UNITED STATES AND CHINA LOCKED IN STEEP ESCALATORY CONFRONTATION APRIL 2025: THE ENDGAME?

 Communist China has long figured as a 'Prime Threat' in US strategic planning but a veneer of respectability and a halo of "Superpower-in-Making' was endowed by United States compelled by its 'Risk Aversion' strategy determined by then prevailing geopolitical imperatives.

The United States under both preceding US Administrations of Trump 1:0 and Biden Administration had switched over to 'Hard Line' policies against China in view of China escalating military tensions in Indo Pacific and the Dual Threat posed by the Russia-China Axis.

Contemporary global geopolitics in 2025 in Trump 2:0 era seems to have convinced President Trump to stop China from further undermining of US security and economic interests on realization of failure pf his 'Reverse Nixon' strategy with Russia

 In mid-2025, Communist China is facing a virtual existential crisis alongside with questions surfacing of the continuance in power of President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party. 

The above eventuality becomes analytically logical when China's backdrop of current bleak economic prospects coupled with growing political discontent against President Xi Jinping, indicated by uninterrupted purges of military hierarchy and CCP functionaries, are calculated. 

President Trump in April 2025 has struck Communist China with a massive Trade/Tariffs Wars sledgehammer blow at a time when China is engulfed in a critical economic crisis struggling with deflation, rising unemployment and flight of capital coupled with political dissent.

Contextually, with both the United States and China having adopted hardened policy trajectories, escalating by the day, the critical question that emerges is 'Who Will Blink First' to exit from the escalatory loop? United States or Russia? Further, what is United States endgame?

China had prepared itself for an intensified Trade War with President Trump 2:0, going by Trump 1:0 Trade War policies. But the scale of US intensification of imposing massive Tariffs swiftly may not have been foreseen by China.

Many policy analysts opine that President Trump's present economic offensive against China is a part of his 'bluff and bluster' strategy and that the US President will resile from this hard approach once China strikes a 'Deal' with United States on US terms.

In global geopolitics and geoeconomics many 'Grey Areas' are operative. Discounting them, the analysis gets confined to examining the basic factors of 'Intentions' and 'Relative Strengths' of China and the United States against the given backdrop of unfolding geopolitical dynamics.

On these two counts, today China is on a weaker wicket than the United States.

China can whip up 'Hyper Nationalism' sentiments against United States and resort to military escalation in Indo Pacific to offset President Trump's 'Economic Coercion' but presently President Xi Jinping's political existence is threatened, judging by his repeated purges of Chinese military hierarchy.

The United States is apparently prepared for the above eventuality going by recent US military moves in Western Pacific. 

If the odds are in favor of the United States and China is on a weaker wicket, then it is fair to assume that China could expectedly blink first by offering a partial' Sweet Deal' to President Trump.

Ongoing Chinese retaliatory economic strikes against United States and vocal assertions by President Xi Jinping suggest to the contrary.

China too is hardening its confrontational stances in near equal measure. Obviously, because the very political existence of President Xi Jinping in power in Beijing is at stake.

What is then the 'End Game' of the United States against Communist China and its President Xi Jinping? 

Logical analysis would suggest that with China's ongoing economic and strategic vulnerabilities the US endgame is to bring about the demise of Communist China and its all too powerful President Xi Jinping. 

That is the only way in which the United States can neutralize the 'China Threat' actively operative against the United States since 2001 and proactively since 2013 with President Xi Jinping becoming President.

Wishful thinking? Not really. Historical precent exists.

The United States brought about the disintegration of the mighty Communist Superpower--the Soviet Union, by first inflicting an 'Arms Race' (Reagan Years and thereafter) and then struck the final blow by economically pulling the rug from under an economically vulnerable USSR President Gorbachev. Rest is history.

While the United States may have recently brought about discordant notes with its Allies in Europe and Pacific, the nuances may have changed, but the overall value of US Alliance relationship will endure and be operative in the final showdown with China.

China has no "Natural Allies" to boast of. Ironic, because North Korea has gravitated to Russia and Pakistan is wooing United Stat.

China is at critical crossroads where whatever steps China takes either to exit the 'Escalatory Loop' with the United States. or gamble by imposing an armed conflict in Western Pacific, CHINA DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY 'WIIN /WIN OPTIONS!!

 

 

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT TRUMP 2:0 CHINA STRATEGY: RISK AVERSION OR LULL BEFORE THE STORM?

President Trump in his second term has yet to unfold the precise contours of his 'China Strategy' excepting some conciliatory moves in run-up to his re-election and some notional increase in tariffs. This leads to the crucial question whether President Trump 2:0 is going to revert to long-practiced US 'Risk Aversion' China strategies or is this a 'Lull before the Storm'? 

In an earlier Article, I had surmised that President Trump would await to see how his Russia-tilt policy would pan out, before he makes his moves on China.

China Risk Aversion Strategy: Can President Trump Afford This in 2025 Geopolitical Scenario?

'China Hedging' and 'Risk Aversion' American strategies were discarded by President Trump in his first term.

President Trump launched Trade Wars against China and in tandem ordered in 2017 the Freedom of Navigation Operations (FNOPS) in which US Navy ships carried out maneuvers in South China Sea whose sovereignty China claimed.

In 2017, President Trump also pro-actively resuscitated the QUAD Security Initiative dormant since 2008. This was a significant political messaging to China.

