Home

Featured Articles

Mar 05, 2025
Ramaharitha Pusarla

Trump Vs Zelenskyy: Geopolitical Ramifications

The diplomatic fallout, an open spat between the world leaders in a presser, has for the first time shed the respectable veneer of niceties often associated with meetings at the highest level. Diplomatic snubs, intentional slighting and cold shouldering are commonplace in strategic jostling. Grave disagreements traditionally shunted away from the public eye have left an image of pleasing civility as the natural accompaniment of diplomatic engagements. Public display of geniality by heads of state serves as a natural spring that nourishes bilateral relationships and spawns goodwill. The spectre of public spat in the White House, which became the talking point across the world, has changed public perception of diplomacy and exposed the leaders threadbare. The world is reeling under the burden of the over three-year-long Ukraine conflict, which is showing no signs of abatement. Articulating the need to end this crisis, Trump, in his election campaign, enlisted a peace deal as one of his top priorities. Advocating the need for a reconciliation with Russia with utmost clarity even before his inauguration, Trump engaged in phone conversations with Putin. Following it up, the Trump administration initiated peace talks with Russian counterparts and held two rounds of negotiations in Riyadh and Istanbul. However, Europe and Ukraine, the main stakeholders of the conflict, have been left out of these conversations. Sidelined by Trump, European leaders, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer queued up to the White House and expressed their interest in being part of the peace deal under the leadership of President Trump. While working with the Kremlin, Trump proposed a Rare Earth Mineral Deal with Ukraine wherein Kyiv would use the mineral wealth to repay the $ 500 billion US military assistance provided by the US. The agreement would double up as a reconstruction investment fund under the joint ownership of the US and Ukraine. Both countries finalised the initial framework of the agreement with no mention of security guarantees for Ukraine. European leaders had laid the ground for the mineral deal framework ahead of Zelenskyy’s US visit. Along with the deal, a detailed discussion on the peace plan topped the agenda. However, the last 10 minutes of the 50-minute conversation shattered the plan, with Zelenskyy preferring confrontation and contestation in an otherwise freewheeling discussion before the US media. Thoroughly briefed by Republican legislatures ahead of the meeting about Trump’s way of handling things, Zelenskyy indulged in a verbal spat with the Vice-President JD Vance. Interjected by President Trump, Zelenskyy, who attempted to educate Vance, haughtily shot off, “During the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless, you will not have war”. Zelenskyy’s warning changed the tone and tenor of the conversation. Hailed as the “resistor in Chief” by Europe, Zelenskyy was eulogised for taking the brunt of Russian neo-imperialism. Ukraine paid a heavy price to repel the Russian invasion. Displaying extreme valour, Ukrainian soldiers defended their nation with advanced weaponry, arms and intelligence provided by the US and the European countries. In the process, Ukraine suffered severe destruction and lost one-fifth of its territory. An entire generation was decimated. It might take decades for Ukraine to get back to pre-war days. In its quest to be part of NATO, Ukraine became a proxy of the West in a needless war with Russia, which shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Since the turn of the century, Ukraine has willingly allowed itself to become a playground for the US geopolitical pursuits of vanquishing its former Cold War enemy. American attempts to deepen defence cooperation with Ukraine, the subsequent colour revolution, regime change, flirtations with neo-Nazi Azov Brigade and the installation of a pliable leadership at the helm, has been part of the same game plan. Things went out of control after Kyiv disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings about its “red lines”, which led Moscow to launch a “special military operation” in Ukraine on 24th February 2022. Rallying strongly behind Ukraine and advocating for an uninterrupted supply of arms, weapons and military assistance to Kyiv, Europe has ensured that the conflict continues to rage even as thousands of lives are lost on the battlefield. Turning Ukraine into a pawn in their war against Russia, Europe and the US celebrated the resolve and determination of Zelenskyy and honoured him with special invites to every major congregation in the West. In the past three years, there wasn’t a single event of strategic importance unattended by President Zelenskyy. Donning the victim badge of Russia’s imperial tyranny, Zelenskyy and by extension the Ukraine crisis became the top priority of the collective West. Thrust into limelight, Zelenskyy’s sense of entitlement heightened. Even former president Biden yelled and grumbled at Zelenskyy when the latter harped about inadequate help over the phone. Zelenskyy’s public spat has exposed his overbearing demeanour, which met its nemesis in Trump, who pointed that