as a “disaster” and a “big failure” of Israeli strategy. Nearly three years after the infamous October 7 attacks, Israel still lacks clear resolutions regarding Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion repeatedly distinguishes between tactical and strategic success. Both guests acknowledge Israel’s military effectiveness and intelligence capabilities. However, they argue that operational achievements have not translated into lasting political gains. As Amoss puts it, “We don’t have strategy, we don’t know where we are going.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Netanyahu and the limits of dependence on Washington</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s management of the US–Israel relationship. Olmert argues that Netanyahu made a fundamental mistake by relying too heavily on Trump and narrowing Israel’s diplomatic options.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Drawing on his experience working with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Olmert contrasts previous Israeli leaders’ willingness to negotiate forcefully with Washington against what he sees as Netanyahu’s excessive dependence. He argues that Israel has lost leverage by assuming that its interests would automatically align with those of the Trump administration.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The guests also discuss changing perceptions across the Middle East. Regional actors increasingly recognize that major decisions are made in Washington rather than Jerusalem. According to Olmert, this reality weakens Israel’s diplomatic standing and encourages countries to focus their attention on the US instead.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh broadens the discussion by highlighting shifting attitudes toward Israel in the US. He notes growing criticism from both the political left and right. Concerns about Palestinian rights, prolonged conflict and Israeli influence on US policy have combined to erode what was once broad bipartisan support.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Regional challenges from Gaza to Lebanon</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Then, Amoss examines Israel’s wider regional position. She argues that neither Lebanon nor Syria can be addressed effectively without resolving the situation in Gaza. She states that the region remains trapped in overlapping crises that reinforce one another.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert is particularly critical of US policy toward the Lebanese Islamist paramilitary group, Hezbollah. He argues that Washington missed opportunities to weaken the group more decisively by prioritizing regional stability over military outcomes. Though military operations cannot eliminate ideologies, they can significantly weaken the organizations promoting them.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Both Amoss and Olmert express frustration with what they see as a lack of strategic clarity. Israel remains engaged across multiple fronts while struggling to define long-term objectives. Amoss uses the Hebrew word <em>balagan</em>, meaning “mess” or “chaos,” to describe the situation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Additionally, Amoss touches on Israel’s declining ability to explain its position internationally. Israeli public diplomacy has become increasingly ineffective as global perceptions harden. The challenge, she suggests, is not simply communication but the absence of a convincing strategic vision.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Competing visions for Israel’s future</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite their shared concerns, Amoss and Olmert offer different prescriptions for the future.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Amoss emphasizes economic integration and regional connectivity. She points to the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor as a potentially transformative project that could strengthen ties among Israel, India, the Gulf states and Europe. By becoming an essential hub for trade, energy and technology, Israel could regain strategic relevance through cooperation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert supports greater regional engagement but focuses more heavily on demographic and societal renewal. Rising anti-Semitism in Europe and North America could encourage increased Jewish immigration to Israel. He believes such an influx would bring new energy, ideas and leadership to a society struggling with political stagnation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion concludes with a notable contrast in outlook. Olmert remains optimistic that the crisis can generate renewal and that Israel can adapt to changing circumstances. Amoss is less convinced, expressing skepticism that large numbers of people will choose to relocate to a country facing persistent security challenges and political uncertainty.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Amoss and Olmert portray Israel at a crossroads. The reported US–Iran agreement serves not only as a test of regional diplomacy but also as a reminder that Israel’s future may depend less on military victories than on its ability to develop a coherent long-term strategy in an increasingly multipolar world.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[</em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow"><em>Lee Thompson-Kolar</em></a><em> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Lauren Dagan Amoss, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the reported memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. They..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Live, Atul Singh, Lauren Dagan Amoss and Josef Olmert discuss the reported US–Iran memorandum of understanding and its implications for Israel. It reflects a major Israeli setback, showing the limits of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reliance on the US and Israel’s nonexistent long-term strategy. Israel now faces uncertainty in a changing regional order." post-date="Jun 21, 2026" post-title="FO Live: US Surrenders to Iran, Leaving Israel in the Dark" slug-data="fo-live-us-surrenders-to-iran-leaving-israel-in-the-dark">

