Monday Commentary

Last month, TIME magazine ran a cover story entitled “A New Middle East Is Unfolding before our eyes”. “The middle of what? East of where?”, asks Tim Marshall in his seminal book ‘Prisoners of Geography’, before quickly reminding us that “The Middle East is one of those places where the past is now”.

The war in Ukraine, following Russia’s unprovoked invasion in February 2022, has now raged on for three and a half years. Thousands of Ukrainians, military and civilian, have died, and millions of Ukrainians have been displaced. Vladimir Putin brought this calamity on the Ukrainian people, and on his nation too, for political capriciousness and naked ambition. Leaders of European countries understood the seriousness and significance of the moment, not only those near Russia, such as Poland, the Baltic States, Finland and Sweden, but in wider Europe too, including Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands and beyond. Yet whilst the leaders rose to the occasion, the European public has remained largely indifferent. The majority of Europeans have so far acquiesced to the decision of their leaders to pour billions of euros into the Ukrainian war effort, but the conflict remains distant, and most Europeans carry on with their lives as usual. Putin is perceived more as an oddity than a threat. There is a great risk in this. The European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, and former Estonian politician, Kaja Kallas, is quoted as saying “Ukraine fights today so that we may not have to fight tomorrow. Their fight is our fight.” True! But that is not the full story.

The animosity between Armenians and Azerbaijanis runs deep. The two nations fought many battles against each other. In the wars of the last forty years, tens of thousands of people were killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and billions of euros were lost in economic harm. On Thursday, 13 March 2025, the two sides finally announced that they had agreed on the text of a peace agreement. The agreement will be signed soon. Within societies, on both sides, there are expectations of what this peace will bring. There is also a sense of uncertainty and confusion, which is being used by spoilers, internal and external. A dialogue involving different segments of society, is now more important than ever. But this dialogue needs to have new characteristics to respond to new realities. LINKS Europe, an organisation that has been involved in many peace initiatives in the South Caucasus in the past, is currently engaged in such a process. It recently launched a new Armenia-Azerbaijan dialogue format in the framework of the European Union's EU4Peace initiative. In the last two weeks, dozens of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, including academics, students, civil society activists, journalists and other professionals, many of them young, were involved. The work is organised in five thematic groups focusing on peace and security, connectivity, environment, governance and gender and equality and in phase 2 of the project, which has just ended, around fifty participants took part in in-person and online meetings, and more than twenty others were involved indirectly. The Chairpersons of the five thematic groups met in Vilnius, 3-6 July to launch the third phase of the program.

The Nato Summit held in The Hague on 24-25 June was a failure, wrapped in success. It was a success because it avoided public display of divisions, mainly by avoiding issues: it was the shortest summit anyone can remember; it also had a very short final statement that basically had two points, the first a re-commitment to article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter and the principle that an attack on one will be considered an attack on all. The fact that Nato leaders in the Hague had felt the need to re-emphasise this should be a cause of worry not celebration, but in the end, it is good that it was said. The second outcome, the one that received most attention, was the commitment of European countries to spend more on their defence: 5 per cent of GDP, of which 3.5 per cent on hard defence, and 1.5 per cent on related ancillary areas such as infrastructure. You may, if you want, believe that this was a response to US President Donald Trump's insistence. Or, if you are more prudent, understand that countries that matter – Germany, France, Poland and the Scandinavian countries had decided on this course of action quite separately, and as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which was a wake-up call. Finland and Sweden’s decision to abandon their neutrality, and join NATO was taken long before Trump returned to the White House. The EU’s decision to spend massively on defence was always to ensure that other European countries are part of this process, willy-nilly.

NATO summits are usually orderly affairs, prepared well in advance, and an opportunity for the partners in the military alliance to show unity and resolve. The forthcoming Nato Summit in The Hague, on Tuesday and Wednesday, 24 and 25 June is different. As the BBC put it, there will be 32 leaders from Europe and North America present, but “only one man matters  - NATO's summit is all about Trump”. With three wars on its borders, NATO needed a good summit in The Hague. Whilst managing Mr Trump, the 31 other leaders in The Hague need to think of the future.

The political crises in Georgia that started after disputed parliamentary elections at the end of last year, shows no sign of easing. The government, formed by the ruling Georgian Dream party, appears exhausted. Its strategy of wearing out the opposition failed. It is now increasingly resorting to repression. Many opposition activists have been arrested, and the Government keeps introducing laws and administrative measures that are meant to tighten its control of the country, but in practice increase the resolve of its opponents. The Georgian Dream government is at a dead end.

A wave of right-wing sentiment is gripping the world, not least in Europe where right-wing parties that until yesterday were considered to be on the fringe of the political spectrum, are now knocking on the doors of government, if they are not in government already. It is no longer possible to dismiss this movement, nor to ignore it. The question needs to be asked why people are flocking to these parties. Migration is often cited as a reason, but whilst a factor, on its own this is not an adequate explanation. Thousands of people, who until recently voted for the centre-left, or centre-right parties – in Europe usually associated with Social Democrats and Christian Democrats – are now supporting parties, some of who have a pedigree in fascism and nazism. Yet many who vote for far-right and populist parties are neither fascists nor nazis. They are mostly decent working people, and their families, who are disillusioned by the political class, often described as the political elite, and are in desperation seeking something different.

China wants to be first in the world, but its first stop is Asia. While the rest of the world debates and sometimes agonises over whether and how to engage with China, Asian countries have no choice but to engage. And in most cases, they will have to do so on China's terms. Most countries have to play a balancing game, but China is taking no chances. Chinese leader Xi Jinping's recent trip to Southeast Asia in April was a case in point. Another was the China-GCC-ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur on 28 May, attended by Chinese Premier Li Qiang and the leaders of the six Gulf monarchies and the ten ASEAN countries.

In the last few days, the EU and the UK took the first public steps to censure Israel for its actions in Gaza. It was done ever so gently that one could not be blamed for not noticing, but politically it was a seismic step taken after much consideration and soul-searching, and it will have long-term implications. But for many, it is too little, too late. Gaza is a tragedy that the West has been unable to prevent. It will haunt the West, particularly Europe for a long time to come.