World

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence is driving a parallel expansion of the infrastructure on which it depends. Data centres consumed around 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024, roughly 1.5% of global demand, and the International Energy Agency's base case projects about 945 TWh by 2030. Governments in the Gulf and Europe have responded by treating data centres as strategic assets while remaining committed to decarbonising their energy systems. Yet a commitment to clean energy does not necessarily amount to clean data centres.   This distinction is becoming increasingly important because the timelines differ so sharply. A data centre can be built in one to two years, whereas transmission takes far longer and new clean generation, nuclear in particular, longer still. When demand arrives before supply, the gap tends to be filled by gas. Ireland illustrates the dilemma: data centres accounted for 23% of its metered electricity in 2025, up from 5% in 2015, and the regulator now requires new large facilities to bring their own generation or storage. The central question, therefore, is whether AI infrastructure and the green transition can advance together.

On October 2, the death of a 28-year-old laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Institute set off emergency measures in Russia. Nearly 200 people have been placed under medical observation, the district hospital in Shelekhov has been quarantined, and Russia's chief sanitary official, Anna Popova, has travelled from Moscow to oversee the response. Moscow's public health watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, describes the case only as "pneumonia of unknown etiology" and calls the situation in Irkutsk and Shelekhov "stable," while the head of neighbouring Buryatia has said the woman died of plague. This raises a critical question: is this an isolated, contained infection, or the first sign of a pneumonic plague outbreak that Moscow is struggling to manage, and to disclose? Pneumonic plague is the most dangerous form of the disease. It spreads person to person through respiratory droplets, can kill within days if untreated, and is treatable with early antibiotics. That makes the first days of any case decisive and makes official transparency as important as the clinical response.  

On 23 September 2026, the United Nations Security Council confronted an unusual development in international security. The people warning governments about the dangers of AI were not only diplomats or military officials, but the executives building the technology itself. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, and Hugging Face co-founder Clément Delangue briefed the 15-member Council as governments grapple with increasingly capable AI systems that can write code, operate autonomously, interact with external systems, and potentially improve their own capabilities. Amodei warned that, if poorly managed, “AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole”, while Altman argued that decisions about AI could not be left to technology companies alone.   The meeting was significant because AI is rapidly moving from a technology-policy issue into the domain of international security. Yet the deeper question is not simply how dangerous AI may become. It is who will establish the rules governing a technology increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of states and companies. The UN is attempting to become the forum where those rules are debated, but it is entering a contest in which technological capabilities, economic power, national security interests, and competing visions of governance are already shaping the outcome.

Least Developed Countries are being left behind in the fastest-growing segment of world trade. While digitally deliverable services now account for over half of global services exports, LDCs capture a vanishing share of that growth, and their position is worsening even as their exports rise in absolute terms. Between 2015 and 2023, their digital-services exports grew 43% in dollar terms, yet their global market share fell over the same period. That divergence is the puzzle this analysis takes up: not why a digital divide exists, which is intuitive enough, but why it keeps widening even as LDCs’ own exports grow. Is this simply a matter of infrastructure catching up over time, or does the digital services economy, with its compounding returns, concentrated capital, and now-fragmenting trade rules, structurally reward early movers in ways that make the gap self-reinforcing rather than self-correcting?

During the age of empires, the colonisation of the Global South by imperial powers in Europe was done not only to expand their territories beyond their borders but also to exploit the colonised for their natural resources. These resources usually came in the form of precious metals and minerals, agricultural products, and human labour; which the empires deemed necessary to build influence, wealth, and strength. By the end of World War 2, these empires began to disintegrate, as colonies began to seek independence which continued beyond 1945. This shift led to the creation of a new world order centred less on empire and more on democratic rule. Although the age of empire ended, a new era of neo-colonialism was born, where former colonisers aimed to continue to obtain resources from former colonies.   Instead of colonising, former empires, great powers, and multinational corporations indirectly controlled newly independent states through economic and trade agreements, financial reliance, and foreign aid. One area in which old colonial structures and legacies are still prevalent is the Global North’s acquisition of critical minerals and rare earths from the Global South to fuel the transition from fossil fuels as an energy source to renewable energy. This exploitation is defined as green colonialism, where the Global North exports the environmental and social costs of the green transition onto states and indigenous people in the Global South. The term green colonisation is justified, as it is a combination of external control, constrained policy autonomy, unequal bargaining and uncompensated costs the Global North forces onto the Global South. This can be explained by the Global North extending the economic and social costs of green transitions to mineral-rich states while reducing the economic value of these states, leading to a colonial economic structure, which can be challenged by a resource rebellion in the form of resource nationalism, industrial policy, and contractual renegotiation if colonial conditions persist.

The next great economic frontier may not be on Earth. Space is increasingly becoming more crowded, more commercial, and more strategically important, as governments and companies compete to control the infrastructure that supports communications, navigation, finance, climate monitoring, defence, and the next generation of digital services. The shift is not simply about returning to the Moon or reaching Mars. It is about the gradual transformation of orbit into an extension of the global economy, with consequences for national power, technological dependence, and international governance.   The scale of this transformation is already visible. Public investment remains the foundation of the sector, while private firms increasingly provide launch services, satellite communications, Earth observation, and data analytics. At the same time, the boundary between civilian and military space activity is becoming harder to define. Satellites that support agriculture, logistics, or emergency response may also support intelligence, targeting, secure communications, or military navigation. As space infrastructure becomes essential to life on Earth, access to orbit is becoming a question of economic resilience and strategic autonomy.

On August 5, 2026, the FDA approved Orzeyful, a new drug for narcolepsy, a condition that affects roughly 120,000 Americans. It works by improving wakefulness, attention and motivation — the same things any employer, student or soldier would happily pay to have more of. That's the real story here, not a narcolepsy drug, but the first real test of how far the line between treating an illness and enhancing a healthy brain can bend. Nobody is claiming Orzeyful will end up in a healthy person's medicine cabinet, but drugs built for one purpose have a track record of finding a second, far more lucrative one, and once a pill can sharpen focus in the sick, keeping it away from the well gets harder by the year. That is the shift worth watching: what it would mean for who can afford access, for turning ordinary tiredness into a diagnosis, for misuse, and for a definition of “normal” human performance that keeps sliding the moment “enhanced” goes on sale.

India is preparing to host the 18th BRICS summit on September 12–13, 2026, under the theme "Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation, and Sustainability." With the group’s expansion in 2024, incorporating the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran, and Indonesia’s official accession as a full member in 2025, alongside the addition of numerous new partner nations, the diversity of member perspectives regarding issues such as the Middle East, relations with the United States, and the Russia-Ukraine war has grown. Consequently, issue-specific, pragmatic cooperation is emerging as a prominent operational model for the group, moving away from the comprehensive political consensus typical of traditional international and intergovernmental organizations.   Members can now cooperate where their interests align while maintaining divergent stances elsewhere. This suggests that BRICS may be consolidating an alliance-building model that relies less on shared political positions and more on mutual benefit and selective cooperation. This trend is likely to intensify and spread to other cooperative groupings, particularly as political differences persist. Thus, a fundamental question is raised: Can international alliances remain effective in the absence of political consensus, or has selective cooperation become the new foundation for collective action?

Food security has become one of the most consequential strategic questions facing the Arab world. Heavy reliance on imported grain, seeds, and agricultural inputs, combined with limited control over pricing and distribution, has left the region exposed to decisions made far beyond its borders.

For over two decades, The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) stood as the clearest example of what concentrated donor power could do: one country's political will, translated into billions of dollars a year, credited with saving more lives than any single global health program in history. That era is now ending, not through a managed transition but through an abrupt, largely unplanned withdrawal that began within days of the second Trump administration taking office in January 2025. The story that follows is not simply about cuts to HIV/AIDS funding, but it is about what happens when the architecture of global health financing loses its dominant pillar, who scrambles to fill the resulting vacuum, whether the countries left exposed can build the fiscal and institutional capacity to stand on their own, and whether the system that emerges is more fragile or more resilient than the one it replaces. The transition is already producing real costs: closed clinics, disrupted treatment, and rising infections in countries that had spent years bringing their epidemics under control. Besides, it is also accelerating financing reforms, regional cooperation, and domestic manufacturing that donor dependence had, for twenty years, made largely unnecessary. Both of these things are true at once, and this analysis traces both.

The theatrical performance of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey in July 2026 is a useful lens on a broader shift in media economics, though the film's box office alone cannot prove a structural thesis. While popular discourse frames the film's financial momentum as an isolated creative triumph, a microeconomic and corporate finance reading suggests a more durable market reallocation is underway: in an entertainment ecosystem saturated by digital abundance and on-demand streaming, consumer and studio spending appear to be reallocating toward physically differentiated experiences that are difficult to replicate digitally. This is best treated as a working hypothesis supported by suggestive evidence, not an established fact, one blockbuster’s run is not, by itself, proof of structural change.   This migration is commercially relevant to IMAX Corporation (NYSE: IMAX), whose model separates a broadly scalable global digital network from an ultra-scarce fifteen-perforation seventy-millimetre analogue footprint. Distinguishing these two tiers helps isolate how digital commoditization pressures studio differentiation strategy, shifts consumer willingness to pay, and concentrates box-office economics within a small number of specialized network operators, while also, exposing IMAX to risks that a purely optimistic reading tends to omit.

Smart glasses are no longer an experimental technology waiting to prove whether consumers will adopt them. They are already spreading rapidly, with Meta having sold more than 7 million pairs of its Ray-Ban smart glasses and daily use reportedly tripling year over year in early 2026. At the same time, the technology is becoming more capable, combining cameras, microphones, AI, translation, navigation, audio, and visual recognition in an object designed to remain on the user's face throughout the day. As manufacturers expand the technology and the market continues to grow, restaurants, theatres, workplaces, conferences, and other venues are increasingly questioning whether existing rules governing photography and recording are adequate.   The question, therefore, is no longer whether smart glasses will become part of everyday life, but what their expanding adoption will do to privacy and public space. Unlike smartphones, which normally require a visible gesture to record, smart glasses can capture and interpret their surroundings while their wearer continues to behave normally. As adoption expands, surveillance power is consequently shifting beyond governments, companies, and security systems towards ordinary individuals. This raises broader questions about who controls the information collected, who owns it, how it can be used after capture, and whether privately generated recordings could become another source of institutional surveillance.