A Terrorist Attack in Moscow


On the evening of 22 March, a popular concert hall outside Moscow became the site of the largest terrorist attack against the Russian Federation in decades. Four terrorists opened fire at thousands of concertgoers and set fire to the Crocus City Hall, a sprawling shopping mall and entertainment venue. Around 140 people were killed and the number of dead could continue to rise. More than 200 people were injured and 80 remain hospitalized. The entire attack lasted eighteen minutes. Considering the size of the attack and the response of the Russian government as well as its people, this assault will have a massive effect on the political situation within Russia, how the Kremlin pursues the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and other security interests.

Who conducted this attack and why?

An Islamic State affiliate immediately claimed responsibility for the violence. US intelligence reported it had obtained evidence confirming ISIS’s involvement, and French President Emmanuel Macron said France also had intelligence that an “ISIS entity” was responsible. Most experts believe it was the Islamic State Khorasan(ISIS-K) which is a Salafi jihadist group active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. It is believed ISIS-K conducted the attack at the Kabul International Airport during the withdrawal of American forces that resulted in the deaths of 13 US service members. They were also likely behind a recent terrorist attack in Iran and the 2015 Paris attack.

Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB, said it arrested 11 people the day after the attack. This included the four suspected gunmen who are reportedly Tajik nationals and were brought to a Moscow courtroom soon after. They all appeared to have been severely beaten and tortured. One struggled to remain conscious during the hearing. There had been several advanced warnings of a possible terrorist attack against Russia. The US advised Russia of an impending terrorist attack in Moscow on 7 March, and the State Department also issued a warning to American citizens in Russia to avoid crowds for this reason. There have now been subsequent reports that Russian intelligence had circulated internal warnings of an ISIS-K attack by radicalized Tajiks. On March 9th the FSB announced it had foiled a terrorist plot to attack a synagogue that resulted in two Kazakh citizens being killed in a gun battle with Russian anti-terrorist forces. But President Putin publicly dismissed these alerts. In a speech to the FSB Board on 19 March, he described Western warnings as “outright blackmail” that sought to “intimidate and destabilize society.”

In the immediate aftermath, Russia’s leadership and social media accused Ukraine of being involved. Putin waited nearly a day before speaking to the nation but alleged that a link existed between the attackers and Kyiv. Ukraine immediately denied any involvement, and an attack like this would be contrary to the country’s best interests. Killing hundreds of innocent civilians in such a callous attack would alienate Western supporters at a critical moment when additional military assistance for Ukraine is being debated in the US Congress.

The Kremlin spin on a tragedy

In the days that followed, it has become increasingly clear that this attack was very likely planned and executed by ISIS-K. They publicly claimed responsibility twice and released both videos as well as photos of the terrorist and the attack. Despite these facts, the Kremlin has launched a disinformation campaign that promotes the idea that Ukraine and the West are to blame. This claim fits well with Putin’s war narrative and seeks to diminish the significance of Moscow’s security failure.

The Russian president has now said repeatedly that Kyiv and Washington had a role in the attack. He claimed that the attackers were planning to escape to Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian military had opened a “window” for them to escape. There is no evidence to support these assertions. The escape route appears to show that the attackers were headed for Belarus, and their car had Belarusian plates. Recent comments by Belarusian President Lukashenko reinforce this view. But the FSB has continued the narrative. Aleksandr Bortnikov, FSB Chief, even claimed that the assault “was prepared by both radical Islamists themselves and, naturally, facilitated by Western special services.” Putin even expressed surprise that Muslim extremists would attack given Moscow’s stand for a “fair solution to escalation in the Middle East.” This clearly ignores the Kremlin’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and brutal wars in both Chechnya and later Dagestan.

These conflicts have long made Russia a target of Islamic terrorist groups. This was further compounded by the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war where Russian soldiers and mercenaries supported the Assad regime against the Islamic State and other rebel groups. Furthermore, several Tajik’s hold prominent roles in the Islamic State, which has continued to target both Russia and Europe despite the collapse of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq in 2019.

But disinformation has long been a favored tool of Putin and his Kremlin allies. Consequently, there is rampant speculation that the attack could be a “false flag” perpetrated by the Russian FSB to galvanize support for the Ukraine war and opposition to the West. Many will recall that in 1999 there was clear evidence that Putin (then serving as Russian Prime Minister) orchestrated a series of bombings against four apartment buildings in Moscow and two other cities. More than 300 people were killed, and Russian officials blamed Chechen militants. Soon after, Putin used this narrative to rouse support for the Second Chechen War, which led to the destruction of Grozny and may have resulted in 200,000 civilian deaths. Still, the Crocus attack is unlikely to have been a “false flag,” as it comes shortly after Putin’s recent success at the ballot box and underscores the vulnerabilities and mistakes of his wartime regime.

He had clearly believed the so-called “special military technical operation” against Ukraine would be over in a few days. The Kremlin was also visibly unsettled by the brief mutiny led by Putin confidant Yevgeniy Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries in June. Now the Kremlin appears shockingly unprepared to protect the Russian people from a terrorist attack. These are indicators that can lead to a regime being challenged. Consequently, Putin will continue to “spin” and cling to a narrative of Ukrainian and Western involvement. Accepting that Islamic militants were alone responsible for the worst terror attack in Russia in decades would dilute his message that Russians must unify around the war with Ukraine–and the West. The Kremlin cannot afford to divert attention from this existential battle that they have now created. It is now the raison d’etre for the Putin regime. And this effort to obfuscate is already showing results.

Several members of the Russian Duma were quick to condemn Ukraine for the attack and called for even more missile and drone attacks in response. Expanded attacks on Ukrainian cities have followed, and the voices blaming Ukraine and its Western partners are only growing louder. Even the social media accounts of Russian embassies are now promoting claims the Moscow attack was either not conducted by ISIS or it was ISIS under the direction of US, UK, and Ukrainian intelligence. This attack also exposes weakness and vulnerability in Russian internal security. It occurred even though Russia boasts more police and internal security forces than almost any country (except perhaps China). Furthermore, Putin had already instituted widespread policies of repression as demonstrated by the arrest of thousands of Russians for any form of peaceful protest against the war, elimination of any opposition during the presidential elections, and even recent efforts to stop crowds from attending the funeral of Russian dissident Alexi Navalny.

What are the implications?

Putin had made support for the Ukraine war a centerpiece of his reelection “campaign” and will undoubtedly use this narrative to build additional domestic support. The Kremlin will continue to portray Russia as under threat from the West and may use this attack to justify a second round of reserve mobilization in preparation for a likely summer offensive. Putin could also expand the number of draftees that are conscripted during the spring and continue ongoing efforts to move the Russian economy to a “wartime footing.” This narrative has also resulted in more bellicose rhetoric throughout the country. Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, for example, called for a nuclear strike against Ukraine. Other Kremlin allies have also pushed for increasingly devastating strikes that they believe would end the war. This effort should not be discounted. Putin will certainly use this attack to redouble his attacks on Ukrainian cities. He as well as his press spokesman have now begun to refer to the Ukraine conflict as a “war” and no longer a “special military technical operation,” indicating an important shift in their narrative. But it will not only be used to galvanize Russian support, it will also be a central part of Russian propaganda campaigns across the global south to justify expanded strikes against Ukrainian cities and the country’s civilians. Putin may also believe that an expanded effort coupled with a continuous messaging of Ukrainian duplicity may further discourage Western support for Ukraine, particularly as the US Congress begins its deliberation of additional military aid for Kyiv. This could further serve to divide and weaken NATO while encouraging Europeans to believe that the United States is backing away from its leadership role in the alliance .But as lawmakers in Washington squabble, two conclusions can be drawn from the terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall. First, Kremlin propaganda will continue to focus on the US, Ukraine, and its allies as the main culprits of all nefarious acts that Russia suffers. This will serve to discourage all sides from any possibility of a negotiated peace settlement. Second, senior American military leaders have warned that ISIS-K is estimated to have 6,000 fighters overall and may be able to strike the US soon. Consequently, this attack on Moscow should also serve as a warning to the West. Still, many Americans believe our Islamist terrorist problem is largely behind us. That is sadly untrue. No matter whether what happened in Moscow is an Islamic terror attack or an FSB conspiracy, it augurs badly for us.

