Facing geopolitical tensions and internal pressures, NATO must balance unity, military readiness, and evolving alliances under uncertain U.S. leadership.

As NATO enters 2025, the alliance stands at a critical juncture, grappling with intensified geopolitical pressures and internal challenges. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency introduces a layer of unpredictability, raising questions about NATO’s cohesion and future strategies. Meanwhile, the ongoing war in Ukraine and calls for increased defense spending underscore the need for unity among NATO’s European members to address mounting security threats.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has emphasized the proximity of global conflicts to the alliance’s borders, describing the stakes as higher than ever. With Russian aggression escalating and Iranian and North Korean threats adding complexity, NATO must redefine its approach to security in Europe and beyond. The alliance faces the dual task of fortifying its defenses while maintaining solidarity with Ukraine, a crucial but contentious partner.

Trump’s anticipated push for higher defense spending, potentially beyond 4% of GDP, places additional pressure on European allies. While many nations met the 2% spending target in 2024, significant gaps remain in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, areas where Europe still heavily relies on U.S. support. European nations are working to address these deficiencies, but experts predict that achieving self-sufficiency in critical areas like satellite technology and large-scale transport systems could take over a decade.

The challenge of defense spending goes beyond budgetary constraints. For NATO’s European members, the push to increase military investment must be balanced against domestic political considerations and competing economic priorities. Trump’s insistence on a more significant European role in the alliance could compel member states to accelerate their efforts, but this may strain relationships within the bloc.

The war in Ukraine remains a focal point for NATO. As the conflict nears its third anniversary, European leaders are united in their rhetorical support for Kyiv but face limitations in filling financial and military gaps should U.S. aid diminish. The question of Ukraine’s NATO membership looms large, with significant divergence between European support and potential U.S. resistance under Trump’s administration. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made NATO membership a cornerstone of his foreign policy, but opposition within the alliance, particularly from Germany and potentially the U.S., threatens to stall progress.

To maintain transatlantic unity, NATO must navigate these divisions carefully. European members argue that NATO’s relevance extends beyond regional security, highlighting its role in countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. The alliance has deepened ties with partners like Australia, Japan, and South Korea, aiming to address the growing Russia-China alignment. By framing NATO’s activities as essential to U.S. interests in Asia, European leaders hope to secure continued American engagement.

Ultimately, NATO’s ability to confront these challenges hinges on its adaptability and cohesion. Strengthening European autonomy in defense, maintaining solidarity with Ukraine, and managing Trump’s demands for a recalibrated alliance will require diplomatic finesse and strategic foresight. The stakes are not just NATO’s survival but the broader stability of the transatlantic and global security architecture.

As 2025 unfolds, NATO faces the task of proving its resilience in an era of evolving threats and uncertain alliances, reaffirming its role as a cornerstone of collective defense and a stabilizing force in an increasingly volatile world.

President-elect Donald Trump backs the H-1B visa program for skilled foreign workers, fueling tensions among his supporters and highlighting the divide on immigration policy.

President-elect Donald Trump has reignited a polarizing debate on immigration policy by siding with billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk in defense of the H-1B visa program for skilled foreign workers. Trump, whose first presidency was marked by efforts to restrict immigration, surprised many on Saturday by openly supporting the program. Speaking to The New York Post, Trump described the H-1B visas as a “great program” and noted his personal experience employing foreign workers through it.

Elon Musk, a staunch advocate of the program and a naturalized U.S. citizen himself, sparked the controversy by defending the H-1B system against criticism from far-right activists and Trump supporters. Musk emphasized the critical role foreign talent plays in driving innovation within the U.S. tech industry. Tesla, one of Musk’s companies, secured 724 H-1B visas this year alone, underscoring the tech sector’s reliance on skilled immigrant labor to meet its workforce demands.

The debate escalated when Steve Bannon, a longtime Trump confidante, criticized “big tech oligarchs” for supporting the program, which he argued undermines wages for American workers and jeopardizes Western civilization. Musk and other tech leaders countered by drawing a distinction between legal immigration, represented by H-1B visas, and illegal immigration, arguing that skilled foreign workers fill critical gaps in the U.S. labor market.

This issue highlights the tension within Trump’s political coalition. While his base largely favors stricter immigration policies, including restrictions on work visas, Trump’s alignment with Musk indicates a more nuanced stance on skilled immigration. The tech industry, which played a significant role in supporting Trump’s campaign through donations and policy advice, sees the H-1B program as indispensable. Musk has been particularly vocal, citing a lack of domestic talent to fill essential roles in the rapidly expanding technology sector.

Trump’s endorsement also comes amid scrutiny of his choice of Sriram Krishnan, an Indian American venture capitalist, as an adviser on artificial intelligence. Critics have linked Krishnan’s appointment to perceived shifts in Trump’s immigration policies, further inflaming debates about the influence of foreign-born professionals in shaping U.S. policy.

The U.S. tech industry, reliant on skilled immigrants to sustain growth and innovation, stands at the heart of this debate. Critics of the H-1B program argue that it undercuts wages and displaces American workers. Advocates, however, contend that the program is vital for maintaining America’s competitive edge, particularly in fields like artificial intelligence, software development, and engineering.

Trump’s remarks reflect a broader strategic calculation. By aligning with Musk, he signals support for the tech sector while attempting to balance his immigration-hardline image. Yet, this move risks alienating parts of his base, particularly those who view any form of immigration as a threat to American jobs and identity.

As Trump prepares to assume office, the H-1B visa debate encapsulates the complexities of modern immigration policy. It pits economic pragmatism against nationalist sentiments, with the tech industry serving as a battleground for these competing visions. The outcome of this debate will likely shape the U.S. labor market, the future of innovation, and the broader discourse on immigration for years to come.

Riyadh seeks advanced fifth-generation stealth aircraft from Türkiye, highlighting regional defense shifts and strengthening bilateral ties.

Saudi Arabia has entered advanced negotiations with Türkiye to acquire 100 Kaan fifth-generation fighter jets, underscoring a significant regional defense realignment. The discussions, held during a high-level meeting in Istanbul, included strategic elements such as technology transfer and potential joint production, reflecting Riyadh’s drive to diversify its defense procurement and reduce dependence on U.S. suppliers.

This potential deal is emblematic of Saudi Arabia’s broader strategy under Vision 2030, which emphasizes self-reliance in defense production and modernization of its military capabilities. The Kaan fighter jets, developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), offer cutting-edge features such as stealth design, advanced radar systems, and interoperability with drones and other platforms, positioning them as a competitive alternative to the U.S.-made F-35, which remains inaccessible to Saudi Arabia due to political and human rights concerns.

The Strategic Appeal of the Kaan Fighter Jet

The Kaan, Türkiye’s flagship fifth-generation fighter, boasts advanced capabilities including super cruise speed, a combat range of 1,100 kilometers, and an AESA radar capable of detecting targets over 100 kilometers away. With its internal weapon bays and reduced radar cross-section, the Kaan meets the modern demands of stealth and multirole functionality. Initial versions are powered by General Electric engines, with future iterations set to integrate domestically developed powerplants.

For Saudi Arabia, acquiring the Kaan represents an opportunity to bridge its fifth-generation fighter capability gap. The Royal Saudi Air Force currently operates F-15s, Typhoons, and Tornadoes but lacks a platform with the advanced features offered by the Kaan. Importantly, Türkiye’s willingness to explore technology transfer and joint production aligns with Saudi Arabia’s ambitions to localize defense manufacturing.

Deepening Türkiye-Saudi Defense Ties

This negotiation follows a series of high-profile defense collaborations between Türkiye and Saudi Arabia, including a $3.1 billion deal for Baykar AKINCI drones in 2023. Bilateral defense relations have intensified, with both nations pursuing joint projects and technology transfer agreements. Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI) has actively partnered with Turkish firms like Aselsan and Roketsan, focusing on aerospace technologies and unmanned systems.

Türkiye’s growing prominence as a defense exporter is rooted in historical efforts to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. Its indigenous programs, like the Bayraktar TB2 and the Anka series drones, have proven operationally effective in conflicts from Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh, cementing Türkiye’s reputation as a reliable producer of advanced yet cost-effective military platforms.

Regional and Geopolitical Implications

Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of the Kaan fighter jets reflects a broader shift in the Middle Eastern defense landscape. U.S. restrictions on the F-35, coupled with regional security challenges, have pushed Riyadh to seek alternatives. The potential deal with Türkiye not only meets Saudi Arabia’s operational needs but also strengthens its defense ties with a NATO member, diversifying its strategic partnerships.

For Türkiye, a successful sale would solidify its role as a global defense player. The agreement would enhance its economic and geopolitical influence, especially as it continues to expand its export footprint in the defense sector.

However, the potential sale also carries strategic risks. It could further strain U.S.-Saudi relations, already tested by disagreements over human rights and regional policies. Additionally, it raises questions about how a strengthened Saudi air force might impact the region’s military balance, particularly in the context of tensions with Iran.

Conclusion

The prospective deal for 100 Kaan fighter jets represents a critical juncture in Saudi-Turkish relations and the broader defense dynamics of the Middle East. As Riyadh moves to modernize its military and reduce dependency on U.S. technology, Türkiye’s Kaan program offers a viable and strategic solution.

