💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Why is there no peace in Ukraine

    Introduction

    Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, several attempts at negotiations, from Belarus to Turkey, have collapsed. With Russia consolidating control over Ukrainian territories and Ukraine facing military constraints, the conflict shows signs of becoming a prolonged war. The Trump plan, recent Russian advances, and fatigue in Western capitals have complicated the strategic landscape, placing Ukraine at a turning point.

    Why in the news

    The Ukraine-Russia war has again entered headlines as Russia captured Pokrovske, marking the first major territorial gain after a year of stalled frontlines. Simultaneously, a 28-point U.S. peace proposal surfaced, offering recognition of Russian control over key territories. Ukraine is facing troop shortages, battlefield pressure, and delays in Western aid, making negotiations both urgent and politically difficult. Recent territorial losses, a disputed peace plan, and growing pressure on President Zelensky have reopened global debate on whether a ceasefire is achievable.

    Battlefield Dynamics and Stalled Negotiations

    1. Russian Consolidation: Russia captured Pokrovske after holding back Ukrainian forces for nearly a year; repositioned units in Kharkiv and Kherson and intensified attacks on Avdiivka and Kupiansk.
    2. Ukrainian Strain: Ukraine faces troop shortages, heavy attrition, and reduced Western ammunition deliveries; unable to meet battlefield demands.
    3. Failed Negotiations History: Talks in Belarus (Feb 28, 2022), Turkey (March 2022), and subsequent engagements collapsed due to disagreements over territory, NATO membership, and security guarantees.
    4. Renewed Russian Push: Russia resumed rotated forces, strengthened defensive lines, and maintained pressure across the east and south.

    Why Have Earlier Peace Efforts Failed?

    1. Maximalist Positions:
      1. Ukraine demanded withdrawal to 1991 borders and refusal of territorial concessions.
      2. Russia insisted on recognition of annexed territories and long-term security guarantees.
    2. NATO Membership Dispute: Ukraine’s insistence on future NATO membership remained unacceptable to Russia.
    3. Shifting War Outcomes: Early battlefield gains for Ukraine pushed negotiations aside; later Russian consolidation hardened Moscow’s stance.
    4. Domestic Political Costs: Zelensky faced internal political risk if he conceded territory or NATO flexibility.
    5. Western Signalling: Changes in Western messaging during 2022, especially from UK PM Boris Johnson’s Kyiv visit, reinforced Ukraine’s resolve to fight rather than negotiate.

    What Does the New Trump Peace Plan Propose?

    1. Territorial Recognition: Recognizes Russian control of current occupied territories (Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson).
    2. Ceasefire Framework: Calls for an initial ceasefire based on “current positions”.
    3. Security Guarantees: Ukraine would receive “reliable security guarantees”, though details remain unspecified.
    4. NATO Question: Prohibits Ukraine from joining NATO but proposes alternative security arrangements.
    5. Referendum Clause: Suggests that Ukraine may hold referendums under international supervision in disputed areas.
    6. Western Package: Encourages Washington to commit additional security assurances if Ukraine accepts concessions.
    7. Controversy: Critics argue it endorses annexation and weakens Ukrainian sovereignty.

    How Is Ukraine Responding to the Proposal?

      1. Zelensky’s Dilemma:
    • Fear of Loss of U.S. Support if he rejects the plan outright.
    • Domestic Resistance to territorial concessions or NATO withdrawal.
    1. Political Stakes: Any acceptance of the Trump plan risks severe political backlash within Ukraine and among its security elite.
    2. Military Reality Check: With Russia advancing and Western aid reduced, Ukraine risks losing more territory if negotiations are delayed.
    3. Unclear U.S. Position: The White House has neither endorsed nor dismissed the plan; Washington sends mixed signals.

    What Is Russia’s Current Strategy?

    1. Gradual Territorial Expansion: Small but steady advances across Donetsk and Kharkiv fronts.
    2. Exhaustion Approach: Prolonging the war to drain Ukrainian manpower and Western support.
    3. Diplomatic Pressure: Leveraging the Trump plan to portray Ukraine as unwilling to negotiate.
    4. Military Reconfiguration: Rotations, reorganized brigades, and fortified defensive lines to prepare for prolonged combat.

    Conclusion

    The Ukraine war remains locked between military stalemate and political impossibility. With Russia consolidating gains and Western support fluctuating, the window for meaningful negotiations narrows. The Trump plan introduces a new, but highly contentious, framework. For now, peace remains elusive due to incompatible security demands, shifting battlefield realities, and the political constraints of both Kyiv and Moscow.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] The expansion and strengthening of NATO and a stronger US-Europe strategic partnership works well for India. What is your opinion about this statement? Give reasons and examples to support your answer.

    Linkage: This PYQ aligns with the article’s focus on NATO’s revived strength and US-Europe unity shaped by the Ukraine war. It directly links to how these shifts hardened positions, prolonged conflict, and reshaped global security dynamics.

  • India calls for Stronger Global Biosecurity at 50 Years of the BWC

    Why in the news? 

    At the Conference on 50 Years of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) held in New Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar warned that global biological threats—natural, accidental, or deliberate are growing due to rapid scientific advances. He emphasised the rising risks of bioterrorism and highlighted structural weaknesses in the BWC.

    About the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

    • Came into force: 1975
    • Objective: Prohibits development, production, acquisition, stockpiling & use of biological and toxin weapons.
    • Depositaries: Russia, UK, USA
    • India: Founding State Party

    Structural Gaps Jaishankar Highlighted

    • No verification/compliance mechanism
    • No permanent technical secretariat
    • No system to monitor new scientific developments
    • Reliance on voluntary confidence-building measures (CBMs)

    Rising Biological Threat Landscape

    • Misuse of biological agents by non-state actors is a serious concern.
    • Emerging technologies increasing risks:
      • Synthetic biology
      • Genome editing (CRISPR)
      • AI-driven biological design

    India’s Strengths in Biosecurity

    • Produces 60% of global vaccines
    • Supplies 20% of world’s generic medicines (including 60% for Africa)
    • 11,000 biotech startups (3rd largest globally; 50 in 2014 → 11,000 now)
    • Advanced BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs under ICMR & DBT

    India’s Global Health Contributions

    • Vaccine Maitri: ~300 million vaccine doses, aid to 100+ countries
    • Stressed that biological crisis assistance must be “fast, practical and humanitarian”
    Which one of the following is associated with the issue of control and phasing out of the use of ozone-depleting substances? (2015)

    (a) Bretton Woods Conference 

    (b) Montreal Protocol 

    (c) Kyoto Protocol 

    (d) Nagoya Protocol

  • Coup in Guinea-Bissau (2025)

    Why in the news? 

    Guinea-Bissau, one of the world’s most coup-prone nations, witnessed yet another military takeover on 26 November 2025, overthrowing President Umaro Sissoco Embaló. The coup was led by members of the Presidential Guard, marking the latest in a long line of disruptions to democratic governance in West Africa.

    Geography & Country Profile

    • Location: West Africa, bordered by
      • Senegal (North)
      • Guinea (East & South)
      • Atlantic Ocean (West)
    • Language: Portuguese (Lusophone Africa).
    • Population: Approx. 2.25 million.
    • HDI Rank: 174 / 193 (UNDP).
    • Economy: Dominated by agriculture, especially cashew nuts
      • Cashew = 80%+ of export earnings (World Bank).
    • Known as a hub for drug trafficking (Latin America → Europe).

    Political Background

    • Independence from Portugal in 1974.
    • One of the most unstable countries globally:
      • Has had more successful coups than peaceful transfers of power.
    • Termed the “Coup Trap” country – chronic cycle where military becomes the dominant political actor.
    In the recent years Chad, Guinea, Mali and Sudan caught the international attention for which one of the following reasons common to all of them? (2023)

    (a) Discovery of rich deposits of rare earth elements 

    (b) Establishement of Chinese military bases 

    (c) Southward expansion of Sahara Desert 

    (d) Successful coups

  • Khiamniungan Tribe

    Why in the News?

    • The Prime Minister of India recently mentioned the Khiamniungan tribe of Nagaland in his Mann Ki Baat episode, highlighting their traditional practice of cliff-honey hunting and rich cultural heritage.

    About the Khiamniungan Tribe

    • One of the major Naga tribes inhabiting both:
      • Eastern Nagaland (India)
      • North-Western Myanmar
    • Their homeland lies along the Indo-Myanmar border.
    • The term “Khiamniungan” means “source of great water/river”.
    • Language: Khiamniugan, a Sino-Tibetan Naga language.
    • Social Structure: Traditionally based on a clan system.

    Festivals

    • Tsokum Sumai: Celebrated in September–early October.
      • Purpose: Invoke blessings for a rich harvest.
    • Khaotzao Sey Hok-ah Sumai: Marks the end of agricultural activities for the year.

    Economy & Livelihood

    • Agriculture is the primary occupation.
    • Traditionally practiced jhum cultivation.
    • Renowned for cliff-honey hunting, practiced for centuries.
    Consider the following pairs: Tribe State (2013)

    (1). Limboo (Limbu) : Sikkim 

    (2). Karbi : Himachal Pradesh 

    (3). Dongaria Kondh : Odisha 

    (4). Bonda : Tamil Nadu 

    Which of the above pairs are correctly matched? 

    (a) 1 and 3 only 

    (b) 2 and 4 only 

    (c) 1, 3 and 4 only 

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • [29th November 2025] The Hindu OpED: The impartiality of a nominated Governor

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Linkage: The question is directly linked to ongoing concerns of Governors delaying assent and re-promulgating ordinances, reflecting fears of an overstepping “interfering authority.” It tests whether the Governor today adheres to the Constitution’s vision of a neutral head bound by ministerial advice.

    Mentor’s Comment

    This article examines the debate on the ‘impartiality of a nominated Governor’, revived after the recent Supreme Court judgment on the powers of Governors. The discussion draws heavily from the Constituent Assembly debates, views of B.R. Ambedkar, and the political context surrounding gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, this topic is crucial for understanding Centre-State relations, federal tensions, constitutional morality, and ongoing administrative bottlenecks.

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the role of Governors, along with its advisory opinion on the 16th Presidential reference, has reopened a foundational debate: What was the intended role of a Governor in an independent India? The Constituent Assembly deliberated deeply on the Governor’s impartiality, limited discretion, and non-interfering nature. Contemporary frictions between Governors and elected State governments have made these debates sharply relevant again. The article traces the evolution, constitutional position, and recurring controversies around the Governor’s office.

    Why in the News 

    The Supreme Court’s latest judgment on gubernatorial powers has revived a long-standing constitutional controversy over whether Governors have exceeded their intended role. The ruling sharply contrasts past practice, where Governors often withheld assent or delayed Bills, exercising broad and ambiguous discretion. This is significant because Constituent Assembly debates categorically rejected any idea of a powerful, interfering Governor and saw him as a neutral constitutional head bound by ministerial advice. The issue has resurfaced as a major federal friction point, affecting State governance and raising concerns about constitutional morality.

    What was the Constituent Assembly’s vision of a Governor?

    1. Limited discretion: Members clarified that the Governor’s discretion should be minimal and specifically enumerated; not a general discretionary authority.
    2. Non-interfering role: Dr. Ambedkar emphasised that the Governor must not act as an agent of the Centre nor interfere with the elected State government.
    3. Neutral constitutional head: The Governor was designed to be above suspicion and must not be “remote-controlled,” especially in a parliamentary system.
    4. No overriding authority: Ambedkar rejected giving Governors overriding powers (e.g., veto over Bills or control over ministries).

    Why were doubts raised about the impartiality of a nominated Governor?

    1. Remote-control concerns: Members felt a nominated Governor could be influenced by the central government, undermining State autonomy.
    2. Fear of political bias: The Governor’s lack of electoral accountability created apprehensions regarding neutrality.
    3. Past colonial experience: Residual memories of Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935, who wielded significant discretionary powers, fuelled suspicion.

    How did the framers restrict discretionary powers?

    1. Specific limitation: Discretion only for narrow, enumerated matters such as selecting a Chief Minister when no clear majority exists.
    2. Bound by Cabinet advice: Governor must act on ministerial advice in all matters except those explicitly labelled as discretionary.
    3. No independent executive authority: Ambedkar insisted the Governor is not a parallel power centre.
    4. Rejection of 1935 model: The Assembly refused to revive the 1935 system that gave Governors sweeping independent powers.

    Why is the Bill-assent controversy central to this debate?

    1. Revival of 1935 practice: Members feared that powers like reserving Bills or withholding assent could allow Governors to obstruct State legislatures.
    2. Ambedkar’s key statement: “If you give him this power, he becomes exactly that”, a reminder that excessive discretion recreates colonial-style interference.
    3. Judicial scrutiny: Recent court rulings criticised Governors for delaying Bills, stating this undermines democratic functioning.
    4. Legislative consequences: When Governors withhold or delay assent, elected governments face administrative paralysis.

    What makes the present dispute constitutionally serious?

    1. Misinterpretation risk: Courts observed that vague phrases like “as soon as possible” allow Governors to delay decisions indefinitely.
    2. Threat to federal balance: Unchecked gubernatorial discretion shifts power from elected representatives to a nominated authority.
    3. Growing political tensions: Several States report prolonged delays in Bill assent, appointments, and emergency decisions.
    4. Return of the ‘interfering authority’: The trend contradicts the original constitutional vision and Ambedkar’s categorical warnings.

    Conclusion

    The ongoing friction between State governments and Governors signals a deeper constitutional challenge involving federalism, democratic accountability, and the limits of nominated authority. The Constituent Assembly clearly intended the Governor to be a neutral head bound by Cabinet advice, not an autonomous decision-maker. Reviving this original spirit is essential to restore the balance between the Centre and the States and uphold constitutional morality.

  • Without great powers on board, G20 is a drift

    Introduction

    The G20 emerged from the ashes of the 2008 crisis as the principal platform steering global financial stability, representing both advanced and rising powers. Over time, however, geopolitical rifts, protectionist shifts, and weakened multilateralism have steadily eroded its efficacy. The absence of great powers, divergent national priorities, and competing minilaterals now raise questions about the G20’s ability to act as an anchor for global economic coordination.

    Why in the News

    The G20 has entered a phase of visible fragmentation as major powers like the US, China, and Russia increasingly skip or downgrade their participation, marking a sharp contrast to its central role during the 2008 global financial crisis. Trump chose to boycott the 2025 G20 summit, which was hosted by South Africa in Johannesburg. The earlier summits, including Bali 2022 and New Delhi 2023, were marked by absence of key leaders such as Putin and Xi, signalling an unprecedented weakening of multilateral cooperation. The article highlights how the G20, once elevated to the “premier forum for international economic cooperation,” is now reduced to a middle-power platform with diminishing relevance. This drift, caused by unilateralism, great-power tensions, and rival blocs, is a major setback for global governance.

    How Did the G20 Rise From Crisis to Centrality?

    1. Global Financial Crisis (2008): Elevated from a finance ministers’ forum to a leaders’ summit after the Lehman collapse, recognising the need for collective economic stabilisation.
    2. US-EU Leadership: President Bush convened the first summit; European leaders pushed to formalise it as the central platform for crisis response.
    3. Inclusive Membership: Plural representation of middle powers, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, gave the G20 legitimacy beyond the G7.

    Why Is the G20 Losing Relevance Today?

    1. Great-Power Withdrawal: Absence of Xi and Putin (2023) indicates declining commitment by major actors.
    2. Shift to Bilateralism: 2022 Bali summit dominated by US-China bilateral diplomacy, overshadowing collective agenda.
    3. Competing Priorities: US focus on securitising trade; China’s rivalry; Russia’s Ukraine conflict, reducing appetite for multilateral compromise.
    4. Fragmentation: Emergence of parallel groups like G2 ideas, Quad, IPEF, diluting G20 centrality.

    What Role Did Unilateralism Play in Weakening the G20?

    1. America First (Trump Era):
      1. Protectionist shift and retreat from multilateral commitments.
      2. Trade war with China and sanctions redirected US focus to bilateral power play.
      3. Undermined collective financial architecture, making G20 coordination difficult.
    2. Return of Great-Power Rivalry:
      1. US-China confrontation replaced cooperative economic agenda.
      2. Russia’s isolation post-Ukraine war created a split within member states.

    How Did the Absence of the Big Three Impact Multilateral Decision-Making?

    1. Reduced Negotiating Power: Without the US, China, and Russia at full participation, G20 communiqués lost substance.
    2. Lowered Stakes: Middle powers alone cannot push structural financial reforms.
    3. Decline in Issue Ambition: Meetings shifted from global macroeconomic governance to modest incremental outcomes.
    4. Loss of Crisis-Time Authority: Unlike 2008-09 summits which produced coordinated fiscal and financial action, recent meetings lacked decisive outcomes.

    What Does the G20 Drift Mean for India?

    1. Opportunity Shrinks: India’s earlier success, G20 admitting AU under its presidency, may not translate into sustained influence without great-power participation.
    2. Rise of Minilaterals: Quad, I2U2, IPEF may overshadow the G20’s relevance for India’s long-term strategic and economic diplomacy.
    3. Squeezed between Powers: India must balance ties with the US, China, and Russia while leading middle-power groupings.
    4. Reduced Global Economic Voice: Weak G20 undermines India’s push for reforms in global financial architecture and voice of Global South.

    Conclusion

    The G20’s drift reflects the broader fragmentation of global governance, marked by strategic rivalry, unilateral policies, and weakened collective will. Without full engagement of great powers, the forum risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. For India, the challenge is balancing leadership of the Global South with managing rival great-power agendas in an increasingly divided world.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] ‘Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO’. In the light of the above statement point out the role of India in mitigating problems.

    Linkage: Great-power rivalry within SCO mirrors the G20’s paralysis, where conflicting interests of major powers weaken collective decision-making. India’s balancing role in SCO highlights how middle powers attempt to preserve multilateral relevance amid widening geopolitical fractures.

  • Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir Project

    Why in the news?

    • Karnataka has decided to submit a revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Mekedatu balancing reservoir across the Cauvery River.
    • The Supreme Court termed Tamil Nadu’s challenge as “premature”, enabling the CWMA and CWC to examine the project.

    Location & River

    • Mekedatu is located in Ramanagara district, ~100 km from Bengaluru.
    • The project is proposed on the inter-State Cauvery river.
    • Karnataka = upper riparian; Tamil Nadu = lower riparian.

    Why Does Karnataka Want It?

    • Bengaluru water demand:
      • Present: 2,600 MLD
      • Supply: 2,100 MLD → shortage of 500 MLD
    • Population to reach 20 million in 6 years → demand may rise to 4,000 MLD.
    • Shivakumar argues Mekedatu will ensure regulated release to Tamil Nadu, even in poor rainfall years.

    Why Is Tamil Nadu Opposed?

    • Trust deficit due to the history of Cauvery disputes.
    • Concern: Karnataka may store more water and release it selectively.
    • TN argues the project violates the 2018 SC judgment and Cauvery Tribunal’s final award.

    Centre’s Position

    • 2019: Karnataka submitted DPR → CWC → CWMA.
    • MoEFCC (2019): Sought an “amicable solution” due to inter-State dispute.
    • 2024 (Feb): CWMA referred DPR back to CWC after deliberations.
    • Now: DPR to be examined afresh; CWMA/CWC can facilitate dialogue.

    Constitutional & Legal Angle

    • Inter-State Rivers: Union List Entry 56 – regulation and development of inter-State rivers.
    • River Boards Act, 1956 (not effectively implemented).
    • Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT): Award notified in February 2013.
    • Supreme Court Judgment (2018):
      • Reallocated shares;
      • Gave 4.75 TMC drinking water allocation to Bengaluru.

     

    Recently, linking of which of the following rivers was undertaken? (2016)

    (a) Cauvery and Tungabhadra 

    (b) Godavari and Krishna 

    (c) Mahanadi and Son 

    (d) Narmada and Tapti

  • Return of the G2: Trump, China and the mirage of a bipolar world

    INTRODUCTION

    The reference to a “G2” resurfaced when US President Trump publicly announced that “The G2 will be convening shortly,” signalling a possible US-China duopoly in global decision-making. The Trump-Xi Busan meeting revived an older idea first articulated by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. However, despite dramatic optics, the summit lacked institutional depth and showcased a transactional, spectacle-driven diplomatic approach. The renewed G2 talk generated global unease, especially among allies and emerging economies, given the risks of marginalisation and disruption of regional balances in the Indo-Pacific.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    Trump’s declaration that the US and China would meet as a “G2” revived the idea of a US-China duopoly at a moment of systemic geopolitical flux. The Busan meeting created significant global debate because, despite high-profile optics and selective trade concessions (soybean purchases, tariff relief, fentanyl cooperation), there were no structural commitments or conflict-management mechanisms. The sudden bypassing of broader multilateral processes unsettled allies and intensified concerns of shrinking strategic space for countries like India, especially amid shifting economic projections that show a long-term move toward a tripolar world rather than a bipolar G2.

    G2 Revival: What Does the Busan Moment Signify?

    1. Performative Diplomacy: Trump framed the meeting as a G2 encounter, signalling a claim to architect a new global order driven by bilateral spectacle rather than institutional negotiations.
    2. Transactional Bargains: China resumed US soybean imports; the US eased select tariffs and technology restrictions; cooperation was pledged on fentanyl precursors and rare-earth supply chains.
    3. Absence of Structure: No new institutions, principles, or crisis-management mechanisms were created, making the meeting high on optics but low on structural impact.

    China’s Strategic Calculus Behind the G2 Optics

    1. Symbolic Parity: Great-power parity aligns with China’s long-term ambition for equal status with the US, enhancing its global narrative.
    2. Economic Off-ramp: Tariff relief and tech flexibility help stabilise China’s domestic economy amid headwinds such as overcapacity and slowing productivity.
    3. Controlled Ambiguity: China avoided endorsing a formal duopoly, using strategic ambiguity to retain flexibility while cultivating Global South networks.

    Structural Fragility of a US-China Duopoly

    1. Deep Bilateral Contradictions: Taiwan, technology dependence, and military rivalry create structural barriers to stable cooperation.
    2. Lack of Institutional Grounding: No formal mechanisms exist to manage disputes or align long-term strategic objectives.
    3. Risk to Alliances: The G2 idea signals that alliances are expendable, undermining confidence among US partners in Asia and Europe.

    Global Implications of the G2 Notion

    1. Destabilising for Allies: Japan, South Korea, Australia fear erosion of regional balance if the US deprioritises alliances.
    2. Institutional Marginalisation: G2 bypasses multilateral institutions, weakening global governance frameworks.
    3. Supply-Chain Reconfiguration: A US-China bilateral alignment could redirect global supply chains, adversely affecting Indo-Pacific economies.

    Why the G2 Idea Alarms India

    1. Risk of Strategic Sidelining: A bilateral shortcut between the US and China may marginalise India despite its rising economic weight.
    2. Supply Chain Dependence: India’s dependence on Chinese imports (electronics, APIs, critical minerals) becomes more vulnerable.
    3. Quad Uncertainty: A possible thaw between the US and China creates ambiguity around the Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad commitments.
    4. Manufacturing Disadvantage: Reduced US pressure on China undercuts India’s ambition to position itself as a credible alternative manufacturing hub.

    Long-term Trend: A Tripolar, Not Bipolar, World

    1. Economic Projections: PwC and Goldman Sachs project by 2050 a tripolar structure: China (1st), India (2nd), US (3rd) in PPP terms.
    2. Limits on China’s Rise: Demographic contraction and industrial overcapacity constrain China’s long-term dominance.
    3. India’s Structural Advantages: Young workforce, expanding market, tech ambitions support India’s rise as a major economic pole.
    4. US Position: Innovation strength persists, but political polarisation and ageing demographics slow future growth.

    CONCLUSION

    Trump’s revival of the G2 is more spectacle than substance, reflecting a transitional phase rather than a durable geopolitical redesign. Structural contradictions, alliance concerns, and global economic shifts limit the feasibility of a US-China duopoly. The long-term trajectory points to broader multipolarity, with India emerging as a critical pole in global politics. The Busan moment thus underscores the instability of great-power bargains that bypass wider global participation and institutional frameworks.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] “The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

    Linkage: The PYQ statement directly connects to intensifying US-China strategic rivalry, which shapes the global balance of power, technology races, and Indo-Pacific security dynamics. It is highly relevant for GS-II (IR) as it influences India’s strategic space, Quad calculus, supply-chain realignments, and the emerging multipolar world order.

  • Operation Pawan  

    Why in the News?

    • For the first time, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi paid homage at the National War Memorial to soldiers who died during Operation Pawan (1987–1990).
    • Event held on 25 November 2025.

    What was Operation Pawan?

    • A major military operation launched by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka.
    • Objective: Disarm the LTTE under the Indo–Sri Lanka Accord (1987).
    • Duration: October 1987 – 1990.

    Background

    • Under the Indo–Sri Lanka Peace Accord (July 1987):
      • India agreed to deploy IPKF to enforce peace in Northern & Eastern Sri Lanka.
      • The LTTE initially agreed to surrender weapons but soon reneged.

    Casualties in Operation

    • Hundreds of Indian soldiers killed, and over 1,000 injured.
    • One of India’s largest overseas military operations.

    National War Memorial

    • Location: New Delhi, near India Gate.
    • Dedicated to soldiers of post-Independence operations including:
      • 1947–48, 1962, 1965, 1971 wars
      • Kargil 1999
      • IPKF operations, and counter-insurgency missions.

    Importance of the IPKF Mission 

    • First large-scale out-of-country deployment of Indian forces.
    • Political and military complexities:
      • Fighting LTTE, once seen sympathetically by India.
      • Hostile terrain and guerrilla warfare challenges.
    Operations undertaken by the Army towards upliftment of the local population in remote areas to include addressing of their basic needs is called:  (2024)

    (a) Operation Sankalp 

    (b) Operation Maitri 

    (c) Operation Sadbhavana 

    (d) Operation Madad

    This question is highly relevant as it tests the specific format of knowledge required for Operation Pawan (the name and mission of a defence action).

  • [26th November 2025] Hindu OpED Trump-MbS summit- $1 trillion among friends

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union. Explain.

    Linkage: The Trump-MbS summit reflects the U.S. strategy of rebuilding alliances to counter China’s growing influence in West Asia, where Beijing has expanded economically and diplomatically. The revived U.S.-Saudi partnership strengthens America’s geopolitical position in a region where China had begun to outpace it.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Trump-Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) summit marks a major inflection in West Asia’s geopolitical landscape. The article examines the renewed U.S.-Saudi alignment, its military-economic scale, its contrast with earlier strains, and its strategic implications for India. This simplified yet UPSC-rich analysis helps aspirants understand the evolving balance of power in West Asia and its global consequences.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The article is significant because the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship has revived after years of drift, culminating in Trump’s first West Asia visit where both sides advanced $242 billion defence deals and $270 billion investment commitments, a scale unseen since the 1945 FDR-Saudi pact. The summit signals the return of transactional, high-value U.S.-Saudi cooperation, a sharp contrast to the Biden years of friction, Khashoggi tensions, and Saudi diversification toward China and Russia. This reset represents one of the largest bilateral economic-military consolidations globally, reshaping energy, security, and global power equations.

    INTRODUCTION

    The U.S.-Saudi partnership has historically shaped post-Second World War geopolitics, especially in energy and security. The Trump-MbS summit renews this legacy by combining massive defence sales, investment promises, and realignment on regional issues such as Iran, sanctions, and energy security. The revived partnership represents both strategic opportunity and geopolitical recalibration.

    What drives the renewed U.S.-Saudi strategic alignment?

    1. Historic continuity: Reconnects with the 1945 FDR-Ibn Saud “oil-for-security” pact revived in 2005 and 2025.
    2. Exceptional summit chemistry: Trump and MbS elevated bilateral commitments during Trump’s first regional visit.
    3. High-value agreements: $242 billion military commitments and $270 billion investment forum deals signal unprecedented scale.
    4. Shared interests: Addresses U.S. need for Gulf stability and Saudi need for defence, investment, and autonomy.

    How has the bilateral relationship evolved from past highs and lows?

    1. Historical tensions: 1973 oil embargo, 1980s missile purchases from China, Yemen war tensions, and the Khashoggi killing strained ties.
    2. Biden-era rifts: Public criticism of Saudi human rights issues pushed Riyadh closer to China and Russia.
    3. Saudi diversification: Riyadh’s engagement with Xi Jinping and Middle Eastern summits signal multipolar diplomacy.
    4. Return to U.S. orbit: Trump’s visit and renewed defence-economic convergence restore traditional alignment.

    What are the key outcomes of the Trump-MbS summit?

    1. Massive defence deals: Commitment to supply $242 billion in U.S. military equipment.
    2. Investment surge: MbS aims to raise Saudi investments in the U.S. economy from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
    3. Energy cooperation: Coordination on oil production to maintain a moderate, sustainable price.
    4. AI & tech collaboration: U.S. and Saudi firms advance “future-ready AI projects,” including AI chips.
    5. Regional stabilisation agenda: Coordination on Iran, Yemen ceasefire, and navigation security.

    What are the emerging regional geopolitical implications?

    1. U.S.-Saudi-Russia triangle: Saudi alignment tempers Russian oil revenue by stabilising global oil prices.
    2. Sanctions dynamics: U.S.-Saudi cooperation supports enforcement of sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.
    3. Security architecture: Signals continuity of U.S. commitment to Gulf security despite regional volatility.
    4. NATO+ narrative: U.S. sees Saudi as a “major non-NATO ally,” pushing deeper defence integration.

    What does this recalibration mean for India?

    1. Energy stability: Coordinated U.S.-Saudi oil policy keeps prices moderate, critical for India’s energy security.
    2. Defence + tech prospects: Saudi Vision 2030 and U.S. tech investments open new opportunities for Indian firms.
    3. Strategic partnership: India needs to accelerate the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Saudi Arabia.
    4. Geopolitical balancing: India must navigate U.S.-Saudi rapprochement while maintaining ties with Iran and Russia.

    CONCLUSION

    The Trump-MbS summit revives a historic partnership at a scale unmatched in recent years. By combining large defence contracts, investment flows, and re-alignment on energy security, the U.S.-Saudi partnership is again central to West Asian geopolitics. For India, this moment offers both opportunity and the need for strategic agility.