In July, Saudi Arabia joined the US-Israeli war on the West Asia region with strikes on Yemen. The Ansar Allah-led Yemeni Armed Forces retaliated by launching a maritime blockade alongside attacks targeting vital Saudi interests.

The renewed fighting between the two West Asian nations resulted in Ansar Allah’s takeover of the strategic Red Sea port city of Mokha last week and the liberation of all the group’s prisoners held by Saudi-backed forces on Yemen’s western coast.

Ansar Allah’s seizure of Mokha seaport is reshaping regional and global geopolitics, particularly because it serves as a primary gateway to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and coincides with developments in the Strait of Hormuz.

As these major shifts underscore, Yemen holds immense strategic geopolitical significance.

Situated on the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula and overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait, Yemen represents a vital chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean

Consequently, internal political developments in Yemen can have global political and economic repercussions.

This fact, in turn, has put Yemen in the crosshairs of the US-led Western imperialist bloc and their allies in West Asia, which have endeavored to subjugate the country through a devastating decade-long war and blockade. 

The origin of this war coincides with the emergence of Ansar Allah, beginning when the group managed to take control of large swathes of the country, including the capital, Sanaa, in 2014.

The rise of Ansar Allah

Ansar Allah was first established in the early 1990s in the northern Yemeni governorate of Saada as a cultural and educational organization called Al-Shabab al-Mumin (the Believing Youth).

Initially, the organization introduced itself as an unarmed theological movement aimed at reviving and preserving Zaydi Shia Islam and countering the threat of state-backed Sunni Salafism, which sought to uproot the Zaydi religious identity in its homeland of Saada.

From its inception, the movement opposed the government, led by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, accusing it of corruption and criticizing its ties to the United States and its ally Saudi Arabia.

Tensions between the group and the government drastically escalated following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was at that time that the group adopted the slogan (Death to America, Death to Israel), during mass protests opposing the war on Iraq.

These slogans posed a political threat to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was attempting to position his government as a key ally in the “US War on Terror” in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. As a result his government led a brutal crackdown on protesters.

Security forces and riot police suppressed protests using live ammunition, tear gas, and batons, and arbitrarily detained hundreds of political activists, students, and opposition organizers without trial.

In 2004, tension between the Al-Shabab al-Mumin and the Yemeni government boiled over, sparking a series of six internal conflicts known as the Saada Wars. 

These clashes began with the government’s assassination of Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, the group’s founder, and triggered five subsequent rounds of fighting that lasted until 2010. The followers of the group became widely known as the Houthis ever since. 

Saudi Arabia reportedly engaged in the Saada wars by providing immense financial, political, and material support to the Yemeni government. Saudi intervention in Yemen escalated in 2009 with a direct military incursion and unilateral airstrikes against positions held by the Houthi movement.

In 2011, the group joined nationwide demonstrations, calling for the overthrow of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. It was then that the Houthi movement formally adopted the name Ansar Allah (Supporters of God). 

The ousting of Saleh weakened the central government and triggered a sweeping power vacuum, which allowed Ansar Allah to rapidly expand its territorial dominance. By 2012, the Yemeni movement consolidated firm control across the Saada governorate and large swathes of northern Yemen.

In early 2012, vice president to Saleh, Abed Rabbu Mansour, Hadi became the President of Yemen via a transition framework brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as he was  considered as a quiet consensus figure. Hadi was also strongly backed by the Obama administration. 

In late 2014, Ansar Allah allied with forces loyal to ousted president Ali Abdullah Saleh against the transitional government headed by Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The fighting that followed led to Ansar Allah’s seizure of the capital Sanaa, forcing Hadi to flee the country.

2015-2022: The Saudi-led coalition’s protracted war against Yemen

From exile in 2015, Hadi requested the Saudi-led coalition to intervene in the conflict, opening the door to one of the bloodiest prolonged wars in West Asia. A conflict that, according to UN estimates, resulted in 377,000 deaths by 2022. 

Saudi Arabia was the main pillar of the coalition, leading the military campaign dubbed “Operation Decisive Storm” with a massive force, including extensive warplanes and ground troops.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also played a key role by commanding ground and air operations particularly in southern Yemen and along the critical coastal strip.

Bahrain took part in the operation with 12 fighter jets (some sources say 15), and deployed ground troops in the southern Saudi borders to protect Saudi Arabia from Ansar Allah’s attacks. Meanwhile, Kuwait contributed with 15 warplanes.

At the beginning of the campaign, Qatar participated with roughly 1,000 ground troops, armored vehicles, a dozen fighter jets, and transport helicopters until it was expelled from the coalition in June 2017 over a diplomatic crisis with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt.

Jordan and Morocco contributed six fighter jets each, while Sudan under deposed president Omar Al-Bashir sent three aircrafts and thousands of ground troops. Furthermore, Senegal committed 2,100 troops.

Western countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France provided logistic and intelligence support, such as aerial refueling for coalition jets, technical assistance, military equipment, coordination support, and maritime surveillance.

The 2022 UN-brokered truce de-escalated the war rather than ending it

In April 2022, the United Nations announced an official two-month nationwide truce agreement, which temporarily halted cross-border attacks, ground and air operations, and allowed fuel imports into ports held by Ansar Allah. It also reopened commercial flights from Sanaa International Airport after years of sea, land, and air blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia. 

Rather than completely removing the blockade, the agreement only resulted in the partial easing of restrictions, while regions under the control of Ansar Allah have continued to face a near-total blockade.

Read more: Yemen demands Saudi-led blockade on the country be lifted immediately

The agreement was renewed in June and extended a second time in August 2022 for an additional two months before it lapsed in October. 

Regional developments reignited the conflict (2023-2026)

In November 2023, Ansar Allah launched a ban on all Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in retaliation for Israel’s genocidal aggression on Gaza.

About one month later, the group significantly expanded the ban to include all ships heading to Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality or flag.

The ban continued until October 2025, despite waves of deadly airstrikes launched by the US, UK, and Israel on Yemen.

An Omani-mediated ceasefire deal between the US and Ansar Allah was reached in May 2025. The deal stipulated halting Ansar Allah’s attacks on US ships in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, and ending US aggression on Yemen, without preventing the Yemeni resistance movement from launching attacks or naval operations against Israel. 

This same period saw a shift in the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and Ansar Allah from active military engagement toward a tense, fragile diplomacy.

In early 2026, friction between the two major pillars in the anti-Ansar Allah coalition – namely Saudi Arabia and the UAE – surfaced as different Yemeni groups backed by the two countries clashed, apparently over territorial control in Yemen.

Read more: Tensions in Yemen: Are Saudi Arabia and the UAE becoming frenemies?

The US-Israeli war on Iran has drawn Yemen back into the regional conflict

Although Ansar Allah was established as an independent Yemeni movement, it evolved into a key component of the Axis of Resistance over time. This alignment was driven by mutual ideological foundations, shared anti-imperialist ideology, and deep strategic and military cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah.

Despite its affiliation with the resistance alliance, Ansar Allah chose not to get involved in the recent regional war waged by the US and Israel against Iran, for ostensibly strategic considerations and military coordination tactics with its allies.

Read more: Reflections on the US-Israeli multi-front war in West Asia: How the Axis of Resistance remains resilient

However, because the United States and its allies in the region seemingly view the current war as an ideal opportunity to dismantle the Axis of Resistance, Saudi Arabia decided to resume its aggression against Yemen by attacking Sanaa International Airport in July. The attack aimed to prevent an Iranian plane from landing.

Consequently, Ansar Allah launched retaliatory attacks on Saudi interests inside Saudi Arabia and on Yemeni soil. It further declared a maritime blockade against Saudi-linked commercial vessels passing through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, demanding Riyadh end its decade-long blockade on Yemen.  

Concurrently, ground clashes over territorial dominance between Ansar Allah and Saudi-backed forces intensified, leading to key victories for the Yemeni group. Escalations have persisted up to the time of publication.

On Wednesday, September 16, Saudi Arabia accused Ansar Allah of attempting a drone attack against the city of Mecca, the holiest city for Muslims, located in western Saudi Arabia.

Ansar Allah dismissed Saudi accusations as false, saying that they reflect a “desperate attempt to mobilize public opinion.”

As the US-Israeli war on West Asia continues to reshape geopolitics, Ansar Allah’s emergence as a regional force has placed Yemen at the center of a struggle that may define the future of West Asia.

Protests rocked the Democratic Republic of Congo on Tuesday, September 15, as opposition supporters took to the streets in Kinshasa and several other cities to oppose proposed constitutional changes that they say could allow President Félix Tshisekedi to seek a third term.

The demonstrations were called by the opposition coalition C64 (Coalition Article 64), which has campaigned against changes to the Constitution and what it considers an attempt to remove the existing two-term presidential limit.

The demonstrations were also reported in several cities. In Kinshasa, hundreds of protesters gathered around the Limete area before the march was disrupted by clashes involving demonstrators and people identified as members of the Force du Progrès, a group affiliated with Tshisekedi’s ruling UDPS party. Police used tear gas and warning shots to disperse the crowd. At least 10 people were arrested in Kinshasa.

Opposition accuses authorities of an “ambush”

Martin Fayulu, leader of the Engagement for Citizenship and Development (ECiDé) and a leading C64 figure, accused authorities of deliberately allowing pro-government militants to attack the opposition march.

In a post following the confrontation, Fayulu said the C64 had agreed on its route with Kinshasa’s city authorities before the march. He alleged that protesters were then confronted in Limete by armed members of the Force du Progrès while police used tear gas against the marchers.

Fayulu wrote that the C64 had been “the victim of an ambush” and accused the authorities of using a political militia alongside security forces. He called on Kinshasa’s city authorities and the national government to explain what happened.

Read more: Lithium mining in the DRC: A new mineral rush spearheaded by the US, EU, and other major powers

The confrontation prevented the C64 march from reaching its planned destination and from delivering its memorandum to the authorities at the People’s Palace.

Opposition resistance has been building 

Tuesday’s demonstrations were the latest escalation in an opposition campaign that has been building since June, when there were protests after Congo’s parliament approved legislation allowing constitutional amendments to be submitted to a referendum.

The National Assembly and Senate have both backed the referendum legislation. Critics argue that the process could eventually open the way for amendments to the presidential term-limit provisions.

Tshisekedi was first elected president in 2018 and re-elected in 2023. Under the current Constitution, the president serves a maximum of two five-year terms. His current term runs until 2028.

The proposed constitutional changes have therefore become a major point of confrontation between the government and opposition. The C64 says it is defending the existing constitutional order and has rejected any change that could enable Tshisekedi to seek another term.

The protests and the crisis is happening as the government faces other major challenges, including conflict in eastern Congo and an Ebola outbreak.

Read more: Ebola spreads to 60 health zones in eastern DRC; UN warns of funding shortfall

It is rarely a good sign when European politicians open their speeches by quoting Charles Dickens. So alarms should have sounded the moment European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared this to be the best and the worst of times at the start of her State of the European Union address on September 16.

Things went downhill from there: the EU leader painted a picture of the region that stands in complete contrast to the general experience of its people, amounting to a summary of the bloc’s worst achievements.

“Von der Leyen has achieved the feat of not mentioning a single measure to help Europeans cope with the soaring cost of living across Europe, at a time when an ever-growing number of people are now forced to choose between housing, food and transport,” said Manon Aubry, Co-President of The Left in the European Parliament.

“Fiscal sustainability” and concern for businesses

In the lengthy address, von der Leyen laid out what she considered the EU’s successes, including raising military spending by almost 80% over the past five years and “reducing dependence” on Russian fossil fuels. However, this interpretation does not correspond to what people are experiencing, as outlined by The Left in a dedicated dossier. Growing military spending benefits only the arms industry. And attempts to replace cheaper Russian gas have essentially boiled down to committing to more expensive and environmentally devastating US LNG imports.

While recognizing growing energy prices, von der Leyen offered no tangible response to this problem plaguing EU households. On the other hand, she demonstrated notable concern for businesses, signaling the continuation of eroding labor and environmental protections along the lines implemented by right and far-right parties at the EU level.

Read more: Peter Mertens: “Don’t be afraid, seize the opportunities of 2026 with both hands”

The likelihood of maintaining the status quo was also noticeable when von der Leyen turned to the deadly wildfires that hit Europe this summer, devastating communities from Belgium and France to Spain and Greece. Trade unions and progressive analysts have warned for years that fire preparedness is severely impaired by a lack of planning and, specifically, shortages of firefighters. Yet there was no commitment in the address to invest more in essential public service workers. Instead, the EC President referred to the ongoing need for overall “fiscal sustainability” – meaning Europeans should expect no relief from austerity programs.

“The best of times is clearly reserved for billionaires, multinational energy companies, and war profiteers,” remarked Member of the European Parliament Marc Botenga from the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA). “The other side of the coin for workers: austerity and rising prices.”

The EU’s failed foreign affairs policy

Based on the vision tabled by von der Leyen, there is also little to look forward to in Europe’s international and trade policy. “It’s hard to think of an area where the EU has been more inactive and less effective than in foreign affairs,” The Left wrote, referring to the union’s ongoing disregard of international law in relation to the genocide in Gaza and its approach to the Trump administration. 

“The President has praised Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, she has stood with Trump as he bombed Tehran and the European Commission has sided with the USA as they brought the global economy to a standstill in the Strait of Hormuz,” the progressive bloc warned.

The EU’s relationship with the US has continued to be one of submission, with elected regional leaders going to great lengths (unsuccessfully) to appease Donald Trump. Even when the region announced it would stand firm against US threats – in Greenland or on tariffs – this did not translate into practice.

In the context of von der Leyen’s speech, this boiled down to announcing Canada would become the “first associate member of the EU” and listing trade agreements signed with India, Mercosur, and Indonesia – met by the people of these countries with understandable concern.

Read more: Indian left opposes free trade agreement with EU, calls it “wholesale surrender” of country’s economic interests

Von der Leyen’s speech showed no sign of breaking with disdain towards nations outside the West. In addition to continuing animosity toward China, it offered a glimpse into plans involving countries rich in critical materials. The EC President announced the launch of a European Corporation on Critical Raw Materials – designed to secure and stockpile supplies for Europe’s industry and defense – with obvious implications for mineral-rich territories like Ukraine, Greenland, and several African countries. For the more skeptical listeners, this also carried weird echoes of the East India Company.

The State of the EU’s vision, it goes without saying, comes with further promises of an even stricter migration framework – on the pretext of situations like the one experienced in Ceuta earlier this year – that allow the erosion of basic human rights like asylum. Von der Leyen’s speech pledged even more finances for Frontex and suggested that outsourcing migration enforcement to third countries will continue, as endorsed by recent EU legislation.

“This policy of externalizing migration control has contributed to grave human rights violations, arbitrary detentions and systematic violence against people on the move,” The Left warned, calling for a union rooted in solidarity rather than violence and militarization.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was greeted as a conquering hero by a parliament that had caved to Trump threats - albeit reluctantly - signing off on the Turnberry trade deal, which would subject the EU to 15% tariffs.

Without naming US President Donald Trump, Carney took aim at the use of tariffs, financial leverage and supply-chain dependencies to force countries into line.

“Today, it is hard to reconcile sovereignty and openness,” Carney told the European Parliament. “Economic integration is now being weaponized; tariffs being used to exert pressure. Financial mechanisms have been used for coercion. Supply chains constitute weak points to be exploited.”

His answer was a far-reaching EU-Canada alliance designed to ensure neither side can be held hostage by a dominant country or company.

“Canada and Europe should secure our strategic autonomy through deep cooperation” across critical minerals, defence, AI and computing, energy, space and payments, he said.

But Carney was careful to distinguish that project from creating another geopolitical superpower.

'Not a great power rival only with better manners'

“I'm not proposing a third bloc in order to become a great power rival only with better manners,” he said. “We do not seek power to dominate others.”

Instead, he said, the objective was resilience so that “no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”

Carney reserved some of his toughest language for Big Tech, portraying technological dependence as another threat to democratic sovereignty.

“Tech platforms aspire to sovereignty,” he said. “They want to set access rules. They want to dictate the rules for regulation and even circumvent them. They want to control our data, spread disinformation, and steal our children's childhoods.”

“This combination is a ferocious storm. A single tree will come down in it. A forest will not.”

Carney laid out a substantial economic agenda for closer integration. On critical minerals, he pointed to Canada's deposits of more than 34 minerals and its position as a major producer of 10 considered essential to the energy transition. Europe could gain a more reliable source of raw materials, he argued, while Canada could gain access to European processing capacity and clean-energy technology. Canada could also supply LNG and hydrogen to bolster European energy security.

He called for “seamless digital trade” in non-agricultural goods and a wide range of services, alongside closer cooperation on AI standards and computing capacity.

Carney also floated a potentially significant step towards financial integration: “Canada and Europe should consider exploring an integrated market for financial services” to lower costs, increase consumer choice and improve companies’ access to capital.

Carney advocated allowing young Canadians and Europeans to work, study and live on either side of the Atlantic, with Canada joining Erasmus+ and participating in the next generation of the EU’s Horizon research programme.

The goal, Carney stressed, was not self-sufficiency, but collective resilience.

Photo: Formal sitting in the European Parliament with Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister. Photographer: Alexis Haulot © European Union

Greece’s Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis has been reiterating since Monday morning that he will seek to enhance patients’ protection by installing an QR Code at the entrance of private doctors’ practices. Though his smart phone the apparently tech savy “patient will be able to confirm whether the practice is legal or not,” Georgiadis said. Surprise! […]

The post QR Code to be installed at private doctors’ practices, says Health Minister appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

The starting date for the mandatory payment of rent exclusively through a bank account has been postponed until July 1, 2027, following a decision signed  by the governor of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE), Giorgos Pitsilis. According to an AADE announcement on Thursday, the extension was considered necessary in order to complete a […]

The post Mandatory rent payment through bank account postponed to summer 2027 appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

A decision by the Ministry of Infrastructure & Transport has raised the fixed taxi fares from the airports in Athens and Thessaloniki Taxi: New fares €50 for a trip from the ATH International Airport to downtown Athens. The fares change concerns, among others, the predetermined fares for routes from the airports of Athens and Thessaloniki, […]

The post New taxi fares from airports in Athens and Thessaloniki appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

Greek Parliament voted for lifting the parliamentary immunity of ruling New Democracy MP and former EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos on Thursday. The voting followed a relevant request by Belgian authorities investigating the so-called Qatargate and have issued an arrest warrant last June. Prior to the voting, 73-year-old Avramopoulos submitted a memorandum where he requested “the Plenary […]

The post Qatargate: Greek Parliament lifts immunity of ND MP & ex EU Commissioner appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

On Wednesday (16 September) Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had a good day at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen indicated that she would like to work with Mr Carney “on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the European Union", writes Dick Roche.

Prime Minister Carney was given a standing ovation by the Parliament’s Members. While it is not clear  what ‘associate EU Membership’ means, the offer from the Commission President and the welcome by MEPs was a plus, of sorts, for Mr Carney in his battle with President Trump.

A bumpy relationship

The relationship between Prime Minister Carney and President Trump was always destined to be a bumpy one. Days before President Trump was sworn in for his second term Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister of Canada. As Trudeau was leaving office the president-elect repeated comments that he had made during the 2024 US elections about Canada becoming the 51^st US State.

On 1 February 2025, as the contest to replace Mr Trudeau as the Liberal Party leader was getting underway President Trump, announced a 25% tariff on imports from Canada, Mexico and Canada: Canadian energy exports were subject to a 10% tariff. Trump explained the tariffs were intended to address the emergency related to fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.

Nine days later Trump announced a blanket 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminium to “protect US industry and national security.” This hit Canada the biggest foreign supplier of steel and aluminium into the US market badly.

The pain for Canada did not stop there, on 26^th March Trump announced his 25% tariff on all automobile imports into the US. Again, another bad hit on - most Canadian vehicle production is destined for the US market. The impact on Canadian auto producers was somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the tariff applied only to non-US content vehicle imports from Canada.

The stream of tariff announcements from the US while hurting Canada played to Mark Carney’s advantage in the race for leadership of Canada’s Liberal Party. While a "political ingénue" never having held political office or been a Member of a Member of Canada’s Parliament Mr Carney brought deep economic experience to the contest. He won almost 87% of the votes cast in the leadership election.

Mr Carney was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada on 14^th March 2025 - seven weeks into President Trump’s second term. Six weeks after his swearing in Mark Carney was elected to the Canadian House of Commons in the General Election of 28^th April 2025.  

Placating a cranky neighbour

From the outset  Prime Minister Mark Carney invested considerable effort in improving relations with President Trump. The two leaders met in the White House on 6^th May. The meeting, reportedly, went well.

Asked at the press briefing after the meeting about Trump’s suggestions that Canada should become the 51^st US state, Carney responded humorously. He recalled that during the recent elections he had met the owners of Canada. They were not he said interested in ‘selling the property’, something that Mr Trump as a property man would understand. Smiling President Trump responded ‘never say never.’

At the G7 meeting held in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June President Trump and Mr Carney had another cordial meeting.  

The cordiality  did not last long. At the end of June the first payments on Canada’s Digital Services Tax (DST) were due to be made.  The DST legislation enacted during the Trudeau Government, hit US tech companies causing fury in the White House. Trump called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and announced all trade talks with Canada would cease immediately.

Within days Carney announced that his administration would rescind the DST and halt the collection of the tax to advance negotiations with the US.

There was another flashpoint in January when President Trump reacted to reports that Canada and China were pursuing a comprehensive free trade deal. Prime Minister Carney defused the situation by explaining the talks with China were focused on adjusting existing arrangements.

While Carney faced criticism for ‘climbing down’ on the DST issue and for being too eager to placate the White House on China, his approach got US-Canada trade talks back underway.

By August 2025 there was some optimism that a breakthrough trade talks was close.  On August 18^th President Trump announced that a tentative understanding had been reached and as a result he was prepared to push back on the late August deadline for US tariff increases. 

The talks came to an abrupt halt three days later when Carney instructed Canada’s negotiating team to return to Ottawa.

That decision came as a surprise. Walking away risked incurring the wrath of President Trump. That was a risk that the Canadian PM had clearly calibrated.

When the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer sought to blame Canada for the breakdown Carney responded that it was the US United States that made last-minute demands which Canada considered unacceptable, including efforts to introduce provisions that would impact Canada's trade autonomy and sovereignty.

President Trump  reacted immediately to Canada’s decision.  Using  a section of the Tariff Act 1930 that had never been used previously Trump imposed 50% tariffs across US$20 billion worth of Canadian products exported to the US.  

Carney announced that Canada would hit US exports to Canada with “dollar for dollar” retaliatory measures. These would come into  effect immediately after Labour Day 7^th September –the day when the starting gun for US mid-term elections is ‘fired’ to get into full swing.

Asked at the press conference whether Canada was starting a trade war with the United States, Mr. Carney responded: “you’re at war when you get attacked—we got attacked.”

In a televised address, Carney acknowledged that the steps he was taking  would come at a cost but argued that U.S. actions had left him with little alternative. He characterized the measures being taken by the United States as an attempt to hurt and divide Canadians. That, he suggested, was a miscalculation. Rather than weakening Canada, U.S. pressure would, he said, bring Canadians closer together.  

Backing Carney

All of indications suggest that Prime Minister Carney was correct in his assessment.

The leader of the Conservative Party Canada, Pierre Poilievre who previously accused Carney of being too willing to concede to Trump, strongly supported the decision to walk away from those trade talks.

Mr Poilievre  was not alone, with one exception the Premiers of Canadian Provinces publicly supported Prime Minister Carney’s stance.

The Premier of Ontario Canada’s most populous province, Doug Ford, an open critic of the US President, encouraged PM Carney to respond to Trump “tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar.”

The Quebec Premier, Christine Fréchette, was particularly supportive  of Carney’s refusal to make concessions to Trump on Quebec’s cultural protections.

Other Premiers have encouraged Carney to “fight back,” praised “team Canada,” criticised US tariff threats as unjustified, promised “full support,” and urged that Canada not accept a ‘subordinate economic relationship’ to the US.  

The Premier of Alberta where a referendum on a range of questions including Alberta’s future within Canada is to be held on 19^th October was the lone outrider,  cautioning against celebrating retaliatory tariffs and expressed the hope that negotiations be resumed.

Public support in Canada for the position taken by Carney has been positive. Reuters referred to  the tariff dispute encouraging a ‘rally around Canada’ effect that will likely dampen support for Alberta separation from Canada.

Ten days after the Canadian negotiating team abandoned the trade talks in Washington Carney’s Liberal Party received a very tangible indication of voter support when it won three by-elections for seats in the Canadian House of Commons including a seat in Quebec that had previously been held by a Conservative Party Member.

Opinion polls since the Canadian team walked away from the negotiations also show strong support for the position taken the Carney government.  

An Ipsos poll taken on August 26-27 indicates support across party lines for Canada standing up to the US - even if it resulted in higher costs and job losses: 63% of those surveyed felt Canada was right to stand firm in the negotiations.  Just 18 per cent said Canada should have made additional sacrifices to get a deal.

An Angus Reid Institute poll taken on 22 and 23 August immediately after the talks were ended found that 76% supported the line taken by the Canadian government.

A third poll by Abacus Data one of Canada’s most cited polling firms found that 60% approved of how the Carney government had handled the dispute while  18% disapproved.

Negatives for Trump

In the US, unsurprisingly, positions on the trade war with Canada splits along party lines. Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the Trump’s position arguing that tariffs cost consumers and businesses.

On 9^th September a group of nine Democrat Senators from states with close business ties with Canada issued a joint statement attacking President Trump’s “senseless trade war” with a key trading partner, primary export market and most enduring defence partner, pointing out that the President’s actions would force Canada to “diversify away from the US and deepen trade ties with other countries including China.”

Republicans generally, but not universally, support Trump’s position, arguing that Trump’s tariff stance is ‘putting America first.’ Concerns have been flagged in the Republican ranks that the tariffs will be an issue in the November mid-terms, particularly in competitive Senate and House races.  

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the US state most exposed to the tariff dispute with Canada, who is facing a tough re-election contest in November has labelled the tariffs on Canada ‘a mistake’ pointing out that Canadian retaliation could cost Maine up to $170 million in export losses.  The Republican governor of Vermont has also been openly critical.    

The position for President Trump is considerably less positive than that of Prime Minister Carney. The Canadian Prime Minister enjoys the public and political support that President Trump conspicuously lacks. As this week's appearance in the European Parliament demonstrated Mr Carney’s support is not confined to Canada; he has international support which, President Trump again conspicuously lacks.

At the moment there is no obvious ‘off ramp’ to facilitate  a return to the negotiating table. Politically and temperamentally it will be harder for President Trump to pull back from the position he has taken in the tariff war than it will be for Mark Carney. Mr Carney has more political support for his position, at home and internationally than President Trump. He has also  played an infinitely better game than Mr Trump. For the moment the ball is very much in Mark Carney’s court. 

Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister for European Affairs and former Minister for the Environment. 

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will provide a long-term loan of up to 102 billion tenge (US$224.2 million) to Alatau Zharyk Company (AZhC) to modernize its electricity distribution infrastructure and expand digitalization, writes Dana Omirgazy.

The financing will help AZhC, a regional electricity distribution company supplying around 4 million people and around 50,000 commercial consumers in Almaty and the region, procure automated metering and telemechanic equipment and upgrade its low- and medium-voltage electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, the bank’s press service reported on Sept. 7.  The project is part of Kazakhstan’s National Project for the Modernization of Energy and Utility Sectors (MEKS), a government-led program to modernize heat, electricity, water supply and sewerage networks and facilities.

The EBRD-supported investment will further digitize AZhC by installing smart meters at substations and piloting smart grid technologies. It will also strengthen the company’s cybersecurity and support related efforts at Samruk-Energy, AZhC’s parent company. The modernization is expected to generate annual electricity savings of approximately 22 gigawatt-hours (GWh) and reduce annual CO2 emissions by around 12,000 tons. It is also expected to support renewable energy growth in the Almaty Region.

As part of the five-year enhanced partnership framework between Kazakhstan and the EBRD, the project will also support Alatau city’s development by reconstructing the Zhetygen electricity substation and an associated 110-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. The EBRD has invested almost $13.6 billion in Kazakhstan through 358 projects, making the country the largest and longest-running recipient of EBRD investment in Central Asia.

Over recent decades, herrings in the Gulf of Bothnia have grown more slowly. Several factors could be behind these changes, but a clearer understanding of the actual causes is needed. Closing this knowledge gap is the aim of ImproFish.

Every year, scientists carry out research surveys in the Gulf of Bothnia to monitor the status of one of the most valuable fish species in the northern Baltic Sea: herring. Together with sprat, it forms the backbone of the region’s fishing industry, supports coastal communities and provides food for seals, seabirds and predatory fish higher up the food chain.

But despite this close monitoring, several knowledge gaps remain. Over recent decades, herrings in the Gulf of Bothnia have grown more slowly, reached maturity earlier and shown variations in weight and abundance. The research survey struggles with accurately understanding this fluctuation. 

Several factors could be behind these changes, from modifications in the food web to the fishery itself. But without a clearer understanding of the actual causes of these changes, it becomes harder to manage the fishery in a way that the stock becomes and then remains healthy over the long term, and fisheries managers are left trying to steer a stock that keeps changing shape beneath them.

Closing this knowledge gap is the aim of ImproFish. Coordinated by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) together with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), and co-funded by the EU through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), the project runs from May 2024 to October 2026. Its goal is to provide a stronger scientific basis for assessing the herring stock in the Gulf of Bothnia, so that fisheries advice can finally catch up with what is actually happening in the sea.

As Laura Uusitalo, the project coordinator from Luke, explained:

“Healthy herring stocks are important for both marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods. We believe that the new knowledge and methods developed in this project can improve the reliability of stock assessments and support better-informed quota setting for years to come.”

Three scientific advances for a healthier stock

Despite yearly combined acoustic and trawl survey, as well as extensive catch sampling, the assessment of the Gulf of Bothnia herring stock has remained uncertain for a long time. Stock Synthesis 3, a newer stock assessment model used since 2021, has improved stability, but significant gaps remain, especially regarding the abundance of young fish.

 ImproFish addresses this through three recommendations:

• improving the fishery-independent abundance indices by extending the acoustic survey closer to the coast and taking into account oceanographic conditions such as temperature and wind-driven water mixing
• deepening the understanding of what drives the growth and size of fish, in order to sharpen the reference points used in fisheries management 
• identifying potential sub-populations, since early genetic findings point to a more complex population structure than previously assumed, with locally adapted groups 

Together, these improvements would make the stock assessment more biologically realistic and better aligned with ecosystem-based management, while still remaining achievable with a moderate research investment.

