The New York Times, Le Monde, the FT and Sky News have all run headlines about Ireland in recent months using that exact phrase, while Ireland’s security capability gaps have become increasingly visible. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited last December, at least five unidentified drones were identified near his plane’s flight path. The incident highlighted that Ireland lacked both the radar and interception capabilities to deal with such a threat.

Ireland assumed the rotating EU presidency last month. For the rest of 2026, it will play host to high level political visits and summits, bringing both a high degree of global visibility and a greater potential for security threats, similar to those drone incursions.

Is this reputation justified? And if so, how did Ireland, a small but wealthy country with a relatively recent history of conflict, end up in such a position?

Why Ireland is considered a weak link on defence

Amid increasing geopolitical volatility, rising security threats and growing defence spending across Europe, Ireland is increasingly an outlier.

Ireland’s defence spending is the lowest in the EU, at just 0.22% of GDP. Recent increases have brought total defence spending to €1.5 billion. Not an insignificant amount, but well short of the figure needed to address Ireland’s major capability gaps. While Ireland is not a member of NATO and so not subject to its spending targets, the figures illustrate its relative underinvestment.

Ireland has no meaningful maritime or air defences. Ireland relies heavily on the UK and France to provide air and maritime security. The Irish navy has eight vessels, only four of which are active at any given time due to staffing and maintenance issues. These are not equipped with sonar, anti-drone or air defence capabilities. Ireland has no fighter jets, or military radar system.

Ireland is the only EU state without a unified intelligence structure. It also has no civilian intelligence agency, or signals intelligence service. That means Ireland has no equivalent of the CIA, MI5, MI6 or GCHQ.

Ireland does not have a government minister solely responsible for defence and security matters. The brief is currently handled by the Minister also responsible for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Ireland’s Defence Forces are understrength, with reports of chronic retention issues. The current permanent Defence Force staff is around 7,700 (according to an April 2026 government report). This is well short of their 11,500 target. Failing to retain experienced staff is contributing to the expanding capability gap.

Ireland is a small, neutral state. Do its defence capabilities even matter?

Ireland is a small state. It’s not a member of NATO and has a policy of military neutrality. Successive Irish governments have used this position as a rationale to justify low investment in defence while for large swathes of the Irish population, neutrality has created a false sense of security.

75% of all transatlantic subsea cables that connect North America and Europe pass in or near Irish waters. Major multinational US tech companies like Meta, Google, LinkedIn, Airbnb and more have their European, EMEA or international HQs in Ireland, as do several major US pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. Ireland is now a huge data centre hub, to the extent that more than a fifth of the country’s electricity is used by the energy intensive centres.

What seems an important distinction to many Irish people may be viewed as a technicality by other actors. Russia does not view Ireland’s political support to Ukraine as ‘neutral’. Likewise, Ireland’s neutral status means little when it comes to Russia targeting Western interests, to say nothing of other potential external actors.

These factors make Ireland highly vulnerable to hybrid attacks.

Stronger defence can safeguard neutrality

There is a strong sentiment in Ireland that any investment in defence is a subterfuge for increasing militarisation; the first step on the road to abandoning neutrality and sovereignty along with it, joining NATO or a potentially centralised European defence mechanism. It may not be a majority view but it’s certainly not fringe. Ireland’s president Catherine Connolly has been outspoken on the issue, warning against increasing militarisation in Europe.

The uncomfortable truth about today’s hard power geopolitical reality is that no state can afford to be complacent. Hybrid attacks are rising across Europe; they’re increasingly challenging to guard against without strong, multilayered defence and require strong intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities, an area Ireland is particularly lacking in.

A clear eyed view of the threat is required. Ireland does not need the same land defences and reserves as the Baltic states, for example. Ireland is not as vulnerable to a potential invasion as many of our European neighbours are; but Ireland is vulnerable to air and maritime incursions on its territory, as well as intelligence, cyber and hybrid operations, including domestic terror attacks.

What many people in Ireland either fail to grasp, or don’t want to acknowledge is that its current brand of neutrality negates Irish sovereignty. Relying on the UK and France for air and maritime security, and requiring UN approval for military deployments (the so-called Triple Lock system which requires government, parliament and UN approval) are forms of giving up power to external decision makers.

Adapting soft power in a hard power world

Some of the external frustration directed towards Ireland has to do with the country’s relative wealth, much of it stemming from the presence of those international tech companies. The true picture is more complex. Those same companies artificially inflate Ireland’s GDP but there’s no denying that Ireland is one of the wealthier countries in Europe. It has the funds to invest in its defence, if it so chooses. Recent spending commitments are a start, but delivery will be key to allaying European concerns.

Ireland may opt not to raise its defence spending further, given the significant domestic issues it faces that require greater investment such as housing, education and healthcare. That may come with another cost. Soft power is less influential in today’s hard power world. If Ireland doesn’t bolster its defence capabilities, it risks this reputation as the weak link hardening. Closing major capability gaps will support Ireland’s continued positioning as a country of influence, despite its small size.

Subscribe now

The timing of the announcement, on Trump’s 80th birthday, and lack of clarity around key issues raises the question of whether this is a symbolic political victory that Trump’s administration wanted pushed through to bolster his domestic support, or a genuine diplomatic breakthrough.

My take: this deal is just the start of work on a broader agreement aimed at cementing regional relations and peace. As more information on the talks and draft agreement emerged overnight, regional actors emphasised the deal contains broad pacts on several issues and triggers a new 60-day negotiating period. We can expect to see more focused talks over that period around the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and more.

So it’s a start at least and hopefully a stepping stone to more long lasting stability. Many potential spoilers remain, most notable among them: the war in Lebanon which Israel doesn’t want to halt; the thorny issue of regional security guarantees in the Gulf and the potential for Trump to be influenced by domestic blowback or criticism framing this as a defeat or capitulation (The Atlantic was quick off the blocks with this piece)

Below, I break down the key issues of the deal. As always, this update is focused on cutting through the noise and giving you clear, concise insights. If you find these updates useful, subscribe so you never miss one.

Subscribe now

The Strait of Hormuz is expected to open, gradually.

The opening of the Strait- essential for getting oil, gas and goods flowing through this crucial global waterway- is contingent on the formal signing of the agreement, the lifting of the US naval blockade and Iranian de-mining efforts. Trump told reporters that movement through the Strait would be toll-free but the agreement, according to early reports, only suspends Iranian tolls for 60 days, contingent on further talks.

Global markets have responded positively to the move, with oil prices falling and stock prices rising. You’re unlikely to see an immediate price drop at the petrol pump however, until there’s a full resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait. That requires mine clearing operations and infrastructure repair. Commercial operators, and their insurers, will also be hesitant to resume largescale movements until there is a more reliable peace, potentially security guarantees and clarity around the payment of tolls for passage.

Sanctions relief for Iran

The US will not introduce new sanctions on Iran and will engage in discussions on broader sanctions relief, contingent on Iran’s compliance with the agreement.

Iran’s Nuclear programme

Iran’s nuclear programme was one of the main rationales Trump gave for launching this war so its fate is going to be a key part of the coming negotiations. A US official told the NYT that Iran will dispose of its highly enricher uranium stockpile while Trump said late Sunday night, on Truth Social, that Iran ‘will never have a nuclear weapon.’ The Iranians have, predictably, been more cautious on this point. We can expect more in-depth talks on this issue.

There’s disagreement over Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire.

Iran says the agreement requires a halt to the war on all fronts, which includes Lebanon. Pakistan, the main mediator between both parties, echoed this sentiment. But the US has yet to mention Lebanon in its public statements on the deal and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has already said the Israeli Defence Forces will not be withdrawing from Lebanon.

That’s all for today’s update. Subscribe to make you sure you never miss one.

Subscribe now

If you’re new here . . .

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

In the latest example of this confusing information stream, earlier this month Putin said the war in Ukraine was ‘coming to an end.’ Just four days later, Russia launched a massive barrage of drone and missile strikes on Ukraine that killed at least 28 people. This weekend, Russia hit Kyiv again with another huge attack that included a hypersonic ballistic missile.

It’s only the third time that Russia has used its Oreshnik missile, a powerful weapon capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear war heads and extremely difficult to defend against, in the four year old war. Each time marks a worrying escalation.

Now, Moscow has warned foreign nationals, including diplomats, to leave Kyiv, ahead of an expected largescale strike on the city. Ukraine for its part has been launching retaliatory drone strikes at Russia, focusing on hitting Moscow where it hurts- the energy infrastructure that funds its war chest. Amid all this, Ukrainian president Zelensky said last month that Ukraine can join the EU as soon as 2027.

With talks of peace and EU membership on the one hand, but nuclear capable missiles and evacuation warnings on the other, is the war ending or escalating? Is there a realistic prospect of peace in the coming months, or even weeks?

Is there a peace deal on the table?

In short, no.

In fact, there isn’t even really a table.

US mediated peace talks have stalled, but they weren’t very serious to begin with. Trump appointed his son-in-law/advisor Jared Kushner and real estate agent/special envoy Steve Witkoff to lead the talks. Kushner and Witkoff have travelled to Moscow several times, but never to Kyiv. They haven’t managed to arrange direct talks between Putin and Zelensky (the former is unwilling), nor have they arranged substantial talks that have lasted more than an hour or two.

There’s no real framework for peace at this stage, beyond a surface level list of points, mostly based on Russia’s demands. Trump also inexplicably relies solely on these two men as his key international negotiators, rather than the large diplomatic, political and legal staff the US government has at its disposal; so with Kushner and Witkoff now focused on the conflict in the Middle East, even the half-hearted talks between Kyiv and Moscow have stopped.

Recently, the idea of the EU acting as a mediator has been floated. Moscow however has rejected this idea outright. Other interlocuters, such as Qatar and the UAE, have hosted talks and mediated agreements focused on POW exchanges but neither country has sought to take on a more prominent role in the negotiations and is unlikely to do so currently, given their regional situation.

Can Ukraine join the EU while it’s at war?

Zelensky has continuously pushed for an accelerated path to EU membership for Ukraine. As recently as April, he said this should happen by 2027, claiming Ukraine will have passed all the technical requirements needed by then.

That is not the case. Ukraine meets few of the criteria required for EU membership- which brings significant economic, political and cultural benefits - and there is no realistic chance it will suddenly meet them in the next six months. Even if by some miracle it did, there is no agreement among EU member states that Ukraine should be admitted. Ukraine is a huge country in terms of its geographic size, its population and currently, its complex issues. It’s unclear if the bloc, especially its agricultural sector, can absorb Ukraine or what it would mean to try to bring in a country in the midst of a war, to say nothing of the country’s very real issue of endemic corruption.

EU membership has become a touchstone for Zelensky. Many Ukrainians feel that by fighting Russia they are defending not just Ukraine but other European countries and EU membership would be some sort of ‘reward’. More practically, if Ukraine is forced to make painful concessions to Russia -in the event negotiations are restarted- EU membership may lessen the blow somewhat.

Regardless of the validity or not of these reasons, there is no prospect of Ukraine joining the EU as a full member in 2027. Being frank, I can’t see a scenario where it obtains full membership in the next five or ten years either. More likely, it may be granted a sort of associate membership, with increased political and defence cooperation and continued financial support from Europe to Ukraine, but without opening up agricultural or other economic markets, or allowing free movement of peoples.

Subscribe now

The war will get worse before it gets better

There’s isn’t an immediate prospect of the war ending but both sides feel the conflict has entered its late stage. Conversely, wars often escalate the nearer they are to ending, as both sides push to be in as advantageous a position as possible. When a ceasefire is declared, the de facto positioning of each side, and the territory it holds, can become the status quo. Both sides also want to weaken their opponents political position as much as possible. The war is escalating, even if the end may seem closer.

This means Ukraine is in for a difficult summer, but so is Russia. Ukrainian drone strikes have been successful in undermining the Kremlin’s narrative that it is winning the war, and have brought home the war to the Russian public. It’s a double edged sword however in that the Kremlin can also use Ukrainian attacks to reinforce its own narrative about the threat Ukraine, and the West, poses to Russia.

If US attention shifts back to Ukraine and Trump exerts enough pressure on both sides, a hastily agreed ceasefire may be declared. But a ceasefire is not the same thing as a resolution to the conflict. Trump loves a quick win and any such declaration is unlikely to address the myriad of deep issues required for a true peace. A ceasefire that simply freezes the current frontlines and doesn’t provide a real deterrent for Russia to continue undermining the Ukrainian state will leave Kyiv in a more vulnerable position. That is why, in what may seem a counter intuitive move, Kyiv is likely to argue against any ceasefire, unless it is backed by a comprehensive peace plan.

