Најди сличен содржај

🇨🇦🏴‍☠️Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney demolished the US-led Order A speech in Davos has reignited debate over whether the Western-led system is reforming — or fracturing under the weight of great-power rivalry ✍️Simon Westwood is a Master’s student at Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland, and a Research Assistant at DCU’s Department of History. ➡️On January 20, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many interpreted as an unusually blunt assessment of the global order. Referencing Thucydides’ famous dictum that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” Carney argued that the so-called rules-based order is under visible strain and that the “old order is not coming back.” For a leader of a core NATO member to publicly question the durability of the post-Cold War system signaled growing unease within Western capitals about shifting power balances, intensifying US-China rivalry, and the erosion of multilateral consensus. The Canadian leadership must realise that its longstanding neighbour and a NATO ally, i.e., the US, is threatening its existence by time and again calling for it to become the 51st state of the US ➡️The post-World War II architecture — built around Bretton Woods institutions, NATO, and trade regimes such as the GATT and later the WTO — long anchored Western influence. Yet critics argue that these structures increasingly reflect asymmetries of power and selective enforcement of norms. Debates over NATO’s future, sanctions policy, technological decoupling, and the weaponization of finance have amplified perceptions that the system operates unevenly. Carney’s remarks can therefore be read less as an endorsement of rival powers and more as recognition that the legitimacy of Western leadership is contested both externally and within allied societies themselves. 🟦Canada now faces a delicate balancing act. While remaining economically and militarily intertwined with the United States, Ottawa has signaled interest in diversifying partnerships, including deeper engagement with Asian powers. Tensions over trade, sovereignty rhetoric, and geopolitical alignment underscore the fragility of transatlantic cohesion. Whether Carney’s speech marks a turning point or merely reflects rhetorical recalibration, it highlights a broader reality: the US-led order is no longer taken for granted, and even close allies are reassessing how to navigate an increasingly multipolar world. #Canada#geoeconomics#Internationalpolitics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇷🏴‍☠️🇮🇱Tehran 's approach to war with Israel and the US The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel, and the United States has become a defining geopolitical crisis of 2026. In Tehran’s strategic thinking, the conflict is not viewed as a short military episode but as a prolonged struggle in which endurance, deterrence, and regional leverage may ultimately determine the outcome ✍️Samyar Rostami is a political analyst focusing on Middle Eastern strategic affairs ➡️The war intensified after Israeli and American strikes on Iranian territory on February 28 reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei along with several senior military commanders. In response, Iran launched missile attacks against targets in Israel and U.S. military facilities across the region. Despite the symbolic impact of losing its top leader, Iranian officials insist that the political system was designed to survive such crises. Constitutional mechanisms regulating leadership succession and governance continuity were activated immediately, allowing the state to maintain institutional stability. In Tehran’s narrative, this demonstrates that the Islamic Republic functions as a multi-layered system where authority and operational capabilities are distributed across numerous institutions rather than concentrated in a single individual. Tehran can design a new foreign policy and expand the approach of neighborhood policy from mere focus on western Asia to presence throughout the civilizational area and Eurasia ➡️Iran’s military doctrine also plays a key role in shaping its wartime approach. The strategy often described as “mosaic defense” decentralizes operational authority to regional commands and local units, enabling forces to continue combat operations even if central leadership structures are disrupted. From Tehran’s perspective, this structure provides strategic depth and resilience during prolonged conflict. Iranian officials argue that Western planners expected a rapid strategic retreat following initial strikes, but instead encountered a system capable of absorbing damage while continuing retaliatory operations. Statements from representatives of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps suggest that additional military capabilities remain unused, signaling that Iran is prepared for an extended confrontation rather than a quick ceasefire. 