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 Abstract Observers have noted that Washington’s policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ aims not only to deter China from attacking Taiwan but also to keep Taipei from taking actions that may be deemed provocative by Beijing leaders. Remarks and actions taken by former United States President Joseph Biden seem to place America’s long-held ambiguous policy in doubt. It has been argued that a clear security commitment from Washington is likely to bolster Taiwan citizens’ unrealistic expectations of America’s defence support and their calls for independence, which will certainly invite Beijing’s violent responses. Employing the theory of deterrence and survey data collected in Taiwan during the past 20 years, this article examines this argument. The analysis shows that the policy of strategy ambiguity remains crucial for the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. As China has increasingly turned itself to become a revisionist, Washington’s policy requires a recalibration, and the adjustment does not have to be a binary choice between ambiguity and clarity. Donald Trump’s return to the White House with his transactional approach to international affairs makes US policy towards the Taiwan issue less predictable, potentially leading to a volatile Taiwan Strait during his second term. Introduction One of the key aspects of US policy towards Taiwan since 1979 has been its ambiguous posture. With an objective of maintaining cross-strait peace and stability, Washington’s policy is based on its version of the ‘one-China’ policy, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the three United States–China communiques and ‘Six Assurances’ (Congressional Research Service, 2024). Under this framework, Washington acknowledges that there is only one China and maintains an unofficial relationship with Taipei. The United States supports Taiwan with weapons of a defensive character and will ‘resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardise the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan’ (TRA, Section 2(6)) but it does not clarify what would trigger an American military response. The deliberate uncertainty about whether the United States would intervene in cross-strait conflicts distinctively characterises Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity. Former United States President Joseph Biden’s repeated security pledges to Taiwan since taking office in 2021 seem to place this policy in doubt. Biden’s response to a reporter of CBS 60-Minutes was unequivocal. When being asked, ‘So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US forces—US men and women—would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?’ Without hesitation, Biden replied, ‘Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack’ (Pelley, 2022). Although White House officials later repeatedly indicated that America’s policy towards Taiwan had not changed, Biden’s remarks generated a new round of discussion (e.g., Benson, 2022; Christensen et al., 2022) since this was the fourth time that the President made such a pledge.1 Critics point out that Washington’s deliberate ambiguity about America’s military intervention is not merely designed to deter China from attacking Taiwan. By intentionally being vague on its defence commitment, the policy also intends to keep Taipei from taking actions that may be deemed provocative by Beijing leaders (Bush, 2006). Survey data have consistently shown that few on the island are willing to be ruled by the Chinese Communist government and the majority would opt for independence if a war with China can be avoided (Hsieh & Niou, 2005; Wang, 2017). An unconditional security guarantee from Washington is likely to bolster Taiwan citizens’ unrealistic expectations of America’s defence support and their calls for independence. Because Taiwan is a democracy, the popularly elected Taipei government could take aggressive actions under public pressure, which will certainly invite Beijing’s military attacks and drag the United States into an unwanted war with China. Employing the theory of deterrence and survey data collected in Taiwan during the past 20 years, this article attempts to examine this logic with the following research questions: What is the logic behind Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity? Why is there a call for clarity in the first place? And, what are the concerns about a policy of clarity? What would Donald Trump’s second term as the President of the United States mean for Washington’s policy on Taiwan? The Functioning of Strategic Ambiguity Fierce fighting broke out between troops led by the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the Chinese mainland at the end of the Second World War. Under the weight of corruption, the KMT government suffered a disastrous military defeat and retreated to the island of Taiwan. As geopolitical tension mounted, Washington signed a mutual defence treaty with Taipei to contain the expansion of Communism. Several major battles were fought in the 1950s and 1960s across the Taiwan Strait. With America’s assistance, Taipei thwarted Communist military attacks on offshore islands held by Taiwan. The 1970s saw a shift in China’s strategy away from a reliance on the ‘military liberation’ of the island to a wave of ‘peaceful initiatives’ for China’s unification. However, Chinese leaders continue to regard Taiwan as a renegade province and have refused to recognise it as an equal and legitimate negotiating partner. Attempting to coerce Taipei into acceptance of the unification formula known as ‘one country, two systems’, Beijing has repeatedly warned that it would use ‘any means it deems necessary, including military ones’ (State Council of the PRC, 1993). Taipei’s loss of United Nations (UN) membership in 1971 and the normalisation of relations between China and the United States in 1972 signified Beijing’s decisive diplomatic victory. China’s growing importance in international affairs has led many countries, including the United States, to break diplomatic relations with Taiwan. After the United States and China established official ties in 1979, Washington has maintained an ‘unofficial’ relationship with Taipei. With an aim to maintain cross-strait peace and stability, the policy of strategic ambiguity was gradually articulated in the subsequent years and has become America’s key policy towards the Taiwan issue. In essence, strategic ambiguity is a policy of deterrence aiming to prevent a target state from taking unwanted actions. The deterrent effect is accomplished by the deterring state’s threat of taking actions that will potentially deny the target state’s expected gains or punish it to the extent that the costs of the unwanted acts exceed the gains it hopes to acquire. In order to be effective, the deterring state needs to show that it (a) possesses sufficient retaliatory capability to deny the fruits of unwanted actions; and (b) has the resolve to use the force so that the target state is persuaded that the threats are credible (Chan, 2003; Christensen, 2002; Wang, 2010). As the world’s only superpower, few countries can withstand the weight of American power if it were deployed against them. Washington has also demonstrated that it has the resolve to use force, as the 1995–1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis has shown. Triggered by Beijing’s military exercises and missile tests aiming to intimidate Taiwan voters on the eve of the island country’s first popular presidential election, the Clinton administration responded by dispatching two aircraft carrier battle groups to the vicinity of Taiwan. Although some may question Washington’s resolve due to the perceived decline of American power, wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan still serve as reminders of its resolve of deploying military might. Previous literature has demonstrated that credible threat is not sufficient to deter unwanted behaviour, as an effective deterrence also needs convincing assurance (Christensen, 2002; Christensen et al., 2022; Schelling, 1966). The target state will have little incentive to comply with the deterring state’s demand if it believes that it will ultimately lose its principal values. This is why various United States administrations have repeatedly assured Chinese leaders that Washington does not support Taiwan independence lest Beijing use force to realise its cause of unification for fear of Taiwan’s permanent separation from China. The flip side of this logic is to remind Taipei that America’s security commitment is not without conditions. The goal is to discourage Taiwan from taking aggressive actions towards independence, which will certainly provoke military attacks from China. Thus, the potential of taking actions to impose costs that outweigh the benefits of an unwanted action is a form of deterrence. The prospect of inaction can also exert a deterrent effect as it can raise the expected cost of unwanted acts of the target state. Washington’s ambiguous posture is said to have the effect of ‘dual deterrence’ (Bush, 2006). On the one hand, it deters Beijing from using military force against Taiwan since Chinese leaders are unsure if Washington would be involved militarily. On the other hand, it dissuades Taipei from pursuing de jure independence so that cross-strait military conflicts can be avoided. Through a web of incentives and disincentives, Washington’s strategic ambiguity has been praised as one of the most successful foreign policies as it has maintained cross-strait peace and stability for several decades. Why the Call for Clarity? If Washington’s policy has been effective, why are there calls for change? The answer lies in China’s revisionist behaviours, which have become increasingly assertive and aggressive. Indeed, deterrence diplomacy is effective only when targeted actors are conditional revisionists. Christensen (2002) provides a useful typology of different political actors for analysis. Countries like Japan, France and the United Kingdom (UK) are ‘unprovokable friends’ of the United States. They may be annoyed with Washington’s policies from time to time, like France’s fury over a submarine deal after Australia cancelling a multi-billion-dollar order with a French company and turning to the United States and the UK for a new contract (Sanger, 2021). The governments of these countries have no intention to challenge America’s fundamental national interests. Nor does Washington see them as potential threats. While deterrence diplomacy is not needed for unprovokable friends, there are also ‘undeterrable ideologues’ to whom the threat of deterrence is futile. Political actors like Hitler’s Germany and Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network are determined to pursue their political objectives and simply cannot be dissuaded. In addition to unprovokable friends and undeterrable ideologues, there is a third type of political actor—‘conditional revisionists’. They are willing to exploit opponents’ weaknesses in order to change the status quo but would refrain from taking action unless opportunities arise. Because the deterring state can hold the target state’s prized possessions hostage while at the same time provide convincing assurance, the latter has the incentive to comply with the former’s demands. This logic underlies the success of strategic ambiguity because, for much of the time since 1979, China did not possess the capabilities to directly or indirectly coerce Taiwan or challenge America’s deterrence policy. The world has witnessed a different China since the end of the twentieth century as the country has experienced rapid economic expansion. Figure 1 shows that China’s annual GDP growth rates between 1981 and 2023 generally ranged from 7.5% to 10%. With its enormous economic resources, Beijing has launched an effort to modernise its military. During the 20-year period between 1989 and 2010, as Figure 2 demonstrates, China’s military expenditures as a percentage of government spending were between 7% and 17%, far exceeding those of Japan, France and the UK. In addition to acquiring new weapon systems, the People’s Liberation Army has also developed anti-access area denial capabilities, raising concerns among American officials (Maizland, 2020; Olay, 2024). Such capabilities aim to neutralise the United States and its allies’ ability to project power in the Western Pacific region, including in the area close to Taiwan. Beijing, in recent years, has aggressively expanded its military presence in the South China Sea (Centre for Preventive Action, 2022), engaged in border disputes with India, and constructed military outposts in Bhutan (Barnett, 2021). China has also built numerous ‘re-education camps’ in Xinjiang, engaged in ‘serious’ human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in the region (UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2022) and imposed repressive responses to the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong (Wang, 2023). With Beijing’s continuing alignment with Moscow after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chinese leaders have shown to the world that they are willing to defy international opinions and forcefully assert their growing power inside and beyond China’s boundaries.  