UAE and India agreements and their impact on South Asia and the Middle East. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 20 January 2026.

 UAE and India agreements and their impact on South Asia and the Middle East. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 20 January 2026.

The brief but highly substantive visit of UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed to India signals a strategic deepening of India–Gulf relations at a time of exceptional regional volatility. Its implications extend well beyond bilateral ties and will be felt across South Asia, the Middle East, and adjacent geopolitical theatres.

1. Strategic Realignment in the Middle East

The UAE–India partnership reflects a quiet but decisive shift in Gulf geopolitics:

·       The UAE is diversifying its strategic partnerships beyond traditional reliance on the United States.

 

·       India is emerging as a trusted, non-ideological partner—economically powerful, politically stable, and militarily capable without being overtly interventionist.

 

·       This strengthens a new axis: UAE–India (with Israel in the background through the Abraham Accords), reshaping West Asian power equations.

This alignment reduces the space for Pakistan’s traditional diplomatic leverage in the Gulf, which historically rested on religious affinity rather than economic or technological value.

2. Implications for Pakistan and South Asia

a. Pakistan’s Strategic Marginalisation

·       The UAE’s expanding defence, nuclear, and space cooperation with India highlights Pakistan’s declining relevance in Gulf strategic thinking.

 

·       Gulf states increasingly prioritise economic stability and technological partnership over ideological or religious solidarity.

• Pakistan’s internal instability, economic dependence, and militant legacy contrast sharply with India’s market size and predictability.

This does not mean hostility toward Pakistan, but it does mean reduced strategic indulgence.

b. Kashmir Narrative Weakens Further

·       The UAE has already demonstrated reluctance to internationalise Kashmir.

 

·       Closer UAE–India relations further dilute Pakistan’s ability to mobilise Gulf support on Kashmir.

 

·       Gulf capitals now see Kashmir primarily as a bilateral India–Pakistan issue, not a pan-Islamic cause.

3. Energy and Economic Consequences for South Asia

·       India securing long-term LNG supplies from the UAE strengthens its energy security, insulating it from Middle Eastern shocks.

 

·       This enhances India’s economic resilience relative to Pakistan, which remains energy-vulnerable and debt-dependent.

• The proposed $200 billion trade target by 2032 positions India as a central economic node linking South Asia to the Gulf.

This could gradually transform India into the economic gateway between the Middle East and South Asia.

4. Iran Factor: Strategic Balancing, Not Confrontation

·       Both India and the UAE maintain important ties with Iran but are increasingly constrained by US sanctions and regional instability.

The UAE–India coordination allows both to hedge:

·       Maintaining limited engagement with Iran

·       While reducing over-dependence on Tehran

• For Iran, this is a warning sign of strategic isolation, particularly if Gulf states quietly align with India, Israel, and Western interests.

However, neither India nor the UAE seeks open confrontation with Iran.

5. Gaza, Yemen, and Regional Conflict Management

·       The discussions on Gaza and Yemen indicate India’s growing diplomatic footprint in West Asian conflict management.

 

·       India’s invitation to Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” reflects its new image as a responsible global stakeholder, even if New Delhi remains cautious.

• UAE–India coordination may encourage pragmatic de-escalation, not ideological positioning.

This marks a shift from emotional politics to transactional diplomacy.

6. Decline of Ideological Politics in the Muslim World

One of the most significant long-term impacts is ideological:

·       Gulf states are moving away from political Islam and jihad-centric narratives.

 

·       Security, trade, technology, and stability now define partnerships.

• India, despite being a Hindu-majority state, is treated as a legitimate and valued partner, undermining claims that global politics is driven by religious blocs.

This shift directly challenges narratives promoted by extremist groups and some state actors in South Asia.

7. Strategic Message to the United States and China

·       For Washington, UAE–India ties align broadly with US interests but also show Gulf states asserting greater autonomy.

 

·       For China, India’s growing role in the Gulf counters Beijing’s Belt and Road influence and complicates China–Pakistan strategic designs.

South Asia is no longer a peripheral theatre—it is increasingly linked to Middle Eastern stability.

