Diplomacy & Crisis News

Why America needs a new strategy of allied scale to offset Beijing’s enduring advantages.

Beijing has escalation dominance in the U.S.-Chinese tariff fight.

Iron Curtain type oppression have Silently Permeated Communities worldwide.

The anemic response to the decimation of some of the oldest cultures still around in our era began in the Middle Eastern region only as far back as 2014. The indigenous cultures of the region suffered some of the most horrific treatment on record, and many are still in captivity. Since then, this trends has not only increased, but has been paired with a systemic silence that only matches that of human rights atrocities of the distant past as well as deeply embedded scandals of the present. This ensures that our era will be looked back upon as one that forgot its humanity and moral fibre.

The legitimization of brutality seems to be aligned with the rubber stamp of authenticity in 2025. The reaction to Syria’s very recent treatment of its minority communities was met with ignorance as well as the lifting of sanctions and funding, continuing with on the ground support from NATO allies itself. This all occurring during an active targeting of these communities, with responsive support being the first act of new leaders in the West. The rightful championing of a fight against tyranny in places like Ukraine were treated in the exact opposite manner in countries that were once the best of Western allies, still having their ex-patriot populations living in fear, even inside safe Western countries.

The War in Ukraine could not have been more different to the fall of democratic Hong Kong. Hong Kong became part of Greater China in 1997, but was to have its democratic values enshrined when China who took over the territory at the end of a treaty agreement. Over the last few years, Hong Kong has lost much of its democratic character and control, with protesters being subject to censorship and arrest. This core change in Hong Kong was not only ignored by its Western allies and Commonwealth nations, ones that shared a similar Government system to Hong Kong, but was done in almost complete silence and denial by its former Western allies. Hong Kong was a democratic cousin of the Commonwealth, abandoned by its own Parliamentary Democratic family. It could not have been a more different response to the fight to free Ukraine.

The current situation in Hong Kong is one that mirrors that of a Milan Kundera novel. An author known for his internal characterisations of those living under the Iron Curtain in former Czechoslovakia, Kundera spoke of the lives of those terrorized by the threat that their neighbours, and even family members, would report them to the KGB style secret police. The denial of speech required universal and persistent observation, producing a mental tyranny where the fear of almost certain death at the hands of their own Government was their reality. Kundera’s work gained many readers in other regions of the world as well, being well known in Latin America as military dictatorships oppressed individuals in a similar fashion. To the oppressed, the title of their oppressor makes no difference if the end results brings you to the same fate. As for Hong Kong, we hope that our closest democratic cousins are able to enshrine their freedoms wherever they currently reside.

The silence in some Western countries seem to run quite deep, and the shocking revelation during an election campaign shows this evidence quite clearly. Upon meeting a Czechoslovak scientist in the past, I was made aware by her that under Communism, no one truly believed their Government, but in our country in the West, people believe whatever they were told. This truth became very apparently when during the current election, a man who was appointed to be Prime Minister outside of any citizen vote, made it clear that reporting a fellow citizen to a foreign Government’s secret police by one of his active Ministers was not considered a crime or even a grave offense by himself or his party currently in power. The thought that a foreign agent can oppress a citizen of a Western country, and have its sitting Government support it inside of that same country, is something out of the worst nightmares of a Kundera novel. Even dissidents during the Cold War could expect sanctuary and safety in the West as Kundera had sought for himself to avoid arrest for the crime of “authoring”. While the past era would have resulted in such a government being sanctioned by all of its allies immediately upon hearing of the oppression of one of its citizens and opposing candidates, this act has been normalised in the middle of an election campaign right on the other side of the US border. Much like for Hong Kong, for minorities in the Middle East and thousands of other cases since 2014, oppression operating in silence in all parts of the world is becoming horrifyingly systemic.

The Return of Serbian nationalism could start another war on the continent

How Israel scapegoats its Arab citizens.

The world’s reserve currency may not survive the weaponization of U.S. economic power.

Trump’s demands for loyalty will weaken the U.S. armed forces.

The unbelievable has happened. A crisis of trust between Turkey and Azerbaijan is beginning to unfold before our eyes, as Azerbaijanis feel betrayed by their Turkish brothers. As we know, Azerbaijan and Turkey consider their citizens as one people, divided between two Turkish states. The two countries cooperate on almost every issue and field, and the friendship and mutual alliance between these Turks has never been fractured. So what suddenly happened to make this Turkish unity feel threatened?

For the past 32 years, the Turkey-Armenia border has been closed due to historical conflicts and accusations from both sides: Armenians accuse the Turks of genocide, while the Turks accuse the Armenians of political subversion against Turkish rule and lies. Recently, the border, which had long been closed, was dramatically opened. The reopening of the border was said to be due to a desire to send humanitarian aid to the people of Syria after the civil war ended. This was the Turkish explanation.

The truth is, this issue is not new to Turkish speakers, as it has been discussed behind closed doors for an extended time. What is upsetting to Azerbaijanis is not the discussion itself but the fact that they learned about the reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia through the media, rather than officially from a formal representative of the Turkish government. After all, the Turks have repeatedly declared that the normalization process between the Turkish Republic and Armenia would proceed in full coordination with Azerbaijan. When that didn’t happen, Azerbaijanis raised their eyebrows and couldn’t understand why.

Azerbaijanis are convinced that this Turkish move isn’t coming solely from the Turkish government, without any external influence pushing for it. Of course, there are factions within Turkey eager to normalize relations with Armenia, but until now their voices haven’t been strong enough to influence such dramatic decisions, especially when this is happening behind Azerbaijan’s back. Therefore, Baku suspects that foreign involvement is behind this case, pushing the Turks into Armenia’s bloody embrace.

Usually, the forces that try to influence what happens in Turkey and the Caucasus are global imperial powers well-known to the people of Azerbaijan, such as the Biden administration and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the European Union, and the global Armenian lobby. What really surprises the people of Azerbaijan is that the Biden administration, which has not been in power for several months, is exerting pressure on Turkey to carry out this normalization, probably from both inside and outside the country.

The reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia is not the only move in this larger normalization process between these long-time enemies. Even before that, a conciliatory meeting was organized between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. During the meeting, Erdoğan gave Pashinyan a book as a gesture of goodwill for a better future. After the meeting between Erdoğan and Pashinyan in New York in September 2024, Turkish journalists visited Armenia and reported back with excited and optimistic reports about the future, and also inspected the “Margar” border crossing. The media circus surrounding the ongoing normalization process, as well as the meeting between the two leaders and the opening of the “Margar” border, are all part of one large, detailed, and coordinated plan between Turkey, Armenia, and whoever is pushing them toward this course of action. In the end, this move harms Turkey’s closest ally—Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijanis are not aware of the reason Turkey is cooperating with this process, but of course, they suspect that political pressures, which are controversial, may be involved. However, it is important to emphasize that Azerbaijan accepts the fact that Turkey’s decision to move forward with normalization with Armenia is an internal Turkish matter, and Azerbaijan has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of a neighboring (and close) country. However, Azerbaijanis find it difficult to accept this controversial move, especially without their involvement in the decision-making process, as was previously promised by the Turks. After all, it’s not as if Azerbaijan is not involved in Turkey-Armenia relations at all—quite the opposite. Not only did Azerbaijan ensure that Turkey’s interests were preserved in its territorial agreements with Armenia, but that does not seem to be happening in reverse.

Beyond the sense of betrayal from their closest ally, Azerbaijanis are stunned, angry, and disappointed that the Turks have forgotten about the occupation of Azerbaijan’s legitimate lands, the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Armenians, the tens of thousands of Azerbaijani casualties, the hundreds of victims of the landmines planted by the Armenians, the destroyed cities, and the desecrated mosques. Doesn’t this matter to the Turks? Have they so quickly forgotten who stood by them in every issue? Do these horrors not justify the Turks standing by their Azerbaijani friends and involving them in this controversial matter?

Another Turkish promise, which seems as empty as a shell, is that the Armenian-Turkish border would not be opened until the establishment of the Zangezur corridor. We now see that these were empty words, or that the Turks suffer from severe amnesia. Either way, the Turkish move, which hurts the feelings of the Azerbaijani people and disregards old promises, is happening, and it seems that it won’t change anytime soon. Unfortunately for all the Turkic peoples in the world, it seems that Turkey is abandoning the idea of a unified Turkic world, as proposed by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, despite the verbal support Turkey had previously given.

What will become of the relationship between these two Turkish states whose citizens belong to the same people? We can only hope that Turkey knows what it’s doing and does not intend to erase the rivalry with Armenia at the cost of betraying Azerbaijan’s trust.

Leaders on both sides—and in America—have little incentive to end it.

A huge demonstration in solidarity with the Sudanese victims of chemical weapons attacks that called for peace in the Sudan was organized in front of the United Nations in Geneva. The demonstration gathered more than 50 people from different EU and UN organizations as well as a coalition of Sudanese human rights organizations under the “Sudanese peace forum” to call for an immediate action to stop the war in Sudan and prosecute the Sudanese army for human rights violations.