Figure 1. China’s GDP Growth Rate: 1961–2023.Source: World Bank Group (various years-a).  Figure 2. Military Expenditure by Country as a Percentage of Government Spending: 1989–2023.Source: SIPRI (various years). In this context, aggregated national power has increasingly shifted to Beijing’s favour over the past decades. Figures 3 and 4 juxtapose Taiwan’s and China’s gross domestic product and total military expenditures since the late 1980s. Prior to 2000, as Figure 3 shows, China’s annual GDPs were only two to four times larger than Taiwan’s, but the ratio has expanded to more than 10 times since 2008. By 2010, China overtook Japan to become the world’s second largest economy, far exceeding Taiwan’s economic productivity. Meanwhile, China’s military spending has been 10–20 times that of Taiwan’s since 2009, as Figure 4 demonstrates. After Chinese leaders invalidated their promises of a ‘high-degree of autonomy’ to Hong Kong under the unification plan, observers believe Taiwan is their next target (Lopez, 2022). Since Tsai Ing-wen of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was elected Taiwan’s president in 2016, Beijing has furthered its effort of isolating Taipei internationally and escalated its belligerent behaviours by repeatedly dispatching naval vessels and warplanes circulating the island and violating its Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ; refer to Ministry of National Defence R.O.C., various years). In recent years, Chinese leaders further heightened their military pressure by repeatedly launched live-fire drills in water close to Taiwan, frequently with a record number of military aircraft and naval vessels (Ng & Wingfield-Hayes, 2024). China’s rapid technological advancement also allows it to infiltrate Taiwan’s IT infrastructure (Lonergan & Mueller, 2022). These developments have led to a warning from United States Navy Admiral John Aquilino in 2021 that China could be prepared to take Taiwan by force by 2027 (Lendon, 2021).  Figure 3. Ratio of China and Taiwan Gross Domestic Productivity: 1991–2023.Source: World Bank Group (various years-b) and National Statistics, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (various years).  Figure 4. Ratio of China and Taiwan Military Expenditures: 1989–2023.Source: SIPRI (various years). Observers, therefore, have noted that China is no longer a conditional revisionist but has turned into a revisionist that has the ability and intention to change the status quo. Some in the United States argue that ambiguity is unlikely to deter an increasingly assertive and threatening China towards Taiwan. Instead, they maintain, ‘[t]he time has come for the United States to introduce a policy of strategic clarity: one that makes explicit that the United States would respond to any Chinese use of force against Taiwan’ (Haass & Sacks, 2020). This is a view that the Biden administration also holds. Characterising China as a revisionist with both the intent and the ability ‘to reshape the international order’, the Biden administration acknowledged that China is the greatest challenger to the United States and its allies (White House, 2022, p. 23). Because ‘we cannot rely on Beijing to change its trajectory’, it is upon Washington to ‘shape the strategic environment around Beijing’ (Blinken, 2022). Thus, supporting Taiwan and strengthening its defence capabilities are crucial for America’s response to China’s growing coercion. Observers also point out that Washington’s ambiguous posture, while aiming to discourage unwanted actions of targeted states, may lead to miscalculation and risky behaviours. Leaders in both Beijing and Taipei have ‘obvious incentives to misrepresent their true perceptions concerning United States resolve’ (Kastner, 2006, p. 662). The tendency is particularly strong for Chinese leaders as the equation that previously made ambiguity a feasible policy has changed. Rather than maintain stability, it is argued, ambiguity may contribute to cross-strait instability and drag the United States into an unwanted conflict with China. In addition, no response to a Chinese military invasion of a democratic Taiwan would damage Washington’s reputation as the guardian of democracy and create the perception that the United States is not a reliable partner (Schmitt and Mazza, 2020). If American allies in the region conclude that Washington can no longer be counted on, they would be likely to accommodate Beijing’s demands as a result. Alternatively, some in the region may band together to balance a rising China, leading to tension and instability in one of the most dynamic areas of international commerce. Both would threaten America’s interests in the region and hurt Washington’s global leadership. Beijing’s forceful takeover of Taiwan would mean that China could then project its naval power beyond the first island chain, directly threatening the maritime security of the United States and its allies. Taiwan’s autonomy has also become a vital geopolitical interest and a national security issue for the United States due to the island’s dominant role in the semiconductor manufacturing market. It is estimated that the United States and other countries would lose access to 85% of all leading-edge microprocessors if China were to invade Taiwan tomorrow (Fadel, 2022). Beijing’s threatening military exercises, after United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei and the inauguration of pro-independence Lai Ching-te as Taiwan’s president, further underscore the need of revising the policy of strategic ambiguity. There have been a number of developments in the first Trump administration reflecting the growing sentiment that Beijing’s revisionist behaviour needs a robust and unambiguous response, including an unambiguous support for Taiwan. These included dispatching cabinet-level officials and military officers to Taipei and selling a large quantity of advanced weapons to Taiwan. The United States Congress also passed the Taiwan Travel Act of 2018 and the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) of 2020. The former permits high-level United States officials to travel to Taipei and meet their Taiwanese counterparts, while the latter aims to assist Taiwan in maintaining existing diplomatic relations. After Biden took office in 2021, his administration has further pursued a coherent and comprehensive approach for ‘broadening and deepening’ United States–Taiwan relations. It includes inviting Taiwan’s de factor ambassador to the United States as an official guest to the presidential inauguration (Blanchard, 2021), dispatching a delegation to Taipei sending a ‘personal signal’ of support from the President (Brunnstrom & Martina, 2021), providing large packages of arms sales (Chung et al., 2024), strengthening bilateral economic ties, and re-confirming Taiwan’s status as a major non-NATO ally (US Government Publishing Office, 2022). All of these efforts aim to advance the island country’s security, prosperity and respect in the international community. The Biden administration’s efforts to internationalise the Taiwan issue have been further noted. Wording like ‘the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait’ was mentioned at the United States–Japan (White House, 2021b), United States–Korea (White House, 2021a), Japan–Australia (Prime Minister of Australia, 2022) and G7 summits (European Council, 2021). For the first time, the issue of Taiwan’s security has been included in the communique of so many major powers’ summit meetings, which shows the Biden administration’s effort of building an international coalition to constrain a threatening China that will benefit Taiwan. In this context, Biden has repeatedly vowed to defend Taiwan, indicating that the United States would intervene militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion, prompting many to speculate if Washington has changed its long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity. Issues with Clarity Critics point out that a policy of strategic clarity involves risks. Chief among those is a clear security pledge like the one given by Biden, which is likely to bolster Taiwan citizens’ unrealistic expectation of America’s defence support, which will then motivate the public’s calls for independence. Under public pressure, the popularly elected Taipei government could take aggressive actions and will provoke a violent reaction from Beijing. Meanwhile, the public’s overconfidence does not match America’s military actions that would support an ally or a friend (Benson, 2022). The Biden administration’s decision to provide Ukraine with security assistance but refrain from putting American boots on the ground clearly demonstrates Washington’s reluctance to undertake direct military intervention in overseas conflicts. Taiwan citizens’ impracticable confidence in the United States’ defence commitment may destabilise the cross-strait relationship and bring harm to the island country. Thus, some pundits consider Biden’s move towards a policy of clarity ‘reckless’ (e.g., Beinart, 2021). The above concern is a valid one. Figure 5 presents the trend of public preferences on Taiwan’s international status during the past two decades. The top two dashed lines show that roughly 15%–35% of Taiwanese citizens prefer the status quo indefinitely, and about one-third of them are ‘undetermined’ regarding the island’s future status in the international community. The middle two solid lines show that there is a small but increasing proportion of respondents prefer to keep the status quo now but move towards independence in the future, and that proportion has increased quite dramatically since 2018. An even smaller and declining proportion of them favour unification as a final goal. The bottom two dashed lines indicate that less than 10% of the island’s residents want to pursue immediate unification or independence. Taken together, the figure demonstrates that very few on the island want to be ruled by the Chinese Communist government as it is now. The vast majority of them want to maintain the status quo and prefer either a ‘kinder, gentler’ version of de facto independence, that is, maintaining status quo forever, or a permanent separation from China in the future.  Figure 5. Taiwan Citizens’ Position on Independence and Unification: 1994–2024.Source: Election Study Center, National Chengchi University (January 13, 2025). While Taiwan’s citizens prefer to preserve their democratic way of life, they understand the pursuit of independence will encounter violent reaction from China. Figure 6 shows that the majority of the public express a preference for de jure independence if cross-strait conflicts could be averted, but support for independence declines substantially if they believe that Beijing would launch an attack on Taiwan.2 Figure 7 also shows that 50%–60% of island citizens consistently believe that the United States will come to Taiwan’s defence if China launches an attack. The level of confidence is particularly high among supporters of the ruling DPP, which has a plank of pursuing Taiwan’s de jure independence. The above figures reveal that the public’s preferences over the island’s future relations with China are consistently conditioned by perceived risks. That is, they will refrain from declaring Taiwan’s independence if it involves such high risks as warring with China. The conditionality of Taiwanese citizens’ preferences indicates that, collectively, they are conditional revisionists; that is, they would refrain from taking actions unless opportunities arise. In addition, the public is highly confident that the United States will come to Taiwan’s aid if there is a cross-strait military conflict. Thus, strategic clarity is likely to further bolster Taiwan citizens’ unrealistic expectation of Washington’s security commitment as well as their support for policies that may be deemed provocative by Beijing leaders.  Figure 6. Support Independence With/Without War With China, 2003–2024.Source: Program in Asian Security Studies (Various years).  Figure 7. Taiwan Citizens’ Confidence in United States Security Commitment: 2003–2020.Source: Program in Asian Security Studies (Various years). The above findings appear to validate the concerns of proponents of strategic ambiguity, but a recent study with panel data collected on the island may alleviate such a concern (Wang & Cheng, 2023). Contrary to our expectations, Taiwanese citizens’ confidence in Washington’s security commitment has not increased but, in fact, decreased after Biden’s security pledges. The decline in confidence was mainly due to the pro-independence respondents’ shifting views. As noted, supporters of Taiwan independence historically have a higher level of confidence in America’s security commitment, which is cognitively consistent with their determination of pursuing the island country’s permanent separation from China. The war in Ukraine may be an awakening call for them as it demonstrates the Western hesitancy to undertake direct military intervention in overseas conflicts. The United States can have similar avoidance in a situation involving Taiwan. Despite Biden’s verbal assurance, actions speak louder than words. Pro-independence citizens’ shifting attitudes thus explain the declining confidence in Washington’s security commitment, which can also soften their calls for aggressive actions towards independence. Because panel analysis has long been considered one of the best ways of examining persistence and change of individuals’ attitudes, the results of the study are worth noting. Another identified pitfall of strategic clarity is that it signals what one ‘is prepared to take a risk for’ and ‘what one would ignore’ (Chang-Liao & Fang, 2021, p. 51). Given the heavy costs and uncertain outcomes, Chinese leaders are likely to avoid launching direct military attacks on Taiwan. Instead, they have employed and may continue to employ such ‘grey zone’ tactics as imposing economic sanctions on Taiwanese products, attacking the island’s information technology infrastructure, violating the island’s ADIZ and conducting military exercises for a de facto blockade. Without embarking on a conventional invasion of Taiwan that a policy of clarity intends to deter, these ‘low-intensity’ tactics can nonetheless have the effect of exhausting Taipei’s resources and eroding its resolve. Rather than discouraging Beijing’s aggressive and threatening behaviours, strategic clarity could undercut the effect of Washington’s deterrence policy. Such a criticism is also a legitimate concern, but it ignores the fact that Beijing embarked on grey zone approaches against Taiwan long before recent calls for clarity. This means that without setting a clear threshold for intervention has not stopped Chinese leaders from taking low-intensity provocations. China’s increasing clout and the perceived decline of America’s relative power seem to be the underlying factors to Beijing’s aggressive behaviour. Chinese leaders are apparently counting on Washington being ‘reactive and risk-averse’ (Sussex & Moloney, 2021). It will be incumbent on the United States to show its determination to confront China with coordinated responses. America’s policy of strategic ambiguity, therefore, remains crucial for cross-strait peace and stability, but it needs to be recalibrated. As China increasingly turns out to be a revisionist power, it is necessary for Washington to adjust its ambiguous posture in order to counter Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behaviour. The recalibration does not have to be a binary choice between ambiguity and clarity. Both policies can be treated as two ends of a continuum and can be adjusted accordingly. Given Beijing’s intense pressure campaign, Washington can step up its commitment to help Taiwan to defend itself for protecting democracy and America’s national interests. These measures include the development of a ‘porcupine’ defence strategy by enhancing Taipei’s asymmetric warfare capability, building military stockpile and forming an effective civil defence. Washington can also expand Taiwan’s integration with the international community lest Beijing employ its grey zone tactics to further isolate Taipei and deepen the island’s economic vulnerability. Ultimately, a successful deterrence policy will also depend on Washington’s convincing assurance that it would not support Taiwan’s pursuit of independence. Chinese leaders have a deep suspicion that the United States has a covert attempt to undermine China’s unification with Taiwan. America’s recalibration of its policy of strategic ambiguity is likely to be interpreted as a confirmation of their suspicion. If Beijing leaders believe that America’s policy will lead to Taiwan’s permanent separation from China, they are unlikely to submit to Washington’s demands. Trump 2.0 Donald Trump’s 2025 return to the White House for a second term as the president of the United States has added uncertainty to the policy of strategic ambiguity. Observers have noted that Trump is sceptical of the value of friends and allies as well as the benefits of international partnerships and alliances (Bush & Haas, 2024). Under the slogan of ‘America First’, he removed the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Lobosco, 2018), the Paris Climate Accord (White House, 2017, 2025a), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (Pompeo, 2019) and the UN Human Rights Council (White House, 2025b) and has mandated a comprehensive review of all international organisations to determine if the United States should withdraw its membership from or end its support for these organisations (White House, 2025b). He repeatedly admonished members of NATO, South Korea and Japan for not paying enough for United States protection (Reuters, 2024). His contempt for alliances and security partnerships has upended decades of American international engagement. In this context, two developments have direct implications for Taiwan. First, Trump has expressively suggested that the United States acquire Greenland (Erlanger & Smialek, 2025), take control of the Panama Canal (New York Times, 2025), and annex Canada as the 51st state of the United States (Colvin, 2025). His ambition for territory expansion has alarmed the world community3 and undermines an international principle that borders should not be changed through force or coercion. Trump’s threat regarding Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada could potentially embolden Chinese leaders to consider taking Taiwan by force (Sacks, 2025). Second, unlike Biden’s emphasis on the defence of democratic values in his support for American allies, Trump has taken a transactional approach to international affairs. His dealing with the Russo–Ukrainian conflict is a case in point. The Trump administration has placed heavy pressure on the Ukrainian government to sign over a huge portion of its mineral wealth to the United States in exchange for helping the country to defend itself (Taub, 2025). Some speculate that Trump’s alignment with Russia represents a strategy of ‘reverse Kissinger’ aiming to counter China’s rise (Editorial Board, 2025). Though such a strategy may potentially benefit Taiwan, many on the island are nevertheless alarmed by the Trump administration’s approach to the conflict, questioning if they can continue to count on American support (Buckley & Chien, 2025). Because Trump has expressed his desire to negotiate a broad economic deal with Beijing (Swanson, 2025), the Chinese government may offer concessions on a trade deal in exchange for Washington’s positions on Taiwan without Taipei’s involvement. Indeed, Trump has expressed scepticism about Taiwan’s value compared to China (Llorente, 2024). He previously also questioned America’s ability to defend the island country (Bolton, 2020). Even though the State Department recently removed the long-standing phrase that ‘[w]e do not support Taiwan independence’ from its Taiwan factsheet (US Department of State, 2021), leading some to speculate if it represents a strategic shift (Tao, 2025), Trump’s dubious attitude about the island country was fully displayed in a previous interview. Speaking in a transactional tone, Trump argued that ‘Taiwan should pay us for defence’ because ‘we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything’. He also complained that Taiwan had taken ‘almost 100%’ of the chip industry from the United States (Kharpal, 2024). In response to Trump’s inimical demands, by displaying Taiwan’s tangible value to the United States, the Taipei government has pledged to increase its defence spending to 3% of Taiwan’s gross domestic product (Office of the President, Republic of China [Taiwan], 2025). The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s largest chip manufacturer that produces the most advanced semiconductors—also announced plans to invest an additional $100 billion to expand its operations in the United States (Tang & Price, 2025).4 While the investment announcement was viewed favourably by Trump (Chung & Lee, 2025), it may be interpreted by Chinese leaders as a lack of resolve on the part of his administration due to Trump’s scepticism and versatile mindset. Given that credible threat is key to deterrence policy, the future and effectiveness of strategic ambiguity in Trump’s second term will be uncertain.ConclusionThe Taiwan Strait has been described as ‘the most dangerous place on Earth’ (Economist, 2021). A military conflict between China and Taiwan will have significant consequences. In addition to causing damage and human suffering on both sides, such a conflict could escalate into a direct confrontation involving two nuclear powers, threaten regional stability in East Asia, and undermine the prosperity of one of the most dynamic regions in the global economy. Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity has been effective in maintaining cross-strait peace and stability for several decades, but a recalibration is necessary due to an increasingly powerful and assertive China. Instead of changing to a policy of strategic clarity, the United States can adjust its ambiguous posture through strengthening Taiwan’s defence capabilities and advancing its international integration. By assuring that Washington seeks regional peace and stability, not Taiwan’s independence, the effects of the deterrence policy can be maintained, and risks of cross-strait military conflicts can be minimised. Trump’s return to the White House nevertheless has disrupted America’s traditional foreign policy of promoting freedom and democracy. Although he has not clarified the administration’s position on America’s support for Taiwan, his transactional approach suggests that he might use the cross-strait relationship as leverage over Beijing. Washington’s policy towards Taiwan is expected to be less predictable, potentially leading to a volatile Taiwan Strait during Trump’s second term. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.Footnotes1. Biden previously provided such an assurance in May of 2022 (Kanno-Youngs & Baker, 2022), October of 2021 (Hunnicutt, 2021) and August of 2021 (ABC News, 2021). 2. The attempts to explore the conditionality of Taiwanese residents’ policy preferences include Hsieh and Niou (2005), Niou (2004) and Wu (1993, 1996). 3. There have been strong public reactions in Canada to Trump’s threats to make Canada the 51st state of the United States. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also met with British King Charles III, the country’s head of state, to discuss the issue (Hui, 2025). 4. Without making a security commitment, Trump indicated that TSMC’s investment ‘will at least give us a position where we have, in this very, very important business, we would have a very big part of it in the United States’ (Tang & Price, 2025). References ABC News. (2021, August 19). Full transcript of ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos’ interview with President Joe Biden. Retrieved, 12 October 2021, from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-interview-president/story?id=79535643 Barnett R. (2021, May 7). China is building entire villages in another country’s territory. Foreign Policy. Retrieved, 9 May 2021, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/07/china-bhutan-border-villages-security-forces/ Beinart P. (2021, May 5). Biden’s Taiwan policy is truly, deeply reckless. The New York Times. Retrieved, 28 May 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/opinion/biden-taiwan-china.html Benson B. (2022, May 25). Why it makes sense for the US to not commit to defending Taiwan. The Washington Post. Retrieved, 25 May 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/25/biden-taiwan-strategic-ambiguity/ Blanchard B. (2021, January 20). Taiwan-Biden ties off to strong start with invite for top diplomat. Reuters. Retrieved, 10 March 2025, from https://www.reuters.com/article/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-biden-ties-off-to-strong-start-with-invite-for-top-diplomat-idUSKBN29Q01M/ Blinken A. J. (2022, May 26). The administration’s approach to the People’s Republic of China. US Department of State. Retrieved, 26 October 2022, from https://www.state.gov/the-administrations-approach-to-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ Bolton J. (2020, June 17). John Bolton: The scandal of Trump’s China policy. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved, 4 March 2025, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-bolton-the-scandal-of-trumps-china-policy-11592419564 Brunnstrom D., & Martina M. (2021, April 13). Biden sends unofficial delegation to Taiwan in ‘personal signal’. Reuters. Retrieved, 28 May 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/world/china/biden-sends-unofficial-delegation-taiwan-underscore-commitment-white-house-2021-04-13/ Buckley C., & Chien A. C. (2025, February 25). Taiwan watches Trump undercut Ukraine, hoping it won’t be next. The New York Times. Retrieved, 25 February 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/world/asia/trump-ukraine-taiwan.html Bush R. (2006). The US policy of dual deterrence. In Tsang S. (Ed.), If China attacks Taiwan: Military strategy, politics and economics (pp. 35–53). Routledge. Bush R., & Haas R. (2024, October 3). How would the Trump or Harris administration approach Taiwan? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-would-the-trump-or-harris-administration-approach-taiwan/ Centre for Preventive Action. (2022, May 4). Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Global Conflict Tracker, Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved, 10 September 2022, from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea Chan S. (2003). Extended deterrence in the Taiwan Strait: Learning from rationalist explanations in international relations. World Affairs, 166(2), 109–125. Chang-Liao N.-C., & Fang C. (2021). The case for maintaining strategic ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait. Washington Quarterly, 44(2), 45–60. Christensen T. J. (2002). The contemporary security dilemma: Deterring a Taiwan conflict. Washington Quarterly, 25(4), 7–21. Christensen T., Fravel T., Glaser B., Nathan A., & Weiss J. C. (2022). How to avoid a war over Taiwan: Threats, assurances, and effective deterrence. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved, 1 December 2022, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/how-avoid-war-over-taiwan Chung Y.-C., & Lee H.-Y. (2025, March 8). Trump softens stance on Taiwan after TSMC’s $100b investment. Focus Taiwan. https://www.techinasia.com/news/trump-softens-stance-on-taiwan-after-tsmcs-100b-investment Chung Y.-C., Wu S.-W., & Huang F. (2024, November 30). US approves US$387 million arms sales to Taiwan. Focus Taiwan. Retrieved, 10 March 2025, from https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202411300004 Colvin J. (2025, February 9). Trump says he is serious about Canada becoming 51st state in Super Bowl interview. Associated Press. Retrieved, 3 March 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/canada-gulf-america-super-bowl-bret-baier-musk-7e1959c7d430899b01629c800db6f17b Congressional Research Service. (2024, May 23). Taiwan: Background and US relations. In Focus. Retrieved, 9 November 2024, from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10275 Economist. (2021, May 1). The most dangerous place on Earth. Retrieved, 16 May 2021, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/05/01/the-mostdangerous-place-on-earth Editorial Board. (2025, March 11). What’s the strategy behind Trump’s pivot to Russia? Washington Post. Retrieved, 15 March 2025, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/11/trump-russia-ukraine-reverse-kissinger/ Election Study Center, National Chengchi University. (January 13, 2025). Trends of core political attitudes. https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 Erlanger S., & Smialek J. (2025, January 28). Trump alarms Denmark in an icy exchange over Greenland. New York Times. Retrieved, 9 March 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/26/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark.html?searchResultPosition=3 European Council. (2021, June 13). Our shared agenda for global action to build back better. Carbis Bay G7 Summit Communiqué. Retrieved, 6 September 2021, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50361/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique.pdf Fadel L. (2022, August 18). How the new CHIPS Act could ease supply constraints. National Public Radio. Retrieved, 19 August 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118094330/how-the-new-chips-act-could-ease-supply-constraints  Haass R., & Sacks D. (2020, September 2). American support for Taiwan must be unambiguous. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved, 15 April 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/american-support-taiwan-must-be-unambiguous Hsieh J. F.-S., & Niou E. M. S. (2005). Measuring Taiwanese public opinion on Taiwanese independence. The China Quarterly, 181(1), 158–168. Hui S. (2025, March 3). King Charles III welcomes Canada’s Trudeau for talks overshadowed by Trump’s annexation comments. Associated Press. Retrieved, 4 March 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/king-charles-trudeau-canada-trump-a475587880917f210c8aa40d252e790d Hunnicutt T. (2021, October 22). Biden says United States would come to Taiwan’s defense. Reuters. Retrieved, 16 January 2023, from https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/biden-says-united-states-would-come-taiwans-defense-2021-10-22/ Kanno-Youngs Z., & Baker P. (2022, May 23). Biden pledges to defend Taiwan if it faces a Chinese attack. The New York Times. Retrieved, 25 May 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/world/asia/biden-taiwan-china.html Kastner S. L. (2006). Ambiguity, economic interdependence, and the US strategic dilemma in the Taiwan Strait. Journal of Contemporary China, 15(49), 651–669. Kharpal A. (2024, July 18). Trump says Taiwan should pay the US for defense; shares of chip giant TSMC fall. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/trump-says-taiwan-should-pay-the-us-for-defense-shares-of-tsmc-fall.html Lendon B. (2021, March 24). Chinese threat to Taiwan ‘closer to us than most think’, top US admiral says. CNN. Retrieved, 31 March 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/asia/indo-pacific-commander-aquilino-hearing-taiwan-intl-hnk-ml/index.html Llorente V. (2024, July 16). The Donald Trump interview transcript. Bloomberg Businessweek. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-trump-interview-transcript/?sref=rjdgzTGZ Lobosco K. (2018, December 29). Trump pulled out of a massive trade deal. Now 11 countries are going ahead without the US. CNN. Retrieved, 12 November 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/tpp-trade-trump/index.html Lonergan E., & Mueller G. B. (2022, August 15). What are the implications of the cyber dimension of the China-Taiwan crisis? Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved, 6 September 2022, from https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-are-implications-cyber-dimension-china-taiwan-crisis  Lopez G. (2022, March 20). Is Taiwan next? The New York Times. Retrieved, 11 April 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/briefing/taiwan-china-ukraine-russia.html Maizland L. (2020, February 5). China’s modernizing military. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved, 1 May 2021, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-modernizing-military Ministry of National Defence R.O.C. (various years). Military news update. https://www.mnd.gov.tw/English/PublishTable.aspx?types=Military%20News%20Update&Title=News%20Channel National Statistics, R.O.C. (Taiwan). (various years). Macro database. Retrieved, 13 March 2025, from https://nstatdb.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbasAll/webMain.aspx?sys=100&funid=dgmaind New York Times. (2025, March 5). Full transcript of President Trump’s speech to Congress. Retrieved, 5 March 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/politics/transcript-trump-speech-congress.html Ng K., & Wingfield-Hayes R. (2024, October 22). China holds live-fire drills on island closest to Taiwan. BBC. Retrieved, 5 March 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rlrv1qewqo Niou E. M. S. (2004). Understanding Taiwan independence and its policy implications. Asian Survey, 44(4), 555–567. Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2025, February 14). President Lai holds press conference following high-level national security meeting. Retrieved, 27 February 2025, from https://english.president.gov.tw/News/6908 Olay M. (2024, September 16). Threat from China increasing, Air Force official says. US Department of Defense. Retrieved, 2 March 2025, from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3907669/threat-from-china-increasing-air-force-official-says/#:~:text=%22I’ve%20been%20closely%20watching,Air%20and%20Space%20Force%20personnel Pelley S. (2022, September 18). President Joe Biden: The 2022 60 Minutes interview. CBS 60-Minutes. Retrieved, 10 October 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-joe-biden-60-minutes-interview-transcript-2022-09-18/ Pompeo M. R. (2019, August 2). US withdrawal from the INF Treaty on August 2, 2019. US Department of State. Retrieved, 12 November 2024, from https://2017-2021.state.gov/u-s-withdrawal-from-the-inf-treaty-on-august-2-2019/ Prime Minister of Australia. (2022, October 22). Australia-Japan Leaders’ Meeting joint statement. Retrieved, 10 December 2023, from https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australia-japan-leadersmeeting-joint-statement Program in Asian Security Studies. (Various years). Taiwan National Security Survey. https://sites.duke.edu/tnss/ Reuters. (2024, November 6). Trump’s US election win may bring NATO members’ defense spending back into focus. https://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-us-election-win-may-bring-nato-members-defense-spending-back-into-focus-2024-11-06/ Sacks D. (2025, February 21). Trump is making Taiwan more vulnerable. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved, 27 February 2025, from https://www.cfr.org/blog/trump-making-taiwan-more-vulnerable Sanger D. (2021, October 29). Secret talks and a hidden agenda: Behind the US defense deal that France called a ‘betrayal’. New York Times. Retrieved, 4 September 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/us-france-australia-betrayal.html Schelling T. (1966). Arms and influence. Yale University Press. Schmitt G., & Mazza M. (2020, September 17). The end of ‘strategic ambiguity’ regarding Taiwan. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved, 16 June 2021, from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-end-of-strategic-ambiguity-regarding-taiwan/ SIPRI. (various years). SIPRI military expenditure database. Retrieved, 13 March 2025, from https://milex.sipri.org/sipri State Council of the PRC. (1993). The Taiwan question and reunification of China. Beijing Review, 36(36), 5–6. Sussex M., & Moloney C. (2021, July 6). How the US can recapture escalation control. Strategy Bridge. Retrieved, 6 September 2022, from https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2021/7/6/how-the-us-can-recapture-escalation-control?rq=escalation Swanson A. (2025, February 19). Trump eyes a bigger, better trade deal with China. New York Times. Retrieved, 4 March 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/business/economy/trump-china-trade-deal.html Tang D., & Price M. L. (2025, March 3). Giant chipmaker TSMC to spend $100B to expand chip manufacturing in US, Trump announces. Associated Press. Retrieved, 5 March 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/trump-tsmc-chip-manufacturing-tariffs-42980704ffca62e823182422ee4b7b83 Tao B. X. (2025, February 18). Did the US just change its Taiwan policy? The Diplomat. Retrieved, 6 March 2025, from https://thediplomat.com/2025/02/did-the-us-just-change-its-taiwan-policy/ Taub A. (2025, February 25). Trump’s Ukraine mineral deal is seen as ‘protection racket’ diplomacy. New York Times. Retrieved, 4 March 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/world/europe/trump-us-ukraine-mineral-deal.html?searchResultPosition=3 UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2022, August 31). OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. United Nations. Retrieved, 10 September 2022, from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf US Department of State. (2021, January 20). Major non-NATO ally status [Fact sheet]. Retrieved, 18 September 2022, from https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/ US Government Publishing Office. (2022). Public Law 117-263—James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. GovInfo. Retrieved, 10 March 2025, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ263/pdf/PLAW-117publ263.pdf Wang T.Y. (2010). Cross-strait rapprochement and US policy toward the Taiwan issue. Issues & Studies, 46(3), 129–149. Wang T.Y. (2017). Taiwan citizens’ views on cross-strait relations: Pragmatic but ambivalent. In Cheng T. J., & Lee W.-C. (Eds.), National security, public opinion and regime asymmetry: A six country study (pp. 21–48). World Scientific. Wang T.Y. (Ed.). (2023). Hong Kong and the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement [Special issue]. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096221124983 Wang T.Y., & Cheng S.-F. (2023). Strategic clarity and Taiwan citizens’ confidence in US security commitment. Asian Survey, 64(1), 54–78. White House. (2017, June 1). Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. Retrieved, 12 November 2024, from https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/ White House. (2021a, May 21). US-ROK leaders’ joint statement [Briefing room]. Retrieved, 6 September 2021, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/21/u-s-rok-leaders-joint-statement/ White House. (2021b, April 16). US-Japan joint leaders’ statement: ‘US–Japan global partnership for a new era’ [Briefing room]. Retrieved, 10 December 2023, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/16/u-s-japan-joint-leadersstatement-u-s-japan-global-partnership-for-a-new-era/ White House. (2022, October). National security strategy. Retrieved, 1 November 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf White House. (2025a, January 20). Putting America first in international environmental agreements. Federal Register. Retrieved, 4 March 2025, from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/30/2025-02010/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements White House. (2025b, February 5). Withdrawing the United States from and ending funding to certain United Nations organizations and reviewing United States support to all international organizations. Retrieved, 3 March 2025, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-and-ending-funding-to-certain-united-nations-organizations-and-reviewing-united-states-support-to-all-international-organizations/ World Bank Group. (various years-a). GDP per capita growth (annual %)–China. The World Bank. Retrieved, 13 March 2025, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=CN World Bank Group. (various years-b). GDP (current US$)–China. Retrieved, 13 March 2025, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CN Wu N. (1993). National identity and party support: The social basis of party competition in Taiwan. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, 74, 33–61. Wu N. (1996). Liberalism and ethnic identity: Searching for the ideological foundation of Taiwanese nationalism. Taiwanese Political Science Review, 1(1), 5–40

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 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.

Dr. Gabriele Abbondanza is Lecturer and Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Madrid (UCM), Associate Researcher at the University of Sydney (USYD), and Associate Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI).As the Indo-Pacific gradually becomes the world’s geopolitical and geoeconomic epicentre, states and regional organisations are progressively pivoting to it. Due to a combination of drivers – chiefly US pressure, economic opportunities, strategic interests and politico-normative priorities – European and Indo-Pacific actors have increased cooperation with Washington and NATO in the region. However, the second Trump administration looks considerably less aligned with the conventional pillars of US foreign policy. In light of the unfolding fracture between the US and its European allies over Ukraine, what lies ahead for NATO-Europe-US cooperation in the Indo-Pacific? [1] The priorities of NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners The so-called Indo-Pacific Four (Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand – IP4) are NATO’s regional partners as well as formal US allies, each of them with specific priorities and concerns. Australia is possibly the US’s most unwavering ally in the Indo-Pacific. Canberra has second-tier yet noticeable military capabilities, a large military expenditure and moderate expeditionary experience.[2] The country has cooperated with NATO in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, and is a NATO “Enhanced Opportunities Partner”.[3] Consequently, greater Australia-NATO cooperation in the Indo-Pacific is foreseeable, although this would require US approval and would be subject to President Trump’s transactional approach. Japan is another steadfast Indo-Pacific player, being the country in which the modern iteration of the “Indo-Pacific” as a strategic concept originated. Tokyo is acutely threat-aware – its exclusive economic zones border both China’s and Russia’s – and is entirely aligned with Washington. Despite the country’s constitutional and budgetary limitations, its military capabilities are very significant, although their deployments are traditionally minimal. Japan has mostly supported NATO via financial means, yet the latest tailored partnership shows much scope for future cooperation. As with Australia, any major NATO-oriented development is subordinated to US approval. South Korea is a more recent component of the Indo-Pacific equation, chiefly due to its vast security-trade divide visà-vis the US (a treaty ally with around 30,000 troops stationed in the country) and China (whose bilateral trade is worth over 300 billion dollars). Even so, the country is now more explicitly aligned with the US, and although its contribution to NATO activities is less prominent than Australia’s, Seoul’s position as a major defence player could stimulate stronger cooperation with the Alliance in the region. Once again, a continuing US commitment would be a prerequisite in this case too. Lastly, New Zealand, arguably the “odd man out” among the IP4 due to its low threat perception, its focus on non-traditional security, the nuclear-free policy in its waters, a consequently “milder” relationship with the US, and its lower material capabilities. Still, Wellington has recently performed passing exercises (PASSEXs),[4] it has previously supported NATO in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean, and currently focuses on technology and military capacitybuilding. Hence, more cooperation in these specific areas could be envisioned, given their “low-security” perimeter. In short, the IP4 displays varying degrees of Indo-Pacific cooperation with NATO. While there is a general convergence on greater involvement, stronger cooperation traditionally requires US consent, which is a less straightforward condition compared to the past. Europe at a crossroads Europe’s interaction with the IndoPacific is gaining momentum, despite being relatively recent. The spillover effects of Indo-Pacific security issues have prompted a widespread recognition of the region’s significance, including the “big four” (France, the UK, Germany and Italy) with their broad alignment to the US, large material capabilities (and blue-water navies) and expeditionary experience.[5] This development holds much promise for Europe-NATO convergence in the region, also considering their substantial cooperation in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. France spearheaded the European approach to the Indo-Pacific, on account of its status of “resident power” (with overseas territories, population and military bases in the region), through an effective combination of hard and soft power. The UK, the only other resident power, has systematically engaged with the region in more recent times, following a more traditional (USled) balancing strategy. Germany and the Netherlands, two major trading nations, tend to interact with the IndoPacific in a more “neutral” way, with Germany trying to limit its excessive reliance on China. Italy represents a particular case, as its economic, normative and security engagement (including major deployments and naval diplomacy) in the region is both rooted and substantial (the country’s “Enlarged Mediterranean” sphere of interest overlaps with the western Indo-Pacific), although it does not have a formal regional strategy (yet).[6] The EU, too, has openly recognised the necessity of an Indo-Pacific pivot and is pursuing it with its own policy tools.[7] Lastly, other European countries – virtually all NATO members – are gradually refocusing on this region. However, the widening fracture with Europe’s greatest ally – the US – marks a major shift in transatlantic relations. While this may not be a permanent turn in US foreign policy, Washington’s instability is prompting Europe to do more, to do better and to do it rapidly. On the one hand, the current US posture is already spurring a greater European role in its immediate neighbourhood, which undoubtedly remains the main priority area. On the other, given that Europe’s interests are now inextricably intertwined with the Indo-Pacific, a stronger European activism in this region is altogether possible, mainly due to economic, strategic and political interests, in addition to renewed US burden-sharing pressures. As more intense rivalry with China is unlikely due to well-known issues concerning political and material resources, greater cooperation with Europe’s many IndoPacific partners – including the NATO IP4[8] – may well represent a realistic step forward towards further developing European countries’ role in the region. To achieve this, Europe needs a more realistic (that is, higher) threat awareness, greater defence spending, more integrated defence systems[9] and, arguably, a European security-oriented minilateral which gathers a “coalition of the willing” aiming to protect Europe and its partners. This can take the form of a “European pillar” within NATO and/or a European defence union, among other options. Although these are remarkably ambitious goals, challenging times warrant more decisive actions. Shockwaves from Washington, and how to navigate them In the Euro-Atlantic area, Washington is the informal though undisputed leader within NATO; in the Indo-Pacific, it is at the helm of a ‘hub and spokes system’ of alliances and partnerships. This latticework of security architectures has guaranteed stability for US allies – and US primacy – for around 80 years.[10] Today, this unprecedented collective security endeavour faces not only external challenges – chiefly Russian and Chinese revisionism – but also internal ones due to Trump’s destabilising policies. The latter are creating divisions among NATO and Indo-Pacific allies, preoccupations among Indo-Pacific partners (Taiwan above all) and, conversely, greater confidence among systemic rivals. While Washington’s sudden unreliability in supporting Ukraine cannot be fully compared to the Taiwan case – chiefly due to the US grand strategy’s emphasis on the IndoPacific – the Trump administration’s recent foreign policy demands higher cooperation between NATO’s members and global partners. Stronger support for maritime security, interoperability, reciprocal access agreements and cooperation on non-traditional security issues are necessary. Nevertheless, this shouldn’t necessarily take place with NATO’s official aegis, given the Indo-Pacific’s traditional wariness of security-based initiatives, hard power politics and confrontational approaches more in general, which has led to many states adopting “hedging postures” over the years. Amidst the volatile 2020s, two final implications stand out. First, the IndoPacific’s sheer importance can no longer be ignored. While other regions acknowledged it long ago, Europe is making up for the time lost, although it still lacks a unified approach. Second, as the US adds to global uncertainties rather than addressing them, allies and partners must assume greater international roles while hoping that cooperation eventually resumes. This should prompt greater EuropeIndo-Pacific-NATO cooperation in light of growing economic, political, and security interdependence.  Some recent developments – the Draghi and Letta reports for the EU, the European Commission’s response to them, NATO’s resilience amid this uncertainty – are promising, though only time will tell if they will produce the foreign policy shifts that are required to adapt to a more challenging 21st century. NOTES & REFERENCES [1] This op-ed draws on the author’s contribution to a recent high-level roundtable organised by the NATO Defense College Foundation. See “A Roma esperti a confronto sul futuro ruolo della Nato nell’Indo-Pacifico”, in Agenzia Nova, 4 March 2025, https://www.agenzianova.com/news/?p=395219.  [2] Elcano Royal Institute, Elcano Global Presence Index 2023: Australia,https://www.globalpresence.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/countrySheetPage?countries=36&years=2023. [3] NATO, Relations with Partners in the IndoPacific Region, 24 October 2024, https://www.nato.int/cps/el/natohq/topics_183254.htm. [4] They entail the passage (without military exercises) through international or territorial waters as granted by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.[5] Gabriele Abbondanza and Thomas Wilkins, “Europe in the Indo-Pacific: Economic, Security, and Normative Engagement”, in International Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 5 (November 2024), p. 640-646, https:// doi.org/10.1177/01925121231202694; Elcano Royal Institute, Elcano Global Presence Index 2023, https://www.globalpresence. realinstitutoelcano.org/en. [6] Gabriele Abbondanza, “Italy’s Quiet Pivot to the Indo-Pacific: Towards an Italian Indo-Pacific Strategy”, in International Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 5 (November 2024), p. 669- 679, https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231190093. [7] Gorana Grgić, “Ambition, Meet Reality: The European Union’s Actorness in the Indo-Pacific”, in International Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 5 (November 2024), p. 680-689, https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231191275. [8] Giulio Pugliese, “How to Facilitate NATOIP4 Defense Industrial Cooperation: The Case of Italy and Japan”, in Liselotte Odgaard (ed.), Moving the NATO-IP4 Partnership from Dialogue to Cooperation Maritime Security and Next-Generation Technologies, Washington, Hudson Institute, March 2025, p. 32-35, https:// www.hudson.org/node/49515. [9]  Gaia Ravazzolo and Alessandro Marrone, “EU Defence Industrial Initiatives: A Quantum Leap Is Needed”, in IAI Commentaries, No. 24|79 (December 2024),https://www.iai.it/en/node/19309. [10] Thomas Wilkins, “A Hub-and-Spokes ‘Plus’ Model of US Alliances in the Indo-Pacific: Towards a New ‘Networked’ Design”, in Elena Atanassova-Cornelis Yoichiro Sato and Tom Sauer (eds), Alliances in Asia and Europe. The Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategic Context and Inter-Regional Alignments, London, Routledge, 2023, p. 8-31. 

International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren’t doing enough to limit dangerous global warming. Summary Countries have debated how to combat climate change since the early 1990s. These negotiations have produced several important accords, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Governments generally agree on the science behind climate change but have diverged on who is most responsible, how to track emissions-reduction goals, and whether to compensate harder-hit countries. The findings of the first global stocktake, discussed at the 2023 UN Climate Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), concluded that governments need to do more to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5°C. Introduction Over the last several decades, governments have collectively pledged to slow global warming. But despite intensified diplomacy, the world is already facing the consequences of climate change, and they are expected to get worse. Through the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps rising, heating the Earth at an alarming rate. Scientists warn that if this warming continues unabated, it could bring environmental catastrophe to much of the world, including staggering sea-level rise, devastating wildfires, record-breaking droughts and floods, and widespread species loss. Since negotiating the Paris accord in 2015, many of the 195 countries that are party to the agreement have strengthened their climate commitments—to include pledges on curbing emissions and supporting countries in adapting to the effects of extreme weather—during the annual UN climate conferences known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). While experts note that clear progress has been made towards the clean energy transition, cutting current emissions has proven challenging for the world’s top emitters. The United States, for instance, could be poised to ramp up fossil fuel production linked to global warming under the Donald Trump administration, which has previously minimized the effects of climate change and has withdrawn twice from the Paris Agreement. What are the most important international agreements on climate change? Montreal Protocol, 1987. Though not intended to tackle climate change, the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was a historic environmental accord that became a model for future diplomacy on the issue. Every country in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The protocol has succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, parties agreed via the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, the landmark accord [PDF] was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, and established a system to monitor countries’ progress. But the treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.  Paris Agreement, 2015. The most significant global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. Governments set targets, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to reach global net-zero emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere, in the second half of the century. (This is also known as being climate neutral or carbon neutral.) The United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, is the only country to withdraw from the agreement, a move President Donald Trump made during his first administration in 2017. While former President Joe Biden reentered the agreement during his first day in office, Trump again withdrew the United States on the first day of his second administration in 2025. Three other countries have not formally approved the agreement: Iran, Libya, and Yemen. Is there a consensus on the science of climate change? Yes, there is a broad consensus among the scientific community, though some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, there is “less skepticism about the science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” says David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that:• the Earth’s average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate; • human activities, namely the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are the primary drivers of this rapid warming and climate change; and,• continued warming is expected to have harmful effects worldwide. Data taken from ice cores shows that the Earth’s average temperature is rising more now than it has in eight hundred thousand years. Scientists say this is largely a result of human activities over the last 150 years, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities have dramatically increased the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body established in 1988, regularly assesses the latest climate science and produces consensus-based reports for countries. Why are countries aiming to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C? Scientists have warned for years of catastrophic environmental consequences if global temperature continues to rise at the current pace. The Earth’s average temperature has already increased approximately 1.1°C above preindustrial levels, according to a 2023 assessment by the IPCC. The report, drafted by more than two hundred scientists from over sixty countries, predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately. (Several estimates report that global warming already surpassed that threshold in 2024.) An earlier, more comprehensive IPCC report summarized the severe effects expected to occur when the global temperature warms by 1.5°C: Heat waves. Many regions will suffer more hot days, with about 14 percent of people worldwide being exposed to periods of severe heat at least once every five years. Droughts and floods. Regions will be more susceptible to droughts and floods, making farming more difficult, lowering crop yields, and causing food shortages.  Rising seas. Tens of millions of people live in coastal regions that will be submerged in the coming decades. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable. Ocean changes. Up to 90 percent of coral reefs will be wiped out, and oceans will become more acidic. The world’s fisheries will become far less productive. Arctic ice thaws. At least once a century, the Arctic will experience a summer with no sea ice, which has not happened in at least two thousand years. Forty percent of the Arctic’s permafrost will thaw by the end of the century.  Species loss. More insects, plants, and vertebrates will be at risk of extinction.  The consequences will be far worse if the 2°C threshold is reached, scientists say. “We’re headed toward disaster if we can’t get our warming in check and we need to do this very quickly,” says Alice C. Hill, CFR senior fellow for energy and the environment. Which countries are responsible for climate change? The answer depends on who you ask and how you measure emissions. Ever since the first climate talks in the 1990s, officials have debated which countries—developed or developing—are more to blame for climate change and should therefore curb their emissions. Developing countries argue that developed countries have emitted more greenhouse gases over time. They say these developed countries should now carry more of the burden because they were able to grow their economies without restraint. Indeed, the United States has emitted the most of all time, followed by the European Union (EU).   However, China and India are now among the world’s top annual emitters, along with the United States. Developed countries have argued that those countries must do more now to address climate change.   In the context of this debate, major climate agreements have evolved in how they pursue emissions reductions. The Kyoto Protocol required only developed countries to reduce emissions, while the Paris Agreement recognized that climate change is a shared problem and called on all countries to set emissions targets. What progress have countries made since the Paris Agreement? Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress toward implementing the agreement through a process known as the global stocktake. The first of these reports, released in September 2023, warned governments that “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.” That said, countries have made some breakthroughs during the annual UN climate summits, such as the landmark commitment to establish the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The fund aims to address the inequality of climate change by providing financial assistance to poorer countries, which are often least responsible for global emissions yet most vulnerable to climate disasters. At COP28, countries decided that the fund will be initially housed at the World Bank, with several wealthy countries, such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and EU members, initially pledging around $430 million combined. At COP29, developed countries committed to triple their finance commitments to developing countries, totalling $300 billion annually by 2035. Recently, there have been global efforts to cut methane emissions, which account for more than half of human-made warming today because of their higher potency and heat trapping ability within the first few decades of release. The United States and EU introduced a Global Methane Pledge at COP26, which aims to slash 30 percent of methane emissions levels between 2020 and 2030. At COP28, oil companies announced they would cut their methane emissions from wells and drilling by more than 80 percent by the end of the decade. However, pledges to phase out fossil fuels were not renewed the following year at COP29. Are the commitments made under the Paris Agreement enough? Most experts say that countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The policies of Paris signatories as of late 2022 could result in a 2.7°C (4.9°F) rise by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker compiled by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute. “The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognized as not being enough,” says CFR’s Hill. “It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions.” Since 2015, dozens of countries—including the top emitters—have submitted stronger pledges. For example, President Biden announced in 2021 that the United States will aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, doubling former President Barack Obama’s commitment. The following year, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that could get the country close to reaching that goal. Meanwhile, the EU pledged to reduce emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and China said it aims to reach peak emissions before 2030. But the world’s average temperature will still rise more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 even if countries fully implement their pledges for 2030 and beyond. If the more than one hundred countries that have set or are considering net-zero targets follow through, warming could be limited to 1.8˚C (3.2°F), according to the Climate Action Tracker.   What are the alternatives to the Paris Agreement? Some experts foresee the most meaningful climate action happening in other forums. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding and are destined to fail. The best way to cut global emissions, he says, would be to have governments negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus on country emissions limits. Others propose new agreements [PDF] that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Agreement.  In recent years, climate diplomacy has occurred increasingly through minilateral groupings. The Group of Twenty (G20), representing countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution, has pledged to stop financing new coal-fired power plants abroad and agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of this decade. However, G20 governments have thus far failed to set a deadline to phase out fossil fuels. In 2022, countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions for commercial aviation by 2050. Meanwhile, cities around the world have made their own pledges. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments [PDF] have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets. Industry is also a large source of carbon pollution, and many firms have said they will try to reduce their emissions or become carbon neutral or carbon negative, meaning they would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The Science Based Targets initiative, a UK-based company considered the “gold standard” in validating corporate net-zero plans, says it has certified the plans of  over three thousand firms, and aims to more than triple this total by 2025. Still, analysts say that many challenges remain, including questions over the accounting methods and a lack of transparency in supply chains. Recommended Resources This timeline tracks UN climate talks since 1992. CFR Education’s latest resources explain everything to know about climate change.  The Climate Action Tracker assesses countries’ updated NDCs under the Paris Agreement. CFR Senior Fellow Varun Sivaram discusses how the 2025 U.S. wildfires demonstrate the need to rethink climate diplomacy and adopt a pragmatic response to falling short of global climate goals. In this series on climate change and instability by the Center for Preventive Action, CFR Senior Fellow Michelle Gavin looks at the consequences for the Horn of Africa and the National Defense University’s Paul J. Angelo for Central America. This backgrounder by Clara Fong unpacks the global push for climate financing.

The Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the China-CELAC Forum does not mark the end of a stage, but the beginning of a new phase in the Sino-Latin American relationship. Since its inception in 2014, the China–CELAC Forum (FCC) has gone through three key stages that outline its evolution. The first ministerial meeting, held in Beijing in 2015, laid the normative foundation for the mechanism, establishing its intergovernmental and voluntary nature. The second, held in Santiago, Chile, in 2018, consolidated priority areas of cooperation and linked the Forum to the Belt and Road Initiative. The third, held virtually in 2021, updated the agenda in a pandemic context, incorporating new topics such as health, digitalization, and sustainability. After a period of relative inertia, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting—held on May 13, 2025, in Beijing—represented a turning point both in ambition and strategic scope. It is essential to remember that the Ministerial Meeting constitutes the highest level of deliberation within the mechanism, bringing together the foreign ministers of China and Latin American countries. In this edition, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi presided over the sessions, emphasizing that, as developing countries and members of the Global South, China and Latin America must coordinate efforts to defend their legitimate rights and interests. As a result of the meeting, two key documents were adopted: the Beijing Declaration and the Joint Action Plan 2025–2027, approved by all 33 participating countries—with the exception of Argentina, which chose not to endorse the documents. Although the FCC is primarily ministerial in design, it occasionally takes on a broader political dimension, with the participation of heads of state and government. Such was the case this time, as the intervention of President Xi Jinping—host and central figure of the meeting—gave the forum a strategic tone and outlined its future roadmap. In the face of global challenges such as unilateralism, trade wars, and the climate crisis, Xi proposed a cooperation architecture based on five strategic programs combining political, economic, social, cultural, and security objectives. First, the Solidarity Program reflects the political dimension. In this regard, Xi Jinping stated that “China is ready to continue supporting each other with LAC [Latin America and the Caribbean] on matters concerning our respective core interests and major concerns.” This stance contrasts with more restrictive approaches promoted by the United States, such as during the IX Summit of the Americas (2022), where Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were excluded. Moreover, the Beijing gathering fits into an active diplomatic sequence that includes the G20 summit in Rio (November 2024), APEC in Lima (November 2024), and the upcoming BRICS summit in July 2025, also in Rio. Far from being symbolic gestures, the frequency of these encounters reveals a convergent strategy of global engagement on China’s part, based on sustained regional alliances. Second, the Development Program encompasses the economic dimension. This pillar aims to promote cooperation in growth, investment, and productive transformation, expanding into strategic sectors such as artificial intelligence, the digital economy, and clean energy. Xi announced a credit line of 66 billion yuan to support regional development, which constitutes not only a financial contribution but also a clear sign of confidence in Latin America amid trade fragmentation and the reconfiguration of global value chains. Third, the Civilizations Program expresses the cultural dimension in the cooperation agreements. Beijing promotes intercivilizational dialogue grounded in equality, mutual learning, and inclusion. This translates into initiatives such as Latin American Art Seasons in China, joint heritage conservation projects, and comparative studies on ancient civilizations. In a region historically influenced by American cultural ideology, this strategy seeks to diversify symbolic references, strengthen Chinese soft power, and project a more respectful and relatable image in Latin America. Fourth, the Peace Program underscores the increasingly relevant security dimension. This pillar marks a qualitative evolution in China’s outreach to the region, as it addresses non-traditional security issues from a cooperative standpoint. Based on support for the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace (CELAC, 2014), China proposes to strengthen collaboration in areas such as cybersecurity, counterterrorism, corruption, drug trafficking, and organized crime. This approach reinforces the principles of non-interference and peaceful resolution, aligning with the concrete needs of Latin American states. Fifth, the People-to-People Program expresses the social dimension. This component consolidates the social connection between China and Latin America through scholarships, technical training, Chinese-language teacher education, and community projects. The inclusion of tourism as a focal point—alongside the upcoming implementation of a visa waiver policy for five Latin American countries—highlights the intention to promote direct exchange between populations. The five programs outlined by Xi Jinping—solidarity (political), development (economic), civilizations (cultural), peace (security), and people (social)—constitute a comprehensive framework that positions China as a multidimensional partner for Latin America. This strategic vision is grounded in an already robust economic relationship: in 2024, bilateral trade surpassed $500 billion, reaching the goal set a decade ago. In this context, the third edition of the White Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean is expected to be published soon, a document that will complement the commitments made in the final declaration and the Action Plan adopted in Beijing. Thus, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the China–CELAC Forum does not mark the end of a phase, but the beginning of a new chapter in Sino–Latin American relations. The scope and quality of this phase will depend on the ability of Latin American actors to engage strategically and proactively with China’s proposal. The opportunity is there. *This article was originally published on the REDCAEM website.

China relies heavily on Malaysia as a bridge for cooperation, dialogue, and coordination with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and China in confronting the economic and political challenges imposed by the United States on China and many countries around the world after President “Trump” increased US tariffs on China. To this end, China seeks to coordinate with Malaysia during its presidency of the (ASEAN Summit) this year 2025, and its concurrent presidency of the (ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summit), a situation China is keen to capitalize on through its distinguished partnership with Malaysia. In addition, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Malaysia in mid-April 2025, during which they issued a joint statement on support for Gaza and the Palestinian cause in the face of Israeli violations.  Malaysia's meetings and its current hosting of the (ASEAN Summit and the ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summit) come after important trade talks between the United States and China in Switzerland in May 2025, the same month as the ASEAN and ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summits with China. The ASEAN-GCC Summit may be a real opportunity to lay the foundation for deeper negotiations between the world's two largest economies after a period of escalation in the trade war between the two sides.  Given the importance of the ASEAN region to Southeast Asia, which represents China's vital backyard, it is at the heart of the strategy for managing major events between Washington and Beijing in the Indo-Pacific region. To this end, Washington and Beijing signed a strategic partnership agreement with ASEAN, given its critical importance to both countries.  Former US President Joe Biden signed a new Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), describing it as a decisive step toward addressing the biggest issues of our time. Meanwhile, Beijing emphasized strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement it signed with ASEAN in 2021, with China keen to jointly build the world's largest free trade area.  The most prominent complex global issues on the agenda of ASEAN countries, China, Malaysia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their confrontation with Washington and Russia include (the war in Ukraine, climate change, regional tensions around the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, North Korea's missile launches, the recent Gaza war, and US tariffs), among others.To this end, China officially confirmed Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's visit to Malaysia in late May 2025 to attend a summit coordinated by China with a newly formed group of Southeast Asian and Arab countries, through which Beijing hopes to garner support in the face of Washington's tariffs. China also launched a campaign to mend relations with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, after US President Donald Trump imposed a series of tariffs on numerous countries on April 2, 2025, before abruptly suspending them for dozens of countries except China.  Chinese Premier “Li Keqiang” will also be in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to attend the (ASEAN-GCC-China Summit) on May 27, 2025, which will be held one day after the ASEAN Summit scheduled for May 26, 2025. China has not publicly confirmed the names and number of Chinese officials who will comprise the Chinese delegation it will send to Malaysia before the summits in Malaysia.  From my analytical perspective, this may stem from China's fear that the United States and its ASEAN allies will exert pressure on those Chinese figures who will participate in the (ASEAN-GCC Summit) in particular.  In my view, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Malaysia in mid-April 2025 is linked to the role Malaysia will play, along with its ally China, in confronting US protectionist policies. This follows President Xi Jinping's visit to three Southeast Asian countries (Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia) to win them over to China's side in its trade war with the United States. To this end, China is seeking to win Malaysia over, particularly at this time, as Beijing intensifies its current efforts to secure partnerships to protect its economy from the escalating trade war with the United States. While the three countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia) will benefit from Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit in mid-April 2025 to diversify their Chinese supply chains, it also places them in a challenging position with the US, and in the crosshairs of US President Trump as he seeks to restrict the reshipment of Chinese goods to its regional neighbors and then transport them through them to the world.  In anticipation of all stages of US escalation against China, Chinese President “Xi Jinping” convened and chaired the Central Working Conference on Diplomacy with Neighboring Countries in early May 2025. This conference highlighted China's increasing focus on strengthening regional relations, particularly with its neighbors, most notably Malaysia and its ASEAN partners.  On the other hand, there is competition between the United States, China, and Europe to enhance economic presence at the joint summit between the Malaysia-led ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The GCC countries are in fierce competition with the United States, Russia, China, and Europe to strengthen their economic presence in the vibrant ASEAN, which holds promising opportunities in multiple fields for the Gulf community. The ASEAN summit with the Gulf states and China represents an important milestone that reflects the growing interest of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in strengthening relations with the ASEAN countries and China, in the face of economic and geopolitical challenges that require deeper coordination and more flexible cooperation. This is especially true given the unbalanced nature of Trump's personality, from the perspective of the Gulf states, even his closest allies. Many GCC leaders fear a sudden Trump coup against his closest allies, which is one of the reasons for the Gulf's move towards rapprochement with the ASEAN and China, led by Malaysia. The geopolitical transformations and escalating international competition between China and the United States over the Asian region and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in East and Southeast Asia, on the part of Russia, Europe, the United States, and China, have highlighted the efforts of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to strengthen their economic and political presence in this vital region through strategic partnerships that transcend traditional considerations and are based on mutual interests and commonalities. ASEAN countries represent emerging economies that hold promising opportunities in multiple fields for China and the Gulf countries, such as energy and infrastructure. This is why all GCC countries are currently investing in it. Furthermore, there are important commonalities, including that these countries, like the Gulf states, are also seeking to distance themselves from geopolitical polarization in their regional environment, especially after the recent Gaza war. The GCC countries are currently unwilling to enter into economic alliances against other parties. This provides common ground for fruitful cooperation between all, led and coordinated by Malaysia as a bridge for communication, dialogue, and coordination between the GCC countries, primarily with China.  There is also a mutual desire to strengthen Sino-Gulf relations with ASEAN countries through Malaysia at various levels, including cultural cooperation, based on a shared history spanning hundreds of years, particularly through the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, which represents numerous cultural and civilizational aspects, in addition to its economic, commercial, and investment importance for all.  The secret to ASEAN's success and the encouragement of GCC countries to cooperate and coordinate with it and with China through Malaysia is its focus on economic objectives, transcending ideology and non-interference in the internal politics and affairs of other countries, while giving priority to development and investment. The new and vital area of coordination between ASEAN, China, Malaysia, and the GCC countries is the Maritime Cooperation Mechanism, recognizing the importance of oceans and seas as a key factor in driving growth.  Therefore, there is a working agenda for a framework for maritime cooperation among all concerned countries, to ensure the security of maritime and logistical straits, achieve the principles of maritime safety and security, and ensure freedom of navigation and air traffic without obstacles that limit the movement of legitimate maritime trade. It also promotes peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of universally recognized international law.   The Gulf's move toward cooperation with ASEAN countries and China, through Malaysia's coordination of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit with ASEAN and China, has several fundamental reasons. These include the United States' imposition of tariffs on several countries, including the GCC itself, at varying rates. This will impact their exports to the US market. This move will inevitably push them to seek alternative markets, enhancing opportunities for cooperation between ASEAN and China, led by Malaysia, with the Gulf countries. This comes amid Chinese efforts to leverage these changes to strengthen its negotiating position vis-à-vis the Americans. Perhaps the positive thing is that Washington announced the suspension of these tariffs on China for 90 days, but I most likely expect it to impose other tariffs on China and the Gulf countries and set other conditions. This will make economic relations between the GCC countries, ASEAN, and China vis-à-vis Washington more tense in the short and long term, as their exports to the US will inevitably be affected in the near future. Therefore, we note that these common challenges facing the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), ASEAN, China, and Malaysia together in the face of these American pressures, even after Trump's visit to the three Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE) in the same month as the (ASEAN-China-GCC summit) in Malaysia in May 2025, open the door to new economic dialogues between all parties and help form regional blocs between ASEAN, China, Malaysia, and the GCC countries. There is clear enthusiasm from all parties to make this happen on the ground. Suffice it to mention the keenness of the concerned parties to hold real summits at the level of heads of state, in addition to ongoing ministerial and technical meetings. This reflects the existence of a genuine political will that seeks to translate all these aspirations into practical partnerships on the ground.  In this context, China, ASEAN, and Malaysia welcomed Saudi Arabia's bid to host Expo 2030 in Riyadh, highlighting the importance of organizing regional and international exhibitions to revitalize economic and cultural exchanges between the Gulf and ASEAN regions, including Southeast Asian countries, China, and Malaysia. They also emphasized the importance of conducting consultations to explore cooperation on implementing the “ASEAN Integration Initiative Action Plan” (2021-2025) and integration programs in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries with China and Malaysia. This is what the ASEAN-GCC Joint Summit with China and Malaysia seeks to explore and achieve.  The ASEAN-GCC-China Joint Summit, led by Malaysia, is expected to discuss the Joint Action Plan until 2028 and enhance cooperation between the two organizations, particularly political, economic, security, and cultural aspects, as well as investment, tourism, agriculture, halal products, education, and training.  Coordination between these parties, through Malaysia's presidency of the current ASEAN-GCC summit with China, is focused on key economic partnership priorities, namely enhancing regional market integration and integrating them through cooperative partnerships among all, while strengthening the multilateral trading system. This summit also aims to strengthen existing relations between the Gulf states, ASEAN, and China, given the current circumstances, regional conditions, and rapid international changes. The summit will also enhance the dynamics of relations between ASEAN, the GCC, China, and Malaysia, by discussing the path forward and strengthening cooperation across a number of existing areas of cooperation, including combating international crimes and terrorism. It is also an opportunity to identify new areas of cooperation in security, politics, economics, and cultural pillars. The most important aspect, from my perspective, is that the currently emerging multipolar international order requires middle powers such as the Gulf states, ASEAN, China, and Malaysia to stick together and reach a joint dialogue to support multilateral relations, particularly political aspects, and to coordinate their common positions, especially after the recent Gaza war and the American pressures that have become openly exerted on everyone. In general, the relationship between the Gulf and ASEAN sides, along with China and Malaysia, is considered primarily economically important for all, but it has also evolved due to circumstances in the political dimension. ASEAN countries enjoy a reputation for great neutrality and flexibility regarding international positions, with a greater focus on the economic dimension, while Gulf leaders are placing greater importance on developmental aspects alongside the economy.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском US President Donald Trump’s visit to Arab states in the Middle East this week generated plenty of multibillion-dollar deals. He said more than US$1 trillion (A$1.5 trillion) worth of deals had been signed with Saudi Arabia alone, though the real total is likely much lower than that. Qatar also placed an order for 210 Boeing aircraft, a deal worth a reported US$96 billion (A$149 billion). Trump will no doubt present these transactions as a major success for US industry. The trip also helped counter concerns about US disengagement from the Middle East. For more than a decade, local elites have viewed Washington’s attention as shifting away from the region. This trip was a reaffirmation of the importance of the Middle East – in particular the Gulf region – to US foreign policy. This is an important signal to send to Middle Eastern leaders who are dealing with competing interests from China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. And from a political standpoint, Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Syria and meeting with the former rebel, now president, Ahmed al-Sharaa was very significant – both symbolically and practically. Until recently, al-Sharaa was listed by the United States as a terrorist with a US$10 million (A$15 million) bounty on his head. However, when his forces removed dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in December, he was cautiously welcomed by many in the international community. The US had invested considerable resources in removing Assad from power, so his fall was cause for celebration, even if it came at the hands of forces the US had deemed terrorists. This rapid turn-around is dizzying. In practice, the removal of sanctions on Syria opens the doors to foreign investment in the reconstruction of the country following a long civil war. It also offers an opportunity for Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey, to expand their influence in Syria at the expense of Iran. For a leader who styles himself a deal-maker, these can all be considered successful outcomes from a three-day trip. However, Trump avoided wading into the far more delicate diplomatic and political negotiations needed to end Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and find common ground with Iran on its nuclear program. No solution in sight for the Palestinians Trump skirted the ongoing tragedy in Gaza and offered no plans for a diplomatic solution to the war, which drags on with no end in sight. The president did note his desire to see a normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel, without acknowledging the key stumbling block. While Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have no love for Hamas, the Gaza war and the misery inflicted on the Palestinians have made it impossible for them to overlook the issue. They cannot simply leapfrog Gaza to normalise relations with Israel. In his first term, Trump hoped the Palestinian issue could be pushed aside to achieve normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel. This was partially achieved with the Abraham Accords, which saw the UAE and three other Muslim-majority nations normalise relations with Israel. Trump no doubt believed the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreed to just before his inauguration would stick – he promised as much during the US election campaign. But after Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire in March, vowing to press on with its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, he’s learned the hard way the Palestinian question cannot easily be solved or brushed under the carpet. The Palestinian aspiration for statehood needs to be addressed as an indispensable step towards a lasting peace and regional stability. It was telling that Trump did not stop in Israel this week. One former Israeli diplomat says it’s a sign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his leverage with Trump. There’s nothing that Netanyahu has that Trump wants, needs or [that he] can give him, as opposed to, say, the Saudis, the Qataris, [or] the Emiratis. More harsh rhetoric for Iran Trump also had no new details or initiatives to announce on the Iran nuclear talks, beyond his desire to “make a deal” and his repeat of past threats. At least four rounds of talks have been held between Iran and the United States since early April. While both sides are positive about the prospects, the US administration seems divided on the intended outcome. The US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for the complete dismantling of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium as a sure safeguard against the potential weaponisation of the nuclear program. Trump himself, however, has been less categorical. Though he has called for the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, he has also said he’s undecided if Iran should be allowed to continue a civilian enrichment program. Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, albeit under international monitoring, is a red line for the authorities in Tehran – they won’t give this up. The gap between Iran and the US appears to have widened this week following Trump’s attack on Iran as the “most destructive force” in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi called Trump’s remarks “pure deception”, and pointed to US support for Israel as the source of instability in the region. None of this has advanced the prospects of a nuclear deal. And though his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE was marked by pomp and ceremony, he’ll leave no closer to solving two protracted challenges than when he arrived.