Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

U.S. and South Korean leaders dost protest too much, methinks.

Bishkek has reportedly taken Moscow to the EAEU court over Russia's failure to provide social protection – medical insurance – to the families of Kyrgyz migrant workers.

Germany is facing a security policy Zeitenwende whose industrial dimension has not yet been sufficiently addressed. The war in Ukraine, rising military threats in Europe, and the long-term underfunding of the German Armed Forces have exposed the limits of existing defence industrial capacity, while the reliability of the United States (US) as a security guarantor is increasingly uncertain. This creates a strategic need for Germany to quickly rebuild its defence industrial base. Yet, despite the increased demand and funding, German defence industries are struggling to scale production quickly, exposing capability gaps that endanger both national defence and NATO commitments. In this context, cooperation with South Korea gains strategic relevance, as plans for localised production by Korean defence firms in Germany could ease bottlenecks, shorten supply chains, and enhance operational readiness without creating new strategic dependencies.

Reading the tea leaves after the CCDI’s Fifth Plenum.

Access to high quality data to train generative AI in the EU should go hand in hand with fair remuneration for the creative sector.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Public response to PTI’s calls for protests is low, as Pakistanis, battered by inflation and economic woes, have little appetite for upheaval.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

Das Konjunkturbarometer des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) setzt seinen schrittweisen Aufwärtstrend fort und steigt im Januar auf 94,8 Punkte. Im Dezember lag der Wert noch bei 93,4 Punkten. Der Barometerwert ist somit noch einmal etwas näher an die neutrale 100-Punkte ...

Hinduism gained ground in the region in the early centuries of the Common Era because it provided elites with a fully-fleshed metaphysical package along with literacy.

Bauvolumen dürfte 2026 erstmals seit fünf Jahren wieder zulegen – Öffentliche Investitionen treiben das Wachstum – Auch der Wohnungsneubau dürfte im laufenden Jahr wieder im Plus landen – Sorge bereitet schwache Produktivität im Bausektor Die deutsche Bauwirtschaft steht vor einer Trendwende: Nach ...

It’s the state’s inability to create civilian capacity.

Marcus Tantau from Templeton Research sees maritime Southeast Asia faring well, but predicts mixed fortunes for the mainland nations.

Große Internetplattformen prägen Wirtschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft in der EU, stellen den Binnenmarkt vor neue Herausforderungen und sind wegen ihrer überwiegenden US-amerikanischen Herkunft auch zu­nehmend ein geopolitisches Konfliktthema. Online-Plattformen haben ambivalente Effekte: Sie fördern Integration, Innovation und Digitalisierung des Binnenmarkts, bergen aber zugleich Risiken wie Marktmachtmissbrauch, Desinformation und intransparente algorithmische Steuerung. Die EU hat ihren Regulierungsansatz deutlich verschärft, insbesondere mit den beiden Verordnungen DSA und DMA. Sie steht bei der Durch­setzung jedoch vor einer Reihe von Hürden: der nicht eindeutigen Rechtsklarheit, der asymmetrischen Ressourcenverteilung zwischen Regulierungsbehörden und großen digitalen Plattformen und der un­zureichenden Verpflichtung zu algorithmischer Transparenz. Zur Stärkung der digitalen Souveränität wird die Einrichtung einer unabhängigen europäischen Digitalaufsicht empfohlen. Sie könnte darauf hinwirken, dass nationale Vollzugsdefizite und regulatorische Fragmentierung überwunden und Vorschriften einheitlich durchgesetzt werden. Digitale Regulierung allein reicht nicht aus: Sie muss durch eine um­fassende industrie- und wettbewerbspolitische Strategie ergänzt werden, die das Wachstum europäischer Technologieunternehmen im globalen Wettbewerb fördert.

Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-pwixjl").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-pwixjl").fadeIn(300);});}); Lire en français

On January 27, 2026, the International Peace Institute (IPI) hosted its annual Peacekeeping Observatory workshop, in partnership with the French Ministry of the Armed Forces’ Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy (DGRIS). This year’s workshop focused on mission transitions. Participants included member state representatives, UN personnel, and independent experts.

The first session provided an opportunity to take stock of the UN Transitions Project, which concluded in 2025. Comprising the UN Development Coordination Office (DCO), the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), and the UN Development Program (UNDP), the project, which started in 2014, provided direct support to countries undergoing transitions and contributed to the development of UN Secretariat guidance on transitions. In addition to reflecting on the conclusions and practices that emerged from the project, participants considered how the political landscape on transitions has changed since the adoption of Security Council resolution 2594. The discussion emphasized the importance of ensuring flexibility and coherence in transition planning while sustaining political engagement with host governments. Experts discussed opportunities for sustaining efforts on critical tasks, such as the protection of civilians during and after transitions through integrated planning with UN country teams and leveraging financing mechanisms like the Peacebuilding Fund.

The second session focused on critical challenges from the field in current and recent transition settings. Much of the discussion centered on responses to accelerated withdrawals and transitions in crisis settings, drawing on the experience of MINUSMA. Participants discussed ways to address challenges related to financing gaps, knowledge and capacity transfer, and sustaining political engagement in volatile contexts. Experts also reflected on the importance of strategic communications in transition planning and in managing public information and awareness, especially around mandate renewals, transitions, and/or reconfigurations of the UN presence.

During a working lunch, participants were briefed by the co-facilitators of the recently concluded 2025 peacebuilding architecture review (PBAR), including reflections on the role that the UN Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund can play in transition contexts. The ensuing discussion focused on funding challenges for peacebuilding, obstacles to the implementation of the PBAR, and the willingness of member states to engage with the peacebuilding architecture.

The final session considered potential future transitions and how they can be informed by key takeaways from the workshop. Participants discussed the need for missions to have exit strategies from the beginning while anticipating different scenarios, the importance of engaging host states authorities, civil society and local communities in transition processes, the relevance of transition benchmarks, and challenges and opportunities for developing networked approaches to multilateralism.

As part of its Peacekeeping Observatory series, IPI will also publish three issue briefs in 2026 on UN mission transitions, including:

• The role of strategic communications in mission transitions, by Albert Trithart
• Accelerated withdrawals and transitions in crisis settings, by Dirk Druet
• Women, peace, and security and transitions, by Lauren McGowan and Evyn Papworth

The post IPI Peacekeeping Observatory Series on Mission Transitions appeared first on International Peace Institute.