Turbulent world – full of powder kegs, Part II
This is the second part of the series “Turbulent world – full of powder kegs”. Now we turn to some long standing and many-faceted crises:
- Multidimensional, “forever” drama in the Middle East – all great powers involved
- Eurasian chessboard – China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia – RICS, SCO
- Korean “forever” crisis – all great powers involved
Multidimensional, “forever” drama in the Middle East – all great powers involved
I think the descriptive expression for this crisis/drama is “multidimensional”, in addition to “forever drama”. In this case, multidimensional means at least
- regional major players of today: Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt; in history, wide range of regional and major countries and other players; this dimension has been actual over 2000 years
- religion: three major religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity); in Islam (the Sunnis, the Shiites); this dimension has been actual about 1500 years
- Israel vs. Arab countries and various jihadist movements & terrorist groups; this dimension has been actual about 150 years
- great power relations and competition of today: the US, China, Russia; in history, wide range of major players; control and mastery of energy (oil and natural gas) trade and pipelines are of crucial importance as well as de-dollarization issue
- membership / partnership of some important associations / allies / organizations: OPEC, BRICS, GCC, RIC; each current great power has their own allies and partner formations in the region (Gulf countries, Middle East, MENA)
There has been numerous crises and open wars during last ten years in the region. I have studied them in my articles:
October 17, 2025 Autumn Potpourri 2025
July 6, 2025 Israel-Iran 12-Day War in the Middle East, ex-post evaluation
June 24, 2025 WW3 in the making in the Middle East?
January 1, 2025 Multifaceted trends in the Middle East
December 8, 2024 West versus Russia, emerging Cold War 2.0, PART I Europe and Middle East
April 12, 2024 Variety of wars in the Middle East
December 31, 2023 Middle East is at the verge of volcano-burst
November 8, 2023 Israel vs. Hamas war, in the context of great powers
October 15, 2023 Israel vs. Hamas war
May 16, 2021 Middle East in Motion
The Middle East has seen many wars and crises since the beginning of this century. The legacy of Iraq wars culminated in the rise and fall of ISIS, followed by the Syrian Civil War, which culminated the collapse of the Assad Regime.
After the Hamas attack against Israel in October 2023, the new phase of violence started mainly in Gaza meaning the fall (temporary!?) of Hamas and Hezbollah and leading to the strengthened power position of Israel in the Middle East.
China has strengthened its positions especially in economic and political sphere by skillfully made agreements. China’s currency yuan is nowadays used by many Arab countries in their oil business. Russia has regained much of its previous status back, partly by its overall strengthening economic, political and military position but also Russia’s success in the Ukrainian proxy war, which has revealed the weakness of the West vs. Russia’s growing military competence. Practical evidence of this is that Russia still holds the two military bases in Syria and is preparing a new base in Libya. The full Israeli support by the US in recent hostilities, has caused lowering popularity and critique towards the US among Arab countries in the region
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and defense sector have accelerated efforts to develop the service’s ballistic missile arsenal, which played a central role in deterring further escalation by Western Bloc states and by Israel in June, after Israel initiated large scale attacks with the support of the US, Turkey and several European countries. The severity of the damage and the fast-diminishing ability of Israeli missile defenses to blunt the attacks, was considered a primary factor leading Israel to accept a ceasefire on June 24. The strengthening of the ballistic missile arsenal, including hypersonic and multi-warhead designs, is thus currently considered vital to deterring further Western or Israeli attacks.
Western intelligence sources have widely alleged that Iran is receiving shipments of Chinese sodium perchlorate to produce the solid fuel composites for its more modern ballistic missile types,
Iran it is thought to be receiving support for other aspects of its missile program, from North Korea. China maybe helping Iran to strengthen its air defenses. Reports in early July stated that Iran was receiving Chinese-made long-range air defense systems, with the HQ-9B which is also fielded by neighboring Pakistan.
Russian government documents revealed that Iran had ordered 48 Su-35 fighter aircraft from Russia. Reports also indicated that the first modernized MiG-29s were delivered to Iran by Russia. Procurements of fighters and air defense systems are expected to complement the effects of advances in the Iranian ballistic missile program to more effectively deter possible future Western or Israeli attacks.
In November, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that the Islamic Republic is open to talks but would not be coerced into abandoning its nuclear and missile programs. Allegedly, Iran is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, which is enough to reach mainland US. Iran is expanding an underground facility near Natanz including deep tunnels, which could be used as a uranium enrichment site.
The Red Sea region in the Middle East. The competition for global influence and control is shifting. One of the places where this dynamic is playing out is the Red Sea region, which encompasses Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Here international rivalries, regional ambitions and local politics collide. The region stretches from the Suez Canal to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, covering approximately 438,000 square kilometers. The Red Sea borders some of the world’s most volatile regions: the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the western shore of the Indo-Pacific area.
The Red Sea is rapidly becoming a highly contested zone, where traditional and emerging global powers are vying for influence and control. The decline of Western geopolitical centrality, the rise of alternative powers and the increasing assertiveness of regional actors converge in the Red Sea.
While competition for global power between the United States and China tends to dominate the headlines, the true laboratories of the post-liberal world order are found in regions where international, regional and local dynamics collide. The broader Red Sea region is one of them. Others are the Arctic, the South Indo-Pacific and the Balkans. The Red Sea has great strategic value connecting the Mediterranean and the Indo-Pacific and being a maritime route for global trade and energy.
The United States and China both have military facilities in Djibouti. Russia has sought access to Port Sudan. Gulf powers, notably Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have expanded their presence across the Horn of Africa, especially in Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia. Turkey, Iran and Israel have also established political, economic and security ties. This links the Red Sea to the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
However, external powers are not the only drivers of change in the region. Local actors, from Ethiopia to Sudan, Eritrea, Egypt and Somalia, are exploiting global rivalries to advance their strategic objectives. They are also using diplomatic alignment with the US, China, Gulf states or Turkey to strengthen domestic and regional positions. These actions create a complex web of overlapping interests. Governments and non-state actors now have multiple external patrons to choose from. They can play one power against another.
The Red Sea region reflects the broader transformation of global politics. Rather than producing a new balance, the decline of western influence has created a decentralized and competitive system.
In this environment, regional areas serve as testing grounds for new patterns of interaction between global and local powers, state and non-state actors and formal alliances and informal partnerships.
Competition among great powers now occurs less through international institutions and more through regional arenas. Military presence, infrastructure investment and political alliances now serve as instruments of influence.
The Red Sea region is a reminder to scholars and policymakers that the future of international politics will not be defined solely in Washington, Beijing or Moscow. It will also be defined in places like Port Sudan, Aden and Djibouti, where the new global order is being shaped. Regions have become true laboratories of international change. They are places where global competition interacts with local conflicts and new models of governance and influence emerge.
Eurasian chessboard – China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia – BRICS and SCO
I have studied this topic in my articles:
October 17, 2025 Autumn Potpourri 2025
September 8, 2025 SCO Summit 2025
August 29, 2025 India’s strengthening role in the power game: The US – China – Russia – BRICS
July 15, 2025 BRICS Summit 2025, in Brazil
May 17, 2025 India – Pakistan, a difficult relation
January 21, 2025 Russia – Iran relations
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997) is one of the major works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He graduated with a PhD from Harvard University in 1953 and became Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University. He was later the US National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.
Brzezinski’s key message: regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. No Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge US global pre-eminence.
As most IR-researchers admit, Ukraine is not in the core strategic interests of the US, whose strategic focus is on Asia. This view is also shared by President Trump. Despite the acute Ukrainian crisis and the massive American investments in that, Biden also gave clear signals that his strategy in this game is not intended to focus on Europe in the medium term, but on Asia. The US wish to refocus its foreign and security policy on Asia and leave Ukraine to the EU.
