This week, key global events and developments shaped politics, economics, and society. From groundbreaking policy shifts and diplomatic manoeuvres to emerging stories of resilience and upheaval, we bring you the latest updates and insights.
For the Indian audience, understanding these developments is not just about keeping informed — it’s about identifying the ripple effects that could influence India’s foreign policy and its position in an increasingly fragmented world.
Whether it’s a headline grabbing the world’s attention or an underreported issue with far-reaching consequences, we aim to provide a clear, concise, and comprehensive overview of what matters most.
Ukraine uses US-made missiles against Russia
This week, the Ukraine conflict took a sharp turn, with Kyiv deploying British-made Storm Shadow missiles against military targets inside Russia for the first time on the 1000th in the conflict with Moscow. The attack followed the historic use of US-provided Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles on Russian soil, authorised by President Joe Biden. These developments mark a new phase in Ukraine’s bid to expand its military reach and challenge Russia on its own territory.
For months, Kyiv lobbied Western allies to provide long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russian-controlled areas. Ukrainian officials argue these weapons are critical to countering Moscow’s strategic advantages, especially as Ukrainian troops struggle to maintain their foothold in contested regions like Kursk. Russia’s Telegram-based military bloggers shared images of alleged Storm Shadow fragments near Marino, a village in Kursk, while local governor Alexei Smirnov claimed Russian air defences intercepted two missiles. Ukraine’s air force official Yuriy Ignat cryptically referenced the attack, stating there had been a “strong storm” in the Kursk region.
The timing of these strikes aligns with informal discussions at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro. Western officials, reportedly, saw the missile use as a strategic message not just to Moscow but also to North Korea, which has sent soldiers to assist Russian forces.
The symbolism is further underscored by President Biden’s recent authorisation of ATACMS missiles, a decision made amid Donald Trump’s imminent return to office in two months. Trump has declared his intention to end the conflict swiftly, raising questions about how US support for Ukraine might shift under his administration.
The use of these missiles is especially consequential given Russia’s changes to its nuclear doctrine.
Approved by Vladimir Putin, the revised policy broadens the scope of scenarios under which Moscow might resort to nuclear weapons. Among the most notable changes is a provision treating any attack from a non-nuclear state, if supported by a nuclear power, as a joint assault — potentially warranting a nuclear response.
Putin has said a move to allow the use of long-range western weapons in Russia would mean Nato countries were directly at war with Moscow. Russia officially adjusted its military doctrine to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons after the ATACMS strikes.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine has undergone significant changes in recent years, especially since 2010. Previous iterations appeared relatively restrained, but recent updates introduce greater ambiguity. This mirrors a broader trend in nuclear diplomacy, where doctrines remain deliberately vague. The US, for example, describes its own nuclear use as limited to “extreme circumstances” without clarifying specifics, leaving room for interpretation.
Putin said Moscow fired an experimental hypersonic missile at Ukraine on Thursday in response to the US and the UK allowing Kyiv to fire western weaponry at targets deep inside Russia. The Russian president said the Oreshnik missile, which can carry a nuclear warhead, targeted a factory in Dnipro that was formerly a Soviet Union rocket building facility.
Fabian Hoffmann, a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, told the Financial Times that footage suggested the missile carried a payload exclusively used for deploying nuclear warheads. “The signal here is: ‘Today the strike was with a non-nuclear payload, tomorrow it could be a nuclear one.’ There certainly was no military value to it. If it was about striking certain targets, there would have been many more, and more capable, missile systems for that,” Hoffman said.
Despite its threats, Moscow faces severe deterrents to deploying nuclear weapons. A strike on Ukraine would likely lead to “catastrophic consequences,” as warned by the United States. Moreover, such a move risks alienating Russia’s remaining allies, including China and India. For Beijing, which has advocated for a global no-first-use agreement, Russian nuclear use would undermine diplomatic alignment.
Domestically and internationally, the costs of opening a nuclear Pandora’s box could be insurmountable for Russia. As the Brookings Institution highlights, using nuclear weapons would mark an unprecedented shift with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic fallout, even for Moscow itself.
In this volatile environment, Russia’s new doctrine appears as much about intimidation as it is about strategy. By broadening its thresholds for nuclear use, the Kremlin aims to keep Western nations guessing, hoping to delay or deter support for Ukraine. But whether this ambiguity translates to action remains an open — and deeply unsettling — question.
According to the Brookings Report, “The decision to use nuclear arms would be one of the most consequential ever made; that decision would depend far more on the leader and the specific circumstances at the time rather than on a declared policy.”
COP 29
The 29th UN Climate Summit (COP29) in Azerbaijan, held from November 11 to November 22, comes at a pivotal moment for global climate action. Yet, despite the urgency of the task, the mood in Baku has been marked by frustration and underwhelming progress.
This year will likely be the hottest on record, with average global temperatures touching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. A new study suggests the world was already 1.49°C hotter by the end of 2023, while a United Nations report projects warming of around 3.1°C by the century’s end if current trends continue. These stark warnings underline the monumental challenge facing policymakers.
The 1.5°C threshold, set in the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015, has long symbolised the collective ambition to limit global warming. However, at last year’s COP28, Bill Gates remarked that even holding warming below 2°C is increasingly unrealistic, suggesting the focus should shift to avoiding 3°C.
Against this backdrop, COP29 sought to tackle one of the thorniest issues in climate negotiations: climate financing. Developing nations, bearing the brunt of climate impacts, have been pressing for substantial financial support from wealthier countries. Yet, as the summit draws to a close, the likelihood of an agreement remains uncertain.
The draft agreement at the start of the COP29 summit called for raising $1.3 trillion annually to aid vulnerable nations in transitioning to low-carbon energy and adapting to climate-induced disasters. But since then, the text has expanded to 25 pages, bogged down by disputes over key issues:
— Scale of financing: Should commitments focus on hundreds of billions or trillions annually?
— Who pays?: Should only wealthy nations like the US and those under the EU contribute, or should emerging emitters like China and Qatar also share the burden?
— Form of aid: Should it come from government grants, private investments, development bank loans, or carbon offset projects or a combination of these?
Divisions over these questions have stalled progress, with some attendees fearing COP29 could become the first climate summit since Copenhagen in 2009 to end without a deal. “As Jerry McGuire says ‘show me the money’. The amount of climate finance, along with who pays and who receives it, are central to unlocking negotiations and securing a strong outcome at COP29,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, global climate and energy lead at environmental organisation WWF.
Geopolitical challenges have compounded the gridlock. Leaders from major economies, preoccupied with domestic issues, failed to attend, including the US, which faces diminished climate engagement under Donald Trump’s return to power. This lack of high-level commitment has dampened the summit’s momentum.
If COP29 ends without an agreement on climate financing, it would mark a significant blow to global climate cooperation, especially following the recent failure of the UN biodiversity summit. While technical negotiations may resume in other forums, the lack of a definitive outcome could deepen mistrust between developed and developing nations.
As the clock ticks on the climate crisis, the world cannot afford further delays. Whether in Baku or beyond, the urgent need for action is clear: the decisions made or not made today will define the planet’s future.
Despite the failures at COP, climate activists hoped that the G-20, hosted at the same time, might inject fresh energy into climate discussions. “A successful outcome at COP29 is still within reach, but it will require leadership and compromise, namely from the G20 countries,” stated UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at a press conference, emphasising these countries account for 80 per cent of global emissions and should “lead by example.”
Geopolitical crises dominate a fractured G20
The G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro unfolded under the shadow of intensifying global crises and the looming return of Donald Trump to the White House. Against this backdrop, leaders attempted to balance delicate geopolitical realities with the need to maintain consensus among a divided membership. Unlike recent summits in Bali (2022) and New Delhi (2023), which explicitly condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and advocated against the use of force, this year’s communique avoided direct blame. Instead, it vaguely referenced the “suffering” caused by conflicts — a reflection of the challenges Brazil faced in bridging divides, particularly with nations aligned with Moscow.
Adding urgency to the summit’s deliberations, Ukraine escalated its military strategy by deploying US-provided ATACMS missiles on Russian territory for the first time. This prompted Russia to revise its nuclear doctrine, redefining the conditions for nuclear weapons use. The timing of these developments caused concern among summit participants.
Creon Butler, director, Global Economy and Finance Program at Chatham House, noted that while some European leaders sought to include stronger language condemning Russia, Brazil’s presidency prioritised consensus. “After the latest barrage of missiles, some European countries wanted to reopen the text for more specific criticism of Russia, but the Brazilian presidency didn’t want to do so,” Butler told DW.
Despite its geopolitical tensions, the summit produced notable outcomes, particularly in areas championed by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Among these was the launch of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, an initiative aimed at addressing food insecurity and income disparities worldwide. The communique reinforced this focus, calling for increased funding and urging more countries to join the alliance. This marks a significant step for Lula, who seeks to position Brazil as a leader in tackling systemic global inequalities.
On climate, G20 leaders called for a substantial increase in financing for low-income countries, acknowledging that trillions, not billions, would be required to mitigate climate change’s impacts. However, the communique’s failure to mention a transition away from fossil fuels drew criticism, highlighting a recurring gap in the group’s ability to address urgent environmental challenges comprehensively. US President Joe Biden used the platform to stress the importance of equitable access to climate financing, but with Trump’s return imminent, these efforts risk being undone.
Transparency International also criticised the summit’s shortcomings, particularly its failure to address corruption and illicit financial flows. Maíra Martini, the organisation’s head of policy and advocacy, emphasised that without tackling these issues, development pledges risk becoming hollow. “The G20 has the power to spearhead actions on illicit financial flows, and anything less is lip service to sustainable development,” Martini said, urging South Africa, the next G20 chair, to prioritise anti-corruption measures.
India’s delegation remained highly active throughout the summit, leveraging the platform to pursue both regional and global priorities. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, to discuss resuming suspended dialogue mechanisms, including direct flights and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra pilgrimage. The discussions also addressed trans-border river data sharing and media exchanges, reflecting a cautious effort to stabilise India-China relations following recent border disengagement agreements.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi further expanded India’s diplomatic outreach by announcing two new consulates in Belfast and Manchester, a move welcomed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Downing Street highlighted the potential for a strengthened UK-India strategic partnership, with trade negotiations and deeper cooperation in areas like education, security, technology, and climate change forming key priorities. These developments underscore India’s growing influence and its ability to balance multiple strategic relationships on the global stage.
The Rio summit also reignited debates over the G20’s relevance. Since its formation in 1999, the group has played a central role in addressing financial crises, most notably during the 2008-2009 global economic meltdown. However, its ability to achieve consensus on pressing contemporary issues has waned, with critics like Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini arguing that the world is transitioning to a “G-Zero” model — one defined by fragmented, ad hoc coalitions rather than coordinated multilateral action.
This perception has fuelled interest in alternative forums like BRICS+, which recently expanded to include nations such as Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE.
Representing 45 per cent of the global population and 30 per cent of global GDP, BRICS+ is emerging as a formidable counterbalance to the G20’s Western-centric framework. With more than 40 countries seeking membership, the group underscores the shifting aspirations of the Global South. Notably, China now conducts more trade with the Global South than with G7 nations combined, further tilting the scales of global influence.
The G20 summit in Rio reflected both the promise and limitations of multilateralism in an increasingly polarised world. While achievements in poverty alleviation and climate financing mark progress, the lack of cohesion on critical issues like the Ukraine war, corruption, and fossil fuel dependency underscores the group’s challenges. For India, the summit presented an opportunity to advance its strategic goals and solidify its role as a bridge between the Global South and traditional power centres.
ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes against humanity and war crimes. This unprecedented move marks the first time a Western-backed leader has faced such charges from the ICC, signalling a major escalation in legal scrutiny over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
According to the court, there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bear responsibility for crimes including the “war crime of starvation as a method of warfare” and “crimes against humanity” such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The ICC alleges they “intentionally and knowingly deprived Gaza’s civilians of essential supplies like food, water, and medical resources,” exacerbating a humanitarian crisis in the region.
The arrest warrants have deepened Israel’s international isolation regarding its Gaza campaign. While the ICC’s 124 member states are legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territories, the court lacks mechanisms to enforce compliance. Both Israel and its key ally, the US, are not ICC members and reject its jurisdiction.
Netanyahu’s office labelled the warrants “antisemitic,” declaring, “No anti-Israel resolution will prevent the state of Israel from protecting its citizens.” Meanwhile, Palestinian officials welcomed the ICC’s decision. Husam Zomlot, Palestinian ambassador to the UK, called it “a step toward accountability and justice,” while Hamas urged the court to extend the warrants to additional Israeli officials.
ICC also issued a separate warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, accusing him of crimes against humanity and war crimes linked to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which resulted in the death of 1,200 Israelis and 250 hostages. While Israel claims to have killed Deif in an airstrike earlier this year, his death remains unconfirmed.
The warrants have drawn mixed reactions from global powers. Figures from both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration criticised ICC’s actions. The White House rejected the decision, while Trump’s national security advisor, Mike Waltz, dismissed the court’s credibility. In contrast, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp emphasised the importance of respecting the ICC’s independence, with Veldkamp pledging Dutch compliance in arresting the accused.
Other European nations took a more cautious stance. The UK acknowledged the ICC’s independence but maintained that “there is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas, a terrorist organisation.”
The move echoes past ICC warrants issued against Putin and Muammar al-Qaddafi, which also faced limited enforcement but carried significant symbolic and diplomatic consequences. Alexandra Sharp of Foreign Policy noted that while enforcement is unlikely, the warrants complicate ceasefire negotiations and restrict Netanyahu’s and Gallant’s international mobility, especially to ICC member states.
ICC’s announcement comes amid broader diplomatic efforts at the United Nations to address the Gaza conflict. This week, 14 of the 15 UN Security Council members called for an immediate, unconditional end to the war and the release of all hostages. However, the US vetoed the resolution, arguing that it risked emboldening Hamas by undermining the prospects for a negotiated peace.
India, historically aligned with abstentions in UN votes on Israel-related issues, maintained its cautious stance. In the latest General Assembly session, it was among 42 countries that abstained from condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The ICC’s decision also reinforces perceptions of shifting global allegiances. While Western nations grapple with how to respond, the Global South increasingly views international institutions like the ICC as tools to hold powerful nations accountable. For Israel, the arrest warrants mark a significant diplomatic and legal challenge, as the country faces mounting criticism over its handling of the Gaza conflict.
Afghan teenager Nila Ibrahimi wins International Children’s Peace Prize
Nila Ibrahimi, 17, has become a beacon of hope for Afghan girls under one of the world’s most repressive regimes. This week, she won the International Children’s Peace Prize for her courageous fight for girls’ rights in Afghanistan, where women and girls face systemic oppression under Taliban rule. Ibrahimi now joins past laureates such as Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai, who have inspired global movements for justice.
Ibrahimi’s activism began in Kabul, where she gained online acclaim for challenging a ban that prohibited schoolgirls from singing in public. Posting a video of herself singing, which her brother uploaded to social media, Ibrahimi launched the #IAmMySong campaign. Within weeks, the campaign succeeded in overturning the ban, but the victory was short-lived. After the Taliban seized power in 2021, Ibrahimi and her family fled Afghanistan with the help of the 30 Birds Foundation, first to Pakistan and then to Canada.
Now based in Canada, Ibrahimi continues to advocate for Afghan girls through “Her Story,” an initiative she co-founded to amplify the voices of girls still trapped under Taliban rule. At the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, she voiced her anguish. “Every single day I think of those girls who are left behind in Afghanistan, left with no hope. In Canada, I make decisions about my life and embrace the person I aspire to be, but what about them?” she asked.
The Taliban’s return to power has systematically erased women from public life. Girls over the age of 12 are barred from attending school, and women are forbidden to work, travel without male accompaniment, or even appear in public without full-body coverings. Recent restrictions include a ban on women praying aloud in the presence of other women, with Taliban officials asserting that a woman’s voice is “awrah”—something to be concealed.
These measures have devastated women’s lives. As The Guardian reports, in regions like southern Afghanistan, where pre-Taliban conditions were already restrictive, some women see a trade-off: while freedoms have vanished, so has certain violence. In other parts of the country, however, the abrupt loss of rights has left communities reeling.
Despite widespread condemnation, the Taliban’s grip remains firm. Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada has centralised power, consolidating control in Kandahar and prioritising loyalty from southern Pashtun Talibs. Although more than 90 per cent of Afghans live in poverty, the regime has proven resilient, buoyed by growing regional engagement and economic deals with neighbours like China and Russia.
As the Taliban gains legitimacy on the international stage, advocates like Ibrahimi serve as vital reminders of the resilience and aspirations of Afghan girls.
Ibrahimi’s award highlights the stark disconnect between grassroots activism and high-level diplomacy. As Afghanistan’s neighbours deepen ties with the Taliban, activists like Ibrahimi are calling attention to the voices silenced within the country. Her recognition on the global stage underscores a critical message: no matter how entrenched the oppression, the fight for justice and equality continues.
Her story is a powerful testament to the courage of Afghan women and the urgent need for the international community to act decisively in support of their rights. As global powers navigate pragmatic ties with the Taliban, voices like Ibrahimi’s remind us that true progress lies not in appeasement, but in the unyielding pursuit of justice.
Other news
— Iranian leadership transition: Reports suggest that 85-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said to be seriously ill, may step down and nominate his 55-year-old son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as successor.
— Adani Group indicted in bribery scandal: After Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and six others were indicted in New York for allegedly offering Rs 2,029 crore in bribes to Indian officials, Kenyan President William Ruto has cancelled a procurement deal that would have awarded control of Kenya’s main airport to the Adani Group. This marks another controversy for the group since the publishing of the Hindenburg Report in January 2023.
— Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy join Trump administration: President-elect Donald Trump has named Musk and Ramaswamy the heads of a new Department of Government Efficiency, tasked with slashing regulations and dismantling government bureaucracy, fulfilling a campaign promise to give Musk oversight of federal spending.
— Matt Gaetz withdraws from Attorney General consideration: Trump ally Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his name for US Attorney General, citing concerns about becoming a distraction to the Trump/Vance transition team.
— UK farmers protest inheritance tax changes: Farmers in Central London are protesting new inheritance tax rules that will impose death duties on agricultural and business properties, a move critics say threatens the future of multi-generational family farms. The Treasury estimates the changes could raise up to £520 million annually.