The Impending Battle for Rafah

More than 100 Palestinians recently died when Israeli troops fired on a desperate crowd pulling food from an aid convoy in Gaza City. It brought the death toll in the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip to more than 30,000, threatened negotiations for a potential ceasefire between Israel and Hamas being brokered by the US, Qatar, and Egypt, and increased international condemnation as Israel prepares for its next major offensive that could lead to even greater civilian casualties. In the aftermath, the Biden administration announced that it would commence airdropping humanitarian supplies into Gaza illustrating the enormous ongoing human crisis and that relations between the United States and Israel are under enormous stress.

After nearly five months of war in Gaza, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have advanced to Rafah in the territory’s south, where about 1.4 million people are currently sheltering in what can only be described as a humanitarian disaster of near epic proportions. Over one million people in Rafah are refugees who fled their homes as the IDF invaded Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7. Many have done so at the urging of Israeli forces and have already relocated several times during the fighting.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he is delaying a planned IDF assault against the city temporarily, as he appears to pursue the ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. President Biden has also said a ceasefire could occur soon and warned that an attack on Rafah would result in dramatic civilian casualties and cost Israel further international support.

Under the terms of the current ceasefire framework, according to media reports, Hamas would release about 40 hostages in exchange for a six-week ceasefire and the freeing of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners currently being held by Israel. Some Palestinians would also be allowed to return to their homes in northern Gaza. But this ceasefire, which will likely encompass the holy month of Ramadan (that begins on March 10), is not forever, according to the Israeli government.

Netanyahu has pledged that his forces will still enter Rafah, a city close to the border with Egypt, and argued that the US public will back Israel in response to Biden’s negative remarks about the potential offensive. He and other hardliners in the Israeli government believe Rafah is Hamas’ final stronghold, and the prime minister contended in an interview with CBS Face the Nation that once the operation begins Israel will be “weeks away, not months” from its goal of destroying Hamas and ending its devastating war in the Gaza Strip – which is at the cusp of becoming one of the deadliest for civilians since World War II.

In addition to 30,000 Palestinian dead there are 70,000 more who have been injured – most are women, children, and the elderly. An invasion of Rafah would cause those numbers to grow precipitously. The roughly 100 hostages still held by Hamas, who are believed to be in Rafah, are unlikely to survive Israel’s assault. Consequently, the impending “Battle of Rafah” is a major inflection point in this war, and it could have a significant bearing on the future of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu has said repeatedly that Israel’s goal is the total destruction of Hamas, but this remains a problematic contention. Hamas leaders are scattered throughout the Middle East, with a significant presence in Lebanon and Qatar. Even if Israel could destroy Hamas, it is a “movement,” and Israel may have “grown more” terrorists than it has neutralized. If Hamas were successfully destroyed physically, it likely would not take long for another militant group to take up its cause – particularly if thousands more die.

Netanyahu has said the IDF will present a plan to allow civilians in Rafah to evacuate safely prior to an attack. But so far, no plan has been presented, and it is unclear where they might be moved. Some media reports have suggested the IDF is considering allowing Palestinian civilians to pass through Israeli lines to areas north of Khan Younis and south of Gaza City. Moving these people out of harm’s way will be a monumental logistical and security task, however. It will require the establishment of safety corridors that must also ensure Hamas fighters aren’t allowed to flee or that weapons are not smuggled into areas previously secured by the IDF. Operational plans must also support humanitarian assistance to refugees during and after evacuation at a moment when some experts describe Gaza as an impending famine area.

The only thing Israeli officials have emphasized publicly is that they will not be pushed into Egypt, which is just south of Rafah. It is reported that the IDF chief of staff, Herzi Halevi, and the director of Israel’s security agency, Ronen Bar, visited their Egyptian counterparts in Cairo last week to further assure them that the Rafah operation will not lead to Palestinian refugees being forced into Egypt.

There could be major issues if there are. Israel and Egypt have had a peaceful security relationship since President Jimmy Carter brokered a 1979 treaty between them. Egypt has said that agreement, the backbone of Israeli security in the Middle East, would be ruptured if Palestinian refugees were forced into Egyptian territory. Egypt has already constructed a wall and additional barriers on the border to stop the movement of refugees into the country.

In the meantime, the plight of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip has become the greatest ongoing humanitarian crisis on the planet, and multiple international relief agencies (World Food Program, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, etc.) have continued to describe the situation in apocalyptic terms. Shortages of fresh water, food, and basic medical assistance have brought many Palestinians to the point of starvation. Relief supplies, if they arrive in the Gaza Strip at all, are only a tiny fraction of the current requirement. As Samantha Powers, the USAID administrator, noted on social media last week: “More than 500 trucks should be entering Gaza daily. In the past week only ~85/day managed to get through.”

The world community supported Israel in the immediate aftermath of the tragic and heinous attack by Hamas terrorists on October 7 that resulted in over 1,200 innocent Israeli dead. But since the start of the war, Netanyahu has refused to discuss the war’s aftermath and any type of longer-term political solution. Instead, he has suggested that the IDF will occupy Gaza to ensure Israeli security. Gaza will be demilitarized and the southern border with Egypt will be more tightly sealed. This will require Israel to deploy and maintain tens of thousands of troops in Gaza for an indefinite amount of time.

Some conservative Israeli government ministers have urged the expulsion of all two million Palestinian inhabitants from Gaza and filling the Strip with Jewish settlements. This effort has caused Israel to become even more isolated globally. Many nations have condemned the settlement dialogue and Israel’s military actions publicly, and several now refuse to provide them support.

Most importantly, however, it has strained the relationship between the US and Israel, and the one between Biden and Netanyahu. The two have known each other for more than 30 years, and Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his political career. But the president, who is facing pressure from within his own party, is now describing Israel’s military operations as excessive.

The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state in 1948. Presidents from both parties have backed Israel in its conflicts with its Arab neighbors in 1956, 1967, and 1973. Washington has further supported Israel in multiple conflicts with Hamas in recent years. Israel, prior to this conflict, was one of the largest recipients of American military assistance – over $3 billion annually. But this conflict has put the “special relationship” between the two countries in jeopardy.

The White House is fully aware that this war could lead to expanded violence across the region. While strikes from Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria have declined since the US conducted major strikes in recent weeks, there continues to be multiple flashpoints. Hezbollah has continued artillery and missile attacks against Israel’s north, and there are now calls for a greater military response so the 80,000 Israelis who have fled the north can return home. The Houthis in Yemen continue attacks on commercial ships and US naval vessels in the Red Sea. There is also increased violence in the West Bank, which could worsen because of restrictions imposed on Muslims at the onset of Ramadan. Over 400 Palestinians have been killed in fighting with the IDF and Jewish settlers since October 7. Another 6,000 have been detained. All of these “fronts” in Israel’s ongoing war will likely intensify if it attacks Rafah.

