The Great Game Changers: America Slips Anchor, Europe Panics and India’s Diplomatic Judo. Plus Bonus Global Intrigue. #246
Grüezi!
The US Navy takes off – America’s strategic ghosting of global shipping lanes has left energy markets in limbo – carrier groups weren’t charity troupes.
NATO’s Scandi-noir – Finland’s honeymoon with iron-clad security guarantees is over. Now it’s feeling chilly on Russia’s frontline…
“I am a victim” – The dark genius of modern politics: how victimhood became a a pathway to power.
1️⃣ The Twilight Of The ‘Pax Americana’
How America’s sea power shuffle is changing the global game
For over 70 years, American naval power guaranteed safe passage for oil tankers worldwide. This wasn’t good global citizenship – it was the backbone of the US-led economic order.
Today, that era is ending, with big implications for global energy security, trade patterns, and geopolitical alliances.
Goodbye “Cash and Carriers”
The reason is simple: America no longer needs Middle Eastern oil. Thanks to the shale revolution, the US has become a net energy exporter.
This got Washington thinking:
“Why should American taxpayers subsidise European and Asian energy security?”
You can see this shift in US naval deployment patterns – carrier groups spend less time in the Persian Gulf and more time in the Western Pacific, focused on China.
Even America’s response to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping hasn’t been overwhelming. Instead it’s been selective, focused on narrowly protecting what it sees as its direct interests rather than upholding a universal order.
Chokepoints Become Choke Holds
US retreat creates some immediate vulnerabilities at critical maritime chokepoints:
Strait of Hormuz (21% of global oil)
Malacca Strait (Asia’s energy lifeline)
Bab el-Mandeb (Red Sea access)
Suez Canal
For decades, energy markets have priced oil assuming that American protection of shipping lanes was permanent and free. That assumption is now quietly breaking down, creating the potential for massive volatility ahead.
Insurance rates for tankers are going up, but probably still don’t reflect the true risk in this new world. LNG carriers – the cornerstone of Europe’s energy transition strategy– are particularly vulnerable “high-value” targets with potential for catastrophe if attacked.
East Makes Plans. Europe Doesn’t.
China saw this coming years ago and developed a typically comprehensive response:
Expanding the navy;
Building the Belt & Road to reduce maritime dependence;
Stockpiling resources beyond pure economic necessity;
Re-shoring critical production.
Europe remains – need it be said – dangerously exposed.
European nations import 54% of their energy needs – a historic high – much of it via sea lanes that they can’t protect.
Despite this vulnerability, their naval spending isn’t sufficient. The EU can handle anti-piracy missions but it can’t secure vital shipping lanes against state-level threats.
Middle Eastern producers are investing in naval capabilities, but they can’t replace America’s security guarantees.
Portfolio Theory Meets Geopolitics
We’re witnessing the dawn of “Security-First Energy Politics” – where protecting energy supplies trumps both economic efficiency AND environmental concerns.
When Russia cut gas supplies, even climate-conscious Germany immediately returned to coal.
States reveal their real priorities through what they do, not what they say.
The hierarchy is unmistakable:
Security
Economic efficiency
Environmental concerns
This reordering of priorities is reshaping energy investments worldwide:
Renewables are becoming security assets, not just climate solutions
Nuclear power is returning to favour
LNG terminals are now strategic infrastructure
Cross-border pipelines are growing in importance
France’s nuclear programme illustrates this perfectly.
The French have one of Europe’s lowest carbon footprints – but they didn’t build nuclear plants to save the climate. They did it because they lost access to Algerian oil and gas.
Security drove decarbonisation, not vice versa.
The Great Powers Vacuum
In this new world, you have to look at energy assets through a security lens:
Domestic production premiums will grow;
Fixed-return assets (nuclear, renewables) offer stability;
Variable-return assets (storage, upstream) hedge inflation;
Grid investments connect these diverse sources.
The ‘just-in-time’ global supply chain model assumed reliable, secure maritime shipping.
