In 2025, the anticipated rise of middle powers continued, but it was eclipsed by another event: a powerful impulse for the entire system’s reconfiguration, emanating from a leading economic and military power. The decisive turn of the United States toward a policy of sovereign egoism under the leadership of Donald Trump forced every country and region to define its place within this new, unpredictable configuration.
At the inception of our expert programme, “Globalisation and Sovereignty,” we expected to focus on small and medium-sized powers, many of which have shown a growing appetite for agency on the world stage in recent years. This expectation was largely met, as our experts illuminated the strategic cultures of nations from most world regions. The unforeseen development of 2025, however, was the conduct of one of the greatest powers – the United States – following Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.
His administration’s policies signal a decisive departure from the preceding era, in which Washington styled itself as the architect of a liberal international order, committed to shaping the world both within and beyond the West. The United States today has not merely retreated from global leadership; it has unequivocally signalled to its closest allies that its own national interests now hold absolute priority.
Donald Trump’s distinctive foreign policy style is the focus of a detailed analysis by Natalia Tsvetkova, Acting Director of the Institute of the USA and Canada. It is also crucial to note the concurrent transformation of US domestic political discourse. Within this context, Trump’s policy of a symbolic “rectification of names” – exemplified by the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Mount Denali – is particularly revealing. While the efficacy of such symbolic acts in “making America great again” is debatable, their intent is unambiguous: they signal the reassertion of US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere as a paramount goal. This objective is further advanced by persistent US interest in establishing control over Greenland. Although seemingly outlandish, this idea has not been abandoned by Trump. We examined Greenland’s prospects as a territory under potential US control in the article “Does the Monroe Doctrine Work Above the Arctic Circle?”, and Nikita Belukhin analysed the internal political dynamics of this autonomous territory. Travis Jones, in turn, explored the meaning of the American president’s trade war from the perspective of residents of the deindustrialized Midwest.
Political leaders and strategists around the world are being forced to take the “Trump factor” into account. Marco Fernandes detailed the evolution of Brazil’s foreign policy and the obstacles standing in its way of becoming a regional leader. Andrei Lankov discussed the conditions under which a new US-North Korea summit could take place. Alireza Noori explored the implications of a possible rapprochement between Russia and the United States for Iran, and Almas Haider Naqvi analysed the implications for Pakistan. Gabor Stier discussed how Trump’s success expands Viktor Orbán’s room for manoeuvre, while Ján Čarnogurský described what he calls a “geopolitical awakening” of Central Europe.
Central Europe has commanded special analytical attention this year, owing to its critical importance for Russian security and its role as a potential incubator for political trends that may soon reach the core EU states. We wrote about Central European “sovereigntists”, the emerging regional divide between a “Baltic” and a “Danube” bloc, presidential elections in Poland and Romania, as well as how the Polish authorities are using the bogeyman of “pro-Russian sentiments” in the domestic political struggle. Aleksandar Raković discussed the prospects for overcoming the political crisis in Serbia, while Ekaterina Entina described the dire consequences of the first thirty years of Bosnia and Herzegovina's post-Dayton history.
As for “Old Europe”, at the current historical juncture, the military-political aspects of its functioning are of greatest interest. We examined the “Russian threat” factor in European strategic documents, comparing them with corresponding US documents, and discussed the dangerous trend in Western expert circles toward marginalising views that recognise the rational nature of Russia’s strategic behaviour. Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky discussed the prospects for the European Union to gain strategic autonomy amid deepening disagreements between the EU and the US, while Alexey Chikhachev analysed the new Franco-British ‘entente cordiale’ and the goals Paris is pursuing by supporting Ukraine.
In April, we held an expert discussion featuring Vladislav Maslennikov, Director of the European Department at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which focused on the radicalisation and militarisation of European society and consciousness. Meanwhile, in February, we examined modern diplomatic approaches from both Western and non-Western perspectives in our discussion, “The Diplomat’s Work in New Realities.”
The year’s analysis repeatedly returned to the fundamental theme of territory and borders. This focus was driven by both immediate flashpoints, like the Thai-Cambodian border dispute, and a confluence of significant anniversaries, including the 80th of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences and the 50th of the Helsinki Final Act. Our exploration extended to related concepts of “fair borders,” the challenges of secessionism and irredentism in South-Eastern Europe, and the future of the continent’s unrecognised states.
Regarding anniversaries, it is worth noting the materials and events related to the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Two discussions were devoted to issues of historical memory – one in the context of the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and another concerning the victory in the Pacific. Jean-Pierre Page’s article illuminates the rewriting of Second World War history in Western Europe, while Wang Yiwei’s article discusses China’s perspective on its contribution to the overall victory. We also addressed the broader issue of competing interpretations of the war as part of a long-term ideological standoff.
Another anniversary covered in our programme is the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Vladimir Kolotov reveals the reasons for the success of North Vietnam in an asymmetric conflict against a vastly superior enemy and the background to one of the few clear victories in the Cold War. It is worth noting that we have addressed Southeast Asia regularly throughout the year. The issue of ASEAN centrality was addressed by Ekaterina Koldunova and Alexander Korolev. Anna Velikaya analysed ASEAN countries’ positions on the crisis in Myanmar, and Sellita discussed Indonesia’s nuclear energy plans.
Nuclear energy and related topics were also a regular feature of the programme. In January, we discussed the situation on the EU gas market following the cessation of Russian transit through Ukraine. In March, we analysed the results of the IAEA Board of Governors session. In June, we debated the fate of the Iranian nuclear deal. Alexander Maryasov’s article was devoted to the Iranian nuclear programme, and Alireza Nouri highlighted the issue of involving Global South countries in negotiations to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue.
Energy security and nuclear governance remained a persistent theme. We discussed the situation on the EU gas market following the cessation of Russian transit through Ukraine, assessed the outcomes of the IAEA Board of Governors session, and debated the precarious future of the Iranian nuclear deal. Contributing to this discourse, Alexander Maryasov provided a detailed examination of Iran’s nuclear programme, while Alireza Noori argued for the imperative of engaging Global South nations in the negotiation process.
A separate research area within the programme was the infrastructure connectivity of Eurasia. Alexey Bezborodov and Marina Beloglazova wrote a report dedicated to Eurasian transport corridors, examining in detail whether they can serve as a tool for geopolitical struggle. The relevance of this topic was highlighted by events in September, when Poland closed its border with Belarus, triggering the largest logistics crisis in the Eurasian region. During an October discussion, experts assessed the results of this crisis and the prospects for the further development of transport routes in Eurasia. Rupal Mishra presented an Indian perspective on the role of transport corridors in strengthening sovereignty, and Aleksandar Mitic discussed how the European Union is attempting to limit Serbia’s foreign policy independence by obstructing its transport infrastructure projects.
Regarding other countries and regions, we published two articles on Turkey, which hosted the Valdai Club Asian Conference in November. Taha Özhan, Director of Research at the Ankara Institute, outlined his country’s policy to acquire the status of a diplomatic hub, and Nubara Kulieva analysed the prospects for a new Turkish constitution. In June, the Valdai Discussion Club hosted a meeting with Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Tariq Fatemi, during which experts discussed bilateral relations and the situation in South Asia. Gleb Makarevich wrote about the prospects for Indo-Chinese rapprochement (linked not least to the aforementioned “Trump factor”), and Pravin Sawhney, in a polemical article, challenged the thesis that India could become a leader of the Global South. Yahya Zoubir examined the crisis in Algerian-French relations and its neo-colonial underpinnings. The Israeli-Iranian conflict of June 2025 was analysed in commentaries by Daniel Levy, Alireza Noori, and Almas Haider Naqvi. Ying Xue shared her view on China’s “soft power.” Finally, Ekaterina Shebalina discussed the expectations for the pontificate of Leo XIV, explaining why the new Pope’s origins matter far less than the Latin American pastoral and theological traditions that shaped him.
To conclude, the discussion held in February addressed the future of artificial intelligence and Ying Xue explained the phenomenon of DeepSeek. Work on the current topics addressed within the “Globalisation and Sovereignty” programme will continue next year.
