Emmanuel Macron’s recent response to Russia’s proposed moratorium on deploying short- and intermediary-range missiles in Europe has caused an uproar. European media was quick to conclude that the French leader effectively supported his Russian counterpart’s idea. The Kremlin voiced a similar interpretation of his statement. Capitals of Central Europe responded with a barrage of accusations against the Élysée Palace, suggesting its current occupant was undermining the unity of the West and was, once again, all too willing to make unjustified concessions to Moscow. Many in the United States were surprised that France was trying to influence the fate of the INF Treaty, which was (or rather had been, before its demise) a bilateral treaty between Moscow and Washington.
Macron had some explaining to do to his American and European partners, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, journalists and experts, and he assured them that France was not really supporting any kind of moratorium. At the same time, his government is not discarding the idea of shaping a “new security architecture” together with Russia and is, in fact, advocating a “transparent, substantive and critical dialogue” with Moscow. “You can’t dismiss what could be the basis for further discussions”, Macron said, explaining his reasoning.
Some ambiguity in French rhetoric regarding the INF Treaty is understandable. On the one hand, the French government has no desire to open a new front of opposition with NATO, whose relations with France are complicated as it is and which has already fully aligned with the US on the INF Treaty. Neither did G7, during its summit in Biarritz, dare attempt to adjust the patently flawed and unconvincing US narrative regarding the preservation of the INF Treaty.
On the other hand, Macron does not want to lose his shot at the now-vacant position of foreign policy leader of Europe, including regarding Russian, which is very important for the European Union. Even less would he wish to surrender the issue of the INF Treaty (with its direct and fundamental bearing on the foundations of European security) to Donald Trump, who has not shown himself to be particularly reliable or benevolent towards Europe.
The French initiative seems to be left hanging. Emmanuel Macron held a meeting with Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Normandy Four summit in Paris, but the INF Treaty does not appear to have been discussed in any detail. As any other “deep state,” the French bureaucratic machine is more inclined to sabotage any bold new ideas than nurture them. Time is passing, and the initial shock caused by the dissolution of the Treaty is fading, overshadowed by new problems and new challenges. The United States’ withdrawal from the INF Treaty did not cause an immediate apocalypse and life without the Treaty is becoming part of the “new normal” that both Eastern and Western Europe have been talking about for almost six years.
It would be very disappointing if the interest shown by France in the INF Treaty remained just vague political declarations and rhetoric without any substantial practical output. If I were to advise Macron on foreign policy, I would give the French leader four pieces of advice on how to drive the issue of the INF Treaty, as well as European security in general, out of the deadlock.
Avoid Issuing Ultimata
First of all, it would be unwise to follow the United States in demanding that Moscow completely destroy its controversial SSC-X-8 missiles as a prerequisite for any dialogue about a moratorium on deploying short- and intermediary-range missiles in Europe. It could be insisted that the Russian side provide additional information about this system, and new verification mechanisms could be offered in addition to those that had been provided for by the INF Treaty. The matter of increasing transparency and predictability of Russian missile construction could also be brought up.
Yet the ultimatum that SSC-X-8 be destroyed essentially means that Russia is offered a choice between two clearly unacceptable courses of action. Either Moscow should repent of violating the INF Treaty deliberately and maliciously over the course of many years, willfully trying to conceal these violations from its western partners, or it should declare that it did not violate the treaty – but is willing to destroy a perfectly compliant system just because the Pentagon and NATO do not like it.
We recall that, back in their time, Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze took the second path: they did not acknowledge that the Soviet “Oka” short-range missile (NATO designation SS-23 Spider) fell into the category of arms to be destroyed under the INF Treaty, but still agreed to dismantle Oka as a gesture of goodwill. This was a step for which Gorbachev and Shevardnadze are criticised by many Russian experts, politicians and military officials to this day. Everyone who has the slightest idea of the brand of foreign policy pursued by Vladimir Putin will likely agree that the negotiation style that worked with Mikhail Gorbachev thirty years ago will not work with today’s Russian president, especially since the level of trust between Russia and the West is critically low at the moment.
