July 1 will mark a dozen years since Croatia joined the the European Union (EU), the most recent country to do so. In the years after Croatia’s accession, the bloc’s eastern enlargement process stalled almost entirely. The EU’s enthusiasm for admitting new members waned, driven by rising anti-EU sentiment within member states and fears that further expansion could strain the bloc’s already burdened consensus-based decision-making. Meanwhile, democratic backsliding and disputes between candidate countries further undermined their cases for accession.

Then in 2022, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine revived the geopolitical imperative for enlargement in Brussels by highlighting Europe’s vulnerability to “gray zones.” Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia swiftly advanced along their accession paths, and hopes were somewhat revived in the six countries of the Western Balkans.

While Montenegro is the most advanced in accession negotiations today, Albania is also capitalizing on this new enlargement momentum. On May 11, Albania held parliamentary elections in which the Socialist Party, led by Prime Minister Edi Rama, won its fourth consecutive mandate, promising EU membership by 2030. After gaining EU candidate status in 2013 and waiting over a decade for the next formal step, Albania and the EU have been on an unprecedented roll since October 2024. Over the span of several months, the EU opened four clusters of negotiation chapters with Albania—covering twenty-four out of thirty-three chapters—and may open the remaining ones by the end of June. The opening of chapters signals that Albania has met initial EU benchmarks in those policy areas and will now negotiate to close the chapters—which aim to align Albanian laws, institutions, and practices with EU law.

The prevailing narrative among EU leaders, including European Council President António Costa, is that Albania and Montenegro are now leading the race to become the EU’s next member states. Both Albanian and EU officials have set 2027 as the target year to conclude the technical accession talks, paving the way for a membership vote. In May, that ambitious goal received a boost from French President Emmanuel Macron—once a skeptic of enlargement—who called it “realistic” during a visit to Tirana.  

Albania is moving fast, but will face headwinds

Several factors explain why Albania and Montenegro are pulling ahead of everyone else. To begin with, both are NATO members and—unlike Russia-friendly Serbia—are fully aligned with the EU’s Common and Foreign Security Policy. Albania, in particular, is seen as a reliable pro-Western security anchor in a volatile region where ethnic Albanians dominate in neighboring Kosovo and are a politically significant bloc in NATO members North Macedonia and Montenegro. Unlike Kosovo, which remains unrecognized by five EU member states, and North Macedonia, which is blocked by Bulgaria over historical disputes, Albania faces no such bilateral hurdles to its accession path from EU members—aside from intermittent tensions with neighboring Greece over ethnic Greek property rights and maritime borders.

Yet perhaps the main driver of Albania’s recent progress has been its sweeping EU- and US-sponsored reforms in the justice sector. Over nearly a decade, Albania has overhauled its judicial institutions and established new bodies, such as the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK). While corruption remains high, the reformed institutions have shaken the culture of impunity that has plagued the country since the fall of communism. High-profile indictments—ranging from former presidents and prime ministers to powerful mayors—have started to build a credible track record in the fight against corruption and are helping to restore public trust in the rule of law. Yet SPAK’s results need to be sustained, and political commitment to the rule of law will increasingly be tested the deeper that investigations go.

Albania’s democracy also remains fragile and polarized. While the most recent parliamentary elections improved on earlier contests from an administrative standpoint, the political playing field continues to be uneven in favor of the ruling party. Corruption, the stifling effect of politics on media freedoms, the strength of organized crime, and weak administrative capacity—all persistent problems—could hinder the adoption of EU standards. 

Most importantly, the geopolitical mood in European capitals could easily shift away from its current support for enlargement. While Rama has secured strong political backing from major countries such as France and Italy, it is not clear whether it will receive support from the new government in Germany, which is not striking equally enthusiastic tones. The German government’s coalition agreement ties enlargement to necessary internal EU institutional reforms, which means that the EU must first ensure it can operate effectively before allowing other countries in. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his Christian Democrats seem to favor intermediate integration models—such as having the Western Balkans join the European Economic Area, or layering the EU into concentric circles of states with varying degrees of integration.

What’s more, getting EU governments to support accession is one thing; getting the support of EU members’ parliaments to ratify accession is another. European public opinion remains wary of enlargement in several countries.

Race to the top

The prospect of Albania and Montenegro joining the EU ahead of their neighbors also raises pressing regional questions. With the rapid pace at which Albania is opening negotiation chapters, it has effectively leapfrogged over the region’s largest country, Serbia, whose accession talks have remained frozen since 2021.

For the Western Balkans, EU enlargement has functioned not only as a tool for political transformation but also for peacebuilding. The EU has long pursued a strategy of integrating the region as a group, using accession as leverage to foster regional stability, set up bilateral formats to resolve bilateral disputes—such as the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue on normalization of relations—and promote cooperation through initiatives like the Common Regional Market.

Critics may warn that Albania and Montenegro advancing alone could reinforce Serbia’s narrative of marginalization, fuel anti-EU sentiment, and undermine frameworks for regional cooperation—especially given Serbia’s pivotal role and the size of its population. But the long-standing Serbia-centric approach to enlargement—which posits that the region cannot move forward without accommodating Serbia due to its power and influence over other countries—has not worked. Rather, it has merely emboldened Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić to wield even greater de facto veto power and leverage over regional countries and their EU trajectory, even as he slips deeper into authoritarianism, sustains close ties with Russia, and has helped erode support for EU accession among Serbians.

The EU—and Serbia itself—might be better served by fostering a merit-based “race to the top” that either rewards or fails Montenegro and Albania depending on how they deliver on reforms. Demonstrating that EU enlargement remains a real and attainable goal could create the kind of positive societal pressure the region has desperately needed and could incentivize other EU candidate countries to seize this historic window of opportunity by embracing an agenda of reforms.

Agon Maliqi is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center. He is a political and foreign policy analyst from Pristina, Kosovo.  

***

The Western Balkans stands at the nexus of many of Europe’s critical challenges. Some, if not all, of the countries of the region may soon join the European Union and shape the bloc’s ability to become a more effective geopolitical player. At the same time, longstanding disputes in the region, coupled with institutional weaknesses, will continue to pose problems and present a security vulnerability for NATO that could be exploited by Russia or China. The region is also a transit route for westward migration, a source of critical raw materials, and an important node in energy and trade routes. The BalkansForward column will explore the key strategic dynamics in the region and how they intersect with broader European and transatlantic goals.

The post Are Albania and Montenegro on the fast track to EU membership? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

So far, the Taliban has adopted more than two hundred decrees targeting women and girls. The bans and restrictions affect all aspects of life—from banning girls’ education past the seventh grade and limiting women’s employment to curtailing their freedom of movement and social engagement. To implement these decrees, Taliban authorities exercise broad discretionary powers to interpret and enforce the law, relying on a range of extrajudicial methods such as physical coercion, social control, and public intimidation.

In effect, the Taliban regime has employed the instruments of lawmaking and law enforcement to establish a system of control and oppression of women that amounts to gender apartheid. The system was reinforced with the adoption of the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law on August 21, 2024. While women’s rights and freedoms were already curtailed by earlier Taliban decrees, the adoption and implementation of this law has had far-reaching consequences, stripping women of even more basic rights and personal autonomy and exacerbating their economic dependence and social isolation.

To combat the Taliban’s institutionalization of gender apartheid in Afghanistan, international actors and civil society groups should document both the regime’s human rights abuses and the system of lawmaking and law enforcement that produces them. Documentation strategies should be geared toward supporting ongoing cases at international courts and catalyzing further accountability processes. An international investigative mechanism, modeled on the United Nations’ (UN) International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism for Syria (IIIM), can help to hold the Taliban accountable for implementing gender apartheid and the specific rules and tools they use to maintain that system.

From constitutional order to rule by executive fiat

Prior to the Taliban takeover, the legitimacy and legality of the Afghan state were vested in the 2004 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which served as the supreme law of the country for seventeen years.

The Constitution was preceded by a Constitutional Loya Jirga or “grand council,” held in 2003, and was approved by consensus in January 2004. It provided an overarching legal framework for the relationship between the Afghan government and Afghan citizens and stipulated a set of constitutional principles and rights, such as separation of powers, due process of law, freedom from persecution, and freedom of expression.

In the new order created by the Taliban, by contrast, there is no constitution or equivalent supreme law. Laws and regulations are issued by the Taliban’s leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, by his leadership council, and by a host of public officials and religious authorities in an ad hoc manner. Sometimes they take the form of written decrees, such as the “Virtue and Vice” law, but often they are only issued verbally. For example, officials from the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice set the law in declarations and conference speeches, while clerics do so in sermons—bypassing any formal process of lawmaking and ignoring basic requirements that laws must be general, prospective, clear, and stable.

Lawmaking and law enforcement as instruments of control and oppression

In the absence of a constitutional framework that anchors the legal order, regulates the exercise of state power, and protects the rights of citizens, Taliban law draws on a range of other sources. They include extremist religious ideology rooted in a rigid—and contested—interpretation of Sharia law, which has been influenced by the Deobandi school of thought, as well as patriarchal tribal norms and practices.

These sources inform and justify the system of control and oppression of women that has emerged and expanded under Taliban rule, which includes bans and restrictions on women’s education, employment, and a range of fundamental rights and freedoms. While the system is built on a multiplicity of verbal and written decrees and directives, the Taliban is aware that its effectiveness depends on more systematic codification and consolidation. This may explain the broad remit of the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law, which, inter alia:

• Bans women from travelling without a male guardian and denies them access to parks, gyms, and other public spaces.
• Requires women to cover their faces and bodies in public; for example, Article 13(8) stipulates: “If an adult woman leaves her home for an essential need, she must cover her voice, face, and body.”
• Declares that women’s voices are awrah (private), which means that women should not be heard in public.

The law’s sweeping, vague language gives the Taliban broad discretionary powers to interpret its provisions, creating ample space for abuses. Article 17, for example, requires media outlets to adhere to religious guidelines, prohibiting any content that may be deemed contrary to Sharia law, without clarifying what that means in practice. Taliban forces are tasked with ensuring compliance with the law—especially by women—and violations are punished with warnings, fines, flogging, and imprisonment. Article 17 gives them broad surveillance and enforcement powers: “Taliban forces are present in markets, streets, universities, offices, and public transportation to ensure that people, particularly women, comply with the imposed laws.”

Such provisions of the “Virtue and Vice” law have further strengthened the core characteristics of law enforcement under the Taliban. An array of authorities—Taliban officials and forces, imams, and other religious figures—are exercising broad discretionary powers to enforce a growing number of vaguely defined rules in arbitrary ways, free from due process constraints and safeguards such as judicial review. Any attempt to resist or circumvent the regime’s bans and restrictions is met with a brutal response, often involving punishment on the spot. Human rights groups have publicized several cases of female activists being detained, disappeared, or killed for protesting Taliban laws. They have documented cases of women getting arrested for secretly teaching young girls and have reported on women being flogged for minor infringements and entire families being ostracized or punished for resisting Taliban edicts. The “Virtue and Vice” law reinforced this brutal system of arbitrary law enforcement with new written edicts that Taliban authorities could use to justify human rights abuses.

Pushing back on gender apartheid: Documentation and accountability strategies

Afghan women are already living in a system of pervasive control and oppression that is best described as gender apartheid. Left unchecked, the Taliban will further institutionalize and entrench that system, making it even more difficult to challenge and reverse in the future. International actors—including international organizations, concerned states, human rights groups, and Afghans in the diaspora—must take appropriate steps to prevent that outcome.

Documentation and accountability strategies offer a path forward. Documenting human rights abuses is critical but given their widespread and systematic character, it must be complimented with documentation of Taliban lawmaking and law enforcement—the rules and practices that produce these abuses. And it must involve structural investigations to show how egregious abuses of power and human rights violations are not byproducts of the system of gender apartheid in Afghanistan but are rather its very means and ends, central to maintaining the system.

Building robust documentation can support ongoing accountability processes and initiatives, such as the case against the Taliban at the International Criminal Court for gender persecution as a crime against humanity. It can also strengthen an anticipated case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In January, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, and Canada announced that they intend to sue the Taliban at the ICJ for gross violations of women’s rights, invoking the interjurisdictional clause of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The experiences of other countries affected by widespread and systematic repression and human rights abuses suggest that documentation efforts can open other, potentially unforeseen pathways to accountability—when such efforts are scaled up and institutionalized. Afghanistan needs an international investigative mechanism modeled on the IIIM for Syria. The Syrian IIIM was established by the UN General Assembly—bypassing the Security Council—and has contributed to a spike in universal jurisdiction prosecutions of Syrian offenders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

An IIIM for Afghanistan can serve both as a catalyst and repository for gender apartheid documentation. It can also help build structural investigations and prepare criminal cases for prosecution when jurisdictions are able and willing to take up such cases in the future. This would create a vital resource and build momentum for the growing movement to criminalize gender apartheid in international law and ensure that its architects are held to account.

Wesna Saidy is a poet and researcher with a degree in law and political science, focusing on human rights and gender justice in Afghanistan. She is a fellow at the Civic Engagement Project focusing on documentation.

Iavor Rangelov, PhD, is a research fellow at the London School of Economics and has extensive experience with documentation, justice, and accountability strategies in the Balkans, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

This article is part of the Inside the Taliban’s Gender Apartheid series, a joint project of the Civic Engagement Project and the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project.

The post How the Taliban is using law for gender apartheid, and how to push back appeared first on Atlantic Council.

While international attention focuses on the US-led effort to initiate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, Moscow is dramatically escalating its aerial attacks on Ukrainian civilians. During the first twenty-four days of April, for example, UN officials verified 848 civilian casualties due to Russian bombardments, representing a forty-six percent increase over the same period in 2024.

Russia’s aerial offensive is a daily feature of the war that aims to terrorize the civilian population and render large parts of Ukraine unlivable. By bombing cities and energy infrastructure, the Kremlin hopes to force millions of Ukrainians to flee the country and break the will of the remaining residents to resist. Any future peace deal that sidelines this reality and fails to hold Russia to account would erode international law and set a disastrous precedent for future armed conflicts.

For the past one and a half years, the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and the International Partnership for Human Rights have documented and analyzed Russia’s aerial attacks in Ukraine. This research is based on extensive fieldwork, witness interviews, open-source intelligence, and forensic analysis.

After reviewing hundreds of Russian drone and missile strikes, researchers narrowed the focus down to twenty-two key attacks and identified two patterns that illuminate their impact: Attacks on energy infrastructure and on densely populated areas. The legal memorandum resulting from this work concludes that Russia’s bombing campaign amounts to the crimes against humanity of extermination and persecution.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

For three consecutive winters, Russia has bombed Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in a bid to deprive the civilian population of access to heating and electricity at a time when the days are short and temperatures are typically well below freezing. These attacks have had a devastating impact on the Ukrainian power grid, with around half of Ukraine’s entire prewar energy-generating capacity destroyed by summer 2024.

As well as targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, Russia has also launched waves of drones and missiles at Ukrainian towns and cities throughout the invasion, causing widespread destruction and loss of life. There have been a number of particularly deadly attacks in recent weeks, including a ballistic missile strike on a playground in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s hometown, Kryvyi Rih, that killed eighteen people including nine children. On Palm Sunday one week before Easter, Russia launched a targeted strike on Sumy city center as civilians made their way to church, leaving thirty-five dead.

In addition to killing and injuring civilians, Russian aerial attacks also create untenable living conditions for the wider civilian population. They leave people traumatized and fuel intense feelings of insecurity, while disrupting access to heating, power, water, healthcare, and other essential resources.

While estimating the true toll of these attacks is challenging, the number of displaced Ukrainians indicates the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis. According to UN data from February 2025, Russian’s invasion has forced 10.6 million people to relocate, with 6.9 million recorded as refugees living outside Ukraine. Meanwhile, around 12.7 million Ukrainians are in need of humanitarian assistance, including nearly two million children.

Russia systematically and deliberately deprives civilians of objects essential to their survival and inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction, which constitutes the crime against humanity of extermination. Statements by Russian officials, such as calls for Ukrainians to be left to “freeze and rot,” corroborate this conclusion.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s aerial terror campaign, as well as the Kremlin’s actions in the occupied regions of Ukraine, have intentionally deprived Ukrainians of their fundamental rights to life, health, education, and culture, thus constituting the crime against humanity of persecution. The crime of persecution requires special discriminatory intent to target Ukrainians as a distinct group. This intent can be seen in Moscow’s branding of Ukrainians as “Nazis” who must be “destroyed.” such language underscores that Russia is attacking the very existence of Ukrainians. Targeted Russian attacks on educational and cultural facilities across Ukraine are further evidence of this intent.

Additionally, throughout the regions of Ukraine currently under Kremlin control, the Russian occupation authorities are reportedly enforcing russification policies that aim to extinguish any trace of Ukrainian national identity or statehood. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia and subjected to anti-Ukrainian indoctrination. The International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in relation to the large-scale deportation of Ukrainian children.

Holding Russia accountable for the ongoing air offensive against Ukraine is particularly important as this form of prohibited total war, where everything and anything including vital infrastructure and civilian populations are targeted to achieve victory, looks set to return. Technological advances are transforming the modern battlefield to essentially include entire countries and their civilian populations. Against this backdrop, Russia’s use of long-range drones and missiles to terrorize Ukrainian civilians is likely a taste of things to come.

To date, no international tribunal has held individual perpetrators responsible for international crimes resulting from unlawful aerial attacks. The International Criminal Court has taken an important initial step by issuing arrest warrants against four senior Russian officials for their roles in attacking Ukrainian civilians and energy infrastructure, but further measures are needed.

Failure to hold Russia accountable today will fuel tomorrow’s wars and embolden Putin’s fellow autocrats to embrace similar tactics against civilian populations. It is vital to make sure long-term security is not sacrificed in order to reach some kind of compromise with the Kremlin to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. By focusing on accountability for Russia’s aerial attacks, the international community can set a meaningful precedent that could help protect civilians around the world for years to come.

Anastasiya Donets leads the Ukraine Legal Team at the International Partnership for Human Rights, an independent non-governmental organization. She was previously an assistant professor in the International Law Department at Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University in Kharkiv. Susan H. Farbstein is a clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School, where she directs the International Human Rights Clinic.

Further reading

UkraineAlert May 13, 2025

Drone superpower: Ukrainian wartime innovation offers lessons for NATO

By David Kirichenko

Today’s Ukraine is now a drone superpower with an innovative domestic defense industry that can provide its NATO allies with important lessons in the realities of twenty-first century warfare, writes David Kirichenko.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert May 13, 2025

How much longer will Putin be allowed to continue stalling for time?

By Peter Dickinson

President Trump has made a legitimate effort to broker a generous peace, but the time has now come to acknowledge that Putin is not negotiating in good faith and will only respond to the language of strength, writes Peter Dickinson.

France Germany

UkraineAlert May 6, 2025

The shadow of 1930s appeasement hangs over US-led peace talks

By Oleksandr Merezhko

As the world prepares to mark the eightieth anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, the shadow of events leading up to World War II hangs over efforts to end Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine, writes Oleksandr Merezhko.

Conflict European Union

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Russia’s aerial attacks on Ukrainian civilians must not go unpunished appeared first on Atlantic Council.

• “Some historians have compared the flux of ideas and connections today to the turmoil of the Renaissance and Reformation five centuries ago, but on a much larger scale. And those eras were followed by the Thirty Years’ War, which killed a third of the population of Germany. Today, the world is richer and riskier than ever before.

• I am sometimes asked whether I am optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the United States. I reply, ‘Guardedly optimistic.’ The United States has many problems—polarization, inequality, loss of trust, mass shootings, deaths of despair from drugs and suicide—just to name a few that make headlines. There is a case for pessimism. At the same time, we Americans have survived worse periods in the 1890s, 1930s, and 1960s. For all its flaws, the United States is an innovative and resilient society that, in the past, has been able to recreate and reinvent itself. Maybe Generation Z can do it again. I hope so.”

Below, members of the Atlantic Council community reflect on the impact Nye made on both our work and the wider world.

Click below to jump to an expert reflection:

Matthew Kroenig: “In a dangerous and turbulent time in global affairs, he remained an optimist”

Chuck Hagel: “He brought clarity to so many complicated issues”

Jan Lodal: He “changed our language to better communicate important diplomatic concepts”

Paula Dobriansky: “His policy advice and brilliant ideas will endure”

Daniel Fried: “He acted and advocated in the best American tradition of wanting to apply US might in the service of right”

“In a dangerous and turbulent time in global affairs, he remained an optimist”

Just recently, our CEO Fred Kempe applied the “Joe Nye rule” as a guide to the Atlantic Council’s geostrategy work. He advised that our regular, private Strategy Consortium convenings bring together the caliber of strategic thinkers who will entice people like Joe Nye to remain engaged.

We are deeply saddened to learn of Nye’s passing and that his participation in our convenings will no longer be possible. He was a longstanding Atlantic Council board director and a regular participant in our private Strategy Consortium meetings for many years, most recently in December 2024 on the topic of anticipating a future Trump administration national security strategy. He also contributed to our strategy work in other ways, authoring forwards for our Atlantic Council Strategy Papers series and articles for our website.

He was a towering intellect and a resolute and courteous commentator on global affairs. He brought penetrating insights to our meetings and did not shy away from expressing disagreement, but always in a generous way, intending only to elevate the discussion and improve the quality of the work.

In a dangerous and turbulent time in global affairs, he remained an optimist about American power, alliances, and global engagement. Even though he is no longer with us, Nye’s strategic clarity, civility, and optimism will continue to inspire the Atlantic Council.

—Matthew Kroenig is vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the Council’s director of studies. 

“He brought clarity to so many complicated issues”

We have lost an exceptional human being. He brought clarity to so many complicated issues over the years. We all learned from him and benefitted from his wisdom and knowledge and unpretentious style. He’ll be missed by many.

—Chuck Hagel is a member of the Atlantic Council international advisory board, a former US secretary of defense, and a former US senator from Nebraska.

He “changed our language to better communicate important diplomatic concepts”

Joe’s contributions to his students, his family, and world peace and security were unparalleled. His impact will be felt indefinitely. 

Joe was also a magnificent personal friend and colleague. We survived numerous hikes to the top of the mountains in Aspen after the exhilarating discussions he had organized for the Aspen Strategy Group. He asked me to take over the group when he had to step down, which I was honored to do. I then imposed on him to join my team as assistant secretary for international security affairs under Bill Perry in the Clinton administration. He was the best ever in that storied office. 

Joe actually changed our language to better communicate important diplomatic concepts—”soft power” being perhaps the most memorable. He was a devoted husband to his dear wife, Molly, and a great art dealer from whom we obtained twelve paintings that grace our walls and remind us daily of Joe. We will miss him greatly. 

—Jan Lodal is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, a former principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, and a former senior staff member of the National Security Council.

“His policy advice and brilliant ideas will endure”

Joe Nye was an extraordinary scholar, intellect, professor, and public servant. He was a prolific writer whose books, articles, and op-eds advanced innovative ideas and provided cogent analyses of complex national security issues. Described as a “towering figure in international affairs,” he produced writings that have had a profound impact on policymakers both at home and abroad. He was widely known for having conceived the “soft power” approach in US foreign policy, which promotes American power through influence, persuasion, and diplomacy.

Joe’s service at the Pentagon as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and as chair of the National Intelligence Council was distinguished and results-driven. During his tenure at the State Department as deputy to the under secretary for security assistance, science, and technology, he chaired the consequential National Security Council interagency group on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

I have long admired Joe’s achievements in foreign policy and public service. On a more personal level, I was also proud to have been his colleague and friend. He touched my life in so many ways. While at Harvard for my master’s and Ph.D. degrees, Joe was not only my professor there, but a wonderful mentor. One of his many admirable qualities that I loved was his desire to have a good lively policy debate. He always brought opposing points of view into a discussion and relished a vibrant exchange of opinions. His calm demeanor in the midst of bureaucratic squabbles or crises was exemplary.

I will miss him terribly, but I am gratified that his policy advice and brilliant ideas will endure. He was indeed a giant in international affairs and leaves a remarkable legacy.

—Paula J. Dobriansky is the vice chair of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and a former US under secretary of state for global affairs.

“He acted and advocated in the best American tradition of wanting to apply US might in the service of right”

Joe Nye was the rare combination of government foreign policy practitioner with political thinker and public scholar of the first order. He has been called a “neo-liberal.” But that term, like its twin “neo-conservative,” is more of an epithet than a useful guide. Roughly put, Nye believed that the rules-based international system that the United States created and led for three generations after World War II was a good thing—that it had more potential to generate prosperity, avoid world war, and advance American values and thus American interests than the competition. Because the competition in the twentieth century was fascism and communism, Nye’s judgment was a sure thing.

But Nye’s optimistic view now seems eclipsed by the dark neo-nationalism espoused by many in the United States and indeed across Europe. When some in the Trump administration, including US President Donald Trump, call for seizing Greenland, they seem to argue that only physical control of (and raw power over) territory can secure US interests, that there is no place for cooperation between nations to achieve goals that benefit both. That’s not a new view; it’s a mere repackaging of old European, great-power imperialism that brought disaster in its time and could bring disaster in ours. Such thinking would reduce the United States to a mere grasping, greedy superpower, a larger version of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, seeking to dominate through force and fear.

Nye’s views are now, more than ever, worth considering. He was no naif about the need for power in the international arena. But he acted and advocated in the best American tradition of wanting to apply US might in the service of right. When he spoke of such things, he meant it: artful, creative, committed, and realistic in the best sense. What a compelling and inspiring legacy he leaves behind.

—Daniel Fried is the Weiser family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former US ambassador to Poland.

The post The father of ‘soft power,’ a supreme intellect, and an eternal optimist: The Atlantic Council remembers Joseph Nye appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In his “order of the day” as the supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, Eisenhower spoke of the need to continue cooperation far into the future, warning against “profitless quarrels” over which country or service won “the European war.”

Speaking of fallen Allied soldiers, Eisenhower said: “No monument of stone, no memorial of whatever magnitude could so well express our respect and veneration of their sacrifice as would the perpetuation of the spirit of comradeship in which they died.”

Eighty years after VE Day, it’s hard not to think about Ukraine’s current struggle against Russia’s murderous aggression in that spirit. “As we celebrate victory in Europe,” Eisenhower said then, “let us remind ourselves that our common problems of the immediate and distant future can be best solved in the same conception of cooperation and devotion to the cause of human freedom as have made this Expeditionary Force such a mighty engine of righteous destruction.”

Perhaps the most significant foreign policy debate swirling around the Trump administration concerns the lessons of the last eighty years and how best to build upon them—or not.

There is a group, and I would count myself among them, that believes this epoch has shown the United States at its best, engaging with partners and allies to produce one of the greatest periods of prosperity and peace among great powers that the world has ever known.

With all its flaws—and no era of history is without them—this extended period since World War II has resulted in enormous benefits and prosperity for Americans, it’s helped lift billions of people around the world from poverty, and it’s helped prevent the outbreak of war between nuclear-armed great powers.

There is another line of argument that the United States has carried an unfair burden all these years, that it has shouldered too much of the cost for the defense of its allies, and that global trading arrangements have taken advantage of the United States economically (to be rectified by President Donald Trump’s tariffs).

Some making those arguments look at the last eighty years not as a legacy to be built upon, but rather as a trajectory to be ended. They argue that the rules-based international system that emerged after World War II is a thing of the past and that we have moved into an era of a more transactional, interest-based, “America first” approach to international politics.  

“I believe this is a false choice,” Stephen J. Hadley, former national security advisor for President George W. Bush and an Atlantic Council executive vice chair, tells me. “To be sure, America has interests beyond simply promoting its values of freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights. In particular situations, there will be a trade-off between advancing our values and pursuing these other interests and a choice will have to be made. But at the highest level, it is overwhelmingly in America’s interest that it advance its values. A world based on those values will be more congenial to Americans and better ensure their safety, security, and prosperity.”

Hadley has worked for, with, or closely observed every US presidency since Lyndon Johnson’s. “I believe they all thought they were putting America first,” he says. “What linked them was an enlightened vision of American interests. They believed that working with America’s friends and allies—and helping them to become more democratic, prosperous, and secure—made America stronger.”

The world has changed dramatically in the past eighty years, and even in the three decades since the Cold War’s end. For example, China’s position on the world stage—given its economic weight, technological capability, and global presence—is nothing like that of the Soviet Union. Clinging to the status quo isn’t a policy designed for the future. Europeans recognize that they must carry more of their own security burden, and US partners are re-examining trading relationships.

“There is no institution, process, or policy on earth that cannot be improved,” says Hadley. “The goal is to convert a period of disruption into a vehicle for progress and positive change. That is the challenge of the present moment.”

Two decades after the war, Eisenhower visited Omaha Beach, when the tide had turned against authoritarianism. “I think and hope and pray that humanity will learn more than we had learned up to that time,” he said. For him, the war, its destruction, and the role of Americans remained a lesson for the present. He said of the dead, “these people gave us a chance, and they bought time for us, so that we can do better than we have before.”

That lesson still applies today. 

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

Editors’ note: At tonight’s annual Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Awards dinner, marking the eightieth anniversary of VE Day, our organization will honor Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković; General John W. Raymond, the first chief of space operations for the US Space Force; legendary singer-songwriter and humanitarian Judy Collins; and Ukrainian businessman and philanthropist Victor Pinchuk. We’ll also pay tribute to nine Ukrainian military heroes attending in person, who represent the millions of Ukrainians defending their country against Russian aggression. The Atlantic Council will present a rarely given Distinguished Service Award to Stephen J. Hadley for his service to the organization and its values throughout his career. It has been presented to only five other individuals: Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, General James L. Jones, Adrienne Arsht, and Bahaa Hariri.

The post The lesson of VE Day 80 years later: Discard the ‘false choice’ between US values and interests appeared first on Atlantic Council.

With Trump now scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia next month, the issue of normalization is certain to be on the agenda. There are three reasons why Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s principal decisionmaker, should make full Palestinian statehood part of the asking price for normalizing relations with Israel. First, many Saudis and other Arabs throughout the region may look askance at bin Salman if he were to be seen as ignoring the Palestinians’ plight. Second, if he pulls it off, he will have succeeded where other, more celebrated Arab leaders failed. And finally, the longer the issue remains unresolved, the more it will continue to impede progress on Saudi and regional priorities.

Then and now

Before the Gaza war began in October 2023, Riyadh may have been close to an agreement on official diplomatic relations with Israel without the precondition of a Palestinian state. But Israel’s punishing assault on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas’s rampage through southern Israel on October 7, 2023, seems to have changed Saudi thinking. Speaking at an Arab League summit last year, bin Salman called the Israeli military campaign in Gaza “genocide.” And in a speech in September, he indicated that Saudi Arabia would not establish relations with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state.

Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in an effort to develop contacts across the Muslim world, he remains staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state. In 2021, Netanyahu described the Abraham Accords—Israel’s normalization agreements with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Sudan, and Morocco—as enabling Israel to replace “the old and dangerous doctrine of territories in exchange for peace and brought peace in exchange for peace, without giving up a single inch.” 

Past failures

The term “pathway” to Palestinian statehood joins a variety of other phrases from past peace plans that included an unfulfilled Palestinian component. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat believed that he had secured “autonomy” for the Palestinians when he signed Cairo’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat believed he was gaining Palestinian “self-government” when he signed the 1993 Declaration of Principles. Jordanian King Hussein bin Talal agreed to the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty only after he was convinced the Palestinians had gained a “political horizon”—the derisory catchphrase of the Oslo process.

However, Palestinians’ autonomy, self-government, political horizon, independence, or peace with Israel never materialized; extremists on both sides undermined the deeply flawed Oslo process and subsequent negotiations. After 1994, further Israeli treaties with Arab countries did not materialize until the 2020 Abraham Accords, purchased for Israel by US concessions to the Arab signatories and conspicuously silent on the resolution of the Palestinian issue. Arab participants saw the Abraham Accords as a means to receive concrete US commitments.

When the UAE signed the first Abraham Accord in September 2020, it was primarily to gain participation in the US F-35 fighter program and access to US armed Reaper drones, over Israeli objections, as well as the understanding that Washington would prevent Israel from annexing portions of the West Bank, which Jerusalem was about to do. In exchange for their respective normalization deals with Israel, the United States recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara and removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Saudi considerations

Saudi Arabia is now setting its own price for an agreement. However, bin Salman should take note of two features of past Arab agreements with Israel. First, Israel has never entered into any agreement that explicitly called for Palestinian statehood. In fact, some pro-Israel observers in Washington are trying to identify a “rhetorical formula” that would satisfy Saudi demands without committing Israel to a Palestinian state. Second, the United States, despite its stated desire for a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, has never pressured Israel on Palestinian statehood, limiting itself to hollow rhetoric about supporting a two-state outcome.

Bin Salman reportedly told US leaders that he cares little for the Palestinians and does not want the issue to impede plans to diversify the Saudi economy or to discourage Iranian threats to his realm. However, the Gaza war—which has left over fifty thousand Palestinians dead, including tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, televised in bloody detail by Al Jazeera, may have forced a change in bin Salman’s calculus about what is politically realistic. “Seventy percent of my population is younger than me,” the thirty-nine-year old crown prince reportedly told then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2024. “For most of them, they never really knew much about the Palestinian issue. And so they’re being introduced to it for the first time through this conflict.” An Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) poll conducted in Saudi Arabia and published in February 2024 indicates that the share of the Saudi population opposed to normalization with Israel grew from 38 percent in 2022 to 68 percent in 2024.

The Trump administration may insist that Saudi Arabia relax its demand for a Palestinian state prior to a normalization deal, possibly by emphasizing other benefits bin Salman can expect. Also, the administration may, as Trump attempted in his first term, designate Palestinian municipal control of islands of Palestinian communities on the West Bank as a “state” and demand that bin Salman accept it as such.

But if bin Salman makes peace with Israel without a Palestinian state that most of his citizens believe to be credible, any Israeli action against the Palestinians, or other Arabs, will be his to justify. For example, in Gaza, apart from the high casualty numbers, massive infrastructure destruction, and the dislocation of 90 percent of the strip’s population, a United Nations Human Rights Commission report published last month states that sexual violence has become “standard operating procedure toward Palestinians” in the Gaza conflict and is “committed either under explicit orders or with implicit encouragement by Israel’s top civilian and military leadership.” This is the very leadership with which bin Salman would be reaching a normalization agreement.

Additionally, Israeli violence directed at West Bank Palestinians is growing. This has included assaults from Israeli settlers, the destruction of property, and expulsions, not to mention Israeli military offensives, in which Palestinian civilians are the inevitable victims. Bin Salman would also have to contend with Saudi public opinion regarding Israel’s capture of more Syrian territory, its strikes against Lebanese territory after a cease-fire has been concluded, and the increasing discussion of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

At present, bin Salman can comfortably join his people, regional Arabs, and the international community in condemning reported Israeli violations of the norms of war and peace. While other Arab regimes have survived peace with Israel, they did so despite the wishes of their populations, not because they made a convincing case for peace. The political risks of normalization are also exemplified by the assassination of Sadat by Islamic extremists, in part because of his perceived betrayal of Arab and Islamic causes in signing a peace agreement with Israel.

In last year’s ACRPS poll, the majority of respondents from countries whose governments have already signed agreements with Israel—including Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Sudan—oppose their countries’ normalization with Israel. Other Arab countries such as Oman and Qatar, which have informal ties to Israel, continue to refuse normalization until Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian territories.

Bin Salman may be drawn to the idea that he can achieve something that past regional leaders like Sadat, Hussein, and Arafat, as well as current Arab leaders such as Muhammad bin Zayed of the UAE failed to accomplish. Demanding a Palestinian state may also be a means to distinguish himself from the Arab signatories of the other Abraham Accords, all of whom prioritized their respective national ambitions and did not press for progress on the Palestinian issue. Bin Salman must also consider the ability of regional malefactors such as Iran and radical Islamists to exploit the unresolved Palestinian issue to impede political, security, and economic progress for Saudi Arabia and the region. The ongoing Houthi campaign of attacks against Red Sea shipping, for example, would not be happening without the Gaza war, itself an extension of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Costs and benefits

While Israel has legitimate security concerns, its continued occupation of Palestinian territories, its war in Gaza, and growing violence in the West Bank are creating a pronounced line in the sand between nations that have peace treaties with Israel and those withholding formal relations. While there are Arab governments on both sides of this line, their publics, including the Saudi people, are overwhelmingly opposed to normalization with Israel.

Bin Salman needs to weigh popular Saudi and other Arab views, as well as the regional instability that the continued Palestinian-Israeli conflict engenders, against any benefits he anticipates from a formal peace with Israel. Then, he needs to decide on which side the kingdom benefits most. If he were to settle for equivocal language about a “pathway,” as opposed to an actual state, the history of Arab-Israeli peacemaking suggests bin Salman would join Sadat, Arafat, Hussein, and others who failed to use their diplomatic leverage to press for Palestinian statehood.

Amir Asmar is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programs. 

The post In a normalization agreement with Israel, Saudi Arabia should settle for nothing less than Palestinian statehood appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Understandably, many have focused on his policy and posture toward the state of Israel.

His final address on Easter Sunday was a capstone in a track record of advocacy for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, including strong and direct statements. “Dramatic and deplorable” is how he described the living conditions in Gaza. The brutal massacre of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli Defense Forces, which came almost at the conclusion of his Pontificate, had quite publicly saddened and pained him in a deep way.

Pundits and commentators have been quick in pointing out the silence coming from the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since his death. President Isaac Herzog delivered a few comments, nice and positive, even if not particularly warm. The relationship between the first modern non-European Pope and the state of Israel has been contentious indeed.

The vocal standing behind the Palestinian plight—including multiple sermons on Gaza and near-daily calls with Gaza’s Christian leaders through the war—was the success of Franciscan values over a part of the Catholic Church which would have preferred a more nuanced, if not entirely favorable, position towards Israel.

Further, influential personalities like Monsignor Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who offered himself in exchange for Hamas’s Israeli hostages in the aftermath of October 7, are a living testament to Pope Francis’ posture of opposition to the occupation of the Arab lands in Palestine.

But his legacy in the Middle East extends beyond Palestine. Bergoglio exerted influence in quite a few areas across the region.

Pope Francis exercised pressure on the European powers regarding the tragedy of the civil war in Syria and the horrors unleashed by the Islamic State. The concurrent efforts by the Church to protect and save as many members of the Church of the Levant as possible are noticeable and much appreciated—albeit not always successful.

In the wider Levant, his stance was coherently against the extremists of the Islamic State, the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and other similar organizations—whom he always saw as a danger to his vision of brotherly intent to take care of the world’s marginalized.

He was widely liked in the Emirates, with whom Pope Bergoglio understood the importance of positive relationships despite the abysmal record of the small emirates confederation in human rights and respect for pluralism. He understood the potential for success in diplomacy, negotiation, and public support that could arise for the Church if it sided with the Emiratis and their projection of growing global influence.

To summarize, Pope Francis’ policy in the Middle East and North Africa has been characterized by a wise combination of value-based policies and convenient stances, in line with the scope of the objectives the Pope set for his pastoral mission. 

However, the region is very diverse: ethnically, socially, culturally, and, obviously, religiously. This diversity—despite the frequent skirmishes and conflicts it has played a hand in sowing—has always been understood as the wealth of the region.  Trying to find a common denominator in reactions to Pope Francis’s policies, let alone the expectations of the new Pontiff, is difficult to define without risk of distorting the varied perspectives from the diverse threads of the region’s canopy.

It is possible to say that, at the popular level, the importance of the Catholic Pope is not as significant as in other parts of the world. After all, there are very few Catholics left in the Middle East.

Moving forward, answering the question of who constitutes the ruling elites of the Middle East—namely, those who hold political power and, in some cases, represent religious authority—is crucial to understanding regional expectations of the new Pope. 

For the region’s ruling elites, the Church’s spiritual component matters less, and its influence holds significance only as a political force. In this respect, the Church and its 2.2 billion followers become a heavyweight geopolitical actor, and as such, they treat it.

And there are indeed secular movements at play, particularly with respect to a growing conservatism among Catholics in Western world powers like the United States.

In the West, there is an ascent of right-wing movements that Pope Francis fiercely fought against, including populism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.  But these emerging movements may be more in line with some of the region’s ruling powers.

Regional leaders, building on alliances with the new administration in Washington, for example, may indeed hope for the election of a conservative Pope, who could become an ally in maintaining and defending the values that Middle Eastern elites share with conservatives in the West.

Karim Mezran is the director of the North Africa Initiative and resident senior fellow with the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, focusing on the processes of change in North Africa. 

The post Will Pope Francis’s Middle East legacy endure? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ending the war between Russia and Ukraine has been Donald Trump’s top foreign policy priority throughout the first hundred days of his new administration. This has led to mixed results. The US leader has won praise for initiating the first meaningful talks since the early months of the Russian invasion, but he has also been accused of adopting an overly Kremlin-friendly approach to negotiations that has seen the US consistently pressure Ukraine while offering Russia a series of concessions.

The eagerness of the new US administration to reach some kind of settlement comes as no surprise. During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump vowed to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible. Since returning to the White House in January, he has sought to distance himself from the current confrontation with the Kremlin, and has repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for normalizing relations with Moscow.

This dramatic shift in US foreign policy is sparking considerable alarm in Kyiv and other European capitals. Concerns are now mounting that if Ukraine is forced to accept a pro-Putin peace deal, the country would be unlikely to survive much longer as an independent state. This would represent an historic victory for Putin’s Russia, with profound geopolitical repercussions that would be felt far beyond the borders of Ukraine.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In Russia itself, a successful peace deal would vindicate the entire invasion of Ukraine and further consolidate the country’s ongoing transition toward a fully totalitarian model of government. Today’s militarization of Russian society would intensify, with imperial propaganda dominating the national information space and defense spending rising to unprecedented levels. Unpopular aspects of the current war such as heavy battlefield losses and sanctions-related shortages would soon be forgotten as triumphant Russians embraced a new era of imperial expansionism.

Others would draw very different conclusions from a Russian victory in Ukraine. The failure of the existing international order to prevent the invasion and occupation of a major European country would send shock waves around the world and mark the dawn of a dangerous new era defined by the principle that might is right. This would soon lead to sharp increases in defense budgets as nations rushed to rearm in order to avoid suffering the same fate as Ukraine.

Russia’s frequent use of nuclear blackmail during the invasion of Ukraine would be particularly consequential. The Kremlin’s readiness to engage in nuclear saber-rattling would convince many countries that in order to be truly safe, they must acquire nukes of their own. In such a scenario, the existing nuclear nonproliferation architecture would collapse and be replaced by a nuclear arms race that would significantly increase the potential for a future nuclear war.

For Putin, a successful outcome in Ukraine would be a stepping stone toward even more ambitious foreign policy adventures. He would almost certainly seek to continue reasserting Russian dominance across the former USSR, with his next targets likely to include Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and the countries of Central Asia. He may also seek to go further into Central Europe. Confronted by a demoralized and weakened West, Putin would surely be tempted to escalate his campaign of aggression against front line nations like Finland or the Baltic states in order to expose the emptiness of NATO’s collective security guarantees and discredit the alliance.

An emboldened Russia would also seek to increase its military and economic presence in other regions of the world including the Arctic, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. With sanctions no longer in place and Russia increasingly viewed as a geopolitical winner, potential allies would flock to Moscow. In this new reality, Putin’s current authoritarian alliance with China, Iran, and North Korea would serve as the basis for a far larger anti-Western grouping.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Any settlement that leaves Ukraine partitioned, isolated, and disarmed will not bring peace. On the contrary, it would signal the start of a new stage in the country’s agony marked by the slow bleeding of territory, population, and sovereignty. Step by step, an abandoned Ukraine would gradually be absorbed into Putin’s new Russian Empire. This would place Europe’s second-largest army under Russian control, while also providing the Kremlin with vast additional industrial and agricultural wealth to fuel Putin’s expansionist agenda.

Meanwhile, Europe would lose its Ukrainian shield at a time when the continent is already facing up to the reality of a drastically reduced US commitment to transatlantic security. While European leaders are now urgently addressing the need to rearm, few would currently be confident in their ability to withstand a determined Russian offensive. Without Ukraine’s battle-hardened million-strong army to protect them, the countries of Europe would represent an extremely inviting target that Putin may be unable to resist.

After more than three years of relentless horror and destruction, nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians themselves. But most Ukrainians also recognize that a bad peace will mean no peace at all. Handing Russia victory in Ukraine may temporarily create the illusion of peace, but in fact it would merely set the stage for a dangerous new era of international insecurity marked by militarization, authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, and wars of aggression.

Elena Davlikanova is a fellow at CEPA. Lesia Ogryzko is director of the Sahaidachny Security Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Mar 25, 2025

Ukraine’s growing military strength is an underrated factor in peace talks

By Serhii Kuzan

Any discussion on the future course of the war against Russia and the terms of any peace deal must take into account the fact that Ukraine is a now major military power in its own right, writes Serhii Kuzan.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Apr 22, 2025

Putin’s cynical Easter ceasefire stunt backfires as Zelenskyy calls his bluff

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin’s surprise Easter ceasefire announcement was clearly a cynical stunt, but it did inadvertently serve an important purpose by underlining the simple fact that Russia can end the war whenever it chooses, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Apr 9, 2025

Putin’s Arctic ambitions: Russia eyes natural resources and shipping routes

By Bohdan Ustymenko

Russia’s plans to expand its influence in the Arctic region and dominate the Northern Sea Route together with China pose serious security challenges for the international community, writes Bohdan Ustymenko.

China Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post A pro-Putin peace deal in Ukraine would destabilize the entire world appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In this episode of #BalkansDebrief, Ilva Tare, Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, explores Bosnia and Herzegovina’s fragile political landscape, as the country nears the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement. With separatist pressures rising and youth fleeing the country, is silent abandonment more dangerous than loud secession?

