From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye.
Today’s about: Armenia-Azerbaijan; Artificial Intelligence; China; Cuba-US; Europe-Arctic; Gaza; Georgia; Guyana; Japan; Kazakhstan; Russia; Syria; US
Armenia – Azerbaijan
(Vasif Huseynov – The Jamestown Foundation) Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Nikol Pashinyan jointly received the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity in Abu Dhabi, signaling international recognition of the rapid pace of their peace progress and a shared commitment to normalization. Baku lifted transit restrictions, routine cargo shipments now cross its territory to Armenia, and bilateral trade has begun through Azerbaijani petroleum exports and exchanged goods lists. The Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process is entering a phase centered on consolidation rather than negotiation alone through trade, transit, and energy cooperation. – Aliyev and Pashinyan Jointly Receive Peace Award in Abu Dhabi – Jamestown
Artificial Intelligence
(Michael C. Horowitz, Lauren Kahn – Council on Foreign Relations) The dramatic shift in global politics over the past year has begun to shape the conversation around the responsible military use of artificial intelligence. The global leaders in AI, the United States and China, appear increasingly detached from one of the major international dialogues on its military applications—at least for the moment. This was apparent last week in A Coruña, Spain, when state delegations and representatives from the AI industry, academia, and civil society convened the third multistakeholder summit on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain (REAIM), which aims to direct the future of international cooperation in the field. The previous two summits have produced “outcome documents” that were largely backed by the delegations in attendance. Both the 2023 “Call to Action” and the 2024 “Blueprint for Action” were endorsed by about sixty countries. This year, only thirty-five nations—neither the United States nor China among them—endorsed the outcomes document, “Pathways to Action”. – Military AI Adoption Is Outpacing Global Cooperation | Council on Foreign Relations
China
(Zi Yang – The Jamestown Foundation) Self-inflicted wounds to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) high command from frequent purges have undermined the PLA leadership’s decision-making capacity by substituting the collective wisdom of elite officers with the wits of one man. Political security and personal loyalty remain key concerns for General Secretary Xi Jinping. Given the PLA’s status as the most lethal institution in the People’s Republic of China—critical to ensuring Xi’s political longevity and future succession plans—he is likely to prioritize loyalty over competence in restaffing the CMC. The psychological effects of rolling purges cannot be ignored. The current crop of elite officers operates in a perilous environment marked by fear and anxiety. Officers are more likely to exercise self-censorship, distrust one another, and choose blind obedience over critical thinking. This will foster an echo chamber that ultimately sabotages the PLA’s effectiveness as a professional warfighting organization. – Elite Fragmentation and Anxiety in the PLA – Jamestown
Cuba – US
(Christopher Sabatini – Chatham House) The US’s 64-year embargo on Cuba is about to get a lot tougher. The Trump administration has cut off the estimated 27,000 to 35,000-barrel-per-day deliveries of cheap Venezuelan oil to the island and is threatening tariffs on countries that may think about trying to fill the void. The end of that oil lifeline comes as Cuba is already suffering its worst economic crisis since the 1959 revolution – one that has brought rolling electrical blackouts, declining hard currency reserves, and food and fuel shortages. President Donald Trump has said that he’s offered a deal to the Cuban government, headed by Miguel Díaz-Canel, and that the two governments are having discussions. The Communist Cuban regime faces an impossible choice: concede to White House demands that will threaten its power – for instance, to release political prisoners and hold elections – or try to use repression to cling on through a looming humanitarian crisis that could erupt into chaos and/or massive outmigration. – How far will Trump push Cuba? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
Europe – Arctic
(Max Bergmann, Otto Svendsen, Andreas Raspotnik, Robert Habeck, Elizabeth Buchanan, and Gabriella Gricius – CSIS) As 2026 unfolds, the European Arctic faces a fundamental transformation. The rules-based international order that once governed the region is not merely fraying—it is fast unraveling. Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, President Trump’s aggressive pursuit of Greenland, and the spillover effects from ongoing transatlantic tensions have shattered any remaining illusions of Arctic exceptionalism. What emerges is a region where traditional security architectures are being tested, redefined, and in some cases, discarded entirely. The convergence of these developments reveals a broader truth: The European Arctic is no longer a peripheral concern, but an important theater for geopolitical competition that will shape Europe’s strategic future. The increasing frequency of hybrid threats—from sabotage of critical infrastructure to disinformation campaigns—underscores that the region has shifted from a zone of peace to one marked by persistent tension and strategic competition. Meanwhile, the prospect of continued tensions between Europe and the United States over Greenland, whether through economic coercion or other means, raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, self-determination, and the durability of transatlantic partnerships in an era of transactional and coercive diplomacy. In this edition of Northern Connections, experts examine three critical dimensions that will shape the European Arctic over the next decade. Collectively, these articles illustrate both the profound challenges and potential pathways forward for a region caught between competing visions of international order. In the first article, Dr. Andreas Raspotnik and Robert Habeck examine the European Union’s evolving vision for the European North. They argue that Europe must develop a new strategic framework—one that builds upon the legacy of the Northern Dimension policy framework while adapting to today’s geopolitical realities. Their proposal for a European Arctic/North Atlantic alliance among like-minded democracies represents an ambitious counterproposal to great power encroachment, positioning the region not as a distant frontier but as a geopolitical epicenter where Europe’s security and influence will be decisively shaped. In the second article, Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan assesses Greenland’s possible futures in light of President Trump’s persistent overtures toward the territory. She revisits four scenarios for Greenland’s trajectory from her book So You Want to Own Greenland: Lessons from the Vikings to Trump, arguing that while a conscious decoupling from Denmark remains viable, U.S. pressure may paradoxically undermine the independence movement it seeks to exploit. Buchanan warns that Greenland has become a proxy for an emerging international order where might increasingly trumps right. In the third article, Dr. Gabriella Gricius examines the proliferation of military exercises in the European Arctic and challenges the notion that increased military activity equates to dangerous militarization. She argues that exercises serve as tools of predictability and stability in the region, allowing states to signal credibility and manage deterrence. Looking toward 2035, Gricius contends that military presence will settle into a regular rhythm, creating a new equilibrium that, while more armed than the past, need not lead to armed conflict. Together, these perspectives reveal a region in transition—one where the old order has collapsed but the contours of what comes next remain contested and uncertain. – Northern Connections: The European Arctic by 2035
Gaza
(The Soufan Center) The Trump team’s appointments to key Gaza peace process institutions have not yet produced significant momentum toward permanent stability and reconstruction in the enclave. The ceasefire established in October has frayed under near daily Israeli attacks on Hamas targets, which Israel claims are a response to Hamas militia movements. U.S. officials are planning to convene the first formal Board of Peace meeting in Washington next week to elicit pledges for Gaza reconstruction and the International Stabilization Force (ISF). The key issues of Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza remain frozen by both sides’ red lines. – Gaza Peace Process Off to a Rocky Start – The Soufan Center
Georgia
(Khatia Shamanauri – The Jamestown Foundation) The Georgian Dream government continues to introduce highly controversial bills that put the media, civil society, and anyone opposing government views at risk of imprisonment under the guise of protecting Georgian sovereignty from foreign influence. Independent lawyers warn that the line between what is legal and what is unlawful has been erased, and the new bill fails to meet even the basic standards of what constitutes proper law. In response to the latest developments, 24 countries have invoked the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE’s) Moscow Mechanism to launch an expert mission investigating Georgia’s deteriorating human rights situation. – Georgia Tightens Grip on Dissent with Controversial Laws – Jamestown
Guyana
(Roxanna Vigil – Council on Foreign Relations) The “Americas quintet” of oil producers—the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Guyana—is expected to reshape global oil markets by driving most of the non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) supply growth over the next ten years, according to the International Energy Agency. Guyana is the newcomer and the third-smallest country in South America, but its offshore oil discoveries have given it an outsize role in global energy markets. However, Guyana’s rapid transformation also raises questions about how the country—historically one of the poorest in the region—will sustainably manage its production and revenue. A long-standing territorial dispute with Venezuela adds another layer of complexity. Despite being one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, a large portion of Guyana’s population of less than one million lives in poverty, corruption persists, and concerns abound over how the country’s oil wealth may exacerbate existing political divisions, some of which fall along ethnic lines. For Guyana to achieve long-term growth, avoiding the so-called resource curse will be critical, particularly as its emergence as a major oil producer reshapes the regional energy landscape. Guyana’s strategic Caribbean location, democratic stability, and growing energy resources—combined with the need to counte/r Venezuelan aggression—make it a compelling partner for advancing U.S. regional interests. – How Guyana’s Oil Boom Will Reshape Energy Security | Council on Foreign Relations
Japan
(Mireya Solís – Brookings) Japan’s Lower House election last Sunday has put to rest the image of Japanese politics as a staid or sedate affair. On the contrary, Japanese politics erupted into high drama when Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called for a snap election just three months into her tenure. Election-eve polls had predicted a strong victory for Takaichi and her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), but no one expected the final tally: at 316 seats, the LDP achieved a supermajority. Japan’s first-ever female leader delivered the biggest win for her party since its creation 70 years ago. The voters’ choice will loom large for the future of Japan’s domestic politics, the management of its economy, and the conduct of its foreign policy. – Japan’s thunderbolt election: Takaichi resets politics, economics, and diplomacy | Brookings
Kazakhstan
(Emil Avdaliani – The Jamestown Foundation) Kazakhstan is building its political and economic engagement with the South Caucasus, driven by Armenia–Azerbaijan rapprochement and the need to find less risky east–west trade routes following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Commercial and diplomatic ties between Central Asia and the South Caucasus are surging, including Kazakh oil shipments via the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, rapidly growing trade volumes, and Azerbaijan’s official participation in Central Asian head-of-state meetings. Kazakhstan is investing heavily in the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route to diversify trade routes away from Russia and boost east–west transit, particularly through developing transit partnerships with the South Caucasus. – Kazakhstan Embraces Connectivity with the South Caucasus – Jamestown
Russia
(Kateryna Bondar – CSIS) This paper examines how Russia is transforming its command and control (C2) architecture under wartime pressure, how these changes shape the country’s incremental move toward battlefield-required software solutions, and what lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from Russia’s experiences. Focusing on both strategic ambitions and battlefield practice, the takeaways below summarize how automated C2 systems, unmanned platform management software, and emerging AI applications are being developed, adapted, and scaled within Russia’s military ecosystem. – How Russia Is Reshaping Command and Control for AI-Enabled Warfare
Syria
(Winthrop Rodgers – Chatham House) Dramatic changes in Syria in recent weeks have resulted in a major setback for Kurdish aspirations for self-rule. A rapid military offensive by the Damascus government seized northeast Syria from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), ending the autonomy Kurds had forged there during the civil war. Having previously supported the SDF, the US did not intervene, reflecting its embrace of President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s Syrian Transitional Government (STG) in Damascus as its main partner in Syria. From the Kurdish perspective, these developments mark a consequential defeat that will be hard to bear. However, there are several silver linings that could shape the future, although much depends on whether agreements between the two sides are implemented. – What recent developments in Syria mean for the Kurds | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
US
(Inu Manak, Allison J. Smith – Council on Foreign Relations) In his second term, President Donald Trump has set out to fundamentally restructure U.S. trade policy. On April 2, 2025, he announced sweeping tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners in what he branded Liberation Day. When markets reacted negatively, he backtracked on implementing those tariffs, and instead threatened to reimpose tariffs on countries that failed to secure a trade deal with the United States within ninety days. The move kicked off a scramble among U.S. trading partners to negotiate deals. Even though only two preliminary deals were reached by the ninety-day deadline, Trump did not ratchet up tariffs. Instead, he modified many of the Liberation Day tariffs to lower rates on July 31, 2025, noting progress in trade negotiations. Many of those modified rates were enshrined in subsequent deals. Although Trump may have hoped to rewrite U.S. trade policy with a single executive order, the reality has been much more complicated. In fact, even though a higher overall baseline tariff is in place, the specifics of trade relations with the rest of the world are slowly being adjusted, one deal at a time. To push those deals along, Trump created additional exemptions in September 2025, Potential Tariff Adjustments for Aligned Partners, which cover items such as aircraft and aircraft parts, generic pharmaceuticals and ingredients, natural resources unavailable in the United States, and some agricultural products. On November 14, 2025, Trump took further action to exempt certain agricultural products from reciprocal tariffs due to growing concerns over affordability. Therefore, despite high average tariff rates, the actual rate that is applied is much lower, and varies considerably by country. This tracker breaks down the content of the deals to date. We include only those deals that have a written text to analyze. Most are so-called framework agreements that outline areas for future negotiation, while implementing a temporary tariff truce. Those agreements are eventually expected to become finalized reciprocal trade deals, which more closely resemble traditional U.S. trade agreements. Unlike those traditional agreements, Trump’s reciprocal trade deals exclude any role for Congress. Furthermore, all agreements include language that suggests room for constant modification and quick termination. The message is clear: a trade agreement no longer guarantees predictability in trade relations with the United States. The frameworks and agreements mix both traditional features of U.S. trade policy and novel elements. – Tracking Trump’s Trade Deals | Council on Foreign Relations
(Daniel Goetzel, Mark Muro, and Shriya Methkupally – Brookings) The AI goldrush roars on. Hyperscalers like Google and artificial intelligence (AI) upstarts like OpenAI continue to pour massive sums into building gargantuan data centers, often in small- and medium-sized communities. As the deals proliferate, concerns are rising about the huge amounts of electricity and water required to keep the centers running. At the same time, pitched battles over zoning and permitting rules are pitting tech-firm developers against local land-use managers, especially in rural and exurban America. Yet beyond such infrastructure and resource concerns, sharp debates are also engulfing the facilities’ core economic proposition for communities. Local leaders are questioning the credibility of Big Tech’s promises of spillover effects that will produce high-quality economic development beyond near-term construction. What’s more, skeptics are wondering about the veracity of the developers’ assurances of a thrilling new era of “reindustrialization” across Main Street America. – Turning the data center boom into long-term, local prosperity | Brookings
(William H. Frey – Brookings) Immigration has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in America today, with fierce debates over border security, deportation policies, and the economic and social impacts of migration. While much of the public discourse focuses on enforcement and national security, one critical dimension often receives less attention: the demographic consequences of reduced immigration for communities across the United States. As the Trump administration implements stricter immigration policies and expansive deportation efforts, there has been a noticeable decline in immigrant arrivals and an increase in departures. This analysis of the Census Bureau’s newly released annual population estimates contributes to this discussion by examining not only how the recent immigration slowdown has lowered the nation’s overall population growth, but also how it’s led to lower population growth or greater population declines in most states.2 This piece shows national and state demographic shifts over the period from July 2024 to June 2025, along with earlier years, and makes the case that lower immigration levels in the future will have negative impacts on demographic change in most parts of the country—even in states with now small immigrant populations. – Reduced immigration slowed population growth for the nation and most states, new census data show | Brookings
