Deutsche Tageszeitung - Last videos

Malaysia's Strategic Ascent

Malaysia has long been a significant player in Southeast Asia, but recent developments have positioned it as one of the most strategic economies in the entire Asian region. Through a combination of robust infrastructure, strategic geographic positioning, proactive government policies, and a diversified economic base, Malaysia is emerging as a pivotal hub for trade, investment, and innovation. Its ability to navigate global challenges while maintaining steady growth underscores its rising influence in Asia’s economic landscape.A Remarkable Economic TransformationSince gaining independence in 1957, Malaysia has undergone a profound economic transformation. Once reliant on agriculture and commodity exports such as rubber and tin, the country has successfully diversified into a manufacturing and service-based economy. Today, Malaysia is a leading exporter of electrical appliances, parts, and components, with its manufacturing sector serving as a cornerstone of economic growth. This shift has elevated Malaysia from a low-income to an upper-middle-income nation within a single generation, a feat that few countries have achieved so rapidly. The country’s gross national income (GNI) per capita has grown impressively over the decades, reflecting sustained economic momentum.Global Trade and ConnectivityA key factor in Malaysia’s rise is its extensive global trade connections. The country engages with 90 percent of the world’s nations, surpassing many of its regional counterparts in trade openness. This has driven employment creation and income growth, with approximately 40 percent of jobs linked to export activities. Malaysia’s strategic development policies, which focus on outward-oriented, labour-intensive growth and investments in human capital, have ensured macroeconomic stability. The government’s emphasis on credible economic governance has also played a crucial role in maintaining investor confidence.Vision for a High-Income FutureIn recent years, Malaysia has set its sights on becoming a high-income, developed nation while ensuring sustainable shared prosperity. The government’s National Investment Aspirations (NIA), adopted in 2021, has been instrumental in reshaping the country’s investment landscape. The NIA prioritises foreign direct investment (FDI) that enhances local research and development (R&D), generates high-income jobs, and integrates Malaysia into global supply chains. This framework has laid the foundation for the New Industrial Master Plan, which aims to further boost Malaysia’s economic complexity and innovation.World-Class InfrastructureMalaysia’s infrastructure is another critical asset. The country boasts one of the most developed infrastructures in Asia, with a telecommunications network second only to Singapore’s in Southeast Asia, supporting millions of fixed-broadband, fixed-line, and cellular subscribers. Its strategic location on the Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, enhances its commercial significance. Malaysia’s highly developed maritime shipping sector has earned it a top global ranking for shipping trade route connectivity.Resilience Amid Global ChallengesThe Malaysian economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of external challenges. In the fourth quarter of 2024, despite increasing global headwinds, Malaysia’s economy grew by 5.0 percent, driven by strong investment activities, rising exports, and sustained domestic spending. The central bank’s decision to maintain the policy rate at 3 percent reflects confidence in the country’s economic prospects, with inflation expected to remain manageable. Notably, the Malaysian ringgit appreciated by 2.7 percent in 2024, making it one of the few Asian currencies to strengthen during the year.A Forward-Looking EconomyLooking ahead, Malaysia’s growth is expected to be fuelled by robust investment expansion, resilient household spending, and a recovery in exports. The government’s Twelfth Malaysia Plan, which focuses on accelerating economic growth through selective investments and infrastructure development, is set to play a pivotal role in achieving these goals. Government-linked investment vehicles continue to invest in key sectors, further bolstering the economy.Stability and InclusivityMalaysia’s ability to manage inter-ethnic tensions pragmatically has also contributed to its economic stability. Despite occasional challenges, the country has maintained growth momentum, a testament to its inclusive development policies. The government’s focus on sustainable shared prosperity ensures that economic benefits are distributed equitably, fostering social cohesion and long-term stability.ConclusionIn conclusion, Malaysia’s strategic location, advanced infrastructure, diversified economy, and forward-thinking government policies have positioned it as a linchpin in Asia’s economic future. As the country continues to navigate global uncertainties while pursuing its vision of becoming a high-income nation, Malaysia is well on its way to becoming Asia’s most strategic economy.

Trump’s 50% tariffs on europe

In a move that has sent shockwaves through global markets, U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to impose 50% tariffs on imports from the European Union, initially set for June 1, 2025, but later delayed to July 9 to allow for negotiations. This aggressive trade policy has sparked intense debate about its motivations and potential consequences for the European economy, which relies heavily on exports to the United States. The proposed tariffs, described as a tool to reshape global trade dynamics, raise questions about the strategic intent behind such a drastic measure and its implications for transatlantic relations.The European Union, a key trading partner of the United States, exported goods worth billions to the U.S. in 2024, with sectors like pharmaceuticals, automotive, and luxury goods leading the charge. A 50% tariff would significantly increase the cost of these goods, potentially reducing demand and squeezing profit margins for European companies. For instance, Germany’s automotive industry, including brands like BMW and Porsche, faces heightened risks, as does France’s luxury sector, which employs over 600,000 people. Italy’s high-end leather goods and the European aerospace sector, exemplified by companies like Airbus, could also face severe disruptions. The European Commission has estimated that such tariffs could shave 0.5% off the EU’s GDP, a substantial blow to an economy already grappling with global uncertainties.Trump’s rationale appears rooted in a long-standing belief that tariffs are a solution to perceived trade imbalances. He has publicly expressed frustration with the EU, accusing it of being “very difficult to deal with” and slow to negotiate. His administration argues that the EU benefits disproportionately from trade with the U.S., a claim that resonates with his domestic base but overlooks the mutual benefits of transatlantic commerce. The president’s strategy seems to leverage tariffs as a negotiating tactic, pressuring the EU to concede to terms more favourable to U.S. interests, such as increased purchases of American goods like soya beans, arms, and liquefied natural gas. The delay to July 9, following a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, suggests a willingness to negotiate, but the threat of tariffs remains a powerful bargaining chip.Critics argue that Trump’s approach is less about economic fairness and more about political posturing. By targeting the EU, he reinforces a narrative of protecting American jobs and manufacturing, a cornerstone of his economic agenda. His recent announcement to double steel tariffs to 50% and impose 25% tariffs on autos underscores this focus on domestic industry. However, the broader economic fallout could be severe. European officials, including Germany’s Lars Klingbeil, have warned that such a trade conflict harms both sides, endangering jobs and economic stability. The EU has signalled readiness to retaliate with counter-tariffs, potentially targeting U.S. products like Boeing aircraft, which could escalate tensions into a full-blown trade war.The timing of the tariff threat adds to its disruptive potential. Europe’s economy, while showing resilience in some areas—Germany’s GDP grew unexpectedly in early 2025 due to strong exports—is not immune to external shocks. The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s tariffs has already rattled markets, with European stocks tumbling after the initial announcement before recovering slightly upon the delay. Companies like HP, which cited tariff-related costs as a factor in cutting earnings forecasts, illustrate the ripple effects on global supply chains. Small businesses and consumers, particularly in the U.S., could face higher prices, while European exporters risk losing market share if forced to absorb tariff costs.Trump’s tariff strategy also faces legal challenges. A U.S. trade court recently ruled that his use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was unlawful, though an appeals court temporarily reinstated them. This legal uncertainty complicates the administration’s plans, yet Trump’s team has hinted at alternative mechanisms, such as invoking a 1930 trade law to bypass judicial rulings. These manoeuvres reflect a determination to press forward, regardless of opposition, aligning with Trump’s broader goal of reshaping the global economic order.For the EU, the path forward involves balancing diplomacy with resolve. The European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has committed to fast-tracking trade talks, with negotiations set to intensify in the coming weeks. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is expected to engage directly with U.S. counterparts, aiming for a deal that could reduce tariffs to zero on industrial goods. However, the EU remains firm in defending its interests, preparing countermeasures should talks falter. The bloc’s unity will be tested as member states like Italy, with leaders like Giorgia Meloni fostering ties with the White House, push for compromise, while others advocate a harder line.The stakes are high for both sides. A failure to reach an agreement by July 9 could trigger a tariff regime that disrupts supply chains, inflates consumer prices, and erodes economic confidence. For Trump, the tariffs are a high-stakes gamble to assert U.S. dominance in global trade, but they risk alienating a key ally and destabilising an interconnected economy. For Europe, the challenge is to navigate this turbulent period without sacrificing its economic vitality or succumbing to pressure. As negotiations unfold, the world watches closely, aware that the outcome will shape the future of transatlantic trade and beyond.

Reverse Apartheid" in SA?

Recent claims have surfaced suggesting that white South Africans face systemic discrimination akin to apartheid, a term historically associated with the institutionalised racial segregation of black South Africans by the white minority from 1948 to 1994. These allegations, often amplified on social media and by certain political figures, point to issues such as land reform policies, farm attacks, and affirmative action programmes as evidence of a supposed "reverse apartheid." This article examines the validity of these claims, exploring the socio-political context, economic realities, and lived experiences in contemporary South Africa.The notion of apartheid against whites primarily stems from debates over land reform. In 2025, South Africa’s government, led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, implemented a law allowing expropriation of land without compensation under specific conditions. The policy aims to address historical inequalities, as white South Africans, who make up roughly 8% of the population, still own a disproportionate share of arable land—estimated at over 70%—decades after apartheid’s end. Critics argue this policy targets white farmers unfairly, with some claiming it constitutes racial persecution. However, no documented cases of such expropriations have occurred to date, and the policy requires judicial oversight to ensure fairness. The land reform debate is less about race and more about correcting colonial and apartheid-era dispossessions, though its implementation remains contentious.Another focal point is the issue of farm attacks, which some allege are racially motivated against white farmers. South Africa’s rural crime rates are high, with farmers of all backgrounds facing risks due to the country’s economic inequality and unemployment, which hovers around 33%. Data from the South African Police Service indicates that farm attacks, while tragic, are not disproportionately racial. In 2024, approximately 50 farm murders were recorded, affecting both white and black farmers, with motives often tied to robbery rather than race. Nonetheless, the narrative of a "white genocide" persists, fuelled by inflammatory rhetoric from figures like Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters, whose past chants of "Kill the Boer" have been widely condemned. Courts have ruled such statements as hate speech, and Malema has since distanced himself from inciting violence.Affirmative action policies, designed to uplift historically disadvantaged black, coloured, and Indian populations, are also cited as evidence of anti-white discrimination. Programmes like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) prioritise non-white hiring and business ownership to address the economic legacy of apartheid, where whites dominated wealth and opportunity. Some white South Africans, particularly Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners, feel marginalised, claiming these policies limit their job prospects. For instance, in 2018, white employees at the Sasol corporation protested against alleged exclusion from bonus schemes. Yet, economic data paints a different picture: white South Africans still enjoy higher average incomes and lower unemployment rates (around 7%) compared to black South Africans (over 40%). The Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, remains among the world’s highest at 63.3%, reflecting persistent disparities that affirmative action seeks to address.Social tensions also play a role. Many white South Africans report feeling culturally alienated in a nation where African languages and traditions dominate public life. Afrikaans, once a symbol of white authority, is less prominent in schools and government, prompting some to perceive this as erasure. Conversely, black South Africans argue that these shifts are necessary to reflect the country’s 80% black majority. Incidents of racism, such as black students reporting unfair treatment in schools, highlight that prejudice cuts both ways, complicating claims of one-sided oppression.The "apartheid against whites" narrative has gained traction internationally, particularly in the United States, where former President Donald Trump in 2025 claimed white South Africans face "genocide." He offered asylum to white farmers, citing videos purportedly showing attacks. These claims were debunked, with South African authorities and independent analysts confirming no evidence of genocide. The videos, some dating back to the apartheid era, were misrepresented. Such international interventions often overlook South Africa’s complex reality, where poverty, not race, drives much of the crime and unrest. The country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established post-1994, aimed to heal racial divides, but its recommendations for economic justice remain only partially implemented, leaving both black and white communities frustrated.South Africa’s challenges—high crime, unemployment, and inequality—stem from apartheid’s long shadow, not a new racial regime. White South Africans, while facing real anxieties about their place in a transforming society, retain significant economic advantages. Claims of apartheid against whites exaggerate isolated incidents and mischaracterise policies aimed at historical redress. The country’s path forward lies in addressing poverty and fostering dialogue, not in perpetuating narratives of racial victimhood.

