After Trump drastically shifted the U.S. approach to North Korea, the Biden administration’s policy seems to be more aligned with the previous decades of stalemated isolation of the small nation. A new approach could normalize relations and stabilize security concerns in Asia.

As the world watches the conflict in Ukraine unfold, observers have quickly drawn up comparisons to China in relation to security and expansionist ideals. A careful examination of the decades leading up to the current fiasco is needed to show the truth of how we arrived where we are today.

The strategic benefit for China and Russia to maintain good relations has never been more apparent. A successful Sino-Russian foreign policy push in Ukraine and Taiwan would certainly shock the U.S. and Europe.

The last few years have seen the United States pressing countries in the region to suspend cooperation with China. But wouldn’t it be better to take a more positive approach? There are plenty of opportunities.

Different security concepts held by Russia, Europe and the United States lie at the core of the crisis and won’t be easy to reconcile. As America promotes fear of an imminent invasion, Russia has remained poised, and Europe — which has ceded its security to the U.S. —simply hopes for the best.

The unfolding situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has caught the eyes of the international community, but the West making China and Russia the boogeymen behind the crisis is a thin facade for Eastern Europe’s own tribulations and apprehension to Western establishments.

The eastward expansion of NATO makes Russia feel vulnerable, and it could react with a fight based on its national DNA. But sovereign states should be guided by one key principle: Never take the first step without considering the last one.

So-called freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and Taiwan region by the U.S. Navy have proved misguided. In fact, the encroachments have become a strategic burden.

Twenty-seven top Chinese experts in international studies participated in discussions and surveys. Five major drivers, 10 major risk areas and several specific risk scenarios were identified.

Applying an archipelagic approach in the South China Sea will help achieve balance between coastal states and the many user states in the region. But who will write the rules?