Competition in artificial intelligence is a contest across the entire industrial value chain. Only by advancing open innovation, ensuring security and trust, promoting inclusive development and strengthening global governance can AI contribute to shared global prosperity.

The recent G7 and NATO summits suggest that Europe is seeking not only to retain the initiative in shaping regional security but also to play a more active role in building an improved international order. In doing so, it has absorbed elements of Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy.

Artificial intelligence is becoming a new arms race, and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past perhaps a drastic unification of competing models could prevent catastrophe.

The focus of the Russia-Ukraine war is shifting from front-line engagements to deep-strike operations, while the central arena of competition is increasingly defined by each side’s capacity to sustain the war effort. In this evolving landscape, drones have emerged as a pivotal force.

The Gap Between Ambition and CapabilityThe United States remains committed to global primacy. That’s been a longstanding ambition that cuts across party l

When a small state assumes the protection of a bigger ally under any circumstance, conflicts erupt. Will the U.S. and China learn from history?

Global governance is increasingly constrained by three interconnected traps: a shrinking supply of international public goods as U.S. global leadership recedes, a growing crisis of public trust in governments and institutions, and the rising power of AI firms that outpaces effective regulation. Together, these trends weaken the ability of states and international institutions to address major transnational challenges, from security and public health to climate change and artificial intelligence.

As international conflicts intensify amid a weakening global order, China has expanded its mediatory diplomacy. This diplomacy is comprehensive and structured, encompassing three reinforcing components: peace-brokering roles at different levels, a conceptual framework in the form of the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and an institutional foundation in the form of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed). Together, these components offer a robust and systematic framework for addressing varied international conflicts.

Great powers can explore paths toward peaceful coexistence. The most important lesson of the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 was not that competition can be eliminated but that it requires clear boundaries. The real challenge is not the removal of differences but preventing their escalation into conflict.

As more countries seek to break free from external constraints and assert greater control over their own development and security agenda, the global wave of strategic autonomy is increasingly challenging the post-Cold War order and reshaping the international system.