00-01-02 THE THINKERS WHO CHANGED HOW NATIONS VIEW THE WORLD

26 June 2026

EPISODE ZERO • CHAPTER ONE

The Foundations of Geopolitics - Sarah Paine

LECTURE TWO

Thinkers Who Changed How Strategists View The World

Why do some nations become global powers while others remain trapped by geography? Is power determined by armies, navies, trade, or simply where a country happens to sit on the map?

──────────────────────────────────

Why It Matters

Understanding today's rivalry between China, Russia and the United States begins long before the twentieth century. Four influential strategists—Sun Tzu, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman—developed ideas that still shape military planning and foreign policy today. Although writing in different centuries, each attempted to answer the same enduring question:

"What determines the rise, security and survival of great powers?"

Their answers continue to influence debates over Ukraine, Taiwan, NATO, maritime security and the future balance of power.

──────────────────────────────────

Overview

Before analysing today's rivalry between China, Russia and the United States, it is worth meeting the strategic thinkers whose ideas continue to influence policymakers. Although separated by centuries, Sun Tzu, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman all sought to answer the same question: 

What determines the rise and survival of great powers?

Contents cover the following:

• Why geography remains one of the most enduring influences on international politics.

• Why Sun Tzu's ideas reflected the realities of continental warfare.

• How Mahan transformed strategic thinking by placing sea power and commerce at its centre.

• Why Mackinder believed control of Eurasia's Heartland could determine global dominance.

• How Spykman challenged Mackinder by arguing that the Rimland mattered more than the interior.

• Why Sarah Paine combines these theories into a single framework for understanding modern geopolitics.

──────────────────────────────────

1. The Search for Enduring Principles

Military technology changes constantly. Empires rise and fall. Political ideologies come and go. Yet one factor changes very little. Geography.

Mountain ranges, navigable rivers, deserts, fertile plains and oceans continue to influence the choices available to every nation. Sarah Paine points out that the most successful strategists recognised this long before the modern age.

Rather than treating history as a sequence of isolated wars, they searched for recurring patterns that explain why some states prosper while others decline.

• Sun Tzu
• Mahan, Alfred Thayer
• Mackinder, Halford J
• Spykman, Nicholas

Their ideas still shape strategic thinking today.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Strategy – The long-term plan for achieving political objectives by coordinating military, diplomatic, economic and other national resources.

Geography – The physical features of the Earth that influence human settlement, trade, defence and political power.

──────────────────────────────────

2. Sun Tzu: The Continental World

Writing around the fifth century BC during China's turbulent Warring States period, Sun Tzu produced one of history's most influential works on strategy: The Art of War.

His world was entirely continental. Power depended upon armies. Threats came from neighbouring kingdoms. Territory determined security.

Sea power hardly featured because maritime commerce played little role in China's political system at that time. Sun Tzu therefore concentrated on intelligence, deception, logistics, alliances and defeating opponents as efficiently as possible.

His famous principle that "the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting" reflects the reality that prolonged continental warfare imposed enormous costs upon rulers.

The Industrial Revolution fundamentally altered the relationship between geography and power. Steamships, global trade and industrial production shifted attention from land frontiers towards the oceans

Sarah Paine argues that Sun Tzu's strategic assumptions reflected the geography of ancient China rather than universal military principles.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Continental strategy – A security approach centred upon defending or expanding territory through land power.

Logistics – The movement and supply of military forces.

Deception – Deliberately misleading an opponent to gain strategic advantage.

──────────────────────────────────

3. Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Sea Changes Everything

By the late nineteenth century, American naval officer Alfred Thayer Mahan observed that Britain's global influence rested less upon territorial conquest than upon commerce.

Published in 1890, The Influence of Sea Power upon History argued that wealth generated through maritime trade could finance powerful navies, global influence and long-term national prosperity.

According to Alfred Thayer Mahan, successful maritime powers required several conditions.

• An accessible coastline.
• Secure access to the oceans.
• Strong commercial ports.
• Reliable political institutions.
• A thriving merchant fleet.
• A navy capable of protecting trade.

His ideas profoundly influenced naval planning in Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States.

Many historians regard Mahan as the intellectual architect of modern naval strategy.

Yet sea power did not eliminate geography. Instead, it encouraged scholars to ask whether control of the Eurasian landmass might ultimately outweigh maritime dominance.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Merchant fleet – Commercial ships that transport goods between countries.

Sea power – The ability to project national influence through maritime commerce and naval strength.

Maritime commerce – International trade conducted by sea.

──────────────────────────────────

4. Halford Mackinder: The Heartland

In 1904, British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder proposed one of geopolitics' most famous theories.

He argued that the vast interior of Eurasia formed the world's strategic "Heartland".

Protected by mountains, deserts and immense distances, this region was difficult for maritime powers to penetrate.

Railways, then transforming transport across Eurasia, strengthened this advantage by allowing continental powers to move armies internally without relying upon vulnerable sea routes.

Mackinder feared that if one great power united the Heartland, it could eventually dominate Eurasia and potentially challenge the maritime world.

Although later criticised and modified, Heartland Theory became enormously influential during both World Wars and the Cold War.

Spykman - next - admired Mackinder's geographical insight but believed he had identified the wrong strategic prize.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Heartland – Mackinder's term for the central landmass of Eurasia, regarded as the strategic core of continental power.

Interior lines – Internal transport routes allowing armies to move efficiently within their own territory.

──────────────────────────────────

5. Nicholas Spykman: The Importance of the Rimland

Dutch-born American scholar Nicholas Spykman accepted much of Mackinder's analysis but reached a different conclusion. Writing during the Second World War, he argued that control of Eurasia's coastal regions mattered more than control of its interior.

He called these coastal zones the Rimland. These included Western Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. The Rimland contained most of the world's population, industry, ports and economic activity.

For Spykman, preventing any hostile power from dominating these regions became the central objective of American grand strategy.

Many historians see clear echoes of Spykman's thinking in NATO, America's alliance network in East Asia and its continuing emphasis on freedom of navigation.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Rimland – The densely populated coastal belt surrounding Eurasia.

Freedom of navigation – The principle that ships may move lawfully through international waters without interference.

──────────────────────────────────

6. Four Thinkers, One Conversation

A useful way to understand these four thinkers is to see them as successive contributors to a single strategic conversation spanning more than two millennia. Each asked the same fundamental question: How can a state survive, prosper and remain secure in a dangerous world?

Their answers reflected the changing realities of their own eras. 

• Sun Tzu land warfare examined survival through the effective use of land armies
• Mahan sea power argued that naval power and maritime commerce were the foundations of national greatness; 
• Mackinder continental geography contended that control of Eurasia's continental Heartland conferred strategic advantage; and 
• Spykman coastal margins responded that it was the surrounding Rimland - the populous coastal belt - that ultimately determined global power. 

Together, their ideas form one of the intellectual foundations of modern geopolitics and grand strategy.

Sarah Paine argues that these thinkers should not be viewed as rivals competing to produce a single 'correct' geopolitical theory. Rather, each describes one dimension of strategy.

- Sun Tzu explains how states compete on land.

- Mahan explains how maritime commerce generates wealth and naval power.

- Mackinder explains the strategic significance of Eurasia's interior.

- Spykman explains why the coastal margins of Eurasia remain the principal arena of global competition.

Together they provide a four-perspective framework that modern strategists draw upon, depending upon the circumstances.

──────────────────────────────────

Conclusion

No single geopolitical theory explains every historical event. Technology, economics, culture and political leadership all matter. Geography does not dictate history, but it sets the stage for history to unfold upon.

Nevertheless, the work of Sun Tzu, Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman continues to provide an essential intellectual foundation for understanding great-power competition.

The next chapter will turn from theory to history. It examines how the United States itself evolved from a continental republic focused on territorial expansion into the world's leading maritime power.

Glossary

Grand strategy – The coordinated use of military, diplomatic, economic and informational power to achieve a state's long-term political objectives.

──────────────────────────────────

The next chapter examines how the United States evolved from a continental republic into the world's pre-eminent maritime power, demonstrating how these theories played out in practice.

References

The Failure of America to Dominate the World Island

The New Pivot of History

Sun Tzu. The Art of War (c. 5th century BC).

Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890).

Mackinder, Halford J. The Geographical Pivot of History (1904).

Spykman, Nicholas. The Geography of the Peace (1944).

Paine, Sarah C. M. The Strategy of Strategy: Rethinking War and Peace.

