By drawing a parallel between U.S. interest in Greenland and its stance on Taiwan, China has mounted a carefully calibrated rhetorical response that highlights perceived inconsistencies in American positions on sovereignty, positions itself as a defender of international norms, and gently tests the cohesion of Western alliances.

2025 has brought swift changes across the Indo-Pacific, and the Philippines’ growing involvement with Trump’s policies and the Taiwan question could prove to be one of the most pivotal factors in the future of the region.

Three major diplomatic challenges have driven a wedge between the United States and Russia in their peace negotiations. Their divergence highlights more than a clash between worldviews. It shows their competition for leadership in the reconstruction of the international order.

China-U.S. competition in the realm of artificial intelligence boils down to development ability. The advantages of the United States are no longer secure. What matters is who will lead sustainably in the future.

The trajectory of deep-sea mining remains uncertain. The U.S. and China represent opposite ends of the governance spectrum — one unilateral and rapid, the other multilateral and cautious. Whether these paths will converge or remain in tension is unclear.

It has been described it as strategically meaningless, technically meaningless and economically meaningless. Yet this defense system could lead the world into conflict by destabilizing global strategic forces.

Under America’s national security strategy of great power competition and its national defense strategy of integrated deterrence, the U.S. military last year moved from the idea of “winning the nation’s wars” to “outcompeting China.”

India presents itself as a global leader and representative of the Global South, yet this contradicts its troubled relationships with immediate neighbors. Western powers overlook that because they view India as a counterbalance to China rather than scrutinizing its regional conduct and democratic backsliding.

Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than suffering nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability – so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons. The world has benefited from an effective nonproliferation regime, a set of rules, norms, and institutions that have discouraged – albeit haltingly and imperfectly – nuclear proliferation. But can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts?

China and Russia have different narratives in describing the anti-fascist victory‌ that ended World War II. Both nations made immense sacrifices that fundamentally shaped postwar reconstruction and reshaped global governance. So why do they continue to grapple?