Monday Commentary

The year 2025 has ended up being a momentous year for the South Caucasus, writes Dennis Sammut in his Monday Commentary. Armenia-Azerbaijan relations have been redefined, with consequences for the whole region and beyond. That huge development overshadowed key moments in the domestic trajectory of the two countries, which however have deep consequences for the two countries, and even beyond. It has also been a tumultuous year for Georgia too. The country has been gripped in a political crisis throughout 2025, with no obvious end in sight. Whatever the domestic arguments, on the international stage Georgia is today a shadow of what it used to be until recently. It not only has lost the chance of joining the European Union any time soon, but it has also lost its position as the leading South Caucasus country. Today, in the new reality of the region, it lags as a tired third. Important as 2025 was, it ended with a lot of unfinished business. So 2026 will also be crucial for the three countries. Since regaining its statehood in 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Armenia-Azerbaijan relations have been defined by war. The two fought open wars, wars of attrition, and propaganda wars, incessantly. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands were displaced. Many had lost hope that the two could try the alternative – i.e. peaceful co-existence. Yet in 2025 they were proven wrong.

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).