What foreign policy elites really think about you
If public opinion doesn’t match up with the Washington program then it must be wrong, misunderstood, or worse, irrelevant.
If public opinion doesn’t match up with the Washington program then it must be wrong, misunderstood, or worse, irrelevant.
After an extraordinary year of foreign policy, our Quincy Institute experts weigh in on Ukraine, Russia, China, the Middle East, and more.
Unfortunately Lynne Tracy, Biden’s nominee to be the next ambassador to Russia, reflects the stale views of the more recent past.
But Morning Consult should be taken to task for calling this impulse a ‘preference for isolationism’ versus ‘engagement.’
And so is his bottom line: that the world not only craves, but needs an ‘American-led order.’ Stick a fork in it, this bird’s done.
What if US foreign policy led to a world in which Tehran didn’t want to send Moscow weapons and the latter had no use for them?
Elbridge Colby says he’s opposed all US wars since 9/11, but China is different, illustrating the cracks in this quadrant on the Right.
She is expected to win the contest for PM next week but no matter who’s in the role, the Brits will continue to follow Washington anywhere.
A bad argument for invading the Solomon Islands reflects the inherent conflict between America’s dominance and its purported liberal values.
Author Daniel Bessner thinks it’s time for the reckoning, and restraint is the way ahead.
Countries like China, Russia, and Iran have cause for frosty intra-relations but US foreign policy is bringing them together.
Unfortunately for establishment critics, the war in Ukraine is making their own case for US primacy less appetizing by the day.
America’s 20th century intelligentsia seemed better equipped to teach us about humility and restraint in war, at home and abroad.
To be successful in 2022, he needs to take more risks, and think less about political backlash from hawks and the Blob.
The accursed word has now entered the debate on Ukraine, threatening to push the US onto the conveyor belt of a conflict we won’t win.
2024 candidates know what the billionaire donor wants, and that’s a hawkish pro-Israel U.S. policy in the Middle East.
It could mean all the destructive things created by the War on
Terror — increased by several orders of magnitude.
It’s called institutionalizing hubris, and it’s taking U.S. global foreign policy nowhere fast.
Our ability to manage the Middle East and Central Asia has reached a critical turning point in Afghanistan. We should heed that.
Unlike primacists, this ‘coalition’ actually embraces an internationalism that respects the rule of law, and diplomacy.
An essay aimed at taking down the ‘Quincy coalition’ and restraint has revealed the true face of global hegemony.