Global Bridges: Another Year of Conflicts Left Behind

Analyzing the dynamic events unfolding across the world within a single context has become increasingly challenging. Over the past five years, particularly in 2024, we witnessed the resurgence of conflicts previously considered resolved and the intensification of ongoing disputes. Studies and research indicate that many unanswered questions might find clarity following the U.S. election. Looking at the broader picture, it becomes evident that this assumption is not unfounded.

It is noteworthy that as Donald Trump's second term in office was confirmed in the United States, Syria's Ba’ath regime brought the civil war to a logical conclusion following Assad's downfall. Concurrently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict persisted, with Israel's incursion into Syrian territories further complicating the situation. Last year, while examining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I had the opportunity to interview former British diplomat James Moran. Our discussion yielded a key conclusion: "It is impossible to grasp what is happening in the Middle East through quick and superficial analysis."

Today, the most pressing global concern is the Russia-Ukraine war. One of the primary expectations in 2024 was that the conflict would be swiftly resolved with the Trump administration's return to power. Even those distant from politics hope for peace as soon as possible, given the global economic shocks caused by the war. There is widespread curiosity about how Ukraine will exist as a state and which direction it will develop once the conflict ends.

Last year, exploring perspectives on the conflict in Central Europe was one of my research priorities, focusing on the thoughts of leading think tanks. To this end, I met with Sebastian Schäffer, director of IDM and DRC. He noted that the conflict would not end soon and that Russia had no intention of halting the war in the near future. Interestingly, a former NATO representative to Russia, whom I recently interviewed, expressed a similar outlook for 2025.

As we step into the new year with hope, it is crucial to seek answers to unresolved questions, particularly by engaging with Western experts. It must be acknowledged that this conflict is of paramount interest to the West. For this reason, we organized an interview with British expert John Lough, a former NATO representative to Russia and a member of Chatham House. He is a prominent figure with insightful perspectives on the conflict from a Western standpoint.

Mr. Lough is an associate fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program. He began his career as an analyst at the Soviet Studies (later Conflict Studies) Research Center, focusing on Soviet and Russian security policy. He worked at NATO for six years and was the Alliance's first representative in Moscow from 1995 to 1998. In addition to his role at Chatham House, he is a senior research fellow with the recently established New Eurasian Strategies Centre.

My first question to Mr. Lough was about the potential outcomes of this conflict following the U.S. election.

John Lough:
"First, the prospects for ending this war can be divided into several parts. President-elect Trump and his team may attempt to compel both Russia and Ukraine to negotiate, seeking a path to end the conflict. This approach seems reasonable, as both sides are weary of the war and wish to end it—but on terms favorable to themselves. And that is precisely where the problem lies.

Whether a resolution can be achieved swiftly remains to be seen. Both sides might refuse to compromise, prolonging the war. The Trump administration believes it has leverage: it could force negotiations by halting arms supplies to Ukraine or, conversely, provide Ukraine with more advanced weaponry if Russia continues the conflict.

However, there is concern in Europe that negotiations might lead to a temporary pause, allowing Russia to regain strength. For Ukraine, such a pause carries significant risks. Meanwhile, the issue of European security remains unresolved. Proposals for deploying peacekeeping forces in Ukraine could arise, but while European countries are likely to contribute, I doubt the U.S. will play a direct role."

From my conversation with Mr. Lough, it became clear that he is also skeptical of the Trump administration’s potential actions. This skepticism is well-founded. Even before fully transitioning into power, Trump has made statements on social media that have raised concerns among allied countries. For instance, his claims on Greenland (which strained relations with Denmark and the EU) and his remarks about Canada stand out in this regard.

Mr. Lough further noted that the failure of the Minsk Agreements in 2014–2015 demonstrates that poorly crafted and inadequately implemented agreements do not lead to lasting peace. This experience highlights the importance of any new agreements being comprehensive and acceptable to both parties.

Additionally, Lough emphasized a broader question concerning European security:
"If NATO cannot provide long-term security for Ukraine, then what is the solution?"

He added that under Trump’s next administration, even NATO’s future as an alliance might be called into question.

Overview:
While there are some prospects for a ceasefire and negotiations, a lasting peace agreement will only be possible if both sides are willing to make significant compromises.

John Lough:
"It’s hard to believe, but it’s been nearly 30 years since I began my role as NATO’s representative in Moscow. That period was entirely different. In the mid-1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an administration in Moscow more open to building ties with the West. Boris Yeltsin’s strong relationships with leaders like Bill Clinton and Chancellor Helmut Kohl are good examples of this. When I started in Moscow in 1995, the atmosphere was quite cooperative. I remember being invited to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where an official asked NATO to help communicate its role to the Russian public—not as propaganda, but with facts. It’s quite impossible to imagine such an invitation today.

However, even within Yeltsin’s administration, there were divisions. Figures like Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev sought closer cooperation with the West, while others harbored suspicions of NATO. This distrust was particularly pronounced within military circles."

The memory of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s famous interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson remains fresh for many. That interview dominated social media for weeks. During the discussion, Putin delved deeply into historical details, offering an extensive monologue through his own lens. After its release, a narrative emerged suggesting that Russia had initially considered joining NATO. It seemed fitting to ask Mr. Lough about this claim.

Lough responded with precision:
"While the idea of Russia joining NATO, particularly in later years, was voiced by President Putin, it was never truly realistic. Had such a process been possible, the Alliance would have required Russia to make significant changes in its military and decision-making processes to align with NATO’s principles. This wasn’t just about adaptation but also about embracing the consensus-based system, which fundamentally differed from Russia’s approach to international cooperation.

We achieved productive collaboration in some areas, such as joint peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, NATO’s enlargement and other geopolitical shifts increasingly complicated the continuation of such cooperation."

At the end of our conversation, I asked Mr. Lough about Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus. He highlighted Azerbaijan’s significant geopolitical weight due to its energy resources:
"The South Caucasus is influenced by major global trends—this could be described as a revolutionary period in international relations. The world order established after World War II and the Cold War is being redefined. In this context, Azerbaijan’s main challenge is to manage these changes effectively, maintain strong ties with neighbors like Türkiye and Russia, and assert its leadership role in the region. This requires careful diplomacy, economic diversification, and broader regional cooperation to ensure stability."

This interview-discussion with John Lough was organized as part of the Social Research Center’s Global Bridges project series.

Pasha Bayramov
Senior Advisor, Social Research Center