Between Moscow and Washington - Xi Seeks to Regain the Old Lever
When Xi Jinping stepped off the plane in Pyongyang on Monday, this was not about a photo opportunity and not about an ordinary visit between neighbors. No Chinese head of state had traveled to North Korea in seven years. Now Xi himself has come, at a moment when the balance of power in Asia is shifting and China wants to prevent its most difficult ally from slipping too far out of its hands. Officially, very little was announced. Yet that is often what makes such trips significant. Xi and Kim Jong Un are meeting for the first time since their appearance together in Beijing last September, then still under the shadow of Vladimir Putin and a military parade. Today the situation is different. North Korea has moved closer to Russia, supplied weapons, received support, and shown that Pyongyang no longer wants to depend exclusively on Beijing.
For China, that is a problem. For decades, North Korea was economically, politically, and diplomatically tied to China. Beijing remained its insurance policy, trade route, and protector all at once. But with the war in Ukraine and the closer relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang, competition for influence suddenly emerged. Xi is traveling not only as a partner but also as a reminder of who has long helped set the rules in the region. The visit also comes during a period of intensive talks between China and the United States. After several meetings with Donald Trump and additional contacts planned for the fall, a second playing field is emerging. Whoever has influence over North Korea still holds leverage in Washington. The Korean Peninsula remains one of the few issues where Beijing can offer political value without having to intervene militarily.
For Kim Jong Un, Xi arrives at exactly the right moment. North Korea has pursued a goal for years that has barely changed. It no longer wants to be treated as a country expected to disarm someday, but as a nuclear power with which limits and recognition are negotiated. That is precisely why Pyongyang speaks less and less about disarmament and more and more about stability, security, and new realities. China is likely to offer economic concessions - more trade, aid, tourism, and joint projects. At the same time, Xi may avoid publicly pressuring Kim. That would suit North Korea's direction while allowing China to avoid officially giving up its long term position.
What is also striking is the language. North Korean state media celebrated Xi as a highly honored state guest. Xi himself spoke of jointly resisting hegemony and coercive policies and striving for a more orderly multipolar world. Behind those terms lies a shared objective - strengthening their own position without subordinating themselves to Washington's rules. The trip therefore shows more than an old friendship. It shows that China wants to avoid becoming a spectator in North Korea while Russia and the United States draw their own lines. And it shows that Kim Jong Un continues trying to gain something from every camp without fully committing himself.
Open on Paper, Closed in Practice - Europe’s Transparency Problem
The European Union describes access to information as a fundamental right and obliges its institutions to make decisions as openly as possible. Yet the very office meant to oversee compliance with these principles is now warning that the system no longer works as originally intended. European Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho is sounding the alarm. Access to documents is becoming slower, more complicated, and increasingly difficult for many people to understand. What was once meant to create transparency is increasingly turning into a process that consumes time and builds barriers. Especially where political decisions are prepared and laws are drafted, the distance between institutions and the public is growing.
A few days later, her predecessor Emily O’Reilly followed with unusually sharp criticism of the European Commission. Decisions, she argued, must not be made behind the facades of the EU quarter while the information on which they are based remains inside those buildings. Anyone writing rules for millions of people must be able to explain how those decisions came about. Observers are particularly critical of changes to the internal rules on document access introduced after Ursula von der Leyen’s reelection in 2024. Legal challenges against those changes are now underway before the General Court of the European Union. Transparency groups accuse the institutions not merely of slowing access but of making it structurally more difficult.
Anjinho also warns of a development that reaches far beyond administrative questions. Security arguments are increasingly being used to withhold information. As a result, a climate is emerging in which documents are more often restricted than released. The Ombudsman has already indicated that she may launch a new procedure later this year if nothing changes. The real question extends beyond files and formal requests. If political decisions are meant to remain understandable, it is not enough to declare transparency as a principle. It must also apply where power is exercised.
The Weapons Are Speaking Again - Israel’s Strike on Iran Brings the War Back After Iranian Missiles Hit Israel
The ceasefire was supposed to create time. Instead, it became the space between two attacks. In the early hours of Monday, Israel struck targets inside Iran after Iranian missiles had previously been launched toward Israel. At the same time, a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia came under attack. What had been presented in recent weeks as a fragile easing of tensions suddenly looks once again like a pause in a war that never truly stopped.
