All Policy Analysis by Anna Borshchevskaya

Putin’s Russia and the West have never shared the same goals or threat perceptions regarding terrorism and other regional issues, so Washington should craft its Syria policy accordingly.

Moscow’s quietly growing influence will only prop up the country’s anti-American forces and worsen its struggles with corruption and ethnosectarian tension.

Current events in Lebanon may seem remote compared to protests closer to Russia, but the situation in Beirut directly affects Moscow’s policy in Syria and its evolving status as a regional player.

Moscow’s growing use of international legal loopholes in Libya, Sudan, and other countries gives it a worrisome template for chipping away at the global order without confronting the United States directly.

Although state officials and media have expressed somewhat nuanced views on the Beirut disaster and subsequent protests, most of their comments boil down to preventing deeper U.S. involvement and safeguarding Moscow’s interests in the current power structure.

Putin set a trap for Erdogan long ago, and because the Turkish leader woke up too late to his predicament, he now has little leverage in the unequal bilateral relationship.

As Moscow continues to intervene in regional conflicts, politics, and energy affairs, Washington should not underestimate its deep-rooted relationships with Kurdish groups in various countries.

Moscow has intervened for self-serving reasons and claims neutrality despite clearly picking a side.

The Kremlin’s interventions in Syria and elsewhere are just one part of its society-wide efforts to bolster Putin’s domestic standing via the security sphere.

A territorial dispute between Moscow and Tokyo illustrates the challenge that midsize powers face in an era of great power competition.

Although Moscow would face many challenges if it tries to establish permanent offensive and A2AD capabilities in Libya like it has in Syria, its covert actions thus far show a commitment to playing the long game against NATO in the East Mediterranean.

As in other conflict zones, Moscow cares little about reaching a peace deal so long as it can outmaneuver the West strategically while securing port and energy access—with private contractors playing an increasingly important role.

State officials and media are condemning the incident, but Putin is well aware that his fragile role as regional mediator depends on treading carefully around Washington’s unpredictability.

In a bid to ensure plausible deniability, address internal rivalries, and advance its competition with the West, the Kremlin has increased its use of such contractors in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Trump administration needs to treat the meeting as a chance to frankly address congressional concerns and defuse a host of hot-button issues, from Syria policy to F-35 production.

Moscow is beating Washington at the reputational game in Iraq, raising the need for greater U.S. engagement on education and media outreach rather than just security issues.