It’s a new phase in the Ukraine war as the Trump administration moves to hold talks with Russia without the presence of Ukraine or Europe. The Saudis will be in the mediating role, and the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Trump’s Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, all will be part of this enterprise, which might end up upending American policy of the last three years. It’s a spectacular shift in Washington, and Europe is left scrambling for a response.

Though Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said that Ukraine would “never accept deals made behind our backs without our involvement”, it’s not readily evident what options he has at this juncture when the US seems more than ready to walk away from European security. Zelenskyy’s call for the creation of an “army of Europe” came after US Vice-President JD Vance underlined the Trump administration’s perspective that Europe must “step up in a big way to provide for its own defence”. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also made it clear that European nations must provide the “overwhelming” share of funding for Ukraine. More interestingly, he also said that it was “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to return to its pre-2014 borders, and downplayed the prospect of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

A ‘Once In A Generation’ Moment

Though it was expected that the Trump presidency will bring its own set of challenges for Europe, there seems to be a complete rethink on the parameters of the US-Europe partnership. In response, European leaders are in Paris trying to hammer out a response to what UK leader Keir Starmer has described as a “once in a generation” moment for national security. Starmer himself has suggested that he is ready to place UK peacekeeping troops in Ukraine “to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine”. Germany is also offering to do the same, but it might be too late in the game.

After investing three years of resources as well as diplomatic and military capital in trying to fend off Russian territorial advances, along with the US standing as an ally, the shift in the tone and tenor of American support might be disconcerting. For many in Europe, the danger might be that in the name of peace, Trump would strike a deal with Putin, putting Europe at a perpetual disadvantage. That the long-term costs of short-term political expediency will be borne by Europe is the fear that is now shaping European response.

When Vance warned his audience at the Munich Security Conference that they should fear neither Moscow nor Beijing but European leadership itself, he went further than many in Europe had anticipated. His argument, that “shutting down” unorthodox viewpoints is the “most surefire way to destroy democracy”, and his calling upon European leaders to “embrace what your people tell you”, was aimed more at putting mainstream European political leadership in their place rather than trying to find a common ground with allies to tackle regional and global challenges.

Shifting Priorities

For the Trump administration, Europe and its security are no longer the priority that many in the continent would like to believe. For the US, the centre of gravity of global politics has been gradually shifting to the Indo-Pacific, and Trump’s policies are perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of this understanding. In his first term as President, Trump consistently challenged long-standing alliances, most notably NATO, questioning its relevance and urging European nations to increase their defence spending. His “America First” policy emphasised a transactional view of international relations, where the US would support Europe only if its allies contributed more to shared defence and economic goals. In his second term, Trump seems even more willing to shake the foundations of America’s partnership with Europe.

But Europe has been very slow in responding to these changing realities. Now, the task before its leaders is to ensure that their ability to shape the US-Europe partnership remains in place to some extent. In Paris, Europe will have to ensure that it comes to an agreement to spend and do more for its own defence. It will also have to see how it can provide for the security of Ukraine after a ceasefire. The blunt rhetoric emanating from Washington and a sense of unpredictability being ushered in due to Trump’s outreach to Putin has left European leaders uncertain about the future of transatlantic relations.

As Trump disrupts the global order, one of the first casualties seems to be Europe, which is now left wondering about the future of its own security. 

(Harsh V. Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

US President Donald Trump, on the very first day of assuming office, laid out a sweeping plan to maximise oil and gas production, including declaring a national energy emergency to speed the permitting of projects, rolling back environmental protections, suspending new federal offshore wind leasing proposals pending an environmental and economic review, and withdrawing the US from the Paris climate pact. He also signed an executive order reversing efforts by former President Joe Biden to restrict oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and large areas of the US coastline. This is a dramatic U-turn in Washington’s energy policy after former President Joe Biden during his four years in office encouraged a transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy in the world’s largest economy.

President Trump said in his inaugural address, “America will be a manufacturing nation
once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth — and we are going to use it. We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world.”

Crude oil is produced in 32 states in the US and its coastal waters. Texas is by far the largest oil-producing state in the country. In 2023, it produced a total of over 2 billion barrels. Its $172-billion energy sector employed more than 9 lakh energy workers as of 2022. President Trump has already started pushing for an increase in oil and gas production to lower energy costs and drive prices down.

Is it all as simple as it sounds?

Price Is King

The biggest incentive for oil and gas firms to either stimulate oil production or curtail it is usually price. In general, high oil prices push oil companies to produce more, while low prices lead them to pull back. The government has limited power to affect the price of oil as it is controlled by market dynamics. Higher prices may lead to more production, but they also upset consumers who will be forced to pay more at the pump, which will make not only gas but other commodities costlier. In recent years, oil companies have resisted the temptation to significantly invest in expanding drilling when prices rise, embracing instead the ability to sell their oil for a high price. Not all oil reserves can be exploited profitably. Instead of drilling at new locations, many oil companies have focused on extracting every dollar from existing wells.

What could be a solution then?

India Is An Attractive Destination

The answer may lie in the export of products such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). President Trump understands this well, and has thus lifted the previous administration’s freeze on export permits. The decision could lead to almost 100 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) of additional LNG being exported by 2031 by projects that are significantly advanced, further cementing the US as the world’s largest exporter of the fuel.

US Senator Ted Cruz has also already introduced legislation to repeal the Biden administration’s Natural Gas Tax in the Inflation Reduction Act. Rolling it back it is an important step towards ensuring affordable, reliable energy for all.