This development underscores Türkiye’s emergence as a key player in the global defense industry while highlighting the evolving priorities of Saudi Arabia under Vision 2030. If finalized, the agreement could reshape defense collaborations in the region, signaling a new era of strategic autonomy for both nations.

Amid EU skepticism and fiery rhetoric, Milanović heads for a likely runoff against pro-European rival Dragan Primorac.

As Croatia’s “super election year” concludes, Zoran Milanović, the country’s controversial president, is poised to secure reelection. Known for his fiery populism and Euroskeptic stance, Milanović leads polls with 39% heading into the December 29 presidential election. While his victory in the first round is unlikely to reach the required majority, a runoff against Dragan Primorac, the candidate of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (HDZ), is expected on January 12.

The animosity between Milanović and Prime Minister Andrej Plenković has defined the campaign. Milanović, a former prime minister and member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), has used sharp rhetoric to position himself as a nationalist critic of the EU and NATO. He has derided Plenković as a “dictator” and accused him of being subservient to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Milanović has also criticized Western sanctions on Russia and blocked Croatia’s participation in NATO missions supporting Ukraine, aligning himself with more isolationist and anti-European policies.

Plenković and his party have framed the election as a choice between aligning with the West or drifting toward Eastern influence. He has championed pro-European policies and military support for Ukraine, presenting his party’s candidate, Dragan Primorac, as the alternative to Milanović. However, Primorac, polling at 24%, has struggled to gain traction. Observers cite his lack of charisma and his association with scandals plaguing Plenković’s administration, including the resignation or dismissal of 31 HDZ ministers this year due to corruption allegations.

The HDZ’s latest scandal involving Health Minister Vili Beroš, arrested in November on corruption charges, has further undermined Primorac’s campaign. Public skepticism about the HDZ’s integrity continues to overshadow its platform, giving Milanović an edge despite his polarizing rhetoric.

Milanović’s popularity stems from his ability to capitalize on public discontent over corruption, immigration, and economic challenges, presenting himself as a nationalist defender against perceived EU overreach. His sharp critique of HDZ’s handling of these issues resonates with a significant portion of voters, despite—or perhaps because of—his combative style.

If the election proceeds to a runoff, Milanović’s populist appeal and the HDZ’s tarnished reputation make him the clear favorite. However, his reelection would solidify Croatia’s divided political landscape, with a nationalist president and a pro-European prime minister locked in ongoing rivalry.

As Croatia navigates its future within the EU, the outcome of this election will shape its domestic and international policies, particularly in relation to Ukraine, regional cooperation, and relations with Brussels. Milanović’s reelection could signal a continued shift toward nationalist populism, while a surprise victory for Primorac would reaffirm Croatia’s commitment to European integration.

Rights groups, lawyers, and politicians demand action as 82 disappearances since June spark allegations of a secret security unit targeting dissenters.

Kenya is facing a rising wave of public anger over a spate of abductions targeting government critics, with rights groups, lawyers, and politicians accusing security forces of involvement in the disappearances. Since youth-led protests against President William Ruto’s administration erupted earlier this year, the reported abductions have highlighted the government’s alleged crackdown on dissent.

The Disappearances

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) has documented 82 abductions since June, with 29 individuals still missing. Among the recent cases are Billy Mwangi and Peter Muteti, both taken after sharing controversial AI-generated images of President Ruto. These incidents have intensified accusations that the government is targeting critics, particularly young people, who voice opposition online.

Security agencies have denied involvement, but their lack of visible action has drawn sharp criticism. Activists and legal bodies, including the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), argue that police inaction raises serious concerns about complicity or negligence. The LSK has called on the inspector-general of police to investigate and prosecute those responsible or resign.

Allegations of a Secret Unit

Reports from Human Rights Watch and statements from former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua point to the existence of a clandestine security unit allegedly responsible for these abductions. Gachagua, who has become an outspoken critic of Ruto’s administration, described the disappearances as unprecedented and condemned the targeting of young people as “repression.”

Human Rights Watch has previously implicated a multi-agency security unit in such operations, raising questions about accountability within Kenya’s security forces.

Judiciary and Civil Society Response

The Kenyan judiciary has weighed in, denouncing the abductions as a violation of fundamental rights. In a statement posted on X, it urged security agencies to uphold the rule of law and safeguard citizens’ freedoms. Civil society organizations and protestors have echoed these calls, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability.

Political and Social Backdrop

The disappearances come amid a broader climate of dissatisfaction with Ruto’s administration. Protests earlier this year over proposed tax hikes highlighted widespread frustration with rising living costs and allegations of police brutality. While large-scale demonstrations have subsided, simmering discontent continues to fuel public anger against the government.

The administration’s alleged targeting of youth, who have been vocal in their criticism, risks exacerbating tensions. Actions perceived as silencing dissent could undermine public trust and escalate unrest.

Conclusion

The surge in abductions has cast a shadow over Kenya’s democratic credentials, with critics accusing the government of using fear and repression to stifle opposition. As pressure mounts from rights groups, the judiciary, and international observers, the government must address these allegations transparently to restore public confidence.

Without swift and decisive action, the crisis risks deepening, eroding Kenya’s stability and international standing. The coming weeks will be pivotal in determining whether the government can navigate these challenges while safeguarding citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Senior Taliban leader confirms refuge for TTP militants, escalating cross-border tensions with Pakistan after deadly airstrikes in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s acknowledgment of hosting Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants on Afghan soil marks a significant shift in the group’s public stance and escalates tensions with neighboring Pakistan. The admission came after reported Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, which targeted TTP hideouts and allegedly killed both militants and dozens of civilians.

This development highlights the growing challenge of cross-border militancy in the region and underscores the complexity of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations under Taliban rule.

Taliban Information Minister Khairullah Khairkhwa’s remarks described the TTP as “guests” in Afghanistan, citing traditional Afghan values of hospitality. While the Taliban leadership had previously denied harboring foreign militants, this public acknowledgment signals a shift in rhetoric and reinforces suspicions about the group’s complicity in providing safe havens for anti-Pakistan militants.

Khairkhwa’s fiery statements also warned Pakistan against military actions on Afghan soil, invoking the historical failures of foreign powers in Afghanistan, including Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States.

The TTP has intensified its insurgency in Pakistan since the Taliban regained power in Kabul in 2021. Designated as a global terrorist organization by the United Nations, the TTP has carried out numerous attacks in Pakistan, killing hundreds of civilians and security personnel.

Pakistan’s recent airstrikes in Paktika province, while unacknowledged officially, were reportedly aimed at dismantling TTP hideouts. However, allegations of civilian casualties have drawn condemnation from the Taliban and international organizations, further straining relations between the two countries.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has called the TTP’s presence in Afghanistan a “red line” for Pakistan, urging the Taliban government to curtail the group’s operations. While Sharif expressed readiness to engage in dialogue with Afghanistan, he emphasized that progress hinges on Taliban action against TTP militants.

The Taliban’s justification for sheltering the TTP echoes its past defense of hosting Osama bin Laden, citing traditional hospitality norms. This pattern of shielding transnational militants has long complicated Afghanistan’s relationships with neighboring and global powers.

The TTP, like the Taliban during their insurgency, has leveraged cross-border sanctuaries to sustain its operations, exploiting the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This dynamic mirrors the challenges faced by the U.S. and its allies during their two-decade military campaign in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s tacit support for the TTP undermines their pledge to combat transnational militant networks. It also raises questions about their commitment to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a launchpad for regional and global terrorism.

A recent U.S. terrorism report highlighted the resurgence of militant networks in Afghanistan, emphasizing the risks posed by the TTP and other groups operating from Afghan territory. This resurgence not only threatens regional stability but also undermines international confidence in the Taliban’s counterterrorism efforts.

The Taliban’s acknowledgment of harboring anti-Pakistan militants reflects a deepening crisis in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. While the Taliban invoke cultural traditions to justify their actions, the implications for regional security are severe.

As cross-border tensions escalate, the international community faces the challenge of addressing Afghanistan’s role as a sanctuary for militant groups while balancing humanitarian and geopolitical concerns. For Pakistan, the TTP’s continued presence in Afghanistan is not just a diplomatic concern but an existential threat that demands immediate and coordinated action.

As Beijing escalates military activities, Taipei seeks clarity on U.S. policy under Trump while bolstering defenses against mounting threats.

Taiwan finds itself at a critical juncture as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House. Amid Beijing’s increasing military aggression and gray zone tactics, Taipei faces uncertainty about how Trump’s administration will handle U.S.-Taiwan relations, a cornerstone of stability in the region.

Donald Trump’s rhetoric on Taiwan during his campaign offered mixed signals, leaving policymakers in Taipei cautiously optimistic but concerned. While Trump praised Taiwan’s economic prowess, he controversially suggested that the island “pay for defense” and emphasized prioritizing U.S. interests. His pledge to impose heavy tariffs on China if it “goes into Taiwan” reflects a transactional approach to U.S.-Taiwan relations.

Trump’s return comes as Taiwan grows accustomed to more explicit support under Joe Biden, who repeatedly affirmed the U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. Trump’s vague post-election remarks about his “good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping add to Taipei’s unease.

In recent weeks, Taiwan has ramped up diplomatic efforts with U.S. officials and Trump’s transition team to secure continuity in relations. President Lai Ching-te’s outreach to Republican congressional leaders and stopovers in Hawaii and Guam signal proactive engagement to build bipartisan support for Taiwan in Washington.

On the home front, Taiwan is strengthening its defenses against Beijing’s escalating military pressure. The island’s defense budget is set to reach a record $19.74 billion in 2025, funding initiatives like real-combat drills and a civil defense committee to counter China’s gray zone tactics.

Beijing has intensified its military pressure campaign on Taiwan, conducting two blockade-style exercises in 2024 and deploying the largest number of naval and coast guard vessels near Taiwan in decades. Gray zone operations, such as sending oversized coast guard ships to intimidate Taiwan’s outlying Kinmen and Matsu islands, complicate Taipei’s defense strategy.

These tactics aim to exhaust Taiwan’s resources and test its response capabilities while avoiding direct conflict. China’s Foreign Ministry has reiterated its resolve to “safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity,” signaling that Beijing’s pressure will persist regardless of Trump’s policies.

Taiwan’s future hinges on its ability to navigate the dual challenges of managing ties with the U.S. under Trump’s unpredictable leadership and countering Beijing’s aggression. While bipartisan support in Congress provides some reassurance, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy could introduce uncertainties.

Taipei’s bolstered defense measures and diplomatic efforts reflect a pragmatic approach to mitigating risks. However, as China assesses Trump’s stance, its actions may escalate further, necessitating careful coordination between Taiwan and its international allies to preserve stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Taiwan stands at a pivotal moment as it balances rising threats from China with the uncertainties of U.S. policy under Trump. While proactive measures strengthen its defense and diplomatic ties, the island must remain vigilant and adaptive to maintain its security and sovereignty in an increasingly volatile region.

Moscow cautions Trump administration over possible resumption of nuclear tests, signaling heightened risks to global stability.

As arms control agreements between global powers erode, Russia has issued a stark warning to the United States about the potential resumption of nuclear testing under Donald Trump’s upcoming administration. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, Moscow’s lead on arms control, cautioned that such a move could usher in a perilous new chapter in nuclear weapons development, nearly eight decades after the first nuclear bomb test.

Resurgence of Nuclear Testing?

Ryabkov’s remarks reflect growing tensions between the U.S. and Russia, with both nations modernizing their nuclear arsenals amid the collapse of Cold War-era treaties. Trump’s previous stance on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) — which the U.S. has signed but not ratified — suggests a potential pivot toward renewed testing, a step that would mark a significant departure from global norms.

“The international situation is extremely difficult at the moment,” Ryabkov told Kommersant newspaper, emphasizing that U.S. policies are perceived as “extremely hostile.” Russia’s warning underscores its readiness to respond in kind, should the U.S. resume testing.

The resumption of nuclear testing by the U.S. or Russia could destabilize decades of arms control efforts. Such actions would not only intensify the arms race but could also embolden other nuclear powers like China to follow suit, further destabilizing global security.

With Russia, the U.S., and China already engaged in significant upgrades to their nuclear capabilities, renewed testing could exacerbate tensions and undermine fragile agreements aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation.

The Crumbling Arms Control Framework

The decline of Cold War-era treaties has left the global arms control framework in tatters:

The INF Treaty, which eliminated intermediate-range missiles, dissolved in 2019.

The New START Treaty, limiting strategic nuclear arsenals, faces an uncertain future as its 2026 expiration approaches.

Trump’s potential return to office could signal a further unraveling of these agreements, with a more unilateral approach to U.S. nuclear policy likely to provoke adversaries.

China’s rapid modernization of its nuclear arsenal complicates the global arms control landscape. While Beijing remains a far smaller nuclear power than the U.S. or Russia, its refusal to participate in multilateral arms control discussions adds another layer of uncertainty to an already volatile situation.

Ryabkov’s warning highlights the precarious state of global arms control as geopolitical tensions rise. A resumption of nuclear testing by the U.S. or Russia would represent a dangerous escalation, with implications far beyond bilateral relations.

As Trump’s administration considers its next steps, the world faces the prospect of a destabilized nuclear order, with heightened risks of proliferation, regional conflicts, and an accelerated arms race. The decisions made in Washington and Moscow in the coming months will determine whether the world moves closer to renewed nuclear brinkmanship or toward a renewed commitment to arms control.