Joined by Adnan Ćerimagić, Senior Analyst for the Western Balkans at the European Stability Initiative based in Berlin, the conversation delves into:

• The implications of Milorad Dodik’s conviction and continued political activity;

• The EU’s and NATO’s stances on Bosnia’s sovereignty and why EUFOR will not get involved in a potential arrest of Dodik;

• Legal actions against Republika Srpska leadership and questions over the constitutional changes and international enforcement; and

• The future of the Office of the High Representative and the so-called Bonn Powers in Bosnia.

With tensions high and regional implications looming, this episode asks the urgent question: What will it take for Europe—and the West writ large—to finally draw a line in the sand?

#BalkansDebrief is an online interview series presented by the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center and hosted by journalist Ilva Tare. The program offers a fresh look at the Western Balkans and examines the region’s people, culture, challenges, and opportunities.

Watch #BalkansDebrief on YouTube and listen to it as a Podcast.

Fellow

Ilva Tare

Resident Senior Fellow

Europe Center

Albanian English

The Europe Center promotes leadership, strategies, and analysis to ensure a strong, ambitious, and forward-looking transatlantic relationship.

Learn more

The post From Dayton to Dodik, what’s at stake in Bosnia? | A Debrief with Adnan Ćerimagić appeared first on Atlantic Council.

“The Secretary reiterated that the United States recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and supports Morocco’s serious, credible, and realistic Autonomy Proposal as the only basis for a just and lasting solution to the dispute,” reads the statement issued by the State Department after the visit. Nevertheless, one obstacle persists: Dismantling the obsolete and dysfunctional United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).

This time, the United States went further by urging the parties to engage in discussions without delay, stating that Morocco’s Autonomy Plan is the only acceptable framework for dialogue. Rubio even stepped up to offer to facilitate the process, signaling that the only way out of this fifty-year colonial impasse may be outside the United Nations and its legacy of failure to secure a sustainable solution for the Sahraoui people.

A mission without a mandate

As its name stipulates, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara was initially established in 1991 by Security Council resolution 690 to prepare for a referendum in which the people of Western Sahara would choose between independence and integration with Morocco. However, the mission failed to deliver on its mandate and only served to maintain a state of paralysis throughout the years. It is essential to clarify that while the MINURSO monitors the ceasefire, which still holds for nearly thirty-five years between Morocco and the Polisario Front separatists, it is in no way an active peacekeeping mission, and Morocco continues to administer de facto over 80 percent of the Western Saharan disputed territories since the Spanish exit in 1975. MINURSO staff remained spectators, even during the rare skirmishes that were reignited along the sand wall, when Morocco decided to retake the strategic Guerguerat crossing in November 2020 to open trade routes with Mauritania.

Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations Secretary-General envoy to Western Sahara, was set for defeat from the start. Since 2022, de Mistura has felt out of place in a fast-moving international context, shifting in favor of Morocco.

First, the United States recognized Rabat’s sovereignty over Western Sahara in conjunction with re-establishing diplomatic ties between Morocco and Israel in December 2020, knocking down the chessboard in a fragile geopolitical context where MINURSO had maintained the status quo between Morocco and Algeria.

Then came the coup de grace by the two former colonizers of Morocco and Western Sahara, who are at the source of the current superfluous borders, when Spain sided with Morocco in 2022. France followed in 2024, and over twenty-nine countries decided to open diplomatic representations in Western Sahara as a sign of support for the Moroccan stance.

The Italian diplomat himself indicated in October 2024 his intention to step down, alluding to his inability to mediate between a Morocco emboldened by overwhelming international support and an Algeria obstinate in supporting the mirage of Sahraoui self-determination until the very end. In his latest faux pas, Staffan de Mistura proposed the partition of Western Sahara, suggesting that the envoy and the MINURSO are neocolonial instruments from the past, wasting a sixty-one million dollar annual budget, funded in majority by the United States.

Another flagrant example of MINURSO’s irrelevance is how the disputed Western Sahara borders have been, for decades, uncharted territories for terrorist activities from al-Qaeda to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and, more recently, a fertile ground for Iranian and Russian influence. Besides gathering intel and filing situation reports, the Mission has done very little to address the flourishing drug and human trafficking business in the disputed territories, leaving this task to the Moroccan and Algerian military.

The diversion of humanitarian aid destined for Sahrawis in the camps in Tindouf, Algeria, also continues to raise concerns, especially with evidence showing that much of the aid is subject to corruption and reselling in open markets like Nouadhibou in Northern Mauritania.

The impracticality of a Sahraoui referendum

Several founding myths surround the Western Sahara file, making a referendum a preposterous and impractical solution—a reality that Western allies like the United States started grasping in recent years.

Contrary to other conflicts, where Indigenous people claim the right to self-determination based on their distinct cultural identity, the Saharaoui people are not native to North Africa. The Arab tribes of Beni Hassan, who trace their ancestry to the Yemeni tribe of Maqil, started moving westward to the Maghreb around the thirteenth century, invited by the Almohad empire of Morocco that needed to reinforce its rule by balancing the Amazigh tribe with the Arab warrior populations. If anything, the Hassani people were the ones who pushed the Indigenous Amazigh tribal confederation of Sanhaja out of the Sahara after the massacre of Char Bouba War in the seventeenth century.

The Hassani people today are transnational communities inhabiting large sections of Mauritania, Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara—hence the impossibility of carrying out a census of who gets to participate in a referendum. To complicate things further for the MINURSO, the Alaouite sultan Moulay Ismail had established the “Guich System”, a feudal system where these very Hassani tribes were used to counter Amazigh rebellions in exchange for land up to the nineteenth century. The descendants of these fighters still live around the capital, Rabat, Marrakech, and Sidi Kacem, and still assert their Sahraoui roots.

In the Moroccan-administered portion of the territory, the central state had additionally provided generous incentives, including double salaries and subsidized gas and essential subsistence items, since the seventies for those willing to relocate to the Sahara, and two generations at least have been in the disputed land. Even in the five refugee camps in Algeria, where about 173,600 individuals still live, it is extremely hard to determine who is a Saharaoui and who came to Tindouf as a result of a multitude of other conflicts in the Sahel. Due to all these complexities, the MINORSO has consistently failed since its establishment to come up with voter lists that would be acceptable to all parties, thereby nullifying the prospects of a referendum and the relevance of a UN Mission entrusted to organize it.

What many Sahraoui people want

In a recent field study in July 2024 to Dakhla, Laayoun, and Boujdour, I covered nearly four hundred miles and spoke to dozens of civil society activists, journalists, officials, and ordinary Sahraoui people from my own tribesmen of Oulad Dlim. Most interviewees in the Moroccan-administered portion of Western Sahara (about 1.1 million inhabitants according to the September 2024 census) expressed extreme fatigue from five decades of conflict and a desire for normality and prosperity. They seemed more hopeful for a sustainable resolution through the Moroccan federal advanced regionalization plan proposed in 2006, which preserves their cultural identity and gives them sovereignty over local governance and natural resources under the Moroccan flag.

It was interesting to observe the shift in the Moroccan strategy toward the Sahara conflict, transcending the purely security approach under Driss al-Basri in the 1990s, beating and arresting demonstrators, to a vision focusing on regional development, a dynamic tourism sector, and the looming hope of the $1.2 billion Dakhla Atlantic harbor megaproject—the cornerstone of the kingdom’s Atlantic Initiative. This recent economic boom made some interlocutors confident in the future, although many stated that Morocco hasn’t provided any details of how the autonomy plan will work in practice and how much control they will have over their natural resources. It’s important to note that the research didn’t include Sahrawis in the camps, who may remain attached to self-determination after five decades on a different trajectory.

For the past thirty-four years, MINURSO has consistently deceived the Sahrawi people by failing to deliver on its mission, promoting a laissez-faire culture, and holding hundreds of thousands hostage to complicated geopolitical calculus. Now, the time is up, and the Sahrawi communities can no longer afford another fifty years of political stalemate. The parties to the conflict, along with US and trans-Atlantic allies, will need to defund, dismantle, and terminate it so the autonomy plan can start taking shape.

In The Revenge of Geography, Robert D. Kaplan said that “borders are not just lines on a map; they are a reflection of power dynamics,” and today’s dynamics are calling for greater accountability for UN programs like the MINURSO and for out-of-the-box decisive solutions under Trump’s leadership.

Sarah Zaaimi is a resident senior fellow for North Africa at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East programs, focusing on the Western Sahara conflict. She is also the center’s deputy director for media and communications.

The post Why it’s time to terminate the UN’s dysfunctional mission in Western Sahara appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sovereign AI has gained a foothold in several capitals around the world. As Michael Kratisios, the Trump administration’s acting director of science and technology policy, stated in 2024, “Each country wants to have some sort of control over our [sic] own destiny on AI.”¹ Analysts have mapped the modes and methods to achieve sovereign AI, and the interplay with antecedents like data sovereignty.² However, there remains a critical gap: analysis of stated goals for these initiatives and what the core pillars of sovereign AI are, distinct from related concepts.

The goals outlined by governments are varied and wide-reaching: some center on preserving values or culture;³ others focus on the privacy and protection of citizens’ data;⁴ some initiatives center on economic growth and others of national security;⁵ and finally, there is a set of concerns around the current global governance vacuum, where in the absence of global frameworks, AI companies must be held accountable through physical presence.

However, each of these stated goals require differing levels of indigenized capability and control and will have varied consequences as a result. This paper will:

1. Outline the various stated goals of sovereign AI, suggesting illustrative categories.
2. Hypothesize the reasons for the emergence of sovereign AI as a concept, with an analysis of industry buy-in for this concept.
3. Propose a streamlined definition of sovereign AI and suggest policy implications.

Defining sovereign AI

Sovereignty is defined as supreme authority within one’s territory, including a Westphalian state system.⁶Most components of this definition are, however, malleable. What constitutes one’s territory, for instance, needs not be rooted in a fixed point in time. The digitization—and by extension, the datafication—of social and political life has disrupted traditional notions of state sovereignty, which have long been tied to physical borders. Similarly, what constitutes supreme authority within a given territory is similarly varied. There are nonabsolute forms of authority, where sovereignty does not equate to authority over all matters within a territory. Examples include regional institutions like the European Union or specialized subnational systems like those once exercised in Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) or India’s Jammu and Kashmir, a union territory.

Roland Paris noted in 2020 the reemergence of older monarchic interpretations of sovereignty, which he identifies with Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, among others:⁷

Non-Westphalian understandings of sovereignty have also experienced a resurgence in recent years. Some portray sovereignty as the power of leaders to act outside the constraints of formal rules in both domestic and international politics, or extralegal sovereignty. Others characterize sovereign power as the quasi-mystical connection between a people and their leader, or organic sovereignty.

In the context of information and communication technologies (ICTs), sovereignty has similarly found new forms. This includes data sovereignty, which asserts a country’s legal jurisdiction over all data generated within its boundaries;⁸ and digital sovereignty, referring to the assertion of state control over information flows, whereby the state both defines and guarantees rights and duties in the digital realm.⁹Some data sovereignty laws, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulations and India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, have extraterritorial application, if data processing relates to a subject/principal within their jurisdiction.¹⁰

Sovereignty as a norm is therefore continually challenged, reshaped, and reinterpreted, contrary to beliefs about a post-Westphalian consensus. In the context of the recent artificial intelligence boom, sovereignty has taken on new modes and methods.

Sovereign AI has been defined variously as “a nation’s capabilities to produce artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data, workforce and business networks”;¹¹ “countries harnessing and processing their own data to build artificial intelligence domestically, rather than relying on external entities to do so”;¹² and as a concept “asserting that the development, deployment, and regulation of AI technologies should . . . align with national laws and priorities.¹³The most all-encompassing of these is the definition from the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition: “The capacity of a given country to understand, muster and develop AI systems, while retaining control, agency and, ultimately, self-determination over such systems.¹⁴

The EU AI Act (2024) and the African Union’s Continental AI Strategy (2024) both touch on aspects of AI sovereignty. The 2023 IGF (in Kyoto) saw the launch of the official outcome document of the inaugural UN IGF Data and AI Governance Coalition, centered on sovereign AI. The term shot into mainstream parlance after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang declared that every country needs sovereign AI at the World Governments Summit in Dubai in February 2024.¹⁵

It is well worth noting the context for Huang’s statement, which came at the tail end of an Asia tour where he visited Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and Taiwan.¹⁶ This tour culminated in the announcement of several collaborations in support of national large language models (LLMs), national supercomputers, and future telecommunications.

Nvidia reflects a broader trend in an industry which has supposedly embraced a rhetoric of digital sovereignty, in part attributable to regulatory pressures such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation,¹⁷ and now the EU AI Act. A speech at a European think tank summit in June 2020 by Microsoft President Brad Smith highlights this trend:

When I look at digital sovereignty initiatives, I see them addressing three goals. One is protection of personal privacy, a second is the preservation of national security, and a third is local economic opportunity. As a global technology player, it’s important for us to advance all three.¹⁸

Another example of major AI players embracing sovereign AI includes G42, an Emirati AI company, which boasts partnerships with Microsoft, OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle, IBM, and Mistral, among others.¹⁹ A G42-Politico report identifies an overlap between data sovereignty and sovereign AI, asserting there is an ideal level of data sovereignty, balanced against global coordinated approaches, which can help realize the economic and security benefits of localization.²⁰

Current understandings of sovereign AI both extend the core components of data and digital sovereignty to AI and add a value alignment component. In addition to the loose interpretation of territoriality, and the supreme authority of national law over cyberspace, statements about sovereign AI encapsulate cultural preservation and (subjective) ethics. Dr. Leslie Teo, senior director of AI products at AI Singapore, said in the context of the launch of SEA-LION, an LLM for Southeast Asia languages, “[Western] LLMs have a very particular West Coast American bias—they are very woke.”²¹ The African Union’s Continental AI Strategy similarly notes that “external influence from AI technologies developed outside Africa may undermine national sovereignty, Pan-Africanism values and civil liberties.”²²

However, sovereign AI must not be conflated with individual rights. While some aspects of sovereign AI, including value alignment and legality, may overlap with autonomy and self-determination, there is no simple cause-effect relationship. An actionable and useful definition of sovereign AI must therefore avoid category errors and capture key distinctions from its antecedent terms.

The core components of sovereign AI, recognizing the definition of sovereignty are:

1. Legality²³: The design, development, and deployment of AI should adhere to any applicable laws and regulations.
2. Economic competitiveness: The development and deployment of AI should create value for the host economy. Some sovereign AI initiatives further require the creation or bolstering of a national AI industrial ecosystem.
3. National security: AI applications pertaining to critical infrastructure, military, and other functions critical for national security require additional safeguards against disruption.
4. Value alignment: Due to anticipated wide and deep applications of AI, models should be aligned with national or regional political and constitutional values.

Sovereign AI is therefore a model of AI development and deployment where inputs adhere to a state or political union’s laws and institutional frameworks, and outputs are contextually relevant, secure, and create value for the economy.

Note that this definition is not exclusionary: Countries can turn to external partners to support their sovereign AI efforts if these partnerships adhere to the four core components mentioned above. This definition also recognizes the contemporary evolution of territoriality, such as the fact that digital sovereignty regulations have extraterritorial application with “territory” being expanded to include the digital footprint of populace. Finally, given that sovereignty is an organizing principle for states, not individuals or communities, it concretizes the abstract notion of value alignment by framing it as a constitutional and political concept.

Mapping sovereign AI initiatives

Below is an illustrative list of sovereign AI initiatives.

Conclusion

Sovereign AI as a phenomenon is going to gain momentum, as national governments find “wholesale” AI offerings unsuited to their needs. AI, especially general- purpose AI, requires sizable investments or innovative new methods of data collection, compute (mainly GPUs), related energy infrastructure, and workflow management.

An optimal blend of localization of AI inputs and regulation of outputs for each country could help each one to realize its outlined goals for sovereign AI. In other words, the four components of sovereign AI outlined in this paper—legality, economic competitiveness, national security, and value alignment—will necessarily involve different strategies, with governments weighing each one differently. US AI sovereignty strongly centers on maintaining the country’s leadership as a key driver of American prosperity, a prioritization that has not changed with the change in administration in 2025. Value alignment also holds varied meanings, with some, like the African Union strategy, grounding values in an anti-neocolonial framing, while others like Taiwan’s placing an emphasis on democratic values in opposition to mainland China.

Finally, factors will influence the possibilities of sovereign AI including infrastructure constraints, such as energy production capacity and the availability of water, and trust, both in governments as legitimate arbiters of people’s interests and in industry’s commitment to social good. Nevertheless, for now, the operative word in the future of AI appears to be sovereign.

Trisha Ray is an associate director and resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center.

GeoTech Cues Jul 26, 2024

The sovereignty trap

By Konstantinos Komaitis, Esteban Ponce de León, Kenton Thibaut, Trisha Ray, Kevin Klyman

When sovereignty is invoked in digital contexts without an understanding of the broader political environment, several traps can be triggered.

Artificial Intelligence Digital Policy

New Atlanticist Feb 13, 2025

At the Paris AI Action Summit, the Global South rises

By Trisha Ray

The summit reflected a growing consensus that AI’s future must be both innovative and rooted in shared prosperity.

Artificial Intelligence Europe & Eurasia

New Atlanticist Feb 4, 2025

Five AI management strategies—and how they could shape the future

By Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall

To ensure the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) are realized while minimizing the anticipated evils, it’s important to understand the different ways to approach AI governance.

Artificial Intelligence Technology & Innovation

The GeoTech Center champions positive paths forward that societies can pursue to ensure new technologies and data empower people, prosperity, and peace.

Learn more

The post Sovereign remedies: Between AI autonomy and control appeared first on Atlantic Council.

DeepSeek’s breakthrough has made the West reflect on its artificial intelligence (AI) strategies, specifically regarding cost and efficiency. But the West must also urgently consider what DeepSeek’s R1 model means for the future of democracy in the AI era.

That is because the R1 model shows how China has taken the lead in open-source AI: systems that are made available to users to use, study, modify, and share the tool’s components, from its codes to its datasets, at least according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), a California-based nonprofit. While there are varying definitions of open-source, its application for AI has immense potential, as it can encourage greater innovation among developers and empower individuals and communities to create AI-driven solutions in sectors such as education, healthcare, and finance. The technology, ultimately, accelerates economic growth.

However, according to reports, R1 appears to censor and withhold information from users. Thus, democracies not only risk the loss of the AI technological battle; they also risk falling behind in the race to govern AI and could fail to ensure that democratic AI proliferates more widely than systems championed by authoritarians.

Therefore, the United States must work with its democratic allies, particularly the European Union (EU), to set global standards for open-source AI. Both powers should leverage existing legislative tools to initiate an open-source governance framework. Such an effort would require officially adopting a definition of open-source AI (such as OSI’s) to increase governance effectiveness. After that, the United States and EU should accelerate efforts to ensure democratic values are embedded in open-source AI models, paving the way for an AI future that is more open, transparent, and empowering.

How China overtook the lead

Part of DeepSeek’s success can be understood by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) showing signs of incorporating the norm-building of open-source AI into its legal framework. In April 2024, the Model AI Law—a multi-year expert draft led by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is influential in the country’s lawmaking process—laid out China’s support for an open-source AI ecosystem. Article 19 states that the CCP “promotes construction of the open source ecosystem” and “supports relevant entities in building or operating open source platforms, open source communities, and open source projects.” It encourages companies to make “software source code, hardware designs, and application services publicly available” to foster industry sharing and collaboration. The draft also highlights reducing or removing legal liability for the provision of open-source AI models, providing that individuals and organizations have established a governance system compliant with national standards and have taken corresponding safety measures. Such legal liability would have held developers accountable for infringing the rights of citizens. This is a notable contrast to China’s past laws governing AI that explicitly stated the goal of protecting those rights. The specific provisions in the Model AI Law, albeit a draft, shouldn’t be overlooked, as they essentially serve as a blueprint of how open-source AI is deployed in the country and what China’s models exported globally would look like.

Furthermore, the AI Safety Governance Framework, a document that China aims to use as a guide to “promote international collaboration on AI safety governance at a global level,” echoes the country’s assertiveness on open-source AI. The document was drafted by China’s National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity, a body working with the Cyberspace Administration of China, whose cybersecurity standard practice guidelines were adopted by CCP in September 2024. The framework reads, “We should promote knowledge sharing in AI, make AI technologies available to the public under open-source terms, and jointly develop AI chips, frameworks, and software.” Appearing in a document meant for global stakeholders, the statement reflects China’s ambition to lead in this area as an advocate.

What about the United States and EU?

In the United States, advocates have touted the benefits of open source for some time, and AI industry leaders have called for the United States to focus more on open-source AI. For example, Mark Zuckerberg launched the open-source model Llama 3.1 last year, and in doing so, he argued that open-source “represents the world’s best shot” at creating “economic opportunity and security for everyone.”

Despite this advocacy, the United States has not established any law to promote open-source AI. A US senator did introduce a bill in 2023 calling for building a framework for open-source software security, but the bill has not progressed since then. Last year, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration published a report on dual-use AI foundation models with open weights (meaning the models are available for use, but are not fully open source). It advised the government to more deeply monitor the risks of open-weight foundation models in order to determine appropriate restrictions for them. The Biden administration’s final AI regulatory framework was friendlier to open models: It set restrictions for the most advanced closed-weight models while excluding open-weight ones.

The future of open-source models remains unclear. US President Donald Trump has not yet created any guidance for open-source AI. So far, he has repealed Biden’s AI executive order, but the executive order that replaced it has not outlined any initiative that guides the development of open-source AI. Overall, the United States has been overly focused on playing defense by developing highly capable models while working to prevent adversaries from accessing them, without considering the wider global reach of those models.

Since unveiling the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU has established itself as a regulatory powerhouse in the global digital economy. Across the board, countries and global companies have adopted EU compliance frameworks for the digital economy, including the AI Act. However, the EU’s effort on open-source AI is lacking. Although Article 2 of the AI Act briefly mentions open-source AI as an exemption from regulation, the actual impact seems minor. The exemption is even absent for commercial-purpose models.

In other EU guidance documents, the same paradox can be found. The latest General-Purpose AI Code of Practice published in March 2025 acknowledged how open-source models have a positive impact on the development of safe, human-centric, and trustworthy AI. However, there is no meaningful elaboration promoting the development and use of open-source AI models. Even in the EU Competitiveness Compass—a framework targeting overregulation, regulatory complexity, and strategic competitiveness in AI—“open source” is absent.

The EU’s cautious approach to regulating open-source AI stems from the challenge of defining it. Open-source AI is different from traditional open-source software in that it includes pre-trained AI models rather than simply source code. And, of course, the definition from OSI has not yet been acknowledged in the international legal community. The debate over what constitutes open-source AI creates legal uncertainty that the EU is likely uncomfortable to accept. Yet the real driver of inactivity lies deeper. The EU’s regulatory successes, like GDPR, make the Commission wary of exemptions that could weaken its global influence over a technology still so poorly defined. This is a gamble Brussels has, so far, had no incentive to take.

The new power imbalance in AI geopolitics 

China’s push to become technologically self-sufficient, a push which has included solidifying open-source AI strategies, is partly motivated by US export controls on advanced computing and semiconductors dating back at least to 2018. These measures stemmed from US concerns about national security, economic security, and intellectual property, while China’s countermeasures also reflect the broader strategic competition in technological superiority between both countries. The EU, on the other hand, asserts itself in the race by setting the global norms of protecting fundamental rights and a host of democratic values such as fairness and redistribution, which ultimately have shaped the policies of leading global technology companies.

By positioning itself as a leader in open-source AI, China has turned the export and policy challenge into an opportunity to sell its version of AI to the world. The rise of DeepSeek, along with other domestic rival companies such as Alibaba, is shifting the pendulum by reducing the world’s appetite for closed AI models. DeepSeek has released smaller models with fewer parameters for less powerful devices. AI development platform Hugging Face has started replicating DeepSeek-R1’s training process to enhance its models’ performance in reinforcement learning. Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta have embraced model distillation, a technique that drew much attention with the DeepSeek breakthrough. China has advanced the conversation around openness, with the United States adapting to the discourse for the first time and the EU being trapped in legal inertia, leaving a power imbalance in open-source AI.

China is offering a concerning version of open-source AI. The CCP strategically deploys a “two-track” system that allows greater openness for AI firms while limiting information and expression for public-facing models. Its openness is marked by the country’s historical pattern that restricts the architecture of a model, such as requiring the input and output to align with China’s values and a positive national image. Even in its global-facing AI Safety Governance Framework (in which Chinese authorities embrace open-source AI), the CCP says that AI-generated content poses threats to ideological security, hinting at the CCP’s limited acceptance of freedom of speech and thought.

Without a comprehensive framework based on the protection of democracy and fundamental rights, the world could see China’s more restrictive open-source AI models reproduced widely. Autocrats and nonstate entities worldwide can build on them to censor information and expression while touting that they are promoting accessibility. Simply focusing on the technological performance of China is not sufficient. Instead, democracies should respond by leading with democratic governance.

Transatlantic cooperation is the next step

The United States and EU should consider open-source diplomacy, advancing the sharing of capable AI models across the globe. In doing so, they should create a unified governance framework and work toward shaping a democratic AI future by forming a transatlantic working group on open-source AI. Existing structures, including the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), can serve as a vehicle. But it’s essential that technology companies and experts from both sides of the Atlantic are included in the framework development process.

Second, the United States and EU should, through funding academic institutions and supporting startups, promote the development of open-source AI models that align with democratic values. Such models, free from censorship and security threats, would set a powerful contrast to the Chinese models. To promote such models, the United States and EU will need to recognize that the benefits of such models outweigh the risks in the broader picture. Similarly, the EU must also continue leveraging its regulatory advantage; it must also be more decisive about governing open-source AI, even if it means embracing some uncertainty about its legal definition, in order to outpace China’s momentum.

The United States and EU may currently have a rocky relationship. However, US-EU collaboration rather than competition is crucial with China’s ascendence in open-source AI. To take back leadership in this pivotal arena, the United States and European Union must launch a transatlantic initiative on open-source AI that employs forward-thinking policy, research, and innovation in setting the global standard for a rights-respecting, transparent, and creative AI future.

Ryan Pan is a project assistant at the Atlantic Council GeoTech Center.

Kolja Verhage is a senior manager of AI governance and digital regulations at Deloitte.

The views reflected in the article are the author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employers.

GeoTech Cues Feb 4, 2025

Did DeepSeek just trigger a paradigm shift?

By Ryan Arant, Newton Howard

The release of DeepSeek’s AI model may have far-reaching implications for global investment trends, regulatory strategies, and the broader AI industry.

Artificial Intelligence Digital Policy

Sinographs Jan 29, 2025

Is DeepSeek a proof of concept?

By Jessie Yin

Understanding how Deepseek emerged from China’s innovation landscape can better equip the US to confront China’s ambitions for global technology leadership.

Artificial Intelligence China

New Atlanticist Jan 28, 2025

What DeepSeek’s breakthrough says (and doesn’t say) about the ‘AI race’ with China

By Kenton Thibaut

DeepSeek’s achievement has not exactly undermined the United States’ export control strategy, but it does bring up important questions about the broader US strategy on AI.

Artificial Intelligence China

The GeoTech Center champions positive paths forward that societies can pursue to ensure new technologies and data empower people, prosperity, and peace.

Learn more

The post DeepSeek shows the US and EU the costs of failing to govern AI appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Misreading Putin’s aims at this pivotal moment carries risks that could cost the United States in the long term and create a new security crisis in Europe. For the United States, one risk is that the Russian president may, after wringing steep concessions from negotiations, agree to a deal that he has no intention of upholding. Time and again, history has warned against equating concession to Russian demands with a step toward lasting peace. Peace with Russia will require more than just a handshake.

Perhaps the most important starting point for Trump’s negotiations is recognizing this: Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine has never been simply about where to draw borders. Moscow’s aggression is motivated more by ideology and regime security than a desire to acquire a bit more land. Going forward, US negotiations must understand this larger picture of what motivates Russia, as it is critical for constructing a durable and lasting peace.

Putin’s ‘Russian world’

For years, the Kremlin has promoted the idea of a “Russian World,” whose “borders do not end anywhere.” It is this ideology that informs Russia’s desire to swallow Ukraine whole and menace Europe. The idea of Ukraine joining the prosperous, democratic club of nations threatens the grip of the Russian government’s imperial, kleptocratic despotism. Today, Russia is a mafia-like state in large part held together by cruelty and fueled by a reservoir of lies and corruption. In many disturbing ways, Russia’s conduct in its war against Ukraine emulates the way its leaders have behaved within their own territory. Russia has abducted thousands of Ukrainian children, killed scores of noncombatants, and adopted military tactics that show little regard for the lives of its own soldiers.

Russia has justified its aggression by touting the supposed “historical unity” of Slavic nations. Putin’s motivation for rule-breaking seems to stem from a desire to return to a more brutish past, when violent spheres of influence, rather than international norms and laws, dictated the terms of occupation for millions of people in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, and the Baltic states.

In Russia, foreign policy is often a “tool” of domestic policy, as these civilizational claims better justify Putin’s internal repression at home. For the Russian president, his country’s capacity to menace Europe assists his goal of shaping the Russian populace. Conformity, repression, and nationalism for Russia at home is just as critical to cementing Putin’s power as events unfolding outside Russia’s borders. Putin must continually demonstrate to his own population that Ukraine’s democratic aspirations are hopeless. Otherwise, he seems to fear uprisings of a similar caliber to those in Georgia in 2024, Belarus in 2020, or Ukraine in 2014, which could threaten his kleptocratic grip on power.

Lessons from the Minsk agreements

Throughout the negotiation process, Russia’s war aims are unlikely to change. Putin wants to ensure Ukraine is ungovernable and weak, preventing it from fully integrating with the West and becoming a symbol of self-determination on Russia’s doorstep. Neither latent Russian imperialism nor the Kremlin’s fear of “color revolutions” will go away if the United States chooses to appease Russia.

Stark warnings from top US diplomats and former Russian officials alike emphasize that dealmaking with Putin will be extraordinarily challenging and fraught with the risk of deception. In 2019, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected largely on the issue of ending the war with Russia in the Donbas and resisting the slide back into the vortex of Moscow’s dystopian melodrama. The region was still simmering from Russia’s unprovoked attacks in the Donbas and Crimea in 2014, after the Ukrainian people ousted its Russia-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych, and attempted to look toward Europe.

The 2019 agreements between Russia and Ukraine, which Zelenskyy pursued, failed because they tried to paper over an irreconcilable clash of interests. Russia is on a quest for permanent imperial control of Ukraine, and Ukraine wants to be a democratic sovereign state. As a result, Russia repeatedly broke cease-fire agreements it had signed, and there is no indication, short of credible deterrence, that Russia will honor future agreements.

As Russia’s political levers of control over Ukraine diminished in the years following Yanukovych’s ouster, the Kremlin was emboldened to use larger-scale violence to subdue its neighbor in 2022. Putin’s aims were still to ensure that the secure, sovereign, peaceful, rules-based, democratic, European way of life couldn’t infect his “Russian World.”

In both the Minsk agreements and the lead-up to the full-scale February 2022 invasion, Russian officials never discussed the parameters of arms control or the security of Russia’s pre-existing borders, according to reports. This suggests that they were never really interested in nonviolent remediation measures for their so-called “security concerns.”

Ukraine cannot end Russian aggression by signing a treaty that creates a new border demarcation line. Instead, Ukraine and its partners must reestablish credible deterrence through security guarantees that prevent destabilizing Russian aggression. In preparing for a cessation of hostilities, the United States, as Ukraine’s military partner, should prioritize engaging Ukraine and Europe, rather than focusing on appeasing a lawless, reckless Russian Federation.

Ukrainians, alongside their Eastern European neighbors, warn that Russia’s motives for launching its invasion indicate wider imperial ambitions beyond Ukraine. Ignoring this perspective risks European security, US interests, and global stability. Only security guarantees—or as Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė recently put it, only negotiations with a “gun on the table”—will give Russia pause.

Zak Schneider is a young global professional with the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

The post Peace requires more than a handshake: Misreading Russia’s war aims will prolong Putin’s aggression appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Speaking with Kelly Evans on CNBC’s The Exchange as the meeting transpired, I said that it was “highest-level geopolitics as reality TV.” It all would have been so very entertaining, if the stakes weren’t of generational importance. That seemed to have been lost in the room where it happened. 

Others will write about how Zelenskyy should respond now and what mistakes he, Trump, and Vance might have made. It’s uncertain now whether the Ukraine-US link is irrevocably broken (I hope not) and whether Kyiv and Washington can find their way back to a critical minerals deal that had been mostly negotiated (I hope so).

As British Prime Minister Keir Starmer convenes eighteen European leaders in London on Sunday, the larger and more significant question, just forty days and forty nights (why not pick a biblical framing?) into Trump 2.0, is this: What does the Oval Office bust-up tell us about what pundits already are framing as the Trump World Order? We all sense something has dramatically changed in Trump’s transformation of how the United States views its global role. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s move this weekend to order up to three thousand additional troops to the US southern border, including twenty-ton Stryker combat vehicles, provides further evidence, but of what exactly?

Since the inauguration

Those paid to think great thoughts are at pains to describe what’s unfolding in some understood analytical construct.

I’m reluctant to do so myself yet, as I don’t think Trump himself thinks in a deeply philosophical way about global order. It’s also far from certain that he can sustain his current course of domestic disruption and international change.

Conversations I had this week with three significant Trump campaign donors, who understandably spoke anonymously, underscored a growing concern among Republican ranks about the early chaos they discern in the administration’s actions.

They all mentioned how optimistic they had been a month ago, ready to do anything to support Trump’s pro-growth and deregulatory agenda. Now, they told me, they and other business leaders are slowing investments, rethinking the timing of acquisitions and initial public offerings, and withholding public support. They are also expressing concern to GOP senators and House members and individuals close to Trump.

They worry about federal layoffs, some with national-security consequences, which could build an anti-Trump constituency among hard-working, patriotic, effective federal workers. They also are concerned about Trump’s announced tariffs and threats of future ones, which they say have already driven up their costs and fueled inflation. And they don’t believe Trump’s advisers have yet dared to share with him the extent of the economic harm such policies could cause.

Markets, which are said to be Trump’s scorecard, are skittish. In February, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 fell by around 2 percent, while the Nasdaq Composite lost 4 percent. In contrast, European markets rose moderately in February, and, following a surge of optimism about Chinese startup DeepSeek’s artificial intelligence model, the Hang Seng Index ended the month up more than 13 percent.

“Wouldn’t it be ironic if the 2025 Trump trade was an anti-Trump trade, buying stocks in the places President Trump targets?” wrote James Mackintosh in the Wall Street Journal on Friday. “This year, Canadian, Colombian, Mexican, European, and Chinese technology stocks are all outpacing the S&P 500, the dollar is down and the Magnificent Seven big tech companies—five of whose CEOs stood behind the president at his inauguration—have stopped leading the US market up and turned into laggards.”

Trump World Order 101

As I wrote from Dubai in mid-February, geopolitics traditionally has been about three-dimensional chessboards and calculated moves by skilled statesman and diplomats, who achieve sometimes marginal and sometimes significant gains. This approach was embodied by long-time (and now late) Atlantic Council board members Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

Today, that chessboard is toppled, and readers should be wary of anyone who claims to be certain where the pieces will land. But with that warning, here are some initial musings about the Trump World Order worth considering as the future takes shape. 

Writing in Foreign Policy, author and thinker Robert D. Kaplan calls Trump “ahistorical,” ready to cast off the long-accepted foreign policy traditions, forged through World War II and its aftermath, that made the United States the world’s preeminent power.

The United States was a country with leaders, by and large, ready to make sacrifices, however imperfectly, that they hoped would be for the sake of a better world. Most significantly, writes Kaplan, US leaders were out to “achieve the Wilsonian ideal of establishing a bastion of freedom and democracy in a large part of the European continent.”

Trump is “unappreciative of the postwar saga of the West,” Kaplan writes, and thus the US president has no intellectual starting point that would lead him to embrace, emotionally or intellectually, Zelenskyy’s existential battle for freedom, which is so consistent with what the United States has supported for the past eighty years.

Writes Kaplan: “NATO is a mere acronym to him, not a connotation of humankind’s largest ever military alliance, which emerged out of the struggle against Nazi fascism.”

At a press conference this past week that foreshadowed the Zelenskyy showdown, Trump himself proudly boasted, “My administration is making a decisive break with the foreign policy values of the past administration and, frankly, the past.”

So, if that past doesn’t provide his moorings, what does?

Alex Younger, the former chief of British foreign intelligence service MI6, said in a much-noticed exchange last week on BBC’s Newsnight, “We are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions. They are going to be determined by strongmen and deals.” 

Younger, quoted in Ishaan Tharoor’s compelling Washington Post column, notes that that’s a mindset Trump shares with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

If you agree with Younger, then it’s easier to fathom why the Trump administration so easily set aside all post–World War II tradition at the United Nations last Monday by voting alongside Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and, as Tharoor puts it, “a clutch of West African juntas.” The United States joined this unsavory group in voting against a resolution condemning Russian aggression on the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal, unprovoked war on Ukraine.

The Wilson Center’s Michael Kimmage, a historian and Russia scholar, writes in the newest issue of Foreign Affairs: “In this geopolitical environment, the already tenuous idea of ‘the West’ will recede even further—and consequently, so will the status of Europe, which in the post–Cold War era had been Washington’s partner in representing ‘the Western world.’” 

Like Younger, Kimmage sees the Trump World Order as a throwback favoring nationalist strongmen, like Putin, Xi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Zelenskyy, by this measure, doesn’t make the Trump table, despite his wartime heroics. This means that the Ukrainian president can be dismissed, as he was by Trump on Friday, as a poker player without the right cards.  

“They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums,” writes Kimmage. “They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule.”

One helpful recent reference Trump has made to history has been his admiration for William McKinley, the twenty-fifth US president, who served from 1897 until his assassination in 1901. Trump appears to admire this little-remembered president for his realignment of the Republican Party, his economic nationalism (read: tariffs), and his territorial expansion, including the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Hawaii.

If Ukraine fails

Back at the World Economic Forum, in the first days of the Trump administration, I observed that Trump was as much a symptom as a driver of our times. The post–Cold War period, I wrote, is giving way to “global fragmentation, protectionist trends, greater instability (including wars in Europe and the Middle East), and a rising tide of government involvement in picking winners and losers.” As Nir Bar Dea, CEO of Bridgewater Associates, told me then, “What people in Davos understand is that, today, what’s in this one person’s mind will be massively important.”

With every new day in his second administration, Trump becomes less symptom and more driver. Friday morning, I was ready to declare on CNBC a stunning reversal of Ukraine-US relations, from Trump’s declaring Zelenskyy a “dictator” and embracing the murderous autocrat Putin to Trump’s signing a long-term investment in a free Ukraine’s future. The Atlantic Council’s John Herbst, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, shared that assessment.

Was that wishful thinking?

I’m not ready yet to join the parade of pundits declaring the demise of Ukraine, the end of the transatlantic alliance, or the beginning of an American strongman. I’m not ready to accept a United States that would abandon Ukraine in its existential struggle, which is as much in the United States’ interests as it is in Ukraine’s.

What’s clear to me, however, is that it’s time for those around Trump who believe in Ukraine and in the United States’ transatlantic mission to argue their case strongly, before defeatist punditry becomes unfortunate reality. 

The Wall Street Journal, in a powerful lead editorial on Saturday, wrote that the point of what it called the “Oval Office Spectacle” was supposed to have been “progress toward an honorable peace for Ukraine, and in the event the winner was Russia’s Vladimir Putin.” Continued the editorial board, “Turning Ukraine over to Mr. Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr. Trump, too.”

A free Ukraine has always been about more than Ukraine, just as a free West Berlin was always about more than Germany during the Cold War. If Ukraine fails, everything the United States achieved through World War II and the Cold War to create a freer, more prosperous, more secure, and more democratic world is in jeopardy. 

One can only hope that the next episode in this geopolitical reality show produces a plot twist that puts the United States, the transatlantic community, and a free Ukraine back on course.

Trump loves to confound critics who underestimate him. This is still his script to write. Here’s hoping the “ahistorical” president seizes the historic moment.

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post Zelenskyy and Europe confront the first contours of the Trump World Order appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Klamberg mentioned in Stockholm Center on Global Governance on his discussion between ICC and national courts appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Charai in National Interest: Trump and his three musketeers—a new US-Russia approach to Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In hindsight, it is now clear that the threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine could have been eliminated almost immediately. As soon as Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, Ukraine could have declared war and ordered its military to defend the peninsula. Putting NATO forces on alert would have further cooled the heads of the more hawkish Russian officials in the Kremlin.

This did not happen. Instead, the international community stood by and watched the Russian invasion unfold, while Ukraine’s Western partners advocated passivity and cautioned Kyiv against doing anything that might risk provoking Putin. The opportunity to end Russia’s invasion in the early stages was therefore missed, paving the way for a series of further Kremlin escalations that ultimately led to the full-scale invasion of 2022.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Over the past eleven years, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has done serious damage to the foundations of the international security system. It has undermined the inviolability of international borders that was first established in the aftermath of World War II. Russia’s invasion has also seriously discredited the cause of nuclear disarmament, with Ukraine’s 1994 decision to surrender its vast nuclear arsenal now widely recognized as one of the costliest mistakes in modern history.

Given the global implications of any negotiated settlement reached over Russia’s war in Ukraine, it is vital that the entire peace process focus on Russia’s existing international commitments. These include the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and Moscow’s recognition of Ukraine’s 1991 borders. After all, what is the point of signing any new treaties with Russia if Moscow refuses to acknowledge or adhere to the terms of the many agreements and documents it has previously signed?

At stake is the credibility of the entire treaty system governing international relations, such as the 1969 Vienna Convention. Known as the “treaty on treaties,” the Vienna Convention sets out clear guidelines for how international treaties should be drafted, defined, amended, and interpreted. Russia’s invasion poses a similarly grave threat to the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which confirmed the principle of territorial integrity.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

It is also important that the peace process specifically address the issue of nuclear non-proliferation. By giving up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, Ukraine rendered an unparalleled service to the cause of global security. Over the past three decades, this unilateral Ukrainian step in support of nuclear non-proliferation has translated into savings worth trillions of dollars for countries around the world.

Unfortunately, however, the security commitments that Ukraine believed it had received in the Budapest Memorandum have proved worthless. Instead, Russia has launched the largest European invasion since World War II, bringing untold death and devastation to Ukraine.

Adding insult to injury, the Kremlin has used nuclear blackmail against non-nuclear Ukraine as a tool to enable the invasion and deter the West from providing Kyiv with desperately needed military aid. Understandably, many in Ukraine now feel they have every right to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty unless the country is able to obtain genuine security guarantees.

A bad peace deal will compound the damage that Russia’s invasion has already done to the current international security architecture. It would legitimize international aggression and set a dangerous precedent that could have catastrophic consequences for global stability. In order to avoid this, Western leaders should return to Russia’s existing international treaty obligations with regard to the sanctity of borders and the use of force.

Crucially, Ukraine must also receive credible long-term security guarantees that can prevent any repeat of the current Russian invasion in the years to come. Failure to do so will set the stage for a new era of geopolitical lawlessness that will be felt far beyond the violated borders of Ukraine.

Ihor Smeshko is a Ukrainian politician and former head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence and Security Service.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jan 15, 2025

Appeasement will only fuel Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine

By Anastasiia Marushevska

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is an old-fashioned colonial war rooted in centuries of Russian imperial history that cannot be ended by limited territorial concessions or other attempts at appeasement, writes Anastasiia Marushevska.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Dec 19, 2024

Five things Russia’s invasion has taught the world about Ukraine

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has thrust the country into the global spotlight and transformed international perceptions of Ukraine in ways that will resonate for decades to come, writes Peter Dickinson.

Defense Technologies Disinformation

UkraineAlert Feb 12, 2025

Europe must prepare to defend itself in an increasingly multipolar world

By Mykola Bielieskov

With the United States looking to pivot away from Europe to Asia and a revisionist Russia openly embracing an expansionist agenda, European leaders must prepare to defend themselves in an increasingly multipolar world, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post A Putin-friendly peace deal would be disastrous for global security appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Trump’s plans and goals to end many of the traditional domestic and global norms we’ve experienced in the post-World War II period were never a secret. And Tuesday night’s policy declaration is not part of a strategic master plan to get Hamas to agree to a deal with better terms for Israel and the United States. Nor is it a strategy to cajole Egypt or Jordan to be more accommodating to US preferences in the region, as some commentators have assessed.

The plan the president announced is about remaking the world and US interests in it in a fundamental way. Does the president truly believe his plan can ultimately be executed? Maybe, maybe not. If it cannot, then it could indeed serve as a starting point for negotiations over Gaza with Arab states, making the result the same regardless of whether he intended the plan to be a serious proposal or not.

But even if his plan is a nonstarter, which it almost certainly is, it’s not because that was the intent all along. Rather, it is because he doesn’t fully understand, or perhaps care, about the history of the region, the complexities of intra-Palestinian relationships, the potential implications for US allies, or, most importantly, the emotional connection most people have to their home.

Without those drivers influencing his views, the president’s proposal makes strategic sense and is not actually contradictory to his fundamental goal to end extensive US involvement in the Middle East. From his perspective, the only way to reduce long-term US financial obligations in the Middle East, which are largely tied up in security support, is to gut Gaza and start over from the ground up. If the United States doesn’t take the lead in doing that, then the long-term costs associated with having to protect Israel, for example, will continue indefinitely. A single Iron Dome interceptor missile, for instance, costs upwards of fifty thousand dollars, for which the United States provides most of the financing. And the United States gives over $1.4 billion annually in mostly security aid to both Jordan and Egypt.

For the president, a US “take over” of Gaza must appear to be the best way to incubate a region of peace, eventually allowing security costs to be significantly reduced. And while he proposed on Tuesday to do so with US efforts on the ground, the White House press secretary said today that Trump’s statement “does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort.” The president probably expects what he called “neighboring countries of great wealth”—almost certainly a reference to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and potentially Kuwait—to pay for some or all of it. Either way, if the United States puts in the time to rebuild Gaza, the president expects it to reap much of the economic benefit once its capacity to be, as he said, “the Riviera of the Middle East” is achieved.   

The president might genuinely view his proposal in humanitarian terms, as National Security Advisor Michael Waltz highlighted, seeking for Gazans to be moved to third countries as a means to ultimately help them. The result, however, is a distinction without a difference, both legally and politically: forced displacement is a violation of international law—and Trump does not seem to care about international laws or norms. 

A disturbing deal for regional leaders

When Trump announced his plan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not have been aware it was coming. But ever the consummate politician, he paid credence to Trump without endorsing it during the press conference, saying that Trump “has a different idea, and I think it’s worth paying attention to this.” The reality is that implementing the plan would be a disaster for Netanyahu and Israel, given the likely destabilizing impact it would have on the region.

Nor would it be any better for other US regional partners and allies. Jordanian and Egyptian leaders’ opposition to relocating any Gazans to their countries is not just a matter of international law but of domestic stability. For both Amman and Cairo, the implications of doing so are likely to be viewed in existential terms. Such a move could be construed as endorsing the desire of those in Israel who oppose a Palestinian state. That is a grave concern for the leaders, especially in Jordan, where more than half of the population is of Palestinian descent.

And both Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II would be equally concerned that some of those displaced are members of Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. These people would then become the responsibility of Egypt and Jordan to control, creating a near certainty that the terrorist groups would then seek to attack Cairo and Amman, as well. A destabilized Jordan and Egypt, Netanyahu certainly understands, would increase instability in the Levant, and with it threats to Israel.

But even worse for Israel, this project would set back Israeli and US relations with Gulf states. Tuesday night, the president said, “And I really believe that many countries will soon be joining this amazing peace and economic development transaction.” But for Riyadh, which immediately responded by highlighting that it will not normalize ties with Israel without a two-state solution, the displacement of the Palestinian population from Gaza at the behest of the United States would probably be a bridge too far. This is also true for Abu Dhabi, which has been heralded by Trump for signing the Abraham Accords. Since the attacks on October 7, 2023, both Saudi and Emirati populations have been relatively less vocal than some of their Arab brethren about the conflict. That could change. Even monarchies must be responsive at times to their people. Instead of advancing peace, the expulsion of Gazans would likely undermine the accords and jeopardize Riyadh’s willingness to consider joining them before a Palestinian state is formed.

It’s almost impossible to imagine Trump’s plan for Gaza coming to fruition. But it would be a mistake to think that he was anything but serious with the proposal he laid out Tuesday night. Doing so risks underestimating how committed he will be for the next forty-seven-and-a-half months to changing the US role not just in the Middle East, but in the world.

Jonathan Panikoff is the director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the US National Intelligence Council.

The post Trump is serious about shaking up the Middle East, even if his Gaza plan isn’t appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: If Trump is trying to pressure Hamas, it’s unlikely to work

Jonathan Panikoff: Trump is serious about shaking up the Middle East, even if his Gaza plan isn’t

Thomas Warrick: Trump has pushed the US further ahead on Gaza in a month than Biden ever did

Jennifer Gavito: It’s a concept without a plan—made all the more difficult by dismantling USAID

Arwa Damon: The way to avoid “history repeating itself” is not to repeat the core cause

Alex Plitsas: The reality of “owning” Gaza would carry large costs and risks—including an armed insurgency

If Trump is trying to pressure Hamas, it’s unlikely to work

Though many were extremely taken aback by Trump’s remarks alongside Netanyahu, a few rushed to view them through the prism of Trump’s hardball negotiation style. By setting the goalpost in such an extreme territory, Trump might then gradually negotiate down and obtain favorable conditions for whatever policy he hopes to implement between Israel and Gaza. 

However, what remains puzzling in this equation is who the president might be trying to influence with such outlandish and extreme declarations that violate decades of established US policy toward the Middle East, international humanitarian law, and diplomatic norms. 

It is well understood that Jordan and Egypt are in no position to help facilitate the forced or even voluntary removal of more than two million Gazans out of the coastal enclave and into their respective territories. Even if those countries wanted to acquiesce to the president’s blackmail, the US foreign aid that they receive is insufficient to justify the geopolitical, economic, security, and social risks and implications such a move would entail. Clearly, the president is not trying to pressure Israel or its leadership, represented by Netanyahu, who received a hero’s welcome in Washington as the first foreign leader to visit the White House in Trump’s second term. That leaves the Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, as the likely party that Trump was trying to pressure with his unprecedented declarations on Tuesday. 

Contextually, Netanyahu’s visit comes on the heels of the impending negotiations to begin the second phase of the cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. Netanyahu is involving his close confidant, Ron Dermer, instead of Mossad’s head, David Barnea, as the negotiations are expected to be political and less technical. The expected goal is to tie the implementation of the second phase with a political horizon that displaces Hamas as the sole authority in Gaza and prevents the terror group from remaining in power after the withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the decimated Palestinian strip. 

It is unclear how these threats can credibly force Hamas to moderate and shift its position vis-à-vis the negotiations. It’s also unclear whether the group is susceptible to threats of US military action against the territory as a way to induce behavioral change. Hamas has unleashed the most destructive chapter in Palestinian contemporary history upon the people of Gaza, and it is still ruthlessly acting as if it will enjoy the spoils of war, including the full reconstruction of the territory. Although the entire world, including Arab and Muslim nations, has made it clear that there will be no reconstruction of Gaza while Hamas remains in complete control (and for good reason), Hamas has yet to signal that it is willing to give up anything in order to facilitate Gaza’s recovery. 

Trump’s comments are extraordinarily harmful to the prospects of regional stability, to moderate Arab Sunni states, and to the prospects of Israeli-Saudi normalization, with the kingdom releasing a statement on Wednesday saying that it will not join the Abraham Accords if there isn’t a Palestinian state. The comments also reek of an incoherent foreign policy that is defined by threats, not compelling US leadership. Indeed, these remarks are fuel for the United States’ enemies, especially the likes of China, Iran, and Russia, the last of which will now likely point to US actions to justify its illegal and ruthless invasion of Ukraine. 

The rules-based world order that the United States has led for decades must not be sacrificed for neo-imperialism that breeds chaos and instability while eroding trust in US leadership among its allies and emboldening its foes.

—Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib is a resident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and an analyst who grew up in Gaza City.

Trump is serious about shaking up the Middle East, even if his Gaza plan isn’t

Many Americans and allies in Europe and the Middle East woke up this morning confused and shocked to learn of US President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States will “take over” the Gaza Strip, and its approximately two million inhabitants should be moved elsewhere. They shouldn’t be.

Trump’s plans and goals to end many of the traditional domestic and global norms we’ve experienced in the post-World War II period were never a secret. And Tuesday night’s policy declaration is not part of a strategic master plan to get Hamas to agree to a deal with better terms for Israel and the United States. Nor is it a strategy to cajole Egypt or Jordan to be more accommodating to US preferences in the region, as some commentators have assessed.

The plan the president announced is about remaking the world and US interests in it in a fundamental way. Does the president truly believe his plan can ultimately be executed? Maybe, maybe not. If it cannot, then it could indeed serve as a starting point for negotiations over Gaza with Arab states, making the result the same regardless of whether he intended the plan to be a serious proposal or not.

But even if his plan is a nonstarter, which it almost certainly is, it’s not because that was the intent all along. Rather, it is because he doesn’t fully understand, or perhaps care, about the history of the region, the complexities of intra-Palestinian relationships, the potential implications for US allies, or, most importantly, the emotional connection most people have to their home. …

Read more from Jonathan Panikoff, the director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the US National Intelligence Council:

New Atlanticist

Feb 5, 2025

Trump is serious about shaking up the Middle East, even if his Gaza plan isn’t

By Jonathan Panikoff

It’s almost impossible to imagine Trump’s plan for Gaza coming to fruition. But it would be a mistake to think that he was anything but serious with the proposal he laid out Tuesday night.

Human Rights International Norms

Trump has pushed the US further ahead on Gaza in a month than Biden ever did

Since his election win on November 5, I have told colleagues that Trump would eventually realize that only the United States can organize a lasting solution to the problem of who will govern postwar Gaza. I thought this would happen in June, given the start of the new US presidential administration and the seasonal rhythms of Middle East diplomacy. I never would have guessed that the realization would hit Trump during a press conference on February 4.

Those criticizing Trump for calling for the displacement of more than two million Gazans are fundamentally misunderstanding how Trump sees Gaza: Trump is a longtime billionaire property developer who has recently come to understand the extent of Gaza’s devastation. He is right that it will likely take more than a decade to rebuild Gaza—and that the only way Gaza will be rebuilt even in that amount of time is if Hamas plays no role in Gaza’s governance going forward. Trump is also right on this point: No Arab government is going to donate billions of dollars to rebuild Gaza if Hamas is able to attack Israel in three or four years, turning all that reconstruction back into rubble.

Trump, as a developer used to buying and selling properties, does not understand the depth of Gazans’ attachment to the land and their absolute unwillingness to be further dispossessed after what happened to so many of them in 1948. The obvious precedent is their next-door neighbors, who were steadfast after almost 1,900 years of dispossession. The people of Gaza are never going to leave.

Trump also underestimates Egyptian and Jordanian unwillingness to accept Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank under any circumstances, even if it were to mean the cutoff of US assistance to those countries. There is quite literally no tool in the US toolbox that could persuade the leaders of Egypt or Jordan to change their minds on this point. Trump’s advisors know this, but they would likely rather have Trump hear this directly from Jordanian King Abdullah on February 11, and from Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who reportedly will visit the following week, rather than from them. Fair enough. Abdullah and Sisi need to tell Trump plainly, directly, and undiplomatically that they will not do this, so that discussions will move in a more productive direction.

What Palestinians and Arab leaders need to praise is the idea that the United States will directly involve itself, in a limited way, in organizing international efforts for Gaza’s transition. Trump is not serious about wanting to “own” Gaza. What the United States can usefully do needs to be negotiated with Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab governments, along with other major donors, such as European states and Japan. But the United States contributing to disarming unexploded bombs and rubble-clearing efforts, as Trump said the United States would do, is something that the Biden administration steadfastly refused to even consider. The Biden administration refused even when pressed by former US officials (I was one) who urged it to recognize that the only way this could turn out well for the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians would be for the United States to take a leadership role in organizing the efforts of others. 

Much of what Trump suggested in the past twenty-four hours will need to be dialed back to what is workable. But no one predicted that Trump would push the United States to engage more on what postwar Gaza should look like in one month than the Biden team did in fifteen months.

—Thomas S. Warrick is the director of the Future of DHS project at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security’s Forward Defense program and former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the US Department of Homeland Security.

It’s a concept without a plan—made all the more difficult by dismantling USAID

Tuesday’s comments by Trump sent shock waves not only through the Middle East, but also through his circles of supporters. The president campaigned on a platform of international disentanglement, not taking on new nation-building responsibilities like the one he is proposing in Gaza.

Not since the Marshall Plan, which saw massive investments in postwar Europe that continue to pay dividends today, has the United States successfully undertaken such a project. Indeed, most of its attempts have ended in abject failure (think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya). Why? Because the American people ultimately weren’t prepared for the massive, all-in, long-term investment in both dollars and troops that is needed to transform a warzone into a flourishing economy. And the United States now lacks the institutional infrastructure to conceive of such a project, thanks to the ongoing dismantling of the only US government organization with nation-building expertise: the United States Agency for International Development. 

Ultimately, though, this is a concept without a plan, as it is predicated on the willingness of Israel’s neighbors—especially Egypt and Jordan—to take in massive numbers of Gazans at the expense of their already shaky political and economic stability. Other Arab foreign ministers joined them earlier this week in roundly rejecting any effort to displace Palestinians, setting the stage for a difficult conversation when Jordan’s King Abdullah becomes the first Arab leader to visit Trump in the White House next week. 

—Jennifer Gavito is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and a former US acting principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

The way to avoid “history repeating itself” is not to repeat the core cause

We just heard the US president endorse the idea of committing ethnic cleansing and forcibly resettling a population. We just heard a US president lay out the potential intent to draw the United States into a war crime. That is stunning in itself. However, it’s highly likely that Trump will be given a “pass” given how accustomed the world has grown to his history of irresponsible rhetoric. Many analysts are already predicting that his sweeping commentary will need to be dialed down into an actual executable plan. 

The speed of the Saudi response, reaffirming Riyadh’s commitment to a Palestinian state as a precondition to establishing diplomatic ties, is an indication of how unpalatable Trump’s plan is. It could also give Egypt and Jordan the courage they need to stand firm against the United States’ not-so-subtle threats of consequences if they refuse to take in more than two million Gazans. 

“It’s terrifying. But what we fear is not the rhetoric of one man,” a Palestinian friend of mine in Gaza messaged me. “We fear forced displacement and losing the right to return like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. What we fear is losing our home, our right to our home, to see our families, to have roots.”

Gaza is a demolition zone. Trump is 100 percent correct on that, even if he did neglect the fact that US bombs dropped by Israel are the culprit. Gaza does need a massive effort to clear it of explosives and rubble and then to start reconstruction. But the clarity of his comments end there. The rest of this haphazardly laid out “plan”—if it can be called that—is little more than psychological torture for a population that is already on the edge of a mental abyss. 

To somehow think that the solution, as Trump stated, to avoid “history repeating itself” is to repeat the core cause—stealing of land, illegal occupation, the forced displacement of Palestinians, denying the right of return—is rather ludicrous.

The sad irony is that it would be among the best outcomes for Palestinians to have Gaza rebuilt and transformed into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” But there is nothing in Trump’s comments or in Netanyahu’s apparent glee at them that suggest that this will be a Riviera for those whose land it is: the Palestinians. 

—Arwa Damon is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs; the president and founder of the International Network for Aid, Relief, and Assistance (INARA); and a former international correspondent for CNN.

The reality of “owning” Gaza would carry large costs and risks—including an armed insurgency

Trump’s suggestion that the United States could clear and rebuild Gaza presupposes a significant level of US military and economic involvement. In his comments, Trump was ambiguous about the deployment of US troops to secure Gaza and oversee its reconstruction, saying “We’ll do what needs to be done.” This would require a long-term commitment, with estimates of up to fifteen years for full reconstruction. The question of who would pay for such an enormous endeavor remains unanswered. Given the immense cost and the political sensitivity of the region, it is unclear if the United States would foot the bill entirely or if there would be international partners involved.

Trump’s recent statements that he can get Egypt and Jordan to host Gazans, combined with his statement about “owning Gaza,” suggest a bargain: The United States could take on Gaza’s reconstruction but, in exchange, Jordan and Egypt would host displaced Palestinians. Neither country wants to administer or secure Gaza. But they also do not want to be seen as complicit in Israel’s actions and have historically been reluctant to host more Palestinians, fearing that it would lead to the permanent displacement of the Palestinian people and thus the end of Palestinian statehood.

While this could be seen as a diplomatic move, it raises several significant concerns, not least of which is the formation of an armed insurgency. US troops or contractors in Gaza could come under fire from militant groups, particularly Hamas, which has not been fully dismantled despite efforts by Israel and others. Recent reports of Hamas recruiting more than ten thousand new members, along with the public presence of large groups of Hamas fighters at recent hostage handover events, show that the group remains an operational force. The president could have been thinking that if Egypt and Jordan take responsibility for the Gazan people, then there wouldn’t be an insurgency as there would be no one to fight. However, that would mean Gazans would have to leave Gaza altogether, which is a tall order given their desire for statehood and fears that a temporary displacement for reconstruction would actually lead to a permanent displacement and not being able to return.

Additionally, Trump’s proposal seems to overlook the deep animosity many Gazan Palestinians have toward the United States regarding US military support for Israel. The United States is often viewed as a partial actor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could fuel armed resistance to any perceived US-led efforts in Gaza. There is also the issue of who would take responsibility for the security of Gaza during the rebuilding process. Arab states have shown no interest in stepping into this role, fearing the political ramifications of being seen as complicit in the displacement of Palestinians or Israel’s actions.

The logistics of this plan remain unclear. Would Palestinians be willing to leave Gaza voluntarily or would they be forcibly relocated? This question is crucial, as any attempt to remove or displace a population would likely face resistance and could lead to further violence. Trump’s idea might therefore be seen as a negotiating tactic, similar to his approach with trade deals, but its success would hinge on navigating complex regional dynamics and the realities of a volatile and heavily armed Gaza.

—Alex Plitsas is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, the head of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Project, and a former chief of sensitive activities for special operations and combating terrorism in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The post Experts react: Is the US really going to ‘take over’ the Gaza Strip? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Just across the border in Kosovo, the ruling party’s narrative has been that of an imminent war with Serbia, especially after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and an attempted armed insurgency in the Serbian-majority north in 2023. Government officials and their media proxies have regularly framed the government’s critics—journalists, activists, and prosecutors—as being part of Serbia’s hybrid war against the country.   

Rule through fear is neither new nor unique to the Western Balkans. It has been the political zeitgeist in the region for a while, in part because there have long been valid reasons to be fearful.

The region continues to have an unresolved security architecture, with most of its countries still limping toward European Union (EU) and NATO membership, which were supposed to make its contested borders irrelevant. Insecurity about the future has paved the way for secessionist ideas to resurface. In 2022, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine sent this anxiety into overdrive, as Moscow actively sought—to no avail—to expand the front and stir trouble in the Balkans, primarily via its allies in Serbia.     

Yet these fears also gave regional leaders a useful tool to distract attention from poor governance and to suppress dissent. For Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has pursued a policy of hedging between Moscow and the West, the threat of regional destabilization also serves as a bargaining chip with the latter.

Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs that people in the Western Balkans, as well as Western decision makers dealing with the region, are no longer buying into this blackmail. Throughout the region, leaders seem less able to distract their citizens from socioeconomic concerns. At the same time, the EU seems to be learning not to engage with regional troublemakers from a position of fear. Indeed, Brussels has shown that it has ample geopolitical and economic leverage to press its concerns on domestic reforms, Russia policy, and regional stability to Western Balkan nations while working to integrate them into the bloc.

Diminishing returns

The current wave of student protests in Serbia against government corruption has been the most successful and sustained opposition movement against Vučić so far. This is despite attempts to discredit the protests as sparked or supported by foreign governments. The demonstrations clearly have the government worried, as indicated by the resignation of Vučić ’s appointed prime minister. A recent poll by CRTA—a prominent pro-democracy nongovernmental organization in the country—shows that 61 percent of citizens support the protests and two-thirds believe corruption to be the country’s main problem.

In Kosovo, which holds national elections on February 9, the decision by popular Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s ruling party to run entirely on a “sovereignist” agenda with the nationalist slogan “from corner to corner”—highlighting its crackdown on Serbia’s structures in the north of Kosovo—and attacking his critics as unpatriotic, may turn out to be slightly backfiring. The two leading opposition parties, which are running on platforms emphasizing economic issues, seem to be having enough of a resurgence to complicate Kurti’s ability to form a government.

To be sure, there are still real risks of violent escalation due to miscalculation, and some degree of public angst about the potential for war remains prevalent in the region. A November 2024 regional Securimeter poll by the Regional Cooperation Council, an intergovernmental body, shows that while concern about war may be low in Kosovo (only 21 percent of citizens), it remains high in Serbia as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, where more than half of those polled say they are concerned about a war breaking out. Yet region-wide, security concerns remain dwarfed by socioeconomic ones: the same poll shows poverty (49 percent), corruption (48 percent), and depopulation (36 percent) as being the top three priority concerns regionally. On top of that, a staggering 77 percent of respondents in the region identified the high cost of living and inflation as the main economic concern, followed by low wages (55 percent).

A position of strength

Part of the reason why fearmongering may no longer be paying political dividends in deflecting from citizens’ economic concerns is that, with time, the security threats have run out of credibility. Russia has failed to project meaningful power beyond its efforts in Ukraine. The West, for all its faults in mishandling the Western Balkans’ accession into the EU, proved it has the leverage and instruments for deterrence in the region. Indeed, NATO is present both within the region and around it, the EU is by far the region’s biggest trade and investment partner, and US and EU sanctions against Western Balkan nations can bite.

An attempt by Serbs in northern Kosovo to start an armed insurgency in October 2023 was quashed within a day by Kosovo’s Special Police, which was aided by NATO peacekeepers. Milorad Dodik, president of the Serb-majority Republika Srpska entity in Bosnia, has backed off his regular threats to secede from the country whenever he was threatened. Over the past year, Vučić was forced to admit that his hedging space has shrunk: Serbia purchased French warplanes, granted the EU access to its lithium resources, and now is being forced to nationalize its oil and gas industry from US-sanctioned Gazprom.

The West no longer seems to need to negotiate with Vučić from a position of fear—that is, treading carefully due to a concern that the Serbian president will turn further toward Russia or cause regional instability. Despite Vučić’s latest pro-Western moves, the European Council recently decided to keep Serbia’s accession talks effectively frozen due to concerns about democracy, relations with Kosovo, and nonalignment with the EU’s Russia policy.

This tougher stance on Serbia is a welcome departure from overly cautious EU policy toward the Western Balkans for the last ten years. While the EU has been right to fear that failing to integrate the Western Balkans would leave the bloc less secure, it was wrong to be afraid to dictate accession terms to Balkan nations given the EU’s leverage over the region.

Fear had driven the EU’s thinking about Western Balkan countries’ accession for most of the past decade. Some members were worried about the EU’s ability to absorb more Eastern countries with questionable governance standards and security postures. The EU’s far right also fueled xenophobia about the region’s Muslim-majority countries. As a result, the Western Balkans was parked in an effective containment policy, which empowered authoritarians who showed they could at least keep the peace.

Yet, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the fears of bringing the region into the EU were dwarfed by fears of keeping it out. Gray zones like the Western Balkans turned out to be a security vulnerability. There is a growing recognition within the EU that it needs to bring the Western Balkans into the bloc. However, this is coupled with an awareness that Brussels can afford to make demands of aspiring members if their accession prospects are to progress. Reflecting this balance, the new momentum for EU enlargement has now opened a window for at least Montenegro and Albania—the countries with the least amount of obstacles to membership and which are undertaking some reforms—to be part of the next accession wave.

The Western Balkans’ peace and stability will, however, remain fragile for as long as its countries remain stuck in bilateral or identitarian disputes. But over the past few years, the EU has shown that it has the leverage to resolve the disputes that stand in the region’s way. The Western Balkans present the ultimate litmus test of the bloc’s geopolitical weight. Going forward, the EU should use the leverage at its disposal without allowing fearmongering from Western Balkan leaders to deter it from its efforts to bring the region into its fold.

Agon Maliqi is an independent researcher and political analyst from Pristina, Kosovo. He was the co-founder and longtime editor of Sbunker, a think tank and blog on Western Balkans affairs, as well as a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.

***

The Western Balkans stands at the nexus of many of Europe’s critical challenges. Some, if not all, of the countries of the region may soon join the European Union and shape the bloc’s ability to become a more effective geopolitical player. At the same time, longstanding disputes in the region, coupled with institutional weaknesses, will continue to pose problems and present a security vulnerability for NATO that could be exploited by Russia or China. The region is also a transit route for westward migration, a source of critical raw materials, and an important node in energy and trade routes. The BalkansForward column will explore the key strategic dynamics in the region and how they intersect with broader European and transatlantic goals.

The post Fearmongering from Western Balkan leaders is no longer working on their citizens—or the EU appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Miami-native secretary has lately embraced a more isolationist approach to US engagement abroad (such as his vote last April against a $95 billion aid bill for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan) to align better with Trump’s messaging about prioritizing a robust domestic economic agenda. But one of his former advisers recently said that Rubio “still seems to favor a strong, engaged US posture in the world”—and this is a good thing. The United States cannot be everywhere and must prioritize issues critical to its national security, particularly in the Middle East. By straddling the Ronald Reagan-era and Trump-era Republican foreign policy worldviews, Rubio is now well-positioned to counterbalance isolationist voices within the president’s circle.  

A steadfast advocate for US strength 

Given Trump’s rhetorical tendencies toward isolationism, the choice of Rubio for secretary of state and former Rep. Michael Waltz for national security advisor—and their respective records while on Capitol Hill—may help to reinforce traditional Republican notions preferring a more assertive US foreign policy in the Middle East. This approach is likely to be tough on Iran, supportive of the Gulf states and Israel, and focused on expanding US influence and partnerships in the region. Rubio’s staunch support for Israel and its security concerns, a key aspect of his political career, will also appeal to Trump’s base and a large portion of the GOP’s constituency in Florida. 

Even as some critics disagree with Rubio’s hardline approach to world affairs, his deep and profound understanding of these issues, and his recognition of the United States’ indispensable role in global affairs—especially in the face of a rising China and a more aggressive Russia—make him a crucial voice in shaping US policy. Rubio, as Trump’s chief diplomat, can make the case that both peace abroad and prosperity and security at home are not mutually exclusive. He can lead an assertive foreign policy that still meets the president’s directives, as Rubio outlined at his January 15 confirmation hearing: “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

Confronting China in the Middle East

Rubio is clear-eyed about the threats posed by Beijing, which he described as “America’s ‘biggest threat” during his confirmation hearing. However, Rubio also mentioned that a China-US armed conflict would be “catastrophic” and should be avoided. His vision and push for a policy of strength to deter China’s abuse of the US-led international system is likely to test Middle Eastern countries’ relationship with Beijing—especially Chinese efforts and capabilities to acquire US/Western technology through cooperation with US partners in the region. 

For example, China continues to act as a free-rider in the Red Sea, benefiting from US naval protection while failing to act as the responsible world leader it aspires to be and to use its agreement with the Houthis to deter attacks on international shipping. 

What’s in store for the Gulf states?

Rubio is committed to containing Iran and assured Congress during his January 15 hearing that a nuclear-capable Iran, with the resources and military capabilities to continue its sponsorship of terrorism to destabilize the region, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. These conditions will likely be part of any future US-Iran deal, which the secretary of state remains open to. However, Rubio’s hardline stance on Iran may also face obstacles with some more moderate Gulf states that view Iran differently than they did during Trump’s first term and have taken a more conciliatory tone toward Tehran in recent years. 

Nevertheless, Rubio sees Gulf allies as essential for containing Iran and as key partners in tackling terrorism threats. He is likely to seek to build on Trump’s first-term close relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and to close an Israel-Saudi Arabia deal with a Palestinian state as part of a regional grand bargain. The senator has endorsed the deal with Israel as having many security benefits for Saudi Arabia. 

Given Rubio’s commitment to maintaining a strong US force posture in the region, he will likely be supportive of the 2024 deal that extends and expands the Al Udeid military base in Qatar, relying on Doha to maintain and invest in reinforcing the US military presence in the region. While issues like the Al Jazeera news network’s editorial line could remain contentious, the rift seen in the first Trump term with Doha is also unlikely to be repeated. That’s because of the strategic importance of Qatar’s access to all actors—especially adversarial ones, such as Hamas, given that Doha’s pressure on the group may have contributed to a ceasefire in Gaza—which is an asset to an incoming administration interested in making deals. However, Rubio and the Trump administration will likely increase pressure on Doha to end its hosting of Hamas officials in the country (as seen in a letter Senate Republicans wrote to the Biden-Harris administration in November 2024, which was signed by Rubio). 

Unlocking historic opportunities for the region

Rubio emphasized during his confirmation hearing that there are historic and extraordinary opportunities in the Middle East that did not exist three months ago. He pointed to recent developments in Syria and their implications for Lebanon, as well as the future of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire. While Rubio is one of the most qualified of the president’s Cabinet picks—and although his insights into the region’s outlook are invaluable—his views are unlikely to surpass Trump’s own instincts on key matters. 

However, Rubio’s close ties to Waltz and his role in helping Trump on the campaign trail should work in his favor in shaping the president’s foreign policy decision-making. Having the secretary’s principled views in the room is promising for a US policy in the Middle East that is more assertive, able to get concessions in challenging situations, and likely to meet the expectations of a new mandate from the voters who, as Rubio said, “want a strong America.”

Joze Pelayo is an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

The post What a Secretary of State Rubio means for the Middle East: Getting tougher on Iran and tighter with allies  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

He’s tightening his grip. Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro was inaugurated for a third term as president on Friday despite international observers, including the United States, determining that his victory in last year’s election was fraudulent. Maduro’s swearing-in was accompanied by a new round of US sanctions against Venezuelan officials and comes one day after the government briefly detained opposition politician María Corina Machado. Below, our experts explain what Maduro’s inauguration means for the region, the Venezuelan opposition, and the future of US sanctions policy. 

• Iria Puyosa (@NSC): Senior research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab
• Jason Marczak (@jmarczak): Vice president and senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center
• Geoff Ramsey (@GRamsey_LatAm): Senior fellow at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

What Biden did, and Trump can do

• “The Biden administration has slightly increased pressure” on Maduro’s regime, Iria tells us. While the United States has sanctioned two thousand individuals and raised the bounties on Maduro and his interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, US oil giant Chevron maintains its license to operate in Venezuela. “The new sanctions are insufficient to remove Maduro and Cabello from power,” she argues.
• After it takes office in ten days, the Trump administration should work with regional governments, says Jason, to “accelerate diplomatic coordination to give new momentum to the opposition and to make life harder for Maduro and his accomplices.”
• Despite the regime’s escalating crackdown on the opposition, “it is easy to overstate how strong Maduro really is,” Geoff argues. He points to Maduro’s post-election cabinet reshuffle to empower hardliners, coupled with the elevation of Cabello, a longtime rival, as “a sign of just how few friends Maduro has left.”
• Geoff advises the incoming Trump administration to take note of internal divisions in the Maduro regime that can be further undermined by economic pressure. “Sanctions alone are unlikely to unseat Maduro,” he says, “unless they are accompanied by a clear roadmap to lift them, giving fence-sitting regime figures a blueprint to follow.”

Regional rejection

• Maduro has brought Latin American leaders “from across the political spectrum together to reject his new power grab,” Jason tells us. Chilean President Gabriel Boric, Argentinian President Javier Milei, and Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino, he notes, have all rejected Maduro’s claim to victory in last year’s presidential election.
• The highest-ranking foreign official at Maduro’s inauguration, Jason points out, may have been the speaker of Russia’s Duma.
• “The continued large-scale regional rejection of Maduro is no small feat,” Jason says, given Latin America’s historical divisions. “But the critical question,” he adds, “is how to avoid complacency and leverage this unity to further support the democratic opposition.”

A mobilized opposition

• Amid Maduro’s third inauguration, “Venezuelans are again taking to the streets in large numbers, demanding a transition to democracy and the inauguration of González,” says Iria. The Biden administration should use this opportunity to take more “meaningful action” against Maduro, she argues, as “the opposition is now strategically united, the people are mobilized, and the ruling coalition is showing cracks.”
• Regional governments working to pressure Maduro, Jason says, should also strive to “avoid burdening the Venezuelan people with more hardships.” Pressuring Maduro’s government while sparing the Venezuelan people from the worst effects of sanctions is “a delicate tightrope to walk” Jason adds, but is “necessary to give further hope to the overwhelming number of Venezuelans who cast a vote for democracy and freedom in July.”

The post What the world can do about Maduro appeared first on Atlantic Council.

For more context and to make sense of all the competing arguments, we turned to our experts on China and technology. 

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Graham Brookie: The Supreme Court’s decision will shape global tech competition

Shelly Hahn: To China, algorithms are a national interest 

Kenton Thibaut: The US data security problem is bigger than TikTok

Caroline Costello: If you’re interested in protecting civil society, you should be concerned about TikTok

Mark Scott: Worries around TikTok’s data collection and security apply to all social media giants

Matt Geraci: US data privacy laws are not up to the task 

Emerson T. Brooking: If TikTok was a tool of Chinese foreign interference, someone forgot to tell China

Samantha Wong: The national security risks will remain whether TikTok is banned or not

Konstantinos Komaitis: A TikTok ban would be a direct attack on the open and global internet

Kitsch Liao: ByteDance’s First Amendment argument is a distraction from its refusal to divest

The Supreme Court’s decision will shape global tech competition 

The United States Supreme Court is set to start 2025 with a blockbuster case on a tight timeline with significant domestic tech and geopolitical ramifications.  

The law in question in the case of TikTok v. Garland—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—was passed by Congress in April 2024 with widespread bipartisan support: a 352–65 vote in the House and 79–18 in the Senate. US President Joe Biden signed the bill into law, giving him the authority to force TikTok’s divestiture from its Chinese parent company or be banned from the United States. The Department of Justice set a deadline of January 19—forcing this dramatic showdown. The Supreme Court will proceed in hearing the case on January 10 despite Trump’s request to delay until after his inauguration and the fact that the high court typically defers to its two co-equal branches of government on matters of national security.  

The Atlantic Council previously published an in-depth technical analysis of whether the threats of legal control, data access, algorithmic tampering, or broad influence efforts by the Chinese government are unique or singularly focused on TikTok. The threat of legal control proved to be real and ongoing. The other potential risks remain considerable with loopholes not specific to TikTok, such as the sheer amount of Americans’ data for sale on the open market or the litany of US-owned platforms the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has used to perpetrate influence efforts. Chinese ownership of TikTok is undoubtedly a core strength in its global approach to “discourse power.” The key questions remain whether a Chinese company’s ownership of such a popular social media platform poses unique national security risks to the United States, whether banning such a popular app violates the rights of the company or the app’s US users, and how China may react or force ByteDance to react. Beyond TikTok v. Garland, any outcome will shape global tech competition from the global reach of digital platforms to broader tech governance. If new evidence is surfaced, it will shape both. 

—Graham Brookie is the vice president of technology programs and founding director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council. 

To China, algorithms are a national interest

The TikTok saga highlights Beijing’s strategy of using private companies to exert influence globally, while restricting foreign companies’ operations within China. 

Beijing views algorithms as critical tools to exert national power, with Chinese leader Xi Jinping emphasizing the importance of artificial intelligence in military and economic power competition. As TikTok has gained market clout, the Chinese government has taken a more assertive stance on its technologies, especially content recommendation algorithms. Since 2020, China has implemented measures to protect its technological assets, including adding algorithms to the restricted list  of technologies from export in August 2020, and passing the “Export Control Law” in October 2020, which governs the sale of these technologies to foreign buyers. China now strongly opposes any forced sale of TikTok, asserting its legal authority to veto such transactions. 

Beijing has railed against the United States’ enforcement actions against TikTok, using abusive and inflammatory rhetoric to paint those actions as a violation of international norms. Chinese officials have called these actions “an act of bullying” (Xinhua editorial), “an abuse of national power” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Mao Ning), and “hypocritical and double standards” (Xinhua editorial). They have warned of potential consequences for the global economic order. 

That is interesting rhetoric given that Beijing would not allow a US or other foreign company to operate similarly in China. China maintains a restrictive environment for foreign media and technology companies, blocking most foreign social media platforms, search engines, and news outlets. When probed about this disparity, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson claimed that “China’s policy on overseas social media is completely incomparable to the US’ attitude towards TikTok . . . as long as foreign media companies comply with the requirements of Chinese laws and regulations, all foreign media platforms and news agencies are welcomed.” In reality, these laws give the CCP firm control over data flows and information within its borders. 

Beijing’s robust defense of TikTok and its underlying technology underscores China’s growing confidence in its tech sector and its willingness to challenge what it perceives as unfair treatment in the global marketplace. 

—Shelly Hahn is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. 

The US data security problem is bigger than TikTok 

There is no doubt that People’s Republic of China (PRC) state entities see the value in collecting data on Americans for intelligence purposes. However, the proposed actions on TikTok leave open serious questions on how effectively a ban or divestment would protect Americans’ data from exfiltration.

The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab previously conducted a technical, policy, and legal analysis of the stated national security risks posed by TikTok. Our research found that TikTok can be said to present a unique risk in terms of its Chinese ownership, in that the PRC’s National Intelligence Law does give the government broad leeway to potentially compel the company to grant it access to TikTok’s data, including on Americans. In addition, even under the circumstances of outside control of TikTok’s data storage, it would be almost impossible to know if Chinese intelligence authorities somehow maintained a backdoor into these data streams.

At the same time, however, we found that TikTok’s data collection practices on Americans are not outside what is commonly practiced by social media companies, including Meta, X, and others. More importantly, the data that TikTok can provide on Americans pales in comparison to what the Chinese government has accessed through both its illegal hacking activities and what is available legally on the open market through US-based third-party data brokers.  

In fact, a report from Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy found that via data brokers, it is “not difficult to obtain sensitive data about active-duty members of the military, their families, and veterans, including non-public, individually identified, and sensitive data, such as health data, financial data, and information about religious practices,” noting that location data was also available for purchase. A narrow, national-security oriented focus on TikTok to address potential threats to the US data ecosystem risks overlooking much broader security vulnerabilities and thus undermines more effective policy solutions. That is to say, while there is much about TikTok’s data gathering and privacy policy to side-eye, the challenge is far wider than TikTok alone and requires a more wide-ranging policy solution to address. 

—Kenton Thibaut is a senior resident China fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council’s Technology Programs. 

If you’re interested in protecting civil society, you should be concerned about TikTok 

The debate surrounding TikTok is about a tool that empowers China to extend its high-tech surveillance state beyond its own borders. While it’s true that other social media platforms engage in similar surveillance, other platforms are not beholden to the government of a foreign adversary. 

TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, is a Chinese company. In China, the CCP has absolute control over companies. In China’s authoritarian system, the party is always above the law, but the CCP took the extraordinary step of enshrining this capability into law, likely to make very clear to Chinese companies exactly what they should expect. Article 7 of the National Intelligence Law of 2017 states that “all organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts,” meaning the government has the right to secretly demand TikTok user data, and the company must share it. 

When defending against these allegations, TikTok has insisted that it stores all US user data in the United States, but the company has also acknowledged that nevertheless, China-based employees can still access US user data, and those same employees must obey any and all edicts from the CCP. In fact, thanks to leaked audio from internal meetings, we now know that China-based employees have repeatedly done so. This includes two cases in which a China-based team at TikTok planned to use the app to monitor the location of specific US citizens.  

Chinese intelligence services have a well-documented history of harassing and intimidating human rights activists and journalists on US soil. Even if you don’t mind the PRC surveilling you, and even if you don’t care about US-China competition, if you’re interested in protecting civil society, you should be concerned about TikTok. 

There is one important caveat, though. As demonstrated in a report from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, foreign adversaries can also buy this data from brokers that rely on US-based companies surveilling their users. In fact, US-based companies have been accused of using targeted surveillance against civil society, as in the cases of Uber and Meta reportedly tracking the location of journalists reporting on their apps. TikTok is just one piece of a broader data security vulnerability perpetuated by US platforms. 

—Caroline Costello is a program assistant at the Global China Hub. 

Worries around TikTok’s data collection and security apply to all social media giants

Central to concerns around TikTok is how the app collects, stores, and uses information it gathers on users. The fear, according to US officials, is that such data may be weaponized by Beijing, though no evidence of such activity has yet to be proven. Based on a review of TikTok’s privacy policy and external analysis, the social media platform does collect a lot of information on users if they give the company permission. That includes information on individuals’ exact location, their phone numbers and those of their contacts, people’s other social media accounts, and detailed information about individuals’ devices (often used by marketers to target specific demographics). 

That may sound creepy. But TikTok’s data collection practices are no different than those of US social media giants, which similarly gather as much information as possible on their users to tailor these firms’ advertising offerings. That also includes in-app web browsers built into the likes of Instagram and X that allow these companies to collect just as much information on people’s web habits—so long as they are surfing the internet from within these social media networks. 

So would forcing TikTok off of US app stores make Americans’ data more private and secure? The short answer is no. While US officials have raised concerns about how Americans’ data may be accessed by Chinese government officials via TikTok, such personal information—from people’s phone numbers and home addresses to internet activity to consumer purchasing history—is already available commercially, via so-called domestic data brokers. The outgoing Biden administration tried to tackle that problem with the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act and prohibitions placed on these data brokers from transferring such sensitive data to foreign adversaries like China. 

Yet, in reality, the lack of comprehensive federal privacy legislation means that Americans’ data—no matter what eventually happens with the potential TikTok ban or sale—remains significantly more at risk compared to their counterparts in other Western countries. State-based laws, particularly those in California and Virginia, have provided a modest degree of greater control for people in how companies gather and use their personal information. But the removal of TikTok from US app stores, which have similarly set baseline levels of privacy protections for users, will not make Americans’ overall data either more private or more secure. 

 —Mark Scott is senior resident fellow at the Democracy + Tech Initiative within the Atlantic Council Technology Programs. 

US data privacy laws are not up to the task 

The absence of common-sense data privacy laws in the United States created an environment that allowed TikTok to become a security risk. Removing TikTok from app stores will not change this. As a 2022 Consumer Reports investigation revealed, TikTok uses many of the same data harvesting techniques employed by companies like Meta and Google for targeting ads. They also concluded that claims by TikTok and others that data is used solely for advertising cannot be verified by consumers or privacy researchers. 

The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which involved unauthorized data collection from millions of Facebook users for targeted political ads, remains fresh in the minds of Americans who are skeptical about the stated reasons for removing TikTok. Although the Federal Trade Commission forced new privacy restrictions on Facebook, the scandal has not led to national legislation like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that could be applied to all companies, including TikTok. Despite this, various US states have endeavored to draft their own laws since the scandal. Yet, companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon often attempt to thwart these efforts through lobbying.  

Regulatory changes are essential to mitigate data security threats from Beijing. However, US tech companies seem to lack enthusiasm for supporting new data protections, and Congress has struggled to make progress. Nearly all the major US tech companies have been fined for violating the European Union’s GDPR (including Amazon, Google, Meta, and Twitter/X), so clearly this is an area that needs improvement. Companies are not ideal self-regulators. TikTok adds another layer given that it must answer to an authoritarian regime and thus poses even larger risks when allowed to operate in an unregulated environment. 

TikTok’s popularity, data collection practices, and Chinese ownership create a unique national security challenge requiring careful consideration. Tech companies should work with the US government to improve data privacy protections, rather than targeting TikTok under the guise of national security while simultaneously perpetuating a harmful regulatory status quo. 

—Matt Geraci is an associate director at the Global China Hub. 

If TikTok was a tool of Chinese foreign interference, someone forgot to tell China 

It’s true that the push for TikTok’s divestment from ByteDance is deeply rooted in fears of Chinese information manipulation. In a March 2024 House Committee on Energy and Commerce report on the forced divestment measure, the committee cited China’s potential use of TikTok to “push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda on the American public.”  

It’s also true that these fears were never substantiated. The CCP’s propaganda strategy—its quest for “discourse power”—has always been premised on the incremental manipulation of information across many different platforms at the same time. The idea that Beijing built a shiny red button to turn TikTok into a tool of mass brainwashing never accorded with reality.  

Indeed, so far it appears that only a single fake CCP-adjacent TikTok account sought to influence the 2024 US election. Ironically, far more CCP accounts on other platforms sought to stir resentment about a potential TikTok ban. By contrast, Russia—which has had no unique claim to TikTok—extensively used the service for the purposes of information manipulation. In December 2023, the Digital Forensic Research Lab and the BBC uncovered a massive Russian campaign that used artificial intelligence to instrumentalize more than 12,800 accounts to undermine Ukraine.  

Perhaps the CCP was just subtly tweaking the TikTok algorithm to achieve its goals? But this is also unlikely. One of the few available independent studies of TikTok content policy suggests that the platform may have actually reduced the salience of certain hashtags in line with the wishes of US lawmakers. The bizarre nature of some of the material that goes viral on TikTok is explained by the tastes of TikTok’s Millennial- and Gen Z-majority user base, not a global conspiracy. TikTok has repeatedly failed the American people in the realm of transparency and public accountability. So has every US-based social media platform.  

—Emerson T. Brooking is director of strategy and resident senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab. 

The national security risks will remain whether TikTok is banned or not 

Last February, Biden issued a much-needed executive order limiting the sale of sensitive personal US data or US government-related data to “countries of concern,” including China, to prevent them from “engag[ing] in espionage, influence, kinetic or cyber operations or to identify other potential strategic advantage over the United States.” This is supported by additional legislation, such as the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 and the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, both aimed at protecting sensitive US data from being accessed by “foreign adversary nations.” 

However, these new measures are not foolproof. The executive order only targets data brokers from “countries of concern,” and the bill doesn’t address data. One way China can easily circumvent these laws is by purchasing data from companies in third-party countries that obtained it through domestic data brokers that sold the data without knowledge of the final recipient or its intended use. Essentially, if TikTok was a US company, China would still be able to purchase personal US data from TikTok through third-country entities.  

Furthermore, China could easily access any sensitive, critical data through hacking US infrastructure. China is constantly investing and building up its offensive cyber ecosystem to train Chinese hackers to target and acquire critical US intelligence. Although the ban on TikTok would prevent Chinese firms from easily accessing US data, China has the resources to access this sensitive information illegally and is not afraid to implement these illicit operations if it feels the need to do so.  

Ultimately, the TikTok ban addresses only a small aspect of a much larger issue. Even if TikTok were banned or became a US-owned company, the core national security risks would remain. The United States should instead implement broader legislation aimed at strengthening domestic cybersecurity infrastructure and closing any third-party loopholes that could undermine existing protective laws. 

—Samantha Wong is a program assistant with the Global China Hub. 

A TikTok ban would be a direct attack on the open and global internet

In the conversation about whether the United States should or should not ban TikTok, there is one parameter that no one is mentioning: what will this mean for the internet? The answer is straightforward. If the United States proceeds with banning TikTok, such a move will be nothing short of a direct attack on the open and global internet.  

The internet is based on a decentralized architecture, which means that there is no center of control. The value of the open internet is that networks should be able to connect without any restrictions. The internet was not designed so that only specific networks could connect; rather, any network should be able to connect as long as it is willing to abide by certain rules—the internet’s open standards and protocols. Banning TikTok will affect how networks get to interconnect. 

 At the same time, a potential ban will also affect the internet’s global reach and integrity. The whole idea of the internet is that no entity should inspect or modify packets carried through different networks beyond what might be necessary to route the packet as advertised. This is an expectation that users have no matter where they are in the world, and it will not be met should the ban take effect.  

The United States has historically and unequivocally been a strong supporter of the open and global internet. In fact, for more than two decades, the United States has been at the forefront of pushing back at attempts by authoritarian governments to centralize internet control. A TikTok ban will be a setback to all these years of effort and will legitimize the narrative by other authoritarian states that the internet should be subject to government control and management. It will also weaken the United States’ position globally, especially at the United Nations, where conversations about the future of internet governance are currently taking place. 

 —Konstantinos Komaitis is a resident senior fellow and Global Democracy and Technology lead with the Democracy + Tech Initiative. 

ByteDance’s First Amendment argument is a distraction from its refusal to divest

ByteDance has yet to provide a rationale commensurate with freedom of speech or national security regarding why TikTok cannot be a US company without ties to the Chinese Communist party-state. Yet, on January 10, the nation will focus on the US Supreme Court’s hearing for the “TikTok ban,” highlighting First Amendment concerns. 

This is a distraction. The government has already successfully argued in court against TikTok on both national security and data collection grounds. ByteDance has sidestepped the national security argument by pointing to the lack of public evidence and argued that TikTok’s data collection practices are the same as those of other platforms. TikTok, however, failed to argue against its intent to endanger US national security, and it’s a point that bears reiterating.  

A series of reports from 2019 to 2021 detailed TikTok’s extreme security risks, including that the app allowed remote downloading and execution of binary files, essentially acting like a pre-installed backdoor ready for payload delivery. This sets it apart from other social media platforms and established its intent to harm. A “black hat” hacker would usually have to compromise a target’s devices through phishing or other means before it can achieve what TikTok pre-installed for its users. A Washington, DC court ruling also stressed TikTok’s continued malicious intent to abuse data collected from US citizens, even after the establishment of TikTok US Data Security.   

Until TikTok’s cord with the PRC is cut, it will continue to test the waters and find legal and illegal means to endanger US national security, as it clearly possesses both the intent and capability to do so.  

The essence of security is to make it harder for an adversary to do you harm. Just because China can obtain US user data through other ways doesn’t mean we should let them do so through TikTok. Deterrence through cost imposition is a foundational concept in international security, and the “cost,” be it through financial means or legal risks should China decide to furnish data through other social media giants operating within the United States, is very real. 

—Kitsch Liao is an associate director at the Global China Hub. 

The post Your expert guide to the debate over banning TikTok  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

One of Carter’s most consequential initiatives—the general elevation of human rights in US foreign policy—has usually been overlooked. Moreover, the specific application of human rights criteria to US relations with then-Soviet-controlled Central and Eastern Europe has been underappreciated. As the tributes roll in following Carter’s death on December 29 at the age of one hundred, this aspect of his legacy deserves its due.

Introducing human rights into US bilateral relations meant that the default Cold War policy that a reliably anticommunist government could be embraced and its authoritarian nature tolerated was no longer automatic. A junior foreign service officer at the time, I recall a furious debate within the State Department between the newly established Human Rights Bureau, headed by human rights activist Patricia Derian, and the more traditional State bureaus over whether the United States should use economic leverage against the Argentinian government, a repressive military regime that had a habit of “disappearing” its opponents. Derian’s people said yes, but most of State was appalled by the thought (and corridor talk was openly sexist in dismissing human rights as a policy criterion in general and Derian in particular). Derian and her people took grief for their views, but the impact of the policy grew over time; it was not dispositive, but it meant fewer free rides for dictatorships.

The impact in Europe was more profound. An implicit axiom of President Richard Nixon’s détente was that the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, marked by the imposition of the Iron Curtain, was a sad but by then immutable fact. Official Washington and most of US academia regarded the Soviet Bloc­­—communist-dominated Europe from the Baltic to the Black Sea east of West Germany—as permanent and, though this was seldom made explicit, stabilizing. Talk of “liberating” those countries was regarded as illusion, delusion, or cant. Maintaining US-Soviet stability, under this view of Cold War realism, required accepting Europe’s realities, as these were then seen. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Final Act of Helsinki, a sort of codification of détente concluded under President Gerald Ford, did include general human rights language, and this turned out to be important. However, few at the time expected the Helsinki Accords to have any more operational impact than the vague language about democracy included in the Declaration of Liberated Europe issued at the Yalta Summit in 1945, which had no impact at all.

Carter’s shift toward human rights challenged this uber-realist consensus. It came just as democratic dissidents and workers’ movements inspired by them began to gather strength in Central and Eastern Europe, especially Poland. Carter, and his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, put the United States in a better position to reach out to these movements and to work with them when communist rule began to falter as Soviet Bloc communist regimes started running past their ability to borrow money on easy “détente terms,” making them vulnerable. More broadly, by elevating human rights in the mix of US-Soviet and US-Soviet Bloc relations, Carter put the United States on offense in the Cold War and on the side of the people of the region.

In 1978, a Polish cardinal, Karol Wojtyła, was elected pope John Paul II. In 1980, workers’ strikes at a shipyard in Gdańsk exploded into a national movement—Solidarity—that about ten million Poles joined within a year. Later that year, the Soviet Union, alarmed by Solidarity’s rise, started threatening to invade Poland, as it had Czechoslovakia in August 1968. At that time, the Lyndon Johnson administration, consumed with Vietnam, barely reacted. This time, the Carter administration warned the Soviets not to invade Poland. The United States under Carter was no longer ceding Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviets’ undisturbed control, as “their” sphere of influence.

Reagan’s support for Solidarity, the sanctions he imposed on communist Poland and the Soviet Union after Poland instituted martial law in December 1981, and his support for democracy around the world embodied in the new National Endowment for Democracy (of which, full disclosure, I am a board member) that he inspired have rightly been lauded since. However, these successes were built on a foundation that Carter laid down. Carter from the center-left and Reagan from the right brought together a consensus that US interests could be advanced through support for US values abroad. This was not the first time US presidents made the link between values and interests, but Carter reconnected that link after the cynical and defeated Vietnam era. He did so just in time to catch the wave of freedom that swelled and crested with the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989 and the Soviet Union itself in 1991.

That’s some legacy.

Daniel Fried is the Weiser Family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US ambassador to Poland.

The post How Jimmy Carter’s support for human rights helped win the Cold War appeared first on Atlantic Council.

1. Why was Yoon impeached?

Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly on December 14 for his unconstitutional attempt to impose martial law. Yoon had declared martial law on December 3, citing the need to protect South Korea from “North Korean communist forces” and “anti-state forces,” as well as to “rebuild and protect” the nation from “falling into ruin.” He accused the opposition party of attempting to undermine democracy by impeaching his cabinet members and blocking budget plans. His decision appears to have been influenced by right-wing YouTube channels that propagated conspiracy theories, exaggerating perceived threats to his administration. The impeachment underscores the effectiveness of democratic checks and balances, as Yoon’s misguided and authoritarian decision was ultimately overturned through parliamentary action.

—Sungmin Cho is a nonresident senior fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Impeachment is a rare occurrence in the United States, with only three presidents having faced the process in nearly two-and-a-half centuries. Conversely, South Korea has seen three presidents face impeachment in just twenty years, with several others leaving office in less-than-ideal circumstances. 

Nor is martial law unknown in South Korea. The country experienced it under the control of Park Chung-hee in the 1970s. Then, the South Korean people fought with blood, sweat, and tears to institute a true democracy. It’s under this context, with martial law in the living memory of many in the country, that South Korea was galvanized to call for impeachment for an already massively unpopular Yoon. South Koreans are very protective of their democracy, and Yoon’s attempt at martial law drew comparisons to the authoritarian Park Chung-hee government, especially since Yoon’s first move after the martial law declaration was seemingly to block the National Assembly from voting to end it. This move was undoubtedly one step too far for the South Korean public and the calls for impeachment were a statement from the population that they will not take a threat to the democratic process lightly. 

—Lauren D. Gilbert is a deputy director with the Atlantic Council’s Indo-Pacific Security Initiative.

2. What is the potential removal process?

After the National Assembly impeached Yoon, his powers were immediately suspended, and the prime minister assumed the role of acting president. The impeachment case will now be reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which has up to 180 days to decide if Yoon violated the Constitution or laws to a degree warranting removal. In former President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment case that began in late 2016, the Constitutional Court took ninety-two days to reach a decision. Both Yoon and the National Assembly will present arguments, evidence, and witnesses in a trial-like process before the judges of the Constitutional Court. If upheld, Yoon will be formally removed from office, triggering a presidential election within sixty days; if rejected, he will be reinstated. Throughout this period, public opinion and political debates will intensify as the nation awaits the court’s final decision.

—Sungmin Cho

Now that Yoon is facing impeachment, the Constitutional Court has 180 days to decide, and the vote requires at least six of the full court’s nine judges to vote yes for impeachment. However, at present, the court only has six judges, with three seats on the court left vacant. This is leading to a debate over how and when the court should proceed. Some say that the vote should go through with the six current judges, while others say the vacant seats must be filled first. 

There is also debate over whether the judges should be appointed by the National Assembly or whether Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who has taken over the presidency during the impeachment process, has the right to appoint the three judges. Further complicating matters, the court has several other impeachment cases still awaiting its decision, adding to the oversaturation of the Constitutional Court. While we await the decision on how they will proceed with the appointment (or not) of the three vacant seats, there is still the possibility that Yoon’s impeachment will be overturned. There is a precedent for this. Former president Roh Moo-hyun’s impeachment was overturned in 2004, although unlike Yoon, Roh had the public’s support.

—Lauren D. Gilbert

3. What does this mean for South Korea’s relations with Japan?

In the immediate term, Japan and South Korea will broadly continue to communicate and coordinate along the lines forged over the past two-and-a-half years. However, South Korea and also to some extent Japan will have limited political capital to undertake any new measures to strengthen the relationship. Instead, Tokyo and Seoul are focusing on making both their bilateral relations and the trilateral security framework with Washington resilient and long-lasting to minimize the effects of political revisions in the future.

Japan is concerned about who will take the presidency in South Korea if the impeachment is upheld. The political momentum gained by progressives in Seoul is raising concerns about a reversal of the progress made in Japan-South Korea relations in recent years. On the plus side, however, Japan and South Korea have rebuilt ties and worked on the strategic and operational mechanisms and procedures of close coordination, setting a strong precedent for the future.  

—Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi is a nonresident senior fellow with the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative.

4. What does this mean for relations with Washington and trilateral security cooperation with the US and Japan?

In the near term, the acting president, Han, is already moving to ensure continued alliance coordination between Seoul and Washington. Key meetings and working-level coordination are likely to return to some semblance of normalcy, as the institutional memory and mechanisms of the alliance are strong. However, in practical terms, the timing of this political crisis will make it challenging to have high-level strategic coordination or make progress on key alliance issues in 2025. South Korea will have only an acting president when US President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. And depending on how long the Constitutional Court takes to decide the impeachment case, it could be as long as eight months from now before a new president is elected. We also cannot rule out a prolonged period of uncertainty followed by Yoon’s return to office, in a much-weakened and tenuous position, in the event the court does not uphold the impeachment.

—Markus Garlauskas is the director of the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative and a former national intelligence officer for North Korea.

5. What can we expect from North Korea right now?

North Korea appears to have been laying the groundwork for a renewed military confrontation with South Korea for some time now, and it could initiate that confrontation at a particularly inopportune moment for the alliance. Pyongyang’s silence so far suggests that North Korea will wait for the outcome of the Constitutional Court’s decision and the election of a new president in South Korea before moving to take advantage of the situation, however. North Korea likely recognizes that pursuing a confrontation with Han, the interim president, could simply strengthen the position of South Korean conservatives inclined to take a harder line against North Korea. Meanwhile, before pushing too far, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is likely to want some time to probe Trump’s new position. 

A major thaw in relations is unlikely, even if South Koreans elect a progressive president inclined to engage Pyongyang, given Kim’s moves this year to reinforce the permanence of the division between North and South. Despite optimism in some quarters about the possibility of renewed Trump-Kim summitry in 2025, not much is likely to result. A lot has changed in the four years since Trump left office, and Kim’s position has solidified in ways that make it much less likely that he would be willing to offer major, meaningful concessions to Washington or Seoul.

—Markus Garlauskas

On the surface, North Korea’s response to the political crisis has been limited to domestic media commentary and has refrained from openly confronting South Korea so, perhaps to prove wrong Yoon’s claims about North Korean infiltration. At the same time, the political turmoil in South Korea is a prime situation for North Korea to carry out covert cognitive warfare—particularly through social media and other communication methods. In particular, Pyongyang would be piggybacking and boosting the criticisms in South Korea toward Yoon and the conservatives. 

For North Korea, such measures are essentially about investing in the return of the progressives to power, which North Korea could exploit to make South-North relations and circumstances on the peninsula more advantageous for Pyongyang. North Korea’s new official policy of recognizing South Korea as an “adversary” rather than a “partner for unification” was not only to bolster its militarily confrontational stance, but a means of hybrid warfare to apply further pressure on Seoul—particularly vis-à-vis the progressives. Hence for now, North Korea will likely see how the situation in South Korea plays out while also ensuring that it has the upper hand in dictating the direction of inter-Korean relations.

—Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi

The post The global ripple effects of South Korea’s political turmoil appeared first on Atlantic Council.

I was born in Karaj, Tehran, and after many years in Iran, I returned to Afghanistan to work. At that time, Afghan women were beginning to engage with democracy and reclaim their place in public life, but the Taliban attacked this progress with a relentless assault on civilian life. The group destroyed infrastructure; attacked schools, universities, and hospitals; and ultimately seized control of the country before imprisoning women in their homes.

Days before the Taliban entered Kabul, Kandahar had fallen. My mother and siblings fled to my home in Kabul, leaving everything behind as our father’s house in Kandahar was surrounded by Taliban forces, who arrested the men in our family.

On August 15, 2021, I saw Taliban fighters in the streets as I attempted to reach my office. They were on motorcycles and in military vehicles, brandishing white Taliban flags, their faces weary yet triumphant. People were fleeing in terror. Unable to reach my destination, I turned back, a journey that stretched for hours due to the chaos. In the sixth district, Taliban soldiers angrily lowered Afghanistan’s tricolor flag, replacing it with their own.

The sight of people’s panic and the violent, angry faces of the Taliban terrified me. I began to fear that they would notice my uncovered face. At one point, a Taliban soldier slammed the car I was in and demanded to know, “Who is this, and where are you taking her?” The driver, thinking quickly, responded, “She is my daughter, and I’m taking her home.” Later, near the American University, the sounds of gunfire filled the air, and I broke down in tears.

My husband and I were on an evacuation list, but when we attempted to reach the airport with a single bag of clothes, we turned back in fear after witnessing a deadly explosion there. On the way home, I saw the Taliban whipping a woman over her clothing. Her husband pleaded for leniency, but they insulted him too, accusing him of dishonor for allowing his “bad wife” to go out in public. This is how gender apartheid operates under the Taliban—not only imposing strict regulations on women but also systematically turning men in the family into enforcers of the Taliban’s control over women.

The following day, I learned that women were banned from working. I was permitted only to collect my belongings from the office. Drivers, however, had been instructed not to pick up women who were alone or not fully covered in hijab. Waiting hours for a ride, I faced jeers from Taliban fighters, who hurled insults at women to cover their faces.

Humiliated and isolated, I decided to later join other women at the Fawara Aab, the water fountain square, to protest. My mother had taught me to resist, not to stay silent. And with no job or income, resistance through protest was our only choice. Abandoned by the international community, Afghan women were left alone to face the Taliban’s repression and apartheid regime.

When we protested, men on the streets accused us of seeking an excuse to leave Afghanistan, questioning our motives. But our revolution was all we had left. On August 13, 2022, a year after the Taliban takeover, we gathered to protest again. We met at Kabul’s Golbahar Center, but soon, Taliban forces surrounded us, firing shots into the air. They pursued us, firing directly at us as we reached Jamhuriat Hospital. Injured and separated, ten of us took shelter in an underground space. The owner, who initially reassured us, ultimately betrayed us and called the Taliban. When they arrived, the Taliban soldiers beat us with Kalashnikov rifles, accusing us of dishonoring our families. After confiscating our phones, they detained us for three hours before releasing us, though they kept us under surveillance.

On February 9, 2023, the Taliban arrested me again, dragging me from a taxi at a checkpoint and dispersing the crowd by firing shots to prevent there from being any witnesses. They took me to a security facility, where thirty armed men awaited. One of them threw a cup of hot tea at me when I told them I was from Kandahar, and I feared I had gone blind. They forced me to unlock my phone by prying my fingers, then beat me when I asked to see my family.

Around 11:30 pm, they took me to the intelligence office, twisting my arms when I resisted. Two women were brought to escort me, placing a black hood over my head. We reached Dehmazang, where they photographed me like a criminal and led me to a damp, dark cell. I was bleeding heavily, and after I fainted, they took me to the hospital under strict orders to hide my face. There, I whispered to the doctors, “I am Narges Sadat, the girl who protested and was arrested by the Taliban. They can’t silence me.” Some of the doctors even cried but could do little beyond applying ointment to my wounds.

Back in prison, they beat me and denied me sanitary items. I scratched words onto the cell walls with my nails, recounting what had happened. I saw traces left by other protesting girls who had been held there before me.

Each time they whipped me, they declared the reason: “Because you messaged other protesting women, because of your protests, because you posted photos of Ahmad Shah Massoud and General [Abdul] Raziq,” military leaders who resisted the Taliban. Their accusations piled up. When Eid approached, I hoped for release, as others had been pardoned. A prison official called my name, but instead of freedom, he accused me of causing trouble in the prison, calling me a mercenary and servant of foreigners. My nine-year-old son visited me, terrified, asking them to free me. They told me they would release me if I pledged to stop protesting. Desperate to be with my son, I agreed. After taking a heavy “guarantee” from me, they finally let me go.

In total, I was in Taliban custody for eighty days (though their official record falsely stated sixty), including thirty-five in solitary confinement. They tortured me with electric shocks and left cold water beneath my feet at night. I was denied family visits, and each trip to the bathroom involved being hooded and led several floors up in excruciating pain.

When transferred to the general cell, the pain only intensified. There were other women imprisoned with their children in deplorable conditions. Some had severe mental health issues, worsened by confinement. Girls as young as ten and fifteen were jailed because their male relatives had served under Raziq, a commander in the Afghan army who was assassinated by the Taliban in 2018. Other young women faced the threat of stoning, accused of fleeing their homes.

I even witnessed women in the prison who were affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) enjoying better conditions than ours. They were granted cell phones, water filters, and a variety of food. They often bullied other inmates, and once, they physically assaulted me.

Reflecting on my traumatic ordeal, I realize that perhaps my time in prison was part of my purpose. I endured to speak out for the women still silenced within those walls. The Taliban prison is a place where calls to prayer mix with women’s screams. We took to the streets not just for ourselves but to demand equality and resist the Taliban’s apartheid regime.

Our resistance is rooted in a long history. We are the daughters of women whose lives were stolen by the Taliban, who taught us to resist through their own stories of suffering. Today, the world’s fleeting support reminds us of Afghan women’s bravery, but we are now abandoned to a terrorist authoritarian regime that decides our fate as the world watches. Yet we will continue to rise, defying the Taliban’s will with renewed strength each day.

Today, we call on countries that claim to champion human rights to recognize gender apartheid as a crime. Our testimonies provide undeniable proof of this regime’s repressive nature. The sexual assaults on women protesters in Taliban prisons, the Taliban’s public announcements of stonings, and decrees from their Supreme Court and Amir al-Momineen establish a foundation for defining gender apartheid in Afghanistan.

To achieve a safer and more just world, gender apartheid must be recognized as a crime, and the Taliban must face accountability in international courts.

Narges Sadat is an advocate and women’s rights activist from Afghanistan. She garnered international attention for her protests against the Taliban’s gender apartheid. She graduated in the fields of literature, administration, and diplomacy.

This article is part of the Inside the Taliban’s Gender Apartheid series, a joint project of the Civic Engagement Project and the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. This article is based on an interview with Sadat by Nayera Kohistani and was translated and edited by Mursal Sayas.

The post A protester’s story from inside a Taliban prison appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On October 30, Transatlantic Security Initiative senior fellow Elisabeth Braw wrote an op-ed for Engelsberg Ideas discussing Germany’s commitment to protecting international legal norms in the Baltic Sea.

Fellow

Elisabeth Braw

Senior Fellow

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Transatlantic Security Initiative

NATO Resilience & Society

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

Learn more

The post Braw featured in Engelsberg Ideas appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian authorities have been vocal about the need to document Russian war crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice. Many of Kyiv’s partners have provided extensive backing for these efforts. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court in The Hague has initiated investigative proceedings, and has issued a number of warrants for the arrest of senior Kremlin officials including Russian President Vladimir Putin on war crimes charges. This trend is welcome and must continue.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The pursuit of justice for Russian war crimes is not just a matter of upholding the law. It is a key component of Ukraine’s broader strategy to safeguard its sovereignty and rebuild its war-torn society. If Ukraine is unable to secure justice for the millions who have suffered as a direct result of Russia’s invasion, this could seriously weaken the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and lead to the long-term destabilization of the country.

Crucially, enforcing accountability for atrocities will also send a powerful signal to Russia and the wider international community that war crimes will not be tolerated. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked the largest European war since World War II, and has directly violated many of the core principles of international law. If the invasion ends in an ugly compromise that leaves Moscow unpunished, much of the progress made since 1945 will be undone.

Russia currently stands accused of war crimes in Ukraine including mass killings, deportations, torture, the systematic abduction of children, and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. However, previous generations of Russians have faced very similar war crimes accusations without ever encountering legal consequences. This has helped foster a sense of impunity in modern Russian society that has paved the way for the atrocities currently taking place in Ukraine. Addressing Russian impunity must therefore be central to any meaningful peace process.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s efforts to gather evidence of war crimes during the ongoing Russian invasion have been groundbreaking. Prosecutors, law enforcement officials, legal experts, and members of the country’s civil society have all made significant contributions. One particularly important development has been the use of DNA database technologies, with mobile DNA labs enabling forensic teams to operate in recently liberated areas of Ukraine. The physical evidence acquired during these investigations has made it possible to identify victims and could also be used in future prosecutions.

Ukraine’s efforts to hold Russia accountable have also been boosted by partnerships with a range of international legal experts and organizations. This cooperation could have consequences for international justice that extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The experience of investigating war crimes that has been acquired in Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 can contribute to the broader objective of strengthening the international legal framework that underpins global security.

Continued international assistance in Ukraine’s quest for justice is an important element of the support Kyiv receives from its partners. By providing forensic expertise, legal guidance, and diplomatic backing, Western allies strengthen Ukraine’s efforts while emphasizing their own commitment to accountability for war crimes. This will help prevent the normalization of war crimes and other violations of international law. Failure to act decisively could embolden other actors globally, leading to the further erosion of the rules-based international order.

Looking ahead, the fight for justice must remain at the heart of efforts to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is vital to pursue victory not only on the battlefield but also in the courtroom. This will require sustained international solidarity and political will at a time when there are growing signs of war-weariness and calls for a compromise that would allow Moscow to escape accountability. Anything less than justice for the victims of Russia’s invasion will invite further aggression from Russia itself and from other expansionist powers. This would be a costly blunder that would set the stage for a new era of international instability.

Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine. Lesia Zaburanna is a member of the Ukrainian parliament with the Servant of the People Party and a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Sep 5, 2024

Too many still view Ukraine through the prism of Russian imperialism

By Olesya Khromeychuk

Far too many Western newspaper editors, academics, and cultural commentators continue to view Ukraine through the distorting lens of Russian imperialism, writes Olesya Khromeychuk.

Civil Society Conflict

UkraineAlert Sep 26, 2024

Putin will keep escalating his nuclear blackmail until it stops working

By Peter Dickinson

More than two and half years since the start of Russia’s Ukraine invasion, it should now be abundantly clear that Vladimir Putin will continue escalating his nuclear blackmail until it stops working, writes Peter Dickinson.

Arms Control Conflict

UkraineAlert Sep 12, 2024

Concerns grow over possible Russian sabotage of undersea cables

By Aleksander Cwalina

The United States has recently detected indications of increased Russian military activity around key undersea cables, fueling concerns over a possible escalation in the Kremlin’s hybrid war against the west, writes Aleksander Cwalina.

Conflict Defense Policy

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ending Russian impunity: Why Ukraine needs justice as well as security appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics

SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM The Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics is an annual conference convening economic and financial leaders from both sides of the Atlantic.

Speaker

Lisa Monaco
Deputy Attorney General, US Department of Justice

Moderator

Stephanie Flanders
Senior Executive Editor for Economics, Bloomberg; Head, Bloomberg Economics

Event transcript

Uncorrected transcript: Check against delivery

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much for joining us, Deputy Attorney General. I know you wanted to be here in person, but the president needed you more than even we did. But I’m looking forward to this conversation. We’ve had—I was just—we were just chatting earlier. And I was saying, you know, this is—the reason I had, you know, wanted to spend as much time as possible at this conference today is the transatlantic council is very good at getting into the weeds and having very substantive conversations for the nerds among us. We wear that as a badge of pride.

And when it comes to this interconnectedness of economic security and national security that we’ve seen play out and we see demonstrated in session after session at this conference, I think—I mean, you, in the Department of Justice, you’ve been living that dream the last few years. And there’s no greater symbol of that new interconnectedness than the Disruptive Technology Strike Force. So maybe that’s where we could start with asking you why that was created, and why it was—why it was a priority for the department. You know, and possibly—you know, in a pretty new area.

LISA MONACO: Well, great. Happy to do that. First, let me say thank you to Kim for that introduction, to the Atlantic Council and, importantly, to the Geoeconomic Center for really being such an excellent bridge between finance, economics, national security. I think it’s particularly important in today’s world that that bridge has been built. And thank you, Stephanie, for having this conversation. I really do wish I was there in person, not the least of which because it’s always good to get out of Washington. But, alas, events intervened.

So let me step back for a second as I answer your question, Stephanie, and kind of situate folks a little bit as to how we in the Justice Department see the current moment and the current landscape, and why this conversation, I think, is so, so important, and the conference that you’re convening is so important. You know, I’ve held a number of both national security and law enforcement roles over the last twenty years. And what I have seen is a real evolution in the threat landscape. And today, the most pressing challenges, I think, that we are seeing really combine and intertwine national security, economic security, and increasingly technology.

And what I am particularly concerned about these days, and it’s reflected in the intelligence that I and the other folks that you have heard from this morning, from government, and that I’m sure Daleep will talk about, is what we are seeing in the way that adversaries are seeking to exploit technology to gain national security, and economic security, military, and intelligence advantage; how they are seeking to fuel their rise and their competitive edge by projecting power both at home and abroad, challenging norms, as we’ve seen so brutally with Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion into Ukraine, and a whole host of other areas.

This threat landscape that we are seeing today, I think, is playing out certainly in physical battlefields and economic zones and in information spaces. And the real issue that we are focusing on here is how those adversaries, increasingly nation-states and their proxies, are exploiting critical technologies, emerging technologies, whether it’s through cybertheft, through traditional espionage, and through foreign investment, and I might add, which I’m hoping we can get into a little bit later.

So what we are trying to do is respond to that moment in a host of different ways and the role that we play, which is really a unique one. The Justice Department is unique in the federal government and amongst the executive branch as having both a national-security and a law-enforcement mission. The Justice Department is the lead law-enforcement and counterintelligence investigator and enforcer in the United States.

So we really are well-positioned and uniquely positioned to respond to this current moment and the current threat landscape, all of which is to say that’s why we have really focused our efforts on responding to this moment, to this threat landscape, to the actions we’re seeing, particularly from increasingly adversary nation-states and what they are trying to do as it pertains to critical technologies and emerging technologies.

That’s why I launched now last year something called the Disruptive Technology Strike Force. And it’s designed to be a joint effort, led by the Justice Department and the Commerce Department, not usually the folks that you think join forces on enforcement actions all the time. But the moment we are in and the current threat landscape really does call for it. So, together with the Commerce Department, Department of Homeland Security, our colleagues across the federal government, and, importantly, international partners, we are going after adversaries who are trying to siphon off our most critical technologies to use it against us and to fuel their own economic and national-security and military rise.

We have made—and I’ve directed our prosecutors to make AI a top enforcement priority when it comes to this strike force. And we are focusing very much on enforcing our export-control laws and the CHIPS Act and the additional authorities there, sanctions evasion, illicit money laundering and other networks that are trying to, again, siphon off this critical technology to potentially use against us, but really to fuel the rise of adversary nations.

And so this kind of unique partnership and forming of this strike force has already had really significant successes. We’ve arrested more than twenty individuals for everything from export-control violations, smuggling of sensitive technologies, dual-use items to Russia, to Iran, to China, and again, focusing on the most critical technologies that we’re most concerned about.

Just last week, we took a series of enforcement actions in five separate cases, holding individuals accountable here and abroad, who were funneling everything from lasers to UAV technologies to microelectronics with military applications to Russia, to China, to Iran, all in violation of our sanctions regimes, our export-control laws. So this is just one example in last week’s cases of the work we are trying to do to strike back against adversaries trying to use our most critical and emerging technologies against us.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: And, along with the Disruptive Technologies Strike Force, you also—you have the KleptoCapture Task Force. I would compliment—

LISA MONACO: Yeah, we’re—

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:—compliment the people who come up with these names. They watch a lot of Marvel movies, I think.

LISA MONACO: If only. If only.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: But how much of a learning curve is it if you’re trying to go after the enablers that help hide the assets and money to shell companies, to cryptocurrency exchanges? I think we saw action today announced by the president on cryptocurrency exchange. You know, are you finding you just—you need more talent to come—you know, more people who understand this stuff or you need more tools? How has that been going?

LISA MONACO: So a number of things there, Stephanie, to unpack.

One, so you did reference an announcement that we’ve just made this afternoon, a case out of our US Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, together with our national security division here in Maine Justice. This was the disruption of an illicit cryptocurrency exchange called Cryptex and the indictment of a Russian national.

Again, this is part of our—really, our effort and our focus on disruption. We will bring and always continue to bring prosecutions wherever and however we can but that’s not the only tool we’re going to use.

We are going to take disruptive action wherever we can, going after the criminal ecosystem, in this case an illicit cryptocurrency exchange, and the money laundering on the darknet that it was fueling, again, to support ransomware actors, to support drug trafficking, again, going after the whole ecosystem that is really contributing to destabilizing activities around the world and fueling, again, a criminal ecosystem that malicious cyber actors are taking advantage of.

And when we talk about our efforts like Task Force KleptoCapture, which we launched, by the way, Stephanie, just days—mere days after Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and we did that because we wanted to be poised together with our partners to go after those who are fueling Putin’s war machine, to go after the ill-gotten gains of the oligarchs and, I should say, their enablers—the money launderers, the fixers, the shell companies that are kind of propping up these networks and, in turn, propping up the war machine.

So we have seized everything from yachts in Fiji to grounding planes in Switzerland and the UAE. We’ve forfeited luxury apartments around the world and seized art. So we’re really trying to go after those who are fueling Putin’s war machine and thereby, together with our partners, really isolate what is kind of norm busting behavior by Putin, by the Russian invasion, enforcing our global sanctions regimes that, after all, don’t work unless we are moving in concert with our partners.

So these actions that I’ve mentioned, both the work I just mentioned today with the disruption of the Cryptex cryptocurrency exchange, that was done with our Dutch partners today as well as some others. All the work that we’re doing with Task Force KleptoCapture relies heavily on and is made stronger by our work with our international law enforcement and intelligence partners, whether it’s Germany or the UK.

You name it, we are much stronger when we are working together to really close off these avenues, these dark spaces that allow the work of the oligarchs and the illicit networks to really—to prosper. So we’re determined to shut those down, deprive Putin and his war machine of those ill-gotten gains. That was the whole idea behind Task Force KleptoCapture.

But what we need to do this work is absolutely our international partnerships but also we need cooperation from the private sector, right. We need the work and that’s true also, I should add, with the disruptive technology strike force.

Some of the best cases we’ve been able to make rely on tips and cooperation that we’ve received from the private sector who I have to imagine don’t want their networks and, you know, their backbone of being exploited by malicious actors.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: I mean, there’s—you talk about the fueling—the financial fueling of the war machine. Obviously, there’s also just the keeping it well stocked—the avoidance of sanctions—and I know Daleep Singh will be talking about this later this afternoon.

But, you know, you have a lot of this avoidance and evasion hiding in plain sight. I mean, even in the trade statistics where you find enormous explosion of exports potentially containing sanctioned goods embedded in them from countries in Central Asia but also countries like India.

I’m just trying to understand. I mean, DOJ has been playing a bigger role in sanctions enforcement. Does the DOJ have a role in, you know, whether Indian companies—once you put Indian companies on the entities list, are there then actions against them? I’m just trying to think of how you see your role extending.

LISA MONACO: Sure. It’s a great question and an opportunity for me to explain why the role that the Justice Department plays is so unique and so critical. I mentioned before that the Department of Justice is unique in our system because we are both a law enforcer and—a law enforcement organization and a national security agency. What does that mean? It means we have both criminal tools and law enforcement authorities, and we have national security and intelligence tools and authorities. And we can bring both to bear to get after whatever the threat is, and use the best tool that we have, together with our partners, to disrupt that threat.

So what do I mean by that? It means that the cases I’ve referenced, the investigations that we do, that can feed in—that can produce information, intelligence, evidence, that we can share with our partners to help them develop their sanctions package, to help them develop the information that is necessary to put them on the entities list—sometimes to share with our international partners to help them undertake their work within their system and their rule of law system. So it really is a virtuous cycle to be able to use both our law enforcement and criminal tools as well as our national security and intelligence authorities.

And the name of the game here, Stephanie, is all tools we have developed. And this dates back many years to how we’ve gone after other national security threats—whether it’s terrorism, whether it’s nation-states, cyber actors, to today going after autocratic regimes who are undermining the rule of law. undermining confidence in the financial system because of the actions they are taking. We are really playing an increasingly large part in getting after that national security threat, using the same kind of approach that we have in other spaces. And that is all tools, whatever tool that we can use as a government, whether it’s our criminal indictment, whether it’s our contributing to a sanctions regime, whether it’s us helping the Commerce Department, or whether it’s us feeding information into one of our international partners’ work, that is what we are going to do. And we’re not kind of prejudicing whose tool is better. We’re coming at it to decide what’s the best way to disrupt the threat.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: And you mentioned we had a very thoughtful conversation about AI before lunch. And you talked about seeking tougher penalties for criminal actions that involve misusing AI. So I’m interested in what kind of examples you’re thinking of, of that kind of misuse, in the investigations that you’re undertaking.

LISA MONACO: Sure. So this is something I’ve been talking a lot about. You know, we want our companies to be leading in this space. We want the United States to be a leader and an innovator. Companies and, indeed, government agencies should be using new and emerging technologies, like AI, to make their work better, more efficient, more precise. But we have to do so attentive to the risk posed, particularly to deliberate risk posed from deliberate misuse. So the message that I have tried to convey when it comes to corporate criminal enforcement and the use and misuse of AI, or other emerging technologies, it’s really the following.

One, first and foremost, this is a brave new world, but the law applies. We have frameworks and laws that I believe, and we believe, apply to current conduct. So, for instance, we have been sending the message that price fixing with AI is still price fixing, fraud or market manipulation with AI is still fraud and market manipulation. And we are going to treat it as such. Accordingly, we’ve also sent the message that if AI is being deliberately misused and abused within a company to perpetrate a particular crime, to make it more impactful/more serious, we will seek enhanced sentences. And that’s a direction that we’ve given to our prosecutors.

Again, we want companies to be the leaders in the development and use of these technologies, but we have to be doing it in a way that is consistent with responsible corporate behavior. So we have also directed earlier this year that the Criminal Division, which is responsible for evaluating a company’s—for instance, a company’s compliance program in the context of a potential investigation or resolution, we’ve directed that they include an evaluation of how that company’s compliance program is mitigating or addressing the potential for abuse of technologies in the course of that compliance evaluation.

So we’re telling you that you need to be asking questions like: How is the company managing the risk posed by a particular technology? How is it mitigating the potential for deliberate misuse of that technology? It’s all part of what we are trying to do, which is to incentivize a culture of compliance, incentivize responsible corporate behavior, because I think that redounds to the benefit across the board, both for our national security, our economic security, and confidence in the rule of law within the United States.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: I guess one of the examples that kind of crystalizes how much the world has changed, but just also just the complexity of what constitutes a national security threat, has been the debate around TikTok. So I just—I just wanted to ask you, I mean, there’s—obviously, ByteDance is facing—there’s a January deadline for divesting TikTok. There’s a big legislative or political battle around that. But just sort of stepping back, why is it that it’s a national security threat? What would be the case for banning TikTok?

LISA MONACO: So I—you said that we’re going to nerd out, so let me nerd out for one minute. And this is in the lane of—

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: Everyone’s sitting up in their chair now. They’re excited.

LISA MONACO: Yeah, I’m sure.

Since this is very much a matter of ongoing litigation, I have to be very careful and limited in what I can say. And, obviously, the fact that it’s ongoing is very clear by the fact that we just had an oral argument in the DC Circuit in connection with the legislation that the Justice Department is defending.

And so a few things I can say. One is that the law that the Justice Department is defending that Congress passed earlier this year is not seeking to prohibit protected speech. It is seeking to restrict foreign ownership of a company that—and a foreign ownership itself that threatens national security. So our briefs that we have filed with the court and that were the subject of this oral argument make, I think, quite clear that the central purpose of the law is to break the ties that bind TikTok to Beijing, to break the ties that bind TikTok to the PRC government. And the law that we are defending addresses—and that Congress passed—addresses, I think, the risks that we’ve been discussing, and that is the risks posed by foreign adversaries that are seeking to influence particular sectors with significant national security vulnerabilities.

So this is not a ban of TikTok or any other application that this law is reaching, and it doesn’t censor American speech. What it is responding to is a real and documented national security threat posed by nation-state adversaries who can weaponize applications or software that are running on every phone in every pocket across the United States, and that has the potential to covertly manipulate content. And I will also say, Stephanie, as part of the filing that we have made in the course of this case, there has been declassified intelligence that’s been included in that—those legal briefs that demonstrates that TikTok and ByteDance have acted in response to PRC demands to censor content outside of China. So I think I’ll leave it at that.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: I mean, I guess this is an example of something—and it’s coming up a lot here—you know, you’re having to innovate. And you said yourself, it’s about using whatever the best tool is, and then you’re—or sometimes devising new tools to respond to new threats within a framework that you can legally justify. But I guess the more you innovate—sorry, carry on.

LISA MONACO: No, I was just saying, that is exactly what you see is at play with this legislation, that Congress was responding to the moment that I’ve described earlier, the kind of—the state that we are in with regard to the challenges posed by the intersection of national security threats and the misuse and abuse of certain technologies. And I think that law that it passed is very much a response to that challenge.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: I guess the broader question I was thinking of is, you know, that the more you innovate, and you come up with new tools, you obviously want to feel like it can be justified within existing legal frameworks. But it’s inevitably going to be more open to challenge whether, as you know, by political opponents or by other legal opinion. I just wondered—I mean, and, obviously, you’ve got the court of public opinion when it comes to something like TikTok, but also when it comes to the way that we’re pursuing Russian sanctions. Are we penalizing the oligarchs more than we’re penalizing ordinary Russian people? All of those debates.

You know, as a lawyer, do you—you know, how do you kind of reach comfort with this kind of innovation? What are your sort of lodestars when you’re thinking about the effect on public opinion of doing something which, you know, doesn’t have a lot of precedent and is perhaps more contentious?

LISA MONACO: So I’ll take it in kind of two buckets. With regard to the legislation that I just referenced, obviously our role in the Justice Department is to defend the legislation that we believe is legally sound, that is—and we’ve worked with Congress to provide technical assistance on the legislation, and that it is defensible within our legal framework. And our briefs and the oral argument make that clear—the arguments we put forward in that regard.

When it comes to the sanctions, I guess I would quibble a little bit with the premise. Which is to say, I think the sanctions regimes and the kind of underlying authority, whether it’s [International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)] or other authorities, have been longstanding and, kind of, well practiced. I suppose some might say too well practiced. There is an ongoing debate about overuse, potentially, of sanctions. I think with regard to using those tools to respond to the brutal and unprovoked and illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine to garner—and this has been the critical ingredient, Stephanie—to garner an unprecedented, kind of, alliance of nations to join in those sanctions and enforcing those sanctions, that has been a critical element.

Because, you know, when you think about what is a common currency to—you know, I guess pun intended—of these rule of law nations and rights respecting nations, it is upholding the rule of law, it is pushing back against the norms-violating behavior that we see most brutally and vividly in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And we need to be enforcing those sanctions to the best of our ability. But it obviously has to withstand a test, as they inevitably will be and have been challenged in many instances, by very well-resourced oligarchs, I would say. But we are up to that challenge. We are up to that task.

And have repeatedly been able to defend these enforcement actions and pursue these forfeiture actions, again, to take back and ensure that those who are trying to prop up Putin’s war machine are not benefiting from those ill-gotten gains and using them to fuel Russia’s brutality in Ukraine. And going after individual oligarchs who are evading our sanctions regimes, I think is obviously quite fair game. Similarly, the enablers and the shell companies, the money launderers have to be part of that enforcement regime. And it’s something that we have done in a very deliberate way, going after the oligarchs themselves but also the enablers and the facilitators that are creating a very permissive environment for some of these sanctions evasions.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: So we’ve had lots of tough subjects. I’m going to end with an easy one, which is the election. You talked about bad actors’ use of technology. What are you—I mean, briefly, but I know this is maybe the last time we’re going to hear from you publicly before the election. So, you know, what is the DOJ seeing on that front, whether it’s interference or just malign use of technology with respect to the election and its integrity?

LISA MONACO: Sure. Well, look, I’ve been, as has the attorney general, trying to be quite vocal about this, because I think it’s very important that people understand the threats that we are seeing and, importantly, what we are doing about them.

So when it comes to the threat environment with regard to election security, we are seeing, I am seeing, a more complex and diverse environment than I frankly have ever seen before. I think it’s more diverse because we’re seeing more threat actors, more nation-states getting into the game, particularly when it comes to malign foreign influence.

We are seeing more complex operations and a—all of it operating in a more polarized environment than we’ve ever had before, thereby kind of fueling disinformation and misinformation, designed to sow discord and distrust in our democracy, and all of it fueled by and accelerated by artificial intelligence.

So when it comes to Russia, it is—and our intelligence community has been quite clear about this—is the dominant and predominant actor in this space. When it comes to Iran, they also are accelerating their efforts to influence the election, including the presidential election. And you’ve seen a number of statements issued by the intelligence community, by the FBI, in that regard, including very recently last week.

And when it comes to China, we are seeing efforts to influence not the presidential campaign, unlike or in contrast to Russia and Iran, but really trying to influence down-ballot races. But all of it, the overlay here is efforts to sow discord, sow distrust in our election system and undermine confidence in our democratic process. And what we have been trying to do is investigate, expose and disrupt wherever we can so people understand and can be discerning consumers of the information that they’re getting.

So a few weeks ago we took very significant actions to expose and disrupt two operations, directed by Russia and directed by Putin, to wage an online covert malign foreign-influence campaign, one operation involving the Russian state-sponsored or state-operated media operation, the RT, where they were funneling millions of dollars through shell companies to an American company here in Tennessee and using that to coopt unwitting American commentators to push out Russian propaganda, all, again, designed to prop up pro-Russian narratives.

We also, in that same set of actions, exposed and disrupted a Putin-directed operation from a proxy company called the Social Design Agency—a very Orwellian name, I might add. And this was used by Russian actors and directed by Putin to push out AI-generated content, targeting particular voter demographics and pushing out Russian propaganda and pro-Russian influence campaigns. And we’ve seen similar work and being accelerated by Iran; again, fake personas, webs of online personas, pushing out AI-generated content, all designed to sow discord, and, in some instances, using the conflict in Gaza almost like kerosene to whip up protests and demonstrations and to fuel discord.

So it’s a very aggressive space, increasingly fueled by AI, designed to influence our elections. But our focus is on exposing it—investigating it, exposing it, disrupting it. And you have seen an unprecedented level of transparency from this government, from the intelligence community, from the Justice Department and the FBI about what we are seeing and putting that out on a regular basis so individuals and voters can be discerning about what they’re seeing.

Last thing I’ll stay, Stephanie, all that said, I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of individuals to go out and vote in a fair and safe election process because we have a very diffuse and resilient system that is undertaking that responsibility, all of it done at the state and local level throughout the nation. But part of the reason I am confident in that is because we are pointing out this information and trying to be as transparent as possible in making sure people understand the what—the lengths to which some of our foreign adversaries will go to try and influence this election.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: Well, you mentioned election integrity just there, but I know also the degree of polarization. I mean, we, obviously—on the domestic front we’ve seen the department already weighing in on some of the legal battles that are being—cases that are being raised already on what you might call a precautionary basis around the country around election integrity. Do you—do you see any serious legal cases there? Which are the ones that you’re most focused on, the sort of paper trail that’s been left?

LISA MONACO: Well, you know, the Justice Department has—this goes back to our dual national security and law enforcement mission. Our responsibilities when it comes to election security are quite wide-ranging, from exposing and holding accountable foreign malign actors in the way I just described, to enforcing our civil rights laws and our voting rights laws and ensuring that there is access—that there’s ballot access, access to voting places. And we are continuing to do that. We have filed a few lawsuits in places where we want to make sure that states are living up to their responsibilities to ensure equal and clear and fair access to election and polling places.

