The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n
”
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon examine why North Korea has suddenly become more visible on the international stage following high-profile visits by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They explore North Korea\u2019s history,…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and David Mahon examine North Korea\u2019s historical development and growing geopolitical importance as China and Russia engage with Pyongyang. Its nuclear program, dependence on China and dynastic political system have allowed it to endure despite repeated predictions of collapse. Its future depends on how shifting power dynamics reshape its strategic environment.”
\npost-date=”Jul 09, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: North Korea \u2014 Unveiling the Hidden Truth” slug-data=”fo-talks-north-korea-unveiling-the-hidden-truth”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/North-Korea-Unveiling-the-Hidden-Truth-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: North Korea \u2014 Unveiling the Hidden Truth<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/David-Mahon-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
Sam Tully”
\npost_date=”July 05, 2026 06:33″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/economics\/fo-talks-indias-reckoning-reform-or-regression\/” pid=”163287″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully discuss the sharp withdrawal of foreign capital from India and what it reveals about the country\u2019s economic trajectory. They explore whether recent market weakness reflects temporary geopolitical turbulence or deeper structural problems involving investment, manufacturing, bureaucracy and policy. While Singh fears India risks repeating past crises without major reforms, Tully argues that the country retains important economic strengths despite mounting challenges.<\/p>\n
Foreign investors lose confidence<\/p>\n
The conversation opens with a striking statistic: Foreign portfolio investors have withdrawn roughly $45 billion from Indian markets over the past two years, including about $18.5 billion in 2025 and another $20 billion by early June 2026. Foreign ownership of Indian equities has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, raising concerns that international investors are reassessing India\u2019s prospects.<\/p>\n
Tully attributes the trend to both external and domestic factors. Geopolitical instability around the Strait of Hormuz has threatened energy and fertilizer supplies that are critical to South Asia, creating inflationary pressures across the region. Simultaneously, India\u2019s traditionally high market valuations have become harder to justify because corporate earnings have disappointed while competing markets such as China, Taiwan and South Korea have benefited from the global boom in AI-related hardware.<\/p>\n
As Tully explains, \u201cIndia\u2019s expensive. It doesn\u2019t have the exposure to the AI hardware that we see in Korea, Taiwan and China.\u201d As a result, investors increasingly see better opportunities elsewhere.<\/p>\n
Growth slows as structural weaknesses emerge<\/p>\n
Singh says that India\u2019s problems extend well beyond short-term market sentiment. He points to sluggish private-sector capital expenditure, weak innovation and declining international competitiveness. Indian technology companies have excelled in services but invested relatively little in proprietary products, leaving the country absent from many of today\u2019s fastest-growing industries.<\/p>\n
Tully agrees that private investment has lagged despite strong corporate balance sheets. Rather than a shortage of capital, he points to structural obstacles including land acquisition, labor regulations and complex approval processes that discourage businesses from expanding manufacturing.<\/p>\n
The speakers also revisit earlier policy decisions such as demonetization and the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax. Singh contends these measures damaged small and medium-sized businesses, reducing employment and weakening domestic demand. Tully adopts a more measured view, acknowledging that consumption has slowed while emphasizing that India\u2019s large domestic consumer market remains one of its greatest long-term advantages.<\/p>\n
They also note that India failed to capitalize fully on the \u201cChina plus one\u201d opportunity. Although initiatives such as Make in India encouraged manufacturing, production has not expanded at the pace seen elsewhere in Asia, leaving India with relatively little exposure to sectors such as semiconductors and AI hardware.<\/p>\n
Demographic pressures meet bureaucratic barriers<\/p>\n
The discussion then turns to India\u2019s labor market. Around 90% of employment remains in the informal sector, only about 80\u201390 million people are registered taxpayers and roughly ten million new workers enter the labor force every year.<\/p>\n
Singh argues that without stronger job creation, India\u2019s demographic dividend risks becoming a liability rather than an advantage. He observes that many talented Indians continue to pursue education and careers overseas, suggesting both capital and skilled labor increasingly \u201cvote with their feet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tully acknowledges these concerns but highlights encouraging developments within India\u2019s startup ecosystem. Entrepreneurs are applying new technologies to agriculture, education and other sectors, creating innovative businesses that continue attracting venture capital despite broader economic uncertainty.<\/p>\n
The speakers devote considerable attention to India\u2019s bureaucracy. Drawing on his own experience in government, Singh criticizes the Indian Administrative Service for retaining a centralized, interventionist mindset that he believes discourages entrepreneurship and efficient policymaking. Tully is more sympathetic toward institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India, though both agree that structural reforms remain necessary to improve the business environment.<\/p>\n
The rupee, domestic investors and reform<\/p>\n
The weakening rupee becomes another focal point of the discussion. Singh states that continued currency depreciation erodes investor returns while making India less attractive for foreign capital. Unlike export-driven economies that may benefit from weaker currencies, India\u2019s domestic-oriented economy gains relatively little from this adjustment.<\/p>\n
Tully agrees the rupee\u2019s decline deserves attention but believes the broader economy remains more resilient than it was before the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis. Domestic investors have increasingly offset foreign selling, helping stabilize markets even as overseas funds reduce their exposure.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, Singh warns that systematic investment plans have left many middle-class investors supporting valuations while experienced foreign investors exit. He raises the possibility of a sharp correction if confidence deteriorates further.<\/p>\n
Tully remains cautious but less pessimistic. \u201cI don\u2019t have quite that strong a sense of foreboding,\u201d he says. He considers India\u2019s underlying fundamentals reasonably robust despite the recent setbacks.<\/p>\n
Waiting for reform<\/p>\n
India stands at an important crossroads. External shocks \u2014 from Middle Eastern instability to US tariffs \u2014 have compounded domestic weaknesses, yet many of the country\u2019s challenges originate within its own institutions and regulatory framework.<\/p>\n
Singh and Tully believe another wave of structural reforms is needed to strengthen manufacturing, encourage investment and improve ease of doing business. They differ on urgency, however. Singh says history shows that meaningful reform often follows severe crises. Tully hopes corrective measures can arrive before conditions deteriorate that far.<\/p>\n
Tully concludes, \u201cWe must not underplay the extent of the success and transformation that you have seen in India,\u201d even as the country confronts difficult choices about sustaining growth in an increasingly competitive global economy.<\/p>\n
[Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Alix Willemez” Fair Observer\u2019s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Dr. Alix Willemez, a specialist in the law of the sea, about the growing importance of ocean governance in an era of geopolitical competition, environmental pressure and technological dependence. Their discussion ranges from the foundations of maritime law to the emerging High Seas Treaty and the strategic waterways that keep the global economy functioning. Willemez argues that humanity is only beginning to understand the ocean\u2019s central role in sustaining modern life and regulating the planet.<\/p>\n The ocean\u2019s hidden role in modern life<\/p>\n Campani begins by asking a deceptively simple question: Who owns the ocean, and why does it matter?<\/p>\n Willemez explains that the ocean underpins nearly every aspect of modern civilization. Half of the oxygen humans breathe is produced by marine phytoplankton. The ocean also absorbs and redistributes heat through global currents, moderating temperatures and creating the stable climate conditions that make agriculture possible.<\/p>\n Its economic importance is equally significant. Roughly 90% of global trade travels by sea, while approximately 95% of international communications rely on fiber-optic cables laid along the ocean floor. Internet traffic, banking transactions, streaming services and countless other digital activities depend on infrastructure hidden beneath the waves.<\/p>\n The ocean is also becoming an increasingly important source of renewable energy through offshore wind and tidal power. Yet despite this dependence, Willemez notes that many people remain largely unaware of the ocean\u2019s role in their daily lives.<\/p>\n From cannonballs to freedom of the seas<\/p>\n The legal framework governing the oceans developed gradually over centuries. Willemez describes how early maritime jurisdiction was based on the so-called cannonball rule. A state\u2019s authority extended only as far as a shore-based cannon could fire, roughly three nautical miles.<\/p>\n As maritime technology advanced and states expanded their commercial ambitions, this approach became inadequate. The emergence of global trade routes forced governments to develop more sophisticated legal principles.<\/p>\n A pivotal figure in this process was the 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius. Working during an era when Spain and Portugal sought to dominate major sea routes, Grotius argued that oceans should remain open to all rather than becoming private domains controlled by individual powers.<\/p>\n His principle of freedom of navigation became one of the foundations of modern maritime law. While states eventually expanded their maritime claims, the idea that ships should generally be able to move freely across the world\u2019s oceans remains central to contemporary governance.<\/p>\n UNCLOS and the rise of the High Seas Treaty<\/p>\n The modern legal foundation for ocean governance is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982.<\/p>\n UNCLOS established territorial seas extending 12 nautical miles from a country\u2019s coastline, where states exercise broad sovereignty. Beyond that lies the Exclusive Economic Zone, stretching to 200 nautical miles, where states enjoy rights over fisheries and natural resources while preserving freedom of navigation for foreign vessels. The convention also recognizes continental shelf rights over seabed resources.<\/p>\n However, UNCLOS left significant gaps regarding the high seas, the vast areas beyond national jurisdiction that cover roughly half the planet\u2019s surface.<\/p>\n Scientific discoveries have transformed understanding of these regions. Researchers increasingly recognize the importance of deep-sea ecosystems and genetic resources that could contribute to future medical and technological breakthroughs.<\/p>\n To address these challenges, governments negotiated the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement, commonly known as the High Seas Treaty. The treaty was adopted by UN member states on June 19, 2023, and entered into force on January 17, 2026, after reaching the 60-ratification threshold required to take effect. It seeks to strengthen protections for biodiversity in international waters and establish new mechanisms for cooperation.<\/p>\n Willemez notes that support continues to grow. \u201c145 countries have signed the treaty,\u201d she explains, while a large and growing number have formally ratified it, making its provisions legally binding.<\/p>\n Maritime chokepoints and geopolitical conflict<\/p>\n The conversation then turns to places where maritime law collides with geopolitical realities.<\/p>\n The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world\u2019s most critical waterways. Although international law guarantees freedom of passage, tensions between Iran and the United States have produced a de facto double blockade.<\/p>\n Iran raises commercial risks through threats involving mines and drones, dramatically increasing shipping insurance costs. Simultaneously, Washington seeks to restrict Iranian oil exports. The result is growing pressure on one of the world\u2019s most important energy corridors.<\/p>\n Other chokepoints face different challenges. The Strait of Malacca serves as a vital route for Asian trade and global electronics supply chains. The Suez Canal, governed through separate treaty arrangements and administered by Egypt, remains indispensable to commerce linking Europe, Africa and Asia.<\/p>\n The Panama Canal faces a different threat. Because its lock system depends on freshwater supplies, drought conditions can significantly reduce shipping capacity, increasing transportation costs and disrupting supply chains worldwide.<\/p>\n Toward a more integrated system of ocean governance<\/p>\n Despite progress, Willemez argues that ocean governance remains fragmented. Shipping, fisheries, biodiversity protection and seabed mining are overseen by different organizations operating largely independently of one another.<\/p>\n That fragmentation is increasingly at odds with scientific understanding of the ocean as an interconnected ecosystem.<\/p>\n Willemez considers the most promising development to be the growing shift toward ecosystem-based governance. The High Seas Treaty could enable the creation of marine protected areas that safeguard migratory species throughout their entire life cycles rather than only within individual national jurisdictions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that we think of the ocean as an ecosystem is a real progress,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n Looking ahead, Willemez believes the combination of scientific discovery, international cooperation and growing environmental awareness is pushing governments toward a more holistic approach. As debates over deep-sea mining, biodiversity and maritime security intensify, the ocean is becoming one of the defining arenas of global governance in the 21st century.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Karimi Gatimi” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with journalist Karimi Gatimi and filmmaker Dickens Awiti about French President Emmanuel Macron\u2019s visit to Kenya and France\u2019s broader effort to rebuild influence in Africa. Against the backdrop of France\u2019s expulsion from several Sahel states, Gatimi and Awiti argue that Paris is pursuing a pragmatic pivot toward Anglophone Africa. They explore Kenya\u2019s evolving foreign relationships, the country\u2019s economic pressures and the increasingly competitive geopolitical landscape shaping African diplomacy.<\/p>\n France\u2019s pivot to Anglophone Africa<\/p>\n Macron\u2019s visit centered on a major summit in Nairobi that brought together 35 African presidents and thousands of delegates. Awiti notes that the gathering was historically significant because it marked the first time such a French-led summit was held in an English-speaking African country. The decision reflected France\u2019s growing interest in partnerships beyond its traditional Francophone sphere.<\/p>\n The shift comes after a difficult period for Paris. In recent years, military governments in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso expelled French forces and deepened cooperation with Russian security actors. Awiti describes France\u2019s departure from the Sahel as a painful setback and suggests that Kenya offers an opportunity for France to demonstrate that it can still build influential partnerships on the continent.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, both speakers emphasize that France\u2019s relationship with Kenya differs fundamentally from its relationships in former French colonies. Kenya\u2019s interactions with France have largely been shaped by business, education and cultural exchange rather than the tensions that characterize many Francophone states.<\/p>\n From aid to investment<\/p>\n For Gatimi, the summit\u2019s most important outcome was not a specific agreement but a change in mindset. She states that African leaders and participants increasingly reject relationships based on aid and dependency. Instead, discussions focused on investment, entrepreneurship and mutual benefit.<\/p>\n Awiti agrees that the event served primarily as a diplomatic and commercial opening rather than a venue for major policy breakthroughs. He characterizes it as a \u201ccharm offensive\u201d designed to create a favorable environment for French businesses seeking opportunities in Africa.<\/p>\n The visit came with controversy. Macron\u2019s widely discussed attempt to quiet a noisy audience during one event drew criticism and revived debates about lingering colonial attitudes. For some observers, the incident symbolized older power dynamics that France still struggles to overcome.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, both speakers acknowledge France\u2019s substantial economic weight and longstanding presence in Africa. French companies remain active across multiple sectors, while institutions such as the French Cultural Center have played a significant role in supporting Kenya\u2019s creative industries for decades.<\/p>\n Why Kenya matters<\/p>\n Gatimi believes Kenya\u2019s growing importance explains much of the renewed international interest. The country is widely viewed as one of Africa\u2019s more stable economies and attracts attention from the United States, Europe, the Gulf states, China and other partners.<\/p>\n She stresses that Kenya approaches these relationships pragmatically. As she puts it, \u201cWhoever marries my mother becomes my father.\u201d The saying captures a broader attitude that foreign partnerships should be judged primarily by the benefits they bring to Kenyan society rather than by historical loyalties or ideological commitments.<\/p>\n Awiti echoes this view. Unlike many Francophone societies, where France retains deep cultural and political influence, many Kenyans have a less emotional relationship with their colonial past. Foreign partners are evaluated according to investment, jobs and development opportunities rather than symbolic considerations.