Diplomacy
Global Geopolitics launched in Berlin, focusing on multipolarity and changing global order
International scholars and policy experts gathered in Berlin for the launch of Global Geopolitics, a new peer-reviewed academic journal examining the complex dynamics of international relations, power structures, and global strategic trends.
The inaugural roundtable, organized in cooperation with the Berlin-based Eurasian Society, provided a platform to discuss developments such as the perceived decline of Western unipolarity, the emergence of what some speakers termed “civilizational states,” and differing interpretations of value-based foreign policy in a more fragmented global environment.
A mandate for inclusivity in a changing world
The launch took place during what Efe Can Gürcan, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, described as a period of “profound change” and “major transition.” Dr. Gürcan, affiliated with Queen’s University Belfast and the Turkish Academy of Sciences, outlined the journal’s aim to broaden discussions within the field of geopolitics.
“Today we’re meeting at a moment of profound change… and geopolitics is once again moving on the headlines, on the forefront of our agenda,” Gürcan stated in his opening remarks. He noted that despite growing interest in geopolitical issues, there remain “very few academic journals which are exclusively focused or devoted to the study of geopolitics.”
According to Gürcan, the journal seeks to move beyond conventional binaries often present in geopolitical debates. “Geopolitics is often framed by reference to conflict, exclusion, rivalry,” he observed. “While this is partially true, we prefer to take a much more expansive approach… at the end of the day, it all comes down to one simple word: inclusivity.” He outlined three pillars of this approach:
- Geographical inclusivity, encouraging contributions from scholars across all the seven continents, not just the West, not just the East, not just the Global South.”
- Disciplinary inclusivity, incorporating perspectives from various disciplines including history, sociology, and economics,
- Analytical inclusivity, integrating perspectives from International Relations (IR) theory as well as both traditional and critical geopolitics, and examining not only conflict but also cooperation, connectivity, and non-traditional security issues.
Efecan Gürcan
“In Global Geopolitics, the term ‘global’ is not used in the same sense as ‘globalism,’” Gürcan clarified, adding that “it is a conscious and meaningful choice on our part,” which does not imply alignment with any specific political project or ideological agenda. Rather, the pairing of “global” and “geopolitics” is deliberate, underscoring the journal’s commitment to geographical, disciplinary, and analytical inclusivity alongside academic rigor.
The journal’s editorial infrastructure reflects today’s multipolar reality, boasting a board with representatives from the UK, Canada, India, China, Japan, Brazil, Peru, Türkiye, among others. The first issue addresses topics such as the Ukraine conflict, energy policy, and global migration through empirical research.
The failure of moralism and the return of “realpolitik”
Following Dr. Gürcan’s introduction, the keynote session was opened by Alexander Rahr, Chairman of the Eurasian Society and a veteran historian formerly associated with the German Council on Foreign Relations. Rahr delivered a scathing critique of the current intellectual climate in Germany and Western Europe, arguing that the fixation on “liberal values” has rendered traditional diplomatic analysis obsolete.
“Germany, but also some other European countries, are now focused 100% in their view, in their analysis, in their policy, on so-called liberal values and nothing else,” Rahr asserted. He argued that this moral absolutism was sustainable only when the West was unchallenged. “It went okay for the West to have this kind of projection over the past 25 or 35 years when the West was united, the West was strong… Now we are in serious trouble.”
Rahr framed the launch of the journal as a necessary intervention to reintroduce “Realpolitik” into the European discourse. He lamented the lack of diverse voices in the German public sphere, contrasting it unfavorably with the United States, where figures like John Mearsheimer or Jeffrey Sachs still command attention.
For Rahr, the geopolitical imperative for Europe is clear: a pivot toward understanding, rather than lecturing, the emerging powers. “I would like to make the focus on the BRICS countries,” he said. “These BRICS countries… have the potential of becoming new poles in the world.”
He argued that for Germany and Europe, getting closer to these nations is not merely an economic option but a security necessity. “Only by doing this we can sustain, maintain peace and cooperation in this complex multipolar world.” Rahr specifically highlighted the need to comprehend “Chinese thinking” and “Indian thinking,” areas where he claims European elites know “very little, almost nothing.”
The dangers of the “missionary mentality”
Dr. Christopher Mott, a Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, addressed what he called the “dangers of missionary mentality.” Dr. Mott offered a realist deconstruction of the liberal international order, warning that the impulse to convert the world to a single ideological standard is a recipe for endless conflict.
Mott began by quoting the philosopher George Santayana: “The humanitarian, like the missionary, is often an irreconcilable enemy of the people he seeks to befriend because he has not imagination enough to sympathize with their proper needs nor humility enough to respect them as if they were his own.”
Mott argued that the “unipolar moment” following the Soviet collapse was a “freakish occurrence” in history, lasting at most 20 years. The shock currently felt in Western capitals, he suggested, stems from a refusal to accept that normalcy—historical multipolarity—has returned.
Christopher Mott
“99% of human history was effectively multipolar,” Mott noted. “How do we most constructively learn to be normal again after having bathed in the mentally stultifying lies of a universal human destiny?”
He cautioned against viewing the emerging order as a shared journey. “There is no shared political journey. The future will be as divergent as the past was,” Mott said. He advocated for “polycentrism,” a system where different regimes and ideologies coexist based on “sovereign geographic entities” rather than a forced consensus.
“Liberal internationalism, in its quest to become a universal arbiter of morality… forgot that once upon a time its greatest asset was that it acknowledged many forms of being,” Mott said, referencing the philosophy of Spinoza and Hobbes. He warned European states against becoming a “Saudi Arabia of militant humanism,” exporting a universalist worldview that isolates them from the rest of the globe.
Mott’s prescription for the North Atlantic was a return to “situational realism” and local interest. He closed by invoking George Washington’s Farewell Address, citing the founding father’s warning against weaving “artificial ties” with foreign powers. “Reject Baerbockism, embrace situ-realism,” Mott concluded, referring to the current German Foreign Minister’s value-based diplomacy.
Deconstructing the “West” and the “Global South”
Professor Jagannath Panda, Head of the Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs, shifted the focus to the structural dynamics of power in Asia and the broader globe. Panda challenged the very terminology used to describe the current order, suggesting that the binary of “East vs. West” has dissolved.
Reflecting on the recent World Economic Forum, Panda observed: “What I found very interesting in Davos is that there was less about economics… it was more about political economy, political security.” He went further, stating that speeches from leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau revealed a fracturing of the traditional Western bloc.
“There is nothing called ‘West’ today,” Panda argued. “If West does not exist, then can we really say that there is a fight exist between West and East? Probably there is no fight.” He extended this skepticism to the term “Global North,” suggesting that the convergence of interests is creating a “contesting world order” where countries partake in multiple, overlapping typologies of power.
Panda distinguished between multilateralism (a process establishing networks), multipolarism (the structural base of power), and multipolarity (the medium through which power is distributed). He cited BRICS as a unique entity that combines all three, unlike the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which functions purely as a multilateral mechanism.
Highlighting the growing strategic autonomy of nations, Panda pointed to the recent trade negotiations between India and the European Union. He noted that for the first time, EU leaders were chief guests at India’s Republic Day, signaling a “special chemistry” driven by mutual necessity rather than ideological alignment. “Both sides talk about something unique: strategic autonomy,” Panda said.
Panda also predicted a shift in the nature of global conflict. While territorial disputes remain, he warned that “resource politics is going to be shaping the global politics in times to come.” He identified coastal and corridor nations—such as Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives—as critical players in this new arena, where control over supply chains and raw materials will supersede traditional land grabs.
The empire of chaos and energy wars
The final keynote was delivered by Thomas Fazi, an Italian journalist and author known for his critique of neoliberalism. Fazi provided the most confrontational assessment of the day, characterizing the current geopolitical transition as the end of “500 years of Western economic, political, and military global hegemony.”
Fazi argued that while the rise of the non-Western world should be a natural evolution, the Western elite views it as an “existential threat,” leading to a form of “clinical” insanity in policymaking. “The US and Western powers [are] doing everything they can to slow down, if not stall, this transition to multipolarity,” Fazi said.
Thomas Fazi
He offered a provocative analysis of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, suggesting that what appears to be erratic behavior is actually a strategy of “engineered permanent chaos.” According to Fazi, Trump is not attacking random countries but “targeting the weak links” in the China-led system, such as Venezuela and Iran.
“Chaos… in Trump’s strategy is part of the strategy itself,” Fazi posited. He linked this to a broader US objective: re-establishing control over the physical and financial flows of energy. Fazi argued that the “unraveling” of the petrodollar system, driven by nations like Russia and Iran trading outside US jurisdiction, poses a lethal threat to American hegemony.
Lively Q&A highlights diverse perspectives on power, trade, and Europe’s future
Responding to a question about the resilience of non-Western powers, Mott argued that states with deep historical roots, distinct from mere nation-states, are overperforming.
“A state whose basis… is based in something a bit more historic than just election cycles… these are the states that will outperform,” Mott said. He cited China, India, and Ethiopia as prime examples of powers that can weather political storms because their identity transcends a single form of government. He contrasted this with the fragility of the Arab nation-states compared to the historical depth of Türkiye and Iran. “Iran has a level of continuity that enables it to punch above its weight.”
Rahr added a European dimension to this concept, arguing that Europe once possessed a form of “cultural unity” that has been eroded by “80 years of Americanization.” He warned that without recovering this cultural memory—which he insisted must include Russia—Europe risks being fractured or reduced to vassalage.
The Q&A session also addressed the economic architecture of the coming era. Responding to inquiries about the future global economy, the panelists agreed that the era of unfettered globalization is over, replaced by securitized trade and protectionism.
“You’re definitely going to see a pivot away from international free trade across the board,” Mott predicted. “Everything is going to be justified under the terms of national security.” He described a future of “state-directed preferred trade methods,” where efficiency is sacrificed for geopolitical reliability.
Fazi concurred, noting that the “free market” was always a myth in the West, but argued that the current shift represents a “fusion of state and corporate power.” He lamented that this retreat from globalization is being framed defensively rather than as an opportunity to improve domestic living standards. “We’re not seeing Western leaders talk about… investing to improve the lives of our citizens. No, we have to secure… so our enemies can’t blackmail us.”
Panda added that while protectionism will rise, so will the complexity of trade disputes. He pointed to the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) not as a triumph of liberal economics, but as a “compromised deal” born of necessity. “Europe is in massive need of partnerships… economic security,” Panda said, noting that the deal represents a diversification away from China and the US for both parties.
Jagannath Panda
The discussion concluded with a debate on Europe’s role in a multipolar system. Fazi took a hardline stance, arguing that the European Union and NATO are structurally incapable of adapting to the new reality. “The European Union is a completely ahistorical reality… an imperial model which has hollowed out democracy,” Fazi claimed, dismissing hopes for reform as “illusions.”
Panda, however, offered a more moderate view, suggesting that Europe’s indecisiveness is its greatest weakness. “The time has come to take a call… to have a future army,” Panda urged, advocating for a Europe that acts as an independent pole rather than a US dependency.
Mott offered a final strategic prescription for the emerging order: a “modus vivendi” based on the rejection of hegemony. “The one thing that definitely should unite future architects of a stable multipolar order is to combat revisionism effectively,” Mott said. He envisioned a system of “counterbalancing forces” and “non-aligned leagues” that act as buffers to prevent any single power from dominating the globe.
UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Portsmouth, England.
Zelenskyy is the first world leader Burnham has met in person since taking office, with the prime minister committing to building a “firm partnership” between the United Kingdom and Ukraine.
Demonstrating their support, the two leaders toured a military base in Portsmouth where 200 Ukrainian troops are currently undergoing naval training exercises.
Burnham described his meeting with the Ukrainian president as “warm” and said he plans to visit Ukraine soon.
“We will build this together and address the various issues President Zelenskyy is facing, many of which we discussed today,” Burnham said.
The meeting follows an announcement by London that it will share intellectual property rights to assist Kyiv’s war effort.
The new prime minister announced that the UK will share the “Stone Cloak” electronic warfare system—which is fitted to drones to prevent detection—and will assist Ukraine in mass-producing the technology.
Burnham has focused primarily on domestic matters since replacing Keir Starmer, who faced criticism from elements within his own party for spending too much time abroad and focusing heavily on foreign affairs.
However, Burnham sought to signal continuity in Britain’s policy toward Ukraine. In one of his first phone calls after becoming prime minister last week, Burnham invited Zelenskyy to visit the UK “as soon as possible.”
Starmer spent his final full day as prime minister in Kyiv, where he announced £255 million in funding for Ukraine.
Speaking to Sky on Monday, Zelenskyy said his telephone conversation with Burnham had been “very good.”
The Ukrainian leader noted that Starmer had previously assured him that “the new government would maintain the policy of supporting Ukraine during the war.”
The new prime minister told the Ukrainian leader it was “no coincidence” that he was his first international visitor since moving into Downing Street.
“The purpose of this is to send a very clear message. We stand 100% with Ukraine, I personally stand 100% with you, and I will fully deliver on every commitment this country has made to Ukraine,” Burnham said.
As Ukraine continues to lobby allies for new weapons capabilities to counter Russian missile strikes, the country aims to have a prototype of the Freyja anti-ballistic system, developed in partnership with European allies, ready in the first half of next year.
David Aloyan, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council and director of the Freyja project, stated—as reported by Reuters—that an international steering committee tasked with calculating research and development costs will meet for the first time in the near future.
The anti-ballistic coalition was officially established two weeks ago at a summit held in the French capital, Paris. The summit was attended by leaders of 10 European nations, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside roughly 12 defense industry contractors.
Providing details on the timeline, Aloyan said: “We have an ambitious goal because we are working on a very tight schedule. We aim to have a viable prototype that can show its first practical results in the first half of next year.”
Ukraine remains chronically dependent on US-made Patriot air defense systems, which are currently the only weapons capable of reliably intercepting Russia’s hypersonic and high-velocity ballistic missiles. However, Patriot deliveries have faced persistent disruptions driven by political fluctuations, low inventory levels, and extended production cycles.
The Russian military intensified its ballistic missile strikes this month against the capital, Kyiv, and the southern port city of Odesa. Facing salvos of dozens of missiles, Ukraine was unable to destroy the majority of incoming targets due to a severe shortage of interceptor munitions.
The Ukrainian government has indicated that it is prepared to contribute a launch vehicle and an interceptor missile to the Freyja initiative. In comments made this month, President Zelenskyy remarked that the project has now become purely a “matter of testing,” expressing hope that the system will become operational within a year.
Kyiv expects its allies to provide specialized expertise and technology in advanced radars, sensors, and missile guidance and control electronics. Defense contractors participating in the project include Eurosam—the consortium behind the SAMP/T system—as well as Leonardo, Thales, and Saab.
Fire Point, the Ukrainian missile and drone manufacturer that developed the Flamingo cruise missile, announced that it will serve as the primary industrial partner for the project. The company disclosed last month that it had reached an agreement with German defense producer Hensoldt to supply the radar components required for the initiative.
The Freyja project stands out as an effort to construct a lower-cost alternative to the Patriot system, on which many European nations also rely. Other European air defense assets, such as the Franco-Italian SAMP/T and the German-made IRIS-T, have not yet demonstrated sufficient operational capability in intercepting ballistic missiles.
Zelenskyy likened the operational framework of the Freyja coalition to a Lego arrangement, in which defense industry leaders assemble interconnected components.
Emphasizing the flexibility of the design, Aloyan noted that manufacturers have been tasked with developing a system architecture featuring interchangeable components, stating:
“The core logic of this system is that it possesses an open architecture. If Denmark says, ‘I want a Freyja system configured with a Danish-made Weibel radar,’ that is possible. If Sweden states that it wishes to integrate a Saab system, that presents no issue either.”
Aloyan added that establishing a dedicated administrative body or fund to direct all project contributions and secure stable, continuous financing remains among the options under consideration.
The Ukrainian official stressed that direct corporate participation alongside sovereign governments would streamline bureaucracy, concluding: “The coalition must advance on practical grounds rather than political ones.”
Germany continues to provide crucial logistical support to the US military as Washington prepares for a major expansion of the war against Iran, utilizing its extensive network of installations across the country.
According to a report by German Foreign Policy, US fighter jets and troops are being routed through Ramstein Air Base—mirroring operations conducted prior to the outbreak of hostilities and throughout the first 40 days of the conflict—where forces remain stationed ahead of an announced wave of heavy airstrikes.
Spangdahlem Air Base is playing an equally vital role in the logistical pipeline. F-16 fighter jets stationed at the site were redeployed last week to staging areas in the Middle East, having returned from combat missions in the region only a few weeks prior.
Meanwhile, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center—the largest US military hospital outside the United States—serves as a critical medical hub. In recent days, approximately one dozen US service members, including several with severe injuries, were evacuated to the facility for treatment.
Medical staffing at Landstuhl has been expanded significantly in anticipation of a further rise in casualties.
Ramstein
The US armed forces are drawing heavily on their military infrastructure in Germany to execute troop concentrations directed at Iran.
Ramstein Air Base near Kaiserslautern—the largest US Air Force installation outside the US and headquarters for US Air Force forces in Europe and Africa—is operating continuously to facilitate the deployment.
Ramstein has long drawn international attention for housing a satellite relay station used to control US military drone operations across Africa, the Near East, and the Middle East.
Data streams for other operational maneuvers are also routed through Ramstein, specifically those serving the war in Iran.
Furthermore, the installation operates as a permanent logistical turnstile for the conflict. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilties, Spanish military aircraft that were denied permission by Madrid to participate in the war effort were rerouted to Ramstein.
In contrast to the Spanish government, Berlin has raised no objections to providing logistical support for the military campaign against Iran.
On Wednesday, a US E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) aircraft landed at Ramstein after departing Robins Air Force Base in the US state of Georgia, before proceeding toward the Middle East.
The aircraft provides real-time relay and tactical coordination between fighter jets and bombers during airborne strike operations.
Spangdahlem
Spangdahlem Air Base, located in the Eifel region, is serving as a key node in reinforcing the US Air Force presence in the Middle East ahead of a comprehensive expansion of the war.
Last week, US F-16 fighters permanently stationed at Spangdahlem were dispatched to the Middle East.
Their movement was complemented by F-35 jets deployed from RAF Lakenheath, northeast of Cambridge, and additional F-16s launched from Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy.
The Spangdahlem-based F-16s had returned from combat operations in the war zone just weeks earlier.
These aircraft are specialized in Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) missions, designed to neutralize hostile air defense systems.
David Deptula, a retired US Air Force lieutenant general and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in Washington, told the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes that deploying fighter jets in such large numbers from all three US Air Force units in Europe to the Arabian Peninsula was highly unusual.
However, Deptula noted that toward the end of the Cold War, the US Air Force maintained nine operational units in Europe rather than three, pointing to a long-term decline in overall force capacity.
Landstuhl
Alongside Ramstein and Spangdahlem, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center—the largest American military hospital outside the US—is being utilized with heightened intensity in connection with the war in Iran.
In recent days, approximately 12 severely wounded US service members were evacuated from Jordan to Landstuhl for specialized care.
The arrivals have drawn public scrutiny, in part because the Trump administration has reported US casualty figures far less frequently than previous administrations.
While the death of US military personnel must be publicly disclosed under statutory requirements, observers in the US note that these requirements do not extend to private military contractors, who constitute a significant share of personnel on US military bases.
Following recent admissions by the Pentagon that three US service members were killed in Iranian strikes near Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, investigations by US news outlets revealed that roughly 100 US military personnel were wounded between June 7 and last weekend.
Material damage from Iranian retaliation
In addition to figures on wounded US military personnel, initial investigative media reports have begun detailing the extent of structural damage inflicted on American weaponry and military infrastructure.
As reported by The New York Times on Wednesday, Iranian forces concentrated their strikes this month on nine locations with a US military presence, down from 18 during the first 40 days of the war.
Muwaffaq Salti Air Base was struck four times. According to the newspaper, drone strikes destroyed three buildings, two hangars, and structures believed to serve as living quarters.
Tower 22, a US military outpost in far northeastern Jordan along the Syrian border, also sustained severe damage.
In addition, hangars and a radar system at two other military bases in Jordan were hit, as was King Hussein International Airport, where US personnel are stationed.
In Bahrain, at least one warehouse was damaged, while a military tent was destroyed at Erbil International Airport in northern Iraq, where US troops are deployed.
Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait was also struck, and a radar system at Ahmad Al Jaber Air Base—which had been operational for only six months—was destroyed.
These incidents represent only a portion of the damage confirmed to date.
Undisclosed US casualties
Beyond Washington’s public statements, preparations behind the scenes are underscored by the recent deployment of more than 150 additional US medical personnel to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.
Should US President Donald Trump order an expansion of US attacks, officials anticipate a parallel escalation in Iranian retaliatory strikes and a corresponding rise in US casualties.
These casualties will include severely wounded personnel who will be evacuated to Germany for medical treatment.
Servicemen killed in Iranian counterattacks are also likely to be routed through Germany before their remains are repatriated to the US. Flights operated by Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations (AFMAO) carrying fallen personnel from the combat zone to the US routinely make layovers at Ramstein.
This procedure was followed during the recent repatriation of the bodies of four US soldiers killed in the Middle East. Flights from Ramstein to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware reportedly take between nine and ten hours.
Legal implications for Berlin
To expand a war of aggression that violates international law, President Trump has formally announced upcoming US strikes on civilian infrastructure—actions that constitute war crimes.
The announcement of an intent to order war crimes carries serious legal implications for the German government.
Germany continues to allow the US armed forces to utilize military infrastructure on its territory, including Ramstein, Spangdahlem, and Landstuhl, and grants overflight rights without hesitation.
According to Michael Riegner, professor of public law, international law, and comparative law at the University of Erfurt and director of the university’s Global Justice Clinic, the argument that this support carries no legal consequences is untenable.
Riegner argues that limiting Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law strictly to the Bundeswehr is legally unacceptable.
The constitutional clause mandates punishment for “acts tending to upset the peaceful relations between nations, especially an act preparing for a war of aggression.”
Riegner contends that anyone who assists in the execution of a war of aggression is guilty of aiding and abetting an unlawful act.
Egypt Under Fire: What Does the Damietta Strike Mean for Global Energy Markets?
Anthropic AI models breach corporate systems after escaping isolated test environment
Morawiecki launches Rozwój Plus movement following high-profile split from Poland’s PiS
Elon Musk’s America PAC plans $100 million field operation for 2026 Republican midterm push
Trump administration seeks to reopen closed US oil refineries as war drives fuel prices up
-
America1 week agoUS agricultural superpower status at risk as trade wars shift global markets to Brazil
-
Europe2 weeks agoUS secures multi-billion-dollar energy and AI deals at Three Seas summit in Dubrovnik
-
America1 week agoUS controls $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues with little transparency, raising congressional concerns
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoPalantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany
-
America2 weeks agoAIPAC cuts online donation links for Democrats after Israel aid vote
-
Middle East1 week agoPentagon faces severe budget crunch as Middle East operational costs drain key military funds
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany accelerates African energy diplomatic push to secure natural gas and green hydrogen
-
America2 weeks agoUS voter support for Iran conflict collapses as fuel prices surge and midterm risks mount
