The recent talks between Russia and the United States in Alaska, followed closely by the U.S.–Ukraine–Europe meeting in Washington, may have concluded, but their impact continues to unfold. Where does the Russia–Ukraine conflict go from here? After the Alaska meeting, what kind of new diplomatic contest will unfold among the U.S., Europe, Russia, and Ukraine?

Host Ge Anna joins Josef Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University; Li Yaqi, Research Assistant, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; George Tzogopoulos, Director of EU-China Programmes and Senior Research Fellow, at European Institute of Nice.

CGTN Radio

Melting Ice and Deep Waters

Author(s): Ekrem Korkut and Lara B. Fowler

Source: Natural Resources & Environment, FALL 2019, Vol. 34, No. 2, Mining the Land,

Mining the Sea (FALL 2019), pp. 27-30

Published by: American Bar Association

Arctic is not US' backyard

Washington's overreaction shows hegemonic mind-set

By Zhang Yao

In August of this year, as summer temperatures gradually rose in the Arctic, the geopolitical temperature in the region also seemed to climb. The US conducted four consecutive military exercises in the Arctic in July and August, including the key "Operation Polar Dagger" and "Northern Edge 2025." At the same time, Washington hyped up the so-called "China threat" in the Arctic, particularly when five Chinese research vessels were operating in or near the Arctic around Alaska on scientific missions. The US even dispatched Coast Guard ships and aircraft for surveillance and harassment.

In recent years, the US has attached increasing importance to the strategic value of the Arctic. Since the Barack Obama administration released the first National Strategy for the Arctic Region in 2013, various US government departments and military branches have issued their own Arctic strategies. The latest of these is the 2024 Arctic Strategy. A common feature of these documents is the growing emphasis on geopolitics and military deployments, while portraying the presence and activities of China and Russia in the Arctic as "threats" to US interests.

The US has been continuously boosting its military deployments in the Arctic and increasing joint exercises with its allies. Alaska, the US' Arctic territory, has become one of its most important military bases, hosting many military facilities. It also has more fifth-generation fighters than anywhere in the world. The US Navy also reactivated its Second Fleet, with the Arctic as one of its main areas of responsibility. This further deepens NATO's confrontation with Russia in the Arctic. The Pentagon's 2024 Arctic Strategy outlines core goals, including strengthening Arctic military capabilities, deploying high-tech sensors and radar to eliminate blind spots, and cooperating with NATO allies to operate over 250 aircraft that could be deployed for Arctic Operations by 2030. The document explicitly designates Russia as a security threat while accusing China of expanding its influence in the Arctic.

Since the Donald Trump administration took office, Washington's focus on the Arctic has intensified. The US even floated the idea of making Canada the "51st US state." While such ambitions remain fanciful for now, Canada's defense has long been integrated with the US military. For instance, North American Aerospace Defense Command oversees the airspace of both the US and Canada, and radar stations are deployed across Canada and Greenland. Recently, Denmark signed an agreement with the US that, while maintaining sovereignty over Greenland, effectively allows Washington to expand its defense presence on the island with few restrictions.

Not long ago, a US nuclear submarine docked for the first time in history in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland. The Trump administration's renewed Arctic focus stems partly from economic considerations: The US has long emphasized traditional energy development and its associated benefits. With Europe cutting energy ties with Russia following the Ukraine conflict, it has been forced to import costly US energy, and the Arctic's abundant resources fit neatly into US' energy agenda. Moreover, about 80 percent of US rare earth imports come from China, which Washington views as a strategic vulnerability in its trade rivalry with Beijing. Thus, tapping into the Arctic's rare earth potential has become part of the US' long-term strategic considerations. Strategically, enhancing US military deployments in the Arctic and seeking military superiority there are also important tools for containing Russia.

As the US increasingly views the Arctic as an arena of great-power competition and relies ever more heavily on military means to maintain its dominance, the region has gradually become a new hotspot of geopolitical confrontation. This has heightened tensions and raised the risks of conflict.

Although the US seems intent on treating the Arctic as its hegemonic preserve, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other relevant international treaties, China and all other countries are fully entitled to conduct scientific research and other legitimate activities in the Arctic. The US' overreaction to the activities of China and others in the region ultimately reflects a classic hegemonic mindset. The Arctic is not America's private domain.

NB: The author Zhang Yao is deputy director of the Academic Committee and senior researcher of Shanghai Center for RimPac Strategic and International Studies.

China Military

Forged in Fire: Iran's Four-Decade Resistance Against Western Coercion

The narrative of Iran as an isolated nation crushed under four decades of Western sanctions requires fundamental revision. Rather than capitulating to economic warfare, Tehran has demonstrated remarkable adaptability across diplomatic, economic, and military domains—emerging as a case study in resistance against hegemonic pressure. This resilience unfolds amid escalating regional tensions, where Israel's military actions in Gaza and against Iranian targets expose the limitations of Western-backed security architectures.

