Meetings between South Korean President Geun-hye, Japanese Prime Minister Abe, and U.S. President Obama this week come at a particularly opportune time. Divisions between America's two strongest Asian allies undermines U.S. strategic objectives, and benefits one primary regional and global player: China
Putin was wrong to invade Crimea, but he is hardly trying to retake Eastern Europe; in fact, his military is probably too weak even to take and hold the hostile western regions of Ukraine.
Perhaps the entire storming of the legislature has been one giant "show." Whether or not the actors are entirely conscious of their parts, yet the machine that governs the society is still functioning.
The amorphous nature of wars since at least the dawn of the Cold War in the mid-1940s has meant that the U.S. has more or less been at war for generations. This, in turn, has precipitated the ever-burgeoning war-industrial-intelligence complex.
I've argued against the extreme critique of U.S. policy in Ukraine, one that the Russian foreign ministry regularly trumpets and a small but vocal sliver of the left has embarrassingly embraced. The question remains: Should the United States have been involved in Ukraine at any level?
The best way to limit Russian aggression is to strike at their economy, and thus their ability to finance these illegal operations.
Russia's brazen annexation of Crimea presents a vexing foreign policy crisis for the Western powers. How can these actions be denounced without pointing a finger back upon their own forays and interventions?
After losing three wars, we have learned 1.) that the military can't change the culture of a country 2.) we can't go in to help a country unless we find somebody to lead it that can be democratically elected. That's why we stay out of Syria.
No amount of blustery rhetoric from the White House would have changed the fact that the United States has no vital interest in keeping Crimea's ethnic-Russian majority population in Ukraine.
Organizing the Olympics is not only the precise opposite of international isolation, it probably emboldened Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine. Why did Russia get the Olympics in the first place given its appalling human rights record?
Whether for good or for ill, however, and despite whatever attempts Western powers have made to influence the outcome, the change of government is ultimately the responsibility of Ukrainians, not the Obama administration.
United States should focus its efforts on first maintaining a strong, unified European coalition, and then working to engage other international partners to press Russia to desist from further threats or actions against Ukraine and to resolve the current standoff in Crimea.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are content proclaiming that they are willing to compromise but lack a true partner in negotiations. In order for the peace talks to truly progress, they must recognize that each has a true partner in the other.
Pakistan's Islamic parties have long wielded influence through street politics; political and, at times, ideological alliances with the army; and support to militant groups. They are key players that merit continued study. Vying for Allah's Vote examines their origins, ideologies, bases of support, and relationship with extremism and civilian rule.
Much as his rhetoric and his will power in domestic policy is being recognized, he is generally been seen as lacking the talent to positively distinguish and assert himself in foreign policy.
I don't advocate armaments, but the Ukrainian and global community's impotence to release Russia's grip highlights the practical value of nuclear energy and weapon-based deterrence. This lesson is not lost to foreign policy and military strategists around the world.