Many in the West think Sino-Russian ties are the key to a resolution of the conflict. But this is a significant strategic misjudgment. Any durable peace in Ukraine must be found through negotiations between the parties directly involved.

America sees itself as a global leader. So one might hope that it would take the lead in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ending nuclear testing and promise “no first use” of nuclear weapons in armed conflicts. But Trump does not seem to headed in that direction.

The future of the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy remains fluid. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s two visits to the region, including his recent attendance and speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, shed a little light.

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.”