strategic partnerships

Traditional international relations theory has long defined “middle powers” by quantifiable metrics—GDP ranking, military expenditures, or population size—casting them as countries that occupy a second tier between great and small states. Under this vertical, power-based view, middle powers are seen as materially weaker than great powers but stronger than small nations. However, this framework no longer captures the dynamic influence these states exercise in today’s multipolar world. Instead, a horizontal definition—emphasizing geopolitical position, diplomatic agility, and coalition-building capacity—more accurately reflects how countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Turkey now shape regional and global affairs.

In the opening days of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, tech titan Elon Musk emerged as an unlikely fixture at the heart of American politics. Traveling from SpaceX launches to Mar-a-Lago, Musk lent his star power—and tens of millions of dollars—to Trump’s agenda, spearheading a high-profile “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge) and promising sweeping cuts to the federal bureaucracy. Six months later, however, Musk’s political profile has dimmed. Mentions of his name have disappeared from Truth Social, funding appeals no longer invoke his endorsement, and even Republican strategists publicly urge him to refocus on his business empire. What happened to the world’s richest man in Trump’s inner circle, and what does his political drift mean for the administration—and for Musk himself?

As tensions mount over the looming threat of higher tariffs, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States Vice-President JD Vance met in New Delhi this week to reaffirm both nations' commitment to an increasingly strategic and multifaceted partnership. Their discussions signaled progress in bilateral trade negotiations, even as the clock ticks on a 90-day tariff reprieve announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, set to expire on July 9.

The recent Paris summit highlighted urgent calls for a unified European security strategy in response to ongoing geopolitical challenges, particularly the Ukraine conflict. European leaders, including Macron and Scholz, emphasized the necessity for collective action amidst rising transatlantic tensions and internal divisions within Europe. Discussions focused on enhancing defense cooperation and the potential establishment of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Despite existing disparities in national interests and the rise of populist movements threatening EU solidarity, the outcomes of the summit offer a critical platform for fostering cooperation and addressing the complexities of shared values. As Europe navigates this evolving landscape, the imperative for a coherent response to external threats becomes increasingly clear.