It’s common knowledge that the possibility of a second term for former U.S. President Donald Trump is sending shivers up the spines of Washington’s NATO allies. But the prospect of a second Trump presidency is also heightening anxieties among U.S. allies in Asia, which have also relied on U.S. security assurances for decades.
A recent spate of commentary has drawn the analogy between today’s regional conflicts and those of the 1930s that led to World War II, often as a cautionary tale for how to deal with contemporary international security dynamics. These analogies, however, misread the past, with potentially dangerous implications for the present.
Censorship of local Russian media, combined with diminished access for foreign reporters, has narrowed our understanding of the war in Ukraine’s impact on Russian communities outside big cities. Yet even with these limits, there are significant signals that undermine the image of invincibility the Putin regime works so hard to project.
Paraguayan President Santiago Pena is attempting to market the country as a burgeoning destination for foreign investment. But weak rule of law and illicit enterprises continue to permeate Paraguay’s political institutions, threatening to set back Pena’s agenda, the country’s progress and wider regional security.
Recent developments in the U.S. have reinvigorated the debate over Europe’s ability to defend itself. Now, after having relied for decades on U.S. support while collectively free-riding on U.S. capabilities, Europeans will have to shoulder a much more significant burden in European security themselves in the foreseeable future.
How durable are alliances? And how believable are alliance commitments? Stated differently, if the U.S. under Donald Trump or another president ends up being an unreliable ally when push comes to shove, would it be consistent with what we should have expected all along? It turns out these are surprisingly difficult questions to answer.
When the U.N. convenes Friday to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the events may feel a little low-key. One reason is that many U.N. members want to focus on other issues. The second is that the West’s failure to support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war has alienated a lot of non-Western representatives.
The latest European Union leaders meeting was the perfect illustration of how the far-right parties that are gaining popularity across the continent may converge in their positions on most domestic issues, particularly immigration, but remain sharply divided over the question of supporting Ukraine amid its war with Russia.
Nearly two years into Ukraine’s war with Russia, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a major change last week, replacing the commander of the Ukrainian military. While we do not know the exact reason for the change, it is also unsurprising—without a clear path to military victory, a rethink of Ukraine’s strategy is necessary.
In January, Burundi severed diplomatic ties with Rwanda, accusing Kigali of supporting a DRC-based militia that attacked a Burundian town the month prior. Though sudden, the rift between Burundi and Rwanda just two years after their ostensible reconciliation is unsurprising and can be traced to the conflict in eastern Congo.
The recent panic over European military self-reliance has fostered an internal shift in attitudes toward the EU among far-right movements. As they warm to a more-powerful Brussels in the hope that they can shape the EU’s agenda, what once seemed like clear ideological battlelines have become increasingly blurred.
The International Court of Justice last week agreed to take up the question of whether Ukraine was committing genocide in the war against Russia. The ruling may have surprised some observers, but Ukraine actually asked the ICJ to rule on its own conduct in order to decisively repudiate Russia’s justification for invading.
Relations between Sudan and the United Arab Emirates have deteriorated rapidly in recent months because of Abu Dhabi’s alleged support for the Rapid Support Forces, which remains at war with the military-led government. Now, Sudan has reestablished ties with Iran, the latest signal that the UAE’s stance has backfired.
Violence and corruption in Central America, particularly in the Northern Triangle countries, is causing a wave of outward migration. Since taking office, the Biden administration has pledged to tackle the root causes of the problem, which the Trump administration’s restrictive measures and pressure on regional governments did nothing to address. Meanwhile, efforts at reform across the region face opposition from entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo.
Venezuela is unlikely to invade Guyana and destined to lose if it does. So why is it building up troops on the border, in violation of the two sides’ agreement not to do so? At least part of the answer relates to another deal Caracas recently broke that was supposed to lead to internationally monitored elections later this year.
Given that so many rebel groups seek to radically restructure society, it comes as no surprise that they would also concern themselves with regulating marriage. So while much of the coverage of rebel marriages is sensationalistic and shallow, marriage is a critical but underappreciated aspect of rebels’ wartime activities.
Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s capitulation in his standoff with the EU over aid to Ukraine revealed the extent to which his embrace of anti-liberal culture wars is a tactical gambit he is willing to ditch whenever it is necessary to protect EU handouts that fund the corrupt patronage networks on which his regime relies.