The war in Ukraine rages on, and the constant pounding of Kyiv by Russian drones and missiles, is a reminder that this is not a war being fought in some far away border region. The war turned out very different from the one Vladimir Putin had envisioned when he launched his full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Thousands of young Ukrainians have died defending their country. Ukraine has been able to optimize its drone capability in order to take the battle back to the Russians, including to Moscow and St Petersburg. But to defend itself and its cities and citizens from sophisticated Russian weaponry Ukraine needs western support. This has not been as forthcoming as the Ukrainians hoped. Certainly Donald Trump has been less enthusiastic in helping Ukraine than his predecessor. Maybe this is now changing too. Europe’s support needs to remain high and consistent, and ambivalence must be avoided. Last week, Germany’s foreign minister held talks with his Russian counterpart in the first face-to-face meeting between top officials of the two nations since Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Johann Wadephul said he used the “intense conversation” with Sergei Lavrov in New York to warn Moscow against further escalation after a drone laden with explosives was discovered at Leipzig airport last month in an incident that Berlin has blamed on Russia. He said that he “gave Russia a clear warning” not to continue in the same vein, adding: “We can defend ourselves, we can fight back and we will do so.” Wadephul told German public broadcaster ZDF that he had also offered Lavrov “a chance to de-escalate” in Ukraine, adding that it had “fallen on deaf ears”. “I also made it very clear to Russia: we stand with Ukraine, Ukraine has our full support, and economic pressure on Russia will continue,” he said. “I said that again to Lavrov and called on him finally to be prepared to enter talks.” The meeting lasted around 20 minutes and ended with a handshake between the two men. I support diplomacy and dialogue as a means of resolving issues. But I am also aware that isolating Russia diplomatically is an important way of putting pressure on Russia to end the mayhem it unleashed in Ukraine. The German Foreign Minister has to ask himself if the 20 minute meeting with Lavrov was worth easing that pressure. The last time Lavrov met a German foreign minister was in January 2022, the month before Putin launched his full-scale assault on Ukraine. Europe must continue supporting Ukraine, and isolating Russia should be part of that strategy. On the other hand engaging with Russia as part of a search for a solution is necessary. Balancing the two considerations is a difficult business, and Europe is best acting in a united fashion on this matter too. (click image to read the Monday Commentary in full).

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

In this week's Monday Commentary, Dr. Dennis Sammut discusses the impact of the US-Iran war on the Arab states of the Gulf. He argues that the crises is a test of their resilience, and that change is inevitable. "On 28 February, Donald Trump connived with Israel to attack Iran, thinking that the US military strength will easily sweep away the Islamic Republic. He did so without seeking the views of experts within the American bureaucracy, getting the necessary congressional and cross-party support, and importantly without consulting with his allies in the region, in NATO, and beyond. The result has been a terrible and costly failure. The Islamic Republic has survived, despite loosing its supreme leader and top officials, and is even emboldened. The limits of US military power has been exposed, and China and others are watching carefully. Allies are distancing themselves from the US, and the cost for global and American economy, has been huge." "But the harshest costs of Trump’s miscalculation is being paid by the Arab states, on and around the Arabian peninsula. Over the last five decades the GCC countries have largely bought themselves out of any problems which they faced. Three of them at least – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, have the stamina to do so again if necessary. But the question remains, will it be enough this time?" The world must be prepared for a changing region. Europe in particular needs to be able to deal with the new reality, and to do this with an open mind. In March of this year I wrote that by attacking Iran, Trump had opened “pandora’s box”. That has definitely been the case for the US. Others however may take heart from the saying that “from every crises, an opportunity arises”. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)

