Commentary
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
{
"authors": [
"Chrystia Freeland",
"Michael McFaul",
"John Mearsheimer",
"Dmitri Trenin",
"Roger Cohen"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Ukraine",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
Russia, Ukraine, and the West: Is Confrontation Inevitable?
Ukraine is the most important strategic issue for Russia, and Putin, who mistrusts the West, worries that NATO enlargement may concern Ukraine.
Published on Jun 25, 2014
Source: Chatham House
Chrystia Freeland, a member of the Canadian Parliament, Michael McFaul, U.S. Ambassador to Russia in 2012-2014, John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Carnegie’s Dmitri Trenin, and Roger Cohen, a columnist at the New York Times, discussed the current situation in Ukraine, as well as Russian-Western relations, at Chatham House. The event was held in association with the International New York Times.
Trenin stated that “Ukraine is absolutely the most important strategic issue for Russia,” suggesting that this is where Putin’s worry over NATO enlargement comes from. Trenin explained that Putin mistrusts the West because he belives it has acted duplicitously to Russia, saying that the excessive Libyan air strike in 2011 was “a test of Western sincerity.” According to Trenin, the safe limits of NATO’s enlargement to the east have been reached, and “what we’ve seen in Georgia, what we’re seeing in Ukraine, testifies to that fact.”Trenin underscored that Russian security obsession is based on the “flawed… post-Cold War settlement. [It] did not include Russia into a common security system with the West—as it did include Germany, as it did include Japan after the World War II.”
Speaking about the situation in Ukraine, Trenin elaborated on the events in Eastern Ukraine as “not a foreign war” for ordinary Russians. He noted that “some Russians have ceased to be on speaking terms with other Russians as a result of what’s been happening.” However, he stressed that, in his opinion, it is in Russia’s national interest to deal with Ukraine as with a foreign country instead of having to “pay for them, give them a huge vote in your councils, and then face the prospects of them turning their back on you and going.”
On the issue of Western media portrayals of the Ukrainian crisis, Trenin said that “there is too much ideology [from the Western media]—in foreign policy debates.” This is “not a good thing,” he added.
About the Authors
Chrystia Freeland
Michael McFaul
Former Senior Associate
In addition to his role at Carnegie, McFaul is Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University.
John Mearsheimer
Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
Roger Cohen
SecurityForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceNorth AmericaUnited StatesRussiaEastern EuropeUkraineWestern Europe
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance Gap
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