According to Shell’s LNG Outlook 2024, global demand for LNG is expected to increase by more than 50% by 2040. This will be driven largely by the move away from higher-emission fossil fuels, a shift underway in a large country such as India and further along in other emerging markets.

In 2020, China was the United States’ largest oil export destination, while India stood fifth. A year later, the roles had reversed, with India taking the top spot and China going down to fifth. Various factors were responsible, including China imposing tariffs on US imports, the American ban on investments in Chinese energy firms, and the growing demand for LNG in India. A long-term contract worth $10 billion was signed between India and two LNG export terminals in Texas and Louisiana. There are more in the works, with Corpus Christi and Freeport in Texas, along with other Gulf Coast towns.

Why A Complete Repeal Is Not Feasible

In an executive order last week, Trump suspended funding disbursements under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a step part of a sweeping set of directives to begin setting the new administration’s energy agenda. While it is not uncommon for new governments to pause funding for evaluation, federal agencies have 90 days to submit their review and spending recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget and the National Economic Council. The IRA contains key tax subsidies that foster energy production from renewable sources such as solar, hydrogen, wind and others. It also bolsters manufacturers in the supply chain with incentives and investments. Renewable energy manufacturers are eligible for two federal tax credits under the IRA. In addition, the IRA provides support for emerging capabilities, like carbon capture and technologies that facilitate the production, storage and utilisation of hydrogen energy.

While the disbursements may be suspended, it is not prudent to repeal the law in its entirety for several reasons, including the fact that Red states, such as Texas, greatly benefit from it. In general, many renewable energy projects are in rural areas, which usually send Republicans to Congress. For example, Texas has 689 firms engaged in solar manufacturing and distribution, with a $45.2 billion investment as of September 2024, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association report. Thus, there must be a balance against the need to avoid rolling back the considerable stimulus the IRA provided to the economy. 

There is considerable foreign investment in the renewable energy sector in the US. Recently, an India-based solar panel maker established its first American solar module manufacturing and integrated US-made solar cell facility in Texas. The firm is planning to invest $1 billion in the state over the next four years and create over 1,500 jobs when at full capacity. There are several local firms engaged in the supply chain and manufacturing of components needed for renewable energy production on the Gulf Coast. Most of these firms rely on a few benefits provided by the IRA to be sustainable and profitable in the short term. Repealing it will discourage these firms, which have already invested or were planning to invest in renewables manufacturing.

A Need To Co-Exist

Electricity demand continues to soar in America. The accelerated pace of modernisation in all sectors, from technology to transportation to heavy industry, needs electricity as a source of power. Crypto miners and data centres, are all heavy power consumers, as is generative AI technology, which demands immense computational power and energy, often ten times more than standard operations.

Given renewable energy sources are cost-competitive vis a vis fossil fuels, local utility providers may increasingly rely on them to meet the increasing demand. Another factor is that the prices of renewable energy are much less volatile than those of fossil fuels, like natural gas.

All in all, even with the shift in the US political climate, companies, and tech companies especially, can’t completely abandon their commitment to all their stakeholders—employees, customers, and shareholders in the US and abroad—to make their operations sustainable. Currently, 38 states have regulations requiring utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. It is also important to note that companies are increasingly becoming direct purchasers of power from suppliers, bypassing intermediaries such as utility companies. This trend will support the demand for clean energy providers.

Bottom Line: FDI Is Key

There is a huge potential for foreign direct investment in renewable energy manufacturing in the US, as well as for the export of oil and gas to fast-growing countries such as India. It won’t be surprising if President Trump, being the business-savvy leader he is with his “America First” and “Make in America” vision, strikes a balance for the co-existence of both fossil fuels as well as renewable energy production.

(The author is CEO and founder of ǪuantAi, an investor in Private Equity and an advisory board member of several technology and non-profit firms in the US) 

Years ago, during my one and only trip to Pakistan to report on the 50th anniversary of independence for a Western media outlet, I had the pleasure of meeting some bright, articulate students at the famed Government College in Lahore. Feeling magnanimous (and admittedly swept by their genuine warmth), I decided to drop a bombshell of an idea: why not reunite India and Pakistan? Should we not right the wrongs of Partition, restore the subcontinent to its undivided glory, and perhaps save on visa fees?

Their reaction shook me up no end. Polite smiles laced with a palpable ‘what-is-this-guy-talking-about?’. Most of them agreed that Partition was a disaster—but, they were quick to add, not their disaster. The blame, they insisted, lay squarely with the Urdu-speaking folks, many of whom had fled to Karachi and now live as ‘muhajir‘ (immigrants). One student practically bristled at my proposal and said my suggestion reeked of a “typical Indian response” from the post-Partition generation, which was a rather diplomatic way of calling me naïve. I get it.

From their post-Partition Pakistani perspective, the students argued, reunification was a no-go. Sure, their country wasn’t perfect—admittedly not on a par with India—but it was their own. Sovereign, independent, and, crucially, theirs to nurture or mess up, without unsolicited advice from nostalgic neighbours across the border. The message was clear: the idea of negating Partition, no matter how silly they thought it was, wasn’t up for debate. Period. 

It was a perspective that had never crossed my Indian-bred mind. It reminded me of the shock Canadians are feeling at President Donald Trump’s latest shenanigan—his not-so-casual declaration that he would like to annex Canada and turn it into America’s 51st state. Last week, Trump, always a fan of the spotlight, used an international platform to float the idea. Addressing the Davos economic forum via video link, he coolly tossed out the notion to an audience of CEOs and business honchos. Predictably, gasps echoed through the room. And somewhere in Ottawa, I imagine, jaws hit the floor.

What’s surprising isn’t just the audacity of Trump’s suggestion but the sheer persistence of it. His rhetorical swipes at Canada’s independence have become so frequent that one wonders if he is genuinely serious or just bored with his neighbours.

The US-Canada overlap is everywhere—from culture to sports to shared traditions. Neighbours for sure, but they are more like squabbling siblings. In 2023, the US-Canada trade hit over a trillion dollars, with $2.8 billion crossing their border every single day. They are each other’s biggest trade partners, with Canada sending 78% of its goods and services to the US every year, and over 4,00,000 people moving across their shared 5,525-mile border daily.

‘No, Thanks’

The reactions to Trump’s comments range from polite Canadian indignation to outright laughter. Meanwhile, Americans seem split between “Wait, can we actually do that?” and “Why would we even want to?”. Let’s unpack these views:

Recently, BuzzFeed ran an article that asked Canadians about their thoughts on Trump’s eyebrow-raising proposal to annex Canada as America’s 51st state. Unsurprisingly, the responses were a mixed bag, though they leaned heavily towards a polite but firm “No, thanks”. Here’s what some of them had to say: 

• “I do not want to be American. No one I know wants to be American. I am not giving up my free healthcare and strict gun laws. And I am definitely not giving up my right to choose as a woman.”
• “I would rather take my son on a vacation to Europe for fear of our safety in the US. Your lax gun laws make me afraid that we could be shot while vacationing in any part of your country.” 
• “We are not America. We never will be. In fact, I think America would benefit from a more Canadian viewpoint.” 
• “Americans would be better off joining Canada than Canadians would be joining the USA.”

And then, of course, there were those I would call ‘dissenters’. Their voices often stemmed from frustration with their own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, rather than an overwhelming love for Trump’s America. A few highlights:

• “Ask me 15 years ago, and I would have been ready to take up arms against any US threat; now, I’m not sure. The Liberal government, led by Trudeau, has divided and nearly destroyed our culture with ‘woke ideology’.”
• “I would be the first one to vote to become part of the United States.”
• “I would be over the moon to become an American. The US is the greatest country in the world. Canada has been riding their coattails for years. To be annexed into the US would be a dream come true.”

Their enthusiasm must be appreciated. Sure, they might get Florida, but they are also signing up for the ‘Florida Man’. And they are happy with it. However, in the end, while some Canadians may be open to the idea of annexation, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be, “Thanks, but we’re good.” 

The American public, it seems, isn’t exactly rolling out the red carpet for Trump’s latest brainwave. Surveys by The Wall Street Journal, Reuters-Ipsos and The Economist-YouGov—all conducted in recent days—indicate that the idea of annexing Canada is about as popular as a snowstorm in July. So, we must keep in mind that Trump’s land of the free isn’t exactly clamouring for a new northern star on its flag after all.

A Rare Precedent

Annexing a nation without a war is a rare feat, but history offers a few eyebrow-raising precedents that might bolster Trump’s audacious ambitions. Consider Texas in 1845: the Republic of Texas willingly joined the United States after breaking free from Mexico. Then there was Hawaii in 1898, annexed through a joint resolution of Congress following the not-so-gentle overthrow of its monarchy. Both cases, of course, were dripping with controversy and tangled in political gymnastics.

If President Trump were to actually chase his dream of annexing Canada as the 51st state, he would be plunging into a legal and political minefield. For starters, Canada’s Constitution is as silent as a winter morning on how a province—or the entire nation, for that matter—could secede and join another country. On the flip side, the US Constitution does allow for new states to join with Congressional approval, but annexing a fully sovereign country is uncharted territory, legally speaking.

Then there’s the political and populist angle. Agreed that Trump’s statement might strike a chord with certain populist audiences. But the logistics of such an annexation are a Herculean challenge. The deeply entrenched national identities and legal frameworks on both sides of the border make this idea more rhetorical than realistic.

Into Trump’s Mind

Trump himself drops plenty of hints about how he views his annexation dream. “Are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?” a reporter asked him recently. “No. Economic force,” he said promptly. “Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security. Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada.”

Justin Trudeau, who is stepping down as Canada’s prime minister, didn’t hold back on X, retorting: “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” Elon Musk on the other hand, ever eager to stir the pot, responded sarcastically: “Girl, you’re not the governor of Canada anymore, so doesn’t matter what you say.”

The banter may be entertaining, but the stakes of such a suggestion are no laughing matter. This is the kind of rhetoric that can tiptoe dangerously close to turning political theatre into a real diplomatic crisis.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The world is in an age of disruption, whether in politics, economy or technology. In any such era, uncertainty rises. Among nations, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Business as usual or maintaining a status quo may seem like a safe option, but it is not. Only nations that embrace the disruptions and are nimble enough to capture the upside will succeed. What should India do?
Global politics is set for unusual times with Donald Trump helming the US. By all indications, his second term is likely to be more disruptive for the global order, whether on war, multilateral/bilateral economic frameworks or climate change. On his tail, there is Elon Musk, the most disruptive entrepreneur of the age who has now made it his mission to also be a disruptive global political influencer. Both men want to change not just the US but also mould the globe as per their worldview and interests.

The global economy is going through a tough phase. Even India, which is the star of the show, is slowing down. The predominant policy reaction across the world is to abandon the long-held consensus on openness and to look inward. Almost every major economy is strategising some version of self-reliance that doesn’t necessarily mean a complete rejection of the outside world. What it does mean is the need for greater reciprocity in concessions and a preference for politically-aligned partners.

An Uncertain World

At the same time, there is a hugely disruptive industrial revolution underway. The continued rise of AI and other automated technologies is putting a question mark on the future of conventional jobs. It is bringing to the fore new challenges, such as the need to secure supply chains of critical minerals that are the core of emerging technologies.

It is a tough world. But even in uncertainty, there are some certainties that can be leveraged, especially by India. Trump is unlikely to look at India’s high tariff barriers favourably. Nor is Elon Musk. But there lies an opportunity in their interests. Both Trump and Musk would look at India positively as a destination for American investment. And welcoming that would also open a door for greater market access for exports to the US. The best chance for India to make full use of the China-plus-one sentiment for manufacturing is during Trump’s time as president. However, it may require some disruptive policy changes in India, including a reduction in tariffs in some sectors where they are abnormally high. It may also require a drastic simplification of processes and clearances, moving towards self-certification, time-bound clearances and deemed clearances. Complexity and delays are an anathema to foreign investors.

The global economic slowdown affects India’s exports, but it need not be a downside to India’s 8% growth prospects. Again, disruption to business as usual may be required. An immediate loosening of monetary policy by at least 50 basis points and substantial tax relief to the middle class will spur domestic consumption, which has been sluggish for the last few quarters. A rise in demand will hasten the capex plans of corporations and lead to a rise in private investment, which has also been struggling.

The answer to technology disruption and its impact on jobs is not obvious. It will play out over time. But it is clear that the nature of future jobs will involve more, not less skill. In particular, numeracy, basic mathematics and science will be key. India’s school education needs a radical revamp with learning rather than enrolment as the primary goal. The Centre and states must get together to redo pedagogy in order to make the next generation future-ready.

Be Nimble

That said, there will still be more uncertainty in the world than certainties. Not all challenges can be predicted beforehand. In terms of nimbleness in response, there is no comparison between market forces and government. Countries that give a greater play to market forces and entrepreneurship will be more successful than those that put their governments in pole position. That is already evident in the widely divergent economic outcomes in Europe and the US. Europe, much more statist than America, is in real decline. America’s alleged decline makes headlines but is greatly exaggerated. East Asia has done better than South Asia because it has been open to market forces.

In India, the political economy still favours the government over the private sector. The biggest disruption needs to happen here if India is to continue its march to prosperity in a tumultuous and uncertain world.

(The author is Chief Economist, Vedanta)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The world is in an age of disruption, whether in politics, economy or technology. In any such era, uncertainty rises. Among nations, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Business as usual or maintaining a status quo may seem like a safe option, but it is not. Only nations that embrace the disruptions and are nimble enough to capture the upside will succeed. What should India do?
Global politics is set for unusual times with Donald Trump helming the US. By all indications, his second term is likely to be more disruptive for the global order, whether on war, multilateral/bilateral economic frameworks or climate change. On his tail, there is Elon Musk, the most disruptive entrepreneur of the age who has now made it his mission to also be a disruptive global political influencer. Both men want to change not just the US but also mould the globe as per their worldview and interests.

The global economy is going through a tough phase. Even India, which is the star of the show, is slowing down. The predominant policy reaction across the world is to abandon the long-held consensus on openness and to look inward. Almost every major economy is strategising some version of self-reliance that doesn’t necessarily mean a complete rejection of the outside world. What it does mean is the need for greater reciprocity in concessions and a preference for politically-aligned partners.

An Uncertain World

At the same time, there is a hugely disruptive industrial revolution underway. The continued rise of AI and other automated technologies is putting a question mark on the future of conventional jobs. It is bringing to the fore new challenges, such as the need to secure supply chains of critical minerals that are the core of emerging technologies.

It is a tough world. But even in uncertainty, there are some certainties that can be leveraged, especially by India. Trump is unlikely to look at India’s high tariff barriers favourably. Nor is Elon Musk. But there lies an opportunity in their interests. Both Trump and Musk would look at India positively as a destination for American investment. And welcoming that would also open a door for greater market access for exports to the US. The best chance for India to make full use of the China-plus-one sentiment for manufacturing is during Trump’s time as president. However, it may require some disruptive policy changes in India, including a reduction in tariffs in some sectors where they are abnormally high. It may also require a drastic simplification of processes and clearances, moving towards self-certification, time-bound clearances and deemed clearances. Complexity and delays are an anathema to foreign investors.

The global economic slowdown affects India’s exports, but it need not be a downside to India’s 8% growth prospects. Again, disruption to business as usual may be required. An immediate loosening of monetary policy by at least 50 basis points and substantial tax relief to the middle class will spur domestic consumption, which has been sluggish for the last few quarters. A rise in demand will hasten the capex plans of corporations and lead to a rise in private investment, which has also been struggling.

The answer to technology disruption and its impact on jobs is not obvious. It will play out over time. But it is clear that the nature of future jobs will involve more, not less skill. In particular, numeracy, basic mathematics and science will be key. India’s school education needs a radical revamp with learning rather than enrolment as the primary goal. The Centre and states must get together to redo pedagogy in order to make the next generation future-ready.

Be Nimble

That said, there will still be more uncertainty in the world than certainties. Not all challenges can be predicted beforehand. In terms of nimbleness in response, there is no comparison between market forces and government. Countries that give a greater play to market forces and entrepreneurship will be more successful than those that put their governments in pole position. That is already evident in the widely divergent economic outcomes in Europe and the US. Europe, much more statist than America, is in real decline. America’s alleged decline makes headlines but is greatly exaggerated. East Asia has done better than South Asia because it has been open to market forces.

In India, the political economy still favours the government over the private sector. The biggest disruption needs to happen here if India is to continue its march to prosperity in a tumultuous and uncertain world.

(The author is Chief Economist, Vedanta)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

After nearly 480 days of intense fighting and bombardment, resulting in the deaths of over 46,000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, a ceasefire deal has finally been reached. Though long in the making, previous efforts repeatedly fell short of achieving finality.

This agreement, however, remains fragile, with no guarantees that it will be implemented fully in both letter and spirit. The trigger for the Gaza conflict, as well as the related hostilities in Lebanon, was the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack carried out by Hamas near the Israel-Gaza border. This heinous act of brutality sought to refocus international attention on the Palestinian issue, which Hamas perceived as sidelined by various international agreements, including the Abraham Accords.

Wrong On Both Sides

Much like Anwar Sadat’s surprise cross-Suez attack that initiated the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, Hamas’ actions involved the mass killing of innocents and the taking of hostages. These acts provoked a massive Israeli response, including the mobilisation of 3,50,000 troops, large-scale destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, and the deaths of countless civilians. It is essential to underscore the criminal nature of both actions, which disregarded the principle of proportionality—a fundamental concept guiding the conduct of warfare to minimise harm to civilians while resolving conflicts.

The ceasefire agreement has been brokered by Qatar, the United States and Egypt as part of a three-phase plan. A joint follow-up mechanism involving these nations will monitor progress to ensure the deal is upheld. The key conditions of the agreement are as follows:

• Phase 1: This phase will last 42 days. Hamas will release 33 hostages, including women, children, and individuals over 50 years old. In return, Israel will release 32 Palestinian prisoners for each hostage, begin withdrawing from certain areas, and facilitate a significant increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza. Additionally, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) will withdraw from densely populated areas, allowing internally displaced people to return to their homes.
• Phase 2: Hamas will release the remaining male hostages, and Israel will complete its withdrawal from Gaza.
• Phase 3: This phase will include the return of deceased hostages and the initiation of Gaza’s reconstruction, with significant contributions expected from the Arab world.

The IDF will gradually withdraw from Gaza towards a buffer zone in the east. Additionally, the IDF will vacate the Netzarim corridor and gradually withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor along the Gaza-Egypt border. While the agreement contains several other provisions, its significance lies in the challenges of implementation, the obstacles that may arise, and the enablers required to ensure success.

Pressing Questions

The most critical factor is overcoming the trust deficit after such an extended period of violence. Given its weakened state, Hamas may be inclined to adhere to the deal. However, questions remain:

Will Israel believe it missed the opportunity to eliminate Hamas entirely? This could tempt Israel to resume operations after a period of relative calm.

Will Israel withdraw completely at the designated time and revert to the status quo ante?
This scenario appears unlikely in a security-conscious Israel. Politically, the dominant narrative prioritising security may lead to both practical and impractical measures that risk reigniting tensions.
Will IDF stick to the agreement?

The success of the deal depends significantly on the entry of humanitarian aid, construction materials, and resources for restoring civilian life. Before the war, the IDF appeared lax in addressing the ambiguous nature of its adversaries, inadvertently allowing materials to be used in constructing Hamas’ 150-kilometre tunnel defence system. This network posed a significant challenge for the IDF to neutralise during the conflict. Will the IDF adhere to the letter of the agreement, or will it complicate the process, creating obstacles for humanitarian assistance to enter Gaza? Aid agencies and UN personnel will require considerable patience and persistence to ensure effective implementation.

IDF’s Dual Identity

The IDF cannot afford to permit military supplies to enter Gaza as Hamas remains active. It has not been fully defeated militarily, straddling the line between a conventional force and a terrorist organisation—a dual identity that continues to frustrate the IDF.

At times, military ego can overshadow even the most disciplined armed forces. Currently, Israel, the IDF, and its veteran leadership, driven by a desire to restore their reputation, may heighten the risk of stand-offs with Hamas.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is expected to play a key role in administering the Gaza Strip. It is tasked with addressing the humanitarian crisis, rebuilding infrastructure, and overseeing security in collaboration with Egypt. However, the history of confrontation between the PA and Hamas presents challenges. Under new or interim Hamas leadership, the PA must navigate a delicate balance to maintain stability.

Iran’s potential role in fostering peace remains significant, despite its military weakening alongside Hamas. It has partially lost its ability to engage in proxy wars across the Middle East due to the diminished capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah, as well as its reduced influence in the Levant. At this time, with its capabilities compromised, Iran may avoid drawing the focused attention of the US and Israel. However, this does not preclude its efforts to maintain control over proxy groups throughout the region. Iran may prefer covert actions to support Hamas, though such moves risk derailing the ceasefire entirely.

Uncertainty Reigns

The sustained involvement of Qatar and Egypt will be critical, as the US alone cannot manage this situation effectively. A peacekeeping force with a clear and well-defined mandate may become necessary. The United Nations Disengagement Observation Force (UNDOF), currently active in Israel’s Golan Heights, could potentially expand its role to include temporary monitoring. India, already contributing to UNDOF, might participate in such an initiative.

Much remains uncertain, particularly with the return of a Trump administration to power in the US. For now, unpredictability continues to define the situation.