Israelis are beginning to call for elections and the removal of Netanyahu. The Israeli economy is now suffering from rising unemployment, reduced credit ratings, gross domestic product has shrunk dramatically, and several major companies have departed. Previous wars that Israel fought were brief in comparison, as this war drags on concerns are rising about how long Israel can keep 300,000 reservists in uniform.

Biden has publicly expressed confidence that there will be a ceasefire soon and must privately hope that this will translate into an end to hostilities. Perhaps that is the case, and the Israelis have telegraphed their intention to attack Rafah to buttress their negotiating strategy to secure the release of hostages. What is certain, however, is that this war is at an inflection point, and the path ahead will have dramatic implications for the future of Israel, the region, and the globe.

Jeff McCausland is a national security consultant for CBS Radio and TV and a Visiting Professor at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He is a retired Colonel from the US Army having commanded during the Gulf War and served in the Pentagon as well as on the National Security Council staff in the White House. He is the Founder and CEO of Diamond6 Leadership and Strategy, LLC. (www.diamondsixleadership.com)

The worst implications of Trump’s 'America First' isolationism are coming into focus

in

Donald Trump’s apparent disconnect from reality during a challenging time in global history exposes the stakes of this year’s presidential election.

During a recent campaign rally, Donald Trump said he told a NATO leader he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that were “delinquent” and had not paid bills they “owed” the alliance. His remarks set off a firestorm domestically and internationally, as the U.S. Congress argues over how and when to provide Ukraine with additional military assistance in its efforts to halt Russian aggression.

This situation was exacerbated by the sudden death of Alexei Navalny in a Russian Arctic penal colony. Navalny was a long-standing opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dictatorial rule. The Kremlin had even attempted to poison Navalny in 2020 and jailed him on trumped up charges upon his return to Russia in 2021. Despite these facts, Trump refused to condemn Putin. Instead he compared his own extensive and ongoing legal struggles to Navalny’s struggle for freedom in Russia, casting himself as a victim.


Read full article here on MSNBC.

Train Wreck: The Congress, the Defense Budget, and National Security

The U.S. nearly plunged into its fourth government shutdown in 10 years, a troubling development avoided by a Continuing Resolution (CR) that passed with just hours to spare. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had failed to whip his Republican conference and right-wing members into a consistent voting bloc to pass the FY2024 Federal Budget and had to seek support from Democrats to secure a CR. Now he has 45 more days to find a solution, but it is likely the nation will be in the same predicament when the current deal expires. Leaders in the White House and Wall Street had warned that the nation’s economy would suffer from a shutdown, and this may have contributed to action at the eleventh hour. But in the aftermath, right-wing GOP members are preparing to oust McCarthy from leadership and appear uninterested in compromise.

The last shutdown occurred in 2018-19 and ended after more than 35 days. Given the level of acrimony and a potential drawn out battle for congressional leadership posts, it appears very possible that a shutdown in this Congress could test that record.

But the country’s national security is also at risk. McCarthy and his caucus failed to pass the fiscal 2024 Pentagon spending bill after numerous votes, which clearly has major implications for the country’s defense. One major obstacle for Congress has been aid to Ukraine. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, proposed sending $6 billion in military aid to Ukraine, but House Republicans made it clear that was a nonstarter. Right-wing members of the House even balked at including $300 million targeted at training Ukrainian soldiers and the purchase of weapons in the CR. While a tiny amount in terms of the overall budget, even that small number was considered a poison pill.

Thus far the U.S. has provided $46 billion in military aid, and the administration is seeking $24 billion more. President Joe Biden made it clear that Ukraine funding remains a top priority to him, and he issued a statement that bluntly pointed the finger at Congress to figure it out.

"We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted," he said. "I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment."

Democrats and Republicans will have to come together to pass further funding for Kyiv. It may take quite a bit of time to get there, however. Congress still needs to figure out how to ensure the Pentagon remains funded for FY2024, and a CR still hinders America’s ability to secure its national security interests.

The CR will not allow for increases in munition production without a waiver, and in the past, this has affected the production lines of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System and Patriot missiles, William LaPlante, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, said last week.

LaPlante also warned that a shutdown would be “horrible” and halt weapon system testing, the government’s ability to accept finished military equipment from manufacturers as well as acquisition/sustainment projects. He noted, glibly, that China’s military does not suffer through continuing resolutions or government shutdowns.

“Can you imagine if the Chinese had something like this, where their government would shut down every few years, and they would freeze their budgets?” he said to a crowd at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We would not view that badly. We could teach them how to do that. That would be helpful.”

The crowd laughed in response, but without the passage of the defense budget and the $886 billion that President Joe Biden requested there is real concern that a shutdown will dramatically affect the nation’s security in a variety of ways. Personnel costs, procurement, research and development, maintenance and operations are all at risk. A lack of funding would also negatively affect American prestige abroad and unity with our allies. Not to mention, it raises significant questions about our continued support for Taiwan as well as Ukraine’s counteroffensive. All are intrinsically tied to the nation’s security and its position in the world.

Personnel

If a November shutdown were to occur, obviously the most dramatic effect would be on soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who will not be paid. There are 2more than 2 million military personnel (roughly 1.3 million active-duty soldiers, plus another 800,000 reservists) who are required to continue to perform their duties and, like in past shutdowns, will receive back pay once it is over. There are also 804,244 DoD civilians. About 45% are deemed “essential” and would continue to work during a shutdown. They as well as those furloughed would receive back pay in the aftermath. Government contractors, however, are not guaranteed back pay.

Many junior military personnel live paycheck to paycheck, and roughly 20% of junior enlisted families live in homes that are food insecure. Consequently, any interruption of pay means thousands of suffering military families who will struggle to buy groceries, and pay rent, car payments, mortgages, childcare, etc. In a recent survey, 54% of junior enlisted military families said they would be “greatly affected” by a shutdown. One-third of these families have less than $3,000 in savings. Even grocery stores on military bases, called commissaries, and childcare centers will likely close and elective surgeries and dentistry will pause.

This would also have a negative impact on military recruiting and the retention of highly qualified military personnel. It occurs at a particularly difficult moment as all the services have failed to meet their FY2023 recruiting goals. It is impossible to believe that the failure of Congress to pay the troops will encourage more young Americans to enlist in its aftermath.

Procurement and R&D

LaPlante also warned that a shutdown would cause the country’s military procurement and research and development efforts to grind to a halt. He recalled that as head of Air Force Acquisition during a previous shutdown he had to furlough all employees from the Defense Contracting Management Agency. This group examines new equipment prior to acceptance by the military, and this essentially froze F-35 fighter and munition production lines. We will likely see some manufacturing freezes due to the CR particularly with respect to any new programs or the expansion of previous programs.

Defense industries are well aware of the significant challenges caused by a shutdown or CR.

Aerospace and major defense companies have more than 2 million employees, and the industry's lead trade group, AIA, said last week that it wants Congress to “act now to fund the federal government…especially for the Department of Defense, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA.” They cite national security and aviation safety as their major concern, but it obviously has major business implications as well.

If a shutdown continued for an extended period, it would impact these industries. A CR, meanwhile, stops any expansion of manufacturing. Existing major procurements (ships, aircraft, missiles, etc.) are multiyear contracts as is ongoing construction. Consequently, they are unlikely to be affected. But items like the production of munitions, particularly artillery rounds, have been a single-year budget line. Because of the growing demand brought about by the Ukraine war, the U.S. has sought to resurrect its defense industrial base to meet the dramatic demand for ammunition. A shutdown would bring those new production lines to a halt, but a Continuing Resolution effectively does the same.

Beyond the immediate effect, a shutdown and even the CR could further discourage industry from expanding manufacturing lines as promised. As a result, the Pentagon may pursue multi-year contracts to avoid future issues for industry, which is not an approach favored by Congress. Typically, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have sought greater oversight of such contracts because of the impact they have on individual states or constituencies.

In the Air Force alone, there could be major challenges for key modernization initiatives that are still in research and development. For example, the Air Force has a new program to convert F-16s to be compatible with artificial intelligence (AI). The experimental operations unit, which is tasked with testing the new capability as part of Project Venom, is slated to get $72 million in the fiscal 2024 budget. But because it’s a new program, a CR means the program cannot begin until a new budget passes.

Operations and Maintenance

Failure to pass the defense budget will also affect ongoing military operations and training. Military exercises that are not within the current budget may need to be curtailed or cancelled. It could also curtail the ability of the U.S. military to perform new support missions along the U.S. border and to maintain equipment and other assets. Ironically, a shutdown, which some hardline Republicans were openly supportive of pursuing, could undermine many things that Freedom Caucus Republicans staunchly claim to defend by draining resources for border security and increasing overall costs.

Whether in a shutdown or under a CR, there will be some waivers for ongoing operations and training. The Pentagon previously announced that it would not pause the training of Ukrainian soldiers in the United during a shutdown, for example, as it falls under one of the excepted activities that can still be pursued. Still, this effort cannot be expanded absent a new budget which could slow the training of Ukrainian pilots to fly the promised F-16 fighters. A shutdown or a budget freeze also threatens a major multibillion-dollar diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and three key Pacific Island nations that are a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The administration has stated that the renewal of decades-old “compacts of free association” (COFAs) with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau are the “bedrock of the U.S. role in the Pacific.” Consequently, it has sought to respond to growing Chinese influence by expanding U.S. access to military bases and improved diplomatic ties with countries in the region.

Conclusions

This last-minute budget deal is a further indicator of how political battles in Washington undermine America’s national security as well as its international presence and reputation with allies abroad. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe the nation will be at this same point on November 17th .

Furthermore, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jingping are enjoying the disarray in the U.S. Congress. Both will likely use this as a clear illustration that democracy is in decline and the superiority of their respective political systems.

Some congressmen attempted to minimize the possibility that Congress might fail to pass the Federal Budget resulting in a government shutdown. Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona claimed during the budget effort that this would “not be a shutdown of government,” but a pause in “out-of-control federal spending related to nonessentials.” This is at best naïve and at worst uninformed. He might well consider the words of our second president, John Adams who said that “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The War in Ukraine - Growing Threats of Escalation

Opinions shared about the war in Ukraine have been plentiful and wide ranging. Many of those views were wrong in the initial stages of the war, but at this point what everyone can agree upon is that this conflict will undoubtedly take years to resolve — and the toll of this war will not decrease soon. After more than a year and a half the conflict is now entering a new and more dangerous phase. The war is escalating with respect to geography, global implications, and weapons employed. This is occurring while Western populations are becoming increasingly weary of this war.

U.S. officials announced earlier this month that the number of casualties is roughly 500,000. Russia has suffered 120,000 dead and more than 170,000 wounded. Ukraine’s casualty rate is lower: around 70,000 killed and more than 100,000 wounded. Russia’s larger population could give it greater staying power, but Ukrainian resolve appears unshaken.

The conflict expands

The Biden administration’s hopes of confining the war to the territory of Ukraine is failing. Kyiv is launching more and more drones into Russian territory in an effort to bring the war to the Russian people in response to the massive drone and missile attacks Ukraine has suffered. Ukraine launched its largest drone attack since the war began on Wednesday, focusing the barrage on military targets. Kyiv has also conducted additional strikes on the Kerch Bridge to isolate Crimea and sought to achieve a psychological blow with drone attacks on the Kremlin and Moscow.

The Black Sea has become a theatre of conflict after the Kremlin cancelled the grain agreement, potentially drawing in other countries into the war. At the same time, Africa may also witness more proxy conflicts between Russia and the West.

NATO also faces growing concerns on its eastern flank: Belarus and the remnants of the Wagner Group. Since Yevgeny Prigozhin’s failed mutiny, it has been difficult to predict what would come next for the mercenary group. Would Russia integrate Wagner into its own forces? Would Putin allow Prigozhin to continue to lead this force independent of Kremlin supervision? Would they allow the Wagner leader to survive? The demise of Prigozhin and much of Wagner’s senior leadership appears to have answered some of those questions, though what it means for Wagner’s operations in Belarus and Africa remains unclear.

Poland and the Baltic States, all NATO member, have been outspoken that the presence of several thousand Wagner group fighters in Belarus and threatening rhetoric by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko present a growing security challenge. As a result, Poland ordered several thousand troops to its border, as Wagner fighters conducted military exercises near the Polish and Lithuanian borders. Most NATO experts argue that there is little chance of an outright invasion, but Wagner mercenaries could conduct sabotage operations. These exercises were conducted close to Suwalki Gap which is a narrow strip of land that separates Belarus from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea — a region of great strategic value. If a conflict did occur, military experts believe Russia would seek to seize this terrain to isolate the Baltic Republics.

This may be an effort by Lukashenko to just be provocative, but it could have more to do with impending national elections in Poland. The current ruling party (Law and Justice) has described itself as the defender of Polish sovereignty. But Lukashenko’s goading raises the possibility of a miscalculation that could result in disaster.

Moscow’s efforts to maintain if not expand its influence in Africa following the death of Prigozhin suggests that conflict may increase in Africa as well. Russia may seek to benefit from the recent coup in Niger which displaced a democratically elected leader supported by the West. Furthermore, the Kremlin is seeking to replace Prigozhin with a new leader that is loyal to Putin for the thousands of Russian mercenaries currently operating in Mali, Chad, Libya, and the Central African Republic. The Kremlin has also expanded economic and political efforts in Burkina Faso, Algeria, Sudan, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea.

The Niger coup is a particular embarrassment for the United States and its allies. Washington largely trained the Niger army and currently has 1,100 soldiers in the country. But the implications are potentially even more catastrophic. There have now been seven coups across central Africa since 2020, and a growing possibility of a regional war. Moscow is likely pursuing a “hybrid warfare campaign” that seeks to synergize military operations, criminality, refugees, and economic benefit. The dislocation such social unrest and civil wars engender has already dramatically increased the refugee flow to Europe, creating a political and immigration crisis.

Increasing Global Concerns

Though Western economies are experiencing increasing stability since the pandemic, the war’s growing economic effects are mounting. The Russian economy is increasingly suffering, forcing the central bank to raise interest rates by 3.5% to 12% in a single day. This has serious implications for Russia’s growth and development and brought about a 17-month low for the ruble.

Meanwhile, Kyiv has employed naval drones against Russian ships raising the possibility of reducing Moscow’s ability to export grains, fertilizer, and oil from its ports in the Black Sea. This could have major global implications. More than 3% of the world’s supply of oil moves through the Black Sea. Roughly 750,000 barrels of Russian crude oil per day were historically shipped from Russian Black Sea ports, though that has already reduced to between 400,000 and 575,000 barrels a day. State Department energy experts estimate that prices could rise $10 to $15 per barrel if Russia is prevented from using the Black Sea to export oil.

While the Ukrainians have attempted to create safe corridors for maritime travel via the Black Sea, the Russians are also seeking to destroy Ukrainian grain destined for export as well as the port infrastructure that is critical to the Ukrainian economy.

