In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”
Andrey Pertsev
{
"authors": [
"Joseph Bahout",
"Steven Cook",
"Shadi Hamid",
"Rachel Havrelock",
"Emad Shahin",
"Galip Dalay"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Arab Awakening"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"North Africa",
"Iraq",
"Lebanon",
"Jordan",
"Palestine",
"Syria"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform"
]
}Source: Getty
One hundred years after the division of the Middle East, the effects of the Sykes-Picot agreement are still playing out across the region.
Source: Foreign Affairs
The Sykes-Picot agreement that divided the Middle East one hundred years ago has profoundly impacted the political history and trajectory of the modern Middle East. Speaking with Foreign Affairs, Carnegie's Joseph Bahout assessed the consequences of this historic agreement.
Former Nonresident Fellow, Middle East Program
Joseph Bahout was a nonresident fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program. His research focuses on political developments in Lebanon and Syria, regional spillover from the Syrian crisis, and identity politics across the region.
Steven Cook
Shadi Hamid
Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy. He served as director of research at the Brookings Doha Center until January 2014.
Rachel Havrelock
Emad Shahin
Galip Dalay
Carnegie 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.
In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”
Andrey Pertsev
Two divergent trends—Putin’s hardline vision of how to prosecute the war in Ukraine, and a growing desire for change in Russia—could tear the regime apart.
Tatiana Stanovaya
Ultimately, Zelensky sided neither with the reform camp nor with the military establishment as such, but with political control.
Balázs Jarábik
Tokayev’s predecessor, Nursultan Nazarbayev, outlined arrangements for a power transition too soon and in too much detail, ultimately losing control over the process. Tokayev is determined not to meet the same fate.
Temur Umarov
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin