1 to 10 of about 36
The nuclear-armed SLCMs would not be buildable until the early 2030s, so there is time for serious debate.
Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty is a serious problem. However, U.S. withdrawal from the treaty without an effective strategy to focus political blame and strategic pressure on Russia, and to unify allies in a shared effort to stabilize alarming military competitions, would be counterproductive.
The new U.S. administration should avoid fueling unrealistic expectations of a breakthrough and instead seek incremental progress on specific topics based on a set of guiding principles.
More than any other European state, Germany is responsible for developing and implementing the EU’s policy toward Russia. Berlin needs to accept this responsibility, assume leadership, and develop a Russia policy fit for the twenty-first century.
The United States and Russia have reached an arms control impasse, and no new agreement is on the horizon. Concrete confidence-building measures could help build trust.
The Kremlin’s climate change path boils down to political will—and whether climate change is considered important enough—as well as its ability to engage in serious strategic thinking and policy preparation.
To forge an effective partnership with Moscow, the EU must first understand Russia’s political, economic, and security designs, and how best to deal with another round of Putin.
A slimmed down NATO could do a better job of harmonizing transatlantic positions in crisis situations, be the hub of multinational, high-end military operations, and develop expertise and capabilities to deal with new threats such as cyber attacks.
Putin’s chances of hanging onto power in Russia are good, but he will need to accept a more open and competitive electoral process to avoid further alienating those who are sympathetic to the protest movement.
While security conditions in Europe remain relatively benign, NATO states should recapitalize their security commitments and clarify their crisis decisionmaking procedures.