This is a legacy website featuring a collection of work by the Carnegie Endowment’s global network of scholars on topics including Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and the post-Soviet states. This site is a product of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace based in Washington, D.C. For more recent work by Carnegie scholars in this field, please visit Carnegie Politika.
U.S. reactions to President Vladimir Putin’s op-ed article in the New York Times, from outrage to ridicule, show just how badly much of the Western policy elite are misinterpreting Russia.
Russia’s chemical weapons plan will require a serious re-launch of the political process in Syria.
The main goal of Vladimir Putin’s op-ed in the New York Times is to force the United States back into the U.N. Security Council-centered international system.
In his New York Times op-ed, Vladimir Putin asserts that Russia is not supporting Assad as an ally, but it is supporting the world order, centered on the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. policy toward the Caucasus has undergone a reassessment over the past few years.
The current state of the affairs between Russia and China is most positive in their history. This relationship is built primarily on an economic pragmatism.
Though Putin purported to oppose any attempt to hijack the economic agenda of the G-20, he succeeded in setting the stage for a critical debate on U.S. foreign policy with the global leaders.
Dmitri Trenin participated in a live Twitter Q&A on the situation in Syria, the G20 summit, and the U.S.-Russia relations.
During the G20 summit, the world leaders need to tackle serious economic challenges. At the same time, the abrupt halt to a scheduled U.S.-Russia summit and a potential intervention in Syria have pushed security issues to the top of the summit’s agenda.
A strike against the Syrian government continues to look likely. What is less certain is what kind of strike, with what aims and what sort of strategy, and whether such a strike would put the Syrian conflict onto a truly regional level.