CHACRDIGEST
24 February 2025 marked the third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine and the day the USA twice voted with Russia (and against European partners) at the UN. In such confusing times, commentators are trying to work out if they should take President Trump literally, or not, and whether the ‘madman theory’ is merely a tactic or a character trait. However, what is clear, as set out eloquently by Sir Alex Younger, the former Chief of MI6, is that “we are in a new era, where international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions, they are going to be determined by strong men and deals”.
THE INTERNATIONAL RULES BASED ORDER
Commenting on the challenging relationship between Presidents Zelensky and Trump on Newsnight, Sir Alex Younger said that the USA had lost the means, will and ability to impose rules on the world and highlighted the distinction between Trump’s view of the Ukraine conflict being about territory and President Putin’s view that it is about the existence of Ukraine as a country. This was reflected in wider commentary about the impact of the changing transatlantic relationship, established since the end of the Second World War. Wolfgang Munchau, a former associate editor of the Financial Times, opined in an UnHerd article that Europe and America were parting ways as a result of divergence on Ukraine, free speech and trade. What is apparent to all the commentators, and expressed clearly in The Economist and by Bronwen Maddox for Chatham House, is that whilst Europe’s leaders and people have not yet come to terms with the “electroshock” expressed by President Macron, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid and “Europe needs to re-learn how to wield hard power in a lawless era, or fall victim to the new world disorder”. Edward Lucas, writing for the Center for European Policy Analysis, stressed that “while Western countries still pretend a quiet life is possible, seen from Russia, the war has already started”. RUSI’s Dr Jack Watling emphasised that the position of the new US administration represented “more consistency than change” and that change was required by European treasuries to demonstrate action rather than rhetoric.
RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
There has been significant commentary from RUSI, coinciding with the third anniversary of the full-scale invasion, on lessons from Ukraine and recommendations for NATO, tactical military developments and advice for Ukraine
The Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance blog noted that Russia’s defence spending in 2024 ($462 billion) exceeded the collective total for Europe ($457 billion). It forecast a further 13.7 per cent increase in 2025, leading to circa 7.5 per cent of GDP and 40 per cent of total federal spending. Such figures led the Danish National Intelligence to warn of a major war in Europe within five years “[with Russia] against one or more European NATO countries if it perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided”. In addition, it concluded that within six months Russia could conduct a local war with a bordering country, and a regional war in the Baltic Sea region within two years. It was also noted by S&P Global that a sharp decline in Russia’s wheat exports is likely to create a significant supply gap, affect global wheat prices and generate potential flashpoints around the world in the coming months.
There were also interesting articles about the efforts of Ukraine and European nations to restrict Russia’s freedom of action. Ranging from the more lethal, with exploding Russian FPV drone pilot goggles, to Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian and EU actions to seize Russia’s shadow fleet (and Russian objections) as part of an increased recognition that Russian ‘hybrid attacks’ should simply be referred to as ‘attacks’.
The views expressed in
UK AND EUROPE
The reaction of the UK and Europe to the actions of President Trump have dominated commentaries this month. A Chatham House article suggested that Europe is facing a triple crisis (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the rise of populist nationalism and increasingly difficult economic challenges). Its author – the former President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso – asserted that Trump’s re-election is the shock therapy Europe needs and that “if it responds strategically, the EU has a chance to cease being a geopolitical teenager and progressively assert itself on the world stage alongside America and China”. The rush to visit Washington, led by Macron and Starmer, is an indication of how high up the priority list ‘Trump engagement’ has instantly become (and is likely to remain) for Europe.
Debate in the UK focused on what the UK Government should do in defence of Ukraine and Europe, although Politico also noted a nervousness in the UK over President Trump’s pending view of the Chagos Islands deal Armida van Rij, writing for Chatham House, considered UK-EU defence industrial cooperation to be the key “because EU security affects UK security, and vice versa”. Commentators, such as Dr Rob Johnson, previously director of the defence think tank SONAC, suggested the UK should lead European defence with the addition of two new Army divisions and an immediate increase in defence spending to 3 per cent in 2025 and 3.5 per cent in 2026. However, Dr Johnson’s positive tone contrasted to Lord Dannatt’s comment that the UK military was too ‘run down’ and an in-depth article by The Telegraph that carried the headline ‘The British Army’s armoured division does not really exist’. It remains to be seen what the full impact of Sir Keir Starmer’s apparently very positive visit to Washington, and the equally positive announcements on Defence spending that immediately preceded it, have on the direction of travel for British Defence and Foreign policies.
USA
The sense that the Trump administration hadn’t significantly changed US policy towards Ukraine was expressed by Foreign Affairs in an article that referenced “[a] half-baked European peacekeeping force overly reliant on the United States for crucial support”. The piece stated that NATO membership for Ukraine is “cost effective” because it relies on the Article 5 paper guarantee rather than European commitments to spending, arms or military deployments – a strategy the German think tank SWP describes as “bluff and pray”. Ultimately the article, which surprisingly includes elements of the Kremlin’s narrative, advocated for Ukraine building a robust homegrown defensive capability (“self-help”), supported by guaranteed arms. No doubt, the author would have mentioned Trump’s rare earth deal with Ukraine or President Putin’s offer to sell rare earth minerals to the US if it had known – evidence of the current pace of global change and development.
On the topic of threats to the USA, Chatham House addressed the geopolitical nature of migration, noting the extent to which Russia is exacerbating state failure in Latin America, and subsequently politics in the USA. Similarly, The Economist noted that China, quoting President Trump, was “actively sustaining and expanding the business of poisoning our citizens” in an opioid war
In what must have been a hectic few weeks for the White House staff, Donald Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court for issuing an arrest warrant for Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, a move he referred to as “illegitimate and baseless” and came days after his plan to make Gaza American, an act which Chatham House declared caused irreparable damage to the region.
AFRICA
To make sense of these actions, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies referenced the insight of Henry Kissinger that statesmanship was “being able to cut through superficial distractions to find compromises” and that Donald Trump by demonstrating power and provoking fear of conflict with the United States led to other states limiting their own behaviour and, in a sense, compromising. However, it concludes the results may not always be positive. This view was echoed by the Professor of National Security Studies at the Dwight D. Eisenhower School, following the removal of the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other senior US military leaders, in an article that analysed examples in US history where the sanctity of the civil-military relationship was challenged and concludes with the requirement to “circle the wagons of law and constitutionalism and man the ramparts of institutional self-preservation”. Whatever else the next few months brings, it is fair to say that the Trump administration is likely to continue to be ‘disruptive’.
The crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has escalated, with approximately 3,000 people killed and M23 rebels, backed by Rwanda, entering the largest city in Eastern DRC, Goma. The Institute for the Study of War provides a summary and analysis in its Africa File. On a strategic level, Chatham House noted that this may reflect “tectonic shifts in the underlying bedrock of African geopolitics” and that Rwanda’s relationship with the West may account for the muted response to a “new regional scramble to secure access to the DRC’s vast economic resources”.
Regional competition is mirrored by global interest and influence in Africa. Across the continent, China’s expanding presence stands in sharp relief to America’s absence and withdrawal. Reuters commented that “countries are realizing that the U.S. doesn’t exactly have their best interests at heart” and drew attention to the alliances China is building to enhance its global surveillance network and further its aim of becoming the world’s dominant space power. An Institute of Peace article on strategic instability in space in an era of US-China strategic competition noted 23 bilateral space partnerships between China and African nations, including funding for satellites and ground stations to collect satellite imagery and data.
A deal between Sudan and Russia to establish a Russian naval base on the Red Sea appears to have been agreed, according to the Financial Times. The newspaper noted the Russian imperative to establish access to the Red Sea is in light of uncertainty over its bases in Syria and that the agreement was with General al-Burhan’s Sudanese Armed Forces rather than Russia’s previous partner in the region, via the Wagner Group, the Rapid Support Forces militia.
The Economist published an article entitled How to help young Africans thrive which highlighted that “as countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas age and shrink, Africa’s population will continue to grow” and suggested “understanding this generation and their adversities is an urgent matter not just for Africans, but for everyone”. One challenge connected with the lack of opportunity within Africa is migration and the wider issue of migrant smuggling, which is addressed in detail by Tim Eaton. However, the election of Mahmoud Youssouf, a former Foreign Minister of Djibouti, as the new Chairperson of the African Union Commission may yet lead to greater leadership in Africa by Africans and demonstrates the growing confidence and drive towards self-reliance and prosperity.
CHINA
With the focus of many commentators this month on the USA and its intention to break out and away from Europe, it’s important to remember that the USA is doing so so that it can turn its attention to strategic competition with China. China is also preparing for confrontation, evidenced by the construction of an 1,500-acre underground command centre, southwest of Beijing, that is assessed to be ten times larger than the US Pentagon.
An example of US-China competition was seen this month when, at the end of January, the Philippines announced it would train with US Typhon missile systems. Shortly afterwards the Chinese foreign ministry called for the Philippines to “correct the wrongdoing as soon as possible” and the President, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., announced the US would be asked to remove the missiles if China ceased its ‘coercive behaviour’
Indeed, China’s power projection, typically conducted through trade, but increasingly harnessing the power and reach of the diaspora, as reported by The Economist, may also include more traditional power projection, potentially into the Euro Atlantic area, as addressed in a 40-minute RUSI research webinar. The latter explored whether, and how, the People’s Liberation Army Navy may support Chinese leaders’ ambitions in regions beyond the Indo-Pacific. It’s also worth reading the Macro Polo article that considers, given the Chinese ability to develop and enhance technologies invented elsewhere, whether it can or will do the same for nuclear fusion.
What will definitely help analysts and commentators is to read What China Read in 2024
SYRIA/IRAN
With all that is going on across the world, it would be understandable to lose touch with events in the Middle East. Fortunately, The Economist interviewed Ahmed al-Sharaa, the new leader of Syria, to ask if he was a warlord, jihadi or nation-builder? He noted in the interview that “a vast area is still out of the control of the Syrian state”, a fact acknowledged by commentators with reference to the number of international and regional states who have a stake in the future of Syria. Al-Sharaa stated that “if democracy means that the people decide who will rule them and who represents them in the parliament, then yes, Syria is going in this direction”. However, whilst Syria is “breathing more freely after half a century of totalitarian rule”, it still has a long way to go.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
And finally, in the context of developments by the Chinese company DeepSeek, commentators are now trying to make sense of the potential threats in a world dominated by AI. RUSI and Foreign Policy’s analyses are recommended reading, with the latter concluding that “whichever country builds the best and most widely used models will reap the rewards for its economy, national security, and global influence”. More broadly it would also be worth reading the CSIS paper on Trump’s moves to modernise US technology policy and listening to the Independent Thinking podcast with Lord Tim Clement-Jones, co-chair of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI.