Deep Dive on Ukraine’s War, Weaponised Water, Drone Diplomacy & Revolutionary Trade: Power Plays Explained
#252
Grüezi!
The Pentagon’s “five-point” Ukraine strategy reveals how America is rebuilding its defence industry while shifting costs to Europe—bureaucratic self-interest becomes grand strategy.
China frames US trade tensions through revolutionary history while European deficits widen dramatically—imports up 18%, exports down 7%—signalling the end of globalisation's golden era.
Turkey is a game-changer in South Asia’s stand-off—supplying Pakistan with advanced military technology while India weaponises water resources—reshaping conflict in a nuclear-armed region.
1️⃣ The Ukraine Calculus
Washington’s Pentagram Plan
72% of every Ukraine aid dollar recirculates within the US economy
New 155mm artillery shell facilities in Arkansas and Iowa cost $3.1 billion
America delivered 5.9 million tonnes of LNG to Europe in April alone
83% of Democrats support Ukraine aid while 79% of Republicans oppose it
Pentagon frames Ukraine as a testing ground for Indo-Pacific strategies
America’s Ukraine policy serves multiple strategic objectives: rebuilding its defence industrial base, testing great-power deterrence, securing energy markets, shifting costs to Europe and serving domestic political interests.
Sometimes this means orchestrating funding crises to pressure both Congress and European allies.
The Pentagon has leveraged the Ukraine conflict to rejuvenate America’s defence industry. When Washington pledges dollars to Ukraine, US defence contractors cash the cheques. A remarkable 72% of every Ukraine aid dollar recirculates within the US economy, pouring into missile factories, drone assembly lines and artillery shell plants across America’s heartland.
New 155mm production facilities are breaking ground in Arkansas and Iowa at a cost of $3.1 billion. The calculus is straightforward: fund today’s European war, build capacity for tomorrow’s potential Pacific confrontation.
Beijing Watches Closely
Behind closed doors, American officials frame Ukraine assistance in Indo-Pacific terms. Defence Department talking points consistently position the conflict as a real-world laboratory for counter-A2/AD tactics—precisely the capabilities needed to confront Chinese military expansion.
State Department spokespeople now mention Taiwan’s security in almost the same breath as Ukrainian aid packages.
The unspoken message to Beijing: America’s capacity to arm partners rapidly has been stress-tested and proven.
Each aid package serves dual purposes: supporting Ukraine’s defence while signalling broader resolve.
The Gas Gambit
As Europe’s largest LNG supplier—delivering 5.9 million tonnes in April alone—America has transformed Ukraine policy into energy trade policy. European Union preparations to import even more American gas reveal Brussels’ strategy to placate a Trump White House obsessed with trade balances.
This arrangement serves multiple interests: Europeans diversify their energy sources, American exporters secure markets, and Gulf Coast infrastructure expands. Meanwhile, European restrictions on Russian gas imports remain in place.
Shifting the Financial Burden
Pentagon guidance and Congressional resolutions increasingly emphasise that future Ukraine funding should be “EU-first.” House Speaker Johnson’s declaration that there’s “no appetite” for another mega-bill serves Washington’s cost-shifting agenda by design rather than accident.
The strategy is transparent to those who look closely: America provides initial capital while gradually transferring fiscal responsibility to Berlin, Warsaw and Paris. The United States retains strategic veto power and defence-industrial profits while Europeans assume the financial risks.
Domestic Electoral Calculations
83% of Democrats support Ukraine aid. 79% of Republicans oppose it. Ukraine has transformed from foreign policy issue into domestic political wedge, with aid votes functioning as litmus tests in Republican primaries.
Democratic representatives introduced new sanctions legislation in April, keeping Ukraine on the agenda. Both parties have incorporated Ukraine into their political messaging—Democrats emphasising support for democratic values, some Republicans appealing to voters with messages about prioritising domestic needs.
The Pentagon’s Pentagram
These five drivers create a self-reinforcing system. Expanded shell production provides credible surge capacity for Pacific contingencies. European dependence on American gas deepens precisely as Washington demands greater European defence spending.
The White House manages funding cycles to maintain pressure for continued support. The trans-Atlantic relationship has evolved, with energy security becoming as important as traditional security guarantees. Concerns about potential funding changes have accelerated European initiatives, including the use of proceeds from frozen Russian assets.
