Greenland Crisis Tests NATO Unity Amid US Europe Tensions
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Nuuk | Planet & Commerce
A sharp transatlantic crisis is unfolding as Donald Trump once again asserted that the United States will take control of Greenland “one way or the other,” triggering an unprecedented backlash from European allies and raising serious questions about the future cohesion of NATO in an era of rising Arctic competition. “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland. And I am not going to let that happen,” Trump said, reiterating his belief that full U.S. ownership of the Arctic island is essential for American national security. He added that while he would “love to make a deal,” the outcome was non-negotiable. “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” he insisted, refusing to rule out the use of force. The remarks have provoked alarm across Europe, particularly in Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory within the Danish realm. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that the situation represents a defining crossroads not only for Denmark, but for the rules-based international order itself. Speaking during a debate with leaders of Denmark’s political parties ahead of high-level meetings in Washington, Frederiksen said the dispute has evolved far beyond a territorial question into a full-scale geopolitical confrontation. “This is a decisive moment,” Frederiksen said, arguing that the stakes extend well beyond Greenland. In a separate statement posted on Facebook, she stressed that Denmark is prepared to defend its values wherever required, including in the Arctic, and reaffirmed Copenhagen’s commitment to international law and the principle that people have the right to determine their own future. “Greenland is not for sale,” Denmark has repeatedly said, a message that remains unchanged despite Washington’s renewed pressure. European support for Denmark has hardened rapidly. Sweden and Germany have both publicly aligned themselves with Copenhagen, signalling that Trump’s rhetoric risks uniting Europe rather than isolating Denmark. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson sharply criticised Washington’s language after Trump said the United States would act on Greenland “whether they like it or not.”
Speaking at a defence conference in Salen attended by NATO’s top U.S. general, Kristersson said Sweden, the Nordic and Baltic states and several major European countries stood firmly behind Denmark. He warned that a U.S. takeover of Greenland would violate international law and could establish a dangerous precedent encouraging similar actions elsewhere. “Instead, the United States ought to be expressing gratitude to Denmark, which throughout all these years has proven to be a truly loyal ally,” Kristersson said, calling the American rhetoric both unnecessary and destabilising. Germany echoed that position ahead of diplomatic discussions in Washington. German Foreign Minister Johann Wederfull reiterated Berlin’s backing for Denmark and Greenland during talks with Iceland’s foreign minister in Reykjavik, where the two discussed what Germany described as the growing strategic challenges of the Arctic region. Wederfull emphasised that Greenland’s fate can only be decided by the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, invoking the UN Charter’s principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. At the same time, Wederfull sought to cool speculation about worst-case scenarios, warning against “apocalyptic” narratives about a NATO collapse. He stressed that Germany remains confident in the United States’ broader commitment to the alliance, noting that Trump has publicly reaffirmed support for NATO and for Europe’s collective defence. “We are doing everything to ensure this alliance continues to be successful,” he said, describing NATO as “the most successful defensive alliance in the world.” Yet behind the measured diplomatic language, concerns are clearly mounting within NATO about Arctic security and alliance unity. Trump’s repeated assertions that Greenland’s defences amount to “two dog sleds” and that Russian and Chinese destroyers and submarines are operating across the Arctic have sharpened anxieties about militarisation of the region. The U.S. president has argued that only full American control can prevent Russia or China from gaining a foothold, dismissing arrangements short of outright ownership as insufficient. These claims have fuelled debate among NATO allies about whether the alliance has adequate mechanisms to address threats emerging from within. Article 5, NATO’s collective defence clause, applies only to attacks by external adversaries and would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark confrontation due to the requirement for unanimity. At most, Denmark could invoke Article 4 for consultations if it believes its territorial integrity is threatened, a process that carries no automatic military response.