If you’re new here . . .

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in corporate security and private intelligence on issues from Ukraine-Russia to Pakistan, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

The protests wrapped up by Sunday and normalcy has now returned to the roads, and fuel supply. In the days since, the government passed a package of supports and survived a related motion of no confidence, albeit with some serious damage inflicted.

It was a remarkable week in Irish life and politics. Watching it unfold from abroad, I was struck by a few things- the uneven media discourse around the issue, the dismissive government response and attempts by far right groups to hijack the protests. The whole issue provides an interesting lens to examine how political events are reported on, analysed and judged in today’s media landscape.

Watching it unfold from outside Ireland

I’m Irish but I haven’t lived in Ireland for many years. I keep up with what’s happening there in a general sense, from conversations with family and occasionally reading national news. So while I was vaguely aware of the protests that began last Tuesday, it was only on Thursday that they struck me as something really worth paying attention to.

A headline caught my eye while I was scanning newsfeeds I use for work. It said fuel stations in the West of Ireland (where I’m from) were starting to run dry. I found myself reading an Irish Times article, describing the protests and the disruption they were causing. The tone of the article, to me, indicated widespread upset with the protests. One voice was heavily centered, that of someone who wasn’t able to reach a hospital to visit their mother, something we can all sympathise with.

But this is the danger of using only one source to inform your view, especially when a common feature of today’s journalism is to centre a singular experience- in this case, an upset and inconvenienced individual- to represent a common sentiment.

I sent my family a quick message to check in and searched for a podcast to listen to while I made dinner. The Irish Times Women’s podcast had an interview with an author I like, Louise O’Neill so I opted for that. Before the interview, the hosts discussed the protests, describing the atmosphere in Dublin. They referred to it as being ‘very male’ and ‘intimidating’ and described ‘groups of men’ who ‘wanted a bit of a confrontation’. I scanned another article, that quoted government ministers response to the protests, that referenced external involvement from far right agitators abroad.

A picture had formed in my mind of the protests, from these three pieces of media I consumed, also influenced by recent incidents in Ireland where a burgeoning far-right movement has engaged in violent disorder and protests. It was a mostly negative picture, certainly wary.

Subscribe now

Then I received some messages from my family, describing the situation and the rationale behind the protests in a more measured manner. Some didn’t agree with the blockade aspect of the protest but the general tone was sympathetic and understanding of the pressures people are facing (special hat tip to my sister Valerie for her particularly well informed commentary). After dinner, I searched for more articles, checking several different Irish news sources, international news and social media sites.

My view changed quickly. Video compilations of participants showed protestors- mostly men, yes- explaining the immense challenges they face; the majority of people stopped on the street by journalists acknowledged the disruption but expressed sympathy and support for the protests. I came across videos from far right movements abroad that edited images of the protests into slick videos, but saw no evidence (at that stage) of far right demands or motivations.

I also learned some key facts.

Fuel is heavily taxed in Ireland. Around 55% of the price at the pump is tax.

On paper, Ireland is a rich country with a sky-high GDP but that figure is distorted by the presence of more than 1,500 multinationals. These include some of the worlds largest tech and pharma companies.

Ireland still has a relatively high standard of living but the cost of living is high. There’s an escalating housing crisis and average workers feel increasingly squeezed.

So while the current price increases are due to global events, protestors were calling on the government to provide relief on areas it can control- tax and additional supports.

What’s more, the government does have additional funds it can draw on. These multinationals pay the Irish government billions in corporate tax each year. The government also received a windfall payment after Apple was ordered by Europe’s top court to pay $14bn in back taxes. Much of that remains unspent, being saved apparently for a rainy day. As several protestors have expressed, it’s now pouring.

Something else struck me. The voices and accents of protestors were very familiar to me. They were mostly rural and many were from the west of the country. They’re the accents I grew up with, but are not perhaps the accents that people in Dublin, including some members of the media and some politicians, are used to listening to on the news, or paying attention to. Did that play a role in how the protests were portrayed by some? Did people’s perceptions of what they think rural men must feel and believe, coupled with attempts by far right agitators to hijack the narrative, contribute to some of the media and political discourse?

Subscribe now

The challenges of nuanced narratives

Several overlapping facts are true in this instance, that contribute to a complex overall picture. This is where nuance comes in, something people seem to increasingly struggle with but is a necessary part of engaging in political debate and analysis.

Far right elements did try to hijack the protests, while far right agitators abroad attempted to co-opt the narrative.

That does not mean the protests themselves were inherently far right. They were coordinated, rather than organised and ostensibly leaderless (though some key leaders did emerge). This is unusual in the Irish context. The government said it made it more challenging to engage and negotiate with protestors demands while for the average person, it made it more difficult to support the protests when you can’t be sure who exactly you might be supporting. Most reasonable people do not want to claim support for something that might end up resulting in social disorder, violence or the expression of extremist views. A lot of people I know, or saw online, expressed sympathy with the protests without wanting to wholeheartedly get behind something rather opaque.

Attempts by far right elements to engage with the protests were largely rebuffed and contributed to the wind down of the protests.

Encountering groups of men as a woman alone is often intimidating.

The journalist that expressed that sentiment is entitled to relay her experience. I would expect any news outlet however to provide additional context rather than portraying a singular encounter as representative of an overall movement.

Plenty of people do disagree with the protests, or blockades or both.

I’m not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with the methods used are inherently prejudiced against rural Ireland, or that everyone who lives in rural Ireland was one hundred per cent behind the protests. Some people feel protests should be a march, rather than pose any disruption but the fact is in our current political structures, governments are unlikely to respond to an orderly march.

An Irish Independent poll showed 56% of people supported the actions of the protestors- that’s a significant figure, given at that stage fuel stations had started to run dry. A Limerick Leader poll, a local paper in the West of Ireland, showed 73% of respondents supported the protests, indicating higher levels of support among rural/west of Ireland communities.

You need to consume a diverse range of media to form a full picture of events

Government ministers seem to believe Irish media was too sympathetic to the protestors. I can’t say I share that view, based on the media I consumed. Relying on a single source, even if it’s a ‘reputable’ source often means you’re only seeing one perspective. Depending on the point of view of the journalist, the media outlet or a person centered in that piece, it can present a skewed idea of what’s going on without additional context.

We should also be clear on what balanced reporting actually means. It should present a multitude of views and opinions and that should include minority views too. However it should not give false equivalence i.e. present a minority view with the impression that it has the same level of support or logic as another view.

A final thought

In today’s fractured political and media landscape, we are going to see more instances of holistic or spontaeneous protests, organised by groups outside the traditional political discourse. Unions, professional associations and political parties still play an important role and governments can’t negotiate with every person who declares themselves an official representative. But governments- the Irish government in particular- need to adapt to the current political landscape and recognise when engaging with different groups may be required.

The government’s condescension towards many of the protestors last week isn’t just a communications failing, it inflamed the situation. When you have thousands of people on the streets, and four individuals putting themselves forward as representatives, an approach towards de-escalation should have involved meeting with those people. The government could then have stood firm on only negotiating with official representative bodies, but at least the protestors would have felt listened to. Alternatively, the government could have better expressed its reservations about engaging with protestors outside normal channels, in a way that was measured and respectful rather than dismissive and inflammatory.

Subscribe now

For more on the protests and their aftermath, I reccomend this from Gavin Reilly

If you’re new here….

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

I mostly write about international affairs, with a focus on the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia. Catch up on some of my recent analysis below.

Comments are welcome, especially if you disagree or have an alternative point of view to share! Just remember to keep it respectful.

Share

Subscribe now

Conditional, because Iran says the ceasefire is accepted as long as attacks against it are halted.

Conditional, because Trump says the truce is contingent on Iran agreeing to the ‘complete, immediate and safe opening’ of the Strait of Hormuz.

Conditional, because there’s conflicting reports over whether the ceasefire includes Lebanon. Pakistan, the mediator says it does, while Israel says it doesn’t.

Conditional, because Iranian attacks against Gulf states continued this morning, well after the announcement.

Conditional, because the US and Israel has previously attacked Iran while in the midst of negotiations.

This is a pause, not a peace deal.

What comes next?

The US has received a 10 point proposal from Iran that will form the basis of negotiations. The next two weeks will be focused on finalising an agreement that is acceptable to all parties. Pakistan says delegations from the US and Iran will meet in Islamabad this Friday to continue negotiations.

While Trump has described Iran’s proposal as ‘workable’ it contains several conditions that the US has previously rejected, including the withdrawal of all US forces from the Middle East, the lifting of all sanctions against the Iranian state and payment of compensation to Iran.

The gap between the US and Iranian positions is so wide, it’s difficult to see how a finalised agreement can be agreed in just two weeks. That’s to say nothing of the other regional parties, including Israel, the Arab Gulf States and Iraq, who all have security and economic priorities they want to see addressed.

Subscribe now

What this means for global fuel prices

The temporary ceasefire will calm global markets and should mean that crucial energy supplies and other goods begin flowing through the Strait of Hormuz once more. This will provide some limited relief to the market but it doesn’t address the more serious issues. A lot will depend on whether operators and insurers feel confident enough in the ceasefire to navigate the Strait; it’s not a given that they will.

Another concern is that Iran’s Foreign Minister said that shipping would proceed ‘under the control of Iran’s armed forces.’ Iran effectively now controls who passes through the Strait, which was not the case before Trump launched this war.

Some oil and gas in storage or on tankers will be able to proceed to market but energy production that has been halted around the region won’t restart until there is a more sustainable end to hostilities. Considering all this, demand and prices will remain elevated in the short term.

Subscribe now

If you’re enjoying reading Intelligence Matters,

please subscribe to make sure you never miss an update.

Moving from pause to peace

The ceasefire is positive news that provides a measure of relief to the region, but the number of potential spoilers tempers any optimism.

There’s a lot of points to watch in the days ahead, that could prompt the ceasefire to fall apart. How serious are both sides about negotiations? Will the US exert pressure on Israel to halt its offensive in Lebanon? Will Iran halt its attacks on Arab Gulf states? How can Trump spin this disastrous military campaign into a victory, something we know is crucial for him?

Lebanon strikes me as an immediate flashpoint. Israel is unlikely to halt its invasion and occupation of Lebanon without significant pressure from the US. The US has leverage over Israel but it’s not something we have seen it use before. If it doesn’t, the progress of talks may hinge on how crucial Tehran views Lebanon, home to its proxy force Hezbollah, to its overall power calculation.

More to come in the days ahead, as we see how the situation unfolds.

If you’re new here . . .

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

Last September, the Economist called Baghdad ‘the world’s surprise boomtown’.

In January, the UN resident coordinator for the country said Iraq is ‘at peace, with increased security’ and ‘unrecognisable and remarkable.

Since 2022, Iraq’s security environment has stabilised. Violent crime is down. Millions of internally displaced persons have returned home. Foreign investment is booming and construction is surging. Government services have been modernised and digitised.

Subscribe now

Public opinion polls show growing confidence in state institutions and an enhanced sense of security. Iraqis in the diaspora talk of potential business opportunities. Capital and oil revenues are flowing.

But now another regional war threatens to undo this progress.

Iran’s Shadow Network in Iraq

One of Iraq’s main security challenges, a change that has proved trickier to enact than others, is also the linchpin of the ongoing regional war- Iran’s use of regional proxies and shadow networks.

After the US invasion and the years of instability and war that followed, Iraq’s security apparatus needed to be rebuilt. The most powerful militias, consisting of groups formed to fight US troops in Iraq, then in Syria’s civil war and against ISIS, began to be integrated under state control.

While many militias have now been integrated into the state military, the state does not exert full control over every militia.

Iran controls several armed factions in Iraq.

The most powerful and well known of these groups is Kataib Hezbollah, closely tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

These militias stayed out of the 12 day war between Israel and Iran last June. But they have joined the current war, in solidarity with Iran, launching attacks on the US embassy and the international airport in Baghdad, and on US troops in Jordan and the Gulf region.

The government’s inability to reign in the militias risks eroding its sovereignty, rolling back progress made in recent years.

News emerged this morning that an American journalist, Shelly Kittleson, was kidnapped yesterday in Baghdad. The incident harks back to a darker, more insecure time in the country when such things were more common. US State Department officials have said Kataib Hezbollah is behind the kidnapping.

Subscribe now

As well as security challenges, Iraq’s oil revenues have collapses due to the Straits of Hormuz closure. Production has fallen by almost 80%, representing an estimated daily revenue loss of between $260-280million.

Iraq’s Arab neighbours could lost patience with the federal authorities inability to halt attacks coming from its territory. Last week, five Gulf states- Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain- and Jordan issued a joint statement calling on the Iraqi government ‘to take the necessary measures to immediately halt the attacks launched by factions, militias, and armed groups from Iraqi territory toward neighboring countries, in order to preserve brotherly relations and avoid further escalation.’ The statement also affirmed their right to self-defence against such criminal attacks.

Challenge and opportunity

Iraq’s government faces a complex challenge. It needs to combat falling oil revenues while reigning in Iranian backed militias and seeking to reassure its neighbours of its authority.

Iraq is a cornerstone of regional security. The events of the last three decades have taught us that Iraq’s stability is crucial to maintaining regional peace and security. Just as importantly, Iraq is a historical crucible for global culture, science and innovation.

With vast oil reserves, a young population, a pro-business government and a strong culture of education and innovation, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t return to being the stable, prosperous regional leader it once was. As long as Iran’s regional proxies can be reigned in.

Doing this without provoking a wider conflict, is the challenge Iraq’s government faces moving forward.

Share Intelligence Matters

Consuming Culture

I strongly believe in not just consuming a culture or people through the news, but seeking out literature, art, history and food to gain a better understanding of its totality. With that, I’ve been reading about Logma, a newly opened Iraqi-Iranian bistro in London that has daily queues out the door, and hoping they’ve dissipated by the time I visit next month. Read more here and here.

I’m currently reading this excellent book by Steve Coll that traces the history of Iraq and the US from the 1970s. It’s a colourful, well written history that focuses on key characters to tell a complex story.

Subscribe now

If you’re new here…

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Share

Subscribe now

Iran, predictably, refused to comply with Trump’s demands. It threatened to strike the Gulf’s energy and water infrastructure if its own energy plants were targeted.

Once again, the Gulf states faced bearing the brunt of a war they didn’t ask for, and tried hard to avoid.

Then came a brief reprieve, mere hours before the deadline was due to expire. Trump said he was issuing a five day extension, after ‘productive conversations’ with the Iranians.

Iran has denied any such conversations with the US are taking place and it’s clear there are no formal talks happening. It seems that Trump seized on some early, outreach efforts and used them to avoid a potentially devastating further escalation.

At least, until Friday.

Searching for an off ramp

Trump launched this war without a clear strategy or objective. Now facing increasing domestic and economic pressure to halt the attacks and reopen the Straits of Hormuz, as well as growing international isolation and the prospect of becoming bogged down in another quagmire of a war, Trump needs a way out.

There are no easy exits in this war.

Trump could try to walk away, declare an empty victory and halt US strikes. But Israel will likely continue its strikes on Iran and Lebanon, while Iran is unlikely to be satisfied with an inconclusive end.

Twice in the last year, the US has attacked Iran in the midst of talks. Iran is likely to continue using the Straits of Hormuz as leverage to negotiate a more tangible, binding agreement with the US, to prevent a third occasion. The Gulf Arab states, seeking stability, will also pressure the US into formalising some sort of truce with Iran to prevent a reoccurrence of hostilities several months or years down the line.

If Trump is serious about ending the war, he faces having to do what he has so heavily criticised others for doing in the past- make a deal with Iran.

Subscribe now

Even then, it’s unclear if Trump can leverage Israel into halting its strikes on Iran and its invasion of Lebanon. Senior officials have already admitted after all that the US launched its strikes because Israel was planning to do so.

So it’s another week of uncertainty here in the Gulf, and globally as the economic and security ramifications spread.

How bad might the energy crisis get?

Last week, the head of the International Energy Agency said the current energy crisis is the greatest threat to global energy in history, worse than the twin oil shocks of the 1970s and the fallout of the Ukraine war combined.

It’s not just the closure of Straits of Hormuz that’s responsible. The targeting of energy infrastructure has led to the damage or shutting down of energy production sites in Iraq, Qatar and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the ramifications of this are not short-term.

Restarting or repairing production at such sites is far from a quick or easy process; Qatari energy officials have said damage incurred at their gas fields could take more than 3 years to repair.

Yesterday, Slovenia became the first EU country to introduce fuel rationing but the most acute impacts will be felt in Asia, which is heavily dependent on Gulf energy. However globally we can expect to see increasing food and living costs, rising inflation and of course, higher prices at the pump.

Share

If you’re new here…

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

Since 28 February, UAE air defences have intercepted 327 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles, and 1,699 drones.

Those are remarkable numbers.

It’s even more remarkable that daily life is continuing normally. Shops, cafes, restaurants and gyms are all open. I’ve been out for dinner. I’ve taken my usual morning walk to get a coffee. I had my groceries delivered and met a friend for lunch.

Why is the media portrayal of Dubai so different to the reality?

That might surprise you if you’ve been following the news in recent weeks. Dubai has been the focus of harsh, often exaggerated reporting in the Western press. Even reputable outfits have indulged in sensationalist reporting and lazy cliches, giving the impression that this vibrant, multicultural city of four million people is only inhabited by the ultra rich and British expats, all of whom have fled.

There are a few reasons behind this disconnect.

Sensationalism sells. A clickbait-y title about Dubai will drive more traffic than a reasoned, measured account.

Today’s information space is crowded. It’s harder than ever for media outlets to gain an audience. Many outlets, particularly tabloid ones, rely on screaming, emotive headlines to hook your interest.

As an intelligence analyst, accuracy of language is important to me. Everything I produce goes through a professional editorial team. A typical daily exchange might involved an editor questioning use of the words ‘strike’ - do we mean an airstrike? An aerial strike that could mean a drone or missile? Or an undefined attack? Did we verify this strike with more than one source? Are they reputable sources? Do we have visual confirmation? And so on.

Every word is weighed, because its meaning matters.

I’ve been disappointed then to see many British and Irish media outlets constantly refer to ‘bombings’ in Dubai, when they’re actually referring to aerial interceptions. Clearly, these are not the same thing.

A headline is not necessarily a true reporting of facts. You see a headline making a clear statement and take it as fact. However when you read the article, you see it’s actually referring to unconfirmed reports, that have not been verified and are often untrue.

Presenting people’s opinions and emotions as facts, or without context, is also problematic.

You may have seen emotional videos of tourists returning from the region, describing their experiences as though they are returning war veterans.

While their fear was probably genuinely felt, their assessment of the situation is unreliable because it’s rooted in a lack of knowledge- of the regional context, of the UAE’s capabilities, of what the danger really was and so forth.

Without knowing the context of what’s happening, their interpretation of the situation is more alarming than it really is.

Their version of events may feel true to them, but that doesn’t make it objectively true.

Coverage of the war has also highlighted a notable reduction in our collective media literacy. The information space has become crowded and more complex, flooded with bots, opinions masquerading as fact and now with the added hurdle of AI. What’s really worrying is that many people seem unable to differentiate between a reputable news source and a fake report on social media.

Finally, and importantly, the way Western media outlets cover the Middle East (and other regions globally) is often steeped in heavily biased beliefs about life here that do not reflect the reality. Many journalists writing these pieces have never been to the region and are relying solely on social media and other second hand accounts. Well trained journalists will be rigorous in verifying information but unfortunately this sort of journalism is becoming more of a rarity.

The news I pay for and why you should too

That is why I continue to spend money on news subscriptions.

In a world drowning in content and uninformed hot takes, I strongly believe in supporting high quality journalism.

I don’t agree with every single article or opinion in the news outlets I pay for. Some of them are guilty of the same thoughtless coverage of Dubai I’ve outlined above, though they are not the most egregious offenders.

But I prefer to have a multiplicity of views from journalists who are trained to challenge, interrogate and verify, than only influencers and podcasters who cannot differentiate between opinion and expertise.

I also believe that people have a personal responsibility to critically engage with the media we consume. I can disagree with an article in a newspaper, without deciding never to read a newspaper again.

The sweeping layoffs at the Washington Post last month, amounting to one third of its entire newsroom and most of its international coverage, demonstrate the importance of financially supporting trustworthy news outlets.

For you, this might mean a one off payment for your local newspaper, or a monthly sub to a national broadsheet. I also encourage you to subscribe, free or paid, to your favourite Substackers!

Subscribe now

For me, it means subscribing to several international news outlets. Here is a list of my current and previous news subscriptions, and what I like about them.

Financial Times- The Financial Times, commonly known as the FT, is a British based global daily that covers business and current affairs.

What I like about it: The mix of global news coverage, expert commentary and long reads that deep dive interesting topics.

Reuters- Reuters is a major global news agency with a reputation for breaking news and reliability. You might not realise it, but many national newspapers take their global coverage from news agencies like Reuters.

What I like about it: It’s fast, reliable and trustworthy.

The Times and Sunday Times- I have subscribed, cancelled and resubscribed to the Times on several occasions. Its editorial takes can often be more to the Right of my personal views, especially on global affairs. However, I do believe in reading and listening to different points of view, which is why I try to consume a wide variety of news (as long as it’s broadly reputable).

What I like about it: The weekend supplements on culture, style, longform reporting and Irish news.

The Guardian - A longstanding British daily. You can read the Guardian for free and that’s what I did until the Washington Post lay offs when I realised maintaining quality news really is crucial.

What I like about it: A good all round news source. It’s generally thought of as a progressive newspaper though I mostly like it for its international news coverage which is decent at spotlighting under reported conflicts,

Bloomberg- An American news agency with some good international reporting on specific regions, and a focus on financial/markets/business.

What I like about it: Its market analysis has helped expand my financial knowledge but as a news source, it’s less comprehensive than I would like. I purchased an annual subscription on sale but I don’t think I will renew.

Monocle- Crossing into magazine territory here but Monocle’s digital coverage (my subscription is digital) is more news focused. I recommend their free podcasts, especially if you like more analysis and thought pieces over breaking news.

What I like about it: Its focus on business and culture and its international point of view.

There are other news outlets I consume regularly but don’t pay for (because I can’t keep the print industry going single handedly) including Al-Jazeera English, Politico EU, the National (UAE) and the New York Times.

Have I missed out on your favourite news outlet? Let me know in the comments.

If you enjoyed this article, consider sharing it using the button below. If you haven’t already, subscribe to continue receiving weekly updates like this one.

Share

Subscribe now

If you’re new here…

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

With all that in mind, are we calling it the Third Gulf War yet?

One of the main implications of the ongoing war is its impact on global energy supply and prices. Some of the worlds largest energy exporters, facing heavy Iranian attacks, are cutting production. Iran has effectively shut the Straits of Hormuz, closing off one of the worlds most crucial energy shipping routes.

Crude oil prices surged on Monday before dropping when Trump said the war could end “very soon”. Prices are still some 30% higher than before the war began on 28 February. Any price reduction is likely to be temporary, as Trump’s volatility and liability to change his mind quickly translates to the energy markets.

Consumers will start to see increases almost immediately. It won’t just affect the price of refuelling your car. The cost of transporting everything you use and consume- including food - is set to increase.

This is where Russia comes in.

Here’s a key fact: Russia is the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holds the world’s biggest reserves of natural gas.

Here’s another key fact: Trump doesn’t care much about Ukraine. He views the war in Ukraine as a primarily European concern.

Trump sees a simple solution to the worsening energy crisis.

Let Russia put more of its energy back into the market.

A simpler solution could be to stop the war in Iran. But with the definition of what Trump may consider victory still unclear, he is turning to Russia in the meantime.

Trump and Putin held an hour long call yesterday, after which Trump said the US will waive sanctions on Russian oil for some countries. This could ease the shortage and price spike caused by the Israeli/US attack on Iran.

It will also give the Kremlin a much needed injection of cash.

Russia’s energy income is a key pillar of its economy. Western sanctions, levied after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, aimed to both punish Russia for its actions and impact its ability to fund its war in Ukraine.

Before the war in Ukraine, Europe purchased 40% of its energy from Russia. That figure has reduced to 13%, forcing Russia to sell to more countries in Asia, at a lower price.

Has the war in Iran tipped the scales against Ukraine?

Russia doesn’t just benefit from higher energy prices and demand. Strategically, it also benefits from a shift in global, and US attention, away from Ukraine.

The US brokered ‘peace’ talks were little more than a smokescreen but now there’s even less chance of any substantive diplomatic pressure being exerted on Russia to make concessions to end the war.

Practically, the war in the Middle East will have a significant impact on the amount of weapons, air defences and financial assistance available for Ukraine. The US requires huge numbers of drones, missiles and expensive air defence systems to safeguard its assets, personnel and allies in the region.

Ukraine was already facing a substantial air defence shortage. This is likely to worsen in the coming weeks as the US diverts supplies to the Middle East.

Ukraine doesn’t have many options to counteract the current advantages for Russia.

Kyiv has offered the expertise its gained in combatting Iranian Shahed drones to the US and Gulf states, but any potential political or financial benefit this may bring won’t be enough to offset the overall disadvantages.

In recent months, European allies have stepped in to purchase the military hardware Ukraine requires to continue its defense against Russia, as US funding and supplies dried up. But Europe’s own weapons stockpiles are depleted. Without US weapons and air defences available for purchase, Europe won’t be able save Ukraine from the coming, potentially devastating, shortfall.

It’s not all rosy for Moscow. Iran is a nominal Russian ally after all, while some Russian politicians have warned darkly that the attack on Iran highlights a similar attack could be launched on Russia.

That’s unlikely, however given Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Additionally, while Moscow won’t have welcomed the Israeli/US attack on Iran, it does validate its world view that the West is an aggressive actor that Russia needs to guard against.

Ukraine has consistently proven itself capable of not only defending itself against Russia’s onslaught, by innovating, holding Russia in place and gaining back territory.

But after four gruelling years of war, morale, manpower and money are all in short supply.

The longer the war in Iran drags on, the worse Ukraine’s situation will become.

If you’re new here . . .

I’m an intelligence analyst based in Dubai. With a decade of experience working in security and intelligence, I’m an expert at cutting through the noise and getting to the point.

As an intelligence analyst, it’s my job to provide a clear- eyed, well informed view of the most pressing geopolitical issues and security threats- usually in as few words as possible.

Subscribe now

• Russia sees the next three years, while Trump is still in office, as a unique opportunity to undermine the NATO alliance through military action against a European state.

• Russia is increasingly testing European defences with its escalating hybrid actions.

• The war in Ukraine and an assessment of US commitment to NATO are key factors for Russia in determining whether or not to launch an attack.

• A Russian attack on Europe is mostly likely to concentrate on a limited, military incursion on a strategic vulnerability. This is likely to be an attack on a Baltic state, such as Estonia, or an action focused on the Suwalki Gap.

A growing threat

Four years ago this week, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Even then, many political and military leaders on the continent believed the prospect of Russia launching an attack on another European state was unlikely.

For some, especially in western Europe, it was unthinkable.

That assessment has changed.

European leaders are now increasingly sounding the alarm about the potential for a Russian military action against an European state.

The reason for this change?

President Trump’s return to office, his rejection of the long standing trans-Atlantic collective defence principles and his administrations rapprochement with Moscow.

Since the end of WW2, Europe has relied on the US to guarantee its security. Now, the message from the Trump administration is clear, through its statements, the scaling back of US assistance to Ukraine and the recent crisis over Greenland

Europe must assume primary responsibility for its collective defense.

This is a huge problem as most European countries have militaries that are under equipped, under staffed and are largely unfit for defending against a conventional military attack. Even those countries that have invested heavily in their military and civillian defence- primarily the Baltic states and Poland- face constraints based on their size relative to Russia.

Europe’s Difficulty, Russia’s Opportunity

The remainder of Trump’s term in office presents a unique opportunity for Russia. If Russia launches a military action on a NATO member state and the US chooses not to uphold Article 5, the bloc will effectively collapse. Russia will have removed an alliance it views as a direct threat and reasserted itself as a ‘great power’ - something that is central to Russian strategic military doctrine.

This prospect is hugely attractive to Russia and appears tantalisingly credible.

It would mean a calculated gamble from Russia- that the US is unlikely to send and sacrifice its troops to defend an Estonian island, a sliver of Poland, or perhaps even an entire Baltic state.

NATO’s Article 5 has always been understood in the most maximalist sense but the wording actually leaves a high degree of ambiguity. In the event of an attack on a member state, other members are required to take ‘such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force.’

Previous US presidents created the norm that this would mean the full force of the US military. That is no longer the case under Trump.

With his actions in Venezuela and Iran, Trump has shown he’s willing to engage in military action abroad. But a significant deployment of air, sea and land troops to engage in a major military confrontation against Russia is a completely different task.

What a Russian attack might look like

A Russian attack on Europe is mostly likely to concentrate on a limited, military incursion on a key vulnerability. This is likely to be an attack on a Baltic state, such as Estonia, or an action focused on the Suwalki Gap.

The Suwalki Gap is a true strategic bottleneck. It’s a narrow strip of Polish territory that is flanked by Russia’s key ally Belarus, and its exclave of Kalingrad. Barely 100km long, if Russia move to seize this narrow corridor of land, it would completely cut off the Baltic states from the rest of Europe.

Subscribe now

Russia’s initial military incursion may be limited but it is likely to expand and escalate, depending on Europe’s response. If Russia moves to take the Suwalki gap, that leaves the Baltics exposed to a further attack. Once a military situation escalates to direct confrontation, it becomes unpredictable in terms of spread. Poland, Romania and others are already dealing with spillover impact from Ukraine. The spillover and escalation from a Russian military incursion on another European state is likely to be far more consequential.

We’ve seen in Ukraine that Russia’s military has severe structural and strategic weaknesses. However its brute force, battle hardiness and sheer numbers should not be underestimated.

Russia has already drastically escalated its hybrid actions across Europe since 2022. Hybrid actions serve several functions but Russia’s actions appear increasingly designed to test Europe’s responses to airspace incursions. This is another warning sign of Russia’s intentions.

If the war in Ukraine ends in the next 6-12 months, the prospect of a Russian attack elsewhere in Europe will increase. While the talks aimed at negotiating a ceasefire have made little progress, this could change quickly if the US changes its position on Ukraine.

A concentrated information campaign around flashpoints such as Russian speakers in Baltic states, echoing widespread disinformation about persecution of Russian speakers in Donetsk and Luhansk and a significant redeployment of military personnel and equipment would all strongly indicate a change in Russia’s positioning.

Key to all of this is Putin. One thing I wish more people understood about Russia is that assessing how president Vladimir Putin perceives Russia’s current military and economic capabilities is more relevant to forecasting Russia’s actions than assessing what those capabilities actually are.

The number of Russian casualties in Ukraine and the state of the Russian economy are not irrelevant factors. However Russia is not a democracy where Putin can be voted from office due to these issues. It’s clear Putin is willing to pay these costs to further his aim to res-establish Russia as a global superpower and increase its territorial control.

If Putin’s public statements start to focus on a certain territory or group, as he focused on Ukraine prior to the invasion, that is a key warning sign.

For now, the NATO alliance remains intact, the US troop presence in Europe remains significant and Russia’s military is bogged down in Ukraine.

These factors act as significant constraints on the potential for Russia to launch an attack against Europe. But the scales are starting to tip. If just one of these factors changes, Russia’s calculation will also change.

Share

What Europe can do to defend itself

Europe’s response to Russian hybrid actions offers a bleak view into how it may respond to military attack- fragmented, reactive and largely ineffective.

Talking about ‘Europe’ as a single entity here belies the fact that it is not a cohesive unit, with a unified political or military decision making organisation. The notion of Europe itself is varied and ill defined- it’s not just the EU and several European states are more aligned with Russia after all.

This is the ultimate contradiction of Europe- it aims to act as an important global power without being a cohesive bloc. In this instance, it’s also its weakness.

I am against the prospect of a more federalised version of Europe. In my view, such calls are the pipe dream of fading powers like France who can’t seem to understand why smaller states wouldn’t voluntarily give up their sovereignty.

But Europe does need greater coordination on security and defence to thwart the threat posed Russia, and other nefarious actors. Even if European countries could match US military capabilities in scale, with no unified cohesive command structure, they will never be as effective.

Much of Europe needs to move from hand wringing to action. Countries like the UK need to stop talking and take action. This will require more spending and investment, not just in militaries but in robust civilian and infrastructure defence measures. The Baltics, Nordics and Poland provide a useful blueprint for how this can be done.

There is also an argument that providing continued support to Ukraine is currently Europe’s best deterrent against a Russian attack. There’s some truth to this but it’s a far thornier issue so it’s one I’ll dive into more detail on in the coming weeks.

Want more expert analysis on this topic?

Subscribe for free and receive these upcoming newsletters

• This country is Europe’s weakest link when it comes to security and defence

• Why the war in Ukraine ending could be the most dangerous thing for Europe

• The next US-Russia-Iran showdown isn’t in Ukraine or the Arctic. It’s here.

• The new centre of power in Europe isn’t Brussels, Berlin or Paris. It’s Warsaw.

Subscribe now

Key Takeaways

• This years conference focused on the challenges for European defence, in the wake of fraying ties with the US and the renewed threat posed by Russia.

• European leaders talked about a sense of urgency on defence. Unfortunately, Europe’s idea of urgency is glacially slow.

• The US will continue to leave Europe out of talks on ending the war in Ukraine- unless Europe forces its way to the table.

• A ceasefire agreement for Ukraine is unlikely in the next six months.

Image created with AI

Why the Munich Security Conference is so important

The annual Munich Security Conference, that took place this weekend, is the main forum for trans-Atlantic security, defence and political leaders to gather and coordinate security policy.

It is the worlds largest security conference and often provides a temperature check on some of the most pressing issues in global security- at least the ones that the Western world is focused on.

Speeches from world leaders at the conference often lay bare era-defining positions on security issues, from divisions in NATO on Iraq in 2003, to Vladimir Putin’s 2007 address that laid bare his ambitions for Russia and arguably marked the beginning of a new era of relations between Russia and the US.

Last year, the conference made global headlines for US Vice-President JD Vance’s blistering attack on Europe as a whole. Vance’s speech was a genuine watershed moment for many European countries, making clear what many should have realised months, if not years earlier: that Europe cannot continue to neglect its own defense, based on a false sense of security that if needed, the US will come to its rescue.

Is Europe finally taking defence seriously?

On the whole, no.

Some states, generally those closest geographically to Russia, are. However, Vance’s speech should have precipitated largescale action from European states. In reality, we’ve had some lackluster commitments to increase defence spending, bolster infrastructure and combat threats posed by Russia and others. This has resulted in very little action.

That’s a huge risk. There are very real threats to European security happening now and they’re only going to worsen in the next three years.

This is not war mongering. This is recognising reality. The Trump presidency and its retreat from Europe presents a huge opportunity for Europe’s foes. They know this. Much of Europe seems to still not understand it.

Look out for my upcoming newsletter: I’m an intelligence analyst focused on Russia. Europe needs to prepare for war.

Subscribe so you don’t miss it!

Subscribe now

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio skipped a Ukraine-focused meeting with European leaders. He also barely mentioned Russia in his speech to the conference.

Rubio’s actions reflect the position of Trump’s administration: disdain for Europe, impatience with Ukraine and a feeling that warming relations with Russia- and deal making- is the way forward.

One way Europe can seek to shore up its own security is by ensuring it has a say in how the war in Ukraine ends. They can do this by making firm commitments on security guarantees for Ukraine, instead of declarations that lack specific details. The US views Europe as irrelevant. Europe needs to demonstrate that’s not the case.

Share

Is the war in Ukraine closer to ending?

Yes it’s closer- but it’s unlikely in the next six months.

Russia is incurring huge casualties in exchange for painfully small gains. But this is a price Putin is more than willing to pay to achieve what he wants.

The US has little leverage over Russia, compared to Ukraine. Putin is confident the US will continue to put pressure on Ukraine to make concessions.

Ukraine’s position is increasingly difficult, but it can continue to hold out and fight for the next 6-9 months and potentially longer, depending on the level of support it receives from its allies.

With Spring and Summer on the horizon- prime fighting season- fighting will only intensify in the coming months, as Russia seeks to push Ukraine’s military and civilian population to the edge.

Share

Subscribe now

Upcoming Newsletters

Subscribe for free to receive these directly to your inbox, or in the Substack app.

• I’m an intelligence analyst focused on Russia. Europe needs to prepare for war.

• The next US-Russia-Iran showdown isn’t in Ukraine or the Arctic. It’s here.

• I travelled to Ukraine during wartime. Here’s why I can’t wait to return to Kyiv.

• The Rules Based Order is alive and well. Only now Europe is on the other side.

Thanks for reading Intelligence Matters! This is the newsletter that aims to make you smarter. Subscribe for free to receive future issues straight to your inbox.