By reactivating its policy on Pyongyang, Moscow is sending messages to Seoul, Tokyo, Washington, and Beijing, which should be properly understood.
Russia needs to use every opportunity to inform the Indian government and public about Moscow’s priorities in regional and global politics and about its views on all issues which are relevant to Indians.
Since 2012 Russia has become more assertive in questioning the IAEA’s safeguards concept.
Clear evidence has recently emerged that a new arms race in ultra-fast, long-range weapons may be brewing between the United States, China, and Russia.
Moscow’s military-technical cooperation with both New Delhi and Beijing means that Russia cannot stand apart from Indian-Chinese disagreements.
In spite of all the difficulties, it appears possible to engage China gradually in the nuclear arms limitation process. However, not only Beijing but also the United States and Russia must revise their military policies.
Although the relationship between India and the United States should be viewed indifferently by Russia, Moscow needs to pay attention in order to learn from and not repeat mistakes made by New Delhi and Washington.
The failed unipolar world is being replaced with a polycentric world order based on several major centers of power. Russia can become a full-fledged global center of power only if it moves to a high-tech economy and implements democratic reforms.
The difficulties with definitions and verification provide further evidence that minimum deterrence cannot be a workable long-term solution to the problem of nuclear weapons.
Some are calling for the Obama administration to retaliate by backing out of this or other arms-control treaties. There are better options.
Tension on the Korean Peninsula has increased since North Korean leader Kim Jong-un came to power in 2011. To prevent destabilization, Moscow needs to pursue a more active Korea policy.
President Barack Obama should articulate a narrowed framework for the legitimate use of nuclear weapons that the United States believes would be defensible for others to follow as long as nuclear weapons remain.
The “Great Triangle” of the Asia-Pacific region formed by the United States, Russia, and China is particularly important in both geopolitical and military-strategic terms.
The Obama administration must realize that no “foreign policy” issue will matter as much to global economic, political, and ultimately security conditions in the coming year as whether the United States can demonstrate that it is able to deal with its economic crisis.
Russian society is waking up and pushing back against Putin’s brand of authoritarianism, with the potential to bring about a transformation of the system into one based on the rule of law.
The United States and Russia have reached an arms control impasse, and no new agreement is on the horizon. Concrete confidence-building measures could help build trust.
A slimmed down NATO could do a better job of harmonizing transatlantic positions in crisis situations, be the hub of multinational, high-end military operations, and develop expertise and capabilities to deal with new threats such as cyber attacks.
While NATO can extend the status quo in the short term, it cannot postpone resolving its defense and deterrence dilemmas without undermining Alliance confidence and cohesion.
While security conditions in Europe remain relatively benign, NATO states should recapitalize their security commitments and clarify their crisis decisionmaking procedures.
The next round of U.S.- Russia arms control presents some truly daunting challenges but there is much that the Obama administration could do in the remainder of its first term to lay the groundwork for another treaty while reducing nuclear risks.
The United States has accused Russia of violating a 1987 missile treaty.
The U.S. military has been working on a weapon that could strike remote targets quickly, a development that risks triggering a new arms race with foreign adversaries.
If the joint efforts of the United States and Russia in Syria are to succeed, they must attain a ceasefire between Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces and the opposition, and discover and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria.
The world watches and waits to hear if the Assad government will give up Syria’s chemical weapons stock.
Russia has submitted a plan for chemical weapons seizure in Syria.
Although Putin’s statements have been seen as flexible rhetoric, Russia’s policy toward Syria has not changed.
Different regional actors had different agendas and priorities for the recent Seoul Nuclear Security Summit.
Having cleared the Senate, New START is now proceeding towards implementation, but the method for verifying the dismantlement of warheads remains a key challenge that must be resolved in a future agreement.
The United States and Russia have officially signed the new START Treaty, setting up the necessary framework to reduce the world’s nuclear weapon stockpile by almost a third.
At the top of Secretary Clinton's agenda during her visit to Russia is a discussion of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Conflicting messages from President Medvedev and Foreign Minister Lavrov leave the outcome of that discussion in doubt.
Opposing views on issues like ballistic missile defense and tactical nuclear weapons complicate, but should not preclude, trilateral security cooperation between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow.
As the world powers develop non-nuclear weapons that can strike distant targets in a short period of time (Conventional Prompt Global Strike, or CPGS, weapons), it is important to raise awareness of this issue, while not trying to advocate for or against such weapons.
The current conflict between the European Union and Russia is a clash between a postmodern world, in which states prefer to use soft power to achieve their foreign policy goals, and a modern one, in which the use of force in foreign policy is considered acceptable.
There are growing signs that strategic relations between China and Russia are on an upswing. Yet the nuclear and strategic relationship between these two powers remains largely unexamined, as do their long-term prospects for cooperation.
Cooperation between the United Starts and Russia on ballistic missile defense (BMD) remains unlikely.
As possessors of nuclear weapons and proponents of nuclear energy, China, Russia, and the United States cooperate in bilateral and multilateral forums to ensure nuclear safety and security. Yet their different patterns of engagement on arms control continue to impact their current cooperation.
Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping’s decision to make Russia his first state visit suggests Beijing’s renewed prioritization and reinvigoration of its relations with Moscow.
When it comes to strategic relations among the United States, China, and Russia, few issues have a greater impact than ballistic missile defense.
Islam is increasingly becoming a factor in the politics of the wider Caucasus region, as Azerbaijan experiences a growth of religion in politics and Turkey and Iran compete for Islamic influence on their neighbors.
After two decades of stagnation, Russia and the United States have pledged their support for reductions in nuclear warheads. But the vision of mutual disarmament remains plagued by doubts on all sides.
Though largely overlooked by international media, Russia has signed several significant nuclear energy agreements over the last several months. These agreements give Russia an opportunity to develop nuclear cooperation with India, Turkey, and Iran, as well as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Egypt, where Russia plans to build nuclear plants too.
Those fearing a repeat of the Cold War should understand that the current situation may be worse than the Cold War in some respects.
It is extremely difficult to predict the prospects for new comprehensive agreements on nuclear threat reduction in the midst of the current international crisis. But crises do not last forever, and there may come a time when all of the facets of the unique Nunn-Lugar program will be deemed useful.
If Russia follows through with its threats to leave the Council, though, how will its place in the world be impacted? What would that decision's ramifications be for normal Russians? We asked Carnegie's experts to share their thoughts.
Some experts’ concern that the amended version of the Russian military doctrine would significantly alter conditions for nuclear weapons’ use in the context of the Ukraine crisis and the resulting sharp escalation of the military and political situation has turned out to be premature.
The current political crisis in Russia’s relations with the West gives a strong impetus to Russian rapprochement with Asian countries. However, many analysts are of the opinion that no significant progress in this area has been achieved as of yet.
2014 was a year of crisis. Ebola, ISIS, and Donbas are now part of the global lexicon. Eurasia Outlook experts weigh in on how crises on Russia’s periphery affected the country, and what these developments mean for Moscow in 2015.
Eurasia Outlook asked its experts to reflect on the dramatic events of 2014 and to share their predictions for Russia's future and for its role on the global stage going forward.
After another failed attempt to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, all now depends on whether Russia, the United States, and other states can find the political will to take responsibility for global security.
Russian participation in the nuclear talks has demonstrated that despite the depth of the Ukrainian crisis and all the existing conflicts between Russia and the West, there are no reasons to consider Russia a purely destructive force that is bent on harming the West.
You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.