<\/p>\n This practical approach has allowed Kenya to maintain relationships with a wide range of global actors simultaneously, positioning itself as a diplomatic and economic hub in East Africa.<\/p>\n Kenya\u2019s balancing act<\/p>\n The discussion places France\u2019s outreach within a broader contest for influence across Africa. China has become a dominant economic player through infrastructure investment and trade. Russia has expanded its presence in areas where Western powers have retreated. The US remains influential but faces growing skepticism about its long-term commitment to the continent.<\/p>\n Rather than aligning exclusively with any single power, Gatimi argues that Kenya seeks partnerships that advance national interests. She emphasizes the importance of infrastructure development, technology transfer and investment while warning that corruption and weak institutions can undermine the benefits of foreign engagement.<\/p>\n Gatimi and Awiti both suggest that Kenya\u2019s future foreign policy will continue to be guided by practical considerations rather than ideological preferences. The country\u2019s leaders are likely to work with whichever partners offer the most useful opportunities for economic growth and development.<\/p>\n Economic pressures driving foreign policy<\/p>\n Awiti concludes that Kenya\u2019s domestic challenges are ultimately the strongest force shaping its international relationships. The country faces rapid population growth, persistent unemployment and significant fiscal pressures.<\/p>\n According to Awiti, Kenya is borrowing heavily to sustain government spending, while debt is growing much faster than the broader economy. He notes that around one million young people enter the labor market each year while fewer than 100,000 jobs are created. These realities place enormous pressure on political leaders to secure investment and financing.<\/p>\n As a result, Awiti says, Kenyan policymakers are less concerned with ideological debates than with finding resources to fund development projects and maintain economic stability. \u201cThe Chinese, the Turks, Egyptians, the Indians, the BRICS, the UK, the US \u2014 I think these guys will go on a shopping spree. Wherever they get the money, they bring it home.\u201d In that environment, Macron\u2019s visit represents less a return of old colonial relationships than another chapter in Kenya\u2019s search for partners capable of helping it meet urgent economic needs.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Appo Jabarian” [Editor\u2019s note: This interview was published on May 27, before Armenia held its June 7 election.]<\/p>\n Fair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with political commentator Appo Jabarian about Armenia\u2019s June 7 parliamentary elections and their significance for the South Caucasus. Jabarian argues that the vote represented a choice between continued foreign-policy diversification under Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and a return to closer alignment with Russia. The discussion ranges from Armenia\u2019s strategic geography and post-Nagorno-Karabakh politics to the interests of regional and global powers who watched the election.<\/p>\n Armenia\u2019s strategic position<\/p>\n Jabarian begins by explaining why Armenia occupies an outsized place in regional geopolitics despite its small size. Situated at a crossroads linking north and south as well as east and west, Armenia serves as a land bridge connecting multiple regions of Eurasia. The South Caucasus is an area of intense geopolitical competition where major powers seek influence.<\/p>\n The election carried implications beyond Armenia itself. Jabarian frames the country as part of a broader democratic space stretching across Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. The outcome may determine whether Armenia continues expanding its international partnerships or falls back into a sphere dominated by a single external power.<\/p>\n Two competing visions for Armenia<\/p>\n Khattar Singh asks Jabarian to explain the main political camps that contested the election. Jabarian identifies one camp with former Presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, as well as businessman Samvel Karapetyan. He characterizes this group as representing Armenia\u2019s former political establishment and alleges that it benefits from substantial Russian support.<\/p>\n The opposing camp was led by Pashinyan and his Civil Contract Party. This coalition sought to diversify Armenia\u2019s foreign relations and strengthen ties with Europe and other democratic partners. The objective was not exclusive alignment with the West, but broader integration with what Jabarian calls the global free world, including countries such as India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.<\/p>\n Responding to criticism that Pashinyan has simply replaced dependence on Russia with dependence on the United States, Jabarian rejects that interpretation. He calls such claims \u201cKremlin-approved talking points\u201d and points to Armenia\u2019s growing relationship with India as evidence of a more diversified foreign policy.<\/p>\n The legacy of Nagorno-Karabakh<\/p>\n To this day, the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh region to neighboring Azerbaijan continues to shape Armenian politics. Khattar Singh notes that this was the first parliamentary election cycle taking place after the region\u2019s depopulation and asks how voters were responding at the time.<\/p>\n Jabarian presents a highly contested interpretation of the conflict. He says the events of the 2020 conflict were not a conventional war but \u201cstaged terrorist aggression\u201d involving multiple regional actors. He also traces the dispute back to the Soviet period, claiming that Joseph Stalin\u2019s administrative decisions laid the foundations for later conflict.<\/p>\n Jabarian contends that successive Armenian governments failed to achieve a lasting settlement and that Russian influence helped preserve instability in the region. He contrasts what he sees as Russia\u2019s approach of maintaining leverage through regional disputes with the development model offered by democratic states. Throughout the discussion, Khattar Singh challenges several of Jabarian\u2019s assumptions, particularly regarding the role of the US in international affairs.<\/p>\n Pashinyan\u2019s standing with voters<\/p>\n Khattar Singh asks whether Pashinyan remains popular after losing Nagorno-Karabakh, noting that media portrayals range from democratic reformer to national traitor.<\/p>\n Jabarian mentions that the prime minister enjoys substantial support. Many Armenians view Pashinyan not as the architect of the defeat, but as a victim of a broader geopolitical effort involving Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Public pressure after the 2020 conflict encouraged Pashinyan to remain in office rather than resign because many voters feared a return of the previous political elite.<\/p>\n He further alleges that corruption and internal sabotage weakened Armenia during the conflict and contributed to the outcome. As a result, he believes the election was less a referendum on Pashinyan personally than a decision about Armenia\u2019s future geopolitical direction.<\/p>\n Regional and international stakes<\/p>\n In the final part of the conversation, the speakers examine the interests of outside powers. Jabarian argues that Russia, India, Iran, Israel, Turkey and Western countries all closely watched the vote because of Armenia\u2019s strategic location.<\/p>\n He alleges that Russia conducted a large-scale influence campaign involving financial resources, election bribery and hybrid operations, while Armenian authorities attempted to counter such efforts. Jabarian also emphasizes the importance of Armenia\u2019s growing relationship with India and suggests that Iran may pursue broader international engagement in the future.<\/p>\n The discussion concludes with Israel\u2019s ties to Azerbaijan. Jabarian attributes Israel\u2019s support for Azerbaijan largely to energy considerations, particularly oil imports routed through Turkey. Despite current tensions, he expresses confidence that regional relationships will eventually normalize.<\/p>\n For Jabarian, the election determined whether Armenia pursues deeper integration with a broader network of international partners or returns to a more Russia-centered orientation. He argues that the result influences not only Armenia\u2019s future but the wider geopolitical balance in the South Caucasus.<\/p>\n Ultimately, Pashinyan\u2019s Civil Contract Party would win the election with 49.81% of the vote, securing 64 seats in the 105-seat National Assembly, retaining power in Armenia. The Russian-supported opposition parties, Strong Armenia and the Armenia Alliance, received about 23% and 8% of the vote and netted about 29 and 12 seats, respectively.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Lauren Dagan Amoss” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Lauren Dagan Amoss, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the reported memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. They focus on whether the agreement represents a strategic retreat by Washington and what that could mean for Israel\u2019s position in the Middle East.<\/p>\n Amoss and Olmert view the reported deal as a turning point. The US appears increasingly focused on avoiding economic disruption and regional escalation rather than pursuing earlier goals such as regime change in Iran or the dismantling of Tehran\u2019s broader regional network. For Israel, the consequences extend beyond Iran itself and raise deeper questions about national strategy, diplomacy and relevance.<\/p>\n A perceived defeat for Israeli strategy<\/p>\n Olmert says the agreement reflects Washington\u2019s determination to avoid a wider confrontation. He contends that concerns about global economic stability, particularly the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, pushed the Trump administration toward compromise. In his view, key issues that previously justified confrontation with Iran have largely been set aside.<\/p>\n The result is a sense of strategic disappointment in Israel. Amoss describes the situation as a \u201cdisaster\u201d and a \u201cbig failure\u201d of Israeli strategy. Nearly three years after the infamous October 7 attacks, Israel still lacks clear resolutions regarding Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.<\/p>\n The discussion repeatedly distinguishes between tactical and strategic success. Both guests acknowledge Israel\u2019s military effectiveness and intelligence capabilities. However, they argue that operational achievements have not translated into lasting political gains. As Amoss puts it, \u201cWe don\u2019t have strategy, we don\u2019t know where we are going.\u201d<\/p>\n Netanyahu and the limits of dependence on Washington<\/p>\n Olmert criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s management of the US\u2013Israel relationship. Olmert argues that Netanyahu made a fundamental mistake by relying too heavily on Trump and narrowing Israel\u2019s diplomatic options.<\/p>\n Drawing on his experience working with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Olmert contrasts previous Israeli leaders\u2019 willingness to negotiate forcefully with Washington against what he sees as Netanyahu\u2019s excessive dependence. He argues that Israel has lost leverage by assuming that its interests would automatically align with those of the Trump administration.<\/p>\n The guests also discuss changing perceptions across the Middle East. Regional actors increasingly recognize that major decisions are made in Washington rather than Jerusalem. According to Olmert, this reality weakens Israel\u2019s diplomatic standing and encourages countries to focus their attention on the US instead.<\/p>\n Singh broadens the discussion by highlighting shifting attitudes toward Israel in the US. He notes growing criticism from both the political left and right. Concerns about Palestinian rights, prolonged conflict and Israeli influence on US policy have combined to erode what was once broad bipartisan support.<\/p>\n Regional challenges from Gaza to Lebanon<\/p>\n Then, Amoss examines Israel\u2019s wider regional position. She argues that neither Lebanon nor Syria can be addressed effectively without resolving the situation in Gaza. She states that the region remains trapped in overlapping crises that reinforce one another.<\/p>\n Olmert is particularly critical of US policy toward the Lebanese Islamist paramilitary group, Hezbollah. He argues that Washington missed opportunities to weaken the group more decisively by prioritizing regional stability over military outcomes. Though military operations cannot eliminate ideologies, they can significantly weaken the organizations promoting them.<\/p>\n Both Amoss and Olmert express frustration with what they see as a lack of strategic clarity. Israel remains engaged across multiple fronts while struggling to define long-term objectives. Amoss uses the Hebrew word balagan, meaning \u201cmess\u201d or \u201cchaos,\u201d to describe the situation.<\/p>\n Additionally, Amoss touches on Israel\u2019s declining ability to explain its position internationally. Israeli public diplomacy has become increasingly ineffective as global perceptions harden. The challenge, she suggests, is not simply communication but the absence of a convincing strategic vision.<\/p>\n Competing visions for Israel\u2019s future<\/p>\n Despite their shared concerns, Amoss and Olmert offer different prescriptions for the future.<\/p>\n Amoss emphasizes economic integration and regional connectivity. She points to the India\u2013Middle East\u2013Europe Economic Corridor as a potentially transformative project that could strengthen ties among Israel, India, the Gulf states and Europe. By becoming an essential hub for trade, energy and technology, Israel could regain strategic relevance through cooperation.<\/p>\n Olmert supports greater regional engagement but focuses more heavily on demographic and societal renewal. Rising anti-Semitism in Europe and North America could encourage increased Jewish immigration to Israel. He believes such an influx would bring new energy, ideas and leadership to a society struggling with political stagnation.<\/p>\n The discussion concludes with a notable contrast in outlook. Olmert remains optimistic that the crisis can generate renewal and that Israel can adapt to changing circumstances. Amoss is less convinced, expressing skepticism that large numbers of people will choose to relocate to a country facing persistent security challenges and political uncertainty.<\/p>\n Amoss and Olmert portray Israel at a crossroads. The reported US\u2013Iran agreement serves not only as a test of regional diplomacy but also as a reminder that Israel\u2019s future may depend less on military victories than on its ability to develop a coherent long-term strategy in an increasingly multipolar world.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Sebastian Sch\u00e4ffer” Fair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Sch\u00e4ffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, discuss the state of Ukraine after more than four years of war. Fresh from a visit to Kyiv, Sch\u00e4ffer describes a society balancing remarkable resilience with growing exhaustion as Russian attacks intensify. The discussion examines the reasons behind Moscow\u2019s latest escalation, the uncertain role of the United States and Europe\u2019s struggle to adapt to a deteriorating security environment.<\/p>\n Life under constant threat<\/p>\n Sch\u00e4ffer returns from Kyiv with a stark assessment of life in Ukraine. On the surface, daily life continues much as it would in any European capital. Caf\u00e9s remain open, people go to work and public spaces stay active. Yet beneath this normality lies continuous danger.<\/p>\n Residents live with frequent air raid alerts delivered through mobile applications and public warning systems. When alarms sound, people must quickly assess whether the threat is immediate or whether they can continue with their daily activities. Sch\u00e4ffer describes hearing drones being intercepted near Kyiv shortly after an alert, a reminder that danger remains ever-present.<\/p>\n He considers the defining characteristics of Ukraine today to be resilience and fatigue. With the war now lasting longer than World War I, civilians continue to endure repeated attacks while trying to preserve some sense of normal life.<\/p>\n Russia\u2019s escalating campaign<\/p>\n Khattar Singh notes that Russian missile and drone attacks intensified dramatically in late May, including large-scale strikes on Kyiv and renewed use of advanced missile systems. Sch\u00e4ffer rejects Kremlin claims that the escalation is simply retaliation for Ukrainian actions.<\/p>\n Instead, he argues that domestic pressures within Russia are driving the increase in attacks. According to Sch\u00e4ffer, the Kremlin faces mounting challenges as the war drags on and battlefield results fail to deliver the decisive victory initially promised.<\/p>\n He also emphasizes that civilian infrastructure has become a deliberate target. Citing figures presented by Katar\u00edna Mathernov\u00e1, the European Union\u2019s ambassador to Ukraine, Sch\u00e4ffer notes that there were only four days<\/a> in 2025 when Russia did not strike civilian infrastructure and no such days in 2026.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to really be open with this,\u201d Sch\u00e4ffer says. \u201cThey have not only tried to continue their genocidal attacks.\u201d<\/p>\n He points to strikes on cultural institutions and essential infrastructure, including water-treatment facilities, arguing that these attacks are intended to make civilian life increasingly difficult rather than achieve major military gains.<\/p>\n Beijing, Washington and the changing geopolitical picture<\/p>\n The conversation turns to the broader geopolitical context. Khattar Singh highlights the timing of Russian President Vladimir Putin\u2019s visit to Beijing shortly before the latest escalation.<\/p>\n Sch\u00e4ffer believes the visit itself was planned long in advance and was not directly linked to the attacks. However, Moscow may have viewed the international environment as favorable for escalation, particularly given what he sees as limited resistance from major powers.<\/p>\n Sch\u00e4ffer says that Washington\u2019s attention has shifted overwhelmingly toward the Middle East, leaving Ukraine largely absent from senior American messaging even during major Russian attacks.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is an absolute blind eye from the current US administration when it comes to Ukraine,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n This perceived disengagement removes an important deterrent and creates uncertainty about the future of Western support. He characterizes US President Donald Trump\u2019s approach as erratic and questions whether the US remains committed to defending democratic partners in Europe.