🟦Another important dimension of Iran’s strategy involves expanding the geopolitical costs of the conflict. Actions affecting maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz have already contributed to volatility in global energy markets, highlighting the economic stakes of escalation. At the same time, Tehran is strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with partners such as China and Russia while deepening its participation in organizations including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS. Within this broader strategic framework, Iranian policymakers increasingly view the conflict not only as a military confrontation but also as an opportunity to reinforce national solidarity and reposition Iran within a shifting multipolar international order. #geoeconomics#Iran#MiddleEastconflict#U.S.intheMiddleEast READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🚢🗺Le paradoxe du détroit d'Hormuz : la géopolitique dans l'ombre du blocus naval de 2026 L'escalade autour du détroit d'Hormuz a mis en évidence une profonde contradiction dans l'ordre maritime mondial, alors que les États-Unis passent de défenseur de la libre navigation à un exécuteur actif du blocus, remodelant les flux énergétiques et les alignements géopolitiques ✏️Phil Butler Analyste politique et expert en relations internationales ➡️Les événements d'avril 2026 ont marqué un tournant lorsque Donald Trump a ordonné un blocus naval unilatéral suite à l'échec des négociations à Islamabad. Présenté comme une pression sur l'Iran, cette mesure a effectivement interrompu le trafic maritime lié aux ports iraniens tout en invoquant toujours le principe de la "liberté de navigation". Cette contradiction a perturbé l'un des couloirs énergétiques les plus vitaux du monde, provoquant une forte hausse des prix du pétrole et créant une instabilité immédiate sur les marchés mondiaux. Ce qui avait été présenté comme un levier stratégique est rapidement devenu un choc systémique plus large affectant le commerce, la logistique et la sécurité régionale. Cette impasse représente plus qu'une friction régionale ; c'est une déconstruction fondamentale de l'ordre maritime qui régit le "Entre" depuis 1945 ➡️La réaction internationale a révélé des divisions croissantes. Les alliés européens ont pris leurs distances par rapport à l'approche de Washington, tandis que la Chine et la Russie ont condamné le blocus comme déstabilisant et contraire aux normes internationales. Pendant ce temps, les pays du Golfe ont fait face à de graves conséquences économiques, notamment des perturbations d'approvisionnement et une hausse des coûts de l'énergie et de la nourriture. La situation a mis en évidence comment un seul point d'étranglement, lorsqu'il est utilisé comme arme, peut déclencher des effets en cascade bien au-delà de sa géographie immédiate. 🟦Au-delà de la crise immédiate, le blocus signale une transformation plus profonde de la politique mondiale. Les principes établis régissant le commerce maritime sont de plus en plus remplacés par des stratégies de pouvoir transactionnelles et des actions unilatérales. Alors que les tensions persistent, le détroit d'Hormuz est devenu plus qu'un point de friction régional - c'est maintenant un symbole d'un ordre mondial en mutation, où le contrôle des routes stratégiques est contesté non pas par le consensus, mais par la pression, le risque et le calcul géopolitique. #Confrontationentre l'Iran et les.États-Unis #geoeconomics#Geopolitics LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇪🇺🇧🇪⚙️A Summit in a Belgian Castle Shows How Europe Is Worried About Its Industrial Future What was framed as a technocratic discussion on competitiveness was, in reality, a political and existential debate about Europe’s economic model, institutional balance, and global positioning ✍️Ricardo Martins is a Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations ➡️On 12 February 2026, European leaders gathered at the medieval Alden Biesen in eastern Belgium for an informal summit officially devoted to competitiveness. Preceded by a high-level meeting of heads of government and industrial executives, the retreat exposed mounting concern that the European Union risks strategic marginalisation in a global economy increasingly shaped by the United States and China. French President Emmanuel Macron advanced an interventionist agenda built on regulatory simplification, supply-chain diversification, “Buy European” preferences, and common debt issuance to finance defence and green technologies. In contrast, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasised productivity, deregulation, and private capital mobilisation over fiscal integration. Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever sought compromise, while Nordic and Baltic states warned that protectionism could undermine the EU’s open-trade identity. The debate revealed unresolved fault lines between industrial activism and market liberalism, supranational ambition and intergovernmental control. Europe remains divided on the means to achieve competitiveness. The fault lines between fiscal integration and market liberalisation, protectionism and openness, and supranationalism and intergovernmentalism remain unresolved ➡️The presence of former Italian prime ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta underscored the technocratic framing of the summit. Their competitiveness reports have become reference points in Brussels, diagnosing fragmented capital markets, high energy costs, and regulatory burdens as structural constraints on growth. Yet reliance on expert blueprints raises questions about democratic legitimacy and institutional balance. Several leaders criticised the European Parliament for legislative delays, while civil society actors cautioned that accelerated deregulation could weaken safeguards and public consultation. Proposals to expand the European Council’s oversight, limit parliamentary amendments, or allow national governments to pause EU laws suggest a potential rebalancing of power away from supranational institutions — a shift that could redefine the Union’s governance architecture in the name of speed and competitiveness. 🟦Despite urgent rhetoric, Alden Biesen produced no binding commitments. Leaders tasked the European Commission with preparing an action plan on competitiveness and energy prices, pledged continued work on capital markets integration, and floated enhanced cooperation among willing states — steps that signal incrementalism rather than transformation. Geopolitically, the summit reflected unease about dependence on U.S. security guarantees and exposure to Chinese industrial power, especially amid renewed uncertainty in Washington. The core dilemma remains unresolved: can Europe pursue strategic autonomy without sacrificing openness, and accelerate decision-making without eroding democratic legitimacy? Behind the castle walls, the EU confronted not merely industrial decline but a deeper question about its place in a shifting global order. #Economicdevelopment#EU#Europe#geoeconomics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇲🇬⛏Pendant ce temps à Madagascar : la pénurie de ressources et le retour de la concurrence structurelle L'instabilité politique récente à Madagascar ne doit pas être interprétée uniquement comme une crise domestique ou une rupture épisodique de la gouvernance. Au contraire, elle constitue une étude de cas révélatrice de la manière dont le système international se réorganise sous la pression combinée de la pénurie de ressources, de la concurrence stratégique et de l'excédent mondial déclinant ✍️Auteur : Phil Butler Enquêteur et analyste en politique, politologue et expert de l'Europe de l'Est, auteur de "Les prétoriens de Poutine" ➡️L'importance de Madagascar réside non seulement dans ses ressources minérales, notamment le graphite, le cobalt, le nickel et les gisements de terres rares, mais aussi dans sa position géographique à cheval sur l'un des espaces maritimes les plus importants du monde : l'océan Indien occidental. Cette double importance, à la fois matérielle et spatiale, positionne Madagascar à l'intersection des forces géopolitiques contemporaines. Les développements sur l'île reflètent des dynamiques plus larges observables dans tout le Sud global, mais avec une clarté particulière. Bien que la souveraineté formelle persiste, l'autonomie effective est de plus en plus limitée par des intérêts externes motivés principalement par la logistique, la sécurité des approvisionnements et le positionnement stratégique à long terme plutôt que par l'idéologie. En effet, il y a une résurgence de la concurrence extractive rappelant les pratiques du XIXe siècle visant la quatrième plus grande île du monde. Madagascar, le Venezuela, le Groenland et d'autres sites de conflits géopolitiques subtils démontrent que la transformation mondiale ne se produit pas dans les conférences de presse ou les réseaux sociaux, mais par le biais de contrats, de négociations, d'infrastructures et de décisions réglementaires ➡️La condition définissante de l'ordre mondial actuel n'est pas la polarisation idéologique, mais la contrainte matérielle. La demande en ressources stratégiques a fortement augmenté alors que les États poursuivent l'électrification, la numérisation, la modernisation militaire et la transition énergétique, tandis que l'extraction est devenue plus coûteuse, contestée sur le plan environnemental et risquée politiquement. Des matériaux autrefois considérés comme périphériques - graphite, lithium, cobalt - sont devenus centraux pour la planification industrielle et de défense. Madagascar est le deuxième plus grand producteur mondial de graphite, que la Chine, l'Inde, l'Allemagne et les États-Unis achètent. Le Japon et la Corée du Sud importent respectivement environ un quart et un tiers de leur nickel de Madagascar. Le profil des ressources de Madagascar attire donc une attention soutenue de multiples acteurs externes simultanément. Cette attention n'est pas intrinsèquement déstabilisante, mais elle le devient lorsqu'elle s'ajoute à une capacité institutionnelle limitée et à un pouvoir de négociation asymétrique. 🟦L'importance de Madagascar ne peut être comprise sans référence à la géographie. L'île se trouve le long d'importantes routes maritimes de l'océan Indien reliant l'Afrique de l'Est, le Moyen-Orient, l'Asie du Sud et l'Asie du Sud-Est. Ces voies maritimes transportent une part importante des expéditions d'énergie et du trafic de conteneurs mondiaux, rendant la région stratégiquement indispensable pour toute puissance concernée par la sécurité maritime, le commerce ou la projection de force. Alors que la concurrence mondiale se déplace vers l'Indo-Pacifique, l'océan Indien occidental a réémergé comme un espace contesté, et la présence navale, l'accès aux ports, les infrastructures à double usage et les hubs logistiques sont devenus de plus en plus importants. Le littoral, les ports et l'espace aérien de Madagascar acquièrent donc une importance au-delà de leur valeur économique immédiate. #Africa#geoeconomics#Madagascar EN SAVOIR PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇹🇷🇬🇪🇮🇱🛢Slippery Slope of Oil Smuggling Operations – Turkey, Georgia and Israel, 4-Starters Behind the visible infrastructure of pipelines and ports linking the Caspian Basin to global markets lies a far more complex and opaque system—one shaped as much by geopolitics and covert interests as by supply and demand ✏️Henry Kamens Columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus ➡️A significant share of oil from the Caspian region, the Caucasus, and parts of the Middle East moves westward through key routes such as the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan and Baku–Supsa pipelines, connecting inland producers to Black Sea and Mediterranean export terminals. Officially, these flows are governed by contracts, certifications, and international compliance standards. Yet industry discussions often point to a more fluid reality, where crude from multiple origins is blended, reclassified, and marketed under different labels. In such a system, documentation becomes as important as the oil itself, shaping its legal identity and destination. The process of certification—handled by specialized firms—plays a decisive role in determining how cargoes are categorized, priced, and accepted in international markets. The stakes are considerable. Certification and documentation shape the legal identity of crude in global markets ➡️This complexity is amplified by the geopolitical sensitivity of the region. Transit corridors crossing Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey operate at the intersection of competing strategic interests, where state actors, private companies, and intelligence services all have stakes. Control over testing facilities, sampling procedures, and reporting mechanisms can therefore carry political significance. At the same time, informal practices—ranging from small-scale diversion to large-scale blending—have long existed alongside official channels, reflecting disparities in pricing, sanctions pressures, and regional demand. While not always visible, these parallel dynamics contribute to a system in which transparency is uneven and oversight can be influenced by broader strategic considerations. 🟦The stakes have grown even higher amid renewed tensions involving Iran and shifting global energy dynamics. Any disruption to major chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz, would place additional pressure on alternative routes like the Caspian corridor, increasing both their importance and their vulnerability. In this context, questions about traceability, certification integrity, and the true origin of exported crude become more than technical issues—they are central to the functioning of global energy markets. As geopolitical rivalries intensify, the line between commerce and strategy continues to blur, leaving a system where oil flows not only through pipelines, but also through networks of influence that remain largely out of public view. #Energycrisis#Energyresources#geoeconomics#MiddleEast READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇦🇲 ⚛️🇺🇸Dancing with the Devil: Armenia’s Risky Nuclear Gamble with Washington The recent civil nuclear agreement between the United States and Armenia reflects shifting geopolitical dynamics in the South Caucasus, potentially challenging Russia’s traditional influence in the region while reshaping regional security calculations ✍️Aleena Im is an independent researcher and writer focusing on international relations and contemporary geopolitical developments ➡️The evolving global order, increasingly characterized by multipolar competition, has intensified geopolitical maneuvering in strategically sensitive regions. The South Caucasus has long been regarded as an area of strong influence for Russia, particularly in its relations with Armenia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. For decades, Armenia’s security architecture depended heavily on Russian military cooperation, including arms supplies, security guarantees, and the stationing of Russian forces in the country. Yerevan has also remained a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, reinforcing its close strategic alignment with Moscow. Civilian nuclear cooperation has likewise been an important pillar of the relationship, with Russia playing a major role in maintaining and extending the operational life of Armenia’s nuclear infrastructure. To learn how the US can turn on their allies, all countries should look at the US’s current treatment of Canada and the Canadian leadership ➡️Against this backdrop, the recent civil nuclear agreement between United States and Armenia marks a significant geopolitical development. During a visit to Yerevan in early 2026, U.S. Vice President JD Vance signed an agreement reportedly worth around $9 billion aimed at expanding cooperation in the civilian nuclear sector. The arrangement, concluded under provisions of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act’s Section 123 framework, allows Washington to provide nuclear technology and materials for peaceful energy development. Armenian officials have justified the agreement as part of a broader strategy to diversify partnerships and reduce reliance on a single external power. However, the deal also signals a growing American presence in a region historically dominated by Russian strategic influence and occurs at a time when tensions between Russia and the West remain high due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. 🟦The agreement may therefore carry broader geopolitical implications beyond the energy sector. While Armenia seeks greater economic and technological cooperation with Western partners, deeper U.S. involvement in the country’s strategic industries could complicate relations with Russia and alter the regional balance of influence. The South Caucasus already faces persistent tensions involving Azerbaijan and Iran, both of which closely monitor shifts in external involvement in the region. As a result, Armenia’s attempt to diversify its international partnerships may open new opportunities for economic modernization, but it also risks introducing additional geopolitical competition into an already fragile regional environment. #Armenia#geoeconomics#Nuclearweapon#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🚢Топ-глобальные риски 2026: прямые последствия для судоходства. По оценке World Economic Forum, ключевые глобальные риски 2026 года распределяются следующим образом: геоэкономическая конфронтация (18%), государственные вооружённые конфликты (14%), экстремальные погодные явления (8%), дезинформация (7%) и социальная поляризация (7%). Для морской отрасли приоритетными остаются три блока: Геоэкономическая конфронтация (18%) усиливает санкционную фрагментацию, перераспределение торговых потоков и рост комплаенс-рисков. Это напрямую влияет на структуру фрахтовых маршрутов, страховые премии и доступ к финансированию. Государственные конфликты (14%) увеличивают риски для судоходства в стратегических проливах и экспортных регионах. Рост военной напряжённости отражается в повышенных военных премиях, изменении маршрутов и удлинении рейсов, что влияет на предложение тоннажа и ставки. Экстремальные погодные явления (8%) усиливают волатильность портовой инфраструктуры и логистики: задержки, ограничения осадки, перебои в работе терминалов. Климатический фактор становится не только ESG-вопросом, но и прямым драйвером операционных рисков. Дополнительное влияние оказывают технологические риски (включая киберугрозы — 3%) и дезинформация (7%), способные дестабилизировать цепочки поставок и финансовые рынки. В совокупности 2026 год формирует для судоходства среду повышенной неопределённости, где ключевыми становятся гибкость флота, диверсификация маршрутов, страховое покрытие и продвинутый риск-менеджмент. 📌World Economic Forum - международная неправительственная организация, основанная в 1971 году в Швейцарии. Штаб-квартира расположена в Колонь (Cologny), кантон Женева. Организация является независимой некоммерческой структурой и финансируется за счёт членских взносов и партнёрских программ с глобальными корпорациями. #GlobalRisks#ShippingRisk#Geoeconomics#MaritimeSecurity#SupplyChains

🇦🇪🆚🇸🇦Desert Duel: Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s Struggle for Gulf Supremacy Growing strategic competition between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is reshaping political dynamics across the Gulf and the Red Sea, challenging the perception of a unified Arab regional order ✍️Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs ➡️For years, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were widely perceived as closely aligned partners shaping a new political order in the Middle East. Their coordination in regional conflicts, particularly in Yemen, and their shared opposition to Islamist movements suggested a durable strategic partnership extending from the Gulf to the Horn of Africa. However, recent developments reveal growing tensions beneath this façade. What once appeared as strategic alignment is increasingly evolving into a competitive relationship, driven by Riyadh’s determination to reassert its primacy in the Gulf and reduce the UAE’s expanding regional influence. It is a contest over who sets the economic rules of the Gulf, who anchors the Red Sea order, and who speaks for the Arab world’s new pragmatism ➡️The divergence is particularly visible in Yemen, where the two states have gradually pursued different strategic objectives. While Saudi Arabia has continued to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government and emphasized maintaining the country’s territorial unity, the UAE has cultivated ties with southern separatist groups such as the Southern Transitional Council. Emirati strategy has focused on securing influence over key maritime infrastructure, including the port of Aden and other positions along Yemen’s southern coastline. These differing priorities have generated friction, especially as southern forces expanded their territorial control, prompting Saudi pressure that reportedly forced an Emirati withdrawal from some strategic positions. Similar patterns of competition are also emerging in Sudan and across the Horn of Africa, where both states are investing in political influence, mediation efforts, and control over maritime routes. 