Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Europe

1. Taking Stock of Brexit

Author:
Iain Begg
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
J ohn Curtice, the UK’s foremost polling expert, wrote recently that ‘politicians do not talk much about Brexit these days’ (Curtice, 2025). In Germany, too, Brexit has largely disappeared from view, according to a prominent journalist consulted in the preparation of this blog. Another expert, Anand Menon, told AP News on the fifth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU that Brexit had ‘changed our economy’, adding that ‘our politics has been changed quite fundamentally’ (Lawless, 2025). His view is that, in electoral politics, conventional political cleavages have been supplanted by ‘a new division around Brexit’ (Lawless, 2025). In much of the EU, the 2025 anniversary elicited many articles characterised by a combination of acknowledgment that Brexit had failed to deliver, resignation about the UK’s fate and a sense of growing disinterest. The Austrian newspaper Kourier summed up these sentiments: “Von skurril bis tragisch: Eine Bilanz nach fünf Jahren Brexit [From bizarre to tragic, a stocktake after five years of Brexit]” (Bauer, 2025). However, Brexit is a process, rather than a discrete event, and some of its effects are both contested and take time, and are often seen through ideological rather than analytic lenses. A useful way to assess its consequences is to distinguish between three key dimensions: economic, social and governance related. The overall economic effects of Brexit have mainly been negative on both sides of the English Channel, albeit uneven, although some critics regard the magnitudes as having been exaggerated.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Brexit, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2. The Ukraine War Prospect: How Peace Plans Might Work and Why They Will Fail

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
During 2025 multiple contending Ukraine peace and cease-fire proposals were put forward by the Trump administration and America’s European partners. This article examines how the leading official proposals fell short. And it presents two, simpler proposals better aligned with battlefield realities. The article also explores the evolution of US, Ukrainian, Russian, and West European public opinion on the war. The Russia-Ukraine war has been a disaster – not only for the two principal combatants, who together have suffered 300,000 deaths, but for the entire world. This fact drives the imperative to end this conflict forthwith via negotiated compromise. Yet, as the article shows, none of the official proposals embrace this imperative. Instead, all exhibit efforts to win advantage for one side or the other. They are instances of diplo-fare – war by means of diplomacy. As such, their aim may be rejection not agreement, with an eye toward painting one’s opponent as intransigent and, in this way, build support for continuing the fight – or, in the case of President Trump’s preference, establish a pretext for US withdrawal. The simplest proposals may be the most practicable but these must reflect current battlefield realities rather than attempting to “correct” or “re-balance” them. This principle guides the independent cease-fire options suggested in this article. Otherwise, the article explores the possibility that Europe’s so-called Coalition of the Willing will respond to any serious fracture of Kyiv’s effort – a distinct possibility – by establishing a new nuclearized Europe-vs-Russia “central front” inside Ukraine. (With an Appendix summarizing the official November and December peace proposal texts.)
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Diplomacy, European Union, Negotiation, Armed Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, and NATO
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America

3. After Ukraine: Prospects for a Russian Resurgence in the Middle East

Author:
Anna Borshchevskaya and Matt Tavares
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Moscow has cultivated ties with U.S. adversaries and allies alike, and Washington must respond by advancing a holistic policy that empowers Ukrainian commercial interests and addresses deficits in sanctions policy. Russia’s position in the Middle East has faced major setbacks in recent years, including the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, the weakening of Iran and its proxies, and the toll from Moscow's unending war of choice in Ukraine. But reports of a Russian retreat from the region are premature. Alongside traditional defense and economic relationships with Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq, Moscow has cultivated ties with a host of other countries—U.S. adversaries and allies alike. With Iran, it has reportedly begun assembling Su-35 fighters as part of a $6.5 billion deal that would boost the regime’s air force. With the United Arab Emirates, an American ally, Russia’s non-oil trade grew to $11.5 billion as of 2024. And in Syria, Russia’s pre-revolution military bases remain in place, while an October meeting between Presidents Putin and Sharaa indicated a cooperative spirit. In this comprehensive Policy Note, experts Anna Borshchevskaya and Matt Tavares argue that Russia is poised for a resurgence in the Middle East, especially once the war in Ukraine ends—a point they also make clear in a hard-hitting op-ed published in the National Interest. Washington, they argue, must recognize the multiple threats this would present to U.S. interests in the region and develop a vigorous counterstrategy in response—one that includes empowering Ukrainian commercial interests, refining sanctions policy, and rebutting Russian propaganda in real-time.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Iran, Regional Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Middle East

