Cape Town became the unlikely epicenter of a quiet but consequential shift in global energy politics this April, as South Africa officially launched its G20 presidency with an ambitious rethinking of energy transition strategies. Unlike the solar and wind-centric narratives that have dominated international climate forums, this moment was defined by the reassertion of nuclear energy as an indispensable pillar of future energy systems. Spearheading this effort alongside the G20 was the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), entering its second year of formal collaboration with the forum.

This partnership—first initiated under Brazil’s presidency in 2024—signals more than policy continuity. It reflects a growing international recognition that decarbonization cannot be achieved through intermittency alone, and that nuclear energy, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs), offers a resilient, dispatchable option for both industrialized and developing economies seeking sovereignty and sustainability.

Africa’s Presidency, Africa’s Priorities

South Africa’s leadership of the G20 represents not just geographic symbolism but an ideological pivot. For the first time, the G20’s clean energy narrative is being shaped by a Global South nation with both operational nuclear experience and a continent-wide view of development. Minister of Electricity and Energy Kgosientsho Ramokgopa emphasized that nuclear power is not a luxury of the elite but a strategic necessity for ensuring energy justice, energy security, and scientific progress for emerging economies.

His framing of nuclear energy as foundational for sovereignty and digital-era advancement placed the technology squarely within a developmentalist agenda—one that resonates with many African states that have begun laying nuclear groundwork in partnership with the IAEA. Egypt, for example, is building four reactors, while Ghana and Kenya are developing infrastructure with a particular focus on SMRs. These countries aren’t chasing prestige—they’re seeking stable baseload power essential for health, industry, and education.

Reframing the Nuclear Narrative: Realism Over Rhetoric

The tone of the event and subsequent discussions reflect what Ramokgopa called a “return to realism”. This pragmatism contrasts sharply with earlier decades, where nuclear energy was often sidelined due to political risk and public skepticism. Today, however, the urgency of net-zero targets and a rising distrust in overpromised renewable timelines have created space for a more balanced dialogue.

Countries like Italy and the United Arab Emirates offered telling endorsements. Italy is restructuring its domestic policy to reintroduce nuclear via advanced modular reactors and a new regulatory framework, while the UAE’s Barakah plant—already powering a quarter of the country’s electricity grid—was highlighted as a case study in successful deployment. These examples point to a geopolitical shift: nuclear energy is being reframed not just as a tool of decarbonization, but of state resilience.

Money Talks: The Cost of Clean Energy Credibility

Despite growing enthusiasm, financing remains the Achilles’ heel of nuclear deployment. This issue was addressed directly in a dedicated session on project financing, featuring input from the IAEA, International Energy Agency, and G20 country delegates. Beyond technology, the central barrier is confidence: investors need assurance that nuclear projects will be delivered on time, on budget, and with sufficient political support to weather multi-decade horizons.

This is particularly acute for developing countries, where capital costs and creditworthiness are often limiting factors. Yet SMRs offer a promising inflection point, lowering barriers to entry through modularity, smaller footprints, and potential for public–private investment structures. What’s needed now is multilateral action to create financing instruments tailored to nuclear—such as green bonds, sovereign risk insurance, and regional project consortia.

From Forum to Framework: Will the G20 Lead or Linger?

The most significant implication of the IAEA’s engagement with the G20 under South Africa’s presidency is not technical—it’s institutional. By centering nuclear energy in high-level G20 dialogues, the conversation has expanded beyond national ambition to a shared recognition that decarbonization must be inclusive, reliable, and strategically financed.

This G20 cycle could mark the beginning of a new era in which nuclear energy is normalized not only for industrial powerhouses but for emerging economies across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Whether this momentum materializes into long-term financing and deployment frameworks remains to be seen. But South Africa’s presidency has already ensured that the question is no longer whether nuclear belongs in the energy transition, but rather how it can be equitably scaled.

A Final Note

The IAEA’s collaboration with the G20 under South Africa’s leadership is more than a policy engagement—it’s a recalibration of global energy governance. By bringing nuclear power into a broader conversation about equity, resilience, and realistic decarbonization, this partnership positions emerging economies not as passive recipients of energy aid, but as architects of their own sustainable futures. What unfolds in 2025 may well shape the contours of a more inclusive and technologically balanced energy order.

On April 28, 2025, eight civilians died in Yemen after a U.S. airstrike hit a barn near Sanaa. On paper, the coordinates looked like a military target—something worth striking. But there was just one problem: those exact coordinates had been posted weeks earlier by two amateur open-source intelligence (OSINT) enthusiasts on Twitter. Not by an intelligence agency. Not by anyone with a security clearance. But by hobbyists with smartphones and satellite apps, sharing their analysis in full view of the world.

It sounds like a dystopian plot twist, but it’s real—and deadly.

The U.S. Navy, part of a military apparatus with a defense budget north of $800 billion, seemingly bombed a location flagged not by analysts at Langley or Tampa, but by two Twitter users: one from the Netherlands, another from the U.S. Neither is in the military. Neither has formal intelligence training. But both posted those coordinates on April 1, citing the site as a potential Houthi location.

Then, 27 days later, a U.S. airstrike obliterated it.

Coincidence? Maybe. But it raises a profoundly uncomfortable question: why is the world’s most powerful military apparently getting its targeting data from social media?

This isn’t the first time the U.S. military’s grip on information discipline has faltered in Yemen. Just weeks ago, senior officials were exposed after a Signal group chat discussing sensitive Yemen operations was inadvertently shared with a journalist. That’s right—America’s military command, casually typing away about drone strikes and air campaigns, in an unsecured app, with a random journalist in the room. It’s the kind of lapse that makes a high school group project look like a top-secret planning cell.

It seems there’s a pattern here: whether it’s leaking intelligence in Signal group chats or bombing a target someone tweeted about, the U.S. is blurring the line between amateurism and lethality. You would think after the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Bagram files, or even the farcical “Chinese spy balloon panic,” the military would have tightened the bolts on information hygiene. Instead, it appears more comfortable crowd-sourcing battlefield intelligence than vetting it with its own resources.

Let’s be clear: OSINT has transformed modern conflict. What began as a fringe community of nerds tracking tank movements via satellite imagery has grown into a formidable force of digital sleuths. From confirming war crimes in Ukraine to tracking shadow tankers dodging sanctions in the Gulf, OSINT has real-world impact. But it was never meant to replace professional intelligence services. And it certainly wasn’t meant to be used as direct justification for pulling a trigger that kills civilians.

After the Yemen strike, the OSINT community involved responded with a mix of shock and shame. One of the Twitter users, @VleckieHond, admitted she hadn’t expected her post to lead to such consequences. In an attempt at restitution, she donated €500—split between Médecins Sans Frontières and the Yemen Data Project. That’s roughly €62.50 per dead civilian. As if blood can be converted into euros and cleared with a bank transfer.

This wasn’t just a moral failing. It was a systems failure. A failure of intelligence validation, a breakdown of professional skepticism, and, perhaps most dangerously, a failure to question the source. If the U.S. military, with its arsenal of satellites, spy planes, field agents, and human sources, can’t tell the difference between Twitter chatter and actionable intelligence, we’re all in trouble.

And what about the civilians? They’re left in rubble. Their names never trend. Their deaths are footnotes in someone else’s OSINT hobby. For the analysts who posted the coordinates, this story may pass. They can delete their tweets, turn off notifications, and go silent. But the civilians who died? They don’t get to log off. And neither should we.

The real tragedy here isn’t just that civilians were killed. It’s that the chain of decisions—military, digital, and human—that led to their deaths is becoming all too familiar. OSINT is powerful. It can illuminate truth, track war criminals, and expose lies. But it is also dangerous when weaponized without accountability. And when the world’s most powerful navy takes its cues from social media without confirming the source, it’s not just a blunder. It’s a disgrace.

America’s credibility in conflict zones like Yemen has long been bruised. This latest episode rips the wound wide open. If the Navy really acted on tweets, then this wasn’t precision warfare—it was algorithmic assassination.

What comes next? Hopefully, not another mistake. Hopefully, not another tweet turned into a crater. But until there’s real accountability, real professionalism, and real skepticism within the institutions that hold the power to kill, we should all be watching. Because next time, the coordinates might be yours.

China recently pulled the curtain back on its sixth-generation stealth fighter, the J-36—an unveiling that felt less like a routine weapons test and more like a message aimed squarely at Washington. This move wasn’t just about hardware; it was geopolitical theater at 30,000 feet.

Far from a simple upgrade to its air fleet, the J-36 represents a bold statement: China is no longer content with catching up to the West—it intends to leapfrog it. This development is forcing analysts in Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo to reassess assumptions about air superiority, alliance structures, and the tempo of technological competition. As the dust settles, one thing is clear: Beijing is rewriting the rules of military signaling in the jet age.

The J-36: A Leap in Military Aviation

The J-36, developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, features a tailless, flying-wing design with a tri-engine configuration. This setup suggests enhanced thrust and payload capacity, potentially surpassing existing fifth-generation fighters like the J-20. The aircraft’s design emphasizes stealth and agility, indicating a focus on penetrating advanced air defense systems. Notably, the J-36’s development timeline—from conceptualization to prototype flight—has been remarkably swift, underscoring China’s accelerated progress in military aviation technology.

Strategic Significance of the Reveal

The public unveiling of the J-36 appears to be a calculated move by China to assert its growing military prowess. By showcasing the aircraft, China demonstrates its expanding global partnerships and challenges the traditional U.S.-led security architecture. This act serves both as a demonstration of technological advancement and a geopolitical statement.

Implications for U.S. Air Dominance

The introduction of the J-36 intensifies the competition between China and the U.S. in developing next-generation fighter aircraft. While the U.S. is progressing with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, China’s rapid development of the J-36 may pressure the U.S. to expedite its efforts to maintain air superiority. This development could lead to a reevaluation of U.S. military strategies and increased investment in advanced aerospace technologies.

Regional and Global Security Dynamics

The emergence of China’s J-36 fighter adds fuel to an already volatile regional security landscape in the Indo-Pacific. As tensions simmer over Taiwan, South China Sea claims, and military posturing around Japan and the Philippines, the debut of a sixth-generation warplane is more than symbolic—it’s a direct challenge to the status quo.

Neighboring powers like India, Japan, and South Korea now face renewed pressure to modernize their own air forces and defense systems. For ASEAN nations, many of which are already navigating a delicate balance between economic ties with China and security partnerships with the United States, the J-36 could be a game-changer in defense procurement and alliance strategy.

Moreover, this development may accelerate regional arms races and further entrench the division between U.S.-led and China-aligned security blocs. The ripple effects are likely to reach beyond Asia, prompting global powers to reassess not just capabilities but also doctrines in a rapidly transforming battlespace.

A Final Note

China’s unveiling of the J-36 is a watershed moment—not only in aerospace engineering, but in the narrative of great power competition. This is not merely about one new aircraft, but about a broader push to shift the balance of military influence in the Pacific and beyond.

As Beijing accelerates its defense innovation cycle and projects confidence on the world stage, its rivals are being forced into a reactive posture. The J-36, whether battle-ready or not, has already succeeded in one domain: strategic signaling. In an era where perception can dictate policy as much as hardware, China has sent a clear message—the skies are no longer uncontested.