Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Exploring options for advancing Kosovo-NATO relations
- Author:
- Ramadan Iazi and Jeta Loshaj
- Publication Date:
- 03-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
- Abstract:
- NATO’s role in Kosovo has been vital since the 1999 intervention and KFOR remains integral for guaranteeing security and stability not only in Republic of Kosovo but also the wider Western Balkans. Public sentiment for full NATO membership is extremely high in Kosovo—over 90% support—reflecting Kosovars’ enduring trust in the NATP alliance. However this overwhelming public support can be affected if Kosovo’s aspirations for closer ties with NATO are not addressed. While, Kosovo’s formal progress toward full membership is politically constrained by the fact that four NATO member states have yet to recognize its independence, there are other options that NATO can pursue to advance relations with Kosovo. In this context, this paper explores options how can Kosovo and NATO advance relations and cooperation. The 1995 study provides core principles for options that are examined in this paper. These principles remain highly relevant for Kosovo. While formal membership is stalled by non-recognizing NATO member states, the paper argues that an inclusive, step-by-step approach can be adapted for a flexible, deeper engagement with Kosovo. A central recommendation is the creation of a “Kosovo Enhanced Cooperation Initiative,” a tailored version of NATO’s partnership mechanisms (e.g., Partnership for Peace, Planning and Review Process, and the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre). KECI would aim to strengthen Kosovo’s defense institutions, enhance interoperability, support civil emergency preparedness, and develop broader crisis-management capabilities. Crucially, it would not force any change in the political stance on recognition among NATO member states. The EU-facilitated normalization dialogue between Republic of Kosovo and Serbia is one of the essential elements especially for Kosovo to build the confidence of both skeptical NATO member states and international partners when it comes to Euro-Atlantic integration process of the country. Regular coordination with NATO and the EU, particularly concerning sensitive actions in the north, would affirm that Kosovo’s leaders prioritize strategic partnerships and diplomacy over moves that risks and undermine support for Kosovo. Nevertheless, without any concrete carrots such as anything close to a guarantee that Kosovo gains an open perspective for NATO’s PfP, it is rather difficult for Kosovo to be encouraged to deliver on either an agreement with Serbia or any other agreement.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Partnerships, Normalization, and Regional Politics
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Kosovo, and Serbia
3. Russia’s Shadow War Against the West
- Author:
- Seth G. Jones
- Publication Date:
- 03-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- Abstract:
- Russia is conducting an escalating and violent campaign of sabotage and subversion against European and U.S. targets in Europe led by Russian military intelligence (the GRU), according to a new CSIS database of Russian activity. The number of Russian attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024. Russia’s primary targets have included transportation, government, critical infrastructure, and industry, and its main weapons and tactics have included explosives, blunt or edged instruments (such as anchors), and electronic attack. Despite the increase in Russian attacks, Western countries have not developed an effective strategy to counter these attacks.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Intelligence, Geopolitics, Russia-Ukraine War, and Transnational Threats
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, and United States of America
4. Hybrid threats: the new horizons for a "Europe of internal security"?
- Author:
- Jean Mafart
- Publication Date:
- 04-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
- Abstract:
- Even today, most of our fellow citizens are unaware that the European Union is actively involved in the fight against terrorism, money laundering and drug trafficking, in border protection and in the harmonisation of criminal legislation[1]. This is why a European internal security strategy, ProtectEU published by the Commission on April 1st is important : it defines the European Union's work programme for the coming years, within the framework of the guidelines laid down by the European Council. The assessment of the previous internal security strategy (for the period 2020-2025) shows that this kind of programme has real scope: the Commission announced numerous initiatives that were actually completed, even if, as time goes by, the action inevitably deviates from the initial intentions in response to circumstances. Since the successive strategies are work programmes for a given period, none of them really resembles the previous one. On the other hand, the major underlying themes vary relatively little: terrorism, organised crime and external border control were, as it is the case today, key concerns of the ‘founding fathers’ of the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ (AFSJ). The doubling of the staff of Europol, the agency responsible which supports Member States in the fight against crime, and the tripling of the staff of the European Border Guard, which are part of the Frontex agency, are also the most spectacular proposals of the new strategy, even if they had already been voiced by the President of the Commission at the beginning of her second term. The arrival of a new theme is therefore bound to attract attention: in this case, it is striking to see the space given over to hybrid threats (a whole chapter, eight pages out of the thirty in the document published on 1 April). A sad sign of the times: it is no longer conceivable to develop an internal security policy without addressing, alongside the more ‘traditional’ themes, the growing threat of destabilisation operations of all kinds coming from Russia or elsewhere. The link between the internal and external dimensions of security is obviously nothing new: in France, the White Paper on defence and national security published in 2008 already considered that ‘the distinction between internal and external security is no longer relevant’. Current geopolitical tensions and the development of hybrid threats are blatantly reinforcing this. How can the ‘internal security of Europe’, initially conceived to respond to internal issues - compensating for the effects of free movement between Member States - adapt to take better account of threats from the outside?
- Topic:
- Security, European Union, and Hybrid Threats
- Political Geography:
- Europe
5. When sleepwalkers awake: German plea for a new European security architecture - a German point of view
- Author:
- Stéphane Beemelmans
- Publication Date:
- 03-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
- Abstract:
- For three years, a war has been raging on Europe's borders between two geographically connected states – a conflict that originated in Russia's occupation of Crimea and Donbass almost 11 years ago. Since then, every political and military decision-maker in our part of Europe should have realized that there is a (great) power on our continent that is ready at any time to put ‘war as a continuation of politics by other means’ (Clausewitz) into practice. The deterrent mechanism between the former blocs, which had been effective for almost 50 years and thus prevented war, has evidently given way to a ‘laissez-faire’ on the part of the European states, which has allowed Russia to attack and partially occupy Ukraine with complete impunity, using a crude mix of historical and political justifications that violate international law. What should not have happened could not be seen and therefore could not be addressed appropriately. Our and NATO's ‘laissez-faire’ was based on the for malistic argument that no NATO member country had been attacked and on the lack of strategic foresight disguised as ‘hope’, the expression of which under international law was the ‘Minsk Peace Agreement’ of 2015. The hope, namely, that this attack could be localized and thus geographically restricted or ‘frozen’.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Regional Security, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Germany
6. Connecting Opportunities: Greece’s Strategic Role in the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC)
- Author:
- Dimitris Gavalas and George Dikaios
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- This policy brief discusses the role of Greece in the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), focusing mainly on those aspects related to infrastructure and ports and the global supply chain. It suggests a series of different actions and highlights different angles that Greece should take into account if it wants to be a major player in the establishment of the Corridor and its gateway to Europe/European Union. – IMEC will be a game changer in international trade relationships, regional tensions, and political challenges. – The main obstacles to IMEC’s establishment are the conflicts in the Middle East and other major national interests of key actors (such as the Chinese monopoly in the region). – Focus is given to port infrastructure, as ports are pivotal to the global supply chain. India pays significant attention to its ports, while the Port of Piraeus is the largest port in Eastern Europe. – The critical role and position of Greece are highlighted, underlying its role as a hub that connects India and the Middle East to Europe. – Greece needs to invest in infrastructure development, build a skilled workforce, and attract foreign investments. – Suggestions for establishing a successful commercial corridor between India and Greece are given, focusing on mutual interests and growth opportunities.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Trade, and Supply Chains
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, India, and Greece
7. A Turning Point, or Not? Principles for a New European Order
- Author:
- Richard Youngs
- Publication Date:
- 04-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Despite repeated declarations of historic turning points, deep structural reforms to the European project remain elusive. While defense spending rises are welcome, EU governments must also pursue systemic changes to Europe’s political and security architecture.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Politics, Reform, European Union, Democracy, and Regional Politics
- Political Geography:
- Europe
8. Europe’s next watershed – how liberal Europe should react to Trump 2.0
- Author:
- Fabian Zuleeg
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- European Policy Centre (EPC)
- Abstract:
- The return of Donald Trump to the White House and his “America first” doctrine inevitably poses a fundamental challenge for the EU. Trump’s second presidency represents a new watershed moment: the policies of the next US administration are not just likely to put Europe at a global disadvantage, they will threaten its core objectives of prosperity, sustainability, security, and democracy. This is why European countries will have to act decisively to safeguard the bloc’s unity and strengthen its autonomy in a changed world. Assuming that a second Trump administration will resemble the first would be a serious error. Trump has become more extreme in his policy positions, while facing fewer constraints and operating in a more favourable international environment. As a result, preparing for a worst-case scenario may be a wise approach. Trump’s adversarial, zero-sum approach to international trade is likely to undermine the structures and processes of multilateral economic governance. Measures such as tariffs also threaten the EU’s growth and competitiveness and risk deepening divisions within the bloc. Global progress towards greater sustainability is certain to suffer. A disengagement on behalf of the US from its leadership role in environmental and climate governance will be a significant setback in these efforts. Should the US turn away from its climate goals, this would send a strong signal to other countries that these objectives are no longer a priority. On security, any potential benefit that a Trump presidency might produce in terms of strengthening EU unity is strongly undermined by his stance on Ukraine, which is set to increase the threat facing Europe from Russia. A US-imposed ceasefire would be no guarantee of lasting peace or security for Ukraine or for Europe. In response, the EU and its members will have to take a much bolder and more proactive role, sharply increasing Europe’s own military capabilities and spending. Policies that signal a tolerance for the use of open and covert force, in violation of international law, will also have profound consequences for global security. Far-right and anti-democratic forces within Europe are likely to be emboldened by an incoming Trump government. His actions to exploit Europe’s political divides are set to put significant pressure on European integration – a project Trump will have no qualms in undermining. The entrenchment and normalisation of Trump’s style of populistic, divisive politics and ‘us against them’ rhetoric risks eroding democratic debate more broadly. His amplification of falsehoods and disinformation will undermine public trust in the US and beyond, and could also boost political figures adopting similar strategies in Europe. There is strong potential for Trump’s anti-establishment narrative to gain further ground in Europe, and Europe’s illiberal, regressive and new-nativist forces will no doubt seek to harness this to increase their power. Should they be successful, there is a very real risk of the EU becoming hollowed-out and ineffectual. In this context, achieving consensus and acting with unity will be a greater challenge than ever for the EU27. Those within the EU who are prepared to take the necessary steps to rise to the challenge posed by Trump may have to explore unconventional forms of cooperation to act effectively. Moving forward in this way poses its own legal and political risks. But with European democracy at stake, it may be the only path to achieving the necessary level of ambition and unity to mount a strong response to Trump 2.0.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, European Union, Donald Trump, Sustainability, and Democratic Backsliding
- Political Geography:
- Europe
9. What’s next for Ukraine and Europe? A conversation with Dmytro Kuleba
- Author:
- Dmytro Kuleba, Carol Saivetz, and Elizabeth Wood
- Publication Date:
- 04-2025
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- What’s next for Ukraine and Europe? A conversation with Dmytro Kuleba, former foreign minister of Ukraine: Tuesday, April 8th, 2025. Speaker: Dmytro Kuleba is a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and served as the foreign minister of Ukraine from March 2020-September 2024. Prior to that, he was deputy prime minister on matters of European relations from August 2019 to March 2020. He is internationally recognized as one of the most influential diplomats of his generation and a global champion for democracy, freedom, and resilience. Discussants: Carol Saivetz is a senior advisor in the MIT Security Studies Program at the Center for International Studies (CIS). She is the author and contributing co-editor of books and articles on Soviet and now Russian foreign policy issues. Elizabeth Wood is Ford International Professor of History at MIT. She is the author most recently of Roots of Russia’s War in Ukraine as well as articles on Vladimir Putin, the political cult of WWII, right-wing populism in Russia and Turkey, and US-Russian Partnerships in Science. She is director of the MIT-Ukraine Program at CIS.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Armed Conflict, Regional Security, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, and Ukraine
10. Dilemmas for the EU in deficit-financing of defence expenditure and maintenance of fiscal discipline
- Author:
- Lucio Pench
- Publication Date:
- 03-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- The European Union is grappling with the challenge of increasing defence expenditure while maintaining fiscal discipline under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). The European Commission has proposed activating the national escape clause available under the SGP to accommodate defence spending without triggering the excessive deficit procedure (EDP). However, the scope and enforcement of this measure remain uncertain. A proposed 1.5 percent of GDP cap on extra fiscal flexibility is legally questionable and unlikely to be enforced. While low-debt countries do not require the clause due to existing flexibility, highly indebted nations may find it insufficient in the face of rising debt costs. The escape clause may also serve as a backdoor for European Central Bank interventions under the Transmission Protection Instrument, which requires compliance with EU fiscal rules. The Commission has also proposed the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) funding mechanism, a €150 billion loan programme to finance national defence investments. SAFE relies on national borrowing and follows the model of the SURE (Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency) facility, put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, SAFE’s limited scale and dependence on national fiscal capacities mean it falls short of the collective security funding approach advocated by economists. Meanwhile, Germany’s decision to reform its constitutional debt brake marks a major departure from its traditional fiscal policies. The reform establishes a permanent ‘defence golden rule’, exempting military spending from borrowing limits, alongside a €10 trillion infrastructure fund. Although this move does not endanger Germany’s fiscal sustainability, it undermines EU-wide fiscal coordination and conflicts with the SGP. This could weaken the European Central Bank’s position in future market interventions. Given these challenges, discussions on a new EU fiscal framework are necessary to ensure fiscal flexibility while maintaining debt sustainability.
- Topic:
- Security, Budget, European Union, Fiscal Policy, and Defense Spending
- Political Geography:
- Europe