Forward-thinking businesses are already:
Building inventory buffers;
Diversifying supplier geography;
Near-shoring critical production;
The American Anchor Slips
The gap between American naval retrenchment and viable alternative security arrangements is the danger zone.
We’re entering this perilous period now, creating opportunities for disruptive forces like the Houthis to test new boundaries.
Some early attempts at new security arrangements are already emerging:
The Quad (US, Japan, Australia, India);
AUKUS (focused on China, not shipping);
Gulf states investing in naval capabilities;
ASEAN cautiously enhancing maritime cooperation.
Yet none comes close to replacing US capabilities.
The Great Maritime Reckoning
We’ve built a global economy assuming free movement across oceans was guaranteed by American power.
As that guarantee weakens, geography, alliances, and security capabilities will all matter once again as much as comparative economic advantage.
The uncomfortable truth? We’re entering an era where the free movement of goods across oceans – something taken for granted for decades – will become more contingent, more expensive, and less reliable.
2️⃣ Finland’s Nordic NATO Noir
The ghost of Brexit threatens Europe’s €800bn security reboot.
Finland’s NATO honeymoon is over. Two years after joining the alliance with high hopes following Russia’s Ukraine invasion, Helsinki now finds its security guarantees looking increasingly shaky as Trump returns to the White House.
The Finns aren’t alone in their anxiety. Even Switzerland – neutral since 1515 – is quietly reconsidering its position, with 53% of Swiss now favouring closer NATO ties.
Plan B Takes Shape
Finland is quietly pivoting to a “Nordic Plus” strategy – a regional security arrangement with Sweden, Norway, the UK and France that would combine Nordic logistics with British firepower and French nuclear deterrence.
This Plan B suddenly has real financial muscle behind it. Brussels is finalising an €800 billion European rearmament plan that could transform the continent’s defence capabilities – if member states can overcome their political differences.
The Franco-British Wrinkle
Here’s where Finland’s backup plan hits a snag. The UK wants its defence companies classified as “European” in this massive initiative, with Keir Starmer essentially seeking the defence benefits of EU membership post-Brexit.
France is having none of it. Emmanuel Macron has demanded “buy European” clauses that benefit EU manufacturers – particularly French defence giants.
European Commission President von der Leyen believes the rearmament plan would be “stronger with the UK involved” and has support from the Netherlands, Poland and Baltic states. But France, the continent's nuclear power, holds significant sway.
Security vs. Industrial Politics
This isn’t merely bureaucratic squabbling. The British defence industry contributes $48 billion annually to the UK economy. For Finland, these tensions strike at the heart of its security planning – its Plan B strategy depends on seamless cooperation between Britain and EU members, precisely what France seems determined to prevent.
Mario Draghi’s vision of integrated European armed forces and concentrated defence procurement aligns perfectly with Finland's aspirations, but can't overcome the fundamental political divide.
The Bottom Line
Europe faces a critical choice: prioritise collective security or national industrial interests. Finland’s Plan B might be strategically sound, but it’s caught in post-Brexit politics that have nothing to do with defence logic and everything to do with economic competition.
The uncomfortable truth? Finland’s security planning now hinges not just on Russian threats and American reliability, but on whether France and Britain can set aside their rivalries for the greater European good.
#EuropeanSecurity #NordicDefence #SwissNeutrality #StrategicAutonomy #Trump #NATO
3️⃣ Does Europe Want Russian Gas Back?
Do EU capitals still keep a flame burning for Moscow’s methane?
Here’s the question being whispered around some EU corriedors – would Europe benefit from Russian gas flowing back into its networks?
The Great Decoupling
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Europe has achieved what many thought impossible. Russian gas imports plummeted by 70-80%, with Russia’s share of EU imports falling from approximately 40% to low double digits today.
Only TurkStream remains operational among the four major pipelines that once carried Russian gas westward.
This transition came primarily through conservation rather than finding alternative suppliers. EU gas consumption fell by a remarkable 19%, while supply moved to Norway (32%), the US (14%), and Algeria (10%).
