India Strengthens Afghan Ties As Pakistan Airstrikes Kills
.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:87.5%25/rs=w:1209,h:605,cg:true)
P&C | Saturday, 29 Nov. 2025
Kabul | Planet & Commerce
A new geopolitical equation is taking shape in Afghanistan, where India’s humanitarian outreach is winning unprecedented goodwill at the very moment Pakistan’s military actions have triggered widespread outrage. The contrast between India’s delivery of lifesaving medicines and Pakistan’s deadly cross-border airstrikes highlights a dramatic shift in regional dynamics, one that is reshaping Kabul’s diplomatic and economic preferences. On Friday, a 73-tonne consignment of essential medicines, vaccines, and medical aid reached Kabul from India—marking New Delhi’s third humanitarian shipment to Afghanistan this year. The gesture came just three days after Pakistani fighter jets bombed Afghan territory, killing nine children and one woman, deepening civilian anger and straining Islamabad’s long-standing ties with the Taliban government.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed the delivery, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal writing on X that New Delhi was “augmenting Afghanistan’s healthcare efforts” at a time when the country continues to grapple with shortages in hospitals and clinics. The aid shipment continues a pattern of growing warmth between India and Afghanistan, visible in both humanitarian initiatives and renewed commercial engagements. New Delhi has been steadily expanding its footprint in the Afghan pharmaceutical sector, culminating in a major $100-million Memorandum of Understanding signed between India’s Zydus Lifesciences and Afghanistan’s Rofi’s International Group of Companies. The agreement, signed at the Afghan consulate in Dubai, commits to large-scale exports of essential medicines and eventual technology transfers that would allow Kabul to manufacture critical drugs domestically. Afghan Minister for Industry and Commerce Alhaj Nooruddin Azizi, who visited India last week, called the deal a “landmark partnership,” assuring Indian businesses of complete security guarantees as Afghanistan attempts to rebuild its economy. The minister’s warm statements during his New Delhi visit underscore a rapidly strengthening relationship that stands in stark contrast to Afghanistan’s increasingly volatile relations with Pakistan.
The timing of India’s outreach is significant. While New Delhi is delivering medicines, vaccines, and commercial partnerships, Islamabad is facing harsh condemnation after its latest series of airstrikes inside Afghanistan’s eastern provinces. According to Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, Pakistani warplanes targeted areas of Khost, Kunar, and Paktika in the early hours of November 25, striking residential zones. One bomb destroyed a home in Khost, killing nine children between the ages of 2 and 12, along with a woman. Four other civilians were injured in Kunar and Paktika. Mujahid condemned the attack as a “barbaric act against innocent children and women” and warned that Kabul would retaliate “in kind” if cross-border incursions continued. Pakistan’s military has remained silent on the specific allegations, but the airstrikes came amid rising tensions over militant activity near the border. Earlier on November 24, two suicide bombers and a gunman launched an attack on the headquarters of Pakistan’s Federal Constabulary in Peshawar, killing three officers and injuring 11 others. Although no group claimed responsibility, Pakistani authorities swiftly blamed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an ideological cousin of the Afghan Taliban. Hours later, Pakistan’s military claimed it had killed 22 “Indian-backed” insurgents during a raid in Bannu district, a claim that analysts largely dismiss as political rhetoric.
The cross-border hostilities unfolded despite a temporary ceasefire brokered by Qatar and Turkey in mid-October, meant to stabilise relations after Afghanistan accused Pakistan of conducting drone attacks near Kabul on October 9. That earlier strike killed several Afghan security personnel and led to the closure of the Ghulam Khan border crossing—one of the most economically vital trade routes between the two nations. The closure stranded families and disrupted commercial goods flowing into both countries, deepening public frustration. Against this backdrop, India’s gestures of support have taken on even greater significance. Analysts note that India is quietly re-establishing its influence in Afghanistan, a country where New Delhi once enjoyed a major presence before the Taliban takeover in 2021. “New Delhi’s strategy is paying dividends,” noted Derek J Grossman, senior adviser at the Indo-Pacific Institute, in a recent post. Grossman highlighted how Kabul’s trade delegation, led by Azizi, actively sought closer partnerships with Indian companies, marking a meaningful shift in Taliban diplomatic priorities.
India’s pharmaceutical investment signals more than commercial engagement—it is a symbolic demonstration that New Delhi intends to be a long-term partner in Afghanistan’s rebuilding process. The technology-transfer clause of the Zydus–Rofi agreement is especially significant, as Afghanistan currently imports the vast majority of its medical supplies. Creating local production capacity would relieve pressure on the country’s fragile health system. In contrast, Pakistan finds its relationship with Kabul deteriorating at a rapid pace. The Taliban government has repeatedly criticised Islamabad for violating Afghan sovereignty, particularly through drone and airstrikes targeting alleged militants. The deaths of children in Khost further inflamed Afghan public sentiment, prompting calls for retaliation from both officials and citizens. With each such incident, Pakistan loses ground in a region where it once exercised substantial leverage through its support for the Taliban during their insurgent years.
India’s humanitarian diplomacy is also resonating deeply with ordinary Afghans, who continue to face shortages of medicine, food, and essential supplies amid a collapsing healthcare system. New Delhi’s earlier consignments in April and September included antibiotics, vaccines, insulin, and nutritional supplements. India’s longstanding medical diplomacy, including scholarships, hospital projects, and disaster relief, remains well remembered among Afghan communities. This evolving situation appears to be reshaping South Asia’s strategic landscape. It signals a reality in which India is increasingly viewed as a stabilising and supportive partner, while Pakistan is increasingly associated with confrontation and instability. The strategic depth Islamabad once hoped to cultivate through its influence over the Taliban appears to be slipping away, replaced by distrust and anger. Even though the Taliban government is not internationally recognised, many governments—including India—have continued limited engagement for humanitarian reasons. Kabul’s growing interest in Indian investments shows a pragmatic shift: the Taliban want reliable economic partners, and India’s pharmaceutical sector, developmental experience, and track record in public health give New Delhi a unique advantage.
The tragic killings caused by Pakistan’s airstrikes have accelerated this shift. With the Taliban threatening retaliation and Pakistan citing security concerns, the border remains tense. Islamabad’s internal political turmoil, economic stress, and challenges in countering TTP infiltration further complicate the situation. For now, the emerging Afghan equation is unmistakable. India is gaining goodwill through lifesaving assistance, economic partnerships, and long-term commitments to Afghanistan’s recovery. Pakistan’s actions, meanwhile, are reopening old wounds and pushing Kabul further away. The coming months will reveal how deep this shift becomes, but India’s growing visibility—and Pakistan’s growing isolation—suggest a lasting transformation in regional alignments.
Zelenskyy Aide Resigns After Anti-Corruption Raids Intensify
P&C | Saturday, 29 Nov. 2025
Kyiv | Planet & Commerce
A major political shock rattled Kyiv on Friday after Andriy Yermak, the powerful chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and one of the most influential figures in the administration, resigned following anti-corruption searches at his residence. The abrupt resignation comes at a time when Ukraine is engaged in high-stakes negotiations with the United States over a potential peace framework, while simultaneously trying to maintain unity and public confidence amid ongoing energy corruption scandals and intensifying Russian strikes on critical infrastructure.
Zelenskyy announced Yermak’s departure in a social-media video, stressing that the nation could not afford any distractions at a moment when international support—particularly from Washington—was essential. “There should be no reason to be distracted by anything other than the defence of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said, noting that Yermak had offered his resignation voluntarily. He praised his long-time ally for always representing Ukraine’s interests “exactly as it should be,” but made clear that the presidency must remain beyond suspicion as Kyiv navigates delicate diplomatic and military pressures.
Yermak, once seen as an indispensable right-hand figure, was under scrutiny after Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies conducted early-morning searches at his apartment. Journalists captured footage of roughly ten investigators entering the government quarter, marking a significant escalation in a widening probe into an alleged nuclear-energy kickback scheme tied to high-level figures close to Zelenskyy. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) later confirmed the investigative actions. They indicated that the search was part of an expanding inquiry into corruption involving Energoatom—the state-owned nuclear power generator responsible for a major share of Ukraine’s electricity supply. Yermak issued a brief statement acknowledging the searches and emphasised full cooperation.
“The investigators have no obstacles,” he said. “They were given full access to the apartment, my lawyers are on site, interacting with law enforcement officers. From my side, I have full cooperation.”
The corruption investigation first emerged earlier in November, exposing allegations that senior officials and businessmen had received kickbacks amounting to 10–15 percent on contracts linked to Energoatom. The deepest shock came when investigators accused Timur Mindich—an old friend and former business partner of Zelenskyy from his days in the Kvartal 95 entertainment company—of being the organiser of the scheme. Mindich fled Ukraine just hours before investigators arrived to arrest him, sparking speculation about insider knowledge and political shielding within elite circles. Although Zelenskyy publicly condemned the scheme and removed two ministers implicated in earlier findings, questions persisted about how deeply corruption had seeped into government structures. Public frustration grew rapidly, especially because the scandal unfolded while millions of Ukrainians were enduring extensive electricity blackouts caused by Russian bombardments of power plants and energy infrastructure. The idea that officials may have stolen funds intended for protecting critical energy installations generated widespread anger and pressure for accountability.
