The Strategic Brief offer an analysis of current topical strategic issues in a two-page format...
The other Strategic Briefs are only available in French here.
The extraterritorial scope of certain US laws allows intelligence agencies to access the data of European citizens and organizations without their consent, disregarding EU regulations and running counter to European “digital sovereignty”. Sharply criticized on both sides of the Atlantic, the extension of the FISA law passed at the end of April 2024 is an impediment to EU-US cooperation in the digital domain just before the European and US elections.
Russia has threatened to denounce the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas. However, it is unlikely that Moscow will make good on its threat. Russia’s hostility towards UNCLOS does not derive from maritime strategy, but from its pursuit of great power prerogatives. Nevertheless, Russia’s actions undermine UNCLOS.
With Russia’s military being decimated in Ukraine and East Asia becoming the United States’ most important regional commitment, the US is likely to shift significant military resources away from Europe. This will create unprecedented opportunities for European strategic autonomy in the coming years.
At the start of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian authorities regularly voiced threats of nuclear escalation. These threats had initially subsided, before vehemently resurfacing in June 2023. While they are used as a dissuasive tool against Western countries, they also reflect an evolution in Russia’s nuclear posture.
In recent years, China and Singapore have been developing their military cooperation. China is conducting a very active defence diplomacy in Singapore, in response to that led by the United States in the region. For the city-state, it is a question of maintaining balanced relations with both powers, a position that seems to be slightly more delicate at present.
Sudan’s recent foreign policy moves demonstrate an increasing alignment with Russia and a pull away from the US and European partnerships that the transitional authorities had developed since 2019. This is one of the consequences of the October 2021 coup: having ousted its civilian partners from power, the military faction has pursued a security-focused foreign policy that aims to further entrench its power.
Although the concept of “co-belligerency” is not enshrined in the Law of Armed Conflict, it raises the question of the moment in time, or the threshold, at which the support given by one or several State(s) to another in its fight against a common enemy makes them party to that armed conflict. In the case of the war in Ukraine, the support given by a large number of States to Kyiv, particularly through arms transfers, does not make these states “co-belligerents”.
Whereas civilian objects shall never be the object of attack, there is no conflict that does not cause damage to them nor loss of civilian life. What constitutes a target under the Law of Armed Conflict? And how does the law deal with incidental damages? This brief answers these questions through the prism of current events in Ukraine.
Using a maritime metaphor evoking the EU “in rougher seas”, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, defends the vision of a European Union affirming its identity and values in a climate of heightened strategic competition between the United States and China. This maritime dimension is worth exploring. It is at the heart of a strengthening of the EU’s relations with Asia.
Germany has decided to continue its military participation in two international missions deployed in the Sahel: the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and the EU Military Training Mission EUTM Mali, permitting the deployment of up to 1,550 soldiers. Yet, views in Berlin on the situation in the Sahel and the outlook of military involvement there are increasingly skeptical.
The current Corona crisis has set the ideal stage for external powers such as China and Russia to extend their influence in Europe by playing on the EU’s dependence and division. The European Commission, which is increasingly asserting the geopolitical dimension of its policies, should lead the strategic debate on European medical autonomy and solidarity in the face of this crisis.