From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye
Today’s about: 2025 Three Seas Initiative, Conflict Prevention, Poland, Russia, Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond), Serbia, South Africa, US, US – Iran, US – Middle East
2025 Three Seas Initiative
(Farrell Gregory, Grant Turner – RUSI) On 28 February, President Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy were expected to sign a preliminary critical materials and mineral deal. The partnership intended to finance Kyiv’s defence against Russia, its post-war reconstruction and the repayment of US assistance via a joint fund drawing on the rights and revenues of Ukraine’s relevant resources. However, it fell short of a security guarantee, which Trump said Europe must be responsible for. The contentious Oval Office meeting failed to produce a signed agreement, and indicated that the interests of Ukraine and the United States may be diverging. The summit’s outcome also reflected an impasse on several points, such as prerequisites to peace negotiations, peacekeeping and the conditions for continued aid (which Trump subsequently froze). In the days that followed, European leaders convened in London and Brussels to voice support for Ukraine, while discussing the future of transatlantic relations and the continent’s changing role in the war in the context of Trump’s apparent ‘Russia reset.’ The most significant outcomes thus far include the European Commission setting a goal of increasing defence spending by $700 to $850 billion, and the loosening of budget restrictions in order to pursue it. These shifts in the transatlantic sphere present an opportunity for the Three Seas Initiative (3SI): crafting or executing the final agreement, while ensuring the interests of the US, Ukraine and Europe are not only protected, but enhanced. Neither 3SI’s involvement, nor the agreement’s success, need rely solely on the United States. Further, it can act as an alternative vehicle for EU support if Ukraine and the US remain at an impasse, while leaving the door open for Washington’s return. – Can the Three Seas Initiative Save the US-Ukraine Critical Materials and Minerals Deal? | Royal United Services Institute
Conflict Prevention
(Julia Cournoyer, Leena Badri, Marion Messmer – Chatham House) With governments around the world seeking to reduce their foreign aid budgets, and at a time of increasing global crises, those involved in conflict prevention face having to do more with less. A lack of resources will necessitate strict strategic decisions about which interventions to prioritize. This research paper analyses real world case studies from Europe, Asia and Africa to assess the relative advantages of the most common conflict prevention interventions to help policymakers navigate this new global context. It also identifies three major trends shaping contemporary and future conflicts – the impact of climate change, the ‘geopoliticization’ of conflict and the proliferation of technological advancements – and examines how their likely impact on both the causes of instability and the effectiveness of conflict prevention. – Conflict prevention under pressure | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
Poland
(Oscar Luigi Guccione – German Marshall Fund of the United States) Poland’s presidential election on May 18, with a likely runoff on June 1, comes amid rising concerns over security. This article provides an analytical overview of the candidates’ security stances and their potential foreign policy impact. – Poland’s High-Stakes Election: Security and Strategy | German Marshall Fund of the United States
Russia
(Hlib Parfonov – The Jamestown Foundation) Russia is accelerating societal militarization through aggressive conscription tactics and the rapid expansion of military training in civilian education, aiming to create a long-term, competent force while limiting civilian access to higher education. Russia is opening more Military Training Centers and reopening command academies, demonstrating a strategic effort to replenish officer and non-commissioned ranks and reinforce centralized military control amid heavy losses in Ukraine. Ukraine’s experience in Russia’s war demonstrates the crucial role of trained reservists, leading Kyiv to implement comprehensive reforms such as providing universal military training for all students and military departments in universities and enhancing reserve mobilization structures. Russia’s intensified militarization signals preparation for a prolonged confrontation, but Europe’s lack of preparation risks leaving it underprepared if tensions with Russia continue to rise. – Russia Uses Educational Institutions to Bolster Future Mobilization Capacity – Jamestown
(Ksenia Kirillova – The Jamestown Foundation) The Kremlin seeks to restore normal relations with the West as a bargaining chip for negotiations on Russia’s war against Ukraine, despite intensifying anti-European rhetoric in Russian media. Pro-Kremlin analysts, especially from military-linked outlets, increasingly accuse Europe of Nazism and suggest deliberate strategies for Moscow to destabilize European governments through potential military confrontations and economic pressures. Russian strategists propose creating anti-U.S. influence zones in Latin America and the Arctic, indicating an intention to exploit geopolitical tensions and weaken U.S. negotiating leverage despite the diplomatic thawing between Moscow and Washington. – Anti-Western Rhetoric Intensifying in Russian Media – Jamestown
Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond)
(Tom Keatinge, Kinga Redlowska – RUSI) As the international dialogue on Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters a new chapter, so too must our thinking on how to support Ukraine in its valiant defense of its territorial integrity, and of Europe too. – How to use Russia’s central bank assets for Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute
Serbia
(Aleksandar Ivković – German Marshall Fund of the United States) Serbia has witnessed its fair share of anti-government protests over the past decade, fueled by growing dissatisfaction with the corruption and authoritarianism of President Aleksandar Vučić’s regime. Nothing, however, compares to the massive mobilization of citizens since November following the collapse of the railway station in Novi Sad, which claimed 16 lives. This popular swell led to the largest protest in the history of the country on March 15. The key catalyst for the protest movement were university and high-school students who blocked their educational institutions and demanded justice for the victims. Since then, students have organized peaceful activities to put pressure on the government. Their marches through the country, during which they were emotionally greeted by thousands, have been some of the most striking scenes in recent decades. – Protests Leave Serbia’s Politics Finely Balanced | German Marshall Fund of the United States
South Africa
(Christopher Vandome – Chatham House) South Africa is under fire from the new US administration, which has cancelled aid and expelled its ambassador from Washington. But Pretoria’s instincts to engage across geopolitical divides mean that it could yet leverage the global energy transition to navigate a multipolar world to its advantage. Doing so will require it to align its political messaging with its economic diplomacy abroad and work with the private sector at home. The Trump administration’s hostility towards the South African government encompasses a mix of realpolitik, genuine concerns, factual revisionism, and deliberate misinterpretation that has put Pretoria on the back foot in its relations with one of its largest trading partners. Washington’s core frustrations are with fundamental elements of South African policy that are unlikely to change – most notably its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ and its advocacy for global governance reform, including playing a central role in BRICS. – South Africa can mitigate Trump’s ire through economic diplomacy and non-alignment | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
US
(Daniel McDowell, David Steinberg – Atlantic Council) Global markets are abuzz with chatter about a so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord, the Trump administration’s supposed plan to reorient the United States’ relationship with the global economy by negotiating sweeping changes to the international financial and trading systems. The plan centers on weakening the value of the US dollar to boost US exports and cut imports with the goal of revitalizing US manufacturing. The name recalls US President Ronald Reagan’s Plaza Accord of 1985, which had similar aims. While experts debate the feasibility and merits of this plan in the public sphere, another critical question remains unanswered: Would the American public support it? – Do Americans want a Mar-a-Lago Accord? – Atlantic Council
(Atlantic Council) “It’s our declaration of economic independence.” That’s how President Donald Trump described Wednesday’s Rose Garden announcement that the United States will levy 10 percent baseline tariffs on all imported goods. Trump also announced “reciprocal tariffs” on dozens of other countries, including steep rates on major trading partners such as China (54 percent in total), the European Union (20 percent), and Japan (24 percent), though Canada and Mexico were spared from new tariffs. How will these tariffs upend US trade partnerships, international financial markets, and the global economy? And how might the countries hit the hardest retaliate? – How Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs will transform global trade – Atlantic Council
(Max Yoeli – Chatham House) Since US President Donald Trump launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it has been a lightning rod for controversy. Under the guidance of Elon Musk, DOGE has moved systematically through agencies to remove civil servants and cancel programmes under the mantle of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, promising to cut $1 trillion in spending. The agency’s first significant operation, to make steep cuts at USAID, has been criticized as undermining the US’s international position and is still disputed in the courts. – The false economy of DOGE | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
US – Iran
(Dana Stroul – The Washington Institute for Near East Policy) The Washington Institute’s director of research testifies on the Trump administration’s best means of combining diplomatic, military, and congressional pressure to permanently block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon or reconstituting its damaged regional threat network. – A Return to Maximum Pressure: Comprehensively Countering the Iranian Regime’s Malign Activities | The Washington Institute
US – Middle East
(Brian Katulis – Middle East Institute) President Donald Trump confirmed this week that he plans to travel to Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries later this spring. This visit will bring the region into sharper focus at a time when Trump’s priorities have focused closer to home and on his unique brand of economic warfare. The confirmation of this trip also comes at a time when tensions are ratcheting up in the Middle East, with the United States sending more ships and warplanes to the region as Trump threatened Iran with attacks and initiated a military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen and Israel stepped up its military strikes in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. These increasingly contentious regional dynamics coincide with Trump’s accelerated global economic warfare against friends and foes alike, just as his peacemaking efforts with Russia and Ukraine are getting stuck in the mud. A rapidly deteriorating security situation in the Middle East along with increased uncertainty in the broader geopolitical landscape do not seem like propitious conditions for a successful diplomatic visit by the US president, but a lot can happen between now and when this trip might occur. – Trump’s upcoming Middle East trip presents opportunities at a time of increased risks | Middle East Institute