But there is another entrant on the election security kind of landscape, Stephanie, that I think is important to address, and that’s the unprecedented rise in threats to public officials, including election workers, that we have seen in the last several years. This is something that I had not seen in my previous many, many years of service, and something we have responded to with an Election Threats Task Force that we launched a couple of years ago because we have been seeing such a disturbing rise in threats of violence and sometimes actual violence being perpetrated against election workers—everyone from elected or appointed secretaries of state to volunteers, people who simply are volunteering to help all of us exercise our most fundamental right, the right to vote.

So we have brought more than seven hundred cases—threats cases in the last several years. More than half of those involved threats to public officials, including election workers. And we are determined to do everything we can to hold accountable individuals who would perpetrate threats of violence or actual violence against public officials because no one—no one—should have to be intimidated or feel threatened simply for doing their job. It’s unacceptable, it’s wrong, and we are determined to hold those who do so accountable.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: You’ve brought me right to my last question, which is a bit more of a sober one. But we’ve been—at Bloomberg, we’ve been running a swing state poll every month since the end of last year, and over the course of this year I think a rising majority of people responding to that poll have said they expect civil unrest around the election and after the election. Is that—is that what the department is expecting?

LISA MONACO: So I’m not going to comment on polls or expectations. There is no place for political violence. I mean, we saw the danger posed by it, of course most starkly in July with the attempted assassination against the former president and now, of course, just two weeks ago with the attempted assassination in Florida. Thankfully, the former president was unharmed most recently, and we are doing everything we can to ensure accountability particularly in this most recent case where you’ve seen we’ve now brought attempted assassination charges. That case is very much ongoing and in its early stages but we are determined to spare no resource to ensure accountability. And, again, no place for political violence. Not in July in Butler County, Pennsylvania, not two weeks ago in Florida. Not ever.

I am confident that the work that we have been doing both to hold accountable in this most recent case, the work that we have done to respond to the unprecedented threat against our democracy that we saw in the attack on January 6th of 2021, that we are showing that we are holding accountable those who would undertake threats to our democracy and that should be a very clear message to anybody who would contemplate doing so in the future.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS: Well, you’ve reminded us that the defense of national security and, certainly, economic security is on multiple fronts at home and abroad right now.

But, Lisa Monaco, deputy attorney general, thank you very much for joining us.

LISA MONACO: Thanks for having me.

Watch the event

The post How Russia, China, and Iran are working to sow distrust in US elections, according to US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics

SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM The Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics is an annual conference convening economic and financial leaders from both sides of the Atlantic.

Speaker

R. Nicholas Burns
US Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, Department of State

Moderator

Josh Lipsky
Senior Director, GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council

Event transcript

Uncorrected transcript: Check against delivery

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: With that, good morning to all—to you, and to Sigmar, and to everybody in New York City. I really do wish I could be with you, despite the traffic in New York, which is catastrophically bad in UNGA week. It’s the place to be in the world this week, at UNGA. But I have a full-time job here, as you know, in Beijing. And sometimes I have to be in Beijing to do that job. So that’s why I’m speaking to you virtually.

But I want to pay tribute to Fred and Sigmar, and to both institutions—to the Atlantic Council of the United States and to the Atlantik-Brücke. When I think about the transatlantic relationship, and as Fred said I spent a lot of my diplomatic career focused on it as ambassador to NATO but also as undersecretary of state, I really can’t think of two private organizations that played more of a foundational role in creating the modern relationship that we have, in the late 1940s through the 1950s, all the way through the end of the Cold War, and beyond, than these two organizations. And I want to pay tribute to Sigmar, who has been a great friend over many years, and to the Atlantik-Brücke. I’ve been involved with them for many years. And certainly, to the Atlantic Council. And so thank you for sponsoring this forum this morning.

I’m going to speak rather briefly about a very complicated subject, and that’s US-China relations. But I’m looking forward to being—to hearing your views, to answering questions, and mixing it up a little bit in an audience filled with Americans, Europeans, and people from all around the world, because I can’t think of anything more vital for the future of both the United States and our European allies than getting this relationship with China framed correctly and getting it moving forward.

I will say this at the beginning, to state the obvious. From an American government perspective, we have no more consequential relationship than we do with China, with the People’s Republic of China. It’s enormously complicated because, of course, we’re both a competitor with China and we are trying to be a partner, in some respects, with the Chinese as well. And I know that does mirror the strategic dilemma facing the NATO countries and the European Union as well.

I’d start talking about our relationship with some good news that might reassure everybody on a Thursday morning in New York. I’m going to have to give you some bad news in the middle of the presentation, and then we’ll go from there. Here’s the relatively better news about the US-China relationship. I think we’ve been able to stabilize it over the last nine or ten months, since President Biden met President Xi Jinping in San Francisco, on the margins of the APEC summit.

Prior to that, we’d had a very, very rocky time. I was sworn in in 2021. We had the visit of Speaker Pelosi to Taiwan, which we supported, which really led to a downturn—a significant downturn in our relationship. The government of China cut off many of our key strategic channels. Then you’ll remember, in February 2023 a strange balloon floated across the national territory of the United States, from Alaska all the way across the Great Plains to South Carolina, where it was shot down on orders of the president of the United States. That led to a downturn in our relationship on the Chinese side.

And so we went through a period of time through most of 2022 and part of 2023. We did not have any significant cabinet channels that were workable between the two countries. And as a diplomat, that concerned me greatly especially in a relationship filled with sometimes acrimony and competitiveness, and sometimes even bitterness. You need to have people at the highest level talking. And I think that’s what we’ve been able to recreate.

We now have—Secretary Tony Blinken has a very close working relationship with Wang Yi, the foreign minister of China. Jake Sullivan has a strategic dialog underway with Wang Yi. Janet Yellen with her counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng. Gina Raimondo, Secretary Raimondo, with her counterpart, Wang Wentao. And I think we are fortunate in this relationship to be led by President Biden, who has a very strong and long-lasting relationship over twelve to thirteen years now with President Xi Jinping.

So what do I mean by stabilizing the relationship? We’ve recreated the cabinet channels that you need to succeed, especially in a difficult bilateral relationship. What are some specific examples of that? We had not had our military leaders in contact through the two crises that I talked about. We now have our secretary of defense, our chairman of the joint chiefs, both have established contact and relationships with their Chinese counterparts. And very significantly, our admiral who leads our Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Sam Paparo, has recently had two meetings with the southern theater commander of the People’s Liberation Army.

And that’s significant because, you know, one thing I worry about, and many of us worry about, is unintended conflict—perhaps ships or planes colliding. It’s happened before, unfortunately, in this relationship. In the South or East China Sea, you want to have the ability to put our senior military commanders in touch with each other to reduce the temperature, separate with the accidental forces, and have a peaceful conclusion. And so that has begun to work for us, closer military to military ties.

On fentanyl—and for the Europeans present, fentanyl is the leading cause of death in the United States of Americans eighteen to forty-five—it’s a true national health crisis. And the majority of the precursor chemicals that make up the synthetic opioid that are made up by the drug cartels in Central America, the majority of those precursor chemicals come from black-market Chinese firms.

And so, after President Biden met with President Xi and the government of China pledged it would cooperate with us—and we’ve made progress together in trying to reduce the flow of those precursor chemicals, attack the illicit finance that funds it, and try to move down this road together of trying to resolve a major global-health problem involving the US and many other countries with the assistance of the government of China. We haven’t done enough yet. We haven’t gone fast enough. There’s more to do. But I do think that we’ve been able to at least head down the same road together. And that gives us some comfort.

Artificial intelligence is another example of a topic that we’re beginning to grapple with together. Obviously, we see in our country the benefits of AI, but we also see the risks. And we’ve begun a strategic conversation with the government of China to deal with the military risks associated with AI. We’re at the beginning of that, and we’re going to go much further. But at least we are at the beginning. And, of course, with our allies in NATO but also out here in the Indo-Pacific, we’ve gone much further.

And I’ll give you another example, a final example, Fred and Sigmar and Josh, and that is climate change. China’s about 28 percent of global emissions. The United States is 10 percent. But we’re the two leading emitters of carbon. I think we understand we have a shared responsibility to each other, to our citizens, but especially to, you know, the other eight billion people in the world to make sure that we’re working together on the Paris climate-change commitments that we undertook together back in 2015 when President Obama was in office, working with President Xi Jinping. John Podesta, who many of you know is our climate negotiator, he just visited us in Beijing three weeks ago; had a series of, I think, productive, constructive meetings.

You know, we disagree on some subjects. We would wish that the Chinese would do more on methane, more on nitrous oxide, and be very aggressive in their national declared commitments that they’re going to have to make in the next year or two. And we hope to see further progress at COP29. But I think so far, so good, in at least putting us on the same side of this effort.

And so, in those respects, I think we do have a more stable relationship in terms of high-level communication. And that allows us to have the type of conversations that are sometimes very difficult that can drive down the possibility or the probability that disagreements might lead to conflict, because obviously we don’t want that to happen. And we’re trying to be very responsible in the way we manage this relationship.

So that’s the—believe it or not, that’s the better news in this relationship. That’s point one.

Point two—and this would really be what I want to focus on, and then I’ll stop and we can have a good conversation—point two is that this remains, in large part, this relationship between the US and China, extremely competitive. We’re the two largest and strongest economies in the world. We’re the two strongest militaries in the world. We’re two countries with enormous global reach and potential to have an impact on the world. In our case, we think it’s positive.

And so we’ve got to be careful about how we handle this relationship. We’re systemic rivals, and I think we’ll be systemic rivals well into the next decade, perhaps even beyond. And that rivalry and competition plays out in four different spheres.

Certainly it plays out in the security realm here in the Indo-Pacific, where the United States has done a lot of work over the last four years, under President Biden’s leadership, to strengthen our security alliances with Japan, with the Republic of Korea, with the Philippines, with Thailand, with Australia. We’ve built up a very promising strategic initiative called AUKUS with the United Kingdom and Australia; important to keep the peace out here in the Indo-Pacific and provide for a very strong deterrent.

And you just saw the president—our president, Joe Biden—host the Quad leaders at the president’s home in Delaware just this past weekend. And India, Japan, Australia and the United States working together, that is an enormously capable and powerful quartet of countries designed, really, to work on positive issues about how to strengthen democracy, how to strengthen market capitalism, how to take on big global issues all together. So we think we’ve strengthened our relationship in the security realm out here in the Indo-Pacific.

I would also say, however, that one of the big gamechangers has been the degree to which both NATO and the European Union have begun to think about their security interests in this part of the world. When NATO leaders meet we have four security partners from the Indo-Pacific who meet with us in Western Europe or the United States or Canada or where that meeting is being held. That’s a game changer.

We see an enormous number of European members of parliament and members of the individual parliaments of the European governments traveling to Taiwan to stand up for an association with the Taiwan authorities that we hope will maintain the peace in the cross-strait basis and that’s been very, very helpful, I think, to us in this part of the world.

So competitive on the security realm, and the United States certainly is determined to maintain our leading position with our allies as a security force here in the Indo-Pacific. That’s a first order of competition. But I think both technology and economics have really taken center stage in the US-China relationship.

You know about the commercial rivalry or competition between American and Chinese companies when it comes to the development of artificial intelligence. But, obviously, as we think about AI and think about biotechnology and quantum computing there will be technologies developed in the military sphere based on what’s happening in the commercial marketplace.

And so the United States is determined to main our tech lead—to maintain our tech lead, I should say—and determined to work with other like-minded democratic countries on that basis, and the technology competition is white hot.

You’ve seen the United States shut down the possibility of American companies to export advanced semiconductors into the Chinese market. There are limits now on the ability of American private equity and venture capital firms to invest in artificial intelligence enterprises here in China.

Those are taken, this small yard high fence approach, not really for commercial reasons on our part but for national security reasons. We don’t want the PLA to gain access to our most sensitive commercial technologies that can be transformed into military capability and we’ve seen other countries begin to take these steps as well.

So technology is center stage and economics is center stage. We have a very complicated economic relationship with China. China is actually the third largest trade partner of the United States after our North American border states in Canada, in Mexico, and we have declared—and Secretary Yellen, our secretary of the Treasury, has said on multiple occasions we’re not trying to decouple the enormously large trade and investment relationship—over $600 billion last year—between the United States and China but we are going to derisk. . .

Technology and economics have combined to make this I think one of the most active areas and one of the most important in our overall relationship, and the issue of overcapacity, and I hope we get a chance to talk about that in some detail here, has taken on added importance.

We believe, and Secretary Yellen made this very clear when she visited Guangzhou and Beijing here in April, that China is engaged in massive overproduction of EVs and solar panels, of lithium batteries, of steel, of robotics, and biotechnology as well, and then in some of those areas producing two to three times here in China domestic demand and now trying to dump those products at artificially low prices in markets around the world.

I know that the European Union is engaged in a spirited debate about what action the EU should take. And I don’t want to comment on what the EU should or shouldn’t do. That’s up to the EU. But if you look around the world you’ll see that South Africa and Turkey have both raised tariffs on Chinese exports into their country to protect their markets. Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and the United States have done the same.

You saw President Biden put a hundred percent tariffs on sales of EVs—Chinese EVs—into the US market. We do this because what the Chinese are engaged in is patently unfair under international trade and we are not going to in any way tolerate a second China shock in the United States.

The first one, we lost well over a million American manufacturing jobs. We’re going to protect those jobs in the United States. And I think many other countries are reacting the same way against this overcapacity problem of the People’s Republic of China. Let’s talk more about that.

We should also talk in the economic national security domain about the fact that thousands of Chinese companies have been exporting dual-use components into Russia to strengthen the Russian defense industrial base and to allow Russia and strengthen Russia in its nefarious, brutal, illegal campaign in Ukraine and in firing Russian rockets and missiles, drones into Ukraine to kill Ukrainian civilians. We’re determined to stop this. We sanctioned over three hundred Chinese firms over the last several months. Unfortunately, we’ve not seen a change in Chinese behavior. And so they should expect that we’ll continue in this punitive effort to make our voice clear that we’re not going to stand by as China significantly helps Russia strengthen its armaments potential, but also its defense industrial base.

So in the security realm in the Indo-Pacific, on technology issues, on economic and trade issues, we have an intense competition underway between our two countries. And there’s a last—a last area. And it really is, in many ways, the most important. We have profound differences with the government of China on human rights. And we do not shy away from talking about those problems. People being held unjustly, like Ekpar Asat and Gulshan Abbas, for speaking out for freedom and the rights of the Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang.

The same is true in Tibet. The same is true in Hong Kong. The same is true in religious rights. And so we have a major disagreement with China on those issues. And we work in the UN Human Rights Council, along with many of the countries represented in the room today, to try to shine a light on the—on those terrible human rights practices of the government of China. So that’s the main bulk that would describe the very intense competition underway between our two governments.

But let me end, Sigmar, Fred, and Josh, on a slightly more positive note. I think we’re going to be competing with China. We in the United States, the European countries, and many of the Indo-Pacific countries, for a long time to come. Because we have to defend democracy. We have to defend the rule of law. We have to defend the rights of countries like the Philippines not to be subject to gross intimidation by the PLA. But we also want to make sure that we are responsible stewards of this relationship. And so we are dedicated to maintain a peaceful relationship between the United States and China.

I know that’s true for the European countries as well and for all of our Indo-Pacific allies, but it’s important to say it. And we put a lot of time and effort into creating these communication channels, into endless meetings with the Chinese leadership, so that our differences can be adjudicated peacefully and not through force of arms. The relationship’s a lot more complicated than this very short presentation that I’ve just given you. But let’s see if we can get into some of the details in the Q&A. And thanks so much, again, for inviting me to be with you.

JOSH LIPSKY: Ambassador, thank you for that. Thank you for overview and summary of the complexity of this relationship. It’s the perfect way to begin our conference today, because everything we talk about throughout the day—finance, and technology, and economic competition, and diplomacy—China is the major factor. And having you there—even though we wish you were here with us in New York—having you there from Beijing I think sends an important message. And we are very fortunate as Americans to have you as our representative in China right now. And we thank you for your service.

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Josh, thank you very much. If I could just say to the audience one thing about Josh Lipsky. I think what Josh is doing on geoeconomics at the Atlantic Council, working with Fred and others, is really pivotal as we think about American national security interests. And I got to know Josh when he was a student in my class at Harvard Kennedy School. And I can tell you how smart he is, how courageous he is intellectually. And I really admire the start—the brilliant start of his public service career. So thanks for having me with you, Josh.

JOSH LIPSKY: Thank you, Professor.

So let’s get into economics, one of the challenges you identified. It’s been an interesting forty-eight hours in China. First we saw the People’s Bank of China introduce a form of stimulus in a way we hadn’t seen them do before, and then we saw some fiscal announcements overnight here in the US in the last twenty-four hours from Beijing. I’m curious from your perspective there how you think Chinese policymakers think about the state of the Chinese economy, how you take these latest signals. And is it an indicator that maybe things are worse domestically for their economy than some forecasts are looking at right now?

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Josh, thank you. I think you’re right to point to this issue. It’s been an extraordinary couple of days looking at some of these major announcements that have been made by the Central Bank of China and others in the government here.

This is not a dodge, but we’re still looking at what they’ve announced and trying to, you know, do an analysis of how—the impact we think it’s going to have, both inside China but also on global markets. I think it’s a little bit too early to tell to make predictions, but certainly it’s a serious effort meant to try to address some of the short- and longer-term economic challenges that the government of China has.

It’s not for me to try to describe what the policymakers here are thinking. That’s their job; I’ll leave that to them. But I will say from an American economic perspective we want to see a market here that treats American firms more equitably. There are still lots of examples—and I meet with nearly every American CEO who comes through China—lots of examples of intellectual property theft, of forced technology transfer, of a dramatically unlevel playing field for American investors. And you’ve seen a dramatic drop in foreign direct investment by American investors, European investors, Asian investors—30 percent in this year alone. So that’s a major problem. And we would hope that the government here would continue to take the type of actions that would reassure foreign investors—in our case, American investors—that they can get a fair shake here and that they will be—if they make an investment or if they’re trading in a significant way, they’re going to be treated equally. And that is not always the case here.

Second, I’d say that, you know, you—we read and talk to some of the leading economic risk firms and analysis firms here, and there’s no question that China seems to be in a systemic transition as an economy, structural transition. The Rhodium Group put out a report a couple of weeks ago saying that China was in structural economic decline. Whether it’s in decline or a transition, it’s a fairly significant period. The drivers of growth in China—the property sector, the infrastructure sector—no longer are driving economic growth. And so I think, obviously, the government here has to take measures to try to increase nominal GDP growth rate. We would expect over time that growth rate would likely slow down, and continue to slow down in the second half of this decade into the next decade.

But our primary responsibility here is just to make sure that as American companies look at this market they have an accurate portrayal of what’s happening, but they’re also being treated fairly. And so Secretary Gina Raimondo and I have worked very closely together to try to make sure that American firms have that fair shake in this market, and that’s a consistent message that we’ve been sending to the government here. But certainly, what happens in the economy here is, obviously, one of the central issues that’s taking place here, and we’ll just have to see what the impact of these latest measures are.

JOSH LIPSKY: So you brought up earlier the issue of overcapacity. And based on what you’re saying of the structural slowdown, decline, however you term it, it seems the shift in China is away from the property sector and back into manufacturing, and that’s where this overcapacity problem stems from. But you’ve also said this is not the early 2000s, meaning the world is not going to react the same way that they did in the past China shock.

I’m curious what you’re seeing from other countries. You know, we talk about what the US is doing in tariffs and EVs. It’s not the early 2000s in the US. We seem to recognize that in our politics here and in our policy. But what about, as you engage with your colleagues in other countries both in Europe and beyond, how do they see this overcapacity problem and their unified or perhaps more aligned response to it?

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, Josh, I think you won’t be surprised—this is a very good question—that there is concern all over the world, including in countries that are close to China politically, about this overcapacity problem. It’s been a frustrating debate.

We started talking about this issue privately, obviously, with the government, and that was particularly true during Secretary Yellen’s visit here in early April. But it quickly became clear to us that the people—that the People’s Republic government was going to make a case that what they were engaged in, they say, is comparative advantage. And they simply were in a better position to manufacture products than, say, Europe or the Global South or the United States. And we contest that. Jay Shambaugh, our really able undersecretary of the treasury, made an important speech about why this was overcapacity on the part of the government of China and why, in economic terms, that was indisputable.

And so we’ve continued to press the government here for redress for American companies. But we’re not seeing much action. I think they’ve doubled down, the government here, on the overcapacity strategy. They call this the new productive forces. And so it’s been most visible, I think, the excess demand, by two to three times, domestic demand, OK, so excess demand then dumped around the world, most visible in EVs, lithium batteries and solar panels. But we also worry that this could now lead into biotechnology, into robotics, into other fields that are critical for the future.

If there’s one lesson, I think, that all of us around the world, in every single country, learned from the pandemic, don’t be reliant on a single source for critical materials, critical minerals, critical supplies that you need for your own economy. That’s the lesson we have digested and internalized in our government. And you hear that in what President Biden says about this issue. We are not going to tolerate a second China shock. And so that’s our message to the government of China.

So they shouldn’t be surprised when we, the United States, have raised tariffs on EVs, on solar panels, on lithium batteries and on other goods, and to see other countries doing it. I talk to all of my colleagues here, ambassadors from other countries—we’re all represented here in China—and to see it from Global South countries as well as Western Europe, as well as South America, as well as East Asian countries, has been a remarkable thing to see. So I think it’s a global issue. It’s a global pushback. And it’s a message that I hope the government here is going to understand and do something about.

JOSH LIPSKY: I’m really glad you mentioned the Global South countries, because that to me seems like such an important shift from when we went through this before in the early 2000s and their pushback. We’ve seen things Brazil have done and otherwise send, I hope, an important signal to China.

But there’s one country, of course, that’s happy to accept China’s support and industrial capacity, and that’ s Russia. Obviously, Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell recently said China’s directly supporting China’s war effort. We had former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice here Tuesday at an Atlantic Council event. Fred interviewed her, your former boss at the State Department when you were undersecretary for political affairs. She talked about their union and alliance between China and Russia.

Do you see any recognition on the part of China that there has to be a retrenchment about this relationship? Or do you see it only further deepening?

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Unfortunately, Josh, there’s no indication that China’s going to back away from its no-limits partnership with Russia. And it’s greatly disturbing, I know, to a roomful of Europeans, as it is to Americans, as it is to a lot of people around the world. The Chinese like to say that they’re neutral in this war, that they want to be a peacemaker. But they’ve done nothing to try to end the war on terms that would be fair to the victim, and that’s the people and the government of Ukraine.

And so the Chinese have doubled down on political support, diplomatic support for the Russians in New York, at the Security Council. They have not provided—but we watch this every day—we don’t believe the Chinese have provided lethal military assistance, meaning entire armaments to complete weapon systems, to Russia, but they’ve supplied very important, critically badly needed components, dual-use technologies, to the Russian Federation, so much so that, you know, a lot of people think that the Russian defense-industrial base now is stronger than it was even at the beginning of the war, in large part because of the assistance they have from China.

And so the Chinese can’t have it both ways. And I know the depths of emotion and pushback that we’re seeing from Europe. We tell the Chinese, as do our European allies, this is a vital issue for Europe, Canada and the United States, the fact that Putin has divided Europe once again. He’s brought war to Europe in the most reckless way. And we Americans point out that we fought in the First World War, in the Second World War. We maintained three hundred thousand troops in Europe during much of the Cold War. We are an actor by virtue—on the continent—by virtue of our membership in NATO. This is a vital interest for the United States, that Europe return to being what George H.W. Bush first said on the American side it should be—whole, free, and at peace. And I look at, you know, all my friends in Germany who believe that to their core, that that’s what Europe should be, and China isn’t helping. And not just isn’t helping, it’s aiding and abetting the Russian war machine.

So this issue has really defined direct—you know, an open, direct disagreement between the countries of NATO and the EU, including my own, and the Chinese government. And I think they’ve heard that message but unfortunately, they haven’t acted on it. And so you see, as I said before, Josh, I think one of the biggest changes that I’ve seen in my over two and a half years as ambassador on the ground here is that Europe is now thinking strategically about Taiwan and about security in East Asia in a way that it hadn’t before.

And many of the countries of the Indo-Pacific, our democratic allies, want to have some kind of, you know, closer strategic relationship with Europe, with the European Union, with individual European countries, and on a partner basis with NATO. And so the Chinese have brought this upon themselves. And it’s an own goal. And I hope at—we all hope, at some point they may wake up and decide that they’ve got to cut their losses and not just have this outright 100 percent support for the Russian Federation in this bitter, cruel war.

JOSH LIPSKY: So I’m going to ask you one follow up on that. We have about ten minutes left. I want to get to some audience questions. So please use AskAC.org on your phones, or if you’re watching virtually, and we’ll get to a few if we can.

But just one follow up, Ambassador. Secretary Rice said what we should be doing is actually different than what we’re doing now. We should be highlighting the partnership between Russia and China, and by highlighting it—she called it, “slamming them together,” I think, in the conversation—show how much they don’t have in common, show the differences between them. And I just wonder, based on China’s seemingly lack of response to the policy call so far, does anything different need to be done to call China out on its support of Russia?

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, you know, I think that a lot of governments have been trying to do that, pointing to the reckless relationship, for instance, between Putin and Kim Jong-un, with the North Koreans supplying ballistic missiles to Russia, and the Russians agreed to have a closer military relationship. That can’t possibly be in the interest of the People’s Republic of China. Condi Rice and Bob Gates have also, as private citizens, spoken out against the loose cooperation, but very important cooperation—not an alliance, but cooperation—among Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. We see that well as a malevolent force. And so I think a lot of us, in many governments but certainly in our government, have tried to do just what Secretary Rice, I think, so rightly says, call out the obvious problems to China for a long—for hitching themselves to Russia over the—over the mid to long term.

JOSH LIPSKY: Thank you. OK, I have a lot of questions coming in. I’m going to try to bridge them together. But let me ask you one of a theme we’re going to get to at the end of the day. At the end of the day today we’re going to talk about the future of the dollar. Obviously, that’s core to our work at the geoeconomic center. We produce a wide body of research on this. How do you think China sees the yuan’s role in the global economy? There’s obviously been e-CNY, their digital currency. But I think there’s some maybe misconceptions or misunderstanding of what they want from their own currency, and how they want China and its currency—and more broadly, their economy—to play in the global economy.

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, certainly. I’ll just take one little step back, Josh, and say that there’s no question that China has ambitions to become the world’s strongest economic, as well as military, power eventually. Remember, all the—you remember all those predictions that China would pass the United States in nominal GDP by 2025, or 2026 or 2027? Well, that’s not going to happen, given the strength of the American economy and given some of the problems of the slower nominal GDP growth rates here in China.

On the currency, I’d just point you to data. I think the latest data, I hope—I think—I think this is right, that 4.7 percent of global payments were made in the RMB last year. And 47.8 percent were made in the dollar. So that gives you an indication of the relative strength in terms of international effect of the dollar versus the RMB. In our country, our Treasury secretary speaks about the dollar, and is the only person who really should go into depth speaking about it. So I’m going to maintain that tradition, as an American diplomat, of letting Secretary Yellen speak to that question.

But I can tell you on a comparative basis the Chinese do have ambitions for their digital currency but also for the RMB internationally. But they’re far behind the dollar at this point, and I’m, obviously, pleased about that.

JOSH LIPSKY: Well, I had to try.

So let me take a few questions here. We have—there are basically several online about AI and I’ll try to put it together for you, Ambassador. But I think the theme of the questions I see online is, is there any ability—you talked in the beginning of your presentation about areas where we can work with China. Is there anything you see on this ability to set standards on AI? It seems that this technology competition where it’s coming from is most critical, most key to our national security. Is there any traction on that front in the general use of AI or AI in the military domain, maybe most concerningly?

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Josh, I think there’s recognition, certainly in our country and in our government from the president on down, that we understand how transformative AI is going to be not just for the global economy but for our global society in a multitude of ways.

And so you’ve seen both the president this week at UNGA and Secretary Blinken talking a lot about AI, meeting with other world leaders. This has been going on for several years now but it’s very intense this week at UNGA purposefully because we understand that we’ve got to get this right, the balance between the promise of AI and risks associated with it, both in terms of the impact on human society, the impact on global economics, the impact on the balance of power, and the impact on war and peace as we look at those scenarios in the future. So that’s point one.

Point two, we’re at a very early stage, as I said, in our conversations with the Chinese leadership on AI. We had one meeting between our experts in Geneva a couple of months ago. We want to go beyond that meeting.

We would like to have an in-depth discussion particularly to address the risks associated with AI in the military sphere and that’s an exceedingly important conversation to have, and we hope the Chinese will be ready to meet us to have that dialog and we’re ready to have that dialog.

I think where we’re most advanced, Josh, is in our strategic conversations with our NATO allies, with our leading trade partners, and with our Indo-Pacific allies in terms of the geopolitical impact of AI in the future.

But we’ve got to do more. We hope to get to a more sophisticated, deeper discussion with the Chinese leadership and, as I said, we’re ready for that. We hope they are, too.

JOSH LIPSKY: A final question for me—I know it’s late in Beijing—you began your tenure in the middle of the pandemic. That’s an extraordinary difficult time to start anywhere but especially in China with the zero lockdown policy—zero COVID.

What have you seen over the past few years that surprised you and what would you like to share back with this audience here about your engagements with the Chinese people? Because I think that often gets lost in the conversations.

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Josh, thank you very much.

You know, I calculated—I added up the other day I think I’ve spent sixty days, six zero, in quarantine in two and a half years in China. That’s quite something when you think about it. The start that I had here and that many of my colleagues had here was lockdowns and daily testing and the inability to travel, and what has changed my perspective since the end of zero COVID—the Chinese government policy which ended in December 2022—is the ability to get outside of the capital city and to interact with people all over China.

People in the provinces remember, for instance, that the United States was a good friend to China here in China during the Second World War. They remember the Flying Tigers. They remember General Stilwell.

People understand the impact that American educational institutions have had in China. There are millions of Chinese who have studied in our country since China opened up under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership in the late 1970s.

We currently have just under three hundred thousand Chinese students at our universities and our door is open to them. We issued 105,000 new student visas in 2023 to Chinese students to go to the United States and we’re well ahead of that pace as we near the end of 2024.

So I think what surprised me the most and what I feel passionate about is that as we compete as two geopolitical rivals—economic and military and strategic rivals—the last thing in the world we should do is to see our peoples disconnected from each other and the data points here are very stark.

Before the pandemic there were 345 direct flights a week between the United States and China. We went down to twelve direct flights in April of 2023, and we’re up only to eighty-nine direct flights now.

When it comes to students, we had fifteen thousand American students here ten years ago. We were down to about eight hundred students, we thought, at the beginning of this academic year. We’re now actually counting to try to see if we’re at a thousand American students here. But we’re way down in terms of students.

We had millions of tourists—over five million Chinese and American tourists going both ways—in 2019, but that dropped precipitously during the pandemic.

So it’s very important that we reconnect these two countries: tourists, business travelers, students, university links, nongovernmental-organization links, think tanks like the Atlantik-Brücke and the Atlantic Council coming back to China to interact. Because in a very competitive, long-term, difficult relationship of the type that we have between our two governments, what you need to do is have some ballast in the relationship, and people are the ballast.

Condi Rice—and you’re right, I worked for Condi twice in my government career and I greatly admire her—she wrote a very important Foreign Affairs article published two weeks ago and she makes this point, that we’ve got to keep the two societies connected. We believe that in our administration. President Biden’s talked about it. Secretary Tony Blinken and I have talked about it at great length. And we’re trying to do that, keep the societies connected. That’s one way to keep the peace. It’s one way to make sure that we have a basic understanding of each other.

And, Josh, from a national security perspective, I worry about the fact that we only had eight hundred students here last year. In ten or fifteen years, those twenty-year-olds in America today are going to be running many of our institutions in the United States—our corporate boardrooms, our newspapers, our TV channels, and they’ll be the American diplomats and military officers. And if we don’t have young men and women learn Mandarin now, have had an ability to live in this country and travel widely, then we’re not going to be as adept as we should in understanding this society.

So I think there’s really almost nothing more important than keeping our two societies connected. It’s the thing that’s surprised me the most, the degree that we have been separated by the COVID pandemic. And I think we do share a desire with the government of China to reconnect the two peoples.

Maybe we should end there, Josh. It’s something that China and the United States can agree on. It’s, I think, what most people, I would hope, present today would agree, that we should be connected between our two societies.

JOSH LIPSKY: We will end it there, Ambassador, on a challenge and an optimistic note. Please join me in thanking Ambassador Nicholas Burns for joining us to open.

R. NICHOLAS BURNS: Thanks, Josh.

JOSH LIPSKY: Thank you, Ambassador, and have a good evening. Thank you so much.

Watch the full event

The post US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns: The US has managed to ‘stabilize’ its relationship with China appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Little did we know at the time that this encounter would play a modest but, it turns out, vital role in gaining Evan’s release.

At some point the book should be written, one hopes by Evan himself, on his shameful and unjustified 491-day imprisonment and ultimate conviction on espionage charges, which called for a sixteen-year sentence.

The book will include President Vladimir Putin’s choice to hold Evan for entirely cynical reasons, intending to provide a pawn for a future prisoner exchange to recover mislaid Russian chess pieces.

The final exchange, one of historical dimensions both in the number of those released and the complexity of the negotiation, involved a host of actors that included Scholz, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob. It also involved Almar Latour, publisher of the Wall Street Journal and CEO of Dow Jones (and an Atlantic Council board member); Wall Street Journal Editor in Chief Emma Tucker; Dow Jones general counsel Jason Conti; private lawyers at WilmerHale engaged by Dow Jones; US President Joe Biden; National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Roger Carstens; and Evan’s parents, Ella Milman and Mikhail Gershkovich, among others.

Wall Street Journal reporters Joe Parkinson, Drew Hinshaw, Bojan Pancevski, and Aruna Viswanatha told the story in a compelling reconstruction on August 1, but it will take further investigation to reveal all the elements and stages of this true-life thriller.

Here’s the inside story on the Atlantic Council’s part in the drama.

Black-tie back channel

For more than a year, multiparty negotiations for the release of Evan and other prisoners held in Russia had taken place behind the scenes. Our role in this story began almost from the day of Evan’s imprisonment. It included a number of public and private support efforts, most prominently the launching of a regular convening called Reporters at Risk, an initiative of Atlantic Council Board Executive Vice Chair Adrienne Arsht and our Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Each event contained an element shining a light on Evan’s plight and rallying support, including a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal.

At the Global Citizen Awards dinner in September 2023, we honored Scholz alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and Hong Kong business leader Victor Chu. Latour asked me to invite Evan’s parents to our awards dinner in the hope that we could introduce them to Scholz.

Just an hour before the event, WilmerHale lawyer Robert Kimmitt—the former US ambassador to Germany, deputy secretary of the US Treasury, and long-time friend of mine—phoned me to request that Evan’s parents be invited into a small gathering of the honorees and their introducers that included Scholz.  

“It was there where [Scholz] expressed his support for Evan—a key moment in a lengthy saga that culminated in last week’s prisoner exchange,” Latour wrote me days after Evan was freed in August 2024. Latour said that moment reflected the Atlantic Council’s “essential strengths and accomplishments: its global community of leaders who trust the organization and use it as a platform to connect with one another.” Perhaps the most crucial piece that unlocked Russian willingness to make the deal was Scholz’s willingness to trade Vadim Krasikov, a convicted killer who gunned down an opponent of the Russian regime who was seeking asylum in Germany. It was a courageous move by Scholz, one that would put domestic political heat on him but save lives.

The decision, said Scholz, was based on “balancing the interest of the state in enforcing the sentence with the freedom and the risks to the health and, in some cases, to the lives of innocent people detained in Russia.” The most tragic moment in this saga for those most deeply involved came in February 2024, when news broke that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny had died in a Russian prison, as negotiators were working to include him in an exchange. He was the individual whom German leaders most wanted free—and whose freedom posed the greatest potential political threat to Putin.

The true nature of his death might never be known. But one of those involved in the final prisoner exchange, speaking on the condition of anonymity, shared with me Navalny’s potential involvement in a prisoner release and well-founded suspicions that Putin had Navalny killed to remove that option from the chessboard.

When the final exchange took place nearly six months later, those involved whom Putin wanted free included Russian security services hit man Krasikov, hackers Vladislav Klyushin and Roman Seleznev, and spies Artem Dultsev and Anna Dultseva. Those whose freedom was gained by Western negotiators included Evan, former Marine Paul Whelan, journalist Alsu Kurmasheva, and opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza.

An unfair trade

Latour understood what Evan’s release, in particular, meant to me as a veteran of more than twenty-five years at the Wall Street Journal. It was during my leadership as editor and associate publisher at the Wall Street Journal Europe that my reporting colleague Daniel Pearl was taken hostage by terrorists in Pakistan and ultimately beheaded. I will never stop asking whether I and others could have done more to save him from that horror.

Perhaps not, but the question was motivation enough in this far different situation, involving a sovereign state, for Latour—who as a young news assistant sat a few desks away from Pearl at the Journal bureau in Washington, DC—the Dow Jones leadership team, and many others to leave no stone unturned. That included frequent visits by Latour and others to the White House and the State Department, flying Evan’s parents to Davos for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting, where they met with media and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and a trip to Berlin where Latour, Conti, and a WilmerHale lawyer engaged with Wolfgang Schmidt, Scholz’s influential head of chancellery and federal minister for special affairs, building on the New York exchange.

I’m delighted our modest role helped. I was deeply touched by Latour’s personal letter to me, which said: “As a veteran of multiple decades at the Journal, you made many contributions to the world’s greatest news organization,” adding that through the Atlantic Council’s contributions to Evan’s release, “[you] perhaps made your greatest contribution yet to your former newsroom.” 

We are all overjoyed that Evan, Paul, Alsu, Vladimir, and others are home. But it’s worth remembering that this was an inherently unfair trade—killers and criminals for innocents and freedom fighters. It released bad people who will continue to do bad things and good people who now can continue to contribute to a better world. The worst part of it is that our willingness in civilized societies to care so much for our unfairly imprisoned provides only greater motivation for further misbehavior. Government leaders and those of us in civil society must continue to reflect and develop ideas on how to break this dangerous cycle.

When the Global Citizen Awards convene again on Monday in New York, we’ll honor Ghanaian President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and South Korean-American entertainment executive Miky Lee. On Tuesday, we will host another Reporters at Risk event at our Global Future Forum in New York, featuring Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post journalist who was unjustly imprisoned in Iran.

Perhaps nothing quite so significant will take place this year at our annual gathering in New York. From the stage at the Global Citizen Awards, we’ll make mention of Evan’s parents’ presence the year before in our front row and their not-so-chance meeting with Scholz. We’ll then join in applauding Evan’s character, courage, and resilience—and his return to practicing the pursuit of truth.

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post How the Atlantic Council contributed to Evan Gershkovich’s release appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Husain quoted in The Print on Western conservatism’s need to engage BJP and RSS appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This is a positive step for accountability, and is in line with the Ukrainian government’s ongoing support for international justice efforts. Unfortunately, however, the news was marred by the Ukraine government’s reported invocation of a provision which would deny the ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed by its nationals for seven years.

Ukraine signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not ratify it. In 2001, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled on the constitutionality of ratifying the Rome Statute, finding that Article 124 of the Ukrainian Constitution prohibited “supplementing the judicial system of Ukraine” and therefore was incompatible with the Rome Statute. This Article was amended in 2016, removing what was considered “the final obstacle” to ratification. In August 2019, the Deputy Head of the President’s Office indicated that ratification was a priority. A draft law was submitted to the Office of the President in September 2019, but was later withdrawn.

Despite Ukraine not ratifying the Rome Statute, the ICC has limited jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (“core international crimes”) committed in Ukraine. Under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, states not party to it can lodge a declaration accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction. Ukraine has done so twice: In April 2014 for crimes committed on its territory between November 21, 2013, and February 22, 2014, and in September 2015 for crimes committed from February 20, 2014 onward.

The ICC therefore has jurisdiction for core international crimes committed on Ukrainian territory from November 21, 2013. In March 2022, the ICC Prosecutor requested and then opened an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine. This investigation covers the situation as a whole and therefore extends to all perpetrators regardless of nationality. The arrest warrants issued so far have exclusively been for Russian officials, but the Prosecutor could request arrest warrants for Ukrainians if there is sufficient evidence.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ratifying the Rome Statute is a laudable step forward for Ukraine’s commitment to international justice. Ukraine’s Article 12(3) declarations were a sensible and critical stopgap, as became clear after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Ratification adds additional depth to President Zelenskyy’s prioritization of accountability by ensuring that Ukraine maintains this commitment to justice after the war ends and by binding it to the obligations of states parties, including the provision of support and cooperation to the ICC.

Further, the bill seems to include the ratification and acceptance of the Kampala Amendments, which added the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute, without invoking the option to opt out of the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression. The crime of aggression covers the use of force by a state against the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence” of another state, such as through invasion.

For states parties, whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression without a UN Security Council referral depends on the victim and aggressor states’ ratification of the Kampala Amendments and invocation of the opt out option. Under the Rome Statute, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over aggression when committed on the territory of or by nationals of a state not party to the Rome Statute, which means the ICC does not have jurisdiction over acts of aggression by Russia, which is not a state party to the Rome Statute.

Ratifying the Kampala Amendments therefore doesn’t personally benefit Ukraine in the short term, and Ukraine is still moving forward with efforts to establish a special tribunal on the crime of aggression. At the same time, it does show a good faith effort to expand the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression regardless.

Ukraine has sparked debate by reportedly invoking Article 124 of the Rome Statute in the bill for ratification. This Article allows a state, upon becoming a party to the Statute, to declare that for seven years after the Statute’s entry into force for that state, it does not accept the ICC’s jurisdiction for war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory.

Article 124 was introduced during the Rome Conference after governments, especially France, expressed concerns that their personnel involved in UN peacekeeping missions “could be subject to politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions.” It therefore only offers protection for war crimes, not genocide or crimes against humanity. Article 124 has rarely been used. The ICC Assembly of State Parties adopted an amendment deleting it in 2015, though this has not yet entered into force.

In the Article 124 declaration, Ukraine seems to invoke only the active personality protection, which would shield Ukrainians from prosecution for war crimes committed anywhere, but not the territorial jurisdiction protection, which would shield anyone from prosecution for war crimes committed on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine likewise tried to limit the ICC’s jurisdiction in its second Article 12(3) declaration to “crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by senior officials of the Russian Federation” and Kremlin-controlled separatist leaders active in east Ukraine after 2014, despite a 2012 decision that rejected similar attempts.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s approach presents several legal questions. First, it is not certain how Ukraine’s various declarations will interact with each other, as laid out by Dr. Kevin Jon Heller, Dr. Andreas Zimmerman, Dr. Tom Dannenbaum, and in additional discussions on X (formerly Twitter). The Article 124 declaration may supersede and thus modify or terminate the Article 12(3) declarations, or the ICC judges could decide that the Article 12(3) declarations preclude an Article 124 declaration. Alternatively, the Article 124 and Article 12(3) declarations may apply concurrently, such that Ukrainian nationals will be shielded from prosecution for war crimes committed outside Ukraine but not those committed inside Ukraine. Regardless, it does seem clear that the Article 124 declaration cannot retroactively change the ICC’s jurisdiction, so any effects would start once Ukraine’s ratification enters into force.

This leads to a second legal question of how the Article 124 declaration will affect the ICC’s jurisdiction. It is not clear if Ukraine’s Article 124 declaration can only limit the ICC’s active personality jurisdiction for war crimes without also limiting its territorial jurisdiction. Without previous examples on this exact issue, legal experts have looked to scholarship, the Rome Statute itself, and analogous ICC decisions. However, there is not yet any consensus on the issue.

Some view the active personality and territorial questions as serving distinct purposes and therefore read Article 124 as disjunctive. Others find it “highly unlikely” that the ICC would allow states to shield only their own nationals from legal scrutiny, and therefore expect that judges may view the Article 124 active personality and territorial jurisdiction limitations as a “package deal.”

Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute is welcome news, but that doesn’t excuse the negative effects of the Article 124 declaration. On a practical level, Ukraine risks an adverse decision from the judges in interpreting the declaration. Namely, there is a chance the judges will rule that the declaration modifies the earlier Article 12(3) declarations and that this applies to both active personality and territorial jurisdiction. This would mean that the ICC will not have jurisdiction over Russian war crimes committed in Ukraine for seven years upon the Rome Statute’s entry into force for Ukraine, representing “a spectacular own goal.”

The Article 124 declaration also threatens Ukraine’s well-earned goodwill and “moral high ground” within the international community. President Zelenskyy has been an advocate for global justice and for the ICC itself. The declaration’s implications undermine this, indicating “a lack of confidence in the ICC’s capacity to fairly adjudicate war crimes in this conflict.” Any impunity stemming from the declaration would further erode trust in Ukraine, in line with President Zelenskyy’s own observations that Russia’s impunity in Syria played a “significant part” in its aggression against Ukraine.

Ukraine’s ratification inevitably comes with the risk that Ukrainians will be subject to prosecution for any war crimes they may commit, but Ukraine can mitigate this by holding its citizens accountable. Ukraine therefore shouldn’t need the protection Article 124 offers, and that protection certainly shouldn’t be considered so significant that it justifies the negative side effects.

Luckily, under the Rome Statute, an Article 124 declaration “may be withdrawn at any time.” The Ukrainian government has the chance to be a powerful and long-lasting champion for justice globally. To maintain its credibility and reputation, it must seriously consider withdrawing the Article 124 declaration from its ratification of the Rome Statute, accepting the ICC’s full jurisdiction.

Celeste Kmiotek is a staff lawyer for the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council. The Strategic Litigation Project works on prevention and accountability efforts for atrocity crimes, human rights violations, and corruption offenses around the world.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 20, 2024

Kursk offensive could help free Ukrainians in Russian captivity

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia’s Kursk Oblast has resulted in the surrender of unprecedented numbers of Russian soldiers, raising hopes of a large-scale prisoner exchange, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia exposes the folly of the West’s escalation fears

By Oleksiy Goncharenko

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has shown that Putin’s talk of red lines and his nuclear threats are just a bluff to intimidate the West, writes Oleksiy Goncharenko.