This has threatened NATO members located on the shores of the Black Sea: Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. Ukraine has increasingly depended on Romania to export its grain via the Danube River through its Izmail and Reni ports. These three NATO countries have immense economic interests tied to the Black Sea. These developments could draw them into the conflict and force NATO to increase its force posture in the region.

Russia’s efforts to destroy Ukrainian grain and infrastructure will have a significant effect on wheat and other commodity prices. Ukraine has historically accounted for over 10% of the global wheat market and exported 33 million metric tons of grain since it brokered the agreement with Russia via the United Nations and Turkey. If Kyiv struggles to export wheat, corn, barley, and sunflower, it could cause famine in some countries in Africa and the Middle East.

A peace summit in Saudi Arabia demonstrated growing global concerns but appears to have done little to find a path to peace. Ukraine attended, along with 40 other countries, but Russia did not. China and India both sent representatives, and many other states in attendance would be significantly affected by a reduction in Ukrainian grain exports. The event did demonstrate the growing global concern about the war’s economic impact, humanitarian challenges as well as growing threats to nuclear security, the environment, and food distribution.

Expanding Violence, Weaponry, and the Nuclear Question

From the onset of this conflict, NATO has sought to calibrate its military assistance to Ukraine with an eye on how such support might be construed as escalation by Moscow. As the war continued, many of the qualms NATO allies had at the onset have faded, as members have agreed to provide F16 fighter aircraft and long-range missiles. The U.S. has also provided the controversial cluster munitions.

In response Moscow has become more indiscriminate in missile and drone strikes against populated areas. Russia has increasingly employed “two tap strikes” on Ukrainian cities. The first attack on a residential area will be followed by a second attack about 40 minutes later to also kill or injure first responders.

Moscow has created a massive ecological disaster with the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam and fears remain that Russia might orchestrate a disaster at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest such plant in Europe, which Moscow’s forces control. President Vladimir Putin has also continued to openly threaten the use of nuclear weapons in a clear attempt to intimidate the West.

But Putin has also gone beyond rhetoric. He has ordered the movement of Russian tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus, and Russian doctrine for the use of such weapons is substantially different from the United States, which emphasizes the use of a nuclear weapon as a last resort. Still, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a nuclear strike would not result in enormous negative strategic results for Russia for, at best, limited tactical gains. The possibility Russia might escalate to nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out, however. Still one of the casualties of the Ukraine war is nuclear arms control. The last remaining treaty that limits Russian and American strategic nuclear weapons (New START) will expire in February 2026. It is very unlikely to be renewed which will likely result in a new nuclear arms race that may be more difficult to stop than during the Cold War.

Political Dynamic at Home

Western weariness with the war is illustrated in the ongoing U.S. presidential campaign. Three major Republican presidential candidates — Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis — have either been noncommittal about their support for Ukraine or opposed to providing further assistance.

The U.S.’s financial assistance to Kyiv has been substantial: $113 billion in military, economic and humanitarian aid. But that support was provided under a budgetary authority outlined by Congress prior to the Republican Party securing a majority in the 2022 elections. Most of those funds are now gone, and President Biden has requested an additional $24 billion in military assistance that the House and Senate will consider when they return from recess in September.

This will undoubtedly be a contentious debate. Seventy House Republicans voted to end Ukraine military assistance in July, and some argue that additional funding for Ukraine would violate the budget caps agreed upon as part of the resolution of the debt ceiling issue in June.

Putin will enjoy this political turmoil in the United States, as he clearly believes his willpower is stronger than Washington and its allies. As the United States enters a presidential election year, the Ukraine war will be a major campaign issue — and it should be. But politicizing what is now the most important foreign policy challenge the United States faces is extremely dangerous. How this conflict is resolved will have a profound effect on both American interests and global stability for decades to come.

Negotiations OR “'Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war."

War has once again come to the Middle East following a surprise attack on Israel by Hamas emanating from the Gaza Strip. Hamas’s attack occurred on the 50th anniversary, nearly to the day, of the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Israel was similarly surprised by an Egyptian attack. As of Monday morning, the death toll has passed 1,100 people in Israel and Gaza — at least 11 Americans are among the dead —thousands more are wounded, and Hamas has taken over one hundred hostages. Israel has pounded Gaza with airstrikes in response and secured villages in its territory that were temporarily held by Hamas. More than 123,000 people in Gaza are displaced by the violence and the Israel Defense Forces have called up 300,000 reservists to respond to the hostilities. “We are embarking on a long and difficult war that was forced on us by a murderous Hamas attack,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday. This conflict could be dire for diplomatic efforts in the region.

Prior to the conflict, President Joe Biden had sought to broker an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would establish diplomatic ties. This was always going to be a very demanding diplomatic effort, but now it is much more difficult — and even more crucial. This occurred despite Biden’s somewhat frosty relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS). The president criticized Netanyahu for undemocratic efforts to reform the Israeli judiciary and the harsh treatment of Palestinians. Biden also called Saudi Arabia a “pariah” during the 2020 president campaign. He threatened to release intelligence about MBS’s role in the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, expressed strong opposition to the Saudis’ war in Yemen and threatened “consequences” when MBS allowed oil prices to rise ahead of the 2022 midterm election. Despite these facts, the administration’s effort to convince Saudi Arabia to enter the so-called Abraham Accords and establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel appeared to be gaining traction.

This geopolitical earthquake would shake up the Middle East, illustrate America’s determination to maintain a regional leadership role and forestall growing Chinese influence. Washington had been surprised when China brokered an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two longtime enemies, earlier this year and realizes Saudi Arabia is the PRC’s main energy supplier. An agreement, especially now, would be a major foreign policy October 12, 2023 Negotiations OR “'Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war." achievement for Biden ahead of the 2024 elections. But success here means that the interests of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel must be satisfied.

The view from Jerusalem

Israel would gain enormously by normalizing ties with Saudi Arabia: fewer security concerns, increased stability in the Middle East, a regional ally to further deter Iranian aggression and expanded economic opportunities. An agreement would mean the leading military power in the region (Israel) would be tied to the leading economic power (Saudi Arabia). But Israel would need to make concessions which are made more difficult due to the ongoing conflict. The U.S. has urged Netanyahu to halt his government’s ongoing judicial overhaul that has resulted in massive social unrest across Israel. Many American experts believe these efforts endanger long term relations between Washington and Tel Aviv. But as the crisis began the White House immediately has made clear its full support for Israel.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the redeployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and air assets closer to Israel, and the United States will provide Jerusalem with munitions and other military supplies. This will mean the demand on the U.S. defense industrial base will continue to skyrocket. The political situation in Israel could also change rapidly, affecting negotiations. Already Netanyahu’s has discussed creating a government of national unity with Opposition Leader Yair Lapid and former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who leads the National Unity Party following the attack. Netanyahu faces growing criticism for a catastrophic intelligence failure and what some Israelis view as a slow military response. Biden as well as Saudi Arabia sought Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue. These proposals would be opposed by Netanyahu’s right-wing allies and could prove politically problematic for Biden as the hostilities continue.

The White House wanted Israel to return to a two-state solution that requires a freeze in new Jewish settlements, create areas for new Palestinians settlements, and expanded Palestinian control over the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. But concessions are unlikely while the fighting continues. If the war is short, Hamas suffers a resounding defeat and evidence of the Israeli government’s massive intelligence failure is revealed, political conditions may change, however. In 1973, the Meir government was similarly surprised by an Egyptian attack. Though successful in battle, the government fell six months later in popular recrimination over the government’s intelligence failures. This set the stage for an eventual rapprochement with Egypt. But at this moment both Israeli and American officials do not expect the war to end quickly. Squandering a historic opportunity could be equally threatening to the Israeli prime minister’s hold on power.

