geopolitics – Air Marshal's Perspective

October 16, 2026

867: CHINA’S DREAM: ROAD BLOCKS AND ROAD AHEAD

China’s rise is a long-term political and strategic project aimed at restoring the country’s position as a leading world power. Under President Xi Jinping, this ambition has been articulated through the concept of the Chinese Dream, i.e., the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In a 2012 speech, Xi linked national rejuvenation to the goal of building a modern socialist country by 2049 (the centenary year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China).

China’s approach is economic rise through the industrial route. The strategic question is whether China can convert its economic scale into comprehensive global power. That requires more than manufacturing dominance. It requires technological independence, diplomatic influence, military capability, secure borders and the ability to shape international rules. China’s challenge also includes pursuing its interests without creating a regional coalition determined to contain its rise.

The years 2035, 2047 and 2049 are important milestones. 2035 is an official modernisation milestone; 2049 is the stated centenary horizon for national rejuvenation; and 2047 can be treated as an analytical marker for assessing China’s regional and global ambitions, rather than a formally established deadline for world domination.

China’s Approach: Industrial Foundation of Strategic Power

China’s ambitions depend heavily on its manufacturing base. Industrial capacity provides employment, export revenue, technological learning and the ability to produce goods at enormous scale.

The original Made in China 2025 initiative focused on upgrading domestic industry and reducing reliance on foreign technology in strategic sectors. China’s subsequent industrial and economic plans have continued to emphasise advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, robotics and scientific self-reliance.

The 2035 objective is broader than simply producing more goods. Beijing wants China to become a technological power capable of designing, developing and manufacturing critical technologies rather than depending on foreign suppliers.

Yet industrial scale has limitations. Manufacturing leadership does not automatically produce technological independence, strong consumer demand, high household incomes or sustainable economic growth. China must also contend with demographic pressures, debt, property-sector difficulties and the challenge of shifting towards consumption-led growth.

Xi Jinping’s Global Initiatives

China’s global initiatives are designed to expand its influence through infrastructure, development finance, trade, security cooperation and international institutions.

The Belt and Road Initiative has helped Beijing build economic connections across Asia, Africa, Europe and other regions. The Global Development, Security and Civilisation Initiatives express broader Chinese ambitions to influence how international development, security and political diversity are discussed.

These initiatives are not identical, and countries participate for different reasons. Some seek investment, infrastructure and market access; others are attracted by China’s diplomatic support or preference for non-interference in domestic political affairs.

An important dimension of this approach is Beijing’s argument that no single political model is suitable for every country. China promotes its own system of governance, in which Communist Party leadership is central to political authority and national development.

This presents an alternative to the Western argument that liberal democracy, competitive elections and individual political freedoms should be central to legitimate governance.

However, an alternative model is not necessarily universally accepted. China’s ability to attract partners depends on whether its economic engagement delivers lasting benefits, whether its diplomacy addresses the concerns of smaller countries, and whether other governments trust its intentions.

Conflict of Interest with the USA

The United States has increasingly treated China as both an economic competitor and a strategic challenger. American policy has included tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions and measures designed to limit Chinese access to sensitive technologies.

The broader strategic effect, however, is clear: Washington is attempting to limit certain Chinese capabilities while preserving or reshaping its own technological and industrial advantages.

Beijing has responded by emphasising self-reliance, domestic innovation and alternative supply chains. This creates a vicious circle: American restrictions increase China’s incentives to develop domestic alternatives, while China’s technological progress encourages further scrutiny from the United States. The result is a competition in which industrial policy, trade, technology and national security increasingly overlap.

Analytical Review

One of the most provocative descriptions of China’s comparative position (vis-à-vis the USA) is that it is an economic heavyweight, a diplomatic lightweight and a military featherweight.

The phrase reflects the gap between the size of China’s economy and its capacity to translate that size into global leadership that is widely accepted by all. Yet, if taken literally, it fails to account for China’s rapid rise in its current diplomatic and military capabilities.

Economic Power. China is one of the largest economies in the world and plays a central role in manufacturing and trading. The country has considerable international influence due to its industrial capacity, its infrastructure, its technological development and its position within global supply chains.

Diplomatic Influence. China enjoys a great deal of influence via international organisations, trade ties, financing for infrastructure and through its partnerships with developing countries. Nevertheless, influence is uneven. Distrust among some neighbours, concerns about economic coercion and resistance to its maritime claims limit its ability to translate economic relationships into political support.

Military Power with Operational Constraints. China has invested heavily in its navy, air force, missile forces, space capabilities and nuclear deterrent. It is a major military power, not a featherweight. The more relevant question is how effectively it could use those capabilities in a particular conflict, especially far from the mainland or against an adversary supported by regional allies.

China’s challenge is therefore to integrate its economic, diplomatic, technological and military strengths into a coherent strategy. Its rivals, meanwhile, will seek to exploit the gaps between these different forms of power.

Road Ahead

China’s long-term ambition is best understood as an effort to become a country with comprehensive national power: a modern industrial economy, technological self-reliance, a capable military, greater diplomatic influence and a stronger voice in international rule-making.

The road to that position is not guaranteed. China must address structural economic pressures, maintain innovation, manage its demographic transition and avoid turning regional neighbours into permanent strategic opponents. It must also decide how much economic disruption it is willing to tolerate in pursuit of territorial and security objectives.

The United States retains important advantages through its alliance network, advanced technology, financial system and global military reach. Japan, India, Australia and European powers also influence the strategic environment in which China operates. Other countries may welcome Chinese investment while remaining unwilling to accept Chinese political or military dominance.

The international system is therefore unlikely to be transformed by economic growth alone. Power will depend on the interaction of industrial capacity, technological leadership, alliances, institutional credibility and military effectiveness.

Concluding Thoughts

The China Dream is a long-term initiative aimed at national rejuvenation, with its targets for modernisation in 2035 and its milestone of the centenary in 2049 serving as official benchmarks against which Beijing’s achievements can be evaluated. 2047 may be used as a useful point for analysis, but it must not be mistaken for a verified deadline by which China will achieve global supremacy.

China has shown that economic development can change a country’s standing in the international arena. The next step is to determine whether that economic power can translate into solid diplomatic influence and reliable military deterrence without provoking a broader regional reaction.

Ultimately, China’s rise will be judged not only by the strength of its economy or armed forces, but also by its ability to manage disagreements, sustain partnerships and reassure other countries that its growing power need not come at their expense.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to the respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References: –

The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 22 Oct 22. Full text of resolution on the report of the 19th Central Committee.

García-Herrero, A., & Krystyanczuk, M. How does China conduct industrial policy: Analyzing words versus deeds. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 24, Article 10, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-024-00413-w

Chen, K., Meng, Q., Sun, Y., et al. How does industrial policy experimentation influence innovation performance? A case of Made in China 2025. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 40, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02497-x

Han, X., & Liu, W. Belt and Road Initiative. In Oxford bibliographies in geography. Oxford University Press, 12 Jan 23.

Yu, H. Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Springer, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9633-9

S. Department of Defense. Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2024: Annual report to Congress, 2024. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF

Office of the United States Trade Representative, 23 Dec 23. USTR initiates Section 301 investigation on China’s acts, policies, and practices related to targeting of the semiconductor industry for dominance.

February 24, 2026February 24, 2026

787: MYANMAR’S ELECTIONS: DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OR EXERCISE TO LEGITIMISE MILITARY RULE

Myanmar’s military junta has conducted the long-awaited elections. This is the first general election since the military seized power in February 2021. The multi-phase ballot is intended to pave the way for a new civilian administration in 2026. However, domestic opponents and international observers have dismissed the exercise as a political façade. They feel it is designed to legitimise continued military rule rather than restore democracy.

Background. The military overthrew the elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi on 1 February 2021. The coup triggered mass protests and a nationwide civil disobedience movement. Thousands were killed, and millions were displaced in the following crackdown. The military junta finally announced a staggered three-phase election following repeated postponements. The ballot covers only 265 of Myanmar’s 330 townships. It excludes areas largely under the control of resistance forces. This selective polling undermines any claim to a representative mandate.

Three-Phase Election. Phase one of the election took place on Dec. 28 in 102 townships. The second phase of voting took place on 11 January 2026 in around 100 townships (across Sagaing, Mandalay, Tanintharyi, Shan, Kachin, Kayah and Kayin states). The final phase was concluded in 63 townships across the country on 25 Jan. The junta claimed that turnout was about 52-55 per cent. Opposition groups and civil society organisations dispute this figure. According to them, the participation was low because many voters feared violence or coercion. Human rights groups have highlighted the impact of the junta’s new “Election Protection Law,” which criminalises criticism of the polls with penalties ranging from three years to life imprisonment. More than 300 people have reportedly been arrested for comments deemed hostile to the vote, reinforcing claims that participation has been driven by fear rather than political choice.

Fixed Results. Preliminary count shows a sweeping victory for the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). This is a military-aligned party dominated by retired generals and former military officials. According to reported figures, the USDP has secured 232 of 263 contested seats in the Pyithu Hluttaw (lower house) and 109 of 157 announced seats in the Amyotha Hluttaw (upper house). Smaller ethnic parties have captured a handful of constituencies, but only six parties contested nationwide out of the 57 formally registered. The opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) was dissolved as it refused to re-register under restrictive new party laws. Aung San Suu Kyi remains imprisoned under politically motivated sentences. Myanmar’s 2008 constitution reserves 25 per cent of parliamentary seats for serving military officers. This strengthens the military hold. Combined with USDP victories, this arrangement gives the junta and its proxies a dominant supermajority regardless of popular support.

Legitimacy Challenged. Domestic opposition groups and international organisations have denounced the polls as neither free nor fair. The United Nations has warned that elections held amid mass arrests, censorship and the exclusion of millions of voters cannot be considered credible. UN human rights experts have described the process as an attempt to “manufacture legitimacy” for military rule. Human Rights Watch has called the ballot a “fraudulent claim for credibility,” citing voter intimidation, the absence of independent monitoring and the disenfranchisement of more than six million people living in conflict zones. The International Crisis Group has noted that the USDP benefits from structural advantages created by bans on rivals and by emergency laws that suppress dissent. Western governments, including members of the European Union, have said they will not recognise any administration formed through what they regard as a sham process. ASEAN, the regional bloc of which Myanmar is a member, has declined to send official observers.

Regional Reactions. Regional responses have not been that critical. China and Russia have sent observers to the polls. They prefer stability over political reform. For neighbouring Thailand, Bangladesh and India, the continuation of conflict raises fears of renewed refugee surges and cross-border instability. India has adopted a cautious approach, reiterating its support for a democratic transition. At the same time, it is engaging with the junta to address border security, refugee flows, and concerns over Chinese influence.

What Next. Under the junta’s roadmap, the newly elected parliament is due to convene in March 2026 to choose a president. The new government is expected to take office in April. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has already passed legislation creating a consultative body that would allow him to retain influence even after a formal handover to a civilian cabinet. Analysts are sceptical that these steps will reduce violence. Resistance forces, including the PDFs and various ethnic armed organisations, are believed to control or contest large parts of the countryside and have vowed to continue fighting what they view as an illegitimate regime.

Analytical View. The elections may internally legitimise the junta’s claim to national coverage. It does not change international perceptions. The process lacks the core ingredients of a genuine democratic transition. This is because of the exclusion of major opposition parties, disenfranchisement of millions of citizens, and participation shaped by fear. The polls do not seem to resolve Myanmar’s political crisis. They appear to formalise a divided reality: a military-controlled political center with a resistant periphery. Post-elections, the hope of a return to civilian rule remains remote. The election symbolises the depth of derailment of Myanmar’s democratic experiment.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

December 6, 2025

773: ASIA’S FLASHPOINTS: RISING TENSIONS FROM THE GULF TO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

Article published in the December edition of the

News Analytics Journal.

Asia is the world’s biggest and most dynamic continent, but it is also the most unstable. Stretching from the oil-rich Persian Gulf to the stormy Pacific, it is home to several of the planet’s most dangerous flashpoints. On the continent, ancient rivalries clash with modern weapons, great powers vie for control, and every small skirmish carries the risk of global repercussions. The region’s hotspots include the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, Korean Peninsula, and the Himalayan region. Any miscalculation in one of these areas could spark a major conflict.

Flash Points

The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean: Asia’s Energy Lifeline. In this region, the narrow Strait of Hormuz (only about 40 kilometres wide) is one of the most crucial shipping lanes. Around one-fifth of all the oil traded globally passes through this chokepoint every day. The tankers moving through it feed factories, power plants, and cars all over the world. If the Strait were to close for some reason, the impact would be felt worldwide. The oil prices would skyrocket immediately. Iran sits at the centre of this area and often threatens to block the Strait. The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen continue to target Saudi, UAE, and commercial shipping interests in the Red Sea. These attacks cause significant disruptions to global trade. Asian countries are diversifying their supply chain routes to prepare for future crises. The Gulf remains a reminder that Asia’s security problems exist on its energy routes.

The South China Sea: The Maritime Powder Keg. In the east are the world’s busiest and most dangerous seas. The South China Sea carries roughly one-third of all global maritime trade. Beneath its waters lie rich fisheries and untapped gas reserves. Six governments (China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan) claim overlapping parts of it. China claims almost the entire area of the South China Sea as its own. The international tribunal ruled in 2016 that the Chinese claim had no legal basis. However, Beijing has disagreed with the ruling. China is further militarising the artificial islands created by it on the shoals and reefs. These islands have become permanent military outposts of China, extending its reach deep into Southeast Asia. Every day, ships and planes from different nations cross paths here. Chinese coast guard vessels and civilian fishing boats (controlled by its maritime militia) swarm the contested areas and try to assert control. Other countries are upgrading their navies and pushing back by carrying out exercises and patrols. The result is a “grey-zone” conflict (neither war nor peace) where any confrontation could spiral into crisis. The South China Sea is a testing ground for the future of maritime law and regional order. If rules fail here, they could fail anywhere.

The Taiwan Strait: The Most Dangerous Flashpoint. The 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait separates China from the island of Taiwan. In Asia, it carries the greatest risk of major war. China considers Taiwan its “breakaway province.” China’s leaders have vowed to reunify Taiwan, peacefully or by force if required. Taiwan is a thriving democracy with its own government and military. With its growing sense of national identity, Taiwan rejects Beijing’s claim. The U.S. helps Taiwan arm itself, but maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding its direct intervention in the event of a Chinese invasion. Chinese military pressure has increased lately. Fighter jets and bombers cross into Taiwan’s air defence zone almost every day. Warships circle the island during drills simulating blockades and amphibious assaults. Beyond the military danger, the strait is an economic fault line. Over 60 per cent of the world’s semiconductors are made in Taiwan. This includes the most advanced chips that power smartphones, AI systems, and fighter jets. A war or blockade here would disrupt the global supply chains, devastating the industries worldwide. Every year, the rising tension here increases the likelihood of a misstep that could cause a global crisis.

The Korean Peninsula: Frozen Conflict, Nuclear Threats. The Korean Peninsula is one of the world’s most militarised and tense places. The Korean War never officially ended; it only paused with an armistice. Since then, North Korea has built a considerable nuclear arsenal. It continues to test missiles that can reach all of Asia and beyond. South Korea, maintains a strong defence posture with the assistance from the U.S. Japan is also strengthening its defences and increasing military cooperation with its allies. China and Russia support North Korea and protect it from international sanctions. South Korea is concerned about its long-term security. A deliberate hostile act or a miscalculation can disrupt the fragile peace in the region.

The Himalayas: India–China-Pakistan Triangle. Another tense front runs along the world’s highest mountains. India and China share a 3,400-kilometer Line of Actual Control that is not clearly defined. In 2020, troops from both sides engaged in a deadly hand-to-hand battle in the Galwan Valley. Since then, both have deployed troops and heavy weapons all along the LAC. The border is heavily militarised, increasing the chances of a confrontation. Hostility between India and Pakistan also keeps the region simmering. Pakistan-sponsored proxy attacks and frequent cross-border military exchanges occur at frequent intervals. Collusion between China and Pakistan further exacerbates the matter.

Iran-Israel proxy warfare. The long-standing rivalry between Iran and Israel has escalated through a series of direct and proxy attacks. Iran’s support for non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah continues to destabilise the region. The recent Israel-Hamas war has ravaged the region for two years. These regional ripples heighten fears of a broader conflagration.

Analytical Perspective

Hybrid Warfare: Conflict without Battlefields. Modern conflict rarely begins with conventional weapons. Instead, it creeps in through cyberattacks, fake news, trade pressure, and legal manipulation. This is hybrid warfare—where military, economic, and informational tools blend together. China uses its maritime militia in the South China Sea. It is a type of hybrid warfare that utilises a civilian organisation for military objectives. Iran uses drones for kinetic attacks along with non-kinetic cyber attacks against its rivals across the Gulf. North Korea uses cryptocurrency to fund its weapons programs. Infrastructure projects (like China’s Belt and Road Initiative) are being used for both economic outreach and strategic leverage. Even data is being used as a weapon. Control over semiconductors, undersea cables, and 5G networks shapes who holds power in the digital age. The battle for influence now runs through screens, supply chains, and satellite networks as much as through militaries. This invisible fight makes managing conflict harder.

Shifting Alliances. Asia’s security map is like a chessboard. The United States remains a key power and player. It has a military presence all over the region. It supports alliances and partnerships in the area. These groupings are mainly to counter China’s expanding influence. China, the other major power, is investing heavily in military modernisation. It is deepening ties with Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Caught between these two rivals, many Asian countries struggle to remain neutral and navigate the regional geopolitics. The result is not a simple Cold War divide, but a tangled web of overlapping alliances.

Regional Skirmishes with Global Consequences. These tensions are not local problems, but have global repercussions. A missile attack in the Gulf can double fuel prices in Europe. A clash in the South China Sea can block the shipping routes that carry goods to Africa and America. A war over Taiwan could destroy the global semiconductor industry. A crisis in the Himalayas could pit two nuclear powers against each other, putting the entire world at risk. Asia is also home to more nuclear-armed states than any other region and has the fastest-growing defence budgets. As military and cyber capabilities proliferate, the risk of military miscalculation multiplies. Yet Asia’s deep economic interdependence also encourages restraint: no one wants to destroy the markets that make them rich.

Path toward Stability. Avoiding catastrophe will require both deterrence and dialogue. Countries need to maintain open lines of communication with each other. A well-defined code of conduct can prevent incidents from blowing into larger conflicts. Regional organisations should develop mutually acceptable frameworks for conflict prevention and resolution. Hybrid threats need to be countered by building resilience in the digital and information domains. Above all, International laws need to be followed in letter and spirit by all countries. Resolving disputes through rules rather than force would be beneficial for all parties involved.

Conclusion: Asia’s Century

Asia is standing at a crossroads. The region offers both the danger of destruction and the opportunity for growth. It holds immense promise, with a young population and booming economies. But it also carries deep risks of major conflicts. If managed wisely, competition and cooperation could coexist within workable frameworks for peace. If mismanaged, a spark in any one of these zones could ignite a fire that engulfs the globe. Asia is already shaping the 21st century. Whether it becomes a century of prosperity or peril depends on how its leaders handle these flashpoints.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References:-

Cordesman, Anthony H. Iran, the Gulf, and Strategic Competition: The Challenges of Deterrence and Escalation. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2020.

Katzman, Kenneth. “Iran’s Threats to the Strait of Hormuz: Background and U.S. Policy.” Congressional Research Service, 2023.

Mallick, Samir. “Maritime Security and Energy Transit Vulnerabilities in the Western Indian Ocean.” Journal of Indian Ocean Studies 29, no. 1 (2023): 45–62.

Hayton, Bill. The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022.

Cole, J. Michael. Convergence or Conflict in the Taiwan Strait: The Illusion of Peace? London: Routledge, 2023.

Panda, Ankit. Kim Jong Un and the Bomb: Survival and Deterrence in North Korea. London: Hurst & Company, 2020.

Joshi, Manoj. Understanding the India–China Border: The Line of Actual Control and the Future of Sino-Indian Relations. New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2023.

Eisenstadt, Michael, and Charles Thepaut. “The Iran-Israel Shadow War.” Policy Focus 164, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2024.

Lin, Bonny, & Gross, David C. Taiwan’s Semiconductor Dominance and Global Supply-Chain Risk. RAND, 2024.

Small, Andrew. The China–Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics. Oxford UP, 2021 (updated 2024).

Ostovar, Afshon. Iran, Israel, and the United States: The Shadow War. Georgetown UP, 2025.