Another major figure implicated is Oleksiy Chernyshov, a former deputy prime minister. NABU charged him with receiving an astounding $1.2 billion from participants in the scheme. Investigators allege he used part of the illicit proceeds to construct four luxury mansions in a new riverside development. Details of the investigation have been fuelled by more than 1,000 hours of secretly recorded conversations released to the media, including one disturbing clip in which a suspect lamented that money spent on building protective structures for power stations could instead “be stolen.” Friday’s dramatic developments came at a diplomatically sensitive time. Yermak had been leading high-level peace discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Geneva, where Kyiv was presenting a 19-point counterproposal to Donald Trump’s recently unveiled 28-point plan—one widely criticised in Ukraine for being overtly favourable to Russia. Trump’s plan included conceding control of the entire Donbas region to the Kremlin before a ceasefire, an idea unacceptable to Kyiv. Yermak played an essential role in coordinating Ukraine’s diplomatic, military, and humanitarian strategies. He had been Zelenskyy’s closest confidant since before the war, having transitioned from intellectual property lawyer and film producer to political adviser when Zelenskyy was first elected in 2019. He became chief of staff in 2020, quickly consolidating influence as the president’s chief gatekeeper, overseeing domestic policy, foreign affairs, intelligence coordination, and high-level appointments.
During the early weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Yermak was constantly by Zelenskyy’s side inside Kyiv’s fortified government district. His strategic coordination, communication networks, and personal loyalty made him one of the most powerful unelected officials in Ukraine’s modern political history. His sudden resignation therefore represents a seismic shift in Kyiv’s political core. Zelenskyy said the reorganisation of the Office of the President would begin immediately, with a search for Yermak’s successor starting on Saturday. Analysts say the move is a signal to domestic audiences and Western allies alike that Kyiv intends to demonstrate zero tolerance for corruption, even if it means reshaping its internal leadership. The European Commission reacted cautiously but positively, stating that the development showed Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies were functioning independently and effectively.
“We understand that investigations are ongoing, and we very much respect these investigations,” a spokesperson said. “They show that anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine are doing their job.”
Western governments have long urged Ukraine to maintain strong institutional oversight as part of its EU candidacy and ongoing military aid partnerships. With the U.S. Congress assessing multi-billion-dollar assistance packages and Europe preparing new defence support strategies for 2025, Kyiv is under intense pressure to demonstrate integrity and accountability. Friday’s events place Zelenskyy’s administration at a crossroads. Removing a top aide who shaped nearly every aspect of government strategy reflects the scale of domestic expectation and international scrutiny. Yet the resignation also creates leadership uncertainty during a critical phase of Ukraine’s war effort and diplomatic outreach.
For many Ukrainians, the scandal underscores the painful reality that corruption—an entrenched challenge long predating the war—continues to infiltrate state structures even in times of existential crisis. For Zelenskyy, who campaigned on anti-corruption promises, regaining public trust may depend on how vigorously the investigation proceeds and how transparently the government communicates its next steps. As Kyiv endures one of the harshest winters of the war amid sustained Russian attacks on the power grid, Yermak’s departure adds a dramatic new layer to Ukraine’s domestic political battles. The coming weeks will reveal whether the administration can restore confidence, stabilise its leadership team, and maintain unity as Ukraine continues its fight on multiple fronts—military, diplomatic, and now internal.
China’s State Media Threatens Nuclear Strikes Against Japan
P&C | Wednesday, 26 Nov. 2025
Japan | Planet & Commerce
A shocking wave of rhetoric from Chinese state-linked media has intensified tensions between Beijing and Tokyo, as a Communist Party–controlled outlet openly called for nuclear strikes on Japan following remarks by Japan’s new Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, on the Taiwan crisis. The escalatory language, which includes threats of mass destruction and the specific targeting of Japanese cities, military bases and industries, marks one of the most extreme public narratives released by a Chinese propaganda platform in years. The controversy began after Takaichi stated that threats to Taiwan posed direct threats to Japan and could require a Japanese military response. Her comments reflect Tokyo’s increasingly assertive stance on regional security and its alignment with the United States on defending Taiwan. But Beijing reacted with fury, mobilising diplomats, state propaganda outlets and nationalist voices to discredit and intimidate the new Japanese leadership. China’s Consul-General in Osaka, Xue Jian, launched a violent personal attack on the Japanese prime minister, saying Takaichi’s “filthy neck” should be chopped off. “That filthy neck that barged in on its own, I’ve got no choice but to cut it off without a moment’s hesitation. Are you prepared for that?” he said—comments that sparked outrage across Japan’s political spectrum.