<\/p>\n Europe\u2019s concerns and Ukraine\u2019s battlefield position<\/p>\n While much international attention has focused on developments in the Middle East, Sch\u00e4ffer believes that European leaders remain aware of Russia\u2019s renewed offensive. Leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron have publicly condemned the attacks.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, he acknowledges that European governments face immediate political pressures related to energy prices and economic stability. Events affecting the Strait of Hormuz have a more direct impact on voters than developments on the Ukrainian front, creating competing priorities for policymakers.<\/p>\n Sch\u00e4ffer also pushes back against narratives suggesting Ukraine is collapsing militarily. \u201cThe momentum on the battlefield on the front line is shifting towards Ukraine,\u201d he states. Russia, he posits, remains unable to achieve its original objective of capturing the Ukrainian capital.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, war fatigue affects both Ukrainian and Russian societies. The conflict increasingly resembles a prolonged struggle of endurance rather than a contest likely to produce a rapid breakthrough.<\/p>\n Europe\u2019s security challenge<\/p>\n The discussion concludes with concerns about Europe\u2019s broader security posture. Khattar Singh points to the withdrawal of some US military assets from Germany and questions whether Europe possesses sufficient air-defense capabilities if Russian aggression expands beyond Ukraine.<\/p>\n Sch\u00e4ffer argues that European governments understand the threat but are moving too slowly to address it. He warns that Europeans often underestimate the psychological impact of living under constant missile and drone threats, something Ukrainians experience every day.<\/p>\n For Sch\u00e4ffer, the central lesson is that Europe can no longer assume American leadership will reliably fill security gaps. Instead, European states must strengthen both military capabilities and public preparedness.<\/p>\n Supporting Ukraine remains the most effective way to prevent wider instability. The longer Europe delays building its own resilience, the more vulnerable it becomes to the security challenges emerging on its eastern frontier.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Elliot Neaman” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Elliot Neaman, a Canadian analyst and author, about the unraveling of the transatlantic order that has defined global politics since World War II. Prompted by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney\u2019s 2026 Davos speech, the discussion examines why both Europe and Canada are rethinking their dependence on the United States. Neaman argues that the world is experiencing not a temporary adjustment, but a structural rupture that is forcing traditional allies to pursue greater strategic autonomy.<\/p>\n The breakdown of the postwar order<\/p>\n Neaman begins by reflecting on the postwar system the US has created and led. Institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization emerged under American leadership and helped shape decades of globalization and economic integration. For Europe in particular, US security guarantees allowed governments to build prosperous welfare states while relying on American military protection.<\/p>\n Neaman sees the second Trump administration as a turning point. Unlike US President Donald Trump\u2019s first term, which he believes was constrained by institutional guardrails, the current administration has become detached from many of the norms and alliances that underpinned the postwar order. He describes the US as an \u201cuntethered superpower,\u201d pursuing its interests with less regard for allies and established institutions.<\/p>\n As a result, countries that once assumed American reliability are reassessing their strategic position. Canada and Europe increasingly view the US as a source of uncertainty. According to Neaman, this has triggered a search for new buffers, partnerships and forms of insurance against future disruptions.<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s search for leverage<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s response reflects both necessity and limitation. Neaman notes that Ottawa has sought closer economic and diplomatic ties with countries ranging from China and Vietnam to states in South Asia and Latin America. The goal is not to replace the US but to reduce vulnerability to shifts in American policy.<\/p>\n Singh points to broader trends supporting this strategy. Trade between Brazil and China increased dramatically between 2001 and 2024, illustrating China\u2019s growing role as a global economic partner. Canada is also expanding energy infrastructure, including new pipelines designed to move oil and liquefied natural gas to Pacific export terminals, creating greater access to Asian markets.<\/p>\n Yet Neaman emphasizes that geography imposes limits. The US remains Canada\u2019s largest trading partner, and the two economies remain deeply integrated. Canada cannot sever what he calls its economic \u201cumbilical cord\u201d to its southern neighbor. Instead, Ottawa\u2019s strategy is one of hedging: diversifying relationships where possible while continuing to accommodate the reality of American leverage.<\/p>\n Europe\u2019s security transformation<\/p>\n The shift in Europe is more profound because it centers on security rather than trade alone. Neaman argues that Germany, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltic states are gradually building new forms of military cooperation outside the assumptions that have guided NATO for decades. The driving force is Russia\u2019s proximity and the belief that Europe must increasingly defend itself.<\/p>\n The war in Ukraine has accelerated this reassessment. Neaman views the conflict as a glimpse into the future of warfare, where drones, cyber capabilities and asymmetric tactics increasingly challenge traditional military advantages. He argues that Ukraine has demonstrated that smaller states can impose significant costs on larger powers through innovation and adaptability.<\/p>\n The same lesson appears in the Middle East. Singh notes that Iranian asymmetric capabilities have complicated efforts by vastly stronger militaries to achieve decisive outcomes. Neaman agrees, arguing that recent conflicts have revealed the limits of conventional superiority. As European governments increase defense spending, they are likely to focus not only on traditional platforms but also on emerging technologies better suited to modern conflict.<\/p>\n Trauma, trust and strategic autonomy<\/p>\n Europe has lost a great amount of trust in the US. Neaman points to several developments that Europeans view as deeply unsettling, including Trump\u2019s interest in acquiring Greenland, shifts in US policy toward Ukraine and the lack of consultation with allies during the US\/Israel\u2013Iran conflict. Together, these events reinforced the perception that Washington could make major strategic decisions without considering European interests.<\/p>\n Neaman argues that the Greenland episode was especially significant because it challenged assumptions about NATO solidarity. German soldiers were prepared to deploy in defense of Greenland during the controversy, which illustrates how seriously many Europeans viewed the issue. European leaders and citizens will not forget this.<\/p>\n As a result, European governments have grown increasingly determined to pursue strategic autonomy. They may continue to cooperate with Washington, but they are increasingly unwilling to base their security entirely on American guarantees. Even countries that remain committed to NATO are exploring alternative partnerships and capabilities.<\/p>\n A new order, not a restoration<\/p>\n Despite the current tensions, Neaman does not believe that national interests have fundamentally changed. Germany\u2019s long-standing reliance on Russian energy, maintained under both former German Chancellors Gerhard Schr\u00f6der and Angela Merkel, illustrates how strategic realities often transcend partisan politics. Similar calculations may continue to shape policy regardless of changing governments.<\/p>\n Neaman expects future American politics to become more fragmented, creating additional uncertainty for allies. Because Europeans and Canadians cannot predict what kind of administration might emerge next, they are likely to continue building new partnerships and contingency plans.<\/p>\n Some elements of the old transatlantic relationship may eventually return, but not the order that existed before. The shocks of recent years have permanently altered assumptions on both sides of the Atlantic. As Neaman concludes, \u201cthe old order\u201d cannot simply be restored. Instead, a new arrangement will emerge, shaped by strategic hedging, regional autonomy and a more multipolar world.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Josef Olmert” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the apparent conclusion of the latest round of conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. While Israel and the US severely damaged Iran, Olmert argues that the political outcome tells a very different story. He contends that the emerging ceasefire framework leaves the central issues unresolved, strengthens Iran\u2019s strategic position and exposes deeper political problems inside Israel and across the region.<\/p>\n A ceasefire that settles little<\/p>\n Olmert begins by outlining reports of a proposed agreement awaiting approval from both US President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. The arrangement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and halt direct hostilities, but it postpones decisions on Iran\u2019s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and regional network of allied groups for another 60 days.<\/p>\n For Olmert, this is the central weakness of the deal. Rather than resolving the issues that triggered the conflict, it merely delays them. The agreement, he argues, amounts to a temporary pause rather than a durable settlement.<\/p>\n Before the war, discussions focused on Iran\u2019s military capabilities and the possibility of regime change. Instead, Tehran successfully turned the Strait of Hormuz into the decisive issue. Olmert says that Iran leveraged its ability to disrupt global trade and energy flows to force Washington and Jerusalem into a position they had not adequately anticipated.<\/p>\n \u201cThe main elements of the agreement are that basically, there is no agreement,\u201d he states.<\/p>\n Military defeat, political victory<\/p>\n Olmert distinguishes sharply between military and political outcomes. Militarily, he believes Iran suffered enormous losses. Israeli and American operations severely damaged missile capabilities, destroyed much of Iran\u2019s navy and eliminated key military leaders. Iran\u2019s missile campaign against Israel also failed to achieve the catastrophic effects many had feared.<\/p>\n Yet Olmert argues that wars are ultimately judged by their political conclusions rather than battlefield statistics. From that perspective, he believes Iran emerged stronger.<\/p>\n The regime survived. The ceasefire appears to acknowledge Iran\u2019s influence over the Strait of Hormuz. Reports of a possible international investment mechanism could also provide substantial economic relief. Taken together, these developments allow Tehran to claim that it withstood a coordinated American\u2013Israeli campaign and preserved its core political structure.<\/p>\n Olmert compares the situation to Egyptian military officer Gamal Abdel Nasser after the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although Nasser suffered military setbacks, he ultimately secured political control over the canal and emerged stronger in the eyes of much of the Arab world.<\/p>\n \u201cAs it stands now in this round, Iran comes out victorious,\u201d Olmert argues.<\/p>\n The problem of another round<\/p>\n The proposed agreement raises a larger concern for Olmert: the likelihood that the conflict simply resumes later.<\/p>\n By postponing decisions on nuclear activities, missile programs and Iran\u2019s regional alliances, the deal creates conditions for another confrontation rather than eliminating the causes of the current one. This could merely be one round in a longer struggle.<\/p>\n He believes the Trump administration has limited room for escalation. Time works in Iran\u2019s favor as American political attention shifts toward upcoming midterm elections. Even if Washington wanted to increase pressure, Olmert questions whether it has the political appetite for a prolonged campaign.<\/p>\n This concern extends beyond Iran. In Gaza, Hamas remains active despite Israeli military gains. In Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to operate despite suffering substantial losses. According to Olmert, Israel\u2019s battlefield successes have not translated into decisive political outcomes.<\/p>\n \u201cThe war is not over. This round may be over,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Netanyahu\u2019s declining position<\/p>\n Singh and Olmert turn to Israel\u2019s domestic politics. Olmert argues that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enters this period politically weakened despite the military achievements of the Israel Defense Forces.<\/p>\n Public support for Netanyahu has declined, and Olmert believes growing dissatisfaction exists within parts of Israel\u2019s military and security establishment. After nearly three years of conflict across multiple fronts, fatigue has become a significant factor.<\/p>\n Olmert acknowledges Netanyahu\u2019s intellectual abilities but argues that his political standing has deteriorated. He predicts that the prime minister will struggle to survive the next election, which he expects within several months.<\/p>\n More troubling is what Olmert sees as Israel\u2019s increasing dependence on Washington. He argues that major strategic decisions are now heavily influenced by the US, reducing Israel\u2019s freedom of action. Previous Israeli leaders maintained greater strategic autonomy, while Netanyahu appears increasingly constrained by American priorities.<\/p>\n According to Olmert, a future Israeli government will need to rebuild both domestic trust and a more balanced relationship with the US.<\/p>\n A changing Middle East<\/p>\n Beyond Israel and Iran, Olmert sees signs of broader regional change. Saudi Arabia is exploring alternative partnerships. Gulf states are pursuing increasingly independent policies. Lebanon remains politically fragile despite Israeli military pressure on Hezbollah.<\/p>\n At the same time, criticism of Israel has intensified internationally. Olmert rejects many of the arguments made by foreign critics, particularly when they fail to propose viable alternatives to Hamas or Hezbollah. However, he also criticizes extremist settler activity in the West Bank and argues that a future Israeli government will need to address the issue more forcefully.<\/p>\n Despite these challenges, Olmert emphasizes that Israel remains a formidable military power. The question is whether military success can be translated into sustainable political outcomes.<\/p>\n Israel and the US won many of the battles. Iran lost ships, missiles, infrastructure and senior commanders. Yet because the regime survived and appears poised to negotiate from a position of continued relevance, Olmert concludes that Tehran achieved the more important victory.<\/p>\n The conflict demonstrates an enduring lesson of statecraft: Military success matters, but political results determine who ultimately wins the war.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Martin Plaut” Fair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about Ethiopia\u2019s June 1 election and the broader political and geopolitical crises facing the country. While Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed\u2019s Prosperity Party secured an overwhelming victory, Plaut argues that the vote took place amid widespread insecurity, opposition skepticism and growing regional tensions. They examine whether meaningful elections are possible in a country grappling with internal conflict and mounting pressures across the Horn of Africa.<\/p>\n A predicted landslide becomes reality<\/p>\n The election has delivered Plaut\u2019s expected outcome. Abiy\u2019s Prosperity Party secured an overwhelming victory, reinforcing its dominance over Ethiopian politics.<\/p>\n Plaut argues that the result was never seriously in doubt. Although opposition parties participated and more than 10,000 candidates contested parliamentary and regional council seats, he maintains that none posed a meaningful challenge to the ruling party. Opposition groups had already questioned the credibility of the process, arguing that the vote lacked the conditions necessary for fair competition.<\/p>\n Plaut acknowledges that voter registration and mobilization efforts were extensive, but argues that participation alone could not guarantee legitimacy. Reports from local communities suggest that access to fertilizer and other essential services could be linked to voter registration, creating pressure on citizens to engage with the process. More broadly, he contends that the political environment favored the ruling party so heavily that the election functioned less as a competitive contest than a confirmation of existing power.<\/p>\n The key question was not whether people would vote, but whether they could do so in conditions that allowed genuine political choice.<\/p>\n The contrast between Addis Ababa and rural Ethiopia<\/p>\n Khattar Singh notes that Ethiopia\u2019s capital has become a symbol of the government\u2019s modernization agenda. Images of Addis Ababa\u2019s renovated streets and new developments have attracted attention abroad, with some observers comparing the city favorably to urban centers elsewhere in the developing world.<\/p>\n Plaut does not dispute the visible transformation. He acknowledges that parts of the capital have been rebuilt and modernized, creating an image of rapid progress. Still, this picture captures only a small part of the country\u2019s reality. Redevelopment projects have displaced residents from older neighborhoods, generating resentment among some communities affected by the changes.<\/p>\n More importantly, Plaut stresses that Ethiopia remains overwhelmingly rural. While international media and foreign visitors often focus on Addis Ababa, most Ethiopians live far from the capital. Understanding the country requires looking beyond showcase projects and examining the conditions faced by ordinary citizens in rural communities.<\/p>\n That perspective was largely missing from coverage of the election. The concerns of farmers, local communities and residents of conflict-affected regions received far less attention than the government\u2019s development narrative.<\/p>\n Elections amid conflict<\/p>\n A central theme Plaut discusses is the extent to which ongoing conflicts limit the reach of the Ethiopian state itself.<\/p>\n Plaut points to the northern Tigray region, where the devastating war of 2020\u20132022 left at least 600,000 people dead and produced widespread atrocities. Although large-scale fighting has subsided, the region remains politically fractured and unstable. He argues that meaningful participation there was extremely difficult.