Leaders of China and Russia Strengthen Ties Amid Growing Influence in Central Asia

In a bid to counter what they see as U.S.-led dominance on the global stage, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin held pivotal talks at a security summit in Kazakhstan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, which aims to address Eurasian security concerns, saw both leaders reaffirming their partnership and discussing strategies to enhance their influence in the region.

Established in 2001 by China and Russia, the SCO serves as a forum for these two powerhouses to project their influence across Eurasia. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov highlighted the significance of this gathering, emphasizing that the SCO, along with BRICS, represents “the main pillars of the new world order,” advocating for genuine multilateralism in global affairs.

The BRICS coalition, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, recently extended invitations to six more countries: Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, underscored the importance of the SCO summit, stating it would “build more consensus among all parties and promote security, stability, and development of member countries.”

This summit also provided Kazakhstan and other Central Asian nations an opportunity to bolster their ties with these influential neighbors. Notably, the timing of this summit is crucial as China and Russia continue to deepen their relationship. In 2022, China declared a “no limits” partnership with Russia, and since then, Beijing has portrayed itself as a neutral actor in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Xi and Putin last met in May when Putin visited Beijing. Since then, China has extended diplomatic support to Russia and emerged as a primary market for Russian oil and gas. Despite their burgeoning ties, Central Asia remains a contested space for both countries. For Russia, the region comprises five former Soviet republics with deep-rooted cultural and economic ties. For China, Central Asia is crucial for its Belt and Road initiative, raising concerns over potential threats to Russia’s influence.

Analysts suggest that the summit’s discussions may have underlying implications, as both nations need to balance their competing interests in Central Asia while pursuing closer cooperation.

Eoin Micheál McNamara, a research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noted that the SCO allows China and Russia to engage in collective dialogue with Central Asian states, helping manage mutual suspicions about each other’s intentions in the region.

“The SCO is therefore useful to keep the China-Russia alliance together as a force in wider great power politics,” McNamara explained. Carol Saivetz, a senior fellow at MIT’s Security Studies Program, anticipated that participants would discuss security in abstract terms and focus on economic projects. Historically, there was an implicit understanding that China would handle economic issues while Russia acted as the region’s security guarantor. However, with the ongoing war in Ukraine, China might exploit the instability to expand its influence.

Saivetz highlighted Xi’s early arrival to meet with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and his subsequent visit to Tajikistan’s capital, Dushanbe, as indicators that China is not limiting its options to multilateral formats or Moscow. Despite the war in Ukraine overshadowing the summit, public discussion on the topic is unlikely due to differing opinions among Central Asian states.

Tina Dolbaia, a research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that discussions about the Ukraine war would probably occur behind closed doors. She emphasized the relevance of the Ukraine conflict to the power struggle between China and Russia in Central Asia. “Putin is currently willing to underestimate and overlook China’s rising role in Russia’s ‘backyard’ due to the importance of countering the West in Ukraine and establishing a multi-polar world order,” Dolbaia explained.

Despite the significant influence wielded by China and Russia in the region, Central Asia’s loyalties are not firmly aligned with either. Dolbaia noted that Central Asian countries understand the need to navigate their relationships with both powers carefully. As the SCO summit concludes, the delicate balance of power in Central Asia remains a focal point for both Beijing and Moscow, highlighting the intricate dynamics of their partnership amid growing global tensions.

After Interviewing Putin, Carlson Pursues Conversation with Ukraine’s President

In a surprising move, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson hinted on Wednesday at a potential interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This revelation comes on the heels of Carlson’s February trip to Moscow, where he conducted a notable interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, marking him as the first Western journalist to do so since the conflict began in February 2022.

“Looks like we’ve got the Zelensky interview. We’ve been trying for two years, and with particular intensity after interviewing Putin in February,” Carlson announced on X, formerly known as Twitter. This potential sit-down with Zelensky follows Carlson’s departure from Fox News last year, where he was known for his controversial takes, including his criticism of Zelensky and the Ukraine war, views that had garnered approval from Kremlin propagandists.

Carlson, who hosted “Tucker Carlson Tonight” from 2016 to 2023 before his sudden firing last April with no official explanation, stated his goal is to “bring Americans much-needed information about the conflict that’s completely reshaping their country’s position in the world.” The announcement of the possible interview with Zelensky has yet to elicit a response from Ukraine, and Newsweek has reached out to Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry and the Tucker Carlson Network for comment.

Following Carlson’s two-hour interview with Putin, the Russian president expressed his surprise over the lack of aggressive questioning. “To be honest, I thought that he would behave aggressively and ask so-called sharp questions. I was not just prepared for this, I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond in the same way,” Putin remarked to Russian journalist Pavel Aleksandrovich Zarubin on state television channel Russia-1. He added that he did not “feel full satisfaction from this interview.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later stated that Putin agreed to the interview because Carlson’s perspective “differs” from other Western media.

Carlson’s announcement about the Zelensky interview received mixed reactions on social media. Ukrainian journalist Illia Ponomarenko endorsed the idea, saying on X, “I think Zelensky sitting down for an interview with Tucker is a good idea because there is no question Ukraine can’t give a fair answer to.” Ponomarenko further distinguished Zelensky’s candidacy for the interview by noting that, unlike Putin, Zelensky “has no need to crack freakishly weird mumbo-jumbo pseudo-historical freak Viking era theories to explain why Ukraine fights for survival in the largest European war of aggression since Hitler and why it is so important to help Ukraine win.”

However, skepticism abounds, with many voicing concerns about potential manipulation of the interview’s content. “Zelensky needs someone to video the whole interview because you can bet it will be a trap… they’ll change it and use for propaganda purposes,” one X user warned. Another echoed this sentiment, writing, “I’m more concerned about how they will doctor his answers in the final edit.”

Despite the buzz, Carlson has not provided a specific timeline for when this interview might occur, leaving followers in suspense with a tantalizing “Coming soon we hope.”

As the world watches and waits, Carlson’s potential interview with Zelensky promises to be another controversial chapter in the ongoing narrative of the Ukraine conflict. Whether it will bring new insights or further polarize opinions remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the anticipation is building, and the stakes are high.

How Moscow’s Support for Yemen’s Rebels and Attacks on Submarine Cables Could Destabilize the Red Sea and Somaliland

In a provocative and highly controversial move, Russia’s potential provision of weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen threatens to escalate tensions in the already volatile Red Sea region. This development, coupled with the looming threat to submarine internet cables critical to global communications, could have far-reaching consequences for the Gulf of Aden, Somaliland, and the broader international community.

Russian state media figure Vladimir Solovyov recently suggested that Moscow should arm the Houthis to retaliate against Western support for Ukraine. This statement comes amid ongoing clashes between Iran-aligned Houthi rebels and Western forces in the Red Sea. The Houthis have been targeting ships, including a recent missile attack on the British-registered Rubymar vessel, escalating the conflict in a crucial maritime corridor.

If Russia follows through on Solovyov’s suggestion, it could transform the balance of power in the Red Sea. The Houthis, already emboldened by Iranian support, would gain access to more sophisticated weaponry, potentially including semi-submersible unmanned boats and advanced firearms. This could significantly increase the threat to international shipping and military assets in the region, leading to a broader conflict involving the Gulf states and their allies.

Adding another layer of complexity is the potential disruption of submarine cables, which are the backbone of global internet connectivity. These cables, spanning over 1.4 million kilometers of ocean floor, carry a significant portion of the world’s internet traffic. The Red Sea alone hosts around 16 cable systems that connect Europe to Asia, transporting data for up to 2.3 billion people.

The Houthi rebels have been accused of planning attacks on these crucial communication links. An incident in February 2024 saw the interruption of four internet cables in the Red Sea, impacting 25% of internet traffic between Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. While the Houthis denied involvement, suspicions remain high, given their history of targeting infrastructure in the region.

The deliberate targeting of submarine cables by the Houthis, potentially with Russian backing, could disrupt global communications, affecting everything from financial transactions to military operations. Such an attack would be a clear act of cyber warfare, with profound implications for international security and economic stability.

For Somaliland, the geopolitical stakes are particularly high. The unrecognized state has been seeking greater international legitimacy and support, notably offering the strategic port of Berbera as a military base to the United States. However, U.S. policy has been ambivalent, failing to capitalize on this opportunity while opposing Somaliland’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ethiopia.

As Russia and China expand their influence in the region, Somaliland’s strategic importance grows. If the U.S. continues to neglect Somaliland, it risks losing a critical ally in the Red Sea to its rivals. Recognizing Somaliland and strengthening military and economic ties could counterbalance the influence of Russia and China, ensuring that the Red Sea remains a stable and secure maritime corridor.

The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, also have a vested interest in the stability of the Red Sea. The disruption of submarine cables and the arming of the Houthis could threaten their economic and security interests, given their reliance on secure maritime routes for oil exports and other trade. Increased Houthi capabilities could lead to more frequent and severe attacks on shipping, potentially closing critical chokepoints like the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

The current U.S. administration faces a critical decision point. The neglect of Somaliland and the failure to adequately address the threats posed by Russian and Iranian activities in the Red Sea could have dire consequences. It is imperative for the U.S. and its allies to reassess their strategies in the region, taking decisive steps to support Somaliland’s quest for recognition and stability.

Strengthening military and intelligence cooperation with Somaliland could serve as a deterrent to Russian and Iranian ambitions. Additionally, enhancing the protection of submarine cables through international collaboration and advanced surveillance technologies is crucial to safeguarding global internet infrastructure.

The convergence of Russian support for the Houthis and the threat to submarine cables represents a significant and growing challenge for the international community. The potential for increased conflict in the Red Sea, coupled with the risk of major disruptions to global communications, demands urgent and coordinated action from Western governments.

Ignoring these threats could lead to a destabilized region, with far-reaching impacts on global security and economic stability. It is time for the West to recognize the strategic importance of Somaliland and the need for robust responses to the emerging threats in the Red Sea. Only through proactive and concerted efforts can the balance of power be maintained and the interests of the international community safeguarded.

A Symbolic Yet Tense Visit Highlights Europe’s Internal Fractures and Ukraine’s Ongoing Struggle for Support

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban made his first visit to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in 2022, marking a significant yet contentious moment in European politics. This visit comes at a time when Orban’s stance on the war and his close ties with Moscow have often put him at odds with other EU leaders. As Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the EU, Orban’s trip to Kyiv and his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reveal the intricate and often strained dynamics within Europe regarding support for Ukraine.

Orban’s visit to Kyiv, while symbolic, was shrouded in tension. Despite the official cordiality, with Zelenskyy expressing appreciation for Orban’s visit coinciding with Hungary’s EU presidency, the underlying discord was palpable. Orban’s public acknowledgment of the war’s gravity and his stated goal of understanding how Hungary could help Ukraine during its EU presidency starkly contrast with his previous calls for immediate cease-fire and peace talks, which have often been seen as undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Hungary’s assumption of the EU presidency comes at a critical juncture. Although the role is largely ceremonial, it provides Hungary with a platform to influence the bloc’s agenda. Orban’s government has signaled an intention to act as “honest brokers,” yet skepticism abounds due to Hungary’s controversial democratic record and its divergent stance on Russia compared to other EU member states. This visit to Ukraine, therefore, serves as a litmus test for Hungary’s commitment to European unity and support for Ukraine.

One of the significant points of contention between Hungary and Ukraine is the treatment of the ethnic Hungarian minority in Ukraine’s Zakarpattia region. Orban has used allegations of mistreatment to justify his reluctance to provide military support to Ukraine or allow arms transfers across their shared border. This issue highlights the broader geopolitical maneuvering at play, with Hungary leveraging its minority population concerns to maintain a degree of autonomy in its foreign policy, often at odds with the broader EU consensus.

While Orban’s visit dominated headlines in Europe, significant developments were also occurring in Washington. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced an upcoming $2.3 billion security assistance package for Ukraine, emphasizing anti-tank weapons and air defense systems. This announcement, along with high-level meetings between U.S. and Ukrainian officials, underscores the unwavering support from the United States as Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression. These developments set the stage for the upcoming NATO summit, where military support for Ukraine is expected to be a central topic.

Orban’s visit and the concurrent U.S. support highlight the multifaceted nature of Ukraine’s struggle for sovereignty and security. Within Europe, Orban’s actions may serve as a catalyst for further discussions about the unity and coherence of the EU’s foreign policy, especially concerning Russia. For Ukraine, the visit underscores the importance of continued diplomatic engagement with all EU members, despite differing political stances, to secure comprehensive support in its fight against Russia.

Prime Minister Orban’s visit to Kyiv, juxtaposed with robust U.S. military support for Ukraine, illustrates the complex and often contradictory landscape of international relations amid the ongoing war. As Hungary navigates its role within the EU and Ukraine strives for security and sovereignty, the actions of both nations will have far-reaching implications for the region’s stability and the future of European unity.

Intensified aerial conflict as Ukrainian drones target Bryansk, Kursk, and Belgorod regions; President Zelenskyy calls for extended military aid and relaxed restrictions on strikes inside Russia.

Russia’s defense ministry announced on Monday that the country’s air defenses successfully shot down 36 Ukrainian aerial drones involved in attacks on Russian regions along the border with Ukraine. This incident underscores the ongoing and intensifying aerial conflict between the two nations.

According to the ministry, the breakdown of the downed drones is as follows:

18 drones over the Bryansk region

9 drones over the Kursk region

9 drones over the Belgorod region

Vyacheslav Gladkov, the regional governor of Belgorod, reported that the drone attacks caused damage to houses in two villages and resulted in power outages in several areas. In contrast, the governors of Bryansk and Kursk indicated that there were no reported injuries or damage in their respective regions.

In response to these developments, Ukraine’s air force issued missile alerts on Monday for southern and eastern Ukraine, areas frequently targeted by Russian drone attacks.

Serhiy Lysak, the regional governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region, reported that Russian forces conducted missile and artillery attacks on Monday. A missile strike in the city of Dnipro injured seven people, and artillery and kamikaze drone attacks late Sunday caused damage to several buildings and a gas pipeline in Nikopol.

In the face of these continued attacks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reiterated his calls for Western allies to relax restrictions on Ukrainian forces using Western weapons to strike military targets inside Russia. He emphasized the need for “clear decisions” to help protect Ukrainian citizens, highlighting that long-range strikes and modern air defense systems are essential for halting daily Russian terror attacks. Zelenskyy expressed gratitude to international partners who support this understanding.

The ongoing aerial skirmishes between Russia and Ukraine reflect the broader geopolitical tensions and the persistent state of conflict. The successful interception of Ukrainian drones by Russian forces signals the effectiveness of Russia’s air defense systems but also points to Ukraine’s continued capability and determination to carry out cross-border attacks. The situation remains volatile, with significant implications for regional stability and international relations.

The U.S. is poised to unveil a $150 million military aid package for Ukraine, marking a significant yet controversial move amid the ongoing conflict with Russia. This aid, sourced from the presidential drawdown authority (PDA), aims to address Ukraine’s immediate defense needs by providing weapons, ammunition, and equipment directly from U.S. military stockpiles. While the aid package includes essential munitions for systems like the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), it notably excludes cluster munitions and potentially long-range missiles such as ATACMS, which have been a focal point in recent military engagements.

This latest aid package underscores the U.S. commitment to bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities. The inclusion of munitions for HIMARS and other critical systems is intended to enhance Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian advances and maintain territorial integrity. HIMARS, known for its precision and extended range, has been pivotal in Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling targeted strikes on key Russian positions.

The decision to exclude long-range missiles like ATACMS reflects a cautious approach to avoid further escalating the conflict. ATACMS, with a striking range of up to 300 kilometers, could significantly alter the dynamics on the ground, potentially provoking a more severe response from Russia. The exclusion of these missiles suggests a strategic calculation to provide substantial support without crossing thresholds that might lead to broader conflict escalation.

Supporters of the aid package argue that it is a necessary measure to support a sovereign nation under attack. Providing military aid to Ukraine is seen as upholding international norms and deterring aggression. By supplying critical munitions, the U.S. helps Ukraine defend itself and maintain its sovereignty against Russian advances. This aid is not just about military support but also sends a strong message of solidarity and commitment to international alliances.

Critics, however, warn that continuous military aid could exacerbate the conflict and lead to unintended consequences. Russia’s recent accusations that Ukraine used U.S.-provided ATACMS in attacks on Crimea and the Belgorod region underscore the potential risks. Moscow’s summoning of the U.S. ambassador in protest highlights the diplomatic tensions and the possibility of further escalation. Some fear that increased military support might lead to a broader confrontation, drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict and destabilizing the region further.

For Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines, this aid is a lifeline. “Every piece of equipment, every round of ammunition can make the difference between life and death,” says Oleksiy, a Ukrainian artillery officer. The aid bolsters morale and provides the means to continue resisting the Russian onslaught.

Civilians, too, are deeply affected. Nadia, a resident of a town near the front lines, expresses mixed feelings. “We need the help to survive, but I fear what more weapons might bring. Every escalation means more danger for us,” she says, reflecting the complex emotions surrounding foreign military aid.

This aid package is part of a broader $61 billion Ukraine funding initiative signed into law by President Joe Biden in April. Its announcement comes at a critical juncture, with the war showing no signs of abating. The continued U.S. support for Ukraine has significant implications for regional stability in Eastern Europe and for U.S.-Russia relations.

The international community is closely watching how this aid influences the conflict. Success in Ukraine could reinforce the U.S. strategy of supporting allies through direct military aid. Conversely, if the conflict escalates, it could prompt a reevaluation of such support mechanisms and their long-term consequences.

In conclusion, the $150 million military aid package represents a calculated gamble by the U.S., balancing the urgent need to support Ukraine with the risks of escalating the conflict. As the situation in Ukraine evolves, the impacts of this aid will be scrutinized, influencing future international policies and strategies.

Will this aid package fortify Ukraine’s defense and lead to a turning point in the conflict, or will it trigger a cycle of escalation with unpredictable consequences? The world watches with bated breath as the next chapter in this geopolitical saga unfolds.

Ukraine Begins EU Membership Negotiations: A Bold Step Towards European Integration

Ukraine is set to begin negotiations to join the European Union next week, a significant step following its application in 2022 after the Russian invasion. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the decision in his nightly address, emphasizing the importance of unity among nations that uphold European values. This move by the EU to approve membership talks with Ukraine sends a powerful message of support to Kyiv amidst ongoing conflict with Russia.

The EU’s decision to start the membership process with Ukraine, alongside approving a negotiating framework for Moldova, demonstrates a clear stance against Russian aggression. Zelenskyy highlighted the importance of solidarity among European nations, saying, “Every country, every society that truly professes European values and aspires to real European strength — that every such nation — be together with all the others in a united Europe.”

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov indicated that Russia is prepared for security talks with the United States, insisting these must include discussions on the conflict in Ukraine. Despite this, the U.S. and NATO maintain that providing arms to Ukraine does not constitute direct involvement in the conflict. This comes in the wake of the White House’s decision to prioritize the delivery of powerful air defense missiles to Ukraine, following severe Russian missile and drone attacks targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Meanwhile, tensions between Russia and South Korea have risen after South Korea expressed concern over a recent defense pact between Russia and North Korea. Seoul hinted at the possibility of sending arms to Ukraine, a move that would reverse its current policy. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned South Korea against this, suggesting it would be a significant mistake that could lead to consequences unfavorable for South Korea.

In retaliation to Russian assaults, Ukraine launched attacks targeting oil refineries, radar installations, and intelligence centers in southern Russia and occupied Crimea. The Ukrainian general staff reported successful strikes on a fuel and chemical warehouse in Russia’s Tambov region and an oil depot in the Republic of Adygea. These actions underline Ukraine’s capacity to strike back despite the extensive damage inflicted on its energy infrastructure.

Ukraine’s national power provider, Ukrenergo, reported significant damage to energy facilities due to recent Russian attacks, resulting in rolling blackouts across the country. The persistent strikes have halved Ukraine’s power-generating capabilities compared to last year, exacerbating the challenges faced by civilians and military operations alike.

Ukraine’s commencement of EU membership talks represents a pivotal moment in its integration into the European community, reinforcing its stance against Russian aggression. The geopolitical implications are profound, with increased Western support for Ukraine likely to intensify the broader conflict dynamics involving Russia, the U.S., and other global players.

In a highly controversial move, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has vowed “full support and solidarity” for Russia’s war in Ukraine during a historic meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Pyongyang. This unprecedented alliance between North Korea and Russia signals a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape, raising alarm bells in the West and potentially altering the course of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

President Putin’s visit to North Korea, his first in 24 years, underscores the deepening ties between Moscow and Pyongyang. As the two leaders met, they projected a united front against what they termed the “hegemonic and imperialist policy” of the United States and its allies. This rhetoric highlights their shared disdain for Western influence and their mutual desire to reshape the global order.

Kim’s pledge of support for Russia’s military endeavors in Ukraine comes at a time when both countries are under intense scrutiny and heavy sanctions from the international community. North Korea has been accused of supplying weapons to Russia in exchange for technological expertise, a claim both nations have denied. However, the possibility of such an exchange raises significant concerns about the escalation of the conflict and the potential for increased military cooperation between the two pariah states.

The culmination of Putin’s visit was the signing of a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty, described by Putin as a “breakthrough” that will take bilateral relations to a “new level.” While the details of this agreement remain undisclosed, it reportedly includes a promise of “mutual assistance” in the event of an attack on either country. This defensive pact could signify a more formalized military alliance, potentially drawing North Korea deeper into Russia’s conflict with Ukraine.

The red carpet welcome for Putin in Pyongyang, complete with a grand ceremony in Kim Il Sung Square and streets adorned with Russian flags, was a clear message to the world: North Korea and Russia are forging a new path together, one that could have far-reaching implications for global security.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned Putin’s visit to North Korea, highlighting it as a sign of Russia’s desperation. Blinken reiterated concerns about North Korea providing munitions and other weapons to Russia, emphasizing the threat this poses to Ukraine and the broader international community. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg echoed these sentiments, warning of the potential support Russia could provide to North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs.

The alliance between North Korea and Russia also raises questions about the future of U.N. sanctions. Russia’s veto power has already hindered efforts to impose new sanctions on North Korea, and this partnership could further complicate international efforts to monitor and restrict North Korea’s weapons development.

The burgeoning alliance between North Korea and Russia has significant implications for regional stability in East Asia. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have been escalating, with recent border incidents and increased military activities on both sides. South Korea, backed by the U.S., has expressed growing concern over North Korea’s military capabilities and its potential role in supporting Russia’s war efforts.

Moreover, the partnership between Kim and Putin could embolden other nations facing Western sanctions to seek similar alliances, further destabilizing global security dynamics. As Putin continues his diplomatic tour, with planned stops in countries like Vietnam, the world watches closely to see how these new alliances will reshape the geopolitical landscape.

Kim Jong Un’s pledge of support for Russia’s war in Ukraine marks a significant and controversial development in international relations. This burgeoning alliance not only challenges Western hegemony but also poses a direct threat to global security. As North Korea and Russia strengthen their ties, the international community must grapple with the potential consequences of this new axis of power. The future of the Ukraine conflict, and indeed global stability, may hinge on how the world responds to this provocative and potentially dangerous partnership.