In the address, Obama duly spoke of the United States as the preeminent power at the apex of the global geopolitical landscape. America, he says, “is and remains the one indispensable nation.” And he’s inarguably right. We do in fact have the strongest, best-trained, and most expeditionary military force in the world — and the greatest base of resources with which to put it to use. He acknowledges such at the outset: “Our military has no peer.” That fact alone endows us with a huge degree of global influence. But the precise magnitude and the nature of that influence is determined by the ways in which we choose to exercise it. And this speech gave no indication as to how the president intends to do so.

Pragmatism, of course, is key. As a realist, I fully subscribe to the notion that every foreign policy decision should involve the weighing of a variety of factors that combine to form our national interest. But bouncing from priority to priority with no coherent strategy with which to achieve our many geopolitical objectives ensures mixed results at best. This speech was an opportunity, with America and the world watching, to break from that pattern. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity missed; there is little indication that the ad hoc quality that has defined American foreign policy decision-making of late will be shed anytime soon. I still don’t know what the Obama Doctrine is.

Spaniards have two main concerns: the economy and corruption. The royal family has given the impression of being blithely oblivious to both. King Juan Carlos had told Spaniards he had trouble sleeping at night because he lay awake worrying about the 50% of young people who cannot find jobs. But then he sneaked secretly out of the country to go on a freebie elephant hunting trip in Botswana. This became public when he had to be flown home after tripping and hurting himself. Many Spaniards felt that he was trying to make fools of them.

Meanwhile the king's daughter, Princess Cristina, and his son-in-law have been in and out of court, defending themselves against accusations of sleaze and tax fraud. The case is ongoing, but Spaniards have been shocked by claims that the son-in-law, Iñaki Urdangarin, used and abused his royal status both to win public consultancy contracts and to invent imaginative (and allegedly illegal) ways of hiding money from tax authorities. He denies this.

The two events spoke of a sense of entitlement that grated with the everyday experiences of ordinary Spaniards who have suffered a double-dip recession and rampant unemployment. They cast a long shadow over what, overall, has been one of the most impressive periods in Spanish history as the country emerged from the darkness of dictatorship and from centuries spent slipping further and further behind the rest of Europe.

Juan Carlos had wanted to imitate Britain's Queen Elizabeth and hold out, hoping that his popularity might return in time. But he has now chosen a quick abdication that, in its very speed, threatens to damage his heir, Prince Felipe.

Meanwhile, French power and prestige would be greatly enhanced by this unit because France would call the shots. So France shaped the EU in its interests – hence the appalling Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), designed to protect French farmers at someone else’s expense.

Why did Germany accept this? Because she was in a weak position. Although the German recovery from the ravages of the war was rapid, when the EEC (the early forerunner of what we now call the EU) was formed in 1957, Germany was far from being the economic powerhouse that she later became. More importantly, she was still overwhelmed by war guilt and faced with suspicion and even hatred in some quarters as a result of the war. She feared that she would be isolated as a pariah state.

Later on, the formation of the euro was similarly in essence a French idea. France felt that the deutschmark and the Bundesbank gave Germany power over Europe. Submerging the deutschmark in the euro and castrating the Bundesbank would redress the power balance. Hence President Mitterrand exacted agreement to the euro as the price of France’s support for German reunification. This only made sense if it was believed that the euro was in French interests and against Germany’s.

Indeed, far from being part of the hard northern core of the euro, France is increasingly coming to resemble the soft southern underbelly. Accordingly, for how much longer can the Franco-German “motor” continue to drive the EU? Won’t Germany increasingly realise its own strength and want to break free from its shackles to France? And won’t France increasingly resent the increased power of her neighbour? I don’t know how this is going to happen or when but I suspect that we are coming close to one of those periodic explosions that have shaped French history.

When this happens the EU will never be the same again.

The US indicated over the weekend that it would wait to see the policies of the new unity government before deciding whether to recognise it, because of Hamas's involvement. Before the ceremony the US secretary of state, John Kerry, telephoned the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to express "concern about Hamas's role in any such government," the state department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told reporters.

Israel, which suspended peace negotiations in April when a surprise reconciliation deal was signed, opening the way to the appointment of the new government, has threatened punitive sanctions against any government backed by Hamas, saying it would serve as a front for the group and "strengthen terrorism".

Abbas, who heads the mainstream Fatah movement, has said the 17-member cabinet would comprise unaffiliated ministers and would strive to pursue peace, despite Hamas's refusal to accept co-existence with Israel. "Today, and after announcing the government of national unity, we declare the end of division that caused catastrophic harm to our cause," Abbas said.

But across the continent, landslide results for the EU's sworn enemies will see German advocates of European integration forced to face up to their fiercest opposition yet - right at the heart of political Europe. The German press has been wringing its hands.

"A dangerous divide is opening up in Europe,” wrote the Tagesspiegel. "Pro-European Germany is getting more and more powerful - and is distancing itself further and further from the rest of the Union." While humiliating results for French President François Holland and British Prime Minister David Cameron have left old European powers out in the cold, "Germany's influence on EU politics grows bigger and bigger - which in turn reinforces the resistance in Europe to a union which is already seen as too German,” the paper said.

Only one thing is clear as the EU's fate hangs in the balance, the paper wrote, "that the European Union does not have a future as a German Union."

But the country's military coyness has not prevented it from selling weapons into the world's war zones – not just as business but as foreign policy. Chancellor Angela Merkel all but declared her "send guns not soldiers" strategy in a speech at a political foundation event in 2011. And under Merkel, the arms business has boomed, reaching a peak in 2010, when her government approved arms exports worth a record turnover of €2.1 billion - a tenfold increase on 2000. Lately though, German weapons firms have increasingly been selling to countries outside Germany's circles of immediate allies, who may not necessarily share Germany's security interests or its commitments to protecting human rights.

As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed in a report on Monday, non-Nato states are boosting their defence spending while countries like the US and Germany are slashing theirs. But the economic value of the arms trade is limited – weapons account for less than 0.1 percent of German exports. They represent around 80,000 jobs. So why has the issue gained such a huge importance for German politicians?

Henrik Heidenkamp, German defence industry expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told The Local the economic value was not the point, but about nurturing Germany's defence industry so that it will be able to supply arms to the German army and its allies. "Only a commercially viable defence industry can deliver needed equipment to the armed forces in order to sustain the national defence effort," he said. In other words, Germany needs to sell guns so it can make guns for its own soldiers.

This also indicates that Russia is now moving closer to China’s side with regard to the territorial disputes between China and Japan. Furthermore, China and Russia last week vetoed a draft UN resolution to send Syria to the International Criminal Court for war crimes. China and Russia had vetoed three previous UNSC resolutions condemning Syria. In the joint statement issued by China and Russia, the main message is that China-Russia relations have reached a new stage of comprehensive strategic partnership and this will help increase both countries’ international status and influence, thus contributing to a more just international order.

Of particular importance is the agreement that China and Russia will deepen cooperation under the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building in Asia (CICA), a new security framework in Asia-Pacific that conveniently excludes the US and Japan. The question that everybody now is asking is this: Why this new development in China-Russia relations? Obviously, the main trigger is the recent Ukraine crisis that has seriously damaged Russia-West relations, thereby pushing Russia closer to China. However, there is also a larger strategic reason. That is, there are mutual strategic needs as both China and Russia want to create a multipolar world that is not dominated by the US, particularly as China faces threats from the US-led alliance in Asia.

As previously pointed out by Zachary Keck, China’s chance of winning maritime disputes with Japan partly depends on maintaining a good relationship with Russia. From Russia’s perspective, the NATO expansion is a serious threat to Russia’s national security and as such Russia has to fight back. Russia’s current and future capabilities are limited, however, and it desperately needs a reliable strategic partner, which happens to be China.

Monsanto and Scotts managed to get their GE grass on the market without approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) due to loopholes in federal law. Ordinarily, GE crops come under federal regulation as long as they contain genetic material from “plant pests” — the beings that the gene manipulation are designed to resist.

But Scotts decided to use DNA from other plants in creating the new kind of Kentucky bluegrass, along with other techniques that avoided triggering the USDA to step in and require testing, as well as its approval, before the grass could be sold to consumers. EcoWatch’s Charlotte Warren and Ronnie Cummins warn that because of bluegrass’ light pollen, the grass can easily spread to neighboring properties. Once it does, the GE version will genetically merge with existing grasses — including organic ones that farmers rely on to produce organic meat, for example.