History is a great teacher, so it’s no surprise that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and his subsequent Kremlin speech justifying it brought back memories of the Nazi annexation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland in 1938. Parallels between Hitler and Putin abound, as do their motivations and the eventual global impact of the two annexations—even though they took place seventy-six years apart.  

Read More

Afghan lawmaker, Shinkai Karokhail, says Pakistan has been ‘selective’ about dealing with terrorists

Shinkai Karokhail, a member of the budget and finance committee of the lower house (Wolesi Jirga) of the Afghan National Assembly and a longtime activist for women’s rights, education, and conflict prevention, sat down with the New Atlanticist's Ashish Kumar Sen for an interview on a recent visit to Washington.

Read More

NATO summits are filled with Georgian expectations. The Warsaw Summit in July of 2016 is no exception. Since the Bucharest Summit (2008), Georgia’s engagement with NATO has seemed to gravitate around the theme of a Membership Action Plan (MAP) as a prelude to NATO membership. The discussion itself is perhaps too focused on Georgia, when the broader question at hand relates to European and Euro-Atlantic security from the wider Black Sea/Caspian area to the Baltics, i.e., the vast space bordering Russia.

Read More

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has a long reach, but can it reach across the wide expanse of Central Asia? The thought of Central Asians fighting for the caliphate— particularly in Uzbekistan, the most populous of Central Asian countries—makes US policymakers and Eurasia watchers uneasy, but the complex relationship between Islam and the governments in Central Asian countries is rarely fully explained in the many articles on the topic today. Despite fears to the contrary, ISIS is unlikely to succeed in gaining popularity in Uzbekistan because of the state’s institutionalized cooptation of Islam and President Islam Karimov’s ruthless squashing of dissent.

Read More

The United States must expand the scope of its sanctions well beyond Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle if this effort—a response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine—is to have any real impact, says a Russian lawmaker.

“The [US] government machine is doing what it can do, but it is doing … more harm than good,” Ilya Ponomarev, a member of the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, said in an August 26 interview with the New Atlanticist in Washington.

Read More

In recent years we have witnessed significant changes in Europe’s eastern and southern neighborhood that have had a profoundly negative impact on our security.

The threat from the East, whose nature could be described as traditional or conventional, stems from Russia’s aggressive posture. The illegal annexation of Crimea and the armed intervention in the eastern provinces of Ukraine constitute an assault on the post-Cold War international order. In addition, Moscow’s efforts to regain control over countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union are a direct danger to the security of some NATO and European Union (EU) member states.

Meanwhile, the threat from the South is asymmetrical. Jihadist organizations obviously cannot directly challenge the West militarily, but they can deal painful blows through terrorist attacks on European soil or disruption of energy supply. We are arguably better prepared to deal with this kind of threat as it has been present since 9/11. Currently, however, the scale of the danger seems much larger and likely to grow. The area of instability in the Middle East and North Africa, which is a breeding ground for terrorism, continues to enlarge, while the recent attack in Tunisia is a painful reminder that even in countries considered to be relatively stable, political transition is extremely fragile.

Read More

The minority of Russians who have not been zombified by official propaganda and who still have any clue about what is really going on in the world—rather than just on television—already know Russia is hurtling toward full-blown catastrophe, though the details might be up for debate. Will the collapse come next month, or more like 2024? How will it happen? A coup d’état by radical fascists, or a provincial revolt whose instigators first see Russian President Vladimir Putin as their savior but later turn against him? Or perhaps year after year of economic stagnation, resulting in complete disintegration. History shows that authoritarian systems can change without bloodshed, but only if a regime’s key players help the forces seeking to replace that regime. This is a prerequisite for non-violent reform or the transfer of power to a reformer.

Read More

Today Ukraine received great news. Private owners of $19 billion of Ukraine's Eurobonds have agreed to a substantial debt restructuring that will give Ukraine much-needed relief. The high bond yields have been sharply reduced, the bonds' maturities have been prolonged, and the face value of the bonds has been reduced by 20 percent.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this agreement has reduced Ukraine's financing needs for the next four years by no less than $15 billion. This is a huge achievement for Ukraine's government, and Kyiv managed to accomplish this without having to impose a moratorium on debt repayment.

Read More

International community must keep up pressure to ensure this agreement sticks, says Atlantic Council’s J. Peter Pham

The international community must keep up its pressure on rival sides in South Sudan if it wants to ensure the success of a peace agreement President Salva Kiir reluctantly signed August 26, says the Atlantic Council’s J. Peter Pham.

Kiir and his former Vice President, Riek Machar, have signed more than half a dozen peace deals since a falling out that has plunged the world’s youngest nation into a civil war for the past twenty months. Each and every time the ceasefire has fallen apart faster than it took to put together.

On August 26, Kiir signed the latest peace agreement, but in a sign that does not bode well for the future of the deal complained that he has reservations about its terms. He had earlier refused to sign the deal, while Machar did so by the August 17 deadline set by international mediators.

Read More

The nuclear agreement concluded between the EU+3 and Iran, if implemented, would buy ten years for the international community to devise a more sustainable solution to the security dilemma Iran’s nuclear program presents, after which the agreement’s safeguards would begin to expire. There is, in principle, no reason why the agreement could not be extended but whether Iran would recognize it as in its best interest to accept this or whether other countries in the region could be dissuaded from acquiring matching capabilities are open questions.

Read More