Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Read comprehensive analysis from Brussels, Moscow, and Washington here and follow Carnegie experts on Twitter for instant reactions.
How Kiev manages the diverse region of Bessarabia will be closely watched elsewhere in Ukraine, where political trust in the central authorities is still low.
The gap between U.S. and EU views on Ukraine is hindering an effective Western strategy to end the war in the country’s eastern region.
The international order has never been tidy or complete, always having lands with contested sovereignty. Yet the breakdown of empires is the most common catalyst for producing new aspirant states.
Reforms in Ukraine have taken a back seat during a protracted season of electoral politics. A key question is whether the rival factions can compete peacefully and avoid destabilizing the country again.
Improved bilateral relations between Kyiv and Moscow can only be expected in the post-Putin and post-Poroshenko era.
The Kremlin is relying on a highly adaptable toolkit to chip away at the liberal international order and to capitalize on the West’s inability to come up with a unified strategy to respond.
The EU’s external financing instruments should be improved to make the union’s civil society support efforts more politically effective and more closely aligned with strategic aims.
Ukraine and the EU are closer than ever before. But events over the last four years have also shown how far apart they still are in economic capacity, governance, and their visions for the future.
Ukraine’s reforms depend as much on the country’s leaders on as on consistent, forceful, and unified EU pressure.
Ukraine’s armed forces are better than ever before. However, major problems remain, all of which stem from internal political struggles and the continuing weakness of state structures.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices