Dozens of European presidents, prime ministers and other senior leaders, descended on Yerevan last week, to participate in the 8th Summit of the European Political Community (EPC). For a day or two, you could not go anywhere in the centre of the Armenian capital without bumping into a European leader and his entourage. The following day, it was time for bilateral relations, and the first EU-Armenia summit took place with the participation of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Antonio Costa, president of the European Council. This was a more substantial affair, during which the EU heaped praise, and some financial support, for Armenia, and importantly highlighted how it proposed to engage with Armenia in the future. Armenia had made the journey from being a Russian outpost, which it was until 2018, to becoming the EU’s favorite in the South Caucasus – a “status” achieved not least because of Azerbaijani aloofness, and Georgia’s bizarre anti EU trajectory. Moscow, Tehran and Washington watched events in Armenia carefully. For Armenia, Azerbaijan remains the elephant in the room. Pashinyan has gone along way to redefine Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. This is still “work in progress”. But the EU needs to engage carefully and sensitively, but not meekly, on this issue too. Kaja Kallas the EU High Representative, went to Baku immediately after Yerevan, to emphasise this inclusivity. On the same day (6 May), EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Magdalena Grono spoke about the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process and the role of external players during a panel discussion held within the framework of the Yerevan Dialogue international forum 2026. EUSR Grono noted that the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process has been a “wonderful and powerful” one, adding that it has received important support from external partners. She expressed hope for new opportunities for regional cooperation when the time is right. She also stressed the importance of addressing humanitarian issues. In Yerevan last week the European Union and wider Europe assembled in the EPC, showed its commitment to Armenia and the South Caucasus region. It was necessary. It was timely, but it was also just a start. In its approach to the South Caucasus over the last thirty years Europe has been largely reflexive: responding to events. It has lacked a strategic approach and a regional vision. Both require patience, perseverance and flexibility, but in the end they make policy towards the region more sustainable. In the South Caucasus, people have long memories, and the EU has no institutional memory. It fails to build on its own success, and it fails to learn from its mistakes. The region is too important and is too close to Europe either to be ignored, or to be approached lightly. The Armenian parliamentary elections on 7 June will define Armenia’s future, as well as that of the region. In many ways the EPC Summit and Armenia-EU summit were a loud statement of support for the current Armenian trajectory. However in the end it is up to the Armenian people to make a decision. Europe must support the democratic process that makes this possible, and after 7 June must be ready to stand with Armenia in case Moscow and Tehran do not like the result. (click image to read the full commentary)

The visit of King Charles III to the USA last week was a huge success. It greatly contributed to the image of Brtain, and the monarchy, but it also contributed to improving the image of the Uniited States in the world, at a time when its global position is at a long time low. In his speeches, at a joint session of Congress, and at the State Dinner in the White House the King was measured and forcefull. He said everything that needed to be said, but without causing offence, In fact in Congress he was given twelve standing ovations. In a country that seems to agree on almost nothing, the King received a warm reception from both sides of the political divide where neutral ground is rare. The King visited the US at a time when UK-US relations were seen as being in crisis, and with an unpredictable president in the White House, known to ambush his guests. A commentator in the conservative Washington Examiner wrote that the UK needed more than conventional diplomacy - and that King Charles delivered. As the BBC noted, ” for months, Donald Trump - a committed Anglophile and avid fan of the Royals - repeatedly told reporters that he was excited for the King's visit. That excitement was on full display throughout the King's visit to Washington, in which the world saw a warmer version of a president not shy to make his feelings known. Uncharacteristically, Trump largely stuck to a script, making no mention of policy disagreements with Downing Street and lauding the long ties between the US and Britain.”  Trump, following the King’s speech to Congress remarked: "He got the Democrats to stand, I've never been able to do that. I couldn't believe it. They liked him more than they've ever liked any Republican or Democrat, actually." Britain has a political system that often appears to be broken, an economy that often appears to be tired, and a young generation that often appears to be confused. Yet there is a parrallel British system, with the monarchy at its head, that remains robust and ambitious, and that can deliver when necessary. Some call it a deep state. In fact it is much more subtle, and wider, and can rise to the occasion. The visit of Charles III to the US last week proved that. All the jeremiahs, particularly in the mainstream British media, who have been singing the futility of the monarchy, and hearalded its demise, have had to eat humble pie last week as King Charles manoevered around the many obstacles of his trip to the US. King Charles showed he has personality, acumen and personal charm, and did the British people proud. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)