But it was Gunacha, a media platform controlled by the Communist Party of China (CPC), that escalated the rhetoric to extreme levels. In a detailed article published last week, the outlet urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to conduct a full-scale nuclear attack on Japan, claiming that such an action was necessary to permanently neutralise Japan’s military and industrial capabilities. The publication said China would need 72 nuclear warheads to “destroy Japan” and ensure the country remains “deindustrialised and demilitarised for decades.” The article openly outlined how the PLA Rocket Force could carry out the attack, including the use of brigades equipped with intermediate-range missiles carrying 200-kiloton nuclear warheads. Gunacha accompanied the article with a graphic simulation showing a nuclear detonation in central Tokyo, estimating 500,000 deaths and more than one million injuries in the first blast alone. Analysts say this is the most explicit nuclear threat against Japan issued by a Chinese state-linked publication in recent memory.
The article detailed a three-phase nuclear attack plan. In the first phase, the PLA would target Japan’s primary military command hubs, including the Defence Ministry headquarters, major airports, naval ports and the US Yokota Air Base, which is crucial for American military operations in East Asia. At least six additional Japanese military bases were listed as primary targets. In the second phase, China would strike key industrial facilities seen as the backbone of Japan’s defence and technology sectors. This includes factories and headquarters of major corporations such as Toyota, Nissan, Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, East Japan Steel and Nippon Steel. According to the report, 32 nuclear warheads would be used to cripple Japan’s industrial output.
The third and final phase would aim to destroy Japan’s critical infrastructure, targeting nuclear power plants, major ports, shipping terminals, oil refineries and dams. Twenty additional warheads would be deployed for this phase, the report said. The article concluded with a chilling statement: once the 72 warheads were used, “Japan can be completely deindustrialised and demilitarised and will be barred from any ambitions for decades to come.” It added that Japan’s humanitarian losses and population decline would be the responsibility of the Japanese themselves. The report has sparked outrage in Tokyo, where officials described the language as profoundly dangerous and reminiscent of the darkest Cold War propaganda. Japanese political analysts said the nuclear threats were not merely rhetorical but part of an orchestrated intimidation campaign intended to deter Japan’s growing involvement in Taiwan’s defence planning.
Experts in Beijing note that while Gunacha is not an official state newspaper, it is part of the CPC’s wider information apparatus and often reflects hardline nationalist viewpoints that the government allows to circulate for strategic signalling. However, the extreme nature of the nuclear threats may push Japan, the United States and regional partners closer together as they confront China’s regional ambitions. The timing is noteworthy: the remarks come amid heightened tensions over the Taiwan Strait, with Chinese military aircraft repeatedly crossing the Taiwan Strait median line and Chinese warships operating aggressively near Japanese waters. Japan has already warned that any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would directly threaten its security due to geographic proximity and the strategic importance of the Ryukyu island chain. Tokyo has also been boosting defence spending at historic levels, investing in long-range missiles, cyber capabilities and a major upgrade of its missile defence systems. Japan’s alignment with Washington on Taiwan—and now its willingness to speak openly about potential military involvement—has triggered visible anxiety in Beijing.
China’s public diplomacy has also hardened in tone. Analysts say the Consul-General’s threat to “behead” the Japanese prime minister reflects an erosion of diplomatic norms and a willingness by Beijing’s representatives to use coarse, violent language when reacting to criticism. In Japan, lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties demanded a formal apology from Beijing, while security experts warned that such rhetoric undermines regional stability and signals a dangerous willingness to threaten nuclear destruction. International observers note that China’s increasingly confrontational messaging toward Japan parallels its broader posture across the Indo-Pacific, including border pressure on India, aggressive maritime activity in the South China Sea and coercive tactics toward the Philippines and Taiwan. The revelations also come as China faces rising domestic pressures, economic slowdown and internal political tightening. Some experts believe nationalist outlets like Gunacha are being used to project strength externally while deflecting attention from internal challenges.
The United States, Japan’s closest ally and a key stakeholder in Taiwan’s security, has not yet issued a formal statement on the nuclear threats. However, US defence circles are closely analysing the publications as part of China’s escalating coercive strategy. Washington maintains several key military bases in Japan, many of which were named as targets in the Gunacha report. With nuclear messaging entering public discourse, the risk of miscalculation grows. Regional governments fear that aggressive narratives from Chinese state-linked outlets could signal internal factional pressures within the CPC or represent an attempt to test external reactions. For now, Sanae Takaichi has not softened her stance. She reiterated that any threat to Taiwan is a direct threat to Japan’s sovereignty and security. Tokyo’s defence ministry continues to monitor PLA Rocket Force movements, especially missile deployments along China’s eastern coastline.
New Peace Terms Corner Ukraine As Putin Raises Conditions
P&C | Saturday, 29 Nov. 2025
Moscow | Planet & Commerce
A new phase of diplomatic tension has opened in the Russia–Ukraine war after President Vladimir Putin publicly laid out his toughest and most uncompromising conditions yet for a ceasefire, demanding that Ukraine withdraw completely from the occupied parts of the Donbas region before hostilities can stop. The comments, made in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, arrive at a delicate moment when the United States, Europe, and Ukraine have spent a week attempting to salvage a peace plan that has already been dramatically scaled down—from an initial 28-point framework to a 19-point revised draft.Putin’s remarks represent the most sweeping and hardline articulation of Russia’s negotiating position in months. “If Ukraine’s troops leave the territory occupied in Donbas, then military action will stop. If they won’t leave, then we will achieve that by armed force,” he declared, signalling the Kremlin’s refusal to entertain any ceasefire without territorial concessions. The Russian president simultaneously demanded that the United States and the European Union formally recognise Moscow’s control over Donetsk and Luhansk, while noting that he did not expect Kyiv to accept this immediately.
“We need this confirmation, but not from Ukraine, of course,” he added. “In the future, we’ll be able to talk to Ukraine.”
These assertive declarations appear to have been triggered by reports that Washington, Kyiv, and European allies significantly cut down the original 28-point peace plan prepared under the Trump administration. According to Ukrainian diplomat Sergiy Kyslytsya, the terms were refined during a week of intense negotiations in Geneva between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ukrainian chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who has since resigned amid an anti-corruption scandal. Russian officials responded with a week of silence before Putin stepped forward with his conditions, suggesting displeasure with the trajectory of the revised plan. Moscow’s frustration may stem from the fact that the original 28-point proposal, rooted in the “spirit of Alaska”—a reference to the August Trump-Putin summit—was viewed in Russia as more favourable. That plan had proposed recognising Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk de facto as Russian territory and limiting Ukraine’s troop numbers to 600,000. By contrast, the new 19-point draft attempts to narrow Russian gains, creating a point of friction between Moscow and Washington.
Russia’s battlefield momentum may also be reinforcing Putin’s confidence. After months of attritional fighting, Moscow has made incremental—but symbolically important—progress around Kupyansk and Pokrovsk. While the advances have come at high cost, they strengthen Russia’s negotiation posture and heighten pressure on Kyiv.The revised U.S.-backed plan is only one component of a wider maze of competing peace proposals rattling European capitals. Many European leaders were blindsided by news of the Alaska-framed plan and only discovered its contours through media reports. During the G20 summit in Johannesburg, EU leaders scrambled to regain a seat at the negotiating table and present an alternative vision. Their counterproposal, leaked by Reuters, does not rule out future territorial transfers but insists negotiations begin from the current line of contact—something Kyiv considers more defensible.
The European plan also suggests an 800,000-troop cap for Ukraine in peacetime, compared to the U.S. plan’s 600,000-force cap. The difference carries major implications: Ukraine currently fields close to 900,000 active personnel and argues that significant downsizing would leave it exposed to future Russian offensives. For Ukraine, NATO membership remains the most sensitive and existential issue. The original U.S. draft insisted on constitutional neutrality, ruling out NATO accession entirely. The European version removes this demand, affirming Ukraine’s “freedom to choose alliances”—a principle that Kyiv insists Moscow has no right to veto. Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba reiterated that “no third country can block the choice of our people.”Putin, however, has consistently framed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations as one of the core triggers of the conflict, highlighting the issue days before the 2022 invasion during his meeting with then-German chancellor Olaf Scholz. The NATO question remains a red line for Moscow and continues to be a primary obstacle in negotiations.
The political turmoil inside Kyiv is complicating matters further. Two senior ministers recently resigned amid allegations that they accepted kickbacks on a nuclear contract. Yermak, Zelenskyy’s closest adviser and lead negotiator, faced mounting calls to resign amid suggestions he knew more about the corruption scandal than publicly acknowledged. His home was searched by anti-corruption investigators, prompting his departure from office just as he was fronting Kyiv’s peace dialogue with Rubio in Geneva. The timing could not be more politically damaging. As investigations into Energoatom corruption deepen—and with more than 1,000 hours of wiretaps released implicating senior insiders—the Zelenskyy administration faces rising public frustration, especially at a moment when civilians are enduring blackouts from Russian attacks on energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, Trump’s involvement has added another layer of unpredictability. After initially praising the speed of negotiations and setting an informal Thanksgiving deadline, he has now stepped back, stating he would not meet Putin or Zelenskyy until a deal is “finalised or in its final stages.” Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is expected to travel to Russia next week to present the revised 19-point plan.
This diplomatic choreography is unfolding against a backdrop of widening differences between Washington and the EU. European governments feel sidelined by direct U.S. engagements with Moscow and the Trump administration’s attempts to mediate from what it claims to be a “neutral” position despite nearly $70 billion in U.S. military aid flowing to Ukraine since 2022. For the EU, the prospect of the United States shaping a deal that potentially concedes Ukrainian territory—without Europe’s direct involvement—is alarming. European leaders privately admit that their influence has waned, and the war has revealed the limits of Brussels’ geopolitical weight. The Ukrainian government’s stance remains firmly opposed to any territorial concessions. Appearing before the Fourth Parliamentary Summit of the Crimea Platform at Sweden’s Riksdag, Zelenskyy stated bluntly:
“Putin wants legal recognition for what he has stolen to break the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty. And that’s the main problem.”
As the nearly four-year conflict enters what could be a decisive stage, Ukraine finds itself cornered between Russian demands, U.S.-led diplomacy, internal political turbulence, and Europe’s diminished leverage. Putin’s hardline escalation signals an attempt to force concessions while battlefield conditions favour Moscow; Kyiv, however, insists it will not surrender land in exchange for a temporary halt in fighting. With the peace plan reduced to 19 points, the strategic balance has shifted, and the next round of negotiations—expected to involve Trump’s envoy in Moscow—may determine whether a ceasefire is even possible. For now, Zelenskyy faces the most challenging diplomatic pressure of the war, while Putin appears emboldened by both military progress and the fractures within the Western alliance. The coming weeks could redefine the trajectory of the conflict—or reveal how far apart the two sides still remain.
China–Japan Crisis Deepens As Tensions Over Taiwan Escalate
P&C | Saturday, 29 Nov. 2025
Okinawa | Planet & Commerce
East Asia is witnessing its most serious diplomatic rupture in a decade as tensions between China and Japan spiral over Tokyo’s new Taiwan policy. Japan’s newly elected Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi ignited the crisis with a landmark statement on November 7, marking the first time in Japanese history that a sitting prime minister explicitly declared a Chinese attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s “national survival.” The remark abandoned decades of carefully maintained strategic ambiguity and directly signalled potential Japanese military involvement in a Taiwan contingency — a scenario Beijing has long labelled as a “red line.” China’s reaction was immediate and ferocious. Beijing demanded a full retraction from Prime Minister Takaichi, banned Japanese seafood imports, issued travel warnings to Chinese nationals, and sharply escalated military patrols near the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Chinese Coast Guard vessels have now increased their presence in the East China Sea, prompting Japan to lodge repeated diplomatic protests and accuse Beijing of violating its territorial waters. China also claimed that Japan plans to deploy missiles on Yonaguni Island — located just 110 km from Taiwan — describing it as “an extremely dangerous move.”
The crisis worsened on Thursday when China’s defence ministry warned that Japan would “pay a painful price” if it interfered in Taiwan. “If the Japanese side dares to cross the line even half a step and bring trouble upon itself, it will inevitably pay a painful price,” spokesperson Jiang Bin declared, invoking strong historical grievances. He accused Japan of failing to reflect on its wartime atrocities and condemned Tokyo’s “delusion” of military involvement in Taiwan. Tokyo has confirmed that preparations are underway to deploy a medium-range surface-to-air missile unit on Yonaguni Island. Japan’s Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said the deployment is “steadily moving forward,” arguing that Japan must enhance its readiness as China’s military activities intensify across the region. The confrontation has revived century-old scars. From 1895 to 1945, Taiwan remained under Japanese colonial rule after the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan’s brutal occupation of Chinese territories, including Nanjing and parts of Manchuria, left deep wounds that still shape China’s nationalist narrative. Beijing’s interpretation of Tokyo’s Taiwan comments is therefore intertwined with historical memory, national sovereignty, and the Chinese Communist Party’s claim that Taiwan is “the core of China’s core interests.”
Although Taiwan has been self-ruled since 1949, almost every major global power — including the United States, Japan, and India — formally adheres to the One-China policy. However, the reality of Taiwan’s democratic governance and its strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific have led to growing security cooperation between Taipei, Tokyo, and Washington, making the Taiwan Strait one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.
