Artificial intelligence is beginning to lift productivity in parts of the US economy. In Britain, it is not. The difference is not technological capability, but institutions, incentives, and who is allowed to capture the...
The international system is no longer frictionless. Industrial constraint in Ukraine, cost exchange asymmetries in the Red Sea, rising United States debt service, China’s manufacturing scale, and energy intensity in artificial intelligence all signal structural change. Multipolarity is not rhetorical aspiration. It is emerging through theatre denial, industrial depth, and fiscal limits, even as some American foreign policy journals insist the world remains unipolar.
As Washington accelerates frontier AI and tightens chip controls, Beijing is building something different: a state-coordinated system that treats artificial intelligence as national infrastructure. The decisive question is no longer who builds the smartest model, but who can govern intelligence at scale without destabilising labour markets, information systems, and political legitimacy.
Germany’s postwar security model rested on delegated legitimacy: American power guaranteed order while Berlin embedded restraint inside NATO and law. That settlement is now fracturing not because the United States has withdrawn, but because its behaviour has become politically and legally unpredictable, forcing Europe into rearmament by necessity rather than ambition.
The United States is no longer relying on markets alone to price critical minerals. Through trade law, procurement rules, and allied coordination, Washington is bounding how prices form inside preferred supply chains.
Populism does not arise because voters reject democracy. It arises when democratic systems remove major economic and social decisions from public contest and insulate them from political challenge. When elections no longer change outcomes, disruption becomes the only remaining lever. What looks like instability is often delayed system feedback from depoliticised governance.
Elon Musk has consolidated his artificial intelligence venture xAI into SpaceX in a deal valued at around 1.25 trillion dollars, framing the merger as a response to a deeper constraint now shaping AI’s future. Behind the valuation story lies a harder question about power, infrastructure and limits that SpaceX alone cannot wish away.
Telegraph Online long read A war with Iran would not be decided by intent or rhetoric, but by logistics. The United States can sustain an intense campaign for only a few days before stocks run out.
Military deployments, diplomatic signalling, and regional positioning around Iran are no longer isolated acts of deterrence. They are forming a process that advances even in the absence of a formal decision. This essay examines how force posture, political sunk costs, and incompatible assumptions may already be constraining the ability of any actor to stop escalation once it begins.
At Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest American military installation in the Middle East, subtle changes are underway. US fighter aircraft have deployed forward, an aircraft carrier has entered the region, and logistics activity has surged. The evidence points to preparation for conflict with Iran, while stopping short of a decision to fight.
American protection is no longer automatic. Europe is exposed, China is unavoidable but risky, and Britain is rebuilding optionality. Keir Starmer’s Beijing visit reflects a deeper structural shift in the Western system.
A winter storm settles quietly over Plano, turning snow into ice and calm into constraint. Beneath the stillness, the storm reveals how North Texas infrastructure, built for another climate, strains under conditions that no longer feel exceptional.
CES 2026 did not prove that humanoid robots are ready for the world. It revealed something more consequential: an overcrowded market rushing toward the same idea at the same time. History suggests what comes next. When innovation peaks in abundance rather than differentiation, consolidation follows. Most of today’s humanoid robotics pioneers will not survive the shakeout.
When the United States seized Venezuela’s president, the spectacle was immediate but the real contest was not. China did not respond with noise or retaliation. It responded with doctrine: law, coalition-building, asset protection, and quiet leverage over the systems that matter. The raid was a moment. The struggle over custody, compliance, and power beneath it is ongoing.
The war in Ukraine did not break NATO. It exposed structural weaknesses that have existed inside the alliance for decades. This is an institutional autopsy of NATO as a war fighting system and why its political promises now exceed its military capacity.
Artificial intelligence has not solved drug discovery. It has exposed where pharmaceutical development really fails. As decision-making replaces invention as the bottleneck, Western drugmakers are quietly reorganising pipelines and partnerships pulling China into the system not by admiration, but by necessity.
Europe’s response to Donald Trump’s return is not pragmatic alliance management but a doctrine of appeasement. Repeated concessions to Washington have hardened dependency into habit, hollowed out sovereignty, empowered internal veto holders, and trained institutions to avoid using their own power. This essay explains how appeasement to Trump became path dependent and why it now functions as managed decline.
A single omitted quotation changes the meaning of a CIA visit to Caracas. When Delcy Rodríguez addressed the families of those killed in the January attack, she placed US intelligence engagement inside a family history of state killing. Western coverage reports the meeting. It omits the sequence that gives it meaning.
The United States is not short of power. It is short of closure. From Iran to Venezuela, Greenland to the Red Sea, Washington’s reliance on visible coercion is widening its obligations faster than it secures compliance. The result is not imminent collapse or world war, but a growing mismatch between reach, endurance, and political outcome.
As Arctic ice retreats, the High North is being transformed from a frozen periphery into a strategic corridor. This chapter examines why Greenland matters not as territory or mineral wealth, but as fixed infrastructure anchoring military transit, sensing, and enforcement in a newly passable Arctic and why capability, not sovereignty claims, is shaping the redistribution of the North.
When Iran shut down the internet in January, it did more than silence social media. It severed coordination, visibility, and momentum. This analysis explains how information control, Starlink disruption, and force on the ground stalled a protest movement many assumed was unstoppable.
Europe keeps invoking international law while lacking the power to enforce it. This article sets out the internal structures Europe must dismantle if rules are to bind allies as well as adversaries in an age of coercion.
President Trump’s proposal to impose a 25 per cent tariff on countries “doing business with Iran” marks a sharp departure from established trade practice. This article examines whether such a measure can be grounded in US statutory authority, administered lawfully, and sustained under WTO and public international law.
Europe insists it defends international law but has been cautious when an ally breaches it. From Venezuela where EU statements called for restraint and reiterated Maduro’s illegitimacy without legally condemning U.S. force to Greenland, where joint European statements reaffirm sovereignty, selective application risks eroding NATO credibility and Europe’s strategic standing.
Western governments presented satellite internet as a democratic safeguard against repression. Iran treated it as hostile infrastructure and moved to deny it. As communications collapsed, protest momentum faded. The lesson is strategic rather than moral: satellite internet is now a contested battlespace.
A week of strikes, outages, and ship seizures suggests the war is shifting from front lines to systems. Heat, water, power, and sea interdictions now shape escalation more than map lines do. With arms control treaties thinning and trust collapsing, the danger is not one dramatic decision but a chain of smaller precedents that shorten decision time and raise miscalculation risk.
Commercial oil tankers linked to Venezuela are being boarded, detained, and diverted on the high seas without a declared war, UN authorisation, or lawful blockade. This article details what is happening, names the vessels involved, and sets out the law governing maritime jurisdiction. It concludes that unilateral sanctions do not justify interdiction and that the seizures amount to illegal takings under international law.
U.S. officials say two tankers tied to Venezuelan oil were lawfully interdicted because they were “stateless”. Russia rejects that, insisting at least one vessel was properly flagged and registered, and argues the seizure was unlawful on the high seas. The clash is not only geopolitical. It is a test of what rules still govern boarding, flag status, and sanctions enforcement at sea.