The expiration of the 2010 Russian-American Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitations of Strategic Offensive Arms marked the symbolic end of decades of agreements between Moscow and Washington that had served as the basic framework for strategic stability. Developed in the 1970s, this approach was close to an ideal model with joint efforts. Over the time, however, it became less and less workable in the face of advances in military technology and their rapid geographical spread. The traditional bilateral model of deterrence is giving way to a more complex, multilateral rivalry in which strategic parity is determined not only by the number of missiles, but also by attempts to dominate in new competition domains. In this conditions, disarmament and arms control remain burning issue and call for new approaches.

This session invites participants to consider the following questions: What might a new architecture of strategic stability look like? Where are the boundaries between strategic defensive and offensive systems in the digital age? What should be done about the “blind spots” of arms control? And who now counts as a full participant in the arms race?

The contemporary global economy is defined by a high degree of technological sophistication and resource intensity. In this regard, so-called “critical resources” have acquired particular importance – not only the much-discussed rare earths, but also lithium, cobalt, silicon and even energy resources. These materials are becoming the foundation of technological sovereignty, future economic growth, and security. At the same time, the rapid expansion of high technology and data centres is driving explosive growth in water and energy consumption. As a result, what was once treated as a basic need has come to be seen as a strategic scarcity in its own right. 

Competition for critical resources now extends far beyond the extractive sector and encompasses a broader system of technological and energy dependencies, in which control over raw materials, generation infrastructure, and high-tech production chains has become a key factor in the global redistribution of influence. This session deals with the very concept of "critical resource". What makes a resource “critical” – the material itself, the technologies needed for its advanced processing, or control over logistics corridors? Should food supplies and water resources also be included in the category? What other assets may acquire this status in the foreseeable future?  Is it possible to build autonomous supply chains in a globally interconnected world? 

The conflict in Ukraine has become not only a regional crisis, but also a symptom of a deeper transformation of the entire European security system. The erosion of the arms-control framework, institutional fragmentation, and growing militarization have created strategic uncertainty across the continent. Yet European security can no longer be considered in isolation. As Asian and Eurasian actors gain importance and transregional ties deepen, the crisis in Europe affecting the Baltic region, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Arctic, and the Far East. Sanctions policy, energy reconfiguration, shifting transport routes, and military-political alliances are producing a new pattern of interdependence. 

The European crisis does not remain confined to its own borders but is embedded in a broader dynamic. Attempts to treat it as a self-contained cluster of contradictions overlook a basic structural reality: a stable security architecture in Eurasia cannot be built without a sustainable dialogue with Europe, just as Europe’s future cannot be reimagined outside the wider Eurasian context. This session asks weather a stable security model in Eurasia is achievable while its key actors, Russia and Europe, remain in a state of confrontation. Is the current “rupture” a temporary deviation, or is it a shift from the idea of a “common European home” to a new, more complex architecture of a shared Eurasian space? How are regional actors across Eurasia navigating between the interests of major powers? And what might the future of European security look like?

Elite theory remains a durable conceptual framework with considerable explanatory power in the analysis of political and social processes. Elites are a core element of the political system: they provide stability, set strategic priorities, and ensure institutional continuity, while competing for resources and influence at the same time. The question is to what extent elite structures are conducive to recruiting new elements. Without channels of upward mobility and mechanisms of rotation, elites risk turning into closed groups detached from wider society. 

This session invites participants to consider who can be regarded as part of the elite today, and which terms can be applied while describing twenty-first-century elites. How are elites formed, and how do mechanisms of elite recruitment vary across countries and over time? Are new elite formations emerging, or do established elites remain capable of retaining control over resources and adapting to new realities? How should we understand the relationship between elites and intellectuals, and do intellectuals still remain an independent source of influence? Finally, how can scholars analyse the formal and informal ties within elite groups without flattening their complexity or reducing them to conspiracy?