Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском This paper was earlier published as Issue & Policy Briefs on May, 16th 2025 on the Website of The Institute for Security & Developement Policy. The April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack marks a significant moment in South Asia’s evolving security matrix. While the India–Pakistan binary continues to dominate discourse, China’s ambiguous posture following India’s Operation Sindoor warrants deeper scrutiny. This issue brief assesses Beijing’s silence, the implications for China-India ties, and China’s alignment with Pakistan’s strategic calculus. Drawing on past crises like Pulwama, Balakot, and Uri, it interrogates China’s selective neutrality, its shielding of Pakistan, and the erosion of its credibility as a regional stabilizer. By weaving in Chinese media narratives and official statements, the analysis critically evaluates whether Beijing is prepared—or even interested—in playing a constructive role in South Asian stability. The brief concludes that unless India recalibrates its strategic assumptions and narrative posture, China will continue to manipulate the region’s instability through plausible deniability and transactional diplomacy. The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025,1 which killed 25 Indians and 1 Nepali and injured dozens more, is the latest chapter in South Asia’s long-running saga of cross-border militancy. Yet it would be a mistake to frame it solely within the India–Pakistan binary. As India launched Operation Sindoor in response— targeting terrorist infrastructure across the Line of Control (LoC)—the silence and subsequent posture of China signaled deeper tremors in the broader regional architecture. Kashmir has long served as a crucible of IndiaPakistan hostility, but the Pahalgam attack— attributed to the Pakistan-backed group The Resistance Front (TRF),2 which is a front for the UN-proscribed Pakistani terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba—has unfolded in a regional context far more complex than previous crises. India’s swift military response via Operation Sindoor, while reminiscent of the 2019 Balakot precedent, came in a more layered geopolitical moment, where any Indian action reverberates beyond Islamabad to Beijing. Despite issuing a generic statement of terming India’s Operation Sindoor “regrettable,”3 Beijing offered no commentary on the Pakistan-backed terror attack itself. By sidestepping the central provocation—the targeting of Indian civilians by a known Pakistani terror outfit—China has raised fundamental questions about the strategic calculus guiding its relations with both Islamabad and New Delhi.  New Delhi’s official narrative continued to underscore its commitment post Operation Sindoor to “commitment to non-escalation, provided it is respected by the Pakistan military”.4 However, during May 8-9, Pakistan responded with a drone offensive targeting Indian military sites,5 prompting countermeasures. By May 10, Pakistan had a name for its retaliatory escalation: Operation Bunyan Marsoos,6 which came to an abrupt halt when a ceasefire was agreed upon between India and Pakistan later in the day.7 Despite ceasefire violations by Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, the agreement seems to be holding currently.  Yet what stood out amid this tit-for-tat dynamic was China’s conspicuous silence and strategic responses. Post Pakistan’s escalation on May 9, the topic of India-Pakistan conflict was completely absent from the pre-approved questions of the regular press briefing by the Chinese Ministry.8 Even in response to the news of the ceasefire, China’s statement has been guarded, stating it hopes India and Pakistan will “consolidate and extend” the same.9 As China distances itself from India’s narrative but attempts to show semblances of neutrality, it raises doubts over the credibility of Sino-Indian normalization. While the two countries may engage in tactical military disengagements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the Pahalgam episode demonstrates that deep strategic distrust remains. India’s engagement with counterterrorism in the region has often required it to navigate a diplomatic minefield, particularly when the international community does not uniformly support its security concerns. The post-Balakot moment saw similar divisions, with China refusing to back India’s actions at multilateral fora while amplifying Pakistan’s grievances. Such flashpoints, unpacked later in this brief, underscore a consistent Chinese pattern—a trend that has deepened in the aftermath of Pahalgam. What differentiates this latest incident, however, is the broader geopolitical backdrop.  The Pahalgam incident hence emerges as a compelling prism through which to examine the strategic entanglements involving China in South Asian geopolitics. China’s posture following Operation Sindoor calls to question its regional credibility10 and the future of the still recovering India-China bilateral post the 2020 Galwan clash. In essence, the Pahalgam incident is a microcosm through which to assess whether Beijing is capable of playing a stabilizing role in South Asia or if it remains tethered to old geopolitical loyalties that undermine its normative credibility.11 China’s Calculated Ambiguity and Strategic Hedging  At first glance, China’s reaction to the Pahalgam attack appeared predictably neutral,12 reiterating a standard line against terrorism in all forms albeit without naming Pakistan-based groups, which then evolved into calling for an “impartial probe” into the attack.13 Beijing’s ambiguous position is hardly new. It has long shielded Pakistan from international pressure on terrorism-related matters. In 2023, for instance, China blocked a UN Security Council listing of Sajid Mir—a Lashkar-e-Taiba commander with ties to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.14 Such acts are not isolated; they are part of a broader calculus in which Pakistan is Beijing’s irreplaceable partner in South Asia. This alignment is driven by both geopolitical and geo-economic considerations. Pakistan is China’s all-weather partner (全天候伙伴关系 or quántiānhòu huǒbàn guānxì),15 crucial not just for counterbalancing India but also for securing the western front of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). CPEC is a flagship component of BRI and runs through an unstable Gilgit-Baltistan and, despite India’s vehement opposition, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Stability in these zones is key to China’s western frontier strategy, giving it a vested interest in maintaining the status quo—even if that includes cross-border terrorism targeting India.  Further compounding the issue is the unspoken quid pro quo between Beijing and Islamabad: Pakistan remains silent on China’s domestic repression of Uyghurs,16 while China refrains from condemning Pakistani-linked Islamist militant groups. This transactional compact allows both states to shield each other on their respective internal and external security issues, forming a mutually reinforcing axis of silence.  In times of crisis, this axis manifests through diplomatic choreography. For example, during the Galwan Valley clashes in 2020, Pakistan was among the few countries to openly17 support China’s position, even as the rest of the world urged de-escalation.18 Conversely, during moments of India-Pakistan tension, Beijing reliably leans toward a neutral but structurally pro-Pakistan position. During the 2016 Uri attack, Beijing maintained a studied silence while subtly encouraging bilateral restraint. In 2019, when India moved to revoke Article 370 granting Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, China supported Pakistan’s “legitimate rights and interests” in Kashmir.19  Furthermore, post the 2019 Pulwama attack, China refused to list Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad chief as a global terrorist under UNSC Resolution 1267.20 This narrative strategy appears to serve a dual function: first, to construct a regional imaginary in which India is framed as a destabilizing actor across multiple contested peripheries; and second, to subtly align with Pakistan’s security perceptions without overt endorsement as seen during Balakot as well with Chinese state media closely relaying Pakistan’s perspectives.21 Such framing enables Beijing to reinforce an adversarial posture vis-à-vis India while maintaining formal neutrality. More critically, it delegitimizes India’s counterterrorism imperatives by projecting them as part of a broader pattern of assertiveness rather than as legitimate responses to asymmetric threats. The aftermath of Pahalgam has reinforced this pattern. Structural Limits of Sino-Indian Normalization –and the idea of China as a stabilizer Although India and China have made some progress in military disengagement following the 2020 Galwan Valley clash and the October 2024 border agreement, the Pahalgam episode reveals the limitations of this tactical thaw. China’s refusal to acknowledge Pakistani provocations— or even address the cross-border violence in its Operation Sindoor press briefings—shows that Beijing’s strategic alignment with Pakistan remains intact. This persistent ambiguity damages the credibility of any “reset” in India-China relations. It also underscores a recurring pattern in Chinese state discourse, where India’s actions across both the LoC and Line of Actual Control (LAC) are presented as signs of regional destabilization.22 The result is a rhetorical sleight of hand: India’s counterterrorism efforts are rebranded as adventurism, while China claims neutrality.  India for its part has walked a delicate line on China’s own internal security policies.23 India’s cautious approach is also seen on the Uyghur issue, where it has stopped short of criticizing China. India’s intent is to prevent further escalation with China, particularly amid the tensions along the Himalayan border.24 Ironically, this caution has earned India neither Chinese neutrality on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism nor any softening of China’s positions on Kashmir. India must prepare for the possibility of a more overt China-Pakistan strategic alignment in the Himalayan theatre—as seen briefly with the short-lived Himalayan Quad.25 A major point of pride in Chinese social media and state-media news circulating currently is the alleged downing of Indian aircrafts, “three Rafale f ighter jets, one MIG-29 fighter aircraft, one Su30 fighter jet, and one Heron drone”26 by the Pakistani air force. India has not confirmed these losses. China has emerged as Pakistan’s principal defense partner, supplying approximately 81 percent of its arms imports between 2020 and 2024.27 This strategic partnership was evident during the recent military exchanges with India, where Pakistan deployed Chinese-made J-10C f ighter jets and PL-15 air-to-air missiles.28 The J-10C, a 4.5-generation aircraft equipped with advanced avionics and radar systems, played a pivotal role in Pakistan’s aerial defense, which the Chinese social media is celebrating in disc. China’s support extends to artillery systems, such as the SH-15 155mm truck-mounted howitzer, and advanced radar installations along the LoC.29 China’s participation in February 2025 in Pakistan’s multinational naval exercise AMAN further consolidates the partnership’s expansion into the Indian Ocean.30 This deepening military collaboration underscores China’s commitment to bolstering Pakistan’s defense capabilities, thereby influencing the strategic balance in South Asia. Concurrently, on May 9, as Pakistan responded to Operation Sindoor,31 China conducted a live-fire military exercise in Tibet involving truck-mounted artillery and long-range rockets. Although conducted within Chinese territory, the exercise’s temporal proximity to the crisis raised red flags within Indian security circles. Of particular concern was increased PLA logistical activity along the G219 highway—an artery critical for mobilization across Tibet and Xinjiang. Such maneuvers are not incidental; rather, they reflect deliberate strategic signaling. Given the history of the China-India border standoff from April 2020 to October 2024, this latest development underscores Beijing’s continued use of military exercises as coercive diplomacy (胁迫性外交 xiébò xìng wàijiāo). The drill’s timing suggests that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is not merely observing the India-Pakistan escalation, but actively inserting pressure on India’s northern front to exploit its two-front dilemma. At the same time, China’s approach to international order is selective. It supports rules when they are advantageous and obstructs them when they threaten. This raises an important question for policymakers: can Beijing ever be a partner in building a rule-based regional order when its strategic habits are so conditional? The Pahalgam silence is not simply an oversight; it reflects a broader unwillingness by China to apply consistent normative standards when its interests are at stake. India, therefore, faces not just a tactical silence, but a strategic contradiction—one that complicates regional security architecture. This difference also further highlights China’s inability to be a stabilizing regional actor or mediator—a niche it is building for itself in West Asia—in South Asia owing to its national interest driven biased approach to regional conflicts.32 China increasingly brands itself as a mediator in global hotspots—from IranSaudi rapprochement to ceasefire proposals in Ukraine. Yet in South Asia, this “stabilizer” identity appears performative. Its refusal to challenge Pakistan undercuts its credibility as a neutral actor. The narrative of “community of shared future” (人类命运共同体 rénlèi mìngyùn gòngtóngtǐ) rings hollow when Beijing prioritizes geopolitical returns over regional peace. In this regard, it is also critical to note that India’s claim to great power status hinges not only on its material capabilities but also on its willingness to shape global norms on terrorism. To do so, a post-Pahalgam India may need to deepen its engagement with global norm entrepreneurs—from middle powers in Europe and Asia to civil society actors and multilateral institutions. Additionally, it must better leverage its leadership in forums like the G20 and BRICS to reframe regional security debates. If China wishes to be seen as a responsible stakeholder, it must be challenged to behave like one. In forums like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which have been focused on regional non-traditional security, China’s bias becomes more evident—obstructing Indian efforts to spotlight Pakistan’s terror links33 while promoting counterterrorism cooperation that suits its agenda.34 The SCO’s regional antiterrorism structure (RATS) has increasingly focused on threats aligned with Beijing’s internal definitions, particularly extremism related to Xinjiang, while sidelining India’s concerns about transnational Islamist militancy based in Pakistan.  However, Beijing’s notion of “Asia for Asians” appears hypocritical when it shelters Pakistan but obstructs regional counterterrorism consensus—especially in RATS under the SCO umbrella. Beyond multilateral diplomacy, China’s reluctance to endorse Indian perspectives has extended to informal channels. While India and Pakistan engage in kinetic and symbolic war over territory and identity, China operates in the background as both facilitator and firewall for Pakistan. Backchannel discussions have repeatedly seen Chinese interlocutors urge restraint on both India and Pakistan—without distinguishing between a state defending its civilians and one enabling non-state actors. This false equivalence erodes India’s trust and limits the scope for genuine regional cooperation. From Response to Strategy:  How Should India Read into Beijing’s Silence? India’s recent history is littered with crises where tactical victories often came at the cost of longterm ambiguity. In the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil War, for instance, India successfully reestablished control over its territory but failed to push for international accountability on Pakistan.35 Similarly, the 2017 Doklam standoff with China ended with a disengagement, but left the broader strategic questions unresolved. Even the 2020 Galwan clashes, despite their tragic costs, did not lead to sustained support or narrative building. What unites these episodes is a recurring pattern: India seeks resolution through calibrated responses while both adversaries exploit the absence of sustained international pressure. The Pahalgam attack threatens to repeat that pattern unless India broadens the strategic scope of its response—not merely in military terms but in diplomatic signaling, normative positioning, and alliance formation. India’s challenge is not just the asymmetry of violence with Pakistan—it is the asymmetry of narrative and support in multilateral spaces. Despite India’s restraint on Chinese internal matters, such as its silence on Xinjiang in UN forums, China has shown no reciprocal flexibility on Kashmir or Pakistan-based terrorism. This lack of strategic reciprocity is widening the gap between tactical cooperation and strategic mistrust. It also casts doubt on China’s repeated offers to play the role of a regional stabilizer. Beijing is unlikely to act as an honest broker in India-Pakistan disputes because it is structurally invested in Pakistan’s strategic and territorial claims, especially those in Kashmir. Moreover, the geo-economic dimension complicates the landscape further. China’s massive infrastructure projects through Pakistan-administered territories give it a direct stake in the political and security status quo in Kashmir. Any Indian attempt to assert sovereignty over the entire region threatens not just Pakistan’s territorial claims but China’s physical investments. It is for this reason that Chinese diplomats have avoided endorsing even moderate Indian positions on Kashmir. Even in backchannel diplomacy, Chinese officials urge restraint from both sides but refrain from applying pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist networks—a selective neutrality that undermines India’s trust in Beijing’s intentions. Going forward, Indian policymakers may consider more assertive linkages between China’s Kashmir positions and India’s stance on Tibet and Xinjiang. While such rhetorical escalation risks deepening the rift, it may serve as a deterrent to Beijing’s selective neutrality. More broadly, India must prepare for a strategic environment in which a China–Pakistan alignment in the Himalayas becomes less tactical and more entrenched. If China continues to describe Jammu & Kashmir as “disputed territory,” Indian policymakers may feel justified in elevating the discourse on Chinese internal colonialism in places like Tibet and Xinjiang.36 While such a shift would risk further alienation, it could also serve as a deterrent against China’s one-sided narratives in multilateral spaces. Forecasting China’s future position on Jammu and Kashmir suggests continuity rather than change. As long as CPEC remains central to China’s regional vision, Beijing will oppose any Indian attempt to alter the territorial status quo in ways that threaten Pakistan’s legal or strategic control over its administered areas. Even if the Pahalgam incident spurs limited backchannel diplomacy, it is unlikely to alter China’s fundamental incentives in the region. The question, then, is whether the Pahalgam attack has merely revealed existing patterns in China’s South Asia policy or whether it marks a turning point. In one sense, it reaffirms an uncomfortable reality: Beijing’s anti-terrorism policy is primarily inward-looking and defined by the logic of state sovereignty, not regional peacebuilding. Terrorism that originates in Xinjiang is treated as an existential threat to the Chinese state, meriting mass surveillance, reeducation camps, and transnational intelligence cooperation. But terrorism that originates in Pakistan and targets India is diplomatically bracketed, treated as either a bilateral problem between New Delhi and Islamabad or, more insidiously, as a counterweight to Indian assertiveness. In the wake of Pahalgam, Indian policymakers face a difficult but necessary recalibration. While India has long pursued strategic autonomy, this doctrine cannot translate into strategic silence in the face of double standards. New Delhi must continue to assert its case in global forums— not only in terms of territorial integrity but also normative consistency. A longer-term Indian strategy may also involve diversifying its diplomatic partnerships in ways that offset Chinese influence. This includes expanding cooperation with regional and extra-regional actors who share India’s concerns about crossborder terrorism and authoritarian influence in multilateral institutions. The elevation of minilateral forums such as the Quad and closer coordination with Europe and Southeast Asian partners could enable India to construct new coalitions that constrain Chinese room for maneuverability as Beijing’s current incentives give it little reason to alter course. As long as CPEC remains a geostrategic and economic priority, and Pakistan serves as both a buffer and a partner, China will continue to downplay Islamabad’s transgressions. Any backchannel diplomacy following Pahalgam is unlikely to produce meaningful rebalancing unless India reshapes the cost-benefit calculations driving China’s current Sout​h Asia posture. The Pahalgam terrorist attack is not merely an India-Pakistan crisis. It is a regional flashpoint that pulls China out of the shadows and into the foreground of South Asian security dynamics. Beijing’s silence—strategic, deliberate, and revealing—shows that China is not yet ready to play the role of a stabilizing power in the region. Instead, it continues to hedge its bets, uphold transactional alliances, and avoid normative positions on terrorism that might alienate Pakistan. For India, the path forward involves more than military preparedness. It demands a recalibration of strategic assumptions about China’s role in regional crises. The Pahalgam attack may not shift China’s behavior immediately, but it sharpens the contours of a regional order where Beijing is less bystander and more stakeholder— one whose interests often run counter to India’s pursuit of stability and security. In this landscape, India must think beyond Pakistan and confront the deeper structural dynamics of the Pakistan-China bonhomie. About ISDP  The Institute for Security and Development Policy is a Stockholm-based independent and non-profit research and policy institute. The Institute is dedicated to expanding understanding of international affairs, particularly the interrelationship between the issue areas of conflict, security and development. The Institute’s primary areas of geographic focus are Asia and Europe’s neighborhood. Endnotes  1. Esha Mitra, Mukhtar Ahmad, Aishwarya S Iyer, Kara Fox and Jessie Yeung, “Dozens killed as gunmen massacre tourists in Kashmir beauty spot,” CNN, April 23, 2025, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-firejammu-kashmir-intl. 2. “Statement by Foreign Secretary: OPERATION SINDOOR,” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 7, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39473; see also, M. Sudhir Selvaraj, “A Primer on The Resistance Front, the Group Behind the Pahalgam Attack,” The Diplomat, April 30, 2025, https://thediplomat. com/2025/04/a-primer-on-the-resistance-front-the-group-behind-the-pahalgam-attack/. 3. “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on the Ongoing Situation Between India and Pakistan,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, May 7, 2025, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/fyrbt/202505/ t20250507_11616523.html. 4. “Transcript of Special briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 08, 2025),” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 8, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39479/Transcript_of_Special_ briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_08_2025. 5. “Special briefing on Operation Sindoor (May 09, 2025),” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSEo4RpICoY&t=491s. 6. Abid Hussain, “Pakistan launches Operation Bunyan Marsoos: What we know so far,” Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/10/pakistan-launches-operation-bunyan-marsoos-what-we-know-so-far. 7. “India-Pakistan ceasefire updates: Pakistan violates ceasefire understanding along Jammu border,” The Hindu, May 11, 2025, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/operation-sindoor-pahalgam-attack-india-pakistan-live-updatesmay-10-2025/article69559875.ece. 8. “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on May 9, 2025,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, May 9, 2025, https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202505/t20250509_11618305. html. 9. “China calls on India, Pakistan to consolidate ceasefire momentum: FM spokesperson,” Xinhuanet, May 12, 2025, https://english.news.cn/20250512/3024d6c69d154eb7ac23968925bdca2b/c.html. 10. Eerishika Pankaj and Omkar Bhole, “China’s Thinking on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor: Impact on its Regional Credibility,” Organisation for Research on China and Asia, May 7, 2025, https://orcasia.org/article/1165/chinasthinking-on-pahalgam-and-operation-sindoor. 11. Hayley Wong and Seong Hyeon Choi, “Why China may find it hard to play peacemaker in India-Pakistan conflict,” South China Morning Post, May 8, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3309452/why-chinamay-find-it-hard-play-peacemaker-india-pakistan-conflict. 12. “China condemns Pahalgam terror attack that resulted in multiple casualties: FM,” Global Times, April 23, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202504/1332699.shtml. 13. Suhasini Haidar, “China calls for ‘impartial probe’ into Pahalgam,” The Hindu, April 28, 2025, https://www.thehindu. com/news/international/china-calls-for-swift-and-fair-investigation-into-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69499929.ece. 14. PTI, “India slams China at UN for blocking move to designate 26/11 accused Sajid Mir as ‘global terrorist’,” The Hindu, June 21, 2023, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-slams-china-at-un-for-blocking-move-todesignate-2611-accused-sajid-mir-as-global-terrorist/article66993043.ece. 15. “中华人民共和国和巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国联合声明（全文）,” FMPRC, February 6, 2025, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ web/ziliao_674904/1179_674909/202502/t20250206_11550130.shtml; see also, “Wang Yi: Develop China-Pakistan All-Weather Strategic Cooperative Partnership with “Four Commitments”,”Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of India, May 15, 2024, in.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202405/t20240516_11305420.htm. 16. Ben Westcott, “Pakistan PM Imran Khan refuses to condemn China’s Xinjiang crackdown,” CNN, June 22, 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/22/asia/imran-khan-xinjiang-axios-intl-hnk. 17. “Interview: ‘India wants to quell domestic dissent after China clash by diverting attention’,” Dawn, June 26, 2020, https://www.dawn.com/news/1565331.18. Muhammad Akbar Notezai, “What Does the China-India Standoff in Ladakh Mean for Pakistan?” The Diplomat, June 24, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/what-does-the-china-india-standoff-in-ladakh-mean-for-pakistan/. 19. Keegan Elmer, “China says it will support Pakistan ‘upholding its rights’ in Kashmir row with India,” South China Morning Post, August 10, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3022254/china-says-it-willsupport-pakistan-upholding-its-rights. 20. “Pulwama attack: What about Wuhan spirit, Shashi Tharoor condemns China’s protection to Jaish-e-Mohammad,” India Today, February 15, 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pulwama-attack-wuhan-spirit-shashi-tharoorcondemns-china-protection-jaish-e-mohammad-1456963-2019-02-15. 21. “Pakistan condemns India’s ‘blatant aggression,’ says it brings ‘two nuclear-armed states closer to major conflict’,” Global Times, May 7, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333486.shtml#:~:text=,said%20the%20 statement; Xinhua, “Pakistan army says Indian aircraft cross LoC,” China Daily, February 26, 2019, https://www. chinadaily.com.cn/a/201902/26/WS5c74eebba3106c65c34eb81d.html#:~:text=,minister%20told%20the%20state%20 TV. 22. “India can change course for the better with China,” Global Times, July 8, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/ content/1193819.shtml#:~:text=India%27s%20relations%20with%20many%20of,even%20adventurous%2C%20 recent%20foreign%20strategies. 23. “Human rights must be respected: India after Xinjiang vote,” The Times of India, October 8, 2022, https://timesofindia. indiatimes.com/india/human-rights-must-be-respected-india-after-skipping-xinjiang-vote/articleshow/94713915.cms. 24. “Thin Ice in the Himalayas: Handling the India-China Border Dispute,” International Crisis Group, November 14, 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/india-china/334-thin-ice-himalayas-handling-india-china-borderdispute; Arkoprabho Hazra, “Why Is India Silent on China’s Human Rights Record at the UN?” The Diplomat, October 27, 2020,  https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/why-is-india-silent-on-chinas-human-rights-record-at-the-un/; see also  Raj Verma, “Domestic Political Drivers and Chinese Diplomacy: Xinjiang and Counter-Terrorism in South Asia,” Asian Perspective 44, no. 4 (2020), https://muse.jhu.edu/article/766324. 25. Jagannath Panda, “The Trans-Himalayan ‘Quad,’ Beijing’s Territorialism, and India,” China Brief 20 (20), November 12, 2020, https://jamestown.org/program/the-trans-himalayan-quad-beijings-territorialism-and-india/. 26. Feng Fan, “Pakistani PM vows to avenge ‘our innocent martyrs’; India FM warns any attacks will be met with ‘firm response’: media,” Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333630.shtml. 27. Hayley Wong, “China supplied 81% of Pakistan’s arms imports in the past 5 years, SIPRI says,” South China Morning Post, March 16, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3302515/china-supplied-81-pakistans-armsimports-past-5-years-sipri-says. 28. Seong Hyeon Choi, “Kashmir conflict: the Chinese warplanes and weapons used by Pakistan,” South China Morning Post, May 14, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3310172/kashmir-conflict-chinese-warplanesand-weapons-used-pakistan. 29. “Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along India Border: New Long-Range Artillery Threat Emerges,” Video, Defence Security Asia, April 30, 2025, https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/pakistan-deploys-chinese-sh-15-howitzersalong-india-border-new-long-range-artillery-threat-emerges/. 30. Liu Xuanzun, “PLA Navy to join multinational drill in Pakistan, eye maritime security boost,” Global Times, February 6, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202502/1327941.shtml. 31. Ajay Banerjee, “China holds military drills in areas adjoining Ladakh,” The Tribune, May 9, 2025, https://www. tribuneindia.com/news/india/china-holds-military-drills-in-areas-adjoining-ladakh/. 32. Tushar Shetty, “The Dragon-Elephant Dance: China and India’s Battle for South Asia,” The Diplomat, April 22, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/the-dragon-elephant-dance-china-and-indias-battle-for-south-asia/. 33. “India delivers strong message to Pakistan at SCO; Jaishankar condemns terrorism,” The Economic Times, October 17, 2024, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-delivers-strong-message-to-pakistan-at-sco-jaishankarcondemns-terrorism/articleshow/114274767.cms?from=mdr. 34. Linda Maduz, “Flexibility by design: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the future of Eurasian cooperation,” Center for Security Studies, May 2018, https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securitiesstudies/pdfs/Maduz-080618-ShanghaiCooperation.pdf; see also  Gunjan Singh, “Terrorism casts its shadow over SCO meet, China-Pakistan ties,” Deccan Herald, October 14, 2024, https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/terrorism-castsits-shadow-over-sco-meet-china-pakistan-ties-3231147. 35. Pravin Sawhney, “Bottomline - Kargil Legacy,” Force, https://forceindia.net/bottomline/kargil-legacy/. 36. “Kashmir issue proves India unqualified for UN Security Council seat,” Global Times, September 8, 2019, https://www. globaltimes.cn/content/1161229.shtml.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Six months have passed since the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group [1], led by Abu Mohammad al-Julani (now known as Ahmad al-Sharaa), took power in Syria. Shortly before that, on the other side of the world, Donald Trump won the presidential election in the United States, and the whole world turned its attention to what the foreign policy of the new resident of the White House would actually look like. The new Syrian authorities watched him more attentively than others, fully understanding that Trump’s policy toward their country would largely determine their own future and the future of Syria. At the same time, after six months in power, despite certain efforts, the new Syrian leadership has so far failed to fundamentally resolve key socio-economic problems in the country, the issues of disarmament and the integration of armed groups into a unified army, restore effective control over borders and weapons, ensure internal security for all—including minorities—and launch a truly inclusive transitional political process. Of course, achieving all of this is extremely difficult given that external actors play one of the key roles in these matters. Therefore, the events of recent weeks—especially actions by the United States—are very important for Syria and the region. Let us examine what consequences the easing of U.S. sanctions might have for Damascus, the Middle Eastern region, and Russia. The Easing of American Sanctions On May 13, during his Middle East tour, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to initiate the process of lifting all sanctions on Syria, which was a rather unexpected move, as even within the president's own administration there was no consensus on the matter. For Damascus and other regional players, this statement became a long-awaited step from Washington. Later, on May 23, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 25 for Syria, which launched the process of easing sanctions in accordance with Trump’s statement. In particular, all transactions with Syria and the Syrian government that were prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations were authorized, effectively loosening existing restrictions. It is worth noting that since January 6, 2025, General License 24 had already been in effect for six months, authorizing certain previously prohibited transactions with the Syrian government and Central Bank. Essentially, GL 25 expanded the sanctions relief that had been initiated at the end of the Biden administration. In addition to GL 25, the U.S. State Department suspended the sanctions stipulated by the Caesar Act for 180 days, which, according to Washington's plan, is intended to encourage foreign partners, U.S. allies, and regional players to begin economic and financial engagement with Syria’s new authorities. However, their temporary suspension for six months indicates a gradual approach to lifting restrictions. At the same time, the easing of sanctions is not so simple or unambiguous. First, since 1979, numerous sanctions have been imposed on Syria, including both presidential executive orders and laws approved by Congress. This makes a full repeal of sanctions a complex and slow process, as some of them will require congressional approval. Second, not all restrictions have been lifted. Furthermore, the Trump administration can rather easily and quickly reinstate them. Instead of completely repealing the fundamental sanctions laws, OFAC issued a General License. This means that if the new Syrian authorities don’t succeed in removing foreign fighters, fighting terrorism, and protecting religious and ethnic minorities, OFAC can just cancel GL 25 and bring back the previous restrictions. Similarly, the State Department may choose not to extend the 180-day suspension of the Caesar Act. Clearly, the U.S. will monitor the situation in Syria and the progress of the new authorities. Thus, GL 25 and the suspension of the Caesar Act should be seen not merely as a gift from Trump, but as a leverage tool for the U.S. over Syria’s new government. Third, in exchange for lifting sanctions, Trump expects rather problematic steps from the new Syrian authorities. During an unexpected meeting with Syria’s new president on May 14, the White House leader urged him to normalize relations with Israel (potentially through joining the Abraham Accords or striking a new deal). This is a highly difficult step, as it is likely to provoke a negative reaction from radicals within HTS, as well as from ordinary citizens, which may ultimately trigger new escalation in Syria. Trump also called for the cleansing of foreign fighters and terrorists from the ranks of the Syrian military. This request is also problematic, as Julani still relies on them and continues to promote them into positions within the new army. Moreover, removing foreign fighters and radicals may also spark discontent and retaliatory actions against Julani and his supporters. In this regard, the new Syrian authorities find themselves in a very ambiguous situation. Having come to power as radical Islamists and terrorists, they have begun to use different tools to ensure their political survival — namely, the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the acquisition of external financial and economic aid. To achieve this, they must get rid of those through whom they gained power in Syria, and solving this problem is only a matter of time. What Does Sanctions Relief Mean for Syria? Trump’s Plan to Lift Sanctions on Syria Could Mean the Following: First, the easing of sanctions will lend greater legitimacy to the new Syrian authorities and increase their public support. Syrians have been waiting for the lifting of sanctions for many years. They are hoping for improvements in the humanitarian and socio-economic situation, which has only worsened since 2020, and for the start of full-scale reconstruction of the country. Trump’s decision gives them hope, which in turn increases support for the new Syrian authorities. Second, radical Islamist forces in Syria view Ash-Sharaa’s engagement with the West as a threat to their prospects in Syria and beyond. In their view, he has begun to betray “revolutionary” and “Islamist” values and “sell them out” in exchange for political and economic benefits from the West. It is important to note that in a recent fatwa, one of the Salafi ideologues, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, declared Syria’s interim president Ahmad Ash-Sharaa (and his supporters) an unbeliever for “abandoning Islamic law in favor of man-made laws.” Additionally, ISIS recently called on HTS militants dissatisfied with the policies of the new Syrian government to defect. The main threat to such forces lies in the possibility that Ash-Sharaa may ultimately ban and physically eliminate them in exchange for full recognition and economic support from the West. At the same time, the growing internal “jihadist opposition” in Syria could affect the country’s stability, since the government still doesn’t control all of the territory and doesn’t have full control over weapons and the use of force. As mentioned earlier, a possible normalization between Syria and Israel is also a strong argument used against Ash-Sharaa and a source of tension for hardliners in the country, which creates a challenge for the authorities. Third, Julani is at the same time strengthening his position even further. The meeting with the U.S. president on May 14 improved his image both in the region and around the world. Support from the U.S., shown by that meeting, gives him a way to act against his most radical colleagues and slowly get rid of them. Financial, economic, and military aid from Western and Gulf countries — which Damascus will likely get soon — will let him act more confidently and strictly against his most radical opponents, including Islamist extremists, without being afraid of losing public support. In other words, more international recognition gives Ash-Sharaa more support at home, which lets him weaken the radicals’ claims about his illegitimacy and stop depending on them as a way to control the country. Fourth, Trump’s statement will stimulate economic aid and investments from Gulf states and the EU into Syria. After the U.S. published GL 25 on May 23, the EU followed suit, deciding on May 28 to lift its economic sanctions on Syria. It is worth noting that the EU will also monitor the human rights situation in the country and developments related to the March events on the country’s coast. All potential donors and investors will closely observe the situation and are unlikely to rush with major financial inflows. A step-by-step approach is more likely. Fifth, the gradual improvement of the humanitarian and economic situation will ultimately lead to the mass return of Syrian refugees (according to UN data, about 4.5 million Syrian refugees remain abroad, and around 7.5 million internally displaced persons reside within Syria). On one hand, this will increase the socio-economic burden on the Syrian state, which could create a favorable environment for opposition and radical ideas. On the other hand, it may enable the authorities to increase their public support and gain more potential manpower for rebuilding the country and its economy. At the same time, according to a recent UN report on Syria, “social cohesion in the country remains fragile due to deeply rooted ethnic divisions, prolonged displacement/deportation, and the complex dynamics of IDP and refugee returns.” The conflict has exacerbated divisions between ethnic and sectarian groups, and recent changes in the political landscape have intensified discontent over political representation and inclusiveness, land ownership, access to resources, and control over security. Therefore, it is crucial for the Syrian authorities to promptly secure sufficient resources and tools to create sustainable conditions for the country’s recovery. What Lies Ahead for the Region? First, the GCC countries, especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, will become more active in Syria. Saudi Arabia and the UAE will try to balance Turkish and Qatari influence in Syria through increased investments, economic projects, and support for the current authorities. It is quite likely that regional economic projects aimed at connecting the countries of the region will be discussed and implemented again. For example, the resumption of the Arab Gas Pipeline, stretching from Egypt through Jordan and Syria to Lebanon, could improve the electricity supply situation in Syria and Lebanon. Second, the mass return of Syrian refugees to their homeland will reduce the socio-economic burden on regional countries—primarily Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan—on whose territories they are still located. Third, Syria will receive more investments from the EU, which will help accelerate its recovery and allow the European Union to restore its economic positions in Syria. Syria’s economic recovery, in turn, will have a positive effect on Lebanon as well. Fourth, there is a possibility of potential Syrian-Israeli negotiations on normalizing relations. In recent weeks, both sides have already established direct contacts and are discussing security issues. However, it is worth mentioning that indirect contacts between the new Syrian authorities and Israel began back in December 2024. The issue here lies in how potential opponents of Julani will exploit this and whether Syrian-Israeli normalization (or even talks about it) will have a destabilizing effect on Syria and the region. What Prospects Open for Russia? First, Moscow has not had major economic interests or assets in Syria. At the same time, it is important to note that General License 25 prohibits transactions beneficial to Russia, Iran, or North Korea (or involving the transfer or provision of goods, technology, software, funds, financing, or services to or from these countries), which limits Moscow’s ability to provide economic assistance to Syria. Hypothetically, if the U.S. were to fully lift all restrictions on Syria’s relations with Russia, Moscow would be able to conclude deals with Damascus in the defense sector (including maintenance of Soviet/Russian military equipment), in the field of industrial restoration (of Soviet/Russian infrastructure facilities), in agriculture, and in education. Second, it is also important to note that since neither Trump’s plan to lift sanctions on Syria nor the EU plan includes a condition for the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Syria (at least not publicly), Moscow retains a greater chance of negotiating more favorable terms for maintaining its military facilities in the country.  *** Thus, one can say that the sanction relief measures by the U.S. and EU are primarily aimed at helping the new Syrian authorities cope with the challenges facing them—severe socio-economic conditions, energy supply issues, reform and restructuring of the armed forces, infrastructure restoration, combating radical Islamists, foreign militants and ISIS, and regaining control over the entire territory of the country. Secondly, they are meant to help strengthen the political position of Damascus and specifically al-Sharaa within the country in order to carry out, as much as possible, a democratic transitional process over the coming years. Thirdly, they signal clearly that sanctions can be lifted if the "right people" come to power and if they act in a certain direction. Fourthly, these sanctions relief measures are essentially tools of influence and pressure, and explicitly tie the easing or removal of sanctions to the behavior of the target. The process of lifting restrictions on Syria will first and foremost open a financial and economic pathway into the country for regional actors who have long been directly interested in stabilizing the situation. As for the U.S. and the EU, it appears that neither is ready to go all in on Syria, preferring a gradual approach while waiting to see how the new authorities in Damascus perform in the coming months. This reflects both the West’s waning interest in the region and the growing agency and role of regional actors. At the same time, it is worth noting that the amount of Western or Gulf investment in Syria is unlikely to affect the quality of internal governance, reform implementation, or the inclusiveness of the transition period. Naturally, by gradually lifting sanctions, the West is trying to create conditions in which it retains leverage over today’s authorities in Damascus. But will the West be ready for the possibility that, over time, this leverage may stop working?  Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is a terrorist organization banned in Russia.ISIS is a terrorist organization banned in the territory of Russia.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The plan for an advanced missile defence shield over the US offers no guarantee of success and risks undermining global security. Last week, US President Donald Trump unveiled his $175 billion plan to build the ‘Golden Dome’: a coast-to-coast missile defence shield designed to protect the US against hypersonic, ballistic, and space-based weapons. But far from enhancing US national security, the initiative risks exacerbating global instability and accelerating strategic competition. The concept for the Golden Dome is ambitious. The proposal envisions a multi-layered defence architecture involving hundreds or even thousands of satellites in orbit, equipped with advanced sensors and interceptors, including space-based lasers. These would detect, track, and neutralize incoming missiles and other threats at various stages of flight. In both vision and rhetoric, the plans echo Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defence Initiative, often referred to as ‘Star Wars.’ Like the Golden Dome, the SDI proposed a layered defence system that would rely on cutting-edge, and largely untested, technologies to intercept incoming missiles before they could reach US territory. But despite years of investment, the SDI never produced a workable system and was eventually cancelled, exposing the gap between ambition and capability that still exists today. The plan also draws inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome system. But this comparison is misleading. Israel is much smaller than the US, and its Iron Dome protects the country from short-range, unguided rockets – threats that are limited in number, speed, and direction. Trump’s plan, by contrast, seeks to defend the entire US homeland from far more advanced and numerous threats, including long-range ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles and orbital delivery systems. The scale, complexity, and technical sophistication required are of a completely different order. Costs – and risks Despite Trump estimating that the system will cost $175 billion and could be built in just three years, the Congressional Budget Office has warned that the space-based components alone could cost as much as $542 billion to deploy and operate over the next 20 years. Fundamental questions remain unanswered: what the system will look like, who will build it, and whether it will function as intended. Investing the necessary resources to develop such an advanced system would require significant trade-offs that could come at the expense of other defence priorities.  