4. Necessary Neighbors: Poland and Ukraine Must Stabilize Their Strained Partnership

Author:
Yuliia Korotia
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Polish-Ukrainian relations have moved from a phase of exceptional solidarity to one of mounting tension and deepening structural strain. What initially seemed to be a long-term strategic partnership grounded in shared security interests has evolved into a more fragmented and fragile, at times almost hostile, relationship. This shift, visible across political, economic, and social dimensions, risks undermining not only bilateral cooperation but also the broader foundations of regional stability at a moment of ongoing war, strategic uncertainty in Europe, and a potentially antagonistic transatlantic relationship. If Poland and Ukraine fail to adopt a more realistic, constructive, and mutually attentive approach to the partnership, their cooperation will weaken in ways that directly affect military logistics, EU cohesion, regional resilience, and resistance to hybrid threats. Understanding how the relationship has changed, and what deeper dynamics are driving this, is essential for assessing the risks ahead and identifying pathways to improve the relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Russia-Ukraine War, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and Poland

5. A Long Time Coming: Europe and India have discovered a strategic partnership

Author:
Garima Mohan
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The relationship between Europe and India is on the cusp of change. Later this month, in a historic first, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will serve as guest of honor, a position reserved for India’s top partners, at the country’s Republic Day ceremony. At the subsequent EU-India summit, the two sides are likely to sign a long-elusive free trade agreement (FTA) and an expansive security and defense partnership. They are also expected to announce initiatives designed to boost skilled migration, and to foster cooperation between European and Indian industry to enhance economic security. There are several other positive developments. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz just undertook his first official visit to India, also his first to a non-NATO ally. Accompanied by a substantial business delegation, he secured many agreements on defense industrial cooperation, semiconductors, and critical minerals. Recent German governments have made a point of sending top leadership to India before official visits to China, and Merz’s visit continues that convention. French President Emmanuel Macron is due to follow in February to cement his own country’s ties with New Delhi on emerging technologies, thereby broadening an already substantial and critical strategic partnership. India’s foreign minister, in a breakthrough for India’s small-group diplomacy in Europe, just joined a Weimar Format meeting for the first time. Lastly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit the continent in spring for the next India-Nordic summit. For some observers this momentum is the result of the rocky relationships that Europe and India have with the United States. In a world of fractured alliances and partnerships, Europe and India need each other like never before. But the groundwork for their current ties was laid over the last decade. Structural factors such as competition with China, and India’s policy of diversification that led it to focus on ties with the West, have brought them closer and raised bilateral ambitions. The relationship is, however, not without divergences, particularly on approaches to Russia. Based on interviews with policymakers in New Delhi, Paris, Berlin, The Hague, and Brussels, this piece will trace the evolution of the “India agenda” in European foreign policy and lay out Europe’s position among New Delhi’s foreign policy priorities.
Topic:
Security, European Union, Geopolitics, Trade, Transatlantic Relations, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Europe, South Asia, and India

6. Monitoring Report | Public consultation in Albania: The illusion of inclusion

Author:
Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM)
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM)
Abstract:
The Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM) has released a new report: Public Consultation in Albania: The Illusion of Inclusion. This report presents the results of an in-depth monitoring of 50 laws, public policies, and strategic documents consulted by the central government during the years 2022-2023. The assessment covers 10 key government institutions, evaluating their public consultation processes in terms of: Transparency and accessibility of consultation documents; Effectiveness of the public consultation process; Public accountability during this process; Citizen participation in consultations; Ensuring inclusivity and non-discrimination. In addition to the qualitative analysis of public consultation previously conducted by IDM, this assessment for the first time provides statistical data related to this important governance process. The evaluation system applied in this report provides the opportunity to compare institutions’ performance in the consultation of different acts, in relation to the aforementioned principles. Ultimately, the findings highlight a ‘’long distance’’ between transparency and participation in government consultations. The goal of this study is to contribute to evidence-based advocacy for legal reforms and the improvement of institutional practices, so that public consultations fulfill their core function – citizens’ participation and impact in decision-making.
Topic:
Transparency, Inclusion, Monitoring, and Civic Space
Political Geography:
Europe, Balkans, and Albania