EU funding bringing two countries’ science together

Through ImproFish, EU funding is allowing Finland and Sweden to combine their analyses on the acoustic survey, herring catch sampling and genetic analyses across the Gulf of Bothnia, instead of each country conducting research on the shared stock on its own.

For fishing that spans the water of both countries, this joint effort finally makes it possible to study the stock with a more comprehensive data coverage, and bring the assessment and advice closer to ecosystem-based management.

This also contributes to the priority of the European Ocean Pact of protecting and restoring ocean health, while supporting a fishing sector that stays sustainable and economically viable for the communities who depend on it.

A fishery worth understanding better

Reaching this point requires as much work on the water as in the laboratory: acoustic surveys, genetic analyses, catch data from commercial fleets and growth data collected on research vessels like R/V Aranda directly feed into the improvements that ImproFish develops.

Most of these benefits will take shape over the medium and long term, but their reach may extend even further: since herring share many traits with other fish, the methods developed here could help scientists elsewhere in Europe facing similar uncertainties, well beyond the Gulf of Bothnia itself.

If you need further information, check the project website. Project website https://fisheries-rcg.eu/improfish/

Funding

• Funding programme European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) (2021/2027)

Stakeholders

Coordinators

Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Finland

Website https://www.luke.fi/en

Participants

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences / Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU), Sweden

Website https://www.slu.se/en/

A new study shows that in‑cash child benefits play a vital role in reducing child poverty in the EU. On average, these benefits lower the risk of poverty among children by 10.6 percentage points.

The impact of in‑cash child benefits varies across EU countries. Austria sees the strongest effect, with child poverty reduced by 16.6 percentage points. Spain shows the smallest reduction, at 4.6 percentage points. These differences suggest there is room for EU countries to learn from each other and achieve higher social standards.

Key findings

• Child benefits can do more to reduce poverty: large differences between EU countries show room to make cash benefits more effective and help reach the 2030 poverty reduction target.
• Better targeting and wider access could make a difference: in around one third of EU countries, disadvantaged families receive less financial support than better-off families.
• Benefits in kind also support families: by making essential goods and services more affordable, they can reduce the financial pressure on families.
• More children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) could support parents in work: increasing participation could raise maternal employment by up to 5 percentage points, making it easier to combine work and care.
• Investing in children pays off in the long term: analysis shows benefits for education, employment and health. Overall, for every €1 invested in quality benefits in kind for children, the estimated return is €5.26.
  

Progress towards the 2030 child poverty target

The EU has committed to reducing the number of children in poverty by at least 5 million by 2030. Progress towards this target has stalled, so efforts need to be stepped up and policies improved.

The new study underlines that in‑cash child benefits are a key tool to support families and lower child poverty. Its findings will contribute to the preparation of the forthcoming Commission Recommendation on child‑related benefits. This Recommendation was announced in the Communication Breaking the cycle of child poverty – strengthening the European Child Guarantee, which is part of the wider Anti‑Poverty Strategy.

Report on the effectiveness of child benefits in the EU

Download

“What stands in the way becomes the way,” Marcus Aurelius writes in Meditations. Nearly two millennia later, the idea captures Pakistan’s strategic dilemma with remarkable precision. Islamabad must convince Saudi Arabia that its defence commitment carries real weight without being drawn into another Middle Eastern war or rupturing its relationship with Tehran. That obstacle may itself have become Pakistan’s most useful instrument: strategic ambiguity, writes Dimitra Staikou.

On 10 September 2026, following Houthi attacks against Saudi targets, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Sajjad Haider Khan said there was no discussion of an immediate military response under the new defence agreement. Yet only a day earlier, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif had warned that continued aggression against Saudi Arabia could make the pact operational.

The contradiction may be more calculated than accidental. On 13 September, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed Pakistan’s complete solidarity with Mohammed bin Salman. Two days later, fresh missile and drone attacks against Saudi targets brought the question of collective defence closer to reality. Pakistan is trying to reassure Riyadh that it will not stand alone while avoiding any clear definition of when political solidarity becomes military involvement. At the same time, Islamabad is keeping channels with Tehran open and leaving Saudi Arabia’s adversaries uncertain about where Pakistan’s real red line lies. But September’s events suggest that the space for such ambiguity is narrowing. The central question is no longer whether Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are security partners, but how far Islamabad is actually prepared to go when deterrence is tested.

That question has become more urgent because the relationship has changed institutionally. On 7 August 2026, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, declaring that an armed attack against any one of the three would be regarded as an attack against all. On 31 August, their foreign and defence ministers and military chiefs met in Istanbul to begin institutionalising the arrangement, agreeing to establish a permanent secretariat in Saudi Arabia and deepen joint defence-industry cooperation, technology development and production. This is therefore more than another declaration of political solidarity. The Makkah Alliance is beginning to acquire the machinery designed to make collective deterrence credible.

The military relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia itself stretches back decades. Pakistani officers have trained Saudi forces, Pakistani troops have periodically been deployed in the Kingdom, and Riyadh has reciprocated with economic and political support. Yet the most important episode for understanding the limits of this relationship came in 2015. When Saudi Arabia assembled its coalition for the intervention in Yemen, Riyadh sought Pakistani military support. On 10 April, Pakistan’s parliament unanimously backed neutrality, effectively rejecting direct participation while pledging to defend Saudi Arabia if its territorial integrity were threatened. The distinction was crucial: Islamabad was prepared to defend the Kingdom, but not automatically to participate in its wars. In 2026, that very red line is being tested.

The Riyadh-Islamabad rapprochement does not mean that Saudi Arabia is abandoning the United States. It does, however, demonstrate that the Kingdom no longer wants its security to depend exclusively on Washington. The limited US response following the attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in 2019, followed by Washington’s 2021 decision to end support for offensive operations in Yemen, had already exposed the limits of American protection. That uncertainty resurfaced this September. Mohammed bin Salman sought military assistance from Donald Trump against the Houthis, but the US president declined to authorise direct American strikes, with Washington instead offering intelligence-sharing and targeting support. On 12 September, Trump said Iran was probably responsible for the attack on Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline and described Mohammed bin Salman as a “good friend”. The United States remains an indispensable Saudi partner, but not always a willing combatant. Pakistan gains importance in precisely this space: not as a replacement for America, but as an additional regional pillar of Saudi security.

If the American position explains why Riyadh is seeking more strategic options, China points towards the direction in which the wider security system may be moving. Beijing is one of Islamabad’s most important strategic and military partners, while simultaneously developing an increasingly close relationship with Saudi Arabia. In April 2026, Xi Jinping told Mohammed bin Salman that China wanted to deepen “mutual strategic trust” with the Kingdom. On 2 September, Xi argued that regional states should work towards “a new security architecture for the Middle East” and hold their future in their own hands. His remarks were not about the Makkah Agreement and should not be interpreted as Chinese endorsement of it. They do, however, reflect a broader shift: a Riyadh seeking greater strategic autonomy, an Islamabad deeply connected to Beijing, and a China seeking a greater role in shaping the regional order. The issue is not a secret trilateral alliance, but the potential convergence of Saudi capital, Pakistani military power and Chinese technological and strategic support.

There is also an unavoidable nuclear dimension. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Saudi Arabia is not a nuclear weapons state. Nothing publicly released about the Makkah Agreement establishes a Pakistani nuclear guarantee to Riyadh, and there is no evidence that Islamabad intends to deploy nuclear weapons on Saudi territory. Yet that absence of clarity is itself strategically significant. Pakistan’s nuclear capability sits behind a collective-defence commitment whose public language does not specify where conventional deterrence ends and strategic deterrence begins. For Iran, Israel, Washington and European capitals, the question is therefore not whether Saudi Arabia has suddenly acquired a Pakistani nuclear umbrella — it has not — but whether potential adversaries may now have to calculate against that possibility in an extreme crisis. Deterrence often depends as much on uncertainty as on declared doctrine.

For Europe, this shift is anything but distant. On 9 September, France expressed full solidarity with Riyadh following the Houthi attacks. In Berlin, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul assured his Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan of Germany’s solidarity, while on 11 September the German Foreign Office warned that growing Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandab could restrict oil and LNG supplies, with consequences for global markets. In Brussels, Kaja Kallas had already put “freedom of navigation” in the Red Sea on the European agenda, asking publicly what more Europe could do. These concerns are tangible: energy security, maritime trade routes and regional stability are becoming intertwined in the same crisis. The attacks of 15 September have made the danger even clearer, with renewed strikes against Saudi targets adding to pressure on energy markets and further threatening the routes connecting the Gulf, the Red Sea and Europe.

There is another reason Europe cannot treat the Makkah Alliance as a distant development: Türkiye. Ankara is simultaneously a party to the new collective-defence architecture and a member of NATO. That does not mean the Makkah Agreement automatically engages NATO obligations, nor that the two systems are inherently incompatible. But it does create questions that European allies should address before, rather than during, a major crisis. What happens if Türkiye is asked to participate in collective action under the Makkah Agreement? How would Ankara manage parallel commitments if escalation involved Iran or another regional actor? And how much strategic consultation should occur within NATO before such a scenario materialises?

Brussels cannot afford to wait for the agreement to be activated for the first time before deciding how to respond. Europe needs deeper dialogue with Riyadh and Islamabad on non-proliferation and missile technologies, stronger protection for navigation in the Red Sea and a clear discussion within NATO about Ankara’s new defence commitments. It does not need to treat the emerging security architecture as hostile. But it does need to understand what happens when that architecture moves from declarations to action.

The real test of the Makkah Alliance will come when Riyadh asks Islamabad to demonstrate what it means for an attack on one to be treated as an attack on all. At that moment, the strategic ambiguity that today gives Pakistan room to manoeuvre may become the problem itself. And the question — whether Pakistan is genuinely prepared to fight for Saudi Arabia — will no longer concern Riyadh and Islamabad alone. The answer could reshape the security balance from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea all the way to Europe.

The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (pictured), says AI has the “potential to benefit humanity”.

Her comments came on Wednesday in her landmark “state of the union” address to MEPs.

A speech touched on numerous areas and they included AI which has rocketed up the political agenda in recent times.

In her address to Euro members at their monthly plenary in Strasbourg, she referred to AI as a “tipping point of our times.”

The commission president declared, “AI is fast becoming a foundational layer for our economy and security. Europe's stance is clear. We want to make the most of AI to improve our society, our quality of life and our productivity.

“I am an optimist that AI has the potential to benefit humanity – if we get it right. But, as with any powerful new technology, AI comes with a balance of possibilities and risks. Without addressing these risks, we will never be able to unlock AI's possibilities.”

The former German defence minister noted, “As the frontier models become more capable, these risks have come more sharply into focus.

“Models being developed will allow hacking on a level we never thought possible. And they will soon be in the hands of adversaries who see the world very differently from us.”

She told deputies, “At the same time, the dangers of self-improving models are becoming ever more apparent.

“Incidents of AI agents escaping their environment or inserting malicious code are a mere glimpse. After the HuggingFace incident, developers are ringing the alarm. And CEOs of the most advanced companies tell us that it is time to slow down on the self-recursive models. To pace the frontier.”

Von der Leyen added, “If the people developing the technology are clear, then we should be too. The AI Act is of course a crucial piece to putting guardrails in place. 

"And it puts Europe in the position to shape global efforts on how to tackle this.”

In her comments on AI she said, “So, we will step up together with our like-minded partners like Canada, the United Kingdom and others. We want to team up on model evaluation, verification, early warning, AI security and much more.

“And I will invite the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier,” she said.

The circular economy is no longer an aspiration—it is becoming a necessity. As industries seek to reduce their environmental footprint while preserving valuable resources, extending the life of products through refurbishment has emerged as one of the most effective strategies available, writes Julien Morganti, General Manager of P.E.P. ecopassport®.

Across the electrical, electronic and HVAC sectors, demand for refurbished equipment is growing rapidly. Customers are increasingly looking for solutions that combine environmental responsibility with economic value, while manufacturers and service providers are investing in refurbishment capabilities to meet these expectations. Yet one major challenge has remained: how can we assess the environmental performance of refurbished products in a way that is both robust and transparent?

For new products, environmental declarations have become an established tool for measuring and communicating environmental performance. Refurbished products, however, have lacked a common methodology capable of reflecting their specific characteristics while ensuring consistency and credibility across the market.

This is precisely the challenge that P.E.P. ecopassport® has sought to address through the publication of a new methodological guide dedicated to refurbished equipment—the first initiative of its kind in France and, to our knowledge, across Europe for electrical, electronic and HVAC equipment.

Developing this methodology required answering a fundamental question: how should the environmental impacts and benefits associated with refurbishment be allocated? Inspection, repair, component replacement and testing all generate environmental impacts, yet refurbishment also avoids the production of an entirely new product and extends the useful life of existing equipment.

Finding the right balance was only possible through close collaboration between manufacturers, industry associations and technical experts. The resulting methodology recognises the environmental contribution of both the refurbished product and the original product designed with refurbishment in mind. Rather than focusing solely on carbon emissions, it evaluates the full range of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators, including material and resource consumption, providing a far more comprehensive picture of environmental performance.

This broader perspective matters because the transition to a circular economy cannot be measured by greenhouse gas emissions alone. Conserving raw materials, reducing resource depletion and maximising product longevity are equally critical objectives if we are to build truly sustainable industrial systems.

Importantly, this guide is not intended to be the final word. It provides a shared foundation that the industry can build upon as experience grows. As more refurbished products are assessed, the methodology will continue to evolve and, ultimately, become integrated into the

programme's Product Category Rules (PCRs) and Product Specific Rules (PSRs), where applicable.

Standardised environmental assessment is about more than technical consistency. It creates confidence. Manufacturers gain a recognised framework for communicating the environmental value of refurbished products. Specifiers and purchasers receive comparable, reliable information to support procurement decisions. Ultimately, the entire market benefits from greater transparency.

The transition towards circularity requires more than innovation in products—it also requires innovation in the way environmental performance is measured. By establishing a common methodology for refurbished equipment, we hope to remove one of the barriers that has limited wider adoption and provide the market with the confidence needed to accelerate the circular economy.

Because if refurbishment is to become a mainstream component of sustainable industry, it must be supported by environmental assessment methods that are as rigorous, credible and forward-looking as the products themselves.

About the P.E.P Association

Founded in 2009, the P.E.P Association is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to help reduce the environmental impact of electrical, electronic, and digital products by facilitating the dissemination of reliable, transparent, and verified information across the entire value chain.

In compliance with ISO 14025, its mission is to define governance rules, develop, verify, and publish Product Environmental Profiles (PEP) or Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), while adhering to principles of transparency and ethics. It also aims to bring together industry stakeholders to promote these practices.

Recognized as a leading operator in the sector at the international level, the P.E.P Association contributes to national and European standardization and works toward harmonizing programs across countries.

On 18 August, Israel launched eight airstrikes against the Abu al-Duhur air base in northwestern Syria, located approximately 70 kilometres from the Turkish border. Israel also reportedly informed the United States that Turkey might be preparing to deploy radar systems and air defense equipment at the base, a move that could significantly alter the regional balance of power. Turkey is expected to respond to the Israeli strikes, raising the prospect of direct military confrontation between the two countries inside Syria,

As it stands, Turkey's growing tensions with Israel over issues including Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon are increasingly difficult to ignore. Turkey also possesses substantial military capabilities, which were originally intended in large part to strengthen NATO's ability to counter Russia but are now increasingly being used to pursue Ankara's own strategic interests, including those that are not aligned with the geopolitical preferences of the U.S. and Israel. Turkey is therefore demonstrating a degree of strategic autonomy that increasingly extends beyond the traditional constraints of the NATO framework. This development is a clear example of the broader process of regional polarization.

Regional polarization, in fact, creates the conditions for the emergence of regional hegemony. It reflects a tendency for countries within a particular region to gravitate toward a dominant power. That power, in turn, simultaneously expands its influence and seeks to establish a new regional order. Regional hegemony does not emerge out of nowhere. Instead, it develops gradually through a process of regional polarization.

Turkey is a prominent example of this process. Israel can also be viewed through the same lens, as can Saudi Arabia, which has been working steadily to strengthen its position and influence in the region. Beyond the Middle East, India and Japan are also moving in this direction. Iran, meanwhile, remains an important regional power despite currently being consumed by war.

Against this broader trend of regional polarization, China presents a particularly unique case. China's current strategic direction appears to differ substantially from the logic of regional polarization. Instead, Beijing continues to place considerable emphasis on building relationships among major powers at the global level. In this context, the idea of a G2 remains an attractive strategic concept for China, while U.S. President Donald Trump also appears to be seeking to leverage this possibility in developing a special relationship with China.

In Asia, India is already an unmistakable example of a country pursuing greater regional strategic autonomy. Japan is another crucial case. The election of Sanae Takaichi can be interpreted as an indication that Japan's own process of regional polarization is beginning to take shape. However, because of its security treaty with the U.S. and continuing domestic political opposition, Japan remains reluctant to openly acknowledge such a trajectory.

Nevertheless, Japan is likely to move progressively toward greater regional strategic autonomy. This would mean that Tokyo increasingly seeks to exercise influence in Asia regardless of whether Washington fully supports such a development. As a result, contradictions between Japan and the U.S. could become more pronounced across economic, financial, and political spheres. Japan's ability to say "no" to the U.S. may gradually become a practical reality.

Once Japan gains greater freedom to articulate and pursue an independent strategic position, it may also seek to improve relations with China. In this sense, Japan's increasing regional autonomy could ultimately prove beneficial to Japan-China bilateral relations over the longer term.

Perhaps the most important feature of regional polarization is that conflict among countries is inevitable. Such conflicts are not necessarily an anomaly. Rather, they are a natural expression of the polarization process. No country is willing to readily acknowledge another as the principal power or dominant pole within a region. Regional leadership therefore has to be established through competition, strategic maneuvering, and, at times, confrontation.

This dynamic applies to Japan, China, India, Turkey, and other emerging regional powers. As a result, international disputes are likely to become increasingly intense. The underlying reason is the growing competition for regional influence amid the erosion of the existing global order.

First, countries increasingly perceive an opportunity to become the dominant pole within their respective regions. Second, no major regional power is willing to accept another country's unquestioned leadership or submit to its influence. Confrontation, friction, and strategic rivalry therefore become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Ultimately, the countries that possess sufficient resources, strategic capabilities, and the ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances will have the greatest chance of emerging as regional hegemons. The struggle for regional dominance is therefore not merely a contest of military strength. This is also a test of economic resources, political resilience, strategic judgment, and the ability to shape a new regional order.