(The writer is a Member of the National Disaster Management Authority, Chancellor of the Central University of Kashmir, and Former GOC of the Srinagar-based 15 Corps.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Finally, Justin Trudeau decided that he will have to quit to save himself any further ignominy. His politics and his career have been adrift for a while now with no seeming way out of the morass he was sinking into with each passing day. It must have seemed to him that he was being abandoned not only by his own party, his nation but also by the wider world. For someone who had risen as the darling of global media just about a decade back, the fall from grace of being lampooned as the governor of the 51st state of America has been equally scathing.

So, when Trudeau announced that he was resigning and that he would stay on in office until his Liberal Party can choose a new leader, and that parliament would be prorogued until March 24, it was hardly greeted with a shrug.

How Trudeau Scripted His Own Downfall

Yet, most of the problems facing Trudeau are of his own making. When deputy prime minister and long-time ally Chrystia Freeland abruptly resigned in December, accusing Trudeau of not doing enough to address the “grave challenge” posed by Trump’s proposal to impose a tax of 25% on imported Canadian goods, it was the last straw, as it led to the withdrawal of support of parties like the New Democrats and the Quebec nationalist party, Bloc Quebecois, which had kept the Liberals in power. The Conservatives as the main opposition had been gaining ground over the last few years, with Trudeau himself being increasingly viewed as a drag on the political fortunes of the Liberals.

In her resignation letter, Freeland strongly criticised Trudeau’s “political gimmicks”, likely referring to a two-month sales tax holiday and C$250 rebates for most workers, underscoring the fundamental problem with Trudeau’s brand of leadership. For a leader who had come to power in 2015 promising “Sunny Ways” for his nation, all he could offer in the end was political gimmickry.

The economic situation post-Covid has been debilitating for most Canadians and his management of Covid left a large majority unimpressed. As unemployment skyrocketed and the cost of living crisis gained ground, Canadians’ faith in Trudeau’s abilities kept dwindling. His popularity plummeted and backbenchers began to desert him, fearing for their own political future.

On the foreign policy front, Trump’s election victory came as a huge setback. Trump has claimed that his pressure over tariffs led to Trudeau’s resignation; he also took a jibe at Canada’s situation, saying that it should become “the 51st State” of the US. “If Canada merged with the US, there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them,” he said on Truth Social, rubbing salt in Trudeau’s wounds.

A Lost Decade For India-Canada

Of course, when it comes to India, Trudeau was an unmitigated disaster. Canada, under his leadership, has managed to achieve the unthinkable: become the ‘new Pakistan’ in the Indian foreign policy matrix. Trudeau’s contribution to the fiasco that is the current India-Canada ties can’t be overestimated. The two nations had almost succeeded in moving beyond the Kanishka bombings, the nuclear challenge, and the wider Cold War strategic divergence. In particular, under Stephen Harper, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2015, the shift in tone and tenor, as well as substance of engagement, became pronounced.

Under Trudeau’s leadership, on the other hand, the decline was swift. His courting of Khalistani extremists to strengthen his domestic position clouded his ability to view India-Canada relations with the seriousness they deserved. By focusing on India as a target, he sought to rally his party’s base in a last-ditch effort. When Trudeau claimed last September that Canadian security agencies had credible evidence linking Indian government officials to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, few in India took his assertions seriously. After all, it was his own government that had repeatedly refused to extradite Nijjar and other extremists despite India’s persistent requests, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the hateful, violent rhetoric of pro-Khalistan groups.

Good Riddance?

Self-righteous posturing by Trudeau and his party has been aimed at courting a key electoral demographic. Yet, his unwillingness to understand Indian concerns and lack of sensitivity about Sikh separatism have done some serious damage to the very fabric of India-Canada ties. Trudeau’s departure was needed for an India-Canada reset as the strategic partnership that was put in place in 2015 now lies in shambles. His successors will have to work hard to ensure that this reset happens quickly in order to make up for the lost decade under Trudeau.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

US President-elect Donald Trump has been named Time magazine’s ‘Person of the Year,’ underscoring the continuing centrality of his personality in shaping US politics and global discourse. This was the second time he got this recognition. It was inevitable, of course, given the nature of his victory in the November Presidential elections. The liberal media has been one of the most vocal opponents of Trump and his policies, but in the end, it is now forced to acknowledge that it remains out of touch with mainstream America. And Trump will not let them forget this easily.

In the last few days, Trump has been outlining his administration’s policy priorities and making it quite clear that he sees no need to go back on most aspects of his campaign promises. Looking back on his win against Vice-President Kamala Harris last month, Trump has asserted that his campaign resonated with the country by focusing on immigration, the economy, and other key issues that he has argued were more in tune with voters’ concerns than the Democratic message. “I don’t think they [the Democrats] got the feel of the country,” Trump has asserted. According to him, the Republican Party has become the party of “common sense”. Not only did he win the popular mandate this time, but the Republicans will also be in control of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

‘Bring It Back’

Trump feels vindicated of his assessment of the popular mood and in his interviews, therefore, he is making it clear that he intends to take his agenda forward. The tone, however, is softer and gentler in his interviews and he is talking of uniting the country by working to ensure its success. In his words: “I’m really looking to make our country successful. I’m not looking to go back into the past. I’m looking to make our country successful. Retribution will be through success. If we can make our success—his country successful, that would be my greatest—that would be such a great achievement. Bring it back.”

But he has also talked of the possibility that his former political opponents like Liz Cheney could face jail time. He has also underlined that he believes “a vast majority” of the nearly 1,200 people who have either pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial for crimes connected to the January 6 attack should not be in jail. He will begin reviewing possible pardons “in the first hour” he assumes office.

Immigrants Prime Target

Immigration seems to be his core priority, with illegal immigration being described by him as “an invasion of our country” requiring the use of the National Guard and local law enforcement along with the military in deportation processes, something that can be legally challenging. He is threatening nations not willing to take back immigrants with tariffs, underscoring that “if they don’t take them back, we won’t do business with those countries, and we will tariff those countries very substantially”. Trump has also reiterated his campaign pledge to abolish birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and hinted that he might try to overturn this right through executive action.

Other domestic issues that have emerged as key for Trump in the early days of his administration are managing high inflation, reviving the US oil industry (“Drill, Baby, Drill”), and the downsizing of the federal Department of Education and transferring most responsibilities to state governments. Trump is calling for a “virtual closure of the Department of Education in Washington,” something that would require Congressional acquiescence.

An ‘Agreement’ On Ukraine

On the foreign policy front too, he is making the dividing line with his predecessor quite clear. He has underlined his “vehement” disagreement with the Biden administration’s policy of allowing Ukraine to use US-provided long-range weapons, called Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to strike deep into Russian territory, arguing that this policy was “just escalating this war and making it worse”. He continues to suggest that he does not intend to abandon Ukraine. But the way to do this, for Trump, is to reach an agreement, as the war is a “tragedy” with a “staggering” number of people killed on both sides of the conflict.

On the Middle East, he has something new to say. In his last term, he had called for “a realistic two-state solution”, but now he seems to be suggesting that he supports “whatever solution we can do to get peace”, that there are “other ideas other than two-state.” In a striking assessment, he said that he wants “a long-lasting peace, a peace where we don’t have an October 7 in another three years. And there are numerous ways you can do it. You can do it two-state, but there are numerous ways it can be done.” This is open to interpretation in several ways, and that’s perhaps what Trump intended.

Keeping It Straight

And finally, tariffs remain Trump’s favourite tools of statecraft. He intends to continue to target three of America’s largest trading partners—Mexico, Canada and China—with tariffs, though interestingly, he has also said he “can’t guarantee” tariffs won’t lead to a spike in prices of goods for Americans.

Trump’s priorities are clear and his agenda is beginning to take shape. His nominations are also final. Apart from Matt Gaetz, Trump has stood by most of his nominees despite some murmurs from the Senate. As the year ends, the Trump phenomenon is once again beginning to reshape the US and, with it, the wider world—for good or for bad, only time will tell.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

US President-elect Donald Trump has been named Time magazine’s ‘Person of the Year,’ underscoring the continuing centrality of his personality in shaping US politics and global discourse. This was the second time he got this recognition. It was inevitable, of course, given the nature of his victory in the November Presidential elections. The liberal media has been one of the most vocal opponents of Trump and his policies, but in the end, it is now forced to acknowledge that it remains out of touch with mainstream America. And Trump will not let them forget this easily.

In the last few days, Trump has been outlining his administration’s policy priorities and making it quite clear that he sees no need to go back on most aspects of his campaign promises. Looking back on his win against Vice-President Kamala Harris last month, Trump has asserted that his campaign resonated with the country by focusing on immigration, the economy, and other key issues that he has argued were more in tune with voters’ concerns than the Democratic message. “I don’t think they [the Democrats] got the feel of the country,” Trump has asserted. According to him, the Republican Party has become the party of “common sense”. Not only did he win the popular mandate this time, but the Republicans will also be in control of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

‘Bring It Back’

Trump feels vindicated of his assessment of the popular mood and in his interviews, therefore, he is making it clear that he intends to take his agenda forward. The tone, however, is softer and gentler in his interviews and he is talking of uniting the country by working to ensure its success. In his words: “I’m really looking to make our country successful. I’m not looking to go back into the past. I’m looking to make our country successful. Retribution will be through success. If we can make our success—his country successful, that would be my greatest—that would be such a great achievement. Bring it back.”

But he has also talked of the possibility that his former political opponents like Liz Cheney could face jail time. He has also underlined that he believes “a vast majority” of the nearly 1,200 people who have either pleaded guilty or were found guilty at trial for crimes connected to the January 6 attack should not be in jail. He will begin reviewing possible pardons “in the first hour” he assumes office.

Immigrants Prime Target

Immigration seems to be his core priority, with illegal immigration being described by him as “an invasion of our country” requiring the use of the National Guard and local law enforcement along with the military in deportation processes, something that can be legally challenging. He is threatening nations not willing to take back immigrants with tariffs, underscoring that “if they don’t take them back, we won’t do business with those countries, and we will tariff those countries very substantially”. Trump has also reiterated his campaign pledge to abolish birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and hinted that he might try to overturn this right through executive action.

Other domestic issues that have emerged as key for Trump in the early days of his administration are managing high inflation, reviving the US oil industry (“Drill, Baby, Drill”), and the downsizing of the federal Department of Education and transferring most responsibilities to state governments. Trump is calling for a “virtual closure of the Department of Education in Washington,” something that would require Congressional acquiescence.

An ‘Agreement’ On Ukraine

On the foreign policy front too, he is making the dividing line with his predecessor quite clear. He has underlined his “vehement” disagreement with the Biden administration’s policy of allowing Ukraine to use US-provided long-range weapons, called Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to strike deep into Russian territory, arguing that this policy was “just escalating this war and making it worse”. He continues to suggest that he does not intend to abandon Ukraine. But the way to do this, for Trump, is to reach an agreement, as the war is a “tragedy” with a “staggering” number of people killed on both sides of the conflict.