7. Untangling the Transatlantic Knot: Germany, France, and the United States

Author:
Gesine Weber and Jacob Ross
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
France’s and Germany’s reactions to Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine reveal their significantly different relationships with the United States. Their interpretations regarding the European security architecture are almost diametrically opposed. While Berlin concluded that European security must be constructed transatlantically, Paris saw confirmation of its interpretation that Europeans must be able to address security challenges independently of Washington. Donald Trump’s reelection constitutes a challenge for the two countries because both need to fundamentally rethink their respective relationships with the United States and Europe-US relations more generally. The scope of the US withdrawal from European security remains to be seen, but it will be similarly challenging for Paris and Berlin.
Topic:
NATO, Geopolitics, Transatlantic Relations, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, France, Germany, North America, and United States of America

8. China: From Systemic Rival to Systemic Threat

Author:
Andrew Small and Bonnie S. Glaser
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
For the United States and Europe, dealing with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now a challenge of such wide-ranging nature that it will cut across almost the entire transatlantic agenda of the incoming Trump administration. From addressing Beijing’s role as the “decisive enabler” for Russia’s war of aggression to rethinking the way that US-EU trade and technology ties need to be organized, China policy no longer occupies a separate silo but conditions every element of the security and economic landscape. Under the Biden administration, Europe and the United States undertook an unprecedented effort not only to coordinate their approaches to the PRC itself, but also to advance on other fronts where the China challenge was the main motivating factor, such as EU-US efforts to negotiate agreements on steel, aluminum, and critical minerals. The two sides’ analysis has grown much closer, and in some areas, this translated into tangible results—whether conveying common red lines to Beijing on the delivery of lethal aid to Moscow and the use of force against Taiwan or tightening controls on advanced semiconductor equipment exports. Overall, however, progress still fell short of the high stakes. Some EU member states treated the Biden administration’s partner-friendly approach as a holiday from difficult strategic choices on China rather than an optimal window in which to make them. EU-level efforts to build more effective approaches on economic security, trade defense, and cyber security were often slow-rolled or undercut by major capitals. There were also areas in which the Biden administration allowed domestic political considerations to undermine efforts to build a common strategic economic approach among US partners—particularly the use of national security tools against US allies, whether the blocking of Nippon’s takeover of US Steel or the initial retention (and suspension rather than lifting) of Section 232 tariffs against the EU. While the two sides are certainly more closely aligned and better coordinated, moving in the right direction is no longer enough. If Europe and the United States are unable to achieve results in several critical areas in the next few years, it will come at a growing cost to their security and economic interests, as well as to the broader transatlantic relationship. Success, on the other hand, would put a new set of foundations under it. Three issues are likely to loom over the agenda for the incoming Trump administration: the threat of the “Second China Shock” to US and European industry; Beijing’s deepening coordination with Russia and other authoritarian states; and intensifying PRC pressure on Taiwan.
Topic:
European Union, Geopolitics, Trade, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

9. New Information on Shenyang Machine Tool Company’s Illicit Sales to North Korea and Russia

Author:
David Albright and Spencer Faragasso
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Security and International Studies (ISIS)
Abstract:
Several years ago, the Institute reported about the relatively large, multinational Chinese company Shenyang Machine Tools Company supplying sophisticated computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine tools, equipped with Western controlled software, to North Korea in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions and a supplier country’s trade control laws that banned re-export of this software. New information details the disingenuous way in which the Chinese government investigated this case, indicating nonetheless inadvertently that North Korea received these machine tools, while also demonstrating China’s utter disregard for enforcing UNSC sanctions or its own or others’ export control laws. This case serves as another of the many cases highlighting China as a long-time irresponsible trading partner that responsible companies should avoid when sensitive dual-use goods are involved, lest they be complicit in outfitting North Korea’s, Iran’s, or Russia’s military programs. Today, responsible suppliers are inadvertently facilitating Russia’s prosecution of an illegal war against Ukraine. Given Shenyang Machine Tools Company’s recent exports of goods to Russia with Harmonized Shipments (HS) codes found on the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Common High Priority List (CHPL), this company should be considered for sanctions.
Topic:
Sanctions, Trade, Illegal Trade, and Shenyang Machine Tool Company
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, and North Korea

10. Ukraine and Beyond: Shaping Europe’s Security Future

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
What happens with the war in Ukraine matters beyond its borders, as events there will shape the larger standoff between Russia and the West. The U.S. and European powers can manage the risks of a changing security order with a mix of diplomacy and deterrence.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Deterrence, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine