In Ukraine, the United States seeks an outcome that may not be achievable; in Gaza, U.S. policy needs to transcend the immediate crisis and recast the basic dynamics of the conflict. Finding out whether these crises have seeds of opportunity within them is the purpose of foreign policy, writes CFR President Richard N. Haass.
In showing leadership on Ukraine, however, the president may be focusing on the wrong issue—on getting an honest investigation of the Malaysian Airlines crash rather than on the broader question of Russia's ongoing attempt to dismember a neighboring state.
Stephen Biddle and Ivan Oelrich argue that accurately defending airspace is more complex than having the right equipment; it requires a well-functioning organization, something the Ukrainian separatists lack.
Writing in USA Today, Janine Davidson assesses the global impact of the MH17 tragedy. She argues that, in order to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, the United States must take a harder line against Russia. This will entail a mix of NATO response, economic sanctions, and international pressure.
Reflecting on a speech by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Janine Davidson considers the most effective steps to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from further aggressive acts against Ukraine. She concludes that there are concrete military options that can deter without provoking—and these are the ones NATO should follow.
In Project Syndicate, Richard Haass writes: "The strategy needed to resist Putin's efforts to expand Russia's influence beyond its borders – and to induce change within them – resembles nothing so much as the 'containment' doctrine that guided Western policy for the four decades of the Cold War."
Heidi Crebo-Rediker and Douglas A. Rediker examine the role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in Ukraine, arguing that the EBRD should shift its resources away from Russia and, in accordance with its mandate, support Ukraine's transition toward democracy and market-oriented economics.
Reversing Russia's annexation of Crimea is not the most urgent goal of the Western nations. The bigger challenge is to deal with the emerging fractious nationalism and prevent further breakup of Ukraine from within, writes Stephen Sestanovich.
Janine Davidson discusses the lack of clear NATO countermove in response to growing Russian aggression in the Ukraine. By standing mostly idle, NATO emboldens Russian military planners, making further escalation more–not less–likely.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The authors argue that the United States has responded inadequately to the rise of Chinese power and recommend placing less strategic emphasis on the goal of integrating China into the international system and more on balancing China's rise.
Campbell evaluates the implications of the Boko Haram insurgency and recommends that the United States support Nigerian efforts to address the drivers of Boko Haram, such as poverty and corruption, and to foster stronger ties with Nigerian civil society.
Koblentz argues that the United States should work with other nuclear-armed states to manage threats to nuclear stability in the near term and establish processes for multilateral arms control efforts over the longer term.
Learn more about CFR’s mission and its work over the past year in the 2014 Annual Report. The Annual Report spotlights new initiatives, high-profile events, and authoritative scholarship from CFR experts, and includes a message from CFR President Richard N. Haass. Read and download »