What to Watch
Three things worth watching in coming weeks.
Any formal EU-US energy agreement would underscore the connection between energy trade and Ukraine policy.
Congressional action on new sanctions legislation will indicate the depth of scepticism among moderate Republicans.
Pentagon procurement decisions on missile systems will show how Ukraine policy influences longer-term defence acquisitions.
Washington’s Ukraine policy—however awkwardly executed—serves multiple strategic objectives: rebuilding industrial capacity, demonstrating resolve to competitors, securing energy markets, encouraging European burden-sharing, and responding to domestic political imperatives.
2️⃣ The War’s Hidden Currents
Four forces reshaping the conflict
Four dynamics now shape this war more profoundly than any territorial gain or loss
North Korea has supplied some 4-6 million artillery shells and 148 KN-23/24 missiles to Russian forces
The contested “grey zone” has expanded from 2km to 7km as FPV drones proliferate
The EU recently transferred €2.1 billion of windfall profits from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine
Strategic momentum now depends less on territory than on supply chains and industrial capacity
The Ukraine conflict has evolved beyond territorial gains and losses. Four interlocking dynamics now shape the war more profoundly than any front-line skirmish or political statement.
The Pyongyang-Tehran Express: Moscow’s Industrial Life Support
Russia’s industrial deficits would be crippling were it not for an increasingly robust arms pipeline flowing from two of the world’s most isolated regimes.
North Korea has dispatched an estimated 4-6 million artillery shells and 148 KN-23/24 missiles to Russian forces, whilst Iran continues to supply Fath-360 missiles and Shahed-type drones.
The arithmetic is straightforward: Russian artillery expenditure now outpaces domestic production, and without this external pipeline, Russian barrages would fall silent.
Pyongyang and Tehran gain invaluable combat data for their own weapons development programmes, hard currency that evades international sanctions, and the prospect of reciprocal technology transfers in nuclear or space capabilities.
It’s a ménage à trois of mutual desperation.
Satellite imagery tracking shipments between Rajin and Vostochny ports shows three sailings per month in March alone. Any uptick would signal an expansion of this shadow supply chain.
The Deep-Strike Drone Duel: From Battlefield to Factory Floor
The war’s “contested zone” has changed dramatically. Ukrainian one-way drones recently struck the Shahed assembly line in Yelabuga, Tatarstan—a remarkable 1,200 kilometres from the front—whilst Russia launched its heaviest drone-missile raid on Kyiv this year in late April.
This escalation represents a profound strategic shift: both sides have recognised that destroying each other’s ability to produce weapons may prove more effective than destroying the weapons themselves. The “grey zone” between front lines has expanded from 2km to 7km as FPV drones and remote mining operations proliferate.
An overlooked consequence: insurance costs for shipping in the region have increased, adding economic pressure to Moscow’s war effort.
The Digital Draft: Manpower Squeeze in the Digital Age
At the start of April Russia called up 160,000 new conscripts while implementing electronic draft notifications. Ukraine, despite lowering its draft age to 25, continues to face challenges in meeting personnel requirements.
Troop availability will ultimately determine whether either side can rotate exhausted brigades before summer offensives commence. Both Kyiv and Moscow are engaged in a race against the demographic clock; by late summer, the side that manages to rotate units more efficiently will gain tactical initiative.
Kremlin desperation shows in ongoing Duma debates about extending reserve liability to age 60, whilst Ukrainian public backlash against harsher enforcement measures (like picking men of fighting age up off the streets) suggests similar strains on the other side.
Shadow Finance: Europe Finds Its Fiscal Teeth
The European Union recently transferred a second €2.1 billion tranche of windfall profits from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine and is contemplating outright seizure of these funds. Estonia detained a sanctions-listed tanker from Russia’s 600-ship “shadow fleet,” whilst American lawmakers draft legislation to strengthen sanctions enforcement.
With American aid delayed, European capitals have intensified financial measures. Moscow responds by routing oil trades through less transparent channels to circumvent price caps.
The most significant indicator to watch? Hungary’s position on extending EU sanctions, which could significantly affect frozen Russian assets and European financial commitments.
Consequences:
Expect increased targeting of transportation infrastructure near Russia’s border regions as Ukraine attempts to disrupt supply lines before a potential Russian offensive.
Companies operating in Russia’s energy and transport sectors should prepare for potential disruptions and sanctions-related risks.
Any legal precedent regarding Russian assets could transform approaches to economic sanctions globally.
Strategic advantage now depends less on territorial gains than on supply chain resilience, industrial capacity and political cohesion—particularly as aid configurations shift and European states potentially assume greater financial responsibility.
The front lines may appear static but profound changes are reshaping the conflict’s underlying dynamics.
3️⃣ Trump and Ukraine
Realpolitik or Russian Roulette?
Russia appears to have successfully exploited natural alignments with Trump’s views
European powers are not sitting idly by—Germany is moving to fill potential power vacuums
Current peace proposals would leave Russia “richly rewarded” for its invasion if territories remain occupied
Trump has “reopened the debate on nuclear weapons” in Europe
The relationship appears to be one of sophisticated influence rather than crude manipulation
In geopolitics, distinguishing deliberate influence from natural policy convergence requires careful analysis. Examining whether Russia shapes Trump’s Ukraine policy demands more than accusations of foreign control or simplistic slogans—it requires nuance.
Moscow Calling? The Evidence Ledger
Trump’s Ukraine policy would make even the most sanguine Atlanticist blanch. Defunding soft power initiatives, standing down cyber efforts, and creating cracks within NATO—all align remarkably well with the Kremlin’s long-standing desire to weaken the West.
The administration’s fundamental reorientation—pressuring Kyiv to consider territorial compromises while potentially easing pressure on Moscow—is a significant departure from the bipartisan approach that has characterised American policy.
Russian commentators haven’t been shy about their enthusiasm. Former deputy premier Vladislav Surkov called Trump “ideologically closer to Putin than to Macron.” When your arch-adversary’s strategists are openly celebrating your policy shifts, it might be worth asking whether you’re playing the right game.
Alternative Scripts: Reading Between the Lines
Before we rush to conclusions, several alternative explanations deserve consideration. These aren’t necessarily exclusive of Russian influence—reality rarely offers such clean distinctions—but they provide additional perspectives on these policy shifts.
Cold realist calculation. As VP Vance wrote a year ago: “Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide.” Brutal perhaps, but not without some foundation.
Domestic political considerations can’t be brushed aside either. Republican voters show far less enthusiasm for NATO and international commitments than Democrats. When fewer than half your electoral base views NATO favourably (compared with 75% of the opposition’s supporters), policy can inevitably follow politics.
Another explanation is tactical: using withdrawal threats as negotiating leverage. Trump has signalled potential consequences to both Moscow and Kyiv—an approach that applies business negotiation tactics to international relations.
The Balance Sheet: Winners and Losers
If current peace proposals allowed Russia to retain occupied territories, this would represent a significant shift in European power dynamics—and a substantial benefit for Moscow.
Alliance cohesion, meanwhile, has suffered tremors that register on the diplomatic Richter scale. European states are reconsidering security arrangements, including nuclear deterrence options. The transatlantic relationship faces its most serious challenges in decades..
The implications extend beyond Ukraine. If international commitments become conditional rather than binding, the entire rules-based order needs recalibrating.
Complex Causation: Beyond Simple Narratives
Rather than simplistic accusations of foreign control, evidence suggests multiple factors operating simultaneously.
Trump’s worldview shares elements with certain Russian perspectives—particularly scepticism toward multinational institutions and preference for bilateral relationships. This alignment can exist independently of direct influence.
Intelligence officials report that Russian information operations continue to evolve in sophistication and still seek to influence American politics. Moscow’s capabilities in this domain have advanced significantly since earlier efforts.
Consequences:
For NATO allies: European strategic autonomy—long discussed but rarely pursued with vigour—looks more like practical necessity.
For Ukraine: Diplomatic strategies must now account for decreased Western unity and potential abandonment scenarios.
For Russia: The Kremlin has demonstrated the value of strategic patience.
The evidence suggests Russia has effectively leveraged multiple factors—Trump’s policy preferences, American domestic politics, war fatigue and economic pressures—to advance its strategic interests regarding Ukraine. Whether through direct influence or by capitalising on natural alignments, the outcome aligns with Russian objectives.
This represents sophisticated influence rather than crude control—Moscow’s effectiveness at identifying and exploiting systemic vulnerabilities and individual weaknesses. The distinction matters for anyone seeking to understand the dynamics.
In geopolitics, as in poker, it’s often difficult to determine whether your opponent is extremely lucky or extremely skilled. In the end, it may matter less than the fact that they’re winning.
4️⃣ China’s Trade Strategy: The Maoist Playbook
How party rhetoric frames tariff tensions
Beijing is framing trade tensions through revolutionary history, invoking Mao’s 1938 treatise On Protracted War.
Party rhetoric positions China’s role as constructive compared to American “exploitation.”
The messaging prepares Chinese citizens for economic hardship whilst signalling strategic resolve abroad.
When Mao Meets Markets
Beijing Daily is Politico’s ‘Playbook’ on valium. But its staid ‘suet pudding’ prose is an interesting proxy for Chinese elite thinking. When it used Mao’s 1938 treatise On Protracted War to frame current US-China tensions, it’s worth paying attention.
Mao wrote at a time of profound national peril—Japanese forces had captured Shanghai and Xuzhou, with Wuhan under imminent threat. By connecting today’s trade disagreements to this existential struggle against foreign invasion, economic competition becomes a matter of national sovereignty and dignity.
Dialectics for Dummies
The article’s structure employs a classic party template, identifying and refuting two “incorrect” viewpoints: premature compromise and overconfidence. It charts a middle path of strategic patience and sustained effort.
This dialectical framing serves multiple functions: acknowledging competing viewpoints, establishing leadership’s analytical superiority, and creating space for tactical flexibility while maintaining strategic resolve.
It characterises American actions as fundamentally irrational—”desperate, gambler-like, and blame-shifting behaviours that arise from irreconcilable internal contradictions”—whilst portraying China’s approach as historically justified and strategically sound.
Speaking in Two Tongues
What’s clever about this messaging is its simultaneous operation on domestic and international frequencies, with different effects for different audiences.
For Chinese readers, it frames economic challenges as a historical necessity, redirects potential frustration toward an external adversary, reinforces self-reliance, and creates ideological coherence across technology, industry and trade policies.
For the wider world, it signals strategic patience to Washington, positions China as defender of the global trading system against American unilateralism, appeals to developing nations by framing US actions as “bullying”, and presents China’s development model as progressive and historically ascendant.
This dual-track approach is perfectly encapsulated in the Politburo’s linguistic sleight-of-hand—translating “国际经贸斗争” as “endeavours” for international consumption whilst maintaining the more combative “struggle” for domestic audiences. One message, two audiences.
Rallying the Troops
Beyond analysis, the article serves a clear mobilisation function. By invoking concepts like “self-reliance”, “crisis dividend”, and the need to break through “chokepoint technologies”, it provides ideological justification for specific policy priorities including domestic innovation, supply chain security, and technological independence.
References to “artificial intelligence, big data, integrated circuits, and new energy” aren’t random—they signal priority sectors for concentrated national effort.
Shopping as revolution—Chairman Mao meets consumer capitalism.
The mobilisation narrative extends to ordinary citizens, celebrating “countless patriotic stories” of consumption choices and investment decisions aligned with national priorities. Buying local becomes a patriotic act in a larger historical struggle.
Consequences:
Companies should prepare for prolonged trade tensions, with Chinese consumers potentially favouring domestic brands.
Priority sectors including AI, semiconductors and clean energy will likely see both increased state support and heightened oversight.
Beijing’s communications suggest a willingness to accept economic challenges for long-term strategic goals.
This is sophisticated strategic communication that serves multiple objectives simultaneously: preparing the public for economic challenges, reinforcing party legitimacy, signalling resolve internationally, mobilising support for policy priorities, and establishing ideological coherence.
It’s a reminder that in Beijing, economics is never just economics—it’s politics, history, and ideology all wrapped into one neat narrative package.
One suspects Chairman Mao would approve.
5️⃣ When China Broke Europe’s Trade Machine
The end of win-win growth
Europe’s trade deficit with China continues widening – imports surged 18%, exports fell 7% in early 2025.