Explosions were reported across Iran from Isfahan, Tabriz, Karaj, and Tehran. Shortly afterward, Israeli officials confirmed additional strikes. According to Israel, a petrochemical complex in Mahshahr in southwestern Iran was also hit. Iranian reports stated that industrial facilities in Khuzestan Province had been affected. Information about the full extent of the damage was not immediately available. At the same time, air raid alerts were activated again in Israel. The military warned of a second wave of Iranian missiles. People were instructed to move into shelters. Shortly afterward, the alert was lifted after no further impacts were reported.
The new escalation comes at a moment when mediation efforts were already under pressure. Tehran had previously announced retaliation after Israel carried out strikes in Beirut’s southern suburbs without warning despite a request from Washington to refrain from further action. Israel, for its part, justified its response by citing attacks from the north by the Iranian backed Hezbollah. The conflict is once again shifting across multiple theaters. What initially appeared to be fighting along separate front lines increasingly resembles interconnected zones of crisis.
Particularly notable is the political dimension. According to reports from Washington, Donald Trump had recently signaled to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that from the American perspective no further military response appeared necessary. The Israeli strikes nevertheless followed. This places not only the ceasefire under pressure but also the assumption that the United States can still directly shape the course of escalation. Added to this is the situation in Lebanon. Israel now holds territory in the south of the country and has advanced into areas that had not been under Israeli control for a quarter century. Concern is growing that limited operations could gradually evolve into a broader military campaign.
With every new strike, the risk of losing control also grows. The war between Israel and Iran was never only a conflict between two states. It affects trade routes, energy prices, alliances, and the position of the United States in the region. The attack on an American base in Saudi Arabia shows how quickly regional fighting can become a larger conflict. For now, all sides continue to speak of deterrence, response, and security. But when ceasefires serve only as interruptions between attacks, the word itself loses its meaning. Monday showed how little distance now exists between diplomatic calm and renewed escalation.
Not the End - Why Good Climate News Is More Political Than Bad News
Anyone writing about the climate crisis usually writes about loss. About record temperatures, droughts, wildfires, floods, and the feeling that every new report only confirms what already seemed inevitable. It becomes easy to believe that the trajectory can no longer be changed and that the world is moving only between delay and damage. That is exactly why a different perspective feels almost unfamiliar. Not because everything is suddenly fine, but because in many places people have already begun to resist. From Kenya to the Dominican Republic to Nepal, Mozambique, Tuvalu, Yemen, and Brazil, projects are emerging that protect rivers, preserve soil, safeguard seeds, and search for practical responses to the consequences of climate change. None of these stories ends the crisis. Together, however, they create a picture that is often missing from public debate.
One particularly striking example is the Aral Sea in Central Asia. For decades it stood as one of the most well known examples of ecological destruction. A body of water that existed on old maps and disappeared in reality. All the more surprising is the fact that parts of it are now being restored. Not as a full return, but as a reminder that even severe damage does not necessarily have to be permanent. What also stands out is that many of these developments are not coming from major centers of power. Communities, local groups, Indigenous peoples, and civil society networks are taking action. In Bolivia, Indigenous women are organizing against wildfires. In Pakistan, Torwali communities are fighting to protect the Swat River. In the Philippines, people are using legal means to hold energy companies accountable. In Kenya, communities are demanding the return of land.
At the same time, the digital world makes these experiences both more visible and less visible. It has never been easier to read reports from other parts of the world. Yet platforms often elevate only what attracts attention. Disasters spread quickly. Slow improvements frequently disappear into the margins. It is also noticeable that governments are not inactive everywhere. Parts of Central Asia are responding to air pollution. Barbados is changing fisheries policies. Tuvalu is working to preserve its state identity even under the threat of rising sea levels - an unusual step, but one that shows how different responses to the same crisis can be.
It also becomes clear how often women carry this work. Not as symbols, but as organizers, mediators, and people who hold communities together. Where basic needs, environmental protection, and everyday life intersect, they are often at the front. None of this means the climate crisis has become smaller. But it challenges the idea that progress no longer exists. Especially in regions that are often overlooked internationally, solutions, knowledge, and alliances are emerging. Perhaps there is a simple realization in that: not every important story begins with catastrophe. Some begin with people continuing despite everything.
No Capitulation - Zelensky Describes Message to Putin Through Abramovich It was one of those stories people talked about for a long time without anyone wanting to confirm it. Now Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly stated for the first time that there actually was a meeting with Roman Abramovich - and that a message to Vladimir Putin was conveyed through the Russian billionaire. According to the Ukrainian president’s account, Abramovich appeared as an intermediary and said he wanted to pass a message to Moscow. Zelensky’s response was brief and left little room for interpretation. Ukraine would not leave the Donbas and would not hand over its own territory to Russia. Russia would not be allowed to achieve victory in that way.
Zelensky also said that a possible compromise had been discussed during those talks. From Ukraine’s perspective, however, even a ceasefire already represented a significant concession. Over the past years, the Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly made clear that territorial concessions are not considered a basis for negotiations. At the same time, Zelensky again emphasized that he remains fundamentally open to talks. A meeting with Putin could take place at any time and in different formats - together with European partners or directly. The only locations excluded from his perspective are Moscow and Minsk.
Reports of Abramovich acting as a channel of communication had circulated before. In the spring, the Financial Times reported, citing several sources, that Zelensky had invited the businessman to Kyiv in order to send a signal in favor of direct talks. Official confirmation did not follow at the time. Since the beginning of Russia’s full scale invasion, Abramovich has repeatedly appeared around confidential contacts. As early as 2022, his name was linked to the negotiations in Istanbul. He was also associated with discussions surrounding the grain agreement and prisoner exchanges.
Reports of Abramovich acting as a channel of communication had circulated before. In the spring, the Financial Times reported, citing several sources, that Zelensky had invited the businessman to Kyiv in order to send a signal in favor of direct talks. Official confirmation did not follow at the time. Since the beginning of Russia’s full scale invasion, Abramovich has repeatedly appeared around confidential contacts. As early as 2022, his name was linked to the negotiations in Istanbul. He was also associated with discussions surrounding the grain agreement and prisoner exchanges.
What is remarkable about Zelensky’s comments is not so much the existence of such contacts as the openness with which he is now speaking about them. Behind closed doors, people are often already talking while publicly continuing to explain why negotiations are supposedly impossible.
The President as a Market Actor - How Trump Began Governing Against Expectations
For a long time, there was a simple rule in financial markets. Governments create conditions, markets react. Presidents announce policy, investors determine prices. Donald Trump increasingly appears to be reversing that relationship. Not only laws, wars, or tariffs move markets anymore - often a few sentences are enough to shift billions. At the beginning of last week, that became visible again in the oil market. Reports that indirect talks between Iran and the United States had broken down initially sent oil prices sharply higher. Hours later, Trump publicly stated that Israel was pulling back in Lebanon and that talks with Iran were progressing quickly. Prices fell. More statements followed - and markets moved lower again. Although fighting continued and no agreement existed, the movement remained.
A new behavior has emerged in financial markets because of this. Many traders no longer automatically bet on higher prices even when traditional indicators would normally point in that direction. The concern is too great that political signals from Washington could reverse the direction within minutes. A situation in which uncertainty once created price premiums is at times turning into the opposite. This influence is not limited to energy. Bond markets, mortgages, currencies, and expectations surrounding interest rates are increasingly being priced around political statements. Under Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration repeatedly intervened directly or indirectly in market mechanisms. Support for the Argentine peso, signals toward the yen, or interventions through the American mortgage market were closely watched on trading floors.
Monetary policy adds another layer. Trump publicly pushed for lower interest rates last year and made clear early on that he wanted different priorities at the top of the Federal Reserve. Markets then began partially pricing in rate cuts before the central bank itself moved in that direction. A strange contradiction emerges from this. Critics often argue that Trump is driven by financial markets. Yet recent months also show something different. Many investors now seem more reluctant to openly position themselves against his direction. The expectation that Washington could announce new measures or alter existing ones at any moment is changing behavior.
The real question therefore begins only after the market reaction. Lower oil prices alone do not create new supply. Lower expectations do not replace declining inflation. Tariffs alone do not create lasting growth. Falling yields do not solve structural deficits. Perhaps that is exactly what makes this moment unusual. Markets are no longer reacting only to data and developments. Increasingly, they are reacting to the possibility that political power itself has become a market instrument.
