Search

Begin New Search Topic Russia-Ukraine War

21. A Transforming Eurasian Order

Author:
Feng Yujun
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
I n recent years, driven by multiple factors, the international order has been undergoing rapid adjustment, evolution, and reshaping. In Eurasia, the Russia-Ukraine war has triggered persisting upheaval, acting as a pivotal catalyst for shifts in the regional order. Its impact has prompted historic changes in power dynamics, mutual perceptions, national identities, and strategic orientations among Eurasian states—shifts unmatched since the Soviet Union’s dissolution over three decades ago. These transformations are set to profoundly influence the regional order, becoming a central element in current and future global developments.
Topic:
Post-Soviet Space, Regional Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

22. Ukraine: European democracy’s affordable arsenal

Author:
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
European NATO members must raise defence spending by enough to deter through strength an irredentist Russia. This must be done possibly without the United States and when ageing populations demand higher social spending. Raising defence spending to sufficient levels could result in a doubling of current primary deficits to just over 3 percent of GDP on average. This seems likely to be a fiscally unattainable goal for this group of countries. European NATO members, in addition to their quantitative defence spending challenge, face the qualitative challenge of significantly increasing their outlays on new modern military equipment, especially drones, to credibly deter Russia. This will require all European NATO members to significantly increase investments in their domestic and regional military-industrial capacities. While its armed forces are physically defending their country against Russia’s onslaught, Ukraine is transforming gradually into a very large, advanced and cost-competitive military equipment and weapons producer. Through the so-called ‘Danish Model’, individual European Union and NATO members are already actively funding Ukrainian defence production, helping it to help itself against Russia. Much more focus should be put on Ukraine’s ability, if fully integrated with the military-industrial sector in the rest of Europe, to produce much of the modern military equipment wanted by itself and the rest of Europe. This Policy Brief shows how Ukraine already produces drones and modern howitzers, arguably the two most important weapons in defensive warfare today, at prices well below those achieved by other Western military suppliers. The EU, with a fully integrated and funded Ukrainian military-industrial sector, will have the capacity to produce much of the cost-competitive military equipment it will need in future, while continuing to fund its welfare systems. To facilitate this development, the EU must in all defence and military-related matters begin treating Ukraine immediately as a full EU member.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Industrial Policy, Governance, European Union, Geopolitics, Transatlantic Relations, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

23. The governance and funding of European rearmament

Author:
Guntram B. Wolff, Armin Steinbach, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Europe faces a grave security threat. Gaps in European military equipment are substantial compared to Russia’s military build-up. The European defence market is fragmented and weakened by home bias in procurement, low order numbers and technological gaps. These problems reflect the combination of past reliance on the United States and Europe’s nationally-based defence governance. With the US now retreating from its role of European guardian, greater cooperation is essential to close technological gaps and reduce rearmament costs. Unless procurement is pooled and fragmentation reduced, additional demand for defence goods will mainly drive up prices. Better-integrated defence markets would both increase competition and facilitate entry of new defence technology firms. The combination of integrated markets and scaled-up procurement could lead to a halving of unit costs. European Union measures including the European Defence Fund, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production, the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through Common Procurement Act and ReArm Europe represent progress towards strengthening the supply of military goods but the incentives offered are too small to address the home bias in procurement or to coordinate the provision of ‘strategic enablers’ such as military satellites. To go further, the EU and its European allies have two options. First, the role of the European Defence Agency could be broadened, possibly in combination with a new lending instrument similar to the EU’s 2020-22 SURE programme. Second, a European Defence Mechanism (EDM) could be created: an institution similar to the European Stability Mechanism, based on an intergovernmental treaty. The EDM would undertake joint procurement and plan for the provision of strategic enablers in specified areas, with a capacity to fund these roles. It could own strategic enablers and charge usage fees to EDM members, reducing the budgetary impact of rearmament. EDM membership would entail prohibition of both state aid and procurement preferences that benefit national defence contractors at the expense of contractors from other EDM members. Of the two options, the second is preferable, as it would (1) create a defence industry single market among EDM members, (2) create a financing vehicle that might make large-scale projects fiscally feasible, and (3) include non-EU democracies such as the United Kingdom on an equal footing, while also giving an opt-out to EU countries that lack the political appetite for more defence integration, or that have national constitutional constraints.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Governance, Geopolitics, Weapons, Macroeconomics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and United States of America

24. Lessons from West Germany's Cold War experience

Author:
Paul Williams
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
The Russian aggression against Ukraine is now more than three years old. A new US administration is implementing a radical approach to securing a ceasefire and appears poised to limit direct military assistance to Ukraine. Consequently, Europe now recognizes that it must approach this war in a decidedly different manner than might have been presumed only a few months ago. The past may offer hints to a path forward for Ukraine to survive and ultimately prevail against Russia. While the imminent threat of war hung over Europe during the Cold War, West Germany lived under the constant threat of Soviet aggression. Yet, through economic revival, strategic military growth and partnerships, and careful political maneuvering, West Germany not only outlasted its aggressor but laid the groundwork for long-term stability and prosperity. West Germany's experience during the Cold War offers valuable insights for Ukraine in its pursuit of enduring stability and prosperity amid external threats. This blog explores some of the lessons that may be drawn from West Germany across economic and military themes.
Topic:
Cold War, Economics, History, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and West Germany

25. Plunder by Paperwork: Land Use and Legal Manipulation in Russian-Occupied Ukrainian Territories

Author:
Kateryna Kyrychenko and Patricia Wiater
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
In war, land is more than terrain — it is power, memory, identity, and future. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, where the battle is being waged not only with weapons but with registries, decrees, and legal manipulation. Russia’s strategy in Ukraine has not merely been to seize land — but to rewrite the law that governs it. Through reclassification, coerced registration, and demographic engineering, the occupying power is attempting to transform occupation into ownership — to fabricate a claim to sovereignty through legal means. Beneath a facade of administrative normalcy lies a systematic campaign of illegal appropriation — one that violates both international humanitarian law and human rights protections. This blog post outlines the legal framework governing land under occupation, examines how Russia has sought to subvert it, and explains why land law is now a frontline of resistance.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Law, Occupation, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

26. Russian Use of Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine

Author:
Paul Williams, Gregory P. Noone, and Sindija Beta
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
Numerous investigative reports into the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine since 2022 have documented extensive and shocking use of sexual and gender-based violence (“SGBV”) by Russian nationals against Ukrainian civilians, prisoners of war, and other detainees. Russia has long been responsible for a largely under-discussed and distressing amount of SGBV crimes, including rape. Russian SGBV atrocities have historically been especially brutal during World War II in Germany, as well as Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. Focus has recently turned to the question of how Russia could be held accountable for its use of SGBV as a weapon of war in Ukraine. Various sources of international law provide prohibitions on the use of SGBV during armed conflict, and there have been successful examples of holding individual perpetrators accountable under international criminal law in past conflicts. As the Russian attacks on Ukraine continue unabated, it is appropriate to appraise the scale of SGBV committed, the international laws being breached, and the possible enforcement mechanisms.
Topic:
Gender Based Violence, Rape, Sexual Violence, Atrocities, Armed Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

27. Recognizing 2014: The Legal and Moral Imperative for Full Reparations for Russian Aggression

Author:
Kateryna Kyrychenko, Paul D. Williams, and Sindija Beta
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
Why are the earliest victims of Russia’s war in Ukraine — those targeted since 2014 — still excluded from reparations, when it was exactly the failure to respond to that initial aggression that directly enabled the full-scale invasion in 2022?
Topic:
Law, International Crime, Reparations, Russia-Ukraine War, and Aggression
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

28. China-Russia Relations Since the Start of the War in Ukraine

Author:
Asia Sociey
Publication Date:
08-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
In the 19th century, like Western powers and Japan, Russia participated in the “Scramble for China”; however, unlike the others, it never returned the vast territories it annexed. After a long and turbulent history of Sino-Russian relations, Mikhail Gorbachev launched the Soviet “turn to Asia” policy in July 1986 with his Vladivostok speech. Addressing the Chinese directly, he declared: “I would like to dwell on the most important issue in our relations. These relations are extremely important for several reasons, starting from the fact that we are neighbors, that we share the world’s longest land border, and that we, our children, and grandchildren are destined to live near each other ‘forever and ever.’”1 This policy was reaffirmed by President Vladimir Putin after he came to power in 2000, reinforced during the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and further intensified following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, China and Russia signed lengthy and grandiloquent declarations celebrating their “no-limits friendship,” prominently showcased during commemorations in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany. Yet this no-limits friendship, while rhetorically expansive, has never been formalized and contains several clear limitations — limitations the current U.S. administration has unsuccessfully attempted to exploit. This paper examines the China-Russia relationship and its often-contradictory evolution. The strategic dynamic between these two Eurasian powers has produced a partnership further solidified by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, despite Beijing’s attempts to mediate the conflict. While the strength of this partnership may make it appear unbreakable, it should not preclude continued dialogue between China and the West — particularly the European Union and its member states. The EU–China summit held in Beijing on July 24, however, did not yield the expected results in this regard.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, European Union, Partnerships, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

29. British public opinion on foreign policy: President Trump, Ukraine, China, Defence spending and AUKUS

Author:
Sophia Gaston
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Results snapshot President Trump Britons support an open and engaged foreign policy role for the United Kingdom. In light of the re-election of President Donald Trump, 40% believe Britain should continue to maintain its current active level of engagement in world affairs, and 23% believe it should play a larger role. Just 16% of Britons support a less active United Kingdom on the world stage. When asked what Britain’s response should be if the United States withdraws its financial and military support from Ukraine, 57% of Britons would endorse the UK either maintaining (35%) or increasing (22%) its contributions to Ukraine. One-fifth would prefer that the UK reduces its contributions to Ukraine. UK–China relations Just a quarter (26%) of Britons support the UK Government’s efforts to increase engagement with China in the pursuit of economic growth and stabilised diplomatic relations. In comparison, 45% of Britons would either prefer to return to the more restricted level of engagement under the previous government (25%) or for the government to reduce its relations with Beijing even further (20%). A large majority of Britons (69%) are concerned about the increasing degree of cooperation between Russia and China. Conservative and Labour voters share similarly high levels of concern, and Britons over 50 years of age are especially troubled about the trend of adversary alignment. Defence and security When asked whether the UK will need to spend more on defence to keep up with current and future global security challenges, a clear two-thirds (64%) of the British people agree. Twenty-nine per cent of Britons strongly agree that defence spending should increase. Just 12% disagree that the UK will need to spend more. The majority of Britons believe that collaboration with allies on defence and security projects like AUKUS will help to make the UK safer (55%) and that partnerships like AUKUS focusing on developing cutting-edge technologies with Britain’s allies will help to make the UK more competitive towards countries like China (59%). Britons are somewhat less persuaded that AUKUS will succeed as a deterrent against Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, although the largest group of respondents (44%) agree that it will.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Bilateral Relations, Public Opinion, Alliance, AUKUS, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Australia, and United States of America

30. The Rise and Growing Coordination of The Global South

Author:
Veronika Nechaeva
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
The phrase “Global South” is increasingly employed in the information space, which introduces certain modifications to the traditional understanding of the “East-West” division model of the world. While concerns about the global order and the role of the Global South have been debated for decades, China’s assertive ambitions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have sparked renewed discussions about the Global South’s geopolitical significance. Some experts even note that it is the representatives of the Global South, as the owners of the “golden share”, who may ultimately decide the fate of the further arrangement of international relations. The term “Global South” was coined to the general public in 1969 by the American political activist Carl Oglesby. It refers to regions of the world often characterized by lower levels of economic development, historical colonial influence, and geographic location predominantly in the Southern Hemisphere. Countries in the Global South are frequently associated with socio-economic challenges such as income inequality, limited industrialization, and weaker political influence in global governance structures. Traditionally, the ‘old’ narratives surrounding the Global South focused on these characteristics, framing these nations primarily as recipients of aid or as dependent economies within a Western-dominated world order. However, the term now carries an ideological component, reflecting new narratives that emphasize the agency, resilience, and aspirations of these nations in shaping the global geopolitical landscape.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Global South, International Order, Coordination, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Global South