Programmes

“Poland is at its closest to open conflict since World War Two,” warned Prime Minister Donald Tusk, after a sudden Russian airspace violation rattled the country. On September 9, a swarm of Russian drones entered Polish skies, prompting NATO aircraft to scramble and intercept several of them. It marked the first direct encounter between NATO and Moscow since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. While the incident might have been a test by Putin to gauge NATO’s and Europe’s response, it also raises the specter of a potential war between Poland and Russia. Given Poland’s critical role within NATO and the EU, far greater than Ukraine’s, the implications of such a conflict would place the entire continent in Jeopardy. The pressing question now is: how likely is this war to erupt, and would Europeans bear the brunt?

This Pulse survey, conducted in August 2025, examines public perceptions of the Arabic language and its role in shaping regional identity, security, and cohesion. The findings shed light on how populations view the weakening of Arabic as a potential threat, not only to cultural and social unity, but also to economic stability and national security. By exploring both immediate and long-term concerns, the survey provides valuable insights into how language is perceived as a pillar of resilience in the Arab world.

The Republican People’s Party (CHP) managed to achieve a noticeable electoral victory against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the latest local elections that were held on 31 March 2024. However, the joy of victory did not last long, as the Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, was arrested for corruption charges before being ousted from his position as the Mayor of Istanbul. The investigation into corruption charges revealed that the CHP leadership elections held on 4–5 November 2023, which resulted in the election of Özgür Özel as the party’s leader, might have involved illegal activities that could have jeopardised the transparency of the outcome. As a result, the Turkish judiciary is investigating this issue at the moment. On Monday, Sept. 15 2025, a Turkish court in Ankara held a hearing in a case questioning the legitimacy of the CHP’s 2023 leadership election (the 38th Congress), alleging irregularities like vote-buying, meaning that the outcome of the CHP leadership elections may be invalidated. If it happens, the impact on the CHP and electoral map in Turkey could be massive.

The idea of building floating cities at sea has long drifted between science fiction fantasy and Silicon Valley ambition, but in the late 2000s it developed into a real-world project known as seasteading. Presented as a bold libertarian experiment, it promised an escape from taxes, governments, and regulations, offering wealthy backers the chance to create new societies beyond the reach of any state. For its supporters, this was not about fixing broken systems but about starting from scratch in international waters, rewriting the rules in the name of freedom, innovation, and limitless possibility.   Yet as this idea edges closer to reality, the questions it raises grow more urgent: who are these new societies really for, and who will inevitably be excluded? In a world already marked by widening inequality and an accelerating climate crisis, floating cities may not look like visions of the future so much as warnings about the present.

Since the launch of the first satellite in 1957, the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) has undergone a profound transformation from a near-empty frontier into a congested and polluted environment shaped by decades of human activity. Non-functional satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragmentation debris from collisions and explosions have accumulated to a mass exceeding 14,700 tons. Critical events have amplified the scale of the problem, most notably China’s Anti-Satellite Test (ASAT) in 2007 and the 2009 collision between the U.S. Iridium-33 and Russia’s Kosmos-2251, which together generated nearly one-third of all catalogued debris in LEO.   This material is unevenly distributed but highly concentrated between 750 and 1,000 kilometres, an orbital belt central to Earth Observation and communications. Objects in this altitude range can persist for centuries, while in the Geostationary Orbit (GEO) debris may remain indefinitely, underscoring the long-term persistence of the hazard. Consequently, orbital space has shifted from an open frontier to a finite and polluted resource requiring collective governance.   This study examines the economic and political dimensions of space debris. It assesses the direct costs borne by operators, the cascading risks to terrestrial infrastructure such as Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and weather forecasting, and the disproportionate challenges facing developing nations. It concludes by analysing potential responses, ranging from mitigation strategies to Active Debris Removal (ADR), within the broader framework of international governance and global equity.

In recent years, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations have emerged as a transformative layer within the global digital infrastructure, marking a departure from their original role as connectivity solutions for remote regions. These systems are now embedded within the operational cores of critical sectors such as civil aviation, maritime logistics, financial markets, and defence. The clearest manifestation of this structural shift is Starlink, operated by SpaceX, which by mid-2025 had exceeded 7 million users across more than 150 countries, with exponential growth rates in high-value, latency-sensitive industries.   This rapid technological and geographical expansion has positioned Starlink as a globally integrated utility—yet one that operates outside conventional regulatory regimes. It represents a structural concentration of control over global data flows in a single, privately held entity. The dual outages that occurred in July and September 2025 exposed deep systemic vulnerabilities within the Starlink network, including software architecture fragilities and environmental sensitivities to space weather events. These incidents prompted urgent questions about the stability of a critical infrastructure layer that now underpins sectors central to national sovereignty and global economic coordination.   This report interrogates the systemic risks embedded in the global economy’s growing dependence on LEO constellations through two interlinked analytical lenses. The first is a technical-political economy perspective, which examines the underlying architecture of the Starlink network and the typology of its failure modes—both endogenous and exogenous. The second is a forward-looking, scenario-based assessment that models the potential global economic consequences of a 24-hour Starlink outage in 2032. Through this dual approach, the analysis traces the contours of a new strategic dilemma: how to govern an emergent, transnational infrastructure whose failure could trigger multi-sectoral crises at planetary scale, yet whose design and control remain entirely privatized.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is intending to establish a new trade bloc, a strategic and interconnected initiative aimed at achieving multiple goals on both the national and the international level. This trade block should not be interpreted in isolation, rather as part of the UAE’s wider economic and geopolitical strategy, which reflects the changing and evolving dynamics of the global trade landscape.     In a fragmented globalization era, where competition and integration attempt significantly increase between the regional trade networks and the multilateral systems, the UAE is poised to maintain its influence and relevance by positioning itself at the forefront of the global landscape. This approach will benefit the UAE on different levels, including advancing domestic priorities while simultaneously enhancing its leverage within the evolving global economic power. Nevertheless, the bloc’s success is not completely guaranteed, as it will need to navigate significant regulatory, infrastructural, and political barriers to translate its potentiality into tangible outcomes.

The global aviation industry is undergoing a historic realignment, as the center of gravity shifts decisively from West to East—a transformation that reflects deeper dynamics in the redistribution of economic and geopolitical power within the international system. For decades, Western carriers dominated the skies, leveraging superior infrastructure, extensive fleets, and mature consumer markets. Today, however, airlines based in the Middle East and Asia are emerging as the new engines of growth and connectivity, assuming a central role in redrawing the global map of intercontinental air travel. While the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trajectory, it did not initiate it; rather, it exposed the structural vulnerabilities of legacy Western airlines and underscored the strategic foresight of their Eastern counterparts, whose recovery was bolstered by extensive state support and institutionally anchored expansion strategies.   One of the most visible manifestations of this shift is an intense race to modernize fleets with next-generation, long-range, fuel-efficient aircraft—an investment wave that exceeds $200 billion in the Middle East alone. This is not merely a technical upgrade; it constitutes a deliberate, long-term vision to project aerial influence, enhance global market competitiveness, and entrench these airlines as sovereign instruments of statecraft.   Accordingly, this study analyzes the contours of this transformation through an integrated framework that examines operational strength, capital investment in fleets, network architectures, and the adaptability of business models. It further explores the growing convergence between national economic visions—such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and China’s Belt and Road Initiative—and the strategic deployment of national carriers as tools of geopolitical influence. Rather than forecasting definitive outcomes, the paper seeks to situate this aviation shift within a broader, more volatile global context—one where profitability and efficiency increasingly intersect with sovereignty and strategic positioning, and where the skies themselves become arenas for shaping the balance of power in the decades ahead.

Iran’s nuclear file is witnessing a rapidly escalating trajectory, underscored by its potential decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This move could redefine the very architecture of global nuclear governance. Should this course of action materialise, it would mark the first precedent of its kind since North Korea’s withdrawal from the same treaty in 2003, transforming what might initially appear as a mere negotiating stance into a profound strategic turning point with far-reaching implications for the policies of the Middle East and the wider international order.   These Iranian threats, which began escalating in June 2025, did not emerge in a vacuum; instead, they were a direct reaction to a series of successive strategic developments. The U.S.–Israeli military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 significantly deepened the complexity of the situation, while the crisis further intensified when the European troika (E3) announced in September 2025 the activation of the “snapback mechanism,” thereby reimposing UN sanctions on Tehran. Taken together, these measures led Iran to conclude that the economic and political value of adhering to international treaties had effectively evaporated.   The gravity of the situation extends beyond political dimensions to encompass highly sensitive technical and legal aspects. Technically, Iran possesses between 400 and 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to roughly 60%; a stockpile that places it only weeks away from producing weapons-usable fissile material if enrichment were elevated to about 90%. Legally, Iran’s invocation of Article X of the NPT would trigger an immediate cessation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) oversight and remove the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement from the equation, paving the way for near-total diplomatic isolation. Consequently, the fallout from withdrawal would transcend the confines of Tehran’s nuclear programme and create a broad regional security dilemma.

On October 1, U.S. reports stated that President Donald Trump gave the green light to provide Ukraine with intelligence information to strike deep into Russia’s energy infrastructure sites, while studying providing Kyiv with long-range weapons that can be used in such strikes. The reports also indicated that Washington is encouraging the NATO allies to take similar actions.   The U.S. has already been providing intelligence to Ukraine since the beginning of the war; however, Trump's signalling to provide more sensitive information could hold different consequences on the outcomes of the war. Since his second-term inauguration, Trump has vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine war, so does this decision come in parallel to the American President's ambition to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv, and how this might implicate the Russian and Ukrainian sides.

The shooting of the right-wing conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10 at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, during a question-and-answer debate, reflects the deep divisions in American society and the political landscape and represents a repercussion of the polarised America and increased political violence.   Where Ideological polarisation in the U.S. has been deeply rooted in society, and recent times have witnessed a more divided landscape over the governmental domestic and foreign policy directions, including taxes, immigration, aid to Ukraine, and Israel's war in Gaza. Since the outbreak of the Gaza war, the U.S. government has been providing extensive military, financial, and diplomatic support for Israel. Additionally, the U.S. repeatedly vetoed several UN ceasefire resolutions, widening the gap between the government's direction and the street, especially among younger generations. The American campuses witnessed a wide range of protests against Israel's war in Gaza and in support of Palestine, which were met by violence from the police forces, arrests, and threats of deportation for foreign students. Similarly, Kirk has been a strong supporter of Israel and its actions in Gaza but raised doubts on Israel’s security breaches and how Hamas was able to penetrate Israel's defence system.   Kirk was a symptom of the polarisation in the U.S. His opinions rallied many people around him and often clashed with the Democrats’ views, raising questions about the possibility that his shooting was a manifestation of deep polarisation inside American society and whether divisions over issues such as gender, immigration, and the Gaza war are key incentives for the ongoing polarisation-induced violence in the U.S.   With the mayoral and midterm congressional elections approaching, questions are raised about whether the Republican Party will utilise the political violence fuelled by intense polarisation to secure electoral gains and whether the Democratic Party can overcome internal divisions and capitalise on the concerns about the Trump administration’s heavy-handed response to Kirk’s assassination.

The global competition over semiconductors and related military technologies has become the central axis of great-power rivalry. The United States maintains its leadership in the global semiconductor industry, with American companies securing roughly half of the global semiconductor market. However, this dominance faces a growing challenge from China, which accounted for 20% of global semiconductor sales in 2024. Beijing’s ambition to achieve self-sufficiency in semiconductors is steadily advancing despite ongoing trade tensions and intellectual property restrictions imposed by Washington amidst the broader ‘tech war.’ China aims to reach 50% self-sufficiency in semiconductor production by the end of the year, reinforced by significant investments in R&D and market expansion by Chinese firms.   In contrast, Russia’s position in semiconductor-dependent military industries is increasingly constrained. Although Russia retains expertise in weapons design, its reliance on imported materials and advanced chip-making equipment from Western countries exposes critical vulnerabilities. Western sanctions, introduced in response to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, have sharply limited Moscow’s access to these essential inputs. In response, Russia has sought alternative suppliers, with China emerging as its largest source of semiconductor materials. These dynamic forms part of the broader Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral framework, underpinning Moscow’s strategic pivot toward Eastern partnerships.   Meanwhile, India is rapidly evolving as a significant player in the semiconductor sector. The country’s announcement in September of its first indigenous chip, “Vikram 32,” marks a milestone in New Delhi’s pursuit of technological self-reliance and signals India’s potential emergence as a competitor to U.S. semiconductor dominance. India’s increasing engagement with Russia and China reflects a pragmatic alignment based on mutual interests, particularly in the context of escalating policy tensions with Washington. Notably, U.S. tariffs imposed on India’s trade in Russian oil have further incentivized this trilateral collaboration.   Collectively, the China-Russia-India “troika” represents a coalition of shared interests rather than a formal ideological alliance. Should this partnership strengthen, it could significantly bolster their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities and pose a formidable challenge to the American industry. Nevertheless, lingering frictions—such as unresolved border disputes, differing economic priorities, technological gaps, and the impact of sanctions—are likely to impede seamless technological integration. The United States still wields substantial influence over India, with opportunities to attract New Delhi through increased investments, tariff reductions, and advanced technology cooperation. Ultimately, the trajectory of the RIC semiconductor partnership holds profound implications for the global order. A successful integration of this “troika” chip industry with their respective military technologies could catalyse the rise of a multipolar system, revolutionizing surveillance, air defence, drone capabilities, and the broader defence industrial base, thereby reshaping international power dynamics.