<\/p>\n The situation in the states of Amhara and Oromia is similarly troubling. In Amhara, the Fano militia controls significant parts of the countryside and continues to clash with government forces. In Oromia, which contains roughly a third of Ethiopia\u2019s population, insurgent groups operate in areas where government authority remains limited.<\/p>\n These realities lead Plaut to question whether a truly national election was possible in Ethiopia. Large sections of the country faced security conditions that restricted campaigning, voting and independent observation. The government could and did organize polling where it maintained control, but significant portions of Ethiopia remained beyond its effective reach.<\/p>\n The election result, therefore, does not resolve the underlying conflicts that continue to shape Ethiopian politics. Instead, it highlights the contrast between the government\u2019s electoral mandate and the persistent instability affecting much of the country.<\/p>\n Regional rivalries and growing tensions<\/p>\n The conversation also places Ethiopia\u2019s election within the wider geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa.<\/p>\n Although Abiy received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for helping end decades of hostility with neighboring Eritrea, Plaut argues that relations between the two countries have deteriorated. He points in particular to Abiy\u2019s increasingly forceful statements regarding Ethiopia\u2019s need for access to Red Sea ports. For Eritrea, whose independence struggle lasted three decades, control of those ports remains a core national interest.<\/p>\n Plaut describes a region increasingly divided into competing camps. Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates have developed close ties, while Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea and the Sudanese Armed Forces have found common ground on several regional issues. These alignments overlap with Sudan\u2019s civil war, creating a complex web of rivalries that extends beyond any single conflict.<\/p>\n Reports of cross-border military activity and external support for armed groups suggest that tensions are already spilling across national boundaries. These developments create a volatile environment in which local disputes can quickly acquire regional significance.<\/p>\n Media blind spots and Ethiopia’s future<\/p>\n The discussion concludes with two issues that Plaut believes receive insufficient attention from international observers. The first is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which enjoys broad support across Ethiopia. Built largely through domestic financing after international lenders declined support, the hydroelectric project has become a symbol of national pride and a rare point of consensus in an otherwise divided political landscape. Ethiopians view the dam as proof that the country can pursue ambitious development projects on its own terms.<\/p>\n The second concerns the difficulty of reporting on Ethiopia itself. Independent journalism faces significant obstacles, particularly during periods of political tension. Foreign reporters can struggle to obtain visas, while local journalists operate under increasing constraints. He points to the Tigray war as a striking example. Despite being one of the deadliest conflicts in the world at the time, independent reporting from the front lines was exceptionally limited.<\/p>\n These restrictions create major gaps in international understanding of Ethiopia\u2019s political and security challenges. For Plaut, the problem is not simply what the world reports about Ethiopia, but what it cannot report. Without greater access to events on the ground, outsiders risk misunderstanding both the country\u2019s elections and the deeper forces shaping its future.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Christopher Coates” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with retired Lieutenant General Christopher Coates, former deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), about modern air power, defense industry and the limits of military sustainability. They discuss Canada\u2019s defense procurement debate as well as the US\u2013Israel air campaign against Iran, where tactical sophistication is colliding with industrial constraints. Coates argues that advanced systems can deliver extraordinary effects, but only if states can produce, replace and sustain them at wartime speed. The episode asks whether modern militaries are preparing for the wars they may actually have to fight.<\/p>\n A defense strategy or an industrial strategy?<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney\u2019s pledge to stop spending so much of Canada\u2019s defense money in the United States. Coates sees the logic. Canada\u2019s armed forces need major investment after years of underfunding, and Ottawa wants more of that money to benefit Canadian firms.<\/p>\n Yet he argues that the policy is not primarily driven by military requirements. \u201cThe defense investment strategy that says that is far more of a domestic industrial strategy than it is a defense strategy,\u201d Coates says. The plan begins with jobs rather than capabilities. That may make political sense, but it risks producing equipment Canada can build rather than the military Canada needs.<\/p>\n The problem is also structural. Canada spends about $60 billion a year on defense, with roughly $10 billion going to acquisitions. Between 60% and 75% of that acquisition spending currently goes to the US. Simultaneously, Canadian firms benefit from access to the American defense market under a 1956 production-sharing framework. If Ottawa pushes too aggressively to exclude US firms, Coates warns, Canadian companies could face pressure in return.<\/p>\n The fighter jet dilemma<\/p>\n That tension is clearest in the debate over replacing Canada\u2019s aging CF-18 Hornet aircraft. The F-35 had been chosen as the planned replacement, but the decision has become politically contested, with renewed public interest in Sweden\u2019s Gripen.<\/p>\n Coates doubts the Canadian government would delay the replacement. The CF-18 fleet has a finite service life, and Canada had planned its transition around the arrival of the F-35. As pilots, crews and resources begin shifting toward the next platform, the existing fighter force becomes harder to sustain. The air force can manage risk, but not indefinitely.<\/p>\n For Coates, interoperability matters more than symbolism. Canada does not need to fly exactly the same platforms as the US, but it must operate systems that can integrate with American and Five Eyes networks \u2014 intelligence-sharing alliances comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the US. A Canadian-built fighter is not a realistic near-term option. That leaves Ottawa balancing industrial ambition against operational necessity.<\/p>\n Air power meets industrial limits<\/p>\n The discussion then turns to Iran, where Coates sees both the promise and the fragility of modern air power. The US\u2013Israel campaign has displayed remarkable coordination, intelligence integration, refueling capacity and precision strike capability. He describes it as \u201cexquisite military capability,\u201d a demonstration of what advanced air forces can do.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s a deeper logistical lesson to be learned here. The rate at which advanced weapons are being used appears to exceed the rate at which they can be produced. Stockpiles are falling, and industrial capacity cannot be switched on instantly.<\/p>\n That creates an opening for asymmetric warfare. Iran\u2019s use of cheaper drones and missiles forces the US, Israel and regional partners to respond with far more expensive interceptors and high-end systems. A Shahed-style drone may cost tens of thousands of dollars, while the missile used to destroy it can cost millions. Coates argues that this imbalance exposes an unresolved problem: advanced militaries have not yet created a fully sustainable \u201csystem of systems\u201d for long wars against cheap, numerous threats.<\/p>\n NORAD and the drone problem<\/p>\n Khattar Singh asks whether NORAD could defend North America against the kinds of drones and missiles seen in the Iran conflict. When he served at NORAD, Coates bluntly explains, it could not fully meet that challenge.<\/p>\n Modernization is underway, including over-the-horizon radars and updates to the North Warning System. But small drones create a different problem from Soviet bombers, cruise missiles or post-September 11 air threats. Domestic airspace is shared with commercial, civilian and law enforcement users. A suspicious track might be a drone, an aircraft, a balloon or even a bird.<\/p>\n This means NORAD is becoming less a single defender than an organizer of sensors, agencies and authorities. As Coates puts it, NORAD now acts as \u201ca bit of an orchestrator,\u201d coordinating with others to identify threats and direct the right response.<\/p>\n NATO, Hormuz and Canada\u2019s limits<\/p>\n Khattar Singh also raises NATO divisions, noting that several allies closed their airspace to US aircraft involved in the Iran campaign. Coates does not see this alone as the beginning of the end. Similar tensions occurred before, including during the Libya conflict. He views the closures as diplomatic signaling rather than a rejection of NATO itself.<\/p>\n The Strait of Hormuz crisis exposes another Canadian vulnerability. Canada is a net oil exporter, so it is unlikely to face shortages, but Coates notes that fuel prices have still risen sharply. Canada also lacks the pipeline and export infrastructure to move energy to allies such as India at scale.<\/p>\n That limits Ottawa\u2019s geopolitical role. Coates says Canada may have good ideas, but leading a coalition requires resources, assets and military mass. For now, Canada remains better positioned to contribute to others\u2019 coalitions than to lead one itself.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Glenn Carle” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine a global economy under mounting strain. Inflation is accelerating after the US\/Israel\u2013Iran war triggered a supply shock through the Strait of Hormuz, government bond markets are flashing warning signs across multiple advanced economies and Wall Street continues to rally despite growing concerns about valuation and financial excess. Both analysts examine how geopolitical shocks, fiscal imbalances and market behavior are affecting both advanced and developing economies.<\/p>\n Inflation returns as the Hormuz crisis reverberates<\/p>\n Global headline inflation is projected to reach roughly 4.4%\u20135.2% in developing economies and around 2.9% in developed ones. The US has already seen inflation accelerate sharply. Annual inflation rose from 2.4% at the beginning of 2026 to 3.8% in April, the highest level in three years. Fuel oil prices increased by 5.8% in April compared to March.<\/p>\n The immediate trigger is clear. The US\/Israel\u2013Iran war and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz have created a major supply shock. Over 20% of oil and gas, about 33% of fertilizers and numerous other commodities pass through the strait. Thanks to the war, energy prices have risen, transportation costs have increased and real wages have decreased across much of the developed world.<\/p>\n The shock is arriving on top of longer-term structural weaknesses. Years of persistent fiscal deficits and mounting debt have left governments vulnerable. Simultaneously, concerns have emerged over the Trump administration\u2019s political interference with the Federal Reserve. This combination of geopolitical disruption, fiscal imbalance and political interference with the central bank threatens the global economy.<\/p>\n Bond markets flash a warning<\/p>\n One of the most dramatic developments of the month has been the simultaneous repricing of long-term government bonds of many countries. The yield on the 30-year US Treasury bond has climbed above 5%, its highest level since 2007. In the UK, the yield on the 30-year gilt reached 5.81%, the highest since 1998, while the benchmark ten-year gilt rose to 5.13%, the highest since 2008. Long-term sovereign yields in Germany, Japan and France have also moved sharply higher, with yields ranging from roughly 3.5% to 6%.<\/p>\n This is not an isolated national event. Four countries, four political systems and four central banks are experiencing similar pressures. As one analyst summarized, the developed world has \u201ctoo much debt, too little fiscal discipline, and no political appetite for fixing either.\u201d<\/p>\n Rising yields matter because governments must pay more to service their debts. As borrowing costs increase, less money remains available for public services, infrastructure, defense or social spending.<\/p>\n In the case of the US, the Trump administration has exacerbated longstanding structural problems. Federal debt has surpassed $39 trillion, with the latest trillion dollars accumulating at a record pace. Tax reductions have reduced revenues while spending has continued to rise, particularly because of the costs of the war with Iran.<\/p>\n The US is weakening several of the foundations that supported decades of economic growth. Trade restrictions and tariffs have made the economy less efficient, cuts to federal research and development spending lower innovation, and attacks on institutions that historically underpinned American economic strength damage long-term growth prospects.<\/p>\n Structural pressures on households<\/p>\n In addition to the government, household budgets are also facing immense pressures. One of the reasons is restricted immigration. Recent studies estimate that immigrants have contributed a net $15 trillion to the US economy since 2010. Workers who have harvested crops that have given Americans low-cost food have vanished. As a result, food costs have increased. Fertilizers now cost more because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The inflationary pressures of the war are increasing interest rates, pushing up mortgages. They are also pushing up fuel costs, although not as much as in Europe or Asia. Food, housing and transportation costs, the three most important expense items for households, are now causing pain to millions of American families.<\/p>\n Many households increasingly rely on debt to make ends meet. Consumption accounts for 67% of the US GDP. This is bound to suffer as pressures on households rise, making an economic downturn imminent.<\/p>\n Yet Wall Street surges<\/p>\n Despite the many woes in the economy, equity markets continue to rally. The top five mega-cap technology companies now represent roughly 30% of the entire S&P 500 and the Magnificent Seven account for approximately 35%. This is the highest degree of market concentration seen in half a century. NVIDIA alone has surpassed a $5 trillion valuation, making it worth more than the GDP of most countries.<\/p>\n The AI investment boom continues to accelerate. Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon and Meta are expected to spend between $660 billion and $700 billion on AI infrastructure and data centers in 2026 alone. Between 2026 and 2029, cumulative AI infrastructure spending is projected to exceed $1.1 trillion.<\/p>\n Atul points to valuation metrics that increasingly concern investors. The Shiller price-to-earnings ratio, which adjusts earnings over ten years and accounts for inflation, has risen above 40 for the first time since the dot-com crash. The ratio currently sits near 42:1, a level that has historically preceded major market corrections.<\/p>\n Yet generative AI applications are generating only about $12\u201315 billion in direct consumer and enterprise software revenue annually. Critics are rightly questioning whether revenue growth can justify the scale of investment currently taking place and the sky-high market valuations.<\/p>\n Supporters of the boom point to several counterarguments. S&P 500 operating margins remain near historic highs of approximately 16%. Technology companies are financing investments largely from enormous cash flows rather than speculative borrowing. Many firms also expect AI to generate significant cost savings by automating workflows across sectors ranging from manufacturing to healthcare.<\/p>\n Glenn adds another important qualification. Outside the Magnificent Seven, valuations appear considerably less stretched. The remaining 493 companies in the S&P 500 trade at a price-to-earnings ratio of roughly 22 and have delivered returns of about 8% over the past five years. He considers these figures healthy rather than speculative.<\/p>\n Even so, notable investors remain cautious. Berkshire Hathaway chief executive Greg Abel is currently overseeing a cash position of roughly $400 billion accumulated under former legendary CEO Warren Buffett. Abel has stated that he is \u201cnot anxious to deploy capital into subpar opportunities.\u201d Other older investors expect a 10\u201315% market correction soon.<\/p>\n A widening gap between financial markets and economic reality<\/p>\n Another warning sign comes from the relationship between stocks and bonds. The Wall Street Journal recently observed<\/a> that the \u201cRisk Premium for Holding Stocks Over Bonds Vanishes.\u201d<\/p>\n The equity risk premium is the additional return investors expect from stocks compared with risk-free government securities. Historically, stocks offered substantially higher expected returns than Treasury bonds. Today, that gap has narrowed dramatically.<\/p>\n Atul argues that this points to a broader disconnect. Bond markets are signaling caution while equity markets are soaring. Financial prices increasingly diverge from conditions in the real economy. Such discrepancies are clearly visible in commodity markets, where physical delivery prices for oil in Asia often exceed benchmark prices displayed on financial screens.<\/p>\n Not only bond market bears but also European policymakers are worried about the economy. The European Central Bank (ECB) has warned about the AI investment boom financed by private credit. Insurers and pension funds could be in trouble when private credit markets suffer a shock. These markets suffer from opacity and liquidity mismatches. This euro area\u2019s financial system could be in trouble.<\/p>\n Developing countries are already in trouble. Many emerging economies are struggling with Iran\u2019s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged citizens to conserve fuel, hold more meetings online, reduce travel and avoid purchasing gold abroad. Indonesia has proposed centralizing exports of commodities such as palm oil and coal through a state-operated export company, while requiring export earnings to be deposited in state-owned banks. The Indonesian central bank has also raised interest rates by half a percentage point, the first increase in two years. At least four people were killed in protests over high fuel prices in Kenya. In response, the government cut diesel prices and entered negotiations with transport unions to resolve a strike by bus and minibus drivers. The war has driven up prices in Kenya, which, like much of East Africa, depends on the Persian Gulf for energy supplies.