Summary

· Increasing hybrid activities in the international system expose �䲹�Բ��岹’s vulnerabilities in federal response, coordination, and cohesion in relation to evolving security threats and targets in the 21st century.

· Norway’s Total Defence model demonstrates how incorporating a “whole-of-society” approach can enhance resilience against hybrid threats.

· Canada should implement elements from the Norwegian model during a period of heightened hybrid operations.

Increase in Hybrid Activities

Hybrid threats have expanded since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Advancements in technology, drones and artificial intelligence (AI) have created cheaper alternatives for weakening and destabilising opponents without declaring war. These activities—with Russia as a main perpetrator— include espionage, cyberattacks, critical infrastructure sabotage, disinformation campaigns, and covert operations aimed at undermining democratic institutions and creating intrastate division. NATO member states, including , have each experienced drone incursions, cyber disruptions, and other hybrid operations linked to Russia that target critical infrastructure and European civil society more broadly.

Within this hybrid threat environment, . As its polar ice melts , states are “”; the economic frontier in particular holds . As such, the Arctic has become a key region in the security space due to its economic and security value; it is in �䲹�Բ��岹’s national interest to continue securing its Northern territories, safeguard its economic interests and relationships in this region, and overall strengthen societal resilience, as these factors remain paramount to combatting hybrid threats.

�䲹�Բ��岹’s National Security Strategy

Canada has technically not released a . The four defence policies it has released following the initial framework outline the distribution of military resources and emphasize the geopolitical importance of the Arctic. National security strategies outline the principles and priorities that guide governments in developing and implement security policy, and while Canada has released a , it merely mentions .

This stands in contrast to the Norway, which released its first . Norway’s National Security Strategy emphasises a “whole-of-society” approach; it highlights the increasing role of hybrid tactics and prioritises societal resilience as a tool to reduce vulnerabilities, as discussed below. Furthermore, there are plans to , to meet the demands and changing international conditions. By drawing on the cohesive and coordinated Norwegian model, Canada could model its own security policy measures and responses in a way that increases societal resilience while defending against hybrid threats. It presents an opportunity for collaboration in a region increasingly being characterized as important yet vulnerable with trusted allies, thereby also serving as a coordinated response across two key Arctic states.

Infrastructure Gaps

A key source of strength and vulnerability in Canada is its vast geography and regional differences, particularly as it relates to critical infrastructure capability. The Arctic holds forty percent of �䲹�Բ��岹’s landmass but hosts less than . Infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic is lacking and is . With �䲹�Բ��岹’s historical neglect of the Arctic and its , adversaries have begun to aimed at targeting public trust and democratic institutions. These efforts jeopardise national security and the resilience of communities across Canada; however, the Canadian government also has the opportunity to further expand its coordination with Indigenous communities.

The Canadian Rangers are a key example of Indigenous knowledge in action in the Arctic; As mentioned in other analyses conducted by EETN, the Rangers . Continuing to utilise and expand relationships related to their knowledge as Indigenous to Turtle Island will assist in many different facets. The expansion of relationships also creates an important opportunity to reconcile and develop a renewed sense of collaboration rather than one of dependency and colonial hierarchy. This process will assist in increasing resilience across communities while building sustainably, and work to break down information siloes while developing a holistic, “whole-of-society” security model.

Institutional Coordination

The current Norwegian strategy, which integrates civilian and military components under a single framework, is a whole-of-society approach. A key pillar in their strategy is the concept of “Total Defence”; that is, “.” With a Total Defence model, Norway places resilience in the hands of the Norwegian collective, rather than one single entity, to address 21st-century threats. In 2021, the government formalised collaboration and involvement with the private sector, . This led to greater information sharing and increased dialogue, laying a foundation for better coordination.

The current Canadian model demonstrates an overarching lack of coordination, as the responsibility to respond to hybrid threats implicates a network of federal agencies, including . While each agency’s mandate targets a specific area of �䲹�Բ��岹’s security, overarching coordination between the network remains limited and complex.

The 2025 Auditor General Report on Cyber Security of Government Network and Systems stated that while agencies have the tools to respond to cyber-attacks, there are still major gaps and vulnerabilities that remain. Recent cyber-attacks against Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) demonstrated issues in information sharing and coordination. As a result of incomplete procedures and protocols, it took .

This lack of coordination across government agencies has resulted in information siloes, which have subsequently led to . This translates to public-private cooperation as information-sharing remains voluntary, with ; nonetheless, the federal government has struggled to maintain consistency in information-sharing, leading to coverage gaps in Canadian hybrid response models. In contrast, the Norwegian model has which predominately focus on national cyber security, national intelligence, and joint cyber coordination. . Norway has developed a system which utilises the Joint Coordination Centres to clearly define roles, and ensures that institutional siloes are minimized, as each Centre has a clear mandate of membership and information sharing, which must be further addressed in the Canadian context.

Conclusion

Canadian exposure to hybrid threats is increasing. There remains a lack of coordination in how Canada aims to address and respond to such threats, leaving the country vulnerable to the actions undertaken by adversaries by virtue of relying on outdated frameworks of national security. The Norwegians’ Total Defence model demonstrates that while a whole-of-society approach is challenging; proper coordination, ongoing communication, and public-private partnerships are key to building longstanding societal and national resilience. By taking the steps to update our national security strategy, improving interagency coordination, and minimising gaps in Northern community infrastructure, Canada could better address and be proactive in responding to the hybrid threats of the 21st century.

Policy Recommendations

· Redevelop and update a National Security Strategy featuring a National Hybrid Resilience Framework.

· Continue partnering with Inuit, Indigenous, and Northern communities to close infrastructure gaps; look for new opportunities to build security relationships with Indigenous communities in Canada and across the Northern European continent.

· Develop a working group built of regionally-balanced, public-private stakeholders for information-sharing and threat management.

· Conduct intersecting reviews of the CSIS Act and the RCMP Act to minimise institutional silos that prevent effective and coordinated response management to hybrid threats.

The post Strengthening �䲹�Բ��岹’s Hybrid Resilience:
Lessons Learned from Norway appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

Prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine was one of the world’s largest exporters of grain, with its Black Sea ports in Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Pivdennyi serving as key stops in global shipment routes. The ongoing war has severely impeded Ukraine’s exporting capabilities, which has had critical impacts domestically and abroad. Ukraine has been able to adapt by establishing alternative shipping routes, but this has also created new potential vulnerabilities. The Port of Constanta, Romania’s Black Sea port, has emerged as a central node in stabilizing global grain supply as a result of the war. This development provides an opportunity for intraregional cooperation, as well as further EU and NATO presence through key littoral states. Understanding the geopolitical implications of shifting supply routes gives insight into a primary target for economic pressure by Russia, and how this has influenced regional development.

Securitization of Shipping Routes in the Black Sea

A key element of Russia’s war strategy in Ukraine has been to target industry and infrastructure to deplete Ukraine’s economy and overall capacity to defend itself. The Black Sea and Danube shipping routes are instrumental to this strategy. Odesa is Ukraine’s largest port on the Black Sea. Rail and road transport connect Odesa to the Danube, so goods can be shipped upstream to the rest of Europe or out to international destinations. Prior to the war, Odesa was the main hub for exports of grain, sunflower products, and oilseeds, . When shipping out of Odesa and other Black Sea ports became inviable due to Russian attacks, transport shifted to rail, truck, and barge; however, this rapid increase in land traffic quickly led to chokepoints and delays. The inability for Ukraine to export grain created shortages around the world – particularly in Africa, Asia, and – and also had a severe impact on Ukraine’s economy, . Therefore, disruptions had a huge impact on Ukraine’s economy, as well as global markets. As a result, in 2022 the was brokered to enable Ukrainian exports. A UN-brokered deal between Russia, Ukraine, and Türkiye, this Initiative established safe passages, inspections, and additional security for commercial vessels during the war. However, it only lasted a year before Russia withdrew. Since then, Russian attacks on Ukraine’s ports on both the Black Sea and the Danube have been consistent and destructive. While Ukraine has been able to partially restore grain exports since 2023, these exports still remained in 2025. Alternative shipping routes have been critical in providing an outlet for this grain, notably , transport across the Danube, and the . To support these new routes, regional partners have helped Ukraine by taking in more imports to domestic markets and by exporting more Ukrainian grain through domestic facilities. The Port of Constanta in Romania has played a central part in this shift and serves as a primary example of how the war is strengthening cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union (EU).

Port of Constanta

The Port of Constanta, located on the coast of Romania, is the EU’s largest port on the Black Sea. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, this port has become a major grain hub with a . In 2023, as Ukrainian cereal and grain was redirected there after the war started. Bridging Europe, Asia, and Africa, this port holds significant strategic importance while also serving as . Additionally, the port’s proximity to the Danube River emphasizes its connectivity to Ukraine. Since the war, the Danube River corridor has become a vital alternative route for Ukrainian grain exports, making the Port of Constanta an essential aspect of Ukraine’s export flows. Additionally, the geopolitical importance of the Port has motivated large-scale modernization of facilities and broader infrastructural upgrades. The EU has been pivotal in funding key projects involving the Port of Constanta such as a , , and . Private companies have also contributed to ramping up operational capacity at the Port. This includes a new with specialized equipment, , and a . At this point, Russia has not launched direct attacks on Romanian port infrastructure on the Black Sea or the Danube. This is because Romania is a part of NATO, and therefore an attack risks triggering Article 5. However, fallout from attacks on their Ukrainian ports such as Izmail along the Danube affects Romanian facilities and villages by the water. Infrastructural damage affects the ability for shipments along the waterway to run smoothly. Additionally, , and a .

Geopolitical Implications

The securitization of Black Sea shipping routes have provided new geopolitical challenges while also accelerating already existing intraregional issues. The integral role exports play for the Ukrainian economy make it essential for routes to be protected to avoid further economic destabilization. Additionally, the inability for Ukraine to ship regular capacities of grain out of the Black Sea has placed additional stress on the Solidarity Lanes into neighbouring countries of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. This decreased capacity, in turn, has created political tensions between Ukraine and its Eastern European neighbours as , negatively affecting the livelihoods of local farmers who cannot compete with the influx of supply. As a result of this influx, the which limit trade liberalization for key products like wheat and sugar. However, Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary still maintain their , which has further increased tensions within the EU. This blockade has contributed to worsening relations between these countries and Ukraine, as well as preventing unified EU action on this issue. The destabilizing effects of Russia’s attacks on shipment routes needs to be addressed in order to ensure Ukraine does not face additional material pressures in the war. Stabilizing the region will also be integral to protecting networks such as the , which rely on the Black Sea to connect goods between Asia and Europe.

These security needs present EU littoral states a unique opportunity to establish their own presence in the region, both politically and economically. Romania has expressed strong interest in becoming a key EU representative in the region, which could be pivotal in breaking through the current disagreements. Engaging in deeper ties with other countries like Bulgaria and Georgia could also increase prosperity and development within the region. For example, Georgia and Romania recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a new , which can reinforce energy security that has been consistently undermined by Russian attacks. An outcome of this increased cooperation could be strengthened collaboration with the EU and NATO through these littoral states. The EU has already played a strong role as an investor and economic partner for countries like Romania and Bulgaria. NATO, through and the Mines Countermeasure exercise, improves deterrence and defence in the region. Using the EU/NATO umbrella also helps to bring in key external partners in the region. For example, engaging with Georgia on this initiative is an important opportunity to push back against Russian expansionism and influence on the other side of the Black Sea.

Conclusion

The Black Sea region acts as a crossroads between several different trade routes, making it pivotal as both an economic and military target. Russia’s actions in the region have been effective in destabilizing the Ukrainian economy and reducing the capacity of preexisting trade routes in the region. However, these challenges have been mitigated by the ability of Ukraine and its neighbours to adapt under difficult circumstances. Moving forward, further coordinated action in the region can further enhance its stability and even contribute to future prosperity. Existing pan-European and even transatlantic cooperation in the region has already provided a strong foundation to protect and support littoral partners. Leveraging these ties further provides an opportunity to counter Russian strategies and contain its expansionist ambitions.

The post Navigating the Waters: Trade Routes in the Black Sea After 2022 appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

Introduction

On January 5th, 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the appointment of former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Member of Parliament, Chrystia Freeland, as Economic Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine. In a post on X, Zelenskyy stated, “Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal resilience – both for the sake of Ukraine’s recovery if diplomacy delivers results as swiftly as possible, and to reinforce our defence if, because of delays by our partners, it takes longer to bring this war to an end.” In the following days, Freeland confirmed she accepted President Zelenskyy’s appointment and that she would be resigning as a Member of Parliament, taking effect as of January 9th, 2026.

Freeland’s appointment as voluntary Economic Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine is being made against the larger and developing backdrop of ongoing diplomatic negotiations between the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States (US) to come to an agreed upon pathway to peace. This negotiation process continues to be arduous for Ukraine. It also comes alongside a deepening of foreign diplomatic relations between Canada and Ukraine under the Mark Carney government; this, coming on the back of Prime Minister Carney’s historical , where he stressed the end of the rules-based international order and hinted at the decline of American hegemony – a speech that have held to ultimately represent the beginning of a multipolar era in world politics.

In the coming months, the Eastern European and Transatlantic Network (EETN) will publish a series analyzing key developments shaping the war; these include prospective pathways to peace, ongoing diplomatic negotiations and tensions, and the shifting security and economic governance landscape in Ukraine. Freeland is an integral node among an emerging and vital network aimed at supporting Ukraine and its future as the anniversary of the full-scale invasion nears and passes. This series aims to make clear that Russia is not only engaged in a war of attrition so as to try to reclaim its great power status, but that Ukraine is increasingly prepared to respond to this war of attrition with strategies and methods of asymmetric and hybrid warfare. Ukraine is prepared to make the strategic, economic, and relational moves necessary to better guarantee its future, as well as its success on the battlefield and in diplomatic negotiations.

This first brief of the series reflects on Freeland’s appointment and builds upon an argument first offered by Ukrainian scholar Valeriia Gusieva, where she suggested that cultural resilience is a foundational pillar to security. I extend her argument here by suggesting that cultural resilience and situated experience are also crucial to sustaining a coherent and effective attritional war strategy – Freeland’s appointment, in this case, should be understood light through the lens of political habituation.

Chrystia Freeland: A Ukrainian-Canadian MP and Soviet War Crimes Researcher

Chrystia Freeland was born in Peace River, Alberta in 1968 to a Ukrainian mother and Canadian father. Though she formally entered Canadian federal politics in 2013, she is perhaps most known through her association with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government. Under Trudeau, Freeland was appointed to serve as Minister of International Trade in Trudeau’s cabinet. In this position, she was a key negotiator in the hard-fought Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) (which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 2020), as well as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union (EU) that was signed in 2016.

While it is fair to assume that many Western audiences are familiar with the whiplash antics of American President Donald Trump, who often combines “,” less well known are the tensions that characterized the negotiation process of CETA. As researchers , CETA encountered historical diplomatic tensions throughout its negotiation process: “This challenge becomes evident at various stages in the trade policy process, but it is most pronounced in the ratification of bilateral agreements, which require approval in all member states.”

On paper, arriving at CETA was through the bilateral process of negotiation between Canada and the EU; in reality, however, Freeland was situated in a much more difficult negotiating position. Because the subsequent ratification of CETA would require the approval of all EU member states, such a negotiating process proved to be a lesson for both Freeland and the European Commission, who was charged with ensuring the twenty-eight member states were in alignment. Indeed, as scholar Joris Larik , the alleged crisis of CETA negotiations soon became a “cautionary tale” about the “cumbersome and vulnerable EU treaty-making procedures, where internal politics and technical legal discussions detracted from the merits (or demerits) of the actual agreement.”

This became most visible through the tensions experienced with the Wallonia Parliament in Belgium, an autonomous regional government with veto power over EU trade deals. In late 2016, the Walloon government publicly rejected CETA, in part because of their worry that the trade deal would “.” Walloon regional minister-president, Paul Magnette, told reporters the following: “I don’t consider this as a funeral, I don’t consider this as a veto without any conditions. I consider this as a request to reopen negotiations so that European leaders could hear the legitimate demands which have been forcefully expressed by an organized, transparent civil society.” As Larik however, this crisis led to “profound internal reflections on EU trade policy, causing even a shift in the EU’s practice in concluding trade agreements.

It was largely in response to these tensions and apparent deadlock within Wallonia that Freeland made the public decision to walk out on CETA negotiations with our European allies. Following her decision, Freeland with Canadian journalists candidly: “It’s become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn’t capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada.” At the time, the move was taken by some in Canadian media as an “” response; Conservative critics in the House of Commons Freeland’s walk out as a “meltdown,” alleging she required “adult supervision” – language that carried clear sexist and gendered connotations. Still others this walk out is exactly what the negotiation process needed, as it eventually led to the signing of the trade agreement.

Reflecting on her CETA negotiation experience in 2026, Freeland the following about negotiating with European allies, which is worth quoting at-length here:

“You can sort of have two kinds of negotiations. Some negotiations start with a kind of win-win premise where the two parties come together wanting a deal, wanting to be friends, seeing each other as long-term partners, and they’ll disagree about stuff, but the negotiation is really about everyone working hard together to find the best possible landing zone. I would say �䲹�Բ��岹’s negotiations with the EU about our trade deal with Europe, CETA, were conducted in that way, and they were hard, right? … Our final slightly melodramatic moments in Namur, in Wallonia, you know, proceeded by moments in Vienna, in Germany, in the European Parliament. I mean, it was a long slog and there were lots of obstacles and there was some drama, but it was clear there was goodwill on all sides.”

In this interview, Freeland goes on to characterize how Trump falls into an alternative negotiation camp compared to that which characterized CETA; she the idea that the American President abides by the logic of a zero-sum game: “…when you are dealing with a party that has that kind of a view [zero-sum game logic] and that kind of an attitude, then I think you have to be very clear in your own mind about red lines. And you have to be very prepared to say, thus far and no further, we’re not gonna capitulate our approach.”

Freeland later went on to become �䲹�Բ��岹’s Minister of Finance in 2020, where she was responsible for introducing four federal budgets, including federal aid measures related to �䲹�Բ��岹’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She was the first woman to serve in this role, a fact that would later be considered by the as crucial in the decay of her relationship with Trudeau prior to his own resignation in late-2025.

Beyond her political career, Freeland’s academic and journalistic works span two decades and have drawn the ire of the Kremlin. While pursuing graduate studies in Russian history and literature at Harvard, where she was responsible for documenting and translating archival and investigative materials related to the – an unmarked, mass burial site used by the NKVD (the secret police of the Soviet Union) to dispose of executed dissidents and prisoners. It remains one of the largest mass burial sites in Ukraine, even Russia’s current invasion. Her research played a decisive role in debunking the Stalin-era myth that the executions were exclusively carried out by the Nazis during World War Two. This research eventually attracted the attention of the KGB – the main security agency of the Soviet Union – who then assigned Freeland the codename “Frida,” closely surveilling and building a case against her throughout the course of her study.

As a Canadian with Ukrainian heritage, Freeland has been among the most outspoken advocates for sustained Canadian support to Ukraine. In response, she is one of thirteen Canadian officials barred from entering Russia under retaliatory sanctions imposed by Vladimir Putin himself in 2014 and has been the target of various . Freeland has also faced public attacks from American President Donald Trump, who on several occasions has described her in disparaging terms, including “,” a “,” a “,” and an overall “.” From a feminist perspective, Freeland’s experience navigating such attacks underscores her familiarity with the gendered power dynamics employed by – an experience that may indeed prove to be a strategic asset in a war whose social construction and conduct are themselves . While much of international politics Freeland nonetheless works against the masculine grain in a pursuit of fair and just agreements and futures.

Contextualizing the Habituation of Freeland and Concluding Remarks

As this series continues to examine changes within President Zelenskyy’s inner circle in response to both Ukrainian domestic pressures and Russia’s growing attritional war strategy, I suggest that Freeland’s appointment as a voluntary Economic Advisor to Ukraine signals an awareness within Ukrainian leadership and its closest allies that responding to Russia’s attritional warfare in 2026 cannot be confined to military operations alone. No longer are we in an era where hard power capabilities are the only measure of a nation’s strength; the personal and personnel also matter.

Freeland will be an important figure to watch, particularly as it relates to dialogue between Ukrainian feminists and the pro-democracy movement – not because Freeland herself has expressed a desire to pursue a feminist agenda in Ukraine’s economic reconstruction, but because her presence reflects the often-implicit reality that gendered political experience shapes how the dynamics of endurance, credibility, and trust are produced and sustained in wartime economies. In a war of attrition, where authority is continuously reaffirmed under conditions of prolonged uncertainty, reputational attack, and economic strain, such situated experience becomes strategically relevant, I suggest, as a form of habituation to sustained delegitimization.

The notion of habituation draws from a long philosophical tradition – mostly commonly, Aristotelian ethics, where habituation (hexis) was used to refer to repeated exposure and practice from durable dispositions rather than momentary or instantaneous reaction. In contemporary political thought, philosophers and scholars inspired by phenomenologists such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty have upon this idea to explain how subjects develop capacities for political action through ongoing relational strain. In feminist ethics, habituation helps to explain how – often oppressed – actors learn to endure, navigate, and act within conditions of prolonged vulnerability, scrutiny, and marginalization over time. It moves beyond experience; it is an engaged and embodied vision and practice.

In an attritional war where legitimacy is not necessarily secured through fast-paced or singular victories but continually reproduced across various political, economic, and social structures, as well as through relations of alliance management and public trust, this mode of habituation takes on strategic significance. Indeed, for President Zelenskyy, it works in his favour to cultivate and incorporate actors habituated to sustained delegitimization because it acts as a shock absorber to the , partner unreliability in a so-called newly-founded “” world, and economic fatigue increasingly characterizing this phase of the war and ongoing occupation. The hope is that these hybrid shocks are absorbed by such a habituation without suffering from significant strategic drifts that may carry over into the battlefield.

, nations and militaries perceived to possess greater status and capabilities – that is, the greater of two powers – engage in warfare by attrition. Those familiar with Russia and the former Soviet Union’s historical record of aggression, occupation, interference, and war across Eastern Europe will also recognize this mode of warfare, perhaps all too familiarly. The Baltics, the Balkans, Poland, Chechnya, Georgia – they all know this playbook. The Russian Federation continues to seek what it perceives as its rightful seat at the table of great-power politics; even those of us who reject John J. Mearsheimer’s structuralist projections onto Eastern Europe as lying within a fixed Russian “sphere of influence” cannot ignore such an imperial desire percolating within the Russian state since the unipolar moment.

In attritional war, time is a previous resource. As Sun Tzu , prolonged conflict could be of great risk to either warring side, on account of exhausting the state apparatus, undermining domestic order and morale, and eroding strategic advantage; for him, military strategy was a subtle and complex technique whose success depended on minimizing the temporal risks and costs of war. While Sun Tzu viewed attritional war as a strategic failure, the work of military theorist and general requires us to remember that wars of attrition often emerge as a political condition over time, shaped by friction, uncertainty, and an overall inability to achieve decisive political outcomes. What Ukraine demonstrates to the international community, this series aims to show, is that Russia’s apparent great power strategy grounded in attrition – like empire itself – can burn out.