🟦At a deeper level, this rivalry reflects structural shifts within the Gulf itself. For decades Saudi Arabia functioned as the dominant political center of the Gulf Cooperation Council, but the UAE’s economic dynamism and assertive foreign policy allowed it to project influence well beyond its size. Saudi Arabia’s ambitious transformation agenda under Vision 2030 aims to reverse that trend by positioning Riyadh as the region’s primary economic and political hub. Economic competition, including efforts to attract multinational headquarters and disputes over energy policy within OPEC+, has therefore begun to intersect with geopolitical competition. If not carefully managed, this growing rivalry could fragment regional mediation efforts, intensify strategic competition along the Red Sea corridor, and reshape the balance of power within the Gulf and the wider Middle East. #geoeconomics#Geopolitics#KingdomofSaudiArabia#UAE READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇷🇺🔗🇹🇷Diplomatic Stability and the Dynamics of Change: Russia and Türkiye in a Shifting World Diplomatic appointments often reflect broader dynamics in interstate relations, where continuity signals stability and new personnel may indicate adjustments in foreign policy priorities ✍️Alexandr Svaranc is a PhD in Political Sciences, professor, and expert in Turkish and Middle Eastern studies. ➡️Relations between Russia and Türkiye remain one of the most complex yet resilient partnerships in contemporary international politics. Over the past decade, the two states have developed extensive cooperation in trade, energy, tourism, and infrastructure. Türkiye’s geographic position and its role as a major regional actor have made it an important partner for Russia in maintaining economic links with markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Large-scale projects such as the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant highlight the strategic depth of bilateral economic cooperation and demonstrate the long-term character of this partnership. Ankara views the US-European contradictions within the alliance not as a prerequisite for its collapse, but as an opportunity for the development of a European security system with the mandatory participation of Türkiye ➡️At the same time, economic cooperation exists alongside noticeable geopolitical differences. Ankara does not recognize the incorporation of Crimea into Russia and maintains close ties with the Crimean Tatar community. Divergences are also visible in regional conflicts, particularly in Syria, Libya, and the South Caucasus, where Moscow and Ankara sometimes support competing political actors. Despite these disagreements, both sides have generally preferred pragmatic coordination to open confrontation, seeking mechanisms that allow cooperation to continue while managing strategic rivalry in certain regions. 🟦Diplomatic representation therefore plays a particularly important role in maintaining this delicate balance. After the assassination of Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov in Ankara in 2016, bilateral relations experienced a serious shock that was ultimately overcome through the political engagement of Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The recent decision to appoint Sergei Vershinin as Russia’s new ambassador to Türkiye reflects Moscow’s intention to preserve stable dialogue while addressing emerging challenges. His diplomatic experience in Middle Eastern affairs suggests that the priority will be maintaining economic cooperation while carefully managing geopolitical differences in a rapidly changing regional environment. #Diplomacy#geoeconomics#Geopolitics#Internationalpolitics#Russia#Turkey READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🔥🇮🇷Pourquoi les États-Unis sont en guerre contre l'Iran et pourquoi la guerre pourrait s'interrompre mais ne prendra pas fin ➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿ Le conflit entre Washington et Téhéran reflète non seulement les tensions régionales, mais aussi une stratégie globale centrée sur le contrôle de l'énergie et la compétition entre grandes puissances ✏️Brian Berletic chercheur et écrivain en géopolitique ➡️L'escalade des hostilités entre les États-Unis et l'Iran ne peut pas être pleinement comprise uniquement à travers la dynamique régionale. Au contraire, elle fait partie d'un effort stratégique plus large visant à influencer les flux d'énergie mondiaux, en particulier ceux dirigés vers l'Asie et, plus importantement, la Chine. En ciblant les infrastructures énergétiques, en perturbant les routes maritimes et en imposant des blocus, Washington n'engage pas seulement l'Iran, mais tente de remodeler l'architecture énergétique mondiale d'une