With NATO membership for Kyiv off the table in the immediate term, some are calling for an alternative mechanism dubbed the “Israel Model,” in which the U.S. would provide Ukraine with the kind of security it provides Israel so it can defend itself after the war ends. But there are several reasons why that approach is inappropriate.
Some observers are worried that the U.S. decision to supply cluster munitions to Ukraine will damage the international norm against their use. But while there are many other good reasons to be concerned, the reputational impact of this decision will likely fall on the parties themselves for violating the norm, not on the norm itself.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s annual leaders’ summit in early July highlighted the group’s potential to be a potent force multiplier for both Russia and China, particularly in the context of great power competition. But it is still a work in progress, and many obstacles remain before it can realize its potential.
This week, the leaders of CELAC, comprising the states of the Western Hemisphere excluding the U.S. and Canada, will meet with their EU counterparts in Brussels to discuss the two regions’ relationship. Early indications suggest that differences over Ukraine could potentially hinder progress on other important topics at the summit.
This week’s NATO summit was an opportunity for the alliance to take a clearer position on its own role in the war in Ukraine, while also setting the direction for NATO’s future evolution. But rather than paving the way forward, the summit indicated that the alliance members are only ready for more of the same.
When news of Yevgeny Prigozhin and Wagner Group’s march to Moscow broke, there was palpable shock among EU and U.S. officials. The extent to which Western governments were blindsided by a crisis that had been building for months was a reminder of how institutions in the U.K., EU and U.S. struggle to manage geopolitical risk.