Read More

IS PROF PAPE RIGHT - CAN IRAN BECOME THE FOURTH GLOBAL POWER

17 July 2026

Can a nation become a global power before it has first become the accepted leader of its own region?

Contents cover the following:

• Professor Robert Pape's argument that Iran could emerge as a fourth global power.

• Why regional hegemony is the essential missing step.

• The obstacles Iran would still face.

• Why long-term survival is likely to be Tehran's first priority.

• The possible roles of nuclear deterrence, Russia, China and Türkiye.

• Why the next five years are unlikely to produce an Iranian global power.

1. The Missing Step in Pape's Argument

Professor Robert Pape has suggested here that, should the United States substantially reduce or possibly abandon its military presence in the Gulf, Iran could emerge as the world's fourth global power. It is a provocative idea, but one that leaves an important question unanswered.

Before any state can become a global power, it must first become the accepted regional hegemon.

Military strength alone is not enough. History suggests that regional dominance requires neighbouring states to adjust their policies because they conclude that resistance is either impossible, prohibitively expensive or no longer in their interests. Military superiority transforms into political authority through recognition.

At present there is some though not a lot of convincing evidence that this process has begun.

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Jordan and Israel have certainly adjusted aspects of their policies towards Iran, but none has accepted Iran as the region's "security manager". Most continue to balance Iranian influence through diplomacy, military spending or external alliances.

Glossary 

Regional hegemon – the dominant state within a geographical region whose influence is recognised, even reluctantly, by its neighbours.

Balance (or balancing) – a strategy whereby states seek to prevent one country from becoming dominant by strengthening their own military capabilities, forming alliances, or deepening diplomatic and economic ties with other powers. The objective is not necessarily to defeat the stronger state, but to deter it and preserve a balance of power.

Example: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states seek to balance Iranian influence by maintaining close security relationships with the United States while also expanding their own defence capabilities.

────────────────────────

2. Survival Comes Before Ambition

There is another assumption that deserves examination.

Much Western analysis begins by asking what Iran wants to achieve. A more realistic question may be what risks Iran might face and whether it is possible to mitigate them.

Since 1979, Iran has endured one devastating conventional war (Iraq 1980-88), decades of sanctions, repeated covert operations, the murder of its spiritual leader and his family and much of the cabinet, assassinations of senior military officers and nuclear scientists, cyber attacks, proxy conflicts across the Middle East, and direct military confrontation with Israel and the United States, the world's foremost military power. From Tehran's perspective, this history helps explain why long-term survival and deterrence are a first priority although once achieved regional political authority - not territorial expansion - would be the next priority. And given this history it is pretty certain that Iran would choose revenge at the risk of matrydom or extinction, rather than submission to America.

Whether one agrees with that perception is almost beside the point. States formulate strategy according to their founding myths and how they interpret threats, not how others interpret them.

If Iranian leaders conclude that future attacks are inevitable unless they fundamentally alter the regional balance of power, then ensuring that such attacks become prohibitively costly becomes the logical objective.

In that sense, survival is not merely remaining in office. It is creating a security environment in which regime change by external powers becomes effectively impossible.

Glossary

Deterrence – persuading an opponent not to attack because the expected costs outweigh any possible gains.

Proxy war – a conflict in which rival powers support opposing local forces rather than fighting each other directly.

────────────────────────

3. The Search for Long-Term Security

If survival is indeed Tehran's principal objective, several strategic consequences follow.

Iran is likely to continue investing heavily in missiles, drones, air defences and dispersed military command and infrastructure.

It may also continue strengthening strategic relationships with both Russia and China. Neither country is necessarily seeking Iranian regional dominance, but both have reasons to oppose further expansion of American influence across Eurasia.

Many analysts also believe that Iran will now now, under new leadership, be developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons quickly if it judges its security environment to demand it. Whether Tehran ultimately chooses to cross that threshold remains uncertain and contested, but the debate itself reflects the central importance of deterrence.

None of these developments automatically makes Iran a regional hegemon. They simply make it increasingly difficult to coerce.

────────────────────────

4. The Obstacles to Regional Hegemony

Even assuming a gradual reduction of American influence, Iran would still face formidable obstacles.

Saudi Arabia possesses enormous financial resources and continues modernising its armed forces.

Türkiye combines a large industrial economy, NATO-standard military capabilities and growing regional ambitions. In many respects, Türkiye may represent the most significant long-term competitor for influence across West Asia (and this would be why Israel now views Türkiye and more of a threat than Iran).

Israel is still a militarily powerful and technologically advanced threat to the region.

Nor is it obvious that the Gulf monarchies would simply exchange American protection for Iranian leadership. More likely, they would attempt to balance among several external powers while preserving their own autonomy.

Regional hegemony cannot simply be declared... it has to be accepted.

────────────────────────

5. Could America Reopen the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to every discussion of Gulf security.

Iran has successfully disrupted maritime traffic, and reopening the waterway would almost certainly prove far more difficult than many public discussions imply.

It is conceivable that the United States could eventually reopen the Strait, through an extended military campaign. However, the scale, duration and costs of such an operation are highly uncertain. Military, political and logistical factors do not give confidence.

Equally important are the economic consequences of this prolonged disruption. Even a temporary interruption of Gulf energy exports places severe strain on global markets, and global reserves are expected to run out in August ie well before any military campaign could achieve its objectives.

These uncertainties help explain why deterrence and signalling remain so important in Gulf strategy.

────────────────────────

6. The Long Road to Becoming a Global Power

Iran's strategies to successfully secure its long-term survival and future include deterrence, preventing hostile encirclement, maintaining influence in neighbouring conflicts, reducing or expelling US and Israeli military presence.

But becoming a global power would require several further steps.

First, Iran would have to become the recognised regional hegemon.

Second, it would need to transform military influence into durable economic leadership.

Third, neighbouring states would need increasingly to consult Tehran on regional security.

Fourth, major global powers would have to treat Iran as an indispensable participant in resolving international crises.

Today, those conditions have not been fulfilled.

Iran is undoubtedly an important regional actor. It has demonstrated resilience under extraordinary pressure and has significantly expanded its military capabilities. But, given that 

- like all political leaders Trump cannot withdraw as this would be seen by his MAGA base as surrender and cost him the midterms, his credibility, and his legacy; 

- while Iran by its national character as much as by the assassinations and betrayals it has suffered at the hands of the West seeks martyrdom or extinction and probably revenge rather than submission to America; 

we are likely to see some form of intermittent or forever war though on a far greater scale leading to military exhaustion; and not a neat reopening of hormuz with the oil price falling gently back to the $70s.

So Iran will not be the one to fold, yet resilience should not be confused with hegemony, nor hegemony with global power.

────────────────────────

7. Conclusion

Professor Pape's scenario remains intellectually stimulating because it forces readers to think beyond the immediate conflict and ask what a post-American Gulf might look like.

However, the pathway from survival to regional hegemony, and from regional hegemony to becoming a fourth global power, wood need a bit more thinking through as to how it might come about.

Iran has no avowed ambition to build an empire, rather, it is seeking to ensure that no foreign power can again threaten its existence without facing unacceptable costs.

If that is indeed the primary objective, then military deterrence, strategic partnerships and political resilience is the path it is likely on.

Whether these developments eventually produce a new regional order remains uncertain.

Over the next five years, however, Iran appears more likely to consolidate its security than to emerge as the world's fourth global power.

References

• Robert A. Pape, Bombing to Win and subsequent lectures on coercion and American grand strategy.

• Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers.

• John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

• Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances.

Related articles:

• THE ESCALATION TRAP

• America's Enduring Goal and Grand Strategy for War

• BOMBING TO WIN: PAPE ON IRAN

• BOMBING TO WIN: PAPE ON RUSSIA

ADDENDUM -- Iran's military conflicts:

Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)

An eight-year conventional war initiated by Iraq's invasion.

Approximately 500,000–1,000,000 total military and civilian casualties on both sides (estimates vary).

Lebanon conflict (1982–present, indirect)

Iran has supported Hezbollah against Israel through funding, training and weapons.

This has involved repeated conflicts, notably in 2006 and subsequent exchanges.

Syrian Civil War (from 2011)

Iran intervened in support of the Syrian government.

It deployed advisers, organised allied militias and provided extensive military assistance.

War against ISIS in Iraq (2014–2017)

Iran supported the Iraqi government and Shi'a militias against ISIS.

It played a significant role alongside the US-led coalition, although independently.