President Biden's Administration 2020-24 unexpectedly outdid President Trump in continuing American 'Hard- Line' strategy against China.

In 2025 for over a decade, the National Security Strategy documents, the consensus amongst US Senators and Congressman on Capitol Hill and US general public opinion view the China Threat as the Prime Threat to US national security interests and US global influence.

In view of the above factors, geopolitical and strategic logic would leave no political bandwidth to adopt Risk Aversion strategies in relation to China. Even President Trump's MAGA obsession would dictate neutralization of China.

United States-China Stances 2025: The Lull Before the Storm? 

If Risk Aversion strategies against Chuna is not a geopolitical option for President Trump and not a politically wise option in terms of domestic public opinion, then the only viable option for President Trump is to persist in 'Hard -Line' strategies towards China adopted by United States both in Trump 1:0 Administration and Biden Administration, preceding Trump 2:0 Administration.

Why has President Trump in the first sixty days of his second term does not demonstrate any 'Hard-Line' approaches against China when he has adopted unprecedented harshness against NATO Allies in Europe and Ukraine?

The above was seemingly adopted as a measure to reinforce credentials of his 'Russia-tilt' opening strategy which global analysts term it as 'Reverse Kissinger' moves.

Russia even after two months of President Trump's tilt has not responded positively and in equal measure to President Trump's opening geopolitical gambit.

The logical deduction from the above is that Russia is averse to any changes in the "No Limits" strategic nexus with China and committed to the Russia-China Axis as a counterweight to American global predominance.

President Trump now faces in 2025, the challenges faced by United States in the last two decades of a Russia-China Axis posing a 'Dual Threat' in Western Pacific and in Europe.

United States decision in 2025 to reduce US Military Forces in Europe and redeploy them in Western Pacific against China Threat makes military sense. But in tandem President Trump will have to revise his antagonizing stances against NATO Allies in Europe.

President Trump has lost some measure of "Credibility of American Security Guarantees" after abandoning Ukraine to win over Russia.

China as a result of the above gets "emboldened" in Western Pacific to test 'American Credibility" in terms of US security guarantees to protect Taiwan against Chinese Military Invasion and political and military coercion of Japan and the Philippines.

President Trump is in a piquant strategic dilemma, therefore, where any intensification of Trade Wars with China and imposing sanctions on China would not deter China from aggressive military brinkmanship against Taiwan, US Allies like Japan and US security architecture in Western Pacific.

Surely, the import would not be lost on President Trump of recent intensification of Russia-China Axis military moves like large scale Joint Exercises in Western Pacific and Joint Russian- Chinese Combat Air Patrols in vicinity of Japan and even US Bases in Alaska.

Concluding Observations

US President Trump has to face the grim reality that Russia-China Axis will be in full play in Asia Pacific to challenge American predominance.

The above does not afford any strategic bandwidth for President Trump to arrive at any 'Singular Deal' with China to break-out of the gridlock or offer any other US 'geopolitical sweeteners' to China which perceptionally will be viewed by Asia Pacific as a President Trump capitulation.

Strategic logic would dictate that President Trump to uphold the majesty of United States predominance in the Pacific against China's predatory moves would be left with no option other than to "Militarily Challenge China in Asia Pacific " and dispel the Russia-China Axis notion, and more specifically China's strategic perceptions, that United States would prefer 'Risk Aversion' strategy against China rather than a square military confrontation.

The Asia Pacific is today facing a "Lull Before the Storm" in terms of a United States-China Military Confrontation. 

 is to 

D

 of office 2016-20.

UNITED STATES CONFUSING ITS ALLIES AND STRATEGIC PARTNERS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 2:0 POLICY STANCES 2025

Global geopolitics have been thrown into uncertainties and uncharted waters by US President Trump 2:0 policy stances and reckless assertions by top US personages leaving United States longstanding Allies and its 'Strategic Partners' confused.

In the pervading geopolitical milieu wherein United States predominance is under a severe pushback by the Russia-China Axis, can the United States be oblivious to the strategic sensitivities of its Allies and Strategic Partner

NATO and Trans-Atlantic unity and solidarity have been seriously dented by US Vice President Vance and Defence Secretary reckless assertions at recent Munich Security Conference and thereafter.

The incendiary faceoff by Ukrainian President Zelensky at the White House with President Trump and Vice President Vance and United States tilt towards Russian demands on Ukraine peace was not only bad optics but generated perceptions that United States is no longer committed to European Security and has abandoned Ukraine which for all practical purposes was fighting a Proxy War for the United States. 

Moving to Asia Pacific where ever since 1945 Japan has been a steadfast US Ally, US President Trump heaped 'Trade Tariffs ' on Japan. The United States forgets that Japan pays handsomely for US Military Forces stationed in Japan.

India which has evolved into a 'Robust Strategic Partner' in the US-India Global Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was publicly threatened with imposition of US Trade Tariffs.

Trade Wars and Trade Tariffs may be a good weapon for use against hostile States like Russia and China, but not against Allies and Strategic Partners.

Such American dismissiveness of US Allies and Strategic Partners has never been witnessed before. Differences in opinion have occurred in the past but were ironed out by 'discreet negotiations' away from public gaze so as not to threaten Allies/Strategic Partners solidarity.

