What we’re watching is China systematically reduce all points of leverage the US once held.
It’s not an emotional boycott, it’s surgical.
If the US thinks it can bully countries into submission while relying on them for antibiotics and rare earths, it’s not just arrogance, it’s geopolitical suicide.
@MeghUpdates Lol….As if intelligence was not available prior to whole episode of CJP. Also, what happened with intelligence that was collected form Kissan Andolan?
So far no action against CJP…
Beijing spent mid-June quietly leaning on Kenya to cool its ties with Taipei, the same week Chinese diplomats were giving speeches about respecting the sovereign choices of developing nations. Small states get a real-time lesson in what 'non-interference' means to Beijing whenever their choices happen to involve Taiwan. Kenya isn't the first African state to get this treatment and won't be the last. The gap between China's rhetoric on sovereignty and its actual behavior toward smaller countries keeps getting wider, and somehow keeps getting less coverage each time.
The unipolar moment ended somewhere between the 2008 financial crisis and Russia's failure to get sanctioned into submission over four years of war. Nobody sent an announcement. It just happened, the way most historical shifts do, in a series of individual events that only look connected in hindsight: BRICS expansion, a Hormuz crisis nobody in Washington can fully control, a Taiwan Strait nobody wants to test. Multipolarity isn't a theory anymore.
The 11th Quad Foreign Ministers' Meeting happened in New Delhi in May, and the concrete output was the Indo-Pacific Maritime Surveillance Cooperation initiative, four navies sharing domain awareness data with an initial focus on the Indian Ocean Region specifically. That phrase, 'initial focus on the Indian Ocean Region,' is doing more diplomatic work than the entire joint statement around it. It's Washington, Tokyo and Canberra formally agreeing whose waters get watched first, and it isn't theirs.
@bears_aware They are minor threat if they are for that matter. Security forces would have superior training to handle such people.
If they are lawfully executing this act, then no reason to be alarmed.
The world order that existed from 1991 to 2022 one dominant superpower, dollar hegemony, the presumption of Pax Americana is functionally over. The evidence: a land war in Europe entering its fourth year. A Middle East war that shut 25% of global oil supply. China expanding its maritime footprint in the South China Sea without serious consequence. BRICS building a parallel financial architecture. None of this was supposed to happen simultaneously. All of it has. The question isn't whether multipolarity is coming. It's already here. The question is who has the positioning, the patience, and the strategic clarity to shape it.
The Diplomat's headline on India-US relations in June 2026: "Too Important to Fail, Too Complicated to Trust." That's more accurate than anything in an official press statement. The US needs India to counterbalance China across the Indo-Pacific. India needs the US market and technology access. But three Indian sailors were killed by the US Navy. The $500 billion trade commitment was India's concession in response to a 50% tariff threat. The partnership works. But it's not a relationship between equals, and both sides know it. Jaishankar knows it better than Rubio does.
US and Israeli strikes on Iran killed at least 657 people and wounded 2,037 as of June 20. These are confirmed casualties on Iranian soil from a 109-day air war that began February 28. Iran retaliated with strikes on Israel, on US-aligned Gulf states, and on American bases across the region. It also effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz, causing what the IEA chief described as "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market." The stated goal was preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran, as of the ceasefire, does not have one. Whether that was worth 657 dead Iranians, a global energy crisis, and a still-intact Iranian regime is a question the press conferences haven't answered.
China sent coast guard vessels into Taiwan's restricted waters around Taiping Island on June 12, the first time ever. The world's attention was on the Iran ceasefire and Ukraine peace talks. That timing is not a coincidence. China's expansion in the South China Sea has operated on one principle for 15 years: do something once, see if the objections are serious, then repeat until no one objects at all. They did it at Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Nobody stopped it. They did it in the Spratlys in 2014. Nobody stopped it. The pattern is not subtle. The pattern is a strategy.
The US spent three years trying to isolate China through export controls on semiconductors, tariffs, and alliance-building in the Indo-Pacific. China's strategic response isn't a military counter. It's BRICS. A parallel payment system. Local currency trade frameworks. The New Development Bank as an alternative to Bretton Woods institutions. China doesn't need BRICS to replace the dollar. It needs it to build enough of an alternative financial architecture that a meaningful slice of the world can function outside US-controlled systems. It's doing that, slowly, and Washington is underestimating it.
62% of Russians support peace negotiations. 61% of Ukrainians support territorial compromise to end the war. The publics on both sides want it over. Russia's government insists on all of Donbas. Ukraine's government won't cede territory without Western security guarantees. The EU and UK want to be at the table. The US wanted a deal by June and missed its own deadline. The people who are actually dying in this war want peace. The people making the decisions are not the ones dying. That gap explains more about why this war continues than any geopolitical analysis.
On June 17, the US and Iranian presidents signed a memorandum of understanding intended to end the Iran war within 60 days. Three days later, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to halt fighting. Markets exhaled. The IEA started talking about Hormuz reopening. But this MoU is not a peace treaty. It's a pause. Iran's nuclear programme hasn't been dismantled. Its proxy networks across the region are bruised but intact. And the regime survived 109 days of American and Israeli bombing. That's the fact that matters most for what comes next. Surviving that is its own form of deterrence.
BRICS isn't a coherent bloc. India explicitly won't sign the de dollarization agenda. Brazil hedges on everything. The UAE joined for NDB credit lines, not to start a geopolitical revolution. China uses BRICS to internationalise the yuan. But the West keeps treating it as a unified anti Western alliance which is exactly the relevance BRICS needs to stay in the conversation. The West is building the enemy it fears. Let them keep doing that work for free.
Three Indian sailors died in the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran war. The US started that war on February 28. Iran's closure of Hormuz was the response. India's citizens died in the resulting chaos. Washington acknowledged this at the G7. It was "mentioned." But nobody said out loud: the country whose sailors died wasn't the one that chose the war. India noted that. It always does. And these things compound in a bilateral relationship over time, quietly.
Ukraine retook 97 square miles in the last 30 days. Russia averaged 108 square miles per month for the prior 12. The math still favors Moscow, but the gap is closing. The G7 Évian declaration describes a "genuine strategic awakening" in European defence funding more weapons, faster delivery, clearer commitment than at any point in the war. Whether it changes the battlefield calculus by enough, fast enough, is the only question anyone in Kyiv is actually asking.
China sanctioned a sitting Philippine government official for calling China a "severe territorial threat." This is new. Beijing usually uses coast guard intrusions and fishing fleet pressure to signal displeasure. Sanctioning a minister is escalation on a different axis altogether. Every South China Sea claimant is watching how Manila responds now. Whatever the Philippines does next sets the next precedent. And China is betting Manila blinks first. Whether it does is the question that shapes the next five years in the Pacific.