Good morning everyone,

_{Christmas Note: The Atlas team will be out of office tomorrow and will resume the weekly publications with (A)Political on Saturday. Merry Christmas!}

I’m Daniel, and welcome to Table Stakes!

Here’s a look at today’s topics:

• Panama takes notice that Trump might actually take back the Panama Canal

• Putin gave his annual talk on Russia’s state of affairs

• China & India are back at the negotiating table for their border dispute

Panama Takes Notice

_{By: Timothy Spencer, Geopolitical Analyst & Fellow for Atlas}

Former President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States regain sole control of the Panama Canal. In a post on Truth Social, Trump accused Panama of imposing unfair transit fees on U.S. vessels and hinted at taking action to prevent the canal from falling under foreign influence, particularly China. During a Turning Point USA conference in Phoenix on Sunday evening, Trump stated he would not allow the canal to be mismanaged, suggesting it was a matter of U.S. national security. Following the event, Trump shared an image of an American flag flying over a canal-like scene with the caption, "Welcome to the United States Canal!"

The Panama Canal, constructed by the United States beginning in 1904 under President Theodore Roosevelt, was transferred to Panamanian control through the Torrijos-Carter Treaties signed in 1977. Full governance of the canal was handed over to Panama in 1999. Before this transfer, the U.S. launched "Operation Just Cause" in 1989, deploying approximately 27,000 troops, 300 aircraft, and 26 warships to overthrow Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. The operation was aimed at restoring democratic governance and securing the stability of the canal, ultimately leading to Noriega's extradition and prosecution in the United States.

In response to Trump's comments, Panamanian President Ricardo Mulino issued a recorded statement affirming Panama's sovereignty over the canal and denying any Chinese influence in its administration. He also defended the current toll structure, asserting that fees were calculated relatively and not arbitrarily. President Mulino stated on X (formerly Twitter), "Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its surrounding territory belongs to Panama and will remain so." Trump replied, "We'll see about that."

Approximately 40% of U.S. container traffic passes through the Panama Canal. While it is unclear how he might attempt to reclaim control of the canal, there is plenty of power under the Executive Branch to launch a military operation if Trump wants to.

President Putin Gives Russian “State of the Union”

_{By: Ciaran Brownlee, Geopolitical Analyst & Intern for Atlas}

President Vladimir Putin’s annual “Direct Line” on December 19, 2024, provided insights into Russia’s stance on critical domestic and international issues. During the nearly four-hour session, Putin addressed topics including Ukraine, Russia’s relations with the West, the economy, and the Middle East. Below are the key takeaways from his comments:

Ukraine

Putin highlighted what he described as significant progress by Russian forces, claiming they secured over 189 localities this year. He emphasized that Russian forces are actively driving Ukrainian troops out of the Kursk region, asserting that any territory Ukrainian forces retreat into will be untenable for them.

Putin framed the conflict as one against NATO countries collectively and declared Russia’s military readiness as unmatched globally. He referenced the development of the “Oreshnik” missile system, dismissing anti-missile systems in Poland as ineffective against it. Reflecting on the “Special Military Operation,” Putin remarked that it should have commenced earlier with better preparation.

Despite the prolonged conflict— just now reaching in the 4 digit range for number of days since the invasion, far exceeding the initially claimed three-day timeline—Putin expressed conditional openness to peace talks. However, he ruled out a ceasefire, suggesting it would merely allow Ukrainian forces to regroup. Any peace settlement, he stated, must ensure Russia’s long-term security and reflect the current territorial gains. He also noted he would engage in discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky only if Zelensky holds elections and reestablishes legitimacy.

Relations with the West

Putin criticized the West for using sanctions to stifle Russia’s economic growth, accusing them of fearing competition. He expressed readiness to engage with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump at any time. Putin also accused Western countries of hypocrisy, citing their lack of condemnation for what he termed a “terrorist act” by Ukraine against Lt. Gen. Kirillov, the head of Russia’s NBC troops.

Commenting on U.S. domestic matters, Putin referenced President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, suggesting it reflected Biden’s humanity over political acumen. On NATO, Putin claimed Russia is prepared for a “technological duel” with the alliance, stating that Kyiv serves as a testing ground for Russia’s “Oreshnik” system. Despite asserting economic resilience, he acknowledged challenges such as inflation and the risk of overheating, while emphasizing Russia’s financial stability. Notably, the Russian Ruble is currently at a two-year low, trading at 0.0096 USD.

Middle East

Turning to Syria, Putin rejected the notion of Russian defeat, stating the intervention prevented the emergence of a terrorist enclave. He claimed Russia’s goals in Syria have largely been achieved. However, he acknowledged ongoing challenges, including reports that 350 HTS militants captured Aleppo and that 30,000 pro-Iranian units withdrew without resistance.

Regarding Israel, Putin criticized its actions in Gaza and condemned its broader influence in the Middle East. He described Israel as the primary beneficiary of the conflict in Syria and expressed puzzlement over its strategy in Gaza. While Putin has yet to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad following Assad’s arrival in Russia, he indicated plans to do so in the future.

The Lesser Known Border Debate

_{By: Daniel Murrah, Staff Writer for Atlas}

In a crucial step toward alliance-building, Beijing and New Delhi have reopened discussions regarding a decades-long border dispute along the Himalayas. The conflict, which erupted into a skirmish in 2020 that caused casualties on both sides, began in 1958 and focuses on the Aksai Chin (administered by China, claimed by India) and Arunachal Pradesh (administered by India, claimed by China) regions. This warming of relations has massive implications for the emerging global strategies of both India and the United States.

The Origin of the Conflict

The Sino-Indian border dispute goes all the way back to 1950, when China began its occupation of Tibet. While Chinese control over Tibet was long disputed, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, despite reservations from his ministers, signed the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954, which referred to Tibet as “the Tibet region of China,” effectively conceding sovereignty over the region.

Since then, the lack of a mutually accepted border between the two nations has caused countless disruptions. In 1962, the Sino-Indian war began, and although a ceasefire was reached just a month later, the ceasefire was broken less than a month after that. After skirmishes in 1975 and 1987, the conflict reached a stalemate until a 2017 standoff which set the stage for a deadly confrontation in 2020.

A New Strategy

Understanding the sudden mutual desire to resolve this conflict requires a wealth of context.

First, it’s important to recognize India’s policy of non-alignment. Throughout history, India has refused to take sides on some of the most important issues, such as the Cold War, de-dollarization, and the Russo-Ukrainian war. India will partner with countries in select circumstances, but only when it benefits their own interests.

Meanwhile, the United States has been pursuing a newer strategy toward an expanding India. This policy, known as the tripolar strategy, aims to allow and encourage India become a third global superpower to balance the US-China competition. The idea here is that due to India’s location and geopolitical situation, India becoming a third superpower would hurt China much more than it hurts the US. For more on this strategy and the risks it carries for American hegemony, read this great piece from Foreign Affairs Magazine’s Manjari Chatterjee Miller.

Thus, it seems, there may be a perfectly understandable reason for China and India to warm up to each other a bit. That is, if the US is okay with India becoming a superpower, India still has no reason to align itself with the US and China has every reason to facilitate cooperation with India as a result. After all, successful strategic and military cooperation isn’t really possible in the midst of an armed border dispute. And India has never given us a reason to trust that it will stay loyal to the West. This very well could be step one in a Sino-Indian strategy to take advantage of Washington’s lenience.

The United States ought to watch the situation very closely. While it may seem insignificant now, the consequences of an Indian superpower teaming up with China would be devastating for the future of US influence, and consequently Western values entirely.

Stories you may have missed.

• American F/A-18 jet shot down in “friendly-fire” incident

• Seven Chinese Nationals arrested in Guam for trespassing during missile test

• New deal struck by SpaceX sees return of astronauts to the ISS

Interested in more from Atlas?

We are a team of intelligence professionals and technology entrepreneurs. We are on the path to make open-source intelligence, open source. If you want to be updated on our progress, subscribe to our update email list below.

If you'd like to get involved with Atlas, please contact us with your experience or ideas. If you're a solid fit, we'll be in touch.

Advertise with us || Contact Us

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2024 Atlas.1A