Since donning the mantle of authority, President Putin has taken actions which have uninhibitedly been geared at reasserting Russia’s hegemony around the world. Putin’s Look East policy stems from his schematic geopolitics, a plan which was formally announced in 2010. Through the prism of Putin’s Look East policy, the paper contextually analyses Russia–South Asia relations, with reference to India and Pakistan. By cross-examining Russia’s official foreign policy documents, the paper establishes why South Asia is paramount to Russia’s economic and geostrategic reassertion. Every new policy has its challenges, and the same holds true for the Look East policy vis-à-vis South Asia. Premised on the unfolding geopolitics in the region, the paper surmises that striking a balance between New Delhi and Islamabad will be problematic for Moscow, just as it has always been for Washington.

Competition amongst great powers is not new in international politics. It has traditionally been the driving force for the creation and collapse of empires and states. In the 19th–20th centuries, the British Empire established its dominion in the world over and maintained an uncontested global supremacy. To secure Britain’s global dominance, in 1904, Sir Halford Mackinder dazed the world with his heartland theory. Ever since then, the theory remains one of the most discussed geopolitical theories. The article does not pretend or oblivious of the heaps of criticism Mackinder’s theory has received over several decades, it nonetheless, employs the theory in the context of the contemporary international political environment, with particular reference to the happenings around the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and Arabian Sea. So therefore, the point of analysis here centres around the applicability of the theory and the implications posed by Mackinderian geographical rationalisation in formulating foreign policy around what the article considers as the contemporary pivot area – the Indian Ocean. Through the theoretical understanding of Mackinder’s thesis, the article argues that the Indian Ocean and its adjoining seas corridors and Straits are ‘pivot areas’ potential enough to generate competition amongst regional and global powers. The new ‘pivot areas’ is enormously endowed with natural resources and is the major energy highway(s), upon which global economies are dependent. The article concludes by arguing that a complex power competition (CPC) is brewing along the neo-pivot region.

Of recent, newspapers across Europe carry headlines portraying Muslim radicalism. This is true giving the complicity of Muslim youth in various violent attacks. The headlines resonate amidst the growing nationalism in Europe, deeply tainted and lanced with conservatism. The Charlie Hebdo attack equally reiterated the protracted debates on the extent to which Islam is compatible with Western ethos. The attack further brought to surface the issue of freedom of expression, an essential part of Western democracy. This raises questions such as: who determines and what constitutes the public sphere; what are the lines of distinctions between the private and public domains; should there be a level of shared respect between the majority and minority; are European Muslims an integral part of the mainstream European society; what factors shape the radicalization of European Muslim youth; does religion actually have huge space in their minds; and, how much does constructivism present and resolve the protracted debate between the European Muslim community and the host society. Radicalization of European Muslim youth is less of ideology, but more of socio-economic deprivation.

Today's Muslim world is beyond the periscope of Muslim majority societies and rather inclusive of the ever growing Muslim communities in the West. The ongoing predicaments in the Muslim societies might though be contemporary but inextricable from the bequeathed European legacies in these societies. Although, European formal administration of the Muslim world is past historical reality, nonetheless, should Europe take responsibility for the happenings in the Muslim world? In the post-Cold War era, how much similarities and dissimilarities can be drawn in the EU and the US foreign policies and actions towards the Muslims. The post 9/11 developments indicate visible signs of approaches and opinions in the EU countries towards some of the issues of the Muslim World – more so in the case of Palestine, Iraq Syria and Iran – ostensibly independent of Washington. Should the European gestures be taken as goodwill and pragmatism or other side of the coin in the US foreign policy? Would there be any degree of correlation between affairs of European Muslims and the larger Muslim societies? The need for greater mutual understanding between the EU and the Muslim countries as well as the OIC, is evident.

In recent years, the European Union (EU) has seen and grappled with a varied degree of crisis, which a few observers considered as proof of its vulnerability and at worst scenario - existential threat. As it is with every crisis, there are gainers and losers; there are those who benefit from the fallout and others who manage to turn vulnerability into opportunity and strength. The crisis surrounding the EU can be characterized along the latter context, particularly in the backdrop of rising European populism. The rise of contemporary European populism has raised many questions and generated debates. Based on its anti-EU rhetoric and growing public acceptability, populism is interpreted as EU's political nemesis. In the midst of rising European populism, the paper looks at the debates in which the EU is considered as a failing or failed project. It also explores the extent to which European populism impacts the European political landscape. The paper explores the notion of populism as an anti-EU movement, bent at dislodging and disintegrating the Union. It argues that the actions of the populist parties suggest otherwise; populist dramatization underscores EU's continuous evolution and transition instead of its disintegration.