Conflict Defense Policy

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine ratifies Rome Statute but must address concerns over ICC jurisdiction appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Zaaimi quoted in Hespress English on the payoff of Morocco’s strategy toward the Western Sahara appeared first on Atlantic Council.

How did this happen? Russia, long opposed to the Council of Europe’s 2001 Budapest Convention on cybercrime, began this process in 2017. Then, in 2019, Russia, along with China, North Korea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria, Cambodia, Venezuela, and Belarus, presented a resolution to develop a global treaty. Despite strong opposition from the United States and European states, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in December 2019, by a vote of seventy-nine in favor and sixty against (with thirty abstentions), that officially began the process. Already, it was clear that the member states did not share one vision. Indeed, they could not even agree on a name for the convention until last week. What they ended up with is a mouthful: “Draft United Nations convention against cybercrime: Strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes.”

This exceedingly long name reveals one of the biggest problems with this convention: its scope. At its heart, this convention is intended to allow law enforcement from different countries to cooperate to prevent, investigate, and prosecute cybercrime, which costs trillions of dollars globally each year. However, the convention covers much more than the typical cybercrimes that come to mind, such as ransomware, and includes crimes committed using technology, which reflects the different views as to what constitutes cybercrime. As if that were not broad enough, Russia, China, and other states succeeded in pushing for negotiations on an additional protocol that would expand the list of crimes even further. Additionally, under the convention, states parties are to cooperate on “collecting, obtaining, preserving, and sharing of evidence in electronic form of any serious crime”—which in the text is defined as a crime that is punishable by a maximum of four years or more in prison or a “more serious penalty,” such as the death penalty.

In Russia, for example, association with the “international LGBT movement” can lead to extremism charges, such as the crime of displaying “extremist group symbols,” like the rainbow flag. A first conviction carries a penalty of up to fifteen days in detention, but a repeat offense carries a penalty of up to four years. That means a repeat offense would qualify as a “serious crime” under the cybercrime convention and be eligible for assistance from law enforcement in other jurisdictions that may possess electronic evidence relevant to the investigation—including traffic, subscriber, and even content data. Considering how much of modern life is carried out digitally, there will be some kind of electronic evidence for almost every serious crime under any domestic legislation. Even the UN’s own human rights experts cautioned against this broad definition.

Further, under the convention, states parties are obligated to establish laws in their domestic system to “compel” service providers to “collect or record” real-time traffic or content data. Many of the states behind the original drive to establish this convention have long sought this power over private firms. At the same time, states parties are free to adopt laws that keep requests to compel traffic and content data confidential—cloaking these actions in secrecy. Meanwhile, grounds for a country to refuse a cooperation request are limited to instances such as where it would be against that country’s “sovereignty,” security, or other “essential” interest, or if it would be against that country’s own laws. The convention contains a vague caveat that nothing in it should be interpreted as an obligation to cooperate if a country “has substantial grounds” to believe the request is made to prosecute or punish someone for their “sex, race, language, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions.”

Russia claimed that such basic safeguards, which do offer some protection in the example regarding LGBT activity as “extremist,” were merely an opportunity for some countries to “abuse” the opportunity to reject cooperation requests. Those safeguards, conversely, could also be abused by the very same states that opposed them. The Iranian delegation, for its part, proposed a vote to delete that provision, as well as all other human rights safeguards and references to gender, on the day the text was adopted. These provisions had already been weakened significantly throughout the negotiation process and only survived thanks to the firm stance taken by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Iceland, the European Union, Mexico, and others that drew a red line and refused to accept any more changes.

The possible negative consequences of this convention are not limited to human rights but can seriously threaten global cybersecurity and national security. The International Chamber of Commerce, a global business organization representing millions of companies, warned during negotiations that “people who have access to or otherwise possess the knowledge and skills necessary” could be forced “to break or circumvent security systems.” Worse, they could even be compelled to disclose “previously unknown vulnerabilities, private encryption keys, or proprietary information like source code.” Microsoft agreed. Its representative, Nemanja Malisevic, added that this treaty will allow “for unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data and classified information to third states” and for “malicious actors” to use a UN treaty to “force individuals with knowledge of how a system functions to reveal proprietary or sensitive information,” which could “expose the critical infrastructure of a state to cyberattacks or lead to the theft of state secrets. Malisevic concluded that this “should terrify us all.”

Similarly, independent media organizations called for states to reject the convention, which the International Press Institute has called a “surveillance treaty.” Civil society organizations including Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, Human Rights Watch, and many others have also long been ringing the alarm bell. They continue to do so as the final version of the convention adopted by the committee has failed to adequately address their concerns.

Given the extent and cross-border nature of cybercrime, it is evident that a global treaty is both necessary and urgent—on that, the international community is in complete agreement. Unfortunately, this treaty, perhaps a product of sunk-cost fallacy thinking or agreed to under duress for fear of an even worse version, does not solve the problems the international community faces. If the UN General Assembly adopts the text and the required forty member states ratify it so that it comes into force, experts are right to warn that governments intent on engaging in surveillance will have the veneer of UN legitimacy stamped on their actions. Rights-respecting states should not allow themselves to be co-opted into assisting abusive practices under the guise of cooperation. Nor should they willingly open the door to weakening their own national security or global cybersecurity.

Lisandra Novo is a staff lawyer for the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council specializing in law and technology.

The post The UN finally advances a convention on cybercrime . . . and no one is happy about it appeared first on Atlantic Council.

What do the 2024 Paris Olympic Games mean for France? What is the overall impression of the Paris Olympics so far? What sort of values and principles does France want to showcase to the world by hosting? And how will France pass the torch to the United States for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics?

On this episode of #AtlanticDebrief, Visiting Fellow Léonie Allard sits down with the French Ambassador for Sport Samuel Ducroquet to discuss his impressions of the Paris Olympics and the role of the Olympics in international diplomacy. 

You can watch #AtlanticDebrief on YouTube and as a podcast.

Fellow

Léonie Allard

Visiting Fellow

Europe Center

Africa Chinese

The post #AtlanticDebrief – What do the 2024 Paris Olympic Games mean for France? | A debrief from Amb. Samuel Ducroquet appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Yamamoto in Just Security: “Israel’s ‘War on Terror’ and the Legal and Security Imperative to Comply with International Law” appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Kharlan’s Olympic victory has additional significance for Ukraine as she almost missed out on participating in Paris altogether due to her principled stand over the Russian invasion of her homeland. During the 2023 World Fencing Championship, Kharlan refused to shake hands with a Russian opponent in protest over the war, offering instead to tap blades. The Russian declined this offer and staged a protest of her own, leading to Kharlan’s disqualification and making it virtually impossible for her to take part in the 2024 Olympic Games.

The incident sparked a heated debate over the role of politics in sport and the continued participation of Russian athletes in international events at a time when Russia is conducting Europe’s largest military invasion since World War II. Following a considerable outcry, Kharlan was reinstated and received the personal backing of International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, himself a former fencer. Meanwhile, Kharlan’s gesture made her a hero to millions of Ukrainians.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The controversy over Kharlan’s refusal to shake hands with her Russian opponent has been mirrored elsewhere in the sporting arena, highlighting the complex moral issues facing Ukrainian athletes as they compete internationally while their country is fighting for national survival. Ukrainian tennis star Elina Svitolina in particular has attracted headlines for her decision to avoid handshakes with Russian and Belarusian players.

Some critics have accused Ukrainians of politicizing sport, and have argued against holding individual Russians accountable for crimes committed by the Kremlin. Meanwhile, supporters of Ukrainian protest efforts have noted the Kremlin’s frequent use of sport as a propaganda tool, and have also pointed to the often close links between some Russian athletes and the Putin regime.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

For Ukraine’s Olympic team, participation in this year’s Summer Games is an opportunity to provide their war weary compatriots back home with something to cheer, while also reminding the world of Russia’s ongoing invasion. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, many of Ukraine’s Olympic athletes have had to train in exceptionally difficult conditions. Some have been forced to relocate from areas that have fallen under Russian occupation, while all have grown used to the daily trauma of the war and the regular disruption caused by Russian air raids.

Ahead of the Paris Olympics, Olga Kharlan was widely seen as one of Ukraine’s best medal hopes. Born in Mykolaiv, she has been fencing since the age of ten. Prior to the 2024 Olympics, she had already amassed four Olympic medals in a glittering career that has also seen her win six world titles. The thirty-three-year-old Ukrainian star demonstrated her mental strength during the third place playoff in Paris, overcoming South Korea’s Choi Sebin in a dramatic comeback win.

Thanks to her new bronze medal, Kharlan now shares top spot among Ukraine’s leading Olympians with a total of five medals. She claimed her first medal at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 before securing further honors in 2012 and 2016. However, the Ukrainian star says her success in the French capital stands out. “This medal is totally different,” commented Kharlan in Paris this week. “It’s special because it’s for my country. This is a message to all the world that Ukraine will never give up.”

Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 25, 2024

Putin is convinced he can outlast the West and win in Ukraine

By Mykola Bielieskov

The West’s collective fear of escalation and reluctance to commit to Ukrainian victory have convinced Putin that he can outlast his opponents and achieve an historic triumph in Ukraine, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jul 22, 2024

Andriy Yermak: Ukraine and NATO are restoring Europe’s security architecture

By Andriy Yermak

Together with the country’s allies, Ukraine has set out on the path to restore the European security architecture, writes the head of Ukraine’s Office of the President Andriy Yermak.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Svetlova in Haaretz: The tragedy in Majdal exposed the trap of the Druze, and obliges Israel to stand by their side appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The statement released by G7 leaders after their summit last week garnered ample attention for its strong language on China’s unfair economic practices and ongoing support for Russia’s war on Ukraine, and triggered a predictably sharp Chinese response. The back-and-forth is another reminder of China’s worsened relations with developed democracies over the past few years.

Beijing is by no means abandoning those relationships – Premier Li Qiang’s visit to Australia and New Zealand this week, not to mention President Xi’s trip to Europe last month, underscore a drive to mend damaged ties. But the incident is another piece of evidence confirming that Beijing’s positions on global and economic issues receive a more welcoming reception in the developing world, where China’s economic and political ties are growing by the day.

China’s strategic shift toward greater focus on the so-called Global South is unmistakable. One need only look at where China is spending diplomatic attention and propaganda dollars.

As colleagues at the Digital Forensics Research Lab explore in a new report on China’s messaging in Africa, China is increasingly promoting pro-Russian narratives about Ukraine in sub-Saharan Africa using its media platforms, commentators, social media, and broadcasting infrastructure. The effort aims to portray China as a force for peace while the United States prolongs the war, in line with Beijing’s drive to enhance its reputation relative to Washington across the developing world.

This effort to shape perceptions of China’s responsible global role in contrast to the United States is now routinely reflected in the content of high-level diplomatic engagements with developing countries.

In his speech just last week at the BRICS Dialogue with Developing Countries in Russia, Foreign Minister Wang Yi not only underscored China’s leadership of the Global South as the “largest developing country” but also called for the convening of “a true international peace conference” on the Ukraine war that involves Russia – after Beijing pulled out all the stops to try to scuttle the Swiss-organized conference earlier this month – and threw in some choice words on US efforts to “maintain its unipolar hegemony” for good measure.

As I and the Global China Hub team discovered on a trip to Brazil, Colombia, and Honduras earlier this month, China is also ramping up diplomatic, economic, and technological engagement across Latin America, and pairing those efforts with a push to shape understanding of China across the region. Our editor-in-chief Tiff Roberts dives into that and much more in this issue of Global China – take it away, Tiff!

-David O. Shullman, Senior Director, Atlantic Council Global China Hub

Fellow

Dexter Tiff Roberts

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Global China Hub Indo-Pacific Security Initiative

China Chinese

Latin American officials flood Beijing revealing China’s global priorities

Want to know one key region of the Global South China is now focusing on? Take a look at who visited Beijing in early June. Before the first week of the month was even over, Brazil’s Vice President Geraldo Alckmin, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yván Gil, and special envoy of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla had all passed through China’s capital (the Brazilian vice president met with Xi Jinping and secured $4.49 billion in credit concessions. Brazil has been a key market for China too, as evidenced by an eighteen-fold surge in Chinese EV sales by value).

Latin America, with its rich resources, is a key target as China expands its global economic and political reach, and that’s a concern for the US. Testifying before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing “Key Economic Strategies for Leveling the U.S.-China Playing Field: Trade, Investment, and Technology,” Pepe Zhang of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center called for a development-focused economic partnership with LAC that would make the Western Hemisphere more competitive, resilient, and better integrated with the US.

Economics used to bolster authoritarian power in Global South training

China’s commerce ministry isn’t just fretting about EU tariffs (see below). It has also spearheaded an effort to train officials in countries across the Global South. And perhaps not surprisingly, the instruction is about more than trade and economics: “This effort is integral to the PRC’s drive to transform a global order currently predicated on the centrality of democracy and individual rights to one more “values-agnostic” and thus suited to China’s rise under authoritarian CCP rule,” writes the Global China Hub’s Niva Yau in a June 12 report called “A Global South with Chinese Characteristics” (watch the launch event here). The 795 training descriptions reviewed by Yau show “how the PRC marries economics and politics in its trainings, revealing that Chinese economic achievements are used to support authoritarian ideals.”

The report certainly got the PRC’s attention. The Chinese Embassy responded, saying the report is “full of Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” with the Foreign Ministry adding that “China has always respected the peoples of all countries in independently choosing their development paths and social systems,” which is very reassuring.

A new, coordinated transatlantic response to China emerges on trade?

In a widely expected move, the European Union announced new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles on June 12, up as much 38.1% on top of existing taxes of 10% before, affecting companies including BYD, SAIC, and NIO. Also to no surprise was the heated response from Beijing: the move by the EU “undermines the legitimate rights and interests of China’s EV industry,” and is “blatant protectionism,” Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yadong said in a press briefing. On June 17, Beijing officially launched an anti-dumping probe on imported pork and its by-products from the EU in response.

With the EU action coming just over a month after US President Joe Biden imposed tariffs on EVs of 100%, is a new, more coordinated transatlantic response to the Chinese trade juggernaut emerging? On June 3rd, in an ACFrontPage conversation with United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai, she did not mince words on how the US and the EU should adapt the transatlantic trade relationship to reflect the realities of China’s economic system, saying “Capitalism with Chinese characteristics… I haven’t heard that term used in many, many years. At this point, I think it’s less diplomatic than just sort of ahistorical. The China that we’re dealing with now, the PRC, is not a democracy. It’s not a capitalist, market-based economy.”

In an Econographics article exploring a similar theme entitled “Biden’s electric vehicle tariff strategy needs a united front,” the GeoEconomics Center’s Sophia Busch and Josh Lipsky write, “tariffs, working in isolation, can’t fully achieve all the objectives—no matter how high they go. It’s only when tariffs are relatively aligned across countries… that the trajectory could change.”

And it’s not just EVs that pose a threat to global industries. Without tariffs, the EU faces a flood of Chinese imports of the “new three” clean tech exports—lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, and, of course, electric cars (along with the action against EVs, the White House also raised tariffs simultaneously on lithium-ion batteries and solar cells to 25%.) “Imports of the new-three cleantech export categories have skyrocketed in recent years. Over the course of 2023, China’s exports to the EU totaled $23.3 billion for lithium-ion batteries, $19.1 billion in solar panels, and $14.5 billion for electric vehicles,” the Global Energy Center’s Joseph Webster wrote in a piece for EnergySource.

• Beginning on June 17, Atlantic Council President and CEO Fred Kempe and former President of Latvia Egils Levits have co-led the Atlantic Council’s annual delegation trip to Taiwan, hosted by the Taiwanese government. Joined by former Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Tomáš Petříček, they will meet with Taiwan government leaders, including President Lai, think tanks, and business representatives to discuss security and economic issues facing Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
• The Global China Hub hosted a public conversation on allied solutions to de-risking tech supply chains from Chinese investment to spur collective action between the United States and government and private sector partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. The event was a continuation of the Hub’s work on tech competition and China’s drive to dominate emerging technologies and relevant supply chains.
• China’s trade with Russia has risen substantially since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, significantly bolstering Moscow’s war aims, according to new research by the Global Energy Center’s Joseph Webster.
• Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Europe was in part intended to divide it as the EU increasingly hardens its stance on China. The Global China Hub’s Zoltán Fehér explores the degree to which Xi was successful in these efforts in a New Atlanticist piece.

Global China Hub

The Global China Hub researches and devises allied solutions to the global challenges posed by China’s rise, leveraging and amplifying the Atlantic Council’s work on China across its 16 programs and centers.

Explore more

The post Global China Newsletter – Sharp words, sharper tools: Beijing hones its approach to the Global South appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On June 18, IPSI nonresident senior fellow Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi was quoted in a South China Morning Post article, discussing potential new conflict flashpoints in the East China Sea due to a new Chinese coastguard law. 

Fellow

Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Indo-Pacific Security Initiative Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Defense Policy Indo-Pacific

The post Hinata-Yamaguchi quoted in South China Morning Post on East China Sea tensions appeared first on Atlantic Council.

While the event produced some encouraging signals and shone a light on how Russia’s invasion affects the broader international community, it did not produce any major diplomatic breakthroughs. Instead, the summit represented a small but significant step forward in what looks set to be a far longer peace process.

The absence of many leading nations from the Global South did much to weaken the summit’s potential impact, suggesting that Ukrainian diplomats still have much work to do at the bilateral level. Significantly, key participating countries including Brazil, India, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia chose not to sign the official summit communique supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Since 2022, these countries have all been hesitant to back Ukraine or openly condemn Russia’s invasion.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The event in Switzerland came during a period of intense diplomatic activity for Ukraine. On the eve of the peace summit, G7 leaders agreed to provide Ukraine with a $50 billion loan financed by interest on Russian assets that remain frozen in Europe and the US. On the sidelines of the G7 meeting, the US and Ukraine signed a landmark ten-year bilateral security agreement. During the peace summit itself, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was also able to hold bilateral meetings with a number of leaders from Global South nations including Argentina, Chile, and Côte d’Ivoire.

Ukraine came to the summit hoping to galvanize international support for President Zelenskyy’s ten-point peace plan. In particular, Kyiv officials sought to emphasize the importance of advancing nuclear safety, protecting food security, releasing prisoners of war, and returning Ukrainian children abducted by Russia since the start of the full-scale invasion. In a broader sense, the event also aimed to keep ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine in the international spotlight.

Ultimately, seventy-eight countries signed the final communique recognizing that respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must serve as the basis for any future peace agreement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sought to downplay expectations regarding the event, noting that peace could not be achieved in a single step. The summit was not a peace negotiation because Putin is not serious about ending the war, she commented. “He is insisting on capitulation. He is insisting on ceding Ukrainian territory, even territory that today is not occupied by him. He is insisting on disarming Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. No country would ever accept these outrageous terms,” stated von der Leyen in reference to a rival peace plan unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the eve of the Swiss summit.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia did not receive an invitation to participate in the peace summit. Crucially, China also chose not to attend. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested Putin had asked China to turn down Ukraine’s invitation. In the build-up to the event, President Zelenskyy also accused Beijing of working to discourage others from attending Ukraine’s peace initiative. Meanwhile, a number of participating countries from the Global South spoke in Switzerland of the need to involve Russia in any future peace process.

While the Kremlin’s apparent spoiling tactics failed to derail Ukraine’s peace initiative entirely, Russian influence did nevertheless loom large over the Swiss summit and is clearly still a significant factor. China’s decision not to back the event was arguably even more important, with many observers arguing that Beijing’s stance succeeded in preventing the emergence of a more global consensus on the path toward peace in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the participation of numerous countries regarded as being on good terms with the Kremlin underlined the potential of this peace initiative, with the likes of Qatar, Hungary, and Serbia all signing the final communique. While some had hoped for a more meaningful outcome, this modest progress should be enough to convince Kyiv officials and the country’s partners that additional diplomatic efforts in this direction are worthwhile and may yet produce results.

Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jun 4, 2024

Vladimir Putin just tacitly admitted Crimea is not really part of Russia

By Peter Dickinson

Russia claims to have annexed five Ukrainian provinces but refuses to extend security red lines to these regions. This highlights the pragmatic political realities behind Putin’s talk of historic conquests, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert May 30, 2024

If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory

By Hanna Hopko, Andrius Kubilius

Since 2022, Western policies of escalation management have failed to appease Putin and have only emboldened the Kremlin. If the West wants peace, it must help Ukraine win, write Hanna Hopko and Andrius Kubilius.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine’s peace summit offers solidarity but no breakthroughs appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In early June, new developments in The Hague served as a reminder to key Russian propagandists, including one of Russia’s former presidents, that they may one day face similar charges. As allowed by Article 15 of the Rome Statute, a coalition of non-government organizations jointly submitted a formal Communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requesting an investigation into six Russian nationals involved in state propaganda. Notably, this coalition included international and Ukrainian groups, as well as one Russian NGO.

The Communication urged the ICC to investigate the Russians for criminal hate speech. The accused include Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current Security Council Deputy Chairman; Vladimir Solovyov, a popular host on Russian state-owned television channel Rossiya-1; Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russia Today; Dmitry Kiselyov, head of the state-owned media consortium Rossiya Segodnya; and Sergey Mardan, a popular television and radio host. The Communication also named Alexey Gromov, First Deputy to the Presidential Executive Office’s Chief of Staff, stating his role in ordering or failing to prevent over 300 examples of criminal incitement to violence from February 24, 2022 to February 24, 2024. 

This initiative is arguably long overdue. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began more than two years ago, Russian state and state-aligned actors are accused of committing a daily litany of horrific atrocities against Ukrainians. In such a context, it is tempting to overlook the rhetoric behind these actions, but the Russia-Ukraine War illustrates the dangers of ignoring the threats made by powerful Russian media figures. Many in the Russian media have openly telegraphed eliminationist rhetoric against Ukrainians for years, setting the stage for the largest military attack in Europe since World War II. Their continuing threats against the existence of Ukraine, and against other Western countries, pose a direct threat to international security.  

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Since 2022, it has become increasingly apparent that Russia’s highly sophisticated propaganda machine requires novel legal and policy responses. New dangerous and diffuse platforms for Russia’s inciting language and other disinformation continue to emerge. In addition to the kind of conventional propaganda most are familiar with, Russian actors now spread public incitement and more subtle disinformation through social media, bot farms, video games, movies, and manipulated content (including deepfakes). International law does not yet cover each of these categories, as older legal frameworks concentrate on historical understandings of propaganda in legacy media formats.

These realities pose serious challenges for anyone seeking to protect victimized groups from atrocity crimes. International law, including the United Nations Genocide Convention, prohibits all means of disseminating direct and public incitement. Still, Russia’s sophisticated networks of propaganda platforms make upholding these provisions difficult. As these challenges increase, Russian techniques of shaping subconscious dehumanization continue to evolve. This fostering of cascading radicalization within Russian society may prove even more impactful than one-time calls for violence, while being more difficult to trace and prosecute.

Some Russian efforts to stay ahead of judicial accountability are clear. Even the Russian authorities felt compelled to respond to Russian journalist Anton Kravosky’s call to drown Ukrainian children in a river (he was suspended from RT for these comments, although an investigative committee later stated he had committed no crime). After these events, some Russian propagandists became noticeably more careful, cloaking their rhetoric through allusions and metaphors. Still, even this “hidden rhetoric” often meets legal requirements for incitement and other criminal propaganda. 

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The gravity of alleged Russian atrocities against Ukrainians compels international urgency to disrupt Moscow’s escalation in direct violence and associated inciting propaganda to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians. Days after posting a profanity-filled acknowledgement of the NGO-led Communication to the ICC, Dmitry Medvedev followed up with a video showing all of Ukraine as “belonging” to Russia. This complete obliteration of Ukraine from world maps was the first time a top Kremlin official had overtly claimed the entirety of Ukraine as a stated goal, showing a link between words and projected actions.

The international community now faces a critical moment. It also has a unique chance to create a legal framework and enforcement mechanism capable of implementation through international cooperation. Beginning at home, Ukraine’s legal system requires amendments to systematize prosecutions in absentia for genocidal incitement. International partners must support these efforts by surging law enforcement resources to monitor the flood of calls for violence emanating from Russian media and from more shadowy Kremlin-backed propaganda platforms.

For Russian propagandists to face the criminal consequences of their conduct, international arrest warrants are indispensable. Bolstering political will for judicial accountability and opening criminal proceedings should be the two major areas of focus. To ensure accountability, Ukraine and its partners must now plan for realistic enforcement mechanisms that implement trial verdicts and deny safe havens of non-extradition. The words and actions of Kremlin propagandists have combined to fuel unimaginable atrocities in Ukraine. To protect Ukrainians and other victims, and to prevent further armed conflicts fuelled by propaganda, the international community must break the cycle of Russia’s real or imagined impunity.

Kristina Hook is assistant professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Anna Vyshniakova is a war crimes lawyer and a legal consultant, head of legal NGO LingvaLexa, and author of the book “Incitement to Genocide: How to Bring Propagandists to Justice.”

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jun 4, 2024

Vladimir Putin just tacitly admitted Crimea is not really part of Russia

By Peter Dickinson

Russia claims to have annexed five Ukrainian provinces but refuses to extend security red lines to these regions. This highlights the pragmatic political realities behind Putin’s talk of historic conquests, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert May 30, 2024

If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory

By Hanna Hopko, Andrius Kubilius

Since 2022, Western policies of escalation management have failed to appease Putin and have only emboldened the Kremlin. If the West wants peace, it must help Ukraine win, write Hanna Hopko and Andrius Kubilius.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Holding Putin’s propagandists accountable for crimes in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Nia quoted in Globe Echo on Swedish-Iranian prisoner swap appeared first on Atlantic Council.

• Introduction
• Training future authoritarians
• Party governance as the root of all success
• Global implications and recommendations
• Dataset of Chinese government files

Introduction

At the peak of China’s economic growth toward the end of the 2010s, Beijing began to advocate for an alternative model of governance that prioritizes economic development and rejects the centrality of the protection of individual rights and “Western” democratic processes. At the heart of this new push to legitimize authoritarian governance was the example of China’s own remarkably rapid economic development under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership and an implicit assertion that such successful growth legitimizes not only China’s own autocratic system, but also other non-democratic political systems. The global implications of this development have grown clearer as Beijing has embarked on a steadily expanding mission to promote its political system alongside its economic success in countries across the Global South.

As early as 1985, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping explained, in plain language, that the Chinese political system would resist changes despite economic integration with the world. He told the Tanzanian president at the time, “Our reform is an experiment not only in China but also internationally, and we believe it will be successful. If we are successful, it can provide some experience for developing countries.”¹ In 2017, a new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, repeated this sentiment using similar language.

The path, the theory, the system, and the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics have kept developing, blazing a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization. It offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence; and it offers Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the problems facing mankind.”

Source: “Full Text of Xi Jinping’s Report at 19th CPC National Congress,” Xinhua, November 4, 2017, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/19thcpcnationalcongress/2017-11/04/content_34115212.htm.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has long pursued foreign acceptance of Chinese political narratives and encouraged their adoption to further China’s interests.² However, China typically does not need to cajole countries into accepting its messaging about successful development. Many developing country leaders, having witnessed the Chinese “economic miracle” in which it developed at a remarkable pace after first opening its economy to the world in the late 1970s, take seriously China’s narrative about the benefits of a more authoritarian system and are willing to consider the calculated risk of experimenting with what Beijing is offering. Even as China’s economic growth has slowed significantly and its political system has grown more repressive under Xi, the number of countries welcoming Chinese governance lessons continues to grow, enhancing Beijing’s global influence. This has significant implications for the future of democracy, the protection of individual rights, and the nature of the global order.

Training future authoritarians

One of the most direct ways that Beijing promotes authoritarian governance is through training programs for foreign government officials on Chinese governance practices. This report investigates a new dataset of Chinese government files on such trainings, uncovering how Beijing uses these sessions to directly promote ideas and practices that marry economics and politics to make a case for its authoritarian capitalism model. Beyond encouraging sympathy for Chinese narratives among officials across the Global South, the programs also provide practical assistance for host countries to fast-track adaptation of Chinese practices. The sessions also appear to serve intelligence-collection purposes by requiring each participant to submit reports detailing their prior exchanges and engagements with other foreign countries on specific training subjects. This report outlines the content Beijing teaches officials in various developing countries and the anticipated benefits to Beijing from these programs. It also explains how these initiatives fit into China’s broader ambitions to undermine the liberal democratic norms that currently underpin the global order.

The author obtained 1,691 files from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) containing descriptions of 795 governmental training programs delivered (presumably online) in 2021 and 2022 during the pandemic. Each program description contains a title indicating the subject of training; the name of the Chinese entity subcontracted to deliver the training; the timing and language of instruction; invited countries and regions; group size; the professional background and demographic requirements for trainees; and training program objectives. Additionally, each description included an outline of the training content, including names of instructors and contact information for subcontracted entities.

In 1981, Beijing began delivering training programs, first branded as foreign assistance, in coordination with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as part of an effort to provide aid and basic skills to developing countries.³ In 1998, the Chinese government broke away from that cooperation arrangement and began offering its own centrally planned training programs directly to governmental officials from countries across the Global South. Beijing reportedly hosted 120,000 trainees from the Global South between 1981 and 2009, with 4,000 programs across twenty fixed areas. With initial success, the programs expanded from their original objective and the number of trainees increased in the next decade, with 49,148 trainees in 1,951 programs between 2010 and 2012, and more than 200,000 trainees in around 7,000 programs between 2013 and 2018.⁴

Evidence in the newly obtained 2021 and 2022 files indicates that the objectives of Chinese governmental training programs for foreign officials have changed significantly. Trainings are no longer foreign assistance programs with primarily humanitarian assistance aims, but clearly serve to directly inject narratives that marry authoritarian governance with economic development—in other words, to promote an autocratic approach to governance.

According to a cross reference of public releases, the current protocol of governmental training programs involves receiving foreign officials sent to mainland China in accordance with bilateral agreements.⁵ These training programs focus on specific areas, and are centrally planned by the Chinese government with designated regional quotas.⁶ A review of these ”specific areas“ also shows that these programs differ from trainings on humanitarian aid, foreign assistance, and basic skills that Beijing delivered in cooperation with UNDP in the 1980s and 1990s. Rather, the trainings offer authoritarian principles in areas such as law enforcement, journalism, legal issues, space technologies, and many other topics. Given that in China, law enforcement is designed to protect the state and the Party rather than the people, journalism is prescribed to create national unity rather than act as a check against the system, and the law is intended to protect the regime rather than its citizenry, these training programs naturally offer foreign officials different lessons than they would receive from democratic countries.

According to the files obtained, the Chinese embassy in a country identified for training typically is notified roughly three months before a training program is expected to be hosted, and the relevant desk at the Chinese embassy is tasked with selecting and inviting targeted individuals in the host country. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security attaché at the embassy would be responsible for inviting local law-enforcement representatives to join programs organized by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security. At least eleven Chinese government ministries and Party departments have delivered training programs to foreign government officials in the past three years, including the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, National Health Commission, Ministry of Emergency Management, International Liaison Department, and Ministry of Public Security.⁷ According to the files, within each of these Chinese ministries and departments, an “international cooperation and exchange” office then coordinates to subcontract the delivery of the training program to a hosting entity, often with a quasi-civilian Chinese entity with extensive ties to the government. The MOFCOM files show that the 795 training programs were subcontracted to 111 hosting entities in 2021 and 2022.

Given the vast number of Chinese ministries and departments found to have provided trainings to foreign government officials in the past few years, it is reasonable to conclude that these programs were not paused during the pandemic but simply moved to an online format. A review of the 795 descriptions shows that 21,123 individuals participated in online training programs that were provided by MOFCOM in 2021 and 2022. These programs were centered on lectures and included relevant virtual site visits. They ranged from one to 60 days in length: 42 percent of all programs were between twelve and fourteen days, and 34 percent were between 19 and 21 days. Program size was between 15 and 60 participants, and 68 percent of the programs were designed for 25 participants. Based on the training description, nearly all the programs targeted developing countries.

Because this research dataset was limited to program-description files from the MOFCOM, there remain obvious blind spots to understanding the full scope and depth of Chinese governance-export training programs for foreign governmental officials. However, precisely because the dataset here concerns those trainings delivered by the MOFCOM, examination of the files permits unique insights into how the PRC marries economics and politics in its trainings, revealing that Chinese economic achievements are used to support authoritarian ideals.

This report maps the governance practices Beijing is promoting in countries across the Global South. It does not attempt to examine the effectiveness of these efforts, which is outside the scope of this project. Follow-on research endeavors involving local experts will be necessary for exploration of individual governments’ receptivity to PRC narratives and practices, which is likely determined by a mix of local interests and political contexts.

Party governance as the root of all success

Chinese training programs focused specifically on governance practices have traditionally been implemented by the International Liaison Department (ILD), an agency under the Central Committee of the CCP whose core function is party-to-party diplomacy. In its political engagement with other countries’ political parties, the ILD has long conducted training sessions on Chinese governance to promote CCP ideology, with the stated intent to conduct “state governance experience exchange [治国理政经验交流].” Initially such trainings were held exclusively between the CCP and countries with one-party rule or corresponding Leninist party structures, such as Vietnam.⁸ This is no longer the case. The ILD training sessions have expanded to include sessions in non-communist and non-authoritarian countries. At the same time, other entities in the Chinese government have begun conducting their own “state governance experience exchanges.” In the late 2000s, similar language on “state governance experience exchange” began to surface in foreign policy documents describing engagements with developing regions and countries, including Latin America in 2008, Kazakhstan in 2009, Laos and Myanmar in 2010, and Mongolia in 2011,⁹ demonstrating the expanded reach of Chinese governance training sessions.

Since then, each training, no matter the subject, has contained language on CCP ideology and organization and related contributions to the PRC’s achievements in that subject area. In this way, authoritarian governance choices are being promoted even in the most niche of subject areas.

Even programs on seemingly innocuous topics like beekeeping, bamboo forestry, meteorology, or low-carbon development all begin by briefing participants about the Chinese reform and guiding management principles raised at the latest plenary sessions of the Party committee. The programs highlight where successful tactics for poverty alleviation or pandemic management originated, and then relate these principles to the technical subject areas being covered. This approach is employed to maintain consistency of narrative delivery to a variety of audiences. In the program descriptions obtained, targeted foreign government officials range from the highest political level to the technocratic level, and from senior-level directorships to junior staff members of departments working on political affairs, the economy, education, agriculture, science, and more.

According to a review of the 795 training descriptions obtained in the course of this research project, MOFCOM trainings cover a vast variety of topics, including trade-related areas such as port management, international application of BeiDou (the Chinese global navigation satellite system), and blockchain and information security technologies. However, despite MOFCOM’s remit, it also provides training on topics that do not seem immediately related to trade, such as the role of think tanks for implementing the Belt and Road Initiative, national policy on ethnic minorities, new-media affairs, population management and development, university management, governance practices for presidential advisers, urban governance, social security and welfare, and smart cities.¹⁰

For the purpose of this research, the 795 training programs were reviewed and categorized into six groups based on their reported activities as outlined in the files. The following group labels were created by the author.

1. Clearly authoritarian: The first group describes training programs which include explicit lessons on PRC practices that are widely regarded in liberal democracies as direct infringements on personal freedom. This includes PRC endorsement of non-democratic regime practices in political, government, and legal affairs, including administrative control over the media, information, and population.

2. Potentially authoritarian: These training programs contain lessons on PRC practices which have, in some cases, infringed on personal freedom or indirectly aided infringement of personal freedoms and individual rights. This includes, for example, training on dual-purpose technologies that could be exploited to access individuals’ data in ways that expand state surveillance and control over citizens’ personal lives.

3. Infrastructure and resource access: These training programs are centered on setting standards and imparting industrial technical skills for various aspects of infrastructure and resource extraction, which may further PRC access to critical resources. This includes, for example, renewable energy application, mechanization of the agricultural sector, and technologies in mining, copper processing, and biotechnology.

4. Information operation access: These training programs are centered on activities that might further PRC access for its information operations, such as programs on Chinese culture and Mandarin-language promotion for foreign officials.

5. Security access: The fifth group involves and describes training programs centered on activities that may further PRC access to the sensitive security infrastructure of a foreign country, such as programs on aviation emergency, satellite imagery, and geochemical mapping.

6. Others: The sixth group includes all other training programs that do not fit into the above categories, such as pest control, climate change, soybean production, tourism development, and preschool-education sector capacity building.

Among the 795 training courses offered by MOFCOM between 2021 and 2022, about 25 percent of the programs were categorized as clearly authoritarian, 10 percent as potentially authoritarian, 22 percent as related to infrastructure and resource access, five percent as related to security access, two percent as information-operation access, and 35 percent as “others.”

Based on this categorization, the research then focused on examining files of training programs that were not categorized as clearly authoritarian or potentially authoritarian. This revealed the extent to which Beijing used potentially authoritarian means to influence governance choices by injecting narratives that marry authoritarianism with various successes related to the economy. It further demonstrates that PRC training programs that appear to be focused on trade, infrastructure, and other nominally non-political topics are also efforts to promote China’s governance model.

The following are just two examples out of the hundreds of files in which the same pattern can be observed. In one file entitled “Seminar on international application of BeiDou and remote sensing,” and in another, “Seminar on port management for Central and Eastern European countries,” the training content specifies ten and fifteen sub-categories, respectively. At least two or three sub-categories are completely unrelated to the training subject, instead focusing on China’s reform and opening-up process, poverty-alleviation programs, and management of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the success of China’s particular governance model in handling these challenges. The training programs consistently and repeatedly remind trainees across the Global South that all of China’s achievements are attributed to its political choices and authoritarian governance practices.

Despite the lack of access to the exact lecture materials used in these programs, a review of the list of instructors yields insights into the kind of narratives the lecturers delivered to foreign governments. For example, Dr. Ding Yifan (丁一凡) was one of six instructors for the 13-day training on port management. A researcher at the state-backed Development Research Center of the State Council, Ding has written in support of internationalizing China’s currency to bypass “Western control” over financial mechanisms and setting up overseas Chinese economic zones to relocate parts of Chinese production to developing countries before commodities are finalized for export to Europe and North America, ensuring China’s stake in the global supply chain and embedding Chinese assets abroad.¹¹ These are positions commonly held by many Chinese academics and experts.

Ding, however, also has a more distinctive track record as an advocate for China’s authoritarian system. For example, in a lengthy 2017 online lecture titled “Advantages of the Chinese system of governance” (“中国的制度优势”)¹², Ding explicitly explained that the Chinese economic miracle is a result of “a good democratic system of socialist governance with Chinese characteristics, our democracy is the real democracy” (“是因为中国特色社会主义民主制度好，我们的民主是真正的民主”) and that “sometimes people don’t know how their own society should develop, and they need to be guided by strong leaders to show the way.”( “有时候民众并不知道他们希望社会朝哪个方向发展，需要强有力的领导人去指明方向.”) Ding’s online lecture details flaws in voting-based democratic systems, pointing to the constant change of governments and party politics as inefficient and a waste of resources. Ding makes the case that one-party authoritarian politics is the only feasible system for China: “We are a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country. If we have multi-party politics, then our country will break apart and fall into civil war, destroying all we have built.” (中国是一个多民族、多文化国家，如果实行多党政治，那么，一定会四分五裂，陷入严重的内战，毁掉我们建国以来所做的一切努力.) Ding has also fueled disinformation against Japan and the United States, claiming Japan dared “to release nuclear-contaminated water because it has the backing of the United States” (日本胆敢排核污水底气在于背后老板是美国人) when Tokyo released wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant that was hit by a tsunami in 2011 after receiving approval to do so from the International Atomic Energy Agency.“¹³

Global implications and recommendations

The findings catalogued in this report underscore that the PRC is engaged in a concerted effort to promote authoritarian governance across the developing world, using its own economic success as the primary argument for why countries need not adopt “Western” democratic practices to achieve their development goals. This is occurring across Chinese training programs in Global South countries, regardless of the often-unrelated subjects purportedly addressed. While Beijing often suggests that countries should pursue approaches specific to their own local contexts, rather than adopting the Chinese model completely, PRC trainings clearly highlight aspects of its authoritarian model as central to the blueprint of successful development that others can emulate.

China is likely to continue expanding training efforts to promote autocratic governance. Numerous training programs currently conducted in China for foreign government officials are already being moved to countries across the Global South, with new Chinese institutions set up to deliver programs that are both longer term and more sophisticated. In 2022, a Chinese political leadership school was opened in Tanzania, delivering the same type of governance training program outlined above that marries authoritarianism with economic success.¹⁴ If successful, this kind of setup is likely to be recreated elsewhere. For example, Luban Workshops were introduced in 2016 as a vocational equivalent of the Confucius Institutes and there are now 27 workshops worldwide, an increase from 18 in 2021.¹⁵ Where Confucius Institutes are state-sponsored centers teaching Chinese language and culture, Luban Workshops are state-sponsored classrooms teaching Chinese industrial skills and standards. Given the findings in this report, it is reasonable to assume these workshops will weave lessons on the benefits of China’s authoritarian model into vocational classes.

Beijing’s growing drive to promote its model appears unaffected by the marked slowdown in China’s economic growth and the well documented structural challenges facing China’s economy, many of which are a result of an authoritarian system under the CCP that increasingly prioritizes political control and absolute security over unleashing the power of market innovation and consumer demand.¹⁶ In other words, the very example at the heart of China’s promotion of authoritarian governance—its own remarkable development since the late 1970s into the world’s second largest economy—may be falling apart.

Many developing countries, however, are not attuned to the mounting challenges China is facing and still value the lessons of the country’s success under authoritarian rule, presenting ample opportunities for the PRC to expand and deepen its training programs across the Global South. The potential implications of these continued efforts are significant and wide ranging.

First, more countries may entertain and potentially adopt authoritarian governance practices shared by Beijing as they seek the potential benefits of economic engagement with China. More research is needed to determine the ultimate impact of China’s governance trainings abroad on recipient countries’ political practices. However, foreign leaders already routinely accept and endorse Beijing’s perspective on Chinese domestic issues and international positions in the hopes of maintaining or increasing Chinese investment and contributions to their nation’s domestic development.¹⁷ As China’s combined economic and political influence mounts, more countries dependent on China will likely welcome its lessons and may even sacrifice their own immediate interests in return for the long-term promises that Beijing offers. In some cases, China’s success in “elite capture”—the extensive corruption of a country’s key political and business leaders, resulting in their serving China’s interests above those of their own citizens—will likely contribute to local officials’ willingness to welcome Chinese trainings. The elite capture dynamic may also increase the likelihood that lessons learned in these trainings will be incorporated into their country’s governance practices.

Second, China’s clear propaganda effort through these trainings will combine with the CCP’s broader effort to shape narratives in countries around the world regarding China’s successes and the benefits of engagement with the PRC to advance Beijing’s preferred messaging. Beijing is engaged in a global propaganda effort to “tell China’s story well,”¹⁸ as Xi has put it, and counter decades of perceived dominance of the global information space by the United States and other developed democracies, including regarding the legitimacy of non-democratic governance systems such as its own. Included in this endeavor are efforts to train and cultivate local journalists to write positive stories about China, insert official Chinese propaganda in local media outlets, deliver tailored disinformation regarding the United States and the failings of democratic governance¹⁹, and deploy United Front groups²⁰ to co-opt local elites.²¹ Across these efforts, Beijing’s messaging consistently underscores its development successes while ignoring inconvenient statistics about China’s more recent economic downturn, reinforcing the notion that countries in the Global South might benefit from following China’s developmental path.

Third, China’s expanding promotion of authoritarian practices may foster greater ideological and political polarization globally as democracy’s presumed status as the ideal form of government is thrown into greater doubt. Even if most countries exposed to CCP trainings do not adopt a wholesale authoritarian approach to governance, the selective adoption of aspects of China’s system will mean that more countries choose not to align with the United States and other democracies on a range of policy choices that will shape global governance and connectivity. For example, a number of countries have been inspired to adopt aspects of China’s top-down regulatory policies on the internet.²² This dynamic is complicating efforts to maintain a more united approach to internet management, potentially fragmenting the internet into competing technospheres. More fundamentally, potential PRC success in encouraging more sympathetic views of autocratic methods—and critical views of democracy—across the Global South would gradually undermine the ability of the United States and other democracies to credibly speak of a common future and interests among countries bonded by democratic values and aspirations.

The first step in addressing these dynamics is to recognize the extent of the problem, conducting further studies such as this one on the nature of various PRC efforts to promote its model and then, most critically, determining the actual impact of these efforts in increasing developing countries’ acceptance, adaptation, and implementation of authoritarian governance practices.

Local interests, political context, and feasibility of adaptation are all reasonable major factors that determine whether a government will ultimately import authoritarian practices and narratives. Only once the effectiveness of various PRC activities has been determined should significant effort be directed at developing tailored measures to counter them, thereby avoiding unnecessary expenditure of very limited resources on addressing the large and expanding number of CCP efforts across countries.

Even as such studies are undertaken, the United States and other democracies should increase efforts to address the relative paucity of knowledge and objective information about China and its approach to governance at home in the majority of developing countries. This lack of reliable, home-grown information on China is perhaps the PRC’s greatest asset in its efforts to promote its authoritarian model because it allows Beijing to set the dominant narrative in many countries regarding China’s rapid economic development and the role of its governance system in that achievement.

