Opinion
The Tragedy of a Nation: Bashar’s Glory Days and the Road to Ruin
On December 9th, Russia officially announced that it had granted asylum to Syria’s former president Bashar al-Assad and his family. On the same day, the Syrian embassy in Russia lowered the tricolor two-star flag of the “Arab Republic of Syria,” which had flown for over half a century, and raised the opposition’s tricolor three-star flag. Thus, Russia became the first major power to seamlessly transition its allegiance to the Syrian opposition government. Simultaneously, another long-time Syrian ally, Iran, also publicly announced its recognition of the new Damascus regime. The “strategic allies” Russia and Iran, who had been supporting Bashar in his campaigns, pivoted overnight to embrace their former adversaries. Such cold pragmatism—turning a blind eye to old allies’ tears while joining the smiles of new ones—is both baffling and unsettling.
However, reality is as cruel as it is straightforward. Politics is heartless, and the pursuit and defense of national interests are naked and unrelenting. When Bashar’s regime became a liability and an unreliable partner, its abandonment became inevitable. With Russia and Iran increasingly preoccupied with their own troubles, dropping Bashar and switching sides amounted to damage control and a last-minute effort to stop their losses.
The sudden collapse of Bashar’s regime surprised all parties, even those with the most advanced intelligence and information networks. Otherwise, how can one explain Israel’s sweeping bombardment of Syrian military targets and its occupation of more territory, or the United States’ large-scale bombing campaigns against remaining ISIS strongholds in Syria? These actions indicate that neither Israel nor the West anticipated such a swift and thorough collapse of Bashar’s regime. Moreover, they did not expect the opposition forces, particularly the “Liberation of Syria” alliance, which pose an even greater threat to Israel and the West, to seize Syria’s heartland so easily and control all the country’s war machinery.
Deeply analyzing the rapid and disastrous defeat of Bashar’s regime holds significant value. It offers lessons for authoritarian governments regarding governance and decision-making, and it provides insights for all nations on how to maintain diplomatic alliances and ensure their viability under certain conditions.
The primary reason for this historic upheaval in Syria lies within Bashar’s regime itself—or, more broadly, the Assad family, which controlled Syria for over 50 years, and the elite circles surrounding it. The key conclusion is that, despite being trapped in the vortex of war, the regime failed to adapt to the circumstances, make decisions about war and peace, or reconcile national integration efforts. Instead, it relied excessively on external forces to safeguard its sovereignty and regime. Ultimately, this dependence turned the regime into a mere cog in foreign war machines. Once it became dysfunctional, abandonment and replacement were inevitable.
The rise and fall of Syria reflect the broader modern history of war and peace in the Middle East, serving as a microcosm and a living museum of this turbulent process. Since 1948, driven by the ideals of Arab nationalism, Syria actively joined efforts to oppose the partition of Palestine, setting itself on a long-term collision course with Israel and enduring hostility with the West. This path ultimately led Syria to align with the Soviet Union, later binding itself tightly to Russia and Iran in its struggle for survival and development.
The Assad family, belonging to the Alawite sect—a minority within the Shia branch of Islam—long faced suppression, discrimination, and marginalization. During the French colonial period, Alawite men had little choice but to join the military to make a living. This adversity inadvertently enabled the Alawite sect to grow into a dominant force in the Syrian military. It played a central role in overthrowing the Faisal monarchy and became a pillar of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. In the end, the Alawites turned the tide and emerged as the ruling family holding Syria’s destiny in their hands.
In 1967, Syria, whose intelligence chief had been turned by Moscow, was misled by the Soviet Union and false intelligence suggesting that “Israel would launch an attack.” Alongside Egypt, Syria eagerly prepared for war, which prompted Israel, under immense pressure, to launch a preemptive strike. With its singular strength, Israel defeated Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, capturing Palestine’s Gaza Strip (occupied by Egypt), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan’s Hashemite Kingdom), as well as the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. This war reinforced Syria’s image as a victim of aggression and occupation, solidified its role as a frontline state, and strengthened the Assad family’s legitimacy in ruling over a majority Sunni Muslim population.
On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt coordinated a large-scale surprise attack known as the “Ramadan War,” the largest blitzkrieg since World War II. Syria nearly recaptured the Golan Heights and put Israel on the brink of collapse. However, with U.S. support, Israel ultimately turned the tide, reclaiming the Golan Heights. Yet, this war shattered the myth of Israel’s invincibility, elevating Syrian President Hafez al-Assad as a contemporary Arab hero alongside Egyptian President Sadat, both becoming new icons of Arab nationalism.
However, on October 7, 2023, Hamas (the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement) launched a surprise attack on Israel on the fiftieth anniversary of the Ramadan War. Ironically, this event ultimately led to the collapse of the Syrian government and the total downfall of the Assad family’s rule, as though history was playing a massive joke. Yet Syria’s current tragedy can be traced back to the misguided path it took after the Ramadan War.
The “victory” of the Ramadan War gave Sadat the political capital and historical opportunity to change course and withdraw from the Palestinian conflict. Egypt had already paid a devastating price—100,000 casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, and nearly 40 years of lost focus on peace and development. Sadat proactively sought reconciliation with Israel and, through the Camp David Accords, recovered the entire Sinai Peninsula at the cost of abandoning its Arab allies Syria, Jordan, and Palestine.
Feeling “betrayed” by Egypt, Syria aligned itself with Libya and Iraq, raising the banner of Arab nationalism and becoming a stronghold of the Arab resistance movement. Assad, Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein naturally emerged as the “three strongmen” of the Arab world. They supported and cultivated anti-Israel resistance forces while simultaneously competing for leadership within the Arab world.
However, Assad’s Syria had inherent weaknesses, which made achieving peace through war or independent resistance unattainable—a tragic role that continues into Bashar’s era today. Syria’s limited territory, small population, and complex ethnic dynamics left the majority Sunni Muslim population under the rule of Alawite elites pursuing secularization. Meanwhile, Israel held onto the Golan Heights, a critical strategic area just 60 kilometers from Damascus, which further exacerbated Assad’s precarious position.
This left the Assad regime in a difficult and divided state: internally, it relied on the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party’s “one nation, one party, one leader” ideology, maintaining authoritarian rule under the banner of resisting Israeli occupation; externally, it avoided military confrontation with Israel to prevent further devastation, sustaining a “cold peace” for half a century that allowed for slow national development under relative stability.
Driven by competition with Iraq’s Ba’ath Party for legitimacy and leadership of Arab nationalism—and by the Alawite elites’ fear of the Sunni majority—Assad decisively sided with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1979-1988), turning his back on the broader Arab community. In February 1982, inspired by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic revival triggered by Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood staged an armed uprising in Hama, seeking to overthrow Syria’s “infidel regime.” The rebellion was brutally crushed. This historical event laid the groundwork for Hama’s support during the 2011 Arab Spring and the Syrian war, where local populations either cooperated with or passively watched rebel forces launch massive offensives against the government.
After the 1982 Lebanon War, the Assad regime, which had already lost the Golan Heights and viewed Lebanon as part of its sphere of influence, was unable to directly confront Israel. Instead, it entrusted the national responsibility of reclaiming lost territory to Hezbollah, which had been recently cultivated and armed by Iran. This opened the door for Iran’s westward expansion into the Arab heartland and gradually integrated Syria into the so-called “Shia Crescent.” To some extent, this represented the Assad regime betting Syria’s national destiny and its own rule on a third party rather than following Egypt’s example by courageously seeking peace with Israel to focus on development and improving democracy, livelihoods, and civil rights.
After the 1991 Gulf War, the Middle East entered a promising decade of peace. Saddam Hussein’s army—consisting of over a million elite troops—was crushed by a United Nations-authorized, U.S.-led coalition after attempting to use the occupation and annexation of Kuwait to force Israel’s withdrawal. U.S. President George H.W. Bush launched “Ramadan War” and subsequently worked with Russia (as the successor to the Soviet Union), the United Nations, the European Union, and Spain to initiate the Madrid Peace Process. For the first time, Israel—accustomed to tackling its enemies one by one—was brought under the same roof with its Arab adversaries, including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (along with Palestinian representatives), to negotiate “land for peace.”
Unexpectedly, Assad faced a second and third Arab betrayal. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Jordan—who had originally pledged to confront Israel alongside Syria—separately negotiated agreements with Israel. The PLO secretly signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, establishing transitional Palestinian autonomy, while Jordan normalized relations with Israel in 1994. From that point on, Assad viewed the Palestinian and Jordanian leadership as strangers, even enemies, cutting off all relations.
Assad’s original heir was not Bashar but his eldest son Basil, born in 1962. However, at a time when Assad was growing old and Basil’s personal reputation was on the rise, Basil, who was destined to inherit the regime, died in a mysterious car accident in 1994—an event that rewrote Syrian history. Bashar, who had originally planned to become an ophthalmologist, was immediately recalled to Syria. He swiftly joined the military, rose through the ranks, and was groomed as the successor, ensuring the continuation of the Assad dynasty.
Had Assad lived longer, Bashar might have inherited a legacy of peace and chosen a different path. If his elder brother Basil had not died, Bashar might have become a highly respected international doctor, perhaps even a Nobel laureate in medicine. Unfortunately, while members of royal families can sometimes choose their own future, others cannot—a stark contrast between Eastern and Western cultural traditions.
At the end of 1999, negotiations over the Golan Heights were close to an agreement but collapsed entirely due to an unintended turn of events that rewrote Middle Eastern history and Syria’s fate. In late 1999, Jordan’s King Hussein II passed away. Known for his remarkable emotional intelligence and extensive diplomatic ties, his funeral in Amman attracted an overwhelming number of world leaders and dignitaries.
Perhaps due to a softening heart as he approached the end of his life, pressure from the situation, or simply an inexplicable lapse in judgment, Assad, despite his frail health, broke tradition and personally attended the funeral of King Hussein. Following the Amman funeral, Israel suddenly announced the suspension of Golan Heights negotiations. The Israeli parliament passed a resolution requiring any policy concerning the future of the Golan Heights to receive two-thirds approval from the Knesset, followed by a national referendum.
Years later, reports emerged that Mossad—the formidable Israeli intelligence agency—had secretly swapped a temporary toilet Assad used at the Amman funeral. Subsequent analysis of Assad’s urine confirmed he was in the late stages of cancer and had little time left. Israel’s Security Cabinet feared that Bashar, then only in his early 30s, would be unable to secure his hold on power. If the Golan Heights were returned and Damascus fell into the hands of Arab nationalists or pro-Iranian forces, Israel would effectively be placing a noose around its own neck. Thus, the near-complete peace talks were permanently frozen.
Six months later, Assad passed away. The Israeli government, despite being an adversarial and warring nation, publicly expressed condolences to the Syrian people, government, and Assad’s family, describing him as a keeper of peace who honored his commitments. Bashar al-Assad assumed power as expected and consolidated his regime. However, he permanently lost the best opportunity to peacefully reclaim the Golan Heights. Instead, he found himself forced to bind Syria to the dual vehicles of the “Shia Crescent” and the “frontline state,” eventually becoming the hub of the “Axis of Resistance,” suffering exploitation from all sides. In this sense, Bashar’s Syria resembles the Western Roman Empire in its dying days, collapsing under the final onslaught of northern barbarians, or the Eastern Roman Empire, which, after a thousand years of survival amid wars and sieges, was finally sent to its grave by the Ottoman Empire following its occupation and division during the Fourth Crusade.
Bashar never aspired to be Syria’s angel or reform hero. After assuming power in 2000, he immediately sought reform, relaxed restrictions, and temporarily ushered in a vibrant and praiseworthy “Damascus Spring.” However, as the trends of liberalization and democratization began to threaten political transformation, Bashar, under immense pressure from powerful conservative forces and entrenched elites—and lacking the strength and political wisdom to persevere—abruptly shut the door to reform after just two years. This marked a lost opportunity to sever ties with history, with Iran, and the Shia Crescent, while reclaiming the Golan Heights through separate negotiations. Bashar dared not take such risks, fearing the same fate as Sadat, who pursued peace for land but paid with his life.
In 2005, the assassination of Saudi-backed Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Rafik Hariri implicated Syrian intelligence and Hezbollah, highlighting the brutal sectarian conflicts in the Islamic Middle East and the struggle over Lebanon. This event triggered the “Beirut Spring” or “Cedar Revolution,” forcing Syria to end its 30-year military presence in Lebanon and further affirming Lebanon’s independence.
The 2011 Arab Spring erupted following Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution,” which brought down several authoritarian Arab governments across the Mediterranean’s northwest coast. Its ripple effect eventually reached Syria on the eastern coast. The brutal handling of student protests in the southern town of Daraa sparked a broader uprising, with unrest spreading to traditional anti-Alawite strongholds like Hama. Bashar, facing his first major test after a decade in power, responded poorly. Instead of apologizing and addressing corruption and mismanagement, he blamed the West for orchestrating a “color revolution” and shut the door to dialogue. This fueled widespread dissatisfaction, plunging the country into chaos.
At a critical moment, Saudi King Abdullah called Bashar, offering $20 billion to create jobs, stabilize the economy, and maintain regime stability—on the condition that Damascus sever its strategic ties with Iran and the Shia Crescent. However, Bashar viewed Saudi Arabia’s proposed antidote as a poison pill, recognizing that his Alawite minority regime depended on the Shia family for survival. Additionally, reclaiming the Golan Heights required the support of Iran and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia’s outstretched olive branch was rejected, leading it to mobilize the Arab League and align with Western nations to intervene in Syria under the pretext of protecting civilians and human rights. This opened the curtain on the Syrian Civil War, with external funding and support for opposition forces.
At the brink of regime collapse, Russia—engaged in a geopolitical contest with the U.S. and NATO over Ukraine—intervened. To divert pressure and protect its last remaining Soviet-era sphere of influence in the Middle East, especially its Mediterranean naval base in Syria, Russia coordinated with China to veto Arab League and Western-sponsored resolutions in the UN Security Council, thwarting attempts to replicate Libya’s regime-change scenario. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, with tens of thousands of Shia militia and Hezbollah fighters crossing borders to support the regime, Bashar’s government regained most of its lost territory and major population centers. A ceasefire agreement was signed with the opposition in March 2020, stabilizing the situation for the first time in a decade. However, this left the country divided, with lingering roots of civil war and fragmentation.
Bashar understood the importance of eliminating opposition, yet Syria lacks the strength to uproot rebels protected by Turkey in the northwest and Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. in the northeast and east. Russia and Iran are also unwilling to bear the massive costs of direct confrontation with Turkey or the U.S. to fulfill Bashar’s ambitions for reunification. They have repeatedly urged Bashar to settle for stability and form a coalition government through negotiations—an offer he has rejected. Fundamentally, Syria remains a bargaining chip for Russia and Iran’s geopolitical interests. What matters to them is securing their core national interests, not who controls Damascus. Otherwise, how can one explain why Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias abandoned Bashar in his final hour?
Bashar was originally a “laissez-faire” figure. Despite not being religious, his visit to the Lingyin Temple during the Asian Games in Hangzhou turned him into an internet sensation, sparking controversy and unfounded speculation. Perhaps now, as an exiled leader, Bashar can finally let go of the burdens he has carried for 24 years—burdens too heavy for him to bear. He may return to being an ordinary person or even resume his old career in medicine. But Syria, having been placed on the operating table for half a century, remains carved up and bleeding. Who will save it from this torment?
Overthrowing Bashar’s regime and dismantling the remnants of the Ba’ath Party might not end Syria’s decades of bloodshed but could instead mark the beginning of new conflicts and suffering—much like the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime 20 years ago.
The BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, held in the Indian capital of New Delhi on May 15, 2026, carries a significance that extends far beyond the confines of routine diplomacy. This gathering culminated in the signing of one of the most comprehensive political documents to date, outlining the vision of the world order that BRICS envisions for 2026. Reading between the lines, the document reveals not merely the proceedings of a ministerial summit, but the contours of a comprehensive alternative vision challenging the Western-centric international system. Indeed, this text must be read as a political manifesto of the shifting balances of power, the accelerating global struggle for influence, and the emerging new world order of recent years.
The overarching theme dominating the entire document is “The Rise of the Global South.” BRICS members contend that the current international order is unjust, insufficiently representative, and fails to reflect the interests of developing nations. Consequently, they emphasize the urgent need to restructure foundational institutions such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In doing so, BRICS now positions itself as the voice of the non-Western world. Today, the global arena is traversing an era in which the post-World War II international system has plunged into a profound crisis of legitimacy and representation. Developments such as the wars in Ukraine, Iran, and Lebanon, the Gaza crisis, global trade wars, the weaponization of sanctions, energy security challenges, and technological competition demonstrate that the current system struggles to mirror contemporary global realities. It is precisely from this premise that the BRICS nations operate, sending a clear message to the world through the New Delhi Outcome Document: “The status quo is no longer sustainable.”
One of the most striking aspects of the document is how clearly it demonstrates that BRICS no longer views itself as a mere platform for economic cooperation. Having long focused primarily on economic development, trade, and finance since its inception, BRICS has now reached a far more ambitious posture. In the New Delhi Outcome Document, issues of security, geopolitical crises, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate policies, energy transition, and international governance reforms occupy a place as central as economics. This indicates that BRICS’s ambition to become a foundational actor in global politics is steadily gaining traction. Reading between the lines, the strongest emphasis emerges on the concept of a “multipolar world.” The core approach of BRICS is animated by the premise that the Western-centric, largely US-led international order, which took shape over the decades following the end of the Cold War, is no longer the sole alternative. Throughout the declaration, the repeated use of phrases like “more just,” “more representative,” “more democratic,” and “more inclusive” international system constitutes a direct critique of the current distribution of global power.
The sections concerning the reform of the United Nations Security Council are particularly critical. Indeed, the call for UN reform stands out as one of the most pivotal political segments of the document. BRICS nations explicitly state that the current structure fails to reflect contemporary realities. They contend that Africa, Latin America, and emerging Asian powers are underrepresented in decision-making mechanisms. What is even more remarkable is that China and Russia have reaffirmed their support for India and Brazil to assume greater roles within the Security Council. This state of affairs reveals, first and foremost, the elevation of India and Brazil to global-power status. Secondly, it demonstrates an increasing political cohesion within BRICS. Finally, it illustrates a fundamental questioning of the post-WWII international order.
Another prominent element in the document is the sharp critique of the sanctions policies pursued by the United States and the West. The intensive use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool in recent years has engendered collective discomfort among BRICS nations. The text emphasizes that unilateral sanctions violate international law and severely hamper the economic development of developing nations. Although no countries are named directly, this formulation can be read as a potent critique targeted at measures such as US sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, as well as the embargo on Cuba. This approach is a continuation of BRICS’s long-standing critique regarding the “weaponization of economics.” Indeed, one of the most strategic segments of the declaration emerges here. For BRICS is no longer merely criticizing the existing financial architecture; it is actively endeavoring to construct alternative mechanisms. Initiatives such as cross-border payment systems, trade in local currencies, financial integration, and the strengthening of the New Development Bank can be read as harbingers of a long-term quest to forge an alternative to the dollar-centric global economic structure. While it is premature to speak of a system capable of fully displacing the dollar, the steps taken by BRICS are beginning to demonstrate that the current financial order is not the only option.
Another major political segment of the New Delhi Document concerns the Gaza and Palestine issue. Here, we witness one of the strongest stances BRICS has ever taken on the matter. The document employs highly resolute language regarding Gaza and Palestine, with a notable emphasis on an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Furthermore, South Africa’s legal action against Israel and the rulings of the International Court of Justice are directly recalled in the text. In the face of recent offensives and the unfolding humanitarian crisis, BRICS nations have displayed one of their clearest collective stances to date. The call for an immediate ceasefire, the demand for unhindered humanitarian aid delivery, support for Palestinian statehood, and the emphasis on international law stand among the declaration’s most potent political messages. This can be interpreted as an indication of BRICS’s desire to become a more visible and effective political actor in global crises.
On the other hand, the text does not entirely gloss over the internal divergences within BRICS. It openly acknowledges that members hold differing views, particularly on Middle Eastern issues. This is significant because today’s BRICS is no longer a bloc comprised solely of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. With the integration of new members such as Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, it has evolved into a far more complex geopolitical entity. Interestingly, the document explicitly notes that rather than a unified stance, differing perspectives exist on certain issues. Specifically, it is conceded that members hold divergent positions on matters concerning Iran, the Gulf states, and Yemen. Despite these differences, the bloc’s ability to establish common ground demonstrates an expansion of BRICS’s diplomatic capacity. Viewed from this perspective, the New Delhi process also represents a significant diplomatic triumph for India. While the recent wave of expansion—bringing in Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia—has enriched the platform’s geopolitical diversity, it has also rendered collective decision-making processes more intricate. Particularly at a juncture where the war in Iran continues, the deep-seated divergences between Iran and the Gulf states led many experts to predict that BRICS would struggle to find common political ground and that the summit would be fraught with severe diplomatic friction. However, despite all these differences, India succeeded in rallying members with diverging interests and priorities around the same platform, proving that BRICS retains its capacity to generate dialogue rather than fracture. In this context, the outcome in New Delhi is not limited merely to the content of the published joint text. The true, striking success lies in the preservation of a diplomatic arena that enabled members—who find themselves directly opposed on certain issues in an extremely sensitive and polarized crisis environment—to compromise on other matters and continue negotiating under the BRICS umbrella.
Furthermore, one of the document’s most critical messages emerges in the realm of technology. The extensive coverage of topics such as artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, data security, and cybersecurity is no coincidence. Indeed, the global power struggle of the future will be shaped heavily through technological supremacy. BRICS nations clearly demonstrate their awareness of this reality and their intent to act in unison in the technological race. Particularly noteworthy is their quest to develop alternatives to Western-centric norms in artificial intelligence governance. A distinct approach is also observed in energy and climate policies. Instead of the rapid energy transition frequently championed by Western nations, the concept of a “just energy transition” is prioritized. At the heart of this approach lies the conviction that the economic growth needs of developing nations must not be disregarded. BRICS countries advocate for a balance between environmental responsibility and the right to development. This points to a major fault line that will become increasingly pronounced in global climate debates in the coming years.
When all these headings are evaluated together, the resulting picture is remarkably clear: BRICS is no longer merely a platform for safeguarding economic interests. It is a center of power beginning to articulate its own vision of how the international system ought to operate. At the core of this vision lies the objective of greater representation, sovereign equality, deeper multipolarity, and a stronger voice for developing nations in global decision-making processes.
The New Delhi Document, brought to the table at the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, is far more than a mere communique; it is one of the landmark texts of the historic transformation unfolding in global politics. As the world rapidly moves away from a unipolar structure, BRICS is emerging as one of the most powerful political and economic vehicles of this transition. Today, many rules of the international system may still be written by the West. Yet, the message rising from New Delhi is clear: far more actors now demand a seat at the table to rewrite those very rules. BRICS is transitioning from an economic club into a political, diplomatic, financial, and technological powerhouse. Its claim to serve as the collective voice and compass of the Global South is strengthening. It pursues a dual strategy: offering an alternative to Western-centric institutions while simultaneously working to transform them. BRICS is not yet establishing institutions to directly replace the UN, IMF, World Bank, or WTO; rather, it is striving to change the rules and the distribution of power within them.
The 2026 New Delhi Document of the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, hosted by India under its presidency, can be regarded as one of the most comprehensive strategic documents in the twenty-year history of BRICS. The text serves as a political manifesto for an era marked by the sunset of the US- and Western-led unipolar epoch, the demands of rising powers for greater agency, and the accelerating quest of the Global South to establish a permanent weight in the international system.
The essence of the document can be distilled into a single sentence: while BRICS remains a platform that adapts to the rules of the existing international order, it is simultaneously transforming into a global actor that seeks to rewrite them.
Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist & Author of the book “The Decline of American Power and the Rising Powers” (China-Russia-India-Brazil).
X: @umur_tugay
Contrary to what is written in its founding charter and press releases, or what its proponents claim, NATO is no ordinary defense and security organization. It is far more than that. It is a multidimensional, multifaceted organization driven by distinct ideological, political-economic, and class-based preferences. Moreover, as an organization born in the early stages of the Cold War, while its primary objective was ostensibly defined as “opposing the USSR and communism,” its actual function went far beyond this: it served as a mechanism to keep alliance members aligned with and under the control of the United States. Through NATO, the US has established immense influence not only over the defense, security, and foreign policies of member states, but also over their domestic politics, economic policies, educational institutions, universities, academia, think tanks, trade unions, and cultural industries.
As the apparatus of aggression and occupation of US imperialism, NATO launched its first out-of-area military operation in the mid-1990s in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Balkans. This was followed by the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. In the Gulf War of 1990–1991, during the US assault on Iraq, NATO was not directly involved as an alliance or a corporate entity. Instead, there was a US-led coalition that included numerous NATO members. At the time, NATO provided air defense systems to Türkiye but did not launch a direct military attack on Iraq.
In those years, with less than a decade having passed since the end of the Cold War in 1991, liberals and neoliberals alike were busy extolling the virtues of a single-centered, monocentric world order (note: not a “unipolar” world order, as a “pole” logically requires at least two opposites; to call it unipolar is incorrect both linguistically and logically). A tempest of liberalism, capitalism, postmodernism, globalization, and the “New World Order” was sweeping the globe. The United States had triumphed. The USSR had dissolved. The Warsaw Pact had collapsed. The Eastern Bloc had been consigned to history. The Berlin Wall had fallen. Socialism and communism had been defeated.
Under those circumstances, since NATO’s raison d’être had ceased to exist, it should logically have been consigned to history as well. Its utility was being questioned; people were asking whom it would protect, and against whom. Consequently, there was an active search for an enemy—or enemies—for NATO. And indeed, they were found.
Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass persuasion
NATO—which stood idly by, biding its time and waiting for the right conditions while Yugoslavia was being torn apart, its people massacred, and ethnic cleansing and mass rapes were being carried out—finally mobilized at the exact moment and under the specific conditions dictated by US imperialism, delivering a clear message to the world. It announced to the globe that its mandate now encompassed missions such as “peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and combating radical movements and terrorism.” This, of course, aligned seamlessly with the rhetoric of “human rights, freedom, democracy, and the civilized world” championed by the United States as NATO’s founding leader. For the United States cast itself as the guardian of these values and concepts; yet in their name, and hiding behind them, it attacked, bombed, and occupied other nations. It would go so far as to first instigate disputes and conflicts in target nations, lay the groundwork for ethnic, religious, and sectarian strife, actively encourage and provoke these clashes, and then proceed to occupy those countries under the pretext of resolving these very problems and restoring stability.
And there were millions of people across the world who believed these American lies. In particular, the US media, along with global outlets, academics, non-governmental organizations, and think tanks supported by Washington, operated virtually as weapons of mass persuasion, designed to convince and deceive the public.
The United States grew so arrogant in this policy that US Presidents began to declare this mission to be far more than a mere political duty—it was, they claimed, a religious, divine, and moral responsibility. The US peddled this falsehood in Iraq, as it did in Yugoslavia. As Yugoslavia was disintegrating—or being disintegrated—NATO sought to project an image and send a message that, as an alliance whose sole Muslim member was Türkiye, it was defending Muslim Bosniaks and Kosovars against Christian Serbs, thereby shielding the righteous and oppressed from the unjust and tyrannical.
The collapse of the Atlantic system
Years have passed. The global balance of power has shifted. The imperialist dominance and hegemonic capacity of the United States have eroded and continue to decay. Russia, particularly after Putin took power, staged a rapid recovery starting in the 2000s. It consolidated its influence, beginning with its near abroad. China, alongside its economic prowess, expanded its political, military, scientific, and technological power, emerging as the primary competitor and most worrisome adversary of the United States. Within the Atlantic system and the Western alliance—whose rules and institutions were established by the US itself—deep-seated divisions have emerged, running parallel to its fragmentation and loss of power. Under these conditions, the United States is both failing to manage its own deep internal fault lines and socio-class contradictions, and experiencing major friction with its allies. Its intent to reduce Canada to a mere province, its ambition to annex Danish-administered Greenland, its barbarism in Venezuela and Palestine, its joint aggression with Israel against Iran, and its threats directed at Cuba must all be interpreted through this lens.
In the past, an imperialist power would at least superficially fabricate lies to rationalize, justify, and legitimize its invasions, aggression, plunder, and barbarism. For instance, when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, immediately following the September 11 attacks, it cited the presence of Osama bin Laden—the Saudi leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network—in Afghanistan as its justification for the invasion. Similarly, during its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US propagated the lie that “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.” When the German dictator Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and the Italian dictator Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, they too presented historical, political, and geopolitical pretexts, however fabricated, to justify their actions.
Today, US imperialism does not even feel the need to construct such lies or manufacture pretexts. US President Trump openly talks of withdrawing from NATO, while scolding member states and insulting European leaders with arrogant remarks.
For this reason, NATO must be analyzed not by reading the words written in its founding treaty, but by grasping the shifting needs of US imperialism.
Beginning in late 2025 and extending throughout 2026, one of the most striking developments in world politics has been the successive convergence of major powers upon Beijing. Direct, high-level engagement with China by actors at the very core of the global system—such as the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—is widely interpreted as a potent signal of a shifting international order. These visits are indubitably far from routine diplomatic encounters. Rather, they represent symbolic and strategic maneuvers indicative of a fundamental realignment of the world’s power centers. In particular, the intensive engagement with China by four of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council within a brief window demonstrates that Beijing has evolved far beyond a mere economic powerhouse, establishing itself as a principal locus of global diplomacy.
For decades, the global order was predominantly US-centric. Following the end of the Cold War, the United States attained an unrivaled position militarily, economically, and diplomatically. China, conversely, was viewed as a rapidly growing economy defined primarily by its manufacturing capacity and cheap labor force. While Beijing possessed influence within the global system, the primary decision-making mechanisms of world politics remained firmly anchored in Washington. However, the transformation of the past two decades has elevated China from a mere economic giant to the epicenter of global strategic competition.
Today, China stands as one of the most pivotal actors in world trade. The vast majority of global supply chains are intricately linked to Chinese networks. Across a multitude of critical sectors—ranging from electric vehicles and battery technologies to artificial intelligence and solar energy—China has established itself as both a dominant producer and a global standard-setter. This immense economic capacity has naturally engendered commensurate political and diplomatic leverage. Global leaders now recognize that international challenges cannot be effectively managed by bypassing or ignoring China.
It is precisely here that the core significance of these recent visits to China becomes apparent. Donald Trump’s journey to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping underscored that despite the intense rivalry between Washington and Beijing, direct engagement has become an absolute necessity. Similarly, while Vladimir Putin’s strategic alignment with China has long been established, Moscow’s deepened cooperation with Beijing in the wake of its profound crisis with the West has significantly bolstered China’s geopolitical weight across Eurasia. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit was interpreted as a sign of Europe pivoting toward a more pragmatic trajectory in its policy toward China. The prior engagements of French President Emmanuel Macron had already demonstrated that Europe has no desire for a complete decoupling from China. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s discussions in Beijing were particularly noteworthy from an economic standpoint, as the Chinese market remains indispensable to German industry. Furthermore, the intensive diplomatic relations maintained by Serbian President Alexander Vučić with China demonstrate that Beijing’s influence on the European continent is by no means confined to major Western European states. Through infrastructure investments, transport projects, technology transfers, and defense cooperation in recent years, Serbia has emerged as one of China’s closest partners in Europe.
The common denominator among these visits was the pursuit of direct engagement with Xi Jinping. Xi is no longer viewed merely as the leader of China; for many nations, he has become a preeminent figure shaping the future of the global system. The transformation of China under Xi into a more centralized, visionary state structured around long-term strategic planning has magnified the personal significance of his leadership. Today, the international community is intensely focused on Xi Jinping’s decision-making. Consequently, pilgrimages to Beijing represent an effort to establish a direct, unmediated channel to Xi himself.
Symbolism is of paramount importance here; in international politics, the optics of “who travels to meet whom” are central to the perception of power. If global leaders continuously travel to Beijing while Xi travels sparingly—yet remains the figure everyone seeks to audience with—it naturally reinforces the message: Xi Jinping is no longer just the leader of China, but a chief architect of the global system. Remarkably, Xi’s reduced international travel has not diluted China’s influence. On the contrary, Beijing’s emergence as the primary destination of diplomatic pilgrimage projects an image of profound self-assurance. To many observers, this stands as one of the most visible symbols of a shifting world order. By rendering their respects in Beijing as much as in Washington, global leaders signal that the global equation is now being formulated here.
This shift is driven by tangible geopolitical realities. The contemporary world operates within a highly interdependent framework. While intense competition defines US-China relations, their economies remain deeply intertwined, rendering total decoupling virtually impossible. Across a vast spectrum of critical arenas—including trade, semiconductor technology, artificial intelligence, energy security, the Taiwan question, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Iranian crisis, and global supply chains—China has emerged as a decisive actor. Consequently, no major power, including Washington, can formulate a viable global strategy by sidelining China.
For Europe in particular, the China question has grown increasingly complex. The period between 2022 and 2024 saw Europe adopt a more hawkish and distant posture toward Beijing. However, slowing economic growth, energy crises, and trade frictions with the United States have compelled Europe to seek a more balanced approach. The pivot of European leaders toward Beijing reveals that complete economic decoupling from China would carry prohibitive costs for Europe. This dynamic also underscores the divergent internal priorities within the US-led Western bloc.
China’s rise should not be viewed solely through the prism of its relations with the West; the sphere of influence Beijing has cultivated across the Global South is of equal significance. In recent years, Chinese influence has expanded dramatically across Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, the Gulf States, and South Asia. Within this context, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China carries profound weight. The China-Pakistan relationship has long been characterized as an “ironclad friendship.” Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has constructed ports, railways, energy facilities, and critical infrastructure in numerous countries, most notably Pakistan. Furthermore, unlike Western financial institutions, Beijing extends credit and investment with fewer political conditionalities. Consequently, many developing nations view China not only as a vital economic partner but also as a geopolitical counterweight to the West.
All of this inevitably raises the question: “Is China ascendant?” Based on the current landscape, the answer must be in the affirmative. For global leaders, Beijing has now emerged as a diplomatic hub as critical as Washington. Moreover, beyond its sheer economic scale, China is increasingly distinguished by its capacity for conflict resolution. Its pivotal role in facilitating the Iran-Saudi Arabia normalization, coupled with its close ties to Russia and its sweeping influence over the Global South, has significantly amplified Beijing’s diplomatic gravity.
The diplomatic traffic observed throughout 2026 highlights a fundamental truth: the world is no longer unipolar or monocivilizational. Opposite the United States stands a China capable of challenging it economically, technologically, culturally, and diplomatically. Consequently, this new era diverges sharply from the unipolar structure of the “American Century,” resembling instead a multipolar, multi-civilizational order where all actors cooperate and compete with one another simultaneously.
Xi Jinping’s position is central to this paradigm shift. For many leaders today, meeting with Xi in Beijing is not merely a matter of bilateral diplomacy, but a strategic imperative for positioning oneself within the global balance of power. This has immensely enhanced Xi’s personal prestige. Within the international system, there is a growing consensus that on most critical issues, “if Beijing is not at the table, no resolution can be complete.” The acceleration of visits to China since late 2025 is not merely a reflection of a crowded diplomatic calendar; it must be understood as a tangible indicator of a shifting world order. Beijing has transcended its status as an economic core to become one of the primary power centers of global politics. Consequently, Chinese President Xi Jinping is emerging as one of the most influential figures of this new, multipolar, and multi-civilizational world order.
Today, the diplomatic traffic directed toward Beijing is by no means limited to the United States, Russia, or the major European powers. The efforts of leaders from a vast geographical span—from Serbia and Pakistan to the Gulf States and African nations—to establish direct contact with China render Beijing’s central position in the global system increasingly conspicuous. Consequently, these recent visits are interpreted as signs that the power map of the new international order is being redrawn. For many capitals, the path to understanding global developments and formulating future strategies now runs through Beijing as much as it does through Washington. Thus, the adage “All roads lead to Beijing” is rapidly transforming from a rhetorical trope into a defining reality of contemporary international politics.
Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist & Author of the book “The Decline of American Power and the Rising Powers” (China-Russia-India-Brazil).
X: @umur_tugay
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets
Israel looks to Latin America as Isaac Accords seek to expand regional partnerships
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU authorizes Mediterranean naval mission to intercept suspected Russian shadow fleet tankers
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTrump administration weighs purchasing Chagos Islands from Mauritius to secure Diego Garcia base
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoArmenia election: Pashinyan claims victory with near-majority as opposition alleges power usurpation
-
America2 weeks agoUS raises Israeli espionage threat to critical level amid surveillance concerns
-
Europe2 weeks agoUK underwater deterrent facing scrutiny as all active Astute-class submarines remain in port
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Opinion7 days agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