<\/p>\n Exacerbating the current crisis is the highly unequal distribution of economic gains. Only about one-third of Americans own stocks, while wealth is more concentrated than at any point since the robber baron era of the late 19th century. Asset owners continue to benefit from rising markets, but many middle-class households are covering rising living costs through more debt, not higher incomes.<\/p>\n That divergence between financial markets and everyday economic reality represents one of the greatest dangers facing the global economy. The immediate shock may have come from the Strait of Hormuz, but the deeper vulnerabilities have been accumulating for years and are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. A severe global crisis is increasingly nigh.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Glenn Carle” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the May 2026 summits in Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping first played host to US President Donald Trump and then to Russian President Vladimir Putin.\u00a0<\/p>\n While the White House presents the Trump\u2013Xi meeting as a historic diplomatic success, the reality does not match the rhetoric. Despite Trump taking along a gaggle of CEOs to Beijing, China did not concede much to the US. Similarly, Putin arrived in Moscow very much as a junior partner to Xi.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a nutshell, years of strategic missteps by the US have helped propel China\u2019s rise.<\/p>\n The Trump\u2013XI summit was more show than substance<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s visit to China was the first for an American president in nine years. The White House Fact Sheet<\/a> tells us that \u201cPresident Donald J. Trump Secures Historic Deals with China, Delivering for American Workers, Farmers, and Industry.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Per this document, \u201cthe United States and China should build a constructive relationship of strategic stability on the basis of fairness and reciprocity. President Trump will welcome President Xi for a visit to Washington this fall.\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, both \u201cleaders agreed Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, called to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and agreed that no country or organization can be allowed to charge tolls.\u201d Trump and Xi also \u201cconfirmed their shared goal to denuclearize North Korea.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump and Xi also established two new institutions: a US\u2013China Board of Trade and a US\u2013China Board of Investment. According to the White House, these bodies will provide formal mechanisms for managing trade in non-sensitive goods and discussing investment issues between the world\u2019s two largest economies.<\/p>\n The White House also trumpets a number of wins for American workers and businesses. China pledged to address US concerns regarding rare-earth minerals and related technologies that are critical to advanced manufacturing and supply chains. Beijing also approved an initial purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft, its first commitment to buy American-made Boeing planes since 2017. China also promised to purchase at least $17 billion annually in US agricultural products through 2028, restored market access for American beef producers and resumed poultry imports from states certified free of avian flu.<\/p>\n Glenn responds by saying that Atul has presented the smoke billowing from the chimney of the White House from the squib that fizzled into nothing. He then refers to Dean Acheson, arguably the greatest US secretary of state, who said, diplomats or officials in any negotiations claim they won every argument. Atul points out that the Chinese spin on the summit is very different and painted a picture of Xi being the senior statesman to Trump.<\/p>\n Glenn believes the summit was \u201csound and fury signifying not quite nothing but not a whole lot.\u201d Trump did not achieve a grand bargain as he had hoped. Neither Taiwan nor trade was addressed in a damp squib. He believes the summit was \u201ca tactical and even strategic win\u201d for China. The US has made far too many strategic mistakes, aiding China\u2019s rise.<\/p>\n Atul points out that China has achieved the biggest and fastest transformation in history. Never before have so many people emerged from poverty, and never before has a country gone from the catastrophes of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution to the spectacular success of market reforms and extraordinary economic growth. Deng Xiaoping\u2019s U-turn in 1978 from Mao Zedong\u2019s Marxist orthodoxy was historic. By saying, \u201cit doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, if it catches mice,\u201d Deng propelled China to its dramatic rise after the humiliations of the 19th century and the disasters of Mao\u2019s communism.<\/p>\n Glenn recalls a very different China from his childhood, when American mothers told their children to clean their plates because millions were going hungry in China. Today, that very country competes at the technological frontier and may become one of the leading powers in space exploration. Regardless of political disagreements with Beijing, Glenn says that the scale of China\u2019s achievement is impossible to ignore.<\/p>\n He also goes on to say that China has transformed from a cat on the back of a porch feeding on scraps from the dinner table of the benevolent United States to a large lion or tiger that might eat the person feeding it. Unsurprisingly, American attitudes have shifted. Also, the US backed China to counter the Soviet Union. As Russia has declined and China has risen, the US has less reason to continue its old China policy.<\/p>\n Yet the US was unable to achieve anything concrete to contain China during this summit. The boards are symbolic and are likely to achieve much. China has now substantially diversified its agricultural imports, buying Argentinian beef and Brazilian soybeans. Prior to the summit, Boeing expected to sell 500, not 200, planes. After the summit, Boeing\u2019s stock fell. Trump promised no more tariffs but the Chinese offered little in return. NVIDIA, the flagship American tech company, offered to sell its most advanced chips but no purchases have materialized yet. The bevy of tech CEOs went like tributaries to the Middle Kingdom and got nothing either.<\/p>\n The Taiwan question, North Korea and more<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s willingness to discuss arms sales to Taiwan was an exercise in American self-restraint on Taiwan. Sadly, the US\u00a0 got nothing conciliatory from China in return. The strategic ambiguity that has been US policy for decades weakened during this summit.<\/p>\n In a nutshell, Trump\u2019s negotiations with Xi followed a pattern. After Trump\u2019s meeting with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, his hermit kingdom has tripled its number of nuclear weapons, improved the quality of its intercontinental ballistic missiles, increased missile numbers and sent dozens of thousands of soldiers to fight in Europe.\u00a0<\/p>\n Similarly, Trump\u2019s war against Iran has been a catastrophe. The Strait of Hormuz is now closed, which his ceasefire hopes to open in a wobbly and fuzzy way by paying $10\u201320 billion to Iran. In return, Tehran is likely to agree to much less stringent and less verifiable agreement than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration, which Trump abandoned. This tendency to undermine the little that is left of the American-led international order has undermined US strategic interests.<\/p>\n Atul points out that David Mahon<\/a>, the Beijing-based executive chairman of Mahon China Investment Management Ltd, agrees with Glenn. In Mahon\u2019s words<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cThe recent US\u2013China summit in Beijing, though symbolically significant as the first meeting between the two leaders on Chinese soil in nine years, yielded little concrete progress. While both sides emphasized cordiality and trade promises, underlying tensions over Taiwan, Iran and strategic distrust remained unresolved. The visit underscored a cautious, transactional coexistence between the rival powers, with deeper collaboration unlikely given entrenched geopolitical rivalries.\u201d<\/p>\n Putin\u2019s Beijing visit signals China\u2019s growing strength<\/p>\n Atul goes on to discuss Putin\u2019s visit to Beijing by noting that over 40% of the foreign exchange trading in Moscow is now in Chinese renminbi. Glenn responds by posing questions: Where are people going? They are going to Beijing. Why are they going? Because China has the wind in its sails.\u00a0<\/p>\n Per Glenn, Beijing is now the reference point for both Russia and the US. Russia would not be able to continue its war without China. The US also needs China for trade and critical minerals. Therefore, both Trump and Putin showed up for a summit with Xi.<\/p>\n Atul quotes Mahon saying<\/a> that \u201cPutin met Xi as a reliable collaborator, confidante and compadre, but in economic and geopolitical terms, a junior, dependent partner.\u201d He goes on to say that the Russia\u2013China relationship is now more strategic. It is similar to the late 19th and early 20th century relationship between Imperial Germany and the Austro\u2013Hungarian Empire. Like the former, China is now the industrial power while Russia is a supplier of fossil fuels. Despite border disputes and historical problems both Beijing and Moscow are locked together for now. China needs Russia\u2019s energy while the latter needs the former\u2019s manufactured goods and money.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Glenn Carle” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, recap the most important developments of the month.<\/p>\n Threat of epidemic and the Pope\u2019s view on AI<\/p>\n In Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an outbreak of Ebola to be a public-health emergency of international concern. The virus kills up to half of those who contract it, with such symptoms<\/a> as severe diarrhea, vomiting, hemorrhaging and bleeding. Experts believe the epidemic in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has killed hundreds and infected thousands.<\/p>\n Glenn, who worked in eastern DRC many years ago, recalls it as a place almost beyond the imagination of people living in developed societies. He describes seeing people living with virtually nothing amid a landscape dominated by armed groups, lawlessness and extreme poverty. The only silver lining, he says grimly, is that Ebola\u2019s lethality can limit its spread because infected people often die before transmitting it widely.<\/p>\n Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, said the east of DRC was at the center of a \u201ccatastrophic collision<\/a> of disease and conflict,\u201d with the outbreak in the northeastern Ituri province outpacing the response.<\/p>\n According to Atul, the region\u2019s instability complicates Ebola treatment, preventive vaccination campaigns and other public-health measures. Population displacement and refugee movements further impede efforts to contain the disease.<\/p>\n In Europe, Pope Leo XIV has called for AI to be disarmed<\/a> in his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity). This has caught attention around the world, including from Silicon Valley in the US. Christopher Olah, cofounder of American AI giant Anthropic, was present when the pope released this encyclical. The encyclical warns that AI poses immense risks in both warfare and politics and argues that the technology must be restrained before it causes broader social harm.<\/p>\n Pope Leo XIV also included one of the strongest, most comprehensive apologies from the Vatican for the Catholic Church\u2019s role in slavery. Many Africans have welcomed the apology. Notably, the pope drew parallels between the historical tragedy of traditional slavery and the emerging threats of \u201cnew digital slaveries.\u201d<\/p>\n Atul notes that Pope Francis’s climate encyclical Laudato si\u2019 book generated significant attention but was followed by widespread inaction. Whether Leo’s intervention on AI produces concrete results remains uncertain, Atul points out that the debate has now moved beyond the technological sphere into the religious realm.<\/p>\n Musk and Starmer<\/p>\n In the US, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was in the news for four reasons. First, his facial expressions in Beijing where he went as part of US President Donald Trump\u2019s entourage were captured on camera and caught public attention. Second, Musk lost<\/a> his courtroom battle with OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. Musk had sought damages from OpenAI for allegedly reneging on a contract with him as a cofounder to run the firm as a non-profit instead of for-profit entity. The jury took just two hours to reject the case. Third, SpaceX\u2019s blockbuster Initial Public Offering has taken off<\/a> like one of Musk\u2019s rockets. It could raise over $50 billion and value SpaceX at over $1.25 trillion once the company goes public.\u00a0<\/p>\n Fourth and finally, the 12th test launch<\/a> of SpaceX\u2019s Starship V3 rocket was largely successful, moving the rocket closer to an operational performance level. It will instantaneously revolutionize space flight and the space industry. It will increase payload capabilities five-fold, while dropping the price to launch a kilogram by two orders of magnitude. What costs $3,000 per kilogram for industry-leading Falcon 9, will cost $100\u2013$500 per kilogram on initial Starship launches, and could drop to as low as $10\u201320 per kilogram. Furthermore, the craft is designed to be fully-reusable after return flights. Operational use is now perhaps two years away, and when it comes, the V3 could play a key role in returning humans to the Moon and eventually sending them to Mars.<\/p>\n In the UK, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer finds himself in a tricky situation. His center-left Labour Party suffered a heavy defeat<\/a> in elections in Scotland and Wales and council elections in England. The populist far-right Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage emerged triumphant. Reform UK is on course to be the biggest party in the next general elections in 2029.<\/p>\n Sensing blood in the water, political sharks are circling Starmer. He won a landslide majority in 2024 but this was misl<\/a>e<\/a>ading<\/a>. Starmer\u2019s Labour Party won fewer votes than it did in the last two elections. Low turnout, Conservative infighting, the rise of Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats\u2019 impressive showing helped Labour in the first-past-the-post system.<\/p>\n Since his 2024 victory, Starmer has failed to ignite the imagination of the party or the country. Cabinet ministers have resigned and a leadership challenge is imminent. His potential rivals now include Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, known as the King of the North, Angela Rayner, a popular working-class politician, and Wes Streeting, the former health secretary.<\/p>\n Political instability in the UK goes back to the 2016 Brexit vote<\/a>. Atul mentions that the country, once regarded as one of the world\u2019s most stable parliamentary democracies, now appears fundamentally unsettled.<\/p>\n US\u2013German conflict<\/p>\n The US announced it would be withdrawing 5,000 of the 36,000 American troops stationed in Germany. This came in the aftermath of a comment German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made in front of schoolchildren in April. He remarked, \u201cAn entire nation is being humiliated<\/a> by the Iranian leadership.\u201d Naturally, Trump did not appreciate the remark.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition to withdrawing troops, the Trump administration has announced that the US will not be stationing Tomahawks and other mid-range missile systems in Germany, despite a 2024 agreement. The US also imposed a 25% tariff on European carmakers. That hits Germany, famous for its automotive industry, particularly hard.<\/p>\n It is clear that US\u2013Germany ties are deteriorating dramatically. The decisions of the Trump administration also demonstrate that contracts, agreements, treaties and even international law are now increasingly fragile.<\/p>\n Many are calling this fraying of ties a historic rupture. German politicians increasingly believe their country must reduce its dependence on the US and pursue greater strategic autonomy. Merz\u2019s calls<\/a> for European unity when he won the election in 2025 \u2014 \u201cMy absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA\u201d \u2014 ring true today.<\/p>\n Bizarrely, given what appeared to be Trump\u2019s consistent hostility to US troop deployment in Europe, the US president then announced the deployment of 5,000 additional troops to Poland. The shift effectively moves additional American forces closer to the Russian border, raising further questions about NATO\u2019s future direction.<\/p>\n Alberta to leave Canada?<\/p>\n In Canada, the province of Alberta will be conducting a referendum<\/a> in October on whether to stay with or secede from the country. This western state, east of British Columbia, is Canada\u2019s fourth-largest province. It is roughly the size of Texas, has a population of five million and is abundant in oil and natural gas. Politically, it leans right.<\/p>\n Albertan Premier Danielle Smith announced the referendum on May 21 and supports a unified Canada. However, support for independence has been rising. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who was the Governor of the Bank of England and observed Brexit closely, has called<\/a> the referendum \u201ca very dangerous bluff.\u201d<\/p>\n Many Albertans find themselves frustrated with environmental policies that they believe stand in the way of building pipelines and unlocking resources from the oil-rich province. In fact, some Albertans feel they have more in common with the US than Canada.<\/p>\n They also believe Alberta contributes far more to the country than it receives, and that the capital of Ottawa has a disproportionate say in its internal matters. Many analysts use the term \u201cwestern alienation\u201d to describe the political alienation in western Canadian states. Voters here often feel overlooked and underrepresented by federal politicians in Ottawa.<\/p>\n Atul compares these grievances to feelings of neglect that can emerge in large federal systems elsewhere. Some Americans in states far from Washington, DC, may feel similarly disconnected from national decision-making.<\/p>\n Fossil fuel feuds<\/p>\n Back in Europe, the Netherlands\u2019s leftwing GreenLeft-Labour party, as well as progressive leftists who dominate Amsterdam\u2019s city council, banned<\/a> the advertising of meat and fossil fuels. This is part of a broader movement in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in the US and Canada.<\/p>\n Supporters of the Amsterdam policy argue that reducing meat consumption, particularly beef, could lower methane emissions and help mitigate humanity’s environmental footprint. This ban could influence other countries. Amsterdam has a long history of pioneering trends, which the rest of the world has later adopted. So, Amsterdam\u2019s new policy could be a bellwether for other parts of the world.