As noted, in PRC training programs, foreign government officials are fed disproportionally positive economic stories about China in an environment where Beijing is able to censor as it pleases, creating an illusion of near perfect implementation. This bolsters the strong impressions still held by many across the Global South about the Chinese economic miracle from decades ago and the discourse around authoritarian performance legitimacy.²³ It is essential that more developing countries have access to objective information on current realities in China, including the country’s economic downturn, particularly given concurrent PRC efforts to shape media ecosystems and narratives on China and leverage coopted elites.²⁴

Relatedly, it is necessary to assist countries across the Global South in cultivating and promoting authoritative expertise on China, to ensure that local voices are offering objective analysis of China’s domestic affairs, governance practices, and engagement abroad. This local expertise is also critical for broadening public and elite understanding of PRC policies and affairs that is not accessible through simply translating Chinese government documents that may be unintelligible to the uninformed. For decades, the Chinese government has tried to influence the development of authoritative foreign voices on PRC affairs, relying on PRC-educated China experts as elite proxies to distribute its narratives, set agendas, and influence foreign policymakers and the public alike. In the Global South, Beijing often controls who can study and develop an authoritative voice on PRC affairs by monopolizing the means to visit and research China, study Chinese language, and access research materials through PRC institutions.

One crucial step toward addressing this problem in the medium to long term is fostering more opportunities for independent research on PRC issues, providing alternatives to PRC-sponsored education. Countries with vast non-PRC-sponsored expertise on China should expand their global outreach, including programs for students from countries across the Global South who may wish to undertake professional Chinese studies outside of the PRC. Such independent expertise is essential to fostering objective discussions on China and competing perspectives that allow the public and their leaders to make informed judgments about the kind of Chinese success they want to replicate.

Lastly, at the basic level, countries across the Global South must be encouraged to create a debriefing process for all returning officials who take part in a PRC training program to determine and catalog the level of effort to shape perceptions and decision-making in different policy areas, including regarding authoritarian governance practices, as well as the extent to which related reporting serves China’s intelligence collection efforts.

China’s promotion of authoritarian governance and undermining of support for democratic practices and principles is likely to increase across the Global South, with Beijing further scaling up the type of trainings documented in this report. This effort is integral to the PRC’s drive to transform a global order currently predicated on the centrality of democracy and individual rights to one more “values-agnostic” and thus suited to China’s rise under authoritarian CCP rule. To counter this effort, countries across the Global South should be encouraged to make independent, informed decisions about their own development path, with access to objective information about China’s political system, domestic affairs, and economic trajectory. Despite democracy’s evident flaws, it remains the system of governance overwhelmingly preferred by publics around the world.²⁵ Beijing’s revisionist efforts to popularize autocracy will fail if citizens in the Global South have the freedom and information to determine the sort of government under which they want to live.

About the author

Fellow

Niva Yau

Nonresident Fellow

Global China Hub

Africa Central Asia

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Rana Siu Inboden and other participants at a May 2024 workshop Understanding China’s Authoritarian Projection: Training and Normative Propaganda with Other States, organized by the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin, for feedback and review of an earlier draft.

Dataset of Chinese government files

These are 14 training program description files from the full dataset of 795, with personal identifying information removed, but remaining available upon requests for research purposes. The English-language text following the Chinese text is entirely written by the program description planner, not the author, and may consist of broken translation. We are currently planning to release all 795 of the remaining training program descriptions and the other administrative files related to their logistics.

• Marine geologic survey and coastal protection training class
• Seminar on blockchain and information security technology for developing countries
• Seminar on enhancing university governance for developing countries (online)
• Seminar on ethnic policies and practices for Belt and Road countries
• Seminar on international application of Beidou and remote sensing
• Seminar on inviting heads of foreign volunteer organizations to China
• Seminar on planning capability of safe city for African countries
• Seminar on population and development program for developing countries
• Seminar on port management for Central and Eastern European countries
• Seminar on national governance for presidential advisers of developing countries
• Seminar on new-developing urban governance for developing countries
• Seminar on new media for Belt and Road countries
• Seminar on social security and social welfare for developing countries
• Seminar for think tank scholars of the Belt and Road countries

The Global China Hub researches and devises allied solutions to the global challenges posed by China’s rise, leveraging and amplifying the Atlantic Council’s work on China across its sixteen programs and centers.

Learn more

The post A Global South with Chinese characteristics appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In line with this legislation, a wide range of Ukrainian government officials will now be expected to reach a degree of English language fluency, while various state services will be made available in English. The law also envisages expanded English language educational opportunities, and support for the screening of English language movies featuring subtitles rather than dubbing.

Ukraine’s recent decision to grant the English language elevated official status reflects a much broader national transformation that has been underway since the country first regained independence more than three decades ago. This historic process has helped transform the Ukrainian linguistic landscape.

In 1991, Ukrainian was officially recognized as the only state language of the newly independent country. In practice, however, Ukraine remained deeply embedded within a Russian language culture inherited from the Soviet era. This informal empire extended from schools to popular culture, with generations of post-independence Ukrainians growing up in an information space that was still dominated by Moscow.

While old imperial ties remained strong, only the privileged few could afford to travel to most Western countries. Strict visa regimes acted as an additional barrier to engagement with the Western world until Ukrainians finally secured visa-free travel to the EU in 2017. Despite these obstacles, the popularity of English language studies in the decades following 1991 reflected Ukraine’s growing openness to the outside world.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Research indicates that demand for English language learning has increased significantly since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. This interest in language skills may at first glance appear somewhat unexpected, given the enormous challenges facing Ukrainian society over the past two years. For many Ukrainians it makes perfect sense. In wartime Ukraine, studying English is an attractive route toward greater personal development that can also provide opportunities to boost the country’s defense and support integration into the wider European community.

The war with Russia has dramatically underlined the importance of the English language as a tool for international communication. At the most immediate and practical level, knowledge of English has been a huge asset for Ukrainian soldiers and commanders learning new skills and encountering new weapons systems for the first time. Indeed, it was striking to see English language fluency specifically cited as a key requirement during discussions with Western partners over plans to train Ukrainian pilots.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The same linguistic logic has applied to non-military engagement with international partners at the governmental and nongovernmental levels. As Ukrainians have sought to develop new relationships and address complex wartime issues with officials and volunteers from dozens of different countries, English language skills have proven absolutely crucial.

This deepening dialog is very much a two-way street. While greater English language proficiency is proving important for Ukrainians in their engagement with the international community, it is also allowing foreign partners to learn more from the Ukrainian side. In the military sphere, for example, no other country is currently able to match Ukraine’s experience in modern warfare. Speaking the same language makes it far easier to share this experience and pass on important lessons to allies.

As Ukraine moves closer to the rest of Europe and continues to make progress toward the goal of EU membership, the role of the English language within Ukrainian society will only increase. The recently adopted law on the status of English reflects this reality, and should help create an environment that supports the country’s broader Euro-Atlantic integration aspirations.

For centuries, Russia has used language as a tool to suppress Ukrainian independence and impose an artificial imperial identity on Ukrainians. By officially embracing English as the language of international communication, Ukrainians now aim to support their country’s historic pivot away from Moscow and return to the European community of nations.

Oleksiy Goncharenko is a Ukrainian member of parliament with the European Solidarity party.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jun 11, 2024

Victory in Ukraine would dramatically strengthen Putin’s war machine

By Peter Dickinson

Victory in Ukraine would greatly strengthen Russia militarily, economically, and strategically, while severely weakening the West. Faced with such uniquely favorable circumstances, it is fanciful to suggest a triumphant Putin would simply stop, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert May 30, 2024

If the West wants a sustainable peace it must commit to Ukrainian victory

By Hanna Hopko, Andrius Kubilius

Since 2022, Western policies of escalation management have failed to appease Putin and have only emboldened the Kremlin. If the West wants peace, it must help Ukraine win, write Hanna Hopko and Andrius Kubilius.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine officially embraces English as historic westward pivot continues appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Historically, chemical weapons have been used to break a stalemate, weakening an enemy’s front line troops and providing an opening to push forward. Russia’s use of chemical weapons might suggest that strategists consider the invasion of Ukraine to be a stalemate, or are desperate to avoid one. As fears of a stalemate persist across Ukraine, Russia, and the West, it isn’t difficult to predict a scenario in which Russia could use chemical weapons more widely to achieve a breakthrough.

Chloropicrin, a chemical agent frequently used for riot control, is banned for use in a warfare setting under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Russia has been a signatory to since its inception. Over the past two years, Ukraine has reported some 1,400 cases of chemical weapons use, but these claims had not been confirmed by third parties until the May 1 statement released by the US State Department.

If Putin has no qualms about using banned weapons, why choose chloropicrin? As far as chemical weapons go, chloropicrin is less lethal than other weapons suspected to be in Russia’s arsenal. By using a weaker agent, Putin’s goal does not seem to be maximum death and destruction in this case. Rather, he may be testing the waters to gauge the international response and determine just how far he can go. A strong reaction from the international community is therefore vital to make clear that widespread use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Russia’s previous uses of chemical weapons outside of Ukraine have been met with a tepid response at best. For example, after Sergei Skripal was poisoned in the UK with a Novichok agent (a class of nerve agents developed in the Soviet Union) in 2018, the US and a handful of its European partners released a statement condemning the attack, expelled diplomats, and the US levied sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act. Did this rein in Russia’s chemical weapons tactics? Alexey Navalny’s subsequent poisoning with Novichok in 2020 would suggest not.

In response to the latest allegations, the United States has so far announced sanctions on seven Russian government programs and companies associated with the Kremlin’s chemical and biological weapons programs. These measures are an attempt to reduce Moscow’s ability to wage chemical warfare. More must now be done. Failing to curb the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine would have potentially catastrophic consequences, both for Ukrainians and for international security more broadly. The United States and its partners therefore cannot afford to wait and see whether current sanctions measures are effective.

In the early phases of Russia’s full-scale invasion, US President Joe Biden pledged that “Russia will pay a severe price if they use chemical weapons.” Do sanctions alone constitute a severe response? If such measures have not convinced Putin that he cannot use chemical weapons after recent assassination attempts, can we expect them to work when his back is against a wall trying to win a major war?

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Looking to the past provides little clarity on possible actions available to Ukraine’s partners. After the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria in 2013, the United States and Russia worked together to force Syria to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and destroy its stockpiles. Without Russia’s participation and considering its veto on the United Nations Security Council, something similar on this occasion looks impossible. When Syria continued to use chemical weapons, the United States, United Kingdom, and France targeted chemical weapons facilities with missiles, another option Western leaders have seemingly taken off the table in relation to Russia.

The best option available to the United States and its allies might be to deny Russia the opportunity to use banned weapons. If Putin’s strategy would dictate using chemical weapons in the case of a stalemate, then Ukraine’s partners must ensure it gets the military aid needed to avoid such a situation. While the United States might be unable to strike inside Russia as it did in Syria, providing Ukraine long-range weapons and the intelligence support to carry out strikes against chemical weapons facilities could take away Russia’s chemical capabilities while sending a strong message against using banned weapons.

This is not to say the United States should not explore options for international cooperation. At the end of the day, Russia using chemical weapons endangers more than Ukraine. Galvanizing broader support from around the world can help preserve critical norms and is a necessary step to protect against chemical weapons proliferation globally. While the West has struggled to work with China or partners in the Global South on Ukraine, a coalition rejecting the use of chemical weapons presents an opportunity to protect Ukrainian lives while reinforcing international norms and building trust that chemical weapons are unacceptable in all contexts.

Emma Nix is an assistant director with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Apr 29, 2024

Bombs and disinformation: Russia’s campaign to depopulate Kharkiv

By Maria Avdeeva

Russia is deploying disinformation alongside bombs as it seeks to demoralize Kharkiv residents and depopulate Ukraine’s second city, writes Maria Avdeeva.

Civil Society Conflict

UkraineAlert May 3, 2024

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia

By Peter Dickinson

UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron has confirmed that Ukraine can use British weapons to attack Russia as Western leaders continue to overcome their fear of provoking Putin, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert May 2, 2024

Ukraine’s new mobilization law leaves demobilization issue unresolved

By Elena Davlikanova, Kateryna Odarchenko

Ukraine urgently needs to replenish the ranks of the country’s depleted military, but the recently adopted mobilization law fails to address the key issue of demobilization, write Elena Davlikanova and Kateryna Odarchenko.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Putin cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons in Ukraine with impunity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Despite initial promises of moderation and a pledge to the United Nations (UN) when the group seized power in 2021, the Taliban has swiftly restored oppressive policies reminiscent of its previous rule in the late 1990s.

In less than three years, the Taliban has issued more than fifty edicts and directives imposing strict measures to bar women from participation in public and political life. These measures include restricting women’s access to education, employment, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, access to public spaces, health care, and access to justice.

A UN experts report said the situation may amount to “gender apartheid,” with the Taliban “governing by systemic discrimination with the intention to subject women and girls to total domination.” 

Violations of international law

As reported by the UN Human Rights Council, the Taliban significantly restricts women’s participation in society and denies them avenues for seeking justice and redress. Women who speak out against these restrictions or advocate for their rights face severe consequences, including harassment, violence, imprisonment, and death. The Taliban also targets women activists, professionals, and both men and women who are supporters of women’s rights, viewing them as threats to their authority. The situation has deteriorated further in the past few months, as evidenced by recent extrajudicial arrests and forced disappearances. There has also been an alarming increase in gender-related killings (femicide).

The Taliban’s gender apartheid policies deliberately violate international legal frameworks to which Afghanistan is still bound, perpetuating a cycle of gender-based discrimination and brutality. International law on the protection of women’s rights is unequivocal. It emphasizes the fundamental responsibility of governing authorities to promote and safeguard the rights of women in all aspects of their lives.

The International Bill of Human Rights—which is comprised of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—guarantees the right to equality and nondiscrimination. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women explicitly prohibits gender-based discrimination, obligating state parties to ensure gender equality in all spheres of life. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) criminalizes gender persecution as a crime against humanity under article 7. 

The ICC’s 2022 Policy on the Crime of Gender Persecution broadens the scope of targeted individuals beyond direct members of a particular group to include that group’s sympathizers and affiliates. This inclusive stance is particularly relevant for Afghanistan. In schools that ban girls, staff—including male teachers—who teach girls can also be targeted. Similarly, journalists are targeted and face persecution for their coverage of violations of women’s basic human rights. Such incidents, which fall under the ICC’s purview, highlight the interconnectedness of gender-related issues and the diverse ways individuals can be affected by gender-based persecution.

The Taliban’s capital and corporal punishments target women more often than men. Despite Afghanistan’s ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Taliban persists in brutally treating and punishing women. Taliban punishments, ranging from public floggings to executions, demonstrate a deliberate effort to instill fear and maintain control over women’s lives, flagrantly violating the Convention against Torture.

When the Taliban shields perpetrators from accountability, including insulating its own system, it further perpetuates a cycle of violence. Under the current regime, documentation of human rights abuses has become nearly impossible. The Taliban’s restrictions on international and local human rights organizations and media, including censorship and intimidation tactics, have severely hindered their ability to document and report these violations. The absence of comprehensive reporting on human rights abuses under the Taliban not only obscures the true extent of the violations but also allows perpetrators to act with impunity.

The broader international significance

The ongoing violations perpetrated by the Taliban in Afghanistan, particularly on women, have sparked diplomatic condemnation from the international community. However, this condemnation exposes a deeper issue: the weakening consensus among members of the international community on how to effectively respond to such crises. One of the primary risks associated with this trend is the normalization of the extremists. Engaging with the Taliban and normalizing relations without meaningful concessions on human rights encourages the Taliban and other repressive regimes, signaling that they can flout international norms with impunity.

This impunity gravely undermines more than two decades’ worth of efforts to achieve justice, reconciliation, and sustainable peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban has not only refused to acknowledge its past atrocities but also enjoys impunity for its current actions.

The continued impunity not only denies justice to women survivors but also sends a dangerous message that violence against women can be tolerated and even condoned, with far-reaching implications. The denial of education and participation in public life hinders the development and empowerment of women and girls, perpetuating cycles of poverty, inequality, and marginalization. It also undermines fundamental principles of justice and human rights, eroding trust in the ability of international institutions to provide justice and accountability. This lack of accountability also enables the Taliban to spread extremist ideologies, creating a nurturing environment for conflict and terrorism, with dire implications for regional stability.

What the international community can do

Considering the dire situation in Afghanistan, the UN should take a lead role in establishing robust accountability mechanisms. This may entail creating an independent investigative body to monitor and document human rights abuses and violations of international law.

The UN should also change its approach to the Taliban. Instead of engaging with the regime without conditions, the UN should work with regional and global partners and directly with the Afghan people, including civil society, to develop a unified strategy that prioritizes women, human rights, and security, rather than legitimizing a regime that promotes oppression and instability. Taliban leaders’ rigid ideology means dialogue with them is futile. Moreover, targeted sanctions and travel bans on Taliban leaders should be imposed. The UN can leverage its authority and resources to coordinate efforts among member states and ensure a unified approach to the crisis within the organization.

At the same time, the international community can use diplomatic engagement to exert pressure on the Taliban to respect international human rights standards. Diplomatic recognition, aid, and other forms of cooperation should be conditioned on tangible improvements in human rights and accountability.

Human rights organizations outside Afghanistan play a crucial role in amplifying the voices of Afghan women and advocating for their rights. These organizations should mobilize support for Afghan civil society groups and grassroots organizations, particularly those championing human rights and women’s rights. By collaborating with local activists and providing resources, these organizations can help promote accountability and protect vulnerable populations—particularly women.

Samira Abrar is human rights activist currently working in the field of immigration law in the United States.

The post Don’t look away: The Taliban’s mistreatment of women has global ramifications appeared first on Atlantic Council.

While most attention has so far focused on the military aspects of this new US aid package, the bill passed in Washington DC also includes an important step toward holding Russia financially accountable for the invasion of Ukraine. The Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunities for Ukrainians Act, or REPO Act, paves the way for seizures of Russian Central Bank holdings that have been frozen in the United States for more than two years, while also setting the stage for a more global approach to confiscating Russian assets.

Western countries froze approximately $300 billion in Russian assets following the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Kremlin has been unable to access these assets ever since, but they still technically belong to Russia. The REPO Act could now make it possible to seize Russian assets and use them for the benefit of Ukraine. Only around $5 billion of the overall $300 billion is located in the US, but the United States is setting an important precedent by taking a leadership position in the confiscation of Russian state funds.

We should not expect any immediate action. The REPO Act obliges the White House and US Treasury Department to identify Russian assets in the US within a 90-day period and report back to Congress in 180 days. After a further month, the president is then authorized to “seize, confiscate, transfer, or vest” any Russian state sovereign assets located within the United States.

The US is unlikely to act unilaterally. Instead, United States officials have indicated they wish to move forward in conjunction with other Western governments. The issue is set to be high on the agenda during the next G7 summit, which is scheduled to take place in Italy in June. “The ideal is that we all move together,” commented US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on April 24. This would send a message to Moscow that the democratic world is united in its commitment to make Russia pay for the largest European invasion since World War II.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

In order to appreciate the significance of the REPO Act, it is helpful to track Russia’s reaction. Since the aid bill passed, there has been plenty of outrage in Moscow. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed his wish for the United States to be “plunged into a new civil war,” and threatened to seize the assets of US citizens in Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that Russia would make the United States answer for the confiscation of frozen assets.

Meanwhile, Russian Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said Russia could now pass “symmetrical” legislation allowing Moscow to confiscate Western assets located inside the Russian Federation. Volodin was one of many Russian officials to claim that the US step was intended to “provoke” the adoption of parallel measures in EU countries. He predicted that this would be “devastating” for the European economy.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Skeptics in the West have voiced concerns that the seizure of Russian assets could undermine the global financial system and weaken Western economies. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde is one of numerous senior figures in Europe to express unease over the confiscation of Russian assets, arguing that it could mean “breaking the international legal order that you want to protect, that you would want Russia and all countries around the world to respect.”

This caution ignores the fact that Russian state assets in Western jurisdictions have now been frozen for more than two years without sparking any noticeable negative consequences for the international financial system. If measures against Russian assets were sufficient reason to trigger a loss of confidence in the existing financial system among other authoritarian states, they have already had ample time to react.

The statements coming out of Moscow over the past week underline the sensitivity within the Kremlin to the confiscation of frozen Russian money. While the REPO Act represents a meaningful milestone in the debate over Russian assets, it is not decisive. Nevertheless, this aspect of the aid package has attracted almost as much attention as the very significant additional military support that is now being sent to Ukraine.

It would certainly seem that members of Russia’s ruling elite are more concerned about the security of their own financial resources than the safety of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Indeed, many observers have long argued that Putin’s top priority is safeguarding his own ill-gotten wealth and that of his inner circle. If the West is serious about defeating Russia in Ukraine, it should seek to exploit this apparent vulnerability.

Following the adoption of the REPO Act, the next stage in the process should be the promotion of similar draft laws by the European Union and G7 countries. The recent US decision on Russian assets can provide the impetus others have been waiting for. Russia only understands the language of strength, and views hesitation as an invitation to go further. Western leaders can now demonstrate their resolve by acting together to make Russia pay for its criminal invasion of Ukraine.

Kira Rudik is leader of the Golos party, member of the Ukrainian parliament, and Vice President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

Further reading

UkraineAlert Mar 12, 2024

Mood darkens in Odesa amid Russian bombardment and Western hesitancy

By Michael Bociurkiw

The mood in Ukrainian Black Sea port city Odesa has darkened in recent weeks amid a surge in Russian bombing attacks and growing doubts over the future of Western military aid, writes Michael Bociurkiw.

Conflict Drones

UkraineAlert Apr 25, 2024

New US aid package is not enough to prevent Russian victory in Ukraine

By Peter Dickinson

This week’s US aid package for Ukraine provides the country with a vital lifeline in the fight against Russia but Western leaders must adopt a more long-term approach if they want to stop Putin, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Drones

UkraineAlert Mar 31, 2024

Ukraine urgently needs air defenses as Russia decimates power grid

By Suriya Evans-Pritchard Jayanti

A new Russian air offensive has destroyed much of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure in a matter of days and threatens to spark a humanitarian catastrophe if Ukraine does not urgently receive enhanced air defenses, writes Suriya Evans-Pritchard Jayanti.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post US takes big step toward making Russia pay for Ukraine invasion appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In a closely watched second-round presidential race, Slovaks cast their ballots in what evolved into a tight face-off between Ivan Korčok, a career diplomat advocating pro-Western ideals and staunch support for Ukraine, and Peter Pellegrini, who has echoed pro-Kremlin rhetoric and is aligned with the current Slovak government led by Prime Minister Robert Fico. Fico, who took office last October, has caused alarm among NATO allies for opposing aid to Kyiv during his campaign, parroting Kremlin talking points on the war in Ukraine, and threatening his country’s independent judiciary.

While the presidency wields limited powers, the race earlier this month was broadly seen as a poignant battleground between political factions harboring opposing views on domestic rule-of-law issues and Russia’s war on Ukraine.

The president has the authority to veto laws—albeit subject to potential override by parliament with a simple majority—and can dispute them at the constitutional court. The president also appoints constitutional court judges, selects the prime minister, swears in the new government after parliamentary elections, and can pardon convicts. With Pellegrini’s victory, Fico and his allies’ control extends not just over the legislative and executive branches, but also over these presidential authorities.

Initially expected to be a tight race, Pellegrini won with an unexpected 6 percent lead and 53 percent of the total vote. Despite Korčok’s commendable efforts to rally support against the incumbent administration’s policies, Pellegrini emerged victorious, leaving many pondering the implications for Slovakia’s future.

While each candidate garnered more than one million votes for the first time ever in a Slovak presidential race, Pellegrini’s success can be attributed to several key factors. He adeptly tapped into widespread anti-Western and anti-liberal sentiments across the nation, especially in areas where the ruling, populist coalition parties had previously performed well. Moreover, he consolidated support from voters who backed candidates eliminated in the initial round. A historic voter turnout in the second round exceeding 60 percent further bolstered his campaign, as he successfully mobilized new constituencies.

During the campaign, Pellegrini painted Korčok as a harbinger of war—asserting that Korčok’s victory would drag the country into a war with Russia—while he positioned himself as a proponent of peace. This narrative was bolstered by misleading social media posts, which were spread on the social media accounts of prominent government officials—including Slovakia’s ministers of economy, European Union (EU) funds, and regional development—which swayed public opinion and contributed to Korčok’s defeat.

Korčok did triumph in the capital region, Bratislava, which also boasted the highest election turnout nationwide with over 71 percent. He also won the support of younger voters, who were able to see through the disinformation campaign against him.

With Pellegrini’s victory, concerns have been mounting regarding the unchecked advancement of the government’s antidemocratic agenda and closer ties with Russia. The outgoing president, Zuzana Čaputová, habitually exercised her presidential powers to limit the executive arm, both with the current and previous administrations.

The election of a president who is unlikely to check the prime minister’s executive power leaves Fico’s administration in a new position. It might now feel emboldened to accelerate efforts to undermine judicial independence, media autonomy, and democratic oversight—unless it is restrained by external forces, notably Brussels.

The European Commission has warned Bratislava that it could face penalties over concerns that the Fico administration’s judicial reforms—particularly those shielding politicians from prosecution—were incompatible with the EU’s democratic standards. This would place Slovakia alongside Poland and Hungary, both of which have been embroiled in prolonged disputes with the EU over the rule of law. The potential withholding of EU funds constitutes significant leverage, particularly as Slovakia faces the eurozone’s biggest budget deficit, projected at over 6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product this year.

Slovakia’s geopolitical realignment is equally likely to reverberate on the international stage. Bratislava’s continued drift into the Russian orbit of influence is sure to pose fresh challenges for regional stability, European unity on support for Kyiv, and transatlantic relations.

Korčok’s defeat represents more than a missed opportunity for principled leadership in a geopolitically crucial region. It signifies a worrisome shift in Slovakia’s democratic trajectory away from Western norms, raising alarms not just about the country’s future course but also Europe’s internal stability, cohesion, and decision making.

Soňa Muzikárová is a political economist focused on Central and Eastern Europe and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

The post Slovakia’s presidential choice reinforces its anti-Western leanings appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Watch the event

Online Event Tue, April 9, 2024 • 2:00 pm ET

2024 Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership

Secretary Chuck Hagel and Former United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will discuss the role of US leadership in a changing world, hosted in partnership with the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Politics & Diplomacy

To grapple with today’s headline-making global turmoil, policymakers must have a strong grasp of history, argued former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and former US Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

The two former officials reflected on the history of the United States’ leadership in the world on April 4 at the 2024 Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership, hosted by the Atlantic Council and the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO).

“There is a reason why the United States led in organizing a post-World War II world order,” Hagel explained, pointing to a postwar realization that isolationism wouldn’t secure the country—and to the US network of allies and partners. “If we did not have those relationships, we couldn’t have our bases; we couldn’t have our troops in certain areas of the world.”

While the United States has led in creating today’s world order, Holder warned Americans that “our democracy is at risk.” Below are highlights from the conversation—moderated by Jody Neathery-Castro, associate vice chancellor for global engagement at UNO—which touched upon the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and racial justice in the United States.

Risks in Ukraine

• Holder explained that the United States winning the Cold War has led to an era of “unparalleled prosperity and peace,” but “that is all at risk by not coming to the support of Ukraine.”
• “How we react in this matter is being observed by despots and strongmen and dictators,” Holder warned. Hagel agreed, saying that the war in Ukraine poses a security threat for countries far beyond Europe, as China and North Korea continue to watch and learn—and evaluate whether the West can hold its resolve.
• Hagel said that some Americans don’t seem to understand the danger of letting Russian President Vladimir Putin exert his will and argued that the consequences of failing to support Ukraine are dangerous. “It will force all nations of the world, especially our partners . . . not to trust us.” Holder agreed, saying that sowing doubt in the minds of allies will allow dictators to “probe” and find new capitals from which they can “extend their influence.”
• In national security, “there cannot be politics,” Hagel said.

The urgency for peace in the Middle East

• Holder said that Hamas needs to be held accountable for its October 7 terrorist attack in Israel, and the group must release the hostages it took. At the same time, while Israel has the right to defend itself, he said “the tactics” being used by the Netanyahu government are “extremely disturbing” and do not “serve the interests of Israel in the long term.”
• Hagel argued that the course Israel is on now “can’t continue,” and he warned that the way the war is unfolding is engendering global criticism not only of Israel but also of the United States. He said regional and outside partners need to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinian territories. “You’ve got to start it somewhere, and the United States is the only country that can help do that.”

Katherine Walla is an associate director on the editorial team at the Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

The post Chuck Hagel and Eric Holder on Ukraine, Israel, and the US-led world order appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On March 18, 2024, the Atlantic Council’s Syria Project, the Middle East Institute’s Syria Program, the European Institute of Peace, and Madaniya Civil Society Network launched the Syria Strategy, an intensive process of engagement with subject matter experts and policymakers in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East to develop a holistic strategy to sustainably resolve the Syrian crisis. This process will incorporate Syrian experts, Syrian civil society, and Syrian stakeholders at every step. The launch event coincided with the anniversary of the Syrian uprising and included three panels, featuring Special Envoys for Syria from three governments, notable scholars working on the country, and the Syria Strategy project leadership.

Welcome remarks 

William Wechsler, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs, kicked off the event with the opening remarks, noting that Syria does not receive enough attention given the country’s importance to the region and the continued suffering under President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The partnership between the Atlantic Council, Middle East Institute, European Institute of Peace, and Madaniya therefore aims to produce a realistic, implementable strategy for the United States and its allies to address the country’s current crises, explained Wechsler. 

Ayman Asfari, chairman of Madaniya Civil Society Network, then discussed the network’s goals and the continued need for strategic engagement to promote a sustainable solution to Syria’s challenges. Madaniya seeks to harness the vibrant civil society developed during the initial uprising in 2011 by providing a platform for over 200 Syrian civil society organizations to reclaim political agency over the Syrian civic space, noted Asfari. In this way, he said, Syrian civil society is at the forefront of mitigating the impacts of the protracted conflict. The United States and its European partners must work with Syrians to pave the way for principled policy solutions along the lines of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, he added. 

Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the US Department of State, concluded the opening remarks with a recorded address. The situation in Syria is deteriorating, as deadly bombardment campaigns continue in the country’s north, human rights abuses continue, and over 155,000 people remain arbitrarily detained or forcibly disappeared, according to Leaf. “With the war in Gaza, [the United States] is committed to ensuring Syria itself does not get pulled into a regional conflict that only increases human suffering,” Leaf said. Furthermore, “despite Russian and regime intransigence,” the United States still supports political solution along the lines of UNSCR 2254 as well as the work of the Constitutional Committee to achieve these goals for Syria. However, the Assistant secretary warned that the Arab League’s decision to normalize relations with Syria threatens any potential progress, as the United States hopes to use normalization as an incentive for credible steps toward protecting human rights and improving humanitarian conditions in the country. “The United States remains committed to expanding humanitarian access, ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS, and promoting accountability for the Assad regime’s human rights abuses.” Leaf also emphasized that initiatives like the Syria Strategy Project are essential to these goals, informing the administration’s decision-making and policy direction while searching for a path toward peace. 

Panel one: High-level panel discussion 

The first panel focused on specific governmental approaches to engaging with Bashar al-Assad’s regime in pursuit of political and humanitarian solutions to Syria’s current crises. Elizabeth Hagedorn, State Department correspondent for Al-Monitor, moderated the discussion between Ethan Goldrich, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs with the US Department of State; Brigitte Curmi, Special Envoy for Syria with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Stefan Schneck, Special Envoy for Syria with the German Federal Foreign Office. 

A transactional approach to peace 

Goldrich began the conversation by discussing the status quo in Syria’s political landscape as well as the importance of a unified approach to pressuring the Assad regime to the negotiating table. Currently, the regime is looking to rehabilitate its image and normalize relations with Arab neighbors without engaging in any meaningful reform. Indeed, the Arab League’s decision to normalize with Syria complicates efforts to force concessions from Damascus, he stated. However, he explained that the United States remains committed to working with partners like France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union to hold Assad’s regime accountable while reaching a path toward peace and stability. 

Curmi emphasized that this approach must include concrete steps toward reform in line with UNSCR 2254. She stressed the importance of directing the regime toward meaningful reform to ensure the international community’s ability to solve Syria’s political crisis. Schneck agreed on these points, adding that internal support for the regime is very weak, forcing Assad to rely on untrustworthy partners like Iran and Russia. The international community must be prepared for a sudden change to the status quo and any accompanying opportunity to enable political reform in Syria. 

While a sudden shift in events is always possible given Syria’s volatile history, a slower process toward political reform is much more likely. Goldrich explained that the United States has placed stock in such an approach, designing flexible sanctions and executive orders to accommodate any progress the Syrian government makes in addressing concerns over human rights abuses. Curmi and Schneck likewise noted that French and German opposition to the regime was not purely ideological. A step-for-step approach has been on the table for years, but substantive change will only come about after Syria legitimately alters its behavior, they concluded. Such changes are unfortunately less likely after the recent rapprochement between Syria and the Arab League. 

Roadblocks to reform 

Goldrich also pointed to Russian behavior as a challenge in making progress in Syria. Over the past two years, Russia has prevented the Constitutional Committee, which aims to make progress toward UNSCR 2254, from convening. Therefore, according to Schneck, the issue is not the peace process itself but rather the actors’ unwillingness to enter the negotiations. Curmi said this behavior should not discourage the parties from advocating for greater efforts to connect Syrians in different regions of the country as well as in the diaspora. 

While not a perfect solution, the panelists agreed that pursuing UNSCR 2254 is a better approach to improving the current humanitarian situation in Syria than normalization. Arab states opting to normalize relations have benefited little from the decision, and the situation has encouraged the Syrian government to maintain its strategy of extracting concessions while offering none in return, they added. 

Sanctions and humanitarian aid 

The panelists aligned on the need to maintain sanctions. They acknowledged that their sanctions programs are having negative effects on the people of Syria and reiterated the need for measures targeting only the regime and its enablers. The envoys affirmed that sanctions must avoid hampering humanitarian efforts. However, the delegates stressed that the regime will not likely change its treatment of Syrians without outside pressure. Furthermore, the regime’s frequent complaints about Western sanctions demonstrate that the measures are having an effect, explained the speakers.  

On humanitarian aid, the panelists did diverge slightly in their approaches to the crisis. According to UN estimates, 16.7 million people in Syria require humanitarian aid, due to both the Syrian civil war and the devastating earthquake that hit northwestern Syria in 2023. Goldrich highlighted the more than $1 billion in aid delivered to the region in response to the earthquake, in addition to the $16.8 billion spent by the United States since the onset of the political crisis. He also invoked the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Syria General License 22, which authorized large amounts of aid to be delivered to liberated and non-regime-controlled areas of Syria, concomitantly bringing American investment to the region. 

Curmi noted a difference between the French and American approaches responding to Goldrich’s last point. France has a fixed annual budget for Syria, and this funding goes toward work in all areas of the country in contrast to the US focus on non-regime areas. Curmi explained that this approach is to ensure Syrians do not suffer unnecessarily for Assad’s actions. Similarly, Schneck affirmed the need to continue early recovery aid to lay the groundwork for sustainable solutions in the region. 

Panel two: 13 years of conflict: A regional and international perspective

The second panel contextualized the Syrian situation amid regional and global developments and explored why the crisis remains relevant today. Mona Yacoubian, Vice President of the Middle East and North Africa Center at the United States Institute of Peace, moderated the discussion between Natasha Hall, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute;and Vali Nasr, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“A festering wound”

Hall led off by observing that Syria is routinely neglected by the international community at its own peril. She compared the crisis in the country to a festering wound that can become septic at any time, and stressed negative developments there rarely remain within Syrian borders. President Bashar al-Assad benefits from this chaos by perpetuating the narrative that he is the only one who can solve the problems at hand—problems for which he is also responsible. The regime now utilizes humanitarian aid and refugees as policy levers to negotiate with its neighbors and the West, all while collecting billions of dollars each year through the Captagon trade, according to the panelist. Hall asserted that Assad has created a successful playbook for other authoritarians, who have adopted the model of securing a great power protector and then shattering norms with impunity. The United States remains staunch in its use of aid and sanctions in lieu of a more robust strategy for addressing the regime. The situation remains volatile, but Washington should not miss its current chance to provide preventative care to the wound, she added.

Nasr followed by explaining Iran’s evolving role in the crisis and how the effects of the war in Gaza are reverberating in Syria. He affirmed that Iran continues to play a central role in the country’s set of interrelated conflicts and that Iranian involvement in the wider region also elevates Syria’s importance. Beyond protecting Assad, Tehran understands that Syria is an additional front to pressure the United States and Israel. Iran and Hezbollah have moved to fill the vacuum left by Russia as it focuses on Ukraine, and by gaining a foothold in Latakia they can now project influence into the Mediterranean, according to him. Nasr also highlighted that the risk of an Israeli-Iranian escalation would rise if Tehran’s succeeded in its efforts to dislodge the United States. Syria is also a theater for US-Turkey and US-Russia confrontations; the country is more integrated into global issues than is generally acknowledged. Consequently, Washington requires a strategy for navigating its engagement in Syria and preventing the country from becoming the epicenter of a regional war, he explained.

Katulis then spoke on the evolution of geostrategic threats surrounding Syria. He listed several global impacts that originated from the Syrian conflict: authoritarian leaders mimicking tactics used by the Assad regime; worsening violence against civilians in other conflicts; the weaponization of refugees; rampant use of disinformation; and growing disillusionment with proactive foreign policy among elements of the American left and right. Katulis noted that the current project pushes back on the indifference toward Syria that has settled over some policy circles, as well as the notion that the United States cannot constructively shape the situation any longer. He expressed hope that the project will generate new ideas to turn negative trends in a new direction.

Correcting course and deepening engagement

Hall then gave her thoughts on how policymakers and scholars in Washington can reframe discussions about Syria and develop new solutions. The United States and its partners are currently “treading water” rather than acting proactively and missing opportunities to negotiate with individual actors while the wider conflict is gridlocked. Other neglected areas that could benefit from more engagement include promoting resilience in non-regime areas and mitigating water insecurity in the northeast. Hall concluded by spotlighting regional efforts to advance negotiations on Gaza and predicted that a similarly unified attempt at step-for-step with Syria could bring about progress.

Nasr underscored the need for Washington to identify its interests in Syria and pinpoint why the outcome of the war matters; a pivot toward a new mission could redefine the US footprint there altogether. Meanwhile, if the United States continues to neglect the situation it could very well be pulled back in the future. Katulis suggested a more diplomacy-forward US strategy for the crisis to ameliorate regional frustration at American inaction. Deeper discussions are especially needed with countries bordering Syria. He cited US leadership on the Ukraine conflict as an example of how attentive engagement can build coalitions.

Hall agreed with her co-panelists on the need for more multilateral cooperation on Syria policy, pointing to energy and water as issues where the United States and its partners could do more. Nasr felt that the disproportionate US effort spent countering Iranian influence in Syria is evidence of a disconnect between Washington’s stated aims in countering ISIS and its priorities on the ground. He reiterated that there is a legitimate argument for an American presence in the Middle East but that it must be properly translated into action. Katulis added that as think tank analysts approach Syria with a fresh perspective, even touchy topics regime change or other forms of power transition should be reevaluated.

Panel three: The Syria Strategy: Outlining the way forward

The final panel served as an introduction to the mission and goals of the Syria Strategy Project. Sawsan Abou Zainedin, CEO of Madaniya Civil Society Network, moderated the conversation between Qutaiba Idlbi, Director of the Syria Project at Atlantic Council; Charles Lister, Director of the Syria and Counter-Terrorism Programs at the Middle East Institute; and Marie Forestier, Senior Advisor at the European Institute of Peace.

Building a new strategy

Idlbi recounted how the project arose from Western, regional, and Syrian stakeholders’ frequent inquiries about the US strategy for Syria, and a pervasive sentiment among American policymakers that they had tried everything they could. The Syria Strategy project seeks to form a realistic and implementable strategy to both improve conditions in Syria in the short term and shape a sustainable solution to the crisis in line with UNSCR 2254. He went on to explain how the project will bring together experts, policymakers, and stakeholders to work on a series of subproblems in hopes of producing a workable, holistic proposal by March 2025. Another goal is for the project to function as a sounding board for policymakers to test ideas and offer their own feedback, he explained.

Lister addressed the project’s emphasis on Washington as its intended audience. American buy-in is needed in order to make progress on the Syrian crisis; US involvement galvanizes European support and is a remedy to Arab states’ frustration with their own engagement efforts. There is currently no shortage of ideas on Syria, but the actors proposing them lack unity of purpose, or at least the perception of unity, according to him. Lister also explained that Syrian experts and activists form the core of the Syria Strategy and Washington will be just one of many governments involved in the project. The process is designed to be highly consultative and responsive to feedback, creating a “living” project.

Forestier underscored the need for European involvement as well. The project is necessarily transatlantic, as while US leadership on Syria remains critical, Washington cannot be expected to lead alone. Aligning Europe and the United States increases the chances of success of the wider project and will revitalize Syria policy in European foreign policy circles as well. The European Union (EU) remains a significant donor of humanitarian aid in Syria but has not updated its strategy since 2017, resulting in recent dissent among member states. A common strategy born from a Syrian-owned process could be the common ground needed for the EU to rebuild consensus, she said.

Lister then unpacked the duality of the project’s mission, under which Syrians must own and drive the process but ultimately produce a strategy that external actors will buy into. The project leadership realizes that any plan assembled by the international community but not agreeable to Syrians will be dead on arrival, creating an impetus to engage with de facto authorities throughout the country—including interlocutors from the regime. The leadership also recognizes that resolution will not come quickly and thus envision two timelines for the project: a shorter-term one predicated on improving day-to-day conditions across all of Syria, and a longer-term one producing a sustainable resolution to the crisis. Critical to both is the reestablishment of connectivity among the different parts of Syria, such as by official trade and transit.

Challenges and opportunities

Idlbi contextualized the project’s efforts within wider regional developments, such as Arab states’ normalization efforts with the regime. Diplomatic engagement remains one of the only remaining policy levers for regional states to work with Syria. However, the readmission of Syria to the Arab League is widely considered to be a failure owing to a lack of better behavior by Assad. He reiterated that US involvement on the Syria file is not only crucial to effecting change but also a necessity if Washington wants to avoid being dragged back into Syria on worse terms in the future. The United States spent billions of dollars to stop ISIS, and the investment needed to curb another crisis may well be even more. Working toward a solution to the conflict also requires treating its symptoms as well, such as restoring basic services and returning children to school, according to him.

Forestier differentiated the Syria Strategy from other consultative projects by the extremely wide scope of stakeholders it hopes to engage. Throughout the process, the project leads intend to solicit feedback from all major players in Syria, regional governments, and global powers, ensuring that policy recommendations are vetted by different actors. Lister acknowledged that not all issues lend themselves to consensus, with sanctions expected to be an especially contentious topic. However, the goal remains to take in a range of different perspectives and approach disparate ideas with an open mind.

Regarding the recent anti-normalization bill passed by the US House of Representatives, Idlbi stressed that the most impactful sanctions regime placed on Syria is the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act passed in 2003. Sanctions should comprise just one of many tools to form a strategy for shaping conditions in the country. He also recentered the importance of UN involvement and the project’s engagement with the UN Special Envoy for Syria. Lister then outlined the limitations of Syria’s allies and the opportunities they create to change the status quo. He asserted that while Assad could fall back on Russian and Iranian military support from the outset of the civil war, neither government is willing to bail Syria out of its worsening economic situation; a unified approach by the international community to engaging with Syria could thus leverage Damascus’s predicament to pressure it toward constructive reforms.

The post Launching the Syria Strategy Project appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Executive summary

As the geopolitical relevance of the Pacific Islands has grown, so too has the attention paid to them by the outside world—including an influx of diplomatic attention, development assistance, and more as external powers seek to curry favor with the sixteen countries. Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—which collectively comprise the Quadrilateral Dialogue (known as the Quad)—have independently and collectively scaled up their engagement with the Pacific Islands.

In doing so, the Quad has sought to pursue a positive, practical agenda that aligns with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.

Broadly speaking, the PIF members welcome the Quad, but some are critical of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” narrative that undergirds it. As the Quad seeks to bolster its engagement in the Pacific Islands, it should ensure that it accounts for the unique challenges facing this vast maritime region, which relies heavily on foreign assistance.

In 2023, the Quad announced a range of programmatic initiatives intended to address key regional issues, including climate, connectivity, economic development, and maritime security. The bloc is currently standing on solid ground, but the group is still finding its footing as a new player in the complex multilateral architecture in the Pacific Islands.

Looking forward, it should embrace four broad-based, cross-cutting policy recommendations that align with the stated priorities of the Quad, its member states, and Pacific Island countries:

1. Prioritize programs that bolster physical and digital connectivity, such as the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience that was announced at the 2023 Quad Leaders’ Summit.

2. Emphasize maritime domain awareness and enforcement by providing partners with tools to facilitate greater enforcement capacity and enhanced monitoring.

3. Implement positive, practical programs in areas of strategic advantage that fit into an already-complex regional donor landscape and meet Pacific needs.

4. Take a forward-leaning approach to public diplomacy, including through elevated branding that proactively communicates intent, emphasizes shared values, and does not overemphasize geopolitics.

Introduction

As the geopolitical relevance of the Pacific Islands has grown, so too has the attention paid to it by the outside world. Other issues, from climate change to fisheries, drive engagement as well—but geopolitics is what has drawn the lion’s share of international media coverage and interest from decision-makers in foreign capitals who do not focus on the region day-to-day.

This, in turn, has brought an influx of diplomatic attention, development assistance, and more as external powers seek to curry favor with the sixteen Pacific Island countries.¹ As the most aid-dependent region in the world, this recognition is welcomed, but Pacific Islanders remain leery about geopolitical competition and the detrimental impact it could have on their sovereignty and well-being.

Australia, India, Japan, and the United States have independently and collectively scaled up their engagement with these Pacific Islands. In 2007, the four countries formed the Quadrilateral Dialogue (the Quad), which has become an increasingly important element of the Indo-Pacific’s growing multilateral architecture. It serves as a forum for addressing shared challenges across the Indo-Pacific, including in the Pacific Islands.