The recent performance of the EU, as a fully loyal servant and vassal of the US, will aggravate the destiny of the old continent rather than alleviate the humanitarian crisis Europe will face this fall. Now it seems that finally this game is passing the buck to the EU itself. Europe’s total commitment to large-scale sanction policy on Russia, despite its deep dependence on Russian energy deliveries, is the main cause of that momentous tragedy Europe will face in this and next coming years. Viewed from Europe, the war in Ukraine and the consequences for the old continent are key to this game but a more global observation of the situation should lead us to a different conclusion, which Europe cannot ignore.
At the same time, China has not remained neutral in the face of the crisis but has deepened its anti-American rhetoric and coming even closer to Russia’s position. Thus, the growing differences between the Western narrative and that of China, let alone Russia, are clear signs that after the invasion of Ukraine, the world is more like “Grand Chessboard” than ever, where the West and the East are playing a major game in pursuit of global hegemony.
Empowering and expanding framework – BRICS+ and SCO
As studied and described, two strengthening frameworks are shaping the relations and the theater itself in interesting direction, BRICS+ and SCO have emerged as a new kind of dynamic frame where intensive cooperative performance is formulating the relations of member countries.
Cooperation is significantly increasing and expanding in Eurasia between Russia – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan, China – Russia – Iran, China – Russia, India – Russia, even China – India. The recent Putin’s state visit in India can be called as historical; India showed to the West, which side it has chosen.
These two associations – BRICS+ and SCO – form a new dynamic source of power, which redesign the international order and polarity.
The Shadow of War: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in a Deadly Standoff
However, some pain points still exist, particularly India – Pakistan and Pakistan – Afghanistan. Internally, Afghanistan is in a mess and the national administration is spinning out of control, tens of competing groups fighting each other. Thus, Afghanistan is in a melting pot, while Pakistan is facing many directional threats to its security. War with India and Afghanistan seems imminent.
After the end of the 4-day war between India and Pakistan with a fragile ceasefire, the threat of a new regional war looms large due to the recent terrorist attacks in Islamabad and New Delhi. Escalating terror attacks have been taking place across South Asian borders. The Pakistani government has blamed Afghanistan and India for many terrorist attacks in two different regions of the country.
Tensions between the two sides were already high due to a 4-day war in May this year, which started due to a terrorist attack in the Pahalgam district of Indian-administered Kashmir. The war ended after 4 days with a fragile ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump. However, Indian officials repeatedly stated that their Operation Sindoor was ongoing and had entered its second phase. Both sides have been accusing each other of sponsoring proxy groups and terrorist organizations on either side of the border for years.
The situation at the Pakistan-India border has been intense since May 2025. The failure of Pak-Afghan peace talks and the recent attacks have further increased regional and domestic threats for the country.
Any miscalculation from any side in the coming hours or days could plunge the whole region into a severe existential crisis, as both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers. On the other hand, Pakistan would face a critical situation if a war broke out on its eastern or western border, as it would have to deal with all three rivals: Afghanistan, India, and proxy groups. It is high time for the leaders of all three South Asian countries to positively engage to defuse tensions. Otherwise, the world could see a nuclear war with endless detrimental consequences for the region and beyond.
Washington’s New National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS) details how Trump 2.0 will respond to the rest of the world and developing multipolarity.
The US National Security Strategy 2025 marks a major turning point in Washington’s strategic thinking. Gone are the familiar assertions about “leading the free world,” “defending global democracy,” or “expanding international engagement.” Instead, the 2025 document returns to a foundational principle: America must be strengthened from within before it projects power outward. The document begins with a rare admission: for decades after the Cold War, the United States pursued broad, idealized goals that often diverged from its core national interests.
The 2025 Strategy responds to this legacy by asserting three defining characteristics:
- A clear realist mindset: prioritizing national interests, territorial security, and strategic autonomy.
- A redefinition of the scope and limits of America’s role as an “international policeman.”
- A fusion of economic protectionism, national reconstruction, and selective strategic competition, especially in technology, defense industries, and supply chains.
