The recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore offered a window into the evolving realities of power in the Indo-Pacific. U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s address struck a notably more measured tone than his previous interventions. Gone were the sharper edges of 2025 rhetoric. In their place emerged a focus on securing a “favourable but durable balance of power,” preventing any single hegemon — implicitly China — from dominating the region. Allies were urged to shoulder greater burdens, with familiar calls for increased defence spending. Conspicuously absent was any direct reference to Taiwan.

The startling breakthrough moment in artificial intelligence and the commensurate concentration of power into the hands of a few tech giants may lead to an intensification of geopolitical competition. China is positioned to play a major constructive role for the well-being of humanity.

When it comes to the principle of multi-alignment – that is, the formation of non-binding yet effectual ties with a number of exogenous actors, including but not limited to great powers or regional blocs – ASEAN, the eleven-member bloc in Southeast Asia, is most definitely an astute exemplar.

The scale of U.S. military exercises continued to expand, mainly focusing on improving the combat capabilities of allies and partner countries and emphasizing strengthening military preparations and strategic deterrence for major power competition.

Israel is using its wealth—accumulated through technology—to prop up a new vision of territory. But there’s a price to pay. Ultimately, land obsession is harder to remove than politicians expect. It resides not on maps, but in the deepest fissures of national memory.

The region’s future will be shaped less by formal claims of presence than by the practical capacity to operate and govern in a difficult environment. It is moving into a more operational phase in which capability will become the currency of influence.

Who will shape the future of the international financial order in the 21st century? It’s a fight over rules, institutions and mechanisms. It’s not only about economic influence but a shift in global power.

The “Epic Fury” military strikes launched by the Trump administration against Iran have dragged the United States into a strategic dilemma rarely seen since World War II: Bogged down in a war of attrition by a regional power wielding asymmetric tactics, it can neither prevail nor fully withdraw. Its military cards are nearly played out, European allies have drawn clear lines, Middle Eastern partners simmer with resentment and the space for diplomatic maneuver has shrunk dramatically.

Repeated U.S. military interventions and alignment with Israeli strategic priorities have eroded American credibility in the Middle East and weakened global confidence in U.S. leadership. The United States can restore its strategic influence only through diplomatic consistency, restraint, and a more independent regional policy.

The question “Where is NATO heading?” has long been debated in academic circles. Under pressure from Donald Trump, the answer is gradually emerging: NATO’s trajectory mirrors that of many international institutions today, which are not collapsing abruptly but transforming themselves.