The regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro will probably remain in power after elections scheduled for late July. But the past few weeks have been unusually positive ones for Venezuela’s opposition. The faintest glimmers of optimism have begun to appear due to events unfolding in ways that have caught the Maduro regime off guard.
“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.
Iran’s massive strike on Israel two weeks ago turned into something of a gift. Some of the benefits will accrue personally to embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but those are likely to fade. But the boost Iran gave to Israel collectively has already had important repercussions, some of which could be lasting.
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.
Israel’s use of an automated system to identify targets in Gaza has raised alarm over the advent of autonomous weapons systems. But the fact that Israeli soldiers were “in the loop” in this case gives the concept of AI-powered “Killer Robots” new meaning, while also potentially giving campaigners a new direction for advocacy efforts.
Any repression is horrifying, especially the killing of a political opponent. But the fact that Venezuela’s regime had a political dissident murdered in Chile should be considered a massive violation of sovereignty and international norms. Amid numerous other regional crises, however, the reaction has been underwhelming thus far.
During his visit to Washington last week, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio suggested the U.S. may be feeling “self-doubt” when it comes to its global leadership role. His remarks point to an underappreciated aspect of global politics: In addition to being willing and able to act, a hegemon must also believe it can get the job done.
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.
A common understanding of why U.S.-China relations have cratered since the 2016 election of former President Donald Trump is that the world’s two largest economies had gone from being complementary to being increasingly competitive and zero-sum. But even in this economic relationship, there are still ways to find common ground.
Recent setbacks for two major Chinese projects in Latin America are likely music to U.S. policymakers’ ears and could point to the quiet diplomacy of the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden paying off in key areas of concern. How Beijing reacts to these setbacks will shape its future relations with Latin America.
Cynicism about the value of international law is understandable, given its failure to change state behavior. But it is a mistake to look at recent developments and conclude that the rules that underpin the rules-based order do not matter. Understanding why requires thinking more carefully about the purpose of international law.
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.
Around the world, militaries have begun to embrace AI as the latest technological silver bullet. This trend, and its pitfalls, has been on prominent display in Gaza, where the Israeli military’s use of AI-driven models for targeting decisions has had a devastating impact on civilians in exchange for limited strategic results.
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.
Latin America should have a regional conversation about how its corrupt politicians abuse the asylum system by seeking refuge in foreign embassies to avoid accountability for their crimes. But that conversation can’t be held against the backdrop of raids against those embassies, which are legally inviolable under international law.
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?