Be an Honest Broker
No one can deprive France of its right to voice concerns about Russia’s compliance or noncompliance with the INF Treaty. For one thing, Russia can be accused of not paying enough attention to the doubts and concerns raised in Washington and many European capitals. Yet it would only be fair if Paris also paid more attention to the concerns and suspicions of the Russian side, even if Quai d’Orsay considers them to be ungrounded and unworthy of serious discussion.
The Russian leadership has repeatedly noted that the Mk 41 missile defence launch systems deployed in Romania and Poland could be used to launch Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles; therefore they are in breach of the INF Treaty. The US side has bluntly rejected these suspicions, primarily arguing that launch of sea- and land-based missiles requires different software. After withdrawing from the INF Treaty, however, the United States essentially confirmed Russia’s suspicions, conducting Tomahawk tests without much preparation of land-based launch sites.
Sadly, these tests did not elicit any visible response in Europe. Moscow had to draw the logical conclusion that Europeans were not prepared to make an objective and impartial assessment of Washington’s actions and could not claim the role of mediators on the INF Treaty issue. It is obvious that Macron would have a much stronger position in his dialogue with the Kremlin if he could pose as an “honest broker” willing to consider the arguments of both parties to the Russia–US dispute.
Look for New Formats
Speaking about a “transparent, substantive and critical dialogue” with Moscow regarding the INF Treaty, it would be helpful to decide what possible format this dialogue could take. That is, of course, if Macron is earnestly aiming to bring this dialogue out of the narrow confines of bilateral Russia–America relations. Using the NATO–Russia Council to launch a discussion on nuclear issues that concern Europe does not appear the best solution at this time. The Council will hardly begin working to the full extent of its capacity in the foreseeable future. For now, it is struggling to make progress even on the much less complicated and sensitive issues of military confidence-building measures on the European continent. It is unfortunately hard to count on the OSCE as a platform for “structured dialogue” either since this platform has not even yet brought about the modernisation of the Vienna document.
This means we need to think about creating a separate ad hoc group in NATO to conduct talks with Russia on the INF Treaty. This group could probably include members of the Alliance that are also members of the “Nuclear Club”, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Perhaps countries that accommodate elements of the US European missile defence system (Romania and Poland) might also be included. When the NATO–Russia Council gains its full institutional capacity, the ad hoc group could be seamlessly integrated into its work.
Another interim solution might be to create such an INF Treaty group outside NATO confines, similar to the European tripartite group of France, the United Kingdom and Germany that was established for the Iran nuclear talks. This option would allow the numerous delays and complications associated with NATO’s cumbersome and complex coordination procedures to be avoided.
In any event, the French leader should be prepared for the new format to not only draw criticism but also meet desperate opposition from those powerful political forces in Europe that will inevitably see it as an obvious attempt to undermine the foundations of Transatlantic unity.
Propose a New Strategic Project
The problem of short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, which is once again coming to the fore in European politics, appears impossible to resolve outside the broader context of a new European security architecture. The INF Treaty itself did not appear thirty years ago out of the blue but arose out of Mikhail Gorbachev’s ambitious political project to build a “Common European Home”. Had there been no such project, leaders of the continent’s eastern and western states would have scarcely overcome the resistance put up by the high-ranking military officials and conservative politicians that had risen to their posts over the long decades of the Cold War.
The French leader appears to understand the need to link the INF Treaty issue with the new political project. Yet the only thing Emmanuel Macron has ready for this project so far is the pretty slogan about creating “a common Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. The problem is: slogans have little credibility in today’s Russia. In fact, this precise slogan has already been pushed for the last thirty years, while the reaction of Moscow’s western partners has been sceptical and wary at best, and at worst there was no reaction. So it is only logical that the French President’s statement has not generated much enthusiasm in Russia.
Similarly, Macron’s statements about the need to achieve “strategic autonomy” for Europe are taken with more than a grain of salt. Other European leaders, from Angela Merkel to Federica Mogherini, have convincingly invoked this autonomy many times before Macron, but tangible progress in this direction is yet to be seen. Macron’s idea to tear Russia from “China’s embrace” and return it to the “European family” is also unlikely to find many supporters among the current Russian political leaders.
To win over sceptics, engage the indifferent and inspire hope in enthusiasts, the lofty call to build a new “Greater Europe” must be accompanied by detailed and elaborate blueprints. The name of the project may be changed as work on the blueprints gets underway: instead of the vague contours of a “Greater Europe”, we will see, emerging from a thick fog, the imposing stature of a “Greater Eurasia.”
From our partner RIAC
Sweden’s NATO Predicament and the Nations whose Destinies Connected
Exploring the Historical Bonds of Sweden, Poland, and Turkey
The Swedish monarch, Charles XII, exuded pride and arrogance as he led his formidable army towards Moscow, still in his twenties. He believed his forces to be invincible, drawing comparisons between himself and his soldiers to the legendary Leonidas and his valiant 300 Spartans. Several factors contributed to the young king’s unwavering confidence on the path to Moscow.
A mere few years prior, in 1700, a powerful coalition comprising Denmark-Norway, Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and Russia had launched a coordinated assault on the Swedish protectorate of Holstein-Gottorp, as well as the provinces of Livonia and Ingria. Undeterred by the overwhelming presence of enemy armies, Charles XII triumphed in successive sieges, vanquishing his adversaries one by one. Following the Battle of Narva, even the formidable Tsar Peter the Great of Russia sought terms of agreement, but Charles XII disregarded these pleas. By the time they arrived at the gates of Moscow, the Swedish army had emerged victorious against foes two or even three times their own size, bolstering the commander’s sense of invincibility, akin to the great conquerors of the past like Leonidas or Alexander the Great. However, the seemingly indomitable Charles XII committed the same error as dreamy conquerors such as Napoleon and Hitler before him: underestimating the challenges posed by the vast Russian steppes. The army of Charles XII suffered a devastating defeat, compelling the young monarch to seek refuge in Ottoman territories, accompanied by a mere thousand men.
The Swedish king and his men remained guests in the Ottoman Empire, which is today Ukrainian territory, for more than 5 years. The Ottomans treated Charles like a king and cherished him, and he and his Polish and Ukrainian entourage were generously borne. Turkish Sultan Ahmed III was aware of the importance of Sweden for Ottoman security. The King, who could not return to his country, hoped to defeat Russia through an alliance with Poland and Ottoman Turks. The presence of the Swedish King in the Ottoman Empire also strained Turkish-Russian relations and eventually brought them to the brink of war. The most important reason for the Ottoman-Russian Prut War (1710-11) was the Turks’ refusal to surrender Charles XII to the Russians.
Nations whose Destinies Connected
If one were to ask residents of Istanbul about the location of Sweden or Poland today, they might draw a blank. In the minds of modern Turks, these countries no longer hold strong alliances or close ties. Similar sentiments can be found on the streets of Stockholm or Warsaw. Relations between Turkey, Sweden, and Poland have weakened and even become uncertain since the days of the Ottoman Empire. However, during the Ottoman era, particularly in the 16th-18th centuries, the sultans in Istanbul viewed Sweden and Poland as crucial counterbalances against Russia in Eastern Europe, and they prioritized these relationships.
For the Ottomans, it was advantageous that Russia was engaged in a conflict with Sweden in the north, as it alleviated pressure on the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman wars with Russia also presented an opportunity for the Swedish Kingdom to launch attacks against Russia. In line with Ottoman foreign policy, the corridor spanning from the Ottoman Empire to the Baltic Sea, encompassing Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, and the Kingdom of Sweden, was considered a unified entity and treated as such. Presently, the prevailing method of interpreting maps primarily revolves around an east-west orientation, neglecting the various other facets of geography. Restricting the analysis of Russia’s perception of Eastern Europe solely to the East-West dimension would be highly deceptive. When examining the map from the vantage points of influential decision makers or political scientists situated in Istanbul or Stockholm, it is crucial for them to perceive a comprehensive geographical corridor extending harmoniously from Sweden to Anatolia. This broader perspective is essential in formulating appropriate policies aligned with the geographical realities at hand. While it can be acknowledged that Ottoman efforts were insufficient, their approach to map interpretation holds validity, and a comparable perspective remains relevant in contemporary times.
Growing Russia Shrinking Nations
The Russian threat necessitated cooperation and coordination among Sweden, Poland, and the Ottoman Empire. Since the time of Peter the Great, Russia’s objective had been to expand its reach to the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, which inevitably led to westward and southward offensives by Russian armies. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine draws its origins from these historical objectives as well: Russia seeks to establish a lasting and greater presence in the Black Sea region and gain access to war seas.
Over the centuries, Moscow (Russia), a relatively insignificant principality in the 15th century, rapidly expanded at the expense of three states: the Ottomans, the Kingdom of Sweden, and Poland. As Russia grew stronger, these three states gradually declined. By the end of the 18th century, Poland lost its independence and disintegrated, while the Swedish Empire diminished to the status of an ordinary state. Although the Ottoman Empire persisted until the 20th century, numerous Russian attacks eventually contributed to its collapse.
History, known for its repetition, serves as the best teacher of world politics. Hence, learning from the past is a paramount virtue for adept statesmen. Following the Ukrainian War, “old history” resurfaced in Eastern Europe, prompting regional states to seek reliable havens in anticipation of a potential Russian assault. Even Finland and Sweden, traditionally regarded as the world’s most pacifist states, found themselves lining up for NATO membership during the Cold War years. Countries under the NATO security umbrella, such as Poland and Turkey, experienced some degree of reassurance.
NATO members, particularly the United States, warmly embraced the applications of Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. However, Ankara surprisingly vetoed both applications, citing national interest. The Turkish government argued that these two states harbored anti-Turkey sentiments and terrorist groups within their borders. At least, these were the explicit reasons given. Finland managed to persuade Turkey within a year and became the fastest member state after applying to NATO. However, Turkey’s veto on Sweden’s membership still remains in effect. Sweden even made constitutional amendments in an effort to sway Turkey. While Sweden’s desire to join NATO can be understood from various perspectives, Turkey’s expectations from Sweden, as well as the key NATO member, the United States, appear more intricate.
The timing of Sweden’s accession as the 32nd NATO member remains uncertain, but statesmen should draw lessons from history. The realities faced by Poland, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire still hold relevance in today’s international relations. Setting aside current crises, the relationships between Poland, Sweden, and Turkey fall short of their potential. These countries must strive for closer and more coordinated cooperation to maintain peace and stability in Eastern Europe while safeguarding their vital and existential interests. Furthermore, this cooperation should not solely be based on hostility towards any specific state, but rather on deterring hostilities altogether. (*)
(*) For Turkish-Polish relations also see: Laçiner, Sedat, et al., Turkish-Polish Relations: Past, Present and Future, (Ankara: ÇOMÜ Press, 2015).
Sino-European Relations Souring as Russia-Ukrainian War Intensifies
Since the establishment of Sino–European relations in 1975, there have been significant changes toward building a China-driven agenda in the past 15 months. These changes are intrinsically related to China’s rise, which diverted the EU-American international protagonism.
While there is no common ground among EU members on how to counterbalance the dependence on trading with the second-largest economy in the world, the G7 Summit imparted to the collective endeavors of the largest economies to ‘de-risk’ from China. The EUA, Canada, the UK, and Japan have joined the club.
The Russo-Ukrainian War Context
In March 2019, the European Union adopted a two-folded stance on its relationship with China, defining it as competition cooperation. This dualism underlines the need to understand how to play politics the Chinese way. Since then, the EU has sought to adopt a more assertive tactic, and the ‘systemic rival’ approach has thus prevailed. Besides, the recent Russia-Ukrainian war has contributed much to this decision. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently stated, “How China continues to interact with Putin’s war will be a determining factor for EU-China relations going forward.”
China’s close ties with Russia have been around for a while. Their connections in the global arena intensified to counterbalance the American world leadership. Sino-Russian relations were built through symmetric ideological concepts, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is still rooted in the Marxism-Lenist ideology.
China’s foreign affairs are based on non-interventionism principles, but its alignment with Putin has been questioned instead as support to the current war that possibly includes military intelligence and economic aid to Russia. China’s abstention from voting on the resolution that condemned Russia’s latest actions in Ukraine in October 2002 and the recent visit of Xi Jinping to Moscow days after the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin contributed to the EU to build the narrative that China does support Russia’s point of view and justifications to the war.
The EU strongly condemned Xi’s trip, voicing worries about China’s role in the war and power balance in its relations with Russia, which now favors China. In late March, Von der Leyen delivered a speech on EU-China relations to the Mercator Institute for China Studies and the European Policy Centre, stating, “President Xi is maintaining his ‘no-limits friendship’ with Putin.”
As Xi voiced “peace talks” and “responsible dialogue” over the war, a joint statement with his Russian counterpart raised the flag of a possible siding with Russia. The joint statement contained criticisms of sanctions and the contributions of NATO in expanding the conflict.
China’s possible role in a peaceful negotiation is unlike the one adopted to break a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which ended decades of elusive diplomatic relations. The reason is simple: its close ties with Russia.
The Economic Context
In the G7 summit in Hiroshima last week, the largest global economies voiced ‘de-risking’ China against possible economic coercion in various areas involving trade, technologies and intellectual property, and supply chain.
Apart from the Sino-American trade war and the reliance on trading in China – the EU recorded a trade deficit of more than 365 billion euros with China in 2022 – at least two other concerns have debuted on the discussion agenda: the country’s rare earth metals control and responsibility in cyberspace.
To counterbalance China’s new status quo on the global stage, the G7 announced the launch of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment. The total of $600 billion in financing for quality infrastructure is a clear threat to the Belt and Road initiative, but it is unlike that it will pose any danger to China-led investment activities.
The Taiwan Context
The expansion of Chinese influence in the South China Sea has also become a prominent topic at the G7 summit. The G7 Foreign Ministers released a joint statement against China’s latest military activities near Taiwan, condemning economic coercion and urging peaceful talks.
Taiwan is perhaps China’s most irrevocable negotiation topic in foreign relations as the “One China” policy emphasizes the recognition of the island as an integral part of its territory instead of a separate sovereign state. This policy is the central pillar of bilateral diplomatic relations with China.
The complex dynamics shaping countries’ perceptions and interactions with China have shifted Europe’s future standpoint, leaning towards a more assertive approach. As Europe redefines its relationship with China, the balance between reciprocity and market access, and strategic cooperation in climate change will shape the continent’s strategy moving forward. In any event, Europe’s future relations on China promises to be more stick, less carrot.
Expulsion of Diplomats further Cripples Russian-German bilateral ties
Russia and Germany have cross-haired relations as both disagreed on many policy issues, the latest on Russia-Ukraine crisis. The bilateral relations has dived down to its lowest level, especially with imposition of sanctions and expulsion of diplomats.
Reports said hundreds working for Germany in Russia had to quit employment and leave the country. Hundreds of civil servants and local employees working for German institutions in Russia would need to leave the country or lose their jobs in the coming days following an order by Moscow, Germany’s foreign ministry said May 27.
Those affected include teachers, as well as other employees of schools and the Goethe Institute, and is necessary to maintain the right balance for Germany’s diplomatic presence, said the person, who described the number affected as at least 100.
Starting from June, Russia will slash the number of people that Germany can employ in its embassies or institutions in Russia in the education and cultural sectors, the ministry said.
Several hundred people are affected, including officials from the embassy and consulate, but mostly employees of the Goethe cultural institute in the country, German schools, nurseries and teachers working in Russian schools, it added.
Both German and local Russian employees are affected, the ministry said, without giving precise figures on each category of staff. German employees will have to quit the country by June 1.
Russian employees should not be required to leave the country, but will lose their jobs since German institutions will no longer be able to employ them, the ministry said – clarifying initial indications the locals would have to leave too.
The news was first revealed in the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which spoke of a “diplomatic declaration of war by Moscow” against Berlin. “This is a unilateral, unjustified and incomprehensible decision,” the German foreign ministry said in a statement.
A close economic partner with Russia before Moscow invaded Ukraine, Germany has since moved away from Moscow, financially and militarily supporting Kyiv in the conflict. Since the onset of the conflict in Ukraine, Russian espionage in Germany has grown at a rate rarely equalled in recent years, according to German security services.
In mid-April, Germany expelled a number of Russian diplomats “to reduce the presence of intelligence services” which prompted a tit-for-tat response from Moscow which booted out some 20 German embassy staff.
The Russian foreign ministry in April set a ceiling for the number of German diplomats and representatives of public organisations allowed to stay in Russia or be employed by German institutions, the German foreign ministry said.
“This limit set by Russia from the beginning of June implies major cuts in all areas of (Germany’s) presence in Russia,” the ministry said. German authorities have tried in recent weeks to get the Russian ministry to reverse its decision, but without success, Sueddeutsche Zeitung said.
Berlin will aim to ensure “a real balance” in its response, the foreign ministry said. In spring 2022, Germany already expelled some 40 Russian diplomats which Berlin believed to represent a threat to its security.
Before Moscow invaded Ukraine, Russia was Germany’s main supplier of gas and a major supplier of oil. However Germany stopped supplies and has since become one of the biggest providers of arms and financial support to Ukraine in its war against Russia, souring relations which had been warming over decades.
Last October, the head of Germany’s cybersecurity agency, Arne Schoenbohm, was fired after news reports revealed his proximity to a cybersecurity consultancy believed to have contacts with Russian intelligence services. A month later, a German reserve officer was handed a suspended prison sentence of a year and nine months for spying for Russia.
Relations between Russia and Germany, which used to be the biggest buyer of Russian oil and gas, have broken down since Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the West responded with sanctions and weapons supplies.
Earlier on May 26, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it had summoned the ambassadors of Germany, Sweden and Denmark to protest over what it said was the “complete lack of results” in an investigation to identify who blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines last year.
Several unexplained underwater explosions ruptured the Nord Stream 1 and newly built Nord Stream 2 pipelines that link Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea in September 2022. The blasts occurred in the economic zones of Sweden and Denmark. Both countries say the explosions were deliberate, but have yet to determine who was responsible. The two countries as well as Germany are investigating the incident.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry in a statement accused all three of deliberately dragging their feet and trying to conceal who was behind the blasts. It said it was unhappy about what it called the opaque nature of the investigation and its refusal to engage with Russia.
“It has been noted that these countries are not interested in establishing the true circumstances of this sabotage. On the contrary, they are delaying their efforts and trying to conceal the tracks and the true perpetrators of the crime behind which we believe are well-known countries,” it said.
“It is no coincidence that ‘leaked’ improbable versions (of what happened) are dumped in the media to try to muddy the waters,” it said. The Danish foreign ministry confirmed that its ambassador had been summoned, and said authorities in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden were continuing their investigations.
“Denmark has been providing ongoing updates to Russia regarding the investigation’s progress and responding to their inquiries. We will continue to do so,” the ministry said. The United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have called the incident “an act of sabotage.” Moscow has blamed the West. Neither side has provided evidence.
Several reports show that Kremlin’s leadership is taking hysterical actions to secure it sovereignty and territorial integrity. Its actions aim at protecting the statehood. Germany, Denmark and Sweden are not the only countries with locked-horns with Russia. It has policy differences with entire European Union and and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The Relevance of Religion in India’s Act East Policy
A key pillar of India’s Act East Policy, India’s latest foreign policy doctrine is culture. It is in this sector,...
Sanctions against Russia like a “tiger without fangs”
Regarding the appropriateness of Western sanctions against Russia, an oil tracker says that, “These sanctions remain a “tiger without fangs”…”...
FT: CIA chief made secret visit to China
CIA director Bill Burns travelled to China last month, a clandestine visit by one of President Joe Biden’s most trusted...
BRICS meet with ‘friends’ seeking closer ties amid push to expand bloc
Senior officials from over a dozen countries including Saudi Arabia and Iran were in talks on closer links with the...
China’s Stranglehold on South East Asia: Shaping the Future of the Region
A global order characterized by multiplexity entails a diverse array of state and non-state actors actively influencing the norms of...
Congeniality Between Islam and Democracy
In the contemporary era, compatibility between Islam and democracy is one of the most recent and controversial debate. Diverse opinions...
Rising Powers in the Asia-Pacific: Implications for Global Stability
For a long time, the Asia-Pacific region has been the epicentre of rising economic growth and strategic influence, gradually changing...
Finance2 days ago
Will Egypt Join and Adapt BRICS Currency?
South Asia4 days ago
The Need for the Next SAARC Summit
New Social Compact3 days ago
Migration through the Prism of Feminist International Relations
Africa3 days ago
The Strategic Partnership between Eritrea and Russia
Middle East4 days ago
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Election Victory and Its Impact on the Region
Americas4 days ago
In a Topsy-Turvy World
World News3 days ago
British General explains how intelligence has shaped the Russia-Ukraine war
Africa3 days ago
African Agenda in G20