In 2014, the CSIS Europe and Southeast Asia Programs embarked on a two-year initiative to create a new and enduring EU-U.S. collaborative mechanism to enhance transatlantic Asia-Pacific policy coordination and understanding. This report is the culmination of this two-year study and presents the findings of the research while also offering actionable recommendations for U.S. and EU policymakers.
U.S. strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean is long overdue for revision. Today’s strategy was conceived 70 years ago and is no longer fit for purpose despite the continued strategic importance of the region for U.S. interests. To account for the dramatic changes that have occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean in the past two decades, it is time for the United States to create a new regional strategy that builds on common transatlantic interests, ensures European unity and security, provides greater stability in the Middle East, and safeguards state capacity against a myriad of strengthening nonstate actors. This report aims to offer such a new strategy, focusing on two priority areas: resolving the Syrian conflict, and recalibrating the relationship with Turkey. Much is at stake for the United States, and it must take a new strategic approach to the region or risk losing influence for the foreseeable future.
In July 2018, CSIS embarked on a major analytical assessment that centered on the following research question: What will be the strategic consequences for the United States by 2050 if America’s two near-peer military competitors, China and Russia, continue to develop their long-term economic and security interests in the Arctic, but the United States does not? Russia’s growing economic and military ambitions in the Arctic, as well as China’s increased physical presence in the region, underscore that both nations have long-term strategic designs for the Arctic region. Data analysis, satellite imagery, and scenario development all demonstrate the continued growth of Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic and heighten the sense of stasis in the U.S. military and economic presence. Unless the United States wishes to lose access to portions of the Arctic and have increasingly diminished capabilities to defend and deter attack against the homeland, the United States must return to the Arctic.
In The Kremlin Playbook 2: The Enablers, the CSIS Europe Program and the Center for the Study of Democracy explored whether some of these jurisdictions and companies could be enabling forces that amplify Russian malign economic influence in some countries in Europe. The study analyzed the following case study countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Montenegro, the Netherlands, and Romania. The report shows that some countries facilitate or enable Russian malign economic influence, and by doing so these enablers actively participate in the weakening and discrediting of their own democratic structures. The Kremlin Playbook 2 concludes that Russian malign economic influence and illicit finance operate in a financial gray zone that is a clear and present danger to U.S. national security as well as transatlantic security. To push back against this threat, the United States and its European allies must take decisive action to limit Russia’s malign behavior in their financial systems. Only transparency and enforcement of our rule of law can guarantee trust in the system and rebuild confidence in democratic institutions.
Significant diminishment of the Arctic ice cap is propelling the advent of a new, blue water ocean and, with it, new commercial and economic opportunities. Abundant natural and mineral resources, as well as rich fishing stocks, encourage Arctic and non-Arctic nations to explore these resources through the enhanced use of Arctic maritime transportation routes, which connect geographically distant economies more directly. As a result, the evolving commercial dynamics of Arctic international shipping—both destinational and transshipment—are beginning to change. Once considered dangerous and noncommercial, Arctic shipping routes such as the Northern Sea Route are increasingly scrutinized as potential economical alternatives to some of the world’s most popular maritime passages.
This report offers an examination of U.S. Army force posture in Europe amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia. The report explores the necessary components of a sustainable and credible deterrence posture in Europe and highlights key challenges—from the strategic down to the tactical level. It offers recommendations for how to best recalibrate U.S. defense and deterrence posture in Europe over the next decade.
This latest and final report in the Kremlin Playbook series explores how the United States and its European allies can protect the religious beliefs and values of their citizens from malign influence at a time when transatlantic societies are grappling with the speed of societal change. Societal anxiety and fear related to these rapid economic, demographic, and generational shifts—and the subsequent politics and political figures that seek to capitalize on them—have fueled societal divisions around the so-called cultural wars in Western societies. Through two main channels, the Orthodox world and the traditional values ecosystem, the Kremlin has taken advantage of these fears to accentuate societal wedges in Europe and Eurasia.
Arctic Economics in the 21st Century explores the key economic dynamics at play in the rapidly changing Arctic region. This report evaluates both the economic benefits of an increasingly open Arctic region and the costs of exploring the riches of the American Arctic. It frames an economic strategy built upon six critical economic components: mineral resources, oil and gas development, shipping, fisheries, tourism, and finally, the regional infrastructure required to support and sustain the first five components. The report analyzes the increasingly prominent role of the private sector in Arctic development and its interplay with the potentially diminished traditional role of governments in the region.
The New Ice Curtain explores Russia’s strategic ambitions for its Arctic region—an understudied and underappreciated region that encompasses nearly the entire northern coast of Eurasia. As the Russian Arctic produces 14 percent of Russian GDP, 22 percent of its exports, and is home to nearly 2 million of its citizens, Russia’s economic future will increasingly depend on robust Arctic development. ,
Russia has cultivated an opaque web of economic and political patronage across the Central and Eastern European region that the Kremlin uses to influence and direct decisionmaking. This report from the CSIS Europe Program, in partnership with the Bulgarian Center for the Study of Democracy, is the result of a 16-month study on the nature of Russian influence in five case countries: Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Serbia.
Twenty-five years of relative calm and predictability in relations between Russia and the West enabled European governments largely to neglect their military capabilities for territorial defense and dramatically redraw Northern Europe’s multilateral, regional, and bilateral boundaries, stimulating new institutional and cooperative developments and arrangements. These cooperative patterns of behavior occurred amid a benign security environment, a situation that no longer obtains. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its military incursion into eastern Ukraine, its substantial military modernization efforts, heightened undersea activity in the North Atlantic and Baltic Sea, and its repeated air violations, the region’s security environment has dramatically worsened. The Baltic Sea and North Atlantic region have returned as a geostrategic focal point. It is vital, therefore, that the United States rethink its security approach to the region—what the authors describe as an Enhanced Northern Presence.
In recent years, Europe has seen its largest influx of migrants and refugees in decades, with 1.9 million arrivals to the continent between 2014 and 2017. Peak arrivals in 2015, and sustained flows since then, have found the European Union and its 28 member states unable to face what has been called the “European migration crisis.” Part of their response has focused on cooperation with third countries of transit or origin, by leveraging development, humanitarian, and foreign policy tools to try and reduce migrant flows to Europe, including through many funding and budgetary decisions. This report attempts to quantify, through budgetary analysis, what shifts occurred in the external dimension of Europe’s migration policy following the crisis, and in three member states (Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands). These short-term shifts, representing policy priorities, carry long-term consequences for the European Union’s role as a foreign policy and soft power actor.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.