A shift toward isolationism might see reduced U.S. engagement, leaving Africa to navigate existing global power dynamics.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House raises questions about how his administration will approach Africa, a continent historically sidelined in U.S. foreign policy. Despite the critical geopolitical and economic roles Africa plays, America’s engagement has often been shaped by corporate interests, military priorities, and strategic competition with China. Under Trump, these trends are expected to persist, albeit with a potentially more isolationist tone.

Historically, U.S. policy toward Africa has been reactive rather than proactive. While Barack Obama and George W. Bush increased military involvement in counterterrorism operations across Africa, these efforts yielded limited long-term stability. Under Trump’s first presidency, Africa received scant attention. Notably, he reduced U.S. military presence in Somalia and made inflammatory remarks about African nations, further straining relations.

Joe Biden’s administration sought to recalibrate this approach, hosting a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and initiating projects like the Lobito Corridor to connect Angola, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, these efforts largely failed to address Africa’s broader development needs, focusing instead on countering China’s influence.

China’s approach to Africa has stood in stark contrast to America’s. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has delivered transformative infrastructure projects across the continent, solidifying its position as Africa’s largest bilateral trade partner. By comparison, U.S. funding mechanisms have been slow and bureaucratic, with little tangible impact.

Trump’s return could exacerbate this disparity. His administration’s focus is likely to remain on minimizing U.S. involvement, both militarily and diplomatically. This could mean a further drawdown of American troops and a diminished role for U.S.-led development initiatives. While such isolationism might reduce neo-colonialist perceptions, it risks leaving Africa vulnerable to unchecked external influences, including those from China and Russia.

Trump’s advisers have reportedly expressed interest in recognizing Somaliland, which could destabilize the already volatile Horn of Africa. While this move might counter China’s regional influence, it risks exacerbating tensions with Somalia and its neighbors.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops could reshape Africa’s security dynamics. Niger’s junta recently expelled U.S. forces, reflecting growing resistance to Western military presence. Similarly, France’s collapse in the Sahel highlights the limitations of foreign-led counterinsurgency operations. A reduced U.S. footprint might compel African nations to develop self-reliant security frameworks, but it also risks leaving power vacuums that extremist groups could exploit.

In the face of waning U.S. interest, African nations must diversify their partnerships and strengthen regional cooperation. Collaborating with both Western and non-Western powers, such as China and India, can help mitigate the risks of overreliance on any single external actor.

Trump’s presidency may inadvertently push Africa toward greater self-determination, but the continent will still require global cooperation to address challenges such as climate change, debt relief, and equitable trade policies. While reduced U.S. engagement might seem like a setback, it also presents an opportunity for Africa to redefine its role in the global order and pursue more balanced, mutually beneficial partnerships.

Turkish firm Favori’s unchecked operations in Somalia expose systemic issues tied to President Erdogan’s influence.

The management of Somalia’s Mogadishu Aden Abdulle International Airport by Turkish company Favori LLC has become a focal point of controversy, bringing allegations of corruption, labor exploitation, and political interference into sharp focus. Backed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Favori’s operations demonstrate the intersection of political patronage and questionable corporate practices.

Favori LLC, a subsidiary of the Kozuva Group, had no prior experience in aviation management before securing the 20-year contract in 2013 to oversee the airport. Despite lacking qualifications, the deal was facilitated at a high political level, reportedly due to Erdogan’s direct intervention. This decision prompted immediate questions about the legitimacy of the agreement and whether it represented a misuse of influence by Turkish leadership.

Ertuğrul Karaferiyeli

The company’s operations have since been marred by allegations of corruption and abuse. Most recently, the arrest of Favori’s HR manager, Ertuğrul Karaferiyeli, on charges of sexual harassment and labor violations highlighted the firm’s alleged mistreatment of Somali employees. Although Somali authorities initially took a strong stance, Karaferiyeli’s subsequent release—reportedly facilitated through an out-of-court settlement—underscored the perceived impunity enjoyed by the company and its executives.

Favori’s rise exemplifies how Erdogan’s political influence has been leveraged to secure lucrative international contracts for Turkish firms with close ties to his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

The Kozuva brothers (from L to R): Sinan Kozuva, Süleyman Kozuva, Mustafa Kozuva and Emre Kozuva.

