The first day of the conference continued with the traditional meeting of participants with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the main part of which was held behind closed doors. The next two sessions were also closed. The second was devoted to conflicts in the region. The tone was set by a participant’s candid admission: with no comprehensive solutions in sight, the most pragmatic approach is simply to minimize damage—curbing destabilizing military actions and prioritizing humanitarian relief. During this session, the topic of justice—or rather its conspicuous absence—a key issue for both domestic and foreign policy processes in the Middle East, was particularly poignant. Representatives of the Palestinians and Kurds called for justice for their peoples; one speaker stated that a just regional order is impossible as long as Israel enjoys comprehensive US support. Yet, the prevailing sentiment suggested that regional actors are pivoting away from seeking just solutions in favour of realistic ones. This approach, while carrying the inherent risk of igniting new conflict cycles, may also carve out crucial intervals of respite—moments that could, perhaps, lay the groundwork for a more sustainable, if imperfect, peace.
The third session was devoted to political Islam, and the discussions once again highlighted the fundamental contradiction between Islam as an all-encompassing value system, which necessarily includes the political sphere, and the realities of nation-states. One participant noted that the topic of political Islam in the media has seemingly faded into the background compared to previous years, but there is an explanation: a gradual reconciliation of nationalism and Islamism is underway. The organizational forms of political Islam are evolving, and not always toward greater radicalization. However, it was noted that radicalism draped in religious rhetoric remains an inevitable by-product of collapsing living standards and the physical devastation wrought by war. Opinions diverged sharply on the prospects for dialogue with political Islamist movements, with some dismissing it outright and others pointing to potential cooperation based on pragmatic convergence of interests.
The fourth session dissected the hard-won lessons from recent conflicts, concluding that the nature of warfare has been fundamentally rewritten. The era of rapid territorial gains appears over; the window for tactical surprise has narrowed; the concept of a war of attrition has regained its grim currency; and the once-decisive advantage of air superiority has eroded. The key challenge, one participant argued, is industrial: the modern battlefield demands cheap, mass-producible weaponry, favouring states that have retained their manufacturing base. Dangerous trends include the gradual militarization of space and the erosion of non-proliferation regimes. In early February, the New START Treaty—the last agreement limiting the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States—expired, with the prospects for its replacement remaining unclear. According to one speaker, we could witness the collapse of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the emergence of new nuclear powers (including in the Middle East), and the lifting of the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain both the key to peace and the sword of Damocles for humanity, but scientific and technological progress could deprive them of their exclusive role, he believes. As another participant summarized, “peace is around the corner, but it’s a brute force peace.”
The final two open sessions brought the focus back to internal dynamics and the new battlefields of the information age. Discussions on domestic politics during the fifth session revealed the wildly uneven challenges facing regional states. For some, the struggle is about competing visions of the future; for others, it is a fight for physical survival. The question of political representation for minorities remains a critical fault line. While Lebanon and Iraq maintain fragile, often fractious, balances, Syria stands at the very beginning of this arduous journey toward any semblance of inclusivity.
Nikolai Surkov, head of the Group for the Study of Common Regional Problems at the Centre for Middle East Studies at IMEMO RAS, argued that in the context of post-conflict reconstruction, the key issue is constructing a new post-conflict identity capable of uniting the population and transforming it into a nation. The case of Syria, whose residents, having become refugees, have come to see themselves first and foremost as Syrians—despite religious differences—provides cautious cause for optimism, he believes.
Joseph Bahout, Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, noted that the region continues to suffer the consequences of the Arab Spring, which began more than fifteen years ago and led to the erosion of political legitimacy and public trust. John Bell, Director of The Conciliators Guild, emphasized the key role of strengthening nation states in ensuring regional resilience.
The conference’s final, sixth session—dedicated to information sovereignty in the digital age—extended far beyond the Middle East. Experts discussed a wide range of issues, including digital inequality, control over digital environments and cyberspace, the role of technology—particularly artificial intelligence—in transforming intelligence operations, and the use of technology platforms to advance state interests. A video recording of the session is available on our website.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
