Lightning Roundup of August 2026 Writeup

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”September 11, 2026 07:20″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-lightning-roundup-of-august-2026-writeup/” pid=”164405″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, dive into the most important world news of the last month. Old assumptions about borders, alliances and political authority are beginning to break down. Atul and Glenn examine how governments are responding to this new world order — sometimes with courage and opportunism. Principled leadership remains possible but increasingly rare as institutions struggle to manage migration, geopolitical rivalry, corporate power and political turmoil.

The Ceuta crisis exposes Europe’s migration divisions

The Ceuta crisis continues to rock Spain and Europe. Spain has two enclaves in North Africa: Ceuta and Melilla. They are the only European territory on mainland Africa. Morocco has never recognized Spanish ownership of these two enclaves and four other smaller territories in the narrow strait of Gibraltar. Morocco claims them as a “historical and geographical right,” while Spain maintains that its sovereignty over the territories is absolute, non-negotiable and outside of any diplomatic discussion.

On July 30 and 31, 60,000–80,000 people, largely young men, swam over from Morocco to Ceuta. This overwhelmed local authorities, prompted the deployment of the Spanish military and reopened the European Union’s deepest divisions over immigration. Some capitals called for a suspension of free movement with Spain. Now analysts say the Ceuta crisis is a first test of the EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum.

The US State Department claimed that the Spanish government had led efforts “to enable and facilitate mass illegal migration into Europe.” Denmark and Italy led a similar critique at the EU. They sent a letter cosigned by 22 member states calling for coordinated EU border measures.

This year, Spain launched a historic mass regularization program to grant legal residency and work permits to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government introduced the scheme to integrate undocumented workers into the formal tax system, fill critical labor shortages in sectors like agriculture and tourism, and boost economic growth. Over one million people applied. The Denmark-led letter accused Spain of enacting policies that were a “pull factor” for the Ceuta mass migration. European far-right parties have seized on the crisis to attack Spain and Europe’s migration policy.

Canada charts a course away from Washington

In North America, Canada has walked “away from a bad deal, and what comes next.” In the recent US–Canda trade talks, Canada refused the US’s new terms. Unlike other American allies, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has stood up to US President Donald Trump. The “rupture” he talked about in his speech at Davos has now transpired. 

On August 22, after the talks fell through, he declared that Canada “cannot control the storm blowing in from Washington,” but the country “can chart a new course by building Canada strong at home and diversifying our trading relationships abroad.” 

From Mecca to Meta

Over in the Middle East, on August 7, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed an agreement in the holy city of Mecca, saying an attack on one of them would be an attack on all of them. The Mecca Pact has adopted the motto immortalized by French author Alexandre Dumas: “All for one and one for all.” Saudi Arabia stresses that the Mecca Pact is not a Sunni military axis, but Atul and Glenn think the lady doth deny too much.

Atul and Glenn move on to Meta in the US. The technology company faced a federal trial because 29 US states claimed that it had engineered its platforms to be addictive to children. This came after a Judge Bryan Biedscheid in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay an extra $567 million on top of the $375 million it was ordered to pay in May, when the company was found liable for harming children. Biedscheid ruled on August 6 that Meta had contributed to a mental-health crisis and he described the firm as a “public nuisance.”

In the words of The New York Times: Big Tech is facing a “Big Tobacco moment” as landmark courtroom losses, major jury verdicts and multi-billion-dollar state settlements draw direct parallels to the historic 1990s tobacco litigations.

The passing of a great leader

On August 12, Zhu Rongji died at the age of 97. He was China’s premier from 1998 to 2003. One of China’s greatest leaders, Zhu steered China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Two things happened that year: the September 11 attacks on the US and China’s entrance to the WTO. Zhu had the courage to push through painful reforms that led to spectacular economic growth and integrated China into the global economy.

Zhu was always a man of courage. In 1957, during the Hundred Flowers Campaign, he criticized Mao’s economic policies, saying that they promoted “irrationally high growth.” Naturally, Zhu was purged and spent many years in the wilderness. Former Chairman of the Central Military Commission Deng Xiaoping rehabilitated Zhu in 1978 and the rest is history. Urbane, sophisticated and articulate, Zhu often spoke with Western leaders and intellectuals. Atul contends that China’s current leaders lack his nuance, understanding and expertise.

Now, China is charting a very different route and the political temperature in the region is rising. On August 20, Taiwan proposed an 18% increase to its defense spending in order to counter the increasing Chinese threat. “We have moved a long way from Zu’s days,” Atul quips. 

Some other important developments

This month, Hungary yielded good news. On August 11, András Baka became the new president. Former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán removed Baka as the head of the Supreme Court in 2011, as he had made the “unpardonable mistake” of criticizing Orbán. This well-regarded former judge will now oversee the challenging task of the drafting of a new constitution.

There was some bad news too. At Cambridge University, Professor Jason Arday, the academy’s youngest black professor, was accused of plagiarism. He resigned on August 5 amid intense pressure and committed suicide on August 15. The Arday suicide has sparked ferocious discussion in the UK.

There is much discussion in the US too. On August 5, Abdul El-Sayed defeated Haley Stevens in Michigan to become the Democratic Senate candidate for the state. El-Sayed is a Progressive Democrat while Stevens was backed by the establishment. Clearly, the Democratic Party is rebelling against its establishment, at least in some parts of the country.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, dive into the most important world news of the last month. Old assumptions about borders, alliances and political authority are…”
post_summery=”In this section of the August 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine growing challenges to borders, alliances and political authority. The Ceuta crisis exposes European divisions over migration. The Mecca Pact signals changing security alignments, while Meta’s courtroom defeats intensify scrutiny of Big Tech. Former Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji’s death marks the passing of an era and the scarcity of wise political leadership today.”
post-date=”Sep 11, 2026″
post-title=”FO Exclusive: Lightning Roundup of August 2026 Writeup” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-lightning-roundup-of-august-2026-writeup”>

FO Exclusive: Lightning Roundup of August 2026 Writeup

Anila Ali”
post_date=”September 09, 2026 06:21″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/culture/fo-talks-how-to-promote-interfaith-unity-and-counter-extremism/” pid=”164367″
post-content=”

Operations Chief of Staff Cheyenne Torres and Anila Ali, president of the American Muslim and Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council, discuss the importance of moderate religious leadership, historical examples of coexistence and the role of education in strengthening pluralism. Ali argues that preserving religious freedom requires people of all beliefs to work together against extremism while rediscovering the shared values that unite them.

The middle path and reclaiming faith

Torres begins by asking what interfaith unity means. Ali describes it as people of every faith and background living together as one community while respecting each other’s humanity. Although faith shapes personal identity, she believes that compassion and shared citizenship should remain central to public life.

Ali defines extremism as abandoning what she calls “the middle path.” Drawing on her experiences living in several Muslim-majority countries before moving to the United States, she recounts facing restrictions on free expression and even physical punishment in Saudi Arabia. She contrasts those experiences with the more inclusive Islam practiced by her family, particularly her grandmother, whom she credits as an important model of Muslim leadership.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Ali felt compelled to challenge the perception that violent extremists represented all Muslims. As she explains, “I felt like my faith was hijacked.” Moderate Muslim voices, she says, are obliged to reclaim the public understanding of Islam from groups that promote violence and intolerance.

History demonstrates coexistence

Ali turns repeatedly to history to illustrate that cooperation between religious communities is neither new nor unrealistic. She recalls stories from her grandmother about communities in the Indian subcontinent where Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians and others lived alongside one another for generations despite occasional tensions.

Ali also highlights examples from early Islamic history. Muslims sought refuge with the Christian King Najashi in Abyssinia (the historic Ethiopian Empire in modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea) during persecution in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. They later found protection in Medina, Saudi Arabia, among diverse religious communities. These episodes, she says, demonstrate that coexistence formed part of Islam’s earliest traditions rather than representing a modern innovation — and that conflict between religions is far from inevitable.

Discussing the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Ali emphasizes that all three religions trace their origins to Abraham. She argues that learning about other faiths strengthens religious commitment, saying, “I became a better Muslim because I knew.” Rather than fearing other traditions, she feels believers should study them to deepen mutual understanding.

Why extremism grows

Torres asks why religious extremism appears to be increasing in many societies. Ali points to several contributing factors, including political polarization, declining moderate leadership and educational environments that discourage open discussion. She contends that people are increasingly pressured to adopt ideological positions instead of engaging with diverse viewpoints.

Ali goes on to criticize media coverage that amplifies more radical voices while overlooking moderates. This imbalance distorts public perceptions of Muslim communities and reinforces stereotypes. Simultaneously, she expresses concern about growing religious nationalism across multiple faith traditions, stating that intolerance feeds further intolerance regardless of its source.

Ali also addresses the radicalization of young people. She describes cases in which students felt pressured to adopt particular political positions and warns that limiting intellectual diversity undermines critical thinking. Universities, she says, should encourage students to evaluate competing ideas rather than prescribe ideological conclusions.

Education, empathy and protecting pluralism

Finally, Ali points to education as the strongest response to extremism. She encourages people to learn about other religions, celebrate different cultural traditions and build friendships across communities instead of relying on stereotypes or social media narratives.

Reflecting on her own experience as a teacher, Ali explains how teaching subjects such as the Holocaust helped students recognize the consequences of hatred and prejudice. She argues that understanding another person’s beliefs creates empathy while reinforcing one’s own values.

Ali concludes by calling for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and people of other faiths to stand together in defense of religious freedom. As she puts it, “We must learn about each other.” Countering extremism depends less on defeating opponents than on strengthening the moderate majority through teaching, dialogue and shared commitment to human dignity. Only by sustaining those efforts can societies resist polarization and preserve peaceful coexistence.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Operations Chief of Staff Cheyenne Torres and Anila Ali, president of the American Muslim and Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council, discuss the importance of moderate religious leadership, historical examples of coexistence and the role of education in strengthening pluralism. Ali argues that…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Cheyenne Torres and Anila Ali discuss how interfaith cooperation can counter religious extremism by promoting education, dialogue and moderate leadership. Early Islamic history shows coexistence among different faiths is possible; polarization and ideological radicalization, meanwhile, threaten religious freedom. People of all faiths should learn from one another and build friendships across religious boundaries.”
post-date=”Sep 09, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: How to Promote Interfaith Unity and Counter Extremism” slug-data=”fo-talks-how-to-promote-interfaith-unity-and-counter-extremism”>

FO Talks: How to Promote Interfaith Unity and Counter Extremism

Devina Mehra”
post_date=”September 08, 2026 06:13″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-ai-boom/” pid=”164351″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Devina Mehra, Founder and Chairperson of First Global, discuss whether artificial intelligence is creating a dangerous investment bubble. Mehra draws parallels between today’s AI boom and earlier periods of speculation, from the South Sea bubble to the dot-com crash and the rise of environmental, social and governance investing. She argues that transformative technologies can reshape society while still destroying investors’ wealth through overinvestment, debt and unrealistic valuations.

Why investors repeat their mistakes

Mehra says financial markets quickly forget their history. First Global expanded internationally in 1999, shortly before the dot-com crash, partly in response to the Asian financial crisis. Falling markets and currencies had produced dollar-denominated losses ranging from 50% in Taiwan to 90% in Indonesia. After the dot-com bubble burst, the Nasdaq took 15 years to surpass its peak from 2000.

Such episodes have not prevented investors from repeating familiar mistakes. Mehra compares enthusiasm for Elon Musk’s SpaceX with the South Sea bubble, in which Sir Isaac Newton lost much of his fortune in 1720. Newton initially recognized the bubble and sold his shares, but rising prices tempted him to buy back near the peak.

Investor psychology makes this pattern difficult to escape. Mehra cites research showing that depressed market sentiment often precedes above-average returns, while widespread optimism predicts weaker returns. Investors nevertheless tend to buy after prices rise and sell after they fall. As Mehra puts it, “Learning the numbers part in markets is the easy part; keeping control of your mind is always the harder part.”

Success stories hide widespread failure

Isackson asks whether modern investment has shifted from seeking profits to financing companies capable of dominating entire industries. Mehra accepts that network effects protect platforms such as YouTube and WhatsApp, but says this model does not apply to every business.

Venture capital has made funding widely available to companies seeking rapid expansion. However, its economics assumes that most investments will fail while a handful generate exceptional returns. Investors then remember Amazon, Apple and other survivors while forgetting the many companies that pursued similar strategies and collapsed.

Even today’s giants once faced severe uncertainty. First Global recommended Amazon in early 2001 after its improving cashflow reduced the threat of bankruptcy. Apple produced almost no return during its first 20 years as a public company, while its stock remained stagnant for years after Steve Jobs returned. Neither company’s later success was inevitable.

A revolutionary technology can be a terrible investment

Mehra believes AI may transform daily life, but transformation does not guarantee investment returns. Railways, automobiles, aviation and the Internet profoundly changed society while bankrupting numerous companies and investors.

AI hyperscalers now plan annual capital expenditure estimated at $800 billion to $1 trillion, compared with roughly $150 billion several years ago. Much of this money is flowing into semiconductors and data centers whose equipment depreciates rapidly. Unlike railways or undersea cables, obsolete computing hardware may have little recoverable value.

The economics of AI services also remain uncertain. Mehra notes that AI-assisted searches consume substantially more energy than conventional searches, while businesses have questioned whether advanced models justify their cost. Constant changes in leading models and regulatory restrictions create additional risks.

Circular finance and the next bubble

Isackson suggests that AI companies, semiconductor manufacturers and data center providers increasingly finance and purchase from one another. Mehra agrees that this circular structure is a characteristic of bubbles. A company may invest in another business that then uses the money to buy its products, creating reported revenue without proving sustainable external demand.

Debt increases the danger. Mehra says the AI expansion may have generated around $1 trillion in borrowing, including liabilities raised through smaller companies building facilities for major technology groups. Leverage can magnify gains during a boom but rapidly multiply losses when prices fall.

She compares AI enthusiasm with the earlier Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment boom. Thousands of ESG funds later closed, merged or abandoned the label. Mehra argues that much of asset management is an “asset-gathering industry” that launches fashionable funds when public interest is near its peak, ensuring management fees while investors bear the losses.

Risks are rising, but timing is impossible

Mehra declines predicting whether the AI bubble will burst within months. Bubbles often continue longer than skeptics expect, while market shocks frequently come from risks investors have overlooked.

She nevertheless sees growing fragility in AI spending, corporate borrowing, leveraged semiconductor investments and illiquid private-credit funds. Simultaneously, market performance is already broadening beyond technology. Smaller companies and traditional industries have outperformed the S&P 500 this year, while several major technology stocks have weakened.

AI may revolutionize society without rewarding today’s most enthusiastic investors. For Mehra, the crucial distinction is between correctly identifying a transformative technology and paying a price that can produce sustainable returns.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Devina Mehra, Founder and Chairperson of First Global, discuss whether artificial intelligence is creating a dangerous investment bubble. Mehra draws parallels between today’s AI boom and earlier periods of speculation, from the South…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Peter Isackson and Devina Mehra examine whether soaring investment in artificial intelligence has created a dangerous bubble. Even revolutionary technologies can produce heavy investor losses because enthusiasm encourages overinvestment, debt and unrealistic valuations. Although risks are growing, experts cannot reliably predict when the bubble will burst.”
post-date=”Sep 08, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Making Sense of the AI Boom” slug-data=”fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-ai-boom”>

FO Talks: Making Sense of the AI Boom

Atul Singh”
post_date=”September 07, 2026 06:12″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-explainers-the-donroe-doctrine-the-future-of-the-western-hemisphere/” pid=”164326″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh discusses how the Trump administration’s emerging “Donroe Doctrine” seeks to redefine American strategy in the Western Hemisphere. Drawing on the 2025 US National Security Strategy, he traces the historical evolution of the Monroe Doctrine before examining how concerns over migration, strategic resources and China’s growing influence have revived interventionist thinking. Atul argues that although the doctrine reflects longstanding patterns in US foreign policy, global crises demanding American attention and resources may ultimately limit its implementation.

The evolution of American interventionism

Atul begins by explaining that the Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy places renewed emphasis on building a “stable and well-governed” Western Hemisphere. The goal is to reduce mass migration, strengthen border security and ensure cooperation against transnational criminal organizations while preventing hostile foreign powers from controlling strategic assets.

To explain this approach, Atul traces the roots of the new policy to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. US President James Monroe declared that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas. He hoped to establish separate political spheres for Europe and the Americas. The Western Hemisphere lay in the sphere of influence of the US. This policy, Atul says, reflected both America’s growing confidence and Europe’s weakness after the Napoleonic Wars. 

Per the Monroe Doctrine, “The American continents were to remain free of European imperial control.” This doctrine became more assertive as American power expanded during the 19th century. Territorial expansion, the 1846–48 Mexican–American War and the 1898 Spanish–American War all reinforced Washington’s influence across the hemisphere.

The decisive shift came with Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 corollary, which asserted Washington’s right to intervene in Latin American countries, which were experiencing what this charismatic president described as chronic wrongdoing. According to Atul, this established the interventionist approach that shaped much of 20th-century US policy, including support for anti-communist military governments during the Cold War. After the Soviet Union collapsed, however, Washington shifted its emphasis toward democratization as ideological competition with the Soviet Union now firmly ended.

China’s rise reshapes the strategic landscape

Atul states that China’s rapid economic rise has fundamentally altered the strategic balance in Latin America. He highlights the dramatic expansion of trade between China and Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, as a key example of one of the most striking economic phenomena in the history of global trade. Today, China is Brazil’s biggest trading partner, with both the EU and the US lagging quite far behind. China-Brazil trade grew 50-fold from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $158 billion in 2024, as the graph below from CEIC shows.

China imports Brazilian commodities such as soybeans, cotton, sugar, beef, wood, oil and iron ore. China consumes the output of Brazil’s mines, ranches, farms and forests. In return, China sells all sorts of manufactured goods from cellphones to electric vehicles. The Chinese are also investing heavily in power utilities, ports and railways. 

The rise of China has revived anxieties in Washington similar to those experienced during the Cold War. Note that this time, the competition is primarily economic rather than ideological. Some argue that it is therefore more dangerous.

In response, the Trump administration has developed what many call the Donroe Doctrine, built on three pillars: active interventionism, gunboat diplomacy and economic nationalism. Together, these policies seek to protect supply chains, secure access to critical minerals and reduce China’s regional influence.

Successes, obstacles and regional realities

Atul points to several policies that reflect this new strategy, including pressure on Panama over the canal, sanctions against Cuba and Nicaragua, and financial support for Argentina under Argentinean President Javier Milei. Washington has expanded its influence over Venezuelan and Guyanese energy resources. The Trump administration has also been increasing pressure on countries that it views as strategically important.

Despite many advantages, the US is not having everything its way. Many countries in the Western Hemisphere are resisting the Donroe Doctrine. Canada opposes closer political integration with the US, while, as pointed out above, , Brazil’s economy remains closely connected to China’s. Even governments more sympathetic to Washington would struggle to redirect exports away from China because American producers already satisfy much of the domestic demand for products such as soybeans and beef. There is simply no substitute for Chinese demand in Latin America.

As Atul says, “Changing the economic trends, changing the economic tidal waves is not as easy as controlling smaller countries.”

Global crises complicate the doctrine

There is also another important matter that deserves attention. Atul questions whether the Donroe Doctrine can become America’s dominant strategic framework while Washington remains heavily engaged elsewhere. Earlier, President Barack Obama’s Asia Pivot did not work because of entanglements in the Middle East. The US/Israel–Iran War has thrown a spanner in the works of the Donroe Doctrine’s self-declared goal to focus on the Western Hemisphere.

By closing the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians have produced a global supply shock. Washington has had to devote time, money, resources, attention, and energy to deal with Iran. The Western Hemisphere is no longer top of mind for Washington. As Atul concludes, “the Donroe Doctrine, while attractive, while seductive, might yet have to wait.”

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh discusses how the Trump administration’s emerging “Donroe Doctrine” seeks to redefine American strategy in the Western Hemisphere. Drawing on the 2025 US National Security Strategy, he traces the historical evolution of the Monroe Doctrine before examining how…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Explainers, Atul Singh examines the Trump administration’s proposed “Donroe Doctrine,” tracing it from the Monroe Doctrine to today’s grand strategy centered on muscular interventionism and economic nationalism. It mirrors historic American efforts to secure strategic dominance in Latin America and is directed not against Spain, Portugal or Great Britain but China, which is now the region’s biggest trading partner and key investor.”
post-date=”Sep 07, 2026″
post-title=”FO Explainers: The Donroe Doctrine — The Future of the Western Hemisphere?” slug-data=”fo-explainers-the-donroe-doctrine-the-future-of-the-western-hemisphere”>

FO Explainers: The Donroe Doctrine — The Future of the Western Hemisphere?

Joost de Kluijver”
post_date=”September 02, 2026 06:08″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-hidden-gold-mines-in-e-waste/” pid=”164261″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Joost de Kluijver, CEO of Closing the Loop, discuss the growing challenge of electronic waste and why conventional sustainability campaigns have failed to address it. They explore the hidden value locked inside discarded electronics, the commercial incentives needed to recover critical materials and the policies that could transform e-waste into an economic opportunity. De Kluijver believes that market incentives and customer-focused business models offer a path toward a circular economy.

Hidden wealth in discarded electronics

De Kluijver begins by highlighting the enormous scale of electronic waste. Billions of mobile phones, laptops and other connected devices reach the end of their lives every year, yet each contains dozens of valuable materials. A single smartphone includes between 40 and 60 different metals and minerals, ranging from gold and silver to strategically important resources such as lithium, cobalt and tungsten. Many of these materials originate in politically unstable regions, making recovery increasingly important for economic and geopolitical reasons.

Most electronics, however, do not see immediate recycling. Consumers frequently keep old devices in drawers because of their personal value, while many functioning products are exported for reuse in Africa and Asia. Extending the lifespan of electronics benefits consumers in developing countries, but eventually every device becomes waste. Once that happens, the lack of formal recycling infrastructure creates serious environmental and public health challenges.

Why sustainability needs a better business model

De Kluijver says traditional environmental campaigns have struggled because they rely too heavily on guilt and responsibility rather than customer demand. Sustainability reports, lifecycle analyses and moral appeals rarely motivate consumers or corporate leaders. As he phrases it, “commercial beats sustainability” when companies decide where to invest and what products to promote.

Instead, he believes businesses should present waste reduction as an attractive service rather than a sacrifice. Instead of asking consumers to change their behavior for environmental reasons alone, companies should integrate sustainability into products people already want to buy. By making waste reduction simple and convenient, firms can appeal to what he describes as “light green” customers who support environmental goals but prefer companies to handle the practical work.

De Kluijver used this customer-centered philosophy to shape his business. Rather than framing recycling as an obligation, he aims to make it a competitive advantage that strengthens customer loyalty while reducing waste.

Turning recycling into a commercial opportunity

The discussion then turns to Closing the Loop’s “one-for-one” model. When customers purchase a new electronic device from participating companies, the company finances the collection and recycling of one end-of-life device elsewhere in the world. Customers do not have to surrender their old phones or alter their habits. Instead, the environmental benefit comes as an additional service.

The model helps finance extensive collection networks, particularly in Ghana and Nigeria, where informal waste collectors recover discarded electronics before they enter dangerous recycling practices. Over the past 15 years, the organization has collected more than seven million scrap devices while creating local employment and recovering valuable materials that would otherwise be lost.

De Kluijver believes this approach succeeds because it aligns commercial incentives with environmental goals. Companies gain a distinctive marketing message while consumers receive a tangible sustainability benefit without additional effort. “We need to deliver sustainability… in a way that the customer does want to use it,” he explains.

Building markets instead of relying on punishment

Singh asks what governments can do to improve electronic waste management. De Kluijver states that stricter enforcement alone will not solve the problem, particularly in countries where recycling infrastructure barely exists. In many African nations, informal recycling dominates because there are few formal alternatives. Simply prohibiting illegal activity without providing processing capacity leaves waste with nowhere to go.

Instead, he advocates policies that create sustained demand for recycled materials. Governments could require manufacturers to include minimum percentages of recycled content in new electronics, encouraging investment throughout the recycling chain. Building regional recycling facilities would also allow African countries to process valuable materials locally before exporting them into global supply chains.

Such investments, he argues, would benefit both Africa and Europe. African countries would transform a dangerous waste stream into an economic opportunity, while Europe would strengthen access to critical materials that are increasingly important for advanced manufacturing and the green transition.

Urban mining and Europe’s strategic future

The conversation concludes by placing electronic waste within a broader geopolitical context. Europe possesses relatively few critical mineral resources yet depends heavily on them for clean energy technologies and advanced electronics. Recovering metals from discarded devices, often described as urban mining, offers an opportunity to reduce that dependence.

De Kluijver says governments should emphasize mutual economic benefit. Europe could export recycling technology, develop local processing capacity and strengthen long-term partnerships while securing reliable supplies of essential materials. He believes this positive narrative will attract far broader support than older sustainability campaigns rooted primarily in virtue.

De Kluijver closes by encouraging commercially minded entrepreneurs to bring greater creativity into waste reduction. “It is a beautiful topic especially when you look at this from a commercial… perspective,” he says, arguing that innovation and profit can become powerful tools for solving one of the technology sector’s fastest-growing environmental challenges.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Joost de Kluijver, CEO of Closing the Loop, discuss the growing challenge of electronic waste and why conventional sustainability campaigns have failed to address it. They explore the hidden value locked inside discarded electronics, the commercial incentives needed…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Joost de Kluijver discuss how electronic waste has become an environmental challenge and source of critical materials. Sustainability efforts should focus on customer needs to make waste reduction commercially attractive. Business models like One for One benefit tech companies and society, and stronger recycling capacity could help Europe secure essential materials.”
post-date=”Sep 02, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Making Sense of the Hidden Gold Mines in e-Waste” slug-data=”fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-hidden-gold-mines-in-e-waste”>

FO Talks: Making Sense of the Hidden Gold Mines in e-Waste

Lora Karch”
post_date=”September 01, 2026 06:09″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-nato-summit/” pid=”164229″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and independent policy writer Lora Karch examine what the recent NATO summit reveals about US President Donald Trump’s changing foreign policy. They discuss Washington’s pressure on Europe to assume greater responsibility for its defense, Trump’s controversial engagement with Syria’s new leadership and Turkey’s emerging regional role. Karch believes that these developments could help the United States replace military intervention with diplomacy in the Middle East.

Europe must assume greater responsibility

Torres begins by asking what a reduction in US forces would mean for NATO and European security. Karch views Trump’s position as an attempt to make European governments take greater responsibility for their own defense. The US remains NATO’s largest military spender, while the alliance has long expected members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense.

Karch feels Europe must develop greater strategic agency while maintaining a united front with Washington. European countries face a continuing security challenge from Russia and sit closer to instability in the Middle East. Although Karch cannot envision an immediate and complete US withdrawal, she considers a gradual reduction consistent with Washington’s declared goal of ending prolonged Middle Eastern wars.

Can Washington work with Syria’s new leader?

Trump’s meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa is the summit’s most consequential development. Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, led jihadist organization and al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and once appeared on a US terrorism list. Karch remains uncomfortable with Washington engaging a former militant whose movement fought American forces, but she regards the meeting as a practical response to Syria’s new political reality.

Under former President Bashar al-Assad, Syria provided Iran with a strategic corridor for supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon. Assad’s fall has weakened that connection and created an opportunity for Washington to draw Damascus away from Tehran. Nevertheless, Karch stresses that Syria’s new government must meet concrete requirements involving counterterrorism, regional stability and minority protections. Fighters associated with the government still face accusations of kidnappings and attacks against Alawites.

Karch hopes diplomatic recognition will encourage Syria to behave like a responsible state. She suggests that opening a Syrian embassy or consulate in Washington could give Damascus both international standing and greater responsibility. As a Syrian, she also hopes the country will eventually hold “real, true democratic elections.”

Karch also identifies Syria’s possible accession to the Abraham Accords as an important diplomatic opportunity. Reports that Syria and Lebanon could eventually normalize relations with Israel remain speculative, but she believes such a development could begin a broader regional transformation. It would further distance Damascus from Tehran, weaken Iran’s ability to support Hezbollah and give Syria an incentive to maintain stable relations with its neighbors. Karch sees this as a possible first step toward reducing the hundreds of US military installations across the region to a much smaller presence. Diplomacy would not eliminate American involvement, but it could substantially reduce Washington’s reliance on force.

Turkey returns to the NATO fold

Turkey’s prominence at the summit signals another diplomatic realignment. Karch argues that Ankara is moving closer to its NATO partners after years of tension under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Washington is also seeking a Turkish role in efforts to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, potentially involving Turkish troops and Syrian fighters.

Turkey’s history of conflict with Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq remains a serious obstacle. Western governments must therefore press Ankara to avoid renewed hostility while encouraging it to accept greater regional responsibility. Karch believes treating Turkey as a consequential NATO partner may persuade it to behave accordingly. The strategy allows Washington to delegate security tasks instead of relying primarily on American military power.

Can the Middle East manage its own security?

Karch sees Trump’s diplomacy with Syria and Turkey as part of a possible transition from war to political engagement. US priorities remain preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and limiting Tehran’s support for Hezbollah. Syria’s separation from Iran could advance all three objectives.

Regional diplomacy also suggests that Middle Eastern states can assume more responsibility. Oman is mediating with Iran, while Saudi Arabia has signed a joint defense pact with Pakistan. Karch concludes that Washington should “demonstrate a little more restraint” and allow regional countries greater control over their own affairs. If these diplomatic initiatives succeed, the US could reduce its extensive military footprint without abandoning its central security interests.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and independent policy writer Lora Karch examine what the recent NATO summit reveals about US President Donald Trump’s changing foreign policy. They discuss Washington’s pressure on Europe to assume greater responsibility for its…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Cheyenne Torres and Lora Karch discuss how the recent NATO summit reflects an American shift toward diplomacy. Europe and the Middle East assume greater responsibility for their own security as Washington reduces its military role. Greater regional autonomy and diplomatic cooperation could allow Washington to reduce its military presence in those regions.”
post-date=”Sep 01, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Making Sense of the NATO Summit” slug-data=”fo-talks-making-sense-of-the-nato-summit”>

FO Talks: Making Sense of the NATO Summit

Dirk Lueth”
post_date=”August 30, 2026 06:15″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/fo-talks-ai-expectation-vs-reality/” pid=”164197″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and entrepreneur Dirk Lueth, co-founder and co-CEO of Upland, examine how artificial intelligence is reshaping economies, employment and the media. Lueth explains why today’s generative AI differs from traditional software and traces its development from an academic concept to a widely accessible technology. Although he acknowledges the risks of job displacement, concentrated corporate power and excessive investment, he expects AI to increase productivity and create new opportunities. He believes that human judgment, trusted institutions and energy infrastructure will become increasingly valuable as AI grows more powerful.

From rigid rules to statistical models

Torres begins by asking what AI actually means. Lueth distinguishes it from traditional software, which relied on programmers writing deterministic rules. Large language models instead analyze vast amounts of human-created material and identify statistical patterns in language. They can generate useful responses across fields ranging from medicine to law, but Lueth stresses that they have no consciousness or human understanding.

He also distinguishes chatbots from AI agents. A chatbot usually responds to an individual request, much like a search engine. An agent can perform a continuing assignment, complete multiple steps and act more like a virtual worker.

AI itself is not new. Researchers coined the term at Dartmouth College in 1956, but Lueth describes the following decades as a period of overpromising. Technical breakthroughs eventually brought AI closer to public expectations. AlexNet advanced image recognition in 2012, Google researchers introduced the transformer architecture in 2017 and ChatGPT made generative AI accessible to the public in 2022.

Expertise gets cheaper

Lueth considers AI revolutionary because it spreads knowledge and reduces the cost of accessing expertise. People can now ask an AI system for help with household repairs or basic financial and legal questions instead of immediately consulting a professional. Scientists and physicians can also use the technology to accelerate research or analyze medical images.

Businesses may experience equally profound changes. Lueth says AI allows smaller organizations to compete with larger companies because employees can accomplish more with fewer resources. He estimates that Upland, a virtual property game that combines elements of Monopoly and The Sims, operates with roughly 20–30% of the staff it might previously have required to build and operate such a game.

Yet the revolution carries significant costs. AI systems consume large quantities of energy while much of the technology remains concentrated among a few powerful companies. Lueth is also concerned about entry-level employees. AI can perform many of the routine research and administrative tasks through which young workers traditionally acquired experience, potentially weakening the first steps of the career ladder.

Standardized jobs under pressure

Torres asks which workers are most vulnerable. Lueth identifies jobs involving predictable and standardized processes, including paralegal work, call centers and business process outsourcing. AI can already handle many customer service requests instantly, offering consumers an attractive alternative to waiting for a human representative.

However, Lueth cautions against attributing every recent layoff to AI. Some companies expanded excessively during the Covid-19 pandemic and may now invoke the technology to explain ordinary restructuring. He calls this practice “AI washing.”

Lueth nevertheless accepts that some workers will suffer as companies automate existing processes. The long-term outcome will depend partly on whether displaced employees can learn new skills and move into roles created by AI. He compares the transition to earlier technological changes that eliminated some agricultural jobs while producing entirely new industries. Web designers and data scientists, for example, became common professions only after the Internet created demand for them.

Although future occupations are difficult to predict, Lueth expects workers equipped with AI to become far more productive. He therefore believes the overall economic effect will be positive even if the transition proves painful for particular workers and communities.

AI investment may be excessive

Lueth separates the supposed AI bubble into usage and financial components. He sees no usage bubble because individuals and businesses continue finding practical applications for the technology. More capable agents and intelligent robots will likely reinforce demand rather than cause it to disappear.

The financial picture is less reassuring. Investors are directing enormous amounts of capital toward a small group of companies, while startups may struggle to raise money unless they present themselves as AI businesses. This concentration could deprive other productive sectors of investment.

Lueth also points to circular financing arrangements. A chipmaker might invest in an AI company that subsequently spends the money on that chipmaker’s products. Such transactions can inflate apparent demand and obscure whether the industry is generating sustainable value.

Regulation could protect citizens from fraud and other malicious uses of AI. However, Lueth warns that complicated rules may produce regulatory capture by imposing costs that large technology companies can absorb but smaller competitors cannot. He favors basic government protections combined with meaningful industry self-regulation.

Trust, taste and energy define the future

Lueth imagines AI gradually becoming an invisible commodity like electricity or the Internet. Phones and computer screens may give way to conversational interfaces, translation earpieces and other tools that allow people to interact naturally with machines.

Employment could also change fundamentally. Applicants may eventually present portfolios of specialized agents that write copy, produce videos or conduct research on their behalf. Some software itself may become disposable as individuals create applications for temporary needs and abandon them afterward. As technical expertise becomes abundant, Lueth says that taste, trust and accountability will become scarce and valuable human qualities.

These qualities will be particularly important for the media. Realistic synthetic audio and video will make it increasingly difficult to determine whether an event actually occurred. Lueth believes trusted publications will therefore become essential sources of verification.

Finally, he predicts that geopolitical competition over AI will ultimately depend less on which country creates the best model than on which can produce enough energy to operate the necessary infrastructure. Nations and regions capable of expanding reliable energy supplies will be best positioned to convert AI into productivity, scientific progress and economic power.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and entrepreneur Dirk Lueth, co-founder and co-CEO of Upland, examine how artificial intelligence is reshaping economies, employment and the media. Lueth explains why today’s generative AI differs from traditional software and traces…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Cheyenne Torres and Dirk Lueth, PhD, discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming employment, business and access to expertise. AI will likely increase productivity and create new occupations, although standardized and entry-level jobs face significant disruption. Excessive investment could produce a financial bubble, but energy, trust and human judgment may become valuable commodities.”
post-date=”Aug 30, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: AI — Expectation vs Reality” slug-data=”fo-talks-ai-expectation-vs-reality”>

FO Talks: AI — Expectation vs Reality

David Mahon”
post_date=”August 28, 2026 08:59″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-changing-balance-of-power-in-northeast-asia/” pid=”164167″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon examine Northeast Asia’s changing balance of power. They discuss declining US military influence, deepening cooperation among China, Russia and North Korea and the growing strategic uncertainty confronting Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Mahon argues that Northeast Asia will become increasingly important to the global economy, but China’s overriding priority will remain its domestic stability.

China anchors Northeast Asia

Mahon defines Northeast Asia as a region centered on China and extending toward the Korean Peninsula, Japan, the Philippines and the Western Pacific. Since the Korean War, Beijing has perceived the US presence in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines as a potential barrier to Chinese trade and naval access.

Russia also plays an important role. Its vast eastern territories border China and reach the Pacific, while its disputed islands have prevented Moscow and Tokyo from concluding a formal peace treaty since World War II. Russia’s eastern regions have become more economically significant as China buys Russian oil, gas and other natural resources.

Meanwhile, North Korea has gained leverage by supplying Russia with ammunition, missiles and personnel for its war against Ukraine. Beijing once kept Pyongyang on economic life support while advocating a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. Now, Mahon says, China appears more willing to accept North Korea’s nuclear program as an established reality.

Pyongyang has exploited competition between its neighbors, obtaining support from Russia before securing additional food, fuel and grain from China. Mahon believes greater Chinese and Russian engagement could also restrain North Korea because Pyongyang now has valuable external relationships to preserve.

US retrenchment creates uncertainty

Mahon identifies declining US military capacity as the most consequential regional change. Washington has transferred missile defenses and military assets from East Asia to the Persian Gulf, weakening the protection available to Japan and South Korea. Replacing depleted munitions could take years.

Japan has responded by increasing defense spending and reconsidering the constitutional restrictions on its military. The Philippines has also strengthened security cooperation with the United States. Yet Mahon questions whether Washington can sustain its commitments while fighting costly wars elsewhere.

He argues that China does not intend to invade its neighbors. Beijing principally wants the US military to withdraw from the waters around China and seeks stable economic relations across the region. Mahon also downplays territorial disputes between China and Japan, although Singh notes that historical grievances, nationalism and human miscalculation could still turn limited disputes into larger confrontations.

As confidence in American guarantees declines, Mahon expects regional governments to pursue pragmatic agreements with Beijing. China’s neighbors cannot individually contain it, but they can negotiate economic relationships and limits on military competition.

Asia’s industrial power grows

Northeast Asia has become an industrial and technological center. China leads in solar energy, batteries and electric vehicles (EVs). South Korea has developed world-class shipbuilding, Taiwan dominates advanced semiconductor production and Japan retains formidable technological capabilities.

Mahon sees this transformation as part of a broader decline in Western dominance and a shift of economic agency toward Asia. He rejects the idea that the region’s demographic decline necessarily signals civilizational decay. Smaller populations will create difficult economic transitions, but rising prosperity and changing social conditions could eventually stabilize birthrates.

Singh agrees that economic power has moved eastward but emphasizes the dangers accompanying this transition. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan feel increasingly insecure as the American presence weakens. China also retains its own insecurities, rooted in the century of humiliation and fears that adversaries could block vital maritime trade routes.

China turns inward

Mahon maintains that China’s greatest challenge is domestic rather than geopolitical. Despite its economic strength, roughly 600 million Chinese people earn less than $1,000 per month. Prosperous coastal regions coexist with areas experiencing recession, leaving Beijing preoccupied with employment, consumption and social stability.

“Everything it does is for its domestic economy,” Mahon says. Chinese companies export EVs and other manufactured goods partly because intense competition limits their earnings at home. Beijing therefore wants prosperous neighbors that can buy Chinese products, supply resources and maintain stable trading relationships.

This domestic focus also explains China’s retreat from the most ambitious phase of the Belt and Road Initiative. Projects have encountered political resistance and economic difficulties in several countries. Mahon believes Beijing is relieved to reduce overseas spending and retain more capital at home.

China may continue asserting territorial claims, but Mahon does not believe it is preparing for a major war. Recent purges and corruption investigations have also disrupted the People’s Liberation Army. Singh remains more cautious, pointing to China’s incremental pressure in the South China Sea and along its disputed border with India.

A turbulent but Asian future

Mahon expects China to deepen cooperation with Russia while managing the risks created by Moscow’s unpredictability. China may also assume greater responsibility in Central Asia as Russian influence weakens. This will impose new diplomatic and security burdens on Beijing.

The wider international environment remains dangerous. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, political polarization in the US and European decline will affect Northeast Asia. Nevertheless, Mahon remains optimistic about the region. Its economic dynamism, technological capacity and growing confidence should encourage governments to avoid a ruinous conflict.

Singh accepts the strength of Northeast Asia’s rise but warns that rational interests do not guarantee rational decisions. The regional order is becoming less American, more multipolar and potentially more unstable. Its future will depend on whether China and its neighbors can translate their economic interdependence into lasting strategic restraint.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Beijing-based Kiwi investor David Mahon examine Northeast Asia’s changing balance of power. They discuss declining US military influence, deepening cooperation among China, Russia and North Korea and the growing strategic uncertainty confronting Japan, South Korea…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and David Mahon examine Northeast Asia’s growing economic and technological power as US military influence declines there. China primarily seeks regional stability and trade because its domestic economic and social challenges outweigh its geopolitical ambitions. Territorial disputes, historical insecurities and human miscalculation could still produce conflict despite the region’s economic interdependence.”
post-date=”Aug 28, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Changing Balance of Power in Northeast Asia” slug-data=”fo-talks-changing-balance-of-power-in-northeast-asia”>

FO Talks: Changing Balance of Power in Northeast Asia

Sam Tully”
post_date=”August 27, 2026 04:30″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-make-sense-of-indias-youth-cockroach-protests/” pid=”164156″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully examine the discontent behind India’s Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. They discuss the collapse of the education system, widespread graduate unemployment and declining trust in public institutions. Singh believes the movement marks the beginning of the end for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, weakens his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and damages their Hindu nationalist political project.

A traumatic education system

Singh explains that repeated exam paper leaks triggered the protests. Students competing for a limited number of university places discovered corruption; questions were being sold — thanks to leaks of entrance exam papers from the dysfunctional National Testing Agency (NTA) — to those willing to pay. Police subsequently cracked down on demonstrations in Delhi but protesters did not back down. Eventually, Dharmendra Pradhan, the minister of education, resigned.

These exams carry enormous weight because access to elite institutions often determines whether young Indians can find good jobs. Private coaching companies now receive more money than India’s national education budget. Students may study from morning until midnight at private coaching facilities while schools falsely record their attendance. This “dummy attendance” fosters a culture of breaking the law from an early formative age among Indians.

Singh describes this system as traumatic. He recalls running away from home at 17 after failing his entrance exams because of social disgrace and family pressure. Government schools have failed. Teachers often collect their salaries but fail to show up to teach. Even poor families with limited incomes try to place their children in private English-medium schools. This extremely unequal system hardbakes inequalities in Indian society. Education has become, as Singh phrases it, a “modern caste system.”

A demographic dividend becomes a demographic disaster

India has 360 million people between 15 and 29, while two-thirds of its population is under 35. This enormous youth population has traditionally been viewed as an economic advantage. Tully warns, however, that the demographic dividend could become a demographic disaster when rising aspirations collide with limited employment opportunities.

In 1983, 4% of Indians aged 20–29 were graduates and 13% of them were unemployed. By 2023, 23% were graduates but approximately 67% were unemployed. Singh says graduate unemployment has remained around 35–40% for 25 years, exposing how India’s jobless growth fails to benefit hundreds of millions.

The scarcity of jobs intensifies competition for university places. Private coaching companies supply the demand for success at entrance exams. These companies earn millions of dollars and have the incentive to bribe poorly paid officials and/or contractors at NTA to leak exams. This creates a pay to play system where merit no longer matters. Exam leaks are not isolated administrative failures but fundamentally unfair attacks on young people’s prospects. They have become a potent symbol of an economy unable to reward education or effort.

The CJP echoes earlier movements

Tully asks whether the CJP represents a new kind of political engagement or echoes previous Indian protest movements. Singh sees similarities with the student movement of the 1970s, the anti-reservation protests of 1990–1991 and the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement that helped propel both Modi and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal to power.

Yet the CJP lacks the ideological program of earlier movements. It began online after Chief Justice Surya Kant described unemployed students as “cockroaches” as a satirical Instagram page. Young activists appropriated the insult and turned it into a symbol of defiance.

Singh considers the movement nihilistic because it expresses anger without presenting substantial institutional reforms. It does not ask for institutional reform. Like everything else, the education system is run by officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) who know nothing but run everything. Because the IAS is the heaven-born colonial service administering the country, IAS officers are completely unaccountable. The protesters have not asked for NTA to be headed by an educationist, not an IAS officer. The officer who heads NTA today presided over the chaotic AI summit in Delhi last year. He has never been involved in education before. Earlier IAS officers who have presided over repeated exam leaks have never faced investigation or punishment. More importantly, the NTA is legally established and registered as an autonomous society under the colonial Societies Registration Act, 1860. Note that the Modi government did not incorporate the NTA through an act of the Parliament of India. The NTA is neither accountable nor auditable. Sadly, protesters do not highlight these institutional weaknesses.

In a nutshell, the CJP movement fails to provide an agenda of change. Protesters have yet to demonstrate deep thinking. Note that the CJP’s leaders previously worked with the AAP but have adopted a more cynical outlook after that party failed to fulfill its reformist promises of curbing corruption and increasing grassroots democracy. Despite the many weaknesses of the CJP, protests are likely to persist because the underlying youth discontent with Modi and his utterly incompetent government is not going away. 

Has the BJP lost its base?

Singh states that the protests represent a major political rupture. The young urban Hindu middle class was central to the BJP’s rise, but it is now rebelling against the Modi government. He predicts that many young voters will never support the party again.

For Singh, this makes the protests the beginning of the end for Modi, weakens the BJP and damages the Hindu political project itself. Atul explains that Modi is a master of marketing, campaigning and political messaging, but lacks substance, ideas and competence. The prime minister has completely failed to address India’s institutional weaknesses.

Tully challenges this bleak assessment by pointing to improvements in infrastructure, economic growth and the growth of the middle class. Singh acknowledges this progress and points to increased life expectancy since India won independence in 1947. However, he argues that India’s colonial model of governance has failed its people. Per capita income has only reached $2,800. Stunting among children is 35%, which is higher than Somalia’s 25%. Note that the US has a stunting rate of 3.4%, Germany 1.7% and Sweden’s figure is negligible. Modi, the BJP and IAS officers, India’s new superbrahmins, have failed their people.

Crisis could create an opportunity

Singh argues that the Indian republic and the Indian state are in crisis. Institutions are failing. The executive, legislature and judiciary are not doing what they are supposed to do. Modi’s authoritarian government has centralized power crazily and made favored IAS officers even more powerful than their counterparts during imperial British rule. This unaccountable lot now specializes in stealing taxpayer money. Indian legislatures, whether the national parliament or state legislatures, do not draft laws anymore, debate issues or hold the executive’s feet to the fire. The judiciary has also become corrupt, nepotistic and dysfunctional. Court cases remain pending for decades. Therefore, police officers engage in extrajudicial killings called encounters to control crime.

Despite the grim state of affairs in the country, the protests offer hope. At least, people are standing up to an autocratic and incompetent government. If protests lead to some deep thinking and the creation of an agenda for change, their protests could lead to legal reform of the NTA and parliamentary oversight of national exams. It might also lead to regulation of coaching companies and the investigation followed by conviction of corrupt officials. In particular, IAS officers responsible for persistent failures might finally face action for their incompetence, negligence and corruption.

Tully compares the present moment to India’s 1991 economic crisis, which forced the government to liberalize. Singh agrees. He points out that, like most other countries, India generally reforms during crises. He predicts another major economic shock for the country and expresses the hope that this crisis would catalyze another 1991-style set of reforms.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and senior finance professional Sam Tully examine the discontent behind India’s Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. They discuss the collapse of the education system, widespread graduate unemployment and declining trust in public institutions. Singh believes the…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Sam Tully examine how exam leaks, scarce jobs and failing education fueled India’s Cockroach Janata Party protests. The movement shows the BJP is losing its young urban middle-class base and could mark the beginning of the end for Modi’s political project. The crisis could create an opportunity for institutional reform.”
post-date=”Aug 27, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Make Sense of India’s Youth Cockroach Protests” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-indias-youth-cockroach-protests”>

FO Talks: Make Sense of India’s Youth Cockroach Protests

Craig Unger”
post_date=”August 26, 2026 06:24″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/us-news/fo-talks-making-sense-of-trumps-relationship-with-russia/” pid=”164145″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and veteran investigative journalist and author Craig Unger discuss US President Donald Trump’s decades-long connections to Russian figures and Unger’s argument that Soviet and Russian intelligence cultivated Trump as an asset. Drawing on his books, House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia and American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery, Unger traces these relationships through Trump’s real estate dealings, his 1987 visit to the Soviet Union and Russia’s documented interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Torres and Unger also examine social media’s impact on political discourse and the challenges facing investigative journalists in an increasingly fragmented information environment.

Russian money in Trump’s pocket?

Unger traces Trump’s connections with figures linked to Russian organized crime to at least 1984. That year, David Bogatin, whom FBI files connected to the Russian mafia, bought five Trump Tower condominiums for $6 million in cash. A New York State investigation linked the transaction to money laundering, he says.

This was not an isolated episode. Unger’s research identified 13 people connected to the Russian mafia who either lived in or owned condominiums in Trump Tower. He further alleges that more than $1 billion in Russian money eventually passed through Trump or Trump-branded properties.

Unger emphasizes that Soviet organized crime differed from traditional American organized crime because of its connections with the Soviet security apparatus. This overlap, he says, made Trump’s relationships potentially significant beyond ordinary financial crime.

Did the KGB cultivate Trump?

Unger pushes the timeline back to 1980, when Trump oversaw development on the Grand Hyatt New York. The hotel bought televisions from Joy-Lud Electronics, a company associated with businessmen Semyon Kislin and Tamir Sapir. Unger alleges that both men had connections to Soviet intelligence and describes the relationship as an early point of contact between Trump’s business world and people linked to the KGB.

His case relies partly on Yuri Shvets, a former KGB officer who served in Washington under journalistic cover during the 1980s. Unger claims Soviet intelligence gradually cultivated Trump, and that the KGB then helped arrange his first trip to the Soviet Union in 1987.

Unger distinguishes between an intelligence “agent,” who knowingly works for an intelligence service, and an “asset,” whose relationship can be much less formal. On that basis, he argues that Trump became a Russian intelligence asset.

Russia’s 2016 election interference

Torres and Unger turn from Trump’s personal history to documented Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Unger points to both the Mueller investigation and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation as evidence of Moscow’s efforts to influence American politics.

One episode involved Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the Senate Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. Unger states that Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling information with Kilimnik during the campaign.

Russia’s Internet Research Agency also conducted a wide-ranging social media influence operation targeting American voters. Unger posits that such activities illustrate how social media has transformed foreign interference by allowing political actors to manipulate information environments at enormous scale.

Social media fractures political reality

For Unger, the larger danger extends beyond any individual election. Social media has divided Americans into increasingly isolated political communities that no longer agree on basic facts.

He connects this phenomenon to Vladislav Surkov, a former influential Kremlin advisor. Rather than relying simply on repeated propaganda, Unger says, the newer model floods the information environment with competing and contradictory narratives. The objective is not necessarily to persuade audiences that one account is correct but to make certainty itself difficult.

Unger also criticizes Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ownership of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. He contends that Musk’s changes to the platform have favored Trump and conservative political content.

Journalists must pursue truth

Torres closes by asking what younger journalists can learn from Unger’s five decades in investigative reporting. He contrasts the current media environment with the eras of Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and reporting on the My Lai massacre, when major investigations could produce congressional action and profound political consequences.

Unger warns particularly against access journalism. Close relationships with powerful sources may produce information, he says, but they can also leave reporters dependent on maintaining those relationships. His second warning concerns “both-sidesism.” Fairness requires journalists to represent competing claims accurately, but it does not require treating demonstrably unequal claims as equally credible.

Journalism’s fundamental obligation remains establishing what is true. Yet fragmented audiences, social media and intense political polarization make that task increasingly difficult. Investigative journalism still uncovers consequential facts, but its political impact depends on institutions and citizens staying willing to act on them.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Fair Observer’s operations chief of staff Cheyenne Torres and veteran investigative journalist and author Craig Unger discuss US President Donald Trump’s decades-long connections to Russian figures and Unger’s argument that Soviet and Russian intelligence cultivated Trump as an asset….”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Cheyenne Torres and Craig Unger examine US President Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, from past real estate dealings to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Unger claims Soviet intelligence cultivated Trump over many years and connects that to Russian influence in American politics. Also, he says journalists must pursue truth over access.”
post-date=”Aug 26, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Making Sense of Trump’s Relationship with Russia” slug-data=”fo-talks-making-sense-of-trumps-relationship-with-russia”>

FO Talks: Making Sense of Trump’s Relationship with Russia

Manu Sharma”
post_date=”August 24, 2026 06:35″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-why-the-us-treasury-dumped-euro-to-save-yen/” pid=”164113″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Partner Manu Sharma examine the historic US intervention to support the Japanese yen and what it reveals about a changing global economy. They explain Japan’s importance to international capital markets, growing economic pressure on the country and the risk that turmoil could spread through global markets. They broaden their discussion into US relations with Europe, mounting economic nationalism and whether technological advances can resolve the deeper imbalances confronting the world economy.

Why Washington supported the yen

In July 2026, the Japanese yen fell to its weakest level against the dollar since 1986. On July 31, the US Treasury intervened to help Japan support the currency, marking the first such US effort to strengthen the Japanese currency since 1998. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York sold euros and bought yen on the Treasury’s behalf.

Manu states that the intervention matters because Japan remains a major provider of capital to the global economy. Following its extraordinary postwar industrialization, Japan accumulated large trade surpluses and became an important financier of both Asian industrial development and Western financial markets.

That role helped create the yen carry trade. Investors borrow cheaply in yen and invest the proceeds in higher-yielding assets elsewhere. The difference between Japan’s low borrowing costs and higher returns abroad creates potential profits, particularly when investors use leverage.

The danger comes when this process reverses. If Japan needs capital at home, investors may have to unwind positions and move money back into the country. Such movements could create instability far beyond Japan.

Japan faces inflation

Japan now faces pressure from several directions. Atul points to the country’s dependence on imported energy and how Iran’s choking of the Strait of Hormuz has damaged the Japanese economy. Import costs have gone up and the yen is facing downward pressure. A weak yen makes a bad problem worse because Japan must now spend more of its currency to purchase dollar-denominated commodities.

Meanwhile, Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda has warned that underlying inflation is approaching the central bank’s 2% target. Yet the Bank of Japan held interest rates at 1% on July 31 as policymakers attempted to support domestic economic activity. Consequently, markets lost confidence in the yen.

Along with loose monetary policy, Japan is following an expansionary fiscal policy. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government is spending more than it earns. It is taking on more debt at a time when the Japanese debt has reached about 250% of GDP. The combination of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies at a time of massive debt and war-induced inflation is putting unprecedented pressure on the yen.

Manu says the US intervention may stabilize the currency temporarily, but the underlying economic pressures remain. If Japan eventually needs to repatriate large quantities of overseas capital, an unwinding of the carry trade could transmit financial stress around the world.

Does selling euros reveal Washington’s priorities?

For Manu, the most revealing part of the intervention is not that Washington bought yen but what it sold to finance those purchases: euros. He interprets that choice as a geopolitical signal that Washington considers Japan strategically more important than Europe.

Atul and Manu recall the 1985 Plaza Accord, when the United States, Japan, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom coordinated efforts to depreciate the dollar. At the time, Washington sought to depreciate the dollar to reduce its trade deficit. Then, Japanese and German exports were extremely competitive, and American manufacturing struggled. By making the yen and deutsche mark more expensive, the US aimed to curb imports and promote domestic industry.

Today, the US has different motives than in the 1980s. The US does not want market meltdown or contagion. Japan owns billions of dollars of American assets and protecting the yen is in American self-interest. If simultaneous financial pressure strikes several allied economies, the US has signalled that Japan will be the first to be rescued.”

Atul notes that many Europeans now believe that Washington views the EU as an economic competitor. In particular, Republicans are increasingly distrustful of Europe. They say that Europe gives empty sermons and constantly criticizes the US despite the fact that Washington has subsidized European security for decades.

Manu summarizes the distinction provocatively: Japan is “a net supplier of capital,” while Europe is “a net supplier of moral lectures.”

The global economy enters dangerous territory

The conversation then turns from Japan and Europe to the broader financial system. Manu states that global resource, capital and security networks are undergoing a fundamental reorganization. China has become dominant in industries such as electric vehicles while traditional European industrial strengths, particularly Germany’s automotive and chemical sectors, face growing pressure.

Europe also faces capital shortages and weak growth, problems highlighted in the former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness. Manu says that regulatory rigidity and difficulties in attracting outside investment compound these structural weaknesses.

More broadly, Atul and Manu contend that years of loose monetary and fiscal policy have led to inflationary pressures. Today, excessive money is chasing insufficient economic output. They discuss the pernicious influence of Modern Monetary Theory, which held that governments issuing their own sovereign fiat currencies do not rely on taxes or borrowing to fund spending, because they can create new money at will. They also highlight the enormous stimulus introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic along with a dramatic increase in money supply. This was part of a longer period of cheap money, rising debt and inflated asset valuations.

The imbalances in the global economy have led to a populist counterreaction. Manu points out that we now live in an increasingly mercantilist international system. Governments are trying to protect domestic industries, reshore production, secure resources and reduce dependence on competitors. Atul describes this emerging behavior as a “smash and grab strategy” in which states seek control of resources and territory as economic and geopolitical competition intensifies.

Technology may not provide an easy escape

Atul and Manu end by challenging predictions that artificial intelligence and robotics will solve these economic problems. They discuss Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s prediction of technological superabundance, in which automation dramatically increases production and ultimately diminishes the importance of money.

Manu compares the argument with economist John Maynard Keynes’s 1930 essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” which envisioned technological progress dramatically reducing the amount of work humans would need to perform in the future. Nearly a century later, Keynes’s 1930 vision has not entirely come true.

Manu believes technological utopias underestimate human emotions, inequality, institutional incentives and political conflict. Atul similarly questions whether an AI-driven increase in productivity can arrive quickly enough to resolve excessive debt, inflated valuations and the widening gap between money supply and real economic output.

For Atul and Manu, the yen intervention therefore represents more than an isolated currency operation. It reveals how the global financial system is increasingly unstable. The US is trying its best to prop up Japan in order primarily to save itself. If Japan dumps American treasuries, things could get very ugly pretty quickly.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Partner Manu Sharma examine the historic US intervention to support the Japanese yen and what it reveals about a changing global economy. They explain Japan’s importance to international capital markets, growing economic pressure on the country and the risk…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Manu Sharma examine the US intervention to support the Japanese yen. Washington intervened to save a falling yen because it feared Tokyo would sell US treasuries, putting upward pressure on interest rates and downward pressure on the dollar. By selling euros instead of dollars, Washington has signalled that Japan is more important than Europe to the US.”
post-date=”Aug 24, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Why the US Treasury Dumped Euro to Save Yen” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-the-us-treasury-dumped-euro-to-save-yen”>

FO Talks: Why the US Treasury Dumped Euro to Save Yen

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”August 20, 2026 06:14″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-tensions-within-israel/” pid=”164035″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, examine growing divisions within Israeli politics and society. A dispute between Defense Minister Israel Katz and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) over the future of a senior West Bank commander highlights tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the military. Singh and Olmert also discuss divisions over West Bank settlements, religion and military service, rising emigration and whether Israel’s traditional sense of national solidarity is weakening.

Netanyahu’s right clashes with the IDF

Singh begins with Katz’s announcement that he would replace Major General Avi Bluth, the IDF’s senior commander in the West Bank. The military publicly disputed Katz’s authority to make the change. Olmert argues that this confrontation reflects a deeper transformation within the Israeli right.

Historically, he says, Menachem Begin’s Likud regarded the IDF as central to Jewish national revival. Military service symbolized the ability of Jews to defend themselves after centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. Although tensions between political and military leaders occurred, notably during the 1982 Lebanon War, respect for the institution remained deeply rooted.

Olmert says that Netanyahu’s dependence on religious right-wing parties and the settler movement has changed this relationship. Begin promoted West Bank settlements after becoming prime minister in 1977, but his government also evacuated settlements in Sinai to secure peace with Egypt. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon similarly removed Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005.

Netanyahu, Olmert states, has instead become politically dependent on parties that place West Bank settlements at the center of their agenda. He believes this has encouraged attacks on institutions such as the IDF when military priorities conflict with settler interests.

Olmert calls this an “ideological reversal” for the Israeli right. Confronting an institution still admired by much of Israeli society could hurt Netanyahu’s coalition in the next election, he mentions.

Religion, settlements and military service divide Israel

Singh and Olmert turn to divisions within Israel’s religious communities. Olmert emphasizes that West Bank settlers are not politically or religiously uniform. Some of the largest settlements are ultra-Orthodox, while national-religious Israelis serve extensively in the IDF and have suffered significant casualties during recent fighting.

At the more radical end, the so-called hilltop youth have established unauthorized outposts outside established settlements. Olmert argues that some increasingly reject the authority of the state itself in favor of a society governed according to their interpretation of Jewish religious law.

This raises a larger question about what it means for Israel to be simultaneously Jewish and democratic. The country’s founders and much of its population are not simply secular. Religious traditions remain embedded in everyday Israeli life, from Jewish marriage ceremonies and the Sabbath to observance of Yom Kippur.

The more consequential dividing line, he says, concerns the relationship between religious authority and individual choice. Disputes over ultra-Orthodox exemptions from military service have brought that conflict into sharper focus.

Olmert believes the next government will have to confront both the military draft and lawlessness among radical settlers. He reiterates his earlier prediction that Israel is approaching a “third Israeli republic,” in which the political arrangements governing religion, the military and the state could see substantial reworking.

Are Israelis voting with their feet?

Israel’s internal political struggle coincides with reports of unusually high emigration. Singh asks whether three consecutive years of elevated departures indicate a deeper crisis.

Olmert accepts that emigration has risen but cautions that estimates depend on how departures are measured. Israel has experienced similar anxieties before, particularly during the severe recession of 1966. Today, many of those leaving are highly mobile professionals, including technology workers and doctors.

That composition makes the trend potentially important. Yet Israel continues to receive new immigrants and returning Israelis, including significant numbers of Jewish doctors. Its population also continues to grow faster than those of many other developed countries.

Political dissatisfaction may nevertheless contribute to departures. Olmert points particularly to opposition among some Israelis to the growing influence of ultra-Orthodox parties. He expects many Israelis living overseas to return temporarily to vote in the coming election, potentially making emigration itself part of Israel’s political reckoning.

Prosperity cannot resolve Israel’s divisions

Singh contrasts these tensions with Israel’s economic resilience. The economy grew by about 3% last year, unemployment remains around 3%–3.5% and Israel maintains substantial foreign currency reserves. Singh and Olmert discuss strong investment in Israel’s technology sector despite the pressures of war.

Olmert describes Israel’s economic performance as remarkable but contends that prosperity does not necessarily translate into social satisfaction. Many emigrants are precisely the professionals who have benefited from the country’s technology-driven economy.

Israel, he suggests, increasingly resembles other advanced societies in which people judge their circumstances not simply by employment or income but by political stability, personal freedom and overall quality of life.

Is Israel’s siege mentality weakening?

The larger question is whether decades of conflict still bind Israelis together as strongly as they once did. Singh characterizes Israel as a modern Spartan society because military service and mobilization remain unusually widespread compared with other developed countries.

Olmert agrees that Israel remains distinctive. Military participation and volunteerism are still high, even if they have declined from earlier periods. Yet he sees signs that the traditional “siege society” mentality is losing some of its power.

Historically, external threats acted as a cementing force across Israeli society. Today, prolonged conflict exists alongside political polarization, disputes over religion and military service, as well as changing expectations among younger and professional Israelis.

Olmert cautions against interpreting current emigration or political divisions as evidence of imminent national decline. Israel has endured previous periods of economic hardship and outward migration before recovering. The coming election, however, could determine whether current divisions represent another difficult political cycle or the beginning of a more fundamental transformation of the Israeli state.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, examine growing divisions within Israeli politics and society. A dispute between Defense Minister Israel Katz and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) over the future of a senior West Bank…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert examine how tensions between the Netanyahu government and IDF reflect a struggle over Israel’s political and ideological direction. Disputes over West Bank settlements, religion and military service deepen Israel’s internal divisions. Despite economic strength and military participation, the siege mentality that historically united Israeli society may be weakening.”
post-date=”Aug 20, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Make Sense of the Tensions Within Israel” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-tensions-within-israel”>

FO Talks: Make Sense of the Tensions Within Israel

Dr. Bahareh Sahebi”
post_date=”August 19, 2026 06:58″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-the-psychology-of-geopolitics-how-authoritarianism-impacts-human-behavior/” pid=”164020″
post-content=”

Editor Lucy Golish speaks with Bahareh Sahebi, a clinical psychologist and licensed marriage and family therapist, about how authoritarian systems shape the psychology of the people who live under them. Drawing on Sahebi’s professional expertise and her experience as an Iranian American, they explore how fear, uncertainty and collective trauma influence relationships, family dynamics and identity across generations. Understanding these systemic influences is essential for helping both survivors of authoritarianism and those seeking to support them.

How authoritarianism reshapes the mind

Sahebi begins by arguing that authoritarian governments exercise power in ways that extend beyond censorship, imprisonment or violence. Over time, persistent fear changes how people think, communicate and relate to others. Rather than focusing on exploration, trust or self-expression, the brain gradually becomes organized around survival.

She explains that this shift becomes internalized. Instead of waiting for external punishment, individuals begin monitoring themselves, anticipating consequences before acting. As Sahebi puts it, “The greatest success of an authoritarian system is not controlling behavior. It is actually reorganizing the psychological processes that produce the behavior.”

These psychological patterns often persist after people leave authoritarian societies. Immigration changes a person’s surroundings, but the survival strategies developed over decades do not disappear overnight.

Families inherit fear

Golish asks how these patterns become embedded across generations. Sahebi explains that authoritarian systems infiltrate family life by encouraging parents to pass survival strategies to their children. Lessons such as avoiding difficult conversations, remaining silent and distrusting others become practical methods of staying safe rather than signs of dysfunctional parenting.

This creates a division between public and private identities, with people learning to present one version of themselves outside the home while preserving another within the family. She says people should understand these adaptations as rational responses to dangerous environments rather than personal failings.

This conditioning also affects ordinary decisions long after migration. Sahebi describes highly accomplished clients who struggle to ask employers for routine accommodations because they instinctively ask themselves not what they want, but what is safest. “People stop asking, ‘What do I want?’ They begin to ask, ‘What is the safest?’”

Living with uncertainty at home and abroad

The discussion turns to communication and the experience of the Iranian diaspora. Sahebi says that communication serves as emotional regulation rather than simply the exchange of information. When contact with loved ones is interrupted, uncertainty activates the nervous system and intensifies anxiety.

Using Iran’s Internet blackouts as an example, she explains that families abroad often spend days or weeks unable to confirm whether relatives are alive or safe. In those moments, even a simple messaging notification becomes psychologically significant because it restores a sense of connection.

Sahebi states that prolonged uncertainty reshapes perception, encouraging hypervigilance, worst-case thinking and difficulty trusting others. These patterns often persist among diaspora communities, influencing friendships, family relationships and broader social interactions long after people have left the country.

Understanding trauma through systems

Golish asks how therapists can address these deeply ingrained adaptations without dismissing the genuine dangers that produced them. Sahebi distinguishes between challenging unhelpful thought patterns and invalidating lived experience. She emphasizes that evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy remain valuable but should be placed within a broader systemic context.

Rather than viewing anxiety or hypervigilance solely as symptoms, she encourages clinicians to ask what circumstances originally made those behaviors necessary. “Sometimes what looks like hypervigilance is actually wisdom. Sometimes what looks like anxiety is actually accurate risk assessment.”

This perspective, she argues, shifts attention from correcting individuals to understanding how political systems, family structures and social environments shape psychological development.

Reflection, curiosity and recovery

In closing, Sahebi encourages listeners to reflect on how much of their personality may represent adaptations to past environments rather than freely chosen characteristics. For those from authoritarian backgrounds, she asks whether old survival strategies still serve their lives today or continue to shape relationships unnecessarily.

For people without that experience, she suggests replacing assumptions with curiosity by asking what experiences taught someone to be cautious rather than wondering why they appear distant or reluctant to trust. Recovery, she states, begins by recognizing the difference between authentic identity and behaviors developed for survival.

Psychology cannot be separated from politics, history or culture. Understanding how larger systems shape individual lives, Sahebi says, creates greater compassion for others and opens the possibility of rebuilding relationships around trust, curiosity and freedom rather than fear.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor Lucy Golish speaks with Bahareh Sahebi, a clinical psychologist and licensed marriage and family therapist, about how authoritarian systems shape the psychology of the people who live under them. Drawing on Sahebi’s professional expertise and her experience as an Iranian American, they…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Lucy Golish and Bahareh Sahebi explore how authoritarian systems reshape the psychology of their inhabitants. People internalize chronic fear, which influences relationships, communication and identity long after people leave authoritarian societies. Recovery begins by recognizing which survival strategies remain necessary and which can be replaced with trust, curiosity and genuine human connection.”
post-date=”Aug 19, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: The Psychology of Geopolitics — How Authoritarianism Impacts Human Behavior” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-psychology-of-geopolitics-how-authoritarianism-impacts-human-behavior”>

FO Talks: The Psychology of Geopolitics — How Authoritarianism Impacts Human Behavior

Nicolai Leski”
post_date=”August 17, 2026 06:16″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/fo-talks-why-germany-saves-and-why-germans-love-bonds/” pid=”163959″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and investment banker Nicolai Leski explore why Germany has one of the developed world’s highest savings rates and why German investors continue to favor bonds over stocks. They trace the roots of German financial culture through centuries of political and economic history, from the fragmented Holy Roman Empire to the trauma of the Weimar hyperinflation and the Deutsche Telekom crash. Germany’s preference for security reflects not only economic incentives but also deeply ingrained historical experiences that continue to shape attitudes toward risk and investment.

Germany values thrift over investment

Singh opens by highlighting Germany’s unusually high savings rate compared to the rest of the eurozone and asks why Germans consistently save so much of their disposable income. Leski immediately distinguishes between saving and investing, arguing that German households traditionally prioritize preserving liquidity instead of seeking higher long-term returns through equities. As he puts it, “Saving here is the classical thrift saving,” with money sitting in savings accounts or similar low-risk vehicles rather than being invested in productive assets.

Singh and Leski contrast Germany with the United States, where household debt is far more common and borrowing often finances consumption, education and homeownership. Singh suggests that the German commitment to Sparsamkeit — thrift as a virtue — resembles saving cultures found in parts of Asia. Leski agrees that Germany has developed a distinctive preference for financial security but argues that its origins lie in history rather than simple cultural attitudes.

History shaped Germany’s financial institutions

Leski explains that Germany followed a very different economic path from the Atlantic trading powers. While countries such as the Netherlands and Britain developed shareholder capitalism through overseas commerce and joint-stock companies, the German lands remained politically fragmented for centuries. Merchants operating across dozens of principalities had to navigate different currencies, tolls and legal systems, encouraging many traders to become bankers instead.

Singh contrasts this with the Dutch East India Company and Britain’s parliamentary system, where broad participation in equity markets encouraged a culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking. Leski argues that these institutional differences continue to influence financial behavior centuries later. Germany developed stronger creditor protections and bank-centered finance, while Atlantic economies placed greater emphasis on shareholder ownership and capital markets.

Financial shocks reinforced risk aversion

The conversation then turns to the major events that shaped modern German attitudes toward investment. Singh notes that 1923 hyperinflation destroyed savings and brought profound political consequences. Leski acknowledges the apparent contradiction: Inflation should have encouraged investment in hard assets rather than cash. Instead, the experience intensified the desire for certainty and stable returns.

More recently, the Deutsche Telekom privatization left a lasting scar on retail investors. Encouraged by government advertising, many first-time investors bought shares near the height of the dot-com boom before watching the stock collapse. Leski says the episode arrived “at the perfectly wrong time” for a country with little tradition of stock ownership or financial education. Many households suffered steep losses and concluded that equities were inherently dangerous.

The speakers also discuss the 2008 financial crisis, when German banks purchased large volumes of complex structured credit products tied to US subprime mortgages. Leski argues that German institutions trusted the promise of repayment without fully understanding the underlying risks, reinforcing the country’s cautious approach to investing.

Debt, housing and the search for security

Singh asks whether the linguistic connection between Schulden (debt) and Schuld (guilt or blame) contributes to German financial conservatism. Leski considers the theory interesting but ultimately unconvincing, noting that Dutch uses similar linguistic roots despite embracing equity investment far more readily.

Singh and Leski then turn to Germany’s relatively low homeownership rate. Leski explains that while many Germans still aspire to own a house, renting is often viewed as more practical because it offers flexibility and avoids maintenance costs. Historical policies introduced after the hyperinflation also discouraged property ownership by reducing real estate values.

Throughout these examples, Leski returns to one idea: security. Limited financial education, historical experience and family traditions have all reinforced a preference for minimizing perceived risk rather than maximizing long-term returns.

Trust lies at the heart of German finance

The conversation concludes by examining an apparent contradiction in German investing. Many Germans regard government bonds as the safest possible investment while remaining reluctant to buy shares in German companies. Leski argues that this logic ultimately depends on the same source of value.

“Money is nothing but trust,” Leski explains. Government bonds are only secure because businesses generate profits, workers pay taxes and the broader economy remains productive. If investors trust the state’s ability to repay its debts, they are indirectly trusting the companies they hesitate to own.

Singh closes by suggesting that greater financial education and a better understanding of long-term investing could gradually weaken Germany’s traditional aversion to equities. While historical experience explains the country’s saving culture, Leski believes breaking the cycle of excessive caution will require Germans to rethink what genuine financial security actually means.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and investment banker Nicolai Leski explore why Germany has one of the developed world’s highest savings rates and why German investors continue to favor bonds over stocks. They trace the roots of German financial culture through centuries of political and economic…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Nicolai Leski discuss why Germans favor bonds over stocks. They trace Germany’s financial culture to its bank-centered economy, 1923 hyperinflation and the Deutsche Telekom collapse — experiences that may have fostered a preference for security. Germany’s bond trust rests on the same productive economy that many Germans don’t invest in.”
post-date=”Aug 17, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Why Germany Saves and Why Germans Love Bonds” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-germany-saves-and-why-germans-love-bonds”>

FO Talks: Why Germany Saves and Why Germans Love Bonds

Gary Grappo”
post_date=”August 14, 2026 06:44″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-live-making-sense-of-natos-future/” pid=”163907″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh hosts a discussion with former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, ex-CIA officer Glenn Carle and retired Royal Air Force officer Peter Hoskins to examine NATO’s uncertain future amid shifting American priorities, renewed European rearmament and Russia’s continued challenge to European security. While the alliance faces unprecedented political and strategic pressures, it remains essential to transatlantic security, though its members must prepare for Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own defense. The discussion explores how NATO must adapt to changing geopolitical realities without losing the institutional strengths that have sustained it for more than seven decades.

Trump accelerates NATO’s transformation

The discussion opens with the panel considering whether NATO has entered a fundamentally new era. Hoskins argues that calls for European allies to shoulder a greater share of the defense burden predate US President Donald Trump, but Trump’s confrontational style has dramatically altered the political atmosphere surrounding the alliance. Hoskins believes the United States is likely to continue reducing its military commitment to Europe over time, regardless of who occupies the White House.

Grappo agrees that American administrations have long pushed for greater burden-sharing but contends that Trump’s unusually aggressive rhetoric has strained relationships between Washington and its allies. Even so, he maintains that NATO remains central to US national security and that congressional support and public backing make an American withdrawal highly unlikely. As he puts it, “The defense and the security of Europe is a core security interest of the United States.”

Carle argues that Trump’s approach reflects a longstanding isolationist tradition within American politics rather than an entirely new phenomenon. He suggests that the combination of domestic political shifts, China’s rise and Russia’s renewed assertiveness has forced NATO to confront structural changes that were already underway before Trump’s return to office.

Europe prepares for a larger security role

The panel next examines whether Europe can build a more independent defense capability while preserving NATO’s cohesion. Hoskins points to growing military cooperation through joint procurement projects, including surveillance aircraft, submarines and frigates, as evidence that European governments are strengthening their defense industries and operational coordination.

Simultaneously, he rejects proposals for a separate European defense organization outside NATO. He argues that duplicating NATO’s command structure would waste resources and create unnecessary complications given the alliance’s existing institutional framework and the participation of countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Every American commander within NATO is paired with a European deputy, which gives the alliance an established structure capable of adapting even if the US military presence gradually declines.

Turkey also features prominently in the discussion. Grappo describes Ankara as a “problematic member” whose strategic importance is matched by recurring political disagreements with other allies. While he views Turkey’s decision to abandon its Russian radar system as a significant diplomatic achievement, Grappo considers the renewed F-35 agreement less consequential than the political symbolism surrounding it.

Russia has restored NATO’s purpose

The conversation then turns to the strategic environment confronting the alliance. Carle argues that the Soviet Union’s collapse left NATO searching for a clear mission, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has effectively restored the alliance’s original purpose by reminding members of the importance of collective defense. Rather than rendering NATO obsolete, renewed Russian aggression has strengthened its relevance.

The panel also discusses the conflict involving Iran and the absence of meaningful NATO coordination. Grappo argues that European governments were justified in declining requests to support American operations near the Strait of Hormuz because they had not been consulted beforehand and modern coalition warfare requires months of military planning and diplomatic coordination. Hoskins recalls the extensive preparation required before coalition forces entered the Gulf War, emphasizing that multinational military operations cannot be assembled overnight.

The discussion also revisits France’s longstanding interest in greater European strategic autonomy. Hoskins argues that recent events have weakened support for an independent European defense structure because NATO already possesses the experience, command systems and institutional memory needed to coordinate collective security effectively.

Populism reshapes politics on both sides of the Atlantic

Beyond military questions, the panel explores how demographic and political change is influencing NATO’s future. Carle believes that right-wing populism in the US represents a reaction against decades of social, cultural and economic transformation rather than simply a foreign policy dispute. He believes these domestic tensions have contributed to the rise of a more nationalist outlook that questions traditional alliances while stopping short of predicting a permanent American retreat from Europe.

Hoskins identifies similar political currents across Europe, particularly in France, where far-right politician Marine Le Pen has broadened her appeal beyond immigration by attracting working-class voters affected by deindustrialization. He warns that a future French government could maintain NATO’s political membership while reducing its participation in the alliance’s integrated military command, echoing former French President Charles de Gaulle’s earlier policy.

The speakers argue that countries closest to Russia, including Poland, Finland and the Baltic states, remain deeply committed to NATO because they perceive a far more immediate security threat than many Western European countries.

Rearmament brings new opportunities and new challenges

The discussion concludes with Europe’s accelerating military buildup. The speakers highlight Germany’s rapidly expanding defense budget, increased weapons production and plans to enlarge its armed forces as evidence that Berlin is assuming a greater leadership role within NATO after decades of restraint. Grappo argues that France, Italy and Spain must also increase their contributions if the alliance is to maintain credible deterrence.

Hoskins welcomes Germany’s renewed investment but notes that rebuilding military capability will require years of modernization after prolonged underinvestment. He also warns that expanding defense budgets will force difficult political choices as European governments balance military spending against popular social programs. “The higher the wall, the better the neighbor,” he recalls from a Russian military counterpart. Russia’s geopolitical ambitions continue to make NATO indispensable.

In closing, Carle suggests that emerging technologies such as drones may provide new opportunities for multinational cooperation by allowing European countries to develop joint capabilities without becoming trapped in longstanding industrial rivalries. Together, the panel concludes that NATO does not face imminent collapse but must adapt as both Europe and the US redefine their respective roles within the alliance.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh hosts a discussion with former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, ex-CIA officer Glenn Carle and retired Royal Air Force officer Peter Hoskins to examine NATO’s uncertain future amid shifting American priorities, renewed European rearmament and Russia’s continued challenge…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Live, Atul Singh, Gary Grappo, Glenn Carle and Peter Hoskins examine NATO’s future as it faces shifting American priorities, renewed Russian aggression and Europe’s growing defense responsibilities. While Donald Trump’s approach has accelerated tensions within NATO, the alliance remains strategically indispensable. NATO is entering a period of transformation, with evolving transatlantic relationships reshaping its future.”
post-date=”Aug 14, 2026″
post-title=”FO Live: Making Sense of NATO’s Future” slug-data=”fo-live-making-sense-of-natos-future”>

FO Live: Making Sense of NATO’s Future

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 13, 2026 07:09″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-indias-youth-cockroach-protests-rattle-prime-minister-narendra-modi/” pid=”163894″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine how India’s “cockroach protests” have become a powerful symbol of youth frustration with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. 

The movement took its name after Chief Justice Surya Kant made remarks in May that many interpreted as comparing unemployed young Indians to “cockroaches.” Although Kant later insisted his comments had been misunderstood, the label quickly became a rallying cry for protesters. They were led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which had initially begun as a parody political party on social media.

Glenn wryly notes that parody, it seems, is dangerous, and perhaps we all must have sympathy for dictators and political figures who decry and try to suppress politically motivated humor. The deeper question is whether Indian protests were just youth letting off some steam or the beginning of a profound political shift in the country.

From exam scandal to political movement

The immediate trigger for the protests was the leak of university entrance examinations that affected two million students. Exam papers were available for sale, favoring those who could pay. Importantly, leaks have occurred with depressing regularity under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Naturally, millions of young Indians now believe the system is corrupt, unfair and unjust.

This month, dissatisfaction reached such a high that the youth took to the streets. Young protesters demanded accountability, transparency and greater opportunity. Above all, they called for a less rigged system. They also demanded the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the then education minister. The Modi government responded haughtily, saying Pradhan’s resignation was out of the question. 

Sonam Wangchuk, a well-respected environmental and civil rights activist, went on hunger strike in support of the youth protests. The government picked up Wangchuk and engaged in massive police brutality. This included firing an AK–47 into an unarmed crowd, using pellet guns and using sticks with nails at their ends to beat up the crowd. Police action fired up protesters who flooded the streets in many cities, and Pradhan resigned on July 25. This was a humiliating U-turn by the Modi government, which insisted that protesters were anti-national and Pradhan was a national treasure.

Why did students take to the streets?

Glenn points out that leaks, cheating and corruption have been going on for years. So he asks, why did students take to the streets?

Atul responds by saying that discontent against the Modi government has been brewing for a while. In the words of an officer of the heaven-born Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian economy is dead and has been dead for a while. There are simply no jobs for India’s educated youth. Modi’s demonetization policy — arbitrarily taking high-denomination notes out of circulation — hurt small- and medium-sized industries. Far too many went bankrupt, and the people they employed ended up with no jobs. The Modi government also rolled out a nationwide goods and services tax in the middle of the financial year, destroying smaller businesses. More jobs disappeared.

Importantly, the Modi government has presided over corruption in the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the election in no small part because it championed the building of a temple on the site where the Hindu god Ram was born after destroying a mosque on this site. Like many mosques, this was constructed in the medieval era after destroying a Hindu temple.

The Ram Temple was a civilizational project for the Hindu right, which believes India has been invaded relentlessly and colonized repeatedly. This temple was to be a Vatican-like project with world-class institutions such as universities and hospitals associated with the place of worship. Instead, a land scam, gross overinvoicing in construction and theft of cash donations by devotees have triggered public fury, especially in the Hindi heartland.

Atul comes from Uttar Pradesh, speaks Hindi and understands Indian politics. The Ram Temple corruption has incensed people because the Modi government has cheated faith and, in a religious country like India, there are consequences to cheating faith.

The US/Israel–Iran War has also taken a toll. Oil and gas prices have shot up. The government has forced consumers to use E20 fuel, which is standard petrol blended with 20% ethanol. Unfortunately, this E20 fuel is causing engine trouble and lowering mileage of two-wheelers and cars for millions of Indians. 

The exam leaks were a spark coming on top of a dry sack of hay. Simmering public discontent erupted in fury on the streets. Such was the foul language used by protesters, especially young women, against Modi and his government, that many older people were shocked. Supporters of the Modi government blamed vested interests, foreign powers plotting Modi’s downfall and a cynical opposition, but the fact remains that far too many people revolted against what they saw as a corrupt, autocratic and arrogant government.

Why leaks occur so maddeningly regularly

Atul also explains why leaks occur so regularly. The reasons are to do with both demand and supply.

On the demand side, exams are the gateway to scarce seats in top institutions, especially medical and engineering colleges, and government jobs. They are the only institutional path for upward social mobility. So, a multibillion-dollar coaching industry has developed to coach students for these exams. If a child joins a private coaching institution, he or she will be drilled for the entrance exams. Coaching starts early and ends late. The child does not go to a real school, and the private coaching company gets dummy, i.e. fake, attendance in some school so that the child qualifies for school-leaving exams. These require a minimum attendance by law.

Atul’s father believes that the coaching industry has created a culture of deceit, dishonesty, immorality and cheating. It is yet another story of misaligned incentives. The coaching companies can charge higher fees and get more students if their clients crack the entrance exams. So, it is in their interest to bribe folks conducting tests to leak papers. The demand to succeed in entrance exams is exceedingly high and the means justify the ends.

At the same time, the supply of exams is highly compromised. The National Testing Authority (NTA) is structurally poorly designed. It is headed by Abhishek Singh, an IAS officer who was in charge of AI a few months ago. He has never conducted any examination of note before his NTA assignment. Unlike the UK, an educationist is not in charge of conducting exams. In India, the IAS controls everything from the Reserve Bank of India and the Archaeological Survey of India to exams to engineering and medical colleges. The top man or woman lacking domain expertise is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the NTA is undermanned and uses contractors. It has also proved to be irredeemably incompetent and corrupt, causing public fury among millions of young people.

Leaks are a symbol of a failing republic

Atul points out how the youth cockroach protests took off because of spectacular incompetence at the highest levels in the Modi government. First, the Modi government underestimated the CJP, dismissing it as a mere social media phenomenon. Second, there was a complete intelligence failure of the state machinery about the scale of public discontent. Third, the key people at the top were terrible at their jobs.

Speaking of top people, Atul points to Taranjit Singh Sandhu, the lieutenant governor of Delhi, and Anurag Kumar, Delhi’s police commissioner. Sandhu is a retired officer of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) who was India’s ambassador to the US, while Kumar is an officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) who headed the Intelligence Bureau (IB) at the Indian embassy in Washington, DC. Kumar served Sandhu a few years ago, and the two go back a long way. Neither has any experience of law and order or crowd control. In particular, Sandhu is known to be a narcissist obsessed with self-promotion, incapable of deep conversations and of doubtful personal integrity. The BJP gave this IFS officer a ticket to run for parliament in 2024, but he lost badly. Kumar was a spy who was plucked out of IB and made the big boss of the police just before the police unleashed violence on the young protesters.

Sandhu and Kumar are emblematic of fundamental incompetence at the top of the Modi government. It has followed a policy of what Atul has called Vegetarian Stalinism, which was the subject of a full episode of The Dialectic, the flagship podcast by Atul and Glenn. In this policy, there has been a complete centralization of power. Modi rules through bureaucrats of the IAS, IFS, IPS et al who are sycophants. His face adorns posters everywhere from trains to notice boards in schools. He takes credit for everything. At some point, Modi was bound to take the blame for something, and the leaks triggered a bullet he could not dodge.

The fury of the protests demonstrates that the youth have lost faith in the Modi government, the institutions of the state and the Indian republic itself. However, the CJP protests do not have a constructive agenda or any substantive ideas for reform. They are emotive, reactive and frenzied. The young are protesting because they feel everyone and everything is for sale, from the chief justice of the Supreme Court to entrance examinations. Think of the CJP as an Indian counterpart to Occupy Wall Street that lacks coherence as a political movement.

The protests are politically extremely significant, though. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi protested in front of Modi’s residence and was arrested. Other opposition parties also jumped into the fray to support protesters. More importantly, BJP leaders are scared that they might have to spend time in opposition because of the loss of popularity of their party and their leader among the young. Senior BJP leader and former education minister Murli Manohar Joshi decried the use of force by the Modi government. Joshi served in the previous BJP government that lost power in 2004 and is a former professor of physics. His comments show that Modi is losing ground even within the BJP.

Atul makes a bold and final point that these protests mark the beginning of the end of Modi. Modi has run a centralized government that intimidates its critics by unleashing the Enforcement Directorate, misusing the income tax department and inflicting decades of legal trouble. Now, the dam has burst. The Hindu political project has run out of steam. The urban Hindu middle class that venerates exams and expects them to be sacrosanct has lost faith in Modi and the BJP. In the coming months, India’s economic crisis will intensify, and revolutions depend on the price of bread. So, expect more chaos. Also, expect a coalition government after the next election. The BJP will not win.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine how India’s “cockroach protests” have become a powerful symbol of youth frustration with Prime Minister Narendra…”
post_summery=”In this section of the July 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine how India’s youth-led “cockroach protests” have challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Protesters demanded greater accountability, transparency and democratic reform, especially after repeated leaks of university entrance exams. Autocratic Modi caved, and his education minister resigned, signaling a new political weakness that will only grow.”
post-date=”Aug 13, 2026″
post-title=”FO Exclusive: India’s Youth Cockroach Protests Rattle Prime Minister Narendra Modi” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-indias-youth-cockroach-protests-rattle-prime-minister-narendra-modi”>

FO Exclusive: India’s Youth Cockroach Protests Rattle Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 12, 2026 06:15″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-exclusive-new-fronts-now-in-the-us-israel-iran-war/” pid=”163875″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine how the US/Israel–Iran war has entered a dangerous new phase. As the conflict spreads beyond Iran and Israel into the wider Middle East, they explore the strategic, economic and military consequences of an expanding regional war. 

The war expands across the Middle East

In July, the US/Israel–Iran War widened into a regional war with new non-state and state actors. On July 20, the Houthis declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia. They control the Bab el-Mandeb, a strait that connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, which leads into the Indian Ocean. The Houthis have tried this before. In 2023, the Houthis attacked merchant ships passing through Bab el-Mandeb. In early 2024, the US and UK, along with other countries, struck Houthi targets in Yemen. After a few months of quiet, the Houthis have opened another front in the war and are considering charging fees for ships sailing through the Red Sea. 

Note: Before the war, oil, gas, and other physical exports from Gulf countries typically passed through one or more of three critical chokepoints: A tanker with Kuwaiti oil delivering to Rotterdam would have gone through all three. Further escalation could see all three blocked 

In addition to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, Iran has activated Shia groups in Iraq. In response, Saudi Arabia has joined the US in striking Iranian-backed targets in Iraq. Apparently, the UAE has also struck targets in Iran. The conflict is widening into a regional war.

Iran changes the tempo

Iran is increasingly feeling emboldened. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed that it had targeted a US air base and a command center in Jordan “in response to the acts of aggression of the American child-killing army.” The IRGC also said that naval forces had struck three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz after they “ignored warnings” and sailed along what it described as an “unsafe and illegal route” through the vital Gulf waterway.

When asked by a Fox News correspondent on Wednesday about the Iranian attack on Jordan, Trump said in an expletive-laden response that US forces would be “hitting them hard,” adding: “They’re going to get a beating.”

In a nutshell, the war shows no signs of ending. Attacks and counterattacks continue. Iran is using asymmetric warfare and decentralized decision-making brilliantly. The US is now locked into an expensive war that is costing a lot and unleashing inflation worldwide, including at home. For Iran, this war is existential. In the US, this war is unpopular. Tehran is trumping Washington for now.

Chokepoints deliver a supply shock to the global economy

As the FOI Geopolitical Risk Monitor May 2026 predicted, the war has unleashed a massive supply shock to the global economy. Over 20% of oil and gas, as well as 33% of fertilizers for the entire world, pass through the Strait of Malacca. The Iranians have closed off this strait.

As in the 1970s, inflation threatens to rip through the global economy. There is a shortage of fuel and fertilizers. Their prices will rise. This will cause a rise in food prices because agriculture needs both fuel and fertilizers. In fact, the intensifying El Niño pattern this summer, in addition to the shortage of fertilizers, will lead to a shortage of food. The poor in developing countries will go hungry. Even Americans will pay more for their food.

Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz have made maritime chokepoints central to global geopolitics. The 20 million barrels of oil that pass through Hormuz every day have no effective alternative route. Even the pipeline that takes some of this oil to the Red Sea port of Yanbu on the western coast of Saudi Arabia is now less effective because the Houthis have closed Bab el-Mandeb. 

The Suez Canal carries approximately 12–14% of world trade, Bab el-Mandeb another 10–12% and the Panama Canal around 6%. Traffic through Bab el-Mandeb had already fallen by roughly 55% even before the Houthis intensified their attacks. Now, the Bab el-Mandeb and Suez Canal route from Europe to Asia is blocked, increasing the time and money it takes to get cargo between the two continents. Now, ships will have to sail all around Africa.

The character of war changes

Glenn goes on to point out that the character of war has changed. The US dominates the air but does not enjoy the same dominance at sea. Sending expensive naval vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is too much of a risk for the US Navy. A cheap drone could damage a multimillion-dollar machine. The US/Israel–Iran War is making it painfully obvious that asymmetric warfare now defines the nature of war.

Glenn argues that legacy systems such as aircraft, ships, armored vehicles and massed soldiers are increasingly more vulnerable to drones. Furthermore, like Germany in World War II, the US finds itself making extremely expensive weapons systems that take a while to build. In World War II, the US churned out tanks in great volume, which overwhelmed the far fewer, though better built German Panzers. Today, the US is running out of expensive military materiel.

Atul supports Glenn’s point with numbers. Per the CSIS Cancian and Park accounting of April 24, Operation Epic Fury has led to the loss of the following kit:

• 1,000-plus Tomahawk cruise missiles — approximately 27% of the US inventory, on a ten-year reconstitution timeline;
• Approximately 23% of JASSM inventory;
• Approximately 33% of SM-6 and 50% of SM-3 interceptors;
• 1,430-plus PAC-3 interceptors — more than 50% of inventory;
• Approximately 150 THAAD interceptors — up to 80% of the theatre-available stock;
•  The entire fielded PrSM inventory.
• Aircraft losses in the Iran theatre total 39 airframes: 24 MQ-9 Reapers, four F-15Es, two MC-130s, and one KC-135.

In a nutshell, Iran is producing cheap weapons at scale while the US is running short of expensive kit. Glenn points out that all war is fundamentally about logistics and supply chains. Yes, the US has ferocious strike capability, but Iran can produce drones in garages and drain American resources. The US no longer has the industrial strength it had, which led to its victory in World War II. The ability to replenish weapons and equipment matters more than the power of the initial strikes or even the killing of top leadership.

Also, Iran could expand the battlefield even further. So far, Iran has been striking American allies in the region. Iranian allies have entered the war, forcing Saudi Arabia and the UAE to reluctantly respond. Also, Iran is inflicting great pain by hitting financial centers, oil refineries and industrial production sites of American allies.

American companies are also now targets. As the Modern War Institute observes, “Cloud geography became campaign geography.” Companies such as Google, Microsoft, Palantir, Amazon, Nvidia and Oracle, together with regional digital infrastructure, are becoming part of the battlespace.

US wages unpopular war, Iran sees conflict as existential

While the war is increasingly unpopular in the US, Iran sees the war as existential. Israeli strikes killed the then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of the war along with many of the regime’s top leaders. Yet Iran has demonstrated the ability to continue fighting. It has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, activated allies and made this war a regional conflict.

In doing so, Iran has increased the costs of war on its enemies and adversaries. The mullahs running the country have also activated Shia mythology to rally the people. Per Shia tradition, Imam Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad himself, led his band of 72 followers and family members to battle against thousands of troops dispatched by Umayyad Caliph Yazid I. Khamenei referred to Hussain’s sacrifice in his last address to the nation, and the dead ayatollah has become a martyr for the Shia pantheon.

Khamenei’s son Mojtaba is supposedly the new supreme leader of Iran. Yet no one has seen him since the war began. Apparently, he was injured in the strikes and might very well be dead. More importantly, the brief pause in fighting allowed the Iranian regime to conduct a spectacular funeral for Ali Khamenei. His coffin traveled more than 2,600 kilometers (over 1,615 miles) across five cities in Iran and Iraq over six days. Public mourning is a key part of the Shia tradition, and the mass hysteria on display in Khamenei’s funeral certainly boosted Iranian religiosity, nationalism and the regime.

In contrast, Americans are having growing misgivings about the war. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Congress that the conflict has already cost America $37.5 billion. He requested an additional $67 billion for operations in the region, although some analysts believe the true cost is considerably higher once they include reconstruction of damaged American military facilities. There is no clear path to victory for the US, and another forever war in the Middle East is giving many Americans a sense of deja vu after the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a nutshell, Iran is winning, and the US is losing in this war so far.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine how the US/Israel–Iran war has entered a dangerous new phase. As the conflict spreads beyond Iran and Israel into the wider…”
post_summery=”In this section of the July 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine how the US/Israel–Iran War has expanded to involve new actors. So far, Iran is on the ascendant because it controls one chokepoint and can squeeze the other. Not only the double chokepoint hold — Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb — but also asymmetric warfare, where Iran uses cheap drones while the US responds with expensive interceptors, are tipping the scales in favor of Iran.”
post-date=”Aug 12, 2026″
post-title=”FO Exclusive: New Fronts Now in the US/Israel–Iran War” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-new-fronts-now-in-the-us-israel-iran-war”>

FO Exclusive: New Fronts Now in the US/Israel–Iran War

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 11, 2026 05:46″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-july-2026/” pid=”163858″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, reflect on a remarkable month. From America’s 250th birthday celebrations and leadership changes in the UK to market volatility and conflicts across Africa and Eastern Europe, they examine the developments that shaped the world. They also examine the longer-term trends emerging beneath the headlines.

America: freedom at 250 and ugly politics

America turned 250 on July 4. Atul, who had been in Vienna and London, hurried back from Europe to be in Washington, DC, for the celebrations. He had a good reason: This was Atul’s first Fourth of July as an American citizen. In his words, “the flypast was impressive, the fireworks spectacular, but US President Donald Trump’s speech was a damp squib.” Trump’s rhetoric is not quite at the same level as past presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

Despite the bright fireworks, American 250 was overshadowed by the US/Israel–Iran War and  an increasingly troubled US economy. While milling with the crowds gathered from around the country, Atul found that even Republicans were lamenting about America’s most recent foreign foray. Some said that the president had broken his vow of keeping the US out of foreign military misadventures.

Misgivings about Trump and his family profiting from high office are also deepening. On July 1, Trump’s latest financial disclosure shows his various businesses generated more than $2 billion in income in 2025, his first year back in the White House. That is more than triple his reported income from the year before. The biggest gains came from the Trump family’s cryptocurrency ventures.

Not only Republicans but also Democrats were complaining. The Democratic candidate in Maine’s Senate race, Marine Corps veteran Graham Platner, suspended his campaign after a woman he had dated, Jenny Racicot, claimed he had raped her. At 250, there is an ugliness to American politics that infects both parties.

This month, American politics changed because of the unexpected death of Lindsey Graham. He was the senior senator from South Carolina who died unexpectedly at the age of 71. Graham had just returned from Ukraine and was pushing a bill to widen sanctions against Russia. He was a strong supporter of Ukraine and Israel. Both these countries have now lost a friend on Capitol Hill.

In another unsurprising development, Trump announced new tariffs. The Supreme Court had struck down his earlier tariffs and the new ones rely on different legislation. Trump has threatened Canada with duties of 50% from August 19, in retaliation for what he claims are unfair practices by Canadian provinces that don’t buy American products. Trump was also ready to impose a new round of levies on countries after his 10%-regime expires. He is also planning to impose tariffs of 100% on generic drugs from August 2028. 

Meanwhile, American and Mexican negotiators held another session of bilateral trade talks. Trump has refused to extend the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump himself negotiated. The US is negotiating with Canada and Mexico separately to seek changes to the pact.

Politics beyond America

July was an eventful month for the UK. Great Britain now has a new prime minister: Andy Burnham. Until recently, he was mayor of Greater Manchester and known as “King of the North.” So far, Burnham has made a good debut at 10 Downing Street. Unlike other recent prime ministers who went to Oxford, the King of the North  is a Cambridge alumnus and a Catholic. A fun fact that most people do not realize is that Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in the land of King Charles.

Even as Andy rose to power, another British Catholic lost her life. Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her idyllic English village this month. She was a former MP and also a former minister in an earlier Conservative government. Recently, Widdecombe had switched to the populist-right Reform UK and was its justice spokeswoman. Like Tony Blair, she had converted to Catholicism. Widdecombe was also one of Britain’s fiercest critics of the transgender movement.

In July, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage resigned from the House of Commons. Apparently, he had taken some cash from a cryptobillionaire. Notably, Farage had stated he didn’t intend to be a prospective MP. Within weeks of receiving the $6.7 million (£5 million) gift, he abruptly changed his mind and became an MP. After his resignation, Farage has triggered a by-election in which he is running again. 

Moving east, centrists in the Hungarian parliament passed a constitutional amendment that removed Tamás Sulyok, President of Hungary, and Péter Polt, the president of Hungary’s Constitutional Court. Prime Minister Peter Magyar, who won the elections in April, said both men had put their loyalty to Viktor Orbán, the controversial previous prime minister, above the interests of the nation.

From Europe, the focus then shifts to Africa. In Zimbabwe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa signed into law constitutional amendments to extend and cement his hold on power. The amendments abolish direct presidential elections and postpone the next vote. He is emulating Robert Mugabe who ruled Zimbabwe for decades. Atul calls Mnangagwa the new Mugabe.

Neighboring South Africa is also in the news. Anti-immigrant sentiment has been rising in this country where jobs are few and the economy is in the doldrums. The anti-immigrant sentiment has soured relations with other countries and Ghana asked South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to postpone his visit. 

News in many other African countries is also grim. Fighting continues in Mali and Sudan. On July 18 in the Gao region of Mali, the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA) and the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (GSIM), two non-state armed groups, carried out an ambush on a military convoy. In Sudan, the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces continue to clash.

In South America, Keiko Fujimori won Peru’s presidential election. She is of Japanese descent and her father Alberto Fujimori was president. Keiko Fujimori is another victory for the right in Latin America. Rising crime and a quest for security has led to the rise of right-wing parties in this part of the world.

Frothy markets and growing risks to the global economy

In April, May and June, stock markets recorded their best quarter in six years. The S&P 500 rose by 15%, the NASDAQ Composite by 21% and the pan-European STOXX 600 by 10%. Japan’s Nikkei 225 had its best three months ever, rising by 37%. South Korea’s KOSPI increased by 68%. Even so, the share prices of some big tech giants did not fare so well in June, with Apple, Meta and Nvidia all down. Microsoft’s stock fell by 17%, making June its worst month since December 2000. Note that the markets have cooled a bit in July.

The real economy did not do as well as financial markets. The German economy has long been in trouble. So, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz unveiled a package of economic reforms on July 1. These include $11.4 billion (€10 billion) in annual income tax relief.

Japan is not doing well either. Yields on Japan’s ten-year government bonds reached 2.9% in July, the highest since 1996. Higher yields push up the costs of borrowing, leaving less for guns and butter. Japan’s gross public debt is well over 200% of GDP. As well as being concerned about the weak yen, investors are worried about how the government is going to fund its recently announced $2.3 trillion, 14-year investment plan.

American stock markets might have done alright but bond markets are signalling trouble. The 30-year US Treasury yield closed above 5% for 14 straight sessions, its longest run above that level since July 2007. This yield has finished above the 5% level 29 times this year, already the most in any calendar year since 2007. The danger lights are flashing red.

Society, sport and changing norms

America, Canada and Mexico hosted a spectacular FIFA World Cup. Spain deservedly won against an ugly Argentina. In 1966, then-British manager Alf Ramsey had called the Argentines “animals,” and that comment would hold for the behavior of the Argentine team during and after the final.

The French parliament banned children under the age of 15 from using social media. France follows Australia as the second country to prohibit social media for youngsters by law. Atul and Glenn expect this trend to gather strength in developed countries in the months ahead. Social media and cellphones are changing our brains. In the case of children, they are destroying attention spans, damaging cognitive abilities and harming learning. Societies are struggling to follow suit and politics will have to respond to this challenge, much as it once did to smoking.

Finally, July was a month of unkind climate. More than half of England is in drought because hot, dry weather has taken a toll on the country’s water supplies. Forest fires in Spain and France have been highly destructive. Japan’s south-western Kyushu region has had more than 100 aftershocks after it was struck by a powerful earthquake on July 28, that has left at least 13 dead already.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, reflect on a remarkable month. From America’s 250th birthday celebrations and leadership changes in the UK to market volatility and…”
post_summery=”In the global lightning round of the July 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle review the key developments in the month. They reflect on 250 years of American independence, politics in the US and elsewhere, frothy markets, economic weaknesses and extreme climatic events.”
post-date=”Aug 11, 2026″
post-title=”FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of July 2026″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-july-2026″>

FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of July 2026

Ishtiaq Ahmed”
post_date=”August 10, 2026 06:39″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/fo-live-make-sense-of-new-and-old-pakistan-afghanistan-tensions/” pid=”163838″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed and Professor Thomas Barfield about the historical roots of tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They trace the origins of the Durand Line dispute, examine why Pakistan’s long-standing strategy toward Afghanistan has repeatedly failed and consider how history, ethnicity and economics continue to shape relations between the two neighbors. Looking ahead, they argue that only greater regional cooperation and a more flexible political approach can prevent recurring instability.

Pakistan’s strategic depth strategy reaches a dead end

Singh opens by asking why relations between Pakistan and Taliban-led Afghanistan have deteriorated despite Islamabad’s decades-long support for the Taliban movement. Ahmed explains that Pakistan expected the US withdrawal to restore its policy of securing “strategic depth” through a friendly government in Kabul. Instead, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has intensified attacks against the Pakistani state, while the Taliban government has expanded ties with India, Pakistan’s principal regional rival.

Pakistan further poisoned relations by deporting roughly two million Afghans. Ahmed argues that these expulsions have created deep resentment that now fuels cross-border violence. Rather than producing a more cooperative neighbor, Islamabad’s policies have reinforced Afghan distrust while weakening the influence Pakistan once believed it possessed.

Barfield adds that this outcome reflects a long-standing historical pattern. Afghan groups that relied on Pakistan during insurgencies consistently embraced Afghan nationalism once they assumed power in Kabul. As he observes, “Not Mullah Omar, not the current Taliban, not the republic ever recognized the Durand Line.”

A disputed border with deep historical roots

Ahmed traces today’s tensions back to the 1893 Durand Line and the partition of British India in 1947. Afghanistan became the only country to oppose Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations because Kabul believed the Pashtuns should have been offered the option of independence or union with Afghanistan rather than only India or Pakistan.

He also reviews later political developments that alienated many Pashtuns. Although the referendum in the Northwest Frontier Province favored Pakistan, turnout remained limited after a boycott by Pashtun leaders. Subsequent dismissals of elected provincial governments further deepened mistrust between Islamabad and the frontier regions.

Barfield emphasizes that the Durand Line itself was never intended by the British to function as a conventional international border. Instead, it separated spheres of influence while allowing communities on both sides to maintain longstanding economic and family ties. The emergence of modern nation-states attempted to impose rigid borders on societies that had historically moved freely across the frontier.

Nationalism consistently outweighs client politics

Ahmed and Barfield argue that Pakistan’s effort to treat Afghanistan as a dependent client has repeatedly failed because Afghan nationalism ultimately overrides external influence. Although Pakistan invested heavily in supporting successive Afghan insurgencies, every government that emerged in Kabul rejected Islamabad’s expectations once it exercised sovereign authority.

Barfield notes that Pakistan’s leverage has also diminished because Afghanistan now possesses alternative trade routes. India’s support for Iran’s Chabahar Port has reduced Afghanistan’s dependence on Pakistani transit, limiting Islamabad’s economic influence. Simultaneously, deporting Afghans who spent decades living in Pakistan has created an entire generation with bitter memories of expulsion.

The speakers also explore historical perceptions that continue to shape politics. Ahmed reflects on longstanding Punjabi fears of Afghan invasions, rooted in centuries of conflict across the frontier. Barfield says these historical narratives still influence modern policymaking even when political realities have changed.

Afghanistan’s greatest challenge may be economic

While security dominates headlines, Barfield believes Afghanistan’s most immediate problem is economic sustainability. During the insurgency, the Taliban relied on the previous government to continue paying civil servants and providing public services in areas under Taliban control. Once they assumed full power, however, international assistance largely disappeared.

Barfield says the Taliban “entered an empty store and declared it theirs.” Governing has proven far more difficult than fighting because Afghanistan has historically depended on outside funding rather than domestic taxation. With aid reduced and regional trade disrupted, sustaining the current government has grown increasingly difficult.

Ahmed agrees that Afghanistan has long relied on external resources, whether through foreign subsidies or broader regional relationships. Both conclude that any Afghan government faces severe constraints unless it secures stable sources of revenue beyond military success.

Flexibility offers the best path forward

Looking ahead, Singh asks whether violence is likely to continue. Ahmed states that Pakistan remains militarily stronger than Afghanistan, making outright territorial change unlikely. However, he doubts military superiority alone can resolve the political grievances that drive unrest across the frontier.

Barfield instead advocates abandoning maximalist demands over formal recognition of the Durand Line. He argues that both countries would benefit from accepting practical cooperation while allowing disagreement over historical claims to remain unresolved. Economic integration, rather than rigid legal positions, offers the best chance of reducing tensions.

Drawing on the European Union as an example, Barfield suggests that expanding trade and shared economic interests can gradually create incentives for political compromise. The discussion concludes that Pakistan’s internal diversity also requires greater decentralization and flexibility. Unless Islamabad adapts its approach toward both Afghanistan and its own regions, instability along the frontier is likely to persist.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed and Professor Thomas Barfield about the historical roots of tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They trace the origins of the Durand Line dispute, examine why Pakistan’s long-standing strategy toward Afghanistan has…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Live, Atul Singh, Ishtiaq Ahmed and Thomas Barfield discuss the historic roots of the Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict, specifically the Durand Line and Pashtun nationalism. Afghan nationalism overrides Islamabad’s efforts to cultivate friendly governments, while unresolved historical grievances fuel instability. Lasting stability will require political flexibility, economic integration and a federal approach to governing Pakistan’s frontier regions.”
post-date=”Aug 10, 2026″
post-title=”FO Live: Make Sense of New and Old Pakistan–Afghanistan Tensions” slug-data=”fo-live-make-sense-of-new-and-old-pakistan-afghanistan-tensions”>

FO Live: Make Sense of New and Old Pakistan–Afghanistan Tensions

Ishtiaq Ahmed”
post_date=”August 09, 2026 09:23″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-pakistan-is-the-garrison-state-and-india-is-the-babu-state/” pid=”163832″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed examine why Pakistan evolved into a military-dominated garrison state while India became a bureaucracy-dominated “babu state,” as Atul calls it. Drawing on history, political theory and institutional development, they compare how each country inherited and transformed colonial structures after independence. Their discussion argues that although the two states followed different paths, both now require major institutional reforms to improve governance and accountability.

Weak institutions created Pakistan’s garrison state

Ahmed begins by explaining communications theorist Harold Lasswell’s concept of the garrison state, in which perceived external threats allow military institutions to dominate politics, the economy and society. He argues that Pakistan adapted this model after independence because it lacked a strong national political party following the deaths of founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Instead, the civilian bureaucracy briefly filled the vacuum before the military steadily consolidated power, culminating in General Ayub Khan’s takeover in 1958.

Ahmed describes Pakistan as a “post-colonial garrison state,” saying that the military gradually acquired authority over virtually every important national decision. Singh notes that Pakistan strengthened this system by aligning closely with the United States during the Cold War, presenting itself as a frontline state against communism while simultaneously viewing India as its principal security concern.

Singh and Ahmed then turn to how East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan and emerged as Bangladesh in 1971. They explain how political exclusion, economic grievances and ethnic discrimination destabilized the country after Bangladeshi leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s electoral victory was ignored by elites in Pakistan, then West Pakistan. According to Ahmed, the creation of Bangladesh reinforced the military’s claim that only it could preserve Pakistan’s survival.

India’s inherited imperial-era bureaucracy

Singh contrasts Pakistan’s experience with India’s political evolution after independence. Whereas Pakistan’s military became the dominant institution, India retained the colonial administrative system built around the Indian Civil Service (ICS) and Imperial Police. Jawaharlal Nehru preserved these institutions, transforming them into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) while expanding the state’s role through socialist economic planning.

This produced a babu state, where bureaucrats, especially the IAS, exercise much of the country’s practical authority rather than elected officials. Elected mayors still have no power in India. The lord of a district is the IAS officer who controls the commanding heights of not only the state but also the local economy. Singh traces this system back to British colonial governance, under which ICS officers collected revenue, administered provinces and maintained imperial control. This was the Eastminster (in stark contrast to Westminster) model that the British operated in the colonies. India still functions according to the Eastminster model.

Ahmed agrees that India’s bureaucracy became the principal pillar of governance while the military remained outside politics. He highlights one important distinction between the two countries: “The political leaders [of India] are compelled to go to the people every four or five years… and that does have a certain virtue.” Elections force Indian politicians to seek public approval, whereas Pakistan’s military establishment can remove civilian governments without facing voters.

Problem producers: colonial bureaucracy and military rule

Both institutional models have generated long-term governance challenges. Singh contends that India’s expanding bureaucracy accumulated authority over specialized sectors without developing the technical expertise needed to manage them effectively. He points to institutions ranging from the Reserve Bank of India to the Archaeological Survey of India as examples where IAS officers with no experience or expertise lord over professionals with domain expertise.

Ahmed notes that Pakistan followed a different trajectory since both countries won their independence in 1947. During Ayub Khan’s rule (1958–1969), the country initially experienced rapid economic growth and industrialization with substantial support from the US and the World Bank. However, Pakistan’s 1965 war with India proved a turning point and the economy suffered, never to recover. Political instability has plagued Pakistan since 1965. The Afghan conflict that kicked off 1979 and the ensuing increasing Islamization prevented Pakistan from sustaining its early economic momentum.

These historical choices continue to shape each country’s political culture. Singh maintains that bureaucratic centralization has created a criminally corrupt and inefficient administration, suppressing business activity, economic growth and investment, while Ahmed emphasizes that Pakistan’s military continues to dominate national decision-making through its institutional influence, manipulating elections and elected governments.

Reform requires local democracy and greater accountability

Singh and Ahmed turn to possible reforms. Singh says both countries should professionalize their bureaucracies by placing experts rather than general administrators of the IAS or the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS) in specialized positions. Economists should oversee central banks, specialists should lead technical agencies and recruitment should move beyond a single examination system.

Singh also calls for stronger institutions that curb corruption. This would require independent bodies with top-notch investigation, proper prosecution and an efficient judiciary that resolves cases quickly. Currently, the police rely on extrajudicial methods, including executions of criminals in cold blood. Instead, Singh contends that effective law enforcement requires functioning legal institutions based on investigation, prosecution and conviction.

Ahmed broadly agrees with these proposals while emphasizing the importance of improving relations between India and Pakistan. “Pakistan and India should sit together and sort out their concerns about security and defense,” he says. Reducing bilateral tensions would weaken the military’s justification for political dominance while allowing both countries to devote greater resources to economic development.

The conversation concludes by arguing that institutional reform must also extend to local government and internal party democracy. Singh advocates stronger elected local leadership, evoking the Swiss principle of subsidiarity. This greater local democracy should be accompanied with greater accountability. Ahmed points to Sweden’s welfare state as an example of how effective public institutions can improve citizens’ lives. Lasting reform, they agree, depends not only on changing governments but on reshaping the institutions that have defined both states since independence.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed examine why Pakistan evolved into a military-dominated garrison state while India became a bureaucracy-dominated “babu state,” as Atul calls it. Drawing on history, political theory and institutional development, they compare how each…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Ishtiaq Ahmed compare Pakistan’s evolution into a military-dominated garrison state with India’s development into a bureaucracy-dominated state. While these contrasting models shaped governance and economic development, each has produced its own structural weaknesses. Professionalizing state institutions, strengthening accountability and improving India–Pakistan relations are essential to improving these governments’ effectiveness.”
post-date=”Aug 09, 2026″
post-title=”FO Talks: Pakistan Is the Garrison State and India Is the Babu State” slug-data=”fo-talks-pakistan-is-the-garrison-state-and-india-is-the-babu-state”>

FO Talks: Pakistan Is the Garrison State and India Is the Babu State