The Economic Price Tag
The shift away from Russian gas wasn’t painless:
Energy-intensive industries suffered output declines of 6-27%;
Nearly a million manufacturing jobs disappeared across the continent;
Industrial competitiveness suffered as European factories paid more for energy than global competitors.
Yet the macroeconomic impact was surprisingly modest – approximately 0.2% of EU GDP during the toughest phase. Eastern and Central European industrial centres were the hardest hit.
Would Cheaper Gas Revitalise European Industry?
The theoretical advantages of Russian gas returning to European markets are pretty straightforward:
Lower energy costs for struggling manufacturers;
Potential recovery of lost industrial capacity;
Improved competitiveness against American and Asian producers;
Reduced inflationary pressures across economies.
Beyond Economics: The Strategic Calculation
The fundamental question isn’t whether cheaper gas would provide economic benefits– it undoubtedly would – but whether these benefits outweigh the strategic costs of renewed dependence on an unreliable supplier.
As German defence expert Janis Kluge wrote:
Buying 1 euro of Russian gas requires 2 euros of additional defence spending, so: Thanks, but no thanks.
The Verdict?
Europe’s passed the point of no return. While certain countries and industries might welcome cheaper Russian gas, the continent has demonstrated unexpected resilience through its energy transition. The marginal economic benefits of Russian gas now pale in comparison to the strategic costs of reversing course.
Europe didn’t choose this painful transition, but having endured it, few serious policymakers advocate returning to the vulnerable position they’ve worked so hard to escape.
4️⃣ China’s Military Mystery
Is Xi Losing His Grip on the People’s Liberation Army?
Back in January, a Japanese analyst predicted 2025 would bring political turbulence in China. The evidence? Military newspapers suddenly publishing editorials praising “collective leadership” – coded language that raised eyebrows.
In China’s power structure, President Xi Jinping reigns supreme over the army. His leadership has focused on centralising power, fighting corruption, and revitalising the Chinese Communist Party. One prime target in his anti-corruption drive? The People’s Liberation Army.
To execute this mission, Xi installed trusted allies in key military positions. Now, one of them has vanished. He Weidong, China’s second most powerful military figure and Xi’s close confidant, hasn’t made a public appearance since 11 March, when China’s annual parliamentary sessions ended.
Not Just Another Disappearance
This isn’t ordinary. He Weidong belongs to Xi’s innermost circle, having worked alongside him years ago in Fujian province. Even more telling: in November, another military leader close to Xi, Miao Hua, was suddenly placed under investigation.
What Could Be Happening?
While the full picture remains foggy, three scenarios seem plausible:
Genuine corruption: He Weidong may have engaged in actual misconduct;
Power struggle: Military factions could be systematically removing Xi’s loyalists;
Pushback against centralisation: Forces within the military may be resisting Xi’s concentration of power.
Most fascinating theory? Only one person has sufficient authority to challenge He Weidong – General Zhang Youxia, the PLA's de facto operational commander who actually issues military directives.
Do we have definitive answers? Not yet. But military reformers often create powerful enemies. And when those enemies wear generals’ stars...
Why This Matters Now
This leadership mystery unfolds as tensions escalate in the South China Sea. It introduces dangerous uncertainty to an already unstable region. Military command structures may become confused or contested.
Keep your eyes on official appearances in coming days. In Chinese politics, absence speaks louder than words.
5️⃣ Political Victimhood
The Ultimate 21st Century Mobiliser
When South Africa’s Ambassador to the US called President Trump – somewhat undiplomatically – the leader of a “global white supremacist movement,” the home of free speech declared him persona non grata, which is Latin for “We’re kicking you out.”
Supremacy Complex, Inferiority Subtext
What makes this incident particularly revealing isn’t just the diplomatic row it created, but how it highlights a critical tension in contemporary politics: the relationship between claims of supremacy and narratives of victimhood.
The ambassador focused on supremacy – the assertion of inherent superiority and right to dominance. This is fundamentally different from victimhood narratives, though the two often operate hand-in-glove within populist movements.