Does the United States really believe that it can retain its global predominance solely on its own economic, military and diplomatic strengths?

Not so really!! 

The mainstays of US global predominance ever since the disintegration of Former USSR and China Threat emerging as the 'Prime Threat to US security' rested on United States military postures in Europe and Asia Pacific and on the cumulative strengths of its European and Asia Pacific Allies,

The United States 'singularly' is not geared today geopolitically in 2025 to dispense with its dependence on United States European Alles and its Asia Pacific Allies. 

Similarly, the United States can ill-afford to antagonize India by threats of Trade Tariffs and sanctions which may be relevant in terms oof Russia and China.

Reflected in my Book: "China India Military Confrontation: 21st Century Perspectives" (2015) was the assertion that in the evolving geopolitical scenarios' United Staes embedment in Asia would be squarely dependent on India adding 'Strategic Ballast' to United States' security architecture against the China Threat.

India has many other geopolitical options other than the United Sates. The United States has India 'ONLY' as the Credible Option against China Threat in the years to come. 

Concluding, one needs to highlight how Asian perceptions of the United States have drastically changed in 2025. Singapore has been a longstanding reliable Ally of the United States and the statement made by Singapore Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen at the Munich Security Conference 2025, as reported by South China Morning Post of February 17 2025  reflects sadly and regrettably Asia's changed perceptions of the United States in 2025.

The Singapore Defense Minister asserted that" The image (of United States) has changed from Liberator to Great Disruptor, to a Landlord Seeking Rent." 

The above assertion from one of United States most notable Asian Ally came in a prepared statement posted also on the Government website, as per South China Morning Post dispatch.

Notably this perceptive assertion came soon after United States Trump 2:0 Administration top officials had made it clear at Munich that United States was no longer committed to European Security and abandoning Ukraine.

The big question that perceptively must be plaguing Asian capitals, and especially US Allies and Strategic Partners in Indo Pacific, would be 'If the United States could renege from its security commitments to NATO/European Security, could a similar fate await US Allies and Strategic Partners in Indo Pacific Security in context of the China Threat?' 

Hopefully not. But then it is incumbent upon US President Trump and Trump 2:0Administration seniormost security advisors to clear the geopolitical fog generated by them.

Superpowers are guarantors of global security and stability and not "Rent Collectors" for security services provided in furtherance of their own national interests.

 Munich Conference

UNITED STATES -RUSSIA-CHINA POWERPLAY 2025 WITH ADVENT OF US PRESIDENT TRUMP 2:0 & IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

   Global geopolitics and dynamics of United States-Russia-China powerplay in 2025 underwent a seismic shift with the advent of US President Trump 2:0 in Washington and under his stewardship an apparent and unprecedented American tilt towards Russia.

United States is the only country powerful enough to shape the external and internal environments of both China and Russia. To that extent, President Trump 2:0 will have its main focus on China and Russia, and the Russia-China Axis, and their threat neutralization to safeguard US national interests. 

In pursuit of the above, President Trump seems ready to accept any collateral damage to US Allies and strategic partners, 

Global reactions labelling President Trump as unpredictable, impulsive and transactional betray the lack of deeper analysis of the underpinnings of his calculated geopolitical strategies towards United States main rivals---Russia and China.

Contrary to prevailing analysts' opinion, my take is that the unpredictability, impulsiveness and apparent transactional projections of President Trump are tools of putting his opponents on the backfoot. It should not be forgotten that US Presidents in run-up to their elections devise their strategic blueprints with their top advisers.

Then what is President Trump's strategic blueprint? What is its central focus? What geopolitical trajectories are likely to be adopted? 

President Trump's blueprint has at its core the end-aim of 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA". 

The central focus of MAGA is to Re-establish United States unrivalled global geopolitical and economic predominance which for some years has been whittled by China and in recent years, more pointedly after the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, the Russia-China Axis.

In 2025, China predominantly, and Russia to a lesser degree, hover menacingly in United States 'Threat Perceptions. 

The strategic trajectory that President Trump is primarily adopting is to (1) Eliminate/ diminish the China Threat to United States security interests and influence, and (2) To disrupt and diminish the Russia-China Axis.

Going by President Trump's actions and pronouncements in the last few weeks, it emerges that President Trump's first priority is to disrupt and diminish the Russia-China Axis.

On China, President Trump has yet to reveal the cards he is likely to play. Though President Trump made some conciliatory calls/statements on China, but that do not seem to be at the expense of the main aim of strategically eliminating/diminishing the China Threat to US security and its interests.

President Trump is not likely to impart overall priority to 'military containment' of China but to focus on degrading further China's sluggish economy with impact on China's defence spending thereby reducing its military adventurism and   war-waging capabilities.

This US strategy of 'Warfare by Economic Means' was first enunciated by a former US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill in a paper for a US thinktank, if I remember correctly, US Council on Foreign Relations.

Once President Trump completes his reset of Russia-policy and secures ceasefire/peace in Ukraine, giving meanwhile China time to arrive at a possible deal with United States on American terms, one can expect the American President to play his cards on China.

If China is reluctant to settle for a "Deal' on President Trump's terms, then one can expect United States 'War by Economic Means' to be put in full throttle with central focus on--- Trade Wars, Economic Sanctions, Disruption of China's Supply Chains, Technology Denials, and Flight of US Capital/ FDI from China.

In the above strategy, the 'grey area 'is as to what extent Russia will stand by China as it enters on a phase of acute confrontation with United States?

 China can be expected to escalate tensions on Taiwan/ South Chinna Sea to relieve US economic siege.

Surely, US President Trump and his policy advisers would have worked out the contingencies.

Lastly what are the implications for India in the ensuing US-Russia-China powerplay?

 India is well placed as it has had a long strategic partnership with Russia and a much more robust strategic partnership currently with the United Staes. 

United States and Russia arriving at a good relationship is beneficial for India's national interests.

United States and China relations can be forecasted to persist as adversarial/ confrontationist.  In my writings right from 2001, I have maintained that a United States-China armed conflict was inevitable. The question was not IF but WHEN? Maybe that moment is arriving soon.

In the above dismal scenario of a US-China Armed Conflict, however limited, India's foreign policy will be seriously challenged. If India shirks from taking sides with United States, then India can forget its aspirations to emerge as a Major Global Player in world geopolitics.

Concluding, my assessment is that US President Trump will attempt to inflict on China what a Former US President Ronald Reagan inflicted on the Former USSR, that is, economic disintegration as a prelude to political disintegration.

 

CHINA'S COOMMUNIST REGIME AND ITS IDEOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS PERCEPTIONALLY UNDER ASSAULT 2025

 In a rare departure from Chinese President Xi Jinping's normal exhortations on China's national security priorities, President Xi Jinping's latest exhortation perecptionally betrays apprehensions that China's Communist regime, Communist political system and Communist ideology are in 2025 under assault.

The South China Morning Post media report of last week quoted Chinese President Xi Jinping's exhortations on China's national security priorities stated: "We should safeguard the safety of the (Xi Jinping) regime, the political system, as well as ideology".

Analytically, when each of the above three components are analyzed, my earlier assessments on China's strategic vulnerabilities stand reinforced.

In 2025, Communist China after 12 years of iron-handed and highly centralized rule, President Xi Jinping betrays apprehensions that Xi Jinping's regime is not all that secure and that an exhortation was necessitated to call for "safeguarding the safety of the (Xi Jinping) regime".

President Xi Jinping apprehensions betray fears of China being externally and internally besieged, something that my writings of last five years have reflected.

Things have come to head in 2025 for President Xi Jinping where under his regime, the fundamentals of Chinese economy which propelled China's stupendous economic and military rise have lost their traction

The second national security priority exhortation made by President Xi Jinping was on safeguarding the political system. In the 75th year of establishment of Chinese Communist political system in China, President Xi Jinping may be recalling that the other Communist gigantic empire, the Former Soviet Union, disintegrated in its 75th year.

Perceptionaly, Communist political systems are no longer geopolitically in vogue in 2025. This is my considered assessment.

Surprisingly, Chinese President Xi Jining in 2025 prioritizes safeguarding of "ideology" as the third and last priority.

Analytically, the above conveys the perception that the Chinese President Xi Jinping concedes that Communist ideology in China has frayed under impact of external and internal factors.

China's teeming millions for decades under high economic affluence were permissive in accepting Communist ideological repression. Communist ideology as a palliative ceases to operate when China is entering a 'Deflation Phase' and high rates of unemployment.

Responding to the ongoing downturn, Chinese President Xi Jinping has geopolitically reined-in his 'wolf warrior diplomats', initiated political reach outs to Japan and India, and to recall and sit down for discussion with Chinse billionaires' tycoons like Jack Mia. who were earlier hounded and disgraced by President Xi Jinping

The major question that arises from the foregoing analysis is whether President Xi Jinping can bring about a "turnround" to ensure that Xi Regime can survive when both his regime and its Communist political ideological underpinnings are under assault in 2025.

Can China's Peoples Liberation Army, the mainstay of Chinese Communist Party regimes be counted upon by President Xi Jinping to protect and safeguard his regime and its ideological underpinnings? This is a strong debatable point. Depends on ideological commitment and purity of rank and file of PLA and not on loyalty of Chinese President's handpicked PLA generals.

Overall, the answers lie in the geopolitical choices that Chines President Xi Jinping makes in the complex power equations in the US-Russia-China Triangle, and on which is also dependent China's economic resilience.

Summing-it up, Chinese President Xi Jinping's implicit apprehensions of regime-change, says it all and encapsulates the strategic vulnerabilities of Communist China in 2025.

CHINA'S FOREIGN POLICY UNDERPINNINGS 2025 AMIDST GLOBALGEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTIES

China's foreign policy underpinnings in 2025 as China faces increasingly global geopolitical uncertainties cannot but be a reflection of Chinese President Xi Jinping's struggle to inject resilience in China's foreign policy when China stands both externally and internally besieged.

Contextually, China faces major imponderables in 2025 as it braces to navigate through the choppy waters of global uncertainties. 

These can be briefly spelt out as: (1) US-Russia relations in wake of US President Trump bailing out President Putin on Ukraine (2) President Trump consequently can be expected to press home the advantage by driving a wedge in the Russia-China Axis (3) China's geopolitical irrelevance in Middle East and Europe generated in 2024, can it be retrieved? (4) President Trump launching a new round of Trade Wars on China coupled with pivoting US Military Forces in Europe to Asia Pacific.