It is by sources close to both Freeland and Prime Minister Carney that Freeland received Zelenskyy’s offer on December 22nd, 2025; by December 24th, she had shared with the Prime Minister her intentions to leave Canadian parliament to join the Ukrainian team. In responding to the Kremlin’s continued war of attrition, concerns beyond immediate hard power capabilities, military strategy, and command structures must be addressed. Freeland possesses a unique form of habituation to sustain delegitimation; her appointment may indeed be an important shock absorber to Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns, American partner unreliability, and the economic fatigue increasingly characterizing this war.

At the level of a broader wartime strategy, I suggest this capacity can also function as a form of resilience; it signals to communities, civil society, international partners, and adversaries alike that broader Ukraine’s leadership is prepared to govern through a liminal phase of uncertain futurity rather than govern toward a rapid endpoint. This is a strategy in stark contrast to Putin’s assumption that a “quick military operation” could sweep Ukraine in 2022, or that , once elected, could end the war in Ukraine in the first 24-hours of his second term. In this sense, it is important to emphasize that habituation is not merely an individual trait or disposition, but also a culturally sedimented capacity that is experienced transnationally and relationally. As Gusieva has argued, cultural resilience constitutes a foundational pillar of security; indeed, classical realist how such resilience at times is what pushes a nation beyond survival towards victory. I extend this logic here by suggesting that such cultural resilience is forged through repeated exposure to, and embeddedness within, enduring imperial projects and traditionalist military practices – in this case, namely, Russia’s ongoing attempts to reclaim imperial-great power status, legitimate its occupations, and sustain attritional warfare alongside its hybrid threats towards Europe.

In Ukraine, cultural habituation operates as resilience, but it is neither neutral nor abstract; rather, its experience is deeply racialized, ethnicized, and gendered. It is racialized and ethnicized through the persistent positioning of the nation as materially peripheral to Europe while cast as subordinate to Russia’s so-called historical sphere of influence; it is gendered through the paternalizing narratives directed at Ukraine and other Eastern European states aspiring to EU membership, as well as in the recurring trope of Ukraine as the “little brother” to a masculinized “Mother Russia.” More specifically, we see this reproduced through the hegemonically masculine practices embodied by state actors in political negotiations of economic and security matters; these behaviours continue to structure much of how political negotiation, listening, and diplomatic exchange take place. Freeland, in this respect, is a node within a broader relational structure of habituation and diplomatic practice in wartime Ukraine – one whose own political endurance aligns with, and stands to reinforce, Ukraine’s culturally embedded capacity to govern through attrition.

Please stay tuned for the next installment of this series, which will analyze Ukraine’s 2025 energy scandal and subsequent political moves undertaken President Zelenskyy following a state investigation that exposed high-level embezzlement within the nation’s energy sector.

The post Habituation in War: The Appointment of Chrystia Freeland as a Node in Ukraine’s Attritional War Strategy appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

A new partnership was announced in January 2026 between Canadian and Estonian institutions that focus on clean energy solutions. The new partnership sets out three research projects that have been set for 2026, bringing together the University of Victoria’s Accelerating Community Energy Transformation (ACET) initiative and the Estonian Islands Energy Agency (EISEA). The aim of the partnership is to co-design and develop vital research and practical models for island populations as it relates to clean and sustainable energy priorities for local communities, which can then be expanded to larger populations. As featured in a by the University of Victoria, the hope is that by “combining ACET’s research expertise with EISEA’s on-the-ground knowledge of island communities, the partnership will foster innovative clean energy solutions, enhance local capacity and create replicable approaches to community-centered energy systems on Estonian islands.” This collaboration is part of a growing trend of Canadian cooperation with the Baltics, engaging with security, social, and professional sectors. In doing so, such a partnership gives an opportunity for Canada to support Baltic defence against Russian hybrid threats by developing broader social resilience strategies and relationships.

What will the partnership look like?

. The first, on Saarema, will investigate how local organic waste can be repurposed to power the island’s heating system. On Hiiuma, the second project will track a pilot initiative on sustainable energy production, distribution, and transportation. Both will generate important lessons on developing a circular and sustainable energy economy. The third project will look broadly at the social implications of energy development, analyzing how local communities respond to new projects. This can help build fair and transparent energy planning processes.

ACET and EISEA will be blending their research and innovation skills, each bringing an important skillset. Integral to the project will be the EISEA knowledge and engagement with Estonian island communities. The to ensure accurate interpretations of local contexts. For ACET, the partnership is an opportunity to showcase Canadian research leadership and apply lessons learned in previous projects. In the past, in British Columbia to co-design energy projects, giving important insight into how to lead collaborative and sustainable research development.

Security Implications

The development of clean energy in Estonia ties directly into their security resilience. Prior to 2022, Estonia was heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil, . While Estonia has been able to find alternative sources for LNG through Latvia and Lithuania, enhancing their own energy infrastructure will be integral to national capacity and resilience.

Previously, Estonia ; however, , part of the pipeline was damaged, leading Estonia to pivot to other Baltic states. The incident was alleged to be in response to heightened tensions over Russian sanctions. This highlights the need for strengthened local and regional infrastructure to mitigate possible threats. For example, . This is a vulnerability that can be exploited if there are disruptions to critical infrastructure by malign actors.

For islands in Estonia’s Baltic Sea, this is even more vital. Estonia has thousands of islands, some of which are exceptionally vulnerable due to distance from the mainland and close proximity to Russia. Last fall, . Other incursions have occurred in Poland and Lithuania, heightening security concerns among Europeans and their allies. While Estonia is , they will also need to ward off hybrid threats such as these. This means accounting for economic, environmental, social, and other vulnerabilities outside of hard security concerns. The partnership not only addresses critical infrastructure gaps, but it is doing so in a transparent and collaborative manner with local communities. This reinforces social cohesion and self-sustainability within these smaller populations – a model that could be replicated elsewhere. Therefore, the partnership is a strong example of the comprehensive approaches NATO and its members can continue to seek out to improve its readiness and defence posture.

�䲹�Բ��岹’s approach to Baltics

This announcement is aligned with other moves Canada has recently made to deepen ties with Baltic states. Through and , Canada has bolstered its defence presence in the region. �䲹�Բ��岹’s presence in the Baltics ties into a broader national goal to be a more active global partner, particularly in the effort to improve European security. This is a noteworthy shift from the previous Trudeau government, whose values-based foreign policy at times left Canada to the periphery of important security decision-making in Europe. This recalibration signals an effort to translate normative commitments into more robust material contributions and relationships, enhancing �䲹�Բ��岹’s own strategic role within NATO while ensuring it remains reliable.

The Baltics’ proximity to Russia makes them a key target for hybrid Russian threats, emphasizing the need to improve counterresponse. Estonia in particular shares a . Estonia has already partnered with NATO to improve their defence, including on the islands of ; however, full resilience will require a comprehensive approach that also defends critical infrastructure and community interests. Here, Canada has a strong opportunity to partner with Estonian companies and research institutions to support the development of industries and technology in preparation for a more robust counterresponse to Russian hybrid pressures.

Estonia has been . This has opened the opportunity for Canadian companies to connect with Estonia on renewable energy, storage capacity, and smart technologies. In . to deploy a BWRX-300 small modular reactor, which will boost their nuclear energy capacity. The work generated by ACET-EISEA will further develop these opportunities and centre them in the community while prioritizing environmental sustainability. This is where Canada can really shine, as not only a supporter but also a promoter of key values and goals of the liberal international order.

Conclusion

Looking ahead, ACET-EISEA is set to announce more collaboration in the coming months. As the projects begin in 2026, it will be important to track progress and lessons learned. The partnership is a strong example of the kinds of multinational action that is needed to address collective security and political concerns. Drawing from this experience can give strong models for other initiatives, which can in turn strengthen the development of the Transatlantic community. In doing so, these initiatives play a significant role in reinforcing the strategic cohesion necessary among the Alliance at a time when cooperation is increasingly being tested by geopolitical tension and conflict.

The post Canadian-Estonian clean energy partnership signals deepening ties with the Baltics appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

With Hungary set to have its , Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is facing arguably the first serious challenge to his almost 16-year rule. The Respect and Freedom party – commonly referred to as the Tisza party – is led by Péter Magyar and has emerged as a viable alternative to the Orbán regime. Campaigning on an anti-corruption platform, Tisza has been able to resonate with a domestic population that is increasingly frustrated with Orban’s Fidesz party.

Internationally, Orbán has soured relations with historical allies over opposing aid to Ukraine, bouts of rising illiberalism, as well as recurring appeals to right-wing populism. Importantly, he is a figure charged with largely leading throughout Europe – a loosely coordinated but growing, transnational populist movement that combines social and cultural conservatism with anti-liberal, anti-globalist politics. Domestically, frustration within Hungary has risen over the inability to revive the economy from inflation and instability. This is reflected in the polls, where Fidesz has fallen to Tisza, 37% to 49%, respectively. The outcome of this election will have serious long-term implications on Hungary’s future political trajectory and offers the nation an opportunity to pivot away from an illiberal-populist trajectory. In turn, the election may also influence the dynamics of the European Union (EU), which has long suffered from Hungary’s divisive role as a wedge to political consensus.

Who is Tisza?

, Tisza is a centre-right party that has been growing in popularity. Tisza has focused its campaign largely on anti-corruption, promising initiatives such as strengthening judicial independence. This is a powerful message for Hungarians who have continued to face economic struggle while the ruling party has benefited from state resources.

Tisza also openly positions itself as anti-Orbán, criticizing the leader for nepotism and allegedly funding an oligarchy. They have been able to convert some loyal Fidesz supporters but much of their support stems from luring voters from various opposition bases. Magyar himself was at one point , working as public administrator. He later resigned following a scandal where Hungary’s former President, , pardoned the former the deputy director of the Kossuth Zsuzsa’s Children’s Home in Bicske, who had been . After his resignation, Magyar as corrupt and authoritarian and has since continued to consolidate opposition.

Magyar has promised to on democratic issues related to the rule of law and human rights – two points the EU has increasingly been pressing in applying political pressure to the Orbán regime. The ongoing dispute has caused vital EU assets to be frozen and being able to access them could provide a necessary economic boost; however, the two parties would still have competing interests, as . Part of their appeal has been that they are neither pro-EU or anti-EU, but rather opt to prioritize the interests of Hungary and the V4 countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia). This indicates that Tisza’s approach may still be rooted in right-wing and nationalist values shared amongst their neighbours. These risks inciting further tension with the EU, who have been critical of these values on the basis that they work against collective action and Western liberal democracy.

Differing ideologies and rhetorics can continue to fracture relations between Brussels and Eastern Europe. Regarding Russia and China, Magyar seeks to establish what he calls “.” This would prioritize mutual strategic interests and values rather than personal ties. Tisza has also highlighted the need to ; however, this is unlikely to revolutionize the Hungarian-Russian relationship, as the former remains reliant on Russia’s crude oil and gas. Magyar has stated openness to renegotiating projects like the and remains wary of Chinese foreign direct investment.

How likely is a Tisza win?

While polls are indicating a strong lead, the real battleground will be during the election period. Fidesz is notorious for influencing elections by using state resources to create an uneven political playground. Orbán himself has been known to use tactics such as . In addition, opponents are strongly disadvantaged in their ability to campaign. Fidesz’s makes it easy to push smear campaigns and pro-Fidesz content, while the opposition has less platforms to use. To secure Parliament, Tisza will have to navigate a severely rigged, competitive, political environment. The challenge for the Fidesz party will be to determine how far they may interfere with elections, risking potential backlash from the population. Currently, Orbán has already launched a campaign against Tisza, .

What impact would a Tisza win have?

A change in government will improve Hungary’s domestic situation in the long-term, but in the short-term, and internationally, the results will be mixed. on corruption can help undermine the increasingly powerful oligarchy and reduce clientelism. The party has also promised to , which could improve rule of law in the country. Additionally, the possibility of EU funds can be vital for improving the economy and social infrastructure, should it be utilized effectively; however, many of these benefits will take time to materialize. Many members within Orbán’s government will still have the rest of their terms to serve. This could prevent the necessary cultural change within constitutional institutions that needs to take place for democracy to recuperate after corruption, further slowing the (re)adoption of democratic values, including proper checks and balances. Dismantling the oligarchy will also take time and consistent effort from both the top and the bottom. Therefore, while Tisza is likely to pivot away from democratic backsliding, this will be a slow process.

While Tisza aims to restore democratic values such as rule of law, voting rights, and judicial independence, it has yet to be determined if they will do the same for so-called “liberal” values. Tisza has shied away from taking a stance on controversial issues, including Hungary’s LGBTQIA+ community and migration policies. This leaves uncertainty around whether they are willing to tackle social issues.

The popularity of both Tisza and Fidesz means Parliament may be run by right-wing parties come spring. Left-wing parties such as Democratic Coalition and Mi Hazanak . Under Orbán, , supporting the formation of a coalition of socially conservative, anti-EU, populist leaders. This includes prominent figures such as in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic. This coalition includes strong and persistent Euroskeptics that have stalled key EU decisions and leveraged recurring attacks against Brussels. While a Tisza government would not eliminate opposing standpoints, pursuing institutional compromises and negotiations instead of veto politics could ease internal hostilities. However, if Tisza elects to continue strengthening the right-wing flank, right-wing populism may become even more embedded into Europe’s institutional and political infrastructure. This could exacerbate polarization and division among communities, further destabilizing Europe’s political climate at a time when the world is already increasingly experiencing shifts in polarity and great power contestation.

Conclusion

The parliamentary elections in April 2026 have opened the opportunity for a change in governance for Hungary. This has the potential to strengthen democratic institutions, rule of law, and civil freedoms; however, Tisza will have to navigate a hostile electoral environment and consolidate a base strong enough to outweigh external interference. If they win, Hungary will be at a crossroads. Their decisions on social issues, the Russia-Ukraine war, and ties with the EU will help determine the nature of Hungary’s democracy moving forward.

The post Electing a New Future: The stakes and implications of Hungary’s Parliamentary election appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

�䲹�Բ��岹’s national strategy is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Great power competition, technological change, and hybrid tactics have reshaped the nature of modern conflict, blurring the boundaries between domestic stability and external security. States today face pressure not only to deter conventional military threats but also to address challenges that primarily affect civilian societies. represents an attempt to strengthen national resilience by integrating investments in defence capacity, critical infrastructure, and domestic military industrial capability. Yet these measures unfold against a backdrop of worsening socioeconomic pressures at home, leaving the country exposed to domestic destabilization even as defence spending rises. The convergence of external threats and internal vulnerabilities reveals that national security can no longer be understood solely through the lens of military preparedness. National security today requires a hybrid-resilience approach, combining military readiness and social cohesion to address threats.

Strategic Context and Security Challenges

�䲹�Բ��岹’s outlines a strategic approach to increasing adept at dealing with amidst the . By integrating , , and , Canada is trying to become a more autonomous nation. Simultaneously, addressing Canadian domestic security necessities through investment and nation-building projects will help . With Canada joining the EU’s defence procurement initiative, , Canadian defence firms gain access to European joint procurement and finance mechanisms.

As the United States (US), �䲹�Բ��岹’s traditional security guarantor, increasingly focuses on the Indo-Pacific and signals a reduced willingness to underwrite transatlantic stability, Canada is . Yet contemporary risk environments are defined not only by but also by , including , , and . Addressing these threats requires a multidimensional security posture that integrates physical, technological, and societal components. The budget’s allocation toward , , and developing underscores a commitment to and strategic autonomy. Investments in advanced technologies such as , , and further demonstrate recognition that modern security extends beyond traditional military capability, encompassing both technological resilience and the protection of critical industrial and information networks.

However, amidst a growing “” dilemma, in which defence imperatives compete with mounting domestic socioeconomic pressures, Canadian security challenges are complex. Socioeconomic vulnerabilities, , , , and , interact with traditional and hybrid security threats, creating interdependent risks. 

CAF Readiness and Personnel Support

Critical to a hybrid-resilient approach is developing the strength and readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Addressing hard-security concerns requires not only modern capabilities but also ensuring that CAF personnel are supported, retained, and operationally effective. Retention is a significant concern, with of new members leaving service, highlighting the need for , , and an enhanced . The recent are a step in the right direction, but additional investments in housing, , and are essential. Equally important are mental-health services, which have been consistently and who face the cumulative stresses of operations, repeated deployments, and long-term service.

At the same time, �䲹�Բ��岹’s defence procurement system continues to face relating to personnel shortages and a multi-departmental model. While the Ministry of Public Services and Procurement invests in high-profile platforms such as and , – including , , and – receives insufficient attention from the federal government. The most recent audit by the (2025) found that as of March 31, 2024, many training areas had less gear than needed, while others did not have enough equipment to carry out training operations.

More transparent and accountable procurement processes are needed to ensure that frontline personnel have reliable, effective tools to perform their duties safely and efficiently. Strengthening both personnel support and procurement effectiveness not only enhances operational readiness but also integrates material and human resource stability into a broader national resilience framework, complementing community-level and social initiatives to counter hybrid threats.

Socioeconomic Pressures and Domestic Security Concerns

Although the federal budget , the and the limited attention to worsening social crises leave Canada vulnerable to further destabilisation, populism, and societal polarisation. For many young people facing , military service can appear to be one of the few . A recent analysis by highlights that �䲹�Բ��岹’s youth face some of the toughest labour-market conditions in decades, making enlistment in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) a possible remedy for the youth unemployment crisis. This pattern echoes the , which has long been criticised for disproportionately drawing in economically disadvantaged youth, effectively creating pathways into the armed forces driven less by choice and more by necessity. 

Such dynamics also raise serious domestic security concerns: far-right networks have, in documented cases, encouraged members to or sought contact with as a means of acquiring and . Compounding this trend is the in Canada- particularly common among young men- which increasingly identify as a potential gateway into broader extremist ideologies. Without sufficient attention to these online spaces, the risk posed by vulnerable youth becoming radicalised and incentivised to join the military becomes a serious concern for domestic security and the protection of liberal-democratic values.

Growing separatist movements, particularly in and , highlight regional discontent and political polarisation, which can interact with socioeconomic vulnerabilities and be exploited by both domestic and foreign actors seeking to exacerbate societal fractures. These dynamics intersect with broader socioeconomic pressures and are further amplified by hybrid threats and foreign interference, which serve to exploit domestic polarisation through strategies titled “” 
Integrating with defence and technological investments is central to a . International examples, such as , demonstrate how initiatives that strengthen , media literacy, and can meaningfully complement traditional security capabilities. For Canada, public-awareness efforts like the campaign, which brings together over fifty feminist organisations to advocate for , , and , help address the socioeconomic stresses and political grievances that make communities vulnerable to polarisation and manipulation. 

Additionally, coordinated programs commissioned by the federal government, such as the (CRF) and the (DCI), linking defence, industrial strategy, and social resilience not only enhance the country’s ability to detect, withstand, and recover from hybrid threats but also reinforce national cohesion. In this sense, investing in social stability is not an adjunct to national security but a foundational component of it: strengthening communities, reducing socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and empowering citizens collectively contribute to a more unified, resilient society capable of withstanding increasingly complex threat environments.

Towards a Hybrid-Resilient Canada

�䲹�Բ��岹’s security landscape in the twenty-first century is defined by the convergence of traditional military threats, hybrid challenges, and domestic vulnerabilities. As this analysis demonstrates, a comprehensive approach to national resilience cannot rely solely on modernising the Canadian Armed Forces or expanding technological and industrial capabilities. Socioeconomic pressures, including youth unemployment, housing insecurity, and political polarisation, interact with hybrid threats, creating opportunities for extremist mobilisation, disinformation, and foreign interference. Social spending is not a competing priority in an era of heightened geopolitical tension; it is a core element of national defence.

By investing in social programs, community resilience initiatives, and public-awareness campaigns like Demand Better, Canada addresses these underlying vulnerabilities while simultaneously strengthening civic trust, cohesion, and adaptability. When combined with targeted defence investments and technological modernisation, such measures create a multidimensional, hybrid-resilient framework capable of withstanding both internal and external pressures. Social spending and citizen support are not peripheral to national security; they are at the very heart of it. A Canada that invests in the well-being of its people is not only more equitable and inclusive but also more unified, adaptable, and resilient in the face of modern conflict.

The post From Defence to Community – Social Stability as a Pillar of National Security appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

When Albania’s Prime Minister Edi Rama joked that his new artificial intelligence (AI) “minister,” Diella (Albanian for Sun), was “pregnant with 83 children” (a metaphor for 83 digital assistants that will serve members of parliament), he turned an . The move to incorporate AI into governance itself is considered by many to be amusing, unsettling, and even revealing, as it shows how easily AI can be warped into a spectacle while subtly re-wiring how decisions about money and power are made. Diella is also the world’s first AI system formally appointed as Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, with responsibility for.

From Virtual Assistant to Cabinet-Level Minister

as a virtual assistant on the , intended to assist Albanian citizens in accessing documents and other online public services. Nine months later, in September 2025, following a decree that authorized a virtual minister, Rama had elevated Diella to the rank of Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, .

Such an unorthodox move has garnered plenty of international coverage, as many have framed it as both an anti-corruption experiment and a form of political branding, describing Diella as a digital assistant dressed in traditional clothing, now tasked with making public tenders free of corruption. However, some have also pointed out that procurement in Albania has long been dominated by political elites and oligarch-like figures, making .

A Spectacle?

Writer/researcher : essentially shifting political responsibility to digital actors and presenting them as being pure, incorruptible, and tireless, standing in for distrusted political elites. Perhaps accidental, this comes across as not a neutral design choice. Presenting the system as a woman in traditional costume frames digitalization as care and service rather than control, pulling on gendered stereotypes while also making it difficult to contest the new political innovation without appearing as “anti-modern” or “anti-progress.” The “” metaphor pushes this further, casting Diella as a digital mother of dozens of subordinate systems that will monitor and help with parliamentary work. It infantilizes MPs as being dependent on an algorithm, and suggests that political conflict within parliament can be processed by a neutral machine rather than by openly accountable representatives.

The move to incorporate AI into governance sits at the intersection of EU accession politics and digital dependency, as Diella is likely based on OpenAI models hosted on Microsoft Azure, which is precisely the kind of . Hypothetically speaking, if Albania were to obtain EU membership and Diella were to operate within the EU, it would be flagged as a high-risk system under the new , where stringent requirements are imposed on the usage of AI in public services and resource allocation. Such frameworks do not yet bind Albania; however, it is clearly experimenting in exactly the domain in which the Act targets, that being algorithmic governance, where constitutional accountability is thin.

Canada’s “Sovereign AI” Moment

Canada is moving quickly in a similar direction by embedding AI into state structures, but with a different approach. The announces $925.6 million over five years for “large-scale sovereign public AI infrastructure,” including a Sovereign Canadian Cloud to support research and public-sector AI use. The federal government is implementing AI and .

Canada already has a formal governance “toolkit” or framework for implementing public-sector AI. The government’s and its official guidelines require “algorithmic impact assessments,” the formal documentation of the systems used, and alternative mechanisms for performing similar functions when automated decisions may potentially affect rights and interests. Moreover, the further defines sovereignty as the ability to manage and protect government data, systems, and infrastructure independently in a globally interconnected environment.

However, Canadian experts warn that infrastructure and branding risks could outpace efforts to control them. As noted by , Canada’s dependence on American companies is one of the most significant risks and complications facing Canadian digital sovereignty, particularly given the dominance of US providers in digital and cloud services.

Put side by side, Albania and Canada reveal the same underlying question: who actually controls AI in the state, and under what rules? Diella is clearly an extreme case of AI as spectacle: an AI minister is “pregnant” with assistants, purity, and efficiency in a system still wrestling with corruption and weak checks. Whereas Canada’s “sovereign AI” push is more technocratic, but it faces its own temptation to treat big AI spending and a branded cloud as proof of control, even while key infrastructure and AI models remain under foreign corporate jurisdictions.

The core lesson for Canada is not to mock Diella, but to avoid a more subtle version of the same trap. As AI becomes more integrated into sectors that the federal government may deem appropriate, the real test will be whether such systems are contestable or even grounded in enforceable law, rather than merely marketed as innovative or sovereign, as it is easy to get caught up in the media storm and publicity such reforms seem to command. Canada’s task should be to ensure that its “sovereign AI” remains democratic, even when there is no digital “minister” on the screen.

The post Democracy Meets AI appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

On September 30, 2025, to intervene in Nexperia’s operations, a semiconductor-focused Chinese-owned company. The government had cited “” and the risk that vital technological capabilities could be shifted out of Europe, and it gave itself the power to reverse or even block decisions deemed harmful to both Dutch and European economic security.

Nexperia, as a company, is not a glamorous AI-chip producer as the media tends to focus on, but rather a supplier of “legacy” semiconductors used in both cars and other consumer electronics, which was formerly part of Philips’ semiconductor operations and was . However, . The response from Beijing was swift. In early October, China’s Commerce Ministry . It halted exports of Nexperia chips from China, turning the regulatory move into a global supply chain incident. Nexperia, for its part, warned its customers that it would no longer be able to guarantee the quality or authenticity of any chips produced in China after October 13, .

Suppliers and automakers alike suddenly discovered how exposed they were to the “boring” part of the chip world. The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association and could force production lines to halt. The ripple effects of supply chain issues caused by the Dutch regulatory provision were felt even in North America, and had either sought other suppliers or exemptions from the control measures imposed by China.

By mid-November, after talks involving partners such as the United States, China decided to ease its export ban on Nexperia, and the , citing steps taken by Beijing to restore chip flows to Europe. The immediate crisis seems to have been managed for the time being. However, the events of the last three months have exposed apparent limitations in the resilience of Europe’s semiconductor industry.

On Paper: Ambitious. In Reality: Dependent

The is intended to double the European share of the global semiconductor market to 20% by 2030, strengthen and resilient supply chains, and minimize Europe’s dependency on foreign suppliers. However, the that this target is unlikely to be met, and that the EU market share is currently only projected to be 11.7% in 2030.

Interestingly, identified semiconductors as one of the four “critical technology areas” that require risk assessments by its member states, other critical areas included biotech, quantum, and AI technologies. However, the Nexperia case reveals that Europe’s most glaring deficiencies are not only at the bleeding edge of semiconductor design, but also that the assembly, testing, and production of older-generation chips have been, for the most part, offshored to China. This is consistent with broader statistics on digital dependence. For example, the relayed estimations that the EU relies on non-EU suppliers for more than 80% of its digital products, services, and infrastructure, and that China supplies approximately 71% of the EU’s gallium and 45% of its germanium, both of which are irreplaceable materials needed for semiconductor production. In other words, Europe is attempting to establish some degree of technological sovereignty on a foundation that is deeply entangled with Chinese output, especially in the least glamorous parts of the value chain.

Lessons

The EU now centres discussions on “” from China to manage interdependence and to diversify rather than simply sever ties with China altogether. The Nexperia case offers a sneak peek at what this could mean in practice.

First, it would require regulatory teeth, such as the willingness to use emergency security tools, including the , and EU-level export control and investment screening, to keep critical capabilities anchored in Europe when market incentives may point elsewhere. Second, it demands a redesign of the supply chain. Ensuring that 70% of a critical supplier’s output is not hostage to policy decisions made by China means not only investing in high-end chips, but also in the often-forgotten parts of the industry, such as test facilities, packaging plants, and the raw materials they rely on. The Nexperia saga serves as a great case study in the potential costs of ignoring such links. Third, de-risking not only implies reshoring but also friend-shoring. , launched in 2022, aims to make Canada a global “supplier of choice” for critical minerals and the clean technologies they enable, such as semiconductors. The recent builds upon this strategy by committing new funding to raw mineral extraction and export. Canada and the EU already have a from 2021, which commits both sides to integrating Canada-EU raw materials value chains and reducing strategic dependencies on other supplier countries. For Europe, treating that partnership more as a core pillar of its long-term semiconductor security strategy would be a meaningful act of de-risking.

The Nexperia crisis is a preview. As Europe tightens export controls and pushes its Chips Act forward, similar flashpoints are likely, mainly around similar firms and technologies. The question is whether European policymakers are prepared and willing to pay both the financial and political costs of reducing dependencies and taking proactive measures rather than simply reacting when a single chip company suddenly becomes the chokepoint of global production.

The post Chip Dependency Comes Due appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

• Turkish goals in the Black Sea region (BSR) are to maintain stability and its own strategic positioning within the region.

• Canadian cooperation with Türkiye continues to encounter challenges due to misaligned priorities and estrangement between actors.

• Canada has an opportunity to increase presence in the BSR by cooperating on initiatives outside of hard security concerns.

Policy Recommendations

• Canada should support the initiation of additional humanitarian projects in the BSR and seek out ways to partner with Türkiye on defence technology and modernization to strengthen overall diplomatic and defence relations.

• Increasing �䲹�Բ��岹’s regional presence around the BSR through NATO initiatives could help to bolster its image as a supportive ally to Türkiye while also helping project overall Canadian security interests.

Türkiye’s Foreign Policy post 2022

Türkiye has historically played an influential role in the Black Sea Region (BSR) as NATO’s southeastern bulwark. The gives Türkiye control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, the key entry point of the Black Sea. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the BSR has been under wartime conditions. Türkiye has since invoked the Convention to effectively close the straits to both NATO and Russian ships; a decision which has nonetheless sparked controversy, particularly after Türkiye . Ankara remains apprehensive towards NATO involvement in the region, and while its relationship with the West is strained, it continues to maintain relations with Russia based on shared in the .

Türkiye, unlike most NATO countries, has , and still . At the same time, Türkiye has also . Türkiye’s seemingly contradictory policies reflect its primary goal: to maintain the existing balance of power in the BSR.

Türkiye’s stance is driven by independent interests rather an alignment with the West or Russia. For Türkiye, reinforcing the status quo reaffirms their military, economic, and diplomatic power in the BSR. Türkiye prioritizes business and trade to aid its struggling economy. It has also been increasingly positioning itself ; this has informed the country’s decisions to participate in the (a humanitarian-focused mission) and engage in peacemaking talks with Russia and Ukraine. Türkiye’s commitments are strategic, wishing to avoid provocation of either side while still leveraging their influence in military, resources, and politics.

Challenges for Canada

The major challenge for Canada will be to understand how to approach collaborations with Türkiye in the BSR. Estrangement and misalignment from both parties pose potential problems. Relations only recently improved after Canada following Türkiye’s use of Canadian arms in Nagorno-Karabakh, Libya, and Syria. Türkiye, through its refusal to sanction Russia or permit NATO military presence BSR, has demonstrated that it is not willing to explicitly target Russia. This clashes with �䲹�Բ��岹’s aim to contain Russian expansionism and protect Ukraine.

Canadian-Turkish military cooperation largely operates through NATO. Both countries participate in , , , and . While NATO provides a strong foundation, direct partnerships between Canadian and Turkish armed forces are still minimal, thus heightening the chances of estrangement between both sides.

Opportunities for Canada

Despite limitations, there are still opportunities to develop Canadian-Turkish diplomatic collaboration. Focusing on economic, humanitarian, or regional development initiatives creates common ground. For example, the defence industry is an area of growing partnership. Since Canada lifted the arms embargo on Türkiye, it has become one of �䲹�Բ��岹’s . Türkiye also participates in CANSEC (�䲹�Բ��岹’s international defence technology conference), and Turkish defence firms travelled to Canada as part of a . The exercise generated technology that enhances automated systems and increases resilience to hybrid offensives. For example, the firm HAVELSAN was able to . between the two countries also provide strong opportunities for investment and technological development which can have positive effects both for defence and for the overall economies of each country.

Building regional capacity is a promising avenue for cooperation. As mentioned above, Türkiye participates in FLF battlegroups, part of NATO’s . Pursuing similar initiatives in the scope of military modernization could be successful in increasing regional capacity. Furthermore, Canada can draw upon its skills in mediation and development to encourage stable, formal BSR organizations. Both actions can increase the ability for the BSR to safeguard against further destabilization in the region, which is beneficial to Turkish interests. The MCM was able to launch successfully in large part because it was framed as a humanitarian mission. This emphasizes the importance of optics for Türkiye, and should serve as an example of how to navigate different positionalities.

For Canada, the BSR can be a new avenue of partnership, increasing overall soft power and presence. A strong BSR is essential for NATO’s objective to defend Alliance territories. It is also essential for �䲹�Բ��岹’s efforts to enhance its defence posture and bolster international stability. However, without critically engaging with Türkiye this goal will be difficult to achieve. Therefore, finding relevant but non-conventional ways to collaborate in the BSR is key. Enhancing relations also align with other moves Türkiye has been making to collaborate more closely with other NATO and EU countries which seek similar goals as Canada. With an increasing need for fortification of the BSR, Canada should take the opportunity to distinguish itself as a valuable partner.

The post Turkish Foreign Policy in the BSR: Opportunities and Challenges for Canada appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated the following: “.” Just a few short weeks later, in a posted on YouTube with Hungary’s news outlet, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about her experience in June 2021 when she and French President Emmanuel Macron had floated the idea of the EU holding direct talks with Vladimir Putin in an effort to calm re-ignited tensions with Ukraine. However, at that time, COVID-19 was given as the reason for preventing more frequent dialogue with Russia, which Merkel felt was crucial to ensuring that the be upheld.

In this new interview, Merkel revealed that it was in fact the Baltic states and Poland who were against such initiatives, and then claimed that “” Clearly, such a statement aims to manipulate memory for strategic purposes by placing significant blame on the Baltic states and Poland in the lead-up to the war, while also suggesting that Merkel herself had been serving as a peace-making actor, playing no role in empowering Russia to take such aggressive actions.

The reaction to Merkel’s comments was near instant. For example, Estonian foreign minister Margus Tsahkna responded that Merkel was “” and that instead of strongly responding to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, or its war in Georgia, . Another example of the outrage initiated by Merkel’s comments was captured by Poland’s Minister for Regional Policy, Katarzyna Pełczyńska-Nałęcz (former Polish Ambassador to Russia), who stated that being blamed for starting a war because they “.”

Why say it, and why say it there?

In short, Merkel argues about process in order to justify and defend her legacy and relations with Russia during her time as Chancellor, which focused on fostering “” – including sanctions, Minsk diplomacy, and energy interdependence as a ‘bridge’ with strategic intentions. This political approach is . Merkel’s casting of 2021 as a sort of missed off-ramp shifts focus from Berlin’s (and Merkel’s) long-term bet on engagement with Russia to an Eastern European veto that indirectly led to the war in Ukraine in the first place. Similarly, this mimics the theme that ‘,’ which politicians such as US President Donald Trump tend to employ as a discursive strategy. Legally and morally, the aggressor is Russia. What Merkel’s storytelling does is recast the focus on the intra-EU process of who blocked talks, rather than on the actor who chose invasion over dialogue. This narrative also directly undermines EU unity against Russia’s aggression, .

The venue of this interview further amplifies the political impact on EU unity. The that operates within a highly polarized media ecosystem, which placed . Additionally, alongside being the second lowest among EU member states in this index, recent reports indicate that Prime Minister Victor Orbán and his allies have consolidated control over around 80% of the press media in Hungary.The �ʲ����پ���á�� is hardly a mouthpiece for Budapest, but it is undoubtedly interesting that such an interview would come from the EU member state most often associated with strategic ambiguity in its relations with Moscow. It is worth noting, however, that during the same interview, when asked whether Orbán was a Trojan horse for Putin into the EU, Merkel simply stated that this propagated idea was “.” As placed in Hungary’s polarized media space, the Merkel clip conveys intra-EU blame, further testing cohesion by muddying the EU’s message to Moscow.

For the Baltics and Poland, the was both a threat and signal test. As the Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda warned, engaging in dialogue with Putin without tangible changes in Russian behaviour would send “” that the EU was placating Russia’s actions. Hosting summits without leverage and making agreements without cost or constraints creates an opportunity for Russia to further normalize coercion and potentially foster coalition-splitting rather than deterring it. Viewed in this light, the disapproval in 2021 from Poland and the Baltics was not obstructionism but rather a and a fear for potentially being the next target of Russia’s aggression.

An inconvenient backdrop

There is a reason Eastern Europe balks at Merkel’s ‘if only we had talked more’ sentiments. For three decades, Germany’s policy towards Russia combined binding and deterrence through sanctions and Minsk diplomacy, alongside a dense web of commercial, energy, and even security-based ties. , or the , where a German prime military contractor supplying high-end training systems to a Russian arms centre was . Only after the annexation of Crimea did Berlin entirely revoke the license. The cancellation showed that routine cooperation between Germany and Russia had been institutionalized even after Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008.

The EU’s own briefings on Nord Stream 2 noted that it , which led to debates and arguments from Poland, for example, , as well as broader concerns that Russia was using such initiatives to . Angela Merkel had reiterated to partners, and more specifically to Kyiv, that , despite being seemingly immune to the suggestion that Russia would, in fact, use energy as a tool to achieve its political interests in Europe.

Schröder, the useful contrast

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Merkel’s predecessor, moved straight into Russian energy after his time leading Germany, first chairing (the European-Russian pipeline company), then later joining the board of Rosneft (a state-owned Russian oil company), from which he under mounting political pressure. Additionally, Schröder had flirted with a ; however, , which was later stripped of a taxpayer-funded office by the Bundestag, prompting him to navigate the German court system to regain his office. However, the courts upheld his loss of privileges.

Merkel, by contrast, has not taken any corporate posts from Russian-based firms. However, her entanglement with Moscow is apparent through her narrative in the interview which re-allocates the burden of the war within the EU. This reframing serves two distinct purposes: The first is directly shifting any accountability for the complex situation Europe currently finds itself in with Russia, and the second, more indirectly, serves Russian hybrid tactics that seek to and as the .

What now?

Merkel’s interview works less as revisionism and more as a redistribution of memory, agency, and what she believes that EU unity should have resulted in during that time. It invites a tempting but counterfactual narrative that is ultimately counterproductive: that one more conversation might have ‘saved the day’ if only the Easterners had not blocked it. The empirical record – from Mulino to Nord Stream – suggests the opposite. That being said, diplomacy only works when backed by credible costs; absent that, it enables coercion. The lesson Europe should take is that the Baltics and Poland were cautious, given their historical understanding of Russia as a political actor, but were not outright fearful of dialogue with Moscow. If Europe shifts its focus to who blocked what talks and actions, it risks falling into the very divisions and tensions that Moscow seeks to foster.

The post Does the Mask Still Fit? Merkel’s Legacy-Protective Reframing of the Russo-Ukrainian War appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.