The US does not currently have the full spectrum of technology it needs to intercept hypersonic or ballistic missiles in space, which would require interceptors or lasers capable of operating over vast distances with near-instant precision. Pursuing the Golden Dome risks prioritising an expensive and unproven system over more immediate and achievable capabilities, such as improving regional missile defences and cyber resilience to countering emerging threats like drones. The plan also has potentially dangerous strategic consequences. A system that aspires to make the US invulnerable to missile attack would almost certainly be seen by its adversaries as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence. If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralize a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race. Beijing and Moscow have already criticized the Golden Dome project as ‘deeply destabilizing’ and could respond with a range of countermeasures, including expanding their offensive arsenals or developing new delivery systems. This arms race could also incentivize the deployment of space-based weapons at a time when space remains dangerously under-regulated. The Golden Dome could therefore undermine global security, making the world a more dangerous place – including for the US. Leverage for diplomacy? Given these risks, the US should instead use the Golden Dome plan as leverage to launch renewed arms control diplomacy. Washington should use the proposal to reinitiate dialogue with other major powers, including Russia and China, on mutual restraint, transparency, and the governance of emerging missile and space-based technologies.  This is especially urgent given the deterioration of existing arms control frameworks. The last major arms control agreement between the US and Russia, the New START Treaty, was suspended by President Vladimir Putin in 2023. It is set to expire in 2026 with no successor in place. Despite China’s growing arsenal, arms control talks between the US and China were also suspended in July 2024 over US arms sales to Taiwan. Meanwhile, rapid advances in missile technology, space systems, and artificial intelligence are outpacing the rules and norms designed to manage them. As geopolitical tensions rise, so does the risk of miscalculation and escalation. The need to revive strategic dialogue is therefore more pressing than ever. While China and Russia may be sceptical of US intentions, the Golden Dome’s space-based elements could create a rare opportunity for renewed arms control dialogue on space security. This might not necessarily focus on warhead reductions, but on more immediate and achievable areas of shared concern.  Space security Space security is one of the most promising and necessary avenues for engagement. As nuclear-armed powers become increasingly reliant on space-based systems for both military and civilian purposes (from early warning systems and communications to navigation and surveillance), the risks of miscalculation or unintended escalation in orbit are growing. A pragmatic and urgently needed step would be to launch dialogue on the norms that should govern behaviour in space, including avoiding close approaches to satellites, limiting the deployment of certain space-based systems, or improving transparency. Even modest measures, such as agreeing to share notifications of satellite launches or discussing dual-use capabilities, could help to build trust and reduce the likelihood of conflict in orbit. By focusing on space, where interests overlap and mutual vulnerabilities are clear, the US could help to re-establish the foundations for wider future strategic dialogue.  Avoiding past mistakes In the 1980s, Reagan’s SDI consumed vast resources, heightened international tensions, and failed to deliver a functioning defence system. It also contributed to an arms race that left the world more divided, not more secure. The Golden Dome risks repeating those same mistakes, but with more players, faster technologies, and fewer guardrails in place. At a time when arms control frameworks are crumbling and global tensions are rising, the announcement of the Golden Dome should be seen as a strategic opportunity to initiate renewed discussions on space security. Framing the proposal as a starting point for dialogue, rather than a signal of unilateral ambition, could help to stabilize a dangerously volatile moment. Otherwise, the project risks pushing the world one step further towards a more contested, militarized, and insecure future.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction  On 7 April 2025, the Italian Istituto Affari Internazionali and the Dutch Clingendael Institute co-hosted the fourth edition of the Van Wittel/Vanvitelli Roundtable, which is becoming a major recurring event in the policy dialogue between Italy and the Netherlands. The meeting, co-organized by the two policy institutes, took place at the Italian School of Public Administration in Caserta (NA, Italy), bringing together a broad array of stakeholders including experts from academia, think tanks, ministries and civil society.1 This year’s roundtable focused on the critical intersections between industrial innovation, technological sovereignty and (open) strategic autonomy, underlining the urgent need to strengthen linkages between these domains within the broader European framework. Held under the Chatham House Rule and by invitation only, the event created a space for frank and forwardlooking exchanges on how both Italy and the Netherlands can safeguard their national interests while contributing constructively to the collective resilience and strategic capacity of the European Union. One of the most relevant outcomes of this edition was the joint endorsement of a proposal to develop a bilateral policy paper aimed at strengthening collaboration between the two countries, while also feeding into ongoing EU-level initiatives.  1. Increasing security and reducing dependencies The dialogue began with a reflection on the pressing geopolitical challenges facing the European Union. Participants broadly acknowledged that escalating tensions between the United States and China, including an increasingly protectionist American posture – as seen during and potentially following the Trump administration – pose risks for Europe’s role in the international order. The possibility of a global trade war, alongside the gradual withdrawal of the US from traditional multilateralism, is both a threat and a wake-up call for Europe. In the last months, the challenge has become particularly serious, as the US administration threatened multiple times to impose high tariffs on EU products. Rather than becoming collateral damage in this global rivalry, Europe should take active steps to strengthen its strategic positioning and develop a strategy to counter and deter coercion from third countries. This goal, the participants argued, requires avoiding marginalisation through enhanced internal cohesion, greater autonomy from external suppliers, and the ability to act collectively on the world stage. In this light, there was widespread agreement that bilateral relationships such as the one between Italy and the Netherlands can serve as essential building blocks in shaping Europe’s capacity to act with strategic clarity and operational effectiveness.  In the event of a global trade war, another source of instability could come from China. If the US markets shut its doors, China would be faced with an overproduction capacity, due to the misplacement of all the goods destined to the US economy. In this scenario, the only option for Beijing would be to flow the same commodities to Europe, thereby saturating the market and curbing EU competitiveness. This scenario must be avoided. The solution can be only a tough but necessary negotiation with the US to avoid a dramatic fragmentation of global trade. The EU should act reasonably and try to persuade Washington of the existing nexus between global trade, wealth and political stability. The negotiation should start from the assumption that the transatlantic trade with the United States is much smaller than trade within the European Union. As a consequence, all the EU member states have a practical convenience in standing together and speaking with Washington with one voice. The formal and exclusive competence that the Commission holds in the commercial field, granted by the EU Treaties, should be therefore supported politically at the highest levels. At the same time, the Commission and the member states should focus on: 1) developing bilateral agreements with like-minded countries worldwide which believe in open and fair trade; 2) removing non-tariff barriers inside the internal market to boost competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The second point is particularly important, as the Commission needs to make the bloc more resilient to external shocks through a set of instruments aimed at enhancing strategic autonomy in a framework of necessary global interdependence.  Indeed, the recipe to achieve this goal has been already identified in the Letta and Draghi reports, which offer sound analyses and strategic directions for European industrial and economic policy. Despite these clear guidelines, the participants’ consensus was that implementation today remains inconsistent due to poor coordination among member states and institutional inertia. It was argued that meaningful progress depends on increased financial support, forward-looking strategic planning and, crucially, the formation of coalitions among like-minded EU member states – especially when the broader EU framework falls short. A recurring theme throughout the discussion was Europe’s evolving role as a global actor; if the ambitions of the bloc go beyond playing the role of an excellent regulatory power, the EU must position itself as a mediator and real broker in a multipolar world. Italy and the Netherlands, with their strong institutional, industrial and diplomatic assets, are natural complimentary partners in this effort, and can help the EU agenda in many respects. One dimension obviously pivotal for both the Union and its member states is the future of our economies. In this regard, participants insisted on the need to place industrial policy at the very heart of Europe’s strategic agenda. The capacity to maintain economic leadership, social cohesion and democratic vitality depends in no small part rests on the continent’s ability to manufacture, innovate and compete. A number of shared structural challenges – most prominently energy affordability, demographic change and the digital transition – must be tackled through integrated strategies that involve both public and private actors. The traditional rigid separation between public sector policy and private investment is therefore outdated and counterproductive. Today’s complex challenges require unified action driven by shared objectives. The Italy–Netherlands partnership, in this context, was identified as a potential nucleus for a new wave of EU-wide strategic thinking. These two countries already hold considerable influence in different sectors and can use their complementary strengths to demonstrate the added value of bilateral cooperation for the entire EU. By jointly addressing pressing infrastructure needs, advancing cooperation on research and innovation, and fostering deeper market integration, Italy and the Netherlands could set a precedent for other mid-sized EU member states. The panel was concluded by a call to action: to jointly draft a detailed position paper, developed in direct dialogue with the European Commission, to define shared priorities and propose concrete initiatives. This policy paper would focus on key areas such as advanced technologies, green innovation, the energy transition and the pursuit of strategic autonomy – laying the foundations for a resilient and forward-looking Europe. Italy and the Netherlands, as major industrial powerhouses, can give a significant contribution, as they already did in the past. 2. Innovation and strategic sectors: Agriculture, defence and semiconductors The second part of the discussion focused on innovation as a cornerstone of European competitiveness. While there was strong recognition of the EU’s ambition in this domain, participants pointed to significant structural weaknesses, particularly underinvestment in research and development and fragmented policy implementation. The Chips Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act were cited as important legislative efforts, but whose success will depend on coherent action across all member states and the mobilisation of private capital and expertise. Among the strategic sectors identified for both countries, agriculture stood out as a particularly relevant case. Agriculture in fact embodies both industrial potential and the need for open strategic autonomy – especially in the context of international trade developments, such as those stemming from EU-Mercosur negotiations and US demands to open European agricultural markets. Italy and the Netherlands are major players in this field. According to Eurostat data, the Netherlands is one of the top three agricultural exporters in the EU, while Italy ranks among the leaders in high-quality agricultural production and is a world leader in agri-food machinery. These comparative advantages create space for deep, complementary cooperation. Participants stressed the need to build a joint framework focused on food quality, innovation testing and the harmonisation of production systems. The Netherlands was recognised for its leadership in digitalisation and agri-tech innovation, while Italy’s sophisticated machinery sector was seen as critical for enabling largescale adoption of new technologies. Importantly, agricultural innovation was also viewed as essential for climate adaptation. With the increasing scarcity of water and the shrinking availability of arable land, Europe’s food systems must evolve to remain viable and resilient. The digital transformation of agriculture, through the adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) and data-driven solutions, presents opportunities to increase productivity and sustainability. However, it also raises challenges, including the need to ensure equitable access to vital semiconductors in order to build digital infrastructure and to address skills gaps in digital literacy. Semiconductors in particular, the hardware backbone of all digital systems, were identified as a cross-cutting capability essential not only to agriculture but to broader industrial policy. For Italy and the Netherlands, enhancing national capacity in this field aligns with the strategic goal of technological sovereignty. Another core issue raised was the generational transition in agriculture. As rural populations age, the sector should be made more appealing to younger, highly educated individuals. This requires a cultural shift: reframing agriculture as a highvalue and socially meaningful profession. The traditional image of the isolated farmer must give way to a narrative that resonates with environmentally conscious youth who see value in returning to the land. However, this shift requires careful policy design to reconcile environmental goals with economic sustainability. Specific strategies were discussed for supporting small farms, which often lack access to advanced technology, and for incentivising large-scale producers to integrate sustainable practices. Italy’s prominence in agricultural machinery offers a further avenue for international engagement. Expanding innovation to developing countries through machinery exports and technical cooperation could support global food security while reinforcing Europe’s leadership. In closing, participants linked these reflections back to the broader topic of European security and defence. The defence industry and the cybersecurity domain face similar issues of dependency and vulnerability. Strategic autonomy in these sectors is not only about accessing raw materials but about entire supply chains – from design and production to deployment. Both Italy and the Netherlands are well-positioned to lead within a broader European effort to secure these strategic infrastructures. Conclusions The roundtable concluded by reaffirming the centrality of the economic dimension to the future of Europe. A clear and robust industrial strategy must return to the forefront of EU policymaking. In the absence of an effective industrial policy framework, too much responsibility remains at the national level, creating disparities and inefficiencies. Europe must shift from aspirational rhetoric to operational pragmatism, investing decisively in sectors that underpin its long-term resilience. The cooperation between the public and private sectors is essential. Both Italy and the Netherlands are undergoing parallel transitions – digital, environmental and demographic. These must be tackled simultaneously, as none can be deprioritised. Change will require acknowledgment of systemic constraints. Among the most urgent priorities is the cost of energy, which undermines industrial competitiveness across Europe. Italy is particularly affected due to its structural vulnerabilities, but this is a shared European challenge. Energy prices must be drastically reduced, and a fully functioning internal (energy) market must be established. Demographic decline poses a new challenge. Unlike previous decades, the EU must now envision growth in a context of population shrinkage. The only answer to this unprecedented challenge lays in innovation, accessible energy and a revitalised industrial base. Hence, the call for new models and economic frameworks capable of adapting to shrinking labour markets while maintaining living standards. Ultimately, the Van Wittell/Vanvitelli Roundtable highlighted that the EU should engage proactively the US to avoid a global trade crisis and forge alliances with like-minded and complementary world players. With the contribution of two important actors such as Italy and the Netherlands, the EU can find new pathways to open strategic autonomy and long-term prosperity. *Updated 23 May 2025 Report of the fourth edition of the Van Wittel/Vanvitelli Roundtable organised at the Italian School of Public Administration in Caserta on 7 April 2025 by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and Clingendael Institute. Paper produced in the framework of the project “Van Wittel/Vanvitelli Roundtable”. The project has benefited from the financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Policy Planning Unit of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI) pursuant to art. 23-bis of Presidential Decree 18/1967, and the Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation. The views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. References 1 - A video of the closing remarks by Antonio Tajani, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and Caspar Veldkamp, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, is available here: https://www.youtube.com/live/mqhfJfW-4s8.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump has entered a phony war stage. But the next six months will reveal the true impact of a threatened trade war. The 8-month period in 1939–40 after Hitler’s invasion of Poland but before major Nazi attacks on the Allies was called the ‘phony war’. It was a time of high uncertainty but relative calm, with a hope in some quarters that the worst risks had been avoided. Today, the pace of the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump on ‘Liberation Day’ seems to be following the same trajectory. The reaction of ‘shock and awe’ at the pace of action during Trump’s first hundred days culminated with the 2 April announcement of ‘reciprocal tariffs’ imposed on friends and foes alike. The president used executive orders as his legal tool, and Truth Social as his personal communications channel, to dominate the news and evade normal checks and balances. His new tariff regime threw financial markets into a panic and threatened complex global supply chains. A tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs on China added fuel to the fire. Then, within days, the phony war period began with the pausing of most threatened tariffs and the partial reductions negotiated with China. This buoyed the financial markets, reassuring some that the disruptions of President Trump’s first hundred days were part of a strategy that would settle into a pattern of more deals and less economic damage. The partial trade deal with the UK was reassuring, while the latest skirmish between the US and the EU keeps suspense high. But postponing the application of threatened tariffs is more of a ceasefire in Trump’s trade war, not a resolution. Much less a surrender. Positive signs, but backward looking Recent data provide some superficial reasons to be positive about the health of the US economy. US corporate earnings in the first quarter came in mostly on track. Share prices of big tech companies have regained much of the value they had lost in the wake of Liberation Day. US inflation fell slightly in April to an annual rate of 2.3 per cent, showing little sign of impact from tariffs. Even the unwelcome surprise of the 0.3 per cent fall in first quarter GDP (on an annual basis) was partly explained by a surge in imports as US companies built up their inventories to prepare for the tariff threat. All of this data, of course, is backward looking. There are early indications, and strong reasons to believe, that the real damage is yet to come and that the US is entering a period of stagflation that will lead to a recession by the end of this year. Inflation prospects First, consider inflation. While in May the Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell slightly compared to a year ago, it ticked up slightly in April compared to a month ago. That was a reversal in  the first monthly reading after the Liberation Day announcements. The widely watched survey of US consumer sentiment produced by the University of Michigan hit a near record low in May, sliding to 50.8 – just shy of the all-time low seen in June 2022. The survey pinpointed tariffs as leading to that decline in confidence, based on worries about a renewed surge of inflation.  The same survey of expected inflation 12 months ahead rose to an astonishing 7.3 per cent, up from 6.5 per cent expected in April. Were that to become reality it would be the US’s highest level since 1981. Businesses too are concerned. The chief executive of Walmart has warned that ‘even at reduced levels, the higher tariffs will result in higher prices.’ The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the overall US effective tariff rate is now 17.8 per cent compared to 2.5 per cent when President Trump took office in January. There can be little doubt that such a jump in tariffs will spur a rise in inflation in the coming months. A further risk will develop if the large tax cut  package under consideration by Congress results in a substantial rise in the government deficit, which is already running close to 7 per cent of GDP this year. Moody’s credit rating agency downgraded its AAA rating on US government debt in May.  The labour market is tight, with unemployment hovering around 4 per cent.  Fiscal stimulus applied to an economy that is near full employment is a classic recipe for higher inflation. While these risks remain, it is unlikely that the US Federal Reserve will be quick to cut interest rates. Indeed, in its May meeting, it voted to leave interest rates on hold, despite calls from President Trump to lower them. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said ‘We can move quickly when that’s appropriate, but we think right now the appropriate thing to do is wait and see how things evolve.’ This is the prudent policy when there are two-sided risks in a stagflationary environment. Growth prospects Now consider the prospects for growth, where expectations and international repercussions are especially important. The drop in consumer confidence has been cited above.  Many large companies declined to provide sales or earnings forecasts with their Q1 results due to the uncertain environment. The chief executive of Maersk, the global shipping giant, warned that world trade volumes could contract by up to 4 per cent this year – compared to their previous projection of 4 per cent growth. Exports account for 29 per cent of global GDP. A contraction in global trade would represent a global supply shock to growth, not only for the US but especially for trade-intensive countries and regions such as the EU. The end of the ‘phony war’ As July approaches and the tariff ceasefires are due to end, this ‘phony war’ period will evolve into a spreading recognition of the real economic consequences of a trade war. Between now and then, the US may sign a few more deals. But current negotiations with the EU have stalled, provoking new threats by the US and then an agreed deadline of 9 July for more negotiations. Even if a short-term EU–US deal can be agreed, it will still leave US tariffs on EU goods substantially higher than before. Anxiety will build, stockpiles of imported goods will be running down, and businesses will see profits fall. Meanwhile, the US debt ceiling of $36 trillion is fast approaching and a Congressional agreement will be needed sometime between mid–July and early October if the US is to avoid default, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The usual brinkmanship will roil financial markets. These next six months will reveal the true impact of the threatened trade war. Uncertainty will give way to damage limitation in the form of higher prices to reflect higher costs, lower consumer demand and postponed investment.  The likelihood of two or three more quarters of below zero growth in the US is high. The irony is that as long as the US consumes more than it produces, higher US tariffs will do little to shrink the US trade deficit. But a tariff-induced recession in the US probably will.  

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract The defining political shift of our era is the revolt of the lower middle class. Much more exposed than the better-off to the succession of crises in recent years—from the financial crisis to uncontrolled migration, from Covid-19 to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine—the lower middle class is turning to the populist right and its promise of protection by closure. Unlike the US first-past-the-post system, the EU’s institutional framework emphasises compromise and cross-party cooperation and thus offers a critical buffer against this wave of disruption. But this is not enough to protect our post-1945 political order, which is based on parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and European integration, from both internal and external threats. The EU needs a bold agenda that focuses on competitiveness, growth, migration and defence, all of which are crucial to strengthening our continent. Introduction1 Once is an accident, twice the new normal. With his electoral success, Donald Trump is the new reality in the US, not just an aberration. Trump obviously understands his time better than anybody else, which ensured him his comeback as president of the US, elected by the people against seemingly overwhelming legal and political resistance. He is the new rule of the game, like it or not. The revolt of the lower middle classWhat is the new reality? The party political system in the US and Europe has been fundamentally transformed by the revolt of the lower middle class. Voter analyses in several European countries give a clear picture: in France, Marine Le Pen and the National Rally (Rassemblement National) represent the ‘défavorisés’ like no other party and have replaced in that function the traditional left. Le Pen is successful in the former Communist heartland and mining territory of northern France, where she also assured her own seat in parliament (Ipsos 2024). Similarly, Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) is electorally over-represented among workers and the unemployed and those with below average incomes and education (Moreau 2024a). And the Freedom Party of Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) rallies the workers too (Moreau 2024b). This should not come as a big surprise. Right-wing populist parties have been recognised in political science as unconventional workers’ parties for more than a decade (Rydgren 2013). And the transformation of the political space in Europe has been ongoing for more than a decade as well. European Parliament elections are an excellent monitor of the overall situation in Europe and the member states. The outcome of the 2024 European Parliament elections shows us a political space that is basically divided into three parts. One-third of the members now sit on the left, organised in the Green, Socialist and Left groups; a good third are in the centre, encompassing the Liberals and the Christian Democrat European People’s Party (EPP); and close to a third now belong to the populist and radical right (European Parliament 2024). In the US, Trump’s success was assured in 2016 through gains in the ‘rustbelt states’, formerly the Democrat Party’s heartland. In 2020 Joe Biden was able to narrowly turn the tide. With his credibility among workers—acquired over decades through close cooperation with the trade unions—he was able to achieve what presidential candidates from liberal New York and California, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, could not. The Republican Party today is the Make America Great Again Party. It is the party of Donald Trump. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and George Bush does not exist anymore. The party that used to represent the highly skilled today represents and owes its electoral success to the lower-skilled working class. ‘National security Republicans’ have lost their political home. Why is the lower middle class revolting? The lower middle class can be identified as those whose economic situation is tense. In other words, they have no financial buffer and anything unexpected happening can push them over the edge. In the US, this group, known as those living ‘from paycheque to paycheque’, is considered to comprise 25% to 30% of the population. A single paycheque not arriving might force people belonging to this group to sell their car; several paycheques not arriving might oblige them to sell their house (Bank of America Institute 2024). Ever since the financial crisis that started in 2008, we have gone in Europe from crisis to crisis. The drawn-out financial crisis was followed by uncontrolled migration as a consequence of Russia’s bombardment of big cities in Syria, and this was followed by Covid-19 and then Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which caused major spikes in energy and food prices and another massive wave of migration. What we call a ‘crisis’ might equally be considered a lack in performance of the system overall and an indication of increasing loss of control. Russia is being aggressive militarily and in other ways because it believes it can do so and get away with it. External borders prove time and time again to be porous. After the Second World War, the German economy grew by an average of about 5% per year; but in the last five years, this has dropped to 0% and even into the negative. What can be weathered by the better-off is an existential challenge for the lower middle class. If you are not already on the housing ladder by luck of birth, it is increasingly difficult to get onto. The social elevator is stuttering. And while migration is perceived by the upper middle class as the promise of affordable personal services today and care in old age later, for the lower middle class it means competition for affordable housing and state services, and the risk of decreasing educational standards for children in their lower-income living areas. German sociologist Andreas Reckwitz (2020) describes the experience of the lower middle class as one of a double devaluation: economic and cultural. It is economic because formerly well-paid industrial workers are falling increasingly behind the new university-educated service class. And it is cultural because their system of traditional values is regarded as outdated and destined to be superseded. From a horizontal to a vertical understanding of the party political system The traditional horizontal classification of parties on a left to right axis is very misleading now. To understand what is happening, we need to replace the traditional horizontal classification with a vertical one based on social status, income and education. On the basis of the 2021 German federal election and data provided by the Bundestag (data no longer available online) and others (Focus online 2021), we can construct such a vertical system for Germany: 1. Greens and liberals represent younger voters, with a very good income in the case of the liberals and an average income, but outstanding level of education, when it comes to the greens, the new party of the Bildungsbürgertum (the very well-educated). These voters can together be considered the upper middle class and the most dynamic part of society.2. The traditional people’s parties, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, become more popular the older the cohort, with their popularity rocketing among those above 70 years old. The income levels of the voters of these parties are average, as is their education, and this voter base is shrinking. These parties represent the middle class.3. The Left (Die Linke) is over-represented among academics and the unemployed; its electorate has a below-average income. The extreme-right AfD is over-represented among workers, the unemployed and people of working age. The educational levels of these voters are low, and their household incomes are below average. The Left and the AfD both represent the lower middle class. The part of the lower middle class that is represented by the populist right is being promised protection by closure. Right-wing populism is therefore ‘social nationalism’. But it is not just about the programme. Bringing that new coalition of various social groups together is facilitated by charismatic leadership: Trump is a charismatic leader in the sense of Max Weber (1921); and he finds his European equivalents in the likes of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán. Moreover, the dominance of social media over the traditional media has dramatically decreased the cost of political organisation and provided a chance for newcomers to establish themselves. Social media have also normalised hate, which was banned from the traditional media for very good reasons after the dramatic experiences of racism, National Socialism and Communism in the twentieth century. Political parties based on portraying political adversaries as enemies in the tradition of Carl Schmitt (2007) are profiting more than any other from these new tools. What differentiates Europe from the US? Party political competition in the US If we are observing a revolt of the lower middle class in both the US and Europe, why has the impact been so different up to now? In the US the first-past-the-post system forces everybody to integrate into one of the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties therefore represent very large coalitions, which essentially serve an electoral purpose only and cannot be considered programme parties. The fight for content takes place mainly within, among the different caucuses organised in Congress. What you would find in the European Parliament in the EPP, the European Conservatives and Reformists, the Patriots and the Sovereigntists is, in the US, all assembled in one political family, the Republicans. Equally, what you would find in the liberal Renew group, the Socialists and Democrats, the Greens and the Left in Europe has to cohabit within the Democrat Party in the US. The Republican Party can be understood as a broad political coalition which has effectively fallen under the control and leadership of what in Europe might rather be considered the line of Viktor Orbán and the Patriots. The other tendencies are still there but marginalised. They can no longer determine the overall direction but might still be sufficiently strong in Congress to block decision-making or align with the other side when they regard policies as being against their core convictions, such as creating unsustainable debt levels, or on matters related to national security and defence.Europe and its national electoral systemsEuropean states are not immune either. The British, the French and the Hungarian electoral systems provide an oversized seat result for the relatively strongest party, and this increases the opportunities of the extremes. Brexit can be considered one outcome of this. The current political stalemate in France, where the extreme right and the extreme left are holding the system hostage, is another. In systems of pure proportional representation, by contrast, you need more than 50% of the votes for one party or a coalition of several parties to take effective political control. In a first-past-the-post system, as in the US, 20%–30% of the electorate is more than sufficient to take over one of the major political parties and, with that, to potentially run the country. Pure proportional systems therefore provide better protection against a right-wing or left-wing populist takeover. The EU political system On the federal level of the EU on the other hand, the incentives are there for cooperation across the political centre. Decisions in the Council need an oversized qualified majority; the election of a European Commission president by the European Parliament requires an absolute majority of the members elected to the house. These majorities can regularly be found only through cooperation across the aisle and by transcending the traditional left–right schism. The desire to hold important political offices in the EU, therefore, requires a willingness to compromise and forces political parties that are more on the right or on the left to look towards the centre. The final vote on the von der Leyen Commission was carried by a large cross-cutting alliance of the Christian Democrat EPP, the liberal Renew and the Socialists, complemented by the constructive right, centred on Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and the constructive left, led by the German Greens. The more radical elements of both the European Conservatives and Reformists and Green groups voted against. The institutional system has a strong impact on the political culture in the EU, which is a culture of cooperation. The political system favours the creation of unity—as the condition for stability on a historically, geographically and culturally divided continent—and therefore the centre. The absence of permanent coalitions and the lack of fixed roles of majority and minority in the division of power in the EU create the opportunity to integrate those on the very right and the very left who are not opposed to the system as such and whose primary aim is not to destroy it: the constructive right and the constructive left. Contrary to the US, where the destructive and anti-system elements can dominate the rest of their respective coalitions, inside the EU that destructive right and left find themselves isolated unless they stop being the system opposition. That is why Ursula von der Leyen was well advised to integrate Raffaele Fitto from Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia) as vice-president of the European Commission and, at the same time, to continue a constructive dialogue with the co-leader of the Green group Terry Reincke on the importance of climate change policies and actions to preserve the rule of law. Brothers of Italy had not only supported the new asylum pact, in contrast to Viktor Orbán, but had also supported Ukraine in a steadfast fashion, including in the vote to ensure Ukraine profits from the interest on Russian assets. Brothers of Italy is part of the constructive right, stabilising the political system of the EU. Is the EU therefore safe? The EU is a federal union of citizens and states and therefore dependent on support in each and every member state. It is only as strong as its weakest link. Even though, on average, support for EU institutions is close to historical highs and well above the support levels for national institutions, that is not enough (EU 2024). Before Brexit the EU’s weakest link in terms of overall support was the UK. Nowadays its weakest link is France, which is paralysed by the combination of a destructive right, on the one hand, and on the other, a destructive left which, in the form of France Unbowed (La France Insoumise), is holding the socialists and greens hostage. And both extremes are cooperating in the destabilisation of the state. That smells like Weimar. What needs to be done? An agenda for the next phase of European integration An agenda for strength In the worlds of Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, strength is the only thing that counts. Internationally and geopolitically, we are back in the world of nineteenth-century power politics. The rules of the game have changed, and the quicker we understand this the better. We are threatened at the same time from the inside and from the outside. From the inside, by the destructive nationalist populist right and left that are trying to hollow out the political order, established after 1945, based on parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and European integration. From the outside, by aggressive nationalist power politics. And more often than not, these two are connected. The seatbelts need to be fastened. Defending ourselves from threats both inside and outside has to start with the recognition that we are confronted with real issues, not just imagined ones. Hyper-inflation was real and is still stored in today’s price levels. The accumulated inflation during Joe Biden’s four-year term was above 20% (US Bureau of Labour Statistics n.d., author’s calculations), and it will not have been very different in Europe. Growth rates are very low, while debt is rising, and with it the difficulty of states to intervene in times of absolute need. Uncontrolled mass immigration happened. Our capacity to defend our continent is seriously compromised. International respect comes from strength, not from weakness. This is not a case for mass psychotherapy, but political action: the political agenda has to change. The European Parliament nowadays plays a key role in setting the agenda for the upcoming legislative term. Ursula von der Leyen had to negotiate with all the political forces of good will about the programme for the next five years to have any chance of being elected by an absolute majority of the members of the house. The need for the Commission president to negotiate the programme also changes the role of the European political foundations. The Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies has contributed hundreds of precise policy proposals to the process of reflection in a document entitled The 7Ds for Sustainability. This text centres on defence, debt, digitalisation, demography, democracy, decarbonisation and de-risking globalisation in order to enrich the debate and help set a new agenda (Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies n.d.). The outcomes of the European elections matter, as they should. With the Greens and the Liberals having together lost more than 50 seats and the so-called progressive majority between the Liberals, Greens, Socialists and the far left having disappeared, European Commission priorities for this legislature have markedly changed. Competitiveness and security, comprising both defence and migration, including border protection, have become the top two priorities. This is underpinned by the different composition of the European Commission and the European Council. With half of the members of both institutions coming from the EPP and the EPP occupying the centre space in the European Parliament as well, concerns about competitiveness, migration and defence, critical to strengthening our continent, which is being challenged from both within and without, now have a stronger voice. An agenda for growth: implementing the Draghi report Like every other policy paper, the Letta and Draghi reports can and are being discussed in detail. But no one can dispute the competence of Mario Draghi in matters monetary and economic. The Draghi report will therefore provide a most important reference point. His report comprises six basic truths that will inspire the legislative proposals of the European Commission in this term, even more so as it was requested by the European Commission president herself. Draghi brings everybody face to face with his or her responsibilities. From my personal reading, his report can be summarised as follows: • Investment is the precondition for future growth. Europe is lagging behind in high-tech investment and has largely lost the new digital economy race. This can be identified as the key reason for the difference in per capita growth between the US and the EU. Mid-tech–based industry, such as the car industry, which provides our current economic backbone, is coming under increasing competitive pressure from China.• Without investment, annual productivity growth falls behind. Europe could maintain and improve its living standard by considerably increasing female and older-age participation in the workplace. Worsening demographics make that quantitative input increase more difficult.• The EU has to return to the strategy of scaling through the development of its own internal market, especially in the less-integrated areas of the service sector.• The Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union are critical to assisting high-tech investors in their efforts to scale beyond national boundaries. Given that high-tech means not only high return but also high risk, venture capital is necessary to accompany that growth.• We have regulated for risk and not for opportunity, as is typical for ageing societies. The regulatory burden has to be reduced.• Common public debt has to come in as a residual answer, dependent in volume on the progress in the above-mentioned areas. Consensus on common European debt could be achieved in the area of defence, which could be considered a European public good. Common European financing would also contribute to more equal burden sharing. An agenda for migration Migration is at the core of right-wing populist parties’ growth. It brings together social and cultural challenges: social challenges in the form of competition for scarce public services and support, and cultural ones in the form of a challenge to traditional constructions of national and cultural identity. Here society is falling apart. What is a promise of improved personal services for the upper middle class and the liberal and green parties representing them is, for the lower middle class, a threat of lower salaries and increased competition for state services, including education. Experiences during the negotiations to form the current Swedish and Finnish governments showed that a tough policy on migration was the one area where populist parties were not ready to adapt or compromise. Preliminary voting analysis from the European Parliament demonstrates that while right-wing populist parties show some diverging views on economics, they clearly differentiate themselves from other political forces on the cultural axis of the political divide (Welle and Frantescu 2025). We have experienced a radicalisation of our political space following the events of mass migration, both in the Mediterranean and following Russia’s aggression in Syria and Ukraine. Russia even actively tries to destabilise its neighbours by transporting refugees to their common borders or via Belarus. Denmark is the only country in the EU that has managed to reduce established right-wing populist parties back to single digits. It has done so by establishing a consensus in society on a tough migration policy that is being continued by its current Social Democrat–led government. At the same time, Denmark represents a country with one of the highest standards of societal development. ‘Going to Denmark’ is even a reference in international development policy. Danish migration policy will therefore need to be studied in more detail so as to understand how far it can provide guidance for the EU as a whole or not. Speedier implementation of the migration pact voted on in the European Parliament in April 2024 therefore has to be a prime priority. But it cannot be the last step. Integration capacity has to become critical to migration policy. An agenda for defence Those who cannot defend themselves are inviting their stronger neighbours to aggress them. A look at maps of Russia over the last 500 years shows us that Russia has expanded continuously at the expense of its weaker neighbours—from basically the city territory of Moscow to becoming the largest state on earth. The military submission of its neighbours is the Russian business model. The peaceful and voluntary integration of the European space, based on the rule of law, is the business model of the EU. These concepts are now geographically colliding. And the grey zone in between, at the very least, is now in danger of Russian aggression and occupation, as demonstrated in Ukraine, where Russia is trying to reintroduce the logic of nineteenth-century empire to the European continent. The US will focus its own efforts increasingly on Asia and the attempt to contain China. Europe will therefore have to provide the lion’s share of its own conventional defence. This can only be effectively organised by making use of the possibilities provided by the EU. The Martens Centre has provided a plan in 10 steps—the European Defence Pyramid—on how to achieve a viable European defence under changed geopolitical circumstances. Starting with more basic ideas at the beginning, it has now been outlined in considerable detail with the help of external experts in The 7Ds for Sustainability – Defence Extended (Ciolan and Welle 2024). Progress is already visible. The Martens Centre suggested the creation of the office of a European defence commissioner and a standing defence committee in the European Parliament. Both are now reality. The proposed increase in financial support for military mobility has now been achieved through the decision of the European Commission to allow the use of regional funds for this purpose. And the new defence commissioner has suggested the creation of an ‘EU DARPA’2 for military research, as developed in the concept papers. Living in dangerous times Europe is being simultaneously challenged internally and externally: internally by right-wing populist parties, which have now conquered nearly 30% of the political space; externally by Russia, which is trying to reintroduce the nineteenth-century rules of empire through military aggression with at least the benevolent acceptance of China. These challenges are not unrelated. Some of the populist parties on the right and left openly make the case for China and Russia. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary has even been rewarded by China with massive investments and the status of an ‘all-weather partner’. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we have been living in a world of cooperation. System competition between East and West was replaced by globalisation. System seemingly did not matter anymore. Production went wherever it was the cheapest. Communist China became the capitalists’ best friend in exchange for the transfer of superior technology. In analogy to Lenin, China sold the capitalists the rope with which to hang themselves. The price paradigm replaced the security paradigm. With China now so strong that it can and does challenge the US economically and politically for number-one status globally, and strongly on the rise militarily, this phase has ended. China is preparing for the military strangulation, if not occupation of Taiwan, as demonstrated by its ever more menacing sea exercises around the island every year. Russia waged a war against Ukraine only days after establishing a ‘no limits partnership’ with China, testing the global order established after 1945 when conquering and annexing the territory of a weaker neighbour was outlawed. The West is being challenged both in Asia and in Europe. To defend our European way of life we need to be strong economically and militarily. We need to close the rifts in our societies and constructively end the revolt of the lower middle class. System competition is back, and the security paradigm has replaced the price paradigm. Cite:  Welle, K. (2025). Donald Trump, the revolt of the lower middle class and the next phase of European integration. European View, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858251345566 Footnotes 1. This article is a revised version of an article that originally appeared on the website of the research centre Groupe d’études géopolitiques on 19 March 2025 with the title ‘Trump and the next phase of European integration’. See https://geopolitique.eu/en/2025/03/19/after-trump-the-next-phase-of-european-integration/. Used by permission.2. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is a US Department of Defense agency focused on developing breakthrough technologies for national security. References Bank of America Institute. (2024). Paycheck to paycheck: What, who, where, why? 22 October. https://institute.bankofamerica.Com/content/dam/economic-insights/paycheck-to-paycheck-lower-income-households.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2025.Ciolan I. M., Welle K., eds. (2024). The 7Ds for sustainability – Defence extended. https://www.martenscentre.eu/publication/the-7ds-defence-extended/. Accessed 24 April 2025.EU. (2024). Standard Eurobarometer 102 – Autumn 2024. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3215. Accessed 24 April 2025.European Parliament. (2024). European Parliament 2024–2029. Constitutive session. https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/european-results/2024-2029/. Accessed 24 April 2025.Focus online. (2021). Wer wählte wie? Die Analyse. Frauen und Rentner lassen Union abstürzen, die Jungen bestimmen die Kanzlermacher. 27 September. https://www.focus.De/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl/analyse-der-bevoelkerungsgruppen-wer-waehlte-wie-akademiker-und-reiche-waehlen-gruen-renter-spd_id_24280744.html. Accessed 24 April 2025.Ipsos. (2024). Sociologie des électorats – Législatives 2024. 30 June. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-06/ipsos-talan-sociologie-electorats-legislatives-30-juin-rapport-complet.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2025.Moreau P. (2024a). AfD: The German far-right at a dead end. Fondapol, 6 November. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/afd-the-german-far-right-at-a-dead-end/. Accessed 24 April 2025.Moreau P. (2024b). The FPÖ and the challenge of Europe: Ideological radicalism and electoral constraints in Austria. Fondapol, 29 October. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/the-fpo-and-the-challenge-of-europe-ideological-radicalism-and-electoral-constraints-in-austria/. Accessed 24 April 2025.Reckwitz A. (2020). Society of singularities. Cambridge: Polity.Rydgren J., ed. (2013). Class politics and the radical right. London: Routledge.Schmitt C. (2007). The concept of the political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefUS Bureau of Labour Statistics. (n.d.). CPI inflation calculator. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed 24 April 2025.Weber M. (2010). Politik als Beruf [Politics as a vocation], 11th edn. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Welle K., Frantescu D. (2025). (Forthcoming study on voting behaviour in the European Parliament in the 2019–24 legislature).Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies (n.d.). Publications: The 7Ds. https://www.martenscentre.eu/publication/#the-7ds. Accessed 24 April 2025.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, following the military actions that began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The conflict is having devastating consequences, including widespread death and displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and a global energy crisis, also heightening geopolitical tensions (Kurapov et al., Citation2023). Pertiwi (Citation2024) contended that since the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the European Union (EU) has adopted sanctions as the key policy response targeting Russia’s aggressive behaviour. These restrictive measures were applied by the EU in multiple rounds and packages and gradually became the cornerstone of the EU’s policy towards Russia. (p. 61) There is extant literature studying the direct consequences of the war, such as humanitarian crises, economic impacts and geopolitical instability. Numerous countries have experienced food shortages and rising prices due to disruptions in supply chains, worsened by the crisis in Ukraine and the closure of airspace (Hellegers, Citation2022). Concurrently, the war has caused an unprecedentedly volatile energy market, as many European countries were obliged to seek alternative energy sources to Russian imports, demanding more oil and natural gas from alternative suppliers (Liadze et al., Citation2022). The invasion has also fuelled inflation across the EU, not only affecting energy, which is essential in all the sectors of the economy but also other sectors like food, for example, as Ukraine is a major global grain producer (Ozili, Citation2024). The added value and main contribution of this paper is based on the use of grounded social scientific methods like the Fuzzy Hybrid TOPSIS and the Ordered Probit, to analyse the EU citizens’ support of the sanctions against Russia, providing more nuanced insights on what factors are the most important to be in favour and against the sanctions. Thus, in particular, our study contributes to filling one of the important gaps mentioned by Pertiwi (Citation2024) in the analysis of the literature on the EU’s approach to sanctions on Russia. Concretely, our study fills in part the fifth gap in the analysis of causal mechanisms that examine the sanctions, including relevant actors like the EU citizens. Thus, we first provide an in-depth analysis of European citizens’ views on EU sanctions to weaken Russia and support Ukraine. And then, we analyse the main factors that affect the EU citizens’ support of the sanctions taken by the EU against Russia and in favour of Ukraine. The study includes data from 26,461 respondents across the 27 EU Member States, collected through the 98th Eurobarometer survey (Winter 2022–2023), which examined the EU’s response to the war in Ukraine. The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of the literature review. Section 3 presents the dataset used, and the methodological approach. In Section 5, the results are presented, followed by Section 5, which offers a thorough discussion of the findings. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by summarising the main conclusions drawn from the study, identifying implications, limitations of the study, and potential directions for future research. Literature reviewAttitudes towards EU’s sanctions against Russia war in Ukraine Public sentiment for the EU is a complex phenomenon to study and needs to be approached from different angles, including identity, governance, security and the economy. How the public perceives the EU as a guardian of democratic values and good governance directly influences support for its policies, including sanctions on Russia. Boomgaarden et al. (Citation2011) argue that if the people believe that the EU is going to safeguard democratic principles, then they will identify sanctions as a proper means of safeguarding such principles. However, if there is a lack of trust in the EU to defend such values, there will be little support for such sanctions. The purpose of European identity is primarily to determine people’s views on the EU’s actions. Kende et al. (Citation2018) believe that European identity can have a profound impact on solidarity with common EU policies, such as sanctions. This would imply that the framing of a common European identity can become the most important factor in eliciting public consent for EU programmes, especially in the midst of geopolitical crises. Thus, public opinion on sanctions is also based on perceptions of the EU’s ability to act in the interests of citizens. According to McLean and Roblyer (Citation2016), if citizens perceive the EU as doing the best it can for its citizens, particularly in terms of economic stability and governance, they are more likely to support sanctions against Russia. However, if the EU is perceived as wasteful, or its policies are perceived as economically harmful, then the potential for support for sanctions will be low. This explains the need to ensure that EU action is consistent with shared perceptions of political effectiveness and economic benefit. The imposition of economic sanctions is one of the highest prioritised tools in the modern world, especially against threats to stability and security. The EU sanctions on Russia, especially after the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine, have stimulated an immensely wide public discussion (Karlović et al., Citation2021). An important question is: What is the role of perceived security threats in shaping public opinion about these sanctions? It has been made known through investigation that subjective security risk strongly predicts public opinion regarding EU sanctions against Russia. Frye (Citation2019) argues that sanctions are not always supported but vary depending on how people view security threats. Public support is higher when sanctions are framed as protection against an external threat. When sanctions are perceived as a threat to national or economic security, they can generate opposition. The EU’s collective response to the Russia–Ukraine conflict also shows that public opinion on sanctions is shaped by both security interests and normative expectations of justice and self-determination (Bosse, Citation2024). This mutual influence can lead to mixed public responses, with some seeing sanctions as an ethical necessity, while others withdraw their support due to perceived economic and national security risks. The way EU sanctions are proposed and implemented also influences public opinion. According to Sjursen (Citation2015), citizens will be more supportive of sanctions if they see EU institutions as representative and transparent. Conversely, an image of bureaucratic distance or lack of public participation in decision-making can undermine trust and lead to opposition. Thus, in line with this background, we pose our first research question as follows: (1) How do European values and security threats influence the intensity of public support for EU sanctions against Russia?Socioeconomic factors in shaping attitudes towards EU sanctions Support for economic sanctions against Russia is widespread among the EU, varying according to socioeconomic status, demographic characteristics and political engagement. As Frye (Citation2017) has noted, economic prosperity is a key predictor of support for sanctions. Those who are financially ‘safe’ are more likely to support EU-imposed sanctions, as they are less directly affected by the economic burden. Previous studies have shown that those in more affluent income groups or with stable household finances are more likely to support foreign policy actions, such as sanctions, that represent broader European values, even if they are economically costly (Alexandrescu, Citation2024). This is consistent with the findings of Lepeu (Citation2025), which recognises that citizens who rate their own economic situation as ‘very good’ are far more likely to support sanctions than those facing financial hardship. On the other hand, citizens facing economic hardship are less likely to be sanction-supportive if they believe that sanctions will negatively impact inflation, increase unemployment or suppress national economic stability. Onderco (Citation2017) found that economic hardship is associated with higher scepticism towards foreign policy decisions that lack tangible personal benefits. This means that the economic price of sanctions is likely to disproportionately affect support among lower-income individuals. Generational differences also play a role in shaping public opinion on sanctions. Older individuals (over 55 years) are more supportive of EU sanctions, as they have a historical perspective on European security and are more politically engaged (Alexandrescu, Citation2024). On the other hand, younger people (15–34 years) have weaker support, possibly because they have different priorities, such as financial stability and employment, which could be considered more pressing than geopolitical concerns (Onderco, Citation2017). Alexandrescu (Citation2024) also suggests a new generational divide in attitudes towards coercive diplomacy, suggesting that efforts to build popular support for sanctions must consider young Europeans’ concerns and values about economic consequences and political transparency. Political interest is a second important predictor of support for EU sanctions. Politically knowledgeable and engaged citizens tend to be more supportive of EU foreign policy decisions, including sanctions (Alexandrescu, Citation2024). Thus, there is political ideology duality: left and centre-left voters support sanctions if they are anchored in a broader vision of upholding international law and human rights, while centre-right and populist voters are likely to be more sceptical if sanctions are perceived as infringing on national sovereignty (Onderco, Citation2017). As in the literature, the likelihood of being a strong supporter of EU sanctions depends on several socioeconomic and demographic factors, our second research question builds on the following: (2) Do socioeconomic characteristics influence the likelihood of being a strong supporter of EU sanctions against Russia?Dataset and methodology The dataset of the study is based on the Standard Eurobarometer 98.2 (EB98) survey Winter 2022–2023 which was conducted from 12 January to 6 February 2023 in 39 countries or territories. In the study, we only use the dataset from the 27 Member States of the EU, without considering the data from the other twelve additional countries included. The dataset was collected about a year after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, covering the following five topic areas identified by the European Commission (Citation2024): (1) The EU’s response to the invasion of Ukraine; (2) the actions taken as a unified EU response to the invasion; (3) the consequences of the war in Ukraine; (4) the European security threat; and (5) the future EU actions in the wake of the war., and aims to analyse the solidarity of European citizens with the Ukrainian people. The sample size for each country was around 1000 respondents except for Malta with 503, making a total of 26,461 respondents. The endogenous variable of the study is obtained by applying the Fuzzy Hybrid TOPSIS approach to the items of the survey included to measure the degree of support of the respondents towards the measures taken by the EU in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The following five items were included in the analysis: (1) financing the purchase and supply of military equipment to Ukraine; (2) imposing economic sanctions on the Russian government, companies and individuals; (3) providing financial support to Ukraine; (4) providing humanitarian support to the people affected by the war; and (5) welcoming into the EU people fleeing the war. The question introduction was the same for all the items: The EU has taken a series of actions as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of these actions taken? The responses to the question for each item were given using a complete 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = totally agree; 2 = tend to agree; 3 = do not know; 4 = tend to disagree; and 5 = totally disagree. The scale was reversed to enhance interpretability, ensuring that higher values are aligned with those citizens who expressed higher support for the measures taken by the EU. The analysis of the variables affecting the citizens’ support was based on the selection of 14 exogenous variables, including age, gender, political interest, perception of the situation in the country, employment personal perception, financial household perception, the labour market perception of the country, the provision of public services perception, the overall image of the EU, the perception of the threat posed by the Russian war in Ukraine to security in the EU and the country itself, the personal perception that standing against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU is defending European values, and the political orientation. More information about the exogenous variables can be found in Table A1 in the appendix. The Ordered Probit model will provide interesting and nuanced results of whether some exogenous variables affect the support of the EU sanctions taken by the EU in response to the Russian invasion. For example, for each of the variables included in the analysis, it will be possible to analyse to what extent some of the categories support more or less the sanctions. Similarly, it will be possible to determine if some of the variables have a significant effect on the level of support. Methodology Opinion surveys are affected by the subjective judgments of respondents, leading to potential inaccuracy in interpreting response categories (Disegna et al., Citation2018). For instance, ‘totally agree’ for one respondent could be equivalent to simply ‘tend to agree’ for another. For this reason, Fuzzy Set Logic methods are becoming very popular in social sciences to manage the uncertainty associated with survey responses effectively (Cantillo et al., Citation2021; Indelicato & Martín, Citation2024). The study uses the Fuzzy Hybrid TOPSIS Approach to calculate the endogenous variable that measures the support (sup) of the respondents towards the sanctions taken by the EU against Russia. The method is grounded in the fuzzy set theory proposed by Zadeh (Citation1965), which was introduced for handling the inherent uncertainty and vagueness of information provided by answers to social surveys (Carlsson & Fullér, Citation2001; Disegna et al., Citation2018; Mamdani & Assilian, Citation1999). There are multiple fuzzy set representations that can be used to associate the categories of the answers given in the survey (Nguyen et al., Citation2005). In the study, we use the Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs), which are the most used fuzzy sets (Anand & Bharatraj, Citation2017; Wang, Citation2017). The final representation of the answers from the dataset is as follows: (1) totally disagree is represented by (0, 0, 30); (2) tend to disagree by (20, 30, 40); (3) do not know by (30, 50, 70); (4) tend to agree by (60, 70, 80); and (5) totally agree by (70, 100, 100). The hybrid nature of the method is based on the application of the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), which calculates the synthetic indicator (Hwang & Yoon, Citation1981). We omit the mathematical formulation of the method for simplicity and ease of exposition. Interested readers can consult many existing papers, such as (Cantillo et al., Citation2023; Indelicato et al., Citation2023; Martín et al., Citation2020; Martín & Indelicato, Citation2023). We will use sup which provides relative support for the sanctions on Russia taken by the EU after invading Ukraine, as the dependent variable for the econometric model. The variable will be categorised into five quintiles according to the ranking of the indicator in order to use an ordered probit model. The marginal effects of the results will be used to analyse the main determinants that explain the highest support of EU citizens. In the study, we use the Daly normalisation for all the categories that act as exogenous variables in the model. Thus, it is possible to determine the marginal effects of each category with respect to the sample-weighted average. We omit the discussion of the technicalities of the model and exogenous variables normalisation. Interested readers can consult Daly et al. (Citation2016), Greene and Hensher (Citation2010), Hensher et al. (Citation2015) and Martin and Roman (Citation2021). Results Figure 1 shows the kernel density of the exogenous variable that measures the support of EU individuals for the sanctions against Russia taken by the EU for the whole sample (panel a) and for those who totally agree and totally disagree with the EU imposing the sanctions to defend European values (panel b). The results indicate that a small number of respondents do not support the sanctions imposed by the EU at all, with 170 citizens giving a score of 1 to all survey items included in the scale. Conversely, a significant portion of the population holds a more neutral position, as shown by responses falling in the range of 0.3–0.6. Additionally, a substantial number of citizens – specifically, 6430 – express their strong support for the sanctions by responding with a score of 5 to all items.  