Despite his unpredictability, Donald Trump seems committed to the current strategic trajectory. But China has gained a deeper understanding and accumulated significant experience. It will likely approach America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy with greater confidence and composure in Trump’s second term.

From Shinzo Abe’s concept of escaping the postwar regime to Shigeru Ishiba’s idea of postwar political settlement, the trajectory of Japan’s political evolution is becoming increasingly apparent. For both China and the United States, responding to a Japan that embraces strategic autonomy poses a significant strategic challenge.

If Vice President Kamala Harris is elected president in November, she will confront a range of severe challenges, including extremism, a Congress likely to be controlled by Republicans, a debt-ridden government, the decline of U.S. power and ongoing international conflicts. Change won’t come easy.

Ukraine’s advance into Russian territory may pose new risks, including escalation of the war and further complication of the peace process. The aim may be to create a “land-for-land” negotiation in the future, but this may not work. Peace cannot be achieved as long as one side believes it can win. It only happens when one of the warring parties is exhausted.

The organization has become an instrument of U.S. hegemony that creates confrontation. The NATO Declaration’s statements about China are loaded with bias, stigma and provocation at a time when the world really needs a force for peace and stability.

An increasing focus by the military alliance on the so-called China challenge and a pivot to the Asia-Pacific could mean that China will face an increasingly difficult strategic environment. It is essential, therefore, to exercise caution so that tensions in avoidable areas do not escalate.

Chinese policies impacting the security of the North Atlantic region, which extends from Europe and North America to the Arctic and the Mediterranean, invariably deepen NATO’s interest in Indo-Pacific stability.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s principle that economic development and security are inseparable, is far more advanced than NATO’s exclusive security concept and will inevitably become mainstream in the field of international security.

NATO formally took a hard stance against Russia at its Washington summit, dampening the initiative. But without a rational understanding of responsibility for the war, peace in Europe will remain elusive, and security issues may spill over into Asia.

This year’s NATO summit spotlighted two pivotal issues: the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the future of the Indo-Pacific region. But the approach was low-key. The primary concern seemed to be the stabilization of aid to Ukraine to shield it from a possible disruptive victory by Donald Trump, who could return to the White House.