Diplomacy

The German government holds Russia responsible for a cyberattack on German air traffic control, and for targeted disinformation campaigns before the last federal election. According to the German Foreign Office in Berlin, the incidents could be clearly attributed to the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU. In response, the Russian ambassador to Berlin was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. "We have been observing a massive increase in threatening hybrid activities by Russia for some time now," a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry stated. These range from disinformation campaigns and espionage to cyberattacks and sabotage attempts. The aim is to divide society, sow distrust, and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. The spokesperson added that with these actions, Russia is "very concretely threatening our security, not only through its war of aggression against Ukraine, but also here in Germany."  The Foreign Ministry spokesperson explained that the cyberattack on air traffic control in August 2024 was clearly attributed to the hacker collective "APT28," known as "Fancy Bear," and to the responsibility of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU. Furthermore, it could now be "conclusively stated" that Russia had attempted "to influence and destabilize both the last Federal election and the ongoing internal affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany." There was "absolutely irrefutable evidence" for this". The so-called "Storm 1516" campaign, which has been running since 2024, is allegedly backed by "reliable information" that the Moscow-based think tank "Center for Geopolitical Expertise" is behind it. The Center is also said to be supported by Russian military intelligence. Its primary aim is to influence democratic elections in the West. (Click the image to read more).

There is no denying that the EU, especially key member states acting in support, helped bring Baku and Yerevan closer to the Washington Declaration of August 8, 2025. But a declaration is not a treaty. Turning principles into a peace deal and eventually to a sustainable peace requires consistent long-term European involvement, writes Yalchin Mammadov in this-op-ed for commonspace.eu Before facilitating trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the EU is first expected to address its own credibility gap with Baku. A more balanced approach—such as including Azerbaijan, alongside Armenia, in the European Peace Facility—could be a useful first step. Diplomats can negotiate peace; societies must build peace. In this context, the EU can do what it does the best: long-term societal engagement. By expanding youth and academic exchange programmes, investing in cross-border civil society initiatives, and fostering people-to-people cooperation, Brussels can help shape a new generation equipped to sustain peace beyond political cycles. Such tools are slow and unglamorous, but if ignored, even the strongest treaty risks collapse. And obviously, these aspects require two-way engagement and genuine willingness by both governments to facilitate contact. If Brussels wants to remain influential, it needs to replace outdated one-size-fits-all policies with ambitious, interest-driven and differentiated approaches. Without a clear regional strategy, which appears to be the current situation, the South Caucasus will continue to sit at the margins of Europe’s security architecture—leaving space for other powers to take the lead. (You can read the op-ed in full by clicking the image.)

To listen to world leaders speaking these days, one would think that the world has embraced multilateralism, as the guiding principle in international relations. From Brussels to Beijing the concept is lauded, often to distinguish countries or groups of countries from Trumpian America, which has turned multilateralism into a bogey, and often a punching bag. But a closer look indicates that many countries are talking at cross-purposes.  At one end you have the European Union, itself a quintessential multilateralist project grouping 27  member states, some of whom had spent the last century fighting each other. At the other extreme, there is China, a country with great ambitions, and a great discourse that accompanies these ambitions, who however presents itself as the self-proclaimed leader of the global south. Put simply, multilateralism is when a group of countries agree to pursue a common goal in cooperation, and based on equality. On the European continent, multilateralism was for fifty years the way the continent conducted business, and two organisations became a clear expression of this multilateralist path: the European Union (EU), and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). They both operate by consensus. Beyond the continent, on a global level, the UN is in crisis. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money, to fix it. Three countries can help, or they can make matters worse: the US, Russia, and China. Trumpian America does not like the UN and has turned its back on multilateralism. The shameful US national security strategy creates a wedge between the US and Europe and sets a narrow vision of the world. Trump described the document as a "roadmap" to ensure the US remains "the greatest and most successful nation in human history". Russia is today in no position to counterbalance the US position, even if it wants to. So, its role in the future world order will be one of an opportunistic spoiler. China is another matter. It has the ambition to be a superpower and global player. It has good connections with the global south, although its claim of leadership is often overstated, and it pays lip service to multilateralism. It needs to be engaged, but with caution. Attempts at multilateral initiatives in the South, for example BRICS, are increasingly dysfunctional. Yet, multilateralism remains the best option for addressing the future. Some of the world's problems, such as climate change, simply cannot be tackled by one country, or one country working alone. But most of the institutions are greatly in need of an overhaul. The European Union must take the lead. It must also engage with China on a case-by-case, topic-by-topic basis. This will be a long and laborious process. But the rules of the game, and the assumptions that underpinned them, have changed, or at best are being challenged. It is time for a global rethink. (Click the image to read the full Monday Commentary).

In recent years, Eurasia has undergone a structural transformation in how regions connect, trade, and cooperate. The combination of geopolitical shocks, disrupted supply chains, and the search for secure east–west routes has elevated the importance of the Trans-Caspian space. The states of Central Asia, once constrained by geography, have taken unprecedented steps to strengthen regional coordination, modernize infrastructure, and integrate more closely with Europe. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has rapidly emerged as an indispensable connector linking Central Asia with the South Caucasus, Türkiye, and European markets. This new reality was formally acknowledged in November 2025 when Azerbaijan was unanimously welcomed as a full participant in the Consultative Meeting of Central Asian Heads of State in Tashkent. What had long been a C5 grouping transformed into a C6, marking a historic moment: the Caspian was no longer a frontier separating two regions but the center of a unified geopolitical and geo-economic space. President Ilham Aliyev described this alignment as the emergence of “a single geopolitical and geo-economic region,” while President Shavkat Mirziyoyev called Azerbaijan’s inclusion “historic” and proposed transforming the consultative platform into a structured regional institution capable of shaping security, economic, environmental, and digital policy. The Caspian is no longer a boundary; it is the heart of an integrated region. The transformation of the EU and U.S. C5+1 formats into C6+1 is the logical next step to ensure that both sides of the Caspian advance together – coherently, strategically, and with shared purpose. (click the image to read the full op-ed).

The Ministerial Council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will have its annual meeting in Vienna on 4-5 December. Foreign Ministers from the 57 member states, which also include the United States and Canada, and the Central Asian republics, and 11 partner countries, will congregate to discuss the future of European Security at a time when many believe that war in Europe over the next decade is likely. Ukraine is just a rehearsal for Russia’s ultimate ambitions. British diplomacy used to describe the OSCE as “the organization to manage Russia”. It has not done a good job of that, but this task remains paramount. The Ministerial Council will be the last major business of this year’s chairmanship, Finland, and will launch the new Chairmanship for 2026, Switzerland. The OSCE has been moribund for some time, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, nearly ended it. But Europe still needs the OSCE, and there is hope that it will take a new lease of life in 2026. Switzerland has held the Chairmanship of the OSCE twice before, successfully. It has the experience, a wide network of embassies, and an able team in Bern, to successfully start what is likely to be a long and laborious journey. The new Chairman-in-office is Swiss Federal Foreign Minister Councillor, Ignazio Cassis. Cassis is also the current Vice President of the Swiss Confederation, and is fluent in Italian, English, German and French. Quite unusual also is the fact that currently the General Secretary of the OSCE is a Turk. Feridun Sinirlioğlu is an experienced Turkish diplomat, who has held the position for a year. Between them, Cassis and Sinirlioğlu will have to craft out the new OSCE, but in the end, it will largely depend on the will of the member states, including Russia. A new, reborn, OSCE, must understand that its core task remains European peace and security. It should resist the temptation of “looking busy” with a lot of secondary things. After peace and security return to Europe, it can consider other tasks. But we are far away from that yet. (Click the image to read the full commentary)