The war against Iran, unleashed by the United States and Israel started 100 days ago, on 28 February 2026. Two days later, in my Monday Commentary on commonspace.eu, I said that Donald Trump had opened Pandora’s Box, and that the conflict unleashed will have deep and lasting consequences for the region, and for the world. Unfortunately, it seems I was right. We are just at the beginning of what are likely to be, a chain of events, that remain for the most part unpredictable, even if the dangers, turmoil and risks, can already be seen. The problem is far from being resolved. A sort of a ceasefire has decreased the violence in the Gulf. Trump, under pressure from many quarters, to bring the crisis to a halt, keeps promising a deal “soon”, but in this, as with everything else in this saga, Trump is far away from reality. The revolutionary regime in Iran did not melt away; the killing of the Supreme Leader did not end the regime, nor did it mellow it down, the Iranian people did not rise to overthrow the clerics and their system, and the world did not rally around the US to support its adventure. Instead, Trump found himself tied to Israel’s Benyamin Netanyahu, and his convoluted view of the Middle East. Traffic through the vital global trade artery – the Strait of Hormuz, has been disrupted, as have global energy supplies, and other vital goods, such as fertilizer. Even if a semblance of peace is restored, the impact will be widespread and everlasting. This is seen, and will be seen even more crudely in the future, in the six Gulf monarchies that constitute the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). The six countries have since the late 1960s relied on the US for their defence and security. They had blind faith in the US, and this seemed to increase when Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term. They did not want the war. It came as an unpleasant surprise. But once it started, they expected the Americans to win it quickly and decisively. Instead, they find themselves faced with an injured but emboldened Iran, and a new Gulf reality that is unpleasant and uncomfortable. The GCC countries have to go back to the drawing board. At least three of them, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE, have the financial clout necessary, and leaders that are sharp enough to deliver. But there are some realities that will be inevitable. Iran, a hundred days after the killing of the Supreme Leader, is injured but emboldened. The heavy bombardments by the most powerful planes and missiles of the US and Israel, killed thousands of people, including one tier of leaders. But the worst damage is the material damage to infrastructure and facilities that will take years to restore. So far, the Islamic Republic, and its institutions have remained intact. But that does not mean they are not under pressure. Beyond the bravado speech coming out of Tehran, there is another reality. The war might not have triggered the revolt that Netanyahu and Trump expected, but it has triggered a process of change, the full implications of which will only be seen once the dust has settled. Donald Trump emerges from the last hundred days weakened and vulnerable. The outcome of the war is not what he expected. It was his war, even if some say that it was Netanyahu’s war. He thought he could win it quickly and decisively. He didn’t. Americans, to the right and to the left, are unhappy with the war and its consequences. They will have their say in the mid-term elections later this year. It is too early for the opponents of Trump to claim victory. But the writing is on the wall. The war will define Trump’s second term. For the moment it does not look good for the president. It does not look good for the United Sates either. Despite the impressive display of US shooting power, the war exposed the limits of US power, and the increasing US isolation in the world. The US can flatten a country, but it cannot flatten a people. The US deployed everything it has against Iran, except nuclear weapons. It dented the Iranian regime and its capabilities. Maybe even more. But it did not obliterate it. That clearly came as a surprise to Donald Trump; to US allies in the Gulf it came as a shock; to US adversaries in the world, who were watching carefully, it was a very instructive moment, and they all drew their own conclusions. The last hundred days have had an impact on others too: Israel; Lebanon, and the Palestinians, are caught in it. Europe is trying desperately not to be embroiled in Trump’s war. But Europe must be prepared for the day after. There is little sign of that yet. ======== (Click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

Parliamentary Elections are scheduled to be held in Armenia next Sunday (7 June). The Armenians will vote for a new parliament, and the leader of the winning party will become the prime minister, and will form the government. The incumbent, Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in a peaceful “velvet” revolution in 2018, is defending his eventful record against a spirited, well resourced, opposition. The Armenian people have a choice in the coming election, and a clear one. It is important to state clearly, and at the outset, that it is up to the Armenians to make this choice. Outsiders should not interfere. The next Armenian government will have important choices to make, at both the domestic and international level, and it must have the clear mandate, and the legitimacy of a popular vote, to deliver these choices. But it seems that this does not fit the needs of Putin’s Russia. Over the last days Russia has openly interfered in Armenian politics, using the leverages it accumulated over the years. Putin has made it clear that he will not tolerate an independent minded Armenian government. Armenia was since its independence in 1991, a compliant “partner” of Russia, and fitted into Vladimir Putin’s grand strategy of surrounding Russia with countries, that whilst nominally independent, depended on Russia for their defence, economy, foreign policy, and indeed for their survival. Any attempts at independent thinking or action was to be crushed. Look what happened to Ukraine. Armenia was told bluntly that the same could happen to it. Armenia’s big “sin” was that it expressed the wish to join the European Union. Everyone knows that this was an aspiration, rather than a decision. EU membership takes years, decades even, to negotiate. If the process starts officially now, and it has not, it will probably take twenty years to become a reality. But Putin is not taking chances. He will not allow Armenia to escape Russian clutches, even if that escape is only aspirational. Russia is trying to intimidate the Armenian people, prior to Sunday’s vote., accompanied by a barrage of disinformation emanating from Moscow, This process must be watched carefully. Western leaders have visited Armenia in the last month, for the EPC Summit, for the Armenia-EU summit, and most recently last week the short visit of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Their presence in Yerevan was a message to Moscow: we will not allow you to do in Armenia what you did in Ukraine. Sunday, the Armenian people, will make their decision. They should be allowed to make that decision freely, and without pressure. Everyone should thereafter respect that decision. (Click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full, or listen to the audio).

Empires tend to self-destruct. They peak to greatness and military might, and then gradually decline, either as a result of military defeats, or internal discord, or more likely a mix of both. Decline can take along time. The Roman Empire, first split in  two and the Eastern part survived until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The British and French empires, that dominated the world in the last part of the 19th and early 20th centuries never recovered from WWII. They emerged victorious but weakened. The formal end of the British empire happened with the withdrawal from the Gulf and South Yemen in the 1970s. The British left because they simply could not afford to stay. The emerging states, roughly the six GCC states and Southern Yemen (an independent country until 1991), did not even bother to join the British Commonwealth. These days we call empires superpowers, and for 30 years there has only been one – the United States. It remains the richest and best armed country n the world, but its ability to act as global arbiter and policeman is fading away. The current Iran war has exposed the limits of American power, to the incredulity of friends and foe alike. The international system does not like vacuums. What is left empty is often quickly filled by something else. People look at China as the new superpower, that will fill whatever space US decline will empty. It will not happen. China’s economic resurgence is nothing short of miraculous. It has the second largest economy in the world, and growing. Its armed forces have gone through a major transformation, and are designed primarily to deal with a confrontation with the United States. Under president Xi, in the “new era”, China is ready to make its mark on the world. It will, or is already, a global player that must be taken seriously. But it lacks the ability to be a global hegemon. There are several reasons: first, it will always been seen by the US as the primary threat, and even a weakened US can still take on China. China will spend much of its effort at managing this. Second, China is boxed in, not only through its maritime arteries, but also through its two strong Asian neighbours: Japan and India. The Chinese navy, and a robust and assertive Chinese policy in the South China Sea is trying to mitigate this weakness, but  with mixed results.  This means that China cannot even become a hegemon in Asia, let alone the world; Third is the issue of Taiwan, which remans China’s priority, and which will always be a distraction; and fourthly, last but not least, the Chinese political model is unattractive to everyone else. The reaction of most nations when confronted by the Chinese model is, “Thank you, but No thank you”. In this situation the likely scenario for the rest of this century is likely to be the absence of a global hegemon, and the rise, or consolidation of strong big powers, assisted by smaller but not insignificant regional powers, with areas of competition, where conflict is likely as big powers, assisted by regional powers, fight each other through proxies.  One can argue that Artificial Intelligence and other high tech developments might change all these consideration, but this is an area where big powers and important regional powers are already competing aggressively. Finally, despite all the justified pessimism can one still have hope in international institutions. On Tuesday (26 May), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will hold a high-level open debate on “Upholding the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter and Strengthening the UN-Centred International System”. It is a Chinese initiative, coinciding with their chairmanship of the Council in May. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi will chair the meeting, during which UN Secretary-General António Guterres is expected to brief. It is good that countries ponder this topic, but world opinion must be more vocal in making the case for multilateralism. The empire system must not be reconstructed in any form. (click the image to read the full Monday Commentary)

The 2026 Summit of the presidents and prime ministers of NATO countries is scheduled to take place at the presidential complex in Ankara on 7 and 8 July. The decision to hold the summit in Turkiye was taken at the last NATO summit in The Hague in 2025. At the time people assumed that although having the summit in Turkiye is symbolic, and will help consolidate the membership of that country in NATO, the Ankara summit will simply be a glorified photo-opportunity. It is clear now that things will work out differently. The Ankara summit will define NATO for the next decade, and preparations are on the way, seriously and in earnest. Two reasons are contributing to this: the first is  the acute situation in the international system, caused by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the US-Israeli war on Iran and the crisis it has created in the Gulf, and Donald Trump’s disregard, even disdain, for the US traditional allies in Europe, and even for NATO itself. The second reason why the Ankara summit has become so important is that the Turks, as hosts, are determined to use the event to push some key issues that NATO has been avoiding for some time, including how the alliance engages with its southern neighbourhood. Turmoil in the international system have raised questions of how the NATO alliance can look in the future. As hosts of the Ankara summit, the Turks embraced these three challenges. As Ilker Sezer puts it in Turkiye Today, “For all of its complex balancing acts, NATO remains on of the most critical pillars of Turkiye’s own national security, whether you like it or not” Speaking a few days ago in an interview on al Jazeera, Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, said that NATO’s biggest achievement since its creation was not its power of deterrence, but rather the fact that it had stopped different European countries from fighting with each other, and instead co-operate together for mutual defence. Given European history up to WWII it is difficult to disagree with him. As Levant Kemal, also argues on Turkiye Today, “As the global landscape shifts, this summit offers Ankara a significant opportunity to act as a visionary host in shaping NATO’s future trajectory”  (click image to read full Monday Commentary)