The Kozuva family, which owns Favori, has longstanding ties to Erdogan and the AKP. Favori transitioned from a small construction company into a major player in airport management, coinciding with Erdogan’s support and political backing.

The 2016 UN report on Favori’s contract further criticized the deal, describing it as a “technically poor agreement” that disproportionately benefited the private firm over Somalia’s federal government. Concerns over the revenue-sharing model and the contract’s broader implications for Somali sovereignty highlighted the deeper issues of foreign intervention and exploitation.

Somalia’s reliance on foreign operators like Favori reflects the broader challenge of rebuilding state infrastructure in a post-conflict environment. While international partnerships can offer critical expertise and funding, they also risk entrenching power imbalances and fostering dependency.

The allegations surrounding Favori’s management of Mogadishu’s airport raise urgent questions about governance, accountability, and ethical business practices in Somalia. Moreover, they underscore the risks of political influence shaping economic decisions, often at the expense of local workers and national interests.

As Somalia works to strengthen its institutions and assert its sovereignty, the Favori case serves as a cautionary tale of the need for transparency, rigorous oversight, and equitable agreements in public-private partnerships. For Turkey, the controversy highlights the reputational risks associated with using political influence to secure international contracts, raising broader questions about Erdogan’s legacy on the global stage.

State-sponsored breach exploited third-party service vulnerabilities, highlighting rising cybersecurity threats from Beijing-linked groups.

In a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within critical U.S. systems, Chinese state-sponsored hackers breached the U.S. Treasury Department’s security infrastructure, stealing unclassified documents in what officials labeled a “major incident.” The sophisticated operation exploited weaknesses in BeyondTrust, a third-party cybersecurity service provider, emphasizing a rising trend of leveraging trusted external vendors to bypass safeguards.

The Treasury Department confirmed that attackers gained access to a key used by BeyondTrust to secure its cloud-based remote support service. This allowed the hackers to override security protocols, infiltrate workstations used by Treasury Departmental Offices (DO), and access sensitive unclassified documents. The breach was detected on December 8, and Treasury immediately began collaborating with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the FBI to evaluate the damage.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington denied responsibility, accusing the U.S. of baseless allegations. Yet, cybersecurity experts argue that this attack follows a familiar pattern of state-sponsored campaigns by China, targeting third-party services to penetrate high-value government and corporate networks.

The incident comes amid an alarming increase in cyberattacks by PRC-linked groups, whose methods have evolved to exploit trusted third-party vendors. Such tactics not only grant access to protected systems but also obfuscate the attackers’ entry points, making detection and response more challenging.

This breach underscores broader security challenges in an era of growing dependence on cloud services and outsourced IT solutions. While vendors like BeyondTrust are expected to fortify defenses, their vulnerabilities can become gateways to sensitive national infrastructure.

The Treasury incident also highlights the increasing geopolitical dimension of cyber threats. The U.S. has repeatedly accused Beijing of state-backed hacking campaigns aimed at stealing intellectual property, government secrets, and disrupting critical infrastructure. China’s advanced capabilities in cyber espionage pose a strategic challenge to Washington, particularly as both nations compete for technological and geopolitical supremacy.

Experts warn that this latest breach may only be the tip of the iceberg. Tom Hegel, a cybersecurity researcher at SentinelOne, noted that PRC-linked groups have increasingly targeted trusted third-party services, exploiting the implicit trust placed in such vendors. This method, he stated, “fits a well-documented pattern” and presents a significant threat to both public and private sectors.

For policymakers and cybersecurity professionals, the incident highlights the urgent need to bolster defenses and establish stringent oversight of third-party providers. It also reinforces the importance of clear red lines and actionable deterrence strategies to prevent future breaches.

The Treasury breach is not just a wake-up call for the U.S. government but a global warning about the critical importance of securing digital ecosystems in an age of persistent and sophisticated state-sponsored cyber threats. As investigations continue, the incident may prompt renewed calls for international norms to curb state-backed cyber activities, ensuring accountability in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.

A year of political upheavals saw dramatic departures of leaders from Rishi Sunak to Sheikh Hasina, reshaping global political landscapes.

The year 2024 was marked by a series of dramatic exits from power, underscoring the fragility of political leadership in an increasingly volatile world. From electoral upsets to resignations under pressure, these departures highlighted shifting political landscapes and mounting public discontent across continents.