Diplomatic Adaptation: The Eastern Pivot and Regional Re-engagement

Iran's diplomatic survival strategy has centered on two key maneuvers: deepening alliances with Eastern powers and exploiting fractures in the Western-led order. The 2023 China-brokered détente with Saudi Arabia marked a watershed moment, shattering U.S. hopes for an anti-Iran Arab-Israeli axis . This realignment accelerated as Gulf states—fearful of regional conflagration—transitioned from supporting "maximum pressure" to actively mediating between Washington and Tehran. In April 2025, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman delivered an urgent warning from King Salman to Supreme Leader Khamenei: negotiate seriously with the Trump administration or risk Israeli military action . This diplomatic intervention underscores Iran's success in compelling regional rivals to acknowledge its staying power.

Simultaneously, Tehran strengthened strategic partnerships with Moscow and Beijing, using these relationships to mitigate sanction impacts. Russia provides military technology exchanges and economic lifelines, while China's backing proved instrumental in normalizing Iran's regional standing despite U.S. objections. The emerging multipolarity enabled Iran to transform from pariah to participant in shaping the Gulf security framework.

Economic Resilience: Evasion and Internal Pressures

Sanction Evasion Networks: Facing comprehensive U.S. financial isolation, Iran developed sophisticated parallel financial systems. These include shadow banking channels across the Gulf, barter arrangements for oil exports (notably with China and Venezuela), and cryptocurrency transactions circumventing dollar-based systems. The 2025 Israeli strikes revealingly targeted economic nodes like the Central Bank, acknowledging their role in sustaining resistance .

Internal Contradictions: Economic resilience carries severe domestic costs. Rampant inflation and currency devaluation triggered nationwide protests, met with intensified repression. The regime's "special courts" for economic crimes executed dozens since 2024 while ignoring systemic corruption within Revolutionary Guard-controlled enterprises . Despite official rhetoric of "resistance economy," internal criticism mounted over resource diversion to regional proxies instead of domestic needs. President Masoud Pezeshkian's election reflected public desperation for sanctions relief through renewed nuclear talks .

Military Posture: Asymmetric Power and Strategic Setbacks

Iran's military strategy prioritizes asymmetric capabilities and proxy warfare, compensating for conventional weaknesses:

- Missile and Drone Arsenal: Investments in precision missiles and drone swarms provide deterrence and strike capacity, showcased in the April 2025 retaliatory salvo against Israel after the Damascus consulate attack. Hardliners framed this as "missile supremacy delivering economic security" .

- Proxy Network Erosion: The once-formidable "Axis of Resistance" suffered devastating blows. Israeli operations decimated Hamas and Hezbollah leadership, while Syria's pro-Iran regime collapsed in 2024 . These losses undermined Tehran's regional influence projection.

- Defensive Vulnerabilities: Israel's June 2025 strikes exposed catastrophic gaps in Iranian air defense. Attacks killed top Revolutionary Guard commanders and nuclear scientists, with internal officials lamenting, "Where is our air defense?" and noting Israel’s apparent infiltration of security services . The inability to protect critical assets or civilians revealed the regime's operational incompetence despite massive military spending.

Hegemony Reconsidered: Coercion’s Diminishing Returns

The Iranian experience challenges traditional hegemony models. Antonio Gramsci’s insight—that sustainable dominance requires *consent* alongside coercion—explains Western failures . U.S. strategy relied overwhelmingly on punitive measures while offering no political or economic vision attractive to ordinary Iranians. Sanctions did not produce submission but instead:

- Forged new Eurasian economic partnerships

- Accelerated indigenous military industrialization

- Strengthened hardliners' narrative of resistance

Meanwhile, America’s regional credibility eroded as its security guarantees failed to prevent Israeli actions threatening Gulf stability . With 800+ global bases unable to impose outcomes favourable to Washington, the hegemonic model appears increasingly unsustainable against determined regional actors.

Conclusion: Resilience Amid Fragility

Iran’s endurance through four decades of pressure reflects strategic adaptation, but not invulnerability. Its economy staggers under corruption and mismanagement; its military suffers humiliating penetrations; its regional influence wanes. Yet Western coercion consistently underestimates national pride and institutional survival instincts. The emerging "Arabian Axis"—led by Saudi Arabia—now seeks regional equilibrium *with* Iran, not against it . This strategic rebalancing, alongside Iran’s domestic fractures, suggests that its future trajectory hinges less on external pressure than on internal dynamics: Can a populace exhausted by isolation and repression force a recalibration toward pragmatism and peace? The resilience Iran demonstrated may yet find its highest expression not in defiance, but in transformation.

