Best of BS Opinion: Can middle powers prevent transactional geopolitics?

From the rise of transactional geopolitics to oil shock risks and Pakistan's strategic missteps, BS Opinion examines the global uncertainties shaping politics and business

Hello, and welcome to Best of BS Opinion, our wrap of the day's Opinion's page.  For decades following WW-II, the world operated on a rules-based international order. That order is now being slowly dismantled as nations pivot to a more transactional trajectory, writes Shyam Saran. Transactionalism certainly has its benefits: leverage is direct, outcomes are immediate and visible, concessions are conditional. The earlier multilateralism demanded a shared sense of humanity and solidarity; transactionalism considers these as dispensable in the pursuit of domestic interests. At a time when problems that require a globally coordinated response are on the rise - climate, cybersecurity, AI risks - the world is moving in the opposite direction. One way to reverse the trend of transactionalism is to hope for a loose coalition of nations that can craft an international movement that can lead some common action. A middle power with a degree of credibility like India could possibly cobble together such a coalition, along the lines of the erstwhile Non-Aligned Movement.  Turbulent business conditions are pushing some global companies to experiment with co-CEO structures, despite their rarity and inherent complexity, notes R Gopalakrishnan. Dual leadership can provide balance, continuity, and restraint against the risks of concentrated executive power and a collaborative structures may encourage better listening, deliberation, and institutional stability. However, they can also slow decision-making and blur accountability. Gopalakrishnan suggests that successful dual leadership depends less on formal structure than on managerial maturity, discretion, and clarity over where ultimate authority resides.  Devangshu Datta warns that the West Asia conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a major political and economic crisis in India, as earlier oil shocks have shown. This time around could see a repeat, given that our dependence on energy imports has only grown manifold, and the supply squeeze is much more severe. To make matters worse, the damage to oil-and-gas infrastructure in West Asia could keep supplies tight for years. Shortages in cooking gas, fertilisers, petrochemicals, and transport fuel - all critical to the economy - could exacerbate inflationary pressures and disrupt jobs. Emergency reserves and alternative imports offer only limited relief. A rapid shift towards electric cooking and domestic energy sources - coal and renewables - may become unavoidable to prevent fear from turning into panic.  Pakistan’s military establishment has historically excelled at tactical planning while repeatedly failing at strategic judgement, writes Shekhar Gupta. As proof, we only need study the recent Pahalgam terror attack, alongside Kargil, Pulwama, and the 1965 war - Pakistan anticipates Indian retaliation well enough to secure limited battlefield successes, but consistently misjudges India’s broader political and military response. This pattern produces short-term propaganda wins, but those ultimately deepen Pakistan’s strategic setbacks and international isolation. Gupta warns that Islamabad may now be emboldened by its own post-conflict narrative and renewed diplomatic attention, increasing the likelihood of further provocation and miscalculation.