In February and March 2024, the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative (IPSI) of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security convened public and private discussions with governmental and nongovernmental experts from Quad member states and Pacific Island countries to formulate policy recommendations for the bloc as it expands activities in the region.

The collective output of those discussions, in turn, is the basis for this policy brief, which provides an overview of the relationship between the Quad and the Pacific Islands as it stands today, followed by a series of policy recommendations for the former as it seeks to bolster its engagement with the latter over the coming years.

The Quad and the Pacific Islands: An overview

It is no coincidence that the Quad’s revival in 2017 came at a time of heightened geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific. As noted in the 2023 Joint Leaders’ Statement, its members are committed to ensuring “a free and open Indo-Pacific that is inclusive and resilient” and one where “all countries are free from coercion, and can exercise their agency to determine their futures.”

Alongside other fora, the Quad has become an increasingly important node in the Indo-Pacific’s growing “minilateral” architecture. Cooperation within it focuses on six key areas—climate, critical and emerging technology, cyber, health security, infrastructure, and space—that are reflected by the bloc’s formal leader-level working groups.

While they may skate around thornier issues that could divide the bloc, these agreed-upon priority areas have helped the Quad formulate a positive, practical agenda that will benefit not just the four Quad countries but also partner nations. Leaders’ meetings have become an annual occurrence and overall cohesion in the bloc has increased—no small feat, considering how quickly it went dormant after being first conceived in 2007.

Along with its thematic focus areas, the Quad has emphasized cooperation with countries in three key Indo-Pacific subregions—Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Indian Ocean rim—and expressly acknowledged the centrality of their respective multilateral forums: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA).

In the Pacific Islands, the Quad has sought to align itself with the objectives of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent (2050 Blue Pacific Strategy), a long-term road map for addressing key regional issues that were agreed upon by PIF members in 2022. The PIF strongly encourages external partners to work within this framework, and the Quad’s commitment to supporting its objectives is an important sign of respect for regional institutions.

It should be noted that the PIF is not the only regional institution in the mix; others, such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), cater to subregions and may deviate from the PIF at times and contend with it for influence. Furthermore, each of the sixteen Pacific Island countries have unique cultures, histories, and interests. It is therefore important that the Quad members build bilateral relationships with each country rather than opting for the easier route of painting the region with a monolithic brush.

Regional footprint of Quad members

Outside of the Quad framework, Canberra, New Delhi, Tokyo, and Washington also independently maintain regional presences that reflect each country’s unique priorities and interests. The added value of the bloc is its ability to capitalize on members’ regional initiatives to maximize the efficiency and impact of joint initiatives.

Of the four, Australia has historically been the most engaged in the region. It is a PIF member, maintains a comprehensive diplomatic footprint with missions in all sixteen Pacific Island countries, and is by far the single largest aid donor to the region. Canberra possesses unmatched levels of deep and long-term engagements with the Pacific Island countries, but, as with any long-standing bilateral relationship, this inevitably comes with areas of tension.

India has long maintained an interest in Fiji due to the latter’s large Indo-Fijian population but remains a relatively new player in the Pacific Islands region. Its amplified Pacific Islands engagement flows from a broader effort by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to enhance India’s global footprint. For instance, Modi’s 2023 visit to Papua New Guinea included the announcement of a strategic action plan to expand cooperation on a diverse issue set with Pacific Island countries.

Japan has a long history in the region and ramped up its modern-day engagement in the late 1990s, initiating the Japan-Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM) mechanism in 1997. It is the region’s second-largest provider of overseas development assistance and well-known for its focus on infrastructure and fisheries. As the originator of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept, it has been a leading voice for increasing regional cooperation through mechanisms like the Quad.

The United States has deep regional roots due to its ties with the three freely associated states² (FAS) and the geographic location of the US State of Hawaii within Polynesia. The United States significantly scaled back its regional presence in the early 1990s and only truly returned to previous levels of engagement in the late 2010s due to rising geopolitical competition. Since then, it has reestablished itself as a regional player by amplifying development aid, opening new embassies, and more—but questions linger about its long-term reliability and staying power.

All four countries have broadened their engagement in the region. Although Australia is the only full member of the PIF, India, Japan, and the United States hold observer status. They also maintain their own dialogue mechanisms with Pacific Island countries—for example, India’s Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation and the now-annual US-Pacific Island Forum Leader’s Summit. Additionally, Australia, Japan, and the United States are members of the Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP) mechanism.

The view from the Pacific Islands

With a collective exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of over sixteen million square kilometers, the Pacific Islands occupy nearly 10 percent of the world’s maritime space. In recent years, Pacific Island countries have sought to define themselves as “large ocean states” instead of the more common moniker of “small island states.” Their maritime nature is a defining, cross-cutting feature of the region.

Broadly speaking, the Quad has been welcomed, albeit not universally. Some are critical of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” narrative that undergirds it, arguing among other things that it is incompatible with the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy and could “funnel resources away from investment in Blue Pacific interests and objectives.” Others contend that the Quad is an unnecessary addition to an already complex multilateral landscape.

As the Quad expands its engagement with the Pacific Island countries, it is important to consider how regional actors define and view key international challenges, especially when such definitions and views may differ from those espoused by Quad members. The PIF’s 2018 Boe Declaration, which incorporates traditional and nontraditional security issues into a single definition of security, is perhaps the most pertinent example.

Climate change, which Pacific Island countries see as their single greatest threat, is central to their definition of security. Quad members, in the 2023 Joint Leaders’ Statement, did expressly acknowledge the significance of climate change as it pertains to global security. However, their words have not always aligned with actions taken on the issue at home, which in turn has periodically strained relations due to perceptions that Quad members’ climate rhetoric is more talk than action.

There are diverging views on geopolitics, but a general through line is a desire to maintain peace, stability, and positive relations with external parties. This is exemplified by Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s Zone of Peace concept, which is “deeply rooted in Pacific ideas of family and relationships,” and was welcomed by many Pacific Island leaders at their 2023 PIF retreat.

The development and economic challenges facing Pacific Island countries may be similar to those faced by other developing countries, but they are exacerbated by the region’s vast maritime nature and imminent challenges stemming from climate change. Although there are notable variances between the individual countries, the common priorities include but are by no means limited to disaster management, fisheries, labor mobility, infrastructure, public health, and regional connectivity.

Current Quad-Pacific Islands initiatives

Although the Pacific Islands were briefly referenced in the 2021 Joint Statement of Quad Leaders, the focus on this expansive subregion has grown exponentially since then. A range of programmatic announcements, many of which pertain to the Pacific Islands, were made at the 2023 Leaders’ Summit, including:

• Climate: Quad Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Package to accelerate regional cooperation on climate resilience.

• Critical and Emerging Technology (CET): Establishment of an Open Radio Access Network (Open RAN) with Palau, the first of its kind in the Pacific Islands.

• Cyber: Quad Joint Principles for Cybersecurity Partnership to strengthen defenses against cyber threats to critical infrastructure and services.

• Health Security: Quad Health Security Partnershipto strengthen coordination and collaboration in support of health security in the Indo-Pacific.

• Infrastructure: Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience to strengthen cable systems in the Indo-Pacific.

• Space: Exploring avenues to deliver Earth observation data and other space-based applications to assist nations across the Indo-Pacific in strengthening climate early warning systems.

The Joint Leaders’ Statement positively signals the Quad’s intent to work in partnership with the Pacific Islands region and to align programs with the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy, stating that, “In these efforts, Quad Leaders will listen to and be guided at every step by Pacific priorities.” These programs are only in the preliminary stages of implementation, though, and successful delivery will be crucial to achieving long-term goals.

Policy recommendations

As the Quad looks ahead this year and beyond, it is both standing on solid ground and still finding its footing in the Pacific Islands. Moving forward, the bloc should continue to pursue achievable, practical policies that deliver on Pacific needs while ensuring the Quad is not stretched too thin. In addition, the Quad should take a forward-leaning public diplomacy approach that helps it win over public opinion and build stronger ties with Pacific Island countries.

To support these efforts, IPSI convened a February 2024 public panel discussion, “Bolstering Cooperation among Quad and Pacific Island Countries,” that featured speakers from all four Quad members and the Pacific Islands, including His Excellency David Panuelo, the former president of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). IPSI also convened a private track 1.5 workshop, which was attended by thirty-three government and nongovernment experts.

What resulted from the panel discussion and workshop are four broad-based, cross-cutting policy recommendations. These are by no means exhaustive; rather, they reflect the themes most frequently raised and are intended to align with the stated goals of the Quad, its member states, and the Pacific Island countries.

1.  Prioritize programs that bolster physical and digital connectivity

As noted previously, the region’s expansive maritime scale cuts across every issue facing it. Pacific Island countries are geographically isolated, and their isolation is further exacerbated by limited physical connectivity. Physical infrastructure is an issue that is frequently raised in the region, and there are urgent needs for the construction and refurbishment of new and existing facilities: ports, highways, airports, and the like.

Digital connectivity presents a crucial opportunity to circumvent geographic barriers, but most Pacific Island countries are not adequately connected to transnational undersea cable systems. Furthermore, they face challenges with building sufficient telecommunications networks within their own borders. That is why technology and connectivity emerge as one of the seven thematic areas of the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy

Improving physical and digital connectivity would unlock opportunity across the region, especially on the economic front. The Quad has acknowledged the issue’s centrality in joint statements and laid out concrete programs to improve it throughout the Indo-Pacific. For the Pacific Islands region, this includes the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience initiative (noted above), and at a country-level includes the Palau Open RAN program (also noted above).

In this and coming years, the Quad should maintain its focus on programs that improve connectivity, especially in the digital realm. The CET and infrastructure working groups are well positioned to continue their work on cables. As the digital realm increases in complexity, the Quad should consider how the space working group can help deliver satellite-based internet coverage—which is in high demand in the Pacific Islands.

It should be noted that this is an area where the Quad can capitalize on existing programs initiated by one or more member states. One example is Australian and US support for incorporating eight Pacific Island countries into US-based Google’s plans for a trans-Pacific subsea cable. Through such a mechanism, the Quad can build upon existing work rather than start from scratch. It also demonstrates the value of bringing private-sector partners into the fold to maximize impact.

2. Emphasize maritime domain awareness and enforcement

Maintaining the territorial integrity of their maritime space is a daunting task for Pacific Island countries. To illustrate, the FSM has an EEZ of almost three million square kilometers and the Solomon Islands has an EEZ of one and a half million square kilometers. Both countries face acute difficulties when seeking to monitor and enforce these EEZs owing to a wide range of resource limitations, from patrol boats to human capital.

The significance of this issue is noted in the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy, which calls to protect “sovereignty and jurisdiction over our maritime zones and resources” and to “strengthen our ownership and management of our resources.” Yet the ability to do so is under imminent threat from foreign state and nonstate actors on matters ranging from narcotics trafficking to illegal fishing, both of which have increased in recent years.

Echoing this, the Quad announced the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) initiative at the 2022 Leaders’ Summit, which aims to “provide near-real-time, integrated and cost-effective maritime domain data to maritime agencies in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.” This, in turn, provides each country with useful tools to help navigate responses to natural disasters and monitoring of climate patterns.

Looking forward, the Quad should consider how the resources it offers can facilitate greater enforcement capacity and enhanced monitoring for Pacific Island countries. One area worth exploring is coordinating the provision of patrol boats, which individual members have historically provided on a bilateral basis. The Quad should not duplicate existing programs; instead, it should serve as a coordination hub to ensure maximally beneficial allocation across the region.

3. Implement positive, practical programs in areas of strategic advantage

While the Quad holds a lot of promise, it should be careful to not overextend itself and become another flashy diplomatic initiative that overpromises and underdelivers. To do so, the Quad can align its strategic advantages with priorities identified by the Pacific Island countries themselves.

As outlined earlier, individual Quad members have unique histories with specific Pacific Island countries. However, the Quad itself is viewed with some skepticism due to its relatively new advent, collapse, and reemergence onto the scene. Australia, India, Japan, and the United States seem to be cognizant of this issue, and their emphasis on positive, practical programs with tangible outcomes will help allay skepticism.

In addition, Quad members should clearly and consistently communicate what they can and cannot do, and how they envision Quad-driven initiatives fitting into an already-complex donor landscape. Doing so will help manage inevitable misunderstandings that tend to come with new initiatives and allow it to focus on producing results that earn credibility and trust from Pacific Islanders.

The bloc has been met with fanfare and gained staunch support in Canberra, New Delhi, Tokyo, and Washington. However, the attention of and priorities for these capitals are becoming split in multiple directions as increasing threats across the world lead to limit the resources and time that can be devoted to the Pacific Islands. Quad and Pacific Island countries alike should be careful not to place all their bets on the Quad, lest it collapse under its own weight.

4. Take a forward-leaning approach to public diplomacy

Globally, the information domain has become more competitive, fast-moving, and fragmented. At both a regional and country level, the Pacific Islands region has a particularly unique information space due to limited digital connectivity and a geographic location that any external actor must fully comprehend in order to seek engagement with local populations.

The Quad may have started off on the right foot, but there is still much to be accomplished to maintain an advantage in the information space, especially as it becomes increasingly contested due to geopolitical competition. Ultimately, Quad members’ status as the partners of choice for many Pacific Island countries is at risk if a forward-leaning approach to public diplomacy is not implemented.

Specific recommendations for implementing this approach include the following:

• Proactively communicate intent: Stress that the Quad is meant to complement, not supersede or replace, the existing regional architecture. Building upon the shift in its official name from the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to the Quadrilateral Dialogue, it should make a more concerted effort to expand its focus beyond just traditional security issues. Doing so will quell apprehensions from the region regarding the true nature of the Quad’s intentions for the region.

• Emphasize shared values: Quad and Pacific Island countries share democratic values—democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, and more—that should be actively highlighted. But doing so requires that Quad members practice what they preach at home, lest they open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy.

• Do not overemphasize geopolitics: Pacific Islanders are well aware of the growing geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific and the impact it may have on their region. Overly aggressive rhetoric about it may resonate in the capitals of Quad member states, but much less so in the Pacific Islands. It certainly should be discussed at times, but it should not be the overarching crux of public interactions.

• Elevate branding: If the Quad is to achieve its goals, it must back up its rhetoric with concrete evidence of successful implementation of initiatives on the ground. One of the best ways to do so is through physical and digital branding that clearly indicates that the Quad or one of its member states is delivering and working with Pacific Island countries to implement a project. Although Australia and the United States have sometimes been reluctant to elevate branding alongside their individual development programs, the Quad presents an opportunity for a fresh approach.

Parker Novak, the primary author of this issue brief, is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub and Indo-Pacific Security Initiative, where he specializes in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, Indo-Pacific geopolitics, and US foreign policy. He previously served as the Indonesia and Timor-Leste country director for an international non-governmental organization.

Kyoko Imai, the project lead and contributor to this issue brief, is the associate director for the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative (IPSI) of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. She spearheads IPSI’s work on US-ROK-Japan, Quad, AUKUS, and other multilateral frameworks, in addition to the Japan, Southeast Asia, and Pacific Islands portfolios. Imai’s functional expertise centers on non-traditional security including but not limited to economic security, human rights, climate security, and migration.

New Atlanticist Dec 8, 2023

A pivotal contest for strategic islands in the Pacific is upon us—and it’s not about Taiwan or the South China Sea

By Markus Garlauskas, Parker Novak

Time is running out for Congress to take concerted bipartisan action on agreements with Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands.

China Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 15, 2023

Showing up is half the battle, and the United States is doing so in the Pacific Islands

By Parker Novak

USAID Administrator Power’s visit to Papua New Guinea and Fiji highlights the importance of high-level diplomacy and soft power in the strategically located region.

East Asia Economy & Business

New Atlanticist Jul 25, 2023

As Blinken visits Tonga, the US needs to think beyond China in the Pacific Islands

By Parker Novak

Geopolitics is important, but Washington’s relations with the strategically located region need to be about more than competition with Beijing.

China Economy & Business

The Indo-Pacific Security Initiative (IPSI) informs and shapes the strategies, plans, and policies of the United States and its allies and partners to address the most important rising security challenges in the Indo-Pacific, including China’s growing threat to the international order and North Korea’s destabilizing nuclear weapons advancements. IPSI produces innovative analysis, conducts tabletop exercises, hosts public and private convenings, and engages with US, allied, and partner governments, militaries, media, other key private and public-sector stakeholders, and publics.

Learn more

The post Bolstering cooperation among Quad and Pacific Island countries appeared first on Atlantic Council.

One such project is our effort to establish an intergovernmental Syria Victims Fund. Over the past year, we and our Syrian partners have conducted dozens of consultations with Syrian civil society to develop a framework for the fund, which were used to draft a white paper on the concept for decision makers in country capitals and within international organizations. In February, we were thrilled to see the framework implemented into the European Parliament’s report recommending that the European Council, European Commission, and European External Action Service work to establish such a fund.

We have also seen promising progress in the ongoing campaign to codify the crime of gender apartheid in the United Nations (UN) Sixth Committee’s draft crimes against humanity treaty. On March 8, International Women’s Day, we cohosted a high-level panel event in New York City about gender apartheid in Afghanistan and the momentum behind efforts to codify the crime under international law. The event featured a remarkable line-up of experts, including Nobel Peace Laureate Malala Yousafzai and UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls Chair Dorothy Estrada-Tanck. In the week leading up to the event, I joined a delegation of our team members in traveling to several country capitals in Latin America to gather support for the campaign. You can read more details about the trip and other campaign efforts below.

Additionally, the Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran released a report to the UN Human Rights Council which found that security forces committed crimes against humanity during the Woman, Life, Freedom protests. To support future accountability for these violations, we partnered with Mnemonic to launch the Iranian Archive, which has preserved open-source digital information identifying these violations. 

As always, we at the SLP are incredibly grateful for your continued support. If you have any ideas about what we should be working on or thoughts on our initiatives, we welcome your feedback.

Kind regards,

Staff

Gissou Nia

Director, Strategic Litigation Project

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs

Civil Society Corruption

Send Feedback Support our work

Our team, in partnership with Syrian civil society and SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow Joumana Seif, has been working to establish an intergovernmental Syria Victims Fund. Over the past year, the SLP team and its Syrian partners have conducted dozens of consultations with civil society to develop a framework for a victims fund and met with representatives of governments and international organizations to brief them on the concept.

The proposed framework for the Syria Victims Fund would rely on significant monetary judgments and fines that states are collecting linked to violations in Syria—fines, penalties, and forfeitures for sanctions violations and international crimes committed in Syria. Rather than retaining those funds and essentially profiting off violations in Syria, States should deposit Syria-linked funds into a central location and direct the funds to better support victims of international law violations in Syria.

In February, the European Parliament adopted a report recommending that the European Council, European Commission, and European External Action Service work to establish such a fund for victims of international law violations in Syria, financed by “monetary judgments, sanctions, fines and penalties, forfeiture orders . . . and other revenue.” The report further recommends that European Union (EU) member states then carefully design a fund “in full cooperation with the families of the victims.”

Learn more about the Syria Victims Fund

Just Security has launched a blog series discussing the concept of a Syria victims fund. Read our experts’ contributions:

Joumana Seif: “It’s Time to Establish a Syria Victims Fund”

Elise Baker and Nushin Sarkarati: “No State Should Profit from Violations in Syria. Instead, Direct Monetary Recovery to Victims.”

Celeste Kmiotek and Sameer Saboungi: “The US Recovered Over $600 Million in ISIS-Linked Funds–They Should Go to Syrian and Iraqi Victims”

Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp and Alyssa Yamamoto: “Applying Ukraine Precedent, DOJ Should Use Funds Forfeited from Lawbreakers in Syria to Assist Victims”

International Women’s Day panel event

On March 8, the SLP, in partnership with the International Peace Institute and the Malala Fund, hosted a high-level panel event in New York City about the urgent need for legal recognition of gender apartheid in Afghanistan. The discussion addressed the deteriorating rights of girls, women, and individuals of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities in Afghanistan and the momentum around efforts to codify the crime of gender apartheid under international law, including in the potential UN crimes against humanity treaty. This event was cosponsored by the Global Justice Center, Rawadari, Georgetown Institute of Women, Peace & Security, and the Permanent Missions of Malta and Mexico.

The panel featured Nobel Peace Laureate Malala Yousafzai, Afghan activist and expert Nayera Kohistani, New York Law School Professor and anti-apartheid jurist Penelope Andrews, and UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls Chair Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, and was moderated by CNN International Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh.

If you were unable to join us live, you can watch the event playback here. 

Briefings in New York City and Washington, DC

In January, the SLP hosted a series of briefings on the gender apartheid codification effort in New York City and Washington, DC, during which the SLP’s Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Alyssa Yamamoto and Strategic Legal Advisor for Gender Justice Akila Radhakrishnan were joined by a panel of experts including the SLP Senior Legal Advisor Sareta Ashraph, Penelope Andrews, Christina Hioureas, SLP Gender and Policy Advisor Metra Mehran, and Paloma van Groll. In Washington, the group met with representatives of several think tanks, US government bodies, and EU embassies. In New York, the delegation hosted closed regional briefings for Latin American and Caribbean countries and EU and other Western countries.

Advocacy in Latin America

Earlier this month, Gissou Nia, along with Akila Radhakrishnan and SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow Nizar El Fakih, traveled to country capitals in Latin America to discuss human rights, gender justice, and other issues impacting Iran and Afghanistan. The group met with high-level representatives of the governments of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia to urge their support for both codifying gender apartheid in the UN Sixth Committee’s draft crimes against humanity treaty and extending the mandate of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran by voting in favor of an upcoming UN Human Rights Council resolution.

Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs produced a press release about the group’s meeting with Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Gloria de la Fuente, which you can read here.

Following the release of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s report to the UN Human Rights Council finding crimes against humanity, including for gender persecution committed over the course of the protests following the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, the SLP and Mnemonic in partnership with a coalition of international organizations announced the launch of the Iranian Archive. The archive preserved over one million vulnerable digital artifacts recording serious human rights violations committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Woman, Life, Freedom movement protestors.

The Iranian Archive is intended to support future investigations and accountability proceedings. The SLP and Mnemonic are partnered with The Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA Law, UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center, Amnesty International‘s Digital Verification Corps, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and the Azadi Archive. 

In January, SLP Nonresident Senior Fellow and Uyghur human rights lawyer Rayhan Asat traveled to Geneva to attend the interactive dialogue for China’s 2024 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a process through which the UN Human Rights Council assesses the human rights records of all UN member states according to a rotating schedule of cycles.

Since the UPR takes place only every five years, its interactive dialogue presents a significant opportunity for member states to make specific and measurable recommendations to China in light of the ongoing repression of the Uyghur community and the Chinese government’s disregard for previous critiques of its human rights record. In July, Asat submitted a comprehensive report to the UPR Working Group on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, followed by a New Atlanticist piece about the contents of the report and the need for member states and US officials to hold China accountable for its abuses.

While in Geneva, Asat met with representatives of twenty-two member states to encourage their participation in the interactive dialogue. In the meetings, she presented them with a briefing paper outlining China’s violations against the Uyghurs, the findings of relevant UN human rights bodies, and suggested recommendations to be made to China during its review. Ultimately, more than twenty member states took a strong stance against China’s human rights record during the session.

In February, the SLP published its latest report, “The far reach of justice: Holding the Islamic Republic of Iran Accountable in European courts.” The report explores the options available to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable through the national judicial systems of seven European states by using their universal jurisdiction frameworks.

Report

Dec 22, 2023

How to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable in European courts

By Gissou Nia, Celeste Kmiotek, Lisandra Novo, Alyssa T. Yamamoto

While there are no viable domestic routes toward accountability within Iran, national judicial systems in other states present an alternative path to justice. This report examines prospects for initiating prosecutions against IRI perpetrators in European jurisdictions.

Human Rights International Norms

Throughout Europe, states have adopted universal jurisdiction provisions, which allow them to prosecute acts that constitute core international crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—even if the crime was committed in a different state by and against foreign nationals. The countries covered in the report—Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—were selected due to several factors, including the strength of their universal jurisdiction frameworks and frequency of use; their robust caselaw and policies for prosecuting atrocity crimes committed extraterritorially; the size of Iranian expatriate communities in these countries, especially those fleeing persecution and violence; and the possibility of travel by Iranian officials to these jurisdictions.

This report details what each country’s universal jurisdiction provisions entail, how proceedings are initiated, and what victims’ rights are protected. It also gives an overview of each state’s relevant jurisprudence to date, analyzing the legal, practical, and political viability of future cases involving Islamic Republic of Iran violations, including in light of the country’s diplomatic relationship with Iran. Finally, it provides regional and country-specific recommendations to facilitate more cases against Islamic Republic of Iran perpetrators and to strengthen universal jurisdiction frameworks more broadly.

On February 14, the SLP hosted a hybrid event about the crucial role women and their testimonies play in pursuit of justice and accountability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The panel featured Dalal Mawad, award-winning Lebanese journalist and author of All She Lost: The Explosion in Lebanon, the Collapse of a Nation and the Women Who Survive; Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy; and Haydee Dijkstal, an international human rights lawyer and SLP nonresident senior fellow.

The discussion was moderated by Patricia Karam, a nonresident senior fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, and touched on a variety of issues, including possible responses to gender-based and sexual violence, the role of independent media in accountability efforts, and legal mechanisms protecting the rights of women and girls.

Public Event Wed, February 14, 2024 • 1:00 pm ET

Justice and accountability in the MENA region: The importance of women’s stories

A panel discussion about the crucial role women and their testimonies play in the pursuit of justice in accountability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Human Rights International Norms

Watch the Event Read the Recap

Fellow

Metra Mehran

Gender and Policy Advisor

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs

Afghanistan Civil Society

Fellow

Azadah Raz Mohammad

Legal Advisor

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs

Afghanistan Civil Society

Fellow

Mark Klamberg

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs

English European Union

Fellow

Ivan Horodyskyy

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs

Eastern Europe English

Subscribe to our newsletter for quarterly updates on the SLP’s work on prevention and accountability efforts for atrocity crimes, human rights violations, and terrorism and corruption offenses around the world.

The post Strategic Litigation Quarterly Newsletter: It’s time for a Syria Victims Fund. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Yet, the international community, defined loosely as the collection of United Nations (UN) member states, finds itself unable to emerge as a powerful and unified voice for the women of Afghanistan despite its stated commitments to gender equality. For years, international conventions and declarations have served as inspirations of hope and offered guidelines and principles aimed at safeguarding the rights of women worldwide. Now the people who wrote and advocated for these international standards must translate them into concrete actions to address the world’s most severe women’s rights crisis. These efforts should include codifying gender apartheid as a crime against humanity and prosecuting Afghanistan at the International Criminal Court. Moreover, any international engagement with the Taliban regime must prioritize ensuring its compliance with international law in its treatment of women.

International legal frameworks

Despite critical reports by prominent international organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, the standing of women and girls in the country continues to deteriorate rapidly. Women inside Afghanistan have bravely taken to the streets, and their counterparts outside the country have advocated for them in numerous international meetings, conferences, and private roundtable discussions. But these demands and protests have so far failed to garner a robust response from existing international legal mechanisms, obligations, or conventions.  

Bridging the gap

The fundamental human rights that the women of Afghanistan are demanding are clearly defined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and elsewhere. These pivotal frameworks mandate governments and international institutions to actively address women’s needs and provide robust protection against any violations, especially in the complex landscapes of conflict and post-conflict situations.

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, while nonbinding, expands upon binding conventions by clarifying women’s rights standards, even in states experiencing conflict or those not party to conventions such as CEDAW. The resolution extends its reach beyond governments and states to all parties participating in conflicts.

While UNSCR 1325 does not have direct legal enforcement mechanisms, it carries significant political weight. The resolution “calls upon all parties to armed conflict to respect fully international law applicable to the rights and protection of women and girls” under the relevant conventions and to “bear in mind the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” The resolution further calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to “take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict.” The resolution has promoted actions at the national, regional, and international levels. Civil society organizations, international actors, and UN bodies regularly monitor and assess progress on the implementation of the resolution and call for greater accountability mechanisms to ensure that commitments are translated into action.

As a United Nations member, Afghanistan ratified CEDAW in 2003 and adopted UNSCR 1325 in 2015, affirming its commitment to international legal obligations and the promotion of the rule of law. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan successfully submitted its periodic reports to the CEDAW committee and its status reports on the implementation of the national action plan on UNSCR 1325. Under the Taliban’s rule, Afghanistan has disregarded such established international mechanisms and is no longer abiding by any of these international obligations. 

The group’s continued enforcement of oppressive policies and the lack of international accountability has reduced international standards aimed at protecting women’s rights to nothing more than empty rhetoric. Consequently, Afghan women and girls turn to the international community for robust advocacy and support, urging for their voices to be heard and for the use of all available international mechanisms on their behalf.

To date, the international community has failed to deliver. Countries with feminist foreign policies have sought to exert pressure on the Taliban regime and demand the protection of Afghan women’s rights through soft diplomatic meetings and statements. The recent statement issued by the foreign ministers of the Feminist Foreign Policy Network regarding the plight of women in Afghanistan, for example, employed significantly stronger language than their previous statements since August 2021, as they called on the international community to redouble its efforts to leverage all available legal instruments to end the systematic and egregious violations of international law against women. This call has not yet led to meaningful action.

The way forward

To effectively protect and promote women’s rights, it is imperative that members of the international community first agree to refrain from any form of engagement with the Taliban that contradicts their commitments and obligations under international law. This requires a coherent and unified approach, as well as proactive accountability measurements, to avoid contradictory behavior that would undermine the objectives of promoting women’s rights and ending violence against women in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, expecting an illegitimate group such as the Taliban to adhere to international frameworks concerning women’s rights is unlikely to yield significant results.

But the international community, in collaboration with civil society organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and human rights groups, can take proactive measures toward ensuring accountability. One significant step would be to codify gender apartheid as a crime against humanity. By leveraging the instruments provided by binding conventions such as CEDAW, the international community could establish legal frameworks that explicitly recognize and condemn systematic gender-based discrimination and persecution. Over the past three years, there has been significant documentation of gender-based persecution in Afghanistan, including last month’s report from the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan. The next step would be for state parties to CEDAW to pursue a case against Afghanistan at the International Court of Justice, either individually or through joint initiatives.

The CEDAW committee should support the re-establishment of Afghanistan’s CEDAW steering committee, technical committee, and drafting committee, both within the country and among Afghan communities in exile. While the current authorities of Afghanistan refuse to provide periodic reports, the committees of experts should be tasked with providing shadow reports.

Moreover, it is imperative for the International Criminal Court to collaborate closely with relevant states and international organizations such as UN bodies, as well as civil society organizations and other stakeholders, to garner support for its investigation into the Taliban’s treatment of women, particularly regarding crimes against humanity such as gender persecution.

The United Nations must adhere to fundamental principle before considering any form of “structured engagement” with the Taliban—a form of cooperation recommended in the independent report by UN Special Coordinator Feridun Sinirlioğlu. The UN should first prioritize the implementation of UNSCR 1325 and other relevant resolutions, ensuring that the rights and needs of women are fully integrated into its strategies and initiatives, including by facilitating direct discussions between women and the Taliban.  

UN Women, in close collaboration with relevant states, must prioritize the revitalization of the focal points in Afghanistan’s UNSCR 1325 national action plan, which was established in 2017. These focal points, people who represented the relevant ministries and civil society organizations before the Taliban takeover, play a pivotal role in guaranteeing the participation of Afghan women in all dialogues. New focal points could be established under the auspices of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UN Women, or even the European Union delegation in Afghanistan. The international community must prioritize Afghanistan as a paramount concern in its policy agenda and cease engaging in actions and diplomatic meetings that inadvertently bolster the Taliban’s sense of superiority and embolden similar fundamentalist groups worldwide. The future of Afghan women and the international commitment to gender equality hangs in the balance.

Parwana Paikan is the minister counsellor of the embassy of Afghanistan in France and co-founder of Conseil des Femmes Franco-Afghan. She previously served as deputy director general of human rights and women’s international affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan.

The post Afghan women’s rights are not a lost cause. Here’s what the international community can do. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Medvedev was referring to former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s 2003 book, “Ukraine Is Not Russia.” However, Russia’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine are far older and can be traced back hundreds of years. Beginning in the early decades of the eighteenth century, generations of Russian rulers have sought to erase the entire notion of a separate Ukrainian nation. They have employed a range of tools including settler colonialism, blanket russification, artificial famine, and the ruthless suppression of Ukrainian national identity.

The 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union led to a brief pause in this campaign. However, since the early years of his reign, Vladimir Putin has resurrected Russia’s historic claims to Ukraine. When Russian military aggression against Ukraine first erupted in spring 2014, the Kremlin soon began referring to southern and eastern Ukraine by the Tsarist era colonial name of “Novorossiya” (“New Russia”). Eight years later following the launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Putin announced the annexation of these Ukrainian regions while labeling them “historically Russian lands.”

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin initially sought to portray the full-scale invasion of Ukraine as a crusade against “Ukrainian Nazis” and a response to decades of NATO expansion. However, as the war has unfolded, he has become increasingly open about the true nature of his imperial agenda in Ukraine. Putin has directly compared the current invasion to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian ruler Peter the Great, and spent much of his recent high-profile interview with American media personality Tucker Carlson attempting to justify today’s war by arguing that Ukraine was historically part of Russia.

Dmitry Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s influential Security Council, is notorious for echoing Putin’s imperialistic language toward Ukraine. Indeed, he has frequently been even more outspoken than Putin in his denial of Ukrainian statehood and his attacks on Ukraine’s allies. In recent months, Medvedev has warned of possible nuclear attacks on Washington, Berlin, and London, and has vowed to seize more Ukrainian territory including Kyiv.

All this is a far cry from Medvedev’s public persona in 2008 when he replaced Putin as Russian President. At the time, many in the West saw Medvedev as a liberal reformer who would steer Russia toward closer partnership with the West. In fact, the entire Medvedev presidency was a ploy designed to help Putin navigate a two-term constitutional limit before resuming his reign in 2012.

As his political star has waned, Medvedev has sought to reinvent himself as a Russian nationalist hawk. Although often derided as a somewhat buffoonish figure, the former head of state actually plays an important part in Russia’s carefully choreographed political theater. Following the death of Russian nationalist firebrand Vladimir Zhirinovsky in 2022, Medvedev has largely replaced Zhirinovsky as the Kremlin’s unofficial “court clown.”

In this role, Medvedev often makes outrageous statements and voices extremist opinions. This allows the Kremlin to gauge Russian public opinion and test international reaction, while also making Putin himself appear moderate in comparison. With Russia now actively seeking to deter international support for Ukraine by playing on Western fears of escalation, Medvedev’s often colorful threats have become a key element of the Kremlin’s information operations.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Medvedev’s latest outburst is nothing new, of course. Indeed, senior Russian officials have been publicly questioning Ukraine’s territorial integrity since the early years of the post-Soviet era. This undercurrent of unapologetic imperialism was one of the main reasons why independent Ukraine’s second president, Leonid Kuchma, chose to write a book debunking Russia’s claims to his country. The publication of “Ukraine Is Not Russia” in 2003 directly challenged the Kremlin’s attempts to portray Ukrainians and Russians as indivisible, and was widely viewed in Moscow as a hostile act. Clearly, many within the Russian elite have not forgotten this very public rejection by a country they condescendingly regard as a younger sibling.

In the years following the appearance of Kuchma’s book, Ukraine underwent two pro-democracy revolutions, while Russia grew increasingly authoritarian. For the past decade, Russia’s escalating military aggression against Ukraine has served to further deepen the divide separating the two countries. As Ukrainian society has turned away from the Russian past and sought to embrace a European future, Russian public opinion toward Ukraine has become increasingly radicalized. Genocidal anti-Ukrainian rhetoric is now an everyday feature of the country’s political discourse and has been completely normalized throughout the Kremlin-controlled Russian media.

By declaring that “Ukraine is definitely Russia” and referring to the country as “an integral part of Russia’s strategic and historical borders,” Medvedev has made a mockery of international calls for a negotiated settlement to end the war. His unambiguous comments should be more than enough to remove any lingering doubts that Russia is committed to the destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation.

In such circumstances, any talk of a peace deal without Ukrainian victory is delusional. There can be no meaningful middle ground between Russia’s genocidal goal and Ukraine’s national survival. Instead, attempts to compromise with the Kremlin would be perceived in Moscow as an opportunity to rearm and regroup before launching the next phase of the invasion.

Many people like to laugh at Dmitry Medvedev. On social media, he is routinely depicted as an angry little man whose absurd antics are a symptom of Russia’s dysfunctional politics and his own personal struggle to remain relevant. However, there is nothing funny about the message he is now delivering. Medvedev’s comments confirm the imperialistic aims of the 2022 invasion and signal Moscow’s intention to wipe Ukraine off the map. With hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians already feared dead and dozens of Ukrainian cities reduced to rubble, his threats must be treated as deadly serious.

Dr. Taras Kuzio is professor of political science at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. He was awarded the Peterson Literary Prize for his book “Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War: Autocracy-Orthodoxy-Nationality” (Routledge, 2022).

Further reading

UkraineAlert Feb 22, 2024

Ukrainian long-range drones target Putin’s war machine inside Russia

By Victoria Vdovychenko, Alexander Khara

Ukraine is hoping a new campaign of long-range drone strikes against Russia’s strategically vital oil and gas industry can help weaken Putin’s war machine, write Victoria Vdovychenko and Alexander Khara.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Feb 20, 2024

Outgunned Ukraine bets on drones as Russian invasion enters third year

By Mykola Bielieskov

As Putin’s invasion passes the two-year mark, tech-savvy Ukraine is betting on drones as the best way to overcome Russia’s increasingly overwhelming advantage in traditional firepower, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Civil Society Conflict

UkraineAlert Feb 12, 2024

Putin’s history lecture reveals his dreams of a new Russian Empire

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin turned his hotly anticipated interview with Tucker Carlson into a history lecture that laid bare the dangerous delusions and imperial ambitions driving the invasion of Ukraine, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post “Ukraine is Russia”: Medvedev reveals imperial ambitions fueling invasion appeared first on Atlantic Council.

It is impossible to put a price on this death and destruction, of course. Nevertheless, there is no escaping the financial dimension of Russia’s invasion. Every single month, Ukraine requires billions of dollars from partners to fund the war effort, balance the state budget, and keep its economy afloat. In the coming years, the bill for the reconstruction of the country is expected to be in excess of $500 billion. These are truly staggering sums. Making Russia pay would be the most sensible solution, from both a moral and practical perspective.

There is believed to be at least $300 billion in Russian assets currently frozen in the West. Discussions have been underway since the early stages of the invasion over possible mechanisms for handing these assets over to Ukraine. In recent months, the idea of using Russian funds to finance international support for Ukraine has gained momentum, with a range of parallel initiatives unfolding in the US, the EU (which holds the biggest share of frozen Russian assets), and among the G7 group of leading industrialized nations. Multiple different options are currently being explored, from directly transferring funds to Ukraine, to using frozen Russian assets as collateral for bonds.

It is now vital for individual countries to draw up and implement the necessary legislation at the national level, while also coordinating with global initiatives to create legally solid foundations for the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. This task must be approached with a sense of urgency that reflects the scale of the challenges facing Ukraine, while also underlining Russia’s criminal responsibility for what is by far the largest and bloodiest European invasion since World War II.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Critics of asset seizures have argued that any attempt to hand over Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine could undermine faith in the international financial system while potentially deterring state bodies and private investors from the Global South from putting their money in the West. However, these concerns are overblown.

Much as the Kremlin would like to make this an issue of global confidence in Western financial institutions, any autocrats with major concerns would have been more likely to withdraw their money from Western jurisdictions in early 2022 when Russian assets were first frozen. That did not happen, in part due to recognition of the exceptional circumstances, and partly as there were no viable alternatives to Western currencies and assets. This remains the case, despite very public discussions over the possible seizure of Russia’s frozen assets.

Others have warned that Russia would almost certainly retaliate by confiscating assets belonging to Western governments and businesses. This, too, is not a serious argument against using Russia’s frozen assets to help Ukraine. The Kremlin is already applying a range of tools to seize Western businesses and assets located inside Russia, without any apparent need to justify such actions by pointing to the loss of its own frozen assets in the West. Companies that chose to invest in Putin’s Russia did so knowing this involved a high degree of risk. They cannot now realistically expect the international community to frame its response to Russia’s invasion around their narrow commercial interests, especially in light of the obvious ethical issues involved.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Tue, June 17, 2025 • 1:00 pm ET

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

From a pragmatic perspective, the argument in favor of seizing Russian assets and transferring them to Ukraine is compelling. Western support for Ukraine is expensive, with the international coalition of countries backing the Ukrainian war effort already contributing hundreds of billions of dollars over the past two years. As Ukrainian officials have rightly noted, this is not charity. On the contrary, Ukraine is fighting to defend the security and values of the entire Western world. If Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, the cost of stopping Putin will rise dramatically. It is therefore entirely reasonable to expect Western countries to back Ukraine financially.

At the same time, the very large sums involved are perhaps inevitably making Ukrainian aid an increasingly contentious domestic issue in countries across the West. Amid a widespread cost of living crisis and sluggish economic growth, many Western taxpayers are uncomfortable seeing so much money being sent to Ukraine. Kremlin allies are already seeking to exploit this mood, as are opponents of further Western aid to Ukraine. Using confiscated Russian assets would ease the burden on Western countries and silence critics who complain of paying the price for the Kremlin’s war.

Crucially, the seizure of Russia’s frozen assets is morally justified. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is widely acknowledged as a war of aggression and has been condemned in numerous UN votes. International investigators have documented evidence indicating thousands of individual Russian war crimes, while Vladimir Putin himself has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Failing to hold Russia financially accountable for the invasion would make a mockery of the entire notion of a rules-based international order.

Those expressing concerns over the legality of asset seizures or the possible implications for financial stability must recognize that time is running out. Their navel gazing is already preventing Ukraine from being able to defend itself properly and is costing Ukrainian lives on a daily basis. Urgent progress is particularly necessary as we are now approaching a period of geopolitical uncertainty, with an unprecedented number of elections set to take place around the world in the coming months.

Finding the right formula to fund Ukraine with Russia’s frozen assets should be an international priority. This will reduce the financial pressure on Western countries and undermine economic arguments against continued international support for Ukraine. Most of all, it should be pursued on moral grounds. Bringing Russians to justice for their crimes in Ukraine and transferring Russian assets located in the West to Ukraine are two very concrete steps to support Ukraine’s victory. States guilty of violating international law should be punished and held financially accountable. This would bolster the rules-based international order and send a clear message that any country embarking on wars of aggression can expect to pay a very high price for doing so.

Paul Grod is President of the Ukrainian World Congress.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Feb 15, 2024

Ukraine’s Black Sea success offers hope as Russian invasion enters third year

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s remarkable success in the Battle of the Black Sea exposes the emptiness of Russia’s red lines and provides a road map for victory over Putin, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Feb 22, 2024

Putin’s unpunished Crimean crime set the stage for Russia’s 2022 invasion

By Mercedes Sapuppo

The West’s inadequate response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea was a major blunder that emboldened Putin and set the stage for the biggest European invasion since World War II, writes Mercedes Sapuppo.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Feb 20, 2024

Outgunned Ukraine bets on drones as Russian invasion enters third year

By Mykola Bielieskov

As Putin’s invasion passes the two-year mark, tech-savvy Ukraine is betting on drones as the best way to overcome Russia’s increasingly overwhelming advantage in traditional firepower, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Making Russia pay for the invasion of Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Aboudouh in Singapore National University’s Middle East Institute: MEI Perspectives Series 33: China’s Strategy in Gaza – A Quest for Global South Leadership Fraught with Peril appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Novo joins The National to discuss American obligations in light of South Africa’s ICJ genocide case against Israel appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Asat quoted in VOA on the limits of China’s global influence campaign appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Asat quoted in Tibetan Review on the Global South’s reaction to Chinese lobbying during UN review of its rights record appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Asat quoted in Radio Free Asia on international legislation to counter China’s cross-border repression appeared first on Atlantic Council.

During more than two hours of what a European Commission spokesperson called “old lies, distortions, and manipulations, and . . . hostility towards the West,” Putin demonstrated a morbid obsession with Russian imperial grandeur, justified the invasion of neighboring states, and showed zero respect for international law and peace treaties.

As a country that has spent more years in wars with Russia than with any other rival and that has competed for dominance in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea over centuries, Turkey should not take the Russian threat lightly.

Watch Russia’s claims on “Constantinople”

In February 2023, while Turkey was still recovering from a devastating earthquake, Russian State Duma Member Semyon Bagdasarov issued a call to attack Turkey and annex Istanbul: “Turkey is the historical lands of Russia. Turkey is now in a dire situation. Let’s take advantage of this and return our lands. Let’s squeeze it out of the Central Asia, undermine its influence in Ukraine, drive it out of the South Caucasus, raise certain forces in Turkey and return what historically belonged to us—Constantinople.” He went as far as to suggest that “the crisis in Turkey must end up in its collapse” and in Russia’s return to Istanbul: “We will erect a cross over the Church of Hagia Sophia and reveal frescoes that are now hidden from people. And we’ll put on music—a prayer in Aramaic or perhaps in Russian.”

References to “Constantinople”—a name now seen only in history textbooks in most other countries—are still frequently seen in Russian modern political rhetoric. In fact, Aleksandr Dugin (the ideologue, sometimes referred to as Putin’s philosopher, behind the ultranationalist Eurasianism movement in Russia and one of the most agile agitators and propagandists of Eurasianism globally) for years was running a popular TV channel called Telekanal Constantinople. Later, he became a mastermind of the Russian Orthodox TV channel Tsargrad, which is owned by Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev (currently on the European Union sanctions list for his support of the 2014 invasion of Ukraine). Tsargrad is another name used within Russia for contemporary Istanbul, meaning “the city of the emperor”—another reminder of Russia’s imperial nostalgia for control over the Black Sea