Welcome to episode 11, part 3 of our ongoing
series on power politics here on Diplomacy and
Discourse channel. In our last two episodes,
we tracked the evolution of power from ancient
empires and medieval monarchs to the World Wars
and Cold War superpowers, and finally into the
post -Cold War landscape shaped by globalization,
diplomacy, and resurgent nationalism. Now in
part 3, we step into the present. Today's world
may be more interconnected. but it's also more
volatile, with regional conflicts revealing just
how alive, and dangerous, power politics remains.
We will begin with Ukraine, where Russia's invasion
has shattered assumptions about European security
and exposed the limits of deterrence. Then, we'll
turn to the South China Sea, where China's expansionism
and US naval strategy reflect a high -stakes
power contest in the Indo -Pacific. And finally,
we'll examine the Middle East. where Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Israel each pursue dominance through
shifting alliances, proxy warfare, and energy
diplomacy. These aren't just isolated crises.
They are battlegrounds for global influence.
Russia's latest moves underscores its commitment
to maintaining and expanding its regional influence,
especially in response to NATO's growth. The
war in Ukraine is still a major priority. Russia
wants international recognition of the territories
it's taken, like Crimea and parts of eastern
Ukraine, and uses arguments about protecting
Russian -speaking communities to justify its
presence. The Kremlin continues to present this
as a matter of national security rather than
aggression, painting itself as reacting to NATO's
advance rather than initiating conflict. Its
concern over NATO expansion has only grown. especially
now that Finland and Sweden have officially joined
the alliance. To counter this, Russia has been
increasing its military buildup along its western
border, especially near Finland. Satellite images
show new bases and installations going up, which
experts see as preparation to reinforce Russia's
posture in the region, should tensions escalate.
Meanwhile, the Arctic is becoming another stage
for power politics. As melting ice opens up new
trade routes and resource opportunities, Russia
is boosting its surveillance and deploying drones
to claim its share of influence. This move hasn't
gone unnoticed. NATO countries are stepping up
their own Arctic operations, signaling the beginning
of a new strategic race in the far north. Russia
justifies its broader foreign policy by leaning
on the idea of historical ties. It claims that
former Soviet states and regions with ethnic
Russians fall naturally within its sphere of
influence. So when these neighbors move toward
NATO or the EU, the Kremlin sees it as a provocation.
That's how it justifies military action, election
interference, and energy coercion, presenting
them as defensive tactics against Western encroachment.
At the heart of it, Russia's playbook is a mix
of old -school hard power and modern hybrid tactics.
It uses everything, from tanks to cyber attacks,
to keep its neighbors within reach and to push
back against what it sees as a US -led world
order. The United States has consistently used
diplomatic, economic sanctions, and strategic
alliances to maintain its global role and influence.
This mix of tools is designed to enforce international
norms, protect US interests, and respond to global
instability without always resorting to military
force. A clear example is the U .S. response
to Belarus in 2020. After President Lukashenko's
widely contested reelection and violent crackdowns
on protesters, the U .S. quickly sanctioned top
Belarusian officials. These included asset freezes
and travel bans aimed at signaling that human
rights violations would not be tolerated. That
kind of quick, targeted economic pressure is
a signature part of the U .S. foreign policy
toolbox. But this approach hasn't been evenly
applied, and many countries have called out the
US for double standards, especially regarding
Israel. Despite credible reports from organizations
and media outlets alleging that certain Israeli
military units have committed human rights violations
against Palestinians, the Biden administration
stopped short of imposing any sanctions. Even
after acknowledging those concerns, it chose
not to penalize the Israeli units. likely due
to long -standing political, military, and strategic
ties between the two countries. This has sparked
frustration across the Middle East and among
human rights observers who argue that such selective
enforcement undercuts U .S. credibility. This
kind of inconsistency feeds the broader narrative
that U .S. foreign policy is often shaped more
by strategic interests than by a principled defense
of human rights. Many countries see it as the
U .S. shielding allies from consequences while
swiftly punishing adversaries. Beyond sanctions,
the U .S. also uses military presence and foreign
aid to reinforce its influence, especially in
regions where Russia is active. Providing security
assistance to countries bordering Russia, coordinating
sanctions with NATO and EU partners, and investing
in local development efforts are all part of
this playbook. These moves are intended not just
to deter aggression, but also to prevent rival
powers from gaining a stronger foothold. Many
countries see it as the US shielding allies from
consequences while swiftly punishing allies.
Beyond sanctions, the US also uses military presence
and foreign aid to reinforce its influence, especially
in regions where Russia is active. Providing
security assistance to countries bordering Russia
coordinating sanctions with NATO and EU partners,
and investing in local development efforts are
all part of this playbook. These moves are intended
not just to deter aggression, but to prevent
rival powers from gaining a stronger foothold.
Still, whether these tools actually produce the
intended outcomes—lasting stability, economic
reforms, or deterrence—remains up for debates.
Critics argue that inconsistent application undermines
trust and that sanctions alone often don't change
a regime's behavior. But the US continues to
rely on them because they remain a low -cost,
high -visibility way to project power without
deploying troops. The return of spheres of influence
as a geopolitical concept has stirred intense
debate in the wake of Russia's full -scale invasion
of Ukraine. The idea... that powerful states
are entitled to control or heavily influence
their neighbors to preserve strategic interests
was largely considered outdated after the Cold
War. But Russia's behavior framed by its leaders
as a defensive response to NATO's eastward expansion
has revived the theory with alarming consequences.
By attacking Ukraine, Russia effectively signaled
that it sees its near abroad as a zone of influence
that must remain under Moscow's sway. This has
shattered assumptions in the West that sovereignty
and territorial integrity are settled norms.
Instead, Russia's strategy invokes a 19th and
early 20th century mindset of great power privilege,
where influence is asserted through coercion
and proximity rather than diplomacy and law.
The international community, particularly NATO
and the EU, has pushed back hard against this
logic. Their military support for Ukraine, sanctions
on Moscow, and renewed defense commitments to
Eastern NATO members are not just acts of solidarity.
They are meant to reaffirm that borders cannot
be changed by force. These moves represent an
effort to defend the liberal international order,
where states, regardless of size, have the right
to chart their own paths free from external domination.
That said, the discourse is more nuanced than
just rejection. Some realists argue that ignoring
Russia's sense of strategic vulnerability, especially
regarding Ukraine and NATO, was short -sighted.
But even among those circles, few defend spheres
of influence as a justifiable principle in the
21st century. The widespread consensus remains
that accepting such a model would destabilize
global order and legitimize the behavior of authoritarian
powers seeking to rewrite the rules. The war
in Ukraine has therefore become more than a regional
conflict. It is a test case for whether the post
-1945 international system, based on sovereignty
and legal norms, can survive in the face of revisionist
powers. Whether or not the West can uphold these
principles, without sliding into open great power
conflict, will shape the global order for decades
to come. Former U .S. President Joe Biden's approach
to the Ukraine conflict has been widely recognized
for its emphasis on diplomacy, international
cooperation, and support for democratic institutions.
His administration's strategy involved rallying
a broad coalition of allies to impose sanctions
on Russia. providing substantial military and
humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and reinforcing
NATO's eastern flank. This multilateral response
was seen as a significant achievement in US foreign
policy, aiming to uphold international norms
and deter further aggression. In contrast, President
Donald Trump's foreign policy was characterized
by a more unilateral America First approach.
While he did impose sanctions on Russia and provide
military aid to Ukraine, his administration often
sent mixed signals regarding U .S. commitment
to allies and international agreements. Trump's
rhetoric sometimes appeared sympathetic to Russian
perspective, leading to concerns among European
partners about the reliability of U .S. support.
Had Trump's policies been in place during the
escalation of the Ukraine conflict, analysts
suggest that the lack of a cohesive and coordinated
international response might have emboldened
further aggression potentially leading to a more
severe crisis. The Biden administration's focus
on alliance -building and collective action has
been credited with strengthening the international
community's ability to respond effectively to
the situation. In summary, Biden's handling of
the Ukraine conflict underscored the importance
of diplomatic engagement and multilateral cooperation
in addressing global security challenges, contrasting
with the more isolationist tendencies observed
during Trump's first tenure. The United States
is actively using power politics in the South
China Sea to push back against China's growing
maritime ambitions. Rather than relying on one
approach, the US combines hard power, strategic
partnerships, and diplomacy to shape the balance
of power in the region. Freedom of Navigation
Operations, FONOP, are a cornerstone of this
strategy. These missions are more than symbolic.
They are legal challenges to China's sweeping
territorial claims. When the USS Preble sailed
near the Spratly Islands in December 2024, it
wasn't just about presence. It was about reinforcing
that international waters can't be turned into
exclusive zones by force. These operations send
a direct message that the U .S. won't recognize
China's attempt to redraw maritime boundaries.
The U .S. has also deepened military cooperation
with countries that share concerns over China's
assertiveness. Exercises like Balikatan with
the Philippines and trilateral naval drills with
Japan and Australia show a clear regional alignment.
These aren't just training events. They're public
signals that China's neighbors are willing to
coordinate militarily to resist coercion. That
kind of unity is key to deterring aggressive
moves without triggering conflict. Beyond the
drills, the U .S. ensures its forces are ready
to respond. The May 2025 elephant walk at Kadena
Air Base involving over 50 aircraft was a show
of force that demonstrated speed, scale, and
readiness to operate in contested environments.
It reminded both allies and rivals that U .S.
power projection in the Indo -Pacific remains
strong and flexible. Diplomatically, the U .S.
continues to engage in forums and trilateral
talks to promote rules -based order. By working
through ASEAN, the Quad, and other platforms,
Washington pushes for peaceful dispute resolutions
and adherence to international law, particularly
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Seas, UNCLOS, even though the U .S. itself hasn't
ratified it. All of these actions are part of
a broader power politics play, maintaining influence,
supporting allies, and preventing China from
unilaterally changing the status quo. It's about
shaping the rules of the region, not just reacting
to violations. And it reflects how modern power
politics involves more than just conflicts. It's
about shaping perceptions, building coalitions,
and reinforcing legal norms with credible force.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are each navigating
the Middle East's power dynamics with very different
playbooks, all aiming to secure influence, resources,
and strategic depth. Iran uses a shadow network
of proxy forces to assert control without putting
boots on the ground. Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed
groups in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen all
serve as Tehran's regional levers. This kind
of indirect engagement lets Iran steer conflict,
pressure rivals, and shape local politics while
officially denying involvement. It's cheaper
than full -scale war and harder to retaliate
against. Iran's economic strategy also centers
on oil and gas. Despite sanctions, it continues
to find buyers and partners, particularly in
Asia, using energy exports to fund its regional
ambitions and maintain ties with sympathetic
regimes. Saudi Arabia, in contrast, plays a more
conventional statecraft game. It's the leader
of a Gulf bloc that counters Iran through formal
alliances and regional coalitions. In Yemen,
it's led a years -long campaign against the Iranian
-backed Houthis to defend its southern border
and preserve influence in the Arabian Peninsula.
Its partnerships with the UAE, Egypt, and increasingly
with Israel show how Saudi Arabia is trying to
cement a counter -Iran front. Economically, Riyadh
uses oil not just as income, but as leverage.
OPEC plus decisions on oil supply, often coordinated
with Russia, give Saudi Arabia a major role in
shaping global energy prices and securing strategic
favors. Israel focuses on tech, intelligence,
and surgical military power. It doesn't rely
on proxies or coalitions as much as it does on
its unmatched intelligence network and precision
strikes. Its airstrikes in Syria target Iranian
weapons transfers, while cyber capabilities give
it an edge in digital warfare. Israel also counts
on its relationship with the United States for
military aid, diplomatic backing, and defense
cooperation. And recently, it's built stronger
ties with Gulf countries like the UAE and Bahrain
through the Abraham Accords, reshaping regional
alliances. These three powers are all competing
for control, influence, and survival in a consistently
shifting landscape. Their approaches reflect
their strengths, whether it's Iran's asymmetric
tactics, Saudi Arabia's wealth and diplomacy,
or Israel's tech -driven military edge. And as
new developments unfold, from shifting U .S.
policy to rising Chinese involvement, each of
them is recalibrating how to keep or gain ground
in one of the world's most volatile regions.
Recent escalations between Israel and the Houthis
is a textbook example of power politics playing
out in real time. Both sides are using military
force not just for defense or retaliation, but
to make a statement about influence, deterrence,
and dominance in the region. The Houthis, supported
by Iran, are no longer just a domestic force
in Yemen. Launching a long -range drone strike
on Tel Aviv shows they're trying to elevate their
role as a regional actor and demonstrate capability
far beyond their borders. That drone strike wasn't
just an act of war. It was a calculated move
to disrupt the balance of power, show solidarity
with Iran and its axis of resistance, and test
Israel's defenses. By hitting a major Israeli
city, they're sending a message that they're
part of the broader geopolitical fight. not just
the war in Yemen. Israel's counterattack wasn't
just about taking out missile depots. It was
about projecting strength and restoring deterrence.
Operation Outstretched Arm was designed to show
that Israel is willing and able to strike beyond
its immediate neighborhood if it feels threatened.
It's also a signal to Iran and any proxy actors
that attacks on Israeli soil will trigger overwhelming
retaliation, even across international borders.
What makes this a clear case of power politics
is how the conflict isn't just about Israel versus
the Houthis. It's about Israel versus Iran, Saudi
Arabia versus Iran, and the shifting alliances
in the Middle East. The Houthis are acting on
behalf of a broader Iranian strategy to project
influence through non -state actors. Israel is
responding as part of a strategic calculus to
maintain military superiority and signal deterrence
to all its adversaries. not just the one directly
involved. This back and forth also disrupts shipping
routes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, so it's
not just a military tit for tat. It's affecting
global trade, oil flows, and U .S. strategic
planning in the region. The conflict isn't isolated.
It's part of a much larger chessboard where force,
alliances, and strategic messaging are being
used to shape the future of the Middle East.
and Nass power politics at work. The U .S. and
Russia are still deeply entrenched in Middle
East power politics, each using different levers
to maintain influence and respond to shifting
dynamics. The U .S. under Trump's current presidency
has shifted gears towards economic deals and
strategic diplomacy. One of the biggest surprises
was Trump's announcement to lift sanctions on
Syria after a change in its leadership. A major
shift in US posture. That move wasn't just about
Syria. It's a way for the US to reassert itself
in a part of the region where Russian and Iranian
influence has grown. Trump also secured a massive
$300 billion investment deal with Saudi Arabia,
which reinforces Washington's economic ties with
the Gulf and aims to anchor regional stability
through trade and defensive deals. Trump's broader
strategy includes encouraging more Arab -Israeli
normalization, essentially trying to stitch together
a pro -U .S. coalition in the region. But the
ongoing Gaza war has made that difficult. Saudi
Arabia has hesitated to move forward with formal
recognition of Israel without serious progress
on Palestinian statehood. showing how regional
tensions continue to complicate American ambitions.
Russia, meanwhile, sticks to its strengths, military
presence, and reliable alliances. Its role in
Syria remains central to its Middle East strategy.
By propping up Assad during the Civil War, Russia
locked in a long -term military and political
foothold. It has also deepened defense partnerships
through arms sales and joint military training
with regional governments. Moscow doesn't need
to compete economically with Washington. It's
focused on showing it can offer security and
regime survival to its allies. Iran operates
differently. Rather than relying on direct military
power or diplomacy, it expands its reach through
proxy groups. Hezbollah in Lebanon militias in
Iraq, and forces in Syria and Yemen give Iran
regional debt without exposing it to full -scale
war. This low -cost, high -impact strategy is
designed to pressure Israel, challenge U .S.
interests, and keep Iran central in any future
regional order. Adding to the complexity is the
rise of a multipolar Middle East. Countries like
China are expanding their footprint, not through
bases or troops, but through infrastructure deals,
tech investments, and diplomatic initiatives.
Many Middle Eastern governments are now hedging
their bets. Instead of choosing between Washington
and Moscow, or Tehran, they're building relationships
with all three, and with Beijing too. This multi
-alignment trend makes the region's power politics
more competitive and unpredictable. These overlapping
agendas and rivalries mean the Middle East is
no longer a playground dominated by one or two
global powers. It's a shifting arena where economic
deals, military alliances, proxy conflicts, and
diplomatic maneuvering all collide in real time.
Power politics isn't just alive, it's evolving
fast. This synthesis captures the core tension
within US foreign policy today. the balance between
strategic restraint and global leadership. The
U .S. has been deeply involved in supporting
Ukraine, but that involvement has always stopped
short of direct confrontation with Russia, a
deliberate choice designed to avoid escalating
into a NATO -Russia war. That line between deterrence
and de -escalation continues to define Washington's
behavior on the international stage. The proposed
30 -day ceasefire in March 2025 reflects both
realism and constraint. On one hand, it signals
US willingness to find diplomatic off -ramp amid
a prolonged war. On the other, trying to renewed
military and intelligence aid to progress in
negotiations signals that American support is
not unconditional, especially as domestic political
pressures, rise, and allied unity becomes harder
to maintain. Russia's non -response exposes the
limitations of such diplomacy when leveraged
without overwhelming coercive pressure. In Syria,
the US decision to lift sanctions under a new
regime presents both opportunity and risk. Washington
is attempting to reshape the Syrian landscape,
perhaps hoping to peel Damascus away from Tehran
and Moscow. But the consequences are unclear.
Empowering Syria's new leadership may shift regional
alignments or inadvertently open the door to
further Russian re -entrenchment, especially
if Moscow views the Middle East as a fallback
arena while its power in Ukraine stalls. The
fragmentation of consensus among European allies
is an especially important development. In the
early phases of the war, NATO and the EU presented
a unified front. But as the conflict drags on,
some nations are pressing for a more aggressive
stance, while others, especially those with significant
energy or economic ties to Russia, favor negotiations
and de -escalation. This divergence threatens
transatlantic solidarity at a critical moment.
Overall, the US strategy in Ukraine and Syria
reflects a complex balancing act, staying engaged
without becoming entangled. projecting power
without provoking a wider war, and maintaining
alliances without forcing uniformity. It's a
cautious, calculated, and sometimes controversial
approach that will likely define Biden's legacy
and pose new tests for Trump's second term. Whether
this tightrope walk will preserve US leadership
or expose its limits is a question still playing
out on the global stage. The war in Ukraine has
stripped away much of the idealism that shaped
post -Cold War foreign policy and forced a reckoning
with realities of power politics in a multipolar
world. The Western consensus that emerged after
1991 centered on a liberal international order,
the sanctity of sovereign borders, and the spread
of democratic norms has met a stubborn and brutal
resistance in the form of Russia's revanchist
behavior. What was once considered a relic of
the 20th century, spheres of influence, has not
only re -emerged, but is being violently defended.
For Russia, Ukraine is not just a neighboring
country. It represents a linchpin in Moscow's
strategic buffer zone and a front line in its
struggle against what it perceives as Western
encroachment. The invasion is not simply about
territorial expansion. It's about redrawing geopolitical
boundaries and restoring influence over a region
it sees as vital to its national identity and
security. From the US side, the conflict has
shown both the strengths and the limits of deterrence.
Billions in aid and sustained diplomatic pressure
have helped Ukraine avoid collapse and regain
territory. But the refusal to engage militarily,
rooted in fears of escalation, has shown how
deterrence against a nuclear -armed revisionist
power is a fragile and slow -moving strategy.
Russia has absorbed massive economic and military
losses, yet it remains committed, which raises
serious questions about how long the West can
sustain support, especially with political divisions
at home and fatigue among allies abroad. This
has exposed cracks within NATO. Countries like
Poland and the Baltic states push for maximalist
support and faster, more decisive action, while
others, including Germany and France at times,
have leaned into caution and diplomacy. These
divisions don't spell collapse but do highlight
the difficulty of maintaining unity under the
pressure of prolonged crisis. More broadly, the
war has challenged the belief that economic interdependence
alone can prevent conflict. Russia was deeply
enmenched in the European energy market, yet
this did not deter war. It arguably enabled it.
The strategic lesson for the US and its allies
is that diplomacy, alliances, and economic tools
matter, but they are not foolproof shields against
power -driven aggression. Going forward, the
conflict will shape how the West engages with
other revisionist powers, particularly China.
It also demands a clearer understanding of where
red lines are drawn and what the cost of ambiguity
might be. It's not just about defending Ukraine.
It's about defending the credibility of the rules
-based order in an age where power is once again
being defined by who is willing to act and at
what cost. If anything, the war in Ukraine has
made clear that great power competition isn't
just a policy buzzword. It's the defining structure
of our era. And managing it will require more
than rhetoric. It will require sustained coordination,
a more honest assessment of risks, and an evolved
strategy that blends principled commitment with
strategic realism. In part 4, we'll close this
series by reflecting on what these modern flashpoints
can teach us about the enduring nature of power
politics. From Ukraine's resistance to the West's
cautious assertiveness, we'll ask what lessons
have world leaders learned about deterrence,
escalation, and alliance cohesion? What does
the failure to prevent war in Europe say about
the state of diplomacy? And as new technologies,
environmental crisis, and non -state actors continue
to shift the terrain, we will consider the future
of power politics itself. Is the world heading
toward a new multipolar order? Or are we simply
seeing old patterns repackaged in new forms?
In our final installment, we'll explore the possibilities
and the risks that lie ahead.