What could the White House have been thinking? The Obama administration's recently concluded Summit on Countering Violent Extremism was a high-profile affair, bringing together key world leaders and decisionmakers on a critical topic at a critical time. But it was also punctuated by instances of stunning tone-deafness, and a profound failure to understand the dynamics of terrorism in its many forms.
Listening to the President's State of the Union address last week, you might have come away convinced that, at least in the field of foreign policy, everything is coming up roses. Yet a look at the real world provides a jarring contrast to the complacency and unrealism of that speech - and of the Obama administration's policies writ large.
Since Vladimir Putin launched his war against Ukraine back in February, speculation has run rampant about the Russian president's objectives. While objectives change in the course of any war, Mr. Putin himself has admitted that the invasion of Crimea was a strategic decision that, therefore, had strategic objectives in mind. Those objectives also relate to the current fighting in the Donbas region (encompassing Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk provinces). As such, Russia's conduct repudiates the speculation in Washington that Russia's Ukraine policy is something of an improvisation. Rather, U.S. policymakers would be well-served in trying to figure out the factors driving Mr. Putin's decision-making, both at home and abroad.
Russia shows no sign that it is willing to de-escalate tensions with the West. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has made clear that he anticipates a long-term freeze in ties with Washington.
Recently, Human Rights Watch reported that both sides in the war on Ukraine had employed cluster bombs. The story, however, quickly received a curious spin. In an article for the New York Times, Andrew Roth headlined that Ukraine alone had employed these weapons.