Tag: Ukraine
Stevenson’s army, September 13
NYT has a list of forreign policy problems for which the president wants to do deals and is surprisingly optimistic about the chances.
One reason an Iran deal might be possible is if this Daily Beast report is true. Is Trump really considering a $15 billion line of credit for Iran?
Meanwhile, Congress got its way as Ukraine aid was released.
But Senate appropriators want to cut and change US military aid.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 12
– I agree with Thomas Wright of Brookings that Bolton’s ouster presages a pivot to diplomacy for the elections. I wonder how Democratic presidential candidates will respond.
-SecDef Esper has approved active duty border deployments through 2020.
-Israelis accused of planting spy devices near White House
– Congress mobilizes to fight Trump’s denial of military aid to Ukraine.
– Broken norms. A lot of legislative business depends on civility and cooperation and following normal practices. This North Carolina action is just too outrageous to overlook.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s dream President
Rachel Maddow last night did a particularly good job documenting President Trump’s efforts to comply with President Putin’s fondest dreams:
Trump is not merely mouthing belief in Putin. He is doing things to please him. Odds are that Russian money is part of the reason. Let’s hope the various ongoing investigations, in particular of Deutsche Bank, clarify that in the next few months.
The dismantling of NATO efforts to defend Europe is particularly worrisome, as it won’t generate the same kind of domestic political backlash that canceling construction projects in Virginia will. It will also more directly weaken deterrence of Russian aggression, not only in Ukraine.
Trump may not be a Russian agent, but he is certainly doing as much as the Congress will allow to serve Putin’s (not necessarily Russia’s) interests. But Vladimir’s popularity is waning in Russia like Trump’s in America and Boris Johnson’s in Britain. It will be a happy day when all three are out of power.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 4
– NYT has long article on the US-Israeli conflict over attacking Iran.
– Politico has a neat graphic on the trade wars.
-State admits political reprisals.
– Lawmakers angry over mil con funds shifted to border wall and delays in releasing military aid to Ukraine.
My long Labor Day weekend in Atlanta made me miss a couple of other editions of Stevenson’s army, so here they are:
September 3
– NYT says North Korean missile tests show much improved capabilities, which Trump minimizes. Even SecState Pompeo said to believe DPRK is just stringing US along.
– NYT also says sharp disagreement inside administration over future CIA role in Afghanistan.
– Media have more details about US-Taliban agreement.
– Hill has long potential agenda this month.
– Xi tells Duterte that China rejects international court ruling on South China Sea.
– Iraq imposes new ROEs for US air operations.
September 1
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II in Europe — Hitler’s attack on Poland.
It also marks a new round of US tariffs on Chinese goods. NYT has a summary of the where the trade war stands.
WaPo has an interesting story of how the Russians tried to interfere in US politics in Maryland, of all places, in 2016. It reveals their divisive playbook, which they and others are likely to use again next year.
The FT has a fascinating article on the East India Company by the author of a new book on that company. With its own private armies and taxes, bolstered by lobbyists and investors in London, the EIC was the first, but certainly not the last, private company that really functioned as a government.
And now for some reading suggestions. I like revisionist histories that force me to re-think my understanding of the past. Here are four from the past couple of years that I found especially persuasive.
World War I: I’m now persuaded that Russia shares much of the blame for the start of the Great War by its policies to dominate Turkey and by mobilization during the July 1914 crisis. After deep dives into long-hidden Russian archives, Sean McMeekin showed that even Barbara Tuchman got the sequence wrong by relying on the falsified memoirs of the Russian Foreign Minister. McMeekin’s books on Russian diplomacy and the July crisis changed my view of German war guilt, though Austria-Hungary still deserves shared blame with Russia.
FDR’s boldness: I had long admired Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic bravery in maneuvering the United States in support of Britain and against Hitler, believing that he was just ahead of public opinion, skillfully pulling it along. Lynne Olson”s Those Angry Days persuaded me that, much of the time, FDR vacillated, doing less than many of his advisors urged and hoped. He still was a great leader, just not quite as bold as I had thought.
Slave Power’s influence on foreign policy: I never thought that slavery and its perpetuation had much impact on American foreign policy until I read Matthew Karp’s eye-opening history. Karp details how the South dominated key foreign policy posts and consciously advocated policies to protect and even extend slavery in the decades before the War of the Rebellion. Defenders of slavery really had a “deep state.”
The Revolutionary War: I used to have a typical American high school student’s view of our war for independence as a story of brave patriots, toughened at Valley Forge and led by George Washington, who finally triumphed at Yorktown. Two books have changed my understanding of that conflict. One was Andrew Jackson O’Shaunessy’s study of British politics during the conflict, The Men Who Lost America. He argues that the British gave up for broader strategic reasons. Add to this Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence, which describes the local violence on both sides and the mistreatment of Loyalists during and after the war. The good guys won, but they won dirty.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 29
Today the NYT does the hat trick with three important stories.
– Administration officials reveal [brag?] that US conducted a cyber attack on Iran in June that complicated Iranian efforts to target oil tankers.
– Background on Israel’s “shadow war” against Iran. Note that Israeli elections are Sept 17.
– US promises amnesty for Venezuela’s Maduro if he steps down.
– WP has background on South Korea’s ending of intelligence cooperation with Japan.
– Politico notes Hill complaints as administration slow walks military aid to Ukraine.
– I like this Lawfare piece recommending changes to IEEPA.– SecDef Esper and CJCS Dunford have first news conference in a year. Here’s the transcript.
– Finally, could Trump pull a Boris Johnson? Yes. Look at Article II section 3 of the Constitution. The president can call either house into session and “he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.”
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | July 29 – Aug 2
US-China Relations: The View From Cities And States | July 29, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 11:45 AM | Brookings Institution | Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Throughout the United States, local leaders are stepping onto the world stage. Governors and mayors have expanded their international portfolios, including by launching initiatives to attract investment and jointly address transnational challenges like climate change. While economic interests previously guided much of sub-national outreach, cultural exchange and scientific partnership are also becoming important forces of attraction.
The U.S.-China relationship is no exception to this trend. Despite the shift in Washington toward viewing China as a strategic competitor, many state and local leaders continue to explore ways to seize opportunities for closer collaboration with Chinese counterparts. What are the key motivations for this outreach at the sub-national level? Are such efforts generating positive benefits? What effect, if any, are deepening relations between local governments in the United States and China having on the overall bilateral relationship? Are there risks from deepening sub-national U.S.-China relations that deserve greater scrutiny?
On July 29, the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings will host a public event to explore the costs, benefits, and impacts of sub-national exchanges between the United States and China. Oregon Governor Kate Brown will join a keynote conversation moderated by award-winning journalist and author James Fallows. A high-level panel of experts and practitioners will then convene to discuss the potential promises and pitfalls of sub-national connections within the U.S.-China relationship.
Speakers:
Introduction
- Cheng Li, Director – John L. Thornton China Center, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy
Keynote Conversation
- The Hon. Kate Brown, Governor – State of Oregon
Moderator:
- James Fallows, National Correspondent – The Atlantic, Co-Author – “Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey into The Heart of America”
Discussion
- The Hon. Bob Holden, Former Governor – State of Missouri, Chairman and CEO –
United States Heartland China Association - Amb. Nina Hachigian, Deputy Mayor of International Affairs – City of Los Angeles
- Reta Jo Lewis, Senior Fellow and Director of Congressional Affairs – The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Moderator:
- Ryan Hass, The Michael H. Armacost Chair, Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center
Development of Environmental Law and Enforcement in China | July 29,
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China. Over the past decade, the U.S. government, civil society, academia, and businesses have been actively engaging with China on environmental governance through capacity-building, knowledge transfer, and other mechanisms. These efforts have been instrumental in transferring best practices in environmental governance, helping China develop towards an effective and predictable environmental regulatory system, encouraging the growth of a vibrant community of environmental advocates and officials, and moving towards a more level playing field for U.S. businesses.
In recent years, the Chinese government has made efforts to address environmental quality that have included the enactment of new laws on air pollution, water pollution, and contaminated sites, and provisions strengthening enforcement. While PM2.5 levels have declined significantly, much work remains to get air quality protective of public health, and formidable water pollution and soil contamination problems remain.
Top U.S. government environmental lawyers will join John Pendergrass, Vice President of ELI, and Jennifer Turner, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s China Environment Forum to compare their recent experiences, and to discuss Chinese environmental law developments, new approaches to enforcement, and the effects of Chinese environmental laws on U.S. companies.
Panelists:
- Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Department of Justice
- Matt Leopold, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency
- Jon Brightbill, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Department of Justice
Moderator:
- John Pendergrass, Vice President, Programs and Publications, Environmental Law Institute
- Jennifer L. Turner, Director, China Environment Forum & Manager, Global Choke Point Initiative
Ukraine’s Parliamentary Elections | July 29, 2019 | 12:30 AM – 2:00 PM | The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
The July 2019 parliamentary elections are a pivotal event in Ukraine’s history as the people voted to elect a new parliament, which will form a new government. Running with a strong anti-corruption message, then political outsider Volodymyr Zelenskyy won a crushing victory in April’s presidential elections and again in the Rada elections, where exit polls show his party securing around 43 percent of the vote, a historic result and the most decisive of its kind in Ukraine since 1991. With an outright majority in the Rada a possibility, Zelenskyy may now have the mandate he needs to implement his anti-corruption program.
Panelists:
- Adrian Karatnycky, Senior Fellow & Co-Director of
the Ukraine in Europe Initiative, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council - Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
- Dr. Anders Åslund, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Moderator:
- Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
Hong Kong and the Indo-Pacific Political Economy with former U.S. Consul GeneralKurt Tong | July 30, 2019 | 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Kurt Tong, former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, has returned to the United States following a three-year tour and has retired from the Foreign Service. He will join us at CSIS to discuss Hong Kong’s relationship with China and comment on the future direction of American economic policy in the region.
Speakers:
Introduction
- Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS
Keynote Address
- Amb. Kurt Tong, U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau
Armchair Discussion
- Amb. Kurt Tong, U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau
- Scott Kennedy, Senior Adviser, Freeman Chair in China Studies and Director, Project on Chinese Business and Political Economy, CSIS
Assessing Space Security: Threat and Response | July 31, 2019 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Brookings Institution | Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
It is a dynamic and fast-moving time with regard to the security of the outer space environment. In March 2018, India conducted a successful anti-satellite test. Russia and China continue to advance their anti-satellite weapons capabilities by developing various technologies, from laser weapons to ground-based anti-satellite systems. In response to this increasingly contested environment, President Donald Trump proposed the creation of a U.S. Space Force in 2018. The idea was not without controversy. While some experts lauded the decision, others advocated instead for a Space Command. A year in, that debate continues.
On July 31, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host a discussion on the evolving threats to space security and how the United States and the international community can most effectively respond to these challenges. Brookings Senior Fellow for Security and Strategy Frank Rose will be joined by an expert panel including Todd Harrison; Mallory Stewart; and Madelyn Creedon. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the discussion as well as share his thoughts on the issues.
Panelists:
- Madelyn R. Creedon, Former Principal Deputy Administrator – National Nuclear Security Administration, Nonresident Senior Fellow-the Brookings Institution
- Todd Harrison, Director, Defense Budget Analysis, Director, Aerospace Security Project and Senior Fellow, International Security Program – CSIS
- Frank A. Rose, Senior Fellow, Security and Strategy – Foreign Policy
- Mallory Stewart, Principal Technical Staff – Sandia National Laboratory Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance – U.S. Department of State
Moderator:
- Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Director of Research – Foreign Policy, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
The New Battle for the Atlantic | July 31,
The North Atlantic has historically played a critical role in the great power conflicts of the 20th Century, serving as a strategic bridge between the United States and Europe during both World Wars and the Cold War. For this reason, sea power has long been a core element of NATO’s deterrence posture. However, as the world enters the ‘maritime century’ – a period transformed by trade and communication across the world’s oceans – emerging technologies and a rapidly changing global political landscape have begun to reshape the maritime security environment in the North Atlantic.
The reemergence of great power competition is forcing NATO to reinvest in capabilities for the maritime domain, where it has historically held a razor thin advantage. Faced with mounting tensions between Russia and the Alliance and an increasingly sophisticated Russian navy, the United States and NATO must rebuild and adapt their strategy and capabilities to secure the strategic link between the United States and Europe in the increasingly contested North Atlantic region.
Magnus Nordenman, a noted expert on NATO and security in Northern Europe and the former director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, will join us to discuss these important issues, which are also highlighted in his recent book, The New Battle for the Atlantic: Emerging Naval Competition with Russia in the Far North.
Are Sanctions Working? | July 31, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 11:45 AM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The CSIS Energy & National Security Program is pleased to invite you to Are Sanctions Working?, a conference examining the state of U.S. sanctions―what is different, what is and is not working, and implications for U.S. foreign policy, the global economy, and the energy sector.
The United States has employed sanctions as a foreign policy mechanism for decades. In recent years, the United States has developed a new generation of more targeted, more agile economic sanctions. It has become increasingly reliant on these new tools, and its ambitions for their impact have increased.
Whether more robust sanctions regimes have won any clear victories is a matter of debate. In the last three years, U.S.-imposed unilateral and secondary sanctions regimes have sought to influence North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. But countries that have been subject to sanctions for years have found ways to adjust to U.S. moves.
This conference will review the efficacy of the new style of U.S. sanctions, understand what is contributing to their success or failure, and gauge their future. Speakers will also explore how sustained use of sanctions is impacting one universally important sector: the energy sector.
Speakers:
- John J. Hamre, CSIS President and CEO
- Sarah Ladislaw, Senior Vice President; Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
- Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and The Arctic; and Director Europe Program
- Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President; Simon Chair in Political Economy and Senior Advisor for Asian Economics
- Jon B. Alterman, Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director Middle East Program
- Stephanie Segal, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy
- Kevin Book, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Energy and National Security Program
- Jeffrey Mankoff, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
- Moises Rendon, Director, The Future of Venezuela Initiative and Fellow, Americas Program
RSS - Posts