Yemen conflict (from around 2015, indirect)

Iran has backed the Houthis politically and militarily, while Saudi Arabia led a coalition supporting the internationally recognised government.

Direct conflict with Israel and the United States (2024–present)

Following years of covert operations and proxy warfare, the confrontation has increasingly involved direct missile and drone exchanges, Israeli strikes inside Iran, and US military involvement.

Read More

QUI DEVRAIT DÉCIDER DE CE QUE LES CITOYENS PEUVENT VOIR

le 21 juillet 2026

La France va tout bloquer

Et si le débat sur la désinformation masquait une question plus fondamentale : qui devrait décider de ce que les citoyens peuvent voir, lire et partager ?

Image

Ce billet couvre les points suivants :

• Les nouvelles propositions françaises concernant la régulation de l'information en ligne
• La distinction entre désinformation, mésinformation et malinformation.
• Les conséquences possibles pour la liberté d'expression
• Le rôle des algorithmes des plateformes numériques
• Les arguments avancés en faveur d'une régulation renforcée
• Les risques potentiels pour le pluralisme démocratique.

[Entre crochets : formulation moins nuancée]

1. Une nouvelle étape dans la régulation de l'information

La France semble s'orienter vers un renforcement significatif de sa capacité à intervenir dans la circulation de l'information sur les réseaux sociaux. [La France veut récupérer le contrôle total de toutes les plateformes de réseau social.]

L'objectif officiellement affiché est de protéger les prochaines échéances électorales contre les manipulations, les campagnes coordonnées et les différentes formes d'ingérence pouvant influencer le débat public. Cette préoccupation n'est d'ailleurs pas propre à la France ; elle existe dans de nombreuses démocraties confrontées à la puissance des grandes plateformes numériques.

Toutefois, certains observateurs estiment que les instruments envisagés dépasseraient largement la simple lutte contre les fausses informations. [C'est la fin de la démocratie en France.]

Le cœur du débat ne porte donc pas uniquement sur la désinformation, mais sur la frontière entre la protection du débat démocratique et le contrôle de celui-ci.

Glossaire

Désinformation : diffusion volontaire d'informations fausses ou trompeuses.

Pluralisme : coexistence de points de vue différents dans un débat démocratique.

---

2. La naissance des "zones grises" de l'information

Une évolution importante réside dans l'élargissement des catégories susceptibles d'être régulées.

Il ne s'agirait plus uniquement de sanctionner des informations manifestement fausses, mais également certains contenus considérés comme susceptibles d'induire une perception erronée du réel, même lorsqu'ils s'appuient sur des faits exacts. [Ils veulent pouvoir punir des gens qui ne mentent pas.]

Cette distinction entre désinformation, mésinformation et malinformation constitue probablement l'aspect le plus controversé des propositions.

Les critiques craignent qu'une telle évolution ne transforme progressivement un contrôle des faits en un contrôle des interprétations. [On va punir le délit d'opinion.]

Le problème juridique devient alors particulièrement complexe : lorsqu'un fait est exact mais présenté sous un angle polémique ou critique, à partir de quel moment devient-il une menace pour le débat public plutôt qu'une simple opinion ?

C'est précisément cette frontière qui suscite aujourd'hui de nombreuses interrogations.

Glossaire

Malinformation : utilisation d'informations exactes dans un contexte susceptible de produire un effet jugé nuisible.

Mésinformation : diffusion d'informations inexactes sans intention délibérée de tromper.

---

3. Qui contrôle les algorithmes ?

Une autre question concerne le fonctionnement des algorithmes qui déterminent les contenus proposés aux utilisateurs.

Les auditions parlementaires semblent avoir révélé un décalage entre la logique technique des plateformes et les attentes de certains responsables politiques.

Les représentants de YouTube et de X ont rappelé que leurs systèmes recommandent principalement des contenus correspondant aux habitudes de consultation de chaque utilisateur plutôt qu'à une ligne éditoriale uniforme.

Autrement dit, deux internautes peuvent recevoir des recommandations très différentes simplement parce que leurs historiques de navigation diffèrent.

Certains parlementaires estiment néanmoins que cette personnalisation peut favoriser la constitution de bulles informationnelles et souhaitent davantage de transparence, voire davantage de contrôle.

Les critiques répondent qu'un contrôle accru des recommandations pourrait conduire, volontairement ou non, à privilégier certains discours plutôt que d'autres. [Ils veulent décider quelles vidéos seront mises en avant.]

Le débat oppose donc deux conceptions : faut-il laisser l'algorithme répondre aux préférences individuelles, ou faut-il lui imposer des critères d'intérêt général ?

Glossaire

Algorithme : ensemble de règles informatiques déterminant les contenus proposés.

Bulle informationnelle : environnement où un utilisateur voit principalement des informations conformes à ses préférences.

---

4. Les médias "de confiance"

Parmi les pistes évoquées figure également la possibilité de mieux identifier certaines sources considérées comme particulièrement fiables.

Les défenseurs de cette approche estiment qu'elle aiderait les citoyens à distinguer plus facilement les contenus journalistiques des rumeurs circulant sur Internet.

Ses opposants craignent au contraire qu'un tel système crée une hiérarchie officielle de l'information. [Ils vont choisir les médias de confiance et invisibiliser les autres.]

Une interrogation apparaît alors : qui déciderait des critères permettant d'attribuer ce label ?

Même si les intentions sont présentées comme protectrices, plusieurs analystes soulignent qu'un tel mécanisme pourrait favoriser certains acteurs au détriment d'autres et réduire progressivement la diversité des opinions disponibles.

---

5. Le rôle de l'ARCOM et les pouvoirs de sanction

Les propositions envisagent également un renforcement des moyens dont disposeraient les autorités de régulation.

Les partisans de cette évolution considèrent que les outils actuels sont insuffisants face à la rapidité de diffusion des campagnes de manipulation.

Les critiques estiment, à l'inverse, qu'une extension des pouvoirs de sanction pourrait créer un précédent important en permettant des interventions plus larges sur les contenus diffusés en ligne. [Donner beaucoup plus de pouvoir à l'ARCOM pour pouvoir punir même ceux qui ne mentent pas.]

L'équilibre recherché apparaît particulièrement délicat : comment protéger l'espace public contre les manipulations sans porter atteinte à la liberté d'expression ?

---

6. Les arguments des deux camps

Les défenseurs de la réforme avancent plusieurs arguments.

Ils rappellent que les démocraties sont désormais confrontées à des campagnes de manipulation sophistiquées utilisant les réseaux sociaux pour influencer les opinions publiques.

Selon eux, laisser les plateformes s'autoréguler reviendrait à abandonner un élément essentiel du fonctionnement démocratique à des entreprises privées.

À l'inverse, les opposants considèrent que l'État ne devrait jamais disposer du pouvoir d'arbitrer les opinions recevables.

Ils soulignent qu'une fois les outils de contrôle créés, rien ne garantit qu'ils ne seront pas utilisés demain par des gouvernements moins respectueux des libertés publiques.

L'histoire montre que les pouvoirs exceptionnels accordés dans un contexte précis tendent souvent à perdurer bien au-delà de leur justification initiale.

---

7. Une question qui dépasse la France

Ce débat dépasse largement les frontières françaises.

Le Royaume-Uni, l'Union européenne, les États-Unis, l'Australie et plusieurs autres démocraties cherchent eux aussi à concilier liberté d'expression, lutte contre les manipulations numériques et protection des processus électoraux.

Partout, la même interrogation demeure.

Jusqu'où un État démocratique peut-il intervenir dans la circulation de l'information sans devenir lui-même l'arbitre du débat public ?

Il ne s'agit pas d'une opposition simple entre liberté absolue et contrôle absolu.

Le véritable enjeu consiste à préserver un espace où les citoyens peuvent continuer à confronter des idées différentes, y compris dérangeantes, tout en limitant les campagnes délibérées de manipulation.

L'équilibre est particulièrement difficile à trouver.

Mais c'est précisément dans les périodes de tension politique que les principes de liberté d'expression et de pluralisme sont le plus sévèrement mis à l'épreuve.

Glossaire

Liberté d'expression : droit de communiquer ses opinions dans les limites fixées par la loi.

Pluralisme démocratique : existence durable d'une diversité de courants de pensée, de médias et d'opinions permettant un véritable débat public.

Read More

00-01-01 CONTINENTAL AND MARITIME POWERS

26 June 2026

EPISODE ZERO • CHAPTER ONE

Continental and Maritime Powers

LECTURE ONE

Introducing Sarah Paine and the Geography of Power

Overview

What if the biggest divisions between today's great powers have nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship - but with geography?

According to military historian Sarah Paine, the answers begin not with ideology but with geography. This opening chapter introduces one of the most influential modern frameworks for understanding geopolitics and explains why the distinction between continental and maritime powers remains central to today's rivalry between the United States, China and Russia.

Contents cover the following:

• Why Sarah Paine believes geography shapes strategy more than ideology

• The fundamental difference between continental and maritime powers

• How geography influences military, economic and diplomatic choices

• Why this distinction helps explain today's rivalry between the United States, China and Russia

• The geopolitical thinkers whose ideas will be explored in the chapters ahead.

──────────────────────────────────

1. Introduction

The world is often interpreted through the lens of political ideology. Democracies confront dictatorships. Capitalism competes with socialism. Liberalism challenges authoritarianism.

Professor Sarah C. M. Paine argues that these explanations, while important, are incomplete.

A deeper force has shaped international politics for thousands of years.

That force is geography.

Mountains, rivers, coastlines, oceans, deserts and navigable waterways impose constraints that no government can simply legislate away. Geography influences how states defend themselves, generate wealth, organise their economies and interact with neighbouring powers.

This perspective belongs to the discipline known as geopolitics.

In this series we examine one of Professor Paine's central arguments: that history is best understood as an interaction between two fundamentally different strategic worlds.

One is the continental world.

The other is the maritime world.

Their different geographical circumstances produce very different methods of exercising power.

──────────────────────────────────

2. Who is Sarah Paine?

Sarah C. M. Paine is Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

She previously spent more than two decades teaching strategy and military history at the United States Naval War College, where she specialised in naval strategy, modern Asian history and international security.

Her research combines military history, economics, diplomacy and geography into a unified explanation of international competition.

Unlike many commentators who focus on daily political events, Paine examines the structural forces that operate over centuries rather than election cycles.

This long-term perspective makes her work particularly valuable when analysing contemporary competition between the United States, China and Russia.

Although many of her conclusions invite debate, they are firmly grounded in historical evidence and the study of strategic decision-making.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Geopolitics – The study of how geography influences political power, security and international relations.

Grand Strategy – The long-term coordination of all instruments of national power, including diplomacy, military capability, finance, trade, technology and alliances, in pursuit of national objectives.

Strategic culture – The historical habits and assumptions that influence how nations think about security and power.

──────────────────────────────────

3. Geography Shapes Strategy

Professor Paine begins with a deceptively simple observation. Most countries throughout history have been continental powers.

Only a small number have possessed the geographical advantages needed to become true maritime powers.

This distinction matters enormously. A continental state must defend long land borders against neighbouring armies. A maritime state, protected by surrounding seas, can often rely primarily upon naval power for its security.

These contrasting circumstances shape every aspect of national policy.

• Military doctrine.

• Economic development.

• Diplomatic priorities.

• Alliance formation.

• Even political institutions & their rules.

Paine therefore argues that geography often influences strategy long before political leaders make conscious choices.

History does not become inevitable. But geography defines the menu from which governments choose.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Continental power – A state whose security depends primarily upon defending extensive land borders.

Maritime power – A state whose security and prosperity depend primarily upon naval power, overseas commerce and access to the sea.

Sea power – The ability of a nation to use the oceans for defence, commerce and strategic influence.

──────────────────────────────────

4. Why This Distinction Matters Today

The debate between continental and maritime strategy did not end with the Second World War... It continues to shape many of today's geopolitical flashpoints.

Russia remains primarily a continental power whose security thinking is dominated by land frontiers and buffer zones.

China combines elements of both traditions. Historically it developed as a continental civilisation, yet its extraordinary economic success since the late twentieth century has depended upon maritime trade.

The United States, the United Kingdom and several other allied nations remain predominantly maritime powers whose prosperity depends upon secure global sea lanes, open markets and international alliances.

Whether one accepts Professor Paine's conclusions entirely or not, her framework provides a powerful lens through which to understand contemporary strategic competition.

Throughout this series we shall examine both the strengths and the limitations of her argument.

──────────────────────────────────

Glossary

Buffer zone – A territory separating rival powers in order to reduce the likelihood of direct conflict.

Sea lane – A major maritime route used for international shipping and naval operations.

Alliance – A formal or informal partnership between states for mutual security or common strategic objectives.

──────────────────────────────────

5. Looking Ahead

This chapter provides the foundation for the lectures to follow.

The next chapter will introduce the intellectual pioneers whose ideas shaped modern geopolitics.

These include:

• Sun Tzu and the strategic traditions of continental Asia.

• Alfred Thayer Mahan and the theory of sea power.

• Sir Halford Mackinder and the Heartland Theory.

• Nicholas Spykman and the Rimland Theory.

Together they developed many of the concepts that continue to influence strategic thinking in Washington, Beijing, Moscow and other capitals today.

──────────────────────────────────

Conclusion

Professor Sarah Paine encourages us to view world politics through a much longer historical lens.

Her central proposition is simple but profound.

States do not merely choose strategies.

Their geography strongly influences which strategies are available.

Understanding this distinction between continental and maritime power provides one of the most useful foundations for analysing international relations in the twenty-first century.

The remaining chapters will explore this argument in greater depth and examine where it succeeds, where it is contested and how it helps explain today's increasingly competitive international order.

──────────────────────────────────

References

Paine, Sarah C. M. The Strategy of Strategy: Rethinking War and Peace.

Paine, Sarah C. M. Lecture series on Geopolitics and Grand Strategy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890).

Mackinder, Halford J. The Geographical Pivot of History (1904).

Spykman, Nicholas. The Geography of the Peace (1944).

Read More

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS INTRO VOLUME - WYCKOFF METHOD

20 July 2026

Volume: The Truth Behind Every Price Move

If price tells us where the market has been, what tells us whether the move was genuine - or merely an illusion?

Check the volume - not just price 

Every trading chart tells two stories simultaneously. Most investors concentrate on price, searching for patterns, trend lines and support levels. Yet price alone reveals only the outcome of the market's struggle. The missing piece is volume. 

Volume measures participation, conviction and the balance between supply and demand. 

By combining price with volume, traders can distinguish genuine breakouts from false breakouts, identify institutional buying and selling, and recognise when a trend is strengthening... or quietly running out of fuel.

Why does this matter?

Because many expensive trading mistakes arise from believing price without asking whether there is sufficient evidence to support it. A dramatic rally on weak volume may be little more than noise, while an apparently insignificant candle on exceptional volume may reveal the hidden activity of large institutional investors.

Contents cover the following:

• Why price and volume should always be analysed together.

• The principle of effort versus result.

• Four classic Wyckoff volume patterns.

• How volume reveals institutional activity.

• Common misconceptions about coloured volume bars.

• The importance of volume divergence.

• A practical five-question checklist to run before every trade.

1. When Markets Speak, Who Is Telling the Truth?

What if the price on a chart is merely the witness, while volume is the real evidence that reveals whether the witness is telling the truth?

Technical Analysis (TA) is often taught through candlestick patterns, moving averages, oscillators and trend lines. Yet beneath every price movement lies another piece of information that is arguably even more important: volume.

Many traders focus almost exclusively on where price has gone. Far fewer ask whether the move was supported by genuine market participation. That distinction can mean the difference between recognising a high-probability trend and being caught in a false breakout or exhaustion move.

Understanding volume transforms chart reading. Instead of seeing disconnected candles, traders begin to understand the forces of supply, demand and institutional participation that created them.

This article explains how volume provides the evidence behind price, introduces the principle of effort versus result, examines several classic volume patterns, and finishes with a practical five-question checklist that can be applied to virtually any market.

──────────────────────────────────

2. Price Is The Story. Volume Is The Proof.

Most traders instinctively separate price from volume.

Price occupies the main chart.

Volume sits underneath.

They are treated as two different pieces of information.

That mental model is misleading.

Price and volume are really two parts of the same conversation.

Price tells us what happened.

Volume tells us whether the move deserves to be believed.

A useful analogy is a courtroom.

Price is the witness giving testimony.

Volume is the evidence presented before the jury.

A witness may sound convincing, but without supporting evidence the testimony remains uncertain.

Likewise, a large price move unsupported by volume deserves scepticism.

Another analogy is an election.

Price tells us who won.

Volume tells us how many people actually voted.

A victory supported by millions of participants carries far greater significance than one decided by only a handful.

Exactly the same principle applies to financial markets.

A strong bullish candle accompanied by heavy volume reflects widespread participation.

An equally impressive candle formed on very light volume deserves much more caution.

From now on, every chart should be read by asking two simple questions:

• Where did price move? • How much participation supported that move?

Only together do they reveal the complete picture.

Glossary

Technical Analysis (TA) – The study of price and market behaviour using charts.

Volume – The number of shares, contracts or units traded during a given period.

Participation – The degree to which traders and investors are actively buying and selling.

──────────────────────────────────

3. The Most Important Principle: Effort Versus Result

One concept explains almost every meaningful volume signal.

Effort versus result.

Effort is represented by volume.

Result is represented by the size and behaviour of the price candle.

Imagine pushing a car uphill.

The pressure applied to the accelerator represents effort.

The distance travelled represents the result.

Normally, large effort produces a large result.

But markets frequently break this relationship.

Those mismatches often reveal the presence of professional traders or institutions.

Three situations deserve particular attention.

3.1 High Volume + Large Candle

Effort matches result.

Large participation.

Strong conviction.

The move is usually genuine.

3.2 High Volume + Small Candle

Heavy participation but little price progress.

This usually indicates absorption.

One side is pushing aggressively while an equally powerful participant quietly absorbs every order.

Like water pressing against a dam, enormous pressure builds without producing movement.

Eventually one side becomes exhausted.

When that happens, price often reverses sharply.

3.3 Low Volume + Continuing Price Movement

Many assume low volume should prevent movement.

In reality, price often moves easily because the opposing side has simply disappeared.

An upward move on light volume may indicate very few sellers remain.

A downward move on light volume may indicate buyers have stepped aside.

The path of least resistance is temporarily clear.

The relationship can be summarised simply.

Volume Candle Interpretation

High Large Genuine trend with strong participation

High Small Absorption and potential reversal

Low Still moving Lack of opposition rather than exceptional strength

Glossary

Absorption – Large participants quietly taking the opposite side of incoming orders.

Effort versus Result – Comparing trading activity with the amount of price movement produced.

Institutional trader – Large professional investors such as banks, hedge funds or pension funds.

──────────────────────────────────

4. Four Classic Volume Patterns

Several recurring patterns appear repeatedly across all liquid markets.

4.1 Stopping Volume

After a prolonged decline, an exceptionally high-volume bearish candle appears.

Instead of closing at its lowest point, the candle leaves a long lower shadow and finishes much higher.

This suggests institutions have absorbed aggressive selling.

The decline may be approaching exhaustion.

4.2 Buying Climax

Markets often appear strongest immediately before important peaks.

Price surges.

News becomes overwhelmingly optimistic.

Retail traders rush to participate.

Volume reaches extreme levels.

Ironically, this is often when institutions quietly distribute their holdings into enthusiastic buying.

Maximum optimism frequently accompanies maximum selling by professional money.

4.3 No Supply Test

Following an uptrend, price pulls back modestly.

Volume contracts dramatically.

The market is effectively asking whether anyone still wishes to sell.

The weak volume suggests the answer is no.

The existing trend therefore has a greater chance of continuing.

4.4 High Effort With Little Progress At Resistance

Price reaches resistance.

Volume expands dramatically.

Yet candles remain small.

The market is encountering significant selling pressure.

Large participants continue absorbing buying attempts.

Breakouts occurring under these conditions deserve caution.

Glossary

Stopping Volume – Heavy buying absorbing panic selling near potential market lows.

Buying Climax – Heavy volume accompanying the final stages of an advancing market.

Resistance – A price level where selling repeatedly overwhelms buying.

Support – A price level where buying repeatedly overwhelms selling.

──────────────────────────────────

5. The Biggest Myth About Volume

Many traders assume:

Green volume equals buying.

Red volume equals selling.

This is incorrect.

Every transaction contains both a buyer and a seller.

Without both participants, no trade occurs.

Volume measures activity.

It does not measure who is winning.

The colour of a volume bar merely follows whether the candle closed above or below its opening price.

The important questions are instead:

• How large was the volume?

• Where did the candle close?

Large volume combined with a weak close often carries far more information than the colour itself.

Glossary

Closing Price – The final traded price during the selected period. Opening high low closing.

Transaction – A completed trade between a buyer and seller.

──────────────────────────────────

6. Volume Divergence: The Market's Early Warning System

Healthy trends generally show agreement between price and volume.

When price rises and volume also expands, participation supports the advance.

When price falls while volume contracts, selling pressure may be weakening.

Problems arise when they disagree.

Suppose price continues making new highs.

Yet each advance occurs on progressively smaller volume.

Participation is quietly disappearing.

The trend is losing fuel.

An appropriate analogy is a rocket.

Initially, fuel tanks are full.

Power is abundant.

As fuel is consumed, thrust gradually weakens.

Eventually gravity takes over.

Markets behave similarly.

The reverse also applies.

Declining prices accompanied by steadily shrinking volume often suggest sellers are becoming exhausted.

A market bottom may be developing before price confirms the reversal.

Volume divergence rarely predicts the exact turning point.

It simply provides valuable early warning that market conviction is fading.

Glossary

Divergence – A disagreement between two market indicators, often signalling weakening momentum.

Momentum – The strength and persistence of a market trend.

──────────────────────────────────

7. The Five-Question Volume Checklist

Before entering any trade, ask the following.

Question 1

Is volume increasing or decreasing compared with recent trading?

Question 2

Does effort match the result?

Large volume should normally produce large candles.

If it does not, investigate why.

Question 3

Is there unusual volume at important support or resistance?

Exceptional activity around key levels is rarely accidental.

Question 4

Is volume diverging from price?

Agreement supports trends.

Disagreement warns of weakening conviction.

Question 5

What does the following candle confirm?

Many traders enter too early.

Waiting for one additional candle frequently filters out numerous false signals.

Patience often improves trading more effectively than adding another indicator.

──────────────────────────────────

8. Volume Makes Every Other Tool Better

Volume does not replace existing technical analysis.

It strengthens it.

Liquidity sweeps become more meaningful.

Support and resistance become more reliable.

Breakouts become easier to classify as genuine or false.

Trend analysis gains another layer of confirmation.

Rather than treating volume as another indicator beneath the chart, consider it the evidence supporting every price movement.

Price may occasionally be distorted by emotion, news or short-term volatility.

Volume reveals where genuine commitment exists.

Once traders naturally begin asking whether effort matched the result, charts cease to appear random.

Instead, they become records of human behaviour, institutional participation and changing conviction.

Volume is not decoration beneath the candles.

It is often the market's most honest witness.

──────────────────────────────────

9. Test Yourself

Look back over your own charts.

Which of these patterns appears most frequently?

• Stopping volume.

• Buying climax.

• No supply test.

• High effort with little result at resistance.

Once you begin recognising them consistently, you may discover that charts reveal far more than price alone ever could.

──────────────────────────────────

Further Reading

• Richard D. Wyckoff — Studies in supply, demand and institutional accumulation.

• Tom Williams — Master the Markets (Volume Spread Analysis).

• Anna Coulling — A Complete Guide to Volume Price Analysis.

• John Murphy — Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets.

These works expand on many of the concepts introduced here and remain among the most influential references in modern volume analysis.

Read More

WHO WAS HERBERT HOOVER

16 July 2026

1. Who was Herbert Hoover?

Herbert Hoover was the 31st President of the United States, serving from 1929 to 1933. Before becoming president, he was an internationally respected mining engineer, humanitarian, and Secretary of Commerce.

Great Depression – the severe worldwide economic downturn that began in 1929.

2. What happened during his presidency?

Hoover's presidency was overshadowed by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, just months after he took office.

He was widely criticised because:

Unemployment rose to around 25%

Thousands of banks failed

Businesses collapsed.

Many Americans lost their homes and savings.

Hoover believed strongly in:

Limited federal government

Voluntary cooperation between businesses

Balanced budgets

Local rather than national relief efforts.

Many Americans felt these measures were too little and too late.

3. The Bonus Army

One event particularly damaged his reputation.

In 1932, thousands of First World War veterans marched on Washington demanding early payment of promised bonuses. When many refused to leave, Hoover ordered the Army to remove them. Troops under Douglas MacArthur used cavalry, infantry and tear gas.

Images of veterans being driven out shocked the country and further weakened public support.

Bonus Army – a group of veterans seeking early payment of promised military bonuses.

