Foresight and Early Warning

The last few years in European history can be described as “one battle after another”. From the start of the Russia-Ukraine war to the return of U.S. President Donald Trump for a second term and all of the headache that followed, Europe has found itself dealing with one challenge after another. Now, after years of geopolitical tensions and uncertainty, Europe may be heading towards another battle, one that could hit much closer to home: food. The continent is facing the prospect of a food shortage, and the problem has already begun to take shape.   The reasons behind it span from extreme heatwaves that are having a negative impact on crops and agriculture at large, to war-related disruptions that are affecting key trade routes and food supplies. While all of the above is already bad news for Europe, the worse possibility is that the problem might not stop at European doors and could extend into a global food crisis. Accordingly, what comes next for Europe, and can Europeans secure enough food for their people?

Congress now has a lobbyist that never registers, never discloses a client, and never leaves a paper trail, and it sits open in a browser tab on nearly every staffer's desk. The House Office of Legislative Counsel, the institution responsible for turning policy ideas into legally binding text, has reportedly been inundated with AI-generated bill proposals so riddled with incorrect statutory references and sloppy drafting that its lawyers now spend more time fixing them than they would spend writing the bills from scratch. Around the same time, it became clear how far this had spread. Members of Congress and their staff are increasingly using systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Gemini for policy research, legislative drafting, speeches, and constituent replies.   On the surface, this looks like any workplace chasing efficiency. But Congress is not any workplace. The information lawmakers receive, the way problems get framed, and the exact language that ends up in statute can affect millions of people. So the real question is not whether chatbots make congressional offices faster. It is what happens once the systems helping policymakers research, frame, and write legislation become an active participant in the political process itself.

The latest AI boom is creating an unusual paradox. The more AI companies need high-quality information, the more aggressively they are buying the physical books that contain it, and in some cases destroying those books once their contents have been absorbed. In recent months, independent booksellers in the United States, Britain, Europe, and elsewhere have reported sudden surges in unexplained bulk purchases, sometimes involving hundreds of unrelated and obscure titles. Some of these books are subsequently being sent to facilities where their bindings are removed, their pages rapidly scanned, and the remains discarded or recycled.   The scale could become far larger than the cases already exposed. ISBNdb, a major book database, now facilitates purchases ranging from 1,000 to one million books per order, while booksellers have described previously unsold titles suddenly becoming highly sought after. At the same time, an Amazon facility in Las Vegas has been identified as a site where employees described cutting book spines, scanning loose pages, and disposing of the resulting paper. The controversy raises a question that extends well beyond publishing. What happens if the race to build better AI systematically removes the physical sources from which that intelligence was created?

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.

Hundreds of fishing boats ring a reef no one is technically fighting over. No missiles fired, no warships trading shots, just a coast guard that cannot get close and fishermen who eventually leave. Weeks later, the water functions as someone else's. China has spent over a decade building this capability: the People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia, a fleet that flies no naval flag and answers to no declaration of war, subsidized and coordinated to advance state objectives in the South China Sea without crossing the threshold that would draw in the US Navy, trigger a treaty, or unite the region against Beijing.   The significance of the militia extends beyond China's activities in the South China Sea. It provides an example of a broader trend in which civilian assets are increasingly incorporated into national security strategies. The more useful question is not what China is doing with these assets, but why this specific tool, and what it signals about how the next round of great-power competition will be fought.

Between July 26 and 31, 2026, hackers took manual control away from water and wastewater utilities across U.S. states, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, Georgia, and South Dakota among them, with more than 30 community systems hit in Minnesota alone. According to news, cyberattacks on U.S. water systems are suspected to be linked to Iran-backed hackers. Operators in Georgia's Clayton County Water Authority, serving 300,000 people near Atlanta, watched pressure drop and had to issue a boil-water advisory before service was restored within hours. In several cases, the hackers gained remote access to pumps, valves, and water pressure, though the cyberattacks have had no impact on drinking water, which has remained safe.   A hacking front calling itself CyberAv3ngers, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-linked group sanctioned by the US Treasury Department in February 2024, has since claimed the operation on Telegram, framing it as a warning rather than an attack: "our intention in attacking Minnesota was only to warn" of its abilities and its intention to retaliate against any country that poses a threat to Iran. That framing matters as it leaves us questioning whether an “actual” attack can take place.

