Middle powers are accelerating diversification and flexible coalitions as U.S. unilateralism erodes old alliances, pushing Brazil, Canada, and South Korea to pursue cooperative multipolarity and institutional reform to preserve autonomy in a rapidly shifting global order.
Western hesitation has prolonged a brutal stalemate in Ukraine, where massive casualties, slow aid, and delayed weapons have strengthened Russia’s attritional strategy while forcing Kyiv to innovate militarily and Europe to rearm unevenly, leaving the war’s outcome tied to political will rather than battlefield shifts.
Turkey’s mediation between the US and Iran reflects a long-term strategy to expand its regional influence, manage security risks, and assert a neo-Ottoman leadership role, even as credibility gaps and geopolitical rivalries limit how far Ankara’s ambitions can translate into real diplomatic authority.
In early 2026, Washington’s “Sheriff of Capitalism” doctrine has formalised a shift from a rules-based global order to one defined by resource nationalism and coercive statecraft. This strategy was punctuated by the dramatic January 3, 2026, capture of Nicolás Maduro and the subsequent tariff war against European allies over the sovereignty of Greenland.
In early 2026, the Western Hemisphere is witnessing a seismic shift in geopolitical alignment. Driven by the December 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) and the implementation of the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, Washington has re-prioritized the Americas as its primary strategic theater. This realignment focuses on three pillars: the exclusion of non-hemispheric powers (China and Russia), the securitization of migration and trade, and the direct use of “regime change” as a tool of stability.
This analysis examines Iran’s precarious position as it faces the convergence of historic domestic unrest and intensified external military pressure. With the collapse of its “social contract,” a devalued currency, and the erosion of its regional proxy networks, the regime is trapped in an escalatory cycle where traditional diplomatic off-ramps have vanished, leaving only pathways toward confrontation, capitulation, or institutional collapse.
This article examines how Latin America’s deep-seated integration into Chinese trade networks—exceeding $515 billion in 2024—overrides the region’s recent rightward political shifts. Using case studies from Argentina’s soy exports to Brazil’s response to U.S. tariffs, it argues that economic pragmatism and the “commercial logic of resource extraction” remain more influential than ideological alignment with Washington.
This analysis argues that American unipolarity is collapsing not due to external rivals, but because the U.S. has traded “strategic restraint” for “zero-sum extraction.” By dismantling the self-binding institutional order that once made its leadership attractive, the U.S. has forced allies to seek alternative, more volatile multipolar arrangements.
This article examines the Iranian regime’s evolution from Platonic revolutionary ideals to a coercive state maintained by the IRGC. Analyzing the 2026 protests, it argues that the fusion of absolute power and ideology inevitably leads to a legitimacy crisis, where institutional survival through force supersedes foundational moral principles.
As of February 2, 2026, the Persian Gulf has reached a peak of strategic tension. While Washington has signaled potential military action against Tehran following a brutal domestic crackdown in Iran, Gulf capitals—historically Iran’s most vocal critics—have emerged as the primary advocates for restraint.
In early February 2026, the Western Hemisphere is adjusting to a historic shift in American military doctrine. What was once a “soft power” approach has been replaced by the “Trump Corollary”—a strategy that asserts unquestioned U.S. military and economic preeminence from the Arctic to Antarctica.
In January 2026, the traditional multilateral system founded in 1945 has faced its most direct challenge yet: the formalization of “Boardroom Diplomacy.” Under the newly established Board of Peace (BoP), conflict resolution is shifting from the halls of the United Nations to a private-equity-style governance model that prioritizes commercial viability, “pay-to-play” membership, and technocratic management.
