Monday Commentary

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).

Countries that want to work together usually establish collaborative platforms, which enable them to meet regularly, co-ordinate positions and, if necessary take common action. The G7 is one such platform.  It is made up of the seven leading industrialized  countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union, and has been going since 1975. For a short time (1997 – 2014) there was also a G8 – which brought Russia in together with the G7. However this was ended when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Ahead of his meeting with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, on 29 October, Trump wrote on Social Media “The G2 will be convening shortly”. There was therefore surprise when Donald Trump last month started talking of the G2. So why is Trump talking about a G2? Trump wants, if possible, to avoid war with China under his watch. It will be too costly and unpredictable. Offering China the role of joint hegemon may win time, despite its risks. None of the actual problems will go away, in fact they may be exacerbated. In the meantime Trump wants to show China that the US has teeth, and it will use them if necessary. The rebranding of the Department of Defence into Department of War may seem like an expensive and reckless act of folly. But it sends a signal. Other more tangible actions like missile tests, withdrawal from test ban treaty, etc, do so too. Will there be a G2. It is highly unlikely. The Chinese have their own vision of the world in which so far Trump has been an irritant, rather than a problem. Their view of things is much longer than Trump’s. They will remain engaged, and they will talk. They are happy that the US president now looks at them as an equal. But they will not formalise the relationship. In the meantime, Donald Trump will continue sending contradictory signals hoping to confuse the Chinese. It is also unlikely.

The long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which had been going on for three decades, appears to be coming to an end. After a short war which left many dead or injured, and a military operation which saw hundreds of thousands of Armenians leaving Azerbaijani territory, hundreds of thousands of displaced Azerbaijanis could start returning home. The sides engaged with discussions, first with mediators, and later, more successfully, alone. In March they agreed the text of a peace agreement. On 8 August, they initialed the agreement in Washington, in the presence of US President Donald Trump. The agreement has as yet to be signed. The meeting with Trump at the White House in August, was widely hailed as historic. It was. Not least because it tied Trump, the US, and the entire western world, to the peace process, and to the future of the South Caucasus. It was a game changer, with the potential of changing the reality on the ground. But now the hard work must start. But we must not be complacent, and think that from now onwards there will not be any problems. The peace process is incomplete and fragile. Below the top ten people on each side, whole populations, brought up with the vision of the other as enemy, have yet to be convinced of the new way forward. Lurking in the background, and sometimes, not so much in the background, are the enemies of peace, and the spoilers. The main enemies are external. Foremost is Russia. Russian policy in the South Caucasus over the last three decades has been built on the premise that Armenia and Azerbaijan were enemies that will never reconcile. The European Union in the South Caucasus is often doing catch up. It appears to have been taken by surprise by events in Georgia. It was not expecting Armenia-Azerbaijani peace and reconciliation. The European Union in the South Caucasus must catch-up, and step-up, fast. Easier said than done. The EU is set in its own ways, that were not invented, and developed for the fluid and fast changing situation that exists in the South Caucasus today. The EU must accept that in the South Caucasus it will have to lead. US involvement will be erratic, and can be counter-productive. But the EU does not have the luxury of time. If it wants to support the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan it must do so now. Armenia and Azerbaijan are on the way to peace, but the process is far from complete or irreversible. There are many enemies of peace, and spoilers, lurking, ready to pounce. click the headline to read more

In todays’ crowded field in international relations, Sudan hardly is ever in centre stage. These days news, in the mainstream western media at least, is where Donald Trump decides to focus. But the events of the last days in Sudan were too grotesque to ignore. The rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), finally won complete control over the Southern region of Darfur, overrunning the last base of the Khartoum government army (SAF), in EL Fasher. In the process, the RSF forces went on a spree of violence, killing at random civilians, and conducting a massacre in a hospital. The world twinged. Western governments issued condemnations, and the mainstream western media, with the exception of the BBC which has kept an interest in the country throughout, reached out for its atlases to find out where Al Fasher was. Sudan is the third largest country in Africa, occupying, an area of 1,886,068 square kms (728,215 square miles ) and with a population of around fifty million. A key role can be played by four countries that form the so-called "Quad initiative" — the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia  and the UAE. They include the states that could exert real influence in Sudan. The initiative's objective was a roadmap to end the war or, at the very least, a humanitarian truce. However last week (26 October), Quad talks  in Washington failed. At the moment Sudan’s only hope is that international pressure can convince countries like UAE and Egypt to back an immediate ceasefire, and return Sudan to international humanitarian law. Sudan is already a failed state. But its people are resourceful, and given the right conditions they can rebuild their country. The world must help them to do so.

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.