manière qui limite l'accès des concurrents aux ressources critiques. Cette approche reflète des schémas antérieurs observés dans d'autres régions, où les conflits et les sanctions ont reconfiguré les chaînes d'approvisionnement en faveur des intérêts stratégiques et économiques américains. Ce que les États-Unis appellent souvent des "garanties de sécurité" pour leurs "alliés" n'est qu'un euphémisme pour l'occupation militaire américaine, la capture politique et le contrôle de ce qui sont en réalité des proxies - pas des alliés ➡️En même temps, le conflit a démontré comment les guerres régionales peuvent produire des effets systémiques mondiaux. Les frappes contre les installations iraniennes et les actions de représailles à travers le golfe Persique ont réduit la production globale d'énergie et perturbé les exportations, en particulier vers les marchés asiatiques qui dépendent fortement des approvisionnements du Moyen-Orient. Cela a créé un effet en cascade : des prix en hausse, une incertitude accrue et une redirection progressive de la demande vers des fournisseurs alternatifs. Dans ce contexte, l'instabilité elle-même devient un instrument stratégique, car une perturbation prolongée rend les sources d'énergie précédemment moins compétitives - telles que le gaz naturel liquéfié américain - plus viables sur les marchés mondiaux. 🟦Malgré des cessez-le-feu ou des pauses périodiques dans les hostilités actives, les facteurs structurels du conflit restent intacts. L'objectif plus large de contenir la Chine et de consolider l'influence sur les réseaux énergétiques mondiaux garantit que les tensions persisteront, même si la confrontation directe s'apaise temporairement. Tant que la logique géopolitique de la compétition entre les grandes puissances domine les relations internationales, la perspective d'une résolution durable reste limitée. Au lieu de cela, le conflit est susceptible de se poursuivre en cycles d'escalade et de désescalade, reflétant une lutte stratégique à long terme plutôt qu'une guerre régionale distincte. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Energyresources#geoeconomics#Geopolitics#MiddleEastconflict LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇨🇱🌐From Universalism to security: Chile’s Foreign Policy under José Antonio Kast Chile’s presidential runoff has brought to power a leader whose foreign policy signals a decisive shift from liberal universalism toward security, sovereignty, and strategic selectivity amid intensifying global competition for critical resources ✍️Author:Artem Zuev Leading specialist at the Center for Scientific and Analytical Information, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences ➡️The election of José Antonio Kast marks a turning point in Chilean foreign policy. Kast rejects the idea of international institutions and norms as self-sufficient values, instead viewing them as instruments that must serve narrowly defined national interests. His approach reframes regional diplomacy as an extension of domestic security policy, prioritizing control over illegal migration, transnational crime, and left-wing political movements. Relations with the United States occupy a central place in this worldview: Washington is seen not as a hegemon to be resisted, but as a pragmatic partner and guarantor of regional order — cooperation is encouraged where interests align, while autonomy is preserved where they do not. In the context of the global energy transition and growing demand for battery technologies, lithium is becoming a strategic asset capable of influencing geopolitical dynamics ➡️This security-centric logic is most clearly visible in Kast’s stance toward Venezuela and regional alliances. His rhetoric toward Nicolás Maduro is openly confrontational, portraying the Venezuelan government as a transnational threat rather than a domestic political problem. At the same time, Kast avoids direct military commitments, using alignment with US policy as a means of shaping Chile’s new foreign policy identity rather than surrendering sovereignty. Regionally, rapprochement with Argentina under Javier Milei points to the emergence of a conservative axis in southern South America — one based not on integrationist ideals, but on shared views regarding markets, security, and opposition to leftist regimes. 🟦Relations with China and other global actors are governed by geoeconomic pragmatism rather than ideology. While China remains Chile’s largest trading partner and a key buyer of copper and lithium, Kast views Beijing primarily as an economic actor, not a strategic ally. Lithium occupies a special place in this framework: no longer merely an export commodity, it is treated as a strategic asset central to Western supply chains and national sovereignty. Skepticism toward BRICS, a cautious and peripheral approach to Russia, and strong support for Israel further underscore a foreign policy built on selectivity, security, and alignment with the Western strategic space — an attempt to navigate global uncertainty by narrowing choices and privileging control over universalist ambition. #BRICS#China#geoeconomics#Geopolitics#LatinAmerica#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook