Carnegie Moscow Center
The question of whether a government can and should enforce rules about personal morality is at the center of current political arguments in Turkey and the outcome of this dispute will determine the future direction of the country.
The choice between Europe and Russia is Ukraine’s. The battle in Ukraine should not be allowed to become a battle for Ukraine between the EU, Russia, and the United States.
Ukraine’s future will offer answers not only to the question of whether or not Russia will continue to see itself as an empire, but also to the question of how committed Europe is to the values it espouses and how far the West is prepared to expand its influence.
Ukraine’s trajectory in the coming months and years will serve as a test of Russia’s global role and how far the West is prepared to expand its influence.
Saakashvili used charm as the centerpiece of his grand strategy for winning over the West. The question is not why this strategy failed but why it lasted as long as it did.
The Chinese-Russian energy alliance is a product of growing bilateral relations, but it also reflects developments in the global energy market and in non-energy geopolitics.
The current confidence-building and arms limitation measures are less effective for resolving the problems caused by the conventional prompt global strike systems being developed by the United States.
Putin aims for a world order in which the Security Council’s five permanent members, not the United States—alone or with its allies—decide on major issues pertaining to war and peace.
Both Russia and the European Union are at a stage when setting out their own domestic priorities and defining their respective global roles are more important than achieving an alliance.
There is still a window of opportunity for cooperation between the United States and Russia on conventional prompt global strike weapons.
Russia’s position on Syria is not primarily about Syria. It is about the world order: who has the right to decide on a military intervention?
Merkel’s rule, apparently, means a break in Germany’s life due to the lack of new political elites and leaders.
The U.S.-Russian agreement on seizing and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons defused the threat of another war in the Middle East but left many wondering what it meant for the balance of power in the region, the course of the Syrian war, and the chances of further diplomatic breakthroughs.
Beijing is dipping its diplomatic toes in the turbulent waters of the Middle East. But it is not clear if Delhi is ready to do the same.
The authorities took a new approach in the Moscow election by allowing opposition candidate Navalny to participate without the possibility of winning. But Navalny won a moral victory and became an opposition leader with a national reputation.
Even as China becomes a maritime power to reckon with, Beijing has no desire to give up on its continental aspirations.
The Syria crisis presents a great opportunity. If an international effort successfully disarms Syria's chemical arsenal, and that success is recognized, the positive repercussions would be felt far beyond the Middle East.
U.S. reactions to President Vladimir Putin’s op-ed article in the New York Times, from outrage to ridicule, show just how badly much of the Western policy elite are misinterpreting Russia.
As current events demonstrate, the security challenges of the Middle East cannot be permanently solved solely through the use of American military power. On Iran and other regional challenges, the only lasting solutions will be diplomatic ones.
Russia’s chemical weapons plan will require a serious re-launch of the political process in Syria.