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the Trump administration has hit Cuba with an oil blockade, sanctions and now an unprecedented murder indictment<\/a> against former Cuban President Ra\u00fal Castro. Brother of former Cuban President Fidel Castro, the nearly 95-year-old Ra\u00fal (his birthday is June 3) served from 2008 to 2018 and holds the title, \u201cLeader of the Cuban Revolution.\u201d<\/p>\n Cuba has been suffering from extensive blackouts for months, caused by chronic fuel shortage. Popular discontent is running high. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called Cuba a \u201cnational security threat<\/a>\u201d and said the likelihood of a peaceful agreement is \u201cnot high<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodr\u00edguez has accused<\/a> Rubio of trying to \u201cinstigate a military aggression\u201d and the Trump administration of \u201cruthlessly and systematically\u201d attacking Cuba. Cuba\u2019s Communist Party leaders view themselves as the inheritors and continuers of Fidel Castro\u2019s 1959 Cuban Revolution that ousted the pro-US strongman Fulgencio Batista and established \u201canti-imperialism\u201d as a hallmark of the island\u2019s government in successive decades.<\/p>\n Over the decades, thousands of Cubans have fled to the US. Most oppose the communist regime bitterly. Rubio himself is a Cuban American and is driving the American policy on Cuba.<\/p>\n Some officials within the Trump administration openly hope to remove Cuba\u2019s current leadership and bring the island firmly into Pax Americana. This objective is part of a broader effort to reassert US dominance throughout the Western Hemisphere. This was defined in the 2025 National Security Strategy as the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which has also come to be known as the Donroe Doctrine.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Peter Hoskins” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with former Royal Air Force officer Peter Hoskins about a campaign that appears tactically flawless yet strategically ambiguous. The US\u2013Israel air war against Iran showcases extraordinary coordination and firepower, but its political objectives remain unclear and, in some cases, unmet. As the conflict evolves, will America\u2019s overwhelming military capability produce durable political outcomes?<\/p>\n Tactical success, strategic uncertainty<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens by highlighting the scale and sophistication of the air campaign. Thousands of sorties, advanced aircraft and tightly coordinated support systems point to what Hoskins describes as a \u201cpicture perfect\u201d execution from a purely military standpoint. The operation reflects decades of doctrinal development in joint and coalition warfare, where precision, coordination, intelligence, communication and logistics converge.<\/p>\n Yet this technical success sits uneasily alongside uncertain results. Despite repeated claims of destroyed capabilities, Iran continues to be able to launch missiles and drones, indicating that its core military infrastructure remains intact. For Hoskins, this gap between battlefield performance and political outcome is the central problem. The campaign demonstrates what modern air power can do, but also exposes its limits when strategic goals are either unclear or unrealistic.<\/p>\n The limits of air power<\/p>\n The conversation turns to a long-standing debate in military theory: whether air power alone can achieve decisive political change. Hoskins draws on both historical precedent and personal experience to challenge that assumption. \u201cEven as an aviator, I\u2019ve never believed that air power alone can achieve the kind of political goals associated with regime change,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Air campaigns can degrade infrastructure, destroy weapons and disrupt operations. They can delay or complicate an adversary\u2019s plans. But translating that disruption into regime collapse or lasting deterrence is far more difficult. In the case of Iran, the continued missile salvos suggest that the state retains both capacity and will.<\/p>\n Hoskins is blunt about what would be required to fully eliminate Iran\u2019s capabilities. \u201cThere\u2019s only one way you\u2019re going to do that 100%, and that\u2019s with a land invasion,\u201d he notes. However, he emphasizes that such a scenario is highly unlikely. The result is a strategic middle ground: enough force to inflict damage, but not enough to achieve decisive political change.<\/p>\n Asymmetry and adaptation<\/p>\n Khattar Singh shifts the focus to Iran\u2019s response, which highlights a different model of warfare. Lacking a modern air force, Iran has invested heavily in missiles and drones, using them to strike infrastructure across the Gulf. This approach allows it to exert pressure without matching the conventional capabilities of its adversaries.<\/p>\n Hoskins views this as a calculated adaptation rather than a weakness. \u201cThey were smart enough to conclude that the best way to do that was through unmanned vehicles\u2026 and their ballistic missiles,\u201d he explains. By focusing on systems that are cheaper, harder to intercept and easier to scale, Iran has found a way to remain operationally relevant despite technological disadvantages.<\/p>\n This form of asymmetry complicates the notion of air superiority. Even when one side dominates the skies, the other can still impose costs and disrupt stability. As such, the conflict persists despite clear imbalances in conventional power.<\/p>\n NATO under pressure<\/p>\n Beyond the battlefield, the discussion widens to the political environment shaping the conflict. Khattar Singh raises US President Donald Trump\u2019s repeated criticisms of NATO, including threats to withdraw the United States from the alliance. Hoskins feels such rhetoric undermines a strategically valuable system.<\/p>\n He points out that NATO is not simply a financial burden on the US but a network that enables global reach, shared capabilities and collective defense. European allies contribute not only funding but also operational support, as seen in joint efforts to counter drones and missiles in the Middle East.<\/p>\n Hoskins also stresses the legal and political barriers to a US withdrawal, stating that such a move would face significant resistance. Even so, the rhetoric itself introduces uncertainty, raising questions about the durability of alliances that have long underpinned Western security.<\/p>\n Europe\u2019s position in a shifting landscape<\/p>\n The final part of the discussion examines Europe\u2019s response to overlapping crises. While some observers see deep divisions, Hoskins offers a more measured view. Differences among European states, he says, reflect variations in emphasis rather than fundamental fractures.<\/p>\n European governments remain committed to international law and cautious about entering conflicts with unclear objectives. Yet they are not indifferent to the outcomes of the Iran war or the broader strategic environment. The expansion of NATO to include Finland and Sweden signals a continued willingness to adapt in the face of perceived threats.<\/p>\n Hoskins states that Europe retains both the capacity and the institutional framework to manage its security, particularly through NATO. Even in a scenario where US involvement declines, he believes the alliance could evolve rather than collapse.<\/p>\n A familiar dilemma in modern war<\/p>\n Khattar Singh and Hoskins ultimately return to the central tension of the conflict. Advanced militaries can achieve rapid and impressive tactical results, but those results do not automatically translate into political success. In Iran, as in other recent conflicts, the gap between military action and strategic outcome remains wide.<\/p>\n Hoskins\u2019s assessment tells that this is not a failure of execution but a mismatch between means and ends. Air power can shape the battlefield, but it cannot by itself determine the political future of a state. As long as that gap persists, even the most sophisticated campaigns risk prolonging instability rather than resolving it.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Vinay Singh” Fair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Global Civilization Dynamics Founder Vinay Singh discuss a labor crisis that reaches beyond layoffs and automation into something more destabilizing: the slow collapse of the assumptions that once gave work its meaning. As artificial intelligence spreads, salaries stagnate and career paths fragment, the two examine how economic insecurity is reshaping identity, education and trust. This disruption may force a deeper rethink of how societies organize learning, work and collective life.<\/p>\n Work, identity and a culture of anxiety<\/p>\n Singh opens by mentioning two films, No Other Choice (2025) and Send Help (2026), which he sees as cultural reflections of mounting workplace stress. He suggests that stories mixing comedy, horror and desperation resonate because they mirror a real social mood: the sense that stable employment has become elusive even for qualified people. In his view, such films offer a kind of emotional release for audiences who feel trapped in a labor market they cannot control.<\/p>\n Isackson argues that the issue is not just employment in a narrow sense, but the broader role of productive activity in human identity. For over a century, modern societies assumed that a job anchored a person\u2019s place in the world. But the rise of gig work, precarious contracts and unstable income has weakened that link. Simultaneously, wealth has become more concentrated since the 2008 financial crisis, leaving many people with a growing sense of instability and anguish.<\/p>\n Security hollowed out<\/p>\n Singh turns to the economics of the middle class. He cites reporting from institutions such as The Wall Street Journal and RAND that shows wealth moving upward while ordinary workers lose ground. His example is the information technology sector: an Oracle database administrator earning around $120,000 in the early 2000s might earn roughly the same nominal salary today, even though housing, food and other essentials now cost far more. The salary appears stable, but purchasing power has eroded sharply.<\/p>\n That stagnation grows even more unsettling when paired with layoffs. Isackson points to job cuts at major technology firms such as Oracle, Microsoft and Amazon as evidence that insecurity now affects even workers once seen as safely positioned inside the knowledge economy. The problem is not only current income. It is also intergenerational. Parents who once believed they had found a secure place in the system now wonder whether their children will find any comparable path at all.<\/p>\n Degrees, skills and the educational reckoning<\/p>\n A major fault line in the discussion concerns higher education. Singh pushes back against claims that college degrees have broadly lost their value. He sees that argument as exaggerated and short-sighted. Education remains an investment in the mind itself, not just a ticket to a first job. As he puts it, a degree helps turn a young person into a \u201cmultidisciplinary thinking machine.\u201d He argues that this broader intellectual formation still matters, and may matter even more as societies confront complex technological and economic change.<\/p>\n Isackson is less convinced that the existing model can survive intact. Traditional educational systems were built for job categories that are now disappearing or being transformed. In that sense, the problem is not learning itself but the institutional structure around it. He is skeptical of fashionable promises around both e-learning and AI, saying much of that enthusiasm is overhyped. Even so, he believes AI could become useful if education is rebuilt around critical thinking rather than credential production.<\/p>\n AI, layoffs and \u201cfunctional unemployment\u201d<\/p>\n Singh goes on to reference Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who has suggested that AI could eventually contribute to unemployment on a massive scale. Singh is struck by how quickly societies are embracing systems that may disrupt millions of livelihoods without any serious collective effort to slow the process or manage its consequences. He insists that individual workers are not to blame for the confusion and instability around them.<\/p>\n Singh also draws attention to a less visible measure of labor distress: functional unemployment. This includes not only people unable to find work, but also those employed full-time while earning below a poverty threshold. Someone who once held a skilled position but now survives through Uber, DoorDash or other low-paid work is still counted as employed, even though their economic life has been fundamentally downgraded. Singh calls attention to the ripple effects of that decline, from cutbacks in daily life to mounting family strain and financial stress.<\/p>\n From private struggle to collective rethink<\/p>\n To conclude the discussion, Isackson states that the crisis extends beyond jobs into a wider collapse of trust in institutions, from government to education to business leadership. Yet he also sees in that crisis the possibility of renewal. If the old framework no longer works, societies may be forced to imagine new forms of human activity, cooperation and value.<\/p>\n Singh ends on a similar note. \u201cThe whole house has been brought down,\u201d he says, describing a system whose failures can no longer be hidden. Still, he urges viewers to resist isolation and self-blame. The confusion is real, the disruption is shared and the next model of work will not be shaped by individuals acting alone, but by people learning again how to think and act together.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Kanwal Sibal” Fair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Foreign Secretary of India Kanwal Sibal discuss the widening crisis in West Asia and the difficult strategic choices facing India as the Trump administration escalates confrontation with Iran. Sibal argues that India has more at stake in the region than almost any other major power, with millions of expatriate workers, critical energy dependence and ambitious connectivity projects now threatened by war and instability. As US President Donald Trump\u2019s rhetoric grows more erratic and Gulf monarchies confront an increasingly dangerous security environment, the region is entering a period of profound uncertainty that could reshape the global order.<\/p>\n India\u2019s Gulf dilemma<\/p>\n Sibal begins by outlining why the Gulf sits at the center of India\u2019s strategic thinking. The United Arab Emirates, he explains, has become the \u201chub\u201d of India\u2019s West Asia policy, with bilateral trade exceeding $70 billion and nearly four million Indians living and working there. Beyond commerce, the relationship now spans defense cooperation, artificial intelligence, green energy and semiconductor development.<\/p>\n These partnerships form part of a broader Indian strategy linking the Gulf to Europe and Africa. Sibal points to the India\u2013Middle East\u2013Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), announced during India\u2019s G20 presidency, as a major geopolitical initiative that is now stalled by regional conflict and Israel\u2019s deteriorating position in the region.<\/p>\n India is severely exposed to instability. Nearly 10 million people of Indian origin live across West Asia, sending home roughly $40 billion in annual remittances. The region also supplies around half of India\u2019s oil and 60% of its liquefied petroleum gas imports. Any prolonged disruption, Sibal says, threatens India more directly than most other global powers.<\/p>\n Iran, connectivity and strategic balancing<\/p>\n Sibal stresses that India\u2019s relationship with Iran is driven by long-term geopolitical necessity rather than ideology. Before US sanctions, Iran was one of India\u2019s largest oil suppliers, and New Delhi has continued maintaining diplomatic ties despite pressure from Washington.<\/p>\n Two connectivity projects remain especially important. The Chabahar Port project gives India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan. The International North\u2013South Transport Corridor links India to Russia through Iran and the Caspian Sea, potentially reducing both shipping times and costs.<\/p>\n For Sibal, Iran also matters because it represents a crucial counterweight in the balance between Sunni Gulf monarchies and Shia regional power. India therefore seeks to maintain relations with all sides simultaneously: Iran, the Gulf states, Israel and the United States. That balancing act now severely constrains India\u2019s diplomacy.<\/p>\n Rather than adopting a public position, Sibal supports what he calls \u201cquiet diplomacy\u201d behind the scenes. India\u2019s leadership, he says, has remained in constant contact with regional actors while avoiding overt mediation efforts that could entangle New Delhi in unpredictable American decision-making.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s diplomacy and Pakistan\u2019s role<\/p>\n Sibal expresses strong skepticism toward Trump\u2019s handling of the crisis. He describes the US president as \u201cextremely erratic\u201d and argues that he repeatedly undermines negotiations through inflammatory rhetoric and maximalist demands.<\/p>\n Sibal is especially critical of Trump\u2019s demand for \u201cunconditional surrender\u201d from Iran, arguing that such language makes meaningful diplomacy nearly impossible. \u201cThat\u2019s not negotiation,\u201d Sibal comments. \u201cThat\u2019s humiliation.\u201d<\/p>\n Isackson and Sibal also examine why Pakistan has emerged as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran. Sibal explains that Pakistan\u2019s long border with Iran, large Shia population and Islamic identity make it a more practical interlocutor than India in the current environment. Geography and domestic politics force Islamabad to carefully manage relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran while avoiding internal instability.<\/p>\n Sibal cautions that India should avoid becoming directly involved in mediation efforts. In his view, attempting to broker negotiations would risk turning India into \u201ca hostage to Trump\u2019s idiosyncrasies and egomania.\u201d<\/p>\n America\u2019s reliability and India\u2019s constraints<\/p>\n Despite his criticism of Washington, Sibal acknowledges that the US remains India\u2019s most important economic and technological partner. Bilateral trade in goods and services has reached roughly $240 billion, and India continues to rely heavily on American investment and advanced technologies.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, Sibal argues that the Trump administration has badly damaged global confidence in the US. Tariffs, attacks on allies and the erosion of international institutions have reinforced the perception that Washington is no longer a dependable strategic partner.<\/p>\n India therefore faces a difficult reality. It cannot fully align with China or Russia, yet it also cannot completely trust the US. Sibal says India must continue \u201chedging\u201d while recognizing that its options remain constrained by its rivalry with China and its dependence on Western technology.<\/p>\n Within India itself, attitudes toward the US are mixed. Business and technology sectors remain strongly pro-American because of deep links to Silicon Valley, while parts of the political class and broader public remain skeptical of American power and intentions.<\/p>\n Israel, Gulf monarchies and a fractured region<\/p>\n Toward the end of the discussion, Sibal turns to the growing fragmentation inside West Asia itself. Gulf monarchies, he argues, now face a \u201cnightmare\u201d scenario. They fear Iranian dominance, yet US military bases have also made them targets without guaranteeing security.<\/p>\n Sibal believes Israel has benefited strategically from the crisis because international attention has shifted away from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. He argues that Israel continues expanding its regional influence while Arab states remain divided and unable to present a unified front.<\/p>\n Despite growing controversy, India\u2019s partnership with Israel remains strong. Israel is deeply integrated into India\u2019s defense ecosystem, particularly in missile technology, surveillance systems and counterterrorism capabilities. Sibal suggests that Israel may also serve as an indirect channel for certain advanced American technologies unavailable through formal US transfers.<\/p>\n Still, he acknowledges that India\u2019s public positioning has become more difficult as regional polarization intensifies. What once appeared to be a manageable balancing strategy between Israel and the Arab world is becoming increasingly fragile as the wider regional order fractures.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Manu Sharma” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with FOI<\/a> Partner and geopolitical analyst Manu Sharma about the 2026 Indian state elections, which reshaped the country\u2019s political map from the northeast to the deep south. They examine the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)\u2019s breakthrough in West Bengal and Assam, the collapse of Communist influence in Kerala and the rise of actor Vijay\u2019s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in Tamil Nadu. Indian elections are increasingly driven by infrastructure delivery, aspirational politics and long-term demographic shifts rather than ideology alone.<\/p>\n Rohan and Manu also explore how these regional outcomes could influence neighboring Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as India\u2019s political center of gravity continues to evolve.<\/p>\n A tectonic shift in eastern India<\/p>\n The conversation opens with West Bengal, a state long associated with communist politics and later dominated by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee\u2019s Trinamool Congress. Manu describes the BJP\u2019s victory as a historic transformation, noting the ideological leap from decades of left-wing politics to a party rooted in Hindutva nationalism. He compares it to \u201ca hardcore atheist communist state\u201d in Europe suddenly aligning with a church-backed movement.<\/p>\n For Manu, the result reflects more than identity politics. He believes the BJP succeeded because voters increasingly judge governments through economic performance and infrastructure delivery rather than ideological loyalty. \u201cThe fate is not decided on the battlefield or the ballot box, but on the balance sheet,\u201d he says, pointing to roads, electricity and public services as decisive factors.<\/p>\n Rohan notes the irony that West Bengal produced some of India\u2019s most influential economists and intellectuals while struggling economically for decades. Manu responds that Bengal excelled at theory but failed at implementation. The BJP\u2019s rise represents a broader shift in eastern India\u2019s political and economic center of gravity toward a more development-focused model.<\/p>\n Rohan and Manu also discuss the election\u2019s unusually peaceful polling process. For the first time since Indian independence, no voters were killed during voting in West Bengal, though violence erupted after the results. Manu attributes this to the region\u2019s historically \u201chigh-pitched\u201d political culture rather than flaws in the constitutional process itself.<\/p>\n Assam\u2019s stability dividend<\/p>\n In the northeastern state of Assam, the BJP returned to power with an even larger mandate. Rohan highlights two major changes: sweeping infrastructure development and the decline of insurgent violence. Massive bridges over the Brahmaputra River have dramatically reduced travel times, while former militant groups have increasingly entered mainstream politics.<\/p>\n Manu describes Assam\u2019s strategic significance as the meeting point between the Indian and Tibetan-Sinic spheres of influence. The state\u2019s geography, heavy rainfall and vast river systems historically made development difficult, leaving communities isolated from one another. Infrastructure therefore became politically transformative.<\/p>\n He argues that Assam is now benefiting from a \u201cvirtuous cycle\u201d in which political stability improves economic performance, which in turn reinforces stability. Former insurgent movements have largely been pacified, and the state increasingly functions as the political and logistical nucleus of India\u2019s northeast.<\/p>\n Rohan notes that the BJP\u2019s next challenge will be employment. Assam\u2019s population is exceptionally young, with nearly two-thirds under the age of 28. The election victory therefore creates expectations that economic development must now translate into jobs and rising living standards.<\/p>\n South India\u2019s political divergence<\/p>\n The speakers contrast the BJP\u2019s northeastern success with its weak performance in southern India. Despite extensive campaigning by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the party performed poorly in both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.<\/p>\n Manu explains this through the bandwagon effect, arguing that voters in low-trust societies tend to support parties already viewed as viable contenders. In states where the BJP has not yet achieved critical mass, many voters instead choose among established regional players.<\/p>\n Tamil Nadu produced the election\u2019s biggest surprise. Actor Vijay\u2019s TVK party shattered the longstanding duopoly of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam parties, emerging as a dominant new force. Rohan says that Vijay successfully captured younger voters through social media, satire and celebrity appeal.<\/p>\n Manu places this within Tamil Nadu\u2019s distinct political culture, where cinema and literature have long shaped leadership. He compares the state to France within the European Union: culturally self-confident, linguistically distinct and deeply attached to its own icons. Actors and writers have historically wielded enormous political influence there.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, Manu praises outgoing Chief Minister MK Stalin for delivering exceptional economic growth. Tamil Nadu achieved some of India\u2019s strongest industrial and manufacturing performance, yet voters still demanded political change. He posits that India\u2019s elections often reveal a disconnect between macroeconomic growth and voter satisfaction because rapid expansion does not always generate broad wage growth or social mobility.<\/p>\n The decline of Indian communism<\/p>\n In Keralam, the Congress-led alliance defeated the Communist Party of India (Marxist), dealing another blow to a movement that once dominated Indian left-wing politics. Rohan jokes that communists now survive mainly in universities, reflecting a broader perception of ideological decline.<\/p>\n Manu argues that Indian communists failed to modernize in the way their Chinese or Vietnamese counterparts did. Rather than adapting to aspirational politics and economic transformation, they remained attached to older Soviet-era frameworks. \u201cThey failed to address the core question of human aspirations,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n The result is significant for the Congress Party as well. After weak performances elsewhere, Keralam prevented the party from being completely marginalized nationally. Yet the broader story is less about Congress revival and more about the fading relevance of traditional communist politics in India.<\/p>\n Regional consequences beyond India<\/p>\n Rohan and Manu conclude by examining how the elections affect neighboring countries. Bangladesh closely monitored the outcomes in West Bengal and Assam because both states share borders, cultural and linguistic ties with it.<\/p>\n Manu says that Kolkata\u2019s decisive \u201crightward turn\u201d could reshape regional dynamics. A stronger and more economically assertive West Bengal may begin pulling economic influence back from Dhaka, while future governments in Kolkata could adopt a tougher stance regarding the treatment of religious minorities in Bangladesh.<\/p>\n Sri Lanka also watched developments in Tamil Nadu carefully because of the island\u2019s long and complicated history with Tamil separatist movements. While Manu does not see any immediate revival of militant politics, he says Colombo will closely observe the rise of Vijay\u2019s new political movement and its potential regional implications.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” David Mahon” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon discuss the May 2026 summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. While the White House presents the meeting as a triumph of transactional deal-making, Mahon believes that the summit\u2019s real significance lies in symbolism rather than substance. The discussion ranges from Taiwan and the unraveling of \u201cChimerica\u201d to the decline of American primacy and China\u2019s evolving role in the global order.<\/p>\n A summit built on perception<\/p>\n Singh opens by examining the contrasting interpretations of the summit emerging from Washington and Beijing. The White House fact sheet portrays the meeting as a diplomatic and economic success, highlighting agreements on Iran, North Korea, agricultural exports and Boeing aircraft sales. Yet Mahon argues that many of these announcements amount to aspirational talking points rather than binding commitments.<\/p>\n Mahon notes that China has long mastered the art of the memorandum of understanding, producing agreements that outline broad principles without locking either side into concrete obligations. He points to the market\u2019s skeptical response to Trump\u2019s Boeing claims, observing that Boeing shares actually fell after the announcement. Agricultural trade also reflects deeper structural shifts. China\u2019s move toward Brazilian soybeans seems unlikely to reverse because Brazilian products are cheaper and often of higher quality.<\/p>\n More importantly, Mahon says the summit marked a psychological shift in the relationship between the two countries. \u201cThey met as equals,\u201d he states, arguing that China no longer approaches the United States as the junior partner in the relationship. That change in perception, rather than the individual deals announced in Beijing, may prove the summit\u2019s lasting significance.<\/p>\n Taiwan and strategic weakness<\/p>\n The conversation then turns to Taiwan, which Singh describes as one of the central fault lines in US\u2013China relations. In Mahon\u2019s view, Taiwan\u2019s importance to Washington stems less from democracy than from its usefulness as leverage against Beijing. He traces the issue back to US President Richard Nixon\u2019s 1972 opening to China and the One China framework that followed.<\/p>\n Mahon dismisses the increasingly common prediction that China plans to invade Taiwan in 2027. He states that Beijing understands the enormous military, economic and political costs such an operation would entail. Taiwan\u2019s geography alone would make an invasion extraordinarily difficult, while any prolonged conflict would threaten China\u2019s access to global trade and finance.<\/p>\n Instead, Mahon interprets China\u2019s military posture as largely reactive. From Beijing\u2019s perspective, the country is surrounded by American alliances and military deployments stretching from Japan to the Philippines. Chinese military exercises and missile development are therefore viewed internally as defensive responses to containment rather than preparations for expansion.<\/p>\n Mahon also suggests that the recent US-led war in Iran has altered Beijing\u2019s assessment of American power. He argues that Xi sees Washington as strategically weakened and increasingly reluctant to sustain major overseas confrontations. Trump\u2019s response to Taiwan during the summit reinforced that perception. \u201cWe\u2019re not really going to mess with this,\u201d Mahon paraphrases the president as signaling, a statement he views as highly significant.<\/p>\n The myth of the \u201cChina shock\u201d<\/p>\n Singh next raises the \u201cChina shock\u201d thesis, the argument that Chinese manufacturing devastated the American working class by hollowing out industrial jobs across the Midwest. Mahon strongly rejects this interpretation.<\/p>\n He believes that American corporations voluntarily moved production to China in search of lower costs and higher profits. According to Mahon, technology, automation and agreements like NAFTA played a far larger role in destroying industrial employment than Chinese trade alone. \u201cIt\u2019s a falsehood,\u201d he says of the popular narrative blaming China for America\u2019s industrial decline.<\/p>\n Mahon points to the enormous success American companies enjoyed in the Chinese market over the past three decades. Firms such as General Motors, Coca-Cola and Johnson & Johnson benefited enormously from China\u2019s economic rise, while shareholders profited from lower production costs and expanding consumer markets.<\/p>\n For Mahon, the deeper problem lies within the American economic system itself. The US built an unsustainable model based on debt, deficits and consumption beyond its means. China has become a convenient scapegoat for structural weaknesses that originate domestically.<\/p>\n Asia\u2019s return and the future of the global order<\/p>\n Finally, Singh and Mahon broaden into a debate about global primacy and the future international system. Mahon rejects popular comparisons to the Cold War or the \u201cThucydides Trap,\u201d as he feels such analogies oversimplify a far more complex transformation. Instead, he sees the current moment as part of Asia\u2019s historical reemergence after centuries of Western dominance.<\/p>\n \u201cAsia is back,\u201d Mahon says. He claims that China has already displaced the US as the central economic force across much of the region. While American military bases remain, he believes Washington\u2019s broader influence is steadily receding.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, Mahon insists that China is not attempting to overthrow the post-1945 international order. Despite criticism over policies in Xinjiang, Tibet and elsewhere, he says that Beijing largely seeks to preserve and reform existing institutions rather than dismantle them. China benefits from stable trade systems, functioning global rules and multilateral organizations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.<\/p>\n Mahon concludes that the Beijing summit itself will likely fade from memory. Yet the larger tensions between the US and China will continue shaping global politics for years to come. He predicts a prolonged period of instability in which both powers compete economically and technologically while struggling to adapt to a more multipolar world.<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully discuss the sharp withdrawal of foreign capital from India and what it reveals about the country\u2019s economic trajectory. They explore whether recent market weakness reflects temporary geopolitical turbulence or deeper structural…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Sam Tully examine why investors have withdrawn $45 billion from Indian markets \u2014 does India face a temporary slowdown, or structural crisis? They discuss weakening earnings, geopolitical shocks and declining competitiveness while weighing India\u2019s strengths against mounting risks. Though major reforms come after crises, India\u2019s fundamentals seem stronger than critics acknowledge.”
\npost-date=”Jul 05, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: India\u2019s Reckoning \u2014 Reform or Regression?” slug-data=”fo-talks-indias-reckoning-reform-or-regression”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Indias-Reckoning-Reform-or-Regression-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: India\u2019s Reckoning \u2014 Reform or Regression?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Sam-Tully-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 24, 2026 06:07″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-who-owns-the-ocean-the-hidden-law-that-rules-the-ocean\/” pid=”163123″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Dr. Alix Willemez, a specialist in the law of the sea, about the growing importance of ocean governance in an era of geopolitical competition, environmental pressure and technological dependence. Their discussion…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Roberta Campani and Alix Willemez examine the ocean\u2019s vital role in sustaining modern life and the laws that govern it. Willemez traces maritime law\u2019s evolution from the principle of freedom of the seas to the High Seas Treaty. They also discuss the growing challenges of balancing global commerce, security and environmental protection.”
\npost-date=”Jun 24, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Who Owns the Ocean? The Hidden Law That Rules the Ocean” slug-data=”fo-talks-who-owns-the-ocean-the-hidden-law-that-rules-the-ocean”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Who-Owns-the-Ocean-The-Hidden-Law-That-Rules-the-Ocean-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Who Owns the Ocean? The Hidden Law That Rules the Ocean<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Alix-Willemez-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 23, 2026 05:32″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/africa\/fo-talks-why-is-france-deepening-ties-with-kenya-after-fleeing-west-africa\/” pid=”163107″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with journalist Karimi Gatimi and filmmaker Dickens Awiti about French President Emmanuel Macron\u2019s visit to Kenya and France\u2019s broader effort to rebuild influence in Africa. Against the backdrop of France\u2019s expulsion from several…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh, Karimi Gatimi and Dickens Awiti examine France\u2019s pivot toward Kenya following its loss of influence in Francophone West Africa. In foreign partnerships, Kenya prioritizes investment, jobs and development over ideological alignments. As debt rises and global powers compete, Kenya seeks to work with partners that can support its economic ambitions.”
\npost-date=”Jun 23, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Why Is France Deepening Ties With Kenya After Fleeing West Africa?” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-is-france-deepening-ties-with-kenya-after-fleeing-west-africa”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Why-Is-France-Deepening-Ties-With-Kenya-After-Fleeing-West-Africa-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Why Is France Deepening Ties With Kenya After Fleeing West Africa?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Karimi-Gatimi-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 22, 2026 07:14″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-talks-armenia-election-can-nikol-pashinyan-win-another-term-despite-geopolitical-churn\/” pid=”163094″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”Fair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with political commentator Appo Jabarian about Armenia\u2019s June 7 parliamentary elections and their significance for the South…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Appo Jabarian examine Armenia\u2019s parliamentary elections and their implications for the country\u2019s geopolitical future. Voters faced a choice between continued foreign-policy diversification and a return to a more Russia-oriented political order. Jabarian portrays Armenia as a strategic crossroads whose electoral outcome could shape political alignments across the South Caucasus.”
\npost-date=”Jun 22, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Armenia Election \u2014 Can Nikol Pashinyan Win Another Term Despite Geopolitical Churn?” slug-data=”fo-talks-armenia-election-can-nikol-pashinyan-win-another-term-despite-geopolitical-churn”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/STAKE-new-or.jpg\")
\nFO Talks: Armenia Election \u2014 Can Nikol Pashinyan Win Another Term Despite Geopolitical Churn?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Appo-Jabarian-1-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 21, 2026 05:49″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-live-us-surrenders-to-iran-leaving-israel-in-the-dark\/” pid=”163075″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Lauren Dagan Amoss, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the reported memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. They…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Live, Atul Singh, Lauren Dagan Amoss and Josef Olmert discuss the reported US\u2013Iran memorandum of understanding and its implications for Israel. It reflects a major Israeli setback, showing the limits of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s reliance on the US and Israel\u2019s nonexistent long-term strategy. Israel now faces uncertainty in a changing regional order.”
\npost-date=”Jun 21, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Live: US Surrenders to Iran, Leaving Israel in the Dark” slug-data=”fo-live-us-surrenders-to-iran-leaving-israel-in-the-dark”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/US-Surrenders-to-Iran-Leaving-Israel-in-the-Dark-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Live: US Surrenders to Iran, Leaving Israel in the Dark<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Lauren-Dagan-Amoss-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 13, 2026 05:57″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/europe\/fo-talks-has-the-trump-administration-abandoned-ukraine-due-to-the-iran-war\/” pid=”162936″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Sch\u00e4ffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, discuss the state of Ukraine after more than four years of war. Fresh from a visit to Kyiv, Sch\u00e4ffer describes a society balancing remarkable…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Sch\u00e4ffer discuss the state of Ukraine after over four years of war. Sch\u00e4ffer says Moscow\u2019s escalation reflects pressures within Russia and is enabled by a perceived decline in American attention as Donald Trump focuses on Iran. Europe must strengthen its military capabilities and societal resilience while supporting Ukraine.”
\npost-date=”Jun 13, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Has the Trump Administration Abandoned Ukraine Due to the Iran War?” slug-data=”fo-talks-has-the-trump-administration-abandoned-ukraine-due-to-the-iran-war”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Has-the-Trump-Administration-Abandoned-Ukraine-Due-to-the-Iran-War-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Has the Trump Administration Abandoned Ukraine Due to the Iran War?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Sebastian-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 12, 2026 06:12″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-why-are-europe-and-canada-pivoting-away-from-the-us\/” pid=”162916″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Elliot Neaman, a Canadian analyst and author, about the unraveling of the transatlantic order that has defined global politics since World War II. Prompted by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney\u2019s 2026 Davos speech, the discussion examines why both Europe…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Elliot Neaman examine the growing rupture between the United States and its traditional allies in Europe and Canada. Unpredictable American policies have pushed allies to hedge their interests through new economic, diplomatic and military partnerships. While some aspects of the transatlantic relationship may endure, a more autonomous world is rising.”
\npost-date=”Jun 12, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Why Are Europe and Canada Pivoting Away From the US?” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-are-europe-and-canada-pivoting-away-from-the-us”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Why-Are-Europe-and-Canada-Pivoting-Away-From-the-US-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Why Are Europe and Canada Pivoting Away From the US?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Elliot-Neaman-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 11, 2026 06:59″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-talks-iran-won-the-us-and-israel-lost\/” pid=”162913″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the apparent conclusion of the latest round of conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. While Israel and the US severely damaged Iran, Olmert argues that the political…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert examine the ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran. Despite suffering military losses, Iran has achieved its political objective by preserving the regime, retaining leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and forcing key disputes into future negotiations. Iran has emerged with greater strategic influence than many expected.”
\npost-date=”Jun 11, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Iran Won, the US and Israel Lost” slug-data=”fo-talks-iran-won-the-us-and-israel-lost”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/iran-5.jpg\")
\nFO Talks: Iran Won, the US and Israel Lost<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Josef-Olmert-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 07, 2026 05:30″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/politics\/fo-talks-prime-minister-abiy-ahmed-looks-to-secure-a-landslide-win-in-ethiopias-election\/” pid=”162842″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s former Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about Ethiopia\u2019s June 1 election and the broader political and geopolitical crises facing the country. While Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed\u2019s Prosperity Party secured…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Martin Plaut discuss Ethiopia\u2019s election, which delivered a predictable Prosperity Party victory. Plaut says conflict, voter coercion and restricted political competition undermined the credibility of the process despite the government\u2019s claims of democratic legitimacy. He explores Ethiopia\u2019s internal conflicts, tensions with Eritrea and the Horn of Africa\u2019s geopolitical rivalries.”
\npost-date=”Jun 07, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Looks to Secure a Landslide Win in Ethiopia\u2019s Election” slug-data=”fo-talks-prime-minister-abiy-ahmed-looks-to-secure-a-landslide-win-in-ethiopias-election”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Prime-Minister-Abiy-Ahmed-Looks-to-Secure-a-Landslide-Win-in-Ethiopias-Election-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Looks to Secure a Landslide Win in Ethiopia\u2019s Election<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Martin-Plaut-1-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 06, 2026 05:21″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/united-states\/fo-talks-can-canada-learn-from-the-iran-war-and-develop-a-self-reliant-military-industry\/” pid=”162829″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with retired Lieutenant General Christopher Coates, former deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), about modern air power, defense industry and the limits of military sustainability. They discuss…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Christopher Coates argue that modern warfare reveals an imbalance between technology and conflict sustainability. While the US\u2013Israeli air campaign against Iran demonstrates extraordinary coordination, the depletion of expensive munitions against cheap asymmetric weapons raises doubts about whether it\u2019ll hold. Industrial strength and economic resilience may be integral to winning future conflicts.”
\npost-date=”Jun 06, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Can Canada Learn from the Iran War and Develop a Self-Reliant Military Industry?” slug-data=”fo-talks-can-canada-learn-from-the-iran-war-and-develop-a-self-reliant-military-industry”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Can-Canada-Learn-from-the-Iran-War-and-Develop-a-Self-Reliant-Military-Industry-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Can Canada Learn from the Iran War and Develop a Self-Reliant Military Industry?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Christopher-Coates-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 05, 2026 06:16″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/economics\/fo-exclusive-the-39-trillion-trap-the-terrifying-reality-of-americas-bond-market\/” pid=”162805″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine a global economy under mounting strain. Inflation is accelerating after the US\/Israel\u2013Iran war triggered a supply shock…”
\npost_summery=”In this section of the May 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul and Glenn Carle point out how the global economy faces a major crisis. The US\/Israel-Iran War has unleashed inflation at a time of mounting debts. Bond yields are rising, households are struggling and booming stock markets no longer reflect economic realities.”
\npost-date=”Jun 05, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Exclusive: The $39 Trillion Trap \u2014 The Terrifying Reality of America\u2019s Bond Market” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-39-trillion-trap-the-terrifying-reality-of-americas-bond-market”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/The-39-Trillion-Trap-The-Terrifying-Reality-of-Americas-Bond-Market-Fair-Observer-Exclusive.jpeg\")
\nFO Exclusive: The $39 Trillion Trap \u2014 The Terrifying Reality of America\u2019s Bond Market<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Glenn-Carle-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 04, 2026 06:21″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-exclusive-how-beijing-is-shaping-the-global-order-with-the-trump-and-putin-summits\/” pid=”162790″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the May 2026 summits in Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping first played host to US President Donald Trump and then to…”
\npost_summery=”In this section of the May 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine the May 2026 summits in Beijing. China\u2019s 50-year transformation has altered the global balance of power and the US now has to readjust. In the aftermath of some erratic foreign policy moves by Washington, Beijing is increasingly in the ascendant.”
\npost-date=”Jun 04, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Exclusive: How Beijing is Shaping the Global Order With the Trump and Putin Summits” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-how-beijing-is-shaping-the-global-order-with-the-trump-and-putin-summits”>
\n
\nFO Exclusive: How Beijing is Shaping the Global Order With the Trump and Putin Summits<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 03, 2026 06:03″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/video\/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-may-2026\/” pid=”162777″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, recap the most important developments of the month.Threat of epidemic and the Pope\u2019s view on AIIn Africa, the World Health…”
\npost_summery=”In this section of the May 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle review several of the month\u2019s most important developments such as the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Pope\u2019s Encyclical on AI to political fragmentation in Western democracies and Elon Musk.”
\npost-date=”Jun 03, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of May 2026″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-may-2026″>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Global-Lightning-Roundup-of-May-2026-Fair-Observer-Exclusive.jpeg\")
\nFO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of May 2026<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 02, 2026 06:17″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-israeli-and-american-air-power-fail-iran-regime-change-as-trump-threatens-nato\/” pid=”162764″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with former Royal Air Force officer Peter Hoskins about a campaign that appears tactically flawless yet strategically ambiguous. The US\u2013Israel air war against Iran showcases extraordinary coordination and firepower, but its political…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Peter Hoskins examine a US\u2013Israeli air campaign against Iran that is tactically impressive but strategically uncertain. Iran can still respond through missiles and drones, highlighting the limits of air power in achieving regime change. They also explore NATO\u2019s relevance and Europe\u2019s capacity to adapt in a shifting security landscape.”
\npost-date=”Jun 02, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Israeli and American Air Power Fail Iran Regime Change as Trump Threatens NATO” slug-data=”fo-talks-israeli-and-american-air-power-fail-iran-regime-change-as-trump-threatens-nato”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Israeli-and-American-Air-Power-Fail-Iran-Regime-Change-as-Trump-Threatens-NATO-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Israeli and American Air Power Fail Iran Regime Change as Trump Threatens NATO<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Peter-Hoskins-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”June 01, 2026 05:29″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/more\/science\/fo-talks-work-identity-and-the-job-crisis-no-one-wants-to-fix\/” pid=”162748″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Global Civilization Dynamics Founder Vinay Singh discuss a labor crisis that reaches beyond layoffs and automation into something more destabilizing: the slow collapse of the assumptions that once gave work its meaning. As artificial…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Peter Isackson and Vinay Singh examine how artificial intelligence, layoffs and wage stagnation are eroding job security and the deeper link between work and identity. As degrees lose predictable value and \u201cfunctional unemployment\u201d rises, trust in institutions weakens. The crisis may force a collective rethink of education, labor and economic systems.”
\npost-date=”Jun 01, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Work, Identity and the Job Crisis No One Wants to Fix” slug-data=”fo-talks-work-identity-and-the-job-crisis-no-one-wants-to-fix”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Work-Identity-and-the-Job-Crisis-No-One-Wants-to-Fix-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Work, Identity and the Job Crisis No One Wants to Fix<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Vinay-Singh-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 31, 2026 05:05″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-talks-trump-iran-and-uae-kanwal-sibal-explains-indias-diplomatic-balancing-acts\/” pid=”162737″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Foreign Secretary of India Kanwal Sibal discuss the widening crisis in West Asia and the difficult strategic choices facing India as the Trump administration escalates confrontation with Iran. Sibal argues that India has more at…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Peter Isackson and Kanwal Sibal discuss the strategic choices facing India as the Iran war destabilizes the region. India has more at stake than most major powers, as it depends on Gulf energy, trade and expatriate communities. US President Donald Trump uses erratic diplomacy, prompting doubts about America\u2019s reliability as a global partner.”
\npost-date=”May 31, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Trump, Iran and UAE \u2014 Kanwal Sibal Explains India\u2019s Diplomatic Balancing Acts” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-iran-and-uae-kanwal-sibal-explains-indias-diplomatic-balancing-acts”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Trump-Iran-and-UAE-Kanwal-Sibal-Explains-Indias-Diplomatic-Balancing-Acts-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Trump, Iran and UAE \u2014 Kanwal Sibal Explains India\u2019s Diplomatic Balancing Acts<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Kanwal_portrait-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 30, 2026 04:20″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/politics\/fo-talks-decoding-elections-in-indias-west-bengal-assam-tamil-nadu-and-keralam\/” pid=”162726″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with FOI Partner and geopolitical analyst Manu Sharma about the 2026 Indian state elections, which reshaped the country\u2019s political map from the northeast to the deep south. They examine the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)\u2019s breakthrough…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Manu Sharma examine the 2026 Indian state election results. Looking at the BJP\u2019s gains in West Bengal and Assam, they argue that infrastructure, security and governance outweigh ideology in Indian politics. They also explore Vijay\u2019s disruption of Tamil Nadu\u2019s traditional party system and the decline of communism in Kerala.”
\npost-date=”May 30, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Decoding Elections in India\u2019s West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Keralam” slug-data=”fo-talks-decoding-elections-in-indias-west-bengal-assam-tamil-nadu-and-keralam”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Decoding-Elections-in-Indias-West-Bengal-Assam-Tamil-Nadu-and-Keralam-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Decoding Elections in India\u2019s West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Keralam<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manu-sharma1-100x100.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 29, 2026 05:49″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-decoding-donald-trumps-visit-to-china-and-xi-jinpings-thucydides-trap-remark\/” pid=”162712″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Decoding-Donald-Trumps-Visit-to-China-and-Xi-Jinpings-Thucydides-Trap-Remark-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Can-Pakistan-Saudi-Arabia-Turkey-and-Indonesia-Mediate-the-Iran-War-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Abdullah-O-Hayek-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"David Mahon” post_date=”July 09, 2026 06:23″ pUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-talks-north-korea-unveiling-the-hidden-truth\/” pid=”163330″ post-content=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":80362,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[13962,16956,43248,43249,5199,43250,31,4924,34,8327,43251,10448,1797,25954],"class_list":["post-80361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-north-korea","tag-asia-pacific-security","tag-china-north-korea-relations","tag-deng-xiaoping-reforms","tag-economic-isolation","tag-joseon-dynasty","tag-kim-dynasty","tag-korea","tag-korean-war","tag-north-korea","tag-nuclear-deterrence","tag-russia-north-korea-cooperation","tag-succession","tag-vladimir-putin","tag-xi-jinping-visit"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80361\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/80362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}