Diplomacy

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)

Pope Leo XIV has begun the first overseas trip of his pontificate, a six-day visit to Türkiye and Lebanon, which started yesterday (27 November) and ends on Tuesday (2 December). According to Vatican Radio, the visit "carries a strong ecumenical character and places interreligious dialogue at its centre. It will also be a moment of closeness to Christian communities and local populations across the region".   During nearly a week in the region, Pope Leo XIV will meet civil and religious authorities, visit mosques and ancient churches, pray at Beirut’s port in memory of the victims of the 2020 explosion, and hold private meetings with Presidents Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Joseph Aoun.   A highlight of the visit will be a visit to Nicaea, where the Pope will mark the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. Christians of many traditions recognise the Council of Nicaea as a foundation of shared faith. One of the most anticipated moments will be the Pope’s encounter with Lebanese youth in Bkerké, at the Maronite Patriarchate, a meeting expected to carry strong messages of hope in the Jubilee Year. A central event will be the ecumenical celebration in İznik, where the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew will walk together toward the ruins of the Basilica of St Neophytos. The prayer, held before icons of Christ and the Council, will conclude with the lighting of a candle—a symbolic gesture of unity. The journey will also highlight interreligious engagement.   Memorable moments are expected throughout the trip: a wreath at Atatürk’s mausoleum, prayer inside the Blue Mosque, Mass at Istanbul’s Volkswagen Arena, the planting of a cedar at the presidential palace in Beirut, and prayer at the tomb of St Charbel in Lebanon. The Vatican said that "Pope Leo XIV’s pilgrimage to Türkiye and Lebanon aims to offer a voice of peace, unity, and hope at the heart of the Middle East."

In this analysis,  veteran Azerbaijani journalist and political commentator, Mehman Aliyev, draws lessons from the 1994 Armenia-Azerbaijan ceasefire, to assess what can be possible impact of ceasefire in Ukraine. According to diplomats, a negotiating format or a partial ceasefire based on a modified version of the twenty-eight points is entirely plausible in 2026. A frozen line of contact, monitored by international mechanisms while talks drag on, is more likely than a fully implemented peace treaty by early that same year. “This document opens a window,” said political commentator Farid Gakhramanov. “Whether it means the end of the war or the beginning of a new frozen conflict will depend on the decisions of Moscow, Kyiv, Washington, and Brussels — not on the document itself.” (You can read the full analysis by clicking the image)

Talks were held in Geneva on Sunday (23 November) between the United States and Ukraine. Also present in Geneva were representatives of the key European countries, France, Germany and UK, and the EU. The talks are expected to continue today. The future if Ukraine is at stake, and so is the future of Europe. There should be no doubt that Putin’s ambitions do not stop in Kiev. The talks are expected to continue today (24 November), and Ukraine’s de facto capitulation is not an option for Europe. The scandalous draft of the plan called “the US plan”, but probably written by the Russians, appears to have been put aside. Officially it is still called the “US plan”, that is what the ego of US president, Donald Trump, requires. But it started to look increasingly like the plan put forward by the Europeans, which is much closer to the Ukrainian position. The Europeans were not represented in Geneva by Ministers and politicians, but by their national security advisors, somber men who are cool and calculating. They have a difficult task: on the one hand they understand very well that Ukraine’s war is Europe’s war, and they know better than anyone else how big the threat of Putin’s Russia is to European peace and security. The risks of the “original US plan” are obvious to them. But they also understand that Ukraine, and up to now Europe, depend on the US for their security. So, they cannot alienate the American president too much. US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, well understands the European dilemma. He finds himself in the unenviable position of needing to reconcile his president’s views, with the Ukrainian and European one. At stake is Ukraine’s future as a state. Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelenkiy quaintly calls it “Ukraine’s dignity”. But it is much more than that. Russia does not want Ukraine to exist as a state in any meaningful way. It should either have a puppet government, as it wanted to impose on Kiev when it launched the invasion in February 2022; or be so weak and dismembered that it will be in all but name a vassal of Russia. Whatever is finally agreed in Geneva, and whatever Donald Trump finally decides, 2026 is going to be a crucial year for Ukraine. European support has so far been steady, but must become steadier, regardless of Trumpian shenanigans. 2026 must be the year of European Ukraine. For this to happen their must be more resolve in Europe, and a stronger determination to support Ukraine fully. (read the full commentary by clicking on the image).