Netanyahu would be in the uncomfortable position of rejecting an agreement that would likely be popular among voters, as it could help bring peace and forestall future Iranian aggression – Tehran is the shared enemy of Saudi Arabia and Israel and some suspect Iranian involvement in Hamas’s attack. In the aftermath of the conflict, domestic pressure will likely rise against Netanyahu and force him to call for new elections, create the previously mentioned national unity government or be ousted from a position that he appears determined to cling to. Time will tell.

The view from Riyadh

The Saudis want security guarantees equivalent to U.S. NATO partners, help with its civil nuclear energy program and some concessions for the Palestinian in return for normalization. Riyadh’s greatest security concern remains Iran. The two countries are divided along religious lines and have long sought to be the region’s dominant power. The U.S.-Saudi relationship is crucial to Riyadh’s need to deter future threats emanating from Tehran and its broader goals in the Persian Gulf. Consequently, common interests exist.

The attack by Hamas underscores that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are embroiled in conflicts with Iranian proxies. Israel is at war with Hamas, which annually receives $100 million in military aid from Iran and immediately received verbal support from Tehran. Saudi Arabia is still in conflict with Houthi rebels in Yemen supported by Tehran as well as Iranian surrogates in Syria and Iraq. Experts speculate Iran encouraged this conflict to prevent an American brokered normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia was quick to denounce Hamas’s attack, but complexities remain. A Palestinian state has been a driving mission of the Arab world for years.

Powerful older generations in Saudi Arabia, such as MBS’s father King Salman, are deeply invested in returning Israeli-held lands to the Palestinians. Perhaps unsurprisingly a Saudi Foreign Ministry statement foreshadowed increased diplomatic challenges. it blamed the violence on Israel’s “continued occupation, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of their legitimate rights, and the repetition of systemic provocations against its sanctities.” MBS has previously said he was open to negotiating with Netanyahu’s right-wing government if the Palestinian issue was addressed. "If we have a breakthrough, reaching a deal that gives the Palestinians their needs and [that makes] the region calm, we've got to work with whoever's there," he said. The White House must now find new ways to satisfy Saudi and Israeli interests.

It is very unlikely Saudis will obtain an American “ironclad” security guarantee, but could get a “softer” commitment of an American response if Saudi Arabia was directly attacked. Still, many in Washington are deeply skeptical of the Saudis and wants to ensure that the United States is not drawn into conflicts started by the kingdom, such as its war in Yemen. The Saudis have always been fearful that Tehran might develop a nuclear weapon. MBS was always skeptical of the “Iran Nuclear Deal,” and said he will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. He recently emphasized that if Iran obtained a weapon, his country would "have to get one, for security reasons, for balancing power."

As an alternative, Saudi Arabia has proposed coming under the American “nuclear umbrella.” Currently this “extended deterrence” is enjoyed by NATO members and close American allies in the Pacific: Japan, South Korea and Australia. Riyadh also wants Washington to support its civilian nuclear program. MBS believes transitioning the Saudi energy economy, a cornerstone of his Vision 2030, is essential. He considers it an aid against terrorist threats and an opportunity for the country’s growing population. But MBS also wants to enrich active material in Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. has never previously agreed to in similar agreements, and experts fear this could eventually help Riyadh develop its own nuclear weapons. Saudi officials have proposed a compromise that would establish a “nuclear Aramco” as a joint U.S.-Saudi project with greater American oversight. But MBS would also need to make additional commitments: ratification of the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), American/IAEA inspections of facilities, as well as electronic monitoring. Thus far, MBS has declined to act on these proposals.

Congress and the view from Washington

Washington obviously desires to secure U.S. interests in the region and counter Russian and Chinese influence. It is worth nothing that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently inked a “strategic partnership” with Beijing, Kuwait’s crown prince visited with Xi Jinping, and $23.4 billion in deals were signed at the ChinaArab Trade Expo. Moscow also maintains ties with Riyadh and other oil-producing countries in the region through OPEC+, which directly impacts Western gas prices. Any agreement that is framed as a treaty, would require a two-third vote in the Senate, another challenge. Even Senate Democrats have expressed concern about a deal. Twenty senators sent a letter to the White House saying their support was dependent on a halt to expanded Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories and preservation of “a two-state solution.” Senators also raised concerns that a defense treaty with Saudi Arabia could enmesh the U.S. in the Middle East further. These are clearly fair arguments, particularly now.

Conclusions

The complexities of global conflict are expanding almost on a daily basis which may undermine parts of Biden’s ambitious foreign policy. Still, in three years, this White House ended the nation’s involvement in its longest war, resurrected the NATO alliance to confront Russia, and reconfigured the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region to respond to China and North Korea. Any deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia would be an immense feather in the administration’s cap, especially now. Negotiations appeared to be progressing in small but not insignificant ways prior to the Hamas attack. Israeli planes are allowed overflight rights over Saudi Arabia, an Israeli cabinet minister recently visited the kingdom — the first time this has ever happened — and an Israel official provided another first by conducting a Jewish prayer service in Saudi Arabia. Secretary of State Blinken was reported to be preparing to visit Israel as part of these negotiations.

But the current war demonstrates once again that long term peace in the region can only be achieved by addressing the Palestinian issue. The next few weeks will determine whether the “dogs of war” triumph over another attempt at Middle East stability. Choices made now could decide whether we see a long-term conflict that perhaps expands in both geography and protagonists or if diplomacy and negotiations are given a chance. As Biden said over the weekend, “the world is watching.”

NATO Summit

Before NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with the NATO members in Vilnius, Lithuania, earlier this month, he outlined in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine his objectives. The meeting was slated to be particularly vital. Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the allies had telegraphed its importance for months. This was especially true as the Ukrainians were demanding a pathway to join the collective defense organization.

To Stoltenberg, the objectives were clear. He aimed to bring together a multiyear package of support for Ukraine, tie Kyiv closer to NATO, ensure the defense organization acted as a buttress against authoritarianism, adapt command structures to reflect the new geography of the alliance after Finland and Sweden joined NATO, increase cooperation with defense industries across Europe and the US to increase production, and do as much as possible to achieve greater strategic alignment, enhance deterrence, and improve overall defense capabilities.

“We need to invest more and invest it now, because security is the foundation for our economies and societies to thrive,” Stoltenberg wrote. “Preventing aggression today is less costly than fighting a war tomorrow.”

At his closing press conference, Stoltenberg celebrated the achievement of those objectives, which would help NATO “adapt our Alliance for the future.” The Vilnius Summit appears to have done just that. NATO adopted the most detailed and robust defense plans since the Cold War, made new commitments to defense investment, provided additional support for Ukraine, and created a new effort to transition Ukrainian military equipment from the Soviet era to NATO standards – which includes Kyiv acquiring F-16 fighter jets as well as the associated training and logistical support. The allies also negotiated an end to Turkey’s blockade of Sweden’s membership application, ensuring the Nordic state would soon join the defense organization. Member states also made a clear commitment that Ukraine would join NATO once the ongoing conflict had ended.

For the Western allies to commit and agree to so much made it one of the most consequential and effective summits in the alliance’s history and a strong rebuttal to Russia’s efforts. Still, it must be acknowledged that Ukrainian leaders expressed clear disappointment over a disconnect among allies that left Kyiv viewing their path forward as vague.

With that in mind, what are the particulars of a summit that proved to be so vital and why did Ukraine leave appearing upset? How does this prepare the Alliance for the future during the largest conflict in Europe since World War II?

