CHINA BIGGEST GEOPOLITICAL AND STRATEGIC LOSER IN INDIA'S MILITARY INCAPACITATION 'OP SINDOOR' STRIKES ON PAKISTAN MAY 2025: VENGEANCE FOLLOWS

 China perecptionally has suffered significant geopolitical and strategic losses in the wake of India's OP-SINDOOR incapacitating military strikes on Pakistan's 'Full Spectrum' offensive capabilities which rested on China-aided Nuclear Weapons, Chinese Combat Fighter Planes and China-installed Pakistan Air Defense Grid.

In one shattering blow, India's deep offensive Air Force strikes in Pakistan's Heartland of Punjab, had deflated Pakistan Army's bloated image of nuclear and conventional parity with Subcontinental India.

Pakistan's significant losses were both military and psychological.

 But China as Pakistan's preferred source of Pakistan's WMD and conventional arsenal suffered more significant perceptional geopolitical and strategic losses arising from Indian OP-SINDOOR military strikes on Pakistan.

Geopolitically, China's intrusive political and military stances in South Asia stand impacted because China failed to provide Pakistan with its 'Countervailing Power' to deter India from OP-SINDOOR crippling strikes on Pakistan's offensive capabilities.

South Asia Nations, both 'China-Clients' and 'Fence Sitters' would now need to recalibrate their playing the 'China Card' against India. If China could not stand actively in support of China's significant Chinese-aided 'Spoiler State" of Pakistan, would China actively support smaller South Asian States to withstand India's predominant military might?

China for long has financed and equipped Islamist Jihadi terrorist groups all over the world. In case of Pakistan, the Islamic Jihadi militias sponsored by Pakistan Army were not only aided by China materially but "protected" at United Nations from being UN-designated as Global Terrorists.

India's destruction of the Headquarters of these Pakistan Army proxy militias at Bahawalnagar and Muridke would be a sober deterrent to their terrorist operations against India.

Strategically, the myth of Chinese advanced military equipment superiority stands crumbled in wake of India's OP-SINDOOR offensive operations. Indian Air Force "pierced" through the array of Pakistan's Surveillance and Air Defense Grid to attack Pakistan Air Force Bases.

China-aided Pakistan Missiles were effectively foiled by India's indigenous Air Defense Grid. China's Advanced Fighter Planes of Pakistan Air Force were ineffective.

In short, China's weapon systems on which Pakistan's military staked its brinkmanship against India over decades, now stands crumbled.

Significantly, China is not going to take lying down its geopolitical and strategic losses emerging from OP-SINDOOR military strikes on Pakistan.

China rather than conceding India's military predominance in South Asia in wake of OP-SINDOOR would now with renewed vigor born out of vengeance would re-arm Pakistan, enhance its Air Force and AD Systems to whittle down India's military superiorities.

China would now redouble its military buildup of Bangladesh and prevent slippage of Nepal from its strategic orbit.

Concluding, surely, the Indian military establishment would be re-evaluating OP-SINDOOR operations and preparing itself for the next round.

India's next military round will be with China which will be itching to inflict losses on India in vengeance of its perceptional geopolitical and strategic losses suffered during OP-SINDOOR.

CHINA AND UNITED STATES CONVERGENT AIMS TO STRATEGICALLY CHECKMATE INDIA AT HEIGHT OF 'OP-SINDOOR' STRIKES ON PAKISTAN MAY 2025

Perceptually, China and United States betrayed their strategies of strategically checkmating India at the height of India's massive and decisive Indian Air Force counterstrikes on Pakistan air bases in retaliation for Pakistan escalating the conflict in early May 2025. 

India's OP-SINDOOR aerial strikes included damage to Pakistan Sargodha and Chaklala Air Bases which are Pakistan's nuclear weapons storage sites and Nuclear Command Authority.

China and United States may have different strategic reasons for checkmating India but their convergence to save Pakistan's strategic assets was glaringly out in the open. It is futile for Indian policy and strategic establishment to be in a state of denial that China is 'India's Enemy Number ONE' and uses Pakistan as a Chinese strategic force-multiplier against India.

So, China while adopting the optical strategy of advising' restraint' to both Pakistan and India, indulged in rushing military aid during the conflict.

But what was surprising and disappointing for India was the United States displaying convergent strategies with China in checkmating India. The United States disparaging remarks by US President Trump at the height of OP- SINDOOR strikes by India were damaging to future course of United States relations with India.

While the Modi Government has maintained a dignified silence on the subject of President Trump's uninvited and unwarranted claims of having 'mediated' a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, but Indian PM Modi publicly asserted for record that the United States had played no role in putting a ceasefire in effect.

It was Pakistan that ran to Washington seeking US help for a ceasefire. India rightly asserted that Pakistan route its 'ceasefire readiness through Pakistan Army DGMO on the 'Hot Line'.

One needs to dwell more on US President Trump's unwarranted assertions of drawing 'Strategic Equivalence' between India and Pakistan and equating the global stature of Indian P M Modi with PM Shahbaz Sharif of Pakistan which is in a mere  'Concubinage Relationship' with China.

President Trump has seemingly reverted US policy formulations on India to the 1990's when the United States 'Hyphenated' India and Pakistan in its approaches to the Indian Subcontinent.

Worse, many would not recall that in the US National Strategy Documents of that time, the United States asserted that it is the policy of United States 'To Prevent Emergence of Regional Hegemonistic States like China and India'.

Does the United States in 2025 perceives India as an 'Emergent Power' as having hegemonistic designs? 

Concluding, contextually, the United States has to publicly assert its perceptions on India post-OP SINDOOR. US President Trump has sowed misgivings and resentment in India by his callous and careless remarks on 'Strategic Equivalence' between India and Pakistan.

INDIA'S MAGNIFICENT BLITZKRIEG 'OP SINDOOR' MILITARY OPERATIONS (MAY25,2025 REDUCES PAKISTAN TO BEG FOR CEASEFIRE: GEOPOLITICAL IMPACT

India in a spectacular display of its Will to Use Power to uphold India's National Honour last week (May 7-10,2025) reduced Pakistan to beg for a ceasefire after India rapidly switched from its Limited War aims of 'Eliminating Pakistan's Proxy War Terrorism Capabilities' to the larger Strategic Aim of "Incapacitating Pakistan Army's War Waging Capabilities'.

India could achieve these War Aims within 72 hours of launching military offensives. India could achieve these remarkable decisive military victories with a rare combination of indomitable political leadership of PM Narendra Modi, his full faith in the synergy of integrated high-tech operations of Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force, and more significantly by India's fast track War Preparedness in overdrive ever since 2014 when Modi Regime commenced.

The Indian media, both TV and print, carry exhaustive analyses of OP SINDOOR military operations against Pakistan. It is not the intention to repeat those details here.

What is being focused on in this Analysis is the geopolitical impact of India's unprecedented strategy and capability to conduct strategic blitzkrieg high-tech military offensives.

The above display of India's Will to Use Power and to 'Strike Deep' in Pakistan's Heartland of Pakistan Punjab and calling-off Pakistan's 'Nuclear Blackmail' has generated 'strategic ripples in United States, China and Russia.

All these three Major Powers will now have to study and analyze India's "Modi Doctrine" to recalibrate their strategic formulations on India's 'Power Trajectory'.

India's Prime Mimister Narendra Modi Enunciates "Modi Dctrine" in Strident Tones

In his Address to The Nation on May 12, 2025 after India's magnificent victory over Pakistan, PM Narendra Modi enunciated what can be termed as India's Monroe Doctrine.

 "Modi Doctrine" enunciates (1) India will strike back decisively at any acts of Terrorism attacks targeting India. (2) Terrorism acts against India will be deemed as 'Act of War' (3) India will also attack Countries/ Organizations facilitating Terrorist Attacks against India (4) India WILL NOT SUBMIT TO NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL from any quarter.

India Will Not Accept any Interference/Mediation on Any Aggresion by Pakistan.

PM Modi extending his Modi Doctrine also ruled out any mediation by Third Parties on issues bedeviling Pakistan's military confrontation against India.

Kashmir is a 'Non-Issue' for any external mediation. The only issue for India in this regard is Pakistan's vacation of its illegal occupation of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

United States Needs More Prudence on Making Demands & Assertions on India

US President Trump in the 72 hours of India's decisive and battering strikes on Pakistan Air Force Bases and infrastructure displayed geopolitical callousness with his unwarranted assertions.

Initially supporting India's right to strike at Pakistan's Proxy Terrorism infrastructure, US President Trump suddenly reversed gears when Indian Air Force strikes hit Pakistan's nuclear-related air bases.

This leads me to question United States strategic motives. Does United States have a vested interest in keeping Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal intact and alive? Does this United States aim is an insurance to arrest India's rising Power Trajectory?

Further, US President Trump's callous political assertions drawing "Equivalence" between Indian PM Narendra Modi Sharif and Pakistani PM Shahbaz Sharif have incensed Indians.