China insists that “resolving the Taiwan question is a Chinese matter,” and maintains that foreign intervention is unacceptable. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, meanwhile, unveiled an eight-year, $40-billion defence enhancement programme, which Beijing dismissed as “wasteful” and a “path to disaster.” Taiwan responded sharply: the Mainland Affairs Council noted that China’s defence spending dwarfs Taiwan’s and argued that peace could only be preserved if Beijing stopped its military pressure campaign. “If they could place importance on cross-strait peace, this money could also be used to improve the mainland’s economy and livelihoods,” spokesperson Liang Wen-chieh said.
Daily Chinese military operations around Taiwan — including warplane incursions, naval manoeuvres, and grey-zone coercion — have become a defining feature of the region’s security landscape. Taipei says these activities are part of Beijing’s long-term strategy to exhaust Taiwan’s air force, intimidate its population, and normalise military presence around the island. Yet the present crisis with Japan has added a destabilising new layer. Prime Minister Takaichi’s nationalist credentials and hawkish approach to China mark a dramatic shift in Japan’s post-war foreign policy. Her comments suggest Tokyo is now willing to consider a more assertive stance — especially in situations where Taiwan’s security affects Japan’s own defence environment, including sea lines of communication and U.S. military basing commitments in Okinawa. Japan is a key U.S. treaty ally, and Washington’s security guarantees obligate it to defend Japan in the event of attack. This creates a domino effect: if China were to strike U.S. military assets in Japan during a Taiwan war, Washington and Tokyo could be drawn into direct confrontation with Beijing. U.S. strategic ambiguity has long served as a stabilising mechanism, but the triangle of U.S.–Japan–Taiwan security coordination is growing stronger, weakening China’s ability to deter foreign involvement.
The United States must now balance its alliance commitments with urgent diplomatic engagement. Washington understands that miscalculation in the Taiwan Strait could unleash a regional conflict involving three of the world’s largest militaries. The U.S. has urged calm while quietly strengthening deterrence through joint military exercises, missile-defence networks, and intelligence sharing with Japan and Taiwan. Economically, the stakes are enormous. China and Japan are deeply interdependent, with bilateral trade exceeding $300 billion annually. Major Japanese manufacturers rely on China’s vast markets, while Chinese supply chains depend on Japanese semiconductors, precision machinery, and automotive technology. A prolonged confrontation risks severe economic consequences for both countries and wider global supply chains. However, nationalist politics on both sides are hardening. Prime Minister Takaichi, emboldened by a strong domestic mandate, has presented herself as a defender of democratic values and Japanese sovereignty. China’s leadership, under President Xi Jinping, sees Taiwan as a central pillar of national rejuvenation and has little tolerance for foreign interference.
With global crises unfolding from Ukraine to the Middle East, East Asia can ill afford a new confrontation. Analysts warn that Taiwan remains the most likely flashpoint for a major-power conflict, and the current Japan–China standoff only amplifies the risks. For peace to endure, the fragile status quo — defined by China’s sovereignty claims, Taiwan’s de facto independence, America’s strategic ambiguity, and Japan’s post-war pacifist framework — must be preserved. Both Beijing and Tokyo should prioritise de-escalation and resume economic dialogue, while the United States must work to prevent misjudgements that could trigger a catastrophic conflict. As China’s Coast Guard vessels circle the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, as Japanese missiles prepare to be stationed on Yonaguni Island, and as Taiwan boosts defence spending at unprecedented levels, East Asia stands at a moment of profound uncertainty. Whether stability returns will depend on the decisions made in Beijing, Tokyo, and Washington in the coming weeks — decisions that could shape the future of the entire Indo-Pacific.
Pope Leo Joins Patriarchs In Historic Unity Prayer In Turkey
P&C | Saturday, 29 Nov. 2025
Nicaea | Planet & Commerce
In one of the most symbolically powerful moments in modern Christian history, Pope Leo XIV joined Eastern and Western patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and priests on Friday at the ancient lakeside site of Nicaea — the birthplace of the foundational Christian creed — to pray for unity among the world’s divided churches. The prayer gathering at Lake Iznik in northwestern Turkey commemorated the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea of A.D. 325, a council whose decisions continue to shape global Christianity and remain a rare point of universal agreement across Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant traditions. The meeting brought together Pope Leo XIV, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, and spiritual leaders from the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Malankarese, Armenian, Anglican, and multiple Protestant denominations. Standing above the stone foundations of the ancient Basilica of Saint Neophytos — recently uncovered as lake waters receded — the leaders recited the Nicaean Creed in unison, reaffirming a shared doctrinal heritage that predates the Great Schism of 1054 by over seven centuries.
Pope Leo called the creed “a document of fundamental importance in the journey that Christians are making toward full communion,” urging believers worldwide to “overcome the scandal of the divisions that unfortunately still exist” and strengthen the desire for unity. The recitation marked the emotional high point of Leo’s first papal visit to Turkey, the central purpose of which was to honour the anniversary and reinvigorate efforts at healing the deep fractures between Christian traditions. Patriarch Bartholomew emphasised the enduring relevance of the Nicaean Creed. “It is a symbol not of a bare minimum; it is a symbol of the whole,” he said, noting that the creed serves as the spiritual foundation for nearly all of Christianity today. He told the assembled leaders that their gathering was not merely a commemoration of the past but a “living witness to the same faith expressed by the fathers of Nicaea.” By revisiting the wellspring of Christianity’s shared origins, he argued, the global church can rediscover the spiritual solidarity needed to face a divided world.
The 325 Council of Nicaea was convened by Roman Emperor Constantine, who sought to unify Christian doctrine after years of theological disputes and political instability across the empire. Although Constantine would not be baptised until 337, he had shown growing favour toward a once-persecuted faith. The council’s final product, the Nicaean Creed, remains the most widely accepted statement of Christian belief. Friday’s service at Iznik featured alternating hymns from Catholic and Orthodox traditions, symbolising the long-sought vision of harmony. The historical resonance was profound: the ruins beneath their feet were believed to lie atop an earlier church that hosted the ancient council. With patriarchs, bishops, and priests standing where their spiritual ancestors once debated the foundations of Christian doctrine, the ceremony embodied a rare moment of visible unity. Leo used the occasion to condemn the misuse of religion to justify violence, extremism, or persecution. “All Christians must strongly reject the use of religion to justify war, violence, or any form of fundamentalism or fanaticism,” he said. Instead, he urged believers to choose “fraternal encounter, dialogue, and cooperation” — a message reflecting the Vatican’s growing concern about global conflicts from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, where Christians often find themselves both victims and participants.
While symbolically powerful, the event also unfolded against the political complexities of modern Turkey, where Christians represent a very small minority. Ahead of the ceremony, around twenty members of a small Turkish Islamic party held a brief protest, accusing the gathering of threatening Turkey’s sovereignty and warning of efforts to create a “Vatican-like Greek Orthodox state” within the country. Under a significant police presence, the demonstration dispersed peacefully. Local reactions were mixed. Some residents of Iznik expressed pride that their historically rich town was hosting a global Christian event. “Muslims too should visit places that belong to us in the rest of the world,” said 35-year-old Suleyman Bulut, welcoming the Christian gathering. But others voiced discomfort. “The pope coming here feels contradictory to my faith,” said 41-year-old shopkeeper Hasan Maral, illustrating the sensitive interfaith environment surrounding the visit.
Earlier in the day, Pope Leo visited Istanbul, where he encouraged Turkey’s small Catholic community — roughly 33,000 in a nation of 85 million — to draw strength from its humble size. At the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, he received an enthusiastic welcome, with crowds shouting “Papa Leo!” and “Viva il Papa!” Speaking in English, he told congregants that “the logic of littleness is the church’s true strength,” highlighting the crucial pastoral mission of serving migrants and refugees, many of whom form a large portion of Turkey’s Catholic population. Later, he visited the Little Sisters of the Poor at their Istanbul nursing home. Sister Margret described the encounter as deeply moving: “He was so simple. He felt at home. Everybody got what they expected — a blessing, a kind word.” The pope’s pastoral stops underscored his broader theme that Christian ministry thrives through compassion, humility, and service, not power. On Saturday, Leo will continue his ecumenical mission, meeting Bartholomew and other Christian leaders once again, before paying a significant interfaith visit to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque — the Blue Mosque — one of Islam’s most iconic religious sites. He will also celebrate Mass at Istanbul’s Volkswagen Arena, a venue expected to draw thousands of Christian faithful, diplomats, and clergy.
The pope’s Turkish itinerary fits within a broader Vatican effort to repair and deepen relations between Christian denominations and between Christianity and Islam. His next stop will be Lebanon, where he aims to support interreligious dialogue and offer solidarity to Christian communities struggling with political and economic crises. As the Christian leaders departed the Nicaea site on Friday, their joint recitation of the ancient creed — spoken aloud on the same soil where bishops first proclaimed it seventeen centuries ago — carried profound symbolic weight. At a time of global conflict, geopolitical upheaval, and rising religious nationalism, the gathering signalled a renewed commitment to unity and dialogue. Whether it marks a turning point in Christian reconciliation remains uncertain. But for a brief moment in Iznik, leaders from East and West stood together on shared ground, united by history and hope for a more harmonious future.