News
Search News
Analysis
The Strategic Suicide of Aligning With Russia in Syria
Donald Trump wants to make a partner of Russia in Syria. One of Trump’s most consistently expressed foreign policy ideas, both during the campaign and now since his election, is that the United States and Russia are natural counterterrorism allies, and that the obvious place to begin such cooperation is in Syria, against the Islamic State. Both the United States and Russia are waging war against the Islamic State, Trump’s reasoning goes, so the best way to hasten the defeat of that organization, and perhaps to launch a broader U.S.-Russia rapprochement, is by bringing Russia into the counter-Islamic State fold and undertaking more coordinated military action targeting the group. In a recent Fox interview, in which Trump controversially drew a moral equivalence between the United States and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, he said “it’s better to get along with Russia than not and if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world, major fight, that’s a good thing.”
Analysis
Overcoming the Wrong Détente
President Donald Trump enters office facing a variety of foreign policy challenges. One of his largest and most consequential will be dealing with a resurgent and increasingly unpredictable Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, each new American presidential administration has sought to improve relations with Moscow – the last attempt being President Barack Obama’s “reset.” Trump, however, seems a bit too keen to follow this pattern, straying beyond diplomatic pleasantries to praise Vladimir Putin directly and vowing to “make some good deals” with him. In doing so, Trump runs the risk of both forgoing vital consultations with stalwart allies and partners in Europe and failing to grasp the danger that Russia poses to European and international security.
In the News
Thornberry Continues to Seek Billions in Jettisoned NDAA Weapons Spending
Kate Blakeley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies, states in a Jan. 24 report that "reaching anything near that level of spending would require broad political consensus" that has been lacking in Congress for years and points out that the "average relief" provided by lawmakers since the BCA began is only $18 billion.
In the News
Mattis’ Pricey Military Buildup Faces Obstacles in Congress
That's where "the rubber meets the road," said [Katherine] Blakeley, research fellow at Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "The Budget Control Act of 2011 is still the law, and it needs to be amended by the regular legislative process, which means you need at least some democratic buy-in."
In the News
Stealth Destroyer DDG-1000’s Biggest Trials Lie Ahead
“The combat system testing is a significant concern, since so much of it is new,” said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander now with the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments.
In the News
Analysis: U.S. Should Look to Low-Signature Defense Capabilities in Asia-Pacific
The United States will need to depend increasingly on low-signature capabilities, including bombers and submarines, if it is to continue to deter rivals and reassure allies in the Asia-Pacific, a U.S. think tank report said Wednesday