Reflectii

Le grand partenariat eurasiatique représente en effet la seule carte dont disposent Moscou et Pékin pour concilier leurs projets d’infrastructures dans la région.

Tandis que l’administration Trump joue la carte de la séduction face aux «swing states» en les attirant avec de nouveaux accords énergétiques – comme celui proposé à la Turquie pour l’achat de son GNL, devenu manifestement moins attrayant après le doublement de la connexion énergétique russo-chinoise – et dans les secteurs de la technologie nucléaire civile et de l’aviation, ou proposé au Kazakhstan et à l’Ouzbékistan, avec 12 milliards de dollars dans les secteurs aérien, ferroviaire et dans celui des matières premières, la Russie mise sur une stratégie globale et promeut le concept «Altaï, patrie des Turcs» ainsi que le projet «Grand Altaï» comme contrepoids à l’Organisation des États turciques (OTS). Par le biais de conférences, d’expéditions et d’initiatives soutenues par l’État, Moscou cherche à se positionner non comme un acteur marginal dans le monde turc, mais comme son centre historique et culturel, notamment après la médiation nécessaire atteinte avec Istanbul en Syrie après la chute d’Assad.

Since 2012, hundreds of millions of dollars from Kyrgyzstan — one of the poorest countries on earth — have poured into bank accounts in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East on behalf of a single family.

Much of that money ended up in an expansive real estate portfolio that stretches from the Persian Gulf to the shores of California.

The lesson is universal: the monsters created for expedience never stay loyal. They mutate, grow stronger, and eventually devour their masters.

If Pakistan, Nigeria, or any nation wishes to escape this cycle, leaders must abandon the illusion of clever deals with extremists. Real security lies not in proxy wars or militant allies but in building just societies, resilient institutions, and inclusive politics that deny extremists the grievances they exploit. Anything less is sowing seeds for future catastrophe.

I – L’instinct et la liberté

Je m’adresse à toi, Justin, à toi, Mamadou : nous partageons avec les bêtes les besoins premiers – manger, boire – et pourtant il existe entre nous une différence tragique et politique. Certaines créatures de la basse-cour – coqs, poules, porcs – ont appris la soumission ; on leur jette la pitance aux pieds et ils l’acceptent comme une évidence. D’autres, comme le lion, restent irréductiblement libres : aucun collier à leur cou, aucune humiliation consentie. Quand on refuse la servilité, même la faim prend une autre couleur. C’est cette fracture – entre ceux qui mangent agenouillés et ceux qui vivent debout – qu’il nous faut nommer si nous voulons penser la liberté autrement que comme un état importé.

Abstract

The evolving threat of terrorism and political violence in the United States cannot be understood without observing technological change, institutional memory, and societal resilience. Recent discussions underscore five urgent considerations: (1) sustaining lessons from two decades of counterterrorism, (2) preparing for AI and drone-enabled battlefields, (3) confronting the misuse of commercial technologies, (4) maximizing open-source intelligence collaboration, and (5) analyzing the connection between counternarcotics and counterterrorism. Across all five lies a central truth: adversaries exploit division, while unity across government, private sector, and civil society is America’s most credible form of deterrence.

In a shaky handheld video uploaded on 2 September to an obscure Facebook page, a man crouching low behind an earth berm films a busy highway.

He mumbles the date and then says, “we are the Men of Light,” before an explosion immediately rips through a passing General Security vehicle in front of him.

By Salim Badat

We are easily deceived. The world shows us politicians, presidents, and prime ministers, their speeches, debates, and promises dominate the headlines.

Yet these men and women are not the real masters of power. Behind them stands another force, older, quieter, but infinitely stronger: the bankers, corporations, and financial dynasties who pull the strings.

This is the economic jihad we overlook, and it is the one that truly matters. Wars are not fought for freedom or democracy; they are fought for oil, gold, gas, and control of infrastructure.

The EU’s latest proposed sanctions against Russia did not, as anticipated, include additional steps to halt pipeline imports of Russian oil and natural gas. However, the intransigence of Hungary and Slovakia over the issue is looking increasingly untenable.

In the Middle East, climate activism is often intertwined with public grievances over perceived governance failures and ongoing regional and national conflicts. Not only are Iraq and Yemen among the countries most vulnerable to climate change,1 compounded by apparent endemic state corruption, but they have also become key arenas for the ongoing regional confrontation between Israel and Iran’s axis that began in October 2023. In Iraq, for example, clashes between Iran-backed militias and U.S. and Israeli forces—a symptom of wider instability and governance failures—have enabled Türkiye and Iran to exploit the country’s water resources.2 In Yemen, Ansar Allah (commonly known as the Houthi movement) has disrupted international shipping in the Red Sea and attacked Israel, deepening the country’s isolation and insecurity. Both countries also grapple with fragmented political authority: Iraq’s federal structure includes a semiautonomous region, while Yemen remains divided among competing factions.