The first three factors have the potential to reduce China's global geopolitical weightage and the leverages it has enjoyed so far on the global stage courtesy both Russia and United States.

China seems confident presently that US President Trump will not be able to dilute or cause a serious breach in the Russia-China Axis. May be so, but as posted by me earlier on this site, a somewhat strategic denouement was creeping in.

The fourth factor stated above will damage China's unsuccessful attempts of China's economic recovery and compound China's growing social unrest as a result of high unemployment rates and loss of foreign investors' confidence in China's economic resurgence.

President Trump despite a conciliatory call to Chinese President soon on assuming office can be expected to adopt even more 'Hard Line' strategies towards China, than even his earlier term. .

In the imponderables outlined above, China's national security, and continuance of Chinese Communist Party's supremacy, is the bedrock of China's foreign policy, get impacted.  How China configures its foreign policy to meet these eventualities has yet to unfold.

China would not be overly worried about diversion of greater US Military Forces to Asia Pacific but would be certainly concerned over US efforts to dilute the Russia-China Axis.

Economic security which forms the second pillar of China's foreign policy has already acquired threatening contours for China.

China today is plagued with a stagnant economy said to be entering a 'deflationary phase', growing unemployment and with consequent domestic social unrest. China's exports are slowing with increased loss of investor confidence and flight of capital reducing China's economic resilience.

What are the options open for China's foreign policy in 2025? It can push-back United States military and economic pressures or accept a "US Deal" on President Trump's terms?

China's push-back against US military and economic pressures would require Russia's unstinted support. This now emerges as an imponderable and would depend on Russian President Putin's pay-back contours, to President Trump for bailing him out of the Ukraine morass.

In the triangular United States-Russia-China power-play what has been a constant is a severe 'Strategic Distrust' in US-China relations whereas as I have posted earlier that some strategic denouement has crept in Russia-China relations.

Nearer home in Asia, China also suffers from a severe 'Strategic Distrust' with Japan and India. Both Japan and India are Asia's major contending powers against China and strategic partners of United States and therefore cannot throw any lifelines to China.

China is however unlikely to submit to US dictates without a bitter fight. To breakout from its external and internal siege, China can be expected to generate serious security challenges for United States and its Allies hoping that US President Trump "resiles" from his apparent 'China Containment' strategy and also force Russia to take sides.

 And herein lies China's foremost foreign policy challenge in 2025 and how it navigates through these geopolitical uncertainties? 

Contextually, current geopolitical configurations do not offer any possibilities of any Major Global Players siding with China, externally and internally besieged.  

  

EUROPE PERCEIVES 'MUNICH 2:0 MOMENT' INFLICTION BY US PRESIDENT TRUMP CONCEDING TO RUSSIAN DEMANDS ON UKRAINE

"Munich 1:0Moment" has been a historically infamous juncture in world history noted for then British PM Neville Chamberlain in a desperate bid for "Peace at any Cost", abjectly surrendered control of   German-speaking Sudetenland Region of Czechoslovakia to Germany as demanded by Hitler in September 1938. 

British appeasement of Nazi Germany could not ensure peace. It only emboldened Hitler to launch in September 1939 the large-scale invasion of Europe leading to World War II, 1939-45.

"Munich 2:0 Moment" in February 2025, is being perceived in European capitals as similar appeasement of Russian Communist dictator Vladimir Putin by American President Donald Trump policies on Ukraine by reversing gears of US policies on Ukraine of past Biden Administration and US commitment to European security and NATO. 

Ironically, in February 2025, it was at Munich Security Conference that the sum total of United States policy pronouncements of the new US Trump Administration fell heavily on Ukraine and future of European Security.

In brief, President Trump, Vice President Vance, US Defense Secretary Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio, in their pronouncements leading to Munich Security Conference and at Munich widely quoted in global media, amply indicated that the United States was going in for direct talks with Russia to end the Ukraine War.

Implied in US pronouncements was also that Ukraine should be ready to cede control of 20% of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia. 

In tandem, to discourage European countries to rally around Ukraine to resist a United States 'Imposed Peace Deal' appeasing Russia, the European leaders were put on notice that the Trump Administration intended to cut its military presence in Europe and that NATO N increase defence spending to 5% of GDP for their security.

Worse, was damaging US statements that Ukraine had started the War with Russia, and that Russia was not a threat to Europe.

The strategic reality was the reverse of US pronouncements at highest levels. Russia had launched a devastating 'war of aggression 'against Ukraine.

Further, the United States was a party to the enunciation of the 'NATO Vision Document 2030' in which Russia was designated as the prime threat to European Security. 

 Russia was emboldened to invade Ukraine in 2022 as in 2014, the world looked upon helplessly as Russia militarily annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Extremely galling for European capitals was US President Trump's strategy to cast aside Europe and Ukraine from any Peace Talks on Ukraine that United States would hold with Russian President Putin.

Contextually emerging from the above developments are disturbing geopolitical and strategic implications unleashed by US President Trump.

Topping the list is the future of Transatlantic unity, European Security and NATO Solidarity. Ever since end of World War II in mid 1945 these three elements were the cornerstone of United States and European security policies.

The next disturbing implication that comes to the fore is that are United States security policy formulations going to be based on the 'Dyad Precept' of managing global security. The 'Dyad Precept' was first aired by US President Obama who asserted that a Dyad of United States and China could manage global security.  It was foredoomed geopolitically and met its demise soon.

In a similar vein, President Trump soon on assuming office, shared views with Chinese President Xi Jinping that both United States and China could ensure global peace and security.

In February 2025, what is becoming visible is another version of the Dyad Precept in which United States is set to deal directly with Russia and imposing a harsh peace deal on Ukraine on terms demanded by Russia.

 Critically at stake for Ukraine and NATO Nations which had so far loyally supported US Biden Administration policies of militarily aiding Ukraine against the Russian Invasion, was not only the future of the Ukraine State but also the future of NATO and its credibility.   

Concluding, it needs to be observed that it takes decades to build security alliances, and it does not take much effort to wreck them with reckless statements/ assertions as has been visible by US President Trump's pronouncements leading to Munich Security Conference and his Vice President Vance's pronouncements at Munich in February 2025 at Munich.

European leaders are not wrong in perceiving the current trend of United States policies on Ukraine and European Security as Europe's "Munich 2:0 Moment" where United States in a bid to appease Russia has indulged in a "sell-out" of Ukraine and European Security.  

In geopolitics, perceptions count, and United States is being perceived widely as sacrificing Ukraine and Europe to appease Russia in pursuit of an elusive peace, more determined by US domestic politics rather than long-term US security interests.

Can the United States gain geopolitically with this trend? Unlikely, as inherent in United States rewarding Russia as the "Aggressor" with 20% of captured Ukrainian territory, are the seeds of future conflict.

 

MIDDLE EAST: US PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ASSERTIONS ON GAZA AND IRAN (FEBRUARY 2025) PORTEND GREATER TURBULENCE AND VOLATILITY

US President Trump's latest assertions on future of Gaza and signing orders to put into force US plans to prevent Iran going in for nuclear weaponization will inherently push the Middle East to greater geopolitical instability and military turbulence.

Lying at the core of these two stirring plans is United States larger strategic aim to neutralize Iran's geopolitical sway in the Middle East and liquidation of threats to Israel's security. More significantly it is to emasculate sponsoring capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah.

President Trump's Gaza Plan envisages United States taking over control of Gaza Strip on long term basis for reconstruction and incorporating the re-location of Palestinian Arabs to neighboring Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt. 

Obviously, this has raised a howl of strong protests from all major Arab Nations. Even close allies like United Kingdom though not openly opposing President Trump's Gaza Plan have stressed that no 'forcible relocation' should take place.

However, the Hamas is likely to oppose the Gaza Plan implementation both by use of military force and terrorism. as the central aim of Gaza Plan is to liquidate Hams completely from its hold over Gaza.

It remains to be seen whether leading Arab Nations will aid the Hamas to retain its hold over Gaza. It is Iran's countermoves of keeping Gaza under Hamas control that would require watching.

Either way, any implementation of Gaza Plan by Trump Administration is fraught with greater volatility and turbulence as it would involve virtual forced relocation of over one million Gaza Palestinians, acceptability of hosting by neighboring Aram countries under increased overhang of military opposition by Hamas.

Similarly, the Trump Plan to prevent nuclear weaponization of Iran is fraught with even more military risks and escalation as Iran can be expected to stoutly resist giving up its nuclear weapons option.

United States diplomacy and geopolitical/ economic pressures are unlikely to yield any results from Iran to give up its nuclear weapons option, especially learning from the Ukrainian experience.

President Trump may be left with no option but to order US & Israeli air strikes/cruise missiles attacks against Iran's nuclear weapons setup. The outcome could be horrendous for United States, Israel and Iran.

Any US/Israeli strikes plans against Iran's nuclear facilities needs to be accompanied in tandem with destruction of Iran's missiles/rockets launching sites as Iran in response can unleash hundreds of missiles, rockets and suicide drones against US military bases in Middle East and against Isreal with crippling effects.

More significantly, Iran can resort to blockade of Hormuz Straits both by physical means and military means. This will cripple the global oil supplies sending oil prices sky high.

The last factor that needs to be considered is Russia's responses to US military intervention against Iran against the backdrop of recently signed Mutual Security Treaty,

Russian responses underway to cater for such eventualities focuses on assisting Iran's buildup of its Air Defence networks with supplies of S400 missiles, surveillance and radar networks besides intelligence sharing. In brief, Russia short of sending troops to Iran can be expected to pull out all stops to enable Iran to make the costs of US/Israeli strikes prohibitive.

Concluding, what needs to be said is that should United States move ahead with President Trump's Gaza Plan and Iranian nuclear sites strike plans what is likely to unfold is greater bloodying of Middle East sands with a host of unintended consequences.

RUSSIA'S TWO DISCERNIBLE GEOPOLITICAL COUNTERWEIGHTS TO BALANCE CHINA

Russia's ardent ambition to continue as an 'Independent Center of Power" in global geopolitics was articulated more than a decade back by President Putin. Russia's intent to continue as such, independent of Russia's present strategic linkages with China, seems to have grown more intense.

Russia's strategic denouement with China being underway was analyzed in my article posted on January 15, 2025. Two geopolitical moves in recent past by Russia, draw attention to this trend. 

These concerns seem to have led Russia to draw Iran into its strategic fold and consummate a Mutual Security Treat with Iran in January 2025. 

Similarly, Russia made strategic moves to intensify its relationship with North Korea and reduce North Korean dependency on China.