Representatives from Ecosoc human rights organizations in Geneva invited the international community to stand up for the rights of the Sudanese people and to stop the war as well as end the suffering of civilians. Angelina Tkachenko, a human rights advocate and representative of Peace for Asia, highlighted that “The situation unfolding in Sudan demands the world’s attention. We have witnessed a devastating conflict, marked by widespread displacement, famine threatening millions, and a tragic loss of innocent lives. Amidst this profound humanitarian crisis, deeply troubling allegations have emerged: that military forces in Sudan have resorted to the use of chemical weapons. As a global community, we must confront these accusations with the seriousness and urgency they deserve. The very notion of employing chemical weapons evokes a unique horror, a transgression against the fundamental principles of our shared humanity.”

Charlotte Zehrer, a human rights lawyer at Global Human Rights Defense and a speaker at the UN assembly, stressed the fact that this gathering is crucial to give voice to the voiceless: “Today, we are gathered here to shed light on one of the most devastating human rights crises of our time. Sudan is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe, with millions displaced, essential services obliterated, and civil society under siege. But among the countless atrocities, one stands out in its sheer brutality and inhumanity— and that is the systematic and targeted violence against women and girls. And this is not just collateral damage; it is a deliberate weapon of war.”

Ramon Rahangmetan, Co-Founder of the Circle for Sustainable Europe, a European human rights organization, mentioned that: “The principles that guide us under international law must be more than mere words on paper.” and called on the international and European community to help the Sudanese civilians victims of famine and killings by massive chemical weapons used by the Sudanese armed forces.

ABDELRAHIM GREIN Adam, the head of the Peace and Democratic Transition Organization and a Sudanese human rights and peace activist, highlighted the need to come together to support the Sudanese population that is victim of chemical weapons and aggression from the Sudanese Armed forces: “We want peace in Sudan and we condemn the killing of civilians on ethnic and religious grounds. We want to end the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Sudan, end the bombing of civilians by military aircraft, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians. This position is shared by many international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and citizens, who demand responsibility and respect for humanitarian standards to avoid unnecessary suffering and human rights violations experienced by the Sudanese people.”

Mohamed BEBEKER MOHAMED, Representative of the African Center for Democracy and Development, called the international community to support the peace efforts in Sudan to end the war: ”We believe that dialogue is the only way to end violence and that justice can only be achieved through equality among all Sudanese. We call on all parties to prioritize wisdom, to choose negotiation over battlefields, and to embrace unity over division. We urge the international community not to remain passive observers but to take responsibility in supporting peace efforts and helping to end the suffering. We also call on every Sudanese, wherever they may be, to be ambassadors of peace and to reject all forms of hatred and violence. Sudan deserves peace. Sudanese people deserve to live with dignity and security. Let us make our voices a relentless cry for peace until the dream becomes reality.”

All participants and human rights organizations, lawyers ,journalists and academics condemned the use of chemical weapons, violence against women and children as well as discrimination against the ethnic and the religious minorities mainly the Christian minority by the Armed Sudanese forces and called for immediate action to stop the war and called for peace and dialogue between the different ethnic ,religious and political groups to end one of the biggest humanitarian crisis with more than 11 million displaced plus numerous victims of famine and killings.

Gardienne des institutions et du pouvoir depuis l'indépendance, l'Armée nationale et populaire (ANP) a su défendre le statu quo malgré la grande mobilisation de 2019. Après un éphémère printemps qui aurait pu déboucher sur une transition démocratique, l'heure est à la répression ciblée et au muselage des (...) / Algérie, Mouvement de contestation, Répression - 2025/04

Dans un contexte international très tendu, les querelles franco-algériennes pourraient donner un certain sentiment de décalage... Mais il ne faut jamais négliger la capacité du régime d'Alger de se nourrir d'un discours antifrançais pour se légitimer, ainsi que la disposition de la droite et de (...) / Algérie, France, Diplomatie, Relations bilatérales, Relations Nord-Sud - 2025/04

Architecte de la « thérapie de choc » administrée à la Russie par Egor Gaïdar en 1992, l'économiste Jeffrey Sachs fut à la fois l'acteur et le témoin de l'ingérence américaine dans l'espace postsoviétique. Son analyse de la guerre en Ukraine, exposée lors d'une réunion au Parlement européen en février (...) / Relations Est-Ouest, Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022-, Géopolitique - 2025/04

Guerre commerciale, guerre d'Ukraine, progressisme culturel, censure : les sujets de désaccord se multiplient entre les deux moitiés du bloc occidental. La plupart des États européens s'étaient toujours soumis aux exigences de Washington et empressés de donner des gages d'obéissance à leur parrain (...) / Europe, États-Unis, Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022- - 2025/04

Beaucoup de fantasmes prévalent dans les débats sur une défense intégrée, en particulier celui d'une Europe unie ripostant aux menaces géopolitiques. Sauf que l'Union européenne ne joue pas le premier rôle. / Défense, Sécurité européenne, Géopolitique, Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022- - (...) / Défense, Sécurité européenne, Géopolitique, Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022- - 2025/04

Plan de financement ReArm Europe, Livre blanc sur la défense, achat centralisé de matériel militaire, pression de la Commission sur les gouvernements : le projet européen jusqu'ici axé sur la paix se réinvente en marché unique de la guerre. Mais, avec leurs intérêts stratégiques divergents et leur (...) / Conflit russo-ukrainien 2022-, Sécurité européenne, Pays baltes, Europe de l'Est - 2025/04

« C'est le dernier dimanche du mois », un jour de sirocco où l'on étouffe. Rosa la Milanaise revient avec sa compagne dans la ville de sa jeunesse, Palerme, assister à un mariage. Une découverte pour son amie. Un retour sur le lieu de souvenirs refoulés pour elle. Embarquée avec Clara dans une voiture (...) / Littérature, Fiction, Italie - 2025/04

A F-35 fighter jet moves past Indian Air Force’s Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter jet parked on tarmac during the “Aero India 2025” air show at Yelahanka air base in Bengaluru, India, February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

Canada and Portugal look to be moving away from adopting the F-35 Stealth Fighter into their military as a response to Tariffs put on by the United States on various other industries in many countries. Portugal currently uses earlier versions of the F-16, which still hold tremendous value and would have likely found their way to Ukraine when Portugal replaced their current air fleet. The F-16s in Ukraine are considered top of the line fighters, and are a great concern for Russian forces in the region. While the F-16s could likely be made effective for Portugal for years to come or be of great use in Ukraine, they are also more susceptible to being shot down by even older dated Soviet anti-aircraft systems littering the countryside in Ukraine and Russia.

The initial idea of the F-35 was to equip NATO and their allies with a common, modern system that would be able to be networked together and have radar suppressing technology to make missions more effective and keep pilots out of danger. The F-35 was designed to not be picked up by Russian anti-aircraft radar systems on the ground or on other aircraft, so threats would be greatly reduced. With most of NATO being equipped with the F-35, the use of the system en masse would keep them equally protected via stealth technology. While the F-35 was not the first time the idea of a common NATO fighter was produced, it did look to be the one that would have truly achieved the objective of a common, modern allied fighter jet.

Part of the initial F-35 production was planned to be coordinated between different countries that took part in the program. While much of the plane would be constructed in the United States, there was a plan to have it produced in parts between many of the NATO and non-NATO participating countries. When Canada initially joined the early program, some production was set to take place in Canada in order to utilise their already skilled aircraft industry. Experience building their licensed CF-18s (Canadian F-18As) could be adapted to the new program, but Canada backed out of the project years ago, only to rejoin it much later on, removing the production benefits for Canada for the F-35. Canada’s F-18A models were buoyed by purchasing retired Australian F-18As before recommitting to purchasing F-35s, now to be backing out again to the detriment of Canada’s future pilots. While Canada has its own CF-18s as well as Australia’s old F-18s, without new equipment, Canadian pilots will become the first target on the radar when flying alongside other NATO F-35 allies.

While Canada and Portugal look to be cancelling their F-35 purchases, the process of cancellation is not a simple one. As with many large industrial contracts with long term production, there will likely be a financial penalty for the cancellation. The financial and legal details of the cancellations should be made public as the loss of tax dollars in voiding the contracts are likely significant. Without any actions to compensate the losses to the producers of the F-35, Canada and Portugal will likely have to pay a penalty for voiding/cancelling their contracts.

In a move that might produce positive results for many parties, the US and India decided to make an agreement for F-35s for India. Traditionally, India’s adversaries in its region often were the ones to obtain US aircraft, with India being a major export market for Soviet, and now Russian arms. Moving India and the United States closer together by way of their defense industries is a benefit for both nations. Using the F-35 as a point of agreement between India and the United States not only moves the countries closer together via a defensive posture, it also displaces the Russian made military equipment that makes up much of India’s military. Having American, Russian and French arms in India’s Armed Forces will match up well with India’s role as a future major international power broker, with modern equipment and the technology transfer to expand their own advanced industries and interests. The cancellations of F-35s may also get India their production models faster, to the detriment of NATO pilots who will now be settled with older technology.

« Blues grec », « cousin du fado », il reste difficile de définir le rébétiko. Une petite anthologie offre une introduction à ces chansons urbaines du premier XXe siècle. Issu du peuple, le rébétiko célèbre l'amertume de l'amour, les douceurs du haschich et les manguès, ces « mecs », ces « durs », jamais (...) / Musique, Grèce - 2025/04

« La plupart des mondes vivent sous une occupation ontologique », affirme l'anthropologue colombien Arturo Escobar. À l'Occident, fait d'un seul monde, « notion aussi impérialiste et coloniale que séduisante », il oppose le « plurivers », un ensemble de mondes imbriqués les uns dans les autres, même si (...) / Décolonisation, Idées - 2025/04