Peek-a-boo (or ICU) can be interpreted either as “I can see you” and/or “I am spying on you,” usually as a children’s game. Hopscotch is another child’s play, unless it is played by adults indulging in its intricacies and turning it into serious, usually no-holds-barred manoeuverings in order to keep ahead in global geopolitical games. If only they were pure enjoyment à la physical sports- although it would hardly be a surprise if many did not treat it as a form of sports and games.
In that context, ICU could either be a target identified (here, geopolitically), or “I spy on you,” again in the same context, or the Intensive Care Unit. And, in the current geopolitical scenario, it has been perceived by many as a serious exercise of mind and means, particularly by the great powers, as generally identified contemporaneously through perception by scholars and generally acknowledged by perceived, usually scholars’, reality to be such.
From that standpoint, the United States, China, Russia, the UK, France, and Germany constitute the current great powers. Others may opt for a different set, which is all right as perception, but the criterion of the nomenclature would not vary too much from one classifier to another, and they are playing the great game among themselves and/or other players in tow. Such play usually keeps the global community in some form of turmoil.
Each of these great powers, with minor players in accompaniment, manoeuvers for general advantage in the existing global system, either singly or in collusion with others. At this moment, China, the US, and Russia are playing the great game with vigour and perceived sagacity, primarily with each other, but with other entities too. As an example of the last scenario, one can point to the headline drawn by the Daily Times of Bangladesh on December 07, 2025. It reads: “Dhaka–Beijing ties under new strain.” The writer has subtitled it with the crux of the matter: “New US security strategy tightens geopolitical pressure on Bangladesh.” And this is the crucial background to the imbroglio as penned by the writer: “China has emerged as one of Bangladesh’s most consequential partners across economic, political, and military domains. Over the past decades, Beijing has invested heavily in Bangladesh’s infrastructure landscape, financing ports, bridges, power plants, industrial parks, and major connectivity corridors that anchor Dhaka’s long-term development plans.” So there, China has identified a strategic partner, a relatively weak one in the global context. But, as the analyst takes a look at the bilateral perspective, he/she draws on Chinese President Xi Jinping, who visited Bangladesh in October 2016 and has since become Bangladesh’s defense supplier. No, the tail is not wagging the dog, but both are benefitting one way or the other, even if the way or the other is not earth-shattering.
President Xi is a wily customer, as he has shown in his dealings, or short dealings, or no dealings with US President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. He has been carefully dealing with Trump and Putin to his country’s advantage and, as with those two geopolitical players, proves his diplomatic/geopolitical plays round to his, and China’s, advantage. His strategy regarding Russia, whose president has shown himself to be a master player himself, has seen shifting alliances primarily on his terms, has thus far kept an uneasy peace in some cases, but positive gains for his country in others. Along the way, they each have had to realign forces to what they see (and often are) as strategic advantages. And they continue to play it that way.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. He just might be the most energetic of those three, even though it occasionally appears that he eschews strategic advantages in the face of publicity and problematic outcomes of his own plans and policies. And he is much into geopolitics, using his global reach to garner advantage for his country and allies.
The factor of geopolitics is practically a natural outcome of the self-serving nation-state. Bangladesh is no exception to this rule, as are not China, Russia, the United States, et al. The hierarchy of nations, as an authority suggests, is an informal ranking of countries based on power, wealth, or influence. Although an element of suggestive offering may come from different quarters, both academic and nation-state-oriented, a generally agreed-upon scholarly hierarchy is not dismissed out of hand. To be cynical about it, one could justifiably say, “Who cares?” Some do, mainly from jingoistic quarters; that will not erase the concept from their minds. So, Bangladesh will be listed as a less powerful country by many powerhouses. But, unless they come into conflict with each other, they will probably exist in a bubble of cold peace. That would be the norm, except when that peace is shattered and the protagonists engage in building, or leaning on, alliances, or engage in some degree of armed conflict. But human beings are flawed from various angles, and the global system has been going on for a pretty long time.
The writer is an MALD (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) and PhD (Boston University)