Declaration of war

Editorial (Dawn, Pakistan)

ISRAEL’S provocative behaviour has, once again, brought the Middle East to the precipice of a full-blown war.

The Zionist state’s attack on Iran, which began early on Friday morning and was continuing at the time these lines were being written, has the potential of setting the already fragile region on fire, and sending the global economy into a tailspin. A large number of fatalities have been reported, including women and children, and residential areas have been hit along with military targets.

Among the victims have been the Iranian army’s chief of staff, as well as the head of the powerful Pasdaran, along with several senior scientists. Several Iranian cities have been attacked, indicating that Israel had deep intelligence about key Iranian facilities and personnel. It is no wonder that Tehran has termed Israel’s reckless attack a ‘declaration of war’.

Tel Aviv has said it attacked Iran because of the supposed threat it posed to “Israel’s very survival”. This is contrary to the facts. It has been Israel that has constantly been provoking Iran. The bombing of Iranian diplomatic facilities in Damascus as well as the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last year, which resulted in two separate Iranian missile and drone barrages targeting Israel, are proof.

In fact, Israel has continuously been threatening regional peace for decades by attacking and pillaging other countries. Over the last few years, along with the murderous rampage in Gaza, Israel has attacked Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and now Iran. So Tel Aviv’s ‘self-defence’ alibi is hardly believable. The plain truth is that Israeli behaviour is a threat to world peace.

There has been condemnation of the Israeli attacks from several states, particularly the Muslim bloc. The Pakistani leadership as well as parliament have denounced Tel Aviv’s aggression and expressed solidarity with Tehran.

Yet others see the aggression differently; for example, US President Donald Trump says the offensive was “excellent” and has boasted that there is more in store. But he has also perplexingly asked Iran to return to the negotiating table. It is unlikely Iran will negotiate with a gun to its head. The Iranian leadership has promised to avenge the attack. It should be remembered that Iran has survived a brutal eight-year war with Iraq, and the Iranians are adept at playing the long game.

Israel has threatened that the attacks will continue for as long as needed; the Iranians may just take them up on the ‘offer’. The world stands at a very dangerous crossroads here. If the US joins in the ‘defence’ of Israel, matters may spiral out of control. The UNSC is meeting to address the issue, and though expectations should be modest, full efforts are needed to stop this new war.

Published in Dawn, June 14th, 2025

https://www.dawn.com/news/1917040

Chinese President Xi Jinping has embarked on a state visit to Russia, scheduled between Wednesday and Saturday.

This visit coincides with Russia’s Victory Day celebrations on May 9, marking the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, which brought an end to the Second World War in Europe.

This year also marks the 80th anniversary of victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, signifying the complete triumph of the global fight in the World Anti-Fascist War.

How will President Xi's visit to Russia further deepen bilateral strategic ties? Why are stable China-Russia relations crucial for regional and global stability? And will the world draw lessons from 80 years ago to preserve peace, or are we heading toward a more turbulent future?

For these and more, I speak with Chen Weihua, EU bureau chief of China Daily; Eugen Pavlov, journalist with Sputnik News in Beijing; and Angelo Giuliano, a Swiss-Italian political analyst based in Hong Kong.

XU YAWEN

EU fragmentation refers to the increasing division and challenges within the European Union, encompassing economic, political, and social disparities, as well as a decline in the single market's effectiveness and a weakening of the EU's influence on the global stage.

Here's a more detailed look at the different aspects of EU fragmentation:

1. Economic Fragmentation:

* Internal Market Challenges:

The single market, once a cornerstone of EU integration, faces hurdles due to diverging national regulations, hindering free movement of goods, services, capital, and people.

* Geoeconomic Fragmentation:

The EU's high degree of openness to global trade makes it vulnerable to fragmentation as geopolitical tensions disrupt supply chains and trade flows.

* Financial Fragmentation:

The euro area's financial markets have experienced fragmentation, with a lack of confidence in national debt sustainability and country-specific financial market issues undermining the transmission of monetary policy.

* Capital Market Union:

The lack of a fully integrated capital market union is hindering the flow of capital across the EU, impacting businesses and investors.

* Supply Chain Disruptions:

The weaponization of critical supply chains, as seen with Russia's actions regarding energy, highlights the risks of trade fragmentation and its potential impact on inflation and economic resilience.

2. Political Fragmentation:

* Weakening of the EU's Role:

The EU's influence on the global stage is declining, partly due to internal divisions and a lack of a unified foreign policy.

* Rise of Nationalism:

The resurgence of nationalist and populist movements within EU member states poses a challenge to the EU's unity and its ability to act collectively.

* Increased Polarization:

Growing political polarization within the EU and member states makes it harder to reach consensus and implement effective policies.

* Fragmentation of the European Parliament:

The next European Parliament elections in June are predicted to lead to a more fragmented parliament, which could hinder the ability to form stable coalitions and pass legislation.

3. Social and Cultural Fragmentation:

* Migration and Integration:

The EU faces challenges in managing migration flows and integrating diverse populations, leading to social tensions and divisions.

* Cultural Differences:

The EU's diverse cultural landscape can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, making it harder to build a shared identity.

* Disparities in Living Standards:

Significant differences in economic development and living standards between EU member states can create social and political tensions.

4. Environmental Fragmentation:

* Habitat Fragmentation:

Land use changes, urban sprawl, and infrastructure development lead to habitat fragmentation, reducing biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.

* Forest Fragmentation:

Forest fragmentation, particularly in certain EU member states, can have negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

* Policy Measures:

Policy measures to protect certain areas can be effective in preventing fragmentation, particularly in protected areas.

Some say it’s the art of the deal. Others argue it’s merely extortion and blackmail. As US President Donald Trump wields his tariff stick around the world, how big will it impact the U.S. domestic market and the global economy? What can the rest of the world do in response? How far will the U.S. tariffs go? And what’s the outlook for Trump achieving the vision of revitalizing manufacturing?

Host Tu Yun joins Dr. Josef Mahoney, a professor of politics and international relations at East China Normal University, Dr. Qu Qiang, a Fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center, Minzu University of China, and Dr. Christis Tombazos, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Monash University for a close look at the issue on this episode of Chat Lounge.

https://radio.cgtn.com/podcast/news/5/How-far-could-US-game-of-tariffs-go/2714659

The rapid turnover of G7 leaders has become a farce. Economic turmoil, a major change in global industrial investment and a river of US sanctions and the Team Trump tariff avalanche expected this year provide the bulk of today’s episode.

A quick update on ASEAN and Cambodia FDI and the outlook for Trump tariffs on the world’s largest trade partnership between China and ASEAN.

Australia’s sustainability transition is highly dependent on China’s EVs, but so is the UK and many are countries.

Like, subscribe and share…

https://www.patreon.com/c/TheChair844

https://x.com/DGB365/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dgb365/

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

On The Chair Live - YouTube

We are forming a global alliance against globalism, and neutrality studies is part of that. Don't get confused, let's just live with the contradiction.

This morning we held a first panel of independent social media contributors, discussing the new multipolarity we are now in, why we think that the collective west is being collectively stupid about it, and what we—and you—can do to oppose the lunacy.

The Basics:

* Multipolarity is not only an emerging reality, it is also a preferable foundation for global order.

* Neutrality is an important tool within the overall mix of how nations view themselves and position themselves in the context of integrated and indivisible security.

* NATO is a dangerous organisation and its expansion globally is undesirable and contrary to achieving a sustainable peace.

Work in progress.

More here: Multipolarpeace.com

Contributors:

Dr. Warwick Powell

Dr. Pascal Lottaz: Neutrality Studies

Jerry Grey: Jerry's Take on China Youtube,   

 / @jerrystakeonchina799  

Arnaud Bertrand: Twitter, https://twitter.com/rnaudbertrand?s=2...

Dr. Jeff Rich: Burning Archive Youtube,   

 / @theburningarchive   Substack,

Dr. Digby Wren Substack, https://substack.com/@digbywren

Dr. David Oualaalou: Geopolitical Trends Youtube,   

 / @geopoliticaltrends   S.L. Kanthan Substack,

Twitter, https://twitter.com/kanthan2030?s=21&...

Einar Tangen Linkedin, https://www.linkedin.com/in/ehtangen/...

Dr. John Pang Twitter, https://twitter.com/jynpang?s=21&t=Oe...

Global Polarity is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

NATO is boosting its visibility in the Asia Pacific region. For three years in a row, leaders or representatives of four Asia Pacific countries – Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand – have attended the annual summit of the military alliance. The outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has been an ardent advocator of Asia Pacific outreach, and his argument has been echoed by US officials as Washington, DC hosted this year’s NATO summit.What is behind NATO’s growing interest in Asia Pacific? Will NATO be a force for good if it establishes a sizeable footprint in the region? Host Ding Heng is joined by Digby James Wren, External Relations Advisor to the Royal Academy of Cambodia; Lee Pei May, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the International Islamic University Malaysia; Professor Shen Dingli from the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University.

Listen to original here.

Transcript below.

Global Polarity is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.