NYALA Digital Asset AG

The financial world is undergoing a revolutionary transformation, and NYALA Digital Asset AG is positioning itself as a pioneer in this change. This German company is shaping the future of capital markets and opening new paths for businesses and investors alike.NYALA is the first truly digital alternative to traditional investment banks. The company offers a platform through which stocks and bonds can be issued—without exchanges, banks, or paperwork. Faster, cheaper, and across borders. In doing so, NYALA is democratizing both capital access for companies and investment opportunities for retail investors.NYALA’s pioneering work is regulated under Germany’s Electronic Securities Act (eWpG) and was recently awarded a government research grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research.NYALA solves a serious issue: traditional capital markets aren’t built for small and mid-sized enterprises. IPOs require multi-million budgets and specialized legal advisors. As a result, 90% of mid-sized growth companies lack access. This often leads to the most exciting investment opportunities being allocated behind closed doors—to exclusive investor circles.A New Era for Capital Markets: DPO Instead of IPOWhat used to be a costly and complex IPO is now a lean, digital process. NYALA enables so-called DPOs – Digital Public Offerings. Companies issue securities directly to investors via digital channels: through their websites, apps, or partner platforms.According to Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock—the world’s largest asset manager—the future of capital markets lies in this kind of digital securities. The market holds enormous potential: by 2030, volumes of over €10 trillion are expected. In Europe, there is an annual funding gap of €800 billion that NYALA aims to close. Already, over 5,000 investors and issuers from six EU countries trust the platform.An Exciting Announcement for Investors:
With a current share price of around €90, significant short-term potential and a target above €1.000, investors can now participate online—a process as simple as online shopping. And 15% of investments in NYALA can be refunded by the German Office for Economic Affairs. More information at https://digital.nyala.deAgainst this backdrop, the business editors of the FRANKFURTER TAGESZEITUNG see NYALA as one of the pioneers in the digital transformation of the financial sector.NYALA is now expanding across Europe and offers investors the chance to get in early on a promising future. With a solid foundation and a clear growth path, this Berlin-based company is revolutionizing how capital is raised and applied to benefit the European economy. The digitization of finance has begun—and NYALA is leading it forward.NYALA Digital Asset AG
ISIN:DE000A3EX2V1
More information at: https://digital.nyala.de

Russia's Population Plummets

The terrorist state of Russia is struggling with a profound demographic crisis that shows no signs of abating. As of 2025, the country’s population is estimated at approximately 146 million, a decline from 147.2 million in 2021. This steady shrinkage reflects a long-term trend driven by low birth rates, high mortality, and increasing emigration. The total fertility rate currently sits at 1.41 children per woman—far below the 2.1 needed to sustain a population. Meanwhile, life expectancy averages 73 years, though a notable disparity exists between men (68 years) and women (79 years). With a median age of 41.9 years, Russia’s population is aging rapidly, placing additional strain on an already fragile system.Several factors fuel this crisis. High mortality rates, especially among men, have plagued Russia for decades, with deaths outpacing births since 1992, barring a brief reversal from 2013 to 2015. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified this imbalance, claiming numerous lives, while the ongoing war in Ukraine has compounded the problem. The conflict has led to significant casualties and injuries, alongside a mass exodus of citizens—many young and skilled—fleeing conscription and economic hardship. This emigration has accelerated the brain drain, robbing Russia of talent critical to its future.Government efforts to reverse the decline have largely fallen short. Policies promoting larger families through financial incentives, coupled with restrictions on abortion and campaigns for traditional values, have failed to boost birth rates significantly. Recent data indicates that births in early 2025 hit a historic low, with economic uncertainty, inadequate healthcare, and pessimism about the future deterring parenthood. The war has further eroded confidence, as sanctions and instability deepen the sense of insecurity among Russians.The consequences of this demographic spiral are dire. Economically, a shrinking workforce threatens labor shortages, reduced productivity, and a dwindling tax base, with projections suggesting the population could fall to 130 million by 2046. An aging populace will demand more healthcare and pension support, stretching resources thin. Militarily, fewer young men available for conscription could undermine Russia’s defense capabilities, particularly amid ongoing conflicts. Nationally, the crisis raises questions about Russia’s ability to secure its vast territory and maintain its geopolitical stature, with some fearing increased vulnerability to external pressures.Public opinion is split. Optimists argue that technology, innovation, and global partnerships could mitigate the crisis, while pessimists see an inevitable decline in Russia’s influence. Without addressing the root causes—high mortality, low fertility, and emigration—the government’s current approach risks failure. Russia’s future hinges on bold, effective action to halt this demographic freefall.Looking back and against the backdrop of the aforementioned evil of a ruthless and murderous war, which the criminal mass murderer and war criminal Vladimir Putin (72) instigated as Russian dictator without any reason against neighbouring Ukraine, in which hundreds of Russian men are dying a miserable death every day on the battlefields of Ukraine, Russia will ultimately bleed to death, and perhaps that is a good thing, because the Russian people have brought immeasurable suffering upon other people, and it would ultimately be just if they paid a very high price for it!

Trump’s Crackdown: Lives/Risk

In a dramatic push to tackle the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs in the United States, President Donald Trump has taken decisive action against the pharmaceutical industry. With the stroke of a pen, he signed an executive order designed to slash drug prices, promising relief for millions of Americans burdened by exorbitant healthcare costs. However, this bold move has sparked fierce debate, with critics warning that the consequences could be catastrophic—potentially costing millions of lives due to drug shortages and stifled innovation.Trump’s Plan to Lower Drug PricesThe executive order, enacted on May 12, 2025, seeks to align U.S. drug prices with those in other developed nations, where medications often cost a fraction of what Americans pay. Trump has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry for what he calls unfair pricing practices, arguing that U.S. consumers have been overcharged for years. The order aims to reduce prices by 30% to 80%, targeting both brand-name and generic drugs. It relies on voluntary compliance from drug companies, with the threat of future regulations looming if they fail to cooperate. For many patients, this could mean significant savings on medications that currently drain their finances.The Dark Side: Drug Shortages LoomWhile the goal of affordability is laudable, the plan has raised red flags among healthcare experts and industry leaders. One major concern is the risk of drug shortages. The U.S. already faces periodic shortages of critical medications, such as those used in cancer treatments and epidurals. Forcing pharmaceutical companies to lower prices could make it unprofitable to produce certain drugs, particularly low-cost generics. If production slows or stops, hospitals and pharmacies could struggle to secure enough supply, leaving patients without access to life-saving treatments. The ripple effect could be devastating, especially for vulnerable populations like cancer patients and the elderly.A Blow to InnovationBeyond immediate supply issues, the executive order could deal a severe blow to pharmaceutical innovation. Developing new drugs is an expensive and risky endeavor, often costing billions of dollars and taking years of research. The U.S. market, with its higher drug prices, has long been a key source of revenue for this work. If that revenue shrinks, companies may cut back on research and development, slowing the creation of new treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and rare genetic disorders. A healthcare economist recently cautioned that such a move could “delay breakthroughs that millions of patients are counting on,” trading short-term savings for long-term losses in medical progress.Economic FalloutThe economic implications are equally troubling. The pharmaceutical industry employs thousands of Americans and drives significant investment in the U.S. economy. Lower prices could lead to job cuts and reduced funding for new projects. One major drug company has already hinted at rethinking its $50 billion investment in the U.S. if the order takes full effect. While consumers might save money at the pharmacy, the broader economy could suffer as a result.The Case for ChangeDespite these risks, supporters argue that action is overdue. Prescription drug prices in the U.S. are nearly three times higher than in other advanced countries, forcing many Americans to ration their medications or skip doses entirely. Lowering prices could save billions of dollars and improve access for those with chronic conditions like diabetes or heart disease. For these patients, Trump’s order represents a lifeline—a chance to afford the drugs they need to survive.A High-Stakes GambleAs the dust settles, the debate rages on. Will Trump’s crackdown on the pharmaceutical industry deliver on its promise of affordable healthcare, or will it unleash a cascade of unintended consequences? The order’s success hinges on cooperation from an industry reluctant to sacrifice profits, and its failure could leave patients paying the ultimate price. For now, the nation watches as this high-stakes gamble unfolds, with millions of lives in the balance.

North Korea Infiltrates Economy

North Korea, often viewed as an isolated and secretive nation, is making strategic moves to infiltrate the global economy and gain control over critical supplies. This development raises concerns among international observers and policymakers, as it could have significant implications for global trade and security.Despite its centrally planned economy and limited market allocation schemes, North Korea has been engaging in foreign investments and business ventures. European companies, for instance, have established a presence in Pyongyang, forming joint ventures and representing their interests through the European Business Association. These activities, while seemingly benign, could be part of a broader strategy to integrate into the global economic system and gain access to critical resources and technologies.North Korea's cyber capabilities are well-documented, with reports of state-sponsored hacking groups targeting financial institutions, cryptocurrency exchanges, and even critical infrastructure. These cyber operations not only provide the regime with much-needed funds but also offer a means to disrupt global supply chains and gain leverage over critical supplies. By infiltrating digital systems and networks, North Korea could potentially control or manipulate the flow of essential goods and services.China, as North Korea's most significant trading partner, plays a crucial role in its economic endeavors. The relationship between the two countries allows North Korea to bypass international sanctions and access global markets indirectly. Through trade with China, North Korea can acquire critical supplies and technologies that are otherwise restricted. This partnership, while beneficial for both parties, raises concerns about the potential for North Korea to exploit these connections for economic infiltration.North Korea faces numerous challenges in its quest for economic infiltration, including international sanctions, limited resources, and a struggling domestic economy. Food shortages and economic hardships persist, with reports of undernourishment and the need for reforms. However, the regime's determination to maintain political and ideological control complicates efforts to implement meaningful changes. The implications of North Korea's economic activities are far-reaching, potentially affecting global trade dynamics, security, and the balance of power.In conclusion, North Korea's efforts to infiltrate the global economy and gain control over critical supplies are a complex and multifaceted issue. Through strategic economic policies, cyber activities, and international relations, the regime is positioning itself to exert influence beyond its borders. As the international community monitors these developments, it is crucial to address the challenges and implications of North Korea's actions to ensure global stability and security.Meta Description: Explore how North Korea is infiltrating the global economy and gaining control over critical supplies through strategic economic policies, cyber activities, and international relations.

Ukraine's Drones Bleed Russia

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has entered a new phase, with Ukrainian forces employing advanced drone technology to strike deep into Russian territory. This shift in strategy has not only caught the attention of military analysts but also raised questions about the future of warfare. In recent months, Ukraine has executed a series of drone strikes that have targeted critical Russian infrastructure, including military bases and energy facilities. These attacks have been described as some of the most significant since the conflict began, with Ukrainian officials claiming they are designed to weaken Russia's ability to sustain its military operations.According to reports, Ukrainian drones have struck targets as far as 4,200 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, reaching into regions like Siberia. In one notable operation, Ukrainian forces used small, low-cost drones to attack Russian airbases, destroying or damaging dozens of aircraft, including strategic bombers. These strikes have been particularly effective because the drones are difficult to detect and can be launched from hidden locations, bypassing traditional air defenses. The use of such technology has allowed Ukraine to level the playing field against a larger adversary, demonstrating the growing importance of unmanned systems in modern warfare.The impact of these drone strikes has been significant. Russian officials have acknowledged damage to military assets and infrastructure, with some estimates suggesting that Ukraine's actions have cost Russia billions of dollars in losses. Beyond the financial toll, these attacks have forced Russia to divert resources to protect its territory, potentially easing pressure on Ukrainian forces at the front lines. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has praised the operations, stating that they are a necessary response to Russia's continued aggression. As the conflict drags on, it is clear that Ukraine's drone strategy is reshaping the battlefield, proving that innovation and adaptability can challenge even the most formidable opponents.

The Fall of South Korea?

On 3 December 2024 the unthinkable happened in Seoul. President Yoon Suk Yeol, stung by allegations of corruption and facing sliding approval ratings, issued a midnight proclamation of martial law. He deployed special forces around the National Assembly and attempted to suspend the constitution. Video footage of parliamentarians climbing over fences, riot police blocking the legislature and helicopters circling above shocked the nation. Within hours, however, the attempted emergency rule collapsed. Lawmakers across party lines defied the order, reconvened under heavy security and voted unanimously to annul the decree. Enormous street protests erupted, demanding the restoration of democracy and Yoon’s resignation. By early morning the president rescinded his decree and insisted he had simply wanted to protect the state.The crisis did not end there. The opposition-led parliament impeached Yoon nine days later and refused to allow him back into office. In April 2025 the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the impeachment, citing an unlawful attempt to paralyse the constitution. South Korea’s institutions thus repelled the first attempted coup in its modern democratic era. A snap presidential election took place on 3 June 2025. Lee Jae‑myung, a social democratic opposition leader, won with nearly half of the vote and turnout approaching 80 %. He pledged to heal the rifts caused by the upheaval, strengthen the rule of law and place the country back on a steady course. In his inauguration speech he called the failed coup a “watershed moment” that proved citizens’ commitment to democracy.Trade friction, not collapseThe political upheaval came against a backdrop of intense trade negotiations between Seoul and Washington. Former U.S. president Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 and revived his campaign promise to rebalance trade with allies. In a phone call with president‑elect Lee in June 2025 he insisted on higher tariffs on South Korean vehicle exports and demanded that Seoul finance most of a proposed $350 billion investment fund for critical minerals. South Korea argued that such sums were unaffordable and offered phased funding instead. Negotiations stalled over Washington’s insistence on control over the fund.Contrary to claims of a trade breakdown, exports recovered. By October 2025 South Korea’s shipments were growing again, buoyed by strong demand for semiconductors and ships. A compromise deal reached on 29 October limited U.S. tariffs on South Korean vehicles to 15 % and split investment flows to protect Korea’s currency. This partially defused tensions, though negotiations on the investment fund continued. South Korean companies accelerated diversification of markets to ASEAN countries and Europe, while domestic stimulus cushioned households from higher import prices.Alliance strains and abandonment fearsEpisodes outside the trade talks fuelled fears that Washington was abandoning Seoul. In February 2025 U.S. immigration officers raided a battery factory jointly owned by Hyundai and LG in Georgia and detained over 300 South Korean technicians for alleged visa violations. The images of handcuffed engineers sparked outrage at home and calls for Seoul to invest more in its own nuclear deterrent. The fiasco came after Trump had publicly complained that South Korea was “unstable” and should pay more for stationing U.S. troops. Policymakers in Seoul worried that ambiguous statements about troop reductions could invite provocations from North Korea and China.Analysts caution that such fears often stem from misunderstandings rather than policy shifts. U.S. defence officials reiterated America’s security commitment and quietly increased joint exercises in the spring of 2025. Think‑tank studies noted that changes in the U.S. force posture should be accompanied by other deployments to reassure allies. President Lee has doubled down on the alliance and sought to deepen security cooperation with Japan and NATO. While domestic voices call for strategic autonomy, there is no evidence that the United States is planning a withdrawal.Resilience instead of collapseThe narrative of South Korea’s “fall” exaggerates and conflates real challenges. The attempted coup was thwarted within hours by constitutional institutions and mass mobilisation. The political crisis led to a lawful impeachment and free election, demonstrating democratic resilience. Trade friction with the United States has been bruising, but it has not upended South Korea’s export‑driven economy or its role in supply chains. Even at the height of negotiations, U.S. troops remained on the peninsula and the two governments reaffirmed their mutual defence treaty.South Korea faces serious questions about inequality, an ageing population, and dependence on exports. Yet rather than collapsing, it has adapted through political renewal and pragmatic economic policy. Early signs suggest that president Lee’s government is stabilising domestic politics, diversifying trade and working to rebuild trust with Washington. The “fall” narrative obscures a more nuanced reality: a vibrant democracy navigating turmoil, emerging chastened but intact.

How Swiss Stocks tamed Prices

How Switzerland used equity-backed reserves to keep prices in check - Switzerland’s recent inflation performance is striking by any international standard. While much of the developed world grappled with price rises far above target, Swiss consumer-price inflation has been brought back to muted rates and, at times, hovered close to zero. The country did not stumble upon a miracle cure. Rather, it relied on an institutional playbook that blends a credible inflation target, a strong and freely moving currency—and, crucially, a uniquely structured central‑bank balance sheet in which roughly a quarter of foreign‑exchange reserves is invested in global equities.At the heart of the Swiss approach lies the exchange‑rate channel. For more than a decade the Swiss National Bank (SNB) accumulated very large foreign‑currency reserves to manage excessive upward pressure on the franc. Those reserves are diversified across currencies and asset classes, with a deliberately significant allocation to equities managed on a passive, market‑neutral basis. Building a portfolio that earns an equity risk premium over time was not an end in itself; it was a way to improve the risk‑return profile of the reserves while maintaining ample firepower for currency operations.That firepower proved pivotal when global energy and goods prices surged. In 2022 and 2023 the SNB shifted stance and used its reserves in the opposite direction—selling foreign currency to allow a measured appreciation of the franc. A stronger franc lowers the local‑currency price of imported goods and services, damping inflation via “imported disinflation”. Because the reserves had been amassed in earlier years, and because a sizeable slice was in equities that tended to deliver solid returns over time, the central bank could act decisively without jeopardising balance‑sheet resilience.The portfolio structure also matters for confidence. An equity share—held broadly across markets and sectors, with exclusions on ethical grounds and with no investments in Swiss companies—signals that the reserves are not a dormant hoard but a well‑diversified buffer aligned with long‑run value preservation. When equity markets rose strongly in 2024, gains on those holdings (alongside gold and currency effects) replenished the central bank’s financial buffers. That, in turn, reinforced the credibility of policy at precisely the moment when keeping inflation expectations anchored was most important.None of this should be mistaken for the SNB “using the stock market” as its primary inflation tool. Monetary policy still rests on an explicit price‑stability objective, a conditional inflation forecast and the policy rate. Indeed, as inflation returned to the target range, the policy rate could be reduced again in 2024–2025. But the equity‑backed reserves shaped the backdrop: they made it easier to tighten monetary conditions through the exchange rate when prices were accelerating, and they underpinned confidence in subsequent easing once inflation receded.Switzerland’s low and recently near‑zero inflation cannot be ascribed to reserves alone. The country’s energy mix and regulated price components dampened the direct pass‑through from global fuel shocks; the consumption basket assigns a smaller weight to energy than in many peers; and the franc’s safe‑haven status consistently mutes imported price pressures. What distinguishes the Swiss case is how these structural features were complemented by an ample, well‑diversified reserve portfolio—including global equities—that allowed timely foreign‑exchange operations without calling market confidence into question.The lesson is not that every central bank should load up on shares. Institutional mandates, legal frameworks, market depth and exchange‑rate regimes differ widely. Rather, Switzerland shows that, for a small open economy with a safe‑haven currency, a disciplined, transparent reserve strategy—one that tolerates equity exposure while avoiding conflicts of interest at home—can support the nimble use of the exchange‑rate channel. In the inflation shock of recent years, that combination helped bring prices back under control.As of late summer 2025, Switzerland’s inflation remains subdued and close to the midpoint of its price‑stability range. The franc is firm, policy is data‑driven, and the central bank’s balance sheet—anchored by highly liquid bonds and a passive equity allocation—retains the flexibility to lean against renewed price pressures or, if conditions warrant, to cushion the economy. Switzerland did not “magic away” inflation by buying shares; it designed a balance sheet that could do its day job when it mattered.

Cuba's hunger Crisis deepens

Cuba’s food emergency has sharpened into a pervasive hunger crisis. Queues for basic staples lengthen; subsidised rations arrive late or shrunken; prolonged black‑outs spoil what little families can buy. At the centre sits a long‑running question of policy as well as morality: should the United States lift—wholly or in part—its embargo?What is driving hunger?Cuba’s economy has been in a grinding downturn since 2020, with a steep loss of foreign currency, collapsing agricultural output and a power grid plagued by breakdowns. The island imports most of what it eats; when hard currency runs short, shipments of wheat, rice, oil and powdered milk stall. Ration books still guarantee a monthly “basic basket”, but the contents are smaller and more erratic than before. Long electricity cuts—now at times island‑wide—destroy refrigerated food and disrupt mills, bakeries and water systems. In March 2024, rare public protests erupted over black‑outs and empty shops; since then, outages and shortages have persisted well into 2025.Behind the empty shelves lies a structural farm crisis. Sugar—once the backbone of the economy—has withered to a fraction of historic output, starved of fuel, fertiliser, parts and investment. Cane shortfalls ripple into food, transport and export earnings. Livestock herds have thinned, and diesel scarcity makes planting and distribution harder. Even when harvests occur, logistics failures and power cuts mean produce rots before reaching markets.How far does the embargo matter?Two facts can be true at once. First, Cuba’s own policy choices—tight state controls, delayed reforms, pricing distortions and a faltering energy system—are central to the crisis. Second, U.S. sanctions amplify the shock. The embargo, codified in U.S. law, restricts trade and finance with Cuba’s state sector and deters banks and insurers from handling even otherwise lawful transactions. Although food and medicine are formally exempt, Cuba must typically pay cash in advance and cannot access normal commercial credit from U.S. institutions; compliance risk pushes up costs, slows payments and scares off shippers and intermediaries. Cuba’s continued designation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” further chills banking ties. In short: exemptions exist on paper, frictions mount in practice.There are countervailing trends. Since 2021, Havana has allowed thousands of private micro‑, small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises (MSMEs) to operate; many import food and essentials the state cannot supply. In 2024, Washington moved to let independent Cuban entrepreneurs open and use U.S. bank accounts remotely and to widen authorisations for internet‑based services and payments. Yet the political pendulum has swung back toward greater sanctions in 2025, and Cuba’s own tighter rules on the private sector have added uncertainty. The net effect is an ecosystem still too fragile to steady food supplies.Is this a “famine”?No international body has declared a technical famine in Cuba. That term has a high evidentiary threshold. But food insecurity is severe and widespread: calorie gaps, ration cuts, milk shortages for young children and recurrent bakery stoppages paint a picture of a humanitarian emergency in all but name. Global agencies have stepped in to help secure powdered milk and other basics; even so, distribution delays and funding shortfalls mean stop‑start relief.Should the United States lift the embargo?The humanitarian case is powerful. Lifting or substantially easing the embargo would lower transaction costs, restore access to trade finance, reduce shipping and insurance frictions, and widen suppliers’ appetite to sell. That would not, by itself, fix Cuba’s domestic constraints, but it would remove external bottlenecks that particularly harm food imports, farm inputs and power‑sector maintenance. In a context of ration cuts and soaring prices, fewer frictions mean more staples on plates.The governance caveat is equally real. Sanctions were designed to press for pluralism and human rights; critics fear that broad relief could entrench a state‑dominated economy with poor accountability, and that aid or hard currency could be diverted. Nor is a full lift simple: the embargo is written into statute and requires congressional action. In U.S. domestic politics, that bar is high.A pragmatic path throughGiven legal and political realities, three steps stand out as both feasible and fast‑acting:1) Create a humanitarian finance channel for food and farm inputs. Authorise insured letters of credit and trade finance for transactions involving staple foods, seeds, fertiliser, spare parts for milling, cold‑chain equipment and water treatment—available to private MSMEs and non‑sanctioned public distributors alike, with end‑use auditing.2) De‑risk payments for independent Cuban businesses. Lock in and broaden 2024 measures allowing Cuban private entrepreneurs to hold and use U.S. bank accounts remotely, and permit “U‑turn” transfers that clear in U.S. dollars when neither buyer nor seller is a sanctioned party. Pair this with enhanced due diligence to prevent diversion.3) Protect the food pipeline from energy failures. License sales of critical spares and services for power plants and grid stability that directly safeguard bakeries, cold storage, water pumping and hospitals. Where necessary, allow time‑bound fuel swaps for food distribution fleets under third‑party monitoring.Alongside U.S. actions, Cuba must do its part: secure property rights for farmers, ensure price signals that reward production, remove import monopolies that choke private wholesalers, cut administrative hurdles for MSMEs, and prioritise grid repairs that keep food systems running. Without these domestic adjustments, external relief will leak away in lost output and waste.The bottom lineCuba’s hunger crisis is the product of compounding internal and external failures. Ending or meaningfully easing U.S. sanctions on food, finance and energy‑for‑food lifelines would save time, money and calories; it is defensible on humanitarian grounds and achievable through executive licensing even if Congress leaves the core embargo intact. But durability demands reciprocity: Havana must unlock farm productivity and private distribution, and Washington should target relief where it most directly feeds Cuban households. Starvation risks are non‑ideological. Policy should be, too.

Poland trusts only hard Power

On Europe’s exposed north‑eastern flank, Poland is recasting its security doctrine around a stark premise: deterrence rests on hard power that is visible, ready and overwhelmingly national. Alliances still matter in Warsaw, but the country’s leaders are behaving as if, in the final analysis, neither Brussels nor Washington can be relied upon to act as swiftly—or as single‑mindedly—as Polish interests might require.At the heart of this shift is an unprecedented build‑up of fixed and mobile defences on the frontier with Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. The multi‑year East Shield programme, announced in 2024 and now well under way, blends traditional fortifications and obstacles with modern surveillance, electronic warfare and rapid‑reaction infrastructure along the entire eastern border. In mid‑2025, authorities confirmed the addition of minefields to parts of the project, underscoring a move from symbolic fencing towards denial‑by‑engineering designed to slow and channel any hostile incursion long enough for Polish artillery, air defence and ground forces to engage.This is not theory. Over the past 18 months, Polish airspace has been violated by Russian missiles and, most recently, waves of drones transiting from Belarus. In September 2025, Polish and allied aircraft shot down intruding drones—widely noted as the first kinetic engagement inside NATO territory linked to the war on Ukraine. Warsaw temporarily closed crossings with Belarus during Russia‑led military exercises and then reopened them once the drills ended, a sign of a government calibrating economic realities against a more volatile air‑and‑border threat picture. The message, repeated in official statements, is that incursions will be met with force when they are “clear‑cut” violations.The second pillar of Poland’s doctrine is money—lots of it. Poland now spends the highest share of GDP on defence in the Alliance, around the mid‑4% range in 2025, with plans signalled to push towards the high‑4s in 2026. That places Warsaw well beyond NATO’s post‑Hague summit ambition of substantially increasing “core defence” outlays across the Alliance in the coming decade. Crucially, a larger slice of Poland’s budget goes to kit rather than salaries: air‑and‑missile defences, long‑range fires, armour, and the infrastructure to sustain them.Procurement lists read like an order‑of‑battle overhaul. Deliveries of Abrams tanks from the United States are ongoing, alongside large tranches of K2 tanks and K9 self‑propelled howitzers from South Korea, with a follow‑on K2 order establishing long‑term assembly and manufacturing in Poland. The first Polish F‑35s are in training pipelines with in‑country deliveries scheduled to begin next year, while the Aegis Ashore ballistic‑missile defence site at Redzikowo has been declared operational and integrated into NATO’s shield. The permanent U.S. V Corps (Forward) headquarters in Poznań and a standing U.S. Army garrison in Poland anchor allied command‑and‑control on the Vistula. Yet, strikingly, Warsaw is not content to import its way to security; it is racing to on‑shore the industrial sinews of war, pouring billions of złoty into domestic production of 155 mm artillery shells and selecting foreign partners to build new ammunition plants that can feed both Polish units and European supply lines.Manpower policy is being re‑engineered with equal ambition. The government has set out plans to make large‑scale, publicly accessible military training available—ultimately to every adult male—while expanding volunteer pathways and aiming to train 100,000 people annually by 2027. This push complements growth targets for the active force and reserves, all intended to ensure that Poland can surge trained personnel quickly if the strategic weather turns.Where does Brussels fit into this? Relations have thawed on rule‑of‑law disputes, unlocking access to long‑delayed EU funds. But Warsaw has made plain it will not implement elements of the EU’s new migration pact that would compel acceptance of relocated migrants; it has also reintroduced temporary border checks with Germany and Lithuania, citing organised crime and irregular migration. On the security side, Poland is an enthusiastic driver of the emerging “drone wall” concept along the EU’s eastern frontier. Taken together, these choices sketch a posture of selective integration: take European money when it aligns with national priorities, but reserve sovereign latitude on borders and internal security.Nor is the reliance on force simply a European story. Across the Atlantic, U.S. signals have been mixed in recent years—from remarks that appeared to cast doubt on automatic protection for “delinquent” NATO members, to renewed assurances in 2025 that American troops will remain in Poland and might even increase. Polish officials welcome tangible U.S. deployments and capabilities, but they are plainly hedging against political oscillation in Washington by accelerating self‑reliance in their defence industry, stockpiles and training base. The governing logic is straightforward: alliances deter best when the ally in harm’s way can fight immediately and hold ground.Domestic politics amplify this course. The election of Karol Nawrocki as president in August 2025 has added a sovereigntist accent to Warsaw’s foreign‑policy soundtrack. In his inaugural framing, Poland is “in the EU” but will not be “of” the EU in any way that dilutes competences crucial to national security and identity. That stance intersects with hard security in one especially consequential area: mines. Alongside the Baltic states, Poland announced its intention in 2025 to withdraw from the Ottawa (anti‑personnel mine) treaty, arguing that Russia’s conduct and the geography of the Suwałki corridor demand maximum defensive optionality. Humanitarian advocates warn of the risks; the government replies that modern doctrine, marking and command arrangements can mitigate them.All of this costs money—and fiscal stress is visible. Ratings agencies have flagged high deficits and debt dynamics, shaped in part by defence outlays. Warsaw recently chose to trim the loan component of its EU recovery‑fund package, prioritising grants as deadlines loom. The balancing act is delicate: sustain deterrence at scale while keeping public finances credible and an economy already carrying the weight of war‑time disruptions competitive.Yet step back from the line items, and a coherent doctrine comes into view. Poland is not repudiating its alliances; it is re‑weighting the bargain. The country is building a fortified frontier and a war‑capable society on the assumption that credible force—owned, stationed and manufactured at home—will decide what happens in the first hours and days of any crisis. If Brussels and Washington arrive with reinforcements, all the better. But the governing bet in Warsaw is brutally simple: only hard power keeps the peace on the Bug and the Vistula.

Rare Earth Standoff

China’s dominance over the supply of rare‑earth elements has long been a source of leverage in its dealings with the West. Rare earths are a group of 17 metallic elements used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, semiconductors and defence systems. Because they are essential for magnets, lasers and radar systems in everything from smart phones to F‑35 fighter jets, the monopoly held by one country carries major strategic implications. The latest round of export curbs announced in early October has thrust rare earths back into the centre of global diplomacy.China tightens its gripIn Announcement No. 61 released by China’s Ministry of Commerce, Beijing expanded existing export restrictions by adding five rare‑earth elements—holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium—to an already restrictive list. The ministry also required foreign companies to obtain licences to export magnets or semiconductor materials that contain more than 0.1 percent of heavy rare‑earth metals derived from China. These rules apply even when the finished products are made outside China, effectively extending Beijing’s jurisdiction to any product anywhere in the world that uses Chinese rare‑earth materials.Officials justified the restrictions by citing national security and the dual‑use nature of rare‑earth items. China said certain foreign organisations had been transferring or processing rare‑earth materials and then passing them on for military use, and that tighter oversight was necessary to prevent threats to national security. The commerce ministry argued that implementing export controls is a normal part of international practice, pointing out that other major economies have similar rules. Beijing emphasised that it remained open to dialogue and would approve licences for civilian uses.The timing of the announcement was significant. It came just weeks before a scheduled meeting between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in South Korea and only days after U.S. lawmakers proposed tougher restrictions on chip exports to China. Analysts believe the move was designed to increase China’s leverage ahead of those talks and to pressure Washington to loosen its own export controls. Kristin Vekasi, an expert on Indo‑Pacific affairs, described it as “pre‑meeting choreography” intended to signal that Beijing is willing to weaponise its dominant position in the rare‑earths supply chain.The strategic importance of rare earthsRare earths are used in a wide range of civil and military technologies. According to research from a prominent security think‑tank, they are critical for fighter jets, submarines, Tomahawk missiles, radar systems and smart bombs. They also underpin the magnets used in electric vehicles and wind turbines and are essential for semiconductors that power artificial‑intelligence chips and advanced consumer electronics. China mines around 60 percent of the world’s rare‑earth ores, controls about 90 percent of separation and processing capacity, and manufactures roughly 93 percent of rare‑earth magnets. The United States imported 70 percent of its rare‑earth compounds and metals from China between 2020 and 2023.By restricting exports, Beijing signals that it is prepared to exploit this dominance. Although the rules will not fully take effect until November 8 and December 1, the mere threat has rattled defence contractors and technology companies in the United States. The restrictions bar overseas defence users from receiving licences and impose case‑by‑case scrutiny on export applications involving advanced semiconductors. This could delay shipments of magnets and chips vital to everything from drones to radar systems. China has also prohibited its citizens from assisting foreign rare‑earth projects without prior approval, tightening control over expertise as well as raw materials.Trump taps the brakes on tariff escalationWashington responded with an initial threat to impose 100 percent tariffs on all Chinese goods if Beijing did not roll back its measures. U.S. officials denounced the restrictions as a “global supply‑chain power grab”. Yet Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and trade representative Jamieson Greer emphasised that the United States did not want to decouple from China; they hinted that a negotiated compromise was still possible. In the weeks that followed, the White House attempted to calm financial markets by pausing some of its own tariff hikes, moving to cut duties on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent for a 90‑day truce.This temporary reprieve, reached after talks in Geneva in mid‑May, included an agreement to slash steep tariffs on both sides and to lift earlier export countermeasures. China agreed to drop restrictions issued in April, while the United States reduced its tariffs for three months. Markets rallied, with global stock indices hitting new highs as traders welcomed the pause in hostilities. Critics, however, saw the move as a retreat by Washington rather than a Chinese concession; they noted that previous freezes had done little to resolve deeper disagreements over trade imbalances and fentanyl exports. A Reuters analysis described Trump’s on‑again off‑again tariff policy as a rollercoaster that has left investors struggling to plan for the next deadline.With the next truce set to expire in November, U.S. officials signalled they might extend the pause in exchange for a delay in China’s new licensing regime. Bessent suggested rolling over the 90‑day tariff reprieve for a longer period to give negotiators more time. At the same time, he warned that Washington was prepared to take further action if Beijing proved to be an unreliable supplier. The administration has also discussed taking strategic stakes in domestic rare‑earths companies and establishing price floors and stockpiles to reduce dependence on Chinese supplies. As Bessent told reporters, the goal is to ensure the United States is never again vulnerable to a single supplier for critical materials.Market and industrial reactionsChina’s move jolted commodity markets. Shares in Chinese rare‑earth producers surged when the announcement was made; U.S. rare‑earth miners such as MP Materials and Energy Fuels also jumped as investors anticipated higher prices. Chinese companies Northern Rare Earth Group and Shenghe Resources gained close to 10 percent, while U.S. firms Critical Metals Corp and Energy Fuels saw double‑digit increases. The price reaction underscored how sensitive markets are to supply‑side news in an industry dominated by a handful of players.The restrictions also triggered diplomatic ripples. Japan’s finance minister raised the issue at a meeting of the Group of Seven, calling for a coordinated response. European exporters, still recovering from the volatility unleashed by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, worried that another escalation could derail their recovery. Analysts noted that gold prices have risen sharply as investors seek a hedge against tariff‑induced inflation.U.S. manufacturers have been pressing the government to secure alternative supplies. Noveon Magnetics, currently the only U.S. manufacturer of rare‑earth magnets, recently partnered with Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths to build a domestic supply chain. The Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) invested $400 million in MP Materials and extended a $150 million loan to expand its processing facility in California. These measures aim to add heavy rare‑earth separation capacity in the United States and ensure long‑term supply.A high‑stakes meeting on the horizonDespite the heated rhetoric, both sides appear keen to avoid a full‑blown trade rupture. Chinese officials have stressed that export licences for civilian use will be approved. They argued that the United States has long maintained similar rules and accused Washington of exaggerating the impact of the controls. Beijing also noted that U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors and related equipment have been in place since the 1950s.For its part, Washington knows that an abrupt decoupling would harm both economies. The United States still depends heavily on Chinese rare‑earths, and high tariffs threaten to raise prices for consumers and industries. Polls suggest that volatile trade policies have shaken investor confidence. Moreover, because rare‑earth supply chains are global, any disruption would also hurt Chinese producers who rely on foreign buyers.As Trump prepares to meet Xi in South Korea, the rare‑earth dispute has become a litmus test for the broader U.S.–China relationship. Analysts say Beijing is unlikely to abandon the restrictions unless Washington offers concessions on chip exports or scales back tariff threats. At the same time, the United States will struggle to build an independent supply chain quickly enough to neutralise China’s leverage. The outcome of the meeting could determine whether the world’s two largest economies slide deeper into economic confrontation or find a path back to cooperation.ConclusionThe rare‑earth saga illustrates the complex interplay between economic security and geopolitical power. By expanding export controls, China has reminded the world that it holds a powerful card in its hands. The United States, in turn, has responded with tariff threats, pauses and plans to develop its own capacity. Both sides claim to seek cooperation even as they sharpen their negotiating tools. With the South Korea summit looming, the next moves will shape not only the future of the rare‑earths market but also the trajectory of U.S.–China relations and the global economy as a whole.

Why Russia can’t end war

Nearly four years into Moscow’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, there is no sign that the Kremlin is preparing to withdraw its troops or relinquish occupied territories. The war has devastated Ukrainian infrastructure and caused horrific human rights violations, yet the Russian government shows little appetite for ending the conflict. This refusal is rooted in ideology, domestic politics, military calculations, economic factors and public opinion. Understanding why Russia cannot end the war requires examining each of these dimensions.Ideological and historical motivationsAt its core, the conflict is driven by a belief that Ukraine belongs in Russia’s sphere of influence. The Kremlin demands that the West respect a kind of “Monroe doctrine” for Russia and stop bringing neighbouring states into the Western alliance. Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and reasserting dominance over the former Soviet space are central goals. Russian leaders portray the war as an existential struggle against Western encirclement and a continuation of Russia’s fight for great‑power status. This ideological framing means that a negotiated end that leaves Ukraine free to choose its alliances is viewed as defeat. The war thus fulfils a narrative of historical justice and national revival, making withdrawal politically unpalatable.Regime survival and domestic politicsThe invasion has become a pillar of the Russian political system. Moscow’s leadership invests significant resources in the military‑industrial complex and dedicates roughly two‑fifths of its federal budget to defence and security. Reversing course could call into question the enormous human and economic costs already incurred—nearly a million Russian casualties—and undermine the regime’s legitimacy. Analysts note that President Vladimir Putin uses the war to consolidate patronage networks and justify increasing authoritarian control. Domestic opposition is suppressed, and state media portrays the conflict as necessary for Russia’s security. In this environment, there is little public pressure to end the war; volunteer recruitment continues thanks to high bonuses, replenishing losses, and those who favour peace often support a cease‑fire only if Moscow retains its territorial gains.Ending the war would also create a dilemma. A cease‑fire that left Russia occupying vast areas of Ukraine would require Moscow to maintain a huge army of conscripts and volunteers, consuming resources and risking domestic discontent. Demobilising this army could trigger unemployment and social unrest. For the Kremlin, continued fighting is therefore less risky than an abrupt peace that could threaten its grip on power.Military stalemate and strategic calculationsDespite substantial casualties and equipment losses, Russian forces continue offensive operations because Moscow believes time favours its strategy. Experts estimate Russia loses around 100–150 troops per square kilometre, yet the leadership expects to outlast Ukraine and the West. A cease‑fire that leaves Ukraine free to integrate with NATO is unacceptable to the Kremlin. Conversely, Ukraine refuses to renounce NATO membership or surrender occupied territories. This stalemate means neither side will compromise until the costs become unbearably high.Russia’s war machine has adapted to attritional fighting. Moscow has scaled up drone production and directed its industrial base toward a war economy, offsetting heavy losses in conventional arms. Analysts warn that each year of offensive operations costs Russia 8–10 % of its GDP and hundreds of thousands of casualties. Yet the regime calculates that these losses are sustainable if they help achieve strategic objectives. Until Ukraine’s armed forces and its foreign backers impose unbearable military costs, Moscow has little incentive to cease hostilities.War economy and financial resilienceThe Russian economy has proven more durable under sanctions than many expected. Years of tight fiscal policy allowed Moscow to accumulate large foreign exchange reserves and build a “Fortress Russia” economy. By early 2022, Russia held over $600 billion in reserves and kept public debt below one‑fifth of GDP. Current account surpluses and high energy revenues enabled the government to continue funding the war. War spending has stimulated industrial output and driven nominal GDP growth, while the departure of international firms has reduced competition, allowing domestic companies to gain market share.However, this resilience masks growing imbalances. Defence spending has added about $100 billion per year to the budget, and the combined economic losses from sanctions and war are estimated at trillions of US dollars. Economists note that real GDP growth is roughly a tenth smaller than it would have been without the war. The war economy has created labour shortages; up to two million Russians are abroad and hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded. Industrial capacity is nearing its limits, inflation remains high, and Russia’s central bank has raised interest rates sharply. Analysts warn that this stagflationary environment could erode living standards and strain public finances. The state has been forced to draw down its National Wealth Fund and raise taxes to cover growing deficits. Yet the economic costs have not prompted a policy change; propaganda and repression continue to dampen discontent.Public sentiment and the social contractRussian society has largely adapted to wartime conditions. While surveys indicate that many Russians are weary of the conflict, most support peace only if it secures Moscow’s territorial gains. As long as the Kremlin presents the war as protecting Russian speakers and defending the nation against Western aggression, domestic support remains sufficient. Humanitarian gestures such as prisoner exchanges or grain exports can boost support for talks, but there is no broad movement demanding withdrawal. The combination of propaganda, control of the media and modest improvements in wages for some sectors has kept dissatisfaction at bay. Without a significant shift in public opinion, there is little internal pressure on leaders to end the war.International dynamics and peace prospectsExternal actors have limited leverage over Russia’s decision‑making. Western sanctions have slowed economic growth and restricted access to technology, but they have not forced Moscow to change course. Alternative supply chains through China, Iran and North Korea provide military inputs. Diplomatic efforts, including U.S.–Russia talks and European mediation, have yet to produce progress. Commentators note that Russia views negotiations as a means to impose its terms; absent recognition of its sphere of influence, it prefers to continue the war. Meanwhile, Western political fatigue and competing global crises reduce the likelihood of sustained pressure on Russia. Unless Ukraine and its partners can decisively shift the military balance or undermine the economic foundations of the war, the Kremlin is unlikely to agree to a settlement.ConclusionRussia’s inability to end the war in Ukraine stems from a combination of ideological ambitions, regime survival, military calculations, economic adaptation and public acquiescence. The conflict serves the Kremlin’s strategic goals of preventing Ukraine’s Western integration and reasserting Russian dominance.It sustains the domestic political order and justifies expanding authoritarian control. Despite immense losses and economic strain, Moscow calculates that continuing the war is less risky than accepting a negotiated peace that would leave its goals unmet. Until these underlying drivers change—through decisive military setbacks, deeper economic crises or a shift in public sentiment—Russia’s war in Ukraine is likely to endure.

Israel: Economy on the edge

After two years of fighting in Gaza and growing international isolation, Israel’s economy is facing unprecedented strains. Once a regional growth engine, the country now grapples with ballooning war costs, surging consumer prices, labour shortages, crumbling public finances and a declining credit standing. The signs of distress are evident across households, businesses and government accounts.War‑Related Damage and Fiscal StrainThe war in Gaza, which began after the October 7 2023 attacks, has inflicted both human and economic devastation. Gaza’s authorities estimate that more than 67 000 Palestinians have been killed and Israel reports that Hamas killed 1 200 people in the initial attack. Economic activity in Gaza and the West Bank has collapsed. The conflict has cost the Israeli economy about US$43 billion since October 2023 and has slowed GDP growth from high single‑digit rates to 0.9 % in 2024. Defence spending is expected to almost double compared with 2022, pushing the debt‑to‑GDP ratio from 61 % in 2023 to roughly 70 % in 2024 and swelling the budget deficit to 8.5 % of GDP.Israel has financed wartime expenditure through borrowing. The state raised US$8 billion on international markets in March 2024 and US$5 billion in February 2025, relying partly on US military aid. However, analysts warn that war‑related labour shortages and the ongoing mobilisation of reservists are stalling growth: the central bank trimmed its 2025 growth estimate to 2.5 %, down from 3.3 %, and sees the economy expanding only if hostilities end. A former deputy governor estimated that failure to achieve a lasting ceasefire could push debt above 90 % of GDP by 2030, triggering credit downgrades.Cost‑of‑Living Crisis and Tax HikesConsumers are feeling the pinch. Israel ranks among the developed world’s most expensive countries; its price levels are the fourth highest in the OECD. The Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) attributes high prices to a mix of geographical constraints, steep tariffs on food imports, strict product‑market regulations and limited competition. Administrative red tape and complex planning rules restrict housing supply, while a vibrant high‑tech sector coexists with low‑productivity industries, creating large wage disparities. In 2025 the state comptroller warned that the cost of living was skyrocketing: prices for basic goods were 51 % higher than those in the European Union and 37 % above the OECD average, with three corporations controlling over 85 % of many food categories. These monopolistic structures enable retailers to raise prices during times of shortage.At the start of 2025, Israelis faced further blows. The value‑added tax was raised from 17 % to 18 %, increasing the cost of nearly all goods. National Insurance contributions were increased by ₪1 000–2 000 per household, income tax brackets were frozen so that salaries do not keep pace with inflation and the surtax on high earners rose from 3 % to 5 %. Municipal property taxes can rise 5.2 %, with higher levies on newer buildings, while electricity prices climb 3.5 % and water charges 2 %. These measures are intended to narrow the fiscal gap caused by wartime expenditure but further squeeze households’ disposable income and risk fuelling social unrest.High Cost of Living and Structural ProblemsIsrael’s cost‑of‑living problem is not new. Protests against soaring housing and food prices date back more than a decade, from the 2011 tent protests to the 2014 “Milky” boycott. Analysis by the OECD highlights deep structural causes. Israel’s distance from major trading partners and tense regional relations limit trade opportunities, while difficult border procedures, complex regulatory standards and tariffs on agricultural imports raise import costs. Limited competition and strict product‑market regulation slow productivity growth and prevent savings from being passed on to consumers. Housing is particularly unaffordable: administrative red tape restricts supply and planning obstacles make urban development sluggish.The OECD therefore recommends sweeping reforms: remove trade barriers and bureaucratic hurdles to strengthen competition, establish a “one‑stop shop” for business licensing and adopt a “silence is consent” principle for issuing permits, simplify import licensing and lower tariffs on vegetables, fruit and dairy. Easing planning regulations, accelerating urban renewal and investing in public transport would expand housing supply and reduce costs. Without such measures, high prices will continue to erode purchasing power.Labour Shortages, Inequality and the High‑Tech ExodusLabour markets have been disrupted on multiple fronts. The war caused schools and services to close and led to the suspension of Palestinian work permits, halving the share of non‑Israeli labour in total employment and cutting investment by 26 % in late 2023. Agriculture and construction struggled as Palestinian and foreign workers were barred, while the call‑up of reservists removed tens of thousands of Israelis from civilian jobs. The central bank warns that the economy will not recover fully until these supply constraints ease.Meanwhile, inequality has deepened. Before the war, Israel’s GDP per capita was 14 times higher than that of Gaza and the West Bank. In Gaza, GDP has shrunk by 86 % and multi‑dimensional poverty now afflicts 98 % of residents. Within Israel, labour‑force participation is low among ultra‑Orthodox men and Arab women, hindering growth. The OECD urges the government to end subsidies for yeshiva students, condition childcare support on fathers’ employment and equalise funding for Arab schools.Israel’s high‑tech industry, which accounts for about a fifth of GDP, more than half of exports and roughly a quarter of tax revenue, is facing its own crisis. In the nine months after the October 2023 attacks, 8 300 high‑tech employees left the country for year‑long relocations. High‑tech employment declined by 5 000 jobs in 2024, the first contraction in at least a decade. The Israel Innovation Authority warns that the exodus reflects uncertainty about the war’s duration, a lack of funding and the call‑up of reservists. It calls for investment in education and skills, tax incentives for returning professionals and policies to stabilise the business environment. Without such measures, a core driver of growth and tax revenue may erode.Housing Market SlumpThe real estate sector, once a key wealth store for Israeli households, has also stalled. In June 2025, housing sales fell to the lowest level in more than two decades; only 5 844 units were sold, a 29 % drop from a year earlier, and sales of new‑build homes collapsed by 46 %. These figures mark the lowest June sales since the early 2000s. The Ministry of Finance attributed the slump to war‑related uncertainty and tighter financing rules. The national housing price index declined by 1.3 % over four months, with Tel Aviv seeing a 4.2 % drop. Some Israelis are turning to real estate abroad, including Georgia, to protect wealth. Analysts warn that the market’s collapse reflects a broader decline in consumer confidence and investment.International Isolation and Credit DowngradesIsrael’s global standing has deteriorated. The war’s humanitarian toll has hardened attitudes in the European Union, Israel’s largest trading partner. Several EU states have frozen arms exports, and some have moved to ban imports from Israeli settlements. In September 2025 the European Commission proposed suspending trade benefits covering 37 % of Israeli exports, amounting to roughly €42.6 billion in annual trade. The plan, which would end preferential tariffs and impose sanctions on Israeli ministers, marks Brussels’ strongest action yet against Israel. Such measures threaten to curb exports, investment and access to technology.Credit rating agencies have responded by lowering Israel’s sovereign rating and warning of further downgrades. In February 2024 Moody’s cut the rating two notches from A2 to Baa1 and maintained a negative outlook. In early 2025, Fitch affirmed an “A” rating but retained a negative outlook, citing rising public debt, domestic political strains and the uncertain trajectory of the Gaza war. Fitch noted that renewed hostilities could last months, reducing reserves mobilised but still straining the economy. All three major agencies cut Israel’s score in 2024 due to ballooning defence and civilian costs, signalling that borrowing costs could rise and limiting fiscal flexibility.The Bank of Israel, which has kept its benchmark interest rate at 4.5 % for 14 consecutive meetings, warns that international isolation will harm trade and foreign investment. Governor Amir Yaron cautions that prolonged conflict could lower growth, widen the budget deficit and keep inflation high. Despite pressure from industry to cut rates, the central bank stresses that supply constraints, war‑driven budgets and a strong shekel justify caution. Inflation peaked at 3.8 % in January 2025 but moderated to 2.5 % in September, within the target range.Prospects and Necessary ReformsLooking ahead, forecasts hinge on peace. The OECD projects that if fighting eases, Israel’s economy could grow 3.4 % in 2025 and 5.5 % in 2026. A ceasefire allowing reservists to return to work could lift growth to 3.6 % in 2026, keeping debt below 70 % of GDP. However, the Bank of Israel’s staff anticipates only 2.5 % growth in 2025 and inflation around 3 %, with interest rates declining modestly in 2026. The 2025 budget aims to narrow the deficit to 4.3 %, but economists expect it could still reach 5 %.To avert lasting damage, structural reforms are essential. The OECD urges the government to relax product‑market regulations, reduce trade barriers and red tape, improve infrastructure and invest in education and labour‑market participation for ultra‑Orthodox and Arab citizens. It calls for ending subsidies that discourage work, tying childcare support to parental employment, and equalising funding for Arab schools. Investment in artificial intelligence and advanced skills is needed to sustain the high‑tech sector, which the innovation authority says must broaden its talent pool. The cost‑of‑living crisis requires the dismantling of monopolies, lowering tariffs on food imports and streamlining planning regulations.ConclusionIsrael’s economy is in serious trouble. Years of war have drained public finances, weakened growth and raised debt to unprecedented levels. Households face higher taxes, surging utility bills and some of the world’s highest consumer prices. Labour shortages, inequality and the exodus of high‑tech talent threaten long‑term competitiveness, while credit downgrades and EU trade sanctions signal growing international isolation. Without a durable peace and a bold reform agenda—spanning trade liberalisation, regulatory simplification, education and competition policy—the country risks prolonged stagnation and social unrest. The coming months will determine whether Israel can arrest its economic decline or whether the cracks widen into a full‑blown crisis.

Trap laid, Ukraine walked in

The geopolitical landscape surrounding the war in Ukraine has shifted dramatically in recent weeks, leading many to argue that a trap was set — and Ukraine stepped straight into it. As pressure mounts around a new peace initiative promoted by former 45. and now 47. U.S. President Donald J. Trump, the debate is intensifying over whether Ukraine has been cornered and whether European nations share a shameful responsibility for the current predicament.The proposed peace framework circulating since late November presents a stark reality: Ukraine would be required to make painful territorial concessions, scale back parts of its military capabilities, and abandon long-term ambitions for deeper integration with Western defence structures. The rationale behind the proposal is packaged as a “pragmatic” path to ending the war, yet the implications would cement strategic gains for Russia and fundamentally weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty.European governments reacted with unease and internal division. Publicly, they emphasise the need for adjustments and caution against any agreement that reshapes borders under pressure. Privately, however, several capitals fear being left alone to shoulder long-term financial and military support should the United States pull back. Some European leaders recognise that approval of the plan could stabilise parts of the continent in the short term, yet at the cost of undermining the very principles they have defended since the war began.For Kyiv, the situation is even more delicate. Ukraine’s leadership has signalled willingness to examine the proposal, but throughout the country the sentiment is overwhelmingly hostile. Soldiers, civil society, and much of the population view the plan as nothing short of a surrender. After years of devastating losses, the idea of codifying territorial fragmentation and weakening national defence is seen as a direct threat to the nation’s survival.To many observers, the timing and structure of the proposal appear intentional. By presenting a plan that heavily favours Russian interests while portraying it as the “only realistic path forward,” Trump effectively places Ukraine under immense diplomatic pressure. If Kyiv rejects the plan, it risks losing political support; if it accepts, it risks losing the country it has fought to preserve.This dynamic also places Europe in an uncomfortable spotlight. While European nations have repeatedly voiced support for Ukraine, the reality is that they have long relied on U.S. leadership for strategic direction, intelligence coordination, and military supplies. Critics argue that Europe’s inability to develop a cohesive and independent defence posture has left Ukraine vulnerable to geopolitical gambits. Now, as the United States reshapes its stance, Europe must confront its shortcomings.The central question is no longer whether Ukraine wants to resist, but whether it still can — and whether Europe will meaningfully help. A peace agreement that weakens Ukraine risks redefining the security architecture of an entire continent, emboldening aggressive revisionism, and eroding confidence in the West’s commitment to defending democratic nations under threat.Whether this moment becomes the beginning of Ukraine’s political end or a turning point in Europe’s strategic awakening depends on the choices made now. What remains clear is that Ukraine cannot afford to be treated as a bargaining chip — and Europe cannot pretend that its own security is separate from Ukraine’s fate.

Ukraine Loses Kursk: A Collapse?

Seven months after Ukraine’s audacious incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, the tide appears to have turned decisively against Kyiv. Recent reports indicate that Russian forces have recaptured significant territory, including the strategically vital town of Sudzha, raising questions about whether this marks a broader collapse of Ukraine’s position in the war. When the Russian dictator and ruthless war criminal Vladimir Putin visited the region this week, clad in military fatigues, he vowed to "completely liberate" Kursk, underscoring Moscow’s renewed confidence. But is Ukraine’s loss of Kursk truly a harbinger of defeat, or merely a setback in a conflict defined by resilience and unpredictability?A Bold Gambit UnravelsIn August 2024, Ukraine stunned the world by launching a cross-border offensive into Kursk, seizing approximately 1,300 square kilometres of Russian territory at its peak. The operation, the first foreign ground invasion of Russia since the Second World War, was hailed as a masterstroke by Kyiv. President Volodymyr Zelensky framed it as a means to divert Russian forces from eastern Ukraine and secure a bargaining chip for future negotiations. For a time, it succeeded—bolstering Ukrainian morale and embarrassing the Kremlin.Yet, the initial triumph has given way to a grim reality. Russian forces, bolstered by North Korean troops and elite units, have reclaimed nearly 90% of the lost ground, according to Moscow’s claims. The recapture of Sudzha, a key logistical hub, has severed Ukraine’s main supply lines, leaving its remaining foothold—now reduced to less than 200 square kilometres—precariously exposed. Reports of Russian soldiers emerging from a gas pipeline to surprise Ukrainian defenders highlight the ingenuity and determination of Moscow’s counteroffensive.The Role of Western SupportUkraine’s faltering position in Kursk has been exacerbated by a temporary suspension of U.S. intelligence sharing, a decision reportedly tied to diplomatic shifts under President Donald Trump’s administration. Ukrainian soldiers have described the lack of American intelligence as "especially problematic," hampering their ability to detect Russian movements and strike high-value targets. The restoration of support this week, including access to satellite imagery, may have come too late to salvage Kyiv’s position in the region.Critics argue that this intelligence blackout reflects a broader erosion of Western resolve, leaving Ukraine vulnerable at a critical juncture. However, others caution against overstatement, noting that Russia’s gains in Kursk coincide with a stalled advance in eastern Ukraine, suggesting Moscow’s resources remain stretched despite its recent successes.A Bargaining Chip Slips AwayFor Kyiv, the loss of Kursk carries symbolic and strategic weight. Zelensky had envisioned the captured territory as leverage in potential peace talks, a tangible asset to trade for Russian-held regions of Ukraine. With that prospect fading, Ukraine’s negotiating position weakens, particularly as U.S. officials prepare to discuss a 30-day ceasefire proposal with Moscow. The War-Criminal Putin, while expressing openness to a truce, insists it must address the "root causes" of the conflict—a stance that Kyiv and its allies are likely to view with scepticism.The Ukrainian commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskii, has vowed to hold Kursk "as long as it is appropriate and necessary," prioritising the preservation of soldiers’ lives. Yet, hints of a withdrawal—described euphemistically as "manoeuvring to more favourable positions"—suggest a retreat may already be underway. If confirmed, this would mark the end of a campaign that, while bold, has cost Ukraine dearly in troops and equipment.Collapse or Strategic Recalibration?Does the loss of Kursk signal Ukraine’s collapse? Not necessarily. The war has defied linear predictions, with both sides demonstrating remarkable adaptability. Ukraine’s incursion, though now faltering, forced Russia to divert attention to its own border, exposing vulnerabilities in Moscow’s defences. Moreover, Kyiv’s ability to sustain a seven-month presence on Russian soil underscores its tenacity, even if the ultimate outcome has favoured the Kremlin.Nevertheless, the setback is undeniable. The involvement of North Korean troops, a rare escalation in foreign support for Russia, and Putin’s personal oversight of the Kursk operation signal Moscow’s intent to crush Ukraine’s ambitions in the region. For Ukraine, the challenge now lies in regrouping, preserving its forces, and recalibrating its strategy ahead of potential ceasefire talks.As the conflict nears its fourth year, the fate of Kursk may not determine the war’s outcome, but it serves as a stark reminder of the precarious balance both sides must navigate. Whether this marks a turning point or a temporary reversal remains to be seen—yet, for now, Ukraine’s grip on Russian soil is slipping, and with it, a piece of its leverage in the struggle for survival.

Taiwan: Is the "Silicon Shield" collapsing?

Taiwan, long regarded as a linchpin in the global technology supply chain, faces an uncertain future as its vaunted “silicon shield”—the notion that its dominance in semiconductor production deters aggression—comes under strain. The island’s strategic importance, driven by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced microchips, has historically offered a degree of protection against threats, notably from China. However, recent policies from United States President Donald Trump are raising fears that this shield may be crumbling, leaving Taiwan vulnerable at a time of escalating geopolitical tension.The Silicon Shield: A Fragile BastionThe concept of the silicon shield posits that Taiwan’s indispensable role in supplying cutting-edge semiconductors to the world—powering everything from smartphones to artificial intelligence—acts as a deterrent against military action, particularly from Beijing, which claims the island as part of its territory. The theory rests on the catastrophic economic fallout that would follow any disruption to TSMC’s operations, a scenario that would cripple global supply chains and affect major economies, including the U.S. and China itself. For years, this economic leverage has been Taiwan’s unspoken safeguard, complementing its military defences and U.S. support under the Taiwan Relations Act.Yet, this shield is not impervious. China’s growing military assertiveness—demonstrated by large-scale drills encircling Taiwan in October 2024—and its advancements in domestic chip production have already cast doubt on the shield’s durability. Now, Trump’s aggressive economic strategy is adding a new layer of jeopardy, threatening to erode Taiwan’s technological edge and, with it, the island’s strategic security.Trump’s Tariff Threat:Since reclaiming the presidency, Trump has doubled down on his “America First” agenda, targeting Taiwan’s semiconductor industry with a bold and controversial plan. In a speech to Republicans on 27 January 2025, he proposed tariffs of up to 100% on imported microchips, arguing that Taiwan had “stolen” America’s chip industry and that such measures would force production back to U.S. soil. “They won’t want to pay a 25%, 50%, or even 100% tax,” Trump declared, framing the policy as a means to revitalise American manufacturing.This stance marks a sharp departure from his first term, during which he bolstered Taiwan through arms sales and diplomatic engagement, including a historic call with then-President Tsai Ing-wen in 2016. Now, his rhetoric portrays Taiwan less as an ally and more as an economic rival. His administration has also questioned the $6.6 billion in grants awarded to TSMC under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act for a factory in Arizona, with Trump dismissing it as a “ridiculous programme.” Such moves signal a transactional approach, echoing his earlier demands that Taiwan “pay” for U.S. defence support.Economic and Strategic Fallout:The implications of Trump’s plan are profound. For Taiwan, tariffs would not only raise costs for U.S. importers—likely passed on to consumers—but also jeopardise TSMC’s investments in American facilities, which now total $65 billion. Taiwanese Premier Cho Jung-tai has vowed to maintain the island’s tech leadership, announcing on 28 January 2025 that the government would explore “cooperative plans and assistance programmes” to shield its industry. Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei, meanwhile, downplayed the immediate impact, citing Taiwan’s technological superiority, though analysts warn that prolonged pressure could force TSMC to shift more production overseas, diluting Taiwan’s economic leverage.Strategically, this shift could weaken the silicon shield’s second layer: the reliance of third parties, particularly the U.S., on Taiwanese chips. If Trump succeeds in relocating significant semiconductor production, Taiwan’s role as a global chokepoint diminishes, potentially reducing the incentive for Washington to defend the island. This fear is compounded by Trump’s ambiguous stance on Taiwan’s defence, having dodged questions in 2024 about whether he would intervene if China attacked, instead noting the island’s distance—9,500 miles from the U.S. versus 68 miles from China.China’s Opportunistic Gaze:Beijing, which has never renounced the use of force to achieve unification, may see an opening. While China relies heavily on TSMC—despite progress with firms like SMIC—some analysts argue that Taiwan’s chip prowess is less a shield and more a prize, incentivising control over the industry. Trump’s policies could accelerate this calculus. Posts on X suggest a growing sentiment that his approach might “incentivise Taiwan to capitulate” by undermining its economic defences, though such views remain speculative.Taiwanese officials remain defiant. The foreign ministry, responding to Trump’s tariff threats, reiterated on 28 January 2025 that the Republic of China is a “sovereign and independent country,” dismissing any distortion of its status. President Lai Ching-te, who has stressed the “solid as a rock” U.S.-Taiwan partnership, faces the challenge of bolstering defences—currently budgeted at 2.45% of GDP—while navigating this economic onslaught.A Shield at Risk:Taiwan’s silicon shield has never been a guarantee, but Trump’s plan introduces unprecedented pressure. By targeting the island’s economic lifeline, he risks not only disrupting global tech supply chains but also weakening a key deterrent against Chinese aggression. For Taipei, the task is clear yet daunting: reinforce its technological edge, deepen international ties, and prepare for a world where its shield may no longer hold. As the U.S. pivots inward, Taiwan stands at a crossroads, its fate hanging in the balance between economic might and geopolitical reality.

Next Chancellor of Germany and Trump

Germany’s political landscape shifted decisively with the federal election on 23 February 2025, propelling Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), into the position of the nation’s next chancellor. As he prepares to form a coalition government, likely with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Merz has signalled a bold foreign policy stance: a willingness to confront United States President Donald Trump, particularly over the contentious issue of Ukraine. This emerging transatlantic tension promises to redefine Germany’s role on the global stage.A new german Leader with a clear Vision?Merz’s victory, securing approximately 28.5% of the vote for the CDU/CSU alliance, marks a return to conservative leadership following years of coalition governance under Angela Merkel and, more recently, Olaf Scholz. With the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) gaining 20% and the SPD trailing at 16.5%, Merz faces the task of uniting a fragmented Bundestag. Preliminary estimates suggest the CDU/CSU will hold around 179 seats, necessitating a partnership with the SPD (104 seats) and possibly the Greens (73 seats) to achieve the 316-seat majority required.The chancellor-in-waiting has wasted no time in outlining his priorities. While congratulating Trump on his inauguration on 20 January 2025 with a handwritten letter—a gesture of diplomatic courtesy—Merz has made it clear that he will not shy away from challenging the American president where their views diverge.The Ukraine Flashpoint:At the heart of this anticipated confrontation lies Ukraine. Merz has been an outspoken advocate for robust European support for Kyiv, a position he underscored during a visit to President Volodymyr Zelensky in May 2022. His criticism of Trump’s rhetoric, which he has described as echoing Russian narratives, reveals a stark divide. In a recent interview Merz expressed dismay at Trump’s apparent indifference to European security concerns, labelling it a “classic case of blaming the victim.” This stance contrasts sharply with Trump’s reported inclination to pursue rapprochement with Russia, a policy that has alarmed many in Europe.Merz’s commitment to Ukraine is not merely rhetorical. He has pledged to bolster Germany’s defence spending and has floated the idea of a new European defence alliance, potentially as an alternative to NATO, should transatlantic cooperation falter under Trump’s leadership. Such proposals reflect a broader ambition to enhance Europe’s strategic autonomy—a move that could strain relations with Washington.Balancing Confrontation with Cooperation:Despite his readiness to challenge Trump, Merz is not advocating for a complete rupture. In an interview last November, he emphasised the importance of “deals” with the United States, particularly in trade and economic matters, that could benefit both sides. This pragmatic streak suggests that while Merz may clash with Trump over security policy, he seeks to maintain a functional relationship in other domains. Germany, as Europe’s economic powerhouse, cannot afford to alienate its largest transatlantic partner entirely.Implications for Transatlantic Ties:Merz’s leadership arrives at a pivotal moment. Trump’s return to the White House has rekindled debates about the reliability of American commitments to Europe, especially within NATO. By positioning Germany as a counterweight to Trump’s policies, Merz could catalyse a shift towards a more assertive European Union—one less dependent on U.S. direction. His plans to increase defence collaboration among EU nations signal a long-term vision that may outlast transatlantic spats.Yet, this approach carries risks. A public confrontation with Trump could exacerbate divisions within NATO and embolden critics of European unity, such as the AfD, which has capitalised on anti-establishment sentiment. Merz must navigate these domestic and international pressures with care.Conclusion:As Friedrich Merz prepares to assume the chancellorship, his intention to confront Donald Trump over Ukraine heralds a new chapter in German foreign policy. Rooted in a commitment to European security and independence, his stance promises to test the resilience of transatlantic relations. Whether this leads to a lasting realignment or a pragmatic compromise remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Germany’s next chancellor is poised to make his mark on the world stage.

Russia and the terrorism against Ukraine

Russia is a terrorist state. Since 24 February 2022, everyone on our planet knows this. Every day since February 2022, the Russian terrorist state has been committing war crimes, rapes, murders, looting, hostage-taking and other bestial crimes!The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, continues to cast uncertainty over its eventual outcome. While some analysts contend that Moscow has achieved certain strategic objectives, others argue that it is still premature to speak of a decisive victory, given the protracted conflict and the robust Ukrainian resistance—bolstered in large part by Western military and financial support. In this context, fundamental questions arise: Has Russia won the war? What scenarios lie ahead for Ukraine?Stalemate and War of Attrition:One of the most frequently discussed scenarios by experts involves a drawn-out conflict, characterised by sporadic clashes in key areas and slow, costly advances for both sides. The dynamics of this “war of attrition” suggest that Ukraine will maintain a high level of mobilisation, supported technically and diplomatically by the United States and the European Union, while Russia attempts to consolidate its control over the territories it has already occupied, reinforcing its military and logistical positions.Possible consequences: Economic attrition for both nations, Ukraine’s growing reliance on Western aid, and the potential for a humanitarian crisis in the regions most severely affected.Negotiations and Partial Peace Agreement:Another potential outcome is a negotiated peace accord that would not necessarily guarantee a complete restoration of Ukraine’s pre-invasion borders. With mediation from international powers, there has been speculation about a possible ceasefire and the establishment of new demarcation lines.Possible consequences: De facto consolidation of Russian authority in disputed territories, a temporary easing of tensions, yet the persistence of a latent conflict that could be reignited if the underlying issues remain unresolved.Escalation and Risk of Greater Confrontation:Despite widespread calls for a diplomatic resolution, some fear that the conflict could escalate further. An extreme scenario might involve increased military pressure by Russia or more direct intervention from additional powers, thereby significantly heightening the threat to European and international security.Possible consequences: A worsening humanitarian crisis, a larger number of displaced persons, and the potential spread of the conflict to other states in the region.Ukrainian Victory with International Support:Conversely, a scenario favouring Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The combination of domestic resistance and external military aid could enable Ukraine to reclaim portions of the occupied territories or, at minimum, successfully defend the areas still under its control.Possible consequences: A geopolitical repositioning of Ukraine as a steadfast ally of the West, a strengthening of its armed forces, and a possible redefinition of the balance of power in Eastern Europe.Has Russia Won the War?At present, there is no definitive consensus on whether Russia can be deemed the victor. Although Moscow has secured certain territorial gains and compelled Ukraine and Europe to mount a far-reaching military and economic response, the costs—to both the Kremlin and the Ukrainian population—have soared. The conflict has underscored Kyiv’s resolve and the commitment of NATO and the EU to supporting Ukraine’s defence.Ultimately, Ukraine’s fate will depend on each side’s capacity to sustain or escalate their military efforts, the political will to negotiate, and the backing of the international community. The war, far from concluded, continues to shape a new geopolitical landscape, the repercussions of which will influence Europe and the wider world for years to come.

US: Trump begins mass deportations!

In a decisive move that has sparked fierce debate both at home and abroad, the 45th and current 47th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has launched a large-scale deportation of undocumented immigrants in the United States. The long-awaited action, overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is seen by many as the realisation of Trump's campaign promise to impose stricter immigration measures and tighten national borders.Administration officials close to Mr Trump assert that this approach is necessary to safeguard jobs for American citizens, maintain public security, and uphold the principle of lawful entry. “The American people deserve a migration system that operates in their best interests,” said an anonymous source affiliated with Mr Trump’s team. “Our goal is to deter illegal crossings and restore order.”However, the news of mass deportations has triggered considerable anxiety within immigrant communities, with numerous advocacy groups decrying what they perceive as an extreme strategy that disregards humanitarian considerations. Critics argue that hastily executed raids risk separating families, including children who are American citizens, from their parents. Additionally, some raise concerns over due process: under pressure to produce swift results, immigration officials may be less inclined to provide comprehensive legal counsel or adhere rigorously to procedural requirements.Civil society organisations and legal aid clinics have ramped up their efforts, offering pro bono support and urging affected individuals to be aware of their rights. “We are seeing an environment of fear and uncertainty,” commented Sofia Martínez, a lawyer specialising in immigration law at a prominent nonprofit. “Our central message is that individuals are entitled to legal recourse, and we intend to defend those rights.”Meanwhile, political responses are sharply divided. Republican lawmakers who support Mr Trump’s agenda applaud the move as a necessary step to reassert national sovereignty, while Democrats criticise the operation’s moral and economic implications, highlighting the potential long-term impact on communities and businesses reliant on immigrant labour.As this sweeping deportation campaign continues, it is expected to further polarise an already divisive national debate on immigration policy. Whether it will bring about the desired reform or simply deepen existing fault lines remains uncertain, but there is little doubt that the United States is entering a new phase of high-stakes enforcement.