Politique étrangère

The second Trump administration’s trade policy represents a rupture with the United States’ international commitments and a seismic shock for the multilateral trade system. Its destabilizing impact has been exacerbated by China’s disproportionate trade surplus, which has doubled since the 2020 pandemic. We are entering a new era marked by the erosion of norms and their replacement by a more transactional logic. For Europe, the challenge is enormous. 

The digital revolution is profoundly shaking up the economy, with the impact felt well beyond the digital sector itself. Indeed, it is transforming the very concept of value creation. Artificial intelligence represents a new phase that requires a colossal investment in physical infrastructure like data centers. Europe failed to grasp the scale of these changes in time, but it does have certain advantages. 

Official development assistance has collapsed since 2023, both in Europe and in the United States. This decline has affected both developing and industrialized countries. Under fire in the Global North and South, the goals and methods of development assistance must be redefined if it is to adapt to an international landscape in which the principal actors—the United States, the European Union, China, the Arab countries—are adopting new stances. 

Abolished in 2011, conscription returned to Germany in 2025, albeit in a new, voluntary form. The decision in 2011 was broadly supported. Public opinion, like the political sphere, is more divided now. The reintroduction of voluntary service for men reflects the demands of the geopolitical landscape and the Bundeswehr’s need for troops. It remains to be seen whether the model chosen will fulfill the requirements of defense chiefs.

The sovereign wealth funds of Gulf countries have become key players in world finance. By investing colossal sums in strategic sectors, they contribute both to local development and the growing influence of the Gulf monarchies in the global economy and international politics. In the near future, they will have to grapple with two challenges: that of human capital, and that of their geopolitical position between the Global North and Global South.

The secret of success for many Southeast Asian countries has been their choice of economic and diplomatic multilateralism. Fence-sitting between rival powers is becoming fraught. China inspires a degree of fear in the region, due to its clout and geographical proximity. And under Trump, the United States is on the offensive against the multilateral trade system, with major diplomatic consequences. Can Southeast Asian countries maintain their balance by embracing new partnerships?

South Asian leaders continue to reiterate how “central” ASEAN is to the region’s security architecture. However, in practice, the tendency is to prioritize bilateral agreements, gradually marginalizing the organization. This fragmentation is weakening regional cooperation, accentuating divisions, and compromising stability in the context of growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. These trends are worrying at a time when Sino-American rivalries are becoming more acute.

The political and economic weight of the Gulf monarchies has increased considerably. These countries have diversified their economies and become logistic hubs, attracting large numbers of investors. They have also managed to extend their power beyond their borders. However, the wider regional fallout of the war begun by Hamas on October 7, 2023 has cast doubt on the Gulf’s stability, especially as it seems that the American security umbrella can no longer be taken for granted

The Indo-Pacific is a priority for the second Trump administration, which sees China as the United States' principal rival. However, Donald Trump began his second term in a rather disconcerting fashion by taking a harder line with Washington's traditional partners. He then provoked hostilities with Beijing, sparking a trade war even more intense than during his first term. The Chinese authorities have no intention of taking it lying down.

As Russia continues to threaten Europe, the Trump administration is making no secret of its desire to withdraw—at least partially—from the defense of the Old
Continent in order to focus on strategic competition with China. It is thus putting pressure on its European allies to increase their investment in the military sector. The NATO Summit in The Hague in June 2025 resulted in ambitious commitments by member states to increase their defense spending.

The second Trump administration brings together a number of very different, even opposing, ideologies: far-right populism, the reactionary Christian right, paleolibertarianism, and technolibertarianism. The most visible measures taken since Donald Trump's return to the White House have been populist in nature, with the president's authority strengthened, checks and balances weakened, a form of identity politics embraced, and economic nationalism implemented.

Institutionalized multilateralism seems to be under threat from power politics, especially within the UN system. There are continuing demands for the UN to be reformed. And flexible forms of consultation are being developed, such as club diplomacy and minilateralism. The reshaping of multilateralism is thus taking place mainly outside the institutional system, and its distance from the liberal international order and the multipolar order makes it less likely that the earth's habitability will be placed at the top of the multilateral agenda.

The new European Internal Security Strategy, unveiled by the European Commission in April 2025, provides an opportunity to shine a light on a little-known policy. To mitigate the problems created by freedom of movement, substantial additions have been made to European internal security policy over the last few years. The European Union is constantly striving to become stronger in order to combat crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, and hybrid threats more effectively.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to settle the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. As the American president settles into the White House, different options are emerging for the future of this conflict. Some are more likely than others, but none can be ruled out. European countries appear increasingly divided over Russia, and the European Union risks paying a high price if it fails to come up with a solid common strategy.

The distribution of operational leverage points in US strategy has changed significantly over the past two decades, with a sharp reduction. Donald Trump's distancing and repeated criticism of traditional US alliances threaten to undermine the entire architecture of the US presence in the world, beyond the concrete, real and, in particular, industrial impasses of America's military posture.

Can international criminal justice be a factor in bringing about peace?

Strategic signaling—the range of signs and maneuvers intended, in peace time, to lend credibility to any threat to use nuclear weapons—is back.

The term “Axis of Resistance” refers to the coalition of Iranian proxies in the Middle East. Since Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, there has been noticeably greater coordination among these groups, at times without the direct involvement of Tehran. Iraq and Syria are important hubs where members of the Axis meet, exchange ideas, and plan actions. Russia, as part of its continuing struggle against the West, has moved closer to Iran and also to its proxies.

The states of the South Caucasus are trying to find their footing in an increasingly fragmented international landscape.

The technological revolution of the latter half of the twentieth century, 9/11, and the 2007–2008 financial crisis have delimited the West’s dream of harmonious globalization.

First proposed in 1936, the two-state solution has got lost over the course of several Israeli-Arab wars, colonization, the failure of the Oslo Accords, and the strategies of Israeli governments seeking rapprochement with certain Arab regimes. But it is currently the only imaginable solution. The numerous obstacles in its path could be overcome if the United States and its allies decided to impose it on the Israelis and Palestinians in opposition to their short-term visions.

The attacks on October 7, 2023, and the Israeli retaliation against Gaza have dramatically highlighted the continued absence of a solution to enable the coexistence of two peoples in the same territory. Both sides reject the idea of a single state. But the geography of Israeli colonization makes the territorial inscription of a Palestinian state almost impossible. The exception would be if Israel, possibly under international pressure, made drastic changes to its colonial settlements in the West Bank.

It is difficult to identify a shared set of norms implemented by populist governments of all different political positions once in power. 

The Ukrainian counter-offensive, which was supposed to result in a major breakthrough in 2023, came up against solid Russian defenses and ended in failure.

France's setbacks in the Sahel should not lead it to forget the long-standing historical ties that bind it to many African countries. 

Initially limited to the financial domain, the term BRICS is gradually becoming established in global economic governance.

Faced with the boom in demand for metal resources generated by the latest technology, the United States and Europe have been forced to revise the geography of their supply networks, which is synonymous with strategic dependency. 

The Russian economy is weathering the war and Western sanctions: it has maintained its exports, its business sector has shown marked dynamism, and the population is managing in part thanks to state spending.

The Oslo agreements signed in 1993 raised high hopes for peace in the Middle East. But appraising the state of affairs, thirty years on, the picture is bleak.