War in Ukraine

Stephen Walt argues that because no one knows what Putin might do, NATO's European members should increase their defense capabilities and correct any obvious vulnerabilities. At the same time, however, the United States and its NATO allies should acknowledge Russia's legitimate security concerns and consider what they can do to allay them.

This week in Say More, Project Syndicate talks with Joseph S. Nye, Jr., an emeritus professor at Harvard Kennedy School, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, and the author, most recently, of A Life in the American Century.

Amidst Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, the debate intensifies over whether the Biden Administration should pressure Ukraine into diplomatic talks with Russia. Proponents believe negotiations could preempt prolonged conflict whereas opponents feel such a move could compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty. The sensitivity of the topic demands a nuanced evaluation of its implications for Ukraine and the international order.

This study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Students discuss and debate the weekly topic with guest speakers.

Many issues in the Arctic are transboundary in nature and cannot be solved at the national level. A study group, led by Arctic Initiative Senior Fellow Margaret Williams, examined several key Arctic issues - maritime safety and security, commercial fisheries, and climate change and energy - and the difficulties of addressing them without Russian involvement.

Confronted by the accelerating climate crisis, Western governments, NGOs, and academia are grappling with a difficult question: Should the West engage with Russia on science and conservation, at a time when Russia is waging an unjust and violent war on a sovereign nation?

This study group, led by Arctic Initiative Senior Fellow Margaret Williams, is evaluating the costs and benefits of renewing cooperation with Russia on science and conservation issues.

This article explores some of the environmental consequences of Russia’s war in Ukraine that are being felt far beyond the battlefields. In the high latitudes of the Arctic, thirty years of collaboration between Russia and the West in the fields of biological research and monitoring – as well as environmental protection – contributed to understanding and conserving transboundary species and ecosystems. For the last two years, however, most international science programs have excluded Russian participation, hampering global efforts to track climate change and protect biodiversity.

There is intense debate on whether the Biden Administration should supply Ukraine with any necessary weapons to ensure victory. Advocates argue this support is crucial for Ukraine's self-defense and deterrence against further aggression, while opponents raise concerns about escalation risks and the potential strain on US military stockpiles. This debate requires careful consideration of the strategic and geopolitical consequences of military aid.

This study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Students discuss and debate the weekly topic with guest speakers.

Europe after the Russo-Ukrainian War must develop a new security structure to defend against any Russian aggression. The safest option is a non-offensive, confidence-building defense. This option includes proposals such as the “spider in the web” strategy and the “porcupine” strategy to provide for European security in a region threatened by Russian expansion—without relying on the threat of nuclear war. 

On March 13, President Vladimir Putin granted an interview, in which he again delved into the conditions under which he says he would initiate the use of nuclear weapons. His remarks were so ambiguous that it caused mainstream Western media organizations—which tend to agree on what to emphasize in news out of the Kremlin—to put divergent headlines on the news stories that they ran about this particular interview. “Putin, in Pre-Election Messaging, Is Less Strident on Nuclear War. The Russian leader struck a softer tone about nuclear weapons in an interview with state television,” was the NYT’s headline. In contrast, the FT’s headline was “Russia ‘prepared’ for nuclear war, warns Vladimir Putin. President resumes bullish rhetoric over use of atomic arsenal if west threatens Moscow’s sovereignty,” while CBS News ran with “Putin again threatens to use nuclear weapons, claims Russia's arsenal ‘much more’ advanced than America's” and WSJ led with “Putin Rattles Nuclear Saber Ahead of Presidential Elections; Raising specter of nuclear confrontation.” So, which is it? Has Putin just struck a softer tone about nuclear weapons or has he rattled his nuclear saber yet again? The answer is both.

Stephen Walt writes that those who favor foreign policy restraint believe the United States should trade and invest in other countries, encourage other states to do the same, and be open to managed immigration instead of building walls in a fit of xenophobia.