FO Live: US Surrenders to Iran, Leaving Israel in the Dark

Sebastian Schäffer" post_date="June 13, 2026 05:57" pUrl="/region/europe/fo-talks-has-the-trump-administration-abandoned-ukraine-due-to-the-iran-war/" pid="162936" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Schäffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, discuss the state of Ukraine after more than four years of war. Fresh from a visit to Kyiv, Schäffer describes a society balancing remarkable resilience with growing exhaustion as Russian attacks intensify. The discussion examines the reasons behind Moscow’s latest escalation, the uncertain role of the United States and Europe’s struggle to adapt to a deteriorating security environment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Life under constant threat</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Schäffer returns from Kyiv with a stark assessment of life in Ukraine. On the surface, daily life continues much as it would in any European capital. Cafés remain open, people go to work and public spaces stay active. Yet beneath this normality lies continuous danger.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Residents live with frequent air raid alerts delivered through mobile applications and public warning systems. When alarms sound, people must quickly assess whether the threat is immediate or whether they can continue with their daily activities. Schäffer describes hearing drones being intercepted near Kyiv shortly after an alert, a reminder that danger remains ever-present.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He considers the defining characteristics of Ukraine today to be resilience and fatigue. With the war now lasting longer than World War I, civilians continue to endure repeated attacks while trying to preserve some sense of normal life.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Russia’s escalating campaign</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Khattar Singh notes that Russian missile and drone attacks intensified dramatically in late May, including large-scale strikes on Kyiv and renewed use of advanced missile systems. Schäffer rejects Kremlin claims that the escalation is simply retaliation for Ukrainian actions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Instead, he argues that domestic pressures within Russia are driving the increase in attacks. According to Schäffer, the Kremlin faces mounting challenges as the war drags on and battlefield results fail to deliver the decisive victory initially promised.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He also emphasizes that civilian infrastructure has become a deliberate target. Citing figures presented by Katarína Mathernová, the European Union’s ambassador to Ukraine, Schäffer notes that there were only <a href="http://facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10162495254886697&set=a.439387106696" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">four days</a> in 2025 when Russia did not strike civilian infrastructure and no such days in 2026.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“We need to really be open with this,” Schäffer says. “They have not only tried to continue their genocidal attacks.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He points to strikes on cultural institutions and essential infrastructure, including water-treatment facilities, arguing that these attacks are intended to make civilian life increasingly difficult rather than achieve major military gains.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Beijing, Washington and the changing geopolitical picture</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation turns to the broader geopolitical context. Khattar Singh highlights the timing of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Beijing shortly before the latest escalation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Schäffer believes the visit itself was planned long in advance and was not directly linked to the attacks. However, Moscow may have viewed the international environment as favorable for escalation, particularly given what he sees as limited resistance from major powers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Schäffer says that Washington’s attention has shifted overwhelmingly toward the Middle East, leaving Ukraine largely absent from senior American messaging even during major Russian attacks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“There is an absolute blind eye from the current US administration when it comes to Ukraine,” he says.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This perceived disengagement removes an important deterrent and creates uncertainty about the future of Western support. He characterizes US President Donald Trump’s approach as erratic and questions whether the US remains committed to defending democratic partners in Europe.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Europe’s concerns and Ukraine’s battlefield position</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>While much international attention has focused on developments in the Middle East, Schäffer believes that European leaders remain aware of Russia’s renewed offensive. Leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron have publicly condemned the attacks.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simultaneously, he acknowledges that European governments face immediate political pressures related to energy prices and economic stability. Events affecting the Strait of Hormuz have a more direct impact on voters than developments on the Ukrainian front, creating competing priorities for policymakers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Schäffer also pushes back against narratives suggesting Ukraine is collapsing militarily. “The momentum on the battlefield on the front line is shifting towards Ukraine,” he states. Russia, he posits, remains unable to achieve its original objective of capturing the Ukrainian capital.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Nevertheless, war fatigue affects both Ukrainian and Russian societies. The conflict increasingly resembles a prolonged struggle of endurance rather than a contest likely to produce a rapid breakthrough.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Europe’s security challenge</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion concludes with concerns about Europe’s broader security posture. Khattar Singh points to the withdrawal of some US military assets from Germany and questions whether Europe possesses sufficient air-defense capabilities if Russian aggression expands beyond Ukraine.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Schäffer argues that European governments understand the threat but are moving too slowly to address it. He warns that Europeans often underestimate the psychological impact of living under constant missile and drone threats, something Ukrainians experience every day.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For Schäffer, the central lesson is that Europe can no longer assume American leadership will reliably fill security gaps. Instead, European states must strengthen both military capabilities and public preparedness.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Supporting Ukraine remains the most effective way to prevent wider instability. The longer Europe delays building its own resilience, the more vulnerable it becomes to the security challenges emerging on its eastern frontier.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">Lee Thompson-Kolar</a> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" 51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Schäffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, discuss the state of Ukraine after more than four years of war. Fresh from a visit to Kyiv, Schäffer describes a society balancing remarkable..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Schäffer discuss the state of Ukraine after over four years of war. Schäffer says Moscow’s escalation reflects pressures within Russia and is enabled by a perceived decline in American attention as Donald Trump focuses on Iran. Europe must strengthen its military capabilities and societal resilience while supporting Ukraine." post-date="Jun 13, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Has the Trump Administration Abandoned Ukraine Due to the Iran War?" slug-data="fo-talks-has-the-trump-administration-abandoned-ukraine-due-to-the-iran-war">

FO Talks: Has the Trump Administration Abandoned Ukraine Due to the Iran War?

Elliot Neaman" post_date="June 12, 2026 06:12" pUrl="/world-news/fo-talks-why-are-europe-and-canada-pivoting-away-from-the-us/" pid="162916" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Elliot Neaman, a Canadian analyst and author, about the unraveling of the transatlantic order that has defined global politics since World War II. Prompted by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s 2026 Davos speech, the discussion examines why both Europe and Canada are rethinking their dependence on the United States. Neaman argues that the world is experiencing not a temporary adjustment, but a structural rupture that is forcing traditional allies to pursue greater strategic autonomy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The breakdown of the postwar order</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Neaman begins by reflecting on the postwar system the US has created and led. Institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization emerged under American leadership and helped shape decades of globalization and economic integration. For Europe in particular, US security guarantees allowed governments to build prosperous welfare states while relying on American military protection.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Neaman sees the second Trump administration as a turning point. Unlike US President Donald Trump’s first term, which he believes was constrained by institutional guardrails, the current administration has become detached from many of the norms and alliances that underpinned the postwar order. He describes the US as an “untethered superpower,” pursuing its interests with less regard for allies and established institutions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a result, countries that once assumed American reliability are reassessing their strategic position. Canada and Europe increasingly view the US as a source of uncertainty. According to Neaman, this has triggered a search for new buffers, partnerships and forms of insurance against future disruptions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Canada’s search for leverage</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Canada’s response reflects both necessity and limitation. Neaman notes that Ottawa has sought closer economic and diplomatic ties with countries ranging from China and Vietnam to states in South Asia and Latin America. The goal is not to replace the US but to reduce vulnerability to shifts in American policy.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh points to broader trends supporting this strategy. Trade between Brazil and China increased dramatically between 2001 and 2024, illustrating China’s growing role as a global economic partner. Canada is also expanding energy infrastructure, including new pipelines designed to move oil and liquefied natural gas to Pacific export terminals, creating greater access to Asian markets.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Yet Neaman emphasizes that geography imposes limits. The US remains Canada’s largest trading partner, and the two economies remain deeply integrated. Canada cannot sever what he calls its economic “umbilical cord” to its southern neighbor. Instead, Ottawa’s strategy is one of hedging: diversifying relationships where possible while continuing to accommodate the reality of American leverage.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Europe’s security transformation</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The shift in Europe is more profound because it centers on security rather than trade alone. Neaman argues that Germany, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltic states are gradually building new forms of military cooperation outside the assumptions that have guided NATO for decades. The driving force is Russia’s proximity and the belief that Europe must increasingly defend itself.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The war in Ukraine has accelerated this reassessment. Neaman views the conflict as a glimpse into the future of warfare, where drones, cyber capabilities and asymmetric tactics increasingly challenge traditional military advantages. He argues that Ukraine has demonstrated that smaller states can impose significant costs on larger powers through innovation and adaptability.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The same lesson appears in the Middle East. Singh notes that Iranian asymmetric capabilities have complicated efforts by vastly stronger militaries to achieve decisive outcomes. Neaman agrees, arguing that recent conflicts have revealed the limits of conventional superiority. As European governments increase defense spending, they are likely to focus not only on traditional platforms but also on emerging technologies better suited to modern conflict.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trauma, trust and strategic autonomy</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Europe has lost a great amount of trust in the US. Neaman points to several developments that Europeans view as deeply unsettling, including Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland, shifts in US policy toward Ukraine and the lack of consultation with allies during the US/Israel–Iran conflict. Together, these events reinforced the perception that Washington could make major strategic decisions without considering European interests.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Neaman argues that the Greenland episode was especially significant because it challenged assumptions about NATO solidarity. German soldiers were prepared to deploy in defense of Greenland during the controversy, which illustrates how seriously many Europeans viewed the issue. European leaders and citizens will not forget this.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a result, European governments have grown increasingly determined to pursue strategic autonomy. They may continue to cooperate with Washington, but they are increasingly unwilling to base their security entirely on American guarantees. Even countries that remain committed to NATO are exploring alternative partnerships and capabilities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A new order, not a restoration</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite the current tensions, Neaman does not believe that national interests have fundamentally changed. Germany’s long-standing reliance on Russian energy, maintained under both former German Chancellors Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel, illustrates how strategic realities often transcend partisan politics. Similar calculations may continue to shape policy regardless of changing governments.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Neaman expects future American politics to become more fragmented, creating additional uncertainty for allies. Because Europeans and Canadians cannot predict what kind of administration might emerge next, they are likely to continue building new partnerships and contingency plans.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Some elements of the old transatlantic relationship may eventually return, but not the order that existed before. The shocks of recent years have permanently altered assumptions on both sides of the Atlantic. As Neaman concludes, “the old order” cannot simply be restored. Instead, a new arrangement will emerge, shaped by strategic hedging, regional autonomy and a more multipolar world.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">Lee Thompson-Kolar</a> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Elliot Neaman, a Canadian analyst and author, about the unraveling of the transatlantic order that has defined global politics since World War II. Prompted by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s 2026 Davos speech, the discussion examines why both Europe..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Elliot Neaman examine the growing rupture between the United States and its traditional allies in Europe and Canada. Unpredictable American policies have pushed allies to hedge their interests through new economic, diplomatic and military partnerships. While some aspects of the transatlantic relationship may endure, a more autonomous world is rising." post-date="Jun 12, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Why Are Europe and Canada Pivoting Away From the US?" slug-data="fo-talks-why-are-europe-and-canada-pivoting-away-from-the-us">

FO Talks: Why Are Europe and Canada Pivoting Away From the US?

June 12, 2026
Josef Olmert" post_date="June 11, 2026 06:59" pUrl="/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-iran-won-the-us-and-israel-lost/" pid="162913" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the apparent conclusion of the latest round of conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. While Israel and the US severely damaged Iran, Olmert argues that the political outcome tells a very different story. He contends that the emerging ceasefire framework leaves the central issues unresolved, strengthens Iran’s strategic position and exposes deeper political problems inside Israel and across the region.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A ceasefire that settles little</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert begins by outlining reports of a proposed agreement awaiting approval from both US President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. The arrangement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and halt direct hostilities, but it postpones decisions on Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and regional network of allied groups for another 60 days.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For Olmert, this is the central weakness of the deal. Rather than resolving the issues that triggered the conflict, it merely delays them. The agreement, he argues, amounts to a temporary pause rather than a durable settlement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Before the war, discussions focused on Iran’s military capabilities and the possibility of regime change. Instead, Tehran successfully turned the Strait of Hormuz into the decisive issue. Olmert says that Iran leveraged its ability to disrupt global trade and energy flows to force Washington and Jerusalem into a position they had not adequately anticipated.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The main elements of the agreement are that basically, there is no agreement,” he states.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Military defeat, political victory</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert distinguishes sharply between military and political outcomes. Militarily, he believes Iran suffered enormous losses. Israeli and American operations severely damaged missile capabilities, destroyed much of Iran’s navy and eliminated key military leaders. Iran’s missile campaign against Israel also failed to achieve the catastrophic effects many had feared.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Yet Olmert argues that wars are ultimately judged by their political conclusions rather than battlefield statistics. From that perspective, he believes Iran emerged stronger.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The regime survived. The ceasefire appears to acknowledge Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz. Reports of a possible international investment mechanism could also provide substantial economic relief. Taken together, these developments allow Tehran to claim that it withstood a coordinated American–Israeli campaign and preserved its core political structure.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert compares the situation to Egyptian military officer Gamal Abdel Nasser after the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although Nasser suffered military setbacks, he ultimately secured political control over the canal and emerged stronger in the eyes of much of the Arab world.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“As it stands now in this round, Iran comes out victorious,” Olmert argues.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The problem of another round</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The proposed agreement raises a larger concern for Olmert: the likelihood that the conflict simply resumes later.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>By postponing decisions on nuclear activities, missile programs and Iran’s regional alliances, the deal creates conditions for another confrontation rather than eliminating the causes of the current one. This could merely be one round in a longer struggle.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He believes the Trump administration has limited room for escalation. Time works in Iran’s favor as American political attention shifts toward upcoming midterm elections. Even if Washington wanted to increase pressure, Olmert questions whether it has the political appetite for a prolonged campaign.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This concern extends beyond Iran. In Gaza, Hamas remains active despite Israeli military gains. In Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to operate despite suffering substantial losses. According to Olmert, Israel’s battlefield successes have not translated into decisive political outcomes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The war is not over. This round may be over,” he says.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Netanyahu’s declining position</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Singh and Olmert turn to Israel’s domestic politics. Olmert argues that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enters this period politically weakened despite the military achievements of the Israel Defense Forces.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Public support for Netanyahu has declined, and Olmert believes growing dissatisfaction exists within parts of Israel’s military and security establishment. After nearly three years of conflict across multiple fronts, fatigue has become a significant factor.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Olmert acknowledges Netanyahu’s intellectual abilities but argues that his political standing has deteriorated. He predicts that the prime minister will struggle to survive the next election, which he expects within several months.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>More troubling is what Olmert sees as Israel’s increasing dependence on Washington. He argues that major strategic decisions are now heavily influenced by the US, reducing Israel’s freedom of action. Previous Israeli leaders maintained greater strategic autonomy, while Netanyahu appears increasingly constrained by American priorities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>According to Olmert, a future Israeli government will need to rebuild both domestic trust and a more balanced relationship with the US.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A changing Middle East</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Beyond Israel and Iran, Olmert sees signs of broader regional change. Saudi Arabia is exploring alternative partnerships. Gulf states are pursuing increasingly independent policies. Lebanon remains politically fragile despite Israeli military pressure on Hezbollah.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>At the same time, criticism of Israel has intensified internationally. Olmert rejects many of the arguments made by foreign critics, particularly when they fail to propose viable alternatives to Hamas or Hezbollah. However, he also criticizes extremist settler activity in the West Bank and argues that a future Israeli government will need to address the issue more forcefully.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Despite these challenges, Olmert emphasizes that Israel remains a formidable military power. The question is whether military success can be translated into sustainable political outcomes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Israel and the US won many of the battles. Iran lost ships, missiles, infrastructure and senior commanders. Yet because the regime survived and appears poised to negotiate from a position of continued relevance, Olmert concludes that Tehran achieved the more important victory.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conflict demonstrates an enduring lesson of statecraft: Military success matters, but political results determine who ultimately wins the war.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">Lee Thompson-Kolar</a> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the apparent conclusion of the latest round of conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. While Israel and the US severely damaged Iran, Olmert argues that the political..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert examine the ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran. Despite suffering military losses, Iran has achieved its political objective by preserving the regime, retaining leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and forcing key disputes into future negotiations. Iran has emerged with greater strategic influence than many expected." post-date="Jun 11, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Iran Won, the US and Israel Lost" slug-data="fo-talks-iran-won-the-us-and-israel-lost">

FO Talks: Iran Won, the US and Israel Lost

June 11, 2026
Martin Plaut" post_date="June 07, 2026 05:30" pUrl="/politics/fo-talks-prime-minister-abiy-ahmed-looks-to-secure-a-landslide-win-in-ethiopias-election/" pid="162842" post-content="<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about Ethiopia’s June 1 election and the broader political and geopolitical crises facing the country. While Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party secured an overwhelming victory, Plaut argues that the vote took place amid widespread insecurity, opposition skepticism and growing regional tensions. They examine whether meaningful elections are possible in a country grappling with internal conflict and mounting pressures across the Horn of Africa.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A predicted landslide becomes reality</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The election has delivered Plaut’s expected outcome. Abiy’s Prosperity Party secured an overwhelming victory, reinforcing its dominance over Ethiopian politics.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut argues that the result was never seriously in doubt. Although opposition parties participated and more than 10,000 candidates contested parliamentary and regional council seats, he maintains that none posed a meaningful challenge to the ruling party. Opposition groups had already questioned the credibility of the process, arguing that the vote lacked the conditions necessary for fair competition.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut acknowledges that voter registration and mobilization efforts were extensive, but argues that participation alone could not guarantee legitimacy. Reports from local communities suggest that access to fertilizer and other essential services could be linked to voter registration, creating pressure on citizens to engage with the process. More broadly, he contends that the political environment favored the ruling party so heavily that the election functioned less as a competitive contest than a confirmation of existing power.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The key question was not whether people would vote, but whether they could do so in conditions that allowed genuine political choice.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The contrast between Addis Ababa and rural Ethiopia</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Khattar Singh notes that Ethiopia’s capital has become a symbol of the government’s modernization agenda. Images of Addis Ababa’s renovated streets and new developments have attracted attention abroad, with some observers comparing the city favorably to urban centers elsewhere in the developing world.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut does not dispute the visible transformation. He acknowledges that parts of the capital have been rebuilt and modernized, creating an image of rapid progress. Still, this picture captures only a small part of the country’s reality. Redevelopment projects have displaced residents from older neighborhoods, generating resentment among some communities affected by the changes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>More importantly, Plaut stresses that Ethiopia remains overwhelmingly rural. While international media and foreign visitors often focus on Addis Ababa, most Ethiopians live far from the capital. Understanding the country requires looking beyond showcase projects and examining the conditions faced by ordinary citizens in rural communities.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>That perspective was largely missing from coverage of the election. The concerns of farmers, local communities and residents of conflict-affected regions received far less attention than the government’s development narrative.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Elections amid conflict</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A central theme Plaut discusses is the extent to which ongoing conflicts limit the reach of the Ethiopian state itself.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut points to the northern Tigray region, where the devastating war of 2020–2022 left at least 600,000 people dead and produced widespread atrocities. Although large-scale fighting has subsided, the region remains politically fractured and unstable. He argues that meaningful participation there was extremely difficult.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The situation in the states of Amhara and Oromia is similarly troubling. In Amhara, the Fano militia controls significant parts of the countryside and continues to clash with government forces. In Oromia, which contains roughly a third of Ethiopia’s population, insurgent groups operate in areas where government authority remains limited.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>These realities lead Plaut to question whether a truly national election was possible in Ethiopia. Large sections of the country faced security conditions that restricted campaigning, voting and independent observation. The government could and did organize polling where it maintained control, but significant portions of Ethiopia remained beyond its effective reach.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The election result, therefore, does not resolve the underlying conflicts that continue to shape Ethiopian politics. Instead, it highlights the contrast between the government’s electoral mandate and the persistent instability affecting much of the country.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Regional rivalries and growing tensions</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The conversation also places Ethiopia’s election within the wider geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Although Abiy received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for helping end decades of hostility with neighboring Eritrea, Plaut argues that relations between the two countries have deteriorated. He points in particular to Abiy’s increasingly forceful statements regarding Ethiopia’s need for access to Red Sea ports. For Eritrea, whose independence struggle lasted three decades, control of those ports remains a core national interest.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Plaut describes a region increasingly divided into competing camps. Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates have developed close ties, while Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea and the Sudanese Armed Forces have found common ground on several regional issues. These alignments overlap with Sudan’s civil war, creating a complex web of rivalries that extends beyond any single conflict.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Reports of cross-border military activity and external support for armed groups suggest that tensions are already spilling across national boundaries. These developments create a volatile environment in which local disputes can quickly acquire regional significance.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:heading --> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Media blind spots and Ethiopia's future</h2> <!-- /wp:heading --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The discussion concludes with two issues that Plaut believes receive insufficient attention from international observers. The first is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which enjoys broad support across Ethiopia. Built largely through domestic financing after international lenders declined support, the hydroelectric project has become a symbol of national pride and a rare point of consensus in an otherwise divided political landscape. Ethiopians view the dam as proof that the country can pursue ambitious development projects on its own terms.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The second concerns the difficulty of reporting on Ethiopia itself. Independent journalism faces significant obstacles, particularly during periods of political tension. Foreign reporters can struggle to obtain visas, while local journalists operate under increasing constraints. He points to the Tigray war as a striking example. Despite being one of the deadliest conflicts in the world at the time, independent reporting from the front lines was exceptionally limited.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>These restrictions create major gaps in international understanding of Ethiopia’s political and security challenges. For Plaut, the problem is not simply what the world reports about Ethiopia, but what it cannot report. Without greater access to events on the ground, outsiders risk misunderstanding both the country’s elections and the deeper forces shaping its future.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>[<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leethompsonkolar/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener nofollow">Lee Thompson-Kolar</a> edited this piece.]</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51Թ’s editorial policy.</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->" post-content-short=" 51Թ’s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about Ethiopia’s June 1 election and the broader political and geopolitical crises facing the country. While Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party secured..." post_summery="In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Martin Plaut discuss Ethiopia’s election, which delivered a predictable Prosperity Party victory. Plaut says conflict, voter coercion and restricted political competition undermined the credibility of the process despite the government’s claims of democratic legitimacy. He explores Ethiopia’s internal conflicts, tensions with Eritrea and the Horn of Africa’s geopolitical rivalries." post-date="Jun 07, 2026" post-title="FO Talks: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Looks to Secure a Landslide Win in Ethiopia’s Election" slug-data="fo-talks-prime-minister-abiy-ahmed-looks-to-secure-a-landslide-win-in-ethiopias-election">

FO Talks: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Looks to Secure a Landslide Win in Ethiopia’s Election

June 07, 2026

 

51Թ, 461 Harbor Blvd, Belmont, CA 94002, USA