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.
As Russian officials on Thursday announced new military operations in several regions near the Ukrainian border, it becomes clear that the country isn't just dealing with a political crisis. Its economy is also in jeopardy.
Is the West about to go to war with Russia over the fate of Ukraine? The question should answer itself. I can't imagine many Americans or Europeans willingly spending "blood and treasure" to keep Moscow's mitts off of Kiev and Kviv. So why, then, did President Obama publicly warn Vladimir Putin that armed aggression against Ukraine would lead to "consequences"?
"Although comparisons between Egypt's 2011 uprising and the recent turmoil in Ukraine are largely unwarranted, CFR's Steven A. Cook writes that there is an important lesson for Ukraine in the Egyptian experience: the need for simultaneous economic and democratic reforms to achieve both political stability and economic prosperity."
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.
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.
The authors argue that it is essential to begin working now to expand and establish rules and norms governing armed drones, thereby creating standards of behavior that other countries will be more likely to follow.
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 »