Trump’s movement, like many populist forces worldwide, employs both registers: assertions of greatness and superiority alongside claims of victimisation and persecution. The rhetorical pivot between “we’re the best” and “we’re being treated unfairly” creates a powerful emotional cocktail that fuels political mobilisation.
This dual narrative isn’t unique to right-wing populism. Various movements across the ideological spectrum deploy similar techniques, though with different historical backdrops and power dynamics.
First-Class Complainants in the Suffering Economy
What’s striking is how victimhood has become political currency across the ideological spectrum. The subjective feeling of victimisation now matters more than objective measures of disadvantage.
Consider the billionaire who portrays himself as persecuted by “the establishment.” Or the privileged university students who claim oppression when confronted with challenging ideas. Or the powerful nation that presents itself as bullied by smaller countries.
Even China has used its “century of national humiliation” as a way to drum up nationalist sentiment. Sometimes too successfully.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a political strategist in Brussels who told me, “In today’s politics, victimhood is the passport to moral authority. Without it, you’re not allowed into the conversation.”
The Misery Index: Polling Through Pain
Why does victimhood work so brilliantly as a mobilising force? The answer lies in our psychological wiring. A paper in Global Studies Quarterly by Alexandra Homolar and Georg Löfflmann examines how populists construct security narratives around “the loss of past national greatness” that resonate with those feeling disempowered.
These narratives bind “together an ostensibly conflicting sense of national greatness and victimhood” – creating a potent emotional cocktail that justifies radical breaks from established norms.
The emotional patterns are strikingly similar despite vastly different contexts: pride in a mythologised past, anger at current humiliation, and hope for restorative justice.
Politics becomes less about pragmatic solutions and more about establishing competing claims of grievance. Compromise becomes morally suspect – after all, how can you compromise with those who supposedly victimise you?
Beyond the Grievance Spiral
Is there a way out of this cul-de-sac? Perhaps it begins with distinguishing between genuine historical injustices and opportunistic claims of victimhood. Between movements that seek equality and those that seek dominance while claiming persecution.
The most effective leaders I’ve observed acknowledge genuine suffering while refusing to let it define collective identity.
They transform grievance into agency without weaponising it against perceived enemies.
The Ugly Glamour of Grievance Politics
There’s something seductive about victimhood as identity. It offers explanation for failure, exemption from responsibility, and moral superiority without achievement. Small wonder it proves irresistible across the political spectrum.
We’ve seen the victimhood narrative metastasise from a legitimate recognition of historical wrongs into something more pernicious – a worldview that divides humanity into oppressors and oppressed with no room for nuance or complexity.
The irony is that while victimhood politics promises empowerment, it often delivers the opposite – a paralysing focus on grievance that prevents genuine agency and progress.
6️⃣ The Delhi Doctrine
How India is playing every side and still winning
In a world where picking sides seems mandatory, India is writing its own rulebook. As Western powers wring their hands over the fraying liberal order, Delhi has transformed diplomatic flexibility into a potent strategic advantage.
Friends Without Benefits Packages
“A multipolar world used to be our talking point. It’s now become the American talking point,” says India’s Foreign Minister. While others cling to nostalgia, India embraces flux.
The proof’s in the oil. When Europe shunned Russian crude after Ukraine, India pounced. Almost overnight, Russia began providing 40% of India’s imports. As Western sanctions tightened, Delhi pivoted again – rekindling relationships with Middle Eastern producers.
Who needs loyalty when you can have leverage?
Arms Dealers and Deal Makers
India’s weapons purchases follows the same pragmatic script. American F414 jet engines? Yes, please. Russian S-400 missile systems? Absolutely. All while building homegrown alternatives.
The art lies in the balancing act: deep enough in America’s security orbit to access premium tech, independent enough to maintain Russian lifelines. The strategy turns potential vulnerabilities into strength – if one relationship sours, alternatives await.
Sino-Indian Whispers: Détente Amid Turbulence?
