When Volodymyr Zelensky ran for office to become president of Ukraine in 2019, many did not take him seriously. Here was a person who had become famous as an actor, playing the role of an imaginary president in a television soap opera, wanting to get the real thing. In 2021/22, he, on his part, did not take seriously warnings about an imminent Russian invasion. He thought he could negotiate with Putin the future of Ukraine. He did not understand the contempt that Putin had for him, and indeed for the entire Ukrainian nation. The invasion marked the birth of a new Zelensky, and a new Ukraine. As Russian troops approached Kyiv, Zelensky, although he knew that he was a primary target that the Russians wanted to eliminate, refused offers to be evacuated, and said that he would stay on and resist. Most Ukrainians said the same. Ukraine is emerging from the war bruised but strong. In the war, the country has found itself. It has the potential and the self-confidence necessary to succeed. The war has enabled Ukraine to emerge from the shadow of Russia. Untangible as this concept is, it is the key issue that will define the country’s future. And Zelensky? Not by his own choice Zelensky ended up being a wartime leader. He did that very well. It is likely that when the war ends the Ukrainian people will want to move on to another leader that will be able to lead Ukraine in peace. But Volodymyr Zelensky has already earned a place in the history of Ukraine, and of Europe.  

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said early on Sunday (19 October), that Afghanistan and Pakistan had agreed to an immediate ceasefire after talks mediated by Qatar and Turkiye following days of fierce fighting along their disputed border. They also agreed to “the establishment of mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability between the two countries”. Doha said the two countries also agreed to hold follow-up meetings in the coming days “to ensure the sustainability of the ceasefire and verify its implementation in a reliable and sustainable manner”. The fighting between Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of the wider tensions in South Asia, at the centre of which is the conflict between India and Pakistan, which started with partition in 1947, and has resulted in a number of wars since. This is a deeply rooted religious, ethnic and territorial conflict which casts a shadow over the region. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Every time they fight each other the world holds its breadth. The last fighting in May 2025 lasted only a few days, but was the most intense for 25 years. The onus is on the South Asian countries themselves to avoid the catastrophe of a destructive war between them. This will require wisdom and flexibility by the leaders, and a political sophistication by the population at large. It is not clear if these attributes exist

Multilateralism: the concept whereby countries work together on common tasks and challenges, regardless of disagreements, seems currently out of favour. Three developments appear to seal its fate: first, the return of an emboldened Donald Trump to the White House has triggered a new phase of American particularism; second, Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has created a division in Europe not seen since WWII; third, increased scepticism in the Global South has seen countries or groups of countries adopting a negative view of engagement, particularly with regard to western countries. The European Union (EU) is itself an organisation built on the concept of multilateralism: 27 members states voluntarily join to pool resources and work together. It is a success story, and when someone wants to leave, it can do so as Britain did in 2019. But the EU is a multilateralist player in in own right on the world stage, and it takes this role seriously. The European Council stated that "The European Union will remain a predictable, reliable, and credible partner and welcomes the opportunity to work together in a changing environment with all its partners, as well as with the United Nations and its agencies in driving forward the internal reform process – the UN80 initiative – to ensure that the United Nations remains effective, cost-efficient and responsive.” The commitment is crystal clear. The question is how? It takes two to tango, and the partner of the EU on multilateralism can be China. Unlike the US, China pays lip service to multilateralism, but it actions on Taiwan, the South China Sea, Ukraine, and a lot of other issues, speak a different story. The EU needs to engage China on the multilateral agenda, but needs to do so carefully and selectively. One area were co-operation is necessary and possible is the UN. Donald Trump’s rant at this year’s UN General Assembly is not without justification. The UN needs fixing, but the US proposes to throw out the baby with the bath water. The EU and China can fix this. Reform of the UN is a topic on which the two can work together. They should. On multilateralism the European Union, can and should lead. It must galvanise all its resources, including civil society, a sector where the EU has a lead by far, in the process.

The 20-point American plan for Gaza seeks to take Hamas out of the Gaza equation. This is necessary but not easy. Hamas has become part of the Gaza fabric. It will reinvent itself as many Islamist movements have done elsewhere. But its leaders must go, after they released all the hostages they still kept from the 7 October attack. Then the process of building a new Gaza must start: infrastructure, institutions, and more importantly, the spirit and soul of the Palestinian people. Israel's plans for the annexation of Gaza are out, as is the talk of resettling Palestinians elsewhere. Gaza is, and will remain, Palestine. One can see that rebuilding the infrastructure will happen quickly. Establishing security can also happen if countries contribute forces, and if the international force has a clear mandate. Institutions will take longer, and much will depend on what is happening in the wider Palestinian spectrum, and Israel’s readiness to honour its part of the deal. It is unlikely that Hamas will hand power to anyone but the Palestinian Authority, and this is one of the points that will have to be negotiated. Rebuilding the Palestinian spirit will take years, and healing the trauma of the last two years will be difficult, will take time, but is doable. The American plan has some interesting ideas, but the US must be ready to work with diverse partners, especially in the Middle East, the Muslim world, and Europe. The plan misses one vital point. It does not commit to a two-state solution. Apparently, the Israelis opposed this. The plan, in article 19, says: “While Gaza re-development advances, and when the PA (Palestinian Authority) reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people”. Not good enough! But for the moment the world, and more importantly the Palestinian people, must accept the American plan, and make the most of it.

The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, is the world’s most senior civil servant. His words, especially in the last year, have been tense, terse and delivered with a sense of urgency, as he tries to convey to world statesmen, and the world public, the need for urgent, large-scale action to deal with the global problems that seem to be overwhelming the world body. The challenges are enormous, and the response, if it is to be effective, has to be proportionate in size and scope. 

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.