The new NSS reconceptualizes, narrows, and reprioritizes US interests. Focus is placed on the primacy of nations over transnational organizations, preserving the balance of power through optimized burden-sharing, and the US’ reindustrialization that’ll be facilitated by securing critical supply chains.
The Western Hemisphere is the top priority. The “Trump Corrolary” to the Monroe Doctrine is the centerpiece and will seek to deny non-hemispheric competitors’ ownership or control of strategically vital assets in an allusion to China’s influence over the Panama Canal.
The NSS envisages enlisting regional champions and friendly forces to help ensure regional stability for preventing migrant crises, fighting the cartels, and eroding the aforesaid competitors’ influence. This aligns with the “Fortress America” strategy of restoring US hegemony in the hemisphere.
Asia is next to the NSS’ hierarchy of priorities. Together with its incentivized partners, the US will rebalance trade ties with China, compete more vigorously with it in the Global South in an allusion to challenging BRI, and deter China over Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Trade loopholes through third countries like Mexico will be closed, the Global South will tie its currencies more closely to the dollar, and Asian allies will grant the US greater access to their ports, etc., while ramping up defense spending.
As for Europe, the US wants it “to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation” to avoid “civilizational erasure”.
The US will “manage European relations with Russia”, “build up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe” and ultimately “help Europe correct its current trajectory.” A hybrid set of economic and political tools will be employed to this end.
Middle East – important but no longer central
The 2025 NSS states the US no longer needs a large military presence in the Middle East. Instead, Washington will prioritize counterterrorism, safeguard strategic energy chokepoints, prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, act as mediator in regional conflicts.
West Asia and Africa are at the bottom of the NSS’ priorities. The US foresees West Asia becoming a greater source of investment and destination of such, while Africa ties with the US will transition from a foreign aid paradigm to investment and growth measures. Like with the rest of the world, the US wants to keep the peace through optimized burden-sharing and without overextending itself, but it’ll also keep an eye on Islamist terrorist activity in both regions too.
The following passage sums up the NSS’ new approach:
“As the United States rejects the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself, we must prevent the global, and in some cases even regional, domination of others.” The balance of power must be maintained through pragmatic carrot-and-stick policies in conjunction with close partners, which include securing critical supply chains (especially those in the Western Hemisphere). This is essentially how Trump 2.0 plans to respond to multipolarity.
Korean “forever” crisis – all great powers involved
After the end of World War II in 1945, Korea, which had been a Japanese colony for 35 years, was divided by the Soviet Union and the United States into two occupation zones at the 38th parallel, with plans for a future independent state.
The Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953) was an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula fought between North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; DPRK) and South Korea (Republic of Korea; ROK) and their allies. North Korea was supported by China and the Soviet Union, while South Korea was supported by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the United States. The conflict was one of the first major proxy wars of the Cold War. The combat activities ended on 27 July 1953 with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement, which allowed the exchange of prisoners and created a 4 km wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) along the frontline, with a Joint Security Area at Panmunjom. Since then, high tension and open war risk have been prevailing in the region.
All the three great powers have been involved deeply in this case: the US is the key supporter for South Korea while China and Russia have been North Korea’s main supporters and partners.
North Korea’s recent measures transferring weapons and other military material as well as combat vehicles and personnel to Russia has generated intense attention over what the DPRK will gain materially from Moscow. Analysis has focused rightly on oil, food, weapons components, air defense systems, space and satellite technology and potential assistance to North Korea’s strategic military programs. Equally important, however, is a political reading of communications. How the Kim regime explains and justifies its actions at home and abroad often reveals its strategic intent.
Typically, North Korea is sending distinct messages to three primary audiences: 1) the North Korean population, 2) the US-South Korea (ROK) alliance and 3) the Western world at large.
These messages help explain not only what Pyongyang does but why it chooses particular forms of action and particular modes of rhetoric.
North Korea’s military adventurism cannot be read solely as provocation, military tests and deployments. Its communications strategy is integral to the regime’s strategic calculus.