Last year the Catholic Church elected an American for the first time as its head. Robert Prevost, known since 2025 as Pope Leo XIV, was clearly not a conventional choice. He was also an enigma: on matters of religious liturgy and dogma he appeared as a conservative and traditionalist, on matters of the world he appeared liberal and progressive. It was perhaps this contradiction that made it easy for his fellow cardinals to elect him as Pope. Everyone could see something that they liked in Robert Prevost. In 2025, another American took over in a position of global consequence. In January Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States for a second term. Whilst Trump has never been short of controversy, even his most ardent critics have been shocked by his audacity, arrogance, and sheer bravado in office over the last fifteen months, culminating in a war that is far from over but is already a disaster for the US and the world. Trump 2.0 appears to have no constraints, either moral or constitutional. He returned to the White House a bitter man, feeling that he had been cheated of winning a second term in 2020, and determined to use his party’s control of both houses of congress to cheat the system of checks and balances that is the basis of the US constitution. Trump is also uninhibited by a need to think of his next election. Both his age and the constitution makes this prospect unlikely. So he decided to “enjoy the moment”. He does not like to hear bad news, nor advice that does not fit his own plans. The result is the surreal situation that has prevailed for the last 15 months. That these two Americans would clash was inevitable. On paper they exist in parallel worlds – one spiritual, and one temporal. But in truth they both have a strong view of how the world should look like, and this view cannot be more different. Up to recently different points of view emerged around domestic political issues, such as migrants. However, it is the war in the Middle East that has put the two Americans at loggerheads. Pope Leo XIV has been a very vocal critic of the war, and the basis of his criticism is moral. In his April 12 Truth Social post, Trump called the pope not just weak on crime but “terrible for Foreign Policy,” adding that "Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” The pope responded by saying he had “no fear of the Trump administration” and would continue to preach the Catholic Gospel. Trump takes on the Catholic leader at his peril. This is a rare moment in history, one in which the leader of one of the world’s largest faiths clashes with the strongest political leader of his age. Few doubt that it will be Pope Leo XIV who will emerge victorious, not least because he is right. (click image to read the full commentary).

The six Gulf countries members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have been caught in the war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran since 28 February. Ostensibly, because they host US military facilities, they were relentlessly attacked by Iran in the period before the two-week cease fire, announced a week ago. The Gulf countries have not retaliated, but they made strong requests to Iran to desist. They were very supportive of the efforts to end the conflict, especially the talks hosted by Pakistan in Islamabad over the weekend. The 21 hours of talks were intense, but according to all accounts unsuccessful. But this was the first direct contact at a high political level between Iran and the US since the 1979 Iranian revolution, so their importance should not be underestimated either. The opening of the Strait of Hormuz for unimpeded movement of shipping is a top priority. In resolving this issue the GCC countries must be involved directly. For the six GCC countries the conflict in Iran is not only unwelcome. They tried to stop the war from starting. They face a serious problem, which is not yet existential, but may well change their way of life forever. But, despite the bleakness of the current situation, the Gulf must prepare for tomorrow. Three areas are of importance: Defence and Security; Foreign Policy and National Cohesion. Developing a new security architecture for the Gulf is a long term, ten-year, project. It should not be rushed but neither should complacency be allowed. Thinking and discussion on these issues must start now. This is a testing time for the six GCC countries, but they have internal resilience, and enough financial cushion to weather the storm. And I am sure they also have the creativity and the will to reconstruct, and reconstruct better. (click the picture to read the Commentary in full)

The war in the Middle East goes on. Most countries, governments and people think it was unnecessary and unjustified. The person who started it, and who has the power to stop it quickly, Donald Trump, has as much as admitted he had not thought the whole thing through properly. This war has already deformed the Middle East in ways we are just starting to understand. Its negative impact on the world, even if it stops tomorrow are going to be deep and long lasting. Some will despair. But governments, international organisations, and more broadly civil society, do not have this luxury. It is time to rethink, regroup, and develop a future strategy. For that it is necessary to look at the big picture. This is far from easy while the senseless war continues but it is necessary, and all those who can, in their different ways, need to contribute. On 19 March the EU had a summit of the leaders of the 27 member states in Brussels. It was a serious, somber affair, overshadowed by the war in the Middle East, and the political and economic fallout from it. Big decisions were taken. The European leaders also met with the UN Secretary General, Antonio Gutteres. Both the EU and the UN are large organisations, that often look dysfunctional. But for the future if the world, post the Trump war in the Middle East, both are vital  The commitment of both to multilateralism at this precise moment, when the concept appears broken, is welcome. The world must recognize that the present crisis, is the biggest challenge since WWII. The solutions must be equal to the challenge. They must also be bold and ambitious. The EU working with the UN is one of the few, maybe only, actor that can make a difference. But this will require political will and determination. The Brussels EU meeting on 19 March gave a hint of that. But we are not there yet. ---- Monday Commentary will take a two-week Easter break, and will next be published on 13 April 2026. In the meantime however, commonspace.eu will continue to be updated daily. (Click the picture above to read the full Monday Commentary).

Ilia II, Catholicos Patriarch of All Georgia died on Tuesday (17 March) at the age of 93. He had been leader of the Orthodox Church in Georgia since 1977. Dennis Sammut wrote this obituary for commonspace.eu: I met Patriarch Ilia for the first time in March 1992, on my first visit to Georgia. I was accompanied to the Patriarchate by Zurab Zhvania and Ghia Baramidze. When we entered the Patriarch’s office, Zurab Zhvania shook his hand, Ghia Baramizde kissed it. The Patriarch was in a short-sleeved shirt, and throughout our conversation, he woke up from his chair several times to answer phone calls. It was a very relaxed meeting in a very difficult moment in Georgia’s history. Georgia, recently independent after the collapse of the USSR, was in complete chaos. Edward Shevardndze had come back from Moscow a few days before to head the State Council, but there was little sign of government. When I next met Ilia II a few years later, it was a different meeting. He was sitting on his throne in full robes. The conversation was more formal. Ilia II had made the transition to become the leader we are more familiar with. Between them Shevardnadze and Ilia II saved Georgia in that difficult period: Shevardnadze was instrumental on the margins, ensuring the loyalty of the large and restless Armenian and Azerbaijani minorities, and the now disempowered but still influential nomenklatura. But it was Ilia II who controlled the hearts of the Georgian heartland, and he understood what needed to be done as Georgia continued to implode, often as in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with Russian instigation and support. Ilia II was born in Vladikafkaz, modern day North Ossetia, to a Georgian Orthodox family, he studied at the Moscow Theological from 1956 to 1960. Ilia served as Bishop of Simokhedi from 1963 to 1967 and as bishop of Sukhumi and Abkhazia from 1967 to 1977. He also led the church's external relations department from 1964 to 1977. He was elected Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia in 1977. During his tenure, Ilia II led the growth and restoration of the Church in Georgia. During the Shevardnadze years, until 2003, Ilia II was able to position the Church as an important player in the Georgian state and society. This relationship became more complicated in the Saakashvili era that followed from 2003-2012. Under the Ivanishvili since, the Church has remained important, bot boxed in. It is riddled by internal divisions and accusations of corruption. For more than a decade Ilia II has been frail, and many say that he lost control. But his personality and presence ensured at least nominal unity of the church, and no one dared to question his word too loudly. His death creates a vacuum. There is a danger that the church will divide, or that a faction will take hold of it. This will have implications for the country. Georgia already has a very polorised political scene. The Patriarch was the last symbol of unity. The next days and weeks will be testing for the Georgian Orthodox Church and Georgian society. The death of Ilia II is not only the end of an era in Georgia. It marks a break with a past that no longer exists. But for many Georgians, a new present has not yet started. Source: This obituary was prepared for commonspace.eu by Dennis Sammut

The war of the United States and Israel against Iran has entered its third week. Not a very long time some would say, but enough already to have changed the Middle East, not in any good way. As the BBC veteran Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, put it, the war has put a shadow over the whole region. Nobody, except for Benyamin Netanyahu, wanted this war, not even Donald Trump. The war, unless it is stopped quickly may end up harming everybody. The way out is clear: De-escalate, negotiate, and re-build, even if as of today, the prospect for that appear distant. The only way out of the present crises is first through de-escalation. A cease fire may not be possible for weeks, but using diplomatic back channels the US and Iran may agree to de-escalate,  or to put it more crudely, stop shooting. It will be up to Trump to ensure that Netanyahu stops shooting too. Once de-escalation happens, the difficult process of negotiations can start again, focusing on the nuclear file and picking up from where discussions were left on 27 February. This is an agreement within reach – a non nuclear Iran in  return for the lifting of sanctions. Other possibilities are possible, and once a cease fire is agreed the EU and China can also be involved in the discussions. Finally, a process of rebuilding must start. The GCC have the money to do reconstruction of infrastructure quickly. Reputational damage to their Shangri-la image will take longer. Rebuilding Iran will be more challenging, given the scale of the destruction, and will require more money than Tehran has. Even as the bombs continue to fall, this issue needs to be considered. In the end no one really wanted this war, and no-one is going to benefit from it. It must be brought to an end as soon as possible, but the thinking of what happens after must start now.

The crises unleashed by the US-Israeli attack on Iran on 28 February is now in the second week. The Islamic Republic of Iran is taking a battering, but shows no sign of collapse. It has a chosen a new Supreme Leader – the son of the one killed  at the start of the US/Israeli attack, and is preparing for a long fight. There are ninety million Iranians, most of who are likely to rally around the flag, and defend their country. The crises has implications, for the whole region and the whole world, and we are just at the start. Ukraine has been pushed off the front pages. It is very easy for it now to be pushed off the agenda of European leaders. It must not. Regardless of the enormity of what is going  on in the Middle East, Europe – and that means the EU and other countries such as the UK, Norway and Switzerland – must remain focused on Ukraine, and in supporting the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin’s aggression. For Europe, Ukraine is an existential issue. The crises in the Middle East only makes the challenge that it presents more complicated, not less serious. Europe has already done a lot, but its efforts are yet not complete. It has provided generous financial support. Its embrace of Ukraine is not complete enough. Top of the agenda is Ukraine’s EU membership. One can always find reasons to delay this process. Many will be valid reasons. But there is one overarching reason why this must happen soon. It will seal Europe’s commitment to Ukraine, and it will fulfill Ukraine’s desire for a European future. Yes, it is a political reason, but Ukraine is first and foremost a political challenge, one that Europe must win. The crises in the Middle East is not a distraction. It is real enough, and will also have huge implications for Europe. But Europe has less tools at its disposal. It does not have the military means to be involved independently. The relationship with the GCC countries is not strong enough. Its influence on Iran is at best modest. Its relationship with both the US and Israel is ambivalent, and evolving. But Europe cannot remain a bystander. What will happen in the Middle East will have consequences – be it in politics, security, energy or economics. Europe must up its diplomatic game in the Middle East. This effort must cut through the established bureaucracies. It must find away of pooling the resources, and knowledge, of the EU member states, EU institutions and non- EU European countries such as the UK. It must find a way of working with key partners like Turkey. This effort must be fast and flexible, and can start with the appointment of a heavyweight at the head of this effort – someone who can talk easily with Merz, Macron, Stammer, Erdogan, von der Leyen and other European leaders. Diplomacy is the only way out of the present Middle East crises. Europe cannot afford to be sidelined in this. It must lead. With Ukraine and the Middle East in turmoil, European resources, and ingenuity, will be stretched to the limit. But Europe does not have a choice. It must engage with both. Differently, but with an equal sense of urgency and purpose.