Turkey Ends Block of Sweden Application

That the meeting kicked off with the news that Turkey, which has the second largest military in the alliance, would end its yearlong blockade of Sweden’s membership application is very significant. Sweden had originally applied with Finland in April 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The two countries had maintained their neutrality between the Kremlin and the West since the onset of the Cold War, but Moscow’s war of aggression served to alter their historic strategic posture. Finland was accepted into the alliance earlier this year, but Turkey objected to Sweden’s bid as the prevailing view in Ankara was that Sweden supported Kurdish groups that Turkey considered terrorists. The Kurds, a Muslim minority group, make up about a fifth of Turkey’s population and have a sordid and, at times, violent history with the Turkish government.

In response, Sweden amended its constitution, changed laws with respect to terrorism, and expanded its counterterror cooperation against the Kurdish militant group, the Kurdistan Workers Party. That still was not enough for Turkish President Erdogan. Stockholm also resumed arms exports to Turkey and made a new bilateral security compact with Ankara. NATO further committed to increasing its overall counterterror efforts and created the post of special coordinator for counterterrorism. But none of that appeared to be truly persuasive to Erdogan who had used this issue during his successful reelection campaign in May. He had portrayed himself as a populist who was the defender of Turkish nationalism.

It is widely believed that the U.S. decision to sell Turkey F-16 fighter jets convinced Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he had extracted the most concessions he was likely to receive and resulted in his decision to clear the way for Sweden’s membership. Senator Bob Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, remains opposed to the F-16 fighter jet deal publicly, and had long held up any agreement with Turkey. But behind the scenes it appears his longstanding blockade of a fighter jet sale to Ankara was resolved. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Jeff Flake, former Republican senator of Arizona, is said to have flown regularly between Washington and Turkey to help smooth his former colleague’s concerns, which included recent Turkish incursions into Greek airspace. Menendez told CNN that for a deal to work, he would need to see “less hostility to a fellow NATO ally” – meaning Greece – “commitment that the tranquility that has existed over the last several months continues,” and “no use of US weapons against another NATO ally.”

During the summit, many were watching any announcements that might follow a meeting between Erdogan and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Vilnius. The visit between the country’s leaders appears to have been aimed at resolving disagreements between the two NATO members, which includes a historic territorial dispute in North Cyprus.

While it now appears Sweden has met all necessary requirements, the deliverables of the apparent deal will proceed slowly. Menendez reiterated his opposition to the deal last week, and Erdogan said the Turkish parliament would not consider Stockholm’s accession until it returns from recess in October.

Is Ukraine’s glass half full?

Many believe Ukraine should have much to be happy about with new military commitments to its defense, additional military aid, and a clear statement from all 31 NATO nations that its “future is in NATO.” And yet the Ukrainians could not hide that they were disgruntled that the summit did not offer Kyiv any specifics or a timetable to membership.

Hours before he arrived at the summit, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telegraphed that he knew what was coming and blasted NATO’s leadership in a tweet. “It’s unprecedented and absurd when a time frame is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership,” he wrote before arriving in Vilnius. By the end of the meeting, Zelenskyy’s tune had changed after closed door discussions with key alliance members, including President Joe Biden. Reportedly, the outburst nearly backfired on the Ukrainian leader.

While the pathway is admittedly vague, NATO has removed a step from the process (eliminating the so-called Membership Action Plan), promised to continue its support of Ukraine in its war with Russia, and said alliance member’s foreign ministers would regularly check on Ukraine’s progress toward NATO standards regarding democratization, addressing corruption and military integration. Furthermore, the Alliance announced a NATO-Ukraine Defense Council that would allow Kyiv to consult directly with NATO members on policy and strategic issues. Nevertheless, it was clear Kyiv wanted more.

Clearly, Ukraine cannot be granted entry into NATO immediately. If it were, it would immediately trigger Article V of the NATO Treaty and force all members to join the war against Russia. There is also the need for each NATO member state’s parliament or congress to vote in favor of a new member which is what occurred with the admission of Finland and is pending for Sweden. But Kyiv’s current status remains problematic, and even a “frozen conflict” would keep Ukraine’s borders undefined — which would complicate its membership further. Still, Poland and the Baltic States were seeking a clear statement that Ukraine would be given membership as soon as the war ended, as they continued to push for NATO to adopt a stronger response to Russian aggression.

Ukraine’s concerns are twofold. First, there is a growing belief that Kyiv is fighting a war for all of Europe, but it is left without assurances or equal status. Second, Ukrainian leaders worry their membership application could be negotiated away in a diplomatic settlement with Moscow, and Ukraine become a “buffer state.” There is also a fear that Russia could prolong the conflict to prevent Kyiv’s entry if NATO does not provide Kyiv a clear path to membership and the collective security guarantee. After all, Ukraine likely understands better than most that, as Winston Churchill once said, “The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without allies.”

While their concerns are reasonable — after all Ukrainian national security interests were ignored in past agreements that provided vague security guarantees — it remains remarkable that thirty-one member states were able to agree on a statement that committed as much as it did to Kyiv. The Ukrainians could have come away from Vilnius in a much more tenuous position.

A new Cold War

At the conclusion of the summit, President Biden invoked Europe’s momentous history and compared Ukraine’s war with Russia to the Cold War, which tormented the continent for decades. Despite the comparison and yearlong commitment that it illustrated, he maintained that the U.S. and NATO support “will not waiver.” The speech seemed aimed at preparing allies, partners, and the public for a long war. This may have also been intended to dampen expectations for the much discussed Ukrainian counteroffensive.

“Putin still wrongly believes that he can outlast Ukraine,” Biden said during a speech in Vilnius. “After all this time Putin still doubts our staying power. He is making a bad bet.”

To that end, NATO allies have made dramatic increases in current defense spending as well as future pledges that the U.S. has long complained were inadequate. Germany’s commitments alone after years of spurning the 2 percent GDP spending requirement of member states shows that Berlin’s reluctance to make the necessary financial commitments has changed tremendously. Allies also agreed to station more troops in frontline states, create a massive reserve force for rapid deployment, and reaffirmed NATO’s nuclear posture. All these efforts further illustrate the remarkable unity of the moment.

But Russia was not the only focus. NATO allies called on Iran to halt its nuclear efforts and acted to rebut the growing threat of China as a united front. While NATO members did not describe Beijing as an adversary, they invited Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea to attend as observers. Japan also became an “official partner” by signing a new agreement that addressed the “coercive” efforts of China on the international stage while also noting its human rights abuses at home.

In all, the meeting continued to underscore the unity of the alliance, which was sorely tested by the Trump administration and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. But it also highlighted that the world should be prepared for a long-term international security situation that could challenge our current thinking about the global order. The decades of relative peace in Europe that followed the end of World War II and the Cold War are being re-evaluated. There appears to be some hope, however, that the investments the alliance makes today may prevent “fighting a war tomorrow.”

Prigozhin’s Mutiny

Within 72 hours the world watched as Russians turned to fight Russians and Ukraine gained ground as a result. In Ukraine, Yevgeny Prigozhin’s angry screeds on Telegram aimed at the highest levels of Moscow’s defense establishment created opportunity and schadenfreude. In Russia, many welcomed his anger as President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” entered its 17th month. Russia has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, and it is difficult to see an end in sight, even in insulated Moscow. Some feared it could mean the end of the regime and the country.

The days that followed were as confusing as they were fascinating.

The short-lived mutiny was the culmination of an ongoing controversy between Prigozhin and the Russian military leadership. His ire was focused primarily on Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, who was also the commander of all military operations in Ukraine. Prigozhin had frequently released profanity laced videos, audio and social media posts denouncing Shoigu and Gerasimov as incompetent. He directly blamed them for the deaths of thousands of Wagner soldiers who he argued were not supplied sufficient ammunition while bearing the bulk of the fighting in places like Bakhmut. But he never directly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin. As a result, Putin largely ignored Prigozhin’s criticisms and allowed him to continue to operate with great freedom in support of Russian efforts in the Ukraine war as well as assisting Moscow’s interests in Africa, the Middle East, and other locations around the globe. Prigozhin had been rewarded with contracts over the past year worth about $1 billion.

A few weeks ago, Prigozhin was informed by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) that his Wagner mercenaries would be placed under their direct control. He refused to comply even after this directive was publicly endorsed by Putin, setting the stage for a final confrontation. At the start of his revolt, Prigozhin claimed the Russian MOD had directed rocket attacks against Wagner bases killing hundreds of his soldiers when he did not immediately comply.

Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries turned their backs on the ongoing conflict and formally confronted the Russian military leadership. The mercenary chief seized the capital of Russia’s southern military district, shot down Russian aircraft, and advanced on Moscow with thousands of troops in a “march for justice” that was aimed at the removal of Shoigu and Gerasimov.

But then it all ended with an abruptness that confused the world.

Prigozhin and his Wagner troops halted 120 miles from Moscow and “Putin’s Chef” suddenly announced that he would end a revolt that had White House officials concerned a major nuclear state might be on the verge of collapse. At the end, Putin publicly called his former confidante a traitor and said Prigozhin had stabbed the nation in the back. Putin promised that the organizers behind the revolt would be held responsible.

“The organizers of this rebellion not only betrayed their country and their people, but also betrayed those whom they dragged into this mutiny,” the Russian leader said in a defiant public address a day after Prigozhin’s march ended.

But even as he appeared angry, he offered Prigozhin and his troops an out. Putin announced an agreement had been brokered by Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko. It allowed Prigozhin to live in exile in Belarus and further pardoned Wagner mercenaries who had participated in the ill-fated coup and even killed Russian soldiers. They were given the options of joining the Russian Army, moving with Prigozhin to Belarus, or going home.

That ended the charade for Russia publicly, but where does this leave NATO countries, Russia, Ukraine, the war, Prigozhin and Putin? This geopolitical question could define the future of the Ukraine war and shape the future world order. Unfortunately, the answer is very unclear at this moment.

What Prigozhin does next, if he even survives the next few weeks and months, is unknown. Lukashenko offered him and his forces an abandoned military base as part of the agreement he negotiated. Still, those who have been an inconvenience to the Kremlin or done far less to challenge Putin’s power have found themselves dead with little explanation. Many of their families have also died in the process.

Beyond that, the Baltic States and Poland are concerned that Prigozhin and several thousand of his Wagner troops will now be based near their borders. Ukrainian officials also fear their presence could threaten the country’s northern flank. Whether Prigozhin or these forces intend to pursue future military efforts for Russia or other clients is unknown, but this issue will be discussed at the upcoming NATO Summit.

Putin now appears to be attempting to discredit Prigozhin and seize control of his paramilitary forces and media empire. Russian officials have been dispatched to the Central African Republic, Syria, and other countries where Wagner mercenaries are operating to assume command of these forces. The apparent goal: Integrate Wagner troops into the Russian military or make it a state-owned enterprise. These efforts are designed to end Prigozhin’s influence and cash flow.

Russian General Sergey Surovikin, who previously led the Russian military in Ukraine and carries the nickname “General Armageddon” for his brutal tactics in Syria, was friendly with Prigozhin. He has not been seen since he released a video imploring the mercenary chief to end his mutiny. U.S. officials reportedly believe he has been arrested by Russian security services for supporting the short-lived insurrection. Surovikin may become the scapegoat for the Russian military’s failure to respond to Prigozhin’s advance on Moscow.

Putin has further announced investigations will be conducted about corruption surrounding the many contracts the Russian government had signed with Prigozhin. The mercenary leader is viewed as a patriot and even a war hero by many Russians. Putin does not need a martyr.

But where does this bizarre mess leave Russia’s leader, his government, and his war?

Putin is undoubtedly weaker today than he was prior to the revolt, and the Russian military will have a difficult time recovering. In the aftermath of Surovikin’s detention there will likely be a major shakeup of the Russian military leadership and forces. Putin may also conduct a purge of the Russian officer corps to ensure their allegiance.

Ukraine’s military appears to have seized on the ongoing turmoil and claims to now have the strategic initiative. They are conducting a multipronged attack near Bakhmut, the city that was the center of recent fighting and that the Wagner mercenary group ironically helped capture earlier this year. Many Western commentators have argued that this moment is an opportunity for Ukraine.

Russian forces prior to the coup attempt were suffering from poor morale, and reports of these events will eventually make its way to front line troops and only make that worse. It appears the Russian MOD needs Wagner soldiers but how these troops or their officers could be relied upon would appear questionable. Trust is fundamental to successful military operations and that has been undermined.

The Ukrainians have also noted that Wagner forces were able to seize Rostov-on-Don, the nerve center of Russian military operations in Ukraine for command and control, logistics and supplies. The mercenaries met little resistance, which shows that there could be some weakness in this area.

Russian defense leadership appears somewhat safe for now. Defense Minister Shoigu was pictured with Putin, who thanked and praised Russian security forces, soon after Prigozhin halted his march.

Gerasimov, chief of the general staff, has not been seen since the revolt began, however. It has been reported that Gen. Mikhail Tepinsky, an airborne commander, will assume command of ongoing combat operations in Ukraine, relieving Gerasimov of those responsibilities. While Putin appears to have sided with the senior military establishment, they will be under pressure to produce quick results in Ukraine that will buoy the Russian president’s image at home and abroad. The whole debacle also makes it impossible for Putin to order a new mobilization or expanded conscription.

Putin is undoubtedly weakened, and his case for the invasion was also publicly undermined at the onset of the uprising. Prigozhin began his attempted coup by calling Russia’s stated reasons for the war “lies” promulgated by military and government leaders. He said Ukraine, NATO, and the West had not threatened Russia. In In a Telegram post Prigozhin argued, “The war was not needed to return our Russian citizens and not to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.”

“The war was needed by oligarchs. It was needed by the clan that is today practically ruling in Russia,” he added, suggesting to the Russian people that the over 200,000 casualties were unnecessary.

But Putin cannot be counted out. He will most certainly attempt to regain his authority. This could make him more dangerous to those who are willing to voice dissent at home. It also could be a major danger for Ukraine and the West.

Russia remains a major nuclear power, and Putin has recently moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, which again raised fears he might escalate and use a weapon of mass destruction. Numerous former military and diplomatic officials voiced concerns that Putin might seek to overcome this moment of weakness by using a tactical nuclear weapon to stymie Ukraine’s counteroffensive. This would also be consistent with Russian nuclear doctrine of escalating to de-escalate and, in so doing, he would project his strongman image.

There are also suggestions that Russian forces are withdrawing from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and may be preparing to orchestrate a nuclear “accident” that Moscow would then attempt to blame on Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly warned of this possibility as part of a Russian strategy to freeze the war.

Bolshevik leader Vladmir Lenin once said, "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." This could be prophetic for recent events. Putin knows better than anyone that there are no retirement homes for old dictators. His personal survival depends on his ability to stay in power. This will be determined by success or failure on the battlefield and his ability to reassert his position as a strongman at home. Whether it’s Covid or coups, it appears he is committed to keeping his hold no matter what.