 Notably, till Russia made the above moves, Iran and North Korea could be said to be beholden to China. China signed a 25 Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2021.

Contextually, with both Iran and North Korea, standing 'unhinged' from China's strategic embrace, and preferring Russia as a more 'reliable strategic partner' creates serious strategic implications for China.

Much of the import of this realignment of Iran and North Korea has evolved in the wake of Russia's Ukraine Invasion of 2022 and Russia's stalled offensives thereafter.

Iran and North Korea rose up to Russian expectations of provision of sizeable military aid to Russia in contrast to China's pattern of hesitant military aid to Russia.

Russia so gains substantially in terms of geopolitical capital in West Asia and Indo Pacific at the expense of China.

North Korea for decades was considered to be a satellite of China, and its actions then so demonstrated it. This imparted to China a 'halo' by US policymakers that to control North Korea, they had to negotiate and motivate China to twist North Korea's tail.

Not so any longer, as now US policymakers will have to bargain with Russia to do so, to tame North Korea.

Russia's Mutual Security Treaty with Iran is a real game changer not only in West Asian geopolitics but also at the global level. 

In terms of West Asia geopolitical dynamics, United States, West, and Israel, now will have to contend the strategic combination of Iran as West Asia's dominant regional power with Russia as an erstwhile Superpower, notwithstanding, Russia's strategic diminution post-Ukraine.

At the global level, China positioning itself as the sole contender of United States global predominance gets that much diluted. 

In stark geopolitical terms, Russia today has gained two significant 'Strategic Partners' if not outright allies, giving Russia a strategic spread in West Asia and Northeast Asia/Indo Pacific.

 In January 2025, the emerging strategic profile is that of China currently having no substantial 'Strategic Partners' with the exception of Pakistan, which itself is wavering with growing public anti-China sentiments.

Concluding, it needs to be stressed that while the Russia-China Axis may continue tenuously, but a lot depends on new US President Trump's policy approaches to China and China's reluctance to give up its 'Russia Card' in its policy approaches to United States.

IRAN'S TWO SECURITY TREATIES WITH CHINA (2021) AND RUSSIA (2025) --- A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Iran's two Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreements with China (2021) and Russia (2025) both need to be read as 'Security Treaties' arising from strategic convergences to put in place existential counterweights by Iran against possible threats of United States military interventions.

Iran noticeably with acute adversarial relations with United States was a '"Strategic Magnet" to China and Russia to be drawn in for a security presence and influence in the world's largest Shia-majority State in a largely Arab Sunni monarchial kingdoms of Gulf, allied to the United States.

Iran before the initiation of these Security Treaties was militarily engaged with China and Russia for decades. 

From Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 to 2021, despite Iran being under severe military and economic pressures in a hostile neighborhood, Iran entered into a Security Treaty with China only in 2021 after hard bargaining. It had much to do with China prioritizing Saudi Arabia over Iran, including Chines supplies of CSS2 IRBMs.

The period 2021 to 2024 is strategically notable for Iran in relation to Russia.

In 2022 the Russian Invasion of Ukraine brought Iran closer to Russia wherein Iranian supplies of thousands of Drones assisted Russia in its faltering offensives in Ukraine. Iran also assisted Russia with ammunition supplies for its war in Ukraine.

In October 2023 and 2024, Iran was engulfed in a running war with Israel through its Proxy Militias---Hamas and Hezbollah, and for the first time direct Iranian Missiles/Rockets attacks on Israel.

United States Military Intervention in Iran had now become a distinct possibility, including destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities.

This hastened the Security Treaty with Russia, finally materializing in January 2025 and with incoming US President Trump's advent as catalyst.

Analytically, the question that comes to the fore is that did Iran feel inadequate with its Security Treaty (2021) with China, in terms of coping with a possible US Military Intervention against it?

Did Iran assess that Russia was a more reliable guarantor of Iranian security and assured source of advanced weapons and weapons technology than China?

Or were there other geopolitical factors weighing-in with Iran which prompted Iran to have an additional Security Treaty with Russia tto beef its security?

The answers will unfold sooner than later.

Judging by available reports in January 2025 what emerges is that Russia's Security Treaty with Iran notably caters for Mutual Security Assistance in case of aggression.

Further, the scale of intensity and levels of   Russia's military cooperation with Iran surpasses the notional Chinese military assistance to Iran since 2021.

 To sum it up, the Security Treaty with China was more of 'economic security' and less of military security for Iran. China's promise to invest $400 billion in Iran infrastructure, more specifically petrochemicals was an inducement for Iran. 

Geographical proximity of Russia with Iran as compared to a 'distant' China may have also weighed in with Iran to prefer Russia over China, in the bilateral context.

Concluding, Iran's 'Security Treaty' with Russia is an ominous development in the Middle East strategic calculus with serious implications and challenges for United States, West and Isreal. 

Possibility of proactive Russian military involvement to assist Iran against any US military intervention will now be a factor for consideration. 

RUSSIA-CHINA AXIS 2025: STRATEGIC DENOUEMENT UNDERWAY?

The Russia-China Axis of the two Communist Giants did not emerge from any strong Communist ideological bonds but from a single point strategic convergence of checkmating United States global predominance with this strategic convergence intensity varying from China's side depending on state of US-China relations.

Strategic denouement between Russia and China seems to be underway, chiefly, in the wake of Russia's lack of military success in its war on Ukraine and China not rising up to the occasion to reinforce Russia's war efforts.

China seems to have perceptively failed in supporting Russia in the much publicized "No Limits" strategic partnership as other than geopolitical support, China seems to have not provided Russia with any substantial lethal military aid that could have turned the tide in Russia's complete military success. 

China could have aided Russia with tanks, artillery equipment and drones from China's massive inventories.

Russia had to turn to North Koea and Iran for lethal war supplies to add punch to its offensive strikes in   Ukraine.hina

Norh Korea's military aid to Russian War in Ukraine was both in terms of fire-power ammunition supplies and more notably sending a much-needed contingent of 10,000 North Korean troops to aid Russian war effort. Russia is woefully short of military manpower.

China expectedly as a 'No Limits' strategic partner of Russia should have aided Russia with its military manpower. China did not do so. North Korea did so.

Iran has provided Russia with hundreds of hard-hitting military drones which have provided Russia with coercive devastation power. Why was China reluctant to do so?

China sustained Russia's Ukraine War by buying Russian oil supplies at dirt cheap rates but that too is waning as reports indicate that a dozen Russian 'Shadow Oil Tankers' anchored off the Chinese Coast are not being allowed to off-load oil supplies at Chines ports.

China has 'shied-off 'fearful of additional US sanctions which prohibit countries buying oil from Russia to drawback Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

China has been fearful in terms of global reactions to any unreserved Chinese military support to Russia. Indicators at the beginning of 2025 point towards China's 'rethink' on its 'No Limits' military aid to Russia.

The other major reason for China's reluctance for limitless military aid to Russia can be analyzed as China's decision not to deplete its military inventories by preserving them for a possible 'War with Unite States' over Taiwan.

In Conclusion, it can be analytically asserted that besides many other pinpricks in Russia-China strategic relations, China's lack of lethal military aid to Russia in its Ukraine War may mark the 'tipping point' for a strategic denouement in the Russia-China Axis with profound impact on global geopolitics.

 partnership

PHILIPPINES SQUARELY IN UNITED STATES STRATEGIC FOLD 2025: OUTGOING US PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SIGNIFICANT FOREIGN POLIC ACHIEVEMENT

United States most significant foreign policy achievement under outgoing US President Biden was to induce the Philippines to squarely re-pivot to the American strategic fold after years of cavorting with Communist Chinese rulers in Beijing under previous Filipino President Duterte.

The Philippines hosted two major US military bases in the Philippines earlier --Subic Bay Naval Base and Clarkes Air Force Base. United States was asked to remove its Military Bases in 1991 when the Philippines Senate voted against US military bases.

Thereafter, limited US-Philippines security ties were kept in existence under the 'Visiting Forces Agreements' in various forms.                

This resulted in a serious military void in the US-crafted security architecture in Western Pacific as these two US Bases were critical 'springboard points' for United States to deter Communist China from invasion of Taiwan and also Forward Military Bases for any US military intervention against Mainland China.

Philippines losses were heavy in terms of domestic economy which thrived on a large US Forces presence in the country.

Geopolitically, the Philippines did not gain anything by its period of flirtation with Communist China, a fact which previous President Duterte realized belatedly at the end of his term.

In 2025, the US Military Bases picture has changed with United States under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr having granted permission to United States not only to return in force to erstwhile five US Military Bases but to establish two additional US Military Bases in the North.

In tandem, joint US-Philippines Military Exercises have intensified to endure more military inter-operability between the two countries.

Notably, Japan, India and Australia as QUAD Security Initiative members are supplementing the US-led military capacity building of the Philippines to withstand Communist China's political and military coercion over China's festering dispute over the Scarborough Shoals in the South China Sea.

India significantly, has sold Three Batteries of BRAHMOS Cruise Missiles which add greatly to Philippines deterrent power against Communist China aggression. Discussions are reported to be underway for additional BRAHMOS Cruise Missiles and other Indian military equipment. Security ties are intensifying.

Japan is intimately involved in enhancing the security profile of the Philippines both in cooperation with the United States and also on its own. Japan- Philippines "Reciprocal Access Agreement" permits both nations to use each other's military bases thereby integrating security mechanisms of bath nations.

Japan too is providing military equipment to the Philippines in addition to various training programs. 

 Philippines also has an "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Program" with Australia which focuses on maritime security and counterterrorism.

While Japan and Australia have long-standing security ties with the Philippines under the aegis of the US security template to counter China, the entry of India as a 'security provider' to Philippines is a recent envelopment and intensifying.

India stands out in terms of providing 300 km range BRAHMOS Cruise Missiles to the Philippines in a glaring & military geopolitical signaling to China.

Highlighting needs to be done that in 2025 what strikes analytically is that besides the bilateral security arrangements with the Philippines, all Four Nations of QUAD are engaged in enhancing the military capacity-building of the Philippines against Chinese aggression.

Concluding, it needs to be emphasized that the strategic location of the Philippines astride the vital sea-lanes of communication traversing the South China Sea over which China claims 'dubious sovereignty' are critical for Indo Pacific security. 

Philippines security can be guaranteed not by Communist China intent on military adventurism in the region, but, by United States and the QUAD Nations--a fact now registered by the Philippines.