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.

Michigan expected to deliver a Senate nominee on Tuesday night. Instead, it may have delivered the Democratic Party's most consequential ideological test since Trump returned to the White House. Abdul El-Sayed defeated Representative Haley Stevens for the party's Senate nomination against the wishes of much of the Democratic establishment, in one of the most expensive primaries in American history. His win immediately turned what had been treated as a routine state primary into a national argument over who actually speaks for the Democratic Party now. The bigger question, though, is not whether progressives can win a Democratic primary. It is whether Michigan just revealed where the party is genuinely heading, or whether it simply revealed what a narrow, highly engaged slice of primary voters wants, a distinction the party will need to answer honestly before November.   El-Sayed's win did not happen in isolation either. It followed Zohran Mamdani's insurgent rise in New York City, and it arrived on the same Michigan ballot as Rashida Tlaib's renomination and Donavan McKinney's defeat of sitting Congressman Shri Thanedar. Four results, one pattern. Together, they raise a question far bigger than any single race, whether Democratic voters are beginning to reject both the party's traditional leadership and its long-standing relationship with major donors, particularly on Israel and campaign finance.

The race to dominate AI is no longer being fought only in laboratories; It is now being fought at the ballot box. As the US struggles to establish comprehensive rules for one of the world's fastest-moving technologies, the companies developing it have begun competing over something even more valuable than market share, namely political influence. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, AI companies and their affiliated political action committees have poured tens of millions of dollars into congressional races, backed rival candidates, and expanded their lobbying operations across Washington. For the first time, elections themselves are becoming part of the battle over who will shape the future of AI governance.   This marks a significant shift in the relationship between technology and politics. Rather than waiting for governments to determine how AI should be regulated, leading firms are increasingly attempting to shape the political environment before those decisions are made. As Congress remains divided over comprehensive AI legislation, electoral politics has become another arena in the competition over AI. Consequently, the 2026 midterms may offer an early indication of whether democratic institutions can establish the rules governing AI before the industry's growing political influence begins shaping those rules instead.

The international system is undergoing one of its most significant periods of transformation since the end of the Cold War. Intensifying geopolitical competition, prolonged armed conflicts, growing tensions between major powers, and mounting criticism of international institutions have all raised fundamental questions about the future of global governance. As confidence in the post-1945 international order declines, debates over multipolarity, the effectiveness of multilateral cooperation, and the legitimacy of international organizations have become increasingly central to global political discourse. /* Make the container take 100% width ONLY when it contains .outer-post-summary */ .container:has(.outer-post-summary) { width: 100%; max-width: 100%; padding:0px; } /* Hide the col-lg-2 elements inside outer-post-summary */ .outer-post-summary .col-lg-2 { display: none; } /* Make the col-lg-8 element take 100% width */ .outer-post-summary .col-lg-8 { width: 100%; flex: 0 0 100%; max-width: 100%; } .post-summary-section { padding: 0px 0 25px; padding: 0px 0 0px; } .comment-section { display: none; } #related_publications_slider_sec { display: none; } .like_dislike { display:none; } .hero-banner.post-details-banner.program-banner { display: none; } :root{ --bg-a:#8C241C; --bg-b:#6B1414; --bg-c:#3A0909; --card:rgba(0,0,0,0.24); --card-2:rgba(0,0,0,0.16); --peach:#F2C6B0; --peach-2:#EFB394; --terracotta:#C9614A; --rose:#8C332B; --maroon:#4A1414; --cream:#F3E7D8; --text:#F3E2D8; --muted:#D9A793; --rule: rgba(242,198,176,0.22); } *{box-sizing:border-box;} .outer-post-summary{scroll-behavior:smooth;} .outer-post-summary{ margin:0; background: radial-gradient(120% 85% at 32% 12%, var(--bg-a) 0%, var(--bg-b) 45%, var(--bg-c) 100%); background-attachment:fixed; color:var(--text); font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; -webkit-font-smoothing:antialiased; } ::selection{ background:var(--peach); color:var(--bg-c); } .eyebrow{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:12.5px; font-weight:700; letter-spacing:.16em; text-transform:uppercase; color:var(--peach); display:inline-flex; align-items:center; gap:10px; } .eyebrow::before{ content:""; width:9px; height:9px; background:var(--peach); display:inline-block; flex:none; } h1,h2,h3{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:400; margin:0; } a{color:var(--peach);} /* ---------- HERO ---------- */ .hero{ position:relative; min-height:100vh; display:flex; flex-direction:column; justify-content:center; align-items:center; text-align:center; padding:120px 24px 80px; overflow:hidden; } .masthead{ position:relative; z-index:2; margin-bottom:26px;} .wordmark{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:clamp(3.4rem, 13vw, 8rem); line-height:0.86; letter-spacing:.03em; color:var(--peach); text-transform:uppercase; margin-bottom:16px; } .masthead .eyebrow{ margin-bottom:0; } .hero h1{ font-size:clamp(1.6rem, 4.4vw, 2.6rem); line-height:1.05; letter-spacing:-0.01em; color:var(--cream); max-width:18ch; margin:0 auto; text-transform:uppercase; opacity:0.88; } .hero .dek{ position:relative; z-index:2; max-width:520px; margin:26px auto 0; font-size:17px; line-height:1.6; color:var(--cream); font-weight:500; } .hero .meta{ position:relative; z-index:2; margin-top:30px; font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:600; font-size:12px; color:var(--muted); letter-spacing:.1em; text-transform:uppercase; } .scroll-cue{ position:relative; margin-top:64px; z-index:2; font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:600; font-size:11px; color:var(--muted); letter-spacing:.14em; text-transform:uppercase; display:flex; flex-direction:column; align-items:center; gap:8px; } .scroll-cue .line{ width:1px; height:30px; background:linear-gradient(var(--peach), transparent); animation:pulse-line 1.8s ease-in-out infinite; } @keyframes pulse-line{ 0%,100%{opacity:.25} 50%{opacity:1} } /* ---------- LAYOUT ---------- */ .dossier{ max-width:880px; margin:0 auto; padding:0 24px; } .intro{ padding:100px 24px 40px; max-width:880px; margin:0 auto; } .intro p{ font-size:18px; line-height:1.75; color:var(--text); margin:0 0 20px; } .intro p:first-of-type::first-letter{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:60px; float:left; line-height:0.8; padding:8px 10px 0 0; color:var(--peach); } .article{ padding:64px 0; border-top:1px solid var(--rule); } .article-head{ display:flex; align-items:baseline; gap:18px; margin-bottom:22px; flex-wrap:wrap; } .article-num{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:700; font-size:13px; color:var(--muted); letter-spacing:.1em; text-transform:uppercase; } .article h2{ font-size:clamp(1.4rem, 3vw, 2rem); color:var(--peach); line-height:1.15; text-transform:uppercase; } .article .headline-stat{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:clamp(2.6rem,6vw,4rem); color:var(--peach); line-height:1; margin:6px 