Against this backdrop, reports have emerged of preliminary discussions among European military leaders about potential NATO missions in Greenland. Britain’s Telegraph newspaper reported that officials from the United Kingdom, Germany, France and other allies have examined options that could include deploying troops, warships or aircraft to bolster Arctic security and counter perceived Russian and Chinese activity. UK Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described such conversations as routine given the Arctic’s growing geopolitical importance, though she stopped short of endorsing any specific deployment. Greenland’s own status adds another layer of complexity. A Danish colony until 1953, the island gained home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. While debates about eventual independence continue, opinion polls consistently show Greenlanders strongly oppose becoming part of the United States. Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly insisted that decisions about the island’s future belong to its people alone, not foreign powers invoking security concerns. The dispute has thus evolved into a broader test of transatlantic norms. For decades, NATO has been built on the assumption that its most powerful member would act as a guarantor of stability, not a source of internal coercion. Trump’s rhetoric challenges that assumption, forcing allies to grapple with scenarios they were never designed to handle. While European leaders continue to express confidence that diplomacy will prevail, the episode has exposed deep unease about the direction of U.S. foreign policy and the durability of alliance commitments. As Arctic sea lanes open, competition for critical minerals intensifies and great-power rivalry sharpens, Greenland has become a symbol of a much larger struggle over sovereignty, security and the future of the Western alliance. For now, Denmark enjoys firm backing from its European partners, and NATO officials insist the alliance remains intact. But Trump’s renewed push has already altered the strategic conversation, transforming Greenland from a remote Arctic territory into a flashpoint that could redefine relations between the United States and its closest allies for years to come.
Oreshnik Attack Raises Alarms Over NATO Air Power Survival
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Moscow | Planet & Commerce
Russia’s war in Ukraine has entered a darker and more technologically ruthless phase as Moscow claims its newly deployed Oreshnik missile system has directly targeted NATO-supplied F-16 fighter jet infrastructure, delivering one of the most damaging blows yet to Kyiv’s air combat capability. According to Russia’s Defence Ministry, coordinated strikes carried out on January 9 using Oreshnik missiles struck the Lviv State Aviation Repair Plant, a strategic hub responsible for maintaining and restoring Ukraine’s combat aircraft fleet, including Western-supplied F-16s and legacy Soviet-era MiG-29 fighters. What was once presented by Western governments as a decisive game-changer in Ukraine’s favour now appears increasingly vulnerable to Russia’s evolving long-range precision strike doctrine. The alleged destruction of Lviv’s aviation repair complex represents not merely a tactical strike, but a calculated act of industrial warfare aimed at suffocating Ukraine’s ability to sustain air operations over time. The Lviv facility occupies a critical position in Ukraine’s military ecosystem. Beyond aircraft maintenance, Russian officials say the site also housed production workshops for long- and medium-range unmanned aerial vehicles, storage depots for finished strike drones, and key logistical infrastructure supporting frontline flight operations. If confirmed, the strike simultaneously neutralised multiple layers of Ukraine’s aerial warfare capability, from manned fighter aviation to drone-based deep-strike assets. Russia claims the Oreshnik missile system, a mobile ground-based platform designed for rapid deployment, smashed production lines, destroyed drone stockpiles, and rendered essential airfield infrastructure inoperable. The Defence Ministry described the attack as a “precision suppression of Ukraine’s aviation regeneration capacity,” signalling Moscow’s intent to target not just aircraft in the air, but the industrial arteries that keep them operational. The strike on Lviv was not an isolated event. Moscow says it was part of a broader, multi-axis offensive that extended deep into central Ukraine.
Parallel overnight strikes allegedly saw Iskander missile systems and Kalibr missile launched toward Kyiv, striking enterprises linked to drone assembly and energy infrastructure powering Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. By pairing kinetic strikes on factories with attacks on power supply, Russia appears to be applying a doctrine of cascading disruption, aimed at paralysing production, maintenance, and command simultaneously. The introduction of the Oreshnik missile adds a new and unsettling variable to the conflict. Unlike static launch systems, Oreshnik is reportedly mobile, survivable, and optimised for sudden deployment, complicating detection and interception. Its emergence underscores Russia’s expanding capacity for sustained long-range precision strikes, particularly against hardened or previously secure targets in western Ukraine that had been viewed as relatively insulated from frontline combat. For NATO planners, the implications are deeply troubling. The survivability of high-value Western systems inside Ukraine has been a central assumption underpinning military aid decisions. The F-16 program, in particular, was framed as a strategic leap that would challenge Russian air dominance and protect Ukrainian ground forces. If the infrastructure supporting these aircraft can be systematically neutralised, the operational value of deploying such platforms is called into question. Ukraine has not independently confirmed the full extent of the damage at the Lviv plant, maintaining operational silence as is often the case following high-impact strikes. However, even partial disruption of repair and maintenance capacity could severely degrade sortie generation rates, aircraft availability, and long-term sustainability. Modern fighter jets are maintenance-intensive systems; without secure repair hubs, their battlefield lifespan shortens dramatically. The broader context of the strike suggests a deliberate shift in Russian targeting philosophy. Rather than expending resources on intercepting individual aircraft or drones, Moscow appears increasingly focused on attacking production nodes, repair depots, logistics centres, and energy systems. This strategy mirrors historical doctrines of industrial attrition, where wars are won not only by battlefield victories but by breaking the enemy’s capacity to replenish losses.
From Moscow’s perspective, the strike also serves a political purpose. By demonstrating the vulnerability of NATO-supplied assets, Russia sends a message to Western capitals weighing further escalation. The implicit warning is clear: advanced hardware introduced into the conflict will not remain immune, and its destruction could carry strategic, financial, and reputational costs for donor nations. The strike also raises questions about escalation management. Attacking facilities tied directly to NATO-supplied platforms blurs the line between proxy conflict and direct confrontation, even if the targets remain within Ukraine. Western officials have so far avoided public acknowledgment of the vulnerability such strikes expose, but internal reassessments are likely underway regarding dispersal, hardening, and redundancy of critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, the humanitarian and economic consequences for Ukraine continue to mount. Facilities like the Lviv aviation plant represent not just military assets but skilled labour hubs employing engineers, technicians, and industrial workers. Their destruction deepens Ukraine’s economic strain and complicates post-war reconstruction prospects. As the war grinds on, the Oreshnik strike highlights a grim reality: technological escalation does not necessarily favour the side with more advanced equipment, but the one that can most effectively integrate intelligence, precision, mobility, and strategic intent. Russia’s ability to adapt its strike doctrine against evolving Western support suggests the conflict remains far from a stalemate. If Moscow’s claims are accurate, the January 9 strikes mark one of the most consequential attacks on Ukraine’s air-sustaining network since the conflict began. Whether or not Kyiv can rapidly restore damaged capabilities will shape the next phase of the war, as both sides reassess assumptions about deterrence, resilience, and the true cost of modern industrial warfare.
India China Standoff Deepens Over Shaksgam Valley Dispute
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
New Delhi | Planet & Commerce
China has once again reaffirmed its territorial claims over the Shaksgam Valley, directly rejecting India’s objections and insisting that Chinese infrastructure activity in the region is “beyond reproach.” The statement, issued in Beijing on Monday, January 12, 2026, comes amid rising diplomatic friction between India and China, as New Delhi intensifies its opposition to Chinese construction projects in what it describes as illegally occupied Indian territory. The Shaksgam Valley, located in the strategically sensitive Gilgit-Baltistan, has long been a flashpoint in India–China–Pakistan relations. India maintains that the valley is an integral part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore belongs to India. Pakistan, however, ceded approximately 5,180 square kilometres of this territory to China under a boundary agreement signed in 1963, a move New Delhi has consistently described as illegal and invalid. India raised its objections last Friday, January 9, warning that it reserves the right to take “necessary measures” to safeguard its interests in the Shaksgam Valley. New Delhi said Chinese infrastructure projects in the area violate India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly as they are being carried out in territory under Pakistan’s forcible and illegal occupation. Responding to these remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters in Beijing that “the territory you mentioned belongs to China.” She said China’s construction activities were fully justified as they were being carried out on Chinese territory, and defended the 1963 China-Pakistan boundary agreement as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty by Beijing and Islamabad. “It’s fully justified for China to conduct infrastructure construction on its own territory,” Mao said, reiterating China’s long-held position that the boundary agreement signed with Pakistan in the 1960s lawfully delimited the border between the two countries. Her remarks underline Beijing’s firm rejection of India’s legal and historical claims over the region.
India’s External Affairs Ministry responded by restating its position that the 1963 agreement has no legal standing. External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has never recognised the so-called China-Pakistan boundary agreement and considers it null and void. “Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory,” Jaiswal said, adding that Pakistan had no authority to cede the land in the first place as it was under illegal occupation. Jaiswal also reiterated India’s rejection of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which passes through parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He said India does not recognise any projects or initiatives that traverse Indian territory under forcible occupation, stressing that the entire Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are “integral and inalienable” parts of India. China, however, has sought to separate the boundary dispute from its broader regional initiatives. Mao Ning repeated Beijing’s position that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is an economic cooperation project aimed at promoting development and improving livelihoods. She said both the boundary agreement and CPEC do not affect China’s stance on the Kashmir issue, which Beijing continues to describe as a historical dispute that should be resolved peacefully through dialogue in line with the UN Charter and relevant UN Security Council resolutions. The renewed exchange has brought the Shaksgam Valley back into sharp geopolitical focus. The valley’s strategic importance lies not only in its size but also in its location near the Karakoram Pass, a critical link between China and Pakistan. Control over the region enhances connectivity between Xinjiang and Gilgit-Baltistan and strengthens China’s access to the broader Himalayan and South Asian region. Former senior military officials in India have warned that China’s assertive posture in Shaksgam is part of a broader pattern of territorial expansion and strategic consolidation. General Sinha, speaking on the issue, said the Shaksgam Valley dispute must be viewed alongside China’s claims over parts of Arunachal Pradesh and its growing military and infrastructure footprint along India’s northern borders. He argued that India must continue to assert its claims vocally and consistently, noting that silence in such disputes often leads to gradual erosion of sovereign positions.
The 1963 agreement between China and Pakistan was significant for both countries as it created a shared border that did not previously exist. The agreement includes a clause stating that once the Kashmir dispute is finally resolved between India and Pakistan, the sovereign authority would reopen negotiations with China to formalise the boundary. India has repeatedly cited this clause to argue that the agreement itself acknowledges its provisional nature and cannot override India’s claims. For New Delhi, the latest Chinese statements raise concerns about the long-term implications of infrastructure development in Shaksgam, particularly in the context of the expanding China-Pakistan strategic partnership. Indian officials see such projects as altering the status quo and entrenching Chinese presence in disputed territory, complicating any future settlement of the Kashmir issue. The diplomatic sparring also reflects broader tensions in India-China relations, which remain strained following the military standoff along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh. While both sides have engaged in talks to manage border tensions, disputes over sovereignty and infrastructure continue to fuel mistrust. China’s reaffirmation of its claim over Shaksgam Valley, and India’s firm rejection of that position, suggest that the issue is unlikely to fade from the bilateral agenda anytime soon. As infrastructure development accelerates in the high-altitude region and geopolitical competition intensifies across the Himalayas, Shaksgam has emerged as another fault line in an already complex and volatile relationship. For now, both sides remain entrenched, with India insisting on its historical and legal claims and China asserting its sovereignty through construction and diplomatic messaging. The renewed exchange underscores how unresolved territorial disputes from the mid-20th century continue to shape strategic realities in South Asia, adding another layer of tension to an already fragile regional balance.
Satellite Phone Alert, Drone Sightings Raise Jammu Security
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Jammu | Planet & Commerce
A major security alert unfolded in the Jammu region on Monday after intelligence agencies intercepted suspicious satellite communication signals near the India–Pakistan International Border, prompting a large-scale counter-terror search operation just days ahead of Republic Day. The developments have heightened concerns over renewed infiltration attempts and cross-border terror logistics, particularly in light of recent drone-based weapons drops and encounters with Pakistani terrorists in the region. Security sources confirmed that suspected terrorists were tracked in the Kanachak sector of Jammu, barely a kilometer from the International Border with Pakistan. The alert was triggered after a Thuraya satellite phone signal was intercepted by a central intelligence agency monitoring satellite communications, a method frequently used by infiltrating terrorist groups to avoid conventional surveillance. According to official's familiar with the operation, the intercept was flagged around noon on Monday, setting off an immediate response by ground forces. Units of the Indian Army, the Border Security Force, the Jammu and Kashmir Police, and the elite Special Operations Group rushed to the location and launched coordinated search operations across the Kanachak belt. Senior security officials personally reached the spot to supervise the operation. Given the presence of migrant worker housing in the area, security teams carried out thorough door-to-door checks, questioning residents about any unfamiliar movement or suspicious individuals. Officials said the terrain and proximity to the border make Kanachak a sensitive infiltration corridor, historically exploited by Pakistan-based terror handlers to push armed cadres into Indian territory. Intelligence assessments suggest that the intercepted Thuraya communication could indicate the presence of a small infiltrating group attempting to establish contact with handlers across the border. While no direct contact has been established yet, officials said the use of satellite phones in this area is a red flag that cannot be ignored, especially amid a pattern of recent hostile activity.
As night fell, the ongoing searches were temporarily halted due to poor visibility and operational safety concerns. Security forces confirmed that the operation would resume at first light on Tuesday, with expanded cordons and intensified surveillance measures. The timing of the intercept, just ahead of Republic Day of India, has further raised the threat perception. The Kanachak alert comes against the backdrop of a series of recent security incidents in the Jammu region. In Kathua, security forces recently neutralised a Pakistani terrorist during an encounter, while in Vijaypur, the BSF foiled an attempt to drop weapons across the border using a drone. During that operation, forces recovered two pistols, three magazines and one hand grenade, all believed to have been dispatched from the Pakistani side. Even as the Kanachak operation was underway, another security development emerged from a different sector. Suspected drone activity was reported along the Line of Control in Poonch, specifically in the Mankot area. Locals and security personnel spotted a drone hovering for several minutes before disappearing, triggering fresh alarm among agencies already on high alert. The drone was reportedly first sighted around 6:20 pm in the Mankot sector, before being observed again near Dharamsal around 6:35 pm, and later in Reasi. Security forces have since activated radar systems, electronic surveillance and communication intercepts to trace the drone’s flight path and determine whether it was involved in reconnaissance or weapons delivery. Officials clarified that while both the intercepted satellite communication and the drone sighting ultimately point towards Pakistan-backed attempts to destabilise the region, there is no immediate operational link between the two incidents. The satellite phone intercept was detected by a central agency, while the drone activity was independently reported by civilians and ground patrols across multiple districts.
Drones have emerged as a serious and evolving threat in Jammu and Kashmir’s security landscape. Over the past year, Pakistan-based handlers have increasingly relied on low-flying drones to drop arms, ammunition and narcotics into Indian territory, bypassing traditional infiltration routes. Security agencies say the increasing frequency of such attempts reflects a shift in tactics driven by desperation as traditional infiltration has become more difficult due to heightened border vigilance. Security officials believe the current pattern indicates coordinated pressure-building by Pakistan-sponsored terror networks, combining infiltration attempts, drone drops and digital communication to test India’s security grid. With January 26 approaching, forces have been instructed to treat every intelligence input as actionable and maintain maximum readiness across the region. Residents in border districts have been urged to report any suspicious movement, unfamiliar individuals or aerial activity immediately. Authorities have also increased night patrols, technical surveillance and coordination between military and police units to ensure rapid response capability. While no arrests or recoveries have been reported so far from the Kanachak operation, officials stressed that the absence of immediate results does not diminish the seriousness of the threat. “The fact that a Thuraya signal was detected in such a sensitive area is itself a cause for concern,” a senior officer said, adding that sustained pressure and patience are essential in counter-terror operations. As dawn approaches and search operations resume, security agencies remain focused on neutralising any potential threat before it can materialise. The twin alerts from Kanachak and the Poonch–Rajouri belt underscore the fragile security environment in Jammu and Kashmir and the continued attempts by hostile elements across the border to disrupt peace and stability in the region.
China Unveils J-20A As Taiwan Loses F-16 Amid Tensions
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Beijing | Planet & Commerce
China has dramatically escalated psychological and military pressure across the Taiwan Strait by unveiling upgraded versions of its Chengdu J-20A and J-20S stealth fighter jets at a moment when Taiwan’s U.S.-supplied F-16 fleet is facing fresh operational concerns following a missing warplane incident. The timing, optics and symbolism of the announcement underscore Beijing’s intent to project overwhelming airpower superiority amid rising fears of a future conflict over Taiwan. The rollout of the new J-20A coincides with the 15th anniversary of the stealth fighter’s maiden flight, a milestone that Chinese state media and military commentators have framed as proof of the People’s Liberation Army’s rapid ascent into the top tier of global aerospace powers. The upgraded aircraft is no longer being portrayed merely as a strategic deterrent but as a fully integrated combat platform designed to dominate high-intensity, technology-driven conflicts. According to defence analysts, the Chengdu J-20 family has now transitioned into a mature weapons system embedded within a sensor-heavy, network-centric battlefield environment. Chinese military broadcasters described the J-20A as the PLA Air Force’s “sharpened spearhead,” capable of executing both offensive and defensive missions across contested airspace, including long-range interception, air dominance, electronic warfare coordination and deep-penetration strike roles. One of the most notable refinements highlighted by military experts is a subtle but critical design change near the rear of the cockpit canopy. The raised junction between the canopy and fuselage reportedly improves airflow stability, reducing drag and enhancing performance during supersonic flight. This modification supports sustained supersonic cruise, a key advantage in modern air combat where speed, persistence and sensor reach increasingly determine outcomes before missiles are even fired.
In December 2025, high-resolution imagery released by Chinese defence outlets provided the clearest look yet at how far the J-20 has evolved. The images revealed the stealth fighter fitted with four large external fuel tanks, two mounted under each wing, a configuration not previously observed in operational J-20 variants. While external tanks can marginally compromise stealth, analysts say the trade-off reflects Beijing’s growing emphasis on range, endurance and mission flexibility rather than purely radar evasion. Defence observers cited by Defense Security Asia noted that this configuration signals optimisation for long-distance patrols and extended deployments, allowing the PLA Air Force to project power deeper into the Western Pacific and sustain operations over the Taiwan Strait for longer periods. The shift highlights how China is recalibrating the balance between stealth and operational reach, particularly in scenarios involving prolonged aerial standoffs or blockade-style missions. The unveiling of the J-20A and twin-seat J-20S variants also reflects the PLA’s accelerating focus on manned-unmanned combat operations. Chinese military planners increasingly view future wars as sensor-saturated conflicts in which crewed fighters act as command nodes directing swarms of drones, long-range missiles and electronic warfare assets. In this framework, the J-20 is evolving from a standalone stealth aircraft into the nerve centre of a broader aerial combat system. Across the Taiwan Strait, the contrast could not be starker. Taiwan’s Air Force has reportedly suspended all F-16 pilot training missions after losing contact with one of its aircraft during a nighttime operation on January 6. The following day, the South China Morning Post confirmed the incident, describing it as part of a worrying pattern of training mishaps affecting Taiwan’s air bases.
According to reports, the incident occurred during an emergency night training sortie, when the pilot was forced to eject mid-flight after losing situational awareness. The aircraft subsequently went missing, prompting an immediate review of flight safety protocols. Taiwanese media, including China Times, reported that Taiwan’s fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft lacks automatic ground collision avoidance systems, a technology widely adopted by advanced air forces to prevent spatial disorientation accidents. Military aviation experts say the absence of such systems significantly increases risk during night operations, particularly for pilots operating in high-stress environments and complex airspace. Previous incidents involving Taiwanese fighters have reportedly been linked to disorientation and delayed corrective action, reinforcing concerns about pilot safety and platform survivability. Taiwan’s Air Force has announced that upcoming training programs will place greater emphasis on night-flying challenges, abnormal flight condition recognition and spatial awareness correction. Officials said the pause in training was necessary to reassess procedures and reduce accident risk, though critics argue that halting sorties during a period of heightened regional tension carries its own strategic costs. The juxtaposition of China’s confident display of advanced stealth fighters and Taiwan’s operational setback has not gone unnoticed by regional analysts. For Beijing, the messaging is clear: while the PLA Air Force showcases growing technological sophistication and endurance, Taiwan is grappling with safety limitations and attrition risks within its frontline fleet.
The military developments are unfolding against a charged political backdrop. In his New Year’s address, Xi Jinping once again reiterated Beijing’s commitment to reunification with Taiwan, describing it as an “unstoppable historical trend.” Xi emphasised shared blood ties across the Taiwan Strait and framed reunification as both a national mission and a strategic inevitability. Xi also highlighted China’s expanding national power, noting that the country’s economic output is expected to reach nearly 140 trillion yuan, or about $19.9 trillion, underscoring the link Beijing draws between economic strength, technological advancement and military capability. Chinese officials routinely argue that such comprehensive national power provides the foundation for enforcing territorial claims and deterring external interference. For Taiwan and its allies, the combination of China’s advancing airpower, integrated drone warfare concepts and assertive political rhetoric deepens concerns about escalation dynamics. The disappearance of an F-16 during training may be unrelated to combat readiness, but it feeds into a broader narrative of asymmetry between the two sides’ military trajectories. While Taipei continues to rely heavily on U.S.-supplied platforms and training support, analysts warn that platform-centric deterrence alone may be insufficient against a rapidly modernising PLA that emphasises systems integration, endurance and information dominance. The contrast between the J-20A’s evolving role and Taiwan’s current training challenges illustrates the widening gap Beijing seeks to highlight. As tensions simmer across the Taiwan Strait, China’s latest stealth fighter showcase serves not only as a technical milestone but as a calculated strategic signal. The message, delivered through imagery, timing and rhetoric, is designed to reinforce Beijing’s confidence while amplifying psychological pressure on Taiwan and its partners, making clear that the balance of airpower is becoming an increasingly central factor in the region’s precarious security equation.
Bangladesh Reform Agenda Stalls As Bureaucracy Retains Power
P&C | Tuesday, 13 Jan. 2026
Dhaka | Planet & Commerce
Bangladesh’s interim government has largely failed to deliver on its promised reform agenda after effectively surrendering authority to entrenched bureaucratic forces, according to a sharply critical assessment by Transparency International Bangladesh. Speaking at a press briefing in Dhaka on Monday, TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said the gap between formal decision-making structures and real power inside the state has grown so wide that most reform commitments have either stalled or been diluted beyond recognition. The remarks were made at a briefing titled “Reform Apathy in Framing the Objectives of the Interim Government,” held at TIB’s office in Dhanmondi 27. Iftekharuzzaman argued that while the interim government publicly committed to restructuring state institutions and strengthening accountability, the real levers of authority never shifted away from powerful bureaucratic and political actors operating behind the scenes. “The critical question is why this surrender happened and where the real weakness lies,” he said, adding that he could not provide a definitive answer as he was not part of the government’s internal decision-making process. However, based on close observation over the past one and a half years, he said it had become increasingly clear that formal governance structures were not where key decisions were being made. Bangladesh, he noted, has an advisory council or cabinet on paper, but that body does not exercise actual control over policy outcomes. “There is a visible gap between formal authority and operational power,” Iftekharuzzaman said, pointing to a system in which decisions about which reform clauses survive, which documents are signed, and which timelines are quietly dropped are determined elsewhere. According to the TIB chief, these decisions are shaped by “extremely powerful individuals or groups operating within the state machinery,” whose influence often outweighs that of ministers or advisers with official mandates. He alleged that such actors are motivated not only by the protection of their own institutional or group interests, but also by the need to safeguard certain political interests, including those of rival political forces.This dynamic, he argued, explains why many reform-oriented provisions initially discussed by the interim government failed to materialise in final policy frameworks. “This explains why many reform-oriented provisions are either diluted or excluded altogether,” he said, describing a pattern of systematic resistance that was never openly acknowledged or confronted.
One of the clearest examples of this failure, Iftekharuzzaman said, is the stalled progress on anti-corruption reforms. Referring specifically to the Anti-Corruption Commission, he said the absence of a clear and strategic commitment to empower the body reflects the broader reluctance to challenge entrenched corruption. “If the ACC were allowed to function even minimally as intended, it would directly challenge entrenched political and institutional corruption,” he said. He argued that this reality creates a powerful incentive for both political leaders and senior bureaucratic actors to obstruct reform. Those who benefit from systemic corruption, he said, often play a decisive role in shaping outcomes behind closed doors, ensuring that meaningful accountability mechanisms never gain traction. “In many cases, subordinate actors become more powerful than their formal superiors,” Iftekharuzzaman observed, highlighting how bureaucratic networks can neutralise reform initiatives even when political leadership appears publicly supportive. This inversion of authority, he said, has hollowed out the reform process from within. Drawing on his own experience, the TIB chief said he had engaged with top authorities when various reform commissions were initially formed. At that stage, there appeared to be broad consensus across society that reform was both necessary and urgent. “I firmly believe that the entire nation wants reform, from ordinary citizens to movement participants and political parties,” he said. Despite this apparent public consensus, he questioned whether the government ever seriously attempted to identify or counter the forces opposed to reform. “Alongside those who support reform, there are also forces that oppose it,” he said. “I did not see evidence that this resistance was systematically mapped or that strategies were adopted to counter it.” Instead, he suggested, resistance was either ignored or quietly accommodated, whether due to deliberate political calculation or institutional incapacity. As a result, reform objectives were repeatedly postponed, softened or quietly abandoned, leaving the interim government with little to show in terms of structural change.
“What we are witnessing today is the consequence of that failure,” Iftekharuzzaman said, arguing that the erosion of reform momentum has deepened public cynicism and reinforced the perception that real power in Bangladesh lies beyond democratic or advisory oversight. The critique comes at a sensitive time for the interim administration, which had been expected to use its limited tenure to push through foundational reforms that elected governments often avoid due to political costs. Instead, critics say, the government has become increasingly constrained by the very bureaucratic structures it was meant to recalibrate. TIB’s assessment also raises broader questions about governance in Bangladesh, particularly the balance between elected or appointed authorities and the permanent state apparatus. Analysts say the concentration of operational power within bureaucratic networks has long been a feature of the system, but the interim period offered a rare opportunity to challenge that equilibrium. By failing to do so, Iftekharuzzaman suggested, the government may have missed a historic chance to reset the rules of accountability and transparency. The result, he warned, is not only stalled reform but a strengthening of the very interests that resist change. While the interim government has defended its record by pointing to political constraints and the need for stability, TIB’s critique suggests that stability without reform risks entrenching dysfunction. For civil society groups, the concern is that future governments will inherit a system even more resistant to accountability. As Bangladesh looks ahead to its next political phase, the questions raised by Transparency International Bangladesh are likely to resonate beyond the interim period. Whether future administrations will confront the gap between formal authority and real power, or continue to operate within it, may determine whether reform remains an aspiration or becomes a reality.