Perhaps nowhere is India’s compartmentalisation strategy more evident than in its China relationship. Following 2020’s deadly Galwan Valley confrontation, Delhi simultaneously reinforced border positions, accelerated infrastructure development, and strengthened ties with Western partners. Yet the diplomatic script has recently acquired an unexpected warmth.
Prime Minister Modi, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Beijing’s Ambassador to India have all begun singing from suspiciously similar hymn sheets. As veteran Indian commentator Shekhar Gupta notes, gone are the barbed qualifications – the ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘howevers’ that have peppered exchanges since 2020. In their place? Talk of cooperation and mutual interest.
The Trump Factor
Trump’s promised pivot away from European security concerns toward Indo-Pacific competition presents Delhi with a dilemma. Closer American engagement offers a valuable counterweight to Chinese regional ambitions, yet risks drawing India into conflicts not of its choosing.
The approaching Quad Summit adds a further twist. India has to balance its participation in this China-targeted security “club” against improving bilateral relations with Beijing, once again demonstrating the multilayered complexity of South Asian geopolitics.
What we’re seeing may well be a classic hedging strategy from both powers. Neither Delhi nor Beijing harbours any illusions about their fundamental points of disagreement – territorial disputes remain unresolved, competition for regional influence continues, and structural economic tensions remain. Yet both recognise the pragmatic value of reducing friction at a time of broader global uncertainty.
The Voice That Carries
Most shrewdly, India has positioned itself as the Global South’s champion. Its 2023 G20 presidency wasn’t just about hosting – it was about reshaping. Delhi’s coup in bringing the African Union into the G20 as a permanent member wasn’t altruism but calculated influence-building.
While China writes checks for infrastructure, India is building relationships to position itself as the indispensable bridge between developed and developing worlds.
Thriving in Chaos
Trump 2.0 has set alarm bells ringing in European capitals. Delhi? Barely a shrug. “You don’t spend life worrying about what-ifs. You spend your life preparing for what-ifs,” Jaishankar told the FT with characteristic sangfroid.
This comfort with uncertainty might be India’s greatest asset. By maintaining multiple options and refusing to be defined by any single relationship, Delhi has transformed itself from a regional player into a global pivot point.
India isn’t just surviving the new world disorder – it’s thriving in it, writing rules rather than following them.
For a nation once defined by non-alignment, this represents the ultimate validation: everyone now wants India on their side, even as India remains firmly on its own.
7️⃣ And finally?
Some thoughts from Germany…
German journalist Bernd Ulrich has a great essay in Zeit – Donald Trump: Afraid of Ourselves – about how we think about things. I include it as an antidote to my own pontificating:
“The question is how to speak meaningfully about our new reality—about the crisis of democracy, of the West, and perhaps of our very selves. Politics feels intensely personal these days.
“Professional thinkers, mostly men, are in high demand. Yet their interpretations often seem too rigid, more logical than the chaotic reality unfolding around them—their comfort zone is forced coherence.
“Elder statesmen, professors, and yes, writers like me maintain a strange self-assurance; the whole world shakes, yet they stand unmoved. Can this be right?
Can it be?
Thanks for reading!
Best,
Adrian
Links
Two Years in NATO, Finland is Searching for a Plan B
Populism and the Affective Politics of Humiliation Narratives
The European gas market: Emancipating from Russia
Indian foreign minister S Jaishankar: “The virtues of the old world order are exaggerated”
PLA Factions and the Erosion of Xi’s Power Over the Military
Germany should keep Nord Stream options open, conservative politician says
Adrian: great stuff!
I realize it’s politically impossible at this point, but wouldn’t European renuclearization solve many big problems simultaneously? Germany, say, is scared of Russia militarily, dependent on it for energy, and worried about dependence on the US for security. Why not emulate Japan and develop a major civilian nuclear program and ultimately a “bomb in the basement”? That would go a long way towards solving the security, energy, and autonomy problems at one stroke…
Could work for Poland or the NB8 too…