In the United Kingdom, Rishi Sunak’s meteoric rise was met with an equally rapid fall. As Britain’s first Indian-origin prime minister, Sunak’s tenure began with hope but was marred by soaring inflation, internal party divisions, and anti-incumbency sentiment. His Conservative Party faced a crushing defeat, cementing his legacy as one of the shortest-serving prime ministers in modern British history. Despite his efforts to stabilize the economy, Sunak could not overcome the baggage of a party battered by Brexit and pandemic-related challenges.

Japan’s Fumio Kishida also faced a tumultuous exit, resigning amidst corruption scandals and dwindling public support. His tenure, which saw Japan’s largest military buildup since World War II and efforts to strengthen ties with South Korea and the United States, was overshadowed by rising living costs and internal party strife. Kishida’s resignation leaves Japan at a critical juncture as it navigates regional security threats and economic instability.

Bangladesh’s Sheikh Hasina, one of Asia’s longest-serving leaders, was deposed in the wake of mass protests against her government. Celebrating her fourth consecutive election victory just months earlier, Hasina faced escalating unrest fueled by accusations of authoritarianism and economic mismanagement. Her abrupt departure, followed by the appointment of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus as interim leader, marked the end of an era in Bangladeshi politics. The country now stands at a crossroads, with elections slated for late 2025 or early 2026.

Belgium’s Alexander De Croo resigned after his party’s poor performance in national and European elections. Known for his unconventional political trajectory, De Croo brought private-sector expertise to governance but struggled to unite Belgium’s fragmented political landscape. His departure underscores the challenges of coalition politics in a deeply divided nation.

In Ireland, Leo Varadkar’s surprise resignation ended his historic tenure as the country’s first gay and biracial prime minister. While he guided Ireland through Brexit and significant social reforms, internal party tensions and a polarized political environment hastened his exit. Varadkar’s resignation reflects the growing difficulty leaders face in maintaining support amidst shifting societal and political expectations.

These unexpected exits reveal a common thread: leaders grappling with public discontent, economic challenges, and internal party dynamics. In an era of heightened political scrutiny and citizen activism, the events of 2024 remind us that even the most seasoned leaders are not immune to the shifting tides of global politics.

Impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol faces arrest over allegations of insurrection following his controversial martial law declaration.

In an unprecedented decision, South Korea’s Seoul Western District Court approved an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol, who has already been impeached and suspended from office following his contentious imposition of martial law on December 3. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) confirmed the court’s ruling, marking the first time in South Korean history that an arrest warrant has been issued against a sitting president.

Yoon, already under fire for declaring martial law amidst rising political and economic tensions, now faces serious allegations of leading an insurrection. Insurrection is one of the few charges for which presidential immunity does not apply in South Korea, placing Yoon in legally precarious territory.

The arrest warrant, valid until January 6, underscores the court’s concerns that Yoon may evade questioning without a valid justification. Investigators have reported Yoon’s failure to respond to three prior summonses, strengthening the case for his detainment. If arrested, Yoon will be held at the Seoul Detention Center, according to Yonhap news agency.

This dramatic development follows the impeachment motion passed by the opposition-led Democratic Party earlier in December. The charges stem from Yoon’s short-lived martial law declaration, which critics claim was an unconstitutional power grab aimed at consolidating control during a turbulent period of governance.

The fallout from Yoon’s actions continues to polarize South Korea’s political landscape. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) has condemned the arrest warrant as an overreach, with acting party leader Kweon Seong-dong criticizing the move as “inappropriate.” Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers argue that immediate execution of the warrant is essential to uphold the rule of law and accountability.

Yoon’s arrest would intensify the constitutional crisis engulfing South Korea, with national and international attention focused on how investigators handle the sensitive process of detaining a sitting president. Complicating matters further, the presidential security service has vowed to ensure due process but has historically resisted attempts to enforce investigative actions, including a failed police raid on the presidential office.

This situation highlights the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of extraordinary political events. Yoon’s arrest would set a powerful precedent, demonstrating South Korea’s commitment to holding leaders accountable, even at the highest levels of power. Yet, it also underscores the challenges of navigating deeply divisive political waters in a nation grappling with economic pressures and heightened political polarization.

As investigators push forward with their case, the outcome of Yoon’s legal battle will undoubtedly have long-lasting implications for South Korea’s political future. Whether seen as a victory for accountability or a dangerous precedent for political retribution, the case against Yoon Suk Yeol will redefine the boundaries of presidential power and judicial oversight in one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies.

Donald Tusk juggles domestic political pressures and international responsibilities during Poland’s six-month EU Council presidency.

Poland’s six-month presidency of the European Union Council, commencing on January 1, arrives at a critical juncture, with Prime Minister Donald Tusk facing dual challenges: a pivotal domestic presidential election in May and the pressing demands of Europe’s geopolitical landscape. This balancing act has raised questions about Poland’s ability to effectively steer the EU while navigating intense domestic and international pressures.

At the heart of Tusk’s domestic preoccupations lies the race to ensure a centrist successor to President Andrzej Duda, a staunch ally of the previous nationalist-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government. Duda’s term has been marked by obstruction of Tusk’s legislative agenda, from stalling ambassadorial appointments to undermining key reforms. Should a PiS-backed candidate win the presidency, Tusk’s government risks continued political gridlock, potentially paralyzing Poland’s legislative and executive functions through 2027.

These domestic stakes complicate Poland’s EU leadership. Critics within the bloc suggest that Poland’s presidency may prioritize national interests, particularly on contentious issues like migration, trade, and climate policies. While EU Affairs Minister Adam Szłapka has pledged impartiality, skepticism remains over Poland’s ability to act as an “honest broker” given the internal political distractions.

Geopolitics further heightens the stakes for Tusk. As the EU’s leading voice on military and financial support for Ukraine, Poland is bracing for potential challenges posed by Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency. Trump’s rhetoric on a peace deal potentially conceding Ukrainian territory to Russia threatens to weaken Western unity against Moscow and could embolden Kremlin ambitions.

Poland’s Council presidency will focus heavily on EU security, with priorities shaped by the war in Ukraine and its ripple effects across Europe. Securing consensus on policies to deter Russian aggression, maintain support for Kyiv, and align with the shifting geopolitical realities will be crucial. Yet, the task demands considerable political bandwidth, something Tusk may struggle to provide given his domestic focus.

Tusk’s return to EU leadership has revitalized Poland’s place in the centrist, pro-European fold after years of obstructionist policies under PiS. However, Warsaw’s alignment with Brussels is not without friction. Poland remains an outlier on sensitive issues like EU climate policy, which could stall progress on broader European agendas.

Despite these hurdles, expectations for Poland’s presidency are tempered. Following Hungary’s controversial term, Poland is unlikely to disrupt EU processes but may achieve limited advancements, particularly in its later months as the new European Commission gains momentum.

The interplay of domestic elections, EU Council responsibilities, and geopolitical tensions will define Tusk’s leadership in 2025. Success will depend on his ability to reconcile Poland’s national imperatives with its role as a European leader, ensuring the country’s presidency leaves a constructive legacy despite its many challenges.

Balancing immigration, cyber defense, and democratic safeguards amid economic uncertainty and a polarized electorate.

Germany faces a pivotal year in 2025 as political, economic, and societal pressures converge, demanding decisive leadership and innovative solutions. The country’s domestic policy will likely center on immigration control, bolstering cybersecurity, and safeguarding democratic institutions, but the challenges extend far beyond these focal points.

The deadly Magdeburg Christmas market attack has underscored the urgency of addressing domestic security and countering the rise of far-right extremism. Immigration remains a divisive issue, with local authorities claiming they are overwhelmed and opposition parties advocating stricter border controls. While asylum applications have decreased, fears of potential new refugee waves, spurred by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, loom large. These fears are amplified by populist narratives, which the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is poised to exploit in the upcoming February elections.

Beyond immigration, the German economy faces significant headwinds. High energy costs, labor shortages, and bureaucratic stagnation are eroding confidence among business leaders and the general public. Infrastructure, both physical and digital, lags behind modern standards, with government offices still reliant on outdated technologies like fax machines. Experts point to the country’s sluggish digital transformation as emblematic of its structural inefficiencies.

Adding to these woes is the persistent threat of cyberattacks, particularly from state-sponsored actors like Russia. Critical infrastructure, including power grids, remains vulnerable, and bolstering defenses has become an urgent priority. Strengthening intelligence services and equipping the police to handle cyber and physical threats will be vital in protecting Germany’s national security.

Democracy itself faces pressures, both from internal populist movements and external influences. The rise of the far-right has prompted a bipartisan push to safeguard institutions like the Federal Constitutional Court, ensuring its independence from political interference. Protecting minority rights and maintaining a pluralistic society are essential to upholding the democratic fabric of the nation.

These challenges are set against the backdrop of economic turbulence. Flagship companies like Volkswagen are struggling, and high inflation continues to erode household purchasing power. Policymakers must address these economic pressures while also navigating the complexities of immigration reform and national security.

The year ahead will test Germany’s ability to balance these competing priorities. Effective leadership, cross-party collaboration, and a commitment to democratic values will be essential in steering the country through this multifaceted crisis. In doing so, Germany has the opportunity to strengthen its foundations and reaffirm its role as a leader in Europe and beyond.

Israeli spies infiltrated Hezbollah for decades, culminating in Hassan Nasrallah’s assassination and the decimation of the terror group’s operations.

Israel’s decades-long infiltration of Hezbollah stands as one of the most meticulously executed intelligence campaigns in modern history. The New York Times investigation uncovers the deep reach of Israel’s espionage into the ranks of the Lebanese terror group, culminating in the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and the dismantling of critical Hezbollah operations. This extensive network, built through years of methodical intelligence gathering, reshaped the balance of power in the Middle East and weakened Iran’s regional influence.

The campaign against Hezbollah was rooted in operations conducted during and after the 2006 Lebanon War, which laid the groundwork for Israel’s ability to infiltrate the group. Early successes included planting tracking devices on Hezbollah’s Fajr missiles, which enabled precision strikes on hidden munitions sites during the war. The Mossad subsequently expanded its reach, recruiting human sources within Hezbollah who provided critical information about secret facilities, hideouts, and weapons caches.

In 2012, a breakthrough by Israel’s Unit 8200 revealed a trove of intelligence, including the exact locations of Hezbollah leaders, their hideouts, and missile batteries. This unprecedented access provided Israel with the confidence to dismantle Hezbollah’s retaliatory capabilities in preparation for potential military action against Iran. Over time, Israel’s “target portfolios” grew from 200 to tens of thousands, signaling the extent of their penetration into Hezbollah’s infrastructure.

One of the most audacious operations involved explosive pagers planted among Hezbollah operatives. While the devices offered unparalleled insight into the group’s activities, concerns arose in late 2023 when Hezbollah technicians suspected tampering and sent the devices to Iran for inspection. This prompted Israel to preemptively detonate the pagers, crippling thousands of Hezbollah operatives and signaling the beginning of a campaign that ended with Nasrallah’s assassination.

Nasrallah, a figure synonymous with Hezbollah’s defiance of Israel, underestimated the extent of Israeli surveillance. Despite warnings from his aides to relocate, he dismissed the possibility of an Israeli strike, unaware that his every move had been tracked for years. The strike not only eliminated Hezbollah’s leader but also shattered the group’s operational capabilities and dealt a blow to Iran’s ambitions in the region.

Israeli intelligence efforts extended beyond direct attacks, influencing broader geopolitical shifts. By neutralizing Hezbollah, Israel disrupted Iran’s regional strategy, weakened the Iran-led axis, and contributed to the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. These actions reshaped the dynamics of the Middle East, reducing the immediate threat posed by Hezbollah while buying time to address future challenges.

However, experts caution that Hezbollah’s resilience cannot be underestimated. Brigadier General Shimon Shapira notes that Hezbollah remains committed to rearming and rebuilding, with its raison d’être tied to its conflict with Israel. The group’s ability to recover and adapt underscores the necessity of sustained vigilance and intelligence efforts.

Israel’s decades-long infiltration of Hezbollah serves as a testament to the power of strategic intelligence operations. By embedding spies, leveraging advanced technology, and capitalizing on human sources, Israel dismantled one of its greatest adversaries from within. This campaign not only neutralized immediate threats but also set a precedent for the critical role of intelligence in modern conflict.

As the Middle East continues to evolve, the lessons from this extraordinary campaign offer insights into the challenges and opportunities of countering state-sponsored terror groups in a complex geopolitical landscape.