American generosity can’t be taken for granted. After the coup de grace, European leaders lined up to express solidarity with Ukraine and Zelenskyy. Soon, the UK convened an urgent meeting with European leaders including Turkey, the Secretary General of NATO, the Presidents of the EU Council, the EU Commission and Canada in London. In pursuit of ‘peace through strength’, all of them agreed to enhance support to Ukraine and work with Trump for a just and lasting peace. The ‘EU solidarity’ buzzword sold to the world, in reality lacks the real muscle. Clearly, the multiple security cooperation agreements that Zelenskyy signed with European countries only commit to security assistance, military equipment and economic support. Unlike NATO’s Article 5 provision, none of these bilateral security agreements obligate parties to deploy military forces. In fact, despite the talks of Europe standing together, countries are sceptical about sending troops to Ukraine as openly voiced out by Italy PM Meloni. Prior to the US-Ukraine mineral deal, Ukraine signed a 100-year partnership agreement with the UK with the latter as the preferred partner for Ukraine’s energy sector and critical minerals strategy. The loans extended by the Europe to Ukraine are majorly profits accrued from Russian frozen assets. Europe has been thriving under the defence and security umbrella of the US. Zelenskyy’s slanging match has pushed the envelope further with Trump stalling military support to Ukraine. In reality Europe’s tall claims of solidarity woefully falls short of real action. Spurred by the Zelenskyy’s spat and Trump’s open poser to Starmer, ‘Could you take on Russia by yourselves?’ the EU executive proposed pooling 800 billion Euro for REARM package to strengthen EU defence. The Ukraine conflict, which could have been resolved within the first week of conflict, was disdainfully turned down by Kyiv. Three years hence, the violence continues, and Trump’s peace plan and attempts to normalise ties with Russia offered a hope to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Initially, Trump attempted to use China’s economic leverage in his Ukrainian peace efforts. China’s involvement would have burnished its global gravitas. But soon Trump recalibrated his approach. Unlike Europe which believes in more sanctions and creating economic pressure on Russia to bring it to the table, Trump has preferred the alternate route of opening up embassies to foster peace talks. Trump’s approach rankled the Cold War obsessed American deep state and Europe, which considers Russia as an archenemy while ignoring an imminent threat from a rising China. Instead getting mired in the Ukrainian sink hole and lament, ceding space to Beijing to dominate the Indo-Pacific theatre, Trump has pressed a reverse 1972 President Nixon’s strategic reset. An economically depleted and demographically weakened Russia is no longer the major threat to the US or even Europe. However, Russia’s deepening economic dependence on China and the so-called ‘no limits friendship’ can definitely threaten the American Unipolarity. As an opening move, at the first round of direct talks with Russia at Riyadh, among the four key points- Trump administration included the possibility of geopolitical and economic cooperation. By trying to swing Russia in its favour, Trump has exploited a chink in the Sino-Russo alignment and boosted the prospect of peace process. Trump’s recalibration and Russian rapproachement is driven by a level-headed assessment of the impending geopolitical configurations and changing world order. More importantly, it eventually takes into account Beijing’s plans to invade Taiwan when Russia can no longer be the deterrence. Pursuant to US geopolitical ambitions, Trump is attempting to make a calibrated reset factoring China’s ‘peaceful rise’. The power centres have slowly moved East and Trump turning in to Moscow signals the onset of a new geostrategic churn that is bound to dominate in the years to come. It is an attempt to paralyse the stinging tentacles of a rising hegemon in the East. Zelenskyy’s open spat with Trump has been music to Russia. This entire diplomatic fiasco, other than weakening NATO, has exposed the European inability to defend itself. Clearly, the aspersions of isolationism cast on the US is a futile exercise. It reeks of Europe’s short-sightedness and exceptionalism. Europe must now become atmanirbhar to handle implicit and explicit territorial threats instead of piggybacking on the US to safeguard its interests. Europe’s concern for Ukraine is driven by its security interests and not by its commitment for a rules-based order. Ukraine is Europe’s backyard. Russian aggression is an immediate threat to Europe. The Indo-Pacific arena is highly critical for American security. Trump’s reset is inexorably driven by an objective to safeguard its interests in the Pacific region and beyond. This move also signals Trump administration’s keenness to shed the global policeman tag. Trump’s defiance, besides weakening the transatlantic alliance, attested to a glaringly contrasting NATO stance. The imminent security schism between the US and Europe appears to be the new foreign policy reality of Trump 2.0, which is bound to reshape the global security architecture.

Mar 04, 2025
Khushi Mishra & Dr. A. Adityanjee

Democracy on the Edge: South Korean Crisis

South Korea, once celebrated for its successful transition from military rule to a thriving democracy, now faces one of its toughest challenges. Beneath the country's economic might and dynamic civil society lies a crisis that threatens to destabilise the very foundations of its democratic institutions. From being a symbol of resilience and democratic success, South Korea is now grappling with an unfolding political crisis. It is a story of brinkmanship politics, public disillusion and fragile institutions against the backdrop of an increasingly polarised world. South Korean democracy has been rather noisy, and this is not the first time a president has been impeached. On 9 December 2016, Park Geun-hye, the president of South Korea, was impeached for corruption. She was formally sentenced to 24 years in prison after being found guilty of abuse of power and coercion. This was later raised to 25 years and a fine of US$17.86 million following an appeal by prosecutors. President Moon formally pardoned her on compassionate grounds, and she was ultimately released in March 2022. This was the first successful impeachment of a sitting South Korean president since the impeachment Roh Moo-hyun on 12 March 2004. In a final statement at his impeachment trial, disgraced President Yoon Suk Yeol defended his martial law order that plunged South Korea into chaos and instability. He has vowed to push for political reform if he is reinstated. Yoon spoke at the Constitutional Court as it wrapped up arguments in his impeachment trial. The court is expected to rule by mid-March on whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate his presidential powers. How It All Began The crisis unfolded dramatically in December 2024 when now-impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, accusing opposition forces of being "anti-state elements" bent on destabilising the country. This was an unprecedented move that left the nation shocked, remembering the authoritarian past of South Korea. The National Assembly was dominated by the opposition Democratic Party (DP), and a substantial part of the public reacted angrily, terming the declaration an assault on democracy. The National Assembly refused to ratify the martial declaration. Under intense pressure, the order for martial law was rescinded within 6 hours, but the damage was done: a political storm brewed, and the democratic fabric of South Korea began to fray. This divisive decision did not happen in a vacuum. Critics say that Yoon's government was becoming increasingly authoritarian, with approval ratings plummeting below 20% and rising dissatisfaction with healthcare reforms, housing policies, and labour disputes. All these factors led to the current chaos and strengthened public distrust in leadership and democratic processes. Key Developments: A Democracy in Turmoil 1. Impeachment and Accountability Yoon faced some backlash after the martial law incident when opposition factions attempted to impeach him. However, boycotts from Yoon and the People's Power Party (PPP) led to the attack being unsuccessful and the citizens have lost faith in their institutions. 2. Corruption Allegations The former first lady, Kim Keon-Hee was charged with corruption, and there has been a growing call for special investigations into her dealings. However, PPP lawmakers have constantly blocked efforts to probe the First Lady's dealings and, therefore, have fuelled public cynicism about accountability and transparency in governance. 3. Labour unrest and economic challenges The crisis extends beyond politics into socioeconomic tensions. A countrywide doctors' strike over dissatisfaction with healthcare reforms underscores the chasm between government policies and public needs. Housing costs are increasing and wages are stagnant, leaving the younger population feeling disengaged from society. National and International Consequences of South Korea's Crisis Domestic Turmoil The current political crisis has laid bare the vulnerabilities of South Korea's democratic institutions. The National Assembly, which is supposed to be a platform for dialogue and decision-making, became a polarised battleground in which bipartisan cooperation is almost nonexistent. This made the legislative process ineffective, with critical issues such as economic inequality, housing affordability, and unemployment going unaddressed. Most alarming is the lost idealism among the next generation. Confronted by wage stagnation, explosive housing prices and diminished job opportunities, young South Koreans doubt whether democracy can address their problems. A new survey suggests that more people would choose economic stability over freedom and democratic rights. Here, there is a prospect of creating an open field for populism or a slide toward authoritarianism, further polarising the democratic system. Regional Instability South Korea's domestic concerns have significant implications for regional security. North Korea, already emboldened by a divided international response to its nuclear provocations, might view South Korea's political turbulence as an opportunity to advance its strategic goals. A distracted South Korea could struggle to respond effectively to missile tests, cyberattacks, or other aggressive manoeuvers by Pyongyang, potentially destabilising the broader region. In addition, South Korea's weakened internal governance can disrupt its alliances with neighbouring Japan and coordination with the United States on regional security. With an increasingly isolationist and transactional Trump 2.0 administration in the US, the whole issue of security of South Korea comes into question. An unprecedented shouting match between Donald Trump and J D Vance on one side and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28th 2025, has raised serious concerns among South Korean establishment highlighting the US President’s tendency to abandon allies when he no longer perceives them as serving American interests. The White House TV drama further weakens the credibility of a united front against North Korean aggression, complicating diplomatic efforts to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. Global Economic Ripples South Korea is a critical player in global markets as Asia's fourth-largest economy after China, Japan and India. Its instability may have significant implications, especially in industries with considerable influence, like technology, automotive manufacturing and shipbuilding. Technology: South Korea is the home of Samsung and LG, the biggest tech giants in the world, which are part of the global supply chain for semiconductors and consumer electronics. Any labour or policy instability could delay production, worsening global shortages. Automobiles South Korea's automotive sector, led by Hyundai and Kia, takes the lead among its country counterparts in the international marketplace. Political instability and labour unrest can result in problems with exports, causing a jam in the supply chain. Investors will be wary of South Korea's political and economic uncertainty and will shift capital to more stable markets. This will further weaken South Korea's economy, which could trigger a downturn that impacts neighbouring countries reliant on trade with Seoul. Geopolitical Calculations The current crisis continues to elevate South Korea's geopolitical vulnerability, drawing more attention from the global superpowers: the United States and China. United States: An important ally, the United States depends on South Korea for strategic placement in the Indo-Pacific region. An extended period of instability could undermine South Korea's place in the US-led network of alliances, making it harder to check China's increasing influence and North Korea's provocations. China: Beijing might perceive the crisis as an opportunity to gain greater influence over South Korea by using economic leverage or making diplomatic overtures. In the political sense, an unstable South Korea would be less able to resist Chinese pressure and could change the regional balance of power. The crisis may further jeopardise the multilateral frameworks, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and trilateral agreements with Japan, to ensure regional stability. It could embolden China and North Korea, which will have ripple effects on global security and economic stability. Amid South Korea's ongoing political crisis, K-pop stands as a powerful force of cultural diplomacy, offering the nation an image of unity and global appeal. As the country grapples with internal turmoil, the global success of K-pop continues to fuel South Korea's soft power. However, the political polarisation at home casts a shadow, raising questions about the ability of cultural exports to remain unaffected by the nation's democratic instability and whether they can continue to unite a fragmented society or reflect the underlying societal divisions. The Broader Picture: Challenges Beneath the Crisis Political Polarisation The political landscape of South Korea is increasingly marked by deep divisions between conservatives and progressives. This polarisation has given rise to a culture of hyper-partisanship, where political discourse is often hostile and bipartisan cooperation is rare. Presidents are frequently targeted by the opposition, which has led to a pattern of scandals, impeachments and prosecutions after leaving office. For example, the impeachment process of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 and the current ongoing legal battles over former President Moon Jae-in's policies are just examples of this trend. Polarisation undermines institutional stability and weakens the democratic process. Media and Misinformation The media landscape in South Korea is a battleground for political narratives. Partisan media and digital platforms fuel misinformation, worsen divisions and mischaracterise critical issues that require clarity for the public. In that sense, social media often dictates people's opinions through unverified and even biased content, so much so that it becomes challenging to discern what information is authentic or unbiased. Judiciary Under Pressure The judiciary has become more and more politicised. Allegations of bias in the judiciary and interference from the political side have sullied its integrity. The prosecution system, increasingly used as an instrument of political revenge, also contributes to this loss of confidence. An example is the long-standing debate on reforming the powerful prosecutor's office so it cannot be used for political purposes. Civil Liberties and Freedom of Speech While South Korea is viewed mainly as a champion of civil liberties, freedom of expression has been an area of concern. Defamation laws that silence opposition voices and limitations on labour unions and protests have led to some concerns over human rights. As a result, debates emerge about whether democratic principles are being compromised for political or economic stability. External Threats and National Security South Korea's geopolitically precarious position, mainly through its North Korean situation and the impact of foreign superpowers like the United States and China, has affected its democracy. There are always concerns regarding national security that tend to override democratic freedom, which then forms the basis of various policies. The National Security Act, initially a countermeasure against pro-North Korean activities, is considered one of the pieces of legislation that infringes upon genuine political expression. North Korea now has a tight security alliance with the Russian Federation. The new security quad of CIRN (China, Iran, Russia and North Korea) poses more serious challenges to the security situation of the Korean peninsula in the era of the US led by Trump 2.0 presidency. Public Confidence in Democracy The most worrisome aspect of South Korea's democratic crisis is the loss of public trust in its institutions. A 2023 survey by the Korean Institute for National Unification indicated that many South Koreans, especially the younger generation, find democracy ineffective in dealing with their issues. This is a huge threat to the democratic structure of the country. In conclusion, South Korea stands on the brink, caught between the promise of democracy and the perils of division. As the impeached president defends his imposition of martial law and defends his action, South Korea remains politically unstable and volatile. As its political institutions struggle under the weight of internal strife and public distrust, the nation faces a pivotal moment. The question is not whether democracy will survive but how it will be reimagined. Will South Korea rediscover its unity and resolve, or will the very foundations of its democratic ideals crumble under the pressure of a fractured society? The answer lies in the country's ability to rebuild and renew itself before it’s too late.