Figure 1. Support kernel density. Panel (b) of the figure clearly distinguishes between the two categories of respondents. It shows that those who strongly support the defence of European values are more in favour of the sanctions compared to those who strongly oppose them. Similar figure patterns are obtained for the categories of those who have a positive or negative image of the EU, and for those who think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is seen as an important threat to the security of the EU. Nevertheless, this will be further discussed with the results of the ordered probit model. Table 1 shows the main drivers to support or not the sanctions taken by the EU against Russia. The table is obtained from the marginal effects obtained from the ordered probit model, which is in the fifth quintile of the support distribution, and refers to the citizen group of the strong supporters (Table A3, in the appendix). It can be seen that the main drivers to support the sanctions are totally agreeing that by standing against the Russian invasion, the EU is defending European values, having a very good or rather good image of the EU, totally agreeing that the EU security is under threat with the Russian invasion, and to have a very good financial situation in the household. All the coefficients are significant at 999 per thousand. The results of the ordered probit model, as well as the complete table of the marginal effects, can be consulted in the appendix. Table A2 shows that all the exogenous variables affect the support level except the area in which the respondent resides, so the support is transversal to whether the European lives in a rural, middle town or large town. It is also interesting to observe that all the threshold parameters of the ordered probit model result significant, i.e. the five different quintiles of the distribution can be allocated without the need to collapse some of the categories used in the estimation.  Table 1. Main drivers to be or not a strong supporter of the EU sanctions. Interestingly, the main drivers to be in the population segment of those who do not strongly support the EU sanctions are the opposite categories of supporting the sanctions: totally disagreeing or tending to disagree with the defence of European values, totally disagreeing or tending to disagree with the fact that the invasion of Ukraine is a security threat to the EU and having a very bad image of the EU. The coefficients of Table 1 have been extracted from Table A3, and need to be interpreted as follows: the coefficients are the marginal effects of the category to be or not a strong supporter of the EU sanctions. For example, the coefficient of 0.105 for individuals who totally agree that the EU is defending European values by standing against the Russian invasion of Ukraine indicates that this group has a 10.5 per cent higher likelihood of being strong supporters of EU sanctions compared to the average citizen in the overall sample. In a similar manner, the coefficient of −0.225 for the category of total disagreement indicates a 22.5 per cent lower probability of being a strong supporter. Other interesting results that can be seen in the complete marginal effects table (Table A3, in the appendix) are that the type of urbanisation where the respondent lives, namely rural village, small and mid-size town or large town, is the only variable of the twelve under analysis which does not have any significant effect on being a strong supporter of the sanctions. For the rest of the variables, there is always a category with more odds of being or not in the category of strong supporters. It is interesting to note that the younger generations (between 15 and 24 and between 25 and 34) are less likely to be in the category of strong supporters than those over 55, who are significantly more likely to be in this category. Similarly, those who have a strong political interest, have a good personal job situation, think that the economic situation of their country is rather good, are leftist or left-centre, think that the employment situation of the country is rather good, are males, or have a rather good financial situation have a higher probability of being in the category of strong supporters. Conclusions In a recent speech by Jens Stoltenberg, former Secretary General of NATO, the following assessment was made: In just a few weeks, NATO leaders will meet in Madrid. We will make important decisions. To continue to strengthen and adapt our Alliance to a new security reality and protect our people and our values. I look forward to the day when we can welcome both Finland and Sweden into our Alliance. This will make Finland and Sweden safer. NATO stronger. And the whole Euro-Atlantic area more secure. (NATO, Citation2022) Although NATO’s strategic decision affects the entire geopolitical landscape, public perceptions of EU sanctions need to be addressed through a more nuanced, evidence-based approach. Public opinion on sanctions is driven not only by security concerns but also by economic and political factors that underpin individual belief systems. To measure the determinants of support for such policies, this study applies both the fuzzy hybrid approach and the ordered probit model. The first method calculates the endogenous variable that measures the level of support of each respondent. The second method is used to find the main factors of a set of 14 exogenous variables or covariates that affect the support. Our results reveal that there are four important drivers to be a strong supporter of the sanctions taken by the EU against Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in early 2022: (1) totally agreeing that by standing against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU is defending European values, (2) having a very good overall EU image, (3) totally agreeing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a threat to the security of the EU, and (4) having a very good household financial situation. Other factors, such as age, gender, or political orientation, among others, are less determinant in explaining the strong support category. The dataset for the study was obtained from the 98th Eurobarometer, covering winter 2022–2023, providing a solid foundation for the objectives pursued in the study. Our results imply that, at least in the salient category of being a strong supporter of the EU sanctions, European Parliamentarians and the political parties involved should promote a triad: the defence of European values (Anghel & Jones, Citation2023), a more integrated security defence system that will permit the EU to be more independent from NATO and US (Del Sarto Citation2016; Howorth Citation2018), and a solid campaign of improving the EU image, highlighting the benefits of being in the union (Elmatzoglou, Citation2020). The European values of human rights and dignity, as well as the principles of living in liberal democracies, should not be undermined by misinformation campaigns from autocratic regimes. The invasion of Ukraine constitutes the biggest security threat in Europe since the end of the Cold War, fostering a wave of fear and real politics about the necessity of increasing the military budget. Europeans have seen more closely how the lives of human beings are worth almost nothing when their homes are bombed, and they have to leave with just the bare minimum, stopping their daily lives and becoming refugees in countries that may not welcome them with open arms. There is a need for effective communication campaigns that change the focus from generic issues such as ‘Europeanness’ fostering a common national identity or sense of belonging to a pragmatic branding strategy that achieves a power actor in the new turbulent geopolitical battlefield. Recent developments, in the light of newly elected President Donald Trump’s views on NATO and US foreign aid, have added uncertainty to the EU’s strategic calculus on sanctions. Trump’s concerns about NATO’s burden-sharing and his ambivalent stance on continued US military aid to Ukraine have set off alarm bells among EU policymakers and underscored the need for a European security policy that is less dependent on US leadership (Sorgi, Citation2025). Thus, it is the time for a more than-less European Union mentality that decreases Euroscepticism, a time to strengthen public support for the EU. This shift requires an emphasis on the tangible benefits that EU membership brings to member states, including economic stability, enhanced security, and the promotion of shared values like democracy and human rights. By fostering greater awareness and understanding of the EU’s role in addressing cross-border challenges, citizens can better appreciate the advantages of unity over division. Engaging with local communities, encouraging open dialogues, and actively involving citizens in EU decision-making processes can further bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens, reinforcing a sense of belonging and shared purpose. This study has some limitations that can be addressed in future studies. First, the dataset is a point-in-time measure of public opinion, surveyed in the winter of 2022–2023. Due to the dynamic nature of the geopolitical environment, longitudinal studies are needed to examine how public support for EU sanctions may change over time in response to political, economic and military events. Second, other external factors can also be examined to gain a better picture of how other factors could shape people’s opinions. These range from cultural equivalence with Ukraine to geographical proximity to the war zone, exposure to social media narratives, and interaction with Ukrainian refugees. The role of media frames and disinformation campaigns in determining views on EU sanctions is another area that would require more work. Third, latent variables such as societal resilience, institutional trust, geopolitical affinity, and adherence to European values could provide a better understanding of the reasons for support or opposition to EU sanctions. Such variables could also explain the differences in public opinion between EU member states and between different demographic groups. Furthermore, as previous studies on public support (Onderco et al., Citation2023) have also shown, a comparative analysis with previous surveys, for example, in 2008 (Russia-Georgia war), 2014 (annexation of Crimea and Donbas war) with the full invasion of Ukraine in 2022–2023, could also be very useful. Although not directly compared in the current study, future research would benefit from a historical analysis component to explore the continuities and shifts in public opinion during these major geopolitical events and how they change in different EU countries. This would provide a better insight into how threat perceptions, economic concerns and EU identity evolve in response to Russian aggression and EU foreign policy initiatives. Supplemental Material Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2025.2476484. Additional informationFunding Dr Alessandro Indelicato research is funded by the research fellowship “Catalina Ruiz,” provided by the Consejo de Economía, Conocimiento y Empleo of the Gobierno de Canarias, the Agencia Canaria De Investigación Innovación Y Sociedad De La Información (ACIISI), and Fondo Social Europeo of the EU, through the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain). Martín, J. C., & Indelicato, A. (2025). Who supports EU sanctions against Russia’s war in Ukraine? The role of the defence of European values and other socioeconomic factors. European Politics and Society, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2025.2476484 References 1. Alexandrescu, M. (2024). Beyond geopolitics: Unraveling public support for economic sanctions in the B9 states at the beginning of the Ukrainian War (2022). SAGE Open, 14(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824402412683192. Anand, M. C. J., & Bharatraj, J. (2017, March 27). Theory of triangular fuzzy number. Proceedings of NCATM (p. 80).3. Anghel, V., & Jones, E. (2023). Is Europe really forged through crisis? Pandemic EU and the Russia–Ukraine war. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(4), 766–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.21408204. Bøggild, T., Göbel, S., Lutscher, P., & Nyrup, J. (2024). Standing with Ukraine? How citizens trade off self-interest and principles in supporting war-torn international partners. Research & Politics, 11(2), 20531680241252399. https://doi.org/10.1177/205316802412523995. Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165103954116. Börzel, T. A. (2023). European integration and the war in Ukraine: Just another crisis? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.135507. Bosse, G. (2024). The EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Invoking norms and values in times of fundamental rupture. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62, 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.135698. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10070687144689. Bruno, M., & Fazio, G. (2023). Italy’s foreign policy in times of crisis: Public opinion and party dynamics in response to the Ukraine war. European Politics and Society, 24(2), 245–265.10. Cantillo, J., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2021). Determinants of fishery and aquaculture products consumption at home in the EU28. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.10408511. Cantillo, J., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2023). Understanding consumers’ perceptions of aquaculture and its products in Gran Canaria Island: Does the influence of positive or negative wording matter? Aquaculture, 562, 738754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.73875412. Carlsson, C., & Fullér, R. (2001). Fuzzy reasoning in decision making and optimization (Vol. 82). Springer.13. Daly, A., Dekker, T., & Hess, S. (2016). Dummy coding vs effects coding for categorical variables: Clarifications and extensions. Journal of Choice Modelling, 21, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.09.00514. Del Sarto, R. A. (2016). Normative empire Europe: The European Union, its borderlands, and the ‘Arab Spring’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.1228215. Disegna, M., D’Urso, P., & Massari, R. (2018). Analysing cluster evolution using repeated cross-sectional ordinal data. Tourism Management, 69, 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.02816. Elmatzoglou, I. (2020). EU branding. Efforts to improve the EU image. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 16(4), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-020-00180-517. European Commission. (2022). EU’s response to the war in Ukraine. Issue February. European Commission. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2772(open in a new window)18. European Commission. (2024). EDIS: Our common defence industrial strategy. Accessed January 15, 2025, from https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/edis-our-common-defence-industrial-strategy_en(open in a new window)19. Frye, T. (2017). Property Rights and Property Wrongs: How Power, Institutions, and Norms Shape Economic Conflict in Russia. Cambridge University Press.20. Frye, T. (2019). Economic sanctions and public opinion: Survey experiments from Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 52(7), 967–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041401880653021. Gorg, H., Jacobs, A., & Meuchelböck, S. (2023). Who is to suffer? Quantifying the impact of sanctions on German firms. IZA Discussion Paper No. 16146. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4456331(open in a new window)22. Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Modeling ordered choices: A primer. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051184506223. Hellegers, P. (2022). Food security vulnerability due to trade dependencies on Russia and Ukraine. Food Security, 14(6), 1503–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01306-824. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. R., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press.25. Howorth, J. (2018). Strategic autonomy and EU-NATO cooperation: Threat or opportunity for transatlantic defence relations? Journal of European Integration, 40(5), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2018.151226826. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In C.-L. Hwang & K. Yoon (Eds.), Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58–191). Springer.27. Indelicato, A., & Martín, J. C. (2024). The effects of three facets of national identity and other socioeconomic traits on attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 25(2), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-023-01100-128. Indelicato, A., Martín, J. C., & Scuderi, R. (2023). A comparison of attitudes towards immigrants from the perspective of the political party vote. Heliyon, 9(3), e14089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e1408929. Isernia, P., Martini, S., & Cozzi-Fucile, C. (2024). Shaping public attitudes towards EU sanctions: The role of political narratives in France, Germany, and Italy. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.222616830. Karlović, A., Čepo, D., & Biedenkopf, K. (2021). Politicisation of the European foreign, security, and defence cooperation: The case of the EU’s Russian sanctions. European Security, 30(3), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.196447431. Kende, A., Hadarics, M., & Szabó, Z. P. (2018). National and European identities as predictors of attitudes toward economic and social policies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.235732. Koval, N., & Vachudova, M. A. (2024). European Union enlargement and geopolitical power in the face of war. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.1367733. Kurapov, A., Pavlenko, V., Drozdov, A., Bezliudna, V., Reznik, A., & Isralowitz, R. (2023). Toward an understanding of the Russian-Ukrainian war impact on university students and personnel. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 28(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2022.208483834. Lepeu, J. (2025). Ukraine, the de-targetization of EU sanctions, and the rise of the European commission as architect of EU foreign policy. International Politics, 1–14.35. Liadze, I., Macchiarelli, C., Mortimer-Lee, P., & Juanino, P. S. (2022). The economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.36. Makarychev, A., & Terry, G. (2020). An estranged ‘marriage of convenience’: Salvini, Putin, and the intricacies of Italian-Russian relations. Contemporary Italian Politics, 12(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2019.170692637. Mamdani, E. H., & Assilian, S. (1999). An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1973.030338. Martin, J. C., & Roman, C. (2021). The effects of COVID-19 on EU federalism. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 12(Special issue), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2021-SI0639. Martín, J. C., & Indelicato, A. (2023). A fuzzy-hybrid analysis of citizens’ perception toward immigrants in Europe. Quality & Quantity, 57(2), 1101–1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01401-040. Martín, J. C., Moreira, P., & Román, C. (2020). A hybrid-fuzzy segmentation analysis of residents’ perception towards tourism in Gran Canaria. Tourism Economics, 26(7), 1282–1304. https://doi.org/10.1177/135481661987346341. McLean, E., & Roblyer, D. (2016). Public support for economic sanctions: An experimental analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(1), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/FPA/ORW01442. NATO. (2022). Speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the kultaranta talks in Finland. Retrieved January 10, 2025, from https://www(open in a new window). nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_196300.htm43. Nguyen, H. T., Nguyen, H. T., & Walker, E. A. (2005). A first course in fuzzy logic. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/978142005710244. Onderco, M. (2017). Public support for coercive diplomacy: Exploring public opinion data from ten European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 56(2), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.1218345. Onderco, M., Smetana, M. (2023). Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post-Ukraine. Global Policy, 14(2), 305–317.46. Ozili, P. K. (2024). Global economic consequences of Russian invasion of Ukraine. In P. Pietrzak (Ed.), Dealing with regional conflicts of global importance (pp. 195–223). IGI Global.47. Pertiwi, L. A. (2024). The EU’s approach to sanctions on Russia: A critical analysis of the existing literature. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 18(3), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.51870/NOEX447548. Pospieszna, P., Onderco, M., & van der Veer, R. (2024). Comparing public attitudes towards internal and external EU sanctions: The role of populism, trust and Euroscepticism. East European Politics, 40(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2023.228908949. Raik, K., Blockmans, S., Dandashly, A., Noutcheva, G., Osypchuk, A., & Suslov, A. (2023). Tackling the constraints on EU foreign policy towards Ukraine: From strategic denial to geopolitical awakening. Instituto Affari Internazionali. https://cris(open in a new window). maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/137103994/joint_rp_20.pdf50. Sjursen, H. (2015). Normative theory: An untapped resource in the study of European foreign policy. In K. E. Jrgensen, A. K. Aarstad, E. Drieskens, K. Laatikainen, B. Tonra (Eds.), The Sage handbook of European foreign policy (Vol. 2, pp. 197–214). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/978147391519051. Sorgi, G. (2025, February 25). EU eyes €200B secret weapon as Trump dominates Ukraine peace talks. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ukraine-peace-talks-donald-trump-russia-war-200-billion-kremlin-us-politics-g20/(open in a new window)52. Staunton, E. (2022). A useful failure: Macron’s overture to Russia. Survival, 64(2), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2022.205581953. Tchantouridzé, L. (2022). The Aftermath of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War: Appeasement of Russia and the War in Ukraine. Journal of Peace and War Studies, 77.54. Vignoli, V., & Coticchia, F. (2024). Italian political parties and the war in Ukraine: A strategic dilemma between NATO commitments and domestic constraints. Italian Journal of International Affairs, 59(1), 67–89.55. Wang, Q. (2017). Research on the assessment of psycholinguistic teaching effect with triangular fuzzy information. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(1), 1139–1146. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-1653156. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Information and control. Fuzzy Sets, 8(3), 338–353.57. Zavershinskaia, A., & Spera, M. (2024). Divided Europe: How France, Germany, and Italy shape the EU’s response to the war in Ukraine. European Foreign Affairs Review, 29(2), 231–256.

A new chapter in the EU-UK partnership Almost ten years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron called the Brexit referendum. In June 2016, a narrow majority (51.9%) of the British population voted to leave the EU. Cameron's resignation was followed by five prime ministers who had to deal with the consequences of this historic vote. On Monday, May 19, 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, together with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President Antonio Costa, finally hosted the first official EU-UK summit after Brexit to announce a new strategic partnership between the UK and the EU. A "win-win" Starmer had already declared rapprochement with the EU to be a foreign policy priority when he took office. Now he has presented concrete results: After months of preparation, the EU and the UK signed a "Joint Declaration", a "Security and Defense Partnership" and a "Declaration of Intent on a Renewed Agenda for the UK and the EU". The scope of the agreement is indeed considerable. The depth of the agreements reached is currently the subject of debate in political and economic circles. For some, the cooperation goes too far, for others the results are too superficial. For Prime Minister Starmer, the result is clear: a "win-win" that puts the UK back on the world stage. In addition to defense policy cooperation, agreements were reached in the areas of veterinary standards, fishing rights, youth mobility and energy cooperation. The fact that a breakthrough was possible at all was not a matter of course: a number of points of contention that had strained relations between London and Brussels for years had to be resolved in advance. Despite ongoing differences - for example on fishing rights, the dynamic harmonization of standards and the free movement of young people - there was consensus on both sides on the need for close cooperation on defence policy. The core of the deal: defense cooperation At the heart of the new cooperation is the UK's participation in the EU's rearmament programs and initiatives. In the face of Russian aggression and growing transatlantic insecurity, the integration of the UK's military capabilities into European security and defense structures is a strategic necessity. The agreements enshrined in the new security and defense partnership include biannual foreign and security policy dialogues between the EU High Representative and UK Foreign and Defense Ministers. In addition, the High Representative will be able to invite the UK to high-level EU meetings, including the Council. An annual security and defense dialogue will accompany and further develop the implementation of the agreement. An important motivation on the part of London is undoubtedly its participation in the 159-billion-euro SAFE initiative, with which the EU aims to promote investment in the European Defense, Technology, and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Defense companies from third countries may cover a maximum of 35 percent of the contract value - unless their home country concludes a bilateral defense agreement with the EU as well as a separate technical agreement. The UK therefore needed the deal to take the first step towards overcoming these restrictions. Negotiations on the additional technical agreement are still ongoing, but according to Commission President von der Leyen, they should be concluded in just a few weeks. In return, London will accept a "pay-to-play" regulation. In addition to participation in SAFE, the signed security partnership also includes agreements on closer cooperation to improve military mobility, as well as the possibility of British troops participating in EU missions - particularly relevant should the USA withdraw from NATO initiatives. In view of the existential challenges facing the UK and the EU internationally, the defense agreement was indeed a clear "win-win". However, its conclusion was complicated by a number of unrelated issues in which conflicts of interest between EU member states and the UK at times even appeared to put the defense agreement at risk. Agricultural and food trade: obstacle and growth opportunity Prime Minister Starmer is under internal economic pressure. The consumer confidence index is at an all-time low, while inflation rose to 3.6% in April according to ONS forecasts - the highest level for two and a half years. The government expects a trade agreement with the EU in the area of agricultural and food products to lead to a noticeable reduction in food prices in British supermarkets and an increase in exports to the continent. However, PM Starmer ruled out a return to the single market or the customs union from the outset. He also wanted to avoid the impression that his "Brexit reset" could undermine the Brexit referendum vote. A sectoral deal in the area of veterinary standards, which relates to food safety, animal health and plant health regulations, was therefore a key objective for London. Specifically, the agreement aims to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for British agricultural and fisheries exports. Experts expect an increase in exports of up to 20 %. In return, the UK agreed to dynamic alignment with relevant EU regulations and promised contribution payments to co-finance work on the corresponding standardization. However, in order to make this veterinary deal possible, agreement had to be reached on the issue of fishing rights for European fishermen in British waters. Fishing rights: a risky compromise Some EU states, led by France, had made an extension of the current regulation, which grants European fishing boats access to British waters and would have expired next year, a condition for the unhindered access of British agricultural products to the European market. The EU wanted to prevent London from permanently benefiting from market facilitation without at the same time securing access for European fishermen. In the end, a compromise was reached: in return for an indefinite easing of British food exports, the UK would extend the existing fisheries regulation by twelve years. Although there is no temporal symmetry between the market facilitation for the British and the fishing rights of the Europeans, the current fishing regulation has been extended for significantly longer than the four years originally sought by London. Youth Mobility: postponed movement One particularly controversial point was the European desire for a comprehensive "Youth Mobility Scheme". Germany in particular pushed for a regulation that would make it easier for young people to live and work in the EU or the UK. A reduction in tuition fees for EU students at British universities was also under discussion. However, given the domestic political pressure from Reform UK, it would have been extremely risky for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to initiate even a partial return to European freedom of movement. In addition, the Prime Minister had only recently made an abrupt U-turn towards a more restrictive migration policy. It can be assumed that the negotiators did not include the term "youth mobility" in the final document, partly out of consideration for the Prime Minister's sensitive domestic political situation. Instead, the vaguely formulated will to work together towards a "balanced Youth Experience Scheme" with upper limits and a time limit was recorded. The domestic debate: the spirit of Brexit lives on While the powerful representatives of the British industry welcomed the agreements and arrangements between the UK and the EU in principle and refrained from making either euphoric or critical statements, the British fishing industry came out with particularly harsh criticism. Although the fishing industry's annual turnover is comparatively small - equivalent to that of the London department store Harrods - the issue of fishing rights in the UK has taken on totemic significance since the Brexit referendum and is intricately linked to the issue of national sovereignty. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation described the deal as "a horror show" and Scotland's First Minister, John Swinney, claimed that the UK government had abandoned the fishing industry with the deal. Nevertheless, even though these stakeholders are aware that the new agreement extends the current status quo, the UK government is providing additional funding to coastal towns and fishery products will now have easier access to the European market. For the opposition, the rapprochement with the EU is still a red rag. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservatives, the architects of Brexit, railed that Keir Starmer saw nothing historic about the deal. "We want to talk about the future - but this agreement takes us back to the past. That's why we call it a capitulation." The United Kingdom was in danger of becoming a mere "rule recipient". The criticism from Brexit fanatic Nigel Farage was even harsher. The Reform UK leader described the compromise as a "betrayal" and a "sell-out of British interests". Both the Tories and Reform UK announced their intention to reverse the deal, which is not binding under international law if they win the next general election. After all, Nigel Farage had made a name for himself as a Brexit campaigner and the Tories had implemented a "hard" Brexit. Under Starmer's Conservative predecessors, the UK had broken away from the EU and laid claim to forging new partnerships worldwide. The slogan "Global Britain" was coined as a deliberate contrast to the old integration into the EU but fell short of the announcements and expectations in terms of implementation. Between Brexit reset and Global Britain Instead, it is Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer who is approaching this ambition and vision with concrete results. Since taking office, the PM has quickly finalized trade agreements that his predecessors were denied - with India, with the Trump administration and now with the EU. What others promised, he implemented. The latest agreement with the EU is his greatest foreign policy success to date. Europe and the UK share common values and security interests, and the EU remains the UK's most important trading partner. Whether the "win-win" deal will contribute to economic recovery in the short term remains to be seen. However, the domestic political urgency of tangible successes is undisputed. The door for a further deepening of cooperation has only just been opened with the agreements sealed in Lancaster House: the far-reaching "renewed agenda" will have to be filled with life in the coming months and years through further negotiations. Differences remain on key issues such as the internal market and the role of the Strasbourg Court of Justice. Although the successes of this summit mark the beginning of a new chapter, its text will not be written in itself. With the Brexit reset, Starmer is taking a calculated risk - he is betting that the path to Global Britain will lead via a "Brexit reset" of relations with the EU. Whether this approach will lead him to re-election as the first prime minister since David Cameron will depend on whether the reset also takes effect domestically.

Another war appears imminent in Tigray; this time the conflict threatens to engulf the region. Eritrea appears ready to join the fighting . Despite the heavy toll of the 2020–2022 war, both the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Ethiopian government have resumed belligerent rhetoric. If fighting resumes, the underlying causes are the TPLF’s pursuit of secession, Abiy Ahmed’s authoritarian rule, and his territorial ambitions. The TPLF has pursued independence since its formation in 1975  by advocating the right to self-determination; it has promoted a narrative rooted in historical exceptionalism and the right to self-determination. That vision matured into a program of statehood during the years the TPLF controlled the Ethiopian government. Between 1991 and 2018, it used state power to lay the political, economic, and military groundwork for secession. Ethnic federalism, introduced under the rhetoric of self-rule, eroded national cohesion. A constitutional clause granted regional states the right to secede unilaterally. Ethiopian nationalism was deliberately undermined; ethnic nationalism was systematically promoted. Ethnic regions were later militarized through the creation of special forces that operated beyond constitutional limits, ostensibly for regional security. Tigray assembled the most powerful of these units—well-armed, well-trained, and well-structured, designed as a paramilitary force prepared to enforce constitutional claims to territory ). These units appear intended to serve as the armies of the independent states they envisioned. In parallel to this build-up, heavy military equipment vital to national defense was transferred to Tigray under the pretext of countering threats from Eritrea. The TPLF later used its special forces and this hardware to wage war against the Ethiopian state. Unrestrained by legal, political, or institutional checks, the TPLF exercised full control over the Ethiopian state. It used that power to extract the country’s natural resources, seize physical assets, and divert financial capital. Under the guise of implementing market reforms recommended by the IMF and World Bank, it transferred state-owned enterprises to firms under its command. The TPLF used the state’s economic apparatus and its control over the private sector to advance its long-term goal of Tigrayan independence. As the TPLF moved toward secession, Ethiopia stood primed for fragmentation, by its constitution, by its leaders, and by its institutions. When a popular revolt removed the TPLF-led government in 2018, the leadership retreated to Mekelle and intensified its campaign for independence. The TPLF escalated its confrontation with the federal government through a series of provocative actions: holding regional elections in September 2020 in defiance of federal authority, expelling federal military officers from Tigray, obstructing troop movements and logistics, and organizing large-scale military parades to project force. Each move appears calculated to provoke a military confrontation with the central government. Convinced that the moment had arrived, the TPLF launched a coordinated assault on the Northern Command on November 4, 2020, as a decisive step toward secession. After two years of devastating war, it failed to achieve its long-term objective. On November 2, 2022, it accepted a cessation of hostilities under the terms of the Pretoria Agreement. Support for secession has increased, fueled by the federal government’s conduct during the war, particularly its decision to invite the Eritrean army into Tigray (Reuters). The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, once a bastion of unity, has splintered. Tigrayan clergy formed a separate synod and severed all ties with the central hierarchy. In the diaspora, former advocates of unity champion independence. Among educated Tigrayans, disillusionment runs deep. Many interpreted the nationwide support for the federal war effort, mostly due to the TPLF’s authoritarianism, as a broader denunciation of Tigrayan identity. For this group, the war was not a political confrontation, but a genocidal campaign. That belief has hardened into a dominant narrative: that civilian deaths were not accidental byproducts of conflict, but deliberate acts of extermination. A rival project of state-building has emerged at the federal level, based on irredentism rather than ethnic autonomy. Abiy Ahmed, an authoritarian ruler backed by a narrow Oromo elite, has declared his intention to govern a unitary state stretching from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. He has repeatedly insisted that Ethiopia must secure a seaport, peacefully or by military force. Despite having no coastline, his government established a navy with France’s assistance; he signed a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland to build a naval base—later cancelled—and has advanced a plan for an economic union encompassing Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia.Federal authorities have also provided weapons to factional leaders in Puntland and Jubaland to undermine the Somali government). While economic integration offers benefits, Abiy’s strategy to annex or dominate neighbouring states risks regional instability, diplomatic estrangement, and military confrontation. A government committed to external expansion is unlikely to tolerate internal disintegration. Tigrayan secessionism and Abiy’s expansionism stand as twin causes of the impending war. The immediate triggers of renewed war have already surfaced. Abiy Ahmed can invoke a legal casus belli against Eritrea, which continues to occupy Ethiopian territory despite repeated demands from Western governments and multilateral organizations). Eritrea, in turn, could claim self-defence. The TPLF could justify a war by claiming that the federal government has failed to fully implement the Pretoria Agreement. Both sides blame each other for the collapse of the agreement and have resumed hostile rhetoric and provocative actions. The TPLF, ignoring the Pretoria Agreement, has declared that it does not require federal permission to engage with Eritrea). Its leaders have publicly affirmed sovereignty, consistent with the constitutional framework. An Eritrean official has offered explicit support for Tigrayan independence; this has introduced an unpredictable external variable into an already volatile situation). On the federal side, the government has revoked the TPLF’s legal status as a political party, eliminating what remained of the formal political channel). At the same time, Abiy launched a European tour on May 22, likely to secure diplomatic backing for a new campaign). The symmetry with the prelude to the first war is striking: escalating rhetoric, foreign lobbying, and mutual delegitimization. What unfolds is not a fresh crisis but the second act of a war poorly resolved. The TPLF has fractured under the weight of the war it helped to unleash. An internal power struggle—driven by disputes over military conduct, political legitimacy, and personal ambition—split the organization in August 2024 into two factions: one led by Debretsion Gebremichael, the chair; the other by Getachew Reda, the vice chair. Each accuses the other of betraying the people of Tigray). The TPLF fighters are also divided. A large faction supports the Debretsion group, while Getachew’s faction has secured the backing of armed groups in southern Tigray, reportedly trained by the Ethiopian government in the Afar region). These forces have pledged to defend the administrative structure he established. The likelihood of intra-Tigrayan armed conflict is high. Tensions have escalated further as Getachew has leveled serious criminal accusations against the TPLF’s military command. In interviews aired on government television on May 13 and 14, he alleged that senior generals committed war crimes, operated illegal gold mines, embezzled state funds, trafficked humans, smuggled arms, and stripped steel from public infrastructure for sale—even as the war was taking place ). The accused commanders have denied all charges and denounced him as a traitor aligned with the federal government. He further reported that the number of registered TPLF fighters DDR had been inflated and that commanders had embezzled funds intended for their salaries. He accused the same officers of plotting to assassinate him. These are not casual allegations—they come from a man who served as deputy chair of the party, member of the executive, member of its wartime command, spokesperson during the conflict, head of the Pretoria delegation, and former regional president. According to Getachew, the TPLF’s military leadership has a vested interest in restarting the war to avoid accountability. He argues that peace would expose their crimes, while renewed conflict offers protection. As evidence, he cites the leak of secret peace talks in Djibouti between the TPLF and the federal government by one of the implicated generals. The federal government, upon learning of the leak, ended the negotiations. In another case, he claims that when the federal government attempted resettlement of Tigrayans in contested areas, the TPLF commanders demanded that fighters accompany the returnees; the government refused. Getachew alleges the generals are using displaced civilians as “hostages” to obstruct reconciliation. He claims to hold documentary evidence supporting these accusations. While he describes the TPLF as a “criminal enterprise,” he occasionally softens the charge, placing blame on a few bad actors. This contradiction raises a crucial question: if an organization protects offenders and functions as a criminal network, can it still claim political legitimacy? The conflict between the TPLF and the federal government has persisted, but alliances have shifted dramatically. During the first Tigray war, a coalition of federal troops, Eritrean forces, Amhara special forces, and the Fano militia fought the TPLF. That coalition has disintegrated. In April 2023, the federal government disbanded the Amhara special forces while retaining similar units in other regions). It then launched a military campaign to disarm the Fano, provoking armed resistance across the Amhara region. The government has struggled to suppress the rebellion and has lost control of large areas. It accuses the TPLF of aiding the Fano. At the same time, relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea have unraveled. Abiy Ahmed’s declaration that Ethiopia would obtain a seaport—by negotiation or by force—has pushed the two states into hostility). In a startling reversal, the TPLF has begun to align with Eritrea, its former enemy. Reports suggest the Debretsion faction has initiated cooperation with Eritrean officials, despite Eritrea’s continued occupation of territories claimed by Tigray). Getachew alleges that senior TPLF commanders have coordinated military planning with Eritrean authorities. Gebru Asrat, the former Tigray regional president, has made similar claims). Eritrea appears prepared to re-enter the war, this time as a TPLF ally. One Eritrean official has gone further and has expressed support for Tigrayan independence, as stated earlier. But given their history of mutual hostility, unresolved border disputes, and clashing ambitions, the alliance remains fragile. It may serve tactical needs, but it is unlikely to survive strategic realities. Strategic miscalculation is a crucial risk in this war, as it was in the previous one. During the first Tigray war, both the federal government and the TPLF overestimated their military capacity and underestimated their opponent’s. The war yielded no victory. Instead, both sides accepted a cessation of hostilities after enduring political crisis, economic hardship, and human catastrophe. The result crippled both actors. Despite renewed threats, confrontational posturing, and aggressive rhetoric, neither side appears ready for war. In Tigray, the public is exhausted. People demand peace, basic services, the return of the displaced, and the restoration of infrastructure. The struggle for basic needs outweighs the desire to engage in another war. While support for independence remains high, many Tigrayans question whether the embattled TPLF can govern a region, let alone a future state. Among Tigrayans, the yearning for peace far exceeds the willingness to fight another war. The Eritrean government, although it commands a disciplined army, lacks the diplomatic support and military capabilities to confront a stronger adversary. Its economic base is fragile; its population is small, overburdened by years of forced conscription, and exhausted by endless mobilization. Eritrea’s international isolation—worsened by sanctions, strained relations with neighbors, and a dismal human rights record—undermines its capacity to secure foreign military or financial assistance. These constraints—weak economy, fragile population base, diplomatic isolation, and limited military resources—reduce Eritrea’s capacity to sustain a protracted war The Ethiopian state faces even greater problems. Armed insurgencies continue in Amhara and Oromia, the country’s two most populous regions. Federal forces have failed to suppress either movement and have lost control over extensive territory. Across the country, support for the government has collapsed. A nationwide strike by healthcare workers—triggered by surging inflation—signals broader unrest). Legitimacy has eroded; institutions have decayed; crises have multiplied. The military—commanded by officers appointed for ethnic loyalty rather than professional competence, crippled by systemic corruption, and plagued by operational incapacity—is unfit for war. These deficiencies became evident when the army suffered a series of humiliating defeats in the last war against the TPLF. External actors can influence both the likelihood and the outcome of a renewed conflict. In the previous war, the United States played a moderating role, driven by its own strategic interests in Ethiopia, the Horn, and the Red Sea. The Biden administration helped contain escalation by the Ethiopian government and dissuaded the TPLF from pursuing independence. It appointed Special Envoy Mike Hammer, whose diplomacy helped secure the Pretoria Agreement). Under President Trump, U.S. policy shifted toward disengagement. That shift may have persuaded the Ethiopian government that war carries no consequences and emboldened the TPLF to pursue secession. Regional powers also have the capacity to influence whether the war erupts and how it unfolds. Egypt, a traditional adversary of Ethiopia and locked in dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, has aligned with Eritrea and had supported the TPLF in the past. Saudi Arabia continues to back the Eritrean regime). The United Arab Emirates has supplied Ethiopia with drones and weapons). Turkey has armed Ethiopia with drones as well, but backs Somalia over Abiy’s memorandum of understanding with Somaliland, the breakaway state of Somalia, later cancelled ). Whether another war erupts will depend in part on how these regional powers calculate their interests and the extent to which they are willing to intervene to secure them. Under present conditions, neither side appears capable of waging war. The TPLF—isolated abroad, fractured within, stripped of territory, crippled by corruption, and bereft of popular support—lacks the means to mount a new campaign. The federal government, weakened by internal fragmentation, collapsing legitimacy, and mounting public dissent, cannot sustain another conflict. Rhetoric has escalated, but capacity has not. The Eritrean government commands a well-trained army but lacks the diplomatic support, economic strength, and military capacity to fight a stronger adversary. Its international isolation, small population, and limited resources leave it vulnerable. Eritreans may defend sovereignty but show little enthusiasm for another costly war. Eritrea’s shifting loyalties, Abiy Ahmed’s expansionist ambitions, the Tigrayan elite’s secessionist agenda, the TPLF’s record of miscalculation, and foreign interference have created a volatile situation. Any of these variables could reignite the conflict, dismantle either state, and destabilize the entire region. Even in the absence of strategic advantage, wars can erupt because of misjudgments, personal ambition, or elite rivalries. Peace in the Horn is no local concern; it is a global imperative essential to regional order, international security, and the prevention of another humanitarian catastrophe.

I. Introduction Since October 7, 2023, when the Hamas attacked Israel, the Gaza war has entered its third year. Palestinians continue to endure an unprecedented level of violence, trauma, economic hardship, and uncertainty. The war has resulted in a staggering number of casualties and widespread displacement, in addition to massive destruction of physical assets in Gaza, significant reduction of economic output, increased violence in the West Bank, and widespread collapse of basic service provision across the entire Palestinian territories.  As of May 7, 2025, according to Wikipedia and Gaza’s Ministry of Health, 55000 fatalities (53,253 Palestinians and 1,706 Israelis) and more than 110,00 injuries have been reported in Gaza. More than half of the casualties are women, children, and the elderly. An estimated 1.9 million people, approximately 90 percent of Gaza’s population, are currently internally displaced. Seventy percent of Gaza’s Road network, more than 80 per cent of commercial facilities, and close to 90 percent of housing units in Gaza have either severely damaged or have been destroyed.  Since October 7, 2023, the UN has documented over 1,500 clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, resulting in property damage, casualties, and displacement. Over 1,600 Palestinians, half of whom are children, have been displaced due to increased settlers’ violence and access restrictions. Additionally, existing fiscal constraints and growing security concerns have disrupted service provision in the West Bank.  On the macroeconomic front, the Gaza and West Bank face a collapse, which is unmatched in recent memory. The Palestine economy has faced significant contraction, evidenced by a reduced production, sharp decline in gross domestic product (GDP), and soaring unemployment rates. On the other hand, the Gaza war has had significant negative impacts on Israel. The economic and financial costs of war consist of the direct cost of military operations as well as the indirect losses that extend over the medium and long term. One of the most direct costs of the Gaza war was the recall of about 300,000 reservists in the early days, which meant that the Israeli government would bear the cost of conscription, and the Israeli economy would bear loss of output due to their absence from the workforce.Given these situations, this paper analyzes the economic effects of the Gaza war on Palestine and Israel. II. Literature on the Effects of Wars Wars have the potential to alter the parties and “transform the future” of belligerents (Ikle 1991) and they also bring about fundamental changes to the international system (Gilpin 1981).  Scholars in Economics have provided considerable analysis of the macroeconomic effects of a conflict across spatial levels: locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally. Some studies have examined the effects of specific wars such as the Syrian civil war (Kešeljević and Spruk, 2023) or the Iraq war (Bilmes and Stiglitz 2006). For example, an analysis estimated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had an economic cost of 1% of global GDP in 2022 (Liadze et al. 2023) Others have examined the effects of war in general. For instance, Reuven Glick and Alan Taylor (2010) examine bilateral trade relations from 1870 to 1997 and find large and persistent negative impacts of wars on trade and hence on national and global economic welfare. Similarly, Vally Koubi (2005) investigates the effects of inter- and intrastate wars on a sample of countries and finds that the combined prewar, contemporaneous, and postwar effects on economic growth are negative.  A “war ruin” school emphasized that the destruction caused by wars is accompanied by higher inflation, unproductive resource spending on the military, and war debt (Chan 1985; Russett 1970). By contrast, a “war renewal” school argued that there can be longer-term positive economic effects from war because war can lead to increased efficiency in the economy by reducing the power of rent-seeking special interests, triggering technological innovation, and advancing human capital (Organski and Kugler 1980).  III. Economic Effects of the Gaza War1. Casualties  As Table 1 shows, since the Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, 55,000 people (as of May 7, 2025, 53,253 Palestinians and 1,706 Israelis) have been killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Scholars have estimated that 80% of Palestinians killed are civilians. A study by OHCHR (The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) found that 70% of the Palestinians killed in residential buildings or similar housing were children and women.  The majority of casualties have been found in the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Health Ministry’s total casualty count is the number of deaths directly caused by the war.  The 7 October attacks of the Hamas on Israel killed 1,195 people, including 815 civilians. A further 806 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem).  2. Economic Effects of the Gaza War on Palestine  As Figure 1-1 shows, since October 7, 2023, Palestine’s economy has significantly contracted as a result of continued warfare. As Figure 1-2 shows, economic downturn started from the fourth quarter of 2023. In 2024, Palestine's GDP contracted by 27% compared to the previous year. The decline was driven by a 27% drop in industrial output in the Gaza Strip due to the ongoing Israeli occupation and attack. Especially, economic contractions were recorded in construction (-14.5%), services (-11.0%), financial and insurance activities (-5.3%), information and communication (-3.2%). However, Palestine’s economy began to recover in the fourth quarter of 2024, although it still marked a negative growth.   Figure 1-1: Palestine economic growth rate  Figure 1-2: Palestine economic growth (quarterly) As Figure 2 shows, industrial production in Palestine significantly decreased in 2024 as war has continued between Israel and Hamas. Industrial production in Palestine has been low, averaging -7.62 percent from 2012 until 2025. However, it reached a record low of -29.77 percent in June of 2024. Then industrial production in Palestine increased to 2.1 percent in March of 2025 over the same month in the previous year.   Figure 2: Industrial production in Palestine As Figure 3 shows, inflation rate in Palestine has significantly increased in 2023 and 2024, reaching all time high of 88.93 percent in November of 2024. High inflation resulted from resource shortages as a result of continued warfare and significant production decline. And then inflation rate in Palestine dropped to 1.88 percent in March and -2.51 percent in February of 2025. Inflation rate in Palestine averaged 4.95 percent from 1998 until 2025.   Figure 3: Inflation rate in Palestine As Figure 4-1 shows, unemployment rate in Palestine significantly increased after October 7, 2023, as economy continued to shrink and industrial production fell. Unemployment rate in Palestine increased to 35.20 percent in the first quarter of 2024 from 24.1 percent in the third quarter of 2023. It then dropped to 31.1 percent in the second quarter of 2024 and 28.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024. Unemployment Rate in Palestine has been remarkably high, averaging 24.07 percent from 1995 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 35.60 percent in the third quarter of 2002 and a record low of 8.80 percent in the second quarter of 2000.    Figure 4-1: Unemployment rate in Palestine As Figure 4-2 shows, youth unemployment rate in Palestine increased from 38.40 percent in the first quarter of 2023 to 45.70 percent in the first quarter of 2024 and then slightly dropped to 42.60 percent in the third quarter of 2024 and 38.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024. Youth unemployment rate in Palestine has been remarkably high, averaging 41.85 percent from 2009 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 49.90 percent in the second quarter of 2018 and a record low of 32.90 percent in the first quarter of 2011.   Figure 4-2: Youth unemployment rate in Palestine As Figure 4-3 shows, full-time employment in Palestine plunged to 628000 persons in the first quarter of 2024 from 1143800 persons in the third quarter of 2023. Then it increased to 705700 persons in the fourth quarter of 2024. Full-time employment in Palestine averaged 888133 persons from 2010 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 1143800 persons in the third quarter of 2023 and a record low of 67900 persons in the first quarter of 2010.   Figure 4-3: Full-time employment in Palestine Despite the continued warfare in Gaza, as Figure 5 shows, exports in Palestine did not significantly decrease. On the contrary, exports in Palestine increased from 148.3 USD Million in August 2023 to 164.20 USD Million in December of 2024. Exports in Palestine averaged 68.15 USD Million from 2001 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 164.20 USD Million in December of 2024 and a record low of 15.92 USD Million in April of 2002. Exports in Palestine maintained pre-war level in 2025, recording 140.70 USD Million in January of 2025. Top exports of Palestine in 2023 were scrap iron ($68.6M), tropical fruits ($53.8M), pure olive oil ($10.9M), and building stone ($7.56M).  Figure 5: Exports in Palestine Figure 6 shows, imports in Palestine significantly dropped in 2024 as warfare continued in Gaza. Imports in Palestine decreased to 420.30 USD Million in April 2024 from 747.20 USD Million in August 2023. Imports in Palestine averaged 370.00 USD Million from 2001 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 750.60 USD Million in November of 2022 and a record low of 82.71 USD Million in April of 2002. According to media reports, there are severe food shortages in Gaza, but there is no information about the imports of food after 2023.   Figure 6: Imports in Palestine As Figure 7 shows, since October 7, 2023, government spending in Palestine has significantly declined in 2023 and early 2024, hitting a record low of 461.20 USD million in the first quarter of 2024. And then government spending in Palestine increased to 666.70 USD million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from 616.50 USD million in the third quarter of 2024. Government spending in Palestine averaged 797.95 USD million from 2011 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 974.90 USD million in the fourth quarter of 2016 and a record low of 461.20 USD million in the first quarter of 2024.   Figure 7: Government spending in Palestine 3. Economic Effects of the Gaza War on Israel  As Figure 8 shows, since October 7, 2023, when the Hamas attacked Israel, government spending in Israel significantly increased as Israel government conducted massive military operations against the Hamas. Government spending in Israel increased from 84100 ILS (Israel new shekel) Million in the third quarter of 2023 to 97973 ILS Million in the fourth quarter of 2023 and 97018 ILS Million in the fourth quarter of 2024. Government Spending in Israel averaged 58676 ILS Million from 1995 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 97973 ILS Million in the fourth quarter of 2023 and a record low of 39524 ILS Million in the third quarter of 1995.   Figure 8: Government spending in Israel As Figure 9 shows, as Israel government conducted massive military operations against the Hamas, military expenditure in Israel increased to 46505.30 USD Million in 2024 from 27498.50 USD Million in 2023. Military expenditure in Israel averaged 7742.87 USD Million from 1951 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 46505.30 USD Million in 2024 and a record low of 57.60 USD Million in 1954.   Figure 9: Military expenditure in Israel As Figure 10 shows, Israel recorded a government budget deficit of -33793.00 ILS Million in December of 2023 from 14100 ILS Million in January 2023 because government spending, in particular military expenditure significantly increased. Government budget value in Israel averaged -3405.71 ILS Million from 2005 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 22839.00 ILS Million in January of 2025 and a record low of -33793.00 ILS Million in December of 2023.   Figure 10: Budget Balance in Israel As Figure 11-1 & 11-2 show, Israel's economic growth plunged to -4.32 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 from 3.44% in the third quarter of 2023. Israel experienced consecutive negative growth until the third quarter of 2024 as the ongoing conflict with the Hamas had taken a significant toll on economic activity. This marked the weakest growth since 2020, when the covid-19 pandemic severely impacted the economy. However, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Israel expanded 5.46 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 over the same quarter of the previous year. GDP annual growth rate in Israel averaged 3.73 percent from 1996 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of 16.27 percent in the second quarter of 2021 and a record low of -8.37 percent in the second quarter of 2020.  Figure 11-1: Israel's economic growth rate  Figure 11-2: Israel's GDP growth (quarterly) As Figure 12 shows, industrial production in Israel decreased 7.4 percent in December of 2023 and 9.8 percent in March 2024 and then increased 15.9 percent in December 2024. Industrial production in Israel averaged 5.66 percent from 1960 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 62.70 percent in June of 1968 and a record low of -29.20 percent in June of 1967.   Figure 12: Industrial production in Israel As Figure 13 shows, unemployment rate in Israel decreased from 4.30 percent in January 2023 to 2.80 percent in November 2023 and 2.60 percent in December 2024. This decline seems to result from the fact that Israeli government called up tens of thousands of reservists to replace conscripts and active-duty soldiers. And then unemployment rate in Israel slightly increased to 2.9% in March 2025. Unemployment rate in Israel averaged 5.89 percent from 1992 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 11.40 percent in March of 1992 and a record low of 2.60 percent in August & December of 2024.  Figure 13: Unemployment Rate in Israel As Figure 14 shows, the number of unemployed persons in Israel decreased to 119200 in December of 2024 from 184000 in January 2023. Unemployed persons in Israel averaged 192800 from 1991 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 305400 in September of 2003 and a record low of 119200 in December of 2024.  Figure 14: The number of unemployed persons in Israel As Figure 15 shows, after October 2023, exports in Israel fluctuated between 4470 USD Million in October 2023, 5330 USD Million in March 2024, 4320 USD Million June 2024 and 5250 USD million in December 2024. Exports in Israel averaged 1836.30 USD Million from 1959 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 6276.70 USD Million in March of 2022 and a record low of 10.80 USD Million in July of 1959.   Figure 15: Exports in Israel As Figure 16 shows, imports in Israel fluctuated between 8090 USD Million in August 2023, 7590 USD Million in December 2023, 7010 USD Million in August 2024, and 8318.70 USD Million in March 2025. Imports in Israel averaged 2500.72 USD Million from 1959 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 10372.30 USD Million in May of 2022 and a record low of 33.10 USD Million in November of 1959.   Figure 16: Imports in Israel As Figure 17 shows, inflation rate in Israel decreased from 5.40 percent in January 2023 to 3.70 percent in October 2023 and 2.50 percent in February 2024. It then increased to 3.60 percent in August 2024 and 3.80 percent in January 2025. Inflation rate in Israel averaged 26.75 percent from 1952 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 486.20 percent in November of 1984 and a record low of -2.70 percent in March of 2004.   Figure 17: Inflation rate in Israel As Figure 18 shows, despite on-going warfare in Gaza, gasoline price in Israel did not rise significantly. It increased from 1.82 USD/Liter in September 2023 to 1.98 and 2.14 USD/Liter in January and May 2024, respectively and then dropped to 2.06 and 2.04 USD/Liter in August 2024 and February 2025, respectively. Gasoline prices in Israel averaged 1.78 USD/Liter from 1995 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 2.30 USD/Liter in June of 2022 and a record low of 0.73 USD/Liter in December of 1995.   Figure 18: Gasoline price in Israel IV. Conclusion The Gaza war has had negative impacts on both Palestine and Israel, but the negative effects were much bigger in Palestine than in Israel. The number of casualties was much higher in Palestine. Especially the war brought down Palestine economy, lowering economic growth, reducing industrial productions, and increasing inflation & unemployment in Palestine. The Israeli economy has also slowed down, and budget deficit increased. However, unemployment went down, and inflation has been stable between 2 and 5 percent. Trade has maintained a pre-war level, although there have been some difficulties. References Bilmes, Linda, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2006. The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Chan, Steve. 1985. “The Impact of Defense Spending on Economic Performance: A Survey of Evidence and Problems.” Orbis 29 (2): 403–434.CIA Factbook. 2024. “Ukraine.”Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Glick, Rouven and Alan Taylor. 2010. “Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92(1): 102-127.Iklé, Fred C. 1991. Every War Must End. New York: Columbia University Press.Kešeljević, Aleksandar, and Rok Spruk. 2023. Estimating the Effects of Syrian Civil War. Empirical Economics.  Koumi, Valley. 2005. “War and Economic Performance.” Journal of Peace Research 42 (1): 67-82. Liadze, Iana, Corrado Macchiarelli, Paul Mortimer-Lee, and Patricia Sanchez Juanino. 2023. “Economic Costs of the Russia-Ukraine War.” The World Economy 46: 874–886.Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Russett, Bruce. 1970. What Price Vigilance? The Burdens of National Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.