The Carney middle-powers ‘doctrine’ viewed from Europe.
European leaders are gradually heeding Mark Carney’s call for divested links to the U.S.
European leaders are gradually heeding Mark Carney’s call for divested links to the U.S.
This article explores whether Canada is truly prepared to defend its Arctic sovereignty in a region that is becoming increasingly strategic due to climate change and geopolitical competition. As melting ice opens new shipping routes and access to natural resources, global powers like Russia, China and the United States are strengthening their presence in the Arctic.
While Canada maintains a historical and political claim over the region, the country faces significant challenges including major underinvestment, limited military capabilities, outdated infrastructure and so on. The article argues that to remain credible, Canada must move beyond their symbolic presence on the territory and invest in long-term capabilities and consistent engagement in the North.
Iceland faces various potential threats and opportunities that will inevitably change the country’s future and strategic independence. The current global shift towards multipolarity and unilateralism represents a serious threat to the autonomy of small states. A valuable option is signing treaties with more powerful states or joining larger international organisations.
The African Union (AU), in its first and only continent-wide AI strategy, turns to a familiar source of authority: an estimate of generative AI’s impact on global GDP by McKinsey. Somewhat arbitrarily, the AU extracts a neat 5 percent share for Africa and concludes that generative AI could add between $110 to $220 billion to African GDP a year. A striking figure, certainly. A very elastic one too. To dwell on the elasticity of these projections is, perhaps, to miss the point. Whether the figure is $110 to $220 billion is secondary to the conditions under which Africa’s AI gains might be realised.
The Faroe Islands represent a unique case in which a small geopolitical actor can pursue its goals with pragmatism and determination despite its size and limited resources. The Faroese economy is mostly dominated by the fishery sector, which is also the most relevant element influencing the islands’ autonomous foreign policy and international activity.
Greenland is no longer a peripheral Arctic territory but a strategic pressure point where U.S. power projection, European strategic ambition, and local sovereignty intersect. What appears to be a debate about resources or military positioning is, in fact, a deeper geopolitical test of the transatlantic order. The island has emerged as a focal point of great-power competition, shaped by climate change, resource potential, and shifting security dynamics.
In this context, Greenland functions as a geopolitical stress test for European strategic autonomy. It reveals both the ambitions of the European Union to act independently and the structural constraints that continue to bind it to the transatlantic alliance. At the same time, Greenland is not merely an object of competition but an active strategic actor, leveraging its position to balance external powers and advance its own sovereignty.
Comparing Trump’s extraction of Maduro to the 1953 Iranian coup.
Connectivity is emerging as a strategic framework linking states through shared infrastructure, trade, and human exchange. By offering a logic of engagement rooted in concrete economic interests rather than ideological alignment, it may enable MENA countries to gradually overcome patterns of historical enmity acting as a catalyst for regional stability.
One of the main challenges affecting the EU structure is the absence of a shared strategic narrative to unite all member states and develop a common strategic path to navigate global uncertainties. This narrative would be a geopolitical compass based on geopolitical necessities and threats, that would guide the EU’s foreign policy and diplomacy.
The May 2025 crisis between India and Pakistan reflects a shifting security paradigm in South Asia where deliberate escalation increasingly unfolds under the shadow of nuclear deterrence. The integration of advanced technologies has lowered traditional thresholds of conflict while expanding the scope of engagements. The weaponization of non-traditional domains such as water resources and information space further highlights the multidimensional nature of contemporary warfare between the two states. While third-party mediation helped avert full-scale war, it remains insufficient in addressing the deeper structural causes of recurring instability.