Global trade-to-GDP elasticity has collapsed to just 0.6 – less than half its pre-pandemic norm.
Chinese EV exports to the EU collapsed by 44% in Q1 following provisional tariffs of up to 45%.
92% of the EU’s rare-earth magnets still originate in China despite diversification efforts.
The world is shifting from “Made somewhere, sold everywhere” to “Made and sold anywhere politics permits.”
In globalisation’s good old days, economists had a simple rule: more trade, more growth. Containers crisscrossed oceans, stacked on docks like Lego blocks, supply chains stretched elastically across continents, and global commerce expanded at twice the pace of GDP.
That era is now receding in the rearview mirror—and nowhere is this reversal more bitterly felt than in Europe’s increasingly lopsided relationship with China.
The Widening Gulf
Since 2013, European imports from China have grown at approximately 7% annually, while exports to China have increased by just 4%. Recent data shows this imbalance widening, with German exports to China falling by 19% year-on-year.
The consequen? A persistent trade deficit that constrains European economic growth.
Each additional container unloaded at Rotterdam is demand leaking abroad rather than circulating within Europe’s single market.
From Accelerator to Handbrake: Why Trade No Longer Boosts Growth
The IMF projects global GDP growth of 2.8% this year, with trade volumes expanding by just 1.7%. This puts the trade-to-GDP elasticity at just 0.6—under half its pre-pandemic norm.
For decades, trade wasn’t merely reflecting growth; it was magnifying it. Today, that multiplier effect has vanished.
Weak trade isn’t simply a symptom of sluggish output; it’s contributing to it.
Digital Detours and Regulatory Whack-a-Mole
Washington’s decision to eliminate its duty-free threshold on small packages caused Chinese parcel traffic to the US to plunge by two-thirds in Q1. But those parcels didn’t disappear; they simply rerouted.
With Brussels still allowing in goods under €150, parcel flows from platforms such as Shein and Temu rose by ~28% into the EU.
Europe’s customs authorities now face intense pressure to close this loophole. When—not if—they do, expect Chinese sellers to pivot yet again, perhaps towards Latin American markets less protected by tariff walls. The digital silk road, it seems, can be redirected with algorithmic efficiency.
Green Tech, Red Ink: How Climate Tech Fuels Trade Wars
European tariffs of up to 45% on electric vehicles have hit Chinese exports. Pure EV shipments to the EU fell by 44% in Q1, while suppliers have shifted toward hybrid vehicles that currently avoid these tariffs.
In solar technology, Chinese production has driven prices down by nearly 30% in a year, straining manufacturers and triggering trade defence measures. Climate technologies have become central to trade disputes.
The tech that was supposed to save the planet is now breaking global trade.
Critical Dependencies: The Supply Chain Achilles Heel
When the EU introduced new tariff codes for permanent magnets in 2023, the data revealed that 92% of the bloc’s rare-earth magnets still originate in China. Few European manufacturers realised just how dependent they were until the paperwork changed.
Expect Brussels to increase policy efforts to address these dependencies through subsidies, stockpiles and reshoring initiatives.
Consequences:
Portfolios built for 20th-century globalisation—shipping lines, container lessors, German auto giants—no longer deliver outsized returns when the global economy accelerates
Tariff risk must be modelled with the same rigour as currency risk—any product can transition from low-duty to prohibitive overnight
Expanding volumes no longer mean expanding profits—in solar and EVs, sales continue to set records, yet sector earnings are evaporating
The world is sliding from “Made somewhere, sold everywhere” to “Made and sold anywhere politics permits.” Europe’s yawning deficit with China is Exhibit A in this transformation.
For companies, financiers and governments, the imperative is to build flexibility into supply chains and investment strategies—because the easy growth multiplier that trade once supplied has vanished, perhaps irretrievably.
The new equation? Trade complexity equals political volatility. Those who adapt fastest will thrive in this fragmented commercial landscape.
6️⃣ A Triangular Tangle
How Turkey’s Drones Complicate the Indo-Pak Face-off
Turkey has been quietly deepening its strategic embrace of Pakistan through advanced military exports.
Seven C-130 flights recently delivered military cargo to Karachi and Islamabad.
India has weaponised water resources by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty.
Border skirmishes reportedly erased $10 trillion from global equities in a single week.
Drone technology is compressing crisis decision times to minutes or seconds.
South Asian geopolitics has a new actor. Turkey—NATO member, aspiring regional power, and increasingly confident arms exporter—is reshaping India-Pakistan rivalry with potentially far-reaching consequences.
The Ankara Angle: Drones, Frigates and Geopolitical Footprints
Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has been steadily deepening its strategic relationship with Pakistan. Recent cargo flights delivered military supplies to Karachi and Islamabad, coinciding with Pakistani military preparations.
The partnership extends to major weapons systems. Pakistan’s new naval frigates combine Turkish designs with Chinese weapons systems, while Ankara has also supplied advanced drones to Islamabad.
Security cooperation is reinforced by diplomatic alignment, with mutual support on sensitive issues like Cyprus and Kashmir.
The strategic logic is clear: Turkey provides affordable advanced weapons, China offers strategic depth, and Pakistan contributes geographic positioning.
This three-way arrangement allows China to maintain indirect pressure on India while limiting direct confrontation.
NATO’s Awkward Family Photo
Turkey’s actions reveal tensions within Western security structures. A NATO member’s military cooperation with Pakistan creates complications for alliance cohesion.
Timing could hardly be worse—potentially exacerbating tensions in a nuclear-armed region where Western influence is limited. American lawmakers are likely to consider export controls on sensitive components used in Turkish drone production. But Baykar, which already exports to 35 countries, is investing $300 million in its own jet-engine production line, to forestalling any future sanctions.
Meanwhile, France has strengthened its own position by finalizing a $7.4 billion fighter aircraft deal with India—illustrating how regional tensions create opportunities for different defence suppliers.
The Algorithmic Battlefield: When Seconds Count
The proliferation of missile-and-drone technology is radically compressing decision times everywhere.
When medium-sized powers can provide long-range precision weapons that require rapid response, crisis management increasingly shifts from diplomatic processes to automated systems. This dynamic is appearing in multiple conflict zones globally.
Human decision-making processes cannot match the speed of modern weapons systems. This technological acceleration fundamentally challenges traditional approaches to crisis management.
Water Wars: Climate Coercion Meets Techno-Coercion
Whilst Turkish drones potentially buzz overhead, Delhi has weaponised something far more fundamental—water. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and unannounced opening of Uri dam gates flooded portions of Pakistan-administered Kashmir in what can only be described as hydraulic intimidation.
The message Delhi sends is brutally efficient: India no longer requires air strikes to inflict pain on Pakistan; it merely needs to adjust a valve. For a world already tense over the Nile, Mekong and Colorado rivers, this represents the first interstate test case of water as a hybrid-warfare instrument.
Climate vulnerability has always been uneven, but its deliberate exploitation as a coercive tool marks a dangerous new frontier in statecraft. One might reasonably ask: if water becomes a weapon, what vital resource remains sacrosanct?
Consequences:
Escalation in key Pakistani ports would have immediate economic consequences for global shipping.
New international frameworks are needed to address proliferation of autonomous weapons before they spread to other conflict zones.
The Indus irrigation system supports the world’s fourth-largest rice exporter—disruption would reverberate through African and Middle Eastern grain markets
Turkey’s involvement transforms South Asian tensions from a bilateral standoff into a more complex, multi-dimensional challenge:
Middle powers now influence regional dynamics with technologies and strategic independence previously limited to major powers.
Major powers maintain influence but show limited ability or willingness to manage conflicts outside their core interests.
Non-traditional leverage points like water resources and supply chains have become as strategically significant as conventional military assets.
The international response will establish important precedents for similar challenges emerging globally.
The Turkey-Pakistan-India triangle is a warning and a preview of our fragmenting international order.
Multipolarity has arrived—neither as stable as hoped nor as chaotic as feared, but here nonetheless.
7️⃣ What Teenage Adrian Was Listening To
RIP Mike Peters, Prince of Welsh Poodle Punk
You don’t get lyrics like this any more:
“Like the rise and fall of the British Empire
You make me sick with your conceit…”
The hair may have been a mistake. But the songs…
Thanks for reading
Best,
Adrian