Domestically, propaganda secures obedience and reduces resistance to sacrifices abroad; regarding the US-ROK alliance it seeks to deter and to blur responsibility; toward the West it pursues legitimization of rationales and claims to status. The DPRK’s recent dealings with Russia combine clandestine pragmatism with subsequent public politics of legitimization designed to show that sanctions and isolation have limits.
North Korea’s recent hypersonic missile test marks a significant escalation in its military capabilities, shaking the stability of East Asia and raising grave concerns for global security.
This military advancement is widely seen as the result of Pyongyang’s increasingly strategic partnership with Russia. In return for North Korea’s military support to Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, Moscow is reportedly supplying Pyongyang with advanced weapons technology, giving North Korea the tools it needs to fast-track its missile modernization program.
By acquiring advanced missile technologies, including hypersonic weapons, North Korea is dramatically enhancing its strike capabilities, posing a direct threat to South Korea, Japan, and US forces in the region. Since the Korean War armistice in 1953, South Korea’s defense posture has prioritized maintaining air dominance across the Korean Peninsula. Central to this strategy has been the continuous acquisition of advanced aircraft, the construction of strategic airbases and unwavering allied support.
This approach has enabled South Korea to operate cutting-edge fighter jets, such as the F-35 stealth fighters, giving it a decisive technological advantage over North Korea’s outdated air force.
The United States has played a critical role in enhancing South Korea’s air capabilities through joint operations, intelligence sharing and the provision of advanced weaponry.
This air dominance strategy has been effective in deterring North Korean aggression and ensuring rapid response capabilities. However, the rise of hypersonic missile threats has exposed critical vulnerabilities, necessitating urgent adjustments to South Korea’s defense framework.
Hypersonic missiles, with their unmatched speed, maneuverability and precision, pose a game-changing challenge that can quickly destabilize the balance of power. These missiles drastically reduce detection and interception times. Their unpredictable flight paths make them extremely difficult to track, while their ability to evade radar and missile defenses renders existing air defense networks insufficient.
Given the proximity of North Korea, hypersonic missiles can strike any location in South Korea within a few minutes, leaving minimal time for countermeasures. This capability directly threatens South Korea’s airbases, which, due to their limited number, are highly vulnerable to saturation attacks. A successful strike on these critical facilities would cripple South Korea’s air force, undermining its core defense strategy.
Given this hypersonic threat, South Korea must urgently revamp its defense strategy to ensure greater resilience and adaptability. Strengthening its security posture requires upgrading missile defense systems, diversifying force structures, reinforcing ground forces, leveraging cyber and space capabilities and deepening alliances and partnerships to address this fast-evolving danger.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung warned that the two Koreas have entered a “very dangerous situation,” with the risk of an accidental clash rising rapidly. North Korea has stopped answering inter-Korean communication lines and has begun installing new barbed-wire fencing along the border a move not seen since the end of the 1950–53 Korean War. Seoul recently proposed military talks to clarify the Military Demarcation Line and avoid inadvertent confrontations. Pyongyang, however, has not responded.
Seoul is likely to continue pushing for military talks despite Pyongyang’s silence. If border incidents persist, the South may tighten surveillance and readiness, raising the possibility of further confrontations. North Korea’s next moves whether more incursions, missile tests, or additional fortification will determine whether the crisis deepens or stabilizes. Lee’s remarks hint that long-term peace could eventually allow a scale-back of U.S.–South Korea military drills, but such a shift is unlikely unless Pyongyang re-engages. For now, the peninsula enters a phase of heightened tension with minimal diplomatic off-ramps.
North Korea has sharply criticized a recent agreement between the United States and South Korea, which allows Seoul to develop nuclear-powered attack submarines. The deal was unveiled last month following a summit between President Lee Jae Myung of South Korea and President Donald Trump. It also includes commitments by both nations to work toward disarming North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.
PS. China is moving!
China’s PLA has launched massive military exercises across the Indo-Pacific region in recent months. China has seriously warned the US against attacking Venezuela.
