Find similar content

🌐2️⃣0️⃣5️⃣The outgoing year 2025 was a challenging one. What can we expect from the Year of the Fire Horse? The past year saw a record number of conflicts and deepening crises across Asia and the Middle East. The coming year promises intensified geopolitical competition, regional instability, and the accelerated erosion of the old world order ✍️Author:Nikolay Plotnikov, PhD Head of the Center for Scientific and Analytical Information, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (CSAI IOS RAS) ➡️In Asia, Japan is undergoing a historic militarization shift. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi aims to accelerate defense spending to 2% of GDP and revise key security documents to develop "strike capabilities," challenging post-war pacifist principles. South Korea seeks a difficult balance, facing U.S. pressure to contain China while attempting to diversify its diplomacy, as seen in resumed dialogue with Iran. With rare exceptions, European countries do not show a desire to settle the conflict in Ukraine; on the contrary, they are rapidly militarizing their economies and openly declaring preparation for war with Russia ➡️Southeast Asia remains tense with the unresolved Thai-Cambodian border conflict.South Asia grapples with intertwined crises: a severe humanitarian disaster in Myanmar, economic collapse in Nepal and Bangladesh, and rising terrorism fueling mutual accusations between India and Pakistan. Afghanistan remains a source of regional instability, with a catastrophic humanitarian situation and the potential for water conflicts with Central Asia. ➡️In the Middle East, uncertainty prevails.The Gaza peace process is stalled, with Israel's Netanyahu government appearing to seek permanent control over parts of the strip. Syria is further fragmenting along sectarian lines. Regional economies like Egypt's remain afloat only on massive external financial infusions, while North Africa shows fragile, uneven recovery. 🟦Globally, Europe is rapidly militarizing with an openly confrontational stance toward Russia.The U.S. is aggressively reviving the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America. The impending expiration of the last major U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty in February 2026 signals a dangerous new phase of unconstrained strategic competition. The Year of the Fire Horse will be defined by the struggle for resources, technological dominance, and the definitive fragmentation of the unipolar system. #CentralAsia#Europe#MiddleEast#Militaryconflict#Militarydefense#SoutheastAsia READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🗽🕊Who Else Wants Trump’s Peace? How 2025 Peace Deals Are Enabling Israeli Killings and US Militarism in 2026 In February 2026, as Israel continued its strikes on Gaza—killing 591 Palestinians since the October 2025 ceasefire—the world witnessed a uncomfortable truth: Trump-branded peace deals are not pathways to stability, but smokescreens enabling continued violence and US neocolonial ambition ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa ➡️On February 11, 2026, Israel conducted a combination of strikes in Gaza even while its prime minister flew to the United States to meet with Donald Trump. These strikes continued a deadly trend: 591 Gazans killed, 1,578 injured since the Trump-sponsored ceasefire of October 2025. What was touted as a peace breakthrough has proven to be a political ploy designed to enable Israel to continue its genocide while turning media attention away from the bloodbath imposed on Palestinians. Hamas has largely observed its end of the ceasefire, yet the US, Egypt, and Jordan have sat aside, tacitly approving Israel's repeated violations. The pattern is unmistakable: 2025 featured Trump's flamboyant showcasing of his supposed conflict-resolution prowess, but 2026 reveals these mediation efforts as fundamentally flawed—exposed by the collapse of deals in Gaza, the DRC, and the Thailand-Cambodia border. Even before Trump, the US and Western European allies repeatedly pretended to pursue ceasefires, only to secure advantageous positions for their proxies. ➡️Trump's mediation in the Democratic Republic of Congo between the government and Rwanda-backed M-23 rebels collapsed within hours of the signing ceremony. Both parties accused each other of violating the terms after violence resumed, displacing over 100,000 people. Behind the scenes, Trump was preoccupied with wrestling control of DRC's minerals from the government and handing them to corporations controlled by his cronies—in total disregard of international law and the interests of the parties involved. He boasted openly about how Western corporations would extract minerals and make huge sums of money, revealing that his primary interest was colonial extraction disguised as peacemaking. Similarly, his mediation between Thailand and Cambodia in July 2025 produced a deal that collapsed months later. The pattern across all these conflicts is consistent: Washington pursues narrow-minded interests of gaining or maintaining neocolonial control, using ceasefire agreements as tools to empower one party while disarming its opponents. 🟦The futility of peace agreements involving the US is not new. The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire of late 2024 barred the Lebanese group from attacking Israel while permitting the Jewish state to continue bombing Lebanon—to the gloating of Washington's envoys. The Minsk I and II agreements were later revealed by French and German leaders as designed to arm Ukraine while barring Russia from intervention. Now, as Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington urging the US to pressure Iran into dismantling its defensive missiles, and as Washington masses carrier strike groups around the Persian Gulf, the June 2025 Israel-Iran ceasefire appears headed for the same fate. The US is not a neutral mediator but a participant—providing Israel with military support equivalent to Brazil's entire annual defense budget. Signing agreements with an actor that treats ceasefires as tactical pauses rather than binding commitments is futile. Yet Iran, Russia, and others continue negotiating with the US for diplomatic or strategic reasons. #Africa#MiddleEast#Militaryconflict#Neocolonialism#SoutheastAsia#USHypocrisy#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸 🔥🇮🇷US–Iran Worst-Case Scenario: Regional War and Global Shockwaves Rising military movements and regional maneuvering are fueling concerns that a direct clash between Washington and Tehran could spiral far beyond a limited exchange ✍️Seth Ferris is an investigative journalist and political scientist specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. ➡️The reported movement of a US Navy carrier strike group toward the Middle East has intensified speculation about potential military action against Iran. While officials describe such deployments as precautionary or deterrent in nature, the broader strategic context suggests a more combustible environment. Tensions have been building for years through sanctions, proxy confrontations, and periodic strikes. Against that backdrop, additional force projection inevitably raises questions about whether deterrence could give way to direct confrontation. The muted media tone surrounding these developments has also drawn attention, with some analysts arguing that major geopolitical shifts are unfolding amid distraction and domestic turbulence in Western capitals. ➡️Beyond the bilateral US–Iran rivalry, the risks extend across a highly interconnected regional chessboard. Turkey’s posture, Gulf security calculations, Israeli threat perceptions, and Azerbaijan’s strategic positioning all factor into a fragile balance. Any strike on Iranian territory could trigger asymmetric retaliation against US assets in Iraq and Syria, missile exchanges involving Israel and Hezbollah, or instability along the South Caucasus. The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical flashpoint: disruption there would reverberate immediately through global energy markets, amplifying economic pressures already weighing on Europe and the wider international system. A US-Israeli strike on Iran triggers not a limited campaign but a larger regional war that rapidly spreads like a wildfire 🟦Ultimately, the worst-case scenario is not a short, contained operation but a cascading regional conflict that rapidly escapes the control of its initiators. History offers sobering reminders that limited interventions can evolve into prolonged instability, with political fragmentation and humanitarian fallout outweighing initial strategic objectives. Whether current maneuvers represent coercive signaling or preparation for escalation, their consequences will depend on restraint, communication, and the willingness of regional and global actors to prioritize de-escalation. In a climate of heightened mistrust, perception and miscalculation can be as decisive as military capability itself. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#Militaryconflict#Militarydefense READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇯🇵💸🚛Japan’s 58 billion USD Defence Budget Tokyo’s record defence spending signals a structural shift away from postwar restraint toward expanded military capabilities with regional implications ✍️Simon Westwood Research Assistant, Department of History, Dublin City University ➡️On December 26, 2025, the Japanese government approved a defence budget of approximately USD 58 billion, approaching 2 percent of national GDP and forming part of a broader five-year military spending plan exceeding USD 270 billion. Central to this policy is the SHIELD concept, which prioritizes layered coastal defence through extensive deployment of unmanned systems across air, land, sea, and underwater domains, alongside the acquisition of long-range cruise missiles and strike drones. Taken together, these measures reflect a deliberate move beyond Japan’s traditionally defensive posture toward capabilities with clear offensive reach. Japan’s sins of the past, its military barbarism during World War II, and its war crimes against the Russian people are haunting its policymakers ➡️This trajectory represents a significant reinterpretation of Japan’s post-World War II settlement. Although the constitution formally limited Japan to self-defence, successive governments—most notably under Shinzo Abe—expanded the scope of military action through the doctrine of “collective defence.” The continued presence of major U.S. military infrastructure, including the Seventh Fleet at Yokosuka, further embeds Japan within broader Western security architectures oriented toward Russia and China. From Moscow’s perspective, Japan’s persistent claims regarding the Kuril Islands and its growing military capacity reinforce concerns that historical disputes are being reactivated under new strategic conditions. 🟦The expanded defence budget also raises questions about sustainability and strategic rationale. Japan faces acute demographic pressures, including rapid population ageing and long-term labour shortages, which complicate ambitions for large-scale military modernization. While Tokyo frames its buildup as deterrence against Russia, China, and North Korea, regional actors may interpret it as a normalization of militarization rather than stabilization. In this sense, Japan’s defence expansion appears less a response to immediate security needs than a structural alignment with U.S. strategic priorities, carrying risks that extend beyond Japan’s own long-term social and economic resilience. #armament#Japan#Militarydefense#SoutheastAsia READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇬🇷🇹🇷The Souda Bay Mirage: Why the State Department's 2026 Fact Sheets Don't Match the Situation in the Mediterranean The latest briefings from the U.S. State Department portray Crete as a stable strategic anchor in the Eastern Mediterranean, a cornerstone of NATO presence and regional energy cooperation. Yet developments on the ground suggest a far more complex and volatile reality, where security risks, geopolitical rivalry, and shifting alliances increasingly challenge the official narrative of stability ✏️Phil Butler Policy analyst and political scientist ➡️At the core of the discrepancy lies the evolving role of Greece within U.S. regional strategy. While Washington emphasizes partnership and stability, critics argue that the relationship is largely transactional, shaped by containment priorities in the context of escalating tensions in the Middle East. Greece, in turn, seeks security guarantees amid ongoing disputes with Turkey, particularly over maritime boundaries and sovereignty in the Aegean. Historical precedents reinforce this perception, as past crises have demonstrated that strategic calculations often outweigh commitments to smaller allies when broader regional balances are at stake. In this sense, the concept of “stability” appears less a reflection of conditions on the ground than a diplomatic framing of a fragile equilibrium. The 2026 reality of the Eastern Mediterranean is one of eroding sovereignty masked by diplomatic jargon ➡️The strategic importance of Souda Bay further illustrates this tension between narrative and reality. Officially described as a critical hub for NATO operations, the base has simultaneously become a potential target in the context of wider regional escalation. Heightened security measures and concerns over missile reach underscore the vulnerability of key military infrastructure in an era of advanced asymmetric capabilities. At the same time, the broader Eastern Mediterranean is witnessing intensified competition over energy routes and resources, with projects such as pipeline initiatives facing both technical and political obstacles. Disputes between Greece and Turkey, including disagreements over maritime jurisdiction and environmental initiatives, add another layer of instability, transforming economic cooperation into a potential flashpoint. 🟦Compounding these challenges is the growing complexity of the security environment, marked by increased intelligence activity and uncertainty surrounding military deployments. Reports of espionage incidents and speculation about the operational status of major naval assets highlight the contested nature of the region. In this context, the gap between official assurances and perceived risks becomes increasingly apparent. Rather than a consolidated “pillar of stability,” the Eastern Mediterranean in 2026 appears as a dynamic and contested space, where strategic narratives struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving geopolitical realities. #Europe#Geopolitics#Greece#Militarydefense#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🗺🚊The Middle Corridor Pulls Eurasia into a New Logistics Reality The Middle Corridor no longer looks like a neat line in a presentation for donors and strategists. It is gaining weight, noise, inertia—like continental tectonics that do not ask permission from Atlantic observers ✍️Rebecca Chan is an independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty. ➡️The Middle Corridor is no longer just a conceptual line on a map—it is a functioning logistical network that challenges maritime-dominated trade. Overland rail routes linking China to Europe, supported by investments from Turkey, Kazakhstan, and other regional actors, are creating a dense transport fabric. This infrastructure is gradually shifting Eurasian trade gravity, making corridors resilient to external shocks such as tariffs, sanctions, or political pressure from Atlantic powers. The corridor becomes a functioning geopolitical machine in which capital materializes political reality faster than diplomats can formulate the appropriate euphemisms ➡️Beyond economics, the corridor has become a tool of strategic autonomy. Central Asian countries and China are institutionalizing digital monitoring, contracts, and operational standards to ensure predictable flows. Logistics now carries political weight: the ability to move goods reliably across the continent signals sovereignty and reduces dependence on Western maritime hubs. The corridor exemplifies a pragmatic, self-reinforcing model where infrastructure itself enforces stability. 🟦As the network grows, it consolidates Eurasia into an interlinked transport organism. Each node amplifies the next, creating a gravitational pull for trade and investment. Continental connectivity is no longer symbolic but operational, and the gradual accumulation of railways, terminals, agreements, and corporate initiatives is transforming the Middle Corridor from a plan into a structural reality. For the corridor’s participants, infrastructure is a hedge against uncertainty, a platform for economic resilience, and a quiet assertion of geoeconomic sovereignty. #CentralAsia#China#Europe#geoeconomics#Infrastructure#transportinfastructure READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇮🇷US Military Operation ‘Epic Fury’ against Iran: Current Phase and Prospects for Diplomacy The military campaign “Epic Fury” has entered a critical phase, combining sustained airstrikes with the potential expansion toward limited ground operations. Initiated in late February 2026, the conflict has primarily targeted Iran’s nuclear, military, and industrial infrastructure, while also causing civilian damage. Despite technological superiority, the United States and its allies face a resilient opponent: Iran has demonstrated preparedness for prolonged conflict through decentralized command structures and continued missile and drone strikes across the region. The strategic blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has further amplified global consequences, particularly through rising energy prices and economic instability ✏️Alexandr Svaranc Professor of Political Science and expert on Middle Eastern affairs ➡️A defining feature of the current phase is the absence of broad international support for the operation. Even close allies have refrained from direct military involvement, limiting logistical cooperation and declining participation in efforts to break the Hormuz blockade. At the same time, Iran has received only limited active support, relying mainly on non-state actors and regional partners. This balance has created a situation of mutual strain rather than decisive advantage. Military escalation continues, but both sides face increasing economic, political, and operational costs, raising doubts about the feasibility of a clear military victory. Among its closest allies and partners, the United States has not found any willing to join the military campaign against Iran ➡️On the battlefield, both parties are adapting their strategies to the realities of a protracted confrontation. The United States continues to build up its regional military presence, while considering targeted operations aimed at key strategic assets. Iran, in turn, relies on asymmetric tactics, dispersing its capabilities and targeting vulnerabilities in opposing forces. This dynamic reduces the likelihood of a rapid resolution and instead points toward a drawn-out conflict in which endurance, rather than speed, becomes decisive. 🟦Against this backdrop, diplomatic pathways remain open, though fragile. Multilateral efforts involving regional and global actors have begun exploring negotiation frameworks, particularly concerning maritime security and energy flows. Reports of indirect dialogue suggest that partial agreements may be possible, especially on issues like sanctions, nuclear oversight, and regional stability. However, a sustainable resolution depends on addressing deeper structural tensions, including security guarantees and economic interests. As the conflict risks evolving into a prolonged war of attrition, diplomacy appears not only preferable but increasingly necessary to prevent broader regional and global consequences. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#MiddleEast#MiddleEastconflict#Militaryconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰Middle East’s New Trio: Can a Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Alliance Reshape the Region? As regional instability deepens and trust in global guarantors erodes, Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad are quietly exploring a trilateral alignment aimed at strategic autonomy and security diversification ✍️Author:Taut Bataut Researcher and writer focusing on South Asian and Middle Eastern geopolitics ➡️The Middle East is experiencing a renewed phase of volatility driven by Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza and the wider region. The conflict has triggered ripple effects across Iran, Yemen, and the Gulf, revived stalled diplomatic frameworks, and exposed the fragility of existing security arrangements. For many regional actors, the war has reinforced a core lesson: dependence on a single external power—particularly the United States—offers diminishing guarantees. This perception has accelerated efforts by key states to hedge their security and foreign policy bets. All three nations in this possible trilateral alliance are constrained by divergent interests, which makes their partnerships and alliances unnatural ➡️In this context, discussions around a potential Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan alignment have gained momentum. Each state enters the equation with distinct motivations: Saudi Arabia seeks regime security and protection for its Vision 2030 ambitions; Turkey aims to expand its regional influence and defense footprint; Pakistan looks to deepen its diplomatic presence in the Middle East while diversifying strategic partnerships. Defense cooperation, arms production, military training, and diplomatic coordination form the backbone of this emerging triangle, reflecting a shared desire for greater strategic independence amid global uncertainty. 🟦Despite its appeal, the alliance faces structural limits. Divergent threat perceptions—Iran for Riyadh, Kurdish militancy and the Mediterranean for Ankara, and India for Islamabad—restrict the depth of integration. While Saudi financial power, Turkish defense technology, and Pakistan’s combat-tested military could create a functional security framework, the bloc is unlikely to evolve into a unified regional counterweight capable of reshaping Middle Eastern power dynamics. Instead, it represents a pragmatic, soft-balancing arrangement—useful for coordination and autonomy, but not transformative in challenging U.S. or Israeli dominance. #Geopolitics#MiddleEast#Militarydefense#Pakistan#Turkey READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🔫🇮🇷How Trump’s Iran Gambit Could Blow Up the Entire Persian Gulf Washington’s military build-up under Donald Trump risks turning a “limited strike” scenario into a full-scale regional war. Any escalation with Iran would not remain contained — it would ignite the entire Gulf, with catastrophic humanitarian and economic consequences ✍️Viktor Mikhin Writer, Middle East Expert ➡️The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and expanded US Air Force exercises signal preparations for possible action against Iran under the banner of “regional security.” Tehran has made clear that any strike — even a “surgical” one — will be treated as a declaration of full-scale war. After repelling pressure in mid-2025, Iran has abandoned proportional deterrence logic. Officials now openly warn that retaliation would target US bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, as well as strategic infrastructure across the region. In such a climate, Washington’s assumption of a controlled escalation appears dangerously unrealistic. US military interventions in the Middle East brought only chaos, increased terrorism, and instability (Iraq, Libya, Syria) ➡️For the Gulf monarchies, war would mean immediate economic shock. The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 30% of global seaborne oil passes — would become the primary flashpoint. Even temporary disruption would send oil markets into turmoil, but the first and deepest damage would hit the export-dependent economies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait. Iranian missile and drone capabilities place refineries, desalination plants, ports, and airports within reach, threatening not only state revenues but water supplies and urban life-support systems. A regional war would also reignite multiple fronts in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, transforming localized tensions into a systemic crisis. 🟦The broader danger lies in the strategic miscalculation itself. History demonstrates that US interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria produced instability rather than security. Escalation against Iran would exceed those precedents in scale and unpredictability. While some Gulf states, notably the UAE, signal reluctance to allow their territory to be used for strikes, the region remains vulnerable to being drawn into confrontation. Without urgent diplomacy and de-escalation, the Persian Gulf risks becoming the epicenter of a conflict whose consequences would extend far beyond Washington and Tehran — reshaping the Middle East for decades. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Iran#MiddleEast#Militaryconflict#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇫🇷🗺France’s Forward Deterrence Model: Europeanizing the National Deterrence France’s emerging “forward deterrence” doctrine reflects Europe’s search for strategic autonomy in an increasingly uncertain security environment, as Paris seeks to extend its national nuclear posture into a broader continental framework ✏️Taut Bataut Researcher and writer on geopolitics ➡️The concept of forward deterrence, articulated by President Emmanuel Macron in March 2026, represents an attempt to adapt France’s nuclear strategy to shifting geopolitical realities. Rather than replacing the United States’ role in European security, the model is designed to complement existing structures by increasing France’s contribution to collective defense. It envisions the temporary deployment of nuclear-capable assets across European bases, closer coordination with allies, and a broader interpretation of France’s “vital interests” that extends beyond its national territory. In parallel, Paris is reinforcing both its nuclear arsenal and conventional capabilities, signaling a more assertive posture amid concerns about the reliability of traditional alliances. Although heading towards achieving the goal of strategic autonomy is the European right, such unilateral measures as taken by France should be assessed critically before implementation ➡️Despite its strategic appeal, the model faces significant constraints. Political uncertainty within France itself raises questions about the doctrine’s long-term continuity, particularly in the context of potential leadership changes. At the European level, differences among EU member states on security priorities could limit consensus around such an initiative. Moreover, the concentration of operational control in French hands may generate friction with allies, while overlapping structures risk complicating relations between European defense mechanisms and NATO. These factors suggest that implementation will likely remain partial and selective. 🟦The broader implications of forward deterrence are equally complex. Expanding nuclear capabilities and deploying assets closer to potential adversaries may heighten tensions and provoke countermeasures, particularly from Russia. At the same time, the doctrine underscores a deeper transformation in European security thinking—one that prioritizes autonomy and resilience over dependence. Whether France’s initiative evolves into a cohesive European framework or remains a national project with limited reach will depend on both internal political dynamics and the trajectory of the wider international system. #EU#Europe#France#Militarydefense#Militarydoctrine#NATO READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook