From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye
Today’s about: Africa, Belgium, Climate Action, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Hungary, India-US, Maritime Trends and Scenarios, NATO-Europe-Russia, Russia, Russia-Arctic, US
Africa
(Vamo Soko, Bintu Zahara Sakor – Peace Research Institute Oslo) Africa is not a homogeneous entity. Unlike the United States or China, it does not have a unified political power capable of defending a common interest. Its cultural, economic, and political diversity presents both a complexity and a competitive advantage in globalization. – Africa in the Global Disorder of Trumpism – PRIO Blogs
Belgium
(Wannes Verstraete, Various authors – EGMONT) “Yes, our country is vulnerable”, said Belgian Major-General Phaleg Bernard during a hearing in the Defence Commission from the Chamber of Representatives in October 2024. The remarks by him and other senior officers stressed the urgent necessity of accelerating the modernisation of Belgium’s military forces at a moment when the government negotiations were ongoing. By the end of January 2025, these negotiations proved to be successful. The new De Wever Government released its coalition agreement and was sworn in on 3 February 2025. As is often the case in Belgium, the coalition is made up of different ideological parties, namely the N-VA (conservative Flemish nationalist); MR (Francophone liberals); cd&v (Flemish Christian democrats); Les Engagés (Francophone centrists); and Vooruit (Flemish social democrats). The national security sections of the new coalition agreement are spread throughout the document and can be found in the parts on foreign affairs, defence, and elsewhere. In comparison with former governments, the new coalition agreement showcases an increased ambition and formulates some of the minimum necessary adjustments. The previous 2020 coalition agreement was 97 pages long in total and contained 2 pages on defence, 5 pages on foreign affairs, and 2 on development. The new 2025 agreement is 199 pages long and contains 8 pages on defence and 11 pages on foreign affairs and development. – Will the New Government Safely Navigate Belgium through Turbulent International Waters? – Egmont Institute
Climate Action
(Varun Sivaram – Council on Foreign Relations) The U.S. response to climate change represents a profound foreign policy failure. A convenient excuse for dismal results is that only administrations and lawmakers on one side of the aisle have prioritized climate, enacting policies that are promptly reversed when political power switches hands. Every four years, the United States joins or exits the Paris Agreement and lavishly spends billions of dollars on clean energy subsidies or claws them back – Our Approach to Climate Policy Has Failed. It’s Time for Climate Realism | Council on Foreign Relations
Democratic Republic of the Congo
(Judith Verweijen, Godefroid Muzalia, Koen Vlassenroot – EGMONT) Regional and international initiatives to end the war between M23/AFC and the Congolese government are multiplying, leading to mounting pressure on the belligerents to negotiate through sanctions and direct engagement. Meanwhile, the situation in eastern DR Congo rapidly evolves into an increasingly desperate tangle of insecurity, a lack of basic governance, and a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis. The responsibility for this dire situation lies with several actors: the M23/AFC rebel movement supported by Rwanda, the Congolese government, and Wazalendo (Swahili for patriots) groups, some of which have gradually taken control of several areas in the provinces of South and North Kivu. The Congolese government is steadily losing its grip on large parts of eastern DRC, including areas not occupied by the M23/AFC. It also continues to demonstrate an inability to effectively secure and administer the areas under its control. The M23/AFC rebels, in turn, have been unsuccessful in establishing a functional administration and creating the necessary security conditions in the areas that they occupy. Wazalendo groups, for their part, are engaged in perpetual mutual competition, leading to heightened tensions and occasional clashes. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is confronted every day with violence, banditry, and a pervasive absence of economic opportunities. – “We Are Caught Between Violence and Famine” – Analysis of the Deepening Crisis Affecting Eastern DR Congo – Egmont Institute
Hungary
(Daniel Hegedüs – German Marshall Fund of the United States) The term “watershed elections” is becoming devalued as electoral contests across the West have increasingly been plebiscites on illiberal populism versus liberal democracy. But it is no exaggeration to say that, in the spring of 2026, Hungary will face its most consequential elections since the first free ones in its post-communist history in 1990. Since 2014, every parliamentary poll has offered a slight chance to correct Hungary’s increasingly anti-democratic direction, and yet ultimately pushed it further along the autocratization path paved by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party. But the next elections will determine the country’s democratic or authoritarian trajectory—and its geopolitical anchoring will also be at stake. – Safeguarding Hungary’s 2026 Elections: Robust Observation Is Essential | German Marshall Fund of the United States
India – US
(Gopalan Balachandran – Vivekananda International Foundation) The initial round of bilateral discussion on the India-US BTA (Bilateral Trade Agreement) concluded on March 29, after intense discussions between the two country’s delegation. Not much is known about the final results of the four-day talks other than a neutral statement from the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry that “In order to realize the shared objective of promoting growth that ensures fairness, national security and job creation, both sides have through four-days of discussions in New Delhi broadly come to an understanding on the next steps towards a mutually beneficial, multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), with the goal to finalize its first tranche by fall 2025.” Except that the meeting was convened “As a follow up to the India-U.S. Joint Statement of 13 February 2025, wherein the two sides agreed to expand bilateral trade to reach $ 500 Billion by 2030”. – Trump, India and Tariffs | Vivekananda International Foundation
Maritime Trends and Scenarios
(The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies) What does the future hold for the Dutch Navy in a world of climate change, global trade shifts and rising conflicts? The latest HCSS report by Davis Ellison, Pieter-Jan Vandoren and Frank Bekkers explores the future demands on the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) and its European partners in the 2040-2050 period. It highlights two key trends shaping maritime security: long-term shifts in global trade and climate change. We present four scenarios: deep-sea resource competition, instability around the Suez Canal, conflict with Russia over the Northern Sea Route, and a great power war between the U.S. and China. These developments could significantly strain European naval capabilities, necessitating greater flexibility and strategic prioritization. Climate change is identified as the most consequential security challenge. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and coastal flooding will threaten European nations, especially the Netherlands and Belgium, increasing the burden on the RNLN. Additionally, shifts in global trade—marked by China’s growing economic and naval power, U.S. disengagement from trade arrangements, and the opening of Arctic sea routes—will demand an expanded European naval presence along major trade corridors. Economic competition and geopolitical instability will exacerbate security risks. Regions such as North Africa and the Middle East are likely to experience persistent conflicts due to economic precarity, governance challenges, and climate-driven crises. This necessitates a European and Dutch naval strategy that balances immediate crisis response with long-term strategic positioning. – Rough Seas Ahead: Maritime Trends and Scenarios until 2050 – HCSS
NATO – Europe – Russia
(Maurizio Geri – German Marshall Fund of the United States) To counter hybrid threats, NATO’s and the EU’s energy strategies must incorporate the private sector. Russia’s manipulation of European gas supplies and its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure have redefined energy security as hybrid warfare. In response, NATO and the EU are bolstering defense capabilities, enhancing undersea surveillance, and pushing to diversify energy sources to eliminate dependence on Moscow. – The West’s Secret Energy Weapon | German Marshall Fund of the United States
Russia
(Pavel K. Baev – The Jamestown Foundation) Russia faces significant economic strain due to declining oil and gas revenues, disrupted supply chains, and falling stock markets, which are exacerbated by global trade disruptions and internal demographic challenges that impact military recruitment. Russian President Vladimir Putin sent envoy Kirill Dmitriev to Washington to explore cooperation with the United States, but Moscow maintains its rigid ceasefire conditions, risking harsher sanctions and intensified international isolation despite short-term diplomatic engagements. Russia’s geopolitical position continues to weaken as much of Europe maintains unity in its support of Ukraine and in its view of Russia’s responsibility for delaying and breaking the peace talks. – Global Trade War Does Not Diminish Pressure on Russia to End Its War – Jamestown
Russia – Arctic
(Gabriella Gricius – The Jamestown Foundation) Moscow portrays itself as a constructive actor advocating for economic cooperation in the Arctic and Baltic seas while also conducting an increasing rate of hybrid attacks and engaging in provocative discourse. This double game of cooperation has long marked the Kremlin’s Arctic agenda, but recent months have seen an increase in this strategy of engagement and expanded Arctic militarization. Russia’s dual strategy of confrontation and cooperation in the Arctic seeks to exploit divisions among Western allies while portraying their actions as provocations, forcing Arctic states to navigate a delicate balance in their responses. – Russia’s Double Game in Arctic is Cooperation in Name, but Confrontation in Practice – Jamestown
US
(Eamon Drumm, Penny Naas, Georgina Wright – German Marshall Fund of the United States) US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imported goods on April 2. He unveiled them at an event, “Make America Wealthy Again”, which key cabinet members and steel and auto sector union members attended. Shortly afterwards, the White House released several documents—two executive orders, a fact sheet, and articles—detailing the administration’s policy, rationale, and legal justification for the move. These tariffs affect every country. Some build on existing tariffs, while others replace them. The measures raise many questions: Who is affected? How were the rates determined? What does this mean for businesses, consumers, and global trade? – The New US Tariffs | German Marshall Fund of the United States
(Barath Harithas, Evan Brown, and Catharine Mouradian – Center for Strategic & International Studies) Beginning on April 9, the United States will impose country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs targeting 57 named countries, with rates reaching as high as 50 percent. At a minimum, each country will pay a 10 percent tariff, which went into effect on April 5. – Three Points on Trump’s “Reciprocal” Tariffs
(Jonathan E. Hillman – Council on Foreign Relations) President Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs are falling hardest on the world’s smallest economies, a massive geostrategic mistake with little economic upside for the United States. Imagine yourself as the leader of Mauritius, a strategically located island nation in the Indian Ocean with 1.2 million people, now facing a 40 percent tariff. – Trump’s “Liberation” Hastens China’s Domination | Council on Foreign Relations
(David Roche – RUSI) For long periods geopolitics and economics can seem disconnected. Weak economies can generate major wars or the threat of them. And major conflicts can leave the global economy and capital markets indifferent. But whenever there is a tectonic plate-shift in world order, then geopolitics and economics move in synch and reinforce each other. We are living such a moment. The disruption caused by the ‘Trump 2.0’ administration will have consequences on a par with the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberalisation of the Chinese economy but with the economic signs reversed from plus to minus. The fall of the wall (and the concomitant liberalization of the Chinese economy) yielded three big pluses for the world: liberation of millions of people from the gulag of Soviet style economics; a liberal world order that sought to include the economies and peoples of countries like China and the former USSR into the global free market economy; and the advancement of globalisation – which did the economic job of making these people relatively prosperous. – US Trade and Trump’s Tariffs – Disruption or Design? | Royal United Services Institute
(Prerna Gandhi – Vivekananda International Foundation) Tariffs have once again emerged as a cornerstone of US economic policy under the Trump 2.0 administration. On April 2, 2025, President Donald J. Trump declared a national emergency, citing the $1.2 trillion US trade deficit as a threat to economic stability and national security. The administration attributes the persistent deficit to unfair foreign trade practices, non-tariff barriers, and structural imbalances, which have undermined US manufacturing, created supply chain vulnerabilities, and weakened the defense-industrial base. To counteract these challenges, the Trump administration has implemented sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 10 per cent to 49 per cent on imports from various countries, aiming to restore domestic production, enforce fair trade practices, and strengthen supply chains. This policy seeks to enhance economic resilience and national security by reducing reliance on foreign goods and addressing long-standing trade imbalances. However, the effectiveness and broader implications of such tariff policies remain a matter of intense debate. – Tariffs from an American Perspective: Reshaping of US Economic Model | Vivekananda International Foundation