Conclusion

The UAE President’s visit to India is not ceremonial. It represents:

• A recalibration of Middle Eastern alliances
• India’s rise as a key West Asian partner
• Pakistan’s relative diplomatic decline
• The erosion of theology-driven geopolitics
• A move toward a pragmatic, economy-first regional order

For South Asia and the Middle East alike, this signals a future shaped less by slogans and more by power, stability, and strategic value.

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

 

Greenland: France to Occupy the Island to Fight Trump’s Takeover Ambitions? Peter Koenig.

 Greenland: France to Occupy the Island to Fight Trump’s Takeover Ambitions? Peter Koenig.

 

“The Gallic cock has crowed that, if the sovereignty of Denmark is affected, the consequences would be unprecedented. Ooh, what will they do?! Kidnap POTUS? [ President of the United States] Nuke the US? Course not. They’ll just sh*t their pants and give up Greenland. And that would be a great European precedent.” – Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

French President Macron has announced he is moving troops to Greenland, to defend the autonomous Island and its owner, the Kingdom of Denmark, in case President Trump would attempt to take over Greenland.

 

It looks like other EU countries have done or are planning to do likewise, but they are not bragging about it as Macron does.

 

The world, the Western world, that is, could not become more ridiculous than that. Macron, a half-baked President of a half-baked country, threatens to attack, as in using weaponry against the US of A’s military? One or several European NATO member(s) – as divided as they are, the EU and its proxy, the European NATO — would dare to attack NATO’s “father” the United States?

 

Is this going to evolve into a conflict, as in one or more NATO countries against another NATO country, or several G7 members against another G7? Western absurdity seems limitless. George Orwell could have learned a lesson.

 

Would maybe Macron dare to nuke the Pentagon forces? Former Russian President Medvedev is probably not far from the truth by saying, “They’ll just sh*t their pants and give up Greenland.”

The French President did not say how many troops, warships, warplanes, vehicles, tanks, guns, he would send to Greenland. But he did say that

“French land, sea, and air forces are heading for Greenland to rebuff threats of annexation by the US and that he would stand alongside the Danish dependency.”

See this for more details.

Why does Macron make such nonsensical statements? Does he want to scare Trump, impress the French people and scare all of Europe – and the world, over a possibly French-induced WWIII – in defence of Greenland’s autonomy? European “leaders” (sic) like Macron are increasingly seen as a big joke.

 

Well, Trump has already responded. It appears that eight (8) EU countries are “fiercely” against the US takeover of Greenland. They include Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. Trump has declared on his TruthSocial platform that as of 1 February 2026 a 10% import tax will be levied on imports of all merchandise from these countries. And if the “resistance” persists, the tax will increase to 25% by 1 June 2026. This is in addition to the 15% general import taxes Trump has decreed for goods from the EU, a tariff already applied.

See this and this.

 

Nobody, of course, likes King Trump’s expansionist aspirations, especially when Denmark’s Prime Minister says, “Greenland is not for sale”, and Greenlanders want to keep their autonomy.

 

However, Denmark’s opposition to a US takeover might be seen as “the bark is worse than the bite.” After all, during WWII, after German occupation of Denmark in April 1940, the Danish Ambassador to the United States agreed “In the name of the King” with the United States, authorising the US to “defend the Danish colonies on Greenland from German aggression.”

This led to the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement and the creation of the Thule US air base, which was a joint US-Danish operation in Thule, the northwestern tip of Greenland. Meaning that the base was – maybe still is – flying the US and the Danish flag. The agreement also granted the US the right to expand its military presence in Greenland far beyond World War II – as we all know, up to this day and likely much longer. Nobody in Denmark has even insinuated that the US base should be evacuated.

 

To the contrary, in April 2023, the Thule base was moved just a few kilometres east to Greenland’s mainland (still considered the northwestern tip of Greenland) and renamed to Pituffik Space Base. All with the agreement of Denmark. And this, while President Trump’s Greenland aspirations were known since his first term in 2017-2021. These recent developments indicate that Denmark is basically happy with the US presence on its territory, i.e., in Greenland, probably for the same reasons of European-style fear: The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.

Hence, the current Danish bark may indeed be worse than her bite.

 

How strong are the ties between Greenland and Mother Denmark? A 2025 poll indicated a majority of 84% of Greenlanders would support independence from Denmark, with 9% opposing. The total population of Greenland is about 55,700 (2025).

 

According to a January 2025 poll, after Trump declared that Greenland should belong to the US for “national security” reasons, 85% of Greenlanders do not want to become part of the United States.

 

Now, this could possibly change with a “little help” through money-flowing. Nowadays, in our ultra-capitalist, materialistic world, where ethics, virtues and moral principles are trampled on the ground, when dollar bills are held up as an incentive – a lot, if not all is possible. The Trump administration had already indicated that perhaps US$ 10,000 per citizen, a bit more for some, and maybe a lot more for some stubborn politicians – a million or two? — might turn the dream of Greenland’s sovereignty around.

 

Say with an average per person payout of some US$ 50,000 (a wild guess), the total cost for this huge, highly strategic and resources-rich island would be about US$ 2.8 to US$ 3 billion. And adding another few billion for the Danish Kingdom, covertly, of course, could possibly buy this jewel of an island for the US for something like US$ 10 to 20 billion? That’s peanuts for the master of fabricating dollar “wealth” – or national debt, never to be repaid to anyone but the US herself, an illusionary debt.

 

Besides, any “armed conflict” to take over Greenland would cost the US considerably more than 20  billion, plus a lot of blood, on both sides.

 

Now, there appears to be some opposition in the US public as well as in Congress to Trump’s expansionist dreams. But how long will that last, when all the benefits of Greenland, Venezuela, and others to come, are publicly explained and propagated in full colour?

 

We are living in a wild, wild, chaotic world. Of course, hardly anybody would seriously like to see Trump’s empire expansion, absorbing Greenland, Venezuela, and, who knows, how many more Western Hemisphere countries may be on the list. Yet, as things go, Greenland may become the 51^st State before Canada does. How is that for a step-by-step New World Order?

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

 

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greenland-france-occupy-fight-trump-takeover-ambitions/5912685

 

Greenland, NATO and the End of Hegemonic Restraint- A Response. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 16 January 2026, London.

 Greenland, NATO and the End of Hegemonic Restraint- A Response

Dr Shabir Choudhry, 16 January 2026, London.

Recent commentary on NATO’s future, particularly the argument that the Alliance may collapse not through American withdrawal but through American coercion, has struck a nerve across Europe and beyond. An article by Uriel Araujo, published on InfoBrics, has forcefully articulated this anxiety by focusing on President Donald Trump’s renewed fixation on Greenland. This response does not dispute the seriousness of that warning. Rather, it seeks to situate it within a wider historical and geopolitical context and to extend its implications far beyond the Euro-Atlantic space.

The Greenland debate is not merely about the Arctic, nor is it simply about Trump’s personality. It is about the erosion of hegemonic restraint—the unwritten but vital principle that the leading power in an alliance must voluntarily limit its own behaviour if collective security is to remain credible. Once that restraint disappears, alliances do not fail because they are weak, but because they are rendered meaningless.

NATO’s Crisis from Within

Araujo is right to argue that NATO’s greatest danger today does not come from Moscow, but from within the Alliance itself. NATO was conceived as a system of collective defence against external threats. Article 5 presumes clarity: an aggressor exists outside the alliance, and members unite against it. This logic collapses the moment the leading power openly threatens the territory of an ally.

If the United States were to coerce, intimidate, or even contemplate the acquisition of Greenland against Denmark’s will, NATO would face an unprecedented dilemma. Whom does the Alliance defend when the threat emanates from its own hegemon? In such circumstances, Article 5 becomes conceptually absurd. The Alliance may continue to exist on paper, but its moral and strategic foundations would already have disintegrated.

This is why European alarm should not be dismissed as hysteria. Emergency consultations, discussions of Arctic contingencies, and debates about strategic autonomy are rational responses to a scenario that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. NATO’s cohesion, it turns out, has always depended less on shared values than on American self-restraint.

Trump and the Myth of Isolationism

The Greenland episode also exposes the persistent misunderstanding of Trump as an isolationist. As Araujo correctly notes, Trump’s record points in the opposite direction. During his first term, the United States expanded aerial warfare, relaxed constraints on drone strikes, and lowered the threshold for the use of force outside declared war zones. Rather than retreating, Washington recalibrated its interventionism.

“America First” was never a doctrine of withdrawal. It was a doctrine of unilateralism—one that rejected constraints imposed by allies, institutions, or norms. In this sense, Trump represents not a break from American power, but a more naked expression of it. His willingness to speak openly about annexations, protectorates, and direct control strips away the liberal language that once masked imperial behaviour.

The Arctic, with its resources, shipping routes, and strategic geography, has become a testing ground for this unrestrained posture. Greenland is not an aberration; it is a symptom.

From Alliance Leadership to Imperial Logic

What makes the Greenland question so destabilising is that it signals a shift from alliance leadership to imperial logic. Alliances presuppose consent, mutual reassurance, and predictability. Empires rely on hierarchy, coercion, and obedience. These two logics cannot coexist indefinitely.

If allies are treated as subordinates and their sovereignty is conditional, the distinction between friend and foe dissolves. Security guarantees lose credibility, not because they are withdrawn, but because they become arbitrary. This is precisely the condition under which alliances decay—not through dramatic exits, but through internal corrosion.

Araujo is also right to situate this crisis within NATO’s pre-existing contradictions. The Alliance has long accommodated incompatible strategic priorities, selective interpretations of shared values, and unresolved internal disputes. The so-called “Trump factor” does not create these problems; it accelerates them and brings them into the open.

Beyond Europe: The Global Implications

Where this response diverges most strongly from the original article is in its geographical scope. The consequences of NATO’s internal crisis are not confined to Europe or the Arctic. They reverberate across the Global South, where international norms are already fragile and selectively applied.

When the leading power of the Western alliance openly contemplates violating the sovereignty of its own allies, it sends a powerful message: rules apply only when convenient. For regions such as South Asia, this has immediate implications. Territorial disputes harden, bilateralism is normalised, and appeals to international law lose force.

In Kashmir, for example, the erosion of normative restraint strengthens the hand of those who argue that power, not legality or self-determination, determines outcomes. If alliances themselves become instruments of coercion, there is little reason for weaker peoples to expect protection from international principles. What happens in Greenland, therefore, matters profoundly in places far removed from the Arctic Circle.

Multipolar Disorder, Not Multipolar Order

The deeper issue exposed by the Greenland debate is the illusion of an emerging “multipolar order.” What we are witnessing instead is multipolar disorder: a system in which power is increasingly fragmented, norms are eroding, and institutions persist without the moral authority that once sustained them.

In such a world, hegemonic restraint is not replaced by shared governance, but by competitive assertiveness. The result is not balance, but instability. Alliances become brittle, international law becomes rhetorical, and weaker actors are left exposed.

NATO’s predicament is thus emblematic of a broader global condition. Its potential unravelling from within reflects a crisis of leadership and legitimacy at the heart of the international system.

Conclusion: Greenland as a Mirror

Uriel Araujo’s article is valuable precisely because it forces a confrontation with an uncomfortable possibility: that the greatest threat to NATO may come not from its adversaries, but from the unchecked behaviour of its dominant member. This response agrees with that diagnosis, but extends it.

Greenland is not simply an Arctic dispute. It is a mirror reflecting the end of hegemonic restraint and the hollowing out of alliance logic. Whether or not the most extreme scenarios materialise, the damage is already visible in the erosion of trust, the normalisation of coercion, and the weakening of norms that once claimed universality.

The question, therefore, is not merely whether Trump will “kill NATO.” It is whether any alliance—or any international order—can survive when power is exercised without restraint and sovereignty becomes negotiable. The answer to that question will shape not only Europe’s future, but also the fate of contested regions and vulnerable peoples worldwide. End