Economy

In this analysis for commonspace.eu, Anna Szedlacsek argues that Kazakhstan and Armenia, two countries that Russia had considered in its sphere of influence, appear increasingly eager to ensure that Moscow is no longer their only option. Armenia and Kazakhstan both reached their strategic turning points between 2020 and 2022, driven by security failures, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and severe economic vulnerabilities.  Among these reasons, the war in Ukraine sheds a particularly long shadow. In Kazakhstan, Russia’s “special military operation” substantially damaged Moscow's image among ordinary Kazakh citizens and reignited anxieties about revanchist Russian rhetoric regarding northern Kazakhstan. Almaty is heavily challenged by having to navigate its deep economic and transit interdependence with Russia. Kazakhstan is aggressively developing alternative transport links, such as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (Middle Corridor) through Baku, Azerbaijan, to reach European and global markets without crossing Russian territory. This also reflects a move away from Russia as its main trading partner – this position has been earned by China, or, if considered as a bloc, the European Union (EU). Armenia, on the other hand, began its pivot away from Moscow’s orbit after the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and reached a point of no return following Azerbaijan's final capture of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. This is due to the fact that despite hosting a Russian military base and belonging to the CSTO, Armenia received no military assistance from Russia during either of these conflicts. Moscow remained neutral – and thus turned untrustworthy in the eyes of Armenians – because it wished to safeguard its expanding economic, energy, and transit partnerships with Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Armenian parliament also passed a law to initiate the EU accession process, while ministries are recruiting Western-educated professionals to restructure the civil service away from the Kremlin. The question, is not simply whether Russia is losing its allies. It is whether Russia is losing its ability to make those allies dependent on it. As of September 2026, the evidence does not point to a definitive answer. Russia has not been pushed out of either country – but both Kazakhstan and Armenia appear increasingly eager to ensure that Moscow is no longer their only option. (click the image to read the analysis in full)

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen gave her annual "State of the Union" speech to the European Parliament on Thursday (17 September). The speech was visionary in its scope and ambitious in what it seeks to achieve. But many who are familiar with the Brussels bureaucracy do not think that the system that von der Leyen heads, has the stamina, flexibility or even the will to deliver. Von der Leyen did not mince her words. Her opening statement laid out the vision and the ambition "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' This is how Charles Dickens describes Europe in the days of the French Revolution. And it is also a fair description of the world we live in. The speed of change is incredible. The challenges exceptional. So if I look at Europe today, my take is this: the state of our Union is the strongest it has ever been. The state of our Union can also feel as precarious as it has ever been." Von der Leyen said she would propose a new security forum, A European Security Council, for EU and like-minded leaders in response to escalating Russian hybrid attacks and fraying transatlantic relations, with Canada, Ukraine, Norway, and the U.K. also be invited to join. Putting her point of view to the European Parliament, and being honest about the challenges ahead, was an important challenge. More difficult is the challenge that von der Leyen has, to convince the bureaucracy in the EU instituions in Brussels of the challenges ahead, and of the need to change and adapt to the new realities. This bureaucracy has often failed to deliver. Its too caught in its own labyrinth and comfort zone; has a problem with engaging with both EU citizens and the wider world; lacks the readiness to learn from its own mistakes, partly because of a flawed institutional memory, and is too slow to adjust. Von der Leyen has tried to fix some of these probelms, but with limited success. She needs to try harder! (click image to read the editorial comment in full)