“America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities.” Those words, attributed to Winston Churchill, perfectly capture what finally transpired late last week, when the U.S. Congress finally passed a series of supplemental defense spending bills earmarking military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
A $61 billion aid package to help Ukraine was finally passed in Congress and will be signed into law. But questions still linger over Washington’s ability to act as a reliable partner to its friends and a determined adversary to its foes.
After more than three years of intense negotiations, the European Parliament finally passed the EU’s flagship migration plan earlier this month. But while European leaders have been spinning the pact as a balanced and fair compromise, human rights groups have been scathing in their condemnation of the plan.
Georgia’s ruling party recently revived a controversial “foreign agents” bill that the opposition has disparagingly labeled the “Russia Law,” reigniting a pitched battle between the majority of Georgians, who want to join the EU, and Georgia Dream, which has drawn closer to Moscow, even as it pretends it supports EU accession.
For more than a century, the ability to project naval strength on a massive scale has been the crucial lynchpin of U.S. global hegemony. Yet a structural crisis that is now overwhelming the U.S. Navy presents as much of a threat to Washington’s geopolitical position as the isolationist populism fueled by the rise of Donald Trump.
The stakes are high heading into the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, not only for the International Olympic Committee, which needs to reset the narrative around the burden of hosting the Games, but also French President Emmanuel Macron, who is trying to boost France’s leadership of Europe in the emerging post-American world.
The out-in-the-open friction between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron offers an unsettling glimpse into the complicated political landscape faced by Kyiv and the Ukrainian people as Russia’s assault, now in its third year, makes steady gains ahead of a potentially decisive summer offensive.
Last week, at the ISA’s annual conference, a roundtable discussion examined how much the nuclear taboo had been weakened by the war in Ukraine and Russia’s nuclear brinksmanship. While the answer was varied, the scholars agreed on one thing: Putin’s threats themselves are not a great barometer of any change in the nuclear taboo.
Feb. 15 was supposed to be a red-letter day for the EU’s 30 million gig economy workers. Instead, the bloc’s flagship digital platform work directive was blocked, the latest twist in the trajectory of a proposal that has been shaped by landmark court rulings, a global pandemic and the EU’s pernicious lobby industry.
Yesterday marked 75 years since NATO’s founding, notable not only as a mark of longevity but also because, unlike most of the years of NATO’s existence, the alliance is immersed in war. That makes NATO as relevant as ever. But does “relevant” necessarily mean “valuable”? Put simply, is NATO still worth it?
Few themes have featured as prominently in Kremlin propaganda about the war in Ukraine as the supposed persecution of Russian speakers there. It is ironic, then, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has done more harm to the language’s standing than perhaps any other leader in at least a century.
Russian assaults in Chinese-made all terrain vehicles, or ATVs, are now a daily occurrence along the frontlines of the Ukraine war. They indicate how Moscow is adapting its battlefield tactics, and this evolution could change how the Russian state approaches war on a strategic level.
Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the West should consider deploying troops to Ukraine, a suggestion immediately repudiated by several of his European counterparts. But mobilizing a non-NATO military mission to Ukraine would be an effective way for the West to signal its collective resolve against Russia.