On the Middle East, he has something new to say. In his last term, he had called for “a realistic two-state solution”, but now he seems to be suggesting that he supports “whatever solution we can do to get peace”, that there are “other ideas other than two-state.” In a striking assessment, he said that he wants “a long-lasting peace, a peace where we don’t have an October 7 in another three years. And there are numerous ways you can do it. You can do it two-state, but there are numerous ways it can be done.” This is open to interpretation in several ways, and that’s perhaps what Trump intended.

Keeping It Straight

And finally, tariffs remain Trump’s favourite tools of statecraft. He intends to continue to target three of America’s largest trading partners—Mexico, Canada and China—with tariffs, though interestingly, he has also said he “can’t guarantee” tariffs won’t lead to a spike in prices of goods for Americans.

Trump’s priorities are clear and his agenda is beginning to take shape. His nominations are also final. Apart from Matt Gaetz, Trump has stood by most of his nominees despite some murmurs from the Senate. As the year ends, the Trump phenomenon is once again beginning to reshape the US and, with it, the wider world—for good or for bad, only time will tell.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

It’s not misogyny that defeated Kamala Harris. There is a certain insincerity lurking behind this explanation for the decisive victory of the Republican Party, which has led to the installation of Donald Trump, once again, in the White House. 

It is the same insincerity with which the Harris-Walz campaign was carried out for months. In the face of an ‘unexpected’ debacle, the Democrats in the US, along with other politicians across the world, will do well to introspect. What, indeed, was the problem?

It is easy to employ feminism to explain away Trump’s triumph over two women in less than a decade. What is being forgotten easily here is the fact that she was recruited in a huff to replace Joe Biden, who was sure to have lost to Trump. An afterthought. The Democrats were desperate to fight anti-incumbency but addressed it from the wrong end.

A Guilt Bait

Harris was used by her party as guilt-inducing bait in the 2024 presidential election, and her defeat has important lessons for everyone. First and most obviously, you cannot guilt-trip voters into supporting you unconditionally. The Harris-Walz campaign doubled down on making the undecided voter feel guilt-ridden for even considering a change. There was a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of campaign designers and ideological Democrat voters that their policies may have anything to do with people’s dissatisfaction. Or they knew and smugly brushed it off, armed with weapons of collective guilt. This smugness caused a swing.

The most palpable example of this is the Democrats’ tone-deafness around the war in West Asia. In a year marked by relentless anti-war campaigns and demonstrations, Democrats believed Dick Cheney to be their trump card. Cheney’s hawkish attitude as George W. Bush’s vice-president left a legacy of violence and human rights violations in the US and everywhere else the country intervened militarily. Harris’s claims to usher in peace fell flat in the face of such crude irony. Depending on how disappointed or angry they were, anti-war Democrats sat the election out, cross-voted for Trump, or voted for the third alternative to mark their dissent.

Thick Cosmopolitanism

Democrats’ adaptation of what political scientists call the theory of ‘thick cosmopolitanism’ in the domestic domain of immigration did not work in securing them a consecutive second term. The theory argues that when people realise their ingroup’s culpability in causing harm to people living in distant nations, they adopt a cosmopolitan helping demeanour. The inherent limitation of the theory, as demonstrated by Nicholas Faulkner, and the revelation of Democrats’ hypocrisy ensured that voters rejected their guilt-tripping political campaign. This may partially explain why a substantial diaspora cohort swung towards Trump. 

But Democrats were counting on brow-beating dissent with guilt. Unfortunately for them, this strategy backfired. Scholars Gunn and Wilson propose that collective guilt, an important political tool, is often undercut by defensiveness. The Democratic Party forgot that just as an attack on personal identity makes an individual defensive, people are wont to react with defensiveness when their social identities are threatened. Calling voters racist and sexist before, during, and after the polls, Democrats inspired a surge of defensiveness across multiple demographic groups.

Nobody Knew What Kamala Was About

Kamala Harris’s campaign raised and spent more money than Donald Trump, but what was the substance? The political messaging barely managed to escape the rhetoric of ‘Save America from Trump’. Reeling under high inflation rates, American voters felt invisible when no concrete policy measures were offered for this ‘Save America’ operation. The Republicans are guilty of running the same banal campaign, but they had anti-incumbency on their side. Memories of Trump’s previous presidency were fading, and that helped him. Trump’s campaign counted on the fickleness of public memory and put its bets on people’s ability to forget the past when they are obsessing about ongoing concerns. 

Team Harris, on the other hand, weaponised memories of the fractured American past to make this election about correcting historical wrongs. Psychologists warn that people do not necessarily react well when confronted with problematic actions of their own. Political scientist Eunbin Chung proposed in the context of East Asia that national identity affirmation can be employed “as a way of disarming the defensiveness that is prompted from recognising guilt of one’s country, allowing more prosocial responses to emerge”. Democrats, however, fell short in offering a positive spin to the American identity in a bid to counter its chequered racial history. 

Competitive Defensiveness

Add to this the Biden administration’s no-limits support to Israel despite the growing anti-war chime even within the rank and file of the Democratic Party, and we got a game of competitive defensiveness all around. The leadership and the voters stopped listening to each other. 

To peg this defeat as only a misogynistic mistake, therefore, is oversimplifying the matters. This is how Democrats wish to continue to play the guilting game without a shred of introspection. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author