PM Modi has evidently put United States on notice when he publicly refuted claims by President Trump that he mediated the ceasefire and that he is ready to mediate on Kashmir.

Post-OP SINDOOR , the United States will have to reset its political outlook. India will not accept any "Hyphenation" of India-Pak relations.

China Significamtly Impacted  by Indiia's 'Modi Doctrine & Failure of Chinese Advanced Weapons Systems Supplied to Pakistan

While United States has suffered perceptional losses by callous observations by US President, it is China which has been grievously impacted by India reducing Pakistan to its kness militarily within 72 hours.

The highly mythicized Chian-Pakistan Axis did not come into play in Pakistan's favor even when Indian Air Force Strikes virtually were hammering Pakistan Air Force Bases related to China-aided Pakistan's nuclear strike capabilities against India.

Pakistan's 82% Chinese military inventories of Chinese Air Defense Systems and advanced Chinese Fighter Aircraft could not stop Indian Air Force strikes including Sargodha and Chaklala, the heart of Pakistan's nuclear strike capabilities.

The second count of concern for China is India's demonstrated strategic strike capabilities deep within enemy territory, 'This coming after Dokalam and Galwan would keep Chinese military planners busy.

Whether China will reset India-policies or persist in reinforcing its geopolitical losses by overactive rearming of Pakistan Army will soon unfold.

Russia Seems to Have Played its Cards Well as India's OP SINDOOR  Offensives Were Underway

Russia made perceptional gains in India during the ongoing Pakistan's military confrontation with India. By its unambiguous support to India as opposed to United Staes meddlesome assertions during last week's India's offensives, Indian esteem for Russia has gone up.

The above needs to be seen in context of Russia being a strategically of China on the global stage.

India's spectacular military victories over Pakistan were enabled by Russian S 400 Air Defence Missiles which formed the backbone of India's defense grid, and which Pakistan could not penetrate by its advanced Chinese Fighter Aircraft even by firing its FATH Tactical Ballistic Missile aimed at New Delhi.

Russia is the only Major Power which has made geopolitical gains during the present War 

Israel and France Continue to be India's Reliable Statrtegic Partners.

Israeli anti-drone systems and French Rafale fighters and other missiles played a big part in India's strident 72 -hour victory over Pakistan.

Geopolitically, India should expand further its defense and security cooperation with France and Israel as it revamps its military machine after lesions drawn from this War.

Concluding Observations

India has undoubtedly emerged as the Regional Power in South Asia with demonstrated military prowess of striking swiftly and with devastating precision deep into Pakistan's Heartland,

United States and China would be well-advised to reset their strategic formulations on India's military rise as a Major Power capable of calling-off Nuclear Blackmail of its adversaries.

The "Modi Doctrine" should be seriously taken notice of by all Major Powers who should not interfere with India's 'natural balance f power 'in South Asia as the predominant power in the Indian Subcontinent.

 

  

INDIA'S STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES 2025 DICTATE COMPLETE INCAPACITATION OF PAKISTAN ARMY NOT MERELY DETERRENCE

India has reached a strategic tipping point in May 2025 wherein in wake of horrific Pahalgam Massacre of targeted 26 Hindu-killings bearing signature of Pakistan Army proxies' handiwork, it should be abundantly clear that India's earlier 'Deterrent Strategies' are no longer effective. 

India's strategic imperatives in May 2025 therefore now dictate a switch-over from 'Deterrence' to 'Complete Incapacitation of Pakistan Army' as the overriding aim of the Indian State. 

'Complete Incapacitation of Pakistan Army needs to be achieved by a comprehensive blueprint combining diplomatic and economic degradation of Pakistan followed by a final devastatingly crippling kinetic operations inflicted on Pakistan Army with full force of India's predominant military might.

India's PM Modi-led Government seems already on the above trajectory. Diplomatic Isolation of Pakistan with renewed vigor is already under way. 

 War by Economic Means has been applied by Modi Government on an unprecedented scale against Pakistan in terms of banning all trade with Pakistan and closure of Indian ports to Pakistani shipping.

 For the first time in India's political history, the Modi Government has suspended the Indus Water Treaty and stopped the flow of waters to Pakistan. This use of the 'water weapon' is having a devastating effect on Pakistan.

Pakistan and Pakistan Army is on a 'suspenseful edge' unable to decipher when India will strike with its full kinetic military force of all its three Services. This psychological attrition is weighing down heavily on the Pakistan Army which in tandem is internally besieged in Baluchistan by the armed attacks of Baluchistan Freedom Front. 

Pakistan's Western Front today is militarily besieged both in Baluchistan and Taliban Afghanistan incensed by expulsion of over a million Afghans living in Pakistan for decades.

Militarily, the picture is grim for Pakistan Army with both its Western and Eastern Fronts besieged and the prospects of an Indian Navy blockade of Karachi.

Within India too, Indian public opinion is clamoring for decisive military action against Pakistan Army to put an end to its proxy terrorism against India by Islamic Jihadi terrorist groups financed, armed and facilitated by Pakistan Army's ISI.

'Complete Incapacitation' of the Pakistan Army and defanging its missiles arsenal has now emerged in May 2025 as the overriding strategic imperative of India's Modi Government which has never shied away from robust military actions against India's enemies.

Of course, Pakistan will retaliate with military desperation inflicting damages on India too. But that has to be accepted if Pakistan Army as a potent threat to India's National Security is to be achieved. India has already put into operation Civil Defence measures. 

Now the big question is when India will apply its kinetic military force with full crippling force? 

Or is India awaiting Pakistan Army to undertake preemptive strikes on India to shift the onus of war on Pakistan Army?

Whatever be the case, the Fifth War with Pakistan is underway. The question is not 'if' but 'when'?

Concluding, this should be applied sequentially when India's 'War by Economic Means' is fully in 'Overdrive' inducing public unrest in Punjab and divisive fissures in Pakistan's polity and Pakistan Army. Indicators ae so emerging.

The overall aim should be to CRIPPLE PAKISTAN ARMY & ITS MILITARY ADVENTURISM!!! 

PAKISTAN'S STRATEGY OF ENLISTING MAJOR POWERS COUNTERVAILENCE AGAINST INDIA GEOPOLITICALLY INOPERATIVE IN 2025

Pakistan ever since its emergence as an independent nation with Partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947 by outgoing British colonial rulers has persistently confronted India militarily, adopting a strategy of enlisting "Major Powers Countervailence" geopolitical weightage.

This geopolitical weightage carried an element of 'poetical permissiveness' which enabled Pakistan to indulge in repeated wars against India coupled with Pakistan Army sponsored Islamic Jihadi terrorism against India.

Seventy-five years down the line since 1947, is a good enough timespan to objectively analyze whether Pakistan 's adoption of "Major Powers Countervailence Strategy" has enabled Pakistan to reap strategic dividends against India.

Pakistan sequentially banked in terms of Countervailing Power on Britain, the United States and then finally on Communist China. There were however overlaps amongst the Major Powers in providing countervailing power e.g. the convergence of United States and China in supporting Pakistan jointly. during the 1990s and till quite lately.

Pakistan's "Major Powers Countervailence Strategy" has failed as geopolitical realities in 2025 would indicate. The United States is today locked in a robust Global Strategic Partnership with India, China though continuing in military confrontation with India is politically reaching out to India since Galwan 2020 and  moreso now with Trump2:0 advent in United States and Britain does not count much.

Pakistan in 2025 presents the political picture of a 

'Dysfunctional State' tottering politically and economically. Chiefly, this arises from the economic costs of its unremitting military confrontation with India.

United States in earlier decades and China's ongoing heavy military support to Pakistan was corelated to their geopolitical objectives at a given point of time and not unlimited. 

 

Strategically ironic for Pakistan is that despite sizeable US military rearmament and China's buildup of Pakistan's nuclear and missiles arsenal, Pakistan could not militarily get the better of India in all the Wars that it launched in 1948, 1965, 1971 & 19999.

Pakistan however has refused to learn or strategically ignore the bitter lessons that passage of time has thrust on it. 

The megalomanic egos of Pakistan Army Chiefs and its Collegium of Corps Commanders empowered by possession of nuclear weapons has put them in a military trance that India is powerless in launching crippling military strikes against Pakistan.

The latest terrorism attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir Valley inflicted by Islamic Jihadi terrorists' affiliates of Pakistan Army resulting in loss of 30 Hindu lives should mark a 'Turning Point' for India to strike military blows to destroy Pakistan Army's military adventurism against India.

Lastly, The geopolitical environment in 2025   is in India's favor ruling out any significant provision of United States or China's "Countervailence Support" for Pakistan against India, should India militarily strike Pakistan Army and its infrastructure.

India should follow the Israeli maxim: 'When you have to strike the enemy, then strike hard with full crippling force'.

    

 and China

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.