0 18px; } .article .headline-stat span{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:500; font-size:16px; color:var(--muted); display:block; margin-top:10px; } .article p{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.75; color:var(--text); opacity:0.92; } .article p + p{ margin-top:16px; } .chart-panel{ margin-top:34px; background:var(--card); border:1px solid var(--rule); border-radius:10px; padding:28px 26px 20px; } .chart-panel .panel-label{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-weight:700; font-size:11.5px; color:var(--muted); text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.08em; margin-bottom:14px; display:flex; justify-content:space-between; align-items:center; gap:12px; } .chart-panel .panel-label .n{ color:var(--peach-2); white-space:nowrap; } .chart-canvas-wrap{ position:relative; } .chart-canvas-wrap canvas{ max-width:100%; } .chart-canvas-wrap.donut{ max-width:320px; margin:0 auto; } .chart-canvas-wrap.bar{ max-width:100%; } .legend-custom{ display:flex; flex-wrap:wrap; gap:10px 20px; margin-top:18px; padding-top:16px; border-top:1px solid var(--rule); font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:12.5px; font-weight:600; } .legend-custom .item{ display:flex; align-items:center; gap:8px; color:var(--muted); } .legend-custom .swatch{ width:9px; height:9px; border-radius:2px; } .legend-custom .val{ color:var(--text); } .two-col{ display:grid; grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr; gap:40px; align-items:start; } .two-col > *{ min-width:0; } @media (max-width:760px){ .two-col{ grid-template-columns:1fr; } } .pull{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:20px; line-height:1.5; color:var(--peach); border-left:3px solid var(--peach); padding-left:22px; margin:30px 0; text-transform:none; } .stat-strip{ display:grid; grid-template-columns:repeat(3,1fr); gap:0; border-top:1px solid var(--rule); border-bottom:1px solid var(--rule); margin:20px 0 0; } .stat-strip .cell{ padding:26px 22px; border-left:1px solid var(--rule); } .stat-strip .cell:first-child{ border-left:none; } .stat-strip .num{ font-family:'Barlow',sans-serif; font-size:clamp(1.8rem,4vw,2.6rem); color:var(--peach); line-height:1; } .stat-strip .lbl{ font-size:13px; color:var(--muted); margin-top:8px; line-height:1.4; font-weight:500; } @media (max-width:640px){ .stat-strip{ grid-template-columns:1fr; } .stat-strip .cell{ border-left:none; border-top:1px solid var(--rule); } .stat-strip .cell:first-child{ border-top:none; } } footer{ border-top:1px solid var(--rule); padding:56px 24px 60px; text-align:center; } footer .eyebrow{ margin-bottom:10px; } footer h3{ font-size:18px; color:var(--peach); text-transform:uppercase; } footer p{ color:var(--muted); font-size:14px; max-width:480px; margin:10px auto 0; line-height:1.6; } /* ---------- Decorative background animation ---------- */ .bg-anim{ position:fixed; inset:0; z-index:0; pointer-events:none; overflow:hidden; } .bg-anim svg{ width:100%; height:100%; display:block; } .bg-anim .ring-group{ transform-origin:1150px 250px; animation:bg-rotate 240s linear infinite; } .bg-anim .ring-group.reverse{ transform-origin:220px 1050px; animation:bg-rotate-rev 300s linear infinite; } .bg-anim .node{ animation:bg-pulse 7s ease-in-out infinite; transform-box:fill-box; transform-origin:center; } .bg-anim .link{ stroke-dasharray:6 10; animation:bg-flow 60s linear infinite, bg-fade 9s ease-in-out infinite; } @keyframes bg-rotate{ from{ transform:rotate(0deg); } to{ transform:rotate(360deg); } } @keyframes bg-rotate-rev{ from{ transform:rotate(0deg); } to{ transform:rotate(-360deg); } } @keyframes bg-pulse{ 0%,100%{ opacity:.22; transform:scale(1); } 50%{ opacity:.55; transform:scale(1.4); } } @keyframes bg-fade{ 0%,100%{ opacity:.08; } 50%{ opacity:.22; } } @keyframes bg-flow{ to{ stroke-dashoffset:-320; } } main, footer, .hero, .intro{ position:relative; z-index:1; } @media (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce){ .scroll-cue .line{ animation:none !important; } .bg-anim .ring-group, .bg-anim .ring-group.reverse, .bg-anim .node, .bg-anim .link{ animation:none !important; } } Pulse Survey Series The New World Order The old system is fracturing — and no clear successor is in sight. Findings from Al Habtoor Research Centre. Read the findings The international system is undergoing one of its most significant periods of transformation since the end of the Cold War. Intensifying geopolitical competition, prolonged armed conflicts, growing tension between major powers, and mounting criticism of international institutions have all raised fundamental questions about the future of global governance. As confidence in the post-1945 order declines, debates over multipolarity, the effectiveness of multilateral cooperation, and the legitimacy of international organizations have moved to the center of global political discourse. This Pulse survey examines how the public reads that shift — their trust in institutions, their view of recent great-power behaviour, and their expectations for who, if anyone, leads next. 87%say Trump's positions have hurt international bodies 75%see multilateral cooperation as weaker than a decade ago 43%expect a multipolar world of major powers Confidence in institutions has collapsed 56.5%say bodies like the UN, WHO and World Bank are no longer as reliable as they once were Only 4.3% of respondents still describe these institutions as trustworthy and dependable. A further 39.1% express just moderate confidence — a qualified trust that, combined with outright distrust, means 96% of respondents now hold some degree of reservation about the institutions built to anchor the post-war order. International institutions derive their effectiveness from broad public confidence in their impartiality. When that confidence is this thin, it points to a legitimacy challenge rather than a passing mood — and it sets the baseline against which future Pulse surveys will track whether the erosion is cyclical or structural. How much confidence do you currently have in international institutions? The "Trump effect" reads as corrosive, not neutral 87%view Donald Trump's recent positions as a negative influence on international institutions Positive, neutral, and unsure responses are essentially tied at 4.3% each — a rare degree of consensus in an otherwise divided survey. Respondents appear to read the "Trump effect" as more than disagreement with one leader: when the world's most influential power openly questions or selectively engages with international institutions, it creates permission for other states to do the same. Over time, that dynamic risks weakening respect for international law, reducing compliance with multilateral rules, and accelerating the fragmentation of the global governance system this survey documents throughout. How do you view recent Trump positions on international institutions? No successor to the current order is in sight 43.5%believe no clear leader will shape global governance in the years ahead Emerging powers are the next most likely candidate at 29%, while the United States (13%) and regional coalitions (14.5%) trail closely behind — essentially split. Rather than a single successor to the current order, respondents anticipate a diffusion of influence. The absence of a dominant choice suggests people don't expect a straightforward handover from one hegemon to the next, but a more fluid, contested environment where power is dispersed among multiple actors without a universally accepted leader. Who is most likely to shape global governance in the future? A decade-long slide in multilateral cooperation 75.4%say multilateral cooperation is weaker today than a decade ago Only 8.7% believe it has strengthened; 15.9% see it as roughly unchanged. This perception reinforces the broader narrative running through the survey: a system seen as increasingly fragmented and less able to coordinate collective action — on security, public health, climate, or economic governance. If this view persists, it may further erode public expectations that international institutions can manage the next global crisis. Cooperation vs. a decade ago Multipolarity is the expected — not the feared — outcome 43.5%expect power distributed among several major states; another 36.2% expect regional coalitions to lead instead Together, multipolar and coalition-led futures account for close to four-fifths of all responses. Just 17.4% remain unsure, while a return to unipolarity (2.9%) draws only marginal support. The post–Cold War unipolar moment, in the public's view, is ending — not in favour of a new single power, but of a system with multiple centres of influence and greater reliance on flexible coalitions. Which future model of global order is most realistic? "Respondents don't simply believe the existing order is weakening — they expect the emerging one to be more fragmented, more competitive, and less predictable." Managing diffusion, not replacing a hegemon Taken together, the five findings point to one conclusion: the challenge for global governance in the coming years is less about which power replaces the last one, and more about managing a world where power is increasingly diffused across multiple, uncoordinated actors — with public trust in the referee institutions already running low. Pulse Survey Series Al Habtoor Research Centre Figures reflect the share of respondents selecting each response option and may not sum to 100% due to rounding. function initCharts(){ Chart.defaults.font.family = "'Barlow', sans-serif"; Chart.defaults.color = '#D9A793'; const palette = { rank1:'#7B1315', rank2:'#994238', rank3:'#D07465', rank4:'#F09988' }; function tooltipBase(){ return { backgroundColor:'#3A0909', borderColor:'rgba(242,198,176,0.4)', borderWidth:1, titleFont:{family:"'Barlow', sans-serif", size:11, weight:700}, bodyFont:{family:"'Barlow', sans-serif", size:13}, padding:10, displayColors:true }; } function donutTooltip(){ return Object.assign(tooltipBase(), { callbacks:{ label:(ctx)=> ` ${ctx.label}: ${ctx.parsed}%` } }); } function barTooltip(){ return Object.assign(tooltipBase(), { callbacks:{ label:(ctx)=> ` ${ctx.label}: ${ctx.parsed.x}%` } }); } function buildLegend(canvasId, labels, data, colors){ const panel = document.getElementById(canvasId).closest('.chart-panel'); const legend = document.createElement('div'); legend.className = 'legend-custom'; labels.forEach((label,i)=>{ const item = document.createElement('div'); item.className = 'item'; item.innerHTML = `${label} ${data[i]}%`; legend.appendChild(item); }); panel.appendChild(legend); } // Chart 1 — Confidence in institutions (()=>{ const labels=['No confidence','Moderate confidence','Confident & trustworthy']; const data=[56.5,39.1,4.3]; const colors=[palette.rank1, palette.rank2, palette.rank3]; new Chart(document.getElementById('chart1'), { type:'doughnut', data:{ labels, datasets:[{ data, backgroundColor:colors, borderColor:'#3A0909', borderWidth:3, hoverOffset:10 }] }, options:{ cutout:'68%', plugins:{ legend:{display:false}, tooltip:donutTooltip() } } }); buildLegend('chart1', labels, data, colors); })(); // Chart 2 — Trump effect (()=>{ const labels=['Negative impact','Positive impact','Neutral impact','Not sure']; const data=[87,4.3,4.3,4.3]; const colors=[palette.rank1, palette.rank2, palette.rank3, palette.rank4]; new Chart(document.getElementById('chart2'), { type:'doughnut', data:{ labels, datasets:[{ data, backgroundColor:colors, borderColor:'#3A0909', borderWidth:3, hoverOffset:10 }] }, options:{ cutout:'68%', plugins:{ legend:{display:false}, tooltip:donutTooltip() } } }); buildLegend('chart2', labels, data, colors); })(); // Chart 3 — Who shapes global governance (horizontal bar) (()=>{ const labels=['No clear leader','Emerging powers','Regional coalitions','The United States']; const data=[43.5,29,14.5,13]; const colors=[palette.rank1, palette.rank2, palette.rank3, palette.rank4]; new Chart(document.getElementById('chart3'), { type:'bar', data:{ labels, datasets:[{ data, backgroundColor:colors, borderRadius:4, barThickness:26 }] }, options:{ indexAxis:'y', maintainAspectRatio:false, plugins:{ legend:{display:false}, tooltip:barTooltip() }, scales:{ x:{ max:50, grid:{color:'rgba(242,198,176,0.12)'}, ticks:{callback:(v)=>v+'%'} }, y:{ grid:{display:false} } } } }); })(); // Chart 4 — Cooperation trend (()=>{ const labels=['Weaker','About the same','Stronger']; const data=[75.4,15.9,8.7]; const colors=[palette.rank1, palette.rank2, palette.rank3]; new Chart(document.getElementById('chart4'), { type:'doughnut', data:{ labels, datasets:[{ data, backgroundColor:colors, borderColor:'#2A0808', borderWidth:3, hoverOffset:10 }] }, options:{ cutout:'68%', plugins:{ legend:{display:false}, tooltip:donutTooltip() } } }); buildLegend('chart4', labels, data, colors); })(); // Chart 5 — Future model of order (()=>{ const labels=['Multipolar world','Regional coalitions','Not sure','Return to unipolarity']; const data=[43.5,36.2,17.4,2.9]; const colors=[palette.rank1, palette.rank2, palette.rank3, palette.rank4]; new Chart(document.getElementById('chart5'), { type:'bar', data:{ labels, datasets:[{ data, backgroundColor:colors, borderRadius:4, barThickness:22 }] }, options:{ indexAxis:'y', maintainAspectRatio:false, plugins:{ legend:{display:false}, tooltip:barTooltip() }, scales:{ x:{ max:50, grid:{color:'rgba(242,198,176,0.12)'}, ticks:{callback:(v)=>v+'%'} }, y:{ grid:{display:false} } } } }); })(); } if (typeof Chart !== 'undefined') { initCharts(); } else { window.addEventListener('chartjs-ready', initCharts); }

What if the sea lanes were no longer free? For seventy years, the assumption that ships pass through the world's strategic straits without permission, payment, or political approval has underpinned global trade so completely that it was rarely stated, let alone defended. In 2026, that assumption stopped being safe. In one of the world's most critical waterways, passage is now vetted, priced, and rationed by political alignment. At another, a price for safe transit has been openly announced. Along the polar routes, permits and fees are already the law, and older managed regimes are quietly expanding. These are not isolated crises. Taken together, they form the early signal of something larger: the transformation of maritime chokepoints from global commons into sovereign assets, and with it, the quiet repricing of the geography on which world trade depends.