4. Defeat and later life

In the 1932 presidential election, Hoover was overwhelmingly defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After leaving office, he spent many years criticising Roosevelt's New Deal. His reputation gradually recovered.

Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower asked him to lead commissions to improve the efficiency of the federal government.

He remained active in public service until shortly before his death.

5. His legacy

Historians today generally take a more balanced view than was common for decades.

Many argue that the Great Depression was already beginning before Hoover could influence events.

He actually expanded federal involvement more than previous presidents, though far less than Roosevelt would later. His cautious approach proved politically disastrous because the crisis demanded far more visible government action.

He died on 20 October 1964 at the age of 90 in New York City and was buried in West Branch, Iowa, beside his wife, Lou Henry Hoover.

His reputation remains mixed: remembered by many as the president associated with the Great Depression, but also recognised as an accomplished engineer, humanitarian, and capable administrator whose presidency was overwhelmed by one of history's worst economic crises.

6. What this means for Trump

For Donald Trump, one of the greatest political nightmares would be to acquire a "Hoover legacy" ie a presidency forever defined by economic collapse. 

Herbert Hoover entered office only months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929, yet history largely remembers him as the president of the Great Depression, regardless of the deeper structural causes that had been building for years. 

Trump is acutely aware that history often judges leaders by outcomes rather than by theue own personal responsiblities. Today, the United States faces its own structural vulnerabilities: historically high public debt, persistent fiscal deficits, elevated asset valuations, this and other geopolitical tensions, and the possibility that tariffs, supply-chain disruption or financial instability could trigger a broader downturn. 

Whether or not such a crisis originated during his administration, a severe recession or debt shock before he leaves office could become inseparably linked with his name. This creates a powerful incentive to prioritise economic stability, maintain market confidence and avoid any policy that might precipitate a crisis. 

In this sense, the fear of becoming "another Hoover" may weigh as heavily on Trump's seemingly erratic decision-making as any foreign policy calculation because presidents are remembered less for the complexity of the circumstances they inherit than for the condition in which they leave the nation.

Trump is determined to avoid ending his presidency with either a "Carter moment" abroad or a "Hoover moment" at home.

Read More

THE EMERGING CYPRUS SETTLEMENT: A NEW APPROACH TO REUNIFICATION?

13 July 2026

UN draws up new blueprint to end Cyprus crisis after 52 years of stalemate.

13 July 2026

THE EMERGING CYPRUS SETTLEMENT: A NEW APPROACH TO REUNIFICATION?

Could Cyprus finally be moving away from decades of arguments over constitutional labels and towards a settlement based instead on practical cooperation?

Contents cover the following:

• Why a new approach is reportedly being discussed.

• How power would be divided between the two communities.

• Proposed arrangements for government, territory and security.

• The economic incentives behind a settlement.

• Why these proposals remain speculative.

Proposals

Structure

- Two constituent states with political equality, replacing the federal model with "constructive ambiguity" (Greek Cypriots can call it a federation, Turkish Cypriots a confederation)

- Drastic reduction in shared competences; most governance handled separately by each state

- Small central structure only for matters that can't be devolved

Governance

- Rotating presidential council led by both leaders (2-1 or 3-1 ratio favouring Greek Cypriot side)

- Overarching council of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot MPs, not a directly elected federal parliament

- Joint cabinet of ~5-6 ministries: foreign affairs, defence, internal affairs/citizenship, finance, European affairs

- At least one decisive Turkish Cypriot vote in the Council of Ministers as an equality safeguard

Territory

- TRNC cedes land, including Varosha (Maraş), in exchange for recognition and autonomy

- Varosha returned first in a phased transition

Security/guarantors

- 1960 guarantor system (UK, Turkey, Greece) replaced with a Nato-formula multinational presence

- South wants Turkish troop withdrawal; TRNC wants troops to stay for protection — unresolved

Transition

- 2-3 year transition period

- Phased introduction of Turkish Cypriot "three Ds": direct trade, direct flights, direct contacts

- Easing of Turkish restrictions and access to Turkish ports

Wider package

- Possible movement on joint natural gas exploitation

- Explicit link between a Cyprus settlement and the Türkiye-EU customs union agenda

Status note: Cyprus's deputy high commissioner in London says no formal proposal exists yet - these are described as circulating ideas, not a plan either side has been asked to respond to.

Cyprus: A New Settlement Model

Infographic image - purposes:

-reduces complex geopolitical issues into a clear visual narrative;

-looks like an educational poster rather than propaganda;

-encourages readers to scan the key ideas before reading the article; and

-gives this blog a consistent and recognisable brand.

────────────────────────────

1. OVERVIEW

For more than fifty years, negotiations over Cyprus have repeatedly broken down over one fundamental question: should the island become a strong federation or remain divided into two largely separate political entities?

Reports emerging during 2026 suggest that diplomats and policy advisers are discussing an alternative approach that deliberately avoids resolving this constitutional dispute. Instead of attempting to define a single constitutional model, the proposals rely upon what has been described as "constructive ambiguity", allowing each side to interpret the settlement in its own preferred political language.

Importantly, Cyprus's Deputy High Commissioner in London has stated that no formal proposal currently exists. The ideas described below are understood to be informal concepts circulating among diplomats rather than an official negotiating package.

────────────────────────────

2. A DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL

Rather than creating a powerful federal government, the proposals envisage two politically equal constituent states exercising most governmental powers independently.

Under this approach, the central institutions would perform only those functions that genuinely require island-wide coordination. Everything else would remain under the authority of the two constituent administrations.

The deliberate ambiguity is intended to overcome decades of disagreement. Greek Cypriots could continue describing the arrangement as a federation, while Turkish Cypriots could equally regard it as a confederation of two politically equal entities.

Constructive ambiguity – a diplomatic technique in which deliberately flexible wording allows different parties to interpret the same agreement in different ways.

────────────────────────────

3. GOVERNANCE

The proposals envisage an unusually small central government.

Leadership would be exercised through a rotating Presidential Council involving both communities. Various formulas have reportedly been discussed, including arrangements giving the Greek Cypriot side either a 2:1 or 3:1 rotational advantage while preserving continuous Turkish Cypriot participation.

Instead of creating a powerful directly elected federal parliament, the central legislature would consist of an overarching council made up of members from both existing parliaments.

Only around five or six ministries would remain at central level, likely including:

• Foreign affairs.

• Defence.

• Internal affairs and citizenship.

• Finance.

• European affairs.

An additional safeguard reportedly under discussion would require at least one decisive Turkish Cypriot vote within the Council of Ministers before important decisions could be adopted, reinforcing the principle of political equality despite demographic differences.

Political equality – a constitutional principle ensuring both communities possess meaningful participation in major decisions regardless of population size.

────────────────────────────

4. TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Territory remains one of the most sensitive issues.

The reported ideas envisage the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) transferring certain areas to Greek Cypriot administration, including the long-abandoned district of Varosha (Maraş).

Varosha would reportedly be returned during the first phase of implementation, with further territorial adjustments taking place gradually in exchange for greater recognition of Turkish Cypriot autonomy.

Varosha (Maraş) – the abandoned coastal district of Famagusta that has remained largely closed since 1974 and has become one of the most symbolic disputes in the Cyprus conflict.

────────────────────────────

5. SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEES

Security remains perhaps the most difficult unresolved issue.

The proposals reportedly contemplate replacing the 1960 guarantor system involving the United Kingdom, Türkiye and Greece with a multinational security presence based upon a NATO-style framework.

However, substantial disagreement remains.

Greek Cypriots generally seek the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island, while Turkish Cypriots continue to regard a Turkish military presence as an essential security guarantee following the events of 1963-64 and 1974.

No compromise on this question has yet emerged.

Guarantor system – the security arrangements established in 1960 under which the United Kingdom, Türkiye and Greece assumed responsibility for safeguarding Cyprus's constitutional order.

────────────────────────────

6. IMPLEMENTATION

Rather than immediate reunification, implementation would reportedly occur over a transition period lasting approximately two to three years.

During this period, Turkish Cypriots would progressively obtain what have become known as the "Three Ds":

• Direct trade.

• Direct flights.

• Direct contacts.

At the same time, Türkiye would reportedly ease restrictions affecting transport and commercial access, including greater access to Turkish ports.

A phased approach is intended to allow confidence between the two communities to develop gradually while institutions become operational.

Transition period – a staged implementation process allowing political and administrative reforms to take effect over several years rather than immediately.

────────────────────────────

7. THE WIDER GEOPOLITICAL PACKAGE

The proposals reportedly extend well beyond Cyprus itself.

One important element would involve greater cooperation over offshore natural gas resources in the Eastern Mediterranean, allowing both communities to benefit economically from future energy development.

The package is also said to be linked to wider discussions between the European Union and Türkiye, particularly concerning the possible modernisation of the EU-Türkiye Customs Union.

Such economic incentives could provide additional political momentum that previous peace initiatives have lacked.

Customs Union – an agreement allowing goods to move between participating economies without customs duties while applying common external "fortress" tariffs.

────────────────────────────

8. ASSESSMENT

Although these ideas represent one of the more innovative approaches discussed in recent years, they remain entirely unofficial.

No formal negotiating document has been published, and neither side has been asked to accept or reject the proposals. The reported concepts should therefore be viewed as exploratory diplomatic thinking rather than an agreed peace plan.

Nevertheless, the proposals illustrate a potentially significant shift in emphasis. Rather than attempting to settle decades-old arguments over constitutional theory, they seek to reduce the powers of the central government, maximise local self-government and leave politically sensitive terminology deliberately unresolved.

Whether such constructive ambiguity can succeed where previous, more detailed constitutional settlements have failed remains one of the central questions facing the future of Cyprus.

────────────────────────────

REFERENCES

• Reporting by Reuters, July 2026.

• Statements by the Cyprus Deputy High Commissioner in London.

• 1960 Treaty of Guarantee.

• United Nations Good Offices Mission in Cyprus.

Read More

BOMBING TO WIN: PAPE ON RUSSIA

12 July 2026

THE ESCALATION TRAP, PART TWO: WAHINGTON'S WAR AGAINST RUSSIA — AND PUTIN'S RESPONSE

(Part One: Bombing to win: Pape on Iran)

When a stronger power fails to achieve its political objectives quickly, does continued escalation restore leverage - or does it deepen the trap?

Contents cover the following:

• The escalation trap cycle.
• The difference between territorial conquest and a war of attrition.
• The Donbas fortified belt.
• The drone revolution changing battlefield dynamics.
• The two possible exits: escalation or armistice.

1. OVERVIEW

This report extends the escalation trap framework, previously applied to the Iran war, to the conflict now entering its fifth year between Russia and a Ukraine that is substantially armed, financed and directed by the United States and NATO. Political scientist Robert Pape, discussing the war with Tom Switzer, argues that President Vladimir Putin is stuck in an escalation trap of his own: a war that has delivered little territorial gain in over four years, at great cost, while the tactical balance of power has - according to Pape -  been shifting against him.

Russia entered Ukraine in February 2022 with roughly 160,000 troops - not a force capable of conquering and holding a country Ukraine's size. Its actual aim was to compel Kyiv to negotiate. Ukraine, in what appeared to be good faith, requested Russian withdrawal from around the capital as the basis for talks, and Russia complied. It was only after that withdrawal, and the collapse of the Istanbul-track negotiations, that the grinding war of attrition we now recognise properly began.

Pape's escalation trap is a dynamic in which neither side can accept the political cost of stopping, so each move meant to gain advantage instead deepens the commitment. Prof Pape asks if the trap here in Russia's case is closing on the ostensibly stronger party.

The escalation trap - how it works and the ways out of it.

Glossary

Escalation trap — A situation in which each attempt to resolve a conflict leads to greater military commitment.

War of attrition — A strategy of wearing down an opponent's manpower and materiel over time, rather than seeking rapid decisive victory.

Tactical vs aggregate balance of power — Aggregate power is the raw comparison of manpower, population and industrial capacity. Tactical power is which side can actually convert that advantage into territory on a given day, given terrain, technology and morale.

────────────────────────

2. FOUR YEARS, ONE PERCENT

The numbers Pape cites are the heart of his case. By August 2022, following Russia's withdrawal from the north, Moscow controlled around 18 percent of Ukrainian territory, concentrated in the Donbas. Four years on, in July 2026, that figure stands at roughly 19 percent. Russia has therefore gained approximately one percentage point of Ukrainian territory across the entire war - and Pape notes that over the past six weeks alone, Institute for the Study of War (a Washington think tank, so caution needed) mapping shows Russia's net territorial holdings have actually contracted by around 400 square kilometres.

Set against that single point of territory is a casualty toll Pape puts, on the low end of available estimates, at close to a million Russian dead and wounded, including some 350,000 killed — more than double the size of the entire invading force in February 2022. He is quoting from ISW, a think tank funded by the American arms industry in part.

Putin's actual war aims, as he set them out in a June 2024 address to his own foreign ministry, go well beyond the four Donbas oblasts Russia already substantially holds, to include a further four, amounting to roughly 40 percent of Ukrainian territory. On Pape's arithmetic, Russia remains some 21 percentage points of territory short of that goal, after four years of war.

The War of Attrition and the Donbas Fortress Line

Territorial gains alone do not necessarily measure success in a war of attrition. To understand the primary objective of Russia's Special Military Operation is to see the conflict as not a rapid conquest of land, but the gradual destruction of the opposing army's ability to continue fighting. From this perspective, Russia's slow advance should be understood not as a failure to capture territory but as a deliberate strategy aimed at exhausting Ukrainian manpower, equipment and defensive capacity over time.

The key military obstacle facing Russia is the heavily fortified defensive belt in the Donbas. Since 2014, Ukraine has developed a network of fortified positions centred around several major urban strongholds, including Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Kostyantynivka, Toretsk and Pokrovsk. These cities form a defensive barrier designed to prevent a Russian advance westwards. The argument from this perspective is that Russia's progress has been slowed not because its offensive capability has failed, but because it is confronting some of the most heavily prepared defensive positions in modern warfare. Once these fortifications are breached, the operational situation will change rapidly, allowing Russian forces to advance to the Dnieper River (where Ukraine's next major defensive line would doubtless likely be established).

Glossary

Donbas — The eastern Ukrainian industrial region comprising Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the focus of fighting since 2014.

Oblast — A regional administrative division in Ukraine and Russia, roughly equivalent to a province.

ISW — Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank that publishes daily mapping of the front line. See below.

War of attrition – A military strategy focused on gradually exhausting the enemy's forces and resources rather than achieving rapid territorial conquest.

Fortified defensive belt – A system of prepared military positions, including trenches, bunkers, obstacles and defended urban areas, designed to slow or stop an attacking force.

Operational breakthrough – A successful penetration of enemy defensive lines that creates the opportunity for rapid advances into less protected territory.

Institute for the Study of War (ISW) – A Washington, D.C.-based private research organisation founded in 2007 that produces military assessments, battlefield maps and analysis of conflicts including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. It is funded primarily through private contributions, philanthropic donations and defence-sector and corporate donors – like many Washington foreign policy think tanks, it has received support from individuals and organisations connected to the defence and security community.. Critics argue that, like many Washington think tanks, its analysis reflects the strategic assumptions of the US foreign policy establishment and the interests of America's military industrial complex, rather than a national interest for the people as a whole.

Special Military Operation (SMO) – The term used by the Russian government to describe its military intervention in Ukraine from February 2022. Moscow presents the operation as a limited military campaign with specific objectives rather than a conflict aimed at destroying or occupying Ukraine as a whole - this may change of course. Russian policy is to target military infrastructure and combat forces and not the Ukrainian population, particularly in regions with large Russian-speaking communities and historical ties to Russia.

War – A sustained armed conflict between states or organised political forces involving military operations. In common usage, the term implies a broader conflict involving national mobilisation, strategic objectives and potentially attacks affecting civilian infrastructure and populations. Worth noting that international law distinguishes between legitimate military targets and prohibited attacks against civilians, regardless of whether a conflict is described as a war or a military operation.

────────────────────────

3. THE DRONE REVOLUTION AND THE BRICK WALL

Pape's explanation for the stalemate centres on the emergence of millions of cheap, mass-produced drones, assembled inside Ukraine itself.

The effect has been to stall the breakthrough of the Ukrainian fortified front line. Breaking through now requires not merely a manpower advantage, but the ability to physically punch through a battlefield saturated with cheap reconnaissance and strike drones.

John J. Mearsheimer - also a geopolitics professor at the University of Chicago - makes a rival case and publishes in the same week. He does not dispute the drone numbers so much as their significance. He argues Russia retains a two-to-one manpower advantage on the front line, compounded by roughly 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers listed as absent without leave and a serious draft-evasion problem Russia's volunteer force does not share. Weaponry supplied to Ukraine by Washington has slowed, and the informal European coalition supplying arms has thinned as several member states have stepped back. Russia's industrial base, on this reading, continues to grind out material at a pace Ukraine cannot match indefinitely, and the correct description of the war is a slow but real Russian offensive - not a Ukrainian one.

Pape does not reject the aggregate figures. He accepts Russia has always held, and continues to hold, the raw advantage: roughly 145 million Russians against some 35 million Ukrainians, close to a three-to-one ratio. His argument is that this aggregate advantage has coexisted with a tactical balance that has been moving toward Ukraine for at least eighteen months, and that four years without the predicted Ukrainian collapse is itself evidence for which balance is actually determining events on the ground.

Glossary

Precision revolution — A shift in warfare toward cheap, mass-deployable guided munitions that displace the need for expensive, scarce precision weapons.

Brick (breakthrough) — Military slang for the concentrated force needed to rupture a defended front line rather than simply pressing against it.

AWOL — Absent without leave; a soldier who has left a post without authorisation.

John J. Mearsheimer – An American political scientist and one of the leading scholars of offensive realism, a theory of international relations which argues that great powers compete for security and influence because the international system lacks a higher authority capable of protecting them. Mearsheimer is a professor at the University of Chicago and has long studied great-power rivalry, military strategy and the causes of war. He has argued that NATO expansion and the prospect of Ukrainian alignment with the West the factors behind the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Professor Mearsheimer and Professor Robert Pape are both prominent realist scholars at the University of Chicago and are colleagues in the same academic environment, although they differ in their analysis of the war's dynamics and likely outcomes.

────────────────────────

4. CRIMEA AND THE LOGISTICS WAR

The most recent development Pape points to concerns Crimea, formally part of the Soviet Union until 1954 and base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, retaken by Russia in 2014 after a western-backed coup in Kiev that installed a regime hostile to Russia. Ukraine has extended its drone campaign deep behind Russian lines, targeting fuel depots, refineries and the logistics network supplying both the front and Crimea itself - reaching, in some cases, as far as Russia's Urals region.

The stated Ukrainian objective throughout has been the denial of oil, gas and other logistical resources to the front line and to Crimea specifically, not attacks on civilian population centres - a distinction Pape draws explicitly. Crimea has reportedly lost electricity and fuel supply as a result, and Russia has responded by attempting to resupply the peninsula by sea, with roughly 35 tankers reported involved; Ukrainian drones have struck at that tanker traffic in turn, and reporting points to a substantial exodus of Russian personnel and civilians from the peninsula. None of this amounts, in Pape's telling, to Ukraine retaking Crimea, and he is careful to say so. It is a logistics war, not a war for territory in the south.

It is worth being precise here, since Western commentary has often blurred the two campaigns. Russia's own strike campaign over the same period has been directed primarily at Ukraine's energy and transport infrastructure ie the grid, substations, rail nodes and fuel storage sustaining the Ukrainian war effort, rather than at civilian population centres as such.

Glossary

Black Sea Fleet — Russia's naval fleet based principally at Sevastopol in Crimea since the eighteenth century.

Logistics targeting — Strikes aimed at the fuel, transport and supply infrastructure sustaining a military campaign, as distinct from strikes on population centres.

────────────────────────

5. THE NATO SUMMIT AND PUTIN'S NARROWING WINDOW

Pape's freshest argument, offered days before this exchange, is that the recent NATO summit may prove more consequential for this war than any single Russian strike. NATO appears to believe it can create a home-Ukrainian capacity to produce its own Patriot interceptors, this reinforcing Ukraine's long-term position just at the moment Washington's attention became increasingly consumed by the parallel Iran crisis. Only Japan and Germany have a license to produce Patriot missiles (need to check this). But even when a licence is granted, just seting up the plant, in the case of Japan, took 10 years. Building the Patriot missiles is an extremely complicated manufacturing process. Then there is the risk of that on the day the production facility opens the Russians completely destroy it as happened with the nnn factory

Most commentary reads Russian escalation - the strikes on Kyiv, the explicit threats directed at Poland - as a sign of strength. Pape's reading inverts this: leaders who can no longer achieve their original war aims often reach for escalation not because it promises victory, but because accepting failure carries an unacceptable domestic political cost. Escalation, on his account, is a symptom of strategic weakness - and Putin's search for leverage may now extend beyond Ukraine, toward the two-front strategic problem an Iran war creates for Washington.

Glossary

Patriot interceptor — A US-made surface-to-air missile used to shoot down incoming ballistic and cruise missiles.

Two-front problem — A strategic situation in which a state must divide attention and resources between two simultaneous crises in different regions.

────────────────────────

6. THE KOREA PRECEDENT

Both Pape and Mearsheimer converge, in the end, on a similar shape for how this could conclude, even while disagreeing about who currently holds the advantage. The precedent both invoke is Korea: not a peace treaty but an armistice, freezing the front roughly where it lies, alongside a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO, embedded in the Ukrainian constitution.

The obstacle, on Pape's account, is not the absence of a plausible settlement but that Moscow and Kyiv do not yet agree on the underlying balance of power. Russia continues to believe the aggregate numbers - population, industrial output, raw manpower - award it the additional 21 percent of territory Putin specified in 2024. Ukraine and its backers increasingly believe the tactical balance, driven by the drone campaign, entitles Kyiv to hold the line where it stands and believe it can wait Russia out. Until the belligerents converge on a shared reading of that balance, costs alone - however severe - will not be sufficient to end the fighting.

Glossary

Armistice vs peace agreement — An armistice halts fighting without resolving the underlying political dispute; a peace agreement formally settles it. Korea (1953) illustrates the difference: the war never legally ended, only the shooting stopped.

Line of contact — The current front line between opposing forces in an active conflict. Drones have added considerable depth to the front line and asymmetric methods have taken the tension off the front line.

────────────────────────

7. CONCLUSION

Pape's account of this war differs sharply from the version - Russia bombing civilians, invading to conquer, now grinding toward inevitable victory - that has dominated much contrarian commentary. On his reading: Russia went in to force negotiation, not conquest; its strikes have overwhelmingly targeted energy and logistics infrastructure feeding Ukraine's war effort, mirroring Ukraine's own campaign against Russian logistics; and four years of near-static front lines, against catastrophic Russian casualties for negligible territorial gain, look, to Pape, considerably more like strategic failure than success.

Where this leaves Putin, in Pape's "escalation trap" framework, is two options and no comfortable third path. He can escalate further - expanding the war's geography, leaning on nuclear rhetoric, or exploiting Washington's parallel entanglement in Iran - hoping to manufacture leverage the battlefield has not delivered. Or he can accept a negotiated freeze along something like the current line, at a cost of roughly 21 percent of his stated ambition, and the domestic risk of visibly falling short of the goals he announced in 2024.

Mearsheimer's dissent is a useful corrective against confidence in Kyiv's position: Russia's manpower and industrial advantages are real, and Western arms supply has genuinely dried up. But both professors accept  the four-year record of territorial stasis. This fact neglects the difference between a war of attrition and a war of conquest and is itself the strongest evidence for Pape's case... a war some think was meant to be won quickly, by conquest, has instead become the purest illustration yet of the trap that gives his framework its name.

Glossary

Strategic failure — Failing to achieve a war's political objectives, even where individual tactical engagements are won.

Negotiated freeze — A settlement halting active combat without resolving the underlying territorial or political dispute.

Escalation momentum — “nothing’s gonna stop this train”.  “Runaway train never going back. Wrong way on a one-way track”

Metaphor: a situation has acquired its own momentum and the original actors have lost control. Escalation could be seen as leveraging one's "sunk cost"... and what happens when the ongoing costs exceed at the benefits and the actor receives a "margin call".

────────────────────────

REFERENCES

Robert A. Pape, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Cornell University Press, 1996).

Robert A. Pape, "Putin's Escalation Trap: Why Russia is Losing the War — and the Iran War May Be His Last Opportunity," The Escalation Trap (Substack, 10 July 2026).

Robert A. Pape, interview with Tom Switzer, responding to John Mearsheimer, July 2026.

John J. Mearsheimer, public commentary on the balance of manpower in the Russia-Ukraine war, University of Chicago, July 2026.

Institute for the Study of War (ISW), daily control-of-terrain mapping, Ukraine conflict.

Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (Yale University Press, 1966).

Read More